Waroquier Coal Company (Commission decision, July 16, 2008)

Plain-English summary

DMS Safety Services sought to reopen a Waroquier Coal assessment after a receptionist held the form for nearly a month without alerting the safety director to the 30-day deadline. The safety director then mailed a contest believing the assessment had arrived only in early April, although the receptionist had signed for it on March 11. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but urged better future controls. The Commission remanded for the Judge to determine whether DMS had authority to act for Waroquier, why the safety director misunderstood the receipt date, and whether good cause justified relief.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for findings on filing authority, the receipt-date misunderstanding, and good cause.
• Key point: Reopening required both proof that the filer could act for the operator and a credible explanation of the internal delay after documented receipt.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

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.

WAROQUIER COAL COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. PENN 2008-367

A.C. No. 36-06586-142894

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 May 8, 2008, the Commission received from DMS Safety Services (“DMS”) a letter seeking to reopen a penalty assessment issued to Waroquier Coal Company (“Waroquier”) 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 March 5, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued to Waroquier Proposed Assessment No. 000142894, which proposed civil penalties for several citations. DMS states that the company received the proposed assessment on March 11, 2008. DMS alleges that the receptionist, who signed for receipt of the proposed assessment, was unaware of the 30-day deadline and did not pass the form to the safety director until April 7, 2008. DMS submits that the safety director did not know about the delay and mailed the contest of the proposed assessment on April 17. The Secretary states that she does not oppose this request to reopen the proposed assessment. However, she urges the operator to take all steps necessary to ensure that, in the future, any penalty assessments are contested in a timely manner.

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 this 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 Waroquier’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposal and whether relief from the final order should be granted. On remand, the judge should determine whether DMS has the legal authority to file this request on behalf of Waroquier. He should also evaluate the reason why the safety director believed that the proposed assessment dated March 5, 2008 had not been received until the beginning of April. 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:

Brian D. Barrett, Safety Director

DMS Safety Services

551 State Street

Curwensville, PA 16833

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