C.F.R. » Title 7 » CHAPTER IX—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS; FRUITS, VEGETABLES, NUTS), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › PART 900—GENERAL REGULATIONS › Subpart A—Procedural Requirements Governing Proceedings Pertaining to Marketing Agreements and Marketing Orders

7 C.F.R. § 900.3

Proposals

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

(a) A marketing agreement or a marketing order may be proposed by the Secretary or by any other person. If any person other than the Secretary proposes a marketing agreement or marketing order, he shall file with the Administrator a written application, together with at least four copies of the proposal, requesting the Secretary to hold a hearing upon the proposal. Upon receipt of such proposal, the Administrator shall cause such investigation to be made and such consideration thereof to be given as, in his opinion, are warranted. If the investigation and consideration lead the Administrator to conclude that the proposed marketing agreement or marketing order will not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act, or that for other proper reasons a hearing should not be held on the proposal, he shall deny the application, and promptly notify the applicant of such denial, which notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for the denial.

(b) If the investigation and consideration lead the Administrator to conclude that the proposed marketing agreement or marketing order will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act, or if the Secretary desires to propose a marketing agreement or marketing order, he shall sign and cause to be served a notice of hearing, as provided in this subpart.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1982–2005 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Sunland Packing House Co., 912 F. Supp. 1325 (E.D. Cal. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States Ex Rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Sunland Packing House Co., 912 F. Supp. 1325 (E.D. Cal. 1995). · cites it 2× “Although AMAA regulations authorize the USDA to propose marketing orders, 7 C.F.R. § 900.3 , the USDA generally waits for industry participants to propose an order.”
Nat'l Farmers Org., Inc. v. Lyng, 695 F. Supp. 1207 (D.D.C. 1988). · cites it 3× “Section 608c(3) provides that the Secretary must deny a hearing whenever he “has reason to believe that the issuance of an order will tend to effectuate” the AMAA’s declared policy, and the regulation ( 7 C.F.R. § 900.3 ) adds, “or that for other proper reasons a hearing should…”
White Eagle Coop. Ass'n v. Johanns, 396 F. Supp. 2d 954 (N.D. Ind. 2005). “§§ 608c(l) & (17); 7 C.F.R. §§ 900.3 & 900.1(j). This process is to include public notice, an on-the-record hearing, a recommended decision by the Administrator, opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments, and a final decision by the Secretary.”
White Eagle Co-op. Ass'n v. Johanns, 396 F. Supp. 2d 954 (N.D. Ind. 2005). “§§ 608c(1) & (17); 7 C.F.R. §§ 900.3 & 900.1(j). This process is to include public notice, an on-the-record hearing, a recommended decision by the Administrator, opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments, and a final decision by the Secretary.”
Oak Tree Farm Dairy, Inc. v. Block, 544 F. Supp. 1351 (E.D.N.Y 1982). “See 7 C.F.R. § 900.3 (a). “When an agency agrees to conduct rule-making proceedings, it evidences its view that the proposals are sufficiently meritorious to warrant further investigation, as well as its willingness to defend in court such rule as may eventually be adopted.”
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.