Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene

8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene

1/35

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OFMANUFACTURERS, et. al.

Petitioners,

v.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY and

LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR,

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondents

No. 10-1044

(consolidated with cases

09-1322, 10-1024, 10-1025,

10-1026, 10-1030, 10-1035,

10-1036, 10-1037, 10-1038,

10-1039, 10-1040, 10-1041,10-1042, 10-1045, 10-1046,

10-1049)

MOTION OF TWENTY-ONE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS AND

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

Pursuant to Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and

Circuit Rule 15(b), the following industry associations and chambers of commerce

(collectively, Proposed Intervenors) respectfully move for leave to intervene in

support of Petitioners in the above-captioned case (No. 10-1044):

Glass Packaging Institute Independent Petroleum Association of America Louisiana Oil and Gas Association North American Die Casting Association

Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 1


2/35

2

Steel Manufacturers Association National Electrical Manufacturers Association

Michigan Manufacturers Association

Indiana Cast Metals Association Virginia Manufacturers Association Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry West Virginia Manufacturers Association The Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association The Ohio Manufacturers Association Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce Associated Industries of Arkansas Mississippi Manufacturers Association

Counsel for the Respondent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the

Agency) has authorized Proposed Intervenors to represent that EPA takes no

position on this Motion for Leave to Intervene. This Motion is timely filed under



3/35

3

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(d) (requiring a proposed intervenor to seek

intervention within thirty days of the filing of a petition for review).

The Petitioners in these consolidated cases challenge a final EPA rule titled

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Final Rule. 74 Fed. Reg.66,495 (Dec. 15,

2009) (the Endangerment Findings). That rule, issued pursuant to Section 202(a)

of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a), established the EPA Administrators

position that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor

vehicle engines cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to

endanger the public health and welfare.

On February 16, 2010, the National Association of Manufacturers and seven

other organizations (collectively, the NAM Coalition) petitioned this Court for

review of EPAs Endangerment Findings. On February 18, 2010, this Court

consolidated the NAM Coalitions challenge, Case No. 10-1044, along with four

other cases challenging the Endangerment Findings, with the petition filed in Case

No. 09-1322. In total, sixteen petitions for review of the Endangerment Findings

have been consolidated with Case No. 09-1322.



4/35

4

BACKGROUND

I. Movant AssociationsThe Proposed Intervenors comprise a coalition of twenty-one industry

associations and chambers of commerce, representing manufacturing, business,

and industry members from numerous sectors of the economy and geographic

regions throughout the United States. Each Proposed Intervenor is described in the

Rule 26.1 Corporate Disclosure Statements accompanying this motion.

II. The Endangerment FindingsOn December 15, 2009, EPA published the Endangerment Findings under

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, establishing EPAs position that greenhouse

gas emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines cause or

contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health

and welfare. 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496.

The Endangerment Findings are a prerequisite for EPA regulation of

greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles, which EPA is proposing to

accomplish in a separate joint rulemaking with the National Highway Safety

Transit Administration (NHSTA). SeeProposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-

Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel

Economy Standards (the Motor Vehicle Rule), 74 Fed. Reg. 49,454 (Sept. 28,



5/35

5

2009).1

The Agency expects to promulgate final greenhouse gas emission

standards for motor vehicles by the end of March 2010. Prevention of Significant

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 55,291,

55,295 (Oct. 27, 2009).

There is little question that EPAs regulation of greenhouse gas emissions

from motor vehicles will trigger new Clean Air Act regulation of stationary

sources. EPA has interpreted the regulation of greenhouse gases from motor

vehicles under the Clean Air Act to trigger the Acts complex Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting requirements for

stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. See 74 Fed. Reg. at 55,294.

Members of the Proposed Intervenors own and operate sources that are likely to be

affected by these requirements.

ARGUMENT

I. Proposed Intervenors Have A Direct And Substantial Interest In ThisCase

Intervention under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(d) is permitted

when the intervenor has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the

action. See, e.g., Yakima Valley Cablevision, Inc. v. FCC, 794 F.2d 737, 744 (D.C.

1EPA proposed to establish the greenhouse gas emission standards under

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a), and the NHSTA

proposed to establish new corporate average fuel economy standards under the

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 49 U.S.C. 32902.



6/35

6

Cir. 1986); see also Rule 15(d) (requiring a movant to include a concise statement

of interest of the moving party and the grounds for intervention.) Here, that

standard is easily satisfied.

