7 C.F.R. § 11.6

Director review of agency determination of appealability and right of participants to Division hearing

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

(a) Director review of agency determination of appealability. (1) Not later than 30 days after the date on which a participant receives a determination from an agency that an agency decision is not appealable, the participant must submit a written request personally signed by the participant to the Director to review the determination in order to obtain such review by the Director.

(2) The Director shall determined whether the decision is adverse to the individual participant and thus appealable or is a matter of general applicability and thus not subject to appeal, and will issue a final determination notice that upholds or reverses the determination of the agency. This final determination is not appealable. If the Director reverses the determination of the agency, the Director will notify the participant and the agency of that decision and inform the participant of his or her right to proceed with an appeal.

(3) The Director may delegate his or her authority to conduct a review under this paragraph to any subordinate official of the Division other than a Hearing Officer. In any case in which such review is conducted by such a subordinate official, the subordinate official's determination shall be considered to be the determination of the Director and shall be final and not appealable.

(b) Appeals of adverse decisions. (1) To obtain a hearing under § 11.8, a participant personally must request such hearing not later than 30 days after the date on which the participant first received notice of the adverse decision or after the date on which the participant receives notice of the Director's determination that a decision is appealable. In the case of the failure of an agency to act on the request or right of a recipient, a participant personally must request such hearing not later than 30 days after the participant knew or reasonably should have known that the agency had not acted within the timeframes specified by agency program regulations, or, where such regulations specify no timeframes, not later than 30 days after the participant reasonably should have known of the agency's failure to act.

(2) A request for a hearing shall be in writing and personally signed by the participant, and shall include a copy of the adverse decision to be reviewed, if available, along with a brief statement of the participant's reasons for believing that the decision, or the agency's failure to act, was wrong. The participant also shall send a copy of the request for a hearing to the agency, and may send a copy of the adverse decision to be reviewed to the agency, but failure to do either will not constitute grounds for dismissal of the appeal. Instead of a hearing, the participant may request a record review.

(c) If a participant is represented by an authorized representative, the authorized representative must file a declaration with NAD, executed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, stating that the participant has duly authorized the declarant in writing to represent the participant for purposes of a specified adverse decision or decisions, and attach a copy of the written authorization to the declaration.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Mahon v. United States Dep't of Agric., 485 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mahon v. United States Dep't of Agric., 485 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007). · cites it 5× “5 (c)(1) (2002) (stating that a request for mediation tolls the thirty-day period to appeal to the *1251 NAD), based on an impasse date of April 25, 2002, Paul Mahon “[had] not fíled[d] a personally signed request for an appeal within the [thirty day] time limit established by […”

Bartlett v. United States Dep't of Agric., 716 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “§ 6992(d); 7 C.F.R. § 11.6 . Notwithstanding the other avenues of administrative appeal, only “final determination[s]” by the NAD are “reviewable and enforceable” by district courts.”

Dawson Farms, LLC v. Farm Serv. Agency, 504 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2007). “7 C.F.R. § 11.6 (a); 7 C.F.R. § 780.5 (c).”

Van Trinh v. United States Sec'y of Agric., 395 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “See 7 C.F.R. § 11.6 (providing NAD regulations governing appealability).”

Branstad v. Veneman, 212 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Iowa 2002). “Instead, the regulation expressly relied on in the February 13, 2001, decision as demonstrating that the Branstads’ appeal “does not conform to our requirements,” 7 C.F.R. § 11.6 (b)(l)(2) (June 23, 1999), instead refers to “thirty-day deadline,” “in writing,” and “personal…”

Lackey v. United States Dep't of Agric., 384 F. App'x 741 (10th Cir. 2010). “” 7 C.F.R. § 11.6 (a)(3). Accordingly, we refer to “the Director” whether the decision was issued by the Director or an appropriate subordinate.”

Harts v. Johanns, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (D. Kan. 2006). “7 C.F.R. § 11.6 (a) (giving participant 30 days to appeal an FSA determination of non-appealability).”

Bentley v. Glickman, 234 B.R. 12 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). “7 C.F.R. §§ 11.6 (a)(1), 11.6(a)(2) (1998).”

Mahon v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 426 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (M.D. Fla. 2006). · cites it 2× “7 C.F.R. § 11.6 (b), entitled “Appeals of adverse de *1288 cisions,” provides the following procedure for requesting an appeal from an adverse agency decision: (1) To obtain a hearing under § 11.”

Ewing v. Farm Serv. Agency (N.D. Tex. 2021). “There is no record of the Ewings filing an appeal, they do not argue they did, and the FSA submitted an affidavit that affirmatively states they did not appeal.”

Randolph Cnty. Equine & Agric. Ass'n, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric. - Rural Dev. (M.D. Ala. 2025). “5 (b), and (2) a hearing with the National Appeals Division, see 7 C.F.R. §§ 11.6 , 11.8. With that context, the Court turns to the Plaintiffs’ allegations.”

Aziegbe v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2026). “7 C.F.R. §§ 11.6 (b) (“Director review of agency determination of appealability and right of participants to Division hearing”), 11.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

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.