Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
866 F.3d 451
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- EPA issued a 2015 Rule under Section 612 to regulate HFCs, non-ozone-depleting substances used as substitutes; HFCs trap heat but do not deplete ozone; Rule moved certain HFCs from safe to prohibited substitutes, barring their use in aerosols, A/Cs, refrigerators, and foams; parties agree EPA may require replacing ozone-depleting substances with safer substitutes, but dispute whether EPA may require replacing non-ozone-depleting substitutes like HFCs; petitioners Mexichem and Arkema challenge EPA’s authority and the Rule’s rationale, seeking vacatur and remand; court vacates the 2015 Rule to the extent it requires replacement of HFCs and remands for further proceedings while addressing potential retroactive disapproval and other EPA authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to require replacement of HFCs under 612 | Mexichem/Arkema: Section 612 cannot require replacing non-ozone-depleting substitutes with alternatives | EPA: Section 612(c) authorizes moving substitutes between safe/prohibited lists and prohibiting replacement with unsafe substitutes | Vacate to extent requiring replacement; remand for remand proceedings |
| Retroactive disapproval theory viability | Argues EPA could retroactively disapprove past substitutions with HFCs | EPA did not rely on retroactive disapproval in the 2015 Rule; would require separate justification | Remand possibility: may pursue retroactive disapproval with proper justifications and due process |
| Arbitrariness of removing HFCs from safe substitutes list | EPA’s removal lacked adequate explanation and data | Record supports EPA’s safety/risk-based decision using GWP and other factors | Arbitrary and capricious challenges rejected; adverse findings not sustained; focus on vacatur only to replacement aspect |
| Chevron step analysis and statutory language interpretation | Word “replace” is ambiguous; should proceed to Chevron Step II | Majority applies Chevron Step I; interprets “replace” as ongoing replacement | Majority’s reliance on Step I rejected by concurrence; remand possible for Step II evaluation |
| EPA authority beyond Section 612 to regulate substitutes | EPA has broader authority under TSCA and other statutes | Other authorities exist but do not justify retroactive replacement of non-ozone-depleting substances | Acknowledges broader EPA powers but conservatively vacates only replacement requirement; remands for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-step framework for evaluating agency interpretations of statutes)
- Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (U.S. 2014) (agency must have statutory authority for regulations addressing climate change)
- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (U.S. 2006) (discusses separation of powers thresholds in governmental actions)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious review standard for agency rulemaking)
- NRDC v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (context on Chevron step two and agency interpretations)