Enterprise Mining Company LLC (Commission decision, June 30, 2010)

Plain-English summary

Enterprise Mining asked the Commission to reopen a proposed penalty assessment that became final when its contest was not filed on time. The company attributed the missed deadline to confusion over whether outside counsel or its safety director would send the form and to a mistaken belief that it should wait for a citation conference. Enterprise had already filed a pre-penalty contest, but the Secretary explained that this did not change the separate deadline for contesting the proposed assessment. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. In the interests of justice, the Commission reopened the assessment, remanded it for penalty proceedings, and required a penalty petition within 45 days.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28
• Outcome: Proposed Assessment No. 000183877 was reopened and remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
• Key point: A pre-penalty citation contest does not replace the separate, timely contest required after MSHA issues a proposed penalty assessment.

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

June 30, 2010

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

v.

ENTERPRISE MINING COMPANY LLC.

Docket No. KENT 2009-1409

A.C. No. 15-19116-183877

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, 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. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On August 6, 2009, the Commission received a motion by counsel to reopen a penalty assessment issued to Enterprise Mining Company LLC (“Enterprise”) 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).

We have held, however, 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 mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. 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).

On April 29, 2009, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000183877 to Enterprise, which covered Citation No. 8315960. Enterprise asserts that its failure to timely file its contest was the result of confusion as to whether outside counsel or the safety director was going to send the form. According to Enterprise, its safety director also believed that no contest should be sent until a conference covering the citation, scheduled for May 6, 2009, was held. Enterprise also points out that it had already filed a pre-penalty contest of the citation.

The Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening of the assessment, but notes that a pre-penalty contest does not alter the deadline or procedure for contesting a proposed penalty. The Secretary also urges that the operator take all steps to ensure that future penalty assessments be contested in a timely manner.

Having reviewed Enterprise’s motion and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice, we hereby reopen this matter and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700. Accordingly, consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall file a petition for assessment of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

______

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

______

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

______

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

R. Henry Moore, Esq.

Jackson Kelly, PLLC 

Three Gateway Center, Suite 1340

401 Liberty Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

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., 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

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