Austin Powder Company (Commission decision, September 12, 2012)

Plain-English summary

Austin Powder missed the contest deadlines for two proposed penalty assessments. In one case, its safety specialist misunderstood the safety director's instructions while management was deciding whether to contest. In the other, the specialist mistakenly believed the safety director had already sent the assessment to counsel. Austin said it would require the specialist to forward all assessments selected for contest directly to counsel, and the Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission reopened both matters and remanded them for penalty proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited provisions: 30 U.S.C. §§ 801 and 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28
• Outcome: Both final assessments were reopened and remanded, with penalty petitions due within 45 days.
• Key point: Prompt action and a concrete change in responsibility may support reopening late contests caused by internal communication failures.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1710                           

September 12, 2012

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) 

v.

AUSTIN POWDER COMPANY 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2012-416

A.C. No. 46-08921-265006

Docket No. WEVA 2012-417

A.C. No. 46-08904-267757

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Young and Nakamura, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

These matters arise under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On December 16, 2011, the Commission received from Austin Powder Company (“Austin”) two motions seeking to reopen two penalty assessments 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).

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).

The record indicates that in Docket No. WEVA 2012-416, proposed assessment No. 000265006 became a final order of the Commission on September 30, 2011, and a delinquency notice was mailed on November 15, 2011. Austin asserts that its safety specialist, who was responsible for forwarding proposed assessments to counsel to contest, was told by the safety director that he was awaiting input from the company president before making a final decision. The safety specialist noticed on October 27, 2011 that the proposed assessment was listed as delinquent on MSHA’s website, but after speaking with the safety director, mistakenly understood that no additional action on her part was necessary. On November 17, 2011, the operator learned from counsel that MSHA’s website accurately reflected the delinquency status of the assessment.

In Docket No. WEVA 2012-417, Austin asserts that its safety director informed its safety specialist that he had discussed these citations with counsel, which the safety specialist mistakenly understood to mean that the safety director had forwarded the proposed assessments to counsel for contest. Austin states that it only became aware of the delinquency on November 17, 2011, and promptly filed the motion to reopen.

The operator further states that in the future its safety specialist will forward to counsel all proposed penalty assessments which the safety director intends to contest. The Secretary does not oppose the requests to reopen, but urges the operator to take steps to ensure that future penalty contests are timely filed.

Having reviewed Austin’s requests and the Secretary’s responses, in the interests of justice, we hereby reopen these matters and remand them 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 petitions for assessment of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Chair

/s/Michael G. Young

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

/s/ Patrick K. Nakamura

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

David J. Hardy, Esq.

Guthrie & Thomas, PLLC

500 Lee Street, East, Suite 800

P.O. Box 3394

Charleston, WV 25333-3394

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Melanie Garris

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