FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW
SUITE 9500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
April 25, 2008
SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) v. ICG HAZARD, LLC |
: : : : : : : : : : |
Docket No. KENT 2008-661 A.C. No. 15-18850-135605 Docket No. KENT 2008-662 A.C. No. 15-18850-135609 |
BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan and Young, 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. (2000) (“Mine Act”).
On March 6, 2008, the Commission received from ICG
Hazard, LLC (“ICG”) motions by counsel 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).
On January 17, 2008, ICG received two proposed assessments issued by the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”). According to ICG, following receipt of the assessments, it forwarded them to the Director of Safety and Health for ICG’s parent company, who reviewed the assessments. ICG states that he determined to contest certain penalties in both assessments. However, ICG states that clerical personnel in the director’s office, through a misunderstanding, did not return assessment forms to MSHA indicating that the assessments would be contested. The Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening of the assessments.
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 inadvertence or mistake. 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 ICG’s request, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for ICG’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposals and whether relief from the final orders should be granted. If it is determined that such relief is appropriate, this case shall proceed pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.
____________________________________
Michael F. Duffy, Chairman
____________________________________
Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner
____________________________________
Michael G. Young, Commissioner
Distribution:
John M. Williams, Esq.
Rajkovich, Williams,
Kilpatrick & True, PLLC
2333 Alumni Park Plaza
Suite 310
Lexington, KY 40517
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 Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA
U.S. Department 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