## Facts

- OSHA issued a Hazard Communication Standard requiring chemical hazard labels, employee training, and material safety data sheets.
- After prior appellate rulings criticized limiting the standard to manufacturing, OSHA revised the rule to apply across the economy.
- Because the revised rule included paperwork-type duties, the Department of Labor submitted it to OMB for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA).
- OMB disapproved three provisions as unnecessary under the PRA, and the Department of Labor withdrew those provisions while disputing OMB’s interpretation.
- The unions sought relief in the Third Circuit, which ruled OMB lacked PRA authority to disapprove the provisions and ordered the Department to reinstate them.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the PRA covers rules requiring disclosures by regulated parties directly to third parties.

## Issues

1. Whether the PRA authorizes OMB to review and disapprove agency regulations that require regulated entities to disclose information directly to third parties rather than to a federal agency.
2. Whether OSHA’s hazard-disclosure requirements constitute “collection of information” or an “information collection request” under the PRA.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the Third Circuit, 7–2.
- The PRA does not authorize OMB to review and countermand OSHA regulations mandating disclosure by regulated entities directly to third parties (employees).
- OSHA’s third-party disclosure requirements are not “collection of information” by or for a federal agency within the PRA’s meaning.
- The Department of Labor was required to reinstate the provisions OMB had disapproved.

## Legal Principles

- “Collection of information” under the PRA is limited to agency efforts to obtain or solicit information for governmental use, including reporting and recordkeeping submitted to the government directly or indirectly.
- Regulations that operate solely as disclosures between private parties (e.g., employer-to-employee hazard warnings) fall outside the PRA’s OMB-approval regime.
- Courts may resolve PRA coverage as a question of statutory construction based on text, structure, and purpose rather than deferring to OMB’s view when Congress did not grant authority over third-party disclosure rules.

## Conclusion

The Court held that OMB’s PRA oversight cannot be used to veto OSHA regulations that require employers to provide hazard information directly to employees, because such third-party disclosure duties are not “information collection” for a federal agency under the PRA.


Dole v. United Steelworkers of Am., 494 U.S. 26 (1990)