Dole v. United Steelworkers of America
494 U.S. 26 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 does not grant the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the authority to review and disapprove federal agency regulations that require regulated entities to disclose information directly to third parties, as such rules are not 'collections of information' within the meaning of the Act.
Facts:
- In 1983, the Department of Labor (DOL) promulgated a hazard communication standard requiring chemical manufacturers to label containers and provide 'material safety data sheets' (MSDS) to downstream employers.
- The standard required both chemical manufacturers and downstream employers to make these data sheets available to their employees and provide training on the chemical hazards.
- Following a court order to expand the standard, DOL issued a revised version in 1987 that applied to all sectors of the economy.
- DOL submitted the revised standard to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
- OMB approved most of the standard but disapproved three provisions, including requirements for sharing MSDS at multiemployer worksites and exemptions for certain consumer products and drugs.
- OMB based its disapproval on the determination that the requirements were not necessary for employee protection.
- As a result of OMB's disapproval, DOL published a notice withdrawing the three provisions, while simultaneously stating its belief that the provisions were necessary and inviting public comment.
Procedural Posture:
- United Steelworkers of America challenged the initial 1983 hazard communication standard in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit ordered the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a division of the Department of Labor, to either apply the standard to non-manufacturing sectors or state its reasons for not doing so.
- When the Department of Labor (DOL) began a new rulemaking process, the Third Circuit, on a motion for enforcement by the union, ordered DOL to issue a final standard on an expedited basis.
- After DOL issued a revised standard and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) disapproved three provisions, the union filed a motion for further relief with the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit ordered DOL to reinstate the disapproved provisions, holding that OMB lacked the authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act to reject them.
- The Secretary of Labor (Dole), representing the DOL, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 grant the Office of Management and Budget the authority to review and countermand agency regulations that mandate regulated entities to disclose information directly to third parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
No, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) does not give the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the authority to review agency rules that mandate disclosure to third parties. The language, structure, and purpose of the PRA demonstrate that its scope is limited to information collected by or for the use of a federal agency. The Act's definitions of 'collection of information' and 'information collection request' refer to an agency's efforts to gather facts for its own use, not its efforts to regulate by requiring disclosures to the public. The Act's stated purposes, such as minimizing the government's cost of collecting information and maximizing the utility of information collected by the government, are not served by reviewing third-party disclosure rules. Furthermore, the PRA's enforcement mechanism, which protects the public from penalty for failing to provide information for requests lacking an OMB control number, applies only to information provided 'to any agency.' Mandated disclosure rules are a form of substantive regulation, not a tool for information gathering by the government, and therefore fall outside the PRA's ambit.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes, the Paperwork Reduction Act is ambiguous, and the court should defer to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) permissible construction of the statute. Under the principles of Chevron deference, when a statute is not clear, a court must accept the administering agency's reasonable interpretation. The dissent argues that the majority's interpretation is not the only plausible one and that terms like 'reporting requirement' and 'recordkeeping requirement' can reasonably be construed to include third-party disclosures. It is reasonable to conclude that Congress intended to reduce the paperwork burden on the private sector regardless of whether the information is sent to an agency or a third party. By imposing its own construction on an ambiguous statute rather than deferring to the agency, the majority's approach is contrary to Chevron.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the power of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by clarifying the scope of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). It establishes a critical distinction between information collected for government use, which is subject to OMB review, and information disclosed to third parties as a form of substantive regulation, which is not. This ruling prevents OMB from using the PRA as a tool to block or alter health, safety, and consumer protection regulations with which it has policy disagreements. The case thus protects the regulatory authority of executive agencies to mandate warnings and disclosures (e.g., product labels, environmental warnings) without interference from OMB under the guise of paperwork reduction.
Unlock the full brief for Dole v. United Steelworkers of America