Delta Sand & Gravel Co. (Commission decision, January 8, 2009)
Delta Sand & Gravel Co. (FMSHRC WEST 2008-1103-M): Incomplete reopening request denied without prejudice
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2009, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Delta Sand & Gravel missed the contest deadline for two citations related to a fatal accident because office personnel did not recognize their connection to the accident and did not send the assessment to the risk manager. Delta said the assessment entered its payment process but was never paid, and the Secretary did not oppose reopening. Commissioners Jordan and Cohen concluded that Delta had not explained why the assessment remained unpaid for months and denied the request without prejudice. They stated that a renewed motion should provide affidavits detailing what happened in the payment office. Chairman Duffy and Commissioner Young would instead have remanded immediately for an ALJ good-cause determination.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
- Outcome: The reopening request was denied without prejudice by an evenly divided Commission.
- Key point: Explaining why a contest form was misrouted did not explain the separate failure to pay or escalate the assessment after it reached the payment process.
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
January 8, 2009
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
v.
DELTA SAND & GRAVEL CO.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket No. WEST 2008-1103-M
A.C. No. 35-00481-131566
BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Young, and Cohen, Commissioners
ORDER
BY: Jordan and Cohen, Commissioners
This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2000) (“Mine Act”). On June 2, 2008, the Commission received from Delta Sand
& Gravel Co. (“Delta”) a motion by counsel 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).
On February 26, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a proposed penalty assessment to Delta for two citations MSHA had issued to Delta in November 2007. Delta requests reopening on the ground that the citations were related to a fatal accident, and Delta intended to contest the penalty assessments, as it later did in the case of another assessment resulting from that accident. Delta states that its failure to contest was due to office personnel not realizing the connection between the assessment and the accident, so they did not forward the assessment to the company’s Risk Manager. Delta alleges it forwarded the assessment through its payment process, but the assessment was never paid, and later Delta received a delinquency notice. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Delta’s request to reopen the penalty.
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).
While Delta’s request for relief addresses the mistake that led to its failure to return the assessment form to MSHA, its motion is silent regarding why the assessment sat apparently unpaid for months, despite having been routed through Delta’s payment process. Consequently, we deny Delta’s request to reopen without prejudice. Cf. Twentymile Coal Co., 30 FMSHRC 177, 178 (Apr. 2008) (denying without prejudice motion to reopen by operator that explained late payment of penalties but failed to address its separate failure to return contest form).
In the event Delta chooses to refile its request to reopen, we would expect it to provide, by submitting affidavits, detailed evidence regarding what happened when the assessment was routed to the payment office and why staff there failed to pay it or forward it to the appropriate personnel.
______
Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner
______
Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner
Chairman Duffy and Commissioner Young:
Having reviewed Delta’s request and the Secretary’s response, we would not deny the request on the grounds stated by our two colleagues, but would instead remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Delta’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposal and whether relief from the final order should be granted.
______
Michael F. Duffy, Chairman
______
Michael G. Young, Commissioner
Distribution:
Adele L. Abrams, Esq.
Law Office of Adele L. Abrams, P.C.
4740 Corridor Place, Suite D
Beltsville, MD 20705
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
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
Does this precedent still control your case?
Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace