Secretary of Labor v. Marfork Coal Company, LLC

Plain-English summary

Marfork Coal missed the deadline to contest seven citations because an executive assistant did not change the assessment's status from “New” to “Ready for Review” in the parent company's internal system. The same assistant and same error had caused another Alpha Metallurgical subsidiary to miss a deadline months earlier. Alpha had promised the Commission that it would correct that process, but the problem recurred. The Secretary opposed reopening, and Marfork did not reply. The Commission found that the repeated failure showed an inadequate internal processing system, so it denied reopening with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The motion to reopen seven penalties was denied with prejudice.
• Key point: Repeating the same clerical failure after promising to fix it does not establish good cause for reopening.

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.

MARFORK
COAL COMPANY, LLC,

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. WEVA 2023-0043

A.C.
No. 46-09550-560358

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 November 4, 2022, the Commission received
from Marfork Coal Company, LLC (“Marfork”), 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 August 17, 2022. On
September 16, 2022, the assessment became a final order of the Commission.

Marfork states that it emailed a notice of
contest to MSHA, on September 26, 2022—after the order had become final—noting
its intent to contest seven citations. The Secretary received a check directed
toward the proposed assessment in the amount of $5,224 on October 5, 2022. [1]

Marfork
then filed the subject motion to reopen the seven citations and penalties that
it had tried to contest. Marfork states that an executive assistant at Marfork’s
parent company, Alpha Metallurgical Resources, Inc., made a mistake; she neglected
to change the assessment status to “Ready for Review” after logging it into the
company’s internal processing system. As a result, the safety director did not
review the citations until September 19, 2022, three days after the civil
penalty assessment had become a final order of the Commission. Marfork promises
that “[i]n the future, [the executive assistant] will more timely move the
Proposed Assessment from ‘New’ to ‘Ready for Safety Review,’ so that the Safety
Department has adequate time to contest the violations well within the 30-day
period.” Mot. at 3.   

The
Secretary opposes the operator’s motion to reopen. The Secretary represents
that the operator has not established good cause for its failure to timely
contest the proposed assessment, but instead has identified uncorrected
inadequate internal procedures which in the recent past have contributed to its
failure to timely contested other proposed assessments.

In fact, several months prior to filing
this motion, Alpha cited to the exact same clerical error in a motion to
reopen filed by a different subsidiary. On June 27, 2022, Alpha represented to
the Commission that Mammoth Coal Company failed to timely contest a proposed
assessment because the same administrative assistant inadvertently neglected to
change the proposed assessment status to “Ready for Safety Review” in the
operator’s internal processing system. [2]
In granting Mammoth’s motion to reopen, the Commission relied on “[t]he
operator[’s] promise[ ] that, in the future, the executive assistant will
timely move all proposed assessments to ‘Ready for Review’ status.” Mammoth
Coal Co ., Docket No. WEVA 2022-0426 (March 13, 2023) at 2.

In
opposing Marfork’s motion, the Secretary argues that “[t]he Commission should
not reward operators who represent to the Commission that they have changed
their procedures, but in fact have not.” Sec’y Response at 6.

The Commission has made it clear that
where a failure to contest a proposed assessment results from an inadequate or
unreliable internal processing system, the operator has not established grounds
for reopening the assessment. Shelter Creek Capital, LLC , 34 FMSHRC
3053, 3054 (Dec. 2012); Oak Grove Res. , LLC, 33 FMSHRC 103. 104 (Feb.
2011); Double Bonus Coal Co ., 32 FMSHRC 1155, 1156 (Sept. 2010); Highland
Mining Co ., 31 FMSHRC 1313, 1315 (Nov. 2009); Pinnacle Mining Co .,
30 FMSHRC 1066, 1067 (Dec. 2008); Pinnacle Mining Co. , 30 FMSHRC 1061,
1062 (Dec. 2008).

Alpha was put on specific notice of
deficiencies in its internal processing system but failed to take adequate
actions to remedy these deficiencies for months, despite promises to correct
the problem. The operator did not reply to the Secretary’s response.  

We find that Marfork has not asserted good
cause for its failure to timely contest the proposed penalties. See Lone
Mountain Processing, Inc ., 35 FMSHRC 3342, 3345 (Nov. 2013) (denying a
motion to reopen when the operator was put on notice of and neglected to fix
problems with its internal procedures). The motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.   

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary
Lu Jordan, Chair

/s/
William I. Althen

William
I. Althen, Commissioner

/s/
Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco
M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

/s/
Timothy J. Baker

Timothy
J. Baker, Commissioner

Distribution:

James
P. McHugh, Esq.

Hardy
Pence PLLC

10
Hale Street, 4 th Floor

Post
Office Box 2548

Charleston,
WV 25329

[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]

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]

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

1331
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

[1] Marfork’s payment
of $5,224 equals the total civil penalty amount for the 13 unmarked penalties
on the late filed contest form. Exhibit A. The Secretary applied Marfork’s
payment toward the first two citations listed chronologically on the proposed
assessment form. Id .

[2] The Secretary
represents that according to both motions to reopen the same Alpha personnel
are responsible for processing proposed assessments for Marfork and Mammoth.