Secretary of Labor v. South Ridge Granite Quarry (Commission decision, August 19, 2009)

Secretary of Labor v. South Ridge Granite Quarry (FMSHRC SE 2009-625-M): First-time conference misunderstanding excused

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
SE 2009-625-M
Decided
August 19, 2009
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-08

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2009, 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 2009
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

South Ridge held an informal MSHA conference about a citation on the same day the proposed penalty assessment was issued. Because it had never contested an assessment before, the operator mistakenly believed the conference would lead automatically to a formal hearing and ignored both the assessment and a delinquency notice. It contacted counsel after receiving a Treasury collection notice. With no opposition from the Secretary, the Commission reopened the assessment and remanded it for penalty proceedings.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28; 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
  • Outcome: The final assessment was reopened and remanded for further proceedings.
  • Key point: A first-time operator's documented confusion between an informal conference and a formal penalty contest can constitute excusable neglect.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

August 19, 2009

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

SOUTH RIDGE GRANITE QUARRY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. SE 2009-625-M

A.C. No. 09-00961-168437

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, and Cohen, 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 June 15, 2009, the Commission received a motion by counsel to reopen a penalty assessment issued to South Ridge Granite Quarry (“South Ridge”) 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).

The Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued South Ridge Assessment No. 000168437 on November 12, 2008, proposing a penalty for a single citation MSHA had issued to South Ridge two months earlier. According to South Ridge, November 12, 2008, was also the date it had held an informal conference with MSHA representatives regarding the citation. The operator states that it consequently concluded that it did not have to respond to the proposed assessment when it subsequently received it, nor to a later MSHA delinquency notice it received, and that the informal conference would eventually result in a formal hearing on the matter. South Ridge, which states that it had never before contested a penalty assessment, did not consult with its counsel on this matter until it received a Treasury Department notice regarding the assessment dated May 23, 2009. Counsel subsequently filed the motion to reopen. The Secretary of Labor does not oppose the request to reopen.

We have held 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).

Having reviewed South Ridge’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.


Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman


Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner


Michael G. Young, Commissioner


Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Adele L. Abrams, Esq.

Law Office of Adele L. Abrams, P.C.

4740 Corridor Place, Suite D

Beltsville, MD 20705

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief

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

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