Eastern Associated Coal Corp. (Commission decision, May 4, 2007)

Plain-English summary

Eastern Associated Coal timely contested a proposed penalty for an order, but MSHA then said the assessment had been issued in error and sent a replacement assessment. Eastern misplaced the second form and did not file another contest because of internal miscommunication. The replacement assessment therefore became a final Commission order. The Secretary did not oppose reopening, and the Commission remanded the matter for a judge to determine whether the circumstances established good cause.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) and 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The replacement penalty assessment was remanded for a good-cause determination.
• Key point: A contest of an erroneous first assessment does not automatically contest a replacement assessment, but the sequence may support reopening.

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

May 4, 2007

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL
CORP.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2007-378
A.C. No. 46-01271-105367

A.C. No. 46-01271-103170

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 April 10, 2007, the Commission received from Eastern Associated Coal Corp. (“Eastern”) a motion from its counsel requesting 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).

On August 16, 2006, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Order No. 7256017 to Eastern. Eastern contested the order, and that proceeding was stayed by the assigned judge. On November 14, 2006, MSHA sent Eastern a proposed penalty assessment relating to the order. On December 11, 2006, Eastern sent to MSHA the assessment form indicating the contest of the proposed assessment for Order No. 7256017. Eastern then received a letter from MSHA stating that the order had been assessed in error and that a new assessment would be issued. On December 12, 2006, MSHA sent a second proposed penalty assessment covering Order No. 7256017. Eastern asserts that it failed to file a second contest after it received the second assessment because the second assessment was inadvertently misplaced. Eastern further alleges that failure to file the second penalty contest was also a result of miscommunication within the operator’s organization. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Eastern’s request to reopen the penalty assessment.

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) 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.

Having reviewed Eastern’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 Eastern’s failure to timely contest the second penalty proposal 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

Gateway Center, Suite 1340

401 Liberty Ave.

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor

Arlington, VA 22209

Myra James, Chief

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance

U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA

1100 Wilson Boulevard, 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001