Secretary of Labor v. Eagle Rock, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Eagle Rock received a proposed assessment covering 14 citations but mistakenly believed its contest deadline was two days later than the actual deadline. After MSHA told the operator the contest was late, Eagle followed up when promised correspondence did not arrive. It paid the penalties for ten citations and sought to contest the remaining four. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission found that the delay resulted from mistake, reopened the penalties for four identified citations, and remanded them for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: Penalties for four citations were reopened and remanded; the operator paid the other ten penalties.
• Key point: A documented deadline mistake supported reopening the specific penalties the operator still intended to contest.

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.

EAGLE
ROCK, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. WEST 2023-0012

A.C.
No. 04-04900-559854

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

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This
matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §
801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On October 18, 2022, the Commission received
from Eagle Rock, Inc. (“Eagle”) 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 August 8, 2022. On September
7, 2022, the proposed assessment became a final order of the Commission. On
October 12, MSHA received a partial payment of the assessment for 10 of the 14
citations listed on the assessment.

Eagle asserts that it believed that its
contest of the penalty assessment was due by September 9, 2022, two days after
the assessment became a final order. The operator states that when it contacted
MSHA’s Civil Penalty Compliance Office, it was advised that the contest was
late, and that Eagle would receive correspondence regarding the untimeliness. On
October 11, 2022, after having failed to receive the correspondence, Eagle again
contacted MSHA and subsequently received the letter by email. On that same
date, the operator paid 10 of the 14 proposed penalties listed on the proposed
penalty assessment. 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.       

Having reviewed Eagle’s request and the Secretary’s response, we find that the delay in filing the penalty contest was
the result of mistake, satisfying the criteria of Rule 60(b) . In the interest of justice, we hereby reopen the penalties
associated with Citation Nos. 9507582, 9507586, 9507589, and 9507592 and remand
this matter 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

Distribution:

Sherrie Zappola

Office
Manager

P.O.
Box 1498

Weaverville,
CA 96093

[email protected]

Larry
E. Yingling

President

P.O.
Box 1498

Weaverville,
CA 96093

[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]