DATE:  January 26, 1995
CASE NO. 95-ERA-2


IN THE MATTER OF 

GARY L. IRICK,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY/
ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     This case arises under the employee protection provision 
of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 
42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988 and Supp. IV 1992).  The parties
submitted a Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and
Dismissal with Prejudice seeking approval of the settlement and
dismissal of the complaint.  The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
issued a decision on November 30, 1994 recommending that the
settlement be approved.  The request for approval is based on an
agreement entered into by the parties, therefore, 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, 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 Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.  For the
reasons 
[PAGE 2]
set forth in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case
No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Ord., 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 that the Respondent violated the ERA.
     Paragraph 3 contains language which provides that the parties
and their attorneys shall keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement
confidential except to the extent necessary 
to obtain financial or legal advice, or as otherwise 
required by law.  The parties' submissions, including the
agreement, become part of the record of the case and are subject
to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552
(1988).  FOIA 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, Ord. Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Feb.
7, 1994, slip op. at 2-3 and cases there cited. 
     Additionally, Paragraph 6 provides that the laws of Arizona
shall govern this agreement.  This provision is interpreted as
not limiting the authority of the Secretary or the United States
district court under the applicable statutes and regulations.    
     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.  See ¶ 1.1.
     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).