7 C.F.R. § 11.9

Director review of determinations of Hearing Officers

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

(a) Requests for Director review. (1) Not later than 30 days after the date on which an appellant receives the determination of a Hearing Officer under § 11.8, the appellant must submit a written request, signed personally by the named appellant, to the Director to review the determination in order to be entitled to such review by the Director. Such request shall include specific reasons why the appellant believes the determination is wrong.

(2) Not later than 15 business days after the date on which an agency receives the determination of a Hearing Officer under § 11.8, the head of the agency may make a written request that the Director review the determination. Such request shall include specific reasons why the agency believes the determination is wrong, including citations of statutes or regulations that the agency believes the determination violates. Any such request may be made by the head of an agency only, or by a person acting in such capacity, but not by any subordinate officer of such agency.

(3) A copy of a request for Director review submitted under this paragraph shall be provided simultaneously by the submitter to each party to the appeal.

(b) Notification of parties. The Director promptly shall notify all parties of receipt of a request for review.

(c) Responses to request for Director review. Other parties to an appeal may submit written responses to a request for Director review within 5 business days from the date of receipt of a copy of the request for review.

(d) Determination of Director. (1) The Director will conduct a review of the determination of the Hearing Officer using the agency record, the hearing record, the request for review, any responses submitted under paragraph (c) of this section, and such other arguments or information as may be accepted by the Director, in order to determine whether the decision of the Hearing Officer is supported by substantial evidence. Based on such review, the Director will issue a final determination notice that upholds, reverses, or modifies the determination of the Hearing Officer. The Director's determination upon review of a Hearing Officer's decision shall be considered to be the final determination under this part and shall not be appealable. However, if the Director determines that the hearing record is inadequate or that new evidence has been submitted, the Director may remand all or a portion of the determination to the Hearing Officer for further proceedings to complete the hearing record or, at the option of the Director, to hold a new hearing.

(2) The Director will complete the review and either issue a final determination or remand the determination not later than—

(i) 10 business days after receipt of the request for review, in the case of a request by the head of an agency; or

(ii) 30 business days after receipt of the request for review, in the case of a request by an appellant.

(3) In any case or any category of cases, the Director may delegate his or her authority to conduct a review under this section to any Deputy or Assistant Directors of the Division. In any case in which such review is conducted by a Deputy or Assistant Director under authority delegated by the Director, the Deputy or Assistant Director's determination shall be considered to be the determination of the Director under this part and shall be final and not appealable.

(e) Equitable relief. In reaching a decision on an appeal, the Director shall have the authority to grant equitable relief under this part in the same manner and to the same extent as such authority is provided an agency under applicable laws and regulations.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1963–2023 · leading case: Huff v. Vilsack, 195 F. Supp. 3d 343 (D.D.C. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Huff v. Vilsack, 195 F. Supp. 3d 343 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 2× “7 C.F.R. § 11.9 (d). 6 The Director’s task is “to determine whether the decision of the Hearing Officer is supported by substantial evidence[,]” and to either “uphold[J reverse!,] or modif[y]” the Hearing Officer’s determination.”

Mahon v. United States Dep't of Agric., 485 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007). “7 C.F.R. § 11.9 (d)(1). The director also retains the discretion to remand all or a portion of the determination to the hearing officer, or hold a new hearing if new evidence is presented.”

B & D Land & Livestock Co. v. Veneman, 231 F. Supp. 2d 895 (N.D. Iowa 2002). · cites it 2× “The Hearing Officer next concluded that, while 7 C.F.R. § 11.9 (e) grants the Director of the NAD the authority to grant equitable relief, that authority was not granted to Hearing Officers, who instead are responsible for developing the record for the Director to make a…”

B & D Land & Livestock Co. v. Veneman, 332 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (N.D. Iowa 2004). · cites it 2× “The Hearing Officer next concluded that, while 7 C.F.R. § 11.9 (e) grants the Director of the NAD the authority to grant equitable relief, that authority is not granted to Hearing Officers, who instead are responsible for developing the record for the Director to make a decision…”

Enter. Nat'l Bank v. Vilsack, 568 F.3d 229 (D.C. Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “7 C.F.R. § 11.9 (d)(1). The Division director remanded Enterprise’s case because the hearing officer had not complied with certain procedural regulations.”

Beard v. Glickman, 189 F. Supp. 2d 994 (C.D. Cal. 2001). · cites it 5× “§ 6998 and 7 C.F.R. § 11.9 . AR: 719-21. The NAD Director, Norman G.”

Arlen Foster v. Tom Vilsack, 820 F.3d 330 (8th Cir. 2016). “In the second step of the NAD appeal, the Fosters sought review of the hearing officer’s decision by the NAD director’s office pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 11.9 . On July 16,2012, the NAD director’s office issued a decision upholding the hearing officer’s decision, which in relevant…”

Bartlett v. United States Dep't of Agric., 716 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013). “§§ 6998-6999 ; 7 C.F.R. §§ 11.9 ; 11.13; Deaf Smith Cnty.”

Dawson Farms v. Risk Mgmt. Agency, 698 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2012). · cites it 8× “Following this decision, RMA requested Director Review, pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 11.9 (a). After reviewing the record, the deputy director reversed the hearing officer's finding.”

Kinder Canal Co., Inc. v. Johanns, 493 F.3d 543 (5th Cir. 2007). “Moreover, we see no merit in Appellants' ancillary argument that the NAD Director abused his discretion in not affording equitable relief under 7 C.F.R. § 11.9 (e). Equitable relief is inappropriate under that provision and 7 C.”

Lackey v. United States Dep't of Agric., 384 F. App'x 741 (10th Cir. 2010). “He also requested the Director to grant equitable relief for the maximum policy amount, $167,154, pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 11.9 (e). [Id. at 108.] The NAD Director issued a decision affirming the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions except its conclusion that the RMA did not…”

Enter. Nat'l Bank v. Johanns, 539 F. Supp. 2d 343 (D.D.C. 2008). “7 C.F.R. § 11.9 (e); Beard v. Glickman, 189 F.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— 7 C.F.R. § 11.9(a)(1) — 1 case

Schroeder v. United States, 683 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Or. 2010).

— 7 C.F.R. § 11.9(a)(2) — 1 case

Schroeder v. United States, 683 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Or. 2010).

— 7 C.F.R. § 11.9(b) — 1 case

Cargo & Tankship Mgmt. Corp. v. India Supply Mission, 221 F. Supp. 680 (S.D.N.Y. 1963).

— 7 C.F.R. § 11.9(d)(1) — 2 cases

Cardinal Land Conservancy, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric. (S.D. Ohio 2022).

J.O.C. Farms, LLC. v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Agency, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 514 (E.D.N.C. 2015).

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.