FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1710

 

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

  MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH  

  ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

 

                        v.

 

CHARLES RECKNER, JR., employed by BUCK RUN AGGREGATES

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No.

A.C. No.

 

 

 

 

 

LAKE 2013-567-M

33-04318-299531 A

 

BEFORE: Nakamura, Acting Chairman; Cohen and Althen, 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 July 16, 2013, the Commission received a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment under section 110(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820(c), that had become a final order of the Commission.

 

            Under the Commission’s Procedural Rules, an individual charged under section 110(c) has 30 days following receipt of the proposed penalty assessment within which to notify the Secretary of Labor that he or she wishes to contest the penalty. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.26. If the individual fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.27.

 

            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 September 6, 2012, signed for by C. Reckner, and became a final order of the Commission on October 9, 2012. Reckner asserts that he was not aware that he had to contest his individual assessment separately from the operator’s assessment. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen and confirms that the operator’s assessment was contested and a Motion to Approve Settlement was filed in that case on July 24, 2013.

 

            Having reviewed this request and the Secretary’s response, 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. Accordingly, consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall file a petition for assessment of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

           

 

 

 

                                                                                   


/s/ Patrick K. Nakamura

Patrick K. Nakamura, Acting Chairman

 

 

 

 

/s/ Robert F. Cohen, Jr.

                                                                        Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

 

 

 

 

                                                                        /s/ William I. Althen

                                                                        William I. Althen, Commissioner