Secretary of Labor v. Giant Cement Company

Plain-English summary

Giant Cement sought relief in two assessment matters with different filing problems. In SE 2024-0022, the company had timely filed two contest notices, but their separate processing confused MSHA's system and produced an erroneous delinquency notice. The Commission dismissed that reopening motion as moot because the assessment never became final. In SE 2024-0111, Giant mailed its contest to MSHA's collection office instead of headquarters. The Commission treated that mailing mistake as grounds for reopening and remanded the second case.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: SE 2024-0022 was dismissed as moot, while SE 2024-0111 was reopened and remanded.
• Key point: A timely contest prevents finality, while a contest mistakenly sent to the wrong MSHA office may support reopening.

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.

GIANT
CEMENT COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. SE 2024-0022

A.C.
No. 38-00007-580575

Docket
No. SE 2024-0111

A.C.
No. 38-00007-589084

BEFORE:
Jordan, Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, Baker, and Marvit, 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. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On October 19, 2023 and February 21, 2024, the
Commission received from Giant Cement Company (“Giant”) two motions seeking to
reopen penalty assessments that had become a final orders of the Commission
pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a). [1]

        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 in SE 2024-0022 was delivered on July 10, 2023,
and became a final order of the Commission on August 9, 2023. Giant asserts
that it timely filed the contest in this case but received a delinquency notice
dated September 25, 2023 claiming that the operator was delinquent on one of
the three proposed penalties at issue. The Secretary agrees that the operator
timely contested the penalties but explains that the operator did so by filing
two separate contest notices which confused MSHA’s system. As a result, the
delinquency notice was sent to Giant in error. The Secretary notes that all
three citations are currently docketed at SE 2023-0224 and asks that the
Commission dismiss the motion to reopen as moot to allow the proceedings before
the Judge to continue.

MSHA records indicate that the proposed
assessment in SE 2024-0111 was delivered on November 17, 2023, and became a final order of
the Commission on December 18, 2023. Giant asserts that it timely filed its
contest of the proposed assessments. However, mailing receipts filed in support
of Giant’s motion to reopen show that the contest was mailed to MSHA’s
collection office in St. Louis, Missouri, instead of MSHA’s headquarters in
Arlington, Virginia. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen, but
urges the operator to take steps to ensure that future penalty contests are
timely filed to the correct mailing address.

        Having

reviewed Giant’s requests and the Secretary’s
responses, we conclude that the proposed penalty assessment in SE 2024-0022
did not become a final order of the Commission because the operator timely
contested the proposed assessment. Section 105(a) states that if an operator
“fails to notify the Secretary that he intends to contest the . . . proposed
assessment of penalty . . . the citation and the proposed assessment of penalty
shall be deemed a final order of the Commission.” 30 U.S.C. § 815(a). Here, Giant
notified the Secretary of the contest. This obviates any need to invoke Rule
60(b). Accordingly, the operator’s motion to reopen is moot, and SE 2024-0022
is dismissed.

Moreover, we find that operator’s failure to timely
contest the proposed assessment in SE 2024-0111 was the result of Giant’s
mistaken mailing of the contest to the wrong MSHA address. In the interest of justice, we hereby reopen SE
2024-0111 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/ 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

/s/ Moshe Z. Marvit

Moshe Z. Marvit, Commissioner

Distribution:

Jason
W. Fugate

Safety
Director

Giant
Cement Holding, Inc.

654
Judge St.

Harleyville,
SC 29448

[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

Office
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

[1] For the limited
purpose of addressing these motions to reopen, we hereby consolidate docket
numbers SE 2024-0022 and SE 2024-0111 involving similar procedural issues. 29
C.F.R. § 2700.12.