Westmoreland Coal Company

Plain-English summary

Westmoreland Coal Company asked the Commission to reopen uncontested civil penalty assessments that it had already paid. The operator argued that the Secretary had improperly increased the penalties under an interim excessive-history program later given no legal effect in related Commission decisions. The Commission held that it had authority to reopen final orders in appropriate circumstances, including paid uncontested penalties, but found that Westmoreland had not met the requirements for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) or principles of equity. The Commission denied the motion and dismissed the proceeding.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The Commission denied the motion to reopen and dismissed the proceeding.
• Key point: A mine operator that does not contest proposed penalties cannot obtain Rule 60(b) or equitable relief without showing the required grounds for reopening.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
WESTMORELAND COAL V. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19930629
TTEXT:

                              June 29, 1993

WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY :
:
v. : Docket No. SPECIAL 93-02
:
SECRETARY OF LABOR, :
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) :

BEFORE: Holen, Chairman; Backley, Doyle, and Nelson, Commissioners

                                 DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

  In this proceeding arising under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act

of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. (1988)("Mine Act" or "Act"), Westmoreland
Coal Company ("Westmoreland") filed with the Commission a Notice of Contest
and Motion for Partial Relief from Final Order, seeking to reopen certain
uncontested civil penalty assessments in which Westmoreland had paid in full
penalties proposed by the Secretary of Labor. As the basis for its motion,
Westmoreland cites Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule
60(b)"), and principles of equity.

  Westmoreland contends that the penalties in dispute were invalidly

augmented on the basis of the interim "excessive history" program set forth in
the Secretary's Program Policy Letter No. P90-III-4 (May 29, 1990)(the "PPL"),
which the Commission concluded in Drummond Co., 14 FMSHRC 661, 692 (May 1992),
and related cases, could be accorded no legal weight or effect. Westmoreland
seeks refunds of those portions of paid penalties attributable to
augmentations under the PPL.

  This case is one of 19 special proceedings in which notices of contest

and motions for relief from final orders were filed by mine operators. All of
these cases raise identical issues. For the reasons fully set forth in Jim
Walter Resources, Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782 (May 1993) ("JWR"), we hold that the
Commission possesses jurisdiction to reopen final orders, including orders in
which uncontested penalties were paid, but conclude that Westmoreland's
request does not meet the requisite criteria under Rule 60(b) or principles of
equity for the grant of such relief. Accordingly, we deny Westmoreland's
motion to reopen and we dismiss this proceeding.

  In JWR, we held that a final order of the Commission may be reopened by

the Commission in appropriate circumstances pursuant to Rule 60(b). 15 FMSHRC
at 786-89. As explained in JWR, section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C.
815(a), which provides, in part, that an uncontested proposed penalty "shall
be deemed a final order of the Commission and not subject to review by any
court or agency," does not bar the Commission from granting Rule 60(b)-type
relief in appropriate circumstances. 15 FMSHRC at 787-88.

  Westmoreland has invoked Rule 60(b)(3), alleging misrepresentation by

the Secretary in the proposal of the penalties, and Rule 60(b)(6), asserting
that the requested relief would serve the ends of justice. Motions to reopen
under Rule 60(b) are committed to the sound discretion of the judicial
tribunal in which relief is sought. 15 FMSHRC at 789(citations omitted). For
the reasons set forth in JWR, we hold that Rule 60(b) relief is inappropriate
in this case. 15 FMSHRC at 789-91. In JWR, the Commission explained that, in
a Rule 60(b)(3) motion, misrepresentation must be shown by clear and
convincing evidence. 15 FMSHRC at 789. The Commission determined that,
because the Secretary's notifications of the proposed penalties stated that
the penalties were augmented by the excessive history program, the operator
failed to establish misrepresentation by the Secretary. 15 FMSHRC at 789-90.

  The Commission also concluded that, although Rule 60(b)(6) provides for

relief for "any other reason justifying relief," it cannot be used to relieve
a party from the duty to take legal action to protect its interests. 15 FMSHRC
at 790. We held that, under the Mine Act, a mine operator is required to make
deliberate litigation choices and that failure to contest proposed penalties
is at the operator's peril. Id. Finally, the Commission concluded that the
operator was not entitled to equitable relief because the Commission is not a
court of general equity and the operator was less than vigilant in protecting
its rights. Id.

  Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in JWR, we conclude that

Westmoreland failed to clearly and convincingly demonstrate justification for
Rule 60(b)(3) or (b)(6) relief or for general equitable relief.

  As in JWR, we urge the Secretary to evaluate further the legality and

feasibility of providing the refunds sought by Westmoreland. See 15 FMSHRC at
791-92.

                                Arlene Holen, Chairman


                                Richard V. Backley, Commissioner


                                Joyce A. Doyle, Commissioner


                                L. Clair Nelson, Commissioner