UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES


Date:               July 1, 1996

Case Nos:      93-CAA-6, 95-CAA-5 and 96-CAA-2

In the Matter of:

ROBERT E. TYNDALL,
          Complainant

     v.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
          Respondent.

BEFORE:   JAMES GUILL
          Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge


       ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

     On June 14, 1996, the Administrative Review Board ("Board")
issued a Decision and Remand Order in regard to case numbers 93-
CAA-6 and 95-CAA-5.  Tyndall v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 93-CAA-6 and 95-CAA-5 (ARB June 14, 1996).  The Board
noted the Complainant's request that 93-CAA-6 and 95-CAA-5 be
consolidated with a third complaint (96-CAA-2) on remand.  The
Board consolidated 93-CAA-6 and 95-CAA-5 and remanded them to the
Chief Administrative Law Judge for a hearing.  The Board,
however, expressed no opinion on whether the third complaint
should be consolidated because it had no knowledge of the
substance of the complaint.

     Complainant's motion to consolidate 93-CAA-6 and 95-CAA-5
with 96-CAA-2 is presently before the undersigned for
determination.[1]   Although the Respondent does not oppose
consolidation, the parties disagree about which administrative
law judge (ALJ) should preside over the consolidated proceeding. 
ALJ Robert G. Mahony presided over 93-CAA-6.  ALJ Julius A.
Johnson, who is now retired, presided over 95-CAA-5.  ALJ Michael
P. Lesniak is currently presiding over 96-CAA-2.  Complainant
requests consolidation before Judge Lesniak, while Respondent
requests consolidation before Judge Mahony because of his prior
involvement with this matter, and his location in Washington,
D.C.

     Judges Mahony and Lesniak have been consulted concerning the
motion to consolidate.  Judge Lesniak is ready to proceed with
this matter, and in fact has already scheduled proceedings in
Williamsburg for case number 96-CAA-2.  He agrees that these
matters are appropriate for consolidation with the matter
presently before him.  Although Judge Mahony 
[PAGE 2]
presided over one of the two original proceedings, he has not
been actively involved in the matter since October of 1994, and
agrees that the matters are appropriate for consolidation before
Judge Lesniak.  I find that it would not be administratively
prudent to assign the consolidated proceeding to Judge Mahony
when Judge Lesniak is ready to proceed.  Although geographic
proximity of the ALJ to the parties is preferable, Judge Lesniak
should be able to handle discovery or other pre-hearing matters
from Pittsburgh.  Accordingly,

          IT IS ORDERED that case numbers 93-CAA-6, 95-CAA-5 and
96-CAA-2 are hereby CONSOLIDATED for hearing before Judge Michael
P. Lesniak.


At Washington, D.C.                

                         
                         JAMES GUILL
                         Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge


JG/trs


[ENDNOTES]
         
[1]   The motion to consolidate and the designation of the
appropriate ALJ are properly considered by the Chief ALJ pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. §§ 18.11, 18.25.  The Chief Judge ALJ is
on annual leave until mid-July, and the undersigned Associate
Chief ALJ has been designated to act on his behalf during his
absence.