FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710

 

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH       

 ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)         

 

                        v.

 

DRAGON PRODUCTS COMPANY, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 

 

 

Docket No. YORK 2022-0016

A.C. No. 17-00022-539342

 

 

 

 

BEFORE: Jordan, Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, and Baker, 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. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On December 22, 2021, the Commission received from Dragon Products Company, LLC (“Dragon”) a motion 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).

 

            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 August 11, 2021, and became a final order of the Commission on September 10, 2021. On September 22, 2021, MSHA received partial payment of the assessment. On November 23, 2021, a delinquency notification was mailed to the operator.

 

Dragon asserts that its contest of the assessment was timely mailed through certified mail, return receipt requested. However, MSHA did not have a record of receiving the contest of the assessment. Subsequently, Dragon tried to check with the postal service on the status of the contest but was informed that the tracking number for the package which contained its contest had expired. Dragon believes the postal service failed to properly deliver its contest. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen, but urges the operator to take steps to ensure that future penalty contests are timely filed.

 

            In addition, we note that the motion to reopen was timely filed. The Commission has previously held that “[m]otions to reopen received within 30 days of an operator’s receipt of its first notice from MSHA that it has failed to timely file a notice of contest will be presumptively considered as having been filed within a reasonable amount of time.” Highland Mining Co., 31 FMSHRC 1313, 1316-17 (Nov. 2009). Here, the motion to reopen was filed on December 22, 2021, within 30 days of the operator’s receipt of the delinquency notification, mailed on November 23.

 

            Having reviewed Dragon’s request and the Secretary’s response, we find that Dragon acted in good faith. We note that the Secretary does not dispute Dragon’s assertion that the operator timely mailed its contest of the assessment. Dragon took precautions in sending the contest of the assessment by certified mail, return receipt requested, and tried to provide tracking information for its contest of the assessment. Dragon also timely filed its request to reopen.

 

 

 

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/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Chair

 

 

 

 

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

 

 

 

 

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

 

 

 

 

/s/ Timothy J. Baker

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner

 

 

 

 

Distribution:

C. Gregory Ruffennach

Attorney-at-Law

1629 K Street, N.W., STE 300

Washington, DC 20036

greg@ruffennachlaw.com

 

April Nelson, Esq.

Associate Solicitor

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

Division of Mine Safety and Health

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

Nelson.April@dol.gov

 

Emily Toler Scott, Esq.

Counsel for Appellate Litigation

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

Division of Mine Safety and Health

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

scott.emily.t@dol.gov

 

Melanie Garris

USDOL/MSHA, OAASEI/CPCO

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

Garris.Melanie@DOL.GOV

 

Chief Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin

Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

GVoisin@fmshrc.gov