Martin Marietta Aggregates (Commission decision, March 10, 2005)

Plain-English summary

Martin Marietta asked to reopen a final penalty assessment after the proposed assessment was misplaced during an office move. The assessment had been delivered to the company's Southwest Division Office, and counsel discovered the missed contest after obtaining another copy from MSHA. The Secretary did not oppose relief. The Commission remanded the matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge to decide whether good cause existed and whether the final assessment should be reopened.

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: An office move and misplaced assessment supported further review, but the Commission did not itself grant reopening.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES -- March 10, 2005

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW,

Suite 9500

Washington, DC 20001

March 10, 2005

SECRETARY OF LABOR, :
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) :
: Docket No. CENT 2005-73-M
v. : A.C. No. 34-01299-42432
:
MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES :

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 January 7, 2005, the Commission received from Martin Marietta Aggregates ("Martin Marietta") a motion made by counsel 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).

During November 2004, the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA") issued a proposed penalty assessment (A.C. No. 34-01299-42432) to Martin Marietta's Davis Quarry. The proposed assessment was delivered to Martin Marietta's Southwest Division Office in San Antonio, Texas. Mot. at 1. Martin Marietta asserts that on January 5, 2005, its counsel determined that the proposed assessment had been "misplaced and subsequently forgotten" in the confusion of an office move. Id. at 2. Martin Marietta contacted MSHA and obtained a copy of the proposed assessment and realized "it was delinquent in filing a contest." Id. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Martin Marietta'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 Martin Marietta's motion, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Martin Marietta'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:

Karen L. Johnston, Esq.

Jackson & Kelly, PLLC

1099 18th Street, Suite 2150

Denver, CO 80202

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor West

Arlington, VA 22209-2247

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

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

Washington, D.C. 20001-2021