44 U.S.C. § 3508
Determination of necessity for information; hearing
Before approving a proposed collection of information, the Director shall determine whether the collection of information by the agency is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility. Before making a determination the Director may give the agency and other interested persons an opportunity to be heard or to submit statements in writing. To the extent, if any, that the Director determines that the collection of information by an agency is unnecessary for any reason, the agency may not engage in the collection of information.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979).
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979). “§ 2000e-8 (e), and 44 U. S. C. § 3508 , which for ease of reference will be referred to as the "confidentiality statutes"; and finally that disclosure was an abuse of agency discretion insofar as it conflicted with OFCCP rules.”
Metro. Life Ins. v. Usery, 426 F. Supp. 150 (D.D.C. 1976). “§ 2000e-8(e); 44 U.S.C. § 3508 ; and 18 U.S.C. § 1905 .”
United Tech. Corp. v. Marshall, 464 F. Supp. 845 (D. Conn. 1979). “Pratt & Whitney’s third and final exemption 3 claim is that disclosure of the EEO-l’s is barred by 44 U.S.C. § 3508 (a), which provides that where one government agency transfers information to another, the receiving agency is subject to the same disclosure restrictions as the…”
Shell Oil Co. v. Dep't of Energy, 477 F. Supp. 413 (D. Del. 1979). “44 U.S.C. § 3508 . First, it assures that confidential information will have no less protection in the hands of a receiving agency than it had in the hands of the forwarding agency by providing that officers and employees of the receiving agency shall be subject not only to any…”
Action All. of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia v. Otis R. Bowen, 846 F.2d 1449 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “44 U.S.C. § 3508 (1982). 5 Moreover, agency inclusion of such a clause in its own regulations would seem to violate 42 U.”
Chrysler Corp. v. Schlesinger, 565 F.2d 1172 (3rd Cir. 1977). “§ 2000e-8(e), 29 and by 44 U.S.C. § 3508 . 30 Chrysler’s letter also requested a copy of the Hamtramck CRR, which it had never seen.”
Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Kleppe, 424 F. Supp. 744 (D. Maryland 1976). “§ 1905 , or 44 U.S.C. § 3508 . I. Information Obtained Under Executive Order 11246, 3 C.”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Gen. Servs. Admin., Council on Econ. Priorities, Intervenor-Plaintiff, 509 F.2d 527 (D.C. Cir. 1974). “§ 2000e — 8(e); 44 U.S.C. § 3508 ; and 18 U.S.C. § 1905 .”
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 384 F. Supp. 996 (D.D.C. 1974). “Sears also argues that the documents sought were furnished to the government under express and implied promises of confidentiality, and that disclosure should therefore be barred by 44 U.S.C. § 3508 (a), 18 U.S.C. § 1905 , 18 and the court’s equitable discretion.”
Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 224 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (S.D. Tex. 2002). “These two cases, however, involved challenges to the Office of Management and Budget's ("OMB”) authority to disapprove provisions mandating information disclosure under the PRA pursuant to 44 U.S.C. § 3508 (which states, in relevant part, that if the Director of the OMB…”
Chrysler Corp. v. Schlesinger, 412 F. Supp. 171 (D. Del. 1976). “§ 2000e-8(e), 44 U.S.C. § 3508 and 18 U.S.C. § 1905 ; 3 3) that the threatened disclosure is an unlawful abuse of agency discretion as the disclosure violates 41 C.”
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Marshall, 465 F. Supp. 22 (E.D. Mo. 1978). “For example, plaintiffs urge that the Federal Reports Act, and in particular, 44 U.S.C. § 3508 (b), precludes disclosure to EEOC of information submitted to OFCCP.”
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.