About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (September 5, 2017)

handle is hein.crs/govcjvp0001 and id is 1 raw text is: r~~w Con arers Reflsearch Service- - D.C. Circuit Rejects EPA's Efforts to Ban Hydrofluorocarbons: Part 2 September 5, 2017 This Sidebar is the second in a series of two posts analyzing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's (D. C. Circuit's) decision in Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, vacatingpart of a 2015 rule that would have banned uses of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a class of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Part ! of this series provided background on the U.S. implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol) and analyzed the court's opinion. Part 2 of this series discusses the potential implications of the court's decision on further regulation of the HFCs and impacts on the United States implementation of the Montreal Protocol and its amendments. Alternative Legal Options for Reducing HFCs Although the majority decision in Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA held that EPA could not require manufacturers that previously replaced ODSs with HFCs to replace those HFCs with another acceptable substitute, the majority did provide potential alternative pathways for EPA to regulate HFCs. The majority anticipated that EPA might argue that the agency can retroactively determine that the HFCs should not have been approved as acceptable ODS substitutes under Section 612 in the first place, thus prohibiting manufacturers from continuing to use HFCs as an ODS substitute in their products. However, the majority decision outlined potential legal obstacles, including due process concerns, to this approach should EPA decide to pursue retroactive disapproval. The majority also highlighted several statutory authorities under the Clean Air Act that could potentially be used to regulate HFCs, including the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Section 109), Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) program (Section 112), motor vehicle emission standards (Section 202), and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program (Sections 160-169). EPA has already used some of these authorities to regulate HFCs. For example, EPA has exercised its authority under Section 202 to reduce the use of HFCs as coolants in automotive air conditioning systems by allowing manufacturers that substitute HFCs with other coolants with lower GWPs to earn credits that can be used to comply with the motor vehicle GHG standards. In addition, EPA has exercised its authority under the PSD program to set emission limits on GHGs (including HFCs) for new or modified stationary sources that are required to obtain a PSD permit for non-GHG emissions. To use the other statutory authorities mentioned in the majority decision, EPA would be required to make Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10155 CRS INSIGHT Prepamd for Membej-q and Comrtw :Cs o ngress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most