Coal Country Mining, Inc. (Commission decision, November 26, 2010)

Coal Country Mining, Inc. (FMSHRC WEVA 2010-918): Lost assessment explanation needs more detail

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
WEVA 2010-918
Decided
November 26, 2010
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-08

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2010, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2010
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance under 30 U.S.C. § 816; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

MSHA split penalties from one inspection into two assessments covering 19 citations and orders. Coal Country timely contested the assessment covering 16 items, but said the separate assessment covering three items was sent to its representative and never received. The company did not explain when its representative discovered the missed contest or why it waited about two months after an MSHA delinquency notice to seek reopening. The Commission found the explanation too vague to establish relief and denied the request without prejudice. Coal Country was allowed 30 days to file a more detailed renewed request.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a) and 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b)
  • Outcome: Reopening was denied without prejudice, with 30 days allowed for a renewed request.
  • Key point: A claim that an assessment was lost in transmission must explain when the failure was discovered and why the operator delayed after receiving a delinquency notice.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

November 26, 2010

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

COAL COUNTRY MINING, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. WEVA 2010-918

A.C. No. 46-08884-203963 X359

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, 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. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On April 22, 2010, the Commission received a request to reopen a penalty assessment issued to Coal Country Mining, Inc.(“Coal Country”) that became 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 section 105(a) orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which, for example, a party could be entitled to relief from a final order of the Commission on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. 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).

On October 20, 2009, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued 19 citations/orders to Coal Country. On November 24, 2009, MSHA issued Proposed Assessment No. 000203963 to Coal Country, which proposed civil penalties for three of the citations/orders that were issued on October 20, 2009. On December 22, 2009, MSHA issued Penalty Assessment No. 000206855 covering the remaining 16 citations/orders from the inspection of October 20, 2009. Coal Country asserts that it intended to contest all citations stemming from the inspection on October 20, 2009. It further submits that it successfully contested the penalties for the 16 citations that were contained on the December 2009 penalty assessment. With respect to Assessment No. 000203963, Coal Country submits that it sent the assessment to its representative to contest but that the assessment was never received. The representative further submits that he discovered that Penalty Assessment No. 000203963 had not been contested while reviewing MSHA’s website but does not indicate when that occurred.

The Secretary opposes Coal Country’s request to reopen because its explanation lacks sufficient detail as to why it failed to timely contest the assessments. She maintains that an inadequate or unreliable internal office procedure does not provide sufficient grounds for reopening. The Secretary notes that a delinquency notice was sent to the operator on

February 16, 2010, two months before it filed its reopening request.

Having reviewed Coal Country’s request to reopen and the Secretary’s response thereto, we agree that the operator has failed to provide a sufficient basis for the Commission to reopen the penalty assessment. In addition, Coal Country has failed to explain why it delayed approximately two months in responding to the delinquency notice sent by MSHA.

Accordingly, we hereby deny without prejudice Coal country’s request to reopen. FKZ Coal Inc., 29 FMSHRC 177, 178 (Apr. 2007); Petra Materials, 31 FMSHRC 47, 49 (Jan. 2009). The words “without prejudice” mean that Coal Country may submit another request to reopen Assessment No. 000203963.

Any amended or renewed request by the operator to reopen this assessment must be filed within 30 days of this order. Any such request filed after that time will be denied with prejudice.


Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman


Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner


Michael G. Young, Commissioner


Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner


Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner

Distribution:

James F. Bowman

Coal Country Mining, Inc.

P.O. Box 99

Midway, WV 25878

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296 

Melanie Garris

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA

U.S. Dept. of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001-2021

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace