The company KCCC operates coal mines in West Virginia. The US Department of Labor charged the no.1 coal mine of KCCC for “significant and substantial” (S&S) violations of the FMSH Act. There was a potential danger of explosion due to improper sealing of electronic equipment. The violation of the mine act designates that it ‘could significantly and substantially affect and cause safety and health threats. The argument of secretary that ‘Could’ constitutes the mere possibility of threat is hazardous if the violation existed. The company, KCCC filed a lawsuit against the secretary of the Department of Labor to evident the violation. To find: The deference in the interpretation of the statute by the court.

Question

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW The University Statutes allows the promulgation of rules relating to highway signs in order to "promote the safe operation of motor vehicles and advance the greater public good ". At a Transport Committee meeting that was unannounced and not open to the public, the University promulgated "Regulation A” which provides: No new vehicle shall be granted access in the University until the University’s accidental highway death rate decreases for at least two consecutive years. The members of the University did not keep any meeting notes or other record of their discussions at the meeting. "Regulation A" did not set out any process for a challenge or variance. Bob has purchased a new vehicle and wants to use it in connection with his work at the University. He is prohibited from doing so by "Regulation A" because the University’s rate of accidental highway deaths has yet to decrease. QUESTION: d)Discuss challenges to "Regulation A" that Bob may bring.

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 23, Problem 8BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The company KCCC operates coal mines in West Virginia. The US Department of Labor charged the no.1 coal mine of KCCC for “significant and substantial” (S&S) violations of the FMSH Act. There was a potential danger of explosion due to improper sealing of electronic equipment. The violation of the mine act designates that it ‘could significantly and substantially affect and cause safety and health threats. The argument of secretary that ‘Could’ constitutes the mere possibility of threat is hazardous if the violation existed. The company, KCCC filed a lawsuit against the secretary of the Department of Labor to evident the violation.

To find: The deference in the interpretation of the statute by the court.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW The University Statutes allows the promulgation of rules relating to highway signs in order to "promote the safe operation of motor vehicles and advance the greater public good ". At a Transport Committee meeting that was unannounced and not open to the public, the University promulgated "Regulation A” which provides: No new vehicle shall be granted access in the University until the University’s accidental highway death rate decreases for at least two consecutive years. The members of the University did not keep any meeting notes or other record of their discussions at the meeting. "Regulation A" did not set out any process for a challenge or variance. Bob has purchased a new vehicle and wants to use it in connection with his work at the University. He is prohibited from doing so by "Regulation A" because the University’s rate of accidental highway deaths has yet to decrease. QUESTION: d)Discuss challenges to "Regulation A" that Bob may bring.

Reaction to discussion below: Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. was a tenant in a building where alarm systems were maintained by the ADT company. When the systems were defective and allowed water into the building, it damaged Melodee’s property; Then Melodee decided to sue ADT and their defense was that the service contract limited the liability to 10% of the annual service charge given to the customers. The limitation can be valid since the ADT company did not provide much liability protection. The ADT company can offer another protection plan to Melodee, which would cover her property but at a higher price rate. This case limitation of liability clauses will be enacted since ADT company was not fully liable for Melodee's property, which only would cover the limited 10%. A limitation of liability clauses contract states that one of the parties is not fully liable for damages in case of a breach. The ADT company is at fault for the malfunctions in their systems they should offer a higher…

National-Southwire Aluminum Company (NSA) owns and operates a plant that emits fluoride. When its wet scrubbers were turned off as part of its regular maintenance program, NSA discovered no appreciable change in ambient fluoride levels. Because of the expense of operating the scrubbers and its belief that using the scrubbers did not significantly affect ambient fluoride levels, NSA desired to turn the scrubbers off permanently. Accordingly, NSA sought a determination from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that turning off the scrubbers would not constitute a modification requiring the application of new source performance standards to the plant. Turning off the scrubbers would result in an increase of more than 1,100 tons per year of fluoride emissions with no decrease in the emission of any other pollutant. This increase was nearly four hundred times the level the EPA had established as inconsequential. The EPA determined that turning off the scrubbers would constitute a “new…