“*SECRETARY OF LABOR, **Complainant,**v. WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY, **Respondent**UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2285,**Authorized Employee Representative.**OSHRC Docket No. 84-785**\/DECISION \/*Before: FOULKE, Chairman; WISEMAN and MONTOYA, Commissioners.BY THE COMMISSION:This case is before the Commission pursuant to the \”Order of Court\”issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit onJune 9, 1992, remanding this case to the Commission \”with directions tovacate as moot, in accordance with the settlement agreement, thatportion of the December 20, 1991 decision from which an appeal was taken.\”Pursuant to section 11(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of1970, 29 U.S.C. ? 660(b), the Secretary petitioned the First Circuit forreview of the Commission’s decision in this case, dated December 20,1991. 15 BNA OSHC 1433, 1992 CCH OSHD ? 29,550 (No. 84-785, 1991). Whilethis case was on appeal before the court, the Secretary and Wyman-GordonCo. entered into a settlement agreement, a copy of which we havereceived from the Secretary. In that agreement, Wyman-Gordon withdrawsits notice of contest to the citation insofar as it alleged violationsof 29 C.F.R. ? 1910.20(e)(2)(i) concerning \”Exhibits\” 3A, 8C, and 11.Those parts of the citation are thereby rendered a final order of theCommission, under section 10(a) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. ? 659(a).In accordance with the mandate of the First Circuit, we \”vacate as moot\”the dispositions in our decision vacating the citation insofar as italleged violations of section 1910.20(e)(2)(i) concerning \”Exhibits\” 3A,8C, and 11. Except for these three specific dispositions, our decisionissued on December 20, 1991, remains undisturbed, in accordance with theprovisions of the settlement agreement entered into on appeal, andconstitutes Commission precedent.[[1]]Dated: August 6, 1992————————————————————————*FOOTNOTES: *[[1]] As we stated in our decision issued today in Contractors Weldingof Western New York Inc. (No. 88-1847), even though the disposition ofan issue may be moot, the analysis is still valid Commission precedent.We emphasize that in this case only the dispositions vacating thecitation concerning \”Exhibits\” 3A, 3C, and 11 are no longer part of ourdecision. The analysis common to those \”Exhibits\” and others in the caseremains Commission precedent.”