Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3021 

(11) Disregarded payment loss rules. 

Section 1.1503(d)–1(d) applies to 

taxable years beginning on or after 

January 1, 2026. See also § 301.7701– 

2(e)(10) of this chapter (applicability 

dates for the entity classification 

provisions relevant to the disregarded 

payment loss rules). 

(12) [Reserved]. 

(13) [Reserved]. 

(14) [Reserved]. 

(15) Anti-avoidance rule. Section 

1.1503(d)–1(f) applies to dual 

consolidated losses incurred in taxable 

years ending on or after August 6, 2024, 

and to disregarded payment losses in 

taxable years beginning on or after 

January 1, 2026. 

(16) [Reserved]. 

(17) Deemed ordering rule. Section 

1.1503(d)–3(c)(3) applies to dual 

consolidated losses incurred in taxable 

years beginning on or after January 1, 

2026, and to disregarded payment losses 

in taxable years beginning on or after 

January 1, 2026. For the application of 

the deemed ordering rule to dual 

consolidated losses incurred in taxable 

years beginning before January 1, 2026, 

but on or after April 18, 2007, see 

§ 1.1503(d)–3(c)(3) as contained in 26 

CFR part 1 revised as of April 1, 2024. 

(18) Exception to mirror legislation 

rule for disregarded payment losses. 

Section 1.1503(d)–3(e)(4) applies to 

taxable years beginning on or after 

January 1, 2026. 

PART 301—PROCEDURE AND 

ADMINISTRATION 

■ Par. 6. The authority citation for part 

301 is amended by adding an entry for 

§ 301.7701–2 to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

* * * * * 

Section 301.7701–2 also issued under 26 

U.S.C. 7701. 

* * * * * 

■ Par. 7. Section 301.7701–2 is 

amended by: 

■ 1. In the last sentence of paragraph (a), 

removing the language ‘‘(vi)’’ and 

adding in its place the language ‘‘(vii)’’; 

■ 2. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(vii); and 

■ 3. Adding paragraph (e)(10). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 301.7701–2 Business entities; 

definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vii) Special rules for certain 

disregarded payments—(A) Disregarded 

payment loss rules. To the extent 

provided in § 1.1503(d)–1(d) of this 

chapter, certain payments involving a 

business entity that, under paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) of this section is otherwise 

disregarded as an entity separate from 

its owner, are in effect taken into 

account as if the entity were regarded 

and the deduction was denied, and 

therefore give rise to an income 

inclusion, and corresponding 

suspended deduction, to the entity’s 

owner. 

(B) Non-application of the sixtymonth limitation. If an eligible entity 

that is disregarded as an entity separate 

from its owner would become a 

disregarded payment entity (within the 

meaning of § 1.1503(d)–1(d)(5)(i)(A) of 

this chapter) when this paragraph 

(c)(2)(vii) applies, the sixty-month 

limitation under § 301.7701–3(c)(1)(iv) 

does not apply with respect to an 

election by such eligible entity to 

change its classification to an 

association effective before January 1, 

2026 (such that it would not become a 

disregarded payment entity). 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(10) Paragraph (c)(2)(vii) of this 

section (special rules for certain 

disregarded payments) applies to 

taxable years beginning on or after 

January 1, 2026, except that paragraph 

(c)(2)(vii)(B) of this section (nonapplication of sixty-month limitation) 

applies as of August 6, 2024. 

Douglas W. O’Donnell, 

Deputy Commissioner. 

Approved: January 2, 2025. 

Aviva R. Aron-Dine, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury 

(Tax Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2025–00318 Filed 1–10–25; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1992 

[Docket Number: OSHA–2022–0005] 

RIN 1218–AD37 

Procedures for the Handling of 

Retaliation Complaints Under the AntiMoney Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA) 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This document provides the 

interim final text of regulations 

governing the anti-retaliation provisions 

of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 

2020 (AMLA or the Act). This rule 

establishes procedures and timeframes 

for the handling of retaliation 

complaints under AMLA, including 

procedures and timeframes for 

complaints to the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration (OSHA), 

investigations by OSHA, appeals of 

OSHA determinations to an 

administrative law judge (ALJ) for a 

hearing de novo, hearings by ALJs, 

review of ALJ decisions by the 

Administrative Review Board (ARB) 

(acting on behalf of the Secretary of 

Labor (Secretary)), and judicial review 

of the Secretary’s final decision. It also 

sets forth the Secretary’s interpretations 

of the AMLA anti-retaliation provision 

on certain matters. 

DATES: This interim final rule is 

effective on January 14, 2025. 

Comments and additional materials 

must be submitted (post-marked, sent or 

received) by March 17, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by the 

following method: 

Electronically: You may submit 

comments and attachments 

electronically at: https://

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions online for submitting 

comments. 

Docket: To read or download 

comments or other material in the 

docket, go to https://

www.regulations.gov. Documents in the 

docket are listed in the https://

www.regulations.gov index; however, 

some information (e.g., copyrighted 

material) is not publicly available to 

read or download through the website. 

All submissions, including copyrighted 

material, are available for inspection 

through the OSHA Docket Office. 

Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 

693–2350 (TTY (877) 889–5627) for 

assistance in locating docket 

submissions. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and the OSHA 

docket number for this Federal Register 

document (OSHA–2022–0005). OSHA 

will place comments and requests to 

speak, including personal information, 

in the public docket, which may be 

available online. Therefore, OSHA 

cautions interested parties about 

submitting personal information such as 

Social Security numbers and birthdates. 

For further information on submitting 

comments, see the ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ heading in the section of 

this document titled SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

Extension of comment period: Submit 

requests for an extension of the 

comment period on or before January 

29, 2025 to the Directorate of 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
3022 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

1 In addition to the AMLA anti-retaliation 

provisions, 31 U.S.C. 5323 establishes a 

whistleblower award program administered by the 

Department of the Treasury. That award program is 

not a subject of this rulemaking. 

2The BSA is codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 

U.S.C. 1951–1960, and 31 U.S.C. 5311–5314 and 

5316–5336, and includes notes thereto, with 

implementing regulations at 31 CFR chapter X. 

3 31 U.S.C. 5311(1). 

4Treasury Order 180–01 (Jan. 14, 2020). 

Whistleblower Protection Programs, 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Room N–3647, Washington, DC 20210, 

or by fax to (202) 693–2199. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Philippe Blanca ́to, Investigative 

Specialist, Directorate of Whistleblower 

Protection Programs, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Room N–3647, 

200 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 

693–2199 (this is not a toll-free number) 

or email: osha.dwpp@dol.gov. This 

Federal Register publication is available 

in alternative formats. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On January 1, 2021, Congress enacted 

the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 

National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law 116–283, 

134 Stat. 3388 (January 1, 2021) which 

included significant reforms to the U.S. 

anti-money laundering framework, 

including the Anti-Money Laundering 

Act of 2020. That law was, in turn, 

amended by the Anti-Money 

Laundering Whistleblower 

Improvements Act, Sec. 401 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2023, Public Law 117–328, 136 Stat 

4459 (enacted December 29, 2022). The 

anti-retaliation provisions, codified at 

31 U.S.C. 5323 (g)(1)–(3) & (5)–(6), and 

referred to throughout this interim final 

rule as AMLA, the Act, or the AMLA 

anti-retaliation provisions, prohibit 

retaliation by an employer against a 

whistleblower in the terms and 

conditions of employment or postemployment in reprisal for the 

whistleblower having engaged in 

protected activity.1 Protected activity 

under AMLA includes any lawful act 

done by a whistleblower in reporting 

certain information to the Secretary of 

the Treasury; Attorney General; a 

Federal regulatory or law enforcement 

agency; any Member of Congress or any 

committee of Congress; or the employer 

of the individual, including as part of 

the job duties of the individual. The 

employer includes ‘‘a person with 

supervisory authority over the 

whistleblower, or such other person 

working for the employer who has the 

authority to investigate, discover, or 

terminate misconduct.’’ 31 U.S.C. 

5323(g)(1)(A)(iv). Protected activity also 

includes any lawful act done by a 

whistleblower in initiating, testifying in, 

or assisting in any investigation or 

judicial or administrative action of the 

Department of the Treasury or the 

Department of Justice based upon or 

related to such information. 31 U.S.C. 

5323(g)(1)(B). 

The information must relate to 

violations of certain enumerated 

statutes, including violations of 31 

U.S.C. chapter 53, subchapter II (31 

U.S.C. 5311–5336), chapter 35 or section 

4305 or 4312 of title 50, U.S.C., or the 

Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation 

Act (21 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), or 

conspiracies to violate the 

aforementioned provisions. 31 U.S.C. 

5323(a)(5) (as amended). 31 U.S.C. 

chapter 53, subchapter II is part of the 

Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). The legislative 

framework generally referred to as the 

BSA consists of the Currency and 

Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 

1970, Title II of Public Law 91–508 

(October 26, 1970), as amended by the 

Uniting and Strengthening America by 

Providing Appropriate Tools Required 

to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act 

of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), Public 

Law 107–56 (October 26, 2001), and 

other legislation, including the AMLA.2

The Secretary of the Treasury is 

authorized to administer the BSA and to 

require financial institutions to keep 

records and file reports that ‘‘are highly 

useful in criminal, tax, or regulatory 

investigations or proceedings’’ or in the 

conduct of ‘‘intelligence or 

counterintelligence activities, including 

analysis, to protect against international 

terrorism’’.3 Authority to implement, 

administer, and enforce compliance 

with the BSA and its implementing 

regulations has been delegated to the 

Director of the Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a 

bureau of the Department of the 

Treasury.4 See https://www.fincen.gov/ 

resources/statutes-and-regulations/ 

bank-secrecy-act; https://

bsaaml.ffiec.gov/. ‘‘Chapter 35 of Title 

50’’ refers to the International 

Emergency Economic Powers Act 

(IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., as 

amended, which authorizes the 

President to take certain actions, 

including, but not limited to, the 

regulation of transactions subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction involving property in which 

any foreign country or foreign national 

has an interest, to deal with any unusual 

or extraordinary threat, which has its 

source in whole or in substantial part 

outside the United States, to the 

national security, foreign policy, or 

economy of the United States, if the 

President has declared a national 

emergency with respect to such threat. 

50 U.S.C. 4305 and 4312 are provisions 

of the Trading with the Enemy Act 

(TWEA); section 4305 authorizes during 

time of war, among other measures, 

regulation of transactions subject to U.S. 

jurisdiction involving any property in 

which a foreign country or foreign 

national has an interest, while section 

4312 authorizes seizure and holding of 

foreign-owned property in trust during 

times of war. The Foreign Narcotics 

Kingpin Designation Act, 21 U.S.C. 1901 

et seq., effectively applies the 

authorities in the IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. 1701 

et seq., to significant foreign narcotics 

traffickers and their organizations 

operating worldwide. See https://

ofac.treasury.gov/ (explaining the Office 

of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) 

administration and enforcement of 

IEEPA, TWEA, and the Foreign 

Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act). 

Providing information regarding any 

conduct that the whistleblower 

reasonably believes constitutes a 

violation of any law, rule, or regulation 

subject to the jurisdiction of the 

Department of the Treasury, or a 

violation of section 1956, 1957, or 1960 

of title 18 (or any rule or regulation 

under any such provision) is also 

protected, if the information is provided 

to a person with supervisory authority 

over the whistleblower at the employer 

of the whistleblower; or to another 

individual working for the employer 

who the whistleblower reasonably 

believes has the authority to investigate, 

discover, or terminate the misconduct; 

or take any other action to address the 

misconduct. See 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(1)(C). 

18 U.S.C. 1956 and 1957 are Federal 

criminal statutes which prohibit money 

laundering and related financial 

transactions, while 18 U.S.C. 1960 is a 

Federal criminal statute that prohibits 

unlicensed money transmitting 

businesses. 

While the AMLA anti-retaliation 

provision at 31 U.S.C. 5323(g) provides 

broad protection against retaliation in 

employment and post-employment for 

whistleblowers, it also contains a 

statutory exclusion from protection 

under 31 U.S.C. 5323(g) for employees 

of federally insured depository 

institutions and credit unions covered 

by the anti-retaliation provisions of two 

separate federal statutes. 31 U.S.C. 

5323(g)(6) (‘‘This subsection [31 U.S.C. 

5323(g)] shall not apply with respect to 

any employer that is subject to section 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3023 

33 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 

(12 U.S.C. 23 1831j) or section 213 or 

214 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 

U.S.C. 1790b, 1790c)’’). 

This interim final rule establishes 

procedures for the handling of 

retaliation complaints under the Act. 

II. Summary of Statutory Procedures 

AMLA incorporates the rules, 

procedures, and burdens of proof set 

forth in the Wendell H. Ford Aviation 

Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 

Century (AIR21), 49 U.S.C. 42121(b), 

with some exceptions. 31 U.S.C. 

5323(g)(3)(A). Under AMLA, a person 

who believes that they have been 

discharged or otherwise retaliated 

against in violation of the Act 

(complainant) may file a complaint with 

the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) within 

90 days of the alleged retaliation. 31 

U.S.C. 5323(g)(3)(A), incorporating the 

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 42121(b). 

Upon receipt of the complaint, the 

Secretary must provide written notice to 

each person named in the complaint 

alleged to have violated the Act 

(respondent) and to the complainant’s 

employer (which in most cases will be 

the respondent) of the filing of the 

complaint, the allegations contained in 

the complaint, the substance of the 

evidence supporting the complaint, and 

the rights afforded the respondent 

throughout the investigation. 49 U.S.C. 

42121(b)(1). The Secretary must then 

conduct an investigation, within 60 

days of receipt of the complaint, after 

affording the respondent an opportunity 

to submit a written response and to 

meet with the investigator to present 

statements from witnesses. 49 U.S.C. 

42121(b)(2)(A). 

The Secretary may conduct an 

investigation only if the complainant 

has made a prima facie showing that the 

protected activity was a contributing 

factor in the adverse action alleged in 

the complaint and the respondent has 

not demonstrated, through clear and 

convincing evidence, that it would have 

taken the same adverse action in the 

absence of that activity. (See § 1992.104 

for a summary of the investigation 

process) OSHA interprets the prima 

facie case requirement as allowing the 

complainant to meet this burden 

through the information the 

complainant provides in the complaint 

as supplemented by interviews of the 

complainant. 

After investigating a complaint, the 

Secretary will issue written findings. If, 

as a result of the investigation, the 

Secretary finds there is reasonable cause 

to believe that retaliation has occurred, 

the Secretary must notify the 

complainant and respondent of those 

findings, and issue a preliminary order 

providing relief including reinstatement 

with the same seniority status that the 

individual would have had, but for the 

retaliation, two times the amount of 

back pay otherwise owed to the 

individual, with interest; compensatory 

damages, which shall include 

compensation for litigation costs, expert 

witness fees, and reasonable attorney 

fees; and any other appropriate remedy 

with respect to the conduct that is the 

subject of the complaint or action, as 

applicable. 

The complainant and the respondent 

then have 30 days after the date of 

receipt of the Secretary’s notification in 

which to file objections to the findings 

and/or preliminary order and request a 

hearing before an ALJ. The filing of 

objections will not stay any 

reinstatement order. However, under 

OSHA’s regulations, the filing of 

objections will stay any other remedy in 

the preliminary order. If a hearing 

before an ALJ is not requested within 30 

days, the preliminary order becomes 

final and is not subject to judicial 

review. 

If a hearing is held, the hearing must 

be conducted ‘‘expeditiously.’’ 49 U.S.C. 

42121(b)(2)(A). The Secretary then has 

120 days after the conclusion of any 

hearing to issue a final order, which 

may provide appropriate relief or deny 

the complaint. 49 U.S.C. 42121(b)(3)(A). 

Until the Secretary’s final order is 

issued, the Secretary, the complainant, 

and the respondent may enter into a 

settlement agreement that terminates the 

proceeding. Id. Where the Secretary has 

determined that a violation has 

occurred, the Secretary will order relief 

including reinstatement with the same 

seniority status that the individual 

would have had, but for the retaliation, 

two times the amount of back pay 

otherwise owed to the individual, with 

interest; compensatory damages, which 

shall include compensation for 

litigation costs, expert witness fees, and 

reasonable attorney fees; and any other 

appropriate remedy with respect to the 

conduct that is the subject of the 

complaint or action, as applicable. The 

Secretary also may award a prevailing 

employer reasonable attorney fees, not 

exceeding $1,000, if the Secretary finds 

that the complaint is frivolous or has 

been brought in bad faith. Within 60 

days of the issuance of the final order, 

any person adversely affected or 

aggrieved by the Secretary’s final order 

may file an appeal with the United 

States Court of Appeals for the circuit in 

which the violation allegedly occurred 

or the circuit where the complainant 

resided on the date of the violation. 49 

U.S.C. 42121(b)(4). 

The Act permits the whistleblower to 

bring an AMLA retaliation claim against 

the employer in the appropriate United 

States district court if the Secretary has 

not issued a final decision within 180 

days after the filing of the complaint 

and there is no showing that the delay 

is due to the bad faith of the 

complainant. The court will have 

jurisdiction over the action without 

regard to the amount in controversy and 

either party is entitled to request a trial 

by jury. 

The Act also states that the rights and 

remedies provided in the AMLA antiretaliation provision may not be waived 

by any agreement, policy form, or 

condition of employment, including by 

a predispute arbitration agreement. No 

predispute arbitration agreement is 

valid or enforceable, to the extent that 

the agreement requires arbitration of a 

dispute arising under the AMLA antiretaliation provision. 31 U.S.C. 5323(j). 

Finally, under the Act, nothing in the 

AMLA anti-retaliation provision shall 

be deemed to diminish the rights, 

privileges, or remedies of any 

whistleblower under any Federal or 

State law, or under any collective 

bargaining agreement. 31 U.S.C. 

5323(g)(5). 

III. Summary and Discussion of 

Regulatory Provisions 

The regulatory provisions in this part 

have been written and organized to be 

consistent with other whistleblower 

regulations promulgated by OSHA to 

the extent possible within the bounds of 

the statutory language of the Act. 

Responsibility for receiving and 

investigating complaints under the Act 

has been delegated to the Assistant 

Secretary for Occupational Safety and 

Health (Assistant Secretary) by 

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 08–2020 

(May 15, 2020), 85 FR 58393 (September 

18, 2020). Hearings on determinations 

by the Assistant Secretary are conducted 

by the Office of Administrative Law 

Judges, and appeals from decisions by 

ALJs are decided by the ARB. See 

Secretary of Labor’s Order 01–2020 

(Feb. 21, 2020), 85 FR 13024–01 (Mar. 

6, 2020) (Delegation of Authority and 

Assignment of Responsibility to the 

Administrative Review Board). 

Subpart A—Complaints, Investigations, 

Findings, and Preliminary Orders 

Section 1992.100 Purpose and Scope 

This section describes the purpose of 

the regulations in this interim final rule 

implementing the anti-retaliation 

provisions of AMLA and provides an 

overview of the procedures covered by 

these regulations. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
3024 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Section 1992.101 Definitions 

This section includes the general 

definitions of certain terms used in this 

rule. In particular, 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(5) 

defines the statutory term 

‘‘whistleblower.’’ 31 U.S.C. 

5323(a)(5)(A) provides that the term 

‘‘whistleblower’’ means ‘‘any individual 

who provides, or 2 or more individuals 

acting jointly who provide, information 

relating to a violation of this subchapter, 

chapter 35 or section 4305 or 4312 of 

title 50, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin 

Designation Act (21 U.S.C. 1901 et 

seq.),’’ and ‘‘for conspiracies to violate 

the aforementioned provisions to the 

employer of the individual or 

individuals, including as part of the job 

duties of the individual or individuals, 

or to the Secretary or the Attorney 

General.’’ 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(5)(B) 

provides a special rule that expands the 

definition of the term ‘‘whistleblower’’ 

solely for purposes of the antiretaliation provisions at 31 U.S.C. 

5323(g)(1) to include ‘‘any individual 

who takes, or 2 or more individuals 

acting jointly who take, an action 

described in subsection (g)(1)(A).’’ Thus, 

a whistleblower who is protected 

against retaliation under AMLA 

includes any individual who meets the 

criteria in 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(5)(A) and/ 

or 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(5)(B). To reflect the 

provisions that define a 

‘‘whistleblower’’ that is protected from 

retaliation, OSHA has defined a 

‘‘whistleblower’’ in these rules as ‘‘any 

individual, or two or more individuals 

acting jointly, who take any of the 

actions described in § 1992.102(b).’’ 

Section 1992.102(b) in turn, as 

described below, encompasses all of the 

activities listed in 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(5) 

and (g)(1). Consistent with the broad 

language of the statutory definition of 

‘‘whistleblower,’’ which refers to ‘‘any 

individual’’ or two or more individuals 

acting jointly (31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(5)), the 

approach that OSHA has taken in 

defining covered employees under other 

whistleblower protection provisions, 

and applicable ARB case law, the 

interim final rule includes in the 

definition of ‘‘whistleblower’’ the 

explanation that ‘‘[a] whistleblower 

includes an individual presently or 

formerly working for an employer, an 

individual applying to work for an 

employer, or an individual whose 

employment could be affected by an 

employer.’’ See, e.g., 29 CFR 1979.101 

(AIR21 definition of employee); 29 CFR 

1980.101(g) (Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

(SOX) definition of employee). This 

section also provides that the term 

‘‘FinCEN’’ means the Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network, a bureau of the 

Department of the Treasury. As 

explained below, under these rules 

FinCEN will receive copies of 

complaints and OSHA findings in 

AMLA cases and the Department of the 

Treasury may participate in AMLA 

proceedings pending before an ALJ or 

the ARB. 

Section 1992.102 Obligations and 

Prohibited Acts 

This section describes the activities 

that are protected under the Act and the 

conduct that is prohibited in response to 

any protected activities. The Act 

prohibits an employer from directly or 

indirectly discharging, demoting, 

suspending, threatening, blacklisting, 

harassing or in any other manner 

discriminating against a whistleblower 

in the terms and conditions of 

employment or post-employment 

because of any lawful act done by the 

whistleblower to engage in protected 

activity. Protected activity under AMLA 

includes any lawful act done by the 

whistleblower in providing certain 

information to the Secretary of the 

Treasury or the Attorney General, a 

Federal regulatory or law enforcement 

agency, a Member of Congress or a 

Committee of Congress, or the employer. 

The employer includes a person with 

supervisory authority over the 

whistleblower or such other person 

working for the employer who has 

authority to investigate, discover, or 

terminate misconduct. The information 

must relate to a violation of 31 U.S.C. 

chapter 53, subchapter II (31 U.S.C. 

5311–5336, requiring records and 

reports on monetary instruments 

transactions); 50 U.S.C. chapter 35 (50 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq., as amended 

(IEEPA)); 50 U.S.C. 4305 or 4312 

(provisions of the Trading with the 

Enemy Act); 21 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. (the 

Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation 

Act), or conspiracies to violate any of 

the aforementioned provisions. 31 

U.S.C. 5323(a)(5), (g)(1)(A). 

Protected activity also includes any 

lawful act done by the whistleblower in 

initiating, testifying in, or assisting in 

any investigation or judicial or 

administrative action of the Department 

of the Treasury or the Department of 

Justice based upon or related to the 

information described above. 31 U.S.C. 

5323(g)(1)(B). 

Finally, protected activity also 

includes any lawful act done by the 

whistleblower in providing information 

regarding any conduct that the 

whistleblower reasonably believes 

constitutes a violation of any law, rule, 

or regulation subject to the jurisdiction 

of the Department of the Treasury, or a 

violation of section 1956, 1957, or 1960 

of title 18 (or any rule or regulation 

under any such provision) to a person 

with supervisory authority over the 

whistleblower at the employer of the 

whistleblower; or another individual 

working for the employer who the 

whistleblower reasonably believes has 

the authority to investigate, discover, or 

terminate the misconduct; or take any 

other action to address the misconduct. 

31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(1)(C). 

However, in keeping with the 

statutory exclusion for employees of 

federally insured depository institutions 

and credit unions at 31 U.S.C. 

5323(g)(6), which applies only to the 

anti-retaliation provisions in 31 U.S.C. 

5323(g), this section (29 CFR 1992.102) 

does not apply with respect to any 

employer that is subject to section 33 of 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 

U.S.C. 1831j) or section 213 or 214 of 

the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 

1790b, 1790c). 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(6), 

which provide separate protections from 

retaliation for certain categories of 

whistleblowing for those employees. 

To engage in protected activity under 

this section, the whistleblower need not 

show that the conduct complained of is 

an actual violation of one of the 

provisions of law listed in the statute. 

The statute protects the provision of 

information relating to a violation of a 

relevant law or a conspiracy to violate 

a relevant law (31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(5)) and 

information regarding conduct that the 

employee reasonably believes 

constitutes a violation of a relevant law 

(31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(1)(C)). In providing 

broad protection for such information, 

the statutory language reflects 

Congress’s desire to encourage reporting 

not only to expose but also to prevent 

money laundering and related violations 

of law. Cf. Sylvester v. Parexel Int’l LLC, 

ARB No. 07–123, 2011 WL 2165854, at 

*18 (ARB May 25, 2011) (explaining 

with respect to an analogous SOX 

whistleblower provision that ‘‘[t]he 

purpose of Section 806, and the SOX in 

general, is to protect and encourage 

greater disclosure. Section 806 exists 

not only to expose existing fraud, i.e., 

conduct satisfying the elements of a 

fraud claim, but also to prevent 

potential fraud in its earliest stages.’’). 

Indeed, case law under analogous antiretaliation provisions, such as SOX, 

makes clear that a report based on a 

whistleblower’s reasonable but mistaken 

belief that reported conduct could lead 

to a violation is protected. See Van 

Asdale v. Int’l Game Techs., 577 F.3d 

989, 1001 (9th Cir. 2009); Allen v. 

Admin. Review Bd., 514 F.3d 468, 477 

(5th Cir. 2008). 

To have a reasonable belief that there 

is a violation of relevant law, the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3025 

whistleblower must subjectively believe 

that the conduct is a violation and that 

belief must be objectively reasonable. 

See, e.g., Rhinehimer v. U.S. Bancorp. 

Invs., Inc., 787 F.3d 797, 811 (6th Cir. 

2015) (discussing the reasonable belief 

standard under analogous language in 

the SOX whistleblower provision, 18 

U.S.C. 1514A) (citations omitted); Harp 

v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., 558 F.3d 

722, 723 (7th Cir. 2009) (agreeing with 

First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits 

that determining reasonable belief under 

the SOX whistleblower provision 

requires analysis of the complainant’s 

subjective belief and the objective 

reasonableness of that belief); Sylvester, 

2011 WL 2165854, at *11–12 (same). 

The requirement that the whistleblower 

have a subjective, good faith belief is 

satisfied so long as the whistleblower 

actually believed that the conduct at 

issue violated the relevant law or 

regulation. See Sylvester, 2011 WL 

2165854, at *11–12 (citing Harp, 558 

F.3d at 723; Day v. Staples, Inc., 555 

F.3d 42, 54 n.10 (1st Cir. 2009)). The 

objective reasonableness of a 

whistleblower’s belief is typically 

determined ‘‘based on the knowledge 

available to a reasonable person in the 

same factual circumstances with the 

same training and experience as the 

aggrieved employee.’’ Harp, 558 F.3d at 

723 (quoting Allen, 514 F.3d at 477). 

Section 1992.103 Filing of Retaliation 

Complaint 

This section explains the 

requirements for filing a retaliation 

complaint under the AMLA antiretaliation provisions. To be timely, a 

complaint must be filed within 90 days 

of when the alleged violation occurs. 

Under Delaware State College v. Ricks, 

449 U.S. 250, 258 (1980), an alleged 

violation occurs when the retaliatory 

decision has been made and 

communicated to the complainant. In 

other words, the limitations period 

commences once the individual is 

aware or reasonably should be aware of 

the employer’s decision to take an 

adverse action. EEOC v. United Parcel 

Serv., Inc., 249 F.3d 557, 561–62 (6th 

Cir. 2001). The time for filing a 

complaint under AMLA may be tolled 

or equitably modified for reasons 

warranted by applicable case law. For 

example, OSHA may consider the time 

for filing a complaint to be tolled if a 

complainant mistakenly files a 

complaint with an agency other than 

OSHA within 90 days after an alleged 

adverse action. Xanthopoulos v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Labor, 991 F.3d 823, 832 (7th 

Cir. 2021) (affirming ARB’s refusal to 

toll the statute of limitations under SOX 

and explaining the limited 

circumstances in which tolling is 

appropriate for a timely filing in the 

wrong forum); see also Martin v. 

Paragon Foods, ARB No. 2022–0058 

(June 8, 2023) (explaining the 

distinction between equitable estoppel 

and tolling). Retaliation complaints filed 

under this section need not be in any 

particular form. They may be either oral 

or in writing. If the complainant is 

unable to file the complaint in English, 

OSHA will accept the complaint in any 

language. With the consent of the 

whistleblower, complaints may be filed 

by any person on the whistleblower’s 

behalf. 

Section 1992.104 Investigation 

This section describes the procedures 

that apply to OSHA’s investigation of 

AMLA retaliation complaints. Paragraph 

(a) of this section outlines the 

procedures for notifying the respondent, 

the employer (if different from the 

respondent), and FinCEN of the 

complaint and notifying the respondent 

of the rights under these regulations. 

Paragraph (b) describes the procedures 

for the respondent to submit the 

response to the complaint. Paragraph (c) 

specifies that OSHA will request that 

the parties provide each other with 

copies of their submissions to OSHA 

during the investigation and that, if a 

party does not provide such copies, 

OSHA generally will do so at a time 

permitting the other party an 

opportunity to respond to those 

submissions. Before providing such 

materials, OSHA will redact them 

consistent with the Privacy Act of 1974, 

5 U.S.C. 552a and other applicable 

confidentiality laws. Paragraph (d) of 

this section discusses confidentiality of 

information provided during 

investigations. 

Paragraph (e) of this section sets forth 

the applicable burdens of proof. AMLA 

incorporates the burdens of proof in 

AIR21. 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(3)(A), 

incorporating the burdens of proof in 49 

U.S.C. 42121(b). Thus, in order for 

OSHA to conduct an investigation, 

AMLA requires that a complainant 

make an initial prima facie showing that 

a protected activity was ‘‘a contributing 

factor’’ in the adverse action alleged in 

the complaint, i.e., that the protected 

activity, alone or in combination with 

other factors, affected in some way the 

outcome of the employer’s decision. The 

complainant will be considered to have 

met the required burden for OSHA to 

commence an investigation if the 

complaint on its face, supplemented as 

appropriate through interviews of the 

complainant, alleges the existence of 

facts and either direct or circumstantial 

evidence to meet the required showing. 

The complainant’s burden at this stage 

may be satisfied, for example, if the 

complainant shows that the adverse 

action took place shortly after the 

protected activity. 

If the complainant does not make the 

required prima facie showing, the 

investigation must be discontinued and 

the complaint dismissed. See Trimmer 

v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 174 F.3d 1098, 

1101 (10th Cir. 1999) (noting that the 

burden-shifting framework of the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, as 

amended, (ERA) which is the same as 

that under AMLA, serves a ‘‘gatekeeping 

function’’ intended to ‘‘stem[] frivolous 

complaints’’). Even in cases where the 

complainant successfully makes a prima 

facie showing, the investigation must be 

discontinued if the employer 

demonstrates, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that it would have taken the 

same adverse action in the absence of 

the protected activity. Thus, OSHA 

must dismiss the complaint and not 

investigate further if either: (1) the 

complainant fails to make the prima 

facie showing that protected activity 

was a contributing factor in the alleged 

adverse action; or (2) the employer 

rebuts that showing by clear and 

convincing evidence that it would have 

taken the same adverse action absent the 

protected activity. 

Assuming that an investigation 

proceeds beyond the gatekeeping phase, 

the statute requires OSHA to determine 

whether there is reasonable cause to 

believe that protected activity was a 

contributing factor in the alleged 

adverse action. A contributing factor is 

‘‘any factor which, alone or in 

connection with other factors, tends to 

affect in any way the outcome of the 

decision.’’ Wiest v. Tyco Elec. Corp., 812 

F.3d 319, 330 (3d Cir. 2016) (discussing 

‘‘contributing factor standard’’ under 

SOX); Feldman v. Law Enforcement 

Assocs. Corp., 752 F.3d 339, 348 (4th 

Cir. 2014) (same); Lockheed Martin 

Corp. v. Admin. Review Bd., 717 F.3d 

1121, 1136 (10th Cir. 2013) (same). A 

conclusion that protected activity was a 

contributing factor in an adverse action 

can be based on direct evidence or 

circumstantial evidence ‘‘such as the 

temporal proximity between the 

protected activity and the adverse 

action, indications of pretext such as 

inconsistent application of policies and 

shifting explanations, antagonism or 

hostility toward protected activity, the 

relation between the discipline and the 

protected activity, and the presence [or 

absence] of intervening events that 

independently justify’’ the adverse 

action. Hess v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 898 

F.3d 852, 858 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoted 

source omitted) (discussing the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
3026 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

contributing factor standard under the 

Federal Railroad Safety Act). The 

evidence must show that the protected 

activity was a contributing factor in the 

unfavorable personnel action but the 

whistleblower does not need to prove 

that his or her employer acted with 

‘‘retaliatory intent.’’ Murray v. UBS 

Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. 23, 39 (2024). 

If OSHA finds reasonable cause to 

believe that the alleged protected 

activity was a contributing factor in the 

adverse action, OSHA may not order 

relief if the employer demonstrates by 

‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ that it 

would have taken the same action in the 

absence of the protected activity. See 49 

U.S.C. 42121(b)(2)(B)(iv). The ‘‘clear and 

convincing evidence’’ standard is a 

higher burden of proof than a 

‘‘preponderance of the evidence’’ 

standard. Clear and convincing 

evidence is evidence indicating that the 

thing to be proved is highly probable or 

reasonably certain. Clarke v. Navajo 

Express, ARB No. 09–114, 2011 WL 

2614326, at *3 (ARB June 29, 2011). 

Paragraph (f) describes the procedures 

OSHA will follow prior to the issuance 

of findings and a preliminary order 

when OSHA has reasonable cause to 

believe that a violation has occurred and 

reinstatement is required. Their purpose 

is to ensure compliance with the Due 

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, 

as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 

Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc., 481 

U.S. 252 (1987) (requiring OSHA to give 

a Surface Transportation Assistance Act 

respondent the opportunity to review 

the substance of the evidence and 

respond prior to ordering preliminary 

reinstatement). 

Section 1992.105 Issuance of Findings 

and Preliminary Orders 

This section provides that, on the 

basis of information obtained in the 

investigation, the Assistant Secretary 

will issue, within 60 days of the filing 

of a complaint, written findings 

regarding whether or not there is 

reasonable cause to believe that the 

complaint has merit. If the findings are 

that there is reasonable cause to believe 

that the complaint has merit, the 

Assistant Secretary will order 

reinstatement with the same seniority 

status that the complainant would have 

had, but for the retaliation; double back 

pay with interest; and compensatory 

damages, including litigation costs, 

expert witness fees, and reasonable 

attorney fees, as well as any other 

appropriate remedy for the retaliation, 

as applicable. The findings and, where 

appropriate, preliminary order, will also 

advise the parties of their right to file 

objections to the findings of the 

Assistant Secretary and to request a 

hearing. The findings and, where 

appropriate, the preliminary order, will 

also advise the respondent of the right 

to request an award of attorney fees not 

exceeding a total of $1,000 from the ALJ, 

regardless of whether the respondent 

has filed objections, if the respondent 

alleges that the complaint was frivolous 

or brought in bad faith. If no objections 

are filed within 30 days of receipt of the 

findings, the findings and any 

preliminary order of the Assistant 

Secretary become the final decision and 

order of the Secretary. If objections are 

timely filed, any order of preliminary 

reinstatement will take effect, but the 

remaining provisions of the order will 

not take effect until administrative 

proceedings are completed. 

The remedies provided under AMLA 

aim to make the complainant whole by 

restoring the complainant to the 

position that the complainant would 

have occupied absent the retaliation and 

to counteract the chilling effect of 

retaliation on protected whistleblowing 

in the complainant’s workplace. The 

back pay, benefits, and other remedies 

appropriate in each case will depend on 

the individual facts of the case and the 

evidence submitted, and the 

complainant’s interim earnings must be 

taken into account in determining the 

appropriate back pay award. When there 

is evidence to determine these figures, 

a back pay award under AMLA might 

include, for example, amounts that the 

complainant would have earned in 

commissions, bonuses, overtime, or 

raises had the complainant not been 

discharged in retaliation for engaging in 

protected activity under AMLA. Lost 

benefits may also be included in a back 

pay award under AMLA when there is 

evidence to support an award for lost 

benefits. Such benefits might include 

amounts that the employer would have 

contributed to a 401(k) plan, insurance 

plan, profit-sharing plan, or retirement 

plan on the complainant’s behalf had 

the complainant not been discharged in 

retaliation for engaging in protected 

activity under AMLA. Other damages, 

including non-pecuniary damages, such 

as damages for emotional distress due to 

the retaliation, are also available under 

AMLA. See, e.g., Jones v. Southpeak 

Interactive Corp. of Del., 777 F.3d 658, 

670–71 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding that 

emotional distress damages are available 

under an identical remedial provision in 

SOX); Halliburton, Inc. v. Admin. 

Review Bd., 771 F.3d 254, 264–66 (5th 

Cir. 2014) (same). Consistent with the 

rules under other whistleblower statutes 

enforced by the Department of Labor, in 

ordering interest on any back pay award 

under AMLA, OSHA will compute 

interest due by compounding daily the 

Internal Revenue Service interest rate 

for the underpayment of taxes, which 

under 26 U.S.C. 6621 generally is the 

Federal short-term rate plus three 

percentage points, against back pay. See, 

e.g., 29 CFR 1980.105(a) (SOX); 29 CFR 

1982.105(a) (Federal Railroad Safety Act 

(FRSA)); 29 CFR 1988.105(a) (Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (MAP–21)). 

Consistent with the rules governing 

other Department of Labor-enforced 

whistleblower protection statutes, 

where appropriate, in ordering back 

pay, OSHA will require the respondent 

to submit the appropriate 

documentation to the Social Security 

Administration (SSA) allocating the 

back pay to the appropriate periods. 

See, e.g., 29 CFR 1980.105(a) (SOX); 29 

CFR 1982.105(a) (FRSA); 29 CFR 

1988.105(a) (MAP–21)). 

The statute permits OSHA to 

preliminarily reinstate whistleblowers 

to their positions if OSHA finds 

reasonable cause to believe that they 

were discharged in violation of AMLA. 

See 49 U.S.C. 42121(b)(2)(A). When a 

violation is found, the norm is for 

OSHA to order immediate preliminary 

reinstatement. In appropriate 

circumstances, in lieu of preliminary 

reinstatement, OSHA may order that the 

complainant receive the same pay and 

benefits that the complainant received 

prior to termination but not actually 

return to work. Such ‘‘economic 

reinstatement’’ is akin to an order of 

front pay and is sometimes employed in 

cases arising under section 105(c) of the 

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 

1977, which protects miners from 

retaliation. 30 U.S.C. 815(c); see, e.g., 

Sec’y of Labor, MSHA v. North Fork 

Coal Corp., 33 FMSHRC 589, 2011 WL 

1455831, at *4 (FMSHRC Mar. 25, 2011) 

(explaining economic reinstatement in 

lieu of temporary reinstatement in the 

context of section 105(c)). Front pay has 

been recognized as an appropriate 

remedy in cases under the 

whistleblower statutes enforced by 

OSHA in circumstances where 

reinstatement would not be appropriate. 

See, e.g., Deltek, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor, 

Admin. Rev Bd., 649 Fed. App’x. 320, 

333 (4th Cir. 2016) (affirming award of 

front pay in SOX case due to 

‘‘pronounced animosity between the 

parties;’’ explaining that ‘‘front pay ‘is 

designed to place the complainant in 

the identical financial position’ that she 

would have occupied had she remained 

employed or been reinstated.’’); 

Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Admin. 

Review Bd., 638 Fed. App’x. 283, 289– 

90, 2016 WL 97461, at *4 (5th Cir. 2016) 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3027 

(affirming front pay award under AIR21, 

and explaining that ‘‘front-pay is 

available when reinstatement is not 

possible’’), aff’g Luder v. Cont’l Airlines, 

Inc., ARB No. 10–026, 2012 WL 376755, 

at *11 (ARB Jan. 31, 2012); see also 

Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., ALJ 

No. 2008–SOX–00049, 2010 WL 

2054426, at *55–56 (ALJ Jan. 15, 2010) 

(noting that while reinstatement is the 

‘‘presumptive remedy’’ under SOX 

whistleblower provision, front pay may 

be awarded as a substitute when 

reinstatement is inappropriate), aff’d 

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Admin. 

Review Bd., 717 F.3d 1121, 1138 (10th 

Cir. 2013) (noting availability of all 

relief necessary to make the employee 

whole in SOX case but remanding for 

DOL to quantify remedies); Indiana 

Michigan Power Co. v. U.S. Dept. of 

Labor, 278 Fed. Appx. 597, 606 (6th Cir. 

2008) (affirming front pay award under 

ERA). Neither an employer nor a 

whistleblower has a statutory right to 

choose economic reinstatement. Rather, 

economic reinstatement is designed to 

accommodate situations in which 

evidence establishes to OSHA’s 

satisfaction that immediate 

reinstatement is inadvisable for some 

reason, notwithstanding the employer’s 

retaliatory discharge of the 

whistleblower. 

Subpart B—Litigation 

Section 1992.106 Objections to the 

Findings and the Preliminary Order and 

Requests for a Hearing 

Objections to the findings of the 

Assistant Secretary must be in writing 

and must be filed with the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. 

Department of Labor, in accordance 

with 29 CFR part 18, as applicable, 

within 30 days of the receipt of the 

findings. The date of the postmark, 

facsimile transmittal, or electronic 

transmittal is considered the date of the 

filing; if the objection is filed in person, 

by hand-delivery or other means, the 

objection is filed upon receipt. The 

filing of objections also is considered a 

request for a hearing before an ALJ. 

Although the parties are directed to 

serve a copy of their objections on the 

other parties of record, as well as on the 

OSHA official who issued the findings 

and order, the Assistant Secretary, and 

the U.S. Department of Labor’s 

Associate Solicitor for Fair Labor 

Standards, the failure to serve copies of 

the objections on the other parties of 

record does not affect the ALJ’s 

jurisdiction to hear and decide the 

merits of the case. See Shirani v. Calvert 

Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Inc., ARB 

No. 04–101, 2005 WL 2865915, at *7 

(ARB Oct. 31, 2005). OSHA and the 

Associate Solicitor for Fair Labor 

Standards may specify the means, 

including electronic means, to serve 

them with copies of objections to 

OSHA’s findings. 

The timely filing of objections stays 

all provisions of the preliminary order, 

except for the portion requiring 

reinstatement. A respondent may file a 

motion to stay the Assistant Secretary’s 

preliminary order of reinstatement with 

the Office of Administrative Law Judges. 

However, such a motion will be granted 

only based on exceptional 

circumstances. The Secretary believes 

that a stay of the Assistant Secretary’s 

preliminary order of reinstatement 

under AMLA would be appropriate only 

where the respondent can establish the 

necessary criteria for equitable 

injunctive relief, i.e., irreparable injury, 

likelihood of success on the merits, a 

balancing of possible harms to the 

parties, and that the public interest 

favors a stay. If no timely objection to 

the Assistant Secretary’s findings and/or 

preliminary order is filed, then the 

Assistant Secretary’s findings and/or 

preliminary order become the final 

decision of the Secretary not subject to 

judicial review. 

Section 1992.107 Hearings 

This section adopts the rules of 

practice and procedure for 

administrative hearings before the 

Office of Administrative Law Judges, as 

set forth in 29 CFR part 18, subpart A. 

This section provides that the hearing is 

to commence expeditiously, except 

upon a showing of good cause or unless 

otherwise agreed to by the parties. 

Hearings will be conducted de novo, on 

the record. As noted in this section, 

formal rules of evidence will not apply, 

but rules or principles designed to 

assure production of the most probative 

evidence will be applied. The ALJ may 

exclude evidence that is immaterial, 

irrelevant, or unduly repetitious. 

Section 1992.108 Role of Federal 

Agencies 

The Assistant Secretary may 

participate as a party or amicus curiae 

at any time in the administrative 

proceedings under AMLA. For example, 

the Assistant Secretary may exercise 

discretion to prosecute the case in the 

administrative proceeding before an 

ALJ; petition for review of a decision of 

an ALJ, including a decision based on 

a settlement agreement between the 

complainant and the respondent, 

regardless of whether the Assistant 

Secretary participated before the ALJ; or 

participate as amicus curiae before the 

ALJ or the ARB. Although OSHA 

anticipates that ordinarily the Assistant 

Secretary will not participate, the 

Assistant Secretary may choose to do so 

in appropriate cases, such as cases 

involving important or novel legal 

issues, multiple whistleblowers, alleged 

violations that appear egregious, or 

where the interests of justice might 

require participation by the Assistant 

Secretary. The Department of the 

Treasury, if interested in a proceeding, 

also may participate as amicus curiae at 

any time in the proceedings. 

Section 1992.109 Decisions and 

Orders of the Administrative Law Judge 

This section sets forth the 

requirements for the content of the 

decisions and orders of the ALJ, and 

includes the standard for finding a 

violation under AMLA. Specifically, 

because AMLA incorporates the 

burdens of proof in AIR21, the 

complainant must demonstrate (i.e., 

prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence) that the protected activity was 

a ‘‘contributing factor’’ in the adverse 

action. See 49 U.S.C. 42121(b)(2)(B)(iii); 

see, e.g., Allen, 514 F.3d at 475 n.1 

(‘‘The term ‘demonstrates’ [under 

identical burden-shifting scheme in the 

SOX whistleblower provision] means to 

prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence.’’). If the whistleblower 

demonstrates that the alleged protected 

activity was a contributing factor in the 

adverse action, then the employer must 

demonstrate by ‘‘clear and convincing 

evidence’’ that it would have taken the 

same action in the absence of the 

protected activity. See 49 U.S.C. 

42121(b)(2)(B)(iv). 

Paragraph (c) of this section further 

provides that OSHA’s determination to 

dismiss the complaint without an 

investigation or without a complete 

investigation under § 1992.104 is not 

subject to review. Thus, § 1992.109(c) 

clarifies that OSHA’s determinations on 

whether to proceed with an 

investigation under AMLA and whether 

to make particular investigative findings 

are discretionary decisions not subject 

to review by the ALJ. The ALJ hears 

cases de novo and, therefore, as a 

general matter, may not remand cases to 

OSHA to conduct an investigation or 

make further factual findings. 

Paragraph (d) notes the remedies that 

the ALJ may order under AMLA and, as 

discussed under § 1992.105 above, 

provides that interest on any back pay 

award will be calculated using the 

interest rate applicable to underpayment 

of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will 

be compounded daily, and that the 

respondent will be required to submit 

appropriate documentation to the SSA 

allocating any back pay award to the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
3028 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate periods. Paragraph (e) 

requires that the ALJ’s decision be 

served on all parties to the proceeding, 

OSHA, and the U.S. Department of 

Labor’s Associate Solicitor for Fair 

Labor Standards. OSHA and the 

Associate Solicitor for Fair Labor 

Standards may specify the means, 

including electronic means, for service 

of the ALJ’s decision on them. 

Paragraph (e) also provides that any ALJ 

decision requiring reinstatement or 

lifting an order of reinstatement by the 

Assistant Secretary will be effective 

immediately upon receipt of the 

decision by the respondent. All other 

portions of the ALJ’s order will be 

effective 30 days after the date of the 

decision unless a timely petition for 

review has been filed with the ARB. If 

a timely petition for review is not filed 

with the ARB, the decision of the ALJ 

becomes the final decision of the 

Secretary and is not subject to judicial 

review. 

Section 1992.110 Decisions and 

Orders of the Administrative Review 

Board 

Upon the issuance of the ALJ’s 

decision, the parties have 30 days 

within which to petition the ARB for 

review of that decision. The date of the 

postmark or electronic transmittal is 

considered the date of filing of the 

petition; if the petition is filed in 

person, by hand delivery, or other 

means, the petition is considered filed 

upon receipt. 

