This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

47645 

Vol. 82, No. 197 

Friday, October 13, 2017 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Docket No. SBA–2017–0005] 

13 CFR Chapter I 

Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory 

Burden 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Request for information; 

extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: On August 15, 2017, the 

Small Business Administration (SBA or 

Agency) published in the Federal 

Register a request for information 

seeking input from the public on 

identifying which of the Agency’s 

regulations should be repealed, replaced 

or modified because they are obsolete, 

unnecessary, ineffective, or 

burdensome. That request established a 

60-day comment period closing on 

October 16, 2017. SBA is extending the 

public comment period for 30 days, 

until November 15, 2017. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

request for information published on 

August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38617) is 

extended. Comments are requested on 

or before November 15, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket Number SBA– 

2017–0005, using any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Identify 

comments by ‘‘Docket Number SBA– 

2017–0005, Reducing Regulatory 

Burden RFI,’’ and follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Mail: Holly Turner, Regulatory 

Reform Officer, U.S. Small Business 

Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20416. 

SBA will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you wish to 

submit confidential business 

information (CBI) as defined in the User 

Notice at http://www.regulations.gov, 

please submit the information to Holly 

Turner, 409 Third Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20416. Highlight the 

information that you consider to be CBI, 

and explain why you believe this 

information should be held confidential. 

SBA will review the information and 

make the final determination as to 

whether to publish the information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Holly Turner, (202) 205–6335, 409 

Third Street SW., Washington, DC 

20416; email address: IGA@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

15, 2017, in accordance with Executive 

Order 13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda,’’ SBA published a 

request for information seeking input 

from the public on identifying which of 

the Agency’s regulations should be 

repealed, replaced or modified because 

they are obsolete, unnecessary, 

ineffective, or burdensome (82 FR 

38617). That request established a 60- 

day comment period, closing on October 

16, 2017. To ensure that all interested 

parties are provided ample time and 

opportunity to submit comments, SBA 

is extending the public comment period 

for an additional 30 days. Comments 

must be submitted to SBA no later than 

November 15, 2017. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6); E.O. 13771; 

E.O. 13777. 

Dated: October 6, 2017. 

Holly Turner, 

Regulatory Reform Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22130 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1252 

[Docket No. CPSC–2017–0038] 

Children’s Products, Children’s Toys, 

and Child Care Articles: 

Determinations Regarding Lead, ASTM 

F963 Elements, and Phthalates for 

Engineered Wood Products 

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (Commission, or CPSC) is 

proposing a rule to determine that 

certain untreated and unfinished 

engineered wood products (EWPs), 

specifically, particleboard, hardwood 

plywood, and medium-density 

fiberboard, made from virgin wood or 

pre-consumer waste wood would not 

contain lead, the ASTM F963 elements, 

or specified phthalates that exceed the 

limits set forth under the CPSC’s 

statutes for children’s products, 

children’s toys, and child care articles. 

Based on these proposed 

determinations, the specified EWPs 

would not be required to have third 

party testing for compliance with the 

requirements for lead, ASTM F963 

elements, or phthalates for children’s 

products, children’s toys, and child care 

articles. 

DATES: Submit comments by December 

27, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2017– 

0038, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

The Commission does not accept 

comments submitted by electronic mail 

(email), except through regulations.gov. 

The Commission encourages you to 

submit electronic comments by using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described above. 

Written Submissions: Submit written 

comments by mail/hand delivery/ 

courier to: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number. All comments received 

may be posted without change, 

including any personal identifiers, 

contact information, or other personal 

information provided, to: http://

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information that you do not 

want to be available to the public. If 

furnished at all, such information 

should be submitted in writing by mail/ 

hand delivery/courier. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Campbell, Senior Textile 

Technologist, Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850: 

Telephone 301–987–2024; email: 

jcampbell@cpsc.gov. 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47646 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1ASTM F963 is a consumer product safety 

standard, except for section 4.2 and Annex 4, or any 

provision that restates or incorporates an existing 

mandatory standard or ban promulgated by the 

Commission or by statute. 

2ASTM F963 contains the following note 

regarding the scope of the solubility requirement: 

NOTE 4—For the purposes of this requirement, the 

following criteria are considered reasonably 

appropriate for the classification of children’s toys 

or parts likely to be sucked, mouthed or ingested: 

(1) All toy parts intended to be mouthed or contact 

food or drink, components of children’s toys which 

are cosmetics, and components of writing 

instruments categorized as children’s toys; (2) 

Children’s toys intended for children less than 6 

years of age, that is, all accessible parts and 

components where there is a probability that those 

parts and components may come into contact with 

the mouth. 

3The method to assess the solubility of a listed 

element is detailed in section 8.3.2, Method to 

Dissolve Soluble Matter for Surface Coatings, of 

ASTM F963. Modeling clays included as part of a 

toy have different solubility limits for several of the 

elements. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

1. Third Party Testing and Burden 

Reduction 

Section 14(a) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act, (CPSA), as amended 

by the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), 

requires that manufacturers of products 

subject to a consumer product safety 

rule or similar rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation enforced by the CPSC, must 

certify that the product complies with 

all applicable CPSC-enforced 

requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). For 

children’s products, children’s toys, and 

child care articles, certification must be 

based on testing conducted by a CPSCaccepted third party conformity 

assessment body. Id. Public Law 112–28 

(August 12, 2011) directed the CPSC to 

seek comment on ‘‘opportunities to 

reduce the cost of third party testing 

requirements consistent with assuring 

compliance with any applicable 

consumer product safety rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation.’’ Public Law 

112–28 also authorized the Commission 

to issue new or revised third party 

testing regulations if the Commission 

determines ‘‘that such regulations will 

reduce third party testing costs 

consistent with assuring compliance 

with the applicable consumer product 

safety rules, bans, standards, and 

regulations.’’ Id. 2063(d)(3)(B). 

To provide opportunities to reduce 

the cost of third party testing 

requirements consistent with assuring 

compliance with any applicable 

consumer product safety rule, ban, 

standard, or regulations, the CPSC 

assessed whether children’s products, 

children’s toys, and child care articles 

manufactured with three engineered 

wood products, specifically, 

particleboard, hardwood plywood, and 

medium-density fiberboard (collectively 

referred to as EWPs), would comply 

with CPSC’s requirements for lead, 

ASTM F963 elements or phthalates. If 

the Commission determines that such 

materials will comply with CPSC’s 

requirements with a high degree of 

assurance, manufacturers do not need to 

have those materials tested by a third 

party testing laboratory to issue a 

Children’s Product Certificate (CPC). 

2. CPSC’s Lead Standard 

Section 101 of the CPSIA has two 

requirements associated with lead in 

children’s products. 15 U.S.C. 1278a. 

First, no accessible part of a children’s 

product may contain more than 100 

parts per million (ppm) lead content. 

Second, paint or other surface coatings 

on children’s products and furniture 

intended for consumer use may not 

contain lead in concentrations greater 

than 90 ppm. Manufacturers of 

children’s products must certify, based 

on third party testing, that their 

products comply with all relevant 

children’s product safety rules. Thus, 

products subject to the lead content or 

paint/surface coating limits require 

passing test results from a CPSCaccepted third party laboratory for the 

manufacturer to issue a CPC, before the 

products can be entered into commerce. 

To alleviate some of the third testing 

burdens associated with lead in the 

accessible component parts of children’s 

products, the Commission determined 

that certain materials, including 

gemstones, precious metals, wood, 

paper, CMYK process printing inks, 

textiles, and specified stainless steel, do 

not exceed the 100 ppm lead content 

limit under section 101 of the CPSIA. 

Based on this determination, such 

materials do not require third party 

testing for the lead content limits. The 

determinations regarding lead content 

for certain materials are set forth in 16 

CFR 1500.91. 

3. ASTM F963 Elements 

Section 106 of the CPSIA provides 

that the provisions of ASTM 

International, Consumer Safety 

Specifications for Toy Safety (ASTM 

F963), shall be considered to be 

consumer product safety standards 

issued by the Commission.1 15 U.S.C. 

2056b. The Commission has issued a 

rule that incorporates by reference the 

relevant provisions of ASTM F963. 16 

CFR part 1250. Thus, children’s toys 

subject to ASTM F963 must be tested by 

a CPSC-accepted third party laboratory 

and demonstrate compliance with all 

applicable CPSC requirements for the 

manufacturer to issue a CPC before the 

children’s toys can be entered into 

commerce. 

Section 4.3.5 of ASTM F963 requires 

that surface coating materials and 

accessible substrates of children’s toys 

that can be sucked, mouthed, or 

ingested 2 must comply with the 

solubility limits of eight elements given 

in Table 1 of the toy standard. The 

materials and their solubility limits are 

shown in Table 1. We refer to these 

eight elements as ‘‘ASTM F963 

elements.’’ 

TABLE 1—MAXIMUM SOLUBLE MIGRATED ELEMENT IN ppm (mg/kg) 

FOR SURFACE COATINGS AND SUBSTRATES INCLUDED AS PART OF A

TOY

Elements 

Solubility 

limit, 

(ppm) 3

Antimony (Sb) ............................ 60 

Arsenic (As) ............................... 25 

Barium (Ba) ................................ 1,000 

Cadmium (Cd) ........................... 75 

Chromium (Cr) ........................... 60 

Lead (Pb) ................................... 90 

Mercury (Hg) .............................. 60 

Selenium (Se) ............................ 500 

The third party testing burden could 

be reduced only if all elements listed in 

section 4.3.5 have concentrations below 

their solubility limits. Because third 

party conformity assessment bodies 

typically run one test for all of the 

ASTM F963 elements, no testing burden 

reduction would be achieved if any one 

of the elements requires testing. 

To alleviate some of the third testing 

burdens associated with the ASTM F963 

elements in the accessible component 

parts of children’s toys, the Commission 

determined that certain unfinished and 

untreated trunk wood does not contain 

ASTM F963 elements that would exceed 

the limits specified in section 106 of the 

CPSIA. Based on this determination, 

unfinished and untreated trunk wood 

would not require third party testing for 

the ASTM F963 elements. The 

determinations regarding the ASTM 

F963 elements limits for certain 

materials is set forth in 16 CFR 1251.2. 

4. Phthalates 

Section 108(a) of the CPSIA 

permanently prohibits the manufacture 

for sale, offer for sale, distribution in 

commerce, or importation into the 

United States of any ‘‘children’s toy or 

child care article’’ that contains 

concentrations of more than 0.1 percent 

of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), 

dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or butyl benzyl 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47647 

4http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/169902/CHAPREPORT-With-Appendices.pdf. 5https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/ 

12/30/2014-29967/prohibition-of-children’s-toysand-child-care-articles-containing-specifiedphthalates. 6Test costs for the content of all the specified 

phthalates have been reported to range from $125 

to $350 per component, depending upon where the 

tests are conducted and any discounts that might 

apply. 

7After conducting the contract reports for the 

CPSC, TERA reorganized as the Risk Science Center 

at the University of Cincinnati: https://med.uc.edu/ 

eh/centers/rsc. 

8http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Research-andStatistics/TechnicalReports/Toys/ 

TERAReportASTMElements.pdf. 

9 80 FR 78651 (Dec. 17, 2015). 

10http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research-andStatistics/Technical-Reports/ 

Other%20Technical%20Reports/ 

TERAReportPhthalates.pdf. 

phthalate (BBP). 15 U.S.C. 2057c(a). 

Section 108(b)(1) prohibits on an 

interim basis (i.e., until the Commission 

promulgates a final rule), the 

manufacture for sale, offer for sale, 

distribution in commerce, or 

importation into the United States of 

‘‘any children’s toy that can be placed 

in a child’s mouth’’ or ‘‘child care 

article’’ containing concentrations of 

more than 0.1 percent of diisononyl 

phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate 

(DIDP), or di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP). 

15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(1). Children’s toys 

and child care articles subject to the 

content limits in section 108 of the 

CPSIA require third party testing for 

compliance with the phthalate content 

limits before the manufacturer can issue 

a CPC and enter the children’s toys or 

child care articles into commerce. 

The CPSIA required the Commission 

to appoint a Chronic Hazard Advisory 

Panel (CHAP) to ‘‘study the effects on 

children’s health of all phthalates and 

phthalate alternatives as used in 

children’s toys and child care articles.’’ 

15 U.S.C. 2057c(b)(2). The CHAP issued 

its report in July 2014.4 Based on the 

CHAP report, the Commission 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (Phthalates NPR),5

proposing to permanently prohibit 

children’s toys and child care articles 

containing concentrations of more than 

0.1 percent of DINP, and proposing to 

lift the interim statutory prohibitions 

with respect to DIDP and DnOP. In 

addition, the Phthalates NPR proposed 

adding four new phthalates, DIBP, 

DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP, to the list 

of phthalates that cannot exceed 0.1 

percent concentration in accessible 

component parts of children’s toys and 

child care articles. The Commission has 

not finalized its proposal on phthalates 

in children’s toys and child care 

articles. 

Tests for phthalate concentration are 

among the most expensive certification 

tests to conduct on a product, and each 

accessible component part subject to 

section 108 of the CPSIA must be 

tested.6 Third party testing burden 

reductions can occur only if each 

phthalate’s concentration is below 0.1 

percent (1000 ppm). Because 

laboratories typically run one test for all 

of the specified phthalates, no testing 

burden reduction likely is achieved if 

any one of the phthalates requires 

compliance testing. 

To alleviate some of the third testing 

burdens associated with plastics in the 

accessible component parts of children’s 

toys and child care articles, the 

Commission determined that products 

made with general purpose polystyrene 

(GPPS), medium-impact polystyrene 

(MIPS), high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), 

and super high-impact polystyrene 

(SHIPS) with specified additives do not 

exceed the phthalates content limits 

under section 108 of the CPSIA. 82 FR 

41163 (August 30, 2017). Based on this 

determination, materials used in 

children’s toys and child care articles 

that use these specified plastics and 

additives would not require third party 

testing for the phthalates content limits. 

The plastics determinations are set forth 

in the Commission’s regulations at 16 

CFR part 1308. 

The research that provides the basis 

for the phthalates determination covers 

the six phthalates subject to the 

statutory prohibition and the additional 

phthalates that the Commission 

proposed to prohibit from use in 

children’s toys and child care articles. 

After the Commission finalizes its 

phthalates rule, the Commission will 

revise its phthalate determination rule 

to reflect the phthalates restricted by the 

final phthalates rule. 

B. Contractor’s Research 

CPSC contracted with the Toxicology 

Excellence for Risk Assessment 

(TERA) 7 who authored literature review 

reports on the content issues related to 

certain natural materials, plastics, and 

EWPs. The following reports produced 

by TERA formed the basis for the 

proposed EWP determinations: Task 9, 

Concentrations of Selected Elements in 

Unfinished Wood and Other Natural 

Materials; Task 11, Exposure 

Assessment: Composition, Production, 

and Use of Phthalates; and Task 14, 

Final Report for CPSC Task 14, which 

summarized the available information 

on the production of the EWPs. Each 

report is discussed below. 

1. TERA Task 9 Report 

In the Task 9 Report, TERA conducted 

a literature search on whether 

unfinished wood and other natural 

materials could be determined not to 

contain any of the ASTM F963 elements 

in concentrations greater than the 

ASTM F963 solubility limits.8 The 

materials researched included 

unfinished woods (ash, beech, birch, 

cherry, maple, oak, pine, poplar, and 

walnut); bamboo; beeswax; undyed and 

unfinished fibers and textiles (cotton, 

wool, linen, and silk); and uncoated or 

coated paper (wood or other cellulosic 

fiber). 

To assess the presence of the ASTM 

F963 elements’ concentrations in the 

materials, TERA looked at several 

factors. The factors reviewed included 

the presence and concentrations of the 

elements in the environmental media 

(e.g., soil, water, air), and in the base 

materials for the textiles and paper; 

whether processing has the potential to 

introduce any of the ASTM F963 

elements into the material under study; 

and the potential for contamination after 

production, such as through packaging. 

From this report, the Commission 

determined that untreated and 

unfinished woods from tree trunks do 

not contain any of the elements in 

ASTM F963 in concentrations greater 

than their respective solubility limits, 

and thus, they are not required to be 

third party tested to ensure compliance 

with the specified solubility test.9 TERA 

relied on this information in TERA Task 

Report 14 to determine that the virgin 

wood material used in the manufacture 

of EWPs does not, and will not, contain 

any of the elements in ASTM F963 in 

concentrations greater than their 

respective solubility limits. 

2. TERA Task 11 Report 

In the Task 11 Report, TERA 

conducted a literature search on the 

production and use of 11 specified 

phthalates in consumer products.10 The 

11 phthalates researched by TERA were 

based on the recommendations made in 

the CHAP report. Table 2 lists the 

phthalates researched by TERA. TERA’s 

research focused on the following 

factors: 

• The raw materials used in the 

production of the specified phthalates; 

• The manufacturing processes used 

worldwide to produce the specified 

phthalates; 

• Estimated annual production of the 

specified phthalates; 

• Physical properties of the specified 

phthalates (e.g., vapor pressure, 

flashpoint, water solubility, temperature 

at which chemical breakdown occurs); 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47648 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

11A CAS Registry Number is assigned to a 

substance when it enters the CAS REGISTRY 

database. https://www.cas.org/content/chemicalsubstances/faqs. 

12https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ 

ManufacturedWoodsTERATask14Report.pdf. 

13The TERA research providing the basis for this 

determination covers the six phthalates subject to 

the statutory prohibition, as well as the additional 

phthalates the Commission proposed to prohibit in 

children’s toys and child care articles. The 

phthalates determination lists only the six 

phthalates subject to the statutory prohibition. 

However, when the Commission issues a final rule 

for the specified phthalates in children’s toys and 

child care articles, the Commission could revise the 

phthalates determination, if needed. 

14While included in the Task 11 Report, DIOP 

was not included in the Task 14 Report because the 

ban on DIOP was proposed to be removed in the 

Phthalates NPR. 

• Applications for phthalates use in 

materials and consumer and nonconsumer products; and 

• Other potential routes by which 

phthalates can be introduced into an 

otherwise phthalates-free material (e.g., 

migration from packaging, recycling, 

reuse, product breakdown). 

TABLE 2—PHTHALATES RESEARCHED IN THE TASK 11 REPORT

Phthalate CASRN 11

DEHP: di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate .................................................................................................................................. 117–81–7 

DBP: dibutyl phthalate .................................................................................................................................................... 84–74–2 

BBP: benzyl butyl phthalate ........................................................................................................................................... 85–68–7 

DINP: diisononyl phthalate ............................................................................................................................................. 28553–12–0, 68515–48–0 

DIDP: diisodecyl phthalate ............................................................................................................................................. 26761–40–0, 68515–49–1 

DnOP: di-n-octyl phthalate ............................................................................................................................................. 117–84–0 

DIOP: diisooctyl phthalate .............................................................................................................................................. 27554–26–3 

DIBP: diisobutyl phthalate .............................................................................................................................................. 84–69–5 

DPENP: di-n-pentyl phthalate ......................................................................................................................................... 131–18–0 

DHEXP: di-n-hexyl phthalate .......................................................................................................................................... 84–75–3 

DCHP: dicyclohexyl phthalate ........................................................................................................................................ 84–61–7 

TERA found that phthalates are used 

generally as plasticizers or softeners of 

certain plastics, primarily polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC), as solvents, and as 

component parts of inks, paints, 

adhesives, and sealants. 

3. TERA Task 14 Report 

In the Task 14 Report, TERA 

conducted a literature search on the 

production of three EWPs: 

Particleboard, hardwood plywood, and 

medium-density fiberboard.12 TERA 

first researched authoritative sources, 

such as reference books and textbooks, 

along with Internet resources, for 

general information about EWPs, 

adhesives, raw materials, manufacturing 

processes, and the potential use of 

recycled materials. TERA used this 

information and consulted technical 

experts to identify key words for 

searching the literature. These key 

words were then used to conduct 

primary literature searches for research 

studies and publications. In addition, 

TERA searched for Safety Data Sheets 

(SDS) for information on raw materials. 

TERA researched the possibility of the 

raw materials or finished products in 

the three EWPs to contain: 

• Lead in concentrations exceeding 

100 ppm; 

• Any of the specified elements that 

are included in the safety standard for 

children’s toys, ASTM F963, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for Toy 

Safety, in concentrations exceeding 

specified solubility limits; or 

• Any of 10 specified phthalates in 

concentrations greater than 0.1 percent 

(1000 ppm), listed in Table 3.13

TABLE 3—PHTHALATES RESEARCHED IN THE TASK 14 REPORT 14

Phthalate CASRN 

DEHP: di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate .................................................................................................................................. 117–81–7 

DBP: dibutyl phthalate .................................................................................................................................................... 84–74–2 

BBP: benzyl butyl phthalate ........................................................................................................................................... 85–68–7 

DINP: diisononyl phthalate ............................................................................................................................................. 28553–12–0, 68515–48–0 

DIDP: diisodecyl phthalate ............................................................................................................................................. 26761–40–0, 68515–49–1 

DnOP: di-n-octyl phthalate ............................................................................................................................................. 117–84–0 

DIBP: diisobutyl phthalate .............................................................................................................................................. 84–69–5 

DPENP: di-n-pentyl phthalate ......................................................................................................................................... 131–18–0 

DHEXP: di-n-hexyl phthalate .......................................................................................................................................... 84–75–3 

DCHP: dicyclohexyl phthalate ........................................................................................................................................ 84–61–7 

TERA found that, generally, the 

processes for manufacturing the three 

EWPs are similar; wood fibers, chips, 

layers, or a similar raw wood product 

are processed with various adhesive 

formulations (sometimes referred to as 

binders or resins) along with other 

additives to create uniform sheets with 

known characteristics and performance 

qualities. The main difference among 

the three types of EWPs relates 

primarily to the size and morphology 

(shape and surface characteristics) of the 

wood material used in their production. 

TERA reviewed the literature to assess 

whether the specified EWPs might 

contain lead or one or more of the other 

elements at levels that exceed the ASTM 

solubility limits, or any of the specified 

phthalates in concentrations greater 

than the specified limits. TERA reported 

that no studies found lead, the ASTM 

F963 elements, or the specified 

phthalates in concentrations greater 

than their limits in particleboard, 

hardwood plywood, or medium-density 

fiberboard, that are unfinished and 

untreated, and made from virgin wood 

or pre-consumer wood waste. 

In the Task 14 Report, TERA 

described an unfinished EWP as one 

that does not have any surface 

treatments applied at manufacture, such 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47649 

as factory-applied coatings. An 

untreated EWP is one that does not have 

any additional finishes applied at 

manufacture such as flame retardants or 

rot resistant finishes. TERA described 

virgin wood as wood logs, fibers, chips, 

or layers that have not been recycled 

from a previous use. TERA described 

pre-consumer wood waste as wood 

materials that have been recycled from 

an industrial process before being made 

available for consumer use. Examples of 

this type of waste include trimmings 

from EWP panel manufacturing, 

sawdust from cutting logs, or remaining 

wood pieces from sawing a log into 

framing lumber. 

The TERA report highlighted the 

potential for lead, the ASTM F963 

elements, or the specified phthalates to 

be present in concentrations greater 

than those specified through the use of 

contaminated recycled material in EWPs 

made from recycled wood waste or 

EWPs that have post-manufacturing 

treatments or finishes. Recycled wood 

waste may be made from reclaimed or 

post-consumer wood waste. Postconsumer wood waste is described as 

wood waste that is comprised of 

materials that are recovered from their 

original use and subsequently used in a 

new product. Examples of this type of 

waste include recycled demolition 

wood, packaging materials such as 

pallets and crates, used wood from 

landscape care (i.e., from urban and 

highway trees, hedges, and gardens), 

discarded furniture, and waste wood 

from industrial, construction, and 

commercial activities. 

The three types of EWPs reviewed by 

TERA are discussed below. 

a. Particleboard 

Particleboard is a composite of wood 

chips, adhesives, and other additives 

pressed into a board. Adhesive 

formulations are used to bond wood 

chips, which are then formed into mats 

that are layered to create uniform boards 

in a range of dimensions. Particleboard 

is used widely in furniture making and 

other interior (or nonstructural) uses. 

The constituent parts of particleboard 

reported by TERA can include (by 

weight): 

• Wood (60–99+ percent); 

• Adhesive formulation (0–17 

percent, with 5–11 percent most 

common) 

• May include phenol-formaldehyde 

(uncommon but potential for use), ureaformaldehyde, melamine-ureaformaldehyde, polymeric methylenediphenyl-diisocyanate (pMDI); 

• Waxes (0.3–1 percent); 

• Other additives (up to 2 percent); or 

• Scavengers or additional 

unspecified materials. 

TERA researched the possibility of 

lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the 

specified phthalates, in concentrations 

greater than their specified limits in 

particleboard. TERA identified little 

information on measurements of lead 

and the ASTM F963 elements in 

particleboard and no studies that 

measured the specified phthalates. 

TERA identified two references where 

particleboard made from both untreated 

and copper chromate arsenic-(CCA) 

treated wood chips was tested. Arsenic 

and chromium were undetected in the 

particleboards made from virgin wood 

chips. However, the particleboard 

composed of 25 percent wood chips 

from reclaimed CCA-treated wood 

products contained 895 and 832 ppm of 

arsenic and chromium, respectively, 

without adversely affecting the 

mechanical performance of the board. 

Another study that discussed ‘‘recycled 

particleboard’’ was identified as wood 

waste obtained from a wood recycling 

plant. 

Apart from the studies on 

particleboard made from wood waste 

that may contain post-consumer wood 

waste or post-manufacturing treatments, 

TERA reported that no studies found 

lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the 

specified phthalates in concentrations 

greater than the specified limits in 

untreated and unfinished particleboard. 

b. Hardwood Plywood 

Plywood is a layered board of wood 

veneers where the layers have 

alternating, perpendicular wood grain 

directions. Less commonly, the board 

might have a core of other EWPs with 

wood veneers as the outer layers. 

Hardwood plywood, addressed in this 

report, is a type of plywood that is 

composed of angiosperms (i.e., 

‘‘hardwoods,’’ such as oak or maple) 

and used primarily in furniture and 

other interior (nonstructural) uses, as 

well as in playground equipment, sports 

equipment, and musical instruments. 

The constituent parts of hardwood 

plywood reported by TERA can include 

(by weight): 

• Wood (75–99+ percent); 

• Adhesive formulation (0.02–20 

percent, with 1 percent to 5 percent 

most common) 

• May include phenol-formaldehyde 

or phenol-resorcinol-formaldehyde 

(likely for use in structural plywood but 

potential for application to hardwood 

plywood), urea-formaldehyde, 

melamine-formaldehyde, or melamineurea-formaldehyde, or polyvinyl acetate 

(PVAc); or 

• Other additives (less than 2 

percent). 

TERA researched the possibility of 

lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the 

specified phthalates in concentrations 

greater than those specified in 

hardwood plywood. TERA identified 

only one study that measured lead and 

the ASTM F963 elements in plywood 

and no studies that measured the 

specified phthalates. Concentrations of 

cadmium, chromium, and lead, were all 

less than the solubility limits, in ‘‘plain’’ 

plywood. In addition, because 

hardwood plywood is made from sheets 

of wood veneer, it is less likely to 

contain recycled wood content, unless it 

incorporates a core of some other EWP, 

such as particleboard or mediumdensity fiberboard. 

Aside from the studies on recycled 

wood waste that may contain postconsumer wood waste or postmanufacturing treatments in a 

particleboard, medium-density 

fiberboard, or other EWP core, TERA 

reported that no studies found lead, the 

ASTM F963 elements, or the specified 

phthalates in concentrations greater 

than the specified limits in untreated 

and unfinished hardwood plywood. 

However, TERA identified research 

which indicated that polyvinyl acetate 

(PVAc) can be used as an adhesive 

system for hardwood plywood as 

discussed in section (d) below. 

c. Medium-Density Fiberboard 

Medium-density fiberboard (MDF) is a 

composite of wood fibers, an adhesive 

formulation, and other additives pressed 

into a board. MDF is a similar product 

to particleboard, differing mostly due to 

the use of fiber rather than chips. It is 

used primarily in furniture and other 

interior (nonstructural) uses. The 

constituent parts of MDF reported by 

TERA can include (by weight): 

• Wood (73–99+ percent); 

• Adhesive formulation (0–25 percent 

with most common 5–12 percent); 

• May include phenol-formaldehyde 

(uncommon, but potentially used for 

moisture resistance), urea-formaldehyde 

(most commonly identified), methylenediphenyl-diisocyanate (pMDI), 

melamine-formaldehyde, or melamineurea-formaldehyde; 

• Waxes (less than 1 percent); or 

• Other additives (10–30 percent). 

TERA researched the possibility of 

lead, the ASTM F963 elements, or the 

specified phthalates in concentrations 

greater than those specified in MDF. 

TERA did not identify any references 

that reported the presence of lead, the 

ASTM F963 elements, or the specified 

phthalates in MDF made with virgin 

wood. 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47650 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

15Ecolabel element concentrations are less than 

25 mg/kg of arsenic, 25 mg/kg of mercury, 25 mg/ 

kg of chromium, 50 mg/kg cadmium, 90 mg/kg lead, 

and 40 mg/kg copper (EU, 2004). Ecolabel limits are 

similar to ASTM solubility limits for the ASTM 

F963 elements. 

16Twenty-four percent of furniture and 18 

percent of building materials had one or more 

ASTM F963 elements exceeding the limits which 

may be due to manufacturing processes such as 

painting, preservation, and overlaying, which are 

common with furniture and building materials. The 

most polluted types of wood waste were 

particleboard (37% exceeded Ecolabel limits), 

recycled particleboard (25% exceeded), and 

plywood (18% exceeded); while fiberboard (MDF 

and HDF) exceeded limits in 9 percent of samples. 

17Wang and Zhang (2011) studied the use of 

calcium hydroxide, Ba(OH)2, and magnesium 

hydroxide and their effect on cure times for phenol 

formaldehyde adhesive formulations, finding that 

the use of Ba(OH)2 could be a viable means to speed 

up cure times. Both calcium hydroxide and Ba(OH)2

had similar cure times and are about the same price 

in bulk. Because the compounds would be used in 

an adhesive system, the catalyst is not expected to 

be recovered and so would remain in situ once 

curing is complete. If the catalyst remained in the 

adhesive, it could result in concentrations of 

barium exceeding the ASTM solubility limits. 

18The USDA publication Wood Handbook: Wood 

as an Engineering Material (2010) explains that 

‘‘Plasticizers, for example dibutyl phthalate, are 

used to soften the brittle vinyl acetate homopolymer 

in poly(vinyl acetate) emulsion adhesives. This is 

necessary to facilitate adhesive spreading and 

formation of a flexible adhesive film from the 

emulsion at and below room temperature.’’ 

Aside from the studies on recycled 

wood waste that may contain postconsumer wood waste or postmanufacturing treatments, TERA 

reported that no studies found lead, the 

ASTM F963 elements, or the specified 

phthalates in concentrations greater 

than the specified limits in untreated 

and unfinished MDF. 

d. TERA’s Findings on EWP Constituent 

Parts 

Because few references were found 

directly addressing lead, the ASTM 

F963 elements, and the specified 

phthalates in EWPs, TERA also 

researched the constituent parts that 

could be used to manufacture EWPs, 

including wood and adhesives. 

Wood 

According to the manufacturing 

process information provided by TERA, 

virgin wood and wood residues are the 

main source of wood fiber used in North 

America to manufacture EWPs. 

Typically, these sources include low 

value logs, industrial wood residues, or 

scraps and trim from furniture and EWP 

production. For example, hardwood 

plywood requires the trunks of trees to 

obtain the thin layers of veneer used to 

construct a sheet. TERA relied on the 

Task 9 Report and Commission findings 

on unfinished and untreated wood (80 

FR 78651 (Dec. 17, 2015)) to determine 

that untreated and unfinished wood 

from the trunks of trees do not contain 

lead or the ASTM F963 elements in 

concentrations greater than the specified 

solubility limits. TERA also noted that, 

although phthalates can be taken up by 

trees and plants, the concentrations are 

negligible and less than the specified 

limit (0.1 percent). 

Although TERA reported that the 

majority of EWPs are manufactured with 

virgin wood or pre-consumer wood 

waste fiber or chips, the wood 

component also can originate from 

recycled material. For EWPs made from 

recycled wood waste that may contain 

post-consumer wood waste, the TERA 

report highlighted the potential for lead, 

the ASTM F963 elements, or the 

specified phthalates to be present in 

concentrations greater than those 

specified through the use of 

contaminated recycled material. The 

TERA report cited multiple examples of 

the use of reclaimed or post-consumer 

wood material used to produce EWPs, 

both domestically and internationally. 

Specifically, TERA found studies 

showing that reclaimed lumber and 

wood waste could contain a myriad of 

contaminants, such as surface 

treatments (e.g., paints, stains), metals, 

glues and adhesives, glass, paper, 

plastic, rubber and chemical treatments. 

Metals and organic materials may be 

present in paints, stains, varnishes, and 

polishes that are used on wood products 

(e.g., furniture, window frames) and 

nails, screws, and other metal hardware 

might be attached to the recycled and 

recovered wood. These contaminants 

are intimately attached to the wood, and 

therefore, some contaminants may pass 

through cleaning systems, 

contaminating the entire recovered 

wood stream. 

TERA also reviewed another study, 

based in Italy that evaluated the 

‘‘recyclability’’ of used wood by 

conducting elemental analysis of wood 

residues from wood recycling plants 

using a handheld fast energy dispersive 

X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (ED– 

XRF) device. TERA found that the study 

provided some indication of types and 

levels of contamination in various kinds 

of post-consumer wood waste. 

Elemental analysis results were 

compared to EU Community Ecolabel 

limits.15 For all wood products tested, 

16 percent exceeded one or more of the 

Ecolabel limits, with the highest 

concentrations from lead, chromium, 

chlorine, copper, cadmium, and 

mercury. No samples had levels of 

arsenic over the 25 ppm limit (except a 

CCA-treated utility pole). Barium and 

lead were found in 10 percent to 20 

percent of the samples, chromium and 

cadmium in 3 percent to 4 percent, and 

antimony, mercury, and arsenic ranged 

from 0.3 percent to 1.2 percent of 

samples. The sources most 

contaminated with non-wood content 

were from furniture and building 

materials, while pallets and shipping 

containers were least likely to be 

contaminated.16

TERA concluded that, with an 

increased interest and use of postconsumer recycled materials in EWP 

production, potential contamination by 

the specified elements and phthalates 

must be considered. To ensure that 

EWPs made from used wood fibers do 

not contain ASTM F963 elements or 

phthalates the exceed the specified 

limits, TERA indicated that the 

materials would need to be sorted 

carefully and tested to be assured that 

they are not contaminated. 

Adhesive Formulations 

Adhesive formulations hold the wood 

chips, layers, or fibers together to make 

EWP mats and sheets. Some of the 

formulations use a metal catalyst during 

the curing process. TERA identified a 

number of references describing the 

presence of the ASTM F963 elements in 

adhesive formulations. However, TERA 

found very few references that would 

implicate EWPs. Although the use of 

barium was noted in multiple 

references, only one study appeared to 

be relevant to EWPs. This study 

suggested that barium, when used as a 

catalyst in an adhesive, could result in 

an EWP that exceeded the ASTM 

solubility level for barium.17 However, 

this method does not appear to be used 

currently in EWP production. TERA 

also noted studies that indicate the 

possible use of chromium as a catalyst 

in phenol formaldehyde resin as well as 

the possible use of antimony or arsenic 

in a drier formulation for certain 

polymeric coatings. However, no 

references included information on 

concentrations or appeared relevant to 

EWPs. 

Although many different adhesive 

formulations may be used in hardwood 

plywood, TERA noted that PVAc can be 

used as an adhesive system for 

hardwood plywood. The report cited 

sources (The Handbook of Adhesive 

Technology, USDA) that mentioned the 

use of some of the specified phthalates 

in PVAc adhesive formulations.18 TERA 

also identified research papers which 

included the use of DBP and DEHP in 

PVAc at concentrations greater than 0.1 

percent. 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47651 

19http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ 

construction_demolition.htm. 

20See 16 CFR 1500.91; 16 CFR 1250.2; 16 CFR 

part 1308. 

C. CPSC Staff Analysis of TERA Reports 

1. EWPs Made From Virgin Wood or PreConsumer Wood Waste 

CPSC staff reviewed the TERA Task 9, 

11 and 14 Reports. CPSC staff also 

examined TERA’s source references to 

better understand the reports’ findings. 

