Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 

ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE 

TO REDUCE FORMALDEHYDE EMISSIONS FROM 

COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS 

Public Hearing Date: April 26, 2007 

Agenda Item No.: 07-4-3 
i

Table of Contents

I. GENERAL ........................................................................................1 

II. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL ..................................3 

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES ......................5 

A. Combined List of Commenters ..............................................................7 

1. Written Comments Submitted during the 45-day Comment Period 

Before April 26, 2007 

2. Written Comments Submitted at the April 26, 2007 Public Hearing 

3. Oral Testimony Delivered at the April 26, 2007 Public Hearing 

4. Written Comments Submitted during the 15-day Comment Period – 31 

January -15 February 2008 

B. Abbreviations Used in the Comments and Agency Responses ..................11 

C. Comments and Agency Responses: 45-day Comment Period ...................17 

Draft Regulation .........................................................................17 

• Applicable Products and Exemptions 

• Definitions 

• Regulatory Authority 

• Sell-through Provisions 

Fabricators ...............................................................................31 

• Chain-of-custody and Labeling 

• Economic Impacts 

• Enforcement and Fair Competition 

• Exemptions 

• Finished Product Test Method 

Importers and Imported Products ...................................................44 

• Chain-of-custody 

• Economic Impacts 

• Enforcement and Fair Competition 

• Third Party Certification 

Manufacturers ...........................................................................55 

• Enforcement and Fair Competition 

• Formaldehyde Emissions Standards 

• Industry-wide Costs 

• Panel Costs 
ii

• Panel Emissions Testing 

• Process Modifications and Operating Costs 

• Quality Assurance 

• Resin Costs 

• Third Party Certification 

Miscellaneous ........................................................................100 

• Air District Concerns 

• Consumer Costs 

• Economic Impacts 

• Emission Sources 

• Green Building Products 

• Outreach 

• Resin Technology 

• Support for Rulemaking 

Public Health ...........................................................................123 

• Cost of Health Care 

• Health Effects and Risk Assessment 

D. Comments and Agency Responses: 15-day Comment Period .................196 
1

State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, 

Including Summary of Comments and Agency Response 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED

AIRBORNE TOXIC CONTROL MEASURE TO REDUCE FORMALDEHYDE 

EMISSIONS FROM COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS 

Public Hearing Date: April 26, 2007 

Agenda Item No.: 07-4-3 

I. GENERAL 

On April 26, 2007, the Air Resources Board (CARB or Board) conducted a public 

hearing to consider an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to reduce 

formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. The Staff Report: Initial 

Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, entitled “Proposed Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite 

Wood Products” (ISOR) was made available to the public beginning 

March 9, 2007. This ISOR, which is incorporated by reference herein, contains a 

description of the rationale for the proposed ATCM. At the hearing, the Board 

approved the proposed ATCM with various modifications to the original proposal. 

These modifications were made available for public comment beginning January 

31, 2008, for a period of 15 days (15-day comment period). 

In accordance with section 11346.9(a)(1), this Final Statement of Reasons for 

Rulemaking (FSOR) updates the ISOR by identifying and explaining the 

modifications that were made to the original proposal. The FSOR also 

summarizes the written and oral comments received during the 45-day comment 

period preceding the April 26, 2007 hearing; comments received at the public 

hearing on April 26, 2007; and comments received during the 15-day comment 

period. Agency responses to the comments are also included. 

Economic and Fiscal Impacts. The CARB Executive Officer has determined 

that the proposed regulatory action will not create costs or savings, as defined in 

Government Code section 11346.5(a)(5) and 11346.5(a)(6), in federal funding to 

the state. However, the Executive Officer has determined that the proposed 

regulatory action will create costs to state agencies, and local agencies, but not 

school districts, whether or not reimbursable by the state pursuant to part 7 
2

(commencing with section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the Government Code, or 

other nondiscretionary savings to state or local agencies. 

The proposed regulatory action will impose a mandate upon and create costs for 

local air districts. Under State law, air districts are required to implement and 

enforce ATCMs which are adopted by CARB, or adopt and enforce their own 

rules that are at least as stringent. However, such administrative costs to the air 

districts are recoverable by fees that are within the air district’s authority to 

assess (see Health and Safety Code sections 42311 and 40510). Therefore, the 

Executive Officer has determined that the proposed regulatory action imposes no 

costs on local agencies that are required to be reimbursed by the State pursuant 

to part 7 (commencing with section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the Government 

Code, and does not impose a mandate on local agencies that is required to be 

reimbursed pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. 

On March 9, 2007, staff released a public hearing notice which included an 

assessment of costs to State agencies. At the time of the public hearing notice, 

staff determined that the proposed regulatory action would impose a mandate 

upon and create costs for one State agency: the California Prison Industries 

Authority (PIA). The PIA is a major fabricator of industrial and office furniture 

with a projected 2006-2007 fiscal year manufacturing revenue exceeding $100 

million. As a fabricator of composite wood finished products, the PIA will be 

required to work with composite wood product suppliers to ensure that they use 

compliant products and comply with the recordkeeping and labeling requirements 

of the ATCM. The California PIA would also pay more for the composite wood 

products used to make furniture, as described below. 

Since the release of the public hearing notice, staff has conducted a more 

detailed evaluation of the costs to State agencies. In addition to PIA’s expected 

cost increase of $460,000 to $570,000, staff determined that the proposed 

regulatory action will also impose costs for the California Department of 

Transportation (CDOT) ranging from $530,000 to $600,000 and additional costs 

for the California Department of Recreation and Parks (CDRP) ranging from 

$100,000 to $120,000. As with PIA, both the CDOT and the CDRP will incur 

higher costs for the composite wood products they currently use for new projects, 

maintenance and services throughout California. 

The Department of General Services (DGS) was also considered in the 

assessment of cost impacts to state agencies because of its role in purchasing 

office systems for state agencies throughout California. It is estimated that the 

incremental cost increase to DGS for purchases of new office systems and 

workstations containing composite wood products (i.e., particleboard) will be 

approximately $260,000 per year. 

 

Lastly, cost increases are anticipated for the implementation of the Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure by CARB. Additional staff will be needed to review the 
3

applications from manufacturers and third party certifiers, inspect businesses 

involved with the sale, supply, or use of composite wood products, and for 

enforcement-related product emissions testing. Additional equipment and 

contract funds will be needed for field-screening tests by CARB inspectors and 

for operating and maintaining the composite wood products emissions testing 

complex and sample preparation laboratory. The total cost for staff and 

equipment to enforce the regulation is $1,240,000.

The Board’s Executive Officer has also determined that pursuant to Government 

Code section 11346.5(a)(5), the ATCM will affect small businesses. Staff 

estimates that profitability for these businesses could decline from 1 to about 65 

percent in order to comply with the proposed amendments. A detailed description 

of these impacts is included in the ISOR. The adopted regulations are considered 

“major regulations” within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 57005 

(enacted by Senate Bill 1082: Stats. 1993, ch. 418). No reasonable alternative 

considered by the agency or that has otherwise been identified and brought to 

the attention of the agency would be more effective in carrying out the purpose 

for which the regulatory action was proposed, or would be as effective and less 

burdensome to affected private persons or businesses, including small 

businesses, than the action taken by the CARB. 

In accordance with Government Code sections 11346.3(c) and 11346.5(a)(11), 

the Executive Officer has found that the proposed reporting requirements of the 

ATCM which apply to businesses are necessary for the health, safety, and 

welfare of the people of the State of California. 

II. MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 

Various modifications to the original proposal were made to address comments 

received during the 45-day comment period preceding the April 26, 2007 hearing; 

comments received at the April 26, 2007 hearing; and to clarify the regulatory 

language. These modifications are described below. A “Notice of Public 

Availability of Modified Text,” together with a copy of the modified sections of the 

ATCM, was mailed on January 31, 2008, to each of the individuals described in 

subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4) of section 44, title 1, California Code of 

Regulations (CCR), including all people who submitted written or oral comments. 

Additionally, this notice was made available on CARB’s website on the same 

date. By these actions, the modified ATCM was made available to the public for 

a supplemental comment period from January 31, 2008 to February 15, 2008. 

After the close of the 15-day comment period, the Board’s Executive Officer 

determined that no additional modifications should be made to the ATCM. The 

Executive Officer subsequently issued Executive Order R-08-001, which adopted 

the ATCM. Following is a summary of the modifications made to the originally 

proposed regulation. 
4

Summary of Proposed Modifications

1. Compliance testing flexibility for ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) 

resins has been added. Section 93120.3 has been revised so that 

manufacturers of composite wood products with ULEF resins that can 

demonstrate consistent average emissions below Phase 2 standards will 

not be required to conduct emission tests of their products as frequently 

as otherwise required. Section 93120.7 and Appendix 2 of the ATCM 

have been modified to clarify labeling and testing requirements associated 

with ULEF resin use. 

2. More specificity and flexibility has been added to the quality assurance 

requirements for manufacturers contained in Appendix 2 of the ATCM. 

3. More specificity and clarity has been added to the requirements for third 

party certifiers contained in Appendix 3 of the ATCM. 

4. Producers of architectural plywood and fabricators that apply a laminate to 

a composite wood product that complies with the applicable emission 

standards are proposed to be considered collectively as fabricators of 

“laminated products.” These fabricators only need to comply with the 

requirements of section 93120.7 by verifying that they use complying core 

materials. In section 93120.1, the definition of architectural plywood has 

been deleted and a definition of “laminated products” has been added. 

5. In section 93120.1, a number of definitions have been added or modified. 

6. In section 93120.1(a)(8), the definition of “composite wood products” has 

been modified to clarify which products do not fall under the definition of 

“composite wood products” and to include “composite wood products” 

used inside of new recreational vehicles. 

7. In section 93120.2(a), the Phase 2 implementation date for hardwood 

plywood with a veneer core (HWPW-VC) has been changed from 

January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2010. The sell-through dates in Appendix 1 

of section 93120.12 have been modified to be consistent with this change. 

8. In section 93120.3(c), specificity has been added to the special provisions 

for manufacturers of composite wood products that use no-added 

formaldehyde based resins, including the information required to apply for 

approval to use such resins and emissions performance criteria. 

9. In section 93120.3(g), additional recordkeeping requirements were added 

for manufacturers that use no-added formaldehyde based resins or ULEF 

resins. 
5

10. In section 93120.4, criteria was added to allow third party certifiers to reapply to continue to be an approved certifier. 

11. In section 93120.7, exemptions have been added for local governments 

and school districts; and for exterior doors and garage doors that contain 

composite wood products. Requirements were clarified for fabricators that 

manufacture composite wood products for use by the fabricator in making 

finished goods. 

12. In section 93120.7(d), additional product labeling requirements have been 

added for fabricators. 

13. In section 93120.9, additional language has been added to allow the use 

of a secondary test method by third party certifiers in developing 

correlations with quality control test methods used by composite wood 

product manufacturers. Also, the section was modified to allow ARB to 

use the secondary test method for enforcement purposes. 

14. In section 93120.12, Appendix 1, the sell-through dates were changed for 

manufacturers of raw boards from one month to three months, for 

importers of raw boards from five months to three months, and for 

fabricators of finished goods from twelve months to eighteen months. 

15. In addition to the modifications described above, various modifications to 

the regulatory text have been made to improve clarity. 

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND AGENCY RESPONSES 

The Board received written and oral comments during the 45-day public 

comment period for the proposed ATCM, at the April 26, 2007 public hearing, 

and during the 15-day comment period. A combined list of commenters is 

provided in subsection A below. Subsection B is a list of abbreviations used in 

the comments. Subsection C contains the comments, grouped by subject, and 

agency responses. 

In subsection C, a summary of the recommendations made regarding the 

proposed ATCM (i.e., Comment), along with an explanation of how the proposed 

ATCM has been changed to accommodate the recommendation, as appropriate, 

or the reason why no change was made (i.e., Agency Response) is provided. 

Each comment and agency response is marked with identification information in 

brackets to denote: 

• the number of comment letter or testimony as listed in subsection A; 

• the person(s) responsible for submitting/presenting the comment(s); 
6

• the date the comment(s) was/were submitted or presented (i.e., 070314 

[yymmdd] indicates the comment was submitted on 14 March 2007); and 

• the organization(s) that submitted or presented the comment. 

For example, comments submitted from the comment letter number 1 in 

subsection A are marked as: [1-Davis-070314-Regal AQ]. 
7

A. Combined List of Commenters 

Written Comments Submitted During the 45-day Comment Period Before April 26, 

2007 Public Hearing

1. Davis, Charles – 14 March 2007 (Regal Air Quality, Inc.) 

2. Levin, Hal – 28 March 2007 (Building Ecology Research Group) 

3. Hetzel, Joseph – 4 April 2007 (Door & Access System Manufacturers Assn.) 

4. Sherman, Tom – 9 April 2007 (Cabinet Shop Owner)

5. Rink, Andrew – 13 April 2007 (Jeld-Wen) 

6. Harmon, David – 13 April 2007 (Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc.) 

7. Landry, Brock – 16 April 2007 (California Wood Industries Coalition) 

8. Rose, Leah – 16 April 2007 (Formaldehyde Council) 

9. Haikala, Juhani – 16 April 2007 (Plywood & Door Manufacturers Group) 

10. Higgins, Tom – 16 April 2007 (Formaldehyde-free Coalition) 

11. Higgnis, Tom – 17 April 2007 (City of Los Angeles) 

12. Higgins, Tom – 17 April 2007 (Support Letter) 

13. Lent, Tom – 17 April 2007 (Healthy Building Network) 

14. Titus, Richard – 19 April 2007 (Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Assn.) 

15. Alexeeff, George – 19 April 2007 (Office of Environ. Health Hazard Assess.) 

16. Overgard, Gail and Altman, Bill – 19 April 2007 (Hardwood Plywood & 

Veneer Assn.) 

17. Whalen, Elizabeth – 19 April 2007 (Columbia Forest Products) 

18. Smith, Daniel– 19 April 2007 (Smith & Fong Company) 

19. Cooper, Tom – 20 April 2007 (Kaiser Permanente)

20. Stensland, Jan – 20 April 2007 (Health Effects Expert) 

21. Parker, Steven – 20 April 2007 (Architect) 

22. Whalen, Elizabeth – 20 April 2007 (Columbia Forest Products) 

23. Zimmerman, Michael – 23 April 2007 (Sauder Woodworking Co.) 

24. Landry, Brock – 23 April 2007 (California Wood Industries Coalition) 

25. Hubbard, Reginald – 23 April 2007 (Darlington Veneer Co.) 

26. Stoler, Steve – 23 April 2007 (Boise Wood Products) 

27. Rush, Jim – 24 April 2007 (Temple Inland) 

28. Maultsby, John P. – 24 April 2007 (Florida Plywoods, Inc.) 

29. Couture, Pierre-Yves – 24 April 2007 (CDM Décor Papers) 

30. Hardy, Kelly – 24 April 2007 (Children Now) 

31. Warberg, Will – 24 April 2007 (Plum Creek MDF) 

32. Savage, Elliott – 24 April 2007 (SeeMac) 

33. Wijnbergen, Peter – 24 April 2007 (Norbord Industries) 

34. Keeling, Darrell – 24 April 2007 (Roseburg Forest Products) 

35. Guay, Phill – 24 April 2007 (Columbia Forest Products) 

36. Perdue, Bill – 24 April 2007 (American Home Furnishings Alliance) 

37. Sein, Antonio – 24 April 2007 (Rexcel Particleboard) 

38. Morgan, Suzanne – 24 April 2007 (International Wood Products Assn.) 

39. Maher, Gregory – 24 April 2007 (Composite Panel Assn.) 

40. Smith, Michel (for James Hogg) – 24 April 2007 (Great Lakes MDF) 
8

41. Chaffin, John – 24 April 2007 (International Wood Products Assn.) 

42. Gustafson, Stanley – 24 April 2007 (Woodwork Institute) 

43. Raymer, Robert – 24 April 2007 (California Building Industry Assn.) 

44. Julia, Tom – 24 April 2007 (Composite Panel Assn.) 

45. Gregory, Wade – 24 April 2007 (SierraPine Composite Solutions) 

46. Gonyea, Joseph H., III – 24 April 2007 (Timber Products) 

47. Steenson, Bruce and Dorries, Simon – 24 April 2007 (Australian Wood 

Panels Assn. and Engineered Wood Products Assn. of Australasia) 

48. Zeldin, Mel – 25 April 2007 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Assn.) 

49. Levin, Hal – 25 April 2007 (Building Ecology Research Group) 

50. Leverenz, Russell – 25 April 2007 (No Affiliation) 

51. Watson, Scott – 25 April 2007 (IPMG, Inc.) 

52. Lent, Tom – 25 April 2007 (Healthy Building Network) 

53. Cassman, Joan and Howard, Ed – 25 April 2007 (Hanson Bridgett Marcus 

Vlahos & Rudy) 

54. Knox, James – 25 April 2007 (American Cancer Society) 

55. Theg, Jill – 25 April 2007 (No Affiliation) 

56. Carmichael, Tim – 25 April 2007 (Coalition for Clean Air) 

57. Young, Jonathan – 25 April 2007 (Concerned Citizen) 

58. Blicker, David – 25 April 2007 (No Affiliation)

Written Comments Submitted at the April 26, 2007 Public Hearing

59. Taylor, Carole (Veneer Products, Inc.) 

60. Cassman, Joan (Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy) 

61. Demorest, Harry (Columbia Forest Products) 

62. Whalen, Elizabeth (Columbia Forest Products) 

63. Li, Kaichang (Oregon State University) 

64. Guay, Phill (Columbia Forest Products) 

65. Royce, Richard (Hercules Inc.) 

66. Mullen, Dave (Hercules Inc.) 

67. Livingston, Gene (California Wood Industries Coalition) 

68. Shull, Lee (California Wood Industries Coalition) 

69. Murray, Jay (Formaldehyde Council, Inc.) 

70. Woods, Ed (Columbia Forest Products) 

71. Hunt, Jeff (Plywood & Lumber Sales) 

72. Robson, Mike (Association of Woodworking & Furnishings Suppliers) 

73. Chappell, Gene (Columbia Forest Products) 

74. Bradley, Doug (General Veneer Manufacturing Co.) 
9

Oral Testimony Delivered at the April 26, 2007 Public Hearing1

75. Carmichael, Tim (Coalition for Clean Air) – p. 110-113 

76. Robson, Mike (Assn. of Woodworking & Furnishings Suppliers) – p. 113-114 

77. Natz, Betsy (Formaldehyde Council, Inc.) – p. 114-117 

78. Murray, Jay (Formaldehyde Council, Inc.) – p. 117-121 

79. Marsh, Gary (Formaldehyde Council, Inc.) – p. 121-123

80. Shull, Lee (California Wood Industries Coalition) – p. 123-126 

81. Gregory, Wade (California Wood Industries Coalition) – p. 126-129 

82. Julia, Tom (Composite Panel Assn.) – p. 129-132

83. Warberg, Will (Plum Creek MDF) – p. 132-135 

84. Keeling, Darrell (Roseburg Forest Products) – p. 135-137 

85. Altman, Bill (Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Assn.) – p. 137-138 

86. Compton, Charlie (Hambro Forest Products) – p. 138-141 

87. Perdue, Bill (American Home Furnishings Alliance) – p.141-144 

88. Elias, Edward (APA – The Engineered Wood Assn.) – p. 144-145 

89. Zimmerman, Mike (Sauder Woodworking Co.) – p. 145-148 

90. Titus, Dick (Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Assn.) – p. 148-150 

91. Raymer, Bob (California Building Industry Assn.) – p. 150-152 

92. Landry, Brock (California Wood Industries Coalition) – p. 152-155 

93. Livingston, Gene (California Wood Industries Coalition) – p. 155-158 

94. Dopico, Pablo (Georgia-Pacific Chemicals, LLC) – p. 158-160 

95. Kable, Mark (Setzer) – p. 160-164 

96. Morgan, Suzanne (International Wood Products Assn.) – p. 164-167 

97. Chaffin, John (International Wood Products Assn.) p. 167-169 

98. Schroeder, Kelly (Wood Molding & Millwork Producers Assn.) – p. 169-173 

99. Watson, Scott (Plywood salesman) – p. 173-176 

100. Harmon, David (Hexion Specialty Chemicals) – p. 176-178 

101. Korthof, Doug (No Affiliation) – p. 178-180 

102. Higgins, Tom (Formaldehyde Free Coalition) – p. 180-181 

103. Demorest, Harry (Columbia Forest Products) – p. 181-187 

104. Woods, Ed (Columbia Forest Products) – p. 187-189 

105. Whalen, Elizabeth (Columbia Forest Products) – p. 189-192 

106. Guay, Phill (Columbia Forest Products) – p. 192-195 

107. Cassman, Joan (Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy) – p. 195-196 

108. Li, Kaichang (Oregon State University) – p. 196-198 

109. Grabiel, Charles (United Soybean Board) – p. 198-200 

110. Royce, Richard (Hercules Inc.) – p. 200-202 

111. Mullen, David (Hercules Inc.) – p. 202-206 

112. Uhland, Jerry (CalAg MDF) – p. 206-208 

113. Hooper, Pat (HooperWolfe) – p. 208-211 

114. Fields, Rick (Neil Kelly Cabinets) – p. 211-213 

115. Hunt, Jeff (Plywood & Lumber Sales) – p. 213-214 

116. Gitt, Brian (Build It Green) – p. 214-217 

117. Cooper, Tom (Kaiser Permanente) – p. 217-220 
10

118. Lent, Tom (Environmental Analyst) – p. 220-223

119. Makus, Eli (Children Now) – p. 223-225 

120. Pung, Steve (Columbia Forest Products) – p. 225-226 

121. Bradway, Dennis (Mannington) – p. 226-230 

122. Schutfort, Erwin (Professional Services Industries, Inc.) – p. 230-233 

(1) Page numbers taken from transcript at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/2007/mt042607.txt 

(Accessed: 08 February 2008) 

Written Comments Submitted During the 15-Day Comment Period – 

31 January - 15 February 2008

1. Davis, Charles - 03 February 2008 (Regal Air Quality Inc.) 

2. Pardy, Linda - 05 February 2008 (No Affiliation)

3. Anderson, Michael - 12 February 2008 (Eastman Kodak Company) 

4. Hard af Segerstad, Krister - 13 February 2008 (IKEA NA Services, LLC) 

5. Pitts, Eddie - 14 February 2008 (Bernhardt) 

6. Lantman, Chris - 14 February 2008 (SRI International) 

7. Perdue, Bill - 14 February 2008 (American Home Furnishings Alliance) 

8. Titus, Dick – 14 February 2008 (Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Assn.) 

9. Earnshaw, Scott – 14 February 2008 (Hexion, New Zealand) 

10. Mann, Timothy – 15 February 2008 (IBM) 

11. Zimmerman, Michael – 15 February 2008 (Sauder Woodworking Co.) 

12. Fernandez, Sebastian – 15 February 2008 (Arauco) 

13. Morgan, Suzanne – 15 February 2008 (International Wood Products Assn) 

14. Julia, Thomas – 15 February 2008 (Composite Panel Assn.) 

15. Wald, Matt – 15 February 2008 (Recreational Vehicle Industry Assn.) 

16. Harmon, David – 15 February 2008 (Hexion, Inc.)

17. Rabe, Jim – 15 February 2008 (Masonite Corp.) 

18. Macedo, Sarah – 15 February 2008 (Formaldehyde Council, Inc.) 

19. Miller, Brad – 15 February 2008 (Business & Institutional Furniture 

 Manufacturers Assn.) 

20. Bradway, Dennis – 15 February 2008 (Mannington Mills) 

21. Cleet, Chris – 15 February 2008 (Information Technology Industry 

 Council) 

22. Howlett, Kip – 15 February 2008 (Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Assn.) 

23. Hodgson, Alfred – 15 February 2008 (Berkeley Analytical Associates) 

24. Dennis, Patrick – 15 February 2008 (Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher) 

25. Clark, Randy – 15 February 2008 (Jeld-Wen, Inc.) 

 
11

B. Abbreviations Used in the Comments and Agency Responses 

AB (California) Assembly Bill 

ACH Air Changes Per Hour 

ACS American Cancer Society 

ADH Alcohol Dehydrogenase 

AHFA American Home Furnishings Alliance 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

AOEC Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics 

APA The Engineered Wood Association 

ARB (California) Air Resources Board 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

AuWPA Australian Wood Panels Association 

AWFS Association of Woodworking & Furnishings Suppliers 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BBDR Biologically Based Dose-response (model) 

BfR (German) Federal Institute for Risk Assessment 

BERG Building Ecology Research Group 

BIFMA Business & Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Assoc. 

BMD Benchmark Dose 

Boise Boise Wood Products 

Build It Green Build It Green 

14C (Radioactive) Carbon-14 

CalAg CalAg MDF 

CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CBIA California Building Industry Association 

CC (Hardwood Plywood) Composite Core 

CCA Coalition for Clean Air 

Children Now Children Now 

CDC Centers for Disease Control 

CDMDP CEM Décor Papers 

CEGL Continuous Exposure Guidance Level 

CFR (or C.F.R.) Code of Federal Regulations 

CHPS Collaborative for High Performance Schools 

CI Confidence Interval 

CICAD Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 

CIIT Chemical Industries Institute of Toxicology 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CoLA City of Los Angeles 

Columbia Columbia Forest Products 

CPA Composite Panel Association 
12

cREL Chronic Reference Exposure Level 

CSF Cancer Slope Factor 

CWIC California Wood Industries Coalition 

DASMA Door & Access System Manufacturers Association 

days/week Days per week 

Darlington Darlington Veneer Co. 

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid(s) 

DNPH Dinitrophenylhydrazine 

DPX DNA-protein crosslinks 

E1 (European) E1 (Formaldehyde Emission Standard)

E 1333 ASTM E 1333 (Emission Test Procedure) 

ECBI European Chemicals Bureau (report) 

e.g. exempli gratia (for example) 

EPA (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency 

ES Executive Summary 

et al. et alii (and others) 

ETS Environmental Tobacco Smoke 

EU European Union 

EWPAA Engineered Wood Products Association of Australasia 

F (Japanese) F (Formaldehyde Emission Standard) 

FCI Formaldehyde Council, Inc. 

FETEG Formaldehyde Epidemiology, Toxicology and Environmental 

Group 

FEV1 Forced Expiratory Volume in 1-second 

FFC Formaldehyde-free Coalition 

FloPly Florida Plywoods, Inc. 

FRIM Forest Research Institute of Malaysia 

FSC Forest Stewardship Council 

ft2/ft3 Square Feet per Cubic Foot 

FVC Forced Vital Capacity 

GC-MS Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry 

g/L Grams per liter 

GP Georgia-Pacific Chemicals, LLC 

Great Lakes Great Lakes MDF 

GVM General Veneer Manufacturing Co. 

3H (Radioactive) Tritium 

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide 

Hambro Hambro Forest Products 

HBMVR Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy 

HBN Healthy Building Network 
13

HCHO Formaldehyde 

Hercules Hercules Inc. 

Hexion Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. 

HooperWolfe HooperWolfe 

HPVA Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association 

hr/day Hours per day 

HUD U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 

HWPW Hardwood Plywood 

HWPW-VC Hardwood Plywood-Veneer Core 

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer 

IBM International Business Machines Corp. 

i.e. id est (that is) 

IgE Immunoglobulin E 

INRS Institut National de Recherche et de Securite 

IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety 

IPMG IPMG, Inc. 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

IRRST Institute of Research Robert-Sauve en santé et en securite 

du travail 

ISOR Initial Statement of Reasons 

ITI Information Technology Industry Council 

IWPA International Wood Products Association 

Jeld-Wen Jeld-Wen 

Kaiser Kaiser Permanente 

KCMA Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association 

kg Kilogram 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

LLC Limited Liability Corporation 

m Meter 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

Mannington Mannington 

MD (State of) Maryland 

MDI Methylene Diisocyanate 

MDF Medium Density Fiberboard 

mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram 

mg/m3

 Milligrams per cubic meter 

ml/m3

 Milliliters per cubic meter 

Mn Manganese 

MOA Mode of Action 

MUF Melamine Urea-formaldehyde (resin) 
14

NA No Affiliation (provided) 

NAC National Advisory Committee 

NAF No-added Formaldehyde (resin) 

NCI National Cancer Institute 

Neil Kelly Neil Kelly Cabinets 

NICNAS National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment 

Scheme 

NIH National Institutes of Health 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NO Nitric Oxide 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

Norbord Norbord Industries 

NPC Nasopharyngeal Cancer 

NRC National Research Council 

NTP National Toxicology Program 

NZE Near-zero Emissions 

OAQPS (USEPA) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

OAR (USEPA) Office of Air and Radiation 

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OR Odds Ratio 

OSU Oregon State University 

PB Particleboard 

PDMG Plywood & Door Manufacturers Group 

PEC Priority Existing Chemical 

PEF Peak Expiratory Flow 

PF Phenol-formaldehyde (resin) 

PLS Plywood Lumber & Sales 

Plum Creek Plum Creek MDF 

ppb Parts per billion 

ppm Parts per million 

PSI Professional Services Industries, Inc. 

p-trend p-trend (statistic) 

PVA Polyvinylacetate (resin) 

RAST Radioallergosorbent Test 

ref. Reference 

Regal AQ Regal Air Quality, Inc. 

REL (or RELs) Reference Exposure Level 

Rexcel Rexcel Particleboard 

RNA Ribonucleic Acid(s) 

Roseburg Roseburg Forest Products 

RR Relative Risk 
15

SB (California) Senate Bill 

S&F Smith & Fong Co. 

Sauder Sauder Woodworking Co. 

SeeMac SeeMac 

Setzer Setzer 

SIDS Screening Information Data Set 

SierraPine SierraPine Composite Solutions 

SMR Standardized Mortality Ratio 

SRA Society for Risk Analysis 

SRP Scientific Review Panel for Toxic Air Contaminants 

TAC (or TACs) Toxic Air Contaminant(s) 

Temple Inland Temple Inland 

Timber Timber Products 

TWA Time-weighted Average 

UF Urea-formaldehyde (resin) 

Uniboard Uniboard, Inc. 

URE (Cancer) Unit Risk Estimate 

URF (Cancer) Unit Risk Factor 

U.S. (or US) United States (of America) 

USA United States of America 

USB United Soybean Board 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

VC (Hardwood Plywood) Veneer Core 

Veneer Veneer Products, Inc. 

VOC Volatile Organic Compound(s) 

vs. Versus 

WHO World Health Organization 

WMMPA Wood Molding & Millwork Products Association

WWI Woodwork Institute 

x Multiplied by 

x 10-5 Multiplied by 0.00001 

x 10-6 Multiplied by 0.000001 

x 10-7 Multiplied by 0.0000001 

x 10-8 Multiplied by 0.00000001 

x 10-9 Multiplied by 0.000000001 

μg Microgram(s) 

μg/g Micrograms per gram 

μg/kg Micrograms per kilogram 

μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter 
16

μM Micromolarity 

> Greater Than 

≥ Greater Than or Equal To 

< Less Than 

= Equal(s) 

’ Feet or Foot (e.g., 4’) 

” Inch(es) (e.g., 1⁄2”) 

$ U.S. Dollar 

% Percent 

& And 
17

C. Comments and Agency Responses: 45-day Comment Period 

DRAFT REGULATION

APPLICABLE PRODUCTS and EXEMPTIONS

1) Comment [3-Hetzel-070404-DASMA]: “... we ask that garage doors be 

specifically excluded from the proposed regulation. ... garage doors are 

typically made with a variety of materials intended to meet exterior 

element resistance needs. These materials, also utilized in siding, soffits, 

and fascia boards, are typically low emitters of formaldehyde.” 

Agency Response [3-Hetzel-070404-DASMA]: We agree. An exemption 

has been added for exterior doors and garage doors (see section 

93120.7(b)(2)). 

2) Comment [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: Modify the exemption for windows 

and garage doors. 

Agency Response [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: We agree. Exemptions 

have been provided for windows and exterior doors (see sections 

93120.7(b)(1) and 93120.7(b)(2)). 

3) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Section 93120(d) – Applicability. We 

believe the wording of this new section for products destined out-of-state 

presents some unintended consequences: “This ATCM does not apply to 

plywood, PB, MDF, and finished goods made from these materials, that 

are manufactured, sold, offered for sale, or supplied for shipment and use 

outside of California.” (emphasis added). It is not clear that the clause “for 

shipment and use” applies to all of the antecedents. Read literally, this 

exempts all covered products manufactured outside of the state. See also 

Section 93120.2(b)(1) which has similar language exempting products 

from the emission requirements. 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: We disagree. As written, the 

ATCM does not apply to plywood, PB, MDF, and finished goods made 

from these materials, that are manufactured for shipment and use outside 

of California. In comparison, the language in Section 93120.2 (b)(1) 

reads: “The emission standards in section 93120.2(a) do not apply to 

composite wood products or finished goods containing these materials 

that are manufactured, sold, offered for sale, or supplied for shipment and 

use outside of California.” We believe that both sections convey the same 

point – that goods manufactured for shipment and use outside of 

California are not subject to the requirements of the ATCM. 
18

4) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC] [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: Section 

93120.1(a) – Definition of “Fabricator.” We submit that school districts and 

local government agencies should not be exempted from the “fabricator” 

definition. 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC] [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We 

agree that the point made by the commenter is appropriate and modified 

the “fabricator” definition. In addition, pursuant to part 7 (commencing with 

section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the Government Code, the State is 

required to reimburse school districts for costs imposed by state mandates. 

Other than incremental costs incurred from the use compliant materials, 

we anticipate that school district costs may increase due to our 

recordkeeping and labeling requirements. Therefore, we modified section 

93120.7 to exempt school districts from the recordkeeping and labeling 

requirements, unless finished goods are being sold, offered for sale, or 

manufactured for sale in California. School districts will still be subject to 

the emission standard-related requirements for composite wood product 

panels and finished goods containing those materials. 

5) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Section 93120.2(b)(2) – the HUD 

exemption. We have pointed out in several previous submissions that 

under the current wording of the proposed regulation, a manufacturer of 

mobile home decking not meeting the CARB emission requirements would 

be in violation when the product was offered for sale or sold in the state. 

The CARB exemption only applies when the product is installed in the 

manufactured home. This regulation is preempted by federal law with 

respect to this application. 

The following is our earlier commentary on this subject: “It is undeniable 

that the regulation of formaldehyde emissions from materials used in 

manufactured homes is preempted by federal occupation of the area [42 

U.S.C. section 5403(d). The federal occupation of this regulatory area by 

HUD is comprehensive and relates to all regulatory provisions, not just 

emission standards.] The draft includes a suggestion from Columbia 

Forest Products and the Formaldehyde-free Coalition that the HUD 

exemption for composite wood products used in manufactured homes be 

limited to materials “... when installed in manufactured homes...” 

Although the language may have been derived from the HUD regulation 

itself, it does not work in the ARB regulation. One must remember that 

HUD regulates manufactured homes, and therefore its regulation 

addresses components, as and when installed. In California, the ATCM 

would apply to manufacturers of composite wood products who would be 

selling their products to manufactured home producers prior to inclusion of 

the products in the structures. Under the current draft, these 

manufacturers would be in violation when non-ARB complying product 

was manufactured, offered for sale and sold within the state.” 
19

We suggest the following language for the statutorily required HUD 

exemption: “The regulatory provisions in this ATCM do not apply to 

composite wood products [panels] intended for use in and sold or offered 

for sale for incorporation in manufactured homes subject to regulations of 

the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (24 C.F.R. 

section 3280.308).” 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: We agree that points raised 

by the commenter are appropriate. The language in the previous draft 

regulation was modified to make it clear that for the stated application – 

producing manufactured homes, HUD-compliant HWPW and PB may be 

used. 

6) Comment [9-Haikala-070416-PDMG]: “... Reading the regulation, it would 

appear that hardwood plywood panels used in formwork would be 

regulated but that softwood plywood panels would not be. This would 

create an uneven playing field without improving public health. I hope that 

all panel products would fall under the regulation, if adopted.” 

Agency Response [9-Haikala-070416-PDMG]: We disagree -- it would not 

create an uneven playing field. Based on our survey and the emission 

test data presented on page 18 of the ISOR, due to the use of PF resins, 

the resultant HCHO emissions from softwood plywood are much lower 

than for HWPW, PB, and MDF, which are typically made with UF resins. 

We did not feel that it was necessary to set new emission standards for 

products currently being made with low-emitting resins. Those products 

will continue to be low-emitting and setting new standards would not 

provide significant additional benefits. 

7) Comment [16-Overgard-070419-HPVA]: “The architectural plywood 

exemption is the wrong approach to exempt small business. Our 

preference would be for a small business exemption based on production. 

Accordingly, HPVA would recommend a small business exemption set at 

≤ 500,000 ft2 per month.” 

Agency Response [16-Overgard-070419-HPVA]: In the revised regulation, 

the definition of architectural plywood has been deleted, and replaced by a 

broader concept referred to as manufacturers of “laminated products,” 

who are considered to be fabricators and subject to the requirements in 

section 93120.7. Using this approach, the platform materials would have 

to comply with the ATCM, but manufacturers of laminated products would 

not be required to have third party certification. Under the HPVA 

recommendation, the public could be exposed to very high levels of 

formaldehyde because HPVA proposed a full exemption for small 

manufacturers. 
20

8) Comment [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: “... under the proposed changes, 

composite wood products would potentially not comply with the current 

requirements for seismic fabrication...” 

Agency Response [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: We disagree. 

Information contained on pages 73-82 of the ISOR indicates that panel 

products meeting the lower HCHO emission levels will continue to meet 

the current requirements for seismic fabrication. 

9) Comment [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: “Consider the direct economic 

impact in California of restricting aircraft-grade plywood sales based on 

HCHO emissions. Most of the aircraft-grade plywood is used in cargo 

holds. The planes we sell plywood for cannot be legally flown unless all 

the parts on them are delivered certified to federal standards. An 

extensive bureaucracy and reams of paperwork support this, along with 

decades of specifications and regulatory framework. General Veneer 

Manufacturing Co. recently has sold plywood to Boeing in Long Beach 

(the former McDonnell Douglas) for use in an on-going C-130 retrofit 

program. This program amounts to millions of dollars and hundreds of 

jobs in Long Beach. The retrofit could equally be done by other 

companies and/or in other locations, but Boeing brought these jobs here 

to Southern California. If the wood for the cargo decks (one element of an 

extensive retrofit) cannot be bought and installed in Long Beach, it makes 

more sense to send the planes elsewhere for the retrofit, and the jobs with 

them.” 

Agency Response [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: We agree the point raised 

by the commenter are appropriate and have provided an exemption for 

composite wood products used in aircraft. 

10) Comment [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: “By comparison to the amount of 

wood stocked in a single Home Depot, the amount of wood going into 

these huge cargo planes is tiny. If the wood is not delivered to be installed 

in California, California’s benefit, in terms of reduced HCHO emissions, is 

miniscule. But the cost of dozens of jobs, months of labor, and long-term 

program viability, adds up very quickly and has a direct and wide-reaching 

impact on Long Beach, Lakewood, and surrounding areas. I encourage 

your staff to eliminate all transport plywood from the ATCM.” 

Agency Response [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate and have provided an exemption 

for wood products used in transport vehicles. 

11) Comment [99-Watson-070426-NA]: “Another part of this that was 

interesting was the HUD standard, the mobile home and RV standard, 
21

which as I understand it is the only U.S. standard on the emissions of 

HCHO, it’s exempted from the CARB regulation or proposal. And that 

says to me we’ve already got a functioning standard. But all you folks are 

in a difficult position, because of this noble pursuit. I support the idea of 

trying to limit the HCHO emissions. But I’d like us to do it in a fashion that 

makes sense. If HUD is exempt, that means it’s good enough, 

apparently.” 

Agency Response [99-Watson-070426-NA]: The only reason that the HUD 

emission standards are upheld for manufactured homes is because state 

law cannot preempt federal law. It is not an endorsement of the HUD 

standard nor an affirmation of its safety. The HUD standard is less 

stringent than existing standards in other countries. Technology is 

available to manufacture composite wood products to lower emission 

standards than the HUD standard (see pages 101 to 107 of the ISOR). 

For clarification, the HUD standard does not apply to recreational vehicles. 

Recreational vehicles are subject to the ATCM. 

DEFINITIONS

12) Comment [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: Reinstate the definition for 

“hardboard.” 

Agency Response [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate and have included it in the revised 

regulation (see section 93120.1(a). 

13) Comment [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: Clarify the definition for “no-added 

formaldehyde resins.” 

Agency Response [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate and have included it in the revised 

regulation (see section 93120.1(a)). 

14) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Section 93120.1(a) – Definition of 

composite wood products – softwood plywood. Changes have been made 

from previous drafts to indicate that “structural plywood, structural panels, 

structural composite lumber...” are not included. CARB staff indicated 

that they could not reference to the new PS-1 standard, since they did not 

have a copy of the new version. Inclusion of the reference to the product 

standards for exempted products would add clarity. 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate and have amended the definition 

for composite wood products to read: “... Composite wood products” does 
22

not include ... Structural Plywood (PS 1-07)...” We have also included 

“PS 1-07. Voluntary Product Standard – Structural Plywood. National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, 2007,” as a reference in section 

93120.10. 

15) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Section 93120.1(a) – Definition of 

“hardwood plywood.” This section defines the product as “... a composite 

wood product, panel, or other building material ...” [Note the first comma 

separation.] CARB removed the previous reference to structural building 

material and also deleted “molding,” but problems remain. There are now 

three separate and distinct approaches to this language in the definitions 

for HWPW, MDF (“... a composite wood product, panel, molding, or other 

building material...”) and PB (“... a composite wood product panel, 

molding, or other building material...”) [Note, no comma between product 

and panel.]. We recommend that there be a consistent and 

straightforward language for all three products: “... means a composite 

wood panel composed of ...” 

If “composite wood product” stands alone, separated by a comma from 

“panel,” it literally suggests that any composite product made of veneers, 

etc. is covered. Similarly, any “other building material” made of veneers 

would similarly be within the definition. This concept is directly at odds 

with the definition of “finished goods” in section 93120.1(a) – “any good or 

product, other than a panel, containing HWPW, PB, or MDF.” “Composite 

wood product” and “other building materials” would fit under both the 

product definition and finished good definition. 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: We agree that points raised 

by the commenter are appropriate and that there should be consistent and 

straightforward language for all three products. The present definition of 

HWPW specifies what a HWPW panel is when it is manufactured at a 

certified plywood plant. Unless the panel, as defined, is modified, it is a 

panel and not a finished good. The revised regulation includes consistent 

and straightforward language for all three products. 

16) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Section 93120.1(a) – definition of 

“medium density fiberboard” and “particleboard.” In the current draft, the 

word “molding” was removed from the definition of HWPW, but not from 

the definitions of MDF or PB. The reference for MDF should be to the new 

standard -- ANSI A208.2-2002. This change should also be made in the 

References in section 93120.10. 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: We agree that points raised 

by the commenter are appropriate, and have deleted the reference to 

moldings within the definition of MDF and PB. To help assess the issue of 

molding, staff consulted with the Composite Panel Association and the 
23

Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association and upon investigation by 

staff, it appeared as though MDF molding was mainly produced from 

cutting and shaping of MDF panels. Moldings are finished goods that 

should be fabricated for the California market from compliant MDF panels. 

In addition, the reference to ANSI A208.2 was updated to 2002 as 

suggested. 

17) Comment [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: “Since we are introducing a new 

term in the suggested language, it will be necessary to define “component 

part” and include that definition in 93120.1 (Definitions). Component part 

... a manufactured part that could have in its construction one or more 

composite wood products used in the assembly of finished goods.” 

Agency Response [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: We agree that the point 

raised suggested by the commenter is appropriate and have included a 

similar definition in the 26 April 2007 version of the draft regulation (see 

section 93120.1(a)). 

18) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Section 93120.1(a)(17) We would 

ask for a clearer, more inclusive definition of vehicles as reference in this 

paragraph which defines “hardwood plywood”...” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. More clarity is provided in section 

93120.1(a) of the 26 April 2007 draft regulation order in the “composite 

wood products” definition. 

19) Comment [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: “Architectural plywood means a 

custom-made finished product ... “Finished,” in woodworking, has a 

specific meaning. It means something has had a finish applied to it. I 

would recommend removing that word from this definition to make the 

intent clear. I think the operative words in this definition are “custommade” and “special-order” and “to be used as produced.” I understand 

that within the context of the regulation “finished” means something else, 

but it might be confusing here.” 

Agency Response [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: We agree that the point 

made by the commenter is appropriate. In addressing the issue of 

“architectural plywood”, it became evident to staff that this definition had a 

broader implication. Initially, the concern was over the production of 

decorative flat panels that resemble hardwood plywood, but are always 

sold as finished goods, such as aesthetic panels used inside elevators, 

hotel lobbies and libraries. Upon investigation by staff, it was apparent 

that these products are not only architectural plywood, but also would 

include any fabricated product that is made from a composite wood 
24

product and is laminated with a veneer, such as furniture and cabinetry 

components. 

Thus, staff concluded that the most practical approach for these products 

is to group them all into one reference related to “laminated products.” 

The reference to architectural plywood has been deleted, and replaced by 

“laminated products,” which are finished goods that are produced by 

fabricators and do not require third party certification. However, if a 

fabricator buys composite wood products to be used as a platform for the 

laminated products, then those composite wood products need to be third 

party certified by the manufacturer. 

20) Comment [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: “... to be used as produced. 

Everything, in one way or another, is meant to be used as produced. I 

think what’s intended here is “... on a special order basis intended to be 

installed or assembled on site with minor modifications from the form in 

which the fabricator delivers it.” In other words, our customer will probably 

apply a finish to our product; they’re likely to drill for hinges and knobs (if 

it’s a door), cut holes for switch plates (if it’s a wall panel), and so on. In 

the case of a custom cabinet shop, they’re likely to deliver the panels in 

finished sizes, with edge-banding and so on, but not assembled. 

Someone on site will have to add hinges, handles, drawer tacks, etc. It’s 

surprisingly common, when a contractor receives a door that was built to a 

specific size, for him to find he needs to trim it a bit before it fits the 

opening it’s intended for. So this gives us latitude for reasonable changes. 

I’m switching “produced” to “delivered,” because when we (or most custom 

cabinet shops) press a panel, it’s oversize – as a fabricator, we’re not sure 

whether that’s considered the “produced” product, or whether it’s 

considered “produced” after we trim it to size, or after we sand it, or if it 

needs to be finished with hardware attached ... so “delivered” clarifies the 

form we’re talking about. This wording, I think, will better match common 

practice in the industry. And I don’t think it changes the meaning 

intended.” 

Agency Response [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: In the revised regulation, 

the definition of architectural plywood has been deleted, and replaced by a 

broader concept referred to as “laminated products.” Laminated products 

are made by fabricators and subject to the requirements in section 

93120.7. 

21) Comment [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: “Composite wood products ... or 

composite wood products used inside of vehicles. I’d tweak this a bit. 

Best bet: “used in transportation.” In other words, not in buildings. If that’s 

too broad, I’d consider “used inside of vehicles, boats, or aircraft.” At 

General Veneer Manufacturing Co. we’re specifically concerned with 

aircraft, but someone pointed out that boats are another hot topic with lots 
25

of rules and specifications already operating. I’m not sure my second 

suggestion would cover train cars, but I think you’d want it too. Train cars 

typically are governed by federal rules because they’re part of interstate 

commerce. And yes, they’ve been known to use plywood, sometimes 

rather nice stuff.” 

Agency Response [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: We agree that the point 

made by the commenter is appropriate and modified the definition of 

“composite wood products” accordingly. 

22) Comment [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: “Hardwood plywood ... or military 

specified plywood (MIL-P-6070). I’d add “et al.” because there are too 

many archaic military plywood specifications to include them all. Annual 

usage is de minimis, but frequently one 24” x 48” piece of plywood built to 

a certain specification is essential to operating a plane legally and safely. 

I feel confident that HCHO out-gassing from a piece that size is not 

enough to create a public health crisis. Examples of some other 

specifications that might get called out: Our company has recently quoted 

customers pricing on MIL-DTL-6070C, and we’ve sold parts to that spec 

within the last year. There also are Lockheed specs that are generally 

derived from MIL-P-6070 and used in military transports. We’ve recently 

quoted pricing for LAC27-903, which I believe gets used in the same C130s that flew rescue missions to Indonesia after the tsunami (actually, it’s 

probably worth calling out MIL-DTL-6070 and LAC27-903 specifically, not 

just lumping them into “et al.”). Late last year we quoted PS-1-83 – an 

unusual one. No matter how hard we try to come up with all the military 

specs, we’ll miss a few. So I’d add “MIL-DTL-6070, LAC27-903, et al.” 

and then you’re covered for military specified plywood. I think that still 

meets your intent.” 

Agency Response [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: We agree that the point 

made by the commenter is appropriate and modified the definition of 

“composite wood products” to exempt military specified plywood. 

23) Comment [121-Bradway-070426-Mannington]: “And finally, in terms of 

section 93120.1, the definition number 20, what we would suggest is or 

ask for clarification is that it includes flooring. And what we’re thinking and 

our position is that finished product flooring really puts us more into the 

category of a fabricator, not in terms of a manufacturer of composite 

products. And really would ask for that clarification. And the only thing 

that would be required would be to simply remove that one word, flooring, 

out of that definition and then it would basically describe hardwood 

plywood.” 

Agency Response [121-Bradway-070426-Mannington]: The definition of 

hardwood plywood has been revised to state that it includes “hardwood 
26

plywood’ panels used in making flooring.” If flooring is made as a 

laminated product, it would need to be made using compliant platforms 

(e.g., PB). 

REGULATORY AUTHORITY

24) Comment [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: “Does CARB have the necessary 

authority to implement the proposed reforms with the improvements 

suggested by the Coalition? Yes, and we would argue the obligation as 

well.” 

Agency Response [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: We agree that the point 

made by the commenter is appropriate and that ARB has the authority to 

adopt the ATCM. The basis of CARB’s regulatory authority is explained in 

detail in Chapter I of ISOR, pages 1-5. 

25) Comment [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: “I was surprised to hear Ms. 

Catherine Witherspoon agree with me (on February 5, 2007) that the 

proposed ATCM standard may be outside of CARB’s legal authority to 

enforce... How can CARB compromise an entire industry based on a 

whim?” 

Agency Response [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: Catherine Witherspoon 

was the Board’s Executive Officer during the development of the ATCM 

and when the ATCM was brought before the Board in April 2007. While 

we are not sure what statements the commenter is referring to, Catherine 

Witherspoon does not agree with the commenter, and does believe that 

ARB has the authority to adopt and enforce the ATCM. 

26) Comment [53-Cassman-070425-HBMVR]: “After a comprehensive review 

of the record, we easily conclude that the Board’s adoption of this ATCM, 

if it chooses to do so, will rest on solid legal authority.” 

Agency Response [53-Cassman-070425-HBMVR]: We agree. 

27) Comment [60-Cassman-070426-HBMVR]: “In short, the statutory authority 

for the Board to adopt the proposed regulations is clear and unequivocal. 

Indeed, we are convinced that the Tanner Act directs and requires this 

Board to adopt the recommendation before it or adopt even more stringent 

regulations, given the factual predicates in the record.” 

Agency Response [60-Cassman-070426-HBMVR]: We agree that CARB 

has clear legal authority to adopt the ATCM. 
27

28) Comment [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: “I still have grave concerns about 

the effect of the rule on the industry we work in, and I have my doubts 

about the legitimacy of the rule based on indoor/outdoor air issues and the 

fundamental medical justification for the rule.” 

Agency Response [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: The medical justification for 

this ATCM is contained in Chapter VII of the ISOR and in the responses to 

the comments in the subsection on Public Health. Regarding “legitimacy,” 

the authority of ARB to adopt the ATCM is explained in Chapter I of the 

ISOR. 

29) Comment [107-Cassman-070426-HBMVR]: “In short, statutory authority 

for this Board to adopt the proposed regulations is clear and unequivocal. 

Indeed, it is our opinion and we are convinced that the Tanner Act directs 

and requires this Board to adopt the recommendation that is before it or to 

adopt even more stringent regulations given the factual predicates in this 

record...” 

Agency Response [107-Cassman-070426-HBMVR]: We agree and 

believe that our ATCM is consistent with the intent of the Tanner Act. 

SELL-THROUGH PROVISIONS

30) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Appendix 1 – Sell-through for 

importers. There is substantial discontinuity of sell through time for 

importers, which if implemented, would lead to a tremendous dumping of 

non-complying products at a time when domestic products must meet the 

new standards. This is an extraordinarily important issue that must be 

addressed. The sell through periods set forth in the rule as drafted are as 

follows: 

Affected Party Proposed Rule CWIC Proposal1

(a) Manufacturers of panels 1 month 3 months 

(b)(1) Distributors of panels 5 months 

(b)(2) Distributors of finished goods 18 months 

(c)(1) Importers of panels 5 months 3 months 

(c)(2) Importers of finished goods 18 months 18 months 

(d) Fabricators of finished goods 12 months 18 months 

(e)(1) Retailers of panels 12 months 

(e)(2) Retailers or finished goods 18 months 

(1) See comment on “sell through timing.” 

There are two fundamental problems with this schedule. Imported panels, 

not meeting the standard will be able to be sold in the market for four 

months after the domestic panels have to be in compliance. Compare (a) 
28

with (c)(1). By any measure the cost of complying with this rule will be 

huge. The retention of this advantage for imports will lead to an even 

greater cost advantage than what is currently enjoyed by foreign 

producers. It will lead to a flooding of the market with non-complying 

panels for this grace period. It must be changed. 

The second discontinuity relates to finished goods. American furniture 

and cabinet makers will be forced to use higher priced complying panels 

within 12 months of the respective deadlines. Their Chinese and other 

foreign competitors will have an extra six months – a full 18 months after 

the deadlines to continue to use non-complying components in their 

products. The impact of this provision would be devastating. A surge of 

dumped goods would be inevitable. The provision must be changed. 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: We agree that the points 

made by the commenter are appropriate. The sell-through periods have 

been modified and we have made the changes requested by the 

commenter. 

31) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC] [16-Overgard-070419-HPVA] [24-

Landry-070423-CWIC] [25-Hubbard-070423-Darlington] [46-Gonyea070424-Timber]: Appendix 1 – Sell-through timing. Although clearly the 

equivalency of treatment of domestic and foreign interests is of most 

importance, some modifications of the sell-through periods are 

recommended. First, given the multiplicity of SKU’s for many composite 

wood products, we suggest that a 90-day sell through be permitted for 

both manufacturers and importers of these items. Similarly, we suggest 

that fabricators and importers of finished goods be allowed to sell 

inventory for 18 months. The multiplicity of styles, finishes, and designs is 

even more notable in this industry sector. 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC] [16-Overgard-070419-HPVA] 

[24-Landry-070423-CWIC] [25-Hubbard-070423-Darlington] [46-Gonyea070424-Timber]: We agree that the points made by the commenter are 

appropriate and have made changes reflecting the requested 

modifications. 

32) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA] [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: “Finally, 

the sell-through provisions in the ATCM require U.S. fabricators of 

cabinets to be in compliance within 12 months while importers are granted 

18 months to come into compliance. This is very unfair to U.S. 

manufacturers and should be changed. This provision alone could force 

many U.S. companies out of business.” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We agree that the point 

made by the commenter is appropriate. The sell-through provisions, as 
29

also recommended by CWIC [7-Landry-070416-CWIC], are now the same 

for both U.S. fabricators and importers of finished goods – 18 months. 

33) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Section 93120.12(c) – Sell through 

dates that apply to importers of HWPW, PB, and MDF ... we believe the 

proposed regulation should extend the sell-through period for importers 

from the proposed 5 months to a minimum of 12 months for the following 

reasons...” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We disagree. The 

rulemaking does not take effect until 2009; we believe that this is sufficient 

time for the importers to prepare for compliance. 

34) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Importers purchase goods on 

speculation ... importers can be stuck with a large inventory of slowmoving product, many times having to carry inventory in select items for a 

year or longer... twelve months is the minimum sell-through that should be 

allowed...” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We disagree. We believe 

a three month sell-through period for panels and an 18 month sell-through 

period for finished goods is sufficient. We cannot afford to delay the 

requirement as it is important to introduce the use of lower emitting 

products into California at the earliest practicable date. Moreover, 

importers will still be able to sell those products to customers outside of 

California. 

35) Comment [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: “... How can anyone think it is 

acceptable to allow California woodworkers only 30 days to comply with 

this measure, while foreign business gets 18 months to comply?” 

Agency Response [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: We disagree – the stated 

comparison is inaccurate. The comment compares the sell-through 

periods for manufacturers of panels and for imported finished goods. 

Panel manufacturers, domestic and foreign, would have 90-days to sell 

their inventories of non-compliant products. At the retail level, retailers 

would have 18-months to sell their inventories of non-compliant finished 

goods made by either domestic or foreign fabricators. 

36) Comment [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: “... there is no “grandfather 

clause” to protect the businesses that will have millions of dollars in 

current product inventory...” 

Agency Response [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: We have addressed this 

concern by including sell-through provisions that allow sufficient time for 
30

businesses to clear their inventories. In addition, the first of the Phase 1 

standards do not take effect until January 2009. 

37) Comment [46-Gonyea-070424-Timber]: “In addition, we believe that the 

sell through dates for importers and domestic manufacturers of panels 

should be exactly the same...” 

Agency Response [46-Gonyea-070424-Timber]: We agree the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. The ATCM was modified to 

reflect this change. 

38) Comment [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: “Appendix 1. Sell-through Dates... 

I’m going to let the Woodwork Institute tackle this; they’ve been doing the 

research and I think have recently sent you folks some data. I’d make an 

observation: the back stock of particleboard that we have on our floor, if 

it’s 45 days old, might still be emitting more HCHO than this regulation 

calls for. But material we’ve had in stock for 5 years, or 15 years (this is 

real stuff I’m talking about, not hypothetical), should have breathed out 

several half-lives of HCHO long ago, according to the charts in ARB’s 

presentation, so it should be safe to use again, even if it wasn’t produced 

under this regulation. I’d ask you to bear in mind as you work through the 

question of sell-through dates. I’m aware that your intent is to prevent 

people from stockpiling particleboard in advance of the regulation’s 

effective date.” 

Agency Response [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: We have addressed this 

concern by including sell-through provisions that allow sufficient time for 

businesses to clear their inventories. In the case of this commenter, who 

is also a fabricator, the commenter would have 18-months to clear old 

stocks, which is a reasonable amount of time. In addition, the first of the 

Phase 1 standards do not take effect until January 2009. 

39) Comment [96-Morgan-070426-IWPA]: “The other concern we have is with 

the sell-through dates that apply to importers. We believe that they should 

be extended and not decrease like they have been in the past couple of 

days to a twelve-month period, not three months. Imported hardwood 

plywood goes through a series of stages before it reaches the U.S. shores. 

The order is placed. Material is produced overseas, if not already in 

inventory. Material is then shipped. And that means there has to be 

vessels available to be loaded and shipped. Material arrives in the U.S. 

That could be after four to five weeks in transit, longer if it’s delayed or if 

it’s break bulk shipping container. Material is then held at a U.S. port. 

And in most cases, it’s outside of California until it is cleared by the U.S. 

government which could be one week or longer depending upon the 

backup... Material will be held at a warehouse and then it will be sent to a 

distributor. So you have to understand the difference between importers 
31

and domestic manufacturers in this case, because importers do buy on 

speculation. And we request that the sell-through period be increased to 

twelve months...” 

Agency Response [96-Morgan-070426-IWPA]: We disagree – to provide 

parity we would have to allow domestic manufacturers the same sellthrough which would delay the sale of lower emitting products to the 

California market and the associated health benefits. Importers are aware 

of this ATCM. They have had time to plan. We provide sell-through 

periods for panels and finished goods. Also, the first of the Phase 1 

standards do not take effect until January 2009. 

FABRICATORS

CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY and LABELING

40) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: “... The certification requirements and 

so-called “paper trail” contained in the ATCM and required through the 

cabinet manufacturing/distributor chain should provide the necessary 

information for enforcement and notice purposes.” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We disagree – more is 

needed than what is currently required through the present cabinet 

manufacturing/distributor chain. We need more information to be able to 

definitively link products back to manufacturers and emissions data on the 

materials that were used to fabricate the product. In our view, we must 

add a sufficient amount of rigor to the enforcement program to ensure that 

those who attempt to sell non-compliant products can be readily identified 

and subjected to the appropriate penalties. 

41) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: “... The proposed ATCM has the 

potential to disrupt existing supply chain relationships, contribute to 

possible material shortages in the future, impose a significant paperwork 

burden on all manufacturers, and greatly increase liability for cabinet 

manufacturers and their suppliers...” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We do not believe that 

transitioning from HUD-compliant to Phase 1 and Phase 1 to Phase 2 will 

pose problems with supply chain relationships. We consulted extensively 

with industry to develop the detailed sell-through provisions to address this 

concern. In addition, we are conducting a comprehensive outreach effort, 

and emphasis is being placed on helping people understand the concept 

of sell-through. In terms of material shortages, we feel that there is 

enough lead-time for businesses to clear their inventories of old products. 

We do not expect the additional paperwork to be significant, as records of 
32

this kind are currently being maintained. The ATCM goes a step further in 

that verifications of purchases of compliant materials and deliveries to 

customers will need to be supplied upon request. As the ATCM requires 

cabinet manufacturers and their suppliers to document their purchases of 

compliant materials and sales of compliant products to customers that 

request them, their liability does increase. 

42) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA] [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: We 

believe that requiring both product labeling and written notice on contracts 

or bills-of-lading (93120.7 (d)(1) and (2)) is duplicative and imposes an 

unnecessary additional paperwork burden, particularly on smaller 

companies. We suggest that the labeling requirement, with the option to 

present the required information on the cardboard boxes in which cabinets 

most often are shipped, is the best alternative.” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA] [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: 

We disagree that requiring both product labeling and a written notice on 

bills-of-lading are duplicative. However, we agree that the option to label 

the cardboard boxes in which finished goods are shipped is a good 

alternative and have included it as an option for the labeling requirement. 

43) Comment [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: “Enforcement: ... It is 

common, especially in Asian companies, to employ a network of subsuppliers each producing certain components that are then assembled 

into the finished product. Trying to police and certify such a vast network 

of industry participants does not seem feasible given the test methods and 

associated costs.” 

Agency Response [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: We disagree. 

Fabricators will need to obtain verification from their suppliers that they are 

being supplied with compliant products. For example, if we inspect an 

importer and ask to see a statement of compliance for a product, to verify 

that compliant materials were used, we would contact the fabricator of the 

product and ask for statements showing that compliant wood products 

were used to make the product. If the statements appear questionable, 

we would contact the third party certifier of the manufacturer that produced 

the wood products used for the component parts. 

44) Comment [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: “The AHFA realizes that the details 

of the chain of custody mechanism have not been detailed and additional 

work remains to bring clarity. However, we don’t want the “straw man” 

language of (i) to incorrectly become the working language of a possible 

enforcement protocol. We welcome the opportunity to work with staff to 

“flesh out” the details of the chain of custody mechanism and recognize 

the necessity of the “place holder” in the proposed rule... We suggest that 

this actually become Appendix 4 of the document. This would better 
33

secure it as a “place holder” in the rule and provide a clear home for this 

important compliance mechanism.” 

Agency Response [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: After consultation with 

stakeholders, the ATCM was modified in various areas to require a 

statement of compliance to ensure traceability of products in commerce 

that compliments the chain-of-custody process in use today. 

45) Comment [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: “... Chain-of-custody with a labeling 

requirement is an adequate approach to prevent “cheating” and ensure 

compliance... While there are clearly some hurdles to overcome, we 

believe the playing field is level and the ATCM clearly provides an 

adequate mechanism to ensure and demonstrate compliance...” 

Agency Response [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: We agree – no response 

necessary. 

46) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Modify chain-of-custody 

requirement to use existing paperwork. ... The bill of lading is already 

identified in section 93120.6 (c)(2)(B) as an option for product labeling for 

modified finished goods containing hardwood plywood.” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We disagree. The current 

requirements of the ATCM are already based on currently used 

commercial documentation. Specific requirements for chain-of-custody 

are a major element of the enforcement program, to help attest that 

finished products are compliant as they make their way through the 

commercial chain. 

47) Comment [87-Perdue-070426-AHFA]: “We’re also very concerned about 

the enforcement mechanism within this particular rule. We know that 

there’s a lot of work that’s been accomplished and progress made during 

the last four-and-a-half years. There are a lot of unanswered questions 

and details to work through. As Ms. Berg indicated, we too are very reliant 

upon the chain-of-custody and feel the chain-of-custody will become one 

of the most important aspects of this particular enforcement protocol.” 

Agency Response [87-Perdue-070426-AHFA]: The ATCM requires 

statements of compliance to be transferred from point-to-point in the 

commercial chain to ensure traceability of products, which compliments 

the existing chain-of-custody process. We believe that this is a crucial 

element of the enforcement program that is critical to maintaining the 

integrity of the ATCM. 

48) Comment [98-Schroeder-070426-WMMPA]: “Second, procedures on how 

compliance will be carried out is questionable to us. My membership is 
34

also concerned there is not sufficient staff in place to oversee and enforce 

the testing and compliance procedures of the proposed regulations of all 

products coming into California. Our major concern and focus is finished 

moldings from off-shore manufacturing plants shipped to the California 

marketplace. We are of the mind that a piece of paper stating compliance 

is easy to come by in China without a certification process ever taking 

place.” 

Agency Response [98-Schroeder-070426-WMMPA]: We appreciate the 

comment and will conduct a comprehensive enforcement program to 

identify and penalize unscrupulous manufacturers. We also affirm our 

commitment to work with industry, and to be proactive in terms of outreach 

and education about how the rulemaking will be enforced. In addition, 

samples will be obtained by our inspectors to verify the emissions 

performance of composite wood products and finished goods. 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

49) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: “It appears that the cost estimates 

both for cabinet manufacturers and home buyer/remodelers have been 

underestimated by 20% or more... cabinet manufacturers typically are 

able to achieve approximately 80% efficiency from the composite panel 

products used to produce the requisite cabinet parts; not the 100% yield 

assumed in the staff report.” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We disagree. Our estimates 

are based on calculations made by commercially available software used 

by people in the industry, which to our knowledge do not assume that 

100% of every panel can be used to make a cabinet. The point being 

made is that the cost of composite wood products used to build kitchen 

cabinets, etc. is a small cost driver in projects of this kind. For projects 

costing in the tens of thousands of dollars, we do not believe that an 

estimated increase in material costs of less than $100 would be an 

overriding factor in who the project is awarded to or long-term economic 

viability (see page 215 of the ISOR). 

50) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: “... The industry is concerned that 

without the benefit of additional pilot studies or adequate time to effectively 

gauge the performance characteristics of the substitute products against 

the real-life conditions typical for our products, the hard-won reputation for 

durable, fashionable and long-lasting cabinetry could be lost or 

damaged...” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We do not believe additional 

studies are needed. In Chapter V of the ISOR, staff describes current 
35

resin technologies already being used to produce composite wood 

products for the cabinetry industry that meet the Phase 1 limits in the 

ATCM (see pages 101 to 107). We believe that the two-phase 

implementation schedule provides the industry with sufficient lead-time to 

ensure that the changes they elect to make to produce lower emitting 

products will still allow them to make products of the same quality that 

their customers have come to expect. 

51) Comment [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: “Compliance cost: ... While it 

is impossible to accurately predict the price elasticity of consumers, there 

is no doubt that there will be a negative impact on sales volume. The 

result of higher retail prices will be a contraction within the industry and a 

significant net loss of jobs...” 

Agency Response [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: We disagree that 

there would be a significant net loss of jobs due to higher retail prices. As 

we discussed in Chapter VIII of the ISOR, the overall costs to fabricators 

will depend on increases in material costs and needed improvements in 

their recordkeeping systems. Overall, we do not expect a major economic 

impact from this rule since all competitors are mandated to meet the same 

emission standards. As mentioned in Chapter VIII, the overall cost to 

consumers of finished goods will be very low (pages 213 to 216). See 

also the response to comment #54. 

52) Comment [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: “... A good portion of our 

membership is made up of small businesses that would be severely 

impacted by the regulation...” 

Agency Response [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: We disagree that small 

businesses (which are mainly fabricators under the regulation) will be 

severely impacted. The rulemaking applies to all fabricators, in-state or 

out-of-state, that choose to sell products to California. Because all entities 

need to use compliant products, small businesses in California will 

compete on an equal footing and should not be disproportionately affected. 

During the rulemaking process, staff addressed many issues related to 

small fabricator businesses, including the main issue of fabricated 

components that are laid up similar to hardwood plywood. As required by 

the regulation, hardwood plywood producers need to be third party 

certified and this would have included fabricators who lay up certain 

finished good components. To address this concern, the reference to 

“architectural plywood” was removed from the originally proposed 

regulation and replaced by “laminated products” under section 

93120.1(25). The regulation was clarified to state that laminated products 

refer to finished good components that are produced by fabricators for 

finished goods and therefore, do not need third party certification. The 
36

regulation was also modified to clarify that if laminated products contain 

composite wood product substrates, then those substrates will need to be 

third party certified. This clarification greatly reduced the burden on small 

fabricators. Because of these reasons stated, we do not believe that small 

businesses will be adversely affected. 

53) Comment [87-Perdue-070426-AHFA]: “We are a very price point sensitive 

industry. Our margins are thin. You’ve heard a lot of these folks talk 

behind me about the potential cost increase that will be incurred. We will 

then in turn have to pass that along to the consumer. We are very 

concerned with how the consumer will react and respond to this price 

increase, especially if material costs force our members to be moved out 

of price point. By moving one of our manufacturers out of price point, you 

will put them out of business. This is a real concern of ours.” 

Agency Response [87-Perdue-070426-AHFA]: We appreciate the 

comment. In the event that price points shift for the California market 

relative to the rest of the nation, this will likely affect all manufacturers that 

choose to sell products to California to the same degree. However, it is 

our understanding that some fabricators will opt to produce California 

grade finished goods available to the entire U.S. 

54) Comment [89-Zimmerman-070426-Sauder]: “You’ve heard a lot about 

cost. And I don’t want to dwell on it, but the CARB document did not state 

fully an $8 roll-up on a bookcase would not be true. If you had a 30% cost 

in panel increase, cost to us, it would be a 15% cost to the consumer. As 

you know, increasing prices decreases demand. It would certainly shrink 

our markets drastically. A good example of this, last year 2006, we had a 

dramatic increase in board prices. We had units selling for $300 at Office 

Depot and went to $315, 5% increase. We saw a dramatic reduction in 

sales of our products. So going back to the less fortunate people who 

have to buy these products, they will be impacted greatly. Economic 

impact of enforcing the regulation is dramatic. The impact of ineffective 

enforcement is devastating to us.” 

Agency Response [89-Zimmerman-070426-Sauder]: We agree with the 

commenter that the composite wood product price increase may dampen 

the demand for the affected products in the short run. However, we 

believe that the impact will not be as severe as stated by the commenter 

for two reasons. First, the regulation affects all composite wood products 

sold in California, and therefore, manufacturers and marketers are likely to 

incur similar cost increases for producing compliant products. Thus, the 

changes in prices for all products would be comparable before and after 

the regulation if manufacturers are able to pass on the cost increase to the 

consumer. This limits the ability of consumers to substitute the product of 

one manufacturer or marketer for another. Thus, the limited supply of 
37

good substitutes (i.e., products that can be used in place of PB, MDF, or 

HWPW) to compliant products from all manufacturers will likely restrict 

consumer reaction to any price increase in the short run. In the long run, 

however, the increase in disposable income will likely increase the 

demand for the affected products, negating the impact of the regulatory 

price increase. Second, our enforcement program will be strong and 

comprehensive, thus providing a level playing field for all manufacturers 

and marketers of these products in California. Again, the strong 

enforcement will limit the ability of consumers to substitute an unregulated 

product for a regulated product, thus; restricting the consumer reaction to 

the price increase. Our enforcement program includes independent 

certification, chain-of-custody documentation, recordkeeping, and testing 

validation. 

55) Comment [90-Titus-070426-KCMA]: “We think take into account these 

CWIC numbers. They are our suppliers. We have worked with them 

closely. I supplied you with the information that our product’s, surprisingly 

enough, the highest on the list of what lasts in the kitchen, 15 years. We 

have developed that because of our close relationships with our suppliers 

and the materials we use. It is for a reason that we use the urea 

formaldehyde glues with the way they have performed for us. There has 

been no discussion in this of performance. We’re all focused on 

emissions, rightly so. But let’s keep in mind so what’s the performance. 

How is the marketplace going to react to it? And still green products, we 

are making progress in that area with our own ESP program, 

environmental stewardship program, to move forward with our industry. 

But it’s still a niche product. So we need time and we need to do it in a 

way that we won’t have these serious negative impacts on an important 

part of the state’s economy...” 

Agency Response [90-Titus-070426-KCMA]: We agree that performance 

is important, but believe that panels with lowered HCHO emissions can be 

made without compromising the performance that fabricators require (see 

Chapter V of the ISOR). Even after implementation of the regulation, 

particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and hardwood plywood will still 

meet the voluntary performance specifications contained within ANSI 

208.1, ANSI 208.2, and ANSI/HPVA PS-1, respectively. Also, there are 

existing products that comply with ATCM standards that perform as well 

as products that have higher formaldehyde emissions than that required 

by the ATCM. 

56) Comment [90-Titus-070426-KCMA]: “... Much of the impact you have 

heard on small business, we are terribly concerned about that. You’ve 

heard numbers. We know of at least 1,200 small cabinet establishments 

in California. And anything that changes their supply chain, their margins 
38

could mean the end of the business for them. So I implore you to take 

that into account as you look at it.” 

Agency Response [90-Titus-070426-KCMA]: We agree that points raised 

by the commenter are appropriate. It is not our intent to put small cabinet 

establishments in California out of business. We believe that the 

requirement that all finished products manufactured for sale in California 

be made with complying products does not confer a competitive 

advantage for any particular supplier. We have added a definition of 

“laminated products” under section 93120.1(25) to clarify that fabricators 

of finished good component parts do not need third party certification. 

This clarification greatly reduces the economic burden on small fabricator 

businesses. 

ENFORCEMENT and FAIR COMPETITION

57) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: “Key elements of the enforcement 

phase remain vague and incomplete...” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We agree that at the time of 

the comment, some areas of the enforcement program required further 

clarity. Since then, the regulation was modified to add clarity and more 

specificity to the TPC requirements to ensure transparency and 

effectiveness. Round robin testing requirement was added to assess TPC 

laboratory capabilities. Likewise, chain-of-custody requirements and 

additional recordkeeping requirements were added to aid in an 

enforcement investigation. Furthermore, CARB’s enforcement test 

method will be operated consistent with the secondary test method, which 

will allow CARB to generate much more precise measurements of field 

samples to strengthen any finding of non-compliance. 

58) Comment [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder] [89-Zimmerman-070426-

Sauder]: “Enforcement: ... Even if reliable test methods were available, 

the sheer volume of products and sources would make effective auditing 

and enforcement extremely difficult...” 

Agency Response [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder] [89-Zimmerman070426-Sauder]: Reliable test methods are available and required to be 

used in the ATCM. We believe that the ATCM puts in place an effective 

enforcement program which includes third party certification of panels, 

chain-of-custody, labeling, and recordkeeping requirements. 

59) Comment [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: “Enforcement: ... It is entirely 

possible that a piece of furniture that is compliant as a whole could have 

individual components that are non-compliant...” 
39

Agency Response [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: We disagree, since 

compliance is not determined through testing of a piece of furniture “as a 

whole.” Our program requires that compliant materials be used to make 

finished goods such as furniture; hence, it is not possible for furniture 

made with non-compliant components to be legal for sale in California. 

60) Comment [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: “Compliance cost: ... 

Problematic testing and ineffective enforcement will significantly tilt the 

playing field. Companies that comply voluntarily will be at a significant 

disadvantage to those who are able to “get around the system.”...

Agency Response [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: We disagree 

because CARB will implement an effective enforcement program. 

Reliable test methods are available and required to be used in the ATCM. 

We believe that the ATCM puts in place an effective enforcement program 

which includes third party certification of panels, chain-of-custody, labeling, 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

61) Comment [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: “As part of the enforcement 

protocol, CARB staff has suggested a field screening method and finished 

product testing to verify the validity of chain of custody... recommend that 

the use of the field screening method for enforcement is not considered. 

Field screening should be used as a pass/fail “bright line” that would 

trigger further investigation of the chain of custody...” 

Agency Response [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: We agree that the field 

screening method should not be considered for enforcement. The 

enforcement test method in the ATCM will be used to enforce the 

emission standards on panels and finished goods. The field screening 

method will complement the enforcement program for the ATCM and be 

used to identify gross violations, but will not be used for enforcement 

violation purposes. 

62) Comment [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA] [87-Perdue-070426-AHFA]: “... The 

AHFA encourages CARB staff to stay engaged with key stakeholders and 

work on the enforcement mechanism with the same focus and attention to 

detail used to establish the “front end” of the ATCM. There is simply too 

much at stake and the potential impact too great to relax and develop a 

marginal and ineffective enforcement program. Let’s stay the course and 

be as diligent on the “back end” of the ATCM.” 

Agency Response [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA] [87-Perdue-070426-AHFA]: 

We believe the ATCM contains all the requirements needed for an 

effective enforcement program and will continue to work with stakeholders 

on implementation. See also the response to comment #60. 
40

63) Comment [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: “AFHA is concerned that the Board 

will be voting on a proposed regulation that clearly has not defined the 

scope or details of an enforcement strategy... we feel clarification is 

needed to ensure that the compliance demonstration does not require the 

tracking of individual component parts manufactured with composite wood 

products in finished goods... We would suggest that the language of (i) be 

changed to the following: “... made with complying composite wood 

products to verify through the distribution chain that the composite wood 

products used in the manufacture of component parts used in the 

assembly of finished goods comply with the appropriate emission 

standards.” 

Agency Response [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: We believe that the ATCM 

contains all the requirements needed for an effective enforcement 

program. See also the response to comment #60. For fabricators, the 

compliance demonstration does not require the tracking of individual 

component parts, but rather requires that they be able to document their 

purchases of compliant materials used in their finished goods. 

64) Comment [90-Titus-070426-KCMA]: “And enforcement, we want to 

compliment the staff -- this has been an open process. They’ve listened. I 

compliment them. They put a lot of work into this. But as with everything, 

there are holes. And we think enforcement is a place where we will work 

with them. There needs to be some serious work done there. The 

questions that you have raised are great. I think you’re heading to the 

point – I would tell you that.” 

Agency Response [90-Titus-070426-KCMA]: We appreciate the comment 

but believe the ATCM contains all the requirements needed for an 

effective enforcement program. See response to comment #60. 

EXEMPTIONS

65) Comment [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: Jeld-Wen proposed an exemption 

for exterior doors and garage doors. 

Agency Response [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: Exterior doors and garage 

doors are made with water resistant resins that emit very low levels of 

formaldehyde. We added an exemption to section 93120.7 for exterior 

doors and garage doors in response to this comment. 
41

FINISHED PRODUCT TEST METHOD

66) Comment [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: “... For this reason, and to the 

extent HCHO emission levels are regulated, JELD-WEN advocates an 

ATCM that regulates the HCHO emission levels for a finished product. 

Such a performance-based regulation for finished products would ease 

the testing, compliance and enforcement burdens on the state, while 

having a measurable impact on air quality in California.” 

Agency Response [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: We disagree. This ATCM 

will achieve significant reductions in surface emissions from composite 

wood products. The Health and Safety Code requires CARB to achieve 

the lowest emissions possible for a toxic air contaminant with no 

identifiable safe level of exposure. Thus, the emission standards are 

reducing formaldehyde emissions at the source, the composite wood 

panels used to make a finished good. The ATCM sets emission limits for 

panels that are used to make finished goods like furniture. Under the 

commenter’s approach, high emitting panels could be used in finished 

goods and covered with paint or a laminate. However, at some point, the 

finished good will be scratched allowing formaldehyde to escape. 

67) Comment [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: “Testing: ... Realistically, the 

only way to have any level of confidence that a component is in 

compliance with the regulation would be to run a series of tests on the 

same component and look for a correlation within the results...The 

scientific foundation for determining whether a non-compliant finding is 

due to the composite panel or due to any of a number of other sources of 

HCHO has not been firmly established.” 

Agency Response [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: We have revised the 

regulation and included requirements for demonstrating equivalence 

between the primary and secondary emission test methods and for roundrobin testing, as well as specifying that CARB will use the secondary test 

method for enforcement purposes. Testing a majority of finished goods 

will be straightforward since many composite wood products used in 

finished goods are only covered on one side. For two-sided laminated 

products, staff is developing the appropriate protocols under the schedule 

presented in Table VI-7 on page 127 of the ISOR. See also the response 

to comment #73. 

68) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: “... What is inside that piece of 

furniture or cabinet, and behind the paint or high pressure laminate? To 

check compliance, one will have to essentially destroy the piece of 

furniture – to “deconstruct” it down to the panel itself. Determining noncompliance in this setting is extremely difficult as deconstruction will likely 

alter the physical nature or the underlying panel. There is great 
42

uncertainty in this regard since the full enforcement program will not be 

available until after the regulation is promulgated.” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: Yes it is correct that 

finished products must be deconstructed to test for compliance. But, we 

disagree that there is great uncertainty in the enforcement program. 

Deconstructive testing is needed for finished goods to verify compliance 

with the emission standards. We are currently developing the sample 

preparation and testing protocols that we will use to enforce the ATCM 

(see page 127 of the ISOR). The sample preparation and emission 

testing protocol we use to enforce the ATCM will be technically sound and 

will be more than adequate to identify non-compliant composite wood 

products found in finished goods for California. 

69) Comment [27-Rush-070424-Temple Inland]: “... Temple-Inland strongly 

recommends that the following be done: a level playing field is required for 

all domestic and import players... that all finished products be tested in its 

final state (as used), not with the surface removed, that all resin systems 

be qualified based on performance of the emission rate tests, not on its 

class or perception... that minor emission test excursions be allowed that 

fall into the precision variation of the large scale test...” 

Agency Response [27-Rush-070424-Temple Inland]: We agree that a 

level playing field is required for domestic and import players, but disagree 

that products be tested in their final state. Finished product testing would 

require an inordinate number of standards for the full range of finished 

products sold to California and not workable from an enforcement 

standpoint. We believe that our public health goals are best served by 

requiring the use of low emitting panel products to be used to make 

finished goods. Measures of this kind also address HCHO emissions 

once a product is disposed of – there are less emissions, in total, if 

finished products are made with low emission panel products. See also 

the responses to comments #66 and #68. 

70) Comment [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: “There has been a lot of discussion 

about how CARB staff would verify the use of compliant board in finished 

goods. We support the idea of employing a deconstructive small chamber 

test of finished goods to accomplish this. It is imperative that an accurate 

correlation be established with this test and the large chamber...” 

Agency Response [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. This is why the ATCM was 

modified to allow for the use of the small chamber under ASTM D 6007-02, 

as a secondary test method, and to demonstrate equivalence to the large 

chamber as measured under ASTM E 1333-96 (2002). 
43

71) Comment [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: “AFHA agrees with CARB staff that 

the focus of the proposed ATCM is on the “raw board” used to make 

composite wood component parts and not on finished goods (furniture). It 

is important to realize that all furniture will contain a mixture of various 

composite wood component parts. The complexity of design and diverse 

mix of component parts does not lend itself to finished product testing.” 

Agency Response [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: We agree that there are 

too many variables to finished product testing that would require us to 

establish separate standards for a large number of products. It is more 

effective to limit the emissions of the components and require their use in 

finished products instead. 

72) Comment [74-Bradley-070426]: The enforcement test method for finished 

goods is worded poorly and should be reworded to say “emission testing 

of samples of HWPW, PB, and MDF contained in finished goods . . .” 

Agency Response [74-Bradley-070426]: We agree that the point raised by 

the commenter is appropriate and modified the wording in the 

enforcement test method. 

73) Comment [88-Elias-070426-APA]: “The other concern we also have is the 

ability to actually recognize and identify products in composite or 

secondary materials such as furniture or cabinetry that are finished goods 

and how you actually deconstruct those products and be able to identify 

the products that are nonconforming. I think this is very onerous, very 

ambitious activity to try to pursue. As a participant in the California Wood 

Industry Coalition, we offer our support to the previous testimony by the 

Coalition members...” 

Agency Response [88-Elias-070426-APA]: The ATCM requires specific 

test methods to be used. In the ISOR, we committed to developing a 

sample preparation method for laminated products to address this 

comment. See page 126 in the ISOR. 

74) Comment [89-Zimmerman-070426-Sauder]: “Our main concern is 

enforcement, as has been discussed much here. Although we recognize 

that CARB has tried to maintain a level playing field, we have grave 

concerns about the measurement and enforcement of the proposed 

regulation. The enforcement test method for finished products is 

complicated. It’s unproven. Our furniture is finished on one or multiple 

sides all within the same unit. Formaldehyde can be found in the paper. It 

can be found in the environment. It can be found in our adhesives. It can 

be found in all levels throughout our production. Composite panels can 

act as a sink and absorb HCHO from the surrounding environment. It 

becomes virtually impossible (to tell) whether or not HCHO came from the 
44

non-compliant panel or from the environment. It concerns us no work has 

been done to validate the finished product that’s being proposed.” 

Agency Response [89-Zimmerman-070426-Sauder]: See the response to 

comment #73. 

IMPORTERS and IMPORTED PRODUCTS

CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY

75) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Paperwork and new database 

systems. New systems will need to be developed to track the 

burdensome new paperwork requirements for chain-of-custody 

documentation that do not currently exist in the marketplace...” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: The ATCM does require 

recordkeeping for products used, sold, or supplied to California, however, 

we do not believe that this will create significantly more paperwork than 

what must already be maintained. To our knowledge, records of 

purchases and sales must already be maintained for a variety of reasons, 

for example, bills of lading and invoices are already routinely used. Thus, 

the addition of new recordkeeping requirements should not require a 

complete overhaul of existing database and tracking systems. 

76) Comment [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: “The chain of custody 

documentation requirement is unworkable for the imported plywood 

industry... A significant percentage of the imported plywood is sold to 

wholesalers and distributors who consider the identity of their importer to 

be proprietary.” 

Agency Response [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: The ATCM does not 

require wholesalers or distributors to divulge the name of their importer. 

Section 93120.3 and 93120.7 require labeling of panels and finished 

goods, respectively. Sections 93120.5(c) and 6(c) state that if products or 

finished goods are not modified by the distributor or the importers, no 

additional labeling is required. This assumes that the label from the 

manufacturer or fabricator will remain on the product or finished good 

throughout the commercial chain to the retailer. The response to 

comment #77 describes why the manufacturer or fabricator (as opposed 

to the importer) must be known. 

77) Comment [97-Chaffin-070426-IWPA]: “The chain of custody 

documentation is also difficult for importers and doesn’t take into account 

the difference between domestic plywood business and imported plywood 

business. Imported plywood changes hands numerous times in between 
45

the time it’s produced and by the time it reaches its ultimate customer. 

Generally, importers consider their source as proprietary information. 

They don’t want to share that information with their customers. And their 

customers, the distributors and wholesalers, don’t want to share the name 

of their supplier to their customers. This is a unique feature with regard to 

imported business. In conclusion, I would ask that the Board seriously 

consider direction to the staff to spend some time before acting on this 

regulation to find out something about how the imported plywood business 

works...” 

Agency Response [97-Chaffin-070426-IWPA]: The ATCM requires a strict 

chain-of-custody program to allow us to enforce the program effectively. 

Staff does understand how the imported plywood business works, but the 

integrity of the enforcement program depends on being able to trace a 

product or finished good back to its manufacturer or fabricator through 

chain-of-custody documentation. Thus, the identity of the manufacturer or 

fabricator must be known. See also the response to comment #76. 

78) Comment [98-Schroeder-070426-WMMPA]: “When seeking this raw 

material, Mr. Morrison was confronted by the President of the Chinese 

company that said “whatever certification that you need or piece of paper 

that you require, fax me a copy and we will make sure that you have your 

paperwork.” Mr. Morrison went on to explain the process would have to 

come from the Forest Stewardship Council and they would have to be 

inspected. The President of the Chinese company explained “No. No. 

No. Sir, all we need is what you need from us. Send us a copy -- we will 

get you the paperwork.” That right there in itself scares us out of our wits. 

Being able to ship on shore into California without having the certification 

in place of an FSC certified wood product and selling it as such is taking 

place right now. Without the certification being taken from Chinese on the 

Chinese side – I’m just lost...” 

Agency Response [98-Schroeder-070426-WMMPA]: We are aware of 

violations to the voluntary FSC certification program, which has very little 

enforcement. ARB will put into place a vigorous enforcement program for 

the ATCM, including the construction of laboratory test chambers to 

conduct product emission testing verification as a major aspect of the 

enforcement program. The ATCM also includes third party certification of 

panels, chain-of-custody, labeling, and recordkeeping requirements. 

Overall, we believe that the enforcement program will deter the type of 

conduct identified by the commenter. 
46

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

79) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Some of the items not properly 

valued in the staff report include: Construction of new laboratories, 

development, and training of new third party certifying businesses. New 

overseas laboratories and additional testing capacity, including the hiring 

and training of new staff, would now be required in every country 

interested in selling products to California.” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: Many third party certifiers 

already exist in most parts of the world, so no additional expenses are 

necessary for these companies. The basis for the cost analysis for the 

Phase 1 and Phase 2 emission standards relate to the resin technologies 

used as the main cost driver (see pages 205 to 209 of the ISOR). On a 

per board production cost, certification cost is a very small part. 

Additionally, certification costs are already a part of today’s per board cost 

in North America as 85 percent of US mills are certified under the 

Composite Panel Association’s Grademark Program. 

80) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Inventory costs. This regulation 

effectively doubles the required inventory for U.S. importers. These 

companies will now need to maintain duplicate inventory for material 

destined for California and product available for sale to the rest of the U.S., 

Canada, and Mexico.” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We agree that multiple 

inventories may need to be maintained in some cases. This is a business 

decision that must be made by the affected party as to whether to 

maintain dual inventories and sell to California, or not. However, many 

domestic fabricators have indicated their plan to only produce CARBcompliant products for the entire U.S. market. 

81) Comment [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: “The staff report does not 

adequately address the impact of this regulation on importers and 

overseas mill suppliers...” “The Board should postpone action on these 

regulations until there has been further adequate study and reporting of 

the impacts on importers . . .” 

Agency Response [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: We disagree that more time 

is necessary or that more analysis of impacts are needed. As all 

manufacturers will be required to meet the same product emission 

standards, they will have to make the necessary modifications to achieve 

that specified level of product quality. To stem the flow of high emitting 

panel products into California, we feel that it is important to require 

stringent quality control practices to provide assurances that California 
47

receives products that meet its standards. Overseas manufacturers must 

make a business decision on whether to continue selling to California. 

82) Comment [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: “. . . This regulation will result in 

adverse impacts on business and consumers and the possible benefit will 

not be measureable.” 

Agency Response [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: We disagree. California 

law requires CARB to reduce public exposure to formaldehyde as much 

as technically feasible while considering costs. The ISOR has a full 

evaluation of impacts on business (see pages 178 to 216). The ISOR also 

has a discussion of risk reduction benefits. See Chapter VII, pages 157-

159, the ATCM will achieve significant reductions in cancer cases. 

ENFORCEMENT and FAIR COMPETITION

83) Comment [4-Sherman-070409-NA]: “The proposal will still allow the 

importation of non-compliant panels for use in fabrication of products 

whose eventual destination is outside of the state. Just as there are 

unlicensed, uninsured shops in operation ... these same shops will likely 

find ways to procure and use these non-compliant panels for in-state 

distribution. Not only does this have the potential to undercut the small 

shops with whom these noncompliant shops would be in competition with, 

but we compliant shops will be squeezed from the other side as well, 

sharing the costs of inspection/compliance/enforcement...” 

Agency Response [4-Sherman-070409-NA]: We disagree. We will have 

an active enforcement program that includes collecting samples of 

products for testing. If these tests show a violation of the emission 

standards, we can identify the shops making non-compliant products and 

in-state purchasers of non-compliant products through the ATCM chain-ofcustody requirements. Upon inspection of these shops, if statements of 

compliance cannot be produced, the buyers and suppliers would both be 

in violation of the ATCM and subject to appropriate penalties. 

84) Comment [29-Couture-070424-CDMDP]: “... we are concerned about the 

potential of non-conforming imports landing in California from offshore. 

The new rules will make it even harder for our industry to defend against 

offshore manufacturers. This will lead to ... the erosion of a strong 

industry solidly entrenched particularly in the West coast.” 

Agency Response [29-Couture-070424-CDMDP]: We disagree. Currently, 

there are no restrictions of any kind on the HCHO emissions of wood 

products from offshore, so long as they are not used in manufactured 

home construction. The ATCM sets limits beginning in 2009 that will 
48

create uniformity for all manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, since 

they must all meet the new emission limits, and CARB inspections will be 

made to ensure that those products are being sold to the California market. 

In addition, many domestic producers currently have their products third 

party certified, and the ATCM requires that all manufacturers, including 

offshore manufacturers, to go through the expense of being third party 

certified. 

85) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Database of exempted 

adhesives... In addition to maintaining an online database of approved 

certifying testing agencies and laboratories, ARB’s compilation of all 

exempted adhesives will allow companies to better understand 

compliance options.” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: While the commenter 

makes good suggestions, we may not have the resources to effectuate all 

of them. We will post all approved third party certifiers on our website, 

thereby providing transparency. In addition, we will likely post the 

Executive Orders issued to manufacturers using either NAF or ULEF 

based resins. 

86) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Enforcement – include de minimis 

clause exemption: ... there needs to be a de minimis exemption that 

eliminates liability from companies that have shown they have undertaken 

best practices but end up with a small amount of non-compliant 

material...” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We disagree with a de 

minimis clause exemption. Upon determination of a violation, liability will 

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Liability will depend on the 

particular circumstances and factors, such as whether there was any 

willful misconduct, or simply a minor inventory error. 

87) Comment [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: “... These regulations represent an 

unauthorized, non-tariff trade barrier with regard to foreign suppliers and 

importers.” 

Agency Response [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: We disagree. The ATCM is 

designed to protect public health by reducing formaldehyde emissions 

from composite wood products sold, supplied, or offered for sale in 

California. See the response to comment #43 in Section D, Comments 

and Agency Responses: 15-day Comment Period, which explains why the 

ATCM is not an “unauthorized, non-tariff trade barrier.” 

88) Comment [45-Gregory-070424-SierraPine]: “Without adequate 

enforcement, the flood of imported products made with non-compliant 
49

foreign MDF and PB will increase significantly... This will have the 

unintended affect of actually worsening the environmental impact, as 

many foreign producers do not comply with any local clean air regulations 

from their operations and emit significant amounts of greenhouse 

gasses...” 

Agency Response [45-Gregory-070424-SierraPine]: We agree that points 

raised by the commenter are appropriate. That is why we have developed 

a comprehensive enforcement program. We will enforce the rulemaking 

on both foreign and domestic manufacturers. Initially, we expect that the 

ATCM will stem the flow of high emitting products to California, which 

should lower emissions in the state. See also the response to comment 

#60. 

89) Comment [51-Watson-070425-IPMG]: “... Under this proposal, we will still 

allow the materials to come through the ports of California and be stored 

there, as long as the material is to be sold out of state... If the objective is 

to reduce the amount of HCHO through California, then why not ban it 

from arriving in the first place? Banning the importation to the port of a 

dangerous substance altogether would make a lot more sense to me.” 

Agency Response [51-Watson-070425-IPMG]: Health and Safety Code 

section 39666 mandates CARB to develop ATCMs that are based on 

feasible control technologies. Banning the import of products containing 

HCHO may provide greater health benefits, but it is not commercially 

feasible and would be too disruptive to the viability of the composite wood 

products industry and the businesses that rely on an adequate supply of 

these products. 

90) Comment [64-Guay-070426-Columbia]: “We think your implementation 

plan to focus on the importer is an excellent start. It will only take a few 

loads being rejected or heavy fines and the unscrupulous importer will 

begin specifying to the new levels. After all, the offshore suppliers build to 

an order specification, rarely to inventory. When you control the importer 

and their direction to the manufacturers you will ultimately affect a huge 

change in the industry.” 

Agency Response [64-Guay-070426-Columbia]: We agree – no response 

necessary. 

91) Comment [72-Robson-070426-AWFS]: “CARB staff has not effectively 

addressed how finished products manufactured overseas and shipped into 

the state will be inspected and enforced.” 

Agency Response [72-Robson-070426-AWFS]: We disagree. The 

enforcement program is based on third party certification, chain-of-custody, 
50

and verification emissions testing. The enforcement program is well 

documented in the ATCM. For overseas goods, our initial focus will be on 

importers, who will be responsible for securing the documentation that 

verifies that the panels and/or finished products from overseas meet 

California standards. 

92) Comment [72-Robson-070426-AWFS][76-Robson-070426-AWFS]: “The 

problems with enforcement will benefit imported goods and their suppliers 

– further jeopardizing jobs in California. There are thousands of California 

based small businesses engaged in cabinet making – all of whom are 

buying machinery and equipment from AWFS®

 companies. If these 

cabinet makers cannot compete with finished products from overseas, 

then they will go out of business and our companies will no longer have 

customers who can buy new machinery and hardware.” 

Agency Response [72-Robson-070426-AWFS][76-Robson-070426-

AWFS]: We disagree that jobs in California will be jeopardized due to the 

ATCM. We will implement a robust enforcement program to prevent noncompliant products from being sold in California. There are many 

pressures on small businesses. The ATCM will create a level playing field 

so no advantage to foreign producers will occur. 

93) Comment [81-Gregory-070426-CWIC]: “You can regulate us as our doors 

are open. We’ve worked with staff throughout this process. You can 

come in and get your products or you can go to Home Depot and buy our 

products. The products such as ours or products that are fabricated with 

products like ours overseas where HCHO is not a concern -- that concerns 

me. Because if we go away, then you’re at the mercy of those people and 

products that are harder to control. And you can – eventually, the 

situation could even become worse than what it is today.” 

Agency Response [81-Gregory-070426-CWIC]: We disagree. By 

enforcing the rulemaking on all manufacturers, fabricators, distributors, 

importers, and retailers, we believe that compliant products will be sold in 

California, and the situation with respect to HCHO exposure will improve 

rather than get worse relative to today. 

94) Comment [88-Elias-070426-APA]: “However, as you’ve heard from the 

previous speakers, the American composite wood panel industry remains 

very concerned over the ceiling levels that are being proposed for Phase 2 

and the timing of these measures and particularly how these measures 

will be equitably applied to both the domestic manufacturers and those of 

the imported panel producers. Particularly, imported panel products that 

actually come to these shores with misleading or fraudulent marking 

indicating compliance to these standards.” 
51

Agency Response [88-Elias-070426-APA]: See the responses to 

comments #60 and #91. 

95) Comment [91-Raymer-070426-CBIA]: “On the other hand, you’ve got an 

unscrupulous foreign-based supplier of product, who knows full well that 

their product represents a few grains of sand in that beach of shipping 

containers entering the country. Eventually, these unscrupulous 

individuals can expect to get caught. But what about the short-term, the 

next two to three years after the standards kick in? Consequently, it’s not 

overreaching to suggest there will be a great deal of lower cost, 

noncompliant product that will have to be competing with California 

manufacturers who have gone forward and made the upgrades necessary 

to comply with ARB’s proposal. And therein lies the problem. Over the 

long haul, it will work out. The Contractor’s State License Board has had 

very public enforcement actions. These have been immensely effective 

over the years of getting people to play straight, get the proper licenses, 

etc. But it always takes time to do that. If you’re an out-of-country 

manufacturer, you can depend on the fact that it will take time to gear-up 

for California’s enforcement action to really kick in.” 

Agency Response [91-Raymer-070426-CBIA]: We appreciate the 

comment and will take whatever action is appropriate to provide a level 

playing field in the initial years of the regulation. However, we believe that 

unscrupulous practices will be rare. When the emission standards go into 

effect and the sell-through periods have expired, our inspectors will go to 

retail stores to collect products to test. These stores sell both imported 

and domestic products (i.e., Home Depot). Therefore, we do not agree 

that there will be any lag time in being able to enforce against 

unscrupulous foreign suppliers who may be competing against Californiabased manufacturers. In addition, the ATCM requires importers to 

purchase products that meet the emission standards and to add additional 

assurance to their supply chain management practices to ensure that their 

products will comply. Also, foreign producers are subject to third party 

certification to ensure compliance with the emission standards, as 

products leave the manufacturing plant and before they arrive in California. 

96) Comment [106-Guay-070426-Columbia]: “... Keep in mind the same 

factories that are sending this unsafe plywood to California are supplying 

most of Europe’s E1 and nearly all of Japan’s F3 and F4 star. It can be 

measured, complied, and enforced. Those two parts of the world get their 

plywood from China using standards that are dramatically different from 

those in the United States. We think your implementation plan to focus on 

the importer and the manufacturer is an excellent start. It will only take a 

few rejected loads of panels for the unscrupulous importer to begin to 

specify the new levels. After all, the off-shore suppliers build to order 

specifications, rarely to inventory. When you control the importer and their 
52

directions to the manufacturers, you will ultimately affect a huge change 

on this industry off-shore. It can be done. It’s happening today. We 

strongly encourage you to act today to stop this unnecessary dumping of 

unhealthy imports in California by adopting the proposal as amended...” 

Agency Response [106-Guay-070426-Columbia]: We agree – no 

response needed. 

THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION

97) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Eliminate third party testing 

requirement. ... IWPA urges ARB to reconsider the requirement for thirdparty testing and chain of custody...” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We strongly disagree. 

These are critical enforcement elements in the ATCM. 

98) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “As previously mentioned, this 

regulation places a significant requirement for third-party certification – a 

requirement that does not currently exist in any widespread form 

anywhere around the globe.” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We disagree. Third party 

certification around the globe is taking place in various forms and to 

ensure fair competition in the marketplace, this is a practice that needs to 

be implemented and enforced. We believe it is crucial for the integrity of 

this rulemaking. 

99) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Furthermore, the requirements for 

third party certifiers – as detailed in 93120.4 (b)(1) – show evidence of 

past field experience is not workable given that there was not a need for 

this volume of third-party certifiers prior to the ATCM...” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We believe the field 

experience is necessary to demonstrate how applicants will be able to 

perform the requirements of the ATCM for third party certifiers. In some 

cases, it may be necessary for a candidate third party certifier to contract 

out the product verification element of third party certification to another 

entity with the proper experience. 

100) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “... develop a database of existing 

laboratories with sufficient facilities for testing to the standards of the new 

regulation...” 
53

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. We will develop a listing of 

approved third party certifiers in the future and post on our website. 

101) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “... eliminate the previous work 

experience requirement for third party certifiers... It is unreasonable to 

expect these new businesses to have past work experience.” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: The ATCM requires third 

party certifiers to work closely with manufacturing mills to establish 

operating parameters for the mill. Therefore, third party certifiers need to 

have working knowledge regarding composite wood product 

manufacturing. See also the response to comment #99. 

102) Comment [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: “... The majority of the mills 

confirmed the HCHO levels required could be met but the third party 

certification would be a major impediment to meeting all of the regulations. 

More time is needed than set out in the regulations to comply.” 

Agency Response [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: We disagree. All 

manufacturers must be third party certified and this is critical to ensuring 

fair competition in the marketplace. We believe sufficient time has been 

provided to comply with the ATCM. 

103) Comment [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: “There are inadequate third party 

certifiers available for overseas mills... large chamber testing facilities are 

extremely rare in other plywood producing countries such as Malaysia and 

Indonesia.” 

Agency Response [41-Chaffin-070424-IWPA]: We disagree that there will 

be an insufficient number of third party certifiers (TPCs). Staff estimates 

that about a dozen TPCs will be needed internationally to certify all 

California composite wood products. To date, we have developed a list of 

about 30 reputable international organizations who are interested in 

applying to CARB to be an approved TPC. Therefore, we believe that a 

sufficient number of TPCs will be available to meet global demands. 

During the development of the ATCM, however, CARB staff received 

numerous comments from manufacturers and prospective TPCs that 

indicated that a lack of large chamber testing facilities would present a 

significant testing bottleneck, which could negatively impact the 

implementation of the ATCM. To address these comments, staff 

investigated several alternative testing methods that could be used to 

augment large chamber (i.e., primary method) availability. Staff 

determined that a suitable smaller dynamic chamber method, ASTM D 

6007-02, should be considered as a secondary method. In order to be 
54

acceptable, however, the secondary method would need to perform 

equivalently to the large chamber. Consultation with industry and 

academic experts familiar with dynamic chamber tests confirmed that 

chamber tests will yield the same results, as long as the chambers are 

operated under similar test conditions. The ATCM was revised to include 

this second testing option. Concise statistical criteria were developed that 

must be used to demonstrate that the primary and secondary methods are 

equivalent. The statistical criteria are based on an evaluation entitled 

“Supplemental Analysis Supporting the Test for Demonstrating 

Equivalence between Primary and Secondary Methods for Measuring 

Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products”, dated January 

2008. The necessary modifications were made to 93120.9(a) and the 

document above was made available for public review and comment 

during the 15-day comment period. 

104) Comment [47-Steenson-070424-AuWPA]: “... Either the requirement for 

certification should be applied to products with “no added formaldehyde” 

(NAF) or more preferably panels with low emissions regardless of binder 

type should qualify for exemption from the proposed rule.” 

Agency Response [47-Steenson-070424-AuWPA]: We believe that the 

most effective approach in the long run is to promote the use of NAF 

products, which is pollution prevention. There are inherent risks 

associated with the continued use of binders with HCHO in terms of 

meeting the ATCM standards, and it becomes a business decision, in our 

view, if manufacturers want to use those binders or switch to NAF resins. 

We have revised the regulation to allow an exemption from third party 

certification to manufacturers using formaldehyde-containing resins 

(ULEF), if they can demonstrate consistently low emission values. 

105) Comment [96-Morgan-070426-IWPA]: “We have submitted written 

comments, but I’d like to touch on a couple things. We urge ARB to 

reconsider the requirement for third-party testing and chain of custody. 

This regulation can be judged on its effectiveness as a performancebased standard only. In other words, give us a standard. We will meet it. 

And if we do not meet the standard – if we do meet a standard and we do 

not have the third party testing requirement or the documentation, then we 

will be considered not in compliance. We still feel like that is a tall order to 

achieve... But if we do have to meet the requirement of third party testing 

and certification and chain of custody documentation, we urge that you 

push back the effective dates to: Phase 1 – January 1, 2010; and Phase 2 

– January 1, 2012, so that we might become on line.” 

Agency Response [96-Morgan-070426-IWPA]: We disagree – the third 

party certification and chain-of-custody requirements are critical elements 

of the enforcement program. We believe that the availability of third party 
55

certifiers will be sufficient to meet the needs of manufacturers worldwide 

and do not see a need to push back the effective dates of the emission 

standards in the ATCM. 

106) Comment [97-Chaffin-070426-IWPA]: “The next concern was with regard 

to third party certifiers. It is difficult at this point to determine who will do 

third party certification for mills in, for example, Malaysia. We assume the 

third party certifier has to be someone in country, and there are not 

enough third party certifiers in Malaysia today to handle the requirements 

of this particular proposal.” 

Agency Response [97-Chaffin-070426-IWPA]: We disagree. We know 

that there are a number of testing laboratories with an international 

presence that will expand their present capabilities to service the needs of 

manufacturers worldwide. See also the response to comment #103. 

MANUFACTURERS

ENFORCEMENT and FAIR COMPETITION

107) Comment [6-Harmon-070413-Hexion]: “It should be specified in the 

regulation that screening testing and enforcement testing will be 

conducted on all products equally, including those granted exemption 

under applicable sections of the regulation order.”

Agency Response [6-Harmon-070413-Hexion]: We agree that all products 

in the ATCM are subject to enforcement testing. NAF products are not 

exempt from enforcement testing in the ATCM. Rather, because of the 

exemption from third party certification afforded these products if the 

ATCM criteria are met, they will be subject to enforcement testing just like 

products made with formaldehyde-containing resins. 

108) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: “Furniture imports have increased 

dramatically over the last decade... The chance for mischief is too high to 

risk the severe impact on domestic manufacturers.” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: See the response to 

comment #60. 

109) Comment [34-Keeling-070424-Roseburg][82-Julia-070426-CPA]: 

“Enforcement creates a competitive disadvantage for domestic producers. 

... It seems unreasonable to promulgate such a rule without the details of 

enforcement fully understood by all under which there is opportunity to 

cheat the system in imported finished goods.” “CPA supports . . . rigorous 

enforcement . . .” 
56

Agency Response [34-Keeling-070424-Roseburg][82-Julia-070426-CPA]: 

See the response to comment #60. 

110) Comment [43-Raymer-070424-CBIA]: “... CBIA is especially concerned 

with the enforcement aspects related to the proposed regulation. It seems 

highly likely that the referenced proposal will, for at least the short-term, 

create an un-level playing field for those manufacturers located within 

California with those located outside our state borders (especially those 

located in other countries).” 

Agency Response [43-Raymer-070424-CBIA]: We disagree. We have 

had extensive contact with manufacturers in other countries regarding the 

ATCM. See also the response to comment #95. 

111) Comment [45-Gregory-070424-SierraPine][51-Watson-070425-IPMG]: 

“The enforcement division has assured us they will be able to enforce this 

regulation on all producers of MDF and PB worldwide... We do not share 

this optimism ... particularly due to the emphasis on implementing and 

enforcing AB 32.” Enforcement “will make very little difference.” 

Agency Response [45-Gregory-070424-SierraPine][51-Watson-070425-

IPMG]: We disagree. The Enforcement Division has the resources to 

enforce the ATCM and the ATCM contains stringent requirements that are 

the critical elements of the enforcement program. See also the response 

to comment #60. 

112) Comment [59-Taylor-070426-Veneer]: “Also, why would businesses – in 

other states and countries – be allowed to bring plywood – made into 

furniture – into California and not have to adhere to the same standards as 

the manufacturers in California?” 

Agency Response [59-Taylor-070426-Veneer]: To clarify, businesses 

outside of California that sell their products in California must comply with 

the regulations, same as for businesses in California. 

113) Comment [72-Robson-070426-AWFS]: “While CARB staff believes the 

regulation is economically feasible for the industry, it appears the 

economic analysis does not take into account the added costs to 

California business of trying to compete against non-compliant, cheaper 

products from overseas that will still make their way into the market place.” 

Agency Response [72-Robson-070426-AWFS]: The ATCM requirements 

apply to all manufacturers including the requirement for third party 

certification. Regarding enforcement of the ATCM requirements on 

products manufactured overseas, see the response to comment #84. 
57

114) Comment [92-Landry-070426-CWIC]: “I’d also like to talk very briefly 

about the incentive for mischief by the unscrupulous. The people you’ve 

been talking to, they’re going to find a way somehow to do this. Phase 2 

is going to be incredibly hard. But with these kinds of cost differentials, 

there is an incredible incentive for people to try to avoid it.” 

Agency Response [92-Landry-070426-CWIC]: We appreciate the 

comment and will be aggressive in enforcing the ATCM. We believe the 

ATCM enforcement program is comprehensive and will greatly reduce 

malicious cheating. In addition, our testing capabilities will allow us to 

verify the emissions performance of composite wood products and 

finished goods. See also the response to comment #60. 

115) Comment [95-Kable-070426-Setzer]: “We started out in business as a 

wooden box manufacturer, and now our sole product is MDF moldings. 

Our raw material, the MDF boards, come 100 percent from domestic MDF 

board plants. And without these board plants, we will be out of business. 

We have tried to diversify our supply using internationally made boards. 

But in all cases, what we have found these manufacturers want to support 

their own domestic molding plants and have declined to sell us outright or 

charge us more for the board than they would charge us for the finished 

product. I believe you may be creating an uneven playing field for 

domestic MDF board manufacturers, because the enforcement approach 

suggested by ARB will not effectively verify compliance by the off-shore 

suppliers.” 

Agency Response [95-Kable-070426-Setzer]: We disagree. It is our intent 

to inspect chain-of-custody information and test products made both 

domestically and from overseas to prevent the sale of non-compliant 

products in California. In addition, overseas manufacturers of MDF must 

be third party certified and have their emissions performance verified even 

before they reach California. 

116) Comment [95-Kable-070426-Setzer]: “I also believe the rules will allow 

domestic distributors to stock and sell cheaper non-performing foreign 

products for longer period of time than domestic MDF plants can 

manufacture the similar performing products, further making domestic 

plants less competitive compared to international plants. The CARB 

Board must make sure that they don’t inadvertently favor international 

MDF board plants over domestic board plants. For if they do, this will 

clearly affect their customers, and put our Sacramento MDF molding plant 

out of business.” 

Agency Response [95-Kable-070426-Setzer]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate and made changes to the sell-
58

through provisions so that importers and panel manufacturers have the 

same amount of time. Previously, the panel manufacturers had one 

month and the importers had five months. 

117) Comment [122-Schutfort-070426-PSI]: “... And I recommend to the Board 

to look into what worked in the European system, what worked in the 

Japanese system and what failed in those systems.” 

Agency Response [122-Schutfort-070426-PSI]: We agree that points 

raised by the commenter are appropriate and did research those 

programs as shown in the ISOR (see Appendix H). 

FORMALDEHYDE EMISSIONS STANDARDS 

118) Comment [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: “The target levels of formaldehyde 

emissions for this regulation are far too high. ... Further reduction is 

technically feasible and should not be dismissed as the preferable option.” 

Agency Response [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: We disagree. The ATCM’s 

Phase 2 emission standards are the most stringent production-based 

standards in the world. We have, however, written incentives into the 

ATCM that allows NAF and ULEF resin users who meet certain criteria to 

be exempt from third party certification or to have a reduced testing 

requirement (see sections 93120.3 (c) and (d)). 

119) Comment [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: “State office buildings (Capitol Area 

East End Project) have been built during the past five years where far 

lower criteria were used for formaldehyde emissions. Proportional 

reductions of more than a factor of three would be appropriate based on 

the standards used for the State’s own office buildings.” 

Agency Response [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: We appreciate the comment. 

The East End Project was specified as a “green building” under state law. 

The legislation required very strict HCHO standards and the standard was 

not intended to be applicable to all buildings in California. The Phase 2 

standards are most stringent production based standards in the world. In 

response to comments, the Board moved up the effective date for HWPWVC by one year from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2010. 

120) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: “We are particularly concerned with 

the ceiling values for Phase 2, which do not take into account that industry 

products must be manufactured substantially below the regulatory ceilings 

because of the significant variability in raw materials, processing 

equipment and test methods – and hence emissions.” 
59

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: The ceiling values for Phase 

2 take into account the factors that contribute to variability that are 

mentioned by the commenter. Differences lie, between our estimates and 

those of industry, insofar as the amounts that these factors contribute to 

consistently producing products that meet the standards. We believe that 

the established ceiling values are eminently feasible. 

121) Comment [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: “Is this rulemaking necessary? 

Yes... California law clearly obligates the CARB to regulate HCHO 

emissions from composite wood products. Currently we lag behind 

virtually every other developed nation in the world in this important matter 

of public health.” 

Agency Response [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: We agree that points raised 

by the commenter are appropriate. The ATCM enables California to be on 

par with other countries in terms of regulating high HCHO emissions from 

composite wood products. 

122) Comment [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: “Does the proposed ATCM go far 

enough? Regrettably no... We recommend moving to background levels 

immediately in veneer-core hardwood plywood products and adopting an 

aggressive timeline that reaches background levels in all composite 

products no later than 2010.” 

Agency Response [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: We disagree. For the 

industries other than HWPW-VC, moving to background levels should 

remain as a goal, but at this point in time, not realistic given the economic 

hardship it could cause. In response to the comment, however, the Board 

moved up the effective date for HWPW-VC from January 1, 2011 to 

January 1, 2010. The two-phases of standards in the ATCM give 

manufacturers the time to make the required reductions and achieve the 

greatest overall public health benefit. 

123) Comment [11-Higgins-070417-CoLA]: City of Los Angeles Resolution in 

support of the “... California Air Resources Board’s proposal to regulate 

HCHO emissions from composite wood products, reducing emissions to 

zero by the year 2010.” 

Agency Response [11-Higgins-070417-CoLA]: We disagree. “Zero 

(HCHO) emissions” is an unachievable goal because there are natural 

HCHO emissions from wood. The Board moved up the effective date for 

HWPW-VC by one year from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2010. 

124) Comment [12-Higgins-070417-FFC]: “... We strongly support the CARB 

staff proposal to regulate HCHO emissions from composite wood products 

rapidly and bring them as close to zero as technically possible by 2010.” 
60

Agency Response [12-Higgins-070417-FFC]: The ATCM will bring HCHO 

emissions from HWPW, PB, and MDF as close to zero as technically 

possible by 2012. We believe the extra time is needed for all the 

manufacturers worldwide to comply with the ATCM. See also the 

response to comment #123. 

125) Comment [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: “... That said, I urge the Board to not 

only accept the ATCM concept presented by the staff, but to direct them to 

return to earlier stricter proposals for final HCHO levels in Phase 2... the 

technology is already available to move more rapidly than proposed 

toward much more stringent levels.” 

Agency Response [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: In response, the Board moved 

the effective date of HWPW-VC from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2010. 

See also the response to comment #122. 

126) Comment [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: “... We see no valid reason to set levels 

higher than the 0.03 ppm ambient and urge you not under any 

circumstances to accept any proposed endpoint over 0.05 ppm.” 

Agency Response [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: We disagree. In our research, 

a 0.03 ppm standard is extremely difficult to meet consistently, even with 

no-added formaldehyde resins because wood itself contains some 

formaldehyde. We did not set an endpoint standard higher than 0.05 for 

HWPW. 

127) Comment [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: “... The historical chart prepared by 

staff of the static nature of HCHO emissions since the HUD standard was 

set in 1985 is telling. It is time to move the bar again. That is why the EU 

and Japan decided years ago not to wait and hope that the market would 

sort it out and that is why we support your efforts to do the same.” 

Agency Response [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: We agree. From a public 

health protection standpoint, there are clear benefits that can be realized 

from reducing HCHO emissions from composite wood products from 

today’s levels. 

128) Comment [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: “... Significant improvement in what we 

and our children are exposed to can only come by clear appropriate 

regulatory action that places the same expectations on all manufacturers.” 

Agency Response [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: We agree. The ATCM sets 

standards that must be met by all manufacturers, foreign and domestic. 
61

129) Comment [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: “We certainly agree with the industry 

that enforcement is important and something that should be worked on 

earnestly by all parties – but in parallel, not as a delaying tactic to the 

overdue bar setting...” 

Agency Response [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: We agree and believe there 

are strong enforcement elements in the ATCM. 

130) Comment [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: “... It is time for the industry to stop 

complaining and get to work on how to best make this transition toward 

lower emitting products. Industry leaders like Columbia Forest Products 

have shown how to do this in a cost neutral way. There is no excuse for 

the rest of the industry not to follow.” 

Agency Response [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: We agree and set the emission 

standard effective dates accordingly. We believe that the effective dates 

in the ATCM allow enough time for high quality low-emitting products to be 

manufactured and sold to the California marketplace. 

131) Comment [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: “We strongly urge you to guide the staff 

to return to earlier stronger approaches to this regulation and keep levels 

at or near ambient.” 

Agency Response [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: We disagree. There are limits 

to panel manufacturing technology and what costs the industry can 

assume. To move too far too quickly will only hurt the industry and 

jeopardize the public health benefits that would be realized by a timely 

transition to lower emitting products. 

132) Comment [16-Overgard-070419-HPVA]: “We propose that the appropriate 

Phase 2 emissions levels should be 0.06 ppm rather than 0.05 ppm [for 

HWPW] proposed in the current version of the rule.”

Agency Response [16-Overgard-070419-HPVA]: We disagree. There are 

presently two cost-competitive options for manufacturing Phase 2 

compliant HWPW – PVA and PurebondTM that are available for immediate 

use, and other options are likely to be developed in the near-term. In our 

view, this supports the feasibility of the Phase 2 emission standards for 

HWPW (see p. 101 to 103 in the ISOR). 

133) Comment [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: Recommended combining the 

standards for HWPW-VC and HWPW-CC with the following effective 

dates: Voluntary Phase 1 standard of 0.07 ppm on January 1, 2008; 

Mandatory Phase 1 standard of 0.07 ppm on January 1, 2009; and 

mandatory Phase 2 standard on January 1, 2010. 
62

Agency Response [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: We disagree with 

combining the standards and effective dates for HWPW-VC and HWPWCC. We believe that the distinction between the two products should be 

preserved, as HWPW-CC contains core materials (i.e., particleboard or 

MDF) that are allowed to have higher formaldehyde emission limits in the 

ATCM. As such, we believe that it is important to allow lower emitting 

particleboard and MDF products to be available for use by manufacturers 

of HWPW-CC to meet the Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards. The Board 

did, however, move up the Phase 2 effective date for HWPW-VC from 

January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2010. 

134) Comment [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: “California is already at risk of 

becoming a toxic dumping ground for high-fuming, formaldehyde-based 

composite wood panels that cannot be sold into other global markets...” 

Agency Response [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. This is why we elected to set our 

standards in two phases. One important benefit of the timing of the Phase 

1 standards is to prevent high emitting products from being sold in 

California – absent an emissions standard, products with emission values 

higher than the HUD standard can be sold legally in California since they 

may not be for use in manufactured homes. 

135) Comment [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: “... Critics of the 

implementation timelines as “too swift” should be ignored – California’s 

intention to rid the air of HCHO toxic air contaminants has been the 

“handwriting on the wall” since 1992.” 

Agency Response [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. We held our first public workshop 

in 2001 and indicated our intention to regulate HCHO emissions from 

composite wood products. It is clear that some parties did not believe that 

action would be taken and elected to continue with business as usual. 

136) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: “This ATCM is unlike any other that 

CARB has developed. It is not simply a “content” regulation measuring 

the amount of a chemical in a container – it restricts dynamic emissions 

from a range of panel products and similarly from a host of household 

objects such as furniture and cabinets that are made from them. The 

emissions do not necessarily relate to the amount of HCHO in the 

product.” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: We disagree – HCHO 

emissions from HWPW, PB, and MDF are related to the amount of free, 

unreacted HCHO within a panel product and is derived from the resin 

used to bind the product. 
63

137) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC][26-Stoler-070423-Boise]: “The use 

of ceiling values requires manufacturers to produce at substantially lower 

emission targets because of the inherent variability in the raw materials, 

production processes and repeatability of the compliance test itself. 

Assurance of compliance is essential. Modest changes in the range of 

1/100th to 2/100th of a ppm are absolutely essential in the Phase 2 ceiling 

levels. Even with those changes the CARB rule would be the most 

comprehensive, toughest HCHO control measure in the world.” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC][26-Stoler-070423-Boise]: 

While we recognize that the emission standards will be the toughest 

HCHO control measure in the world, the standards are based on the use 

of viable resin technologies. Therefore, we disagree that the additional 

“1/100th to 2/100th of a ppm” are absolutely essential to meeting the Phase 

2 ceiling levels. As indicated in Chapter V of the ISOR, resin options are 

available for manufacturers to meet the standards in the ATCM. We 

believe that the Phase 2 emission standards are feasible, achievable, and 

necessary. 

138) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: “The proposal represents the 

toughest comprehensive standard in the world... Unlike international 

standards that apply only in certain situations, but not others, the ATCM 

applies to all applications... The test used by CARB is a pass/fail ceiling 

limit with no exceedances or reclassification possible. There are very 

harsh penalties for non-compliance.” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: We agree – no response 

necessary. 

139) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC][67-Livingston-070426-CWIC]: 

“CWIC carefully evaluated the manufacturing processes, available 

technology, needed product properties and the significant production 

variables in developing recommended levels for emission limits... 

Although CWIC’s proposals vary slightly from those proposed by CARB, 

those differences are essential and would still result in the toughest 

standard in the world.” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC][67-Livingston-070426-

CWIC]: We disagree that “those differences are essential.” We have 

identified more than one option for meeting the Phase 2 standards and 

believe that the use of any of the specified options will allow 

manufacturers to consistently meet the limit. We also set the Phase 2 

effective dates between January 1, 2011 and July 1, 2012 to allow time for 

all the manufacturers to meet the limits (see pages 103 to 107 of the 
64

ISOR). Raising the standards only reduces the public health benefit that 

would be achieved following implementation of the ATCM. 

140) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: “The changes in Phase 2 numbers 

are necessitated by the variability of emissions from the products as well 

as the lack of precision of the test method. For instance, to comply with 

the proposed Phase 2 limit for PB of 0.09 ppm, we estimate that 

production will have to be targeted in the 0.04-0.05 ppm level or lower, to 

allow for the compounding variability of the test method and product...” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: We disagree. The 

numerical values of the standards considered our engineering judgment of 

the variability that may result from the products and the test method (see 

pages 103 to 105 of the ISOR). We believe the target ppm level will be 

higher than what industry has stated. 

141) Comment [26-Stoler-070423-Boise] [27-Rush-070424-Temple Inland] [31-

Warberg-070424-Plum Creek] [32-Savage-070424-SeeMac] [33-

Wijnbergen-070424-Norbord] [37-Sein-070424-Rexcel] [40-Smith-070424-

Uniboard] [44-Julia-070424-CPA] [45-Gregory-070424-SierraPine] [46-

Gonyea-070424-Timber] [67-Livingston-070426-CWIC][81-Gregory070426-SierraPine][86-Compton-070426-Hambro]: “. . . we support the 

California Wood Industries Coalition (CWIC) recommendation to adjust the 

Phase II . . . limits . . .” “The meeting of these levels recommended by 

industry by 2011-2012 would represent the most substantial emission 

reduction by the North American composite panel industry at any time in 

its history.” “Even with the changes recommended by industry, the ARB 

rule will still be the most comprehensive, toughest HCHO control measure 

in the world thanks to its rigorous enforcement protocols.” 

Agency Response [26-Stoler-070423-Boise] [27-Rush-070424-Temple 

Inland] [31-Warberg-070424-Plum Creek] [32-Savage-070424-SeeMac] 

[33-Wijnbergen-070424-Norbord] [37-Sein-070424-Rexcel] [40-Smith070424-Uniboard] [44-Julia-070424-CPA] [45-Gregory-070424-SierraPine] 

[46-Gonyea-070424-Timber] [67-Livingston-070426-CWIC][81-Gregory070426-SierraPine][86-Compton-070426-Hambro]: We believe that resin 

technology allows for greater emission reductions than industry suggests, 

which would allow for achieving the greatest public health benefit that we 

can as required by state law (Safety Code sections 39665-39666). See 

also pages 101 to 107 of the ISOR. 

142) Comment [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: “... we are concerned that Phase 2 

is overreaching and suggest the “de-listing” of current UF resin 

technologies without evidence of feasibility and benefit... We strongly 

advocate the common sense approach of conducting a “Technical and 

Feasibility Review” of Phase 1 with all concerned stakeholders before 
65

implementing Phase 2. This would give CARB staff the opportunity to do 

an informed analysis of best available control technology (BACT) and 

evaluate the impact of Phase 1.” 

Agency Response [36-Perdue-070424-AHFA]: We disagree. We believe 

the Phase 2 standards are technologically feasible and do not constitute a 

de-listing of current UF technologies. New formaldehyde based resin 

systems have shown promise insofar as meeting the Phase 2 standards 

for some composite wood products. Given the current availability of noadded formaldehyde resin systems for all three products subject to the 

ATCM, we are confident that the Phase 2 standards can be met in the 

timeframe specified. Decisions will need to be made as to what the most 

cost-effective solution is for a given manufacturer. See also pages 101 to 

107 of the ISOR. 

143) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Proposed regulation 

implementation dates must be delayed: Phase 1 to July 1, 2010 and 

Phase 2 to January 1, 2012. ... outreach to foreign governments 

regarding implementation of new regulations and policies suggest that the 

time window for implementation of this regulation is much too quick.” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We disagree. Many 

foreign manufacturers and importers participated in the development of 

the ATCM. We believe sufficient time to meet the standards has been 

provided. 

144) Comment [39-Maher-070424-Great Lakes]: “Specifically, we support the 

CWIC recommendation to adjust the Phase 2 emission level limits as 

follows: 

 Particleboard – a ceiling of 0.10 ppm rather than 0.09 

recommended by agency staff 

 MDF – a ceiling of 0.13 ppm rather than 0.11 as recommended 

by agency staff 

 Thin MDF – a ceiling of 0.15 ppm rather than 0.13 as 

recommended by agency staff...” 

Agency Response [39-Maher-070424-Great Lakes]: We disagree with the 

recommendation. The emission standards approved by the Board 

achieve the lowest practicable emissions in consideration of costs. See 

response to comment #141. 

145) Comment [39-Maher-070424-Great Lakes]: “... we urge the Board to 

amend the Phase 2 limits as presented above to assure that the proposed 

regulation accomplishes its objective without placing unrealistic and 

unnecessary mandates on industry.” 
66

Agency Response [39-Maher-070424-Great Lakes]: We disagree. We 

believe the Phase 2 standards are reasonable and achievable, and would 

not place an unrealistic and unnecessary mandate on industry. See 

response to comment #141. 

146) Comment [46-Gonyea-070424-Timber]: “... We continue to advocate the 

adoption of the 0.06 ppm for Phase 2 [for HWPW].” 

Agency Response [46-Gonyea-070424-Timber]: We understand the 

commenter’s position on this matter, but disagree on what the numerical 

value of the standard for HWPW should be. As pointed out in Chapter V 

of the ISOR, it is technologically feasible to achieve the standard adopted 

by the Board in the timeframe specified. 

147) Comment [47-Steenson-070424-AuWPA]: “We recommend that the board 

adopt an emission standard that reflects the internationally accepted 

standard of E1.” 

Agency Response [47-Steenson-070424-AuWPA]: We disagree – in doing 

so we would not be able to achieve the maximum health protection 

possible as required by the Health and Safety Code.

148) Comment [49-Levin-070425-BERG]: “I do not believe that the final 

regulatory targets in years 2011 and 2012 of 0.11 and 0.13 ppm for MDF 

and thin MDF, respectively, are sufficiently protective of the population... I 

believe the limit should be based on a target concentration no higher than 

that established by OEHHA for workplace exposure which is only intended 

to protect workers during a 40-hour work week...” 

Agency Response [49-Levin-070425-BERG]: We disagree. We believe 

that these limits provide an important public health benefit that is 

technologically achievable in the specified timeframe and in consideration 

of cost. The Phase 2 emission standards for MDF are about half of 

emissions from current-day products. This does not preclude setting more 

stringent standards in future years. If technological advances are made 

that would allow for lower emission limits to be met for those products we 

can return to the Board with amendments to the ATCM. 

149) Comment [49-Levin-070425-BERG]: “... An emission rate (for MDF) far 

below the proposed limits will be required to provide protection in energy 

efficient residential environments with typical ventilation rates below 0.5 

ach. Even at 0.5 ach, concentrations of 100 ppb or above are simply 

unacceptable given the health effects data on formaldehyde exposure.” 

Agency Response [49-Levin-070425-BERG]: We believe that the 

approved emission standards for composite wood products fulfill the 
67

requirement of Health and Safety Code section 93666, are technologyforcing and represent the maximum achievable emission reductions, in 

consideration of cost. See response to comment #148. 

150) Comment [56-Carmichael-070425-CCA]: “... We support the stringency of 

the standards and the “cap approach” proposed by staff but we strongly 

believe the industry can and should meet these standards sooner... At a 

minimum, the Board should accelerate the portion of the regulation that 

covers hardwood plywood – veneer core and hardwood plywood – 

composite core.” 

Agency Response [56-Carmichael-070425-CCA]: While the effective date 

for the Phase 2 standard for HWPW-VC was moved by the Board from 

January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2010, we believe that the standard for 

HWPW-CC cannot be moved up. It is necessary to allow for lower 

emitting particleboard and MDF products, produced to comply with the 

Phase 2 standards, to become available as core materials used in 

HWPW-CC products. See also the response to comment #133. 

151) Comment [61-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: “At the same time, because 

of what we know about the industry, we urge CARB to be more aggressive 

in establishing a California “background standard” and a swift 

implementation timeline – requiring a transition to low and noformaldehyde resin innovations before the end of this decade.” 

Agency Response [61-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: In our present view, 

a requirement of this kind is not practical for PB and MDF because natural 

wood can emit HCHO above background levels, but is achievable for 

HWPW-VC. However, the ATCM provides incentives for manufacturers to 

utilize no-added HCHO resins or ultra low emitting resins, which over time, 

we expect will assume a major market share for products sold to California. 

See also the response to comment #123. 

152) Comment [64-Guay-070426-Columbia]: “One of the effects of the decline 

of domestic manufacturing is that the U.S. and California have become a 

dumping ground for products with high UF emission levels. Products that 

cannot be sold anywhere else in the developed world. I cannot 

emphasize that enough. California has become a dumping ground.” 

Agency Response [64-Guay-070426-Columbia]: We agree. Due to the 

lack of HCHO standards for composite wood products, it is currently legal 

to purchase low cost, high HCHO emitting products. However, with the 

ATCM’s emission standards and comprehensive enforcement program, 

we believe that the flow of high emitting products into California will be 

curtailed upon implementation of the ATCM. 
68

153) Comment [64-Guay-070426-Columbia]: “At Columbia, we regular(ly) test 

for UF emissions of imports. In the tests submitted in the record, the 

imports ranged from 0.29 ppm to 3.0 ppm. Keep in mind the very same 

factories that are sending this unsafe plywood here are supplying most of 

Europe’s E1 plywood, nearly all of Japan’s F and E1 for their own 

country. They dump here because they can. But they can easily 

manufacture at lower emission levels.” 

Agency Response [64-Guay-070426-Columbia]: We agree and the ATCM 

requires that the products meet lower emission standards by specified 

dates. 

154) Comment [65-Royce-070426-Hercules]: “...We see these proposed 

regulations both as what consumers want and practical.” 

Agency Response [65-Royce-070426-Hercules]: We agree – no response 

necessary. 

155) Comment [70-Woods-070426-Columbia “In 2005, we began the 

commercialization of PureBond and have now successfully converted all 

seven of our North American plywood operations to this UF-free resin 

technology. In the recent weeks, we have offered to license this patented 

resin technology to others in the hardwood plywood industry, and are 

currently in discussions with two manufacturers. In addition, we are now 

offering to sell PureBond veneer core blanks to competing stock panel 

manufacturers, and have already started shipping these PureBond blanks 

to smaller architectural plywood producers. Subsequent to PureBond’s 

commercialization, at least one major competitor, Timber Products, is now 

advertising its own “no-added UF” hardwood plywood line, utilizing yet 

another soy resin system offered by Hexion. So now, there are at least 

four different non-UF resin approaches for hardwood plywood, all 

available in the marketplace today and all are Phase 2 compliant for 

veneer core construction. The CARB staff also recognizes this, and has 

appropriately moved Phase 2 implementation for veneer core hardwood 

plywood to January 2010. We predict that the emission testing data that 

CARB will be collecting following implementation will further motivate you 

to continue to strengthen this regulation.” 

Agency Response [70-Woods-070426-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

information and support. We agree that if data collected following 

implementation shows that more stringent emission limits can be met, 

then that information can be used to propose amendments to the ATCM at 

a point in the future. 

156) Comment [72-Robson-070426-AWFS]: “Phase 2 standard to be 

implemented in 2011 for most products that is not commercially feasible 
69

for the wood product industry (Phase 2 levels are being achieved today, 

but for niche applications at a premium cost/price).” 

Agency Response [72-Robson-070426-AWFS]: We disagree. The 

availability of low emitting niche products in the U.S. and the production of 

E1 and F products in other countries is a strong indication that 

wide-scale production of comparable products for the California market is 

feasible. See also the response to comment #132. 

157) Comment [72-Robson-070426-AWFS][76-Robson-070426-AWFS]: “We 

are not opposed to a workable standard and the Wood Industry Coalition 

has proposed a workable standard.” 

Agency Response [72-Robson-070426-AWFS][76-Robson-070426-

AWFS]: We disagree that the Wood Industry Coalition proposal is a 

workable standard. We believe that the industry is capable of meeting 

more stringent standards than what they proposed. See also the 

response to comment #141. 

158) Comment [82-Julia-070426-CPA]: “But at the end of the day, CPA must 

oppose the rule as it’s drafted. As overreaching and unwarranted on the 

basis of the facts, specifically Phase 2 emission levels are premised on 

erroneous assumptions about what is necessary and feasible and what it 

costs. The recommendations are based on technology that in some cases 

do not exist for all regulated products and in other cases on those that are 

cost prohibitive on a mass production basis. You are about to put in place 

the toughest production standard in the world for emissions from 

composite panel products. And that’s if you adopt the levels proposed by 

the CPA and CWIC. The Phase 2 levels that we proposed, so close to 

what the staff proposed, would result in the most dramatic reduction in 

HCHO emission from our products ever over the next few years. They 

would stretch us to expand our R&D and to innovate still further. 

Agency Response [82-Julia-070426-CPA]: We appreciate the comment, 

but disagree that the Phase 2 levels are premised on erroneous 

assumptions. We have carefully reviewed the literature and information 

received from stakeholders. Chapter V and VIII of the ISOR discuss the 

technological feasibility and costs associated with the ATCM, which 

conclude that the standards are feasible and of reasonable cost. 

Factoring in the lead time provided in the rulemaking, we believe that costcompetitive Phase 2 compliant products will be available for sale in 

California. 

159) Comment [83-Warberg-070426-Plum Creek]: “These might look very close 

to you. However, even at these levels, a 0.01 ppm change is huge when it 

comes to a manufacturer. And to get to the CARB Phase 2 numbers, we 
70

as a manufacturer believe we are going to have to implement a complete 

change in the resin technology we use and the way it’s delivered.” 

Agency Response [83-Warberg-070426-Plum Creek]: We appreciate the 

comment, but feel that modifications to existing UF resin systems can be 

made to produce Phase 2 compliant products. From our discussions with 

domestic resin manufacturers, we believe that they will be able to offer 

cost-competitive modified UF resins that can be used to produce 

compliant products in the 2010-2012 timeframe. In addition, the ATCM 

now contains incentives for the use of ultra low emitting formaldehyde 

(ULEF) resins, which may likely include modified UF resins (see pages 73 

to 83 of the ISOR). 

160) Comment [92-Landry-070426-CWIC]: “Consider this if you will. The base 

test for this regulation, E1333, has a section that says the repeatability of 

the test is 0.03. Various tests that have been made on raw wood, various 

studies find in some species the HCHO content naturally occurring is 0.02. 

And then you put on that the variability that Mr. Warberg talked about 

different species in urban wood and how resins interact with those. 

Please keep that in mind.” 

Agency Response [92-Landry-070426-CWIC]: We appreciate the 

comment and understand that manufacturers will need to contend with 

some variability due to HCHO emissions from natural wood, 

manufacturing process and test methods. The test methods in the ATCM 

account for this variability (see page 107 of the ISOR); the major factor is 

the use of the DNPH method for quantifying formaldehyde in place of the 

more widely used chromotropic acid-based test. The use of the DNPH 

method greatly improves test sensitivity. As for natural wood, some 

studies suggest HCHO emissions of 0.02 ppm. However, this has little 

impact on the HCHO emissions of manufactured composite wood 

products because the wood is dried during the manufacturing process. By 

drying the wood, the HCHO in wood is driven off, and the resultant wood 

has very low HCHO emissions. 

161) Comment [93-Livingston-070426-CWIC]: “As a consequence, when we 

sat down with your staff five-and-a-half years ago to start talking about the 

development of this rule, we had a lot of information, data, and experience 

to share, and we shared it all. And when it came time to develop a 

proposed standard, we convened scientists, engineers, panel 

manufacturers, resin producers to talk about the lowest feasible standards 

that we can come up with that can reasonably be achieved. We put 

together a number, not to negotiate, but we put together a number to 

implement what staff said was its stated intent, to allow panel 

manufacturers to continue using their existing resin systems and 

equipment.” 
71

Agency Response [93-Livingston-070426-CWIC]: We appreciate the 

information that CWIC has shared with us during the rulemaking process. 

We concluded that there were opportunities for greater emission 

reductions than what was being suggested by the industry and were open 

about our view that more could and needed to be done to reduce public 

exposures to HCHO (see pages 101 to 107 of the ISOR). We did not 

accept or suggest that we would propose industry’s recommendation as 

the basis for the ATCM. See the response to comment #141 regarding 

the technical feasibility of the ATCM’s emission standards. 

162) Comment [93-Livingston-070426-CWIC]: “Unfortunately, after we 

proposed our numbers, staff came up with lower numbers. And the matrix 

that I handed out that hopefully you have before you sets out the numbers 

staff has proposed, and juxtaposed to that are the numbers that industry 

has proposed. As you’ll see, we have virtual agreement in Phase 1. The 

problem does exist in Phase 2.” 

Agency Response [93-Livingston-070426-CWIC]: The open literature and 

advertisements by Hexion, Sierra Pine, Flakeboard, Roseburg, Dynea, 

Columbia Forest Products and others suggest that solutions are already 

commercially available (see Tables V-22, V-24, and V-26 on pages 103 to 

106 of the ISOR). See the response to comment #141 regarding the 

technical feasibility of the ATCM’s emission standards. 

163) Comment [93-Livingston-070426-CWIC]: “... We would urge you to amend 

the regulation to reflect the numbers that CWIC has proposed for Phase 2 

and to do that with the recognition that if technology evolves and in years 

in the future you can see that there is a way to lower the numbers even 

further, you can come back and take another look at this regulation. On 

the other hand, if we’re right and if we have to expend those enormous 

sums of money to try to achieve this, then as you have heard, there are 

many people whose businesses are jeopardized during that process, and 

there’s no opportunity for us to come back.” 

Agency Response [93-Livingston-070426-CWIC]: The ATCM emissions 

standards for Phase 2 and the economic impacts of the regulation are 

discussed in Chapters V and VIII of the ISOR. We found that the 

production cost increases were reasonable and that the standards were 

achievable in the timeframe specified. See also the response to comment 

#158. 

164) Comment [51-Watson-070425-IPMG][99-Watson-070426-NA]: “Adopt the 

HUD regulation . . .” “So here’s my proposal for you folks today. If the 

HUD standard is acceptable – because what we’re fighting about here is 

we’re fighting about off-gassing limits of HCHO. And we’re fighting about 
72

the regulation of it. And I want both. I say the regulation. I should say the 

enforcement. Excuse me. Adopt the HUD standard. Let CARB prove to 

us that they can truly regulate it. And let’s table the final decision for the 

required levels of compliance.” 

Agency Response [51-Watson-070425-IPMG][99-Watson-070426-NA]: 

We disagree. Adopting the HUD standard would be inconsistent with the 

requirements of Health and Safety Code section 39666. See the 

response to comment #141 regarding the technical feasibility of the 

ATCM’s emission standards. 

165) Comment [100-Harmon-070426-Hexion]: “Then there is another very real 

consideration is if there is a need and usually is to obtain an operating 

permit to run the manufacturing for the resin and for the composite wood 

panel products, again that is no less than a two year process. So we have 

some very real constraints that we have to look forward to as we judge 

whether the proposed regulation is doable in the time frames if it pushes 

things into brand-new territory.” 

Agency Response [100-Harmon-070426-Hexion]: We believe that the 

timetable for implementation is achievable since most composite wood 

product manufacturers will utilize “drop in” technology to meet the Phase 1 

standards. These technologies are discussed in Chapter V of the ISOR 

(pages 101 to 104). Meeting the Phase 2 standards could take longer and 

so the ATCM has effective dates further into the future than for Phase 1. 

166) Comment [102-Higgins-070426-FFC]: “First of all, this is not a new issue. 

It has been around since 1992. More recently, in 2004, as you heard 

earlier in the staff presentation, there has been ample time for the industry 

to address this concern. I think you’ll hear that it’s imminently doable now 

in the market. That’s one of the reasons why the Council, despite the fact 

that we have a great deal of admiration for the work product of the staff, 

the time, care, and attention they put into this proposed measure, we have 

nothing but praise for. Notwithstanding that, however, on the crucial issue 

of timing, we believe it is imminently doable now, accessible now to move 

the timing forward. And we believe there is an urgency to do that, as the 

previous speaker alluded to. When you have a known carcinogen with 

deleterious effects on the environment and the safety and the health of 

Californians, then I think its incumbent on us to take all responsible 

measures to advance this timetable responsibly. And we believe that that 

can be done. Indeed, we believe that the solutions which are affordable, 

accessible, and market competitive are here today. So we certainly 

believe we could advance this to 2008 and we think Phase 2 can be 

completed by 2010.” 
73

Agency Response [102-Higgins-070426-FFC]: We appreciate the support, 

but disagree that the timing of the rulemaking can be accelerated for all of 

the products. It will take some time to develop resins for PB and MDF 

given the technological challenges associated with production variables. 

See Chapter V of the ISOR on the technological feasibility of the Phase 2 

standards (pages 101 to 107). See also the response to comment #122. 

167) Comment [103-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: “We believe the staff report 

presents overwhelming evidence for their conclusion. But at the same 

time, because of what we know about the industry, we urge CARB to be 

more aggressive in establishing a California background standard and 

swift implementation time line before the end of this decade.” 

Agency Response [103-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

support, but feel that we have recommended an aggressive timeline in the 

ATCM. See Chapter V of the ISOR on the technological feasibility of the 

Phase 2 standards (pages 101 to 107). 

INDUSTRY-WIDE COSTS 

168) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: “We are concerned about the cost of 

this rule. The cost of implementation was estimated at $127 million a year 

in the agency’s ISOR, but we believe the cost will be many times that 

amount. A full evaluation of economic impacts reveals that the impact of 

this proposed rule on the economy, composite wood manufacturers... will 

exceed $2.5 billion a year...” 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: We disagree. The 

assumptions in the economic impacts analysis by CWIC reflect an 

extreme worse case scenario that vastly overestimates the potential 

impacts of the ATCM. For example, it assumes that all products will be 

made to comply with the California standards, which we do not believe is 

the only option for manufacturers, especially those that do not currently 

produce products for sale in California. 

169) Comment [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: “Will these regulations have a 

positive effect on California’s business climate and economic 

development? Yes. The overall effect on the California economy will be 

beneficial... (California) is being flooded with wood products produced in 

China that have such high levels of formaldehyde emissions that they 

cannot even be sold in China... If California takes the lead in the U.S., it 

will give a tremendous boost to the entire green movement in the state 

and attract new design and building professionals.”
74

Agency Response [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: We agree – no response 

necessary. 

170) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC] [27-Rush-070424-Temple Inland] 

[92-Landry-070426-CWIC]: “We believe that it is the most expensive 

ATCM in terms of cost per pound of reduced emission that CARB has 

ever promulgated. Even by CARB’s very conservative assumption, the 

cost would be $127 per pound, $254,000 per ton! We believe the actual 

cost is more likely to be four times that amount. The health benefits to the 

people of California from this extraordinarily costly regulation will be 

virtually nil.” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC] [27-Rush-070424-Temple 

Inland] [92-Landry-070426-CWIC]: We disagree. On a per pound basis, 

this is not the most expensive ATCM ever promulgated. We believe our 

economic analyses accurately project the costs of the ATCM in contrast to 

the $2.5-billion per year estimated by CWIC’s consultant. The health 

benefits, based on the use of OEHHA’s unit risk factor, are not “virtually 

nil,” as described in Chapter VII of the ISOR. For a projected 127 million 

dollars per year, the Phase 2 emission standards will reduce excess adult 

cancer cases in California between 35 to 97 excess cancer cases per 

million as pointed out in Chapter VII, page 158 of the ISOR. 

171) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: “Why the significant difference from 

the $127 million estimated by CARB? First, this rule will have nationwide 

impact, not just costs to the California producers as assumed in the ISOR. 

Manufacturers of panels and finished products can’t effectively maintain 

multiple inventories, particularly when their out-of-California customers, 

such as furniture makers in North Carolina and Michigan, have to use 

compliant products... The ISOR equates manufacturing costs with prices 

and assumes that this static number applies through the channel. This 

ignores commercial reality.” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: We disagree. While the 

rule may have a nationwide impact, this is not certain. Given that niche 

products and products to meet other worldwide standards are being made 

to order, manufacturers already have the capability to maintain multiple 

inventories, unless the same resins and furnishes are being used to make 

all of the above products. Market forces will dictate what portion of the 

cost increases will be passed on from manufacturer-to-distributor and so 

forth. We did not feel that applying an estimated increase in cost with 

each transfer in the distribution chain would provide a more accurate 

projection of what costs would be at other points in the distribution chain. 

172) Comment [46-Gonyea-070424-Timber][51-Watson-070425-IPMG]: “The 

costs . . .especially in Phase 2, have been significantly underestimated.” 
75

“... To put it in other words, I am flabbergasted at the explanations that 

CARB staff has offered as fact. These are not facts – these are opinions 

based upon assumptions.” 

Agency Response [46-Gonyea-070424-Timber][51-Watson-070425-

IPMG]: We disagree. We support, with analysis, our judgments of what 

we believe is achievable and of reasonable cost (see Chapter VIII of the 

ISOR, pages 205 to 209). The ISOR sets the technical rationale for the 

proposed regulation (see Chapter V, pages 101 to 107). 

173) Comment [51-Watson-070425-IPMG]: “Lastly, the cost of this program I 

had seen in the staff reports is estimated to swell from 154 million dollars 

per year to over 1.5 billion if I recall correctly... An expenditure of this size 

I would hope would require greater oversight by the state budget process.” 

Agency Response [51-Watson-070425-IPMG]: We disagree. We estimate 

the cost of the ATCM to be $127 million per year for Phase 2, which we 

believe is an upper end estimate (see Chapter VIII, pages 205-209). With 

time and improvements in resin technology and the manufacturing 

process, we expect that the cost could be lower in 2010-2012. 

174) Comment [62-Whalen-070426-Columbia] [105-Whalen-070426-Columbia]: 

“One of the primary arguments the opposition has brought forth relates to 

the economic devastation this regulation will have on California’s wood 

products fabricators and consumers’ pocketbooks. Your staff did not 

believe these claims, and neither should you. Based on Columbia’s 

extensive experience manufacturing and selling formaldehyde-free 

hardwood plywood, we contend that any cost increases driven by this 

regulation will be negligible at best.” 

Agency Response [62-Whalen-070426-Columbia] [105-Whalen-070426-

Columbia]: We agree. Our analyses indicate that the projected cost 

increases are considerably lower than that estimated by CWIC. See 

Chapter VIII of the ISOR. 

175) Comment [62-Whalen-070426-Columbia]: “The staff report has more than 

adequately addressed the economic impact of this regulation on the 

industry and there is ample testimony in the record that this regulation will 

have a negligible economic impact on consumers.” 

Agency Response [62-Whalen-070426-Columbia]: We agree – no 

response necessary. 

176) Comment [85-Altman-070426-HPVA]: “I will call your attention to a slide 

that you’ve seen that says the change in owners’ equity averages 11.6 

percent. I call your attention to a table on page 187 of the staff report that 
76

reflects that the reductions in owner equity for hardwood plywood as a 

product is 64 percent, again, indicative of the financial burden that’s borne 

by hardwood plywood products. It is unfair after considerable time and 

rule development to have a last-minute acceleration of the one year for 

Phase 2 requirements. And we respectfully request that the Phase 2 0.05 

ppm emission level requirements be returned to January 1, 2011.” 

Agency Response [85-Altman-070426-HPVA]: We appreciate the 

comment, but feel that with the present commercial availability of two noadded HCHO resin systems (at a 15% cost increase), the Phase 2 

standard for HWPW-VC can be met with cost-effective resins by January 

1, 2010. See also comment #155 and page 206 of the ISOR. 

177) Comment [86-Compton-070426-Hambro]: “I urge you to . . . simplify 

compliance, reduce cost . . .” 

Agency Response [86-Compton-070426-Hambro]: We believe the 

compliance elements are essential for the regulation to be fair, workable, 

and enforceable, and we believe the cost is not unfair to any particular 

industry sector. See also the response to comments #60 and #88. 

178) Comment [92-Landry-070426-CWIC]: “We have proposed or submitted an 

economic model based on the Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis Input/Output model. We believe the true cost for 

California alone will be over $500 million a year and that nationwide it will 

be much higher.” 

Agency Response [92-Landry-070426-CWIC]: We disagree. We do not 

agree with a number of the assumptions used in the industry analysis and 

favor our own analysis as more representative of the actual cost to the 

industry (see pages 205 to 209 of the ISOR). 

PANEL COSTS 

179) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: “Considering the huge additional cost 

and questionable ability of composite wood producers to meet the 

extremely low emission levels of Phase 2 of the proposed ATCM, we 

request the Board to lower the Phase 2 ceiling values to achievable levels 

requested by the California Wood Industry Coalition.” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We disagree. We do not 

believe the cost of producing lower emitting products will be excessive or 

that wood producers cannot meet the Phase 2 standards. See also the 

response to comment #176. 
77

180) Comment [34-Keeling-070424-Roseburg]: “Proposed ATCM Phase 2 will 

dramatically increase manufacturing costs. Our experience with 

manufacturing low emission composite panels validates the claims of 

dramatically higher costs of compliance with the proposed ATCM. In fact, 

we have found that low emission panels cost at least 60% more to 

manufacture than panels made with commonly used urea-formaldehyde 

resins...” 

Agency Response [34-Keeling-070424-Roseburg]: We disagree. We 

estimate that cost increases will be less than 60% (see pages 205 to 209 

of the ISOR). As more experience is gained and competition increases, 

the estimated increases may not be as great as originally projected. 

181) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “... Even though it is our view that 

the staff report grossly underestimates the total cost to the industry, a 30-

percent increase in cost is not insignificant...” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We appreciate the 

comment, but disagree that the total cost to industry is grossly 

underestimated. The rulemaking principally applies to panel 

manufacturers and the costs that they may incur as a result of complying 

with the emission standards. The projected 30% production cost increase 

is an upper-end estimate representing the greatest projected increase in 

price. In light of projected costs, the Board accepted the costs as 

reasonable given the anticipated health benefits. In addition, future resin 

technology innovation, as discussed in Chapter V of the ISOR (p. 101 to 

106), will likely mitigate compliance costs. 

182) Comment [45-Gregory-070424-SierraPine]: “The cost differential is a 

reality and leads me to my next concern. Passing on higher costs to our 

customers will further put them in an uncompetitive situation, particularly 

when foreign suppliers will be able to import products that are not ARB 

compliant... The kitchen cabinet industry may be next.” 

Agency Response [45-Gregory-070424-SierraPine]: We disagree. Upon 

implementation of the standards, both domestic and foreign manufacturers 

will both need to comply, therefore, no cost advantage will exist. See also 

the response to comment #88. 

183) Comment [62-Whalen-070426-Columbia] [105-Whalen-070426-Columbia]: 

“Our business records confirm the increased cost for PVA plywood 

compared to UF plywood represents a cost increase of no more than 15 

percent to our distributor customers. When we use PVA glues to achieve 

formaldehyde-free, our average UF panel price was $38. With this cost 

increase, a PVA panel would sell for $44, a $6 per panel increase. 

Translating that into a consumer impact, the average kitchen remodel is 
78

about $25,000. And new cabinets use on average 15 panels to build 

these. At $6 more per panel, the cost impact of those 15 panels on this 

kitchen remodel would be only $90. This represents less than a one 

percent increase for the entire kitchen remodel. The staff report 

corroborates our figures from their own research on PVAs as an 

alternative to urea-formaldehyde. And these figures don’t take into 

consideration the economies of scale or manufacturing advantages to 

switching from UF resins. For example, Columbia reduced air emissions 

by as much as 95 percent at our mill locations, negating the need for 

additional pollution equipment to convert to formaldehyde-free 

manufacturing.” 

Agency Response [62-Whalen-070426-Columbia] [105-Whalen-070426-

Columbia]: We agree and fully expect that the cost impact of the ATCM to 

be less than the high-end estimate we presented in Chapter VIII of the 

ISOR (pages 205 to 209). 

184) Comment [73-Chappell-070426-Columbia]: “Claims. As the leader of the 

Monday meetings on production sales, I was privy to the problems that 

were asserted by customers and distributors regarding the PureBond 

product. Claims were significantly higher than when UF resins were being 

used, one settlement in the high five figures. Several customers changed 

to other suppliers. Also our internal reject rate increased from around 5% 

to almost 8% during 2006.” 

Agency Response [73-Chappell-070426-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. See also the response to comment 

#185. 

185) Comment [84-Keeling-070426-Roseburg]: “We worked together with the 

resin supplier and formulated a product that we thought had a market 

appeal for a very small niche. And in fact, if you look at our total 

production today, our Sky Blend product, Sky Ply, accounts for two 

percent of our product. That is all the demand we have. We would make 

more, but the market demand is just simply not there.” 

Agency Response [84-Keeling-070426-Roseburg]: We appreciate the 

comment, but believe that a requirement to purchase and use low emitting 

products will increase the demand for Phase 1 and Phase 2 compliant 

products as those standards become effective. The existence of the niche 

product demonstrates that such products are commercially viable; a 

requirement to produce and sell lower emitting products in California will 

create the demand for products like Sky Ply. 

186) Comment [84-Keeling-070426-Roseburg]: “The cost of this product is very 

high. Our cost premium for the product is 60 percent. The resin is 70 
79

percent higher in cost. Manufacturing process slows down at least 40 

percent. That’s on a good day. Our business and wood product business 

in general is a low margin business. An example of that is look at the 

exodus of public companies from wood products in the wood products 

business. There’s only two public companies left.”

Agency Response [84-Keeling-070426-Roseburg]: We appreciate the 

comment, but disagree on the magnitude of the difference in cost (see 

pages 205 to 209 of the ISOR). Other representatives from Columbia 

Forest Products have stated that the product is cost-neutral to products 

made with urea-formaldehyde resin. Staff believes that the exodus of 

public companies from the wood products business should have improved 

the profitability of the remaining businesses. 

187) Comment [98-Schroeder-070426-WMMPA]: “But, first, as presented 

earlier, moving this regulation forward will increase the cost of MDF 

moldings and millwork. MDF molding manufacturers are asking 

themselves how Phase 2 of the proposed regulations will be met and have 

pressed their suppliers for answers. The response is alternative resins 

during the manufacturing process of the MDF board at significantly higher 

cost to the MDF manufacturer. MDF molding manufacturers will lose their 

competitiveness in the market against solid wood moldings immediately. 

MDF molding and millwork was born in the marketplace years ago as a 

high quality economical alternative product to solid wood. The cost 

associated with new regulations will disseminate the advantages of MDF 

moldings to compete on the open market.” 

Agency Response [98-Schroeder-070426-WMMPA]: We disagree. While 

we project that the price of Phase 2 compliant MDF will be more 

expensive than it is today (see pages 205 to 209 of the ISOR), competition 

among suppliers is likely to keep prices as low as possible. We believe 

that the price of MDF moldings will further decline as resin technology 

improves over time. Thus, we expect that MDF moldings will remain as an 

economical alternative to solid wood moldings. See also the response to 

comment #189. 

188) Comment [103-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: “So you know that 40 

percent of our industry is compliant with Phase 2 standards right now. 

And the next step that we have taken is we’ve offered to the rest of our 

industry that we will sell them our resin system at a nominal cost above 

what they’re paying now, certainly less than a dollar a panel. So I’m here 

to tell you that our industry, the hardwood plywood industry, can be 100 

percent compliant before the end of this year if they choose to do so.” 

Agency Response [103-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: In response to this 

comment, the Board moved the effective date of the HWPW-VC standard 
80

from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2010. We conclude that the hardwood 

plywood industry as a whole needs more time to evaluate and test resin 

systems, including the use of Columbia’s no-added formaldehyde resin 

system. Therefore, we did not believe that the HWPW standards could be 

moved to January 1, 2008. See also the response to comment #133. 

189) Comment [112-Uhland-070426-CalAg]: “I’m here today to lend my support 

to CARB’s comp wood ATCM as a composite panel manufacturer. When 

the CalAg plant opens in 2008, we will produce a true MDF using a 

formaldehyde-free MDI adhesive that can be sold at a price that is 

competitive with conventional wood-based MDF, a product that’s currently 

manufactured with urea-formaldehyde. We have read and heard a great 

deal of testimony that CARB’s comp wood regulations will cause MDF 

prices to skyrocket. And I’m here today to tell you that CalAg will set 

formaldehyde-free MDF at a price that is very competitive to its ureaformaldehyde based counterparts. Distributors, fabricators, and 

customers will not be significantly affected, if affected at all, by production 

costs.” 

Agency Response [112-Uhland-070426-CalAg]: We appreciate the 

information – no response needed. 

PANEL EMISSIONS TESTING

190) Comment [1-Davis-070314-Regal AQ]: “I think the preferred Japanese test 

method is the JIS A 1901 (chamber method), not the desiccator method 

JIS A 1460. ... The JIS A 1901 can also be more directly compared with 

the ASTM E1333 and EN 717-1. ... I have not tried to account for 

differences in the way the edges of the samples are treated. ... The only 

way this can accurately be done is to run side by side tests with the same 

system.” 

Agency Response [1-Davis-070314-Regal AQ]: We agree that points 

raised by the commenter are appropriate. The Japanese are moving 

toward a surface emission test for their products, and it (JIS A 1901) is 

more directly comparable to the ASTM E1333 test. However, an exact 

comparison between the ATCM’s standards and the Japanese standards 

can only be achieved with side-by-side testing. In estimating what an 

equivalent ASTM E1333 value would be for the Japanese standards 

based on the JIS A 1901 test, we estimate that a “F” panel would be 

0.01 to 0.05 ppm (which agrees with Regal Air Quality, Inc.), and a 

“F” panel would be < 0.01 ppm. While this would lead one to 

conclude that the “F” standard is slightly more stringent than our 

proposed standards, the JIS A 1901 allows for edge sealing, since edge 

emissions would not be “... the surface from which formaldehyde shall be 
81

emitted into the interior of a room ...” (Building Center of Japan, 2004). If 

you assume a 33 to 67% increase in emissions from edges (not quantified 

due to uncertainties in how much material is used in a JIS A 1901 test), 

the ASTM E1333-equivalent test value would be about 0.07 to 0.09 ppm – 

comparable to Phase 2 standard for PB, but lower than the Phase 2 

standard for MDF. (Literature Cited: (The) Building Center of Japan. 

2004. Performance testing and evaluation manual for emission rate of 

formaldehyde from building materials. Report No. BR-BO-11-02. 10 pp. 

Revised: 19 April 2004.) See also Appendix H of the ISOR. 

191) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Section 93120.9(a) – Compliance 

test methods. Three acceptable compliance test methods are provided in 

this section: “... conducted using either (A) the ASTM E-1333-96 (large 

chamber test method) or (B) a test method correlated to ASTM E-1333-96. 

An alternate test procedure may also be used as specified in sections 

93120.9(a)(1) through 93120.9(a)(3).” 

What is the difference between the method allowed in (B) and the method 

“also” allowed in the following sentence? Indeed, section 93120.9(a)(1), 

which is referenced in the second sentence, requires such correlation. 

We recommend that the language be changed to read: “... conducted 

using either (A) the ASTM E-1333-96 (large chamber test method) or (B) a 

test method correlated to ASTM-E-1333-96 and approved as specified in 

sections 93120.9(a)(1) through 93120.9(a)(3).” The whole regulation is 

premised on the E-1333 test. All alternate test methods should be shown 

to correlate. 

Methods other than the large chamber may be used for compliance testing 

if they can show “equivalent results.” What is the measure of 

equivalence? 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: We agree that points raised 

by the commenter are appropriate. The final regulation order was 

modified to clarify the use of compliance test methods. Section 

93120.9(a) has been revised to allow the use of a secondary method, 

demonstrated to be equivalent to the large chamber method. In addition, 

specific criteria have been added to outline how equivalency can be 

demonstrated. 

192) Comment [16-Overgard-070419-HPVA]: “We recommend that industrial 

panels and wall panels be tested at the industrial panel loading rate of 

0.13 ft2

/ft3.” 

Agency Response [16-Overgard-070419-HPVA]: We disagree. The long 

record established using the prescribed loading rates would be 
82

compromised by such a change. The hardwood plywood industry has 

developed many years of certification emissions data based on the 

prescribed loading rates. Furthermore, staff used this data to establish the 

HWPW emission standards. Therefore, any change to the loading rates 

would necessitate a corresponding change to the emission standards. 

Since no data exist based on the requested 0.13 ft2/ft3 loading rate, the 

standard cannot be adjusted. 

193) Comment [22-Whalen-0704020-Columbia]: “None of the panels tested 

would have even passed under the U.S. HUD standard formaldehyde 

emission threshold of 0.30 ppm” 

Agency Response [22-Whalen-0704020-Columbia]: Commenter was 

referring to independent testing that revealed high emissions from imports. 

We appreciate the information about imported plywood panels, which 

illustrates the need to curtail high emitting imports. 

194) Comment [22-Whalen-0704020-Columbia]: “A panel which was 

represented as E-1 from China did test out at 0.105 ppm” 

Agency Response [22-Whalen-0704020-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

information to further support our intent to address high emitting imports 

with our enforcement program. 

195) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: “... The homogeneity of the furnish, 

generally and particularly in the faces of panels, directly impacts the 

emission profiles.” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. It is our understanding that 

differences in furnish homogeneity are overcome in large part by using 

different resins in the face and core layers of a panel. The ATCM’s 

emission standards in 93120.2(a) already account for process and testing 

variability. 

196) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “Equivalent test methods are 

important... Overseas product that meets the requirements of this 

proposed regulation should not be discriminated against due to language 

or procedure.” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We disagree. As there is 

no formal agreement among testing agencies as to the “equivalency” of 

different test methods, the test methods in the ATCM must be used to 

demonstrate compliance with the emission standards. If overseas 

products meet the ATCM’s emission standards, then they would not be 
83

discriminated against. However, all panel products must be third party 

certified using referenced test methods. 

197) Comment [47-Steenson-070424-AuWPA]: “We proposed that the board 

consider recognition of other internationally recognized product 

certification schemes... In these schemes, emissions are monitored and 

products are stamped according to their emission class. If recognition 

protocols were established, this would alleviate the need for wasteful 

multiple certifications.” 

Agency Response [47-Steenson-070424-AuWPA]: We disagree. While 

this might work for Phase 1, other internationally recognized product 

certification schemes do not require that products meet emission limits 

comparable to the low Phase 2 standards and do not contain as 

comprehensive an enforcement structure as the ATCM. In the mean time, 

multiple certifications are necessary. 

198) Comment [47-Steenson-070424-AuWPA]: “We are also concerned by the 

reliance of the rule on the emissions based on ASTM E1333, which is not 

readily available internationally. It would be useful to allow other 

international standards to be recognized... allowing the use of already 

established international testing facilities.” 

Agency Response [47-Steenson-070424-AuWPA]: We agree that the 

points raised by the commenter are appropriate. Staff evaluated the 

assertion that insufficient large chambers were available internationally. 

While some countries like China and Indonesia did have large chambers 

due to the HUD requirements, most of those facilities were not in 

operation. According to import statistics, the top exporting countries into 

California are China, Canada, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil. While we 

are aware of some companies interested in being third party certifiers in 

those countries, the demands on the large chamber would be very 

substantial given the number of individual mills that currently supply 

California. 

To address this concern, staff evaluated current test methods to determine 

precision and concluded that certain small chambers could achieve a very 

high correlation to the large chamber when tested in accordance with 

ASTM D 6007-02. Based on this, staff has included an allowance to use a 

“secondary” test method that can be demonstrated to provide equivalent 

results to the “primary” or large chamber test method. This will 

dramatically reduce the dependence on the primary test method and add 

to the effectiveness of third party certifiers since the small chamber test is 

shorter to run and involves much smaller samples. In addition, 

international test methods may be used as alternative test methods if 
84

these methods are shown to be equivalent, as provided by the ATCM. 

See also the response to comment #103. 

199) Comment [49-Levin-070425-BERG]: “ASTM Standard E1333 is 

inappropriate for the regulation... DNPH is included as an alternate in the 

standard, but it should be the required method. There is an ASTM 

standard for the DNPH method.” 

Agency Response [49-Levin-070425-BERG]: Third party certifier 

laboratories have the option, under the primary or secondary test method, 

to use the DNPH method to ensure the sensitivity and accuracy of their 

quarterly tests to show compliance with the Phase 2 emission standards. 

For the Phase 2 standards, we believe that laboratories will favor the use 

of the DNPH method due to the low emission levels that must be met. 

200) Comment [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: “93120.9(c) Enforcement Test 

Method ... The latest ATCM draft says “Emission testing of samples of 

finished goods containing HWPW, PB, and MDF shall be conducted ...” I 

believe what the writers meant to say was “Emission testing of samples of 

HWPW, PB, and MDF contained in finished goods...” In other words, if 

there’s MDF in a chair back, you want to test a sample of the MDF, not a 

sample of the finished chair, with steel, fabric, plastic, etc.” 

Agency Response [74-Bradley-070426-GVM]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate and have modified section 

93120.9(c) to clarify that HWPW, PB and MDF contained in finished goods 

will be tested for emissions. 

201) Comment [85-Altman-070426-HPVA]: “Errors in the H1 loading rate table 

of the staff report make it clear that the emission reductions in Phase 1 for 

hardwood plywood is 77 percent rather than the 53 percent reported in the 

staff report. In Phase 2, the reduction is 86 percent rather than the 71 

percent as reported. These are dramatic changes and they’re difficult 

goals to meet.” 

Agency Response [85-Altman-070426-HPVA]: The loading rate for 

hardwood plywood in Table H-1 is 0.425 m2

 m-3 while the factor in ASTM 

E 1333-96 is 0.43 m2 m-3. Use of 0.43 m2 m-3 in place of 0.425 m2 m-3

does not result in the magnitude of change suggested by the commenter. 

We believe that the Phase 2 standard for hardwood plywood can be met 

with existing soy and PVA-based resin systems, and that it may even be 

achieved with modified UF resins that will require mill-testing in the coming 

years. See also pages 101 to 103 of the ISOR. 
85

202) Comment [121-Bradway-070426-Mannington]: “... If you’re dealing with 

ASTM standards, the review process says you need to review it within five 

years. If it’s not updated within eight years, it’s out the door. So it just 

needs to really be reflected to say being E1333 and leave off the year so it 

defaults to the most current version...” 

Agency Response [121-Bradway-070426-Mannington]: We disagree. It is 

necessary to add the year designation to the ASTM E 1333-96 because 

the requirements of the regulation must be specific and not subject to 

change when ASTM updates the test method. If ASTM updates the test 

method, then CARB staff must evaluate the changes to determine the 

appropriateness of proposing a regulatory amendment for a updated test 

method reference. 

203) Comment [121-Bradway-070426-Mannington]: “In terms of, you know, one 

of the things that has been brought up in terms of enforcement was being 

able to use the FLEC to then screen to be able to then use the small 

chamber for determination in terms of compliance. What we would ask for 

is since obviously that correlation to the large chamber E1333 must exist 

whether or not that would remove the requirement to go ahead and ask for 

that correlation. So if it would allow the small chamber – and we heard 

earlier the testimony that said with what is going on with CHPS, the 

California High Performance School systems, there are several products 

that are complying to lower thresholds and they are using the small 

chamber. They are third party certified. What we are asking is basically if 

that would provide the compliance considerations to the E1333.” 

Agency Response [121-Bradway-070426-Mannington]: We agree that the 

points raised by the commenter are appropriate and have modified the 

regulation to allow the use of small chambers (ASTM D 6007-02) as a 

secondary method by third party certifiers. For quality control programs, a 

correlated small chamber provides the most reliable data in terms of 

verifying the manufacture of compliant composite wood products. 

PROCESS MODIFICATIONS and OPERATING COSTS 

204) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: “...The regulation is certain to 

increase manufacturing cost, likely more than estimated by the CARB staff, 

and therefore, is a major cause of concern when global competition 

threatens all U.S. manufacturing. Today, cabinet manufacturing remains a 

predominantly North American industry. That could change.” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We disagree because 

compliance with the HCHO emission standards will be achieved mainly 

through “drop in” technology. However, we do expect that manufacturing 
86

costs will increase to some degree (see pages 205-209 of the ISOR). We 

do not believe that costs will be higher than we estimated, as the 

estimates in the ISOR represent what we believe to be the upper limit cost 

increases. Rigorous enforcement is the key to ensuring fair competition in 

the marketplace and it is our intent to carry out an effective program to 

provide fair competition. See also the response to comment #84. 

205) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: “The Board needs to understand that 

the ATCM will become a de facto national standard. KCMA members with 

production outside the state but who market in California will be forced to 

use only ATCM compliant materials in order to insure compliance... I am 

aware of no company, other than those operating in California, that could 

dedicate an entire plant’s operations exclusively to products for the 

California market and remain competitive.” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We disagree. It will take 

time for states and/or USEPA to evaluate our analyses and decide 

whether to adopt similar measures. Niche products are currently being 

made in response to the growing demand for Green Building products 

which suggests that multiple product lines are currently being produced 

and maintained. Also, as pointed out on page 215 of the ISOR, an 

average kitchen remodel will increase the cost by only about 1%. It will be 

an individual business decision to carry two inventories or just one. 

206) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: “... The composition of the resin is 

the factor that can be best controlled – these compounds are mixed in 

reactors with good quality control on inputs. Downstream, however, the 

control is more difficult. For example, the furnish that goes into the 

production of PB and MDF can vary greatly... wood supply is a growing 

problem for the industry.” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: We agree that resin 

composition is the best controlled factor and that downstream control is 

more difficult. We believe that an adequate amount of lead time was 

provided before the emission standards take effect to allow manufacturers 

to identify what actions need to be taken to ensure that the furnish (i.e., 

wood particles and fibers used to make particleboard and MDF, 

respectively) can be used to make low emitting products. The use of noadded HCHO resins may be a cost-competitive option for manufacturers 

to consider given their concerns over wood supplies. Also, future resin 

technologies such as fortified melamine-urea-formaldehyde resins may 

contain effective scavengers to mitigate formaldehyde emissions from 

natural wood. See also pages 101 to 107 of the ISOR where we discuss 

in detail our assessment of best available control technology. 
87

207) Comment [25-Hubbard-070423-Darlington]: “The proposed Phase 2 

ceiling limits for HCHO emissions should be higher to allow for the fact 

that the industry’s products must be manufactured significantly below the 

regulatory ceiling to allow for variability in the raw materials, processing 

equipment and test methods... Additionally, it appears that the costs to 

comply with Phase 2 are extremely unreasonable.” 

Agency Response [25-Hubbard-070423-Darlington]: We disagree. The 

Phase 2 limits take into account variability in raw materials, testing and 

processing (see page 2 of Appendix D in the ISOR). As pointed out in 

Chapter VIII of the ISOR, the compliance cost estimates consider changes 

in resin formulations and other costs that could affect the panel production 

cost (pages 205-209). However, the resin formulations used for the cost 

estimate were examples of expensive resin systems that would actually 

achieve much lower emissions than the Phase 2 standards. For example, 

the MDF cost analysis assumed the use of methylene diisocyanate (i.e., 

the most expensive no-added formaldehyde resin option), which would 

achieve emissions at around 0.03 ppm well below the 0.11 ppm Phase 2 

emission standard. Therefore, the cost estimates are conservative. 

208) Comment [59-Taylor-070426-Veneer]: “All of our plywood is made from 

PB or MDF as core – these cores contain very small amounts of 

formaldehyde – but under the new regulations could not be used in our 

product. If this measure passes, it WILL put us out of business.” 

Agency Response [59-Taylor-070426-Veneer]: We disagree. Those 

materials can be used in a composite core product so long as the plywood 

panel achieves a test value that meets the ATCM’s standards. In our view, 

the probability of producing a plywood panel that meets the ATCM’s 

emissions standards is likely to be greater if lower emitting core materials 

are used, but this does not prevent manufacturers from using whatever 

core materials they choose to. If your products are to be sold to California, 

comparable products must also meet the ATCM’s emission standards and 

would not confer a competitive advantage to other businesses insofar as 

the cost of core materials. 

209) Comment [62-Whalen-070426-Columbia]: “And these figures don’t take 

into consideration economies of scale or the manufacturing advantages to 

switching from UF resins. For example, Columbia reduced air emissions 

by as much as 95% at our mill locations, negating the need for additional 

pollution equipment upgrades.” 

Agency Response [62-Whalen-070426-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 
88

210) Comment [66-Mullen-070426-Hercules]: “Yes – Hercules has successfully 

converted several hardwood plywood mills cost neutral to ureaformaldehyde adhesives.” 

Agency Response [66-Mullen-070426-Hercules]: We appreciate the 

information. We accounted for the cost-neutral assertions made by 

Columbia Forest Products in developing the Phase 2 emission standards 

for HWPW and also in recommending to the Board at the hearing that the 

Phase 2 emission standard effective date for HWPW-VC be moved from 

2011 to 2010. 

211) Comment [72-Robson-070426-AWFS]: “California and other domestic 

wood product manufacturers will spend time and money trying to comply 

with the regulation, or go out of business trying. The added costs of 

compliance will affect every business in the wood products supply chain, 

including machinery companies and fabric and filling companies.” 

Agency Response [72-Robson-070426-AWFS]: While we agree that there 

will be added costs of compliance for manufacturers of raw composite 

wood product panels, we do not believe that every business will be 

similarly affected. 

212) Comment [83-Warberg-070426-Plum Creek]: “And recognizing that there 

is a small market for ultra-low emission products, we as a company set out 

to evaluate what might be required to operate below the CARB Phase 2 

numbers just to see what it would take. And because of the variability in 

our process – and this is a very important point. We have variations in 

wood species, wood moisture content. We have various temperatures in 

our manufacturing process. There are a number of things that create 

variability.” 

Agency Response [83-Warberg-070426-Plum Creek]: We appreciate the 

information. If there are requirements to purchase and use low-emission 

products, the demand for these products will increase. We are aware of 

industry concerns related to process and wood species variability and 

believe that adjustments in manufacturing controls and improvements in 

resin systems will allow for products to be made that consistently comply 

with the standards. See also the response to comment #160. 

213) Comment [83-Warberg-070426-Plum Creek]: “And also it creates 

operational concerns. It will significantly create capital challenges to put in 

the equipment to store, to convey, and to apply phenol resins to our 

production process. And it will require much higher press and dryer 

temperatures, which means burning more natural gas, more emissions. 

We believe it will lead to press temperatures under operations that will 
89

significantly increase the risk of fire in our plants and increase the risk of 

safety.” 

Agency Response [83-Warberg-070426-Plum Creek]: We appreciate the 

comment, and as pointed out on pages 75 and 78 of the ISOR, the use of 

hardeners or accelerators may allow for lower cure times for phenolformaldehyde resins. It is our understanding that PF resins are currently 

being used to manufacture products sold in the U.S. and the increased 

risk of fire was not brought to our attention. Furthermore, future ultra low 

emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins may offer more options in the future 

to meet the prescribed emission performance levels of both no-added 

formaldehyde (NAF) resins and ULEF resins. 

214) Comment [86-Compton-070426-Hambro]: “Both of our plants have 

probably the greatest experience running alternative resin systems of 

anybody in the United States. The Arcata plant at one time in the midseventies developed Red X, which was a PF bonded product. We 

discontinued it in the ‘80s because of the instability of the product and 

continuing product claims. At Crescent City, we developed a product 

called Cres X. That was developed in about 2000. We discontinued it in 

2006 because of instability and product claims. Both of those products, 

the production rates were 50 percent longer, which means we would have 

a 50 percent reduction in our production capacity. The resin costs were 

50 percent higher. It was only for niche markets. We could not operate 

our plant running those products. We would be out of business today 

based on the CARB proposal.” 

Agency Response [86-Compton-070426-Hambro]: We appreciate the 

comment. In Chapter VIII of the ISOR (pages 205-209), our estimates for 

the cost increases to produce panels meeting the Phase 1 and Phase 2 

standards were lower than the estimates provided. The estimates in the 

ISOR were upper-end estimates, representing what we believe to be the 

greatest projected increase in price. 

215) Comment [92-Landry-070426-CWIC]: “We would submit, however, that 

the proposal is tremendously overstated for a number of reasons. First of 

all, it takes into account only a very limited part of the industry. We 

believe that industry throughout the country will not be able to create 

double inventories when they’re selling, for instance, to furniture 

manufacturers in North California who would be selling their product back 

into North Carolina. The purpose of enforcement would drive many 

manufacturers whether in California or not to have one approach, and 

therefore higher costs.” 

Agency Response [92-Landry-070426-CWIC]: We disagree. California 

accounts for about 11 percent of the U.S. population. Therefore, it is likely 
90

that some east coast markets will exist, which do not require the use of 

CARB compliant composite wood products. A business choice to comply 

with the rulemaking is an economic decision that they must decide for 

themselves. Multiple inventories are presently being maintained for niche 

products, and it does not seem unreasonable that this kind of approach 

could be used for purposes of complying with the rulemaking. Our 

understanding is that some domestic composite wood product 

manufacturing plants will opt to continue to meet voluntary industry 

formaldehyde standards established by the American Standards for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM), which are higher than the ATCM emissions 

standards, while others will switch to CARB compliant products. 

216) Comment [93-Livingston-070426-CWIC]: “And you may ask what is the 

significance and the difference between, for example, in particleboard, 

0.09 vs. 0.1. As Mr. Landry has just pointed out, the variability will require 

manufacturers to aim much lower than that standard. So what you may 

be looking at is what’s the difference between a 0.05 and 0.06? Well, the 

number is very small in terms of emissions and probably will make no 

difference at all as you have heard in terms of public health. It has a 

significant technical complexity and a great increase in cost. In fact, our 

conclusion is that panel manufacturers will not be able to continue to use 

the existing resin systems and equipment. And you saw some very, very 

large numbers about what mills will have to invest in order to achieve the 

Phase 2 levels.” 

Agency Response [93-Livingston-070426-CWIC]: We appreciate the 

comment, but disagree that the amount of variability in panel emissions 

will remain at the same level that they presently are. We understand that 

the emission results that a manufacturer may obtain for their products will 

exhibit some degree of variability. From submitted plant data, it appears 

that variability is a function of both test method and process variability. 

We understand that there is ample opportunity to reduce the test method 

variability by using more precise test methods. We believe that the resins 

used to produce products compliant with Phase 2 standards will have 

lower absolute variability given the lower amount of HCHO used to make 

them. We do not agree that the operating margins will be as large as what 

manufacturers have stated they will be. 

217) Comment [120-Pung-070426-Columbia]: “First on the conversion costs or 

what you call the tooling cost. We paid a lot of money to tool up our mills. 

But most of that cost I’ll attribute to the cost of education. It was a learning 

experience. It was development cost. We know so much more today than 

we knew three years ago. And now we can implement systems much less 

expensively than we did in our first efforts. You heard Dave Mullen from 

Hercules mention second generation. There are some formulations that 
91

are now coming along that are going to take that capital cost down even 

further.” 

Agency Response [120-Pung-070426-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

information and the opportunity created for other manufacturers that 

choose to use no-added formaldehyde resins. 

218) Comment [120-Pung-070426-Columbia]: “The second is operating costs. 

All our seven hardwood plywood plants are running soy-based adhesives 

today. One of these locations is running on a cost neutral basis with UF. 

The other six are all running at costs below current UF operating costs. 

So I am not suggesting all the alternatives can be as cost effective as this. 

I guess my point is it’s possible. And we’ve done it. We’ve shown it can 

be done...” 

Agency Response [120-Pung-070426-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

information indicating that the cost of the ATCM will be in-line with the 

estimates made in Chapter VIII of the ISOR. 

QUALITY ASSURANCE

219) Comment [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: “... Rather than simply setting forth 

the emission limits for particular products, the proposed regulation dictates 

compliance methods and mandates certain employment functions within 

manufacturing facilities. The current draft even dictates the chain-ofcommand within the manufacturing facility...” 

Agency Response [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: The ATCM’s requirements 

and specificity are needed to achieve product compliance. This would 

apply to HWPW, PB, and MDF that Jeld-Wen makes for its own use, 

which we believe is necessary to ensure that panel emissions can be 

traced back to its corresponding in-plant and primary/secondary method 

test results. 

220) Comment [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: Jeld-Wen provided suggested 

language with regard to modifying the record keeping requirement, quality 

control facilities, quality control personnel, and testing frequency. 

Agency Response [5-Rink-070413-Jeld-Wen]: We agree that points raised 

by the commenter are appropriate and modified the final proposed 

regulation order to address these points. See sections 93120.1 (a), 

93120.3 (g), 93120.7 (b), and Appendix 2 (d), (e), and (g). 

221) Comment [6-Harmon-070413-Hexion]: “Specifically, it is proposed to 

establish a common, performance-based category for third party 
92

certification exemption eligible “near-zero” formaldehyde emission 

products [“NZE”] as those having an ASTM E1333 measured or 

extrapolated formaldehyde emission meeting the applicable Phase 2 

emissions limit or some percentage thereof. This would replace the 

currently defined “no-added formaldehyde resins” in the body of the 

proposed regulation order, and would be exemption eligible under 

application and performance terms as otherwise stated.” 

Agency Response [6-Harmon-070413-Hexion]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate and now describe special 

provisions for the use of ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, 

with reduced testing requirements in section 93120.3(d)(1). In addition, 

we now include criteria in section 93120.3(d)(2) that permits an exemption 

from third party certification for products manufactured with ULEF resin 

upon satisfactory demonstration that the criteria are met. 

222) Comment [6-Harmon-070413-Hexion]: “We recommend that a level 

playing field be established for all adhesives (and panel products 

produced from those adhesives) that is performance-based and 

technology encouraging. A potential solution is to require all adhesive 

categories to comply with the testing protocol outlined in the regulation 

and grant a panel manufacturer exempt status only once the third party 

certified data obtained in accordance with 93120.3 (b) indicates that the 

combination of adhesive system and panel processing conditions yields 

the desired results (for example, achieving the applicable proposed Phase 

2 level defined in the regulation or a percentage thereof)...” 

Agency Response [6-Harmon-070413-Hexion]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. The final regulation order has 

been modified to add sections 93120.3(c) and (d) to allow the use of NAF 

and ULEF resins systems. The ATCM specifies the formaldehyde 

emissions performance levels for ULEF and NAF resins in order for 

manufacturers to qualify for reduced testing or exemption status from third 

party certification. The emission performance standards were based on 

staff analyses of the emission data reported for the low-emission panel 

products in Tables V-22, V-24, and V-26 in the ISOR. 

223) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Appendix 2 (g)(7) – Treatment of 

non-complying lots. The CPA Grademark program allows for the use of a 

sealant as an approved method of treating non-complying lots. This is a 

useful technique and we recommend its inclusion: “Production which has 

failed the small scale test may be retested for certification if each panel is 

treated with a scavenger, sealant or handled by other means of reducing 

formaldehyde emissions (e.g., aging)...” 
93

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Section 93120.12, Appendix 

2 (f)(3)(B)(3) allows the use of scavenger treatment to mitigate the 

emissions from non-complying lots in order to bring product emissions to 

compliant levels. Manufacturers still have the option of using a scavenger 

or handled by other means of reducing formaldehyde emission such as 

aging their products before retesting non-complying lots. 

224) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Appendix 2 (g)(8)(C) – Small scale 

retesting. The current CPA program allows for an average when retesting 

and we suggest that be included in the Appendix as well: “The average of 

the three representative samples must test at or below the TOL.” 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: The allowance for averaging 

was already allowed for under the staff’s original proposal, which is 

appendix A of the ISOR. The language is contained within section 

93120.12, Appendix 2 (g)(8)(C). 

225) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Appendix 2 (i) – Chain of custody – 

organization. This critical aspect of enforcement is stuck away in the 

appendix for Quality Assurance for manufacturers almost as an after 

thought. We suggest it be a separate section or appendix that elaborates 

on the several features of this chain of custody at the various levels of the 

supply chain. 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: We believe that the critical 

elements of chain of custody are covered by requirements for product 

labeling and statements of compliance (sections 93120.3 (e) and 93120.3 

(f)) and deleted Appendix 2 (i) in the revised draft regulation. 

226) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: Appendix 2 (i) – Chain of custody – 

certification number. There is also, we believe, an inadvertent drafting 

error in this appendix. As written, a third party certification number would 

have to appear not only on composite wood products (HWPW, PB, and 

MDF) “... and goods made with complying composite wood products...” 

As incorporated into each piece. These panel products would likely come 

from different sources and thus have been certified by different third 

parties. Having furniture and cabinet manufacturers put multiple third 

party certifier numbers on a piece would not be helpful. The 

representation of the third party is simply that they are using “compliant 

products.” This system is similar to the provisions of the USEPA’s wood 

furniture MACT in which furniture makers must aver that they are using 

“complying coatings” and keep records on them. 

Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate, and have removed Appendix 2(i). 

Also, we have specified what information is needed regarding product 
94

labeling requirements for fabricators (section 93120.7(d)). Fabricators do 

not need to provide the TPC number to downstream customers. 

Fabricators must indicate the date of manufacture and affirm that the 

product meets CARB Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 emission requirements. 

227) Comment [94-Dopico-070426-GP]: “We believe that a discrepancy 

remains between the intent of this regulation based on emissions testing 

and third-party certification and its language with regards to the exemption 

from on-going quality assurance through third party verification that is 

available to boards made with no added HCHO binders and which is not 

equally available to boards made with HCHO based binders regardless of 

their emissions level. We believe that this discrepancy may have an 

unintended consequence, as it incents the use of non-formaldehyde 

binders without on-going quality assurance even if the emissions from 

boards made with those binders are higher than the emissions of boards 

made with formaldehyde-based binders.” 

Agency Response [94-Dopico-070426-GP]: We disagree. If there is no 

HCHO in the resin then whatever amount of natural HCHO from the wood 

used to make the product, will not be enough to exceed the emission 

standards. We believe that the use of no-added HCHO resins is aligned 

with our public health goals, as well as the use of ULEF resins over the 

typical urea-formaldehyde containing resin systems that have a greater 

potential for exceeding the emission standards. The ATCM does limit the 

exemption from third party certification for both NAF and ULEF based 

resins. Manufacturers may reapply for approval, but the application must 

include test results and the chemical formulation of the resin (see section 

93120.3 (c)). 

228) Comment [94-Dopico-070426-GP]: “Furthermore, the language in the 

regulation that would create the exemption does not specifically require 

demonstration of compliance with the regulation based on a CARBapproved third party certifier. We proposed a level playing field be 

established for all binders which is based on emissions performance. And 

we believe such a level playing field would encourage technology 

developments. Specifically, we recommend that the no-added HCHO 

language be removed from the regulation. And we propose if an 

exemption from ongoing third-party quality assurance is available in the 

regulation that it be based on emissions performance and not on adhesive 

formulation. We also propose that qualifying for such an exemption 

should require the same high standards of quality of data based on CARB 

approved third-party certifiers that are upheld as in the regulation.” 

Agency Response [94-Dopico-070426-GP]: We agree that the point raised 

by the commenter to base any third party certification testing flexibility on 

resin emissions performance standards is appropriate. We do not agree 
95

that the no-added formaldehyde language should be removed from the 

ATCM. We want to encourage the use of either no-added formaldehyde 

resins or ultra low emitting formaldehyde resins to improve the health 

benefits of the ATCM. The ATCM has been modified in sections 

93120.3(c) and (d) to establish emissions performance criterion and to 

require that all data be generated via CARB approved third party certifiers 

when applying for NAF or ULEF use as recommended by the commenter. 

Based on the level of emissions NAF and ULEF resins may qualify for 

reduced testing or full exemption from third party certification. 

RESIN COSTS

229) Comment [6-Harmon-070413-Hexion]: “... The additional costs for 

formaldehyde-based resin bonded products due to QA testing 

requirements, third party certification, and the liability of penalties for noncompliance that are not equally imposed on the no-added formaldehyde 

products may very well drive board manufacturers to select the no-added 

formaldehyde option even though the performance criteria could be met 

with a formaldehyde-based resin (which is thereby “deselected”).” 

Agency Response [6-Harmon-070413-Hexion]: We disagree. The “costs” 

for using a formaldehyde containing resin, as outlined above, are to some 

degree balanced by the “cost” of using a resin that has no-added 

formaldehyde. As it is impractical to ban the use of wood or wood byproducts (e.g., veneers, particles, or fibers) in composite wood products, 

which would be the only source of HCHO from no-added formaldehyde 

wood products, requiring the same degree of testing seems unnecessary 

and a potential deterrent to the use of those resins. Individual 

manufacturers will have to decide for themselves, if the cost savings 

incurred by using a lower per-pound formaldehyde containing resin makes 

economic sense vs. using a potentially higher per-pound no-added 

formaldehyde resin that does not require third party certification and inplant quality assurance testing. Provisions for reduced testing and an 

exemption from third party certification have been included for 

manufacturers that use ULEF based resins (section 93120.3 (d)). 

230) Comment [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: “Would the ATCM give a monopoly 

to any manufacturer? Emphatically no... And the leading supplier of 

formaldehyde free products for the hardwood plywood veneer market, 

Columbia Forest Products, has offered to license its resin technology at a 

reasonable cost to any other supplier.” 

Agency Response [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. For HWPW-VC, with Columbia 

Forest Products’ offer to license its resin technology, there are at least two 
96

no-added formaldehyde options for HWPW manufacturers to consider with 

respect to meeting the Phase 2 standard for HWPW-VC in 2010. To our 

knowledge, there is no monopoly in terms of using PVA resin, and it will 

be a business decision as to how manufacturers will choose to produce 

products that meet the Phase 2 standard. 

231) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: “The 0.05 ppm level for PB 

represents a technological “tipping point,” at or below which manufacturers 

would have to go to much different, non-UF based resin systems that 

would likely require different plant and equipment setups at substantial 

capital investment, present totally different cost structure for the resins, 

slow production cycles, and increase energy costs and CO2 emissions. 

CARB estimates a 30-40% cost increase from their Phase 2 proposal; 

based on extensive experience we believe it would be 50% to 60%...” 

Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: We disagree. The Phase 2 

standard for PB is 0.09 ppm. Staff estimates that manufacturers will need 

to target an operating level of 0.06 ppm to ensure compliance. UF resins 

can be used to meet the Phase 2 standards, but their market share may 

be reduced if manufacturers choose to use no-added HCHO resins which 

are exempt from third party certification. Therefore, if manufacturers 

choose to use UF based resin systems, then plant-level costs could be 

more economical (see pages 196 to 201 in the ISOR). As noted in the 

ISOR (page 104), the use of accelerators or hardeners is a well-known 

practice that will likely be tested as a means to reduce production cycletimes for some resin types such as phenol-formaldehyde resin systems. 

In spite of the costs, the Board approved the regulation at the April 26, 

2007 public hearing due to the need to realize the intended health benefit. 

232) Comment [27-Rush-070424-Temple Inland]: “The emission rates in Phase 

2 are not required to meet safe indoor air quality and should be 

abandoned... they: are cost prohibitive... exclude UF resins from use, 

there are no replacement resins that can compete with UF resins in regard 

to quantity available... costs, and the ease and simplicity of use.” 

Agency Response [27-Rush-070424-Temple Inland]: We disagree. The 

Phase 2 standards will reduce total daily average exposures by about 

40% and provide much needed improvements in indoor and ambient air 

quality. While there will be increases in the cost to produce compliant 

panels, we do not believe that the cost is prohibitive and would not 

exclude the use of UF based resins. Presently, replacements exist that in 

time, are expected to be competitive with UF in terms of cost, ease, and 

simplicity of use (see page 105 of the ISOR). Sierra Pine advertises 

Arreis medium density fiberboard product, which is made with methylene 

diisocyanate resin and is cost competitive in comparison to UF based 

resins (see page 106 of the ISOR). 
97

233) Comment [39-Maher-070424-Great Lakes]: “The economic feasibility of 

alternative resin systems has been ignored by ARB... In the end this 

dependence on alternative resin systems and unrealistic emission levels 

will harm the one group you are working very hard to protect and that is 

the consumer.” 

Agency Response [39-Maher-070424-Great Lakes]: We disagree. Our 

analyses indicate that the Phase 2 standards are reasonable and 

achievable in the time frames provided (see pages 101-107 of the ISOR). 

The reduction in HCHO emissions provides a long-term health benefit to 

consumers, who we expect will continue to buy the products subject to the 

ATCM. Increased costs to consumers were estimated to be minor for new 

home construction and remodeling projects (see pages 214-215 of the 

ISOR). 

234) Comment [59-Taylor-070426-Veneer]: “We have managed to stay in 

business, even with the influx of Asian products, by being able to buy core 

at competitive prices. But if we must go to no formaldehyde – then there 

is no competitive pricing – only one source. This will drive our prices up 

and we will not be able to compete with plywood manufacturers in other 

states and other countries – who are not having to follow the same 

regulations.” 

Agency Response [59-Taylor-070426-Veneer]: We disagree. First, 

compliance with the emission standards does not necessarily require NAF 

resins. For products sold to California, all manufacturers, foreign and 

domestic, must meet the same standards, thus we do not believe that any 

manufacturer has an unfair competitive advantage over an in-state 

producer. Furthermore, resin suppliers are now developing ultra low 

emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resin systems which will offer other choices 

rather than NAF resins (see pages 103-106 of the ISOR). 

235) Comment [61-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: “As a businessman, the issue 

is very simple: urea-formaldehyde is a dangerous, toxic air contaminant. 

There is no safe threshold for exposure to this known carcinogen. And we 

know how to eliminate it from the products we make ... with negligible 

costs to the consumer. So we just have to do it.” 

Agency Response [61-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

comment – no response necessary. 

