Secretary of Labor v. SA Recycling (Commission decision, March 14, 2018)

Secretary of Labor v. SA Recycling (FMSHRC WEST 2017-466 M): Corrected office failure supported reopening

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
WEST 2017-466 M
Decided
March 14, 2018
Outcome
Remanded
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-01

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2018, 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 2018
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

SA Recycling failed to contest a proposed penalty after its facility manager did not notify the safety director of the MSHA inspection or forward the assessment. The company said the problem was an unusual one-time office failure, reprimanded the responsible manager, and changed its procedures to prevent recurrence. It also explained that the safety director acted after receiving the delinquency letter and first sought replacement copies of the assessment and citations. SA Recycling had filed no other reopening motions in the previous two years, and the Secretary did not oppose relief. The Commission reopened the assessment, remanded the case, and ordered the Secretary to file a penalty petition within 45 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
  • Outcome: The final penalty assessment was reopened and remanded, with the Secretary ordered to file a penalty petition within 45 days.
  • Key point: A documented one-time office failure supported reopening when the operator corrected its procedures, explained its response delay, and had no pattern of similar requests.

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.

SA
RECYCLING

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. WEST 2017-466-M

A.C.
No. 02-00150-422734

BEFORE:  Althen,
Acting Chairman; Jordan, 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. (2012) (“Mine Act”). On May 30, 2017, the Commission received from SA Recycling 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), 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 on December 12, 2016, and became a final order of the Commission on January 11, 2017. The Secretary mailed a delinquency letter to the operator on February 27, 2017. SA Recycling asserts that its failure to timely respond to the assessment was “an unusual, one time and unanticipated office procedure.” SA Recycling’s facility manager failed to notify the Director of Safety following the MSHA inspection and also failed to forward the assessment. The operator has since misplaced the assessment. The operator claims that its site manager was later reprimanded for this failure and the operator made changes to its office procedures to ensure that the problem does not recur. The Safety Director claims she only received the delinquency letter on April 17, 2017 and immediately contacted MSHA regarding this matter. The operator asserts that it first attempted to receive a new copy of the assessment and underlying citations before filing the request to reopen. SA Recycling has not filed any other motions to reopen with the Commission in the last two years. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen.

Having
reviewed SA Recycling’s request and the
Secretary’s response, we find that the operator inadvertently failed to ensure that the assessment reached the Director of Safety. The responsible party has been reprimanded and the office procedures have been changed. SA Recycling has adequately explained why it did not respond to the Secretary’s delinquency letter within 30 days. 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/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Acting Chairman

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

/s/ Michael G. Young

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

/s/ Robert F. Cohen, Jr.

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Tamara
Deiro

Director
of Safety

SA
Recycling

2411
N. Glassell St.

Orange,
CA 92865

Ali
Beydoun, Esq.

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal
Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

1331
Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

Melanie
Garris

Office
of Civil Penalty Compliance

Mine
Safety and Health Administration

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 500

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450

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