Secretary of Labor v. Rockwell Mining, LLC

Plain-English summary

Rockwell Mining missed contest deadlines for three assessments after the corporate safety director who normally filed contests left the company without filing them or alerting another employee. A paralegal discovered the oversight, and Rockwell promptly retained counsel and sought reopening after receiving delinquency notices. The Secretary did not oppose the requests. The Commission found mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect and reopened the three matters, but called the result a close case. Because Rockwell had filed several reopening motions in five years, the Commission warned that future requests showing an inadequate processing system without good-faith corrective measures would be denied.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: Three final assessments were reopened and remanded for further proceedings.
• Key point: Repeated deadline failures can show an unreliable internal system even when a particular personnel departure supports reopening.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20004‑1710

SECRETARY OF LABOR,                             :

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH                  
:

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)                     
:         Docket No.  WEVA 2022-0467

:         A.C. No. 46-06448-552209

:

v.                                              
:         Docket No.  WEVA 2022-0468

:         A.C. No. 46-06618-552210

:

:         Docket No.  WEVA 2022-0469

ROCKWELL MINING, LLC                          :         A.C.
No. 46-09377-552216

BEFORE:  Jordan, Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, and Baker,
Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

These
matters arise under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.

§ 801 et seq. (2012) (“Mine
Act”). [1]
On July 18, 2022, the Commission received from Rockwell Mining, LLC motions
seeking to reopen penalty assessments that had become final orders 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).

However,
the Commission has also made clear that where a failure to contest a proposed
assessment results from an inadequate or unreliable internal processing system,
the operator has not established grounds for reopening the assessment. Shelter
Creek Capital , LLC, 34 FMSHRC 3053, 3054 (Dec. 2012); Oak Grove Res. ,
LLC, 33 FMSHRC 103, 104 (Feb. 2011); Double Bonus Coal Co. , 32 FMSHRC
1155, 1156 (Sept. 2010). In examining the operator's asserted justifications
for reopening a particular case, the Commission has also explored whether the
operator has demonstrated a pattern of behaviors that are attributable to
inadequate or unreliable internal processing systems in other cases. See Oak
Grove Res., LLC , 33 FMSHRC 2378, 2379-80 (Oct. 2011).

The Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”)
indicates that the proposed assessments were delivered to the operator on April
8, 2022. The assessments became final orders of the Commission on May 9, 2022,
and MSHA issued delinquency notices on June 23, 2022.

Rockwell states that it is unclear exactly when it received the
proposed assessments, but notes that near the deadline to file the notices of
contest, its Corporate Safety Director, who usually files notices of contest,
left the company on April 22, 2022. It contends that the outgoing Director did
not file the required notices of contest, nor did he notify any other employee
of the impending deadline. When a paralegal for Rockwell learned of the
oversight, the operator quickly retained counsel to file the required contests.
The Secretary does not oppose the requests to reopen but urges the operator to
take steps to ensure that future penalty contests are timely filed in accordance with MSHA’s regulations at 30 C.F.R. §
100.7 and the Commission’s procedural rules.

Having
reviewed Rockwell’s requests and the Secretary’s responses, we find that due to
mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect the penalty assessments were not
timely contested. See Noranda Alumina, LLC , 39 FMSHRC 441, 445 (Mar.
2017) (when the safety director left the company unexpectedly, the failure to
timely contest constituted an inadvertent mistake). Moreover, we note that
Rockwell promptly filed its motions to reopen promptly upon notification that
the penalties were delinquent.

Nonetheless,
the Commission stresses that its decision that reopening was justified in this
instance was a close call. In the last five years, Rockwell has requested
reopening several times, citing a variety of justifications for their failure
to timely contest penalties. See e.g. Rockwell Mining, LLC , 40 FMSHRC
1161 (Aug. 2018) (Rockwell alleged it mistakenly believed it had already
responded to the penalty petition); Rockwell Mining, LLC , 40 FMSHRC 1155
(Aug. 2018) (Rockwell alleged that the penalty petition was sent to the wrong
address); Rockwell Mining, LLC , 42 FMSHRC 796 (Oct. 2020) (Rockwell alleged
that it failed to timely contest the assessments because the assessments were
delivered while its safety manager was on vacation and was warned by the
Commission that similar excuses would not be accepted in the future); and Rockwell
Mining, LLC , 45 FMSHRC___, 2023 WL 2070349 (Feb. 10, 2023) (Rockwell alleged
that a new office manager receptionist did not provide the proposed assessments
to the safety director in a timely manner).

In
each of those previous cases and in this instant matter, the Commission has
found that Rockwell has demonstrated good cause for its failure to timely file
to contest the proposed assessments. Nonetheless, we recognize that,
cumulatively, these motions may indicate an inadequate or unreliable internal
processing system. Rockwell must ensure that, in the future, it timely files to
contest proposed assessments. The Commission will closely scrutinize any future
motions to reopen filed by Rockwell for signs of an inadequate processing
system. Any future request to reopen, which demonstrate that failure to timely
file was due to an inadequate processing system and that fails to describe good
faith measures to improve that system, will be denied.

In
the interest of justice, we hereby reopen these matters and remand them 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 petitions 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/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

/s/ Timothy J. Baker

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner

Distribution:

Jonathan R. Ellis, Esq.

Colton C. Parsons, Esq.

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

707 Virginia Street East,
Chase Tower, 17th Floor

Charleston, WV 25301

[email protected]

[email protected]

April Nelson, Esq.

Associate Solicitor

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

Division of Mine Safety and
Health

201 12th Street South, Suite
401

Arlington, VA 22202

[email protected]

Emily Toler Scott, Esq.

Counsel for Appellate
Litigation

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

Division of Mine Safety and
Health

201 12th Street South, Suite
401

Arlington, VA 22202

[email protected]

Melanie Garris

USDOL/MSHA, OAASEI/CPCO

201 12th Street South, Suite
401

Arlington, VA 22202

[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]

[1] Rockwell filed similar motions to reopen relying upon
the same reason as a basis for re-opening in three separate dockets. For the
limited purpose of addressing the motions to reopen, we hereby consolidate
docket numbers WEVA 2022-0467, WEVA 2022-0468, and WEVA 2022-0469, which
involve similar procedural issues. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.12.