The appeal provisions in this part 

provide that an appeal to the ARB is 

only accepted at the discretion of the 

ARB. The parties should identify with 

some specificity in their petitions for 

review the legal conclusions or orders to 

which they object, or the objections may 

be deemed waived. Simply attaching the 

order objected to will not suffice for a 

petition for review. The ARB has 30 

days to decide whether to grant the 

petition for review. If the ARB does not 

grant the petition, the decision of the 

ALJ becomes the final decision of the 

Secretary. If a timely petition for review 

is filed with the ARB, any relief ordered 

by the ALJ, except for that portion 

ordering reinstatement, is inoperative 

while the matter is pending before the 

ARB. When the ARB accepts a petition 

for review, the ALJ’s factual 

determinations will be reviewed under 

the substantial evidence standard, while 

questions of law will be reviewed de 

novo. Sylvester, 2011 WL 2165854, at 

*6. 

This section also provides that, based 

on exceptional circumstances, the ARB 

may grant a motion to stay an ALJ’s 

preliminary order of reinstatement 

under AMLA (which otherwise would 

be effective immediately), while the 

ARB reviews the order. The Secretary 

believes that a stay of an ALJ’s 

preliminary order of reinstatement 

under AMLA would be appropriate only 

where the respondent can establish the 

necessary criteria for equitable 

injunctive relief, i.e., irreparable injury, 

likelihood of success on the merits, a 

balancing of possible harms to the 

parties, and that the public interest 

favors a stay. 

If the ARB concludes that the 

respondent has violated the law, it will 

issue an order providing relief. The 

order will require, where appropriate: 

reinstatement with the same seniority 

status that the complainant would have 

had, but for the retaliation; double back 

pay with interest; and compensatory 

damages, including litigation costs, 

expert witness fees, and reasonable 

attorney fees, as well as any other 

appropriate remedy for the retaliation, 

as applicable. Interest on any back pay 

award will be calculated using the 

interest rate applicable to underpayment 

of taxes pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 6621 and 

will be compounded daily, and the 

respondent will be required to submit 

appropriate documentation to the SSA 

allocating any back pay award to the 

appropriate periods. If the ARB 

determines that the respondent has not 

violated the law, an order will be issued 

denying the complaint. If, upon the 

request of the respondent, the ARB 

determines that a complaint was 

frivolous or was brought in bad faith, 

the ARB may award to the respondent 

a reasonable attorney fee, not exceeding 

a total of $1,000. 

The decision of the ARB is subject to 

discretionary review by the Secretary of 

Labor. See Secretary of Labor’s Order, 

01–2020 (Feb. 21, 2020), 85 FR 13024– 

01 (Mar. 6, 2020). As provided in that 

Secretary’s Order, a party may petition 

the ARB to refer a decision to the 

Secretary for further review, after which 

the Secretary may accept review, 

decline review, or take no action. If no 

such petition is filed, the ARB’s 

decision shall become the final action of 

the Department 28 calendar days after 

the date on which the decision was 

issued. If such a petition is filed and the 

ARB declines to refer the case to the 

Secretary, the ARB’s decision shall 

become final 28 calendar days after the 

date on which the petition for review 

was filed. If the ARB refers a decision 

to the Secretary for further review, and 

the Secretary takes no action in 

response to the ARB’s referral, or 

declines to accept the case for review, 

the ARB’s decision shall become final 

either 28 calendar days from the date of 

the referral, or on the date on which the 

Secretary declines review, whichever 

comes first. 

In the alternative, under the 

Secretary’s Order, at any point during 

the first 28 calendar days after the date 

on which an ARB decision was issued, 

the Secretary may direct the ARB to 

refer the decision to the Secretary for 

review. If the Secretary directs the ARB 

to refer a case to the Secretary or notifies 

the parties that the case has been 

accepted for review, the ARB’s decision 

shall not become the final action of the 

Department and shall have no legal 

force or effect, unless and until the 

Secretary adopts the ARB’s decision. 

Under the Secretary’s Order, any final 

decision made by the Secretary shall be 

made solely based on the administrative 

record, the petition and briefs filed with 

the ARB, and any amicus briefs 

permitted by the Secretary. The decision 

shall be in writing and shall be 

transmitted to the ARB, which will 

publish the decision and transmit it to 

the parties to the case. The Secretary’s 

decision shall constitute final action by 

the Department and shall serve as 

binding precedent in all Department 

proceedings involving the same issue or 

issues. 

Subpart C—Miscellaneous Provisions 

Section 1992.111 Withdrawal of 

Complaints, Findings, Objections, and 

Petitions for Review; Settlement 

This section provides the procedures 

and time periods for withdrawal of 

complaints, withdrawal of findings and/ 

or preliminary orders by the Assistant 

Secretary, and withdrawal of objections 

to findings and/or orders. It permits 

complainants to withdraw their 

complaints orally, and provides that, in 

such circumstances, OSHA will confirm 

a complainant’s desire to withdraw in 

writing. It also provides for approval of 

settlements at the investigative and 

adjudicatory stages of the case. 

Section 1992.112 Judicial Review 

This section describes the statutory 

provisions for judicial review of 

decisions of the Secretary and requires, 

in cases where judicial review is sought, 

the ARB or the ALJ to submit the record 

of proceedings to the appropriate court 

pursuant to the rules of such court. 

Section 1992.113 Judicial Enforcement 

This section describes the ability of 

the Secretary, the complainant, and the 

respondent under AMLA to obtain 

judicial enforcement of orders and terms 

of settlement agreements. Through the 

incorporation of the rules and 

procedures in AIR21, AMLA authorizes 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3029 

district courts to enforce orders issued 

by the Secretary under the provisions of 

49 U.S.C. 42121(b). Specifically, 49 

U.S.C. 42121(b)(5) provides that 

‘‘[w]henever any person has failed to 

comply with an order issued under 

paragraph (3), the Secretary of Labor 

may file a civil action in the United 

States district court for the district in 

which the violation was found to occur 

to enforce such order. In actions brought 

under this paragraph, the district courts 

shall have jurisdiction to grant all 

appropriate relief, including injunctive 

relief and compensatory damages.’’ 49 

U.S.C. 42121(b)(5). Similarly, 49 U.S.C. 

42121(b)(6) provides that a person on 

whose behalf an order was issued ‘‘may 

commence a civil action against the 

person to whom such order was issued 

to required compliance with such 

order’’ in the appropriate United States 

district court, which will have 

jurisdiction without regard to the 

amount in controversy or the 

citizenship of the parties, to enforce 

such order. The Secretary views these 

provisions as permitting district courts 

to enforce both final orders of the 

Secretary and preliminary orders of 

reinstatement for the same reasons that 

the Secretary has expressed with regard 

to SOX, which incorporates the rules 

and procedures of AIR21 using identical 

language to that in AMLA. See 

Procedures for the Handling of 

Retaliation Complaints Under section 

806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 

as Amended, Final Rule, 80 FR 11865– 

02, 11877 (Mar. 5, 2015) (discussing 

district court enforcement of 

preliminary reinstatement orders under 

SOX); see also Brief for the Intervenor/ 

Plaintiff-Appellee Secretary of Labor, 

Solis v. Tenn. Commerce Bancorp, Inc., 

No. 10–5602 (6th Cir. 2010); Solis v. 

Tenn. Commerce Bancorp, Inc., 713 F. 

Supp. 2d 701 (M.D. Tenn. 2010); but see 

Bechtel v. Competitive Techs., Inc., 448 

F.3d 469 (2d Cir. 2006); Welch v. 

Cardinal Bankshares Corp., 454 F. 

Supp. 2d 552 (W.D. Va. 2006), decision 

vacated, appeal dismissed, No. 06–2295 

(4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2008)). 

Section 1992.114 District Court 

Jurisdiction of Retaliation Complaints 

This section sets forth AMLA’s 

provisions allowing a complainant to 

bring an original de novo civil action in 

district court, alleging the same 

allegations contained in the complaint 

filed with OSHA, if there has been no 

final decision of the Secretary within 

180 days after the date of the filing of 

the complaint. See 31 U.S.C. 

5323(g)(2)(B). This section also 

incorporates the statutory provision that 

allows for a jury trial at the request of 

either party in a district court action. 

See 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(3)(B). A civil 

action may not be brought under AMLA 

more than 6 years after the date on 

which the violation occurs or more than 

3 years after the date on which when 

facts material to the right of action are 

known, or reasonably should have been 

known, by the whistleblower alleging a 

violation. See 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(3)(B)(ii). 

This section also requires that, within 

seven days after filing a complaint in 

district court, a complainant must 

provide a file-stamped copy of the 

complaint to OSHA, the ALJ, or the 

ARB, depending on where the 

proceeding is pending. If the ARB has 

issued a decision that has not yet 

become final under Secretary of Labor’s 

Order 01–2020, the case is regarded as 

pending before the ARB for purposes of 

this section and a copy of any district 

court complaint should be sent to the 

ARB. A copy of the district court 

complaint also must be provided to the 

OSHA official who issued the findings 

and/or preliminary order, the Assistant 

Secretary, and the U.S. Department of 

Labor’s Associate Solicitor for Fair 

Labor Standards. This provision is 

necessary to notify the agency that the 

complainant has opted to file a 

complaint in district court. This 

provision is not a substitute for the 

complainant’s compliance with the 

requirements for service of process of 

the district court complaint contained in 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

the local rules of the district court 

where the complaint is filed. 

Finally, it should be noted that 

although a complainant may file an 

action in district court if the Secretary 

has not issued a final decision within 

180 days of the filing of the complaint 

with OSHA, it is the Department of 

Labor’s position that complainants may 

not initiate an action in federal court 

after the Secretary issues a final 

decision, even if the date of the final 

decision is more than 180 days after the 

filing of the complaint. Thus, for 

example, after the ARB has issued a 

decision that has become final denying 

a whistleblower complaint, the 

complainant no longer may file an 

action for de novo review in federal 

district court. See Soo Line R.R., Inc. v. 

Admin. Review Bd., 990 F.3d 596, 598 

n.1 (8th Cir. 2021). The purpose of the 

‘‘kick-out’’ provision is to aid the 

complainant in receiving a prompt 

decision. That goal is not implicated in 

a situation where the complainant 

already has received a final decision 

from the Secretary. In addition, 

permitting the complainant to file a new 

case in district court in such 

circumstances could conflict with the 

parties’ rights to seek judicial review of 

the Secretary’s final decision in the 

court of appeals. See 49 U.S.C. 

42121(b)(4)(B) (providing that an order 

with respect to which review could 

have been obtained in the court of 

appeals shall not be subject to judicial 

review in any criminal or other civil 

proceeding). 

Section 1992.115 Special 

Circumstances; Waiver of Rules 

This section provides that, in 

circumstances not contemplated by 

these rules or for good cause, the ALJ or 

the ARB may, upon application and 

notice to the parties, waive any rule as 

justice or the administration of AMLA 

requires. 

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains a reporting 

provision (filing a retaliation complaint, 

§ 1992.103) which was previously 

reviewed as a statutory requirement of 

AMLA and approved for use by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), as part of the Information 

Collection Request (ICR) assigned OMB 

control number 1218–0236 under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA). See Public Law 104– 

13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995). A non-material 

change has been submitted to OMB to 

include the regulatory citation. 

V. Administrative Procedure Act 

The notice and comment rulemaking 

procedures of section 553 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) do 

not apply ‘‘to interpretative rules, 

general statements of policy, or rules of 

agency organization, procedure, or 

practice.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This 

interim final rule is a rule of agency 

procedure, practice, and interpretation 

within the meaning of that section, 

because it provides the procedures for 

the handling of retaliation complaints. 

Therefore, publication in the Federal 

Register of a notice of proposed 

rulemaking and request for comments 

are not required for this rule. Although 

this interim final rule is a procedural 

and interpretative rule not subject to the 

notice and comment procedures of the 

APA, OSHA is providing persons 

interested in this interim final rule 60 

days to submit comments. A final rule 

will be published after OSHA receives 

and reviews the public’s comments. 

Furthermore, because this interim 

final rule is procedural and 

interpretative rather than substantive, 

the normal requirement of 5 U.S.C. 

553(d) that a rule be effective 30 days 

after publication in the Federal Register 

is inapplicable. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2). 

OSHA also finds good cause to provide 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
3030 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

an immediate effective date for this 

interim final rule. It is in the public 

interest that the rule be effective 

immediately so that parties may know 

what procedures are applicable to 

pending cases. 

VI. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review, Executive Order 

14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review, 

and Executive Order 13563: Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review; 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995; Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism) 

The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs has concluded that 

this rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ within the meaning of Executive 

Order 12866, as reaffirmed and 

amended by Executive Orders 14094 

and 13563, because it is not likely to: (1) 

have an annual effect on the economy 

of $200 million or more or adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

Territorial or Tribal governments or 

communities; (2) create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 

issues for which centralized review 

would meaningfully further the 

President’s priorities or the principles 

set forth in Executive Order 12866. 

Modernizing Regulatory Review, 88 FR 

21879, 21879 (Apr. 11, 2023). Therefore, 

no economic impact analysis under 

section 6(a)(3)(C) of Executive Order 

12866 has been prepared. 

Also, because this rule is not 

significant under Executive Order 

12866, and because no notice of 

proposed rulemaking has been 

published, no statement is required 

under section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 

1532. In any event, this rulemaking is 

procedural and interpretative in nature 

and is thus not expected to have a 

significant economic impact. Finally, 

this rule does not have ‘‘federalism 

implications.’’ The rule does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and therefore, is 

not subject to Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism). 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The notice and comment rulemaking 

procedures of section 553 of the APA do 

not apply ‘‘to interpretative rules, 

general statements of policy, or rules of 

agency organization, procedure, or 

practice.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Rules that 

are exempt from APA notice and 

comment requirements are also exempt 

from the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA). See Small Business 

Administration Office of Advocacy, A 

Guide for Government Agencies: How to 

Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, at 9; also found at https://

www.sba.gov/advocacy/guidegovernment-agencies-how-complyregulatory-flexibility-act. This is a rule 

of agency procedure, practice, and 

interpretation within the meaning of 5 

U.S.C. 553; and, therefore, the rule is 

exempt from both the notice and 

comment rulemaking procedures of the 

APA and the requirements under the 

RFA. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1992 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Anti-money laundering, 

Employment, Whistleblower. 

Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under 

the direction and control of Douglas L. 

Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

Signed at Washington, DC. 

Douglas L. Parker, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set out in 

the preamble, 29 CFR part 1992 is added 

to read as follows: 

PART 1992—PROCEDURES FOR THE 

HANDLING OF RETALIATION 

COMPLAINTS UNDER THE ANTIMONEY LAUNDERING ACT (AMLA) 

Subpart A—Complaints, 

Investigations, Findings, and 

Preliminary Orders 

Sec. 

1992.100 Purpose and scope. 

1992.101 Definitions. 

1992.102 Obligations and prohibited acts. 

1992.103 Filing of retaliation complaint. 

1992.104 Investigation. 

1992.105 Issuance of findings and 

preliminary orders. 

Subpart B—Litigation 

1992.106 Objections to the findings and the 

preliminary order and requests for a 

hearing. 

1992.107 Hearings. 

1992.108 Role of Federal agencies. 

1992.109 Decisions and orders of the 

administrative law judge. 

1992.110 Decisions and orders of the 

Administrative Review Board. 

Subpart C—Miscellaneous Provisions 

1992.111 Withdrawal of complaints, 

findings, objections, and petitions for 

review; settlement. 

1992.112 Judicial review. 

1992.113 Judicial enforcement. 

1992.114 District court jurisdiction of 

retaliation complaints. 

1992.115 Special circumstances; waiver of 

rules. 

Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5323(a)(5), (g), and 

(j); Secretary of Labor’s Order 08–2020, 85 FR 

58393; Secretary of Labor’s Order 01–2020, 

85 FR 13024–01. 

Subpart A—Complaints, 

Investigations, Findings, and 

Preliminary Orders 

§ 1992.100 Purpose and scope. 

(a) This part sets forth procedures for, 

and interpretations of the antiretaliation protections of the AntiMoney Laundering Act of 2020 

contained in section 6314 of the 

William M. (Mac) Thornberry National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2021, Public Law 116–283, 134 

Stat. 3388 (January 1, 2021), as 

amended, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5323 

(g)(1)–(3)and (g)(6) and referred to 

herein as AMLA. AMLA provides for 

protection from retaliation because a 

whistleblower has engaged in protected 

activity by providing information 

relating to a violation of 31 U.S.C. 

chapter 53, subchapter II (relating to 

records and reports on monetary 

instruments transactions, 31 U.S.C. 

5311–5336); chapter 35 or section 4305 

or 4312 of title 50; the Foreign Narcotics 

Kingpin Designation Act (21 U.S.C. 

1901 et seq.), or conspiracies to violate 

the aforementioned provisions; or 

initiating, testifying in, or assisting in 

any investigation or judicial or 

administrative action of the Department 

of the Treasury or the Department of 

Justice based upon or related to such 

information; or providing information 

relating to any conduct that the 

whistleblower reasonably believes 

constitutes a violation of any law, rule, 

or regulation subject to the jurisdiction 

of the Department of the Treasury, or a 

violation of section 1956, 1957, or 1960 

of title 18 (or any rule or regulation 

under any such provision). 

(b) This part establishes procedures 

under AMLA for the expeditious 

handling of retaliation complaints filed 

by whistleblowers, or by persons acting 

on their behalf. This part, together with 

29 CFR parts 18 and 26, set forth the 

procedures under AMLA for submission 

of complaints, investigations, issuance 

of findings and preliminary orders, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3031 

objections to findings and orders, 

litigation before administrative law 

judges (ALJs), post-hearing 

administrative review, and withdrawals 

and settlements. In addition, this part 

provide the Secretary’s interpretations 

of certain statutory provisions. 

§ 1992.101 Definitions. 

As used in this part: 

AMLA means the provisions relating 

to anti-retaliation of the Anti-Money 

Laundering Act of 2020 contained in 

Sec. 6314 of the William M. (Mac) 

Thornberry National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, 

Public Law 116–283, 134 Stat. 3388 

(January 1, 2021), as amended, codified 

at 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(1)–(3) and (6). 

Assistant Secretary means the 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health or the 

person or persons to whom the 

Assistant Secretary delegates authority 

under AMLA. 

Business days means days other than 

Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal 

holidays. 

Complainant means the 

whistleblower who filed an AMLA 

complaint or on whose behalf a 

complaint was filed. 

FinCEN means the Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network, a bureau of the 

United States Department of the 

Treasury. 

OSHA means the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration of the 

United States Department of Labor. 

Respondent means the person named 

in the complaint who is alleged to have 

violated AMLA. 

Secretary means the Secretary of 

Labor or the person or persons to whom 

the Secretary delegates authority under 

certain anti-retaliation provisions of 

AMLA, 31 U.S.C. 5323(g)(1)–(3). 

Whistleblower means any individual, 

or two or more individuals acting 

jointly, who take any of the actions 

described in § 1992.102(b). A 

whistleblower includes an individual 

presently or formerly working for an 

employer, an individual applying to 

work for an employer, or an individual 

whose employment could be affected by 

an employer. 

§ 1992.102 Obligations and prohibited 

acts. 

(a) No employer may directly or 

indirectly discharge, demote, suspend, 

threaten, blacklist, harass, or in any 

other manner discriminate against a 

whistleblower in the terms and 

conditions of employment or postemployment because of any lawful act 

done by the whistleblower to engage in 

any of the activities specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1), (2) and (3) of this 

section. 

(b) A whistleblower is protected 

against retaliation (as described in 

paragraph (a) of this section) by an 

employer for any lawful act done by the 

whistleblower: 

(1) In providing information relating 

to a violation of 31 U.S.C. chapter 53, 

subchapter II (Records and Reports on 

Monetary Instruments Transactions, 31 

U.S.C. 5311–5336); chapter 35 or section 

4305 or 4312 of title 50; or the Foreign 

Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, 21 

U.S.C. 1901 et seq., or a conspiracy to 

violate the aforementioned provisions 

to: 

(i) The employer of the whistleblower, 

including as part of the job duties of the 

whistleblower. The employer includes a 

person with supervisory authority over 

the whistleblower or such other person 

working for the employer who has 

authority to investigate, discover, or 

terminate misconduct; 

(ii) The Secretary of the Treasury or 

the Attorney General; 

(iii) A Federal regulatory or law 

enforcement agency; or 

(iv) Any Member of Congress or any 

committee of Congress; 

(2) In initiating, testifying in, or 

assisting in any investigation or judicial 

or administrative action of the 

Department of the Treasury or the 

Department of Justice based upon or 

related to the information described in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section; or 

(3) In providing information regarding 

any conduct that the whistleblower 

reasonably believes constitutes a 

violation of any law, rule, or regulation 

subject to the jurisdiction of the 

Department of the Treasury, or a 

violation of section 1956, 1957, or 1960 

of title 18 (or any rule or regulation 

under any such provision) to: 

(i) A person with supervisory 

authority over the whistleblower at the 

employer of the whistleblower; or 

(ii) Another individual working for 

the employer who the whistleblower 

reasonably believes has the authority to 

investigate, discover, or terminate the 

misconduct; or take any other action to 

address the misconduct. 

(c) This section shall not apply with 

respect to any employer that is subject 

to section 33 of the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831j) or 

section 213 or 214 of the Federal Credit 

Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1790b, 1790c). 

§ 1992.103 Filing of retaliation complaint. 

(a) Who may file. Any individual who 

believes that they have been discharged 

or otherwise retaliated against, or is 

otherwise aggrieved by an employer in 

violation of AMLA may file, or have 

filed by any person on their behalf, a 

complaint alleging such retaliation. 

(b) Nature of filing. No particular form 

of complaint is required. A complaint 

may be filed orally or in writing. Oral 

complaints will be reduced to writing 

by OSHA. If the complainant is unable 

to file the complaint in English, OSHA 

will accept the complaint in any 

language. 

(c) Place of filing. The complaint 

should be filed with the OSHA office 

responsible for enforcement activities in 

the geographical area where the 

complainant resides or was employed, 

but may be filed with any OSHA officer 

or employee. Addresses and telephone 

numbers for these officials are set forth 

in local directories and at the following 

internet address: https://www.osha.gov. 

Complaints may also be filed online 

using OSHA’s online complaint form, 

currently available at https://

www.osha.gov/whistleblower/ 

WBComplaint.html. 

(d) Time for filing. Within 90 days 

after an alleged violation of AMLA 

occurs, an individual who believes that 

they have been retaliated against in 

violation of AMLA must file, or have 

filed by any person on their behalf, a 

complaint alleging such retaliation. The 

date of the postmark, facsimile 

transmittal, electronic filing or 

transmittal, telephone call, handdelivery, delivery to a third-party 

commercial carrier, or in-person filing at 

an OSHA office will be considered the 

date of filing. The time for filing a 

complaint may be tolled or equitably 

modified for reasons warranted by 

applicable case law. For example, 

OSHA may consider the time for filing 

a complaint to be tolled if a complainant 

mistakenly files a complaint with an 

agency other than OSHA within 90 days 

after an alleged adverse action. 

§ 1992.104 Investigation. 

(a) Upon receipt of a complaint in the 

investigating office, OSHA will notify 

the respondent and the complainant’s 

employer (if different) of the filing of the 

complaint, of the allegations contained 

in the complaint, and of the substance 

of the evidence supporting the 

complaint. Such materials will be 

redacted, if necessary, consistent with 

the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, 

and other applicable confidentiality 

laws. OSHA will also notify the 

respondent of its rights under 

paragraphs (b) and (f) of this section and 

§ 1992.110(e). OSHA will provide an 

unredacted copy of these same materials 

to the complainant (or the 

complainant’s legal counsel if 

complainant is represented by counsel) 

and to FinCEN. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
3032 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Within 20 days of receipt of the 

notice of the filing of the complaint 

provided under paragraph (a) of this 

section, the respondent may submit to 

OSHA a written statement and any 

affidavits or documents substantiating 

its position. Within the same 20 days, 

the respondent may request a meeting 

with OSHA to present its position. 

(c) During the investigation, OSHA 

will request that each party provide the 

other parties to the whistleblower 

complaint with a copy of submissions to 

OSHA that are pertinent to the 

whistleblower complaint. Alternatively, 

if a party does not provide its 

submissions to OSHA to the other party, 

OSHA generally will provide them to 

the other party (or the party’s legal 

counsel if the party is represented by 

counsel) at a time permitting the other 

party an opportunity to respond. Before 

providing such materials to the other 

party, OSHA will redact them, if 

necessary, consistent with the Privacy 

Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a and other 

applicable confidentiality laws. OSHA 

will also provide each party with an 

opportunity to respond to the other 

party’s submissions. 

(d) Investigations will be conducted 

in a manner that protects the 

confidentiality of any person who 

provides information on a confidential 

basis, other than the complainant, in 

accordance with part 70 of this title. 

(e)(1) A complaint will be dismissed 

unless the complainant has made a 

prima facie showing that protected 

activity was a contributing factor in the 

adverse action alleged in the complaint. 

(2) The complaint, supplemented as 

appropriate by interviews of the 

complainant, must allege the existence 

of facts and evidence to make a prima 

facie showing as follows: 

(i) The individual engaged in a 

protected activity; 

(ii) The respondent knew or suspected 

that the individual engaged in the 

protected activity; 

(iii) The individual suffered an 

adverse action; and 

(iv) The circumstances were sufficient 

to raise the inference that the protected 

activity was a contributing factor in the 

adverse action. 

(3) For purposes of determining 

whether to investigate, the complainant 

will be considered to have met the 

required burden if the complaint on its 

face, supplemented as appropriate 

through interviews of the complainant, 

alleges the existence of facts and either 

direct or circumstantial evidence to 

meet the required showing, i.e., to give 

rise to an inference that the respondent 

knew or suspected that the individual 

engaged in protected activity and that 

the protected activity was a contributing 

factor in the adverse action. The burden 

may be satisfied, for example, if the 

complainant shows that the adverse 

action took place shortly after the 

protected activity. If the required 

showing has not been made, the 

complainant (or the complainant’s legal 

counsel if complainant is represented by 

counsel) will be so notified and the 

investigation will not commence. 

(4) Notwithstanding a finding that a 

complainant has made a prima facie 

showing, as required by this section, 

further investigation of the complaint 

will not be conducted if the respondent 

demonstrates by clear and convincing 

evidence that it would have taken the 

same adverse action in the absence of 

the complainant’s protected activity. 

(5) If the respondent fails to make a 

timely response or fails to satisfy its 

burden set forth in paragraph (e)(4) of 

this section, OSHA will proceed with 

the investigation. The investigation will 

proceed whenever it is necessary or 

appropriate to confirm or verify the 

information provided by the 

respondent. 

(f) Prior to the issuance of findings 

and a preliminary order as provided for 

in § 1992.105, if OSHA has reasonable 

cause, on the basis of information 

gathered under the procedures of this 

part, to believe that the respondent has 

violated AMLA and that preliminary 

reinstatement is warranted, OSHA will 

contact the respondent (or the 

respondent’s legal counsel if respondent 

is represented by counsel) to give notice 

of the substance of the relevant evidence 

supporting the complainant’s 

allegations as developed during the 

course of the investigation. This 

evidence includes any witness 

statements, which will be redacted to 

protect the identity of confidential 

informants where statements were given 

in confidence; if the statements cannot 

be redacted without revealing the 

identity of confidential informants, 

summaries of their contents will be 

provided. The complainant will also 

receive a copy of the materials that must 

be provided to the respondent under 

this paragraph (f). Before providing such 

materials, OSHA will redact them, if 

necessary, consistent with the Privacy 

Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and other 

applicable confidentiality laws. The 

respondent will be given the 

opportunity to submit a written 

response, to meet with the investigator, 

to present statements from witnesses in 

support of its position, and to present 

legal and factual arguments. The 

respondent must present this evidence 

within 10 business days of OSHA’s 

notification pursuant to this paragraph 

(f), or as soon thereafter as OSHA and 

the respondent can agree, if the interests 

of justice so require. 

§ 1992.105 Issuance of findings and 

preliminary orders. 

(a) After considering all the relevant 

information collected during the 

investigation, the Assistant Secretary 

will issue, within 60 days of the filing 

of the complaint, written findings as to 

whether or not there is reasonable cause 

to believe that the respondent has 

retaliated against the complainant in 

violation of AMLA. 

(1) If the Assistant Secretary 

concludes that there is reasonable cause 

to believe that a violation has occurred, 

the Assistant Secretary will accompany 

the findings with a preliminary order 

providing relief to the complainant. The 

preliminary order will include, where 

appropriate: reinstatement with the 

same seniority status that the 

complainant would have had, but for 

the retaliation; two times the amount of 

back pay otherwise owed to the 

individual with interest; compensatory 

damages, including litigation costs, 

expert witness fees, and reasonable 

attorney fees; and any other appropriate 

remedy for the retaliation, as applicable. 

Interest on any back pay award will be 

calculated using the interest rate 

applicable to underpayment of taxes 

under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will be 

compounded daily. Where appropriate, 

the preliminary order will also require 

the respondent to submit appropriate 

documentation to the Social Security 

Administration allocating any back pay 

award to the appropriate periods. 

(2) If the Assistant Secretary 

concludes that a violation has not 

occurred, the Assistant Secretary will 

notify the parties of that finding. 

(b) The findings and, where 

appropriate, the preliminary order will 

be sent by physical or electronic means 

that allow OSHA to confirm delivery to 

all parties of record (or each party’s 

legal counsel if the party is represented 

by counsel). The findings and, where 

appropriate, the preliminary order will 

inform the parties of the right to object 

to the findings and/or order and to 

request a hearing, and of the right of the 

respondent to request an award of 

attorney fees not exceeding $1,000 from 

the ALJ, regardless of whether the 

respondent has filed objections, if the 

respondent alleges that the complaint 

was frivolous or brought in bad faith. 

The findings and, where appropriate, 

the preliminary order, also will give the 

address of the Chief Administrative Law 

Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, or 

appropriate information regarding filing 

objections electronically with the Office 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3033 

of Administrative Law Judges. The 

findings also may specify the means, 

including electronic means, for serving 

OSHA and the Associate Solicitor for 

Fair Labor Standards with documents in 

the administrative litigation as required 

under this part. At the same time, the 

Assistant Secretary will file with the 

Chief Administrative Law Judge a copy 

of the original complaint and a copy of 

the findings and/or order. 

(c) The findings and any preliminary 

order will be effective 30 days after 

receipt by the respondent (or the 

respondent’s legal counsel if the 

respondent is represented by counsel), 

or on the compliance date set forth in 

the preliminary order, whichever is 

later, unless an objection and/or a 

request for hearing has been timely filed 

as provided at § 1992.106. However, the 

portion of any preliminary order 

requiring reinstatement will be effective 

immediately upon the respondent’s 

receipt of the findings and the 

preliminary order, regardless of any 

objections to the findings and/or the 

order. 

Subpart B—Litigation 

§ 1992.106 Objections to the findings and 

the preliminary order and requests for a 

hearing. 

(a) Any party who desires review, 

including judicial review, of the 

findings and/or preliminary order, or a 

respondent alleging that the complaint 

was frivolous or brought in bad faith 

who seeks an award of attorney fees 

under AMLA, must file any objections 

and/or a request for a hearing on the 

record within 30 days of receipt of the 

findings and preliminary order pursuant 

to § 1992.105. The objections and 

request for hearing and/or request for 

attorney fees must be in writing and 

must state whether the objections are to 

the findings, the preliminary order, or 

both, and/or whether there should be an 

award of attorney fees. The date of the 

postmark, facsimile transmittal, or 

electronic transmittal is considered the 

date of filing; if the objection is filed in 

person, by hand delivery, or other 

means, the objection is filed upon 

receipt. Objections must be filed with 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

U.S. Department of Labor, in accordance 

with 29 CFR part 18, and copies of the 

objections must be served at the same 

time on the other parties of record, the 

OSHA official who issued the findings 

and order, the Assistant Secretary, and 

the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair 

Labor Standards, U.S. Department of 

Labor. OSHA and the Associate 

Solicitor for Fair Labor Standards may 

specify the means, including electronic 

means, for serving them with copies of 

the objections. 

(b) If a timely objection is filed, all 

provisions of the preliminary order will 

be stayed, except for the portion 

requiring preliminary reinstatement, 

which will not be automatically stayed. 

The portion of the preliminary order 

requiring reinstatement will be effective 

immediately upon the respondent’s 

receipt of the findings and preliminary 

order, regardless of any objections to the 

order. The respondent may file a motion 

with the Office of Administrative Law 

Judges for a stay of the Assistant 

Secretary’s preliminary order of 

reinstatement, which shall be granted 

only based on exceptional 

circumstances. If no timely objection is 

filed with respect to either the findings 

or the preliminary order, the findings 

and/or the preliminary order will 

become the final decision of the 

Secretary, not subject to judicial review. 

§ 1992.107 Hearings. 

(a) Except as provided in this part, 

proceedings will be conducted in 

accordance with the rules of practice 

and procedure for administrative 

hearings before the Office of 

Administrative Law Judges, codified at 

29 CFR part 18, subpart A. 

(b) Upon receipt of an objection and 

request for hearing, the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge will promptly 

assign the case to an ALJ who will 

notify the parties of the day, time, and 

place of hearing. The hearing is to 

commence expeditiously, except upon a 

showing of good cause or unless 

otherwise agreed to by the parties. 

Hearings will be conducted de novo on 

the record. ALJs have broad discretion 

to limit discovery in order to expedite 

the hearing. 

(c) If both the complainant and the 

respondent object to the findings and/or 

order, the objections will be 

consolidated and a single hearing will 

be conducted. 

(d) Formal rules of evidence will not 

apply, but rules or principles designed 

to assure production of the most 

probative evidence will be applied. The 

ALJ may exclude evidence that is 

immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly 

repetitious. 

§ 1992.108 Role of Federal agencies. 

(a)(1) The complainant and the 

respondent will be parties in every 

proceeding and must be served with 

copies of all documents in the case. At 

the Assistant Secretary’s discretion, the 

Assistant Secretary may participate as a 

party or as amicus curiae at any time at 

any stage of the proceeding. This right 

to participate includes, but is not 

limited to, the right to petition for 

review of a decision of an ALJ, 

including a decision approving or 

rejecting a settlement agreement 

between the complainant and the 

respondent, and the right to seek 

discretionary review of a decision of the 

Administrative Review Board (ARB) 

from the Secretary. 

(2) Parties must send copies of 

documents to OSHA and to the 

Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair 

Labor Standards, U.S. Department of 

Labor, only upon request of OSHA, or 

when OSHA is participating in the 

proceeding, or when service on OSHA 

and the Associate Solicitor is otherwise 

required by this part. Except as 

otherwise provided in rules of practice 

and/or procedure before the OALJ or the 

ARB, OSHA and the Associate Solicitor 

for Fair Labor Standards may specify the 

means, including electronic means, for 

serving them with documents under this 

section. 

(b) The Department of the Treasury, if 

interested in a proceeding, may 

participate as amicus curiae at any time 

in the proceeding, at its discretion. At 

the request of The Department of the 

Treasury, copies of all documents in a 

case must be sent to the Department of 

the Treasury, whether or not it is 

participating in the proceeding. 

§ 1992.109 Decisions and orders of the 

administrative law judge. 

(a) The decision of the ALJ will 

contain appropriate findings, 

conclusions, and an order pertaining to 

the remedies provided in paragraph (d) 

of this section, as appropriate. A 

determination that a violation has 

occurred may be made only if the 

complainant has demonstrated by a 

preponderance of the evidence that 

protected activity was a contributing 

factor in the adverse action alleged in 

the complaint. 

(b) If the complainant has satisfied the 

burden set forth in paragraph (a) of this 

section, relief may not be ordered if the 

respondent demonstrates by clear and 

convincing evidence that it would have 

taken the same adverse action in the 

absence of any protected activity. 

(c) Neither OSHA’s determination to 

dismiss a complaint without completing 

an investigation pursuant to 

§ 1992.104(e) nor OSHA’s determination 

to proceed with an investigation is 

subject to review by the ALJ, and a 

complaint may not be remanded for the 

completion of an investigation or for 

additional findings on the basis that a 

determination to dismiss was made in 

error. Rather, if there otherwise is 

jurisdiction, the ALJ will hear the case 

on the merits or dispose of the matter 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
3034 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

without a hearing if the facts and 

circumstances warrant. 

