Secretary of Labor v. Rockwell Mining, LLC (Commission decision, October 23, 2020)

Secretary of Labor v. Rockwell Mining, LLC (FMSHRC WEVA 2019-0479): Mistaken payment supported reopening with warning

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
WEVA 2019-0479
Decided
October 23, 2020
Outcome
Remanded
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-07-31

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2020, 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 2020
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

Rockwell Mining had contested the citation but inadvertently paid the associated penalty when the proposed assessment arrived. The operator discovered the mistake and filed a reopening motion 30 days later. The Secretary did not oppose, and the Commission found excusable neglect, reopened the assessment, and remanded it. The Commission also noted that this was Rockwell's fifth reopening motion in 24 months and warned that similar future excuses might be denied.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b), 2700.28
  • Outcome: The final assessment was reopened and the matter was remanded.
  • Key point: Mistaken payment supported relief here, but repeated reopening requests prompted an express warning about future motions.

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.

ROCKWELL MINING, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2019-0479

A.C. No. 46-08610-484227

BEFORE:  Rajkovich, Chairman; Althen and Traynor, 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 December 9, 2019, the Commission received from Rockwell Mining, LLC, (“Rockwell”) 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 March 4, 2019, and became a final order of the Commission on April 4, 2019. Rockwell’s motions say that it had contested the citation at issue in this case, but inadvertently paid the penalty when the proposed assessment was delivered. It learned of its mistake on April 29 and filed a motion to reopen on May 29, 2019.

The Secretary does
not oppose the requests to reopen, but urges the operator to take steps to ensure that future assessments are timely contested.

Having reviewed Rockwell’s requests and the Secretary’s responses, we find that the operator has sufficiently explained its failure to timely contest the citations at issue as the result of excusable neglect. However, we do note that this is the fifth motion to reopen filed by the operator in the past 24 months. [1] The operator should heed the Secretary’s admonition and take seriously its responsibilities under the Act and should be aware that future motions relying on a similar excuse may be denied.

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/ Marco M. Rajkovich,
Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Chairman

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

/s/ Arthur R. Traynor, III

Arthur R.
Traynor, III, Commissioner

Distribution (by e-mail):

Mark E. Heath, Esq.

Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC

Attorneys for Rockwell Mining, LLC

[email protected]

Emily Toler Scott , Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

[email protected]

Chief Administrative Law Judge
Glenn Voisin

Federal Mine Safety & Health
Review Commission

[email protected]

Melanie Garris

Office of Civil Penalty
Compliance

Mine Safety and Health
Administration

[email protected]

[1] The third and fourth motions to reopen are pending before the Commission. These motions rely on different facts and a different rationale for reopening, and the operator is represented by a different law firm in those motions, which are being consolidated and addressed in another order.

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