FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

May 6, 2009

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 November 10, 2008, the Commission received from Fisher Sand & Gravel Company (“Fisher”) a letter 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).

            On July 3, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration issued a proposed penalty assessment to Fisher, proposing civil penalties for several citations. In its request, Fisher states that it would like to contest the citations.

            The Secretary opposes Fisher’s request to reopen. She states that the operator failed to provide any explanation as to why it did not timely contest the penalties. She requests that the Commission deny the operator’s request to reopen.

            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 Fisher’s request to reopen and the Secretary’s response, we agree with the Secretary that Fisher has failed to provide any explanation for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessment. Accordingly, we deny without prejudice Fisher’s request. See, e.g., 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

Dsistribution:

Sarah Diede

Human Resource Assistant

Fisher Industries

P.O. Box 1034

3020 Energy Drive

Dickinson, ND 58602-1034

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., 25^th 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