penalty. The person who petitioned for review shall have the ultimate burden of persuasion as to the fact of the violation. [53 FR 47694, Nov. 25, 1988] {"origins":[{"level":"part","identifier":"4","label_level":"Part 4","hierarchy":{"title":"43","subtitle":"A","part":"4"},"current":false

90 FR 2430-2431, Jan. 10, 2025. § 4.1160 Scope. These regulations govern applications for review of— (a) Notices of violation or the modification, vacation, or termination of a notice of violation under section 521(a)(3) of the Act; and (b) Orders of cessation

§ 4.1160 may file an application for review with DCHD. [43 FR 34386, Aug. 3, 1978, as amended at 67 FR 4368, Jan. 30, 2002;

§ 4.1180, OSM shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case as to the validity of the notice, order, or modification, vacation, or termination thereof. (b) The ultimate burden of persuasion shall rest with the applicant for review. {"origins":[{"level":"part","identifier":"4","label_level":"Part 4","hierarchy

90 FR 2430-2431, Jan. 10, 2025. § 4.1194 Burden of proof in suspension or revocation proceedings. In proceedings to suspend or revoke a permit, OSM shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case for suspension or revocation of the permit. The ultimate burden of persuasion that the permit should not be

Multiple Sureties. In any dispute between two or more Sureties concerning recovery under SBA guaranteed bonds, the dispute must first be brought to the attention of OSG for an attempt at mediation and settlement. [61 FR 3271, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at

) Involve Indian leases or Federal leases for minerals other than oil and gas; or (2) Relate to Federal oil and gas leases but do not involve a monetary or nonmonetary obligation. [64 FR 26259, May 13, 1999, as amended at

§ 4.904 When does my administrative proceeding commence and end? For purposes of the period in which the Department must issue a final decision in your administrative proceeding under § 4.906: (a) Your administrative proceeding

4.414 of this part. (b) Upon affirmance, reversal, or modification of the administrative law judge's interlocutory ruling or order, the jurisdiction of the Board will terminate, and the case will be remanded promptly to the administrative law judge for further proceedings. [

(1) In generalNot later than 2 years after August 8, 2005, the Secretary shall enter into a contract with the National Academy of Sciences for, and the National Academy of Sciences shall conduct and submit to Congress a report on, a study on the feasibility of converting motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips. (2) ComponentsThe study shall— (A) document the results or progress of the

Pub. L. 110–140, Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1607, which enacted this part, amended sections 6832, 6834, 8253, and 8254 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 6834 of this title. For complete classification of subtitle C to the Code, see Tables.

lands withdrawn by the order. (b) The denial of a withdrawal application, in whole or in part, shall result in the termination of the segregative effect of the application or proposal as to those lands where the withdrawal is disallowed. Within 30 days following the decision to disallow the application or proposal, in whole or in part, the authorized officer shall publish a notice in the Federal Register specifying the reasons for the

§ 1610.1 Resource management planning guidance. (a) Guidance for preparation and amendment of resource management plans may be provided by the Director and State Director, as needed, to help the Field Manager and staff prepare a specific plan. Such guidance may include the following: (1) National level policy which has been established

(2) The objection must: (i) State the reasons for the objection; and (ii) Include any supporting documentation showing why the fair market value should be modified. (3) You must provide copies of the written objection and any supporting documentation to all parties who have an interest in the purchase of the property. (c) Any party who

50042, Aug. 30, 2007. § 134.220 Prohibition against ex parte communications. No person shall consult or communicate with a Judge concerning any fact, question of law, or SBA policy relevant to the merits of a case before that Judge except on prior notice to all parties, and with the opportunity for all parties to

50042, Aug. 30, 2007. § 134.918 Judicial review. The publication of a final rule in the Federal Register is considered the final agency action for purposes of seeking judicial review. {"origins":[{"level":"part","identifier

50042, Aug. 30, 2007. § 134.1110 New evidence. Except for good cause shown, evidence beyond the case file will not be admitted. {"origins":[{"level":"part","identifier":"134","label_level":"Part 134","hierarchy":{"title":"13","chapter":"I","part":"134

50042, Aug. 30, 2007. § 134.1302 Who may appeal a HUBZone status protest determination? Appeals from HUBZone status protest determinations may be filed with OHA by the protested concern, the protester, or the contracting officer responsible for the procurement affected by the protest determination.

50042, Aug. 30, 2007. § 134.702 Who may appeal? Appeals from WOSB or EDWOSB protest determinations may be filed with OHA by the protested concern, the protestor, or the contracting officer responsible for the procurement affected by the protest determination.

50042, Aug. 30, 2007. § 134.708 What is the standard of review? The standard of review for an appeal of a WOSB or EDWOSB protest determination is whether the D/GC's determination was based on clear error of fact or law. {"origins":[{"level":"part

indirectly; and (16) The need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ALJ or the Director from considering any other factors that in any given case may mitigate or aggravate the offense for which penalties and assessments are imposed. {"origins":[{"level":"part

50042, Aug. 30, 2007. § 134.1308 What is the standard of review? The standard of review for an appeal of a HUBZone status protest determination is whether the D/HUB's determination was based on clear error of fact or law. The appellant has the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence.