Amicus Curiae Brief — Environmental Protection Agency, Petitioner v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., et al.

No. 23-1229

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner,

v.

CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C., et al.,

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of A ppeals for the Fifth Circuit

BRIEF OF COUNTRYMARK REFINING

AND LOGISTICS, LLC AS AMICUS CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

A aron M. Herzig

Counsel of Record

Philip D. Williamson

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800

Cincinnati, OH 45202

(513) 381-2838

aherzig@taftlaw.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Countrymark Refining

and Logistics, LLC

130922

A

(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.

CountryMark’s local market conditions

dictate whether it can meet the federal

renewable fuels mandate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.

CountryMark lost its opportunity for

individualized judicial review of the denial

of its SRE hardship petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.

CountryMark lost its opportunity for

timely judicial review of the denial of its

SRE hardship petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

ii

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Calumet Shreveport Refin., LLC v. EPA,

86 F.4th 1121 (5th Cir. 2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Countrymark Refin. and Logistics, LLC v. EPA,

No. 22-1165 (D.C. Cir.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Countrymark Refin. and Logistics, LLC v. EPA,

No. 22-1238 (D.C. Cir.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Sinclair Wyoming Refin. Co. LLC v. EPA,

101 F.4th 871 (D.C. Cir. 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 5

Sinclair Wyoming Refin. Co. LLC v. EPA,

114 F.4th 696 (D.C. Cir. 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Sinclair Wyoming Refin. Co. LLC, et al. v. EPA,

No. 22-1073 (D.C. Cir.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12

Statutes, Rules and Regulations

42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(1)(K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(A)(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(iii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 12

42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i-ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

iii

Cited Authorities

Page

42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 6

Seventh Circuit Local Rule 32(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Other Authorities

Ethanol, U.S. Dep’t of Energy, https://www.fuel

economy.gov/feg/ethanol.shtml (last visited

Jan. 27, 2025) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Final Joint Opening Brief of Petitioner-Appellants,

Sinclair Wyoming Refin. Co. LLC, et al. v. EPA,

No. 22-1073 (D.C. Cir., Jun. 15, 2023) . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Final Joint Reply Brief of Petitioner-Appellants,

Sinclair Wyoming Refin. Co. LLC, et al. v. EPA,

No. 22-1073 (D.C. Cir., Jan. 9, 2024) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Meggie Foster, CountryMark Debuts New Brand,

Re-energized Vision, Farm World (Jun. 20,

2007), http://www.farmworldonline.com/news/

ArchiveArticle.asp?newsid=4377 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Order Granting EPA’s Motion to Transfer,

Countrymark Refin. and Logistics, LLC v. EPA,

No. 22-1878 (7th Cir. Jul. 20, 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Order Granting EPA’s Motion to Transfer,

Countrymark Refin. and Logistics, LLC v. EPA,

No. 22-2368 (7th Cir. Sep. 8, 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

iv

Cited Authorities

Page

Petition for Rev iew, Countr ymark Refin .

and Logistics, LLC v. EPA, No. 22-1878

(7th Cir. May 18, 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Petition for Rev iew, Countr ymark Refin .

and Logistics, LLC v. EPA, No. 22-2368

(7th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Small Refinery Exemption

Study: An Investigation into Disproportionate

Economic Hardship 33 (Mar. 2011), https://www.

epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/

small-refinery-exempt-study.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

Cou nt r y ma rk Ref i n i ng a nd Log i st ic s , LLC

(“CountryMark”) is a farmer-owned cooperative founded

in 1919.1 Governed by a Board of Directors comprising

farmers, its profits are annually distributed back to its

members through the cooperative system. CountryMark is

owned by more than 140,000 farmers. It is headquartered

in Indiana.

CountryMark has a significant interest in this

appeal because, while small refineries (rightly) prevailed

in the recent Sinclair Wyoming decision in the D.C.

