DATE:  March 29, 1995
CASE NO. 94-ERA-16


IN THE MATTER OF

CATHERINE CARD,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

     Before me for review is the Recommended Order Approving
Settlement and Dismissing Case issued March 17, 1995, by the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this case, under the employee
protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 5851 (1988) and the implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R
Part 24 (1994).  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 at 3-4.  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, Sec. Ord. Approving
     Settlement, issued July 29, 1987; Chase v. Buncombe
     County, N.C., Case No. 85-SWD-4, Sec. Ord. 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 enumerated acts.
     I note that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement at 4-5, the
Complainant agrees to keep the terms of the agreement
confidential.  I have held in a number of cases with respect to
confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements that the
Freedom of Information Act (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. Final Ord. 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. Final Ord. 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. Final Ord. 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. Ord. 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. Ord. Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case,
Mar. 1, 1990, slip op. at 1 n.1 (same).  
     The records 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.    
     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 (1994). [1]   

     As so construed, I find the terms of the agreement to be 
[PAGE 3]
fair, adequate and reasonable, and therefore approve the
settlement agreement.  Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.  See Settlement Agreement at 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).