Secretary of Labor v. Lyons Salt Company (Commission decision, June 6, 2008)

Plain-English summary

Lyons Salt intended to contest three of eight penalties, but mistakenly enclosed the contest form with its payment for the other five and sent the package to MSHA's Pittsburgh payment office. The Secretary did not oppose reopening, while noting that Lyons Salt waited four months after receiving a delinquency notice before seeking relief. The Commission remanded for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to determine whether the mailing error and later delay amounted to good cause.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b)
• Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for a factual determination of good cause.
• Key point: An initial routing mistake may support reopening, but an unexplained delay after a delinquency notice remains relevant to whether the operator acted with sufficient diligence.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

June 6, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

LYONS SALT COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. CENT 2008-332-M
A.C. No. 14-00413-122218

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Young, and Cohen, 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 February 28, 2008, the Commission received from Lyons Salt Company (“Lyons Salt”) a motion by counsel seeking 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 July 17, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a proposed penalty assessment to Lyons Salt for eight citations that had been issued to the operator in March and May of 2007. Lyons Salt states that it intended to contest three of the penalties, but that the form indicating that intent never reached MSHA’s Civil Penalty Compliance Office in Arlington, Virginia, because the form was mistakenly included along with Lyons Salt’s payment of the other five penalties that was sent to MSHA’s Pittsburgh office.

The Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening of the assessment as to those three penalties. The Secretary notes that she notified Lyons Salt by letter dated October 26, 2007, that it was delinquent in paying the assessment at issue in full. Lyons Salt gives no explanation why it took four months to take action once it received the letter advising that it was delinquent in paying the penalties.

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 Lyons Salt’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 Lyons Salt’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

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Cole A. Wist, Esq.

Patton Boggs LLP

1801 California Street

Suite 4900

Denver, CO 80202

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd.

Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance

MSHA

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

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