International Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agr. Implement Workers of America, UAW v. Donovan, No. 85-1003

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtBefore EDWARDS, GINSBURG and SCALIA; HARRY T. EDWARDS
Citation756 F.2d 162
Docket NumberNo. 85-1003
Decision Date05 March 1985
Parties, 12 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1201, 1984-1985 O.S.H.D. ( 27,199 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, et al., Petitioners, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, and Thorne G. Auchter, Assistant Secretary of Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Respondents, Formaldehyde Institute, Intervenor.

Page 162

756 F.2d 162
244 U.S.App.D.C. 141, 12 O.S.H. Cas.(BNA) 1201,
1984-1985 O.S.H.D. ( 27,199
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE &
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, et
al., Petitioners,
v.
Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, and Thorne G.
Auchter, Assistant Secretary of Occupational
Safety & Health Administration, Respondents,
Formaldehyde Institute, Intervenor.
No. 85-1003.
United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 4, 1985.
Decided March 5, 1985.

Judith N. Macaluso, Attorney, Dept. of Labor, Arlington, Va., was on the response to the Motion to Compel Adherence to the District Court Order. Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., John D. Bates, Royce C. Lamberth and R. Craig Lawrence, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., entered appearances for respondents.

Donald L. Morgan, Sara D. Schotland, Katherine L. Rhyne and W. Richard Bidstrup, Washington, D.C., were on the reply of intervenor. The Formaldehyde Institute, Inc., to the Motion to Compel Adherence to the District Court Order.

Randy S. Rabinowitz, Washington, D.C., Stephen I. Schlossberg, Jordan Rossen and Ralph Jones, Detroit, Mich., were on the Motion to Compel Adherence to the District Court Order.

Page 163

Before EDWARDS, GINSBURG and SCALIA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge HARRY T. EDWARDS.

HARRY T. EDWARDS, Circuit Judge:

This case involves a challenge by the petitioners to the refusal of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA" or the "Agency") to regulate exposure to formaldehyde in the workplace, either by issuing an emergency temporary standard ("ETS") pursuant to section 6(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSH Act" or the "Act"), 1 or by taking other regulatory action pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act. 2

In October of 1981, the United Auto Workers and thirteen other labor organizations petitioned OSHA to issue an ETS regarding workplace exposure to formaldehyde. The unions relied on evidence that formaldehyde may cause cancer in humans to request that the ETS limit exposure to the lowest feasible level and that employers be required to monitor exposure and to provide protective clothing, respirators and safety training to exposed employees. On January 29, 1982, OSHA denied the petition. Subsequently, the petitioners filed this suit in District Court, on the assumption that federal question jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. They sought a declaration that OSHA's refusal was arbitrary and capricious and an order directing OSHA to issue an ETS immediately and to begin permanent rulemaking proceedings under section 6(b) of the Act. The District Court declined to compel the Agency to issue an ETS, but ordered OSHA to reconsider its refusal either to issue an ETS or to institute permanent rulemaking proceedings. 3 The District Court further ordered OSHA to develop a timetable for completing the reconsideration and directed the Agency to file periodic status reports. 4

After the District Court's orders issued, this court decided Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Federal Communications Commission ("TRAC "). 5 TRAC made clear for the first time that, where a statute commits final agency action to review by the court of appeals, the appellate court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear suits seeking relief that might affect its future statutory power of review. 6 Because section 6(f) of the OSH Act 7 vests jurisdiction in the court of appeals to review standards issued under section 6 of the Act, such as the regulation sought by the petitioners, it became apparent after TRAC that the District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Pursuant to our prescription in TRAC for such situations, the District Court transferred the case to this court under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1631 (1982).

Currently before us is the petitioners' motion that we adopt the decision and orders of the District Court and supplement these with additional orders. In particular, the petitioners urge us to recognize the timetable for completing the reconsideration of formaldehyde which the Agency submitted to the District Court, and to require OSHA to adhere to that schedule without extension or amendment. The petitioners also ask us to require the Agency to file status reports with this court on the dates specified by the District Court.

As an initial matter, this case raises the novel question of the status of orders issued by the District Court prior to TRAC in a case that was subsequently transferred to the court of appeals. We hold that TRAC should not be applied retroactively to void otherwise valid orders

Page 164

issued by the District Court prior to transfer. Consequently, we will adopt and give full effect to the District Court's orders in this case. We expect the agency to adhere strictly to the timetable approved by the District Court and to file status reports on the appointed dates. At this time, we find it unnecessary to take any further action to compel the Agency to adhere to its timetable....

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Cobell v. Norton, Civil Action Number 96-1285 (RCL) (D. D.C. 9/25/2003), Civil Action Number 96-1285 (RCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 25, 2003
    ...affect its compliance with the timetable. See Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., UAW v. Donovan, 756 F.2d 162, 165 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("Mindful of past delays,. . . we order OSHA to inform this court immediately of any proposed action which might interfere......
  • Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. v. Brock, No. 85-1824
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 7, 1987
    ..."where human health is at stake." International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers of America, UAW v. Donovan, 756 F.2d 162, 165 (D.C.Cir.1985); see also Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Auchter, 702 F.2d 1150, 1157 (D.C.Cir.1983) ("Delays that might be altoge......
  • US v. Poindexter, No. Cr. No. 88-0080-01 (HHG).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • October 24, 1989
    ...made in earlier phases of particular litigation are binding in later phases of the same lawsuit. See International Union, UAW v. Donovan, 756 F.2d 162, 165 (D.C.Cir 1985); Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 642 F.2d 578, 585 (D.C.Cir.1980); Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 740 F.2d 1071, ......
  • Cobell v. Norton, No. CIV.A.96-1285(RCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 25, 2003
    ...affect its compliance with the timetable. See Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., UAW v. Donovan, 756 F.2d 162, 165 (D.C.Cir.1985) ("Mindful of past delays, ... we order OSHA to inform this court immediately of any proposed action which might interfere wi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Cobell v. Norton, Civil Action Number 96-1285 (RCL) (D. D.C. 9/25/2003), Civil Action Number 96-1285 (RCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 25, 2003
    ...affect its compliance with the timetable. See Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., UAW v. Donovan, 756 F.2d 162, 165 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("Mindful of past delays,. . . we order OSHA to inform this court immediately of any proposed action which might interfere......
  • Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. v. Brock, No. 85-1824
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • May 7, 1987
    ..."where human health is at stake." International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Workers of America, UAW v. Donovan, 756 F.2d 162, 165 (D.C.Cir.1985); see also Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Auchter, 702 F.2d 1150, 1157 (D.C.Cir.1983) ("Delays that might be altoge......
  • US v. Poindexter, No. Cr. No. 88-0080-01 (HHG).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • October 24, 1989
    ...made in earlier phases of particular litigation are binding in later phases of the same lawsuit. See International Union, UAW v. Donovan, 756 F.2d 162, 165 (D.C.Cir 1985); Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 642 F.2d 578, 585 (D.C.Cir.1980); Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 740 F.2d 1071, ......
  • Cobell v. Norton, No. CIV.A.96-1285(RCL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 25, 2003
    ...affect its compliance with the timetable. See Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., UAW v. Donovan, 756 F.2d 162, 165 (D.C.Cir.1985) ("Mindful of past delays, ... we order OSHA to inform this court immediately of any proposed action which might interfere wi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT