Secretary of Labor v. Frasure Creek Mining, LLC (Commission decision, January 25, 2010)

Plain-English summary

Frasure Creek Mining had requested an MSHA conference on a citation but did not timely contest the later proposed penalty assessment. The employee responsible for routing assessments was terminated, and the company found other assessments in her files but never located this one. Frasure Creek learned of the assessment from a delinquency notice. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission reopened the assessment, remanded the matter, and directed 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 prior citation conference does not substitute for contesting the assessment, but a documented routing failure may support reopening.

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 25, 2010

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

FRASURE CREEK MINING, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2010-90

A.C. No. 46-09209-190396

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 October 20, 2009, the Commission received from Frasure Creek Mining, LLC (“Frasure Creek”) 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 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 July 7, 2009, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000190396 to Frasure Creek, proposing a penalty for a citation that had been issued to the operator approximately a month earlier. Frasure Creek states that it had previously indicated its intent to contest the citation by requesting a conference on it with the local MSHA office, but it did not realize that the assessment had been issued until it received a delinquency notice from MSHA. Frasure Creek explains that the employee who was responsible for forwarding assessments to the appropriate management official was terminated in August 2009, and that while the company soon thereafter searched her files for assessments and found some, the assessment at issue was never located. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Frasure Creek’s request to reopen the assessment.

Having reviewed Frasure Creek’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:

Christopher D. Pence, Esq.

Allen, Guthrie, & Thomas, PLLC

500 Lee Street, East, Suite 800

P.O. Box 3394

Charleston, WV 25333

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