D.C. COURT OF APPEALS RULES IN FAVOR OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE IN APHIS FEE CASE
July 5, 2022
On June 21, 2022, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in an action brought by A4A and IATA to contest an existing Department of Agriculture rulemaking called “User Fees for Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Services.” In Air Transp. Ass’n of Am. v. United States Dep’t of Agric., the Appellants argued that the rule violated both the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (the “Act”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Previously in the case, the district court ruled in favor of the Department of Agriculture on 3 of 4 counts, granting it summary judgment.
This ruling stems from a prior case, originally brought by the Appellants in 2016 following the adoption of a final rule by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), which increased the Commercial Aircraft User Fee to $225 for commercial flights and reduced the Commercial Air Passenger Fee from $5 to $3.96. The Appellants made four main claims against the Department of Agriculture and APHIS. First, they asserted that APHIS had exceeded its authority under the Act and the APA by charging both a per-passenger fee as well as a per-aircraft fee to fund inspections of a single aircraft. Second, the Appellants argued that APHIS’ final rule violated the Act because it imposed excessively high fees and violated the APA due to its failure to explain how the $225 Commercial Aircraft User Fee was “commensurate” with inspection costs or even necessary at all given the imposition of the Commercial Air Passenger Fee. Next, the Appellants argued that the imposition of a reserve surcharge by the final rule exceeded the Department’s authority because the Act only authorized a reserve charge until 2002. Lastly, the Appellants argued that the final rule violated the APA because APHIS withheld key information during the rulemaking process. The district court considered all the arguments and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of APHIS on the first, second and fourth claims, while finding that due to the time limitation included in 21 U.S.C. § 136a(a)(1)(C), APHIS did not have authorization to collect fees to fund a reserve after fiscal year 2002 and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellants on the third claim. On appeal the Court found in favor of the Department and APHIS on all counts, affirming the district court’s judgment in part, as it agreed with its rulings on claims 1, 2 and 4, and reversing and remanding the district court’s decision on claim 3 after asserting that the challenged rule did authorize the collection of fees to fund a reserve after 2002.
If you have any questions, please contact Evelyn Sahr (esahr@eckertseamans.com 202-659-6622) or Drew Derco (dderco@eckertseamans.com 202-659-6665).
*Editor’s Note: We would like to give special thanks to Summer Intern, Thiseas Efthymiou for his contributions to this month’s posts.
Share This Post
Authors
