1

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for 

Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products

Proposed Rule; RIN 2070-AJ92

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

May 2013

Pursuant to section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.), EPA has 

prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis for the “Formaldehyde Emission Standards for 

Composite Wood Products” proposed rule. 

1. Need For the Rule

TSCA section 601(d) directs EPA to promulgate regulations to implement the formaldehyde 

standards for composite wood products described in TSCA section 601(b)(2). EPA is issuing a proposed 

rule under TSCA Title VI to implement the statutory formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood 

plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured 

(including imported) in the United States. As directed by the statute, this proposal includes provisions 

relating to, among other things, laminated products, products made with no-added formaldehyde resins, 

testing requirements, product labeling, chain of custody documentation and other recordkeeping 

requirements, and product inventory sell-through provisions, including a product stockpiling prohibition. 

2. Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule 

The legal basis for the rule is TSCA section 601(d), which provides authority for the 

Administrator to “promulgate regulations to implement the standards required under subsection (b) in a 

manner that ensures compliance with the emission standards described in subsection (b)(2).” Therefore, 

the central objective of this proposal is to ensure compliance with the TSCA Title VI formaldehyde 

emission standards.

3. Description and Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

The proposed rule potentially affects small manufacturers (including importers), fabricators, 

distributors, and retailers of composite wood products. These may include, but are not limited to, entities 

in the following industries:

• Hardwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing (NAICS code 321211);

• Reconstituted Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 321219);

• All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 321999);

• Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing (NAICS code 337);

• Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS code 339);

• Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods (NAICS code 423);

• Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods (NAICS code 424); and

• Retail Trade (NAICS Sector 44 and 45).

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities 

likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities could also be affected. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a 

small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; 
2

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

EPA estimates that the rule will affect approximately 879,000 small entities.

4. Projected Compliance Requirements, Classes of Small Entities Subject to the Compliance 

Requirements, and Professional Skills Needed to Comply

A. Projected Compliance Requirements

This proposal implements the statutory formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood plywood, 

medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured (including 

imported) in the United States. As directed by the statute, this proposal includes provisions relating to, 

among other things, laminated products, products made with no-added formaldehyde resins or ultra-low 

emitting formaldehyde resins, testing requirements, product labeling, chain of custody documentation and 

other recordkeeping requirements, and product inventory sell-through provisions, including a product 

stockpiling prohibition. This proposal would establish requirements for manufacturers (including 

importers), fabricators, distributors, and retailers of composite wood products. The regulatory provisions 

in this proposal are designed to ensure compliance with the TSCA Title VI formaldehyde emission 

standards while aligning, where practical, with the regulatory requirements under the California Air 

Resources Board’s (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions 

from composite wood products. By aligning itself with the existing CARB requirements, EPA seeks to 

avoid differing or duplicative regulatory requirements that would result in an increased burden on the 

regulated community.

B. Classes of Small Entities Subject to the Compliance Requirements

Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. The small entities that are potentially directly regulated by this rule are small businesses 

that are manufacturers (including importers), fabricators, distributors, or retailers of composite wood 

products. No small governments or small organizations are expected to be directly regulated by the rule. 

C. Professional Skills Needed to Comply

Each panel producer must designate a person as quality control manager with adequate 

experience and/or training to be responsible for formaldehyde emission quality control. EPA has not 

proposed criteria for determining whether an individual’s experience or training are appropriate for this 

position, but experience in the wood products industry or a degree in chemistry or a related field might 

provide the skills needed to comply with the requirements.

A panel producer must be able to follow sampling and handling procedures for the material that is 

to be tested. However, those procedures must be described in the facility’s quality control manual, and 

specified skills should not be needed to follow the written procedures.

Each panel producer must also designate a quality control facility for conducting quality control 

formaldehyde testing, and the quality control facility must have quality control employees with adequate 

experience and/or training to conduct accurate chemical quantitative analytical tests. But instead of 

performing these functions themselves, panel producers have the option of hiring an accredited third party 

certifier (TPC) or a contract laboratory to fulfill these requirements. 
3

To obtain product certification, a panel producer must apply to an accredited TPC, and must 

provide information and notifications to the TPC. Finally, manufacturers, fabricators, distributors, or 

retailers of composite wood products must maintain records, and may need to request information from 

their suppliers and provide information to their customers. None of these activities requires any special 

skills.

