Canyon Fuel Company, LLC (Commission decision, December 26, 2007)

Plain-English summary

MSHA proposed $59,392 in penalties after issuing Canyon Fuel Company numerous citations during a regular safety inspection. Canyon's safety manager mistakenly believed he had filed a timely contest, but no contest was submitted before the assessment became final. The company moved to reopen after receiving notice of the outstanding balance, and the Secretary did not oppose. The Commission remanded for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to decide whether the mistake established good cause and justified reopening the final order.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The $59,392 assessment was remanded for a good-cause and reopening determination.
• Key point: A safety manager's mistaken belief that a contest was filed requires a factual good-cause determination before a final assessment can be reopened.

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 26, 2007

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

CANYON FUEL COMPANY, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEST 2008-168
A.C. No. 42-01890-123921

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 November 19, 2007, the Commission received from

Canyon Fuel Company, LLC (“Canyon”) a motion 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 9, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued numerous citations to Canyon after a regular safety inspection. On August 2, MSHA issued an assessment with proposed penalties of $59,392, as a result of the previously issued citations. In its motion, Canyon states that its safety manager erroneously believed that he had timely filed a contest of the penalties. However, Canyon states that, due to his mistake, the contest of the penalties was never timely submitted. On November 6, Canyon received a letter notifying it that the proposed assessment was a final order and that Canyon had an outstanding balance of $59,392. In response, the Secretary states that she does not oppose Canyon’s request to reopen.

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 Canyon’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 Canyon’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

Distribution:

Laura E. Beverage, Esq.

Jackson Kelly, PLLC

1099 18th Street, Suite 2150

Denver, CO 80202

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. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

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