(a) The Secretary of Labor is authorized and directed to administer
the provisions of the Act, to make investigations, findings, and
decisions thereunder, and to make, amend, and rescind rules and
regulations with respect to its application (see sections 4 and 5). The
Supreme Court has recognized that the Secretary may issue rulings
defining the coverage of the Act. (``Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins,
supra''.) According to the Court (ibid.), in the statute as originally
enacted ``Congress submitted the administration of the Act to the
judgment of the
Secretary of Labor, not to the judgment of the courts.'' An amendment to
the Act in 1952 added specific provisions for judicial review (see
section 10). The Secretary has promulgated regulations to carry out
provisions of the Act, which are set forth elsewhere in this chapter
(Part 50-201 (General Regulations); Part 50-202 (Minimum Wage
Determinations); Part 50-203 (Rules of Practice); and Part 50-204
(Safety and Health Standards)). The Secretary of Labor has delegated to
the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division through the Assistant
Secretary for Employment Standards the authority to promulgate
regulations and to issue official rulings and interpretations. So long
as such regulations, rulings, and interpretations are not modified,
amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial authority to be incorrect,
they may be relied upon as provided in section 10 of the Portal-to-
Portal Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 84, 29 U.S.C. 251, et seq., discussed in 29
CFR Part 790). Furthermore, these interpretations are intended to
indicate the construction of the law which the Department of Labor
believes to be correct and which will be followed in the administration
of the Act unless and until directed otherwise by Act of Congress or by
authoritative rulings of the courts. (``Skidmore v. Swift & Co.'', 323
U.S. 134 (1944), ``Roland Co. v. Walling'', 326 U.S. 657 (1946);
``Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, supra'', and ``Perkins v. Lukens
Steel Co., supra''.)
(b) The courts have held that the ``interpretations of the Walsh-
Healey Act and the regulations adopted thereunder, as made by the
Secretary of Labor acting through his Administrator, are both correct
and reasonable.'' (``Jno. McCall Coal Company v. United States,'' 374 F.
2d 689, 692 (C.A. 4, 1967); see also ``United States v. Davison Fuel and
Dock Company,'' 371 F. 2d 705, 711-714 (C.A. 4, 1967).) These policies
are designed to protect not only employees but also the competitive
interest of all firms qualified to compete for covered contracts.
[43 FR 22975, May 30, 1978. Redesignated at 61 FR 40716, Aug. 5, 1996]
