View
222
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 2
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 3
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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,
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 4
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 5
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 6
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 7
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 8
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 9
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 10
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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.
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 556-2010
Timothy K. WebsterRoger R. Martella
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 736-8000
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 11
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 12
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
Office of the Attorney General
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
Office of the Attorney General
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.
Office of the Attorney General
900 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 13
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
Office of the Attorney General
500 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36130
ROBERT DOUGLAS TAMBLING
Office of the Attorney General
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36106-0152
NEAL JOHN CABRAL
McGuireWoods LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite
1200
Washington, DC 20036-5317
SAM KAZMAN
Competitive Enterprise Institute
1899 L Street, NW, 12th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
GREG ABBOTT
Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548
HANS FRANK BADER
Competitive Enterprise Institute
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 14
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
15/35
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OFMANUFACTURERS, et. al.
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 15
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest
in LOGA.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 16
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 17
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 18
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 19
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 20
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 21
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 22
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 23
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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.
Dated: March 18, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
/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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 24
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
25/35
11
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 ManufacturersAssociation, The Kansas Chamber of
Commerce, 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.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 25
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
26/35
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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
1275 West Washington StreetPhoenix, AZ 85007-2926
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
33 Capitol StreetConcord, NH 03301-6397
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 26
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
Washington, DC 20002-0000
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
Washington, DC 20036
GREG ABBOTTOffice of the Attorney GeneralPO Box 12548Austin, TX 78711-2548
HANS FRANK BADERCompetitive Enterprise Institute
1899 L Street, NW, 12th FloorWashington, DC 20036
WILLIAM ORRc/o Alexia HathawayPO Box 100723Fort Worth, TX 76185
/S/Matthew G. Paulson
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 27
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
28/35
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)
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 28
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 29
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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,
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 30
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 31
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
32/35
5
Dated: March 18, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
/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.
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 639-7700
Jeffrey A. Lamken
MOLOLAMKEN LLP
600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202) 556-2010
Timothy K. Webster
Roger R. Martella
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 736-8000
Counsel for Proposed Intervenors GlassPackaging Institute, Independent
Petroleum Association of America,
Louisiana Oil and Gas Association,
North American Die Casting
Association, Steel Manufacturers
Association, National Electrical
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 32
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
33/35
6
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, 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 ofCommerce and Associated Industries of
Arkansas, and Mississippi
Manufacturers Association.
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 33
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
34/35
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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
Office of the Attorney General
1275 West Washington StreetPhoenix, AZ 85007-2926
KIMBERLY P.MASSICOTTE
Office of the Attorney General
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
Office of the Attorney General
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0006
KELVIN ALLEN BROOKS
Office of the Attorney General
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.
Office of the Attorney General
900 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 34
8/9/2019 Industry Assns and Chambers of Commerce Motion to Intervene
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
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
Office of the Attorney General
500 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36130
ROBERT DOUGLAS TAMBLING
Office of the Attorney General
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, AL 36106-0152
NEAL JOHN CABRAL
McGuireWoods LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite
1200
Washington, DC 20036-5317
SAM KAZMAN
Competitive Enterprise Institute
1899 L Street, NW, 12th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
GREG ABBOTT
Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548
HANS FRANK BADER
Competitive Enterprise Institute
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
Case: 09-1322 Document: 1235616 Filed: 03/18/2010 Page: 35
Recommended