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 “Formald ehyde 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 co de 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 ty pes 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 op erated 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 Neede d 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 impo rted) 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 imp orters), 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 reg ulatory 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 differin g 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, dis tributors, 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. Howev er, 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 pro ducers 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 notific ations 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 activi ties 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 particleb oard 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

authori ty 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 ultra

low emitting formald ehyde 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, o r 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 fir ms 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. Sm all 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 r ecommendations 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 und er 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 i ts 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 discu ssion 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 pr opose 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 ade quate 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 p eriod, 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 equ ivalency 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 ar e 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 l abeling 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 implementin g 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

custod y 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 those5 businesses, and at the same time, is calculated to ensu re 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 p roducers.

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 pr oposed 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 t he 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 fa ctors 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 alternat ives 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 b urdens 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 regulato ry 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 bel ow. 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 CARB6 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. Defin ing hardwood plywood and laminated products . TSCA Title VI includes laminated products within the definition of hardwood plywood unless EPA determines, based o n 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 ensur e 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 laminat ed 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 conside red 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

p lywood 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 pl ywood, 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. Reduc ing recordkeeping for non

- manufacturers . EPA is proposing that distributors and retailers that do not import, produce, or manufa cture composite wood panels, component parts, or finished goods be require d 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 t he 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

r ecordkeeping 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 sim ilar to the CARB ATCM.

4. Reduc ing testing for NAF and ULEF products . EPA proposes to provide producers of pa nels 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 pr oposed rule, the ULEF provisions reduce the total rule costs by $0.5 million per year.

5

. Not requiring r etailers 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 the7 information on the original label. Exempting retailers from the relabeling requirements decreases costs for any retailers that may engage in these activities.

6

. Reduc ing q uality 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 product ion 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 10 0,000 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 p roposing 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. T hese

p rovisions reduce the cost of quality control testing for eligible panel producers , particularly for very small panel producers

.

7. Reduc ing quality control testing for certain panel producers with consistent operations . EPA is proposing to allow particl eboard 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 pe r 48

- hour s

. 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 te sting. 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.

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

9. Defining h ardboard. 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

- formaldeh yde 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 s ell

- 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 statuto ry minimum decreases the compliance burden on panel producers , by allowing them extra time to seek certification of their products.

11. A llowing a lternate test methods . EPA is proposing that in addition to ASTM D

- 6007

- 02 and ASTM

D

- 5582, the following m ethods 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. No t 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 records8 demonstrating that they are exempt. For example, windows that contain less than five percent by volume of composite wood products, exterior doors and garage do ors that contain less than three percent by volume of composite wood products, and exterior and garage doors made with NAF

- based or ULEF

based resins are exempt. Firms selling such windows and doors would not be required to maintain records showing that t he products qualify for an exemption, which reduces the recordkeeping costs for

these firms.

13. Continu ing existing certification s . EPA could have prohibited the sale of products certified under the

CARB ATCM until they were re certified by a TPC accr edited under the TSCA program

, effective with the pub lication 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 purpose s 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 the ir TPC is accredited by a TSCA Title VI

reco gnized 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 eq uivalence 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 t he 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 comm ercially 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 ob jectives of the rule and are not included in the proposed rule.

1. Exempting additional products from the d efinition 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 produ cts 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 lamina ted 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 not9 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. P roviding additional d e minimis exception s

. 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 an d 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 provi sions (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 A gency, 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 r etention 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, wholesaler s, retailers, and consumers than an approach relying on after

- the

- fact

enforcement actions and customer notifications.