RB Coal Company, Inc. (Commission decision, July 18, 1995)

RB Coal Company, Inc. (FMSHRC KENT 95-596): Late reopening request remanded for Rule 60(b) review

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
KENT 95-596
Decided
July 18, 1995
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-13
Cited standards

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1995, 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 1995
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 agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

RB Coal Company asked the Commission to reopen penalty assessments that had become final after it missed the 30-day period to contest them. RB said it mailed a hearing request on day 45 because the request card had been misplaced. The Commission remanded the matter to an ALJ to decide whether RB met the requirements for relief from the final order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). If relief is granted, the case will proceed under the Mine Act and the Commission's procedural rules.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited provision(s): 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. Part 2700
  • Outcome: The request to reopen was remanded for an ALJ determination on possible Rule 60(b) relief.
  • Key point: A late request to contest a final penalty may be considered for reopening when the record supports evaluating mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1730 K STREET NW, 6TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

July 18, 1995

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
:
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) : Docket No. KENT 95-596
: A.C. No. 15-17077-03541
v. :
:
RB COAL COMPANY, INC.
:
:

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Doyle, Holen and Marks, 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. (1988) (AMine Act@). On June 21, 1995, the Commission received from RB Coal Company, Inc. (ARB@) a request seeking to reopen penalty assessments that had become final orders of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. ' 815(a).

Under section 105(a), an operator has 30 days following receipt of the Secretary's proposed penalty assessment within which to notify the Secretary that it wishes to contest the proposed penalty. If the operator fails to so notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. ' 815(a).

RB states that it did not mail a AGreen Card@ request for a hearing until Aday 45" because the card had been misplaced among its papers on penalty assessments that it intended to pay. RB states that it is proceeding pro se and has recently implemented procedures for contesting penalties.

The Commission has held that, in appropriate circumstances and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), it possesses jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessments that have become final under section 105(a). Jim Walter Resources, Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993); Rocky Hollow Coal Co., 16 FMSHRC 1931, 1932 (September 1994). Relief from a final


Page 2

order is available in circumstances such as a party's mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

On the basis of the present record, we are unable to evaluate the merits of RB's position.
In the interest of justice, we remand the matter for assignment to a judge to determine whether RB has met the criteria for relief under Rule 60(b). If the judge determines that such relief is appropriate, this case shall proceed pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission's Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

Joyce A. Doyle, Commissioner

Arlene Holen, Commissioner

Marc Lincoln Marks, Commissioner

2

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace