type: other

text:
VDSS sodba in sklep Pdp 846/2010
 ECLI:SI:VDSS:2010:PDP.846.2010
 VDS0006201
 sporazum o razveljavitvi pogodbe o zaposlitvi - izpodbojnost - grožnja - nedopustna grožnja
 Grožnja s kazensko prijavo ni nedopustna grožnja, ki bi povzročila razveljavitev sporazuma o razveljavitvi pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
 Sodišče prve stopnje je z izpodbijano sodbo zavrnilo tožnikov tožbeni zahtevek, da je tožena stranka dolžna tožniku izplačati odpravnino ob prenehanju delovnega razmerja v skladu z VIII. členom Pogodbe o zaposlitvi z dne 10. 11. 1994 v višini 22.700,00 EUR, skupaj z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od dneva zapadlosti 17. 7. 2006 dalje do plačila in da se ugotovi, da je tožnik s toženo stranko sopodpisal sporazum z dne 23. 6. 2006 in izjavo dne 23. 6. 2006 pod vplivom mobbinga, vsled česar je bila pri njem podana napaka volje in ta sporazum in izjava nimata pravnega učinka, v 15 dneh, da ne bo izvršbe (I./1. tč. izreka) ter da je tožena stranka dolžna tožniku povrniti stroške postopka z 20% DDV-jem in z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od izteka dneva izpolnitve dalje do plačila, v 15 dneh, da ne bo izvršbe (I./2.tč. izreka). Glede pravdnih stroškov je sklenilo, da je tožnik dolžan toženi stranki povrniti znesek 2.307,33 EUR, v roku 15 dni, po tem roku z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi do plačila, pod izvršbo (II. tč. izreka).
 Zoper izpodbijano sodbo se iz razloga po 1. in 2. točki prvega odstavka 338. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (ZPP, Ur. l. RS, št. 26/99 in nadalj.) pritožuje tožnik. Pritožbenemu sodišču predlaga, da pritožbi ugodi in izpodbijano sodbo spremeni tako, da tožnikovemu tožbenemu zahtevku ugodi, s stroškovno posledico, oziroma podrejeno, da izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi in zadevo vrne sodišču prve stopnje v novo sojenje. Navaja, da je sodišče prve stopnje dejansko stanje ugotavljalo preobširno oziroma vsebinsko preširoko, saj določene ugotovitve niso imele povezave z vsebino tega individualnega delovnega spora. Dokazovanje se je usmerilo na tožnikovo poslovodenje v času pred nastankom spornega razmerja. Kljub navedenemu sodišče prve stopnje dejanskega stanja ni ugotovilo pravilno. Tožnik v pritožbi ponavlja svoje navedbe, ki jih je podal v izpovedbi na zaslišanju. Njegove navedbe sta smiselno v celoti potrdili kot priči zaslišani V.M. in A.S.. Njuni izpovedbi dajeta podlago za zaključek, da so ti pritiski, ki so se vršili nad tožnikom, bili kontinuirani in vsakodnevni. Izpostavlja tudi izpovedbe K., S. ter takratnega predsednika nadzornega sveta v delu, kjer so navedli, da zoper tožnika glede domnevnih nepravilnosti pri poslovodenju ni bil uveden noben sodni postopek. Tožniku za te domnevne nepravilnosti ni mogoče pripisati nobene odgovornosti. Ko mu je pooblaščenec tožene stranke ponujal v podpis sporni sporazum oziroma izjavo, je tožnik imel svojega pooblaščenca, slednji pa ni bil ob njem dne 23. 6. 2006, ko je tožnik, ki je klonil pod pritiski, oba dokumenta tudi podpisal. V skladu z določili Zakona o odvetništvu in Kodeksa ravnanja bi moral pooblaščenec tožene stranke navedenega dne sočasno s tožnikom vabiti tudi njegovega pooblaščenca, česar pa ni storil, s čimer je tožnika postavil v neenakopraven položaj. V zvezi z očitanimi bistvenimi kršitvami določb pravdnega postopka navaja, da sodišče prve stopnje ni posvetilo zadostne pozornosti odločilnim dejstvom, oziroma o njih ni ustrezno razlogovalo. Po oceni tožnika so odločilna dejstva vsekakor ravnanja zaposlenih pri toženi stranki z elementi mobbinga (časovno kontinuirani in dalj časa trajajoči pritiski in grožnje) na tožnika, zaradi katerih je prišlo do zatrjevane napake volje pri podpisu sporazuma in izjave ter obstoj vzročne zveze med temi ravnanji zaposlenih in končno odločitvijo tožnika, da v lastno škodo podpiše nekaj, česar ni želel. Priglaša pritožbene stroške.
 Tožena stranka je na pritožbo odgovorila. Predlaga njeno zavrnitev in priglaša stroške v zvezi z odgovorom na pritožbo.
 Pritožbeno sodišče je preizkusilo izpodbijano sodbo in sklep v mejah uveljavljanih pritožbenih razlogov, pri čemer je v skladu z določbo drugega odstavka 350. člena v zvezi s prvim odstavkom 366. člena ZPP po uradni dolžnosti pazilo na bistvene kršitve določb postopka, ki izhajajo iz citirane določbe in na pravilno uporabo materialnega prava. Pri tem preizkusu je ugotovilo, da sodišče prve stopnje bistvenih kršitev določb postopka, na katere pazi pritožbeno sodišče po uradni dolžnosti in na katere se sklicuje tožnik, ni storilo, da je dejansko stanje popolno in pravilno ugotovilo in da je na tako ugotovljeno dejansko stanje pravilno uporabilo tudi materialno pravo.
 V tem individualnem delovnem sporu je tožnik od tožene stranke kot svojega bivšega delodajalca v skladu z VIII. členom pogodbe o zaposlitvi z dne 10. 11. 1994, sklenjene med pravdnima strankama, zahteval plačilo odpravnine v znesku 22.700,00 EUR. Pravica do te odpravnine ni spadala med pravice do odpravnine po 109. členu Zakona o delovnih razmerjih (ZDR, Ur. l. RS, št. 42/2002 in nadalj.), kateri se delavec glede na odločbo Ustavnega sodišča RS opr. št. Up – 63/03-19 z dne 27. 1. 2005 (Ur. l. RS, št. 14/2005, popr. Ur. l. RS, št. 11/2006) ne bi mogel odpovedati. Hkrati je zaradi napake volje pri sklepanju sporazuma in izjave z dne 23. 6. 2006 uveljavljal ugotovitev, da slednja nimata pravnega učinka.
 Iz določb Obligacijskega zakonika (OZ – Ur. l. RS, št. 83/2001 in nadalj.), ki to ureja v členih od 45 do 50, izhaja, kaj so napake volje v civilnem pravu. Ena od njih bi lahko bila grožnja, ki jo smiselno uveljavlja tožnik. Zaradi grožnje lahko pogodbena stranka zahteva razveljavitev pogodbe, če je bil zaradi grožnje pri njej povzročen utemeljen strah, zaradi katerega je bila sklenjena pogodba. Strah pa je utemeljen, če je iz okoliščin razvidno, da je grozila resna nevarnost življenju ali pa telesni ali drugi pomembni dobrini pogodbene stranke.
 Sodišče prve stopnje je zahtevek tožnika za plačilo odpravnine zavrnilo. Ugotovilo je, da bi bil glede na vsebino sporazuma in izjave z dne 23. 6. 2006 tožnikov tožbeni zahtevek utemeljen le v primeru, če bi prišlo do njune razveljavitve. S tem v zvezi pa je zaključilo, da so tožnikove izjave o mobbingu (trpinčenju), grožnjah, pritiskih neresnične. Prav tako pa je upoštevalo, da „grožnja“ s kazensko prijavo ni nedopustna grožnja v smislu 45. člena OZ. Glede na navedeno je štelo, da razlogi, zaradi katerih je tožnik izpodbijal podpisani sporazum in izjavo, niso podani.
 Pritožbeno sodišče se z dejanskimi ugotovitvami sodišča prve stopnje strinja. Ob upoštevanju trditvene podlage in izvedenih dokazov ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti drugačnega dejanskega stanja. Nasprotne pritožbene navedbe tega stališča ne uspejo izpodbiti in so v celoti neutemeljene. Sodišče prve stopnje je v svoji dokazni oceni vzelo v obzir vse relevantne dokaze, tudi tožnikovo izpovedbo in izpovedbi zaslišanih prič V.M. in A.S., ki jih pritožba izpostavlja in jih tudi pravilno dokazno ocenilo, zato se pritožbeno sodišče na obrazložitev sodišča prve stopnje, v izogib nepotrebnemu ponavljanju, le sklicuje (stran 3 do 6 obrazložitve izpodbijane sodbe in sklepa). V zvezi s pritožbenimi navedbami pa dodatno navaja, da tožnik pritožbeni razlog zmotne ugotovitve dejanskega stanja utemeljuje tako, da ponovno poudarja del svoje izpovedbe in izpovedb zaslišanih prič V.M. in A.S., ki bi po njegovem prepričanju morale imeti za posledico drugačen dokazni zaključek od zaključka, kot ga je sprejelo sodišče prve stopnje. Vse okoliščine, ki so pravno odločilne v tem sporu, je sodišče prve stopnje natančno in izčrpno ugotovilo in jih je v svojem dokaznem zaključku pravilno upoštevalo. Tožnikove pritožbene navedbe, ki jemljejo iz konteksta posamezne izjave navedenih prič, te dokazne ocene ne uspejo izpodbiti. Dokazni postopek torej tudi po oceni pritožbenega sodišča ne daje podlage za zaključek, da je bil tožnik žrtev mobbinga, v posledici česar naj bi podpisal sporna dokumenta. Glede na vse ugotovljene nepravilnosti s strani notranje revizorke, ki so nastale v času, ko je bil tožnik direktor tožene stranke (finančne težave, neplačila davčne obveznosti, plačevanje iz sredstev tožene stranke za osebne namene tožnikove žene za apartma na otoku), je tudi po oceni pritožbenega sodišča logično, da je revizorka od tožnika želela dobiti podatke, ki so bili potrebni za razjasnitev in ugotavljanje dejansko izvršenih plačil, kar pa ne zadostuje za zaključek, da je bil tožnik žrtev mobbinga.
 „Grožnja“ s kazensko prijavo (tožena stranka je tožniku „predočila“, da bo predlagala uvedbo kazenskega postopka ipd.) ni nedopustna grožnja v smislu 45. člena OZ, kot je to pravilno ugotovilo že sodišče prve stopnje. Po uveljavljeni sodni praksi Vrhovnega sodišča RS grožnja z disciplinskim postopkom, odpovedjo pogodbe o zaposlitvi ali ovadbo zaradi storjenega kaznivega dejanja ali pregovarjanje ali nagovarjanje k odpovedi ni razlog, ki bi pomenil nedopustno grožnjo (in bi bil z njo povzročen utemeljen strah), bistveno zmoto ali prevaro, ki bi lahko povzročila razveljavitev odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi ali sporazuma o prenehanju pogodbe o zaposlitvi (samo primeroma sodbe VS RS, opr. št. VIII Ips 2/97 z dne 13. 5. 1997, opr. št. VIII Ips 188/2001 z dne 18. 6. 2002, opr. št. VIII Ips 269/2003 z dne 8. 6. 2006, opr. št. VIII Ips 279/2006 z dne 21. 11. 2006). To niso pravno relevantna dejstva, ki bi lahko vplivala na presojo svobodne volje strank in zato tožnikovemu tožbenemu zahtevku utemeljeno ni bilo mogoče ugoditi. Za drugačen zaključek torej sodišče prve stopnje ni imelo podlage.
 Na pritožbene navedbe, da v zvezi s tožniku očitanimi nepravilnosti in kršitvami pri vodenju tožene stranke zoper njega ni bil uveden noben postopek pred pristojnimi organi, pritožbeno sodišče zaključuje, da za samo razjasnitev dejanskega stanja obravnavane zadeve v zvezi z zatrjevano napako volje pri sklepanju sporazuma z dne 23. 6. 2006 (A6) oziroma podajanju izjave z istega dne (A7) zadostuje ugotovitev sodišča prve stopnje, da je bilo ugotovljenih več nepravilnosti pri poslovanju tožene stranke v času, ko je bil tožnik njen direktor. Ugotavljanje tožnikovega prispevka in krivde za takšno stanje pa bi preseglo namen tega individualnega delovnega spora, v katerem se odloča o zahtevani odpravnini.
 Tožnik sam je navedel, da je v času, ko mu je tožena stranka ponujala v podpis sporni listini, imel pooblaščenca, kar pomeni, da je imel pravno pomoč, kot je to ugotovilo sodišče prve stopnje. Samo dejstvo, ali je bil njegov pooblaščenec poleg njega ob samem podpisu, pa za obravnavani spor niti ni pomembno, saj se tudi sicer za samo veljavnost podpisane listine ne zahteva, da bi imel podpisnik ob sebi pravno pomoč. Če tožnik ob podpisu listine ni imel svojega pooblaščenca, to samo po sebi ni zadosten razlog za ugotovitev njene neveljavnosti. Glede na navedeno so vse v tej smeri podane pritožbene navedbe neutemeljene. Navedba, da bi moral pooblaščenec tožene stranke na sestanek vabiti tudi tožnikovega pooblaščenca, pa predstavlja tudi nedovoljeno pritožbeno novoto, saj tožnik v pritožbi s tem v zvezi ni navedel razlogov za odstop od dokazne prekluzije (337. člen ZPP).
 Razlogi, iz katerih je tožnik izpodbijal podpisani sporazum in izjavo tudi po oceni pritožbenega sodišča torej niso podani. V skladu z navedenim se je tožnik izplačilu odpravnine odpovedal, zato je odločitev sodišča prve stopnje o zavrnitvi tožnikovega tožbenega zahtevka tudi materialnopravno pravilna.
 Tožnik se v uvodu pritožbe sklicuje na bistvene kršitve določb postopka po drugem odstavku 339. člena ZPP, vendar kasneje teh kršitev ne konkretizira, razen na koncu pritožbe, ko očitno uveljavlja bistveno kršitev določb postopka iz 14. točke drugega odstavka 339. člena ZPP. Ta kršitev ni podana, saj glede na navedeno izpodbijana sodba vsebuje vse razloge o odločilnih dejstvih, ki so tudi ustrezno obrazložena. Odsotnost ugotovitev sodišča prve stopnje v smeri vseh elementov mobbinga pa je posledica dejstva, da je sodišče ugotovilo, da so tožnikove trditve o mobbingu, grožnjah, pritiskih neutemeljene.
 V pritožbi zoper odločitev o glavni stvari je zajeta tudi pritožba zoper odločitev o stroških postopka. V tem delu tožnik v pritožbi ne navaja razlogov, zato je ta del odločitve pritožbeno sodišče preizkusilo zgolj v okviru pooblastil iz drugega odstavka 350. člena v zvezi s prvim odstavkom 366. člena ZPP. Pri tem preizkusu je ugotovilo, da sodišče prve stopnje bistvenih kršitev določb postopka, na katere pritožbeno sodišče pazi po uradni dolžnosti, ni storilo in da je tudi v tem delu materialno pravo pravilno uporabilo. V izogib ponavljanju se pritožbeno sodišče na pravilno obrazložitev sodišča prve stopnje v zvezi s to odločitvijo le sklicuje (stran 6 in 7 obrazložitve izpodbijane sodbe in sklepa).
 Ker s pritožbo uveljavljani razlogi niso podani in tudi ne razlogi, na katere pazi pritožbeno sodišča po uradni dolžnosti, je pritožbeno sodišče pritožbo tožnika zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno in potrdilo izpodbijano sodbo in sklep sodišča prve stopnje (353. člen ZPP, 2. točka 365. člena ZPP).
 Odločitev o pritožbenih stroških temelji na določbi prvega odstavka 165. člena ZPP. Tožnik s pritožbo ni uspel, zato sam krije svoje stroške pritožbenega postopka (prvi odstavek 154. člena ZPP). Svoje stroške pritožbenega postopka pa krije tudi tožena stranka, ker njen odgovor na pritožbo ni v ničemer pripomogel k reševanju pritožbe (1. odstavek 155. člena ZPP). Navedbe tožene stranke, da je bil njen odgovor na pritožbo potreben zaradi odgovora na tožnikove navedbe, ki jih je prvič podal šele v pritožbi, so neutemeljene, saj pritožbeno sodišče nobene pritožbene novote ni sprejelo kot podlago za svojo odločitev.
 ZDR člen 11, 79. OZ člen 45.
 VDSS sodba Pdp 599/2011
 VDSS sodba Pdp 965/2007
 VDSS sodba Psp 1469/2007
 P2RvYy0yMDEwMDQwODE1MjUyNTg1


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21993A0309(02)
 Abkommen über die Fischereibeziehungen zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Republik Lettland
 Amtsblatt Nr. L 056 vom 09/03/1993 S. 0006 - 0008 Finnische Sonderausgabe: Kapitel 4 Band 5 S. 0011 Schwedische Sonderausgabe: Kapitel 4 Band 5 S. 0011
 ABKOMMEN über die Fischereibeziehungen zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Republik Lettland DIE EUROPÄISCHE WIRTSCHAFTSGEMEINSCHAFT, nachstehend "Gemeinschaft" genannt, und DIE REPUBLIK LETTLAND, nachstehend "Lettland" genannt, beide gemeinsam nachstehend die "Vertragsparteien" genannt - IN ANBETRACHT der engen Beziehungen zwischen der Gemeinschaft und Lettland, namentlich aufgrund des Kooperationsabkommens zwischen der Gemeinschaft und Lettland, und in dem gemeinsamen Bestreben, diese Beziehungen zu vertiefen; ANGESICHTS ihres gemeinsamen Wunsches, die Erhaltung und rationelle Bewirtschaftung der Fischbestände in den Gewässern vor ihren Küsten sicherzustellen; GESTÜTZT auf die Bestimmungen des Seerechtsübereinkommens der Vereinten Nationen; IN BEKRÄFTIGUNG, daß die Ausdehnung der ihrer Fischereigerichtsbarkeit unterstehenden Gebiete durch die Küstenstaaten und die Ausübung von souveränen Rechten zum Zweck der Erforschung, Nutzung, Erhaltung und Bewirtschaftung der Fischereiressourcen in diesen Gebieten nach den Grundsätzen des Völkerrechts erfolgen sollte; EINGEDENK der Tatsache, daß Lettland eine ausschließliche Wirtschaftszone geschaffen hat, innerhalb deren es souveräne Rechte zum Zweck der Forschung, Nutzung, Erhaltung und Bewirtschaftung der Ressourcen ausübt, und daß die Gemeinschaft übereingekommen ist, die Grenzen der Fischereizonen ihrer Mitgliedstaaten (nachstehend "Gebiet der Fischereigerichtsbarkeit der Gemeinschaft" genannt) auf 200 Seemeilen auszudehnen und die Fischerei innerhalb dieser Grenzen im Rahmen der gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik der Gemeinschaft zu regeln; UNTER BERÜCKSICHTIGUNG der Tatsache, daß ein Teil der Fischereiressourcen der Ostsee aus gemeinsamen Beständen oder stark voneinander abhängigen Beständen besteht, die von Fischern beider Vertragsparteien befischt werden, und eine wirksame Erhaltung und rationelle Bewirtschaftung dieser Bestände daher nur durch Zusammenarbeit der Vertragsparteien sowie im Rahmen geeigneter internationaler Gremien, namentlich der Internationalen Ostsee-Fischereikommission, gelingen kann; ÜBERZEUGT vom beiderseitigen Interesse, in dem ostseeischen Gebiet unter der Fischereigerichtsbarkeit der anderen Partei Fischfang zu betreiben; IN DEM BESTREBEN, die wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der Seefischerei zu vertiefen, insbesondere durch die Förderung von Gemeinschaftsunternehmen; IN DEM WUNSCH, die Einzelheiten und Bedingungen für die Fischerei von beiderseitigem Interesse festzulegen - KOMMEN WIE FOLGT ÜBEREIN: Artikel 1 Die Vertragsparteien arbeiten zusammen, um die Erhaltung und die rationelle Bewirtschaftung der Fischereiressourcen in den Gebieten unter der Fischereigerichtsbarkeit beider Vertragsparteien sowie in den hieran angrenzenden Gebieten sicherzustellen. Die Vertragsparteien streben direkt oder im Rahmen einschlägiger regionaler Organe Vereinbarungen mit Dritten über Maßnahmen zur Erhaltung und rationellen Bewirtschaftung dieser Bestände an, einschließlich der zulässigen Gesamtfangmenge und deren Aufteilung. Artikel 2 Jede Vertragspartei räumt den Fischereifahrzeugen der anderen Vertragspartei das Recht ein, innerhalb des ostseeischen Gebiets unter ihrer Fischereigerichtsbarkeit nach Maßgabe der nachstehenden Bestimmungen Fischfang zu betreiben. Artikel 3 (1) Jede Vertragspartei bestimmt alljährlich für das ostseeische Gebiet unter ihrer Fischereigerichtsbarkeit vorbehaltlich aufgrund unvorhersehbarer Umstände etwa notwendiger Anpassungen und gemäß den Erfordernissen rationeller Bewirtschaftung der lebenden Meeresschätze a) die zulässige Gesamtfangmenge für einzelne Bestände oder Bestandsgruppen anhand der verfügbaren neuesten wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse, der gegenseitigen Abhängigkeit der Bestände, der Arbeit einschlägiger internationaler Organisationen und anderer relevanter Kriterien, b) nach angemessenen Konsultationen, welche Zuteilungen für die Fischereifahrzeuge der Vertragsparteien gemäß dem Ziel ausgeglichener und beiderseits befriedigender Fischereibeziehungen gewährt werden, und c) entscheidet über gegenseitige Zugangsrechte im Rahmen gemeinsamer Regelungen für die Bewirtschaftung gemeinsamer Bestände. (2) Jede Vertragspartei kann auch andere Maßnahmen erlassen, die sie für notwendig erachtet, um Fischbestände in einem Umfang zu erhalten oder entsprechend aufzufuellen, der den auf Dauer vertretbaren Hoechstertrag ermöglicht. Bei solchen Maßnahmen sowie allen Maßnahmen im Anschluß an die alljährliche Festsetzung der Fangmöglichkeiten ist darauf zu achten, daß die volle Ausübung der Fischereirechte nach Maßgabe dieses Abkommens nicht beeinträchtigt werden darf. Artikel 4 Jede Vertragspartei kann den Fischfang in dem Gebiet unter ihrer Fischereigerichtsbarkeit durch Fischereifahrzeuge der anderen Partei von der Erteilung einer Lizenz abhängig machen. Die Grenzen, innerhalb deren Lizenzen vergeben werden, werden in Konsultationen zwischen den Vertragsparteien festgelegt. Die zuständige Behörde jeder Vertragspartei übermittelt der anderen Vertragspartei rechtzeitig die Registernummer und andere relevante Daten der Fischereifahrzeuge, welche zum Fischfang im Gebiet unter der Fischereigerichtsbarkeit der anderen Vertragspartei zugelassen werden können. Die andere Vertragspartei stellt daraufhin die Fischereilizenzen innerhalb der vereinbarten Grenzen aus. Artikel 5 (1) Jede Vertragspartei trifft geeignete Maßnahmen, um zu gewährleisten, daß ihre Fahrzeuge und die Fahrzeuge von Drittstaaten, denen sie Fischereirechte gewährt hat, die zwischen den Vertragsparteien nach diesem Abkommen vereinbarten Erhaltungsmaßnahmen beachten. (2) Fischereifahrzeuge einer Vertragspartei, die im Gebiet unter der Fischereigerichtsbarkeit der anderen Partei fischen, müssen die Erhaltungsmaßnahmen, Überwachungsmaßnahmen, anderen Bestimmungen und Bedingungen sowie alle Regeln und Rechtsvorschriften für die Ausübung der Fischerei in diesem Gebiet beachten. (3) Jede Vertragspartei teilt der anderen Vertragspartei alle neuen Maßnahmen oder Bedingungen für den Fischfang in dem Gebiet unter ihrer Fischereigerichtsbarkeit rechtzeitig mit. (4) Die von einer Vertragspartei getroffenen Fischereiregelungen zur Bestandserhaltung müssen auf objektiven, wissenschaftlichen Kriterien beruhen und dürfen die andere Vertragspartei weder tatsächlich noch rechtlich benachteiligen. (5) Jede Vertragspartei kann in dem Gebiet unter ihrer Fischereigerichtsbarkeit in Übereinstimmung mit dem Völkerrecht und in beiderseitigem Einvernehmen geeignete Maßnahmen treffen, um die Einhaltung der Bestimmungen dieses Abkommens durch Fahrzeuge der anderen Partei sicherzustellen. Artikel 6 Die Vertragsparteien verpflichten sich zur Zusammenarbeit und Unterstützung bei der notwendigen wissenschaftlichen Forschung, insbesondere im Hinblick auf a) die Bestände im Gebiet unter der Fischereigerichtsbarkeit beider Vertragsparteien mit dem Ziel, die Maßnahmen zur Regelung ihrer Befischung optimal zu harmonisieren; b) die Bestände von gemeinsamem Interesse im Gebiet unter der Fischereigerichtsbarkeit beider Vertragsparteien sowie in den hieran angrenzenden Gebieten. Artikel 7 Als Beitrag zur Erweiterung der Kenntnisse und des Fachwissens der im Fischereisektor Tätigen trägt die Gemeinschaft im Rahmen der in alljährlichen Konsultationen getroffenen Vereinbarungen dem Fortbildungsbedarf Lettlands im Fischereisektor besonders Rechnung. Die finanziellen Beiträge dafür werden von Lettland so verwendet, daß sie den Interessen der Gemeinschaft nicht zuwiderlaufen. Artikel 8 (1) Die Vertragsparteien fördern die Gründung von Joint-ventures im Fischereisektor durch Unternehmen in der Gemeinschaft und in Lettland. (2) Lettland fördert und pflegt ein günstiges, dauerhaftes Umfeld für die Gründung und die Tätigkeit solcher Joint-ventures. Dazu gewährt Lettland Investitionsförderung und entsprechenden Schutz, damit allen Unternehmen der Gemeinschaft, die sich an solchen Joint-ventures beteiligen, eine nichtdiskriminierende, gerechte Behandlung zuteil wird. (3) Die Gemeinschaft kann gemäß den in alljährlichen Konsultationen getroffenen Vereinbarungen Lettland bei der Durchführung von Maßnahmen zur Verwirklichung der Ziele dieses Artikels unterstützen. Entsprechende finanzielle Beiträge sind von Lettland so zu verwenden, daß sie den Interessen der gemeinschaftlichen Partner, die an Joint-ventures beteiligt sind, nicht zuwiderlaufen. Artikel 9 Die finanzielle Beteiligung, die die Gemeinschaft Lettland gemäß den Artikeln 7 und 8 gewährt, werden von den Vertragsparteien bei der Herstellung ausgeglichener und beiderseits befriedigender Fischereibeziehungen berücksichtigt. Artikel 10 (1) Die Vertragsparteien konsultieren einander in Fragen der Umsetzung und Durchführung dieses Abkommens. (2) Bei Unstimmigkeiten hinsichtlich der Auslegung oder Anwendung dieses Abkommens konsultieren die Vertragsparteien einander. Artikel 11 (1) Dieses Abkommen berührt oder präjudiziert in keiner Weise die Standpunkte der Vertragsparteien in Seerechtsfragen. (2) Dieses Abkommen gilt unbeschadet der Abgrenzung der ausschließlichen Wirtschaftszonen oder Fischereizonen zwischen Lettland und den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft. Artikel 12 Dieses Abkommen gilt für die Gebiete, in denen der Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft angewendet wird, und nach Maßgabe jenes Vertrages einerseits sowie für das Hoheitsgebiet Lettlands andererseits. Artikel 13 Dieses Abkommen tritt zu dem Zeitpunkt in Kraft, zu dem die Vertragsparteien einander den Abschluß der hierzu erforderlichen Verfahren notifizieren. Artikel 14 Dieses Abkommen wird für einen ersten Zeitraum von zehn Jahren ab dem Zeitpunkt seines Inkrafttretens geschlossen. Wird es nicht von einer der Vertragsparteien mindestens neun Monate vor Ablauf dieses Zehnjahreszeitraums durch eine entsprechende Mitteilung gekündigt, so bleibt es für jeweils weitere sechs Jahre in Kraft, sofern es nicht mindestens neun Monate vor Ablauf der jeweiligen Sechsjahreszeiträume gekündigt wird. Geschehen zu Riga am 16. Juli 1992 in zwei Urschriften in englischer und lettischer Sprache, wobei jeder Wortlaut gleichermassen verbindlich ist. Bei Differenzen ist der englische Wortlaut maßgebend. Zu Urkund dessen haben die unterzeichneten Bevollmächtigten ihre Unterschriften unter dieses Abkommen gesetzt. Für die Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft Für die Republik Lettland


type: wikipedia

text:
Agnes Naa Momo Lartey es una política ghanesa.Participó en las elecciones generales de Ghana de 2020 y ganó el escaño parlamentario para el distrito electoral de Krowor.
 Infancia
 Nació el 16 de abril de 1976 y proviene de Greater Accra y su ciudad natal es Krowor y es cristiana.
 Política
 Comenzó su carrera política en el año 2000. Desde entonces, se ha desempeñado como asambleísta y miembro presidente de la Asamblea Municipal de Krowor.
 En diciembre de 2016, participó en las Elecciones Generales de Ghana de 2016 bajo la boleta del Congreso Nacional Democrático y perdió ante Elizabeth Afoley Quaye del Nuevo Partido Patriótico . Volvió a participar en las elecciones generales de Ghana de 2020 bajo la boleta del Congreso Nacional Democrático y ganó. Obtuvo 41.850 votos, lo que representa el 55,80% del total de votos emitidos. Fue elegida sobre la titular, Elizabeth Afoley Quaye del Nuevo Partido Patriótico y Hannah Bortey del Movimiento Sindical de Ghana . Estos dos partidos obtuvieron 32.604 y 545 votos respectivamente del total de votos válidos emitidos. Representando el 43,47% y el 0,73% respectivamente del total de votos válidos emitidos.
 Referencias
 Nacidos en 1976
 Personas vivas


text:
 30.11.2006
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 333/17
 BESCHLUSS DES GEMEINSAMEN EWR-AUSSCHUSSES
 Nr. 105/2006
 vom 22. September 2006
 zur Änderung des Anhangs I (Veterinärwesen und Pflanzenschutz) des EWR-Abkommens
 DER GEMEINSAME EWR-AUSSCHUSS -
 gestützt auf das Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum, geändert durch das Anpassungsprotokoll zum Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum, nachstehend „Abkommen“ genannt, insbesondere auf Artikel 98,
 in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
 (1)
 Anhang I des Abkommens wurde durch den Beschluss des Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschusses Nr. 42/2006 vom 28. April 2006 (1) geändert.
 (2)
 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 214/2005 der Kommission vom 9. Februar 2005 zur Änderung des Anhangs III der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 999/2001 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates hinsichtlich der Überwachung von Ziegen auf transmissible spongiforme Enzephalopathien (2) ist in das Abkommen aufzunehmen.
 (3)
 Dieser Beschluss gilt nicht für Island und Liechtenstein -
 BESCHLIESST:
 Artikel 1
 Anhang I Kapitel I des Abkommens wird wie folgt geändert:
 1.
 In Teil 7.1 wird unter Nummer 12 (Verordnung (EC) Nr. 999/2001 des Rates) folgender Gedankenstrich angefügt:
 „—
 32005 R 0214: Verordnung (EG) Nr. 214/2005 der Kommission vom 9. Februar 2005 (ABl. L 37 vom 10.2.2005, S. 9).“
 2.
 In Teil 7.1 wird unter Nummer 12 (Verordnung (EC) Nr. 999/2001 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates) folgende Anpassung eingefügt:
 „C.
 In Anhang III Kapitel A Teil II Ziffer 2 Buchstabe b wird in Tabelle A Folgendes hinzugefügt:
 ‚Norwegen
 5 000‛“
 Artikel 2
 Der Wortlaut der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 214/2005 in norwegischer Sprache, der in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblattes der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht wird, ist verbindlich.
 Artikel 3
 Dieser Beschluss tritt am 23. September 2006 in Kraft, sofern dem Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschuss alle Mitteilungen nach Artikel 103 Absatz 1 des Abkommens vorliegen (3).
 Artikel 4
 Dieser Beschluss wird im EWR-Abschnitt und in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblattes der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht.
 Geschehen zu Brüssel am 22. September 2006.
 Für den Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschuss
 Die Vorsitzende
 Oda Helen SLETNES
 (1) ABl. L 175 vom 29.6.2006, S. 86.
 (2) ABl. L 37 vom 10.2.2005, S. 9.
 (3) Ein Bestehen verfassungsrechtlicher Anforderungen wurde nicht mitgeteilt.


jurisdiction: US

text: b'U\nN MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH\n ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x94Office of Audit\n\n\n\n\n MSHA MUST MORE CONSISTENTLY\n DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED\n INSPECTIONS AND MORE TRANSPARENTLY\n REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS FOR METAL\n AND NONMETAL MINES\n\n\n\n\n Date Issued: September 29, 2011\n Report Number: 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0cU.S. Department of Labor September 2011\nOffice of Inspector General\nOffice of Audit\n MSHA MUST MORE CONSISTENTLY\n DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED\n INSPECTIONS AND MORE TRANSPARENTLY\nBRIEFLY\xe2\x80\xa6 REPORT INSPECTION RESULTS FOR METAL\nHighlights of Report Number 05-11-004-06-001, AND NONMETAL MINES\nissued to the Assistant Secretary of Mine Safety\nand Health. WHAT OIG FOUND\n\nWHY READ THE REPORT We found no evidence that individual MNMS&H\n inspectors or supervisors had intentionally manipulated\nUnder provisions of the Federal Mine Safety and Health the mine inventory or mine status assignments to\nAct of 1977, as amended (Mine Act), MSHA is reduce the number of required inspections. However,\nmandated to conduct regular inspections of all mines. MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s policies and practices resulted in the\nDuring fiscal year (FY) 2010, MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Metal understatement of the number of required regular safety\nand Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health (MNMS&H) and health inspections and the overstatement of the\nconducted 16,143 regular safety and health inspections reported inspection completion rate. Specifically,\nat 11,068 mines.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t We could not determine the appropriateness of\nBetween October 2007 and April 2011, the OIG MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s assignments of mine status because it\nreceived four separate, but similar written complaints did not issue clear, objective criteria for\nrelated to MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s completion of regular safety and determining a mine\xe2\x80\x99s status.\nhealth inspections. These complaints alleged that \xe2\x80\xa2\t MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s business rules allowed an \xe2\x80\x9cattempted\nMNMS&H was (a) intentionally leaving active mines \xe2\x80\x9coff inspection\xe2\x80\x9d to eliminate the requirement to\nthe books\xe2\x80\x9d or misclassifying the operating status of complete a regular safety and health inspection at\nmines to reduce the number of required inspections and 732 mines that reported mining activity.\n(b) recording a completed inspection when no\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t MNMS&H often counted inspections in its \n\ninspection had been performed.\n computation of the inspection completion rate \n\n before they received supervisory review. \n\nWHY OIG CONDUCTED THE AUDIT\n WHAT OIG RECOMMENDED\nAs part of our audit oversight responsibility and in\nresponse to the complaints we received, the OIG We recommended the Assistant Secretary for Mine\nperformed work to answer the following questions: Safety and Health direct MNMS&H to:\n\n 1.\t Did MNMS&H assign the appropriate \xe2\x80\xa2\t design objective criteria for assigning a mine status\n operating status to each mine? and implement a system of controls to assure the\n consistent implementation of these criteria;\n 2.\t Did MNMS&H conduct the correct number of \xe2\x80\xa2\t design and implement procedures to assure that\n required regular safety and health inspections information on all new mines is communicated to\n for each mine? the responsible field office in a timely manner;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t examine and implement ways to increase the\n 3.\t Was there evidence that each recorded probability that inspectors will arrive for regular\n regular safety and health inspection was safety and health inspections on days that a mine is\n performed? operational;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t more clearly and completely report the actual\nOur audit work covered all regular safety and health\n results of its efforts to conduct regular safety and\ninspections mandated by the Mine Act for\n health inspections;\nmetal/nonmetal mines during FY 2010.\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t require supervisors to document their review and\n acceptance of each regular safety and health\nREAD THE FULL REPORT inspection report before it is included in MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s\nTo view the report, including the scope, methodology, computation of its inspection completion rate.\nand full agency response, go to:\n The Assistant Secretary agreed with our\nhttp://www.oig.dol.gov/public/reports/oa/2011/05-11- recommendations and committed to developing and\n004-06-001.pdf. implementing corrective actions.\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK \n\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nTable of Contents \n\n\nAssistant Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Report ......................................................................... 1\n\n\nResults in Brief .............................................................................................................. 2\n\n\nObjective 1 \xe2\x80\x94 Did MNMS&H assign the appropriate operating status to each \n\n mine?..................................................................................................... 4\n\n MNMS&H lacked assurance it was computing the number of required \n\n regular safety and health inspections based on an appropriate mine \n\n status.................................................................................................................... 4\n\n\n Finding 1 \xe2\x80\x94 The validity of MNMS&H\'s mine status assignments could not \n\n be confirmed. .................................................................................... 4\n\n\nObjective 2 \xe2\x80\x94 Did MNMS&H conduct the correct number of required regular \n\n safety and health inspections for each mine?................................... 8\n\n MNMS&H\'s business rules inappropriately reduced the number of regular \n\n safety and health inspections required. ................................................................ 8\n\n\n Finding 2 \xe2\x80\x94 MNMS&H did not complete required regular safety and health \n\n inspections at all metal/nonmetal mines. .......................................... 8\n\n\nObjective 3 \xe2\x80\x94 Was there evidence that each recorded regular safety and health \n\n inspection was performed?............................................................... 12\n\n MNMS&H counted inspections as completed before they received \n\n supervisory review.............................................................................................. 12\n\n\n Finding 3 \xe2\x80\x94 Mine files contained evidence that regular safety and health \n\n inspections recorded had been performed, but supervisory \n\n review was not timely...................................................................... 12\n\n\nAppendices\n Appendix A Background ..................................................................................... 17\n\n Appendix B Objectives, Scope, Methodology, and Criteria ................................ 19\n\n Appendix C Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................... 25\n\n Appendix D MSHA Response to Draft Report .................................................... 27\n\n Appendix E Acknowledgements ......................................................................... 31\n\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK \n\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nU.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General\n Washington, D.C. 20210\n\n\n\n\nSeptember 29, 2011\n\n Assistant Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Report\n\n\nJoseph A. Main\nAssistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health\nU.S. Department of Labor\n1100 Wilson Boulevard\nArlington, Va. 22209\n\nThe Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of Audit, conducted a performance audit\nof the regular safety and health inspection process managed by the Mine Safety and\nHealth Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (MSHA) Office of Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health\n(MNMS&H).\n\nMNMS&H performs these inspections to protect miner safety and health. The Federal\nMine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as amended, requires MNMS&H to\nconduct regular safety and health inspections of the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s metal/nonmetal mines\xe2\x80\x94\nfour times per year at underground mines and twice per year at surface mines. During\nfiscal year (FY) 2010, MNMS&H conducted 16,143 regular safety and health\ninspections 1 at 11,068 mines.\n\nFor each year from 1977 to 2007, MNMS&H reported that it had not completed all of the\nrequired regular safety and health inspections. In October 2007, MSHA implemented\nthe \xe2\x80\x9c100 Percent Plan\xe2\x80\x9d to ensure the agency completed all mandatory inspections by\nthe end of each FY. In each subsequent FY (2008 \xe2\x80\x93 2010), MNMS&H has reported\ncompleting all required regular safety and health inspections. See Appendix A for more\nbackground information.\n\nBetween October 2007 and April 2011, the OIG received four separate, but similar\nwritten complaints related to MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s completion of regular safety and health\ninspections. These complaints alleged that MNMS&H was (a) intentionally leaving\nactive mines \xe2\x80\x9coff the books\xe2\x80\x9d or misclassifying the operating status of mines to reduce\nthe number of required inspections and (b) recording a completed inspection when no\ninspection had been performed.\n\nAs part of our audit oversight responsibility and in response to the complaints we\nreceived, the OIG performed work to answer the following questions:\n\n\n1\n MSHA identifies varying inspection activities with specific \xe2\x80\x9cactivity codes\xe2\x80\x9d. This audit focused on Regular\n Safety and Health inspections, coded as E01 activities.\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 1 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n 1. Did MNMS&H assign the appropriate operating status to each mine?\n\n 2. Did MNMS&H conduct the correct number of required regular safety and health\n inspections for each mine?\n\n 3. Was there evidence that each recorded regular safety and health inspection\n was performed?\n\nOur audit work covered all regular safety and health inspections mandated by the Mine\nAct for metal/nonmetal mines during FY 2010. To gain an understanding of MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s\ninspection process, we reviewed federal laws and regulations and MNMS&H policies\nand procedures; interviewed key MNMS&H headquarters, district, and field office\nofficials; and analyzed and identified key processes and critical decision and control\npoints. For a random sample of 182 mines, we reviewed mine operating statuses, the\nnumber of regular safety and health inspections required, and inspection documents.\nOur objectives, scope, methodology, and criteria are detailed in Appendix B.\n\nWe conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted\ngovernment auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the\naudit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our\nfindings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence\nobtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our\naudit objectives.\n\nRESULTS IN BRIEF\n\nThe audit found no evidence that individual MNMS&H inspectors or supervisors had\nintentionally manipulated the mine inventory or mine status assignments to reduce the\nnumber of required inspections. However, MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s policies and practices resulted in\nthe understatement of the number of required regular safety and health inspections and\nthe overstatement of the reported inspection completion rate. This occurred because\nthe mine status definitions established by MNMS&H national office were interpreted\ndifferently by individual districts and because MNMS&H \xe2\x80\x9cbusiness rules\xe2\x80\x9d reduced the\nnumber of regular safety and health inspections required. In addition, MNMS&H\ncounted inspections as completed prior to supervisory review. As a result, although\nMNMS&H reported an inspection completion rate of 100 percent in FY 2010, 732 out of\n13,081 mines (5.6 percent) the OIG determined to be in an inspectable status received\nonly an \xe2\x80\x9cattempted inspection.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nWe could not determine the appropriateness of the \xe2\x80\x9cmine status\xe2\x80\x9d assigned and used by\nMNMS&H to determine the number of required regular safety and health inspections at\neach mine. This occurred because vague national definitions resulted in districts using\nvaried criteria to make mine status determinations, and because MNMS&H did not\nrequire districts to document the rationale for setting or changing a mine\xe2\x80\x99s status. In\naddition, a problem with MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s online process for registering new mines may have\ndiminished the ability of field offices to timely monitor these mines. As a result,\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 2 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nMNMS&H had no assurance that it was computing the correct number of required\ninspections at each mine.\n\nIn addition, MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s business rules allowed an \xe2\x80\x9cattempted inspection\xe2\x80\x9d 2 to eliminate\nthe requirement to complete a regular safety and health inspection. An attempted\ninspection was typically recorded when the inspector found no one at the mine during\nthe unannounced visit to conduct a regular safety and health inspection. This occurred\nbecause many metal/nonmetal mines operate on an irregular or less-than-full-time\nschedule. While inspectors often returned and conducted an inspection at these mines\nat a later date, MNMS&H policy did not require them to do so. During FY 2010,\nMNMS&H recorded attempted inspections at 2,226 mines. Of these, 732 mines (33\npercent) with reported miner work hours did not receive a regular safety and health\ninspection during the year.\n\nRegular safety and health inspections recorded in MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s inspection database were\ndocumented by inspector notes and reports. However, in 29 out of 32 (91 percent) of\nthe cases that we reviewed, MNMS&H included the inspections in its computation of its\ninspection completion rate prior to supervisory review. Since supervisory review can\nresult in a determination that additional inspection work should be performed,\ninspections should not be included in the computation of MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s inspection\ncompletion rate until a supervisor has reviewed and accepted the work.\n\nWe made five recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.\nIn summary, we recommended that MNMS&H design objective criteria for assigning a\nmine status; implement procedures to assure that information on all new mines is\ncommunicated to the responsible field office; examine and implement ways to increase\nthe probability that inspectors will arrive for regular safety and health inspections on\ndays that a mine is operational; more completely report the actual results of its efforts to\nconduct regular safety and health inspections; and require supervisors to document\ntheir review and acceptance of each regular safety and health inspection report before it\nis included in MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s computation of its inspection completion rate.\n\nIn responding to our draft report, the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health\nagreed with all of our recommendations and stated that MSHA was fully committed to\naddressing the issues that are identified in this report. His response pointed out the\nMNMS&H had begun developing a plan for determining mine status classification based\non objective criteria prior to our audit and they are working with MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s Program\nEvaluation and Information Resources (PEIR) to develop a report (Mine Status Review\nReport) that identifies mine status using these objective criteria. He also stated that in\nthe future MNMS&H will report the number of completed inspections and the number of\nattempted inspections to present more transparency in the agencies inspection\ncompletion rate.\n\n\n\n2\n An event identified in this report as an attempted inspection is referred to by MSHA as a Mine Idle\n activity and coded as an E28 event.\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 3 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nThe Assistant Secretary expressed concern with our statement that MNMS&H performs\ninspections to protect miner safety and health. He emphasized that Congress gave\n\xe2\x80\x9cmine operators with the assistance of miners the primary responsibility to prevent\nunsafe and unhealthful conditions and practices in mines.\xe2\x80\x9d Our statement and\nconclusion are based on the requirements of the Mine Act that describe MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s roles\nand responsibilities in setting safety and health standards, identifying instances of\nnoncompliance (including patterns of violations), and compelling mine operators to take\ntimely corrective actions. These are integral components of the overall system for\nproviding miners with a safe and healthy work environment.\n\nThe Assistant Secretary\xe2\x80\x99s entire response is contained in Appendix D.\n\nRESULTS AND FINDINGS\n\nWe found no evidence that individual MNMS&H inspectors or supervisors had\nintentionally manipulated the mine inventory or mine status assignments to reduce the\nnumber of required inspections. However, MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s policies and practices resulted in\nthe overstatement of the reported inspection completion rate. Although MNMS&H\nreported an inspection completion rate of 100 percent in FY 2010, 732 mines (5.6\npercent) received only an \xe2\x80\x9cattempted inspection.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nObjective 1 \xe2\x80\x94 Did MNMS&H assign the appropriate operating status to each\n mine?\n\n MNMS&H lacked assurance it was computing the number of required regular\n safety and health inspections based on an appropriate mine status.\n\n\nFinding 1 \xe2\x80\x94 The validity of MNMS&H\'s mine status assignments could not be\n confirmed.\n\nWe could not determine the appropriateness of MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s assignments of mine status\nbecause it did not issue clear, objective criteria for determining a mine\xe2\x80\x99s status, and did\nnot require inspectors to justify the basis for changes in a mine status. Moreover, a\nproblem in the online system for registering new mines may diminish the ability of the\nappropriate field office from timely monitoring these mines for changes in operating\nstatus. As a result, MNMS&H lacked assurance it was computing and performing the\ncorrect number of required regular safety and health inspections.\n\nMNMS&H Policy Lacked Clear Objective Criteria\n\nMNMS&H policy defined five possible mine status designations as follows (underlining\nadded for emphasis):\n\n Active - A mine that operates on a full-time basis. Temporary closure due\n to unusual or unforeseen circumstances, such as strikes, mine disasters,\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 4 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n temporary maintenance shutdowns, etc. does not change this status.\n These are mines/mills where you could reasonably expect to conduct the\n statutory four or two regular inspections.\n Intermittent - An intermittent mine can reasonably be expected to operate\n sometime during the year. These operation times will vary due to the\n demand for the product(s) or seasonal conditions. These are operations\n where two inspections per year for underground mines and one per year for\n surface mines and/or facilities would reasonably be expected to occur.\n Non-Producing - A non-producing mine is an operation where production\n has not yet begun or has ceased, but employees perform some work at the\n mine/mill. These are operations where two inspections per year for\n underground mines and one per year for surface mines and/or facilities\n would reasonably be expected to occur.\n New Mine - A new mine has been assigned a mine identification number\n but no work has begun at the mine site. Once physical development has\n begun, a status change is required.\n Abandoned - An abandoned mine will be abandoned for the foreseeable\n future.\n\nThese definitions were subject to individual interpretation. As a result, MNMS&H\ndistricts used their own unwritten criteria for defining a mine\xe2\x80\x99s operating status. Districts\ndefined a mine status based on one or more factors, such as mine employee hours,\nnumber of mine employees, or conditions related to the weather or economy. A number\nof MNMS&H district and field office officials stated that individual inspector judgment\nalso played a role in determining each mine\xe2\x80\x99s operating status. Table 1 illustrates the\nvarying criteria used by three districts to define an active mine.\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 5 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n Table 1\n Districts Defined Active Status Differently\n (FY 2010)\n\n MNMS&H District Criteria Used to Define Active Mine\n\n Rocky Mountain 520 mine employee hours or greater per quarter\n\n Consistent number of mine hours and employees\n North Central reported per quarter\n\n Southeastern Any mine employee hours reported per quarter\n\n\nWithin the same district, field offices were also inconsistent in their definitions of mine\noperating statuses. Table 2 illustrates the inconsistent criteria used by two field offices\nwithin the same district to define an intermittent mine.\n\n Table 2\n Field Offices Defined Intermittent Status Differently\n (FY 2010)\n\n North Central Field\n Offices Criteria Used to Define Intermittent Mine\n\n No mine employee hours reported for 1 or 2\n Fort Dodge, Iowa quarters\n\n Peru, Illinois Mine shut down during the winter\n\n\nAs a result of these varying criteria, MNMS&H assigned different mine statuses to\nmines with similar operating characteristics. Table 3 illustrates examples of this\ninconsistency.\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 6 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n Table 3\n\n Miner Work Hours (# of Miners)\n\n Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Assigned Mine Status\nDistrict FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2010 (Required Inspections)\n\nSoutheast 3,325 (7) 2,417 (6) 4,187 (6) 2,868 (5) Active (2)\n\nN. Central 4,192 (7) 2,037 (5) 3,489 (7) 3,809 (7) Intermittent (1)\n\n\n\nSoutheast 1,107 (2) 1,092 (6) 1,813 (3) 1,069 (2) Active (2)\n\nN. Central 2,072 (6) 2,523 (5) 1,838 (5) 2,351 (5) Intermittent (1)\n\n\nMNMS&H officials stated that they have been working for the past 7 months to develop\nmore specific, data driven criteria for assigning a mine\xe2\x80\x99s status. This effort has been\naimed at reducing the inconsistency in mine status determinations, reducing and\nproviding better oversight of the discretion exercised by district officials in assigning a\nmine status, and more effectively allocating inspection resources. MNMS&H anticipates\nimplementing these criteria following the issuance of our audit report.\n\nMine Status Changes Lacked Adequate Documentation\n\nMNMS&H policy does not require (a) inspectors to justify setting or changing a mine\nstatus, and (b) field office supervisors to approve mine status changes made by\ninspectors. Since mine status changes impact the number of required regular safety and\nhealth inspections, the absence of these controls creates a risk that inspectors could\ninappropriately reduce their workloads by changing a mine status without justification or\noversight.\n\nFor 96 of 108 mines 3 (89 percent), we found that inspectors did not justify the basis for\nsetting or changing a mine\xe2\x80\x99s operating status by attaching supporting source\ndocumentation (such as copies of emails or summaries of telephone calls from mine\noperators).\n\nInspectors set or change a mine status simply by checking a box on the mine\ninformation form. This form does not require any explanation to justify the basis for a\nmine status change and an inspector may change a mine\xe2\x80\x99s operating status without\nphysically visiting a mine in order to validate information provided by the mine operator.\nWhile we were told that field office supervisors review and approve a sample of mine\nstatus changes, we found no evidence to support this. In fact, the form itself has no\nplace to record supervisory review or concurrence.\n\n3\n Of the 182 mine files sampled, 108 contained an MSHA Form 2000-209 documenting the mine\xe2\x80\x99s\noperating status.\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 7 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nMNMS&H Field Offices May Not Have Been Aware of All New Mines Registrations\n\nA deficiency in the online process that operators may use to request a Mine ID for a\nnew mine may result in MNMS&H field offices being unaware of some new mines. This\nreduces the ability of field office inspectors to monitor these mines and identify changes\nin operational status that would initiate required safety and health inspections.\n\nWhen an operator notifies MSHA of the intention to open a new metal or nonmetal\nmine, MSHA issues a Mine ID and assigns the new mine to the appropriate MNMS&H\ndistrict and related field office. The operator has 30 days to complete a legal identity\ndocument (LID) and is obligated to notify MNMS&H when site development begins.\nAlthough new mines do not require a regular safety and health inspection, site\ndevelopment would cause a change in the mine\xe2\x80\x99s operating status and initiate\ninspections. MNMS&H uses the \xe2\x80\x9cMines without LID Submitted\xe2\x80\x9d report to identify and\nmonitor the status of new mines that have not submitted an LID. However, according to\nMSHA officials, the MSHA Standardized Information System (MSIS) e-gov interface for\nMine ID requests submitted online does not include an ability to assign the mine to a\nfield office at the time the request is processed. In turn, the absence of a field office\ndesignation results in the mine being incorrectly omitted from the \xe2\x80\x9cMines without LID\nSubmitted\xe2\x80\x9d report. This creates a risk that new mines will not be identified and\nmonitored in a timely manner by the appropriate field office.\n\nFor six new mines in our audit sample, the Southeastern District could locate only the\nelectronic document requesting the Mine ID, but no corresponding LID. Yet, none of\nthese mines appeared on the \xe2\x80\x9cMines without LID Submitted\xe2\x80\x9d report. Based on our\ninquiry, MNMS&H identified 126 new mines, as of July 6, 2011, that were incorrectly\nomitted from this management report. As a result, the ability of the responsible field\noffice to monitor the mine for changes in its operational status was diminished.\n\nObjective 2 \xe2\x80\x94 Did MNMS&H conduct the correct number of required regular\n safety and health inspections for each mine?\n\n MNMS&H\'s business rules inappropriately reduced the number of regular safety\n and health inspections required.\n\n\nFinding 2 \xe2\x80\x94 MNMS&H did not complete required regular safety and health\n inspections at all metal/nonmetal mines.\n\nMNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s business rules understated the number of required regular safety and\nhealth inspections for 732 mines because they automatically removed the requirement\nto complete a regular safety and health inspection when an attempted inspection was\nrecorded. As a result, MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s inspection completion rate was overstated by 5.6\npercent. Missed inspections potentially place miners at risk because hazardous\nconditions in the mines may not be identified and corrected.\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 8 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nAttempted Inspections Removed the Requirement for a Regular Safety and Health\nInspection\n\nMNMS&H attempted but did not conduct regular safety and health inspections during\nFY 2010 at 732 mines that reported mining activity. However, because its policy allowed\nattempted inspections to remove the regular safety and health inspection requirement,\nMNMS&H reported an inspection completion rate of 100 percent. This practice resulted\nin some of these mines not receiving a regular safety and health inspection for multiple,\nconsecutive years.\n\nMany metal/nonmetal mines operate on an irregular or less than-full-time schedule. This\nmeans that an inspector arriving unannounced at a mine site to conduct a regular safety\nand health inspection, may be unable to perform the inspection because the mine is not\noperating on that day. In the case of these \xe2\x80\x9cattempted inspections,\xe2\x80\x9d MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s\nbusiness rules removed the requirement for that regular safety and health inspection.\nWhile inspectors could, and often did, return to the mine at another time to conduct a\nregular safety and health inspection, MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s policy did not require them to do so. In\nFY 2010, MNMS&H inspectors recorded attempted inspections at 2,226 mines. We\ndetermined that 881 of these mines (40 percent) did not receive a regular safety and\nhealth inspection. As shown in Table 4, the number of times each district recorded\nattempted inspections and the frequency with which they successfully returned to\ncomplete a regular safety and health inspection varied.\n\n Table 4\n\n Mines with an Attempted Inspection Recorded during FY 2010\n\n Mines having Mines having an Attempted\n an Attempted Inspection, but no Regular\n Inspection Safety and Health Inspection\n\n District Number Number Percentage\n\n Northeastern 568 243 43\n\n Southeastern 112 8 7\n\n North Central 564 343 61\n\n South Central 441 63 14\n\n Rocky Mountain 219 76 35\n\n Western 322 148 46\n\n TOTAL 2226 881 40\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 9 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nOf the 881 mines where the required regular safety and health inspection was removed\nby an attempted inspection, 149 mines reported no miner work hours for the entire year.\nTherefore, the eliminated regular safety and health inspection posed no risk to miners.\nHowever, the remaining 732 mines all reported varying levels of mining activity during\nthe year as summarized in the following table.\n\n Table 5\n\n Indicators of Mining Activity Levels at Mines Receiving Only an Attempted \n\n Inspection \n\n\n # of Miner Hours Worked # of Miners Employed\n\n Total Average Total Average\n per Mine Range per Mine Range\n (732 Mines) (732 Mines)\n\n 1st Quarter 314,643 429.8 0 \xe2\x80\x93 8,485 1,408 1.9 0 - 27\n\n 2nd Quarter 135,823 185.6 0 \xe2\x80\x93 5,753 731 1.0 0 - 15\n\n 3rd Quarter 307,678 420.3 0 \xe2\x80\x93 7,571 1,239 1.7 0 - 13\n\n 4th Quarter 343,683 469.5 0 \xe2\x80\x93 8,164 1,223 1.7 0 - 12\n\n FY 2010 1,101,827 1,505.2\n Total\n\n Average per 275,457 376.3 1,150 1.6\n Quarter\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 10 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nTable 6 shows a breakdown of these 732 mines by the total miner work hours reported\nby each mine for FY 2010.\n\n Table 6\n\n\n Breakdown of Mines Missing Regular Safety and Health Inspections\n by Total Miner Hours\n\n Number\n FY 2010 Reported Miner Hours of Mines\n\n 1 \xe2\x80\x93 200 202 \n\n\n 201 \xe2\x80\x93 500 124 \n\n\n 501 \xe2\x80\x93 1000 125 \n\n\n 1001 \xe2\x80\x93 5000 238 \n\n\n 5001 or more 43\n\n TOTAL 732 \n\n\n\nThis practice can result in individual mines operating for long time periods without a\nregular safety and health inspection because (a) MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s business rules require only\none regular safety and health inspection per year at mines designated as \xe2\x80\x9cintermittent\xe2\x80\x9d\nand (b) attempted inspections could recur in consecutive inspection cycles. An analysis\nof a judgmental sample 4 of 71 out of the 881 mines determined that as of July 26, 2011,\nthe number of days that had elapsed since MNMS&H had completed a regular safety\nand health inspection at these mines ranged from 387 to 1,511 days with an average of\n821 days. For example, MNMS&H recorded a completed regular safety and health\ninspection at an intermittent mine on November 26, 2008. It recorded an attempted\ninspection on July 13, 2010. The next regular safety and health inspection was recorded\non October 12, 2010. This represented a span of 685 days between the two regular\nsafety and health inspections. During FY 2010, this mine employed an average of 10\nminers and reported a total of 25,728 miner work hours.\n\n\n\n\n4\n To obtain the 71 mines, we selected the first two (2) mines from each field office that missed an E01\ninspection during FY 2010. If a field office did not have two (2) mines that missed an E01 inspection\nduring FY 2010, then the one (1) mine that missed an E01 inspection was selected. The results of a\njudgmental sample cannot be statistically projected to the universe of 881 mines.\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 11 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nObjective 3 \xe2\x80\x94 Was there evidence that each recorded regular safety and health\n inspection was performed?\n\n MNMS&H counted inspections as completed before they received supervisory\n review.\n\n\nFinding 3 \xe2\x80\x94 Mine files contained evidence that regular safety and health\n inspections recorded had been performed, but supervisory review\n was not timely.\n\nThere were documents in MNMS&H mine files to show that regular safety and health\ninspections recorded in MSIS had been performed. However, MNMS&H often counted\ninspections in its computation of the inspection completion rate before they received\nsupervisory review. This occurred because MNMS&H policy did not require supervisors\nto review and accept inspection reports before they became part of the inspection\ncompletion calculation.\n\nInspectors and field office supervisors explained that at the completion of inspection\ntasks, an inspector enters information into the Inspectors\xe2\x80\x99 Portable Applications for\nLaptop (IPAL) where it is subsequently uploaded into MSIS and becomes part of the FY\ncompletion rate. They stated that the upload of this information typically occurs before\nreview and acceptance of the inspection report by a supervisor. Our audit work\nconfirmed their explanation. We found evidence of supervisory review for 138 out of 142\nregular safety and health inspections in our sample. However, analysis of a judgmental\nsample of inspection reports that contained both evidence of supervisory review and the\ndate of that review, revealed that 29 of 32 (91 percent) were uploaded to MSIS (and\ntherefore included in the inspection completion rate) prior to the date of the supervisory\nreview. Since supervisors did sometimes require inspectors to perform additional\ninspection work as a result of their reviews, inspections should not be included in\nMNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s computation of its regular safety and health inspection completion rate prior\nto final supervisory acceptance.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health Administration:\n\n 1.\t Design objective, national criteria for assigning a mine status and implement a \n\n system of controls to assure the consistent implementation of these criteria; \n\n\n 2.\t Design and implement procedures to assure that information on all new mines is \n\n communicated to the responsible field office in a timely manner; \n\n\n 3.\t Examine and implement ways to increase the probability that inspectors will arrive\n for regular safety and health inspections on days that a mine is operational;\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 12 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n 4.\t More clearly and completely report the actual results of its efforts to conduct regular\n safety and health inspections, including the number of mines that reported miner\n work hours, but did not receive a regular safety and health inspection; and\n\n 5.\t Require supervisors to document their review and acceptance of each regular\n safety and health inspection report before it is included in MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s computation\n of its inspection completion rate.\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation and courtesies that MSHA personnel extended to the\nOffice of Inspector General during this audit. OIG personnel who made major\ncontributions to this report are listed in Appendix E.\n\n\n\n\nElliot P. Lewis\nAssistant Inspector General\n for Audit\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 13 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 14 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nAppendices \n\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 15 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK \n\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 16 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n Appendix A\nBackground\n\nMine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)\n\nMSHA\xe2\x80\x99s purpose is to prevent death, disease, and injury from mining and to promote\nsafe and healthful workplaces for the Nation\'s miners. Under provisions of the Federal\nMine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended, MSHA is mandated to (a) conduct\nregular inspections of all mines; (b) investigate mine accidents, complaints of retaliatory\ndiscrimination filed by miners, hazardous condition complaints, and petitions for\nmodification of mandatory safety standards; (c) develop improved mandatory safety and\nhealth standards; (d) assess and collect civil monetary penalties for violations of mine\nsafety and health standards; and (e) review for approval mine operators\' mining plans\nand education and training programs.\n\nMSHA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health (MNMS&H) enforces the\nMine Act at all metal/nonmetal mining operations in the United States. MNMS&H\nconsists of a small headquarters office in Arlington, Va., 6 district offices, and 47 field\noffices and field duty stations located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.\nDuring calendar year (CY) 2010, there were approximately 12,000 mines that employed\nover 225,000 miners and produced about 80 minerals and commodities.\n\nRegular Safety and Health Inspections\n\nInspections are an important part of MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s oversight program. During unannounced\nvisits to mine sites, MSHA inspectors verify mine operators\xe2\x80\x99 compliance with statutory\nrequirements and determine whether an imminent danger exists. When inspectors\nobserve violations of safety or health standards, they issue citations and/or orders to\nmine operators. Operators are required to correct the violation and may be assessed a\nmonetary penalty.\n\nSection 103(a) of the Mine Act requires MSHA to conduct regular safety and health\ninspections of the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s mines in their entirety\xe2\x80\x94four times per year at underground\nmines and twice per year at surface mines. To effectively allocate its inspection\nresources, MSHA assigns and considers each mine\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cstatus\xe2\x80\x9d in implementing this\ninspection requirement. MNMS&H policy establishes five different mine status\nclassifications \xe2\x80\x93 active, intermittent, non-producing, new, and abandoned. Active mines\nreceive the full complement of regular safety and health inspections prescribed in the\nMine Act. Intermittent and non-producing mines receive half the number of regular\nsafety and health inspections referenced in the Mine Act. New and abandoned mines do\nnot receive regular safety and health inspections.\n\nFor each year from 1977 to 2007, MSHA did not complete all of the inspections\nmandated by law. In October 2007, MSHA implemented the \xe2\x80\x9c100 Percent Plan\xe2\x80\x9d to\nensure the agency completed all mandatory inspections by the end of each fiscal year\n(FY). In each subsequent FY (2008 \xe2\x80\x93 2010), MSHA has reported completing all\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 17 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nmandatory mine inspections. In addition, during CY 2010, MSHA reported that\nmandatory inspections at the Nation\'s more than 14,000 surface and underground\nmines resulted in 172,035 citations/orders and assessed monetary fines of $146.4\nmillion.\n\nOIG Hotline Complaints\n\nBetween October 2007 and April 2011, the OIG received four separate, but similar\ncomplaints related to MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s completion of required regular safety and health\ninspections. In summary, the complaints alleged that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t An MSHA supervisor was intentionally leaving new or operating mines \xe2\x80\x9coff the\n books\xe2\x80\x9d and misclassifying a mine\xe2\x80\x99s operating status as \xe2\x80\x9cintermittent\xe2\x80\x9d or\n \xe2\x80\x9cabandoned\xe2\x80\x9d to reduce the number of required inspections;\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t MNMS&H officials had instructed supervisors to count an attempted\n inspection as a regular safety and health inspection; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t MNMS&H inspectors did not inspect every mine in its entirety.\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 18 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n Appendix B\nObjectives, Scope, Methodology, and Criteria\n\nObjectives\n\nWe performed audit work to determine whether MNMS&H performed all of the regular\nsafety and health inspections required by the Mine Act during FY 2010. Specifically, we\nanswered the following questions:\n\n 1. Did MNMS&H assign the appropriate operating status to each mine?\n\n 2. Did MNMS&H conduct the correct number of required regular safety and health\n inspections for each mine?\n\n 3. Was there evidence that each recorded regular safety and health inspection\n was performed?\n\nScope\n\nOur audit included MNMS&H inspection and oversight activity occurring in FY 2010.\nMNMS&H conducts 27 types of inspections. To answer our audit objectives, we focused\non the specific inspection performed by MNMS&H inspectors to comply with Section\n103(a) of the Mine Act, the regular safety and health inspection. Regular safety and\nhealth inspections are the most comprehensive inspections conducted of\nmetal/nonmetal mines.\n\nFor objective 1, our scope covered an analysis of the operating statuses assigned by\nMNMS&H to a statistical sample of 182 mines for FY 2010. We also reviewed mine\nstatus data for (a) these 182 mines for FYs 2007-2010 and (b) a listing of 126 new\nmines provided by MNMS&H for FYs 2010-2011.\n\nFor objective 2, our scope covered an analysis of the regular safety and health\ninspections computed by MNMS&H for a statistical sample of 182 mines. We also\nreviewed 881 mines that received an attempted inspection but no corresponding regular\nsafety and health inspection during FY 2010.\n\nFor objective 3, our scope covered an analysis of mine information forms, inspection\nreports, and inspector field notes for the 182 mines statistically sampled for FY 2010.\nFrom these 182 we also reviewed IPAL inspection upload dates, provided by MNMS&H,\nfor a judgmental sample of 45 regular health and safety inspections conducted during\nFY 2010 at these mines.\n\nTo accomplish our audit objectives, we focused our review on whether there was any\nevidence to support that a regular safety and health inspection was performed. We did\nnot address the thoroughness of an inspection, such as whether all required regular\nsafety and health inspection procedures and activities were performed.\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 19 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nMethodology\n\nTo accomplish our objectives, we obtained an understanding of MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s regular\nsafety and health inspection process. We reviewed federal laws and regulations and\nMNMS&H policies and procedures; interviewed key MNMS&H headquarters, district,\nand field office officials; and analyzed and identified key processes and critical decision\nand control points. In addition, we selected random samples of regular safety and health\ninspections and tested various attributes of the inspection process.\n\nData Reliability\n\nIn planning and performing the audit, we relied on computer-generated data from MSIS.\nFor a sample of the mines listed in MSIS, we compared the information in selected data\nfields \xe2\x80\x94 mine identification number, mine name, mine status, mine status date(s), and\nregular safety and health inspections \xe2\x80\x94 with source documents in the mine files to\nassess the data\xe2\x80\x99s reliability. We determined the data to be sufficient and appropriate for\nthe purpose of our audit.\n\nSite Visits\n\nWe conducted site visits at MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s headquarters (Arlington, Va.), and three district\noffices - Rocky Mountain (Denver, Colo); North Central (Duluth, Minn); and\nSoutheastern (Birmingham, Ala).\n\nSampling\n\nTo determine whether MNMS&H completed all regular safety and health inspections\nduring FY 2010, we reviewed a stratified random sample of metal/nonmetal mines. The\naudit universe, based on a listing provided to us by MSHA, consisted of 16,456 mines\nassigned to six MNMS&H districts. We used a two-stage risk-based sampling approach.\n\nIn the first stage, we grouped the six districts into three strata \xe2\x80\x93 high risk, medium risk,\nand low risk \xe2\x80\x93 based on five factors related to the risk that regular safety and health\ninspections might not be performed. These risk factors included the a) ratio of required\ninspections to inspectors; b) number of abandoned mines; c) number of mine status\nchanges leading to a decrease in the number of required inspections; d) number of\nmine idle inspections; and e) number of complaints received by the OIG. From each\nstratum, we randomly sampled one district: North Central (high risk), Rocky Mountain\n(medium risk), and Southeastern (low risk).\n\nIn the second stage, we stratified each of these three district\xe2\x80\x99s population of surface and\nunderground mines into six strata based on their mine operating status as of\nSeptember 30, 2010. These strata included mines classified as (i) active; (ii) non-\nproducing active; (iii) new; (iv) intermittent; (v) abandoned during FY 2010; and\n(vi) abandoned during FYs 2007 through 2009. We eliminated from our universe mines\nthat have been in an abandoned status prior to FY 2007 (i.e., before October 1, 2006).\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 20 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nSince these mines were in an abandoned status before the implementation of MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s\n100 Percent Plan in FY 2008, we judged that there was a low risk that MNMS&H\npersonnel had manipulated their operating status to benefit inspection completion rates.\n\nWe randomly selected a statistical sample of mines from each of these six strata\nresulting in a sample of 60-61 mines per district and a combined sample of 182 mines\nfrom all three districts for testing purposes. The table below shows our sample of 182\nmines by district and mine status.\n\n Audit Sample Composition\n Mine Status\n MNM Non- Abandoned Abandoned\nRisk Level\n Districts Active Producing New Intermittent 10/01/09 to 10/01/06 to Total\n Active 09/30/10 09/30/09\n North\n High 10 5 5 21 10 10 61\n Central\n Rocky\nMedium 11 6 8 15 10 11 61\n Mountain\n Low Southeast 15 7 8 10 10 10 60\n Total 36 18 21 46 30 31 182\n\n\nFor each mine in the sample, we determined if MNMS&H (1) assigned the appropriate\nmine operating status (per MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s criteria); (2) conducted the correct number of regular\nsafety and health inspections based on our review of the Data Retrieval System mine\nemployee and hours reported data; and (3) had documentation to indicate that each\nregular safety and health inspection recorded in its database had been performed.\nSpecifically, we reviewed each mine\xe2\x80\x99s correspondence and inspection files.\n\nAssignment of Mine Operating Status\n\nTo understand how MNMS&H assigned an operating status to a mine, we interviewed\nMNMS&H headquarters and district officials, reviewed definitions established in MSHA\nForm 2000-209 (Mine Information Form), and recorded specific criteria identified to us\nby officials in each district we visited. Based on this information, we independently\ndetermined an operating status for each of the 182 mines in the audit sample and\ncompared it to the operating status MNMS&H had assigned. We sought explanations\nfrom district officials for any variances we identified.\n\nCorrect Number of Required Inspections\n\nTo evaluate if MNMS&H conducted the correct number of required inspections for a\nmine, we reviewed criteria established in MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s business rules, and interviewed\nMNMS&H headquarters and district officials.\n\nFor each of the 182 selected mines, we reviewed and compared the operating status,\nas determined by the OIG; the number of required inspections based on an application\nof the business rules; and the number of regular safety and health inspections\nconducted, as provided by MNMS&H.\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 21 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nWe also received from MNMS&H a list of attempted inspections conducted at 2,226\nmines for FY 2010. We analyzed mine and inspection activity data for FY 2010 for 881\nof these mines that received an attempted inspection but no corresponding regular\nsafety and health inspection.\n\nEvidence that Each Mandatory Inspection was Performed\n\nTo evaluate if MNMS&H documented that each regular safety and health inspection\nwas performed, we reviewed inspection and oversight criteria established in the Mine\nAct and MSHA policy (e.g., inspection and supervisor handbooks) and interviewed\nMNMS&H headquarters and district officials. For each of the 182 selected mines, we\ndetermined whether there was documentation in the MNMS&H inspection files to\nindicate that an inspection was performed. Specifically, we reviewed the physical folder\nfor each regular safety and health inspection conducted and checked for an inspection\nevent report, inspector field notes, and evidence of supervisory review.\n\nIn addition, we evaluated whether regular safety and health inspections were reviewed\nby a supervisor prior to being included in MNMS&H\xe2\x80\x99s calculation of its inspection\ncompletion rate. To accomplish this, we selected a judgmental sample of 45 completed\nregular safety and health inspections from the 3 districts we visited, and compared the\ndate of supervisory review with the date the completed regular safety and health\ninspection was uploaded to MSIS from IPAL. Of these, only 32 had a corresponding\nsupervisory review date that we were able to compare to the IPAL upload date provided\nby MNMS&H.\nIn planning and performing our audit, we considered MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls that were\nrelevant to our audit objectives by obtaining an understanding of those controls, and\nassessing control risk for the purposes of achieving our objectives. The objective of our\naudit was not to provide assurance on the internal controls. Therefore, we did not\nexpress an opinion on the internal controls as a whole. Our consideration of MSHA\xe2\x80\x99s\ninternal controls relevant to our audit objectives would not necessarily disclose all\nmatters that might be reportable conditions. Because of the inherent limitations on\ninternal controls, noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected.\n\nWe conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing\nstandards for performance audits. Those standards require that we plan and perform\nthe audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our\nfindings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence\nobtained provides a sufficient basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjectives.\n\nCriteria\n\nWe used the following criteria to perform this audit:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, Section 103 (a) and (h), as \n\n amended \n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 22 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Title 30 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 41, Notification of Legal Identity\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Title 30 CFR Part 50, Notification, Investigation, Reports and Records of\n Accidents, Injuries, Illnesses, Employment, and Coal Production in Mines\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Title 30 CFR Part 56, Safety and Health Standards -- Surface Metal and\n Nonmetal Mines\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Title 30 CFR Part 57, Safety and Health Standards -- Underground Metal and\n Nonmetal Mines\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Title 30 CFR Part 58, Health Standards for Metal and Nonmetal Mines\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t General Accountability Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal\n Government, dated November 1999\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t MSHA Program Policy Manual, Volumes I and IV, dated February 2003\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t MSHA Regular Safety and Health Inspection Business Rules, dated March 2005\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t MSHA Form 2000-209, dated September 2006\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t MSHA 100 Percent Inspection Completion Plan, dated February 2008\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t MSHA Accountability Program Handbook, dated March 2008\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t MSHA Metal and Nonmetal Supervisors\xe2\x80\x99 Handbook, dated June 2009\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t MSHA Performance Management Plan for Managers and Supervisors, dated\n September 2009\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t MSHA Metal and Nonmetal General Inspection Procedures Handbook, dated\n October 2009\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t Inspectors\xe2\x80\x99 Portable Applications for Laptop (IPAL) User\xe2\x80\x99s Manual, dated April\n 2011\n\xe2\x80\xa2\t MNMS&H Proposed Mine Classification Status Matrix and Definitions, dated\n June 2011\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 23 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 24 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n Appendix C\nAcronyms and Abbreviations\n\n\nCY Calendar Year\n\ne-gov Electronic Government\n\nFY Fiscal Year\n\nIPAL Inspector\xe2\x80\x99s Portable Application for Laptop\n\nLID Legal Identity\n\nMine ID Mine Identification\n\nMNMS&H Office of Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health\n\nMSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration\n\nMSIS MSHA Standardized Information System\n\nOIG Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 25 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 26 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n Appendix D\nMSHA Response to Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n U.S. Department of Labor AdminlSlration\n Mine Salety and Health Administration\n 1100 Wilson Boulevard\n Arlington. Virginia 22209\xc2\xb73939 \'-.\n ,\n .\n ..\'rJ)"\n """\n \'" .\n \\\'rJJ"~"\n ~"\n J;";9...\'\n !;\';9\n , ..~.\n ~ ~,\'\n ""~\'\n \'~ .\n\n SEP 27 2011\n MEMORANDUM FOR ELLIOT P. LEWIS\n Assistant Inspector General of Audit\n\n FROM: JOSEPH A. MAIN C\\ ~ f\\ ~\n Assistant Secretary of labo;t;\\\n labo;fu,."\\\n Mine Safety and Health\n\n SUBJECT: OIG Draft Audit Report No. 05-11-004-06.Q01 :\n Response to DIG\n MSHA Must More Consistently Determine the Number of\n Required Inspections and More Transparently Report Inspection\n Results for Metal and Nonmetal Mines\n\n Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft audit report.\n report. The Mine Safety and\n Health Administration (MSHA) will use the audit results to help the Agency improve the\n monitoring and completion of Metal and Nonmetal\'s (MNM) mandatory regular safety\n and health inspections. We are fully committed to addressing the issues identified in\n your report.\n\n Below are specific responses to your recommendations.\n\n OIG Recommendation No 1: Design objective, national criteria for assigning a mine\n impl8ment a system of controls to assure the consistent implementation of\n status and implement\n these criteria.\n criteria.\n\n AGREE\n We agree with your recommendation , but it is important to note that the existing\n definitions for mine classification for MNM mines have been in effect for over 30 years.\n years.\n Since 1I became Assistant Secretary, we have been reviewing policies and procedures\n to update and improve them.\n them. As noted in your report, many mines wor!<\n work intermittently,\n some less than 1000 hours a year and several less than 200 hours a year. This creates\n a real challenge for MSHA because it is difficult for inspectors to find these intermittent\n mines in an operational status when miners are working\n wor!<ing and potentially exposed to\n safety and health hazards.\n\n Consistent with our ongoing review of MSHA policies and procedures, MNM began an\n analysis in February 2011, to develop a plan for determining mine status classification\n based on objective criteria. As you recognize in your report,\n report, this effort began before the\n\n\n You can now l ile)\'OU. WWW MSHA goy.\n ile )\'Our MSHA lorms online at WNW ~. ~\'s easy, ~\'s last. and it~ saves you mooeyl\n lasl. m01l8y1\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 27 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\n\n\nDIG audit. MSHA provided the DIGOIG the draft "Mine Status Criteria" for review and\nappreciates the audit team\'s feedback on the draft criteria.\n\nMNM is wor1<ing\n wor1dng with MSHA\'s Program Evaluation and Information\n [ntannation Resources (PEIR)\nDirectorate to develop a report (Mine Status Review Report) that identifieS mine status\nusing these objective criteria. The report will generate a list of mines and display the\nexisting designated mine status as well as the revised status using the objective criteria.\nMNM senior management will review the report on a quarterty basis to determine\nappropriate mine status changes.\n\n\nOIG Recommendation NO.2: Design and implement procedures to assure that\ninformation on all new mines is communicated to the responsible fieJd\n field office in 8 timely\nmanner.\n\nAGREE\nMSHA is aware of minor issues in MSHA\'s Standardized Information System (MSIS)\nassociated with mine identification numbers requested by mine operators online and\nwith an internal report to identify mine operators that have not submitted legal identity\nreports. MNM is currently working with PEIR to correct these issues. Additionally,\n Additionally.\nmines assigned New Mine status will be included in the planned Mine Status Review\nReport to assure that mines reporting hours will be included. Mines identified as a\nresult of these changes will receive a status change, as appropriate.\n appropriate, and be included in\ninspection calculations.\n\nIt is important to note that mines assigned an MSHA identification number may never\nbegin operating or report hours.\n hoors. For example,\n example, a mine in the South Central District\ninvolved an operator who was unable to obtain financing and never began operation.\n\nOIG Recommendation No.3: NO.3: Examine and implement ways to increase the\nprobability that inspectors will arrive for regular safety and health inspections on days\nthat 8a mine is operational.\n\nAGREE\n\nExisting MNM standard, 30 CFR \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa756/57.1\n \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa756/57.1 000 (Notification of commencement of\noperations and closing of mines) requires mine operators to notify MSHA of their mining\n status, whether temporary or permanent. MSHA will reiterate, to the metal\noperational status,\nand nonmetal mining community, an operator\'s responsibility under the existing\nstandard. Many mine operators comply with the standard by contacting the district or\nfield office directly via phone, fax, or mail. MSHA will provide additional alternatives\n altematives for\noperators to notify the Agency of operating status changes. One alternative available to\nmine operators will be a web-based reporting interface. The other alternative\n altemative will use\nMSHA\'s toll free number. This ~One Call Does It All" approach will allow a mine\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 28 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\n\noperator to call the toll free number and provide their start-up or shut-down information.\nA customer service representative at the National Contact Center will receive and\nprocess the information. MNM will explore other alternatives to assist the Agency in\nidentifying operating mines, including collaborating with state and local entities. MSHA\nwill conduct outreach activities to make the mining community aware of these\nalternatives.\n\nOIG Recommendation No.4: More clearly and completely report the actual resufts of\nits efforts to conduct regular safety and health inspections, including the number of\nmines that reported miner work\n walk hours, but did not receive 8 regular safety and health\ninspection.\nAGREE\nWe believe that our responses to recommendations 1 through 3 help address this\nrecommendation. However, MNM will report the number of completed inspections and\nrecommendation.\nthe number of attempted inspections in order to present more transparency in the\nAgency\'s inspection completion rate.\n\nOIG Recommendation No.5: Require supeNisors\n supervisors to document their review and\nacceptance of each regular safety and health inspection report before it is included in\nMNMS&H\'s computation of its inspection completion rate.\n\nAGREE\nWhile we agree with your recommendation\n recommendation,, it is important that we clarify how we plan to\nchange our existing procedure to respond to the recommendation.\n\nIn accordance with Agency policy and procedures, MNM supervisors review all\ninspection reports for compliance with policies and procedures;\n procedures; supervisors initial the\nreports to indicate that the review and inspection was conducted. MNM policy does not\nrequire supervisors to review these reports prior to the inspector\'s upload into the data\nbase. Inspectors are authorized representatives of the Secretary of Labor and\njourneyman level professionals trained to conduct complete inspections as required by\nthe Mine Act. Upon completion of the inspection,\n inspection , the inspector conducts a close-out\nconference with the mine operator and miners\' representative,\n representative, as appropriate, to review\nall enforcement actions. A submitted inspection report documents the inspection and\nthe data are entered into MSIS.\n\nIn response to the recommendation of the IG, MSHA will consider inspection data\npreliminary until the supervisor can validate the inspection report. MSHA is exploring\nways to expedite the supervisor\'S\n supervisor\'s review and final data entry.\n\nWe appreciate your acknowledgement that MSHA officials had identified mine status\nclassifications as an issue and have been working for the past 7 months to develop\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 29 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\n\n\nmore objective, data driven criteria for assigning a mine\'s status. This effort will\npromote consistency in mine status determinations and allow MSHA to more effectively\nallocate limited inspection resources.\n\nAlthough we welcome the independent analysis provided by the DIG, DIG. we would like to\nclarify one statement in your report. ~MNMS&H\n report. The draft report stated that KMNMS&H pelfonns\nthese inspections to protect miner safety and health. \xc2\xb7 Although all of MSHA\'s activities\nare taken to protect miner safety and health, -mine operators, with the\n health, Congress gave "mine\nassistance of miners, the primary responsibility to prevent unsafe and unhealthful\n mines. ~ We are concerned that your characterization of\nconditions and practices in mines.-\nMSHA\'s responsibilities may convey the wrong message relative to primary\nresponsibility for miners\' safety and health. MSHA cannot be in every mine,mine, every day,\n day,\non every shift. That is why miners are safest when operators take responsibility for\nantiCipating,, recognizing\nanticipating recognizing,, and eliminating or controlling hazards. Operators cannot wait\nto correct hazards until after MSHA cites them. Operators\' failure to recognize and\neliminate or control hazards - whether MSHA cites them or not - is what puts miners at\nrisk. A more appropriate statement would be: "MNMS&H performs these inspections to\npromote safe and healthful workplaces for the Nation\'s miners.\xc2\xb7\n miners."\n\nOn page 7 in the second paragraph you identified the Southwest District, which should\nbe corrected as South Central District.\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 30 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n Appendix E\nAcknowledgements\n\nKey contributors to this report were Charles Allberry (Audit Director), S. Marisela\nSookraj (Audit Manager), Eric Rann, Charmane Miller, Kathleen Mitomi, Cassie Galang,\nCarmelle Paytes, Mary Lou Casazza, and Ajit Buttar.\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 31 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0c U.S. Department of Labor \xe2\x80\x93 Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nPAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK \n\n\n\n\n\n MNM Safety and Health Inspections\n 32 Report No. 05-11-004-06-001\n\x0cTO REPORT FRAUD, WASTE OR ABUSE, PLEASE CONTACT:\n\nOnline: http://www.oig.dol.gov/hotlineform.htm\nEmail: hotline@oig.dol.gov\n\nTelephone: 1-800-347-3756\n 202-693-6999\n\nFax: 202-693-7020\n\nAddress: Office of Inspector General\n U.S. Department of Labor\n 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.\n Room S-5506\n Washington, D.C. 20210\n\x0c'