DATE: January 24, 1996
CASE NO. 89-ERA-12


IN THE MATTER OF 

FRANK C. SMITH, JR.,

     and

MICHAEL H. FITZPATRICK,

          COMPLAINANTS,

     v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     This case arises under the employee protection provisions of
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 5851 (1988 and Supp. V 1993).  The parties
submitted a Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement seeking
approval of the settlement and dismissal of the complaint.  On
December 5, 1995, the Administrative Law Judge issued a decision
recommending that the settlement be approved.   Because the
request for approval is based on the agreement entered into by
the parties, I must review it to determine whether the terms are
a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint.  42
U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(A) (1988).  Macktal v. Secretary of
Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson v.
U.S. Dep't of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 556 (9th Cir. 1989);
Fuchko and Yunker v. Georgia Power Co., Case Nos. 89-ERA-
9, 89-ERA-10, Sec. Order, Mar. 23, 
[PAGE 2]
1989, slip op. at 1-2. 
     The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters
arising under various laws, only one of which is the ERA. 
See ¶¶ 1 and 2.  For the reasons set forth in
Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-
1, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at 2, I have limited my
review of the agreement to determining whether its terms are a
fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the Complainant's
allegations the Respondent violated the ERA.
     Paragraph 3 provides that the Complainant shall not disclose
the terms of the agreement except to Complainant's family, tax
advisors or attorneys.  The agreement's preamble provides that
the agreement does not prohibit or restrict the Complainant from
reporting or providing information to any Federal or state
governmental agency.   
     Although the parties have designated the documents in this
case as confidential commercial information, the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988), requires
Federal agencies to disclose requested records unless they are
exempt from disclosure under the Act.[1]   See Debose v.
Carolina Power & Light Co., Case No. 92-ERA-14, Order
Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Feb 7, 1994, slip op.
at 2-3 and cases there cited.  
     I find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair,
adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. 
Accordingly, I APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE.  Paragraph 1.

     SO ORDERED.



                           ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.





[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] 
  Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(b), submitters may designate
specific information as confidential commercial information to be
handled as provided in the regulations.  When FOIA requests are
received for such information, the Department of Labor will
notify the submitter promptly, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(c); the
submitter will be given a reasonable amount of time to state its
objections to disclosure, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(e); and the
submitter will be notified if a decision is made to disclose the
information, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(f).  If the information is
withheld and a suit is filed by the requester to compel
disclosure, the submitter will be notified, 29 C.F.R. §
70.26(h).