Muht-Hei Inc. d/b/a Campo Materials (Commission decision, April 28, 2009)

Plain-English summary

Campo Materials, a tribal company owned by the Campo Band of Mission Indians, missed both the assessment and delinquency-response deadlines. It attributed the delay to two contested tribal elections. The Secretary opposed reopening and argued that the explanation was inadequate. The Commission remanded for the Chief ALJ to determine whether the election-related disruption established good cause and whether the final assessment should be reopened.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) and 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The matter was remanded for a good-cause determination on reopening.
• Key point: A claimed organizational disruption from contested tribal elections required factual evaluation rather than immediate approval or denial.

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

April 28, 2009

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

MUHT-HEI INC. d/b/a CAMPO MATERIALS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEST-2008-1455-M
A.C. No. 04-05015-137683

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. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On August 25 and September 8, 2008, the Commission received from Muht-Hei Inc. d/b/a Campo Materials (“Campo Materials”) letters 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).

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 30, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000137683 to Campo Materials. On April 24, 2008, MSHA sent a notice of delinquency to Campo Materials. Campo Materials, which is run by a Tribal Company owned by the Campo Band of Mission Indians, filed a request to reopen the penalty with the Commission. The Secretary opposed on the grounds that the operator had failed to explain why it had delayed in responding to both the proposed penalty assessment and notice of delinquency. Campo Materials promptly submitted another letter explaining that the delay was a result of two contested tribal elections. In a subsequent letter, the Secretary again opposed reopening and stated that she believed that the circumstances do not constitute an adequate explanation for the operator’s failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessment.

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 mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. 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 Campo Material’s requests and the Secretary’s responses, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Campo Material’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposals and whether relief from the final order should be granted. If it is determined that relief from the final order is appropriate, the 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:

Brian Connolly, President

Muht-Hei, Inc.

Campo Materials

36204 Church Rd.

Campo, CA 91906

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., 25th Floor

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