Wabash Mine Holding Company (Commission decision, April 21, 2008)

Plain-English summary

MSHA proposed penalties for three citations issued to Wabash Mine Holding Company. Wabash had contested the underlying citations, but a new employee in the safety director's office did not understand that the proposed penalties required separate contests and believed they were already covered. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission remanded the assessment for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to determine whether good cause existed for the missed deadline and whether relief from the final order should be granted.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The request to reopen penalties for three citations was remanded for a determination of good cause and entitlement to relief.
• Key point: Contesting underlying citations does not itself contest a later 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

April 21, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

WABASH MINE HOLDING COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. LAKE 2008-268
A.C. No. 11-00877-131860

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 March 14, 2008, the Commission received from Wabash Mine Holding Company (“Wabash”) a motion by counsel 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 November 15, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued to Wabash proposed penalties for three citations. According to Wabash, it had previously filed contests to challenge the underlying citations. Wabash further states that a new employee in the office of its safety director did not understand that the proposed penalties had to be contested separately from the citations. Therefore, Wabash states that the employee believed that the penalties had been contested. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Wabash’s motion to reopen the assessment.

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 Wabash’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 Wabash’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposal 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:

Arthur M. Wolfson, Esq.

R. Henry Moore, Esq.

Jackson Kelly, PLLC

Three Gateway Center

401 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1340

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor West

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