236) Comment [83-Warberg-070426-Plum Creek]: In order to achieve the 0.11 

ppm ceiling imposed by CARB Phase 2, we’re going to have to average 

operating rates of 0.06 to 0.07 ppm, extraordinarily low numbers. And the 

only resin formulation that we’re able to use achieve this is phenol 
98

formaldehyde. And here are the results that we got from actual production 

trials. It did slow our press speeds down by 25 percent or more. It did 

nearly double our resin costs of not readily available resin formulation. It 

did result in quality and performance issues that were not resolved, 

primarily water absorption in the panels. And it did result in a 70 percent 

plus increase in our manufacturing costs that we’ll be forced to pass along 

to our customers and our consumers.” 

Agency Response [83-Warberg-070426-Plum Creek]: We appreciate the 

information, but disagree on the extent of impacts to production rates and 

cost. It is likely that modified UF resins (example of a ULEF resin) will 

also be commercially available for producing Phase 2 compliant products 

(see pages 103 to 106 of the ISOR) possibly even more economically than 

staff projections as stated in Chapter VIII of the ISOR (see pages 201-

202). See also the response to comment #213. 

237) Comment [109-Grabiel-070426-USB]: “Because of the growing demand 

for soybean oil as a substitute for petroleum in biodiesel fuels, soybean 

production is expected to increase, thereby providing additional supplies 

of soy meal. And the ensuing over-supply of soy meal will serve to 

maintain a low price for the soy meal. As I stated at the outset, the 

adequate supply and the low price of soy meal in the future is indeed 

assured.” 

Agency Response [109-Grabiel-070426-USB]: We appreciate the 

information – no response needed. 

238) Comment [111-Mullen-070426-Hercules]: “Yes, Hercules has successfully 

converted several hardwood plywood mills, cost neutral to ureaformaldehyde adhesives. Yes, we have developed and validated a 

second generation adhesive that is sprayable and effective for the 

particleboard composite panel. Minimal capital investment is required for 

second generation technology. Commercial particleboard results are 

positive, and we are close to meeting all performance targets. We are 

committed to achieving a minimal cost premium vs. urea-formaldehyde.” 

Agency Response [111-Mullen-070426-Hercules]: We appreciate the 

information – no response needed. 

THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION 

239) Comment [16-Overgard-070419-HPVA]: “The current version of the rule 

has significantly underestimated the cost to the hardwood plywood 

industry, especially in the area of third-party certification and in-plant 

quality control testing.” 
99

Agency Response [16-Overgard-070419-HPVA]: We disagree. The 

rulemaking estimated that there would be additional costs for third party 

certification for selected manufacturers. However, the major cost of the 

ATCM will be the necessary technology for compliance with the standards 

for those HWPW manufacturing facilities that use UF resins. As indicated 

on pages 205-206 of the ISOR, about 40 percent of HWPW produced for 

California already complies with Phase 2 emission standards. For 

manufacturers that use UF resins, they will likely need to improve their 

manufacturing processes, utilize scavenger technology, use lower mole 

ratio UF resins, or co-blend their base UF resins with very low mole ratio 

(e.g., < 1.0) resins. 

As indicated on page ES-7 of the ISOR, the incremental production cost of 

Phase 1 compliance will be about 1 percent. The incremental production 

cost of Phase 2 compliance is estimated to range from 8 percent to 19 

percent. This would depend on the resin type used, whether UF, ULEF or 

NAF resin systems. 

240) Comment [25-Hubbard-070423-Darlington]: “I believe the current version 

of the rule has significantly underestimated the additional costs to 

domestic hardwood plywood manufacturers like our company... hardwood 

plywood manufacturers like us will have to set up a quality control 

laboratory, purchase testing equipment and find or train additional 

personnel to conduct the testing that will be required. I estimate those 

costs to be more than $100,000 in the first year and at least 70% of that 

amount each year thereafter...” 

Agency Response [25-Hubbard-070423-Darlington]: We believe that the 

overall costs will not be significant on a per panel basis. The major cost of 

compliance relates to the technology used to meet the formaldehyde 

emission standards (see pages 203-204 and 205-206 of the ISOR). On a 

per panel basis, the cost of third party certification will be less significant. 

Furthermore, if a manufacturer opts to use a ULEF or NAF resin then they 

may avoid any expenditure to set up testing facilities since they could 

apply and be given an exemption from third party certification. 

241) Comment [51-Watson-070425-IPMG]: “Secondly, the cost to administer 

this program as well as the reduced production cycles and third party 

administration costs are going to be enormous. These factors have not 

been addressed in my opinion and added to the cost models that CARB 

staff is providing...” 

Agency Response [51-Watson-070425-IPMG]: We disagree. Reduced 

production cycles and third party certification costs were considered in our 

economic analysis (see page 198 of the ISOR). 
100

MISCELLANEOUS

AIR DISTRICT CONCERNS 

242) Comment [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: “The ATCM as proposed is very 

complex and would be very difficult to enforce at the air district level due to 

the diverse and diffuse nature of the product.” 

Agency Response [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: There are a very limited 

number of manufacturers in California, but a large number of importers, 

distributors, fabricators, and retailers. For districts, the initial focus may 

likely be retailers, fabricators, and importers, to determine if statements of 

compliance and compliant products are being used, purchased and/or 

sold to consumers. There are a number of potential enforcement actions 

that a district may opt to take which are not overly complex, but may 

require coordination with CARB enforcement staff. Some actions could 

include procurement of samples or retailer and/or fabricator labeling and 

recordkeeping audits. CARB staff briefed the California Air Pollution 

Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Enforcement Managers group 

regarding this new ATCM on November 8, 2007. CARB enforcement staff 

intends to continue working with the CAPCOA Enforcement Managers 

group to help facilitate any district enforcement efforts. 

243) Comment [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: “If air districts are to enforce this 

ATCM, compliance evaluations would likely have to be structured similar 

to the architectural coatings rule, with inspectors focusing on noting 

labeling at retail and wholesale sale points.” 

Agency Response [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. We believe that retailers and 

wholesalers may likely be the initial focus for inspection efforts. If a 

particular district has laboratory capabilities, sample testing could also be 

done at the district level. Interested districts would need to work with 

CARB to ensure use of accredited laboratories. 

244) Comment [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: “Enforcement at manufacturing 

facilities and at ports is also possible; however, only a few air districts 

have such facilities within their jurisdiction.” 

Agency Response [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. Only those air districts with ports 

and manufacturing facilities will need to be involved in those enforcement 

efforts at the ports. 
101

245) Comment [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: “There are no provisions in the 

ATCM for district funding to enforce the regulation; enforcement by 

districts is not possible without funding to support it. Given this, and the 

fact that this is a consumer product typically regulated by ARB, it seems 

most appropriate for ARB to enforce the ATCM.” 

Agency Response [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: We understand the basis 

for this comment. Under state law, local districts are mandated to adopt 

CARB approved ATCMs for implementation within their respective districts. 

As mentioned in other comment responses, CARB will enforce the 

regulation as with consumer products, so districts can decide their 

appropriate level of enforcement. 

246) Comment [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: “It is also likely that most air 

districts would be unfamiliar with the laboratory testing method required in 

the ATCM and would not be able to perform this test, with the possible 

exception of the South Coast AQMD.” 

Agency Response [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. We are in the process of 

developing an enforcement plan, which will include more information 

about sample collection and laboratory testing. As we anticipate that most 

air districts may choose to not establish their own wood product testing 

laboratories. However, CARB would have the necessary sampling and 

testing expertise to be able to consult with interested districts. 

247) Comment [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: “It is unclear how SB 509 

(Simitian), if adopted and signed, will affect implementation of this 

regulation.” 

Agency Response [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: As SB 509 has been 

withdrawn from consideration it will not affect the implementation of this 

regulation. 

CONSUMER COSTS

248) Comment [4-Sherman-070409-NA]: “On page 215, under the subsection 

titled “Remodeling Project,” you suggest that the panel costs for a $25,000 

kitchen are $600. This subsection refers to Tables VIII-18 and VIII-19, 

which appear to have been omitted from the proposal. Using Table VIII17 as a reference, one can extrapolate that a $25,000 kitchen, using 3⁄4” 

maple plywood pre-compliance pricing of $38, should only require 15 3⁄4” 

sheets of plywood for the entire job, including countertops. Both the price 

per sheet and the number of sheets are understated here, likely by around 
102

20-25% at a guess. This obviously understates, then, the cost impact of 

the subsequent implementation of Phase 2 standards.” 

Agency Response [4-Sherman-070409-NA]: We acknowledge the 

omission of Tables VIII-18 and VIII-19 in the ISOR. These omissions do 

not alter the conclusions presented on page 215, but rather omit the 

details showing how our estimates were calculated. The data in Table 

VIII-17 provides estimates of per panel production cost increases for 

HWPW, PB, and MDF in a range of panel thicknesses, following the 

effective date of their applicable Phase 2 standards. Data of this kind 

were used to estimate the increase in material cost after implementation of 

the Phase 2 standards for remodeling projects in site-built 800 ft2 and 

2,000 ft2 homes. 

Detailed information on the amounts of composite wood products that 

would be needed to fabricate the cabinets, countertops, shelving, and 

doors in the two site-built homes are listed in Appendix E, Tables F-4 and 

F-5 (these tables are a modified version of the omitted Tables VIII-18 and 

VIII-19). To develop an estimate of the remodeling project of a kitchen, 

we used a building plan for a two bedroom, one bath house (800 ft2

) and a 

four bedroom, three bathroom (2000 ft2

) home (Dream Home Source, Not 

Dated) along with a commercially available software program 

(Cabnetware) to calculate the amount of composite wood material that 

would be used to remodel a kitchen. In doing this calculation, we also 

consulted with cabinet shops (e.g., Silver Walker Studios, Richmond, CA), 

and received guidance from industry representatives including the Kitchen 

Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA). 

To calculate the increase in cost for composite wood product materials 

used in a remodeling project, we calculated the total present-day cost for 

the materials listed in Tables F-4 and F-5 using current-day prices, and 

applied average estimated cost increases of 30% for PB, 40% for MDF, 

and 15% for HWPW to calculate the increase in material cost after the 

Phase 2 standards take effect. This information was derived from typical 

pricing information based on composite wood product prices of standardsize panels sold in 2006/2007 (Pittsburgh Forest Products Company, 2007 

and Random Lengths 2007). Depending on the size of the site-built house, 

the present-day cost of composite wood product materials used to 

fabricate the cabinets, countertops, shelving and doors was calculated to 

be $400 to $600. In a remodeling project of this kind, we assumed that 

the greater portion of costs would result from labor, appliances, insurance, 

non-wood materials, and overhead, and that the cost of the composite 

wood materials only, would be about $600. This portion, for the composite 

wood products used in the project, is about 2.5% of the total project cost. 

The increase in material cost after the Phase 2 standards was determined 

to be $104 to $160, depending on the size of the site-built home. In the 
103

context of a $25,000 remodeling project, an increase in material cost of 

$160 represents an increase of less than 1 percent. 

While we agree that there is price variation per sheet of composite wood 

products, even the 20-25% increase in the incremental cost the 

commenter suggested would still be at or less than a 1% increase to the 

cost of a remodeling project. Please also note that in our estimates, we 

assumed that a typical kitchen remodel would be comprised of 

particleboard (50-55%), medium density fiberboard (25-30%), and 

hardwood plywood (15-20%), which would translate into approximately 20-

25 sheets of composite wood products panels, which in turn is in 

accordance with KCMA’s and other independent cabinet shop’s 

suggestion. 

249) Comment [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: “Is the cost impact on consumer 

negligible? Yes... Even for manufacturers who make the switch in resins, 

the cost increase is reasonable (from 5-15% without taking into 

consideration economies of scale and other manufacturing advantages to 

be achieved) and, for the future sustainability of their markets, if 

necessary.” 

Agency Response [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. For HWPW-VC, our analyses 

indicate that the potential cost increase would be about 15%. With time, 

manufacturing processes will improve and costs are likely to go down (see 

page 188 of the ISOR). 

250) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: “It was difficult to fully address this 

issue since two tables (VIII-18 and VIII-19, p. 215) referenced in the report 

were not available for review...” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We apologize for the 

typographical error. The two tables were used in a previous version, and 

were deleted from the staff report that was released on March 9, 2007. 

See also the response to comment #248. 

251) Comment [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: “... As our real-world examples 

of kitchen-remodeling costs show [additional costs to an average kitchen 

would be $40.35], industry claims of 40-50% up-charges are completely 

unfounded.” 

Agency Response [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: We agree. We have 

not received a complete description of how the industry costs were 

calculated but our own estimates are aligned with those presented by the 

commenter. 
104

252) Comment [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: “Compliance cost: CARB 

acknowledged that there would be a cost increase at the panel 

manufacturing level as well as the product manufacturing, and retail levels 

as a result of the proposed regulations. However, CARB did not 

accurately reflect the cost build-up and ultimate impact on the increased 

cost at the consumer or retail level.” 

Agency Response [23-Zimmerman-070423-Sauder]: We disagree. 

Market forces will dictate how much of the costs can be passed on from 

manufacturer-to-distributor and so forth. Rather than offer an estimate 

that could not be determined with a large degree of certainty, we assumed 

that there would be a 20% increase in panel cost at the retail level on top 

of what was incurred at the production level (see page 213 of the ISOR). 

253) Comment [117-Cooper-070426-Kaiser]: “We have an active campaign to 

reduce HCHO in the furniture, fabricated casework, and building insulation 

we use in our facilities. However, the cost of many of the alternative 

materials is significantly higher than those products containing HCHO. 

We find this primarily due to the fact that these alternatives do not have a 

significant enough market share to be cost competitive with those 

products that pose a health risk...” 

Agency Response [117-Cooper-070426-Kaiser]: We appreciate the 

comment and agree with the commenter. Current pricing on low emitting 

composite wood products are higher due to its “niche” market status. As 

more manufacturers comply with the Phase 2 emission standards of the 

ATCM by using NAF or ULEF resins systems, the marketplace will have 

more options available (see pages 103 to 106 of the ISOR for lists of 

currently available niche products). We believe this ATCM promotes the 

availability of cost-competitive low emitting products that could be used to 

reduce toxic exposures in Kaiser-Permanente facilities. 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

254) Comment [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: “The economic analysis is flawed in 

that it does not take into account the cost of ventilation necessary to 

reduce airborne concentrations of formaldehyde by dilution ventilation to 

achieve levels that could be achieved more effectively at the one-time first 

cost of lower emitting CWP. This ventilation has an impact not only on 

operating costs but also on carbon emissions due to electric power plant 

operation and emissions. ... significantly increased ventilation would be 

necessary to provide the same protection to the public as would be 

provided by a reduction in the initial source strength of formaldehyde 

emissions.” 
105

Agency Response [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: As indicated in Chapter VIII of 

the ISOR, the economic analysis of the proposed regulation was primarily 

based on reducing the “source” of composite wood product HCHO 

emissions by imposing technology forcing emission standards, 

commensurate with the approach suggested by the commenter. Higher 

ventilation is not considered as a control option for this regulation and is 

therefore not included in the ISOR cost calculations. 

255) Comment [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: “... While energy cost and carbon 

emission limitations are important to current and future constraints on 

energy consumption to ventilate and to heat and cool outdoor air used for 

ventilation, the incentives for source strength reduction are likely to 

increase considerably in the coming years in order to achieve a given level 

of general population exposure to indoor source pollutants.” 

Agency Response [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. This ATCM could lead to 

incentives for source strength reductions. We do not have a 

comprehensive understanding of the relative contributions of dilution 

ventilation, etc., so we are not able to assess what differences in energy 

costs that may result and at what point source strength reductions would 

be examined as an approach for lowering energy usage. 

256) Comment [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: “CARB has had a relatively forwardlooking guideline and target for indoor formaldehyde concentrations for 

many years now. This proposed regulation is far less stringent than what 

would be necessary to achieve that target. CARB should take more 

effective action now on this well-known and widely distributed substance 

to reduce the future costs of reduction by ventilation or removal and 

replacement of strong sources, especially the widely used CWP. 

Agency Response [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: We disagree. The proposed 

regulation, if adopted, will significantly reduce formaldehyde emissions 

and achieve important health benefits. As mandated under section 

39666(c) of the Health and Safety Code, ATCMs are to be developed to 

achieve lowest levels achievable in consideration of costs. We believe 

that this ATCM achieves the lowest HCHO levels achievable in 

consideration of projected advancements in resin technology and 

manufacturing processes. If lower emitting technologies are developed 

and used in future years, we have the authority to pursue further emission 

reductions, as warranted, and return to the Board with amendments to the 

ATCM. 

257) Comment [51-Watson-070425-IPMG]: “These products are commodities. 

Their value is determined by only two things – supply and demand... As 

demand increases for the product so does the price... What is behind this 
106

effort is perhaps a sense of goodwill to reduce HCHO emissions, but in my 

opinion it is really about profit...” 

Agency Response [51-Watson-070425-IPMG]: We disagree. The intent is 

to reduce emissions of a known human carcinogen to the lowest extent 

practicable, in consideration of technology and cost. 

258) Comment [59-Taylor-070426-Veneer]: “If you look at the MSDS’s (material 

safety data sheets) that we are required to keep on file, you will see that 

particleboard and MDF have only 0.1% of formaldehyde – that is 1/10 of 

1% -- very minimal – but that minimal amount can put us out of business.” 

Agency Response [59-Taylor-070426-Veneer]: We disagree. The HCHO 

content within the MSDS relates to HCHO in proportion to total weight of 

wood furnish in the particleboard panel. It does not have a direct 

relationship to potential health effects from exposure to HCHO surface 

emissions associated with particleboard products. The proposed emission 

standards provide an emission rate that will reduce public exposure by 

40% from composite wood products. Furthermore, if the plywood panel is 

measured to have an ASTM E1333 value that complies with the standards, 

the PB and MDF that the commenter has can be used as platforms to 

make hardwood plywood composite core panels that are legal for sale in 

California. 

259) Comment [72-Robson-070426-AWFS]: “And of course without customers, 

the AWFS®

 companies will have no reason to hire the thousands of young 

people who graduate from industry sponsored Career and Technical 

Education programs in our public high schools and community colleges.” 

Agency Response [72-Robson-070426-AWFS]: We believe that the minor 

cost increases to consumers (see pages 213 to 215 of the ISOR) will not 

decrease the amount of customers. 

EMISSION SOURCES

260) Comment [4-Sherman-070409-NA]: “I recently read an article in one of the 

trade journals (I will be happy to hunt this up and send it along to you, 

although I suspect you already have it) which contends that the average 

person emits more formaldehyde from his body than do all the wood 

products combined in his residence. I mention this, assuming it is true, as 

a point of interest and reference.” 

Agency Response [4-Sherman-070409-NA]: While it may be true that 

people emit formaldehyde, if you fill a room with people and measure the 

formaldehyde concentration in the room versus an empty room, there 
107

would be little difference in measured formaldehyde concentration 

between the crowded and empty rooms. In contrast, if you compare the 

formaldehyde concentration in a room filled with particleboard vs. one 

without any, there would be a marked difference in formaldehyde 

concentration. This is not consistent with statements claiming that an 

average person emits more formaldehyde than all the wood products in 

his residence. 

261) Comment [90-Titus-070426-KCMA]: “For example, I think the question 

was raised about low end and impact on low volume. I would just tell by a 

study that we’ve done, a laminated cabinet as you have in the report give 

the lowest emissions. And I mean the lowest, from anything you heard 

about, the green cabinets, etc. This is lower. And we perform the tests, 

same standards, etc. I give you a little reinforcement on the numbers.” 

Agency Response [90-Titus-070426-KCMA]: We appreciate the comment; 

however, lamination does not address the root problem of unacceptable 

amounts of HCHO in the resins and gradual releases to air over time. By 

lowering the amount of HCHO in the resins, fewer releases to air can 

occur, regardless of whether the product is laminated. 

GREEN BUILDING PRODUCTS

262) Comment [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: “... The sustainable building industry is 

growing and hungry for formaldehyde free product but the industry is 

resisting providing it. We need the help of the regulatory mechanism to 

get the industry moving.” 

Agency Response [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: We agree that the point raised 

by the commenter is appropriate. While we developed the ATCM for 

reasons of public health protection, if market forces increase and sustain 

the demand for low-emitting composite wood products, the health benefits 

of the proposed regulation may be even greater than we projected due to 

accelerated market penetration. 

263) Comment [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: “These design and construction firms 

understand that HCHO is causing harm now to the health of their workers 

and their customers. They also know that a steadily increasing number of 

their customers are seeking safer materials in their buildings and there are 

technologies available that work – but that they aren’t going to have the 

selection of products they need while manufacturers continue to view 

healthy building materials as just another green building niche market.” 

Agency Response [13-Lent-070417-HBN]: We believe that manufacturers 

will choose to meet the standards in the ATCM using different approaches, 
108

and the array of products available to design and construction firms will 

likely increase. In California, low-emission composite wood products will 

no longer be a niche product, but rather the baseline product in the 2009-

2012 timeframe. 

264) Comment [56-Carmichael-070425-CCA]: “The bottom line is that various 

private sector wood product firms are currently capable of – or already 

producing and marketing – formaldehyde free products. In the best 

interests of California, formaldehyde free products should no longer be a 

small, niche market; these building materials should be made widely 

available.” 

Agency Response [56-Carmichael-070425-CCA]: We have listed the low 

emission products we are aware of on pages 103 to 106 of the ISOR. 

With the incentives for reduced testing and exemption from third party 

certification in the revised regulation, Phase 2 compliant products may be 

available before the effective dates for all three panel products (see 

section 93120.3 (c) and (d)). 

265) Comment [71-Hunt-070426-PLS]: “Arreis is manufactured using a 

proprietary formaldehyde-free binding system and contains 100 percent 

recycled wood fiber from sustainable forestry operations. It is certified by 

Emeryville, California-based Scientific Certification Systems, is an 

Environmentally Preferable Product, has passed the California CHPS 

01350 test, and provides LEED credit support for Materials & Resources 

and Indoor Environmental Quality” (Eco-Structure, April 2007). 

Agency Response [71-Hunt-070426-PLS]: We appreciate the information 

– no response necessary. 

266) Comment [71-Hunt-070426-PLS]: “Greener Plywood: Three kinds of 

plywood panels manufactured by Timber Products Co. reportedly meet or 

exceed requirements of the primary green building programs, including 

LEED. Green T Arreis is a MDF core product produced with a 

formaldehyde-free adhesive and 100% post industrial recycled wood 

fiber...” (Eco-Structure, April 2007). 

Agency Response [71-Hunt-070426-PLS]: We appreciate the information 

– no response necessary. 

267) Comment [71-Hunt-070426-PLS]: “Hardwood Plywood is Eco-friendly: 

Timber Products Co. has introduced its environmentally friendly line of 

Green T panels that meet requirements of the Sustainable Forestry 

Initiative, LEED and KCMA Environmental Stewardship Program, as well 

as federal and state requirements for HCHO emissions. The hardwood 
109

plywood panels are manufactured using an innovative, no-added urea 

formaldehyde resin” (Eco-Structure, April 2007). 

Agency Response [71-Hunt-070426-PLS]: We appreciate the information 

– no response necessary. 

268) Comment [71-Hunt-070426-PLS]: “FSC, Formaldehyde-free Flooring to 

Hit Market: Danville, Virginia-based Columbia Commercial Flooring plans 

to roll out formaldehyde-free, FSC-certified engineered hardwood flooring 

to the commercial segment in 2007. Available by special order at first with 

plans for a wholesale conversion of its engineered hardwood flooring plant 

in Danville, Columbia Commercial Flooring will market the flooring as 

PureBond, the brand created by parent company Columbia Forest 

Products, Portland Oregon” (Eco-Structure, April 2007). 

Agency Response [71-Hunt-070426-PLS]: We appreciate the information 

– no response necessary. 

269) Comment [112-Uhland-070426-CalAg]: “I’m telling you to make this point, 

that sustainable environmentally friendly manufacturing is not only socially 

responsible, but economically viable. As a side bar, this first CalAg plant 

will operate producing one-tenth of the air pollutants produced by a 

conventional wood-based MDF plant of similar size. And I’m not talking 

about HCHO emissions. By using 120,000 acres of rice straw each year, 

we’ll be preventing 120,000 tons of methane gas from being freely 

released into the atmosphere.” 

Agency Response [112-Uhland-070426-CalAg]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 

270) Comment [112-Uhland-070426-CalAg]: “As for product performance, 

CalAg MDF has exceeded wood-based MDF standards in every end use 

application everywhere MDF is used. This is molding, cabinetry, laminate 

flooring, millwork, office, home furniture, everything. To approve this, 

Metsil Panel Board, the world’s largest equipment supply company within 

the forest products industry, is guaranteeing with their balance sheet that 

this plant produce such a product. California currently consumes 

approximately 400 million square feet of MDF annually. Our plant will 

produce 150 million square feet representing approximately 30% of the 

California market.” 

Agency Response [112-Uhland-070426-CalAg]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 

271) Comment [113-Hooper-070426-HooperWolfe]: “The commercial design 

market is already driving the demand for low-emitting composite wood 
110

products. There are composite wood products out on the market that do 

meet their specifications, but there is not enough. And you have heard 

from some manufacturers earlier today that it’s a small niche. The 

commercial designers are struggling to find products to meet their 

specifications. This rulemaking will create a large number of products in 

which they can specify cost competitively.” 

Agency Response [113-Hooper-070426-HooperWolfe]: We agree – no 

response necessary. 

272) Comment [114-Fields-070426-Neil Kelly]: “... I’m one of those poor little 

cabinet makers everybody is trying to defend today. But I can tell you that 

we pioneered green and healthy cabinetry back in 1998. And our 

company is now seven times larger than it was before. We’ve signed up 

an OEM manufacturer down the street from us in Oregon, and I’m on my 

way to the east coast to find capacity there. We have never had in these 

nine years a warranty issue or health liability issue using the 

formaldehyde-free PureBond products and other alternative supplies 

available in my industry. The growth is absolutely phenomenal. And the 

suppliers of these materials are sitting in this room, some on the other side 

of the argument, which I have a hard time understanding why they 

manufacture and advertise those products and I’m making money at it. So 

there is some part of that argument we need to re-study.” 

Agency Response [114-Fields-070426-Neil Kelly]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 

273) Comment [114-Fields-070426-Neil Kelly]: “Neil Kelly has shown 

sustainable, environmentally friendly, and healthy cabinetry is not only 

feasible but readily available today. I urge the Board to impose the 

highest standards in pulling your timelines, and let’s get started fixing up 

not only California, but the rest of the United States as they follow your 

trail...” 

Agency Response [114-Fields-070426-Neil Kelly]: We agree – no 

response necessary. 

274) Comment [115-Hunt-070426-PLS]: “I just want to say that we have not 

had trouble in getting supply from most of the large companies. Most of 

the large companies that are making plywood today are also advertising 

they have formaldehyde-free products and they’re selling it to people like 

me...” 

Agency Response [115-Hunt-070426-PLS]: We appreciate the information 

– no response necessary. 
111

275) Comment [116-Gitt-070426-Build It Green]: “So there is immense demand 

for this product out there. I can speak to that, because we have our pulse 

on the ground of what’s going on in California. Talking with consumers 

directly, talking with architects and builders. We get hundreds – actually 

thousands of calls. We have a hot line. We have serviced over 5,500 

calls just in the last couple years of people asking for products such as 

this. And oftentimes, you know, there’s a few companies that are doing it. 

I found it interesting that a couple of companies here talking on the other 

side actually are selling compliant products today that meet the quality. 

Supervisor Hill asked a really relevant question earlier. Do you sell a 

product today that complies? And the answer was yes. If they’re selling 

product today, they’re meeting the quality standards in those issues that 

are there. They’re not having those kinds of quality problems. So you 

know, home builders, cabinet makers, manufacturers are to benefit by this 

regulation.” 

Agency Response [116-Gitt-070426-Build It Green]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 

276) Comment [118-Lent-070426-NA]: “In our green guide for health care, over 

110 pilot projects participated last year. In piloting this, three-quarters of 

them took the action of going no-added formaldehyde-free in the products 

they installed in their building. The concern is deep and wide for the 

issues that are raised by this action, and you’ll get a lot of support for 

doing it. Last year, in the course of just a couple of weeks, I circulated a 

letter of support for this action. In very short time, we had 84 

organizations sign on to that letter that was submitted to you earlier. 

These represented a wide range of industry and public support including 

56 firms that design, construct, and sell buildings. These are the users of 

these products that you’re about to regulate. They’re the ones that are 

going to pay the most for the cost of these regulations and they want to 

see the regulation happen.” 

Agency Response [118-Lent-070426-NA]: We appreciate the information 

– no response necessary. 

OUTREACH

277) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “... work with the U.S. Department 

of State, overseas embassies, and other appropriate organizations on an 

education campaign to inform foreign governments, foreign trade 

associations, and foreign laboratory testing facilities on the process to 

become an ARB-approved certifier...” 
112

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We agree that points 

raised by the commenter are appropriate. We will follow-up on as many 

opportunities as possible to provide information to offshore parties about 

the rulemaking. CARB staff visited China and Malaysia in fall 2007 to 

inform the Asian wood industry of the newly approved CARB 

formaldehyde regulation. In addition, fact sheets are available in five 

languages to assist in outreach efforts. 

278) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “... conduct training sessions for 

overseas auditors to bring these companies up to speed on the 

requirements of the ATCM...” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We agree that this would 

be helpful but cannot commit to undertake this work because we do not 

have the budget to do this. Furthermore, this training is likely better 

supplied by private companies who already currently provide product 

certification services. We do, however, respond to all public inquiries on 

the requirements of the ATCM routinely. 

279) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: “... translate the regulation and 

staff report into, at a minimum, Mandarin, French, Spanish, Portuguese, 

and Japanese...” 

Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: Fact sheets on the ATCM 

are now available in Spanish, English, Chinese, Portuguese, Indonesian 

and Russian. We will consider translating the final ATCM, but must be 

assured first that the translations accurately reflect the ATCM 

requirements. 

280) Comment [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: “It is likely that most air districts 

are unfamiliar with the technical aspects of the ATCM requirements, such 

as Japan F standards, HUD standards, ppm levels in raw vs. finished 

products, etc.” 

Agency Response [48-Zeldin-070425-CAPCOA]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate, and this is why CARB staff 

conducted focused outreach to districts via the California Air Pollution 

Officers Association to explain the ATCM requirements as they were 

developed. Additional outreach to the air districts will address a range of 

technical issues that may arise. 

281) Comment [86-Compton-070426-Hambro]: “One of the things we’ve been 

disappointed in is nowhere during the process of review and development 

of the proposal has anybody on the CARB staff contacted our company to 

discuss with us our experience, the results of these runs, nor our opinions 

on this issue. And yet, we’re a California based organization.” 
113

Agency Response [86-Compton-070426-Hambro]: We disagree. Hambro 

has participated in public workshops and we extended an open invitation 

to any stakeholder that wanted to share information or discuss issues with 

us. Until now, we have no record of Hambro contacting our staff or 

requests to meet with us on issues. 

282) Comment [97-Chaffin-070426-IWPA]: “... We did reach out to importers 

and ask questions about how this would affect them. We received 

resounding responses that even though they could over time meet the 

requirements with regard to HCHO levels, Phase 1 and Phase 2, the chain 

of custody, labeling, and the third party certification was indeed a difficult 

task. So we’ve asked the Board to spend some – direct the staff to spend 

some time talking to importers and overseas suppliers and get a realistic 

approach for that.” 

Agency Response [97-Chaffin-070426-IWPA]: We appreciate the 

information. We have had a number of meetings and conference calls 

with IWPA and will continue to work with the affected parties to educate 

them on the specific requirements of the ATCM. See also the responses 

to comments #33 and #143. 

RESIN TECHNOLOGY

283) Comment [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: “Alternative (non-formaldehyde based) 

adhesives are also available for the proposed regulated products in which 

formaldehyde is widely used. It is difficult to justify continued population 

exposure to formaldehyde at the levels contemplated in the proposed 

regulation in light of this fact and the carcinogen status of formaldehyde.” 

Agency Response [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. Alternative adhesives are 

available, but it will take time and additional testing to ensure a timely and 

effective transition to those adhesives on an industry wide basis. We did 

not accelerate, any further, with the exception of HWPW-VC, the effective 

date(s) of the standards to allow industry enough time to adequately test 

and assure that future compliant products would achieve the projected 

emission reductions and health benefits. Upon full implementation, the 

ATCM will achieve major reductions in formaldehyde emissions, especially 

in indoor settings, where people spend the major part of their daily lives. 

See also the response to comment #151. 

284) Comment [6-Harmon-070413-Hexion]: “... Given that California consumes 

about 10% of the products made with UF-based resins, this translates into 

about 300 million pounds to meet current market demands – not counting 
114

imports. There is not enough existing resin manufacturing capacity, 

especially among NAF sources, to replace this volume. Even converting 

existing UF manufacturing capacity to manufacture the performanceequivalent replacement amount of PF production would be highly unlikely 

in the timeframe allowed under the proposed regulation order...” 

Agency Response [6-Harmon-070413-Hexion]: We disagree. 

Manufacturers have several options for meeting the standards in the 

ATCM (see pages 101 to 106 in the ISOR). Currently, resin companies 

and research facilities are developing new resin systems for composite 

wood manufacturing which could offer the market even more choices (see 

pages 83-100 of the ISOR). For soy resins, Columbia Forest Products 

has offered to license its resin technology at a reasonable cost to any 

other supplier (see comment #230). Several polyvinyl acetate resins are 

currently available from Franklin International (see page 89 of the ISOR). 

285) Comment [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: “Can manufacturers meet more 

aggressive timelines? Yes... CARB regulations should boldly drive 

technology – giving businesses and consumers clear signals about 

California’s intention to lead in ridding the air of this carcinogen.” 

Agency Response [10-Higgins-070416-FFC]: We agree that some 

manufacturers can meet more aggressive timelines but many can’t. In our 

view, manufacturers of HWPW-VC are in the best position to make the 

technology-forcing changes in the ATCM and we have moved up the 

effective date of the Phase 2 standard for this product. See also the 

response to comment #151. 

286) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: “We question the wisdom of a 

regulatory approach that rewards unproven or questionable substitute 

adhesives, many of which have safety and health issues of their own... 

there have been reports of de-lamination problems from formaldehydefree soy substitute touted in several of the public workshops...” 

Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: We disagree. While not all 

of the resin formulations specified as “BACT” in the ISOR are being used 

on an industrial-scale, all have been used to either produce niche products 

(e.g., PVA and MDI) or share similar compositions to resins used to 

produce exterior grade products (e.g., PF or MUF resins). We are aware 

of workplace related safety issues associated with some of the products, 

but to our knowledge, for those products that have known safety concerns, 

occupational regulations assure worker safety. Moreover, all the 

substitutes would have significantly lower HCHO emissions, a known 

human carcinogen, after they were produced than products made with UF 

resins. We believe de-lamination occurs to some degree regardless of the 

resin system used and is a cost that all manufacturers must bear. There 
115

is no evidence to suggest that the rate of delamination of soy composite 

wood panels is any higher than typical UF based composite wood panels. 

287) Comment [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: “... Industry claims that these 

(low or no-formaldehyde resin) alternatives, which meet the CARB rule, 

are not readily available are not to be believed.” 

Agency Response [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: We agree. We believe 

that some are already available and some will take a few years to refine 

and mill test to meet the proposed Phase 2 standards. 

288) Comment [22-Whalen-0704020-Columbia]: “PVA-constructed fir/pine VC 

panels tested below the CARB phase II VC threshold of 0.03 ppm” 

Agency Response [22-Whalen-0704020-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 

289) Comment [22-Whalen-0704020-Columbia]: “UF bonded MDF with PVA 

decorative veneers also passed CARB Phase II CC threshold of 0.05 

ppm” 

Agency Response [22-Whalen-0704020-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 

290) Comment [22-Whalen-0704020-Columbia]: “Emissions levels could 

conceivably be driven lower by using PF-bonded plywood platforms and 

PF-bonded particleboard cores laminated with decorative veneers using 

PVA adhesives” 

Agency Response [22-Whalen-0704020-Columbia]: We agree. There are 

a variety of ways that plywood manufacturers could reduce their use of 

HCHO-containing resins to meet the emission standards. 

291) Comment [26-Stoler-070423-Boise] [27-Rush-070424-Temple Inland] [31-

Warberg-070424-Plum Creek] [32-Savage-070424-SeeMac] [33-

Wijnbergen-070424-Norbord] [37-Sein-070424-Rexcel] [40-Smith-070424-

Uniboard] [44-Julia-070424-CPA] [45-Gregory-070424-SierraPine] [46-

Gonyea-070424-Timber]: “...Simply put, soy adhesive technology is 

incompatible with MDF and is commercially unproven for particleboard.” 

Agency Response [26-Stoler-070423-Boise] [27-Rush-070424-Temple 

Inland] [31-Warberg-070424-Plum Creek] [32-Savage-070424-SeeMac] 

[33-Wijnbergen-070424-Norbord] [37-Sein-070424-Rexcel] [40-Smith070424-Uniboard] [44-Julia-070424-CPA] [45-Gregory-070424-SierraPine] 

[46-Gonyea-070424-Timber]: We disagree. On page 86 of the ISOR, 

Westcott and Frihart used a soy-PF resin to make oriented strand board 
116

and postulated that sprayable soy resins of this kind may have 

applications to producing low-emitting PB and MDF. There are reportedly 

PB and MDF products being made with the Ecobind soy/PVA resin (see 

pages 104-106 of the ISOR) and Columbia Forest Products reported the 

availability of Purebond particleboard in 2007 (see page 98 of the ISOR). 

See also comment #295. 

292) Comment [28-Maultsby-070424-FloPly]: Meeting the Phase 2 limits with 

its not-to-exceed levels basically says no HCHO may be added to the 

product.” 

Agency Response [28-Maultsby-070424-FloPly]: We disagree. There are 

advertised UF based resins with catcher systems that reportedly can be 

used to meet the Japanese F standard (see page 104 of the 

ISOR). These products could likely be used to meet the Phase 2 

standards. 

293) Comment [28-Maultsby-070424-FloPly]: “... The soy resin used by 

Columbia Forest Products has its limitations, especially for PB where it 

has not been proven. And even so, it is not available to other plywood 

manufacturers...” 

Agency Response [28-Maultsby-070424-FloPly]: Based on the work by 

Westcott and Frihart, we believe that sprayable forms of soy-based resins 

could potentially be used to make PB (see pages 85-86 of the ISOR). At 

the public hearing on 26 April 2007 in Sacramento, Columbia indicated 

their willingness to provide the PurebondTM technology to their competitors 

at a modest cost. In addition, other resin technologies can be used to 

meet the standards in the ATCM (see pages 103 to 105 of the ISOR). 

See also comment #295 and the response to comment #291. 

294) Comment [34-Keeling-070424-Roseburg]: “No suitable resin substitute is 

available to meet proposed standards... The reality of the situation is there 

is not enough phenolic, soy flour or PVA resin to satisfy current production 

levels under Phase 2 of the proposed ATCM...” 

Agency Response [34-Keeling-070424-Roseburg]: We disagree. Franklin 

International offers several types of PVA resins that could be used to meet 

the Phase 2 standards (see page 89 of the ISOR). At the April 26, 2007 

Board hearing, we heard from the United Soybean Board that there is an 

ample supply of soy to meet the needs of the wood products industry (see 

pages 108-110 of the transcript for the Board Hearing). In the case of 

phenol, a petroleum-based resin system, we have not heard that 

shortages exist or if there are concerns about supply in the coming years. 

In addition, with the inclusion of ULEF resin exemptions, their 
117

development may be accelerated to meet the Phase 2 emission standards 

(see page 75 of the ISOR). See also comment #295. 

295) Comment [35-Guay-070424-Columbia]: “... To the contrary, we are 

regularly moving railcar quantities of PB from our single PB mill in Canada 

to our HWPW mills and customers throughout North America... Several 

distributors and end users of those products will testify at the Board 

meeting Thursday about their satisfaction with the performance of our 

products.” 

Agency Response [35-Guay-070424-Columbia]: We appreciate your 

response on this issue. This addresses questions regarding the 

commercial utility of soy resins in the manufacture of PB. 

296) Comment [61-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: “Regrettably, some members 

of our industry have a high degree of resistance to the proposed ATCM 

and will go to great lengths to delay or derail it – already they have 

undertaken a campaign to actively discredit products made from nonformaldehyde-based resins. Their claims are simply false. The real 

question remains – if they are desperate enough to make these phony 

statements about our products, can you believe anything they say?” 

Agency Response [61-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: We have listened to 

stakeholders, conducted a survey and literature search – all sources were 

considered in the development of the ATCM (see Chapter II of the ISOR). 

297) Comment [63-Li-070426-OSU]: “... Wood composite panels bonded with 

our adhesive have excellent strength properties and excellent water 

resistance. Our soy-based adhesive is able to bond virtually all woody 

materials. It doesn’t matter whether these woody materials are in the form 

of veneer, particles, or fibers. For example, our soy-based adhesive can 

bond pine to pine very well while urea-formaldehyde resins cannot. Our 

soy-based adhesive is a very robust and versatile adhesive technology.” 

Agency Response [63-Li-070426-OSU]: We appreciate the comment – no 

response necessary. 

298) Comment [63-Li-070426-OSU] [108-Li-070426-OSU]: “I still remember 

what my department head told me about three years ago when we had (a) 

successful application of our soy-based adhesive in a mill scale. He said 

we would be very lucky if our adhesive technology could hold the 

technology advantage for five years. He was absolutely right. In less than 

three years, many wood composite panels bonded with other 

formaldehyde-free adhesives from different companies already flood the 

market. This tells you how fast the adhesive technology can be advanced 
118

and how well the wood composite industry can respond (to) CARB’s 

potential regulation on formaldehyde emission(s).” 

Agency Response [63-Li-070426-OSU] [108-Li-070426-OSU]: We have 

shown in the ISOR (pages 101 to 107) that the composite wood industry, 

manufacturers and resin producers, will be able to meet the standards in 

the recommended time frame using resin systems known today and under 

development. 

299) Comment [65-Royce-070426-Hercules] [110-Royce-070426-Hercules]: 

“This soy-based adhesive requires a curing agent which is well known, 

well understood, and has been widely used commercially for 50 years. 

Although, Hercules invented this curing agent, currently we are only one of 

several suppliers. The point here is that there is a readily available supply 

chain.” 

Agency Response [65-Royce-070426-Hercules] [110-Royce-070426-

Hercules]: We appreciate the information – no response necessary. 

300) Comment [65-Royce-070426-Hercules]: “These resins afforded the 

industry proven and well documented benefits, in terms of both paper 

properties and paper machine productivity gains that have gone far 

beyond simply the elimination of formaldehyde. We are seeing similar 

trends today in hardwood plywood, where again, these resins in 

combination with soy, are providing not only the elimination of 

formaldehyde, but also the potential to improve both board properties and 

plant productivity. Based on worldwide availability of these curing resins 

and their nearly 50 year history of widespread use and commercial 

acceptance, our industry is well positioned to meet the needs of the wood 

composite industry.” 

Agency Response [65-Royce-070426-Hercules]: We appreciate the 

comment – no response necessary. 

301) Comment [66-Mullen-070426-Hercules] [111-Mullen-070426-

Hercules]: ”Yes – Hercules soy-based adhesives can be successfully 

utilized. To date, we have produced over 15 million panels of decorative 

hardwood plywood that has been accepted commercially. Word is out and 

we receive numerous inquiries weekly from the global wood products 

community. Further development is underway to ensure that this 

technology can be transferred to particleboard and other composite panel 

segments.” 

Agency Response [66-Mullen-070426-Hercules] [111-Mullen-070426-

Hercules]: We appreciate the information – no response necessary. 
119

302) Comment [66-Mullen-070426-Hercules]: “Yes – we have developed and 

validated a 2nd generation adhesive that is sprayable and cost effective for 

the particleboard market. Commercial particleboard results are positive as 

we are close to meeting all performance targets. We are committed to 

achieving a minimal cost premium vs. UF.” 

Agency Response [66-Mullen-070426-Hercules]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 

303) Comment [66-Mullen-070426-Hercules] [111-Mullen-070426-Hercules]: “I 

want to very clear here. Contrary to the rumors, Hercules intends to make 

soy adhesive technology available to the entire global wood products 

market. Initial validation of the technology with a key industry leader was 

critical to insure its long term viability in this industry. With 23 production 

sites around the world, Hercules has more than enough capacity to handle 

our global customer needs, including China.” 

Agency Response [66-Mullen-070426-Hercules] [111-Mullen-070426-

Hercules]: We appreciate the information – no response necessary. 

304) Comment [73-Chappell-070426-Columbia]: “I also understand that various 

test results including Type I glue bond tests were submitted. This is totally 

inappropriate for a water resistant resin such as urea formaldehyde. 

Internal bond test or IB tests should be performed on this adhesive 

system.” 

Agency Response [73-Chappell-070426-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

information. We did not consider the test results for the reason suggested 

by the commenter. 

305) Comment [100-Harmon-070426-Hexion]: “I think something that we 

haven’t really gone into very much is what kind of resin product volumes 

are we talking about that are available in North America being used now 

and may come under impact by this proposed regulation. There’s around 

three billion pounds of UF resin and around five billion pounds of phenolformaldehyde resin. Depending upon how far this proposed regulation 

would domino, it could impact 10, 25 percent, I don’t know. Depends on 

the business response to it. Trying to replace that magnitude of product 

volume currently available with available manufacturing capacity and 

technology is truly a formidable undertaking, huge capital investments. 

Could be foreseen if there were a need to undergo a major shift.” 

Agency Response [100-Harmon-070426-Hexion]: We disagree. It is our 

understanding that the demand for composite wood product resins can be 

met by existing sources worldwide. Most likely, manufacturers will comply 
120

with the Phase 2 emission standards by using a combination of various 

NAF, ULEF or modified UF resin systems. 

306) Comment [104-Woods-070426-Columbia]: “So now there are at least four 

different non-UF resin approaches for hardwood plywood, all available in 

the marketplace today and all are Phase 2 compliant for veneer core 

hardwood plywood. So the CARB staff appropriately recognized this and 

moved Phase 2 implementation for veneer core hardwood plywood to 

January 2010. And we predict that the emission testing data that CARB 

will be collecting starting with Phase 1 will further motivate you to 

continually strengthen this long-awaited regulation...” 

Agency Response [104-Woods-070426-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

support and plan to monitor emissions data when it becomes available. 

307) Comment [109-Grabiel-070426-USB]: “Now, you’ve had testimony 

submitted into the record which tries to cast doubt on the availability of the 

soy beans as an alternative adhesive. I stand here to assure you that the 

amount of soybeans available is fully ample to supply these adhesive 

requirements. Manufacture of all composite wood panels with a soy 

adhesive would require 80 million bushels... Current U.S. production is 

3,200 million bushels. That’s over 3,000 million bushels a year. U.S. 

consumption is about 2,000 million, and the other 1,000 million is exported. 

In other words, only 8% of the exported beans would be required for the 

total adhesive market. So there is no shortage of soybeans to supply the 

adhesive market.” 

Agency Response [109-Grabiel-070426-USB]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 

308) Comment [110-Royce-070426-Hercules]: “The key point is that in the 

paper industry, this curing agent replaced both urea and melamine 

formaldehyde chemistry several decades ago, although the industry also 

dealt with similar change issues we’re looking at today. By the mid-1980’s, 

resins based on this curing agent had all but replaced UF resins in those 

markets for wet strength and paper at equal to or lower costs. Those new 

resins afforded the industry proven and well-documented benefits in terms 

of paper properties and paper machine productivity gains that have gone 

far beyond simply elimination of HCHO. We’re seeing similar trends today, 

even in the early stages. In hardwood plywood where these new resin 

systems in combination with soy are providing not only the elimination of 

HCHO, but also the potential to improve both water properties and plant 

productivity.” 

Agency Response [110-Royce-070426-Hercules]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 
121

309) Comment [110-Royce-070426-Hercules]: “Based on the worldwide 

availability of these curing resins and their nearly 50-year history of 

widespread use and commercial acceptance, our industry is well 

positioned to meet the needs of the wood composite industry...” 

Agency Response [110-Royce-070426-Hercules]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 

310) Comment [111-Mullen-070426-Hercules]: “... Hercules has 23 sites 

around the world with enough capacity to handle our global customer 

needs, including China. Hercules looks forward to our global reach to 

make an impact in California and the wood-based community...” 

Agency Response [111-Mullen-070426-Hercules]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 

SUPPORT FOR RULEMAKING

311) Comment [18-Smith-070419-S&F]: “Today, we produce a coconut palm 

flooring and panel good product with zero added formaldehyde and all our 

flooring and bamboo panels meet and exceed the phase II standards for 

HWPW proposed by CARB... In conclusion, we support and applaud 

CARB’s work in advancing the interests of a cleaner and healthier 

environment for our children and for generations to come.” 

Agency Response [18-Smith-070419-S&F]: We appreciate the support – 

no response necessary. 

312) Comment [20-Stensland-070420-NA]: “Given that there are no 

formaldehyde exposure standards in the U.S. for children, the proposed 

effort by CARB is a major move forward in the realm of prevention in 

children’s should be applauded.” 

Agency Response [20-Stensland-070420-NA]: We appreciate the support 

– no response necessary. 

313) Comment [30-Hardy-070424-Children Now]: “Children Now earnestly 

encourages CARB to put in place HCHO emissions reduction regulations 

as an overdue health prevention measure, to protect all people, including 

our children.” 

Agency Response [30-Hardy-070424-Children Now]: We appreciate the 

encouragement – no response necessary. 
122

314) Comment [35-Guay-070424-Columbia]: “... some of the flawed assertions, 

misrepresentations and outright falsehoods contained in the CWIC 

submittal dated April 23, 2007, require an immediate response.” 

Agency Response [35-Guay-070424-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

information on the accuracy of the comments from CWIC. 

315) Comment [50-Leverenz-070425-NA]: “... I expect that over time, the cost 

of HCHO free material will decrease as economies of scale and new 

technologies are developed, further benefiting the consumer. Stay with 

the highest and best standard. It ultimately is the best result for 

consumers, manufacturers and materials producers.” 

Agency Response [50-Leverenz-070425-NA]: We appreciate the 

information – no response necessary. 

316) Comment [54-Knox-070425-ACS]: “The Society believes that reducing 

exposure to HCHO is desirable and that reduced emissions will benefit 

public health. We support the proposed formaldehyde ATCM, and 

commend the Board for its actions to protect the health of all Californians.” 

Agency Response [54-Knox-070425-ACS]: No response necessary. 

317) Comment [57-Young-070425-NA]: “Please support the measure to reduce 

formaldehyde emissions.” 

Agency Response [57-Young-070425-NA]: No response necessary. 

318) Comment [58-Blicker-070425-NA]: “Do the right thing. Adopt the 

regulations to establish new low emitting standards. Thank you.” 

Agency Response [58-Blicker-070425-NA]: No response necessary. 

319) Comment [60-Cassman-070426-HBMVR]: “We have carefully reviewed 

the staff report and applaud the manner in which the CARB staff has ably 

and comprehensively addressed the applicable legal as well as the policy 

issues for this ATCM. We have submitted for the record a letter brief that 

reinforces the staff’s legal findings and demonstrates how the salient facts 

in the record support these findings.” 

Agency Response [60-Cassman-070426-HBMVR]: We appreciate the 

comments – no response necessary. 

320) Comment [61-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: “We believe that your staff 

report presents overwhelming evidence that the proposed ATCM is the 
123

right path for California’s future – achieving meaningful environmental 

benefits, with proven and readily-available technology.” 

Agency Response [61-Demorest-070426-Columbia]: We appreciate the 

comment – no response necessary. 

321) Comment [116-Gitt-070426-Build It Green]: “CARB under its legislative 

mandate, as you all know, has to impose the strictest regulations possible 

to limit and ultimately eliminate the dangerous and unnecessary toxics 

from kitchen cabinets and other composite wood products. That’s why 

we’re here today, and that’s what I’m urging you to do.” “I would urge the 

Board to actually shorten that time frame for implementation.” 

Agency Response [116-Gitt-070426-Build It Green]: We appreciate the 

support and have made a recommendation that we feel is technologyforcing and essential to reducing public exposure to formaldehyde. While 

we accelerated the compliance date for Phase 2 HWPW-VC, we did not 

believe it was appropriate to shorten the implementation for the other 

products. See also the response to comment #151. 

PUBLIC HEALTH

COST OF HEALTH CARE

322) Comment [19-Cooper-070420-Kaiser] [117-Cooper-070426-Kaiser]: “If we 

look at the larger picture and include the health care cost to the State as a 

whole in treating cancer patients and others whose condition may be 

impacted by their exposure to HCHO, then the cost of inaction is far 

greater to all of us. We urge CARB to adopt stricter guidelines for HCHO 

levels as this sets the climate for manufacturers to develop formaldehydefree alternatives that will be competitive in the marketplace. As a large 

purchaser in California, we can’t make this market change to safer 

materials without your support...” 

Agency Response [19-Cooper-070420-Kaiser]: We appreciate the 

comment – no response necessary. 

323) Comment [62-Whalen-070426-Columbia]: “Moreover, there is abundant 

evidence and testimony demonstrating that the cost to public health by not 

regulating this known carcinogen will be far greater and should be the 

primary concern.” 

Agency Response [62-Whalen-070426-Columbia]: We agree that the 

health risk from exposure to composite wood products is substantial. See 

pages 157-159 of the ISOR. 
124

324) Comment [101-Korthof-070426-NA]: “So what we’re really talking about 

here is the voided cost that these people are looking for -- the cheapest 

possible manufacturing are skirting. They’re avoiding the health care 

costs. They’re avoiding some of the other costs connected with the 

HCHO leaking. Now we’ve heard conflicting testimony that HCHO is good 

for you. It really isn’t that bad. Cancer isn’t such a bad thing. This is 

something you have to consider. But it’s clearly HCHO does not exist in 

nature in this same way. And I think it’s legitimately something you have 

to regulate. I think if it’s difficult to regulate, put more resources on it. This 

is the kind of thing we want the Board to do as the general public.” 

Agency Response [101-Korthof-070426-NA]: See the response to 

comment #323 and the health effects discussion in Chapter VII of the 

ISOR. 

HEALTH EFFECTS and RISK ASSESSMENT

325) Comment [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: It is difficult to justify continued 

population exposure to HCHO at the levels contemplated in the proposed 

regulation in light of this fact and the carcinogen status of formaldehyde. 

 Agency Response [2-Levin-070328-BERG]: We agree with the point 

raised by the commenter – no response necessary. 

326) Comment [4-Sherman-070409-NA]: I recently read an article in one of the 

trade journals (I will be happy to hunt this up and send it along to you, 

although I suspect you already have it) which contends that the average 

person emits more HCHO from his body than do all the wood products 

combined in his residence. I mention this, assuming it is true, as a point of 

interest and reference. 

 Agency Response [4-Sherman-070409-NA]: Many normal products of 

metabolism in plants, fungi, and animals are in fact toxic – being natural 

does not mean being non-toxic or even less toxic than synthetic chemicals. 

Furthermore, many toxic chemicals are also constituents of living systems 

including nickel, a known human carcinogen which happens also to be an 

essential trace nutrient. 

 Formaldehyde is indeed a natural constituent found in cells being 

produced during normal human intermediary metabolism, and as a result 

of certain disease processes such as lipid peroxidation. But HCHO is still 

a carcinogen and additional exposure should be avoided. Organisms 

have evolved ways to handle HCHO produced during intermediary 

metabolism to control the reactive compound in our cells. However, these 
125

protective mechanisms may be overwhelmed with exogenous HCHO from 

the air we breathe. In addition, it is recognized that some human disease 

such as cancer may result from our “carbonyl” body burden of which 

HCHO is a component. It should be noted that there are data to suggest 

that an elevated HCHO body burden may occur due to human disease 

states such as cancer and diabetes. 

 Formaldehyde in cells is mostly bound to a cofactor or enzyme during 

intermediary metabolism and is not free in the cell. Endogenously 

produced HCHO is in the aqueous phase and therefore hydrated 

(demonstrably less harmful than inhaled from external sources, although 

not necessarily harmless). In both cases, this is not chemically the same 

as free vapor-phase HCHO. Finally, most recent and reliable 

methodology indicates HCHO levels in breath in the low ppb range in 

healthy people: higher levels appear to be associated with disease states 

such as inflammation or cancer which enhance lipid peroxidation. The 

values from Moser (1.2 to 72.7 ppb; median = 4.26 ppb) for human breath 

are compared with values CARB has for conventional homes of 13.9 ppb 

on average, with the maximum greater than 200 ppb (Moser et al., 2005). 

327) Comment [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: “Last, but most importantly, we are 

extremely disappointed that CARB did not even evaluate the substantial 

and highly regarded new science that has been conducted around the 

world on formaldehyde – research that has been endorsed by regulatory 

officials around the world including by the USEPA and Health Canada. 

The research shows that there is virtually no risk to the population of 

California from industry products in the manner they are produced and 

used by consumers.” 

 Agency Response [7-Landry-070416-CWIC]: USEPA retains its original 

risk assessment as the official IRIS assessment. While their assessment 

is currently undergoing re-review, they have not in fact endorsed the 

model proposed by the Chemical Industries Institute of Toxicology (CIIT). 

Only one group in the USEPA has used CIIT’s model. The document by 

Health Canada was written in conjunction with CIIT and does not 

represent an independent assessment. OEHHA evaluated the CIIT model 

document as part of the established petition process and rejected the 

utility of the model for risk assessment due to model uncertainty (also see 

response to comment #341). 

328) Comment [8.1-Rose-070416-FCI]: Formaldehyde is a ubiquitous and 

natural constituent of all living systems, from bacteria and fish to rodents 

and humans. As such, HCHO is essential to basic metabolic processes 

and, as a consequence, is naturally present in the human body with blood 

concentrations of approximately 1-2 ppm and is a natural part of exhaled 

breath. Similar concentrations are found in monkeys and in rats. 
126

 Agency Response [8.1-Rose-070416-FCI]: Many normal products of 

metabolism in plants, fungi, and animals are in fact toxic – being natural 

does not mean being non-toxic or even less toxic than synthetic chemicals. 

Furthermore, many toxic chemicals are also constituents of living systems 

including nickel, a known human carcinogen which happens also to be an 

essential trace nutrient. 

 Formaldehyde is indeed a natural constituent found in cells being 

produced during normal human intermediary metabolism, and as a result 

of certain disease processes such as lipid peroxidation. But HCHO is still 

a carcinogen and additional exposure should be avoided. Organisms 

have evolved ways to handle HCHO produced during intermediary 

metabolism to control the reactive compound in our cells. However, these 

protective mechanisms may be overwhelmed with exogenous HCHO from 

the air we breathe. In addition, it is recognized that some human disease 

such as cancer may result from our “carbonyl” body burden of which 

HCHO is a component. It should be noted that there are data to suggest 

elevated HCHO body burden due to human disease states such as cancer 

and diabetes. 

 Formaldehyde in cells is mostly bound to a cofactor or enzyme during 

intermediary metabolism and is not free in the cell. Endogenously 

produced HCHO is in the aqueous phase and therefore hydrated 

(demonstrably less harmful than inhaled from external sources, although 

not necessarily harmless). In both cases, this is not chemically the same 

as free vapor-phase HCHO. Finally, most recent and reliable 

methodology indicates HCHO levels in breath in the low ppb range in 

healthy people: higher levels appear to be associated with disease states 

such as inflammation or cancer which enhance lipid peroxidation. The 

values from Moser (1.2 to 72.7 ppb; median = 4.26 ppb) for human breath 

are compared with values CARB has for conventional homes of 13.9 ppb 

on average, with the maximum greater than 200 ppb (Moser et al., 2005). 

329) Comment [8.2-Rose-070416-FCI]: Exposure of humans, monkeys or rats 

to HCHO by inhalation has not been found to alter the concentration of 

HCHO in the blood. 

 Agency Response [8.2-Rose-070416-FCI]: Alteration of the concentration 

of HCHO in blood after inhalation appears to be the case for the average 

effect, as shown by Heck and Casanova (2004) (i.e., cited by FCI in their 

comment letter of 16 April 2007). See also the response to comment 

#338. However, one would not expect inhalation of low levels of HCHO to 

affect systemic blood concentrations, and this is nowhere argued as a 

factor in the mechanism of the observed adverse health effects of inhaled 

HCHO. Formaldehyde traveling across the respiratory epithelium does 
127

damage to the cells lining the respiratory tract and does not need to be 

absorbed into the systemic circulation to damage the respiratory tract. 

 The estimation of the acute and chronic Reference Exposure Levels 

(cREL) determined by OEHHA were based on locally observed effects in 

the respiratory system after inhalation, not on systemic effects. In the 

summary of the non-cancer health effects of inhaled HCHO presented in 

the ISOR (pages 133 to 142), the focus was on local effects. 

330) Comment [8.3-Rose-070416-FCI]: Solid wood inherently emits very low, 

but detectable, HCHO because of natural metabolic processes in trees. 

Ignoring the scientific reality of endogenous chemicals and determinations 

by the USEPA, the World Health Organization (WHO) and European 

governments, the staff report concludes that “there is no known safe 

threshold exposure level for formaldehyde” (see p. ES-2 in the ISOR). In 

contrast, the WHO 2004 Guidelines for drinking-water quality sets a 

tolerable daily intake of 150 μg /kg of body weight, which would be 9,000 

μg for a person weighing 60 kg (123 pounds). USEPA’s Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) tabulated the dose-response 

values used in the risk assessment of hazardous air pollutants. OAQPS' 

chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment of exposure to HCHO is 5.5 

μg/m3

 x 10-9. Based on this unit risk factor, the benchmark ambient 

concentration for HCHO, a concentration representative of an additional 

lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 1,000,000 (1 x 10-6) is 0.1497 ppm (183 μg/m3). 

USEPA relied on a biologically based dose-response model (BBDR 

model) in its updated estimate of formaldehyde’s chronic inhalation risk for 

in the development of two rules issued under the Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. 

 Agency Response [8.3-Rose-070416-FCI]: The value for the unit risk 

factor mentioned herein is based on the unit risk factor developed by the 

CIIT Centers for Health Research (CIIT), not by USEPA. Although 

USEPA used the CIIT model in their recent MACT rule (a risk 

management measure), this is not currently accepted as a consensus 

value for risk assessment. Therefore, the assertion herein that it was 

developed by USEPA is incorrect. The USEPA’s current consensus unit 

risk value is 1.3 x 10-5 as published on IRIS. This number is much closer 

to (and slightly higher than) the Cal/EPA value for the potency of HCHO. 

The USEPA is officially re-evaluating HCHO, but a final reassessment is 

not expected to be completed for another two years. 

 There are major uncertainties in the predictions of the CIIT model 

depending on choice of input parameters (see response to comment 8.4). 

An extensive review of the strengths and weaknesses of that model by 

OEHHA was performed and reviewed by the Scientific Review Panel on 

Toxic Air Contaminants (SRP) in 2004, which led to the recommendation 
128

by the SRP not to change the California potency estimate. The California 

potency estimate is not a typical default model and OEHHA considered 

several model types, including inclusion of cell proliferation data. 

Publications since that date have not added significantly to the information 

provided in the (then unpublished) report considered in that review. 

 The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) recently 

reconsidered the status of HCHO and upgraded it to a Group 1 – known 

human carcinogen. The listing basis by IARC was nasopharyngeal cancer 

– not confined to the very specific site evaluated in the rat study and the 

CIIT model. Several other sites (especially lung cancer and leukemia) are 

also of substantial concern. Risks at other sites in the respiratory system 

(mechanistically plausible in humans due to different nasal geometry), and 

for leukemia raises the question of whether the CIIT model (which 

arbitrarily assumes a number of key parameters are the same in humans 

and rats, including the exact site of tumorigenesis) is relevant to human 

cancer risk. 

 Several of the citations of other national and international authorities 

endorsing the CIIT model are in fact quoting the same authors, and in 

some cases the same document, and are not independent or disinterested 

comments. 

331) Comment [8.4-Rose-070416-FCI]: The German Federal Institute for Risk 

Assessment (BfR) concluded in 2006: “Concerning the tumors in the 

upper respiratory tract, the steps in the induction of tumors are understood 

and include non-genotoxic mechanisms, which in the low concentration 

range are the most critical events. Hence, it seems well founded that a 

safe level can be derived despite the fact that genotoxicity also plays a 

role in tumor formation. Our analysis of the available human data suggests 

that a level of 0.1 ppm HCHO is “safe” for the general population.” A July 

2005 classification dossier prepared by France and lodged with the 

European Commission (EC Environment 2005) concludes: “In rats, tumour 

induction is associated with cytotoxicity and regenerative cell proliferation 

as a predominant feature with a clear threshold and it should therefore be 

noted that a threshold is also likely in humans.” Both the USEPA and 

WHO positions are consistent with and based on the leading and 

internationally-accepted model for formaldehyde cancer risk assessment 

(BBDR model), which predicts no additional risk of cancer risk from 

exposures of about 1 ppm. In stark contrast to this global consensus, the 

staff report claims that reductions from 16 or 42 μg/m3

 to 9 to 25 μg/m3 will 

reduce cancer. 

 Agency Response [8.4-Rose-070416-FCI]: Formaldehyde is a genotoxic 

known human carcinogen. With regard to the carcinogenicity of HCHO, 

the ISOR relied on IARC’s extensive review of the literature in their re-
129

evaluation of HCHO in 2004. IARC addressed all the arguments with 

regard to the current literature and use of current models and concluded 

that HCHO is a proven, known human carcinogen. 

 With regard to the model by CIIT mentioned in the response to comment 

#330, the model developed by CIIT does not assume a threshold but 

indicates a hockey-stick shape for the dose-response curve. The 

inflection point of the hockey stick is highly dependent upon assumptions 

that are not well characterized. Changing those assumptions changes the 

risks below 1 ppm by several orders of magnitude. These issues were 

considered at length by OEHHA in its evaluation of the petition by the 

Formaldehyde Epidemiology, Toxicology and Environmental Group in 

2002, and the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants 

endorsed OEHHA’s conclusion that CIIT’s model was not reliable for 

determining cancer risk at low exposure concentrations of HCHO. 

 The USEPA has not accepted this value as Agency consensus, contrary 

to the position portrayed in this comment. Furthermore, scientists at 

USEPA recently presented data at scientific meetings which supports our 

conclusion that the CIIT model has a very uncertain inflection point. 

 Environmental levels of HCHO are low but not zero (CARB measures up 

to about 5 ppb ambient – maybe a lot higher in buildings and vehicles) – 

so any substantial increment in ambient concentration of HCHO may be 

adverse. 

332) Comment [8.5-Rose-070416-FCI]: Regarding asthma and immune 

system effects, the ISOR (p. 134-135) continues to assume an association 

with low-level formaldehyde exposure. In doing so, it ignores conflicting 

comments submitted by OEHHA in 2004 on the draft indoor air report. 

 Agency Response [8.5-Rose-070416-FCI]: The comments submitted by 

OEHHA on the indoor REL are not in conflict with what is presented in the 

ISOR. The comments on the draft indoor air report point out to CARB that 

at the time of the draft report, the data on whether lower exposures to 

HCHO result in immune sensitization were limited. Thus, OEHHA 

suggested a change to a sentence in the indoor air report that was too 

definitive. There were a few reports in the literature and now more studies 

since the indoor air report was drafted suggesting that lower 

environmental exposure to HCHO may exacerbate response to allergens, 

increase atopy in children, exacerbate asthma symptoms, or result in 

formaldehyde-specific IgE (Wantke et al., 1996; Garrett et al., 1999; 

Smedje and Norback, 2001a; Rumchev et al., 2002). Thus, there is no 

conflict between the comments by OEHHA on the CARB’s indoor air 

report and what is in Chapter VII of the ISOR. 
130

333) Comment [8.6-Rose-070416-FCI]: The following end points and 

associated thresholds, which result from expert reviews, should be used. 

Sensory Irritation – The weight of the evidence supports a level of 0.75 to 

1.0 ppm. Skin Sensitization Threshold – As ATSDR (1999) concluded, 

exposure-response relationships for skin irritation and dermal allergic 

responses from acute exposure are well characterized (under patch 

testing conditions) in both normal and sensitized individuals, indicating 

that 1% solutions are not expected to be irritating to most people, and it is 

likely that dose-response relationships for dermal irritation from acute 

exposure may not be widely different from relationships for intermediate 

and chronic-duration exposures. Odor Threshold – The USEPA and 

ATSDR concluded that the odor threshold for HCHO is approximately 1 

ppm. 

 Agency Response [8.6-Rose-070416-FCI]: OEHHA developed acute and 

chronic RELs, which underwent public comment and peer review by the 

Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) before being 

adopted for use by OEHHA. These RELs are based on irritancy (acute 

REL) (OEHHA, 1999) and histological damage to the nasal epithelium 

(chronic REL) (OEHHA, 2000). Odor threshold is irrelevant to the 

development of a REL for HCHO. In addition, the sensory irritation 

threshold does not account for the tissue damage from long-term 

exposure to HCHO observed in workers, and this is not an appropriate 

endpoint to use in developing a REL for chronic exposure. 

334) Comment [8.7-Rose-070416-FCI]: Based on an estimated population of 

35 million people in California and OEHHA’s estimate of a reduction of 35 

cancer cases per million people over a 70-year lifetime, OEHHA’s 

estimated number of cancer cases prevented per year in California is 18. 

In contrast, using the cancer potency factors of the other agencies, the 

estimated number of cancer cases prevented per year in California ranges 

from 0.0005 to 0.008 (Table 1). In other words, the estimated time 

required to prevent one case of cancer in the entire population of 

California after implementing Phase 2 ranges from 125 to 2,000 years. 

OEHHA’s estimated cancer potency for HCHO is 2,250-36,000 times 

greater than that of the other agencies. Either OEHHA has greatly 

overestimated the risk or USEPA, Health Canada, WHO, and Australia all 

have greatly underestimated the risk. 

 Agency Response [8.7-Rose-070416-FCI]: As detailed in the responses 

to comments #330 and #331, several of the citations of other national and 

international authorities endorsing the CIIT model are quoting the same 

authors, and in some cases the same document, and thus are not 

independent or disinterested comments. 
131

 As mentioned in the response to comment #331, the USEPA has not, in 

fact, accepted this value as agency consensus, contrary to the position 

portrayed in these comments. Well respected scientists from the USEPA 

recently presented data at scientific meetings which supports our 

conclusion that the CIIT model has a very uncertain inflection point. See 

comments below on the cancer potency factor proposed by the FCI and 

CIIT (see also the responses to comments #340 and #341). 

335) Comment [8.8-Rose-070416-FCI]: FCI recognizes that there may be 

social values or preferences that support the reduction of HCHO 

emissions. For the purposes of these comments, FCI has not undertaken 

a comprehensive review of California law and precedent to determine 

whether the staff proposal could be justified in some other fashion under 

state law. We are certain, however, that the reasons articulated as the 

health bases for the current proposal arise from a skewed presentation of 

the scientific literature that cannot be reconciled with an objective review 

or accepted science. This, in turn, leads to an inaccurate, if not misleading, 

characterization of HCHO health risks. FCI does not expect any health 

effects, including cancer avoidance, pre-phase 1 or after phase 1 or 2. 

From a health-basis there are no differences in the proposed changes. 

FCI promotes good product stewardship and is aware of the large body of 

scientific literature indicating that HCHO exposure at sufficiently high 

levels can cause serious or severe acute and chronic effects. But, based 

on the vast differences between prevailing science on HCHO health 

effects and the positions presented in the ISOR, the Board should direct 

CARB staff to make extensive revisions to the ISOR so that it is consistent 

with current science and current risk assessment practices. The Board 

has an obligation to ensure that final agency decisions are based on a 

sound and objective evaluation of requisite quality and quantity. 

Agency Response [8.8-Rose-070416-FCI]: The health effects of exposure 

to formaldehyde were well documented in 1992 when the Board identified 

it as toxic air contaminant (TAC). The health effect findings from 1992 

were reaffirmed in 2005. Because of the health effects related to 

formaldehyde exposure, the Board approved the ATCM to require the use 

of best available control technology for composite wood products. As 

further background, the TAC Program is purposely divided into two 

phases. As defined by legislation (AB 1807; Tanner 1983) and regulations 

(Health and Safety Code section 39660 et seq.), the first phase involves 

identification of TACs, and the second phase evaluates necessary 

controls. 

 During the identification of TACs, OEHHA develops a risk assessment of 

the candidate TAC which undergoes public review and review by the 

Scientific Review Panel on TACs (SRP). The SRP evaluates the 

adequacy of the science behind the risk assessment. They reviewed and 
132

approved the CARB and OEHHA report initially in 1992, and again 

recently, following a petition by FETEG for re-review of the risk 

assessment, they approved OEHHA’s analysis and recommendation for 

denial of the petition. 

 Once a substance is listed formally in regulation as a TAC, the second 

phase of the TAC program applies. In the second phase, CARB adopts 

appropriate regulations, such as this ATCM, to control TAC emissions. 

Health and Safety Code section 39665 (5) requires that a report on the 

need for control discuss the magnitude of risks posed by the substance as 

reflected by the amount of emissions, and the reduction in risk which can 

be attributed to each ATCM. The risk assessment prepared in the first 

phase of the TAC program contains health values that are used by CARB 

staff in the second phase of the program to characterize the risk 

reductions which can be attributed to the ATCM as required by the Health 

and Safety Code. The review of the health effects and basis of the cancer 

potency estimate in the ISOR is provided as background on how 

estimates of risk are derived. It is not a formal reevaluation of the risk 

assessment prepared in the first phase of the TAC program that is the 

legal basis for a TAC listing. See also the response to comment #336. 

 

336) Comment [8.9-Rose-070416-FCI]: The only seeming consistency in the 

ISOR is that CARB staff appears to have actively sought to reach findings 

of adverse effects at any level. This is reflected, for example, in the 

ISOR's reliance on an outdated OEHHA assessment of carcinogenicity, 

while simultaneously rejecting OEHHA's comments that HCHO is not 

associated with asthma and immune effects at anticipated exposure levels. 

The differences between the prevailing science and the ISOR science 

rationale are so great that a rule based on such assumptions would be 

unscientific, arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. 

 Agency Response [8.9-Rose-070416-FCI]: OEHHA’s summary on the 

health effects of HCHO presented in Chapter VII of the ISOR are in 

accordance with the TAC risk assessment, which found no threshold for 

formaldehyde’s carcinogenic effects, and with current scientific literature, 

including the IARC (2004a, b) assessment of HCHO and recent 

publications on HCHO and asthma. 

 The comments submitted by OEHHA on the indoor REL are not in conflict 

with what is presented in the ISOR. The comments on the draft indoor air 

report point out to CARB that at the time of the draft report, the data on 

whether lower exposures to HCHO result in immune sensitization were 

limited. Thus, OEHHA suggested a change to a sentence in the indoor air 

report that was too definitive. There were a few reports in the literature 

and now more studies since the indoor air report was drafted suggesting 

that lower environmental exposure to HCHO may exacerbate response to 
133

allergens, increase atopy in children, exacerbate asthma symptoms, or 

result in formaldehyde-specific IgE (Wantke et al., 1996; Garrett et al., 

1999; Smedje and Norback, 2001a; Rumchev et al., 2002). Thus, there is 

no conflict between the comments by OEHHA on CARB’s indoor air report 

and what is in Chapter VII of the ISOR. 

337) Comment [8.10-Rose-070416-FCI]: Formaldehyde is one of the simplest 

biological forms of carbon. Even the most primitive organisms rely on 

HCHO as a one-carbon building block for the synthesis of more complex 

molecules. As a result of its importance in various metabolic processes, 

HCHO is naturally present in the human body with concentrations of 

approximately 1 to 2 ppm in the blood. Formaldehyde is exhaled in the 

breath, with studies suggesting that breath levels may range from the low 

parts per billion (1.2 to 72.7 ppb) to 0.3 to 1.2 ppm (Moser et al. 2005; 

Ebeler et al. 1997). 

 Agency Response [8.10-Rose-070416-FCI]: Formaldehyde, like many 

other toxic compounds, is indeed a natural constituent found in cells being 

produced during intermediary metabolism as well as during cell damage 

via lipid peroxidation. Formaldehyde in cells is usually bound to a cofactor 

or enzyme during intermediary metabolism and is not free in the cell. 

Likewise, it is not free HCHO in the blood but rather hydrated in solution. 

Organisms have evolved ways to handle HCHO produced during 

intermediary metabolism to control the reactive compound in our cells. 

However, these protective mechanisms may be overwhelmed with 

exogenous HCHO, especially via the inhalation route where the surface of 

the respiratory tract is directly impacted. In addition, it is recognized that 

some human disease such as cancer may result from our “carbonyl” body 

burden of which HCHO is a component. It should be noted that there are 

data to suggest elevated HCHO body burden due to human disease 

states such as cancer and diabetes. 

338) Comment [8.11-Rose-070416-FCI]: Due to the highly efficient activity of a 

variety of aldehyde dehydrogenase (ADH) enzyme systems, HCHO is 

rapidly metabolized. For example, blood was collected immediately 

following exposure of F-344 rats to 14.4 ppm of HCHO for 2 hours. Blood 

from eight unexposed rats served as controls. Analysis showed HCHO 

concentrations of 2.24 and 2.25 μg/g blood in exposed and controls, 

respectively (Heck et al., 1985). Formaldehyde concentrations in human 

venous blood from four males and two females were determined by 

analyzing blood samples collected before and after exposure to 1.9 ppm 

of HCHO for 40 minutes. Average HCHO concentrations before and after 

exposure were 2.61 and 2.77 μg/g blood, respectively. In neither rats nor 

humans was there a statistically significant effect of HCHO exposure on 

the average concentrations in the blood. 
134

 In a similar study, three rhesus monkeys were exposed to HCHO at 6 ppm 

(6 hours/day, 5 days/week for 4 weeks) and the HCHO concentration in 

the blood measured by gas chromatography - mass spectrometry (GCMS). The HCHO concentrations immediately after the final exposure in 

the three exposed and three unexposed animals were 1.84 and 2.42 μg/g 

blood, respectively. These results demonstrate that sub-chronic inhalation 

exposure of non-human primates to HCHO has no significant effect on the 

concentration in the blood, and that the average concentration of HCHO in 

the blood of monkeys is similar to that observed in human studies 

(Casanova et al. 1988). 

 California risk assessments should recognize and account for the status of 

substances that the body naturally generates and for which there are 

highly efficient detoxification pathways, in contrast to substances for which 

metabolic detoxification pathways are absent or limited. 

 Agency Response [8.11-Rose-070416-FCI]: Formaldehyde is a water 

soluble reactive compound and so is “scrubbed” by the tissues lining the 

respiratory passages. This is why cell damage occurs in the nasal 

epithelium in rodents and humans and further down the respiratory tract in 

humans (who are not as efficient in scrubbing HCHO from inhaled air as 

the rodent due to different morphology of the upper respiratory tract). 

Furthermore, examination of Heck’s data in Table 1A for individuals shows 

that following HCHO exposure, the changes in blood HCHO levels on an 

individual basis were -29%, +29%, +40%, -26%, +34%, 0% (Heck and 

Casanova, 2004) (i.e., cited by FCI in their comment letter of 16 April 

2007). Thus, due to individual variation, there may be substantial changes 

in blood HCHO for individuals following inhalation that are masked by the 

group average effect. In addition, the blood level analyses used GC-MS 

that reportedly measured free and reversibly bound HCHO. This method 

would not detect the HCHO bound to cellular macromolecules as stable or 

less reversible adducts. 

 In this paper, Casanova reports that there was significant variation in 

blood levels among monkeys. Again, the average response hides 

individual variability (Casanova et al., 1988). 

 Genetic and biochemical variability results in some individuals in whom 

the detoxification pathways are not highly efficient. Additional, exogenous 

HCHO further stresses detoxification pathways. Further, DNA protein 

cross-links (DPX) and DNA mutations seen in genotoxicity tests clearly 

indicate that not all HCHO is detoxified by aldehyde dehydrogenases. 

339) Comment [8.12-Rose-070416-FCI]: In the context of this rule making, it is 

worth noting that solid, untreated wood emits very low, but detectable, 

levels of HCHO because HCHO is a metabolism product that is naturally 
135

present (Meyer and Boehm, 1997). Thus, a value of “zero” cannot be 

attained for HCHO emissions from wood products. 

 Once HCHO enters the environment, it begins to break down through 

natural processes and does not persist or bio-accumulate (Chenier, 2003). 

From a regulatory and public policy perspective, it always is necessary to 

differentiate and recognize the relative importance of substances that are 

naturally occurring, biogenic chemical components, especially those that 

have multiple and highly efficient pathways existing for their conversion 

into a usable source. Such is the case with HCHO and its conversion to a 

carbon source, formate. Formaldehyde’s role in our environment is vastly 

different from substances that have no roles in normal metabolism and 

physiology. 

 Agency Response [8.12-Rose-070416-FCI]: The ATCM seeks to reduce 

HCHO emissions from composite rather than solid wood products. In 

addition, the ATCM does not seek to achieve a value of “zero”. 

 It is not clear to what environmental role for HCHO this comment refers. 

Many substances with normal roles in physiology are recognized as toxic 

at moderately higher levels (e.g., CO, Mn, and NO). Furthermore, formate 

is quite toxic and is the metabolite responsible for the ocular toxicity of 

methanol (see the responses to comments #328 and #329). 

340) Comment [8.13-Rose-070416-FCI]: Formaldehyde is one of the most 

studied chemicals, with literally hundreds of studies on metabolism, 

toxicity and effects in animals and humans. Formaldehyde is a wellknown sensory irritant to the eyes, nose, and throat. Controlled studies 

demonstrate that the general irritation threshold in a normal population is 

around 1.0 ppm. With the discovery in 1979 that HCHO caused nasal 

cancer in rats following lifetime exposure to very high levels, an extensive 

effort was undertaken, and continues today, to understand better the 

potential for similar effects in humans. After decades of serious study, the 

state of the science is robust. Highly regarded experts in the field of 

toxicology have concluded that HCHO is not likely to be carcinogenic to 

humans under low exposure conditions, specifically, those exposures that 

do not cause cytotoxic effects. Lacking sufficient evidence showing 

cancer in humans exposed to HCHO, assessors have historically made 

predictions of hypothetical cancer risk posed by low-dose HCHO exposure 

using the highly conservative linear multi-stage model and numerous 

default assumptions to extrapolate potential risks to humans from 

laboratory animal data. However, estimates of the risk of developing 

cancer as the result of exposure to HCHO have been lowered over time 

as new experimental data replaces default assumptions and mathematical 

models for extrapolating from animals to humans and high doses to low 

doses have become more sophisticated. Risk estimates associated with 
136

exposure to HCHO have continually decreased as scientific knowledge 

increased and newer, more complete scientific studies have become 

available. For example, for a lifetime exposure to 0.1 ppm, the 1987 and 

1991 USEPA risk value declined from 1.6 in 1,000 to 3.3 in 100,000. In 

1999, the BBDR risk assessment model estimated the risk from the same 

exposure to be 3.3 in 10,000,000. In other words, as the mode of action 

became better understood, the risk levels were adjusted to be consistent 

with this evolving body of knowledge. 

 Agency Response [8.13-Rose-070416-FCI]: Newer data have been 

reviewed recently by IARC. This widely-respected scientific agency has 

developed a system of classifying chemicals as to their carcinogenicity. 

Previous evaluations by IARC placed HCHO in the category of “probable 

human carcinogen”. The 2004 review resulted in upgrading the 

classification of HCHO to “known human carcinogen” (IARC, 2004a, b). 

This is different from the direction described by this comment. This 

comment only refers to the risk levels based on CIIT’s BBDR model, which 

is the model presented in the FCI petition to re-open the TAC risk 

assessment. As noted above in the response to comments #330, #331, 

#334, #336, #341, and #343, there is considerable model uncertainty. 

341) Comment [8.14-Rose-070416-FCI]: In promulgating the National 

Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Plywood and 

Composite Wood Products, the USEPA stated: We believe that the CIIT 

modeling effort represents the best available application of the available 

mechanistic and dosimetric science on the dose-response for portal of 

entry cancers due to HCHO exposures. The CIIT model incorporates 

state-of-the-art analysis for species-specific dosimetry, and encompasses 

more of the available biological data than any other currently available 

model. FCI supports this scientific decision by USEPA, which is also 

consistent with the USEPA position in the gas turbine MACT rulemaking. 

 The BBDR model has been accepted and used by several international 

and national standards-setting bodies and is widely respected. These 

widely respected organizations, listed below, draw heavily on the BBDR 

approach and several characterizations state that HCHO is likely to be 

carcinogenic in humans only at doses that cause cell proliferation, not at 

low doses. 

 The National Academy of Sciences (2004) endorsed the BBDR risk 

assessment, over USEPA’s 1987 Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS) number, in its review of indoor air contaminants on submarines. A 

subcommittee of the National Research Council (NRC) developed 

exposure guidance levels for HCHO (assuming an exposure of 24 hours 

per day for several weeks at a time). The report contains a thorough 

discussion of the literature discussing the relevant epidemiologic and 
137

toxicologic studies on HCHO, and, with regard to cancer endpoints, states, 

“The more recent CIIT assessment results in a theoretical cancer risk well 

below the U.S. Department of Defense “acceptable” risk level of 1 in 

10,000, even for a lifetime exposure at the 0.3 ppm 90-day continuous 

exposure guidance level (CEGL). The subcommittee concluded that the 

CIIT assessment more accurately reflects the scientific weight of the 

evidence for formaldehyde than does EPA’s approach.” (Emphasis 

added.) 

 In its review of HCHO under its Existing Chemicals program, the 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2002) 

issued a Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) Initial Assessment Report 

which stated: “The increasing severity of damage in higher concentrations 

is a function of the concentration. Another way of expressing this result is 

that HCHO toxicity is independent of the total dose (c x t) but that it 

depends on the dose rate [(c x t)/t = c] or concentration. This can be 

explained by saturation of detoxification pathways for HCHO at high 

concentrations. Strong non-linearity in the induction of cell proliferation, 

DNA-protein-cross-links, cytotoxic effects and carcinogenicity are 

observed (CIIT, 1999). The observed non-linearity is likely attributable to 

a large extent to mechanisms present in biological systems to deal with 

low levels of HCHO” (OECD, 2002). In sum, the report found that “[t]aking 

into account the extensive information on its mode of action, HCHO is not 

likely to be a potent carcinogen to humans under low exposure conditions” 

(OECD, 2002). OECD found no further research on human health was 

needed. 

 In an updated assessment of HCHO, Environment Canada and Health 

Canada stated that it considered the BBDR dose-response model “to 

provide the most defensible estimates of cancer risk, on the basis that it 

encompasses more of the available biological data, thereby offering 

considerable improvement over default” (Environment Canada and Health 

Canada, 2002). 

 In finalizing the Concise International Chemical Assessment Document on 

Formaldehyde (CICAD), the WHO (2002) relied on the BBDR cancer risk 

assessment for HCHO and concluded that HCHO exposure poses a 

carcinogenic hazard only under conditions that both induce toxicity and 

cause sustained regenerative proliferation. 

 Agency Response [8.14-Rose-070416-FCI]: As noted above, the current 

consensus value for cancer potency factor at USEPA is their unit risk 

factor of 1.3 x 10-5 as published on IRIS, consistent with and actually

higher than the value developed by OEHHA. OEHHA does not agree that 

the CIIT model is the appropriate model for estimating cancer risk to 

humans at low levels of exposure. USEPA scientists have further 
138

evaluated the CIIT model and express the same concern with the low 

dose predictions as noted by OEHHA. 

 The document by Health Canada was written in conjunction with CIIT and 

does not represent an independent assessment. OEHHA did not use a 

default model in our HCHO risk assessment. Rather our model evaluated 

some of the same parameters as CIIT, namely DNA-protein cross-links 

and cellular proliferation. Finally, as noted in the other responses (e.g., 

comments #331 and #335), both OEHHA and the Scientific Review Panel 

on Toxic Air Contaminants considered the CIIT model and rejected it as a 

basis for protecting public health. 

 Regarding WHO and the CICAD, CIIT wrote the risk assessment portion 

of the WHO (2002) report. It was not an independent assessment as 

implied by the comment. 

342) Comment [8.15-Rose-070416-FCI]: The German MAK Commission, 

which sets occupational exposure values, reviewed HCHO and concluded: 

“In the low dose range, which does not lead to an increase in cell 

proliferation, the Commission therefore considers that the genotoxicity of 

HCHO plays no or at most a minor part in its carcinogenic potential so that 

no significant contribution to human cancer risk is expected” (German 

MAK Commission, 2001). This conclusion is supported by the results of a 

risk assessment which, for persons exposed to concentrations of 0.3 

ml/m3 (0.37 mg/m3) at the workplace for 40 years, yielded a very low

additional cancer risk for non-smokers of 1.3 x 10-8 and for smokers of 3.8 

x 10-7 (CIIT, 1999; German MAK Commission, 2001). 

 In November 2006, the Australian National Industrial Chemicals 

Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) issued a final Priority 

Existing Chemical (PEC) Assessment Report on Formaldehyde.6 NICNAS 

was formed in 1990 to “provide a national notification and assessment 

scheme to protect the health of the public, workers and the environment 

from the harmful effect of industrial chemicals; and assesses all chemicals 

new to Australia and assesses those chemicals already used (existing 

chemicals) on a priority basis, in response to concerns about their safety 

on environmental grounds.” The formaldehyde PEC provides a summary 

of the BBDR model, on which the report relies.7

 

 Collectively, these applications of the BBDR risk assessment model reflect 

its broad, international acceptance among expert agencies. The results of 

the BBDR model and the human implications indicate that: (1) cancer risks 

associated with inhaled HCHO are de minimis (i.e., one in a million or 

less) at relevant human exposure levels, and (2) protection from the noncancer irritant effects of HCHO also should be sufficient to protect for any 

potential carcinogenic effects. There is widespread agreement in the 
139

scientific community that the BBDR model represents the future of 

biologically-based cancer risk assessment. Like any new methodology, 

particularly one with this degree of complexity, there are opportunities for 

improving the certainty of the modeled predictions. This is already 

underway with research to elucidate additional details concerning the 

mode of action of formaldehyde-induced tumors and developing better 

data for use in the model. The results of these studies, the most recent of 

which we discuss below, should result in even greater confidence that the 

BBDR model provides the best and most scientifically defensible 

methodology for determining whether HCHO poses an increased risk of 

cancer to humans at levels that are protective for its well-characterized 

irritant effects. 

 With input from USEPA, Health Canada, and peer reviewers, a team of 

researchers at the CIIT Centers for Health Research published a thorough 

evaluation of potential cancer risk from HCHO in 1999, incorporating over 

20 years of research and integrating various toxicological, mechanistic, 

and dosimetric data (CIIT, 1999). That evaluation was refined and 

restated in 2004. A list of references supporting or comprising the body of 

knowledge underlying the CIIT work appears at the end of these 

comments. 

 CIIT used the detailed understanding about how HCHO causes cancer in 

animals to construct a biologically-based model to describe these effects. 

Combined with the data on the similarities and differences between 

animals and humans, findings in animals can be extrapolated to humans 

with increased confidence. Biologically-based modeling greatly minimizes 

the need for the unfounded assumptions and uncertainties inherent in 

currently used regulatory approaches for carcinogens (i.e., the so-called 

no threshold model), which assumes (based on no data whatsoever) that 

cancer risk is linear to zero. The model developed by CIIT for 

formaldehyde-induced upper respiratory tract tumors is the best model to 

predict the doses of HCHO required to produce tumors in animals and in 

humans. 

 The most recent application of the BBDR model combines animal data 

with human respiratory tract cancer to smokers, non-smokers, and a 

mixed population of non-smokers and smokers to predict the likelihood of 

cancer occurring in humans at various levels of HCHO exposure. When 

the animal data were used in one way, the model predicted no additional 

risks of respiratory tract cancer up to about 1 ppm HCHO for all three 

cases. When the animal data were used in an even more conservative 

way, the estimate of additional cancer risk was up to 1,000 times less than 

estimates based on presently used methods for extrapolating animal data 

to humans. 
140

 Even when elevated breathing rates due to different levels of physical 

activity were put into the model (which could lead to increased uptake of 

HCHO), this did not make large differences in predicted additional risks. 

As shown below in Figure 1, the evolution of predicted cancer risks 

associated with exposure to 0.1 ppm HCHO for 6 hr/day, 5 days/week has 

dramatically decreased as the scientific basis for using the animal data to 

predict potential risks to humans has improved. The BBDR model shows 

that cancer risk is negligible until HCHO exposures reach levels 

associated with cytotoxicity and resulting cellular proliferation. Assuming 

80 years of continuous exposure to HCHO at 100 ppb, the BBDR model 

predicts an increased risk of developing cancer at 3.3 x 10-7 (i.e., 3.3 in 

10,000,000) for non-smokers, well below the one in a million risk level 

typically used by regulators to establish an acceptable level of exposure. 

The same model predicts a risk of 5.3 x 10-6 in smokers. 

 Agency Response [8.15-Rose-070416-FCI]: OEHHA evaluated the CIIT 

model document as part of the established petition process under the TAC 

Program. See the response to comment #335. The model used a more 

complex analysis of the likely carcinogenic dose-response based on 

analysis of deposition of HCHO in the rodent nasal cavity, and the role of 

DNA damage and cell proliferation. OEHHA reviewed the materials 

submitted by the petitioner and presented our conclusions to the Scientific 

Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants (SRP). The SRP declined to 

recommend reconsideration of OEHHA’s 1992 HCHO unit risk factor. 

This was largely due to the uncertainties in the model surrounding the 

HCHO concentration at which, according to the CIIT model, the unit risk 

“switched” from low to high. This modeled inflection point could vary 

considerably depending on the choice of some poorly characterized input 

parameters, and might reasonably be low enough that environmental and 

indoor exposures were in the “high potency” range. OEHHA concluded 

that this model was not adequate to protect public health. OEHHA 

reported that the model produced a dose-response that was flat at the 

low-end and that the model was flawed. This report was submitted to the 

SRP. The CIIT model was used by one group within USEPA, but there 

was not an agency consensus. Well respected scientists from USEPA 

recently presented data at scientific meetings which supports our 

conclusion that the CIIT model has a very uncertain inflection point and is 

therefore unsuitable for low dose risk estimation. 

 In addition, IARC states that some epidemiological and experimental 

studies indicate that different agents may act at different stages in the 

carcinogenic process, and several different mechanisms may be involved. 

The aim of the Monographs has been, from their inception, to evaluate 

evidence of carcinogenicity at any stage in the carcinogenesis process, 

independently of the underlying mechanisms. Information on mechanisms 

may, however, be used in making the overall evaluation. As mechanisms 

of carcinogenesis are elucidated, IARC convenes international scientific 
141

conferences to determine whether a broad-based consensus has 

emerged on how specific mechanistic data can be used in an evaluation of 

human carcinogenicity. 

343) Comment [8.16-Rose-070416-FCI]: In a state-of-the-art, three-week 

inhalation study at CIIT that was sponsored by FCI, F344 rats were 

exposed to provide information on the time-course and concentration 

dependence of genomic changes produced by HCHO in tissues of the 

upper respiratory tract of the rat. Exposures were conducted at three 

concentrations plus controls. The concentrations mirrored the lower 

concentrations in the Monticello study (0.7, 2.0, and 6.0 ppm) to provide 

further biological information concerning the pathology changes that begin 

at the upper end of this dose regime. Genomic evaluations (four animals 

per concentration/time point) were conducted at four time-points: 6 hours, 

24 hours (6 hours plus 18 hours recovery), 5 days, and 19 days. The initial 

genomic evaluation focused on respiratory and transitional epithelium from 

the anterior nose, the region of the highest tumor frequency. 

 The CIIT study was intended to provide initial information on doseresponse trends for genes or gene families and to associate these 

changes with toxicity, metaplasia, and proliferation in these nasal tissues. 

The following points summarize the preliminary findings of the CIIT study. 

A longer-term study (sub-chronic, 90-day) is expected to be conducted in 

2007 at CIIT to link this short-term work with the results from the 2-year 

Monticello results. 

 Gene changes were noted for a variety of genes at the 6 hour, 5-day and 

19-day sampling times for some, but not all dose levels. The pattern of 

gene transcription changes and the groups of genes significantly affected 

by exposure differed markedly for the four sampling times. Immediately 

after the first exposure, up-regulation (i.e., increased activity) and downregulation (decreased activity) was noted for many genes at 6 ppm, while 

only a few genes showed changes at 2 ppm, and there were no gene 

changes observed at 0.7 ppm. At 6 ppm, up-regulation was observed for 

a gene associated with oxidative stress signaling and a gene associated 

with inflammatory signaling, while down-regulation was noted with several 

kinase and phosphatase genes. At the 24 hour sampling time, 

representing an 18 hour recovery after a single 6 hour exposure, no 

evidence of any gene change was noted at any concentration. 

Immediately after the exposure on day 5, there were more changes in 

genes at the 2 ppm exposure level than at 6 ppm. Again, no changes 

were observed at 0.7 ppm. A preliminary gene ontology analysis showed 

significant enrichment in genes associated with cell adhesion (i.e., the 

ability for cells to stay together). Positive trends were also seen for 

several genes involved in the degradation of the extra-cellular matrix and 

the inflammatory response. The changes in cell adhesion and 
142

inflammatory signaling genes are likely reflections of cellular alterations 

associated with adaptive responses and tissue toxicity. Immediately after 

the exposure on day 19, response trends were consistent with those 

observed after the first exposure. No statistically significant gene changes 

were observed at either 0.7 ppm or 2 ppm, while significant gene changes 

were again observed at 6 ppm. 

 This research represents a first attempt to evaluate the genomic 

alterations occurring upon single and repeated exposures to HCHO in the 

rat. While a more robust analysis (i.e., 90-day sub-chronic) is being 

planned to better understand these changes in relation to toxicity, 

proliferation, and metaplasia, this initial study shows a pattern of changes 

in a variety of genes and gene families. In this preliminary evaluation, 

pathological changes were restricted to the 2 ppm and 6 ppm 

concentrations and primarily consisted of inflammation and hyperplasia, 

with some squamous metaplasia observed at the highest concentration. 

The three types of endpoints show relatively consistent dose-response 

gene expression patterns for the 3 week exposure period evaluated, with 

no changes noted at 0.7 ppm, primarily transient changes at 2 ppm, and 

more notable changes at 6 ppm. 

 In summary, the results of this study of genomic changes indicate a highly 

concentration and time dependent response. An immediate response in a 

number of genes was observed at 6 ppm, and a similar response was still 

observed after 3 weeks suggesting that cells had adapted to this exposure 

concentration. In contrast, the response at 2 ppm was highest after one 

week of exposure, but was no longer observed at 3 weeks. No consistent 

genomic responses were observed at 0.7 ppm at any time point 

suggesting a clear biological threshold for formaldehyde-related effects.9

 Agency Response [8.16-Rose-070416-FCI]: Genomics provide a 

potentially useful tool to look at mechanism of action (although to a large 

degree, this is still under development), but not to determine levels that 

produce effects. Also, these studies were done in rats and require 

extrapolation to humans. Furthermore, changes in gene transcription 

following acute exposure do not suggest a clear biological threshold for 

HCHO effects or whether or not hyperplasia may occur at chronic low 

levels of exposure. 

 This report (i.e., CIIT (1999) cited by FCI in their comment letter of 16 April 

2007) describes rates of transcription of genes into RNA. As such it 

probably represents the activity of genes involved in adaptive responses 

and repair following tissue damage by inhaled HCHO. Although 

interesting from the biological point of view this does not appear to add 

any new information for risk assessment purposes beyond what has 

already been learned from the earlier histological and cell proliferation 
143

data. Many of the same limitations (sensitivity, limited time scale of 

treatment and lack of follow-up over longer time periods) apply. Further, 

the study does not translate into a “threshold” for biological activity as the 

reported changes in gene expression are quite removed from tumor 

formation, and says nothing about responses following chronic exposure 

in humans. 

344) Comment [8.17-Rose-070416-FCI]: The German Federal Institute for Risk 

Assessment (BfR) prepared a Toxicological Assessment of Formaldehyde 

in 2006. While FCI does not endorse the entire analysis, the conclusions 

in BfR (2006) are noteworthy. Concerning the tumors in the upper 

respiratory tract, the steps in the induction of tumors are understood and 

include non-genotoxic mechanisms, which in the low concentration range 

are the most critical events. Hence, it seems well founded that a safe 

level can be derived despite the fact that genotoxicity also plays a role in 

tumor formation. Our analysis of the available human data suggests that 

a level of 0.1 ppm HCHO is “safe” for the general population. The 

proposed level of 0.1 ppm is 2-fold lower than the level derived from 

animal data by applying appropriate safety factors. In the literature, a 

physiologically based model has been reported which has been applied to 

the animal data. From the reported calculations and their extrapolation to 

the human situation a level of 1 ppm, 10 times the level proposed by us, 

was considered to be safe. Therefore, the recommended level of 0.1 ppm 

seems to be a conservative estimate. 

 A classification dossier prepared by the Toxicology Unit of INRS (France) 

for the Commission of the European Communities Environment (DG 

XI)[Classification and Labelling of Dangerous Substances 

(ECBI/38/05)(July 2005)](EC Environment 2005) also conflicts with the 

conclusion of the ISOR with regard to the question of whether a threshold 

exists for toxicological effects from HCHO exposure. With regard to animal 

data, the dossier states (italics added): Experimental results and 

mechanistic data therefore support a threshold type dose-response for 

induction of nasal tumours with regenerative cell proliferation being the 

predominant feature in the carcinogenic process. The mechanism of 

tumour induction through chronic persistent irritation, cytotoxicity and 

regenerative proliferation is clearly identified. Finally, there is no 

convincing evidence of a carcinogenic effect at distant sites or via other 

routes of exposure. 

 With regard to human and animal data, the dossier concludes that: tumors 

are only found at the site of direct contact (i.e. in the nasal tissue of rats), 

nasal tumors were only significantly increased in rats, in mice there was 

no significant response and in hamsters no tumors were observed at all, 

and tumor formation after inhalation exposure to HCHO only occurs at 
144

doses with massive cytotoxicity leading to a clear increase in regenerative 

cell proliferation. 

 With regard to the mode of action and its relevance for humans, such as 

mutagenicity, cytotoxicity with growth stimulation, tumors are only to be 

expected at dose levels with massive cytotoxicity in conjunction with 

growth stimulation (regenerative cell proliferation) and mitogenesis. Such 

high doses cannot be tolerated by humans under any realistic conditions 

because such irritation will not be tolerated. This threshold identified in 

animals and by mechanistic experiments is also likely to be operative in 

humans. “In rats, tumour induction is associated with cytotoxicity and 

regenerative cell proliferation as a predominant feature with a clear 

threshold and it should therefore be noted that a threshold is also likely in 

humans” (p. 43, italics added). 

 Non-genotoxic chemicals such as chloroform have had mode of action 

(MOA) risk assessments completed (Golden et al., 1997; Lipscomb and 

Kedderis, 2006). A challenge in the risk assessment of HCHO has been 

to understand how best to perform a dose-response assessment of a 

chemical that has both inflammatory or cytotoxic and mutagenic or 

clastogenic properties. Traditional approaches to risk assessment 

separate these endpoints for non-cancer versus cancer evaluation. 

However, for HCHO, the MOA is likely dependent on, and secondary to 

the cytotoxicity of the chemical. For chemicals such as HCHO, an 

appropriate assessment is based on systems biology and a detailed 

understanding of the biochemical events leading to toxicity, which 

describes and relies on a common MOA to integrate the various observed 

endpoints of toxicity. The MOA approach can serve as a platform to 

harmonize approaches to non-cancer and cancer toxicity at the point of 

contact (i.e., no significant entry into the body). The harmonized risk 

characterization is based on an evaluation of the dose-response 

continuum and relies on epithelial changes that have recognized 

prognostic value for more overt toxicity and that should be recognized as 

sentinel information, applicable to both cancer and non-cancer effects. 

These observations are necessary to conclude that a sufficiently robust 

understanding of the mode of action exists, based upon the explicit criteria 

spelled out in USEPA’s most recent guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment (USEPA, 2005). 

 Agency Response [8.17-Rose-070416-FCI]: OEHHA evaluated the CIIT 

model document as part of the established petition process under the TAC 

Program. See also the responses to comments #327, #330, and #331. 

The model used a more complex analysis of the likely carcinogenic doseresponse based on analysis of deposition of HCHO in the rodent nasal 

cavity, and the role of DNA damage and cell proliferation. OEHHA 

reviewed the materials submitted by the petitioner and presented our 
145

conclusions to the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants 

(SRP). The SRP declined to recommend reconsideration of OEHHA’s 

1992 HCHO unit risk factor. This was largely due to the uncertainties in 

the model surrounding the HCHO concentration at which, according to the 

CIIT model, the unit risk “switched” from low to high. This modeled 

inflection point could vary considerably depending on the choice of some 

poorly characterized input parameters, and might reasonably be low 

enough that environmental and indoor exposures were in the “high 

potency” range. OEHHA concluded that this model was not adequate to 

protect public health. OEHHA reported that the model produced a doseresponse that was flat at the low-end and that the model was flawed. This 

report was submitted to the SRP. The CIIT model was used by one group 

within USEPA, but there was not agency consensus. Well respected 

scientists from USEPA recently presented data at scientific meetings 

which supports our conclusion that the CIIT model has a very uncertain 

inflection point and is therefore unsuitable for low dose risk estimation. 

 In addition, IARC states that some epidemiological and experimental 

studies indicate that different agents may act at different stages in the 

carcinogenic process, and several different mechanisms may be involved. 

The aim of the Monographs has been, from their inception, to evaluate 

evidence of carcinogenicity at any stage in the carcinogenesis process, 

independently of the underlying mechanisms. Information on mechanisms 

may, however, be used in making the overall evaluation. As mechanisms 

of carcinogenesis are elucidated, IARC convenes international scientific 

conferences to determine whether a broad-based consensus has 

emerged on how specific mechanistic data can be used in an evaluation of 

human carcinogenicity. 

345) Comment [8.18-Rose-070416-FCI]: Additionally, HCHO is naturally 

produced and an important component of various metabolic processes. As 

a result, it is a constituent of living systems, from bacteria and fish to 

rodents and humans. Because there are naturally evolved, highly efficient 

detoxification pathways to manage HCHO, it should be assessed 

differently than an agent that has no role in normal metabolism and 

physiology. Standard risk assessment methodology does not account for 

this important distinction. In contrast, the BBDR risk assessment model, 

used by USEPA in the plywood MACT, overcomes this limitation. This 

biologically-based model has garnered broad recognition from national 

and international expert agencies as the best available science for 

evaluating the chronic health effects of HCHO. Risk assessments should 

recognize the biochemical and physiological implications of substances 

that are naturally generated in the body and for which highly efficient 

metabolic pathways have evolved. 
146

 Agency Response [8.18-Rose-070416-FCI]: As mentioned above, HCHO, 

like many other toxic compounds, is indeed a natural constituent found in 

cells being produced during intermediary metabolism as well as during cell 

damage via lipid peroxidation. Formaldehyde in cells is usually bound to a 

cofactor or enzyme during intermediary metabolism and is not free in the 

cell. Likewise, it is not free HCHO in the blood but rather hydrated in 

solution. Organisms have evolved ways to handle HCHO produced during 

intermediary metabolism to control the reactive compound in our cells. 

However, these protective mechanisms may be overwhelmed with 

exogenous HCHO by the inhalation route. In addition, it is recognized that 

some human disease such as cancer may result from our “carbonyl” body 

burden of which HCHO is a component. It should be noted that there are 

data to suggest elevated HCHO body burden due to human disease 

states such as cancer and diabetes. 

 With respect to the use of CIIT’s BBDR model, for reasons mentioned 

earlier (see responses to comments #330 and #331), OEHHA concluded 

that this model was not adequate to protect public health. While the 

USEPA used this model in their recent MACT rule, it was not used to 

develop their current consensus risk value. The model was used to 

identify low risk facilities which would be exempt from the MACT rules. 

However, the USEPA was sued regarding the use of the CIIT model and 

lost the lawsuit. An analysis of the CIIT model by scientists at USEPA 

notes that the model has a very uncertain inflection point that substantially 

affects the dose-response curve making the model unsuitable for 

predictions at low doses. 

346) Comment [8.19-Rose-070416-FCI]: There is a robust database on the 

dose-response characteristics of HCHO induced sensory irritation. 

Reviews of the HCHO literature have noted that the most sensitive 

endpoints reported are for eye and upper respiratory tract irritation 

(USEPA/NAC, 2003; Arts et. al., 2006). A concentration of 1 ppm appears 

to be the approximate threshold for complaints of symptoms ranging from 

none to mild to moderate with no clear concentration-response 

relationship or increase in complaints among exposed subjects compared 

with controls. 

 For example, a study in asthmatics (Harving et al., 1990) found no 

association between subjective ratings of sensory irritation and increasing 

HCHO exposures at concentrations of 0, 0.01, 0.1, and 0.69 ppm. 

USEPA/NAC (2003) identified 0.9 ppm as the highest exposure 

concentration at which the responses of subjects whose eyes were 

sensitive to formaldehyde were not significantly different from controls. 

Even at 3 ppm, however, the majority of subjects reported only mild 

(typically defined as present but not annoying) to moderate (annoying) 

irritation. 
147

 Agency Response [8.19-Rose-070416-FCI]: The ISOR summarizes some 

of the sensory irritation effects of HCHO (pages 134-135). Sensory 

irritation is irrelevant to consideration of the non-cancer health effects of 

concern, which are based on histological changes in the upper respiratory 

tract, not sensory responses. In determination of a cREL for the noncancer effects of HCHO, irritation was not used as the endpoint of concern. 

Short-term experiments do not provide adequate information on long-term 

chronic effects of HCHO exposure. Sensory irritation and odor threshold, 

although important, are not relevant to OEHHA’s derivation of a cREL for 

HCHO (OEHHA, 2000). 

 The discussion of sensory irritation in the comments from FCI revolves 

around articles developed for the purpose of evaluating and setting 

occupational standards of workers to avoid moderate eye irritation. 

Occupational standards are not relevant to community exposures due to 

the presence of children, the elderly, etc., in the general population. 

OEHHA agrees that sensory irritation is a sensitive endpoint. OEHHA is 

concerned with the protection of sensitive subpopulations, including 

children and asthmatics. Other studies have also reported complaints of 

irritation at doses less than 1 ppm. ATSDR (1999) reported at 

concentrations as low as 0.4 ppm sensory irritation was observed in 

humans. Several studies, including Gorski et al. (1992) showed 

respiratory or irritative properties of HCHO at 0.4 ppm. Arts et al. (2006) 

states “In literature, a concentration as low as 0.24 ppm has been reported 

to be irritating to the respiratory tract in humans.” 

 Beyond the irrelevancy, chamber studies are insensitive due to small 

sample size, population selection (not necessarily sensitive people in the 

sample), inability to evaluate prior and concurrent exposure which is 

important in a community setting, and inability to evaluate longer term 

exposures. 

 Most importantly, the threshold for changes in the nasal epithelium in 

workers exposed to HCHO appears to be lower than the alleged sensory 

threshold. Nasal epithelial damage occurs in long-term occupational 

exposures, and sensory irritation is not relevant to this endpoint. It should 

be noted that many irritants including HCHO are not only sensory irritants 

but also cause tissue damage. Sensory irritants can also cause irritation 

via other mechanisms and can damage tissue. Finally, HCHO is not 

purely a sensory irritant. 

347) Comment [8.20-Rose-070416-FCI]: In only one study, again in asthmatics 

at 3 ppm, did any subject rate the eye irritation as severe (1 of 180 

subjects) (Sauder et al., 1987). This same study (Sauder et al., 1987) 

illuminates why well conducted studies are necessary in order to properly 
148

understand and quantify the irritant properties of HCHO. In this study, 22% 

of subjects exposed to air containing no HCHO reported eye irritation, and 

33% reported nose or throat irritation. Such a large incidence of false 

positive reporting would likely have an influence on any study for which it 

was not accounted. 

 Agency Response [8.20-Rose-070416-FCI]: The study by Sauder et al. 

(1987) had only 9 subjects, not 180 as indicated in this comment. Thus, 

one person out of nine indicating severe eye irritation is a much larger 

proportion of the responses than one in 180 would be. While it is true that 

false positives may be a concern in studies of this size and nature, given 

the confusion in the comment, it is not clear how the mentioned 

percentages of false positives were derived. 

348) Comment [8.21-Rose-070416-FCI]: Many of the controlled inhalation 

studies included potentially sensitive individuals. These studies either 

excluded less sensitive individuals (e.g., those without complaints of eye 

irritation at 1.3 to 2.2 ppm or smokers) or focused on potentially sensitive 

individuals (e.g., asthmatic individuals and those with formaldehyderelated contact dermatitis or previous HCHO sensitivity). As summarized 

by USEPA/NAC (2003), Bender (2002), and Paustenbach et al. (1997), 

the results of these studies indicate that sensitive individuals might 

experience eye irritation at 1 ppm. 

 Below 3 ppm, the chemical appears to be rapidly eliminated in the upper 

airways, because asthmatics (who normally react to mid-and lowerrespiratory airway irritants) engaging in moderate exercise showed no 

decrements in several pulmonary function parameters when exposed at 

concentrations up to 3 ppm. Thus, asthmatics exposed to airborne HCHO 

at exposure concentrations at or below 3 ppm do not appear to be at 

greater risk of suffering airway dysfunction than non-asthmatics. In 

addition, the short-term chamber studies indicate that adaptation or 

accommodation to irritation can develop over time (NRC, 2004). These 

studies support that HCHO irritancy does not follow Haber’s law 

(concentration x exposure time = response) for extrapolating between 

short-term and long-term time periods. Generally, concentrations that do 

not produce short-term sensory irritation also do not produce sensory 

irritation after repeated exposure. Consequently, conventional safety 

factors applied to a non-cancer risk assessment for HCHO are 

unnecessary. 

 Agency Response [8.21-Rose-070416-FCI]: OEHHA agrees that HCHO 

does not follow Haber’s Law. The comments by FCI argue that sensory 

irritation does not follow Haber’s Law and consequently non-cancer risk 

assessment should not use conventional safety factors for HCHO. 

Sensory effects do not follow Haber’s law over periods of more than a few 
149

minutes at most. But histological damage does, and histological damage 

is the basis for OEHHA’s chronic REL. 

349) Comment [8.22-Rose-070416-FCI]: There are several explanations for 

reported eye irritation levels by HCHO below 1.0 ppm, the primary one, 

however, is associated with the substance’s odor. Formaldehyde has a 

pungent odor and the odor of HCHO is detected and/or recognized by 

most human beings at concentrations below 1.2 mg/m3 (1 ppm) (IPCS, 

1989). In general, odor detection is not regarded as a toxicologically 

relevant endpoint -- annoyance does not represent a sensory or 

psychological effect, but rather a psychological discomfort from the 

presence and increasing concentration of an odor (Arts et al., 2006b). 

 Foul odors are detected by both olfactory and trigeminal stimulation. The 

olfactory stimulation relays messages to the brain using the first cranial 

nerve for odor perception while trigeminal stimulation is responsible for 

sensing the ocular and nasal irritation of a chemical using the fifth cranial 

nerve (Paustenbach and Gaffney 2006). In other words, olfactory 

receptors detect odor threshold, while trigeminal nerve endings in the 

cornea and nasal mucosa signal sensory irritation thresholds in the eyes 

and upper respiratory tract, respectively. Olfactory receptors respond to 

chemical stimuli usually at lower concentrations and with greater 

selectivity than do the trigeminal endings and are responsible for the 

discrimination of different odorous substances (Arts et al., 2006b). 

Although anatomically distinct, both pathways help people to distinguish 

and characterize inhaled air. 

 Studies have shown that even a pure odorous substance, lacking any 

trigeminal stimulation, elicited reports of sensory irritation (van Thriel, 

2006). For the majority of chemicals, odor has a zero correlation with 

actual exposure risk, but odor may have a substantial correlation with 

perceived exposure risk. However, as Paustenbach and Gaffney (2006) 

note: “detection of odors by workers may tap into the person’s aversions 

to unpleasant odors, in general.” Because the vast majority of volatile 

chemicals stimulate the olfactory system at concentrations well below that 

at which they will elicit trigeminal activation, the evaluation of irritation from 

volatiles is often confounded by the perception of odor (Arts et al., 2006b). 

Formaldehyde is not an irritant at its odor threshold; however, much of the 

public immediately perceives the substance and its odor as harmful, which 

strongly influences individuals to indicate irritation where only odor exists. 

Thus, the results of measurements of sensory irritation can strongly be 

biased by subjective feelings and interpretations, in many instances 

caused by the odor of the compound. Therefore, the perception of odor 

intensity is an important factor that must be considered when evaluating a 

substance for an occupational exposure limit, especially substances that 

like HCHO have odors perceived as unpleasant. 
150

 Agency Response [8.22-Rose-070416-FCI]: OEHHA recognizes the 

perception of foul odor as an “effect”. Detection of foul odor may lead to 

other irritant effects even if the discomfort is psychologically-induced. In 

addition, patho-physiological effects have been seen in response to odor 

(e.g., by pregnant women and for other chemicals like H2S). OEHHA does 

not disagree that odor perception is distinct from trigeminal nerve 

stimulation. OEHHA is not using odor perception or odor threshold to set 

a cREL. 

 Occupational standards are not used to set standards for the general 

public, which includes infants and children, the elderly, pregnant women, 

ill people and more sensitive individuals. Occupational standards are 

recognized to protect some but not all workers and are set at higher risks 

than environmental standards for the general public. Also, in an 

occupational setting, workers may be less likely to complain and may be 

“acclimated” to odor or irritation from low doses (1 ppm or less) of HCHO. 

350) Comment [8.23-Rose-070416-FCI]: Several expert reviews have been 

conducted of the HCHO literature relating to sensory irritation. Based on 

the reviews by the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research 

Council (NRC, 2004), Arts et al. (2006), Bender (2002), and Paustenbach 

et al. (1997), the weight of the scientific evidence demonstrates that the 

threshold for HCHO sensory irritation of the most sensitive endpoint (i.e., 

eye and respiratory tract irritation) is in the range of 0.75 to 1 ppm. 

(a) NRC (2004): In reviewing the exposure of U.S. Navy personnel in 

submarines to several different contaminants, a subcommittee of the NRC 

developed exposure guidance levels for HCHO (assuming exposure for 24 

hours per day for several weeks at a time). The report contains a 

thorough discussion of the literature on the relevant epidemiologic and 

toxicologic studies on HCHO, and concludes: A concentration of 1 ppm 

appears to be the approximate threshold between complaints of 

symptoms ranging from none to mild to moderate with no clear 

concentration-response relationship or increase in complaints among 

exposed subjects compared with controls (subjects exposed to clean air) 

and definite symptoms of discomfort in a number of exposed subjects. 

(b) Arts et al. (2006a) : Arts et al. (2006a) evaluated literature related to 

critical health effects of HCHO exposure including sensory irritation and 

the potential to induce tumors in the upper respiratory tract. The authors 

reviewed the subjectively measured sensory irritation threshold levels in 

humans and compared this with findings obtained in animal experiments. 

In addition, a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis of sensory irritation was 

used to estimate response incidences at different HCHO concentrations. 

The BMD method used by the authors takes all individual data into 
151

account by means of a curve based on all the data points.12 Arts et al. 

concluded that: when minimal/mild/slight irritation, which is still not 

annoying, is taken as a cut off level, eye and nasal irritation were found at 

HCHO levels of ≥ 1 and ≥ 2 ppm, the minimal/mild/slight irritation level 

would be ≥ 3 ppm HCHO for throat irritation, whereas levels of up to 3 

ppm did not result in dyspnoea (chest tightness/discomfort) or cough.13 

The authors were sensitive to the challenge of setting appropriate 

exposure levels based on sensory irritation. Because human perception 

of sensory irritation can be influenced strongly by subjective feelings and 

interpretations, the authors contend that it would be better to base the 

sensory irritation threshold on objective measurements. In the authors’ 

view, the only study that reported objectively measured eye irritation (but 

not nasal irritation), viz. an increase in eye blinking frequency at a 

concentration of 1.7 ppm HCHO (Weber-Tschopp et al., 1977), is in line 

with minimal/mild/slight eye irritation reported at levels of 1 ppm and 

higher. It was noted that the increase in eye blinking frequency was not 

doubled yet at 3.2 ppm (Weber-Tschopp et al., 1977). Collectively, Arts et 

al.’s review leads to the conclusion that: “Sensory irritation is first 

observed at levels of 1 ppm and higher. From both human and animal 

studies it was concluded that at airborne levels for which the prevalence of 

sensory irritation is minimal both in incidence and degree (i.e. < 1 ppm), 

risks of respiratory tract cancer are considered to be negligibly low. 

(c) Bender (2002): Bender (2002) reviewed whether human sensory 

irritation data found in controlled/chamber studies and workplace studies 

are sufficiently robust for use in establishing a Reference Concentration 

for HCHO. Bender (2002) determined that chamber studies provided the 

highest quality data for determining the presence of eye, nose or throat 

irritation at a known level of HCHO. Chamber studies show that 

individuals began to sense eye irritation at about 0.5 ppm HCHO; 5% to 

20% reported eye irritation at about 0.5 to 1 ppm, and greater certainty for 

sensory irritation appeared at 1 ppm or greater. Bender et al., also 

evaluated reports of eye irritation among controlled studies, and found that 

it is not unusual to have a 20 to 30% response rate for eye, nose, or throat 

irritation associated with controls. Bender et al. concluded that sensory 

irritation at levels below 1 ppm is often difficult to distinguish from effects 

that occurred in controls. 

(d) Paustenbach et al. (1997): Paustenbach et al. (1997) represents the 

results of deliberations of this panel of experts convened to review the 

literature on sensory irritation. The expert panel reviewed approximately 

150 published scientific articles and concluded that the most sensitive 

adverse effect of HCHO is eye irritation. Eye irritation “does not become 

significant until a concentration of at least 1.0 ppm is reached, and, based 

on most studies, for most people this level of irritation rapidly subsides. 
152

Moderate to severe eye, nose, and throat irritation does not occur until 

airborne concentrations exceed 2.0 to 3.0 ppm. 

 According to the expert panel, the weight of the evidence showed that 

reports of irritation below 0.3 to 0.5 ppm HCHO were too unreliable to 

attribute the findings solely to HCHO. Specifically, response rates below 

20% were assumed to be too near the background level of irritation 

among the general population to be able to attribute that level of response 

to exposure to a specific contaminant. In response to studies that showed 

irritation response at concentrations below 0.1 ppm, the panel explained: 

“it is likely that this level of response was attributable to other 

environmental factors, the background incidence of eye irritation, selfselection bias, or the effects of interviewer interaction.

(e) IRSST (2006): The Québec Institute of Research Robert-Sauvé en 

santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST) recently completed a thorough 

evaluation on the Impacts of a Lowering of the Permissible Exposure 

Value to Formaldehyde: Impacts of Formaldehyde Exposure on Health. 

IRSST is a private, non-profit scientific research organization known for 

the quality of its work and the expertise of its personnel. The Board of 

Directors is composed of an equal number of trade union and employers' 

representatives. With respect to the issue of sensory irritation, this 

evaluation critically considered all available studies with the notable 

inclusion of a rigorous dose-response analysis of the available data. 

Unlike other evaluations, based on pre-established criteria, this analysis 

considered sensory irritation effects (e.g., eye irritation, moderate and 

severe, and moderate nose and throat irritation), the percentage of 

workers who might experience such effects, and most importantly, the 

associated dose-response relationships. 

The relationship between acute HCHO exposure and the appearance of 

effects was established based on the collection of all rough data from 

each of the studies considered to have a degree of confidence moderately 

high to high. Hence, these studies are all led in a controlled setting. 

Moreover, the effects selected for the establishment of a dose-response 

relationship are the irritating effects to the eyes and airway mucosa (nose 

and throat) as well as perception of odor. These effects are most 

frequently reported following an acute exposure to HCHO suggesting that 

they are the critical effects (those that appear with the lowest 

concentrations). 

 For each of the controlled studies, the number of subjects presenting 

irritating effects, according to the class of exposure and the severity of the 

effect, was listed. The degree of exposure was fractioned into six distinct 

classes: from 0 to < 0.3 ppm, from 0.3 to < 0.75 ppm, from 0.75 to < 1.0 
153

ppm, from 1.0 to < 2.0 ppm, from 2.0 to < 3.0 ppm, and > 3.0 ppm (which 

in fact combined the exposures between 3.0 and 4.0 ppm). 

 By combining the data from the different controlled studies, a global doseresponse relationship was established. More specifically, the total number 

and the proportion of subjects presenting irritating effects by type of 

effects, severity of effects and class of exposure were compiled in the 

form of a table by adding the numbers of the different studies. This data 

allowed the creation of dose-response curves where the background noise 

value, that is to say the frequency of irritations in the absence of exposure, 

was subtracted. 

 The conclusions of the IRSST review are noteworthy. Our analysis 

indicates that, for concentrations less than 0.75 ppm, the frequency of 

irritation in workers exposed to HCHO was about the same as the one 

observed in individuals without occupational exposure. This means that 

appearance of irritation at such concentrations can hardly be associated 

with occupational exposure to HCHO. For concentrations between 0.75 

and 3 ppm, the estimated proportion of workers who may experience 

moderate irritating effects to the eyes, nose, and throat, attributed to 

HCHO is between 1.6 and 14.9%. 

 Agency Response [8.23-Rose-070416-FCI]: Occupational standards are 

not used to set standards for the general public, which includes infants 

and children, the elderly, pregnant women, ill people and more sensitive 

individuals. Occupational standards are recognized to protect some but 

not all workers, and are set at higher risks than environmental standards 

for the general public. OEHHA recognizes these previous reviews have 

been performed and have taken into account information found therein. 

However, OEHHA relies on primary sources of peer-reviewed literature in 

its non-cancer health risk assessments. 

 With regard to the National Research Council (NRC) paper mentioned in 

the above comment, Navy personnel are less likely to complain and may 

be able to withstand more odor or irritation because of their training, 

especially those trained to spend months at a time on submarines. They 

may be acclimated to the many odors found on submarines. Also, Navy 

personnel on submarines would be of much better health than a “normal” 

person, and therefore, are not an adequate sample of the general 

population. The studies mentioned above are of occupational exposure 

and do not include infants, children, and pregnant women. 

 The conclusions by Arts et al. (2006) are based on only one paper found 

in the “historical” literature, which qualified to them as an “objective” 

endpoint (eye blinking frequency). This one study (Weber-Tschopp et al., 

1977) had the limitation that 1 ppm was the lowest dose used. Therefore, 
154

a conclusion that sensory irritation was first observed at levels of 1 ppm 

and higher is erroneous, if lower doses were not tested. In addition, Arts 

et al. (2006) states, “...there is not a large discrepancy between 

subjectively reported symptoms and objectively measured nasal sensory 

irritation.” In any event, the observation of sensory irritation at these levels 

is not particularly relevant given that hyperplasia has been reported in 

exposed workers at about 0.26 mg/m3

 (0.2 ppm) in studies by 

Wilhelmsson and Holmstrom (1992), and Edling et al. (1988). This effect 

is the basis of the OEHHA cREL. 

 With regard to the comments on chamber studies mentioned in the 

Bender review section above, it should be noted that chamber studies 

typically involve healthy individuals, and so, won’t detect effects on 

sensitive members of the population. In addition, chamber studies are 

insensitive due to small sample size, population selection (not necessarily 

sensitive people in the sample), inability to evaluate prior and concurrent 

exposure which is important in a community setting, and inability to 

evaluate longer term exposures. 

 The purpose of the analyses by Paustenbach et al. (1997) and IRSST 

(2006) was to set occupational exposure limits. OEHHA seeks to protect 

the general public, including sensitive subpopulations, and occupational 

standards are not appropriate to use for the general public. In the 

introduction to the summary of health effects in the ISOR (pages 133-134), 

OEHHA states that studies have reported the irritant properties of HCHO 

at 0.25 to 1.39 ppm, not to concentrations below 0.1 ppm. Further, the 

FCI comments footnote 24 states “Paustenbach notes that 1 ppm for 15 

minutes was meant to prevent moderate eye irritation in 75% of workers”. 

This would be totally inappropriate to apply to the general population for 

longer term exposures. 

351) Comment [8.24-Rose-070416-FCI]: While odor is not a toxicological effect, 

we mention odor because it is sometimes confused with sensory irritation, 

particularly in self-reporting studies or evaluations. The odor threshold for 

HCHO is approximately 1 ppm. 

 In its toxicological profile for HCHO, the ATSDR (1999) states that the 

odor threshold for HCHO in humans has been reported to be 1 ppm, but 

others have noted that it may range as low as 0.05 ppm. ATSDR then 

describes the odor threshold as 0.5 to 1.0 ppm. 

 USEPA (1988) concluded that the odor threshold for HCHO is 0.83 ppm. 

 Agency Response [8.24-Rose-070416-FCI]: The odor threshold is 

irrelevant to the determination of OEHHA’s cREL to protect public health. 
155

See also the response to comments #333, #346, and #349 with regard to 

the issue of odor threshold. 

352) Comment [8.25-Rose-070416-FCI]: Total Daily Formaldehyde Exposure 

as the Basis for Risk Assessment (Page 132). Average and Elevated 

Formaldehyde Concentrations (Page 132). While exposure assessments 

appear in the ISOR, FCI does not address the validity of exposure 

assessments in these comments. We note, however, that in Table VII-1, 

the 46.7 ppb figure for the high end is doubtful. Additionally, the 17.2 ppb 

under conventional homes only accounts for newly built homes, which 

artificially inflates the exposure amounts. There is no discussion of 

concentrations in an average home. More important, however, is the use 

of significant number assumptions in the table that give the illusion that 

these concentrations represent precise measurements when they do not. 

 Agency Response [8.25-Rose-070416-FCI]: The values referred to in this 

comment are reported in Table VII-1 of the ISOR as 17.2 μg/m3 and 46.7 

μg/m3

, respectively for average and elevated HCHO concentrations. The 

average value is based on concentrations measured in both newly built 

and existing homes. The elevated value represents the average 

concentration measured in newly built homes reported in Sherman and 

Hodgson (2003). Maximum formaldehyde concentrations in new homes 

have been reported in the 200 ppb range (CARB, 2005). These 

concentrations are based on published results in agency reports and peerreviewed journals; thus, we believe that they are accurate representations 

of what average and elevated formaldehyde concentrations in a home 

would be. 

353) Comment [8.26-Rose-070416-FCI]: Health Effects Values for 

Formaldehyde (Page 133). The reference to potential immune function 

effects is accompanied by few references and should be rewritten with a 

broader review of the literature. This section has semi-quantitative 

language, "very low doses" that are simply not useful. The concentrations 

should be supplied. Are these case reports? The information in this 

section is scant. 

 Agency Response [8.26-Rose-070416-FCI]: The Chapter in the ISOR on 

health effects is meant to be a summary and not a comprehensive review 

of all the literature on formaldehyde (see pages 133 to 155). In addition, 

immunological effects are not the focus of our summary and were not the 

basis for determining OEHHA’s cREL. 

354) Comment [8.27-Rose-070416-FCI]: Health Effects in Humans (Page 133). 

In this section, the references stop at 1994. As mention in the first section 

of these comments, there are several good papers since that time that are 

available. This section should be updated. The problems with this section 
156

are common throughout. Without controlled studies, the cited outcomes 

have little probative value and lack the scientific rigor necessary for 

regulation. 

 Agency Response [8.27-Rose-070416-FCI]: The last sentence of this 

section on studies pertaining to the health effects in humans cites a 

number of studies that are more recent than 1994 (Wantke et al., 1996; 

Smedje et al., 1997; Garrett et al., 1999; Smedje and Norback, 2001a; 

2001b; Delfino et al., 2003). There are other examples throughout the 

document (Franklin et al., 2000; Kriebel et al., 2001; Rumchev et al., 2002; 

Erdei et al., 2003; Arts et al., 2006). See also the response to comment 

#335. 

355) Comment [8.28-Rose-070416-FCI]: Respiratory Effects and Irritation – 

Acute Exposure (Page 134). Regarding asthma and immune system 

effects, the ISOR fails to address comments by OEHHA in its 2004 

comments to CARB on the draft indoor air report. OEHHA commented 

that "our understanding of the data is that HCHO is not associated with 

non-occupational asthma. Although the literature is inconsistent, most 

occupational health scientists would say that high occupational exposures 

are needed to see formaldehyde-specific asthma." In another section of 

comments, OEHHA goes on to say: "There is little evidence that allergic 

sensitization occurs at typical indoor exposures. Any statement on 

sensitization should be qualified by indicating that sensitization has been 

described following relatively high occupational exposures." OEHHA also 

states that "we do not support the statement that concentrations above 27 

ppb might result in initiation of an immune response in a sensitive 

individual. The scientific evidence for initiation of immune response at 

levels below workplace exposures is not strong." The ISOR should be 

revised to reflect the OEHHA position or provide a well-articulated basis 

for a differing conclusion. 

 The presentation on eye irritation and uncertainty development is not used 

by the rest of the world or by the NRC (2004). The ISOR basically says 

that irritation occurs at ambient levels in the home based on calculations. 

This calculated "finding" is not supported by empirical data. 

 Average exposures are not very useful unless average and peak 

exposures are basically identical. In some of the referenced studies, the 

average concentrations are around 0.2 ppm while peaks can go higher 

than 20 ppm. The existing knowledge regarding the mode of action for 

these end points makes the discussion of averages useless. 

 Agency Response [8.28-Rose-070416-FCI]: With respect to comments 

OEHHA made to CARB on the draft indoor air report, the comments 

submitted by the OEHHA on the indoor REL are in fact not in conflict with 
157

what is presented in the ISOR. The comments on the draft indoor air 

report point out to CARB that at the time of the draft report the data on 

whether lower exposures to HCHO result in immune sensitization were 

limited. Thus, a change was suggested to a sentence in the draft indoor 

air report that we felt was too definitive. There were a few reports in the 

literature and now more studies since the indoor air report was drafted 

suggesting that lower environmental exposure to HCHO may exacerbate 

response to allergens, increase atopy in children, exacerbate asthma 

symptoms, or result in formaldehyde-specific IgE (Wantke et al., 1996; 

Garrett et al., 1999; Smedje and Norback, 2001a; Rumchev et al., 2002). 

Thus, there is no conflict between the comments by OEHHA on the CARB 

draft indoor air report and what is in Chapter VII of the ISOR on health 

effects. However, OEHHA recognizes there was a typographical error and 

the above quote should read, “below 27 ppb”. 

 Regarding eye irritation, the NRC uses an approach different from 

OEHHA’s since they are addressing emergency exposures and military 

situations. In the context of ambient HCHO levels in the home, in the 

ISOR, OEHHA makes no explicit claim regarding the occurrence of eye 

irritation at these levels. 

356) Comment [8.29-Rose-070416-FCI]: This section has semi-quantitative 

language, such as "very low doses" (page 135) that is not useful. The 

concentrations should be supplied. Are these case reports? The 

information in this section is scant. 

 Agency Response [8.29-Rose-070416-FCI]: Contrary to the assertion of 

the use of semi-quantitative language, the next sentence after the mention 

of “very low doses” states “(e.g., 0.3 ppm)”. Concentrations used in the 

individual studies are reported in the ISOR clearly. 

357) Comment [8.30-Rose-070416-FCI]: Green et al. (1987) is used to claim 

that there are lung function deficits at 3 ppm; however, there are other 

papers that show no change in normal or asthmatics at 2 ppm. There are 

better conducted studies then Green et al. (1987) and the ISOR needs to 

review the literature with less bias. 

 Occupational Exposures (Pages 137-138). This section on irritancy 

studies in workers has the same problems as the preceding home studies. 

On what basis does one isolate an irritant response for HCHO in pulp mill 

workers? There is an unstated assumption that HCHO is the only potential 

occupational irritant at these locations, which is obviously untrue. 

 The report references Srivastava et al. (1992), which reported worker 

complaints of a variety of problems that the workers attributed to 

occupational exposure to HCHO concentrations estimated to be 0.03 
158

mg/m3 in air as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) and described as 

0.025 ppm in the ISOR. First, we note that the reported exposure levels 

are near those associated with ambient air rather then occupational 

settings. The exposure levels raise a question as to whether this study 

really assesses responses to occupational exposure to HCHO. Second, 

the type of self-reporting involved in this study may be helpful in preparing 

for objective research, but these subjective evaluations are unreliable. 

CARB must consider biological consistency and probability in reviewing 

papers reporting on subjective self-evaluations. The reported symptoms 

include respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and cardiovascular 

problems, suggesting some other agent than HCHO, assuming that the 

self-evaluations are accurate. The references to this study should be 

deleted from the ISOR. 

 The draft report referenced Gorski and Karkowiak (1991) and summarized 

that study as "showing no significant association between HCHO 

exposure, pulmonary function (FVC, FEV1 and PEF) in normal or 

asthmatic workers, and occurrence of specific IgE antibodies to HCHO" 

(Draft ISOR at 136). Rather then comparing and contrasting to other 

studies that show health effects at doses where none should be expected, 

the ISOR deletes the reference to this study altogether in an apparent 

decline from scientific review to simple advocacy. 

 Immunological Effects in Humans (Page 138-139). The discussion on the 

immune system is flawed and fails to address recent studies using 

controlled chamber concentrations that contradict most of the historical 

literature that is referenced. The ISOR does not consider whether these 

data are the result of HCHO exposure or some other 

chemical/substance/protocol issue. For example, there is no discussion of 

any potential confounders, such as mold, in the entire document. On 

page 139, the report states: "while the human studies are not entirely 

consistent with each other, and there is a potential for confounding in each, 

nevertheless, taken together, they suggest that children are more 

sensitive to HCHO toxicity than adults." The ISOR does not mention the 

confounding factors, how or why the studies may disagree, or how the 

staff developed an outcome "taken together." 

 The section on immune functions contains few references and should be 

rewritten with a broader review of the literature. Similarly, this section has 

semi-quantitative language, "very low doses" that is simply not useful. The 

concentrations should be supplied. Are these case reports? The 

information in this section is scant. 

 Agency Response [8.30-Rose-070416-FCI]: With respect to lung function 

deficits, Green et al. (1987) is only one of the studies cited under 

respiratory effects (Hendrick and Lane, 1977; Wallenstein et al., 1978; 
159

Burge et al., 1985; Nordman et al., 1985; Kilburn et al., 1989; Kriebel et al., 

2001). 

 Pulp mill workers are but one group that has been studied. OEHHA does 

not make the assumption that HCHO is the only possible cause of irritation. 

However, HCHO is a known irritant common to and prominent in the 

diverse studies mentioned. 

 OEHHA does not necessarily disagree with the problems raised with the 

study by Srivastava et al. (1992). The only use of “significant” is with 

reference to the chest X-rays. 

 As mentioned previously, Chapter VII in the ISOR on health effects is 

meant to be a summary and not a comprehensive review of all the 

literature on HCHO. In addition, immunological effects are not the focus of 

our summary and were not the basis for determining OEHHA’s cREL. 

358) Comment [8.31-Rose-070416-FCI]: Reproductive and Developmental 

Effects in Humans (Page 139). The weight of the evidence demonstrates 

that HCHO does not result in reproductive and developmental effects. 

Both the ATSDR and WHO reviews concluded that HCHO is not 

associated with adverse reproductive and related outcomes. Although 

some animal and human studies have reported non-specific reproductive 

or developmental effects (Taskinen et al. 1999; Zeljenkova and Szabova 

2004), the weight of available scientific data presents insufficient evidence 

to conclude that HCHO causes reproductive or developmental effects. 

 A comprehensive review of all the available data, including the metaanalysis data evaluating the relationship between spontaneous abortions 

and occupational exposure to formaldehyde, was conducted by Collins et 

al. (2001). For studies that showed an increased relative risk (RR), some 

important limitations in study design were highlighted, such as the use of 

self-reported data or judgment on the level of exposure with no attempt to 

validate the exposure estimates with measurements. Collins et al. (2001) 

examined the potential for reproductive and developmental effects from 

HCHO exposure. The authors note that HCHO is unlikely to reach the 

reproductive system in humans in concentrations sufficient to cause 

damage since it is rapidly metabolized and detoxified upon contact with 

the respiratory tract. While there are effects seen in in-vitro studies or 

after injection, there is little evidence of reproductive or developmental 

toxicity in animal studies under exposure levels and routes relevant to 

humans. Most of the epidemiology studies examined spontaneous 

abortion and showed some evidence of increased risk (meta-RR = 1.4, 

95% CI = 0.9 to 2.1). 
160

 We found evidence of reporting biases and publication biases among the 

epidemiology studies and when these biases were taken into account, we 

found no evidence of increased risk of spontaneous abortion among 

workers exposed to HCHO (meta-RR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.5 to 1.0). The 

small number of studies on birth defects, low birth weight, and infertility 

among HCHO workers; the limitations in the design of these studies; and 

the inconsistent findings across these studies make it difficult to draw 

conclusions from the epidemiology data alone. However, information from 

experimental studies and studies of metabolism indicate reproductive 

impacts are unlikely at HCHO exposures levels observed in the 

epidemiology studies. 

 Agency Response [8.31-Rose-070416-FCI]: The ISOR makes it clear that 

there appear to be no reproductive or developmental effects. Therefore, 

we do not state anything contrary to this comment. 

 With respect to confounding, confounders, as reported in individual 

studies, are included in the study descriptions in the ISOR. OEHHA 

recognizes that there is more information available, however, this is only a 

summary and immunological endpoints are not the endpoint used as the 

basis for the cREL. This summary was taken from existing reviews on 

HCHO which underwent public comment and were reviewed by the 

Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants (SRP). In OEHHA 

(2001), “Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants -- Children’s Health 

Protection Act – Final Report,” confounders are addressed in more detail. 

359) Comment [8.32-Rose-070416-FCI]: Infants and Children (Pages 139-142). 

These studies of infants and children can have many confounding 

variables, such as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), mold, etc. The 

ISOR does not mention any of these potential issues when reviewing the 

data. In discussing Garrett et al. (1999), the ISOR states that "no 

evidence of an association between asthma in the children and HCHO 

levels." Without any substantive explanation, the ISOR jumps to the 

conclusion that "these data do suggest that HCHO levels commonly found 

in homes can enhance sensitization of children to common aeroallergens." 

There is no explanation for this assumption. The staff apparently 

suggests that HCHO exposure is required prior to an allergic event, an 

untested and unsupported theory that cannot serve as a basis for 

regulation. Garrett et al. (1999) is a study of asthmatic and non-asthmatic 

children in two small towns in Victoria, Australia. This paper does not 

address differences in adult and children’s responses, since relevant data 

for adults were not collected. 

 It does characterize the Wantke et al. (1996) study relevance as “unclear” 

because the sensitization was not associated with symptoms. Several 

factors compel caution in relying on this study: The paper likely was based 
161

on a graduate student thesis (the acknowledgements note a postgraduate 

publication award), and the paper presents extensive multivariate analysis. 

Of all the analyses performed, the study notes: 1) a crude odds ratio for 

atopy of about 1.4 with an increase in bedroom levels of HCHO of 10 

μg/m3 (adjusted for parental asthma and sex); however, the confidence 

interval for this finding is 0.99 to 2.00; and 2) an adjusted odds ratio of 

1.42 for atopy with an increase in the highest recorded HCHO level by 20 

μg/m3 (confidence interval 0.99 to 2.04). (As the majority of scientists and 

researchers recognize, odds ratios of 1.4 are generally not considered to 

be strong evidence of a causal connection.) The study took place in two 

small towns “surrounded by open-cut brown coal mines and power 

stations, which provide considerable employment.” The authors had 

difficulty locating non-asthmatic children to participate in the study. 

Outdoor measurements were taken but not reported. 

 The authors note there was no significant association between HCHO 

levels and house age. This is surprising, since any off gassing of HCHO 

from wood products or other formaldehyde-containing materials would be 

expected to decline over time. Thus, the accuracy of HCHO 

measurements could be open to question. 

 In discussing the implications of their findings, Garrett et al. note the 

increased prevalence of allergic diseases in many western countries, and 

suggest that materials emitting HCHO have become increasingly popular 

at the same time. The authors apparently do not appreciate that HCHO 

resin technologies have been improved substantially over the last two 

decades, and that releases of HCHO have been greatly reduced. It is 

difficult to rule out systematic recall or selection bias in this case-control 

study. With respect to exposure issues, no personal monitors were used, 

and there were no associations or trends for levels reported for the 

bedrooms, which are the one place in the house where some form of 

continuous exposure is likely to occur. The distribution of results claimed 

by the investigators hardly seems to be persuasive evidence of a 

systematic health risk. There was no significant increase in the adjusted 

risk for either asthma or respiratory symptoms with increasing HCHO 

exposure. Wantke et al. (1996) studied 62 students in Austria and 

reported finding IgE specific to HCHO. However, among 24 of the 62 

children who had elevated IgE specific to HCHO, only 3 had RAST scores 

over 2.0. There was no dose-response relationship between HCHO levels 

and RAST scores. The three classrooms studied had 43, 69 and 75 ppb of 

formaldehyde measured, respectively. RAST scores were not elevated at 

69 ppb compared to the 43 ppb classroom, as shown below. Thus, there 

does not appear to be dose-response relationship between HCHO and 

IgE. Moreover, the IgE levels in the study did not correlate with either 

number or severity of reported symptoms. The authors acknowledge that 

“IgE-mediated sensitization to HCHO is rare and a matter of controversy.” 
162

They further state: “Our data as well as the literature [ref. omitted] do not 

conclusively explain the clinical relevance of specific IgE against HCHO.” 

The Wantke et al. study did not compare children and adults, and thus 

also does not speak to any differential sensitivity. 

 Franklin et al. (2000) measured exhaled nitric oxide as an indicator of 

subclinical inflammatory response in 224 Australian children. The authors 

report increased nitric oxide in the breath of children in homes with over 

50 ppb vs. under 50 ppb HCHO. The range and mean exposure values 

are not provided. There were no measurements of the outdoors or school 

exposures to these children. The nitric oxide results were independent of 

atopy, and thus their significance is unclear. The study showed HCHO 

concentrations in the home had no effect on FVC or FEV1 measures of 

pulmonary function in the children. The study does not compare children 

and adults, since relevant data for adults were not collected. 

 The same section references Krzyzanowski et al. (1990) for the absence 

of a "threshold for HCHO effects on ventilatory function in children" and 

adverse health effects "as low as at 30 ppb in nonasthmatic children" 

(pages 140-141). In Krzyzanowski et al. (1990), researchers questioned a 

group of 298 children (ages 6 to 15) and 613 adults using a selfadministered respiratory questionnaire. Using regression analysis, the 

investigators found no significant association between exposures in 

children and self-reported chronic respiratory symptoms. Prevalence 

rates of chronic bronchitis or asthma reportedly diagnosed by a physician 

were significantly higher when residential concentrations of HCHO 

exceeded 60 ppb, especially in the presence of tobacco smoke. However, 

the study itself fails to point out an obvious difficulty from the data 

displayed in Tables 3 and 4 of the study. There was no dose-response 

relationship with HCHO: More than 83 percent of the subjects in the study 

lived in homes in which the two-week average HCHO concentrations were 

less than 4 ppb. The average concentration measured was 26 ppb, with 

only a few homes exceeding 9 ppb. Thus, average concentrations appear 

to be driven by a few outliers. Findings of this study are questionable in 

view of these levels of HCHO found in the home environment. In addition, 

there were no measurements of allergens, or other agents present in the 

home. The authors did report greater changes in peak expiratory flow rate 

in children than in adults. The use of peak expiratory flow rates does not 

confirm the presence or absence of asthma or bronchitis. This finding is 

the only data in any of the studies cited in the Public Review Draft 

document to suggest differential effects in children vs. adults -- hardly a 

convincing basis for concluding that children are more sensitive to HCHO. 

In sum, it appears that this study is at odds with the weight of the literature, 

and should not be relied upon absent some further verification. 
163

 In Rumchev, et al. (2002), household HCHO levels were determined by 

passive sampling in the homes of 88 children aged 6 months to 3 years 

who were diagnosed at a hospital with asthma, and compared with 104 

community controls. Cases had a statistically significant higher mean 

HCHO exposure compared to controls, 32 ppb (38 μg/m3) and 20 ppb (24 

μg/m3), respectively. After adjustment for confounding factors, such as 

indoor air pollutants, relative humidity, indoor temperature, atopy, family 

history of asthma, age, sex socioeconomic status, pets and ETS, 

Rumchev et al. (2002) reported that children exposed to HCHO levels of 

60 μg/m3 had a 39% increase in odds of having asthma compared to 

children exposed to less than 10 μg/m3 (OR estimated to be approximately 

1.4, 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.7 from data presented in a graph). However, 

considering the marginally increased risk observed, together with the 

number of potential sources of bias, such as selection bias and validity of 

diagnosis in the young, this study should not be considered sufficiently 

robust evidence of an association between HCHO exposure and 

increased risk of asthma in children or an appropriate basis for regulation 

or governmental guidance. 

 In addition, as noted previously, HCHO is exhaled in the breath, with 

studies suggesting that breath levels may range from 1.2 to 72.7 ppb to 

300 to 1,200 ppb (Moser et al. 2005; Ebeler et al. 1997). Based on the 

existing literature, the exposure levels reported in Rumchev et al. (2002) 

are in the range of HCHO expected to be found in exhaled breath. This 

raises questions of causation, association, and how one might reasonably 

differentiate self-exposure from an exogenous source of exposure at 

approximately the same concentration. 

 Those limitations and weaknesses are validated by a second report by 

Rumchev, et al. (2004), which was not referenced in the ISOR and which 

raises questions regarding whether Rumchev (2002) is an adequate basis 

for the derivation of a reference concentration specifically for HCHO. 

Rumchev et al. (2004) used the same cohort of children and evaluated the 

same asthma endpoint as Rumchev et al. (2002), but focused on the 

association with the other chemicals and particulates rather than HCHO. 

As for HCHO, Rumchev, et al. (2004), found that asthmatic cases were 

exposed to higher levels of VOCs. 

 An editorial was published concurrently (Brunekreef, B. 2004) with 

Rumchev et al. (2004), which focused on NO2, VOCs, and particulates. 

The editorial indicates that: (1) diagnosis of asthma in children is 

"notoriously difficult," and (2) case-control studies, as used by Rumchev, 

inherently are rife with potential and actual sources of confounding and 

bias. An example given is that Rumchev et al. (2004) did not attempt to 

evaluate the impact of recent indoor painting. These issues raise serious 

questions regarding the adequacy of the study as a sole source for 
164

deriving a reference exposure. As Brunekreef (2004) noted in his 

comments on Rumchev et al. (2004) and other studies: The issue of 

whether indoor VOCs are a risk factor for asthma in children therefore 

seems still to be largely undecided. In view of the methodological 

difficulties outlined above, prospective studies are more likely to produce 

progress in deciding whether we need to worry about indoor VOCs as 

determinants of asthma at the relatively low concentrations typically 

encountered in the home environment. In view of the issues raised by 

Rumchev (2004) showing that a number of VOCs were associated with 

asthma as well as the inherent and broader limitations associated with 

Rumchev, et al. (2002), Rumchev, et al. (2002) does not provide a 

reasonable basis for adopting a new level. A careful reading of the 

studies cited as the basis for concluding that children are differentially 

sensitive to HCHO shows essentially no support for that proposition. 26

 The ISOR never provides a substantive discussion that shows how the 

staff collectively interprets or resolves apparently conflicting data through 

an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the studies, such as the 

Garrett et al. (1999) and Krzyzanowski et al. (1990). These 

inconsistencies in the data should be explained. Confounders in the 

Garrett et al. (1999) and Rumchev et al. (2002) studies are listed in the 

ISOR in the descriptions of the individual studies. With regards to Garrett

et al. (1999), the ISOR accurately report the findings of this study by 

stating: “The risk of atopy increased by 40% with each 10 μg/m3 increase 

in HCHO measured in the bedroom. Two measures of allergic 

sensitization to 12 common environmental allergens, the number of 

positive skin prick tests and maximum wheal size, both showed linear 

associations with increasing maximum HCHO exposure levels.” Garrett et 

al. (1999) is not used as the basis for regulation and a significant effect of 

objective measure (positive skin prick test and maximum wheal size) was 

observed in this study. The ISOR does not try to compare children and 

adults based on Garret et al. (1999). 

 Agency Response [8.32-Rose-070416-FCI]: The ISOR did not state that it 

was relying on the results of the Wantke et al. (1996) study. The Wantke 

et al. (1996) study mentioned, “There was a good correlation between 

symptoms and the HCHO concentrations in the classrooms.” The 

conclusion of the Wantke et al. (1996) study stated, “Gaseous HCHO, 

besides its irritant action, leads to IgE-mediated sensitization. As children 

are more sensitive to toxic substances than adults, threshold levels for 

indoor HCHO should be reduced for children.” By itself, the odds ratio 

referenced above is taken as suggestive of an association. The ISOR 

does not assert statistical significance associated with this result. 

However, this study does suggest a strong association. These studies are 

used as supportive studies not the basis for causal evidence. The p-trend 

measured in this study was substantive. The study did report that outdoor 
165

measurements were lower than indoor. With respect to the off-gassing of 

HCHO over time and whether the HCHO measurements are questionable 

as a result, no supporting evidence is provided for this speculation. 

Regarding the assertion that HCHO resin technologies have improved 

over time, OEHHA does not see the relevancy of this statement to the 

ISOR. The concern about selection and recall bias is not particularly 

germane as the study was investigating the association between 

measured levels of HCHO and objective measures of allergic response 

(atopy, positive skin prick tests and maximum wheal size). 

 Regarding the assertion that there was no significant increase in adjusted 

risk for asthma or respiratory symptoms, there is a p-trend for this that, 

although not statistically significant, indicated a biologically important 

association. As for the lack of a dose-response, the ISOR’s review of the 

Wantke et al. (1996) study states nothing to the contrary. 

 Exhaled nitric oxide (NO) is not equal to measurements of atopy. Franklin 

et al. (2000) states that exhaled NO was used as an indicator of 

inflammation of the lower airways.” The ISOR does not assert that a 

comparison between adults and children was performed in this study. 

 In the study by Krzyzanowski et al. (1990), it is mentioned: “The authors 

note no threshold was found for HCHO effects on ventilatory function in 

the children, and that a 10% decrease in PEF was associated with 

exposures as low as 30 ppb in non-asthmatic children with an even larger 

effect in asthmatic children at 30 ppb.” Regarding the absence of a doseresponse in this study, we state in the ISOR that no statistically significant 

association was found in this study. We also noted that the sample size in 

the 40 to 60 group was small compared to the controls. There was a 

response in the no ETS group for the greater than 60 ppb group (10%). 

We accurately summarized the findings of this study including mentioning 

that the association was not statistically significant. However, there was a 

significant p-trend reported. 

 The ISOR lists the confounders mentioned in the Rumchev study 

(“Estimates of the relative risk for asthma (odds ratios) were adjusted for 

measured indoor air pollutants, relative humidity, temperature, atopy 

(hereditary allergy), family history of asthma, age, gender, socioeconomic 

status, pets, smoke exposure, air conditioning, and gas 

appliances”)(Rumchev et al., 2002) and we recognize the potential for bias. 

It should be noted that OEHHA does not base its chronic non-cancer REL 

on this study. 

 The comment makes extensive remarks about both the paper by 

Rumchev et al. (2002), which is cited in the staff report, and Rumchev et 

al. (2004), which was not cited in the ISOR. Neither paper appears in the 
166

list of references provided with the comments, so we are assuming the 

second citation refers to: Rumchev K, Spickett J, Bulsara M, Phillips M, 

Stick S, 2004, Association of domestic exposure to volatile organic 

compounds with asthma in young children, Thorax 59(9):746-51. We are 

aware of this paper because of our general interest in childhood asthma, 

but did not cite it in the ISOR because it concerns only volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) other than HCHO. The comment misquotes the 

paper in implying that the finding of links between asthma and VOCs 

undermine the earlier finding of an association with HCHO. The authors 

note in the discussion that they specifically examined this question by 

comparing their VOC data with the previously published HCHO data. 

They concluded that the two effects were independent. 

 Regarding the issue of exogenous vs. self exposure, an individual’s total 

exposure includes both. It is possible the variability in individual 

responses to given ambient levels of HCHO in part reflects individual 

variation in the amount of HCHO produced endogenously. Regardless of 

the proportion of endogenous and exogenous sources, the risk of adverse 

effects increases with increasing ambient HCHO to which exogenous 

sources contribute. 

 With respect to risk factors, a risk factor for asthma versus increased risk 

in asthmatics should be differentiated. The ISOR states that asthmatic 

children may be at higher risk of adverse effects when exposed to HCHO. 

Regarding the absence of a substantive discussion of the way in which 

data were interpreted in the ISOR, it is not the purpose of this Chapter to 

review the data in detail or undertake a risk assessment, but rather to 

provide to the Board and the public an outline of background information. 

See also the response to comment #335. 

360) Comment [8.33-Rose-070416-FCI]: Human Carcinogenicity (Page 147): 

With regard to carcinogenicity, the weight of evidence points to a threshold 

mode of action, with cytotoxicity/cell replication as the driving force. 

Formaldehyde is a low potency carcinogen in light of the: (1) relationship 

of the concentrations leading to tumor formation and pre-tumorigenic 

changes, and (2) steep sub-linear dose-response curve for various effects 

associated with the carcinogenic response. 

 Agency Response [8.33-Rose-070416-FCI]: As more extensively noted in 

previous responses (see comments #341 to #344, inter alia), OEHHA has 

previously evaluated these assertions based on CIIT’s model and 

concluded that this is not an appropriate basis on which to assess the risk 

to public health from formaldehyde. 

361) Comment [8.34-Rose-070416-FCI]: Sufficient evidence of a causal 

relationship or an association with asthma only exists for cats, 
167

cockroaches, house dust mites, ETS (preschoolers), dogs, fungi or molds 

(Rhinovirus) and high-level exposures to nitrogen oxides, not HCHO or 

other VOCs. See the National Research Council (2004) Emergency and 

Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine 

Contaminants, p. 87. 

 Agency Response [8.34-Rose-070416-FCI]: OEHHA does not accept the 

assertion about sufficiency (or otherwise) of evidence made in this 

comment. OEHHA has already pointed out (see the response to comment 

#348) that the NRC’s consideration of safety in submarines is of very little 

value in considering health impacts on the general population, particularly 

children. 

362) Comment [8.35-Rose-070416-FCI]: Genotoxicity (Page 147). The cited 

studies by Shaham have been further discredited with new published data 

beyond prior work by Heck. Neither Schmid and Speit nor Heck's work is 

addressed in this regard, nor is there any discussion relating the human 

and animal genotoxicity sections of the report. Schmid and Speit (2007) 

concludes that the data gathered from human bio-monitoring of blood from 

workers exposed to HCHO and relating this information to systemic 

genotoxic effects of HCHO is not plausible. Schmid and Speit (2007) 

demonstrate that the DNA-protein crosslinks, associated with HCHO 

exposure which is integral to further DNA damage, is quickly reversed in 

the blood cells. It is only at higher HCHO concentrations (≥ 200 μM) that 

enough DNA-protein crosslinks were formed resulting in DNA damage and 

cytotoxicity. Since such high levels of HCHO are not seen in human blood 

of exposed workers and any DNA-protein crosslinks created as a result of 

lower HCHO exposure are quickly reversed, the reported effects seen in 

the sister chromatid exchange tests, in Shaham et al. (1997, 2002), Yager 

et al. (1986), He et al. (1998) and Ye et al. (2005), are highly unlikely to be 

related to HCHO exposure. 

 Agency Response [8.35-Rose-070416-FCI]: OEHHA is aware of the 

various citations given in this comment, but does not consider that these 

add any major insight into the issues addressed by the ISOR. The various, 

possibly conflicting, data on HCHO genotoxicity are clearly complex and 

subject to various scientific interpretations. It was not the aim of the brief 

descriptive paragraph in the ISOR to address these problems in detail 

since that has already been undertaken in previous discussions presented 

to the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants (SRP). The 

observation of formaldehyde-related DNA damage at any site or dose 

level in humans is clearly of interest since this endpoint (in rodent nasal 

epithelium) is also the basis of the CIIT model. Studies of such effects by 

blood bio-monitoring can clearly only provide an indicator of possible 

impacts. A primary concern is the extent of formaldehyde-caused DNA 

damage in the epithelial cells of the respiratory tract that are exposed to 
168

HCHO before it enters the bloodstream. The relatively stronger 

association of HCHO with nasopharyngeal cancer compared with cancers 

at other sites reflects the higher HCHO concentrations, and hence 

damage, in the tissues at the site of contact. The observations of DNAprotein cross-links, mutations and chromosomal effects in cells exposed to 

HCHO in vitro and in vivo which were noted in the original summary are 

consistent with this concern. 

363) Comment [8.36-Rose-070416-FCI]: Nasopharyngeal Cancer (Pages 147-

149) A comparison of the ISOR discussion of NPC with the summary 

presented in the general comments section above reflects a pattern of 

ignoring newer work, such as that of Marsh et al. (2002, 2004, 2005). The 

"recent occupational studies" mentioned in this section are 17 years old 

and are stretched to find "some indication of possible histological change 

due to HCHO exposure." Marsh et al. (2006) concludes that the NCI 

analysis was misleading because an important interaction term between 

the plant group and exposure variable was not taken into account and, 

due to the low numbers of tumors, there were considerable uncertainties 

in the risk estimates. Adami and Chang (2006) reviewed the literature on 

the occurrence of NPC and concluded that, for this specific tumor type, 

there are several risk factors that may lead to an appreciable increase 

(e.g., specific diets or familial history). For HCHO, the authors stated that 

“epidemiologic evidence” is limited. 

 Cohort studies. In an update of a mortality study of approximately 14,000 

British industrial workers from 1941 (Acheson et al., 1984) up to 2000 

(Coggon et al., 2003), only one case of NPC was identified in the cohort 

vs. two expected, although estimated HCHO exposures were highest 

compared to the other two studies listed below. Coggon et al. (2003) 

concluded that: ”The evidence for human carcinogenicity of HCHO 

remains unconvincing.” In an update of a mortality study involving a 

cohort of approximately 11,000 garment workers in the U.S. from 1955 to 

1982 (Stayner et al., 1985; 1988) and then to 1998 (Pinkerton et al., 2004), 

no cases of NPC were identified (0.96 expected). Pinkerton et al. (2004) 

states: ”We found no evidence of an association between HCHO exposure 

and mortality from respiratory cancers.” An update of the largest mortality 

study of over 25,000 workers in HCHO industries in 10 different plants in 

the U.S. initially followed up through 1980 (Blair et al., 1986) and now up 

to 1994 (Hauptmann et al. 2004) is frequently referenced as the "NCI 

study." In this study, eight cases of NPC compared to four expected, were 

observed in the exposed workforce. Six of these were located in one 

single plant (Plant 1) out of the ten plants examined. Later, one of these 

eight cases turned out to be an oropharyngeal cancer; in addition, there 

have been two additional NPC cases among the workers employed in 

these plants but not exposed to HCHO. Even if the misclassified case 

remains included, NPC rates are not significantly increased compared with 
169

those of the general U.S. population (Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR) 

= 2.1; exact 95% CI = 0.91 to 4.14). If this misclassified case would be 

excluded, the association would be even weaker. Taking all cohort 

studies with a total of approximately 50,000 exposed workers together, 

nine cases (only eight being true NPC) have been observed vs. seven 

expected; not a relevant difference. These three studies are the most 

relevant, but there is no reason to give particular preference to the NCI 

study. As early as 1996, Marsh et al. (1996) identified a specific feature of 

the former NCI-study comprising workers of 10 different plants. There 

was no even distribution of the observed NPC cases between the different 

plants; they were concentrated in one plant. Specifically, four of the total 

of five exposed cases observed arose in one of the 10 plants. A detailed 

analysis of the “suspected clustering in this one plant” showed that “only 

one case had any appreciable exposure to HCHO.” In a second follow-up 

(up to 1998) by Marsh et al. (2002), the clustering of NPC was confirmed 

as three additional cases were found, leading now to seven exposed 

cases in a single plant. In addition, inconsistencies in the exposure effect 

relationship were identified pointing against a causal connection with 

HCHO: The majority of the seven NPC cases in the single plant was found 

in short-term workers with an exposure duration of less than one year. 

Only three of seven were exposed to HCHO longer than one year and 

each had low average intensities of exposure (ranging from 0.02 to 0.60 

ppm). Six of the seven NPC cases were hired between 1947 and 1956, 

again an indication of a cluster. Standardized Mortality Ratios for 

nasopharyngeal cancer were greater among short-term (< 1 year) than 

among long-term workers. Marsh and Youk (2005) reevaluated the NPC 

cases of the new NCI study (Hauptmann et al., 2004). Six of the eight 

exposed cases came from a single plant, leading to a regional-rate based 

SMR of 10.32 (95% CI = 3.79 to 22.47). The other two exposed and the 

two non-exposed cases each came from different plants of the remaining 

nine plants of the NCI study. For these other nine plants, the SMR was 

calculated to be 0.65 (0.08 to 2.33). In addition, the exposure association 

reported by Hauptmann et al. (2004) with peak and average intensity was 

driven entirely by the data from this single plant. Marsh and Youk (2005) 

concluded that there was little evidence for a causal association between 

NPC and HCHO; the NCI conclusion of a possible association was mainly 

driven by the Wallingford plant; and the large NPC mortality at the 

Wallingford plant may reflect non-occupational or occupational risk factors 

associated with employment outside of this specific plant. Overall, the 

detailed analysis of the NCI findings, especially in relation to the single 

plant, casts doubt on a causal association indicated by the NCI study 

between HCHO and NPC development. 

 Case-control studies. The case-control studies on NPC and HCHO are 

hampered by weak exposure assessments, in particular for the probably 

more relevant periods several decades ago. The potential impact of 
170

selection and information bias seems to be even higher than for the cohort 

studies. Thus, their results in general are not very reliable and far from 

conclusive: The relative risk in the Olsen et al. (1984) study was nonsignificantly decreased in men, and non-significantly increased in the 

much smaller group of women (negative study). Vaughan et al. (1986) 

found a slightly but not significantly increased risk for occupational HCHO 

exposure. Besides very weak exposure information there are several 

limitations of this study (e.g., lack of adjustment even for age, the 

strongest predictor of cancer). Thus, this study cannot be considered as 

one supporting an association (non-informative study). Roush et al. 

(1987) did not find an elevated risk for workers probably exposed for most 

of their working lives, but a non-significantly elevated risk for the highest 

exposure category. However, potential selection and information biases 

as well as very weak exposure information based on resident directories 

are major shortcomings of this study (non-informative study). West (1993) 

reported partly significant increases only for selected exposure categories 

in a study performed in the Philippines. He found even stronger 

associations for other exposures such as dust and/or exhaust, antimosquito coils or herbal medicines. The IARC Working Group (1995) 

noted with regard to this study that the authors did not control for the 

presence of Epstein-Barr virus antibodies, which showed a strong 

association with NPC in another study in the same region (non-informative 

study). The study of Armstrong et al. (2000) is definitely negative. 

Hildesheim et al. (2001) report a modest and not significantly increased 

risk (RR = 1.4; 95% CI = 0.93 to 2.2). However, no dose response was 

observed with increasing duration or cumulative use (slightly positive). 

Vaughan et al. (2000) detected a slightly, but not significantly elevated 

odds ratio of 1.3 (95% CI = 0.8 to 2.1). They observed a significant trend 

with cumulative exposure, but in contrast to the NCI study not for the 

maximum exposure concentration. In contrast to other authors, an 

increased risk for wood dust exposure could not be observed in this study 

(slightly positive study). Thus, if a positive study is considered as one in 

which a clear and significant association is demonstrated, none of the 

case-control studies can be regarded as positive. In summary, the results 

of these case-control studies should be regarded as equivocal, two of 

them being clearly negative, three not contributing much information and 

two showing some slightly elevated risk. 

 Meta-analyses. The most recent meta-analysis by Collins et al. (1997) is 

quoted inappropriately as if it would demonstrate a significantly elevated 

risk. Collins et al. point out the relevance of correcting for underreporting 

of expected numbers of death when dealing with a rare and frequently 

underreported cancer such as NPC. After correcting, they calculated a 

meta-RR of 1.0 (95% CI = 0.5 to 1.8) for the cohort studies and 1.3 (95% 

CI = 0.9 to 2.1) for the case-control studies. The authors emphasize that it 

is unlikely that the few cases in the case-control studies had meaningful 
171

HCHO exposures because only a minority of the jobs classified as having 

it actually entailed such exposure. In their paper, Collins et al. emphasize 

the weaknesses of the previous meta-analyses leading to conflicting 

results (see page 648). It is instructive to contrast the short and 

inaccurate treatment of Collins et al. (1997) in the ISOR with that 

presented in the November 2006 Priority Existing Chemical Assessment 

on HCHO prepared by the Australian Department of Aging, National 

Industrial Chemicals Notification Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), which 

was previously referenced with regard to NICNAS’ use of the BBDR model. 

In a more recent and comprehensive meta-analysis, Collins et al. (1997) 

initially considered 47 epidemiology studies. Several of these studies 

were not included in the analysis, because workers who had HCHO 

exposure were not evaluated separately or the study only reported relative 

risks, the study population was included in a more recent study, or the 

methodology and results were insufficiently described. In total the metaanalysis was based on the results from 11 cohort, three proportionate 

mortality and 18 case-control studies, and included new data published 

since Partanen (1993). Furthermore, the authors of studies were 

contacted to obtain data not included in their publications. The exposure 

potential of jobs that were classified as having HCHO exposure in the 

community-based case-control studies was also reviewed, as exposure 

assessment was much more uncertain in these studies than in cohort 

studies. When all studies were included, no increased risk of lung cancer 

was seen with exposure to HCHO (meta-RR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.9 to 1.0). 

In cohort studies, a very small borderline, though significant, increased 

risk was seen for industrial workers (meta-RR = 1.1, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.2), 

while no increased risk was seen for pathologists (meta-RR = 0.5, 95% CI 

= 0.4 to 0.6) or embalmers (meta-RR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.9 to 1.1). Similarly, 

no increased risk was seen in the case-control studies (meta-RR = 0.8, 

95% CI = 0.7 to 0.9). No increased risk of sinonasal cancers was seen 

with exposure to HCHO (meta-RR = 1.0, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.1). Evaluating 

by study design revealed no increased risk for cohort studies (meta-RR = 

0.3, 95% CI = 0.1 to 0.9) but a significantly increased risk for case-control 

studies (meta-RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.3). This increased risk was 

attributable to a significantly increased risk for the combined six European 

case-control studies (meta-RR = 2.9, 95% CI = 2.2 to 4.0), whereas no 

increased risk was seen for the combined five U.S. case-control studies 

(meta-RR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.7 to 1.5). Collins et al. (1997) report that it is 

difficult to reconcile European findings with other findings, unless it is 

assumed that confounding factors, or bias, were affecting the results. A 

significantly increased risk of NPC was seen with exposure to HCHO 

(meta-RR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.5). However, evaluation of NPC was 

hampered in some industrial cohort studies, as expected numbers were 

not reported when there were no observed deaths. To overcome this, the 

expected number of deaths was estimated based on the ratio of expected 

lung cancers to NPC in the study by Blair et al. (1986) that reported 
172

nasopharyngeal deaths. Expected numbers were also not reported in the 

cohort studies of embalmers and medical specialists. Using a similar 

approach, based on the ratio of expected lung cancers to NPC in the 

study by Hayes et al. (1990), a non-significant increased risk was found 

for NPC and exposure to HCHO when all industrial cohort studies were 

combined (meta-RR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.4 to 2.5). While no increased risk 

of NPC was seen for all cohort studies combined (meta-RR = 1.0, 95% CI 

= 0.4 to 2.5), a non-significant increased risk of such cancers was seen for 

all case-control studies combined (meta-RR = 1.3, 95% CI = 0.9 to 2.1).27 

Collins et al. (1997) concluded that the data did not provide convincing 

evidence of a casual relationship between HCHO exposure and NPC. 

The authors attributed the differences in their results to the two earlier 

meta-analyses to be mainly due to the inclusion of a number of recently 

published negative cohort studies. FCI includes this excerpt not because 

we agree with all of the evaluations in the NICNAS PEC on HCHO. 

Rather, we reference this passage as an example of the type of summary 

that allows everyone with an interest to understand how one agency read 

the study and what elements the agency viewed as notable. This type of 

summary also serves to distinguish clearly the author’s conclusions from 

those of the reviewing agency. 

 Summary on epidemiology study evaluation. Recapitulating, the available 

epidemiological studies on HCHO consistently show no or a minimally 

increased risk for NPC with one clear exception of the remarkably 

elevated risk in plant 1 of the NCI study. A serious critique to the 

Hauptmann (2004) study is the fact that the author disregards the peculiar 

results at this specific plant. Instead of focusing only on HCHO, it would 

have been important to try to identify other risk factors, which may have 

played a relevant role in particular in those three cases exposed to low 

levels of HCHO for much less than one year. 

 Local genotoxicity in humans. With regard to possible NPC formation in 

humans, local genotoxicity observed in workers has to be assessed. 

There are several investigations on micronuclei formation in nasal and 

buccal cells in exposed humans with both positive and negative results. 

These data have to be interpreted with caution since the methods used 

are still quite investigative and have several methodological problems as 

noted by Fenech et al. (1999): high variability of the results when the 

same subjects are tested repeatedly; large differences between healthy 

subjects; protocols are not yet standardized; problems to differentiate 

between epithelial cells and leucocytes; and possibility for 

misinterpretation of degenerative epithelial cells. Therefore such study 

results cannot be interpreted with confidence presently. 

 The recent IARC evaluation for NPC basically relies on the outcome of the 

study of Hauptmann et al. (2004), which has only been carried through up 
173

to 1994 whereas Pinkerton et al. (2004) and Coggon et al. (2003) 

performed updates up to 1998 and 2000, respectively. Therefore the NCI 

has decided to carry out a mortality analysis in this cohort up to the most 

recent years. The results of this latest update are to be expected in 2007. 

The update will comprise approximately an additional 10 years of mortality 

experience and lead to a much clearer picture because the significance of 

mortality data will sharply increase in mortality studies with the aging of 

the workforce. 

 In conclusion, the three large industrial worker cohort studies are most 

relevant for a decision as regards classification for carcinogenicity in 

humans. There was no significant increase for NPC in association with 

HCHO exposure in general. The association seen with two of four 

exposure metrics in the NCI study only is driven by just one of 10 plants 

(SMR 10.3). For this specific plant there may well be other factors 

relevant for NPC development apart from HCHO exposure. Even the 

authors of the NCI study argue cautiously: “In this cohort of HCHO 

workers, some evidence was found of an exposure-response relation with 

mortality from NPC (based on small numbers)...” In Siemiatycki et al. 

(2004), three of the co-authors being affiliated with IARC, the strength of 

evidence regarding nasopharynx and HCHO has also only been 

considered as suggestive only but not as strong. 

 Leukemia (Pages 149-150). The report characterizes Collins and Lineker 

(2004) as being supportive of an increase risk of leukemia. As discussed 

above, this is an incorrect reading of the paper. Golden et al. (2005) 

report that chemically-induced leukemia is a well-studied phenomenon 

with benzene and a number of cancer chemotherapeutic drugs recognized 

as capable of causing this effect. Abundant in vitro and in vivo data in 

animals and humans demonstrate that exposure to sufficient doses of 

these recognized leukemogens can initiate a cascade of events leading to 

hematopoietic toxicity and the subsequent development of leukemia. 

Golden et al. (2005) addresses the biological plausibility that HCHO might 

be capable of causing any type of leukemia by providing a broad overview 

of the scientific data that must be considered in order to support or refute 

a conclusion that a particular substance might be leukemogenic. Data on 

benzene and selected chemotherapeutic cancer drugs are used as 

examples and are briefly summarized to demonstrate the similar biological 

events thought to result in leukemogenesis. These data are compared 

and contrasted with the available data on HCHO in order to judge whether 

they fulfill the criteria of biological plausibility that HCHO would be capable 

of inducing leukemia as suggested by the epidemiological data. Based on 

the epidemiological data, it is reasonable to expect that if HCHO was 

capable of inducing leukemia in vivo and in vitro data would offer 

supporting evidence for biological plausibility. In particular, the authors 

conclude that there is: (1) no evidence to suggest that HCHO reaches any 
174

target organ beyond the site of administration including the bone marrow, 

(2) no indication that HCHO is toxic to the bone marrow/hematopoietic 

system in in vivo or in vitro studies, and (3) no credible evidence that

HCHO induces leukemia in experimental animals. As discussed in the 

review, based on the key biological events that occur in the process of 

chemically-induced leukemia, there is inadequate biological evidence 

currently available to corroborate existing weak epidemiological 

associations. This provides an insufficient database to conclude that there 

is a causal relationship for HCHO and leukemia risk. Golden et al. (2005) 

is consistent with Heck and Casanova (2004), in which the authors report 

the following: The possibility that inhaled HCHO might induce various 

forms of distant-site toxicity has been proposed, but no convincing 

evidence for such toxicity has been obtained in experimental studies. This 

review summarizes the biological evidence that pertains to the issue of 

leukemia induction by HCHO, which includes: (1) the failure of inhaled 

HCHO to increase the HCHO concentration in the blood of rats, monkeys, 

or humans exposed to concentrations of 14.4, 6, or 1.9 ppm, respectively; 

(2) the lack of detectable protein adducts or DNA-protein cross-links 

(DPX) in the bone marrow of normal rats exposed to [

3H]- and 

[

14C]formaldehyde at concentrations as high as 15 ppm; (3) the lack of 

detectable protein adducts or DPX in the bone marrow of glutathionedepleted (metabolically inhibited) rats exposed to [

3H]- and [14C]-HCHO at 

concentrations as high as 10 ppm; (4) the lack of detectable DPX in the 

bone marrow of Rhesus monkeys exposed to [14C]formaldehyde at 

concentrations as high as 6 ppm; (5) the failure of HCHO to induce 

leukemia in any of seven long-term inhalation bioassays in rats, mice, or 

hamsters; and (6) the failure of HCHO to induce chromosomal 

aberrations in the bone marrow of rats exposed to airborne concentrations 

as high as 15 ppm or of mice injected intraperitoneally with HCHO at 

doses as high as 25 mg/kg. Biological evidence that might be regarded as 

supporting the possibility of leukemia induction by HCHO includes: (1) the 

detection of cytogenetic abnormalities in circulating lymphocytes in seven 

studies of human subjects exposed to ambient concentrations in the 

workplace (but not in seven other studies of human subjects or in rats 

exposed to 15 ppm); (2) the induction of leukemia in rats in a single 

questionable drinking water study with HCHO concentrations as high as 

1.5 g/L (but not in three other drinking water studies with concentrations 

as high as 1.9 or 5 g/L); (3) the detection of chromosomal aberrations in 

the bone marrow of rats exposed to very low concentrations of HCHO (0.4 

or 1.2 ppm) (but not in another study at concentrations as high as 15 

ppm); and (4) an apparent increase in the fraction of protein-associated 

DNA (assumed to be due to DPX) in circulating lymphocytes of humans 

exposed to ambient concentrations in the workplace (1 to 3 ppm). This 

evidence is regarded as inconsequential for several reasons, including 

lack of reproducibility, inadequate reporting of experimental methods, 

inconsistency with other data, or insufficient analytical sensitivity, and 
175

therefore, it provides little justification for or against the possibility that 

inhaled HCHO may be a leukemogen. In contrast to these inconclusive 

findings, the abundance of negative evidence mentioned above is 

undisputed and strongly suggests that there is no delivery of inhaled 

HCHO to distant sites. Combined with the fact that HCHO naturally 

occurs throughout the body, and that multiple inhalation bioassays have 

not induced leukemia in animals, the negative findings provide convincing 

evidence that HCHO is not leukemogenic. 

 Lung Cancer (Pages 150-151). The report cites Blair et al. (1986), but 

seems to have forgotten that there are several updates to this study. 

Relying on only one of a series of updated studies on the same cohort 

disregards good practice in evaluating epidemiological studies. 

 Animal Carcinogenicity (Page 152). During the 1980s, studies 

demonstrated that HCHO leads to nasal tumors in rats after exposure to 

concentrations associated with severe irritation and compensatory cell 

replication in the respiratory epithelium of rats. In mice there was a slight, 

non-significant nasal tumor response of about 1% at 15 ppm (a 

concentration that led to approximately 50 % nasal tumor bearing rats; 

Kerns et al.,1983) while no tumors were found in hamsters at 10 

(5days/week) or 36 ppm (1day/week) (Dalbey, 1982). Thus, there is a 

clear difference in sensitivity for the three species investigated. In vitro, 

HCHO is genotoxic/mutagenic in various test systems exhibiting high 

cytotoxicity. In vivo, DPX occur at the site of direct contact (predominantly 

nasal mucosa), but no genotoxic effects were found at distant sites (i.e., 

no systemic effects were demonstrated). Over the last 20 years, the large 

number of scientific studies has not changed the picture for nasal 

carcinogenicity in rodents. The new data strengthened the evidence that 

the decisive factor for HCHO carcinogenicity is cytotoxic irritation and 

compensatory cell proliferation besides genotoxicity as manifested by 

DNA protein binding. See prior discussion and CIIT report (Sept. 28, 

1999); Conolly et al. (2002; 2003; 2004). 

 Agency Response [8.36-Rose-070416-FCI]: The conclusion that HCHO is 

carcinogenic in humans was reached by IARC in their 2004 documents. 

In that document, IARC asserts that genotoxicity and cytotoxicity both play 

important roles in nasal carcinogenicity. They also note that cell 

proliferation is stimulated by HCHO and that this appears to amplify the 

genotoxic effects. With regards to NPC, IARC states that for HCHO, there 

is sufficient evidence in epidemiological studies for NPC, strong but not

sufficient evidence for leukemia, and limited evidence for sinonasal cancer. 

The extensive scientific database on the mechanisms by which HCHO can 

induce nasal-tract cancer in humans is considered. These data provide 

strong support for the empirical observation of NPC in humans (IARC, 

2004a, 2004b). 
176

 Furthermore, the IARC (2004a, 2004b) Working Group considered it 

improbable that all of the positive findings for nasopharyngeal cancer that 

were reported from the epidemiological studies, and particularly from the 

large study of industrial workers in the USA, could be explained by bias or 

unrecognized confounding effects. Overall, the Working Group concluded 

that the results of the study of industrial workers in the USA, supported by 

the largely positive findings from other studies, provided sufficient 

epidemiological evidence that formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal 

cancer in humans (IARC, 2004a, 2004b). 

 An excess of nasopharyngeal cancer was observed in a proportionate 

mortality analysis for the largest U.S. cohort of embalmers (Hayes et al., 

1990) although not statistically significant, and in a Danish study of 

proportionate cancer incidence among workers at companies which used 

or manufactured HCHO (Hansen and Olsen, 1995). Hayes et al. (1986) 

showed a relative risk for nasal tumors of 2.5 (90% CI 1.5-4.3) 

independent of wood dust exposure, tobacco use, and patient age. 

 The following will address the comments regarding individual studies. 

With respect to Coggon et al. (2003), they also noted that a limitation of 

their analysis was unrecognized losses to follow-up with missed deaths 

leading to underestimation of risks. Vaughn et al. (1986) adjusted for 

effects of cigarettes, alcohol, age, sex, socioeconomic status, and race. 

According to the analysis of this data by Blair et al. (1990), a significant 

RR was observed in this study. Hauptmann et al. (2004) found an 

increase in relative risks for nasopharyngeal cancer (nine deaths) 

increased with average exposure intensity (p-trend = 0.033), cumulative 

exposure (p-trend = 0.025), highest peak exposure (p-trend < 0.001), and 

duration of exposure to formaldehyde (p-trend = 0.147). Blair et al. (1990) 

reviewed the epidemiological evidence and showed that three studies had 

statistically significant relative risks (RR) for nasopharyngeal cancer: Blair 

et al. (1987); Roush et al. (1987) and Vaughan et al. (1986). 

 A review of the epidemiological evidence by Feinman (1988) states three 

studies show clear dose-response data and provide strong evidence for 

the association of HCHO with cancer of the nasal sinuses or nasopharynx 

in humans. 

364) Comment [8.37-Rose-070416-FCI]: IV. FORMALDEHYDE AND 

REGULATORY RISK MANAGEMENT 

 The Board is considering a proposal to limit formaldehyde emissions from 

composite wood products. This action is driven by a cancer risk 

assessment of formaldehyde performed by the OEHHA. This cancer risk 

assessment of formaldehyde was conducted in 1992 and reissued 
177

essentially unchanged by OEHHA in 2005 as part of the Air Toxics Hot 

Spots Program.28 However, more sophisticated and biologically-based 

risk assessments of formaldehyde by other respected regulatory agencies, 

including USEPA and Health Canada, conflict with the conclusions of 

OEHHA’s risk assessment. More importantly, these assessments indicate 

that the proposed reductions in formaldehyde emissions would not 

produce the reductions in cancer cases in California predicted by 

OEHHA’s risk assessment. 

 OEHHA performed a conservative cancer risk assessment, designed to 

estimate the cancer risk to humans at low exposure levels of 

formaldehyde by extrapolating the results of cancer in laboratory rats at 

higher levels of exposure. Based on the OEHHA risk assessment using 

the 95% upper-bound confidence limit, the estimated cancer risk over a 

70-year lifetime from the current average exposure to formaldehyde in 

California is 35 cancer cases per million people (Table 1). CARB also 

estimated that the benefit of implementing Phases 1 and 2 of the proposal 

would result in a net reduction of cancer cases of 12 and 35 per million 

people, respectively, over a 70 year lifetime. Assuming a steady 

population of 35 million in California, this would amount to reduction in 

cancer cases of 18 per year in California. If OEHHA’s estimates were 

accurate, the proposed reductions in formaldehyde emissions would have 

a small (but not insignificant) benefit. By comparison, over 100,000 

Californians are expected to die from cancer annually. 

 Notably, OEHHA’s estimates are at odds with more realistic risk 

assessments by other respected agencies. Since OEHHA conducted its 

risk assessment in 1992, new and relevant scientific data on formaldehyde 

has been published, which has not been incorporated in OEHHA’s risk 

assessment despite requests to re-open the risk assessment process. 

Using this information, a robust, biologically-based approach to estimating 

the potential cancer risk of formaldehyde to humans was developed and 

published. Importantly, this approach to assessing the potential cancer 

risk of formaldehyde has been embraced and adopted by regulatory 

agencies in the US and internationally, including USEPA (2006)29, Health 

Canada (2001)30, the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002)31, and the 

Australian Government (2006)32

. 

 Table 1 compares the estimated cancer risks of formaldehyde exposure in 

California using the cancer potency estimates (i.e., the inhalation unit risk 

per μg/m3

) for formaldehyde adopted by OEHHA and the other agencies. 

The cancer potency estimates in Table 1 are all based on the same study 

of formaldehyde in rats. With the exception of the choice of the cancer 

potency factor, all assumptions and calculations were exactly the same as 

those used by OEHHA. So, the only reason for the difference in the results 

in Table 1 is the different estimates of the cancer potency of formaldehyde. 
178

 As noted above, based on OEHHA’s estimates of formaldehyde’s cancer 

potency and the average exposure to formaldehyde in California, the 

implementation of Phase 2 is estimated by OEHHA to prevent 35 cancer 

cases per million people. In contrast, the other agencies’ cancer potency 

factors, combined with OEHHA’s estimates of average exposure to 

formaldehyde in California, produce an estimated reduction of cancer 

cases much smaller than one in a million. For example, only 0.001 cancer 

cases per million people (or one cancer case per billion people) would be 

prevented using the cancer potency factors adopted by Health Canada 

and WHO (Table 1). Similarly, USEPA’s (2006) cancer potency factor 

predicts a reduction of only 0.016 cancer cases per million people. 

 Based on an estimated population of 35 million people in California and 

OEHHA’s estimate of a reduction of 35 cancer cases per million people 

over a 70-year lifetime, OEHHA’s estimated number of cancer cases 

prevented per year in California is 18.33 In contrast, using the cancer 

potency factors of the Other Agencies, the estimated number of cancer 

cases prevented per year in California ranges from 0.0005 to 0.008 (Table 

1). In other words, the estimated time required to prevent one case of 

cancer in the entire population of California after implementing Phase 2 

ranges from 125 to 2000 years. 

 OEHHA’s estimated cancer potency for formaldehyde is 2,250 to 36,000 

times greater than that of the other agencies. Either OEHHA has greatly 

overestimated the risk or USEPA, Health Canada, WHO, and Australia all 

have greatly underestimated the risk. These other agencies have 

expressed a strong preference for using the risk assessment methodology 

of Conolly et al. (1999), such as USEPA’s decision to use this risk 

assessment model for formaldehyde when it established emission 

standards for plywood and composite wood products. 

 In the case of formaldehyde, we have determined that the cancer potency 

derived using the approach developed by [Conolly et al., 1999] and peerreviewed by an independent expert peer review panel sponsored by EPA 

and the Canadian government represents an appropriate alternative to 

EPA’s current IRIS URE for formaldehyde, and is therefore the best 

available peer-reviewed science at this time.”34

 

 The cancer risk assessment of HCHO by OEHHA does not rely on what 

USEPA calls “the best available peer-reviewed science at this time.” In 

fact, the OEHHA risk assessment of HCHO does not even mention the 

work upon which USEPA, Health Canada, WHO and Australia rely for 

their risk assessments of HCHO. CARB should carefully evaluate the 

proposal to reduce exposure to HCHO in light of the tenuous public health 

benefits represented by the estimated reduction in cancer cases in 
179

California. If reducing exposure to HCHO will not result in any meaningful 

reduction in cancer risk in California, the proposed action must be 

questioned. Given the fact that over 100,000 Californians are expected to 

die from cancer annually, it is especially important to focus the State’s 

resources on strategies that will result in real reduction in cancer and 

improvement in public health. 

 Agency Response [8.37-Rose-070416-FCI]: As described above in 

comments #341 to #344, OEHHA reviewed CIIT’s model and concluded 

that this model was not adequate to protect public health. The inflection 

point depends on assumptions put into the model. The outcomes of the 

model will be different based on these assumptions. Based on this 

analysis, this model was considered inappropriate as a basis for decisions 

affecting public health under the Toxic Air Contaminants regulations. This 

conclusion was reviewed by the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air 

Contaminants. On this basis, Board staff has presented cancer 

risk/benefit comparisons in the ISOR, on the basis of which they conclude 

that the control measure provides a significant and worthwhile health 

benefit, particularly for certain more heavily exposed individuals as 

opposed to regarding solely the statewide average risk numbers 

presented in this comment. 

365) Comment [8.38-Rose-070416-FCI]: V. CONCLUSION: In these 

comments, FCI has endeavored to address the proper scientific 

framework for the health risk assessment for formaldehyde in this 

rulemaking. FCI and its members have continued to invest heavily in 

toxicological research to support the scientific community’s efforts to better 

understand the toxicological properties of formaldehyde and refine risk 

assessment methodologies to continue to protect human the environment 

with increasing levels of certainty. 

 The Board has an obligation to ensure that the final agency decisions are 

based on evidence of requisite quality and quantity and that a reviewing 

court must enforce that duty. The differences between prevailing science 

and the ISOR are so severe that a rule based on such assumptions would 

be arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion. 

 Agency Response [8.38-Rose-070416-FCI]: OEHHA has been aware of 

the toxicological studies to which the comment refers for some time, and 

with the advice of the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants 

has given them detailed consideration in the proper forum; specifically, the 

response to a petition to reconsider the unit risk value for formaldehyde. 

See also the responses to comments #335 and #341 to #344. 

366) Comment [11-Higgins-070417-FFC]: The California Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has listed 
180

formaldehyde as a known carcinogen on the Proposition 65 list, and the 

World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer 

has classified formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen. In light of 

these classifications and bearing in mind formaldehyde’s asthmagenic 

effects, there is sufficient reason to be very concerned about the 

estimated 400 tons emitted by composite wood products each year in 

California. 

 Agency Response [11-Higgins-070417-FFC]: We appreciate the comment 

– no response necessary. 

367) Comment [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: “Absent, however, is reference to the 

ongoing effort at the U.S. EPA, the National Cancer Institute, and others in 

the scientific community to better measure and assess the risk from 

exposure to low levels of formaldehyde.” 

 Agency Response [14-Titus-070419-KCMA]: With reference to the CIIT 

model, OEHHA evaluated the Chemical Industries Institute for Toxicology 

(CIIT) model document as part of the established petition process. The 

model used a more complex analysis of the likely carcinogenic doseresponse based on analysis of deposition of formaldehyde in the rodent 

nasal cavity, and the role of DNA damage and cell proliferation. OEHHA 

reviewed the materials submitted by the petitioner and presented the 

conclusions to the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants 

(SRP). The SRP declined to recommend reconsideration of OEHHA’s 

1992 formaldehyde unit risk factor (OEHHA, 2005). This was largely due 

to the uncertainties in the model surrounding the formaldehyde 

concentration at which, according to the CIIT model, the unit risk 

“switched” from low to high. This modeled inflection point could vary 

considerably depending on the choice of some poorly characterized input 

parameters, and might reasonably be low enough that environmental and 

indoor exposures were in the “high potency” range. The model was not 

developed by the USEPA. The USEPA’s current consensus unit risk 

value is 1.3 x 10-5 as published on IRIS. They are officially re-evaluating 

formaldehyde but a final reassessment is not expected for at least another 

year or two. The document by Health Canada was written in conjunction 

with CIIT and does not represent an independent assessment. See also 

the responses to comments #341 to #344. 

368) Comment [15-Alexeeff-070419-OEHHA]: “Since that time OEHHA has 

continued to monitor developments in the scientific understanding of 

HCHO toxicity, regarding both its carcinogenicity, and its non-cancer 

effects. Concern for the carcinogenicity of HCHO has increased. The 

IARC held a meeting in June 2004 at which evidence for HCHO 

carcinogenicity was reviewed and the conclusions and classification were 

updated... Formaldehyde was upgraded from its previous ... status of 
181

probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A) to carcinogenic to humans 

(Group 1), based on the determination that the evidence of carcinogenicity 

in humans (from epidemiological studies) is now sufficient. OEHHA 

concurs with this evaluation... Thus, our concerns with the reliability and 

applicability of the CIIT model, which is not relevant to leukemia in 

particular, have increased rather than decreased since 2005.” 

 Agency Response [15-Alexeeff-070419-OEHHA]: No response necessary. 

369) Comment [15-Alexeeff-070419-OEHHA]: “Finally, OEHHA reviewed and 

agrees with the risk assessment of HCHO exposure presented in the 

composite wood ATCM staff report, which utilizes OEHHA’s unit risk factor. 

The risk assessment in the staff report reflects current science on HCHO 

exposure and risk from composite wood products.” 

 Agency Response [15-Alexeeff-070419-OEHHA]: No response necessary. 

370) Comment [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: “... Industry claims that there 

are no ill health-effects from exposure to urea formaldehyde are not to be 

taken seriously.” 

 Agency Response [17-Whalen-070419-Columbia]: We agree that the point 

raised by the commenter is appropriate. Formaldehyde is a known human 

carcinogen and there is clear documentation that unreacted HCHO in UF 

resins is released to the air. 

371) Comment [19-Cooper-070420-Kaiser]: California has recognized that 

there is no known safe level of formaldehyde, as the Office of 

Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) determined that the 

safe reference exposure level (CREL) for formaldehyde was lower than 

the level of formaldehyde already in the ambient air. Less than three years 

ago, in 2004, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for 

Research on Cancer (IARC) updated its report on formaldehyde. Based 

on new information from studies of persons exposed to formaldehyde, 

IARC changed its position that formaldehyde was a "probable carcinogen" 

to conclude that formaldehyde is "carcinogenic to humans". And as we all 

know cancer is one of the leading causes of illness and deaths in 

California and in the nation. In addition to IARC, other national and 

international regulatory agencies have determined that formaldehyde is a 

public occupational concern. The list includes The National Toxicology 

Program (NTP), The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), and The Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics 

(AOEC). The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) found that 

formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen in animal studies. 

Moreover, the EPA under the Clean Air Act has concluded that 

formaldehyde is a hazardous air pollutant. 
182

 Agency Response [19-Cooper-070420-Kaiser]: We appreciate the 

comment – no response necessary. 

372) Comment [20-Stensland-070420-NA]: Given that there are no 

formaldehyde exposure standards in the United States for children, the 

proposed effort by CARB is a major move forward in the realm of 

prevention in children’s should be applauded. 

 Agency Response [20-Stensland-070420-NA]: We appreciate the 

comment – no response necessary. 

373) Comment [21-Parker-070420]: “I am an architect of public schools here in 

California and I am very much in favor or any reduction of HCHO 

emissions. One of the greatest contributors of these emissions in a school 

classroom is the casework... This problem is exacerbated by the fact that 

classroom standards require more casework for elementary schools than 

standards for upper level classrooms...There are many reasons for 

adopting these reductions but the most important is the benefit it will have 

for California students.” 

 Agency Response [21-Parker-070420]: We agree that points raised by the 

commenter are appropriate. The ATCM standards will lower HCHO 

emissions from the composite wood products typically used to make 

bookcases, etc. 

