Secretary of Labor v. Ramsey Hill Exploration, LLC

Plain-English summary

Ramsey Hill timely contested an underlying withdrawal order and several related assessments but failed to contest the assessment tied to that order. The company offered two inconsistent explanations: management believed the assessment was already among those contested, while counsel believed MSHA was still processing it. It learned of the omission through a July delinquency notice but did not seek reopening until October and gave no explanation for that delay. The Commission held that the conflicting accounts suggested an unreliable communication process and that contesting the underlying order did not automatically excuse the missed penalty contest. It denied reopening.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The motion to reopen the final assessment was denied.
• Key point: A timely challenge to the underlying order is only one factor and will not overcome inconsistent internal explanations and an unexplained delay after delinquency notice.

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.
RAMSEY HILL EXPLORATION, LLC |
|
|
Docket No. CENT 2026-0005 A.C. No. 32-01082-618809
|

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 October 9, 2025, the Commission received from Ramsey Hill Exploration, LLC (“Ramsey Hill”) 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 April 28, 2025, and became a final order of the Commission on May 28, 2025. A delinquency notice was mailed to the operator on July 15, 2025.

Ramsey
Hill moves to reopen the proposed penalty assessment on the basis that it
timely contested the underlying section 104(d)(1) order, Order No. 9821184. The
operator explains that the order was one of a batch of citations and orders
arising from a common event. The operator timely contested four citations and
orders arising from the event, including Order No. 9821184, and then timely
contested four related proposed assessments.[1]
Ramsey Hill asserts it mistakenly believed the assessment for Order No. 9821184
was included among the contested assessments, and did not learn that it had
failed to timely contest the relevant assessment until it received the July
delinquency notice. Ramsey Hill further asserts that its counsel never received
a copy of the proposed assessment for Order No. 9821184 and believed it was
still being processed by MSHA. The Secretary opposes the request to reopen.

We
hold that Ramsey Hill has failed to justify its delay in moving to reopen the
final assessment. The Commission has long held that motions to reopen received
within 30 days of an operator’s first notice that it failed to timely contest
are presumptively considered to have been filed within a reasonable amount of
time. Highland Mining Co., 31 FMSHRC 1313, 1316-17 (Nov.
2009). Conversely, in motions filed more than 30 days after such notice, an
operator’s failure to explain the delay is grounds for denying the motion. Id.
at 1317. Here, Ramsey Hill learned that the assessment had not been timely
contested when it received the July delinquency notice but did not move to
reopen until October. The operator has provided no explanation for this 2-3
month delay.

We
also note inconsistencies in Ramsey Hill’s justification for its initial
failure to timely contest the proposed assessment. The operator asserts that it
mistakenly believed the proposed assessment for Order No. 9821184 was among the
timely contested assessments and that its counsel believed MSHA was
still processing the assessment. If both mistaken beliefs are true, this
suggests a lack of communication indicating an inadequate or unreliable
internal processing system. Overton Sand & Gravel Co., 34 FMSHRC
1053, 1054-55 (May 2012) (denying motion to reopen where the “lack of any
procedure for reliable communication between counsel and management represents
an inadequate or unreliable internal processing system”); see also, e.g.,
Highland, 31 FMSHRC at 1315 (an operator has not established grounds for
reopening where the failure resulted from an inadequate or unreliable internal
processing system).

We
acknowledge that an operator’s timely contest of the underlying citation or
order is “a factor” in favor of reopening a final assessment. Lone Mountain
Processing, Inc., 35 FMSHRC 3342, 3346-47 (Nov. 2013). However, all
relevant factors must be weighed, and a challenge to the underlying citation
“does not inevitably excuse the failure to contest the penalty.” Id. at
3347. In light of the inconsistencies in the operator’s justification for
failing to timely contest the assessment, and particularly in light of the
operator’s failure to justify its delay in moving to reopen the final
assessment, we find that Ramsey Hill has not demonstrated good cause.

Accordingly, we deny Ramsey Hill’s motion.

/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, concurring:

I write to agree 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 denies reopening in its opinion because the operator has not alleged good cause or provided a factual accounting for its failure to timely contest the penalties. Though I believe the Commission lacks the authority to consider motions to reopen, I concur with the Majority in denying reopening in this matter.

__/s/ Moshe Z. Marvit __

Moshe Z. Marvit, Commissioner

Distribution:

Adele L. Abrams, Esq., CMSP

Littler Mendelson PC

815 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20006

[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 N4428

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]

Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge Michael G. Young

Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

[1] The contest of
Order No. 9821184 was assigned Docket No. CENT 2025-0047. Contest Docket Nos.
CENT 2025-0044, CENT 2025-0045, CENT 2025-0046 and CENT 2025-0047, and Penalty
Docket Nos. CENT 2025-0076, CENT 2025-0104, CENT 2025-0111 and CENT 2025-0223,
were subsequently consolidated and stayed in August 2025.