36504 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Notices 

EIS No. 20080249, Final Supplement, 

BLM, WY, Pinedale Anticline Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Development 

Project, Additional Information on 

Two New Alternatives, Consolidated 

Development with Year-Round 

Development (Construction, Drilling, 

Completion, and Production), 

Sublette County, WY, Wait Period 

Ends: 07/28/2008, Contact: Caleb 

Hiner 307–367–5352. 

EIS No. 20080250, Draft EIS, FHW, CA, 

Orange County Gateway Project, To 

Provide Grade Separation Alternative 

along the Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe Railroad Tracks from west of 

Bradford Avenue to west of Imperial 

Highway (State Route 90), Cities of 

Placentia and Anaheim, Orange 

County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 

08/11/2008, Contact: Scott McHenry 

916–498–5854. 

EIS No. 20080251, Draft EIS, AFS, CA, 

Moonlight and Wheeler Fires 

Recovery and Restoration Project, 

Proposes to Harvest Fire-Killed 

Merchantable Trees on 15,568 Acres, 

Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas 

National Forest, Plumas County, CA, 

Comment Period Ends: 08/11/2008, 

Contact: Rich Bednarski 530–283–

7641. 

EIS No. 20080252, Draft EIS, DHS, 00, 

National Bio and Agro-Defense 

Facility, Proposal to Site, Construct, 

and Operate at one of the Proposed 

Locations: (1) South Milledge Avenue 

Site, Clarke County, GA; (2) 

Manhattan Campus Site, Riley 

County, KS; (3) Flora Industrial Park 

Site, Madison County, MS; (4) Plum 

Island Site, Suffolk County, NY; (5) 

Umstead Research Park Site, Granville 

County, NC; and (6) Texas Research 

Park Site, Bexar and Medina Counties, 

TX, Comment Period Ends: 08/25/ 

2008, Contact: James V. Johnson 202–

254–6098. 

EIS No. 20080253, Draft EIS, NOA, 00, 

Amendment 4 to the Spiny Lobster 

Fishery Management Plan of Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and 

Amendment 8 to the Spiny Lobster 

Fishery Management Plan of the Gulf 

of Mexico and South Atlantic, To 

Address the Harvest and Exportation 

of Undersized Lobster Tails to the 

United States, Comment Period Ends: 

08/11/2008, Contact: Roy E. Crabtree, 

PhD 727–824–5301. 

EIS No. 20080254, Final EIS, NOA, MA, 

ADOPTION—Neptune Liquefied 

Natural Gas (LNG), Construction and 

Operation, Deepwater Port License 

Application, (Docket Number USCG–

2004–22611) Massachusetts Bay, 

Gloucester and Boston, MA, Contact: 

James H. Lecky 301–713–2332. US 

DOC/NOA adopted the US CGD & 

MARAD Final Supplemental EIS 

20060451 filed 10/27/2006. NOA was 

a cooperating agency on the project. 

Recirculation of the document is not 

necessary under 1506.3(b) of the CEQ 

Regulations. 

Amended Notices 

EIS No. 20080200, Draft EIS, AFS, UT, 

Dixie National Forest Motorized 

Travel Plan, Implementation, Dixie 

National and the Teasdale portion of 

the Fremont River Ranger District on 

the Fishlake National Forest, Garfield, 

Iron, Kane, Piute, Washington and 

Wayne Counties, UT, Comment 

Period Ends: 07/22/2008, Contact: 

Andi Falsetto 435–896–9233. 

Revision of FR Notice Published 05/ 

23/2008: Extending Comment Period 

07/07/2008 to 07/22/2008. 

Dated: June 24, 2008. 

Ken Mittelholtz, 

Environmental Protection Specialist, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. E8–14626 Filed 6–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0267; FRL–8371–5] 

Formaldehyde Emissions from 

Composite Wood Products; 

Disposition of TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On March 24, 2008, 25 

organizations and approximately 5,000 

individuals petitioned EPA under 

section 21 of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) to use section 6 of 

TSCA to adopt a recently promulgated 

California State regulation concerning 

emissions of formaldehyde from three 

types of composite wood products: 

Hardwood plywood, particleboard, and 

medium density fiberboard. They 

petitioned EPA to assess and reduce the 

risks posed by formaldehyde emitted 

from these products by exercising its 

authority under TSCA section 6 to: 

Adopt and apply nationally the 

California formaldehyde emissions 

regulation for these composite wood 

products; and to extend the regulation 

to include composite wood products 

used in manufactured homes. For the 

reasons set forth in this notice, EPA has 

granted in part and denied in part the 

petitioners’ requests. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Linter, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

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

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

For technical information contact: 

Mary Belefski, Chemical Control 

Division (7405M), Office Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–

0001; telephone number: (202) 564–

8461; e-mail address: 

belefski.mary@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of interest to those persons who 

manufacture, process, import, or 

distribute in commerce composite wood 

products, including hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, or medium density 

fiberboard and others who are interested 

in Agency activities involving 

formaldehyde. Since other entities may 

also be interested, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe all the specific 

entities that may be interested in this 

action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Information About 

This Petition? 

EPA has established a docket for this 

action under docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0267. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the docket’s index available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, e.g., Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

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

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Notices 36505 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

II. Background 

A. What is a TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

Section 21 of TSCA allows any person 

to petition EPA to initiate a rulemaking 

proceeding for the issuance, 

amendment, or repeal of a rule under 

TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order 

under TSCA section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A 

TSCA section 21 petition must set forth 

the facts that are claimed to establish 

the necessity for the action requested. 

EPA is required to grant or deny the 

petition within 90 days of its filing. If 

EPA grants the petition, the Agency 

must promptly commence an 

appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies 

the petition, the Agency must publish 

its reasons for the denial in the Federal 

Register. A petitioner may commence a 

civil action in a U.S. district court to 

compel initiation of the requested 

rulemaking proceeding within 60 days 

of either a denial or the expiration of the 

90–day period. 

B. What Criteria Apply to a Decision on 

a TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

1. Legal standards regarding TSCA 

section 21 petitions. Section 21(b)(1) of 

TSCA requires that the petition ‘‘set 

forth the facts which it is claimed 

establish that it is necessary’’ to issue 

the rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 

2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21 

implicitly incorporates the statutory 

standards that apply to the requested 

actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 

establishes standards a court must use 

to decide whether to order EPA to 

initiate rulemaking in the event of a 

lawsuit filed by the petitioner after 

denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA 

has relied on the standards in TSCA 

section 21 and in the provisions under 

which actions have been requested to 

evaluate this petition. 

2. Legal standard regarding TSCA 

section 6 rules. In order to promulgate 

a rule under TSCA section 6(a), the 

Administrator must find that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable basis to conclude that the 

manufacture, processing, distribution in 

commerce, use, or disposal of a 

chemical substance or mixture . . . 

presents or will present an unreasonable 

risk.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). This finding 

cannot be made considering risk alone. 

In promulgating any rule under TSCA 

section 6(a), the statute requires that the 

Administrator consider: 

•The effects of such substance or 

mixture on health and the magnitude of 

the exposure of human beings to such 

substance or mixture. 

•The effects of such substance or 

mixture on the environment and the 

magnitude of the exposure of the 

environment to such substance or 

mixture. 

•The benefits of such substance or 

mixture for various uses and the 

availability of substitutes for such uses. 

•The reasonably ascertainable 

economic consequences of the rule, after 

consideration of the effect on the 

national economy, small business, 

technological innovation, the 

environment, and public health. 

15 U.S.C. 2605(c)(1). 

Furthermore, the control measure or 

measures adopted are to be the ‘‘least 

burdensome requirements’’ that 

adequately protect against the 

unreasonable risk. 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). 

Section 21(b)(4)(B) of TSCA provides 

the standard for judicial review should 

EPA deny a request for rulemaking 

under TSCA section 6(a): ‘‘If the 

petitioner demonstrates to the 

satisfaction of the court by a 

preponderance of the evidence that ... 

there is a reasonable basis to conclude 

that the issuance of such a rule ... is 

necessary to protect health or the 

environment against an unreasonable 

risk of injury,’’ the court shall order the 

Administrator to initiate the requested 

action. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). 

C. What Action is Requested Under this 

TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

On March 24, 2008, the Sierra Club, 

National Center for Healthy Housing, 

National Coalition to End Childhood 

Lead Poisoning, Alliance for Healthy 

Homes, National Housing Institute, 

Healthy Building Network, Gulf Coast 

Environmental Restoration Task Force 

of Sierra Club, Next Generation Choices 

Foundation, Improving Kids’

Environment, EarthRose Institute, 

Grassroots Environmental Education, 

Healthy Homes of Louisiana, Lower 

Mississippi Riverkeeper, Women’s 

Community Cancer Project, Gulf Coast 

D’Iberville Volunteers Foundation, 

Advocates for Environmental Human 

Rights, Environmental Health Watch, 

North Gulfport Community Land Trust, 

Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network, Allergy and Environmental 

Health Assoc., Aspen River 

Construction, DeVany Industrial 

Consultant, Protect Sacred Sites 

‘‘Indigenous People, One Nation,’’

United People of the Cherokee Nation, 

Clean Air Athens, and approximately 

5,000 individuals petitioned EPA under 

TSCA section 21. The petitioners are 

concerned about risks to human health 

from exposure to formaldehyde emitted 

from composite wood products, 

including hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, and medium density 

fiberboard. They petitioned EPA to 

assess and reduce these risks by 

exercising its authority under TSCA 

section 6 to: 

1. Adopt and apply nationally the 

formaldehyde emissions regulation 

(Airborne Toxics Control Measure 

(ATCM)) for three types of composite 

wood products (hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, and medium density 

fiberboard), recently adopted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

2. Extend the regulation to include 

composite wood products used in 

manufactured housing. 

Among other requirements, the CARB 

ATCM specifies cap emission limits that 

are not to be exceeded. 

In this notice, unless otherwise 

specified, ‘‘composite wood products’’

refers to the three types of wood 

products (hardwood plywood, 

particleboard, and medium density 

fiberboard) referred to in the California 

regulation. Composite wood products 

are a subset of ‘‘pressed wood 

products.’’

D. What Support Do the Petitioners 

Offer for These Requests? 

To support their request, the 

petitioners referenced CARB’s webpage 

containing the documentation 

supporting the composite wood 

products rulemaking. In addition, 

petitioners cited information available 

from Federal agencies including the 

following: 

1. U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD), Office of 

Manufactured Housing Programs, and 

HUD’s formaldehyde emission control 

regulations at 24 CFR 3280.308. 

2. The U.S. EPA National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD 

regulation. 

3. The U.S Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration, Formaldehyde 

Standards for Toxic and Hazardous 

Substances, 29 CFR 1910.1048. 

4. The U. S. Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) analyses 

and findings on formaldehyde in the 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s (FEMA) Hurricane Katrina 

trailers. The petitioners also 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
36506 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Notices 

summarized in their submission the 

findings on exposure levels from the 

CDC trailer study. 

III. Comments Received 

In response to EPA’s request for 

comment on this TSCA section 21 

petition (73 FR 22369, April 25, 2008) 

(FRL–8362–6), EPA received 25 

comments. Three were short comments 

in support of the petition from 

concerned citizens and furniture 

manufacturers; one additional furniture 

manufacturer commented on his 

concern about effective enforcement 

against furniture importers. Another 

comment cautioned that developing a 

compliance testing method may be very 

difficult. 

Eight manufactured housing trade 

groups and suppliers submitted similar 

comments opposed to EPA regulation of 

manufactured homes. The commenters 

stated that the HUD’s standards have 

not been shown to be inadequate, HUD 

has the appropriate statutory authority 

(and EPA should use TSCA section 9 to 

refer the matter to HUD), and HUD has 

already received recommendations to 

amend its standards. Five furniture, 

window, door, and general 

manufacturing trade groups indicated 

their support for national application of 

formaldehyde emission standards, but 

noted that several challenges to the 

implementation and enforcement of 

California’s rule still need to be worked 

out. Some indicated support for EPA 

development of a ‘‘performance-based 

standard’’ designed to reduce human 

exposure to formaldehyde, regardless of 

source (mentioning carpet and paints as 

other sources of formaldehyde 

exposure) and all were concerned about 

the administrative burdens of the CARB 

rule and California’s or EPA’s ability to 

manage the certification and testing 

requirements. 

Three plywood and composite panel 

trade groups indicated support for 

expanding CARB’s emission limits to 

the rest of the United States, but 

commented that a TSCA section 6 rule 

is neither appropriate nor justifiable. 

They suggest that a national standard 

would be ‘‘developed in a cooperative 

effort with industry’’ rather than 

through a TSCA section 6 rule. The 

Hardwood Plywood & Veneer 

Association (HPVA) stated that it would 

be willing to join the Manufactured 

Housing Institute to petition HUD to 

adopt the CARB standards, and is 

considering incorporating the CARB 

emission standards into their next 

revision of the American National 

Standards Institute-HPVA standards for 

hardwood plywood and engineered 

hardwood flooring. The American 

Forest & Paper Association commented 

that it ‘‘supports adoption by EPA of the 

ATCM emission standards and testing 

and labeling provisions as a single, 

national paradigm for formaldehyde in 

composite wood panels, but developed 

in a cooperative effort with industry 

rather than through an (unjustified) 

Section 6 rule.’’ The Composite Panel 

Association (CPA) estimated that 80% 

of their members’ medium density 

fiberboard and particleboard production 

will be CARB-compliant, and CPA 

expects the CARB rule to become a de 

facto national standard. However, since 

compliance with the Phase 2 standards 

will be significantly more expensive, 

CPA commented that there will be a 

greater incentive to differentiate panel 

emission level by region or customer. 

CPA also noted that the industry 

estimates that the costs of the CARB 

rule, nationwide, will be close to $650 

million, significantly higher than the 

cost to affected parties predicted by 

California (commenters stated that 

CARB’s cost estimate was $147 million, 

but it is actually $127 million). HPVA 

and CPA also noted concerns about the 

ability of California or the EPA to 

enforce the regulation against importers 

of panels and finished products, and 

suggested that imports may be a main 

source of higher emitting panels and 

finished products. 

Comments were also received from a 

formaldehyde trade group and from a 

resin manufacturer. Hexion, a ‘‘major 

global supplier of thermosetting 

adhesives,’’ opposed EPA using section 

6 to adopt the California rule, but 

‘‘could support a national, preemptive 

regulation limiting formaldehyde 

emissions from composite wood 

products . . .’’ The Formaldehyde 

Council, Inc. (FCI) disagreed with the 

idea that there is no safe level of 

exposure to formaldehyde. FCI also 

commented that the average level 

detected in the FEMA trailers does not 

typically cause sensory irritation, and 

cited a study of conventional homes, 

finding an average formaldehyde 

concentration of 0.37 parts per million 

(ppm) (370 parts per billion (ppb)), in 

which the occupants had not 

complained of irritation. They also cited 

studies that show sensory irritation 

thresholds of 0.5 ppm (500 ppb), and up 

to 0.9 ppm (900 ppb) for unsensitized 

people, and asserted that the empirical 

support for the studies that the 

International Agency for Research on 

Cancer (IARC) relied on to recategorize 

formaldehyde has been ‘‘steadily 

eroded.’’

The Sierra Club commented on the 

TSCA section 6(c) factors and suggested 

that EPA consider cost factors 

associated with remediating the 

problems in the FEMA trailers. They 

suggested that EPA estimate the effect 

on the national economy by a simple 

mathematic extrapolation from the costs 

estimated by California and argue that 

adopting the ATCM would spur 

technological innovation and have a 

positive impact on human health and 

the environment. 

HUD commented that it received 

(prior to EPA’s receipt of this petition) 

a proposal to lower formaldehyde 

emissions limits from certain products 

used in the construction of 

manufactured homes from the 

Congressionally established Federal 

Advisory Committee, the Manufactured 

Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC). 

In addition, the MHCC recently received 

a new proposal from the public to adopt 

the CARB standard. HUD commented 

that it will work with the MHCC to 

review the new proposal regarding 

CARB levels. A supplemental comment 

was received from HUD on June 19, 

2008, and is in the docket. 

On June 13, 2008, EPA received an 

additional comment from CPA, 

summarizing new developments since 

they submitted their first comment. As 

also noted in their first comment, CPA 

is accredited by the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) as a 

standards developer. On June 3, 2008, 

the CPA Board of Directors ‘‘approved 

the insertion of the CARB Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 formaldehyde emission limits’’

into the new versions of the ANSI 

standards for Particleboard (ANSI 

A208.1) and for Medium Density 

Fiberboard (ANSI A208.2). When the 

standards are finalized, ‘‘companies 

would be able to reference either of 

those levels from these voluntary 

standards in their commercial 

dealings.’’ A consensus committee must 

still approve the revised standard. A 

supplemental comment was also 

received from HPVA on June 17, 2008, 

and is in the docket. 

IV. Disposition of Petition 

For the purpose of making its 

decision, EPA evaluated the information 

presented or referenced in the petition 

and its authority and requirements 

under TSCA sections 6 and 21. EPA also 

evaluated comments submitted and 

relevant information that was otherwise 

available to EPA during the 90–day 

petition review period. On the basis of 

the significant differences in the legal 

standards applicable to the California 

Health and Safety Code (H&SC) and 

TSCA section 6, and the insufficiency of 

the information available to EPA for 

purposes of conducting the TSCA 

section 6 analysis, EPA is not granting 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Notices 36507 

the specific request in the petition to 

commence a proceeding under TSCA 

section 6 to impose the CARB 

formaldehyde ATCM nationwide. Even 

if the information available to EPA were 

sufficient to support an evaluation of 

whether formaldehyde in composite 

wood products presents or will present 

an unreasonable risk, petitioners have 

not provided sufficient information, and 

EPA does not otherwise have sufficient 

information, to evaluate whether the 

CARB ATCM would likely be the least 

burdensome alternative necessary to 

protect adequately against such risk. 

However, EPA has decided to initiate a 

proceeding to investigate whether and 

what type of regulatory or other action 

might be appropriate to protect against 

risks posed by formaldehyde emitted 

from pressed wood products. 

The discussion that follows provides 

the reasons for EPA’s decisions to grant 

this petition in part and to deny it in 

part. 

A. EPA is Not Granting the Petitioners’

Specific Requests 

1. Differences between California’s 

authority under State law, and EPA’s 

authority under TSCA. The petition 

requests that EPA use authorities under 

section 6 of TSCA to ‘‘adopt the 

California rules and apply them 

nationally,’’ and apply them to 

composite wood products used in 

manufactured housing (Ref. 1). The 

authority under which the State of 

California issued its ATCM is quite 

distinct from the regulatory authority 

granted to EPA under TSCA, however, 

and EPA has determined that its 

authority under section 6 of TSCA does 

not permit it to simply adopt the 

California formaldehyde ATCM and 

impose these regulatory controls as a 

Federal standard without independently 

determining that formaldehyde in the 

relevant materials presents or will 

present an ‘‘unreasonable risk’’ under 

TSCA section 6(a). Neither the CARB 

rulemaking record nor other information 

available to EPA is adequate to support 

an evaluation of whether the use of 

formaldehyde in composite wood 

products presents or will present an 

unreasonable risk. 

CARB’s authority to regulate 

formaldehyde is discussed on pages 2–

3 of CARB’s ‘‘Initial Statement of 

Reasons’’ (ISOR), which was used to 

support its rulemaking (Ref. 2). 

According to the statement of authority 

in the ISOR, CARB asserted jurisdiction 

to regulate formaldehyde in composite 

wood products under the California 

H&SC. The H&SC authorizes CARB to 

control emissions of criteria pollutants 

and precursors from source categories. 

In addition, CARB is authorized to 

regulate toxic air contaminants (TACs) 

under that portion of the H&SC known 

as the Tanner Act. In 1992, CARB 

identified formaldehyde as a TAC 

‘‘based primarily on the determination 

that it was a human carcinogen with no 

known safe level of exposure’’ (Ref. 2). 

According to the ISOR, CARB’s 

formaldehyde ATCM was issued 

principally under the Tanner Act on the 

basis of formaldehyde being a TAC. 

Because CARB had identified 

formaldehyde as a TAC ‘‘with no 

identified ‘safe’ threshold exposure 

level,’’ it was required by the Tanner 

Act ‘‘to reduce emissions of the TAC to 

the lowest level achievable through 

application of BACT (best available 

control technology) or a more effective 

control method.’’

The TSCA section 6 authority 

specifically requested by the petition to 

be used to adopt and apply nationally 

the CARB ATCM is significantly 

different from CARB’s authority under 

the H&SC. As discussed in Unit II.B.2., 

under TSCA section 6(a), EPA must 

make a finding that there is a reasonable 

basis to conclude that the manufacture, 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

use, or disposal of a chemical presents 

or will present an unreasonable risk of 

injury to health or the environment in 

order to promulgate a TSCA section 6(a) 

rule. The CARB rulemaking record does 

not analyze the issues in these terms 

because CARB does not have to make an 

unreasonable risk finding under the 

California H&SC. 

TSCA section 6(a) identifies the 

actions that may be taken to protect 

against unreasonable risk, but does not 

prescribe a particular minimum control 

measure as California’s law prescribes 

BACT. If EPA finds that there is a 

reasonable basis to conclude that one or 

more activities presents an unreasonable 

risk, EPA may: 

• Prohibit or limit manufacture, 

processing, or distribution in commerce; 

• Prohibit or limit the manufacture, 

processing, or distribution in commerce 

of the chemical above a specified 

concentration; 

•Require adequate warnings and 

instructions with respect to use, 

distribution, or disposal; 

•Require recordkeeping; 

• Prohibit or regulate any manner of 

commercial use; 

• Prohibit or regulate any manner of 

disposal; or 

•Require manufacturers or processors 

to give notice of the unreasonable risk 

of injury. 

TSCA section 6(a) also states that EPA 

must determine which one or more of 

the risk management options set forth in 

the statute are the least burdensome 

means of adequately protecting against 

the risk. The CARB rulemaking record 

was constructed to support the single 

option (BACT or more effective control 

method) available under the California 

H&SC, and not for choosing from the 

multiple options available under TSCA. 

The California H&SC also does not 

require that CARB choose the least 

burdensome means of protecting 

adequately against the risk. 

2. Information in the petition and 

otherwise available to EPA is 

inadequate to support an unreasonable 

risk evaluation under TSCA. 

Notwithstanding the substantial amount 

of information submitted by reference 

with the petition or otherwise available 

to the Agency, EPA has determined that 

this information is not sufficient to 

support an evaluation of whether 

formaldehyde emitted from composite 

wood products presents or will present 

an unreasonable risk to human health 

(including cancer and non-cancer 

endpoints) under TSCA section 6. 

Applying the TSCA section 6(a) and 6(c) 

requirements to the information 

provided by the petitioners reveals 

significant information gaps that would 

need to be filled to support an 

evaluation of whether use of 

formaldehyde in composite wood 

products presents or will present an 

unreasonable risk. EPA briefly 

summarizes its reasoning in this unit. 

a. Health risks and exposure. With 

respect to health risks, the petition 

refers to the CARB record and to the 

CDC study on FEMA trailers, thus 

looking at both cancer risk and irritation 

risk. CARB based their health effects 

evaluation on cancer risk. In 1992, 

CARB identified formaldehyde as a TAC 

‘‘based primarily on the determination 

that it was a human carcinogen with no 

known safe level of exposure’’ (Ref. 2). 

CARB also cites for support the higher 

(hazard) classification of formaldehyde 

as ‘‘Group 1, Carcinogenic to humans’’

by the International Agency for 

Research on Cancer (IARC) (Ref. 2, p. 

155, see also Ref. 3). CARB’s analysis 

was dependent on its determination of 

formaldehyde as a human carcinogen 

and its assumptions and analyses that 

rely on animal data and use two 

different kinds of models, the linearized 

multi-stage model and a model which 

takes into account the proliferation of 

premalignant cells, for quantification of 

the cancer risk. In this analysis CARB 

relied upon the animal data considered 

by EPA in its 1991 analysis and applied 

an additional model which places the 

result somewhere between that of EPA’s 

1991 assessment and that of the 

Chemical Industry Institute of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
36508 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Notices 

Toxicology’s (CIIT) biologically based 

dose response (BBDR) approach used in 

EPA in 2004 (discussed in this unit). 

Given the recent availability of human 

cancer data which may provide the 

basis of a more appropriate 

quantification of human cancer risk, 

EPA questions the adequacy of the 

CARB approach and for this reason as 

well as other reasons discussed in this 

unit, EPA has determined that it is not 

able to rely on CARB’s cancer risk 

assessment. 

