XMV, Inc. (Commission decision, March 18, 2009)

Plain-English summary

XMV asked to reopen two final penalty assessments after missing the 30-day contest deadline. The company attributed the delay to confusion among employees who signed for the assessments and a failure to follow normal internal routing procedures. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but urged XMV to prevent future late contests. The Commission found that XMV had not provided enough detail to explain the filing failures. It denied the request without prejudice, allowing the operator to seek relief again with a more specific showing.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) and 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The request to reopen two final penalty assessments was denied without prejudice.
• Key point: A general claim of employee confusion and failed document routing did not adequately explain missed contest deadlines.

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

March 18, 2009

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

XMV, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2009-47
A.C. No. 46-08131-152112

Docket No. WEVA 2009-48
A.C. No. 46-08845-152118

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 October 7, 2008, the Commission received requests to reopen two penalty assessments issued to XMV, Inc. (“XMV”) 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).

On June 3, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued two proposed penalty assessments to XMV. After receiving no response, MSHA sent XMV delinquency notifications on or around August 27, 2008, for the two penalty assessments at issue. According to James F. Bowman, who filed the requests to reopen,

XMV
failed to timely respond to the proposed penalty assessments because of confusion among those office employees signing for the assessments and the failure to use normal internal document routing procedures, resulting in the failure of the documents to reach the proper offices on a timely basis.

The Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening of the assessments. She urges the operator to take all steps necessary to ensure that future penalty assessment contests are filed in a timely manner.

We have held 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).

Having reviewed XMV’s request and the Secretary’s response, we conclude that XMV has failed to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessments. Accordingly, we deny without prejudice XMV’s request.

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:

James F. Bowman

Extra Energy, Inc.

P.O. Box 99

Midway, WV 26878

Myra James, Chief

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance

MSHA

U.S. Dept. of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Douglas N. White, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor West

Arlington, VA 22209-2247

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