“UNITED STATES OF AMERICAOCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION\u00a0 \u00a0 SECRETARY OF LABOR, \u00a0 ???????????????????????????????????????????? Complainant, \u00a0 ???????????????????????? v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 78-2060 JACKSONVILLE SHIPYARDS, INC., \u00a0 ????????????????????????????????????????????? Respondent. \u00a0 May 21, 1979DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER??????????? Pursuantto 29 U.S.C. ? 661(i), the Order of Judge John J. Larkin, dated April 19, 1979,approving the settlement agreement of the parties, is directed for review.??????????? OnApril 13 and 25, 1978, Respondent was issued four citations. Respondentcontested, among other items, items 8 and 12 of citation No. 3 respecting nonseriousviolation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ?? 651et seq. After the filing of the complaint and answer respecting the contesteditems, a hearing was held on September 12, 1978. At the outset of the hearing,the parties advised the judge that they had reached a partial settlement, withrespect to some but not all of the contested items, and that they would preparea written stipulation of settlement. The terms of the proposed settlement werestated for the record before the Secretary presented his case in chief upon theitems remaining in dispute, and the parties specifically advised the judge atthis time that items 8 and 12 of citation No. 3 remained in dispute.??????????? Afterthe close of the hearing, the parties filed their settlement stipulation datedMarch 8, 1979. According to the accompanying cover letter, the partiespurported to dispose of ?all outstanding issues.? However, the parties did notspecifically refer to items 8 and 12 of citation No. 3.??????????? OnApril 19, 1979, Judge Larkin issued his order approving the settlement. Statingthat his disposition was consistent with the settlement, he, among otherthings, affirmed items 8 and 12 of citation No. 3. In a letter also dated April19, 1979, that accompanied his order, which he served on the parties and theauthorized employee representative, the judge stated that the parties shouldadvise him if he had improperly disposed of items 8 and 12, as well as 1 and13, of citation No. 3, for he had been unable to determine the intent of theparties with respect to these four items.??????????? Byletter dated April 24, 1979, Respondent advised the judge that his order ofApril 19, 1979, was correct except with respect to items 8 and 12, whichRespondent states ?were withdrawn and should be listed as vacated and with nopenalty being assessed.? Apparently Respondent?s position is that the Secretaryhad agreed to withdraw the items. The Secretary has not responded to either ofthe two letters, from the judge and from Respondent, both of which were servedupon the Secretary.??????????? Becausethe stipulated settlement is incomplete and the agreement of the partiesrespecting items 8 and 12 is not clear on the record, we vacate the April 19,1979 order of the judge and we remand the case for further proceedings.?FOR THE COMMISSION:?Ray H. Darling, Jr.Executive SecretaryDATED: MAY 21, 1979[ALJ Order not available.]”