34820 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Creuse, CP 56, CH–1211 Geneve 20, 

Switzerland, or by calling +41–22–749– 

01–11, or at http://www.iso.org. 

(1) ISO/IEC 17011:2004(E), 

Conformity Assessments—General 

Requirements for Accreditation Bodies 

Accrediting Conformity Assessment 

Bodies (First Edition) February 15, 2005, 

IBR approved for § 770.7(a) through (c). 

(2) ISO/IEC 17020:1998(E), General 

Criteria for the Operation of Various 

Types of Bodies Performing Inspections 

(First Edition), November 15, 1998, IBR 

approved for § 770.7(a) through (c). 

(3) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), General 

Requirements for the Competence of 

Testing and Calibration Laboratories 

(Second Edition), May 15, 2005, IBR 

approved for § 770.7(a) through (c). 

(4) ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996(E), General 

Requirements for Bodies Operating 

Product Certification Systems (First 

Edition), 1996, IBR approved for 

§ 770.7(a) through (c). 

[FR Doc. 2013–13254 Filed 6–7–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 770 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0018; FRL–9342–3] 

RIN 2070–AJ92 

Formaldehyde Emissions Standards 

for Composite Wood Products 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing new 

requirements under the Formaldehyde 

Standards for Composite Wood Products 

Act, or Title VI of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). These proposed 

requirements are designed to implement 

the statutory formaldehyde emission 

standards for hardwood plywood, 

medium-density fiberboard, and 

particleboard sold, supplied, offered for 

sale, or manufactured (including 

imported) in the United States. As 

directed by the statute, this proposal 

includes provisions relating to, among 

other things, laminated products, 

products made with no-added 

formaldehyde resins or ultra lowemitting formaldehyde resins, testing 

requirements, product labeling, chain of 

custody documentation and other 

recordkeeping requirements, 

enforcement, and product inventory 

sell-through provisions, including a 

product stockpiling prohibition. The 

composite wood product formaldehyde 

emission standards contained in TSCA 

Title VI are identical to the emission 

standards currently in place in 

California. This regulatory proposal 

implements these emissions standards 

and is designed to ensure compliance 

with the TSCA Title VI formaldehyde 

emission standards while aligning, 

where practical, with the regulatory 

requirements in California. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0018, 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–2012–0018. 

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– 

2012–0018. 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 Web site 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your email 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. 

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, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically 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 

legal 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 

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; email address: 

wheeler.cindy@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCAHotline@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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34821 

• 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 email. 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 

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. Executive Summary 

1. Purpose of the regulatory action. 

EPA is proposing a rule to implement 

the emission standards and other 

provisions of the Formaldehyde 

Standards for Composite Wood Products 

Act, enacted as Title VI of Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 

U.S.C. 2697. The purpose of TSCA Title 

VI is to reduce formaldehyde emissions 

from composite wood products. This 

proposed rule would implement the 

emission standards established by TSCA 

Title VI for composite wood products 

sold, supplied, offered for sale, or 

manufactured in the United States 

(including imported products). TSCA 

Title VI directs EPA to promulgate 

supplementary provisions to ensure 

compliance with the emissions 

standards by January 1, 2013. 

2. Summary of the major provisions. 

TSCA Title VI requires EPA to 

promulgate regulations that include 

provisions on labeling; chain of custody 

requirements; sell-through provisions; 

ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins 

(ULEF); no-added formaldehyde-based 

resins (NAF); finished goods; third-party 

testing and certification; auditing and 

reporting of third-party certifiers (TPC); 

recordkeeping; enforcement; laminated 

products; and exceptions from 

regulatory requirements for products 

and components containing de minimis 

amounts of composite wood products. 

The listed topics are addressed in this 

proposal, with the exception of topics 

related to third-party certification which 

are being handled in a separate 

regulatory proposal. EPA also proposes 

several definitions, clarifies frequency 

and process requirements for emissions 

testing, and provides a means of 

determining test method equivalence. 

The emission standards themselves are 

set by statute and are not altered in this 

proposal. 

TSCA Title VI grants EPA the 

authority to modify the statutory 

definition of ‘‘laminated product’’ and 

directs EPA to use all available and 

relevant information to determine 

whether the definition of hardwood 

plywood should exempt engineered 

veneer or any laminated product. EPA is 

proposing to exempt laminated products 

in which a wood veneer is attached to 

a compliant and certified platform using 

a NAF resin. EPA is also proposing 

modifications to the statutory definition 

of ‘‘laminated product.’’ 

This action includes labeling 

requirements for composite wood 

panels and finished goods. It also 

includes ‘‘chain of custody 

requirements’’ and recordkeeping 

requirements with a proposed 3-year 

record retention period. EPA is also 

proposing to specifically require TSCA 

section 13 import certification for 

composite wood products that are 

articles. EPA has decided not to propose 

an exception from any of the regulatory 

requirements for products containing de 

minimis amounts of composite wood 

products. 

EPA proposes to set the 

manufactured-by date at 1 year after 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. Composite wood 

panels made after the manufactured-bydate would be subject to the emissions 

standards. Although TSCA Title VI 

allows EPA to set this date at 180 days 

after promulgation of the final 

implementing regulations, EPA believes 

that more time will be needed to ensure 

infrastructure is in place and allow 

panel producers time to develop their 

initial qualifying data for certification. 

EPA proposes to provide producers of 

panels made with NAF-based resins or 

ULEF resins with an exemption from 

TPC oversight and formaldehyde 

emissions testing after an initial testing 

period of 3 months for each product 

type made with NAF-based resins and 6 

months for each product type made 

with ULEF resins. These specific initial 

testing periods are required by the 

statute and are designed to ensure that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34822 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the products meet the TSCA section 

601(a)(7) formaldehyde emission 

standards for products made with NAFbased resins or the TSCA section 

601(a)(10) formaldehyde emission 

standards for products made with ULEF 

resins. 

3. Costs and benefits. EPA has 

prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this 

rulemaking. This analysis is 

summarized in greater detail in Unit 

V.A. Table 1 provides a brief outline of 

the costs and benefits of this proposal. 

The estimated costs of the proposed rule 

exceed the quantified benefits. There are 

additional unquantified benefits due to 

other avoided health effects. After 

assessing both the costs and the benefits 

of the proposal, including the 

unquantified benefits, EPA has made a 

reasoned determination that the benefits 

of the proposal justify its costs. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL

Category Description 

Benefits ........................................... This proposed rule will reduce exposures to formaldehyde, resulting in benefits from avoided adverse 

health effects. For the subset of health effects where the results were quantified, the estimated 

annualized benefits (due to avoided incidence of eye irritation and nasopharyngeal cancer) are $20 million to $48 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and $9 million to $23 million per year using a 7% 

discount rate. There are additional unquantified benefits due to other avoided health effects. 

Costs ............................................... The annualized costs of this proposed rule are estimated at $72 million to $81 million per year using a 3% 

discount rate, and $80 million to $89 million per year using a 7% discount rate. 

Effects on State, Local, and Tribal 

Governments.

Government entities are not expected to be subject to the rule’s requirements, which apply to entities that 

manufacture, fabricate, distribute, or sell composite wood products. The proposed rule does not have a 

significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effect on small governments, or have Federalism implications. 

Small Entity Impacts ....................... This rule would impact nearly 879,000 small businesses: Over 851,000 have costs impacts less than 1% 

of revenues, over 23,000 firms have impacts between 1% and 3%, and over 4,000 firms have impacts 

greater than 3% of revenues. Most firms with impacts over 1% have annualized costs of less than $250 

per year. 

Environmental Justice and Protection of Children.This rule increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including 

any minority or low-income population or children. 

B. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is proposing a rule to implement 

the emission standards and other 

provisions of the Formaldehyde 

Standards for Composite Wood Products 

Act, enacted as Title VI of Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 

U.S.C. 2697. This proposed rule would 

implement emissions standards 

established by TSCA Title VI for 

composite wood products sold, 

supplied, offered for sale, or 

manufactured in the United States. 

Pursuant to TSCA section 3(7), the 

definition of ‘‘manufacture’’ includes 

import. As required by Title VI, these 

regulations apply to hardwood 

plywood, medium-density fiberboard, 

and particleboard. TSCA Title VI also 

directs EPA to promulgate 

supplementary provisions to ensure 

compliance with the emissions 

standards, including provisions related 

to labeling; chain of custody 

requirements; sell-through provisions; 

ULEF resins; no-added formaldehydebased resins; finished goods; third-party 

testing and certification; auditing and 

reporting of third-party certifiers; 

recordkeeping; enforcement; laminated 

products; and exceptions from the 

requirements of regulations 

promulgated pursuant to this subsection 

for products and components containing 

de minimis amounts of composite wood 

products. 

EPA issued a separate proposal on the 

third party certification provisions (the 

TPC proposal) (Ref. 1). The TPC 

proposal included provisions for the 

accreditation of TPCs and general 

requirements for accreditation bodies 

and TPCs. 

The proposed requirements in this 

document are consistent, to the extent 

EPA deemed appropriate and practical, 

with the requirements currently in effect 

in California under a California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic 

Control Measure (ATCM) (Ref. 2). By 

aligning with the CARB ATCM 

requirements, EPA seeks to avoid 

differing or duplicative regulatory 

requirements that would result in an 

increased burden on the regulated 

community. 

C. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

This proposal is being issued under 

the authority of section 601 of TSCA, 15 

U.S.C. 2697. 

D. Formaldehyde Sources and Health 

Effects 

Formaldehyde is a colorless, 

flammable gas at room temperature and 

has a strong odor. It is found in resins 

used in the manufacture of composite 

wood products (i.e., hardwood 

plywood, particleboard and mediumdensity fiberboard). It is also found in 

household products such as glues, 

permanent press fabrics, carpets, 

antiseptics, medicines, cosmetics, 

dishwashing liquids, fabric softeners, 

shoe care agents, lacquers, plastics and 

paper product coatings. It is a byproduct of combustion and certain other 

natural processes. Examples of sources 

of formaldehyde gas inside homes 

include cigarette smoke, unvented, fuelburning appliances (e.g., gas stoves, 

kerosene space heaters), and composite 

wood products made using 

formaldehyde-based resins (Ref. 3). 

Formaldehyde is an irritant and the 

National Toxicology Program recently 

classified it as a known human 

carcinogen (Ref. 4). Depending on 

concentration, formaldehyde can cause 

eye, nose, and throat irritation, 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, including 

respiratory symptoms. In addition, 

formaldehyde is a by-product of human 

metabolism, and thus endogenous levels 

are present in the body. 

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. The 

risk factor and supporting 

documentation is included in EPA’s 

Integrated Risk Information System 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34823 

(IRIS) assessment of formaldehyde (Ref. 

5). Formaldehyde is also 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. EPA has developed lists of 

major and area source categories that 

must meet emission standards 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), codified at 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart DDDD, first issued in 2004, is 

one of these standards. The PCWP 

NESHAP controls emissions of 

formaldehyde and other HAPs 

(primarily acetaldehyde, acrolein, 

methanol, phenol, and 

propionaldehyde) from various process 

units (e.g., blenders, dryers, formers, 

board coolers, and presses) at PCWP 

facilities. 

In 2004, EPA determined that unit 

risk derived from the Chemical Industry 

Institute of Toxicology (CIIT; CIIT 1999) 

biologically-based cancer dose-response 

modeling of formaldehyde-induced 

respiratory cancer (5.5 x 10¥9 per 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)) 

better reflected the current state of the 

science than the 1991 IRIS cancer unit 

risk. The authors of the CIIT modeling 

(Conolly et al. 2004) presented their risk 

estimates as values more conservative 

than their maximum likelihood 

estimates, and as ‘‘conservative in the 

face of modeling uncertainties.’’ 

Consequently, EPA used the CIIT value 

in risk assessments supporting 

regulatory actions developed under the 

authority of the Clean Air Act. For 

example, in the 2006 rulemaking that 

reconsidered the PCWP NESHAP, OAR 

stated ‘‘[i]n the case of formaldehyde, 

we have determined that the cancer 

potency derived using the approach 

developed by CIIT, which has been peer 

reviewed by an external review panel 

sponsored by EPA and the Canadian 

government, represents an appropriate 

alternative to EPA’s current IRIS URE 

[unit risk estimate] for formaldehyde. 

Therefore, this potency represents the 

best available peer-reviewed science at 

this time.’’ (Ref. 6, p. 8348). However, 

subsequent research published by EPA 

suggests that the CIIT model was not 

appropriate and was very sensitive to 

unmeasured parameters such that very 

different estimates, including the 1991 

IRIS assessment values, were consistent 

with the available scientific data. 

Because the CIIT values do not reflect 

the extent of uncertainty in estimates 

using the data that are available, EPA 

has decided that those estimates do not 

reflect the broad range of possible risk 

and that the data are not supportive of 

interpreting 5.5 x 10¥9 per mg/m3 as 

providing a health-protective estimate of 

human risk. Furthermore, the 1991 IRIS 

assessment values are consistent with 

unit risks estimated by Schlosser et al. 

(2003) based on Benchmark Dose 

modeling of the best available data at 

the time. Thus, in 2010, EPA returned 

to using the Agency’s current value on 

IRIS, 1.3 x 10¥5 per mg/m3, which was 

last revised in 1991 as better reflecting 

the current state of the science as to the 

potential human cancer risk of exposure 

to formaldehyde (Ref. 7). 

The IRIS program in EPA’s Office of 

Research and Development (ORD) 

recently completed a draft assessment of 

the potential cancer and non-cancer 

health effects that may result from 

chronic exposure to formaldehyde by 

inhalation (Ref. 8). This draft IRIS 

assessment was peer-reviewed by the 

National Research Council of the 

National Academy of Sciences (NRC) 

with its review of the EPA’s draft 

assessment completed in April of 2011 

(Ref. 9). EPA will fully address all the 

NRC recommendations on 

formaldehyde. The draft formaldehyde 

IRIS assessment will be revised in 

response to the NRC peer review and 

public comments, and the final 

assessment will be posted on the IRIS 

Web site. In the interim, EPA will 

present findings using the 1991 IRIS 

value as a primary estimate, and may 

also consider other information as the 

science evolves. In addition, EPA 

developed concentration-response 

functions to estimate the impact of 

exposure to formaldehyde on eye 

irritation for use in the non-cancer 

benefits assessment to support this rule, 

and proposes additional analysis to 

address respiratory symptoms and other 

potential adverse effects. The derivation 

of these concentration-response 

functions, uncertainties, and EPA’s 

proposed approach for using the 

concentration-response functions in the 

benefits assessment were externally peer 

reviewed in 2011 (Ref. 10). While the 

economic analysis of cancer benefits is 

based on the unit risk, which is a 

reasonable upper bound on the central 

estimate of risk, the non-cancer benefits 

were evaluated using the estimated 

concentration-response functions which 

reflect the central effect estimates rather 

than upper bounds. 

E. History of This Rulemaking 

1. Overview of the CARB ATCM. In 

2007, CARB issued an ATCM to reduce 

formaldehyde emissions from hardwood 

plywood, medium-density fiberboard, 

and particleboard, products referred to 

collectively as composite wood 

products. The CARB ATCM was 

approved on April 18, 2008, by the 

California Office of Administrative Law 

and the first emission standards took 

effect on January 1, 2009. The CARB 

ATCM requires manufacturers to meet 

formaldehyde emission standards for 

the covered composite wood products 

that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, 

or manufactured for use in California. 

The CARB ATCM also requires that 

compliant composite wood products be 

used in finished goods sold, offered for 

sale, supplied or manufactured for sale 

in California. The CARB 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). 

The CARB ATCM Phase 1 emission 

standards for hardwood plywood veneer 

core, particleboard, and mediumdensity fiberboard took effect on January 

1, 2009. The Phase 1 standard for 

hardwood plywood composite core took 

effect on July 1, 2009. The more 

stringent Phase 2 standards first took 

effect on January 1, 2010, for hardwood 

plywood veneer core. Phase 2 standards 

for medium-density fiberboard and 

particleboard took effect on January 1, 

2011, the Phase 2 standard for thin 

medium density fiberboard took effect 

on January 1, 2012, and the Phase 2 

standard for hardwood plywood 

composite core took effect on July 1, 

2012. 

The CARB ATCM requires 

manufacturers of the regulated 

composite wood products to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emission standards by having their 

emissions tests and quality control 

processes certified by a TPC. TPCs must 

be approved by CARB and must follow 

specified requirements to verify that a 

manufacturer’s production meets 

applicable formaldehyde emission 

standards and that the manufacturers 

follow prescribed quality control 

practices. Once approved by CARB, 

manufacturers who use NAF resin 

systems are exempted from ongoing 

testing requirements after 3 months of 

successful testing in cooperation with a 

TPC. Manufacturers who use ULEF 

resin systems may be approved by 

CARB to reduce the frequency of 

ongoing testing or, if they meet more 

stringent emissions requirements, may 

be exempted from ongoing testing 

requirements for 2 years. The exemption 

based on ULEF resin is granted after 

approval by CARB and 6 months of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34824 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

testing in cooperation with a TPC. 

Manufacturers who receive exemptions 

based on NAF or ULEF resin can 

reapply every 2 years for the exemption 

from TPC oversight and formaldehyde 

emissions testing by submitting the 

chemical formulation of the resin and 

the results of at least one primary or 

secondary method test for each product 

type (based on a panel or set of panels 

randomly selected and tested by a TPC). 

Under the CARB ATCM, 

manufacturers of composite wood 

products are 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. 

Manufacturers must also include a 

statement of compliance on the bill of 

lading or invoice for the composite 

wood product. The CARB ATCM also 

imposes recordkeeping requirements on 

manufacturers to document their 

compliance with the regulations, and 

the records must be kept for 2 years. 

The CARB ATCM requires 

distributors, importers, fabricators, and 

retailers to purchase and sell panels and 

finished goods that comply with the 

applicable formaldehyde emission 

standards. They must take ‘‘reasonable 

prudent precautions,’’ such as 

communicating with their suppliers, to 

ensure that the products they purchase 

are in compliance with the applicable 

emission standards. Like manufacturers, 

distributors and importers must also 

provide a statement of compliance on 

the composite wood or finished good 

product bill of lading or invoice. Like 

manufacturers, distributors, importers, 

fabricators and retailers must also 

maintain records documenting 

compliance for a period of 2 years. 

Importers and fabricators must label 

their finished goods as compliant with 

the applicable standards. The labeling 

requirement also applies to distributors 

if the product is in some way modified. 

One example of a modification that 

would make a distributor subject to the 

labeling requirement is if the distributor 

receives composite wood product 

panels, cuts them into different shapes 

or sizes, and applies edge banding to 

them. 

More information on the specific 

requirements of the CARB ATCM and 

the relationship between the CARB 

ATCM and this proposal is presented in 

Unit III. 

2. TSCA section 21 petition. On 

March 24, 2008, 25 organizations and 

approximately 5,000 individuals 

petitioned EPA under section 21 of 

TSCA to use its authority under section 

6 of TSCA to adopt the CARB ATCM 

nationally. The petitioners asked EPA to 

assess and reduce the risks posed by 

formaldehyde emitted from hardwood 

plywood, particleboard, and mediumdensity fiberboard by exercising its 

authority under TSCA section 6 to adopt 

and apply nationwide the CARB 

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. 

On June 27, 2008, EPA issued a 

Federal Register notice explaining the 

Agency’s decision to grant in part and 

deny in part the petitioners’ request 

(Ref. 11). EPA denied the petitioners’ 

request to immediately pursue a TSCA 

section 6 rulemaking, stating that the 

available information at the time was 

insufficient 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 have 

needed 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. However, 

EPA did agree 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 

pressed wood products. 

Accordingly, on December 3, 2008, 

EPA issued an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that 

announced EPA’s intention to 

investigate whether and what 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. To help 

inform EPA’s decision on the best ways 

to address risks posed by formaldehyde 

emissions from pressed wood products, 

the Agency requested public comments 

and held 6 half-day public meetings in 

Research Triangle Park, NC; Portland, 

OR; Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; 

Washington, DC; and New Orleans, LA. 

These meetings took place January 

through March of 2009. EPA received 

and reviewed comments submitted 

during the ANPR comment period 

which can be found at regulations.gov 

under docket number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2008–0627. 

3. The Formaldehyde Standards for 

Composite Wood Products Act. On July 

7, 2010, President Obama signed into 

law the Formaldehyde Standards for 

Composite Wood Products Act, or Title 

VI of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2697. The statute 

establishes formaldehyde emission 

standards that are identical to the CARB 

ATCM Phase 2 standards for hardwood 

plywood, medium-density fiberboard, 

and particleboard sold, supplied, 

offered for sale, or manufactured in the 

United States and directs EPA to issue 

final implementing regulations by 

January 1, 2013. Pursuant to TSCA 

section 3(7), the definition of 

‘‘manufacture’’ includes import. TSCA 

Title VI does not give EPA the authority 

to raise or lower the established 

emission standards, and EPA must 

promulgate the implementing 

regulations in a manner that ensures 

compliance with the standards. 

Congress directed EPA to consider a 

number of elements for inclusion in the 

implementing regulations, many of 

which are aspects of the CARB program. 

These elements include: (a) Labeling, (b) 

chain of custody requirements, (c) sellthrough provisions, (d) ultra lowemitting formaldehyde resins, (e) noadded formaldehyde-based resins, (f) 

finished goods, (g) third-party testing 

and certification, (h) auditing and 

reporting of TPCs, (i) recordkeeping, (j) 

enforcement, (k) laminated products, 

and (l) exceptions from the 

requirements of regulations 

promulgated for products and 

components containing de minimis 

amounts of composite wood products. 

III. Provisions of This Proposed Rule 

A. Scope and Applicability 

Pursuant to TSCA Title VI, this 

proposed regulation would generally 

cover entities that manufacture 

(including import), supply, sell, or offer 

for sale hardwood plywood, mediumdensity fiberboard, and particleboard in 

the United States, whether in the form 

of a panel or incorporated into a 

finished good. 

1. Hardwood plywood—a. General 

definition. The statute defines the term 

‘‘hardwood plywood’’ as a hardwood or 

decorative panel that is intended for 

interior use and composed of an 

assembly of layers or plies of veneer 

joined by an adhesive with a lumber, 

particleboard, medium-density 

fiberboard (MDF), or hardboard core or 

any other special core or back material. 

The statutory definition also references 

a voluntary consensus standard for 

hardwood plywood, American National 

Standards Institute/Hardwood Plywood 

and Veneer Association HP–1–2009 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34825 

(ANSI/HPVA HP–1) (Ref. 12). The 

statutory definition also describes four 

specific exclusions from the term: 

Military-specified plywood, curved 

plywood, structural plywood, and 

wood-based structural-use panels. The 

latter two are described by reference to 

voluntary consensus standards (Refs. 13 

and 14). EPA is proposing to incorporate 

the basic statutory definition of 

hardwood plywood and the statutory 

exclusions into the regulation with one 

modification. Although the statutory 

definition of hardwood plywood does 

not specifically mention hardwood 

plywood made with a veneer core, 

TSCA section 601(b)(2)(A) establishes a 

formaldehyde emission standard for 

hardwood plywood with a veneer core. 

Therefore, in order to avoid any 

potential confusion about whether 

hardwood plywood made with a veneer 

core is covered by the regulations, EPA 

proposes to add ‘‘veneer core’’ to the list 

of cores in the definition of hardwood 

plywood. 

As part of this rulemaking, EPA 

convened a Small Business Advocacy 

Review (SBAR) Panel. More information 

on the Panel process, including the final 

report of the Panel, is discussed in Unit 

V. The SBAR Panel made several 

recommendations on definitions 

associated with the definition of 

hardwood plywood (Ref. 15). The 

definition of the term in TSCA Title VI, 

and as proposed in this rulemaking, 

only includes products that are 

‘‘panels.’’ Therefore, only hardwood 

plywood panels would be required to be 

tested and certified. The SBAR Panel 

recommended that EPA reduce 

uncertainty in the regulated community 

by clearly defining ‘‘panel’’ in a way 

that is based on the intent of the statute, 

and considers trade usage and the 

limitations of current test methods. EPA 

is proposing to define panel as a flat or 

raised piece of composite wood. Raised 

panels (e.g., raised panel cabinet doors) 

are specifically included in this 

proposed definition because they can be 

produced using a similar manufacturing 

procedure as flat panels, and have a 

similar potential to emit formaldehyde. 

EPA requests comment on test method 

limitations and the extent to which they 

should affect the definition of the term 

‘‘panel.’’ 

EPA is also proposing a definition of 

‘‘intended for interior use.’’ Under 

TSCA Title VI, in order for a product to 

be regulated as hardwood plywood, it 

must be intended for interior use. The 

SBAR Panel recommended that EPA 

develop a clear definition for ‘‘interior 

use’’ in order to eliminate potential 

confusion in the regulated community. 

The Panel further recommended that the 

definition be based on the intent of the 

statute and with consideration of how 

the hardwood plywood is likely to be 

used and stored once incorporated into 

a finished good. EPA recognizes that the 

primary purpose of TSCA Title VI is to 

reduce formaldehyde emissions from 

composite wood products inside 

buildings and similar living areas, such 

as trailers and recreational vehicles. 

This is in contrast to other regulations, 

such as the PCWP NESHAP, which is 

designed to reduce emissions from 

buildings and other facilities. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to define the phrase 

‘‘intended for interior use.’’ When 

applied to products, the phrase would 

mean intended for use or storage inside 

a building or recreational vehicle, or 

constructed in such a way that it is not 

suitable for long-term use in a location 

exposed to the elements. 

b. Laminated products. For the 

purposes of TSCA Title VI, laminated 

products are a subset of hardwood 

plywood. The statute defines laminated 

product as a product made by affixing 

a wood veneer to a particleboard, MDF, 

or veneer-core platform. The statutory 

definition further provides that 

laminated products are component parts 

used in the construction or assembly of 

a finished good, and that a laminated 

product is produced by the 

manufacturer or fabricator of the 

finished good in which the product is 

incorporated. Congress granted EPA the 

authority to modify the statutory 

definition of laminated product through 

rulemaking (TSCA section 

601(a)(3)(C)(i)(II)). EPA is also directed 

to use all available and relevant 

information to determine whether the 

definition of hardwood plywood should 

exempt engineered veneer or any 

laminated product. As discussed in this 

Unit, EPA is proposing to exempt some, 

but not all, laminated products from the 

definition of hardwood plywood. EPA is 

further proposing to delete from the 

definition of laminated product the 

provision that limits applicability to 

producers of finished goods. 

i. CARB ATCM. The CARB ATCM 

defines laminated product as a finished 

good or component part of a finished 

good made by a fabricator in which a 

laminate or laminates are affixed to a 

platform. Under this definition, if the 

platform consists of a composite wood 

product, the platform must comply with 

the applicable emission standards. The 

CARB ATCM defines fabricator as any 

person who uses composite wood 

products to make finished goods, 

including producers of laminated 

products. Laminate is defined under the 

CARB ATCM as a veneer or other 

material affixed as a decorative surface 

to a platform. Under the CARB ATCM, 

fabricators or laminated product 

manufacturers have different 

requirements compared with 

requirements for manufacturers of 

composite wood products. In particular, 

fabricators do not need to conduct 

formaldehyde emissions testing or 

comply with TPC certification 

requirements; instead, fabricators need 

to ensure that they are using compliant 

composite wood products through 

recordkeeping and labeling. 

Under the CARB ATCM, a facility that 

affixes wood veneers to purchased cores 

or platforms and then sells the panels 

(often referred to as a 3-ply mill) is 

considered a regulated hardwood 

plywood manufacturer. In addition, a 

facility that manufactures its own 

platforms or cores and attaches 

decorative face and back veneers is a 

regulated hardwood plywood 

manufacturer, whether or not the 

facility sells the resulting hardwood 

plywood panels or uses those panels to 

make a finished good. However, CARB 

considers a facility that affixes veneers 

to purchased platforms and then uses 

the panels to make a finished good to be 

a fabricator or laminated product 

manufacturer. For example, a cabinet 

manufacturer who affixes veneers to 

purchased composite wood platforms 

and then cuts the panels and assembles 

them into cabinets would be a fabricator 

or laminated product manufacturer. In 

addition, CARB considers a facility that 

produces architectural plywood or 

custom panels to be a fabricator or 

laminated product manufacturer. 

ii. Other background information on 

laminated products. The statute 

includes laminated products within the 

definition of hardwood plywood unless 

EPA specifically exempts them through 

rulemaking. The provision authorizing 

EPA to exempt any laminated products, 

TSCA section 601(a)(3)(C), directs EPA 

to consider all available and relevant 

information on the topic in a 

rulemaking under TSCA section 601(d). 

Section 601(d) requires EPA to 

promulgate regulations to implement 

the formaldehyde emission standards of 

TSCA Title VI in a manner that ensures 

compliance with the emission 

standards. 

In determining whether to exempt any 

laminated products, EPA analyzed 

available information on formaldehyde 

emissions. A 2003 Composite Panel 

Association (CPA) technical bulletin 

presents information on formaldehyde 

emission reductions resulting from the 

application of different types of 

laminates (e.g., vinyl, paper, melamine, 

polyethylene) and coatings (e.g., 

acrylate, acrylic, polyurethane) (Ref. 16). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34826 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

According to the bulletin, documented 

emission reductions ranged from 

approximately 50% to 95% compared 

with unlaminated or uncoated products. 

However, the technical bulletin does not 

present emission reduction data for 

wood veneer laminates. The bulletin 

notes that wood veneer laminates have 

been shown to be effective barriers for 

some volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) but have only low to moderate 

effectiveness as a barrier for 

formaldehyde, depending on the type of 

wood veneer used. This may be related 

to the porosity of the wood veneer, since 

according to the technical bulletin, the 

effectiveness of an emission barrier is 

determined by its basic permeability or 

porosity, as well as the integrity of the 

laminate or coating. Some woods are 

more porous than others. In addition, 

the technical bulletin points out that 

wood veneers are frequently applied to 

particleboard and MDF using ureaformaldehyde adhesives, and these 

adhesives create the potential for 

another source of formaldehyde 

emissions. EPA requests comments, 

information, and data on the 

formaldehyde emissions of wood 

veneered laminated products, 

particularly relative to the emissions of 

comparable hardwood plywood 

products that are not considered 

laminated products under the CARB 

ATCM. 

As directed by the statute, EPA 

evaluated other available and relevant 

information. Some of this information 

came to EPA through the SBAR Panel 

process, particularly through the advice 

and recommendations of the Small 

Entity Representatives (SERs) to the 

SBAR Panel. Several SERs submitted 

oral or written comments on potential 

provisions for laminated products under 

TSCA Title VI. One SER argued that 

laminators add only about 1/10th the 

resin a platform manufacturer adds (e.g., 

1.1 pounds of resin per panel to attach 

the veneer versus 9.6 total pounds resin 

per panel) and that laminators use a 

minor, if not de minimis, amount of 

urea-formaldehyde resin (Ref. 15). 

Furthermore, this SER stated that 

laminators using NAF resins would not 

add at all to the formaldehyde emissions 

from the product (Ref. 15), but did not 

provide data supporting this assertion. 

Multiple SERs noted that if laminators 

are regulated under TSCA Title VI, they 

would be paying for their products to be 

certified twice (Ref. 15). According to 

these SERs, the composite wood 

platform manufacturer would pay for 

certification of the platform and pass 

that cost along to the laminator who 

purchases the platform. If the laminator 

is also regulated under TSCA Title VI, 

such that the laminator would have to 

have its product certified again after the 

veneer is attached, then the laminated 

product would have two certifications, 

one for the composite wood platform 

and one for the final product. These 

SERs contended that this would put 

them at a distinct disadvantage with 

respect to manufacturers who make the 

entire product in-house and therefore 

have only one certification for the final 

product. Another SER commented that 

if laminated products were regulated as 

hardwood plywood, it could be costly 

and burdensome to thousands of small 

cabinet makers that laminate on a 

kitchen-by-kitchen basis (Ref. 15). 

Several SERs suggested that many 

laminators laminate component parts, 

not panels. In particular, it was 

suggested that the ‘‘raised panel doors’’ 

that are used on some cabinets do not 

meet the definition of a hardwood 

plywood panel under the ANSI/HPVA 

HP–1 standard. Several SERs provided 

suggestions to EPA on which laminators 

should be exempted by rule; these 

included laminators not using ureaformaldehyde, laminators using a 

certified composite wood platform or 

core, and cabinetmakers producing less 

than 10 million square feet of laminated 

product. One SER specifically suggested 

that EPA exempt from the third-party 

certification and testing requirements 

those laminators that certify that they 

use NAF resins to attach veneers to 

compliant cores or otherwise include a 

statement of compliance under penalty 

of perjury (Ref. 15). Many small 

manufacturers of laminated products 

have contended that the testing 

requirements would be extremely 

burdensome for them if they are 

required to test each product type 

because many of the smaller 

manufacturers and custom 

manufacturers produce many different 

product types, often made to order. 

In contrast, the Hardwood Plywood 

and Veneer Association (HPVA) 

informed EPA both orally and in written 

comments submitted in response to 

EPA’s 2008 ANPR that it considers the 

CARB ATCM provision for fabricators to 

be a ‘‘giant loophole’’ for certain 

hardwood plywood manufacturers (Ref. 

