Lafarge North America, Inc. (Commission decision, April 9, 2008)

Plain-English summary

MSHA proposed penalties for eleven citations issued to Lafarge North America, Inc. Lafarge filed a contest four days after the assessment became a final order, stating that an internal mistake and confusion about the assessment's receipt date delayed processing. The Secretary did not oppose relief. The Commission remanded for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to determine whether good cause existed for the late contest and whether relief from the final order should be granted.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The late contest was remanded for a determination of good cause and entitlement to relief.
• Key point: Internal confusion about when an assessment was received requires a good-cause determination before a late contest can proceed.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001

April 9, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

v.

LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEST 2008-311-M

A.C. No. 45-00805-130676

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 January 7, 2008, the Commission received from Lafarge North America, Inc. (“Lafarge”) a motion 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).

Over a period of several days in September 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued eleven citations to Lafarge. On November 1, 2007, MSHA issued a proposed penalty assessment for the citations. Lafarge states that it contested the penalties on December 12, 2007, and believed it had timely filed the contest. However, it subsequently received correspondence from MSHA stating that the proposed penalty had become a final order on December 8, 2007. Lafarge adds that, due to an internal mistake and confusion as to the date of receipt of the proposed assessment form, the form was not processed in a timely manner. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Lafarge’s request for 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 Lafarge’s motion, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Lafarge’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:

Karen L. Johnston, 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 West,

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