Holcim (US) Incorporated (Commission decision, March 23, 2007)

Plain-English summary

Holcim timely contested an MSHA citation and order, but the related penalty assessment later became final without a contest. Holcim said it was never served with the assessment or had no record or awareness of receiving it, and learned of the penalty from a delinquency notice. The Secretary's records showed that proposed assessments had been sent but asked Holcim to explain why relief was justified if it missed the deadline. The Commission remanded the request for a judge to determine whether Holcim had good cause for failing to contest and whether the final order should be reopened.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for a determination of good cause and possible proceedings on the merits.
• Key point: When an operator disputes receiving a penalty assessment, a judge must determine the facts and whether they establish good cause to reopen the final order.

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

March 23, 2007

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

HOLCIM (US) INCORPORATED

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. SE 2007-154-M
A.C. No. 22-00313-101052

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 February 8, 2007, the Commission received from Holcim (US) Incorporated (“Holcim”) 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). On March 9, 2007, Holcim filed an amended motion to reopen.

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 May 2, 2006, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a citation and order to Holcim. On May 17, Holcim timely filed notices of contest of the citation and order, and the assigned judge stayed those cases pending the docketing and assignment of the related civil penalty case. Holcim states that, following the contest of the citation and order, it was never served the “civil penalty proposal,” or that, if it was, it was unaware of the civil penalty proposal and has no record of ever having received it. Holcim learned of the penalty when it received a delinquency notice from MSHA’s Civil Penalty Compliance Office.

On February 23, 2007, the Secretary filed her Response to the Motion to Request to Reopen. In her response, she states that her records indicate that proposed assessments were sent to Holcim on October 18, 2006, but that they were never contested. The Secretary continues that, if Holcim failed to timely contest the assessments, then it should explain why it is entitled to 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 Holcim’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 Holcim’s failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessments 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

Michael T. Heenan, Esq.

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

2400 N Street NW, 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20037

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

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