Secretary of Labor v. Ray County Stone Producers, LLC (Commission decision, December 10, 2009)
Secretary of Labor v. Ray County Stone Producers, LLC (FMSHRC CENT 2010-88-M): Unforwarded assessment explanation lacked detail
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2009, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Ray County Stone Producers said the employee who signed for a three-citation assessment never forwarded it for action. The company wanted reopening so it could try to settle the penalties. The Secretary did not oppose relief. The Commission nevertheless held that the company had not given enough detail about how the assessment was handled or why the deadline was missed. It denied the request without prejudice.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b)
- Outcome: The reopening request was denied without prejudice.
- Key point: Saying only that an employee failed to forward an assessment does not provide the detailed explanation required for reopening.
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
December 10, 2009
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
v.
RAY COUNTY STONE
PRODUCERS, LLC
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket No. CENT 2010-88-M
A.C. No. 23-02274-192621
BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, 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. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On October 28, 2009, the Commission received a request to reopen a penalty assessment issued to Ray County Stone Producers, LLC (“Ray County”) 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).
We have held, however, 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 mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. 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).
On July 29, 2009, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000192621 to Ray County for three citations MSHA had issued to the operator on June 2, 2009. The request to reopen states that the employee who signed for the assessment when it was delivered never forwarded it for action by the operator. Ray County wishes to reopen the assessment so that it can try to reach a settlement of the penalties. The Secretary of Labor states that she does not oppose reopening in this instance.
Having reviewed Ray County’s request and the Secretary’s response, we conclude that Ray County has failed to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessment. Accordingly, we deny without prejudice Ray County’s request. See Eastern Assoc. Coal, LLC, 30 FMSHRC 392, 394 (May 2008); James Hamilton Constr., 29 FMSHRC 569, 570 (July 2007).
Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman
Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner
Michael G. Young, Commissioner
Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner
Distribution:
Earl Wilson
Safety Consultant
Wilson & Assoc.
10737 Miles St.
Rolla, MO 65401
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. Dept. 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
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace