7 C.F.R. § 614.1

General

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

This part sets forth the informal appeal procedures under which a participant may appeal adverse technical determinations or program decisions made by officials of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency under the Department of Agriculture (USDA). These regulations reflect NRCS policy to resolve at the agency level, to the greatest extent possible, disputes arising from adverse technical determinations and program decisions made by NRCS. Once a decision is rendered final by NRCS, participants may appeal to the National Appeals Division (NAD) as provided for under 7 CFR part 11, or to the Farm Service Agency (FSA) county committee pursuant to 7 CFR part 780 for decisions rendered under Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq. (Title XII).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2023 · leading case: Rick's Mishroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Rick's Mishroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “” 7 C.F.R. § 614.1 . Because Rick's professional negligence claim does not relate to a technical determination or program decision, it does not appear to be within the ambit of the National Appeals Division.”
Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 250 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Defendant asserts that the relevant administrative remedy is found in 7 C.F.R. § 614.1 (2006), which allows that, once “technical determinations or program decisions .”
Doe v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 118 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Part 614 sets forth an informal appeal process that is limited to adverse decisions and technical determinations rendered by NRCS, 7 C.F.R. § 614.1 (2012), including decisions under the CSP, id.”
Tapscott v. United States (W.D. Ky. 2023). “§ 6912 (e); 7 C.F.R. § 614.1 . Given that Tapscott asserted no breach of contract claim against NRCS, exhaustion of administrative remedies against the United States appears moot.”
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.