IN THE MATTER OF              
                              

B. SCOTT DAVIDSON,                      CASE NO. 94-ERA-25 

          COMPLAINANT,                  DATE:  June 24, 1996

     v.

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD[1] 


                     FINAL ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                         AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

     This case arises under the employee protection provision 
of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA), as amended, 
42 U.S.C. § 5851 (1988 and Supp. IV 1992).  The parties
submitted a Stipulation of Settlement and an Addendum A thereto,
seeking approval of the settlement and dismissal of the
complaint.  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
of the complaint.  42 U.S.C. § 5851(b)(2)(A) (1988). 
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, only one of which is the ERA. 
See

[PAGE 2]
¶¶ 4 and 9.  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 that
Respondents violated the ERA.
     Paragraph 6 of the Stipulation and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the
Addendum pertain to the confidentiality provisions of the
agreement, and do not prohibit Complainant from reporting any
suspected nuclear safety concern to the proper governmental
authority, from participating in any proceeding or investigation
pertaining thereto, or in restricting any disclosure by him where
required by law.  Complainant and his counsel are required to
timely notify the Respondents' legal counsel in the event they
receive legal process or an order purporting to require
disclosure of the agreement.  We do not find this notification
requirement violative of public policy, since it does not
restrict or impinge upon the Complainant or his counsel from such
disclosure after appropriate legal process.  McGlynn v.
Pulsair Inc., Case No. 93-CAA-2, Sec. Final Order Approving
Settlement, June 28, 1993, slip op. at 3.  
     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 & 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 construe ¶ 8 of the Stipulation providing that the
agreement will be governed by the laws of Pennsylvania as
excepting the authority of the Board and any Federal court, which
shall in all respects be governed by the laws and regulations of
the United States.  See Carter v. Electrical Dist. No. 2 of
Pinal County, 92-TSC-11, ARB Order (May 30, 1996).
     We find that the agreement, as here construed, is a fair,
adequate and reasonable settlement of the complaint. 
Accordingly, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
WITH PREJUDICE. See ¶¶ 4 and 9. 
     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 this statute
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).