Secretary of Labor v. Ramaco Resources, LLC

Plain-English summary

Ramaco Resources sought to reopen 11 citations after a proposed assessment did not reach its vice president of safety for a timely contest. The company pointed to employee turnover, said it could not identify the specific error, and reported that it later trained new employees. The Commission majority held that this explanation lacked the required details about the personnel change, the processing failure, and when Ramaco discovered the problem. It denied reopening even though Ramaco filed before MSHA mailed a delinquency notice. Commissioner Althen dissented because Ramaco investigated, corrected its process, and acted on its own initiative before receiving notice from MSHA.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: Ramaco's motion to reopen the final penalty assessment was denied.
• Key point: Staff turnover does not establish excusable neglect without specific facts connecting personnel changes to the missed 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.

RAMACO
RESOURCES, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. WEVA 2023-0479

A.C.
No. 46-09602-573037

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

ORDER

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

        This

matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On August 7, 2023, the Commission received
from Ramaco Resources, LLC (“Ramaco”) 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). [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 was delivered on March 29, 2023, and
became a final order of the Commission on April 28, 2023. Ramaco asserts that
the assessment was not timely contested because it was not timely received by
the Vice President of Safety. Ramaco was unable to identify the specific incident
that delayed receipt, but notes that the safety department experienced
significant employee turnover around the relevant time. [2]
Ramaco also notes that it has subsequently conducted additional training for
the new employees, and states that its low rate of filing motions to reopen
indicates normally adequate policies and procedures.

The Secretary opposes the motion. The
Secretary states that Ramaco’s explanation is insufficient to justify relief,
as the operator failed to identify a specific error, and that a failure to
properly train personnel is not an excusable mistake. The Secretary also
asserts that Ramaco’s previous filing of a motion to reopen on May 18, 2023
indicates a pattern of failures to timely respond to assessments.

A party seeking to reopen a final penalty
bears the burden of showing that it is entitled to such relief, through a
detailed explanation of its failure to timely respond. Revelation Energy,
LLC , 40 FMSHRC 375, 375-76 (Mar. 2018) . General
assertions or conclusory statements are insufficient. Southwest Rock Prod., Inc. , 45 FMSHRC 747, 748 (Aug. 30, 2023); B & W
Res., Inc ., 32 FMSHRC 1627, 1628 (Nov. 2010). At 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. Higgins
Stone Co. , 32 FMSHRC 33, 34 (Jan.
2010).

Here, Ramaco has failed to
identify the error that resulted in a failure to timely contest the assessment.
The operator suggests it was likely due to staff turnover, but has failed to
provide any details regarding the change in personnel or how it contributed to
the processing delay. See Sun West Acquisition Corp , 45 FMSHRC 141
(Mar. 2023) (finding insufficient justification where an operator alleged loss
of staff but failed to provide additional detail);

Revelation
Energy LLC ,
39 FMSHRC 1777 (Sept. 2017) (finding insufficient justification where a document
was misplaced due to changes in personnel). We find Ramaco’s explanation
insufficient to justify relief. [3]

        Having

reviewed Ramaco’s request and the Secretary’s response, we find that the
operator has not provided sufficient explanation to justify reopening the
captioned proceeding.

Accordingly,
we deny Ramaco’s motion.

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

                                                                                Mary

Lu Jordan, Chair

/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

Commissioner
Althen, dissenting:

I respectfully
dissent.

This motion to
reopen involves an attempt by Ramaco to challenge 11 citations totaling over $44,000
in proposed penalties.

Although the precise
nature of the error could not be determined, the facts are not contested. In
March of 2023, Ramaco states that it was experiencing unusually high levels of
staff turnover. As a result, newly hired employees were processing proposed
assessments. Normally, administrative staff would scan incoming proposed
assessments and forward them to the company’s Vice President of Safety, who
determines which citations to contest. However, in this instance, the new
employees did not send the proposed assessment through the proper channels and penalties
were not timely contested.

Ramaco discovered
its failure, investigated the possible causes, provided further training for
its employees, and then on August 7, 2023, it filed a motion to reopen. Ramaco
did so without any notification from MSHA that payment was delinquent. [4]
In most cases, the Secretary will send operators who fail to contest and pay
the assessments a delinquency letter to inform them of the error. However, due
to an apparent mistake, MSHA incorrectly recorded the final order date as July
10, 2023 and the delinquency letter was not mailed to the operator until August
25, 2023, weeks after the motion to reopen was filed.

Ramaco proved that
it recognized and acted to correct its error prior to receipt of the first
notice of delinquency. Just late last year, the Commission reaffirmed a
long-established position regarding timely recognition of an error:

The Commission has held that quick action
after recognizing an error militates in favor of reopening. “Motions to reopen
received within 30 days of an operator’s of its first notice from MSHA that it
has failed to timely file a notice of contest will be presumptively considered
as having been filed within a reasonable amount of time.” Highland Mining Co .,
31 FMSHRC 1313, 1316-17 (Nov. 2009).

Heidelberg
Materials US Cement, LLC , 45 FMSHRC 1004, 1005 (Dec. 2023).

