Secretary of Labor v. Heidelberg Materials Midwest Agg. Inc. (Commission decision, July 17, 2026)

Plain-English summary

Heidelberg Materials received a proposed civil penalty assessment and later learned that its payment check had not reached MSHA, so the assessment became a final Commission order when no Notice of Contest appeared within 30 days. The company requested reopening after the check was returned and reissued. Because MSHA had received the full payment and the company did not seek to contest the violations, the Commission held that the motion to reopen was moot and dismissed the proceeding.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.; 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The motion to reopen was dismissed as moot after full payment of the penalty.
• Key point: The Commission did not reach reopening under Rule 60(b) because the penalty had been paid in full and no contest remained.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Commission Order (Heidelberg Materials Midwest Agg. Inc.) LAKE 2025-0260 FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710

July 17, 2026

SECRETARY OF LABOR
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.
HEIDELBERG MATERIALS MIDWEST AGG. INC.

Docket No. LAKE 2025-0260
A.C. No. 11-00070-614881

BEFORE: Rajkovich, Chair; Jordan, 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. (2024) (“Mine Act”). On June 3, 2025, the Commission received from Heidelberg Materials Midwest Agg. Inc. (“Heidelberg Materials”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment that had appeared to become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).
On February 25, 2025, Heidelberg Materials received a proposed penalty assessment from the Secretary. On March 27, 2025, the proposed assessment was deemed a final order of the Commission, when it appeared that the operator had not filed a Notice of Contest within 30 days.

Heidelberg Materials asserts that it requested on February 11, 2025 that its corporate office issue a check for this statement. The request was approved and sent, but
apparently never received by MSHA. It came to the operator’s attention that the check was not received when it received a letter on May 19, 2025. Upon receiving the letter, Heidelberg checked shipment tracking and saw that the check was returned to its corporate office. It then sought to have the check re-issued. MSHA has since received the check, and the payment was received in full. The Secretary argues that the motion to reopen is moot because the operator has paid the penalty in full and does not seek to pursue contesting the violations.
Having reviewed Heidelberg Materials’ request and the Secretary’s response, we conclude that the operator has paid the penalty in full, which obviates any need to invoke Rule
60(b). Accordingly, the operator’s motion to reopen is moot and this proceeding dismissed.

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner
Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Chair

Distribution:

Scott Peters
Heidelberg Materials Agg. Inc. Romeoville Quarry-U836
125 N. Independence Blvd. Romeoville, IL 60446 [email protected]

Jennifer A. Ledig, Esq. Alexandra J. Gilewicz, Esq. Thomas A. Paige, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
Division of Mine Safety and Health
200 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite N4428 Washington, DC 20210 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Melanie Garris
US Department of Labor/MSHA Office of Assessments, Room N3454 200 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20210 [email protected] [email protected]

Acting Chief Judge David P. Simonton
Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N Washington, DC 20004-1710 [email protected]