Circuit, CountryMark did not get its own day in court

to specifically and fully address the disproportionate

economic hardship that is suffers. CountryMark’s case

was improperly consolidated with those of 25 other small

refineries. See Sinclair Wyoming Refin. Co. LLC v. EPA,

101 F.4th 871 (D.C. Cir. 2024). As a result, CountryMark’s

particular economic circumstances were mentioned in

just two sentences in the briefs before the D.C. Circuit. It

had no chance to fully and fairly explain how denial of its

hardship petitions could jeopardize its ability to continue

operating.

The demise of CountryMark would significantly

harm the rural region in which it operates. CountryMark

employs nearly 500 workers, concentrated in the rural

economy of southwest Indiana and southeast Illinois.

1. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in

part. No such counsel or a party made a monetary contribution

intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No

person other than the amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel,

made such a monetary contribution.

2

In Posey County, Indiana, a county with only 25,000

residents, CountryMark provides over $30 million in

wages and benefits each year. In 2024, it purchased over

$800 million of crude oil primarily from the Illinois Basin,

and those purchases provided income to the 40,000 royalty

owners in the Illinois Basin. Its products are also sold and

distributed through its branded dealer network, providing

employment throughout rural communities in its area.

CountryMark is the only farmer-owned integrated

oil company in the United States, and it is recognized in

Indiana as a leader in the distribution of biodiesel and

ethanol. Its refinery, which uses 100% American crude

oil, processes 35,000 barrels of crude per day. It supplies

over 70% of agricultural market fuels and 50% of school

district fuels in Indiana. Although CountryMark is a

critical participant in its regional market, it operates as

a small refinery relative to its peers, with a capacity that

is merely one-tenth the size of the average refinery in its

region.

CountryMark is precisely the type of small refinery

Congress envisioned when enacting Small Refinery

Exemptions (“SRE”). For CountryMark, SREs are not

a mechanism to avoid compliance with Congressional

mandates; rather, they are vital tools to sustain economic

viability while advancing renewable fuel adoption—an

effort CountryMark has championed since before such

mandates existed.

CountryMark is an Obligated Party under the

Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”). Despite its early

adoption of renewable fuels, CountryMark’s customers

are unable or unwilling to blend sufficient renewable

3

fuels to meet the company’s annual RFS obligations.

While CountryMark has invested significantly in blending

infrastructure, the continued escalation of Renewable

Volume Obligations (“RVOs”), combined with rising

Renewable Identification Number (“RIN”) prices, renders

compliance financially unsustainable without relief

through SREs.

To address the economic hardship imposed by the

RFS, CountryMark has sought SREs under the Clean

Air Act (“CAA”). By statute, these exemptions must be

determined based on the applicant’s individual economic

circumstances. When the Environmental Protection

Agency (“EPA”) denied CountryMark’s RFS hardship

petitions, CountryMark sought judicial review in its

regional circuit. But, on EPA’s motion, the cases were

transferred to the D.C. Circuit and consolidated with other

refineries’ petitions, denying CountryMark its statutory

right to review of its particular economic hardships by

its regional circuit. CountryMark thus has significant

interest in this Court’s affirmance of the Fifth Circuit’s

determination that the proper venue for review of EPA’s

decisions on SRE petitions is the small refinery’s regional

circuit.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Fifth Circuit correctly determined that the

proper venue for judicial review of EPA’s decision on

SRE petitions is the regional circuit of the petitioning

small refinery. The specific economic circumstances of

the small refinery and the area in which it operates are

the statutorily required and exclusive bases for EPA

determinations of RFS hardship applications. A small

4

refinery is almost by definition a local or regional concern.

See 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(1)(K). Thus, the SRE applicant’s

regional circuit is best suited to address the application

and the local economic realities that should underlie EPA’s

decision.

Congress concluded that localized EPA decisions

should be reviewed by local jurisdictions. 42 U.S.C.

§ 7607(b)(1). That is a rational division of labor for at least

three reasons.

First, local jurisdictions are best equipped to render

decisions based on local economic realities. Indeed, in

large measure, that is the very purpose of having regional

courts of appeals. EPA, along with supporting amici from

trade associations that represent non-obligated entities,

wrongly assume that fuel prices are generally set in the

context of a national market. All states and regions have

different fuel prices, which are driven by the supply and

demand in local markets. Anyone who travels regularly

can attest that fuel prices in Indiana, California, and

Louisiana differ widely—driven by local or regional supply

and demand. Fuel prices in Posey County in southern

Indiana are noticeably different from those of Chicagoadjacent Lake County, Indiana. CountryMark, which is an

Obligated Party, operates wholesale terminals in several

markets and experiences these local economic differences

every day. This reinforces the need for review of EPA

decisions in the SRE applicant’s regional circuit.

Second, distributing localized EPA actions among

the regional circuits ensures that petitioners get the

individualized review that the CAA contemplates. The

CAA directs EPA to evaluate “a” hardship petition

based on whether the particular petitioner would face

5

a “disproportionate economic hardship” if required to

comply with renewable fuel standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)

(9)(B)(i-ii). It naturally follows that the denial of an SRE

hardship petition will also get individualized attention in

the appropriate court of appeals. But in the joint opening

brief in Sinclair Wyoming, CountryMark’s unique

circumstances got just two sentences—totaling 60 words.

And CountryMark was not mentioned at all in the joint

reply brief. CountryMark has a greater opportunity to

discuss its economic hardship in this amicus brief than it

had to explain them in Sinclair Wyoming, where it was a

party and its own petition was reviewed.

Third, individual petitioners are more likely to get

the timely review required by the CAA if the workload is

dispersed among the regional circuits. The CAA directs

EPA to act on an SRE hardship petition within 90 days

of receipt. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(iii). As Respondents

explain, EPA ignored that deadline and deprived many

SRE petitioners of their right to timely review. See

Respondents Br. 17, 25-26, 39-40 (Jan. 21, 2025). That

delay was exacerbated by the consolidation of dozens of

petitions in the D.C. Circuit. The Fifth Circuit handled

its petitions for review months before the D.C. Circuit

adjudicated its bundle of consolidated cases.

EPA is wrong to assert that venue lies exclusively in

the D.C. Circuit for every petitioner seeking appeal of an

SRE hardship petition ruling. EPA is wrong about the

fuel market: fuel prices are local and regional rather than

national. And EPA is wrong about the process here. Venue

should not shift to the D.C. Circuit merely because EPA

bundled quintessentially local SRE hardship petitions

together.

6

ARGUMENT

1. CountryMark’s local market conditions dictate

whether it can meet the federal renewable fuels

mandate.

The individualized nature of SRE hardship petitions

makes regional circuits the “appropriate circuit[s]”

under the CAA’s venue provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1).

Indiana-based CountryMark’s SRE petitions should be

reviewed in the Seventh Circuit. Sending them to the

D.C. Circuit undermines the statutory framework of the

CAA. This brief focuses on the practical effects that the

venue decision has on a small refinery like CountryMark.

CountryMark is a quintessential small refinery. It

is a farmer-owned cooperative that was advancing the

use of renewable fuels even before it was subject to a

federal law mandate. However, it faces disproportionate

economic hardship compared to other refineries—even

other small refineries—because of circumstances specific

to its ownership and marketplace.

Cou nt r yMa rk ha s i nvest ed i n f uel blend i ng

infrastructure that remains capable of blending enough

renewable fuels to meet its annual obligation. But despite

CountryMark’s infrastructure and a customer base that

embraced renewable fuels early, CountryMark’s customers

simply do not want—and thus will not purchase—the

higher renewable fuel blends required for CountryMark’s

compliance with EPA mandates.

Customers select the percentage of renewable fuels to

be blended into their gasoline and diesel when they choose

which fuel mix to purchase. The customer’s preferences

7

in CountryMark’s market are specific to CountryMark

and are not “national” in any sense. In CountryMark’s

marketplace, demand remains low for higher blends.

For example, E85 (a fuel product typically containing

85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) is not widely accepted by

CountryMark’s consumers regardless of price because it

has less energy per gallon compared to E10 (10% ethanol;

90% gasoline). 2 That low demand is essentially immune

to price changes. These local retail economics impact

CountryMark’s ability to sell fuel blends in sufficient

quantities to achieve CountryMark’s RVO compliance

levels.

CountryMark’s blend percentages are below the

federal government’s CA A mandate because of its

customers’ preferences. They purchase less of the

higher fuel blends, resulting in CountryMark’s achieving

lower blending percentages than the mandate requires.

CountryMark must then purchase RINs (compliance

credits) to achieve RFS compliance. The combination

of mandated RVO increases above CountryMark’s

marketplace’s demand, plus increasing RIN prices, makes

continued compliance practically impossible, and SREs

vital. Without SREs, CountryMark’s long-term viability

is threatened.

A not her econom ic c i rc u mst a nce sp ec i f ic t o

CountryMark is its disproportionate blending of diesel

2. Ethanol, U.S. Dep’t of Energy, https://www.fueleconomy.

gov/feg/ethanol.shtml (last visited Jan. 27, 2025) (“Due to ethanol’s

lower energy content, [flex fuel vehicles] operating on E85 get

roughly 15% to 27% fewer miles per gallon than when operating

on regular gasoline, depending on the ethanol content. Regular

gasoline typically contains about 10% ethanol.”).

8

versus gasoline. CountryMark first blended biodiesel

in 2006, and it is today considered a leader of biodiesel

blending in Indiana. 3 Unsurprisingly, its farmer members

and their rural customers require more diesel fuel than

gasoline.

CountryMark consequently operates its refinery to

maximize diesel fuel production to meet the requirements

of its diesel-centric farmer members and customers.

Because of CountryMark’s local customer demand,

CountryMark sells more diesel fuel through its member

retail network than it can produce at its refinery, so it must

purchase diesel from other suppliers to meet customer

demand.

Even though biodiesel helps meet this demand,

customers strongly disfavor it, and therefore buy much

less of it. This results in a disproportionate economic

hardship for CountryMark compared to other refiners.

And to preclude all doubt, the Department of Energy

has recognized that high diesel production is a criteria

for disproportionate economic harm in its small refinery

exemption study.4 This is exacerbated for CountryMark.

CountryMark’s customers are integrated with the

agricultural community, and they are knowledgeable

users of renewable fuels—both ethanol and biodiesel.

Importantly, CountryMark’s customers are aware

3. Meggie Foster, CountryMark Debuts New Brand, Reenergized Vision, Farm World (Jun. 20, 2007), http://www.

farmworldonline.com/news/ArchiveArticle.asp?newsid=4377.

4. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, Small Refinery Exemption Study: An

Investigation into Disproportionate Economic Hardship 33 (Mar.

2011), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/

small-refinery-exempt-study.pdf.

9

that biodiesel does not work well in cold temperatures,

for which Indiana winters are well known. This is an

acute concern for agricultural consumers because

they frequently store diesel fuel on-site, year-round.

Consequently, CountryMark can sell less than 2% of

biodiesel on an annual average basis as a percentage of

all diesel sales. Contrast this with non-obligated parties

like large truck stops who sell to on-road truckers. Truck

stops can routinely blend 20% biodiesel in their product

because on-road truckers immediately consume the fuel,

and thus do not have to worry about exposing that diesel

fuel to the elements in longer-term storage.

T h e s e l o c a l m a rke t p l a c e f a c t o r s p r e c l ud e

CountryMark’s opportunity to blend biodiesel into diesel

fuel, as compared to blending ethanol into gasoline.

