FMSHRC Commission decision Docket CENT 2012-415-M Decided December 10, 2012 Remanded

Ratliff Ready Mix, L.P.

Ratliff Ready Mix, L.P. (FMSHRC CENT 2012-415-M): Unmarked contest form reopened

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2012, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2012
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance under 30 U.S.C. § 816; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Ratliff Ready Mix timely submitted a penalty contest form but failed to mark which citations it intended to contest. The operator discovered the mistake after receiving an MSHA delinquency notice. MSHA confirmed that it had received one sheet of the form, and the Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission reopened the assessment and remanded it for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28; 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
  • Outcome: The final penalty assessment was reopened and remanded for proceedings on the merits.
  • Key point: A timely but incomplete contest form may support reopening when the omission is promptly addressed and the Secretary does not oppose relief.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004-1710

December 10, 2012

SECRETARY OF LABOR, 

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) 

v.

RATLIFF READY MIX, L.P. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. CENT 2012-415-M

A.C. No. 41-04399-274603

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Young and Nakamura, 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 March 8, 2012, the Commission received from Ratliff
Ready Mix, L.P. (“Ratliff”) 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 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 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).

Ratliff asserts that it filed a timely notice of contest but neglected to mark the citations it
wished to contest. Ratliff discovered its mistake after receiving MSHA’s delinquency notice,
dated February 27, 2012. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen, and notes that
MSHA received one sheet of the contest form on December 16, 2011. The Secretary urges the
operator to take steps to ensure that future penalty contests are timely filed.

Having reviewed Ratliff’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests 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/Michael G. Young

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

/s/ Patrick K. Nakamura

Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

James Shaw, Safety Director

Ratliff Ready Mix, L.P.

22002 Bush Driver

Waco, TX 76712

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Melanie Garris

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

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 2012. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.