In The Matter Of:

WILLIAM B. FAUST                        CASE NOS.  92-SWD-0002   
                                                   93-STA-0015
          COMPLAINANT,
                                        DATE:   June 13, 1996
     v.

CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES, INC.,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:   THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD[1] 


                                   ORDER
     The Secretary issued a Remand Order (R. O.) in these
consolidated cases under the employee protection provisions of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. § 9610 (1988)[2]  and the
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), 49 U.S.C.
§ 31105 (West 1995) on April 2, 1996.  In the R. O., the
Secretary dismissed the CERCLA complaint because Faust was unable
to establish that Chemical Leaman was aware of his alleged
protected activity under that act.  However, the Secretary held
that Faust established the liability of Chemical Leaman with
regard to the STAA violation and remanded the matter to an
Administrative Law Judge for a recommended decision on damages.
     On April 5, 1996, counsel for Chemical Leaman responded to
the R. O. by requesting that it be vacated because "the case was
fully and finally settled in February 1996."  This 
April 5, 1996 correspondence, mailed after the R. O. had been
issued, was the first notification the Department of Labor had of
this purported settlement.
     Certainly settlements are to be encouraged.  Nothing in this
order should be construed otherwise.  Judicial efficiency is
greatly enhanced by the settlement of disputes when the judge is
timely informed of the settlement.  Here, the parties obviated
any efficiency advantage to the settlement by failing to notify
the Secretary of it until after a decision had been issued.

[PAGE 2]
     More important than efficiency is the public interest in
surface transportation safety.  The STAA makes it very clear that
settlements must be approved by the Secretary of Labor (or his
designee).  The relevant section states that ". . . Before the
final order is issued, the proceeding may be ended by a
settlement agreement made by the Secretary, the complainant, and
the person alleged to have committed the violation."  49 U.S.C. 
§ 31105(b)(2)(C).  Public policy demands that settlement
agreements between the parties of a discrimination complaint
filed under the federal employee protection statutes be reviewed
by the Secretary of Labor (or his designee) to determine whether
the terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of the
complaint.  29 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
and 10, Sec. Order, Mar. 23, 1989, slip op. at 1-2.  If the terms
of a settlement are not fair, adequate and reasonable, other
potential whistleblowers may be discouraged from reporting safety
violations.  See Plumlee v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.,
Case No. 92-TSC-7, Sec. Dec. and Ord., Aug. 6, 1993, slip op.
at 5.
     Since the settlement has not yet been approved, it is not
currently valid.  Chemical Leaman's request to vacate the R. O.
is denied.  That decision remains in full force and effect.  This
matter is remanded to an ALJ for appropriate consideration of the
parties' proposed settlement, assuming that both parties desire
to proceed with the settlement, or if either party so desires,
for issuance of a recommended order on damages consistent with
the R. O. of April 2, 1996.
     SO ORDERED.




                              _________________________
                              DAVID A. O'BRIEN
                              Chair




                              _________________________
                              KARL J. SANDSTROM
                              Member




[PAGE 3]

                              _________________________
                              JOYCE D. MILLER
                              Alternate Member




[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   This matter was filed before the Secretary of Labor
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act and the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1982, and the respective implementing
regulations.  On April 17, 1996 a Secretary's Order was signed
delegating jurisdiction to issue final agency decisions under
these statutes and regulations to the newly created
Administrative Review Board (the Board).  Order 2-96 (April 17,
1996), 61 Fed. Reg. 19978 (May 3, 1996) (copy attached).  The
Board reviewed the remand order and the entire record in this
case prior to issuing this order. 

[2]   Although this complaint was a given a Solid Waste Disposal
Act (SWD) case number, only CERCLA and STAA violations were
alleged.