IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION ) 1300 19th Street NW, Suite 300 ) Washington, DC 20036 ) ) SIERRA CLUB )

. 85 Second Street, Second Floor ) SanFrancisco, CA 94105-3441 ) ) MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER ) PO Box 1184 ) Helena, MT 59624 ) ) ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND ) 257 Park Avenue South, 17th Floor ) New York, NY 10010 GRAND CANYON TRUST 2601 N. Fort Valley Rd Flagstaff, AZ 86001 SANJUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE P.O. Box 2461 1022 112 Main Avenue Durango, Colorado 81302 OUR CHILDREN'S EARTH FOUNDATION 3701 Sacramento S1. #194 SanFrancisco, CA 94118 PLAINS JUSTICE 2606 MontanaAvenue Billings, Montana 59101 POWDERRIVER BASIN RESOURCE COUNCIL 934 N. Main St., Sheridan, WY 82801 Plaintiffs,



### v. Case: 1: 11-cv-01S48 Assigned To: Jackson, Amy Berman Assign. Date. 8/29/2011 Description: Admn. Agency Review

/ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION AGENCY ) Ariel Rios Building ) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ) Washington, DC 20460 ) ) LISA P. JACKSON, in her official capacity as Administrator, ) United States Environmental Protection Agency ) Ariel Rios Building ) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW ) Washington, DC 20460 ) ) Defendants. ) 

### COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION 1. By January 15,2011, the Administrator ofthe United States Environmental Protection Agency ("Administrator" or "EPA") was required bythe federal CleanAirActto have promulgated complete, final, and enforceable plans for 34 states and territories that failed to submittimelyplans toprevent and remedy unhealthful, scenery-impairing airpollution ("haze") in ournation's "Class I" national parks and wilderness areas. 74 Fed. Reg. 2392 (January 15, 2009). EPA did not meet that deadline, ordeadlines for acting onhaze plans submitted by nine other states and one region. EPA's failure to meetthese deadlines compounds a long line of delays bythe agency in addressing regional haze that stretches back to at least 1979. That is the year when EPA was required bythe CleanAirAct tohave promulgated regulations to make "reasonableprogress" towards "remedying

... existing visibility impairment" in mandatory Class I areas. 42 U.S.C. 

### § 7491(a)(4). 2. This action seeks orders compelling EPA to perform its nondiscretionary duties by date ordates certain to: a) promulgatefederal implementationplans ("FIPs") for 34 states covered byEPA'sJanuary 15,2011 promulgation deadline to reduce haze in federal national

2parks and wilderness areas; and b) take final action approving ordisapproving regional haze state implementationplans ("SIPs" "plans" or "haze plans") for nine states and one regionthat submitted such SIPs and for which EPA approval or disapproval action is overdue underthe Act.' EPA's failure to perform these duties violates controlling and explicit deadlines set forth in the Act, and thereby deprives Plaintiffs' members ofhealth, welfare, and procedural protections required by the Act. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. The instant action arises under the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or "the Act"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 

### etseq. This Court hasjurisdictionoverthis action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361. The reliefrequested herein by Plaintiffs is authorized pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201,2202, and 1361. 4. In accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b)(2) and 40 C.F.R. Part 54, Plaintiffs served prior notice onthe Administrator ofthe violations alleged herein and Plaintiffs' intent to initiate the present action. This notice was provided via certified letters, posted January 19, 2011, and addressed to the Administrator. More than 60 days have passed since the notices were served pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7604(b), and the violations complained ofin the notices are continuing. 5. Venue is proper inthis Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Defendant Lisa P. Jackson is an officer ofthe United States sued for acts and omissions in her official capacity, and herofficial residence is in the District ofColumbia.

, Unless otherwise indicated, references herein to "regional haze plans," "regional haze SIPs," "haze SIPs," or "haze plans"refer to the regional haze state implementation plans required by the Act and EPA rules to be submitted to EPA by December 17,2007. 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d)(7)(A); 40 C.F.R. §§51.308 & 51.309.

3PARTIES 6. PlaintiffNational Parks Conservation Association ("NPCA") is a national not-forprofitcorporation organized and existing underthe laws ofthe District ofColumbiawith its principal place ofbusiness in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to protect and enhance America's National Parks for the use and enjoyment ofpresent and future generations. Since NPCA was established in 1919, it

### has advocated for protectionofthe natural environment (including air quality) in and around the national parks, educated decision makers and the public about the importance ofpreserving the parks, worked to convince officials in the Executive Branch and members ofCongress to uphold the laws that protect the public's use and enjoyment ofthe parks and to support new legislation to address threats to the parks, litigated to uphold these laws, and assessed the health ofthe parks and adequacy ofpark management to better inform the public and advocate for parks. 7. PlaintiffMontana Environmental Information Center is a non-profit environmental organization that works to protect clean air, water, and a healthy environment for all Montanans. The Centeris headquartered inHelena, Montana. 8. PlaintiffGrand Canyon Trust is a non-profit, regional conservation organization dedicated to conserving the natural and cultural resources ofthe Colorado Plateau. The Trust advocates an ecologically responsible and sustainable balance between resource use and preservation, along with the protection ofareas ofbeauty and solitude. The Trust recognizes that clear air and vastpanoramas are defining characteristics ofthe Colorado Plateau, and has been involved in air quality issues since its founding in 1985. The Trust is headquartered in Flagstaff, Arizona.

49. PlaintiffSan Juan Citizens Alliance is a grass roots organization dedicated to social, economic, and environmentaljustice in the San Juan Basin ofColorado and New Mexico. The Alliance helps citizens protect the water and air, public lands, rural character, and unique quality ofIife in the San Juan Basin, while embracing the diversity ofthe region's people, economy, and ecology. San Juan Citizens Alliance is headquartered in Durango, Colorado. 10. PlaintiffOur Children's Earth Foundation ("OCEF") is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the public from the harmful effects ofair and water pollution. Through a combined strategy ofenforcement, education, and advocacy, OCEF empowers individuals, families and local communities to participate in decisions that impact air and water quality. OCEF is based in San Francisco, California. 11. PlaintiffPlains Justice is a non-profit organization based in Montana that provides legal resources to help communities in the Northern Plains make the transition to a new energy future. Plains Justice fights for a healthy and productive environment. 12. PlaintiffPowder River Basin Resource Council ("PowderRiver") is a Wyoming non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and enrichment ofWyoming's agricultural heritage and rural lifestyle. Powder River and its members support the conservation of Wyoming's unique land, mineral, water, and clean air resources consistent with responsible use ofthose resources to sustain the livelihood ofpresent and future generations. Powder River is headquartered in Sheridan, Wyoming. 13. PlaintiffSierra Club ("the Club") is a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing underthe laws ofCalifornia, with its principal place ofbusiness located in San Francisco, California. Sierra Club is a national membership organization with more than 600,000 members residing throughout the United States. Club members reside in each ofthe

5States as defined in 42 U.S.C. §7602(d) (hereinafter, "States"). The Club's mission is to protect and enhance the quality ofthe natural and human environment. Its activities include public education, advocacy, and litigation to enforce environmental laws. The Club and its members

are greatly concerned about the effects ofair pollution on human health and the environment and have a long history ofinvolvement in activities related to air quality. 14. PlaintiffEnvironmental Defense Fund (EDF) is a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws ofNew York, with its principal place ofbusiness inNew York, New York. EDF is a national membership organization with more than 400,000 members. EDF members reside in each ofthe States. EDF's mission is to protect the environmental rights ofall people, including the rights to clean air and water and a flourishing ecosystem. Since the organization was founded in 1967, a key aspect ofEDF's mission has been to advocate control ofair pollution for the benefit ofhuman health and the environment. EDF and its members are greatly concerned about the effects ofair pollutiononhuman health and the environment, andhave

a long history ofinvolvement in activities related to air quality. 15. The Act requires the regional haze SIPs and FIPs atissue herein ("haze plans") to remedy andprotect against any existing and future human-caused visibility impairment in specified national parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, and o$erareas designated by the Act and EPArules as mandatory "Class I" Federal areas. Plaintiffs' members use and enjoy these Class I areas throughout the nation for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, including enjoyment ofthe scenic vistas. These areas suffer from visibility impairment due to human-caused air pollution and/or are threatened withfuture visibility impairment due to human-caused air pollution. Human-caused airpollution in orfrom each ofthe states at issue herein causes or contributes (and/ormay reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute) to visibility impairment



### 6in Class I areas used and enjoyed by Plaintiffs' members. Plaintiffs' members' use and enjoyment ofthese areas is adversely affected by the visibility impairment that the Act requires regional haze plans to remedy and protect against. 16. The acts and omissions ofEPA complainedofherein cause injury to Plaintiffs and theirmembers by delaying the adoption, submission, review, approval orpromulgation, and implementationofplans required by the Act to remedy and protect against visibility impairment adversely affecting use andenjoyment ofClass I areas by Plaintiffs' members. These delays

cause injury to Plaintiffs' members by prolonging existing, and allowing future, visibility impairment that significantly interferes with Plaintiffs' members' use and enjoyment ofClass I areas, and by nullifying ordelaying measures mandated bythe Actto remedy andprevent such visibility impairment. Therecreational, aesthetic, and environmental interests ofPlaintiffs' members have been and continue to be adversely affected bythe acts and omissions ofEPA alleged herein. 17. The acts and omissions ofEPA alleged herein further deprive Plaintiffs and their members ofprocedural rights and protections to which they would otherwise be entitled, including, butnot limited to, the right to comment on andjudiciallychallenge the adequacy ofregional haze plans (and EPA action thereon), and the right to ensure EPA effectuates its statutory dutyto promulgate federal implementationplans to address state planning deficiencies. 18. EPA approval ofa regional haze SIPrenders the provisions ofthat SIP federally enforceable viaboth EPAaction and citizen suits. EPA disapproval ofa regional 

### haze SIP would trigger a two-year statutory deadline for the Administratorto prepare a FIP to implement the Act's requirements for a regional hazeplan inthat state. 42 U.S.C. 

### §741O(c)(1). EPA'sfailure to timely approve ordisapprove regional haze SIPs as complained ofherein therebycauses anindefInite

7delay that thwarts Plaintiffs' andtheir members' rights, to whichthey wouldotherwise be entitled, to commenton, be protected by, enforce, and (ifnecessary) challenge incourtthe adequacy of regional haze state implementationplans required by the Act, and to compel EPAto carry outits responsibility to issue federal implementationplans where state plans are disapproved. 19. The acts and omissions alleged herein further deprive Plaintiffs and their members ofinformationto which they would otherwisehave access, specifically formal published findings by EPA onwhetherregional haze SIPs do ordo not meet all the Act's requirements andformal publisheddeterminations (in connection withpromulgation ofregional haze FIPs) ofthe measures that are neededto implementthe Act'sregional haze requirements inthe relevant states. If Plaintiffs andtheir members had access to suchinformation, they would use itto educate thepublic about air pollution throughoutthe nation andto advocate for adoption ofmeasures to remedy and protect againstregional haze in Class I areas. EPA's failure to produce such information deprives Plaintiffs andtheir members ofthese benefits andthus causes them injury. 20. For all the foregoing reasons, the failures complained ofherein cause Plaintiffs and their members injuries for which they have no adequate remedy at law. Granting the requested reliefwould redress these injuries. 21. Defendant Lisa P. Jackson is the Administrator ofthe United States Environmental Protection Agency and is charged withthe task oftaking various actions to implement and enforce the Clean Air Act, including those actions sought herein. Defendant Jackson is sued in herofficial capacity, and she officially resides in Washington, D.C. 22. Defendant United States Environmental Protection Agency is the federal agency charged with implementation ofthe CleanAir Act. BACKGROUND & FACTS

8EPA's FIP Obligations 23. Section 11O(c) ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c), requires the Administrator ofEPA to promulgate a FIP within two years offinding that a state has failed to make a required a SIP submittal. The pertinent provision ofSection 11O(c) states: (1) The Administrator shall promulgate a Federal implementation plan at any time within 2 years afterthe Administrator- (A) finds that a State has failed to make a required submission or finds thatthe plan orplan revision submitted by the State does not satisfy the minimum criteria established under section 11O(k)(l)(A). 24. On January 15,2009, EPA made a formal finding that the States referenced in paragraph 25 herein had failed to submit any ofthe required regional haze SIP elements set forth at 40 C.F.R. §51.30S. 74 Fed. Reg. 2392,2393 (January 15,2009). EPA also found that the States referenced in paragraph 26 herein had submitted some, but not all, ofthe required regional haze SIP elements set forth at 40 C.F.R. §§51.30S and 51.309. Id. 25. In particular, EPA found that the following States had failed to submit SIPs addressing any ofthe required regional haze SIP elements of40 C.F.R. §51.30S: Alaska, Connecticut, District ofColumbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, NewJersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, U.S. Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. 74 Fed. Reg. at 2393 (January 15,2009). 26. EPA found that the several States had failed to submitportions ofthe required haze SIPs. Those States, and the missing haze SIP portion(s) byregulatory citation, Arizona-40 C.F.R. §51.309(g) and 40 C.F.R. §51.309(d)(4); Michigan-40 C.F.R. §51.30S(d) and 40 C.F.R. §51.30S(e) for six sources; and New Mexic0-40 C.F.R. §51.309(g) and 40 C.F.R.

9§51.309(d)(4). 27. The above-referenced EPA findings offailure to submit all or part ofrequired regional haze SIPs triggered a nondiscretionary duty under 42 U.S.C. §741O(c)(l)(A) for EPAto promulgate regional haze FIPs by January 15,2011 for each ofthe above named States for which EPA had not fully approved regional haze SIPs by that date. EPA's January 15,2009notice confirmed thatthe agency was obligated to promulgate regional haze FIPs for each ofthe abovenamed States within two years ofthe date ofthat notice. 74 Fed. Reg. at 2393. 28. EPA has failed to meet the January 15,2011 deadline through the final promulgation ofregional haze FIPs and/or SIPs for any ofthe States listed above, and such failure is ongoing. Accordingly, the Administrator is in violation ofher nondiscretionary dutyto promulgate regional haze FIPs and/or SIPs for each ofthe above-named States by January 15, 2011. EPA's Duty To Timely Act on Haze SIP Submittals 29. Section 11O(k)(I)(B) ofthe Act requires the Administratorto determine, within 60 days ofreceipt ofa plan orplan revision submitted by a state, whetherthe plan orplan revision meets the minimum criteria ("completeness criteria") for plan submissions promulgated under CAA § 11O(k)(I)(A). 42 U.S.C. § 741O(k)(l)(B). If, by the date six months after receiving a plan orrevision from a state, the Administratorhas made no finding as to whether a plan orplanrevision meets the completeness criteria, the plan orplanrevision shall be deemed by operation oflaw to meet such criteria i.e., to be "complete.,,2 Id. 30. The Act further imposes a nondiscretionary duty on the Administratorto act ona plan orplan revision in accordance with CAA § 11O(k)(3) (i.e., to approve ordisapprove the 2Forease ofreference, plans that meet the completeness criteria are referred to herein as "complete," and plans that do not meet the completeness criteria are referred to as "incomplete."

10submission) within 12 months after the submission is determined by Administrator, ordeemed by operation oflaw, to meet the completeness criteria. 42 U.S.C. 

### § 7410(k)(2), (3). Thus, at the absolute outside, the Administrator has a nondiscretionary duty to take final action on a SIP submission within 18 months ofEPA'sreceipt ofsuch submission, except where the Administrator finds by the date six months after receipt that the submission is incomplete. 31. EPA received regional haze SIP submissions from each ofthe following States (and one region) more than 18 months before the date ofPlaintiffs' notice letters in these matters (referenced in paragraph 4, supra) and made no finding within six months ofreceipt ofsuch SIP submissions that any such submissions were incomplete: Alabama; Albuquerque, NM; Iowa; Louisiana; Mississippi; Missouri; North Carolina; South Carolina; Tennessee; and West Virginia. Further, the Administratorhas not acted on any ofthese submissions in accordance with CAA 

### § 110(k)(3). The Administrator is therefore in violation ofher above-described nondiscretionary duty under CAA 

### § 110(k)(2) to act oneach ofthe above-referenced regional haze SIP submissions in accordance with CAA § 11O(k)(3) within 18 months ofherreceipt of such submissions. EPA's failure to take action on each ofthese SIPs in accordance with CAA § 110(k)(3) constitutes a failure to perform a duty that is not discretionary with the Administrator within the meaning of§ 304(a)(2) ofthe Act. 32. EPA'sfailure to perform the above-referenced non-discretionary duties is ongoing and, oninformation and belief, will continue absent the reliefsought herein. FIRST CLAIM FORRELIEF Failure to Promulgate final Regional Haze FIPs 33. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all previous paragraphs by reference. 34. OnJanuary 15,2009, EPA found that the following States had failed to submit SIPs addressing any ofthe required regional haze SIP elements of40 C.F.R. §51.308: Alaska,

11Connecticut, District ofColumbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, NewJersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, U.S. Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. 35. EPA's January 15,2009 finding established a two-year period, ending onJanuary 15,2011,within which EPA was required to promulgate final regional haze FIPs for each ofthe states identified in paragraph 34, except where EPA approved a SIP revision correcting the deficiency for a given statebefore EPA'sFIP promulgation. 36. EPA failed by the January 15,2011 deadline to promulgate final regional haze FIPs for any ofthe states above. Further, by the January 15,2011 deadline, EPA had not approved regional haze SIPs correcting the deficiencies identified in EPA'sJanuary 15,2009 finding for any ofthe states identified inparagraph 34. 37. EPA's failure to promulgate final regional haze FIPs by the January 15,2011 deadline for the states listed in paragraph 34 constitutes a failure to perform acts orduties that

are not discretionary with the Administrator within the meaning of42 U.S.C. 

### § 7604(a)(2). Such failure is ongoing and, oninformation and belief, will continue absent the reliefsought herein. 38. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an orderfrom this Court directing EPA to forthwith promulgate final and complete regional haze FIPs, meeting all the Act's requirements for regional haze implementationplans, for each ofthe States referenced in paragraph 34 forthwith. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 39. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all previous paragraphs by reference.

1240. On January 15,2009, EPA found that the following States had submitted some, but not all, ofthe required regional haze SIP elements of40 C.F.R. §51.308 and §51.309: Arizona, Michigan, and New Mexico. 41. EPA'sJanuary 15, 2009 finding established a two-year period, ending onJanuary 15,2011, within which EPA was required to promulgate final regional haze FIPs for each ofthe states listed in paragraph 40, except where EPA approved a SIP revision correcting the deficiency for a given state before EPA's FIP promulgation. 42. EPA failed by the January 15,2011 deadline to promulgate final regional haze FIPs for any ofthe states listed in paragraph 40. Further, by the January 15,2011 deadline, EPA had not approved any regional haze SIPs correcting the deficiencies identified in EPA'sJanuary 15,2009 finding for any ofthe states identified in paragraph 40. 43. EPA'sfailure to promulgate final regional haze FIPs by the January 15,2011 deadline for the each state listed in paragraph 40 constitutes a failure to perform acts orduties that are not discretionary with the Administrator within the meaning of42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2). Suchfailure is ongoing and, on information and belief, will continue absent the reliefsought herein. 44. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order from this Court directing EPA to forthwith promulgate final regional haze FIPs for Arizona, Michigan, and New Mexico satisfying the Act'srequirements for each haze plan element that EPA found, in its January 15, 2009 notice, had not beentimely submitted by each ofthese states. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 45. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all previous paragraphs by reference.

1346. Regional haze SIPs submitted by the following States (and one region) were either found by the Administrator or deemed by operation oflawto be complete pursuant to CAA § 11O(k)(l)(B) more than 18 months priorto January 19, 2011: Alabama; Albuquerque, NM; Iowa; Louisiana; Mississippi; Missouri; North Carolina; South Carolina; Tennessee; and West Virginia. 47. The Administrator has not acted on any ofthe regional haze SIP submissions referenced in the preceding paragraph in accordance with CAA § 11O(k)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 741O(k)(3). The Administrator is therefore in violation ofher nondiscretionary duty under CAA § 11O(k) to act on each ofthe above-referenced haze SIP submissions in accordance with CAA § 11O(k)(3) within 18 months ofher receipt ofsuch submissions. EPA's failure to take action on each ofthese SIPs in accordance with CAA § II0(k)(3) constitutes a failure to perform a duty that is not discretionary with the Administrator within the meaning of§ 304(a)(2) oftheAct. Such failure is ongoing and, on information and belief, will continue absent the reliefsought herein. 48. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order ofthis Court directing EPA to take final action in accordance with CAA §11O(k)(3) on each ofthe haze SIP submissions referenced inparagraph 46 forthwith. 

### RELIEF REQUESTED 49. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs praythat this Court: (1) Declare that EPA's failures to act as complained ofherein constitute failures to perform nondiscretionary duties required by42 U.S.C. §§ 741O(c)(1) and (k)(2) within the meaning ofthe Clean AirAct § 304(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2);

14(2) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Administrator from continuing to violate the above-describednondiscretionary duties; (3) Orderthe Administratorto complete all actions required by42 U.S.C. 

### § 741O(c)(l) and (k)(2) forthwith; (4) Award Plaintiffs their reasonable costs oflitigation, including attorneys' fees, pursuantto 42 U.S.C. § 7604(d); (5) Retainjurisdictionover this actionto ensure compliance with the Court's orders; and (6) Grant such otherreliefas the Court deemsjustand proper. DATED: this 29rd day ofAugust, 2011.

15 D VID S. BARON D.C. BarNo. 464222 EARTHJUSTICE 1625 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 702 Washington, DC 20036-2212 Phone: (202) 667-4500 Fax: (202) 667-2356 dbaron@earthjustice.org REEDZARS Wyoming BarNo. 6-3224 Attorney at Law 910 Kearney Street Laramie, WY 82070 307-745-7979 rzars@lariat.org Counsel for Plaintiffs

# United States District Court For the District ofColumbia C()"386-online 10/03

National Parks Conservation Association! et aL, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case: 1: 11-cv-01548 Assigned To: Jackson, Amy Berman Assign. Date: 8/29/2011

. Plaintiff vs Civ Description: Admn. Agency Review United States Environmental Protection Agency, et aI., Defendant

CERTIFICAJERULE LCyR7.1 I, the undersigned, counsel ofrecord for_P_I_8_nt_iff_s

__________ _ certify that to the best ofmy knowledge and belief, the following areparentcompanies, subsidiaries or affiliates of _P_I_a_nt_iff_s

____________which have any outstanding securities in the hands ofthe public:

None

These representations are made in orderthatjudges ofthis court may determine the need for recusaL AttOOley ofRecor**~** 

### '\ )



# .J./t

464222 David S. Baron BARIDENTIFICATIONNO. PrintName 1625 Massachusetts Suite 702 Address Washington DC 20036-2212 City State Zip Code (202) 667-4500 Phone Number