Southland Mower Co., v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, s. 79-1203
| Decision Date | 18 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | 79-1295 and 79-1469,Nos. 79-1203,s. 79-1203 |
| Parties | SOUTHLAND MOWER COMPANY, Yazoo Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Inc., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Dunaway, McCarthy & Dye, Mac S. Dunaway, George D. Billock, Jr., Washington, D.C., Baldwin & Haspel, New Orleans, La., for petitioners.
John O. Hayward, Lexington, Mass., pro se, amicus curiae.
John S. Byington, Commissioner, Andrew S. Krulwich, Gen. Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Com'n, Robert B. Nicholson, Peter L. de la Cruz, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and VANCE, Circuit Judges.
On January 25, 1979, the Consumer Product Safety Commission met to consider issuing consumer product safety standards for walk-behind power lawn mowers under 15 U.S.C. §§ 2057, 2058. Although the Commission voted its approval of the standards, it decided that the final, redrafted document would be signed at a subsequent meeting and that the standards would be promulgated ten days after their publication in the Federal Register. Immediately after the Commission acted, Southland Mower Co. et al. filed a petition for review of the standards in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and John O. Hayward filed a similar petition in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Southland Mower Co.'s petition was time stamped 11:15 a. m. C.S.T., and John O. Hayward's petition was stamped 12:15:10 p. m. E.S.T. On February 5, 1979, the Commission voted, signed to approve the Federal Register notice, and again directed that the standards not be deemed promulgated until ten days after they were published in the Federal Register. Southland Mower Co. then petitioned for review in the fifth circuit at 12:31 p. m. C.S.T., and John O. Hayward petitioned in the District of Columbia Circuit at 1:32:20 p. m. E.S.T. The standards were delivered to the Federal Register for publication on February 12 and were published three days later at 44 Fed.Reg. 9990 (1979). On February 12, and, again, on February 15, John O. Hayward filed petitions for review in the District of Columbia Circuit. On February 26, ten days after the standards' publication, Southland Mower Co. filed a petition time-stamped 11:00 a. m. C.S.T. in the fifth circuit, and John O. Hayward filed a petition time-stamped 12:01 E.S.T. in the District of Columbia Circuit. Southland Mower Co. and the Commission moved in this court for a determination of venue; in a March 19, 1979, letter the District of Columbia Circuit indicated that it would defer to this court's venue determination. We find that the fifth circuit is the appropriate forum for this case.
The Federal Register notice published on February 15 provided, "The promulgation of the Standard will be 12:00 noon, Eastern Standard Time, on February 26, 1979." 44 Fed.Reg. 9990 (1979). A petition for review of a consumer product safety rule may be filed in a United States court of appeals no later than "60 days after (the rule) is promulgated by the Commission." 15 U.S.C. § 2060(a). Agencies have a great deal of discretion in determining the manner in which their actions are promulgated; therefore, we should defer to the agency's choice as long as it is reasonable. Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. Bingham, 187 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 60, 67 n. 12, 570 F.2d 965, 969, 976 n. 12 (1977) (separate opinions by Leventhal, J., and Wilkey, J.). See Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 676, 70 S.Ct. 876, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950). In this case, the Commission designated noon on February 26, 1979, as the time of promulgation for the following reason:
This procedure would provide all interested persons including those that might not be located in Washington or be able to afford to send a representative to Washington an equal opportunity to review the final standard as published in the FEDERAL REGISTER and then determine in an orderly fashion whether to seek judicial review.
44 Fed.Reg. at 10023. Because the Commission's choice is reasonable, we find that the petitions filed before noon on February 26 are premature.
When proceedings challenging an order of an administrative agency or commission have been instituted in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terra Intern., Inc. v. Mississippi Chemical Corp.
...Inst., 681 F.2d at 261-62. The court relied, in the first instance, on its prior decision in Southland Mower Co. v. United States Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 600 F.2d 12 (5th Cir.1979), also cited by Terra here, as holding that the statute had "enacted `a mechanical, first filing approach......
-
ITT World Communications, Inc. v. F. C. C.
...881, 94 L.Ed. 1194 (1950); Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. EPA, 610 F.2d 187, 188 (4th Cir. 1979); Southland Mower Co. v. Consumer Products Safety Comm'n, 600 F.2d 12, 13 (5th Cir. 1979); Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. Bingham, 570 F.2d 965, 969 (D.C.Cir. 1977). Indeed, if the Commissi......
-
Mead Corp. v. Stuart Hall Co., Inc.
...Inc. v. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, 681 F.2d 255 (5th Cir.1982); Southland Mower Co. v. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, 600 F.2d 12 (5th Cir.1979), which at least implicitly held that "absolute time," (as opposed to "time zone" time), is used to deter......
-
City of Gallup v. F.E.R.C., s. 82-1069
...has been held to be sufficient to designate a court as the court of first filing. See Southland Mower Company v. United States Consumer Product Safety Comm., 600 F.2d 12, 13-14 (5th Cir.1979). This court has expressed doubt concerning the relevance of a two-second priority, but passed over ......
-
CHAPTER 9 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION: SELECTED TOPICS
...decision was based more on speculation than on fact. Another example is Southland Mower Co. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 600 F.2d 12 (5th Cir. 1979). There, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (the "Commission") issued certain safety [Page 9-10] standards for walk-behind p......