Document 85bz6r0ongN8gBZ7DbNjK6p7Z
Ntweu w cllison M THOM*!) *U!)TcflH mOWAH|- c WC jT"wOCO
CMAHLC3* nO3*T' OOH4CO Hl'Il JOHN T 3A0ICM24 JAM C 4 M MC-LOTHUlN (ffucsvW JKNnC9 S^ANcCT L T r M HO JAM tS C MftHAr JOHN W OOUf-A3 HAMILTON C*NOTHen5 J, ANO(JLf,H W'LjON
UODlflTS 0 OwLN COO* ' CZiNHA, jfl
WILLIAM M Ai-L&N
JOHN & JON^ JOD AV 1 O 0 '5t.ll.LL
H COWAPO BuN*LOCOOE^, JB eoice Me *000 CLAOEtT
JOHN Z *OCH Ity'pJPT OMALLCV
tUOENt I LAMOEnT JOHN VANOCI15TAO NEWMAN T MAL/QH jON. JW, HAPVEY M ApPlCCAUM
MiCw*CL S mC^nE JONATHAN O UL**C CHAftLES EHjTfON POocr n satleb
COWAPO EiBijCE QAVIO N aft'Dwrj
PAUL J. TAGUAGUC
JOMN <7 LAVL'N
rQMTAIHC C UPAOLET
COWAPO OiJ'ALlNO.JP JOEL OAPCOW
j. HAPPY COVINGTON
W CPOSBTflOPfB Jp
OANlCL M GPHWION
HApPt L
HmAN
SON V HAPffiS, j
WILLIAM STANLEY jfl
HEAVEN W OJNNAN
CGWiw M iiuM(nw*N
jCPOm AC*EHman
HENPY 8 '5AILEO
JOHN W SCHATjn
Al^PCO H mOSEj
JOHN LtMOYNE EiL'CQT
OaViO C MtOiTt'ErlT
piii t.i P rt STAMAnijnY
ChAPLT 5 A m-illCP PiChapo a qnaot HEUOtPT o T M
'.YOiI. V , UITH, JP
M* R N, A WEI 35
MAnais wCiTini-EiN JOHN 9 OLNNistqn
pjte j nic*les
MICHAEL nouD'Ti OINOMAM o lEVERICM
ALLAN J , TQPOt
VIRGINIA O, WAT-IN PlCHAPO O c o pa HEN
chahu^ustep
Covington & Bu.ling
880 SIXTEENTH STREET. N. W. WASHINGTON. D C. 20006
TU6PHONC UOJl *52-6000 WBlTA3 O'nCCT OiAl NUmqcH
(202) 452-6128
twt' 710 872-000?
telex' fty-505 C-AOl ' COVLINO
0#'n 3 CO*'N O' COUNSEL,
November 18, 1974
Nathaniel Fensterstock, Esq. Staff Counsel United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit Room 1804 United States Courthouse Foley Square New York, New York 10007
Re: Vinyl Chloride Case Nos. 74-2284, 74-2308, 74-2450, 74-2449 and 74-2286
Dear Mr. Fensterstock:
I have discussed the question of how much time is required for oral argument in the vinyl chloride cases v:ith counsel for each of the petitioners who have filed briefs with the Court, as well as with counsel for respondents.
On the basis of these discussions, I can advise the Court that it is the joint request of all of the petitioners who have filed briefs that the Court schedule a total of 2-1/2 hours for oral argument in all of the vinyl chloride cases during the v/eek of December 16, 1974. In addition, counsel for petitioners suggests that this 2-1/2 hours be divided in the following manner: (1) 75 minutes for petitioners, to be divided equally among the petitioners who filed briefs, _i.e. , 25 minutes for SPI, 25 minutes for Tenneco, Air Products and Hooker, and 25 minutes for Union Carbide and Firestone; and (2) 75 minutes to be divided between counsel for respondents, who would have 50 minutes, and counsel for the' intervenor unions, who would have 25 minutes. It would be understood that to the extent that counsel for petitioners wanted time for rebuttal, they would bo required to reserve time from their initial arguments. Also, counsel for petitioners would meet prior to the oral argument and attempt to prepare their argu ments in a manner which would avoid unnecessary duplication for the Court.
SL 092755
fCOVfNGTON & BURLING
Nathaniel Fensterstock, Esq. November 18, 1974 Page 2
Counsel for respondents does not concur in the suggested 2-1/2 hour oral argument schedule outlined above. Counsel for respondents believes that the schedule outlined above makes available more time than is required for oral argument, and counsel for respondents suggests that the total amount of time for the oral argument be set at 1-1/2 hours, with 45 minutes to be divided equally among the petitioners and the additional 45 minutes to be divided between respon dents and the intervenor unions.
Petitioners believe that 45 minutes would not be adequate to permit petitioners to present their arguments in view of the complexity of the many issues which are raised by the petitioners' briefs and the enormous significance of this case. In addition, while certain arguments are made in all three petitioners' briefs, other arguments are made in one brief but not in other briefs. The opposition to the respondents' motion to consolidate all of the cases which was filed by petitioners in Nos. 74-2450, 74-2449 and 74-2286 delineates some of those differences in arguments (a copy of that pleading, is attached hereto).
We understand that counsel for respondents will submit a letter to the Court, in response to this letter, setting forth its views on the amount of time for oral argument.
Sincerely
ck Enclosure
Allan J.'Topol Counsel for petitioners
in Nos. 74-2450, 74-2449 and 74-2286.
cc: Stephen F. Eilperin, Esq. (OSHA) J. Albert Woll, Esq. (AFL-CIO) George II. Cohen, Esq. (Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO)
Jerome II. Heckman, Esq. (SPI) Martin I. Shelton, Esq. (SPI) John J. Cassidy, Jr., Esq. (Union Carbide and Firestone) Donald L. Morgan, Esq. (Chemical Fabrics and Film Ass'n) Patrick F. McCartan, Esq, (Goodrich) Marshall Miller, Esq. (Diamond Shamrock) Dale R. Martin, Esq. (Goodyear) Donna Roberts, Esq. (Dow Chemical) John T. Ronan, III, Esq. (Stauffer)
SL 092756
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
THE SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY, INC., )
Petitioner,
)
)
)
v. )
) OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL. , )
Respondents,
)
)
FIRESTONE PLASTICS COMPANY, a Division of THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY,
)
) )
and
)
)
INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO,
)
)
and
)
)
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,
)
)
)
Intervenors in No. 74-2284.
)
) )
No. 74-2284
TENNECO CHEMICALS, INC.,
)
and AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.
)
) )
and
)
)
HOOKER CHEMICALS & PLASTICS CORP.,
)
)
Petitioners,
) )
) v. )
)
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL., )
Respondents,
) )
) Nos.74-2450, 74-2449 and 74-2286
SL 092757
-2 -
FIRESTONE PLASTICS COMPANY, a Division Of THE FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY,
) )
and
) )
INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO,
)
)
and
) )
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,
)
)
)
Intervenors in No. 74-2286.
) ) )
)
FIRESTONE PLASTICS COMPANY, a Division of THEFIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY,
)
) )
) Petitioner-Intervenor,)
and
)
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,
) )
Petitioner,
) )
) v. )
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL.,
) )
Respondents.
)
) )
) No.74-2308
OPPOSITION OF PETITIONER THE SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY, INC., TO RESPONDENTS MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE VINYL CHLORIDE CASES
FOR PURPOSES OF ORAL ARGUMENT
On November 14, 1974 respondent, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, United States Department
of Labor, Peter J. Brennan, Secretary, Department of Labor,
and John Stender, Assistant Secretary for Occupational
SL 092758
3
Safety and Health, moved through their attorney to con solidate all of the above-captioned cases petitioning for review of the Vinyl Chloride Standard for purposes of oral argument. The basis for this motion was an alleged identity of issues in the Briefs submitted by the petitioners.
In reply to the respondent's Motion to consolidate petitioner. The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. here inafter the Society, states that the issues presented in the Briefs submitted are clearly not identical although there is unanimous agreement among petitioners that the Secretary ignored the record evidence on feasibility and promulgated a Standard without Substantial evidence to justify his con clusions. The Society further states that the November 19, 1974 response of petitioners Tenneco Chemicals, Inc., Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. and Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., in opposition to the Motion to consolidate has been examined and the Society concurs in and adopts their response in full, including the suggested Oral Argument schedule set out in the attached letter of November 18, 1974.
Respectfully submitted
Martin I. Shelton Shea, Gould, Climenko & Kramer 330 Madison Avenue
Jerome H. Heckman Veller and Heckman 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W Washington, D. C. 20036
SL 092759