Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (Commission decision, April 20, 2005)

Plain-English summary

Jim Walter Resources operated the No. 5 Mine in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The company received a proposed penalty assessment but mistakenly mailed its contest to the Department of Labor's Division of Coal Mine Worker's Compensation instead of MSHA's Office of Assessments. By the time the contest was returned, the assessment had become a final Commission order. The Commission remanded the matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge to decide whether good cause existed for the missed deadline and whether the final order should be reopened.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b)
• Outcome: The matter was remanded for a good-cause determination and possible relief from the final penalty order.
• Key point: A misdirected contest may support reopening only if the operator establishes good cause for missing the statutory deadline.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 New Jersey Avenue, NW,

Suite 9500

Washington, DC 20001

April 20, 2005

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
:
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) :
: Docket No. SE 2005-182
v. : A.C. No. 01-01322-47081
:
JIM WALTER RESOURCES, INC. :

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Suboleski, 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 3, 2005, the Commission received from Jim Walter Resources, Inc. ("JWR") a letter from the company's counsel that we construe as a motion to reopen a penalty assessment that became 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 January 4, 2005, the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA") issued a proposed penalty assessment (A.C. No. 01-01322-47081) to JWR's No. 5 Mine in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. In its motion, JWR states that it received MSHA's proposed assessment on January 14, 2005, and that on February 7, 2005, it placed in the mail a contest of several of the orders and citations included in the proposed assessment. Mot. at 1. JWR asserts, however, that the contest was mistakenly sent to the Department of Labor's Division of Coal Mine Worker's Compensation rather than MSHA's Office of Assessments. Id. The contest was returned to JWR by February 14, 2005, but by that time, the proposed assessment had become a final Commission order. Id. The Secretary states that she does not oppose JWR's request for relief.

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 JWR's motion, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for JWR'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

______
Stanley C. Suboleski, Commissioner

______
Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Distribution:

Guy R. Hensley, Esq.

Jim Walter Resources, Inc.

P.O. Box 133

Brookwood, AL 35444

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor

Arlington, VA 22209

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001