U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART I— THE AGENCIES GENERALLY › Chapter CHAPTER 10— FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES

5 U.S.C. § 1009

Advisory committee procedures

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Committee Meetings.—(1)Open to public.—Each advisory committee meeting shall be open to the public.(2)Notice of meetings.—Except when the President determines otherwise for reasons of national security, timely notice of each meeting shall be published in the Federal Register, and the Administrator shall prescribe regulations to provide for other types of public notice to insure that all interested persons are notified of each meeting in advance.(3)Participation.—Interested persons shall be permitted to attend, appear before, or file statements with any advisory committee, subject to such reasonable rules or regulations as the Administrator may prescribe.(b)Public Inspection and Copying of Records.—Subject to section 552 of this title, the records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by each advisory committee shall be available for public inspection and copying at a single location in the offices of the advisory committee or the agency to which the advisory committee reports until the advisory committee ceases to exist.(c)Minutes.—Detailed minutes of each meeting of each advisory committee shall be kept and shall contain a record of the persons present, a complete and accurate description of matters discussed and conclusions reached, and copies of all reports received, issued, or approved by the advisory committee. The accuracy of all minutes shall be certified by the chairman of the advisory committee.(d)Closed Sessions.—Paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any portion of an advisory committee meeting for which the President, or the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports, determines that such portion of the meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with section 552b(c) of this title. Any such determination shall be in writing and shall contain the reasons for the determination. If such a determination is made, the advisory committee shall issue a report, at least annually, setting forth a summary of its activities and such related matters as would be informative to the public consistent with the policy of section 552(b) of this title.(e)Designated Officer or Employee of Federal Government.—There shall be designated an officer or employee of the Federal Government to chair or attend each meeting of each advisory committee. The officer or employee so designated is authorized, whenever the officer or employee determines it to be in the public interest, to adjourn any such meeting. An advisory committee shall not conduct any meeting in the absence of that designated officer or employee of the Federal Government.(f)Call for Meeting or Advance Approval.—Advisory committees shall not hold any meetings except at the call of, or with the advance approval of, a designated officer or employee of the Federal Government, and in the case of advisory committees (other than Presidential advisory committees), with an agenda approved by such officer or employee.(Pub. L. 117–286, § 3(a), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4202.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised

Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

1009

5 U.S.C. App. (FACA § 10)

Pub. L. 92–463, § 10, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 774; Pub. L. 94–409, § 5(c), Sept. 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 1247.

In subsection (a), in paragraphs (2) and (3), the word “Administrator” is substituted for “Director” (meaning the Director of the Office of Management and Budget) because of section 5F of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977 (5 U.S.C. App.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 952 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1946–2026 · leading case: Carmen Gonzalez v. Orville L. Freeman, 334 F.2d 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carmen Gonzalez v. Orville L. Freeman, 334 F.2d 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964). · cites it 7× “§ 1009 (1958), under the title of “Judicial review of agency action,” after carving out two areas of exception where no review is available, defines the right of review, the form of proceedings, the acts reviewable and the scope of review. The introductory sentence of Section 10…”
United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979). · cites it 2× “The complaints in both of these cases invoked 5 U. S. C. § 1009 (1964 ed.), the then-applicable APA judicial-review provision.”
Willapoint Oysters, Inc. v. Ewing, 174 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1949). · cites it 6× “) The foregoing requirements are challenged on this review as “unlawful” under each of five enumerated legal standards set by the Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009 (e). The specific contentions are set forth at a later point.”
United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U.S. 709 (1963). · cites it 4× “243 , 5 U. S. C. § 1009 , and to this Court's discussion of the standards of review in Consolidated Edison Co.”
United States v. Storer Broad. Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1956). · cites it 4× “§ 402 (a), [3] and 5 U. S. C. § 1009 (a), (c). [4] Respondent alleged it owned or controlled, within the meaning of the Multiple Ownership Rules, seven standard radio, five FM radio and five television broadcast stations.”
Wind River Mining Corp. v. United States Manuel Lujan, 946 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “In rejecting the government’s argument that the counterclaim should be treated as an impermissible collateral attack on the agency decision, the court observed: “There is no statutory time limit for an aggrieved person to seek judicial review of agency action in the Department…”
Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 179 F. Supp. 605 (D. Del. 1959). · cites it 10× “§§ 1336-1337 , 1398, 2284 and 2321-2325; Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U. S.C.A. § 1009); Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Sherman Act ( 15 U.”
Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229 (1953). · cites it 4× “243 , 5 U. S. C. § 1009 . In short, the Court gives the phrase "judicial review" in § 10 a technical *239 content and thereby disregards the vital fact that although § 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917, 39 Stat.”
Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666 (1960). · cites it 4× “243 , 5 U. S. C. § 1009 . We find that both such limitations are applicable here.”
Rusk v. Cort, 369 U.S. 367 (1962). · cites it 4× “243 , 5 U. S. C. § 1009 . Section 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act provides in part: "No subsequent legislation shall be held to supersede or modify the provisions of this Act except to the extent that such legislation shall do so expressly.”
Woodby v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 385 U.S. 276 (1966). · cites it 2× “[1] Thus the judicial review provision of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 1009 (e) (5), limits the scope of review to a determination of support by "substantial evidence," and 5 U.”
Samuel B. Franklin & Co. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 290 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1961). · cites it 7× “” Section 10(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009 (c), provides in part as follows: “(e) Every agency action made reviewable by statute and every final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in any court shall be subject to judicial review.”
Show all 952 citing cases →
5 U.S.C. § 1009(a): 2 cases
Pritchard v. State, Div. of Vocational Rehab., Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 540 P.2d 523 (Wyo. 1975).
Berk v. Laird, 429 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1970).
5 U.S.C. § 1009(b): 3 cases
United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n. Michigan Consol. Gas Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 181 F.2d 796 (D.C. Cir. 1950).
Hearst Radio, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 167 F.2d 225 (D.C. Cir. 1948).
William James Farquharson v. H. R. Landon, 217 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1954).
5 U.S.C. § 1009(c): 4 cases
Samuel B. Franklin & Co. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 290 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1961). “” Section 10(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009 (c), provides in part as follows: “(e) Every agency action made reviewable by statute and every final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in any court shall be subject to judicial review.”
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 184 (Ct. Cl. 1966).
Vandenberg v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 242 F. Supp. 188 (D.D.C. 1965).
Cadillac Publ'g Co. v. Arthur E. Summerfield, 227 F.2d 29 (D.C. Cir. 1955).
5 U.S.C. § 1009(e): 22 cases
Randall v. Flemming, 192 F. Supp. 111 (W.D. Mich. 1961).
T.S.C. Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 186 F. Supp. 777 (S.D. Tex. 1960).
S. Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Voris Voris v. S. Stevedoring Co., Inc., 190 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1951).
Maurice J. Feil & Leo a Loeb v. Fed. Trande Comm'n, 285 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 1960).
Boris S. Nadiak v. Civil Aeronautics Bd. & Najeeb E. Halaby, 305 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1962).
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.