C.F.R. » Title 29 » PART 8—PRACTICE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD WITH REGARD TO FEDERAL SERVICE CONTRACTS › Subpart C—Review of Other Proceedings and Related Matters

29 C.F.R. § 8.7

Review of decisions in other proceedings

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

(a) A petition for review of a decision of an Administrative Law Judge pursuant to subparts B, D or E of part 6 of this title may be filed by any aggrieved party in accordance with the provisions therein.

(b) A petition for review of a final written decision (other than a wage determination) of the Administrator or authorized representative may be filed by any aggrieved party within 60 days of the date of the decision of which review is sought. Where a case has been referred directly to the Board pursuant to § 4.11 or § 4.12 of this title, no petition for review shall be necessary; a brief in support of the aggrieved party's position shall be filed within 30 days of filing of the administrative record by the Administrator.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: Lloyd T. Danielsen v. Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr., Inc., 941 F.2d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lloyd T. Danielsen v. Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr., Inc., 941 F.2d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1991). “Some of the defendants herein appealed the Administrator’s decision to the Deputy Secretary of Labor pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 8.7 (b). At the time of the filing of the present litigation, the Deputy Secretary had ruled adversely to the contractors on one contract but held *1226…”
Danielsen v. Dole, 746 F. Supp. 160 (D.D.C. 1990). · cites it 3× “Burnside-Ott then petitioned the Deputy Secretary of Labor for review of the Administrator’s conformance decisions of December 15, 1986, and December 4, 1987 pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 8.7 (b). Case No. 87-SCA-OM-2; Gross Aff.”
Danielsen v. Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr., Inc., 746 F. Supp. 170 (D.D.C. 1990). · cites it 2× “Subsequently, UNC-Burnside-Ott appealed the Administrator’s decision to the Deputy Secretary of Labor (“Deputy Secretary”) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 8.7 (b). Gross Aff. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs King and Dan-ielsen participated as interested parties, pursuant to DOL regulations, by…”
Cimpi v. Dole, 739 F. Supp. 25 (D.D.C. 1990). · cites it 2× “Cim-pi had sixty days to file an administrative appeal of the Administrator’s September 1, 1988, denial of his request for an adjustment, see 29 C.F.R. § 8.7 (b) (1989), yet he failed to do so.”
BCFS Health & Human Servs. v. United States Dep't of Labor (W.D. Tex. 2022). “See 29 C.F.R. § 8.7 (b); Delegation of Authority, 2020 WL 1065013 , ¶ 5(a)(2).”
Neeb-Kearney & Co. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 779 F. Supp. 841 (E.D. La. 1991). “29 C.F.R. § 8.7 (b). The Secretary, or her designee, however, performs the functions of the Board pending the appointment of a duly constituted Board.”
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.