Panel 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 

 
2

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3

2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Regulatory History of the Rulemaking Implementing Formaldehyde Standards for 

Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI) ...................................................................... 4

2.2 Description of the Rule and Scope ..................................................................................... 5

2.3 Related Federal Rules ......................................................................................................... 6

3. OVERVIEW OF OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION .............................. 6

3.1 Sell‐through Provisions ...................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Stockpiling ........................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Ultra Low‐emitting Formaldehyde Resins (ULEF) and No‐added Formaldehyde‐based 

Resins (NAF) .............................................................................................................................. 8

3.4 Finished goods ..................................................................................................................... 8

3.5 Third‐party Testing and Certification (Quality Control and Compliance) ..................... 9

3.6 Auditing of and Reporting for Third‐party Certifiers ...................................................... 9

3.7 Chain‐of‐custody and Recordkeeping Requirements .................................................... 10

3.8 Labeling .............................................................................................................................. 11

3.9 Laminated products .......................................................................................................... 11

3.10 Products and Components Containing De Minimis Amounts of Composite Wood 

Products ................................................................................................................................... 12

3.11 Hardboard ....................................................................................................................... 12

4. APPLICABLE SMALL ENTITY DEFINITIONS ......................................... 13

5. SMALL ENTITIES THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED

REGULATION ...................................................................................................... 13

6. SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITY OUTREACH ........................................... 15

7. LIST OF SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES ....................................... 16

Table 2: List of Small Entity Representatives ......................................................................... 16

8. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES .. 18

8.1 Summary of Oral Comments & Pre‐Panel Meeting Discussion, January 6, 2011 ......... 19

8.2 Summary of Oral Comments & Panel Meeting Discussion, February 17, 2011 ........... 21

8.3 Summary of Written Comments Submitted by Potential Small Entity Representatives

................................................................................................................................................... 23

9. PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................. 27

9.1. Number and Types of Entities Affected .......................................................................... 27

9.2. Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements .............................. 27

9.3 Related Federal Rules ....................................................................................................... 28

9.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives .................................................................................. 28

APPENDIX A: LIST OF MATERIALS EPA SHARED WITH SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES

 ............................................................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY SMALL ENTITY 

REPRESENTATIVES ................................................................................................B-1

 
3

Panel Report

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 

Rulemaking Implementing Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood 

Products Act (TSCA Title VI)

1. INTRODUCTION 

This report is presented to the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR Panel or 

Panel) that convened to review the planned proposed rulemaking to implement the 

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI).1 Implementing 

regulations are currently being developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Under section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),2

 a Panel is required to be convened 

prior to publication of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that an agency may be 

required to prepare under the RFA. In addition to EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson,3

the Panel will consist of the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution prevention,4 the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

within the Office of Management and Budget, 5 and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration.6

This report includes the following: 

• Background information on the proposed rule being developed; 

• Information on the types of small entities that would be subject to the proposed rule; 

• A description of efforts made to obtain the advice and recommendations of 

representatives of those small entities; and 

• A summary of the comments that have been received to date from those representatives. 

Section 609(b) of the RFA directs the Panel to report on the comments of small entity 

representatives and make findings on issues related to elements of an IRFA under section 603 of 

the RFA. Those elements of an IRFA are: 

• A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which 

the proposed rule will apply; 

• Projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed 

rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 

requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or 

record; 

 

1 Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ199/pdf/PLAW-111publ199.pdf 2

Available at http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/statute/rfasbrefa_act.pdf 3 Available a thttp://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/staff.htm 4 Available at http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/ocspp.html 5 Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_administrator 6 Available at http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/858/3177
4

• An identification, to the extent practicable, of all other relevant Federal rules which may 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule; 

• Any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives 

of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities; and 

Once completed, the Panel report is provided to the agency issuing the proposed rule and 

is included in the rulemaking record. The agency is to consider the Panel’s findings when 

completing the draft of the proposed rule. In light of the Panel report, and where appropriate, the 

agency is also to consider whether changes are needed to the IRFA for the proposed rule or the 

decision on whether an IRFA is required. 

The Panel’s findings and discussion will be based on the information available at the time 

the final Panel report is drafted. EPA will continue to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed 

rule, and additional information may be developed or obtained during the remainder of the rule 

development process. 

Any options identified by the Panel for reducing the rule’s regulatory impact on small 

entities may require further analysis and/or data collection to ensure that the options are 

practicable, enforceable, environmentally sound, and consistent with the Toxic Substances 

Control Act and its amendments. 

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Regulatory History of the Rulemaking Implementing

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA

Title VI)

In March 2008, the Sierra Club and numerous other organizations and individuals 

petitioned EPA under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The petitioners 

requested that EPA use TSCA Section 6 to adopt a newly-promulgated California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) regulation7

 as a national standard for formaldehyde emissions from hardwood 

plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard products. The petitioners expressed 

particular concern over the levels of formaldehyde found in emergency housing provided for 

Hurricane Katrina survivors, but noted that there are no federal regulations on formaldehyde 

emissions from pressed wood products other than those applicable to HUD-regulated 

manufactured housing. In response to the petition, EPA announced in the Federal Register on 

June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36504)8

 that EPA would initiate a proceeding to investigate whether and 

what type of regulatory or other action might be appropriate to protect against risks that may be 

posed by formaldehyde emitted from pressed wood products. In December 2008, EPA published 

an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to publicly initiate the investigation and 

 

7 Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/compwood.htm 8 Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-06-27/pdf/E8-14618.pdf 
5

obtain stakeholder input (73 FR 73620).9 In 2009 EPA held six public meetings on the ANPRM 

and issues related to formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products. EPA reviewed and 

evaluated the comments received and continued to work on assessing the risks of exposure to 

formaldehyde emissions from these products. 

Legislation was subsequently introduced in the U.S. Senate late in 2009 and in the U.S. 

House of Representatives early in 2010. This legislation was designed to establish national 

emission standards corresponding to the CARB limits for compressed wood products, i.e., 

hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard. This legislation enjoyed 

broad support from environmental advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club as well as industry 

trade associations, such as the Composite Panel Association (CPA) and the Hardwood Plywood 

Veneer Association (HPVA). On July 7, 2010, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 

Wood Products Act was signed into law. This legislation, which adds a Title VI to TSCA, 

establishes formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and mediumdensity fiberboard that are identical to the California standards. EPA is directed to promulgate 

implementing regulations by January 1, 2013 that address: sell-through dates for products; 

stockpiling; third-party testing and certification; auditing and reporting of third-party certifiers; 

recordkeeping; chain of custody; labeling; enforcement; products made with no-added 

formaldehyde (NAF) and ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins; laminated products; 

finished goods; hardboard; and products containing de minimis amounts of composite wood 

products. 

2.2 Description of the Rule and Scope

The national emission standards in TSCA Title VI for formaldehyde emissions from 

composite wood products are the same as the standards previously established by the California 

Air Resources Board for products sold, offered for sale, supplied, used or manufactured for sale 

in California. The CARB regulation established a comprehensive program for composite wood 

products which includes among other provisions, requirements for third-party testing and 

certification, labeling, chain-of-custody documentation, and recordkeeping. Title VI does not 

give EPA the authority to raise or lower the emission standards for composite wood products, but 

EPA has been given discretion to adapt most of the other provisions of the California regulations 

for national applicability. 

 EPA is required by statute to promulgate implementing regulations for TSCA Title VI no 

later than January 1, 2013. The implementing regulations must address the following topics: 

• sell-through provisions (including a prohibition on stockpiling) 

• ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins 

• no-added formaldehyde-based resins 

• finished goods 

• third-party testing and certification 

• auditing of and reporting for third-party certifiers 

• chain-of-custody requirements 

 

9 Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-12-03/pdf/E8-28585.pdf
6

• recordkeeping 

• labeling 

• enforcement 

• laminated products 

• products and components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood 

products 

• hardboard 

• other provisions in a manner that ensures compliance with the emission standards 

EPA is not given the authority by TSCA Title VI to make any modifications to the 

formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood plywood, particleboard, or medium-density 

fiberboard. EPA is likewise not given the authority to modify the statutory definitions of “noadded formaldehyde” and “ultra-low emitting formaldehyde.” However, EPA is given discretion 

in defining the term “hardboard,” in determining whether to exempt engineered veneer or any 

laminated product from the definition of “hardwood plywood,” and in fashioning provisions 

relating to third-party certification, sell-through dates, recordkeeping, enforcement, and the other 

items listed in TSCA Section 601(d)(2). 

2.3 Related Federal Rules

There are no federal regulations on formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products 

other than those applicable to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

regulations for manufactured housing.10 These regulations are not as stringent as the CARB 

regulations. The emissions standards established by the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite 

Wood Products Act apply to regulated composite wood in manufactured housing. The Act also 

requires HUD to modify its regulations on manufactured housing to ensure that they reflect the 

emission standards established in TSCA Title VI. HUD must take final action within 180 days 

of the date that EPA promulgates implementing regulations. The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) has incorporated HUD’s standards for formaldehyde emissions 

from pressed wood products into its specifications for emergency housing, but FEMA has a large 

inventory of emergency housing that predates these new specifications. As directed by the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) will be conducting a study on the use of formaldehyde in the manufacture of textiles and 

apparel. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in consultation with various 

Federal agencies including EPA, has developed guidance on health and environmental best 

practices for manufactured housing and other manufactured structures. 

3. OVERVIEW OF OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION

 

10 Particle board and plywood bonded with a resin system or coated with a surface finish containing formaldehyde 

and used in regulated manufactured housing have the following emissions limits: .3 parts per million (ppm) for 

particleboard and .2 ppm for plywood. 40 C.F.R. 3280.308
7

Through Agency review and stakeholder input, a range of program options were 

identified and presented to the SERs. The following is a listing of regulatory options being 

considered and evaluated by EPA, and is not final at this time. 

3.1 Sell­through Provisions

 EPA will, through regulation, establish sell-through provisions for composite wood 

products and finished goods containing regulated composite wood products. Under TSCA Title 

VI, the sell-through provisions must be based on a date of manufacture, unlike the CARB 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure’s (ATCM) sell-through provisions which were based on a 

designated date of sale. EPA is considering designated composite wood product manufacturing 

dates (manufactured-by dates), including, but not limited to, the following for manufacturers of 

hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard and finished goods containing 

regulated wood products: 

 

• 180 days after the promulgation of the implementing regulations 

• Some period longer than180days after the promulgation of the implementing regulations 

 Manufacturers, importers, retailers, processors (fabricators of finished goods containing 

regulated composite wood products), and distributors of regulated composite wood products and 

finished goods containing regulated composite wood products would be required to purchase, 

import, distribute and/or offer for sale only products that are compliant with TSCA Title VI and 

its implementing regulations. Composite wood products that can be shown to be manufactured 

before the date specified in the forthcoming regulation would not be required to be tested or 

labeled. Importers, retailers, processors and distributors would be permitted to continue to buy 

and sell these products because they would be considered compliant with TSCA Title VI and its 

implementing regulations. 

3.2 Stockpiling

 TSCA Title VI requires EPA to promulgate regulations prohibiting stockpiling which is 

defined as: 

manufacturing or purchasing a composite wood product or finished good containing a 

regulated composite wood product between the date of enactment of the Formaldehyde 

Standards for Composite Wood Products Act and the date 180 days following the 

promulgation of the regulations pursuant to this subsection at a rate which is 

significantly greater (as determined by the Administrator) than the rate at which such 

product or good was manufactured or purchased during a base period (as determined by 

the Administrator) ending before the date of enactment of the Formaldehyde Standards 

for Composite Wood Products Act. 

 

 In order to define the base period used to determine whether an entity is stockpiling, EPA 

is considering options including, but not limited to, the following: 
8

• Annual production volume; or purchases in the case of importers, distributors, and 

retailers, for 2007 

• Average annual production volume; or purchases in the case of importers, distributors, 

and retailers, for annual years 2005 through 2009 

• Annual production volume; or purchases in the case of importers, distributors, and 

retailers, for 2009 

• Defining the base period differently for manufacturers, fabricators, importers, distributors 

 In order to define what rate of manufacture or purchase is “significantly greater” than the 

base period rate, EPA is considering options including, but not limited to, the following: 

• Define the rate of manufacture or purchasing to be identical to the rate of manufacture or 

purchasing during the base period 

• Allow a 5 percent increase in manufacture or purchasing 

• Allow a 10 percent increase in manufacture or purchasing 

• Allow a 20 percent increase in manufacture or purchasing 

3.3 Ultra Low­emitting Formaldehyde Resins (ULEF) and No­added

Formaldehyde­based Resins (NAF)

 EPA is considering providing incentives for the use of NAF/ULEF resins to be consistent 

with the CARB ATCM, including: 

• Less frequent primary testing and quality control testing for panels with ULEF resins (if 

the scheme ensures compliance with the emission standards and complies with TSCA § 

601 (a)(10)(C)(i)). 

• Exempt ULEF and/or NAF composite wood panels from third-party certification 

requirements (if the scheme ensures compliance with the emission standards and 

complies with TSCA § 601(a)(10)(C)(ii)). Sub-options include: 

o Provide ability for manufacturers of NAF and ULEF panels to apply for an exemption 

from third-party certification (after initial 3-month quality control testing period for 

NAF and 6 months for ULEF). 

• Potential flexibility with provisions related to finished goods made with NAF and/or 

ULEF. 

• Special recognition via a “green seal” placed on products that fall well below the NAF 

emissions levels for "green-marketing" purposes.

3.4 Finished goods 

 EPA is considering not requiring finished goods testing as part of the rulemaking. 

However, we believe it is a valuable tool for enforcement of the regulation and we are carefully 

following work being conducted within CARB and our own Office of Research and 

Development on testing finished goods to ensure chain of custody compliance. 
9

3.5 Third­party Testing and Certification (Quality Control and

Compliance)

 TSCA Title VI specifies that: 

A) Compliance with the emission standards described in paragraph (2) shall be 

measured by— 

(i) quarterly tests shall be conducted pursuant to test method ASTM E-1333-96 

(2002) or, subject to subparagraph (B), ASTM D-6007-02; and 

(ii) quality control tests shall be conducted pursuant to ASTM D-6007-02, ASTM D5582, or such other test methods as may be established by the Administrator through 

rulemaking. 

(B) Test results obtained under subparagraph (A)(i) or 

(ii) by any test method other than ASTM E-1333-96 (2002) must include a showing 

of equivalence by means established by the Administrator through rulemaking. 

(C) Except where otherwise specified, the Administrator shall establish through 

rulemaking the number and frequency of tests required to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission standards. 

 Although TSCA Title VI specifies some testing requirements, EPA has discretion to 

determine the number and frequency of quality control tests and the number of quarterly tests to 

require for different products. See section above on NAF and ULEF resins for requirements 

under TSCA Title VI and options that EPA is considering for composite wood products made 

with NAF and ULEF approved resins. For all other regulated composite wood products, EPA is 

considering adopting quality control and product certification requirements identical to the 

CARB requirements: Appendix 2 of the CARB ATCM describes quality control requirements 

for manufacturers of composite wood products, including preparation of a quality control 

manual, establishment of a quality control function at the manufacturing plant (including testing 

equipment and designated quality control personnel); routine quality control procedures 

conducted at the plant (including testing frequency); participation in periodic inspections; and 

product testing by the third party certifier, and recordkeeping. Appendix 3 of the CARB ATCM 

specifies requirements for third party certifiers for their certification of composite wood 

products. 

3.6 Auditing of and Reporting for Third­party Certifiers

 EPA is considering harmonizing its program as much as possible with the current CARB 

ATCM program to avoid additional requirements for TPCs. EPA’s potential options may 

include, but are not limited to: 

 Option 1: EPA would adopt and modify as necessary the CARB ATCM. Under this 

option, EPA will review and approve the applications of the TPCs. EPA will also perform 

regular audits to ensure that the TPCs continue to be in compliance with the Composite Wood 

Standard. The TPCs’ laboratories would be certified by an accreditation body (AB) that is an 

International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) and/or International Accreditation 
10

Forum (IAF) signatory. ILAC and IAF are two widely recognized international organizations 

that assess and recognize the competency of ABs against an established set of internationally 

recognized accreditation standards and whose members are accrediting body organizations that 

perform peer-to-peer reviews to ensure rigorous compliance of accreditation requirements, such 

as ISO standards. 

 Under this option the Agency may also establish a quarterly TPC laboratory proficiency 

testing program that would be administered by EPA or may use an inter-laboratory testing 

approach similar to that currently used by CARB. Either of these approaches would serve as a 

mechanism to evaluate the laboratory’s competency and ability to use the ASTM E-1333-96 

(2002), ASTM D-6007-02 and ASTM D-5582 test methods and generate high-quality results. 

 Depending on how closely EPA’s TPC program resembles CARB’s, EPA may provide a 

provision, with minimal additional paperwork, to recognize TPCs that have been approved by 

CARB through its program. 

 Option 2: Under this option, instead of EPA conducting the application, recognition and 

auditing processes for TPCs, EPA would rely on existing ABs to perform these activities. To 

accomplish this, EPA would establish a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with each AB 

that identifies the requirements for being an AB and the criteria against which they will evaluate 

TPCs for recognition as a product certifying organization. The ABs would be required to be 

signatories of IAF or ILAC. Additionally, IAF and ILAC would incorporate into their AB 

signatory agreements EPA’s requirements for certification of TPCs. Through their regular peerto-peer evaluation processes, IAF and ILAC would ensure that AB signatories meet EPA’s 

requirements for being an AB. EPA would also require in the signatory agreement the ability of 

EPA to audit ILAC, IAF, ABs, and TPCs if necessary. Results of each TPC application and 

audit review would be provided to EPA for final approval. As with Option 1, the Agency may 

also establish a quarterly TPC laboratory proficiency testing program or use an inter-laboratory 

testing approach similar to that currently used by CARB. 

 Option 3: This approach is similar to Option 2 but EPA would develop MOUs directly 

with IAF, ILAC, or similar international accreditation standards organizations instead of with the 

ABs. The requirements, roles, and responsibilities of the ABs are the same as in Option 2. As 

with option 2, EPA would require in the signatory agreement the ability to audit the international 

standards organizations, ABs, and TPCs if necessary. 

3.7 Chain­of­custody and Recordkeeping Requirements

 

 CARB-like Option: by adopting requirements similar to CARB, EPA will not increase 

the burden on industry that has already conformed to the California regulations as a general 

practice by requiring two separate sets of recordkeeping requirements. Requirements may 

include: 

• Manufacturers, for each composite wood product, include a “statement of compliance” 

on the bill of lading or invoice with: 

o the assigned number of the approved third-party certifier, if applicable; and 
11

o a statement that the composite wood products comply with the applicable emission 

standards, and, if applicable; 

o whether the products were made using ultra-low emitting formaldehyde resins or noadded formaldehyde based resins. 

• Importers and distributers for each composite wood product or finished good made with 

composite wood products include a “statement of compliance” on the bill of lading or 

invoice that the composite wood products comply with the applicable emission standards. 

• Manufacturers keep records at their production facilities for two years including: 

o product information, tracking number, purchaser information, transporter, third-party 

certification identity, records of non-complying lots or batches, and ULEF and NAF 

related records. 

• Importers , Distributors, Fabricators and Retailers keep records for two years that include: 

o Date of purchase, supplier of the composite wood products /finished goods and 

documentation of the precautions taken to ensure that the composite wood products 

and composite wood products contained within finished goods comply with the 

emissions standard. 

EPA is also considering longer record retention periods including: 

• A three year record retention period; and 

• A five year record retention period. 

3.8 Labeling

 EPA is considering the following options for labeling provisions: 

• Require same type of information that is required by the CARB ATCM (e.g., 

manufacturer name; product lot number or batch produced; a marking to denote that the 

product complies with the emission standards or was made using approved ULEF resins 

or NAF resins; number or name of approved third party certifier) 

• Require labeling of each individual composite wood panel or finished good 

• Only require labeling of boxes containing finished goods or bundles of panels 

• Rather than require manufacturer’s name on label, allow use of a code for the 

manufacturer’s name instead. That code would be maintained by the third-party certifier 

and the importer or fabricator. 

• Coordinate federal labeling system with California’s so that there would be one 

harmonized labeling program 

3.9 Laminated products

 TSCA Title VI allows EPA, through rulemaking, to: 1) modify the definition of 

“laminated product;” and 2) use all available and relevant information to determine whether the 

definition of hardwood plywood (HWPW) should exempt engineered veneer or any laminated 

product. TSCA Title VI provides the following definition of laminated product: 
12

Laminated product.--The term `laminated product' means a product— 

(I) in which a wood veneer is affixed to-(aa) a particleboard 

platform; (bb) a medium-density fiberboard platform; or (cc) a veneer-core platform; 

and 

(II) that is- (aa) a component part; (bb) used in the construction or assembly of a 

finished good; and (cc) produced by the manufacturer or fabricator of the finished 

good in which the product is incorporated. 

 EPA is considering options related to laminated products including, but not limited to, the 

following: 

• Adopt the definition of laminated product provided in TSCA Title VI and not exempt any 

laminated products or engineered veneer from the definition of HWPW 

• Adopt definition of laminated product provided in TSCA Title VI and not exempt 

laminated products or engineered veneer from the definition of HWPW but allow for 

reduced testing requirements and/or no TPC requirements if laminated product is made 

only with NAF resins 

• Exempt a limited subset of products and engineered veneer (e.g., those made with a NAF 

or ULEF core and veneer affixed with NAF resins) from the definitions of laminated 

product and HWPW, if data support this option 

3.10 Products and Components Containing De Minimis Amounts of

Composite Wood Products

 TSCA Title VI specifies that EPA include provisions in the implementing regulations 

related to exceptions from some of the requirements in the regulations for products and 

components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood products; however, it also 

specifies that EPA cannot provide exceptions to the formaldehyde emission standard 

requirements in subsection (b) of TSCA Title VI. 

 EPA is considering the following options: 

• Establishing a de minimis exception to certain regulatory requirements (e.g., labeling, 

recordkeeping, or TPC requirements) if the product or component meets specified criteria 

such as: 

o If product or component contains less than 1% composite wood by volume or weight 

o If product or component contains less than 3% composite wood by volume or weight 

o If product or component contains less than 5% composite wood by volume or weight 

o If the composite wood product or component is less than a certain total weight or 

volume 

3.11 Hardboard

 TSCA Title VI specifies that EPA establish a definition of hardboard and also specifies 

that hardboard is exempt from the formaldehyde emission standards. 
13

 EPA is considering the following options: 

• Use same definition as the CARB ATCM (i.e., to meet the definition, the product 

must comply with a specific ANSI standard). Under the CARB ATCM the term 

“hardboard” means 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). 

• Use one of the definitions from ANSI standards and reference ANSI standards (i.e., 

does not necessarily need to comply with ANSI standards): e.g., the term ‘hardboard’ 

means a homogeneous panel manufactured primarily from inter-felted lignocellulosic 

(wood) fibers consolidated under heat and pressure with a density of 497 kg/m3 (31 

lb/cu.ft.) or more (as determined under the standards numbered ANSI A135.4-2004, 

ANSI A135.5-2004, and ANSI A135.6-2006). 

• Use a recognized definition such as a definition above but require that hardboard not 

be made with urea-formaldehyde resin 

4. APPLICABLE SMALL ENTITY DEFINITIONS

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) defines small entities as including “small 

businesses,” “small governments,” and “small organizations” (5 USC 601). The regulatory 

revisions being considered by EPA for this rulemakings are expected to affect a variety of small 

businesses, but are unlikely to affect any small governments or small organizations. The RFA 

references the definition of “small business” found in the Small Business Act, which authorizes 

the Small Business Administration to further define “small business” by regulation. The SBA 

definitions of small business by size standards using the North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) can be found at 13 CFR 121.201. 

The detailed listing of SBA definitions of small business for affected industries or 

sectors, by NAICS code, is included in Table 1 in Section 5, below. 

5. SMALL ENTITIES THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSED 

REGULATION

The following table lists industries/sectors potentially affected by the regulation 

Table 1: Industry Sectors, & Number of Small Entities Potentially Affected by EPA’s 

Planned Action 
14

Number of Potentially Regulated Small Firms, by NAICS code

NAICS 

code NAICS Description 

Number of Small 

Firms Potentially 

Regulated 

Panel Manufacturers 

321211 Hardwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 65 

321219 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 11 

Subtotal – Panel Manufacturers 76 

Fabricators 

321911 Wood window and door manufacturing 3,561 

321918 Other millwork including flooring manufacturing 5,203 

321991 Manufactured home (mobile home) manufacturing 794 

321992 Prefabricated wood building manufacturing 1,923 

321999 Other miscellaneous wood product manufacturing 4,812 

336213 Motor home manufacturing 108 

336214 Travel Trailer and Campers manufacturing 1,195 

337110 Wood kitchen cabinets and countertop manufacturing 17,315 

337121 Upholstered household furniture manufacturing 2,758 

337122 Nonupholstered wood household furniture manufacturing 6,061 

337124 Metal household furniture manufacturing 578 

337127 Institutional furniture manufacturing 1,367 

337129 Wood television, radio, and sewing machine cabinet manufacturing 480 

337211 Wood office furniture manufacturing 800 

337212 Custom architectural woodwork and millwork manufacturing 3,985 

337214 Office furniture (non-wood) manufacturing 479 

337215 Showcase, partition, shelving, and locker manufacturing 2,408 

339950 Sign manufacturing 25,881 

Subtotal – Fabricators 79,708 

Wholesalers 

423210 Furniture merchant wholesalers 12,229 

423220 Home furnishing merchant wholesalers 6,660 

423310 Lumber, plywood, & wood panel merchant wholesalers 9,522 

423320 Brick, stone, & const material merchant wholesalers 119 

423330 Roofing, siding, & insul mat merchant wholesalers 851 

423390 Other construction material merchant wholesalers 3,469 

423440 Other commercial equipment merchant wholesalers 99 

423450 Med, dental, & hosp equip & supp merchant wholesalers 66 

423490 Other professional equip & supp merchant wholesalers 92 

423510 Metal service centers & other metal merchant wholesalers 556 

423610 Elec appar & equip & wiring supp merchant wholesalers 28 

423620 Electric appliance, TV & radio merchant wholesalers 37 

423710 Hardware merchant wholesalers 667 

423720 Plumbing & heating equip & supp merchant wholesalers 479 

423730 Warm air heating & AC equip merchant wholesalers 169 

423740 Refrigeration equipment & supp merchant wholesalers 31 

423830 Industrial machinery & equipment merchant wholesalers 75 

423850 Service estab equipment & supp merchant wholesalers 742 

423910 Sporting & rec goods & supplies merchant wholesalers 4,912 

424610 Plastics materials & basic forms merchant wholesalers 77 

424950 Paint, varnish, & supp merchant wholesalers 86 

Subtotal – Wholesalers 40,966 

Retailers 

441210 Recreational vehicle dealers 6,998 

442110 Furniture stores 35,900 

442210 Floor covering stores 23,978 

442291 Window treatment stores 587 

442299 All other home furnishings stores 14,033 

443111 Household appliance stores 2,438 

443112 Radio, television, & other electronics stores 6,352 
15

Number of Potentially Regulated Small Firms, by NAICS code

NAICS 

code NAICS Description 

Number of Small 

Firms Potentially 

Regulated 

443120 Computer & software stores 83 

444110 Home Centers 5,054 

444120 Paint and wallpaper stores 649 

444130 Hardware stores 14,660 

444190 Other building material dealers 44,545 

444210 Outdoor power equipment stores 652 

444220 Nursery, garden center, & farm supply stores 8,386 

445110 Supermarkets & other grocery (except convenience) stores 2,045 

448110 Men's clothing stores 271 

448120 Women's clothing stores 326 

448130 Children's & infants' clothing stores 803 

448140 Family clothing stores 5,933 

448150 Clothing accessories stores 151 

448190 Other clothing stores 2,158 

448310 Jewelry stores 72 

451110 Sporting goods stores 37,416 

451120 Hobby, toy, & game stores 4,938 

451130 Sewing, needlework, & piece goods stores 6,611 

452111 Department stores (expt discount dept stores) 2,472 

452112 Discount department stores 3,601 

452910 Warehouse clubs & supercenters 3,065 

452990 All other general merchandise stores 19,992 

453110 Florists 1,256 

453210 Office supplies & stationery stores 7,571 

453220 Gift, novelty, & souvenir stores 4,896 

453920 Art dealers 665 

453930 Manufactured (mobile) home dealers 4,971 

453998 All other miscellaneous store retailers (except tobacco stores) 11,098 

454113 Mail-order houses 6,367 

454390 Other direct selling establishments 94,057 

Subtotal - Retailers 385,050 

Total 505,800 

6. SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITY OUTREACH 

EPA was actively engaged in talking to trade associations as well as individual entities 

that would potentially be affected by the upcoming rulemaking well before beginning the formal 

SBREFA process. Since EPA began its regulatory investigation into formaldehyde emissions 

from pressed wood products with the ANPR published in 2008, EPA has met on numerous 

occasions with the composite wood panel and related industries. These meetings have been in 

the form of presentations at trade shows and industry association conferences, and meetings with 

the Composite Panel Association (CPA), the Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association 

(HPVA), the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing Association (KCMA), the American Home 

Furnishings Alliance (AHFA), the Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer’s 

Association (BIFMA), and individual companies. 

EPA also conducted an online solicitation to identify other small businesses and trade 

associations interested in participating in the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel 

process by serving as Small Entity Representatives (SERs). EPA issued a press release inviting 
16

self-nominations by affected small entities to serve as SERs. The press release directed 

interested small entities to a web page where they could indicate their interest. EPA launched 

the website on October 19, 2010, and accepted self-nominations until November 2, 2010. 

After identifying a list of potential SERs (shown in Section 7), EPA conducted a 

meeting/teleconference with potential SERs on January 6, 2011. To help them prepare for the 

meeting/teleconference, on December 23rd, 2010, EPA sent materials to each of the potential 

SERs via email. A list of the materials shared with the potential SERs during the pre-panel 

outreach meeting is contained in Appendix A. For the January 6, 2011 Pre-Panel outreach 

meeting with the potential SERs, EPA also invited representatives from the Office of Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

within the Office of Management and Budget. A total of 17 potential SERs participated in the 

meeting. EPA presented an overview of the SBAR Panel process, an explanation of the planned 

rulemaking, and technical background 

This outreach meeting was held to solicit feedback from the potential SERs on their 

suggestions for the upcoming rulemaking. EPA asked the potential SERs to provide written 

comments by January 20th, 2011. Comments made during the January 6, 2011 outreach meeting 

and written comments submitted by the potential SERS are summarized in section 8 of this 

document. 

 After the SBAR Panel was convened, the Panel distributed additional information to the 

small entity representatives (SERs) on February 3rd and 4th, for their review and comment and 

in preparation for another outreach meeting. On February 17, 2011, the Panel met with the SERs 

to hear their comments on the information distributed. The SERs were asked to provide written 

feedback on ideas under consideration for the proposed rulemaking and responses to questions 

regarding their experience with the CARB formaldehyde emissions standards. The Panel 

received written comments from the SERs in response to the discussions at this meeting and the 

outreach materials. See Section 8 of the Panel Report for a complete discussion of SER 

comments. 

7. LIST OF SMALL ENTITY REPRESENTATIVES 

There is no difference between the list of potential SERs identified prior to the SBAR Panel and 

the following list of SERs. 

Table 2: List of Small Entity Representatives 

Name Affiliation Contact information 

Dick Titus Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing 

Association 

1899 Preston White Drive, 

Reston, VA 

20191-5435 

dtitus@kcma.org

(703) 264-1690 
17

Name Affiliation Contact information 

Bill Perdue The American Home 

Furnishings Alliance 

bperdue@ahfa.us

336-884-5000 x1017 

Tom Julia Composite Panel Association 

19465 Deerfield Ave., Suite 306 

Leesburg, VA 

tjulia@cpamail.org

(703) 724-1128 

Dennis Dean Carroll Rutland Plywood Corporation 

PO Box 6180 

Rutland, VT 

dcarroll@rutply.com

(802) 747-4000 x4334 

Stanford Stone Navy Island, Inc. 

275 Marie Ave. E. 

West St. Paul, MN 55129 

stanstone@navyisland.com

(651) 451-4454 

Robert Gross Gross Veneer Sales 

2040 Brevard Rd. 

High Point, NC 27263 

robgross@grossveneer.com

(336) 883-0196 

Robert MacMaster Argo Import and Salvage Inc. 

3045 Ridgelake Drive 

Metairie, LA 70002 

argo@argofineimports.com

(504) 828-0943 

Todd Smith FormWood Industries, Inc. 

1601 Production Dr. 

Jeffersonville, IN 47130 

tasmith@formwood.com

(812) 284-3676 x 226 

Jason Krings Architectural Forest Products 

2763 18th Street 

Two Rivers, WI 54241 

jason@afpinc.net

(920) 793-4404 

John Maultsby Florida Plywoods, Inc 

PO Box 458 

Greenville, FL 32331 

johnandbunny@embarqmail.com

(850) 948-2211 
18

Name Affiliation Contact information 

John Hans Custom Wood Products LLC 

PO Box 4500 

Roanoke, VA 24015 

jhans@cwpcabinets.com

(540) 342-0363 x101 

Victor Giaime Veneer One, Inc. 

3415 Hampton Road 

Oceanside, NY 11572 

vic@veneer1.com

(516) 536-6480 x102 

Doug Carmichael Drawer Box Specialties 

1482 N. Batavia St 

Orange, CA 92867 

dougc@dbsdrawers.com

(714) 744-4247 x155 

Fred Zoeller Laminate Technologies Inc 

161 Maule Road 

Tiffin, OH 44883 

fzoeller@lamtech.net

(419) 448-0812 x116 

Matt Wald Recreation Vehicle Industry 

Association 

1896 Preston White Dr. 

Reston, VA 20191 

mwald@rvia.org

(703) 620-6003, x. 313 

Kip Howlett 

Hardwood Plywood and Veneer 

Association 

1825 Michael Faraday Drive, 

Reston VA 20190 

KHowlett@hpva.org

(703) 435-2900 

Brigid Shea International Wood Products 

Association 

4214 King St. 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

brigid@iwpawood.org

(703) 820-6696

8. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM SMALL ENTITY

REPRESENTATIVES

 Below is a summary of written and oral comments received from SERs in response to the 

pre-panel outreach meeting and the panel outreach meeting. The SERs stated that, where 

applicable, they were in compliance with CARB’s ATCM. Accordingly, the SERs generally 
19

favored harmonizing the regulatory requirements with CARB as much as possible and making 

improvements for national applicability where necessary. 

8.1 Summary of Oral Comments & Pre­Panel Meeting Discussion,

January 6, 2011  

 The following are summaries of issues raised and oral comments provided by the 

potential SERs during the January 6, 2011, pre-panel outreach meeting. 

Sell Through Dates & Stockpiling Provisions

• One SER said that it is important for existing stock to be saleable; the SER lost a 

considerable amount of money when product he imported prior to CARB had to be sold 

at a discount. 

• SER also said that the sell-through provisions were meant to be based on the date of 

manufacture, not the date of sale. The SER noted that when the CARB ATCM was 

implemented, unfortunately, distributors were stuck with non-CARB compliant product. 

• One SER noted that the sell-through provisions should be based on the date of 

manufacture so that inventory would still be legal to sell even if the there was limited 

market demand for the noncompliant product. 

NAF and ULEF Resins

• One SER commented that companies, like his, that use low emission products should not 

have to pay for testing to determine that, in fact, that is what they are using. 

• One SER said that the resin used is the most significant factor and asked that small 

manufacturers receive some kind of testing relief if they use NAF or ULEF resins. 

• One SER commented that there are incentives to use NAF and ULEF resins because of 

market demand and so businesses can reduce their testing and reporting requirement 

burdens under CARB. 

Quality Control and Compliance Testing

• One SER said that international mills also meet other international standards besides 

CARB and that should not be neglected. The SER said that importers need to check their 

materials too, so there is enforcement built into the system. The SER recommended that 

EPA should avoid creating disincentives for compliance with the rule. 

Third Party Certification

• One SER commented that the TPC system should be robust so that the burden for 

compliance is shifted to the top of the supply chain. That SER suggested that the TPC 
20

system validate the quality assurance testing processes, not the product. Marking/labeling 

requirements should be considered and EPA should make sure the definitions are correct 

and fair. 

• One SER said the TPC system must be consistent and he suggested round-robin testing. 

The SER recommended that the labs be generally accredited and also be accredited to do 

the individual tests. The SER noted that consumers are demanding compliant products. 

The SER agreed that there is a well-organized community of Internet bloggers, social 

networks, and organizations that are demanding compliant products. 

• One SER suggested that a deconstructive test would not be needed if there is a robust 

TPC and chain of custody system. 

Chain of Custody, Labeling and Record Keeping

• Another SER agreed that the TPC program is robust and said that EPA should take a hard 

look at the TPC structure in place to ensure a level playing field. That SER also 

commented that the TPC system is working internationally. The SER commented that 

some finished goods are made of many types of composite wood and EPA should 

streamline record keeping and labeling for these products. The SER noted receiving 

several emails from savvy consumers requesting CARB compliant products and asking to 

see labels and the chain of custody documentation. 

• One SER suggested that there may be HUD labeling requirements in addition to the 

current CARB labeling requirements. 

• One SER stated that shipping component parts and labeling them is an administrative 

burden. 

• One SER commented that International Wood Products Association (IWPA) members do 

not want to do separate labeling or reporting for CARB and EPA. The SER said that the 

chain of custody requirements might be difficult and that emission levels were not 

problematic. 

• One SER commented that the labeling requirements should be identical to CARB. The 

SER used the example of a sofa made of many types of composite wood in a recreational 

vehicle to reiterate another SER’s suggestion that record keeping and labeling be 

simplified for finished goods made of multiple types of composite wood panels. The SER 

questioned the amount of money that would need to be invested in record keeping. 

Treatment of Laminated Products and Hardboard 

• One SER suggested that EPA review the Senate report concerning the regulation of 

laminated products and possible impacts on small businesses. 
21

• One SER noted that reduction of the burden might be achieved by encouraging use of 

NAF or ULEF resins. The SER suggested that if laminators are consistently using the 

same kinds of materials, EPA should test the process, not the products. 

• One SER asked if laminators would be included in the rule, and if they are included, 

whether EPA would test the process or individual products. 

De Minimis Exemption 

• One SER said the costs of the CARB ATCM are significant; approximately $40,000 for 

testing for certification. That SER also said many US and Canadian businesses have 

already made that investment. The SER commented that the CARB rule is not perfect, 

but they have learned from it, and it can be improved. The SER mentioned the areas of 

potential flexibility, including a de minimis exception. The SER suggested that de 

minimis considerations might include glue lines on composite faces, edge banding, and 

windows. 

Other General Comments

• One SER commented that the definition of interior use (if one is necessary) should be in 

the true spirit of the act, for public health. 

• One SER said that they need international vendors and asked EPA not to increase their 

burden. 

• One SER said that an EPA rule regarding windows needed to be simplified because 

CARB’s treatment of windows is overly complicated. 

8.2 Summary of Oral Comments & Panel Meeting Discussion, February

17, 2011  

 The following are summaries of issues raised and oral comments provided by the 

potential SERs during the February 17, 2011, panel outreach meeting. 

NAF and ULEF Resins

• One SER expressed concern about a potential “green seal” program for products with 

emissions below the NAF limits. That SER pointed out the products with emissions 

below the NAF limits would have emissions of basically zero. The SER also expressed 

concern that such a program may interfere with other voluntary programs. Another SER 

commented that any “green seal” program should be based on a performance standard not 

a content standard for a specific type of resin. 

• One SER introduced the topic of “No Added Urea Formaldehyde” (NAUF). 

Quality Control and Compliance Testing
22

• Several SERs rejected concerns that the established test methods are not repeatable. They 

stated that the test methods are repeatable if correctly applied. One SER noted that some 

mills did not have qualified chemists or rooms and equipment clean enough to conduct 

the tests. One SER pointed out that the emissions levels are so low that they require 

measurement of a single or several molecules, which is difficult. Another SER concurred 

that the test methods were working well and that quality control by manufacturers was 

the real issue. 

• One SER commented that TPC testing and decertification of product is a problem. 

According to this SER, decertification can take a month and by that time the noncomplying panels may be in finished goods somewhere down the supply chain. Another 

SER commented that this can be avoided if production is stopped in time, stating that 

TPCs should be able to provide their results near real-time. One SER commented that 

this is more difficult for foreign mills. 

• One SER commented that they have tested product that they purchased and found it to be 

above the emissions levels. They are concerned about accidentally purchasing 

noncompliant product from abroad and having to eat the costs. 

Third Party Certification

• One SER suggested that the Consumer Products Safety Commission could be a good 

resource for information on product certification systems. Another SER asked if the 

options presented for structuring a TPC system were cost neutral. The SER noted that if 

accrediting bodies become involved there may be additional costs to businesses which are 

then pushed back to consumers. 

Chain of Custody, Labeling and Record Keeping

• One SER was pro labeling for liability reasons, but would like the labels harmonized with 

CARB. 

Treatment of Laminated Products and Hardboard 

• One SER asked if there was a definition of “engineered veneer.” That SER was 

concerned about how “Compreg” (veneer impregnated with a phenol formaldehyde 

resin), would be classified under the regulation. That SER also asked about the definition 

of “hardwood plywood” and “interior products.” 

Other General Comments
23

• One SER expressed concerned about the potentially high costs of destructive testing. 

This SER noted that destructive tests could be particularly costly for makers of certain 

high value items, such as recreational vehicles. 

• One SER commented that importers were concerned that their compliant products could 

become cross contaminated with formaldehyde from other sources downstream. That 

SER inquired where his responsibility ends when he delivers certified panels that are 

incorporated into a product downstream and that does not pass emissions standards. 

• Several SERs commented on the “Potential Costs of FSCWPA [TSCA Title VI] to Small 

Entities” document provided by EPA. One SER commented that document 

underestimates the number of laminators. Another SER suggested the estimate for 

veneer costs is low, especially with regards to small manufacturers. 

• One SER commented that the term panel usually refers to a 4 foot by 8 foot panel. 

Another SER commented that it can also refer to a “made to size” or “cut to size” panel. 

8.3 Summary of Written Comments Submitted by Potential Small

Entity Representatives

 The following is a summary of the written comments submitted by the SERs. A copy of 

each of the comments submitted by the SERs is included in Appendix B. 

Sell Through Dates & Stockpiling Provisions

• Multiple SERs commented in support of having a manufacturing pass through date not a 

sell through date. This would allow panels made before the manufactured date to 

continue to be sold. 

• One SER suggested the manufactured-by date should be 180 days after the promulgation 

of the regulations. 

• One SER suggested that the reference period against which purported stockpiling should 

be measured be the 12-month period prior to promulgation of the regulations, with 

annualized rates compared. 

NAF and ULEF Resins

• One SER commented that incentives for alternative resins are better left to the 

marketplace, not regulation. 

• One SER supported CARB’s reduced testing frequency and exemption from third party 

certification for products using NAF or ULEF resins and meeting certain emissions 

standards. 

• One SER commented that he is skeptical of a potential “green seal” program. That SER 

stated that it was not possible to measure emissions well below the NAF emissions levels 
24

because they are already so close to zero. Also, that SER was unsure how a “green seal” 

program would handle Federal Trade Commission disclosure requirements. 

Quality Control and Compliance Testing

• One SER commented that EPA should exercise flexibility on determining the size and 

duration of test lots. This SER pointed out that those small entities with lower production 

volumes have a greater percentage of their production tested. This SER also requested 

simplified procedures for recertification of non-complying lots. 

• One SER commented that the test methods identified in TSCA Title VI are appropriate, 

time-proven, and accepted world-wide. 

• One SER commented that the test methods used by CARB worked well and that 

alternative methods should be viewed with skepticism. 

One SER commented that because the emission standards are so low, the occasional noncomplying lot was inevitable. That SER requested that EPA develop a practical solution 

to this issue, such as allowing a plant one failed test out of fifty. 

Third Party Certification

• One SER commented that the tangible benefits to the manufacturer of the TPC program 

should be clearly identified. This SER suggested that certification should confer liability 

protection. 

• One SER commented that TCPs would be accredited by a nationally or internationally 

recognized accreditation body in a somewhat more rigorous manner than under CARB. 

• One SER commented that it is important that the TPCs themselves are credibly approved, 

monitored, and audited, in order to be sure they are legitimate entities fulfilling their 

regulatory responsibilities on a consistent and verifiable basis. That SER commented that 

both options EPA presented for structuring a TPC system are acceptable, and the SER 

was in favor of toughening CARB TPC requirements to ensure universality of TPC 

performance. That SER would oppose permission being given to a more global 

accreditation body to exercise substantial supervision of the actual certification process, 

or to have discretionary authority over the design or operation of the certification system, 

including the criteria by which TPCs are approved. The SER argued that these actions 

could potentially create new costs and burdens for TPCs and their customers that may or 

may not be warranted to satisfy the objectives of the Statute. The SER commented that 

the sole function of a global accreditation body should be limited to oversight and 

auditing, with regular reports submitted to EPA. 

Chain of Custody, Labeling and Record Keeping

• One SER suggested that once one a set of national emissions standards is established, the 

chain of custody procedures will no longer be necessary. 
25

• One SER commented that once there is one set of national emissions standards labeling 

will no longer be necessary because consumers will not have the option to purchase 

noncompliant material. 

• One SER commented that stricter record keeping procedures will be more difficult for the 

limited resources of small manufacturers. 

• One SER commented that he did not believe the record keeping and labeling system 

adopted by CARB presents any concern about the disclosure of confidential information 

regarding sourcing. 

• One SER commented that CARB framework for labeling and record keeping 

requirements is an appropriate model for EPA. This SER commented that CARB’s 

framework does not require that each component piece of furniture to be specifically tied 

to a specific panel. 

• One SER commented that a transparent chain of custody system must be in place to 

enable panels to be tracked from the retail level back to the mill producing them, and to 

the TPC. 

• One SER commented that labeling should be consistent with the CARB regulations and 

that labeling via bundle of composite wood products was more practical and effective 

than labeling individual panels. That SER noted that panels cannot be labeled without 

impairing their appearance and functionality. Several SERs commented that the 

implementing regulations should mirror the CARB ATCM (e.g. in the areas of inventory 

tracking and labeling programs) in order to avoid two different standards in the industry. 

Treatment of Laminated Products and Hardboard 

• Several SERs raised concerns about how laminators will be treated under the 

implementing regulations. Laminators are not regulated by the CARB ATCM, but 

laminated products are included in TSCA VI’s definition of “hardwood plywood,” and 

will be regulated unless EPA exempts them. 

• One SER contended that laminators add only about 1/10 the resin a platform 

manufacturer adds (1.1 pounds per panel v. 9.6 pounds per panel) and are a minor, if not 

de minimis, usage of urea formaldehyde resin. Furthermore, laminators using NAF 

adhesives would not add any emissions. Multiple SERs noted that if laminators are 

regulated, they would be paying for their products to be certified twice: the platform 

manufacturer would pay for certification and the laminator would again pay for 

certification. This would put them at a disadvantage to manufacturers who make the 

entire panel in-house and therefore require only one certification. 

• One SER indicated that the laminated products he produces are not intended to be used 

for interior construction. This SER commented that niche laminated products, such as 

the ones he manufactures, should be excluded from the definition of “hardwood 

plywood.” 
26

• One SER commented that verifiable compliance with the emissions standards should be 

the driver for determining whether laminated products are exempted from the definition 

of hardwood plywood. 

• One SER commented that CARB narrowly defined “laminated products” as veneered 

hardwood plywood. That SER commented that if laminated products were regulated it 

could be costly and burdensome to thousands of small cabinet makers that veneer on a 

kitchen-by-kitchen basis. The SER suggested that many "laminators" laminated 

component parts, not panels. The SER noted that it was more practical time-wise and 

less costly for cabinetmakers to do their own veneering of exotic and unique veneers. 

• One SER commented that a component of kitchen cabinets which consists of a raised 

panel door constructed with HWPW that varies in depth should not be regulated as a 

"panel." That SER commented these components don't meet the definition of a paneled 

product (HP-1) and are quite different from a HWPW panel. This SER commented that 

the ANSI/HPVA HP-1 definition of HWPW refers to panels that are four feet by six feet; 

eight feet, etc.; and not smaller components. 

• One SER commented that cabinet makers apply finishes to the exterior of the HWPW 

components they use and that these finishes are regulated by EPA for hazardous air 

pollutant emissions. The SER commented that these finishes present an additional barrier 

for formaldehyde emissions. 

• One SER commented that hardboard made with urea formaldehyde resin is nearly 

identical to MDF and should be regulated as MDF. 

• One SER commented that a revised ANSI standard for “hardboard” would be approved 

by the end of 2011, and that EPA should reference that standard in its definition of 

“hardboard.” 

• One SER commented that laminators not using urea formaldehyde should be exempted 

and other laminators should be exempt so long as a certified substrate is used. 

• One SER commented that only approximately 8.5 percent of KCMA members surveyed 

did their own veneering and of that number only about half used urea formaldehyde. 

• One SER suggested that cabinetmakers producing less than 10 million square feet of 

veneered product should be exempted. 

• One SER suggested that EPA exempt laminators from testing requirements if they certify 

that they use a compliant core and NAF resin or otherwise include a statement of 

compliance under penalty of perjury. 

De Minimis Exemption 

• One SER suggested that the de minimis exemption be based on the percentage of a 

product’s volume that consists of regulated composite wood products, the cubic measure 

of regulated wood products in the finished good, or both. 

Other General Comments
27

• One SER commented that particle board and plywood should be held to the same 

emission standard, along with domestic and import production. 

• One SER commented that EPA's estimate that HWPW costs $.45 a square foot is 

inaccurate and that $2.00 is a more accurate estimate. 

• One SER commented that the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association's voluntary 

Environmental Stewardship Program (ESP) requires all composite wood products used to 

make ESP certified products be CARB compliant. The SER commented that this 

program is actively enforced and has no cost to taxpayers. That SER suggests that if 

cabinet makers are regulated, the display of the ESP certification should be sufficient 

proof of compliance with TSCA Title VI. 

• One SER recommended EPA consider exempting engineered veneer and products not 

intended for interior use from third party certification and emissions level requirements. 

That SER recommends EPA develop practical definitions for "engineered veneer" and 

"interior use." In particular that SER requested a definition for "Compreg." The SER 

suggested as an alternative that "Compreg" be included in the definition of "engineered 

veneer." According to that SER "Compreg" is wood that is compressed and impregnated 

with phenol formaldehyde resins, and no other resins are currently available for this 

application. 

• One SER commented that he could not find performance competitive and emissions level 

compliant resin for niche applications such as guitar bodies and gun stocks. 

• One SER recommends exempting manufactured products made without cores or 

platforms per TSCA Title VI definitions. 

9. PANEL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 

9.1. Number and Types of Entities Affected

 EPA estimates that 505,800 entities may be affected, including panel manufactures, 

fabricators of goods containing composite wood products, and wholesalers of goods containing 

composite wood products. 

9.2. Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

 In addition to mandating emission standards for composite wood products, TSCA Title VI 

directs EPA to include in its regulations provisions on labeling, chain of custody requirements, 

third-party testing and certification, and record keeping. (TSCA § 601(d)(2)). The SERs’ 

comments generally favored record keeping and labeling provisions that closely aligned with 

those required by CARB and that assisted downstream purchasers of composite wood products 

in verifying that they were purchasing compliant material. SERs also agreed that a third party 

certification program would be an integral part of the regulatory scheme. Record keeping as it 

relates to third party certification and testing will ensure compliance, a level playing field for 
28

domestic manufactures, and allow downstream purchasers to verify that they are purchasing 

compliant material. 

9.3 Related Federal Rules

 

 There are no federal regulations on formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products 

other than those of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that are 

applicable to particleboard and plywood used in manufactured housing. 

9.4 Regulatory Flexibility Alternatives

 EPA is directed to promulgate implementing regulations for TSCA Title VI in a manner 

that ensures compliance with the emissions standards. In order to mitigate potential burdens, the 

Panel recommends that EPA consider and seek comments on the flexibility options described 

below. The Panel believes that the following flexibility options collectively have the potential to 

reduce the compliance burden and clarify issues of concern for small entities, while ensuring 

emissions standards and the intent of TSCA Title VI are met. 

 The Panel first acknowledges that many of the SERs stated that they were in compliance 

with the CARB ATCM, and that they preferred that EPA adopt regulatory requirements that 

coincided with CARB’s requirements. The Panel recommends that EPA adopt regulatory 

requirements that are consistent with the CARB ATCM wherever possible. 

Manufactured-by Dates and Stockpiling

One SER suggested the manufactured-by date should be 180 days after the promulgation 

of the regulations. Another SER suggested that the reference period against which purported 

stockpiling should be measured be the 12-month period prior to promulgation of the regulations, 

with annualized rates compared. 

The Panel generally agrees with these comments and recommends that EPA propose 

these provisions while requesting comments and data on alternative dates and reference periods. 

The statute requires a date for compliance relative to the date of manufacture, in part so that 

regulated entities would not be stuck with non-saleable inventory. By selecting a date relative to 

the date of manufacture, entities will have time to clear their existing inventory, while any new 

inventory being generated must be compliant. 

NAF and ULEF Resins

 EPA sought information on how the SERs would respond to a “green seal” labeling 

program for products with emissions below the NAF limits. The SERs generally did not support 

such a program at this time. They commented that it would be extremely difficult to measure 

emissions that were well below the NAF limits, making it impossible for products to earn a 

“green seal.” They were also unsure how the program could be integrated with other green 

labeling programs. 
29

The Panel recommends that EPA not pursue a “green seal” program at this time, because 

it could be difficult for manufacturers to take advantage of such a program. Because emissions 

levels below the NAF limits are difficult to accurately measure, it would be difficult to fairly 

implement a “green seal” program. The Panel encourages EPA to explore other options to 

encourage environmentally preferable alternatives. 

Quality Control and Compliance Testing

 Several SERs submitted comments on the test methods. They contend that the test 

methods used by CARB and required by TSCA Title VI are accurate when appropriately applied. 

The Panel recognizes that alternative test methods must be specified by regulation and 

include a showing of equivalence to ASTM E-1333-96(2002) by a method established through 

regulation. (TSCA § 601(b)(3)). The Panel recommends that that EPA consider CARB’s method 

of establishing equivalency and carefully evaluate any alternative test method. 

 One SER commented that the lag time between when boards are tested and when failing 

test results are reported can lead to noncompliant lots being sold to downstream purchasers that 

are unaware that they are noncompliant. 

The Panel recommends that EPA provide clear direction to TPCs on product 

decertification and recertification procedures and clear direction to producers regarding the recall 

of noncompliant products. 

Third Party Certification

 The SERs generally commented that the integrity of the TPC program will be an essential 

component the regulatory scheme. One SER commented that EPA could mimic the CARB 

approach to certifications of TPCs or EPA could enter into an MOU with an international 

accrediting body to perform some of the functions now being managed by CARB. That SER 

commented that if EPA were to enter into a MOU with an accrediting body, the EPA should not 

delegate authority over the design and operation of the certification system. 

 The Panel recommends that EPA continue to explore how it can capitalize on the 

expertise of international accrediting bodies, while at the same time maintaining control over the 

design and implementation of its certification system. The Panel believes that additional 

oversight by accrediting bodies has the potential to strengthen the integrity of the TPC program, 

particularly with regards to auditing and oversight of TPC operations. This would provide a 

benefit to downstream purchasers of composite wood goods, by enhancing confidence that the 

materials they purchase are compliant. Should the EPA choose to enter into a MOU with 

international accrediting bodies, the Panel recommends that their role be clearly delineated and 

that EPA not relinquish its role in monitoring the certification system. 

Chain of Custody, Labeling and Record Keeping
30

 Several SERs commented that labeling and record keeping provisions should be closely 

harmonized with CARB’s requirements. One SER also suggested that like CARB, the TSCA 

Title VI labeling requirements should allow labeling panels by the bundle. 

 The Panel generally agrees with these comments. Subtle difference between the TSCA 

Title VI implementing regulations and the CARB ATCM may make identical labels impossible; 

however, the Panel recommends that EPA consider closely aligning the two labeling systems. 

Like the CARB labeling system, the TSCA Title VI system should be designed to allow 

downstream purchasers to verify that they are purchasing compliant composite wood products. 

To the extent feasible, the labels should contain the same information required by CARB and 

allow for labeling by bundle. Requiring the same labeling information as CARB will reduce the 

burden on small entities because many small entities are compliant with CARB and familiar with 

the CARB labeling requirements. 

 The Panel believes that labeling by the bundle is sufficient to communicate the necessary 

information. The Panel further believes that allowing labeling by the bundle will reduce the 

likelihood that composite wood panel finishes will be damaged by labels and that it will reduce 

the burden on small entities by eliminating costs and delays that fabricators may incur to remove 

labels on individual panels. 

Treatment of Laminated Products and Engineered Veneer

 Several SERs commented requesting the EPA exempt certain laminated products and 

engineered veneer. SERs commented that using alternative resins could hinder performance in 

certain applications. However, one SER commented that approximately 50 percent of the 

surveyed KCMA members that did their own laminating indicated that they were not using urea 

formaldehyde resin. 

 The Panel recognizes that EPA is required to regulate “in a manner that ensures 

compliance with the emissions standards.” (TSCA § 601(b)(1)). The Panel further recognizes 

that unlike the CARB ATCM, TSCA Title VI specifically includes laminated products and 

engineered veneer in the definition of HWPW, which is subject to emissions standards. (TSCA 

§ 601(a)(3)(C)). EPA is directed to “use all available and relevant information from State 

authorities, industry, and other available sources of such information” to determine at the 

Administrator’s discretion whether laminated products and engineered veneer should be exempt 

from the definition of HWPW. (TSCA § 601(a)(3)(C)). The Panel recommends that EPA 

continue to seek available information, and exempt those laminated products that can be 

exempted consistent with the direction given in TSCA § 601(b)(1). 

 The Panel recommends 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 

recommends that EPA consider basing the number and frequency of required quality control 

testing on production volume, thereby requiring fewer tests for smaller producers. Basing the 

number and frequency of tests on production volume should reduce the burden associated with 

testing costs for small entities with lower production volumes. 
31

Fabricators

 One SER suggested that fabricators should be regulated the same as they are under 

CARB. The Panel generally agrees that, where possible, the makers of finished goods 

(fabricators) should be regulated in harmony with the CARB regulations. This recommendation 

includes harmonizing the labeling and record keeping requirements for fabricators. The Panel 

notes that under section 93120(c)(12) of the CARB ATCM the term “fabricator” includes 

“producers of laminated products.” As noted above, the Panel recommends that EPA continue to 

seek available information on laminated products, and exempt those laminated products that can 

be exempted consistent with the direction given in TSCA § 601(b)(1). 

Hardboard

One SER commented that hardboard made with urea formaldehyde resin is nearly 

identical to MDF and should be regulated as MDF. Another SER stated that a revised ANSI 

standard for “hardboard” would be approved by the end of 2011, and suggested that EPA 

reference that standard in its definition of “hardboard.” 

 The Panel generally agrees with these comments. The Panel notes that “hardboard” is 

exempted by TSCA section 601(c)(1) from the emissions standards and recommends 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. 

Definitions

 One SER requested that EPA provide a common sense definition of “interior use” as that 

term is used in the statutory definition of hardwood plywood. 

The Panel recognizes that TSCA VI was not intended to apply to structural plywood 

(TSCA § 601(a)(3)(B)) or composite wood products made for outdoor use because, in part, these 

products must be made to withstand outdoor weather conditions. The Panel also notes that the 

statutory definition of “hardwood plywood” includes that it be “intended for interior use.” TSCA 

601(a)(3)(A)(i). The Panel recommends that EPA develop a clear definition for “interior use” in 

order to eliminate confusion in the regulated community. 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. 

 One SER commented that the term “panel” should not include the raised center panels 

typically included in kitchen cabinets and smaller panels typically used as component parts. 

Another SER commented that the term “panel” can cover smaller panels that are made-to-size 

and cut-to-size. 

The Panel recommends 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. 
32

Other

 One SER commented that EPA's cost estimate of HWPW at $.45 a square foot grossly 

underestimates the actual cost most cabinetmakers pay for the veneered HWPW panels they 

purchase. That SER estimated two dollars a square foot is the more appropriate number. EPA 

disagrees that it should use a cost of two dollars a square foot in the calculations that the SER 

referenced. The SER appears to be confused, because EPA’s analysis is based on the cost of the 

veneer, while the SER’s comments discuss “veneered HWPW panels”. EPA estimated the cost 

per square foot of veneer using U.S. ITC trade data on the value and quantity of imported veneer. 

To verify this information, EPA contacted companies that sell veneer. They agreed that $0.45 

per square foot represents a reasonable value for the cost of veneer, and may be an overestimate 

of the average cost. According to one company, birch and oak face veneer cost $0.15 per square 

foot, A grade cherry veneer is $0.35 per square foot (although not all face veneer is A grade), 

and back veneer might cost $0.10 per square foot. Imports can be more expensive, but they 

constitute at most 20% of the market. Another veneer company said that 90 percent of sliced 

face veneer costs less than $0.30 per square foot, and that rotary cut veneer is less expensive than 

sliced veneer. There are wide variances in veneer costs, depending on the species, cut, and grade 

of the veneer. While some companies may primarily use veneer that costs one or two dollars per 

square foot, EPA does not believe that this represents a reasonable average across all companies. 

EPA believes that the methodology and data it used represent a reasonable estimate of the 

average cost of veneer used by laminated product manufacturers. 
A-1

Appendix A: List of Materials EPA shared with Small Entity 

Representatives

• Fact Sheet: What Small Entities Should Know About the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act11

• Fact Sheet: What Potential Small Entity Representatives Should Know About 

the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Process12

• Power Point presentation: Rulemaking Implementing Formaldehyde Standards 

for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI) 

• Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI)13 

• Agenda, Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting, January 6, 2011 

• Panel Outreach Meeting Power Point presentation: Rulemaking Implementing 

Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI) 

• Agenda, Panel Outreach Meeting, February 17, 2011 

• Economic Analysis: Potential Costs of FSCWPA to Small Entities 

• Comparison Chart for the CARB ATCM and FSCWPA 

 

 

 

11 Available at http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/sbrefaftsht2009.pdf 12 Available at http://www.epa.gov/sbrefa/documents/serftsht2009.pdf 13 Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ199/pdf/PLAW-111publ199.pdf
Appendix B: Written Comments Submitted by Small Entity 

Representatives

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a pre-panel outreach 

meeting with potential Small Entity Representatives (SERs) on January 6, 2011. EPA 

hosted a panel outreach meeting with SERs on February 17, 2011. The Panel consists of 

EPA, the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy (SBA), and the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulation Affairs (OMB). OMB 

and SBA attended both meetings.

After the January 6th pre-panel meeting, potential SERs submitted eight sets of written 

comments, which are provided in this appendix. The following people submitted the 

comments: 

• Stanford Stone, Navy Island, Inc. 

• Fred Zoeller, Laminate Technologies, Inc. 

• Dennis Carroll, Rutland Plywood Corporation 

• John Maultsby, Florida Plywoods, Inc. 

• C. Richard Titus, Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association 

• Rob Gross, Gross Veneer Sales 

• Brigid Shea, International Wood Products Association 

• Thomas Julia, Composite Panel Association 

After the February 17th panel meeting, the following SERs submitted four sets of written 

comments, which are provided in this appendix: 

• Dennis Carroll, Rutland Plywood Corporation 

• Thomas Julia, Composite Panel Association 

• John Maultsby, Florida Plywoods, Inc. 

• C. Richard Titus, Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association 

 

B-1
B.1 Written Comments from Potential Small Entity

Representatives following 01/06/2011 Outreach Meeting

 

B-2
Written Comments 

Dennis Carroll 

to: 

Tracey Westfield 

01/12/2011 11:11 AM 

Show Details 

History: This message has been replied to. 

Hello Tracey,

  

Attached are Rutland Plywood Corporation’s written comments and concerns.  When do you think we will

receive feedback from the written comments?

  

Best,

  

  

Dennis Dean Carroll

EHS Manager

Rutland Plywood Corporation

PO Box 6180

Rutland, VT 05702

Email: dcarroll@rutply.com

Tel: (802) 747-4000 ext.4334

Cellular: (802) 779-1140

Fax: (802) 770-1921

www.rutply.com

  

  

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TWestfi6\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web0040... 1/31/2011

B-3
1 

January 10, 2011 

Tracey Westfield 

Regulatory Management Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

#6440BB Ariel Rios North 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Rutland Plywood Corporation – Comments and Concerns Regarding Public law 111-199 

Dear Tracey Westfield, 

Rutland Plywood Corporation (RPC) is writing to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

voice its concerns regarding the new Public Law 111-199. 

 RPC believes it has a genuine and legitimate concern, should our small niche market 

company be forced to comply with Public Law 111-199. The adverse economic effects of the 

rules and regulations from this legislation will ultimately have a critical effect on our financial 

strength. 

RPC manufactures northern hardwood veneers and laminates, which are not intended to be used 

for interior construction purposes. We do not manufacture any 4’ by 8’plywood. Successful applications 

have included but are not limited to the following: tool handles, levels, billiard cues, pallets, material 

handling applications, production boards, gun stocks, knife handles, musical instruments, picture frames, 

pens, and OSHA safety products. It should be noted that we supply our product to customers who then 

manufacture our product into their own. We also engineer products that are ecologically friendly. In two 

applications, our products have replaced wood that was once harvested from the rainforest. We have been 

able to use wood materials that are not endangered, but have been engineered by RPC to make them look 

similar and acceptable in appearance to a rainforest wood species. All of our resins used are well below 

OSHA’s Permissible Exposure Limit for formaldehyde. 

 In comparison to the large commodity plywood manufactures throughout the world, we are a 

company that is dwarfed in size by their sheer volume. However, RPC has been able to carve out a niche 

market that offers our customers an alternative to a traditional plywood construction sheet. 

B-4
2 

Our product overview consists of the following: 

A. Engineered Hardwood Components (EHC) are the heart and soul of Rutland 

Plywood Corporation. Here, thick peel Northern hardwoods are bonded together using 

our proprietary “Stratabond” process. Originally, these laminates were used for reel 

stock applications. Over the years, their strength and stability has made them ideal for a 

variety of industrial and consumer applications. Engineered Hardwood Laminates are 

sold in Pieces, Blocks and Dowels. They can be custom engineered to allow for greater 

strength through a parallel laminate process. 

B. ColorWood® is made up of colored laminated hardwood veneers that have been 

compressed into easy to work with sheets, blocks and dowels. ColorWood® is easy to 

machine, easily accepts finish and makes for beautiful, durable and unique finished 

products. 

This wood laminate made of natural and brightly dyed northern hardwood veneers is used 

to create a wide range of attractive gifts and novelties, from rolling pins, candle holders 

and walking sticks, crafts, curios, bow risers, ornaments and unique writing instruments. 

C. DymondWood® is sometimes referred to by the generic name of COMPREG. It is a 

highly engineered wood/plastic composite that has the physical and mechanical properties of high 

density hardwood, acrylic, polycarbonate plastics and brass. Here, brightly dyed northern 

hardwood veneers are combined with engineering grade resins, heat and pressure to create a 

product that has the best characteristics of each. DymondWood® is distinguished by its unique 

strength, durability, dimensional stability, and weather and moisture resistance as compared to 

regular wood. 

These ply-laminates include, but are not limited to the following: archery stock, pistol grips, 

crafts, knitting needles, ornaments, pens, brushes, awards, frames, billiard tables, pool cues, and 

musical instruments. 

D. RiggerCore® Industrial Strength Outrigger and Crane pads are the result of 50 years of 

plywood manufacturing experience and manufactured exclusively by RPC. They are engineered 

to give users the strength, value, and environmentally responsible pad, which also meet the safety 

specifications of the exterior work demands of the crane construction industry. All RiggerCore® 

Outrigger and Crane pads are manufactured in Vermont, USA from local, responsibly harvested 

wood. 

E. PaverCore® Production Boards are manufactured using state of the art lamination 

process. This product is used in Concrete Paver Production and other concrete forming 

applications. A variety of coatings are available for these paver boards. The available dimensions 

and other technical data vary for each. Presently, PaverCore® products are being offered with a 

HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) or Phenolic Sheet Glue. 

B-5
F. BevCore® material Handling platfo

to strengthen pallet stacks by allowing increased load forces on base pallets.

engineered specifically to meet the rigorous demands of the beverage industry.

 

G. PalletCore® Slave Pallets (a/

loads and long life in Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems (AS/RS) and other material 

handling applications. The boards offer a superior long term return on investment and promote 

the safe transport of heavy loads within distribution and manufacturing environments.

H. SportCoreTM is a specialized family of laminated wood products specifically designed for 

the demands of snow and board sports. Through comprehensive product development, 

SportCoreTM offers the impossible; rigidity, and flex at the same time.

I. Stratabond® Laminated Hardwoods manufactured by RPC are designed for top 

performance while offering flexibility in design. At the heart of Stratabond

hardwoods is a proprietary lamination process that creates an unusually powerful bond; a bond 

that makes for endurance and beauty in finished products. Firearm manufacturers worldwide have 

come to recognize the Stratabond® name for quality, con

technology that has made of Stratabond® the number one brand of laminated gun stock material 

in the world. 

RPC’s products are as diverse as they are unique. Based on the information provided in this 

document, RPC believes that we are excluded from inclusion in Public Law 111

All eight of the above engineered veneer plywood or laminated goods are niche market products. 

RPC’s request for exclusion should be granted under Sec. 601. 15 U.S.C. 2697 F

“...(a)(3)(A)(i) intended for interior use and (a)(3)(C)(i) Rulemaking.

shall conduct a rulemaking process pursuant to subsection (d) that uses all available and relevant 

information from State authorities, industry

that information to determine, at the discretion of the Administrator, whether the definition of the term 

‘hardwood panel’ should exempt engineered veneer or any laminated product.” 

RPC thanks the EPA in advance

respond to this letter in writing to: Rutland Plywood Corporation, Attn: Dennis D. Carroll, P.O. Box 

6180, Rutland, VT 05702 

Sincerely, 

Dennis D. Carroll 

EHS Manager

BevCore® material Handling platforms, Manufactured exclusively by RPC, are designed 

to strengthen pallet stacks by allowing increased load forces on base pallets. BevCore® is 

engineered specifically to meet the rigorous demands of the beverage industry.

PalletCore® Slave Pallets (a/k/a Captive Pallets or Slave Boards) are designed for heavy 

loads and long life in Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems (AS/RS) and other material 

handling applications. The boards offer a superior long term return on investment and promote 

nsport of heavy loads within distribution and manufacturing environments.

SportCoreTM is a specialized family of laminated wood products specifically designed for 

the demands of snow and board sports. Through comprehensive product development, 

TM offers the impossible; rigidity, and flex at the same time.

Stratabond® Laminated Hardwoods manufactured by RPC are designed for top 

performance while offering flexibility in design. At the heart of Stratabond® laminated 

hardwoods is a proprietary lamination process that creates an unusually powerful bond; a bond 

that makes for endurance and beauty in finished products. Firearm manufacturers worldwide have 

come to recognize the Stratabond® name for quality, consistency and durability. Indeed, it is this 

technology that has made of Stratabond® the number one brand of laminated gun stock material 

RPC’s products are as diverse as they are unique. Based on the information provided in this 

C believes that we are excluded from inclusion in Public Law 111-199. 

engineered veneer plywood or laminated goods are niche market products. 

should be granted under Sec. 601. 15 U.S.C. 2697 Formaldehyde S

“...(a)(3)(A)(i) intended for interior use and (a)(3)(C)(i) Rulemaking.—(I) In general.—

shall conduct a rulemaking process pursuant to subsection (d) that uses all available and relevant 

information from State authorities, industry, and other available sources of such information, and analyzes 

that information to determine, at the discretion of the Administrator, whether the definition of the term 

‘hardwood panel’ should exempt engineered veneer or any laminated product.” 

s the EPA in advance, for its time and careful review of the above information. Please 

: Rutland Plywood Corporation, Attn: Dennis D. Carroll, P.O. Box 

3 

rms, Manufactured exclusively by RPC, are designed 

BevCore® is 

k/a Captive Pallets or Slave Boards) are designed for heavy 

loads and long life in Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems (AS/RS) and other material 

handling applications. The boards offer a superior long term return on investment and promote 

nsport of heavy loads within distribution and manufacturing environments.

SportCoreTM is a specialized family of laminated wood products specifically designed for 

the demands of snow and board sports. Through comprehensive product development, 

Stratabond® Laminated Hardwoods manufactured by RPC are designed for top 

® laminated 

hardwoods is a proprietary lamination process that creates an unusually powerful bond; a bond 

that makes for endurance and beauty in finished products. Firearm manufacturers worldwide have 

sistency and durability. Indeed, it is this 

technology that has made of Stratabond® the number one brand of laminated gun stock material 

RPC’s products are as diverse as they are unique. Based on the information provided in this 

engineered veneer plywood or laminated goods are niche market products. 

ormaldehyde Standards 

—The administrator 

shall conduct a rulemaking process pursuant to subsection (d) that uses all available and relevant 

, and other available sources of such information, and analyzes 

that information to determine, at the discretion of the Administrator, whether the definition of the term 

for its time and careful review of the above information. Please 

: Rutland Plywood Corporation, Attn: Dennis D. Carroll, P.O. Box 

B-6
RE: EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Panel - Panel Outreach Meeting on 02/17 + a fuller schedule

Rob Gross 

to: 

Tracey Westfield 

01/20/2011 03:03 PM 

Cc: 

Lucinda Power 

Show Details 

History: This message has been replied to. 

Tracey,

I have attached my Pre‐Panel Outreach comments in a Microsoft Word file.

Thanks and regards,

Rob Gross

From: Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:37 PM 

To: Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov 

Cc: Power.Lucinda@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Panel - Panel Outreach Meeting on 02/17 + a fuller schedule

 

 

Hi Potential SERs, 

I'm touching base on the next steps for the Formaldehyde SBAR Panel. 

Below are three dates to keep in mind, the most important of which is 

02/17/2011 (#2). 

01/20/2011 - Your optional written comments on the Pre-Panel Outreach 

Meeting (held on 01/06/2011) are due. 

02/17/2011 - Panel Outreach Meeting from 1 - 4 PM. Logistics and 

materials will be distributed two weeks prior to the meeting. For now, 

please reserve this time on your calendars and make your travel 

reservations if you intend to join the meeting in person. The meeting 

will be located in Washington, DC at EPA Headquarters (1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004 --- Same place as the last meeting). You 

are not required to travel for this meeting; a toll-free conference line 

will be provided. But if you were to choose to attend any meeting in 

person, this would be the appropriate meeting. The purpose of this 

meeting is to solicit your advice and recommendations on the regulatory, 

economic, technical, and legal information provided to you by the Panel. 

The Panel also seeks your input on the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on the entity you are representing. 

03/03/2011 - Your optional written comments on the Panel Outreach 

Meeting are due. 

I'll be in touch with more info as we approach the date of the meeting.

EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Panel - Panel Outreach Meeting on 02/17 + a fuller schedule Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TWestfi6\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web3103... 1/31/2011

B-7
Thanks, 

Tracey 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

Tracey Westfield | Regulatory Management Division, US Environmental 

Protection Agency 

#6440BB Ariel Rios North | 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Mailcode:1806A | 

Washington, DC 20460 

P: 202.564.5586 | F: 202.564.0965 | E: Westfield.Tracey@epa.gov 

No virus found in this message. 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3389 - Release Date: 01/18/11

EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Panel - Panel Outreach Meeting on 02/17 + a fuller schedule Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TWestfi6\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web3103... 1/31/2011

B-8
Gross Veneer Sales 

 

OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE: 2040 BREVARD ROAD, HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 27263 

PO Box 5212 

High Point, N.C. 27262 

Phone: (336) 883-0196 

Fax: (336) 883-2912 

E-Mail: robgross@grossveneer.com 

Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011 

To: EPA’s Formaldehyde SBAR Panel 

Attn: Tracey Westfield 

Page: 01 of 01 

Ref.: Pre-Panel Outreach comments 

 I would like to repeat some of what I had to say in the meeting we had on January 6, 

2011. The most important observation that I have to make is that my company and hundreds of 

other importers and distributors were severely financially hurt by the CARB regulations when they 

kicked in on January 1, 2009. The Air Resources Board’s plan for sell-through periods were not 

borne out in the least by what actually happened in the marketplace. It demonstrated to me that 

government agencies understand very little about business and market forces, and that they 

should keep their nose out of it. 

 Under the CARB vision, importers like myself would have had 90 days to sell panels that 

were not CARB certified in the marketplace. What they did not anticipate was that in the 

marketplace, my customers started demanding CARB certified panels in August of 2008, over 4 

months before the rule took effect. The economy for housing-related products was tanking right 

about then, so demand was very soft, and my customers did not want to buy anything in August 

that they might be stuck with in January. 

 In my case my loss was compounded by another related event and the way my market 

works. I import plywood cores called platforms. I sell those to U.S. plywood manufacturers who 

then glue face and back veneers on them and trim them back to a 4x8 piece of plywood. The 

benefit that they get from that is that in their hot-presses, they don’t have to get heat to the center 

of the plywood, since it is already glued tight. They just have to heat up the surface of the panel 

and cure the glue right under the thin face and back. It allows them a much higher production rate 

when they use platforms. 

 In late June, 2008, I sold seventy-five crates of non-CARB platforms to one customer. 

That is about five flatbed truckloads, and it was a good order for me. In my business I keep the 

platforms at the port of entry until they are sold, and then I release them to the customer. It is up 

to the customer to send in trucks and have the goods hauled to his factory. Well, as I said, 

demand was softening at that time, and my customer kept putting off shipping the platforms to his 

factory. And he also did not pay me for those platforms. Then in late November, 2008, about a 

month before the CARB rule took effect, he cancelled the order and handed the platforms back to 

me. So the amount of non-compliant platforms in my inventory more than doubled. 

 After the CARB rule took effect, it was impossible to sell non-certified platforms without 

giving the buyer a large financial incentive to do so. So instead of making a modest profit of 

around 10% on each load, I was discounting the material to a level about 20% below my costs. 

That alone has caused me to lose at least $75,000. On material that was entirely compliant with 

HUD standards. 

B-9
2

 And that could just be the tip of the iceberg if the federal standards do not allow for me to 

sell non-compliant panels after the law takes effect. I still have a LOT of inventory of specialty 

plywood for the steel-ruled dieboard industry, which cuts up paper and cardboard. None of it is 

CARB certified or even emissions compliant to my knowledge. What am I supposed to do with 

that? Export it? Make birdhouses? 

 I thought the EPA responded correctly and admirably when the Sierra Club and other 

similar organizations petitioned for the EPA to adopt the California formaldehyde standard as the 

national standard. The EPA responded that they could not move to effectively ban panels made 

with formaldehyde unless there was some actual proof that formaldehyde is detrimental to human 

health. That proof doesn’t exist. Yes, it is an irritant, but there have been no studies of morticians, 

lab technicians, panel plant employees or chemical workers, people whose lifetime exposure to 

formaldehyde would likely be higher than the general population, to see if they have any health 

problems that the rest of us don’t. The only study that I am aware of concerning formaldehyde 

was performed on lab rats. They were exposed to levels of formaldehyde that a person would 

never endure. Rats are also “obligatory nasal breathers”, meaning that they cannot breathe 

through their mouths, only their noses. So the fact that some rats developed nasal tumors has 

very little bearing to its potential effect on people. 

 But the U.S. Congress is apparently not held to that standard of proof. They can pass this 

law without any scientific evidence that panels made using formaldehyde are detrimental to public 

health. But in your rulemaking for that law, you should bend over backward to ensure that those 

of us in the plywood industry will be able to sell what we have invested in and to get that 

investment back. 

 Gross Veneer Sales is a small company, with under 10 employees. We have an affiliated 

company, United Finishers, Inc., that uses some of the plywood that we import to make finished 

wooden bedrails, and they employ another 20 to 25 people. There are lots of other companies in 

our industry that are the same size as Gross Veneer Sales. With the slow business we have had 

for the past two and a half years, all of us are holding on as well as we can and hoping for better 

times. This law could be the kiss of death to many of those companies, if it makes our inventory 

worthless. So my suggestion is that any panels produced or imported before a certain date, say 

January 1, 2009, should be unregulated and should be allowed to be used in the normal business 

operations of the marketplace. Perhaps documentation should be provided by the sellers 

attesting that it is old stock, or a paper trail be established to keep new production from getting 

sold as old. But there should be some provision for us to be able to sell our products without 

losing our shirts. 

Submitted by Rob Gross 

 Vice President, Gross Veneer Sales, Inc. 

 

 

 

B-10
EPA Formaldehyde SBAR Panel SER Comments

Tom Julia 

to: 

Tracey Westfield 

01/20/2011 05:16 PM 

Sent by: 

"Jeannie Ervin" <JErvin@cpamail.org> 

Cc: 

Lucinda Power, david.rostker, Lynn Vendinello 

Show Details 

History: This message has been replied to. 

Tracey,

  

Please see the attached comments.

  

Best Regards,

  

Tom

  

Thomas A. Julia

President

Composite Panel Association

19465 Deerfield Avenue, Suite 306

Leesburg, VA 20176 USA

703.724.1128 ext. 243 ∙ Fax 703.724.1588 ∙ 703.405.5602 mobile

tjulia@cpamail.org ∙ http://www.pbmdf.com

  

This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended

recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited.

  

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TWestfi6\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web3640... 1/31/2011

B-11
COMPOSITE PANEL ASSOCIATION

Advancing the wood-based panel and decorative surfacing industries

19465 Deerfield Avenue, Suite 306, Leesburg, Virginia 20176

Tel 703.724.1128 • 866.4COMPOSITES • Fax 703.724.1588

CANADA

Post Office Box 747 , Station “B” , Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5P8 • Tel 613.232.6782 • Fax 703.724.1588 

INTERNATIONAL TESTING AND CERTIFICATION CENTER

73 Lawson Road, Suite 101, Leesburg, V irginia 20175 • Tel 703.724.1128 • Fax 703.724.1588

www.pbmdf.com

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

For EPA Rulemaking on

Formaldehyde in Composite Wood Products

Comments of Thomas A. Julia

President, Composite Panel Association

January 20, 2011

The following comments are submitted by Small Entity Representative Thomas A. Julia, 

President of the Composite Panel Association, Leesburg, VA, in response to questions raised by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding its imminent rulemaking to implement the provisions 

of the Formaldehyde in Composite Wood Products Act (the "Act" or "Statute") that was signed by 

President Obama last summer.

As a general premise, CPA supports the coordination of the federal rules with the current 

California Air Resources Board's ("CARB") Airborne Toxic Control Measure to the greatest extent 

possible. Although there are some purposeful differences between the Act and the CARB regulation, we 

submit that the requirements should be congruent wherever possible. Otherwise, duplicative and 

potentially conflicting burdens and indeed questions of constitutionality could arise. None of these 

would serve the public interest or the interests of American small business.

I. Chain of Custody Generally

Chain of custody is a critical aspect of compliance and together with labeling and record keeping 

comprises a triad of assurance to downstream users and customers. In short, there must be some form 

of readily available assurance that finished goods are made with compliant panels. 

CPA does not believe that there should be a concern about disclosure of confidential 

information regarding sourcing. Under Sections 93120.7(d)(2) (fabricators) and 93120.5(d) 

(distributors) of the CARB rule, a party in the chain of distribution need only inform its customer on the 

bill of lading that the product is made with compliant panels. It does not need to identify the supplier to 

others in the channel. This information would be subject to inspection by the regulator, but would not 

be transparent to other commercial parties.