17). HPVA’s comments state that ‘‘[t]he 

emission standards must apply to any 

and all hardwood plywood irrespective 

of who manufactures the hardwood 

plywood. CARB arbitrarily differentiates 

between a primary hardwood plywood 

manufacturer and a ‘fabricator’ who also 

manufactures hardwood plywood but is 

exempt from having to certify the 

hardwood plywood they manufacture’’ 

(Ref. 17). HPVA also contends that the 

processes that fabricators and 

manufacturers of hardwood plywood 

use to lay up the veneers or press the 

face and back onto a core or platform are 

identical as are the hardwood plywood 

panels that they produce. 

iii. Proposed exemption for laminated 

products. Because of the potential for 

increased formaldehyde emissions from 

attaching a wood veneer to a platform, 

and because the final laminated product 

can be indistinguishable from other 

products that are considered hardwood 

plywood, EPA proposes to conclude 

that there is an insufficient basis to 

categorically exempt all laminated 

products from the definition of 

hardwood plywood based on 

information currently available to EPA. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

exempt laminated products in which a 

wood veneer is attached to a compliant 

and certified platform using a NAF 

resin. EPA believes the proposed 

exemption would be consistent with the 

statutory directive to promulgate 

regulations in a manner that ensures 

compliance with the formaldehyde 

emission standards. If the laminated 

product is made from a veneer core 

platform that is certified as meeting the 

emission standards for hardwood 

plywood, and a veneer that is attached 

with a NAF resin, it is very unlikely that 

the laminated product would exceed the 

hardwood plywood standards. If the 

laminated product is made from a 

particleboard or MDF platform that is 

certified as meeting the applicable 

emission standards, and a veneer that is 

attached with a NAF resin, the final 

laminated product may not meet the 

hardwood plywood standard, but it is 

very unlikely that it would exceed the 

applicable particleboard or MDF 

emission standard. EPA interprets its 

statutory authority with respect to 

laminated products to give EPA the 

discretion to exempt laminated products 

from the definition of hardwood 

plywood if EPA has reasonable 

assurance that the exempted products 

would comply with the emission 

standards in TSCA section 601(b)(2) for 

the relevant platform. EPA believes that 

the proposed exemption is responsive to 

comments from SERs and other affected 

entities and that it is a reasonable 

approach to addressing policy inequities 

between entities making similar 

products. EPA also believes that the 

proposed exemption is protective of 

public health, because most laminated 

products made by attaching veneers 

with NAF resins to compliant platforms 

would meet the emission standards for 

hardwood plywood, and all would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34827 

comply with the standards for MDF or 

particleboard. EPA specifically requests 

comments, information, and data 

relating to the proposed exemption. 

To qualify for this exemption, 

laminated product producers would be 

required to maintain records 

demonstrating that they are using 

compliant platforms and NAF resins. 

These records could include records of 

purchases of NAF resins and of 

compliant, certified platforms, or, if the 

resins or platforms are made in-house, 

records demonstrating that the 

platforms have been certified by an 

accredited TPC and records 

demonstrating the production of NAF 

resins. 

The statute defines the term 

‘‘laminated product’’ as a product in 

which a wood veneer is affixed to a 

particleboard platform, a mediumdensity fiberboard platform, or a veneercore platform, and that is a component 

part used in the construction or 

assembly of a finished good. The statute 

further defines a laminated product as 

being produced by the manufacturer or 

fabricator of the finished good in which 

the product is incorporated. EPA is 

proposing a definition of laminated 

product that is based on the statutory 

definition with several modifications. 

First, EPA is proposing to include not 

only wood veneers, but also woody 

grass veneers (e.g. bamboo). Woody 

grass veneers are similar to wood 

veneers in that they can be porous and 

therefore not effective barriers to 

formaldehyde emissions, and they can 

be affixed to cores and platforms using 

urea-formaldehyde resins. In addition, 

including woody grass veneers is 

consistent with the definition of 

hardwood plywood in the ANSI/HPVA 

HP–1 standard, which specifies that ‘‘— 

the decorative face veneer is made from 

a hardwood or softwood species or 

woody grass.’’ To ensure greater clarity 

in the regulatory provisions on this 

specific issue, EPA is proposing to 

include a definition of veneer that is 

based on the ANSI/HPVA HP–1 

standard, but also refers to woody 

grasses and their specific structure. EPA 

is proposing to define veneer as a thin 

sheet of wood or woody grass that is 

rotary cut, sliced, or sawed from a log, 

bolt, flitch, block, or culm. EPA is also 

proposing to define woody grass as a 

plant of the family Poaceae (formerly 

Gramineae) with hard lignified tissues 

or woody parts. EPA requests comment 

on these definitions and whether they 

are consistent with industry usage. 

EPA’s proposed definition would not 

include a provision stating that a 

laminated product is produced by the 

manufacturer or fabricator of the 

finished good in which the product is 

incorporated. EPA does not believe that 

the application of the third-party 

certification and testing requirements 

under TSCA Title VI should differ 

depending on the identity of the 

product manufacturer. If the 

applicability limitation is retained, an 

entity that purchases certified 

particleboard or MDF panels, cuts and 

otherwise prepares them for future use 

as kitchen cabinet doors, attaches a 

hardwood veneer using a NAF resin, 

and then sells them to a kitchen cabinet 

manufacturer would not be considered 

a laminated product manufacturer and 

would not qualify for the proposed 

exemption from the definition of 

hardwood plywood. The door producer 

would then have to comply with the 

third-party certification and testing 

requirements applicable to hardwood 

plywood manufacturers. In contrast, 

still under a scenario where the 

applicability limitation is retained, if 

the entity also produced the kitchen 

cabinets, considered a finished good 

under the statute, then the entity would 

be a laminated product manufacturer 

and would be exempt from the proposed 

testing and certification requirements. 

EPA has no reason to believe that the 

formaldehyde emissions from the 

cabinet doors would differ depending 

on who makes the door. It may be that 

entities that produce the entire finished 

good in-house are smaller than entities 

that only produce part of the good, such 

as cabinet doors, and thus it would be 

significantly more burdensome for them 

to have to comply with the certification 

and testing provisions of this proposal. 

However, EPA has no evidence that this 

is the case. In addition, if the emissions 

from the products are the same, EPA 

does not currently perceive a reason that 

justifies additional testing, regardless of 

the size of the entity making the 

product. Considering these factors, 

EPA’s proposed definition of laminated 

product does not include a provision 

limiting applicability to the 

manufacturer or fabricator of the 

finished good in which the product is 

incorporated. EPA specifically requests 

comments, information, and data on this 

aspect of the proposed definition of 

laminated product. 

In addition, to provide additional 

clarity for the regulated community and 

the public on the applicability of this 

regulation, EPA is proposing to define 

‘‘component part,’’ a term used in the 

definition of ‘‘laminated product,’’ as a 

part that contains one or more 

composite wood products and is used in 

the assembly of finished goods. EPA is 

also proposing to define ‘‘fabricator’’ as 

an entity that incorporates composite 

wood products into component parts or 

into finished goods. 

TSCA Title VI also directs EPA to 

determine whether the definition of 

hardwood plywood should exempt 

engineered veneer. EPA interprets the 

phrase ‘‘assembly of layers or plies of 

veneer’’ in the definition of hardwood 

plywood to include engineered veneer. 

EPA understands engineered veneer to 

be a veneer that is created by dyeing and 

gluing together veneer leaves in a mold 

to produce a block. The block is then 

sliced into leaves of veneer with a 

designed appearance that is highly 

repeatable. EPA also understands that 

engineered veneer is often made using 

urea-formaldehyde resin, and EPA 

expects that engineered veneer made 

with urea-formaldehyde resin will have 

formaldehyde emission rates that are 

similar to other composite wood 

products made with urea-formaldehyde 

resin. EPA has not identified any 

information justifying an exemption for 

engineered veneer, so this proposal does 

not include such an exemption. 

2. Particleboard and medium-density 

fiberboard. The statute defines the term 

‘‘particleboard’’ as a panel composed of 

cellulosic material in the form of 

discrete particles (as distinguished from 

fibers, flakes, or strands) that are 

pressed together with resin, as 

determined under the voluntary 

consensus standard ANSI A208.1–2009 

(Ref. 18). The statute further excludes 

products specified in the ‘‘Voluntary 

Product Standard—Performance 

Standard for Wood-Based StructuralUse Panels’’ (Ref. 14). EPA is proposing 

to incorporate the statutory definition of 

particleboard into the implementing 

regulations without change. 

The statute defines the term 

‘‘medium-density fiberboard’’ as a panel 

composed of cellulosic fibers made by 

dry forming and pressing a resinated 

fiber mat, as determined under the 

voluntary consensus standard ANSI 

A208.2–2009 (Ref. 19). EPA is proposing 

to incorporate the statutory definition of 

medium-density fiberboard without 

change. This proposed rule also 

includes a separate definition for a 

related term, ‘‘thin medium-density 

fiberboard.’’ The statute provides for a 

slightly-higher formaldehyde emission 

standard for thin medium-density 

fiberboard, 0.13 ppm, than it does for 

regular medium-density fiberboard, 0.11 

ppm. CARB defines ‘‘thin mediumdensity fiberboard’’ as medium density 

fiberboard that has a maximum 

thickness of 8 millimeters (mm). The 

voluntary consensus standard for 

medium-density fiberboard, ANSI 

A208.2–2009 (Medium Density 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34828 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Fiberboard (MDF) For Interior 

Applications), defines ‘‘thin mediumdensity fiberboard’’ as medium-density 

fiberboard with a thickness less than or 

equal to 8 mm or 0.315 inches (Ref. 19). 

EPA is proposing to use the same 

definition as the voluntary consensus 

standard because it is consistent with 

CARB and EPA believes that it reflects 

the common industry understanding of 

the term. 

3. Statutory exemptions. TSCA 

section 601(c) exempts a number of 

products from the formaldehyde 

emission standards for composite wood 

products. These exemptions include, 

but are not limited to, hardboard, 

structural plywood, structural panels, 

oriented strandboard, glued laminated 

lumber, prefabricated wood I-joists, 

finger-jointed lumber, wood packaging, 

composite wood products used inside 

new vehicles other than recreational 

vehicles, windows that contain less than 

5% by volume of composite wood 

products, exterior doors and garage 

doors that contain less than 3% by 

volume of composite wood products, 

and exterior and garage doors that are 

made with NAF-based or ULEF-based 

resins. EPA proposes to incorporate 

these exemptions into the implementing 

regulations without modification. 

The statute exempts any finished 

good that has previously been sold or 

supplied to an individual or entity that 

purchased or acquired the finished good 

in good faith for purposes other than 

resale. The statute provides two 

examples: Antiques and secondhand 

furniture. EPA’s interpretation of this 

exemption is such that once a finished 

good, such as a piece of furniture, is 

sold to an end-user, the piece of 

furniture is no longer subject to TSCA 

Title VI. Thus, dealers in secondhand 

furniture would not have any 

obligations under this proposed rule. 

With respect to exterior and garage 

doors made with NAF-based or ULEFbased resins, these resin types are 

defined elsewhere in the statute, with 

reference to both the composition of the 

resin and the formaldehyde emissions of 

composite wood products made with 

the resin. EPA interprets these statutory 

provisions to mean that, in order to be 

eligible for this exemption, exterior and 

garage doors must comply with the 

emission standards contained in the 

statutory definitions of NAF-based 

resins and ULEF-based resins, as 

measured by the testing described in the 

statutory definitions. However, EPA is 

not proposing to require that 

manufacturers, fabricators, distributors, 

or retailers of these doors comply with 

the third-party certification, 

recordkeeping, or labeling provisions of 

the TSCA Title VI implementing 

regulations. EPA requests comments on 

whether any additional clarifications are 

needed, or whether manufacturers, 

fabricators, distributors, or retailers of 

such doors should be required to 

comply with any of the provisions of the 

TSCA Title VI implementing 

regulations. For example, should 

manufacturers of these doors be 

required to maintain records to 

demonstrate that they are purchasing or 

manufacturing NAF-based or ULEFbased resins or composite wood 

products made with NAF-based or 

ULEF-based resins and that the required 

testing has been conducted? 

While many of the exemptions are 

defined within the text of the exemption 

itself, by reference to an applicable 

voluntary consensus standard or other 

parameter, hardboard is not so defined. 

Rather, TSCA Title VI provides that ‘‘the 

term ‘hardboard’ has such meaning as 

the Administrator shall establish, by 

regulation pursuant to subsection (d).’’ 

Under the CARB ATCM, hardboard is 

defined as ‘‘a composite panel 

composed of cellulosic fibers, made by 

dry or wet forming and hot pressing of 

a fiber mat with or without resins, that 

complies with one of the following 

ANSI standards: ‘Basic Hardboard’ 

(ANSI A135.4–2004), ‘Prefinished 

Hardboard Paneling’ (ANSI A135.5– 

2004), or ‘Hardboard Siding’ (ANSI 

A135.6- 2006)’’ (Refs. 20, 21 and 22). 

The CARB ATCM further excludes 

hardboard from the definition of 

composite wood product. Accordingly, 

hardboard is not subject to the emission 

standards in the CARB ATCM. 

EPA understands that the definition 

of hardboard has been recently 

reevaluated by industry in the context of 

a pending revision to the voluntary 

consensus standard for basic hardboard, 

ANSI A135.4 (Ref. 20). EPA was 

informed that final approval of revisions 

to ANSI A135.4, along with revisions to 

the prefinished hardboard paneling 

standard, ANSI A135.5 and the 

hardboard siding standard, ANSI 

A135.6, would be anticipated by the end 

of 2011 (Refs. 20, 21 and 22). 

The Composite Panel Association, 

sponsor of the ANSI standard, also 

informed EPA in its comments to the 

SBAR Panel that the Association 

intended to vote on a proposed revision 

to ANSI A135.4 that included the 

following definition: 

Hardboard is a panel manufactured 

primarily from inter-felted lignocellulosic 

fibers consolidated under heat and pressure 

in a hot press to a density of 500 kg/m 3 (31 

lbs/ft 3) or greater by: 

(A) a wet process, or 

(B) a dry process that uses: 

(a) a phenolic resin, or 

(b) a resin system in which there is no 

added formaldehyde as part of the resin 

cross-linking structure. 

Other materials may be added to improve 

certain properties, such as stiffness, 

hardness, finishing properties, resistance to 

abrasion and moisture, as well as to increase 

strength, durability, and utility. (Ref. 15) 

EPA is concerned that, because 

hardboard and thin medium-density 

fiberboard share similar appearances 

and end uses, a broad definition of 

hardboard could lead to thin mediumdensity fiberboard being erroneously 

categorized as hardboard and exempted 

from the emission standards. This is 

contrary to the clear intent of TSCA 

Title VI which specifically includes an 

emissions standard for thin mediumdensity fiberboard. EPA believes that 

the definition quoted above would 

address this concern. Accordingly, EPA 

is proposing to base its definition of 

hardboard on this definition. EPA’s 

proposal defines hardboard as a panel 

composed of cellulosic fibers made by 

dry or wet forming and hot pressing of 

a fiber mat, either without resins, or 

with a phenolic resin (e.g., a phenolformaldehyde resin) or a resin system in 

which there is no added formaldehyde 

as part of the resin cross-linking 

structure, as determined under one of 

the following ANSI standards: ANSI 

A135.4 (Basic Hardboard), ANSI A135.5 

(Prefinished Hardboard Paneling), or 

ANSI A135.6 (Hardboard Siding). EPA 

believes this is consistent with TSCA 

601(d) which requires EPA to 

promulgate regulations in a manner that 

ensures compliance with the statutory 

emission standards. 

Revisions to the three ANSI 

hardboard standards have been made 

and the revised versions are now 

available (Refs. 23, 24 and 25). EPA 

requests comment on the proposed 

hardboard definition and whether any 

changes should be made to the 

definition in light of the recent ANSI 

standard revisions. 

In general, EPA believes that 

composite wood products made with 

phenol-formaldehyde resins have lower 

formaldehyde emission rates than do 

products made with urea-formaldehyde 

resins. In fact, phenol-formaldehyde 

resin is mentioned in TSCA Title VI as 

a resin that may qualify for ULEF resin 

status. EPA has some data on 

formaldehyde emissions from hardboard 

made with phenol-formaldehyde resins 

(Refs. 26 and 27). The data appear to 

support the idea that products made 

with phenol formaldehyde resins have 

lower formaldehyde emission rates. EPA 

requests comment, information, and 

data on hardboard made with phenolmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34829 

formaldehyde resins and whether such 

products should be included within the 

definition of the term hardboard, 

thereby exempting such products from 

the statutory emission standards. 

4. Other definitions. EPA is also 

proposing to define a number of other 

terms used in the proposed regulations 

to ensure that the meaning and 

applicability of the regulatory 

requirements are clear. These terms 

include ‘‘distributor,’’ ‘‘importer,’’ 

‘‘purchaser,’’ and ‘‘retailer.’’ EPA is 

proposing to define ‘‘distributor’’ as an 

entity that supplies composite wood 

products, component parts, or finished 

goods to others. The term ‘‘importer’’ 

would be defined, consistent with the 

definition of the term ‘‘manufacturer’’ in 

TSCA section 3 and the definition of 

‘‘importer’’ in 40 CFR 710.3, as an entity 

that imports composite wood products, 

component parts that contain composite 

wood products, or finished goods that 

contain composite wood products into 

the customs territory of the United 

States (as defined in general note 2 of 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the 

United States). The term includes the 

entity primarily liable for the payment 

of any duties on the products, or an 

authorized agent acting on the entity’s 

behalf. The term ‘‘purchaser’’ would be 

defined as an entity that acquires 

composite wood products in exchange 

for money or its equivalent. Finally, 

‘‘retailer’’ would be defined as an entity 

that generally sells smaller quantities of 

composite wood products directly to 

consumers. EPA requests comment on 

the utility of these definitions, whether 

these definitions comport with typical 

industry usage, and whether any other 

general terms should be defined in 

EPA’s regulation. 

B. Formaldehyde Emission Standards 

TSCA Title VI establishes 

formaldehyde emission standards for 

composite wood products (hardwood 

plywood, particleboard, and mediumdensity fiberboard) so that beginning 

July 1, 2012, or 180 days after the final 

implementing regulations are 

promulgated, whichever is later, the 

standards mirror the CARB ATCM 

Phase 2 emission levels. The statute also 

provides for emission standards that 

would apply after the effective date of 

the implementing regulations but before 

July 2011, or before July 2012. However, 

the July 2012 date has already passed, 

so these interim standards will not take 

effect. 

When the later TSCA Title VI 

emission standards take effect 180 days 

after implementing regulations are 

promulgated, the emission limit for 

hardwood plywood will be 0.05 parts 

per million (ppm) formaldehyde. For 

medium-density fiberboard, the limit 

will be 0.11 ppm. For thin mediumdensity fiberboard, the limit will be 0.13 

ppm. For particleboard, the limit will be 

0.09 ppm. The statute does not give EPA 

authority to modify these emission 

standards. 

Because each of the two statutory 

emission standards for hardwood 

plywood is 0.05 ppm for any final rule 

taking effect after July 1, 2012, the 

proposed regulation merely states that 

the emission standard for hardwood 

plywood is 0.05 ppm. With this 

language, EPA intends that any product 

that meets the definition of hardwood 

plywood is subject to the hardwood 

plywood emission limit, regardless of 

the makeup of its core. EPA notes that 

the statutory definition of hardwood 

plywood includes a number of different 

types of cores that may not appear to 

expressly fit under the statutory 

emission standards for veneer core and 

composite core. Yet, EPA does not 

believe that Congress intended to 

exempt hardwood plywood made with 

a lumber core, for example, from the 

emission standards of TSCA Title VI in 

part because the statute says that ‘‘the 

emission standards . . . shall apply to 

hardwood plywood.’’ Therefore, EPA 

proposes an emission standard for 

hardwood plywood of 0.05 ppm, given 

that the two statutory emission 

standards for hardwood plywood are 

ultimately identical. EPA requests 

comment on whether and how this 

revision would affect entities making 

laminated products with lumber cores 

or any other special core material. 

C. Product Certification in General 

Under this proposal, composite wood 

products sold, supplied, offered for sale, 

or manufactured (including imported) 

within the United States would have to 

be certified, unless they are specifically 

exempted by TSCA Title VI or excluded 

by the proposed rule. In general, this 

means that the formaldehyde emission 

levels from the composite wood 

products would have been 

demonstrated to be below the emission 

standards in TSCA Title VI. This 

demonstration would be through a 

combination of testing performed by an 

accredited third-party certifier (TPC), 

and repeated on a quarterly basis, and 

more frequent quality control testing 

performed by the maker of the 

composite wood product, an accredited 

TPC, or a contract laboratory. Specific 

proposed requirements for this testing 

are discussed in Unit III.D. 

EPA is proposing to require makers of 

composite wood product panels to 

apply to an accredited TPC for product 

certification, and to design and establish 

a quality control program, including 

testing, that is both approved by the 

accredited TPC and specific to the panel 

producer. For each product type to be 

certified, the panel producer would 

have to have at least one quarterly test 

result and 3 months of quality control 

testing data that demonstrate that the 

formaldehyde emission rates of the 

product are below the emission 

standards established by TSCA Title VI 

and discussed in greater detail in Unit 

III.C. Uncertified product produced after 

the manufactured-by date, discussed in 

Unit III.I., would not be permitted to be 

sold, supplied, or offered for sale in the 

United States. Under this proposal, 

products currently certified by approved 

TPCs under the CARB ATCM would be 

considered certified for purposes of 

TSCA Title VI. However, in the TPC 

proposal, EPA proposed to allow CARBapproved TPCs 1 year to become 

accredited under TSCA Title VI. If that 

provision is finalized as proposed, a 

panel producer whose TPC does not 

become accredited under TSCA Title VI 

in a timely manner would have to apply 

to an accredited TPC to be able to 

continue to make certified product after 

the manufactured-by date. EPA requests 

comment on this approach for CARBcertified products and whether a 

different approach or additional 

requirements should be imposed for 

these products. 

D. Formaldehyde Emission Testing 

Requirements 

TSCA Title VI requires that composite 

wood products be measured for 

compliance with the statutory emission 

standards by quarterly tests pursuant to 

test methods ASTM E–1333–96 or 

ASTM D–6007–02 (Refs. 28 and 29). 

TSCA Title VI also requires that quality 

control tests be conducted pursuant to 

ASTM D–6007–02, ASTM D–5582, or 

such other test methods as may be 

established by EPA through rulemaking 

(Refs. 29 and 30). Under the statute, test 

results conducted using any test method 

other than ASTM E–1333–96 (2002) 

must include a showing of equivalence 

by means that EPA must establish 

through rulemaking. Under TSCA Title 

VI, EPA must also establish, through 

rulemaking, the number and frequency 

of tests required to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission 

standards. This unit of the preamble 

discusses EPA’s proposed rulemaking 

on each of these statutory elements. 

1. CARB ATCM formaldehyde testing 

requirements. The CARB ATCM 

requires that compliance with the 

emission standards for hardwood 

plywood, medium-density fiberboard, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34830 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

and particleboard be demonstrated by 

conducting emission tests, verified by 

TPCs using ASTM E–1333–96 (2002) 

(large chamber test method), referred to 

as the primary test method, or ASTM D– 

6007–02 (small chamber test method), 

referred to as the secondary test method. 

If ASTM D–6007–02 is used, 

equivalence between ASTM D–6007–02 

and ASTM E–1333–96 (2002) must be 

established at least once each year by 

the TPC. The CARB ATCM specifies 

minimum requirements for 

demonstrating equivalence in section 

93120.9(a)(2)(B) of the ATCM; 

demonstration of equivalence for the 

purposes of this proposal is discussed in 

Unit III.D.3. of this document. The 

CARB ATCM allows alternate secondary 

test methods to be used if they are 

demonstrated to provide equivalent 

results to those obtained using ASTM 

E–1333–96 (2002) (following the 

requirements in section 

93120.9(a)(2)(B)) and are approved in 

writing by the CARB Executive Officer, 

following submission of an application 

for approval. The CARB ATCM also 

requires quality control testing using a 

test method that is correlated to the 

primary, secondary, or alternate 

secondary test method. The CARB 

ATCM also provides that all panels 

must be tested in an unfinished 

condition, prior to the application of a 

finishing or topcoat. 

The CARB ATCM requires that an 

initial qualifying primary or secondary 

method test be conducted on each 

product type, from each production line 

of each facility; however, it also allows 

a manufacturer to group two or more 

product types together if they have 

‘‘similar emission characteristics.’’ The 

emissions from each product type from 

each production line cannot exceed the 

applicable standard. If an initial 

qualification test exceeds the emission 

standard, certification lapses on all of 

the products represented by that 

product group. 

Under the CARB ATCM, after the 

initial qualifying test, primary or 

secondary method tests must be 

conducted at least quarterly. For 

particleboard and medium-density 

fiberboard, these quarterly tests must be 

conducted on randomly selected 

samples of each product type (unless 

approved NAF or ULEF resins are used). 

Again, products can be grouped for 

testing, but if a quarterly test exceeds 

the emission standard, certification 

lapses on all of the products represented 

by that grouping. For hardwood 

plywood, a primary or secondary 

method test is required at least quarterly 

(unless approved NAF or ULEF resins 

are used) on randomly selected samples 

of the hardwood plywood product 

determined by the TPC to have the 

highest potential to emit formaldehyde. 

The CARB ATCM also requires ‘‘small 

scale’’ quality control tests that must be 

conducted at the composite wood 

product manufacturing facility, a 

contract laboratory, or a laboratory 

operated by an approved TPC. These 

tests must be conducted on all lots of 

each product type being certified unless 

prior notice is given, and tests must be 

reported to the TPC. The CARB ATCM 

lists the following as approved smallscale test methods: ASTM D 5582–00 

(desiccator), ASTM D–6007–02 (small 

chamber), and alternative tests that can 

be shown to correlate to the primary or 

secondary method tests and are 

approved by the CARB Executive 

Officer. CARB has approved the 

following for use as alternative smallscale test methods: EN 717–2 (gas 

analysis), DMC (dynamic micro 

chamber), EN 120 (perforator method), 

and JIS A 1460 (24-hr desiccator). CARB 

does not expressly permit the grouping 

of product types for quality control 

testing. However, CARB does provide 

TPCs and manufacturers with some 

flexibility in interpreting the term 

‘‘product type’’ to allow similar 

products, particularly those made with 

the same resin system, to be considered 

to belong to the same product type for 

quality control testing purposes (Ref. 2). 

a. Basic testing frequency 

requirements for particleboard and 

medium-density fiberboard under the 

CARB ATCM. The CARB ATCM 

requires manufacturers of particleboard 

and medium-density fiberboard (that do 

not qualify for NAF or ULEF TPC 

exemption or reduced testing) to 

conduct routine small-scale quality 

control tests at least once per shift (8 or 

12 hours, plus or minus 1 hour of 

production) for each production line for 

each product type. Quality assurance 

and quality control requirements for the 

purposes of this proposal are discussed 

in Unit III.E. Quality control tests must 

also be conducted whenever a product 

type production ends, even if 8 hours of 

production has not been reached, or 

whenever one of the following occurs: 

(1) The resin formulation is changed so 

that the formaldehyde to urea ratio is 

increased; (2) an increase by more than 

10% in the amount of formaldehyde 

resin used, by square foot or by panel; 

(3) a decrease in the designated press 

time by more than 20%; or (4) the 

Quality Control Manager or Quality 

Control Employee has reason to believe 

that the panel being produced may not 

meet the requirements of the applicable 

standards. The CARB ATCM allows for 

reduced testing for particleboard and 

medium-density fiberboard when the 

facility demonstrates consistent 

operations and low variability of test 

values to the satisfaction of the TPC 

based on criteria established by the TPC. 

Testing frequency still must occur at 

least once per 48-hour production 

period. 

b. Basic testing frequency 

requirements for hardwood plywood 

under the CARB ATCM. The CARB 

ATCM requires manufacturers of 

hardwood plywood (that do not qualify 

for NAF or ULEF TPC exemption or 

reduced testing) to conduct routine 

small-scale quality control tests on each 

product type and product line based on 

production at the facility with the 

following testing frequency: At least one 

test per week per product type and 

product line if the weekly hardwood 

plywood production is less than 

200,000 square feet; at least two tests 

per week per product type and product 

line if the weekly hardwood plywood 

production is between 200,000 and 

400,000 square feet; and at least four 

times per week per product type and 

product line if the weekly hardwood 

plywood production is greater than 

400,000 square feet. The CARB ATCM 

also requires that quality control 

samples must be analyzed within a 

period of time specified in the 

manufacturer’s quality control manual 

to avoid distribution of non-complying 

lots. 

2. Proposed general testing 

requirements. As an initial matter, EPA 

is proposing to define several terms that 

would be used in the testing 

requirements. EPA is proposing to use 

the term ‘‘panel producer’’ to refer to 

those facilities that actually make 

composite wood products or laminated 

products, excluding importers that do 

not also make the products. Because 

TSCA section 3 defines the term 

‘‘manufacture’’ to include import, EPA 

believes that using another term would 

clarify the regulation by referring to 

facilities that actually make the 

products regulated under TSCA Title VI 

for the purposes of the testing, 

certification, and recordkeeping 

requirements. Under this proposal, 

some laminated products would not be 

hardwood plywood, and the act of 

making those products would, therefore, 

not be subject to the testing and 

certification requirements. However, 

EPA believes that there are some 

laminated products that cannot be made 

in such a way as to render them exempt 

from the testing and certification 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

define ‘‘panel producer’’ as a 

manufacturing plant or other facility 

that manufactures (excluding facilities 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34831 

that solely import products) composite 

wood products on the premises. EPA is 

also proposing to incorporate within 

this definition a statement that this 

includes laminated products not 

excluded from the definition of 

hardwood plywood. EPA requests 

comment on whether the term ‘‘panel 

producer’’ should apply separately to 

each specific facility owned or operated 

by an entity that produces composite 

wood products for the purposes of the 

testing, certification and recordkeeping 

requirements, or whether the term 

‘‘panel producer’’ should apply to the 

entire business entity that produces the 

composite wood products. For example, 

should panel producers be required to 

have a quality control manual for each 

separate facility? 

EPA is proposing to incorporate the 

CARB definition of the term ‘‘product 

type’’ with some modifications. The 

term ‘‘manufacturer’’ in the CARB 

definition would be replaced by the 

term ‘‘panel producer.’’ Under this 

proposal, ‘‘product type’’ means a type 

of composite wood product that differs 

from another made by the same panel 

producer, based on wood type, 

composition, thickness, number of plies 

(if hardwood plywood), or resin used. In 

order to make it clear that TPCs and 

manufacturers have the flexibility to 

treat similar products similarly, the 

proposed definition includes a 

statement that products with similar 

emissions made with the same resin 

systems may be considered to be the 

same product type. 

EPA is also proposing to define ‘‘lot’’ 

to mean a particular lot or batch of a 

product type made during a single 

production run. EPA believes that this 

is common industry usage of the term. 

Likewise, EPA is proposing to define 

‘‘production line’’ as a set of operations 

and physical industrial or mechanical 

equipment used to produce a composite 

wood product. EPA requests comment 

on the utility of these definitions, and 

whether other terms should also be 

defined, such as ‘‘production run.’’ 

In addition, entities conducting 

formaldehyde testing would be required 

to use the procedures, such as testing 

conditions and loading ratios, specified 

in the method being used. As required 

by CARB, EPA is also proposing to 

require that all equipment used in 

formaldehyde testing be calibrated in 

accordance with the equipment 

manufacturer’s instructions. EPA 

believes that this requirement is 

important for ensuring that the 

equipment is working properly and that 

accurate results are obtained. 

a. Quarterly testing requirements. EPA 

is proposing to require that accredited 

TPCs conduct the quarterly tests 

required by TSCA Title VI. The statute 

requires these tests to be performed 

using ASTM E–1333–96 (2002) or, upon 

a showing of equivalence as discussed 

in this unit, ASTM D–6007–02 (Refs. 28 

and 29). In the TPC proposal, using the 

authority provided by TSCA section 

601(d)(5), EPA proposed to incorporate 

ASTM E–1333–10, the most recent 

version of this method, into the testing 

requirements, rather than the 2002 

version (Refs. 1 and 31). EPA will 

review the comments received on the 

TPC proposal and determine whether to 

incorporate ASTM E–1333–10 into the 

testing requirements in place of ASTM 

E–1333–96 (2002) before issuing the 

final rule. 

EPA is proposing to require that the 

TPC laboratories test randomly chosen 

samples from a single lot that is ready 

for shipment by the panel producer. 

Neither the top nor bottom composite 

wood product of a bundle would be 

selected because the emissions from 

these products may not be 

representative of the bundle. For 

particleboard and medium-density 

fiberboard, the proposed rule would 

require quarterly tests to be conducted 

on randomly selected samples of each 

product type (unless they qualify for 

reduced testing based on ULEF or NAF 

resin). For hardwood plywood, the 

proposed rule would require quarterly 

tests to be conducted on randomly 

selected samples of the hardwood 

plywood product determined by the 

TPC to have the highest potential to 

emit formaldehyde (unless they qualify 

for reduced testing based on ULEF or 

NAF resins). 

As under the CARB ATCM, this 

proposal would allow product types to 

be grouped for quarterly testing. EPA is 

proposing to allow accredited TPCs to 

approve the grouping of products with 

similar characteristics, particularly 

those characteristics that are most likely 

to affect emissions, such as the type of 

wood or the resin system(s) used to 

make the composite wood product. For 

hardwood plywood, other factors that 

are likely to influence formaldehyde 

emissions are core type, press time, 

veneer type (i.e., species), and whether 

or not the core is certified. EPA requests 

comment on the appropriate criteria for 

grouping product types for quality 

control testing, given the statutory 

directive to promulgate implementing 

regulations in a manner that ensures 

compliance with the emission 

standards. For example, one possibility 

could be to allow panel producers and 

accredited TPCs to identify the products 

that are likely to have the highest 

emissions and to test those products. 

Samples selected for quarterly testing 

would have to be dead-stacked (i.e., 

closely stacked) or air tight wrapped 

between the time of sample selection 

and the start of test conditioning (as 

specified in ASTM E–1333–10 or, as 

appropriate, ASTM D–6007–02). 

Samples would have to be labeled as 

such, signed by the TPC, bundled air 

tight, wrapped in polyethylene, 

protected by cover sheets, and promptly 

shipped to the laboratory testing facility. 

EPA is proposing to require 

conditioning to begin as soon as 

possible, but no more than 30 days after 

production. This requirement, also 

included in the CARB ATCM, is 

designed to prevent panel producers 

from holding composite wood products 

to allow them to off-gas. TPCs must 

notify panel producers in writing within 

24 hours of a failed quarterly test result. 

Lots represented by a failed quarterly 

test result, would have to be handled as 

non-complying lots in accordance with 

the proposed requirements discussed in 

Unit III.D.4. If lots were grouped for 

quarterly testing, all lots in the group 

represented by a failed quarterly test 

result would have to be treated as noncomplying lots. EPA requests comment 

on all aspects of these sampling 

requirements, including whether the 30- 

day requirement is appropriate. 

b. Quality control test methods. EPA 

is proposing that in addition to ASTM 

D–6007–02 and ASTM D–5582, the 

following methods would also be 

allowed for quality control testing (with 

a showing of equivalence as described 

in this Unit): EN 717–2 (gas analysis 

method) (Ref. 32), DMC (Dynamic Micro 

Chamber) (Ref. 33), EN 120 (Perforator 

Method) (Ref. 34), and JIS A 1460 (24- 

hr Desiccator Method) (Ref. 35). EPA 

believes that these are appropriate 

methods for quality control testing 

based on CARB’s evaluation and 

approval of these methods as alternative 

small-scale test methods, and test 

results using these methods have been 

demonstrated to have adequate 

correlations with test results using 

ASTM E–1333–10. EPA proposes to 

establish these additional methods 

pursuant to section 601(b)(3)(A)(ii) for 

quality control testing; as a general 

matter, EPA does not endorse any 

particular method over others. Other 

methods may also be appropriate for 

quality control testing, such as EN 717– 

1 (chamber method), EN 717–3 (flask 

method), ISO/DIS 12460–1(1-cubicmeter chamber method), ISO/DIS 

12460–2 (small-scale chamber method), 

ISO/DIS 12460–3 (gas analysis method), 

or ISO/DIS 12460–4 (desiccator 

method). EPA requests comment on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34832 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

whether these methods should also be 

allowed for quality control testing. 

c. Proposed quality control testing 

frequency for particleboard and 

medium-density fiberboard that do not 

qualify for reduced testing based on 

ULEF or NAF resins. EPA is proposing 

to require the same quality control 

testing frequency for particleboard and 

medium-density fiberboard as is 

required under the CARB ATCM. This 

proposal would require quality control 

tests at least once per shift (8 or 12 

hours, plus or minus one hour of 

production) for each production line for 

each product type. Quality control tests 

would also be conducted whenever a 

product type production ends, even if 8 

hours of production has not been 

reached, or whenever (1) there is a 

significant change to the resin 

formulation, e.g., an increase in the 

formaldehyde-to-urea ratio; (2) there is 

an increase by more than 10% in the 

amount of formaldehyde resin used; (3) 

there is a decrease in the designated 

press time by more than 20%; or (4) the 

quality control manager or quality 

control employee has reason to believe 

that the panel being produced may not 

meet the requirements of the applicable 

standards. 

Also consistent with the CARB 

ATCM, EPA is not proposing to allow 

the grouping of products for quality 

control testing purposes. However, EPA 

is proposing to allow accredited TPCs 

and panel producers some flexibility in 

determining which products constitute 

a product type. CARB’s guidance to its 

TPCs on defining product type include 

mention of those characteristics most 

likely to affect product emissions, such 

as type of wood or the resin system(s) 

used to make the composite wood 

product. Again, for hardwood plywood, 

these factors include core type, press 

time, veneer type (i.e., species), and 

whether or not the core is certified. 

EPA is proposing to allow reduced 

quality control testing requirements 

similar to CARB’s for particleboard and 

medium-density fiberboard when the 

panel producer demonstrates consistent 

operations and low variability of test 

values. Under the EPA proposal, the 

panel producer would be required to 

request approval for reduced quality 

control testing from an accredited TPC. 

If approved, quality control testing 

would still have to occur at least once 

per 48-hour production period. Unlike 

CARB, EPA is proposing to establish 

criteria for demonstrating consistency 

and low variability. Under EPA’s 

proposed requirements, which are based 

on a Composite Panel Association 

voluntary program, a 30 panel running 

average would be maintained (Ref. 36). 

If the 30 panel running average remains 

two standard deviations below the 

designated Quality Control Limit (QCL) 

for the previous 60 consecutive days or 

more, testing frequency could be 

reduced to one test per 24-hour 

production period. When the 30 panel 

running average remains three standard 

deviations below the QCL for the 

previous 60 days or more, testing 

frequency could be reduced to once 

every 48-hour production period. The 

QCL would be the quality control test 

value that is the correlative equivalent 

to the emission standard based on the 

ASTM E–1333–10 method. The QCL is 

established by using a simple linear 

regression where the dependent 

variables (Y-axis) are the quality control 

test results and the independent 

variables (X-axis) are the ASTM E– 

1333–10 test results. More information 

on the establishment of the QCL can be 

found in the TPC proposal (Ref. 1). An 

accredited TPC would be required to 

approve a request for reduced quality 

control testing as long as the data 

submitted by the panel producer 

demonstrate compliance with the 

criteria and the TPC does not otherwise 

have reason to believe that the data are 

inaccurate or that the panel producer’s 

production processes are inadequate to 

ensure continued compliance with the 

emission standards. EPA will provide a 

list of panel producers and products 

types that are allowed reduced testing 

under this provision on the EPA Web 

site. EPA requests comment on whether 

there should be a finite time period for 

reduced testing, after which a new 

application and demonstration would 

be required, or whether reduced testing 

should continue to be allowed as long 

as the quality control test data 

demonstrate continued eligibility for 

reduced testing. 

As in the CARB ATCM, EPA is 

proposing that all panels would be 

tested in an unfinished condition, prior 

to the application of a finishing or 

topcoat. EPA believes that the proposed 

testing frequency is sufficient to ensure 

compliance with the emission 

standards, but is not overly 

burdensome. EPA believes that most 

U.S. producers of particleboard and 

medium-density fiberboard have been 

complying with the testing requirements 

under the CARB ATCM and thus, the 

rule, if finalized as proposed, would not 

impose an additional burden on these 

producers. 

d. Proposed quality control testing 

frequency for hardwood plywood that 

does not qualify for reduced testing 

based on ULEF or NAF resins. EPA is 

generally proposing to require the same 

frequency of testing for hardwood 

plywood that CARB requires. EPA 

believes that this testing frequency is 

adequate to ensure compliance with the 

TSCA Title VI emission standards and 

consistency with CARB makes it easier 

for panel producers already complying 

with CARB to comply with these 

proposed requirements. Similarly, if a 

quality control test exceeds the 

applicable emission standards for that 

product, all lots of products represented 

by that test result would be considered 

to be non-complying lots and would 

have to be treated and retested in 

accordance with the procedures 

discussed in Unit III.D.4. 

EPA’s proposed quality control testing 

frequency requirements for hardwood 

plywood are generally similar to CARB 

and are likewise based on production 

volume. Under this proposal, hardwood 

plywood panel producers would be 

required to conduct routine quality 

control tests on each production line of 

each product type based on total 

hardwood plywood production by the 

panel producer with the following 

testing frequency: At least one test per 

week per production line of each 

product type if the weekly hardwood 

plywood production is between 100,000 

and 200,000 square feet; at least two 

tests per week per production line of 

each product type if the weekly 

hardwood plywood production is 

between 200,000 and 400,000 square 

feet; and at least four times per week per 

production line of each product type if 

the weekly hardwood plywood 

production is greater than 400,000 

square feet. EPA believes that, for some 

small specialty panel producers, even 

one quality control test per week would 

be excessive. Very small custom 

manufacturers may make significantly 

less than 100,000 square feet of product 

per week per product type. In order to 

address the inequity of requiring small 

manufacturers to conduct many more 

tests than required of large 

manufacturers for the same production 

volume, if weekly production of 

hardwood plywood at the panel 

producer is less than 100,000 square 

feet, EPA is proposing to require one 

quality control test per 100,000 square 

feet of each lot produced of each 

product type produced. If the panel 

producer never produces 100,000 square 

feet of a particular product type at one 

time, EPA is proposing to require just 

one quality control test of that product 

type per production run or lot 

produced. 

EPA believes that the proposed testing 

frequency for hardwood plywood is 

sufficient to ensure compliance with the 

emission standards but is not overly 

burdensome. EPA believes that most 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34833 

U.S. hardwood plywood panel 

producers as well as many foreign 

producers have been complying with 

the CARB ATCM testing requirements 

and thus, the rule, if finalized as 

proposed, would not impose an 

additional burden on these producers. 

For laminated product producers that 

do not have to test under the CARB 

ATCM requirements, this proposed 

testing would be a new requirement; 

however, because the requirements are 

based on production volume, EPA 

believes that they would not be overly 

burdensome. EPA requests comment on 

whether these proposed requirements 

are sufficient to ensure compliance with 

the standards. 

Under the CARB ATCM, only 

particleboard and medium-density 

fiberboard producers are required to 

conduct quality control testing when 

product type production ends, changes 

are made to the resin formulation or the 

amount of resin used, or there is a 

significant decrease in press time. There 

is no similar provision applicable to 

hardwood plywood. EPA’s proposal is 

consistent with the CARB ATCM, but 

EPA requests comment on whether 

quality control testing should be 

required for hardwood plywood 

production in these situations, or in any 

other situations, such as when the 

quality control manager or quality 

control employee has reason to believe 

that the panels in production may not 

meet the emission standard. EPA is also 

requesting comment on whether the 

proposed reduced quality control testing 

for consistent particleboard and 

medium-density fiberboard 

manufacturing operations should also 

be applicable to hardwood plywood. 

3. Means of showing test method 

equivalence. EPA is proposing that 

equivalence between ASTM E–1333–10 

and any other test method used would 

be demonstrated by the TPC for each 

laboratory used by the TPC or panel 

producer that is using the alternative 

method at least once each year or 

whenever there is a significant change 

in equipment, procedures, or the 

qualifications of testing personnel. 

The CARB ATCM includes a specific 

method for demonstrating equivalence 

between ASTM E–1333–96 (2002) and 

ASTM D–6007–02. The CARB ATCM 

method requires at least 10 comparison 

sample sets, which compare the results 

of the 2 methods, for an equivalence 

demonstration. The 10 comparison 

sample sets consist of testing a 

minimum of 5 sample sets in at least 2 

out of 3 specified ranges of 

formaldehyde concentrations. For the 

ASTM E–1333–96 (2002) method, each 

comparison sample consists of the result 

of simultaneously testing an appropriate 

number of panels (factoring in the 

loading rate) from the same batch of 

panels tested by the ASTM D–6007–02 

method. For the ASTM D–6007 method, 

each comparison sample consists of 

testing 9 specimens representing evenly 

distributed portions of an entire panel. 

The nine specimens are tested in groups 

of 3 specimens (factoring in loading 

rate), resulting in 3 test results, which 

are averaged to represent one data point 

for the panel, and matched to their 

respective ASTM E–1333–96 (2002) 

comparison sample result. CARB 

requires that equivalence be established 

between the ASTM E–1333–96 (2002) 

and ASTM D–6007–02 methods to 

represent the range in emissions based 

on the emission standards for the 

composite wood products being tested. 

EPA is proposing the same general 

methodology as is required under the 

CARB ATCM. However, because the 

CARB phase 2 emission standards will 

be in effect by the time EPA issues a 

final rule, EPA believes that it will be 

very difficult, if not impossible, to find 

products with emissions in the 

intermediate and upper ranges specified 

by the CARB equivalency demonstration 

requirements. EPA’s proposed 

procedure, therefore, does not include 

the requirement of testing different 

formaldehyde concentration ranges. 

Instead, EPA is proposing that 

equivalence be demonstrated in a range 

of formaldehyde concentrations that is 

representative of the emissions of the 

products that the TPC certifies. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to require 

a minimum of 5 comparison sample sets 

rather than 10. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to allow for more flexibility 

in sampling and not require testing of 9 

specimens representing evenly 

distributed portions of an entire panel. 

EPA believes that for some types of 

panels, within panel variability is such 

that fewer specimens can be tested, but 

for other panels testing of at least 9 

specimens would be needed. EPA 

believes that TPCs and panel producers 

are best able to determine the sampling 

and testing needed to account for within 

panel variability for a specific product 

type and is therefore proposing to allow 

for flexibility in the distribution and 

number of specimens to require for the 

small chamber test comparison sample 

set. 

EPA is proposing the following 

method for demonstrating equivalence 

between ASTM E–1333–10 and ASTM 

D–6007–02: An equivalence 

demonstration would include at least 

five comparison sample sets (i.e., five 

large chamber sample sets and five 

small chamber sample sets), which 

compare the results of the two methods. 

For the ASTM E–1333–10 method, each 

comparison sample would consist of the 

result of simultaneously testing an 

appropriate number of panels, using the 

applicable loading ratios from the 

method, from the same batch of panels 

tested by the ASTM D–6007–02 method. 

For the ASTM D6007 method, each 

comparison sample would consist of 

testing specimens representing portions 

of panels tested in the ASTM E–1333– 

10 and matched to their respective 

ASTM E–1333–10 method comparison 

sample result. The arithmetic mean, x ̄

and standard deviation, S, of the 

difference of all comparison sets would 

be calculated as follows: 

Where x ̄ = arithmetic mean; 

S = standard deviation; 

n = number of sets; 

Di = difference between the ASTM E–1333– 

10 and the ASTM D–6007–02 method 

values for the ith set; and 

i ranges from 1 to n. 

EPA is proposing that ASTM D–6007– 

02 method would be considered 

equivalent to the ASTM E–1333–10 

method if the following condition were 

met: 

Where C is equal to 0.026 (Ref. 37). 

EPA believes that the proposed means 

for showing equivalence between ASTM 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP10JN13.001</GPH> EP10JN13.002</GPH>
34834 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

E–1333–10 and ASTM D–6007–02 is a 

reasonable method of showing 

equivalence. EPA independently 

analyzed this proposed method for 

demonstrating equivalence by 

evaluating CARB’s Supplemental 

Analysis Supporting the Test for 

Demonstrating Equivalence between 

Primary and Secondary Methods for 

Measuring Formaldehyde Emissions 

from Composite Wood Products (Ref. 

37) and by comparing CARB’s method 

with the two-one sided t-test (TOST). 

EPA is proposing to use the CARB 

method because it appears to be 

satisfactory for the desired purpose, it is 

simpler than the TOST method, it is not 

overly burdensome, and industry is 

already using it. EPA requests comment 

on whether the proposed means of 

showing equivalence is appropriate. 

EPA specifically requests comment on 

whether 5 comparison sample sets are 

sufficient or whether 10 should be 

required. In addition, EPA requests 

comment on whether testing products in 

two different ranges of formaldehyde 

concentrations should be required, as is 

required under the CARB ATCM, and 

what ranges would be appropriate (e.g., 

lower range less than 0.05 ppm and 

upper range 0.05 ppm–0.13 ppm as 

measured by ASTM E–1333–10). EPA 

also requests comment on whether 

sampling should be left to the TPCs and 

manufacturers, or whether EPA should 

require testing of nine specimens 

(representing evenly distributed 

portions of an entire panel) tested in 

groups of three specimens, resulting in 

three test results, which would be 

averaged to represent one comparison 

sample for the ASTM D–6007–02 

method, or whether some other 

sampling protocol should be required. 

EPA also requests comment on whether 

the proposed criteria for demonstrating 

equivalence are appropriate, or whether 

other criteria would be more 

appropriate, such as establishing 

equivalence criteria based on the TOST 

method. 

EPA is proposing to require that 

equivalence between ASTM E–1333–10 

and any formaldehyde quality control 

test method used other than ASTM D– 

6007–02 would be demonstrated by 

establishing a linear regression and an 

acceptable correlation, as defined by the 

correlation coefficient, or ‘‘r’’ value. 

Although correlation will not show that 

the test methods give equivalent results, 

it will demonstrate whether a quality 

control test method can be used to 

adequately estimate the corresponding 

ASTM E–1333–10 test result; therefore, 

if there is an acceptable correlation, the 

quality control test method can be used 

to estimate whether the product meets 

the emission standards. The correlation 

would be based on a minimum sample 

size of five data pairs and a simple 

linear regression where the dependent 

variable (Y-axis) is the quality control 

test value and the independent variable 

(X-axis) is the ASTM E–1333–10 test 

value. EPA is proposing the following 

minimum acceptable correlation 

coefficients (‘‘r’’ values) for the 

correlation: 

MINIMUM CORRELATION FOR

EQUIVALENCY CORRELATIONS

Degrees of Freedom (n-2) ‘‘r’’ Value 

3 ................................................ 0.878 

4 ................................................ 0.811 

5 ................................................ 0.754 

6 ................................................ 0.707 

7 ................................................ 0.666 

8 ................................................ 0.632 

9 ................................................ 0.602 

10 or more ................................ 0.576 

The number of data pairs is 

represented by the letter ‘‘n.’’ For 

example, correlations based on five data 

pairs have 3-degrees of freedom, and the 

correlation coefficient would need to be 

0.878 or greater. These values are the 

same as those recommended by CARB 

in its Certification Guideline No. CWP– 

10–001 (Ref. 38). EPA requests 

comment, information, and data on 

these values and whether they 

adequately account for the uncertainties 

(e.g., sample preparation, emission 

testing) and thus, are appropriate for 

this purpose. 

Because of the low emissions required 

for regulated composite wood products, 

it may be necessary to include more 

than five data pairs and/or a range of 

products (with a suitable range in 

emissions, e.g., 0–0.1 ppm) in the 

testing to achieve acceptable correlation 

coefficients. In addition to the 

requirement of establishing a new 

correlation annually or whenever there 

is a significant change in equipment, 

procedures, or the qualifications of 

testing personnel, EPA is proposing that 

a new correlation would need to be 

established by the TPC for the panel 

producer whenever a TPC’s quarterly 

test results compared with the panel 

producer’s quality control test results do 

not fit the previously established 

correlation. In addition, if a panel 

producer fails two quarterly tests in a 

row, a new correlation curve would 

have to be established. 

EPA requests comment on the 

proposed correlation method for 

demonstrating equivalence and whether 

the proposed acceptable correlation 

coefficients are reasonable. EPA also 

requests comment on whether the term 

‘‘equivalency’’ needs to be defined more 

clearly and whether additional 

statistical parameters are needed to 

make a determination of ‘‘equivalency’’ 

for the quality control methods. 

4. Non-complying lots. EPA is 

proposing to require producers of noncomplying lots of composite wood 

products to treat such lots in a manner 

similar to the CARB ATCM 

requirements. A non-complying lot 

would be any lot or batch represented 

by a quarterly or quality control test 

value that exceeds the applicable 

emission standard for the particular 

composite wood product. In the case of 

a quarterly test value, only the 

particular lot from which the sample 

was taken would be considered a noncomplying lot; lots produced after the 

previous quarterly test but before the lot 

from which the sample was taken would 

still be considered certified product. 

However, future production of product 

type(s) represented by a failed quarterly 

test would not be considered certified 

and would have to be treated as a noncomplying lot until the product type(s) 

are re-qualified through a successful 

quarterly test. 

TPCs would be required to notify EPA 

and the panel producer of any quarterly 

tests that exceed the applicable standard 

within 24 hours of obtaining the test 

result. Panel producers would be 

required to segregate the non-complying 

lot from other product. Products in noncomplying lots could only be sold, 

supplied, or offered for sale in the 

United States if a test value that meets 

the applicable standard is obtained after 

the products are treated with 

scavengers, to absorb excess 

formaldehyde, or treated through 

another process that reduces 

formaldehyde emissions, e.g. aging. EPA 

is proposing to define the term 

‘‘scavenger’’ as a chemical or chemicals 

that can be applied to resins or 

composite wood products to reduce the 

amount of formaldehyde that can be 

emitted from composite wood products. 

EPA requests comment on whether this 

definition is appropriate. EPA also 

requests comment on processes other 

than aging that could be used to reduce 

formaldehyde emissions from noncomplying lots. Under this proposal, 

panel producers would be required to 

keep records of the disposition of noncomplying lots, including the specific 

treatment used and the subsequent test 

results demonstrating compliance. 

Non-complying lots, by definition, do 

not meet the applicable emission 

standards and may not be sold, 

supplied, or offered for sale in the 

United States. In order to ensure that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34835 

this does not occur, EPA is proposing to 

require that panel producers retain lots 

of composite wood products from which 

quality control or quarterly samples 

have been selected until the samples 

have been tested and the results 

received. With respect to quarterly 

samples, this includes lots that are 

grouped for purposes of quarterly 

testing. EPA believes that this approach 

may be less burdensome overall and 

offer better protection to importers, 

distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and 

consumers than an approach relying on 

after-the-fact enforcement actions and 

customer notifications. 

E. Quality Assurance and Quality 

Control Requirements for Composite 

Wood Product Panel Producers 

Composite wood product panel 

producers are responsible for ensuring 

that their products meet the emission 

standards of TSCA Title VI. Quality 

assurance and quality control 

requirements for panel producers are 

necessary to ensure that all of their 

products comply with the applicable 

standards, including those that are not 

actually tested. EPA believes that the 

proposed quality assurance and quality 

control requirements would help ensure 

proper handling of test samples, test 

equipment, and quality control testing. 

EPA is generally proposing quality 

assurance requirements that are 

identical to the requirements under the 

CARB ATCM. As discussed in more 

detail in Unit III.F., these quality 

assurance and quality control 

requirements do not apply to any 

product type made with a NAF-based 

resin or ULEF resin for which the panel 

producer is eligible for an exemption 

from the third party certification 

requirements, except for the purpose of 

applying for re-approval for the 

exemption. 

Under this proposal, each panel 

producer would be required to have a 

written quality control manual 

containing at a minimum: (1) 

Organizational structure of the quality 

control department; (2) sampling 

procedures; (3) method of handling 

samples, including a specific maximum 

time period for analyzing quality control 

samples; (4) frequency of quality control 

testing; (5) procedures to identify 

changes in formaldehyde emissions 

resulting from production changes (e.g., 

increase in the percentage of resin, 

increase in formaldehyde/urea molar 

ratio in the resin, or decrease in press 

time); (6) provisions for additional 

testing; (7) recordkeeping requirements; 

(8) average percentage of resin and press 

time for each product type; (9) product 

grouping, if applicable, and (10) 

procedures for reduced quality control 

testing, if applicable. The TPC would 

review and approve the manual to 

ensure that the manual is complete and 

that the panel producer’s procedures are 

adequate to ensure that the TSCA Title 

VI emission standards are being met on 

an ongoing basis. The proposed 

requirement for a quality control 

manual is consistent with CARB and 

with international voluntary consensus 

standards, such as the International 

Standards Organization (ISO) 9000 

series of standards. EPA requests 

comment on what should be included in 

the quality control manual. 

This proposal would also require each 

panel producer to designate a quality 

control facility for conducting quality 

control formaldehyde testing of their 

product. The quality control facility 

must be a laboratory owned and 

operated by the panel producer, a TPC, 

or a contract laboratory. 

EPA is also proposing to require each 

panel producer to designate a person as 

quality control manager with adequate 

experience and/or training to be 

responsible for formaldehyde emission 

quality control. EPA is requesting 

comment on criteria for determining 

whether an individual’s experience and/ 

or training are appropriate for this 

position. For example, should the 

quality control manager have a certain 

number of years of experience in the 

wood products industry, or a degree in 

chemistry or a related field? 

The quality control manager would 

have to have the authority to take 

actions necessary to ensure that 

applicable emission standards are being 

met. The quality control manager would 

also be identified in writing to the TPC. 

Under this proposal, the panel producer 

would have to notify the TPC in writing 

within 10 days of any change in the 

identity of the quality control manager 

and provide the TPC with the new 

quality control manager’s qualifications. 

The quality control manager would 

review and approve all reports of 

quality control testing conducted on the 

production of the panel producer. The 

quality control manager would also be 

responsible for ensuring that the 

samples are collected, packaged, and 

shipped according to the procedures 

specified in the quality control manual. 

The panel producer quality control 

manager would monitor the testing 

facility’s results, and would 

immediately inform the TPC in writing 

of any significant changes in production 

that could affect formaldehyde emission 

rates. 

EPA is proposing to require panel 

producers to submit monthly product 

data reports for each panel producer, 

production line and product type, to 

their TPC. The content requirements for 

the product data reports would be 

similar to the CARB requirements and 

include a data sheet for each specific 

product with test and production 

information, and a quality control graph 

containing the established quality 

control limit (QCL) and shipping QCL, 

if applicable, the results of quality 

control tests, and retest values. EPA 

requests comment on whether other 

useful information, or a different format, 

should be required. 

EPA is also proposing to require that 

each quality control facility have quality 

control employees with adequate 

experience and/or training to conduct 

accurate and precise chemical 

quantitative analytical tests. EPA 

requests comment on the criteria for 

determining whether an individual’s 

experience and/or training are 

appropriate for this position. The 

quality control manager would identify 

each person conducting formaldehyde 

quality control testing in the quality 

control manual and to the accredited 

TPC. 

F. NAF and ULEF Resins 

TSCA Title VI section 601(d)(2)(D) 

and (E) directs EPA to include, in its 

implementing regulations, provisions 

related to products made with NAF and 

ULEF resins. The statute also defines, 

under section 601(a)(7) and (10) 

respectively, what constitutes NAFbased and ULEF-based resins, in terms 

of the composition of the resin system 

and maximum formaldehyde emissions 

for composite wood products made with 

these resin systems. In general, a NAF 

composite wood product cannot 

incorporate a resin formulated with 

formaldehyde. A ULEF composite wood 

product is one made from resins that 

may contain formaldehyde, but emit it 

at particularly low levels, such as 

melamine-urea-formaldehyde resin, 

phenol formaldehyde resin, resorcinol 

formaldehyde, or other formaldehydebased resins. The statutory maximum 

emissions for products made with NAFbased or ULEF-based resins are identical 

to those in the CARB ATCM. 

Under the CARB ATCM, ULEF and 

NAF manufactures are provided with 

incentives such as reduced testing 

requirements for ULEF, and for NAF, a 

2-year exemption from TPC oversight 

and formaldehyde emissions testing for 

one individual product type. If further 

reduced emission standards are met, 

ULEF manufacturers can also be 

exempted from TPC oversight and 

formaldehyde emissions testing. ULEF 

and NAF manufacturers must apply to 

CARB to get the initial exemption for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34836 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

either the reduced testing of their 

individual products (for ULEF) or for a 

total exemption from TPC oversight and 

formaldehyde emissions testing (ULEF 

or NAF). A separate exemption is 

required for each composite wood 

product type. The NAF exemption 

under the CARB ATCM from TPC 

oversight and formaldehyde emissions 

testing requires an initial 3-month 

formaldehyde emissions testing period 

with a TPC. For manufacturers to 

receive a ULEF exemption from TPC 

oversight and formaldehyde emissions 

testing, 6 months of formaldehyde 

emissions testing with a TPC is 

required. In addition, formaldehyde 

emissions must be reduced to below the 

standard ULEF emissions level. Exempt 

NAF and ULEF manufacturers must 

reapply to CARB for exemption from 

TPC oversight and formaldehyde 

emissions testing every 2 years by 

submitting test results for each product 

type for which an exemption is sought, 

based on a panel or set of panels 

randomly selected and tested by a TPC, 

and the chemical formulation of the 

resin. 

EPA is proposing a similar approach 

for the TSCA Title VI program. If certain 

emission thresholds are met, EPA 

proposes to provide producers of panels 

made with NAF-based resins or ULEF 

resins with an exemption from TPC 

oversight and formaldehyde emissions 

testing after an initial testing period of 

3 months for each product type made 

with NAF-based resins or 6 months for 

each product type made with ULEF 

resins. These specific initial testing 

periods are required by the statute and 

are designed to ensure that the products 

meet the TSCA section 601(a) 

formaldehyde emission standards for 

products made with NAF-based or 

ULEF resins. 

Whether using a NAF-based or ULEF 

resin, to qualify for the exemption from 

TPC oversight and formaldehyde 

emission testing for a particular product 

type, there can be no test result higher 

than 0.05 ppm of formaldehyde for 

hardwood plywood and 0.06 ppm for 

particleboard, medium-density 

fiberboard, and thin medium-density 

fiberboard during the initial testing 

period of 3 or 6 months for NAF-based 

or ULEF resins, respectively. In 

addition, test results for 90% of the 

required 3 or 6 months of quality 

control testing must be no higher than 

0.04 ppm of formaldehyde. 

EPA is also proposing that, if less 

stringent emission standards than these 

are met, producers of panels made with 

ULEF resins may still qualify for 

reduced formaldehyde emission 

testing—but not the TPC exemption or 

the exemption from emission testing 

after the initial 6 months. To qualify for 

this reduced testing provision for 

products made with ULEF resins, there 

can be no test result higher than 0.05 

ppm of formaldehyde for hardwood 

plywood, 0.08 ppm for particleboard, 

0.09 ppm for medium-density 

fiberboard, and 0.11 ppm for thin 

medium-density fiberboard during the 

initial 6 month testing period. In 

addition, test results for 90% of the 

required quality control testing must be 

no higher than 0.05 ppm of 

formaldehyde for particleboard, 0.06 

ppm for medium-density fiberboard, 

and 0.08 ppm for thin medium-density 

fiberboard. Under this reduced testing 

provision, qualifying panels would only 

need to be quality control tested at least 

once per week per product type and 

production line, except that hardwood 

plywood panel producers who qualify 

for less frequent quality control testing 

may continue to perform the lesser 

amount of testing. For these panels, 

what would otherwise be quarterly 

testing by an accredited TPC would 

instead only be required every 6 

months. 

An accredited TPC would be required 

to oversee the testing during the initial 

testing period, which must include at 

least one test result for the NAF 

exemption or two test results for either 

ULEF provision under ASTM E–1333– 

10 or, upon a showing of equivalence as 

discussed in this Unit, ASTM D–6007– 

02 (Refs. 31 and 29). In contrast to the 

CARB ATCM, EPA is not proposing to 

require the panel producer to formally 

apply to EPA for reduced testing or a 

TPC exemption. Rather, the panel 

producer would be required to apply to 

an accredited TPC for reduced testing or 

a TPC exemption based on the 

regulatory requirements and to send a 

copy of the application to EPA. EPA 

intends to list panel producers and 

product types that have been approved 

for reduced testing and exemption from 

TPC requirements on EPA’s Web site. 

To maintain eligibility for a TPC 

exemption, at least once every 2 years 

after the conclusion of the initial testing 

period, the panel producer would have 

to reapply for exemption to an 

accredited TPC and have one test result 

under ASTM E–1333–10 or, upon a 

showing of equivalence as discussed in 

this unit, ASTM D–6007–02, which 

demonstrates continued compliance 

with the reduced formaldehyde 

emission standards for each product 

type (Refs. 31 and 29). The test must be 

based on products randomly selected 

and tested by an accredited TPC. In the 

case of approval for ULEF reduced 

testing, no periodic reapplication would 

be necessary because the panel producer 

would have ongoing TPC oversight. 

Testing records and other records 

demonstrating eligibility for a TPC 

exemption or reduced testing, such as 

records showing the chemical 

composition of the resins used to 

manufacture the eligible products, 

would have to be maintained for a 

minimum of 3 years from the date that 

the record was created. EPA requests 

comment on whether the test records 

from the initial testing period should be 

kept for as long as a panel producer 

claims a TPC exemption. 

Under this proposal, any change in 

the resin formulation, the core material, 

or any other part of the manufacturing 

process that may affect formaldehyde 

emission rates would render the product 

ineligible for the reduced testing 

approval or TPC exemption. EPA 

requests comment on whether other 

events, such as failed quarterly or 

routine quality control tests, should 

invalidate a reduced testing approval. 

EPA also requests comment on whether, 

in the event of such a change, the panel 

producer should be required to begin 

the TPC exemption process again with 

a 3 or 6 month testing period overseen 

by an accredited TPC, or whether a 

single TPC test of the modified product 

would be sufficient. EPA further 

requests comment on whether a 

distinction can be made between 

changes that are unlikely to result in 

changes in product emissions, which 

may not need extensive testing to 

confirm continued eligibility for the 

exemption, and more significant 

changes. EPA is particularly interested 

in specific examples of both types of 

changes. 

