U.S. Code » Title 44 » Chapter CHAPTER 35— COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY

44 U.S.C. § 3512

Public protection

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 44 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if—(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.(Added Pub. L. 104–13, § 2, May 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 181; amended Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [[div. A], title X, § 1064(b)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–275.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 3512, added Pub. L. 96–511, § 2(a), Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2822, related to protection of persons failing to maintain or provide information if information collection request did not display current control number prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 104–13.

Another prior section 3512, added Pub. L. 93–153, title IV, § 409(b), Nov. 16, 1973, 87 Stat. 593, related to information for independent regulatory agencies, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 96–511.

Amendments

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–398 substituted “subchapter” for “chapter” in introductory provisions and par. (1).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2000 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–398 effective 30 days after Oct. 30, 2000, see section 1 [[div. A], title X, § 1065] of Pub. L. 106–398, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, formerly set out as an Effective Date note under former section 3531 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1995, except as otherwise provided, see section 4(a) of Pub. L. 104–13, set out as a note under section 3501 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Lewis v. Comm'r, 523 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lewis v. Comm'r, 523 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “1, ¶ 17; see 44 U.S.C. § 3512 . The PRA has a public liability provision stating, “[n]otwithstand-ing any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information .”
Gilbert Hyatt v. Off. of Mgt. & Budget, 908 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “” 44 U.S.C. § 3512 (a). However, the public protection provision functions only as a defense to an enforcement action brought by an agency, not as an independent mechanism for a person to affirmatively challenge the validity of the collection of information.”
Kenneth E. Sutton, Jr. v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., a California Non-Profit Corp., 192 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 552a; and the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3512 . Plaintiff also brought various state claims.”
United States v. Bruce Smith, United States of Am. v. Roberta Blair, 866 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 4× “News 6292; see 44 U.S.C. § 3512 (penalties may not be imposed for noncompliance with information collection requests that do not display a current control number).”
Dole v. United Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26 (1990). · cites it 2× “See 44 U. S. C. § 3512 (1982 ed.). [6] However, this protection of the public is applicable only to information-gathering rules.”
Pac. Nat'l Cellular v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 20 (Fed. Cl. 1998). · cites it 7× “§ 3507 (a), (f), 44 U.S.C. § 3512 (1994). Plaintiff contends that the FCC imposed a penalty on the plaintiff when it improperly dismissed Pacific’s application and caused Pacific to incur additional fees and the loss of business during the delay in the grant of the application.”
United States v. Robert W. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “does not display a current [OMB] control number_” 44 U.S.C. § 3512 . The PRA and regulations promulgated under the PRA require that federal government agency information collection requests display OMB control numbers and, when appropriate, expiration dates.”
Smith v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 417 F. Supp. 1068 (D. Del. 1976). · cites it 4× “6 On March 26, 1974, the Commission approved 1973 Form LB and submitted it along with supporting statements to the Comptroller General for approval pursuant to the Federal Reports Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3512 . 7 Following the Comptroller General’s approval of a somewhat limited…”
United States v. Gross, 626 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 3512 states that: (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to [the PRA] if— (1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number…”
Pond v. Comm'r, 211 F. App'x 749 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “First, he asserts the 1040 issued by the IRS does not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and therefore he cannot be assessed penalties because he is protected by the Act’s self-help provision found at 44 U.S.C. § 3512 . Second, he insists that § 6012(a)(1) only…”
Ctr. for Auto Saf. v. Nat'l High. Traffic Saf. Admin., 93 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000). · cites it 3× “44 U.S.C. § 3512 (a). Congress further provided that the protections of the PRA “may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.”
United States v. Erwin R. Wunder, 919 F.2d 34 (6th Cir. 1990). “44 U.S.C. § 3512 . At least one court has reversed a criminal conviction on the basis of section 3512.”
Show all 93 citing cases →
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.