Lakeview Rock Products, Inc. (Commission decision, December 6, 1994)

Lakeview Rock Products, Inc. (FMSHRC WEST 95-56-M): $32,250 assessment reopened and remanded

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
WEST 95-56-M
Decided
December 6, 1994
Outcome
Remanded
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-13
Cited standards

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1994, 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 1994
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
The Commission reopened the matter involving a final $32,250 penalty assessment and sent it to a judge to decide whether Rule 60(b) relief was warranted. This order did not decide the penalty. 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

Lakeview Rock Products failed to contest a proposed $32,250 civil penalty assessment within the 30-day period in section 105(a) of the Mine Act, so the assessment became a final Commission order. Lakeview said the late filing resulted from a mistake in calculating the deadline and was only one day late. The Commission reopened the matter and remanded it to an administrative law judge to decide whether relief from the final order was available under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Commission did not decide whether Lakeview ultimately should receive that relief.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provision: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
  • Outcome: The final penalty assessment was reopened and the matter was remanded for an ALJ to determine whether Rule 60(b) relief was appropriate.
  • Key point: Reopening a final assessment requires a case-specific determination of whether mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect warrants relief.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. LAKEVIEW ROCK PRODUCTS
DDATE:
19941206
TTEXT:


Page 2

~2388
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1730 K STREET NW, 6TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
:
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
:
:
v. : Docket No. WEST 95-56-M
:
LAKEVIEW ROCK PRODUCTS, INC.
:

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Doyle, Holen, and Marks, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq. (1988) ("Mine Act"). On November 16, 1994, the Commission received from Lakeview Rock Products, Inc. ("Lakeview") a request to reopen an uncontested civil 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).

Section 105(a) requires the Secretary of Labor to notify the operator of "the civil penalty proposed to be assessed" after issuing a citation or order for an alleged violation. 30 U.S.C. 815(a). Section 105(a) allows the operator 30 days to contest a proposed penalty and further provides that, if the operator fails to contest it, the assessment "shall be deemed a final order of the Commission and not subject to review by any court or agency." Id. Lakeview failed to contest within 30 days a notice of proposed assessment of civil penalties in the amount of $32,250 and, accordingly, it has become a final order of the Commission.

Lakeview states that it failed to file with the Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA") a "Green Card" notice of contest challenging MSHA's proposed civil penalties within the 30-day period set forth in section 105(a), due to a mistake in calculating that period. It asserts that it filed only one day late, that the Secretary was not prejudiced by the delay, and that "the existence of its business is threatened" by the amount


Page 3

~2389
of the penalties. Petition at 6. The Commission has held that, in appropriate circumstances and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) ("Rule 60(b)"), it possesses jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessments that have become final under section 105(a). Jim Walter Resources, Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993); see also, Rocky Hollow Coal Company, Inc., 16 FMSHRC 1931, 1932 (September 1994). Relief from a final order is available in circumstances such as a party's mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

On the basis of the present record, we are unable to evaluate the merits of Lakeview's position. In the interest of justice, we reopen the matter and remand it for assignment to a judge to determine whether Lakeview has met the criteria for relief under Rule 60(b). If the judge determines that relief under Rule 60(b) is appropriate and permits Lakeview to file its notice of contest, this case shall proceed pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission's Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

For the foregoing reasons, Lakeview's request is granted and this matter is remanded for assignment.

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

Joyce A. Doyle, Commissioner

Arlene Holen, Commissioner

Marc L. Marks, Commissioner

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