Secretary of Labor v. Gentry Mountain Mining, LLC

Plain-English summary

MSHA mailed Gentry Mountain Mining's proposed penalty assessment to an old address that still appeared on one of the operator's legal identity records. Gentry said its current address had been used for years and that it requested a hearing within 30 days after learning of the assessment. The Secretary did not oppose reopening, and Gentry removed the obsolete address from its records. The majority found good faith and excusable neglect, reopened the assessment, and remanded it for further proceedings. Commissioner Marvit dissented because he believed the Mine Act gives the Commission no authority to reopen a section 105(a) final order.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The one-day-late penalty contest was reopened and remanded, over one Commissioner's dissent.
• Key point: Prompt action and correction of an obsolete address supported reopening after an assessment was mailed there.

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.

GENTRY
MOUNTAIN MINING, LLC,

Docket
No. WEST 2025-0285

A.C.
No. 42-02263-616004

BEFORE: 
Jordan, Chair; and Baker, Commissioner

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. (2024) (“Mine Act”). On June 17, 2025, the Commission received from
Gentry Mountain Mining, LLC (“Gentry”) 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 March 10, 2025, and
became a final order of the Commission on April 9, 2025. Gentry asserts that extraordinary
circumstances justify reopening due to a lack of timely notice, contending that
MSHA sent the Proposed Assessment Form to an outdated address in Salt Lake City
rather than the operator’s current address in Huntington, UT.

According to Gentry, the form was sent to
an old Salt Lake City address of Gentry Mountain Mining, LLC. Gentry’s current
address, P.O. Box 300, Huntington, UT 84528, is registered with MSHA and has been
used in all recent correspondence for the last few years. The operator insists
it was unaware that the Proposed Assessment Form had been sent to Salt Lake
City on March 10th, 2025. Gentry states that it is unsure why the Proposed
Assessment Form was sent to the wrong address. The new address has been used
for several years now and the Proposed Assessment Forms for other dockets have
been sent to the new address for many years now. The operator claims that it
asked MSHA why the Proposed Assessment Form was sent to the old address, and
that MSHA stated that a new employee had started working for MSHA and sent the
Proposed Assessment Form to the old address. Gentry did request a hearing
within 30 days of when it became aware of the Proposed Assessment.

According to the Secretary, the address to
which MSHA had sent the Proposed Assessment (the Salt Lake City address) was
one of several addresses provided by Gentry on its Legal Identity Report, Form 2000-7,
that was effective at the time the Proposed Assessment was sent to Gentry. Gentry
has since updated its Legal ID Report and no longer lists the Salt Lake City
address. For these reasons, 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 Gentry’s request and the Secretary’s response, we
find that the the operator acted in good faith and with excusable neglect. We
take particular note of the fact that the operator has updated its Legal ID
Report to no longer list the Salt Lake City address, to help ensure that future
Proposed Assessments are received. We also emphasize that Gentry’s attempt to contest the Proposed Assessment
was only one day late, on April 10, 2025. See Sec’y Resp. at Attachment
C (letter from MSHA to operator explaining reasons for denying hearing request).
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:

Paul
Cannon, Esq.

53
West Angelo Ave

Salt
Lake City, UT 84115

[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]

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin

Federal Mine
Safety Health Review Commission

1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

[email protected]