In The Matter Of:

WILLIAM C. BIDDY,                             CASE NO. 95-TSC-7

          COMPLAINANT,                        DATE: June 19, 1996


     v.

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD[1] 


                               SECOND ORDER

     On May 31, 1996, the Board issued an Order requiring the
parties to advise us as to the "actual amount of money to be paid
to the Complainant pursuant to the proposed settlement."  Order
at 2.  On June 10, 1996, we received a Joint Response from
counsel purporting to provide such information, but which in fact
does not do so.  The response states that no part of the amount
to be paid in satisfaction of Complainant's claim before the
Department of Labor will be paid to Complainant's attorney for
fees or costs.  The response further advises that "all of his
[Complainant's] attorneys' fees and cost reimbursements due his
attorney, including fees and costs relating to this
matter, will be paid out of the proceeds of [the settlement
of Complainant's case pending in the State of Alaska]." (Emphasis
supplied)  Joint Response at 2-3.  
     Counsel misapprehends the Board's concern.  In order for the
Board to determine if the settlement agreement is fair, adequate
and reasonable, it must know the amount the Complainant will
ultimately receive pursuant to the settlement of his complaint. 
In evaluating the settlement, it does not matter that the amount
to be paid to Complainant's attorney will not be paid until later
out of a separate settlement.  
     In addition, the response indicates that Complainant's 
[PAGE 2]
counsel will ultimately be paid for the legal services rendered
in this case based on a contingency fee agreement.  Id. at
3.  Counsel is to provide a memo to this Board setting forth the
legal basis for approval of an attorney's fee based on a
contingency agreement as opposed to the lodestar method in
matters arising under the employee protection provisions of the
Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622 (1988), 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, 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (1988).  See
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983).
     The parties are to respond as soon as possible, and in no
event later than ten (10) days of the date of issuance of this
Order, at which time the Board will act.
     SO ORDERED.




                              _________________________
                              DAVID A. O'BRIEN
                              Chair




                              _________________________
                              KARL J. SANDSTROM
                              Member




                              _________________________
                              JOYCE D. MILLER
                              Alternate Member





[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   On April 17, 1996, Secretary's Order 2-96 was signed
delegating jurisdiction to issue final agency decisions under the
environmental whistleblower statutes and the regulations at 29 
C.F.R. Part 24, to the newly created Administrative Review Board. 
61 Fed. Reg. 19978 (May 3, 1996)(copy attached).

  Secretary's Order 2-96 contains a comprehensive list of the
statutes, executive order and regulations under which the Board
now issues final agency decisions.  A copy of the final
procedural revisions to the regulations (61 Fed. Reg. 19982),
implementing this reorganization is also attached.