Danbi, Inc. (Commission decision, November 7, 2008)

Plain-English summary

MSHA assessed $34,100 for two unwarrantable-failure orders, but Danbi said it never received the assessment because its legal identification form contained a mistyped zip code. The company stated that it had tried several times to correct the address without realizing those efforts had failed. It had also already filed notices contesting the underlying orders and intended to contest the penalties. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission remanded for the Chief ALJ to determine whether the address mistake and correction efforts established good cause and justified relief.

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 mistaken official zip code may support reopening when the operator can show unsuccessful efforts to correct it and a consistent intent to contest.

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

November 7, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

DANBI, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2008-1478
A.C. No. 46-08582-134591 H946

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 July 15, 2008, the Commission received from Danbi, Inc. (“Danbi”) 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 January 4, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a proposed penalty assessment of $34,100 that arose from two unwarrantable failure orders issued to Danbi. In an affidavit submitted by Danbi’s president, the operator stated that the assessment was never received because it was mailed to an address with an incorrect zip code. Danbi states that the zip code was incorrectly typed when Danbi submitted its legal identification form to MSHA in 2004, and that Danbi had made several attempts to correct the address, and did not realize that these attempts had been unsuccessful until after the penalty assessments had become final. Danbi further states that it had always intended to contest the orders and had filed notices of contest of the orders in 2007. In response, the Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening of the penalty assessment.

We have held that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessment forms 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 Danbi’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 Danbi’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposals and whether relief from the final order should be granted. If it is determined that such relief 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:

Mark E. Heath, Esq.

Spilman, Thomas & Battle, PLLC

300 Kanawha Blvd., East

P.O. Box 273

Charleston, WV 25321

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 Fl.

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