5 U.S.C. § 561
Purpose
The purpose of this subchapter is to establish a framework for the conduct of negotiated rulemaking, consistent with section 553 of this title, to encourage agencies to use the process when it enhances the informal rulemaking process. Nothing in this subchapter should be construed as an attempt to limit innovation and experimentation with the negotiated rulemaking process or with other innovative rulemaking procedures otherwise authorized by law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1989–2017 · leading case: City of Portland v. Env't Prot. Agency, 507 F.3d 706 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
City of Portland v. Env't Prot. Agency, 507 F.3d 706 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “Moreover, neither the Negotiated Rule-making Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 561 -570a, nor any other statute we know of requires an agency to provide more detailed notice of possible changes in its draft rules just because they evolve from negotiated rule-making.”
Ctr. for Law & Educ. v. United States Dep't of Educ., 209 F. Supp. 2d 102 (D.D.C. 2002). “First, defendant argues that plaintiffs’ action is barred by Section 1901(b)(4)(B), which incorporates a prohibition on judicial review contained in Section 570 of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. § 561 , et seq. (“NRA”). See 5 U.”
Texas Off. of Pub. Util. Couns. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 265 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2001). “See 5 U.S.C. § 561 . The plain language of the statute undermines the notion that the NRA’s procedures are mandatory.”
Pub. Hous. Authorities Directors Ass'n v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 522 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “Congress mandated that HUD employ the negotiated rulemaking procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. §§ 561 -70a when issuing regulations concerning the operating subsidy formula.”
Ctr. for Law & Educ. v. United States Dep't of Educ., 315 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2004). “/”), and (2) that the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. § 561 et seq. (“NRA”), as incorporated into Section 1901 of the NCLBA, barred judicial review of Education’s committee-member selections, at least before the conclusion of the rulemaking process, see id.”
Sierra Club v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 162 F. Supp. 2d 406 (D. Md. 2001). “Administrative Procedure Act When a challenge is made to the substance of an agency action, judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 561 , et seq., is appropriate.”
Career Coll. Ass'n v. Duncan, 796 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2011). “1996) (concluding that the “hope” of the negotiated rulemaking process "is that these negotiations will produce a better draft as the basis for the notice and comment proceeding,” but that neither the HEA nor the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. § 561 et seq., provides a…”
Cal-Almond, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 14 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 1993). “5 U.S.C. § 561 (4) (1988) (emphasis added).”
USA Grp. Loan Servs., Inc. v. Riley, 82 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 1996). “It is the Negotiated Rule-making Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 561 et seq. It is to expire later this year but was applicable to the servicer rulemaking.”
Martin v. Univ. of South Alabama, 713 F. Supp. 381 (S.D. Ala. 1989). “5 U.S.C. §§ 561 , 5307 and 5332. The United States Attorney receives an annual salary not in excess of $77,500.”
Lummi Tribe of the Lummi Reservation, Lummi Nation Hous. Auth., Fort Berthold Hous. Auth., & Hopi Tribal Hous. Auth. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2013). “Although NAHASDA itself did not establish a formula for allocating the annual appropriation among Indian tribes, the statute authorized HUD to do so using the negotiated rulemaking procedure set forth in 5 U.S.C. §§ 561–570. 25 U.S.C. § 4152 (a).”
Pub. Hous. Authorities Directors Ass'n v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). “11 10 Congress mandated that HUD employ the negotiated rulemaking procedures set forth at 5 U.S.C. §§ 561–70a when issuing regulations concerning the operating subsidy formula.”
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.