May 12, 2008

Document Control Office (7407M)

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington D.C. 20460-0001

RE: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0267

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to offer comments on behalf of the Hardwood Plywood and Veneer 

Association (HPVA) on the Toxics Substance Control Act (TSCA) Section 21 Petition 

from Sierra Club and 25 other NGO’s described in the April 25, 2008 Federal 

Register, 73 Fed. Reg. 22,369 which asks EPA to promulgate a rule under section 6 

(a) of TSCA by adopting the California Air Resources Board (CARB) formaldehyde 

emissions limits for hardwood plywood, MDF, and particleboard. The petition also 

seeks to have these limits apply to manufactured housing covered by Housing and 

Urban Development rules and regulations. 

We recommend that EPA deny this petition, monitor the progress of the covered

products in moving towards the new technologies that the CARB requirements 

are mandating, encourage HUD to update its standards for these products, and 

utilize the IRIS formaldehyde review and update scheduled for 2010 to assess the 

need for any further actions for these products as well as other sources of 

formaldehyde exposure not subject to these rules.

HPVA represents the hardwood plywood (HWPW), hardwood veneer (V), and 

engineered hardwood flooring (EWF) industries in the US and Canada. HPVA only 
represents companies who manufacture in the US, Canada, and Mexico. In the 

HWPW and EWF sectors, HPVA represents more than 90% of the North American

production capacity. However, over the last 10 years, over 60% of U.S. HWPW

domestic production capacity has been permanently shut down. Moreover, at the 

present time because of the recession, operating rates are at 50% of this current, 

reduced US capacity.

Imported HWPW accounts for over 62% of the US HWPW market which is 

estimated to be about $2.4 billion. Because imported panels are of lower unit 

value because they are typically unfinished than domestically produced panels, 

the market share of imported products may actually be 70-75% of the North 

American market. Because the import codes sometimes group non-homogenous 

products under the same code, exact figures for the products of interest in this 

petition are difficult to determine.

HPVA has been a certification agency for compliance with HUD requirements for 

over 23 years. When the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA) 

established their Environmental Stewardship Program (ESP) which incorporates 

the HUD formaldehyde standards, we became their certifying agency. HPVA will 

apply to be a Third Party Certifier of the CARB standard. 

Due to the first OPEC oil embargo in the late 1970’s, the US embarked on an 

ambitious energy conservation effort in residential and commercial buildings. This 

effort resulted in significantly lowering the air changes of fresh air into the indoor 

living space, and the construction materials and indoor wood products used had 

to be significantly re-engineered to meet these new circumstances. HUD used an 

indoor air quality guideline established by the Wisconsin Department of Public 

Health to establish individual product emission standards for the major indoor 

building materials components used in manufactured housing. 

The HUD product emission standards resulted in an estimated reduction of up to 

95% in formaldehyde emissions from the regulated products. The new CARB 

limits for HWPW represent an additional 70% reduction to the 95% that has 
already occurred. We estimate that domestically produced HWPW will be in 

compliance with the Phase I CARB requirements. The Phase II limits however

require the use of new technologies. Trials are being run now with new resin 

systems that have not been in commercial use and some only recently invented 

and patented. The CARB deadlines for Phase II are ambitious and key provisions of 

the CARB certification and enforcement program are also still a work in progress.

For example, the CARB regulated products are interior building products with a 

significant loophole exempting fabricators who manufacture hardwood plywood 

from compliance with the CARB emission limits when they apply the facing veneer 

to a compliant composite panel. CARB is in the process of addressing that 

loophole as we understand it. 

As these new technologies become more commercially commonplace, which will 

happen over the near term after the Phase I and II deadlines take effect, these 

reductions will become universal for North American producers. This is an 

evolutionary process requiring a complex infrastructure from suppliers, 

manufacturers, and distribution to end users and fabricators be put into place.

In summary, HWPW has both the lowest emission standard and also the earliest 

compliance deadlines for compliance in the CARB rule. Over 85% of prefinished 

and 62% of unfinished HWPW produced domestically uses a VC and the Phase I 

and II deadlines for those products are Jan. 1, 2009 and Jan. 1 2010, respectively.

The new CARB limits may over time evolve into de facto national standards. The 

steps in this process are outlined below.

EPA should deny the section 21 petition for three reasons.

First, EPA and CPSC have made determinations that the formaldehyde levels 

measured in indoor ambient spaces did not warrant additional regulatory 

requirements beyond those imposed in the HUD regulation. Since those 

determinations in the early 1990’s, ambient levels have continued to decline and 

will decline further as the new CARB required technology becomes commonplace.
The HUD and Wisconsin long term targets for indoor air levels of formaldehyde 

are 0.1 ppm, with recognition by both agencies that for manufactured housing the 

lower air exchange rates would result in higher initial levels in the indoor ambient. 

As long as the target indoor ambient did not exceed 0.4ppm, public health was 

protected from the acute effects of HCHO exposure, and with the known decay of 

emissions from products, the long term potential chronic risks were adequately 

addressed as long as the levels were 0.1 ppm or lower. The recent data collected 

by CDC demonstrates that manufactured homes clearly met those targets. Data 

from California similarly demonstrates that levels in conventional homes which 

are subject to its rule were also well below the 0.1ppm target level. 

Based on those ambient measurements and the continued reductions that will be 

occurring, there is no basis for EPA to make a finding of unreasonable risk that is 

necessary to accept the petition filed by the Sierra Club et al. 

Second, the new CARB requirements are not predicated on an indoor air quality 

guideline but the estimated contribution of indoor levels that emit into the 

outdoor air and the resulting reduction in outdoor ambient levels from the 

associated indoor air reductions. CARB also under its statutory authority 

employed a technology forcing, BACT requirement in its rule. CARB could legally

mandate the most stringent measures feasible. Under TSCA, EPA must make both 

an initial unreasonable risk determination which the facts do not support and 

must incorporate the “least burdensome requirement” in fashioning a remedy. 

This legal incompatibility between TSCA and the CARB ATCM approaches is 

sufficient reason to deny the petition. 

Third, the petition does not sufficiently set out facts and supporting data to 

warrant EPA accepting this petition other than CARB has established a new 

regulation. 

Enforcement is also a factor and EPA may not be the best agency to have the 

enforcement authority for building products because they must meet a wide 
variety of other physical performance requirements for purposes of building code 

compliance and other legal requirements. We support this development and 

evolution towards a national performance level but strongly urge that HUD

should be the lead federal agency. 

The key performance gap is off shore producers who do not participate in 

certification programs with outside inspection and audits.

The challenge is products produced outside the U.S. and outside the regulatory 

and consensus standards compliance programs that are applicable to domestic 

producers.

In our HUD certification program over the last 25 years, we tested products which 

averaged 0.1 ppm which is about half the regulatory emission limit. The 

certification failures have been predominately with products produced outside 

the US (14%), but only a small fraction of the total imported hardwood plywood is 

participating in the HPVA certification program. We have no way of knowing the 

total volume of imported plywood or its emission properties. The failure rate for 

domestically produced wall panels was 7%. There were no failures for 

domestically produced industrial panels irrespective of the core.

The issue is not that HUD, CARB, or consensus national standards do not work, 

but rather products are sold into applications that are not and have not been 

subject to these standards. The growing share of the US market to foreign 

produced product (estimated now to be over 70%) which is not otherwise 

certified exacerbates this situation unless the importer is in a certification 

program such as HPVA’s.

Uniform national performance standards will be achieved sooner using the 

following approaches: the HUD program over manufactured housing can quickly 

incorporate the new CARB emission values for products used in manufactured 

homes, the consensus industry standards by the product associations such as 

HPVA, the new Green Building Guidance from the NAHB, the recent adoption of 
the HUD requirements as a condition of membership in the RVIA, all result in 

these new technologies being in place sooner. Off-shore producers in certification 

programs to meet these new requirements will become compliant as well. We 

support an effort to have FHA and other federal backed mortgage lines of credit 

require new homes to have a warranty of compliance with these applicable new

standards.

New technologies including no formaldehyde containing resins and ultra low 

emitting re-formulations of existing technologies confirm that the new California 

requirements can be met by the domestic HWPW industry. 

We support the effort to have HUD conform its product emission standards for 

HWPW to the CARB standards. We would join with MHI in petitioning HUD to 

make that change. We are in the process of revising our ANSI-HPVA national 

consensus standards for HWPW and EWF and are considering the inclusion of 

these new emission requirements as well.

Continued improvements in product stewardship will occur. They in fact will 

continue for the reasons explained below. Revisions to the HUD manufactured 

housing standards, consensus voluntary national standards, and the practical 

necessity to avoid double inventories of products will result in national 

conformance before any federal regulatory action could be finally implemented 

under any likely scenario.

In conclusion, after EPA completes its IRIS review of formaldehyde in 2010, if 

there are other uses that need to addressed, those can be more efficiently 

addressed at that time. This review can certainly also include an evaluation of the 

effectiveness of the HUD and related national consensus programs for use of 

these in building products. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. 
Respectfully submitted,

Kip Howlett

President

Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association

1825 Michael Faraday Drive

Reston, VA 20190

703-435-2900

khowlett@hpva.org