RMS of Georgia, LLC v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 64 F.4th 1368

Congress enacted the AIM Act directing EPA to phase down HFCs and to allocate tradable annual "allowances"; EPA promulgated a Framework Rule (methodology) and an Allocation Notice listing firm-by-firm 2022 consumptions.
EPA’s methodology computed each firm’s share by using each firm’s three highest years (2011–2019) averaged in the numerator and the sum of all firms’ three-year averages in a shared nationwide denominator.
RMS of Georgia (Choice Refrigerants) challenged its 2022 consumption allocation, alleging EPA improperly credited historical HFC usage to two other companies (Company A as shipper vs. importer; Company B via alleged patent infringement), reducing RMS’s three-year average.
RMS filed its petition in the regional circuit; key procedural question was whether the challenged action (the Allocation Notice) was "nationally applicable" under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) (exclusive D.C. Circuit review) or "locally or regionally applicable" (regional court).
The Allocation Notice consisted principally of nationwide, firm-specific tables (40 firms) and did not geographically limit use of allowances; permits are transferable and not site-specific.
The court concluded the Allocation Notice was a single EPA action allocating allowances nationwide (changes to one firm’s numbers affect every firm via the shared denominator) and therefore transferred the petition to the D.C. Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Allocation Notice is a "nationally applicable" action under § 7607(b)(1)	RMS: Allocation is effectively local because it reflects RMS’s facility-specific historical usage and its dispute over credits pertains only to RMS	EPA/Respondent: Allocation operates nationwide; tables assign firm-specific allowances from a single national pool with a shared denominator; no geographic limit	Allocation Notice is nationally applicable; review lies only in D.C. Circuit (transfer ordered)
Whether RMS’s challenge is confined to a separable line-item (a local action)	RMS: It is challenging only its line-item in table 3, so this is a local, firm-specific action	EPA: The allocation is one integrated nationwide action—any change to one firm’s average recalculates every firm’s allocation	RMS cannot isolate its line-item; the allocation is inseparable and nationwide

ATK Launch Sys., Inc. v. EPA, 651 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2011) (analysis should focus on the nature of the regulation, not the particular challenge)
Am. Road & Transp. Builders Ass'n v. EPA, 705 F.3d 453 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (determine scope from the face of the rulemaking rather than practical effects)
S. Ill. Power Coop. v. EPA, 863 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2017) (venue depends on the nature of the agency action)
Madison Gas & Elec. Co. v. EPA, 4 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 1993) (treated allowance allocations as locally reviewable when based on local factors; later circuit decisions have rejected its petition-centric approach)