“Docket No. 84-785 SECRETARY OF LABOR, Complainant,v.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY, RespondentUNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2285,Authorized Employee Representative.OSHRC Docket No. 84-785DECISION 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 FirstCircuit on June 9, 1992, remanding this case to the Commission \”with directions tovacate as moot, in accordance with the settlement agreement, that portion of the December20, 1991 decision from which an appeal was taken.\”Pursuant to section 11(b) of the Occupational Safetyand Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. ? 660(b), the Secretary petitioned the First Circuitfor review of the Commission’s decision in this case, dated December 20, 1991. 15 BNA OSHC1433, 1992 CCH OSHD ? 29,550 (No. 84-785, 1991). While this case was on appeal before thecourt, the Secretary and Wyman-Gordon Co. entered into a settlement agreement, a copy ofwhich we have received from the Secretary. In that agreement, Wyman-Gordon withdraws itsnotice of contest to the citation insofar as it alleged violations of 29 C.F.R. ?1910.20(e)(2)(i) concerning \”Exhibits\” 3A, 8C, and 11. Those parts of thecitation are thereby rendered a final order of the Commission, under section 10(a) of theAct, 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 citationinsofar as it alleged violations of section 1910.20(e)(2)(i) concerning\”Exhibits\” 3A, 8C, and 11. Except for these three specific dispositions, ourdecision issued on December 20, 1991, remains undisturbed, in accordance with theprovisions of the settlement agreement entered into on appeal, and constitutes Commissionprecedent.[[1]]Dated: August 6, 1992FOOTNOTES: [[1]] As we stated in our decision issued today inContractors Welding of 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 thatin this case only the dispositions vacating the citation concerning \”Exhibits\”3A, 3C, and 11 are no longer part of our decision. The analysis common to those\”Exhibits\” and others in the case remains Commission precedent.”