Elk Run Coal Company (Commission decision, August 10, 2007)

Plain-English summary

Elk Run Coal timely contested a citation and order when MSHA issued them, but did not separately respond within 30 days after MSHA later proposed the penalties. The company said the assessment was inadvertently lost in its safety director's office and that counsel tried to file a response as soon as it was found. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission explained that a final assessment may be reopened for mistake or inadvertence when the operator shows good cause. It remanded the matter for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to decide whether Elk Run's explanation justified relief and further proceedings on the merits.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) and 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for a good-cause determination.
• Key point: Contesting citations when they are issued does not eliminate the need to respond to the later penalty assessment, but an inadvertently lost assessment 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

August 10, 2007

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

ELK RUN COAL COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2007-547
A.C. No. 46-08553-103552

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 July 2, 2007, the Commission received from Elk Run Coal Company (“Elk Run”) a motion by counsel seeking to reopen penalty assessments that had become final orders 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 June 7, 2006, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Citation No. 72550820 and Order No. 7250821 to Elk Run. Elk Run filed a notice of contest with respect to these two violations on July 6, 2006. WEVA 2006-794-R and WEVA 2006-795-R. MSHA then issued a proposed assessment covering the two violations on November 16, 2006. In its motion to reopen, Elk Run asserts that it failed to timely respond to the proposed assessment because the assessment was inadvertently lost in the office of its safety director. As soon as the proposed assessment was discovered, counsel for Elk Run attempted to file a response to it with MSHA. In response, the Secretary states that she does not oppose reopening the proposed 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) 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 Elk 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 Elk Run’s failure to timely contest the 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

Ramonda C. Lyons, Esq.

Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP

P. O. Box 11887

900 Lee Street, Suite 600

Charleston, WV 25339

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

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