National Biodiesel Board v. Environmental Protection Agency
843 F.3d 1010
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires certain volumes of renewable fuel and limits eligible feedstock to crops from land cleared or cultivated before Dec. 19, 2007; EPA issued implementing recordkeeping rules in 2010.
- The 2010 rule (40 C.F.R. § 80.1454) created three compliance options for RIN-generating entities: individual tracking, country-wide aggregate compliance, and an alternative tracking program administered by industry-funded, independent third-party surveys.
- CARBIO (Argentine Chamber of Biofuels) submitted a multi-year alternative tracking survey plan (using historical Landsat satellite imagery, zip-code waybills, annual audits, and sampling) for EPA approval; EPA approved it in 2015 after extensive follow-up.
- National Biodiesel Board (NBB) challenged (1) the 2010 rule as untimely and (2) EPA’s approval of the CARBIO plan as procedurally improper and substantively arbitrary and capricious.
- The D.C. Circuit consolidated two petitions: one attacking the 2010 rule (timeliness) and one attacking EPA’s approval of CARBIO (standing, procedure, substance).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | NBB (on behalf of members) suffers competitive injury from increased Argentine imports. | EPA contended threshold standing issue but did not prevail on lack of standing. | NBB has competitor standing; Article III satisfied. |
| Timeliness of challenge to 2010 Rule | NBB: CARBIO approval ripened new grounds / constructive reopening of the rule, so suit is timely. | EPA: §307(b)(1) bars challenge to nationally applicable rule after 60 days; CARBIO approval did not newly ripen or reopen the rule. | Challenge to 2010 rule untimely and dismissed. |
| Procedural claim (notice-and-comment) | NBB: Approval of CARBIO was effectively a rule and required notice-and-comment. | EPA: Approval was informal adjudication; Rule expressly requires notice-and-comment only for country-wide aggregate plans, not alternative tracking approvals. | Court upheld EPA’s use of adjudication; no notice-and-comment required. |
| Substantive APA challenge (arbitrary & capricious) | NBB: CARBIO plan violates §80.1454(h) by omitting importers, relying on satellites and waybills, and not identifying suppliers/survey area in advance; thus fails to achieve required quality assurance and representativeness. | EPA: Regulation permits producer- or importer-sponsored plans; satellite imagery and waybills are acceptable records; sampling methodology and mass-balance audits meet the "same level of quality assurance." | Court denied the challenge; EPA’s approval was not arbitrary or capricious and complied with its regulations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements)
- Delta Constr. Co. v. EPA, 783 F.3d 1291 (competitor standing and competitive injury)
- White Stallion Energy Ctr. v. EPA, 748 F.3d 1222 (redressability in competitive-injury context)
- Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (ripeness/newly ripened claims against longstanding programs)
- National Petrochemical & Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 630 F.3d 145 (challenge to RFS rulemaking history)
- National Mining Ass'n v. DOI, 70 F.3d 1345 (reopener doctrine)
- Qwest Servs. Corp. v. FCC, 509 F.3d 531 (agency discretion to adjudicate vs rulemaking)
- Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (arbitrary and capricious standard)
- King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (text-in-context interpretation)