National Petrochemical & Refiners Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency
394 U.S. App. D.C. 1
| D.C. Cir. | 2010Background
- In 2007, Congress amended the Renewable Fuel Standard in the EISA to expand volumes and create four categories of renewable fuels under the Clean Air Act.
- EPA posted final revisions to the regulations in February 2010 and published the Final Rule in the Federal Register in March 2010.
- Petitioners NPRA and API challenged the Final Rule on three grounds: 2009/2010 biomass-based diesel volumes, retroactivity, and lead time/compliance provisions.
- The Final Rule combined the 2009 and 2010 biomass-based diesel volumes to create a 1.15 billion gallon 2009/2010 standard and allowed carryover provisions for deficits.
- EPA justified the approach as ensuring that at least the statutory volumes were used despite delays in revising regulations, and allowed RINs from prior programs to count in 2010.
- The DC Circuit denied the petitions, holding EPA had authority to apply the 2009 biomass-based diesel volume in 2010 and that the rule was not impermissibly retroactive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA could apply the combined 2009/2010 volumes for biomass-based diesel in 2010 | EPA lacks authority to exceed 2010 0.65 bgal | EPA can ensure at least the statutory volumes and use deficit carryover | Yes; EPA could apply the combined 2009/2010 volumes in 2010 |
| Whether the Final Rule is impermissibly retroactive | Rule imposes new duties on past transactions | Statute authorized 'ensure' and applies regardless of promulgation date | Not impermissibly retroactive |
| Whether lead time and 'at least' compliance provisions were violated | Final Rule reduced lead time for compliance | Adequate notice and transition through RFS1 to RFS2 were provided | Lead time and compliance provisions satisfied; no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc., 534 U.S. 438 (2002) (statutory timing provisions not always jurisdictional; context matters)
- Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253 (1986) (courts should not imply loss of agency power from missed deadlines where remedial options exist)
- Linemaster Switch Corp. v. EPA, 938 F.2d 1299 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (agency action after deadline upheld where interim considerations supported)
- Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (retroactivity under deadlines may be reasonable under exceptional circumstances)
- National Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. FCC, 567 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (upwardly upsetting expectations can be non-retroactive; focus on futures and costs)