Although this proposal contains a 

ULEF reduced testing provision, EPA 

requests comment on the utility of this 

option. It is EPA’s understanding that 

very few manufacturers have sought the 

ULEF reduced testing provision under 

the CARB ATCM in lieu of the total 

exemption from TPC oversight and 

formaldehyde emissions testing 

requirements after the initial testing 

period. As such, EPA anticipates that 

the vast majority of ULEF resin-based 

composite wood product manufacturers 

will apply for the full exemption from 

TPC oversight and formaldehyde 

emissions testing after the initial testing 

period. 

EPA is also requesting comments, 

information, and data on the broader 

question of giving composite wood 

products made with ULEF resins 

preferential treatment under TSCA. EPA 

is particularly concerned with products 

made with urea-formaldehyde-based 

resins. EPA believes that it is more 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34837 

difficult to ensure that formaldehyde 

emissions from products made with 

these resins remain low over time, 

regardless of environmental conditions. 

It is well known that urea-formaldehyde 

resins can release formaldehyde when 

exposed to heat and humidity because 

of the chemistry of the resin. There are 

a number of older studies demonstrating 

that urea-formaldehyde resins have 

increased emissions in the presence of 

heat and humidity. For example, a 1985 

review article analyzes data on the 

effects of temperature or humidity on 

formaldehyde emissions from ureaformaldehyde bonded particleboard and 

hardwood plywood from numerous 

studies from 1960–1984 (Ref. 39). This 

article concludes that formaldehyde 

emissions increased exponentially with 

increasing temperature. The 

relationship between humidity and 

formaldehyde emissions was more 

complex and variable, but the author 

concludes that the relationship was 

approximately linear. 

Since the 1980s, changes have been 

made to resins to lower formaldehyde 

emissions; for example, the ratio of 

formaldehyde to urea is often lower, and 

sometimes scavengers are added to the 

resin. Several recent emission studies 

have been conducted on composite 

wood products that have been produced 

to meet stringent emission standards. A 

study on a hardwood plywood product 

made with urea-formaldehyde resin and 

a similar hardwood plywood product 

made with a NAF resin demonstrated 

that the urea-formaldehyde product 

emitted more formaldehyde as the 

temperature and relative humidity 

increased. The study reports that both 

products met the CARB Phase 2 

standard when initially tested in a small 

chamber under the test conditions 

specified by the method, i.e., 25 °C and 

50% relative humidity (Ref. 40). 

However, when the urea-formaldehyde 

product was tested at 35 °C and 100% 

relative humidity, its formaldehyde 

emissions increased by more than 31 

times compared with the emissions 

measured at 25 °C and 30% relative 

humidity. In contrast, the formaldehyde 

emissions from the NAF product only 

increased slightly (less than 4 times) 

over the same change in temperature 

and humidity conditions. In addition, 

for the NAF product, total formaldehyde 

emissions reached a plateau and 

decreased rapidly after a few days under 

all of the test conditions. 

Riedlinger et al measured 

formaldehyde emissions from four types 

of particleboard (PB) panels (made with 

UF, phenol-formaldehyde (PF), 

melamine-urea-formaldehyde (MUF), 

and polymeric diphenylmethane 

diisocyanate (pMDI) resins), one of 

which (the PF product) was certified as 

a ULEF panel under the CARB ATCM 

(Ref. 41). Testing was conducted at both 

the standard temperature/relative 

humidity conditions and at 30 °C and 

75% relative humidity using ASTM D– 

6007 and the Dynamic Microchamber 

Method (Refs. 29 and 33) for up to 50 

days. Aspects of the testing confound 

comparisons of the data; for example, 

testing at the standard and elevated 

temperature/relative humidity 

conditions was conducted in two 

different laboratories, using different 

sampling procedures and analytical 

methods, with sampling at different 

time points. Nonetheless, the study 

appears to show that formaldehyde 

emissions from panels made with all 

four resin types increased by factors of 

2 to 3 under the elevated temperature/ 

relative humidity conditions. Emissions 

from panels made with two non-UF 

resin types (i.e., PF and pMDI) never 

exceeded the numerical emission limit 

of 0.09 ppm for PB, even at elevated 

conditions, whereas emissions from 

panels made with the UF resins (i.e., UF 

and MUF) exceeded that numerical 

emission limit at elevated temperature 

and relative humidity until about 20 or 

25 days after the start of the testing. 

EPA also recently conducted a study 

to investigate the effects of temperature 

and humidity on formaldehyde 

emissions from hardwood plywood 

made with different types of resins (Ref. 

42). A CARB approved third-party 

certifier tested commercial hardwood 

plywood products certified as NAF or 

ULEF under the CARB ATCM using 

ASTM D–6007–02 (small chamber 

testing) at two different temperatures 

(25 °C and 30 °C) and three different 

relative humidities (50%, 70%, and 

85%). The results demonstrate that 

while formaldehyde emissions 

increased from all panels with 

increasing temperature, the effect of 

temperature on emissions from ULEF 

panels made with urea-formaldehyde 

(ULEF–UF) was up to three times 

greater than on the NAF panels made 

with an acrylic resin or the ULEF panels 

made with phenol-formaldehyde. All 

formaldehyde emissions from the 

ULEF–UF panel exceeded the numerical 

emission limit for ULEF panels (0.05 

ppm) except under standard conditions, 

while, in almost all cases, despite the 

chamber conditions, formaldehyde 

emissions for the ULEF–PF and NAFacrylic panels were below the numerical 

emission standard. 

Given this information, EPA requests 

comment on whether there should be a 

reduced testing option or a TPC 

exemption available to products made 

with ULEF resins. EPA also requests 

comment on whether the ULEF 

provisions should be limited to 

products made with a subset of ULEF 

resins that do not contain ureaformaldehyde polymer—in other words, 

limited to no-added urea formaldehydebased (NAUF) resins. EPA believes that 

encouraging the use of NAUF resins is 

a more reliable way of ensuring that 

formaldehyde emissions from a 

particular product remain low over 

time, regardless of environmental 

conditions, such as heat and humidity. 

G. De Minimis Exception 

Section 601(d)(2)(L) of TSCA allows 

EPA to promulgate, for products and 

components containing de minimis 

amounts of composite wood products, 

an exception to all of the requirements 

of the implementing regulations other 

than the formaldehyde emission 

standards. After due consideration, EPA 

has decided not to propose an exception 

from any of the regulatory requirements 

for products containing de minimis 

amounts of composite wood products. 

EPA does not have data on the emission 

levels of such products, nor does EPA 

know of any information that suggests 

that such products would not have 

formaldehyde emissions that exceed the 

statutory emission standards. In 

addition, EPA has not identified any 

apparent dividing line between 

products that contain de minimis 

amounts of composite wood products 

and other products. EPA requests 

comment, information and data on 

whether there should be such an 

exception, how the exception should be 

delineated, and what regulatory 

provisions should apply or not apply to 

such products. EPA notes that any 

decision on this particular exception 

would not affect the statutory 

exemption from the emission standards 

for windows, exterior doors, and garage 

doors made with small amounts of 

composite wood products. 

H. Chain-of-Custody, Recordkeeping, 

and Labeling Requirements 

Section 601(d)(2) of TSCA Title VI 

also directs EPA to consider chain of 

custody, recordkeeping, and labeling 

requirements. For labeling, EPA is 

proposing requirements that generally 

follow the approach taken in the CARB 

ATCM because EPA believes that this 

approach supports compliance with the 

TSCA Title VI emission standards while 

not being unduly burdensome. With 

respect to chain of custody and 

recordkeeping requirements, EPA is 

proposing requirements similar to that 

of the CARB ATCM for entities that are 

manufacturers under TSCA. This 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34838 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

includes entities who import, produce, 

or manufacture composite wood panels, 

component parts, or finished goods. 

Again, EPA believes that this approach 

supports compliance with TSCA Title 

VI without undue burden. However, for 

distributors and retailers who are not 

manufacturers under TSCA, EPA is 

proposing that they only be required to 

keep invoices and bills of lading. EPA 

has determined that these ordinary 

business records would provide enough 

information to enable EPA to trace back 

a particular composite wood product to 

the panel producer and thus allow EPA 

to monitor compliance with TSCA Title 

VI. Each of these proposed requirements 

is discussed in more detail in this Unit. 

1. Chain of custody and 

recordkeeping requirements. Most 

records would have to be kept for a 

period of 3 years from the date that they 

are generated. In addition, all records 

that would be required by this proposal 

would also have to be provided to EPA 

upon request to facilitate EPA’s 

compliance monitoring activities. 

Producers of hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, and medium-density 

fiberboard panels would be required to 

maintain records of quarterly emission 

testing and records of quality control 

testing. These records would have to 

identify the accredited TPC conducting 

or overseeing the testing, and would 

include the date, the product type 

tested, the lot or batch number that the 

tested material represents, and the test 

results. In addition, panel producers 

would have to maintain the following 

records: 

• Production records, including a 

description of the composite wood 

product(s), date of manufacture, lot or 

batch numbers, and tracking 

information allowing each product to be 

traced to a specific lot number or batch 

produced. 

• Changes in production, including 

changes in resin use, resin composition, 

and changes in the process, e.g., press 

time. 

• Purchaser information for each 

composite wood product, if applicable, 

including name, contact person, 

address, telephone number, purchase 

order or invoice number, and amount 

purchased. 

• Transporter information for each 

composite wood product, if applicable, 

including name, contact person, 

address, telephone number, shipping 

invoice number, and amount 

transported. 

• Information on the disposition of 

non-complying lots or batches, 

including product type and amount of 

composite wood products affected, lot 

or batch numbers, mitigation measures 

used, results of retesting, and final 

disposition of the lots or batches. 

In addition, laminated product 

producers whose products are exempt 

from the definition of hardwood 

plywood would have to maintain 

records demonstrating use of a NAF 

resin, including the resin trade name, 

resin manufacturer contact information, 

and resin supplier contact information, 

or, if the resin is made in-house, records 

sufficient to demonstrate that the resin 

is a NAF resin. 

In order to assist customers such as 

fabricators, distributors, importers, and 

retailers in determining whether they 

are purchasing compliant composite 

wood products, EPA would require that 

all records pertaining to the compliance 

status of a particular lot, batch, or 

shipment of composite wood products 

be provided to purchasers upon request. 

EPA realizes that some of the 

information contained in these records 

is information that manufactures might 

claim as Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) in other contexts. 

While information collected under 

TSCA may be entitled to confidential 

treatment if it meets the standard for 

Exemption 4 in the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 

552(b)(4), TSCA provides that health 

and safety studies and data derived from 

health and safety studies, are not 

entitled to confidential treatment, 

irrespective of the Exemption 4 

standard, unless the data derived from 

such studies disclose confidential 

processes used in the manufacturing or 

processing of a chemical substance or 

mixture or, in the case of a mixture, the 

release of data disclosing confidential 

portion of mixture information. 

TSCA defines a ‘‘health and safety 

study’’ as any study of any effect of a 

chemical substance or mixture on health 

or the environment or on both, 

including underlying data and 

epidemiological studies, studies of 

occupational exposure to a chemical or 

mixture, toxicological, clinical, and 

ecological studies of a chemical or 

mixture, and any test performed 

pursuant to TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2602(6)). 

Because the testing required by TSCA 

Title VI and the implementing 

regulations would be ‘‘any test 

performed pursuant to the Act,’’ such 

tests would be health and safety studies. 

Therefore, under TSCA, the 

formaldehyde emission test results of 

specific products are not entitled to 

confidential treatment. The names of the 

producers of panels for which 

formaldehyde emission data are 

generated similarly are not entitled to 

confidential treatment, analogous to 

how EPA treats the confidentiality of 

chemical identities in health and safety 

studies. It is a long established principle 

that the chemical name is part of, or 

underlying data to, a health and safety 

study. (See 40 CFR 716.3; 40 CFR 

720.3(k)) The rationale for this is that 

the chemical name provides context for 

the study results, i.e., the test relates to 

a specific chemical. Without knowing 

the chemical name, there is no basis for 

understanding the results of the test. 

The same principle applies to 

producer names. The requirement to test 

formaldehyde emissions from specific 

composite wood products produced by 

specific panel producers, and an 

obligation to make those results 

available to downstream purchasers so 

that purchasers can determine whether 

they are purchasing compliant products, 

is integral to TSCA Title VI and these 

implementing regulations. In order to 

have context, the raw emission numbers 

must be linked to the products tested. 

For this reason, the product name and 

the producer of the product constitute 

part of, or are underlying data to, a 

health and safety study. Therefore under 

TSCA, the product and panel producer 

name are not entitled to confidential 

treatment. 

Producers of hardwood plywood, 

particleboard and medium-density 

fiberboard panels using NAF-based 

resins or ULEF resins who qualify for 

the reduced testing and third-party 

certification requirements discussed in 

Unit III.F. would have to maintain 

records demonstrating initial eligibility 

for the reduced testing. In addition, the 

panel producer would have to keep 

records documenting the following for 

each product type: 

• The amount of resin use by volume 

and weight. 

• Production volume, reported as 

square feet per product type. 

• Resin trade name, resin 

manufacturer contact information, and 

resin supplier contact information. 

• Changes in the production method, 

including changes in press time by more 

than 20%. 

• Changes in the resin formulation. 

Importers, fabricators of finished 

goods that incorporate composite wood 

products, laminated product producers 

whose products are exempt from the 

definition of hardwood plywood, 

distributors, and retailers would be 

required to take steps to ensure that they 

are purchasing composite wood 

products or component parts that 

comply with the emission standards. 

Importers, fabricators, and laminated 

product producers would be required to 

document these steps. In general, this 

means that the importer, fabricator, or 

producer would be required to obtain 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34839 

from the supplier records identifying 

the panel producer(s) that produced the 

composite wood products and the dates 

that the products were manufactured 

and purchased from the panel 

producer(s), and bills of lading or 

invoices that include a written 

affirmation from the supplier that the 

composite wood products are compliant 

with this subpart. EPA requests 

comment on what documentation ought 

to be required of distributors and 

retailers in this regard. For example, 

should distributors and retailers be 

required to obtain bills of lading or 

invoices from their suppliers that 

include a written affirmation that the 

composite wood products are compliant 

with this subpart? Or should 

distributors and retailers be required to 

obtain the same records that EPA is 

proposing to require for importers, 

fabricators, and laminators? In addition, 

laminated product producers whose 

products are exempt from the definition 

of hardwood plywood would have to 

maintain records demonstrating use of a 

NAF resin, including the resin trade 

name, resin manufacturer contact 

information, and resin supplier contact 

information, or, if the resin is made inhouse, records sufficient to demonstrate 

that the resin is a NAF resin. 

For distributors and retailers who do 

not import, produce, or manufacture 

composite wood panels, component 

parts, or finished goods, EPA is 

proposing to require that they maintain 

invoices and bills of lading. The 

invoices and bills of lading would not 

be required to contain an affirmation by 

the supplier that the goods comply with 

TSCA Title IV. EPA believes that 

invoices and bills of lading are usually 

kept by most distributors and retailers 

already, as part of their general 

recordkeeping practices. EPA has 

determined that these records will 

enable EPA to identify the producer or 

importer of composite wood panels, 

component parts, or finished goods 

being sold by distributors and retailers. 

For finished goods, this will allow EPA 

to ultimately identify the producer of 

the composite wood panels that make 

up the finished goods. Without 

imposing additional recordkeeping 

burdens on most distributors and 

retailers, this requirement will allow 

EPA to effectively monitor compliance 

with TSCA Title VI. 

Entities that fit within two or more of 

these recordkeeping categories, such as 

a fabricator of finished goods who also 

buys finished goods for resale, or a 

distributor that buys finished goods 

from both foreign and domestic 

companies for resale, would be required 

to keep only the records for each 

product that correspond to the activities 

the entity undertook with respect to that 

product. For example, a domestic 

fabricator of finished goods who also 

buys domestic finished goods and sells 

both categories of finished goods to a 

domestic distributor for resale would 

have to keep the records required for 

fabricators on those products that the 

fabricator produces, and invoices and 

bills of lading only for those finished 

goods that the fabricator buys and 

resells. A distributor who purchases 

both foreign and domestic finished 

goods for resale would be required to 

keep the following records: 

• For foreign finished goods that the 

distributor imports, records identifying 

the panel producer(s) that produced the 

composite wood products and the dates 

that the products were manufactured 

and purchased from the panel 

producer(s) as well as bills of lading or 

invoices that include a written 

affirmation from the supplier that the 

composite wood products are compliant 

with this subpart. 

• For domestic finished goods, only 

invoices and bills of lading, which need 

not contain a written compliance 

affirmation from the supplier. 

For imported finished goods, only the 

importer would be responsible for 

keeping the records identifying the 

panel producer and the date that the 

composite wood products were 

manufactured. For example, if the 

importer sells the goods to a domestic 

distributor, who then sells them to a 

domestic retailer, only the importer 

would have to keep the additional 

records. The domestic distributor and 

retailer would only be required to keep 

invoices and bills of lading. 

With respect to home builders or 

producers of goods such as modular 

homes, manufactured homes, or 

recreational vehicles that contain 

composite wood products, EPA will 

generally consider these entities to be 

either fabricators or retailers for 

recordkeeping purposes, depending on 

their activities with respect to 

composite wood products. For example, 

a home builder or manufactured home 

producer who purchases finished 

kitchen cabinets made of composite 

wood products from another entity, 

installs them in the home, and then sells 

the home to a consumer would be 

considered to be a retailer so long as no 

major modifications were made to the 

cabinets in the process of installing 

them. In contrast, a manufactured home 

producer would be considered a 

fabricator if the producer purchased 

finished composite wood panels, cut 

them into shelves or countertops, edgebanded them, and then installed them 

into a manufactured home and sold the 

home to a consumer. EPA believes that 

this approach is consistent with CARB’s 

approach (Ref. 43, Questions 87, 89, and 

91). These entities may also be 

importers if they import composite 

wood products, or components made 

with composite wood products, for 

installation into their homes or 

recreational vehicles. EPA requests 

comment on how the definition of 

‘‘fabricator’’ and the record keeping 

requirements for fabricators would 

affect manufactured home producers. 

In order for this recordkeeping system 

to function effectively, allowing EPA to 

determine the source of the composite 

wood products that make up an 

imported finished good, the records 

required to be kept by the importer 

would have to be accessible to EPA. 

EPA requests comment on alternative 

ways to ensure that this is the case. For 

example, EPA could require importer 

records to be maintained in the United 

States, either at the importer’s place of 

business or at a registered agent’s. Or 

EPA could require an electronic copy of 

the importer records to be available in 

the United States at the importer’s place 

of business or with the importer’s 

registered agent. 

2. Labeling. The CARB ATCM 

requires that each panel or bundle of 

regulated composite wood products be 

labeled with the manufacturer name; 

product lot number or batch produced; 

markings that denote the product 

complies with the applicable Phase 1 or 

Phase 2 emission standards; markings if 

the product was made using ULEF or 

NAF-based resins; the CARB assigned 

number of the TPC; and a statement of 

compliance on the bill of lading or 

invoice. 

EPA is proposing similar labeling 

requirements. Under this proposal, 

panels or bundles of panels that are 

sold, supplied, or offered for sale in the 

United States would have to be labeled 

with the name of the panel producer, 

the lot or batch number, the number of 

the accredited TPC, and markings 

indicating that the product complies 

with the TSCA Title VI emission 

standards. Labels for products produced 

under the NAF or ULEF exemptions 

discussed in Unit III.F. would also have 

to include the designation ‘‘no-added 

formaldehyde’’ or ‘‘ultra low-emitting 

formaldehyde.’’ There would also have 

to be a statement of compliance on the 

bill of lading or invoice. Distributors 

and wholesalers who receive labeled 

bundles of regulated composite wood 

products and then divide and repackage 

them, whether in bundles or separately, 

would be required to label each separate 

bundle or item with the same 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34840 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

information as required on the original 

label. EPA is proposing to define the 

term ‘‘bundle’’ as more than one 

composite wood product panel, 

component part, or finished good 

fastened together for transportation or 

sale. EPA requests comment on the 

utility of this definition and whether it 

represents common industry usage. 

EPA is interested in any information 

or data available on how often retailers 

receive bundles of regulated composite 

wood products and then divide and 

repackage them. In addition, EPA 

requests comment on whether these 

retailers should then be required to label 

each separate bundle or item with the 

same information as required on the 

original label. EPA would also be 

interested in comments on other 

approaches that could be used to convey 

the information; for example, allowing 

retailers to use signage in the retail 

display area, which contains the 

information on the label, to meet this 

requirement in lieu of separate labels on 

each product once debundled. 

Alternatively EPA requests comment on 

requiring fabricators and manufacturers 

to label every regulated product 

separately prior to bundling and also 

requiring wholesalers, distributors, and 

retailers to maintain those labels at all 

times. 

Fabricators of finished goods 

containing composite wood products 

would be required to label every 

finished good they produce, or every 

box containing finished goods. As 

permitted by under the CARB ATCM, 

EPA is proposing to allow the label to 

be applied as a stamp, tag, sticker, or bar 

code. It would have to include, at a 

minimum, the fabricator’s name, the 

date the finished good was produced 

and a marking to denote that the 

product was made in compliance with 

TSCA Title VI. EPA requests comment 

on whether a label applied as a bar code 

should be permitted, given that 

consumers of finished goods may not be 

able to read bar codes. EPA believes that 

many consumers of finished goods will 

be aware of the labeling requirements, 

either under the CARB ATCM or TSCA 

Title VI, and will be looking for a label 

that indicates compliance with the 

emission standards. 

EPA proposes to allow boards to be 

shipped into and around the United 

States for quality control or quarterly 

tests. These boards may not be sold, 

offered for sale or supplied to any entity 

other than a TPC laboratory or contract 

laboratory prior to successful emissions 

testing. These boards or bundles must 

be labeled ‘‘For TSCA Title VI testing 

only, not for sale in the United States.’’ 

The boards or bundles may be re-labeled 

as compliant with TSCA and offered for 

sale once they have successfully 

completed testing. 

I. Sell-through Provisions and 

Stockpiling 

TSCA Title VI directs EPA to establish 

sell-through provisions for composite 

wood products, and finished goods 

containing regulated composite wood 

products, based on a designated date of 

manufacture, or ‘‘manufactured-by’’ 

date. Under the statute, composite wood 

products or finished goods 

manufactured before the specified 

manufactured-by date are not subject to 

statutory emission standards or testing 

requirements. TSCA Title VI states that 

the manufactured-by date must be no 

earlier than 180 days after promulgation 

of the final implementing regulations, 

but EPA has the discretion to establish, 

by rulemaking, a later date. 

The manufactured-by date approach 

directed by TSCA Title VI differs from 

the CARB ACTM approach, which is 

based on a sell-through date. CARB 

established a series of dates by which 

products that are not compliant with all 

of the CARB requirements must be sold. 

In contrast, TSCA Title VI requires EPA 

to set a date by which all new products 

that are manufactured must be 

compliant with the emission standards. 

This approach should avoid some of the 

implementation issues encountered by 

CARB. For example, due to the 

economic recession, CARB found it 

necessary to extend the sell-through 

dates more than once to allow for the 

slow turnover of preexisting inventory 

(Refs. 44 and 45). 

TSCA Title VI also directs EPA to 

prohibit the sale of inventory that was 

stockpiled, which is defined in the 

statute as manufacturing or purchasing 

composite wood products between the 

date the statute was enacted and the 

manufactured-by date at a rate 

significantly greater than the rate during 

a particular base period. EPA is directed 

to define what constitutes ‘‘a rate 

significantly greater’’ and to establish 

the base period. Under the statute, the 

base period must end before July 7, 

2010, the date that the Formaldehyde 

Standards for Composite Wood Products 

Act was enacted. 

EPA believes that because many 

products are already CARB ATCMcompliant, and because of a low 

consumer demand for products not 

CARB ATCM-compliant, stockpiling is 

not likely to be advantageous for 

manufacturers. During the SBAR Panel 

process, at least one SER commented 

that consumers were asking for CARBcompliant products prior to the end of 

the CARB sell-through periods (Ref. 15). 

Moreover, EPA believes that the cost of 

storing stockpiled goods would reduce 

or eliminate any economic advantage to 

stockpiling. Another SER commented 

that ‘‘[g]iven the cost of carrying 

inventory there is a natural brake on 

accumulating non-complying 

inventories long before the effective date 

of the regulation.’’ (Ref. 15). 

EPA proposes to set the 

manufactured-by date at 1 year after 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. Although TSCA Title 

VI allows EPA to set this date at 180 

days after promulgation of the final 

implementing regulations, EPA believes 

that more time will be needed to get all 

of the infrastructure, such as the 

accredited TPCs, in place and allow 

panel producers time to develop their 

initial qualifying data for certification. 

The manufactured-by date would apply 

to both regulated composite wood 

panels and finished goods containing 

regulated composite wood panels. 

Composite wood products that can be 

shown to be manufactured before the 

established manufactured-by date 

would not be subject to the emissions 

standards, nor would they be required 

to be labeled or tested for emissions. 

Composite wood products 

manufactured before the manufacturedby date could be incorporated into 

finished goods at any time. Retailers, 

fabricators, and distributors would be 

permitted to continue to buy and sell 

these composite wood products and 

finished goods that incorporate these 

products, because they would be 

considered compliant with TSCA Title 

VI and its implementing regulations, 

assuming the absence of stockpiling as 

discussed below. Under TSCA, the term 

‘‘manufacture’’ includes import, so the 

‘‘manufactured-by’’ date would 

effectively be an ‘‘imported-by’’ date for 

imported goods. 

In order to establish that a regulated 

composite wood product panel was 

made before the manufactured-by date, 

the panel producer or importer and any 

subsequent distributor, retailer or 

fabricator would be required to keep 

records that document when the 

product was manufactured. In the case 

of a finished good, any subsequent 

distributor, retailer or fabricator would 

be required to keep records that 

document that the composite wood 

products making up the finished good 

were either manufactured before the 

manufactured-by date or were 

manufactured in accordance with TSCA 

Title VI. In order to reduce consumer 

confusion, products that are made 

before the manufactured-by date would 

not be labeled as compliant with TSCA 

Title VI. Selling stockpiled regulated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34841 

composite wood panels and finished 

goods containing regulated composite 

wood products would be prohibited. 

EPA proposes to define stockpiling as 

manufacturing or purchasing composite 

wood products between July 7, 2010, 

the date that the Formaldehyde 

Standards for Composite Wood Products 

Act was signed into law by the 

President, and the established 

manufactured-by date (1 year after the 

final regulations are promulgated), for 

the purpose of circumventing the TSCA 

Title VI emission standards, at an 

average annual rate 20% t greater than 

the amount manufactured or purchased 

during the 2009 calendar year. For 

producers of regulated composite wood 

panels, stockpiling would be measured 

by square footage of regulated composite 

wood panels produced. For importers 

and fabricators of finished goods 

containing regulated composite wood 

products, stockpiling would be 

measured by the square footage of 

regulated composite wood panels 

purchased to be incorporated into 

finished goods. In either case, entities 

that can demonstrate that they have a 

greater than 20% increase in purchasing 

or production of regulated composite 

wood panels for some reason other than 

circumventing the emissions standards 

would not be deemed to be stockpiling. 

Other reasons may include an 

immediate increase in customer demand 

or sales, or a planned business 

expansion. EPA requests comment on 

whether the stockpiling provisions 

should apply to entities that were not in 

existence at the beginning of calendar 

year 2009. 

EPA specifically requests comment on 

whether it is appropriate to set the 

proposed manufactured-by date at the 

date 1 year after the final implementing 

regulations are promulgated. EPA 

requests comment on alternate dates, 

and the rationale, including any 

available information and data, for 

selecting another date. EPA is also 

interested in how different 

manufactured-by dates would affect 

panel producers and fabricators of 

products that are not regulated under 

the CARB ATCM, but would be 

regulated under TSCA Title VI. EPA 

recognizes that increased production 

during the period after the statute was 

enacted may very well be due to the 

economic recovery and not to a desire 

on the part of panel producers, 

importers, and fabricators to circumvent 

the emission standards. EPA requests 

comment on the proposed stockpiling 

definition, including information and 

data for alternate baseline periods, rates, 

and measurements. EPA also requests 

comment on any data that might be 

available from which to derive an 

appropriate rate for determining 

potential stockpiling. 

J. Import Certification 

TSCA Title VI directs EPA, in 

coordination with U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) and other 

appropriate Federal departments and 

agencies, to revise regulations 

promulgated pursuant to TSCA section 

13 as necessary to ensure compliance. 

The TSCA section 13 regulations, 

promulgated by CBP, require importers 

to certify that shipments of chemical 

substances and mixtures are in 

compliance with TSCA or not subject to 

TSCA. EPA believes that most, if not all, 

products subject to TSCA Title VI 

would be considered articles. Articles, 

defined in 19 CFR 12.120(a), are 

generally formed to specific shapes or 

designs during manufacture and have 

end use functions related to their shape 

or design. Articles are generally exempt 

from the TSCA section 13 certification 

requirements, but the regulations at 19 

CFR 12.121(b) recognize that EPA has 

the authority to, by regulation or order, 

make the requirements applicable to 

articles. 

EPA is proposing to specifically 

require TSCA section 13 import 

certification for composite wood 

products that are articles. TSCA section 

13 import certification is a compliance 

monitoring tool and import certification 

for articles subject to TSCA Title VI 

would also serve as an important 

reminder of the TSCA Title VI 

requirements to the importer. The 

certification requirement would apply 

to imports of hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, and medium-density 

fiberboard panels, as well as finished 

goods containing such materials. 

Persons importing specifically 

exempted products, such as structural 

or curved plywood, and finished goods 

incorporating such products, would not 

be required to certify. 

EPA generally believes that the 

existing import certification regulations, 

along with the specific labeling and 

recordkeeping requirements for 

composite wood products discussed in 

Unit III.H., are sufficient to ensure 

compliance with TSCA Title VI. 

However, EPA has begun consultations 

with CBP on the TSCA section 13 

import regulations to determine whether 

revisions are warranted. 

K. Enforcement 

The failure to comply with any 

provision of TSCA Title VI, or the 

regulations implementing TSCA Title 

VI, is a prohibited act under TSCA 

section 15. Any person who commits a 

prohibited act under TSCA section 15 

can be held liable for civil and criminal 

penalties. 

L. Report to Congress 

Section 3 of the Formaldehyde 

Standards for Composite Wood Products 

Act requires EPA to report to Congress 

on an annual basis beginning in July 

2011, and continuing through 2014. 

These reports must describe the status 

of the measures carried out or planned 

to be carried out pursuant to TSCA Title 

VI and the extent to which relevant 

industries have achieved compliance 

with the requirements of TSCA Title VI. 

The statute directs EPA to promulgate 

final implementing regulations by 

January 1, 2013. EPA is proposing to 

make the manufactured-by date 1 year 

after the final rule is promulgated, 

which would mean composite wood 

products manufactured through 1 year 

after promulgation would not be subject 

to the emission standards. EPA requests 

comment on how data on industry 

compliance could or should be 

obtained, and whether a reporting 

requirement would best accomplish this 

goal. 

M. HUD’s Manufactured Housing 

Program 

Under the authority of the National 

Manufactured Housing Construction 

and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 

U.S.C. 5401 et seq., HUD regulates the 

construction of all manufactured 

(mobile) homes built in the United 

States. The HUD standards established 

pursuant to the 1974 Act cover many 

aspects of manufactured home 

construction, including body and frame 

requirements, thermal protection, 

plumbing, electrical, and fire safety. 

(See 24 CFR parts 3280 and 3282) HUD 

oversees the enforcement of the 

construction standards through third 

party inspection agencies and State 

governments. 

The HUD standards for manufactured 

housing include specific formaldehyde 

emission limits for plywood and 

particleboard materials installed in 

manufactured housing. In contrast, 

TSCA Title VI covers only hardwood 

plywood, a subset of plywood. In 

addition, TSCA Title VI also covers 

MDF, which is not covered by the 

current HUD standards. The HUD 

emission limits apply to any plywood or 

particleboard that is bonded with a resin 

system. In addition, HUD’s limits also 

apply to plywood or particleboard that 

is coated with a surface finish 

containing formaldehyde. HUD’s 

current formaldehyde emission limits 

are 0.2 parts per million (ppm) for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34842 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

plywood and 0.3 ppm for particleboard, 

as measured by ASTM E–1333–96 (Ref. 

28). These emission limits are higher 

than those established by the 

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 

Wood Products Act of 2010, but section 

4 of the 2010 Act directs HUD to update 

its regulations to ensure that the 

regulations reflect the standards 

established by section 601 of TSCA. 

EPA is requesting comment on how 

best to harmonize EPA’s regulatory 

program under TSCA Title VI with 

HUD’s manufactured homes program. In 

particular, the focus of TSCA Title VI, 

with its emphasis on composite wood 

product panel producers and product 

certification, is somewhat different from 

the focus of the National Manufactured 

Housing Construction and Safety 

Standards Act of 1974 on manufactured 

home producers and consumer 

protection. In view of the differences in 

statutory authorities provided to EPA 

and HUD, are there additional 

provisions that EPA should consider or 

other actions that EPA and HUD should 

take to ensure that their respective 

programs are complementary? 

IV. References 

As indicated under ADDRESSES, a 

docket has been established for this 

rulemaking under docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0018. The 

following is a listing of the documents 

that are specifically referenced in this 

proposed rule. The docket includes 

these documents and other information 

considered by EPA, including 

documents that are referenced within 

the documents that are included in the 

docket, even if the referenced document 

is not physically located in the docket. 

For assistance in locating these other 

documents, please consult the technical 

contact listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. US Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). Formaldehyde; Third-Party 

Certification Framework for the 

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 

Wood Products; Proposed Rule. (published 

in this issue of the Federal Register) (FRL– 

9342–4). 

2. 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 

3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological 

Profile for Formaldehyde and 2010 

Addendum to the Profile. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

Public Health Service. 

4. National Toxicology Program, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS), 12th Report on Carcinogens, June 

10, 2011. 

5. USEPA Office of Research and 

Development (ORD). Formaldehyde. 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 

1991. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/ 

0419.htm. 

6. USEPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and 

Composite Wood Products; List of 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, Lesser Quantity 

Designations, Source Category List; Final 

Rule. Federal Register (71 FR 8341, 

February 16, 2006) (FRL–8028–9). http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/plypart/fr16fe06.pdf. 

7. USEPA, ORD. Memorandum from Peter 

Preuss to Steve Page entitled 

‘‘Recommendation for Formaldehyde 

Inhalation Cancer Risk Values’’ (January 

22, 2010). 

8. USEPA, ORD. IRIS Toxicological Review 

of Formaldehyde-Inhalation Assessment 

(2010 External Review Draft). http:// 

cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/ 

recordisplay.cfm?deid=223614. 

9. National Research Council of the National 

Academy of Sciences (NRC). Review of the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft 

IRIS Assessment of Formaldehyde (2011). 

http://www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=13142. 

10. Approach to Assessing Non-cancer 

Health Effects from Formaldehyde and 

Benefits from Reducing Non-cancer Health 

Effects as a Result of Implementing 

Formaldehyde Emission Limits for 

Composite Wood Products (2013). 

11. USEPA. Formaldehyde Emissions from 

Composite Wood Products; Disposition of 

TSCA Section 21 Petition; Notice. Federal 

Register (73 FR 36504, June 27, 2008). 

12. American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)/Hardwood Plywood and Veneer 

Association (HPVA). American National 

Standard for Hardwood and Decorative 

Plywood, ANSI/HPVA HP–1–2009. 

13. US Department of Commerce (DOC), 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), Technology 

Administration. Voluntary Product 

Standard PS–1–07 (2007), Structural 

Plywood. 

14. USDOC, NIST. Voluntary Product 

Standard PS–2–04 (2004), Performance 

Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use 

Panels. 

15. USEPA. Report of the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on EPA’s Planned 

Proposed Rule Implementing the 

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 

Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI) (April 

4, 2011). 

16. Composite Panel Association (CPA). VOC 

Emission Barrier Effects of Laminates, 

Overlays and Coatings for Particleboard, 

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) and 

Hardboard (2003), available at http:// 

www.pbmdf.com/cpa30/files/ 

ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000738/ 

TB%20VOC.pdf. 

17. HPVA. Comments of the Hardwood 

Plywood and Veneer Association (HPVA) 

Submitted to the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) on the Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for 

Formaldehyde from Certain Wood 

Products (March 19, 2009). 

18. ANSI. American National Standard for 

Particleboard A208.1–2009. 

19. ANSI. American National Standard for 

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) for 

Interior Applications, ANSI A208.2–2 

2009. 

20. ANSI. American National Standard, Basic 

Hardboard, ANSI A135.4 2004. 

21. ANSI. American National Standard, 

Prefinished Hardboard Paneling, ANSI 

A135.5 2004. 

22. ANSI. American National Standard, 

Hardboard Siding, ANSI A135.6 2006. 

23. ANSI. American National Standard, Basic 

Hardboard, ANSI A135.4–2012. 

24. ANSI. American National Standard, 

Prefinished Hardboard Paneling, ANSI 

A135.5–2012. 

25. ANSI. American National Standard, 

Engineered Wood Siding, ANSI A135.6– 

2012. 

26. Kelly, T.I., D.L. Smith, J. Satola. Emission 

Rates of Formaldehyde from Materials and 

Consumer Products Found in California 

Homes. Environmental Science & 

Technology Vol. 33: 81–88 (1999). 

27. Georgia Pacific LLC. Letter (August 15, 

2011). 

28. ASTM International. ASTM E–1333–96, 

Standard Test Method for Determining 

Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air and 

Emission Rates from Wood Products Using 

a Large Chamber. 

29. ASTM International. ASTM D–6007–02 

(2008), Standard Test Method for 

Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations 

in Air from Wood Products Using a SmallScale Chamber. 

30. ASTM International. ASTM D 5582–00 

(2006), Standard Test Method for 

Determining Formaldehyde Levels from 

Wood Products Using a Desiccator. 

31. ASTM International. ASTM E–1333–10, 

Standard Test Method for Determining 

Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air and 

Emission Rates from Wood Products Using 

a Large Chamber. 

32. CEN, European Committee for 

Standardization. EN 717–2 (1995), Woodbased panels. Determination of 

formaldehyde release-Formaldehyde 

release by the gas analysis method, English 

Version. 

33. Huber, C.W., Anderson, W.H., Vieira, J. 

W., and Liles, W.T., The Dynamic 

Microchamber Computer Integrated 

Formaldehyde Test System: User Manual, 

revised version (March 2007); available at 

http://www.gp-dmc.com. 

34. CEN, European Committee for 

Standardization. EN 120 (1992), Wood 

based panels. Determination of 

formaldehyde content-Extraction method 

called the perforator method, English 

Version. 

35. Japanese Standards Association, Japanese 

Industrial Standards. JIS A 1460 (2001), 

Building boards determination of 

Formaldehyde emission-Desiccator 

method, English Version. 

36. Composite Panel Association, 

Formaldehyde Grademark Program Quality 

Assurance Manual (January 1, 2007). 

37. CARB. Supplemental Analysis 

Supporting the Test for Demonstrating 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34843 

Equivalence between Primary and 

Secondary Methods for Measuring 

Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite 

Wood Products (January 2008). 

38. CARB. Third Party Certification 

Guideline: Establishing a Correlation with 

an Acceptable Correlation Coefficient (‘‘r’’ 

Value), Guideline No. 10–001 (June 8, 

2010). 

39. Myers, G.E. The effects of temperature 

and humidity on formaldehyde emission 

from UF-bonded boards: a literature 

critique. Forest Prod. J. 35(9):20–31 (1985). 

40. Frihart, C.R., Wescott, J.M., Birkeland, M. 

J., and Gonner, K.M. ‘‘Formaldehyde 

Emissions from ULEF- and NAF-Bonded 

Commercial Hardwood Plywood as 

Influenced by Temperature and Relative 

Humidity.’’ Proceedings of the 

International Convention of Society of 

Wood Science and Technology and United 

Nations Economic Commission for 

Europe—Timber Committee, October 11– 

14, 2010, Geneva, Switzerland. http:// 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2010/ 

fpl_2010_frihart005.pdf. 

41. Riedlinger, D., Martin, P., and Holloway, 

T. Particleboard Formaldehyde Emissions 

and Decay under Elevated Temperature 

and Humidity Conditions, study conducted 

for Arclin, (March 28, 2012). 

42. USEPA. Measuring Formaldehyde 

Emissions from Low Emitting Hardwood 

Plywood Panels under Different Conditions 

of Temperature and Relative Humidity 

(April 2013). 

43. CARB. Composite Wood Products ATCM 

Frequently Asked Questions (Version 6— 

August, 2012). 

44. CARB. Composite Wood Products 

Regulation Advisory: 10–01, Extension of 

Sell-Through Date for Distributors, 

Fabricators, and Retailers of Pre-Phase 1 

Finished Goods (July 2010). 

45. CARB. Composite Wood Products 

Regulation Advisory: 11–01, Extension of 

Sell-Through Dates for Distributors, 

Importers, Fabricators, and Retailers of 

Finished Goods Containing Phase 1 

Hardwood Plywood—Veneer Core and 

Distributors of Phase 1 Particleboard and 

Medium Density Fiberboard Panels (May 

2011). 

46. USEPA. Economic Analysis of the 

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 

Wood Products Act Implementing 

Regulations Proposed Rule (Economic 

Analysis) (May 2013). 

47. Hanrahan, L.P., K.A. Dally, H.A. 

Anderson, M.S. Kanarek and J. Rankin. 

Formaldehyde vapor in mobile homes: a 

cross sectional survey of concentrations 

and irritant effects. American Journal 

Public Health. 74: 1026–1027 (1984). 

48. Neghab, M., A. Soltanzadeh, and A. 

Choobineh. Respiratory morbidity induced 

by occupational inhalation exposure to 

formaldehyde. Industrial Health, 49(1), 89– 

94 (2011). 

49. Herbert, F.A., P.A. Hessel, L.S. Melenka, 

K. Yoshida, and M. Nakaza. Respiratory 

consequences of exposure to wood dust 

and formaldehyde of workers 

manufacturing oriented strand board. Arch. 

Environ. Health 49(6):465–470 (1994). 

50. Malaka, T., and A.M. Kodama. 

Respiratory health of plywood workers 

occupationally exposed to formaldehyde. 

Arch. Environ. Health 45:288–294 (1990). 

51. Alexandersson, R., and G. Hedenstierna. 

Pulmonary function in wood workers 

exposed to formaldehyde: A prospective 

study. Arch. Environ. Health 44:5–11 

(1989). 

52. Horvath, E, Jr., J. Anderson, W.E. Pierce, 

L. Hanrahan, and J.D. Wendlick. Effects of 

formaldehyde on the mucous membranes 

and lungs: A study of an industrial 

population. JAMA 259:701–707 (1988). 

53. Holmstro ̈m, M., and B. Wilhelmsson. 

Respiratory symptoms and 

pathophysiological effects of occupational 

exposure to formaldehyde and wood dust. 

Scand J Work Environ Health 14:306¥311 

(1988). 

54. Alexandersson, R., G. Hedenstierna, and 

B. Kolmodin-Hedman. Exposure to 

formaldehyde effects on pulmonary 

function. Arch. Environ. Health 37:279– 

284 (1982). 

55. Garrett, M.H., M.A. Hooper, B.M. Hooper, 

P.R. Rayment, and M.J. Abramson. 

Increased risk of allergy in children due to 

formaldehyde exposure in homes. Allergy 

34:330–337 (1999). 

56. Krzyzanowski, M. J.J. Quackenboss, and 

M.D. Lebowitz. Chronic respiratory effects 

of indoor formaldehyde exposure. Environ. 

Res. 52:117–125 (1990). 

57. Taskinen, H. K., P. Kyyronen, M. 

Sallmen, S. V. Virtanen, T. A. Liuldwnen, 

O. Huida, M. L. Lindbohm and A. Anttila. 

Reduced Fertility Among Female Wood 

Workers Exposed to Formaldehyde. 

American Journal of Industrial Medicine 

36: 202–221 (1999). 

58. Taskinen, H. K., P. Kyyronen, K. 

Hemminki, M. Holkkala, K. Lajunen, and 

M. L. Lindbohm. Laboratory Work and 

Pregnancy Outcome. J. Occup. Med. 36 (3): 

311–319 (1994). 

59. John, E.M., D.A. Savitz, and C.M. Shy. 

Spontaneous Abortions among 

Cosmetologists. Epidemiology 5 (2): 147– 

55 (1994). 

60. USEPA. Information Collection Request 

(ICR) for the Formaldehyde Emission 

Standards for Composite Wood Products 

Act Implementing Regulations (Proposed 

Rule). EPA ICR No. 2446.01 and OMB No. 

2070–[NEW]. 

61. USEPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis for Formaldehyde Emission 

Standards for Composite Wood Products; 

Proposed Rule (May 2013). 

62. USEPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Statement. Formaldehyde Emission 

Standards for Composite Wood Products; 

Proposed Rule (May 2013). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ because it raises 

novel legal or policy issues. 

Accordingly, EPA submitted this action 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011) and any changes made 

in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

EPA has prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with this rulemaking. This analysis is 

contained in the Economic Analysis of 

the Formaldehyde Standards for 

Composite Wood Products Act 

Implementing Regulations Proposed 

Rule (Economic Analysis, Ref. 46) and 

is briefly summarized in Table 2, and in 

more detail below. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL

Category Description 

Benefits ......................... This proposed rule will reduce exposures to formaldehyde, resulting in benefits from avoided adverse health effects. 

For the subset of health effects where the results were quantified, the estimated annualized benefits (due to avoided incidence of eye irritation and nasopharyngeal cancer) are $20 million to $48 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and $9 million to $23 million per year using a 7% discount rate. There are additional unquantified benefits due to other avoided health effects. 

Costs ............................. The annualized costs of this proposed rule are estimated at $72 million to $81 million per year using a 3% discount 

rate, and $80 million to $89 million per year using a 7% discount rate. 

Effects on State, Local, 

and Tribal Governments.

Government entities are not expected to be subject to the rule’s requirements, which apply to entities that manufacture, fabricate, distribute, or sell composite wood products. The proposed rule does not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effect on small governments, or have Federalism implications. 

Small Entity Impacts ..... This proposed rule would impact nearly 879,000 small businesses: over 851,000 have costs impacts less than 1% of 

revenues, over 23,000 firms have impacts between 1% and 3%, and over 4,000 firms have impacts greater than 

3% of revenues. Most firms with impacts over 1% have annualized costs of less than $250 per year. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34844 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF PROPOSAL—Continued 

Category Description 

Environmental Justice 

and Protection of 

Children.

This proposed rule increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or 

low-income population or children. 

1. Entities subject to the proposed 

rule. EPA analyzed the effect of this 

proposal on panel producers, 

fabricators, wholesalers (i.e., 

distributors and importers), and 

retailers. Due to the similarities between 

this proposal and the CARB ATCM, the 

incremental costs and benefits of this 

proposal are determined in part by the 

degree to which firms are already 

complying with the ATCM. So the 

following discussion of the number of 

entities subject to the TSCA Title VI rule 

includes an estimate of baseline 

compliance with the CARB ATCM. 

These estimates are displayed in Table 

3. 

Mills making hardwood plywood, 

MDF, or particleboard panels that 

would be classified as a composite 

wood product under the CARB ATCM 

are referred to here as stock panel 

producers. Thus, stock panel producers 

do not include facilities that only make 

products exempted from the CARB 

ATCM (and that are statutorily excluded 

from the TSCA Title VI rule) such as 

curved plywood, military specified 

plywood, structural plywood, and 

wood-based structural-use panels. There 

are approximately 90 stock panel mills 

in the U.S., operated by 54 firms. This 

count of stock panel producers excludes 

firms making laminated products that 

are included in the definition of 

hardwood plywood. These laminated 

product producers are discussed 

separately below. 

A total of 79 stock panel mills have 

been certified as meeting the CARB 

Phase 2 standards for at least one of 

their composite wood products. (The 

Phase 2 standards are equivalent to the 

emissions standards in this proposal.) 

The CARB certified mills are 

responsible for virtually all the U.S. 

production volume of composite wood 

products. Approximately 99.6% of stock 

hardwood plywood produced in the 

U.S. is certified as meeting the CARB 

Phase 2 emissions standard, as is 100% 

of the MDF production and 98% of the 

particleboard production. All of these 

mills would incur costs for the time 

spent on rule familiarization under the 

TSCA Title VI program (i.e., becoming 

familiar with the requirements of the 

rule). 

There are 16 U.S. stock panel mills 

making at least one product that is not 

certified as meeting the CARB Phase 2 

standards. (Some of the 90 stock panel 

mills make both product lines that are 

certified under the CARB ATCM as well 

as product lines that are not certified 

because they are not intended to be sold 

in California.) These mills would incur 

costs for certification and testing due to 

the proposal, and some may incur costs 

to change raw materials and production 

processes in order to meet the emission 

standards in this proposal. They would 

also incur costs for rule familiarization 

and labeling. 

Approximately 7,000 to 14,000 

laminated product producers in the U.S. 

make products (such as custom 

hardwood plywood and architectural 

panels, windows, doors, kitchen 

cabinets, furniture, architectural 

woodwork and millwork, engineered 

wood flooring, and other goods) by 

affixing veneer to purchased platforms 

as part of the production process. These 

laminated products are regulated as 

hardwood plywood under this proposal 

unless they are made using NAF resins 

to attach the veneer to compliant and 

certified platforms, in which case they 

are exempted from the definition of 

hardwood plywood. 

The wood products industry 

commonly uses the term laminates to 

describe products that are laminated 

with materials other than veneer, such 

as high pressure laminate, thermally 

fused paper, vinyl film, decorative foil, 

or polypropylene film. Such products 

are not considered to be hardwood 

plywood under this proposal regardless 

of the type of resin used. So firms 

making these products are considered 

fabricators (discussed below), and are 

not counted as laminated product 

producers. 

The estimate of 7,000 to 14,000 

laminated product producers excludes 

firms that use veneer to make products 

that are exempted from the definition of 

hardwood plywood because they do not 

create panels (flat or raised pieces of 

composite wood product) during the 

production process; the products are 

made by affixing veneer to substrates 

other than particleboard, MDF, or 

veneer core platforms; or the products 

are statutorily exempted by TSCA Title 

VI (including products used in boats 

and aircraft, and products not intended 

for interior use) or otherwise do not 

qualify as regulated hardwood plywood 

(such as curved plywood, military 

specified plywood, and structural 

plywood). 

Since laminated products are not 

considered to be hardwood plywood 

under the CARB ATCM, they are not 

certified or tested for emissions under 

that rule. But in order to be sold in 

California, such products must be made 

using certified composite wood 

products as platforms, and they must 

comply with the labeling and chain of 

custody requirements in the CARB 

ATCM. 

Nationally, 2,700 to 4,000 of these 

laminated product producers are 

assumed to be using formaldehydebased resins. It is generally less 

expensive for these firms to switch to a 

NAF resin than to pay for the 

certification and product testing 

required for panel producers under this 

proposal. EPA believes that nearly all 

laminated product producers using 

formaldehyde-based resins to attach 

wood or woody grass veneer to 

compliant and certified platforms will 

switch to NAF resins, in order to qualify 

for the exemption from the definition of 

hardwood plywood in this proposal. 

EPA assumes that only about 150 to 300 

U.S. laminated product producers will 

continue using formaldehyde-based 

resins, and thus will need to certify and 

test their products as a result of this 

proposal. 

There are approximately 80,000 

fabricators in the U.S. making composite 

wood products into component parts or 

finished goods, including the 7,000 to 

14,000 laminated product producers. 

The other 66,000 to 73,000 fabricators 

use composite wood products to make 

goods such as architectural components, 

cabinets, and furniture, without affixing 

veneer themselves. Under the CARB 

ATCM, fabricated products sold in 

California must be made using certified 

composite wood products, and they 

must comply with the ATCM’s labeling 

and chain of custody requirements. 

Nationwide, approximately 32,000 

fabricators (including some laminated 

product producers) are estimated to 

comply with the labeling and chain of 

custody requirements in the CARB 

ATCM because their products may be 

sold in California. Firms that sell any 

products in California typically follow 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34845 

the CARB ATCM’s requirements for all 

of their products, including products 

that are sold outside of California. Such 

firms would still incur rule 

familiarization costs due to this 

proposal. The remaining 48,000 

fabricators that do not comply with the 

CARB ATCM because they do not sell 

any products in California would incur 

costs to comply with the chain of 

custody requirements in this proposal, 

as well as rule familiarization costs. 

Approximately 86,000 U.S. 

distributors (also referred to as 

wholesalers) are estimated to sell goods 

containing composite wood products. 

As many as 24,000 wholesalers may be 

importing composite wood panels or 

component parts or finished goods 

containing composite wood products, 

and are considered manufacturers under 

TSCA. (This is the number of firms that 

may import the goods themselves, not 

those that only buy and sell goods 

imported by others.) Approximately 

32,000 of the 86,000 wholesalers have at 

least one facility in California, and thus 

must comply with the labeling and 

chain of custody requirements in the 

CARB ATCM. Of the approximately 

759,000 retailers in the U.S. that sell 

products containing composite wood 

products, about 101,000 have at least 

one facility in California and are 

following the chain of custody 

requirements in the CARB ATCM. 

Again, firms that sell any products in 

California typically follow the CARB 

ATCM’s requirements for all of the 

products they sell, including products 

that are sold outside of California. All 

wholesale and retail firms will incur 

additional costs for rule familiarization 

due to the Title VI rule. Of the 24,000 

wholesalers importing composite wood 

products (who are subject to the rule’s 

recordkeeping requirements for TSCA 

manufacturers), about 15,000 do not 

have any facilities in California. 

Wholesalers that repackage products 

may incur additional labeling costs due 

to this proposal. 

TABLE 3—NUMBER OF ENTITIES IN THE UNITED STATES SUBJECT TO THE RULE

Type TSCA Universe Baseline condition (CARB ATCM Universe) 

Stock panel producers (i.e., 

manufacturers).

90 mills operated by 54 

firms.

79 mills have been certified by CARB for at least one product, but 16 mills make at 

least one product that is not CARB certified. Depending on the product type, 

98% to 100% of U.S. production volume is CARB certified. 

Laminated product producers (i.e., laminators).7,000 to 14,000 firms ......... Laminators are considered fabricators under the CARB ATCM. Nationally, 32,000 

of the combined group are subject to CARB ATCM requirements. 

Fabricators ........................... 66,000 to 73,000 firms.

Wholesalers (i.e., distributors).86,000 firms, of which 

24,000 are importers.

32,000 are subject to CARB ATCM requirements, of which 9,000 are importers. 

Retailers ............................... 759,000 firms ..................... 101,000 are subject to CARB ATCM requirements. 

Total .............................. 925,000 firms 

2. Options evaluated. Congress 

directed EPA to consider a number of 

elements for inclusion in the 

implementing regulations, and EPA 

considered various options for 

addressing these elements. For many of 

the provisions, such as the productinventory sell-through provision and the 

stockpiling prohibition, EPA did not 

have the data needed to make 

quantitative estimates of the effects of 

different options. EPA did have 

sufficient information to analyze several 

different options for how laminated 

products might be included in the 

definition of hardwood plywood, for the 

certification of ULEF products, and for 

the chain of custody and recordkeeping 

required by the rule. The Economic 

Analysis discusses emissions standards 

that are different from those set in TSCA 

Title VI. That discussion is simply for 

informational purposes, and the breadth 

of the discussion should not necessarily 

imply that EPA has corresponding 

flexibility in implementing the statute. 

The options EPA analyzed with 

emissions standards consistent with 

TSCA Title VI are displayed in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—OPTIONS ANALYZED IN THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Option Description 

Option SE ........................................ All laminated products are exempt from the definition of hardwood plywood. 

Option SI ......................................... All laminated products are included in the definition of hardwood plywood. 

Option SP ........................................ All laminated products are exempt from the definition of hardwood plywood except architectural panels and 

custom plywood. 

Option SN ....................................... Laminated products made using NAF resins to attach veneer to platforms certified as NAF are exempt 

from the definition of hardwood plywood. 

Option SC ....................................... Laminated products made using NAF resins to attach veneer to compliant and certified platforms are exempt from the definition of hardwood plywood. 

Option SCR ..................................... Laminated products made using NAF resins to attach veneer to compliant and certified platforms are exempt from the definition of hardwood plywood; reduced recordkeeping requirements for firms that do not 

qualify as manufacturers under TSCA; no requirement to inform suppliers that the products supplied 

must comply with TSCA Title VI. 

Option SEUR .................................. All laminated products are exempt from the definition of hardwood plywood; ULEF certification allowed; reduced recordkeeping requirements for firms that do not qualify as manufacturers under TSCA; no requirement to inform suppliers that the products supplied must comply with TSCA Title VI. 

Option SFCC ................................... All laminated products are exempt from the definition of hardwood plywood; ULEF certification allowed; 

tested lots may be shipped before test results are available. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34846 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—OPTIONS ANALYZED IN THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS—Continued 

Option Description 

Proposed Option—Option SCUR ... Laminated products made using NAF resins to attach veneer to compliant and certified platforms are exempt from the definition of hardwood plywood; ULEF certification allowed; reduced recordkeeping requirements for firms that do not qualify as manufacturers under TSCA; no requirement to inform suppliers that the products supplied must comply with TSCA Title VI. 

3. Benefits. Reductions of 

formaldehyde emissions from composite 

wood products benefits individuals who 

reside, work, or otherwise spend a 

substantial amount of time where new 

composite wood products are 

introduced to an indoor space. The 

Economic Analysis (Ref. 46) estimates 

the benefits of the options over a 30-year 

period for lowering formaldehyde 

emissions from composite wood 

products. 

This benefits analysis uses an agedependent exposure analysis that 

includes formaldehyde exposure from 

homes, daycare, schools, workplace, 

vehicles, and outdoors. For each option, 

there are 3,300 different exposure 

scenarios derived from 22 different 

composite wood product age/source 

combinations, 5 structure types, 5 

climate zones, and 6 individual age/ 

employment status combinations. 

Changes in exposure are estimated by 

changing the two broad categories 

where a substantial amount of new 

composite wood products might be 

introduced: New home construction and 

major renovations that include kitchen 

remodeling. Changes in the risk of the 

adverse health outcomes associated 

with the changes in exposure are 

estimated for nasopharyngeal cancer 

and sensory irritation. Table 5 displays 

the benefits for the options described in 

Table 4. 

The total quantified benefits of the 

proposed option are between $20 

million and $48 million per year (in 

2010 dollars) using a 3% discount rate, 

and between $9 million and $23 million 

per year using a 7% discount rate. The 

majority of the quantified benefits are 

attributable to reductions in cancer risk. 

The benefits under the proposed option 

(Option SCUR) are less than 5% lower 

those of the most protective option 

(Option SN). The proposed option has 

benefits that are 14% larger than the 

options that exclude laminated products 

from the definition of hardwood 

plywood (Options SE, SEUR, and 

SFCC). 

There are additional unquantified 

benefits for all of the options from 

respiratory and other avoided health 

effects. While EPA has not valued these 

avoided health effects in this proposal, 

EPA believes that the effects could be 

substantial and has represented their 

inclusion in the table below using the 

letter indicator ‘‘B’’. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF THE MONETIZED BENEFITS

[Millions 2010$] 

Regulatory option Benefit category Annual cases avoided 

Annualized benefits 

($ million) 

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 

Options SE, SEUR, and SFCC ....... Cancer 9 to 21 $17 to $38 $8 to $17 

Eye Irritation 22,133 to 170,214 $1 to $4 $1 to $4 

Total Benefits ........................................ $18 to $42 + B $8 to $20 + B 

Option SP ........................................ Not estimated 

Option SN ........................................ Cancer 11 to 25 $20 to $45 $9 to $20 

Eye Irritation 24,154 to 198,950 $1 to $5 $1 to $5 

Total Benefits ........................................ $21 to $50 + B $10 to $24 + B 

Options SI, SC, SCR, and SCUR 

(Proposed Option) ........................ Cancer 10 to 24 $20 to $43 $9 to $19 

Eye Irritation 23,650 to 191,590 $1 to $5 $1 to $4 

Total Benefits ........................................ $20 to $48 + B $9 to $23 + B 

Totals may not add due to rounding. 

‘‘B’’ represents the unquantified health benefits. 

Formaldehyde is classified as a 

known human carcinogen by the 

National Toxicology Program, based on 

evidence in humans and animals (Ref. 

4). This analysis uses EPA’s 1991 IRIS 

Inhalation Unit Risk factor of 1.3×10¥5

cancer cases per mg/m3 of formaldehyde. 

In June 2010, EPA released a draft IRIS 

Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde 

that recommended a different unit risk 

factor and recommended the use of agedependent adjustment factors (ADAFs) 

to account for age-specific 

susceptibility. This draft assessment 

underwent independent scientific peer 

review by the NRC. However, given that 

EPA is currently in the process of 

revising the IRIS assessment based on 

the NRC review and public comments, 

the 1991 IRIS value is used to analyze 

this proposed rule. 

The benefits of a reduction in cancer 

risk are based on the value of a 

reduction in the risk an individual will 

ultimately die from the cancer (referred 

to as fatal cancer), and a reduction in 

the risk an individual will ultimately 

die from something other than the 

cancer (referred to as non-fatal cancer). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34847 

These two categories reflect the two 

possible outcomes for nasopharyngeal 

cancer and do not reflect different types 

of cancer. The number of excess cancer 

cases was estimated and then divided 

into these two categories: 44.7% of the 

cancer risk reductions are assumed to be 

reductions in non-fatal cancer risk and 

55.3% of the reductions are assumed to 

be reductions in fatal cancer (mortality) 

risk. The value of reduced mortality risk 

is $8.01 per mortality micro-risk 

reduction—that is, a reduction of 

1⁄1,000,000 in the risk of mortality. Nonfatal cases of nasopharyngeal cancer 

were valued using a cost-of-illness 

approach. The value of an avoided case 

of non-fatal nasopharyngeal cancer was 

estimated to be the present discounted 

value of the stream of expected medical 

expenditures and opportunity costs 

associated with the illness from the year 

of diagnosis, taking into account that the 

individual may die of other causes. 

Costs include the cost of diagnosis, 

initial treatment costs, and 

‘‘maintenance’’ costs in each subsequent 

year. The stream of annual costs 

depends on the stage of the cancer at 

diagnosis, the individual’s age at 

diagnosis, and the individual’s 

employment status each year after 

diagnosis, resulting in a value of $0.09 

to $0.14 per micro-risk reduction. 

The benefits associated with avoiding 

non-cancer health impacts are described 

in an EPA report titled ‘‘Approach to 

Assessing Non-cancer Health Effects 

from Formaldehyde and Benefits from 

Reducing Non-cancer Health Effects as a 

Result of Implementing Formaldehyde 

Emission Limits for Composite Wood 

Products’’ (Ref. 10). The 2010 draft IRIS 

assessment identified seven categories 

of non-cancer health effects and 

proposed RfCs based on four effects: 

Sensory irritation, pulmonary function 

effects, asthma and allergic sensitization 

(atopy), and reproductive toxicity. The 

NRC supported the derivation of 

candidate reference concentrations 

(RfCs) for each of these four endpoints 

based on human epidemiologic data 

(Ref. 9), but EPA determined there was 

sufficient information for quantitative 

concentration-response modeling for 

only three categories of effects. In the 

2011 non-cancer approach document, 

EPA derived concentration-response 

functions from preferred studies for 

these three endpoints and 

recommended accompanying unit 

values. The available data on pulmonary 

function effects could not be advanced 

because it was not possible to link 

specific decrements in pulmonary 

function with specific economic costs 

and any associated benefits were not 

monetized. Likewise, benefits from the 

reduction of the other non-cancer effects 

for which candidate RfCs were not 

derived were also not monetized. EPA 

later concluded that, at this time, it only 

has sufficient information on the 

relationship between formaldehyde 

exposure and eye irritation to include a 

valuation estimate in the overall 

benefits analysis. 

Information from two studies 

reporting sensory irritation in humans 

from chronic formaldehyde inhalation 

exposures in a residential environment 

were combined to create the 

concentration-response function for eye 

irritation. The function was based on a 

power model fit to the odds ratio of the 

prevalence of burning eyes reported in 

Figure 1 of Hanrahan et al. (Ref. 47). 

This function was then used with a 

willingness to pay to avoid eye irritation 

of $26 to calculate the monetized 

benefits of reduced sensory irritation for 

all individuals. 

Formaldehyde exposure is associated 

with a range of respiratory related 

effects. Effects from repeated exposure 

in humans include irritation of the 

upper respiratory tract, decrements in 

pulmonary function, and nasal 

epithelial lesions such as metaplasia 

and loss of cilia. Animal studies suggest 

that formaldehyde may also cause 

airway inflammation. 

In occupational studies of 

formaldehyde exposure, lung function 

deficits and decreases in spirometric 

values (that is, the volume and speed of 

air that is exhaled or inhaled) have been 

reported both in preshift versus 

postshift measurements and as a result 

of long-term exposures (Refs. 48–54). 

Studies of long-term formaldehyde 

exposure also report increased 

respiratory symptoms, such as cough, 

increased phlegm, chest tightness, and 

chest colds, in exposed workers (Refs. 

48–51 and 53–54). In addition, some 

studies report an association between 

formaldehyde exposure in residential 

settings and respiratory symptoms (Ref. 

55). Furthermore, there are also studies 

that report that formaldehyde exposure 

may increase the prevalence of 

asthma—particularly in the young (Ref. 

56). Studies on asthma, as well as 

mechanistic information and their 

analyses, were evaluated in EPA’s 

recent Draft Toxicological Review of 

Formaldehyde—Inhalation Assessment 

through the Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS) Program (Ref. 8). This 

draft IRIS assessment was released in 

June 2010 for public comment and 

external peer review by the National 

Research Council of the National 

Academy of Sciences (NRC). The NRC 

released their review report in April 

2011 (Ref. 9). The NRC suggested EPA 

should examine studies relating 

formaldehyde exposures to asthma, 

pulmonary function and changes in 

pulmonary pathology. EPA is currently 

revising the draft assessment in 

response to the NRC review. 

EPA is committed to evaluating 

alternative approaches to quantifying 

the benefits associated with reduced 

respiratory symptoms such as 

exacerbation of symptoms among those 

who have chronic respiratory diseases, 

e.g., bronchitis and asthma. For 

instance, the Agency will explore the 

extent to which approaches used to 

quantify respiratory symptoms in air 

quality rules might be applied to 

residential exposure to formaldehyde. If 

a scientifically defensible approach is 

available by the time the final rule is 

promulgated, EPA will include such 

quantification as part of the benefits 

analysis. Although uncertainty remains 

regarding how best to quantify the 

formaldehyde exposure’s effect on 

respiratory outcomes, EPA considers 

these effects to be important nonmonetized impacts that contribute to the 

overall benefits of this rule, as indicated 

by the ‘‘+B’’ in the various tables 

summarizing benefits. 

Epidemiologic studies suggest an 

association between occupational 

exposure to formaldehyde and adverse 

reproductive outcomes in women, 

including reduced fertility (Refs. 57, 58 

and 59). EPA does not feel that it has 

sufficient information at this time on the 

relationship between formaldehye 

exposure and reduced fertility to 

include a valuation estimate in the 

overall benefits analysis. 

There are three reasons why the total 

economic benefits reported above may 

be underestimated. First, there are a 

number of potential health effects that 

are not included in this analysis. In 

addition to cancer, the 2010 draft IRIS 

assessment enumerated potential health 

outcomes from formaldehyde exposure 

including sensory irritation, upper 

respiratory tract pathology, pulmonary 

function effects, asthma and allergic 

sensitization, immune function effects, 

neurological and behavioral toxicity, 

and developmental and reproductive 

toxicity. The NRC review of the draft 

IRIS assessment was released in April 

2011 (Ref. 9), and EPA is currently 

revising the draft in response. 

Monetization of any health endpoint 

requires an estimated concentrationresponse function that can be 

appropriately linked for use in the 

economic analyses. At this time, only 

sensory irritation has sufficient data to 

quantify the benefits. Second, while the 

cancer benefits were evaluated using the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34848 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

unit risk as a reasonable upper bound 

on the central estimate of risk, the 

sensory irritation benefits were 

evaluated using a central estimate of the 

concentration-response function rather 

than an upper (or lower) bound which 

could also underestimate any associated 

economic benefits. Third, the valuation 

of some of these endpoints relies on 

cost-of-illness estimates rather than 

willingness to pay. In general, cost of 

illness estimates only capture mitigating 

and indirect costs, omitting averting 

expenditures and lost utility associated 

with pain and suffering, and are, 

therefore, considered to be 

underestimates of economic benefits. 

4. Costs. The Economic Analysis 

estimates the incremental cost to firms 

located in the U.S. of complying with 

the requirements of the proposal 

compared to the activities that firms are 

already undertaking, often in response 

to the CARB ATCM. The costs of the 

proposal for the industries subject to the 

rule are displayed in Tables 6 and 7. 

Depending on their baseline 

compliance with the CARB ATCM, 

panel producers may incur costs for 

third-party certification, testing, and 

changes to raw materials and 

production processes where necessary 

to meet the emissions standards. Panel 

producers and other regulated firms 

may incur costs for labeling, 

recordkeeping and rule familiarization. 

Stock panel producers are estimated 

to incur a total annualized cost of $1 

million per year under either a 3% or 

7% discount rate. Laminated product 

producers incur a total annualized cost 

of $18 million to $32 million per year 

using a 3% discount rate and $18 

million to $33 million per year using a 

7% rate. Of this, $3 million per year is 

incurred by firms that convert to NAF 

resins in order to qualify for the 

exemption from the definition of 

hardwood plywood, $8 million to $17 

million per year is spent on resin 

changes, testing and certification by 

firms that continue to use 

formaldehyde-based resins and thus do 

not qualify for the exemption, and the 

balance is spent on rule familiarization, 

labeling, and recordkeeping. The 

remaining fabricators incur a total 

annualized cost of $21 million to $26 

million per year using a 3% discount 

rate and $21 million to $27 million per 

year using a 7% discount rate. 

Wholesalers incur total annualized costs 

of $16 million per year under a 3% 

discount rate and $17 million per year 

using a 7% discount rate. Retailers are 

estimated to incur total annualized costs 

of $10 million per year using a 3% 

discount rate and $16 million per year 

using a 7% discount rate. The proposal 

is estimated to result in a total cost of 

$434 million to $447 million in the first 

year. Annualized costs of the proposal 

are $72 million to $81 million per year 

using a 3% discount rate and $80 

million to $89 million per year using a 

7% discount rate. 

Given the formaldehyde emissions 

standards that are set in Title VI of 

TSCA, annualized costs for the other 

options for laminated products ranged 

from $60 million to $293 million per 

year using a 3% discount rate, and $68 

million to $311 million per year using 

a 7% discount rate. The total costs by 

option are displayed in Table 8. 

TABLE 6—COSTS OF PROPOSED OPTION BY INDUSTRY TYPE

[Millions 2010$] 

Industry type 

First year Annualized 

(3%) 

Annualized 

(7%) 

Low High Low High Low High 

Stock panel producers ..................................................... $2 $2 $1 $1 $1 $1 

Laminators ....................................................................... 55 102 18 32 18 33 

Fabricators (excluding laminators) ................................... 91 57 26 21 27 21 

Wholesalers ..................................................................... 71 71 16 16 17 17 

Retailers ........................................................................... 215 215 10 10 16 16 

Total .......................................................................... 434 447 72 81 80 89 

Low and high end scenarios reflect the estimated number of laminators and the number of product lines certified per firm, not the low and high 

costs for each category of entities. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34849 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP10JN13.003</GPH>
34850 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8—TOTAL COSTS BY OPTION

[Millions 2010$] 

Option 

First year Annualized 

(3%) 

Annualized 

(7%) 

Low High Low High Low High 

Option SE ......................................................................... $595 $595 $100 $100 $112 $112 

Option SI .......................................................................... 919 1,254 204 293 218 311 

Option SP ......................................................................... 600 600 104 104 115 115 

Option SN ........................................................................ 626 639 128 137 139 148 

Option SC ........................................................................ 609 621 112 121 123 132 

Option SCR ...................................................................... 435 447 72 81 80 89 

Option SEUR ................................................................... 420 420 60 60 68 68 

Option SFCC .................................................................... 594 594 100 100 111 111 

Proposed Option—Option SCUR .................................... 434 447 72 81 80 89 

5. Net benefits. Net benefits are the 

difference between benefits and costs. 

The net benefits for the options are 

displayed in Tables 9 and 10. The 

proposal is estimated to result in 

quantified net benefits of ¥$24 million 

to ¥$60 million per year using a 3% 

discount rate, and ¥$57 million to 

¥$79 million per year using a 7% 

discount rate. Quantified net benefits for 

the other options based on the 

formaldehyde emissions standards that 

are set in Title VI of TSCA range from 

¥$18 million to ¥$273 million per year 

using a 3% discount rate and ¥$48 

million to ¥$302 million per year using 

a 7% discount rate. There are additional 

unquantified benefits due to respiratory 

and other avoided health effects. EPA 

considers health benefits from avoided 

health effects to be potentially 

important non-monetized impacts that 

contribute to the overall net benefits of 

this proposed rule, and has represented 

their inclusion in the table below using 

the letter ‘‘B’’. 

TABLE 9—ANNUALIZED NET BENEFITS BY OPTION

[Millions 2010$, 3% discount rate] 

Option 

Costs Benefits Net benefits 

Low estimate High estimate Lower estimate Higher estimate Lower net 

estimate 

Higher net 

estimate 

Option SE ......................... $100 $100 $18+B ............... $42+B ............... ($82)+B ............. ($58)+B 

Option SI .......................... 204 293 $20+B ............... $48+B ............... ($273)+B ........... ($157)+B 

Option SP ......................... 104 104 Not estimated ... Not estimated ... Not estimated ... Not estimated 

Option SN ........................ 128 137 $21+B ............... $50+B ............... ($116)+B ........... ($79)+B 

Option SC ........................ 112 121 $20+B ............... $48+B ............... ($101)+B ........... ($64)+B 

Option SCR ...................... 72 81 $20+B ............... $48+B ............... ($61)+B ............. ($24)+B 

Option SEUR ................... 60 60 $18+B ............... $42+B ............... ($42)+B ............. ($18)+B 

Option SFCC .................... 100 100 $18+B ............... $42+B ............... ($82)+B ............. ($58)+B 

Proposed Option—Option 

SCUR.

72 81 $20+B ............... $48+B ............... ($60)+B ............. ($24)+B 

‘‘B’’ represents the unquantified health benefits. 

TABLE 10—ANNUALIZED NET BENEFITS BY OPTION

[Millions 2010$, 7% discount rate] 

Option 

Costs Benefits Net benefits 

Low estimate High estimate Lower estimate Higher estimate Lower net 

estimate 

Higher net 

estimate 

Option SE ......................... $112 $112 $8+B ................. $20+B ............... ($103)+B ........... ($91)+B 

Option SI .......................... 218 311 $9+B ................. $23+B ............... ($302)+B ........... ($195)+B 

Option SP ......................... 115 115 Not estimated ... Not estimated ... Not estimated ... Not estimated 

Option SN ........................ 139 148 $10+B ............... $24+B ............... ($138)+B ........... ($114)+B 

Option SC ........................ 123 132 $9+B ................. $23+B ............... ($123)+B ........... ($100)+B 

Option SCR ...................... 80 89 $9+B ................. $23+B ............... ($80)+B ............. ($57)+B 

Option SEUR ................... 68 68 $8+B ................. $20+B ............... ($60)+B ............. ($48)+B 

Option SFCC .................... 111 111 $8+B ................. $20+B ............... ($103)+B ........... ($91)+B 

Proposed Option—Option 

SCUR.

80 89 $9+B ................. $23+B ............... ($79)+B ............. ($57)+B 

‘‘B’’ represents the unquantified health benefits. 

Costs exceed quantified benefits by a 

larger margin for the proposed rule 

(Option SCUR) than for Option SEUR, 

which exempts all laminated products 

from the definition of hardwood 

plywood. However, both the relative 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34851 

ranking of the options and the fact that 

quantified net benefits are negative for 

all the options might change if EPA 

could quantify additional health 

benefits. Furthermore, as explained 

elsewhere in this proposal, currently 

available information indicates that 

laminated products can exceed the 

formaldehyde emission standards. 

Therefore, on the basis of information 

currently available to the Agency, EPA 

has concluded that exempting all 

laminated products from the definition 

of hardwood plywood is not consistent 

with TSCA Title VI’s statutory mandate 

that EPA promulgate regulations in a 

manner that ensures compliance with 

the emission standards in TSCA section 

601(b)(2). Of the options that are 

consistent with the statutory mandate, 

the proposed rule has the lowest costs 

as well as the best balance between 

costs and quantified benefits. After 

assessing both the costs and the benefits 

of the proposal, including the 

unquantified benefits, EPA has made a 

reasoned determination that the benefits 

of the proposal justify its costs. 

To further improve the analysis for 

the final rule, the Agency is also 

specifically interested in supporting 

information on the following questions 

related to the data, estimates, and 

assumptions used in the Agency’s 

analysis: 

1. What, if any, differences are there 

in actual formaldehyde emissions levels 

between products made domestically 

and those imported into the U.S.? Are 

data available characterizing the 

differences in emissions between 

products that are certified under the 

CARB ATCM and those that are not 

certified because they are sold in the 

U.S. outside of California? 

2. Is there evidence that products that 

do not comply with the CARB ATCM 

are being sold in California? If so, are 

there differences in compliance between 

products made domestically and those 

imported into the U.S.? Is there 

information available to indicate how 

the level of compliance with the TSCA 

Title VI rule can be expected to differ 

from compliance with the CARB 

ATCM? 

3. Did firms located outside of 

California that sell regulated composite 

wood products in California incur 

different costs due to the CARB ATCM 

compared to firms located in California? 

If so, what influenced these differences 

in costs? How did the differences, if 

any, depend on firm type (panel 

producer, fabricator, distributor, or 

retailer), firm size, complexity of the 

supply chain, or other factors? 

4. To what extent are wholesalers that 

do not have a physical location in 

California complying with the CARB 

ATCM’s recordkeeping requirements 

because they sell goods that may 

ultimately be sold in California? 

5. In addition to the Census data that 

EPA used in its analysis, what other 

information is available that would 

allow EPA to better characterize the 

number of firms in different industries 

affected by the rule? 

6. For each industry that uses veneer 

to manufacture products, how many 

firms make laminated products sold in 

the U.S. that could potentially be 

included in the definition of hardwood 

plywood under TSCA Title VI because 

they meet all of the following criteria: 

(a) They affix a wood or woody grass 

veneer to the face and/or back of a 

purchased platform to produce a 

component part used in the 

construction or assembly of a finished 

good; (b) they are applying veneer to a 

particleboard, MDF, or veneer-core 

platform; (c) they are making a product 

that qualifies as a panel under the 

proposed rule, where a panel is defined 

as a flat or raised piece of composite 

wood product; and (d) they are making 

a product that does not qualify for one 

of the statutory exemptions in TSCA 

Title VI (such as the exemptions for 

products intended for use in a new 

vehicle such as a rail car, boat, or 

aircraft, or the exemption for products 

intended for exterior use)? 

7. To what extent are the laminated 

products described above currently 

made using an added formaldehyde 

resin to affix the veneer to the platform? 

To what extent will these products 

continue to use added formaldehyde 

resins after the TSCA Title VI rule is 

implemented? What if any process or 

performance issues will face laminated 

product producers that switch to NAF 

resins? 

8. To what extent were firms’ 

customary recordkeeping practices 

generally sufficient to meet the chain of 

custody requirements in the CARB 

ATCM? For firms that had to modify 

their recordkeeping systems or practices 

to comply with the CARB ATCM, how 

much additional effort or cost was 

required, on a one-time or ongoing 

basis? How do those costs depend on 

firm type (panel producer, fabricator, 

distributor, or retailer), firm size, 

complexity of the supply chain, or other 

factors? 

9. If your firm has a schedule for the 

retention of records, how long do you 

retain records such as purchasing 

records, invoices, bills of lading, 

production records, shipping 

information, and product testing 

information? What policies does your 

firm have for the retention or 

destruction of these records? In light of 

your firm’s records retention and 

destruction policies or your ordinary 

business practices, how would the 

differences between a 2-year 

recordkeeping period, a 3-year period, 

and a 5-year period affect your 

recordkeeping cost under TSCA Title 

VI? What are the key components of 

your recordkeeping costs (labor, 

computer storage, physical storage for 

paper records, etc.), and how do these 

costs change as the recordkeeping 

period increases? Please provide a 

detailed response. 

10. What costs did fabricators incur to 

label their products due to the CARB 

ATCM? What factors, such as 

production volume or the number or 

complexity of the products, determined 

the magnitude of those costs? Were 

there additional costs due to the CARB 

labeling requirement after the first year? 

If so, what were the costs for, how large 

were they, and what factors influenced 

those costs? How common is it for 

distributors or retailers to repackage or 

relabel goods? To what extent do 

distributors or retailers apply labels 

under the CARB ATCM, either because 

they are repackaging goods that were 

originally labeled on the packaging 

instead of on the individual items, or 

because they are replacing an original 

label applied by the panel producer or 

fabricator with a label listing a different 

company name? 

11. What data are available on the 

types and quantities of goods containing 

composite wood products used within a 

typical residence? How do these 

quantities differ by the type of dwelling 

(single family attached housing, single 

family detached housing, multi-family 

housing, manufactured housing, etc.)? 

Are there differences in the typical 

quantities of composite wood products 

used associated with the race or income 

of the residents? 

12. In the absence of a requirement 

that panel producers hold lots selected 

for testing until the test results are 

received, how likely is it that panels 

would be shipped before the test results 

are available? Given the lower frequency 

of quality control testing for hardwood 

plywood producers (including 

laminators produced panels defined as 

hardwood plywood), how would such a 

requirement affect their decision about 

whether to perform quality control 

testing for formaldehyde emissions inhouse or to send the panels to a third 

party for testing? 

13. What data are available on the 

amount of work or leisure time patients 

typically miss as a result of treatment 

for nasopharyngeal cancer, including 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34852 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the time recovering from chemotherapy 

or radiation? 

14. How should EPA quantify the 

benefits of avoiding respiratory effects 

related to formaldehyde exposure? 

Which symptoms should be valued? 

How should the results be presented to 

reflect the underlying uncertainty in 

such estimates? 

15. How should EPA evaluate and 

quantify the benefits of improved 

fecundity due to reductions in 

formaldehyde exposure? How should 

the results be presented to reflect the 

underlying uncertainty in such 

estimates? 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted to OMB for review and 

approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. The Information Collection 

Request (ICR) document prepared by 

EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 

2446.01, and the OMB Control No. 

2070—[new] (Ref. 60). 

The new information collection 

activities contained in this proposed 

rule are designed to assist the Agency in 

meeting the requirement in Section 

601(d) of TSCA that EPA promulgate 

implementing regulations in a manner 

that ensures compliance with the TSCA 

Title VI emission standards. The new 

information collection requirements 

affect firms that sell, supply, offer for 

sale, or manufacture (including import) 

hardwood plywood, particleboard, 

MDF, or finished goods containing these 

materials in the United States. Although 

firms have the option of choosing to 

engage in the covered activities, once a 

firm chooses to do so, the information 

collection activities contained in this 

proposed rule become mandatory for 

that firm. 

The ICR document provides a detailed 

presentation of the estimated burden 

and costs for 3 years of the program. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Since the proposed rule applies to 

products imported into the U.S., the 

certification, testing, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements also apply to 

entities outside the U.S. Therefore, the 

ICR document considers the burden and 

cost to both foreign and domestic 

entities. This is in contrast to the 

Economic Analysis for the proposed 

rule (Ref. 46), where the cost analysis is 

limited to domestic entities. The ICR 

document also accounts for the burdens 

of baseline reporting and recordkeeping 

activities in two ways. One estimates 

the incremental burden and cost 

excluding all the activities performed to 

comply with the CARB ATCM in the 

baseline, which is consistent with the 

cost estimates in the Economic 

Analysis. The other estimates the 

burden and cost of future activities even 

if those activities would be performed in 

the absence of the TSCA Title VI rule 

(i.e., to comply with the CARB ATCM), 

which yields higher cost estimates than 

those in the Economic Analysis. 

The ICR document estimates that 

more than 990,000 firms are subject to 

the rule’s reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. Of these, nearly 925,000 

are domestic firms and approximately 

66,000 are foreign firms. Over the 3-year 

period covered by the ICR, the 

incremental burden of the rule 

(excluding burden for activities 

performed in the baseline) is estimated 

to average 5.8 million hours per year. 

The total annual burden (including 

burden for required activities performed 

in the baseline) is estimated to average 

7.9 million hours per year. The total 

burden reflects nearly 1.7 million 

responses per year over the 3 years of 

the ICR, where the number of responses 

includes both responses that are 

submitted to EPA or a third party as 

well as recordkeeping activities 

conducted by firms that only maintain 

records. The total annual burden 

equates to an average of approximately 

5 hours per response. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to an ICR unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number, or 

is otherwise required to submit the 

specific information by a statute. The 

OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations codified in Title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, after 

appearing in the preamble of the final 

rule, are further displayed either by 

publication in the Federal Register or 

by other appropriate means, such as on 

the related collection instrument or 

form, if applicable. The display of OMB 

control numbers for certain EPA 

regulations is consolidated in a list at 40 

CFR 9.1. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this proposed rule, 

which includes the ICR, under Docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0018. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES

unit at the beginning of this document 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503, 

Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the ICR between 30 to 60 

days after June 10, 2013, a comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it by July 10, 

2013. The final rule will respond to any 

OMB or public comments on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Small entities include small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: 

1. A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. 

2. A small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000. 

3. A small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, 

EPA prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines 

the impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities along with regulatory 

alternatives that could reduce that 

impact (Ref. 49). The IRFA is available 

for review in the docket and is 

summarized below. 

1. Need for the rule. TSCA section 

601(d) directs EPA to promulgate 

regulations to implement the 

formaldehyde standards for composite 

wood products described in TSCA 

section 601(b)(2). EPA is issuing a 

proposed rule under TSCA Title VI to 

implement the statutory formaldehyde 

emission standards for hardwood 

plywood, medium-density fiberboard, 

and particleboard sold, supplied, 

offered for sale, or manufactured 

(including imported) in the United 

States. As directed by the statute, this 

proposal includes provisions relating to, 

among other things, laminated products, 

products made with ultra low-emitting 

formaldehyde resins, products made 

with no-added formaldehyde resins, 

testing requirements, product labeling, 

chain of custody documentation and 

other recordkeeping requirements, and 

product inventory sell-through 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34853 

provisions, including a product 

stockpiling prohibition. 

2. Objectives and legal basis for the 

rule. The legal basis for the rule is TSCA 

section 601(d), which provides 

authority for the Administrator to 

‘‘promulgate regulations to implement 

the standards required under subsection 

(b) in a manner that ensures compliance 

with the emission standards described 

in subsection (b)(2).’’ Therefore, the 

central objective of the regulatory 

provisions of this proposal is to ensure 

compliance with the TSCA Title VI 

formaldehyde emission standards. 

3. Description and number of small 

entities to which the rule will apply. The 

small entities potentially affected by the 

rule are manufacturers (including 

importers), fabricators, distributors, and 

retailers of composite wood products. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of 

the rule on small entities, small entity 

is defined as: (1) A small business as 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. EPA estimates that 

the rule will affect approximately 

879,000 small entities. 

4. Projected compliance requirements. 

This proposal implements the statutory 

formaldehyde emission standards for 

hardwood plywood, medium-density 

fiberboard, and particleboard sold, 

supplied, offered for sale, or 

manufactured (including imported) in 

the United States. As directed by the 

statute, this proposal includes 

provisions relating to, among other 

things, laminated products, products 

made with ultra low-emitting 

formaldehyde resins, products made 

with no-added formaldehyde resins, 

testing requirements, product labeling, 

chain of custody documentation and 

other recordkeeping requirements, and 

product inventory sell-through 

provisions, including a product 

stockpiling prohibition. This proposal 

would establish requirements for 

manufacturers (including importers), 

fabricators, distributors, and retailers of 

composite wood products. The 

regulatory provisions in this proposal 

are designed to ensure compliance with 

the TSCA Title VI formaldehyde 

emission standards while aligning, 

where practical, with the regulatory 

requirements under the California Air 

Resources Board’s (CARB) Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure (ATCM). By 

aligning itself with the existing CARB 

requirements, EPA seeks to avoid 

differing or duplicative regulatory 

requirements that would result in an 

increased burden on the regulated 

community. 

5. Classes of small entities subject to 

the compliance requirements. Small 

entities include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. The small entities that are 

potentially directly regulated by this 

proposed rule are small businesses that 

are manufacturers (including importers), 

fabricators, distributors, or retailers of 

composite wood products. No small 

governments or small organizations are 

expected to be directly regulated by the 

rule. 

6. Professional skills needed to 

comply. Each panel producer must 

designate a person as quality control 

manager with adequate experience and/ 

or training to be responsible for 

formaldehyde emission quality control. 

EPA has not proposed criteria for 

determining whether an individual’s 

experience or training are appropriate 

for this position, but experience in the 

wood products industry or a degree in 

chemistry or a related field might 

provide the skills need to comply with 

the requirements. 

A panel producer must be able to 

follow sampling and handling 

procedures for the material that is to be 

tested. However, those procedures must 

be described in the panel producer’s 

quality control manual, and specified 

skills should not be needed to follow 

the written procedures. 

Each panel producer must also 

designate a quality control facility for 

conducting quality control 

formaldehyde testing, and the quality 

control facility must have quality 

control employees with adequate 

experience and/or training to conduct 

accurate chemical quantitative 

analytical tests. But instead of 

performing these functions themselves, 

panel producers have the option of 

hiring an accredited TPC or a contract 

laboratory to fulfill these requirements. 

To obtain product certification, a 

panel producer must apply to an 

accredited TPC, and must provide 

information and notifications to the 

TPC. Finally, manufacturers, fabricators, 

distributors, or retailers of composite 

wood products must maintain records. 

None of these activities requires any 

special skills. 

7. Relevant Federal rules. The U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) has regulations 

governing formaldehyde emission levels 

from plywood and particleboard 

materials installed in manufactured 

homes. (See 24 CFR 3280.308.) 

However, TSCA Title VI establishes 

specific formaldehyde emission 

standards for hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, and medium-density 

fiberboard and does not provide EPA 

with the authority to modify these 

standards. Furthermore, the 

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 

Wood Products Act, which includes 

TSCA Title VI, directs HUD to revise 

their regulations to ensure that they 

reflect the emission standards in TSCA 

Title VI. The HUD regulations do not 

deal with the other elements addressed 

in these implementing regulations 

(where EPA does have the authority to 

make determinations) such as laminated 

products, products made with ultra lowemitting formaldehyde resins, products 

made with no-added formaldehyde 

resins, testing requirements, chain of 

custody documentation, and product 

inventory sell-through provisions. 

Therefore, the regulatory provisions of 

this proposal for which EPA has 

flexibility in implementing the statute 

do not duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with any other Federal rules. 

8. Potential economic impacts on 

small entities. Of the 879,000 small 

firms affected by the proposal, over 

851,000 (about 97%) are expected to 

have costs impacts that are less than 1% 

of their revenues, over 23,000 firms 

(about 3%) are expected to experience 

impacts at levels between 1% to 3% of 

their revenue, and over 4,000 firms (less 

than 1%) are expected to incur costs 

exceeding 3% of their revenues. 

Many of the firms with cost impacts 

above 1% of their revenues are 

fabricators, wholesalers, and retailers 

with annualized costs less than $250 

(i.e., they are firms with annual 

revenues below $25,000). These firms 

account for 92% of the firms with cost 

impacts that are between 1% to 3% and 

42% of the firms with cost impacts that 

exceed 3%. 

9. Small Business Advocacy Review 

Panel. As required here by section 

609(b) of the RFA, as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA also 

conducted outreach to small entities 

and convened a Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel on February 3, 

2011, to obtain advice and 

recommendations of representatives of 

the small entities that potentially would 

be subject to the proposed rule’s 

requirements. The Panel solicited input 

on all aspects of these proposed 

regulations and on the framework for 

the third-party certification program 

under TSCA Title VI. Seventeen 

potentially-impacted small entities 

served as small-entity representatives 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34854 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(SERs) to the Panel, representing a broad 

range of small entities from diverse 

geographic locations, and five trade 

associations. The Panel concluded its 

deliberations on April 4, 2011. 

Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA 

requirements, the Panel evaluated the 

assembled materials and small-entity 

comments on issues related to elements 

of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report 

is included in the docket for this 

proposed rule (Ref. 15). It is important 

to note that the Panel’s findings and 

discussion were based on the 

information available at the time the 

final report was prepared. EPA has 

continued to conduct analyses relevant 

to the proposed rule, and additional 

information may be developed from 

public comment on the proposed rule. 

The Panel’s recommendations on the 

TPC framework were discussed in the 

TPC Proposal (Ref. 1). The Panel’s most 

significant findings and 

recommendations on other aspects of 

the TSCA Title VI implementing 

regulations are summarized below. 

a. In general. The Panel recommended 

that EPA adopt regulatory requirements 

that are consistent with the CARB 

ATCM wherever possible. EPA agrees 

with this recommendation and has tried 

throughout this proposal to remain 

consistent with CARB where it is 

practical to do so. 

b. Manufactured-by dates and 

stockpiling. The Panel generally agreed 

with those SERs that recommended that 

EPA propose to establish the 

manufactured-by date at 180 days after 

promulgation of the final rule and make 

the reference period for determining 

whether stockpiling has occurred the 

12-month period prior to promulgation 

of the final rule. The Panel also 

recommended that EPA request 

comments and data on alternative dates 

and reference periods. 

EPA is proposing to establish the 

manufactured-by date at 1 year after 

promulgation of the final rule. This is 

primarily to allow for development of 

the third-party certification 

infrastructure and to give panel 

producers who are not already 

complying with the CARB ATCM 

adequate time before the manufacturedby date to select an accredited TPC, 

develop a quality control manual, and 

complete the initial testing to qualify for 

product certification. 

EPA is proposing to establish the 

stockpiling reference period, or base 

period, as the calendar year 2009 

because, under TSCA Title VI, the base 

period must end before the statute was 

enacted. EPA requests comments and 

data on both the proposed 

manufactured-by date and the proposed 

base period for determining whether 

stockpiling has occurred. 

c. Quality control and compliance 

testing. The Panel recommended that 

EPA consider CARB’s method of 

establishing equivalency and carefully 

evaluate any alternative test method 

permitted. After considering the 

options, EPA is proposing to use 

CARB’s method of establishing 

equivalency between test methods and 

EPA is also proposing to recognize those 

alternative test methods that CARB has 

approved. 

The Panel further recommended that 

EPA provide clear direction on product 

decertification and recertification 

procedures and the recall of 

noncompliant products. In response to 

these recommendations, EPA has 

proposed specific provisions on what 

actions are required and allowed in the 

event of a failed test result. EPA has also 

proposed to require panel producers to 

hold lots selected for testing until the 

test results are received. 

d. Labeling and recordkeeping. The 

Panel generally recommended that 

labeling and recordkeeping provisions 

should be closely harmonized with 

CARB’s requirements, including 

allowing panels to be labeled by bundle, 

rather than individually. The Panel did 

recognize that subtle differences 

between the TSCA Title VI 

implementing regulations and the CARB 

ATCM may make identical labels 

impossible. EPA is proposing labeling 

requirements that are virtually identical 

to CARB’s, except that the labels must 

say that the products are TSCA Title VI 

compliant instead of CARB compliant. 

For entities that are manufacturers 

under TSCA (i.e., they manufacture, 

produce, or import composite wood 

panels, component parts, or finished 

goods), EPA’s proposed recordkeeping 

and chain of custody documentation 

requirements are also virtually identical 

to CARB’s. For distributors and retailers 

that are not manufacturers under TSCA, 

EPA is proposing that the only records 

they be required to keep are invoices 

and bills of lading. This requirement is 

less burdensome than recordkeeping 

and chain of custody requirements 

similar to those in the CARB ATCM. 

e. Laminated products and engineered 

veneer. The Panel recommended that 

EPA continue to seek available 

information, and exempt those 

laminated products that can be 

exempted consistent with the direction 

given in TSCA Title VI. The Panel 

further recommended that EPA work 

with small businesses, especially those 

laminating on a made-to-order basis, to 

design a testing scheme that is practical 

for those businesses, and at the same 

time, is calculated to ensure compliance 

with the emissions standards. The Panel 

also recommended that EPA consider 

basing the number and frequency of 

required quality control tests on 

production volume, thereby requiring 

fewer tests for smaller producers. EPA 

has incorporated all of these 

recommendations into this proposal, by 

proposing to exempt laminated products 

that are made with certified platforms 

and NAF resins, and by proposing to 

allow for quality control testing 

frequency based on production volume 

for hardwood plywood producers. 

f. Definitions. The Panel 

recommended that EPA develop a 

definition of ‘‘hardboard’’ that takes the 

revised ANSI standard into account 

while ensuring that similar products are 

similarly regulated under TSCA Title 

VI. EPA believes that its proposed 

definition takes into account both 

widespread industry usage of the term 

and the intent of the statute. 

Recognizing that TSCA Title VI was 

not intended to apply to structural 

plywood, the Panel also recommended 

that EPA develop a clear definition for 

‘‘interior use’’ in order to eliminate 

confusion in the regulated community. 

According to the Panel, the definition 

should be based on the intent of the 

statute and consider how the hardwood 

plywood is likely to be used and stored 

once incorporated into a finished good. 

EPA has proposed a definition of 

‘‘intended for interior use’’ that includes 

these considerations and requests 

comments on the appropriateness of this 

definition. 

While the SERs differed in their 

advice on the definition of the term 

‘‘panel,’’ the SBAR Panel recommended 

that EPA reduce uncertainty in the 

regulated community by including in its 

regulation a clear definition of ‘‘panel’’ 

that is based on the intent of the statute, 

and considers trade usage and the 

limitations of current test methods. 

Again, EPA is proposing a definition 

that takes these factors into account, and 

EPA requests comment on all aspects of 

the proposed definition. 

10. Alternatives considered. Over the 

course of this rulemaking, EPA 

considered alternatives for various 

provisions of the rule. Most of these 

alternatives would have applied to both 

small and large entities but, given the 

number of small entities in the affected 

industries, some of these alternatives 

could affect many small entities. EPA 

made a concerted effort to keep the costs 

and burdens associated with this rule as 

low as possible while still ensuring 

compliance with the TSCA Title VI 

emissions standards. In developing the 

proposed rule, EPA considered the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34855 

statutory requirements and the benefits 

from protection of human health and 

the environment, as well as the 

compliance costs imposed by the rule, 

both in general and on small entities. 

EPA took a number of steps to reduce 

the economic impacts of the rule where 

doing so was consistent with the 

statutory mandate. The steps where EPA 

was able to quantify the resulting cost 

reductions are: 

• Aligning with the CARB ATCM 

where practical. This regulatory 

proposal is designed to ensure 

compliance with the TSCA Title VI 

formaldehyde emission standards while 

aligning, where practical, with the 

regulatory requirements in California. 

Some of the areas where EPA has 

aligned the proposal with the CARB 

ATCM are described below. Aligning 

the TSCA implementing regulations 

with California’s requirements helps 

reduce costs for the nearly 100 

composite wood product mills, the 

32,000 fabricators, the 32,000 

wholesalers, and the 101,000 retailers 

that are already complying with the 

CARB ATCM in the baseline. However, 

EPA deviated from the CARB ATCM 

where doing so would reduce burden 

while still ensuring compliance with the 

TSCA Title VI emissions standards. The 

proposed rule costs $19 million to $31 

million per year less than an option that 

is fully consistent with the CARB 

ATCM. 

• Defining hardwood plywood to 

exclude laminated products in which a 

wood veneer is attached to a compliant 

and certified platform using a NAF 

resin, and defining laminated products 

without limiting applicability to the 

manufacturer or fabricator of the 

finished good in which the product is 

incorporated. These definitions will 

result in 98% of laminated product 

producers being regulated as fabricators 

rather than panel producers. As a result, 

the rule will cost $92 million to $172 

million per year less than if all 

laminated products were included in 

the definition of hardwood plywood. 

• Reducing recordkeeping for nonmanufacturers. The rule costs $40 

million per year less than if EPA had 

proposed recordkeeping requirements 

similar to the CARB ATCM’s. 

• Reducing TPC oversight and testing 

requirements for NAF and ULEF 

products. The ULEF provisions alone 

reduce the total rule costs by $0.5 

million per year. 

EPA also took a number of steps to 

reduce burden where it did not have 

sufficient information to quantify the 

resulting cost reductions. Some of these 

steps include: 

• Not requiring retailers to relabel 

items that they divide or repackage. 

• Reducing quality control testing for 

small hardwood plywood producers. 

• Reducing quality control testing for 

particleboard and medium-density 

fiberboard producers that demonstrate 

consistent operations and low 

variability of test values. 

• Allowing panel producers to group 

products and product types for testing. 

• Adopting a definition of hardboard 

that exempts hardboard products 

(including those made with phenolformaldehyde resin) from the statutory 

emission standards and the testing and 

certification requirements. 

• Setting the manufactured-by date 

for the sell-through provisions at 1 year 

after promulgation of the final rule, 

instead of the statutory minimum of 180 

days. 

• Allowing alternate test methods to 

ASTM D–6007–02 and ASTM D–5582 

for quality control testing, after 

demonstrating equivalence. 

• Not requiring recordkeeping for 

exempt products. 

• Allowing TPCs approved by CARB 

to certify products under TSCA Title VI 

until one year after the publication of 

the final rule, and allowing products 

currently certified by these TPCs to be 

considered certified for purposes of 

TSCA Title VI during that same period. 

Allowing equivalence between ASTM 

E–1333–10 and any other approved test 

method to be demonstrated in a range of 

formaldehyde concentrations that is 

representative of the emissions of the 

products that a TPC certifies. 

EPA also considered and rejected 

various alternatives to the rule that 

could affect the economic impacts of the 

rule on small entities. For the reasons 

described below, these alternatives are 

not consistent with the statutory 

objectives of the rule and are not 

included in the proposed rule. 

• Exempting all laminated products 

from the definition of hardwood 

plywood. EPA considered excluding all 

laminated products from the definition 

of hardwood plywood. Because 

eligibility for such an exemption would 

not be based on the type of resins used 

to attach a wood veneer to a platform, 

currently available information 

indicates that this would have allowed 

laminated products that exceed the 

formaldehyde emission standards to be 

exempted from the definition of 

hardwood plywood. Therefore, on the 

basis of information currently available 

to the Agency, EPA has concluded that 

exempting all laminated products from 

the definition of hardwood plywood is 

not consistent with TSCA Title VI’s 

statutory mandate that EPA promulgate 

regulations in a manner that ensures 

compliance with the emission standards 

in TSCA section 601(b)(2). 

• Providing additional de minimis 

exceptions. EPA has decided not to 

propose an exception from any of the 

regulatory requirements for products 

containing small amounts of composite 

wood products, other than 

implementing the statutory exceptions 

for certain windows and doors. EPA 

does not have the authority to 

promulgate a de minimis exception to 

the statutory requirements (e.g., 

emissions standards, or quarterly 

testing); rather EPA has the authority to 

promulgate a de minimis exception for 

the other regulatory provisions (e.g., 

record keeping, chain-of-custody, 

quality control testing, and labeling). 

EPA does not know of any information 

that suggests that products with a de 

minimis amount of composite wood 

products would necessarily be made 

from panels that meet the statutory 

emissions standards, as required by the 

statute. Thus, EPA believes it is 

necessary to make these products 

subject to the already reduced 

regulatory requirements. EPA has 

concluded that, on the basis of 

information currently available to the 

Agency, excepting such products would 

not be consistent with TSCA Title VI’s 

statutory mandate that EPA promulgate 

regulations in a manner that ensures 

compliance with the emission standards 

in TSCA section 601(b)(2). 

• Not requiring retention of tested 

lots. EPA is proposing to require that 

panel producers retain lots of composite 

wood products from which quality 

control or quarterly samples have been 

selected until the samples have been 

tested and the results received. Without 

this requirement, panel producers could 

inadvertently sell products exceeding 

the emission standards in TSCA section 

601(b)(2). Furthermore, EPA believes 

that the proposed approach may be less 

burdensome overall and offer better 

protection to importers, distributors, 

wholesalers, retailers, and consumers 

than an approach relying on after-thefact enforcement actions and customer 

notifications. 

Additional information on the 

alternatives that EPA considered is 

presented elsewhere in this proposal, 

and in the IRFA (Ref. 61). 

EPA invites comments on all aspects 

of the proposal and its impacts on small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, 

establishes requirements for Federal 

agencies to assess the effects of their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34856 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

regulatory actions on State, local, and 

tribal governments and the private 

sector. This rule contains a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

exceeding the inflation-adjusted UMRA 

threshold of $100 million or more for 

State, local, and tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any 1 year. Accordingly, EPA has 

prepared under section 202 of the 

UMRA a written statement which is 

summarized below (Ref. 62). 

1. Authorizing legislation. This 

proposed rule is issued under the 

authority of section 601 of TSCA, 15 

U.S.C. 2697. 

2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has 

prepared an analysis of the costs and 

benefits associated with this 

rulemaking, a copy of which is available 

in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 

46). The Economic Analysis presents 

the costs of the rule as well as various 

regulatory options and is summarized in 

Unit V.A. EPA has estimated that this 

proposal will result in a total cost of 

$434 million to $447 million in the first 

year. The cost is estimated to drop to 

$56 million to $65 million in the second 

year. The total annualized cost of this 

proposal is $72 million to $81 million 

per year when using a 3% discount rate 

and $80 million to $89 million per year 

using a 7% discount rate. When 

adjusted for inflation, the $100 million 

UMRA threshold is equivalent to 

approximately $143 million in 2010 

dollars. Thus, the cost of the rule to the 

private sector and State, local, and 

Tribal governments in the aggregate 

exceeds the inflation-adjusted UMRA 

threshold in the first year. 

This proposed rule will reduce 

exposures to formaldehyde, resulting in 

benefits from avoided adverse health 

effects. For the subset of health effects 

where the results were quantified, the 

estimated annualized benefits (due to 

avoided incidence of nasopharyngeal 

cancer and eye irritation) are $20 

million to $48 million per year using a 

3% discount rate, and $9 million to $23 

million per year using a 7% discount 

rate. There are additional unquantified 

benefits due to other avoided health 

effects. 

Net benefits are the difference 

between benefits and costs. The 

proposal is estimated to result in 

quantified net benefits of ¥$24 million 

to ¥$60 million per year using a 3% 

discount rate, and ¥$57 million to 

¥$79 million per year using a 7% 

discount rate. EPA considers the 

additional unquantified health benefits 

from avoided cases of respiratory related 

and other effects to be potentially 

important non-monetized impacts that 

contribute to the overall net benefits of 

this proposed rule. 

3. State, local, and Tribal government 

input. Consistent with the 

intergovernmental consultation 

provisions of section 204 of the UMRA 

EPA has initiated consultations with 

governmental entities affected by this 

proposed rule. EPA has met with 

officials from the state of California on 

numerous occasions to discuss aspects 

of the CARB ATCM and its 

implementation. With the assistance of 

the National Conference of State 

Legislatures, EPA has also initiated 

consultations with state environmental 

health directors. 

4. Least burdensome option. 

Consistent with section 205, EPA has 

identified and considered a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives. TSCA 

Title VI establishes specific 

formaldehyde emission standards for 

hardwood plywood, particleboard, and 

medium-density fiberboard and does 

not provide EPA with the authority to 

modify these standards. The statute 

further directs EPA to promulgate 

implementing regulations that address 

elements such as laminated products, 

products made with ultra low-emitting 

formaldehyde resins, products made 

with no-added formaldehyde resins, 

testing requirements, product labeling, 

chain of custody documentation and 

other recordkeeping requirements, and 

product inventory sell-through 

provisions. Section 601(d) of TSCA 

requires EPA to promulgate 

implementing regulations in a manner 

that ensures compliance with the TSCA 

Title VI emission standards. Within 

those constraints, EPA has considered a 

number of regulatory alternatives for 

regulating laminated products, as 

described in Unit III. and elsewhere in 

this unit, as well as in the Economic 

Analysis (Ref. 46). One of the alternative 

options that EPA considered, which 

would have exempted all laminated 

products from the definition of 

hardwood plywood, had lower costs 

than the proposed rule. But as explained 

elsewhere in this proposal, currently 

available information indicates that 

laminated products can exceed the 

formaldehyde emission standards. 

Therefore, on the basis of information 

currently available to the Agency, EPA 

has concluded that exempting all 

laminated products from the definition 

of hardwood plywood is not consistent 

with TSCA Title VI’s statutory mandate 

that EPA promulgate regulations in a 

manner that ensures compliance with 

the emission standards in TSCA section 

601(b)(2). EPA has determined that the 

proposed rule is the least burdensome 

option that is consistent with TSCA 

Title VI’s statutory mandate that EPA 

promulgate regulations in a manner that 

ensures compliance with the emission 

standards in TSCA section 601(b)(2). 

This rule does not contain a 

significant Federal intergovernmental 

mandate as described by section 203 of 

UMRA, because it neither imposes 

enforceable duties on State, local, or 

tribal governments nor reduces an 

authorized amount of Federal financial 

assistance provided to State, local, or 

tribal governments. And this proposed 

rule contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. The 

proposed rule would regulate entities 

that manufacture (including import), 

fabricate, distribute, or sell composite 

wood products. Governments do not 

typically engage in these activities, so 

government entities are not expected to 

be subject to the rule’s requirements. 

E . Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). The proposed rule 

would not regulate governments 

directly, it would regulate entities that 

manufacture (including import), 

fabricate, distribute, or sell composite 

wood products. Governments do not 

typically engage in these activities. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

has met with officials from the state of 

California on numerous occasions to 

discuss aspects of the CARB ATCM and 

its implementation. With the assistance 

of the National Conference of State 

Legislatures, EPA has also initiated 

consultations with state environmental 

health directors. EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed 

action from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The proposed rule would not 

regulate tribal governments directly, it 

would regulate entities that manufacture 

(including import), fabricate, distribute, 

or sell composite wood products. Tribal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34857 

governments do not typically engage in 

these activities. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action as defined 

by Executive Order 12866. Nevertheless, 

EPA has evaluated the environmental 

health effects of formaldehyde 

emissions from composite wood 

products on children. The results of this 

evaluation are described in the 

Economic Analysis (Ref. 46). The 

analysis shows that children aged 0 

through 1 represent 3% of the 

individuals affected by the rule and are 

estimated to accrue about 2% to 10% of 

the proposed rule’s total quantified 

benefits. Children aged 2 through 15 

represent 20% of the individuals 

affected by the proposed rule and are 

estimated to accrue about 16% to 22% 

of the proposed rule’s total quantified 

benefits. Given these results, EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule will 

not have disproportionally high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on children. These proposed 

standards would reduce emissions of 

formaldehyde from composite wood 

products for individuals of all ages that 

are exposed and children may accrue 

higher benefits from the exposure 

reductions compared to adults. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments or identify peer-reviewed 

studies and data that assess effects of 

early life exposure to formaldehyde. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001), because it is not likely 

to have any adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 

272 note, directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

numerous technical standards, many of 

which EPA is directed to use by TSCA 

Title VI. Technical standards identified 

in the statute include the two quarterly 

test methods, ASTM E–1333–96 and 

ASTM D–6007–02, a quality control test 

method, ASTM D–5582–00, and various 

standards that define specific composite 

wood products, such as ASTM D–5456– 

06 (Structural Composite Lumber 

Products), ASTM D–5055–05 

(Prefabricated Wood I-Joists), ANSI 

A190.1 (Structural Glued Laminated 

Timber), ANSI/HPVA HP–1–2009 

(Hardwood and Decorative Plywood), 

ANSI A208.2–2 2009 (Medium Density 

Fiberboard), ANSI A208.1–2009 

(Particleboard), PS–1–07 (Structural 

Plywood), and PS–2–04 (Wood-Based 

Structural-Use Panels). 

In addition, EPA has identified other 

voluntary consensus standards that EPA 

is proposing to incorporate into this 

regulation. These include the revised 

quarterly test method, ASTM E–1333– 

10, and standards that define hardboard, 

ANSI A135.4, ANSI A135.5, and ANSI 

A135.6. EPA is also proposing to allow 

three alternative quality control test 

methods that are incorporated in 

voluntary consensus standards, EN 717– 

2 (gas analysis), EN 120 (perforator), and 

JIS A 1460 (24-hour desiccator). 

EPA is proposing the use of voluntary 

consensus standards issued by the 

International Organization for 

Standardization, ASTM International, 

the American National Standards 

Institute, the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, the 

European Committee for 

Standardization, Georgia Pacific 

Chemicals LLC, and the Japanese 

Standards Association. Copies of the 

standards referenced in the proposed 

regulatory text at §§ 770.1, 770.3, 

770.10, 770.15, 770.17, and 770.20 have 

been placed in the docket for this 

proposed rule. You may also obtain 

copies of these standards from: 

(1) International Organization for 

Standardization, Case postale 56, 

CH·1211, Geneve 20, Switzerland, 

telephone +41–22–749–01–11, http:// 

www.iso.org. 

(2) ASTM International, 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 19428–2959 USA, 

telephone (877) 909–ASTM, http:// 

www.astm.org. 

(3) ANSI, American National 

Standards Institute, 1899 L Street, NW., 

11th Floor, Washington, DC 200036, 

telephone (202) 293–9287, http:// 

ansi.org/. 

(4) National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Technology 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 2150, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899–2150; http:// 

ts.nist.gov/docvps. 

(5) CEN, European Committee for 

Standardization, CEN–CENELEC 

Management Centre, 4th Floor, Avenue 

Marnix 17, B–1000 Brussels, telephone 

+32–3–550–08–11, http://www.cen.eu/ 

cen/pages/default.aspx. 

(6) Georgia-Pacific Chemicals LLC, 

133 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30303, 

telephone (877) 377–2737, http:// 

www.gp-dmc.com/default.aspx. 

(7) Japanese Standards Association, 

Japanese Industrial Standards, 1–24, 

Akasaka 4, Minatoku, Tokyo 107–8440, 

Japan, telephone +81–3–3583–8000, 

http://www.jsa.or.jp/. 

In the final rule, EPA intends to seek 

approval from the Director of the 

Federal Register for the incorporation by 

reference of the standards referenced in 

the final rule in accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 

EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and 

specifically invites the public to identify 

additional potentially applicable 

voluntary consensus standards and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionally high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

These proposed standards would reduce 

emissions of formaldehyde from 

composite wood products for all 

populations that are exposed, with 

slightly larger benefits for individuals 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34858 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

from minority or low-income affected 

populations. 

This proposed rule establishes 

standards that reduce emissions of 

formaldehyde from composite wood 

products. Formaldehyde exposure may 

cause a range of health effects including 

nasopharyngeal cancer, sensory 

irritation, respiratory related and other 

effects. 

The Economic Analysis (Ref. 46), 

described in Unit V.A., monetizes the 

benefits from reducing the number of 

cases of nasopharyngeal cancer and 

sensory irritation. Benefits valuation is 

done for formaldehyde exposure in five 

climate zones from nine different 

housing types (five types of new 

housing and four types of renovated 

housing), allowing for off-gassing of up 

to 10 years, as well as occupational, 

school, and outside formaldehyde 

exposure. The population in these 

climate zones and housing types is 

broken down into broad age and 

employment categories to assess 

exposure. 

The Economic Analysis (Ref. 46) 

includes an environmental justice 

analysis that expands on the primary 

benefits analysis by analyzing the 

monetized impacts specifically for 

minority and low-income populations. 

Results indicate that disaggregation of 

total benefits by population groups 

leads to variation in the range of 

individual benefits, by minority 

population. Benefits estimates are 

reported in 2010 dollars, annualized at 

a 3% rate. The population of all 

individuals affected by the proposed 

rule shows the same estimates reported 

in the total benefits analysis; quantified 

benefits for the proposed rule range 

from $20 million to $48 million, and 

average $0.19 to $0.45 per individual. 

The affected Non-Hispanic White 

population account for 65% of the total 

affected population, accrue 60% to 61% 

of the quantified benefits, and 

experience average annualized 

quantified benefits ranging from $0.18 

to $0.42 per individual. In comparison, 

benefits for minority populations are 

higher. Minority populations represent 

about 35% of the individuals affected by 

the rule and are estimated to accrue 

about 40% of the proposed rule’s 

quantified benefits. The affected NonHispanic Black population account for 

12% of the total affected population, 

accrue 13% of the quantified benefits, 

and experience average annualized 

quantified benefits ranging from $0.21 

to $0.49 per individual. The affected 

Hispanic population account for 15% of 

the total affected population, accrue 

18% of the quantified benefits, and 

experience average annualized 

quantified benefits ranging from $0.22 

to $0.51 per individual. The affected 

Non-Hispanic Native American or 

Alaskan Indian population account for 

0.6% of the total affected population, 

accrue 0.6% of the quantified benefits, 

and experience average annualized 

quantified benefits ranging from $0.19 

to $0.43 per individual. The affected 

low-income population account for 12% 

of the total affected population, accrue 

14% to 15% of the quantified benefits, 

and experience average annualized 

quantified benefits ranging from $0.22 

to $0.53 per individual. 

To further improve the analysis for 

the final rule, the public is invited to 

submit comments or identify peerreviewed studies and data that assess 

the exposures of minority or lowincome populations to formaldehyde 

emissions from composite wood 

products, and the health effects of those 

exposures. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 770 

Environmental protection, 

Formaldehyde, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Toxic 

substances, Wood. 

Dated: May 23, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting Administrator. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 770 is 

proposed to be amended to read as 

follows 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 770 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2697(d). 

■ 2. Section 770.1 is amended by adding 

paragraphs (b) through (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 770.1 Scope and applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) This subpart applies to any 

hardwood plywood, particleboard, or 

medium-density fiberboard, or finished 

goods containing these materials, that 

are sold, supplied, offered for sale, or 

manufactured (including imported) in 

the United States. 

(c) This subpart does not apply to the 

following: 

(1) Any finished good that has 

previously been sold or supplied to an 

individual or entity that purchased or 

acquired the finished good in good faith 

for purposes other than resale, e.g., an 

antique or secondhand furniture. 

(2) Hardboard, unless the hardboard is 

used as a core for hardwood plywood. 

(3) Structural plywood, as specified in 

PS–1–07, Voluntary Product Standard— 

Structural Plywood. 

(4) Structural panels, as specified in 

PS–2–04, Voluntary Product Standard— 

Performance Standard for Wood-Based 

Structural-Use Panels. 

(5) Structural composite lumber, as 

specified in ASTM D5456–06, Standard 

Specification for Evaluation of 

Structural Composite Lumber Products. 

(6) Oriented strand board. 

(7) Glued laminated lumber, as 

specified in ANSI A190.1–2002, 

Structural Glued Laminated Timber. 

(8) Prefabricated wood I-joists, as 

specified in ASTM D5055–05, Standard 

Specification for Establishing and 

Monitoring Structural Capacities of 

Prefabricated Wood I-Joists. 

(9) Finger-jointed lumber. 

(10) Wood packaging, including 

pallets, crates, spools, and dunnage. 

(11) Composite wood products used 

inside the following: 

(i) New vehicles (other than 

recreational vehicles) that are 

constructed entirely from new parts and 

that have never been the subject of a 

retail sale or registered with the 

applicable State or other governmental 

agency. 

(ii) New rail cars. 

(iii) New boats. 

(iv) New aerospace craft. 

(v) New aircraft. 

(d) The emission standards in 

§ 770.10 do not apply to windows that 

contain composite wood products, if the 

windows contain less than 5% by 

volume of hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, or medium-density 

fiberboard, combined, in relation to the 

total volume of the finished window. 

(e) The emission standards in § 770.10 

do not apply to exterior doors and 

garage doors that contain composite 

wood products, if: 

(1) The doors are made from 

composite wood products manufactured 

with no-added formaldehyde-based 

resins or ultra low-emitting 

formaldehyde resins; or 

(2) The doors contain less than 3% by 

volume of hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, or medium-density 

fiberboard, combined, in relation to the 

total volume of the finished exterior 

door or garage door. 

■ 3. Section 770.2 is amended by adding 

paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 770.2 Effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(d) After [date 1 year after publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register], 

all hardwood plywood, particleboard, 

and medium-density fiberboard, and 

finished goods containing these 

materials, sold, supplied, offered for 

sale, or manufactured (including 

imported) in the United States must 

comply with this subpart. Except: 

Hardwood plywood, particleboard, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34859 

medium-density fiberboard 

manufactured (including imported) 

before [date 1 year after publication of 

the final regulations in the Federal 

Register] may be sold, supplied, offered 

for sale, or used to fabricate component 

parts or finished goods at any time. 

(e) After [date 1 year after publication 

of the final rule in the Federal Register], 

all manufacturers (including importers), 

fabricators, suppliers, distributors, and 

retailers of hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, and medium-density 

fiberboard, and finished goods 

containing these materials, must comply 

with this subpart. 

■ 4. Section 770.3 is amended by 

revising the definition for ‘‘Panel 

producer’’ and alphabetically adding the 

definitions for ‘‘Article’’, ‘‘Bundle’’, 

‘‘Component part’’, ‘‘Distributor’’, 

‘‘Fabricator’’, ‘‘Finished good’’, 

‘‘Hardboard’’, ‘‘Hardwood plywood’’, 

‘‘Importer’’, ‘‘Intended for interior use’’, 

‘‘Laminated product’’, ‘‘Laminated 

product producer’’, ‘‘Lot’’, ‘‘Mediumdensity fiberboard’’, ‘‘No-added 

formaldehyde-based resin’’, ‘‘Noncomplying lot’’, ‘‘Panel’’, ‘‘Panel 

producer’’, ‘‘Particleboard’’, ‘‘Product 

type’’, ‘‘Product line’’, ‘‘Purchaser’’, 

‘‘Quality control limit’’, ‘‘Recreational 

vehicle’’, ‘‘Retailer’’, ‘‘Scavenger’’, 

‘‘Stockpiling’’, ‘‘Thin medium-density 

fiberboard’’, ‘‘Ultra low-emitting 

formaldehyde resin’’, ‘‘Veneer’’, and 

‘‘Woody grass’’ to read as follows: 

§ 770.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Article means a manufactured item 

which: 

(1) Is formed to a specific shape or 

design during manufacture. 

(2) Has end use functions dependent 

in whole or in part upon its shape or 

design during the end use. 

(3) Has either no change of chemical 

composition during its end use or only 

those changes of composition which 

have no commercial purpose separate 

from that of the article and that may 

occur as described in 19 CFR 

12.120(a)(2); except that fluids and 

particles are not considered articles 

regardless of shape or design. 

Bundle means more than one 

composite wood product panel, 

component part, or finished good 

fastened together for transportation or 

sale. 

Component part means a part that 

contains one or more composite wood 

products and is used in the assembly of 

finished goods. 

* * * * * 

Distributor means an entity that 

supplies composite wood products, 

component parts, or finished goods to 

others. 

* * * * * 

Fabricator means an entity that 

incorporates composite wood products 

into component parts or into finished 

goods. 

Finished good means any good or 

product, other than a panel, that 

contains hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, or medium-density 

fiberboard and that is not a component 

part or other part used in the assembly 

of a finished good. 

Hardboard means a panel composed 

of cellulosic fibers made by dry or wet 

forming and hot pressing of a fiber mat, 

either without resins, or with a phenolic 

resin (e.g., a phenol-formaldehyde resin) 

or a resin system in which there is no 

added formaldehyde as part of the resin 

cross-linking structure, as determined 

under one of the following ANSI 

standards: ANSI A135.4 (Basic 

Hardboard), ANSI A135.5 (Prefinished 

Hardboard Paneling), or ANSI A135.6 

(Hardboard Siding). 

Hardwood plywood means a 

hardwood or decorative panel that is 

intended for interior use and composed 

of (as determined under ANSI/HPVA 

HP–1–2009) an assembly of layers or 

plies of veneer, joined by an adhesive 

with a lumber core, a particleboard core, 

a medium-density fiberboard core, a 

hardboard core, a veneer core, or any 

other special core or special back 

material. Hardwood plywood does not 

include military-specified plywood, 

curved plywood, or any plywood 

specified in PS–1–07, Voluntary 

Product Standard—Structural Plywood, 

or PS–2–04, Voluntary Product 

Standard—Performance Standard for 

Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels. In 

addition, hardwood plywood does not 

include laminated products that are 

made by attaching a wood or woody 

grass veneer with a no-added 

formaldehyde-based resin to a core that 

has been manufactured in compliance 

with this subpart and that is either 

certified in accordance with § 770.15, 

manufactured with no-added 

formaldehyde-based resins under 

§ 770.17, or manufactured with ultra 

low-emitting formaldehyde-based resins 

under § 770.18(d). 

Importer means an entity that imports 

composite wood products, component 

parts that contain composite wood 

products, or finished goods that contain 

composite wood products into the 

customs territory of the United States 

(as defined in general note 2 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the 

United States). Importer includes: 

(1) The entity primarily liable for the 

payment of any duties on the products, 

or 

(2) An authorized agent acting on the 

entity’s behalf. 

Intended for interior use means 

intended for use or storage inside a 

building or recreational vehicle, or 

constructed in such a way that it is not 

suitable for long term use in a location 

exposed to the elements. 

* * * * * 

Laminated product means a product 

in which a wood or woody grass veneer 

is affixed to a particleboard platform, a 

medium-density fiberboard platform, or 

a veneer core platform. A laminated 

product is a component part used in the 

construction or assembly of a finished 

good. 

Laminated product producer means a 

manufacturing plant or other facility 

that manufactures (excluding facilities 

that solely import products) laminated 

products on the premises. 

Lot means the particular batch of a 

product type made during a single 

production run. 

Medium-density fiberboard means a 

panel composed of cellulosic fibers 

made by dry forming and pressing a 

resinated fiber mat (as determined 

under ANSI A208.2–2009). 

No-added formaldehyde-based resin 

means a resin formulated with no added 

formaldehyde as part of the resin crosslinking structure in a composite wood 

product that meets the emission 

standards in § 770.17(c). 

Non-complying lot means any lot or 

batch of composite wood product 

represented by a quarterly or quality 

control test value that exceeds the 

applicable standard for the particular 

composite wood product. In the case of 

a quarterly test value, only the 

particular lot or batch from which the 

sample was taken would be considered 

a non-complying lot. However, future 

production of the product type(s) 

represented by a failed quarterly test are 

not considered certified and must be 

treated as a non-complying lot until the 

product type(s) are re-qualified through 

a successful quarterly test. 

Panel means a flat or raised piece of 

composite wood product. 

Panel producer means a 

manufacturing plant or other facility 

that manufactures (excluding facilities 

that solely import products) composite 

wood products on the premises. This 

includes laminated products not 

excluded from the definition of 

hardwood plywood. 

Particleboard means a panel 

composed of cellulosic material in the 

form of discrete particles (as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34860 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

distinguished from fibers, flakes, or 

strands) that are pressed together with 

resin (as determined under ANSI 

A208.1–2009). Particleboard does not 

include any product specified in PS–2– 

04, Performance Standard for WoodBased Structural-Use Panels. 

* * * * * 

Product type means a type of 

composite wood product that differs 

from another, made by the same panel 

producer, based on wood type, 

composition, thickness, number of plies 

(if hardwood plywood), or resin used. 

Products with similar emissions made 

with the same resin system may be 

considered to be the same product type. 

Factors to consider in determining 

whether products belong to the same 

product type include those factors likely 

to affect emissions, such as wood type, 

resin type, core type, veneer type, and 

press time. 

Production line means a set of 

operations and physical industrial or 

mechanical equipment used to produce 

a composite wood product. 

Purchaser means an entity that 

acquires composite wood products in 

exchange for money or its equivalent. 

Quality control limit means the 

quality control method test 

formaldehyde value that is the 

correlative equivalent to the applicable 

emission standard based on the ASTM 

E1333–10 method. 

Recreational vehicle means a vehicle 

which is: 

(1) Built on a single chassis. 

(2) Four hundred square feet or less 

when measured at the largest horizontal 

projections. 

(3) Self-propelled or permanently 

towable by a light duty truck. 

(4) Designed primarily not for use as 

a permanent dwelling but as temporary 

living quarters for recreational, 

camping, travel, or seasonal use. 

Retailer means an entity that generally 

sells smaller quantities of composite 

wood products directly to consumers. 

Scavenger means a chemical or 

chemicals that can be applied to resins 

or composite wood products to reduce 

the amount of formaldehyde that can be 

emitted from composite wood products. 

Stockpiling means manufacturing or 

purchasing composite wood products, 

whether in the form of panels or 

incorporated into finished goods, 

between July 7, 2010 and [date 180 days 

after publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] at an average rate at 

least 20% greater than the average rate 

of manufacture or purchase during the 

2009 calendar year for the purpose of 

circumventing the emission standards 

and other requirements of this subpart. 

Thin medium-density fiberboard 

means medium-density fiberboard that 

has a thickness less than or equal to 8 

millimeters or 0.315 inches. 

* * * * * 

Ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resin 

means a resin in a composite wood 

product that meets the emission 

standards in § 770.18(c). 

Veneer means a thin sheet of wood or 

woody grass that is rotary cut, sliced, or 

sawed from a log, bolt, flitch, block, or 

culm. 

Woody grass means a plant of the 

family Poaceae (formerly Gramineae) 

with hard lignified tissues or woody 

parts. 

■ 5. Subpart C is added to read as 

follows: 

Subpart C—Composite Wood Products 

Sec. 

770.10 Formaldehyde emission standards. 

770.12 Stockpiling. 

770.15 Composite wood product 

certification. 

770.17 No-added formaldehyde-based 

resins. 

770.18 Ultra low-emitting formaldehyde 

resins. 

770.20 Testing requirements. 

770.22 Non-complying lots. 

770.24 Samples for testing. 

770.30 Importers, fabricators, laminated 

product producers, distributors, and 

retailers. 

770.40 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

770.45 Labeling. 

770.55 Prohibited acts. 

Subpart C—Composite Wood Products 

§ 770.10 Formaldehyde emission 

standards. 

(a) Except as provided in §§ 770.1 and 

770.17, the emission standards in this 

section apply to composite wood 

products sold, supplied, offered for sale, 

or manufactured (including imported) 

in the United States. These emission 

standards apply regardless of whether 

the composite wood product is in the 

form of a panel, a component part, or 

incorporated into a finished good. 

(b) The emission standards are based 

on test method ASTM E1333–10, and 

are as follows: 

(1) For hardwood plywood, 0.05 parts 

per million (ppm) of formaldehyde. 

(2) For medium-density fiberboard, 

0.11 ppm of formaldehyde. 

(3) For thin medium-density 

fiberboard, 0.13 ppm of formaldehyde. 

(4) For particleboard, 0.09 ppm of 

formaldehyde. 

§ 770.12 Stockpiling. 

(a) The sale of stockpiled inventory of 

composite wood products, whether in 

the form of panels or incorporated into 

finished goods, is prohibited after [date 

1 year after publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register]. 

(b) To determine whether stockpiling 

has occurred, the rate of manufacture or 

purchase is measured as follows: 

(1) For composite wood products in 

the form of panels, the rate is measured 

in terms of square footage of panels 

produced. 

(2) For composite wood products 

incorporated into component parts or 

finished goods, the rate is measured in 

terms of the square footage of composite 

wood product panels purchased for the 

purpose of incorporating them into 

component parts or finished goods. 

(c) Manufacturers or purchasers who 

can demonstrate that they have a greater 

than 20% increase in manufacturing or 

purchasing composite wood products 

for some reason other than 

circumventing the emissions standards 

would not be in violation of this section. 

Such reasons may include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) A quantifiable immediate increase 

in customer demand or sales. 

(2) A documented and planned 

business expansion. 

(3) The manufacturer or purchaser 

was not in business at the beginning of 

calendar year 2009. 

(4) An increase in production to meet 

increased demand resulting from an 

emergency event or natural disaster. 

§ 770.15 Composite wood product 

certification. 

(a) Only certified composite wood 

products, whether in the form of panels 

or incorporated into component parts or 

finished goods, are permitted to be sold, 

supplied, offered for sale, or 

manufactured (including imported) in 

the United States, unless the product is 

specifically exempted by this subpart. 

(b) Certified composite wood products 

are those that are produced or fabricated 

in accordance with all of the provisions 

of this subpart. 

(c) To obtain product certification, a 

panel producer must apply to a TSCA 

Title VI Accredited TPC. The 

application must contain the following: 

(1) The panel producer’s name, 

address, telephone number, and other 

contact information. 

(2) A copy of the panel producer’s 

quality control manual as required by 

§ 770.20(e)(1). 

(3) Name and contact information for 

the panel producer’s quality control 

manager. 

(4) An identification of the specific 

products for which certification is 

requested, and the chemical formulation 

of the resins, including base resins, 

catalysts, and other additives used in 

panel production. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34861 

(5) At least one test conducted in 

accordance with § 770.20(c). 

