April 10, 2013

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it should be continued without change, or should be rescinded or amended to minimize 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 continuesto 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.
April 10, 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 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.