73620 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to the following 

Models DHC–6–1, DHC–6–100, DHC–6–200, 

and DHC–6–300 airplanes, all serial 

numbers, that are certificated in any category: 

(1) Group 1: Equipped with wing boxes, 

part numbers (P/Ns) C6W1002–1, C6W1002– 

3, WR6–1002–59 or WR6–1002–61 that 

incorporate a P/N C6WM1027–1 front spar 

adapter assembly with 10 or more years of 

service; and 

(2) Group 2: Equipped with wing boxes, P/ 

Ns C6W1002–5, C6W1002–7, C6W1002–9, 

C6W1002–11, C6W1002–13, C6W1002–15, 

C6W1002–17, C6W1002–19, C6W1002–21, 

C6W1002–23, C6W1002–51, C6W1002–53, 

C6W1002–55, C6W1002–57 and C6W1002– 

61 that incorporate a P/N C6WM1027–1 front 

spar adapter assembly with 10 or more years 

of service. 

Subject 

(d) Air Transport Association of America 

(ATA) Code 57: Wings. 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

There have been reports of inter-rivet 

cracking on several wing front spar adapter 

assemblies (P/N C6WM1027–1) on the 

horizontal and vertical flanges. It was 

determined that the cracking was caused by 

stress corrosion in the short transverse grain 

initiated by local riveting induced stresses. 

This directive mandates modification and 

inspection of the wing front spar adapter 

fitting and replacement of cracked fittings. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions: 

(1) For Group 1 airplanes, within the next 

180 days after August 5, 2008 (the effective 

date of AD 2008–11–10), install inspection 

holes in the left-hand (LH) and right-hand 

(RH) lower wing skins following Viking 

DHC–6 Twin Otter Service Bulletin Number 

V6/541, dated October 1, 2007. 

(2) For Group 2 airplanes, within the next 

180 days after the effective date of this AD, 

install inspection holes in the LH and RH 

lower wing skins following Viking DHC–6 

Twin Otter Service Bulletin Number V6/541, 

dated October 1, 2007. 

(3) For Group 1 and Group 2 airplanes, 

before further flight after installing the 

inspection holes required in paragraph (f)(1) 

or (f)(2) of this AD, initially inspect the LH 

and RH front spar adapter assemblies for 

cracks, and repetitively thereafter inspect all 

affected wing box P/Ns at intervals not to 

exceed 1,200 hours time-in-service or 12 

months, whichever occurs first, until the 

replacement required in paragraph (f)(4) of 

this AD is done. 

(i) For wing box P/Ns C6W1002–1, 

C6W1002–3, C6W1002–5, C6W1002–7, 

C6W1002–9, C6W1002–11, C6W1002–13, 

C6W1002–15, C6W1002–17, C6W1002–19, 

C6W1002–21, C6W1002–23, C6W1002–51, 

C6W1002–53, C6W1002–55, C6W1002–57, 

C6W1002–59, and C6W1002–61, inspect 

following Viking DHC–6 Twin Otter Service 

Bulletin Number V6/540, dated October 1, 

2007. 

(ii) For wing box P/Ns WR6–1002–59 or 

WR6–1002–61, inspect following R.W. 

Martin, Inc. Service Bulletin No. 00160/2, 

Revision A, dated November 15, 2007. 

(4) For Group 1 and 2 airplanes, before 

further flight after doing any inspection 

required in paragraph (f)(3) of this AD where 

cracks are found, replace the cracked front 

spar adapter assembly with a front spar 

adapter assembly, P/N C6WM1027–3. Do the 

replacement following Viking DHC–6 Twin 

Otter Service Bulletin Number V6/542, dated 

October 1, 2007. This replacement terminates 

the repetitive inspections required in 

paragraph (f)(3) of this AD for the replaced 

front spar adapter assembly. 

(5) As a terminating action for the 

repetitive inspections required in paragraph 

(f)(3) of this AD, at any time after the initial 

inspection required in paragraph (f)(3) of this 

AD, you may replace P/N C6WM1027–1 with 

P/N C6WM1027–3, except it must be 

replaced prior to further flight as required by 

paragraph (f)(4) of this AD. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: MCAI 

Transport Canada AD No. CF–2007–31, dated 

December 17, 2007, is applicable to airplane 

models with front spar adapter assembly 

P/N C6WM1027–3 that incorporate task C57– 

10–18 of the DHC–6 Corrosion Prevention 

and Control Manual (CPCM), PSM 1–6–5. 

The applicability of this proposed AD does 

not include airplane models with front spar 

adapter assembly P/N C6WM1027–3 that 

incorporate task C57–10–18 of the DHC–6 

CPCM, PSM 1–6–5, which is required in the 

Transport Canada ADs No. CF–94–12R1, 

dated April 13, 1999, and AD No. CF–99–11, 

dated May 28, 1999. We have addressed the 

Corrosion Prevention and Control Program in 

AD 2008–13–11 (73 FR 37355, July 1, 2008), 

which identifies specific areas that must be 

inspected to ensure the structural integrity of 

the DHC–6 fleet. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Send information to ATTN: Pong Lee, 

Aerospace Engineer, FAA, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, ANE–171, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 

11590; telephone: (516) 228–7324; fax: (516) 

794–5531. Before using any approved AMOC 

on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer or other source, 

use these actions if they are FAA-approved. 

Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State 

of Design Authority (or their delegated 

agent). You are required to assure the product 

is airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD 

No. CF–2007–31, dated December 17, 2007; 

Viking DHC–6 Twin Otter Service Bulletins 

No. V6/540, dated October 1, 2007; No. V6/ 

541, dated October 1, 2007; and No. V6/542, 

dated October 1, 2007; and R.W. Martin, Inc. 

Service Bulletin No. 00160/2, Revision A, 

dated November 15, 2007, for related 

information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

November 26, 2008. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–28645 Filed 12–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0627; FRL–8386–3] 

RIN 2070–AJ44 

Formaldehyde Emissions From 

Pressed Wood Products 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking and notice of public 

meetings. 

SUMMARY: On March 24, 2008, EPA 

received a Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) section 21 petition from 

numerous organizations and individuals 

concerned about risks to human health 

and the environment from exposure to 

formaldehyde in composite wood 

products, specifically hardwood 

plywood, particleboard, and medium 

density fiberboard. In response to that 

petition, EPA decided to initiate a 

proceeding to investigate whether and 

what type of regulatory or other action 

might be appropriate to protect against 

risks posed by formaldehyde emitted 

from these and other pressed wood 

products. This document commences 

that proceeding by describing EPA’s 

initial steps in that investigation and 

requesting comment, information, and 

data relating to formaldehyde emissions 

from pressed wood products. This 

document also announces five public 

meetings that EPA has scheduled in 

order to obtain additional stakeholder 

input. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 73621 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 2, 2009. For public 

meeting information, see Unit III.A. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0627, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document 

Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., 

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0627. 

The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the DCO’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2008–0627. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either in the 

electronic docket at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Linter, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: 

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

For technical information contact: 

Cindy Wheeler, National Program 

Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001; telephone number: (202) 566– 

0484; e-mail address: 

wheeler.cindy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This document is directed to the 

public in general. However, this 

document may be of particular interest 

to the following entities: 

• Veneer, plywood, and engineered 

wood product manufacturing (NAICS 

code 3212). 

• Manufactured home (mobile home) 

manufacturing (NAICS code 321991). 

• Prefabricated wood building 

manufacturing (NAICS code 321992). 

• All other basic organic chemical 

manufacturing (NAICS code 325199), 

e.g., formaldehyde manufacturing. 

• Furniture and related product 

manufacturing (NAICS code 337). 

• Furniture merchant wholesalers 

(NAICS code 42321). 

• Lumber, plywood, millwork, and 

wood panel merchant wholesalers 

(NAICS code 42331). 

• Other construction material 

merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 

423390), e.g., merchant wholesale 

distributors of manufactured homes 

(i.e., mobile homes) and/or 

prefabricated buildings. 

• Furniture stores (NAICS code 4421). 

• Building material and supplies 

dealers (NAICS code 4441). 

• Manufactured (mobile) home dealers 

(NAICS code 45393). 

• Motor home manufacturing (NAICS 

code 336213). 

• Travel trailer and camper 

manufacturing (NAICS code 336214). 

• Recreational vehicle (RV) dealers 

(NAICS code 441210). 

• Recreational vehicle merchant 

wholesalers (NAICS code 423110). 

• Plastics material and resin 

manufacturing (NAICS code 325211). 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD-ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD-ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
73622 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. Basic Information 

Formaldehyde is a colorless, strongsmelling gas. Commonly used as a 

preservative in medical laboratories and 

mortuaries, formaldehyde is also found 

in other products such as chemicals, 

pressed wood products (e.g., 

particleboard, fiberboard, and plywood), 

household products, glues, permanent 

press fabrics, and paper product 

coatings. Formaldehyde is widely used 

as a fungicide, germicide, and 

disinfectant. It is also a by-product of 

combustion and certain other natural 

processes. 

Although there may be many sources 

of formaldehyde in air inside homes, 

including various household products, 

cigarette smoke, and un-vented, fuelburning appliances (gas stoves, kerosene 

space heaters), the most significant 

sources of formaldehyde are likely to be 

pressed wood products made using 

adhesives that contain ureaformaldehyde (UF) and other 

formaldehyde-based resins. Pressed 

wood products typically made with 

such resins for indoor use include, but 

are not limited to: Particleboard (used as 

sub-flooring and shelving and in 

cabinetry and furniture); hardwood 

plywood paneling (used for decorative 

wall covering and used in cabinets and 

furniture); and medium density 

fiberboard (used for drawer fronts, 

cabinets, and furniture tops). Medium 

density fiberboard contains a higher 

resin-to-wood ratio than any other UF 

pressed wood product and is generally 

recognized as being the highest 

formaldehyde-emitting pressed wood 

product. Other pressed wood products 

include waferboard, oriented 

strandboard, hardboard, laminated 

veneer lumber, and parallel strand 

lumber. 

Formaldehyde is both an irritant and 

a probable human carcinogen. 

Depending on concentration, it is well 

recognized that formaldehyde can be an 

eye, nose, and throat irritant, even when 

exposure is of relatively short duration. 

In the indoor environment, sensory 

reactions and various symptoms as a 

result of mucous membrane irritation 

are potential effects, and, while there 

are large individual differences in the 

general population, the differences may 

be even greater when sensitive people 

are included in an analysis (Ref. 1). EPA 

acknowledges that there are 

uncertainties relating to irritation 

response levels in humans. As noted in 

Unit IV.C. of the June 27, 2008 Federal 

Register notice discussed in Unit II.B.2. 

of this document, EPA is currently 

conducting an irritation hazard 

characterization that could be used to 

evaluate possible regulatory and other 

actions to address formaldehyde 

emissions from pressed wood products 

(Ref. 2). 

In 1991, EPA classified formaldehyde 

as a probable human carcinogen, ‘‘based 

on limited evidence in humans, and 

sufficient evidence in animals,’’ and 

derived an inhalation unit risk factor for 

assessing formaldehyde cancer risk (Ref. 

3). As discussed in the June 27, 2008 

Federal Register notice, the assessment 

and modeling procedure used to 

develop EPA’s cancer risk assessment is 

not based on the most current 

information. EPA’s Office of Research 

and Development (ORD) is currently 

engaged in a reassessment of the 

potential cancer and non-cancer risks of 

formaldehyde through the ORD 

Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS) program. As a result of the IRIS 

reassessment process, EPA may 

determine that the appropriate cancer 

unit risk is higher or lower than the 

1991 value after considering the 

currently available scientific 

information, including human data. 

ORD and OPPTS are collaborating on 

developing an EPA IRIS assessment for 

non-cancer effects, including an 

irritation hazard characterization, of 

formaldehyde. This assessment will be 

expedited and prepared separately from 

the formaldehyde IRIS cancer 

reassessment. If the jointly-developed 

non-cancer assessment is peer-reviewed 

and completed in a timely manner, 

OPPTS will use it to inform its decisionmaking as part of a rulemaking under 

TSCA. The Agency’s assessment process 

will include the appropriate external 

peer review, which will offer 

opportunities for public comment on 

the underlying science. 

EPA also intends to commission the 

National Academy of Sciences to 

conduct a comprehensive review of the 

available scientific data on 

formaldehyde. The Agency believes that 

this additional analysis and advice will 

further strengthen the scientific basis of 

its understanding of formaldehyde risks. 

Formaldehyde is also one of 187 

compounds listed under section 

112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as 

a hazardous air pollutant (HAP). The 

CAA requires EPA to regulate emissions 

of HAPs from a published list of 

industrial source categories. The EPA 

has developed lists of major and area 

source categories that must meet control 

technology requirements for HAPs and 

has developed (or is developing) 

standards for these source categories. 

The plywood and composite wood 

products (PCWP) National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) is one of these standards 

(Ref. 4). The PCWP NESHAP controls 

emissions of formaldehyde and other 

HAPs from various process units (e.g., 

dryers and presses) at PWCP facilities. 

B. The Section 21 Petition 

On March 24, 2008, 25 organizations 

and approximately 5,000 individuals 

petitioned EPA under section 21 of 

TSCA to use section 6 of TSCA to adopt 

a recently-promulgated California 

regulation concerning emissions of 

formaldehyde from three types of 

products California described as 

composite wood products: Hardwood 

plywood, particleboard, and medium 

density fiberboard (Ref. 5). The 

petitioners asked EPA to assess and 

reduce the risks posed by formaldehyde 

emitted from these products by 

exercising its authority under TSCA 

section 6 to adopt and apply nationally 

the California formaldehyde emissions 

regulation for these composite wood 

products. In addition, petitioners 

requested EPA to extend this regulation 

to include composite wood products 

used in manufactured homes. 

1. The California Air Resource 

Board’s Airborne Toxics Control 

Measure. In 2007, the California Air 

Resource Board (CARB) approved an 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 73623 

Airborne Toxics Control Measure 

(ATCM) for formaldehyde emissions 

from hardwood plywood, particleboard, 

and medium density fiberboard (Ref. 6). 

The ATCM was approved on April 18, 

2008 by the California Office of 

Administrative Law and the first 

emission standards will take effect on 

January 1, 2009. The ATCM requires 

manufacturers to meet formaldehyde 

emission standards for any of these 

products that are sold, offered for sale, 

supplied, or manufactured for use in 

California. The ATCM also requires that 

compliant products be used in finished 

goods sold, offered for sale, supplied or 

manufactured for sale in California. The 

ATCM does not apply to hardwood 

plywood and particleboard materials 

when installed in manufactured homes 

subject to regulations promulgated by 

the United States Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD). Seventeen percent of new 

construction and eight percent of 

existing manufactured housing are built 

according to HUD’s regulations (Ref. 7). 

The ATCM’s ‘‘Phase 1’’ emission 

standards for hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, and medium density 

fiberboard will take effect on January 1, 

2009. More stringent ‘‘Phase 2’’ 

standards will be phased in between 

2010 and 2012. The ATCM does not 

allow manufacturers to meet these 

emission standards using barrier 

methods. CARB anticipates that 

manufacturers will meet the ‘‘Phase 1’’ 

standards by using resin technologies 

that are similar to those commonly in 

use today. To meet the ‘‘Phase 2’’ 

standards, CARB believes that 

manufacturers will likely use modified 

current day urea-formaldehyde (UF), noadded formaldehyde (NAF), or ultralow-emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resin 

systems. 

The ATCM requires manufacturers of 

covered products to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission standards 

by being certified by an independent 

party known as a ‘‘third party certifier.’’ 

Third party certifiers must be approved 

by CARB and must follow specified 

requirements to verify that a 

manufacturer’s production meets 

applicable formaldehyde emission 

standards. Once their product has been 

approved by CARB, manufacturers who 

use NAF or some ULEF resin systems 

are exempt from ongoing testing 

requirements. Manufacturers who use 

other ULEF resin systems may be 

granted a reduction in frequency for 

ongoing testing. Manufacturers would 

also be required to label their covered 

products to identify them as meeting 

either the ‘‘Phase 1’’ or ‘‘Phase 2’’ 

emission standards, or as being made 

with either NAF or ULEF resins. The 

ATCM also imposes recordkeeping 

requirements on manufacturers to 

document compliance. 

The ATCM requires distributors, 

importers, fabricators, and retailers to 

purchase and sell panels and finished 

goods that comply with applicable 

formaldehyde emission standards. They 

must take precautions, such as 

communicating with their suppliers, to 

ensure that the products they purchase 

are in compliance with applicable 

emission standards. Distributors and 

importers must maintain records 

documenting compliance and 

fabricators must also label their finished 

goods as compliant with the applicable 

standards. 

2. EPA’s response to the petition. 

Although a substantial amount of 

information was submitted by reference 

with the petition or otherwise available 

to the Agency, EPA determined that the 

available information was not sufficient 

to support an evaluation of whether 

formaldehyde emitted from hardwood 

plywood, particleboard, and medium 

density fiberboard presents or will 

present an unreasonable risk to human 

health (including cancer and non-cancer 

endpoints) under TSCA section 6. As 

discussed in detail in the Federal 

Register notice announcing EPA’s 

response to the petition, EPA’s 

evaluation of the data provided by the 

petitioners revealed significant 

information gaps that would need to be 

filled to support an evaluation of 

whether use of formaldehyde in these 

products presents or will present an 

unreasonable risk under TSCA section 6 

(Ref. 2). 

Nevertheless, after considering the 

information presented by the petitioners 

(including information in the California 

administrative record), information 

submitted by commenters, and other 

available information, EPA decided to 

initiate a proceeding to investigate 

whether and what type of regulatory or 

other action might be appropriate to 

protect against risks posed by 

formaldehyde emitted from the products 

covered by the CARB ATCM as well as 

other pressed wood products. At the 

conclusion of this investigation, EPA 

anticipates determining whether EPA 

should take action, which may include 

regulatory action under TSCA section 

6(a), action under TSCA section 6(b), 

voluntary or regulatory (e.g., under 

TSCA section 6) application of a 

voluntary consensus standard, or other 

approaches. While evaluating options, 

EPA intends to engage the public in this 

process and coordinate efforts with 

other interested agencies. The purpose 

of this document is to outline the steps 

EPA plans to take as part of this 

investigation, including opportunities 

for public participation, and to request 

comment and data in particular areas 

where available information is lacking. 

III. Public Participation 

With this document, EPA is 

announcing its plans to involve 

stakeholders in gathering information to 

inform EPA’s determination of the scope 

of the problem and EPA’s decision on 

the best ways to address risks that may 

be posed by formaldehyde emissions 

from pressed wood products. EPA is 

beginning the public participation 

process by soliciting stakeholder 

assistance in obtaining a better 

understanding of the available control 

technologies and approaches, current 

and future industry practices, and 

implementation of the CARB ATCM. 

This document contains numerous 

specific requests for comment, 

information, and data on topics of 

current interest to EPA. Stakeholders are 

encouraged to respond to these requests 

and to provide comment on any other 

matters pertaining to the content of this 

document. 

In addition, EPA is planning to hold 

five half-day public meetings in January 

of 2009. The purpose of these meetings 

is to receive stakeholder comments on 

the issue of formaldehyde emissions 

from pressed wood products, including 

the questions described in this 

document, and on future opportunities 

for public participation on this issue. 

A. Meeting Dates and Locations 

The meetings will be held as follows: 

1. In Research Triangle Park, NC on 

January 8, 2009, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

The meeting will be held at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Main 

Campus Auditorium (C111B/C), 109 TW 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711. 

2. In Portland, OR on January 13, 

2009, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. The meeting 

will be held at the State Public Health 

Building, 800 NE Oregon St., Room 1B, 

Portland, Oregon 97232. 

3. In Chicago, IL on January 15, 2009, 

from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The 

meeting will be held at the Ralph 

Metcalfe Federal Building, Room 328, 

77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 

60604. 

4. In Dallas, TX on January 26, 2009, 

from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. The meeting will 

be held at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, 

Dallas,Texas 75202. 

5. In Washington, DC on January 29, 

2009, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. The meeting 

will be held at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA East, Room 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
73624 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1153, 1201 Constitution Ave., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

B. Meeting Procedures 

For additional information on the 

scheduled meetings, contact the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The 

meetings will be open to the public. 

Oral presentations or statements by 

interested parties will be limited to 10 

minutes. Interested parties are 

encouraged to contact the technical 

person at least 10 days prior to the 

meeting to schedule presentations. 

Since seating for outside observers may 

be limited, those wishing to attend the 

meetings as observers are also 

encouraged to contact the technical 

person at the earliest possible date, but 

no later than 10 days before the meeting, 

to ensure adequate seating 

arrangements. 

To request accommodation of a 

disability, please contact the technical 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 

10 days prior to the meeting, to give 

EPA as much time as possible to process 

your request. 

IV. Investigation Overview and Specific 

Requests for Comment, Information, 

and Data 

The first part of this Unit describes 

the elements of EPA’s investigation and 

includes specific requests for comments, 

information, and data that may pertain 

to each investigation element. The 

second part of this Unit describes each 

of the various tools that EPA may use 

to address risks that may be posed by 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products, along with requests for 

comment on these and other regulatory 

and voluntary approaches. 

