C.F.R. » Title 29 » PART 18—RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES › Subpart A—General

29 C.F.R. § 18.10

Scope and purpose

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

(a) In general. These rules govern the procedure in proceedings before the United States Department of Labor, Office of Administrative Law Judges. They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every proceeding. To the extent that these rules may be inconsistent with a governing statute, regulation, or executive order, the latter controls. If a specific Department of Labor regulation governs a proceeding, the provisions of that regulation apply, and these rules apply to situations not addressed in the governing regulation. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) apply in any situation not provided for or controlled by these rules, or a governing statute, regulation, or executive order.

(b) Type of proceeding. Unless the governing statute, regulation, or executive order prescribes a different procedure, proceedings follow the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 through 559.

(c) Waiver, modification, and suspension. Upon notice to all parties, the presiding judge may waive, modify, or suspend any rule under this subpart when doing so will not prejudice a party and will serve the ends of justice.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta, 888 F.3d 493 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta, 888 F.3d 493 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “Arch maintains that judicial review will not be meaningful because the Department will not afford it adequate discovery to develop its claims during the administrative proceedings. This argument is premature. Arch is entitled to reasonable discovery before the Department to the…”
Cnty. of Los Angeles, Serv. Delivery Area v. United States Dep't of Labor, 891 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 6× “We have concluded, however, the SoL erred in ruling that the County, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.10 (b) (1988), did not have the right to intervene in the State’s Department of Labor (DoL) proceeding.”
City of New Orleans v. United States Dep't of Labor, 825 F. Supp. 120 (E.D. La. 1993). · cites it 2× “The administrative process in this case has not reached the halfway point because the administrative hearing has not yet been held. The City makes much of the fact that it is not participating in the administrative hearing, but that is the City’s tactical choice; the City may…”
Charles Zumwalt v. Nassco (9th Cir. 2019). “See 29 C.F.R. § 18.10 (a) (ALJ regulation providing that “[i]f a specific Department of Labor regulation governs a 4 18-72257 proceeding” the DOL regulation applies and the ALJ’s regulations only “apply to situations not addressed in the governing regulation”); 20 C.”
Triple R Farms, LLC v. United States Dep't of Labor, et al. (E.D. Ky. 2026). “” 29 C.F.R. § 18.10 (a). The ALJ will prepare a decision on the issues referred by the Administrator.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 18.10(b) — 1 case
Cnty. of Los Angeles, Serv. Delivery Area v. United States Dep't of Labor, 891 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1989). “We have concluded, however, the SoL erred in ruling that the County, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.10 (b) (1988), did not have the right to intervene in the State’s Department of Labor (DoL) proceeding.”
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.