C.F.R. » Title 7 » CHAPTER VII—FARM SERVICE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › SUBCHAPTER A—AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM › PART 701—EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM, EMERGENCY FOREST RESTORATION PROGRAM, AND CERTAIN RELATED PROGRAMS PREVIOUSLY ADMINISTERED UNDER THIS PART › Subpart A—General

7 C.F.R. § 701.15

Starting practices before cost-share request is submitted; non-entitlement to payment; payment subject to the availability of funds

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

(a) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, costs will not be shared for practices or components of practices that are started before a request for cost share under this part is submitted with the applicable county FSA office.

(b) Costs may be shared for drought and non-drought practices or components of practices that are started before a request is submitted with the county FSA office, only if:

(1) Considered and approved on a case-by-case basis in accordance with instructions of the Deputy Administrator;

(2) The disaster that is the basis of a claim for cost-share assistance created a situation that required the producer to take immediate action to prevent further losses;

(3) The Deputy Administrator determines that the request for assistance was filed within a reasonable amount of time after the start of the enrollment period; and

(4) The practice was started no more than 60 days before the ECP or EFRP designation was approved for the applicable county office.

(c) Any action taken prior to approval of a claim is taken at the producer's own risk.

(d) An application for relief may be denied for any reason.

(e) All payments under this part are subject to the availability of funds.

[69 FR 10302, Mar. 4, 2004, as amended at 75 FR 70088, Nov. 17, 2010]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1989–1989 · leading case: Chavez v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 540 (Ct. Cl. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chavez v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 540 (Ct. Cl. 1989). “See 7 C.F.R. §§ 701.15 , 701.21(a) (1981). Therefore no enforceable oral contract could have existed between plaintiff and defendant as neither the county ASCS nor the SCS had authority to bind the government in contract with the plaintiff.”
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.