29 C.F.R. § 7.9

Review of decisions in other proceedings

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

(a) Any party or aggrieved person shall have a right to file a petition for review with the Board within a reasonable time from any final decision in any agency action under part 1, 3, or 5 of this subtitle.

(b) The petition shall state concisely the points relied upon, and shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth supporting reasons. Further, the petition shall indicate whether or not the petitioner consents to the disposition of the questions involved by a single member.

(c) A copy of the presentation shall be served upon the officer who issued the decision, and upon any other party or known interested person, as the case may be. In representing the officer who issued the final decision in any agency action under parts 1, 3, or 5 of the subtitle, the Solicitor shall, among other things, file promptly with the Board a record supporting the officer's decision, including any findings upon which the decision is based, after receipt of service of the petition.

(d) In representing the officer issuing a final decision in any agency action under parts 1, 3, and 5 of this subtitle, the Solicitor shall file with the Board a statement of the position of the officer who issued the final decision at issue, concerning the decision challenged; and shall make service on the petitioner and any other interested persons.

(e) The Board shall afford any other parties or known interested persons a reasonable opportunity to respond to the petition. Copies of any such response shall be served upon the officer issuing the decision below and upon the petitioner.

(f) The Board shall pass upon the points raised in the petition upon the basis of the entire record before it, and shall notify the parties to the proceeding of its decision. In any remand of a case as provided in § 7.1(e), the Board shall include any appropriate instructions.

[36 FR 10863, June 4, 1971, as amended at 86 FR 1780, Jan. 11, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1980–2012 · leading case: North Georgia Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Neil Edward Goldschmidt, Maynard Jackson, Etc., 621 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

North Georgia Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Neil Edward Goldschmidt, Maynard Jackson, Etc., 621 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 7.9 (a) (1979). 23 . 29 C.F.R.”

Whelan Sec. Co. v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 496 (Ct. Cl. 1985). “12 (1981)); 2) before the Wage Appeals Board ( 29 C.F.R. § 7.9 ); or before the Contracting Officer, since the contract contained the liquidated damages statute, and the dispute arose under the contract (see 41 U.”

Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Solis, 600 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2009). “at 28 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 7.9 ), and contend that “[i]n light of [these] regulations, there is no question that the opinions of the [Department of Energy’s] contracting officials do not constitute a ‘final order’ of the Secretary of Energy that may be reviewed immediately by a…”

Angulo v. Gray, 907 F. Supp. 2d 107 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 2× “13 but that “[a]ny interested party may file a petition for review with the [DOL] Administrative Review Board [“ARB”] pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 7.9.” Id. The District of Columbia and CityCenterDC developers appealed the June 2011 decision to the ARB asserting that the CityCenterDC…”

Dorey Elec. Co. v. Pittman Mech. Contractors, Inc., 789 F. Supp. 734 (E.D. Va. 1992). “Under regulations governing the administration of the Davis-Bacon Act, a contractor may seek a hearing with an Administrative Law Judge to contest findings that have resulted in a notice of violation.”

Bldg. & Constr. Trades Dep't, Afl-Cio v. Chao (D.D.C. 2009). “at 28 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 7.9 ), and contend that “[i]n light of [these] regulations, there is no question that the opinions of the [Department of Energy’s] contracting officials do not constitute a ‘final order’ of the Secretary of Energy that may be reviewed immediately by a…”

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.