Secretary of Labor v. Pine Ridge Coal Company, LLC (Commission decision, August 26, 2009)

Plain-English summary

Pine Ridge intended to contest 12 penalties from an assessment covering 22 citations and paid the other ten. It attributed the missed contest deadline only to a clerical error, without explaining what happened. The Secretary opposed reopening, and the Commission found the bare statement too vague to establish exceptional circumstances. It denied relief without prejudice; Pine Ridge later submitted a sworn, detailed explanation and obtained reopening in weva-2009-1592-commission.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: Reopening was denied without prejudice, before a later renewed motion succeeded.
• Key point: A generic claim of clerical error does not justify reopening unless the operator explains the specific breakdown that caused the missed filing.

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 26, 2009

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

PINE RIDGE COAL COMPANY, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2009-1592

A.C. No. 46-07908-179891

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 June 22, 2009, the Commission received from Pine Ridge Coal Company, LLC (“Pine Ridge”) a motion by counsel 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).

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 March 19, 2009, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000179891 to Pine Ridge for 22 citations MSHA had issued to the operator over the previous two months. Pine Ridge states that it intended to contest 12 of the proposed penalties, but because of a “clerical error” it failed to return the contest form to MSHA. The operator later paid the other ten penalties. The Secretary of Labor states that she opposes reopening the proposed assessment on the ground that the proffered ground for reopening does not rise to the level of exceptional circumstances.

Having reviewed Pine Ridge’s request and the Secretary’s response, we conclude that Pine Ridge has failed to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessment. Pine Ridge’s explanation that it failed to file a timely contest due to a “clerical error,” without any further elaboration, does not provide the Commission with an adequate basis to justify reopening of the assessment. Accordingly, we deny without prejudice Pine Ridge’s request. See, e.g., Eastern Associated Coal LLC, 30 FMSHRC 392, 394 (May 2008); James Hamilton Constr., 29 FMSHRC 569, 570 (July 2007).

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Melissa Robinson, Esq.

Jackson Kelly PLLC

1600 Laidley Tower

P.O. Box 553

Charleston, WV 25322

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