Secretary of Labor v. Tintic Consolidated Metals, LLC

Plain-English summary

Tintic missed the contest deadline for an $83,040 assessment while its chief operating officer was retiring, its safety superintendent changed positions, and a new general manager was appointed. The company discovered the delinquency when the new manager received a later assessment and promptly moved to reopen. The Commission majority held that Tintic did not explain how the personnel changes caused the missed filing or identify concrete steps to prevent another failure. It denied reopening even though the Secretary did not oppose relief. Chair Jordan and Commissioner Althen dissented, finding the organizational changes, prompt filing, and lack of prior reopening motions sufficient to show mistake or excusable neglect.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The motion to reopen the final assessment was denied.
• Key point: Personnel changes must be tied to the missed deadline with specific facts and corrective measures.

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.

TINTIC
CONSOLIDATED METALS,

LLC

|

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

|

Docket
No. WEST 2023-0406

A.C.
No. 42-00147-578445

|

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

ORDER

BY: Rajkovich,
Baker, and Marvit, Commissioners

This
matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §
801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On September 12, 2023, the Commission received
from Tintic Consolidated Metals, LLC (“Tintic”) 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).

Records
of the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”)
indicate that the proposed assessment was delivered on June 14, 2023, and
became a final order of the Commission on July 14, 2023. On August 29, 2023,
MSHA sent the operator a delinquency notice.

Tintic
asserts that at the time it received the proposed assessment, it was undergoing
major organizational changes in that its Chief Operating Officer was retiring,
the Safety Superintendent took a different position, and a new General Manager
was appointed. On August 18, 2023, when its new General Manager was appointed,
it received “the most recent” proposed assessment on August 18, 2023. Tintic
noticed that it had an outstanding balance arising from the subject proposed
assessment, No. 000578445, in the amount of $83,040. Tintic states that it has
been reviewing all of its safety systems and controls, and MSHA citations and
the reasons for their issuance, in an effort to improve its safety performance
and compliance. 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.

The party seeking to reopen a final
penalty bears the burden of showing that it is entitled to such relief, through
a detailed explanation of its failure to timely respond. Revelation Energy,
LLC, 40 FMSHRC 375, 375-76 (Mar. 2018). General assertions or conclusory
statements are insufficient. Southwest Rock Prod., Inc., 45 FMSHRC
747,748 (Aug. 2023). At a minimum, the applicant must provide all known
details, including relevant dates and persons involved, and a clear explanation
that accounts, to the best of the operator’s knowledge, for the failure to
submit a timely response. Higgins Stone Co., 32 FMSHRC 33, 34 (Jan.
2010). Here, Tintic provides only a cursory explanation for its failure to timely
respond to the proposed penalty assessment. Although Tintic states that it was
undergoing personnel changes, it fails to provide information regarding how
those personnel changes caused its failure to timely file its contest of the
proposed penalties. In addition, although Tintic has stated that it is
reviewing its safety systems and controls, it has not identified the steps it will
take to ensure timely filing in the future. Accordingly, we find that Tintic
has failed to meet its burden of showing that it is entitled to relief.

Having
reviewed Tintic’s request and the Secretary’s
response, we conclude that the operator failed to establish good cause
for reopening the captioned proceeding. Tintic’s motion to reopen provides no
explanation for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalty assessment
beyond a general description of personnel changes and fails to describe actions
it will take to ensure timely filing in the future. Accordingly, Tintic’s
request to reopen is denied. See Coal-Mac LLC, 46 FMSHRC 33, 34-35 (Jan.
2024) (denying relief where operator failed to provide sufficient explanation
for its untimeliness).

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

/s/ Timothy J.
Baker

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner

/s/ Moshe Z. Marvit

Moshe Z. Marvit, Commissioner

Chair
Jordan and Commissioner Althen, dissenting,

We
dissent from the majority’s decision and find that Tintic Consolidated Metals,
LLC, has demonstrated good cause to reopen this final order.

Tintic
filed a motion to reopen on September 12, 2023, soon after receiving a delinquency
notice sent by MSHA on August 29, 2023. Highland Mining Co., 31 FMSHRC
1313, 1316-17 (Nov. 2009) (“[m]otions to reopen received within 30 days of an
operator’s receipt of its first notice from MSHA that it has failed to timely
file a notice of contest will be presumptively considered as having been filed
within a reasonable amount of time.”).

Tintic
does not have a history of filing motions to reopen with the Commission. This
motion, filed pro se by its safety coordinator, states that at the time
Tintic received the proposed civil penalty assessment it was undergoing major
organizational changes. Tintic’s Chief Operating Officer was retiring, the
Safety Superintendent moved positions, and a new General Manager was appointed.
On August 18, 2023, the new General Manager received a separate proposed
assessment from MSHA which stated a prior delinquent balance of $83,040. Tintic
filed the motion to reopen the delinquent penalty assessment and mantains that
it has been reviewing all of its safety systems and controls, and MSHA
citations and the reasons for their issuance, in an effort to improve its
safety performance and compliance.

Our
colleagues in the majority deny the motion, finding the operator’s explanation
too cursory to meet its burden for relief. To the contrary, the operator
included relevant details including who, when and how it discovered its
mistake. We conclude that a major organizational change and a missed filing
deadline, coupled with the prompt filing of a motion to reopen, indicates that
the operator’s failure to timely file was the result of a mistake or excusable
neglect. In so concluding, we also consider that the Secretary of Labor filed a
response indicating that she did not oppose the operator’s request for relief.

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan,
Chair

/s/ William I.
Althen

William I. Althen,
Commissioner

Distribution:

Robert
D. Ayers

Erik
J. Adams

Holland
& Hart LLP

P.O.
Box 68

Jackson,
WY 83001

[email protected]

[email protected]

Kim
Spear, Mine/Safety Superintendent

M.
Marnie Taylor, Safety Coordinator

Zachary
Wallace, Alt. Mine/Safety Superintendent

P.O.
Box 195

Eureka,
UT 84628

[email protected]

[email protected]

[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]

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]

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

Office
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

[email protected]