Discussion Session:

U.S. EPA Proposed Formaldehyde 

Rules and ARB Existing ATCM 

August 1, 2013

Coastal Hearing Room

Cal/EPA Headquarters, Sacramento

California Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board
• 

1. Introductions

2. Objectives of Discussion Session

3. Background 

4. ATCM & U.S. EPA general formaldehyde rule 

 - ARB presentation

 - Stakeholder presentations

- Open discussion 

5. ATCM & U.S. EPA third party certification (TPC) rule 

 - ARB presentation

 - Stakeholder presentations

 - Open discussion

6. Closing remarks

7. Adjourn

8. Optional TPC discussion with U.S. EPA staff

Agenda

2
• Discuss and compare U.S. EPA 

proposed rules and the ARB ATCM

share preliminary thoughts, ideas, questions, 

and suggestions for improvements

• Explore potential approaches for 

aligning/harmonizing the ATCM and 

U.S. EPA proposed rules to the extent 

feasible

Objectives

3
ARB ATCM

• 1992 – ARB identified formaldehyde as a toxic air contaminant

• 2007 – ARB approved Composite Wood Products ATCM

• 2009 – ATCM’s Phase 1 emission standards took effect

• 2012 – ATCM’s Phase 2 emission standards all in effect

U.S. EPA Proposed Rules

• 2010 – Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act 

(Title VI of TSCA) was signed into law by President Obama

• June 2013 – U.S. EPA released two proposed regulations in 

Federal Register for public comment period

• Comment period extended to August 26 for third party certification rule 

and September 9 for general formaldehyde rule

• U.S. EPA proposes that one year after adoption, rule will apply 

nationwide 

Background

4
5
• 

1. Manufacturer requirements

2. Laminated products

3. NAF/ULEF approvals

4. Definitions

5. Labeling 

6. Exemptions

7. Other

Discussion Topics

6
• ATCM: TPCs determine amount of testing to 

certify product 

• U.S.EPA Proposal: requires minimum of one 

TPC qualifying test and three months of QC data 

for each product type to be certified

 products under ARB certified TPC would be considered 

certified under TSCA for one year

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 one year is not sufficient for mills to obtain certification

 ARB suggests that U.S. EPA defer to TPCs regarding 

minimum amount of QC testing 

7
• ATCM: HWPW with composite core (CC) must 

be certified; no requirement for core 

• U.S.EPA Proposal: all types of HWPW must be 

certified to 0.05 ppm standard

 no requirements for core, except that hardboard used as core 

for HWPW is not exempt [section 770.1 (c)(2)]

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 support regulating all types of HWPW 

 considering amending ATCM to require core for making HWPW 

be certified if contains composite wood product, consistent with 

requirement for laminated products; helps with enforcement; 

recommend that U.S. EPA include same 

 most mills use certified core material to meet 0.05 ppm HWPW 

standard 

8
• ATCM: requires additional QC testing if 

changes made in mill production (e.g., 

changes in resin formulation) for PB and 

MDF, but not HWPW

• U.S.EPA Proposal: same as ATCM, but also 

applies to HWPW 

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 support U.S. EPA’s proposal

 considering amending ATCM to align

9
• ATCM: distinguishes product types by composition, 

thickness, resin, and number of plies for HWPW; 

allows grouping of product types with similar 

emission characteristics for certification and QC 

testing; addressed in implementation guidelines

• U.S. EPA Proposal: requests input on appropriate 

criteria for grouping of product types

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 suggest following ARB’s guideline for grouping product types

o PB and MDF - resin system and thickness

o HWPW - resin used to affix face and back veneers, veneer 

species, thickness or number of plies, core type, adhesive used 

in core, and import vs. domestic core 

10
• ATCM: does not address retaining products until 

receipt of test results 

• U.S.EPA Proposal: requires producer to retain 

lots from which samples are selected for QC 

tests and quarterly TPC tests, until producer 

receives test results 

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 support concept of taking steps to avoid shipping of 

noncomplying lots 

 suggest only retaining lots tied to QC tests due to quicker test 

results; quarterly test results take longer (e.g., > 9 days) 

11
• ATCM: allows TPCs to reduce QC testing frequency 

for consistently performing PB and MDF panel 

producers from once per shift to once per 48 hours; 

no reduction allowed for HWPW

• U.S. EPA Proposal: allows similar reduction, but 

asks whether should allow indefinitely and whether 

reduced QC testing should be allowed for HWPW 

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 indefinite approval acceptable as long as QC data 

demonstrates continued consistent results

 acceptable to reduce frequency of QC testing for larger 

HWPW producers to minimum of one QC test per week 

12
• ATCM: does not define acceptable correlation 

between QC method and TPC’s methods; 

addressed in implementation guidelines

• U.S. EPA Proposal: identifies minimal correlation 

values from ARB’s guidelines, but uses the term 

“equivalence” for QC methods 

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 support including minimum correlation and linear regression 

o alternatively, handle through “best practices”

 QC methods only need to be correlated to TPC’s methods, 

not deemed equivalent

13
• ATCM: annual equivalence based on two ranges of 

five comparison tests

• U.S.EPA Proposal: annual equivalence testing with 

five comparison sets in a range of emissions 

representative of the products that a TPC certifies

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 suggest equivalence requirement be in TPC portion of 

regulation

 decrease frequency from annually to every two years

 considering amending ATCM to redefine equivalence 

ranges 

 allow equivalence testing in one range if TPC only 

certifies certain types of products (e.g., NAF products) 

14
• ATCM: allows for approval of alternative QC test 

methods if they can be shown to correlate to 

primary or secondary method; ARB has 

approved of five alternative methods

• U.S. EPA Proposal: includes additional methods 

approved by ARB and asks if this is appropriate

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 U.S. EPA rule needs process similar to ATCM to review 

and approve of additional alternative methods

 need mutual recognition of additional approved QC 

methods 

15
• Applies to laminated products made by fabricators

 laminate consists of wood veneer or synthetic material

• ATCM requires use of certified platform

• Conducted emissions testing of laminated 

 products to determine if current regulatory 

 approach is adequate

 tested several products consisting of wood veneer 

affixed with UF resin to certified platform

 findings suggested need for change in existing 

regulatory approach to reduce emissions

• Currently considering amendments to ATCM for 

laminated products

 considering regulating glue used to affix veneers and 

synthetic laminates 16
• Applies to laminated products made by 

manufacturers or fabricators

 laminate consists of wood veneer

• U.S. EPA proposal requires use of certified 

platform, third party certification, and 

quality control (QC) testing

 wood veneer attached to a certified platform 

using NAF resin would be exempt from third party 

certification

 producers required to maintain records of NAF 

resin and certified platform purchases

17
• Requiring TPC certification on all laminators and 

fabricators likely to result in significant cost increases

• Many laminators/fabricators are small to mid-size 

businesses 

 cost impact to replace equipment to be able to use 

NAF resin may be significant

 unfamiliar with concepts of TPC and QC 

• May not be sufficient TPC capacity to provide 

certification services

 potentially thousands of affected fabricators worldwide

18
• Require low-formaldehyde-emitting resin use 

(i.e., those used in NAF/ULEF products, such 

as soy, PVA, MDI, PF, MF, or MUF) and 

require recordkeeping of resins used to affix 

veneers 

• No testing or certification required unless 

producers choose to use UF resins

• Enforcement will evaluate intact products and 

deconstruct to test platform emissions, if 

needed

19
• ATCM: requires ARB to evaluate and issue 

NAF/ULEF approvals

• U.S. EPA Proposal: panel producers must apply 

to TPCs for exemptions using a NAF/ULEF resin 

or for ULEF reduced testing option

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 recommend U.S. EPA staff to conduct reviews and issue 

approvals; recommend accepting ARB approval

o potential for inconsistency with TPC reviews

o potential conflict of interest

 considering extending duration of renewal period for NAF 

exempt applications

 considering reducing confidential information (e.g., resin 

formulation data) that TPCs are required to maintain 

20
• ATCM: ARB issues amended approvals if 

prompted by producer’s operational changes

• U.S. EPA Proposal: asks what should be required 

of producers if changes occur

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 changes that may affect emissions include: 

addition/replacement of resin system, addition of 

products, increase in resin application rate

 recommend that U.S. EPA consider requiring the following if 

producer proposes change: 

o ULEF PB/MDF – 1 TPC verification test and 1 month of QC data

o ULEF HWPW – 1 TPC verification test and 2 months of QC data

o NAF PB/MDF/HWPW – 1 TPC verification test

21
• ATCM: allows an option for reduced testing 

for mills using ULEF-based resin systems

• U.S. EPA Proposal: asks about viability of 

option

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

recommend U.S. EPA consider eliminating 

reduced testing option

o minimal additional requirements to meet ULEFexempt status

o few panel producers utilize this option

22
• ATCM: exempts hardboard from regulatory 

requirements

• U.S. EPA Proposal: exempts hardboard; 

definition based on revised ANSI A135.4

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 considering amending ATCM to exempt hardboard defined as 

including only wet and wet/dry processed hardboard

 suggest regulating dry processed hardboard as MDF, due to 

similar appearance and uses 

 wet processed hardboard is made with minimal amount of resin 

(if any) and has a different appearance 

23
• ATCM: does not include raised panel 

in the definition of “panel”

• U.S. EPA Proposal: defines a panel as 

including raised panels

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 many raised panels (e.g., doors) made by 

cutting MDF panel and affixing it to a platform. 

 suggest raised panels be included in the 

definition of laminated products

24
• ATCM: emission standards for HWPW with 

veneer core and composite core 

• U.S. EPA Proposal: includes all core types in 

the definition of HWPW

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 clarify if HWPW will include 2-ply HWPW in 

definition

 suggest requiring core to be certified if contains 

composite wood product (excluding lumber core or 

special core products) 

 

25
• ATCM: defines retailer as entity that sells 

directly to consumers 

• U.S. EPA Proposal: defines retailer as 

entity that generally sells “smaller 

quantities” of composite wood products

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 recommend removing the word “smaller” -- too 

subjective and may imply regulation does not 

apply to retailers that sell larger quantities of 

products

26
• ATCM: definition solely includes wood-

 based materials (peeled or sliced)

• U.S. EPA Proposal: expands the definition to

 include woody grass (e.g., bamboo)

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 considering amending ATCM to include woody grass 

and compressed cellulosic material (e.g, cork) in the 

definition 

27
• ATCM: requires manufacturers to label their panels and 

fabricators to label either finished good(s) or box(es) 

containing finished good(s) (e.g., “CARB Phase 2 

Compliant” or “93120 Compliant for Formaldehyde”)

• U.S. EPA Proposal: panels and finished goods be 

labeled to show compliance with the TSCA regulation

 similar information to CARB label

 required one year after TSCA regulation finalized

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts 

 labeling requirement similar to ATCM

 suggest U.S. EPA accept CARB label or 

TSCA label 

28
• ATCM: requires each composite wood panel or 

bundle be labeled by manufacturers; ATCM does 

not address labeling partial bundles by 

distributors/retailers 

 

• U.S. EPA Proposal: asks whether retailers should 

label each item/bundle when items separated or 

allow a signage in the retail display area or

manufacturer/fabricator label every panel

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 suggest copy of the original label accompany 

partial bundles

29
• ATCM: allows the use of bar codes for labeling 

finished goods by fabricators

• U.S. EPA Proposal: asks whether bar codes 

should be permitted

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts 

 recommend against the use of bar codes as sole form of label, 

as compliance is not clear for enforcement, retailers, or 

consumers

30
• ATCM: exempts oriented strand board (OSB)

• U.S. EPA Proposal: exempts OSB

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts 

 considering amending ATCM to only exempt OSB labeled to 

ANSI standard to ensure products made with waterproof, 

low-emitting resins; suggest U.S. EPA do same

• ARB considering exempting additional products:

 molded products 

 cellulosic fiber insulating boards (ASTM C208) 

 cross-laminated timber structural panels

31
• ATCM: regulation applies to all finished goods, no 

minimum amount exempt 

• U.S. EPA Proposal: has not proposed a “de 

minimis” exemption; approach consistent with 

ATCM

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 potential labeling and testing challenges for small 

finished goods 

 surprised U.S. EPA did not propose “de minimis” exemption

 open to exploring options with stakeholders and U.S. EPA 

32
• ATCM: does not apply to HWPW and PB 

sold/supplied for manufactured homes subject to 

U.S. HUD’s rules

• U.S. EPA Proposal: covers MDF, which is not 

covered by the current U.S. HUD standards

 asks about fabricator requirements and harmonization with 

U.S. HUD requirements 

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 new manufactured homes should be labeled to indicate all 

MDF is TSCA compliant 

 support requiring U.S. HUD to modify their regulation to be 

consistent with TSCA regulation regarding HWPW and PB in 

manufactured homes

33
• ATCM: requires two-year record retention 

period

• U.S. EPA Proposal: proposes a three-year 

record retention period

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts 

recommend U.S. EPA follow ATCM’s two-year 

record retention period

 34
• ATCM: clearance of older, noncompliant products via 

sell-through provisions

• U.S. EPA Proposal: prohibits inventory that was 

stockpiled; sets manufactured-by date one year after 

regulation finalized

 asks if one year is reasonable

 asks if the stockpiling prohibition should apply to 

businesses that were not in existence in 2009

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts 

 agree with the proposed one year timeframe 

 recommend that stockpiling provision apply to all types of 

businesses (i.e., panel producers, distributors, 

fabricators, importers, and retailers) 

35
36
• 

1. Manufacturer requirements

2. Laminated products

3. NAF/ULEF approvals

4. Definitions

5. Labeling 

6. Exemptions

7. Other

ATCM & U.S. EPA General 

Formaldehyde Rule –

Open Discussion

37
38
• 

1. Approval of TPCs

2. Limitation on TPCs

3. TPC agent

4. Qualifications

5. Inter-laboratory comparison

6. Renewal period

7. TPC test methods

8. Enhanced testing

9. Disclosure of AB and TPC information

Discussion Topics

39
40

• ATCM: requires ARB to approve TPCs 

• U.S. EPA Proposal: use EPA-approved 

Accreditation Bodies (ABs) to approve TPCs

 ARB-approved TPCs will have one year to be approved by 

AB

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 suggest U.S. EPA approve TPCs to promote consistency 

in approval process 

 considering amending ATCM to require ABs to audit 

TPCs 
41

• ATCM: does not address potential TPC 

conflict of interest

• U.S. EPA Proposal: does not address 

conflict of interest

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 to avoid potential conflict of interest, considering 

amending ATCM to clarify that panel producers, 

importers, distributors, fabricators, and retailers 

cannot be TPC 
42

• ATCM: does not require international TPCs 

to have an agent in California

• U.S. EPA Proposal: requires TPCs based 

outside of U.S. to designate an agent in 

U.S.

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 have not had problem contacting TPCs and do not 

see need for agent 
43

• ATCM: requires experience with verification of 

laboratories and wood products

• U.S. EPA Proposal: requires accreditation with 

ISO Guide 65 for product certification

 U.S. EPA asks whether experience with one type of wood 

product is sufficient to certify all types

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 support accreditation to ISO 17065 (replaced Guide 65)

 experience with one product type is sufficient to certify all 

products 

o TPCs certify compliance with emission standards and 

correlation of QC test methods, both independent of product 

type
44

• ATCM: requires TPCs to participate in ILC within first 

year of approval and then every two years

• U.S. EPA Proposal: requires annual ILC and asks 

about frequency, administering ILCs, criteria to judge 

acceptable performance, and costs of conducting 

ILCs

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 suggest ILCs every two years, with flexibility that U.S. EPA 

can require participation in annual ILC 

 suggest judging performance relative to other TPCs, in 

absence of reference material

 suggest including minimum performance criteria 

 ARB will share cost data with U.S. EPA staff 
45

• ATCM: requires TPCs re-apply for 

approval every two years

• U.S. EPA Proposal: asks whether 

renewals should be every two or three 

years and about frequency of TPC audits 

by ABs

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 suggest frequency of accreditation renewals and 

audits be on same schedule, every two or three 

years, whichever is consistent with accreditation 

requirements 
46

• ATCM: allows for use of primary method 

(large chamber) or secondary method (small 

chamber deemed equivalent to large 

chamber)

• U.S. EPA Proposal: TPC rule requires 

verification testing using primary method

 general rule allows quarterly verification testing using 

primary or secondary method 

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 TPC rule should allow either method for verification tests
47

• ATCM: suggests TPCs conduct enhanced 

testing and inspections (e.g., monthly for a 

period of three months) after non-complying 

events

• U.S. EPA Proposal: asks whether enhanced 

testing or inspections should be required 

after failed quarterly tests or exceedance of 

quality control limits

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 suggest U.S. EPA require enhanced frequency for QC 

testing and inspections following either such occurrence 
48

• ATCM: does not require ARB to disclose information 

about TPCs; ARB maintains list of TPCs, certified 

panel producers, and NAF/ULEF producers on ARB’s 

website

• U.S. EPA Proposal: post names of ABs, TPCs, annual 

reports from ABs and TPCs, and panel producers 

approved for reduced TPC oversight

 U.S. EPA asks whether useful to post additional information 

about panel producers, some of which could be confidential

• ARB Staff Preliminary Thoughts

 difficult to maintain current listing of less information than 

proposed by U.S. EPA; suggest limiting the released information 

to list of TPCs and certified producers 
49
• 

1. Approval of TPCs

2. Limitation on TPCs

3. TPC agent

4. Qualifications

5. Inter-laboratory comparison

6. Renewal period

7. TPC test methods

8. Enhanced testing

9. Disclosure of AB and TPC information

ATCM & U.S. EPA TPC Rule –

Open Discussion 

50
51
52

 Angela Csondes, Air Pollution Specialist

 916-445-4448 or acsondes@arb.ca.gov

 Lynn Baker, Staff Air Pollution Specialist

 916-324-6997 or lbaker@arb.ca.gov

 Peggy Taricco, Manager

916-323-4882 or ptaricco@arb.ca.gov

Composite Wood Products ATCM Website: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/compwood.htm