Secretary of Labor v. MDI Mining

Plain-English summary

MDI Mining timely contested three enforcement actions in May 2024, but did not receive the related proposed penalty assessment until October. The assessment was dated July 9, which made it appear that the 30-day penalty-contest period had already expired and caused filing confusion. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The majority found a good-faith effort and mistake, reopened the assessment, and remanded it for further proceedings. Commissioner Marvit dissented because he believes the Commission lacks authority to reopen section 105(a) final orders.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The penalty assessment was reopened and remanded, over one Commissioner's dissent.
• Key point: A delayed assessment carrying a much earlier date can support reopening when it reasonably causes deadline confusion.

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.

MDI
MINING               

Docket
No. WEST 2025-0154

A.C.
No. 02-02633-602391

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

ORDER

BY: Chair Jordan
and Commissioner Baker

This
matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §
801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On February 12, 2025, the Commission received
from MDI Mining 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).

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).

In
its motion to reopen, MDI Mining represents that on May 31, 2024, it filed
notices to contest Citation No. 9908246, Order No. 9908247, and Citation No.
9908248 with the Commission. [1]
MDI Mining further represents that it did not receive the proposed assessment
for civil penalty from the Secretary of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health
Administration for these citations until October 2024. When the proposed
assessment was received in October, it was dated July 9, 2024, providing the
appearance that the 30-day period for contest of the penalty assessment had
lapsed. The operator states that this caused confusion and, as a result, it
failed to timely file.

The
Secretary of Labor does not oppose the operator’s request to reopen. The
Secretary’s Mine Data Retrieval System indicates that the civil penalty
assessment became a final order of the Commission on November 27, 2024.

Having reviewed MDI Mining’s request and
the Secretary's response, we find that the operator made a good faith effort to
timely file and that its failure to file to contest the proposed penalty 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/ Timothy J. Baker

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner

Commissioner
Marvit, dissenting:

I write to
disagree with the Majority in this case for the reasons set forth below.

In Explosive Contractors ,
46 FMSHRC 965 (Dec. 2024), I dissented and explained that Congress did not
grant the Commission the authority to reopen final orders under section 105(a) of
the Mine Act. The Commission’s repeated invocation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) cannot overcome the statutory language. However, in Belt
Tech , I explained in my concurrence that “the Act clearly states that to
become a final order of the Commission, the operator must have received the
notification from the Secretary.” 46 FMSHRC 975 (citing Hancock Materials,
Inc ., 31 FMSHRC 537 (May 2009)). Taken together, these opinions stand for
the proposition that the Commission may not reopen final orders under its
statutory grant, but an operator may proceed if it has not properly received a
proposed order.

In the instant
case, as the Majority recounts, the Commission’s order became final under the
language of section 105(a). The Majority, however, votes to reopen the case.
The Mine Act has not granted us authority to reconsider final orders of the
Commission as I set out more fully in Explosive Contractors . To the
contrary, it has limited our authority to do so. Therefore, I respectfully
dissent and would deny reopening.

/s/ Moshe Z.
Marvit

Moshe Z. Marvit,
Commissioner

Distribution:

Adele
L. Abrams, Esq., CMSP,

Littler
Mendelson PC

815
Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400

Washington,
DC 20006

[email protected]

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] 

Melanie
Garris

US Department of Labor/MSHA 

Office
of Assessments, Room N3454 

200
Constitution Ave NW 

Washington,
DC 20210 

[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] The Commission
assigned the cases the following docket numbers: WEST 2024-0251, WEST 2024-0252
and WEST 2024-0253.