SECRETARY OF LABOR, v. OAK GROVE RESOURCES, LLC |
: |
Docket No. SE 2006-24 |
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 November 18, 2005, the Commission received a letter from the safety director of Oak Grove Resources, LLC ("Oak Grove") requesting that the Commission 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).
In its letter, Oak Grove states that it received a letter from the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA") denying as untimely the company's contest of a proposed penalty assessment (A.C. No. 01-00851-63443). Oak Grove further states that it failed to timely contest the proposed penalty because the employee assigned to handle the proposed assessment was "a new employee and unfamiliar with the MSHA penalty . . . procedures [and] time frame." The Secretary of Labor states that she does not oppose Oak Grove'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 Oak Grove's request for relief, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Oak Grove'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:
Michael Blevins, Safety Director
Oak Grove Resources, LLC.
8800 Oak Grove Mine Road
Adger, AL 35006
W. Christian Schumann, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor
Arlington, VA 22209-2296
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