Harvey W. Buche Road Building, Inc. (Commission decision, February 7, 2011)

Plain-English summary

Harvey W. Buche Road Building missed a penalty-contest deadline after its president and consultant each believed the other would submit the contest form. The Secretary opposed reopening, arguing that an unreliable internal process and an inadequately detailed explanation did not justify relief. Buche then supplied affidavits explaining the conflicting understandings and showed that it acted promptly after receiving a delinquency notice. In the interests of justice, the Commission reopened the assessment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a) and 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28
• Outcome: The final assessment was reopened and remanded for penalty proceedings.
• Key point: Detailed affidavits and prompt corrective action can support reopening when a specific communication failure caused a missed contest deadline.

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

February 7, 2011

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

HARVEY W. BUCHE ROAD BUILDING, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEST 2010-986-M

A.C. No. 35-03260-205195

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 April 9, 2010, the Commission received a letter on behalf of Harvey W. Buche Road Building, Inc. (“Buche”) 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 December 8, 2009, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000205195 to Buche. In its letter, Buche asserts that because of a miscommunication between the operator and the consultant as to who was to contest the penalty assessment, it was never contested.

The Secretary opposed reopening, asserting that an unreliable internal processing system is not grounds for reopening. She further asserted that the operator failed to adequately detail and justify the circumstances that warrant reopening.

Attorneys for Buche then submitted supplemental authority and affidavits in support of the request to reopen. In those affidavits, the President of Buche explains that he spoke with Mr. Redding, Buche’s consultant, shortly after the assessment was received and understood that Mr. Redding would file the contest form with MSHA. Mr. Redding, however, stated that, in that conversation, he understood that the President of Buche was to check off the violations to contest them and to send the form to MSHA. The President of Buche avers that he first learned that the contest had not been submitted when he received the delinquency notice in early March 2010. Buche then promptly took steps seeking to reopen the penalty assessment.

Having reviewed Buche’s request, the Secretary’s response, and Buche’s supplemental filing,

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:

Kim Redding

Harvey W. Buche Rd. Bldg., Inc.

2949 S. Giovanni Ave.

Meridian, ID 83642

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Melanie Garris

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