Secretary of Labor v. Canyon Fuel Company, LLC

Plain-English summary

Canyon Fuel intended to contest a citation, a related order, and the resulting penalty assessment. It timely contested the citation but mistakenly mailed the penalty contest with its partial payment to MSHA's St. Louis payment office instead of the Arlington contest office. An ALJ dismissed the related citation contest as moot after the assessment became final. The Commission found a prompt and excusable mailing mistake, reopened the assessment, reversed the dismissal, and consolidated both proceedings. It remanded the matters for further litigation and directed the Secretary to file a penalty petition within 45 days.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: None
• Outcome: The final assessment was reopened, the related contest dismissal was reversed, and both proceedings were consolidated and remanded.
• Key point: Reopening the mistakenly mailed assessment also restored the operator's related citation contest for a merits decision.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH      

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)         

v.

CANYON
FUEL COMPANY, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. WEST 2019-0380-R

Docket
No. WEST 2020-0014

A.C.
No. 42-00089-496617

BEFORE: Rajkovich, Chairma n ; J ord a n, Young, Althen,
and Traynor, Commis s io n ers

DIRECTION FOR
REVIEW, DECISION, AND ORDER

BY THE
COMMISSION:

This
matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §
801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On October 8, 2019, the Commission received
from Canyon Fuel Company, LLC (“Canyon Fuel”) a motion seeking 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); the motion to reopen was docketed in Docket No. WEST 2020-0014.

On
June 10, 2020, the Commission received from Canyon Fuel a petition for
discretionary review (“PDR”) of the Judge’s order dismissing Docket No. WEST
2019-0380-R, a related contest proceeding involving the underlying citation to
the penalty assessment at issue in Docket No. WEST 2020-0014. Order dated May
11, 2020. In Docket No. WEST 2019-0380-R, Canyon Fuel notified the Judge of the
still pending motion to reopen. The Judge concluded, however, that the penalty
assessment had become a final order and dismissed the contest regarding the
related citation as moot.

Having
reviewed the pleadings, we grant Canyon Fuel’s request to reopen the penalty
assessment in Docket No. WEST 2020-0014. Accordingly, we hereby also grant its Petition
for Discretionary Review of Docket No. WEST 2019-0380-R and vacate and reverse
the Judge’s order in that case. [1]
We also consolidate the contest and penalty proceedings and remand for further
proceedings.

Regarding
the motion to reopen, 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 orders, the Commission has found guidance
in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which the
Commission may relieve a party from a final order of the Commission on the
basis of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other reason justifying
relief. 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).

Records
of the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”)
indicate that the proposed assessment was delivered on August 8, 2019, and
became a final order of the Commission on September 9, 2019. Canyon Fuel asserts
that it mistakenly sent the contest form for Assessment No. 000496617 along
with partial payment to the MSHA payment office in St. Louis, instead of MSHA’s
Civil Penalty Compliance Office in Arlington, Virginia. Canyon Fuel further
states that it had filed a notice of contest for Citation No. 8537643, docketed
at WEST 2019-0380-R, and intended to contest the proposed assessments for both that
citation and related Order No. 8537644, but erroneously failed to submit its penalty
contest to the correct MSHA office. The Secretary does not oppose the request
to reopen, but urges the operator to take steps to ensure that future penalty
contests are timely filed.

Having
reviewed Canyon Fuel’s request and the
Secretary’s response, we find that the operator intended to contest both
violations and the proposed assessment, but mistakenly sent the form to the
wrong MSHA office, and timely filed its motion to reopen upon discovering its
error. In the interest of justice, we hereby
reopen this matter and remand it 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.

Accordingly, 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.

/s/ Marco M.
Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich,
Jr., Chairman

/s/ Mary Lu
Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan,
Commissioner

/s/ Michael G.
Young

Michael G.
Young, Commissioner

/s/ William I.
Althen

William I.
Althen, Commissioner

/s/ Arthur R.
Traynor, III

Arthur
R. Traynor, III, Commissioner

Distribution
(e-mail):

R.
Henry Moore

Fisher
Phillips LLP

[email protected]

Emily
Toler Scott, Esq.

Office
of the Solicitor

[email protected]

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin

Federal
Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

[email protected]

Melanie
Garris

Office
of Civil Penalty Compliance

Mine
Safety and Health Administration

[email protected]

[1] There have been previous
instances in which the pendency of a motion to reopen before the Commission has
delayed a related case before a Judge from moving forward. In those instances,
the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge has communicated to the
Commission the need for prompt action on the motion to reopen. Since that
process has proven successful, we would urge Judges to avail themselves of it
in cases such as this. A Judge also can stay a related case while he or she
waits for the Commission to act on a motion to reopen.