OSHRC Commission decision Docket 749 Decided January 9, 1973 Settled

Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.

Withdrawal order amended to affirm citation

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1973, 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 1973
The OSHA 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 Occupational 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; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official OSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Hess Oil sought to withdraw its contest of a serious citation after the cited storage-tank operations ended because the tanks had been destroyed. The company stated that it was in compliance and would remain so, paid the proposed $700 penalty, and posted the withdrawal papers without receiving employee objections. The judge granted the withdrawal but did not expressly affirm the citation or penalty. The Commission amended the order to grant withdrawal and affirm both the serious citation and the $700 penalty. The release does not identify the cited safety standard.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): Not identified in the release
  • Outcome: The Commission granted withdrawal and affirmed the serious citation and $700 penalty.
  • Key point: When approving the employer's withdrawal, the Commission amended the judge's incomplete order so the uncontested citation and penalty were expressly affirmed.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 749

HESS OIL VIRGIN ISLANDS CORP.

OSHRC Docket No. 749

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

January 9, 1973

Before MORAN, Chairman; VAN NAMEE and BURCH, Commissioners

OPINIONBY: BURCH

OPINION:


BURCH, COMMISSIONER: On December 13, 1972, Judge Jose J. Saul issued an order granting the respondent's motion to withdraw its notice of contest in the captioned matter.

Pursuant to section 12(j) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.A. 651,
et seq.,
84 Stat. 1590, hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), I am hereby directing that the Judge's decision be reviewed by the Commission.

The respondent in this case received a citation for a serious violation of the Act along with a notification of proposed penalty in the amount of $700.

In the Judge's order granting respondent's motion to withdraw its notice of contest, Judge Jose J. Saul did not affirm the citation or the proposed penalty.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Judge's order is amended to provide that respondent's inotion to withdraw its notice of contest is granted and the Secretary's citation and notification of proposed penalty are AFFIRMED.

[The Judge's decision referred to herein follows]

SAUL, JUDGE, OSAHRC: This case is before the undersigned Judge upon assignment of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.


The Respondent has moved to withdraw its notice of contest, stating that it is in compliance with all provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and will remain in compliance; that abatement is inapplicable since the operations in question were terminated by the destruction of the storage tanks mentioned in the citation; and that the Notice of Contest herein was filed in accordance with the requirements of the Commission.

The Complainant has filed his Response to Respondent's Motion, stating
inter alia
that the operations in question were terminated, and the Notice of Contest filed, as recited in the Motion, and stating also that the Complainant has no objection to Respondent's Motion.

The undersigned has since been advised by the Complainant that he has received from the Respondent a check in the sum of $700.00, the amount of the proposed penalty herein.

The undersigned has also been advised by the Respondent that posting of copies of the said Motion and Response thereto has been effected as of December 6, 1972.

No objections to the said Motion have been filed.

On the basis of the foregoing, of the pleadings, and of the representatives of the parties herein,
it is determined
that the Motion should be granted, and it is so ordered.

There being no further contest in this case, it is recommended that this Order be made the Order of the Commission.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1973. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.