¶1 We affirm the decision of the district court for the following reasons:
1. The FSA’s determination that the Reeves did not show good faith was not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by the FSA’s reasonable interpretation of its regulations. See Martin v. OSHA, 499 U.S. 144, 150, 111 S.Ct. 1171, 113 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983).
2. The agency’s interpretation that 7 C.F.R. § 1924.56 requires the FSA to prepare an independent Farm and Home Plan only where the parties disagree as to the business plan proposed therein is reasonable and thus entitled to deference. Martin, 499 U.S. at 150, 111 S.Ct. 1171.
¶2 AFFIRMED.