HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn.

Under the RFP, “a small refinery may at any time petition the Administrator for an extension of the exemption under subparagraph (A) for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship.” 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i).

Petitioners appeal the lower court’s interpretation of the renewable fuel program’s (RFP) provisions providing for exemptions to the RFP program requirements. Petitioner’s assert that the lower court erred when it imposed a continuity requirement for the approval of the exemptions under subsection (B)(i). They claim that the plain language of the provision allows exemptions even after previous extensions have lapsed. Respondents argue that the plain meaning of the provision, and congressional intent, support the finding of a continuity requirement. Under the RFP, “a small refinery may at any time petition the Administrator for an extension of the exemption under subparagraph (A) for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship.” 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i). The Court held that no continuity requirement was necessary for the EPA to grant extensions under the RFP. The Court reasoned that without modifying language, the word extension alone, can have the meaning of extending some benefit even after such benefit has lapsed.  The Court reasoned that the inclusion of the phrase “at any time” in the language of the statute providing for extensions illustrated Congress’s intent to allow extensions to occur after a period, including after a lapse. Reversed.