7 C.F.R. § 11.3
Applicability
(a) Subject matter. The regulations contained in this part are applicable to adverse decisions made by an agency, including, for example, those with respect to:
(1) Denial of participation in, or receipt of benefits under, any program of an agency;
(2) Compliance with program requirements;
(3) The making or amount of payments or other program benefits to a participant in any program of an agency; and
(4) A determination that a parcel of land is a wetland or highly erodible land.
(b) Limitation. The procedures contained in this part may not be used to seek review of statutes or USDA regulations issued under Federal Law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: Mahon v. United States Dep't of Agric., 485 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007).
Mahon v. United States Dep't of Agric., 485 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007). “]” 7 C.F.R. § 11.3 (2002). C. With respect to John and Shelby Mahon, the issue before this court is whether the district court erred in finding that the USDA’s interpretation of its regulations implementing the 2000 Crop Disaster Program was reasonable.”
Bartlett v. United States Dep't of Agric., 716 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013). “” 7 C.F.R. § 11.3 (b). These regulations provide both the State Executive Director and the NAD Director with the authority to determine whether an adverse county committee decision is appeal-able.”
Mcbride Cotton & Cattle Corp. v. Ann M. Veneman, 290 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2002). “" 7 C.F.R. 11.3(b); Gold Dollar Warehouse, Inc.”
McBride Cotton & Cattle Corp. v. Veneman, 290 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2002). “” 7 C.F.R. 11.3(b); Gold Dollar Warehouse, Inc.”
Gold Dollar Warehouse, Inc. v. Glickman, 211 F.3d 93 (4th Cir. 2000). “7 C.F.R. § 11.3 (a). However, the regulations make clear, “[t]he procedures .”
Doe v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 118 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “” 7 C.F.R. § 11.3 (a)(4) (2012). Plaintiffs argue, however, that the procedures established under part 11 expressly exclude appeals that involve matters of general applicability.”
Enter. Nat'l Bank v. Johanns, 539 F. Supp. 2d 343 (D.D.C. 2008). “§ 6996 and 7 C.F.R. § 11.3 . The Bank filed an appeal with the NAD, whose Hearing Officer upheld the Agency’s determinations in its adverse letter and affirmed the Agency’s reduction of the Loan Note Guarantee to $0.”
Cargo & Tankship Mgmt. Corp. v. India Supply Mission, 221 F. Supp. 680 (S.D.N.Y. 1963). “The Regulations (7 CFR 11.3, 11.4) require that under such an agreement “purchase authorizations” (PA) be obtained by the importing country.”
Aziegbe v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2026). “7 C.F.R. § 11.3 (a) (“Applicability”). These administrative procedures require a timely appeal to USDA’s National Appeals Division (NAD) and, if unsuccessful, a timely request for review by the NAD Director.”
Fitch v. United States of Am. (M.D. Ala. 2022). “1 ; 7 C.F.R. § 11.3 . operating as an individual.”
Bishop v. Veneman, 283 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Kan. 2003). “”) Accordingly, as the NAD Division Director advised plaintiff in his decision, NAD procedures may not be used to challenge a statute or regulation as void for vagueness. See R. at 842. Because the posture of this ease is on appeal from the decision of the NAD, the court’s scope…”
— 7 C.F.R. § 11.3(b) — 2 cases
Mcbride Cotton & Cattle Corp. v. Ann M. Veneman, 290 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2002). “" 7 C.F.R. 11.3(b); Gold Dollar Warehouse, Inc.”
McBride Cotton & Cattle Corp. v. Veneman, 290 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2002). “” 7 C.F.R. 11.3(b); Gold Dollar Warehouse, Inc.”
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.