April 1 0 , 2013

Results of Section 610 Review of Reinforced Plastic Composites Background EPA promulgated and amended standards for reinforced plastic composites on April 2 1, 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 1 12(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 Compo sites 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 C AA 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 b y 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Act, EPA has reviewed this rule to determine if it should be continued without change, or should be rescinded or amended to minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities.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 b y the rule. The results of EPA’s review are summarized here. Discussion of Five Factors 1. Continued nee d for the rule One comment letter was received. The commenter believes there continues to be a need for the Subpart WWWW NESHAP. It s flexible approach allows composites manufacturing sources of all ty pes and sizes to effectively yet feasibl y achieve signi ficant emission reductions.April 1 0 , 2013

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 b ecause 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)

. Reinforce d plastic composite manufacturing remains a source of HAP emissions and, therefore, continue s 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 c ommenter 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 ye t feasible requirements for a very diverse industry. We do not bel ieve 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. Th ese State requirements are well coordinated with the Subpart WWWW and do no t unreasonabl y overlap, duplicate, or conflict with other r ules impacting the composites manufacturing industry

. 5. The degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other f actors have changed in the area affected b y 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 provi des for HAP reductions without undue burden on small entities, and does not warrant revision at this time.