Canyon Fuel Company, LLC

Plain-English summary

Canyon Fuel's safety manager instructed an employee to pay uncontested penalties and mail a contest form. The employee sent the payment but did not mail the form, causing the assessment to become a final Commission order. The Secretary did not oppose reopening because Canyon acted shortly after receiving a delinquency notice, while pointing to a previous similar office-processing failure. The Commission reopened and remanded the matter in the interest of justice, warned Canyon to improve its procedures, and directed the Secretary to file a penalty petition within forty-five days.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28
• Outcome: The final assessment was reopened and remanded for a penalty proceeding.
• Key point: Prompt action after a delinquency notice may support reopening, but repeated internal filing failures place the operator on notice to correct its system.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1710                      

September 18, 2012

SECRETARY OF LABOR, 

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) 

v.

CANYON FUEL COMPANY, LLC 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEST 2012-303

A.C. No. 42-01566-267560

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Young 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 December 15, 2011, 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).

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).

The record indicates that the proposed assessment became a final order of the
Commission on October 10, 2011. Canyon asserts that its safety manager asked an employee to
pay the penalty and mail the contest form. The employee sent a check for the uncontested
penalties, but did not mail the contest form. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen,
and notes that MSHA received a payment for the uncontested penalties, by check dated
September 27, 2011. The Secretary bases her non-opposition solely on the fact that this motion
to reopen was filed shortly after receiving the delinquency notice, dated November 28, 2011.
The Secretary notes that similar inadequate office procedures were evident in Canyon’s previous
motion to reopen, WEST 2011-1152, which was reopened on November 18, 2011.

The Commission has made it clear that where a failure results from an inadequate or
unreliable internal processing system, the operator has not established grounds for reopening the
assessment. Oak Grove Res., LLC, 33 FMSHRC 103, 104 (Feb. 2011); Double Bonus Coal Co.,
32 FMSHRC 1155, 1156 (Sept. 2010); Highland Mining Co., 31 FMSHRC 1313, 1315 (Nov.
2009); Pinnacle Mining Co., 30 FMSHRC 1066, 1067 (Dec. 2008); Pinnacle Mining Co., 30
FMSHRC 1061, 1062 (Dec. 2008). We urge the operator to take all steps necessary to ensure
that future penalty contests are timely filed.

Having reviewed Canyon’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.

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Chair

/s/Michael G. Young

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

/s/ Patrick K. Nakamura

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

Christopher G. Peterson, Esq.

Jackson Kelly PLLC

1099 18th Street, Suite 2150

Denver, CO 80202

[email protected]

Laura E. Beverage, Esq.

Jackson Kelly PLLC

1099 18th Street, Suite 2150

Denver, CO 80202

[email protected]

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

Washington, D.C. 20001-2021