EPA has previously assessed 

formaldehyde’s cancer risk. In 1991, 

EPA classified formaldehyde as a B1, 

probable human carcinogen, ‘‘based on 

limited evidence in humans, and 

sufficient evidence in animals’’ (Ref. 4). 

Increased incidences of nasal squamous 

cell carcinomas were observed in longterm inhalation studies in rats and mice. 

Based on the nasal cavity cancer data in 

rats and using a linearized multi-stage 

procedure (for genotoxic effects), EPA 

calculated an inhalation cancer unit 

risk/potency factor of 1.3 E-5 per 

microgram/meter cubed (μg/m3) (Ref. 4). 

As explained in this unit, the 

assessment and modeling procedure 

used to develop EPA’s cancer risk 

assessment is not based on the most 

current information, and EPA may 

determine that the appropriate unit risk/ 

potency factor is higher or lower than 

the 1991 value, after considering the 

currently available scientific 

information, including human data. 

CIIT developed a health risk 

assessment for formaldehyde based 

upon animal toxicology data that 

utilized mechanistic and biological 

response information to develop a dose 

response model for the risk of squamous 

cell carcinoma in the respiratory tract 

(Ref. 5). The resulting BBDR model was 

published in the peer reviewed 

literature (Refs. 6–8). The cancer 

estimates obtained with the BBDR 

model are generally 2–3 orders of 

magnitude lower than corresponding 

estimates obtained with the linearized 

multistage procedure. In 2004, EPA’s 

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) 

determined that the CIIT’s BBDR model 

was the most appropriate tool to assess 

the potential cancer risk associated with 

formaldehyde emissions to the 

atmosphere (Refs. 9–11). In the Plywood 

and Composite Wood Products National 

Emission Standard for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP), which was issued 

in 2006, OAR stated ‘‘In the case of 

formaldehyde, we have determined that 

the cancer potency derived using the 

approach developed by CIIT, which has 

been peer reviewed by an external 

review panel sponsored by EPA and the 

Canadian government, represents an 

appropriate alternative to EPA’s current 

IRIS URE for formaldehyde. Therefore, 

this potency represents the best 

available peer-reviewed science at this 

time.’’ (Ref. 10, p. 8348). 

In April 2008, the EPA Office of 

Pesticide Programs (OPP) issued a 

preliminary risk assessment of 

formaldehyde for the reregistration 

eligibility decision (RED) as part of 

Phase 3 of a modified, 4-Phase public 

participation process that the Agency 

uses to involve the public in developing 

pesticide reregistration decisions (Ref. 

12). Through the reregistration program, 

EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet 

current health and safety standards 

under the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

and the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). In this 

preliminary risk assessment, OPP 

decided to present the formaldehyde 

cancer risks as a range using both the 

1991 EPA assessment and the CIIT 

BBDR model (Ref. 15). This approach, 

which recently underwent public 

comment, brackets a range of cancer risk 

estimates that span about three orders of 

magnitude (or a factor of a thousand), 

and depending on which value is being 

considered suggests potentially 

significant risk at one end and 

potentially insignificant risk at the 

other. In addition to these assessments, 

IARC, in their reevaluation of 

epidemiologic studies, concluded that 

there was ‘‘sufficient epidemiological 

evidence that formaldehyde causes 

nasopharyngeal cancer in humans,’’ and 

upgraded formaldehyde to ‘‘Group 1, 

carcinogenic to humans’’ from ‘‘Group 

2A, probably carcinogenic to humans’’

(Ref. 3). In addition, IARC concluded 

that ‘‘there is strong but not sufficient 

evidence for a causal association 

between leukemia and occupational 

exposure to formaldehyde’’ (Ref. 3). 

With these new human data, and 

considering the other available data, 

EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) is currently 

engaged in a re-assessment/update of 

the potential cancer and non-cancer 

risks of formaldehyde through the ORD 

Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS) program. An external peer review 

draft of this assessment is expected to be 

released in 2009. EPA offices which 

may be considering or are actively 

regulating formaldehyde, including the 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic 

Substances (OPPTS), will coordinate 

and proceed accordingly once the 

assessment is finalized. 

As discussed previously, because of 

the uncertainties in estimating 

formaldehyde’s cancer risks, and the 

ongoing development of the science 

with respect to cancer characterization 

and risk estimation based on the new 

human data, EPA has determined that it 

cannot rely on the CARB cancer 

assessment and believes it would be 

premature to render judgment on this 

complex issue for TSCA section 6 

purposes. Thus, EPA does not believe 

that it has information sufficient to 

support an evaluation of whether 

formaldehyde in composite wood 

products presents or will present an 

unreasonable risk. 

In addition, in the chronic exposure 

analysis for composite wood, the CARB 

rulemaking record makes assumptions 

that are not believed to be reasonable for 

use in an EPA risk assessment. For 

example, CARB assumed that 

individuals will live in new houses (and 

have associated elevated formaldehyde 

exposures) for 70 years. Their analysis 

did not account for formaldehyde 

concentration decay over time in new 

home environments, and they assumed 

all time spent indoors is spent at the 

same average formaldehyde 

concentration as at home, and that all 

time at home is spent indoors (Ref. 13). 

With respect to irritation risk, the 

CDC study on FEMA trailers cited by 

petitioners provides data on exposure to 

formaldehyde in trailers, but does not 

provide a risk analysis. CARB did not 

rely on irritation risks for their decision 

to regulate formaldehyde emissions 

from composite wood products. 

For these reasons, EPA believes that 

the information available on health risks 

(including cancer and non-cancer 

effects) and exposure is not adequate to 

support an unreasonable risk 

evaluation. 

b. Economics. The economic analysis 

supporting CARB’s ATCM is inadequate 

to support an evaluation of whether 

formaldehyde in composite wood 

products presents or will present an 

unreasonable risk. In its ISOR, CARB 

quantified some of the costs and 

benefits for the ATCM, but not all of the 

costs or any non-cancer benefits. 

The ISOR estimated, for example, the 

cost for industry to comply with the 

ATCM using various substitute resin 

systems and discussed the 

characteristics, advantages, and 

disadvantages of these substitutes, as 

well as their effectiveness in reducing 

formaldehyde emissions from composite 

wood products. The ISOR cost estimate 

was based on the cost to purchase 

substitute resins and on the longer 

processing times required to 

manufacture composite wood products 

when using certain substitute resins. 

CARB received public comments on its 

rulemaking that companies will incur 

additional costs to manufacture 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Notices 36509 

compliant panels due to increased costs 

for resin additives, new equipment, 

additional energy usage, or decreased 

throughput. In responding to these 

comments, CARB indicated that these 

costs would not necessarily be incurred, 

and that it expected future innovations 

in resin technology would decrease 

production costs over time. EPA 

suspects that the CARB analysis 

underestimated costs, particularly in the 

short term. But EPA was not able to 

assess the full extent of the likely costs 

based on the information available. For 

example, the ISOR cost estimate also 

does not fully reflect other requirements 

of the ATCM, such as third party 

certification and labeling. In addition, 

because data were not available on the 

quantity of composite wood contained 

in imported fabricated goods such as 

cabinets and furniture, the ISOR cost 

estimates did not reflect the increase in 

the cost of these goods. Thus, the 

information submitted provides an 

inadequate basis for assessing total 

incremental cost for the ATCM, or for a 

national version of the ATCM, including 

certification, labeling, and related 

activities required by the ATCM. 

The trade associations representing 

composite wood product manufacturers 

have indicated that the CARB limits 

may have a significant impact on the 

national markets. For example, CPA 

estimated that 80% or more of its 

members’ production nationwide will 

be compliant with CARB’s 

requirements. The associations 

indicated, however, that they could not 

estimate how foreign manufacturers and 

importers will respond to the ATCM 

and that off-shore producers are an issue 

because they do not participate in the 

same voluntary compliance programs 

that are applicable to domestic 

producers. Furthermore, especially in 

view of the expected growth in imports 

of composite wood products and the 

fabricated goods made from them, the 

national baseline following the 

implementation of the CARB rule, 

which EPA would use as a starting basis 

in assessing whether there is an 

unreasonable risk, is uncertain (Ref. 13). 

In addition to cancer benefits, the 

ATCM may result in benefits from 

avoided cases of non-cancer effects. The 

CARB ISOR does not, however, present 

sufficient information to assess benefits 

from non-cancer effects. For example, 

the CARB ISOR mentions a hazard 

quotient for non-cancer inhalation 

impacts, but the hazard quotient was 

not evaluated to estimate the number of 

people exposed to a hazard quotient 

above 1, the aggregate length of time 

that such exposures occur, and the 

intensity of the exposure over time. In 

addition, the ISOR did not provide 

information on the size of the 

population exposed or the intensity of 

exposure from composite wood 

products in remodeled homes, newly 

purchased furniture, or non-residential 

settings. The benefits of avoiding 

irritation effects include reductions in 

medical costs, individuals’ willingness 

to pay to avoid the pain and suffering 

resulting from these effects, and 

increases in productivity due to a 

decline in lost work days and school 

days. The ISOR and the other 

information available to EPA does not 

provide sufficient information to 

estimate the non-cancer benefits. 

Thus, EPA does not have sufficient 

information to support an evaluation of 

the costs and benefits of implementing 

the ATCM requirements nationwide. 

3. Information in the petition and 

otherwise available to EPA is 

insufficient to support an evaluation of 

whether the CARB rule would be the 

least burdensome requirement under 

TSCA. Even if the information available 

to EPA were sufficient to support an 

evaluation of whether formaldehyde in 

composite wood products presents or 

will present an unreasonable risk, 

petitioners have not provided sufficient 

information, and EPA does not 

otherwise have sufficient information, 

to evaluate whether the CARB ATCM 

would likely be the least burdensome 

alternative necessary to protect 

adequately against such risk. The 

information submitted with the petition 

does not provide an adequate basis for 

EPA to evaluate the likely costs and 

benefits of less burdensome alternatives. 

This is not surprising, since the CARB 

rulemaking does not require such an 

analysis. For example, EPA has no basis 

to evaluate whether the specific 

emission levels adopted by CARB 

would be appropriate levels under 

TSCA section 6, whether CARB’s cap 

approach or an average emissions 

approach would be more appropriate, or 

whether the additional detailed 

requirements pertaining to third-party 

certification and other issues would be 

appropriate. Several aspects of the 

CARB ATCM are not in place yet, and 

EPA is not able to evaluate those 

aspects. Beyond that, it is entirely 

possible that some control measure(s) 

other than the emission cap approach 

that CARB selected for their ATCM 

would be appropriate. Especially in 

view of estimates in the record of 

nationwide compliance with the ATCM, 

EPA would want to assess the risk that 

was likely to remain following 

compliance with the rule and assess 

whether one or more of the options 

under TSCA section 6(a) was more 

appropriate to address the remaining 

risk. 

In summary, information in the 

petition and otherwise available to EPA, 

including health effects, exposure, and 

economic information, is inadequate to 

support an evaluation of whether there 

is an unreasonable risk under TSCA. 

Therefore, EPA is not granting the 

specific request in the petition to 

commence a proceeding under TSCA 

section 6 to impose the CARB 

formaldehyde ATCM nationwide. 

B. Additional Considerations 

Pressed wood products, of which the 

three composite wood products 

regulated by CARB are a subset, are a 

major source of formaldehyde 

concentrations. Other sources of 

formaldehyde include smoking, 

household products, and the use of unvented, fuel-burning appliances like gas 

stoves or kerosene space heaters (Refs. 

16 and 17). Formaldehyde emissions 

from pressed-wood products are the 

highest when these products are new 

and decline over time. Emissions of 

formaldehyde will increase as the 

temperature, humidity, and pressed 

wood surface area increase (Ref. 13). 

Several Federal agencies and other 

entities have regulated or produced 

guidelines on appropriate air 

concentrations of formaldehyde. HUD 

presently limits formaldehyde 

emissions from plywood and 

particleboard used in manufactured 

home construction to 200–300 ppb, and 

is reviewing proposals to revise those 

emission limits. Among others, the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) has 

established a Minimal Risk Level (MRL) 

chronic value of 0.008 ppm/8ppb; the 

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH) has 

established a Recommended Exposure 

Limit (REL) of 0.016 ppm/16ppb (8–

hour Time Weighted Average), and of 

0.1 ppm/100ppb (15 minute ceiling); 

and American Conference of 

Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

(ACGIH) has established threshold limit 

value (TLV)-Ceiling of 0.3 ppm/300 ppb 

(Ref. 13). 

