Specifics or No Second Chance: Tenth Circuit Confirms FMSHRC’s Discretion to Deny Reopening of Mine Act Defaults Absent Detailed Causation and Prospective Safeguards

Introduction

In Tintic Consolidated Metals v. Secretary of Labor (10th Cir. Sept. 22, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied a petition for review by Tintic Consolidated Metals LLC, affirming a split decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC) that refused to reopen a Mine Act civil penalty that had become final by default. The decision reinforces, within the Tenth Circuit, the Commission’s settled practice: operators seeking relief from a default must provide detailed, nonconclusory explanations that causally connect the failure to timely contest to specific circumstances (such as personnel changes) and must describe concrete steps they will adopt to prevent recurrence.

The case arises from 16 MSHA citations issued at Tintic’s Trixie mine in Eureka, Utah, in April 2023. MSHA mailed a proposed assessment totaling $83,040 on June 6, delivered June 14. Tintic did not contest within 30 days, so the penalty became a final order on July 14 under 30 U.S.C. § 815(b)(1)(A). After a later delinquency notice, Tintic moved to reopen, citing “major organizational changes.” A 3–2 Commission majority denied reopening; two Commissioners dissented. On review, the Tenth Circuit held the Commission did not abuse its discretion.

Key issues presented included: (1) whether the Commission abused its discretion by denying reopening without a multi-factor analysis; (2) whether the Commission applied an inconsistent standard; and (3) whether promptness, lack of prior reopenings, and the Secretary’s lack of opposition compelled a different outcome.

Summary of the Opinion

Exercising jurisdiction under 30 U.S.C. § 816(a)(1), the Tenth Circuit denied Tintic’s petition. The court reaffirmed that final Mine Act penalty assessments are unreviewable unless the Commission reopens them under standards guided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Reviewing the Commission’s denial for abuse of discretion, the panel concluded the Commission acted consistently with its precedents in requiring:

Specific, fact-grounded detail tying the missed deadline to identifiable causes (e.g., who handles assessments, what changed, when, and how that change caused the failure), and
Concrete prospective measures that will prevent recurrence.

The court held that Tintic’s “general description of personnel changes” and lack of articulated future safeguards were insufficient. While acknowledging that some favorable factors existed (prompt motion after delinquency; no history of reopening; Secretary’s non-opposition), the court emphasized that these did not substitute for the operator’s core burden to provide a detailed, causally adequate explanation and to outline preventive steps.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The opinion situates the dispute within a robust framework of Commission and appellate authority:

Statutory scheme and roles: The Mine Act empowers MSHA to inspect and enforce safety standards and establishes the Commission to adjudicate disputes. See 30 U.S.C. §§ 811, 813–15, 817, 820, 823; Sec’y of Labor v. Westfall Aggregate & Materials, Inc., 69 F.4th 902, 907 (D.C. Cir. 2023); Lone Mountain Processing, Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor, 709 F.3d 1161, 1162 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Finality of unchallenged penalties: If an operator neither pays nor contests within 30 days, the proposed penalty becomes a final Commission order “not subject to review by any court or agency.” 30 U.S.C. § 815(b)(1)(A); Westfall, 69 F.4th at 908.
Reopening authority and standards: The Commission may reopen final orders, applying Rule 60(b) “so far as practicable.” Jim Walter Resources, Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 787 (1993); Lone Mountain, 709 F.3d at 1163. Relief may be granted for “mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other reason justifying relief.” Southwest Rock Products, Inc., 45 FMSHRC 747, 748 (2023); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6).
Operator’s burden and content requirements: The operator bears the burden to show “exceptional circumstances” and must provide “all known details, including relevant dates and persons involved,” and “a clear explanation” for the failure. Panther Creek Mining, LLC, 46 FMSHRC 9, 10 (2024) (quoting Southwest Rock); Higgins Stone Co., 32 FMSHRC 33, 34 (2010); Highland Mining Co., 31 FMSHRC 1313, 1316–17 (2009).
Case-by-case factors: The Commission may consider whether the error reflects indifference or unreliable procedures, whether it is atypical, whether procedures have been updated, whether documentation is complete, good-faith conduct, and MSHA’s position on reopening. Noranda Alumina, LLC, 39 FMSHRC 441, 443 (2017). No precise formula is required.
Appellate review standard: Denials of reopening are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Noranda Alumina, LLC v. Perez, 841 F.3d 661, 664 (5th Cir. 2016); Westfall, 69 F.4th at 911; Lone Mountain, 709 F.3d at 1163. APA judicial-review provisions do not apply. 30 U.S.C. § 956.

The Commission’s recent line of decisions specifically addressing personnel-change explanations was central to the outcome:

Denials for nonspecific personnel-change claims: TM Crushing, LLC, 47 FMSHRC 302, 303 (2025); Ramaco Resources, LLC, 46 FMSHRC 403, 404 (2024); Sun West Acquisition Corp., 45 FMSHRC 141, 142 (2023). These decisions reject general references to turnover without identifying who handled assessments, what changed when, and how the change caused the failure.
Grants where specifics and causation were shown: Cranesville Aggregates, 45 FMSHRC 811–12 (2023) (detail about safety leadership transition, timing, and how the document was delayed); Blue Creek Mining, LLC, 45 FMSHRC 609–11 (2023) (identifying the departing Corporate Safety Director’s role, the missed filing, and prompt corrective action); River View Coal, LLC, 45 FMSHRC 488–89 (2023) (temporary reassignment, miscalculated deadline, one-day late filing).
Complementary denials: Coyote Gravel Products, Inc., 46 FMSHRC 875, 876 (2024) (no identified error or future steps); Atlanta Sand & Supply Co., 30 FMSHRC 605, 606 (2008) (insufficient information to show good cause); Select Materials, 45 FMSHRC 1011, 1013 (2023) (no description of normal personnel/process); Morton Salt, Inc., 46 FMSHRC 15, 16 (2024) (general assurance of future action without identifying specific steps insufficient).

The Tenth Circuit embraced this body of Commission law, concluding the Commission acted within its discretion in treating Tintic’s showing as insufficiently detailed and in requiring articulated preventive steps.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in three main steps:

Scope of review and operator’s burden. The court first emphasized that the only issue before it was the Commission’s denial of reopening, reviewed for abuse of discretion, not the merits of the underlying citations or penalty. The operator bears the burden to show “exceptional circumstances” and to supply granular details explaining its default.
Consistency with Commission standards. The court held the Commission’s decision was consistent with its precedent requiring “all known details” and a “clear explanation” of the failure, including who, when, how, and why, plus the steps the operator will take to prevent recurrence. Tintic, by contrast, provided only a “general description of personnel changes” and no specific future safeguards. The court contrasted Tintic’s submission with cases where operators elaborated critical details tying personnel changes to the missed filing and outlining remediation.
No requirement of an express multi-factor analysis; nondispositive favorable factors. Rejecting Tintic’s argument, the court found no abuse of discretion in the Commission’s decision not to explicitly march through every factor from Noranda (39 FMSHRC 441). The Commission could deny on the threshold failure to provide a specific causal explanation and concrete prevention steps. While some factors favored Tintic (prompt motion post-delinquency, no reopening history, Secretary’s non-opposition), they did not overcome the operator’s deficient core showing.

The court also rejected Tintic’s contention that an “ongoing review” of safety systems excused its inability to specify future prevention measures. Citing Morton Salt, the court noted that a promise to act, without identifying the steps, is inadequate for Rule 60(b)-guided relief.

