Secretary of Labor v. Limestone Dust Corp. (Commission decision, January 22, 2021)

Plain-English summary

Limestone Dust timely completed its penalty-contest form and emailed it to an attorney at a firm it had used before, but the attorney was away from the firm. The Commission found that the missed filing resulted from an email miscommunication during the pandemic and that the operator acted promptly once it discovered the problem. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but urged the operator to ensure future contests are filed on time. The Commission found mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect, reopened the assessment, and remanded it for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b)
• Outcome: The final assessment was reopened and the matter was remanded.
• Key point: A documented pandemic-era email miscommunication supported relief where the operator promptly followed up and corrected the missed filing.

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.

LIMESTONE DUST CORP.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

VA 2020-0057-M

A.C. No. 44-02783-513669

BEFORE:  Traynor, Chair; Althen and Rajkovich, 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. (2012) (“Mine Act”). On August 3, 2020, the Commission received from Limestone Dust Corp. (“LDC”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment that appeared to 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).

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 May 7, 2020, and became a final order of the Commission on June 8. LDC’s motion states that it timely completed the contest form and emailed it to an attorney in a law firm with which it had previously worked. That attorney, however, was away from the firm. It appears, therefore, that the failure to file resulted from a miscommunication by email during the pandemic and was corrected immediately upon discovery. We urge operators and representatives to take proper measures to assure adequate communications during this challenging period.

The Secretary does
not oppose the requests to reopen, but urges the operator to take steps to ensure that future penalty contests are timely filed. Having reviewed LDC’s request and the Secretary’s response, we find that the operator has sufficiently explained its failure to timely contest the citations at issue as the result of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. The operator diligently followed up on the contest, and the motion was quickly filed and is well-documented. 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 .

/s/ Arthur R.
Traynor, III

Arthur R. Traynor, III, Chair

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich,
Jr., Commissioner

Distribution (by e-mail):

Diana R. Schroeher, Esq.

Law Office of Adele L. Abrams, PC

Counsel for Limestone Dust Corp.

4740 Corridor Place, Suite D

Beltsville, MD 20705

[email protected]

John M. McCracken, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

Mine Safety and Health Division

201 12 th Street
South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5452

[email protected]

Chief Administrative Law Judge
Glenn Voisin

Federal Mine Safety & Health
Review Commission

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

Melanie Garris

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Civil Penalty
Compliance

Mine Safety and Health
Administration

201 12 th Street
South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202-5452

[email protected]