North County Sand & Gravel, Inc. (Commission decision, January 25, 2011)

North County Sand & Gravel, Inc. (FMSHRC WEST 2010-977-M): Reopening denied over unexplained delay

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
WEST 2010-977-M
Decided
January 25, 2011
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 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

North County said it timely mailed a penalty contest form in a self-addressed envelope but had no proof of mailing, while MSHA said it does not provide such envelopes and had no record of receiving the form. The Secretary opposed reopening and noted that the operator waited more than six months after a delinquency notice before seeking relief. The Commission found the explanation insufficient and the delay unexplained. It denied reopening without prejudice and allowed North County 30 days to file an amended or renewed request, warning that a later filing would be denied with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a) and 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b)
  • Outcome: Reopening was denied without prejudice, with 30 days allowed for a renewed request.
  • Key point: An operator seeking to reopen a final assessment must give a supported account of the missed contest and explain any delay after receiving 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

January 25, 2011

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

NORTH COUNTY SAND &
GRAVEL, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEST 2010-977-M
A.C. No. 04-05632-188492

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, 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 April 2, 2010, the Commission received a motion by counsel to reopen a penalty assessment issued to North County Sand & Gravel, Inc.(“North County”) that became 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 June 18, 2009, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued Proposed Assessment No. 000188492 to North County. North County asserts that it timely sent in a contest form but because of “some undetermined mistake, not attributable to the operator, . . . MSHA did not receive the request for a hearing.” North County submitted the affidavit of its chief financial officer and office manager stating that she placed the completed contest form in “the self-addressed envelope that was included with the assessment” and mailed the form, without obtaining proof of mailing, before the expiration of the 30-day deadline.

The Secretary opposes North County’s request to reopen because its explanation is inconsistent with MSHA’s procedures in that MSHA does not provide self-addressed envelopes with proposed assessments. In addition, MSHA has no record of receiving a contest form. She maintains that the operator’s contention of “some indeterminate mistake” is conclusory, lacks sufficient detail, and does not provide adequate grounds for reopening. The Secretary also notes that a delinquency notice was sent to the operator on September 10, 2009, more than six months before it filed its reopening request, and the case was referred to the Treasury Department for collection on January 7, 2010.

Having reviewed North County’s request to reopen and the Secretary’s response thereto, we agree that the operator has failed to provide a sufficient basis for the Commission to reopen the penalty assessment. In addition, North County has failed to explain why it delayed approximately six months in responding to the delinquency notice sent by MSHA.

Accordingly, we hereby deny without prejudice North County’s request to reopen. FKZ Coal Inc., 29 FMSHRC 177, 178 (Apr. 2007); Petra Materials, 31 FMSHRC 47, 49 (Jan. 2009). The words “without prejudice” mean that North County may submit another request to reopen the Assessment No. 000188492.

Any amended or renewed request by the operator to reopen this assessment must be filed within 30 days 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:

C. Gregory Ruffennach, Esq.

North County Sand & Gravel, Inc.

1629 K Street, N. W., Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036

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