Omya California (Commission decision, July 11, 2011)

Plain-English summary

Omya California asked the Commission to reopen a final penalty assessment for Citation No. 8560265, and the Secretary did not oppose relief. While that request was pending, a chief judge dismissed Omya's related contest because the penalty assessment had not yet been reopened. The Commission held that the contest dismissal was premature because Omya was actively seeking to contest the penalty. It granted review, reinstated the contest, reopened the penalty proceeding, vacated the dismissal order, and remanded both dockets for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28
• Outcome: The final penalty proceeding was reopened, the contest dismissal was vacated, and both dockets were remanded.
• Key point: A related contest should not be dismissed while an operator's timely reopening request for the same penalty is still pending.

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

July 11, 2011

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

OMYA CALIFORNIA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEST 2011-604-M

A.C. No. 04-00167-239737

Docket No. WEST 2010-1360-RM

Citation No. 8560265

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, Commissioners

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

These matters arise under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2006) (“Mine Act”).

On February 3, 2011, the Commission received a motion by counsel for Omya California (“Omya”) in Docket No. WEST 2011-604-M requesting to reopen a penalty assessment pertaining to Citation No. 8560265 that had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a). On February 18, 2011, the Commission received a response from the Secretary of Labor stating that she does not oppose the request to reopen the assessment. While the motion was pending, Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick dismissed Omya’s contest proceeding pertaining to Citation No. 8560265 (Docket No. WEST 2010-1360-RM) on the basis that the penalty assessment was never contested. On June 20, 2011, the Commission received a motion to rescind dismissal arguing that the proceeding had been erroneously dismissed due to clerical error.

We treat Omya’s motion to rescind dismissal as a petition for discretionary review and grant it. We conclude that, because Omya was in the process of contesting the penalty assessment, the dismissal was premature. Accordingly, the contest proceeding in Docket No. WEST 2010-1360 is hereby reinstated.

With respect to Docket No. WEST 2011-604-M, 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).

Having reviewed the facts and circumstances of this case, the operator’s requests, and the Secretary’s response, we hereby reopen the penalty proceeding contained in Docket No. WEST 2011-604-M 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. In addition, we vacate the order of dismissal issued in Docket No. WEST 2010-1360-RM.

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

Adele L. Abrams, Esq.

Law Office of Adele L. Abrams, P.C.

4740 Corridor Place, Suite D

Beltsville, MD 20705

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U..S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Keith E. Bell, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor West

Arlington, VA 22209-2247

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

Washington, D.C. 20001-2021