Secretary of Labor v. M-Class Mining, Inc. and M-Class Mining, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor

Plain-English summary

MSHA sought $133,000 against M-Class Mining for allegedly failing to withdraw miners promptly after a ventilation-fan malfunction. The consolidated penalty and contest cases were stayed while the Secretary investigated possible personal liability under section 110(c), but the investigation remained incomplete more than two years after the orders were issued. Judge Jerold Feldman noted that MSHA's policy normally calls for personal assessments within 18 months, while recognizing that the Mine Act's reasonable-time requirement is not jurisdictional. He gave the Secretary until August 31, 2017, which was 32 months after the underlying orders, to initiate a personal-liability case or decline to do so. The judge warned that another missed deadline could support dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.313(a)(3) and 75.313(c)(1)
• Outcome: The stay continued subject to a final August 31, 2017 deadline for the section 110(c) investigation.
• Key point: Although MSHA's assessment timetable is not jurisdictional, an extended personal-liability investigation can justify a firm deadline and possible failure-to-prosecute dismissal.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW
COMMISSION

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

1331 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004

March 28, 2017

SECRETARY OF LABOR

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH   

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

Petitioner

v.

M-CLASS MINING, INC.,

Respondent

M-CLASS MINING, INC.,

Contestant

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH   

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

Petitioner

CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS

Docket No. LAKE 2015-686

A.C. No. 11-03189-390047

Docket No. LAKE 2016-55

A.C. No. 11-03189-394304

Mine: MC #1

CONTEST PROCEEDINGS

Docket No. LAKE 2015-186-R

Order No. 9033167; 12/05/2014

Docket No. LAKE 2015-185-R

Order No. 9033166; 12/05/2014

Mine: MC #1

ORDER

Before:                        Judge Feldman

The captioned consolidated civil penalty and contest
proceedings are before me upon petitions for assessment of civil penalty filed
pursuant to section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977
(“Mine Act”). 30 U.S.C. § 815(d). The Secretary of Labor seeks to impose a total
civil penalty of $133,000.00 for 104(d)(2) Order Nos. 9033166 and 9033167,
which allege M-Class Mining, Inc.’s (“M-Class”) failure to timely withdraw
miners from a working section after the malfunction of a ventilation fan, in
violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.313(a)(3) and 30 C.F.R. § 75.313(c)(1),
respectively. These orders were issued by the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (“MSHA”) on December 5, 2014.

On April 27, 2016, Docket Nos. LAKE
2015-686 and LAKE 2015-185-R were stayed based on the parties’ representation
that the Secretary had initiated an investigation to determine whether to
initiate a personal liability case pursuant to the provisions of section 110(c)
of the Mine Act. The stay was to be lifted upon completion of the Secretary’s
investigation.

Given the Secretary’s failure to
complete his section 110(c) investigation during the six months following the
issuance of the stay, on September 14, 2016, an order was issued requiring the
Secretary to advise, on or before November 10, 2016, whether he had initiated a
110(c) proceeding for consolidation, or alternatively, whether he had declined
to bring any relevant 110(c) actions. Thereafter, the Secretary moved to
consolidate the captioned civil penalty matters in Docket Nos. LAKE 2015-686
and LAKE 2016-55 with the relevant contest matters in Docket Nos. LAKE 2015-185-R
and LAKE 2015-186-R. The captioned matters were consolidated pursuant to the
Secretary’s request on December 12, 2016, at which time the Secretary was
granted an extension, until January 25, 2017, to comply with the September 14 order.

As the Secretary failed to comply with
the January 25, 2017, deadline, on February 8, 2017, the Secretary was Ordered to
Show Cause why the captioned matters should not be dismissed for a failure to
prosecute. On February 9, 2017, the Secretary responded, asserting that he had
failed to comply with the January 25 deadline “because the Secretary had
neither ‘initiated a relevant 110(c) proceeding’ nor had the Secretary
‘declined to bring any relevant 110(c) actions.’” The Secretary further
requested that the stay remain in effect pending the ongoing 110(c)
investigations.

