29 C.F.R. § 1.7
Scope of consideration
(a) In making a wage determination, the “area” from which wage data will be drawn will normally be the county unless sufficient current wage data (data on wages paid on current projects or, where necessary, projects under construction no more than 1 year prior to the beginning of the survey or the request for a wage determination, as appropriate) is unavailable to make a wage determination.
(b) If sufficient current wage data is not available from projects within the county to make a wage determination, wages paid on similar construction in surrounding counties may be considered.
(c) If sufficient current wage data is not available in surrounding counties, the Administrator may consider wage data from similar construction in comparable counties or groups of counties in the State, and, if necessary, overall statewide data.
(d) If sufficient current statewide wage data is not available, wages paid on projects completed more than 1 year prior to the beginning of the survey or the request for a wage determination, as appropriate, may be considered.
(e) The use of “helpers and apprentices” is permitted in accordance with part 5 of this subtitle.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: North Georgia Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Neil Edward Goldschmidt, Maynard Jackson, Etc., 621 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1980).
North Georgia Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Neil Edward Goldschmidt, Maynard Jackson, Etc., 621 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1980). “Second, under Davis-Bacon Act regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1.7 (b)(1) (1979), which governs the procedure for modification of project wage determinations, telephone notice by a Department of Labor official of a decision to modify a determination is insufficient to constitute receipt…”
Operating Engineers Local U. No. 3, Etc. v. Bohn, 541 F. Supp. 486 (D. Utah 1982). “1 of the Labor Compliance Manual, which is apparently a FHA guideline for implementing 29 C.F.R. § 1.7 , determined that they were not obligated to modify the solicitation because the corrected wage rate was not published in the Federal Register ten days before the opening of…”
Int'l Bhd. Elec v. Farfield Co, 5 F.4th 315 (3rd Cir. 2021). “1, 5, 7, prevail- ing wage determinations are typically promulgated at the county level, 29 C.F.R. § 1.7 (a), often based on survey data of wages paid or local collective bargaining agreements.”
Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't, Afl-Cio v. Lynn Martin, Sec'y of Labor, 961 F.2d 269 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “29 C.F.R. § 1.7 (d)(l)-(2) (1991). In other words, where the Secretary verifies that the prevailing journeyman wage in a locality where a federal construction project is to be situated is the wage paid to the majority of journeymen in that locality, then the helper…”
Carpet, Linoleum & Resilient Tile Layers, Local Union No. 419 v. Harold Brown, 656 F.2d 564 (10th Cir. 1981). “29 C.F.R. 1.7(b)(1). The Bureau received such a modification eight days before bidding opened on a dam construction project and rejected it on the ground that there was not enough time (1) to notify prospective bidders and (2) for them to act upon that modification.”
Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 627 v. Arthurs, 355 F. Supp. 7 (W.D. Okla. 1973). “29 C.F.R. 1.7(b) (1), as amended, 37 Fed.”
Tennessee Roadbuilders Ass'n v. Marshall, 446 F. Supp. 399 (M.D. Tenn. 1977). “Defendants’ regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 1.7 (b)(1), (2) (1975), provide that modifications in wage rate determinations must, to be effective, be received by the contracting agency in the case of project determinations or be published in the Federal Register in the case of general…”
Carpet, Linoleum & Resilient Tile Layers, Local Union No. 419 v. Brown, 656 F.2d 564 (10th Cir. 1981). “29 C.F.R. § 1.7 (b)(1). The Bureau received such a modification eight days before bidding opened on a dam construction project and rejected it on the ground that there was not enough time (1) to notify prospective bidders and (2) for them to act upon that modification.”
Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 627 v. Harold Arthurs, Field Dir., Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 480 F.2d 603 (10th Cir. 1973). “29 C.F.R. § 1.7 (b) (1); 37 Fed.Reg. 21,139, October 5, 1972.”
Bldg. & Constr. Trades' Dep't v. Donovan, 712 F.2d 611 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “at 23,655 (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1.7 (b)). The target of the unions’ attack in this case is the final proviso regarding exclusion of urban counties from rural wage determinations, 1 which the unions assert is a departure from longstanding administrative practice and…”
Virginia ex rel. Comm'r v. Marshall, 599 F.2d 588 (4th Cir. 1979). “On October 11,1977, the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor issued a wage determination which was effective for 120 days under 29 C.F.R. § 1.7 (a)(1). It decided that the median work for the proposed Metro extension was distinct from the highway work and issued…”
Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Herman, 976 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1997). “58954 This notice stated, in relevant part: [T]he regulations presently codified at 29 CFR 1.7(d), 5.2(n)(4), and 5.5(a)(1)(h) [the revised helper regulations] are suspended until the Department of Labor publishes notice in the Federal Register that prohibition on implementation…”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1.7(b) — 2 cases
Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 627 v. Arthurs, 355 F. Supp. 7 (W.D. Okla. 1973). “29 C.F.R. 1.7(b) (1), as amended, 37 Fed.”
Untitled Texas Attorney Gen. Opinion (Tex. Att'y Gen. 1991).
— 29 C.F.R. § 1.7(b)(1) — 1 case
Carpet, Linoleum & Resilient Tile Layers, Local Union No. 419 v. Harold Brown, 656 F.2d 564 (10th Cir. 1981). “29 C.F.R. 1.7(b)(1). The Bureau received such a modification eight days before bidding opened on a dam construction project and rejected it on the ground that there was not enough time (1) to notify prospective bidders and (2) for them to act upon that modification.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1.7(d) — 1 case
Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Herman, 976 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1997). “58954 This notice stated, in relevant part: [T]he regulations presently codified at 29 CFR 1.7(d), 5.2(n)(4), and 5.5(a)(1)(h) [the revised helper regulations] are suspended until the Department of Labor publishes notice in the Federal Register that prohibition on implementation…”
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.