(a) Decisions that are not appealable under this part shall include the following:
(1) Any general program provision or program policy or any statutory or regulatory requirement that is applicable to similarly situated participants;
(2) Mathematical formulas established under a statute or program regulation and decisions based solely on the application of those formulas;
(3) Decisions made pursuant to statutory provisions that expressly make agency decisions final or their implementing regulations;
(4) Decisions on equitable relief made by a State Executive Director or State Conservationist pursuant to Section 1613 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-171;
(5) Decisions of other Federal or State agencies;
(6) Requirements and conditions designated by law to be developed by agencies other than FSA.
(7) Disapprovals or denials because of a lack of funding.
(8) Decisions made by the Administrator or a Deputy Administrator.
(b) A participant directly affected by an adverse decision that is determined not to be subject to appeal under this part may request an appealability review of the determination by the State Executive Director of the State from which the underlying decision arose in accordance with § 780.15.
(c) Decisions that FSA renders under this part may be reviewed by NAD under part 11 of this title to the extent otherwise allowed by NAD under its rules and procedures. An appealability determination of the State Executive Director in an administrative review is considered by FSA to be a new decision.
Notes of Decisions
Bartlett v. United States Dep't of Agric., 716 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 4× “” 7 C.F.R. § 780.5 (a). The administrative appeal regulations applicable to the NAD further provide that “[t]he procedures contained in this part may not be used to seek review of statutes or USDA regulations issued under Federal Law.”
Dawson Farms, LLC v. Farm Serv. Agency, 504 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2007).
“6 (a); 7 C.F.R. § 780.5 (c). Dawson Farms did not appeal to the NAD when the County Committee deemed the PTD decision as not appealable.”
United States v. Dale L. Bisson, 839 F.2d 418 (8th Cir. 1988).
“But after the state committee affirmed the denial of the claim, Bisson did not appeal to the Deputy Administrator of State and County Operations of the ASCS, as provided for in the regulations, 7 CFR § 780.5 . Since Bisson had failed to exhaust administrative remedies on his…”
Vculek v. Yeutter, 754 F. Supp. 154 (D.N.D. 1990).
· cites it 2× “See 7 C.F.R. § 780.5 . Generally, a party is required to exhaust all administrative remedies before a court can review an administrative decision.”
United States v. Bisson, 646 F. Supp. 701 (D.S.D. 1986).
“The regulations governing the ASCS and CCC crop loan programs, 7 CFR § 780.1 , clearly delineate a 3 step appeal process.”
Haupricht Bros. v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 369 (Ct. Cl. 1986).
“( 7 C.F.R. § 780.5 (1983)). No further administrative appeal was provided for in the USDA regulations.”
Garvey v. Freeman, 397 F.2d 600 (10th Cir. 1968).
“4 and by the Deputy Administrator — a departmental officer, 7 C.F.R. 780.5. The regulations also undertook to define the nature of the “informal hearing” which was to occur at all levels and provided for a “full opportunity [to the aggrieved farmer] to present [relevant] facts…”
Wardlaw Farms, Inc. v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 475 (Fed. Cl. 1994).
“See 7 C.F.R. § 780.5 (1987). Essentially, the DTP aimed at reducing milk production by providing monetary payments to farmers, called “producers,” who slaughtered or exported the dairy cattle on their “units,” a defined term that roughly equates to a dairy farm.”
DCP Farms v. Yeutter, 761 F. Supp. 1269 (N.D. Miss. 1991).
“7 C.F.R. § 780.5 . The STC is com *1271 prised of three to five persons, each of whom is appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.”
Hanson v. Madigan, 788 F. Supp. 403 (W.D. Wis. 1992).
“7 C.F.R. §§ 780.5 and 780.6. His decision that plaintiffs were ineligible for benefits under the Disaster Assistance Act is the equivalent of a decision by the Secretary of Agriculture.”
Garvey v. Freeman, 397 F.2d 600 (10th Cir. 1968).
“4 and by the Deputy Administrator a departmental officer, 7 C.F.R. 780.5. The regulations also undertook to define the nature of the "informal hearing" which was to occur at all levels and provided for a "full opportunity [to the aggrieved farmer] to present [relevant] facts and…”
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.