The reasonable time period for filing a
section 110(c) action has been previously addressed in a Commission proceeding:

Section 105(a) of the Act provides that
“[i]f, after an inspection or investigation, the Secretary issues a citation or
order under section 104, he shall, within a reasonable time after the
termination of such inspection or investigation, notify the operator … of the
civil penalty proposed to be assessed … for the violation cited ….” Section
110(c) is silent regarding when an individual respondent must be notified of a
proposed penalty assessment. However, since penalty assessments against
individuals brought under § 110(c) arise from the same inspections as penalty
assessments against operators, it would logically follow that the reasonable
time requirement [referred to in] § 105(a) should apply to penalty assessments
brought under § 110(c).

Brinson,
et al., employed by Kentucky-Tennessee Clay Co. , 35 FMSHRC
1463, 1465 (May 2013) (ALJ Tureck) (citations omitted). Thus, it has been held
that the provisions of section 105(a), and its apparent applicability to
section 110(c) cases, require the Secretary to file a petition for assessment
of civil penalty within a “reasonable time” after termination of an
investigation . However, the Secretary has identified 18 months as the
operative reasonable time period for filing civil penalty petitions in 110(c)
cases, computed from the date of the subject citation or order, which in this
case is December 5, 2014, rather than the date of the completion of the 110(c)
investigation. See I MSHA, U.S. Dep’t of Labor,  Program Policy
Manual , § 110(c) (2012).

Specifically,
MSHA’s Program Policy Manual provides:

Investigative timeframes have been
established to help ensure the timely assessment of civil penalties against
corporate directors, officers, and agents. Normally, such assessments will be
issued within 18 months from the date of issuance of the subject citation or
order. However, if the 18 month timeframe is exceeded, [the Compliance and
Investigation office (“TCIO”)] will review the case and decide whether to refer
it to the Office of Special Assessments for penalty proposal. In such cases,
the referral memorandum to the Office of Special Assessments will be signed by
the Administrator.

Id.
(emphasis
added).

I recognize that the Secretary’s
obligation to initiate a 110(c) proceeding within a reasonable period of time
is not jurisdictional. Sec’y of Labor v. Twentymile Coal Co. , 411 F.3d
256, 261 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (holding that the “reasonable time” provision for
filing petitions for civil penalty in the Mine Act is intended to “spur the
Secretary to action,” rather than to confer rights on litigants that will limit
the scope of the Secretary’s authority). However, the Secretary’s discretion to
initiate 110(c) proceedings in a timely manner is not unfettered. Here,
approximately 27 months have passed since the issuance of the subject
violations during which time witnesses may have become unavailable and memories
may have faded. However, I will reluctantly provide the Secretary with an additional
reasonable period of time to complete his investigation.

ORDER

In
view of the above, IT IS ORDERED that the Secretary must initiate ,
on or before August 31, 2017 (32 months after the issuance of the
underlying citation), a relevant 110(c) proceeding, or advise the undersigned that
he has declined to do so. In furtherance of the efficient utilization of the
Commission’s resources, [1]
should the Secretary fail to meet this deadline, I will entertain a motion to
dismiss the captioned proceedings against M-Class Mining, Inc., for
failure to prosecute.

/s/
Jerold Feldman

Jerold Feldman

Administrative
Law Judge

Distribution:
(Regular and Certified Mail)

Rachel L. Graeber, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of
the Solicitor, 230 S. Dearborn Street, Room 844, Chicago, IL 60604

Eric Silkwood, Esq., Hardy Pence PLLC, 500 Lee Street East,
Suite 701, Charleston, WV 25301

/acp

[1] The consolidation of any relevant 110(c) proceeding with
the captioned civil penalty proceedings is an essential means of avoiding wasteful
and duplicative adjudication. For the principle of collateral estoppel would
not preclude a 110(c) litigant’s right to a de novo 110(c) hearing
despite a prior adjudication of the civil penalty proceeding brought against
the mine operator.