In March 2008, several Federal 

agencies, including the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), 

CDC, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), FEMA, and EPA 

finalized a document entitled: 

‘‘Formaldehyde Exposure in Homes: A 

Reference for State Officials to Use in 

Decision-making,’’ which summarizes 

the environmental health related aspects 

of formaldehyde exposure in homes and 

references the government standards in 

occupational settings (Ref. 14). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
36510 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Notices 

Foreign governments, including Japan 

and the European Union, have also 

regulated permissible levels of 

formaldehyde emissions from composite 

wood products and other building 

materials (Ref. 2). 

EPA previously assessed 

formaldehyde’s cancer risk based on the 

nasal cavity cancer data in rats and 

using a linearized multi-staged 

procedure (for genotoxic carcinogens) 

(Ref. 4). EPA is conducting a reassessment/update of the potential 

cancer risks of formaldehyde through 

the Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS) process that will consider current 

human data and other data. 

Depending on concentration, it is well 

recognized that formaldehyde can be an 

eye, nose, and throat irritant, even when 

exposure is of relatively short duration. 

In the indoor environment, sensory 

reactions and various symptoms as a 

result of mucous membrane irritation 

are potential effects, and, while there 

are large individual differences in the 

general population, the differences are 

even greater when hyper-reactive and 

sensitized people are included in an 

analysis. EPA acknowledges that there 

are uncertainties relating to irritation 

response levels in humans. 

In light of information about the 

hazards of formaldehyde, in 

combination with the potential for 

prolonged exposure to potentially 

problematic levels of formaldehyde by 

residents in newly constructed housing 

(Ref. 13), EPA believes it is appropriate, 

in the Agency’s discretion, to initiate a 

proceeding to better understand the 

risks from formaldehyde in pressed 

wood products (including the three 

types of composite wood regulated by 

CARB) and to assess various alternatives 

that EPA might pursue to address such 

risks. Most of the exposure information 

presently available to EPA pertains to 

formaldehyde emissions from pressed 

wood products in newly built homes 

(Ref. 13). While emissions from pressed 

wood products used in new home 

construction are themselves significant 

sources of formaldehyde in indoor air, 

EPA is interested in what other pressed 

wood sources contribute significantly to 

formaldehyde concentrations in indoor 

air. For example, large renovations 

projects in existing homes, which 

include a large amount of new pressed 

wood products, and 

microenvironments, such as baby cribs 

built with pressed wood products, could 

be important sources of exposure to a 

large number of children and adults. 

The available information, guidelines, 

and regulations span a wide range of 

permissible formaldehyde levels. EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

examine these various standards, 

analyze the risk level for formaldehyde 

in pressed wood products, and 

determine the appropriate course of 

action to reduce risks to human health. 

C. EPA’s Decision to Initiate a 

Proceeding to Investigate Formaldehyde 

in Pressed Wood Products 

In sum, the petition does not, as 

required under TSCA section 21, set 

forth facts sufficient to establish that it 

is necessary to initiate a proceeding 

under TSCA section 6(a) to protect 

human health against an unreasonable 

risk of injury by applying the CARB 

regulation on a national basis. Further, 

the additional relevant information that 

EPA has identified does not support 

initiation of the requested proceeding. 

However, after considering the facts 

presented by the petitioners (including 

the California administrative record), 

information presented by commenters, 

and other information available to EPA, 

EPA has decided to initiate a proceeding 

to investigate whether and what type of 

regulatory or other action might be 

appropriate to protect against risks 

posed by formaldehyde emitted from 

pressed wood products. 

In parallel with this effort, EPA’s ORD 

will be developing and obtaining 

external peer review for the IRIS 

assessment of formaldehyde’s cancer 

and non-cancer risks. OPPTS will 

coordinate with ORD and other EPA 

offices as it evaluates risks and options 

under TSCA, and the results of the IRIS 

effort will be incorporated into this 

proceeding if timely available. In 

addition, the preliminary risk 

assessment used in the Pesticide 

Reregistration Program will be 

considered in the effort to evaluate risks 

and options under TSCA if timely 

available, and OPP will also consider 

the efforts under TSCA, as well as other 

efforts. 

In Fall 2008, EPA plans to issue an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPR) to initiate a proceeding. As part 

of the ANPR process, EPA will engage 

stakeholders to contribute to obtaining a 

better understanding of the available 

control technologies and approaches, 

industry practices, and the 

implementation of CARB’s ATCM. 

Concurrently, EPA plans to develop and 

conduct an industry survey and initiate 

development of an exposure assessment 

and an irritation concern level that 

could be used for evaluating emissions 

standards or other approaches. 

Subsequently, EPA plans to develop an 

irritation risk assessment, which will 

receive the appropriate external review, 

and quantify costs and benefits. At the 

conclusion of this work, OPPTS 

anticipates determining whether it 

should take action, which may include 

action under TSCA section 6(a) or TSCA 

section 6(b), or via the development of 

a voluntary consensus standard or other 

approaches. As OPPTS evaluates risks 

and options under TSCA, OPPTS 

intends to coordinate its efforts with 

other interested EPA offices and 

agencies, as well as engage the public 

and stakeholders. 

With respect to the petitioners’

request that EPA use TSCA section 6 to 

apply the CARB rule to manufactured 

homes, EPA notes that HUD has 

regulations governing formaldehyde 

emission levels from plywood and 

particleboard materials installed in 

manufactured homes. (See 24 CFR 

3280.308.) HUD is in the process of 

reviewing proposed changes to these 

regulations to include medium density 

fiberboard, among other things. HUD is 

also currently reviewing a proposal to 

amend its manufactured housing 

regulations governing formaldehyde to 

include the standards set forth in the 

CARB regulation. Section 9(d) of TSCA 

provides that the Administrator of EPA 

shall consult and cooperate with other 

Federal agencies ‘‘for the purpose of 

achieving the maximum enforcement of 

[TSCA] while imposing the least 

burdens of duplicative requirements.’’

15 U.S.C. 2608(d). Consistent with this 

provision, EPA will consult and 

cooperate with HUD as the two agencies 

work to address formaldehyde 

emissions from composite wood 

products. 

V. References 

The following is a list of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this notice and placed in 

the docket that was established under 

Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–

2008–0267. For information on 

accessing these documents in the 

docket, refer to Unit I.B. Some 

documents may also be accessed 

directly using the url provided. 

1. Sierra Club, 25 other organizations, 

and approximately 5,000 individuals. 

Letter from Tom Neltner, Sierra Club, to 

Stephen Johnson, Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency. Re: 

Citizen Petition to EPA Regarding 

Formaldehyde in Wood Products. 

March 20, 2008. 

2. California Environmental 

Protection Agency Air Resources Board. 

Proposed Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde 

Emissions from Composite Wood 

Products, Staff Report: Initial Statement 

of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking. 

March 9, 2007. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 125 / Friday, June 27, 2008 / Notices 36511 

regact/2007/compwood07/ 

compwood07.htm. 

3. International Agency for Research 

on Cancer (IARC). Formaldehyde. IARC 

Monographs on the Evaluation of 

Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 

International Agency for Research on 

Cancer. Lyon, France. Meeting on June 

2–9, 2004, as published by IARC in 

2006. Vol. 88. http:// 

monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/ 

vol88/index.php. 

4. EPA, Office of Research and 

Development. Formaldehyde. Integrated 

Risk Information System. 1991. http:// 

www.epa.gov/iris/links.htm. 

5. Chemical Industry Institute of 

Toxicology (CIIT). Formaldehyde hazard 

characterization and dose-response 

assessment for carcinogenicity by the 

route of inhalation, revised ed. 

Chemical Industry Institute of 

Toxicology, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

1999. 

6. Conolly, R.B., Kimbell, J.S., 

Janszen, D., and Miller, F., J. Doseresponse for formaldehyde–induced 

cytotoxicity in the human respiratory 

tract. Regulatory Toxicology and 

Pharmacology. 35: 32–43. 2002. 

7. Conolly, R.B., Kimbell, J.S., 

Janszen, D., Schlosser, P.M., Kalisak, D., 

Preston, J., and Miller, F., J. 

Biologically-motivated computational 

modeling of formaldehyde 

carcinogenicity in the F344 rat. 

Toxicological Sciences. 75:432–447. 

2003. 

8. Conolly, R.B., Kimbell, J.S., 

Janszen, D., Schlosser, P.M., Kalisak, D., 

Preston, J., and Miller, F., J. Human 

respiratory tract cancer risks of inhaled 

formaldehyde: Dose-response 

predictions derived from biologicallymotivated computational modeling of a 

combined rodent and human dataset. 

Toxicological Sciences. 82: 279–296. 

2004. 

9. EPA. National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood 

and Composite Wood Products; Effluent 

Limitations Guidelines and Standards 

for the Timber Products Point Source 

Category; List of Hazardous Air 

Pollutants, Lesser Quantity 

Designations, Source Category List; 

Final Rule. Federal Register (69 FR 

45943, July 30, 2004) (FRL–7634–1). 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/plypart/ 

fr30jy04.pdf. 

10. EPA. National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood 

and Composite Wood Products; List of 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, Lesser 

Quantity Designations, Source Category 

List; Final Rule. Federal Register (71 FR 

8341, February 16, 2006) (FRL–8028–9). 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/plypart/ 

fr16fe06.pdf. 

11. EPA. National Emission Standards 

for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood 

and Composite Wood Products; Final 

Rule. Federal Register (72 FR 61060, 

October 29, 2007) (FRL–8482–2). http:// 

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

fr29oc07.pdf. 

12. EPA. Formaldehyde/ 

Paraformaldehyde Risk Assessments; 

Notice of Availability and Risk 

Reduction Options; Notice. Federal 

Register (73 FR 21944, April 23, 2008) 

(FRL–8360–3). http://www.epa.gov/ 

fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2008/April/Day-23/ 

p8684.htm. 

13. EPA. Background Document of 

Technical Information Relevant to the 

Disposition of the TSCA Section 21 

Petition on Formaldehyde. June 2008. 

Docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–

2008–0267. 

14. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, Department of 

Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, and EPA. 

Formaldehyde Exposure in Homes: A 

Reference for State Officials to Use in 

Decision-Making. March 2008. http:// 

www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehhe/trailerstudy/ 

compendium.htm. 

15. EPA. Formaldehyde: Preliminary 

Risk Assessment for the Registration 

Eligibility Decision (RED). DP Barcode: 

348474, April 7, 2008. Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0121. 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=EPA-HQOPP-2008-0121. 

16. CPSC. 1997. An Update On 

Formaldehyde: 1997 Revision. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Washington, DC, CPSC Doc. #725 http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/725.html. 

17. EPA. 2007. Indoor Air Quality 

(IAQ), Pollutants and Sources of Indoor 

Air Pollution, Formaldehyde/Pressed 

Wood Products, Office of Radiation and 

Indoor Air (ORIA), Indoor Environments 

Division, Washington, DC, Updated 

November 14, 2007. http:// 

www.epa.gov/iaq/ 

formalde.html#Levels%20in%20Homes. 

List of Subjects 

Environmental protection, Composite 

wood products, Formaldehyde, 

Housing, Toxic Substance Control Act 

(TSCA). 

Dated: June 21, 2008. 

James B. Gulliford, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 

[FR Doc. E8–14618 Filed 6–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0102; FRL–8369–6] 

Exposure Modeling Public Meeting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: An Exposure Modeling Public 

Meeting (EMPM) will be held for one 

day on July 22, 2008. This notice 

announces the location and time for the 

meeting and sets forth the tentative 

agenda topics. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on July 

22, 2008 from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm. 

To request accommodation of a 

disability, please contact the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON

CONTACT, preferably at least 10 days 

prior to the meeting, to give EPA as 

much time as possible to process your 

request. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), One 

Potomac Yard (South Building), 1st 

Floor South Conference Room, 2777 S. 

Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Barrett, Environmental Fate 

and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (703) 305–-6391; fax number: 

(703) 305–6309]; e-mail address: 

barrett.michael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are required to 

conduct testing of chemical substances 

under the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA), the Federal Food, Drug and 

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may 

also be interested, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe all the specific 

entities that may be affected by this 

action. If you have nay questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Get Copies of this 

Document and Other Related 

Information? 

1. Docket. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2008–0102. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES