Kirby Stone Company (Commission decision, March 7, 2005)

Plain-English summary

Kirby Stone Company operates the Roach Quarry II. It asked to reopen a penalty assessment after confusion caused by the transfer of business responsibilities during a personal illness led to a missed hearing request. Kirby said it did not learn about the proposed assessment until its quarry manager informed the company, and the Secretary did not oppose relief. The Commission remanded the matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge to decide whether good cause existed for the missed deadline and whether the final assessment should be reopened. The Commission did not itself grant reopening or decide the underlying matter.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b)
• Outcome: The request to reopen the final penalty assessment was remanded for a good-cause determination.
• Key point: The Commission sent the request back for review of whether illness-related confusion justified the missed contest.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

KIRBY STONE COMPANY -- March 7, 2005

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW,

Suite 9500

Washington, DC 20001

March 7, 2005

SECRETARY OF LABOR, :
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) :
: Docket No. CENT 2005-60-M
v. : A.C. No. 41-04355-28808
:
KIRBY STONE COMPANY :

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Suboleski, and Young, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2000) ("Mine Act"). On December 17, 2004, the Commission received from Kirby Stone Company ("Kirby") a letter which we construe as a request to reopen a penalty assessment that had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

Under section 105(a) of the Mine Act, an operator who wishes to contest a proposed penalty must notify the Secretary of Labor no later than 30 days after receiving the proposed penalty assessment. If the operator fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

On June 9, 2004, the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA") issued a proposed penalty assessment (A.C. No. 41-04355-28808) to Kirby's Roach Quarry II. In its request, Kirby states that confusion caused by the transfer of business responsibilities due to a personal illness resulted in its failure to timely request a hearing. Letter at 1. Kirby asserts that it was not aware of the proposed assessment until informed by its quarry manager. Id. Kirby states that it has attempted to resolve this matter since early September without success. Id. Kirby did not attach any supporting documentation to its request. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Kirby's request for relief.

We have held that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessments that have become final Commission orders under section 105(a). Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) ("JWR"). In evaluating requests to reopen final section 105(a) orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which, for example, a party could be entitled to relief from a final order of the Commission on the basis of inadvertence or mistake. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 2700.1(b) ("the Commission and its Judges shall be guided so far as practicable by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure"); JWR, 15 FMSHRC at 787. We have also observed that default is a harsh remedy and that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause for a failure to timely respond, the case may be reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Having reviewed Kirby's request, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Kirby's failure to timely contest the penalty proposal and whether relief from the final order should be granted. If it is determined that such relief is appropriate, this case shall proceed pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission's Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

______
Michael F. Duffy, Chairman

______
Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

______
Stanley C. Suboleski, Commissioner

______
Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Distribution:

Margie Kirby

Kirby Stone Company

Box 178

Lometa, TX 76853

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor

Arlington, VA 22209

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Ave., N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001