5. Other Federal Rules that may Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Rule 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has regulations governing 

formaldehyde emission levels from plywood and particleboard materials installed in manufactured homes. 

(See 24 CFR 3280.308.) However, TSCA Title VI establishes specific formaldehyde emission standards 

for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard and does not provide EPA with the 

authority to modify these standards. Furthermore, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood 

Products Act, which includes TSCA Title VI, directs HUD to revise their regulations to ensure that they 

reflect the emission standards in TSCA Title VI. And the HUD regulations do not deal with the other 

elements addressed in these implementing regulations (where EPA does have the authority to make 

determinations) such as laminated products, products made with no-added formaldehyde resins or ultralow emitting formaldehyde resins, testing requirements, chain of custody documentation, and product 

inventory sell-through provisions. Therefore, the regulatory provisions of this proposal for which EPA 

has flexibility in implementing the statute do not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal 

rules. 

6. Potential Economic Impacts on Small Entities

Of the nearly 879,000 small firms affected by the rule, approximately 851,000 (about 97 percent) 

are expected to have costs impacts that are less than one percent of their revenues, 23,000 firms (about 3 

percent) are expected to experience impacts at levels between one and three percent of their revenue, and 

4,000 firms (less than 1 percent) are expected to incur costs exceeding three percent of their revenues. 

Many of the firms with cost impacts above 1 percent of their revenues are fabricators, 

wholesalers, and retailers with annualized costs less than $250 (i.e., they are firms with annual revenues 

below $25,000). These firms account for 92 percent of the firms with cost impacts that are between 1 and 

3 percent and 42 percent of the firms with cost impacts that exceed 3 percent.

7. Minimization of Economic Impacts on Small Entities Consistent with Statutory Objectives, 

and Consideration of Alternatives

A. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel

As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Small 

Business Advocacy Review Panel on February 3, 2011 to obtain advice and recommendations of 

representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. The Panel 

solicited input on all aspects of these proposed regulations and on the framework for the third-party 

certification program under TSCA Title VI. Seventeen potentially-impacted small entities served as 

small-entity representatives (SERs) to the Panel, representing a broad range of small entities from diverse 

geographic locations, and five trade associations. The Panel concluded its deliberations on April 4, 2011. 

Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and 

small-entity comments on issues related to elements of the IRFA. It is important to note that the Panel’s 

findings and discussion were based on the information available at the time the final report was prepared. 
4

EPA has continued to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed rule, and additional information may be 

developed from public comment on the proposed rule. 

The Panel’s most significant findings and recommendations on the TSCA Title VI implementing 

regulations are summarized below. 

1. In general. The Panel recommended that EPA adopt regulatory requirements that are 

consistent with the CARB ATCM wherever possible. EPA agrees with this recommendation and has 

tried throughout this proposal to remain consistent with CARB where it is practical to do so. 

2. Manufactured-by dates and stockpiling. The Panel generally agreed with those SERs that 

recommended that EPA propose to establish the manufactured-by date at 180 days after promulgation of 

the final rule and make the reference period for determining whether stockpiling has occurred the 12 

month period prior to promulgation of the final rule. 

EPA is proposing to establish the manufactured-by date at 1 year after promulgation of the final 

rule. This is primarily to allow for development of the third-party certification infrastructure and to give 

panel producers who are not already complying with the CARB ATCM adequate time before the 

manufactured-by date to select an accredited third-party certifier, develop a quality control manual, and 

complete the initial testing to qualify for product certification. 

EPA is proposing to establish the stockpiling reference period, or base period, as the calendar 

year 2009 because, under TSCA Title VI, the base period must end before the statute was enacted. 

3. Quality control and compliance testing. The Panel recommended that EPA consider CARB’s 

method of establishing equivalency and carefully evaluate any alternative test method permitted. EPA is 

proposing to use CARB’s method of establishing equivalency between test methods and EPA is also 

proposing to recognize those alternative test methods that CARB has approved.

The Panel further recommended that EPA provide clear direction on product decertification and 

recertification procedures and the recall of noncompliant products. In response to these 

recommendations, EPA has proposed specific provisions on what actions are required and allowed in the 

event of a failed test result. EPA has also proposed to require panel producers to hold lots selected for 

testing until the test results are received. 

4. Labeling and recordkeeping. The Panel generally recommended that labeling and record 

keeping provisions should be closely harmonized with CARB’s requirements, including allowing panels 

to be labeled by bundle, rather than individually. The Panel did recognize that subtle differences between 

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

impossible. EPA is proposing labeling requirements that are virtually identical to CARB’s, except that 

the labels must say that the products are TSCA Title VI compliant instead of CARB compliant. For 

entities that are manufacturers under TSCA (i.e., they manufacture, produce, or import composite wood 

panels, component parts, or finished goods), EPA’s proposed recordkeeping and chain of custody 

documentation requirements are also virtually identical to CARB’s. For distributors and retailers that are 

not manufacturers under TSCA, EPA is proposing that the only records they be required to keep are 

invoices and bills of lading. This requirement is less burdensome than recordkeeping and chain of 

custody requirements similar to those in the CARB ATCM.

5. Laminated products and engineered veneer. The Panel recommended that EPA continue to 

seek available information, and exempt those laminated products that can be exempted consistent with the 

direction given in TSCA Title VI. The Panel further recommended that EPA work with small businesses, 

especially those laminating on a made-to-order basis, to design a testing scheme that is practical for those 
5

businesses, and at the same time, is calculated to ensure compliance with the emissions standards. The 

Panel also recommended that EPA consider basing the number and frequency of required quality control 

tests on production volume, thereby requiring fewer tests for smaller producers. EPA has incorporated all

of these recommendations into this proposal, by proposing to exempt laminated products that are made 

with certified platforms and NAF resins, and by proposing to allow for quality control testing frequency 

based on production volume for hardwood plywood producers. 

6. Definitions. The Panel recommended that EPA develop a definition of “hardboard” that takes 

the revised ANSI standard into account while ensuring that similar products are similarly regulated under 

TSCA Title VI. EPA believes that its proposed definition takes into account both widespread industry 

usage of the term and the intent of the statute.

Recognizing that TSCA Title VI was not intended to apply to structural plywood, the Panel also 

recommended that EPA develop a clear definition for “interior use” in order to eliminate confusion in the 

regulated community. According to the Panel, the definition should be based on the intent of the statute 

and consider how the hardwood plywood is likely to be used and stored once incorporated into a finished 

good. EPA has proposed a definition of “intended for interior use” that includes these considerations.

While the SERs differed in their advice on the definition of the term “panel,” the SBAR Panel 

recommended that EPA reduce uncertainty in the regulated community by including in its regulation a 

clear definition of “panel” that is based on the intent of the statute, and considers trade usage and the 

limitations of current test methods. Again, EPA is proposing a definition that takes these factors into 

account.

B. Alternatives considered 

Over the course of this rulemaking, EPA considered alternatives for various provisions of the 

rule. For example, EPA’s Economic Analysis examined a number of alternative analytical options in 

addition to the proposed rule. Among the alternatives based on the formaldehyde emissions standards set 

in Title VI of TSCA, EPA analyzed options with different provisions for the definition of hardwood 

plywood, certification of ULEF products, and chain of custody and recordkeeping requirements. Most of 

the alternatives EPA considered would have applied to both small and large entities but, given the number 

of small entities in the affected industries, some of these alternatives could affect many small entities. 

EPA made a concerted effort to keep the costs and burdens associated with this rule as low as 

possible while still ensuring compliance with the TSCA Title VI emissions standards. In developing the 

proposed rule, EPA considered the statutory requirements and the benefits from protection of human 

health and the environment, as well as the compliance costs imposed by the rule, both in general and on 

small entities. EPA took a number of steps to reduce the economic impact that might be imposed by this 

rule on both small and large entities, where doing so was consistent with the statutory mandate. Although 

EPA did not have sufficient information to analyze and quantify the cost and burden reductions resulting 

from many of these decisions, these steps still reduce the impacts of the proposed rule. Some of the steps 

that EPA took are summarized below.

