Rivco Dredging Corporation (Commission decision, June 6, 1988)

Rivco Dredging Corporation (FMSHRC KENT 88-23-R and related dockets): Remand amended to remove moot docket

Decision type
Commission decision
Dockets
KENT 88-23-R, KENT 88-24-R, KENT 88-25-R, KENT 88-26-R, KENT 88-27-R
Decided
June 6, 1988
Outcome
Remanded
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-20

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1988, 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 1988
The MSHA 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 amended remand order removes one moot docket while the other contest dockets remain before the judge. It is not a final disposition of those cases under 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Rivco Dredging Corporation sought discretionary review in five related contest dockets. After the Commission remanded the cases, the Administrative Law Judge reported that KENT 88-27-R was moot because the Secretary had already vacated its citation. The Commission amended its remand order to delete that docket, finding that its inclusion had been an administrative error.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: None stated in the release.
  • Outcome: The Commission amended its remand order to remove KENT 88-27-R from the matters for review; the other listed dockets remained subject to remand.
  • Key point: A Commission remand order can be corrected administratively when a docket has already become moot.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
RIVCO DREDGING V. MSHA
DDATE:
19880606
TTEXT:
FMSHRC-WDC
June 6, 1988
RIVCO DREDGING CORPORATION
v. Docket Nos. KENT 88-23-R
88-24-R
88-25-R
88-26-R
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
88-27-R
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

BEFORE: Ford, Chairman; Doyle, Lastowka and Nelson, Commissioners AMENDED ORDER BY THE COMMISSION: These five cases had been the subject of a Petition for Discretionary Review filed by RIVCO Dredging Corporation on May 9, 1988. On May 25, 1988, the Secretary filed a response to the same five docket numbers. On May 26, 1988 this Commission issued an order remanding the cases. Upon remand, the administrative law judge noted that Docket No. KENT 88-27-R had become moot because the Secretary had previously vacated the citation associated with that docket; Citation No. 2985270. The judge submitted an inquiry to the Commission asking if his dismissal of KENT 88-27-R was appropriate.
~704
In view of the previous vacation of Citation No. 2985270, inclusion of KENT 88-27-R in the Commission's remand order was an administrative error. Therefore the May 26, 1988 Order is amended to delete KENT 88-27-R from the matters to be considered by the judge. Distribution Gene A. Wilson, President Rivco Dredging Corporation P.0. Box 702 Louisa, Kentucky 41230 G. Elaine Smith, Esq. Office of the Solicitor U.S. Department of Labor 2002 Richard Jones Road Suite B-201


Page 2

Nashville, Tennessee 37215
Dennis Clark, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
4015 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22203
Administrative Law Judge Roy Maurer
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission 5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace