Secretary of Labor v. Road & Rail Services

Plain-English summary

Road & Rail missed a penalty contest deadline after several problems converged, including a missing copy of the citation, illness of its safety director, difficulty interviewing involved people, and the Thanksgiving holiday. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but urged the operator to prevent future late filings. The Commission found good cause because the operator moved to reopen immediately after recognizing the missed deadline, showing a good-faith effort to comply. It reopened Citation No. 9704936 and remanded the case for further proceedings. Commissioner Marvit dissented because he believes the Mine Act does not authorize reopening final orders.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: Citation No. 9704936 was reopened and remanded for further proceedings.
• Key point: Multiple documented obstacles and immediate corrective action established good cause for a missed contest deadline.

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.

ROAD & RAIL SERVICES

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. SE 2024-0064

A.C. No. 08-00903-588159

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

ORDER

BY: Chair Jordan and Commissioner Baker

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On December 8, 2023, the Commission received from Road & Rail Services (“Road & Rail”) 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 to the operator on November 2, 2023, and became a final order of the Commission on December 2, 2023.

In Road & Rail’s motion to reopen the operator contends that it failed to timely file to contest the civil penalty for a citation as a result of a combination of factors including, it did not initially have a copy of the citation that MSHA had previously issued to it, the safety director was ill, its inability to interview involved parties, and the intervening Thanksgiving holiday. The Secretary does not oppose the request, but reminds the operator to take steps to ensure that future penalties are timely filed.

Upon consideration of the filings, including the Secretary’s non-opposition, we find that the operator demonstrated a good cause reason for missing the filing deadline. The operator’s immediate filing of a motion to reopen after missing the deadline demonstrates a good faith effort to comply with the Commission’s requirements. See, e.g., Heidelberg Materials US Cement LLC, 45 FMSHRC 1004, 1005 (Dec. 2023) (quick action after recognizing an error militates in favor of reopening).

In the interest of justice, we hereby reopen Citation No. 9704936 and remand the case 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/ 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 , No. CENT 2024-0122 (Dec. 4, 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.” Belt Tech, Inc., 46 FMSHRC , slip op. at 3, No. WEVA 2024-0036 (Dec. 5, 2024) (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:

Christopher Steckel

Director of Safety

Road and Rail Services

4233 Bardstown Road

Suite 200

Louisville, KY 40218

[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 Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission

Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N Washington, DC 20004-1710 [email protected]