**FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTHREVIEW COMMISSION**

OFFICE OFADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES

721 19th ST.SUITE 443

DENVER, CO 80202-2500

TELEPHONE:303-844-5266 / FAX: 303-844-5268

 

April 29, 2020
| SECRETARY OF LABOR,

 MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH       

 ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

             Petitioner,

 

             v.

 

GIBSON COUNTY COAL LLC,

              Respondent.                                              |   |   | CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING

 

Docket No. LAKE 2019-0329

A.C. No. 12-02215-493781

 

 

 

 

Mine: Gibson Mine |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

** **

**SUMMARYDECISION**

**ORDER ACCEPTINGAPPEARANCE**

**DECISIONAPPROVING PARTIAL SETTLEMENT**

 

Before:              Judge Simonton 

 

**                                                                                         I.         ****INTRODUCTION**

 

This case is before me upon apetition for assessment of civil penalty filed by the Secretary of Labor,acting through the Mine Safety and Health Administration, against Gibson CountyCoal LLC (”Gibson” or “Respondent”), pursuant to the Federal Mine Safety andHealth Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 *et seq*. (Mine Act) and 29 C.F.R. §2700.20 *et seq*. The parties settled five of the six citations includedin this docket, and the terms of the settlement, along with my approval, areset out at the end of this decision. Citation No. 9109632 remains in dispute.

 

This case was initially scheduledfor hearing on December 18, 2019. During a prehearing conference call with thecourt, however, the parties asked to proceed without a hearing. The partiesagree on all relevant facts and are in agreement that the only remaining disputein this case can be resolved by answering a purely legal question. Both theSecretary and Respondent filed motions for summary decision and replies. Thesole issue for resolution is whether the failure of a miner to wear theminer-wearable component of the proximity detection system provided byRespondent is a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.1732(a).

 

Based on the agreement of theparties to file cross-motions for summary judgement and the facts asrepresented by both parties, I find that there is no genuine issue of materialfact. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the Secretary isentitled to summary decision as a matter of law, **AFFIRM** the citation,and assess a penalty of $832.00 against Gibson.

 

 

 

**                                                                            II.         ****STIPUATIONS OF FACT**

 

The parties submitted the followingjoint stipulations in their motions for summary decision:

 
    - Gibson County Coal, LLC, is an “operator” as defined in     Section 3(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended     (Mine Act), 30 U.S.C. 803(d), at the coal mine at which the citation at     issue in these proceedings was issued.

 
    - The Gibson Mine is operated by Respondent in this case,     Gibson County Coal, LLC.

 
    - The Gibson Mine is an underground coal mine subject to the     jurisdiction of the Mine Act.

 
    - At all relevant times, the products of the Gibson Mine     entered commerce or products affect commerce, within the meaning of the     Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 802(b) and 803.

 
    - These proceedings are subject to the jurisdiction of the     Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission and its designated     Administrative Law Judges pursuant to Sections 105 and 113 of the Mine     Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 815 and 823.

 
    - 30 C.F.R. § 75.1732(a) [1]      is a mandatory health or safety standard as that term is defined in     Section 3(l) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 802(l).

 
    - An injury caused by a proximity detection system failing     to stop a continuous mining machine from coming into contact with a miner     is reasonably likely to result in a fatality.

 
    - The parties agree the failure to wear a miner-wearable     component would be a Significant and Substantial contribution to the cause     and effect of a mine safety hazard. 

 
    - Only one (1) miner was affected, as recorded in Block     10(d) of Citation No. 9109632.

 
    - The parties stipulate the negligence level of the operator     is correctly reflected as low in Block 11 of Citation 9109632.

 
    - With the exception of the first sentence, paragraph 8 of     Citation 9109632 correctly describes the accident that occurred at the     Gibson Mine on May 2, 2019.

 
    - The proximity detection system in use on Respondent’s     #6467A Continuous Mining Machine required the use of miner-wearable     components on individual miners working on the working section.

 
    - On May 2, 2019, the injured roof bolter operator was a     miner working on MMU 007-0, an active working section of the mine on the     date in question. 