As noted above, the Endangerment Findings enable EPA to promulgate the

Motor Vehicle Rule which, according to EPA itself, will trigger PSD and Title V

requirements for stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. 74 Fed. Reg.at

55,291. Proposed Intervenors members own and operate numerous stationary

sources that emit greenhouse gases. Accordingly, the Endangerment Finding will

ultimately subject the Proposed Intervenors members to complex new permitting

requirements for their greenhouse gas emissions as well as greenhouse gas

regulations and controls tailored to specific industrial sectors represented by

Proposed Intervenors. Such new permitting requirements and regulations will

impose additional costs, project delays and halts, and future operational uncertainty

for Proposed Intervenors members. Beyond that, the Endangerment Finding may

expose Proposed Intervenors to lawsuits alleging that their greenhouse gas

emissions are harming public health.

In sum, the EPA action at issue in this case poses a direct threat to Proposed

Intervenors interests. Those interests cannot be adequately represented in this

case without Proposed Intervenors participation as full parties to the petition.



7/35

7

II. Intervention Is Supported By The Policies Underlying InterventionUnder Rule 24 Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure

The policies underlying Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

which guide this Courts Rule 15(d) analysis,Intl Union v. Scofield, 382 U.S. 205,

216 n.10 (1965), also support intervention.

Under Rule 24(a)(2), a movant is entitled to intervention as of right when (1)

the motion is timely; (2) the movant claims an interest relating to the subject of the

action; (3) disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the

applicants ability to protect that interest; and (4) existing parties may not

adequately represent the applicants interest. See Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton,

322 F.3d 728, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Proposed Intervenors satisfy the first three

requirements because they timely file this motion and, for the reasons given above,

have substantial and direct interests in the subject of this case that could be

impaired by the outcome of this action.

Proposed Intervenors likewise satisfy the fourth requirement, because the

existing parties to the case may not adequately represent the specific interests of

the Proposed Intervenors. The burden of showing inadequate representation in a

motion for intervention is not onerous . . . [t]he applicant need only show that

representation of his interest may be inadequate, not that representation will in

fact be inadequate. Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179, 192 (D.C. Cir.



8/35

8

1986) (citing Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n. 10 (1972)).

Proposed Intervenors easily satisfy that criterion.

First, neither EPA nor any of the pro-EPA intervenors can represent

Proposed Intervenors interests in this case, as they are opposed to that of Proposed

Intervenors.

Second, while the interests of the Proposed Intervenors are generally aligned

with (and are not adverse to) those of the NAM Coalition Petitioners, the Proposed

Intervenors interests are distinct and unique to their individual members. The

ramifications of the Endangerment Findings will impact different industries in

distinct ways depending on the energy intensity of their operations; the sources of

fuel that they use; the type, scope, and nature of their greenhouse gas emissions;

and their geographic location. Proposed Intervenors five national industry

association members represent specific segments of industry that will suffer

specific and distinct effects as a result of greenhouse gas regulation.

The Proposed Intervenor coalition also includes sixteen state and local

industry associations and chambers of commerce. Depending on their economies,

energy resources, and other local factors, some states will be impacted more

heavily by the Endangerment Findings than other states. The state and local

organizations in the Proposed Intervenor coalition have a unique local perspective,

which is not necessarily represented by the national organizations that are parties



9/35

9

to the consolidated cases. That local perspective has particular relevance to a

subject of this appeal: new regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air

Act. In many states, the federal PSD and Title V requirements described above are

implemented through specific state programs that have been approved by EPA

but are in fact governed by state laws and regulations. See generally, 42 U.S.C.

7410 (defining requirements for Clean Air Act state implementation plans and

their approval by EPA). According to EPAs own estimates, if the federal PSD

permitting requirements are applied to greenhouse gases, the state agencies that

administer these programs will be paralyzed by permit applications, 74 Fed. Reg.

at 55,294, with Proposed Intervenors members left to suffer the effects of this

paralysis in the form of uncertainty, project delays, or the outright inability to

obtain required permits.2

Moreover, EPA has acknowledged that if PSD and title V requirements

apply at the applicability levels provided under the [Clean Air Act], many small

sources would be burdened by the costs of individualized PSD control technology

requirements and permit applications. Id. As described in the accompanying

Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statements, the memberships of the Proposed Intervenors are

2EPA estimates that state permitting authorities would receive approximately

40,000 new PSD applications each year (more than 100 times the approximately

300 applications States currently process annually) and would need to issue Title V

permits for around six million previously unregulated sources. 74 Fed. Reg. at

55,295.



10/35

10

not limited to the operators of traditional manufacturing facilities that have already

been subjected to Clean Air Act regulation. The memberships of the state

associations and chambers of commerce seeking to intervene here also include

operators of smaller facilities in non-manufacturing sectors that, as a result of the

Endangerment Findings, may become regulated for the first time under the Clean

Air Act, and would be subject to controls not only for greenhouse gases but for

other air pollutants that previously did not trigger permitting requirements.

III. Proposed Intervenors Have Constitutional Standing To Challenge TheEndangerment Findings

Intervenors must independently establish their Article III standing. Ala.

Mun. Distrib. Group v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Commn, 300 F.3d 877, 879 n.2

(D.C. Cir. 2002). But an applicant for intervention that meets the requirements for

intervention of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) demonstrates Article III standing.

Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 333 F.3d 228, 233 (D.C. Cir. 2003). As

discussed above, Proposed Intervenors meet the elements of the intervention of

right test under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). The EPAs Endangerment Findings

directly and substantially affect the Proposed Intervenors interests, and this

Courts vacatur of the Endangerment Findings would redress the injury imposed on

Proposed Intervenors by that EPA action.



11/35

11

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Proposed Intervenors respectfully request that

this Court grant their motion to intervene in Case No. 10-1044 in support of

petitioners.

Dated: March 18, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew G. Paulson

Matthew G. Paulson

Brian J. Faulkner

BAKER BOTTS LLP98 San Jacinto Blvd.

1500 San Jacinto Center

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 322-2500

Alexandra M. Walsh

Adam J. White

BAKER BOTTS LLP

1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004

(202) 639-7700

Jeffrey A. Lamken

MOLOLAMKEN LLP

600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.


(202) 556-2010

Timothy K. WebsterRoger R. Martella

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

1501 K Street, N.W.


(202) 736-8000



12/35

12

Counsel for Proposed Intervenors Glass

Packaging Institute, Independent

Petroleum Association of America,

Louisiana Oil and Gas Association,

North American Die Casting

Association, Steel Manufacturers

Association, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association, Michigan

Manufacturers Association, Indiana

Cast Metals Association, Virginia

Manufacturers Association, Colorado

Association of Commerce And Industry,

Tennessee Chamber of Commerce And

Industry, West Virginia Manufacturers

Association, The Kansas Chamber ofCommerce, Idaho Association of

Commerce and Industry, Pennsylvania

Manufacturers Association, The Ohio

Manufacturers Association, Wisconsin

Manufacturers and Commerce,

Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and

Industry, Arkansas State Chamber of

Commerce and Associated Industries of

Arkansas, and Mississippi

Manufacturers Association.



13/35

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion of Twenty-One Industry

Associations and Chambers of Commerce for Leave To Intervene In Support of

Petitionershas been filed with the Clerk of the Court this 18th day of March, 2010

by using the CM/ECF System.

In addition, I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion of Twenty-One

Industry Associations and Chambers of Commerce for Leave To Intervene In

Support of Petitionershas been served by United States first-class mail this 18th

day of March, 2010 upon each of the following participants or proposed

intervenors in the case who are not registered CM/ECF users:

JOSEPH P.MIKITISH

Office of the Attorney General

1275 West Washington StreetPhoenix, AZ 85007-2926

KIMBERLY P.MASSICOTTE


55 Elm Street

PO Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

VALERIE MELISSA SATTERFIELDOffice of the Attorney General

102 West Water Street, Third Floor

Dover, DE 19904-0000

SUSAN JANE HEDMAN

Office of the Illinois Attorney General

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, IL 60601

GERALD D.REIDOffice of the Attorney General

6 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333-0006

KELVIN ALLEN BROOKS


33 Capitol StreetConcord, NH 03301-6397

HARRY WOODWARD MACDOUGALD

Caldwell & Watson, LLP

5825 Glenridge Drive, Building 2,

Suite 200

Atlanta, GA 30328

STEPHEN ROBERT FARRISOffice of the Attorney General

PO Drawer 1508

Santa Fe, NM 87504-0000

SCOTT CHARLES OOSTDYK

McGuireWoods LLP

One James Center, 901 East Cary

Street

Richmond, VA 23219-4030

CHARLES E.JAMES,JR.


