Secretary of Labor v. Cobleskill Stone Products, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Cobleskill Stone Products paid two citations and intended to contest a third, but mailed the contest form with its payment to MSHA's St. Louis lockbox instead of the Arlington contest office. It moved to reopen within 30 days after the assessment became final. The Secretary did not oppose. The majority found good cause, reopened the remaining citation's assessment, 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 for the contested citation was reopened and remanded.
• Key point: A prompt motion can cure a timely contest mistakenly mailed to MSHA's payment address.

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.

COBLESKILL
STONE PRODUCTS,

INC.

Docket
No. YORK 2024-0055

A.C.
No. 30-02306-596294

BEFORE: 
Jordan, Chair; Baker and Marvit, Commissioners

ORDER

BY: Chair Jordan
and Commissioner Baker 

This
matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.   
§ 801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On May 29, 2024, the Commission received
from Cobleskill Stone Products, Inc., (“Cobleskill”) 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 a proposed assessment
of $1,155 for three citations was delivered to Cobleskill on April 8, 2024. Cobleskill
promptly mailed payment of $294 in satisfaction of two citations. The third
citation became a final order of the Commission on May 8, 2024.

In its motion to reopen, Cobleskill
asserts that it mistakenly mailed the contest form along with its $294 payment
to MSHA’s address in St. Louis, Missouri. Contests of proposed assessments are
required to be mailed to MSHA’s address in Arlington, Virginia. The Secretary
does not oppose the request to reopen.

The
Commission has reopened final orders in situations where a mine operator timely
but mistakenly attempted to file a contest form at MSHA’s St. Louis, Missouri
address. See, e.g., Mulberry Limestone Quarry Inc ., 45 FMSHRC 814 (Sep.
2023).

Furthermore, the Commission has held that
“[m]otions to reopen received within 30 days of an operator's receipt of its
first notice from MSHA that it has failed to timely file a notice of contest
will be presumptively considered as having been filed within a reasonable
amount of time.” Highland Mining Co. , 31 FMSHRC 1313, 1316-17 (Nov.
2009). Here, the motion to reopen was filed on May 29, 2024, within 30 days of
the assessment becoming a final order.

Having reviewed Cobleskill’s request and
the Secretary's response, we find that Cobleskill has demonstrated good cause
for its failure to timely file. 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 (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:

Brian
Righi

Safety
Director

Cobleskill
Stone Products, Inc.

112
Rock Road

P.O.
Box 220

Cobleskill,
NY  12043

[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

Office
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

[email protected]