Secretary of Labor v. Long Branch Energy (Commission decision, January 12, 2010)

Plain-English summary

Long Branch Energy's president completed a form contesting four penalties on the deadline but mistakenly did not mail it before a holiday weekend. He realized the error five days later and immediately mailed the form. After MSHA advised that the penalties had become final, the company promptly requested reopening and supplied a detailed affidavit. The Secretary did not oppose relief but urged better future procedures. The Commission reopened the assessment, remanded the matter, and ordered the Secretary to file a penalty petition within 45 days.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28
• Outcome: The assessment was reopened and remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
• Key point: A short mailing delay caused by a documented oversight may be excusable when the operator acts immediately after discovering it.

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

January 12, 2010

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

LONG BRANCH ENERGY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2009-1982

A.C. No. 46-08305-192713

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 September 29, 2009, the Commission received from Long Branch Energy (“Long Branch”) a request 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).

Long Branch states that it mailed its contest of Proposed Assessment No. 000192713 to the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) approximately five days after the 30-day deadline. In a detailed submission and affidavit, Long Branch’s president, who was responsible for filing notices of contest to penalty assessments, submits that he received the proposed assessment on August 4, 2009. He explains that on September 3, he indicated on the form that Long Branch was contesting four proposed penalties. On September 8, after a long holiday weekend, the operator’s president realized that he had mistakenly failed to mail the form on September 3, and immediately mailed the form. Long Branch states that after it received a letter from MSHA on September 21 stating that the four penalties had become final orders, it promptly filed the request to reopen.

The Secretary does not oppose Long Branch’s request to reopen the proposed assessment. However, she urges the operator to take all steps necessary to ensure that, in the future, any penalty assessments are contested in a timely manner.

Having reviewed Long Branch’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice, we hereby reopen this matter and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700. Accordingly, consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall file a petition for assessment of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

______

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

______

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Gregory D. Patterson

Long Branch Energy

P.O. Box 776

Danville, WV 25053

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