Secretary of Labor v. White Buck Coal Company (Commission decision, February 18, 2010)

Plain-English summary

White Buck Coal asked to reopen a final penalty assessment covering 65 citations. The company said turnover among its safety directors kept it from learning about the delinquent assessment until nearly eleven months after it became final. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but urged the operator to improve its handling of future assessments. The Commission remanded the matter for an ALJ to determine whether White Buck had good cause for missing the contest deadline, whether its later reopening request was reasonably prompt, and whether relief should be granted.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for findings on good cause, reasonable delay, and entitlement to relief.
• Key point: Internal personnel turnover does not automatically reopen a final assessment; the operator must establish good cause and a reasonable response after discovering the problem.

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 18, 2010

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

WHITE BUCK COAL COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA-2009-1314

A.C. No. 46-08365-148880

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, 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 April 28, 2009, the Commission received from White Buck Coal Company (“White Buck”) a request to reopen a penalty assessment that has 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).

On April 29, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration

(“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 00148880, which covered 65 citations. White Buck asserts that due to a turnover in its safety directors it did not become aware of the delinquent penalty assessment until nearly eleven months after the assessment became a final order. The Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening of the proposed penalty assessment but urges the operator to take all steps necessary to ensure that future penalty assessments are contested in a timely manner.

Having reviewed White Buck’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice, we hereby remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for White Buck’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposal, whether the delay in seeking reopening was reasonable,

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.

______

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

______

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Max L. Corley, III, 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

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