NITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECEIVEHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR REVIEW

Similar documents
ORU l;~]i ^i^totestodhhfw^

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ORIGINAL RECEIVED 2 Z015 ) ) ) ) ) ) PETITION FOR ) REVIEW ) ) ) No DEC FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C

\{."--, Under Section 307 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b), Section 706 of

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/23/2015 Page 1 of Constitution Avenue,

FOR DISTRIGT OF COLUMBIA 9fHE UNITED STATES COURT OF URAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION; BASIN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE; EAST

PETITION FOR REVIEW. Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Circuit

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/23/2015. DISTRICT OF COWMBAaijh 1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCLED^^SSSmi^

CLERK RECEIVED. JTW OR UiSThICT ØF OL tikbta. FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRC1 lit ETSY, INC., Petitioner

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

PETITION FOR REVIEW. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 402(a), 28 U.S.C. 2342(1) and 2344, and Federal

Supreme Court of the United States

ReCEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCU CLERK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Supreme Court of the United States

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 99 Filed: 10/13/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1395 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APP: AJllS--~---- PETITION FOR REVIEW. and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15( a), the Mozilla Corporation

Case , Document 1-1, 04/21/2017, , Page1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION OF AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Case 1:04-cv RJL Document 250 Filed 11/03/2008 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Case 1:06-cv PLF-EGS-DST Document 136 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 2010] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petition for Review

B t NA L. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAl. wr FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCU] f FOR DITRIT Q QCLJMHA ILtUIt

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 03/24/2017 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) )

Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

18 105G. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT Oi, FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMB &!IPANIC MEDIA COALITION, Petitioner CASE NO. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner v. CHANBOND, LLC Patent Owner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD APRIL 12, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

No ORAL ARGUMENT HELD JUNE 1, 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Supreme Court of the United States

Case 1:06-cv PLF-EGS-DST Document 170 Filed 10/07/2009 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 07/19/2011 Page 1 of 8 [NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] No

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Supreme Court of the United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case 1:11-cv NMG Document 53 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:06-cv LFO Document 18 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Case 1:17-cv RC Document 10-2 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. v. ) Civil No.

Supreme Court of the United States

CASSIDY LEVY KENT (USA) LLP

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14 cv JDB

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, Defendant.

USCA UNITED STATES Case COURT # OF APPEALS Document # Filed: 04/01/2013 Page 1 of 22 PETITION FOR REVIEW

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2014 Page 1 of 1

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Case 1:17-cv RMC Document 12 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Case 1:17-cv TSC Document 13 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 1:11-cv JDB Document 3 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 08/28/2018 Page 1 of 15 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (Alexandria Division) Plaintiff, 1:07cv846 JCC/TRJ Judge Cacheris

Case5:11-cv LHK Document Filed12/02/13 Page1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement is made by and between: 1) Sierra Club; and 2)

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 597 Filed 04/09/2009 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE TELES AG,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN,

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR MAY 7, 2014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Supreme Court of the United States

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : : : : MOTION TO GOVERN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. MDL No

Transcription:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT JAN ~8 2016 NITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECEIVEHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT imi tu swt&mm&mm* FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 8llKFf FILED CLERK AMERICANS FOR CLEAN ENERGY; AMERICAN COALITION FOR ETHANOL; BIOTECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ORGANIZATION; GROWTH ENERGY; NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL SORGHUM PRODUCERS; AND RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, Case No. 15-16-100 v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and REGINA MCCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR Respondents. PETITION FOR REVIEW Pursuant to Section 307(b) ofthe Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b), Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a), and D.C. Circuit Rule 15(a), Americans for Clean Energy, the American Coalition for Ethanol, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, Growth Energy, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Sorghum Producers, and the Renewable Fuels Association hereby petitionthe Court for review of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's "Renewable Fuel Standard Program:

Standards for 2014, 2015, and 2016 and Biomass-Based Diesel Volume for 2017." See 80 Fed. Reg. 77,420 (Dec. 14, 2015). A copy ofthis final rule is attached. This Court has jurisdiction and is a proper venue for this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1). Respectfully submitted, SethP. Waxman / Mark C. Kalpin Edward N. Siskel David M. Lehn Robert J. McKeehan Saurabh Sanghvi WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663-6000 (202) 663-6363 (fax) seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com mark.kalpin@wilmerhale.com edward.siskel@wilmerhale.com david.lehn@wilmerhale.com robert.mckeehan@wilmerhale.com saurabh.sanghvi@wilmerhale.com Counselfor Petitioners January 8, 2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICANS FOR CLEAN ENERGY; AMERICAN COALITION FOR ETHANOL; BIOTECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ORGANIZATION; GROWTH ENERGY; NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL SORGHUM PRODUCERS; AND RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, Case No. 15- v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and REGINA MCCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR Respondents. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule ofappellate Procedure 26.1 and D.C. Circuit Rule 26.1, Petitioners provide the following corporate disclosure statement: Americans for Clean Energy is a non-profit trade association within the meaning of D.C. Circuit Rule 26.1(b). Its members are trade groups and other supporters of renewable fuels. It operates for the purpose of promoting the general commercial, legislative, and other common interests of its

members. Americans for Clean Energy is a non-stock corporation without a parent company, and one of its six members is the Archer Daniels Midland Company, which is publicly held. The American Coalition for Ethanol ("ACE") is a non-profit trade association within the meaning ofd.c. Circuit Rule 26.1(b). ACE's members include ethanol and biofuel facilities, agricultural producers, ethanol industry investors, and supporters ofthe ethanol industry. It operates for the purpose of promoting the general commercial, legislative, and other common interests of its members. ACE does not have a parent company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in it. The Biotechnology Innovation Organization ("BIO") (until recently known as the Biotechnology Industry Organization) is a non-profit trade association within the meaning ofd.c. Circuit Rule 26.1(b). Its members are biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers, and related organizations involved in the research and development of biotechnology products, including conventional and advanced biofuels. It operates for the purpose of promoting the general commercial, legislative, and other common interests of its members. BIO does not have a parent company, and no publicly held company has a 10%

or greater ownership interest in it. Growth Energy is a non-profit trade association within the meaning ofd.c. Circuit Rule 26.1(b). Its members are ethanol producers and supporters ofthe ethanol industry. It operates for the purpose ofpromoting the general commercial, legislative, and other common interests ofits members. Growth Energy does not have a parent company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in it. The National Corn Growers Association ("NCGA") is a non-profit trade association within the meaning ofd.c. Circuit Rule 26.1(b). Its members are corn farmers and supporters ofthe agriculture and ethanol industries. It operates for the purpose ofpromoting the general commercial, legislative, and other common interests ofits members. The National Corn Growers Association does not have a parent company, it has no privately or publicly held ownership interests and no publicly held company has ownership interest in it. The National Sorghum Producers ("NSP") is a non-profit trade association within the meaning ofd.c. Circuit Rule 26.1(b). Its members are sorghum producers and supporters ofthe sorghum industry. It operates for the purpose ofpromoting the general commercial, legislative, and other common interests ofits members. National Sorghum Producers does not

have a parent company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in it. The Renewable Fuels Association ("RFA") is a non-profit trade association within the meaning ofd.c. Circuit Rule 26.1(b). Its members are ethanol producers and supporters of the ethanol industry. It operates for the purpose of promoting the general commercial, legislative, and other common interests of its members. The Renewable Fuels Association does not have a parent company, and no publicly held company has a 10% or greater ownership interest in it.

Respectfully submitted, Seth P. Waxman Mark C. Kalpin Edward N. Siskel David M. Lehn Robert J. McKeehan Saurabh Sanghvi WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663-6000 (202) 663-6363 (fax) seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com mark.kalpin@wilmerhale.com edward.siskel@wilmerhale.com david.lehn@wilmerhale.com robert.mckeehan@wilmerhale.com saurabh.sanghvi@wilmerhale.com Counselfor Petitioners January 8, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 15(c) and 25, and 40 C.F.R. 23.12(a), I hereby certify that on January 8, 2016,1 will cause time-stamped copies of the foregoing Petition for Review and Corporate Disclosure Statement to be served by personal delivery upon the following: The Hon. Regina McCarthy Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Correspondence Control Unit Office ofgeneral Counsel (2311) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Washington, D.C. 20460 The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Attorney General ofthe United States U.S. Department ofjustice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Seth P. Waxman ' WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663-6000 (202) 663-6363 (fax) seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com