“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainantv.HOLMAN STEELWORKS, INC.Respondent.OSHRC DOCKET NO. _91-1341_*_ORDER_*Respondent having failed to comply with or otherwise respond to theorder entered on December 10, 1991, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. ?2200.41(a)*,it isORDERED that respondent’s notice of contest is dismissed, the April 23,1991, citation is affirmed, and a penalty of $1,500 is assessed.RICHARD DeBENEDETTO Judge, OSHRCDated: February 12, 1992Boston, Massachusetts ———————————————————————— LYNN MARTIN, SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.H0LMAN STEEL COMPANY, Respondent. OSHRC Docket No. 91-1341 *DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER*The Secretary has filed a petition for review in which she asks that theCommission direct for review the order of Administrative Law JudgeRichard DeBenedetto, dismissing the notice of contest, affirming thecitation, and assessing a penalty of $1,500. The Secretary also requeststhat the Commission accept \”the settlement agreement being filedherewith.\” Because the agreement filed is not an original copy, itcannot be approved.Accordingly, this case is directed for Review pursuant to 29 C.F.R. ?2200.92(a). Upon review, relief is granted pursuant to Commission Rule41(b) and the case is remanded to Judge DeBenedetto. The parties arehereby requested to submit the original executed settlement agreement toJudge DeBenedetto for his consideration.[[1]]DATED. 3\/23\/92VELMA MONTOYA COMMISSIONERDONALD G. WISEMAN COMMISSIONERLYNN MARTIN, SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.H0LMAN STEEL COMPANY, Respondent. OSHRC Docket No. 91-1341 *SECRETARY’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW *Complainant, the Secretary of Labor, moves for direction of this caseand acceptance of the settlement agreement being filed herewith. Asgrounds for this motion the Secretary states as follows:1. On January 21, 1992, Administrative Law Judge Richard DeBenedettoissued an order dismissing respondent’s notice of contest afterrespondent failed to file an answer to the Secretary’s complaint andfailed to respond to the judge’s order of December 10, 1991, regardingthat failure.2. The undersigned has been advised orally that the proceduralmishandling of the case was occasioned by the death of Thomas N. Holman,and a subsequent delay in the appointment of a legal representative tohandle the affairs of the estate of Mr. Holman.3. Both parties are willing to settle all matters raised by respondent’snotice of contest and have executed an agreement to that effect.4. The judge’s decision was docketed on February 21, 1992, and thenotice states that the decision will become a final order on March 23,1992, unless directed for review.5. Review is requested an order that it will be clear that the orderdismissing respondent’s notice of contest has not become a final order.This case may then be disposed of by the Commission based upon theexecuted settlement agreement.Respectfully submitted,MARSHALL J. BREGERSolicitorCYNTHIA L. ATTWOODAssociated Solicitor forOccupational Safety and HealthDONALD G. SHALHOUBDeputy Associate Solicitor forOccupational Safety and HealthDANIEL J. MICK Counsel for RegionalTrial LitigationFOOTNOTE[[1]]Chairman Foulke would vote to direct review of this case, but hewould not remand this case to the judge.* 29 C.F.R. ?2200.41 Failure to obey rules.(a) Sanctions. When any party has failed to plead or otherwise proceedas provided by these rules or as required by the Commission or Judge, hemay be declared to be in default either: (1) on the initiative of theCommission or Judge, after having been afforded an opportunity to showcause why he should not be declared to be in default; or (2) on themotion of a party. Thereafter, the Commission or Judge, in theirdiscretion, may enter a decision against the defaulting party or strikeany pleading or document not filed in accordance with these rules.”