Secretary of Labor v. Rush County Stone Co., Inc.

Plain-English summary

Rush County decided to contest an assessment, but its attorney mistyped the deadline in the firm's scheduling system as May 29 instead of May 28. Counsel filed on the mistaken date and sought reopening 21 days after MSHA reported the one-day default. The Secretary did not oppose relief. The firm documented a strong history of timely filings and changed its process so multiple people would review entered deadlines. The Commission reopened and remanded the assessment, with one Commissioner dissenting on reopening authority.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28
• Outcome: The penalty assessment was reopened and remanded for further proceedings.
• Key point: A one-day data-entry error may be excused when a reliable filing system otherwise exists and the firm adds a second review of deadlines.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

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.
RUSH COUNTY STONE CO., INC. |
|
|
Docket No. LAKE 2025-0270 A.C. No. 12-00103-618129
|

BEFORE: Rajkovich, Chair; Jordan, Baker, and Marvit, Commissioners

ORDER

BY: Rajkovich, Chair; Jordan, and Baker, Commissioners

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On June 18, 2025, the Commission received from Rush County Stone Co. Inc. (“Rush County”) 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 April 28, 2025, and became a final order of the Commission on May 28, 2025. Rush County asserts that that its failure to timely contest the penalty assessment was due to a clerical error by its attorney. It received the assessment and decided to contest the citations. Its counsel put the contest deadline into the law firm’s internal scheduling system, but mistyped, mistakenly entering May 29, rather than May 28. Counsel filed the contest on May 29. MSHA responded on May 30 and informed counsel that the penalty had become a final order on May 28. The operator filed the motion to reopen 21 days after MSHA responded to the contest and informed its counsel that the assessment had become a final order. In its motion, counsel represents that the firm has implemented procedures to prevent this kind of mistake in the future—multiple people will review deadlines entered into the system. 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.

Having reviewed Rush County’s request
and the Secretary’s response, we find that the circumstances leading to
the operator’s failure to timely contest the proposed assessment justify relief
under Rule 60(b). We emphasize that the operator’s law firm has implemented
procedures to prevent this kind of mistake in the future. See, e.g., Lehigh
Cement Co. LLC, 44 FMSHRC 243, 244 (Apr. 2022) (granting a motion to reopen
and noting that the operator had “changed its procedures ‘to prevent, identify
and correct any mistakes’ in the future”). We also note that Rush County’s
office processes dozens of contests to MSHA’s proposed assessments each year and
consistently files timely contests, as well as reliably scheduling hundreds of
other matters each month. 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/
Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Chair

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

/s/ Timothy J.
Baker

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner

Commissioner Marvit, dissenting:

I write to disagree with the Majority in this case for the reasons set forth below.

In Explosive
Contractors, 46 FMSHRC 965 (Dec. 2024), I dissented and explained that
Congress did not grant the Commission the authority to reopen final orders
under section 105(a) of the Mine Act. The Commission’s repeated invocation of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) cannot overcome the statutory language.
However, in Belt Tech, I explained in my concurrence that “the Act
clearly states that to become a final order of the Commission, the operator
must have received the notification from the Secretary.” 46 FMSHRC 975 (citing Hancock
Materials, Inc., 31 FMSHRC 537 (May 2009)). Taken together, these opinions
stand for the proposition that the Commission may not reopen final orders under
its statutory grant, but an operator may proceed if it has not properly
received a proposed order.

In the instant case, as the Majority
recounts, the Commission’s order became final under the language of section
105(a). The Majority, however, votes to reopen the case. The Mine Act has not
granted us authority to reconsider final orders of the Commission as I set out
more fully in Explosive Contractors. To the contrary, it has limited our
authority to do so. Therefore, I respectfully dissent and would deny reopening.

/s/ Moshe Z.
Marvit

Moshe Z. Marvit, Commissioner

Distribution:

Nicholas W. Scala, Esq.

CMSP, Chair

MSHA Practice Group

Conn Maciel Carey LLP

5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 660

Washington, D.C. 20015

[email protected]

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]

Melanie
Garris

US
Department of Labor/MSHA

Office of Assessments, Room N3454

200 Constitution Ave NW

Washington, DC 20210

[email protected]

Chief Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin

Office
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

Federal Mine
Safety Health Review Commission

1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

[email protected]