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

5 U.S.C. § 562

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
For the purposes of this subchapter, the term—(1) “agency” has the same meaning as in section 551(1) of this title;(2) “consensus” means unanimous concurrence among the interests represented on a negotiated rulemaking committee established under this subchapter, unless such committee—(A) agrees to define such term to mean a general but not unanimous concurrence; or(B) agrees upon another specified definition;(3) “convener” means a person who impartially assists an agency in determining whether establishment of a negotiated rulemaking committee is feasible and appropriate in a particular rulemaking;(4) “facilitator” means a person who impartially aids in the discussions and negotiations among the members of a negotiated rulemaking committee to develop a proposed rule;(5) “interest” means, with respect to an issue or matter, multiple parties which have a similar point of view or which are likely to be affected in a similar manner;(6) “negotiated rulemaking” means rulemaking through the use of a negotiated rulemaking committee;(7) “negotiated rulemaking committee” or “committee” means an advisory committee established by an agency in accordance with this subchapter and chapter 10 of this title to consider and discuss issues for the purpose of reaching a consensus in the development of a proposed rule;(8) “party” has the same meaning as in section 551(3) of this title;(9) “person” has the same meaning as in section 551(2) of this title;(10) “rule” has the same meaning as in section 551(4) of this title; and(11) “rulemaking” means “rule making” as that term is defined in section 551(5) of this title.(Added Pub. L. 101–648, § 3(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4970, § 582; renumbered § 562, Pub. L. 102–354, § 3(a)(2), Aug. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 944; amended Pub. L. 117–286, § 4(a)(5), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4305.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2022—Par. (7). Pub. L. 117–286 substituted “chapter 10 of this title” for “the Federal Advisory Committee Act”.

1992—Pub. L. 102–354 renumbered section 582 of this title as this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases, 1987–2017 · leading case: Shapiro v. United States Dep't of Just., 239 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shapiro v. United States Dep't of Just., 239 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C. 2017). “Plaintiffs contend that Hardy’s eighth declaration is “highly likely” to “include[ ] inadmissible legal argument,” based on what they view as “blatant legal conclusions” in Hardy’s previous declarations.”
100reporters LLC v. United States Dep't of Just., 248 F. Supp. 3d 115 (D.D.C. 2017). “DOJ responded on August 9, 2013 and stated that it would extend the time limit to respond, because the request presented “unusual circumstances” as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 562 (a)(6)(B)(i)-(iii). See Compl.”
Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc. v. Andrew Cuomo, as Sec'y of the United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1999). “’ ” JA 226 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 562 (b)(5)). The district court found that “[t]he circumstances warrant[ed] an in camera review of the withheld documents, in view .”
Parker v. United States Immigr. & Customs Enf't, 238 F. Supp. 3d 89 (D.D.C. 2017). “See 5 U.S.C. § 562 (b); see also Johnson v. Exec.”
Tracy v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 191 F. Supp. 3d 83 (D.D.C. 2016). “” 5 U.S.C. § 562 (b)(7)(E). The D.C. Circuit has explained that “Exemption 7(E) sets a relatively low bar for the agency to justify withholding.”
Shapiro v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 247 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2017). “Exemption 7(E) FOIA Exemption 7(E) authorizes agencies to withhold “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes [that] would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement…”
Sorin v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 280 F. Supp. 3d 550 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 5 U.S.C. § 562 (b). Generally, however, “[a]ny part of [a document] prepared in anticipation of litigation, not just the portions concerning opinions, legal theories, and the like, is protected by the work product doctrine and falls under exemption 5.”
Landmark Legal Found. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C. 2003). “See generally 5 U.S.C. § 562 (describing FOIA *86 procedure).”
Urban Air Initiative, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 271 F. Supp. 3d 241 (D.D.C. 2017). “at 2 , by “producing] more than 4,000 documents in full or in part, only withholding documents and information that are exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. §§ 562 (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6).”
Nat'l Day Laborer Org. Network v. United States Immigr. & Customs Enf't, 236 F. Supp. 3d 810 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “from continuing to viplate the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 562 ; (2) ordering Defendants to make rolling productions of non-exempt requested records relating to the Priority Enforcement Program; and (3) ordering Defendants to complete the productions by the dates set…”
Sierra Club v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 905 F. Supp. 2d 356 (D.D.C. 2012). “The Sierra Club pursues two arguments for personal jurisdiction, pointing first to 5 U.S.C. § 562 (a)(4)(13) of FOIA, Compl.”
Gosen v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 118 F. Supp. 3d 232 (D.D.C. 2015). “” 5 U.S.C. § 562 (b)(5). It “incorporates the traditional privileges that the Government could assert in civil litigation against a private litigant,” such as “the deliberative process privilege,” and “excludes these privileged documents from FOIA’s reach.”
Show all 24 citing 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.