Court Opinion

ID: 9468836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:25:03.377357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:04.863048
License: Public Domain

BOWNES, Circuit Judge
(concurring separately).
While I, of course, fully concur in the court’s opinion as I have drafted it above, insofar as it goes, I feel that more should be said than my colleagues are prepared to say. I therefore set forth these additional views of mine in this separate concurrence. I feel that under the CETA regulations the Office of Maine CETA had the entire burden of proof and that, therefore, the ALJ conducted the hearing in a proper procedural manner.
As the majority opinion recognizes, the APA provision governing the burden of proof at administrative hearings, 5 U.S.C. § 556(d), has been interpreted by the courts to mean the burden of production and not the ultimate burden of persuasion. By its own terms the APA permits allocation of this burden to a party other than the proponent of the rule or order if “otherwise provided by statute.” The burden of proof in a hearing commenced under the CETA Act is governed by 20 C.F.R. § 676.90(b) (1979) which provides: “Burden of proof. The party requesting the hearing shall have the burden of establishing the facts and the entitlement to the relief requested.” Because I believe this language encompasses both the burdens of production and persuasion, this is a case in which the burden of production, i.e., establishing a prima facie case, has been “otherwise provided by statute.” Thus, since the CETA regulation relieved the Department of Labor, as the proponent of an order, of the burden of production (establishing a prima facie case), the ALJ was correct in requiring OMC to proceed first.
The elaborate mechanism under the CETA Act for the Department’s preliminary investigation and determination of violations of the Act supports placing the initial burden of production on OMC. The Grant Officer has the authority and the *833duty to investigate whenever he has reason to believe that a recipient of CETA funds is not complying with the requirements of the Act. 20 C.F.R. § 676.86(c) & (e) (1979). After completing the investigation, he must make an initial determination whether the recipient is violating the Act or its regulations. A finding by the Grant Officer that there has been a violation must be based on substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 676.-88(a)(2) (1979). In the initial determination, which must be in writing and mailed to the recipient, the Grant Officer must, inter alia, state the basis for the finding and give notice of an opportunity for an informal resolution of the matter. 20 C.F.R. § 676.88(b) (1979). If the informal resolution has been unsuccessful, the Grant Officer must within 120 days after the filing of the complaint
provide each party with a final written notice in duplicate by certified mail, return receipt requested, that (1) indicates that efforts to informally resolve matters contained in the initial determination pursuant to paragraph (a) have been unsuccessful, (2) lists those matters upon which the parties continue to disagree, (3) lists any sanctions, and required corrective actions, including any other alteration or modification of the plan, grant, agreement or program intended by the Grant Officer, and (4) informs the parties of their opportunity to request a hearing pursuant to these regulations.
20 C.F.R. § 676.88(e) (1979).
Based on the budget data supplied to the Grant Officer by OMC, a final determination was made that the maintenance-of-effort provisions had been violated. Certainly, if the Department had the burden at the hearing of establishing a prima facie case of a violation, this data would have been sufficient. But I believe the requirement that the Grant Officer base a determination of a violation on substantial evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 676.88(a)(2) (1979), is the functional equivalent of requiring the Department to make out a prima facie case. A final determination, therefore, supported as it must be by substantial evidence, “shifts” to OMC the burden of proving compliance with the Act at the hearing which it requested. The ALJ correctly found that OMC did not meet this burden.