A. Investigation Elements and 

Associated Requests for Comment, 

Information, and Data 

1. Industry profile. EPA seeks to 

obtain a better understanding of the 

available technologies to control 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products, industry practices, and 

implementation of the CARB ATCM. 

EPA is planning an industry survey to 

supplement the information that EPA is 

requesting in this document. EPA 

requests commenters on this notice to 

provide information or data they may 

have regarding the pressed wood 

product industry. To the extent that the 

requested information was already 

submitted in response to EPA’s request 

for comment on the TSCA section 21 

petition, or is already publicly available 

and summarized in prior reports, such 

as those prepared in the late 1990s to 

support development of the PCWP 

NESHAP (Refs. 8, 9, 10, 11), EPA 

requests that commenters note such 

reports and whether the reports remain 

accurate with respect to new 

developments or changes that have 

occurred over time. EPA is particularly 

interested in responses to the following 

questions: 

a. Pressed wood products. EPA has 

identified the following categories of 

pressed wood products that may be 

manufactured using urea-formaldehyde 

(UF) resin and other formaldehydebased resins: Particleboard, medium 

density fiberboard, hardwood and 

softwood plywood, waferboard, oriented 

strandboard, hardboard, parallel strand 

lumber, laminated veneer lumber, 

prefabricated I-joists, and glued 

laminated beams (Ref. 12). 

i. Are there other pressed wood 

products that may contain 

formaldehyde-based resins? What are 

these products? 

ii. The CARB ATCM covers only three 

types of pressed wood products: 

Particleboard, medium density 

fiberboard, and hardwood plywood. Are 

there other specific pressed wood 

products or categories of pressed wood 

products that have been demonstrated 

to result in comparable or higher 

formaldehyde emissions? What 

emission levels have been reported and 

what percentages of these products have 

or may have such emissions? What 

companies produce or import such 

products? What are the applications for 

these products? 

iii. What are the end-uses and 

quantities for each type of pressed wood 

product? In particular, EPA would like 

to receive information on the 

production volume (expressed as square 

feet or some comparable value) for each 

type of pressed wood product that is 

used in each end-use market, such as 

the amount of hardwood plywood used 

in cabinetry, furniture, paneling, door 

panels/skins, etc. 

iv. To what degree are domestic and 

imported products interchangeable? 

b. Resins used in manufacturing 

pressed wood products. Formaldehydebased resins may be used in the 

manufacture of pressed wood products. 

The resins may serve to bind together 

raw wood materials, such as wood 

shavings, flakes, wafers, chips, particles, 

veneers, fibers, strands, or sawdust, to 

form the pressed wood product. There 

are several types of formaldehyde-based 

resins. Additionally, there are 

alternative resins that are not 

formaldehyde-based. The types of resins 

commonly used in pressed wood 

products include the following: Ureaformaldehyde (UF) resin, phenolformaldehyde (PF) resin, melamineformaldehyde (MF) resin, melamineurea-formaldehyde (MUF) resin, 

isocyanate resin, polydiphenylmethane 

diisocyanate (pMDI) resin, polyvinyl 

acetate (PVA), and soy-based resin. Less 

commonly-used resins include: 

Ammonia urea formaldehyde (AUF), 

phenol resorcinol formaldehyde (PRF), 

phenol urea formaldehyde (PUF), 

phenol urea formaldehyde tannin 

(PUFT), and resorcinol formaldehyde 

(RF). 

i. What types of resins, whether 

formaldehyde-based or not, are or may 

be used in the manufacture of each type 

of pressed wood product listed in Unit 

IV.A.1.a? 

ii. What are the typical concentrations 

of free formaldehyde in each 

formaldehyde-based resin type and in 

each type of pressed wood product? 

(The term ‘‘free formaldehyde’’ refers to 

unreacted formaldehyde and 

formaldehyde that may become 

available from depolymerization of the 

resin.) EPA is also interested in 

information on the total quantity and 

typical mole ratio of the components of 

each type of resin used for each type of 

pressed wood product. 

c. Evaluation of manufacturing 

processes. EPA is seeking detailed 

information on the manufacturing 

processes for each type of pressed wood 

product, including the operating 

parameters and conditions, unit 

operations, and equipment. 

i. EPA is interested in descriptions of 

all of the factors, including the 

composition of raw materials and unit 

operating parameters, at each step in the 

manufacturing process that may affect 

the formaldehyde content of finished 

pressed wood products. EPA requests 

descriptions of the methods, including 

unit operations and operating 

procedures, used for controlling the 

content of formaldehyde in pressed 

wood products. 

ii. EPA requests any available 

information on the overall mass balance 

and the formaldehyde mass balance per 

unit operation. 

iii. EPA is interested in any available 

information on optimization studies of 

the factors affecting the formaldehyde 

content of finished pressed wood 

products. In general, an optimization 

study is a study of the means to improve 

the economic, environmental, health or 

safety performance of a chemical 

process. Improvements in one or more 

specific performance areas may have 

adverse impacts on other performance 

areas. In this context, EPA is requesting 

information on studies on the means of 

altering the process used to manufacture 

pressed wood products for the purpose 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 73625 

of reducing emissions of formaldehyde 

from such products. EPA is interested in 

any such information, including the 

results from bench scale experimental 

studies and engineering design studies 

with pilot plant or commercial 

production test run data. 

iv. What are the quality control 

measures for the control of 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products undertaken at 

manufacturing facilities? How often, to 

what extent, and why do these measures 

fail? 

d. Product alternatives. EPA requests 

comment, data, and information on the 

potential alternatives that would reduce 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products. EPA is also interested in 

the performance characteristics of, and 

the costs associated with using, 

alternative chemicals and processes to 

manufacture products that meet the 

CARB ATCM standards. 

i. What low- or no- formaldehyde 

emitting substitutes exist? What 

percentage of the pressed wood market 

uses them? What percentage of the 

national pressed wood market, 

exclusive of California, is expected to 

use them after 2012 (when the CARB 

ATCM’s Phase 2 emission limits have 

become effective), and in which 

products are they expected to be used? 

ii. If a pressed wood products 

manufacturer were interested in 

reducing formaldehyde emissions, 

would the manufacturer substitute 

another resin (or resins) or modify the 

resins currently used? Which resins? 

