Bowie Resources, LLC (Commission decision, June 23, 2010)

Plain-English summary

Bowie Resources said it marked seven citations and orders for contest on a proposed assessment form and mailed that contest to MSHA's Civil Penalty Compliance Office. It separately paid $3,974 for the remaining citations. MSHA received the payment but had no record of receiving the contest form. The Secretary did not oppose Bowie's request to reopen. In the interests of justice, the Commission reopened the assessment, remanded it for penalty proceedings, and required the Secretary to file a petition within 45 days.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28
• Outcome: The proposed penalties for seven citations and orders were reopened and remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
• Key point: Evidence that an operator paid uncontested penalties while separately attempting to contest others supported reopening when MSHA lacked the contest form.

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

June 23, 2010

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

v.

BOWIE RESOURCES, LLC

Docket No. WEST 2009-1203

A.C. No. 05-04591-173779

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, 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 5, 2009, the Commission received from Bowie Resources, LLC (“Bowie”) a motion by counsel 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).

We have held, however, 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).

On January 7, 2009, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000173779 to Bowie, proposing civil penalties for several citations. Bowie maintains that it filled out the proposed assessment form indicating that it intended to challenge seven of the citations and orders and their associated penalties and sent the contest to MSHA’s Civil Penalty Compliance Office. Bowie states that it sent its payment in the amount of $3,974 for the remaining citations to MSHA’s Payment Processing Center in

St. Louis, Missouri. The operator further states it subsequently learned from MSHA that its contest of the seven citations/orders at issue was never received.

The Secretary does not oppose Bowie’s request to reopen the proposed penalty assessment. She notes that a payment dated March 13, 2009, in the amount of $3,974 was received at MSHA’s Payment Processing Center. However, the Secretary states that MSHA has no record of receiving the penalty contest form at its Civil Penalty Compliance Office in Arlington, Virginia.

Having reviewed Bowie’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice, we hereby reopen this matter and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R.

Part 2700. Accordingly, consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall file a petition for assessment of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

R. Henry Moore, Esq.

Jackson Kelly, PLLC

Three Gateway Center, Suite 1340

401 Liberty Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

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