Premier Elkhorn Coal Company (Commission decision, May 22, 2007)

Plain-English summary

Premier Elkhorn intended to contest proposed penalties but mailed the contest and its payment for uncontested penalties to MSHA's Pittsburgh office instead of the Civil Penalty Compliance Office in Arlington. The company sought reopening based on mistake and inadvertence, and the Secretary did not oppose. The Secretary noted that Premier Elkhorn had recently made the same mailing error twice before and urged corrective procedures. The Commission remanded the assessment for a judge to decide whether good cause existed and whether the final order should be reopened.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) and 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The final penalty assessment was remanded for a good-cause determination.
• Key point: A contest sent to the wrong MSHA office may support reopening, but repeated identical mailing errors call for corrected internal procedures.

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

May 22, 2007

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

PREMIER ELKHORN COAL COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. KENT 2007-266
A.C. No. 15-18370-107844

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 April 27, 2007, the Commission received from Premier Elkhorn Coal Company (“Premier Elkhorn”) a motion requesting 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 January 11, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued proposed penalty assessment No. 107844 to Premier Elkhorn. Premier Elkhorn asserts that it inadvertently sent the contest of the proposed penalties, along with payment of uncontested penalties, to MSHA’s Pittsburgh office rather than to the correct MSHA office located in Arlington, Virginia. Premier Elkhorn requests that the Commission reopen the proceeding based on its inadvertence and mistake. Although the Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen the proposed penalty assessment, she notes that in recent months Premier Elkhorn has previously filed two motions to reopen on the very same grounds of sending the contest to the wrong MSHA office and suggests that Premier Elkhorn take steps to ensure that future contests are sent to MSHA’s Civil Penalty Compliance Office in Arlington, Virginia.

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) 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 Premier Elkhorn’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 Premier Elkhorn’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., Room 2220

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