DATE:  May 9, 1995
CASE NO. 95-CAA-6


IN THE MATTER OF 

CINDY DARR,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

PRECISE HARD CHROME,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     This case arises under the employee protection provision of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (1988).  The
parties notified the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that they
resolved all matters in the complaint and wished to withdraw the
matter from adjudication.  The ALJ issued a Recommended Order of
Dismissal on March 15, 1995, which was submitted to me for
review.  No copy of the settlement agreement was submitted to the
ALJ and therefore, it was not reviewed prior to the issuance of
his recommended order.  
     On March 27, 1995, I issued an Order requiring the parties
to submit the settlement agreement for review because it would be
error to dismiss a case without reviewing the agreement to
determine whether it is a fair, adequate and reasonable
settlement.  See 29 C.F.R. § 24.6( a) (1994);
Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th
Cir. 1991); Thompson v. United States Dep't of Labor, 885
F.2d 551, 556 (9th Cir. 1989); McGlynn v. Pulsar
Incorporated, Case No. 93-CAA-2, Sec. Final Order Approving
Settlement, June 28, 1993.  
     The parties submitted the agreement and attachments pursuant

[PAGE 2]
to my March 27th Order.  These documents are now covered by
Department of Labor regulations implementing the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988), and are
therefore part of the record of the case.  FOIA requires federal
agencies to disclose under the Act. [1]   See Debose v.
Carolina Power & Light Co., Case No. 92-ERA-14, Order
Disapproving Settlement and Remanding Case, Feb. 7, 1994, slip
op. at 2-3 and cases there cited.
     Review of the agreement reveals that it may encompass the
settlement of matters under laws other than the CAA.  See
Release of Claims at 1-8.  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]
     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 CAA.  
     Pages 6-7 and Exhibit "B" provide that the Complaint shall
keep the terms of the settlement confidential, with certain
specified exceptions.  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. 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. 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. Final Order Approving
Settlement and Dismissing Complaint with Prejudice, Jun. 25,
1993, slip op. at 2 (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 and 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

[PAGE 3]
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.
     Department of Labor regulation provide specific procedures
for responding to FOIA requests, for appeals by requestor from
denials of such requests, and for protecting the interests of
submitter of confidential commercial information.  See 29
C.F.R. Part 70 (1993).  
     The Complainant reserved the right to pursue any claim
against the Respondent's worker's compensation insurance company
as a result of any personal injury, disease or illness arising as
a result of her employment with the Respondent.  The Complainant
also reserved the right to recover any actual damages suffered
for actual damage or loss of value of her real property located
in McLennan County Texas, as described in the Release. 
See Release at 3, (a) and (b).  
     As so construed, I find the terms of the agreement to be
fair, adequate and reasonable, and therefor approve the
settlement agreement.  Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.  See Release, page 6.  
     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 shall notify the submitter promptly, 29 C.F.R. §
70.26(e); and the submitter will be given a reasonable period 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 suit is filed by the requester to
compel disclosure, the submitter will be notified, 29 C.F.R.
§ 70.26(h).