DATE:  June 25, 1993
CASE NO. 93-STA-00005


IN THE MATTER OF

KERRY G. RATLIFF,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

AIRCO GASES,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                                 AGREEMENT

     This case arises under the employee protection provision of
the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49
U.S.C. § 2305 (1988).  Complainant and Respondent submitted
to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) an executed Settlement
Agreement and Release, and the ALJ recommended approval of the
settlement.  Although either the ALJ or the Secretary has the
authority to approve settlement of STAA complaints, 29 C.F.R. 
§ 1978.111(d)(2), I issue this final order to clarify that
the complaint is dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the
settlement agreement.
     The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters
arising under various laws, only one of which is the STAA.  For
the reasons set forth in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil
Co., 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 Complainant's allegation that Respondent violated the STAA. 
49 U.S.C. § 2305.
[PAGE 2]
     The Agreement states that it "shall be construed, carried
out and enforced in accordance with the substantive provisions of
the law of the State of Mississippi."  I interpret this statement
as not limiting the authority of the Secretary or the United
States district court under the STAA and regulations.  See
49 U.S.C. § 2305(e); 49 C.F.R. § 1978.113; and
Phillips v. Citizens Ass'n for Sound Energy, Case No. 91-
ERA-25, Final Order of Dismissal, Nov. 4, 1991, slip op. at 2.
     Paragraph 5 of the Agreement provides for confidentiality of
its terms, except with Complainant's family, attorney, and tax
adviser.  I note that the parties' submissions become part of the
record in the case and that the Freedom of Information Act, 5
U.S.C. § 552 (1988), requires federal agencies to disclose
requested records unless they are exempt from disclosure under
the Act.  See Hamka v. The Detroit Edison Co., Case
No. 88-ERA-26, Sec. Order to Submit Attachments, Dec. 9, 1991, slip
op at 2, n.1.
     Upon review of the terms of the agreement and the case
record, I find that agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable,
and therefore, I approve the Settlement Agreement and Release. 
Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
     SO ORDERED.

                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor


Washington, D.C.