| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
| | In that [[First Circuit]] decision, Appellants asserted that an EPA "directive violates FACA's fair balance provision (Count III); the directive violates FACA's inappropriate influence provision (Count IV); and the EPA offered no rational explanation for adopting the directive, especially given that it changed prior policy (Count I)." ''Id.'' at 17. | | In that [[First Circuit]] decision, Appellants asserted that an EPA "directive violates FACA's fair balance provision (Count III); the directive violates FACA's inappropriate influence provision (Count IV); and the EPA offered no rational explanation for adopting the directive, especially given that it changed prior policy (Count I)." ''Id.'' at 17. |
| | | | |
| | + | {{cquote|FACA requires that the membership of an advisory committee be "fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee." Id. § 5(b)(2); see id. § 5(b)(3).}} |
| | + | ''Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Office of the United States Trade Representative'', NO. C99-1165R, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21689, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 1999) |
| | + | |
| | + | The [[Fifth Circuit]] has held that the issue of "fairly balanced" is justiciable. ''Cargill, Inc. v. United States'', 173 F.3d 323, 334-36 (5th Cir. 1999). |
| | + | |
| | + | A federal court in the State of Washington found that a FACA committee was not fairly balanced, and ordered the committee to add an individual having a new interest: |
| | + | {{cquote|The court finds that the forest product ISACs are not "fairly balanced" within the meaning of FACA, 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 5(b)(2). The court, therefore, DENIES defendants' motion to dismiss [docket 11-1], GRANTS summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for an injunction [docket 3-1], modified as follows: defendants shall make a good faith effort to expedite the appointment of at least one properly qualified environmental representative to ISAC-10 and at least one properly qualified environmental representative to ISAC-12 as soon as possible.}} |
| | + | ''Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Office of the United States Trade Representative'', NO. C99-1165R, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21689, at *29-30 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 1999). |
| | === "fairly balanced" === | | === "fairly balanced" === |
| | | | |