U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART I— THE AGENCIES GENERALLY › Chapter CHAPTER 5— ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

5 U.S.C. § 558

Imposition of sanctions; determination of applications for licenses; suspension, revocation, and expiration of licenses

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, to the exercise of a power or authority.(b) A sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.(c) When application is made for a license required by law, the agency, with due regard for the rights and privileges of all the interested parties or adversely affected persons and within a reasonable time, shall set and complete proceedings required to be conducted in accordance with sections 556 and 557 of this title or other proceedings required by law and shall make its decision. Except in cases of willfulness or those in which public health, interest, or safety requires otherwise, the withdrawal, suspension, revocation, or annulment of a license is lawful only if, before the institution of agency proceedings therefor, the licensee has been given—(1) notice by the agency in writing of the facts or conduct which may warrant the action; and(2) opportunity to demonstrate or achieve compliance with all lawful requirements.When the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for a renewal or a new license in accordance with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 388.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

5 U.S.C. 1008.

June 11, 1946, ch. 324, § 9, 60 Stat. 242.

In subsection (b), the prohibition is restated in positive form.

In subsection (c), the words “within a reasonable time” are substituted for “with reasonable dispatch”. The last two sentences are restated for conciseness and clarity and to restate the prohibition in positive form.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Editorial NotesCodification

Section 558 of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, was transferred to section 2209 of Title 7, Agriculture.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 212 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Gulf Coast Mar. Supply, Inc. v. United States, 867 F.3d 123 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gulf Coast Mar. Supply, Inc. v. United States, 867 F.3d 123 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “See 5 U.S.C. § 558 (c). Gulf Coast’s own tobacco permit identified automatic termination as one among several means by which the permit could cease to operate.”
Tele Tech of Connecticut Corp. v. Dep't of Pub. Util. Control, 855 A.2d 174 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 10× “Attorney General, supra, 933, 935 (noting that 5 U.S.C. § 558 [c] 11 of federal Administrative *793 Procedure Act provides that “ ‘revocation .”
White v. Franklin, 637 F. Supp. 601 (N.D. Miss. 1986). · cites it 19× “The plaintiff filed an administrative claim with the FAA on January 8, 1985, in which he alleged entitlement under both the fifth amendment and 5 U.S.C. § 558 to notice and a hearing prior to termination of his certificate.”
Green v. Brantley, 719 F. Supp. 1570 (N.D. Ga. 1989). · cites it 12× “Plaintiff alleges procedural due process violations based on the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 558 (c), and the Fifth Amendment of the U.”
Fence Creek Cattle Co. v. United States Forest Serv., 602 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “” 5 U.S.C. § 558 (c). 7 We have previously applied these protections to grazing permits.”
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Howard H. Callaway, Sec'y of the Army, 530 F.2d 625 (5th Cir. 1976). · cites it 7× “Relying on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 558 (c), it asks for a declaration that its permit rights under its 1960 permit have never expired and for an injunction ordering the Corps to hold a hearing on its renewal application.”
Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. United States Forest Serv., 465 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “3d at 1129 (explaining administrative notice process under 5 U.S.C. § 558 (b),(c), with which Forest Service must comply before taking “permit action”).”
Clarke v. CFTR, 74 F.4th 627 (5th Cir. 2023). · cites it 3× “See 5 U.S.C. § 558 . Appellants moved for a preliminary _____________________ 3 Victoria University is not among those parties.”
Amer Bus Assn v. Slater, Rodney E., 231 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “” 5 U.S.C. § 558 (b) (1994). The court conceded that DOT had authorized sanctions, but it reasoned that they were not penal sanctions.”
Kitlutsisti v. Arco Alaska, Inc., 592 F. Supp. 832 (D. Alaska 1984). · cites it 6× “§ 558 (c), states: When application is made for a license required by law, the agency, with due regard for the rights and privileges of all interested parties or adversely affected persons and within a reasonable time, shall set and complete proceedings required to be conducted .”
Ursack, Inc. v. Sierra Interagency Black Bear Grp., 639 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “In addition to its arbitrary and capricious arguments, Ursack argues that the Park Service violated the “licensing” provisions of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 558 . These provisions specify procedures that an agency must follow before it revokes a license.”
United States v. Peninsula Commc'ns, Inc., 287 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “” Under 5 U.S.C. § 558 (c), “[w]hen the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for a renewal or a new license in accordance with agency rules, a license with reference to an activity of a continuing nature does not expire until the application has been finally…”
Show all 212 citing cases →
— 5 U.S.C. § 558(c) — 1 case
Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 389 F. Supp. 689 (D.D.C. 1974).
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.