Voss Sand Works, Inc. (Commission decision, October 15, 2008)

Plain-English summary

MSHA proposed penalties for three citations, but Voss Sand Works did not respond and later said it never received the assessment. The Secretary confirmed that Federal Express returned the assessment undelivered even though it had been sent to the operator's address of record. She did not oppose reopening but urged the company to ensure future penalty contests are timely. The Commission remanded the matter for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to decide whether good cause justified relief from the final assessment order.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for a determination of good cause and entitlement to relief.
• Key point: A returned, undelivered assessment can support a good-cause inquiry even when MSHA used the operator's address of record.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

October 15, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

VOSS SAND WORKS, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. LAKE 2008-422-M
A.C. No. 11-03114-136303

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Young, and Cohen, 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 May 19, 2008, the Commission received from Voss Sand Works, Inc. (“Voss Sand”) a letter seeking to reopen a penalty assessment that may have 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 16, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000136303 to Voss Sand, proposing civil penalties for three citations. Voss Sand did not respond to the Proposed Assessment. On April 24, 2008, the Secretary issued a Notice of Delinquency to Voss Sand.

In response to the Notice of Delinquency, Voss Sand sent a letter to the Secretary on May 13, 2008. Voss Sand stated that it did not receive the proposed assessment and requested a hearing on the citations. Voss Sand attached to its request the delinquency notice from MSHA seeking payment of the penalties.

The Secretary states that she does not oppose Voss Sand’s request to reopen the proposed assessment. She notes, however, that the proposed assessment was sent by Federal Express to the address of record, but was returned undelivered. The Secretary further urges the operator to take all steps necessary to ensure that, in the future, any penalty assessments are contested in a timely manner. For clarity, the Secretary attached to her response the proposed assessment and Federal Express tracking record.

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 Voss Sand’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for granting Voss Sand relief from the final order. If it is determined that relief from the final order 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

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Daniel P. Foltyniewicz

Risk Manager

Voss Sand Works, Inc.

P.O. Box 765

1900 E. Cemetery Rd.

Morris, IL 60450

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor West

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