C.F.R. » Title 7 » CHAPTER VII—FARM SERVICE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE › SUBCHAPTER D—SPECIAL PROGRAMS › PART 780—APPEAL REGULATIONS

7 C.F.R. § 780.6

Appeal procedures available when a decision is appealable

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

(a) For covered programs administered by FSA for CCC, the following procedures are available:

(1) Appeal to the county committee of decisions of county committee subordinates;

(2) Reconsideration by the county committee;

(3) Appeal to the State committee;

(4) Reconsideration by the State committee;

(5) Appeal to NAD;

(6) Mediation under guidelines specified in § 780.9.

(b) For decisions in agricultural credit programs administered by FSA, the following procedures are available:

(1) Reconsideration under § 780.7;

(2) Mediation under § 780.9;

(3) Appeal to NAD.

(c) For programs and regulatory requirements under Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, to the extent not covered by paragraph (a) of this section, the following procedures are available:

(1) Appeal to the county committee;

(2) Appeal to the State committee;

(3) Mediation under § 780.9;

(4) Appeal to NAD.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Dawson Farms, LLC v. Farm Serv. Agency, 504 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dawson Farms, LLC v. Farm Serv. Agency, 504 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2007). “6 ; 7 C.F.R. § 780.6 (FSA appeals); 7 C.F.R. § 780.”
Gibson v. United States, 11 Cl. Ct. 6 (Ct. Cl. 1986). · cites it 2× “Therefore, establishing the date of determination is crucial in ascertaining whether Manwell’s request was filed within the time period set forth by 7 C.F.R. § 780.6 (a). The regulations are silent as to what constitutes an original “determination.”
Bartlett v. United States Dep't of Agric., 716 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2013). “7 C.F.R. § 780.6 . The NAD is a separate subdivision within the.”
Lea v. Sec'y of Agric., Thomas Vilsack (M.D. Tenn. 2025). “To the extent that Plaintiff complains that he was denied an avenue to appeal the adverse decisions on the two farm loan applications in Rutherford County, he has not shown that he attempted to pursue the appeal rights set out in 7 C.F.R. § 780.6 . To the extent that he…”
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.