900 East Main Street

Richmond, VA 23219



14/35

14

CHRISTOPHER GENE KING

New York City Law Department

6-143

100 Church Street

New York, NY 10007

ROBERT RICHARD GASAWAY

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

655 15th Street, NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20005

DAVID G.BOOKBINDER

Sierra Club

408 C Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002-0000

SHANNON LEE GOESSLING

Southeastern Legal Foundation

6100 Lake Forrest Drive, N.W., Suite

520

Atlanta, GA 30328

TROY KING


500 Dexter Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36130

ROBERT DOUGLAS TAMBLING


11 South Union Street

Montgomery, AL 36106-0152

NEAL JOHN CABRAL

McGuireWoods LLP

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite

1200


SAM KAZMAN

Competitive Enterprise Institute

1899 L Street, NW, 12th Floor


GREG ABBOTT


PO Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

HANS FRANK BADER


1899 L Street, NW, 12th FloorWashington, DC 20036

WILLIAM ORR

c/o Alexia Hathaway

PO Box 100723

Fort Worth, TX 76185

/S/

Matthew G. Paulson



15/35




Petitioners,

v.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY andLISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR,U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondents

No. 10-1044

(consolidated with cases09-1322, 10-1024, 10-1025,10-1026, 10-1030, 10-1035,10-1036, 10-1037, 10-1038,

10-1039, 10-1040, 10-1041,10-1042, 10-1045, 10-1046,10-1049)

RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS AND CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and D.C. Circuit Rule

26.1, the Proposed Intervenor Industry Associations and Chambers of Commerce

listed below make the following disclosures:

The Glass Packaging Institute (GPI) states that it represents the interests of

the glass container industry. GPIs 45 member and associate member companies

bring a diverse array of products to consumers, producing glass containers for

food, beer, soft drinks, wine, liquor, cosmetics, toiletries, medicine and more. GPI

members either manufacture glass containers or provide essential supplies to those



16/35

2

operations, such as machinery, raw materials, recyclable materials, inspection

equipment, energy, transportation and other services. GPI has no parent company,

and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in GPI.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) states that it

is a national trade association headquartered in Washington, D.C. that represents

the thousands of independent oil and natural gas producers and service companies

across the United States. IPAA serves as an informed voice for the exploration and

production segment of the industry, and advocates its members views before the

U.S. Congress, the Administration and federal agencies. IPAA has no parent

company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest

in IPAA.

The Louisiana Oil and Gas Association (LOGA) states that it represents

the independent and service sectors of the oil and gas industry in Louisiana; this

representation includes exploration, production and oilfield services. LOGA

services its membership by creating incentives for Louisianas oil & gas industry,

warding off tax increases, changing existing burdensome regulations, and

educating the public and government of the importance of the oil and gas industry

in the state of Louisiana. LOGA has 1,050 members. LOGA has no parent


in LOGA.



17/35

3

The North American Die Casting Association (NADCA) states that it

represents the voice of the die casting industry. NADCA is committed to

promoting industry awareness, domestic growth in the global marketplace, and

member exposure. Headquartered in Wheeling, IL, NADCA is comprised of both

individual members and corporate members located throughout United States,

Canada and Mexico. NADCA has no parent company, and no publicly held

company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in NADCA.

The Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) states that it is the primary

trade association for Electric Arc Furnace steel producers, often referred to as

minimills. The SMA is the largest steel trade association in North America,

whose members account for over seventy percent of total U.S. steel production. In

a normal year, the member companies of the SMA consume an average of 70

million tons of steel scrap to produce new steel products, which are utilized across

North America in new residential and commercial construction projects, as well as

in various automotive and white goods applications. SMA has no parent company,

and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in SMA.

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) states that it

is the association of choice for electrical and medical imaging equipment

manufacturers. Founded in 1926 and headquartered near Washington, D.C., its

approximately 430 member companies manufacture products used in the



18/35

4

generation, transmission and distribution, control, and end-use of electricity.

These products are used in utility, industrial, commercial, institutional, and

residential applications. NEMA provides a forum for the development of technical

and safety standards that are in the best interests of the industry and users,

advocacy of industry policies on legislative and regulatory matters, and collection,

analysis, and dissemination of industry data. NEMA has no parent company, and

no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in NEMA.

The Michigan Manufacturers Association (Michigan MA) states that it is a

private nonprofit organization and is the state of Michigans leading advocate

exclusively devoted to promoting and maintaining a business climate favorable to

industry. Michigan MA represents the interests and needs of over 2,500 members,

ranging from small manufacturing companies to some of the worlds largest

corporations. Michigan MAs members operate in the full spectrum of

manufacturing industries, which account for 90% of Michigans industrial

workforce and employ over 500,000 Michigan citizens. Michigan MA has no

parent company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership

interest in Michigan MA.

The Indiana Cast Metals Association (INCMA) states that it represents

Indianas foundry industry, including 30 foundries and 35 associated businesses.

Indianas foundry industry is historically one of the top five producers of castings



19/35

5

in the country and one of the oldest manufacturing sectors in the state given the

average foundry in Indiana has been doing business in the same location for 66

years and many for more than 100 years. INCMA has no parent company, and no

publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in INCMA.

The Virginia Manufacturers Association (VMA) states that it is the

Commonwealth of Virginias leading voice for industry. The manufacturing sector

in Virginia consists of over 5,000 businesses accounting for $172 billion in

economic output and supporting over one million jobs. The mission of the VMA is

to promote constructive policies and activities on behalf of industry by serving as

an advocate for legislative, regulatory, taxation, environmental, workplace,

business law, insurance, and technology issues and as an aggregator of business

services for its Members. VMA has no parent company, and no publicly held

company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in VMA.

The Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry (CACI) states that it

is a private, non-profit trade association that was created in 1965 when the

Colorado Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado Manufacturers Association

merged. CACI members employ over 200,000 Coloradans in the private-sector

workforce and include 40 Local Chambers of Commerce representing 20,345

Colorado companies with over 807,000 employees. CACI monitors government

rules and regulations to protect and enhance the ability of businesses to operate



20/35

6

successfully in Colorado. CACI has no parent company, and no publicly held

company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in CACI.

The Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry (the Tennessee

Chamber) states that it is Tennessees largest statewide, broad-based business and

industry trade association. It is a private, not-for-profit trade association that

serves as the primary voice of diverse business interests on major employment and

economic issues facing public policy decision-makers in Tennessee. It fosters

harmonious relationships between the various elements of the Tennessee business

community and serves as an umbrella organization for companies, trade

associations and chambers of commerce to work together for the economic health

of the state. The Tennessee Chamber has no parent company, and no publicly held

company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in the Tennessee Chamber.

The West Virginia Manufacturers Association (WVMA) states that it

represents the interests of manufacturers across the state of West Virginia to state

and federal agencies, legislators, regulators and policy-makers. WVMA has no

parent company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership

interest in WVMA.

The Kansas Chamber of Commerce (the Kansas Chamber) states that is

the leading statewide pro-business advocacy group in Kansas. The Kansas

Chamber represents member organizations (small, medium and large businesses



21/35

7

across Kansas). The Kansas Chamber has no parent company, and no publicly

held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in the Kansas Chamber.

The Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry (IACI) states that it

represents nearly 300 Idaho businesses in such diverse fields as agriculture and

food service, technology, accounting and banking, utilities, manufacturing and

construction, as well as chambers of commerce from Idahos large and small cities

and associations representing a wide variety of interests in this quest to shape

policy for a bright economic future. IACI has no parent company, and no publicly

held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in IACI.

The Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association (PMA) states that it is a

Harrisburg-based statewide trade organization representing the interests of the

manufacturing sector in the public policy process since 1909. PMA has no parent


in PMA.

The Ohio Manufacturers Association (OMA) states that it is a private,

non-profit trade association dedicated to protecting and growing manufacturing in

Ohio. The OMA promotes policies that increase manufacturings competitiveness

in Ohio and contribute to a sound economy. Manufacturing is the largest share of

Ohios gross state product, it is the largest employment sector in the state, and it

enjoys some of the highest average earnings for workers in the state. The OMA



22/35

8

represents over 1400 manufacturing members in nearly every manufacturing sector

across Ohio. OMA has no parent company, and no publicly held company has a

10% or greater ownership interest in OMA.

The Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) states that it is a

business trade association with nearly 4,000 members, and is dedicated to making

Wisconsin the most competitive state in the nation to do business through public

policy that supports a healthy business climate. Its members are Wisconsin

businesses that operate throughout the state in the manufacturing, energy,

commercial, health care, insurance, banking, and service industry sectors of the

economy. Roughly one-fourth of Wisconsins workforce is employed by a WMC

member company. WMC has no parent company, and no publicly held company

has a 10% or greater ownership interest in WMC.

The Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and Industry (the Nebraska

Chamber) states that it is a state-wide federation of business firms and

organizations, both large and small, dedicated to economic progress and the

preservation of a sound business climate. Representing more than 2,000 members

individuals, businesses, industries, professionals, including 60 chambers of

commerce and 75 other Nebraska associations the Nebraska Chamber has an

underlying grassroots membership of more than 100,000 persons. The Nebraska



23/35

9

Chamber has no parent company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or

greater ownership interest in the Nebraska Chamber.

The Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce (the Arkansas State Chamber)

states that it was formed in 1928 to advocate for the business community in

Arkansas. The Associated Industries of Arkansas states that it was founded as a

separate, sister organization to the Arkansas State Chamber. The two groups work

together to continually enhance the economic climate in Arkansas. Both groups

are private, non-profit corporations that are totally funded by member dues. Each

organization has its own officers and its own directors, but both share headquarters

and professional staff in Little Rock. Neither the Arkansas State Chamber nor the

Associated Industries of Arkansas has a parent company, and no publicly held

company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in the Arkansas State Chamber

or the Associated Industries of Arkansas.

Mississippi Manufacturers Association (Mississippi MA) states that it has

served as the voice of industry in the State of Mississippi since 1951. Mississippi

MA diligently works to maintain a strong manufacturing environment in the state

and is the voice of approximately 2,200 member companies in Mississippi.

Mississippi MA addresses the needs of todays manufacturer through active

involvement in federal and state legislative and regulatory issues, as well as

educational and training opportunities. Mississippi MA represents their interests in



24/35

10

the areas of the environment, industrial and employee relations, taxation, energy,

workforce development and transportation. Mississippi MA has no parent

company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in

Mississippi MA.


/s/ Matthew G. PaulsonMatthew G. Paulson

Brian J. FaulknerBAKER BOTTS LLP98 San Jacinto Blvd.1500 San Jacinto CenterAustin, Texas 78701(512) 322-2500

Alexandra M. WalshAdam J. WhiteBAKER BOTTS LLP1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20004(202) 639-7700

Jeffrey A. LamkenMOLOLAMKEN LLP600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20037(202) 556-2010

Timothy K. WebsterRoger R. MartellaSIDLEY AUSTIN LLP1501 K Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005(202) 736-8000



25/35

11

Counsel for Proposed Intervenors Glass

Packaging Institute, Independent












Industry, West Virginia ManufacturersAssociation, The Kansas Chamber of

Commerce, Idaho Association of






Industry, Arkansas State Chamber of

Commerce and Associated Industries of





26/35

12


I hereby certify that the foregoing Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement ofProposed Intervenor Industry Associations and Chambers of Commercehas beenfiled with the Clerk of the Court this 18th day of March, 2010 by using the

CM/ECF System.

In addition, I hereby certify that the foregoing Rule 26.1 DisclosureStatement of Proposed Intervenor Industry Associations and Chambers ofCommerce has been served by United States first-class mail this 18th day ofMarch, 2010 upon each of the following participants or proposed intervenors in thecase who are not registered CM/ECF users:

JOSEPH P.MIKITISHOffice of the Attorney General


KIMBERLY P.MASSICOTTEOffice of the Attorney General55 Elm StreetPO Box 120Hartford, CT 06141-0120

VALERIE MELISSA SATTERFIELDOffice of the Attorney General102 West Water Street, Third FloorDover, DE 19904-0000

SUSAN JANE HEDMANOffice of the Illinois Attorney General100 West Randolph StreetChicago, IL 60601

GERALD D.REIDOffice of the Attorney General6 State House StationAugusta, ME 04333-0006

KELVIN ALLEN BROOKSOffice of the Attorney General


HARRY WOODWARD MACDOUGALDCaldwell & Watson, LLP5825 Glenridge Drive, Building 2,Suite 200Atlanta, GA 30328

STEPHEN ROBERT FARRISOffice of the Attorney GeneralPO Drawer 1508Santa Fe, NM 87504-0000

SCOTT CHARLES OOSTDYKMcGuireWoods LLPOne James Center, 901 East CaryStreetRichmond, VA 23219-4030

CHARLES E.JAMES,JR.Office of the Attorney General900 East Main StreetRichmond, VA 23219



27/35

13

CHRISTOPHER GENE KINGNew York City Law Department6-143100 Church StreetNew York, NY 10007

ROBERT RICHARD GASAWAYKirkland & Ellis LLP655 15th Street, NW, Suite 1200Washington, DC 20005

DAVID G.BOOKBINDERSierra Club408 C Street, NE


SHANNON LEE GOESSLINGSoutheastern Legal Foundation6100 Lake Forrest Drive, N.W., Suite520Atlanta, GA 30328

TROY KINGOffice of the Attorney General500 Dexter AvenueMontgomery, AL 36130

ROBERT DOUGLAS TAMBLINGOffice of the Attorney General11 South Union StreetMontgomery, AL 36106-0152

NEAL JOHN CABRALMcGuireWoods LLP1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite1200Washington, DC 20036-5317

SAM KAZMANCompetitive Enterprise Institute1899 L Street, NW, 12th Floor


GREG ABBOTTOffice of the Attorney GeneralPO Box 12548Austin, TX 78711-2548

HANS FRANK BADERCompetitive Enterprise Institute


WILLIAM ORRc/o Alexia HathawayPO Box 100723Fort Worth, TX 76185

/S/Matthew G. Paulson



28/35




Petitioners,

v.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY and

LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR,

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondents

No. 10-1044

(consolidated with cases

09-1322, 10-1024, 10-1025,

10-1026, 10-1030, 10-1035,

10-1036, 10-1037, 10-1038,

10-1039, 10-1040, 10-1041,10-1042, 10-1045, 10-1046,

10-1049)

CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES ANDAMICI

OF PROPOSED INTERVENOR

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS AND CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

Pursuant to Circuit Rules 27(a)(4) and 28(a)(1)(A), Proposed Intervenors1

submit this Certificate as to Parties andAmici:

1The Proposed Intervenors are a coalition of twenty-one industry associations

and chambers of commerce, consisting of the Glass Packaging Institute;

Independent Petroleum Association of America; Louisiana Oil and Gas

Association; North American Die Casting Association; Steel Manufacturers

Association; National Electrical Manufacturers Association; MichiganManufacturers Association; Indiana Cast Metals Association; Virginia

Manufacturers Association; Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry;

Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry; West Virginia Manufacturers

Association; Kansas Chamber of Commerce; Idaho Association of Commerce and

Industry; Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association; The Ohio Manufacturers

Association; Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce; Nebraska Chamber of



29/35

2

Petitioners. The Petitioners in these consolidated cases are Coalition for

Responsible Regulation, Inc., Industrial Minerals AssociationNorth America,

National Cattlemans Beef Association, Great Northern Project Development, L.P.,

Rosebud Mining Company, Massey Energy Company, and Alpha Natural

Resources, Inc. (09-1322); the National Mining Association (10-1024); Peabody

Energy Company (10-1025); American Farm Bureau Federation (10-1026);

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (10-1030); U.S.

Representative John Linder, U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, U.S.

Representative John Shimkus, U.S. Representative Phil Gingrey, U.S.

Representative Lynn Westmoreland, U.S. Representative Tom Price, U.S

Representative Paul Broun, U.S. Representative Steve King, U.S. Representative

Nathan Deal, U.S. Representative Jack Kingston, U.S. Representative Michele

Bachmann, U.S. Representative Kevin Brady, Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc.,

The Langdale Company, Langdale Forest Products Company, Langdale Farms,

LLC, Langdale Fuel Company, Langdale Chevrolet - Pontiac, Inc., Langdale Ford

Company, Langboard, Inc. - MDF, Langboard, Inc. - OSB, Georgia Motor

Trucking Association, Inc., Collins Industries, Inc., Collins Trucking Company,

Inc., Kennesaw Transportation, Inc., J&M Tank Lines, Inc, Southeast Trailer Mart,

Inc., and GeorgiaAgribusiness Council, Inc. (10-1035); the Commonwealth of

Commerce and Industry; Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce; the Associated

Industries of Arkansas; and Mississippi Manufacturers Association.



30/35

3

Virginia (10-1036); Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation (10-1037); American Iron and

Steel Institute (10-1038); State of Alabama (10-1039); Ohio Coal Association (10-

1040); State of Texas, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, Attorney

General of Texas, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas

Agriculture Commission, and Barry Smitherman, Chairman of the Texas Public

Utility Commission (10-1041); Utility Air Regulatory Group (10-1042); the

National Association of Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, Brick

Industry Association, Corn Refiners Association, National Association of Home

Builders, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Petrochemical and

Refiners Association, and Western States Petroleum Association (10-1044);

Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, and the Science and

Environmental Policy Project (10-1045); Portland Cement Association (10-1046);

and the Alliance for Natural Climate Change Science and William Orr (10-1049).

Respondents. The Respondents are the United States Environmental

Protection Agency and Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency.

Proposed Intervenors. As of March 17, 2010, the following parties have

moved to intervene in this proceeding: the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the

States of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Maine,

Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island,



31/35

4

Vermont, and Washington, and the City of New York City (09-1322); National

Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, and Natural

Resources Defense Council, (09-1322); Portland Cement Association (09-1322);

Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. (09-1322); the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the State of Minnesota

(09-1322); and the State of Alaska (10-1030).

Proposed Amici. Mountain States Legal Foundation (09-1322) and Union

of Concerned Scientists (09-1322) have both moved to participate as amici.

Because these cases do not involve any district court proceedings, the

requirement to furnish a list of parties, intervenors, and amici that appeared below

is inapplicable.



32/35

5


/s/ Matthew G. Paulson

Matthew G. Paulson

Brian J. Faulkner

BAKER BOTTS LLP

98 San Jacinto Blvd.

1500 San Jacinto Center

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 322-2500

Alexandra M. Walsh

Adam J. WhiteBAKER BOTTS LLP

1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.


(202) 639-7700

Jeffrey A. Lamken

MOLOLAMKEN LLP

600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.


(202) 556-2010

Timothy K. Webster

Roger R. Martella

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

1501 K Street, N.W.


(202) 736-8000

Counsel for Proposed Intervenors GlassPackaging Institute, Independent








33/35

6







Industry, West Virginia Manufacturers

Association, The Kansas Chamber of

Commerce, Idaho Association of






Industry, Arkansas State Chamber ofCommerce and Associated Industries of





34/35

7


I hereby certify that the foregoing Certificate As To Parties and Amici

of Proposed Intervenor Industry Associations and Chambers of Commerce has

been filed with the Clerk of the Court this 18th day of March, 2010 by using the

CM/ECF System.

In addition, I hereby certify that the foregoing Certificate As To

Parties and Amici of Proposed Intervenor Industry Associations and Chambers of

Commerce has been served by United States first-class mail this 18th day of

March, 2010 upon each of the following participants or proposed intervenors in the

case who are not registered CM/ECF users:

JOSEPH P.MIKITISH



KIMBERLY P.MASSICOTTE


55 Elm Street

PO Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

VALERIE MELISSA SATTERFIELDOffice of the Attorney General

102 West Water Street, Third Floor

Dover, DE 19904-0000

SUSAN JANE HEDMAN

Office of the Illinois Attorney General

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, IL 60601

GERALD D.REID


6 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333-0006

KELVIN ALLEN BROOKS



HARRY WOODWARD MACDOUGALD

Caldwell & Watson, LLP

5825 Glenridge Drive, Building 2,

Suite 200

Atlanta, GA 30328

STEPHEN ROBERT FARRISOffice of the Attorney General

PO Drawer 1508

Santa Fe, NM 87504-0000

SCOTT CHARLES OOSTDYK

McGuireWoods LLP

One James Center, 901 East Cary

Street

Richmond, VA 23219-4030

CHARLES E.JAMES,JR.


900 East Main Street

Richmond, VA 23219



35/35

CHRISTOPHER GENE KING

New York City Law Department

6-143

100 Church Street

New York, NY 10007

ROBERT RICHARD GASAWAY

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

655 15th Street, NW, Suite 1200


DAVID G.BOOKBINDER

Sierra Club

408 C Street, NE


SHANNON LEE GOESSLING

Southeastern Legal Foundation

6100 Lake Forrest Drive, N.W.

Suite 520

Atlanta, GA 30328

TROY KING


500 Dexter Avenue

Montgomery, AL 36130

ROBERT DOUGLAS TAMBLING


11 South Union Street

Montgomery, AL 36106-0152

NEAL JOHN CABRAL

McGuireWoods LLP

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite

1200


SAM KAZMAN


1899 L Street, NW, 12th Floor


GREG ABBOTT


PO Box 12548

Austin, TX 78711-2548

HANS FRANK BADER



WILLIAM ORR

c/o Alexia Hathaway

PO Box 100723

Fort Worth, TX 76185

/S/

Matthew G. Paulson


Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene

Documents

Transcript of Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene