KWV Operations, LLC (Commission decision, June 24, 2009)

KWV Operations, LLC (FMSHRC WEVA 2009-1038 and WEVA 2009-1039): Reopening explanation lacked detail

Decision type
Commission decision
Dockets
WEVA 2009-1038, WEVA 2009-1039
Decided
June 24, 2009
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-08

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2009, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2009
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance under 30 U.S.C. § 816; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

KWV Operations' vice president marked the penalties he intended to contest and forwarded the assessments to the corporate office. The company said only that mistake or inadvertence caused the office not to return the contests to MSHA on time. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission found the explanation too conclusory to establish good cause and denied both requests without prejudice.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) and 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
  • Outcome: Requests to reopen two final assessments were denied without prejudice.
  • Key point: A bare claim of mistake or inadvertence does not provide enough detail to justify reopening a final assessment.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

June 24, 2009

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

KWV OPERATIONS, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2009-1038

A.C. No. 46-08122-170790

Docket No. WEVA 2009-1039

A.C. No. 46-08904-170801

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Young, and Cohen, 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 March 25, 2009, the Commission received from KWV
Operations, LLC (“KWV”) motions 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).

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).

KWV states that its vice president received the assessments and marked the citations that he intended to contest and then forwarded them to KWV’s corporate office. KWV further asserts that through “inadvertence or mistake” the assessments were not timely returned to MSHA. The Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening of the proposed penalty assessment.

Having reviewed KWV’s motions and the Secretary’s response, we conclude that KWV has not provided a sufficiently detailed explanation for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessments. KWV’s conclusory statement that its corporate office failed to timely file the contests because of “mistake or inadvertence” does not provide the Commission with an adequate basis to justify reopening. Accordingly, we deny the requests for relief without prejudice.

See Eastern Associated Coal, LLC, 30 FMSHRC 392, 394 (May 2008); James Hamilton Constr., 29 FMSHRC 569, 570 (July 2007).


Michael F. Duffy, Chairman


Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner


Michael G. Young, Commissioner


Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Billy R. Shelton, Esq.

Jones, Walters, Turner & Shelton PLLC

151 N. Eagle Creek Drive, Suite 310

Lexington, KY 40509

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief

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

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