Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-472_0pm1.pdf
Page Number: 8

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

(2d ed. 1989) (OED) (“Enlargement in duration”); 7 U. S. C.
§940f(a) (“extension of the final maturity” of a federal loan). 
In other settings, as the small refineries emphasize, an “ex-
tension” can mean the offering or making something avail-
able to someone, such as the granting of a benefit.  See, e.g., 
5  OED  595  (“[t]o  hold  out,  accord,  grant”);  15  U. S. C. 
§1141e(a) (“extension of [intellectual property] protection”). 
These definitional differences matter too.  If Congress used
the term in the second sense, everyone before us seems to
accept the court of appeals erred:  Just because a small re-
finery’s first exemption lapsed, nothing would foreclose the 
government  from  extending—in  the  sense  of  granting  or 
conferring—a second exemption later. 

Ultimately,  however,  we  agree  with  the  renewable  fuel
producers and the court of appeals that subparagraph (B)(i) 
uses  “extension”  in  its  temporal  sense—referring  to  the 
lengthening of a period of time.  We find three textual clues 
telling.  First, the initial exemption described in subpara-
graph (A)(i) is described temporally (as lasting “until calen-
dar year 2011”).  42 U. S. C. §7545(o)(9)(A)(i).  Second, the 
next  exemption  described  in  subparagraph  (A)(ii)  speaks 
temporally too, and it does so using a variation of the very 
term in dispute—authorizing EPA to “extend the exemption
under clause (i) for the small refinery for a period of not less
than 2 years.”  §7545(o)(9)(A)(ii)(II) (emphasis added).  Fi-
nally,  subparagraph  (A)(ii)  and  subparagraph  (B)(i)  share 
an identical title—“Extension of exemption”—underscoring 
the likelihood that the two neighboring provisions use the
term “extension” in one consistent sense.  Nor do we see any 
persuasive countervailing evidence that Congress meant to 
adopt one meaning of the term in subparagraph (A)(ii) and 
a different one next door in subparagraph (B)(i).  See Hen-
son  v.  Santander  Consumer  USA  Inc.,  582  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2017) (slip op., at 5) (absent contrary evidence, this Court 
normally presumes consistent usage).