Hopkins County Coal, LLC (Commission decision, June 1, 2009)

Plain-English summary

Hopkins County Coal intended to contest 38 of 80 proposed penalties but attributed its late filing to an ice storm and week-long power outage. The Secretary showed that the assessment may have arrived on December 22, 2008, making the contest late before the January 27 storm, while the company said it arrived on December 29. The Commission did not decide whether reopening was warranted. It remanded for the Chief ALJ to resolve the receipt-date discrepancy and determine whether good cause existed for the late contest.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) and 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The matter was remanded for a good-cause determination on reopening.
• Key point: A weather emergency cannot explain a missed deadline if the contest was already late, so conflicting receipt dates must be resolved first.

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 1, 2009

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

HOPKINS COUNTY COAL, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. KENT 2009-740

A.C. No. 15-18826-171552

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. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On February 23, 2009, the Commission received a motion by counsel to reopen a penalty assessment issued to Hopkins County Coal, LLC (“HCC”) 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 December 16, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000171552 to HCC, proposing penalties for 80 citations that had been issued to the operator for alleged violations at its Elk Creek mine. According to affidavits from the mine’s general manager and safety director included with the motion, the assessment was received on December 29, 2008, and marked with the intent to contest 38 of the proposed penalties. However, an ice storm led to a week-long power outage at the mine in late January and early February 2009 that prevented the timely submission of the contest form.

The Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening of the assessment, but notes and provides documentation that the proposed assessment form was received by HCC on December 22, 2008, and thus was already late by the time the ice storm hit on January 27, 2009.

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 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).

Having reviewed HCC’s motion and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for HCC’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposal and whether relief from the final order should be granted. On remand, the Chief Judge should obtain from HCC an explanation for the discrepancy between the December 22, 2008, date the Secretary says the assessment was received by HCC, and the December 29, 2008, date HCC states in its motion that it received the assessment. 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:

Gary D. McCollum, Esq.

Hopkins County Coal, LLC.

771 Corporate Drive, Suite 500

Lexington, KY 40503

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