Rockhouse Energy Mining Company (Commission decision, May 31, 2007)

Plain-English summary

Rockhouse Energy marked 27 proposed penalties for contest, but the assessment copy faxed to its counsel omitted one page. Counsel therefore contested only 16 penalties, leaving 11 intended contests to become final Commission orders. Rockhouse asked to reopen those 11 penalties, and the Secretary did not oppose. The Commission remanded the matter for a judge to determine whether the missing page established good cause and justified relief from the final orders.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) and 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: Eleven proposed penalties from the omitted assessment page were remanded for a good-cause determination.
• Key point: An accidentally omitted assessment page may support reopening when it prevented counsel from filing the operator's intended penalty contests.

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 31, 2007

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

ROCKHOUSE ENERGY MINING

COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. KENT 2007-280
A.C. No. 15-17651-95341 02

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 May 7, 2007, the Commission received from Rockhouse Energy Mining Company (“Rockhouse”) a motion to reopen certain penalties proposed within a penalty assessment that had become final orders 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 August 10, 2006, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued proposed penalty assessment No. 000095341 to Rockhouse, covering 43 citations and orders. According to Rockhouse, it marked the assessment form to contest 27 of the penalties proposed. However, the assessment form that Rockhouse forwarded by telecopier to its counsel omitted a page of the assessment. Consequently, Rockhouse’s counsel only contested 16 of the penalties, in a proceeding presently pending in Docket No. KENT 2006-500. Rockhouse now requests that the 11 other proposed penalties on the missing page that it intended to contest be reopened. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Rockhouse’s request to reopen.

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 Rockhouse’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 Rockhouse’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposals 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

Ramonda C. Lyons, Esq.

Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP

P. O. Box 11887

900 Lee Street, Suite 600

Charleston, WV 25339

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