Pritchard Mining Company, Inc. (Commission decision, June 16, 2010)

Plain-English summary

Pritchard Mining asked the Commission to reopen a proposed assessment after stating that it had timely contested the underlying citations but did not receive the later penalty form because of an unspecified error. The Secretary opposed reopening because the company did not explain the missed contest deadline or its long delay after receiving a delinquency notice. The Commission agreed that the request lacked an adequate factual basis. It denied reopening without prejudice. Pritchard Mining received 30 days to submit an amended or renewed request, after which any request would be denied with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a) and 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b)
• Outcome: The reopening request was denied without prejudice, with 30 days allowed for a supported renewed request.
• Key point: A general claim of inadvertent error does not justify reopening without an explanation for both the missed deadline and the later delay.

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

June 16, 2010

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

v.

PRITCHARD MINING COMPANY, INC.

Docket No. WEVA 2009-1708

A.C. No. 46-08596-168603

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, 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 July 23, 2009, the Commission received from Pritchard Mining Company, Inc. (“Pritchard Mining”) a motion by counsel seeking 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 November 12, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000168603 to Pritchard Mining. MSHA asserts that the proposed assessment was delivered by U.S. Postal Service on November 24, 2008. On February 9, 2009, MSHA sent a delinquency notice to Pritchard Mining. In its motion, Pritchard Mining states that it timely contested the underlying citations that are the subject of the proposed assessment it now seeks to reopen. Pritchard Mining explains that due to an unspecified “inadvertent error,” it did not receive the proposed assessment.

The Secretary opposes the request to reopen and states that the operator has failed to explain why it did not contest the proposed assessment in a timely manner. She also maintains that the operator failed to explain the long delay in filing its request to reopen after it had been notified of the delinquency.

Having reviewed Pritchard Mining’s request to reopen and the Secretary’s response, we agree with the Secretary that Pritchard Mining has failed to provide an explanation for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessment. Pritchard Mining has submitted no justifications for its failure to contest the proposed penalty within 30 days of receiving it and therefore has not provided the Commission with an adequate basis to reopen. Accordingly, we deny without prejudice Pritchard Mining’s request. See, e.g., BRS Inc., 30 FMSHRC 626, 628 (July 2008); Eastern Assoc. Coal, LLC, 30 FMSHRC 392, 394 (May 2008).

Any amended or
renewed request by Pritchard Mining to reopen Assessment No. 000168603 must be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. Any such request filed after that time will be denied with prejudice.

______

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

______

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner    

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

______

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner            

Distribution:

Rebecca J. Oblak, Esq.

Bowles, Rice, McDavid,

Graff & Love, LLP

7000 Hampton Center, Suite K

Morgantown, WV 26505

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