 
    - On May 2, 2019, when he was struck by the #6467A     Continuous Mining Machine, the roof bolter operator was not wearing his     company-issued miner-wearable component.

 
    - The proposed penalty of $832.00 was properly assessed     pursuant to the gravity determination in Citation No. 9109632, and the     provision of Part 100 of the Code of Federal Regulation. Payment by     Respondent of the proposed penalty of $832.00 will not affect Respondent’s     ability to remain in business.

 
    - The individual whose signature appears in Block 22 of the     citation at issue in these proceedings was acting in his official capacity     and as an authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor when the     citation was issued.

 
    - A duly authorized representative of the Secretary served     the subject citation and termination thereof upon the agent of the     Respondent at the date and place stated therein, as required by the Mine     Act, and the citation and termination may be admitted into evidence to establish     its issuance.

 
    - The citation contained in Exhibit A attached to the     Petition for Assessment of Penalty for this docket is an authentic copy of     the citation at issue in this proceeding with all appropriate modifications     and terminations, if any. [2]

 

 

**                                         III.         ****BACKGROUND FOR CITATION NO. 9109632**[3]

** **

On May 2, 2019, as a continuousmining machine (CMM) was moving across a section of the underground coal mine,a roof bolter cable was lying on the ground in the last open crosscut, in theway of the moving CMM. The CMM stopped moving to allow the roof bolter operatortime to hang the cable. Once the cable was hung, the CMM operator checked toensure that all miners were clear of the machine and then announced he was“coming out.” After tramming another six to ten feet, the CMM operator heardthe roof bolter operator yell to him to stop the CMM and back it up because itwas on his foot. After lifting the CMM’s cutting head, reversing the machine,and shutting it down, the CMM operator ran to the front of the machine andfound the roof bolter operator with an injured foot. 

 

The roof bolter operator was not wearinghis miner-wearable component of the CMM’s proximity detection system when hewas struck. Joint Stipulation (Jt. Stip.) #14. It was found, instead, on theroof bolting machine he had been operating. After first aid had beenadministered to the roof bolter operator and he was transported to the hospital,both the CMM’s proximity detection system and the roof bolter operator’s miner-wearablecomponent were tested. Both functioned properly. Mining operations resumedafter it was determined that all other miners in the working section werewearing their respective miner-wearable components.

 

On May 13, 2019, MSHA InspectorDaniel Mann reviewed Gibson’s records and learned of the May 2 accident. InspectorMann issued Citation No. 9109632, alleging that Gibson violated 30 C.F.R. § 75.1732(b)(1)by failing “to ensure that a miner was wearing a miner-wearable component thatstopped the continuous miner before coming in contact with a miner.” Manndetermined that the violation was reasonably likely to result in a fatalinjury, and that the violation was significant and substantial and affected oneperson. He determined that the violation was the result of low negligence. Pursuantto the Secretary’s unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint and Citation, granted onDecember 17, 2019, Citation No. 9109632 was amended to allege a violation of 30C.F.R. § 75.1732(a).

** **

**                                                                             IV.         ****PARTY ARGUMENTS**

** **

Section 75.1732(a) states inpertinent part that “the mine operator must provide a miner-wearable componentto be worn by each miner on the working section.” The Secretary argues thatGibson violated § 75.1732(a) when it failed to ensure that the roof bolteroperator was wearing his miner-wearable component while working on the workingsection. Sec’y Mot. at 8. The Secretary alleges that the standard’s meaning isplain: operators must provide miner-wearable components of proximity detectionsystems and ensure that miners actually wear them. *Id*. Any otherinterpretation would undercut the purpose of the standard and put miners atrisk of serious bodily harm or death. *Id*. at 9. Alternatively, if thecourt were to determine that the language of § 75.1732(a) is ambiguous, theSecretary asserts that his interpretation is both reasonable and entitled todeference. *Id*. at 11.