374) Comment [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: The Health Effects Presented Do 

Not Reflect Current Science. Formaldehyde is one of the most widely 

studied compounds in the world. It has been seriously mischaracterized in 

the Initial Statement of Reasons for two principal reasons: (1) major new 

information adopted by USEPA, Health Canada, Germany and other 

jurisdictions has been ignored by CARB and OEHHA staff, and (2) high 

range "statistical bounds" of the OEHHA risk assessment have been 

deemed "cancer cases reduced" contrary to all professional guidance on 

the use of risk assessment numbers. The Formaldehyde Council, Inc. will 

submit detailed information on these topics. It is undeniable that 

formaldehyde at very high exposure levels (above levels that could be 

tolerated by humans) results in cancers in laboratory animals. Since the 

1992 OEHHA risk assessment, however, major strides have been made in 

understanding the mechanism of formaldehyde carcinogenicity – its 

interaction with cell material, its delivered dose to the cells, and the role of 

cytotoxicity in the process. These and other discoveries have led to new 

biologically-based risk assessments which show virtually no risk at the 

levels involved in residences. It has a virtual threshold. Much of the 

information was developed with the guidance and input of the 

Environmental Protection Agency and Health Canada. This information 
183

was submitted to CARB several years ago. CARB decided not to consider 

the new science in its rule-making, arguing that there was nothing new! 

The USEPA and Health Canada disagree – they have used this new 

scientific information in rule makings. It has also been endorsed in 

Germany and other countries. The staff report suggests that its regulation 

would result in a specific number of "reduced cancer cases." This is a 

total misuse of risk assessment numbers. The unit risk is based on an 

upper 95% confidence level expression of a computerized model. The 

1992 Final Report identifying formaldehyde as a toxic Air contaminant 

noted; "These 95 percent upper confidence limits for excess lifetime risks 

are health-protective estimates; the actual risk may be significantly lower." 

It is widely accepted that statistical expressions are not appropriate for use 

as point estimates of risk. These are ranging numbers of risk, the new risk 

assessments show virtually no risk of exposure to formaldehyde in the 

indoor environment even using a 95% upper confidence limit. 

 Agency Response [24-Landry-070423-CWIC]: The value for the unit risk 

factor mentioned here and in the Formaldehyde Council’s comments is 

based on the unit risk factor developed by the CIIT Centers for Health 

Research (CIIT), not by the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA). Although USEPA used the CIIT model in their recent 

MACT rule (a risk management measure), this is not currently accepted as 

a consensus value for risk assessment at USEPA. Therefore, the 

assertion that it was developed by the USEPA is incorrect. USEPA’s 

current consensus unit risk value is 1.3 x 10-5 as published on IRIS. This 

number is much closer to and a bit higher than the Cal/EPA value for the 

potency of formaldehyde. 

 The USEPA is officially re-evaluating HCHO but a final reassessment is 

not expected to be completed for another two years. In fact, the Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), a sub-division of the Office 

of Air and Radiation (OAR) within the USEPA, went around the agency’s 

normal process of evaluating cancer potency estimates in its decision to 

use the industry-sponsored CIIT potency value. Thus, the CIIT model is 

not the official USEPA position. Well respected scientists from the 

USEPA recently presented data at scientific meetings which supports our 

conclusion that the CIIT model has a very uncertain inflection point. 

 There are major uncertainties in the predictions of the CIIT model 

depending on choice of input parameters (see response to comment 

#331). An extensive review of the strengths and weaknesses of that 

model by OEHHA was performed and reviewed by the Scientific Review 

Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants (SRP) in 2004, which led to the 

recommendation by the SRP not to change the California potency 

estimate. The California potency estimate is not a typical default model 

and OEHHA considered several model types, including inclusion of cell 
184

proliferation data. Publications since that date have not added 

significantly to the information provided in the (then unpublished) report 

considered in that review. 

 IARC recently reconsidered the status of HCHO and upgraded it to a 

Group 1 – known human carcinogen. The listing basis by IARC was 

nasopharyngeal cancer – not confined to the very specific site evaluated 

in the rat study and the CIIT model. Several other sites (especially lung 

cancer and leukemia) are also of substantial concern. Concern for risks at 

other sites in the respiratory system (mechanistically plausible in humans 

due to different nasal geometry), and for leukemia raises the question of 

whether the CIIT model (which arbitrarily assumes a number of key 

parameters are the same in humans and rats, including the exact site of 

tumorigenesis) is relevant to human cancer risk. 

 Several of the citations of other national and international authorities 

endorsing the CIIT model are in fact quoting the same authors, and in 

some cases the same document, and are not independent or disinterested 

comments. 

 With regard to the comment on “the ISOR's reliance on an outdated 

OEHHA assessment of carcinogenicity,” OEHHA’s assessment of 

carcinogenicity for HCHO uses established methods of cancer risk 

assessment, and in addition included information on HCHO – induced 

DNA-protein cross linking and evaluated the effect of cell proliferation on 

the estimates of cancer potency. The risk estimate was peer reviewed 

and approved by the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants 

(SRP) in 1992. In addition, in 2002 the CARB received a petition from the 

Formaldehyde Council requesting a review of the HCHO risk assessment, 

based on a model of the cancer potency developed by the CIIT. OEHHA 

evaluated the materials submitted by the petition and worked with a copy 

of the model developed by CIIT. After spending many hours working with 

the model, OEHHA determined that model uncertainty was too great for 

use in estimating cancer risk to humans from formaldehyde exposure at 

low levels. The SRP reviewed the OEHHA analysis as well as the 

materials submitted with the petition. They concluded that the model was 

not ready for use and also concluded that model uncertainty was a serious 

problem. They declined to recommend to CARB that the HCHO risk 

assessment conducted under the Toxic Air Contaminant program be reopened. Furthermore, USEPA staff recently presented data at scientific 

meetings which supports the conclusion that the model is overly reliant on 

poorly characterized parameters that have a major influence on the final 

slope fits. 

375) Comment [27-Rush-070424-Temple Inland]: “... The emission rate 

reductions in Phase 2 will not improve the health for California residents 
185

and the cancer rates stated are grossly over stated by a factor of about 

1000 times...” 

 Agency Response [27-Rush-070424-Temple Inland]: We disagree. 

Formaldehyde is a no-threshold carcinogen and emission reductions will 

lead to reduced exposure and health benefits. The cancer rates in the 

ISOR were calculated using OEHHA’s unit risk factor, which we believe is 

the correct factor to use for calculations of this kind. 

376) Comment [28-Maultsby-070424-FloPly]: Here is the kicker – what real 

benefit is there to be gained by the change from the Phase I to the Phase 

II levels? I’ve seen no sound evidence that exposure to formaldehyde at 

the proposed Phase I levels poses a risk. I am not aware that any of your 

referenced studies show this. Older data from people exposed in years 

past was from when formaldehyde levels were exceptionally high, and 

these did not show a strong correlation to health issues (weak correlation 

to nasal cancer I believe?). The limits you consider now are all just 

supposition and gross overkill. 

 Agency Response [28-Maultsby-070424-FloPly]: The benefit of the move 

from Phase 1 to Phase 2 is enhanced protection of health measured in 

reduction of formaldehyde-related cancer cases. Although not included in 

these calculations, there are also other potential health benefits 

associated with the reduction in HCHO exposure such as the reduction in 

allergy and asthma exacerbation. Based on the estimates provided in the 

ISOR, implementation of Phase 1 would result in a reduction in HCHO 

emissions of 180 tons per year which, in turn, is projected to reduce 

excess cancer cases by 12-35 per million over a 70-year life span. 

Implementation of Phase 2 is projected to reduce these cancer cases 2-3-

fold (35-97 cases per million) over the same life span. 

377) Comment [29-Couture-070424-CDMDP]: “... In fact, recent credible 

research around the world including the USEPA and Health Canada 

shows that there is virtually no risk to the population of California from 

industry products in the manner they are produced and used by 

consumers.” 

 Agency Response [29-Couture-070424-CDMDP]: We disagree. See the 

responses to comments #341 to #344. 

378) Comment [30-Hardy-070427-Children Now]: Children Now earnestly 

encourages CARB to put in place HCHO emissions reduction regulations 

as an overdue health prevention measure, to protect all people, including 

our children. 
186

 Agency Response [30-Hardy-070427-Children Now]: We appreciate the 

comment – no response necessary. 

379) Comment [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: IWPA applauds the California Air 

Resources Board’s (ARB) intentions to reduce human exposure to toxic 

air contaminants as mandated by state law. 

 Agency Response [38-Morgan-070424-IWPA]: We appreciate the 

comment – no response necessary. 

380) Comment [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: “I have sat in CARB public 

meetings and watched scientists and toxicologists tell the CARB board 

that their needs assessment is potentially flawed and thus their 

conclusions are potentially based on fallacies...” 

 Agency Response [42-Gustafson-070424-WWI]: We disagree. The 

arguments raised by industry toxicologists are subject to interpretation, 

and there is no consensus interpretation. See also the responses to 

comments #341 to #344. 

381) Comment [47-Steenson-070424-AuWPA]: 1. Underlying Health science. 

“We support the data and interpretations of the science of the health 

effects of Formaldehyde presented by the FCI that: 

(a) there are safe levels of formaldehyde as modelled by the CIIT. 

(b) the most sensitive health end-point for formaldehyde is sensory 

irritation to the eyes. 

(c) at or below the levels where sensory irritation occurs there is adequate 

protection of human health from other potential health endpoints such as 

cancer. 

(d) there is inadequate evidence to suggest that formaldehyde causes 

asthma or that asthmatics are more sensitive to formaldehyde. 

 We therefore recommend to the board that they review their risk 

assessment based on the most recent science as presented by the FCI. 

 Agency Response [47-Steenson-070424-AuWPA]: See the responses to 

comments #341 to #344. OEHHA evaluated the CIIT model under the 

established process to re-evaluate risk assessments under the Toxic Air 

Contaminants program, but found it unsatisfactory to predict risks at low 

levels of exposure. This was largely due to the uncertainties in the model 

surrounding the HCHO concentration at which, according to the CIIT 

model, the unit risk “switched” from low to high. This modeled inflection 

point could vary considerably depending on the choice of some poorly 

characterized input parameters, and might reasonably be low enough that 

environmental and indoor exposures were in the “high potency” range. 
187

OEHHA concluded that this model was not adequate to protect public 

health. OEHHA reported that the model produced a dose-response that 

was flat at the low-end and that the model was flawed, thus calling into 

question assertions of the ‘safe’ level of HCHO. OEHHA agrees that 

irritancy is a sensitive endpoint for short-term exposure and use it in the 

development of its acute REL (OEHHA, 1999). However, the sensory 

irritation threshold does not account for the tissue damage from long-term 

exposure to HCHO observed in workers, and this is not an appropriate 

endpoint to use in developing a REL for chronic exposure. For the chronic 

REL, OEHHA used histological damage to the nasal epithelium (OEHHA, 

2000). 

382) Comment [52-Lent-070425-HBN]: At the October 23rd public hearing, 

there was some concern raised about California Air Resources Board’s 

(CARB) reliance on the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment’s (OEHHA) position on HCHO, its toxicology and health 

effects. Members of industry expressed the opinion that the current 

science shows HCHO is not as great of a concern as OEHHA’s 1992 

analysis indicates. 

 As you are probably aware, this is not a new argument from industry. 

Given the current state of the science on the health effects of HCHO, 

however, we strongly believe that a careful review of the most updated 

peer-reviewed science indicates that CARB’s reliance on OEHHA’s risk 

assessment on HCHO is well-founded.1

 

 Less than three years ago, in 2004, the World Health Organization’s 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) updated its report on 

HCHO. Before 2004 (1987 and 1995) based on limited available peerreviewed studies, IARC concluded HCHO was a “probable carcinogen.” 

In 2004, however, IARC changed its position based on new information 

from studies of persons exposed to HCHO. In the most recent 

classification from IARC, the expert working group found that evidence 

was sufficient to increase the level of concern about HCHO. In 2004, 

IARC found sufficient evidence to conclude that HCHO is “carcinogenic to 

humans.” In addition to IARC, other national and international regulatory 

agencies have determined that HCHO is a public occupational concern. 

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) has classified HCHO as 

“reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” The National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has determined that HCHO is 

a “potential occupational carcinogen.” The Association of Occupational 

and Environmental Clinics (AOEC) concluded that HCHO is a potential 

asthmagen. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) found 

that HCHO is a probable human carcinogen in animal studies. Moreover, 

the EPA under the Clean Air Act has concluded that HCHO is a hazardous 

air pollutant. The record is clear. Increased study of HCHO reiterates 
188

concerns about its impact on public and occupational health. Consensus 

exists in the peer-reviewed science that the risks from HCHO 

substantiates the basis for the CARB action based on the OEHHA 

analysis. 

 We strongly support the CARB staff proposal to regulate HCHO emissions 

from composite wood products rapidly and bring them as close to zero as 

is technically possible by 2012 in order to protect public and occupational 

health. Please continue to press for the most stringent regulations you 

can implement with a meaningfully rapid timeline. 

 1 Much of the industry push to re-evaluate HCHO is spurred by a mathematical model of 

HCHO toxicity developed by CIIT (Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology). The CIIT 

model is limited in a number of significant ways, but, most obviously, it fails to account for 

the risk of cancers in tissues other than the nose and throat. In particular, the model 

ignores leukemia risks identified in two robust independent epidemiology studies of 

exposed workers, by NIH/NCI (Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Blair A. 

Mortality from solid cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. Am J Epidemiol. 

2004 Jun 15; 159(12):1117-30) and CDC/NIOSH (Pinkerton LE, Hein MJ, Stayner LT. 

Mortality among a cohort of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. 

Occup Environ Med. 2004 Mar; 61(3):193-200.). At a 2004 meeting of IARC’s chemical 

evaluation program, 26 scientists from 10 countries evaluated all the available evidence 

on the carcinogenicity of HCHO, including the CIIT model and the NCI and NIOSH 

occupational studies. In addition to definite evidence of nasopharyngeal cancers, IARC 

also found limited evidence for cancer of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses and 

"strong but not sufficient evidence" for leukemia. (The finding for leukemia reflects the 

epidemiologists’ finding of strong evidence in human studies coupled with an inability to 

identify a mechanism for induction of leukemia, based on the data available at this time. 

Press Release No. 153. World Health Organization, June 15, 2004. IARC Classifies 

Formaldehyde As Carcinogenic to Humans.)” 

 Agency Response [52-Lent-070425-HBN]: We appreciate the comment – 

no response necessary. 

383) Comment [53-Cassman-070425-HBMVR]: The ISOR provides 

overwhelming evidence regarding the health risks of HCHO exposure 

given that no safe threshold exposure exists and the diverse sources of 

emissions from CWP. (See ISOR VII, I, p. 130) As the ISOR notes, 

Californians are exposed to HCHO emissions in the ambient air from a 

multitude of sources, including “hot spots,” such as near lumber yards, 

through indoor-outdoor air exchanges, from newly made standing stock of 

CWP stored at manufacturing facilities, and during transport of CWP by 

rail, truck, and ship. (See ISOR I.B., p. 3) The ISOR also notes that 

Californians are exposed to HCHO exposures through indoor air sources, 

and that CWP such as particleboard and medium density fiberboard 

panels are subject to regulation not only under the Tanner Act, but also as 

consumer products under Section 41712. The statewide annual average 

HCHO concentration in ambient air exceeds the chronic reference 

exposure level for HCHO that presents a known risk to public health. 
189

(ISOR I.B.) As outlined in Chapter VII.F, the ATCM will have substantial 

impact in reducing common exposure to HCHO emissions. 

 Agency Response [53-Cassman-070425-HBMVR]: We appreciate the 

comment – no response necessary. 

384) Comment [54-Knox-070425-ACS]: The Society believes that reducing 

exposure to HCHO is desirable and that reduced emissions will benefit 

public health. We support the proposed formaldehyde ATCM, and 

commend the Board for its actions to protect the health of all Californians. 

 Agency Response [54-Knox-070425-ACS]: We appreciate the comment – 

no response necessary. 

385) Comment [55-Theg-070425-NA]: I care very deeply about reducing HCHO 

emissions and urge you take whatever actions you can to reduce HCHO 

emissions to background levels. This is a health issue of great importance. 

 Agency Response [55-Theg-070425-NA]: We appreciate the comment – 

no response necessary. 

386) Comment [56-Carmichael-070425-CCA][75-Carmichael-070426-CCA]: 

The Coalition for Clean Air and the American Lung Association of 

California support the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) plan to 

require the wood products industry to develop formaldehyde free and low 

HCHO products. We support the stringency of the standards and the “cap 

approach” proposed by staff but we strongly believe the industry can and 

should meet these standards sooner... Again, we appreciate CARB’s 

work in developing this regulation. To better protect public health we urge 

an acceleration of the requirements proposed by your staff. 

 Agency Response [56-Carmichael-070425-CCA][75-Carmichael-070426]-

CCA: We appreciate the comment. See also the response to comment 

#123. 

387) Comment [57-Young-070425-NA]: Please support the measure to reduce 

formaldehyde emissions. 

 Agency Response [57-Young-070425-NA]: We appreciate the comment – 

no response necessary. 

388) Comment [58-Blicker-070425-NA]: Do the right thing. Adopt the 

regulations to establish new low emitting standards. Thank you. 

 Agency Response [58-Blicker-070425-NA]: We appreciate the comment – 

no response necessary. 
190

389) Comment [68.1-Shull-070426-CWIC] [80-Shull-070426-CWIC]: The 

introductory statement to Section VII states “This chapter presents an 

overview of the health risk assessment process...” Chapter VII falls 

grossly short in presenting a transparent, clear, consistent and reasonable

overview of CARB’s risk assessment. For example, it lacks a standard 

uncertainty analysis as part of the risk characterization (Step 4) 

component. Also, it completely excludes any discussion of the current 

scientific discussion/debate on the cancer slope factor (CSF), which has 

more influence on estimated cancer risks in humans than any other single 

factor. In my opinion, it fails all four quality criteria, is biased, and will 

mislead risk management decision makers. 

 Agency Response [68.1-Shull-070426-CWIC] [80-Shull-070426-CWIC]: 

Other than the absence of an uncertainty analysis, it is not clear why the 

commenter feels that the ISOR falls short in terms of transparency, clarity, 

consistency or reasonableness. This document was not written to defend 

the CSF. In responding to FCI’s petition to have HCHO re-examined, the 

Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants effectively endorsed 

the continued use of the current values. See also the responses to 

comments #341 to #344. 

390) Comment [68.2-Shull-070426-CWIC]: The introductory statement also 

states that “As HCHO has been identified as a toxic air contaminant 

(CARB, 1992), there is no threshold exposure level below which adverse 

health effects are not anticipated.” This statement is blatantly wrong, has 

no scientific basis, and has no basis in either USEPA or Cal/EPA’s 

designation of formaldehyde as a likely human carcinogen. 

 Agency Response [68.2-Shull-070426-CWIC]: Formaldehyde is a 

genotoxic carcinogen: all such compounds are considered to be nonthreshold carcinogens for TAC regulatory listings. The comment does not 

suggest a threshold level or the scientific basis for one. See also the 

responses to comments #335 and #336. 

391) Comment [68.3-Shull-070426-CWIC]: Whereas Section 2 of Chapter VII 

presents a relatively comprehensive, 21-page summary of the toxicology 

and human epidemiology literature on formaldehyde, no attempt is made 

to relate the information directly to the proposed ATCM standard. 

 Agency Response [68.3-Shull-070426-CWIC]: The first part of Chapter 

VII summarizes studies of the adverse health effects of HCHO, including 

cancer. In Section F of Chapter VII, OEHHA’s unit risk factors are applied 

to show the effects of reducing HCHO exposures as required by the 

ATCM. See also the responses to comments #337 and #340. 
191

392) Comment [68.4-Shull-070426-CWIC] [80-Shull-070426-CWIC]: Also, 

Section 2 of Chapter VII makes no mention of the metabolism of 

formaldehyde in biological systems including humans. It is a well-known 

fact that virtually all cells in the body possess aldehyde dehydrogenase 

enzymes that detoxify formaldehyde at air concentrations less than about 

2 ppm. For the CARB report to ignore this fact shows blatant bias and 

misuse of science (i.e., including the science that supports the proposed 

ATCM standard and excluding the science that doesn’t support the 

proposed standard). 

 Agency Response [68.4-Shull-070426-CWIC] [80-Shull-070426-CWIC]: 

The metabolism of HCHO has been considered in other supporting 

documents including those in which OEHHA developed reference 

exposure levels (RELs). The assertion that “...virtually all cells...detoxify 

HCHO at air concentration less than about 2 ppm” implies that 100% of 

the HCHO is detoxified before it can cause damage. This has not been 

demonstrated. This comment also ignores the variability among 

individuals in the ability to metabolize HCHO, and variations in 

endogenous HCHO formation. 

393) Comment [68.5-Shull-070426-CWIC]: Chapter VII (Section 2) presents no 

discussion of OEHHA’s CSF or Unit Risk Factor (URF), even though this 

factor affects the risk assessment results as much or more than any other 

single factor in the assessment. The fact that the CSF is not listed among 

the seven “factors that affect the outcome of a health risk assessment” 

(Section C, Chapter VII) shows bias, misleads CARB’s risk managers, and 

is yet another failure of the report to meet the four risk assessment quality 

standards. 

 Agency Response [68.5-Shull-070426-CWIC]: The factors listed in 

Section C are the generic factors that apply to both cancer and noncancer health risk assessment. The CSF and the URF are determined 

independently of the ATCM and the factors in Section C. This was 

conducted under Phase 1, Identification of Toxic Air Contaminants in the 

TAC program. See also the response to comment #335. 

394) Comment [68.6-Shull-070426-CWIC] [77-Natz-070426-FCI]: Chapter VII 

makes no mention of key reports in the published scientific literature that 

have challenged the underlying assumptions and scientific bases of 

OEHHA’s CSF; notably Conolly et al. (2004). The scientific controversy 

associated with the CSF and URF factor for formaldehyde is well known. 

The complete silence of CARB’s report on this important scientific 

controversy shows bias, misleads CARB’s risk managers, and is yet 

another failure of the report to meet the four risk assessment quality 

standards. 
192

 Agency Response [68.6-Shull-070426-CWIC] [77-Natz-070426-FCI]: It is 

not clear what underlying assumptions or scientific bases of OEHHA’s 

CSF are challenged by Connolly et al. The ISOR was not written to 

defend the CSF or URF, but rather to apply these numbers in a risk 

management context. The mentioned scientific controversy indicates that 

the evidence is still evolving and, while the evolving evidence may 

eventually suggest different values, the ISOR uses what OEHHA and the 

Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants consider to be the best 

available numbers. See also the responses to comments #335 and #341 

to #344. 

395) Comment [68.7-Shull-070426-CWIC] [77-Natz-070426-FCI] [80-Shull070426-CWIC]: Whereas the proposed ATCM standard may reduce 

exposure of Californians to HCHO to some unknown degree, there is no 

scientific basis for concluding that a reduction in the incidence of cancer in 

California will result. The primary reasons are: 1) HCHO is completely 

detoxified at low levels of exposure; levels currently associated with 

emissions from composite wood products, and 2) there is no scientific 

evidence of human carcinogenesis in the already low air concentrations of 

HCHO that are typically emitted from composite wood products 

manufactured in California. 

 Agency Response [68.7-Shull-070426-CWIC] [77-Natz-070426-FCI] [80-

Shull-070426-CWIC]: The comment asserts that HCHO is completely 

detoxified at low levels of exposure, a proposition that has not been 

demonstrated, and would be difficult to do so. In addition, since HCHO is 

continuously released from composite wood products into confined spaces, 

such as homes, it can reach high levels (> 200 μg/m3). It thus contributes 

to an individual’s exposure from all sources, and is a significant source for 

individuals spending the bulk of their time in recently fabricated homes. 

396) Comment [69-Murray-070426-FCI] [77-Natz-070426-FCI] [78-Murray070426-FCI]: Will CARB’s Proposal on Formaldehyde Really Reduce 

Cancer? Summary. The health benefits of CARB’s proposal to lower 

HCHO emissions have been overestimated by a cancer risk assessment 

that does not use the most current peer-reviewed scientific information. 

Importantly, more recent and sophisticated risk assessments of HCHO by 

other respected regulatory agencies, including USEPA, Health Canada, 

and the World Health Organization (WHO), predict the cancer risk is as 

much as 36,000 times lower than the estimate relied upon by CARB. 

These assessments indicate that the proposed reductions in HCHO 

emissions will not produce any meaningful reduction in cancer cases in 

California. 

 CARB’s estimate is based on OEHHA’s cancer potency factor. CARB 

estimated the cancer risk of HCHO based on an estimated cancer potency 
193

factor from a 1992 risk assessment by the Office of Environmental Health 

Hazard Assessment (OEHHA); this assessment was reissued essentially 

unchanged by OEHHA in 2005 as part of the Air Toxics Hot Spots 

Program.1 CARB estimated that the benefit of implementing Phases 1 

and 2 of the proposal would result in a theoretical net reduction of 12 and 

35 cancer cases per million people, respectively, over a 70-year lifetime. 

Assuming a steady population of 35 million in California and assuming 

CARB’s estimates are accurate, this would amount to a theoretical 

reduction in of about 6 and 18 cancer cases per year in California from 

Phases 1 and 2, respectively. 

 USEPA, Health Canada, and WHO estimate a dramatically lower cancer 

potency for HCHO. OEHHA’s cancer potency estimate is at odds with 

more recent risk assessments by USEPA, Health Canada, and WHO. 

Substituting these cancer potency estimates in CARB’s equations 

indicates that Phase 2 would prevent 0.001-0.016 cancer cases per million 

people, which is 0.0005-0.008 cancer cases per year in the entire 

population of California (Table 1). In other words, implementation of 

Phase 2 is unlikely to prevent one cancer case in the entire population of 

California in our lifetime. 

 Why such a big difference in estimates? OEHHA’s cancer potency 

estimate does not rely on what USEPA calls “the best peer-reviewed 

science at this time. “2

 In fact, the OEHHA risk assessment of HCHO 

does not even mention the work which USEPA, Health Canada, and WHO 

relied upon for their risk assessments of HCHO. 

 OEHHA’s estimated cancer potency for formaldehyde is 2,250-36,000 

times greater than that of USEPA, Health Canada, and WHO. 

Formaldehyde does not become 36,000 times more carcinogenic when it 

crosses the state border. Either OEHHA has greatly overestimated the 

risk or USEPA, Health Canada, and WHO all have greatly underestimated 

the risk. 

 Conclusion: CARB should carefully evaluate the proposal to reduce 

exposure to HCHO, particularly the extremely low limits proposed in 

Phase 2, in light of the tenuous public health benefits represented by the 

estimated reduction in cancer cases in California. If reducing exposure to 

HCHO will not result in any meaningful reduction in cancer risk in 

California, the proposed action must be questioned. Given the fact that 

over 100,000 Californians are expected to die annually from cancer, it is 

especially important to focus the State’s resources on actions that will 

result in real reduction in cancer and improvement in public health. 

 Agency Response [69-Murray-070426-FCI] [77-Natz-070426-FCI] [78-

Murray-070426-FCI]: As noted in the comment, and unlike the agencies
194

mentioned, OEHHA does not use the model from CIIT on which the 

cancer risk described in the comment is based. OEHHA evaluated this 

model and found it to be interesting and representative of a major effort on 

the part of CIIT. However, we think this model (1) has not been 

adequately analyzed for model uncertainty, and (2) has important yet not 

well characterized assumptions that influence the estimate of risk at low 

levels of exposure. This model does not adequately protect public health. 

The Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants agreed with 

OEHHA’s assessment and declined to recommend to the CARB that the 

risk assessment be re-opened. Based on the numbers from OEHHA, the 

proposed reductions in HCHO are expected to result in meaningful 

reductions in cancer cases. Regarding Table 1, CIIT wrote the section of 

the WHO and the USEPA documents. And, EPA's consensus potency 

values are on IRIS and still have their 1991 value. They are officially reevaluating but are about two years out from a final reassessment. Finally, 

scientists at USEPA recently presented data at scientific meetings which 

supports the conclusion that the CIIT model has a very uncertain inflection 

point. See also the responses to comments #341 to #344. 

397) Comment [77-Natz-070426-FCI]: “The members of the Formaldehyde 

Council are concerned that with this proposed HCHO rule, CARB is 

embarking down a path that is completely out of sync with the current and 

best available science on formaldehyde’s potential human health effects. 

Today, you will be hearing from experts who will point out the flaws in both 

the analyses and the drafting of this proposed rule. Simply put, we believe 

that this proposed rule to reduce HCHO in wood products is not based on 

the best available science and health effects data and will not provide 

appreciable health protection to the people in California.” 

 Agency Response [77-Natz-070426-FCI]: We disagree. We have 

consulted with the toxicologists from OEHHA whose work was peerreviewed by the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants. See 

also the responses to comments #341 to #344. 

398) Comment [79-Marsh-070426-FCI]: “... our reanalysis of the NCI cohort 

data do not support their suggestion of a causal association with HCHO 

and NPC (nasopharyngeal cancer). I believe that the 2004 decision by 

IARC to reclassify HCHO as a group one substance was premature 

considering the small number of NPC deaths, the missing evidence from 

the British and NIOSH cohort studies, NCI’s anomalous finding for NPC in 

a single plant, and now our new evidence that the NPC risk in this very 

influential plant may be related to not HCHO, but to previous work in the 

local metal industry.” 
195

 Agency Response [79-Marsh-070426-FCI]: We disagree. We stand with 

the decision by IARC to classify HCHO as a known human carcinogen. 

See also the response to comment #340. 

399) Comment [118-Lent-070426-NA]: “So why are they doing this in the face 

of the blitz of warnings prices are going up for the product? Because they 

recognize that their workers and their customers are suffering now from 

the impact of this. These actions as the CARB staff – statistics have 

shown we’re talking about thousands of cancer cases here a wide range 

of other impacts. And the people who have signed that letter recognize 

that we’re not going to get this change in the industry through the green 

building movement alone or through individuals concerned. So we have a 

classic case of market failure here where people don’t get to choose the 

casework that they’re exposed to... The ones who pay for health impacts 

are not the ones necessarily making the most of the decisions. So this is 

a public health issue that requires your action...” 

 Agency Response [118-Lent-070426-NA]: We appreciate the comment – 

no response necessary. 

400) Comment [119-Makus-070426-Children Now]: “Recently OEHHA studies 

suggest that formaldehyde likely presents differential health impacts on 

infants and children from carcinogenicity to respiratory effects including 

decreased lung function and exacerbated asthma... What is especially 

tragic about this disproportionate health impact is that children have very 

little control over their environment. They seldom exercise any choices to 

where they live, where to attend school, or what materials are utilized or 

located in their surroundings. They must breathe in the environment in 

which others place them.” 

 Agency Response [119-Makus-070426-Children Now]: We appreciate the 

comment – no response necessary. 

401) Comment [119-Makus-070426-Children Now]: “Further, the many children 

in our state from low-income families are far more likely to be exposed to 

an environment with higher levels of HCHO emissions which raises the 

profound issue of environmental justice.” 

 Agency Response [119-Makus-070426-Children Now]: We agree. By 

requiring the sale and use of lower emitting products in California, HCHO 

exposures of all Californians will be reduced. 
196

D. Comments and Agency Responses: 15-day Comment Period 

1) Comment [1.1-Davis-080203-Regal AQ]: “The process of testing and 

certifying CWP . . . is a bit complicated. I think a graphic or two showing 

the various steps that have to be followed . . . would help everyone 

understand how all the pieces fit together.” 

Agency Response [1.1-Davis-080203-Regal AQ]: We appreciate the 

suggestion and will add a flow chart to our composite wood products web 

page. No changes are necessary to the regulation. 

2) Comment [1.2-Davis-080203-Regal AQ]: “Has there been any thought to 

the importance of internet sales of finished products made from CWP that 

do not meet emission standards?” 

Agency Response [1.2-Davis-080203-Regal AQ]: The Internet sale of noncomplying finished goods into California will be illegal after the respective 

effective dates. As part of our enforcement efforts, we may purchase 

finished goods from the Internet for verification testing and subsequent 

enforcement investigations, such as is currently done for other ARB 

regulations (e.g., consumer products). 

 

3) Comment [2-Pardy-080205-NA]: “I support efforts to reduce formaldehyde 

emissions from composite wood products.” 

Agency Response [2-Pardy-080205-NA]: Thank you. No response 

necessary. 

4) Comment [3-Anderson-080212-Eastman Kodak]: “We respectfully request 

that you and members of the composite wood product implementation 

team give careful consideration to packaging materials and pallets. We 

believe that the most logical approach is to exempt these materials from 

the ARB requirements.” 

Agency Response [3-Anderson-080212-Eastman Kodak]: We disagree. 

While some pallets and shipping crates are used in warehouses away 

from exposure to the general public, there are many instances in which 

there is potential for public exposure to formaldehyde emissions from 

wood used in making such packaging materials and pallets. In addition, 

all such material will emit into ambient air in California, and it is those 

emissions and the resultant public exposure to formaldehyde that we are 

seeking to reduce by the ATCM. Thus, if packaging materials and pallets 

are made with composite wood products for use in California, the 

composite wood products will need to comply with the emission standards 

in the ATCM. Pallets and shipping crates made prior to the effective date 
197

of the emission standards can still be used. For the purposes of the 

ATCM, pallets and crates are considered finished goods. Pallets made 

after 2009 will need to be constructed from complying composite wood 

products and labeled as specified in the ATCM. 

5) Comment [4.1-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: “We would like to 

suggest that for consumer products which consist of only small surface 

areas made of composite wood products, there should be a lower limit as 

to size. Products below this size may be exempted from this regulation.” 

“The risk of contribution of formaldehyde emission from the small objects 

could reasonably be considered to be insignificant and not motivate the 

elaborate measures and third party certification schemes which are 

appropriate for larger panels.” 

 Agency Response [4.1-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: While we agree 

that emissions of formaldehyde from a small object made of a composite 

wood product will contribute little to public exposure, each small object 

contributes to cumulative public exposure to formaldehyde. Therefore, in 

lieu of determining the appropriate exemption size, we concluded that it 

was more fair and comprehensive to not include an exemption based on 

size. Also, third party certification is required of manufacturers of 

composite wood products, not of fabricators of finished goods. In this way, 

when fabricators cut panels into pieces to make finished goods, they’ll be 

assured of using complying composite wood products. 

6) Comment [4.2-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: Curved plywood is not 

included in the definition of hardwood plywood. “We would suggest to 

include a definition of the term ‘curved plywood’ to indicate that this refers 

to material which is manufactured in a curved form from the outset, i.e. 

that it does not refer to material which is first manufactured as panels and 

only thereafter treated to achieve a curved shape.”

 Agency Response [4.2-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: After 

consultation with manufacturers of curved plywood, it is our understanding 

that most of it is made in a curved press, typically with radio frequency 

curing. Therefore, since there is a standard method of manufacture, we 

assume there is a universal understanding of the definition. Hence, we 

see no need to include a definition. 

7) Comment [4.3-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: “We suggest that this 

statement (of compliance) can be omitted from the bill of lading and 

invoice when transferring panels and finished products between units 

within the one and the same Corporation (group), on the condition that the 

required statements of compliance can be made available to the 

enforcement inspector on request.” 
198

Agency Response [4.3-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: There are 

situations in which a corporate business unit in one part of the country 

may supply panels or finished goods to a fabricator that is owned by the 

same corporation, but operated by a manager who needs to know whether 

the materials comply with California standards. While there may be some 

situations or supply chains where such knowledge is not necessary, there 

is no realistic way to craft an exemption that would be appropriately limited 

to such situations. Also, information on the invoice or bill of lading is 

necessary for inspectors to effectively enforce the regulation. Therefore, it 

is not appropriate to change the requirement. 

8) Comment [4.4-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: “As most furniture 

consists of a mix of materials . . . we suggest allowing the label to state 

only the ‘worst’ or most onerous level.” 

Agency Response [4.4-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: We agree. We 

do not expect a fabricator’s label on a finished good to identify the 

emission level for each component part within the finished good, only the 

least protective. So, for example, if a finished good contained component 

parts made using Phase 2 composite wood and other component parts 

made with a ULEF resin, we would expect the label to state that the 

finished good is made with composite wood that complies with the 

applicable Phase 2 emission standards. If all of the component parts used 

in making the finished good are made with a ULEF resin, then the finished 

good can be labeled as having been made with ULEF resins. 

9) Comment [4.5-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: The commenter 

interprets Appendix 2 of the regulation to assume “the Quality Control 

Manager to be a chemist.” The commenter suggests that we modify this 

section to allow the chemistry specialist to be a different individual. 

Agency Response [4.5-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: Appendix 2 

requires each manufacturing plant to have adequate facilities and staff to 

perform routine quality control testing of manufactured composite wood 

products. Appendix 2 does not specify that the quality control manager or 

staff need to be chemists, just that they have the experience or training to 

fulfill the role. Alternatively, the quality control testing can be performed by 

a contract laboratory. 

10) Comment [4.6-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: The regulation requires 

that each plant have a “plant test facility. For ‘no formaldehyde added 

systems,’ this seems a high cost for very few tests. We suggest allowing 

the use of an accredited laboratory for the initial testing and for whatever 

test from production that may be needed.” 
199

 Agency Response [4.6-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: Appendix 2 of 

the regulation already allows for the testing to be conducted by “a contract 

laboratory or a laboratory operated by an approved third party certifier.” 

Therefore, no change is necessary. 

11) Comment [4.7-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: “We would therefore like 

to ask for a postponement of the ‘Effective Dates’ with six months. The 

main issues necessitating a postponement for our company, as well as 

presumably for other companies with a large part of production located 

outside the U.S., are the time needed to implement this particular model 

for quality assurance as well as the time to get approvals of the third party 

certifiers.” 

Agency Response [4.7-Hard-af-Segerstad-080213-IKEA]: For many 

months, we have been actively conducting outreach to associations and 

individual companies that represent manufacturers, distributors, importers, 

fabricators, retailers, and third party certifiers to help inform affected 

industries of the need to prepare to comply with the regulation by the 

effective dates. Our understanding is that several organizations are 

poised to assume certification responsibilities well in advance of the 

January 1, 2009, effective date. We do not believe that a postponement is 

necessary. 

12) Comment [5.1-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: “The way the ruling is drafted it 

unfairly affects importers of some product.” “The furniture importers in the 

United States who deal with Fabricators in the Far East . . . who buy board 

from an exponential amount of board manufacturers. These 

manufacturers are set up to adhere to US, European, Japanese and other 

board standards. These standards are similar in nature to the phase 1 

ruling but have a very different test protocol. The large chamber test 

requirement without sufficient lab facilities in these areas will create a 

manufactured demand and bottleneck for procurement.” 

Agency Response [5.1-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: We disagree. We believe 

that all manufacturers will be affected equally. Also, we modified the 

originally proposed ATCM to include the option of using the secondary test 

method to address the potential shortage of large chambers abroad. This 

should address the issue raised by the commenter. 

13) Comment [5.2-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: “The cost work that has been 

provided by the ARB . . . is understated . . . It does not take into 

consideration the body of work in the fabricators, the importer and the 

retailer to accommodate the data for chain of custody . . . There will be 

some board manufacturers who decide that . . . to accommodate one state 

in another country is not worth the extra effort. When these factors other 
200

than resin cost come into consideration, the real cost will be substantially 

greater.” 

 Agency Response [5.2-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: We disagree and believe 

that the ISOR accurately identifies the cost of the ATCM, including the 

costs for out-of-state and out-of-country companies. 

14) Comment [5.3-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: “There are several companies 

who maintain a large inventory in Fabricator warehouses in the Far East. 

There is no good mechanism to allow these inventories to contain 

specialty products specific to California.” 

 Agency Response [5.3-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: There are similar 

warehouses in the U.S. that also maintain inventories for different 

geographic areas. The sell-through provisions in the ATCM will apply to 

all such inventories, regardless of location. Beyond the sell-through 

periods, all composite wood products and finished goods containing 

composite wood products must comply with the ATCM. It is up to each 

individual company to either find a way to modify their current operations 

to supply complying products to California, or withdraw from the California 

market. 

15) Comment [5.4-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: “The chain of custody as stated is 

going to overwhelm fabricators and retailers alike.” “A problem with this 

flow is the volume of data when the shipment is a container of product that 

is consolidated with product from various fabricators who have dealt with 

multiple manufacturers. It would be simpler to support a chain of custody 

that has added verbiage to the BOL (bill of lading) or invoice identifying 

product compliance and to let this and the label on the finished goods 

suffice for the retailer.” 

 Agency Response [5.4-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: We disagree. The chain 

of custody required by the regulation is consistent with documentation 

currently used in commerce. Furthermore, the retailer must keep records 

to “document the precautions taken to ensure that the composite wood 

products and composite wood products contained in finished goods 

comply with applicable emission standards.” Without such records, the 

retailer will not be able to demonstrate that they have informed their 

suppliers of the need for products and goods to comply with the ATCM 

and more weight of enforcement would fall on the retailer rather than the 

supplier in a situation in which a retailer is found to be selling noncomplying products and goods. 

16) Comment [5.5-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: “The enforcement of the program 

is always going to be in question.” “The enforcement arm is going to raise 

red flags by using a FLEC device. As of today there is no direct 
201

correlation between the readings of the FLEC cell and the large chamber. 

You have then said that you will use a deconstructive test protocol for a 

final judgment.” “There is still the chance that the original conditioning 

period of the board and the secondary test will give inaccurate results.” 

“The number you get for the test will not reflect ‘real life’ of the finished 

goods.” 

 Agency Response [5.5-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: Published studies exist 

that show a good correlation between the FLEC and traditional chambers. 

Our enforcement staff will use the FLEC and a portable formaldehyde 

analyzer as a screening tool to help decide whether to purchase panels or 

finished goods for more comprehensive emissions testing at ARB’s lab 

using one of our enforcement test methods (sections 93120.9(c) and (d)). 

We have studies underway to allow us to develop a protocol for using the 

FLEC and portable formaldehyde analyzer at manufacturers, distributors, 

importers, fabricators, and retailers. The results of the FLEC and portable 

analyzer will not be used as the legal basis for a violation. 

17) Comment [5.6-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: “They (ARB) could serve 

humanities interest better by not imposing this ruling as it is stated within 

the defined time frame. Or even better, by not going alone and to join with 

the other states and international agencies in defining one acceptable 

standard that will not create unfair monopolies and actually do the good 

that was intended.” 

Agency Response [5.6-Pitts-080214-Bernhardt]: While we agree that there 

is need for international standardization with regard to formaldehyde 

emission standards and testing requirements, the need to protect public 

health dictates that our ATCM process move forward, rather than waiting 

for other states or countries to reach consensus. We will track 

international developments that relate to standardizing formaldehyde 

emission standards and testing requirements, and will modify the 

regulation at a later date, if warranted due to international standardization. 

18) Comment [6-Lantman-080214-SRI]: “As a not-for-profit research institute, 

we are developing alternative resins and glues to help the composite 

wood product industry meet these new standards. One example is our 

new polyketone wood adhesive” “To ensure that our development is 

aligned with the ATCM and industry needs, we would like to discuss 

implementation.” 

Agency Response [6-Lantman-080214-SRI]: Thank you for your letter. 

We would be happy to meet with the commenter to discuss 

implementation of the ATCM. 
202

19) Comment [7-Perdue-080214-AHFA]: “AHFA supports the ‘Proposed 

Modifications’ as detailed in the ‘15 Day’ version of the ATCM dated 

01/31/08.” 

Agency Response [7-Perdue-080214-AHFA]: We appreciate the support 

– no response necessary. 

20) Comment [8.1-Titus-080214-KCMA]: “We support the revised definition of 

‘fabricator’ . . . the revised definition of ‘laminated product’ . . . is also 

supported.” 

Agency Response [8.1-Titus-080214-KCMA]: We appreciate the support 

– no response necessary. 

21) Comment [8.2-Titus-080214-KCMA]: “Currently, the regulation lacks a 

clear summary page of the effective dates fabricators must satisfy in order 

to be in compliance such as was developed for compwood manufacturers. 

We request that such a chart be developed and added to the regulation or 

made available as soon as possible to assist companies in developing 

their compliance strategy.” 

Agency Response [8.2-Titus-080214-KCMA]: We believe the regulation 

clearly defines the specific requirements affecting fabricators. To assist in 

clarity, the regulation is organized by affected businesses such as 

manufacturers, third party certifiers, fabricators, importers, distributors and 

retailers. However, we will consider adding a chart to our webpage if we 

determine that it would be useful for the industry. 

22) Comment [8.3-Titus-080214-KCMA]: “It is suggested that the clarification 

provided in Section 93120.7(b)(3) regarding the responsibilities of local 

government agencies and school districts clearly be made applicable to all 

state government agencies.” 

Agency Response [8.3-Titus-080214-KCMA]: The section is appropriate 

as worded. It was included to comply with state law regarding the 

imposition of non-reimbursable costs on local agencies and school 

districts. At least one state agency (the Prison Industry Authority, PIA) 

would be affected if we made the requested change. PIA is a large 

furniture fabricator. Exempting PIA and other state agencies could 

compromise public health protection. 

23) Comment [8.4-Titus-080214-KCMA]: “KCMA generally supports the 18-

month sell-through provisions of the regulation.” 

Agency Response [8.4-Titus-080214-KCMA]: We appreciate the support – 

no response necessary. 
203

24) Comment [8.5-Titus-080214-KCMA]: “CARB staff deserves recognition 

for the openness and fairness with which this long and difficult process 

has been conducted. We anticipate many challenges when the actual 

enforcement phase begins. Hopefully, the same approach will continue.” 

 Agency Response [8.5-Titus-080214-KCMA]: We appreciate the 

comment. We fully intend to continue our interactive approach. 

25) Comment [9.1-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: “The MDF manufacturers 

currently export Composite Wood Panels both as raw board and as 

finished goods to California at E1 emission levels (equivalent to CARB P2). 

In addition these manufacturers already utilize ULEF resin technology for 

product exported to Japan. We believe the Board should acknowledge 

the use of this technology in the new regulations. If there was appropriate 

recognition these products would be immediately available to Californian 

consumers, which in turn would drive industry more quickly to the lower 

emission levels.”

 Agency Response [9.1-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: We understand 

that many composite wood products that comply with other international 

standards may meet the CARB P2 standard and the ATCM does not 

restrict the use of a particular technology used to produce complying 

products. However, key components of the ATCM, such as third party 

certification, quality assurance requirements, and chain of custody, are 

either lacking or greatly diminished in alternate international certification 

schemes. Furthermore, the Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards are based on 

emissions testing conducted in dynamic testing chambers. We strongly 

believe it is necessary to base certification of composite wood products on 

dynamic emissions tests, not by static emissions methods or 

measurements of formaldehyde content as is done in the other programs. 

See also the Agency Response to comment # 26 in section D of the 

FSOR. 

26) Comment [9.2-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: “The requirement for each 

plant to provide a correlation for the QC method to the primary or 

secondary method is costly and unnecessary in many cases, in particular 

where the QC method is well established and an accepted method 

documented in a recognised [sic] standard (eg JIS 1460). Our 

recommendation is that the Board set limit values for these known and 

accepted QC test methods which form part of national and international 

standard test methods for composite wood panels. Also to ensure 

consistency among QC standard methods the manufacturer would 

conduct a series of tests in conjunction with the third party certifier. We 

agree that the primary, secondary or alternative secondary methods 

should be used for compliance testing.” 
204

 Agency Response [9.2-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: We disagree. 

There is a need to develop plant by plant correlations to account for 

process variability. Also, given that violations will be issued for emissions 

standard exceedances, it is necessary for plants to accurately target their 

operations limits to ensure compliance. Although we recognize the validity 

of other test methods (e.g., JIS 1460 or EN- 120), as mentioned in the 

Agency Response to comment # 25 in section D of the FSOR, the 

Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards are based on values determined from 

dynamic chambers, which are operated under different conditions and 

loading rates. The European EN-120 and the Japanese JIS 1460 are test 

methods which achieve the intent of their respective certification programs. 

The ARB regulation limits surface emissions from composite wood 

products and the dynamic chambers offer the most accurate measure of 

surface emission rates under realistic testing conditions as they relate to 

actual exposure. Furthermore, manufacturers can request from ARB the 

use of alternative QC test methods under 93120.12, Appendix 2 (g)(1)(c). 

27) Comment [9.3-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: “We believe that CARB 

should recognize other product certification schemes that provide for 

emission specifications lower than the Phase 2 limits. Our belief is that 

the JIS Mark certification scheme for Particleboard and MDF offers this 

equivalency and request that CARB offer exemptions from the 

requirement to have third party certification if a panel product is certified to 

the JIS Standard F*** and F  emission levels.” 

Agency Response [9.3-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: We disagree. If 

products meet the JIS F** * and F**** rating, then the resin technology will 

be adequate, so confirmatory testing is all that is necessary. See also the 

Agency Responses to comments # 25 and 26 in section D of the FSOR. 

28) Comment [9.4-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: “The board has made 

changes to the requirement for exemption to the third party certification 

scheme and has identified that both NAF and ULEF binders can apply for 

exemption. We agree with this approach. However we have concerns 

that the clauses relating to the application approval process and to terms 

of the exemption for these two classes of binders are different. In the 

provisions 93120.3 C (1) for exemption from the third party certification 

requirements for NAF resins the manufacturer has to supply QC data for 3 

months demonstrating acceptable emissions. However in the provision 

93120.3 d (2) for exemption from third party certification for ULEF resins 

the manufacturer has to supply 6 months of data. There is a further 

discrepancy in the wording of provision 93120.3 d for ULEF resins. This 

section also states that if the exemption from third party certification is 

granted the manufacturer still has to meet all the other provisions of 

93120.3 d (1). This is problematic in two ways. Firstly this is not a 
205

requirement for exempt NAF resins and secondly the meaning is 

ambiguous given that the requirement in 93120.3 d (1) is for reduction in 

testing frequency. We believe that there is no justification for this 

discrimination and request that CARB modify the regulation to have the 

same requirement for ULEF and NAF resins. There is also a need to 

clarify what requirements of provision 93120.3 d (1) still apply to 

manufacturers who are exempt from third party certification if indeed this 

is the intention of the board.” 

Agency Response [9.4-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: We disagree that 

the requirements for exemption discriminate against ULEF resins. First, it 

must be understood that no-added formaldehyde (NAF) based resins and 

ULEF resins are chemically distinct and represent different approaches to 

lowering or eliminating formaldehyde emissions from composite wood 

products. ULEF resins are subject to more scrutiny for the very fact that 

they still contain formaldehyde as a major component of the resin mixture. 

Given this fact, emissions could vary significantly based on factors such 

as errors in resin formulation by the end user (mill), changes in press 

times or changes in press temperature. We feel these factors warrant 

more rigorous qualifying criteria than no-added formaldehyde based resins. 

With respect to the wording of provision 93120.3(d), the section indicates 

that “all other requirements of section 93120.3(d)(1) apply,” in reference to 

the requirements other than testing requirements. This reference is in 

relation to the contents of the ULEF application. In other words, 

93120.3(d)(1) applies in that it defines the elements of the application, 

including a statement of product types, chemical formulation and name of 

the ARB approved third party certifier. 

29) Comment [9.5-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: “It may well be the case 

that a manufacturer could apply for an exemption from third party 

certification and we believe that it is unnecessary for manufacturers to 

include third party certification bodies when applying for exemption. This 

may be critical in some regions given the potential lack of third party 

certifiers. However there are likely to be far more laboratories that have 

the necessary competencies to carry out emission testing to the required 

primary or secondary testing methods. We therefore request that CARB 

modify the regulation to allow applications from manufacturers to be 

exempt from third party certification who provide the required data for 

formaldehyde emissions that have been analysed [sic] by a laboratory 

certified by an accreditation body signatory to ILAC 2000. This will 

provide the board with the requisite assurance that the emission values 

are valid.” 

Agency Response [9.5-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: We disagree. 

Involvement of third party certifiers is a crucial component that adds 

enforceability to the ATCM. Only third party certifiers that can 
206

demonstrate the ability to generate high quality data will be ARB approved. 

Given that an approval will exempt manufacturers from independent 

testing, it is appropriate to require high quality emissions data. 

30) Comment [9.6-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: “We also seek clarification 

or rectification of an apparent error in Appendix 2. In section 4 A the 

regulation states: ‘. . . Manufacturers of PB and MDF that use ULEF 

resins and have received ARB approval under section 93120.3(d) must 

conduct routine quality control tests at least weekly for each production 

line for each product type’. This requirement seems at odds with the 

requirements of section 4B: ‘Testing frequency may be reduced to no less 

frequently than one test per 48-hour production period when the plant or 

production line demonstrates consistent operations and low variability of 

test values to the satisfaction of the third party certifier, based on criteria 

established by the certifier.’ ” 

Agency Response [9.6-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: Section 93120.12, 

Appendix 2, subsection (g)(4)(A) describes basic testing frequency for PB 

and MDF, which is once per shift. The subsection also includes the 

reduced testing frequency for PB and MDF made using ULEF resins, 

which is at least weekly. Subsection (g)(4)(B) describes reduced testing 

frequency for PB and MDF made with traditional UF resins. Hence, there 

is no inconsistency. 

31) Comment [9.7-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: “We have concern about 

the availability of resources to service international manufacturers. 

Currently there is no indication that there are any third party certifiers in 

the Asia-Pacific region. This will be a major problem in the ability of 

manufacturers to meet the requirements of this regulation. The ability to 

use US resources is impractical (shipping to the US for testing is not an 

option as the 30 day test period could not be met) and currently there are 

no chambers compliant with the E1333 method available in our region.” 

Agency Response [9.7-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: We believe there 

will be sufficient resources available. It is our understanding that several 

certified testing facilities exist globally, and we are aware of third party 

certifiers that have expressed interest in providing services to the AsiaPacific region. Also, we understand there may be limited availability of 

large chambers, which is why the regulation was modified to allow the use 

of a secondary method that is demonstrated as equivalent to the large 

chamber method. See also the Agency Response to comment # 103 in 

section C of the FSOR. 

32) Comment [9.8-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: “The sell through dates of 

1st of April are impractical for importers and overseas manufacturers and 
207

we therefore request that the sell through date of 1 July 2009 be 

established for these categories.” 

Agency Response [9.8-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: We disagree. In 

order to be as fair as possible to both manufacturers and importers of 

panels, we modified the sell-through periods for manufacturers and 

importers of panels so that both would have a sell through period of three 

months. We feel this provides a reasonable compromise, which 

addresses the concerns of stakeholders that an inconsistency between 

the sell-through periods for manufacturers and importers would have 

created unfair advantages for some. 

33) Comment [9.9-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: “Compliance testing 

requires correlations to be determined between alternative secondary 

methods and the primary method. These correlations are not required for 

enforcement testing. This is inconsistent. In addition, for enforcement 

testing of finished goods, the primary method is not applicable and is 

therefore not included in 93120.9(c). In order for enforcement and 

compliance to be consistent this would require ARB to demonstrate 

equivalence between secondary or alternative secondary methods and the 

primary method. If ARB is required to develop correlations for 

enforcement testing then it would be recommended that these correlations 

are published as standards.” 

Agency Response [9.9-Earnshaw-080214-Hexion-NZ]: The ATCM 

specifies that the secondary test method or alternate secondary test 

method may be used for enforcement testing. For a small chamber to be 

used as a secondary test method, the equivalence requirements of section 

93120.9(a) must be met. Because the small chamber used for 

enforcement testing must be deemed equivalent to the primary method, 

we deleted the correlation requirement for the enforcement method. 

34) Comment [10-Mann-080215-IBM]: “While IBM supports the goals of the 

ATCM to reduce formaldehyde emissions, we believe that the application 

of the requirements to pallets and crates . . . will be extremely 

burdensome . . . and unnecessarily conservative given the expected use 

and exposures . . . Pallets and crates may be reused many times making 

it difficult if not impossible to track their original manufacturer . . . pallets 

and crates used in packaging applications do not become a permanent 

part of the indoor environment . . . we do not believe that potential 

emissions from these materials contribute significantly to a person’s total 

daily exposures, and request that they be exempted from the ATCM 

requirements.” 

 

 Agency Response [10-Mann-080215-IBM]: We disagree. Although it is 

true that pallets and crates do not become a permanent part of the indoor 
208

environment, pallets or crates made from composite wood products have 

the potential for high formaldehyde emissions while they are in California. 

See also the Agency Response to comment # 4 in section D of the FSOR. 

35) Comment [11.1-Zimmerman-080215-Sauder]: “Changes in the language 

for sell-through for the Fabricator section page 45 may be more 

confusing . . . This wording change seems to allow a Fabricator to 

continue using non-complying composite panels in their manufacturing 

processes till June 30th 2010 and sell into California. Do we as a 

Fabricator have till June 30th 2010 to comply?” 

Agency Response [11.1-Zimmerman-080215-Sauder]: That is correct. 

The intent of this sell-through provision is to allow fabricators to continue 

producing goods with their existing stocks of non-complying composite 

wood products that were produced prior to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 

implementation dates. This gives fabricators time to completely deplete 

their stocks of non-complying product. If a fabricator has non-complying 

product left over after expiration of their respective sell-through period, 

they can no longer use that product to produce goods that would be sold 

in California. 

36) Comment [11.2-Zimmerman-080215-Sauder]: “The proposed finished 

product enforcement testing still lacks validation scientifically . . . it may be 

impossible to know whether or not a finished composite panel was or was 

not compliant to the Regulation.” 

Agency Response [11.2-Zimmerman-080215-Sauder]: We disagree. The 

finished product enforcement testing will be capable of detecting 

composite wood products which do not meet our emission standards. 

37) Comment [11.3-Zimmerman-080215-Sauder]: “The regulation does not 

promote the use of lower emitting composite products use by the 

Fabricators . . . Is there not an off-set possible by reducing the paper work 

or tracing requirements or recognition?” 

Agency Response [11.3-Zimmerman-080215-Sauder]: We appreciate the 

comment; however, at this time we do not feel it would be prudent to 

weaken the chain of custody requirements in exchange for the exclusive 

use of products made with no-added formaldehyde based resins or ULEF 

resins. Without adequate documentation, fabricators would not be able to 

provide evidence that they purchased complying composite wood 

products. In terms of recognition, in addition to the ARB label, fabricators 

could certainly indicate on a product brochure, tag, or company website 

that they use exclusively no-added formaldehyde based resins or ULEF 

resins in the production of their product. If a finished good contains only 

HWPW, MDF and/or PB that is made from no-added formaldehyde based 
209

resins or ULEF resins, fabricators must label the finished good as such 

(see section 93120.7(d)(1)). 

38) Comment [11.4-Zimmerman-080215-Sauder]: “Will there be more specific 

labeling requirements, such as font and size and specific wording for the 

CARB Phase I Compliant? Will there be specific wording for Bill of Lading 

and Invoices?” 

 Agency Response [11.4-Zimmerman-080215-Sauder]: The specific 

details of labeling will be up to the fabricator but the label must be legible 

and contain, at a minimum, the information specified in section 

93120.7(d)(1). 

39) Comment [12.1-Fernandez-080215-Arauco]: “We notice that MDF 

moldings are not considered to be part of the definition of ‘Medium density 

fiberboard (MDF)’, thus it is considered to be a ‘Finished good’ and not a 

‘Composite wood product.’ Therefore, we understand that producers of 

MDF moldings are considered to be ‘Fabricators’ and not 

‘Manufacturers.’ ” 

 

Agency Response [12.1-Fernandez-080215-Arauco]: A producer of 

molding is considered to be a fabricator by cutting molding from MDF 

manufactured by an MDF manufacturer. Conceivably, a company could 

be both a manufacturer of MDF and a fabricator of molding. In either case, 

at a minimum the MDF used to make the molding must comply with the 

emission standards in 93120.2(a). 

40) Comment [12.2-Fernandez-080215-Arauco]: “We think the ATCM is not 

clear enough in describing what a ‘Laminated product’ is. In the case of 

our MDF moldings, we use a Jesso coating as a primer for all of them. 

Should we consider our MDF moldings to be a ‘Laminated product’ since 

the primer can be considered to be affixed to our product?” 

Agency Response [12.2-Fernandez-080215-Arauco]: We disagree. We 

feel the ATCM is clear in defining both a “laminate” and a “laminated 

product.” It is our understanding that Jesso is applied as a coating (more 

like paint) and is not a distinct veneer or other material that is “affixed” to 

the MDF substrate. As such, manufactures of MDF coated with Jesso 

would not be considered fabricators of a laminated product. 

41) Comment [12.3-Fernandez-080215-Arauco]: “We think that for a fabricator 

that manufactures composite wood products exclusively to produce 

laminated products, there is no certainty on whether being required to 

comply or not with section 93120.3.” 
210

Agency Response [12.3-Fernandez-080215-Arauco]: If a fabricator is also 

a manufacturer of the composite wood substrate, then the fabricator would 

also be considered a manufacturer and would be required to comply with 

section 93120.3. 

42) Comment [12.4-Fernandez-080215-Arauco]: “For foreign fabricators that 

manufacture composite wood products used to produce finished goods, 

we think that it is unnecessary to require these CWP to comply with the 

ATCM standards. Instead, we think that the standard should apply to the 

final goods being introduced into California. Formaldehyde emissions are 

reduced from the time the composite wood products are produced until 

they are finally transformed into finished goods and shipped . . . Samples 

are taken before packaging and after the primer is applied, to have a 

closer estimation of what the final customer will be perceiving. At this 

stage is where we think the tests should be done, since formaldehyde 

emissions are known to be reduced in time.” 

 Agency Response [12.4-Fernandez-080215-Arauco]: We disagree. 

Section 93120.12, Appendix 2, subsection (g) states that “each 

manufacturing plant shall conduct small scale quality control tests for each 

product type and production line to ascertain that its certified panels do not 

exceed the applicable emission standard.” Manufacturers of composite 

wood products are required to comply with the applicable sections of the 

ATCM. We understand that a significant amount of time may elapse 

between the production of a composite wood product and its arrival for 

sale in California. However, off-gassing of product is no guarantee that it 

will comply with the Phase 1 or Phase 2 standards once it arrives in 

California. Data show that off-gassing can occur over several months or 

years. Additionally, the fundamental approach to the regulation is to 

reduce surface emissions by eliminating the source. 

43) Comment [13.1-Morgan-080215-IWPA]: “U.S. importers have no concerns 

about the ability of overseas manufacturers to meet the ATCM 

formaldehyde emissions levels. However, none of the other formaldehyde 

emissions standards in the world have the same certification requirement.” 

“The ATCM places significant new requirements on producers around the 

world.” “Our major concern to IWPA members is the unnecessary, 

burdensome, costly, and inefficient requirement of third-party testing and 

certification.” “Requiring large-scale and small-scale chamber testing and 

third-party auditing in all countries supplying hardwood plywood to the U.S. 

places a significant non-tariff barrier against trade with those countries and 

raises possible WTO violations.” “It is highly unlikely that developing 

countries that do not have the same economy of scale of larger countries 

(e.g., China) will still be able to compete and supply these high-quality 

products to the U.S. market.” “The ATCM can be just as effective as a 

performance-based standard only.” “Product can meet the standard, but if 
211

certain chain-of-custody documentation is not met showing third-party 

testing, then enforcement would still occur. This is specifically why IWPA 

feels the third-party certification requirement adds cost but not gain for 

California taxpayers.” “If the third-party testing requirement cannot be 

eliminated, IWPA strongly urges ARB to consider other testing methods.” 

“ARB’s standard . . . requiring developing countries to construct largescale or small-scale chamber tests . . . (which) do not currently exist in all 

the countries that export to the U.S., requiring significant investment and 

potentially creating a WTO non-tariff barrier to trade.” 

Agency Response [13.1-Morgan-080215-IWPA]: This ATCM is designed 

to address a serious public health concern. We believe that third party 

certification is essential to ensure that complying composite wood 

products are sold and used in California. It is therefore not appropriate to 

eliminate or weaken this requirement. However, the ATCM does allow 

alternate test methods to be used if approved by the Executive Officer. 

This should provide flexibility for many manufacturers. 

The commenter suggests that the ATCM may violate World Trade 

Organization (WTO) agreements because it “places a significant non-tariff 

barrier against trade.” We do not agree that the ATCM violates any WTO 

rules. The ATCM does not discriminate against entities in other countries 

because all affected parties -- both domestic and foreign -- are subject to 

the same requirements. While we do not believe that the ATCM 

constitutes a trade restriction, the WTO recognizes that member nations 

may adopt their own environmental regulations to protect public health 

even if such regulations restrict trade. Article XX of the General 

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) outlines the general exceptions to 

WTO rules -- the conditions under which trade restrictions are exempt 

from legal challenge. Under this Article, WTO members may adopt traderestrictive measures for a variety of specified reasons, including 

measures: 

i) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health; [and] 

ii) relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources, if 

such measures are made in conjunction with restrictions on 

domestic production and consumption. 

Environmental regulations imposed under Article XX must not be "arbitrary 

or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same 

conditions apply" or "a disguised restriction on international trade." These 

qualifiers are designed to prevent a nation from imposing environmental 

regulations that are simply disguised protectionism. 
212

We believe that the ATCM meets these criteria and is a valid regulation 

under WTO rules. The ATCM has been adopted to protect public health, 

is based on sound science, and is not a disguised trade restriction. It is 

worth pointing out that many other WTO member nations (e.g., Japan and 

European Union countries) have also adopted their own regulations to 

limit formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. Since other 

WTO members have adopted such regulations in recognition of the health 

problem posed by formaldehyde emissions, it is difficult to argue that a 

similar regulation adopted in California is an illegal trade barrier under 

WTO rules. 

44) Comment [13.2-Morgan-080215-IWPA]: “ARB staff knows that they are 

behind in the implementation schedule and recognize the importance of 

overseas outreach, including translating the standard. However, more 

than 20 countries supply product to the U.S., and only the ARB Fact 

Sheets have been translated (not the ATCM) and those Fact Sheets have 

been translated into only three languages. IWPA strongly urges ARB to 

delay implementation until twelve months after ARB approves a third-party 

certifier.” “Has ARB officially contacted each country through its embassy 

and related trade associations to inform them of new requirements? Has 

ARB determined the existing large-scale chamber capacity in each 

country? Has ARB developed a timeline for how long it will take to 

construct/certify acceptable facilities?” “Will the regulation also be 

translated into foreign languages? Has ARB begun educating composite 

wood fabricators, customers, and consumers in California about the 

regulation?” “An alternative for importers could be a moratorium on 

enforcement of the third-party certification requirement if the product is 

otherwise compliant. Therefore, product entering California with 

formaldehyde levels below the emissions levels but not certified would not 

be considered in violation of the regulation for the first year, through 2009. 

This would provide more time for third-party certifiers to come on line.” 

“The effective date for Phase 1 is January 1, 2009. Can this target date 

still be justified given that the regulations are not finalized yet, that no 

overseas auditors are approved, and that we have no clear understanding 

for capacity that exists overseas to meeting the standard nor do we know 

if each country has been informed by ARB of the standard?” 

Agency Response [13.2-Morgan-080215-IWPA]: ARB staff has already 

given presentations at two IWPA workshops and conferences, and held 

numerous meetings with member companies for over two years. We will 

continue our outreach efforts to affected groups, including third party 

certifiers to facilitate implementation. We believe there should be 

sufficient capacity for third party certification later this year in advance of 

the Phase 1 effective date. 
213

45) Comment [13.3-Morgan-080215-IWPA]: “IWPA again requests . . . that 

ARB lengthens the ‘sell-through’ period in the ATCM to six months for 

importers and 12 months for distributors.” “Importers need much more 

time than just a three-month sell-through period to move product.” 

Agency Response [13.3-Morgan-080215-IWPA]: We disagree. We 

discussed the length of the sell-through period for importers prior to our 

Board hearing in April 2007. At that time, the Board decided to provide 

the same sell-through period for manufacturers and importers of panels: 

three months. This was done to provide fairness to domestic producers 

and to accelerate the health benefit from imported composite wood 

products. The sell-through period for distributors of panels is not subject 

to comment because it was not modified prior to our Board hearing. 

Hence, it must remain five months. 

46) Comment [13.4-Morgan-080215-IWPA]: “The world measures 

formaldehyde concentration in water in milligrams (mg) and milliliters (ml).” 

“Has ARB analyzed the capacity of overseas producers to measure in 

ppm?” “Is ARB prepared to develop a correlation value for use by world 

producers? IWPA requests that ARB allow for a measure of formaldehyde 

concentration in water in milligrams per liter and urges that a specified 

standard be included in the regulation.” 

Agency Response [13.4-Morgan-080215-IWPA]: If overseas producers 

and third party certifiers follow ASTM methods for routine quality control 

testing and quarterly testing, the results of testing will be in parts per 

million (ppm), so this should not be an issue. However, section 93120.12, 

Appendix 2, subsection (g)(1)(C) would allow an overseas producer to be 

approved by the Executive Officer to use an alternate test method which 

could measure concentrations in mg or ml. In that case, the third party 

certifiers will need to work with overseas producers to develop such 

correlations so the results may be reported to the certifier in ppm for 

comparison to the emission standards. 

47) Comment [13.5-Morgan-080215-IWPA]: “There is a requirement that the 

bundle or panel must be labeled with the ‘Manufacturer name.’ IWPA 

suggests that the regulation be amended so that a code for the 

manufacturer’s name may be used. That code would be maintained by 

the third-party certifier and the importer.” 

Agency Response [13.5-Morgan-080215-IWPA]: For the chain of custody 

system to work for enforcement of the ATCM, the manufacturer must be 

identified on each panel or bundle of panels. See also the Agency 

Response to comment # 76 in section C of the FSOR. 
214

48) Comment [14.1-Julia-080215-CPA]: “CPA respectfully requests that the 

sell-through period for distributors, importers and fabricators of finished 

goods be established at twelve months rather than the eighteen months.” 

Agency Response [14.1-Julia-080215-CPA]: Prior to the Board hearing in 

April 2007, we were asked to extend the sell-through of finished goods 

from twelve months to eighteen months. We made that change in the 

modified regulation that was presented to the Board in light of inventory 

turnover concerns by fabricators and we see no reason to reduce the 

period back to twelve months. 

49) Comment [14.2-Julia-080215-CPA]: “Accreditation of Third Party 

certification agencies, may not occur until at least April 22nd.” “ULEF 

manufacturers need to work with an approved third party agency to collect 

six months of quality data and conduct two ‘quarterly’ compliance tests, 

presumably three months apart.” “CPA has three suggestions that could 

resolve this potential bottleneck. First, grant ‘provisional’ ULEF 

approval . . . prior to December 31, 2008. Second, shorten the quality 

control test requirement period to 3 months, matching the requirement for 

No Added Formaldehyde (NAF) products. Third, require that the full data 

set of information be submitted for final evaluation and approval within a 

year of receiving provisional approval. If these suggestions are accepted, 

similar treatment should also be given to NAF applicants.” “A secondary 

issue relating to both ULEF and NAF product manufacturers preparing an 

application for approval regards the frequency of testing . . . Testing 

frequency for ULEF/NAF products is not set forth in Appendix 2.” “CPA 

believes that excessive sampling is unnecessary to prove that emissions 

from these products are very low. We believe quality control testing 

frequency should be no more often than once per week per production line 

or once with every new lot of purchased adhesive, whichever is less 

frequent, as long as at least 6-10 data points are developed.” 

Agency Response [14.2-Julia-080215-CPA]: We appreciate the 

suggestions, but do not believe that granting “provisional” approvals is 

appropriate. The requirement for quality control data is longer for ULEF 

(six months) than no-added formaldehyde based resins (three months) 

because while these are ultra-low emitting resins, the resins still contain 

formaldehyde. See also the Agency Response to comment # 28 in 

section D of the FSOR. 

It is important to collect adequate data for such resins. Frequency of 

testing is the same for all manufacturers. The frequency only changes if a 

manufacturer using ULEF resins is allowed to test less frequently, or a 

manufacturer using a no-added formaldehyde based resin or ULEF resin 

is granted exemption from third party certification and routine QC testing. 

Manufacturers may at their own risk work with reputable potential 
215

candidate third party certifiers prior to ARB approval. If ARB approves the 

third party certifier, then all data generated by the approved certifier will be 

acceptable. 

50) Comment [14.3-Julia-080215-CPA]: “CARB has . . . inserted . . . 

provisions for laminated products.” “Although we believe that the concept 

is sound . . . there are four potential problems in the way in which the 

change has been implemented in Section 93120.7.” “The definition of 

fabricator in Section 93120.1(12) already includes ‘producers of laminated 

products.’ The reference to both in the new section (93120.7(a)(2)) is 

superfluous and potentially confusing.” “If lamination is being conducted 

by the same company that produced the platform, the literal language in 

Section 93120.7(a) would make the underlying production of the substrate 

exempt from third party certification. This is a huge loop hole.” “Even if 

one were to favor the exemption from third party certification, the language 

as drafted is overly broad.” “It should be clarified that Subsection 2 does 

not apply in situations in which the fabricator also manufactures the 

substrate.” 

Agency Response [14.3-Julia-080215-CPA]: We believe the definition of a 

fabricator is clear and that section 93120.7(a)(4) clarifies any possible 

confusion raised by the wording in section 93120.7(a)(2). Fabricators that 

manufacture composite wood products for use as a platform must comply 

with the manufacturer requirements in section 93120.3, except the product 

labeling requirements. Fabricators that apply a laminate to a platform to 

make a laminated product do not need to comply with third party 

certification requirements in section 93120.3(b) for those laminated 

products. 

51) Comment [14.4-Julia-080215-CPA]: The modified regulation states in the 

definition of “finished goods” that “component parts are not ‘finished 

goods.’ ” “A potential problem could arise in the situation in which panels 

are sent to a separate facility for the production of furniture or cabinet 

components. As a result of the proposed change, such a facility would 

neither be a manufacturer of composite wood products . . . nor a fabricator 

of finished goods.” “We suggest that this sentence be eliminated.” 

Agency Response [14.4-Julia-080215-CPA]: We disagree. The regulatory 

language is clear. The language regarding component parts not being 

finished goods was added so that intermediate component parts do not 

need to be labeled, as required for finished goods. 

52) Comment [14.5-Julia-080215-CPA]: “There are at least two areas that 

require immediate attention if there is to be smooth implementation of the 

rule: accreditation of third party certification programs and the completion 

of an enforcement testing protocol for rule compliance.” “It is therefore 
216

critical to the affected industries that the accreditation of third party 

certification programs and the completion of an enforcement testing 

protocol for rule compliance be finalized no later than the end of the 

second quarter of 2008.” 

Agency Response [14.5-Julia-080215-CPA]: We are continuing to work 

with potential third party certifiers to be able to start reviewing their 

applications to be approved by ARB as soon as possible after the ATCM 

is codified in the California Code of Regulations. Our Enforcement and 

Monitoring & Laboratory Divisions continue to prepare for completing an 

enforcement testing protocol this year. Table VI-7 on page 127 of the 

ISOR includes an implementation schedule to address this concern. At 

this time, we are on track to achieve the schedule. 

53) Comment [14.6-Julia-080215-CPA]: Regarding section 93120.12, 

Appendix 2, (f)((3)(A), “CPA submits that there is an unnecessarily large 

number of chamber tests required in the ATCM.” “The daily quality control 

tests collected every eight to twelve hours will verify that the plant is in 

control; it should not be necessary to collect more than one quarterly test 

(randomly sampled) from each plant.” 

Agency Response [14.6-Julia-080215-CPA]: We believe that it is essential 

to verify a plant’s operations for each product type, rather than just each 

plant. 

54) Comment [14.7-Julia-080215-CPA]: For clarification: “Section 

93120.9(a)(2)(A). The second sentence should read: ‘In addition, when 

testing panels the secondary method shall be operated by testing nine 

specimens representing evenly distributed portions of an entire panel or 

set of panels selected for verification.’ ” 

Agency Response [14.7-Julia-080215-CPA]: We believe that this is clear 

as written and that no additional clarification is needed. 

55) Comment [14.8-Julia-080215-CPA]: For clarification: “Section 

93120.9(a)(2)(B)(2). The first sentence should read: ‘For the secondary 

method, each comparison sample shall consist of testing nine specimens 

representing evenly distributed portions of an entire panel or set of 

panels selected for verification.’ ” 

Agency Response [14.8-Julia-080215-CPA]: We believe that this is clear 

and that no additional clarification is needed. 

56) Comment [14.9-Julia-080215-CPA]: For clarification: “Appendix 2(a). The 

note at the end of the second paragraph should read: ‘Note: All panels 
217

must be tested in an unfinished condition, prior to application of a 

laminate, finish or topcoat.’ ” 

Agency Response [14.9-Julia-080215-CPA]: The note reads: “prior to 

application of a finishing or topcoat.” In the case of HWPW, a veneer or 

laminate would have already been applied before it would be considered a 

panel. We see no need for clarification. 

57) Comment [15.1-Wald-080215-RVIA]: “Until very recent drafts of the ATCM, 

wood products used to fabricate RVs were exempt from the regulation.” 

“The RV industry uses a great deal of very thin and lightweight but durable 

luan and meranti product that can only be produced from trees that grow 

in Asia and therefore must be imported from Asia.” “Because RVs as a 

fabricated product are being added to the ATCM so close to the 

implementation date of the standard, because the RV industry is so 

dependent on thin Asian wood products and because of the longer salescycle of the RV industry especially in today’s difficult economic 

environment, the effective date of the ATCM should be: 1) Delayed for 

one year or 2) The RV industry should be exempt from the first phase of 

the implementation and come under the regulation fully compliant at the 

Phase 2 standards and timetable.” 

Agency Response [15.1-Wald-080215-RVIA]: We believe that with the 

sell-through provisions for fabricators, which apply to manufacturers of 

recreational vehicles, there will be no need for additional time and see no 

need to delay the implementation date for the RV industry. 

58) Comment [15.2-Wald-080215-RVIA]: “The luan and meranti wood is 

currently certified to meet JIS and/or European E-1 standards . . . CARB 

should simply accept these equivalent or better standards and 

certifications rather than insisting all wood products meet the expensive 

CARB third-party certification requirements.” “CARB’s recognition and 

acceptance of equivalent or better international standards such as JIS 

A1460 without additional third-party testing will allow an efficiency of 

manufacture, testing and certification for Asian luan and meranti 

producers that will significantly reduce the RV industry’s concerns about 

adequate supply of compliant wood products used in the RV fabrication 

process under the ATCM.” 

Agency Response [15.2-Wald-080215-RVIA]: The enforcement and 

certification requirements for international formaldehyde standards are 

less stringent and different from those required in the ATCM. Accepting 

those standards could weaken the benefits of the ATCM and lead to sale 

of non-complying wood in California. See also the Agency Response to 

comment # 25 in section D of the FSOR. 
218

59) Comment [15.3-Wald-080215-RVIA]: “When final stage fabricators such 

as RV manufacturers in good faith purchase and use wood products that 

meet the CARB standard and have the required chain of evidence of 

ATCM compliance, the ATCM should explicitly state that the fabricator is 

not subject to enforcement should the wood product not live up to the 

CARB standard for emissions.” “While a November 2, 2007, draft of a 

letter from CARB to fabricators describes minimum record-keeping 

requirements as guidance for compliance, this type of clear guidance for 

fabricators is absent in the ATCM itself and should be incorporated.” 

Agency Response [15.3-Wald-080215-RVIA]: We disagree. Each 

instance in which non-complying wood products are found will prompt a 

case-by-case investigation by our enforcement staff. The result of the 

investigation will determine which entity or entities in the chain of 

commerce from manufacturer to retailer warrant enforcement action. 

60) Comment [15.4-Wald-080215-RVIA]: “Some RV fabricators may choose to 

fabricate products that do not comply with the CARB standard but not sell 

or offer for sale those products in California. CARB should explicitly state 

that the final stage fabricator is not subject to enforcement should an RV 

dealer or other individual offer such a non-complying product for sale in 

California without the knowledge of the final stage fabricator.” 

Agency Response [15.4-Wald-080215-RVIA]: We disagree. Each 

instance in which non-complying wood products are found will prompt an 

enforcement investigation to determine which entity or entities receive 

enforcement action. If a retailer is found to be knowingly selling noncomplying products without the knowledge of the fabricator, and the 

fabricator had not labeled the products as being complying for sale in 

California, such a retailer will likely be held directly responsible for 

violations of the emission standards. 

61) Comment [16.1-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: In section 93120.1(a)(19), 

“hardwood plywood,” “the inclusion of ‘lumber core, special core material 

and special back material’ in this definition exceeds the scope of 

composite wood products. Further, the formaldehyde emission 

characteristics of ‘lumber core, special core material and special back 

material’ are not adequately addressed in limitations expressed elsewhere 

in the regulation.” 

Agency Response [16.1-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We included those 

materials in the definition of “hardwood plywood” to improve the 

completeness of the definition, in response to comments by stakeholders. 

We see no need to refer to these materials with regard to limitations 

elsewhere in the ATCM. 
219

62) Comment [16.2-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 

93120.1(a)(34), “platform,” “as this ATCM provides emissions limitations 

only for particleboard, medium density fiberboard and hardboard plywood, 

it is inappropriate to include lumber core or special core materials in this 

definition – as there are no guidelines regarding emissions for these exotic 

combinations. Additionally, no guidance is given in the primary or 

secondary testing methods to cover these materials.” 

Agency Response [16.2-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Those materials are 

included in the definition for the completeness of the definition. See also 

the Agency Response to comment # 61 in section D of the FSOR. 

63) Comment [16.3-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 

93120.1(a)(36), “plywood,” “for clarity, plywood has been historically made 

from veneers. Previous definitions have covered the use of particleboard, 

MDF and other materials (§ 93120.1(a)(4 & 6) in platforms, and it is 

recommended that reference to adhesively-bonded components other 

than veneer be eliminated from this definition.” 

Agency Response [16.3-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We believe the 

definition is sufficiently clear, complete, and appropriate. No change is 

necessary to the definition. 

64) Comment [16.4-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 

93120.1(a)(37), “product type,” “it is recommended that this definition be 

expanded to clarify at this point that the option exists to group individual 

products by major characteristics. Such regrouping into classes is most 

commonly based on identifying those products that have similar emission 

characteristics, based on both QC testing and TPC testing results.” “This 

is an issue and practice with which the US manufacturers and US TPC 

agencies are generally accustomed and comfortable. It is reasonable that 

this be clarified for others.” 

Agency Response [16.4-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We believe this is clear 

in the testing requirements described in section 93120.12, Appendix 2. 

65) Comment [16.5-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 

93120.1(a)(43), “third party certifier,” “it is recommended to add to this 

definition: ‘. . . and operates, and/or contracts testing with, a laboratory 

that is accredited by a signatory to the International Laboratory 

Accreditation Cooperation Mutual Recognition Arrangement (ILAC, 2000).” 

Agency Response [16.5-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We believe that this is 

sufficiently clear in the requirements for third party certifiers specified in 

section 93120.12, Appendix 3. 
220

66) Comment [16.6-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 

93120.1(a)(44), “ULEF resins,” “this definition is too restricted to 

adequately address component influence factors.” “Therefore, it is 

recommended to modify this definition to include resin system 

components. This would include base resins, formaldehyde scavenger 

resins, formaldehyde scavenger additives, catalyst systems and other 

additives that will (or may) affect overall composite wood product 

manufacturing processes and/or resulting emission characteristics.” 

Agency Response [16.6-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We believe the current 

definition is adequate. All of the additional information the commenter is 

suggesting to include is already required under the criteria for applications 

in section 93120.3(d)(1). 

67) Comment [16.7-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: “It is recommended to add a 

definition for an ARB-approved and accredited testing laboratory (TPC or 

contracted).” 

Agency Response [16.7-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: ARB will approve third 

party certifiers, as described in section 93120.4. ARB will not approve 

testing laboratories. ARB-approved third party certifiers must use 

accredited laboratories as described in section 93120.12, Appendix 3. 

68) Comment [16.8-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding the footnote to 

Table 1 in section 93120.2(a), “it is recommended to modify this footnote 

to read as follows: ‘Based on the primary test method [ASTM E1333-96 

(2002)] or equivalent value from the approved secondary test method [e.g. 

ASTM D6007-02] in parts per million (ppm). . . .’ This would provide 

clarity and be in conformity with other portions of this regulation.” 

Agency Response [16.8-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: The emission 

standards are related to the concentrations based on the primary test 

method (the large chamber method). Reference to the secondary method 

is an option for determination of compliance with the emission standards. 

69) Comment [16.9-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 

93120.3(d)(7), “it is recommended that already certified mills be allowed 

the flexibility to perform trials that may involve modifications to their resins, 

additive systems and/or manufacturing processes. It is recommended that 

flexibility to accommodate mill trials be incorporated into this section. 

Product manufactured during those trials would have to be isolated and 

QC testing performed. If testing results indicate that the emissions from 

the trial product meet requirements, the material may be certified and sold 

as such. Obviously, product that does not meet emission requirements 

cannot be certified.” “Examples of conditions that might require trialing 

include (but are not limited to) resin modifications to meet seasonal 
221

processing changes, evaluation of a different formulation (same or 

different supplier), evaluation of a newer (or different) technology resin or 

scavenger product, influence of other additives on emissions (such as fireretardant, mold/mildew-resistant additive, termiticide, etc.).” 

Agency Response [16.9-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We believe that trials 

may be conducted under the current language of the regulation since all 

composite wood products still need to comply with the applicable emission 

standards. The intent of section 93120.3(d)(7) applies to a manufacturer 

that changes to a non-ULEF resin. 

70) Comment [16.10-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 

93120.3(e)(4), the text states that the ARB assigned number of the 

approved third party certifier shall be included on the product label, except 

for “manufacturers using no-added formaldehyde based resins that have 

obtained ARB approval . . . or products manufactured using ULEF resins 

as provided in section 93120.3(d)(2).” The commenter states that “this 

requirement should apply to all, as their verifying data originates under an 

approved TPC.” 

Agency Response [16.10-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: The requirement to 

label products with the number of the ARB-approved third party certifier 

applies when a manufacturer is undergoing the approval process to use a 

candidate no-added formaldehyde based resins or for manufacturers 

using ULEF resins that are applying for an exemption from third party 

certification for their product types. Once approved, we see no need to 

require inclusion of the third party certifier’s number when such a 

manufacturer is only working with the certifier for verification data every 

two years. 

71) Comment [16.11-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 93120.3(f), 

the text states that the manufacturer must include on the bill of lading or 

invoice the ARB assigned number of the approved third party certifier, “if 

applicable.” The commenter states that “the assigned number . . . should 

apply to all, as their verifying data originates under an approved TPC.” 

Agency Response [16.11-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: See the Agency 

Response to comment # 70 in section D of the FSOR.

72) Comment [16.12-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 

93120.3(g)(2)(E), the text states that manufacturers must maintain records, 

including the name of the ARB approved third party certifier, but that the 

subsection does not apply to products manufactured with no-added 

formaldehyde based resins or ULEF resins as specified in section 

93120.3(d)(2). The commenter states that “the assigned number of the 
222

approved third party certifier . . . should apply to all, as their verifying data 

originates under an approved TPC.” 

Agency Response [16.12-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Recordkeeping is part 

of the chain of custody system. Manufacturers need to keep records 

including the name of the approved certifier. Similarly, certifiers will 

maintain a list of all manufacturers they certify and will provide that list to 

ARB on an annual basis. ARB will be aware of manufacturers that use 

no-added formaldehyde based resins or ULEF resins, because ARB will 

be approving of those manufacturers’ uses of those resins. Therefore, we 

see no need to further track them or have them keep records of the name 

of the certifier that they use for their verification data, especially since 

section 93120.3(g)(1) requires manufacturers to keep documentation to 

demonstrate approval to use no-added formaldehyde based resins or 

ULEF resins. 

73) Comment [16.13-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Section 93120.3(g)(2)(F) 

requires manufacturers using no-added formaldehyde based resins and 

ULEF resins to maintain records. The commenter states that “there are a 

number of issues with this subsection requirement description and of 

several of its specific elements . . .” “It is suggested that the manufacturer 

be allowed to combine the information under product types, as agreed 

upon with his respective third party certifier during the performance 

demonstration data collection period.” “At issue is the ability to track use 

to the individual product level. This is not practical at the mill level.” 

“Individual approved resins used at all points in the manufacturing process 

is difficult to tie in.” “Contact information requirements need to be better 

defined, considering the shifting economy and fluid nature of the business 

workforce.” “Changes in press time by more than 20 percent record 

requirements are particularly challenging.” “Many mills record elapsed 

clock time for a press cycle (thin is less and thick is greater) – while other 

mills record press time in seconds per millimeter of board thickness. The 

latter method of expressing press cycle would be more amendable for 

meeting the 20% requirement.” 

Agency Response [16.13-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We believe that it is 

important that such manufacturers use a practical approach to 

recordkeeping to be able to track production of product types at their 

plants. The requirement for contact information does not need to be 

prescriptive, just sufficient to allow tracking to resin manufacturers and 

suppliers. Recordkeeping with regard to press time can be expressed 

either as elapsed time or press time per millimeter, so long as that can be 

related to a percentage change compared to previous press times. 

74) Comment [16.14-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: In section 93120.9, the 

commenter requests that we “clarify that all compliance testing and 
223

performance demonstration testing for NAFs and ULEFs must be done by 

an ARB-approved TPC using accredited laboratories. Also clarify that mill 

QC testing does not have to be done by a TPC or an accredited 

laboratory.” 

Agency Response [16.14-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We believe that this is 

already sufficiently clear as specified in sections 93120.3(c)(1) and (d)(1). 

75) Comment [16.15-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: “Large scale chambers 

(E1333) must be accurately compared to the one used by CARB, as this is 

the gold standard for both compliance and enforcement testing.” 

Agency Response [16.15-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Interlaboratory 

comparison testing is already required in section 93120.12, Appendix 3. 

The ARB laboratory will participate in the initial interlaboratory comparison. 

76) Comment [16.16-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: “The provisions in 93120.9 for 

equivalency are potentially appropriate for demonstrating equivalence 

among large chambers. Use a “C” constant of 0.026 for all emissions 

measurement ranges. This is absolutely critical to establishing 

performance capability among those using large chambers.” 

Agency Response [16.16-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We are relying on the 

interlaboratory comparisons, required in section 93120.12, Appendix 3, to 

establish performance capability, rather than an equivalence 

demonstration among large chambers. We believe the interlaboratory 

comparison will provide sufficient evaluation of the performance of large 

chambers. 

77) Comment [16.17-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: “It is recommended to 

establish a round robin testing of the large chambers using five or six sets 

during 2008 (or the first year that the TPC lab participates), and following 

up with two or three sets every year or two thereafter.” 

Agency Response [16.17-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Thank you for the 

suggestion. The ATCM requires that all laboratories operating primary 

and secondary test methods participate in interlaboratory comparison 

testing (also referred to as round robin testing) during the first year the 

laboratory is used by a third party certifier and every two years thereafter. 

As ARB will participate in the initial interlaboratory comparison, we will 

work out the specific testing details at a later date. 

78) Comment [16.18-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: “Do not need to require a 

different equivalence demonstration for different product types.” 
224

Agency Response [16.18-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: The ATCM does not 

require a different equivalence demonstration for different product types. 

Equivalence is required to be demonstrated for emission levels to 

represent the range in emissions based on the emission standards for 

composite wood products that a certifier is approved to verify. 

79) Comment [16.19-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: “Once equivalence has been 

demonstrated it is reasonable to demonstrate continued performance on a 

reduced number of samples per year.” 

Agency Response [16.19-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We disagree. Annual 

equivalence must be demonstrated in the same manner as the initial 

demonstration. Given that certification could be based on a secondary 

method, then ARB should appropriately require a high degree of 

demonstration in lieu of the use of the primary method. 

80) Comment [16.20-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: “Small chamber tests do not 

have to be run in multiple sets to develop a good correlation against a 

large chamber.” “It may not be practical to require a fixed number of 

samples in two or three different ranges shown.” 

Agency Response [16.20-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We believe that the 

framework we included in the ATCM for the operation of the small 

chamber as a secondary test method is statistically valid and reducing the 

number of samples would decrease the validity of the secondary method. 

The secondary test method is an option that was added to the regulation 

to facilitate compliance. It is voluntary and third party certification can 

always be performed using the primary test method (ATSM E 1333-96 

(2002)). 

81) Comment [16.21-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: “Many of the small scale 

chambers are operated at or near one air change per hour. Given the 

chamber volume range requirement (0.02 to 1 m3) and reviewing the 

requirements relating air change rates to total exposed specimen surface 

area per product, it is not highly practical to require three samples per test 

set. Therefore, it is recommended to edit the above to ‘. . . In addition, the 

secondary method will be operated by testing up to three specimen sets. 

Single or multiple sets shall consist of up to three samples, representing 

evenly spaced portions of an entire panel. The specimen set(s) shall be 

tested and averaged (for multiple sample sets) to represent one data point 

as the panel emission result for comparison with a quality control test 

result from the same batch of panels tested by a manufacturer. 

Additionally, the same sample set distribution (and grouping) shall be used 

in 93120.9(a)(2)(B)2. below.’ This modification will thus allow use of both 

conventional and high air change rate small scale chambers such as the 

DMC.” 
225

Agency Response [16.21-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: The current 

requirements for testing are appropriate. See the Agency Response to 

comment # 80 in section D of the FSOR.

82) Comment [16.22-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: In section 93120.9(a)(2)(B) 

regarding demonstrating equivalence between the secondary method and 

the primary method, the commenter recommends clarifying the text by 

adding the following: “Performance equivalence between the secondary 

method and the primary method must be established and/or updated for 

each testing laboratory operated or contracted by the third party certifier at 

a minimum frequency of annually. This will require testing of the small 

versus large chambers using ten sets during 2008 (or the first year that 

the TPC lab participates), and following up with five sets every following 

year. The following parameters must be met in the comparison:” 

“For the secondary method, each comparison sample will consist of 

testing up to three specimen sets. Single or multiple sets shall consist of 

up to three samples, representing evenly spaced portions of an entire 

panel. The specimen set(s) shall be tested and averaged (for multiple 

sample sets) to represent one data point as the panel emission result, and 

matched to their respective primary method comparison sample result.” 

Agency Response [16.22-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We believe that the 

framework we included in the ATCM for establishing equivalence of the 

secondary test method is appropriate, statistically valid, and reducing the 

number of samples would decrease the validity of the secondary method. 

See also the Agency Response to comment # 80 in section D of the 

FSOR. 

83) Comment [16.23-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 93120.12, 

Appendix 2, section (a), “Purpose,” the commenter states that “it would be 

appropriate to clarify that manufacturers using no-added formaldehyde 

based resins and ULEF resins will need to follow these requirements as 

they develop their performance demonstration data, and until an 

exemption is granted by the Executive Officer. On granting of an 

exemption, these provisions are also exempted.” 

Agency Response [16.23-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We believe that this is 

clear in sections 93120.3(c)(1) and (d)(1). 

84) Comment [16.24-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 93120.12, 

Appendix 2, section (b), “Responsibility for Product Performance,” the 

commenter states that “this responsibility exists outside the scope of just 

this appendix. It would be more appropriate to state this in the main body 

of the regulation.” 
226

Agency Response [16.24-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: This requirement is 

already stated in section 93120.3(b) of the main body of the ATCM. It is 

simply reiterated in section 93120.12, Appendix 2, to emphasize the point. 

 

85) Comment [16.25-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 93120.12, 

Appendix 2, section (f)(2), “Correlation of Primary or Secondary Method 

and Small Scale Test Values,” the commenter asks “is it feasible to allow 

the use of existing correlations between the mill and their TPC, as long as 

the TPC becomes ARB-approved? I believe that existing TPCs are 

already using E1333 large chambers and have established correlations for 

each of their customer mills. This would allow the mills and TPCs that do 

not currently have correlations established the priority access of testing 

facilities, and help assure that compliance timelines are met by the largest 

possible number of composite panel manufacturers.” 

Agency Response [16.25-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: This is acceptable 

now under the ATCM. Therefore, no changes are needed. 

86) Comment [16.26-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 93120.12, 

Appendix 2, section (f)(3)(A)2, quarterly chamber tests are required for 

hardwood plywood product determined by the third party certifier “after 

review of routine quality control data, to have the highest potential to emit 

formaldehyde.” The commenter states that “records review and 

evaluation is covered under the duties of the third party certifier in 

Appendix 3. It is recommended to eliminate the italicized portion of this 

section reference.” 

Agency Response [16.26-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: We believe it is 

appropriate to include this in the requirements for manufacturers in section 

93120.12, Appendix 2, so that it is clear that manufacturers will need to 

work with certifiers to determine which product has the highest potential to 

emit formaldehyde for the purpose of sample selection for testing. 

87) Comment [16.27-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: Regarding section 93120.12, 

Appendix 2, subsection (g)(4)(A), basic testing frequency for PB and MDF, 

the commenter notes that this subsection states manufacturers that use 

ULEF resins and have received ARB approval must conduct routine 

quality control tests “at least weekly.” The commenter states that “this is 

addressed in a following section covering reduced testing frequency for 

PB and MDF. It is also inconsistent with that section, i.e. once per week 

versus once per 48 hours. Recommend that the above . . . be moved to 

the appropriate subsection, and reconciled with regard to frequency.” 

Agency Response [16.27-Harmon-080215-Hexion]: See the Agency 

Response to comment # 30 in section D of the FSOR. 
227

88) Comment [17.1-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: “Masonite proposes the 

qualification period for the ‘Exempt ULEF’ status (6 months of QC testing) 

be made consistent with that required for ‘no added-formaldehyde’ status 

(3 months of QC tests).” 

Agency Response [17.1-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: We disagree. See the 

Agency Response to comment # 28 in section D of the FSOR. 

89) Comment [17.2-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: “Masonite plant personnel are 

concerned that testing one sample per shift . . . will be too burdensome on 

production if required to perform this many tests.” “Masonite proposes a 

reduction in QC test frequency from one per shift to one per day.” 

Similarly, “the test frequency for standard production for components that 

do not meet the ULEF standard should be reduced from once per shift to 

one per day.” “QC test frequency should be reduced for products that 

attain the ULEF, but not ‘exempt ULEF,’ designation to once per week, 

rather than once every 48 hours.” 

Agency Response [17.2-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: We believe it is crucial 

that adequate testing frequency is in place to determine whether shift to 

shift variability in emissions exists, which may result from changes in 

factors such as operating parameters or resin formulation. That said, the 

ATCM does provide flexibility with this requirement. Section 93120.12, 

Appendix 2, subsection (g)(4)(B) allows for a reduction in testing 

frequency to no less than one test per 48 hour production period once the 

plant or production line demonstrates consistent operations and 

formaldehyde emissions values. Per subsection (g)(4)(A), manufacturers 

of PB and MDF that use ULEF resins and are approved by ARB under 

section 93120.3(d) will be required to conduct routine QC tests at least 

weekly. 

90) Comment [17.3-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: “Exterior doors can be made 

with laminated veneer lumber stiles and rails made with hardwood or 

softwood and capped with finger jointed softwood. Masonite proposes this 

type of material does not fall under the definition of HWPW and is exempt 

from the regulations.” 

Agency Response [17.3-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: We agree. Such 

material would not be considered HWPW and would be exempt from the 

ATCM. In addition, other exterior doors would be exempt as long as the 

door meets the requirements of section 93120.7(b)(2). 

91) Comment [17.4-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: “Masonite proposes that a 2-ply 

HWPW-CC panel have the same emissions level as thin MDF.” 
228

Agency Response [17.4-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: We disagree. Those 

are two separate products. As pointed out in pages 42-44 of the ISOR, 

the manufacturing processes are substantially different for plywood versus 

MDF, and this would also be true of thin MDF. The Phase 1 emission 

standards were primarily developed in light of current product emission 

levels, manufacturing process technology, and resin systems. Our 2003 

product survey found an emissions difference among PB, HWPW, and 

MDF, as discussed on pages 70-74 of the ISOR. This is due to many 

factors such as wood furnish type (i.e., veneers, particles, or fibers), resin 

systems, resin application rates, use of catalysts or scavengers, and 

process variability. 

92) Comment [17.5-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: “CARB’s definition of a ‘window’ 

includes jambs. The definition of a ‘door’ is not specific as to its 

components. The definition should be revised to include framing 

members for pre-hung doors.” 

Agency Response [17.5-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: We disagree. The 

definition is sufficiently clear. In developing the door definition, we 

consulted with window and door industry representatives. We do not 

agree that we should include “framing members for pre-hung doors” 

because part of the basis for the door exemption is de minimus use of 

composite wood products in an exterior door. 

93) Comment [17.6-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: Section 93120.7(b)(2) provides 

an exemption for “exterior doors.” The commenter paraphrases this 

exemption with regard to “if the doors are made for exterior use” and asks 

for a definition of “exterior use.” 

Agency Response [17.6-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: The commenter was 

looking at an old staff working draft of the regulations dated December 21, 

2007. The modified regulation that was subject to the comment period 

was revised and no longer refers to “exterior use.” 

94) Comment [17.7-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: Section 93120.7(b)(2) provides 

an exemption for exterior doors if the doors “contain less than three 

percent by volume of HWPW, PB, or MDF.” Masonite requests that 

“exterior doors be exempt if the HWPW, PB or MDF components make up 

15% or less by volume of the finished door, if the component is sealed 

entirely inside the door or has only one exposed edge. The basis for this 

is that the smallest components of a door such as composite wood lock 

blocks are totally encased inside a door and rails which are only exposed 

on one edge can make up to 15% by volume of the door.” 

Agency Response [17.7-Rabe-080215-Masonite]: We disagree. The three 

percent by volume exemption criteria is intended to represent a 
229

de minimus use level for an exterior door, which, because it is made for 

exterior use, will most likely be made with lower emitting phenol 

formaldehyde resins. The suggestion by the commenter would allow for 

an increase in the amount of composite wood products in exterior doors. 

We do not agree with the suggestion that encasing the composite wood 

products within the door will control emissions. Encasing the source of the 

emissions will only delay the formaldehyde emissions. 

95) Comment [18-Macedo-080215-FCI]: “While FCI appreciates the 

refinements that ARB endeavors to achieve in the implementation of the 

rule, ARB has failed to address the deficiencies in the foundation for the 

rule itself.” “CARB should carefully evaluate the proposal to reduce 

exposure to formaldehyde in light of the tenuous public health benefits 

represented by the estimated reduction in cancer cases in California.” 

Agency Response [18-Macedo-080215-FCI]: The foundation of the ATCM 

was discussed at the Board hearing in April 2007 and in responses to 

comments received prior to and at the Board hearing. The foundation of 

the ATCM was not a subject of the modifications that were out for the 

15-day public review. 

96) Comment [19.1-Miller-080215-BIFMA]: “BIFMA strongly supports the 

changes related to laminated products as produced by fabricators . . . 

BIFMA also strongly supports the exemption for curved plywood.” 

Agency Response [19.1-Miller-080215-BIFMA]: We appreciate the support 

– no response necessary. 

97) Comment [19.2-Miller-080215-BIFMA]: “Another issue to come forward 

from one of our members concerned having enough time to meet the 

California requirements by the end of the year. If no mechanism is in 

place to find out if that is a widespread reality, we recommend a midsummer review to determine if an extension is warranted.” 

Agency Response [19.2-Miller-080215-BIFMA]: We believe that there is 

enough time for BIFMA members to meet the California requirements by 

the end of the year. ARB staff found that the necessary resin technology 

is available to meet the formaldehyde emission standards. ARB staff 

believes there will be a sufficient number of third party certifiers for 

manufacturers to certify their products before the end of the year. At this 

time, staff believes that an extension is not warranted. 

98) Comment [19.3-Miller-080215-BIFMA]: “Specific to the testing methods, in 

section 93120.9 (a)(2)(B), the requirement to demonstrate equivalence 

between the primary and secondary method every year appears 

excessive . . . it appears to be a wasteful exercise to repeat the extensive 
230

equivalence determination testing every year. We respectfully suggest it 

is more efficient to define any changes, which would trigger more frequent 

determinations of equivalence, but otherwise default to a frequency of 

every three, four or even five years.” 

Agency Response [19.3-Miller-080215-BIFMA]: We disagree. While there 

is limited data to affirm the equivalence of the secondary method to the 

primary method, we feel that this demonstration must be done on an 

annual basis until we are certain that the secondary method is performing 

as expected. The secondary test method is an option that was added to 

the regulation to facilitate compliance. It is voluntary and third party 

certification can always be performed using the primary test method 

(ATSM E 1333-96(2002)). As the public health benefit of the ATCM 

depends on the sale and use of compliant composite wood products in 

California, we believe that it is important to have stringent test method 

requirements to ensure that the projected reductions in formaldehyde 

emissions are achieved and that the enforcement program has the utmost 

integrity. 

99) Comment [19.4-Miller-080215-BIFMA]: “Similarly, mandating interlaboratory comparisons be conducted every two years is extremely 

onerous and expensive, as required in Appendix 3 (b)(1)(F) . . . The 

requirement for inter-laboratory comparison studies would be much more 

appropriate if it was required every five years or anytime there was a 

significant change in the standard testing methods.” 

Agency Response [19.4-Miller-080215-BIFMA]: We disagree. See the 

Agency Response to comment # 98 in section D of the FSOR. 

100) Comment [20.1-Bradway-080215-Mannington]: “On page 1-58 there is 

reference to (a) testing method and frequency for hardwood plywood 

which spells out a specified criteria based upon weekly sq(uare) feet of 

production. There should be a level of flexibility regarding reduced testing 

requirements if one can demonstrate statistical compliance at a reduced 

level of testing burden.” 

Agency Response [20.1-Bradway-080215-Mannington]: We appreciate 

the comment, but believe that a reduced level of testing for hardwood 

plywood cannot provide the level of certainty needed to ensure 

compliance with the Phase 1 and Phase 2 emission standards. 

101) Comment [20.2-Bradway-080215-Mannington]: “A manufacturer should be 

able to submit a statistically sound sampling and testing scheme utilizing 

(an) approved methodology in order to demonstrate compliance . . . We 

would simply request the additional statement below the table under 
231

paragraph ‘C’ on page 1-58: ‘Or sufficient sampling frequency utilizing 

(an) approved methodology in order to demonstrate compliance.’ ” 

Agency Response [20.2-Bradway-080215-Mannington]: We appreciate 

the comment, but until there is enough data to demonstrate the sufficiency 

of the required testing scheme, there is no basis for evaluating the 

sufficiency of other compliance testing regimes. Therefore, we disagree 

with the suggestion. 

102) Comment [20.3-Bradway-080215-Mannington]: “Since the testing methods 

call for a seven day conditioning time period, I assume even for field 

compliance verification testing, it would be mandated to follow the same 

protocol of sampling, appropriate conditioning then testing.” 

Agency Response [20.3-Bradway-080215-Mannington]: Conditioning of 

samples will be done prior to testing. However, only the primary method 

calls for a seven day conditioning time period. Section 93120.9(a)(2)(A) 

stipulates that operation of the secondary method, which is the method 

ARB plans to use as an enforcement test method (sections 93120.9(c) 

and (d)), will use the conditioning time used to establish equivalence to the 

primary method. 

103) Comment [20.4-Bradway-080215-Mannington]: “To us it would seem 

appropriate that compliance testing should be on a product or article as 

sold for point of use and tested in a manner consistent with recommended 

use (i.e., horizontal, finished side up). Reducing of that product to its 

component parts to test would render the product non-serviceable and 

would almost certainly reduce the accuracy and applicability of the test 

results.” 

Agency Response [20.4-Bradway-080215-Mannington]: We disagree 

because it would require establishing emission standards for an inordinate 

number of finished products that are sold in the California market. We 

believe that if products are made with compliant composite wood products, 

this ensures that the desired reduction in formaldehyde emissions from 

composite wood product panels and finished goods that contain those 

materials will be achieved as the source of formaldehyde emissions will be 

reduced. To determine if compliant materials are being used to make 

finished goods, we must deconstruct the finished good and test its 

component parts. Table VI-7 on page 127 of the ISOR includes an 

implementation schedule. At this time, we are on track to achieve the 

schedule. 

104) Comment [20.5-Bradway-080215-Mannington]: “We believe we should be 

able to start the exemption application in parallel to the generation of the 
232

data collection process, with approval contingent upon satisfactory 

demonstration of the data.” 

Agency Response [20.5-Bradway-080215-Mannington]: We agree. 

Manufacturers may apply for an exemption while completing their 

collection of data. However, ARB will not issue an Executive Order until 

the data requirement is fulfilled and ARB reviews the data. In addition, 

manufacturers may at their risk work with reputable candidate third party 

certifiers prior to ARB approval of the certifiers. If ARB approves the 

certifier, then all data generated while working with the certifier will be 

acceptable. 

105) Comment [21.1-Cleet-080215-ITI]: “Information Technology Institute 

Council (ITI) members often import products, parts, and components 

manufactured globally that are packaged in wooden crates or distributed 

using wood pallets. While ITI supports the goals of the ATCM to reduce 

formaldehyde emissions, we believe this approach will result in a 

premature disposition of packaging materials that had many more years of 

useful life, generating significant amounts of preventable wastes.” “Pallets 

and packaging products do not pose the same risks or exposure pathways 

as fabricated products containing composite wood products.” “In order to 

avoid the possibility of a noncompliant, reusable pallet or crate being 

shipped into California, we may be forced to discard the existing inventory 

and replace it with new packaging. This will result in a premature 

disposition of packaging materials that had many more years of useful life. 

In addition to generating waste it would increase shipping costs, as new 

crates and pallets would have to be purchased to replace the existing 

inventory.” “We believe the most logical approach is to exempt these 

materials from the requirements to meet the applicable performance 

standard.” 

Agency Response [21.1-Cleet-080215-ITI]: We disagree. See the Agency 

Response to comment # 4 in section D of the FSOR. 

106) Comment [21.2-Cleet-080215-ITI]: “ITI also believes that the certification 

process for home furnishings and furniture is overly burdensome and 

certification should focus on composite wood products installed as part of 

a building or structure.” 

Agency Response [21.2-Cleet-080215-ITI]: We disagree. Formaldehyde 

emissions need to be reduced from all sources to achieve the public 

health benefit that we are seeking. In the ATCM, fabricators of home 

furnishings and furniture are required to exercise reasonable prudent 

precaution in securing compliant materials from their suppliers. In addition, 

they must maintain records documenting their purchases of compliant 

materials and label their products as compliant with the Phase 1 or 
233

Phase 2 standards. We do not believe the additional recordkeeping and 

labeling requirements are overly burdensome. We believe the 

requirement is necessary to track a noncompliant product back to the 

responsible party. 

107) Comment [22.1-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: “We continue to object to the 

exemption that is provided for a ‘Fabricator’ who applies a face and back 

to a core (platform) because CARB has arbitrarily defined that product to 

be a laminated product.” “CARB needs to provide simple, straightforward 

definitions of the products that are covered.” “We offered a simple and 

straightforward recommendation to treat what is the same, identical 

product under a common and consistent definition but adjust the 

compliance regime for fabricators to insure that the rule’s requirements 

are met but adjusting some of the compliance requirements. This is 

accomplished by the use of a ‘prototype product’ that would use the resins 

and adhesives that have the same potential to emit formaldehyde without 

sacrificing very expensive face veneers which some fabricators claimed 

would be destroyed permanently.” “ We urge CARB to maintain a single 

and consistent definition for hardwood plywood as contained in 

ANSI/HPVA-HP-1 and remove the artifice of ‘laminated product’ and 

‘platform’ from the rule entirely.” 

Agency Response [22.1-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: We appreciate the 

comment, but believe that the definition for hardwood plywood as 

contained in ANSI/HPVA-HP-1 is too broad, for purposes of the ATCM. 

We believe that there are substantial differences between the bundles of 

hardwood plywood panels produced by a hardwood plywood manufacturer 

versus a fabricated laminated product made by a fabricator for exclusive 

use in finished goods. The two products are clearly not interchangeable in 

terms of their intended uses. In addition, the survey of composite wood 

products that was used as a basis for establishing the emission limits in 

the ATCM did not include emissions from a fabricated laminated product. 

If we find in the future that these products are emitting higher levels of 

formaldehyde than we expect, we can amend the ATCM. 

108) Comment [22.2-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: “We also object to an exemption 

for curved plywood. There is certainly a potential to emit a significant 

amount of formaldehyde from curved plywood. CARB should initiate an 

immediate evaluation of the potential for curved plywood to emit 

formaldehyde to insure there is a level playing field, especially for imports. 

We understand CARB will evaluate curved plywood for future 

amendments . . . In the interim, curved plywood should be subject to at 

least the emission limits established in section 93120.2 (a).” 

Agency Response [22.2-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: We appreciate the 

comment. In discussions with industry stakeholders, it is our 
234

understanding that there are differences between curved plywood and 

industrial-grade hardwood plywood manufacturing. Typically, curved 

plywood is produced using urea formaldehyde resins that have been 

cured with a radio frequency press. Due to a lack of emissions data for 

curved plywood and because of the difference in the curing process, we 

decided to exempt curved plywood. If we find in the future that curved 

plywood is emitting higher levels of formaldehyde than we expect, we can 

amend the ATCM. 

109) Comment [22.3-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: “For the purposes of 93120.12, 

Appendix 2 (g)(4)(c), which sets out the testing frequency for HWPW, we 

recommend inserting the word ‘each’ before ‘product type’ and ‘product 

line’ in the headings of the table on Page 1-58 to make the wording in the 

table conform with the wording in paragraph C above the table. 

Depending on the product types being manufactured, the production rates 

should differentiate between each product type as classified by a 

manufacturer (consistent with 93120.12, Appendix 2 (f)(3)(A)(2) page 55) 

and the production volume in square feet, which then determines the 

frequency of the testing.” 

Agency Response [22.3-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: We appreciate the 

comment, but the current regulatory language is sufficiently clear to mean 

that routine test frequency is based on each product type and each 

product line. 

110) Comment [22.4-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: “It should be clarified that 

quarterly chamber testing for hardwood plywood is not required for each 

product type or product line, but only required for the product type or 

product line determined by the third party certifier to have the highest 

potential to emit based on routine quality control data (see 93120.12, 

Appendix 2 (f)(3)(A)(2) on page 1-55).” 

Agency Response [22.4-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: We believe that the 

current regulatory language is sufficiently clear. Section 93120.12, 

Appendix 2, subsection (f)(3)(A)2. states that a quarterly test “shall be 

conducted on randomly selected samples of the HWPW product 

determined by the third party certifier . . . to have the highest potential to 

emit.” 

111) Comment [22.5-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: “For hardwood plywood, we 

recommend simplifying the definition of a batch or lot as the production 

between one quality control test and the next as stipulated in Definition 

26(b) for a lot.” 

Agency Response [22.5-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: We disagree. Although 

most lots will likely be defined by production runs between quality control 
235

tests, the simplification would not encompass lots produced by a new 

manufacturing facility or lots produced prior to having to shut down a 

facility for an extended time period. 

112) Comment [22.6-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: “To require a hardwood plywood 

manufacturer to keep records with respect to the amount of resin used by 

volume and weight for a particular product type would be impossible for 

the following reasons: (1) No measuring device for the resin being 

applied... (2) The possibility of running numerous adhesive applicators 

from the same batch mix and the fact that some applicators may be 

running CARB compliance product and some non-CARB certified 

product... (3) Difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the amount of resin 

and adhesive lost due to waste... Accurate records of adhesive 

application rates, resin content of the adhesive mix and panel production 

volumes could be used to estimate the resin consumed during a given 

product run or manufacturing period.” 

Agency Response [22.6-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: We disagree that it 

would be impossible to keep records of resin use by product type. As 

suggested, we believe that records of this kind can be maintained based 

on accurate records of adhesive application rates, contents of the 

adhesive mix, and panel production volumes, to estimate the amount of 

resin consumed during a product run or manufacturing period. 

113) Comment [22.7-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: “We object to inclusion of the 

smallest size chambers allowed in the ASTM D6007 for certification of 

composite wood products (as small as 0.02 m3) that would result in testing 

‘postage size’ specimens . . . This change in the regulation was significant 

and the 15-day comment period did not allow us to evaluate data to 

recommend a minimum size small chamber . . . We request that the 

comment period for this aspect of the regulation be extended seven days 

to give us an opportunity to evaluate minimum chamber size and make a 

recommendation.” 

Agency Response [22.7-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: The commenter appears 

to be concerned with the allowance of small (0.02 m3) chambers under the 

secondary test method in section 93120.9(a)(2). The regulation will not 

result in testing “postage size” specimens. Operation of a small chamber 

as a secondary method requires following ASTM D 6007-02 (the small 

chamber method) and is based on specified ratios of the air flow to the 

surface area of specimens, with the ratios specified in ASTM D 6007-02 

by product type. The size of specimens can be increased as long as the 

air flow is increased to keep the flow to surface area ratio specified in the 

method. 
236

The regulation provides flexibility with regard to size of small chambers 

that can be used as secondary methods, in a manner consistent with 

ASTM D 6007-02, but the regulation also contains strict statistical criteria 

for demonstrating that a secondary method is equivalent to the primary 

test method before a small chamber can be used as a secondary method. 

In addition, the secondary test method is an option that was added to the 

regulation to facilitate compliance. It is voluntary and third party 

certification can always be performed using the primary test method 

(ATSM E 1333-96(2002)). 

114) Comment [22.8-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: “Our members are concerned 

with the potential length of time it takes (up to five months or more) to get 

CARB approval for the TPC exemption for HWPW manufactured with NAF 

or ULEF resins. We suggest CARB allow manufacturers to begin the 

application process before the three-month (NAF) or six-month (ULEF) 

data collection process is completed, with final approval from the 

Executive Officer dependent on submission of the full data set. Approval 

would then be virtually instantaneous, since the data will either show 

compliance or not.” 

Agency Response [22.8-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: See the Agency 

Response to comment # 104 in section D of the FSOR. 

115) Comment [22.9-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: “In 93120.12, Appendix 2 

(g)(4)(C) that states ‘quality control samples shall be analyzed within a 

period of time specified in the manufacturer’s quality control manual to 

avoid distribution of non-complying lots’ (page 1-58). We are concerned 

that this does not recognize the current industry practice of just-in-time 

delivery. We recommend that the wording in this section be changed to 

say if a manufacturer has substantial quality control data indicating 

compliance with the formaldehyde emission limits, an untested lot may be 

shipped while the QC test from that lot is being conducted provided there 

is sufficient time to recall the shipment before it gets into production at the 

customer’s manufacturing facility if this lot fails.” 

Agency Response [22.9-Howlett-080215-HPVA]: We appreciate the 

comment, but the regulation is clear regarding this matter. It is up to the 

manufacturer as to whether to ship an untested lot to a customer, but if a 

violation occurs, both the manufacturer and the customer may be subject 

to penalties under the ATCM. 

116) Comment [23.1-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: “Are 

manufacturers of engineered flooring products that contain a composite 

wood base material considered to be fabricators of laminated products?” 
237

Agency Response [23.1-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: If the 

engineered flooring products consist of a compliant composite wood 

platform to which the flooring manufacturer applies a laminate, then the 

flooring manufacturer would be considered to be a fabricator of laminated 

products. 

117) Comment [23.2-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: “If a fabricator’s 

entire production of a product or product line is made in compliance with 

the ATCM and records are maintained to demonstrate compliance, is the 

fabricator still required to individually label each piece and/or shipping 

box?” 

Agency Response [23.2-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: Yes, if the 

product is sold, offered for sale, supplied, or used in California. Labeling 

is a critical piece of the enforcement program to identify products subject 

to the ATCM and to track back to the source any noncompliant products. 

118) Comment [23.3-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: “We believe that 

certain details of how the Secondary Method is to be validated and 

implemented should be modified to make this pathway more competitive.” 

“The requirement to cut nine specimens evenly distributed over a panel 

and to test these in groups of three may lead to biased results and may 

not be necessary . . . The requirement for three pieces to be placed in 

each chamber results in small specimen sizes to achieve the required 

loading ratios . . . Compared to single specimens with the equivalent 

surface area . . . there are about a factor of two additional product edge 

area that must be sealed. Depending upon the effectiveness of edge 

sealing, the additional edge areas may lead to increased bias. Nine 

specimens and even three individual tests may, in fact, not be necessary.” 

“We recommend that the requirement be amended to allow D 6007 testing 

in triplicate using single specimens randomly selected from a panel. 

Further, we recommend that the Certifier be allowed to require less than 

three individual tests per panel if analysis of the validation data for the 

Secondary Method shows acceptable agreement can be obtained using 

fewer D 6007 replicate tests of single specimens.” 

Agency Response [23.3-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: We 

disagree. We believe that the requirement, as written, provides the level 

of certainty that we need to ensure that compliant products are being 

manufactured and sold to the California market. Using nine specimens 

and then averaging results will provide an accurate average emission rate 

which can be compared to the large chamber results. Until a 

demonstration of equivalence between the proposed test procedure and 

the procedure in the ATCM is achieved, we believe that the test procedure, 

as written, must be followed. The secondary test method is an option that 

was added to the ATCM to facilitate compliance. It is voluntary and third 
238

party certification can always be performed using the primary test method. 

See also the Agency Response to comment # 113 in section D of the 

FSOR. 

119) Comment [23.4-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: “The requirement 

for annual validation of the Secondary Method is excessive . . . We 

recommend that the validation of the Secondary Method be conducted 

once every two or three years unless a significant detail of the Secondary 

Method is changed (e.g., switching to a different analytical method or 

chamber size). If such a change is proposed, the laboratory should be 

required to perform validation tests before being allowed to use the 

modified method.” 

Agency Response [23.4-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: We 

disagree. See the Agency Response to comment # 98 in section D of the 

FSOR. 

120) Comment [23.5-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: “We also 

recommend that any existing data on the bias and uncertainty of the 

Primary Method be published as an appendix to the ATCM.” 

Agency Response [23.5-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: We agree 

that information of this kind would be insightful and should be shared; 

however, another mechanism for disseminating this information is needed, 

as it is not appropriate to include as an appendix to the ATCM. 

121) Comment [23.6-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: “To establish the 

credibility of the ATCM’s enforcement function, the ARB and local air 

district laboratories performing the enforcement tests should meet the 

same requirements as the laboratories performing Primary or Secondary 

Method testing including accreditation (ILAC, 2000), validation of 

Secondary Methods, and participation in inter-laboratory studies. The 

enforcement test method(s) should be defined and verified prior to 

implementation of the ATCM as deconstruction of finished goods to 

determine if core materials meet the ATCM requirements is likely a difficult 

task subject to considerable uncertainty. The ARB should support 

research and development of valid enforcement test methods if such 

methods are not currently available.” 

Agency Response [23.6-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: We agree. 

In order for small chambers that ARB plans to use for enforcement to be 

considered secondary methods, the chambers must be demonstrated to 

be equivalent to a primary test method. ARB’s laboratory also plans to 

participate in interlaboratory comparison studies with our secondary test 

method chambers. The integrity of the enforcement program depends on 

all parties being committed to using the required procedures and following 
239

defined quality assurance protocols. Table VI-7 on page 127 of the ISOR 

includes an implementation schedule. At this time, we are on track to 

achieve the schedule. 

122) Comment [23.7-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: “Often laboratory 

accreditation is valid for a two year period with a requirement for an 

annual audit by the accreditation body . . . The requirement for 

participation in some inter-laboratory studies is reasonable. However, 

such studies cannot be approached casually. It is better to focus on 

efforts on a few quality studies.” “The requirement should be modified to 

state that each laboratory shall maintain a valid accreditation for the 

relevant methods. The responsibility for inter-laboratory studies should be 

formalized by identifying a lead organization responsible for planning, 

coordination, implementation, data analysis, and reporting. The 

requirement should be scaled back to participation in a single interlaboratory study every two or three years. The requirement for biennial 

participation in an inter-laboratory study for each test method and each 

wood product type should be removed.” 

Agency Response [23.7-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: We 

believe that participation in inter-laboratory studies is important. Initially, 

ARB will lead the first interlaboratory comparison study. Also, we believe 

that until we have a robust data base on laboratory performance, 

participation every two years is important. 

123) Comment [23.8-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: “Appendix 3 (d)(3): 

Comment – The wording of this requirement is unclear . . . The wording 

should be revised to state that ‘the third party certifier shall, at its own 

discretion, have the right to witness any and all parts of tests conducted at 

a laboratory under contract to the certifier for performance of Primary and 

Secondary Method tests.’ ” 

Agency Response [23.8-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: We 

appreciate the comment, but disagree. The wording of Appendix 3 (d)(3), 

as written, conveys the intent of this comment. 

124) Comment [23.9-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: “Attachment 2 . . . 

This attachment is a scholarly presentation of a somewhat unconventional 

statistical technique. Many readers may have difficulty following the 

development of the technique . . . This attachment should be treated as an 

academic article in order to establish its credibility. The author(s) should 

be identified, appropriate references to statistical texts and journal articles 

should be added, and the article should be subjected to review by peers.” 

Agency Response [23.9-Hodgson-080215-Berkeley Analytical]: The 

statistical technique was developed in consultation with academic and 
240

industry experts, and the work was subject to peer review under the 

15-day comment period. For purposes of the ATCM, we believe that the 

analysis provides solid technical support as the basis for the 

demonstration of equivalence between the primary and secondary 

methods in the ATCM. 

125) Comment [24-Dennis-080215-Gibson Dunn Crutcher]: “Virco 

manufactures a product called Hard Plastic at its Arkansas facility . . . It 

appears that the definition of ‘particleboard’ in the Proposed 

Formaldehyde ATCM does not include Virco’s Hard Plastic product, but 

that is not completely clear . . . The primary ingredients of Hard Plastic are 

powdered melamine formaldehyde resin and maple wood flour . . . Given 

that the cellulosic material used in making Hard Plastic is a finely ground 

and sieved flour, it does not appear to meet the definition of ‘particleboard’ 

because the finely ground flour is smaller in size than fibers . . . Given that 

the Hard Plastic product made by Virco uses a wood flour and not chips or 

shavings, it does not appear to meet the definition of ‘particleboard.’ If you 

concur with our interpretation of the definition of ‘particleboard’ and that it 

does not apply to Virco’s Hard Plastic, then would like a written 

confirmation of that . . . Virco only makes individual sheets . . . If CARB 

staff concludes that Hard Plastic meets the definition of ‘particleboard’ in 

the Proposed Formaldehyde ATCM, then we need to either amend 

Appendix 3 or seek an interpretation as to how it will be applied to Virco’s 

Hard Plastic product . . . Virco believes that its Hard Plastic is not 

‘particleboard’ as that term is used in the Proposed Formaldehyde ATCM 

and would therefore not be subject to the requirements of the proposed 

regulations. However, if CARB concludes otherwise, then the testing 

method in Appendix 3 would need to be amended, or Virco will need an 

interpretation that would address the impracticablity of a rigid application 

to those provisions to its product.” 

Agency Response [24-Dennis-080215-Gibson Dunn Crutcher]: We 

appreciate the information provided on Hard Plastic, but cannot make a 

determination as to whether the product is subject to the ATCM based on 

the information provided. We invite the commenter to meet with us so that 

we can discuss this product. 

 

126) Comment [25.1-Clark-080215-Jeld-Wen]: “In section 93120.1 (a)(8) the 

definition for Composite Wood Products states that “hardboard” is an 

exempted product from this regulation. Definitions (17) and (28) of the 

same section describe ‘hardboard’ and ‘Medium Density Fiberboard.’ 

These definitions need to be defined further to clearly state a difference 

between the two product types. If these definitions are left as-is, then it is 

likely that manufacturers of fiberboard will simply call their product 

‘hardboard’ and state that they do not need to comply with the regulation. 

JELD-WEN has proposed definitions to CARB in previous correspondence. 
241

Any definition could be used, provided that it includes a statement that 

‘hardboard’ will have emissions less than 0.04 ppm so it meets the same 

criteria of other products exempted from third party certification.” 

Agency Response [25.1-Clark-080215-Jeld-Wen]: We disagree that if 

these definitions are left as-is, that manufacturers will call their products 

“hardboard” and state that they do not need to comply with the ATCM. 

We believe that the two products have different intended end-uses and as 

such, will continue to be separate products. No additional clarification is 

needed. 

127) Comment [25.2-Clark-080215-Jeld-Wen]: “Section 93120.1 (a)(19) has a 

definition for ‘Hardwood Plywood’ that includes the statement ‘The face 

veneer may be composed of a hardwood or decorative softwood species.’ 

The phrase ‘. . . or decorative softwood’ should be deleted. If this remains, 

then the title of the definition should change to include softwood species. 

This would require several editorial changes throughout the document.” 

Agency Response [25.2-Clark-080215-Jeld-Wen]: We disagree. It is our 

understanding that in some cases, decorative softwood veneers are used 

by hardwood plywood manufacturers to make industrial-grade “hardwood 

plywood,” and the end-product is essentially “hardwood plywood” as we 

have defined it. Furthermore, ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2004 refers to decorative 

softwood veneers in the industry specifications for hardwood plywood. 

We believe that the phrase is needed in the definition to address this 

contingency. 

128) Comment [25.3-Clark-080215-Jeld-Wen]: “The regulation needs a section 

added to describe how a new start-up plant that uses NAF or ULEF resins 

can comply with this regulation. There will be instances where a new 

plant will be built which are very similar to existing manufacturing facilities 

that already produce products approved by CARB. The products made 

from this new plant should not have to go through the same requirement 

of months of QC data and third party certifications to demonstrate 

compliance. This will delay the ability to sell products into California by a 

minimum of 3 months. Where appropriate, it should be possible to 

demonstrate compliance by equivalencies for new plants on an expedited 

basis, as approved by CARB.” 

Agency Response [25.3-Clark-080215-Jeld-Wen]: We disagree that a new 

section needs to be added to the regulation to address new plants. In 

such cases, we believe that the manufacturer will likely use a no-added 

formaldehyde (NAF) based resin or ULEF resin with a proven track record 

at existing facilities. While it is a manufacturer’s prerogative to produce 

products for California, approval to be designated as a manufacturer using 

NAF or ULEF resins will be decided on a case-by-case basis by the 
242

Executive Officer. If a new start up plant uses a NAF or ULEF resin, then 

resultant production should have emissions that will be well below the 

Phase 2 emission standards. Therefore, quality control data would 

support certification by an approved third party certifier. A new plant will 

be able to sell Phase 2 compliant panels using a NAF or ULEF resin. 

After the required quality control emissions data are collected, then an 

application can be submitted for an approved Executive Order for reduced 

testing or an exemption from third party certification. 

129) Comment [25.4-Clark-080215-Jeld-Wen]: “Section 93120.3 (d)(7) should 

be clarified. Currently it states that any change in the resin system 

requires the manufacturer to comply with section 93120.3 (b). This would 

require the manufacturer to complete six months of QC testing before the 

product with the modified resin can be sold to California. If this is not the 

intent of this section, it should be modified to state that the manufacturer 

must demonstrate that the change in the resin system will still produce a 

product that continues to meet the ULEF requirements to be exempt from 

third party certification.” 

Agency Response [25.4-Clark-080215-Jeld-Wen]: We understand the 

comment. The intent of section 93120.3(d)(7) applies to a manufacturer 

that changes to a non-ULEF resin. Operational flexibility for ULEF resins 

will be addressed through the conditions applied to an approved ARB 

Executive Order. The current regulatory language is sufficiently clear. 

130) Comment [25.5-Clark-080215-Jeld-Wen]: Regarding the requirements for 

retailers, the commenter states that “section 93120.8 is vague and should 

be clarified to provide an advantage for NAF products. This section of the 

regulation should provide for less onerous labeling and recordkeeping 

requirements for NAF products.” 

Agency Response [25.5-Clark-080215-Jeld-Wen]: We disagree. Because 

of the advantages already being afforded to products made with no-added 

formaldehyde based resins and the contribution these products are 

estimated to provide from a public health standpoint, we believe that 

rigorous requirements for recordkeeping and labeling are needed to 

ensure that those products are in fact what manufacturers claim they are. 

Recordkeeping is also essential for enforcement to allow tracing noncomplying products back to the fabricator or manufacturer. See also the 

Agency Response to comment # 15 in section D of the FSOR.