Dole v. United
Steelworkers of America case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
494 U.S. 26, 110 S. Ct.
929, 108 L. Ed. 2d 23, 14 OSHC 1425 (1990)
CASE SYNOPSIS: On
respondent union's motion for further relief from a new standard by
petitioner Department of Labor's (DOL), the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit ordered the DOL to reinstate the Office
of Management and Budget's (OMB) disapproved provisions, holding that
the OMB lacked authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(Act), 44 U.S.C.S. § 3501 et seq., to review the provisions. The DOL
filed for a writ of certiorari.
FACTS: The DOL issued a new hazard communication standard, which the union opposed. The DOL submitted the standard to the OMB for review of any paperwork requirements as required under the Act. The OMB approved all but three of the provisions. The appellate court ordered the DOL to reinstate the OMB disapproved provisions on the ground that OMB lacked authority under the Act to disapprove the provisions. The DOL filed a petition for writ of certiorari. The Court granted the DOL's petition, holding that the Act did not authorize the OMB to review and countermand agency regulations mandating disclosure by regulated entities directly to third parties. The Court found that the terms "collection of information" and "information collection request," which defined the OMB's authority under the Act, referred solely to the collection of information by, or for the use of, a federal agency. That language, the Court ruled, could not have reasonably been interpreted to cover rules mandating disclosure of information to a third party.
CONCLUSION: The Court affirmed the appellate court's order requiring the DOL to reinstate the OMB disapproved provisions contained in a hazard communication standard.
FACTS: The DOL issued a new hazard communication standard, which the union opposed. The DOL submitted the standard to the OMB for review of any paperwork requirements as required under the Act. The OMB approved all but three of the provisions. The appellate court ordered the DOL to reinstate the OMB disapproved provisions on the ground that OMB lacked authority under the Act to disapprove the provisions. The DOL filed a petition for writ of certiorari. The Court granted the DOL's petition, holding that the Act did not authorize the OMB to review and countermand agency regulations mandating disclosure by regulated entities directly to third parties. The Court found that the terms "collection of information" and "information collection request," which defined the OMB's authority under the Act, referred solely to the collection of information by, or for the use of, a federal agency. That language, the Court ruled, could not have reasonably been interpreted to cover rules mandating disclosure of information to a third party.
CONCLUSION: The Court affirmed the appellate court's order requiring the DOL to reinstate the OMB disapproved provisions contained in a hazard communication standard.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment