1 

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710

BEFORE: Jordan, Chair; Althen, Rajkovich, and Baker, 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 13, 2023, the Commission received from Chad 

Buus (“Buus”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment that had appeared to become a 

final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a). 

On August 7, 2023, Buus received a proposed penalty assessment from the Secretary. On 

September 7, 2023, the proposed assessment was deemed a final order of the Commission, when 

it appeared that the operator had not filed a Notice of Contest within 30 days. 

 

The operator asserts that it timely filed its contest of the assessment on August 16, 2023, 

via the Mine Safety and Health Administration’s (MSHA) contest email address. MSHA’s 

records confirm that the contest was timely received but had not been assigned or processed by 

the agency. When this error was brought to MSHA’s Civil Penalty and Compliance Office’s 

attention, the contest was assigned and processed. Based upon these circumstances, the 

Secretary submits that the Motion to Reopen should be denied as moot. Alternatively, the 

Secretary does not oppose the Motion to Reopen. 

 

 Having reviewed Buus’ 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, Buus notified the Secretary of the contest. This 

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH 

 ADMINISTRATION (MSHA) 

 v. 

CHAD BUUS, employed by

 UNITED STATES STEEL – 

 MINNESOTA ORE OPERATIONS 

:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

 : 

 : 

Docket No. LAKE 2024-0016 

A.C. No. 21-00820-581886A 

February 21, 2024
2

obviates any need to invoke Rule 60(b). 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.

_________________________________

Mary Lu Jordan, Chair

_________________________________ 

William I. Althen, Commissioner 

 

_________________________________ 

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

________________________________ 

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner 
3

Distribution:

R. Henry Moore, Esq.

Fisher & Phillips LLP

Six PPG Place

Suite 830

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

hmoore@fisherphillips.com

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

Nelson.April@dol.gov

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

scott.emily.t@dol.gov

Melanie Garris 

USDOL/MSHA, OAASEI/CPCO 

201 12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22202

Garris.Melanie@DOL.GOV

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

GVoisin@fmshrc.gov