Impact

This unpublished order (citable for its persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1) crystallizes several practical and doctrinal points likely to guide Mine Act practice in the Tenth Circuit and beyond:

Heightened specificity requirement, reaffirmed. Operators must assemble a fact-rich narrative that connects the dots: who was responsible for contesting, what changed, when, how the change disrupted the process, and why the specific error occurred. General turnover claims do not suffice.
Prospective safeguards are not optional. The Commission is entitled to deny reopening where the operator does not identify concrete remedial steps (e.g., revised mail handling, calendaring protocols, redundancy in personnel roles, escalation procedures) designed to prevent recurrence.
Promptness and non-opposition help, but do not control. Filing soon after the first delinquency notice, a clean history of reopenings, and even the Secretary’s lack of opposition are supportive considerations—but they are insufficient to cure a lack of detail on causation and prevention.
No formalistic multi-factor ritual. The Commission need not expressly recite each factor in every order; it may deny based on threshold deficiencies in the operator’s showing.
Uniformity with Commission precedent. The opinion aligns Tenth Circuit review with Commission denials in TM Crushing, Ramaco, Sun West, and with grants in Cranesville, Blue Creek, River View, emphasizing that outcomes turn on specificity and causation.
Operational takeaway for regulated entities. Mines should institutionalize robust, redundant internal controls for MSHA mail: documented intake procedures, named primary and backup personnel, calendaring with alerts, counsel notice protocols, and written escalation steps. If a default occurs, the reopening motion should attach documentary support (mail logs, emails, affidavits) reflecting these controls and pinpointing the breakdown.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Final order under the Mine Act: If an operator neither pays nor contests a proposed penalty within 30 days, the proposal automatically becomes a final Commission order. By statute, that final order cannot be reviewed by any court or agency (30 U.S.C. § 815(b)(1)(A)).
Reopening a final order (Rule 60(b) guidance): Despite finality, the Commission may, in limited circumstances, reopen a final order using Rule 60(b) principles—think of this as a safety valve for genuine mistakes or excusable neglect. The bar is high, and general assertions are not enough.
Excusable neglect: A legally acceptable failure to meet a deadline due to a reasonable oversight, such as an unusual, well-documented chain of events, typically paired with prompt corrective action and measures to prevent recurrence.
Abuse of discretion: A deferential standard of appellate review. The appellate court does not reweigh everything from scratch; it asks whether the Commission’s decision fell within a permissible range based on the record and governing standards.
Commission versus MSHA: MSHA investigates and prosecutes Mine Act violations; the Commission adjudicates disputes and motions like reopenings. The Secretary’s litigation position (including non-opposition) is relevant but does not bind the Commission’s adjudicatory discretion.

Key Practice Pointers

For operators seeking to reopen a defaulted Mine Act penalty, this case underscores the need to include, at minimum:

A precise timeline: date of MSHA citation(s), date the proposed assessment was received, the 30-day deadline, date of first delinquency notice, and date of motion to reopen.
Identified roles and responsibilities: who (by name and title) normally handles proposed assessments and filing contests; who was assigned at the relevant times; and what changed.
Causation details: how the specific personnel change or process failure prevented timely contest (e.g., reassignment, vacancy, miscalendaring, mailroom routing error).
Documentation: mailroom logs, emails, declarations, screenshots of calendaring systems, evidence of internal handoffs, and any misdirected communications.
Prospective safeguards: concrete, implemented changes (e.g., dual-review process for MSHA mail, automated deadline tracking with alerts to multiple personnel, outside counsel notification protocols, cross-training, and written SOPs).
Good-faith conduct: prompt action upon learning of the default, lack of dilatory motive, and a prior record free of repeated reopenings.

Conclusion

Tintic reinforces a clear and operator-focused rule: to reopen a defaulted Mine Act penalty, it is not enough to invoke “organizational changes” or promise later improvements. The operator must present a detailed, causally specific account of what went wrong and identify concrete steps to ensure it will not happen again. The Tenth Circuit’s decision confirms that the Commission may deny relief in the absence of such particulars and need not perform a formal, factor-by-factor analysis when the core showing is deficient. While default is a “harsh remedy,” the statutory finality of unchallenged penalties and the integrity of the enforcement process demand specificity, documentation, and demonstrable remediation. This order thus provides a practical blueprint—and a cautionary tale—for Mine Act operators seeking a second chance under Rule 60(b)-guided standards.