 

Respondent argues that the citationshould be vacated because the plain language of § 75.1732(a) does not makeoperators liable if a miner fails to wear the miner-wearable component of aproximity detection system. According to Gibson, the word “provide” in thestandard is the only term that imposes a duty on operators, limiting operators’obligation under the standard to furnishing miner-wearable components to miners.Resp. Mot. at 9; Respondent’s Response to Secretary’s Motion for SummaryDecision at 2. Gibson asserts that while other subsections of the standardrequire operators to ensure that miners are wearing the components at the startof their shift and that the components are working properly, no part of thestandard requires operators to ensure that miners wear the components for theduration of their shift. Resp. Mot. at 9–10. Because Gibson provided anoperable miner-wearable component to the miner whose injury ultimately gave riseto this citation, Gibson argues that it cannot properly be held liable under §75.1732(a). 

 

 

 

**                                                                                             V.         ****DISCUSSION**

** **

Pursuant to Commission Rule 67(b),the Court may grant summary decision where the “entire record...shows: (1) [t]hatthere is no genuine issue as to any material fact; and (2) [t]hat the movingparty is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law.” 29 C.F.R.§2700.67(b). The Commission has analogized its Rule 67 to Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 56, which authorizes summary judgments upon a proper showing of alack of a genuine, triable issue of material fact. *Hanson Aggregates NewYork, Inc.*, 29 FMSHRC 4, 9 (Jan. 2007). Here, the parties have agreed thatthere is no genuine issue of material fact; indeed, they have submittedidentical statements of the procedural and factual background relevant to thisviolation. Thus, summary decision is proper.

 

The disputed standard, § 75.1732(a)mandates that 

 

[o]perators must equip continuousmining machines, except full-face continuous mining machines, with proximitydetection systems by the following dates. For proximity detection systems withminer-wearable components, the mine operator must provide a miner-wearablecomponent to be worn by each miner on the working section by the followingdates.

 

30 C.F.R. § 75.1732(a). As noted above, the sole issue forresolution in this case is whether this standard mandates that operators bothprovide miner-wearable components to their miners *and* ensure that minersactually wear the components. For the reasons that follow, I find that thestandard unambiguously mandates that operators ensure miners wearminer-wearable components of proximity detection systems.

 

If a standard has a plain meaning,that meaning must be given effect unless it would lead to an absurd result orundermine the purpose of the Mine Act. *RAG Shoshone Coal Corp.*, 26 FMSHRC75, 80 n.7 (Feb. 2004). To determine the meaning of a regulation, theCommission “utilizes ‘traditional tools of construction, including an examinationof the text and intent of the drafters.’” *Amax Coal Co.*, 19 FMSHRC 470,474 (Mar. 1997) (quoting *Local Union 1261, UMWA v. FMSHRC*, 917 F.2d 42,44–45 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). Ina plain meaning analysis, the Commission “must look to thelanguage and design of the Secretary's regulations as a whole. *New Warwick Mining Co.*, 18 FMSHRC 1365, 1368 (Aug. 1996). If statutory language isambiguous, “deference to the Secretary’s interpretation may be appropriate if theinterpretation is reasonable, authoritative, and reflects fair and consideredjudgement.” *Richmond Sand & Stone, LLC*, 41 FMSHRC 402, 404 (Aug. 2019).However, as the Supreme Court recentlyclarified in *Kisor v. Wilkie*, courts should only resort to deferenceafter carefully considering “the text, structure, history, and purpose of aregulation, in all the ways it would if it had no agency to fall back on.” 139S. Ct. 2400, 2411 (2019).

 

In this case, the various tools ofstatutory interpretation necessitate finding that § 75.1732(a) unambiguously requiresthat operators utilizing continuous mining machines equipped with proximitydetection systems with miner-wearable components must actually ensure minerswear the components. First, the text of the regulation is clear, stating that“the mine operator must *provide* a miner-wearable component *to be worn*by each miner on the working section.” 30 C.F.R. § 75.1732(a) (emphasis added).I agree with the Secretary: “provide” is not the only part of the standard thatplaces an obligation on operators. *See* Secretary’s Reply to Respondent’sMotion for Summary Decision at 1. The phrase “to be worn" is not superfluous,but rather extends the operators’ duty to ensuring that miners utilize theprovided miner-wearable components by actually wearing them. Any other readingwould fail to give effect to each word and clause of the regulation. *See,e.g. Canyon Fuel Co., LLC v. Sec'y of Labor*, 894 F.3d 1279, 1289 (10th Cir. 2018).

 

            The structure of § 75.1732 similarly supportsthis interpretation. Subsection (a), at issue here and excerpted above, directsoperators to equip CMMs with proximity detection systems by certain dates. Forproximity detection systems with miner-wearable components, the miner-wearablecomponents must be provided by those dates, too. Subsection (a) thus signalsthat proximity detection systems may come in multiple forms, but that some includeminer-wearable components. When these components are present, they are acritical part of the proximity detection system. Subsection (b) confirms this,stating that “a proximity detection system includes machine-mounted componentsand miner-wearable components.” Subsection (b) then goes on to list specificrequirements for the system, including that the system must cause a machine tostop tramming before contacting a miner. Subsection (c) sets out requirementsfor system checks, specifying when operators must ensure that the system isworking properly. Lastly, subsection (d) obliges operators to create and retaincertain records, including records of system checks, defects, and personstrained in the installation and maintenance of proximity detection systems. 

 

According to Gibson, subsections(c) and (d) of the standard show that MSHA’s intent was to require operators toprovide miner-wearable components, check that they are operational, and recorddefects. Resp. Mot. at 9. Respondent argues that the whole of the sectionconfirms that operators’ “duty does not extend to the actions or omissions ofan individual miner during the course of their shift.” *Id*. at 9–10. Idisagree. The standard requires operable proximity detection systems. And, inorder for certain proximity detections systems to function properly, minersneed to wear miner-wearable components while working on the working section ofa mine. It is not enough that operators ensure the components are free ofdefects, or even ensure that miners are wearing the components at the start ofevery shift. The presence of miner-wearable components on working miners is ascrucial to the proximity detection system as the machine-mounted component onthe CMM. It would be absurd to only require operators to ensure that half ofthe system is in use during a shift. Without both components in use, the systemdoes not function. The structure of § 75.1732 plainly and unambiguously compelsthis understanding.

 

Finally, the history and expressedpurpose of this regulation further demonstrate that the standard plainlyrequires operators to ensure that miners wear miner-wearable components duringtheir shifts. The final rule codified at § 75.1732 was issued in January 2015. Inthe Federal Register notice announcing the rule, MSHA explained that a reviewof fatal and nonfatal pinning, crushing, and striking accidents in undergroundcoal mines between 1984 and 2013 demonstrated that proximity detection systemscould have prevented 75 fatalities, 34 of which were associated with CMMs. ProximityDetection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines in Underground Coal Mines, 80Fed. Reg. 2188, 2189 (Jan. 15, 2015). In addition, MSHA estimated that 238nonfatal injuries associated with CMMs could have been prevented by proximitydetection systems. *Id*. In the final rule, after considering the commentson its proposed rule, MSHA determined that “all miners on a working sectionwhere the continuous mining machine is equipped with a proximity detectionsystem *must*wear a wear a miner-wearable component. Under the finalrule, the mine operator must provide a miner-wearable component to be worn byeach miner on the working section.” *Id*. at 2190. This language is clear.Miners *must*wear the components, and operators must ensure that they do.The purpose of the regulation cannot be achieved otherwise. 

 

Gibson’s proffered interpretationof the standard would allow operators to take a hands-off approach to minersafety and subvert the core purpose of the Mine Act. The Mine Act and itsimplementing regulations do not aim to make safety merely an option to be madeavailable to individual miners, as Gibson implies. *See*Resp. Mot. at9–10. To the contrary, the statutory scheme aims, unequivocally, to protect thehealth and safety of the nation’s miners and accordingly imposes strictliability on *operators* for violations. Safety standards, such as §75.1732(a), “must be interpreted so as toharmonize with and further . . . the objective[s]” of the Mine Act. *Emery MiningCorp. v. Sec’y of Labor*, 744 F.2d 1411, 1414 (10th Cir. 1984).  Gibson’s interpretationsimply cannot be squared with these objectives.

 

I find that 30 C.F.R. § 75.1732(a)is unambiguous: it plainly requires that operators not only provide miner-wearablecomponents, but also that operators ensure miners actually wear the components.Accordingly, I find that Gibson violated the standard and uphold the violation.

 

**                                                                                               VI.         ****PENALTY**

** **

            It iswell established that Commission administrative law judges have the authorityto assess civil penalties *de novo* for violations of the Mine Act. *SellersburgStone Company*, 5 FMSHRC 287, 291 (Mar. 1983). The Act requires that inassessing civil monetary penalties, the Commission ALJ consider the sixstatutory penalty criteria:

 

(1) the operator’shistory of previous violations, (2) the appropriateness of such penalty to thesize of the business of the operator charged, (3) whether the operator wasnegligent, (4) the effect on the operator’s ability to continue in business, (5)the gravity of the violation, and (6) the demonstrated good faith of the personcharged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after notification of aviolation.

 

30 U.S.C. § 820(i).

 

According to the penalty petition,no violations of this standard became final orders of the Commission in the 15months preceding the issuance of this citation. According to MSHA’s Mine DataRetrieval System website, Gibson produced 1,640,113 tons of coal in 2019,making it a fairly large operator. In the citation, Gibson’s negligence wasdetermined to be low, and the parties stipulated that this was an accuratedesignation. Jt. Stip. #10. Based on the facts provided by the parties, Iagree. The parties stipulated that the penalty amount would not affect Gibson’sability to continue in business. Jt. Stip. #15. The parties have likewisestipulated that “the failure to wear a miner-wearable component would be asignificant and substantial contribution to the cause and effect of a minesafety hazard,” Jt. Stip. #8, that one miner was affected, Jt. Stip. #9, andthat an injury caused by a failure of a proximity detection system to stop aCMM from contacting a miner is reasonably likely to result in a fatal injury. Jt.Stip. #7. I agree, and thus in assessing the penalty I considered the gravity asit’s recorded in the citation and stipulated to by the parties. Finally, theparties noted that Gibson ensured that every miner on the working section waswearing his miner-wearable component after the relevant accident occurred onMay 2, 2019. Sec’y Mot. at 5–6; Resp. Mot. at 6 . Though Gibson asserts suchbehavior is not mandated by § 75.1732(a), I have taken this action into accountas a demonstration of Gibson’s good faith concerning the safety of its miners. Applyingthe penalty criteria, I find that the proposed penalty of $832.00, as proposedby the Secretary, is appropriate for this violation.

** **

**                                                                          VII.         ****SETTLED CITATIONS**

** **

On December 23, 2019, Conferenceand Litigation Representative (CLR) Marsha Price filed a Motion to Approve PartialSettlement in this case. It is **ORDERED** that she be accepted to representthe Secretary in for the limited purpose of this partial settlement. *See CyprusEmerald Resources Corp.*, 16 FMSHRC 2359 (Nov. 1994).

 

The Secretary has filed a motion toapprove settlement of five of the six citations at issue in this matter. TheSecretary’s motion at paragraph five highlights “maximizing” the Secretary’s“prosecutorial impact” in agreeing to this settlement. Insofar as thisstatement, as well as other statements related to prosecutorial impactproffered by the Secretary, departs from Rule 31(b) and offers information thatis superfluous to the Commission’s authority to approve settlements of Mine Actdisputes, *see* 30 U.S.C. § 820(k), the statement isstricken from the Secretary’s motion pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule1(b), 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b), and Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, Fed. Civ. P. 12(f). Under Commission Procedural Rule 31(b), amotion to approve settlement “shall include . . . facts in support of theamount of penalty agreed to in settlement,” 29 C.F.R. § 2700.31(b)(1), andnothing in the Secretary’s statement on “prosecutorial impact” in any waylessens the burden of the parties to show that a settlement is justified by thefacts and circumstances surrounding each individual compromise. 30 U.S.C.§ 820(k). The Secretary's insistence on larding settlement motions withunhelpful, extraneous language in no way changes the fact that it is the *Commission*that has *independent* “authority to assess all civil penalties providedin [the Mine] Act.” 30 U.S.C. § 820(i). 

 

I acknowledgeand accept the explanation for the agreed upon settlement contained in the parties’settlement motion and amendments. The originally assessed amount for these fivecitations was **$5,620.00** and the proposed settlement is for **$3,672.00**.The parties agree to bear their own legal fees and costs associated with this matter,including costs which may be available under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Theparties have moved to approve the proposed settlement as follows:

 

 
| **Citation No.**   | **Originally Proposed Assessment** | **Settlement Amount** | **Modification**                                                                                         |
|--------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **LAKE 2019-0329** |
| 9109786            | $2,006.00                          | $902.00               | Reduce Negligence from “Moderate” to  “Low”                                                             |
| 9109326            | $558.00                            | $250.00               | Reduce Likelihood  of Injury from “Reasonably Likely” to “Unlikely,” Remove S&S Designation         |
| 9109631            | $832.00                            | $666.00               | Penalty Reduction  Only                                                                                 |
| 9109635            | $372.00                            | $372.00               | Affirm as Issued                                                                                         |
| 9109636            | $1,852.00                          | $1,482.00             | Penalty Reduction Only                                                                                   |
| **Total**          | **$5,620.00**                      | **$3,672.00**         | ** **                                                                                               |
|                    |                                    |                       |                                                                                                          |  |

 

I haveconsidered the representations and documentation submitted and I conclude thatthe proposed settlement is appropriate under the criteria set forth in section110(i) of the Act. The motion to approve partial settlement is **GRANTED**,and five of the citations contained in this docket are **MODIFIED** as setforth above.            

** **

** **

**                                                                                              VIII.         ****ORDER**

 

For the reasons set forth above, Ifind that there is no dispute of material fact concerning Citation No. 9109632 andthat the Secretary is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law. TheSecretary’s motion for summary decision is **GRANTED**and Respondent’smotion for summary decision is **DENIED**. 

 

In accordance with this summarydecision regarding Citation No. 9102632 and the partial settlement reached bythe parties for the other citations contained in this docket, Gibson CountyCoal, LLC, is **ORDERED** to pay the Secretary of Labor the sum of **$4,504.00**within 30 days of this order.[4]

 

 

 

 

/s/David P. Simonton

David P. Simonton

Administrative Law Judge

 

 

Distribution: (Email[5])

 

Marsha Price, CLR, U.S. Department of Labor, MSHA, price.marsha@dol.gov

 

Edward V. Hartman, U.S. Depart of Labor, Office of theSolicitor, hartman.edward.v@dol.gov

 

Tyler H. Fields, Gibson County Coal LLC,tyler.fields@alrp.com

----

[1] Citation No.9109632 was originally issued alleging a violation of 30 C.F.R. §75.1732(b)(1). Pursuant to an unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint and Citation,granted on December 17, 2019, Box 9.C. for Citation No. 9109632 was amended toallege a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.1732(a). 

[2]The citationcontained in Exhibit A does not, in fact, account for the amendment made to thecited standard pursuant to the Secretary’s unopposed motion granted on December17, 2019. *See supra* note 1.

[3]This factual andprocedural summary is based on the identical “Factual Background” sectionsfound in the parties’ motions for summary decision, as well as on the jointstipulations, where noted. Secretary’s Motion for Summary Decision (Sec’y Mot.)at 4–6; Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision (Resp. Mot.) at 5–6.

[4]Please pay penalties electronically at Pay.Gov, a service of theU.S. Department of the Treasury, at https://www.pay.gov/public/form/start/67564508.Alternatively, send payment (check or money order) to: U.S. Department ofTreasury, Mine Safety and Health Administration

P.O. Box 790390, St. Louis, MO63179-0390. Please include Docket and A.C. Numbers.

[5]Forthe foreseeable future, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission(FMSHRC) notices, decisions, and orders will be sent only through electronicmail. Because FMSHRC will not be monitoring incoming physical mail or faxes,parties are encouraged to submit all filings through the agency’s electronicfiling system. If you are not able to file through our electronic filingsystem, please send an email copy and we will file it for you.