The chain of custody requirement is tied inextricably to the labeling and recordkeeping issues 

described below. In each case, we believe that there must be a balance between effective enforcement 

protocols and a minimization on the burden imposed on fabricators and distributors. The CARB rule 

provides a good template for these responsibilities.

II. Labeling and Record Keeping Requirements 

Effective documentation is needed to show that finished goods are made solely from compliant 

composite wood panels, and CPA believes that the existing CARB framework is reasonable and 

B-12
appropriate and should be followed by the EPA in its rule-making. The pertinent language is found in 

Section 93120.7(c):

“In addition, fabricators must keep records showing the date of 

purchase and the supplier of the composite wood products and 

finished goods and document the precautions taken to ensure that 

the finished goods comply with applicable emission standards. These 

records must be kept in electronic or hard copy form for a minimum 

of two years and provided to ARB or local air district personnel upon 

request...” 

Some have suggested that this requires that each component piece of furniture must be specifically tied 

to a specific panel, from a specific bundle shipped on a specific day from a specific supplier. We instead 

envision a system in which the fabricator could clearly show its chain of custody and fulfill its recordkeeping obligations by more general indices, including purchase information, inventory and usage 

policies, etc., to show that complying material from one or more suppliers was used. 

III. Sell-Through Provisions 

CPA supports the concept embodied in the federal legislation of sell-through with reference to 

date of manufacture rather than date of sale, which is used by CARB. In California there have been a 

series of "delays" in enforcement because distributors and retailers found themselves during these slow 

economic times holding inventory of panels or finished goods that had been made prior to the effective 

date of the emission limitations. These parties had bought what were complying products on the date 

of purchase, but found themselves holding non-complying products with the passage of time. This could 

cause severe financial loss. 

The date of manufacture approach gives certainty to those at all levels of the distribution chain 

as to what inventory can be sold. There is a date certain by which panels must be compliant and a date 

certain for manufacture of goods with compliant panels.

The statute provides that the sell-through reference date should be no less than 180 days after 

the promulgation of the EPA regulations (Section (d)(3)(A)(i)). At this time, we believe that the 180 day 

date is an appropriate one to be included in the regulation. As noted above, there would be no financial 

dislocation from such a date, because there is no problem with stale inventory under the date of 

manufacture approach (as distinguished from the CARB approach). The effective date is likely to be 

sometime in early to mid-2013. By that time there should be no problem obtaining compliant panels 

either domestically or from foreign sources, regardless of the application. Moreover, all the CARB Phase

2 manufacturing deadlines for panels will have been in effect for some time by mid-2013: hardwood 

plywood composite core – July 1, 2009; hardwood plywood veneer core – January 1, 2010; particleboard 

and MDF – January 1, 2011; and thin MDF – January 1, 2012. The domestic market is already adjusting

to these levels, and another two and one-half years will only make the supply of complaint panels more 

universal. 

B-13
IV. Stockpiling

EPA has requested guidance as to the appropriate "reference period for determining whether 

products are being stockpiled." There are two periods contemplated by the statute. The first is the 

period of purchases which is defined as between the enactment of Act and 180 days after the 

promulgation – almost a four year period. Given the cost of carrying inventory there is a natural brake 

on accumulating non-complying inventories long before the effective date of the regulation. We 

suggest that EPA focus on "stockpiling" within the 180-day period between promulgation and the 

effective date of regulations. 

The second period is the base against which the purported stockpiling must be measured. We 

suggest that the previous 12-month period would be appropriate, with annualized rates compared.

There is precedent in EPA regulations for this approach, including the Non-Road Diesel Engine 

rule.

The CPSC also has authority under 15U.S.C. §2058(g)(2) to prevent stockpiling. One approach 

used in the Safety Standard for Multi-Purpose Lighters, 16 CFR §1210.20, is "...the base period means at 

the option of the manufacturer or importer, any 1-year period during the 5-year prior period." 

V. Other Resins

CPA members use a variety of no-added formaldehyde ("NAF") and ultra-low emitting 

formaldehyde ("ULEF") resins in addition to traditional urea-formaldehyde (UF) based and other resin 

systems. We believe that the reduction of testing frequency and exemption from third party 

certification for products performing at certain emission limits, as memorialized by CARB, is entirely 

appropriate. Market incentives are also constructive factor here, incentivizing new technological 

developments. We are not aware of other incentives that are necessary in this area at this time. 

VI. Finished Goods

EPA has inquired whether panel members "... have any concerns about the inclusion of finished 

goods?" We are not clear about the reason for this question since the statute requires the inclusion of 

finished goods. Section (b)(4) provides:

“(4) APPLICABILITY – the formaldehyde emission standard referred to in 

paragraph (1) shall apply regardless of whether an applicable hardwood 

plywood, medium-density fiberboard, or particleboard is 

 (A) in the form of an unfinished panel; or

 (B) incorporated into a finished good.” 

(emphasis added). This is an important feature of the CARB rule and the Act. Most panel production is 

incorporated into furniture, fixtures, cabinets and other finished goods. If non-complying panels could 

be incorporated with impunity into other items, then a purpose of the Act would be lost.

B-14
Notwithstanding this point, we believe EPA should embrace a fair and reasonable approach that

does not create new burdens on fabricators and distributors to police the actions of panel 

manufacturers.

VII. De Minimis Exemption

EPA has asked, "Do you think there should be a de minimus exemption?" It is our understanding 

that the statute requires such an exemption, the scope of which should be determined by the Agency. 

Section (d)(2)(L) provides:

“(2) INCLUSIONS – The regulations promulgated pursuant to paragraph 

(1) shall

**

include provisions relating to – 

(L) exceptions from the requirements of regulations 

promulgated pursuant to this subsection for products and 

components containing de minimis amounts of composite 

wood products.” 

The de minimis exemption was added to the federal legislation late in its consideration, largely 

at the behest of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which expressed a concern about the burden 

involved with items such as small picture frames made with MDF and Easter baskets made with 

particleboard bases. The Statute does not exempt these finished goods from the emission limitations, 

but does provide for the development of regulations that would excuse compliance with the ancillary 

duties found in Subsection (d), such as labeling and record-keeping.

We believe this is appropriate and that there are two approaches (or a combination of the two) 

that EPA should consider. The first is a percentage limitation – i.e., any finished product with less than a 

specified per cent of its volume consisting of particleboard, MDF and/or hardwood plywood would be 

exempt. This is similar to the approach in Section (c)(11)(&(12) of the statute dealing with windows (5%) 

and certain doors (3%).

The other approach would be to define de minimis in terms of a cubic measure of the regulated 

products in the finished good. The regulation might exempt any finished good that had less than a 

specified cubic measure of the regulated products, thus addressing the Easter basket and picture frame 

examples above.

At this time CPA does not have recommendations as to the appropriate percentages or cubic 

measure that would be appropriate, but we anticipate offering a recommendation at a later date.

EPA also questioned whether products under the de minimis provision should be exempt from 

testing. The de minimis provision would apply to finished goods containing small amounts of regulated 

panels. The CARB regulation has no requirement for finished goods testing, similar to the qualification 

and quality control tests required for composite wood panels. Finished goods must use compliant 

panels, but this requirement does not need a specification of the enforcement mechanism.

B-15
VIII. Test Methods

CPA, through our CARB-approved Third Party Certification Program, internationally recognized 

Grademark Certification Program, as well as our International Testing and Certification Center, has 

worked on many round-robin formaldehyde testing protocols and has expertise in this area. We believe

that the tests identified in the Statute are the appropriate and time-proven ones for formaldehyde 

regulation, and they have been embraced world-wide for purposes of compliance with the CARB rule. 

IX. TPC Requirements

The Third Party Certification ("TPC") aspect of the CARB rule is critical to its credibility. No rule 

can rely on a domestic or foreign manufacturer to simply self-certify compliance with the complexities 

of the formaldehyde emission requirements, whether established by CARB or EPA. The use of third 

parties, internationally accredited and demonstrably experienced in certification oversight, adds a 

critical dimension of surety to consumers, fabricators and regulators that composite panels do in fact 

meet the emissions requirements of the regulation.

One additional step is needed to complete the circuit. We submit that all TPC's should be 

accredited by nationally and internationally recognized accreditation bodies in a somewhat more 

rigorous manner than now provided for by CARB. This will ensure that TPC's are qualified for this 

responsibility and that the TPC's aegis is not being pirated in any way. CPA will be prepared to offer 

specific recommendations in this area.

X. Laminated Products

A definition of so called “laminated products” has been one of the most difficult issues faced by 

impacted industries. On the one hand, the hardwood plywood manufacturer trade association has 

suggested that materials that have traditionally been considered hardwood plywood should be subject 

to the same regulations as the products manufactured by their customers. On the other hand, furniture 

and cabinet manufacturers have urged that component parts made in their factories should not be 

subject to new regulations. Consensus could not be reached among industry stakeholders prior to 

introduction of federal legislation, nor by the time it passed. The interested parties are still in discussion 

at this time to try to develop a consensus recommendation. Although these types of wood veneered, 

laminated products are not directly within the product jurisdiction of CPA, we encourage the parties to 

reconcile their positions. We also take the view that verifiable compliance with the underlying panel 

emission limitation should be the driver for EPA, and that the agency should not be imposing new 

regulatory burdens on affected downstream businesses as long as such compliance can be assured.

 

XI. Hardboard Definition

The statute exempts hardboard from coverage of both the emission limitations and other 

ancillary duties, but leaves the definition of the product to EPA. As with laminated products, above, this 

reflects an inability of industry stakeholders to come up with a consensus definition during the 

legislative process. CPA represents most of the hardboard manufacturers in North America, and has a 

B-16
direct interest in seeking a reasonable and practical definition. We are actively working with the 

stakeholders to develop a definition at this time and are hopeful of making a specific recommendation 

to EPA soon.

The central difficulty with this issue is the possibility of confusion between thin medium density 

fiberboard ("MDF") and "dry process hardboard." These two products can have similar appearances, 

properties and end uses. Thin MDF is typically made with UF resins (although it can use other binding 

systems such as MDI or phenol formaldehyde resins). All agree that thin MDF is subject to the emission 

limitations of the federal statute and the CARB rule. 

Hardboard is made in two principal ways – a wet process in which a ligno-cellulosic bond is used, 

often supplemented by some amount of PF resin and a dry process which is similar to making MDF. All 

agree that "hardboard" made with UF resin is nearly identical to MDF and should be regulated as MDF. 

CPA is in the process of completing a scheduled revision of the American National Standards 

Institute's ("ANSI") Standard for Basic Hardboard, ANSI A135.4, and is attempting to develop a 

consensus definition within the ANSI procedures that would be useful for EPA’s regulatory purposes as 

well. CPA will communicate the results of this process too.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate on the Panel to offer these comments. 

B-17
SER comment 

Florida Plywoods, Inc. 

to: 

Tracey Westfield 

01/18/2011 02:49 PM 

Show Details 

 

Ms. Westfield - attached please find our comments. 

 

John Maultsby, Jr.

President

Florida Plywoods, Inc.

850.948.2211 ph

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TWestfi6\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7045... 1/19/2011

B-18
Thoughts on EPA Meeting held 1-6-2011: 

CPA presented itself as representing a wide constituency. I’ve been a Director for CPA 

since 1985. Real decisions are made by the Executive Committee comprised of a small 

number of large dues payers (dues based on production). Our company has been an 

associate member of the KCMA since the 1960s. Although they tout a representation of 

a wide membership, they too tend to represent large dues payers. 

Our company makes particleboard for our own use to be covered with wood veneer, vinyl 

or paper. It is shipped out as cut-to-size components for kitchen cabinets and furniture. 

Our volume on a weekly basis is probably roughly equal to the one shift production of the 

large particleboard manufacturers. As a result, we must keep overhead and management 

costs low. Management and quality control duties are shared among all staff members. 

In short, in a small company everybody has to wear more than one hat. We support the 

CARB limits. However, the TPCs can alter their requirements for testing, in particular 

the size and duration of test lots and the procedures for recertification of non-complying 

lots. These things take up a lot of management time which could be spent in growing the 

business and developing new products. For instance, our product is tested each day 

representing a much higher percentage of tests to production than the large 

manufacturers. In my opinion all programs, due to the extremely low CARB limits, will 

eventually have rare random non-complying lots. Due to the time involved in the TPC 

testing for compliance there can be a large volume of non-complying material in the field 

before the realization a lot has failed. In determining compliance, the total QC program 

of each plant as well as prior TPC tests need to be considered. Further, I fear that the 

audit program of the EPA for the TPCs will result in stricter procedures, record keeping, 

etc. which will be more difficult for the limited resources of the small manufacturers. 

I personally have been involved with the use of urea formaldehyde resins for over 60 

years. When I first entered the industry UF resin was a strong irritant. That has been 

totally eliminated to my knowledge. During my experience with UF I know of no proven 

illness linked to UF resin. In short, a rare random non-complying lot from a QC program 

with a good history of compliance needs to be given consideration. To be blunt, nobody 

is going to die if a rare lot is shipped with emissions just over the CARB limit. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

John Maultsby, Jr. 

President 

Florida Plywoods, Inc. 

850.948.2211 

B-19
IWPA Input

Brigid Shea to: Tracey Westfield 01/20/2011 04:32 PM

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting,

January 6, 2011. We offer these comments on behalf of the International

Wood Products Association (IWPA). 

IWPA is the only organization that represents U.S. businesses that import

composite wood products from overseas. Our voting membership is

overwhelming composed of U.S. family owned small businesses. The IWPA is an

advocacy organization; it does not own or hold a profit center for product

testing. 

Another important distinction to note is that the products our members

import into the United States are unique. Typically they are panels that

have no competitive product in the United States (because of thickness of

panel, species used in panel construction, etc.). These market niches

include but are not limited to the RV industry, kitchen cabinets and

manufactured housing. 

As an organization representing small businesses, our primary concern is

containing compliance costs. Our members have already incurred expenses due

to the California formaldehyde regulation and we seek to ensure that those

expenses are not duplicated or unnecessarily increased by a federal

standard. Our general advisories are: 

Double Jeopardy by jurisdiction. IWPA petitioned Congress to include

federal pre-emption in its legislation. That did not occur and remains our

concern that California may amend its regulation to where small businesses

would have to comply with two distinct monitoring, chain of custody,

certification and labeling programs. This scenario would cause undue

hardship on small companies that have already gone to great expense to

establish new inventory, tracking and labeling programs. 

Specifically, we ask EPA to:

Maintain the definition of Manufacturer and Fabricator as defined by CARB.

Adopt the same tag and labeling requirements as defined by CARB

Learn from the CARB experience and set sell-through dates as far from the

date of manufacture of the finished item as possible. 

Seek additional small business input. We applaud the SBA Office of Advocacy

for its work on behalf of small businesses. However, we are skeptical that

sufficient notification has been done for the small "mom and pop" businesses

that will be most affected by this regulation. Most of these type companies

do not read the Federal Register, nor do they belong to trade associations

that have so far engaged in this process. 

Third-Party Certification. If EPA is considering establishing a program

where the manufacturer must be certified then the tangible benefits of such

a program must clearly be identified. The concern our members have

expressed to our association is that while they pay more for a "certified"

product but this certification confers no liability protection.

Certification without liability protection is the equivalent of paying

insurance premiums without receiving protection or compensation in the event

B-20
of an accident. 

Focus on consumer safety. IWPA's members are committed to product safety.

That is where the EPA should focus. We are concerned that elements of the

CARB regulation dealing with chain of custody, inventory and labeling are

more focused toward enabling litigation rather than improving product

safety. 

Incentives are best delivered by the marketplace. Tax dollars should not be

used to determine "winners and losers." Let the marketplace offer

incentives for alternative resin use. 

Laminated products should be exempt. Laminators that are using certified

panel products are performing a de minimus action when laminating a wood

veneer to the product. Requiring testing of laminated products is redundant

and would place small U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage to

larger business that can absorb the cost more readily.

B-21
Re: please RSVP for Thursday 's meeting if you haven 't already + a revised list 

of potential SERs is attached

Stan Stone to: Tracey Westfield 01/07/2011 04:59 PM

History: This message has been replied to.

1 attachment

 EPA Discussion 110107.docx 

Tracy, thanks for pulling the phone conversation together. While I didn't comment I did listen 

and I do have some suggestions.

Stan Stone

On Jan 4, 2011, at 5:59 PM, Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov wrote:

To potential Small Entity Representatives:

Two things:

1) This is a friendly reminder: Please RSVP (if you haven't already) and

tell me whether you are calling in to or attending in person Thursday's

(01/06/2011) Pre-Panel Outreach Meeting for the Formaldehyde Small

Business Advocacy Review Panel. (Detailed information about the meeting

is provided in the two email message below this one.) So far, I've

received RSVPs from Dennis Dean Carroll, Robert Gross, Jason Krings,

Stan Stone, Dick Titus, Matt Wald, and Fred Zoeller.

2) Attached is a revised list of potential Small Entity Representatives

(SERs). Three additions have been made: Kip Howlett, Brigid Shea, and

Matt Wald.

Thanks,

Tracey

(See attached file: Potential SERs - Formaldehyde SBAR Panel

-01-04-11.xlsx)

________________________________________________________________________

___________

Tracey Westfield | Regulatory Management Division, US Environmental

Protection Agency

#6440BB Ariel Rios North | 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Mailcode:1806A |

Washington, DC 20460

B-22
Date: 1/7/2011 

To: Tracy Westfield, EPA 

From: Stanford Stone 

Subject: SBAR Panel Meeting 

As mentioned in the meeting, the CARB requirement for manufacturers has become the defacto national 

standard. It’s my understanding that you cannot even purchase non-compliant core material currently. 

The issue that remains with the EPA is the same issue that CARB was dealing with, the treatment of 

laminators or fabricators. Some laminators/fabricators have gone to the effort of having a TPC certify their 

facilities, others consider themselves, under CARB’s sometimes confusing rules, to be fabricators and have not 

certified their facilities, yet they do comply with the emission standards, COC and labeling requirements. 

Hardwood plywood manufacturers who make a complete panel in-house are required to have a TPC certify 

their processes on an on going basis. Manufacturers and fabricators that are TPC certified have made the case that 

they want a “level playing field.” They would like to have all companies supplying the finished product - hardwood 

plywood - comply with TPC certification. 

The first consideration is that a laminator, who was using urea-formaldehyde resin, would add only about 

1/10 of the resin that a core manufacturer would. Trying to regulate 100,000 or so laminators would be addressing 

a minor, if not diminimus, usage. According to industry data a typical 4’ x 8’ x 11/16” thick MDF or PB core 

weighs about 80 pounds. The panel is made with about 12% binder or 9.6 pounds of binder per panel. A laminator 

when making hardwood plywood, will usually coat both sides of a core panel with an adhesive at about 1.1 pounds 

per panel. So the laminator is dealing with only 11% of the resin of the core manufacturer. 

If a laminator uses NAF adhesives, the laminator is not adding any formaldehyde emissions. Since all core is 

currently certified the panel should meet all the emission requirements that it is certified to meet. Additionally, if 

an NAF laminator did not meet the emission target there would be nothing they could do to correct it since the 

certified core itself would be the only source of emissions. 

So what makes a level playing field? If a plywood manufacturer who makes the whole panel at one location is 

paying for certification and a core manufacturer is paying for certification the certification costs are the same. 

Requiring a laminator to have TPC certification, even if they do not use urea-formaldehyde adhesive, does not 

make a level playing field. It doubles the certification cost and creates an advantage for the manufacturer who 

makes the whole panel. That, I feel, would be protectionist. 

If the goal is to limit formaldehyde emissions with the least intrusive measures the EPA can do the following. 

1. Decide that the costs and efforts to regulate such a small % of formaldehyde emissions do not warrant the 

inclusion of laminators in the regulation. 

2. The EPA, or Congress, could simply outlaw the use of formaldehyde adhesive for panels, such as is done 

for the insecticide DDT. I don’t believe certification is required for pesticide applicators to see if DDT is still being 

applied. 

3. Since PVA adhesive is about 50% more expensive than urea-formaldehyde, the EPA could ask congress to 

apply a tax to urea-formaldehyde adhesives to make them more expensive than PVA. 

4. The EPA could have a TPC or other auditor simply certify that only EPA/CARB compliant core and 

NAF adhesives are being used. This can be done without any testing simply by matching resin purchasing records 

against panels produced. 

5. The EPA could emulate the IRS and send out a form, yearly, requiring someone in a company to sign a 

statement such as, “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined the purchasing records and 

production policies of (company), and declare that the company has used only EPA/CARB compliant core and 

NAF adhesives in the production of laminated panels from 1/1/2011 to 12/31/2011 and that is true to the best of 

my knowledge and belief (Signed QA/Production Manager/etc.).” 

6. The EPA could approve a label that was simply a declaration of compliance punishable as perjury such as, 

“Under penalties of perjury, I declare that we (Name of Company) use only core materials and adhesives in the 

production of these laminated panels that meet the EPA/CARB requirements for formaldehyde emissions. That is 

true to the best of my knowledge and belief, signed (QC Manager, Inspector, CEO).” 

There may be other alternatives, as well, to restrict urea-formaldehyde resins. 

When CARB was introduced it applied only to California. Since manufacturers had access to either CARB compliant 

material or not, it was necessary for California to be able to regulate panels coming into the state. They could only do that 

by employing Chain of Custody procedures. Consumer labeling promoting CARB was also considered advantageous since 

there was an option for the consumer to purchase non-compliant material. Once the laminator issue is dealt with, however, 

B-23
the Chain of Custody and labeling requirements will no longer be necessary. Those costs would merely be unnecessary 

expenses ultimately borne by the consumer. 

Stanford Stone 

Compliance Manager 

Navy Island, Inc. 

B-24
RE: EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Panel - Panel Outreach Meeting on 02/17 + a 

fuller schedule

Dick Titus to: Tracey Westfield 01/20/2011 04:11 PM

Thanks Tracey. We still are developing data to respond to Lynn's questions. 

We will have for February 17 meeting. Appreciate your efforts.

-----Original Message-----

From: Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov [

mailto:Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:37 PM

To: Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: Power.Lucinda@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: EPA's Formaldehyde SBAR Panel - Panel Outreach Meeting on 02/17 + a 

fuller schedule

Hi Potential SERs,

I'm touching base on the next steps for the Formaldehyde SBAR Panel.

Below are three dates to keep in mind, the most important of which is

02/17/2011 (#2).

01/20/2011 - Your optional written comments on the Pre-Panel Outreach

Meeting (held on 01/06/2011) are due.

02/17/2011 - Panel Outreach Meeting from 1 - 4 PM. Logistics and

materials will be distributed two weeks prior to the meeting. For now,

please reserve this time on your calendars and make your travel

reservations if you intend to join the meeting in person. The meeting

will be located in Washington, DC at EPA Headquarters (1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004 --- Same place as the last meeting). You

are not required to travel for this meeting; a toll-free conference line

will be provided. But if you were to choose to attend any meeting in

person, this would be the appropriate meeting. The purpose of this

meeting is to solicit your advice and recommendations on the regulatory,

economic, technical, and legal information provided to you by the Panel.

The Panel also seeks your input on the potential impacts of the proposed

rule on the entity you are representing.

03/03/2011 - Your optional written comments on the Panel Outreach

Meeting are due.

I'll be in touch with more info as we approach the date of the meeting.

Thanks,

Tracey

______________________________________________________________________________

_____

Tracey Westfield | Regulatory Management Division, US Environmental

Protection Agency

#6440BB Ariel Rios North | 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Mailcode:1806A |

Washington, DC 20460

P: 202.564.5586 | F: 202.564.0965 | E: Westfield.Tracey@epa.gov

B-25
FW: CARB letter

Fred Zoeller 

to: 

Tracey Westfield 

01/11/2011 05:35 PM 

Show Details 

History: This message has been replied to. 

Tracey here you go , thanks for your hospitality last week , let me know if I can help further

Fred Zoeller

Laminate Technologies, Inc.

161 Maule Road

Tiffin, OH 44883

419‐448‐0812

From: Paula Rathburn [mailto:prathburn@lamtech.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:18 PM 

To: Fred Zoeller 

Subject: CARB letter

  

Here you go - let me know if you need anything else.

Thanks

Paula ☺

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TWestfi6\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web1305... 1/31/2011

B-26
LAMINATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

 THE TRUSTED SOURCE FOR YOUR LAMINATE AND FABRICATION NEEDS 

January 11, 2011 

Dear Sirs; 

While Laminate Technologies is a relatively small manufacturing firm in the wood product industry 

(sales of 46 million), and may not be as versed as others in our industry on the current regulations in 

California and the upcoming federal regulations , but as I heard comments from the room on January 6th, 

the 

things that concern me and I feel need to be evaluated in implementation of the new regulations 

are listed below; 

1) The new regulation needs to have a manufacturing pass thru date and not a sale thru date, with 

provisions of not stock piling 

2) The new regulation should be for the manufacture of the composite panel and components that 

go into a laminated panel as this is where certification needs to take place and not have additional 

certification down the supply chain 

3) I feel PB and Plywood should be held to the same standards, along with domestic and import 

production 

4) I believe it is extremely important to keep CARB and the Federal Regulations the same so that we 

do not have two standards in our industry 

5) All regulations must take into account as to not add additional cost or burdens on the companies 

that must conform to these regulations. At times we are already positioning our industry to be 

non competitive to other types of cabinets and furniture manufacturers, etc. 

Again these are just a few of my comments on the existing C.A.R.B regulations. For processors such as Lam 

Tech, it is relatively easy for a small company as ours to be compliant, as the burden of certification falls on 

the manufacture of the composite panel as typically these are much larger organizations which have the 

resources for compliance. Our hope is that the new Federal Regulations will cover the same scope and 

compliance factors as C,A,R,B. 

If you have any questions, or if my contribution on this panel is needed, please do not hesitate to call me. 

Sincerely, 

Fred Zoeller 

Fred Zoeller 

Laminate Technologies, Inc. 

161 Maule Road 

Tiffin, OH 44883 

419-448-0812 

 

TENNESSEE DIVISION 

1356 GATEWAY DRIVE 

GALLATIN, TN 37066 

615.451.4554 

615.451.4557 (FAX) 

TEXAS DIVISION 

202 MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. 

DIBOLL, TX 75941 

936.829.0079 

936.829.0129 (FAX) 

www.lamtech.net INFO@LAMTECH.NET 

OHIO DIVISION/CORPORATE 

161 MAULE ROAD 

TIFFIN, OH 44883 

419.448.0812 

419.448.0811 (FAX) 

SALES@LAMTECH.NET 

B-27
B.2 Written Comments from Potential Small Entity

Representatives following 01/06/2011 Outreach Meeting

B-28
2nd panel meeting letter

Dennis Carroll 

to: 

Tracey Westfield, Tracey Westfield 

03/03/2011 03:31 PM 

Show Details 

Hello Tracey,

  

Attached are our comments to the 2nd panel meeting.

  

Best,

  

  

Dennis Dean Carroll

EHS Manager

Rutland Plywood Corporation

PO Box 6180

Rutland, VT 05702

Email: dcarroll@rutply.com

Tel: (802) 747-4000 ext.4334

Cellular: (802) 779-1140

Fax: (802) 770-1921

www.rutply.com

  

  

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TWestfi6\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7706.... 3/3/2011

B-29
March 3, 2011 

Tracey Westfield 

Regulatory Management Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

#6440BB Ariel Rios North 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Rutland Plywood Corporation – Comments and Concerns for the Formaldehyde Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel 

Dear Tracey Westfield, 

As the EPA implements the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, Public 

Law 111-199, Rutland Plywood Corporation (RPC) recommends that you consider exempting 

engineered veneer and products not intended for interior use, from the third party certification 

(TPC) and emission level requirements. RPC also requests the EPA to exempt manufactured 

panels made without cores or platforms per current Public Law 111-199 definitions. In addition 

we also suggest you to consider exempting other hardwood plywood products; which were not 

originally involved in the true spirit of this legislation. 

RPC also asks the EPA to develop practical definitions of engineered veneer as well as interior 

use. We would also like to see a specific exemption for Compreg in the final regulations or have 

it incorporated in the engineered veneer exemption. Compreg is an impregnated and compressed 

wood. Hardwood veneers are impregnated with a phenol formaldehyde resin (Less than 1% 

formaldehyde by weight). This process increases density and strength in the wood. Current 

testing suggests this product is just above the .05 PPM formaldehyde emission level. Currently 

there are no alternative resins available for this product. If this product is unable to get exempt 

from the regulation both from the TPC requirements and from the emission level we would no 

longer be able to manufacture it; therefore RPC would lose approximately $1.8 million in annual 

revenue. This loss would be detrimental to the company and its future existence would be 

B-30
significantly jeopardized. RPC is not in the large commodities market and our output of material 

is dwarfed in size by the companies, 

legislation. 

RPC products are made for niche

stocks and novelty items. (See attachment A

Corporation – Comments and Concerns Regarding Public law 111

pose little if any health risks, based on end usage,

burdensome and costly. In addition to having th

been unable to find a performance competitive .05

resin for these products. 

RPC has been unable to find an emission level compliant resin thus far, for some of our unique 

products. Examples of this would be o

up to 41 sheets of veneer. This is much

has been extremely difficult to find a resin that can meet both

performance standard. 

RPC does not believe it fits into any of 

laminated products due to us not using any platforms or pre

question. Incorporating a definition into the exemption section of the final regulation, exemp

manufactured panels made without

definitions, would accurately separate RPC’s products from the regulations and allow them to 

explain to their customers why they are not required to comply with the regulation.

While the EPA moves forward with draftin

concerns and hopeful exemptions to insulate us 

financial strength. 

Sincerely, 

Dennis D. Carroll 

EHS Manager

RPC is not in the large commodities market and our output of material 

the companies, who in our opinion were originally the target for this 

for niche markets – including but not limited to, guitar bodies, gun 

See attachment A- January 10, 2011 letter regarding Rutland

Comments and Concerns Regarding Public law 111-199) These final products

, based on end usage, making the regulation of the products overly 

In addition to having these products exempt based on end use, RPC has 

been unable to find a performance competitive .05 PPM formaldehyde emission level compliant 

RPC has been unable to find an emission level compliant resin thus far, for some of our unique 

would be our gun stock and guitar body blanks. These

This is much thicker than the average plywood panel.

has been extremely difficult to find a resin that can meet both the emission stand

RPC does not believe it fits into any of the definitions in the act, regarding hardwood plywood 

not using any platforms or pre-made cores in their products in 

Incorporating a definition into the exemption section of the final regulation, exemp

without cores or platforms per current Public Law 111

would accurately separate RPC’s products from the regulations and allow them to 

explain to their customers why they are not required to comply with the regulation.

While the EPA moves forward with drafting the regulations, please include our companies 

concerns and hopeful exemptions to insulate us from what would have a critical effect on our 

RPC is not in the large commodities market and our output of material 

the target for this 

guitar bodies, gun 

garding Rutland Plywood 

These final products

making the regulation of the products overly 

ese products exempt based on end use, RPC has 

emission level compliant 

RPC has been unable to find an emission level compliant resin thus far, for some of our unique 

. These are made with 

. (4x8 sheet) It 

emission standard and 

wood plywood or 

made cores in their products in 

Incorporating a definition into the exemption section of the final regulation, exempting 

aw 111-199 

would accurately separate RPC’s products from the regulations and allow them to 

explain to their customers why they are not required to comply with the regulation. 

g the regulations, please include our companies 

from what would have a critical effect on our 

B-31
RE: follow-up from yesterday's meeting for the Formaldehyde Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel

Tom Julia to: Tracey Westfield, Tracey Westfield 03/03/2011 04:55 PM

Cc: Lynn Vendinello, "Corey Connors", "Gary Heroux"

Tracey,

Please see my attached SER submission for the Panel's consideration.

Thank you and best regards,

Tom

Thomas A. Julia

President

Composite Panel Association

Leesburg, VA 20176 USA

703.724.1128 ext. 243 · 703.724.1588 fax · 703.405.5602 mobile

tjulia@cpamail.org · http://www.pbmdf.com

 

This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of 

addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. 

If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, 

dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. 

-----Original Message-----

From: Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov [

mailto:Westfield.Tracey@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 4:20 PM

To: Westfield.Tracey@epa.gov

Subject: follow-up from yesterday's meeting for the Formaldehyde Small 

Business Advocacy Review Panel

Hi SERs --

Thanks for your enthusiastic participation in yesterday's Panel Outreach

Meeting for EPA's rulemaking implementing the Formaldehyde Standards for

Composite Wood Products Act. I have two things to share with you:

1) You are invited to submit written comments on the materials and

discussion from yesterday's meeting, or on any other

thoughts/ideas/questions related to the rulemaking. Comments are due on

Thursday, 03/03/2011. Please email them to me

(Westfield.Tracey@epa.gov), and I will distribute them to all three

Panel agencies: EPA, the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

2) After we receive your comments, the next step in this process is for

EPA, SBA, and OMB to work together to develop recommendations for the

EPA Administrator. These recommendations are collected in a Panel

Report. Generally, a Panel Report becomes available when the proposed

rule publishes, at which time the Panel Report is placed in the rule's

docket.

The "Formaledhyde Emissions from Pressed Wood Products" rulemaking has a

docket number of EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0627. You can access that docket on

B-32
Regulations.gov at

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0627 You

can even click the "Email Alerts" button near the top of that web page

to receive automatic alerts when a new document is added to the docket.

That way, you don't have to keep checking the docket every day. OCSPP

is on schedule to publish this rulemaking in December 2011, so that's

when you can expect the Panel Report to appear in the docket.

If OCSPP writes a second, earlier rule related to third-party

certification (TPC) -- or any other issue -- then at a minimum, the

portion of the Panel Report pertaining to that topic(s) will be placed

in the TPC rule's docket. At this time, I don't have more info about

the TPC rule or its docket.

Thanks,

Tracey

______________________________________________________________________________

_____

Tracey Westfield | Regulatory Management Division, US Environmental

Protection Agency

#6440BB Ariel Rios North | 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Mailcode:1806A |

Washington, DC 20460

P: 202.564.5586 | F: 202.564.0965 | E: Westfield.Tracey@epa.gov

B-33
C O M P O S I T E P A N E L A S S O C I A T I O N 

Advancing the wood-based panel and decorative surfacing industries 

19 4 65 De e r f ie l d Av e n ue , S u i te 30 6, L e e s b u r g, V i r g i n ia 2 01 7 6 

Te l 70 3. 7 24 . 11 2 8 • 86 6 .4 C O M POS I T ES • Fa x 7 03 .7 2 4. 15 88 

CANADA 

Pos t O ff ic e Bo x 7 47 , S ta t i o n “B ” , O t ta wa , O n t a r io K 1 P 5 P 8 • T e l 6 13 .2 3 2. 6 78 2 • Fa x 7 03 .7 2 4. 1 58 8 

 

INTERNATIONAL TESTIN G AND CERTIFICATION CENTER 

73 L a ws o n Roa d , S u i te 1 0 1, L e e s b u rg , V i r g i n ia 20 1 75 • Te l 70 3. 7 24 . 11 2 8 • Fa x 7 0 3. 7 24 .1 5 88 

www.pbmdf.com 

Small Business Advocacy Review Panel 

For EPA Rulemaking on 

Formaldehyde in Composite Wood Products 

Supplementary Comments of Thomas A. Julia 

President, Composite Panel Association 

March 3, 2011

The following comments are submitted by Small Entity Representative Thomas A. Julia, 

President of the Composite Panel Association (CPA), on behalf of the small business members 

of the association and regarding EPA’s imminent rulemaking to implement the provisions of the 

Formaldehyde in Composite Wood Products Act (the "Statute"). Some of these comments 

supplement the previous CPA submission on January 20, 2011; others address topics that were 

raised during the EPA presentation to the Panel on February 17, 2011. 

CPA represents more than 90% of the manufacturing capacity of particleboard, medium 

density fiberboard (“MDF”) and hardboard in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. We also represent 

all the major adhesive suppliers to the North American composite panel industry, the major 

manufacturers of decorative surfaces as well as distributors of panel products, and a number of 

major fabricators of end-use industry products (e.g., furniture). 

Collectively, CPA’s members will be those most impacted by the Statute and its 

implementation by EPA. Most CPA members are small businesses and have manufacturing 

facilities located in rural communities. Composite panel production in the United States serves 

domestic markets and customers almost exclusively, and CPA is fully committed to sustaining 

domestic manufacturing jobs and small businesses. 

 

Almost all our members are suffering through a business downturn that is 

unprecedented in the history of the composite panel industry. It is coupled with substantially 

higher energy and raw material costs along with aggressive competition from products 

manufactured offshore. These should be important considerations for the Panel as it weighs 

the small business implications of what EPA is considering in this rulemaking. 

As an underlying premise, CPA again stresses that wherever possible and practical, the 

EPA regulation and the California Air Resources Board’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure on 

formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products (“CARB” or the “CARB rule”) should be 

fully compatible. 

Our members have abided by the CARB rule from its inception and will likewise abide by 

the Statute that CPA itself proposed. That said, we urge that EPA not use this rulemaking as a 

B-34
2 

means to impose new, unnecessary and/or redundant cost burdens on the industry supply 

chain. Instead we urge that EPA seek implementation approaches that serve the objectives of 

the Statute while minimizing the burden of compliance. 

I. Third Party Certification; Quality Assurance

 Credible third party testing and certification coupled with a robust Third Party Certifier 

("TPC") system is essential to the proper and consistent implementation of the Statute. Plainly, 

this system is what gives the greatest assurance that panels are meeting the formaldehyde 

emission limitations. Moreover, a transparent chain of custody system must be in place to 

enable panels to be tracked from the retail level back to the mill producing them, and to the 

TPC auditing that mill’s quality assurance procedures and randomly checking its production. It 

is equally important that the TPCs themselves are credibly approved, monitored and audited to 

be sure they are legitimate entities fulfilling their regulatory responsibilities on a consistent and 

verifiable basis. 

 EPA has posited two options with respect to management of the TPC system: (1) to 

generally follow the approach adopted by California in Section 93120.4 of its regulation; or (2) 

to enter an MOU with an accrediting body that would perform the same functions now being 

managed by CARB. CPA submits that both options could be viable and might be combined, 

appreciating that each present management and/or cost concerns to the businesses affected by 

this rulemaking. 

The CARB approach has been generally effective and CPA endorses it. We also 

recognize that it may be appropriate to require that TPC's be more universally accredited by 

recognized national and international bodies, attesting to their general capabilities of 

laboratory testing, process control and integrity. CPA would endorse such further oversight –

i.e., toughening the current CARB requirements to ensure the universality of TPC performance. 

 We would oppose, however, permission being given to a more global accreditation body 

to exercise substantial supervision of the actual certification process, or to have discretionary 

authority over the design or operation of the certification system, including the criteria by 

which TPCs are approved. These actions could potentially create new costs and burdens for 

TPCs and their customers that may or may not be warranted to satisfy the objectives of the 

Statute. Such roles should be reserved for EPA itself, with the agency identifying the specific 

role and scope of the body, as well as any annual compliance procedures and costs that might 

be imposed on TPCs and, by extension, their customers. The sole function of the global 

accreditation body should be limited to oversight and auditing, with regular reports submitted 

to EPA. 

B-35
3 

By limiting the scope of the body as we’ve described, efficiencies may be attainable that 

benefit all interested parties. For example, EPA and CARB may decide to cooperate on an MOU 

with the accreditation body for its limited auditing functions, thereby retaining their federal and 

state powers and responsibilities while also precluding redundant costs and functions. TPCs 

themselves might be able to combine accreditations or substitute a single accreditation by the 

global body. This would in lieu of a more costly, complex and arguably redundant system that 

might otherwise result. 

During the previous Panel meeting, some concern was expressed that the current TPC 

system managed by CARB has not been rigorous enough in identifying non-compliance or 

addressing non-complying lots. Some have termed this a “test method” problem, which it is 

not. Rather, there are legitimate challenges to consistently meeting the rigorous Phase 2 

emission ceilings. While these will be mitigated over time as a result of experience and 

technology, we believe that they can also be practically addressed in the rulemaking by 

modifying the TPC requirements, as mentioned above, as well as the quality assurance manual 

requirements with which each TPC-approved mill must comply. In short, CPA believes that 

considerations of non-compliance and non-complying lots should be viewed systematically at 

both the TPC level and the mill level. Elements that might be examined include the frequency 

and accuracy of quality control testing, the strength of the correlation of small scale production 

testing, the base qualification tests, and the rigor of notice and remedial actions in the event of 

repeated test failures. 

II. Test Methods

 CPA submits that the test methods found in the CARB regulation and referenced in ANSI 

standards are time-tested, repeatable, accurate and appropriate methodologies. Alternative 

methods should be examined with much caution and skepticism. As mentioned above, we see 

no evidence of shortcomings with the current test methods recognized by California and in the 

Statute, and the global panel industry has increasingly embraced them. 

 

 Notwithstanding our support for these approved test methods generally, the Statute 

has distinct and different requirements for quarterly and quality control testing. Section 

(b)(3)(A) of the statute provides 

“(A) Compliance with the emission standards described in 

paragraph (2) shall be measured by –

(i) quarterly tests shall be conducted pursuant to 

test method ASTM E-1333 (2002) or , subject to 

subparagraph (B) [dealing with findings of 

equivalence], ASTM D-6007-02;”

B-36
4 

We note that there is no discretion given to the EPA to add test methods for quarterly 

testing, but there is appropriate discretion granted for EPA to add approved test methods for 

quality control purposes: 

“(ii) quality control tests shall be conducted 

pursuant to ASTM D-6007-02, ASTM D-5582, or such 

other test methods as may be established by the 

Administrator through rule-making.” 

CPA further supports ongoing industry efforts to make current standards and test 

methods more efficient and advanced. It would be highly premature and inappropriate, 

however, for EPA to contemplate test method changes in this rulemaking given this significant 

commitment by industry coupled with the technical challenges already presented when 

measuring exceedingly low levels of formaldehyde emissions. 

III. Hardboard Definition

In CPA’s earlier submission we pointed out that there was broad industry interest in 

avoiding the possibility that thin MDF could be categorized as hardboard under the EPA’s 

product definitions, and thereby secure an exclusion from the regulatory scope. We also noted 

that the definition of hardboard was being re-evaluated by industry in the context of the 

pending revision to the American National Standard for Basic Hardboard, ANSI A135.4. 

 As the sponsor of this consensus-based Standard, CPA intends to ballot the final 

proposed revision with the stakeholder body this month. It will include the following definition 

of hardboard that has broad industry support and that we recommend to EPA: 

“Basic Hardboard. 

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/m3 (31 lbs/ft3) 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. 

B-37
5 

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.”

 In addition to updating ANSI A135.4 Basic Hardboard, CPA is currently sponsoring 

updates of ANSI A135.5 Prefinished Hardboard Paneling and ANSI A135.6 Hardboard Siding (to 

be renamed Engineered Wood Siding). CPA has also initiated the ANSI approval process of a 

new standard tentatively titled ANSI A135.7 Engineered Wood Trim. 

 We anticipate receiving final ANSI approval of all four aforementioned standards by the 

end of 2011 and recommend their reference by EPA as products excluded from regulation 

based on product definition. 

IV. Labeling Individual Panels

 

 During its presentation EPA outlined a variety of labeling options that are under 

consideration. CPA believes it is essential that labeling under the federal and California 

regulations is consistent. The prospect of a dual label addressing the same subjects is 

anathema to manufacturers, distributors, retailers and consumers alike. CPA thus endorses the 

last option identified in the presentation: 

“Coordinated federal labeling system with California's so that there 

would be one harmonized labeling program.”

 We particularly ask that there be no requirement for marking each individual panel, 

which is impractical, unnecessary and in some instances impossible if there is an expectation 

that such a label will remain legible for a significant period of time. The California regulation 

provides an option: 

“Product Labeling Requirements. Each panel or bundle of composite 

wood products must be clearly labeled to indicate compliance with the 

emission standards specified in Section 93120.2(a).”

Section 93120.3(e) (emphasis supplied). Some panels cannot be labeled without impairing the 

appearance and functionality of the product, and finishes may not appear homogenous if there 

is a stamp on the face. Moreover, secondary manufacturers will incur delays and costs to 

remove these labels prior to final processing. 

Using bundle tags on units of composite wood panels is a long-recognized and effective 

way of imparting all necessary labeling information to customers. CPA strongly urges EPA to 

embrace this approach rather than requiring individual panel labels. 

B-38
6 

V. No-Added Formaldehyde Resins; Green Seals

 EPA has suggested that there might be special recognition via a "green seal" placed of 

products “that fall well below the NAF emission levels for ‘green-marketing’ purposes"

(emphasis added). We submit that this statement misreads the state of emissions capabilities, 

and that from a practical standpoint no such products exist when considering the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

The NAF levels in the CARB regulation are extraordinarily low – 90% of testing must be 

below 0.04 parts per million (ppm) and no value can be over 0.05 ppm or 0.06 ppm depending 

on product type. During the CARB rulemaking proceedings various manufacturers submitted 

information for the record that many types of virgin wood inherently emit a de minimus level of 

formaldehyde, much as the human body itself produces formaldehyde every day. We submit 

that the achievement of values below NAF thresholds, as well as the ability to measure these 

values, would be highly difficult if not impossible, and without purpose. 

CPA is also skeptical of a green seal program generally. We believe it may further 

complicate what will already be a significant labeling challenge for the industry value chain, and 

will result in distinguishing one exceedingly low emitting product from another. 

 A related consideration is the Federal Trade Commission’s far-reaching "Guides for the 

Use of Environmental Marketing Claims” proposal. Presumably any green marketing seals 

proposed by EPA, for whatever purpose and on whatever basis, would have to include 

extensive disclosures to meet these FTC guidelines, requirements that many companies would 

find difficult to accommodate. 

 Thank you again for the opportunity to participate on the Small Business Advocacy 

Review Panel. I urge that all SER and agency documents as well as the final Panel report be 

made public in their entirety at the moment the initial EPA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 

announced.

B-39
Re: your comments are due on 03/03/2011 to the Formaldehyde Small Business Advocacy Review 

Panel 

Florida Plywoods, Inc. 

to: 

Tracey Westfield 

03/02/2011 12:29 PM 

Show Details 

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded. 

Ms. Westfield,

Please see my attached comments (2 pages).

 

Thank you.

 

John Maultsby, Jr.

President

Florida Plywoods, Inc. 

850.948.2211 ph

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TWestfi6\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8953.... 3/2/2011

B-40
3-1-2011 

RE: Comments on meeting of 2-17-2011 

I would like to invite your attention to my comments dated 1-6-2011 on the second page 

of this transmittal. I would also re-emphasize, in my opinion, that all programs (due to 

extremely low CARB limits) will eventually have rare, random non-complying lots. 

Due to the lag time between the production date and the chamber testing at the TPC, the 

volume of non-complying material in the field will be quite large before the realization 

that the lot has failed. Understanding that the CARB limits are part of Federal law, the 

TPC could possibly stretch their criteria for compliance to the overall test results for a 

particular plant. (For instance: a plant might be allowed one failure out of fifty.) Again, 

there will be non-complying lots. I don’t think the discussion of Feb 17 indicated any 

practical way to deal with these once they are determined non-complying. 

I would like to emphasize again that common sense needs to be a part of this program. 

As I understand, the CPA and CARB set these limits based on what is achievable without 

any consideration or production test history. Although these limits are achievable, they 

are not necessarily 100% reachable the first time, every time. They are much lower than 

any threshold for health. Again, no-one is going to die if a production lot tests slightly 

over the CARB limits. The more I listen to discussions, I think that this whole program 

has the potential to be destructive to the entire industry, and the efforts to regulate are 

over the top. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

John Maultsby, Jr. 

President 

Florida Plywoods, Inc. 

850.948.2211 ph

B-41
Thoughts on EPA Meeting held 1-6-2011: 

CPA presented itself as representing a wide constituency. I’ve been a Director for CPA 

since 1985. Real decisions are made by the Executive Committee comprised of a small 

number of large dues payers (dues based on production). Our company has been an 

associate member of the KCMA since the 1960s. Although they tout a representation of 

a wide membership, they too tend to represent large dues payers. 

Our company makes particleboard for our own use to be covered with wood veneer, vinyl 

or paper. It is shipped out as cut-to-size components for kitchen cabinets and furniture. 

Our volume on a weekly basis is probably roughly equal to the one shift production of the 

large particleboard manufacturers. As a result, we must keep overhead and management 

costs low. Management and quality control duties are shared among all staff members. 

In short, in a small company everybody has to wear more than one hat. We support the 

CARB limits. However, the TPCs can alter their requirements for testing, in particular 

the size and duration of test lots and the procedures for recertification of non-complying 

lots. These things take up a lot of management time which could be spent in growing the 

business and developing new products. For instance, our product is tested each day 

representing a much higher percentage of tests to production than the large 

manufacturers. In my opinion all programs, due to the extremely low CARB limits, will 

eventually have rare random non-complying lots. Due to the time involved in the TPC 

testing for compliance there can be a large volume of non-complying material in the field 

before the realization a lot has failed. In determining compliance, the total QC program 

of each plant as well as prior TPC tests need to be considered. Further, I fear that the 

audit program of the EPA for the TPCs will result in stricter procedures, record keeping, 

etc. which will be more difficult for the limited resources of the small manufacturers. 

I personally have been involved with the use of urea formaldehyde resins for over 60 

years. When I first entered the industry UF resin was a strong irritant. That has been 

totally eliminated to my knowledge. During my experience with UF I know of no proven 

illness linked to UF resin. In short, a rare random non-complying lot from a QC program 

with a good history of compliance needs to be given consideration. To be blunt, nobody 

is going to die if a rare lot is shipped with emissions just over the CARB limit. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

John Maultsby, Jr. 

President 

Florida Plywoods, Inc. 

850.948.2211 

B-42
Comments to Formaldehyde Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

Dick Titus 

to: 

Tracey Westfield 

03/03/2011 04:45 PM 

Show Details 

  

  

C. Richard Titus

Executive Vice President

Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association

1899 Preston White Drive

Reston, VA  20191

(703) 264‐1690/FAX (703) 620‐6530

  

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Users\Tracey\AppData\Local\Temp\notes35A6F9\~web1532.htm 3/4/2011

B-43
B-44
B-45
B-46
B-47
B-48
B-49