Stillhouse Mining Company (Commission decision, December 19, 2006)

Plain-English summary

Stillhouse Mining asked the Commission to reopen a penalty assessment that became final after the company failed to contest it within 30 days. Stillhouse had already contested the underlying citations and said it mistakenly believed the assessment had been sent to its lawyer for handling. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission remanded for the chief judge to determine whether the mistake established good cause and whether relief from the final order should be granted.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for findings on good cause and possible relief from the final penalty order.
• Key point: A mistaken belief that counsel received and would handle an assessment may warrant fact-finding on whether a final penalty order should be reopened.

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 19, 2006

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

STILLHOUSE MINING COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. KENT 2006-488

A.C. No. 15-17165-88720

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan 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 September 13, 2006, the Commission received from Stillhouse Mining Company (“Stillhouse”) 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 May 19, 2006, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a proposed penalty assessment to Stillhouse for several citations. Stillhouse had previously contested the underlying citations, and those proceedings had been stayed by the assigned judge pending issuance of penalty assessments. Stillhouse states that it intended to contest the proposed penalty assessment but inadvertently failed to do so. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Stillhouse’s request to reopen the penalty assessment. The Secretary also adds that, although Stillhouse’s motion failed to explain specifically why the failure to timely contest the proposed assessment was due to inadvertence, it is her understanding that when Stillhouse received the proposed assessment, it mistakenly believed that the proposed assessment had been sent to its counsel, who would handle the matter.

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 Stillhouse’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 Stillhouse’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

Distribution

John M. Williams, Esq.

Rajkovich, Williams, Kilpatrick & True, PLLC.

2333 Alumni Park Plaza, Suite 310

Lexington, KY 40517

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

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