Green River Terminal Incorporated (ALJ decision, July 9, 1986)

Plain-English summary

A $20 penalty case against Green River Terminal Incorporated had been dismissed after the operator reported paying the amount. The Solicitor later said the payment belonged to a different violation and asked to rescind the dismissal and enter a default. Chief Judge Paul Merlin rescinded the dismissal but declined to enter a default before the parties checked their records. He ordered them to confer and report back within 21 days. This order did not decide whether the $20 penalty in this case had been paid.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standards: No specific safety standard is identified in the order.
• Outcome: Earlier dismissal rescinded; default deferred and parties directed to report on payment.
• Key point: A disputed payment record required further inquiry before the judge would treat the operator as in default.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. GREEN RIVER TERMINAL
DDATE:
19860709
TTEXT:
~1097

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. KENT 85-198
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 15-15035-03501

v. Green River Terminal Mine

GREEN RIVER TERMINAL
INCORPORATED,
RESPONDENT

ORDER OF RECISSION
ORDER TO SUBMIT INFORMATION

Before: Judge Merlin

The Solicitor has filed a Motion for Recission in this case.
The facts are as follows.

On September 10, 1985, the Solicitor filed a penalty petition in this case assessing a $20 penalty against the operator. On April 15, 1986, the operator was ordered to answer the petition or show cause for its failure to do so. In a letter of April 21, 1986, the operator reported that the penalty had been paid. Based on this information, an order of dismissal was issued on May 27, 1986. The Solicitor, contending that the penalty had not been paid, filed a motion for recission on June 19, 1986 and moved for a default. Further investigation indicates that the operator paid $20 to MSHA on January 29, 1986. The Solicitor maintains, however, that the payment of January 29, 1986 was for another violation not involved in this case. The operator apparently believes it does not owe anything.

Rather than grant the Solicitor's motion for default at this time, the fairer course would be for both parties to check their records, consult with each other and report back to me in writing within 21 days.
~1098
Accordingly, the motion for recission of the order of May 27, 1986 is GRANTED and the parties are ORDERED to communicate, by telephone or otherwise, and to report the results of their discussions in writing to me no later than 21 days from the date of this order.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge