(a) Preparation. As soon as practicable following the termination of the period allowed for the filing of written arguments or briefs and proposed findings and conclusions the Administrator shall file with the hearing clerk a recommended decision.
(b) Contents. The Administrator's recommended decision shall include: (1) A preliminary statement containing a description of the history of the proceedings, a brief explanation of the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record, and proposed findings and conclusions with respect to such issues as well as the reasons or basis therefor; (2) a ruling upon each proposed finding or conclusion submitted by interested persons, and (3) an appropriate proposed marketing agreement or marketing order effectuating his recommendations.
(c) Exceptions to recommended decision. Immediately following the filing of his recommended decision, the Administrator shall give notice thereof, and opportunity to file exceptions thereto by publication in the Federal Register. Within a period of time specified in such notice any interested person may file with the hearing clerk exceptions to the Administrator's proposed marketing agreement or marketing order, or both, as the case may be, and a brief in support of such exceptions. Such exceptions shall be in writing, shall refer, where practicable, to the related pages of the transcript and may suggest appropriate changes in the proposed marketing agreement or marketing order.
(d) Omission of recommended decision. The procedure provided in this section may be omitted only if the Secretary finds on the basis of the record that due and timely execution of his functions imperatively and unavoidably requires such omission.
Notes of Decisions
White Eagle Co-op. Ass'n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2009).
“" 7 C.F.R. § 900.12 (d). Presumably in response to the above requirement, the agency included the following statement accompanying the promulgation of the emergency rule: Evidence presented at the hearing and in post-hearing briefs establishes that current pooling standards of…”
Select Milk Producers, Inc. v. Veneman, 304 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2004).
“10 , and thereafter the Secretary issues a recommended decision, 7 C.F.R. § 900.12 . The amendments at issue in this case resulted from a congressionally mandated formal rulemaking process.”
White Eagle Coop. Ass'n v. Johanns, 396 F. Supp. 2d 954 (N.D. Ind. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” 7 C.F.R. § 900.12 (d). In this case, several amendments to the Mideast Order were proposed in late 2004 and early 2005.”
White Eagle Cooperat v. Vilsack, Thomas J., 553 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2009).
“” 7 C.F.R. § 900.12 (d). Presumably in response to the above requirement, the agency included the following statement accompanying the promulgation of the emergency rule: Evidence presented at the hearing and in post-hearing briefs establishes that current pooling standards of…”
White Eagle Co-op. Ass'n v. Johanns, 396 F. Supp. 2d 954 (N.D. Ind. 2005).
· cites it 2× “" 7 C.F.R. § 900.12 (d). In this case, several amendments to the Mideast Order were proposed in late 2004 and early 2005.”
White Eagle Coop. Assoc. v. Johanns, 508 F. Supp. 2d 664 (N.D. Ind. 2007).
“” 7 C.F.R. § 900.12 (d). Further, the APA sets forth the standard under which agency actions — including the decision to omit a recommended decision — should be evaluated, stating that a reviewing court should set aside an agency action if it is (1) arbitrary and capricious, or…”
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.