Secretary of Labor v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC (Commission decision, August 21, 2023)

Secretary of Labor v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC (FMSHRC SE 2023-0043): Unclear delivery and prompt action justified reopening

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
SE 2023-0043
Decided
August 21, 2023
Outcome
Remanded
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-07-31
Cited standards

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2023, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

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

Vulcan Construction Materials asked to reopen a penalty assessment that became final when it did not file a contest within 30 days. The assessment went to the correct address, but Vulcan had no record of receiving it and the delivery confirmation identified only "V Construction." Vulcan filed its motion on the same day it received MSHA's delinquency notice. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission found good cause and prompt good-faith action, reopened the assessment, and remanded it for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b) and 2700.28
  • Outcome: The assessment was reopened and remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
  • Key point: An unclear delivery confirmation paired with immediate action after a delinquency notice can establish good cause to reopen a final assessment.

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.

VULCAN
CONSTRUCTION  

MATERIALS,
LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. SE 2023-0043

A.C.
No. 31-01258-561300

BEFORE: 
Jordan, Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, 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. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On November 29, 2022, the Commission received from Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC (“Vulcan Construction”) 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 the proposed assessment was delivered to the operator via U.S. Postal Service on August 29, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the proposed assessment was deemed a final order of the Commission because the operator had not filed a Notice of Contest within 30 days. On November 29, 2022, MSHA mailed a delinquency notice to the operator.

Vulcan
Construction does not dispute that the assessment was mailed to the correct address. However, Vulcan Construction has no record of receiving the assessment. The operator asserts that the signature block on USPS’ delivery confirmation simply noted “V Construction,” therefore it cannot be certain who, if anyone, received the assessment. The exact method of delivery confirmation is unclear. The Secretary of Labor does not oppose the request to reopen.

We note that the motion to reopen was
timely filed. The Commission has previously held that “[m]otions to reopen received within 30 days of an operator’s receipt of its first notice from MSHA that it has failed to timely file a notice of contest will be presumptively considered as having been filed within a reasonable amount of time.” Highland Mining Co., 31 FMSHRC 1313, 1316-17 (Nov. 2009). Here, the motion to reopen was filed on November 29, 2022, the same day the operator received the delinquency notification. Therefore, the motion was filed within a reasonable amount of time.

Having
reviewed Vulcan Construction’s request and the
Secretary’s response, we find that the operator has demonstrated good cause for its failure to timely respond and acted in good faith by timely filing its request to reopen. We also recognize that mail delivery was affected by the unprecedented strain of the COVID 19 pandemic during the relevant timeframe. 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/
Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan,
Chair

/s/ William I.
Althen

William I. Althen,
Commissioner

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich,
Jr.

Marco M.
Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

/s/ Timothy J.
Baker

Timothy J. Baker,
Commissioner

Distribution:

Bryan
Moore

Safety
& Health Manager

Vulcan
Construction Materials, LLC

1090
Moore Farms Drive

China
Grove, NC 28023

[email protected]

April
Nelson, Esq.

Associate
Solicitor

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

Division
of Mine Safety and Health

201
12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202

[email protected]

Emily
Toler Scott, Esq.

Counsel
for Appellate Litigation

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

Division
of Mine Safety and Health

201
12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202

[email protected]

Melanie
Garris

USDOL/MSHA,
OAASEI/CPCO

201
12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202

[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]

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