8 
Mack fails each of the Holiday Tours tests. 
Finally, we note that Mack has also failed to satisfy Rule 
8(.a) F.R.A.P. because he did not initially seek a stay or 
injunction pending appeal from the district court. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons the motion for injunction 
pending appeal should be denied. 
Respectful ly 
t 
;orney, Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 
footnote \J cont'd from previous page 
The appellants asserted injuries 
with respect to higher petroleum prices, 
the unavailability of alternative energy 
sources, and aesthetic blight, i_f they 
were to occur, would likely be of the 
type "held in common by all members of 
the public" and thus insufficient as a 
basis for standing. The fact that many 
are injured does not, of course, preclude 
an individual party from being granted 
standing. That individual party must, 
however, be able to allege and prove 
"a distinct and palpable injury to 
himself" as the threshold requirement 
for standing. Appellants have not 
shown" that they would be able to do this 
with respect to these injuries. 
[Footnotes omitted.] 
See also Harrington v. Bush , U.S.App.D.C. , 553 F.2d 
190 C 1 9 7 Mack ' s single standing allegation is even weaker 
than the allegations found insufficient in Metcal f . 
[Appendix C — 30] 
