C.F.R. » Title 7 » CHAPTER IX—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS; FRUITS, VEGETABLES, NUTS), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › PART 983—PISTACHIOS GROWN IN CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, AND NEW MEXICO › Subpart A—Order Regulating Handling

7 C.F.R. § 983.71

Assessments

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

(a) Each handler who receives pistachios for processing in each production year, except as provided in § 983.58, shall pay the committee on demand, an assessment based on the pro rata share of the expenses authorized by the Secretary for that year attributable to the assessed weight of pistachios received by that handler in that year.

(b) The committee, prior to the beginning of each production year, shall recommend and the Secretary shall set the assessment for the following production year, which shall not exceed one-half of one percent of the average price received by producers in the preceding production year. The committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may revise the assessment if it determines, based on information including crop size and value, that the action is necessary, and if the revision does not exceed the assessment limitation specified in this section and is made prior to the final billing of the assessment.

[69 FR 17850, Apr. 4, 2004. Redesignated and amended at 74 FR 56540, Nov. 2, 2009]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2007–2008 · leading case: Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Comm'n, 546 F. Supp. 2d 859 (E.D. Cal. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Comm'n, 546 F. Supp. 2d 859 (E.D. Cal. 2008). “The Marketing Order makes no mention of promotion, marketing, advertising, research, government relations or other potential expressive activity to be carried out by the administrative committee established by the federal regulations.”
Paramount Land Co. v. California Pistachio Comm'n, 491 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2007). “” 7 C.F.R. § 983.71 . III. Proceedings in the District Court In October 2005, Paramount filed a complaint in the Central District of California against the Pistachio Commission, challenging the mandatory assessments under the First Amendment and on various state law grounds.”
Paramount Land Co. v. California Pistachio Comm'n (9th Cir. 2007). “” 7 C.F.R. § 983.71 . 7032 PARAMOUNT LAND CO.”
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.