Secretary of Labor v. Garcia Mining Company, LLC

Plain-English summary

Garcia emailed its penalty contest to MSHA's Civil Penalty Office two days after receiving the proposed assessment. MSHA did not docket the contest, and Garcia later received a delinquency notice. The company supplied email evidence of its timely filing and sought reopening after MSHA directed it to the Commission. The Commission held that the assessment never became final because Garcia had notified the Secretary of its intent to contest within the statutory period. It denied the reopening motion as moot and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The assessment was held nonfinal, the reopening motion was denied as moot, and the case was remanded.
• Key point: A timely contest prevents an assessment from becoming final even if MSHA fails to docket the filing.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20004‑1710

SECRETARY OF LABOR, :

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
:

:

v.
: Docket No. SE 2024-0023

: A.C. No. 08-01453-578347

GARCIA MINING COMPANY, LLC :

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

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This
matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §
801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On October 20, 2023, the Commission received from
Garcia Mining Company, LLC (“Garcia”) 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).

Records of the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health
Administration (“MSHA”) indicate that the proposed assessment was delivered on
June 12, 2023, and became a final order of the Commission on July 12, 2023.

Garcia asserts that it timely contested the proposed penalty
assessment on June 14, 2023, two days
after receipt of the assessment. The operator provided email evidence showing that Counsel’s office submitted its contest directly to MSHA’s Civil Penalty
Office via email on that date.[1]
Nevertheless, Garcia learned
that the assessment had not been docketed by MSHA as contested when it received
a delinquency notice dated August 28, 2023. On September 22, 2023, Counsel
notified MSHA that it had received a delinquency notice in spite of its timely
filed contest and requested that the Penalty Office reopen the assessment. On
October 4, 2023, MSHA informed Counsel for Garcia that it would have to file a
motion to reopen. Garcia’s motion to reopen was filed on October 20, 2023. 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 in accordance with MSHA’s regulations at 30 C.F.R. §
100.7 and the Commission’s procedural rules. The Secretary further suggests
that the operator’s motion be dismissed as moot.

Having reviewed Garcia’s request and the Secretary’s response, we conclude
that the proposed penalty assessment did not become a final order of the
Commission because the operator timely contested the proposed assessment. Section
105(a) states that if an operator “fails to notify the Secretary that he
intends to contest the . . . proposed assessment of penalty . . . the citation
and the proposed assessment of penalty shall be deemed a final order of the
Commission.” 30 U.S.C. § 815(a). Here, Garcia notified the Secretary of the
contest. This obviates any need to invoke Rule 60(b). See Chad Buus, Employed By U.S.
Steel - Minnesota Ore Operations, 46 FMSHRC 86, 86-87 (Feb. 2024); San Benito Supply,
40 FMSHRC 346, 346–47 (Mar. 2018). Accordingly,
the operator’s motion to reopen is moot, and this case is remanded 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.

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Chair

/s/
Timothy J. Baker

Timothy J.
Baker, Commissioner

/s/ Moshe Z. Marvit

Moshe Z. Marvit, Commissioner

Distribution:

Adele L. Abrams, Esq., CMSP

Law Office of Adele L.
Abrams, P.C.

4740 Corridor Place

Suite D

Beltsville, MD 20705

[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

Office of the Chief
Administrative Law Judge

Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

[1] Garcia also timely contested the underlying
citations, which have been docketed by the Commission and assigned to a
Commission Administrative Law Judge.