Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/04/05/04-7612/procedures-for-the-handling-of-discrimination-complaints-under-section-6-of-the-pipeline-safety
Timestamp: 2018-03-24 11:04:59
Document Index: 175342640

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1979', 'art 1978', 'art 24', '§\u20091981', '§\u20091981', 'art 1981', '§\u20091981', '§\u20091981']

A Rule by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on 04/05/2004
This interim final rule is effective on April 5, 2004. Comments on the interim final rule are due on or before June 4, 2004.
17587-17595 (9 pages)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/04-7612 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/04-7612
This document provides the text of regulations governing the employee protection (“whistleblower”) provisions of Section 6 of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (“Pipeline Safety Act”), enacted into law December 17, 2002. This rule establishes procedures and time frames for the handling of discrimination complaints under the Pipeline Safety Act, including procedures and time frames for employee 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 (acting on behalf of the Secretary) and judicial review of the Secretary's final decision.
Submit written comments to: OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. C11, Room N2625, U.S. Department of Labor-OSHA, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Commenters who wish to receive notification of receipt of comments are requested to include a self-addressed, stamped post card or to submit them by certified mail, return receipt requested. As a convenience, comments may be transmitted by facsimile (“FAX”) machine to (202) 693-1648 (not a toll-free number) or by electronic means through the Internet at http://www.ecomments.osha.gov. All comments should reference Docket No. C11. If commenters transmit comments by FAX or through the Internet and also submit a hard copy by mail, please indicate on the hard copy that it is a duplicate copy of the FAX or Internet transmission.
Thomas Marple, Director, Office of Investigative Assistance, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3610, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-2199. This is not a toll-free number. The alternative formats available are large print, electronic file on computer disk (Word Perfect, ASCII, Mates with Duxbury Braille System) and audiotape.
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (“Pipeline Safety Act”), Public Law 107-355, was enacted on December 17, 2002. Section 6 of the Act, codified at 49 U.S.C. 60129, provides protection to employees against retaliation by an employer, defined as a person owning or operating a pipeline facility or a contractor or subcontractor of such a person, because they provided information to the employer or the Federal Government relating to Federal pipeline safety violations or filed, testified, or assisted in a proceeding against the employer relating to any violation or alleged violation of any Federal law relating to pipeline safety, or because they are about to take any of these actions. These rules establish procedures for the handling of whistleblower complaints under the Pipeline Safety Act. In drafting these regulations, consideration has been given to the regulations implementing the whistleblower provisions of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR21”), codified at 29 CFR part 1979; the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (“STAA”), codified at 29 CFR part 1978; and the Energy Reorganization Act (“ERA”), codified at 29 CFR part 24, where deemed appropriate.
The Pipeline Safety Act whistleblower provisions include procedures that allow a covered employee to file, within 180 days of the alleged discrimination, a complaint with the Secretary of Labor (“the Secretary”).[1] Upon receipt of the complaint, the Secretary must provide written notice both to the person or persons named in the complaint alleged to have violated the Act (“the named person”) and to the Secretary of Transportation 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 named person throughout the investigation. The Secretary must then, within 60 days of receipt of the complaint, afford the named person an opportunity to submit a response and meet with the investigator to present statements from witnesses, and conduct an investigation. However, the Secretary may conduct an investigation only if the complainant has made a prima facie showing that the alleged discriminatory behavior was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint and the named person has not demonstrated, through clear and convincing evidence, that the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that behavior. This provision is similar to the whistleblower provisions of AIR21, codified at 49 U.S.C. 42121, which were incorporated by reference into the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. 1514A; and the 1992 amendments to the ERA, codified at 42 U.S.C. 5851.
After investigating a complaint, the Secretary will issue a determination letter. If, as a result of the investigation, the Secretary finds there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory behavior has occurred, the Secretary must notify the named person of those findings, along with a preliminary order which requires the named person to: Take affirmative action to abate the violation, reinstate the complainant to his or her former position together with the compensation of that position (including back pay) and restore the terms, conditions, and privileges associated with his or her employment; and provide compensatory damages to Start Printed Page 17588the complainant, as well as costs and attorney's and expert fees reasonably incurred by the complainant for, or in connection with, the bringing of the complaint upon which the order was issued. The complainant and the named person then have 60 days after the date of the Secretary's notification in which to file objections to the findings and/or preliminary order and request a hearing on the record. The filing of objections under the Pipeline Safety Act will stay any remedy in the preliminary order except for preliminary reinstatement. This provision for preliminary reinstatement after the investigation is similar to the employee protection provision of AIR21, 49 U.S.C. 42121, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. 1514A, and STAA, 49 U.S.C. 31105. If a hearing before an administrative law judge is not requested within 60 days, the preliminary order becomes final and is not subject to judicial review.
Under this section also, the named person has the opportunity within 20 days of receipt of the complaint to meet with representatives of OSHA and present evidence in support of its position. If, upon investigation, OSHA has reasonable cause to believe that the named person has violated the Act and therefore that an award of preliminary relief for the complainant is warranted, OSHA again contacts the named person with notice of this determination and provides the substance of the relevant evidence upon which that determination is based, consistent with the requirements of confidentiality of informants. The named person is afforded the opportunity, within 10 business days, to provide written evidence in response to the allegation of the violation, meet with the investigators, and present legal and factual arguments as to why preliminary Start Printed Page 17589relief is not warranted. This section provides due process procedures in accordance with the Supreme Court decision under STAA in Brock v. Roadway Express, Inc., 481 U.S. 252 (1987).
Where the named party establishes that the complainant would have been discharged even absent the protected activity, there would be no reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. Therefore, a preliminary reinstatement order would not be issued. Furthermore, as under AIR21, a preliminary order of reinstatement would not be an appropriate remedy where, for example, the named party establishes that the complainant is, or has become, a security risk based upon information obtained after the complainant's discharge in violation of the Pipeline Safety Act. In McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352, 360-62 (1995), the Supreme Court recognized that reinstatement would not be an appropriate remedy for discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act where, based upon after-acquired evidence, the employer would have terminated the employee upon lawful grounds. Finally, in appropriate circumstances, in lieu of preliminary reinstatement, OSHA may order that the complainant receive the same pay and benefits that he received prior to his termination, but not actually return to work. Such “economic reinstatement” frequently is employed in cases arising under section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. See, e.g., Secretary of Labor on behalf of York v. BR&D Enters., Inc., 23 FMSHRC 697, 2001 WL 1806020 **1 (June 26, 2001). “Economic reinstatement” also might be appropriate on those occasions in which an employer can establish that sufficient independent grounds exist for staying an immediate order of preliminary reinstatement.
This section sets forth the content of the decision and order of the administrative law judge, and includes the statutory standard for finding a violation. The section further provides that the Assistant Secretary's Start Printed Page 17590determination as to whether to dismiss the complaint without an investigation or conduct an investigation pursuant to § 1981.104 is not subject to review by the ALJ, who hears the case de novo on the merits.
The decision of the ALJ is the final decision of the Secretary unless a timely petition for review is filed with the Administrative Review Board. Appeals to the Board are not a matter of right, but rather petitions for review are accepted at the discretion of the Board. Upon the issuance of the ALJ's decision, the parties have 10 business days within which to petition the Board for review of that decision. The parties must specifically identify the findings and conclusions to which they take exception, or the exceptions are deemed waived by the parties. The Board has 30 days to decide whether to grant the petition for review. If the Board does not grant the petition, the decision of the ALJ becomes the final decision of the Secretary. If the Board grants the petition, the Act requires the Board to issue a decision not later than 90 days after the date of the conclusion of the hearing before the ALJ. The conclusion of the hearing for this purpose is deemed to be the conclusion of all proceedings before the administrative law judge—i.e., 10 days after the date of the decision of the administrative law judge unless a motion for reconsideration has been filed in the interim. If a timely petition for review is filed with the Board, any relief ordered by the ALJ, except for a preliminary order of reinstatement, is inoperative while the matter is pending before the Board. This section further provides that, when the Board accepts a petition for review, its review of factual determinations will be conducted under the substantial evidence standard. This standard also is applied to Board review of ALJ decisions under the whistleblower provisions of STAA and AIR21. See 29 CFR 1978.109(b)(3) and 1979.110(b).
This rule contains a reporting requirement (§ 1981.103) which was previously reviewed and approved for use by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under 29 CFR 24.3 and assigned OMB control number 1218-0236 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
This rule is a rule of agency procedure and practice within the meaning of Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Therefore, publication in the Federal Register of a notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments is not required for these regulations, which provide procedures for the handling of discrimination complaints. Although this rule is not subject to the notice and comment procedures of the APA, persons interested in this interim final rule may submit comments within 60 days. A final rule will be published after the agency receives and reviews the public's comments.
The Department has concluded that this rule should be treated as a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866 because the Pipeline Safety whistleblower provision is a new program and because of the importance to the Department of Transportation's pipeline safety program that “whistleblowers” be protected from retaliation. Executive Order 12866 requires a full economic impact analysis only for “economically significant” rules, which are defined in Section 3(f)(1) as rules that may “have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.” Because the rule is procedural in nature, it is not expected to have a significant economic impact; therefore no economic impact analysis has been prepared. For the same reason, the rule does not require a Section 202 statement under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Furthermore, because this is a rule of agency procedure or practice, it is not a “rule” within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), and does not require Congressional review. 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).
Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the preamble, part 1981 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is promulgated as follows:
(3) Provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide or cause to be provided, testimony before Congress or at any Federal or State proceeding regarding any provision (or proposed provision) of chapter 601, subtitle VIII of title 49 of the United States Code or any other Federal law relating to pipeline safety, or testimony in any proceeding under chapter 601, subtitle VIII of title 49 of the United States Code or any other Federal law relating to pipeline safety, or a proceeding for the administration or enforcement of any requirement imposed under chapter Start Printed Page 17592601, subtitle VIII of title 49 of the United States Code or any other Federal law relating to pipeline safety;
(e) Prior to the issuance of findings and a preliminary order as provided for in § 1981.105, if the Assistant Secretary has reasonable cause, on the basis of information gathered under the procedures of this part, to believe that the named person has violated the Act and that preliminary reinstatement is warranted, the Assistant Secretary will again contact the named person to give notice of the substance of the relevant evidence supporting the complainant's allegations as developed during the course of the investigation. This Start Printed Page 17593evidence 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 named person will be given the opportunity to submit a written response, to meet with the investigators to present statements from witnesses in support of his or her position, and to present legal and factual arguments. The named person will present this evidence within 10 business days of the Assistant Secretary's notification pursuant to this paragraph, or as soon afterwards as the Assistant Secretary and the named person can agree, if the interests of justice so require.
(e) If the Board determines that the named person has not violated the law, an order will be issued denying the complaint. If, upon the request of the named person, the Board determines that a complaint was frivolous or was brought in bad faith, the Board may Start Printed Page 17595award to the named person a reasonable attorney's fee, not exceeding $1,000.
(e) Any settlement approved by the Assistant Secretary, the administrative law judge, or the Board will constitute the final order of the Secretary and may be enforced pursuant to § 1981.113.