Wolf Run Mining Company (Commission decision, February 12, 2007)
Wolf Run Mining Company (FMSHRC WEVA 2007-239): Five missed penalty contests sent for good-cause review
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2007, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
MSHA assessed penalties for 25 citations against Wolf Run Mining Company. Wolf Run intended to pay 20 penalties and contest five, but inadvertence and miscommunication with its accounting office caused the five contests to be missed. The Secretary did not oppose reopening those five penalties. The Commission remanded the request for a judge to determine whether Wolf Run had good cause for the missed deadline and whether the final order should be reopened.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
- Outcome: The reopening request for five penalties was remanded for a good-cause determination.
- Key point: An internal accounting miscommunication may justify reopening, but a judge must first determine whether it establishes good cause.
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 12, 2007
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
v.
WOLF RUN MINING COMPANY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket No. WEVA 2007-239
A.C. No. 46-08791-100397
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 23, 2007, the Commission received from Wolf Run Mining Company (“Wolf Run”) 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).
The Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration sent Wolf Run a proposed penalty assessment, dated October 11, 2006, for 25 citations. Wolf Run states that it intended to pay 20 of the penalties and timely contest the other five, but because of inadvertence and miscommunication with its accounting office, it failed to contest the five penalties. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Wolf Run’s request to reopen the assessment for the five penalties that Wolf Run intended to contest.
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 Wolf Run’s request, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Wolf Run’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposals 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
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., 22nd Floor
Arlington, VA 22209-2296
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
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace