Secretary of Labor v. U.S. Silica Company (Commission decision, June 18, 2008)

Plain-English summary

U.S. Silica said it timely marked two citations for contest and returned the assessment by certified mail, but postal tracking showed that it sent the form to MSHA's Pittsburgh payment-processing office rather than the Civil Penalty Compliance Office in Arlington. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission remanded for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to determine whether the routing mistake constituted good cause for relief from the final order.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b)
• Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for a factual determination of good cause.
• Key point: Mailing a contest to MSHA's payment office rather than its designated contest office may require Rule 60(b)-type relief even when certified-mail records prove the operator sent the form.

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

June 18, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

U.S. SILICA COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2008-703
A.C. No. 46-02805-117438

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 March 3, 2008, the Commission received from U.S. Silica Company (“U.S. Silica”) a letter in which it requested 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 May 8, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a proposed assessment to U.S. Silica. According to U.S. Silica, it then checked the boxes by two of the citations listed on the assessment form and returned it to MSHA by certified mail. However, U.S. Silica states that subsequent assessments indicated that the contested citations still had outstanding penalties.

In response, the Secretary states that the tracking report from the U.S. Postal Service indicates that the notice of contest was sent to MSHA’s payment processing office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Secretary further states that all notices of contest must be sent to MSHA’s Civil Penalty Compliance Office in Arlington, Virginia. The Secretary concludes by stating that she does not oppose the reopening of the assessment.

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 U.S. Silica’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 U.S. Silica’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposal 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:

Chris Bryan, CMSP

Safety Mngr.

U.S. Silica Company

P.O. Box 187

Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-0187

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., 22nd Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

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