Secretary of Labor v. Peabody Gateway North Mining, LLC

Plain-English summary

Peabody's recently hired safety manager and a consultant decided to contest an assessment but did not know the filing procedure or who was responsible. The contest arrived late. The Commission noted that Peabody had filed two other reopening motions in recent years after different missed deadlines, putting it on notice that its process needed correction. It found that the latest failure resulted from an inadequate or unreliable processing system and denied reopening with prejudice. Commissioner Marvit concurred while repeating his view that the Commission lacks reopening authority.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
• Outcome: The motion to reopen was denied with prejudice.
• Key point: Repeated missed filings after prior warnings show a systemic process problem rather than excusable neglect.

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.

PEABODY
GATEWAY NORTH

MINING,
LLC

Docket
No. LAKE 2024-0194

A.C.
No. 11-03235-595319

BEFORE: 
Jordan, Chair; Baker and Marvit, Commissioners

ORDER

BY: Chair Jordan
and Commissioner Baker 

This
matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.   
§ 801 et seq. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On May 29, 2024, the Commission received
from Peabody Gateway North Mining, LLC (“Peabody”), 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
at issue was delivered to the operator on March 13, 2024, and became a final
order on April 12, 2024.

On April 30, 2024, MSHA received Peabody’s
untimely attempt to contest the proposed assessment. Sec’y Ex. C at 6 (envelope
postmarked April 24, 2024). On May 1, 2024, MSHA sent Peabody a letter explaining
that the order was final; Peabody filed its contest form late. On May 20, 2024,
MSHA sent the operator a delinquency notice.

In its motion to reopen, Peabody explains
that it failed to timely file to contest the assessment because its recently
hired safety manager was not aware of the correct procedures. The mine’s new safety
manager began in January 2024. He received the proposed assessment on March 19,
2024, and together with the mine’s safety consultant, they determined that
Peabody would contest the citation and civil penalty at issue. However, because
the new safety manager did not know how to contest the penalty or who was
responsible for filing, the contest form was not timely filed. Peabody became
aware that its contest was not timely filed after it received a letter from
MSHA, rejecting Peabody’s attempt to contest as untimely. Sec’y Ex. D (MSHA
letter). 

The Secretary opposes the operator’s
motion to reopen and contends that the operator has not demonstrated good cause
for a failure to timely file. [1]
The Secretary alleges that Peabody’s explanation is too vague. According to the
Secretary, the contest was not timely filed because Peabody failed to properly
train its employees.

Peabody Gateway North Mining has filed multiple
motions to reopen in the last several years. In June 2022, it filed a motion to
reopen after its then safety manager failed to timely submit a contest form. Peabody
Gateway N. Mining, LLC , 45 FMSHRC 138 (Mar. 2023). In February 2023,
Peabody filed a motion to reopen after it failed to file an Answer to an Order
to Show Cause. Peabody
Gateway N. Mining ,
46 FMSHRC 19 (Jan. 2024).

The Commission has recognized that
repeated motions to reopen may indicate an inadequate or unreliable internal
processing system. Rockwell Mining, LLC , 45 FMSHRC 49, 492-93 (June 2023). 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).

Upon
consideration of Peabody’s motion here, along with its recent history of filing
motions to reopen, we conclude that the failure to timely file contest was the
result of an inadequate or unreliable processing system. We find that Peabody
has not established that its failure to timely file was the result of a good
cause reason. See
Marfork Coal Co. ,
45 FMSHRC 463, 465 (June 2023) (denying a motion to reopen because the operator
was on notice that its processing system was insufficient but failed to take
adequate steps to address it). Peabody’s motion to reopen is denied with
prejudice.    

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary
Lu Jordan, Chair

/s/ Timothy J. Baker

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner

Commissioner
Marvit, concurring,

I write to agree with the Majority in this
case for the reasons set forth below.

In Explosive Contractors , 46 FMSHRC
965 (Dec. 2024), I dissented and explained that Congress did not grant the
Commission the authority to reopen final orders under section 105(a) of the
Mine Act. The Commission’s repeated invocation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) cannot overcome the statutory language. However, in Belt
Tech , I explained in my concurrence that “the Act clearly states that to
become a final order of the Commission, the operator must have received the
notification from the Secretary.” 46 FMSHRC 975 (citing Hancock Materials,
Inc. , 31 FMSHRC 537 (May 2009)). Taken together, these opinions stand for
the proposition that the Commission may not reopen final orders under its
statutory grant, but an operator may proceed if it has not properly received a
proposed order.

In the instant case, as the Majority
recounts, the operator received the final order. The Majority denies reopening
in its opinion because the operator has not alleged good cause or provided a
factual accounting for its failure to timely contest the penalties. Though I
believe the Commission lacks the authority to consider motions to reopen, I
concur with the Majority in denying reopening in this matter.

/s/ Moshe Z.
Marvit

Moshe Z. Marvit,
Commissioner

Distribution:

R.
Henry Moore, Esq.

Arthur
M. Wolfson, Esq.

Patrick
W. Dennison, Esq.

Fisher
& Phillips LLP

Six
PPG Place

Suite
830

Pittsburgh,
PA 15222

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Thomas A.
Paige, Esq.

Office of the
Solicitor

U.S. Department of
Labor

Division of Mine
Safety and Health

200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Suite N4420-N4430

Washington, DC
20210

[email protected]

Emily O. Roberts,
Esq.

Division of Mine
Safety and Health

Office of the
Solicitor

200 Constitution
Avenue NW Suite N4420 – N4430

Washington, DC
20210

[email protected]

Melanie Garris  

US Department of
Labor/MSHA

Office of
Assessments, Room N3454

200 Constitution
Ave NW

Washington, DC
20210

[email protected]

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn F. Voisin

Office
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N

Washington, DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

[1] The Secretary
filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time, from June 10, 2024, to June
28, 2024, to file her response to the operator’s motion. The Secretary’s motion
is granted, and her response is accepted for consideration by the Commission.