U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                          SECRETARY OF LABOR
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

DATE: November 2, 1987
CASE NO. 86-CAA-l

IN THE MATTER OF

PAUL POULOS,
    COMPLAINANT,
       v.

AMBASSADOR FUEL OIL CO., INC.,
    RESPONDENT.

BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR

                                 ORDER

      On June 29, 1987, upon receipt of a joint request for a
consent order dismissing the complaint in this case because it
had been settled, Administrative Law Judge Ainsworth B. Brown
issued an order dismissing the scheduled hearing in this case
which arises under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. §
7622 (1982).[1] This order was transmitted to me for review.
Subsequently, by letter dated July 16, 1987, counsel for
Complainant submitted to me a copy of the settlement agreement
signed by the parties which sets forth the actual terms and
conditions to which the parties have agreed. Complainant's
counsel expressed the belief that the settlement "should meet
with [my] approval" and asked that an order be issued "as
quickly as possible."

     The settlement agreement encompasses matters arising under
various laws, only one of which is the Clean Air Act. My
authority over settlement agreements is limited to such
statutes as are within my jurisdiction and is defined by the
applicable statute. See Aurich v.
Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc., Case No. CAA-2,
Secretary's Order Approving Settlement, issued July 29, 1987;
Chase v. Buncombe County,
N.C., Case No. 85-SWD-4. Secretary's Decision and Order
on Remand, issued November 3, 1986. Accordingly, I have limited
my review of the settlement agreement to determining whether
its conditions are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of 
[PAGE 2]
Complainant's allegations that Respondent violated Section 7622
of the CAA.

     I find the terms of the agreement within the scope of my
authority to be fair, adequate and reasonable and I, therefore,
approve the settlement.
                                                                       I

     Accordingly, the complaint in this case is DISMISSED.

     SO ORDERED.

                                          WILLIAM E. BROCK
                                          Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.

[ENDNOTES]

[1]  Although not so stated, it appears that the ALJ acted
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.39(b) (1986) which permits
dismissal of a hearing request upon settlement by the party who
filed the request. The parties, however, filed their request
pursuant to section 18.9 of 29 C.F.R., which provides for
consent orders or settlements, and requested dismissal of the
complaint rather than dismissal of the hearing request.
Settlement Agreement and Joint Request For Consent Order
Dismissing Complaint at 2. I treat the parties' request as one
for dismissal of the complaint rather than for dismissal of the
hearing request.