Secretary of Labor v. Trap Rock & Granite Quarries, LLC

Plain-English summary

Trap Rock defaulted after the site superintendent handling the penalty case left the company and the replacement superintendent did not know about the proceeding. The Secretary did not oppose reopening and could not confirm that another company representative received the show-cause order. Trap Rock later hired an environmental compliance manager who contacted the Secretary to resolve outstanding penalties. The Commission found that the company identified the relevant people and dates and acted in good faith after discovering the problem. It vacated the default and remanded the case, with one Commissioner dissenting on the Commission's authority to reopen final orders.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. §§ 823(d)(1) and 823(d)(2)(A)(i)
• Outcome: The default order was vacated, and the proceeding was reopened and remanded.
• Key point: A documented personnel transition can establish good cause when the operator explains the handoff failure and promptly works to correct it.

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.
TRAP ROCK & GRANITE QUARRIES, LLC |
|
|
Docket No. CENT 2025-0051 A.C. No. 23-02327-606696
|

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

ORDER

BY: Rajkovich, Chair; Jordan, and Baker, Commissioners

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2024) (“Mine Act”). On June 30, 2025, the Commission received from Trap Rock & Granite Quarries, LLC (“Trap Rock”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment proceeding and relieve it from the Default Order entered against it.

On March 3, 2025, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an Order to Show Cause in response to Trap Rock’s perceived failure to answer the Secretary of Labor’s December 30, 2024 Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty. By its terms, the Order to Show Cause was deemed a Default Order on April 3, 2025, when it appeared that the operator had not filed an answer within 30 days.

Trap Rock asserts that the captioned matter was formerly handled by its site superintendent; he left the company around January 27, 2025. The operator’s new superintendent was not aware of the civil penalty proceeding and thus did not respond to the Commission’s Order. The Secretary does not oppose the operator’s request and notes that, given the change in personnel, it cannot confirm that a representative of the operator received the Commission’s Order. Furthermore, the Secretary represents that Trap Rock has recently hired an environmental compliance manager who reached out to the Secretary to sort through outstanding penalties. The Secretary of Labor does not oppose the request.

The Judge’s jurisdiction in this matter terminated when the default occurred. 29 C.F.R.

§ 2700.69(b). Under the Mine Act and the Commission's procedural rules, relief from a Judge's decision may be sought by filing a petition for discretionary review within 30 days of its issuance. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.70(a). If the Commission does not direct review within 40 days of a decision's issuance, it becomes a final decision of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). Consequently, the Judge’s order here has become a final decision of the Commission.

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””); Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC
782, 786-89 (May 1993). 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 will be permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC
1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Having reviewed the operator’s request and
the Secretary’s response, we conclude that the operator has established good
cause for its failure to timely respond to the Commission’s Order to Show cause.
Specifically, Trap Rock articulated a clear explanation for its failure to
timely respond, including the personnel involved and relevant dates. See
Higgins Stone Co., 32 FMSHRC 33, 34 (Jan. 2010) (requiring that “[a]t a
minimum, the applicant must provide all known details, including relevant dates
and persons involved, and a clear explanation that accounts, to the best of the
operator’s knowledge, for the failure to submit a timely response.”). Furthermore,
the operator’s proactive attempts to communicate with the Secretary and resolve
the matter upon discovery of the error demonstrates the operator’s good faith. See
Explosive Contractors, Inc., 46 FMSHRC 965, 966 (Dec. 2024) (citations
omitted) (“[a] movant’s good faith and intent to contest are both relevant in
determining whether the movant has demonstrated good cause to reopen a final
assessment.”).

In the interest of justice, we hereby reopen the proceeding and vacate the Default Order. Accordingly, this case is remanded 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.

/s/
Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Chair

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

/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:

Eric Alberter,

Environmental Compliance Manager

Trap Rock and Granite Quarries, LLC

11313 Highway N,

Ironton, MO 63650

[email protected]

Alexandra J. Gilewicz, Esq.

Thomas A. Paige, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

Division of Mine Safety and Health

200 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite N4428

Washington, DC 20210

[email protected]

[email protected]

Melanie
Garris

US
Department of Labor/MSHA

Office of Assessments, Room N3454

200 Constitution Ave NW

Washington, DC 20210

[email protected]

Acting
Chief Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Young

Federal Mine
Safety Health Review Commission

1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

[email protected]