Secretary of Labor v. Ramaco Resources, LLC

Plain-English summary

Ramaco sought to reopen six proposed penalty assessments after its notices of contest were filed one day late. The assessments had been forwarded to the company's vice president of law five days after receipt, and he mistakenly calculated the deadline from the forwarding date. The Secretary did not oppose reopening but urged the company to improve its deadline controls. The Commission found that the brief delay resulted from a genuine mistake and noted that Ramaco had changed its email practice to identify the actual receipt date. It reopened all six matters and remanded them for penalty proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.12 and 2700.28
• Outcome: Six final penalty assessments were reopened and remanded for further proceedings.
• Key point: A one-day delay caused by a documented deadline-calculation mistake supported reopening when the operator promptly contested and changed its process.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

June 2, 2026

SECRETARY OF LABOR MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), v. RAMACO RESOURCES, LLC | Docket No. WEVA 2026-0038 A.C. No. 46-09541-627982 Docket No. WEVA 2026-0039 A.C. No. 46-09084-627972 Docket No. WEVA 2026-0040 A.C. No. 46-08663-627971 Docket No. WEVA 2026-0045 A.C. No. 46-09602-627985 Docket No. WEVA 2026-0046 A.C. No. 46-09533-627980 Docket No. WEVA 2026-0047 A.C. No. 46-09537-627981 |

BEFORE: Rajkovich, Chair; Jordan, and Baker, 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. (2024) (“Mine Act”). On December 11, 2025, the Commission received from Ramaco Resources, LLC (“Nally”) six motions seeking to reopen penalty assessments that had become 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

[]1 For the limited purpose of addressing these motions to reopen, we hereby consolidate Docket Nos. WEVA 2026-0038, WEVA 2026-0039, WEVA 2026-0040, WEVA 2026-0045,

WEVA 2026-0046, and WEVA 2026-0047, involving similar procedural issues. 29 C.F.R.

§ 2700.12.

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 assessments were delivered on October 2, 2025,

and became final orders of the Commission on November 3, 2025. Ramaco asserts that, while it received the proposed assessments on October 2, they were not scanned into their system and forwarded to the company’s Vice President of Law until October 7, 2025. The Vice President of Law mistakenly believed he had thirty days from October 7 to contest the penalties. Upon discovering his error, he immediately filed contests in each of the above-captioned cases, one day after the proposed penalties had become final orders of the Commission. The Secretary does not oppose the requests to reopen, but urges the operator to take steps to ensure that future penalty contests are timely filed.

Having reviewed Ramaco’s request and the Secretary’s response, we find that the brief delay in filing the notices of contest were the result of a genuine mistake on the part of the operator. See Reading Anthracite Co., 35 FMSHRC 332 (Feb. 2013). We also note Ramaco’s assertion that it has taken steps to prevent the mistake from recurring, by placing the received date of the Proposed Assessments in the subject line of the forwarding email.

In the interest of justice, we hereby reopen these matters and remand them 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 petition for assessments of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order.

See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Chair

Distribution:

Jonathan R. Ellis, Esq.

Mark C. Dean, Esq.

Steptoe & Johnson PLLC 707 Virginia Street East Chase Tower, 17th Floor Charleston, WV 25301

[email protected] [email protected]

Jennifer A. Ledig, Esq. Susannah Maltz, Esq. 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] [email protected] [email protected]

Melanie Garris

US Department of Labor/MSHA Office of Assessments, Room N3454 200 Constitution Ave NW Washington, DC 20210 [email protected] [email protected]

Acting Chief Judge David P. Simonton

Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N Washington, DC 20004-1710 [email protected]