Date: FEB 5, 1993

Case No.: 93-ERA-20

In the Matter of

G. Richard Howard,
    Complainant

    v.

Tennessee Valley Authority,
    Respondent

Before: John M. Vittone
    Deputy Chief Judge

   On January 19, 1993, the Complainant filed with the Office of Administrative Law Judges a letter requesting review of the decision of the Secretary of Labor in Howard v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 91-ERA-36 (Sec'y Jan. 13, 1993). This request was docketed as Case Number 93-ERA-20.

   Pursuant to the regulations governing the employee protection provision of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 5851, the decision of the Secretary of Labor is the final administrative order of the Department of Labor, 29 C.F.R. § 24.6, and the Complainant's avenue of appeal is to file a petition for review, within 60 days after the issuance of the final order, in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the violation with respect to which the order was issued allegedly occurred. 29 C.F.R. § 24.7(a).

   On January 25, 1993, the parties were ordered to show cause by the close of business on February 1, 1993, why Case Number 93-

ERA-20 should not be dismissed on the ground that there is no right of appear to the Office of Administrative Law Judges of a final order rendered by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 24.6. The Complainant and counsel for the Respondent were served with the order via overnight mail.

   The Respondent filed its response to the order to show cause of February 1, 1993, stating that 'since the Secretary has already issued a final decision on the exact claim which complainant seeks to litigate, we think it would be appropriate for the Court to dismiss the purported appeal on two grounds: first, lack of jurisdiction, and second res judicata." The Complainant did not respond to the order to show cause.

   Because an administrative law judge has no authority to review az final order of the Secretary of Labor rendered pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 29.6, it is recommended that this case be dismissed with prejudice. It is not necessary to consider the question of whether dismissal is appropriate on the ground of res judicata.

   It is recommended that the Secretary of labor DISMISS Case Number 93-ERA-20 with prejudice.

At Washington, D.C. on February 5, 1933. Entered:

       by:
          John M. Vittone
          Deputy Chief Judge

JMV/trs