Drummond Company, Inc. (Commission decision, August 7, 2006)

Plain-English summary

Drummond had timely contested two MSHA orders, but it inadvertently failed to contest the later proposed penalty assessment for those same orders within 30 days. The related order contests were already stayed before an ALJ, and the Secretary did not oppose reopening the penalty case. The Commission remanded the matter for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to determine whether Drummond had good cause for the missed deadline and whether relief from the final penalty order should be granted.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The reopening motion was remanded for findings on good cause and entitlement to relief.
• Key point: A timely contest of the underlying enforcement orders does not itself prevent the later penalty assessment from becoming final, but inadvertence may support 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

August 7, 2006

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. SE 2006-280
A.C. No. 01-02901-83883

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 July 26, 2006, the Commission received from Drummond Company, Inc. (“Drummond”) a motion made by counsel 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 March 29, 2006, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) sent a proposed penalty assessment to Drummond for two orders issued to the company by MSHA on December 1, 2005. Mot. at 1; Ex. A. Drummond states in its motion that

it had already timely contested the orders, which are the subject of Docket Nos. SE 2006-59-R and SE 2006-60-R. Mot. at 1. Those proceedings are currently on stay before Commission Administrative Law Judge T. Todd Hodgdon. Drummond states that it failed to timely contest the proposed penalty assessment at issue due to inadvertence. Id. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Drummond’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 Drummond’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 Drummond’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

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr. Esq.

Rajkovich, Williams, Kilpatrick

& True, PLLC

2333 Alumni Park Plaza, Suite 310

Lexington, KY 40517

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor

Arlington, VA 22209

MaryBeth Zamer Bernui, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

618 Church Street, Suite 230

Nashville, TN 37219

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001