Lang Exploratory Drilling (Commission decision, December 15, 2008)

Plain-English summary

Lang Exploratory Drilling initially said the director responsible for penalties never received a proposed assessment that the company intended to contest. MSHA opposed reopening because delivery records showed that the assessment was sent to Lang's address of record and signed for. Lang then clarified that an employee unfamiliar with MSHA procedures had accepted the package and failed to route it for a timely contest. The company acted after receiving a delinquency notice. The Commission remanded for the Chief ALJ to decide whether that internal handling mistake established good cause and justified reopening.

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 entitlement to relief.
• Key point: Receipt at the official address does not end the inquiry when the operator claims an inexperienced employee mishandled the assessment.

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

December 15, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

LANG EXPLORATORY DRILLING

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEST 2008-1314-M
A.C. No. 26-01621-140819 HS6

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 June 3, 2008, the Commission received from Lang Exploratory Drilling (“Lang”) a request 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 December 19, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a citation to Lang. On February 19, 2008, MSHA issued a proposed penalty assessment as a result of the citation. Lang asserts that the director of its parent company, who is responsible for reviewing and determining a course of action on penalty proposals, never received the proposed assessment. According to the director,

Lang had always
intended to contest the citation and the related penalty. Lang further states that on May 21, 2008, it received a letter from MSHA’s Civil Penalty Compliance Office stating that the penalty was delinquent.

In response, the Secretary states that it opposes the request to reopen. The Secretary states that its records show that it sent the assessment to the operator’s address of record and that it was signed for. Accordingly, the Secretary notes that the operator’s statement that it did not receive the assessment is inaccurate.

Lang filed a reply to the Secretary in which it states that the assessment was sent to the address of record, that it was received and signed for by an employee unfamiliar with MSHA procedures, and consequently that the operator failed to file a timely notice of contest. Lang further states that, when it received the notice of delinquency, it filed its “Notice of Opposition,” which has been treated as a request to reopen.

We have held that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessment forms 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 Lang’s 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 Lang’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

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner 

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Matthew F. McNulty, III

Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwell & McCarthy

36 South State Street

Suite 1900

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

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. Dept. of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 2220

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