Dennis Demers Trucking

Plain-English summary

Federal Express could not deliver a proposed penalty assessment to Dennis Demers Trucking because the office was unattended after the owner's daughter died unexpectedly the previous day. The Commission held that the operator never received the notice required by its procedural rules, so the assessment had not become a final Commission order. It treated a later December 2008 mailing from the Secretary as the operator's receipt of the assessment. The matter was remanded, with instructions to submit the assessment form within 30 days if the operator still wished to contest penalties.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.25 and 2700.26; 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The Commission held that the assessment was not final and remanded for the operator to identify any contested penalties.
• Key point: A proposed assessment does not become final when the operator was never properly notified of it.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

June 16, 2009

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

DENNIS DEMERS TRUCKING

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. YORK 2009-44-M

A.C. No. 43-00692-156127

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. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On December 1, 2008, the Commission received from
Dennis Demers Trucking (“Demers”) a letter 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).                   

However, 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 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 causefor 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).

On July 8, 2008, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration
(“MSHA”) issued Proposed Penalty Assessment No. 000156127 to Demers. The record
indicates that Federal Express was unable to deliver the proposed penalty assessment on July 22,
2008, to the operator’s location of record. According to Demers, the reason for the non-delivery
was that the owner’s daughter passed away unexpectedly the day before, on July 21, and no
employee was at the office location. The Secretary states that she does not oppose the reopening
of the proposed penalty assessment.

Here, Demers never received notification of the proposed penalty assessment as required
under Commission Procedural Rule 25.

Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that
Demers was not notified of the penalty assessment, within the meaning of the Commission’s
Procedural Rules, and the proposed penalty assessment has not become a final order of the
Commission. We also conclude that Demers received a copy of the proposed penalty assessment
when it received the Secretary’s letter of December 8, 2008, addressed to the Commission, with a
copy of the proposed assessment attached.

Having reviewed Demers’ request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice,
we hereby remand this matter 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. If the
operator has not already done so, it should submit the proposed assessment form to MSHA,
indicating which penalties it wishes to contest, within 30 days of the date of this order. See 29
C.F.R. § 2700.26.

Michael F. Duffy, Chairman

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Dennis Demers

Dennis Demers Trucking

892 Porter Brook Rd.

East Hardwick, VT 05836

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