FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW
SUITE 9500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
August 26, 2010
SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) v. ONSITE KRUSHING COMPANY |
: : : : : : : |
|
BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, 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 February 23, 2010, the Commission received from Onsite Krushing Company (“OK”) 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).
The Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000175611 to OK on February 4, 2009, proposing penalties for 15 citations that had been issued to the operator. OK states that it never received the proposed assessment and alleges that it was sent to an incorrect address. The Secretary of Labor does not oppose reopening, but states that because it sends assessments to the Address of Record on an operator’s Legal Identity Report, it is incumbent upon operators to update MSHA when that address changes.
Having reviewed OK’s request and the Secretary’s response, we conclude that because
OK apparently never received the proposed assessment there is no final order and therefore that
OK’s request to reopen is moot.
Accordingly, this matter is remanded 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. 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
____________________________________
Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner
Distribution:
Raffie Yeremian, Project Mgr.
Onsite Krushing Company
P.O. Box 309
Brea, CA 92822
W. Christian Schumann, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor
Arlington, VA 22209-2296
Myra James, Chief
Office of the Penalty Compliance
U.S. Dept. of Labor, MSHA
1100 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22209
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