FMSHRC Commission decision Docket WEST 2024-0184 Decided March 21, 2025 Procedural

Secretary of Labor v. Canyon Fuel Company, LLC

Secretary of Labor v. Canyon Fuel Company, LLC (FMSHRC WEST 2024-0184): Missed counsel referral reopened

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2025, 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 Commission's own document.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Canyon Fuel failed to forward the relevant proposed penalties to counsel for the next step in contesting them. It sought reopening promptly after discovering the mistake. The Secretary withdrew her opposition to help facilitate a broader settlement involving other cases. The majority reopened the assessment in the interest of justice and remanded it for penalty proceedings. Commissioner Marvit dissented because he believes the Commission lacks authority to reopen section 105(a) final orders.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
  • Outcome: The penalty assessment was reopened and remanded, over one Commissioner's dissent.
  • Key point: Prompt action after a missed counsel referral and the Secretary's withdrawn opposition supported reopening.

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. 

CANYON
FUEL COMPANY, LLC

Docket
No. WEST 2024-0184

A.C.
No. 42-01566-593534

BEFORE: 
Jordan, Chair; Baker and Marvit, Commissioners

ORDER

BY: Jordan, Chair,
and Baker, Commissioner

This matter arises
under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.
(2018) (“Mine Act”). On April 5, 2024, the Commission received from Canyon Fuel
Company, LLC (“Canyon Fuel”) 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 on February 8, 2024, and became a final order of the Commission
on March 11, 2024. Canyon Fuel asserts that it mistakenly failed to send the
appropriate penalties to counsel for the next step in contesting. The Secretary
of Labor states that she has withdrawn her opposition to the motion to reopen to
help facilitate a global settlement involving other cases. We note that the
motion to reopen was promptly filed once the operator became aware of its
mistake.

Having
reviewed Canyon Fuel’s request and the Secretary’s response, 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/ 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
965 (Dec. 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.” 46 FMSHRC 975, 977 (Dec. 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:

R.
Henry Moore, Esq.

Fisher
& Phillips LLP

Six
PPG Place, Suite 830

Pittsburgh,
PA 15222

[email protected]

Thomas
A. Paige, Esq. 

Office
of the Solicitor 

U.S.
Department of Labor 

Division
of Mine Safety and Health 

200
Constitution Avenue NW, Suite N4420-N4430 

Washington,
DC 20210 

[email protected] 

Emily
O. Roberts, Esq.

Division
of Mine Safety and Health

Office
of the Solicitor

200
Constitution Avenue NW Suite N4420 – N4430

Washington,
DC 20210

[email protected]

Melanie
Garris

US Department of Labor/MSHA 

Office
of Assessments, Room N3454 

200
Constitution Ave NW 

Washington,
DC 20210 

[email protected] 

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin

Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 2025. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.