Why? 

iii. Do control technologies exist to 

reduce the levels of free formaldehyde 

in existing resin types? If so, what is the 

estimated effectiveness of each control 

technology? What is the basis for the 

effectiveness estimate? 

iv. EPA has begun evaluating various 

resin formulations that have been 

manufactured to improve or eliminate 

formaldehyde emissions. EPA seeks 

information, including resin 

formulation, human health hazard, 

process, product performance, and cost 

information, from manufacturers who 

use or intend to use resins identified in 

the following list, manufacturers who 

use or intend to use other resins, and 

manufacturers who use or intend to use 

other methods to meet the CARB 

ATCM’s Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards: 

• Ethenol homopolymer (CASRN: 

9002-89-5) 

• Isocyanic acid, 

polymethylenepolyphenylene ester 

(CASRN: 9016-87-9) 

• Urea, polymer with formaldehyde 

and 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine 

(CASRN: 25036-13-9) 

• Urea, polymer with formaldehyde 

and phenol (CASRN: 25104-55-6) 

• Hexanedioic acid, polymer with N1- 

(2-aminoethyl)-1,2-ethanediamine and 

2-(chloromethyl)oxirane (CASRN: 

25212-19-5) 

• Urea, polymer with formaldehyde, 

phenol and 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine 

(CASRN: 25212-25-3) 

• Urea, polymer with formaldehyde 

and methanol (CASRN: 37999-54-5) 

• Poly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)], ahydro-ω-hydroxy-, ether with 2-ethyl-2- 

(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol (3:1), 

polymer with 1,1’-methylenebis[4- 

isocyanatobenzene] (CASRN: 57596-50- 

6) 

• Tannins, polymers with 

formaldehyde and phenol (CASRN: 

68910-49-6) 

• PureBond (Identity has been 

claimed confidential, but it is known to 

be soy-based) 

v. What testing has been done to 

determine the effectiveness of the 

different barrier technologies (e.g., 

melamine sheets, paper coatings, 

varnish or paint treatments, films, foils) 

at lowering formaldehyde emissions 

over the lifetime of the coated pressed 

wood product? What are the results of 

that testing? The Agency is aware that 

some barrier methods need additional 

treatment of the remaining uncoated 

surfaces of the pressed wood products 

(i.e., edge treatments with scavenger 

coatings) to work effectively. Has the 

use of barrier treatment or combination 

treatment eliminated the potential for 

formaldehyde emissions or simply 

deferred the release of formaldehyde, 

perhaps until the end of the wood 

products’ life cycle? Are data available 

to show that the efficient use of 

scavenger chemicals is effective in 

permanently reducing formaldehyde 

emissions? 

vi. What product substitutes exist for 

the products covered by the CARB 

ATCM, and what product substitutes 

exist for other pressed wood products? 

For example, oriented strandboard 

might be used in place of particleboard, 

or solid lumber might be used in place 

of fiberboard. What are the performance 

characteristics of and the costs 

associated with using product 

substitutes? 

e. Reaction to the CARB ATCM. For 

companies that manufacture, import, 

fabricate, wholesale, or retail hardwood 

plywood, particleboard, or medium 

density fiberboard for sale outside of 

California: 

i. Do you intend on distributing two 

sets of products, one that is compliant 

with the CARB ATCM (for sale in 

California) and another that is not 

CARB-compliant (for sale outside of 

California)? Do you intend to sell a 

single set of products (inside and 

outside of California) that comply with 

the CARB ATCM’s Phase 2 standards? 

What factors are influential in making 

this decision (e.g., where your company 

is located, where your clients are 

located or sell their products, how large 

your company is)? 

ii. If you intend on manufacturing 

hardwood plywood, particleboard, or 

medium density fiberboard products 

that comply with the CARB ATCM’s 

Phase 2 standards, what resin system(s), 

additives, process modifications, or 

post-treatment did you previously use 

and what do you anticipate using in 

order to comply with the CARB ATCM? 

iii. If you do not intend on selling 

products that comply with the CARB 

ATCM’s Phase 2 standards, why not? 

What factors influence your decision of 

whether or not to sell products that 

comply with the CARB ATCM’s Phase 

2 standards? 

iv. If you do not intend on selling 

products that comply with the CARB 

ATCM’s Phase 2 standards, what level 

of formaldehyde emissions do you 

anticipate that your products will have? 

For example, will they meet the CARB 

ATCM’s Phase 1 standards? 

v. What are the key factors in 

determining the cost of complying with 

the CARB ATCM, and how do these 

vary across plants? For example, key 

factors may include whether the 

forming line in a pressed wood plant 

uses cauls or is caulless, or whether the 

presses are single opening, multiopening, or continuous. 

vi. Are data available on whether or 

how formaldehyde emission rates or 

compliance with the CARB ATCM may 

differ between domestic and imported 

products? 

2. Exposure assessment. EPA has also 

initiated development of an exposure 

assessment for formaldehyde emissions 

from pressed wood products. Exposure 

assessments identify the pathways by 

which toxic substances may reach 

individuals, estimate how much of a 

substance an individual is likely to be 

exposed to (including the frequency and 

duration of exposure), estimate timeactivity patterns, and estimate the 

number of individuals likely to be 

exposed. While this exposure 

assessment will primarily focus on 

consumer exposures, including 

children’s exposures, EPA also plans to 

evaluate occupational exposures and 

exposures to emissions from 

manufacturing operations to assess 

benefits of any action developed to 

reduce consumer exposures to 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products. EPA is reviewing the 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
73626 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

available data for this purpose, 

including the data submitted by 

reference with the TSCA section 21 

petition. Commenters are requested to 

submit any available information or data 

they may have that pertains to 

formaldehyde exposures and pressed 

wood products. EPA is particularly 

interested in the following: 

a. Product emissions. i. What are the 

emissions profiles (e.g., mass of 

formaldehyde emitted over time, decay 

rate over time, and measurement 

method and parameters) of pressed 

wood-products containing 

formaldehyde-based resins on a national 

level? To the extent such information is 

available, EPA is interested in emissions 

profiles for each of the various types of 

resins, pressed wood products, and 

consumer goods. 

ii. What data are available on the 

emissions profiles of the pressed wood 

products that could be used as 

substitutes? 

b. Children’s furniture. i. What is the 

surface area (square feet) of pressed 

wood product per unit of furniture that 

is used by children, such as baby cribs, 

changing tables, and toddler beds? What 

type of pressed wood product is used 

(e.g., UF-bonded hardwood plywood, 

soy-bonded hardwood plywood, UF 

fiberboard, MDI fiberboard) in 

children’s furniture? What part of the 

furniture unit contains the pressed 

wood product? On a national level, how 

many units of children’s furniture 

containing pressed wood product are 

sold? 

ii. Are there any studies that have 

measured the formaldehyde exposure of 

children sleeping on furniture 

containing pressed wood products? 

What are the results? Are there any 

models available to estimate exposures 

from such microenvironments? Are 

there any data available on time-activity 

pattern data or air exchange rates 

specific for this scenario? 

c. Other items. i. What are the current 

pressed wood characterizations and 

emission profiles of other pressed wood 

items, such as kitchen cabinets, 

entertainment centers, office furniture, 

etc.? 

ii. What amount of pressed wood 

product goes into the construction of 

these types of products? How much of 

it is pressed wood product made with 

UF or other formaldehyde-based resins? 

Do imported cabinets and other 

furniture contain more or less pressed 

wood than similar domestic products? 

iii. What amount (square feet) of 

pressed wood product will be installed 

into a kitchen during both minor 

renovations (refacing kitchen 

countertops and cabinets) and extensive 

renovations (where all countertops and 

cabinets are replaced)? Are there other 

renovation projects that typically 

involve a significant amount of pressed 

wood product? Which ones? 

iv. Are there any studies that have 

measured the formaldehyde exposure of 

occupants to furniture and/or cabinets 

containing pressed wood products? Are 

there any models available to estimate 

exposures from such 

microenvironments? Are there any data 

available on time-activity pattern data or 

air exchange rates specific for this 

scenario? 

d. Emissions from manufacturing 

operations. The manufacture of pressed 

wood products may release 

formaldehyde into the environment. 

Formaldehyde points of release may 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following: Fugitive and point source air 

emissions from refining, preheating, 

humidifying and/or drying of the wood 

materials; pressing and/or cooling of the 

wood product after adhesive 

application; finishing operations (aging, 

trimming, sanding, sorting, and storing); 

container residue from containers used 

to transport resins and/or adhesives; 

equipment cleanup wastes; combustion 

of formaldehyde-containing wood 

scraps, such as for energy recovery; and 

other handling of process or product 

wastes that contain formaldehyde. EPA 

requests information or data that 

commenters may have on emissions 

from pressed wood product 

manufacturing operations. To the extent 

that the requested information is already 

publicly available and summarized in 

prior reports, such as those prepared in 

the late 1990s to support development 

of the PCWP NESHAP (Refs. 6, 7, 8, 9), 

EPA requests that commenters note 

such reports and comment on whether 

the reports remain accurate with respect 

to new developments or changes that 

have occurred over time. EPA plans to 

evaluate exposures to emissions from 

manufacturing operations to assess 

benefits of any action developed to 

reduce consumer exposures to 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products. 

i. EPA is requesting information and 

data on all points of formaldehyde 

releases, including the quantity of such 

releases and the media to which 

formaldehyde is released, during the 

manufacture of each type of pressed 

wood product. 

ii. EPA is interested in information on 

any control technologies, such as on-site 

wastewater treatment, filtration systems, 

or air pollution control devices (e.g., 

regenerative thermal oxidizers, 

biofilters, steam separation, scrubbers, 

ionic liquid technology), used to 

mitigate the environmental release of 

formaldehyde associated with the 

manufacture of pressed wood products, 

including estimates of the effectiveness 

of each control technology and the basis 

for each effectiveness estimate. 

e. Occupational exposure. During 

manufacturing of pressed wood 

products, occupational exposure to 

formaldehyde may occur to workers 

who are in contact with, or in proximity 

to, the manufacturing or fabricating 

process, raw materials, or pressed wood 

products. EPA plans to evaluate 

occupational exposures to assess 

benefits of any action developed to 

reduce consumer exposures to 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products. EPA is particularly 

interested in the potential for alternative 

chemicals and processes to reduce 

occupational exposures to formaldehyde 

during pressed wood product 

manufacture, processing, and 

distribution. EPA requests information 

on all worker activities in pressed wood 

manufacturing and fabricating that may 

result in occupational exposure to 

formaldehyde. 

i. For each worker activity, EPA is 

interested in the duration of exposure 

per day and the frequency of the activity 

in days per year. For example, in a 

particular company’s manufacturing 

process, two workers may empty 

containers of formaldehyde-containing 

resin into an applicator. For this 

company, this activity may take two 

hours per day and occur 250 days per 

year. 

ii. EPA requests any recent 

information (i.e., from the past 5 years), 

including studies, on worker exposures 

to formaldehyde during pressed wood 

product manufacturing processes, as 

well as any information on control 

technologies and/or personal protective 

equipment (PPE) that are used to 

mitigate occupational exposures of 

formaldehyde. 

iii. EPA also requests comparable 

information on exposure to chemicals 

(e.g., regulated by EPA or the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration) that are used in 

alternative resins or that are present as 

unreacted monomers in alternative 

resins (such as methylene diisocyanate 

(MDI), vinyl acetate monomer (VAM), 

and epichlorohydrin)). 

f. Emissions measurement and 

modeling. EPA is interested in 

information on measuring formaldehyde 

emissions from pressed wood products 

and modeling exposures to these 

emissions. 

i. What are the state of the art 

methods for measuring formaldehyde 

releases from pressed wood products? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 73627 

For each method, EPA requests 

information on method detection limits, 

sample preparation, and product 

representation. EPA is interested in the 

advantages and disadvantages of each 

method as compared to other available 

methods. 

ii. Are there any air monitoring data, 

other measured results, calculations, or 

verified/validated models that can be 

used for real life (in-home) exposure 

analysis? EPA is also interested in 

details as to the methods and 

approaches used in such studies. 

g. Building-specific exposure 

information. EPA is interested in 

exposure information that may be 

specific to formaldehyde emissions from 

pressed wood products installed in 

various types of buildings, especially 

manufactured buildings or structures 

not regulated by HUD, such as park 

homes or trailers, travel trailers, 

portable classrooms, and temporary 

office trailers. 

i. What types and amounts of pressed 

wood products are used in each such 

type of building or structure? 

ii. What are the occupancy rates (e.g., 

number of people, days per year of 

occupancy), exposed population, timeactivity patterns, and air exchange rates 

of each such type of building or 

structure? 

iii. What monitoring studies or other 

exposure information are available for 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products installed in these types 

of buildings or structures? 

3. Economic analysis. As discussed in 

Unit IV.B. of this document, EPA is 

considering whether regulatory and/or 

voluntary actions are necessary to 

address formaldehyde emissions from 

pressed wood products. One of the 

options EPA plans to consider is 

whether it is appropriate to promulgate 

a rule under TSCA section 6(a). In 

promulgating any rule under TSCA 

section 6(a) with respect to a chemical 

substance, TSCA section 6(c) requires 

the Administrator to consider (among 

other factors), the benefits of such 

substance or mixture for various uses 

and the availability of substitutes for 

such uses, and the reasonably 

ascertainable economic consequences of 

the rule, after consideration of the effect 

on the national economy, small 

business, technological innovation, the 

environment, and public health. 

These considerations may be 

informative whether or not EPA 

proceeds under TSCA section 6(a). 

Therefore, EPA requests information 

that it can use in preparing an economic 

analysis. Such information includes the 

cost and performance characteristics of 

substitute technologies to control 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products; the extent to which 

substitute technologies are drop-in 

technologies (i.e., can be used with 

existing equipment in a plant or require 

modifications to existing equipment); 

the supply and demand elasticities for 

markets potentially affected by action 

on formaldehyde in pressed wood 

products, including the markets for 

pressed wood, fabricated goods made 

from pressed wood (such as furniture, 

doors, kitchen cabinets, etc.), and resins 

or adhesives used in pressed wood; and 

information needed to assess the 

benefits of controlling exposures to 

formaldehyde from pressed wood 

products (such as the magnitude of 

exposure, the dollar value of the health 

effects resulting from such exposures, 

and the dollar value of any benefits not 

related to health endpoints, such as 

reduced exposure to unwanted odors). 

B. Regulatory Authorities and Voluntary 

Options 

The previous Unit of this notice 

describes the assessments EPA is 

undertaking in order to make a 

determination whether regulatory and/ 

or voluntary action is needed to address 

risks that may be posed by 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products. While EPA has not yet 

made this determination, EPA 

recognizes that stakeholders are likely to 

have valuable insights into the tools 

available to address risks. EPA also 

believes that it is most useful to obtain 

these insights early in the investigation 

process. This Unit briefly describes two 

of the regulatory authorities that EPA 

could use and requests comment on 

each. This Unit also asks whether any 

other regulatory authorities should be 

considered and seeks input on the 

possible use of voluntary approaches 

alone and in connection with regulatory 

approaches. EPA is particularly 

interested in comment, information, and 

data on the strengths and limitations of 

all of the options available to EPA. 

Additional specific requests for 

comment on each approach are 

included in the description of each 

approach. 

1. TSCA section 6(a). In order to 

promulgate a rule under TSCA section 

6(a), the Administrator must find that 

‘‘there is a reasonable basis to conclude 

that the manufacture, processing, 

distribution in commerce, use, or 

disposal of a chemical substance or 

mixture * * * presents or will present 

an unreasonable risk of injury to health 

or the environment.’’ This finding 

cannot be made considering risk alone. 

In promulgating any rule under TSCA 

section 6(a), TSCA section 6(c) requires 

the Administrator to consider: 

• The effects of such substance or 

mixture on health and the magnitude of 

the exposure of human beings to such 

substance or mixture. 

• The effects of such substance or 

mixture on the environment and the 

magnitude of the exposure of the 

environment to such substance or 

mixture. 

• The benefits of such substance or 

mixture for various uses and the 

availability of substitutes for such uses. 

• The reasonably ascertainable 

economic consequences of the rule, after 

consideration of the effect on the 

national economy, small business, 

technological innovation, the 

environment, and public health. 

If EPA finds that there is a reasonable 

basis to conclude that one or more 

activities presents an unreasonable risk, 

TSCA section 6(a) provides EPA with 

the authority to: 

• Prohibit or limit manufacture, 

processing, or distribution in commerce; 

• Prohibit or limit the manufacture, 

processing, or distribution in commerce 

of the chemical above a specified 

concentration; 

• Require adequate warnings and 

instructions with respect to use, 

distribution, or disposal; 

• Require recordkeeping, monitoring, 

and testing to ensure compliance with 

regulations promulgated under this 

section; 

• Prohibit or regulate any manner of 

commercial use; 

• Prohibit or regulate any manner of 

disposal; or 

• Require manufacturers or processors 

to give notice of the unreasonable risk 

of injury. 

TSCA section 6(a) also provides that 

the control measure or measures 

adopted must be the ‘‘least burdensome 

requirements’’ that adequately protect 

against the unreasonable risk. 

EPA requests comment on the use of 

TSCA section 6(a) to regulate the 

manufacture, processing, distribution in 

commerce, commercial use, or disposal 

of one or more pressed wood products 

that contain formaldehyde. EPA is 

particularly interested in comments on 

the strengths and weaknesses of the 

control measures that could be adopted 

under this section, such as emissions 

limits or warning labels on pressed 

wood products. 

2. TSCA section 6(b). TSCA section 

6(b) specifically addresses quality 

control issues. EPA believes that TSCA 

section 6(b) is an available option for 

addressing formaldehyde risks because 

the information available to EPA 

suggests that formaldehyde emissions 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
73628 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

from some pressed wood products are 

highly dependent upon the process used 

to manufacture the products. If EPA has 

a reasonable basis to conclude that a 

particular manufacturer or processor is 

making or producing a chemical 

substance in such a way that it presents 

an unreasonable risk of injury to human 

health or the environment, EPA may 

order the manufacturer or processor to 

submit a description of its relevant 

quality control procedures. If EPA 

determines that those quality control 

procedures are inadequate to prevent an 

unreasonable risk, EPA may order the 

manufacturer or processor to modify its 

quality control procedures to the extent 

necessary to remedy the inadequacy. If 

EPA determines that a chemical which 

presents an unreasonable risk has been 

distributed, EPA may order the 

manufacturer or processor to notify its 

customers or the general public, or to 

replace or repurchase the chemical as 

necessary to protect health or the 

environment or any combination of 

these. Manufacturers and processors 

subject to a requirement to replace or 

repurchase must be offered the option to 

replace or repurchase, and EPA may 

prescribe the procedures for doing so in 

each case. Orders to revise procedures, 

to notify customers or the public, or 

replace or repurchase chemicals must be 

issued after an opportunity for a hearing 

in accordance with section 554 of the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 

which provides procedural 

requirements in cases where an 

adjudication is required on the record 

after an opportunity for a hearing. 

EPA will evaluate whether it is 

feasible to use TSCA section 6(b) to 

address risks that may be posed by 

formaldehyde emissions from one or 

more pressed wood products. TSCA 

section 6(b) is targeted towards 

controlling the manufacturing processes 

of individual manufacturers or 

processors. As such, if EPA determines 

that emissions from pressed wood 

products present or will present an 

unreasonable risk, it may not be feasible 

or possible to use TSCA section 6(b) to 

address all such risks. EPA requests 

comment on the use of TSCA section 

6(b) in this manner. In addition, if EPA 

were to take action under TSCA section 

6(b) with respect to domestic 

manufacturers of pressed wood 

products, what could EPA do to control 

formaldehyde emissions from imported 

pressed wood products or finished 

goods made from pressed wood 

products, such as furniture, cabinets, 

countertops, and flooring? 

3. Other regulatory authorities. Based 

on a preliminary review of the available 

authorities, EPA believes that the most 

effective authorities available to address 

risks that may be presented by 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products would be TSCA sections 

6(a) and 6(b). A number of the 

commenters on the TSCA section 21 

petition appeared to support a national 

emissions limit for pressed wood 

products, yet contended that an 

‘‘unreasonable risk’’ finding under 

TSCA section 6 was unjustified. EPA 

requests comment on other authorities 

available to EPA that could be used to 

impose a national emissions limit on 

these products. EPA also requests 

comment on other authorities that could 

be used in other ways to address risks 

that may be presented by formaldehyde 

emissions from pressed wood products. 

The TSCA section 21 petition 

contained a request for EPA to apply the 

CARB ATCM to pressed wood products 

used in manufactured housing. As 

discussed in the Federal Register notice 

responding to the petition, HUD has 

standards that apply to pressed wood 

products in manufactured housing. 

Many petition commenters 

recommended that HUD continue to 

exercise jurisdiction over manufactured 

housing. Some suggested that EPA refer 

the matter to HUD under TSCA section 

9. HUD itself commented on the petition 

(Ref. 13), stating that it had received a 

proposal to lower formaldehyde 

emissions limits from certain products 

used in the construction of 

manufactured homes from the 

Manufactured Housing Consensus 

Committee (MHCC), a Congressionallyestablished Federal Advisory 

Committee. In addition, according to 

HUD, the MHCC recently received a 

new proposal from the public to adopt 

the CARB ATCM standards. HUD stated 

that it will work with the MHCC to 

review this new proposal. EPA plans to 

work collaboratively with HUD to 

address risks that may be presented 

from formaldehyde emissions from 

pressed wood products used in 

manufactured housing. 

4. Voluntary approaches. The 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 

104–113, §12(d), 110 Stat. 775, 783 

(1996)) directs federal agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be ‘‘inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical.’’ 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards, which include 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling protocols, business practices, 

and management systems developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies, both domestic and 

international. These bodies plan, 

develop, establish, or coordinate 

voluntary consensus standards using 

agreed-upon procedures. The NTTAA 

also encourages agencies to consult with 

voluntary consensus standards bodies 

and participate in the development of 

such standards when compatible with 

agency missions, authorities, priorities 

and budget resources. 

Many of the commenters on the TSCA 

section 21 petition suggested that EPA 

work cooperatively with the affected 

industries to develop national standards 

for formaldehyde emissions from 

pressed wood products. EPA believes 

that voluntary initiatives can be useful 

tools in addressing risks to human 

health and the environment, and 

voluntary initiatives may be important 

components of a strategy to address the 

formaldehyde emissions that are the 

subject of this document. Indeed, there 

already are voluntary consensus 

standards for formaldehyde emissions, 

such as the standards developed under 

the auspices of the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI), and 

voluntary industry compliance 

programs, such as the Composite Panel 

Association’s Grademark program, that 

address formaldehyde emissions from 

some pressed wood products. The 

Composite Panel Association (CPA), in 

comments on the petition, observed that 

the CPA is accredited by ANSI as a 

standards developer (Ref. 14). The CPA 

further stated that, on June 3, 2008, the 

CPA Board of Directors ‘‘approved the 

insertion of the CARB Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 formaldehyde emission limits’’ 

into the new versions of the ANSI 

standards for Particleboard (ANSI 

A208.1) and for Medium Density 

Fiberboard (ANSI A208.2). While a 

consensus committee must still approve 

these revised standards, the CPA notes 

that, when they are finalized, purveyors 

of these products would be able to 

reference these standards in their 

‘‘commercial dealings.’’ The Hardwood 

Plywood and Veneer Association 

(HPVA) likewise noted that they were in 

the process of revising the ANSI-HPVA 

national consensus standards for 

hardwood plywood and engineered 

hardwood flooring and they were 

considering including the CARB ATCM 

emission requirements (Ref. 15). 

EPA would be interested in hearing 

more details from affected industries as 

to how voluntary national standards 

could be developed and implemented. 

EPA is specifically interested in 

comments that address the following 

questions: 

a. How could EPA encourage 

compliance with purely voluntary 

standards, whether currently-existing or 

newly-developed? 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 73629 

b. How successful are the existing 

programs at reducing formaldehyde 

exposures? How could the existing 

programs be modified to improve the 

results? Would a new voluntary 

program be more successful at reducing 

formaldehyde exposures? 

c. How would voluntary programs 

address imported products? 

d. What role could regulatory 

adoption (e.g., using TSCA section 6) of 

voluntary consensus standards for 

formaldehyde emissions play in EPA’s 

oversight of this issue? How would this 

approach address imported products? 

V. References 

1. Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile 

for Formaldehyde. 1999. http:// 

www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/ 

tp111.html 

2. EPA. Formaldehyde Emissions 

from Composite Wood Products; 

Disposition of TSCA Section 21 

Petition; Notice. Federal Register (73 FR 

36504, June 27, 2008). 

3. EPA, Office of Research and 

Development. Formaldehyde. Integrated 

Risk Information System. 1991. http:// 

www.epa.gov/iris/links.htm 

4. EPA. National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood 

and Composite Wood Products; Final 

Rule. Federal Register (72 FR 61060, 

October 29, 2007). http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/plypart/fr29oc07.pdf 

5. Sierra Club, 25 other organizations, 

and approximately 5,000 individuals. 

Letter from Tom Neltner, Sierra Club, to 

Stephen Johnson, Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency. Re: 

Citizen Petition to EPA Regarding 

Formaldehyde in Wood Products. 

March 2008. 

6. California Environmental 

Protection Agency Air Resources Board. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure to 

Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from 

Composite Wood Products. Final 

Regulation Order. April 2008. http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ 

compwood07/compwood07.htm 

7. Note to file. July 17, 2008. 

8. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (OAQPS). Background 

Information Document for Proposed 

Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

NESHAP. September, 2000. 

9. EPA, OAQPS. Memorandum from 

D. Bullock, K. Hanks, and B. Nicholson, 

MRI to M. Kissell, EPA/ESD. Summary 

of Responses to the 1998 EPA 

Information Collection Request (MACT 

Survey) — General Survey. April 28, 

2000. 

10. EPA, OAQPS. Memorandum from 

K. Hanks and B. Threatt, MRI to M. 

Kissell, EPA/ESD. Summary of 

Responses to the 1998 EPA Information 

Collection Request (MACT Survey)— 

Engineered Wood Products. January 20, 

2000. 

11. EPA, OAQPS. Memorandum from 

K. Hanks, B. Threatt, and B. Nicholson, 

MRI to M. Kissell, EPA/ESD. Summary 

of Responses to the 1998 EPA 

Information Collection Request (MACT 

Survey)—Hardwood Plywood and 

Veneer. May 19, 1999. 

12. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service; Forest Products Laboratory. 

Wood Handbook—Wood as an 

Engineering Material. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

FPL–GTR–113 (1999). http:// 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/ 

fplgtr113/fplgtr113.pdf 

13. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Regulatory 

Affairs and Manufactured Housing. 

(May 12, 2008). 

14. Composite Panel Association. 

(May 12, 2008). 

15. Hardwood Plywood and Veneer 

Association. (May 12, 2008). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review’’ (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action was submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review. Any changes to the document 

that were made in response to OMB 

comments received by EPA during that 

review have been documented in the 

docket as required by the Executive 

Order. 

Since this document does not impose 

or propose any requirements, and 

instead seeks comments and suggestions 

for the Agency to consider in possibly 

developing a subsequent proposed rule, 

the various other review requirements 

that apply when an agency imposes 

requirements do not apply to this 

action. 

As part of your comments on this 

document, you may include any 

comments or information that you have 

regarding this action. In particular, any 

comments or information that would 

help the Agency to assess the potential 

impact of a rule on small entities 

pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); to 

consider voluntary consensus standards 

pursuant to section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note); 

to consider environmental health or 

safety effects on children pursuant to 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or 

to consider human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations pursuant to 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). The Agency will consider such 

comments during the development of 

any subsequent notice of proposed 

rulemaking as it takes appropriate steps 

to address any applicable requirements. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Housing, 

Toxic substances, Wood. 

Dated: November 25, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–28585 Filed 12–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0640; FRL–8748–1] 

RIN 2060–AJ86 

Performance Specification and Quality 

Assurance Requirements for 

Continuous Parameter Monitoring 

Systems and Amendments to 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources; National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants; and National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Source Categories 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing that the 

comment period on the proposed rule 

for Performance Specification 17, 

‘‘Specifications and Test Procedures for 

Continuous Parameter Monitoring 

Systems at Stationary Sources’’ and 

Procedure 4, ‘‘Quality Assurance 

Requirements for Continuous Parameter 

Monitoring Systems at Stationary 

Sources’’ published on October 9, 2008, 

is extended to February 5, 2009. This 

comment period extension also applies 

to the amendments proposed along with 

Performance Specification 17 and 

Procedure 4 for continuous parameter 

monitoring systems. EPA received 

requests for an extension to the 

comment period from the American 

Chemistry Council and the Coalition for 

Responsible Waste Incineration. 


yshivers on PROD1PC62 with PROPOSALS