**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.

 

CARMEUSE  LIME AND STONE, INC.                                       | :

:

:

:

:

:

: |  

 

 

Docket  No. LAKE 2023-0074

A.C.  No. 12-00426-566346 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

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 January 26, 2023, the Commission receivedfrom Carmeuse Lime and Stone, Inc. (“Carmeuse”) 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 November 16, 2022, andbecame a final order of the Commission on December 16, 2022. Carmeuse assertsthat it timely filed Notices of Contest with the Commission for three ofthirteen penalties at issue.[1]When MSHA issued the proposed assessment, Carmeuse’s Senior Area Safety andHealth Manager was on vacation. He did not receive a paper copy of theassessment (receiving an electronic version instead) and, upon his return, hemistakenly failed to file a timely contest. However, Carmeuse diligentlymonitored MSHA’s website and quickly learned that the citations had becomefinal orders. Carmeuse then promptly filed a motion to reopen prior to theissuance of a delinquency notice. 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.[2]

 

            HavingreviewedCarmeuse’s requestand the Secretary’s response, we find that the operator clearlyexpressed its intent to contest the citations by initiating contest proceedingswith the Commission and that Carmeuse’s failure to timely file a contest withMSHA was due to inadvertence or mistake within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(1). *AsarcoLLC*, 42 FMSHRC 308, 310 (Apr. 2020). Moreover, Carmeuse diligentlymonitored MSHA’s website to assess the status of the penalties and took promptaction to file a motion to reopen after it discovered its mistake. 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:

 
| Arthur  M. Wolfson, Esq.

Fisher  & Phillips LLP

6  PPG Place, Suite 830

Pittsburgh,  PA 15222

awolfson@fisherphillips.com

 

R,  Henry Moore, Esq.

Fisher  & Phillips LLP

6  PPG Place, Suite 830

Pittsburgh,  PA 15222

hmoore@fisherphillips.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

  | Patrick  W. Dennison, Esq.

Fisher  & Phillips LLP

6  PPG Place, Suite 830

Pittsburgh,  PA 15222

pdennison@fisherphillips.com

  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

----

[1] The ContestProceedings are docketed as LAKE 2023-005, LAKE 2023-0008, and LAKE 2023-0009. 

 

[2] According toCarmeuse, its Senior Area Safety and Health Manager is responsible for reviewingand contesting all proposed penalties received at 12 of the operator’s mines. Giventhe importance of this position in the contesting process, we urge Carmeuse toensure backup procedures are in place for receiving proposed penalties when themanager is unavailable.