IN THE MATTER OF 

WALTER CARTER,                                           CASE NO.
92-TSC-11

          COMPLAINANT,                         DATE: May 30, 1996


     v.

ELECTRICAL DISTRICT NO. 2 OF PINAL COUNTY,

          RESPONDENT.


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 (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2622
(1988).  The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), upon consideration
of the Settlement Agreement reached between the parties and their
Joint Motion to Approve Settlement, issued a Recommended Order
Approving Settlement on April 1, 1996.  Pursuant to the
Secretary's Order of April 24, 1996, the parties have submitted a
joint response concerning the distribution of the settlement
funds.    
     Since the request for approval is based on an agreement
entered into by the parties, we must review it to determine
whether the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement
of the complaint.  15 U.S.C. § 2622.  Macktal v.
Secretary of Labor, 923 F.2d 1150, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1991);
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 TSCA. 
See ¶¶ 4, 5 and 22.  As set forth in Poulos
v. Ambassador Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Case No. 86-CAA-1, Sec.
Order, Nov. 2, 1987, slip op. 
[PAGE 2]
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 Respondent violated the
TSCA.     
     Paragraphs 1 and 4(a) and (b) preserve Complainant's right
and that of his family, heirs or representatives to pursue other
claims or causes of action against Respondent arising from
Complainant's exposure to any toxic, carcinogenic, radioactive,
caustic, corrosive, hazardous, or harmful substance or material
during his employment with Respondent.  We construe these
provisions as preserving Complainant's right to pursue any
additional actions in this regard.
     Paragraph 7 provides that the parties will not, either
directly or indirectly, publicize the nature or content of the
agreement to persons other than their respective accountants,
attorneys, any state tax department or the Internal Revenue
Service, or other state or Federal officials as may be required
by law.  Nor does the agreement prohibit or restrict the
Complainant from reporting or testifying about any action which
he believes evidences a suspected violation of TSCA, RCRA, CERCLA
or other Federal, state or local law to any Federal, state or
local agency or official.  See ¶ 21.
     Paragraph 14 provides that the agreement will be governed by
the laws of Arizona.  We construe this provision as excepting the
authority of the Secretary of Labor and any Federal court which
shall be governed in all respects by the laws and regulations of
the United States.  See Phillips v. Citizens Assn. for Sound
Energy, Case No. 91-ERA-25, Final Order of Dismissal, Nov. 4,
1991, slip op. at 2. 
     We find that the agreement, as here construed, along with
the Joint Response to the Secretary's Order of April 24, 1996,
provide for a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the
complaint.  Accordingly, we APPROVE the agreement and DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.  See ¶ 13.  
     SO ORDERED.





                              ________________________
                              KARL J. SANDSTROM
                              Presiding Member




                              ________________________

[PAGE 3]
                              JOYCE D. MILLER
                              Alternate Member



          


[ENDNOTES]

[1]   This matter was filed before the Secretary of Labor
pursuant to the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and 29 C.F.R.
Part 24.  The Secretary issued an Order requiring additional
information regarding the distribution of the settlement proceeds
on April 24, 1996.  On April 17, 1996, a Secretary's Order was
signed delegating jurisdiction to issue final agency decisions
under this statute and these regulations to the newly created
Administrative Review Board (ARB).  61 Fed. Reg. 19978 (May 3,
1996)(copy attached).  The ARB has reviewed the information
provided by the parties and the entire record in this case in
rendering this final order.
   Secretary's Order 2-96 contains a comprehensive list of the
statutes, executive order and regulations under which the ARB 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.