Secretary of Labor v. Miller Contracting Services, LLC (Commission decision, June 7, 2023)

Plain-English summary

Miller Contracting said it timely mailed a contest for Citation No. 9488618, but MSHA never received the form. The operator's short filing did not provide supporting details or documentation. Even so, Miller sought reopening promptly, filing 32 days after the assessment became a final Commission order. The Secretary did not oppose the request and reported that the related imminent-danger order had been timely contested. The Commission found that the missed filing resulted from mistake, reopened the matter, and remanded it for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The penalty for Citation No. 9488618 was reopened and remanded.
• Key point: A prompt motion and an unopposed claim that a timely contest was lost in the mail supported reopening despite sparse documentation.

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.

MILLER
CONTRACTING SERVICES,

LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. CENT 2022-0253

A.C.
No. 13-00032-559242

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

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This
case arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On September 26, 2022, the Commission received from Miller Contracting Services, LLC (“Miller”), a motion to reopen a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the 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 to the operator on July 26, 2022, and became a final order of the Commission on August 25, 2022. Miller filed a short pro se motion to reopen stating that it timely filed to contest the penalty for Citation No. 9488618 and attributing MSHA’s non-reciept of the contest to the form becoming lost in the mail. MSHA states that it received a partial payment toward the penalty on August 25, 2023.

We
note that although Miller’s motion lacks details and documentation regarding the operator’s attempt to timely file, Miller promptly filed to reopen shortly after learning that MSHA did not receive its contest form. Specifically, Miller filed its motion 32 days after the citation became a final order of the Commission. The Secretary does not oppose the operator’s request. [1]

Having reviewed Millers’s request and the Secretary’s response, we find that Miller has demonstrated that its failure to timely file was the result of a mistake. 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/
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:

Ray
Boon

HR/Safety
Manager

Miller
Contracting Services, LLC

5905
Walnut Grove Road

Carrier
Mills, IL 62917

[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

1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

[1] The Secretary represents
that the operator timely contested the imminent-danger order that was issued in association with Citation No. 9488618. The parties further represent that they have reached a settlement agreement involving the imminent-danger order and the citation.