Manalapan Mining Company (Commission decision, December 14, 2007)

Plain-English summary

Manalapan Mining missed the 30-day deadline to contest an MSHA penalty assessment. The company said the form may have been misplaced or there may have been confusion with the mail, while the Secretary produced receipts indicating that the contest was late and did not oppose reopening. The Commission found the explanation too incomplete to decide whether relief was warranted. It remanded and directed Manalapan to give the Chief Administrative Law Judge a detailed account of why the deadline was missed.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The assessment was remanded for a detailed good-cause and reopening determination.
• Key point: A vague claim that an assessment was misplaced or confused in the mail is insufficient without a detailed explanation of the missed deadline.

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 14, 2007

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

MANALAPAN MINING COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. KENT 2008-65
A.C. No. 15-18267-115559

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 October 19, 2007, the Commission received from

Manalapan Mining Company (“Manalapan”) a letter 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 April 13, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a proposed penalty assessment to Manalapan. In its letter, Manalapan asserts that it failed to submit its contest within 30 days of receipt because the assessment form “may have been misplaced” or there was “some confusion with the mail.” Although the Secretary does not oppose reopening the proposed penalty assessment, she offers mailing receipts that appear to indicate that Manalapan contested the penalty assessment beyond the 30-day time limit.

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 Manalapan’s request, we are unable to determine from the record whether reopening this matter is warranted. In the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Manalapan’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposal and whether relief from the final order should be granted. We direct Manalapan to provide a detailed explanation to the judge setting forth the reasons for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalty proposal. If it is determined that reopening 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:

Jim Brummett, Safety Director

Manalapan Mining Co., Inc.

8174 East Highway 72

Pathfork, KY 40863

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U. S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA

U. S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Boulevard, 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N. W., Suite 9500

Washington, D. C. 20001