SECRETARY OF LABOR, v. EIGHTY-FOUR MINING |
: |
Docket No. PENN 2005-241 |
BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Suboleski, 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 August 12, 2005, the Commission received from Eighty-Four Mining Company ("Eighty-Four") a motion made 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).
On January 28, 2005, the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA") issued a proposed penalty assessment to Eighty-Four for a citation issued to the company by MSHA on July 21, 2004. Mot. at Ex. 1. Eighty-Four states in its motion that it had already timely contested the citation, which is the subject of Docket No. PENN 2004-232-R. Mot. at 1. This proceeding is currently on stay before Commission Administrative Law Judge David Barbour. Eighty-Four states that it failed to timely contest the proposed penalty assessment at issue because of "inadvertence and mistake." Id. at 2. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Eighty-Four's request for relief.
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 Eighty-Four's motion, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Eighty-Four's failure to timely contest the penalty proposal and whether relief from the final order 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
____________________________________
Stanley C. Suboleski, Commissioner
____________________________________
Michael G. Young, Commissioner
Distribution:
R. Henry Moore, Esq.
Jackson Kelly, PLLC
Three Gateway Center, Suite 1340
401 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
W. Christian Schumann, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor West
Arlington, VA 22209-2247
601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500
Washington, D.C. 20001-2021/p>