DATE:  February 13, 1995
CASE NO. 93-ERA-22


IN THE MATTER OF

SYED HASAN,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

     Before me for review is the Recommended Order Dismissing
Complaint issued December 8, 1994, by the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) in this case, under the employee protection
provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988) and the regulations at 29
C.F.R. Part 24 (1993).  The ALJ recommended approval of the
settlement agreement and dismissal of the complaint with
prejudice, having found the agreement fair, adequate and
reasonable.  See 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, 1989, slip op. at 1-2. 
   Review of the agreement reveals that it may encompass
the settlement of matters under laws other than those enumerated
above. See Settlement Agreement Sections 3, 5 and 10.  As
stated in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case
No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Order, Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at 2:
     [The Secretary's] authority over settlement agreements is
     limited to such statutes as are within [the Secretary's] 
[PAGE 2]
     jurisdiction and is defined by the applicable statute. See
     Aurich v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,
    Case No. [86-]CAA-2, Secretary's Order Approving Settlement,
     issued July 29, 1987; Chase v. Buncombe County, N.C., Case
     No. 85-SWD-4, Secretary's Order on Remand, issued 
     November 3, 1986.
I have therefore, limited my review of the agreement to
determining whether the terms thereof are a fair, adequate and
reasonable settlement of Complainant's allegation that Respondent
violated the above Act.
     I note that pursuant to Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Agreement that the parties agree that the terms of the agreement
will be kept confidential.  I have held in a number of cases with
respect to confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements
that the FOIA "requires agencies to disclose requested documents
unless they are exempt from disclosure . . . ."  Plumlee v.
Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Case Nos. 92-TSC-7, 10; 92-WPC-
6, 7, 8, 10, Sec'y Final Order Approving Settlements and
Dismissing Cases with Prejudice, Aug. 6, 1993, slip op. at 6. 
See also Davis v. Valley View Ferry
Authority, Case No. 93-WPC-1, Sec'y Final Order Approving
Settlement and Dismissing Complaint, Jun. 28, 1993, slip op. at 2 n.1
(parties' submissions become part of record and are subject to FOIA);
Ratliff v. Airco Gases, Case No. 93-STA-5, Sec'y Final Order
Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice, Jun. 25,
1993, slip op. at 2 (same); Reid v. Tennessee Valley
Auth., Case No. 91-ERA-17, Sec'y Order Approving Settlement
and Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice, Aug. 31, 1992, slip op.
at 3 n.1 (same); Daily v. Portland Gen'l Elec. Co., Case
No. 88-ERA-40, Sec'y Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing
Case, Mar. 1, 1990, slip op. at 1 n.1 (same).  
     The case record in this case are agency records which must
be made available for public inspection and copying under the
FOIA.  In the event a request for inspection or copying of the
record of this case is made by a member of the public, that
request must be responded to as provided in the FOIA.  If an
exemption is applicable to the record in this case or any
specific document in it, the Department of Labor would determine
at the time a request is made whether to exercise its discretion
to claim the exemption and withhold the document.  If no
exemption were applicable, the document would have to be
disclosed.  Since no FOIA request has been made, it would be
premature to determine whether any of the exemptions in FOIA
would be applicable and whether the Department of Labor would
exercise its authority to claim such an exemption and withhold
the requested information.  It would also be inappropriate to
decide such questions in this proceeding.  

[PAGE 3]
     Department of Labor regulations provide specific procedures
for responding to FOIA requests, for appeals by requestors from
denials of such requests, and for protecting the interests of
submitters of confidential commercial information.  See 29
C.F.R. Part 70 (1993).   
     As so construed, I find the terms of the agreement to be
fair, adequate and reasonable, and therefore approve the
settlement agreement.  Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.  See Agreement at Section 3.
     SO ORDERED.


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.