“SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.SAUER-SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 89-1174_DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER_The parties in the above-cited action entered into a SettlementAgreement dated May 9, 1990, which was received by the Commission’sAtlanta Office on May 17, 1990. On May 18, 1990, Administrative LawJudge Paul L. Brady issued an order approving the said SettlementAgreement. That Order was docketed with the Commission on May 25, 1990.On May 23, 1990, Respondent filed with the Commission a Motion forRelief From Clerical Mistakes.Based on an examination of the official record, and pursuant to 29U.S.C. ? 661(j) and Commission Rule 92(a), 29 C.F.R. ? 2200.92(a), theaforementioned order is directed for review.In withdrawing Citation 2, Item 8, in the Settlement Agreement, theparties refer to the said citation as serious in characterization. _See_Introductory Paragraph (a). In the original Citation and Notification ofPenalty, however, the said citation was characterized as other thanserious. It appearing to the Commission that an error was thus made bythe parties in the Settlement Agreement, the same is hereby noted anddeemed to be corrected.The aforesaid Judge’s Order affirmed Citation 2. That citation, however,had been amended by the parties in the Settlement Agreement to withdrawItem 8 thereof. Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion for Relief fromClerical Mistakes is granted and the aforesaid Order is modified to readas follows:4. Citation No. 2, as amended, is hereby affirmed.WHEREFORE, with the modifications noted above, the Judge’s Orderapproving the Settlement Agreement is affirmed.Edwin G.Foulke, Jr.ChairmanVelma MontoyaCommissionerDonald G. WisemanCommissionerDated:_June 12, 1990_————————————————————————SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.SAUER-SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 89-1174_MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM CLERICAL MISTAKES_NOW COMES the Respondent, SAUER-SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION, and respectfullyrequests that the Commission amend the Order Approving Settlement (the\”Order\”) as follows:The Order provides that Citation No. 2 is affirmed. The parties agreedthat Sub-Item 8 of Citation No. 2 would be withdrawn. Accordingly, theorder should read that Citation No. 2, as amended, is hereby affirmed.Respectfully submitted,David L. Miller, One of theattorneys for Respondent,Sauer-Sundstrand CorporationDavid L. MillerKOVAR NELSON BRITTAIN SLEDZ & MORRIS————————————————————————SECRETARY OF LABOR,Complainant,v.SUNSTRAND-SAUER CORPORATION,Respondent.OSHRC Docket No. 89-1174_ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT_A settlement agreement was filed in this case which adequately resolvesthe issues pending before the Commission.The agreement provides for the amendment of Citation No. 1 and theproposed penalty and allows respondent to withdraw its notice of contest.Respondent represents that the alleged violations have been or will beabated by a date certain; that it will pay the proposed penalty, asamended; and that it has conformed with the applicable posting andservice requirements as fixed by the rules of the Commission.Therefore, it is ORDERED:1. The agreement of the parties is hereby approved and incorporated aspart of this order.2. The notice of contest is hereby dismissed.3. Citation No. 1, as amended, is affirmed and a penalty in the amountof $1,880.00 is hereby assessed.4. Citation No. 2 is hereby affirmed.Dated this 18th day of May, 1990.PAUL L. BRADYJudge”