(d)(1) If the ALJ concludes that the 

respondent has violated the law, the ALJ 

will issue an order providing 

reinstatement with the same seniority 

status that the complainant would have 

had, but for the retaliation; two times 

the amount of back pay otherwise owed 

to the individual with interest; 

compensatory damages, including 

litigation costs, expert witness fees, and 

reasonable attorney fees; and any other 

appropriate remedy for the retaliation, 

as applicable. Interest on any back pay 

award will be calculated using the 

interest rate applicable to underpayment 

of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will 

be compounded daily. The order will 

also require the respondent to submit 

appropriate documentation to the Social 

Security Administration allocating any 

back pay award to the appropriate 

periods. 

(2) If the ALJ determines that the 

respondent has not violated the law, an 

order will be issued denying the 

complaint. If, upon the request of the 

respondent, the ALJ determines that a 

complaint was frivolous or was brought 

in bad faith, the ALJ may award to the 

respondent a reasonable attorney fee, 

not exceeding $1,000. 

(e) The decision will be served upon 

all parties to the proceeding, the 

Assistant Secretary, and the Associate 

Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor 

Standards, U.S. Department of Labor. 

OSHA and the Associate Solicitor for 

Fair Labor Standards may specify the 

means, including electronic means, for 

service of decisions on them under this 

section. Any ALJ’s decision requiring 

reinstatement or lifting an order of 

reinstatement by the Assistant Secretary 

will be effective immediately upon 

receipt of the decision by the 

respondent. All other portions of the 

ALJ’s order will be effective 30 days 

after the date of the decision unless a 

timely petition for review has been filed 

with the ARB. The decision of the ALJ 

will become the final order of the 

Secretary unless a petition for review is 

timely filed with the ARB and the ARB 

accepts the petition for review. 

§ 1992.110 Decisions and orders of the 

Administrative Review Board. 

(a) Any party desiring to seek review, 

including judicial review, of a decision 

of the ALJ, or a respondent alleging that 

the complaint was frivolous or brought 

in bad faith who seeks an award of 

attorney fees, must file a written 

petition for review with the ARB, which 

has been delegated the authority to act 

for the Secretary and issue decisions 

under this part subject to the Secretary’s 

discretionary review. The parties should 

identify in their petitions for review the 

legal conclusions or orders to which 

they object, or the objections may be 

deemed waived. A petition must be 

filed within 30 days of the date of the 

decision of the ALJ. All petitions and 

documents submitted to the ARB must 

be filed in accordance with part 26 of 

this title. The date of the postmark, or 

electronic transmittal will be considered 

to be the date of filing; if the petition is 

filed in person, by hand delivery, or 

other means, the petition is considered 

filed upon receipt. The petition must be 

served on all parties and on the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge at the time it 

is filed with the ARB. The petition for 

review also must be served on the 

Assistant Secretary and on the Associate 

Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor 

Standards, U.S. Department of Labor. 

OSHA and the Associate Solicitor for 

Fair Labor Standards may specify the 

means, including electronic means, for 

service of petitions for review on them 

under this section. 

(b) If a timely petition for review is 

filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 

section, the decision of the ALJ will 

become the final order of the Secretary 

unless the ARB, within 30 days of the 

filing of the petition, issues an order 

notifying the parties that the case has 

been accepted for review. If a case is 

accepted for review, the decision of the 

ALJ will be inoperative unless and until 

the ARB issues an order adopting the 

decision, except that any order of 

reinstatement will be effective while 

review is conducted by the ARB, unless 

the ARB grants a motion by the 

respondent to stay that order based on 

exceptional circumstances. The ARB 

will specify the terms under which any 

briefs are to be filed. The ARB will 

review the factual determinations of the 

ALJ under the substantial evidence 

standard, and will review legal 

conclusions de novo. If a timely petition 

for review is not filed, or the ARB 

denies review, the decision of the ALJ 

will become the final order of the 

Secretary. If a timely petition for review 

is not filed, the resulting final order is 

not subject to judicial review. 

(c) The decision of the ARB will be 

issued within 120 days of the 

conclusion of the hearing, which will be 

deemed to be 30 days after the decision 

of the ALJ, unless a motion for 

reconsideration has been filed with the 

ALJ in the interim. In such case, the 

conclusion of the hearing is the date the 

motion for reconsideration is ruled 

upon or 30 days after a new decision is 

issued. The ARB’s decision will be 

served upon all parties and the Chief 

Administrative Law Judge. The decision 

will also be served on the Assistant 

Secretary and on the Associate Solicitor, 

Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. 

Department of Labor, even if the 

Assistant Secretary is not a party. OSHA 

and the Associate Solicitor for Fair 

Labor Standards may specify the means, 

including electronic means, for service 

of ARB decisions on them under this 

section. 

(d) If the ARB concludes that the 

respondent has violated the law, the 

ARB will issue an order providing 

reinstatement with the same seniority 

status that the complainant would have 

had, but for the retaliation; two times 

the amount of back pay otherwise owed 

to the individual with interest; 

compensatory damages, including 

litigation costs, expert witness fees, and 

reasonable attorney fees; and any other 

appropriate remedy for the retaliation, 

as applicable. Interest on any back pay 

award will be calculated using the 

interest rate applicable to underpayment 

of taxes under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and will 

be compounded daily. The order will 

also require the respondent to submit 

appropriate documentation to the Social 

Security Administration allocating any 

back pay award to the appropriate 

periods. Such order is subject to 

discretionary review by the Secretary (as 

provided in Secretary’s Order 01–2020 

or any successor to that order). 

(e) If the ARB determines that the 

respondent has not violated the law, an 

order will be issued denying the 

complaint. If, upon the request of the 

respondent, the ARB determines that a 

complaint was frivolous or was brought 

in bad faith, the ARB may award to the 

respondent a reasonable attorney fee, 

not exceeding $1,000. An order under 

this section is subject to discretionary 

review by the Secretary (as provided in 

Secretary’s Order 01–2020 or any 

successor to that order). 

Subpart C—Miscellaneous Provisions 

§ 1992.111 Withdrawal of complaints, 

findings, objections, and petitions for 

review; settlement. 

(a) At any time prior to the filing of 

objections to the Assistant Secretary’s 

findings and/or preliminary order, a 

complainant may withdraw the 

complaint by notifying OSHA, orally or 

in writing, of the withdrawal. OSHA 

then will confirm in writing the 

complainant’s desire to withdraw and 

determine whether to approve the 

withdrawal. OSHA will notify the 

parties (or each party’s legal counsel if 

the party is represented by counsel) of 

the approval of any withdrawal. If the 

complaint is withdrawn because of 

settlement, the settlement must be 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 3035 

submitted for approval in accordance 

with paragraph (d) of this section. A 

complainant may not withdraw the 

complaint after the filing of objections 

to the Assistant Secretary’s findings 

and/or preliminary order. 

(b) The Assistant Secretary may 

withdraw the findings and/or 

preliminary order at any time before the 

expiration of the 30-day objection 

period described in § 1992.106, 

provided that no objection has been 

filed yet, and substitute new findings 

and/or a new preliminary order. The 

date of the receipt of the substituted 

findings or order will begin a new 30- 

day objection period. 

(c) At any time before the Assistant 

Secretary’s findings and/or order 

become final, a party may withdraw 

objections to the Assistant Secretary’s 

findings and/or order by filing a written 

withdrawal with the ALJ. If the case is 

on review with the ARB, a party may 

withdraw a petition for review of an 

ALJ’s decision at any time before that 

decision becomes final by filing a 

written withdrawal with the ARB. The 

ALJ or the ARB, as the case may be, will 

determine whether to approve the 

withdrawal of the objections or the 

petition for review. If the ALJ approves 

a request to withdraw objections to the 

Assistant Secretary’s findings and/or 

order, and there are no other pending 

objections, the Assistant Secretary’s 

findings and/or order will become the 

final order of the Secretary. If the ARB 

approves a request to withdraw a 

petition for review of an ALJ decision, 

and there are no other pending petitions 

for review of that decision, the ALJ’s 

decision will become the final order of 

the Secretary. If objections or a petition 

for review are withdrawn because of 

settlement, the settlement must be 

submitted for approval in accordance 

with paragraph (d) of this section. 

(d)(1) Investigative settlements. At any 

time after the filing of a complaint, but 

before the findings and/or order are 

objected to or become a final order by 

operation of law, the case may be settled 

if OSHA, the complainant, and the 

respondent agree to a settlement. 

OSHA’s approval of a settlement 

reached by the respondent and the 

complainant demonstrates OSHA’s 

consent and achieves the consent of all 

three parties. 

(2) Adjudicatory settlements. At any 

time after the filing of objections to the 

Assistant Secretary’s findings and/or 

order, the case may be settled if the 

participating parties agree to a 

settlement and the settlement is 

approved by the ALJ if the case is before 

the ALJ, or by the ARB if the ARB has 

accepted the case for review. If the 

Secretary has accepted the case for 

discretionary review, or directed that 

the case be referred for discretionary 

review, the settlement must be filed 

with the ARB for approval by the 

Secretary. A copy of the settlement will 

be filed with the ALJ or the ARB, as 

appropriate. 

(e) Any settlement approved by 

OSHA, the ALJ, the ARB or the 

Secretary will constitute the final order 

of the Secretary and may be enforced in 

United States district court pursuant to 

§ 1992.113. 

§ 1992.112 Judicial review. 

(a) Within 60 days after the issuance 

of a final order for which judicial review 

is available (including a decision issued 

by the Secretary upon discretionary 

review), any person adversely affected 

or aggrieved by the order may file a 

petition for review of the order in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

circuit in which the violation allegedly 

occurred or the circuit in which the 

complainant resided on the date of the 

violation. 

(b) A final order is not subject to 

judicial review in any criminal or other 

civil proceeding. 

(c) If a timely petition for review is 

filed, the record of the case, including 

the record of proceedings before the 

ALJ, will be transmitted by the ARB or 

the ALJ, as the case may be, to the 

appropriate court pursuant to the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

and the local rules of such court. 

§ 1992.113 Judicial enforcement. 

Whenever any person has failed to 

comply with a preliminary order of 

reinstatement or a final order issued 

under AMLA, including one approving 

a settlement agreement, the Secretary 

may file a civil action seeking 

enforcement of the order in the United 

States district court for the district in 

which the violation was found to have 

occurred. Whenever any person has 

failed to comply with a preliminary 

order of reinstatement or a final order 

issued under AMLA, including one 

approving a settlement agreement, a 

person on whose behalf the order was 

issued may file a civil action seeking 

enforcement of the order in the 

appropriate United States district court. 

§ 1992.114 District court jurisdiction of 

retaliation complaints. 

(a) If the Secretary has not issued a 

final decision within 180 days of the 

filing of the complaint, and there is no 

showing that there has been delay due 

to the bad faith of the complainant, the 

complainant may bring an action at law 

or equity for de novo review in the 

appropriate district court of the United 

States, which will have jurisdiction over 

such an action without regard to the 

amount in controversy. Either party 

shall be entitled to a trial by jury. 

(b) Within seven days after filing a 

complaint in Federal court, a 

complainant must file with OSHA, the 

ALJ, or the ARB, depending on where 

the proceeding is pending, a copy of the 

file-stamped complaint. A copy of the 

complaint also must be served on the 

OSHA official who issued the findings 

and/or preliminary order, the Assistant 

Secretary, and the Associate Solicitor, 

Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. 

Department of Labor. 

§ 1992.115 Special circumstances; waiver 

of rules. 

In special circumstances not 

contemplated by the provisions of this 

part, or for good cause shown, the ALJ 

or the ARB on review may, upon 

application, and after three days’ notice 

to all parties, waive any rule or issue 

such orders that justice or the 

administration of AMLA requires. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00539 Filed 1–13–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

33 CFR Part 234 

[Docket ID: COE–2023–0005] 

RIN 0710–AB41 

Corps of Engineers Agency Specific 

Procedures To Implement the 

Principles, Requirements, and 

Guidelines for Federal Investments in 

Water Resources; Correction 

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Army, Department of Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) ACF is correcting a 

final rule (FR) that was published in the 

Federal Register on December 19, 2024, 

with an effective date of January 17, 

2025. This rule establishes Agency 

Specific Procedures (ASPs) for the 

Corps to implement the Principles, 

Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) 

for Federal water resources investments. 

It provides a framework to govern how 

the Corps would evaluate proposed 

water resources investments, subject to 

the PR&G. The rule incorporates 

recommendations from interested 

parties. This correction ensures that this 

final rule will be effective 30 days after 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES