ZENECA 

Zeneca Ag Products Inc. 

Legal Group 

1 800 Concord Pike 

Wilmington, DE 19850-5458 

Heather C. Winett 

Tel. (302) 886 - 3717 

Fax (302) 886 - 1045 

heather.winett@agna.zeneca.com 

October 13,2000 

Kathleen Franklin 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building -5 104 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Requested De-Lis f ing of Paraquat Dichloride from SARA Title III, Section 302 

Dear Kathy: 

As a follow-up to our meeting and discussions last year, Zeneca is still very serious about pursuing 

EPA's delisting of paraquat dichloride from the Section 302 Iist. Since the time we met in your offices, 

Zeneca has been diverted from pursuing this and other significant projects by preparations for our 

anticipated merger with Novartis Crop Protection. To ensure preservation of our procedural rights, we have 

had our outside counsel file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. I am 

enclosing a courtesy copy of the complaint (which is essentially the same as the draft we provided you in 

December 1999). Because we intend to pursue the delisting with you in a non-adversarial manner, we have 

not yet served the complaint on the Agency. Thus, at this time, EPA is not required to respond to the 

complaint, and the filing has not initiated any court imposed time tables or scheduling. 

At our meeting, you and your colleagues requested some additional information to assist the Agency 

in evaluating our rationale for delisting. I expect to provide you with that information in the near future. 

Also, you may recall that Zeneca had formally petitioned for a similar delisting under California's 

Accidental Release Prevention ("CalARP") rules. We have recently learned that the Governor's Office of 

Emergency Services ("OES") fully agrees with Zeneca's position and is in the process of obtaining 

concurrence from California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"). OES 

expects to promulgate an emergency regulation delisting paraquat dichloride horn the CalARP rule in 

December 2000, effective January 1,2001. The anticipated CalARP delisting should provide a useful 

precedent for the SARA Title 111, Section 302 delisting effort. 

Sincerely, 

~~J;;R-c ather C. Winett lJjqfEnclosure Sr. Environmental Counsel 

CC: Elizabeth Quarles (Zeneca) 

Drew Davidson (Zeneca) 

Peter Gray, Esq. (McKenna & Cuneo) 

Sueanne Pfifferling (JSC) 
ZENECA AG PRODUCTS INC. 

1800 Concord Pike 

Wilmington, Delaware 19850 

plaintiff, 

CAROL M. BROWNER, Administrator 

United States Environmental 

~rotection Agency, 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, Q.C. 20460 

And 

THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, Zeneca Ag Products Inc. ("Zeneca"), alleges the 

following against Defendants, Carol M. Browner and the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (collectively f'EPA1' or 

"the agencyll ) 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

Zeneca brings this action under Sections 702, 704 and 706 of 

the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA1'), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704. & 

706, seeking judicial review of a final decision by EPA. 

Specifically. Zeneca seeks an order reversing EPA1s decision to 
deny Zeneca's petition to either delete the registered pesticide, 

paraquat dichloride, from the agency's list of "extremely 

hazardous substances" or, alternatively, to raise the regulatory 

threshold applicable to the substance under § 302 of the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 

("EPCRA"), 42 U.S.C. 5 11002. Under EPCRA § 302, EPA is 

obligated to consider six different factors in deciding whether 

to remove paraquat dichloride from the list of extremely 

hazardous substances or to adjust the regulatory threshold. 

Zeneca's petition presented data under these factors 

demonstrating that paraquat dichloride would not pose any risk 

during the emergency release scenarios addressed by Section 302. 

EPA, without explanation, failed to consider such data in ruling 

on the petition. Such failure renders EPA's action arbitrary and 

capricious under the APA. 

JURISDICTION 

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this is an action 

arising under the laws of the United States, including EPCRA 

§ 302 and APA §§ 702, 704 and 706. 

VENUE 

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). 
PARTIES 

3, Plaintiff Zeneca is a corporation incorporated under 

the laws of the State of Delaware. Zeneca is the sole 

manufacturer of paraquat dichloride in the United States. 

Paraquat dichloride is an EPA-approved agricultural herbicide 

registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act ( "FIFRA" ) . 

4. Defendant EPA is the federal agency charged with 

administering and enforcing both EPCRA and FIFRA. 

5. Defendant Carol M. Browner is the Administrator of EPA 

and has the authority to grant or deny the petition at issue in 

this case pursuant to EPCRA § 302 (a) (4) . 

BACKGROUND ON THE EPCRA LIST OF EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

6. Subtitle A of EPCRA (§§ 301-305) creates a state and 

local emergency planning and response program aimed at preventing 

or mitigating potential risks posed by accidental releases of socalled "extremely hazardous substances." 

7. Under § 302 of EPCRA, Congress directed EPA to publish 

a list of extremely hazardous substances ("EHS") by November 17, 

1986. For purposes of the initial EHS list, Congress required 

EPA to use the same list of chemicals published by the Agency in 

November 1985 as part of the "Chemical Emergency Preparedness 

Program Interim Guidance" (hereafter "1985 CEEP List"). 

Congress, however, authorized EPA to add or delete chemicals from 
the EHS list based on consideration of the toxicity, reactivity, 

volatility, dispersability, combustability, or flammability of a 

substance. EPCRA § 302(a) (4). 

8. Concurrent with publishing the initial EHS list, 

Congress also required EPA to establish a "threshold planning 

quantity1 ("TPQ") for each substance on the EHS list (or, 

alternatively, to designate the default statutory TPQ of two 

pounds). The TPQ is the total amount of a fisted substance 

which, if present at a facility at any time, subjects the 

facility to the emergency planning requirements of EPCRA. As 

with revisions to the EHS list, EPA may revise the TPQ for listed 

substances taking into account toxicity, reactivity, volatility, 

dispersability, combustability, or flammability of a substance. 

9. On November 17, 1986, EPA published an interim final 

rule setting forth, -- inter alia, the initial EHS list. 51 Fed. 

Reg. 41,570 (Nov. 17, 1986). Paraquat dichloride was one of over 

400 substances that EPA had included on its 1985 CEEP List, and 

therefore paraquat dichloride was incorporated into EPA1s 

November 1986 initial EHS list. - Id. at 41,585. 

10. EPA stated that a substance would be retained on the 

final EHS list based on the agency's consideration of only one of 

the six EHS listing criteria, namely, that a substance is 

"acutely toxic." - Id. at 41,573. EPA deems a substance to be 

"acutely toxic" if it meets any of the following three criteria: 

(1) an "oral LD50" below "25 mg/kgN (which means that there is a 
50% mortality rate among laboratory animals given an oral dose of 

25 milligrams of the test substance per kilogram of a laboratory 

animal's body weight) ; (2) a "dermal LD50" below 50 mg/kg (which 

means that there is a 50% a mortality rate among laboratory 

animals given a dermal dose of 50 mg/kg) ; and (3) an "inhalation 

LC50" of below 0.5 mg/L (which means that there is a 50% a 

mortality rate among laboratory animals given an inhaled dose of 

0.5 mg of substance per liter of air). Id. 

11. In the 1986 interim final rule, EPA also established a 

TPQ for each substance on the initial EHS list. EPA assigned one 

of the following five TPQs to the substance: 2, 100, 500, 1000 

or 10,000 lbs. - Id. at 41,577. The greater the hazard posed by a 

substance, the lower the TPQ assigned to it. 

12. To set these TPQs, EPA utilized the so-called 

"dispersion/toxicity ranking method," pursuant to which EPA gave 

each listed substance a hazard score (or "index value" ) . 

51 Fed. Reg. 41593 (Nov. 17, 1986). 

13. To calculate the "index value" for a substance, EPA 

divided the substance's relative toxicity (referred to as the 

"level of concern" factor) by the substance's propensity to 

become airborne or volatilize during an accident or emergency 

(ref erred to as "V" factor) . 

14. Those substances that can become completely airborne 

during an accident or emergency release received the highest 

possible V factor ("1"). Under this approach, all gaseous 
substances on the EHS list received a V factor of 1, because 

gases were assumed to become completely airborne upon release 

from a container. 

15. By contrast, for liquid substances on the EHS list, EPA 

calculated a V factor that would be less than I, because EPA 

could not assume that 100% of the liquid would become airborne 

when an accidental release occurs. Rather, some smaller 

percentage would become airborne. 

16. Finally, in determining the V factor for solids, EPA 

distinguished solids in powder form, which could readily disperse 

into the air like gases, from all other solids, which would be 

much less likely to become airborne. EPA assigned a V factor of 

1 to solids in powder form on the premise that 100% could become 

airborne during an accidental release. For all other solids, the 

agency solicited comment on whether such solids should be deleted 

from the EHS list or assigned a default TPQ of 10,000 lbs. 51 

Fed. Reg. 41,570, 41,578. 

17. Pursuant to the above approach, in the 1986 interim 

final rule, EPA assigned the lowest TPQ, 2 lbs., ta paraquat 

dichloride in so-called "powder form," whereas for all other 

forms of paraquat dichloride the default TPQ of 10,000 lbs. was 

assigned. - Id. at 41,585. Because paraquat dichloride is neither 

produced nor handled as a powder, the 2 lb. TPQ does not ever 

apply - 
18. On April 22, 1987, EPA published the final EHS list in 

the Federal Register. 52 Fed. Reg. 13,378. In so doing, EPA 

restated that it had relied on only one of the six EHS listing 

criteria, i.e., evidence of a substance's acute toxicity, to 

retain it on the final EHS list. EPA, however, stated its intent 

"to evaluate hazards other than toxicity as identified in section 

302 (a) (4) and to develop appropriate criteria based on these 

physical/chemical properties, e.g., flammability, for revising 

the list of extremely hazardous substances in the future." - Id. 

19. With regard to the final TPQs adopted by EPA, the 

agency modified its approach in a manner that had a significant 

impact on the TPQ for paraquat dichloride. Rather than assign a 

default TPQ of 10,000 lbs. to all solids other than powders, EPA 

used the following approach: (1) for finely powdered solids 

(those with a particle size less than 100 microns), solids in 

molten form, solids in solution, and reactive solids, EPA 

calculated an index value and corresponding TPQ; and (2) for all 

other solids, EPA applied the 10,000-pound default TPQ. 

52 Fed. Reg. 13378, 13390. 

20. As under the interim final rule, EPA treated finely 

powdered solids like gases and assumed that the entire quantity 

of such powdered solids would be released if an accident 

occurred. Thus, finely powdered solids received the highest 

V factor of 1. 
21. Without any explanation, EPA also assigned a V factor 

of 1 to "solids in solution," notwithstanding that the physical 

and chemical characteristics of many solids in solution limit 

their capacity to become airborne. 

22. Paraquat dichloride is just such a substance. It has 

no measurable vapor pressure and decomposes before reaching a 

boiling point (i.e., it has no boiling point). EPA used a 

substance's boiling point to estimate the potential of liquids to 

become airborne at elevated temperatures. Using EPA's approach, 

therefore, paraquat dichloride would be regarded as having no 

potential to become airborne. Nevertheless, EPA assigned to 

paraquat dichloride a V factor of 1 -- the value signifying the 

highest potential to become airborne. As a consequence, paraquat 

dichloride received a low index value and a correspondingly low 

TPQ of 10 lbs. [Note: in the final rule, instead of assigning a 

TPQ of either 2, 100, 500, 1,000 and 10,000 lbs. to a listed 

substance, EPA assigned the following revised TPQ levels: 1, 10, 

100, 1000, and 10,000 lbs.] 

PETITION TO REMOVE PARAQUAT FROM EHS LIST OR TO ADJUST TPQ 

23. On October 12, 1989, Zeneca (then known as ICI Americas 

Inc.), filed a petition to remove paraquat dichloride from the 

EHS list under EPCRA § 302. 

24. In its petition, Zeneca justified removal of paraquat 

dichloride from the EHS list, because a release of the substance 

would not pose any meaningful risk to an exposed population. 
First, Zeneca demonstrated that paraquat dichloride does not meet 

either the oral or dermal toxicity criteria for listing an EHS. 

25. As to the inhalation toxicity criterion, there are two 

studies which show that under laboratory conditions an inhaled 

dose of paraquat dichloride at a concentration below 0.5 mg/~ 

would cause 50% mortality in laboratory animals. However, as 

Zeneca explained, it is one thing to be able to temporarily 

atomize paraquat dichloride under laboratory conditions so that 

it can be administered to laboratory animals. It does not 

follow, however, that inhalable particles or vapors or paraquat 

dichloride can become airborne during an accidental release. 

Indeed, the physical and chemical properties of paraquat 

dichloride dictate a contrary conclusion. 

26. Specifically, paraquat dichloride has no boiling point 

and no measurable vapor pressure. Thus, paraquat dichloride 

lacks the propensity to form inhalable particles or vapors. 

Consequently, paraquat dichloride poses no meaningful risk of 

inhalation toxicity and should be removed from the EHS list. 

27. On September 19, 1990, Zeneca filed a supplemental 

petition requesting, as an alternative to delisting, that EPA 

raise the TPQ for paraquat dichloride from 10 lbs. to 10,000 lbs. 

In its supplemental petition, Zeneca explained that the same flaw 

that led to the erroneous decision to retain paraquat dichloride 

on the EHS list also led to an improper TPQ designation, i.e., 
EPA's failure to consider the unique physical and chemical 

properties of the substance. 

28. On October 12, 1994, EPA published its decision to deny 

both Zeneca's petition to remove paraquat dichloride from the EHS 

list and Zeneca's alternative request to raise the TPQ for 

paraquat dichloride. 59 Fed. Reg. 51816, 51818 (Oct. 12, 1994). 

As set forth below, EPA's denial was arbitrary and capricious. 

EPA'S DECISION TO RETAIN PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE ON THE LIST 

OF EXTREMELY KAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS 

29. In its denial of Zeneca's petition to remove paraquat 

dichloride from the EHS list, EPA acknowledged that paraquat 

dichloride does not meet the oral or dermal LD50 criteria for 

listing, but concluded that paraquat dichloride does meet the 

inhalation LC50 criterion for listing. In so finding, however, 

EPA did not consider the unique properties of paraquat dichloride 

which preclude the possibility that an accidental release of 

paraquat dichloride could pose an inhalation toxicity risk. 

30. Congress directed EPA to base decisions to modify the 

EHS list on consideration of six properties -- toxicity, 

reactivity, volatility, dispersability, combustability, or 

flammability -- which may render a substance so hazardous that an 

accidental release would warrant emergency response measures and 

advance emergency planning. EPCRA § 302(a) (4). 
31. Throughout the EHS rulemaking, EPA acknowledged the 

importance of factors other than acute toxicity, such as the 

physical and chemical property of a substance, in determining 

whether a substance belongs on the EHS list. EPA stated its 

intent to develop criteria based on physical and chemical 

properties for listing substances. See, e.g., 52 Fed. Reg. 

13378, 13388; EPA, Response to Comments on the Interim Final Rule 

and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) Sections 302, 304, at 54-55. 

32. Yet' when presented with Zeneca' s data regarding the 

physical and chemical properties of paraquat dichloride and the 

significance of such properties for assessing whether the 

substance would pose a risk during an accident or emergency, EPA 

without explanation ignored such data and instead relied 

exclusively on the toxicity of the substance in deciding whether 

to retain it on the EHS list. 

33. In the case of paraquat dichloride, toxicity alone is 

not indicative of the potential risk posed by an accidental 

release. To the contrary, other physical and chemical 

properties -- i.e., its lack of a measurable vapor pressure and 

lack of boiling point -- render paraquat dichloride incapable of 

posing any meaningful risk of inhalation toxicity. In its 

petition to remove paraquat from the EHS list, Zeneca clearly and 

directly provided EPA with information and data on the physical 

and chemical properties of paraquat. EPA should have taken these 
properties into consideration in deciding whether to retain 

paraquat dichloride on the EHS list. 

34. In its petition to delete, Zeneca informed EPA that 

paraquat dichloride is a liquid from its initial manufacture 

through its application as an agricultural herbicide. Paraquat 

dichloride is never handled, stored or used in powder form. 

[Note: Although EPA has characterized paraquat dichloride as a 

"solid in solution," there are no particles suspended in paraquat 

dichloride liquid. Rather, the ions dissociate completely and do 

not precipitate out of solution.] 

35. Paraquat dichloride has no boiling point or measurable 

vapor pressure; at high temperatures, paraquat dichloride simply 

decomposes. Therefore, using EPA's methodology for liquids, 

paraquat dichloride presents no risk of being released into the 

air and becoming hazardous to the public via inhalation toxicity. 

36. Also noteworthy are the conclusions reached by EPA in 

connection with registering paraquat dichloride under FIFRA. 

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs ("OPP") evaluated he risk 

posed when paraquat dichloride is sprayed on crops. 

OPP concluded that pesticidal spray application of paraquat 

dichloride does not cause adverse effects, because the droplets 

are not inhalable. See Guidance for the Reregistration of 

Pesticide Products Containing Paraquat Dichloride as the Active 

Ingredient, GS0262 (EPA June 1987) 

at 5. 
37. In view of the foregoing, EPA's decision to retain 

paraquat dichloride on the list of extremely hazardous substances 

is arbitrary and capricious. 

EPA'S REFUSAL TO ADJUST THE THRESHOLD PLANNING 

QUANTITY FOR PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS 

38. In EPA's denial of Zeneca's alternative request to 

raise the TPQ for paraquat dichloride, the agency did not explain 

the pivotal decision to assign a V factor of 1 to paraquat 

dichloride -- the decision which ultimately drove EPA to assign a 

10 lb. TPQ to-the compound. Based on statements in EPA 

background documents, however, it appears that in the final rule, 

EPA assumed that all "solids in solution" would disperse just 

like a gas -- i.e., that all of the substance would become 

airborne in an accident, thus justifying a V factor of 1. 

39. With respect to paraquat dichloride, however, EPA's 

assumption is demonstrably false. The laws of physics preclude 

the possibility of a release of paraquat dichloride becoming 

completely airborne. Regardless of the emergency release 

scenario (extreme temperature, explosion, etc.), the amount 

expected to become airborne would not only be less than 100%, it 

would be virtually zero. 

40. As noted above, paraquat dichloride does not have a 

boiling point. At high temperatures, it does not boil, but 

rather decomposes. Paraquat dichloride, thus, poses virtually no 

risk of airborne release. 
41. Based on invalid assumptions about the capacity of 

paraquat dichloride to become airborne, EPA incorrectly 

calculated its index value, which resulted in assignment of an 

unrealistically low TPQ of 10 Ibs. 

42. Had EPA considered the data presented in the petition 

pertaining to the other statutory criteria for listing an EBS, 

namely, "volatility" and "dispersability, " EPA would not have 

made these invalid assumptions. 

43. EPA's failure to consider these other statutory 

criteria renders its decision to retain a 10 lb. TPQ for paraquat 

dichloride arbitrary, capricious and not in accordance with law. 

EPA'S IMPROPER DENIAL OF THE REQUEST TO DELIST OR TO 

ADJUST THE TPQ FOR PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE HAS HARMED ZENECA 

44. EPA1s improper denial of the petition to delete 

paraquat dichloride from the EHS list or to raise the applicable 

TPQ to 10,000 lbs. has caused significant harm to Zeneca. 

45. Any facility or farmer that handles more than 10 Ibs. 

of paraquat dichloride as an active ingredient in a product is 

required to comply wlth the emergency planning requirements under 

EPCRA § 302. h here are approximately 6.25 pounds of paraquat 

dichloride in a 2.5 gallon jug of Zeneca' s Gramoxone ~xtra?'. ] 

These requirements include notification to the State emergency 

response commission, designation of a facility response 

coordinator who will participate in local emergency planning 
efforts, and an obligation to provide the local emergency 

planning committee with any information it requires from the 

facility to develop and implement the emergency plan. 

46. The listing of paraquat dichloride under EPCRA has 

significant effects at the state level as well. Many states have 

their own versions of EPCRA which impose additional 

responsibilities and costs. For example, the Florida Hazardous 

Materials Emergency Response and Community Right-to-Know Act 

imposes an annual registration fee on any facility, including 

farms, handling an extremely hazardous substance as defined under 

the federal program. Fla. Stat. § 252.85(1). 

47. The inclusion of paraquat dichloride on the EHS list 

adversely affects the sales potential of paraquat dichloride 

products in the United States. Many of Zeneca's customers are 

farmers who, because of the cost and burden associated with 

compliance with the federal and state EPCRA requirements imposed 

on use of paraquat dichloride, find it more attractive to use 

alternative products. 

48. Further, the public could erroneously interpret EPAfs 

"extyemely hazardous substance" classification of paraquat 

dichloride as a determination by EPA that products containing the 

substance are unsafe to store or handle prior to use. This 

misconception could result in unnecessary alarm about using 

products containing paraquat dichloride. As a result, the public 
reputation and competitive standing of Zeneca suffers substantial 

and unjustified injury. 

COUNT I 

49. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by 

reference paragraphs 1 through 48 above. 

50. EPA1s final decision to deny Zeneca's petition to 

delete paraquat dichloride from the EPCRA 5 302 list of extremely 

hazardous substances is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, and contrary to law within the meaning of the APA. 

5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (A) and (C). 

COUNT 11 

51. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herern by 

reference paragraphs 1 through 50 above. 

52. EPAts final decision to deny Zeneca's alternative 

request to increase the TPQ for paraquat dichloride from 10 lbs. 

to 10,000 lbs. is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, 

and contrary to law within the meaning of the APA. 5 U.S.C. 

5 706 (2) (A) and (C) .. 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court : 

1. Declare that EPA1s denial of Zeneca'spetitions 

(published on October 12, 1994, at 59 Fed. Reg. 51816) 

is invalid; 

2. Direct EPA to initiate a rulemaking to remove paraquat 

dichloride from the EPCRA 1 302 list of extremely 

hazardous substances; 

3. In the alternative, direct EPA to initiate a rulemaking 

to raise the TPQ for paraquat dichloride from 10 lbs. 

to 10,000 lbs.; and 

4. Afford such other relief as the Court may deem 

appropriate. 

RespectJlflly submitted, 

&.fey Gray r NO. 397544) 

MCKENNA & CUNEO,./L.L. P

19CO K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 496-7500 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Zeneca Ag Products Inc. 
Of Counsel: 

Heather C. Winett 

Senior Environmental Counsel 

Zeneca Ag Products Inc. 

1800 Concord Pike 

Wilrnington, DE 19850 

(302) 886-3717 

Dated: October 11, 2000 
1-XITED ST,\TES DISTRICT COT'RT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF CC>LL2IBI,4 

ZENECA AG PRODUCTS INC. 

1800 Concord Pike 

Wilmington, DE, 19850, 

Plain tiff, 

CA4ROL M. BROWNER, 

ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D . C. 20460 

and 

THE UNITED STATES 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, M.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Defendants. 

CASE NU1,IBER 1: 00CV02434 

JUDGE: Ellen Segal Huvelle 

DECK TYPE: Civil General 

DATE STAMP: 10/11i2000 

CERTIFICATE REQUIRED BY RULE 26.1 OF THE LOCAL RULES OF THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

I, the undersigned counsel of record for Plaintiff Zeneca Ag Products Inc., 

certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the following are pz:ent 

companies, subsidiaries or affiliates of Plaintiffs which have any outstanding 

securities in the hands of the public. 

Parent: AstraZeneca PLC 

Affiliate: Zeneca Wilmington Inc. 
These representations are made in order that judges of this court mag 

determine the need for recusal. 

Attorney of ~ecordor Plaintiffs 

MCKENNA & CUNEO. L.L.P. 

1900 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 496-7500 

October 11, 2000