Industry representatives and environmental groups recently filed challenges to the U.S. Environmental Agency’s (EPA’s) final chromium electroplating hazardous air pollutant standards. Nat’l Ass’n for Surface Finishing v. EPA, No. 12-1459 (D.C. Cir. 11/19/12); Clean Air Council v. EPA, No. 12-1460 (D.C. Cir. 11/19/12). The environmental groups claim that the regulation is not sufficiently stringent and cite a California rule that they believe is superior.
The industry representatives simultaneously filed a request for an administrative stay and administrative reconsideration, which describes their concerns with the final rule in detail. Among the issues identified is EPA reliance on an economic analysis developed after the proposed rule was published and on which no comment was allowed. The industry group asserts that the analysis is flawed. Industry petitioners also assert that EPA improperly concluded that certain fume suppressants could be used “as a drop-in replacement” for existing fume suppressants, ignored their comments on EPA’s emission and risk modeling in support of the rule, and improperly declined to convene a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act panel to assess impacts on small businesses.