C-E Minerals (Commission decision, March 16, 2011)

C-E Minerals (FMSHRC SE 2010-469-M): Reopening denied for incomplete late-contest explanation

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
SE 2010-469-M
Decided
March 16, 2011
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-04

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2011, 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 2011
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

C-E Minerals asked the Commission to reopen a one-citation penalty assessment issued to Mullite Company of America. C-E said the citation had been contested but did not explain its relationship to Mullite or why the contest was late. The Secretary stated that the assessment was delivered on October 6, 2009, but the contest was not mailed until December 29. The Commission found C-E's explanation inconsistent with the record and also noted that the company did not explain an approximately two-month delay after MSHA's delinquency notice. It denied reopening without prejudice and allowed a renewed request within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. §§ 801 and 815(a)
  • Outcome: Reopening was denied without prejudice, with 30 days allowed for another request.
  • Key point: A reopening motion must give a detailed account of both the missed contest deadline and any later delay after a delinquency notice.

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

March 16, 2011

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

C-E MINERALS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. SE 2010-469-M

A.C. No. 09-00188-198565

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

These matters arise under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On March 1, 2010, the Commission received from C-E Minerals (“C-E”) a request 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).

On September 29, 2009, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000198565 to Mullite Company of America, proposing a civil penalty for one citation. In its letter seeking reopening, C-E states that the “citation was contested and appears in [MSHA’s] Mine Data Retrieval System as contested[,] but apparently was not received within the 30 day allowed time frame.” The operator further provides its defense of the violation. C-E does not explain the relationship between it and Mullite Company of America.

On March 18, 2010, the Commission received a response from the Secretary of Labor stating that she opposes the operator’s request to reopen the assessment. The Secretary states that the proposed assessment was delivered to, and signed for by, the operator on October 6, 2009. Attached to the Secretary’s opposition is a copy of MSHA’s delinquency notice dated December 23, 2009. The Secretary states that the operator did not mail its contest until December 29, 2009, and fails to explain why it did not contest the assessment within 30 days.

Having reviewed C-E’s request to reopen and the Secretary’s response, we conclude that the operator has not provided a sufficiently detailed explanation for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessment. C-E’s statement that it contested the citation is inconsistent with the record. According to the Secretary, C-E’s contest was filed more than a month and a half after the proposed assessment became a final order. In addition, C-E’s failure to explain why it did not contest the proposed assessment on time does not provide the Commission with an adequate basis to reopen. Furthermore, C-E has failed to explain why it delayed approximately two months in responding to the delinquency notice sent by MSHA.

Accordingly, we hereby
deny without prejudice C-E’s request. See Petra Materials, 31 FMSHRC 47, 49 (Jan. 2009); Eastern Assoc. Coal, LLC, 30 FMSHRC 392, 394 (May 2008).

The words “without prejudice” mean C-E may submit another request to reopen this case so that it can contest the penalty assessment.

Any such request must be filed within 30 days of
the date of this order. Any such request filed after that time will be denied with prejudice.


Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman


Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner


Michael G. Young, Commissioner


Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner


Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

Sam Holden,

C-E Minerals

P.O. Box 37

Andersonville, GA 31711

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

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