C.F.R. » Title 29 » PART 24—PROCEDURES FOR THE HANDLING OF RETALIATION COMPLAINTS UNDER THE EMPLOYEE PROTECTION PROVISIONS OF SIX ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND SECTION 211 OF THE ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED › Subpart C—Miscellaneous Provisions

29 C.F.R. § 24.112

Judicial review

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

(a) Except as provided under paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, within 60 days after the issuance of a final order (including a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) for which judicial review is available, 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. A final order of the ARB (or a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) is not subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.

(b) Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, within 120 days after the issuance of a final order (including a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) for which judicial review is available, 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.

(c) Under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, within 90 days after the issuance of a final order (including a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) for which judicial review is available, 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.

(d) Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, after the issuance of a final order (including a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) for which judicial review is available, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States district court in which the violation allegedly occurred. For purposes of judicial economy and consistency, when a final order under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act also is issued under any other statute listed in § 24.100(a), the adversely affected or aggrieved person may file a petition for review of the entire 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. The time for filing a petition for review of an order issued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and any other statute listed in § 24.100(a) is determined by the time period applicable under the other statute(s).

(e) If a timely petition for review is filed, the record of a case, including the record of proceedings before the administrative law judge, will be transmitted by the ARB or the ALJ, as appropriate, to the appropriate court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the local rules of the court.

[85 FR 30618, May 20, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2014–2014 · leading case: Gary Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056 (6th Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gary Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 24.112 (a); see also id. § 24.”
Hugh Kaufman v. Thomas Perez, 745 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. 24.112(d), 24.100(a). Kaufman is employed by the EPA in the District of Columbia, and his CERCLA retaliation claim stems from the same factual and legal background as his claims under the other statutes.”
Hugh Kaufman v. Thomas Perez (D.C. Cir. 2014). “29 C.F.R. 24.112(d), 24.100(a). Kaufman is employed by the EPA in the District of Columbia, and his CERCLA retaliation claim stems from the same factual and legal background as his claims under the other statutes.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 24.112(d) — 2 cases
Hugh Kaufman v. Thomas Perez, 745 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “29 C.F.R. 24.112(d), 24.100(a). Kaufman is employed by the EPA in the District of Columbia, and his CERCLA retaliation claim stems from the same factual and legal background as his claims under the other statutes.”
Hugh Kaufman v. Thomas Perez (D.C. Cir. 2014). “29 C.F.R. 24.112(d), 24.100(a). Kaufman is employed by the EPA in the District of Columbia, and his CERCLA retaliation claim stems from the same factual and legal background as his claims under the other statutes.”
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.