Undoubtedly, Ramaco discovering and attempting to
remedy the error on its own initiative, prior to receiving a delinquency notice,
compels a finding of good faith. See, e.g. , Alleyton Res. Co. , 46
FMSHRC ___ (May 17, 2024) (finding the proactive monitoring of citations and
promptly moving to reopen upon discovery demonstrated good faith); St. Marys
Cement , 45 FMSHRC 1008, 1009 (Dec. 2023); Canyon Fuel Co., LLC , 40
FMSHRC 1092, 1094 (July 2018).

Recognizing that
Ramaco acted with promptness to notify MSHA and the Commission of its desire to
contest citations, the majority rests its denial on the claim that Ramaco
failed to provide sufficient explanation to justify reopening. However, it is
unclear what more information known to Ramaco would have satisfied the
majority’s curiosity. The operator did not simply state that the failure to
contest was the result of administrative error. Rather, Ramaco acknowledged that
the failure to timely contest was due to a mistake forwarding the proposed
assessment to the Vice President of Safety. Ramaco investigated the incident
and identified that it was most likely the result of new administrative staff
unfamiliar with the process. Any vagueness in the operator’s explanation
appears not to be for lack of trying but rather the inherent uncertainty in attempting
to understand a past mistake. [5]

This case does not
reflect poor internal processing or lack of expedition by Ramaco. It is a
singular event caused by staff turnover. Moreover, it appears to be the
quintessential type of mistake that Rule 60(b) was intended to address. Yet,
the majority reviews Ramaco’s quick action and finds no difficulty in refusing
it the opportunity to contest penalties totaling a very high amount—a harsh
remedy indeed.

Accordingly, I
would find that Ramaco’s failure to timely respond to the assessment was the
result of mistake arising from a period of employee turnover, and grant
Ramaco’s motion to reopen.

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

Distribution:

Justin
K. Chandler, Esq.

Jonathan
R. Ellis, Esq.

Steptoe
& Johnson PLLC

707
Virginia Street East, 17 th Floor

PO
Box 1588

Charleston,
WV 25326-1588

[email protected]

[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] Of the 38
citations listed in the relevant assessment, Ramaco seeks to reopen the following
11 citations: Nos. 9567490, 9567492, 9567499, 9592600, 9592603,9592608,
9592610, 9592613, 9592614, 9592619, and 9592620.

[2] Our dissenting
colleague draws unreasonably tenuous inferences from the pleadings and presents
them as fact. For example, the dissent states that Ramaco was experiencing
“unusually high levels of staff turnover,” and that the cause of the mistake
was due to the new employees not sending the proposed assessment through the
proper channels. However, Ramaco’s pleadings and attached affidavits are
careful to state that the operator could not determine the cause of the error,
that it was “an error of unknown origin.” The D.C. Circuit has recently
admonished this Commission for trying to resolve cases sua sponte “on grounds
that were not raised or litigated by the parties and pursuant to findings not
supported by the record.” MSHA v. Westfall Aggregate and Materials , 69
F. 4th 902, 912 (D.C. Cir. 2023). Furthermore, the fact that Ramaco filed its
Motion to Reopen prior to receiving a delinquency notice does not “compel a
finding of good faith” as our colleague contends. MSHA’s records of Ramaco’s
delinquent penalties in the months prior to the filing of the instant Motion to
Reopen, as pointed out by the Secretary, could lead one to draw a different
conclusion. See Sec’y Resp. Br. at 3-5.

[3] We also note that
Ramaco has not provided any detail regarding the three-month delay in filing its
motion to reopen. The operator simply states that it retained counsel to file
the motion immediately upon becoming aware of the issue, without specifying
when or how it learned of the issue. However, while the motion was filed three
months after the assessment became final, it was filed two weeks before
the Secretary mailed a delinquency notice (August 25, 2023). In this unusual
circumstance, the motion could be considered to have been filed within a
reasonable amount of time. Highland Mining Co. , 31 FMSHRC 1313, 1316-17
(Nov. 2009) (motions received within 30 days of an operator’s first notice from
MSHA it has failed to timely contest will be presumptively considered to be
filed within a reasonable amount of time). Regardless, for the reasons above,
we find Ramaco has failed to justify its entitlement to relief.

[4] In her
opposition, the Secretary provides a short summary of her records concerning
the present case. Notably absent from the records is any mention of the
Secretary notifying the operator of the delinquent penalties prior to the
August 25 th delinquency letter. Ramaco also does not indicate in its
motion that MSHA notified it of the delinquent penalty, instead stating that
the error was “discovered.”

[5] The majority
relies on two cases to demonstrate that staff turnover is not a sufficient
reason to justify reopening. In Sun West Acquisition Corp. , 45 FMSHRC
141 (Mar. 2023), the operator’s motion was significantly less detailed that the
present case. The motion was only three sentences long and only one of the
sentences explained the failure to timely contest. In Revelation Energy LLC ,
39 FMSHRC 1777 (Sept. 2017), the primary justification for denying relief was
that the operator failed to respond to the Petition, the Order to Show Cause,
and the delinquency notice for a significant amount of time, creating a
“pattern of neglect.” Id . at 1778. No such allegation exists here. Moreover,
in Revelation Energy , the Commission admonished the operator for failure
to explain how it was addressing the problem so that it would not reoccur. In
the present case, Ramaco’s Vice President of Safety stated in a sworn affidavit
that, upon discovery of the error, all safety department employees received
additional training on policy and procedures concerning proposed assessments.