Even if CountryMark were to try to force a 5% biodiesel

blend on customers, that would not be enough to meet

CountryMark’s RFS obligations. Since higher biodiesel

blends are not as accepted in the market, CountryMark

does not sell as many biodiesel blends at 10% or higher.

Without having the ability to sell higher renewable

blends in diesel fuel, CountryMark is structurally

disadvantaged compared to other refineries. By favoring

the production of diesel fuel to meet the needs of its

regional agricultural market, CountryMark does not

produce enough gasoline for ethanol blending at any

percentage that would eliminate the need to purchase

high-priced RINs.

CountryMark operates in a volatile fuel market and

its disproportionate economic hardship is structural.

CountryMark produces more diesel fuel than a typical

10

refinery to serve its farmer-owners, and it is located in

an extremely competitive market with multiple refineries,

pipelines, and terminals.

As a result, EPA needs to reevaluate each year whether

the exemption should be extended to CountryMark,

just as Congress directed. When EPA gets the SRE

determination wrong, CountryMark should be heard

individually, not bundled with other geographically

dispersed SRE petitioners. And its statutory venue is the

Seventh Circuit, its regional court of appeals.

2. CountryMark lost its opportunity for individualized

judicial review of the denial of its SRE hardship

petition.

CountryMark filed a petition for review of EPA’s denial

of its hardship petition for 2018 in the Seventh Circuit in

May 2022. 5 In this petition, CountryMark sought to bring

before its regional circuit its unique and local economic

factors. Instead of consideration by the Seventh Circuit

of these CountryMark-centric economics factors, the case

was transferred to the D.C. Circuit on EPA’s motion.6

CountryMark also filed a petition for review of EPA’s

denial of its hardship petitions for 2019, 2020, and 2021

in the Seventh Circuit in August 2022.7 As with the May

5. See Petition for Review, Countrymark Refin. and Logistics,

LLC v. EPA, No. 22-1878 (7th Cir. May 18, 2022).

6. See Order Granting EPA’s Motion to Transfer, Countrymark

Refin. and Logistics, LLC v. EPA, No. 22-1878 (7th Cir. Jul. 20,

2022); Countrymark Refin. and Logistics, LLC v. EPA, No. 221165 (D.C. Cir.).

7. See Petition for Review, Countrymark Refin. and Logistics,

LLC v. EPA, No. 22-2368 (7th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022).

11

petition for review, the August petition was transferred

to the D.C. Circuit on EPA’s motion. 8 CountryMark’s

petitions for review were consolidated with 25 other small

refineries into an omnibus case in the D.C. Circuit. See

Sinclair Wyoming Refin. Co. LLC, et al. v. EPA, No. 221073 (D.C. Cir.).

In the small refinery petitioners’ joint opening brief

in Sinclair Wyoming, CountryMark’s unique economic

circumstances got two sentences—just 60 words in an

opening brief of 23,970 words.9 And in the joint reply brief

there was no room to mention CountryMark’s specific,

local economics at all.10 Owing to the consolidated nature

of the case, CountryMark could spend just two sentences

explaining why millions of dollars of compliance costs

under the RFS created disproportionate hardship for

CountryMark and threatened its continued financial

viability.

It is hard to see how CountryMark’s appeal could

receive the individualized attention it is entitled to

within just 0.025% of the opening brief—and none of

the reply. If CountryMark had remained in the Seventh

8. See Order Granting EPA’s Motion to Transfer, Countrymark

Refin. and Logistics, LLC v. EPA, No. 22-2368 (7th Cir. Sep. 8,

2022); Countrymark Refin. and Logistics, LLC v. EPA, No. 221238 (D.C. Cir.).

9. See Final Joint Opening Brief of Petitioner-Appellants at

17, 81, Sinclair Wyoming Refin. Co. LLC, et al. v. EPA, No. 221073 (D.C. Cir., Jun. 15, 2023).

