7 U.S.C. § 6998

Director review of determinations of hearing officers

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Requests for Director review(1) Time for request by appellant

Not later than 30 days after the date on which an appellant receives the determination of a hearing officer under section 6997 of this title, the appellant shall submit a written request to the Director for review of the determination in order to be entitled to a review by the Director of the determination.

(2) Time for request by agency head

Not later than 15 business days after the date on which an agency receives the determination of a hearing officer under section 6997 of this title, the head of the agency may make a written request that the Director review the determination.

(b) Determination of DirectorThe Director shall conduct a review of the determination of the hearing officer using the case record, the record from the evidentiary hearing under section 6997 of this title, the request for review, and such other arguments or information as may be accepted by the Director. Based on such review, the Director shall issue a final determination notice that upholds, reverses, or modifies the determination of the hearing officer. However, if the Director determines that the hearing record is inadequate, the Director may remand all or a portion of the determination for further proceedings to complete the hearing record or, at the option of the Director, to hold a new hearing. The Director shall complete the review and either issue a final determination or remand the determination not later than—(1) 10 business days after receipt of the request for review, in the case of a request by the head of an agency for review; or(2) 30 business days after receipt of the request for review, in the case of a request by an appellant for review.(c) Basis for determination

The determination of the hearing officer and the Director shall be based on information from the case record, laws applicable to the matter at issue, and applicable regulations published in the Federal Register and in effect on the date of the adverse decision or the date on which the acts that gave rise to the adverse decision occurred, whichever date is appropriate.

(d) Equitable relief

Subject to regulations issued by the Secretary, the Director shall have the authority to grant equitable relief under this section in the same manner and to the same extent as such authority is provided to the Secretary under section 7996 of this title and other laws. Notwithstanding the administrative finality of a final determination of an appeal by the Division, the Secretary shall have the authority to grant equitable or other types of relief to the appellant after an administratively final determination is issued by the Division.

(e) Effective date

A final determination issued by the Director shall be effective as of the date of filing of an application, the date of the transaction or event in question, or the date of the original adverse decision, whichever is applicable.

(Pub. L. 103–354, title II, § 278, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3232; Pub. L. 107–171, title I, § 1613(j)(2), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 221.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2002—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 107–171 substituted “section 7996 of this title” for “section 1339a of this title”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 23 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · 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). “The officer’s conclusions can be appealed to the Director of the NAD, who is considered the last administrative decision-maker for all USDA actions before judicial review.”

Aageson Grain & Cattle v. United States Dep't of Agric., 500 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “7 U.S.C. § 6998 (a). Upon a timely request, “[t]he Director shall conduct a review of the determination of the hearing officer using the case record, the record from the evidentiary hearing under section 6997 of this title, the request for review, and such other arguments or…”

Beard v. Glickman, 189 F. Supp. 2d 994 (C.D. Cal. 2001). · cites it 4× “On October 13, 1998, the Farm Service Agency (“FSA”) requested a NAD Director’s Review of the Appeal Determination in accordance with 7 U.S.C. § 6998 and 7 C.F.R. § 11.9 . AR: 719-21.”

Branstad v. Glickman, 118 F. Supp. 2d 925 (N.D. Iowa 2000). “aratory relief, the Branstads seek a determination that the final agency action issued on July 17, 2000, is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law, in the following respects: (1) the Acting Director of the USDA NAD did not complete a timely…”

Harmon v. United States Dep't of Agric., 666 F. App'x 698 (9th Cir. 2016). “Here, the application included misinformation that Harmon provided 100% of capital and labor on his farm and that he did not receive any operating loans from related entities. Finally, the lateness of the NAD director’s determination does not render it void and permit Harmon to…”

Harts v. Johanns, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (D. Kan. 2006). “7 U.S.C. § 6998 (b) and § 6999. Both the Hearing Officer and the Director addressed Plaintiffs contention that he is entitled to appeal the appraisal and recapture amount.”

Bentley v. Glickman, 234 B.R. 12 (N.D.N.Y. 1999). “Pursuant to 7 U.S.C.A. § 6998 (b) (West.Supp.1998), the determination of the Director upholding or reversing the decision of an NAD hearing officer is administratively final.”

Dawson Farms v. Risk Mgmt. Agency, 698 F.3d 1079 (8th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “9 (d)(1); see also 7 U.S.C. § 6998 (b). Under this regulation, the deputy director must consider the hearing officer's decision, but may also look beyond facts the hearing officer explicitly found in his decision and examine the underlying record.”

J.O.C. Farms, LLC. v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Agency, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 514 (E.D.N.C. 2015). · cites it 6× “” ’ 7 U.S.C. § 6998 (b); see 7 C.F.R, 11.9(d)(1).”

Lane v. United States Dep't of Agric., 120 F.3d 106 (8th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “7 U.S.C. § 6998 (a). The Director’s review is based on the case record (all material related to the adverse decision), 7 U.”

Kroskob v. United States Dep't of Agric., 378 F. App'x 827 (10th Cir. 2010). “§ 6997 (d), or seek formal review from the NAD’s Director, which also can be challenged in federal court, see 7 U.S.C. § 6998 . Pursuant to these statutes, the Kroskobs have yet to exhaust their administrative *832 appeals of the FSA’s February 2009 decision.”

First Tennessee Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Johanns, 618 F. Supp. 2d 778 (M.D. Tenn. 2008). “7 U.S.C. § 6998 . Under 5 U.S.C. § 706 of the APA, a "reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.”

Show all 23 citing cases →

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.