Jones Brothers, Inc. v. MSHA, 68 F.4th 289

Jones Brothers contracted with Tennessee DOT to supply 68,615 tons of TDOT-specified "graded solid rock" for a road repair project and leased a nearby site to extract the stone.
Extraction involved overburden removal, pattern blasting, screening (shaker/slotted buckets), excavators, and hauling; the site also served as a waste pit.
An MSHA inspector visited April 5, 2016, issued citations for Mine Act violations, and proceedings followed before the Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission (the Commission).
An earlier ALJ decision finding Mine Act jurisdiction was vacated for an Appointments Clause defect; the case was remanded for fresh proceedings before a different ALJ (Rae).
On remand ALJ Rae found the site was a mine, not a borrow pit, concluding extraction was more-than-intermittent and the rock was used for its intrinsic properties (drainage/hardness) rather than merely bulk fill; the Commission denied review.
Jones Brothers appealed, arguing (1) the site was a borrow pit (OSHA jurisdiction) and (2) the remand was not a sufficiently "fresh" proceeding; the Sixth Circuit affirmed the Commission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the extraction site was a "borrow pit" (OSHA) or a "mine" (MSHA) under the Interagency Agreement	Site met borrow pit criteria: one-time/intermittent extraction and material used as bulk fill for the single TDOT project	Extraction was frequent (up to 6 days/week for months), material was sized/tested to TDOT specs and used for intrinsic drainage/hardness properties, so it is a mine	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports ALJ that extraction was not intermittent and material was used more for intrinsic qualities, so MSHA jurisdiction applies
Whether remand proceedings satisfied the court's mandate for "fresh proceedings" after vacatur for Appointments Clause error	ALJ Rae read the prior vacated decision before hearing and therefore proceedings were tainted and not "fresh"	Reading past decision does not by itself create disqualifying bias; Calcutt and Lucia permit an independent de novo adjudication that may consider prior records	Affirmed: no showing of continuing taint; Rae’s review of the prior decision did not require reversal

North Fork Coal Corp. v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 691 F.3d 735 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing ALJ legal conclusions and factual findings)
Kenamerican Res., Inc. v. United States Sec'y of Labor, 33 F.4th 884 (6th Cir. 2022) (substantial-evidence review of Commission factual findings)
Pendley v. Fed. Mine Safety & Health Rev. Comm'n, 601 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2010) (definition of substantial evidence)
Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607 (1966) (administrative findings upheld if reasonable minds could accept evidence)
Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) (Appointments Clause and remedy principles requiring a new hearing before a properly appointed official)
Calcutt v. FDIC, 37 F.4th 293 (6th Cir. 2022) (fresh proceedings after vacatur need independent adjudication but need not ignore prior record)
United States v. Am. Union Transp., Inc., 327 U.S. 437 (1946) (agency inaction or past practice does not preclude later assertion of jurisdiction)