5 U.S.C. § 902

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

For the purpose of this chapter—(1) “agency” means—(A) an Executive agency or part thereof; and(B) an office or officer in the executive branch;but does not include the Government Accountability Office or the Comptroller General of the United States;(2) “reorganization” means a transfer, consolidation, coordination, authorization, or abolition, referred to in section 903 of this title; and(3) “officer” is not limited by section 2104 of this title.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 394; Pub. L. 90–83, § 1(98), Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 220; Pub. L. 95–17, § 2, Apr. 6, 1977, 91 Stat. 30; Pub. L. 108–271, § 8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)

Historical and Revision Notes
1966 Act
Derivation	U.S. Code	Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large
(1)	5 U.S.C. 133z–5.	June 20, 1949, ch. 226, § 7, 63 Stat. 205.
(2)	5 U.S.C. 133z–6.	June 20, 1949, ch. 226, § 8, 63 Stat. 206.

In paragraph (1)(A), the words “an Executive agency or part thereof” are coextensive with and substituted for “any executive department, commission, council, independent establishment, Government corporation, board, bureau, division, service, . . . authority, administration, or other establishment, in the executive branch of the Government” and to conform to the definition in section 105.

In paragraph (1)(B), the words “an office or officer in the civil service or uniformed services in or under an Executive agency” are substituted for “office, officer, . . . in the executive branch of the Government” to conform to the definitions in sections 105, 2101, and 2104.

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

1967 Act

This section amends section 902 of title 5, United States Code, so as to preserve the application of the source statute for section 902 (sec. 7 of the Reorganization Act of 1949). In the codification of title 5 by Public Law 89–554, that application was inadvertently restricted due to the operation of section 2104 of title 5, providing a title-wide definition of “officer.” Briefly, that section defines “officer” as a civil appointive officer of the Federal Government. In the Reorganization Act of 1949, the word “officer” was not defined, and has been construed to include not only civil appointive officers, but uniformed officers, the President, and officers of the government of the District of Columbia. Thus, this section amends section 902 of title 5 by inserting a paragraph providing that the title-wide definition of officer is inapplicable to chapter 9 of title 5. Also, paragraph (1)(B) of section 902 is amended so that the wording thereof is identical to that formerly appearing in section 7 of the Reorganization Act of 1949.

Editorial NotesCodification

Section 902(a) of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, was transferred to section 60e–2(b) of Title 2, The Congress.

Amendments

2004—Par. (1). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted “Government Accountability Office” for “General Accounting Office” in concluding provisions.

1977—Par. (1)(C). Pub. L. 95–17 struck out subpar. (C) which defined “agency” as any and all parts of the government of the District of Columbia other than the courts thereof.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1967 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–83 effective Sept. 6, 1966, for all purposes, see section 9(h) of Pub. L. 90–83, set out as a note under section 5102 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Wheelabrator Corp. v. Chafee, 455 F.2d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 1971).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wheelabrator Corp. v. Chafee, 455 F.2d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 1971). “, ultimately pursue his damage remedies, and second, that an advance GAO ruling approving a payment binds the GAO not to take a different position later in any controversy with the official. . Cibinic and Lasken, supra note 7, at 351.”

Boyd v. Panama Canal Co., 160 F. Supp. 50 (D.C.Z. 1958). · cites it 3× “296 , 297, 5 U.S.C. §§ 902 , 913 [ 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 902 , 913]: “Sec.”

Benevento v. United States, 198 Ct. Cl. 772 (Ct. Cl. 1972). · cites it 2× “295 , as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 902 (c), 913 (1964) . 22 Briefly, Section 102(c), as amended, provided that the Federal Employees’ Pay Act of 1945, “except sections 203 and 607” (the latter section here irrelevant) should not apply to employees whose basic compensation was fixed…”

Panama Canal Co. v. Spencer M. Anderson, & Arthur Morgan, 312 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1963). “” 5 U.S.C.A. § 902 (d). . “Employees whose basic rate of compensation is fixed on an annual or monthly basis and adjusted from time to time in accordance with prevailing rates by wage boards or similar administrative authority serving the same purpose shall be entitled to…”

Anderson v. Panama Canal Co., 194 F. Supp. 765 (D.C.Z. 1961). · cites it 2× “Defendant’s contention that the effect of section 102(d) and 606 of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 902 (d), 946, 5 U.S. C.A. §§ 902(d), 946 is to exclude plaintiffs is without merit as that act adopted in 1945 and excluding “vessel employees of…”

James Beals v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., James H. Beals v. Harold Brown, Sec'y of Def., 636 F.2d 169 (7th Cir. 1980). “1 In an order issued August 9, 1979, Judge Swygert, acting for the court, concluded that “this court does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal because the case falls within the coverage of the Savings Clause of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. § 902 (b), and…”

Muller Optical Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 743 F.2d 380 (6th Cir. 1984). “5 U.S.C. § 902 (excluding the General Accounting Office and the Comptroller General).”

Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Gov't Acct. Off. (D.D.C. 2026). · cites it 2× “For instance, America First notes that the definition of an “agency” in 5 U.S.C. § 902 textually excludes GAO, suggesting that Congress “knew how to exempt GAO from covered ‘agencies’ when it wanted to.”

Benevento v. United States, 461 F.2d 1316 (Ct. Cl. 1972). · cites it 2× “295 , as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 902 (c), 913 (1964). 22 Briefly, Section 102(c), as amended, provided that the Federal Employees’ Pay Act of 1945, “except sections 203 and 607” (the latter section here irrelevant) should not apply to employees whose basic compensation was fixed…”

Legal Questions Raised by the Library of Cong. Critique of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977 (OLC 1977). “” 5 U.S.C. § 902 (2). These terms defining “reorganization” and their elaboration in section 903 contemplate a change in the functions of an agency; but no such changes are effectuated here.”

— 5 U.S.C. § 902(d) — 1 case

Anderson v. Panama Canal Co., 194 F. Supp. 765 (D.C.Z. 1961). “Defendant’s contention that the effect of section 102(d) and 606 of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 902 (d), 946, 5 U.S. C.A. §§ 902(d), 946 is to exclude plaintiffs is without merit as that act adopted in 1945 and excluding “vessel employees of…”

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.