(a)(1) An operator which receives notification under § 725.407 shall, within 30 days of receipt, file a response indicating its intent to accept or contest its identification as a potentially liable operator. The operator's response shall also be sent to the claimant by regular mail.
(2) If the operator contests its identification, it shall, on a form supplied by the district director, state the precise nature of its disagreement by admitting or denying each of the following assertions. In answering these assertions, the term “operator” shall include any operator for which the identified operator may be considered a successor operator pursuant to § 725.492.
(i) That the named operator was an operator for any period after June 30, 1973;
(ii) That the operator employed the miner as a miner for a cumulative period of not less than one year;
(iii) That the miner was exposed to coal mine dust while working for the operator;
(iv) That the miner's employment with the operator included at least one working day after December 31, 1969; and
(v) That the operator is capable of assuming liability for the payment of benefits.
(3) An operator which receives notification under § 725.407, and which fails to file a response within the time limit provided by this section, shall not be allowed to contest its liability for the payment of benefits on any of the grounds set forth in paragraph (a)(2).
(b)(1) Within 90 days of the date on which it receives notification under § 725.407, an operator may submit documentary evidence in support of its position.
(2) No documentary evidence relevant to the grounds set forth in paragraph (a)(2) may be admitted in any further proceedings unless it is submitted within the time limits set forth in this section.
Notes of Decisions
Arkansas Coals, Inc. v. Albert Lawson, 739 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 6× “§ 922 , which controls modification of an order granting or denying benefits, prevents reconsideration of the responsible operator designation; 2) 20 C.F.R. § 725.408 (b)(2), which establishes a timeline for the admission of evidence for the determination of the responsible…”
Marfork Coal Co. v. Weis, 251 F. App'x 229 (4th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 17× “13 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.408 ; 725.494. 14 In support of its position, Marfork had ninety days in which to submit evidence concerning its employment of Weis and its status as a potentially liable operator.”
Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta, 888 F.3d 493 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
“A potentially responsible operator may contest its liability before a District Director within the agency, *496 20 C.F.R. § 725.408 (2017), request a formal hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), id.”
Apogee Coal Co. v. OWCP, 112 F.4th 343 (6th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 2× “” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.408 ; 725.410(a)-(b); 725.”
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Chao, 160 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2001).
“” 20 C.F.R. § 725.408 : This rule requires operators to express an intent to accept or contest their status, once notified of their identification as potentially liable.”
Harman Mining Corp. v. Emma Bartley (4th Cir. 2024).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 725.408 (a)(1) (2024). If the operator contests its designation, it must “state the precise nature of the disagreement by admitting or denying” each of the five requirements for being designated a responsible operator.”
Hobet Mining, Inc. v. DOWCP (4th Cir. 2025).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 725.408 (a)(1). To do so, the operator must give reasons for its disagreement, including whether it is “capable of assuming liability for the payment of benefits.”
Rhino Energy, LLC v. DOWCP (4th Cir. 2026).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 725.408 (a)(1). If an operator contests its identification, it must state “the precise nature of its disagreement” with the premise that it meets all relevant factors for liability.”
Hobet Mining Co. v. DOWCP (4th Cir. 2024).
“See 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.408 (a)(2)(v), 725.494(e) (explaining that evidence of whether an operator is “capable of assuming liability for the payment of benefits” includes “a policy or contract of insurance” and “qualifi[cation] as a self-insurer”).”
Fleetwood Trucking Co., Inc. v. Dir., OWCP, 586 F. App'x 518 (11th Cir. 2014).
“See 20 C.F.R. § 725.408 (a). Accompanying the letter was a “notice of claim,” which explained how Fleetwood had been identified as the potential “responsible operator” and included Warren’s self-reported employment history.”
Vesta Mining Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 258 F. App'x 443 (3rd Cir. 2007).
“Counsel for OWCP concedes that the determination that Vesta is the “responsible operator” under the Act was based on evidence that was improperly submitted in violation of applicable Department of Labor regulations, see 20 C.F.R. § 725.408 (a)(3) & (b)(2), and should therefore…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.