Dunlap Stone, Inc. (Commission decision, July 22, 2010)

Plain-English summary

Dunlap Stone said an MSHA field office instructed it to contest the proposed assessment when received and that it submitted a contest as directed. After a later status inquiry produced no information, the company received a delinquency letter. The Secretary did not oppose reopening, but Dunlap had not identified which proposed penalties it intended to contest. The Commission reopened and remanded the matter, requiring Dunlap to identify the citations within 30 days and the Secretary to file a penalty petition within 45 days after that notice.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28
• Outcome: The final assessment was reopened and remanded, subject to Dunlap identifying the contested citations within 30 days.
• Key point: Reopening could proceed despite uncertainty about the intended contest, but the operator had to promptly specify the citations at issue.

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

July 22, 2010

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

DUNLAP STONE, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. SE 2009-750-M

A.C. No. 40-00031-179837

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, 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. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On July 13, 2009, the Commission received from Dunlap Stone, Inc. (“Dunlap”) a letter from the company 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).

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 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 mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. 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).

The Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000179837 to Dunlap on March 19, 2009. Dunlap alleges that previously it had contacted MSHA’s field office in Birmingham, Alabama, to inquire about its conference request with regard to the citations involved and was informed that it needed to file a contest of the proposed assessment when it received that proposed assessment. Dunlap contends that it submitted the contest as instructed. However, Dunlap does not indicate which proposed penalties it intended to contest. It alleges that it inquired with MSHA’s field office a few weeks later to check on the status of its request and was told that there was no information yet on its case. Dunlap contends that it then received a letter from MSHA on June 10, 2009 informing it that the penalties were delinquent. The Secretary does not oppose Dunlap’s request to reopen.

Having reviewed the facts and circumstances of this case, Dunlap’s request, and the Secretary’s response, 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.

Within 30 days of the date of this order, Dunlap must notify the Secretary as to which citations it wishes to contest on Proposed Assessment No. 000179837. Consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall file a petition for assessment of penalty within 45 days of notification by the operator. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

Jeremy Thomas

Dunlap Stone, Inc.

P.O. Box 1595

Dunlap, TN 37327

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. Dept. of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor

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