Solar Coal Company (Commission decision, December 10, 2008)

Plain-English summary

Solar Coal asked to reopen an assessment issued in June 2006 so it could seek a lower outstanding penalty based on its financial condition. The Secretary argued that inability to pay is not a Rule 60(b) ground for reopening and that the request came too late. Rule 60(b) requires motions based on mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect to be filed within one year. Solar waited nearly two years. The Commission therefore denied the request as untimely.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The request to reopen the final assessment was denied.
• Key point: Financial hardship does not extend Rule 60(b)'s one-year deadline for reopening based on mistake or excusable neglect.

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, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

SOLAR COAL COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. KENT 2008-1214
A.C. No. 15-18747-089953

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 May 14, 2008, the Commission received from Solar Coal Company (“Solar”) a letter from its owner that was subsequently amended to make clear that Solar is seeking to reopen eight penalty assessments that had become final orders of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a). This order addresses the request to reopen the eighth of those assessments.

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).

In her letter to the Commission, in connection with asserting that the proposed penalty amount in a pending proceeding is more than the company can afford to pay, Solar’s owner states that “[a]fter examining past citations and reviewing the compan[y’s] financial records, I ask that the following cases be reopened and contested to a lower amount due to their outstanding balances.” The eighth case listed is a proposed penalty assessment that the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued to Solar on June 1, 2006 (A.C. No. 089953). In response, the Secretary states that inability to pay a penalty is not a grounds for reopening under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and notes that the assessment at issue cannot be reopened because it became a final order more than one year before Solar filed its reopening request.

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).

We have been presented with Solar’s failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessment. Under Rule 60(b), any motion for relief must be made within a reasonable time, and in the case of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, not more than one year after the order was entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Because the proposed penalty assessment was issued on June 1, 2006, and Solar waited nearly two years to seek relief, its request is untimely. J S Sand & Gravel, Inc., 26 FMSHRC 795, 796 (Oct. 2004). Accordingly, Solar’s request is denied.

______

Michael F. Duffy, Chairman

______

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Scarlett Biliter, Owner

Solar Coal Co.

76 George Road

Betsy Lane, KY 41605

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., 24th Floor West

Arlington, VA 22209-2247

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