What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

Opinion:
NATIONAL GRAIN & FEED ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner, v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.
No. 87-1603.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
May 3, 1988.
Marc L. Fleischaker, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Allen H. Feldman, Associate Sol., with whom Steven J. Mandel, for Appellate Litigation and Nathaniel I. Spiller, Atty., U.S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Before ROBINSON, SILBERMAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
PER CURIAM:
This petition seeks review of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) final standard regulating hazard communication. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200. The standard was filed in the Office of the Federal Register on August 19, 1987, and was published on August 24, 1987. See 52 Fed.Reg. 31,852 (1987). OSHA has moved to dismiss the petition as untimely since it was filed on October 20, 1987, sixty-one days after the filing of the standard in the Office of the Federal Register.
Section 6(f) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. § 655(f), provides that:
[a]ny person who may be adversely affected by a standard issued under this section may at any time prior to the sixtieth day after such standard is promulgated file a petition challenging the validity of such standard with the United States court of appeals for the circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, for a judicial review of such standard.
(Emphasis added). The government contends that the date of issuance is synonymous with the date of promulgation, and it relies on the following regulation:
A rule promulgating, modifying, or revoking a standard, or a determination that a rule should not be promulgated, shall be considered issued at the time when the rule or determination is officially filed in the Office of the Federal Register. The time of official filing in the Office of the Federal Register is established for the purpose of determining the prematurity, timeliness, or lateness of petitions for judicial review.
29 C.F.R. § 1911.18(d) (emphasis added).
The Second Circuit has issued a recent opinion on the issue of when an OSHA standard is promulgated for purposes of determining the timeliness of a petition for review. See United Technologies Corp. v. OSHA, 836 F.2d 52 (2d Cir.1987). In United Technologies, the court concluded that an OSHA standard is promulgated on the date of publication in the Federal Register. We agree, at least in the absence of a valid OSHA regulation fixing some other date.
Section 1911.18(d) was adopted in response to this court’s opinion in Industrial Union Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. Bingham, 570 F.2d 965 (D.C.Cir.1977). Industrial Union involved the issue of whether a petition for review is premature if it is filed before the challenged regulation is filed in the Office of the Federal Register. This court invited OSHA to issue regulations defining when a standard is “issued” for .purposes of marking the inception of the filing period as required by 29 U.S.C. § 655(f). Id. at 970-71, 976 n. 12. The resulting regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1911.18(d), clarified when a standard is “issued,” not when it is “promulgated.”
OSHA may well have the power to equate the date of promulgation with the date of issuance, but it has not done so. It is clear from a reading of 29 U.S.C. § 655(f) that Congress intended to treat the date of issuance differently from the date of promulgation. Based on the plain meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 655(f), the ordinary usage of the term promulgate, and the lack of any specific agency regulation defining the date of promulgation, we conclude that an OSHA standard is promulgated on the date that it is published in the Federal Register. Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied.

Question: Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion.

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 0