Results of Section 610 Review of Reinforced Plastic Composites

Background

EPA promulgated and amended standards for reinforced plastic composites
on April 21, 2003 (68 FR 19375) and April 25, 2005 (70 FR 50117),
respectively. These standards required new and existing major sources of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) to achieve maximum achievable control
technology (MACT). These requirements, codified at 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart WWWW, were promulgated under Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Section 112(d) requires EPA to list categories and subcategories
of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the listed
source categories and subcategories. Reinforced Plastic Composites
Production was included on the initial list of source categories
published on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those
that have the potential to emit 10 tpy or more of any one HAP or 25 tpy
or more of any combination of HAP. The CAA requires NESHAP to reflect
the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable.
This level of control is commonly referred to as the MACT. The MACT
floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP. This concept
appears in section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. For new sources, the MACT floor
cannot be less stringent than the HAP emissions control that is achieved
in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards
for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new
sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average HAP
emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing
five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30
sources). This rule was based on the best possible understanding of the
industry, and it afforded the flexibility to achieve the necessary
emission reductions in the most sensible, cost-effective ways. Pursuant
to Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA has reviewed this
rule to determine if it should be continued without change, or should be
rescinded or amended to minimize adverse economic impacts on small
entities. As part of this review, EPA considered, and solicited comments
on, the following factors: (1) The continued need for the rule; (2) the
nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule; (3) the
complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to which the rule overlaps,
duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal, State, or local government
rules; and (5) the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or
other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. The results
of EPA’s review are summarized here.

Discussion of Five Factors

1.  Continued need for the rule

One comment letter was received. The commenter believes there continues
to be a need for the Subpart WWWW NESHAP. Its flexible approach allows
composites manufacturing sources of all types and sizes to effectively
yet feasibly achieve significant emission reductions.

The rule under review was promulgated as part of EPA’s efforts to
fulfill the requirements of CAA Section 112(d). The EPA finds that there
is a continued need for the rule because the rule controls HAP
emissions, exposure to which has been demonstrated to cause adverse
health effects, including chronic disorders (e.g., headache, fatigue,
and depression) and acute health disorders (e.g., irritation of skin,
eyes, and mucous membranes and decreased respiratory function).
Reinforced plastic composite manufacturing remains a source of HAP
emissions and, therefore, continues to be a potential contributor to the
adverse health effects for the exposed populations.

2.  Nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule

The commenter discussed concerns raised previously through prior
communication with EPA, acknowledging that their concerns had been
addressed adequately through guidance documents and reiterated their
perspective that they do not believe action is needed as part of EPA's
Section 610 review.

3.  Complexity of the rule

We agree with the commenter’s statement that the Subpart WWWW standard
is as complicated as it needs to be to provide effective yet feasible
requirements for a very diverse industry. We do not believe EPA should
attempt to make the rule less complex.

4.  Extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with
other federal, State, or local government rules

Several States have adopted the Subpart WWWW standard as part of their
VOC SIP. These State requirements are well coordinated with the Subpart
WWWW and do not unreasonably overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other
rules impacting the composites manufacturing industry.

5.  The degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other
factors have changed in the area affected by the rule

Due to the flexibility provided by the rule any change in technology is
easily incorporated into a compliance strategy for Subpart WWWW.

Conclusion

The current reinforced plastic composites rule provides for HAP
reductions without undue burden on small entities, and does not warrant
revision at this time. 

April 10, 2013

