In the Matter of 

LARRY COFFMAN,                          ARB Case No.  96-141      
                                        ALJ Case Nos. 96-TSC-5;
                                                      96-TSC-6

          COMPLAINANT,                  DATE:  June 24, 1996

     v.                                      


ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICES, CO.

     and

ARCTIC SLOPE INSPECTION SERVICES,

          RESPONDENTS.


BEFORE:   THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD[1] 


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     This case arises 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 Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971 (1988) and
the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (1988).  The parties
submitted a Settlement Agreement, Release and Covenant Not to
Sue, seeking approval of the settlement and dismissal of the
complaints of the cases with prejudice.  The Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) issued a decision on June 6, 1996, recommending that
the settlement be approved.  
     The request for approval is based on an agreement entered
into by the parties, therefore, we must review it to determine
whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement 
[PAGE 2]
of the complaints.  24 C.F.R. § 24.6.  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. Order, Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at
1-2. 
     The agreement appears to encompass the settlement of matters
arising under various laws, beyond those enumerated above. 
See ¶¶ 10 and 11.  For the reasons set forth in
Poulos v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-
1, Sec. Order., Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. at 2, we have limited our
review of the agreement to determining whether its terms are a
fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the Complainant's
allegations the Respondents violated the above enumerated Acts.
     Paragraph 7 contains language which provides that the 
Complainant shall keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement
confidential.  We interpret this language as not preventing
Complainant, either voluntarily or pursuant to an order or
subpoena, from communicating with, or providing information to,
State and Federal government agencies about suspected violations
of law involving the Respondent.  See ¶ 5(D).  See
Corder v. Bechtel Energy Corp., Sec. Order, Feb. 9, 1994,
slip op. at 6-8 (finding void as contrary to public policy a
settlement agreement provision prohibiting the complainant from
communicating with federal or state agencies concerning possible
violations of law).      The parties' submissions, including the
agreement become part of the record of the case and are subject
to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552
(1988).  FOIA requires Federal agencies to disclose requested
records unless they are exempt from disclosure under the Act.[2]  
See Debose v. Carolina Power and 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. 
     We find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair,
adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaints. 
Accordingly, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE.  Paragraph 2.  
     SO ORDERED.



                              __________________________
                              DAVID A. O'BRIEN
                              Chair



                              ___________________________

[PAGE 3]
                              KARL J. SANDSTROM
                              Member



                              ___________________________
                              JOYCE D. MILLER
                              Alternate Member







[ENDNOTES]
           
[1] 
  On April 17, 1996, a Secretary's Order was signed delegating
jurisdiction to issue final agency decisions under these statutes
and pertinent regulations 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.


[2] 
  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 will
notify the submitter promptly, 29 C.F.R. § 70.26(c); the
submitter will be given a reasonable amount 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 a suit is filed by the requester to compel
disclosure, the submitter will be notified, 29 C.F.R.
§70.26(h).