7 C.F.R. § 1.28

Petitions

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

Petitions by interested persons in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(e) for the issuance, amendment or repeal of a rule may be filed with the official that issued or is authorized to issue the rule. All such petitions will be given prompt consideration and petitioners will be notified promptly of the disposition made of their petitions.

[11 FR 177A, Sept. 11, 1946. Redesignated at 13 FR 6703, Nov. 16, 1948, as amended at 60 FR 66481, Dec. 22, 1995]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1974–2015 · leading case: Munsell v. Dep't of Agric., 509 F.3d 572 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Munsell v. Dep't of Agric., 509 F.3d 572 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “See 7 C.F.R. § 1.28 (making it clear that any interested persons may petition pursuant to 5 U.”

California Ex Rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 575 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2009). “After the eighteen-month window lapses, the "general petitioning process for' the approval, amendment, or repeal of rules ( 7 C.F.R. § 1.28 ) would remain available.”

Am. Horse Prot. Ass'n, Inc. v. Richard E. Lyng, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Agric., 812 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “Neither the Agriculture Department’s regulations, see 7 C.F.R. § 1.28 (1986), nor the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.”

Cmty. Nutrition Inst. v. John R. Block, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Agric., 698 F.2d 1239 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “§ 553 , the general rulemaking provision of the APA and 7 C.F.R. § 1.28 , the provision of the agency regulations addressing the filing of petitions for rulemaking.”

Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. v. Vilsack, 84 F. Supp. 3d 1179 (D. Colo. 2015). “§ 553 (e) 11 and 7 C.F.R. § 1.28 12 are misplaced because each of these provisions govern requests to amend or repeal existing rules.”

Marcy Schuck, Individually & on Behalf of Her Infant Son v. Earl L. Butz, Sec'y of Agric., 500 F.2d 810 (D.C. Cir. 1974). “*811 PER CURIAM: On February 9, 1972, appellants filed a petition with the Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 1.28 , asking him to impose an immediate ban on the addition of sodium nitrates and sodium nitrites (hereinafter referred to as nitrites) to meat products.”

Horne v. United States Dep't of Agric., 494 F. App'x 774 (9th Cir. 2012). “decisions” to the district court. USDA responded to the Hornes’ rulemaking petition — as it must under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.”

People of the State v. Usda (9th Cir. 2009). “After the eighteen-month window lapses, the “general petitioning pro- cess for the approval, amendment, or repeal of rules ( 7 C.F.R. § 1.28 ) would remain available .”

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.