American Petroleum Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 U.S. App. D.C. 248

RCRA governs solid and hazardous waste; spent refinery catalysts are hazardous secondary materials under regulation.
EPA deregulated many hazardous secondary materials in 2008 but excluded spent catalysts from those exclusions.
API petitioned for review of the 2008 Rule, arguing against lack of transfer-based exclusion for catalysts.
EPA subsequently settled with Sierra Club to propose revisions by 2011 and final action by 2012.
In July 2011 EPA proposed to extend generator-controlled exclusion to spent catalysts and to eliminate transfer-based exclusion; case remained unripe.
Court held API’s petition not ripe and placed case in abeyance pending proposed rulemaking.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is API's petition ripe for review of the 2008 Rule?	API seeks review now of 2008 Rule's exclusions.	EPA argues issue is tentative and best reviewed after rulemaking.	Not ripe; petition held in abeyance.
Should the court defer ruling pending the 2011 proposed rulemaking?	Deferral preserves agency expertise and avoids premature review.	Rulemaking could change the issues; deferral prudent.	Deferral appropriate; case held in abeyance.
Do fitness and hardship factors support immediate review?	Timely review necessary to allow deregulation benefits.	Final action uncertain; minimal hardship shown.	Deferral better given fitness and hardship considerations.

Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. FDA, 740 F.2d 21 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (deferral protects agency process; avoid piecemeal review)
Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (standing and ripeness; agency policy context)
Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court 1967) (ripeness and postponing review to allow agency action)
Atl. States Legal Found. v. EPA, 325 F.3d 281 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (fitness of issues and finality in agency rulemaking)