Black Beauty Coal Company (Commission decision, July 16, 2008)

Plain-English summary

Black Beauty marked two assessment forms to contest selected penalties and mailed them with checks for the uncontested penalties within 30 days. The package went to MSHA's payment-processing office in Pittsburgh rather than the Civil Penalty Compliance Office in Arlington, which handles contest notices. MSHA later treated the contested penalties as delinquent, and the Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission remanded the matter for a determination of good cause and entitlement to relief from the final assessment orders.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: Two reopening requests were remanded for a determination of good cause and entitlement to relief.
• Key point: Timely mailing contest forms to MSHA's payment office rather than its contest office can support a good-cause inquiry into reopening.

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

July 16, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

BLACK BEAUTY COAL COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. LAKE 2008-286
A.C. No. 12-02010-120120

Docket No. LAKE 2008-287
A.C. No. 12-02295-120222

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 March 24, 2008, the Commission received from Black
Beauty Coal Company (“Black Beauty”) motions by counsel seeking to reopen two 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).

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 June 13, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued to Black Beauty two proposed assessments. According to Black Beauty, it elected to contest certain penalties on each of the proposed assessments and the appropriate boxes were checked. Black Beauty states that it elected not to contest the remaining penalties and forwarded payment checks and the proposed assessment forms to MSHA within 30 days from receipt of the proposed assessments. On September 12, 2007, MSHA issued delinquency notices as a result of the unpaid penalties in the two proposed assessments. Thereafter, on December 17, 2007, MSHA issued to Black Beauty civil penalty collection reports, which indicated that the penalties that Black Beauty had contested were outstanding.

In response, the Secretary states that Black Beauty’s payments for the uncontested penalties and the penalty assessment forms were mailed to MSHA’s payment processing office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. However, the Secretary states that all notices of contest must be sent to MSHA’s Civil Penalty Compliance Office in Arlington, Virginia. The Secretary concludes by stating that she does not oppose the reopening of the assessments.

We have held that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessment forms 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 Black Beauty’s request 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 Black Beauty’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposals and whether relief from the final orders 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 

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., 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. Department 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