1. Aligning with the CARB ATCM where practical. This regulatory proposal is designed to ensure 

compliance with the TSCA Title VI formaldehyde emission standards while aligning, where practical, 

with the regulatory requirements in California in order to avoid differing or duplicative regulatory 

requirements that would result in an increased burden on the regulated community. Some of the areas 

where EPA has aligned the proposal with the CARB ATCM are described below. Aligning the TSCA 

implementing regulations with California’s requirements helps reduce costs for the nearly 100 composite 

wood product mills, the 32,000 fabricators, the 32,000 wholesalers, and the 101,000 retailers that are 

already complying with the CARB ATCM in the baseline. However, EPA deviated from the CARB 
6

ATCM where doing so would reduce burden while still ensuring compliance with the TSCA Title VI 

emissions standards. Based on EPA’s Economic Analysis, the proposed rule costs $19 million to $31 

million per year less than an option that is fully consistent with the CARB ATCM. 

2. Defining hardwood plywood and laminated products. TSCA Title VI includes laminated products 

within the definition of hardwood plywood unless EPA determines, based on all relevant and available 

information, that they can be exempted through rulemaking. EPA considered various options for the 

definition of hardwood plywood. EPA is proposing to exempt laminated products in which a wood 

veneer is attached to a compliant and certified platform using a NAF resin from the definition of 

hardwood plywood. Unlike panel producers, fabricators do not need to conduct formaldehyde emissions 

testing or comply with TPC certification requirements. Instead, fabricators need to ensure that they are 

using compliant composite wood products through recordkeeping and labeling. These laminated product 

producers would also be required to maintain records demonstrating that they are using NAF resins. 

EPA’s proposed definition of laminated product does not include the provision in the statutory 

definition limiting applicability to the manufacturer or fabricator of the finished good in which the 

product is incorporated. If EPA had retained the applicability limitation in TSCA Title VI, an entity that 

purchases certified particleboard or MDF panels, cuts and otherwise prepares them for future use as 

kitchen cabinet doors, attaches a hardwood veneer using a NAF resin, and then sells them to a kitchen 

cabinet manufacturer would not be considered a laminated product manufacturer and would not qualify 

for the proposed exemption from the definition of hardwood plywood. The door producer would then 

have to comply with the third party certification and testing requirements applicable to hardwood 

plywood manufacturers. By not differentiating between entities that produce an entire finished good and 

those that only produce part of the good, EPA’s proposed definition allows more entities to qualify for the 

exemption from the definition of hardwood plywood, which reduces the burden of compliance.

Based on EPA’s Economic Analysis for the proposed rule, the proposed definitions of hardwood 

plywood and laminated products will result in 98% of laminated product producers being regulated as 

fabricators rather than panel producers. As a result, based on EPA’s Economic Analysis, the rule will 

cost $92 million to $172 million per year less than if all laminated products were included in the 

definition of hardwood plywood. 

3. Reducing recordkeeping for non-manufacturers. EPA is proposing that distributors and retailers that 

do not import, produce, or manufacture composite wood panels, component parts, or finished goods be 

required to maintain invoices and bills of lading, instead of needing to obtain records identifying the panel 

producers that produced the composite wood products and the dates that the products were manufactured 

and purchased from the panel producers (similar to the chain of custody and recordkeeping requirements 

in the CARB ATCM). EPA believes that distributors and retailers usually keep invoices and bills of 

lading as part of their general recordkeeping practices, so this requirement does not impose additional 

recordkeeping burdens on most distributors and retailers. Based on EPA’s Economic Analysis for the 

proposed rule, these reduced recordkeeping requirements decrease the cost of the rule by over $40 million 

per year compared to recordkeeping requirements similar to the CARB ATCM.

4. Reducing testing for NAF and ULEF products. EPA proposes to provide producers of panels made 

with NAF or ULEF resins, as they are defined in TSCA Title VI, with an exemption from TPC oversight 

and formaldehyde emissions testing after an initial testing period of 3 months for each product type made 

with NAF resins and 6 months for each product type made with ULEF resins. EPA has not calculated the 

savings due to the NAF provisions, but based on EPA’s Economic Analysis for the proposed rule, the 

ULEF provisions reduce the total rule costs by $0.5 million per year.

5. Not requiring retailers to relabel. EPA is proposing that retailers that divide or repackage regulated 

composite wood products would not be required to label each separate bundle or item with the 
7

information on the original label. Exempting retailers from the relabeling requirements decreases costs 

for any retailers that may engage in these activities.

6. Reducing quality control testing for small hardwood plywood producers. EPA is proposing to base the 

frequency of quality control testing for hardwood plywood producers on the amount of product produced. 

Hardwood plywood producers would have to test at least four times per week per product type and 

production line if weekly production is 400,000 square feet or more; at least twice per week if weekly 

production is 200,000 square feet or more but less than 400,000 square feet; and at least once per week if 

weekly production is 100,000 square feet or more but less than 200,000 square feet. And unlike the 

CARB ATCM, EPA is proposing to reduce the frequency of quality control testing for producers making 

less than 100,000 square feet of hardwood plywood per week per product type from once per week to 

once per 100,000 square feet. If the panel producer never produces 100,000 square feet of a particular 

product type at one time, EPA is proposing to require just one quality control test of that product type per 

production run or lot produced. Furthermore, EPA is proposing that hardwood plywood producers not be 

required to conduct quality control testing when product type production ends, changes are made to the 

resin formulation or the amount of resin used, or there is a significant decrease in press time. These 

provisions reduce the cost of quality control testing for eligible panel producers, particularly for very 

small panel producers.

7. Reducing quality control testing for certain panel producers with consistent operations. EPA is 

proposing to allow particleboard and medium-density fiberboard producers that demonstrate consistent 

operations and low variability of test values to request that their TPC reduce the required frequency of 

quality control testing from once per shift (8 or 12 hours) to up to once per 48-hours. This reduces the 

cost of quality control testing for eligible panel producers.

8. Grouping of products and product types for testing. The proposal allows TPCs to approve the 

grouping of products with similar characteristics for quarterly testing. It also allows flexibility in 

determining which products constitute a product type for quality control testing purposes, so that products 

with similar emissions made with the same resin systems may be considered to be the same product type. 

Allowing products and product types to be grouped like this reduces the cost of testing.

9. Defining hardboard. EPA is proposing to define hardboard based on the ANSI standards A135.4 

(Basic Hardboard), A135.5 (Prefinished Hardboard Paneling), and A135.6 (Hardboard Siding). This 

definition will exempt hardboard products (including those made with phenol-formaldehyde resin) from 

the statutory emission standards and the testing and certification requirements, so hardboard producers 

will not incur costs for those activities. 

10. Extending manufactured-by date for sell-through provisions. Although TSCA Title VI allows EPA 

to set the manufactured-by date for the sell-through provisions at 180 days after promulgation of the final

rule, EPA proposes to set this date at 1 year after publication of the final rule. Extending the compliance 

timetable beyond the statutory minimum decreases the compliance burden on panel producers, by 

allowing them extra time to seek certification of their products.

11. Allowing alternate test methods. EPA is proposing that in addition to ASTM D-6007-02 and ASTM 

D-5582, the following methods would also be allowed for quality control testing (with a showing of 

equivalence): EN 717-2 (Gas Analysis Method), DMC (Dynamic Micro Chamber), EN 120 (Perforator 

Method), and JIS A 1460 (24-hr Desiccator Method). Allowing this flexibility in test methods decreases 

the cost of complying with the rule, particularly for firms that have already adopted an alternate test 

method under the CARB ATCM.

12. Not requiring recordkeeping for exempt products. EPA is proposing that manufacturers, fabricators,

distributors, and retailers of products exempted from the rule not be required to keep records 
8

demonstrating that they are exempt. For example, windows that contain less than five percent by volume 

of composite wood products, exterior doors and garage doors that contain less than three percent by 

volume of composite wood products, and exterior and garage doors made with NAF-based or ULEFbased resins are exempt. Firms selling such windows and doors would not be required to maintain 

records showing that the products qualify for an exemption, which reduces the recordkeeping costs for 

these firms. 

13. Continuing existing certifications. EPA could have prohibited the sale of products certified under the 

CARB ATCM until they were recertified by a TPC accredited under the TSCA program, effective with 

the publication of the final rule. Instead, EPA’s proposed TPC rule allows TPCs approved by CARB to 

certify products under TSCA Title VI until one year after the publication of the final rule, as long as they 

remain approved by CARB for that period and comply with all aspects of the TSCA program other than 

the accreditation requirements. Under the proposed implementation rule, products currently certified by 

these TPCs would be considered certified for purposes of TSCA Title VI during that same period. 

Allowing the temporary continuation of existing certifications provision is less burdensome for mills than 

preventing any of them from selling their products until their TPC is accredited by a TSCA Title VI 

recognized accreditation body or bodies.

14. Allowing representative emission levels to be used to demonstrate test method equivalence. The 

CARB ATCM requires a demonstration of equivalence between ASTM E-1333-10 and any other 

approved test method. This equivalence demonstration is based on ten comparison sample sets consisting 

of testing a minimum of five sample sets in each of at least two of three ranges of emissions. Like 

CARB, EPA is also allowing test methods other than ASTM E-1333-10 to be used if the results are 

shown to be equivalent to ASTM E-1333-10. However, EPA believes that it will be very difficult, if not 

impossible, to find products with emissions in the intermediate range (0.07 to less than 0.15 ppm) and the 

upper range (0.15 to 0.25 ppm), because the levels in the intermediate range exceed the CARB Phase 2 

standards for some products, and the levels in the upper range exceed the CARB Phase 2 standards for all 

products. Instead, EPA is proposing that equivalence be demonstrated in a range of formaldehyde 

concentrations that is representative of the emissions of the products that the TPC certifies. This will 

reduce the burden of showing test method equivalence, as it will not require testing samples at emissions 

levels that may not be commercially available.

EPA also considered and rejected various alternatives to the rule that could also affect the 

economic impacts of the rule on small entities. For the reasons described below, these alternatives are not 

consistent with the statutory objectives of the rule and are not included in the proposed rule.

1. Exempting additional products from the definition of hardwood plywood. EPA is proposing to exempt 

laminated products in which a wood veneer is attached to a compliant and certified platform using a NAF 

resin from the definition of hardwood plywood. EPA considered other alternatives to excluding some or 

all laminated products from the definition of hardwood plywood. One alternative option in EPA’s 

Economic Analysis excluded all laminated products other than architectural panels and custom plywood 

from the definition of hardwood plywood. Other alternatives in the Economic Analysis excluded all 

laminated products from the definition of hardwood plywood (along with various combinations of other 

potential rule provisions). All of these alternative options would apply regardless of the types of resins 

used in making the laminated products exempted from the definition of hardwood plywood. 

Because eligibility for the exemptions for laminated products in the alternative options was not 

based on the type of resins used to attach a wood veneer to a platform, currently available information 

indicates that these options would have allowed laminated products that exceed the formaldehyde 

emission standards to be exempted from the definition of hardwood plywood. Therefore, on the basis of 

information currently available to the Agency, EPA has concluded that such alternative options are not 
9

consistent with TSCA Title VI’s statutory mandate that EPA promulgate regulations in a manner that 

ensures compliance with the emission standards in TSCA section 601(b)(2). 

2. Providing additional de minimis exceptions. EPA has decided not to propose an exception from any of 

the regulatory requirements for products containing small amounts of composite wood products, other 

than implementing the statutory exceptions for certain windows and doors. EPA does not have the 

authority to promulgate a de minimis exception to the statutory requirements (e.g., emissions standards, 

or quarterly testing); rather EPA has the authority to promulgate a de minimis exception for the other 

regulatory provisions (e.g., record keeping, chain-of-custody, quality control testing, and labeling). EPA 

does not know of any information that suggests that products with a de minimis amount of composite 

wood products would necessarily be made from panels that meet the statutory emissions standards, as 

required by the statute. Thus, EPA believes it is necessary to make these products subject to the already 

reduced regulatory requirements. EPA has concluded that, on the basis of information currently available 

to the Agency, excepting such products would not be consistent with TSCA Title VI’s statutory mandate 

that EPA promulgate regulations in a manner that ensures compliance with the emission standards in 

TSCA section 601(b)(2).

3. Not requiring retention of tested lots. EPA is proposing to require that panel producers retain lots of 

composite wood products from which quality control or quarterly samples have been selected until the 

samples have been tested and the results received. Without this requirement, panel producers could 

inadvertently sell products exceeding the emission standards in TSCA section 601(b)(2). Furthermore, 

EPA believes that the proposed approach may be less burdensome overall and offer better protection to 

importers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers than an approach relying on after-the-fact 

enforcement actions and customer notifications.