23 C.F.R. § 230.107

Policy

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Direct Federal and Federal-aid highway construction projects. It is the policy of the FHWA to require that all direct Federal and Federal-aid highway construction contracts include the same specific equal employment opportunity requirements. It is also the policy to require that all direct Federal and Federal-aid highway construction subcontracts of $10,000 or more (not including contracts for supplying materials) include these same requirements.

(b) Federal-aid highway construction projects. It is the policy of the FHWA to require full utilization of all available training and skill-improvement opportunities to assure the increased participation of minority groups and disadvantaged persons and women in all phases of the highway construction industry. Moreover, it is the policy of the Federal Highway Administration to encourage the provision of supportive services which will increase the effectiveness of approved on-the-job training programs conducted in connection with Federal-aid highway construction projects.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1986–1990 · leading case: Tap Elec. Contracting Serv., Inc. v. Hartnett, 29 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1478 (NY 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tap Elec. Contracting Serv., Inc. v. Hartnett, 29 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1478 (NY 1990). · cites it 3× “Petitioner also contends that the statute is preempted by the Federal regulations on the subject since it conflicts with 23 CFR 230.107 (b) to such a degree that it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of the statute (see, Hillsborough…”

Siuslaw Concrete Constr. Co. v. State of Washington, Dep't of Transp. Fed. High. Admin., 784 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1986). “Siuslaw asserts that even if training goals are met, the federal purpose of full utilization of all available training and skill-improvement opportunities, set forth in 23 C.F.R. § 230.107 (b), is frustrated because Congress intended that more than a required minimum number of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.