DATE:  March 29, 1995
CASE NO. 94-TSC-8


IN THE MATTER OF

LAURIE ASHBY,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO.,

          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 Toxic Substances Control Act, 
15 U.S.C. § 2601 (1988), the Clean Water Act, also known as
the Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988),
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (1988); and the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (1988).  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'y 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 ¶ 8.  As
stated in Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc.,
Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec'y Order, 
[PAGE 2]
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, Sec'y Order Approving
     Settlement, issued July 29, 1987; Chase v.
     Buncombe County, N.C., Case No. 85-SWD-4, Sec'y 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 above enumerated acts.
     I note that pursuant to ¶ 5 of the Settlement Agreement
that the parties agree that the terms of the agreement will be
kept confidential, and that ¶ 12 contains a provision for
the payment of liquidated damages if either party breaches its
conditions.    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'y 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'y 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'y Final Order 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'y Order 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'y Order 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 
[PAGE 3]
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).       
      As so construed, I find the terms of the
agreement to be fair, adequate and reasonable, and therefore
approve the settlement agreement.  Accordingly, the complaint is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  See Settlement
Agreement at ¶ 2.
     SO ORDERED.

                              ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor
Washington, D.C.