U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                          SECRETARY OF LABOR
                           WASHINGTON, D.C.



DATE:July 29, 1987
CASE NO. 86-CAA-2

IN THE MATTER OF
FREDERICK P. AURICH,
        COMPLAINANT,

    v.

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF 
NEW YORK, INC.,

        RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

                      ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

    The parties in this case have submitted a Settlement
Agreement and General Release and have jointly moved for
dismissal of the matter based on the terms and conditions of
the settlement. The Administrative Law Judge recommended that
the matter be dismissed, the parties having shown good cause.
The Secretary's authority under the statutes enumerated in 29
C.F.R. Part 24 (1986) including the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. S
7622 (1982) is limited to matters arising from or related to
alleged discrimination in employment for protected activities.
Thus, for example, in Chase v. Buncombe
County, N.C., Case No. 85-SWD-4 (Nov. 3, 1986),
the Secretary held that the scope of his authority to enforce
settlement agreements "is defined by the scope of the authority
granted by the applicable statute. My jurisdiction under the
[Solid Waste Disposal Act] reaches only to discrimination
arising out of employment relationships, and my authority to
grant relief is limited to such relief as is designed to abate
the discrimination and to make the employee whole."  Decision
and Order of Remand at 8. Similarly, I believe that my
authority to approve settlements under the Clean Air Act is
limited to terms and conditions which resolve issues which
arose out of the employment relationship in the 
[PAGE 2]
context of alleged violations of that act.

  The Settlement Agreement and General Release submitted by the
parties here purports to resolve a number of matters arising
under other laws and agreements in addition to the Clean Air
Act. The Settlement Agreement has been carefully reviewed. To
the extent it resolves issues arising out of or related to
Complainant's past employment with Respondent and alleged
violations of the Clean Air Act, I find the mutual commitments
exchanged by the parties to be fair, adequate and reasonable
and I approve it. This order, however, does not constitute
approval or disapproval of those provisions of the Settlement
Agreement and General Release which are beyond the scope of my
authority to review, as described above.

     In a letter dated July 20, 1987, Respondent's counsel has
made several requests concerning the future treatment of the
Settlement Agreement which has been submitted. Treatment of
administrative records must be in accordance with 5 U.S.C. S
552 (1982), but a ruling on Respondent's requests at this time
would be premature.

    Accordingly, for the reasons and with the authority set
forth above, this matter is DISMISSED.

   SO ORDERED.

                     WILLIAM E. BROCK        
                     Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.