29 C.F.R. § 70.22

Appeals from denial of requests

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

(a) A requester may appeal to the Solicitor of Labor from any adverse determination, including but not limited to when one or more of the following has occurred: A request for access to records has been denied in whole or in part; a requester disputes a determination that records cannot be located or have been destroyed; a requester disputes a determination by a component concerning the assessment or waiver of fees; a requester disputes the denial of a request for expedited processing; or a component fails to respond to a request within the time limits set forth in the FOIA and referenced in 70.25(a). The appeal must be filed within 90 days of the date of the action being appealed.

(b) The appeal must state in writing the grounds for appeal, and it may include any supporting statements or arguments, but such statements are not required. In order to facilitate processing of the appeal, the appeal should include the assigned request number (if applicable), appellant's mailing address and daytime telephone number, as well as copies of the initial request and the component's response. If mailed, the envelope and the letter of appeal should be clearly marked: “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” Any amendment to the appeal must be in writing and received prior to a decision on the appeal.

(c) The appeal should be addressed to the Solicitor of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, FOIA Appeals Unit, Division of Management and Administrative Legal Services, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2420, Washington, DC 20210. Appeals also may be submitted by fax to 202-693-5538 or by email to [email protected]. Appeals submitted to any other email address will not be accepted.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1973–1979 · leading case: Sec'y of Labor of the United States v. Phil Farino & Hoe Kow Cantonese Restaurant, 490 F.2d 885 (7th Cir. 1973).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sec'y of Labor of the United States v. Phil Farino & Hoe Kow Cantonese Restaurant, 490 F.2d 885 (7th Cir. 1973). · cites it 2× “The court also held that the refusal to disclose the information was proper under 29 C.F.R. § 70.22 (b). 8 The Government’s brief does not discuss this discovery problem.”

United Tech. Corp. v. Marshall, 464 F. Supp. 845 (D. Conn. 1979). “This conclusion also disposes of Pratt & Whitney’s assertion that disclosure of the EEO-l’s would violate 29 C.F.R. §§ 70.22 and 70.24 and 41 C.F.R.”

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.