(6) Three months of routine quality 

control tests conducted in accordance 

with § 770.20(b). 

(d) The TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC 

must act on a panel producer’s complete 

application within 90 days of receipt. 

(1) If the application demonstrates 

that the candidate product achieves the 

applicable emission standards described 

in § 770.10, the TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC will approve the 

application. 

(2) If the application does not 

demonstrate that the candidate product 

achieves the applicable emission 

standards described in § 770.10, the 

TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC will 

disapprove the application. A new 

application may be submitted for the 

candidate product at any time. 

(e) If a panel producer fails a quarterly 

test, certification for any product types 

represented by the sample is suspended 

until a compliant quarterly test result is 

obtained. 

§ 770.17 No-added formaldehyde-based 

resins. 

(a) Producers of composite wood 

product panels made with no-added 

formaldehyde-based resins may apply to 

a TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC for a 

2-year exemption from the testing and 

certification requirements in § 770.20. A 

copy of the application must be sent to 

EPA. The application must contain the 

following: 

(1) The panel producer’s name, 

address, telephone number, and other 

contact information. 

(2) An identification of the specific 

product and the chemical formulation of 

the resins, including base resins, 

catalysts, and other additives as used in 

manufacturing. 

(3) At least one test conducted under 

the supervision of a TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC pursuant to test method 

ASTM E1333–10 or ASTM D6007–02. 

Test results obtained by ASTM D6007– 

02 must include a showing of 

equivalence in accordance with 

§ 770.20(d)(1). 

(4) Three months of routine quality 

control tests under § 770.20, including a 

showing of equivalence in accordance 

with § 770.20(d)(2). 

(b) The TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC 

will approve a panel producer’s 

application within 90 days of receipt if 

the application is complete and 

demonstrates that the candidate product 

achieves the emission standards 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(c) As measured according to 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this 

section, the emission standards for 

composite wood products made with 

no-added formaldehyde-based resins are 

as follows: 

(1) No test result higher than 0.05 

parts per million (ppm) of formaldehyde 

for hardwood plywood and 0.06 ppm 

for particleboard, medium-density 

fiberboard, and thin medium-density 

fiberboard. 

(2) No higher than 0.04 ppm of 

formaldehyde for 90% of the 3 months 

of routine quality control testing data 

required under paragraph (a)(4) of this 

section. 

(d) After the initial 2-year period, and 

every 2 years thereafter, in order to 

continue to qualify for the exemption 

from the testing and certification 

requirements, the panel producer must 

reapply to a TSCA Title VI Accredited 

TPC and obtain at least one test result 

in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section that complies with the 

emission standards in paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section. 

(e) Any change in the resin 

formulation, the core material, or any 

other part of the manufacturing process 

that may affect formaldehyde emission 

rates invalidates the exemption for any 

product produced after such a change. 

§ 770.18 Ultra low-emitting formaldehyde 

resins. 

(a) Producers of composite wood 

product panels made with ultra lowemitting formaldehyde resins may apply 

to a TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC for 

approval either to conduct less frequent 

testing than is specified in § 770.20 or 

approval for a 2-year exemption from 

the testing and certification 

requirements in § 770.20. A copy of the 

application must be sent to EPA. The 

application must contain the following: 

(1) The panel producer’s name, 

address, telephone number, and other 

contact information. 

(2) An identification of the specific 

product and the chemical formulation of 

the resins, including base resins, 

scavenger resins, scavenger additives, 

catalysts, and other additives as used in 

manufacturing. 

(3) At least two tests conducted under 

the supervision of a TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC pursuant to test method 

ASTM E1333–10 or ASTM D6007–02. 

Test results obtained by ASTM D6007– 

02 must include a showing of 

equivalence in accordance with 

§ 770.20(d)(1). 

(4) Six months of routine quality 

control tests under § 770.20, including a 

showing of equivalence in accordance 

with § 770.20(d)(2). 

(b) The TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC 

will approve a panel producer’s 

application within 90 days of receipt if 

the application is complete and 

demonstrates that the candidate product 

achieves the emission standards 

required for reduced testing as 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section or the emission standards 

required for a 2-year exemption as 

described in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(c) As measured according to 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this 

section, the emission standards for 

reduced testing for composite wood 

products made with ultra low-emitting 

formaldehyde resins are as follows: 

(1) No test result higher than 0.05 

parts per million (ppm) of formaldehyde 

for hardwood plywood, 0.08 ppm for 

particleboard, 0.09 ppm for mediumdensity fiberboard, and 0.11 ppm for 

thin medium-density fiberboard. 

(2) For 90% of the 6 months of routine 

quality control testing data required 

under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, 

no higher than 0.05 ppm of 

formaldehyde for particleboard, no 

higher than 0.06 ppm of formaldehyde 

for medium-density fiberboard, and no 

higher than 0.08 ppm of formaldehyde 

for thin medium-density fiberboard. 

(d) As measured according to 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this 

section, the emission standards for an 

exemption from the testing and 

certification requirements of § 770.20 for 

composite wood products made with 

ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins 

are as follows: 

(1) No test result higher than 0.05 

ppm of formaldehyde for hardwood 

plywood or 0.06 ppm of formaldehyde 

for particleboard, medium-density 

fiberboard, and thin medium-density 

fiberboard. 

(2) For 90% of the 6 months of routine 

quality control testing data required 

under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, 

no higher than 0.04 parts per million of 

formaldehyde. 

(e) After the initial 2-year period, and 

every 2 years thereafter, in order to 

continue to qualify for an exemption 

from the testing and certification 

requirements, the panel producer must 

reapply to a TSCA Title VI Accredited 

TPC and obtain at least one test result 

in accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section that complies with the 

emission standards in paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section. 

(f) Any change in the resin 

formulation, the core material, or any 

other part of the manufacturing process 

that may affect formaldehyde emission 

rates invalidates the exemption from the 

testing and certification requirements 

for any product resulting from such a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34862 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

change and produced after such a 

change. 

§ 770.20 Testing requirements. 

(a) General requirements—(1) All 

panels must be tested in an unfinished 

condition, prior to the application of a 

finishing or topcoat. 

(2) Facilities that conduct the 

formaldehyde testing required by this 

section must follow the procedures and 

specifications, such as testing 

conditions and loading ratios, of the test 

method being used. 

(3) All equipment used in the 

formaldehyde testing required by this 

section must be calibrated and 

otherwise maintained and used in 

accordance with the equipment 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

(b) Quality control testing—(1) 

Allowable methods. Quality control 

testing may be performed using any of 

the following methods, with a showing 

of equivalence for each method 

pursuant to paragraph (d) of this 

section: 

(i) ASTM D6007–02. 

(ii) ASTM D5582. 

(iii) EN 717–2 (Gas Analysis Method). 

(iv) DMC (Dynamic Micro Chamber). 

(v) EN 120 (Perforator Method). 

(vi) JIS A 1460 (24-hr Desiccator 

Method). 

(2) Frequency of testing—(i) 

Particleboard and medium-density 

fiberboard must be tested at least once 

per shift (8 or 12 hours, plus or minus 

1 hour of production) for each 

production line for each product type. 

Quality control tests must also be 

conducted whenever: 

(A) A product type production ends, 

even if 8 hours of production has not 

been reached. 

(B) The resin formulation is changed 

so that the formaldehyde to urea ratio is 

increased. 

(C) There is an increase by more than 

10% in the amount of formaldehyde 

resin used, by square foot or by panel. 

(D) There is a decrease in the 

designated press time by more than 

20%. 

(E) The quality control manager or 

quality control employee has reason to 

believe that the panel being produced 

may not meet the requirements of the 

applicable standards. 

(ii) Particleboard and medium-density 

fiberboard panel producers are eligible 

for reduced quality control testing if 

they demonstrate consistent operations 

and low variability of test values. To 

qualify, panel producers must: 

(A) Apply in writing to a TSCA Title 

VI Accredited TPC. 

(B) Maintain a 30 panel running 

average. 

(C) If the 30 panel running average 

remains 2 standard deviations below the 

designated quality control limit for 60 

days or more, the TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC may approve a 

reduction to 1 quality control test per 

24-hour production period. 

(D) If the 30 panel running average 

remains 3 standard deviations below the 

designated quality control limit for 60 

days or more, the TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC may approve a 

reduction to 1 quality control test per 

48-hour production period. 

(E) The TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC 

will approve a request for reduced 

quality control testing as long as the 

data submitted by the panel producer 

demonstrates compliance with the 

criteria and the TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC does not otherwise have 

reason to believe that the data are 

inaccurate or the panel producer’s 

production processes are inadequate to 

ensure continued compliance with the 

emission standards. 

(iii) Hardwood plywood must be 

tested as follows: 

(A) At least one test per week per 

product type and production line if the 

weekly hardwood plywood production 

at the panel producer is more than 

100,000 but less than 200,000 square 

feet. 

(B) At least two tests per week per 

product type and production line if the 

weekly hardwood plywood production 

at the panel producer is 200,000 square 

feet or more, but less than 400,000 

square feet. 

(C) At least four times per week per 

product type and production line if the 

weekly hardwood plywood production 

at the panel producer is 400,000 square 

feet or more. 

(D) If weekly production of hardwood 

plywood at the panel producer is 

100,000 square feet or less, at least one 

test per 100,000 square feet for each 

product type produced; or, if less than 

100,000 square feet of a particular 

product type in a single production run 

is produced, one quality control test of 

that product type per production run or 

lot produced. 

(iv) Composite wood products that 

have been approved by TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC for reduced testing 

under § 770.18(b) through (c) must be 

tested at least once per week per 

product type and production line, 

except that hardwood plywood panel 

producers who qualify for less frequent 

testing under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(D) of 

this section may continue to perform 

quality control testing under that 

provision. 

(3) Lots selected for sampling. All lots 

from which samples are selected for 

quality control testing must be retained 

at the panel producer’s facility until the 

quality control test results are received 

by the panel producer. 

(i) Lots represented by passing quality 

control test results may be shipped as 

soon as the test results are received by 

the panel producer. 

(ii) Lots represented by failing quality 

control test results must be handled as 

non-complying lots in accordance with 

§ 770.22 

(4) Results. Any sample that exceeds 

the quality control limit established 

pursuant to this section must be 

reported to the TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC in writing within 24 

hours. Any lot or batch represented by 

a quality control sample that exceeds 

the quality control limit must be 

handled in accordance with § 770.22. 

(c) Quarterly testing. Quarterly testing 

must be supervised by TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPCs and performed by 

laboratories accredited under § 770.7. 

(1) Allowable methods. Quarterly 

testing must be performed using ASTM 

E1333–10 or, with a showing of 

equivalence pursuant to paragraph (d) of 

this section, ASTM D6007–02. 

(2) Sample selection—(i) Samples 

must be randomly chosen by a TSCA 

Title VI Accredited TPC from a single 

lot or group of lots that is ready for 

shipment by the panel producer. 

(ii) Lots may be grouped for quarterly 

testing purposes. For hardwood 

plywood samples, the samples must be 

randomly selected from products that 

have the highest potential to emit 

formaldehyde. 

(iii) Samples must not include the top 

or the bottom composite wood product 

of a bundle. 

(iv) All lots from which samples are 

selected for quarterly testing must be 

retained at the panel producer’s facility 

until the quarterly test results are 

received by the panel producer. This 

includes lots that are grouped for 

purposes of quarterly testing. 

(A) Lots represented by passing 

quarterly test results may be shipped as 

soon as the test results are received by 

the panel producer. 

(B) Lots represented by failing 

quarterly test results must be disposed 

of as non-complying lots in accordance 

with § 770.22 

(3) Sample handling. Samples must 

be dead-stacked or air-tight wrapped 

between the time of sample selection 

and the start of test conditioning. 

Samples must be labeled as such, signed 

by the TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC, 

bundled air-tight, wrapped in 

polyethylene, protected by cover sheets, 

and promptly shipped to the laboratory 

testing facility. Conditioning must begin 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34863 

as soon as possible, but no later than 30 

days after the samples were produced. 

(4) Results. Any sample that exceeds 

the applicable formaldehyde emission 

standard in § 770.10 must be reported 

by the TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC to 

the panel producer and to EPA in 

writing within 24 hours. Any lot or 

batch represented by a sample result 

that exceeds the applicable 

formaldehyde emission standard must 

be disposed of in accordance with 

§ 770.22. Where lots are grouped for 

testing, this includes all lots in the 

group represented by the sample. 

(5) Reduced testing frequency. 

Composite wood products that have 

been approved by TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC for reduced testing 

under § 770.18(b) through (c) need only 

undergo quarterly testing every six 

months. 

(d) Equivalence. Equivalence between 

ASTM E1333–10 and any other test 

method used for quality control or 

quarterly testing must be demonstrated 

by TSCA Title VI Accredited TPCs at 

least once each year or whenever there 

is a significant change in equipment, 

procedure, or the qualifications of 

testing personnel. 

(1) Equivalence between ASTM 

E1333–10 and ASTM D6007–02. 

Equivalence must be demonstrated for 

at least five comparison sample sets, 

which compare the results of the two 

methods. 

(i) Samples—(A) For the ASTM 

E1333–10 method, each comparison 

sample must consist of the result of 

simultaneously testing panels, using the 

applicable loading ratios specified in 

the ASTM E1333–10 method, from the 

same batch of panels tested by the 

ASTM D6007–02 method. 

(B) For the ASTM D6007–02 method, 

each comparison sample shall consist of 

testing specimens representing portions 

of panels tested in the ASTM E1333–10 

method and matched to their respective 

ASTM E1333–10 method comparison 

sample result. 

(C) The five comparison sample sets 

must consist of testing a minimum of 

five sample sets as measured by the 

ASTM E1333–10 method. 

(ii) Average and standard deviation. 

The arithmetic mean, x ̄, and standard 

deviation, S, of the difference of all 

comparison sets must be calculated as 

follows: 

Where x ̄ = arithmetic mean; 

S = standard deviation; 

n = number of sets; 

Di = difference between the ASTM E1333–10 

and ASTM D6007–02 method values for 

the ith set; and 

i ranges from 1 to n. 

(iii) Equivalence determination. The 

ASTM D6007–02 method is considered 

equivalent to the ASTM E1333–10 

method if the following condition is 

met: 

Where C is equal to 0.026. 

(2) Equivalence Between ASTM 

E1333–10 and any quality control test 

method other than ASTM D6007–02. 

Equivalence must be demonstrated by 

establishing an acceptable correlation 

coefficient (‘‘r’’ value). 

(i) Correlation. The correlation must 

be based on a minimum sample size of 

five data pairs and a simple linear 

regression where the dependent variable 

(Y-axis) is the quality control test value 

and the independent variable (X-axis) is 

the ASTM E1333–10 test value. Either 

composite wood products or 

formaldehyde emission reference 

materials can be used to establish the 

correlation. 

(ii) Minimum acceptable correlation 

coefficients (‘‘r’’ values). The minimum 

acceptable correlation coefficients for 

equivalency correlations are as follows, 

where ‘‘n’’ is equal to the number of 

data pairs, and ‘‘r’’ is the correlation 

coefficient: 

Degrees of freedom 

(n-2) r Value 

3 ................................................ 0.878 

4 ................................................ 0.811 

5 ................................................ 0.754 

6 ................................................ 0.707 

7 ................................................ 0.666 

8 ................................................ 0.632 

9 ................................................ 0.602 

10 or more ................................ 0.576 

(iii) Variation from previous results. If 

data from a TSCA Title VI Accredited 

TPC’s quarterly test results and a panel 

producer’s quality control test results do 

not fit the previously established 

correlation, the TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC must establish a new 

correlation, and new quality control 

limits. 

(iv) Failed quarterly tests. If a panel 

producer fails two quarterly tests in a 

row for the same product type, the 

TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC must 

establish a new correlation curve. 

(e) Quality assurance and quality 

control requirements for panel 

producers. Panel producers are 

responsible for product compliance 

with the applicable emission standards. 

(1) Quality control manual—(i) Each 

panel producer must have a written 

quality control manual containing, at a 

minimum, the following: 

(A) A description of the 

organizational structure of the quality 

control department, including the 

names of the quality control manager 

and quality control employees. 

(B) A description of the sampling 

procedures to be followed. 

(C) A description of the method of 

handling samples. 

(D) A description of the frequency of 

quality control testing. 

(E) A description of the procedures 

used to identify changes in 

formaldehyde emissions resulting from 

production changes (e.g., increase in the 

percentage of resin, increase in 

formaldehyde/urea molar ratio in the 

resin, or decrease in press time). 

(F) A description of provisions for 

additional testing. 

(G) A description of recordkeeping 

procedures. 

(H) The average percentage of resin 

and press time for each product type. 

(I) A description of product grouping, 

if applicable. 

(J) Procedures for reduced quality 

control testing, if applicable. 

(ii) The quality control manual must 

be approved by a TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC. 

(2) Quality control facilities. Each 

panel producer must designate a quality 

control facility for conducting quality 

control formaldehyde testing. 

(i) The quality control facility must be 

a laboratory owned and operated by the 

panel producer, a TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC, or a contract 

laboratory. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP10JN13.004</GPH> EP10JN13.005</GPH>
34864 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Each quality control facility must 

have quality control employees with 

adequate experience and/or training to 

conduct accurate chemical quantitative 

analytical tests. The quality control 

manager must identify each person 

conducting formaldehyde quality 

control testing to the TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC. 

(3) Quality control manager. Each 

panel producer must designate a person 

as quality control manager with 

adequate experience and/or training to 

be responsible for formaldehyde 

emission quality control. The quality 

control manager must: 

(i) Have the authority to take actions 

necessary to ensure that applicable 

formaldehyde emission standards are 

being met on an ongoing basis. 

(ii) Be identified to the TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC that will be overseeing 

the quality control testing. The panel 

producer must notify the TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC in writing within 10 

days of any change in the identity of the 

quality control manager and provide the 

TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC with the 

new quality control manager’s 

qualifications. 

(iii) Review and approve all reports of 

quality control testing conducted on the 

production of the panel producer. 

(iv) Ensure that the samples are 

collected, packaged, and shipped 

according to the procedures specified in 

the quality control manual. 

(v) Immediately inform the TSCA 

Title VI Accredited TPC in writing of 

any significant changes in production 

that could affect formaldehyde 

emissions. 

§ 770.22 Non-complying lots. 

(a) Non-complying lots are not 

certified composite wood products and 

they may not be sold, supplied or 

offered for sale in the United States 

except in accordance with this section. 

(b) Non-complying lots must be 

isolated from certified lots. 

(c) Non-complying lots may be 

retested using the same test method if 

each panel is treated with a scavenger 

or handled by other means of reducing 

formaldehyde emissions, such as aging. 

Tests must be performed as follows: 

(1) At least three test panels must be 

selected from three separate bundles. 

They must be selected so that they are 

representative of the entire lot. Test 

samples must not be selected from the 

top or bottom panels of a bundle. 

(2) The average of all samples must 

test at or below the applicable emission 

standards in § 770.10. 

(d) Information on the disposition of 

non-complying lots, including product 

type and amount of composite wood 

products affected, lot or batch numbers, 

mitigation measures used, results of 

retesting, and final disposition, must be 

provided to the TSCA Title VI 

Accredited TPC within 7 days of final 

disposition. 

§ 770.24 Samples for testing. 

(a) Composite wood product panels 

may be shipped into and transported 

across the United States for quality 

control or quarterly tests. 

(1) Such panels may not be sold, 

offered for sale or supplied to any entity 

other than a TSCA Title VI Accredited 

TPC laboratory or a contract laboratory 

before testing in accordance with 

§ 770.20. 

(2) If test results for such panels 

demonstrate compliance with the 

emissions standards in this subpart, the 

panels may be relabeled in accordance 

with § 770.50 and sold, offered for sale, 

or supplied. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 770.30 Importers, fabricators, laminated 

product producers, distributors, and 

retailers. 

(a) Importers, fabricators, laminated 

product producers whose products are 

exempt from the definition of hardwood 

plywood, distributors, and retailers 

must take reasonable precautions to 

ensure that they are purchasing 

composite wood products, whether in 

the form of panels, component parts, or 

finished goods, that comply with the 

emission standards and other 

requirements of this subpart. 

(b) For importers, fabricators, and 

laminated product producers, taking 

reasonable precautions means 

specifying TSCA Title VI compliant 

products when ordering or purchasing 

from suppliers and obtaining the 

following records: 

(1) Records identifying the panel 

producer and the date the composite 

wood products were produced. 

(2) Records identifying the date the 

composite wood products were 

purchased. 

(3) Bills of lading or invoices that 

include a written affirmation from the 

supplier that the composite wood 

products are compliant with this 

subpart. 

(c) Importers of articles that are 

composite wood products, or articles 

that contain composite wood products, 

must comply with the import 

certification regulations for ‘‘Chemical 

Substances in Bulk and As Part of 

Mixtures and Articles,’’ as found at 19 

CFR 12.118 through 12.127 or as later 

promulgated. 

(d) Records required by this section 

must be maintained in accordance with 

§ 770.40(d). 

§ 770.40 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

(a) Panel producers must maintain the 

following records for a period of 3 years. 

The following records must also be 

made available to the panel producers’ 

TSCA Title VI Accredited TPCs. 

Records described in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section must also be made available 

to purchasers of their composite wood 

products. 

(1) Records of all quarterly emission 

testing and all ongoing quality control 

testing. These records must identify the 

TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC 

conducting or overseeing the testing and 

the laboratory or quality control facility 

actually performing the testing. These 

records must also include the date, the 

product type tested, the lot or batch 

number that the tested material 

represents, the test method used, and 

the test results. 

(2) Production records, including a 

description of the composite wood 

product(s), the date of manufacture, lot 

or batch numbers, and tracking 

information allowing each product to be 

traced to a specific lot number or batch 

produced. 

(3) Records of changes in production, 

including changes of more than 10% in 

the resin use percentage, changes in 

resin composition that result in a higher 

ratio of formaldehyde to other resin 

components, and changes in the 

process, such as changes in press time 

by more than 20%. 

(4) Records demonstrating initial and 

continued eligibility for the reduced 

testing provisions in §§ 770.17 and 

770.18, if applicable. These records 

must include: 

(i) Approval for reduced testing from 

a TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC. 

(ii) Amount of resin use reported by 

volume and weight. 

(iii) Production volume reported as 

square feet per product type. 

(iv) Resin trade name, resin 

manufacturer contact information, and 

resin supplier contact information. 

(v) Any changes in the formulation of 

the resin. 

(5) Purchaser information for each 

composite wood product, if applicable, 

including the name, contact person, 

address, telephone number, email 

address if available, purchase order or 

invoice number, and amount purchased. 

(6) Transporter information for each 

composite wood product, if applicable, 

including name, contact person, 

address, telephone number, email 

address if available, and shipping 

invoice number. 

(7) Information on the disposition of 

non-complying lots, including product 

type and amount of composite wood 

products affected, lot or batch numbers, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34865 

mitigation measures used, results of 

retesting, and final disposition. 

(8) Copies of labels used. 

(b) Panel producers must provide 

their TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC 

with monthly product data reports for 

each production facility, production 

line, and product type, maintain copies 

of the reports for a minimum of 3 years 

from the date that they are produced. 

Monthly product data reports must 

contain a data sheet for each specific 

product type with test and production 

information, and a quality control graph 

containing the following: 

(1) Quality Control Limit (QCL). 

(2) Shipping QCL (if applicable). 

(3) Results of quality control tests. 

(4) Retest values. 

(c) Laminated product producers 

whose products are exempt from the 

definition of hardwood plywood must 

keep records demonstrating eligibility 

for the exemption. These records 

include: 

(1) Resin trade name, resin 

manufacturer contact information, resin 

supplier contact information, and resin 

purchase records. 

(2) Panel producer contact 

information and panel purchase records. 

(3) For panels produced in-house, 

records demonstrating that the panels 

have been certified by an accredited 

TPC. 

(4) For resins produced in-house, 

records demonstrating the production of 

NAF resins. 

(d) Importers, fabricators, and 

laminated product producers whose 

products are exempt from the definition 

of hardwood plywood must maintain 

the records described in § 770.30 and 

copies of labels used. These records 

must be maintained for a minimum of 

3 years from the date that they are 

produced. 

(e) Distributors and retailers must 

retain invoices and bills of lading and 

copies of labels used. These records 

must be maintained for a minimum of 

3 years from the date that they are 

produced. 

§ 770.45 Labeling. 

(a) Panels or bundles of panels that 

are sold, supplied, or offered for sale in 

the United States must be labeled with 

the panel producer’s name, the lot or 

batch number, the number of the TSCA 

Title VI Accredited TPC, and a 

statement that the products are TSCA 

Title VI certified. 

(1) A panel producer number may be 

used instead of a name to protect 

identity, so long as the identity of the 

panel producer can be determined at the 

request of EPA. 

(2) Panels or bundles of panels 

manufactured in accordance with 

§ 770.17 must also be labeled that they 

were made with no-added 

formaldehyde-based resins in addition 

to the other information required by this 

section. 

(3) Panels or bundles of panels 

manufactured in accordance with 

§ 770.18 must also be labeled that they 

were made with ultra low-emitting 

formaldehyde in addition to the other 

information required by this section. 

(b) Panels imported into or 

transported across the United States for 

quarterly or quality control testing 

purposes in accordance with § 770.20 

must be labeled ‘‘For TSCA Title VI 

testing only, not for sale in the United 

States.’’ The panels may be re-labeled if 

test results are below the applicable 

emissions standards in this subpart. 

(c) Fabricators of finished goods 

containing composite wood products 

must label every finished good they 

produce, or every box containing 

finished goods. 

(1) The label may be applied as a 

stamp, tag, sticker, or bar code. 

(2) The label must include, at a 

minimum, the fabricator’s name, the 

date the finished good was produced, 

and a statement that the finished goods 

are TSCA Title VI compliant. 

(d) Distributors and wholesalers who 

receive labeled bundles of regulated 

composite wood products and then 

divide and repackage them, whether in 

bundles or separately, must label each 

separate bundle or item with the same 

information as required on the original 

label. Labels on bundles that are not so 

repackaged must be kept intact by 

distributors, wholesalers, and retailers. 

§ 770.55 Prohibited acts. 

(a) The following are prohibited acts 

under TSCA section 15: 

(1) Manufacturing (including import) 

non-certified composite wood products 

unless the products are specifically 

exempted by this subpart. 

(2) Manufacturing (including import) 

composite wood products without 

complying with the testing provisions in 

§ 770.20, unless the products are 

specifically exempted by this subpart. 

(3) Selling, offering for sale, or 

supplying non-certified composite wood 

products unless the products are 

specifically exempted by this subpart. 

(4) Selling, offering for sale, or 

supplying composite wood products 

belonging to non-complying lots 

without first complying with the 

provisions of § 770.22. 

(5) Selling, offering for sale, or 

supplying certified composite wood 

products that are not labeled in 

accordance with § 770.45. 

(6) Selling, offering for sale, or 

supplying composite wood products 

that exceed the applicable emission 

standards of § 770.10. 

(7) Failing to comply with the 

recordkeeping requirements of § 770.40. 

■ 6. Section 770.99 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 770.99 Incorporation by reference. 

The materials listed in this section are 

incorporated by reference into this part 

with the approval of the Director of the 

Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any 

edition other than that specified in this 

section, a document must be published 

in the Federal Register and the material 

must be available to the public. All 

approved materials are available for 

inspection at the OPPT Docket 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 

legal 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. In addition, these materials 

are also available for inspection at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. These materials may 

also be obtained from the sources listed 

in this section. 

(a) ANSI material. Copies of these 

materials may be obtained from the 

American National Standards Institute, 

1899 L Street NW., 11th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20036, or by calling 

(202) 293–8020, or at http://ansi.org/. 

(1) ANSI A135.4- 2004, American 

National Standard, Basic Hardboard, 

IBR approved for § 770.3. 

(2) ANSI A135.5–2004, American 

National Standard, Prefinished 

Hardboard Paneling, IBR approved for 

§ 770.3. 

(3) ANSI A135.6–2006, American 

National Standard, Hardboard Siding, 

IBR approved for § 770.3. 

(4) ANSI A190.1–2002, American 

National Standard for Wood Products, 

Structural Glued Laminated Timber, IBR 

approved for § 770.1. 

(5) ANSI A208.1–2009, American 

National Standard, Particleboard, IBR 

approved for § 770.3. 

(6) ANSI A208.2–2–2009, American 

National Standard, Medium Density 

Fiberboard (MDF) for Interior 

Applications, IBR approved for § 770.3. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

34866 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(7) ANSI/HPVA HP–1–2009, 

American National Standard for 

Hardwood and Decorative Plywood, IBR 

approved for § 770.3. 

(b) ASTM material. Copies of these 

materials may be obtained from ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. 

Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 

19428–2959, or by calling (877) 909– 

ASTM, or at http://www.astm.org. 

(1) ASTM D5055–05 (2005), Standard 

Specification for Establishing and 

Monitoring Structural Capacities of 

Prefabricated Wood I-Joists, IBR 

approved for § 770.1. 

(2) ASTM D5456–06 (2006), Standard 

Specification for Evaluation of 

Structural Composite Lumber Products, 

IBR approved for § 770.1. 

(3) ASTM D5582–00 (Reapproved 

2006), October 1, 2006, Standard Test 

Method for Determining Formaldehyde 

Levels from Wood Products Using a 

Desiccator, IBR approved for §§ 770.7(a) 

through (c) and 770.20. 

(4) ASTM D6007–02 (Reapproved 

2008), October 1, 2008, Standard Test 

Method for Determining Formaldehyde 

Concentrations in Air from Wood 

Products Using a Small-Scale Chamber, 

IBR approved for §§ 770.7(a) through (c), 

770.15, 770.17, and 770.20. 

(5) ASTM E1333–10 (Approved 2010), 

Standard Test Method for Determining 

Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air 

and Emission Rates from Wood 

Products Using a Large Chamber, IBR 

approved for §§ 770.7(a) through (c), 

770.10, 770.15, 770.17, and 770.20. 

(c) CEN materials. Copies of these 

materials are not directly available from 

the European Committee for 

Standardization, but from one of CEN’s 

National Members, Affiliates, or Partner 

Standardization Bodies. To purchase a 

standard, go to CEN’s Web site, http:// 

www.cen.eu, and select ‘‘Products’’ for 

more detailed information. 

(1) EN 120:1992, Wood based panels. 

Determination of formaldehyde contentExtraction method called the perforator 

method, English Version, IBR approved 

for § 770.20. 

(2) EN 717–2:1995, Wood-based 

panels. Determination of formaldehyde 

release-Formaldehyde release by the gas 

analysis method, English Version, IBR 

approved for § 770.20. 

(d) Georgia Pacific material. Copies of 

this material may be obtained from 

Georgia-Pacific Chemicals LLC, 133 

Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30303, or 

by calling (877) 377–2737, or at http:// 

www.gp-dmc.com/default.aspx. 

(1) GP DMC (Dynamic Micro 

Chamber) Manual, 2011 Edition, IBR 

approved for § 770.20. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(e) ISO material. Copies of these 

materials may be obtained from the 

International Organization for 

Standardization, 1, ch. de la VoieCreuse, CP 56, CH–1211, Geneve 20, 

Switzerland, or by calling +41–22–749– 

01–11, or at http://www.iso.org. 

(1) ISO/IEC 17011:2004(E), 

Conformity Assessments—General 

Requirements for Accreditation Bodies 

Accrediting Conformity Assessments 

Bodies (First Edition), IBR approved for 

§ 770.7(a) through (c). 

(2) ISO/IEC 17020:1998(E), General 

Criteria for the Operation of Various 

Types of Bodies Performing Inspections 

(First Edition), IBR approved for 

§ 770.7(a) through (c). 

(3) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), General 

Requirements for the Competence of 

Testing and Calibration Laboratories 

(Second Edition), May 15, 2005, IBR 

approved for § 770.7(a) through (c). 

(4) ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996(E), General 

Requirements for Bodies Operating 

Product Certification Systems (First 

Edition), 1996, IBR approved for 

§ 770.7(a) through (c). 

(f) Japanese Standards Association. 

Copies of this material may be obtained 

from Japanese Industrial Standards, 1– 

24, Akasaka 4, Minatoku, Tokyo 107– 

8440, Japan, or by calling +81–3–3583– 

8000, or at http://www.jsa.or.jp/. 

(1) JIS A 1460:2001 Building boards 

Determination of formaldehyde 

emission-Desiccator method, English 

Version, IBR approved for § 770.20. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(g) NIST material. Copies of these 

materials may be obtained from the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) by calling (800) 553– 

6847 or from the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO). To purchase a 

NIST publication you must have the 

order number. Order numbers may be 

obtained from the Public Inquiries Unit 

at (301) 975–NIST. Mailing address: 

Public Inquiries Unit, NIST, 100 Bureau 

Dr., Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 

20899–1070. If you have a GPO stock 

number, you can purchase printed 

copies of NIST publications from GPO. 

GPO orders may be mailed to: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 

979050, St. Louis, MO 63197–9000, 

placed by telephone at (866) 512–1800 

(DC Area only: (202) 512–1800), or 

faxed to (202) 512–2104. Additional 

information is available online at: 

http://www.nist.gov. 

(1) Voluntary Product Standard PS–1– 

07 (2007), Structural Plywood, IBR 

approved for §§ 770.1 and 770.3. 

(2) Voluntary Product Standard PS–2– 

04 (2004), Performance Standard for 

Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels, IBR 

approved for §§ 770.1 and 770.3. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13258 Filed 6–7–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3