5 U.S.C. § 566
Conduct of committee activity
2022—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 117–286, § 4(a)(8)(A), substituted “section 1009(e) of this title,” for “section 10(e) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,”.
Subsec. (d)(3). Pub. L. 117–286, § 4(a)(8)(B), substituted “section 1009(b) and (c) of this title,” for “section 10(b) and (c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,”.
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 117–286, § 4(a)(8)(C), substituted “section 1009(b) and (c) of this title.” for “section 10(b) and (c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.”
1992—Pub. L. 102–354 renumbered section 586 of this title as this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1969–2005 · leading case: Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission (1981)
“in every case of adjudication required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing," except in instances not relevant here.”
The Center for Law and Education v. Department of Education (2005)
“It then directs that the process of negotiated rulemaking shall follow the prescriptions of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, such as the consensus requirement contained in 5 U.S.C. § 566 (2000). It is therefore clear that, under the NCLBA, questions concerning the selection of the…”
Robert Loy Day v. National Transportation Safety Board and United States of America (1969)
“Appellant contends that this regulation is invalid since it is inconsistent with an applicable section of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 566 (d) which provides that “except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.”
Perry v. Delaney (1999)
“That section refers to facilitation of rule-making committees and does not even mention licenses or CSOs anywhere.”
USA Group Loan Services, Inc. v. Riley (1996)
“See 5 U.S.C. § 566 (f). The complaint about the Secretary’s refusal to adhere to the proposal to cap the servicers’ liability misconceives the nature of negotiation.”
Ctr Law Educ v. EDUC (2005)
“It then directs that the process of negotiated rulemaking shall follow the prescriptions of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, such as the consensus requirement contained in 5 U.S.C. § 566 (2000). It is therefore clear that, under the NCLBA, questions concerning the selection of the…”
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.