DATE:  June 28, 1993
CASE NO. 93-CAA-00002


IN THE MATTER OF

EDWARD T. McGLYNN,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

PULSAIR INCORPORATED,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

     Before me for review is the Recommended Order of Dismissal
with Prejudice (R.D. and O.) of the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) in this case arising under the employee protection
provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-
9(i) (SDW); Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367
(WPC); Toxic Substances Control Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (TSC);
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (CAA); and the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1982, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 5851 (ERA).   
     The ALJ indicated the parties' submission of a "Settlement
Agreement, General Release and Waiver of Right to Sue"
(settlement) and recommended granting Complainant's "Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice" under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in accordance with the
terms of the settlement.  However, the ALJ did not indicate any
review of the terms of the settlement.
     In cases arising under the employee protection provisions of
the above-referenced statutes, and the implementing regulations
at 29 C.F.R. Part 24, it would be error to dismiss a case which
has been settled without reviewing the terms of the settlement
agreement to determine whether they are fair, adequate and
reasonable.  See 29 C.F.R. § 24.6(a) (1992);
Macktal v. Secretary 
[PAGE 2]
of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); Thompson
v. United States Department of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 556 (9th
Cir. 1989).  
     I note that this agreement may encompass matters arising
under various laws, other than SDW, WPC, TSC, CAA, and ERA.  My
authority over settlement agreements is limited to such statutes
as are within my jurisdiction and is defined by the applicable
statute.  See Goese v. Ebasco Services, Inc., Case
No. 88-ERA-25, Sec. Ord. Approving Settlement and Dismissing
Case, Dec. 8, 1988;  Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co.,
Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec. Ord., Nov. 2, 1987, and cases
cited therein.  Accordingly, I will limit my review to
determining whether the terms of the settlement are fair,
adequate and reasonable to settle Complainant's allegations that
Respondent violated the SDW, WPC, TSC, CAA and ERA.  Based on a
careful review of the terms of the settlement, I find that the
settlement agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable, as
clarified and construed herein.
     Paragraph 3 of the settlement provides that Complainant
shall keep the terms of the settlement confidential.  I construe
this confidentiality provision as not restricting any disclosure
where required by law.  Additionally, paragraph 13 provides that
the laws of Florida shall govern this settlement 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.
     As construed herein, I approve the settlement agreement and
dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  See Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice. [1] 
     SO ORDERED.


                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.




[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   It is not necessary to employ Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) to dismiss
this case, as the applicable statues provide for dismissal of a
case by the Secretary upon approval of the terms of a fully
executed settlement agreement between the parties.