UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Similar documents
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 18-25, Document 22, 02/05/2018, , Page1 of 26

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

BEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORU l;~]i ^i^totestodhhfw^

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/23/2015 Page 1 of Constitution Avenue,

Case 4:16-cv ALM Document 8 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 770

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 2:17-cv WB Document 85 Filed 12/10/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v.

ORIGINAL RECEIVED 2 Z015 ) ) ) ) ) ) PETITION FOR ) REVIEW ) ) ) No DEC FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APP: AJllS--~---- PETITION FOR REVIEW. and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15( a), the Mozilla Corporation

Case 2:16-cv NDF Document 29 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 9

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 218 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION OF AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Case 1:10-cv EGS Document 44 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 5:16-cv EJD Document 22 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 8

FOR DISTRIGT OF COLUMBIA 9fHE UNITED STATES COURT OF URAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION; BASIN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE; EAST

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

ReCEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCU CLERK

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 1:17-cv ABJ Document 12 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2014 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BEFORE THE UNITED STATATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) )

\{."--, Under Section 307 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b), Section 706 of

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 2010] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Snell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 0:16-cv BB Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/21/2016 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 1:18-cv ABJ Document 19 Filed 02/13/18 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 1:11-cv NMG Document 53 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 6:15-cv TC Document 163 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : : : : MOTION TO GOVERN

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC PALM BEACH COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EASTERN DIVISION

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al.,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Case 4:16-cv ALM Document 10 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 779

Case: 1:19-cv DAP Doc #: 19 Filed: 01/30/19 1 of 13. PageID #: 217 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 4:08-cv CW Document 230 Filed 11/18/08 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Case 1:16-cv RGA Document 16 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 363 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases

Case: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/22/10 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 286

Transcription:

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NORTH AMERICA S BUILDING TRADES UNIONS, v. Petitioner, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and THOMAS PEREZ, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, ET AL., v. Petitioners, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and THOMAS PEREZ, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. Civil No. 16-1105 Civil No. 16-1113 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS RESPONDENTS

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 2 of 13 Pursuant to Rules 15(d and 27 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Circuit Rules of this Court, 15(b and 27, the American Foundry Society ( AFS and the National Association of Manufacturers ( NAM, (collectively Movant Intervenors, respectfully move for leave to intervene as Respondents in case No. 16-1105 and case No. 16-1113. 1 Counsel for AFS and NAM has contacted counsel for the parties in these cases to ascertain their positions on this motion for leave to intervene. Respondents have stated that they do not oppose this motion. Petitioners have stated that they do not oppose this motion. In support of this motion, AFS and NAM state: 1. The petition for review in case No. 16-1105 was filed by North America s Building Trades Unions ( Petitioner or NABTU on April 1, 2016. 2 2. The petition for review in case No. 16-1113 was filed by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (collectively, Petitioners on April 1, 2016, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1 AFS and NAM specifically state that they do not wish to intervene in all cases before this court involving the subject agency final rule. 2 Reference to Petitioners in this motion includes Petitioners in case No. 16-1113 and Petitioners in case No. 16-1105. 2

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 3 of 13 Third Circuit, and transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 13, 2016, upon order of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 3. Both petitions challenge the final rule promulgated by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA, set forth in the document entitled 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926, Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0034, RIN 1218-AB70, published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, United States Department of Labor. 81 Fed. Reg. 16285 (March 25, 2016. 4. AFS is a non-profit association serving members of the metalcasting supply chain in the United States, including metalcasters and producers of metal cast parts; metalcasting suppliers and casting buyers/original equipment manufacturers. The association is comprised of more than 7,500 individual members representing over 3,000 metalcasting firms, including foundries, suppliers and customers. AFS is headquartered in Schaumburg, IL, with forty-four chapters located throughout the country. 5. NAM is the largest manufacturing association in the United States. It is a national not-for-profit trade association representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Manufacturing employs nearly 12 million men and women, contributes more than $2.17 trillion to 3

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 4 of 13 the U.S. economy annually, has the largest economic impact of any major sector, and accounts for three-quarters of private-sector research and development. The NAM is the powerful voice of the manufacturing community and the leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers compete in the global economy and create jobs across the United States. 6. OSHA s final rule for Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica amends the Agency s existing regulations regarding employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica in construction, general industry, and maritime operations and affects roughly 2.3 million workers. 7. In the final rule, OSHA identifies various NAICS codes for smelting, forging and foundries that will be affected by the final standard. AFS has members in each of the industry subsectors identified by OSHA and all of them will be affected by the final standard. 8. In the final rule, OSHA identifies at least 24 manufacturing industry subsectors, identified by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS codes that will be affected by the final standard. NAM has members in each of the 24 manufacturing industry subsectors, and all of them will be affected by the final standard. 9. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(d provides that a motion for leave to intervene must be filed within 30 days after the petition for review is filed 4

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 5 of 13 and must contain a concise statement of the interest of the moving party and the grounds for intervention. This Rule simply requires the intervenor to file a motion setting forth its interest and the grounds on which intervention is sought. Synovus Fin. Corp. v. Board of Governors, 952 F.2d 426, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1991. 10. The requirements for intervention of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a(2 are: (1 the motion is timely; (2 the applicant claims an interest relating to the subject of the action; (3 disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant s ability to protect that interest; and (4 the applicant s interest may not be adequately represented by the existing parties. See, e.g., Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2003. 11. The Movant Intervenors motion is timely as it has been filed and served, in compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(d, within 30 days after the Petitioners filed their petitions for review. This motion will not result in any delay in these cases or prejudice to the parties. 12. The Movant Intervenors believe the Petitioners seek judicial review of OSHA s final rule regarding the established permissible exposure limit for employee exposure to respirable silica and medical surveillance provisions relating to exposure to respirable crystalline silica, as well as other potential issues. - 9-5

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 6 of 13 13. Movant Intervenors and their members have interests relating to these matters that will be impaired by the disposition of the case. For example, OSHA s permissible exposure limit and action level trigger various obligations with which NAM and AFS members have to comply, such as exposure monitoring, the implementation of engineering controls and respiratory protection, and medical surveillance. Any lowering of the PEL will significantly impact AFS and NAM members. The Movant Intervenors have a substantial interest in the subject of this action and that interest will be impaired should the Petitioners prevail. 14. NAM and AFS s interests are not adequately represented by the parties in these two cases. The interests of Petitioners are not in line with and potentially directly opposed to the Movant Intervenors. Additionally, while Respondent OSHA will attempt to justify its decisions with respect to the issues raised, NAM and AFS and their members represent specific affected industry sectors under this final rule and have an interest that the Agency may not directly address. Therefore, OSHA cannot adequately represent the Movant Intervenors interests. The Movant Intervenors respectfully request that the Court enter an Order granting leave to intervene in case No. 16-1105 and case No. 16-1113. 6

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 7 of 13 Dated: May 2, 2016. Respectfully submitted, JACKSON LEWIS P.C. /s/ Bradford T. Hammock Bradford T. Hammock Tressi L. Cordaro 10701 Parkridge Boulevard, Suite 300 Reston, VA 20191 Telephone: (703 483-8300 Facsimile: (703 483-8301 Attorneys for American Foundry Society and the National Association of Manufacturers Linda E. Kelly Patrick N. Forrest Leland P. Frost Manufacturers Center for Legal Action 733 10th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001 (202 637-3000 Counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers 7

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 8 of 13 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NORTH AMERICA S BUILDING TRADES UNIONS, v. Petitioner, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and THOMAS PEREZ, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, ET AL., v. Petitioners, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and THOMAS PEREZ, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. Civil No. 16-1105 Civil No. 16-1113 8

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 9 of 13 RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OFMOVANT INTERVENOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit Rule 26.1, Movant Intervenor, the National Association of Manufacturers ( NAM, makes the following declarations: NAM is the largest manufacturing association in the United States. It is a national not-for-profit trade association representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Manufacturing employs nearly 12 million men and women, contributes more than $2.17 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, has the largest economic impact of any major sector, and accounts for three-quarters of private-sector research and development. The NAM is the powerful voice of the manufacturing community and the leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers compete in the global economy and create jobs across the United States. NAM has no parent company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in NAM. 9

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 10 of 13 Dated: May 2, 2016. Respectfully submitted, JACKSON LEWIS P.C. /s/ Bradford T. Hammock Bradford T. Hammock Tressi L. Cordaro 10701 Parkridge Boulevard, Suite 300 Reston, VA 20191 Telephone: (703 483-8300 Facsimile: (703 483-8301 Attorneys for the National Association of Manufacturers Linda E. Kelly Patrick N. Forrest Leland P. Frost Manufacturers Center for Legal Action 733 10th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001 (202 637-3000 Counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers 10

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 11 of 13 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NORTH AMERICA S BUILDING TRADES UNIONS, v. Petitioner, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and THOMAS PEREZ, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, ET AL., v. Petitioners, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and THOMAS PEREZ, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. Civil No. 16-1105 Civil No. 16-1113 11

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 12 of 13 RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF MOVANT INTERVENOR THE AMERICAN FOUNDRY SOCIETY Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Circuit Rule 26.1, Movant Intervenor, the American Foundry Society ( AFS, makes the following declarations: AFS states that, founded in 1896, it is the leading U.S. based metalcasting society, assisting member companies and individuals to effectively manage their production operations, profitably market their products and services, and equitably manage their employees. The association is comprised of more than 7,500 individual members representing over 3,000 metalcasting firms, including foundries, suppliers, and customers. AFS has no parent corporation, and no publicly held company has 10% or greater ownership in AFS. Dated: May 2, 2016. Respectfully submitted, JACKSON LEWIS P.C. /s/ Bradford T. Hammock Bradford T. Hammock Tressi L. Cordaro 10701 Parkridge Boulevard, Suite 300 Reston, VA 20191 Telephone: (703 483-8300 Facsimile: (703 483-8301 Attorneys for the American Foundry Society 12

USCA Case #16-1105 Document #1611360 Filed: 05/02/2016 Page 13 of 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 2 nd day of May 2016, I submitted for filing, via CM/EFC, the forgoing Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene as Respondents, and that service was accomplished electronically through the CM/ECF system on all registered counsel. /s/ Bradford T. Hammock Bradford T. Hammock 13