41 C.F.R. § 102-3.160

Activities of advisory committees not subject to notice and open meeting requirements

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

The following activities of an advisory committee are excluded from the procedural requirements contained in this subpart:

(a) Preparatory work. Meetings of two or more advisory committee or subcommittee members convened solely to gather information, conduct research, or analyze relevant issues and facts in preparation for deliberation by advisory committee members in a public meeting of the advisory committee, or deliberation by subcommittee members in a public meeting of the subcommittee (where applicable). These meetings to conduct preparatory work do not include deliberation among advisory committee or subcommittee members; and

(b) Administrative work. Meetings of two or more advisory committee or subcommittee members convened solely to discuss administrative matters of the advisory committee or subcommittee (such as meeting logistics) or to receive administrative information from a Federal officer or agency (such as a briefing on ethics or FACA procedural requirements).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case: Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Drone Advisory Comm., 369 F. Supp. 3d 27 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Drone Advisory Comm., 369 F. Supp. 3d 27 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “at 7-9 (citing 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.160 ). *48 The Court is unconvinced by Defendants' arguments, for two reasons.”

Lawyers' Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law v. Presidential Advisory Comm'n on Election Integrity, 265 F. Supp. 3d 54 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “at 20-21 (citing 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.160 ). And to the extent that FACA applies, Defendants contend that they have now remedied any failure to comply by attaching to their pleadings the call’s agenda and an email sent shortly before the call.”

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Trump, 266 F. Supp. 3d 133 (D.D.C. 2017). “■Finally, although Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the prior notice requirement of section 10(a)(2) with respect to the July 28 teleconference, that violation is not so clear as to warrant mandamus relief at this time, given the substantial debate over, whether the…”

Food & Water Watch v. Trump, 357 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “5 (quoting 41 C.F.R. 102-3.160(a) ).) The most reasonable reading of FACA permits initial meetings-including meetings with non-government individuals-to determine the scope and mission of an advisory council before FACA applies.”

Emmerich Newspapers, Inc. v. Mississippi River Comm'n (S.D. Miss. 2025). · cites it 2× “41 C.F.R. § 102-3.160 (a)(2025). The MRC makes this argument despite the fact that it admittedly conducted the subject meetings in private, and no transcripts or records of the meetings exist.”

Lawyers' Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law v. Presidential Advisory Comm'n on Election Integrity (D.D.C. 2017). “at 20– 21 (citing 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.160 ). And to the extent that FACA applies, Defendants contend that they have now remedied any failure to comply by attaching to their pleadings the call’s agenda and an email sent shortly before the call.”

Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Trump (D.D.C. 2018). “5 (quoting 41 C.F.R. 102-3.160(a)).) The most reasonable reading of FACA permits initial meetings—including meetings with non-government individuals—to determine the scope and mission of an advisory council before FACA applies.”

— 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.160(a) — 2 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.