opinion: Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, and Cuyahoga Valley Railway Company, Petitioners, v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Respondents.
  Nos. 82-3771, 82-3773.
  United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
  Argued Dec. 8, 1983.
  Decided Feb. 13, 1986.
  Shelley D. Hayes, T. Timothy Ryan, Jr., Frank A. White, Dennis K. Kade, Robert D. McGillicuddy (argued), U.S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D.C., for petitioners in No. 82-3771.
  Thomas H. Barnard (argued), Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, Ohio, for petitioners in No. 82-3773.
  Ray Darling, Occupational Safety and Health Review Com’n, Washington, D.C., C. Richard Grieser, Grieser, Schafer, Blumensteil & Slane, Richard Huhn (argued), Columbus, Ohio, for respondents in No. 82-3771.
  Ray Darling, Occupational Safety and Health Review Com’n, Washington, D.C., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D.C., for respondents in No. 82-3773.
  Richard Huhn (argued), Grieser, Schafer, Blumenstiel & Slane, Columbus, Ohio, for United Transp. Union.
  Before MARTIN and JONES, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
  PER CURIAM.
  This case is before the court on remand from the United States Supreme Court, which reversed this court’s prior judgment. See Donovan v. United Transportation Union, 748 F.2d 340 (6th Cir.1984), rev’d sub nom. Cuyahoga Valley Railway Co. v. United Transportation Union, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 286, 88 L.Ed.2d 2 (1985).
  In 1976 the Secretary of Labor filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission citing the Cuyahoga Valley Railway Company for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq (1982). The union representing the employees of the company moved to intervene. At a hearing before an administrative law judge, the Secretary moved to vacate the citation on jurisdictional and other grounds, which motion was granted by the ALJ. The Commission took discretionary review and, in 1982, reversed, remanding the case to the AU for consideration of the union’s objections to withdrawal of the complaint. The proceedings below have been stayed pending the outcome of this appeal.
  In its prior opinion, this court upheld the Commission’s power to review the Secretary’s decision to withdraw the citation, 748 F.2d at 343, and affirmed the Commission’s decision. Id. at 347. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Secretary has the sole authority to issue or withdraw a citation. 106 S.Ct. at 288.
  Since the Commission did not have jurisdiction to review once the Secretary had decided to withdraw the citation, the Commission’s decision must be VACATED, see Donovan v. International Union, Allied Industrial Workers (Whirlpool), 722 F.2d 1415 (8th Cir.1983), and the cause REMANDED for appropriate proceedings.
instruction: 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".