10. See generally Final Joint Reply Brief of PetitionerAppellants, Sinclair Wyoming Refin. Co. LLC, et al. v. EPA, No.

22-1073 (D.C. Cir., Jan. 9, 2024).

12

Circuit, it would have had 14,000 words in the opening

brief—and 7,000 in the reply—to discuss its individual

economic reality and its disproportionate hardship

under the RFS.11 If CountryMark’s case had remained

in the Seventh Circuit, it would have had that court’s full

attention. CountryMark would have been able to explain

its particular operations, customers, and market factors.

Its hardships would have been fully and fairly considered

by judges in CountryMark’s regional circuit, as Congress

intended.

3. CountryMark lost its opportunity for timely

judicial review of the denial of its SRE hardship

petition.

Congress recognized that the CAA’s fuel mandates

could pose an existential threat to smaller refineries, hence

the exemption system for refiners facing “disproportionate

hardship.” A smaller refinery facing this existential threat

needs timely review of its SRE hardship petition. So the

CAA directs EPA to act on an SRE hardship petition

within 90 days of receipt. 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(iii).

Needless to say, if EPA denies a hardship petition, the

small refinery also needs timely adjudication of its petition

for review of that decision; vindication delivered months,

and in some cases, years, too late is small comfort.

The dozens of SRE petitioners, including CountryMark,

who were bundled together in the D.C. Circuit in Sinclair

Wyoming filed SRE hardship petitions as early as 2016,

received denials from EPA in April and June 2022, and

were given judicial decisions in the D.C. Circuit in July

11. Seventh Circuit Local Rule 32(c).

13

2024. Sinclair Wyoming Refin. Co. LLC v. EPA, 114 F.4th

696, 704 (D.C. Cir. 2024). That means that for more than

half of the existence of the renewable fuel mandate, small

refineries like CountryMark have operated in regulatory

uncertainty that threatened their very existence. See 42

U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(A)(i) (directing that the renewable

fuel mandate will apply to small refineries beginning in

2011). It is true that much of the delay is attributable to

EPA’s failure to act on the petitions in a timely fashion.12

But not all.

Venue mattered. The Fifth Circuit declined to transfer

its petitions to the D.C. Circuit. It resolved both the venue

dispute and the merits of those petitions eight months

before the D.C. Circuit adjudicated the dozens of petitions

bundled together in the April and June 2022 denials. See

Calumet Shreveport Refin., LLC v. EPA, 86 F.4th 1121

(5th Cir. 2023). The distributed workload designed by

Congress is better suited for timely adjudication of SRE

hardship petitions. Delayed decision-making leads to

greater economic uncertainty. Along with the threats of

increasing RVOs and rising RIN prices, delay undermines

CountryMark’s ability to plan for the future and maintain

its economic viability for its 140,000 farmer-owners and

their customers.

12. Respondents ably explain why EPA should not be allowed

to use that unlawful delay to turn dozens of local decisions into

one or two “national” ones. Respondents Br. 17, 25-26, 39-40 (Jan.

21, 2025).

14

CONCLUSION

CountryMark exemplifies the localized challenges

faced by small refineries. Its operations are deeply

embedded in the region within which it operates. These

unique regional dynamics are best understood and

adjudicated within CountryMark’s regional circuit.

The Fifth Circuit’s venue ruling should be upheld to

ensure that EPA’s actions on SRE applicants’ petitions

are reviewed within the applicants’ regional circuits.

This approach respects the individualized nature of SRE

determinations, reinforces statutory compliance, and

preserves the rights of small refineries like CountryMark

to operate within a fair and sustainable regulatory

framework.

Respectfully submitted,

A aron M. Herzig

Counsel of Record

Philip D. Williamson

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800

Cincinnati, OH 45202

(513) 381-2838

aherzig@taftlaw.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Countrymark Refining

and Logistics, LLC

January 28, 2025