CPSC’s review of TERA’s Task 14 

Report showed that there were few 

studies characterizing the content of 

EWPs, as manufactured, in relation to 

lead and the ASTM F963 elements, and 

no studies were found on the phthalates 

of interest. Where there were studies, 

staff’s review of the TERA report 

showed there was no evidence that 

untreated and unfinished EWPs made 

from virgin wood or pre-consumer wood 

waste, using generally used 

manufacturing practices and materials, 

had content levels greater than the 

specified limits. 

Staff finds that, based on the TERA 

reports, untreated and unfinished EPWs 

(particleboard, hardwood plywood, and 

medium-density fiberboard) made from 

virgin wood or pre-consumer wood 

waste, do not contain lead, or any of the 

specified elements in ASTM F963 that 

exceed the specified limits. In addition, 

with the exception of hardwood 

plywood that contains PVAc adhesive 

formulations, discussed further in this 

section, the specified EWPs do not 

contain any of the specified phthalates 

in concentrations greater than 0.1 

percent. 

2. EWPs Made From Reclaimed or PostConsumer Wood Waste 

The TERA Task 14 Report highlighted 

the risk of introducing materials 

contaminated with lead, the ASTM 

F963 elements, and the specified 

phthalates when using reclaimed or 

post-consumer wood waste to 

manufacture EWPs. Staff is aware that 

there is increasing interest in using 

recycled materials, rather than 

landfilling. Environmentally oriented 

initiatives encourage recycled wood 

content, especially in the European 

Union (E.U.). The E.U. Waste 

Framework Directive requires recycling 

or reuse of at least 70 percent of 

construction and demolition waste in 

member states by 2020.19

Staff’s review of TERA’s reclaimed or 

post-consumer waste assessment in 

EWPs indicates that, although most 

manufacturing in the Americas 

currently does not use post-consumer 

wood waste as a constituent part, EWPs 

with post-consumer wood content are 

not only technologically feasible, but 

also are currently available. Although 

the majority of the post-consumer wood 

waste used to manufacture EWPs is 

‘‘clean,’’ consisting of wood pallets, 

spools, or shipping crates, reclaimed 

materials could be contaminated with 

paint, coatings, or chemical treatments. 

There are some standards (e.g., 

European Panel Federation, E.U. 

Community Ecolabel) for EWPs with 

content requirements that roughly align 

with the ASTM F963 requirements; 

however, many are voluntary and have 

no third party testing requirements. 

Staff notes that manufacturers do have 

an incentive to avoid contamination of 

EWPs because the addition of recycled 

materials could be detrimental to 

manufacturing equipment or the 

finished product’s performance. Surface 

coatings, such as paint or stains, metals 

from nails or fasteners, adhesive 

formulations, such as resins or glues, 

and other non-wood content can 

potentially damage equipment, stop a 

production line, or adversely impact the 

uniformity of the product. However, 

staff is not aware of any current 

manufacturer processing protocols that 

would keep unwanted contaminants out 

of EWP manufacturing. Because of the 

contamination issues identified, the 

staff does not have a high degree of 

assurance that EWPs made from postconsumer wood waste are compliant 

with sections 101, 106, or 108 of the 

CPSIA at this time. 

3. EWPs With Post-Manufacturing 

Treatments or Finishes 

Staff’s review of the Task 14 Report 

shows that most consumer products 

made from EWPs will have some 

additional treatments or finishes that are 

applied to the EWPs after their 

manufacture. TERA’s report identified 

that certain surface treatments (e.g., 

paints, stains), metals, glues and 

adhesives, glass, paper, plastic, rubber 

and chemical treatments may be added 

to EWPs. Metals and organic materials 

may be present in paints, stains, 

varnishes, and polishes that are used on 

wood products (e.g., furniture, window 

frames) and nails, screws, and other 

metal hardware might be attached to the 

recycled and recovered wood. 

Staff’s review shows that postmanufacturing treatments or finishes 

made be applied to EWPs manufactured 

from virgin or pre-consumer wood 

waste, as well as EWPs manufactured 

from post-consumer wood waste. Such 

treatments or finishes may include paint 

or similar surface coating materials, 

flame retardants, rot resistant finishes, 

wood glue, or metal fasteners. The 

TERA report indicated that coatings, 

finishes, and chemical treatments, such 

flame-retardant coatings or rot resistant 

finishes, are a potential source of 

phthalates or the ASTM F963 elements. 

Staff’s review of EWPs that have postmanufacturing treatments or finishes 

shows that there is potential for lead, 

the ASTM F963 elements, or the 

specified phthalates to be present in 

concentrations greater than at the 

specified levels. Unless a postmanufacture treatment or finish has 

been determined by the CPSC to be 

compliant with sections 101, 106, or 108 

of the CPSIA,20 staff does not have a 

high degree of assurance that EWPs that 

have post-manufacturing treatments or 

finishes are compliant with sections 

101, 106, or 108 of the CPSIA at this 

time. 

4. Adhesive Formulations in EWPs 

The Task 14 Report generally found 

that there was little evidence to suggest 

that the ASTM F963 elements are likely 

to be present in any of the commonly 

used adhesives in concentrations greater 

than the ASTM solubility limits. Staff 

notes, that although one study suggested 

that barium, when used as a catalyst in 

an adhesive, could result in an EWP that 

exceeded the ASTM solubility level for 

barium, this method does not appear to 

be used currently in EWP production. 

Staff’s review of the Task 11 Report 

indicates that phthalates could be used 

in some adhesive formulations, 

including in PVAc adhesives, such as 

wood or craft glues. In addition, the 

Task 14 Report identified the adhesive 

formulations used in the manufacture of 

EWPs and found that one, PVAc, could 

contain at least one of the specified 

phthalates. TERA also reported that 

PVAc could be used in hardwood 

plywood manufacturing. However, 

TERA was unable to identify whether 

the specific PVAc adhesive formulations 

used currently in the manufacture of 

hardwood plywood contained any of the 

specified phthalates in concentrations 

greater than the specified limits. 

CPSC staff research indicates that 

PVAc may be associated with the 

manufacture of hardwood plywood, 

consistent with TERA’s finding. One 

manufacturer of EWP adhesive 

formulations provided information 

through a contact at the USDA Forest 

Products Laboratory. The manufacturer 

confirmed that, while current 

formulations no longer use phthalates, 

PVAc adhesive formulations they 

manufacture contained phthalates in the 

past. The manufacturer also stated that 

there is greater use of PVAc adhesive 

formulations in hardwood plywood 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47652 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

21See supra note 13. 

than indicated in the TERA report, 

perhaps due to an increasing interest in 

lowering formaldehyde emissions from 

EWPs. Because of the lack of 

information regarding the use of PVAc 

adhesives containing the specified 

phthalates in concentrations greater 

than those allowed, staff does not have 

a high degree of assurance that EWPs 

that include PVAc adhesive 

formulations in hardwood plywood are 

compliant with sections 101, 106, or 108 

of the CPSIA at this time. 

D. Determinations for EWPs 

1. Legal Requirements for a 

Determination 

As discussed in section A.1. of the 

preamble, section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA 

requires third party testing for 

children’s products that are subject to a 

children’s product safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(a)(2). Children’s products must 

comply with the lead limits in section 

101 of the CPSIA. 15 U.S.C. 1278a. 

Children’s toys must comply with the 

solubility limits for elements under the 

ASTM toy standard in section 106 of the 

CPSIA. 15 U.S.C. 2056b. Children’s toys 

and child care articles must comply 

with the phthalates prohibitions in 

section 108 of the CPSIA. 15 U.S.C. 

2057c. In response to statutory 

direction, the Commission has 

investigated approaches that would 

reduce the burden of third party testing 

while also assuring compliance with 

CPSC requirements. As part of that 

endeavor, the Commission has 

considered whether certain materials 

used in children’s products, children’s 

toys, and child care articles would not 

require third party testing. 

To issue a determination that an EWP 

does not require third party testing, the 

Commission must have sufficient 

evidence to conclude that the product 

consistently complies with the CPSC 

requirements to which the EWP is 

subject so that third party testing is 

unnecessary to provide a high degree of 

assurance of compliance. Under 16 CFR 

part 1107 section 1107.2, ‘‘a high degree 

of assurance’’ is defined as ‘‘an 

evidence-based demonstration of 

consistent performance of a product 

regarding compliance based on 

knowledge of a product and its 

manufacture.’’ 

For accessible component parts of 

children’s products, children’s toys, and 

child care articles subject to sections 

101, 106, and 108 of the CPSIA, 

compliance to the specified content 

limits is always required, irrespective of 

any testing exemptions. Thus, a 

manufacturer or importer who certifies 

a children’s product, toy or child care 

article, must assure the product’s 

compliance. The presence of lead, the 

ASTM F963 elements, or the specified 

phthalates does not have to be intended 

to require compliance. The presence of 

these chemicals, whether for any 

functional purpose, as a trace material, 

or as a contaminant, must be in 

concentrations less than the specified 

content or solubility limits for the 

material to be compliant. Additionally, 

the manufacturer or importer must have 

a high degree of assurance that the 

product has not been adulterated or 

contaminated to an extent that would 

render it noncompliant. For example, if 

a manufacturer or importer is relying on 

a determination that an EWP does not 

contain lead, ASTM F963 elements, or 

specified phthalates in concentrations 

greater than the specified limits in a 

children’s product, children’s toy, or 

child care article, the manufacturer 

must ensure that the EWP is one on 

which a determination has been made. 

Furthermore, under the proposed 

rule, any determinations that are made 

on EWPs are limited to unfinished and 

untreated EWPs made from virgin wood 

or pre-consumer wood waste. Children’s 

products, children’s toys, and child care 

articles made from these EWPs may 

have other materials that are applied to 

or added on to the EWP after it is 

manufactured, such as treatments and 

finishes. Such component parts fall 

outside of the scope of the proposed 

determinations and would be subject to 

third party testing requirements, unless 

the component part has a separate 

determination which does not require 

third-party testing for certification 

purposes. Finally, even if a 

determination is in effect and third 

party testing is not required, a certifier 

must still issue a certificate. 

The three engineered woods for 

which the determinations are proposed 

are: Particleboard, hardwood plywood, 

and medium-density fiberboard. Based 

on staff’s review of the TERA reports as 

discussed in section C. of the preamble, 

the Commission is proposing 

determinations that there is a high 

degree of assurance that these three 

EWPs in an untreated and unfinished 

state made from virgin or pre-consumer 

wood waste will not contain lead, the 

ASTM F963 elements, or the specified 

phthalates in excess of allowable levels. 

Specifically, the Commission is 

proposing determinations that would 

find that particleboard and MDF that is 

untreated and unfinished and made 

with virgin wood or pre-consumer wood 

waste, would not contain lead, the 

ASTM F963 elements, or the specified 

phthalates (DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP, 

DIDP, or DnOP) in concentrations 

greater than their specified limits. 

In addition, with the exception of 

hardwood plywood that contains PVAc 

adhesive formulations, untreated and 

unfinished hardwood plywood made 

with virgin wood or pre-consumer wood 

waste would be determined not to 

contain lead, the ASTM F963 elements, 

and the specified phthalates in 

concentrations greater than their 

specified limits. 

These determinations would mean 

that, for the specified EWPs, third party 

testing is not required to assure 

compliance with sections 101, 106, and 

108 of the CPSIA. The Commission 

proposes to make these determinations 

to reduce the third party testing burden 

on children’s product certifiers while 

continuing to assure compliance. 

2. Statutory Authority 

Section 3 of the CPSIA grants the 

Commission general rulemaking 

authority to issue regulations, as 

necessary, to implement the CPSIA. 

Public Law 110–314, sec. 3, Aug. 14, 

2008. Section 14 of the CPSA, which 

was amended by the CPSIA, requires 

third party testing for children’s 

products subject to a children’s product 

safety rule. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Section 

14(d)(3)(B) of the CPSA, as amended by 

Public Law 112–28, gives the 

Commission the authority to ‘‘prescribe 

new or revised third party testing 

regulations if it determines that such 

regulations will reduce third party 

testing costs consistent with assuring 

compliance with the applicable 

consumer product safety rules, bans, 

standards, and regulations.’’ Id. 

2063(d)(3)(B). These statutory 

provisions authorize the Commission to 

propose a rule determining that certain 

EWPs would not be determined to 

contain lead, the ASTM F963 elements, 

and the specified phthalates (DEHP, 

DBP, BBP, DINP, DIDP, or DnOP) 21 in 

concentrations greater than their 

specified limits, and thus, are not 

required to be third party tested to 

assure compliance with sections 101, 

106, and 108 of the CPSIA. 

The proposed determinations would 

relieve the three specified EWPs from 

the third party testing requirement of 

section 14 of the CPSA for purposes of 

supporting the required certification. 

However, the proposed determinations 

would not be applicable to any other 

EWPs beyond those listed in the 

proposed rule. Moreover, the proposed 

determinations are not applicable to 

EWPs that are not made of virgin wood 

or pre-consumer wood waste, or to 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47653 

EWPs that have post-manufacture 

treatments or finishes. The proposed 

determinations also are not applicable 

to hardwood plywood that contain 

PVAc adhesive formulations. The 

proposed determinations would only 

relieve the manufacturers’ obligation to 

have the specified EWPs tested by a 

CPSC accepted third party conformity 

assessment body. Children’s products, 

children’s toys, and child care articles 

must still comply with the substantive 

content limits in section 101, 106, and 

108 of the CPSIA regardless of any relief 

on third party testing requirements. 

3. Description of the Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would create a 

new Part 1252 for ‘‘Children’s Products, 

Children’s toys, and Child Care Articles: 

Determinations Regarding Lead, ASTM 

F963 Elements, and Phthalates for 

Engineered Wood Products.’’ The 

proposed rule would determine that the 

specified three EWPs do not contain 

lead in concentrations exceeding 100 

ppm, any of the ASTM F963 elements 

in excess of specified concentrations, 

and any of the statutorily prohibited 

phthalates (DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP, 

DIDP, DnOP) in concentrations greater 

than 0.1 percent. As discussed in 

section A.4. of the preamble, the agency 

is currently involved in rulemaking to 

determine whether to continue the 

interim prohibitions in section 108 and 

whether to prohibit any other phthalates 

in children’s toys or child care articles. 

TERA’s examination covered all 

phthalates that are subject to the current 

permanent and interim prohibitions, as 

well as the additional phthalates the 

Commission proposed restricting in the 

Phthalates NPR. If the Commission 

issues a final rule in the phthalates 

rulemaking before finalizing this 

determinations rulemaking, the final 

determinations rule for EPWs would 

cover the same phthalates restricted by 

the final phthalates rule. 

Section 1252.1(a) of the proposed rule 

explains the statutorily-created 

requirements that limit lead in 

children’s products under the CPSIA 

and the third party testing requirements 

for children’s products. 

Section 1252.1(b) of the proposed rule 

explains the statutorily-created 

requirements for limiting the ASTM 

F963 elements in children’s toys under 

the CPSIA and the third party testing 

requirements for children’s toys. 

Section 1252.1(c) of the proposed rule 

explains the statutorily-created 

requirements limiting phthalates for 

children’s toys and child care articles 

under the CPSIA and the third party 

testing requirements for children’s toys 

and child care articles. 

Section 1252.2 of the proposed rule 

would provide definitions that apply to 

part 1252. 

Section 1252.3(a) of the proposed rule 

would establish the Commission’s 

determinations that specified EWPs do 

not exceed the lead content limits with 

a high degree of assurance as that term 

is defined in 16 CFR part 1107. 

Section 1252.3(b) of the proposed rule 

would establish the Commission’s 

determinations that specified EWPs do 

not exceed the solubility limits for 

ASTM F963 elements with a high 

degree of assurance as that term is 

defined in 16 CFR part 1107. 

Section 1252.3(c) of the proposed rule 

would establish the Commission’s 

determinations that specified EWPs do 

not exceed the phthalates content limits, 

with the exception of hardwood 

plywood containing PVAc, with a high 

degree of assurance as that term is 

defined in 16 CFR part 1107. 

Section 1252.3(d) of the proposed rule 

states that accessible component parts of 

children’s products, children’s toys, and 

child care articles made with the 

specified EWPs, are not required to be 

third party tested pursuant to section 

14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 

1107. 

Section 1252.3(e) of the proposed rule 

states that accessible component parts of 

children’s products, children’s toys, and 

child care articles that are not 

specifically listed in the determinations 

in proposed § 1252.3(a) through (c) are 

required to be third party tested 

pursuant to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA 

and 16 CFR part 1107. 

4. Comments on the Proposed Rule 

The Commission seeks comments on 

all aspects of the proposed rule. In 

particular, comments of the following 

topics are welcome. 

• Are there any data or examples that 

indicate that the EWPs identified in the 

proposed rule can and do contain lead, 

the ASTM F963 elements, or prohibited 

phthalates at levels that are not 

compliant? Please provide data 

supporting your assertion. 

• The TERA Task 14 Report 

identified the use of some of the ASTM 

F963 elements as catalysts in adhesive 

formulations used to manufacture 

EWPs. Please provide any information 

that supports or refutes the claim that 

these elements will not be present in 

concentrations greater than their 

specified limits in EWPs. 

• CPSC staff has heard from a 

manufacturer of PVAc adhesive 

formulations used in the manufacture of 

hardwood plywood that, although 

phthalates are no longer used in 

domestic production, they were once 

used. What phthalates were used in 

PVAc in the past? Could any of the 

specified phthalates be used? Why or 

why not? Are any of the specified 

phthalates used in domestic or 

international manufacturing of EWPs? 

Why or why not? 

• How can one determine if a 

hardwood plywood sheet contains a 

PVAc adhesive system? How can one 

determine whether a PVAc adhesive 

system used in the manufacture of 

hardwood plywood contains a specified 

phthalate in concentrations greater than 

the specified limits? Can this type of 

information be found on labels, SDSs, 

company Web sites, or in some other 

way? 

• Other than PVAc, are there 

additional adhesive formulations used 

in the manufacture of EWPs that could 

contain the specified phthalates in 

concentrations greater than those 

specified? If yes, what phthalates are 

used and at what concentration? 

• Are there any post-consumer 

recycled EWPs that consistently comply 

with the limits for lead, ASTM F963 

elements, or prohibited phthalates? 

• Please describe the methods used to 

determine whether post-consumer 

recycled material is used in the 

manufacture of EWPs. How can this 

type of information be found (on labels, 

SDSs, company Web sites, or in some 

other way)? 

• In addition to particleboard, 

hardwood plywood, and mediumdensity fiberboard, are there other EWPs 

widely used in children’s products, 

children’s toys, and child care articles 

that have not been identified in the 

proposed rule that do not, and will not, 

contain lead, the ASTM F963 elements, 

or prohibited phthalates in 

concentrations greater than the 

mandatory limits? Please provide 

supporting data. 

E. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that a 

substantive rule must be published not 

less than 30 days before its effective 

date. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Because the 

proposed rule would provide relief from 

existing testing requirements under the 

CPSIA, the Commission proposes a 30 

day effective date for the final rule. 

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. Introduction 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires that agencies review a proposed 

rule for the rule’s potential economic 

impact on small entities, including 

small businesses. Section 603 of the 

RFA generally requires that agencies 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47654 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

22The numbers of small firms for each NAICS 

code are from the Census Bureau and generally 

based on the SBA criteria for small firms. 

prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) and make the analysis 

available to the public for comment 

when the agency is required to publish 

a notice of proposed rulemaking, unless 

the agency certifies that the proposed 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The IRFA 

must describe the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities and 

identify any alternatives which 

accomplish the statutory objectives and 

may reduce the significant economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities. We provide a summary of the 

IRFA. 

2. Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rule Would Apply 

The proposed rule would apply to 

small entities that manufacture or 

import children’s products, children’s 

toys, and child care articles that contain 

particleboard, hardwood plywood, or 

medium-density fiberboard. The 

number of domestic manufacturers 

classified in the North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) categories that could 

manufacture children’s products, 

children’s toys, or child care articles 

that may contain accessible 

particleboard, hardwood plywood, or 

medium-density fiberboard component 

parts and would be responsible for the 

certification of these products may 

include 7,059 firms that can be 

categorized as small.22 Of these, 3,705 

have fewer than 5 employees. However, 

it is doubtful that all of the firms in 

some of these categories produce 

children’s products. Moreover, of those 

firms that do produce children’s 

products, we do not know how many of 

the firms manufacture products with 

accessible particleboard, hardwood 

plywood, or medium-density fiberboard 

component parts. 

The number of domestic wholesalers 

by NAICS code that could distribute 

children’s products, children’s toys, or 

child care articles that may contain 

accessible particleboard, hardwood 

plywood, or medium-density fiberboard 

component parts may include 26,113 

firms that can be categorized as small. 

Of these, 15,947 have less than 5 

employees. Wholesalers who obtain 

their products strictly from domestic 

manufacturers or from other wholesalers 

would not be impacted by the rule 

because the manufacturer or importer 

would be responsible for certifying the 

products. Although importers are 

responsible for the certification of the 

children’s products that they import, 

they may rely upon third party testing 

performed by their foreign suppliers for 

purposes of certification. The number of 

small wholesalers that import children’s 

products, children’s toys, or child care 

articles as opposed to obtaining their 

product from domestic sources is not 

known. Also unknown is the number of 

small importers that must obtain or pay 

for the third party testing of their 

products. 

The number of domestic retailers by 

NAICS code that could sell children’s 

products, children’s toys, or child care 

articles that may contain accessible 

particleboard, hardwood plywood, or 

medium-density fiberboard component 

parts may include 49,358 firms that can 

be categorized as small. Of these, 27,506 

have less than 5 employees. Although 

there are almost 50,000 retailers in the 

NAICS categories, the only retailers that 

would be directly impacted by the 

proposed rule are those that import 

children’s products themselves. 

Retailers that obtain all of their products 

from domestic manufacturers or 

wholesalers will not be directly 

impacted by the rule because the 

manufacturers or wholesalers would be 

responsible for certifying the products. 

Although comprehensive estimates of 

the number of children’s products, 

children’s toys, and child care articles 

that contain component parts made 

from the specified engineered woods are 

not available, there is evidence that 

these engineered woods are used in 

children’s furniture, sporting 

equipment, children’s toys, and some 

musical instruments. Based on the 

number of domestic toy manufacturers 

that are classified as small businesses by 

the U.S. Bureau of the Census and 

evidence that the specified engineered 

woods are used in children’s products, 

children’s toys, and child care articles, 

the Commission believes a substantial 

number of small entities would be 

impacted by this regulation. 

3. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements and Impact 

on Small Businesses 

The proposed rule would determine 

that there is a high degree of assurance 

that the certain EWPs be determined not 

to contain lead, the ASTM F963 

elements, and the specified phthalates 

(DEHP, DBP, BBP, DINP, DIDP, or 

DnOP) in concentrations greater than 

their specified limits. Under this 

proposed determination, manufacturers, 

importers, and private labelers of 

children’s products, children’s toys, and 

child care articles that have accessible 

component parts that consist of these 

engineered woods would not require 

third party testing for certification that 

these components comply with the lead, 

ASTM F963 elements, or phthalate 

requirements. 

The proposed rule would not impose 

any reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements on small 

entities. In fact, because the proposed 

rule would eliminate a testing 

requirement, there would be a small 

reduction in some of the recordkeeping 

burden under 16 CFR parts 1107 and 

1109 because manufacturers would no 

longer have to maintain records of third 

party tests for the component parts 

manufactured from these engineered 

woods for lead, the ASTM F963 

elements, or the specified phthalates. 

The impact of the determinations on 

small businesses would be to reduce the 

burden of third party testing for the 

content of lead, the ASTM F963 

elements, and the specified phthalates 

and would be expected to be entirely 

beneficial. The cost of lead testing 

ranges from $50 to more than $100 per 

component through Inductively 

Coupled Plasma testing (ICP). If one 

uses X-ray fluorescence spectrometry 

(XRF), which is an acceptable method 

for certification of third-party testing for 

lead content, the costs can be greatly 

reduced to approximately $5 per 

component part. If a component part 

made with one of the specified 

engineered woods is painted, the 

component part would be exempt from 

the third party testing requirement, but 

the paint would still require lead 

testing. 

Based on published invoices and 

price lists, the cost of a third party test 

for the ASTM F963 elements ranges 

from around $60 in China, up to around 

$190 in the United States using ICP. 

This cost can be greatly reduced with 

the use of high definition X-ray 

fluorescence spectrometry (HDXRF), 

which is an acceptable method for 

certification of third-party testing for the 

presence of the ASTM F963 elements. 

The cost can be reduced to about $40 

per component. It should be noted that 

lead is one of the ASTM F963 elements, 

so this testing would also cover the cost 

of lead testing for component parts. 

The cost of phthalate testing is 

relatively high: Between about $125 and 

$350 per component part, depending 

upon where the testing is conducted 

and any discounts that are applicable. 

Because one product might have 

multiple component parts that require 

testing, the cost of testing a single 

product for phthalates could exceed 

$1,000 in some cases. Moreover, more 

than one sample might have to be tested 

to provide a high degree of assurance of 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 47655 

compliance with the requirements for 

testing. To the extent that small 

businesses have lower production or 

sales volumes than larger businesses, 

these determinations would be expected 

to have a disproportionately beneficial 

impact on small businesses. This 

beneficial impact is due to spreading the 

costs of the testing over fewer units; and 

the benefit of the Commission making 

the determinations would be greater on 

a per unit basis for small businesses. 

Additionally, some testing laboratories 

may offer their larger customers 

discounts that might not be available to 

small businesses that need fewer third 

party tests. Making the determinations 

for these engineered woods could 

potentially significantly benefit a 

substantial number of firms. 

On the other hand, the benefit of 

making the determinations could be less 

than might be expected. For example, 

some firms might have been able to 

substantially reduce their third party 

testing costs by using component part 

testing as allowed under 16 CFR 1109, 

so the marginal benefit that might be 

derived from making the determinations 

might be low. Also, some firms have 

reduced their testing costs by using XRF 

or HDXRF technology, which is less 

expensive than ICP, and would reduce 

the marginal benefit of these 

determinations. The Commission seeks 

public comments on the potential 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities. Comments are especially 

welcome on the following topics: 

• The extent to which particleboard, 

hardwood plywood, and mediumdensity fiberboard are used in children’s 

products, children’s toys, and child care 

articles, especially those manufactured 

or imported by small firms; 

• The potential reduction in third 

party testing costs that might be 

provided by the Commission making the 

determinations, including the extent to 

which component part testing is already 

being used and the current cost of 

testing components made from these 

engineered woods for compliance with 

the lead, ASTM F963 elements, and 

phthalate requirements; 

• Any situations or conditions in the 

proposed rule that would make it 

difficult to make use of the 

determinations to reduce third party 

testing costs; and 

• Although the Commission expects 

that the impact of the proposed rule will 

be entirely beneficial, any potential 

negative impacts of the proposed rule. 

4. Alternatives Considered To Reduce 

the Burden on Small Entities 

Under section 603(c) of the RFA, an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

should ‘‘contain a description of any 

significant alternatives to the proposed 

rule which accomplish the stated 

objectives of the applicable statutes and 

which minimize any significant impact 

of the proposed rule on small entities.’’ 

Because the proposed rule is intended 

to reduce the cost of third party testing 

on small businesses and will not impose 

any additional burden, the Commission 

did not consider alternatives to the 

proposed rule that would reduce the 

burden of this rule on small businesses. 

G. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations 

provide a categorical exclusion for 

Commission rules from any requirement 

to prepare an environmental assessment 

or an environmental impact statement 

because they ‘‘have little or no potential 

for affecting the human environment.’’ 

16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls 

within the categorical exclusion, so no 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement is 

required. The Commission’s regulations 

state that safety standards for products 

normally have little or no potential for 

affecting the human environment. 16 

CFR 1021.5(c)(1). Nothing in this rule 

alters that expectation. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1252 

Business and industry, Consumer 

protection, Imports, Infants and 

children, Product testing and 

certification, Toys. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend title 16 of the CFR to add part 

1252 to read as follows: 

PART 1252—CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS, 

CHILDREN’S TOYS, AND CHILD CARE 

ARTICLES: DETERMINATIONS 

REGARDING LEAD, ASTM F963 

ELEMENTS, AND PHTHALATES FOR 

ENGINEERED WOOD PRODUCTS 

Sec. 

1252.1 Children’s products, children’s toys, 

and child care articles containing lead, 

ASTM F963 elements, and phthalates in 

engineered wood products and testing 

requirements. 

1252.2 Definitions. 

1252.3 Determinations for engineered wood 

products. 

Authority: Sec. 3, Pub. L. 110–314, 122 

Stat. 3016; 15 U.S.C. 2063(d)(3)(B). 

§ 1252.1 Children’s products, children’s 

toys, and child care articles containing lead, 

ASTM F963 elements, and phthalates in 

engineered wood products and testing 

requirements. 

(a) Section 101(a) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (CPSIA) provides that any 

children’s product, material, or 

component part or a children’s product 

must comply with a lead content limit 

that does not exceed 100 parts per 

million. Materials used in children’s 

products subject to section 101 of the 

CPSIA must comply with the third party 

testing requirements of section 14(a)(2) 

of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(CPSA), unless listed in 16 CFR 1500.91. 

(b) Section 106 of the CPSIA made 

provisions of ASTM F963, Consumer 

Product Safety Specifications for Toy 

Safety, a mandatory consumer product 

safety standard. Among the mandated 

provisions is section 4.3.5 of ASTM 

F963 which requires that surface coating 

materials and accessible substrates of 

children’s toys that can be sucked, 

mouthed, or ingested, must comply with 

solubility limits that the toy standard 

establishes for eight elements. Materials 

used in children’s toys subject to section 

4.3.5 of the toy standard must comply 

with the third party testing 

requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA, unless listed in 16 CFR 1251.2. 

(c) Section 108(a) of the CPSIA 

permanently prohibits any children’s 

toy or child care article that contains 

concentrations of more than 0.1 percent 

of di-(2-ethylhexl) phthalate (DEHP), 

dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl 

phthalate (BBP). Section 108(b)(1) of the 

CPSIA prohibits on an interim basis any 

children’s toy that can be placed in a 

child’s mouth or child care article that 

contains concentrations of more than 

0.1 percent of diisononyl phthalate 

(DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), or 

di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP). Materials 

used in children’s toys and child care 

articles subject to section 108(a) and 

(b)(1) of the CPSIA must comply with 

the third party testing requirements of 

section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA, unless 

listed in 16 CFR part 1308. 

§ 1252.2 Definitions. 

In addition to the definitions given in 

sections 101, 106, and 108 of the CPSIA, 

the following definitions apply for this 

part 1252. 

(a) Post-consumer wood waste 

describes wood waste that is comprised 

of materials that are recovered from 

their original use and subsequently used 

in a new product. Examples of this type 

of waste include recycled demolition 

wood, packaging materials such as 

pallets and crates, used wood from 

landscape care (i.e., from urban and 

highway trees, hedges, and gardens), 

discarded furniture, and waste wood 

from industrial, construction, and 

commercial activities. 

(b) Pre-consumer wood waste 

describes wood materials that have been 

recycled from an industrial process 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS
47656 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 197 / Friday, October 13, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

before being made available for 

consumer use. Examples of this type of 

waste include trimmings from 

engineered wood product (EWP) panel 

manufacturing, sawdust from cutting 

logs, or remaining wood pieces from 

sawing a log into framing lumber. 

(c) Unfinished means an EWP that 

does not have any surface treatments 

applied at manufacture, such as factoryapplied coatings. Examples of such 

treatments may include paint or similar 

surface coating materials, wood glue, or 

metal fasteners, such as nails or screws. 

(d) Untreated means an EWP that 

does not have any additional finishes 

applied at manufacture. Examples of 

such finishes may include flame 

retardants or rot resistant finishes. 

(e) Virgin wood describes wood logs, 

fibers, chips, or layers that have not 

been recycled from a previous use. 

§ 1252.3 Determinations for engineered 

wood products. 

(a) The following engineered wood 

products do not exceed the lead content 

limits with a high degree of assurance 

as that term is defined in 16 CFR part 

1107: 

(i) Particleboard that is untreated and 

unfinished made from virgin wood or 

pre-consumer wood waste; 

(ii) Hardwood plywood that is 

untreated and unfinished made from 

virgin wood or pre-consumer wood 

waste; and 

(iii) Medium-density fiberboard that is 

untreated and unfinished made from 

virgin wood or pre-consumer wood 

waste. 

(b) The following engineered wood 

products do not exceed the ASTM F963 

elements solubility limits set forth in 16 

CFR part 1250 with a high degree of 

assurance as that term is defined in 16 

CFR part 1107: 

(i) Particleboard that is untreated and 

unfinished made from virgin wood or 

pre-consumer wood waste; 

(ii) Hardwood plywood that is 

untreated and unfinished made from 

virgin wood or pre-consumer wood 

waste; and 

(iii) Medium-density fiberboard that is 

untreated and unfinished made from 

virgin wood or pre-consumer wood 

waste. 

(c) The following engineered wood 

products do not exceed the phthalates 

content limits with a high degree of 

assurance as that term is defined in 16 

CFR part 1107: 

(i) Particleboard that is untreated and 

unfinished made from virgin wood or 

pre-consumer wood waste; 

(ii) Hardwood plywood that is 

untreated and unfinished made from 

virgin wood or pre-consumer wood 

waste and does not contain PVAc 

adhesive formulations; and 

(iii) Medium-density fiberboard that is 

untreated and unfinished made from 

virgin wood or pre-consumer wood 

waste. 

(d) Accessible component parts of 

children’s products, children’s toys, and 

child care articles made with EWPs, 

listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section are not required to be third 

party tested pursuant to section 14(a)(2) 

of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 1107. 

(e) Accessible component parts of 

children’s products, children’s toys, and 

child care articles made with engineered 

wood products not listed in paragraphs 

(a)–(c) of this section are required to be 

third party tested pursuant to section 

14(a)(2) of the CPSA and 16 CFR part 

1107. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21980 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 112 

[Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0921] 

RIN 0910–ZA50 

Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, 

Packing, and Holding of Produce for 

Human Consumption; Extension of 

Compliance Dates for Subpart E; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA, the Agency, or 

we) is correcting a proposed rule that 

published in the Federal Register of 

September 13, 2017. That proposed rule 

proposes to extend, for covered produce 

other than sprouts, the dates for 

compliance with the agricultural water 

provisions in the ‘‘Standards for the 

Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and 

Holding of Produce for Human 

Consumption’’ regulation. We are 

placing a corrected copy of the proposed 

rule in the docket. 

DATES: October 13, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Samir Assar, Center for Food Safety and 

Applied Nutrition (HFS–317), Food and 

Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., 

College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–1636. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Federal Register of September 13, 2017 

(82 FR 42963), FDA published the 

proposed rule ‘‘Standards for the 

Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and 

Holding of Produce for Human 

Consumption; Extension of Compliance 

Dates for Subpart E’’ with an omission. 

In FR Doc. 2017–19434, appearing on 

page 42963 in the Federal Register of 

September 13, 2017, the following 

correction is made: 

On page 42967, in the third column, 

the paragraph above the table is 

corrected to include the fourth sentence 

as follows: ‘‘There would be a reduction 

in benefits associated with extending 

the compliance dates as described 

previously. Consumers eating nonsprout covered produce would not enjoy 

the potential health benefits (i.e., 

reduced risk of illness) provided by the 

provisions of subpart E until 2 to 4 years 

(depending on the specific provision) 

later than originally established in the 

produce safety regulation. Thus, the 

annualized total benefits to consumers, 

discounted at 3 percent over 10 years, 

would decrease by $108 million from 

$1.033 billion to $925 million. Taking 

into consideration both the reduction in 

costs and the reduction in benefits, 

using a 3 (7) percent discount rate, the 

proposed rule would have negative 

annualized net benefits of $96 ($97) 

million. Estimated changes in benefits 

and costs as a result of this proposed 

extension are summarized in the 

following table.’’ 

Dated: October 10, 2017. 

Anna K. Abram, 

Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, 

Legislation, and Analysis. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22182 Filed 10–12–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 54 

[REG–129631–17] 

RIN 1545–BN91 

Moral Exemptions and 

Accommodations for Coverage of 

Certain Preventive Services Under the 

Affordable Care Act; Proposed 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

by cross-reference to temporary 

regulations. 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS