971 F.3d 802
8th Cir.2020Background
- Congress created the RFS program; EPA issues RINs with D-codes; D3 RINs (cellulosic) are worth more than D6 RINs (conventional).
- POET’s Hudson facility had D6 registration; POET applied on March 6, 2018 to generate D3 RINs from corn-kernel fiber.
- EPA raised technical concerns and on May 7, 2019 sent a letter explaining unresolved technical issues and articulating criteria for registration, but did not formally reject the 2018 application in EPA’s system.
- POET filed a petition for review (July 5, 2019) contending the letter was a final denial and that EPA’s criteria were unlawful and arbitrary.
- POET withdrew the 2018 application (July 8, 2019) and later filed a new, non-identical D3 application (April 10, 2020) that is currently pending before EPA.
Issues
| Issue | POET's Argument | EPA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA’s May 7, 2019 letter was a final agency action denying the 2018 application | Letter was a final denial of the 2018 application | Letter was part of ongoing technical dialogue, not final action | Dismissed as moot; court did not reach final-action question |
| Whether the criteria in the letter contravened EPA’s 2014 rule (legal challenge) | Criteria conflict with the 2014 final rule | Criteria are EPA’s reasonable interpretation/defense on merits | Not reached due to mootness |
| Whether the criteria were arbitrary and capricious (APA challenge) | Criteria cannot be satisfied and conflict with submitted evidence | EPA defended the criteria on the merits | Not reached due to mootness |
| Whether the case is justiciable after POET’s withdrawal and new application | Court can vacate alleged denial and direct standards for EPA’s pending review | EPA: case is not final and is moot after withdrawal | Court: action is moot; dismissal; leave review of current application to agency and future judicial review |
Key Cases Cited
- Potter v. Norwest Mortg., Inc., 329 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2003) (federal courts require an ongoing case or controversy)
- Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (courts must resolve concrete controversies admitting specific relief)
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (dismissal where intervening circumstance eliminates ability to grant relief)
- South Dakota v. Hazen, 914 F.2d 147 (8th Cir. 1990) (mootness is jurisdictional; courts must dismiss moot cases)
- Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (courts cannot issue advisory opinions)