PARAMONT MINING CORP. v OSM; Docket Nos. CH 9-12-P, CH 9-17-R (November 8, 1979)

TYPE: ALJ Hearing: Consent Decision

NAME: PARAMONT MINING CORP., Applicant v OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND
ENFORCEMENT (OSM), Respondent  

DATE: November 8, 1979  

CASE-NO:

PROCEEDING: Docket No. CH 9-12-P, Civil Penalty Proceeding, Notice of Violation No. 78-I-13-10; Docket No.
CH 9-17-R, Application for Review, Notice of Violation No. 78-I-13-10  

COUNSEL: APPEARANCES: Galen C. Thomas Esq., c/o Barber Oil Corporation, 245 Park Avenue, New York, NY
10017, for Applicant; Marye L. Wright, Esq., Office of the Field Solicitor, 723 East Kanawha Blvd., Charleston, WV
25301, for Respondent.  

OPINIONBY: Administrative Law Judge Torbett  

OPINION: CONSENT DECISION  

   In accordance with  525 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C.  1201 et seq.) (the
Act) Paramont Mining Corporation, Applicant, on January 12, 1979 filed for review of Notice of Violation No. 78-I-13-10 issued by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Respondent, under  521(a)(3) of the Act. 
Thereafter, pursuant to the imposition of an assessment on the notice of violation by the Assessment Office, Office of
Surface Mining and in accordance with  518 of the Act, the Applicant (Petitioner) further petitioned on February 12,
1979 for review of the notice of proposed civil penalty assessment issued by the Respondent.  Contemporaneous with
the filing of the petition the Petitioner paid to the Assessment Office, Office of Surface Mining the full amount of the
proposed civil penalty ($1700) in compliance with the requirements of 43 CFR 4.1152(b)(1).  

   Timely answers were filed and the matter was set for hearing before the undersigned on October 17, 1979 in Wise,
Virginia.  At the beginning of the hearing the parties announced that they had reached an agreement and requested the
undersigned to issue an order accordingly.  At the direction of the undersigned the parties were requested to state their
agreement for the record, which was done.  An extract of the pertinent part of the record setting out the agreement of the
parties is attached hereto as Appendix 1. {2} 

   ORDER  

   In compliance with the agreement of the parties it is ordered that the assessment of $1700 be reduced to the amount of
$900, which is hereby affirmed and the Respondent is directed to refund to the Petitioner the sum of $800 with interest
at the rate of six percent or the prevailing Department of Treasury rate, whichever is greater.  

   David Torbett  
   Administrative Law Judge
 
Distribution: (Certified Mail)
   
Galen C. Thomas, Esq., c/o Barber Oil Cororation, 245 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017
 
Office of the Field Solicitor, Division of Surface Mining, U.S. Department of the Interior, 723 E. Kanawha Blvd.,
Charleston, WV 25301
 
Associate Solicitor, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC 20240 {3} 

   APPENDIX 1  

   JUDGE TORBETT: Go ahead and state the nature of your agreement.  

   MS. WRIGHT: Yes, your Honor, the Applicant, {4} Rhonda Lou, excuse me, Paramont Mining Corporation, by and
through its attorney, and Respondent, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, by and through its
attorney, pursuant to settlement agreement has agreed and stipulated as follows:  

   1.  That the Applicant was in violation of 30 CFR 717.17 (a) on December 19, 1978;  

   2.  That the points originally assigned and the penalty of $1700, which was imposed pursuant to point assignment,
should be reduced as follows: probability of occurrence 15 points, extent of potential or actual damage 8 points,
negligence 6 points, for a total of 29 points with a corresponding penalty of $900.  

   3.  Applicant admits no facts except those stated in (1) above.  

   The parties further request the Administrative Tribunal to enter an order dismissing the consolidated cases with
prejudice and to order the Secretary of the Department of Interior to remit through Applicant $800, plus interest at the
prevailing rate.  

   JUDGE TORBETT: All right, is that your understanding, Ms. Thomas?