FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

December 20, 2006

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 October 16, 2006, the Commission received from Aracoma Coal Company (“Aracoma”) a motion from counsel seeking to reopen 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).

            In February and March, 2006, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued approximately 220 citations to Aracoma as a result of an investigation of a fatal mine fire. Aracoma timely filed notices of contest of the citations, and the cases were stayed by the assigned judge. Aracoma states that, sometime thereafter, its safety director mistakenly paid the proposed assessments for approximately 75 citations that Aracoma previously had contested and did not intend to pay. By letters dated July 13 and July 20, 2006, Aracoma notified the Secretary that it had paid the penalties by mistake. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Aracoma’s request to reopen the penalty 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 Aracoma’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 Aracoma’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposals 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

____________________________________

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Distribution

Mark E. Heath, Esq.

Spilman, Thomas & Battle, PLLC

300 Kanawha Blvd. East

P.O. Box 273

Charleston, WV 25321

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22^nd 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