United States of America OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1120 20thStreet, N.W., Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20036-3457 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. OSHRC Docket Nos.15-1216 15-1217 (CONSOLIDATED) CALDWELL COATINGS, LLC, Respondent. APPEARANCES: Josh Bernstein, Trial Attorney;Madeleine T.Le, Counsel for Occupational Safety and Health; James E. Culp, Regional Solicitor; M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor; U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC For the Complainant Carl Carruth;McNair Law Firm, P.A.,Columbia,SC For the Respondent DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND REMAND ORDER Before: ATTWOOD, Chairman;and MacDOUGALL,Commissioner. BY THE COMMISSION: An order issued byAdministrative Law Judge PatrickB.Augustineapproving a settlement agreement between Caldwell Coatings, LLC and the Secretary became a final order of the Commission onOctober 28, 2016.For the reasons that follow, we set aside the final order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), direct review of the case, and remand it to the judge for further proceedings. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued Caldwell Coatings two sets of citations:one set issued underOSHAinspection number 1056257(DocketNumber 15-1216),and the otherissuedunderOSHAinspection number 1056287(DocketNumber 15-1217). These caseswere later consolidated.See29 C.F.R § 2200.9(consolidation).Thesettlement agreement,submittedby the partiesto the judge for approvalon August 26, 2016,withdrewthe citations underDocket Number 15-1216, butitfailed toaddress thecitations underDocketNumber15-1217. Because the agreement did not fully resolveone oftheconsolidatedcases, the judge’s order approving the settlement agreement did not constitute a “final disposition of the proceedings” under Commission Rule 90(a), 29 C.F.R.§ 2200.90(a). Nonetheless, the order was submitted for docketing and subsequently docketed onSeptember 28, 2016, thereby commencing the thirty-day period before “[t]he report of the administrative law judge. . .become[s] the final order of the Commission.”29 U.S.C. § 661(j);see also29 C.F.R.§ 2200.90(b)(2)(docketing of judge’s report by Executive Secretary).Because no Commissioner directed the case for review, the order became final onOctober 28,2016. OnDecember 5, 2016,the partiesfiledwith the Commissiona JointNotice ofWithdrawal ofCitation andComplaintregarding Docket Number 15-1217. About a week later, the Secretaryfiledan unopposed Motion to Correct Settlement Agreementto include these withdrawn citations. Although the motion failsto cite any legal authority as the basis for correcting the settlement agreement,we find it appropriate to grant relief from the final order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), which permits the Commission “on its own” to “correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.”See Robert Lewis Rosen Assoc., Ltd.v. Webb, 473 F.3d 498, 505 & n.12 (2d Cir. 2007) (judgment corrected pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) “[b]ecausethe plain language of the rule indicate[d]that a judge may correct ajudgmentthereundersua sponte,” allowingdistrictcourt to award additional sums contemplated, but not specifically mentioned, in arbitrator’s award that court previously confirmed in full). Here, the mistake arose from the judge’s “oversight”in submittinghisorder for docketing even though the approved settlement agreement did not resolve all the citations at issue. See Sterling Techs., Inc.,25BNA OSHC1891, 1892(No. 15-1772, 2016) (settingaside final order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) because the judge’s order approving the informal settlement agreement did not fully resolve the case). We thus set aside the final order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and remandthe casetothe judge to consider theSecretary’s unopposed motionto correct the parties’ settlement agreement. SO ORDERED. /s/ Cynthia L. Attwood Chairman /s/ Heather L. MacDougall Dated: January 12, 2017 Commissioner United States of America OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION U.S. Custom House 721 19thStreet, Room 407 Denver, Colorado 80202-2517 Fax: (303) 844-3759 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant, v. CALDWELL COATINGS, LLC, Respondent. OSHRC Docket Nos.:15-1216 15-1217 (CONSOLIDATED) ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and over the Parties by virtue of the filing of a timelyNotice of Contest. The Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”)between the Parties has been considered. TheAgreementhas been served on all Parties and Authorized Employee Representatives and posted in the manner prescribed by Commission Rule 7(g).1Ten days have passed since service and posting and no objection to theAgreementhas been filed. TheAgreementisAPPROVEDunder 5 U.S.C. §554(c)(1) and Commission Rule 100(c) as in compliance with those sections. The terms of theAgreementare incorporated, in their entirety, by reference in thisORDER. ThisORDERshall become final thirty (30) days from the date of docketing by the Executive Secretary, unless review thereof is directed by a Commission Member within that time. 29 U.S.C. §661(j). SO ORDERED. /s/ Patrick B. Augustine Dated: September 23, 2016 Patrick B. Augustine Judge, OSHRC ____ 1Rules of Procedure of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 29 C.F.R §2200.1 -.212, as amended, 55 Fed. Reg. 22780-4 (June 4, 1990). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ " <#ftnref-1> <#ftnref0>