Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products
Posted Date: 2013-06-10T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34820-34866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13258]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 770

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018; FRL-9342-3]
RIN 2070-AJ92

Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing new requirements under the Formaldehyde 
Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, or Title VI of the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA). These proposed requirements are designed 
to implement the statutory formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood 
plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard sold, supplied, 
offered for sale, or manufactured (including imported) in the United 
States. As directed by the statute, this proposal includes provisions 
relating to, among other things, laminated products, products made with 
no-added formaldehyde resins or ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins, 
testing requirements, product labeling, chain of custody documentation 
and other recordkeeping requirements, enforcement, and product 
inventory sell-through provisions, including a product stockpiling 
prohibition. The composite wood product formaldehyde emission standards 
contained in TSCA Title VI are identical to the emission standards 
currently in place in California. This regulatory proposal implements 
these emissions standards and is designed to ensure compliance with the 
TSCA Title VI formaldehyde emission standards while aligning, where 
practical, with the regulatory requirements in California.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA 
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018. The DCO is open from 
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2012-0018. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or 
email. The regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only 
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available 
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in 
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA 
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution 
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of 
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room 
is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is 
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic 
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor 
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and 
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must 
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: 
Cindy Wheeler, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
202-566-0484; email address: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov.
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This document is directed to the public in general. However, this 
document may be of particular interest to the following entities:
     Veneer, plywood, and engineered wood product manufacturing 
(NAICS code 3212).
     Manufactured home (mobile home) manufacturing (NAICS code 
321991).

[[Page 34821]]

     Prefabricated wood building manufacturing (NAICS code 
321992).
     All other basic organic chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 
325199), e.g., formaldehyde manufacturing.
     Furniture and related product manufacturing (NAICS code 
337).
     Furniture merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 42321).
     Lumber, plywood, millwork, and wood panel merchant 
wholesalers (NAICS code 42331).
     Other construction material merchant wholesalers (NAICS 
code 423390), e.g., merchant wholesale distributors of manufactured 
homes (i.e., mobile homes) and/or prefabricated buildings.
     Furniture stores (NAICS code 4421).
     Building material and supplies dealers (NAICS code 4441).
     Manufactured (mobile) home dealers (NAICS code 45393).
     Motor home manufacturing (NAICS code 336213).
     Travel trailer and camper manufacturing (NAICS code 
336214).
     Recreational vehicle (RV) dealers (NAICS code 441210).
     Recreational vehicle merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 
423110).
     Plastics material and resin manufacturing (NAICS code 
325211).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be 
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and 
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. Executive Summary

    1. Purpose of the regulatory action. EPA is proposing a rule to 
implement the emission standards and other provisions of the 
Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, enacted as 
Title VI of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697. The 
purpose of TSCA Title VI is to reduce formaldehyde emissions from 
composite wood products. This proposed rule would implement the 
emission standards established by TSCA Title VI for composite wood 
products sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in the 
United States (including imported products). TSCA Title VI directs EPA 
to promulgate supplementary provisions to ensure compliance with the 
emissions standards by January 1, 2013.
    2. Summary of the major provisions. TSCA Title VI requires EPA to 
promulgate regulations that include provisions on labeling; chain of 
custody requirements; sell-through provisions; ultra low-emitting 
formaldehyde resins (ULEF); no-added formaldehyde-based resins (NAF); 
finished goods; third-party testing and certification; auditing and 
reporting of third-party certifiers (TPC); recordkeeping; enforcement; 
laminated products; and exceptions from regulatory requirements for 
products and components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood 
products. The listed topics are addressed in this proposal, with the 
exception of topics related to third-party certification which are 
being handled in a separate regulatory proposal. EPA also proposes 
several definitions, clarifies frequency and process requirements for 
emissions testing, and provides a means of determining test method 
equivalence. The emission standards themselves are set by statute and 
are not altered in this proposal.
    TSCA Title VI grants EPA the authority to modify the statutory 
definition of ``laminated product'' and directs EPA to use all 
available and relevant information to determine whether the definition 
of hardwood plywood should exempt engineered veneer or any laminated 
product. EPA is proposing to exempt laminated products in which a wood 
veneer is attached to a compliant and certified platform using a NAF 
resin. EPA is also proposing modifications to the statutory definition 
of ``laminated product.''
    This action includes labeling requirements for composite wood 
panels and finished goods. It also includes ``chain of custody 
requirements'' and recordkeeping requirements with a proposed 3-year 
record retention period. EPA is also proposing to specifically require 
TSCA section 13 import certification for composite wood products that 
are articles. EPA has decided not to propose an exception from any of 
the regulatory requirements for products containing de minimis amounts 
of composite wood products.
    EPA proposes to set the manufactured-by date at 1 year after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Composite wood 
panels made after the manufactured-by-date would be subject to the 
emissions standards. Although TSCA Title VI allows EPA to set this date 
at 180 days after promulgation of the final implementing regulations, 
EPA believes that more time will be needed to ensure infrastructure is 
in place and allow panel producers time to develop their initial 
qualifying data for certification.
    EPA proposes to provide producers of panels made with NAF-based 
resins or ULEF resins with an exemption from TPC oversight and 
formaldehyde emissions testing after an initial testing period of 3 
months for each product type made with NAF-based resins and 6 months 
for each product type made with ULEF resins. These specific initial 
testing periods are required by the statute and are designed to ensure 
that

[[Page 34822]]

the products meet the TSCA section 601(a)(7) formaldehyde emission 
standards for products made with NAF-based resins or the TSCA section 
601(a)(10) formaldehyde emission standards for products made with ULEF 
resins.
    3. Costs and benefits. EPA has prepared an analysis of the 
potential costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking. This 
analysis is summarized in greater detail in Unit V.A. Table 1 provides 
a brief outline of the costs and benefits of this proposal. The 
estimated costs of the proposed rule exceed the quantified benefits. 
There are additional unquantified benefits due to other avoided health 
effects. After assessing both the costs and the benefits of the 
proposal, including the unquantified benefits, EPA has made a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the proposal justify its costs.

           Table 1--Summary of Costs and Benefits of Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                            Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits..........................  This proposed rule will reduce
                                     exposures to formaldehyde,
                                     resulting in benefits from avoided
                                     adverse health effects. For the
                                     subset of health effects where the
                                     results were quantified, the
                                     estimated annualized benefits (due
                                     to avoided incidence of eye
                                     irritation and nasopharyngeal
                                     cancer) are $20 million to $48
                                     million per year using a 3%
                                     discount rate, and $9 million to
                                     $23 million per year using a 7%
                                     discount rate. There are additional
                                     unquantified benefits due to other
                                     avoided health effects.
Costs.............................  The annualized costs of this
                                     proposed rule are estimated at $72
                                     million to $81 million per year
                                     using a 3% discount rate, and $80
                                     million to $89 million per year
                                     using a 7% discount rate.
Effects on State, Local, and        Government entities are not expected
 Tribal Governments.                 to be subject to the rule's
                                     requirements, which apply to
                                     entities that manufacture,
                                     fabricate, distribute, or sell
                                     composite wood products. The
                                     proposed rule does not have a
                                     significant intergovernmental
                                     mandate, significant or unique
                                     effect on small governments, or
                                     have Federalism implications.
Small Entity Impacts..............  This rule would impact nearly
                                     879,000 small businesses: Over
                                     851,000 have costs impacts less
                                     than 1% of revenues, over 23,000
                                     firms have impacts between 1% and
                                     3%, and over 4,000 firms have
                                     impacts greater than 3% of
                                     revenues. Most firms with impacts
                                     over 1% have annualized costs of
                                     less than $250 per year.
Environmental Justice and           This rule increases the level of
 Protection of Children.             environmental protection for all
                                     affected populations without having
                                     any disproportionately high and
                                     adverse human health or
                                     environmental effects on any
                                     population, including any minority
                                     or low-income population or
                                     children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is proposing a rule to implement the emission standards and 
other provisions of the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood 
Products Act, enacted as Title VI of Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697. This proposed rule would implement emissions 
standards established by TSCA Title VI for composite wood products 
sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in the United States. 
Pursuant to TSCA section 3(7), the definition of ``manufacture'' 
includes import. As required by Title VI, these regulations apply to 
hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard. TSCA 
Title VI also directs EPA to promulgate supplementary provisions to 
ensure compliance with the emissions standards, including provisions 
related to labeling; chain of custody requirements; sell-through 
provisions; ULEF resins; no-added formaldehyde-based resins; finished 
goods; third-party testing and certification; auditing and reporting of 
third-party certifiers; recordkeeping; enforcement; laminated products; 
and exceptions from the requirements of regulations promulgated 
pursuant to this subsection for products and components containing de 
minimis amounts of composite wood products.
    EPA issued a separate proposal on the third party certification 
provisions (the TPC proposal) (Ref. 1). The TPC proposal included 
provisions for the accreditation of TPCs and general requirements for 
accreditation bodies and TPCs.
    The proposed requirements in this document are consistent, to the 
extent EPA deemed appropriate and practical, with the requirements 
currently in effect in California under a California Air Resources 
Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) (Ref. 2). By 
aligning with the CARB ATCM requirements, EPA seeks to avoid differing 
or duplicative regulatory requirements that would result in an 
increased burden on the regulated community.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This proposal is being issued under the authority of section 601 of 
TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2697.

D. Formaldehyde Sources and Health Effects

    Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable gas at room temperature and 
has a strong odor. It is found in resins used in the manufacture of 
composite wood products (i.e., hardwood plywood, particleboard and 
medium-density fiberboard). It is also found in household products such 
as glues, permanent press fabrics, carpets, antiseptics, medicines, 
cosmetics, dishwashing liquids, fabric softeners, shoe care agents, 
lacquers, plastics and paper product coatings. It is a by-product of 
combustion and certain other natural processes. Examples of sources of 
formaldehyde gas inside homes include cigarette smoke, unvented, fuel-
burning appliances (e.g., gas stoves, kerosene space heaters), and 
composite wood products made using formaldehyde-based resins (Ref. 3).
    Formaldehyde is an irritant and the National Toxicology Program 
recently classified it as a known human carcinogen (Ref. 4). Depending 
on concentration, formaldehyde can cause eye, nose, and throat 
irritation, even when exposure is of relatively short duration. In the 
indoor environment, sensory reactions and various symptoms as a result 
of mucous membrane irritation are potential effects, including 
respiratory symptoms. In addition, formaldehyde is a by-product of 
human metabolism, and thus endogenous levels are present in the body.
    In 1991, EPA classified formaldehyde as a probable human 
carcinogen, ``based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient 
evidence in animals,'' and derived an inhalation unit risk factor for 
assessing formaldehyde cancer risk. The risk factor and supporting 
documentation is included in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System

[[Page 34823]]

(IRIS) assessment of formaldehyde (Ref. 5). Formaldehyde is also listed 
under section 112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP). The CAA requires EPA to regulate emissions of HAPs 
from a published list of industrial source categories. EPA has 
developed lists of major and area source categories that must meet 
emission standards for HAPs and has developed (or is developing) 
standards for these source categories. The plywood and composite wood 
products (PCWP) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP), codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, first 
issued in 2004, is one of these standards. The PCWP NESHAP controls 
emissions of formaldehyde and other HAPs (primarily acetaldehyde, 
acrolein, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde) from various process 
units (e.g., blenders, dryers, formers, board coolers, and presses) at 
PCWP facilities.
    In 2004, EPA determined that unit risk derived from the Chemical 
Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT; CIIT 1999) biologically-based 
cancer dose-response modeling of formaldehyde-induced respiratory 
cancer (5.5 x 10-9 per micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\)) better reflected the current state of the science than the 1991 
IRIS cancer unit risk. The authors of the CIIT modeling (Conolly et al. 
2004) presented their risk estimates as values more conservative than 
their maximum likelihood estimates, and as ``conservative in the face 
of modeling uncertainties.'' Consequently, EPA used the CIIT value in 
risk assessments supporting regulatory actions developed under the 
authority of the Clean Air Act. For example, in the 2006 rulemaking 
that reconsidered the PCWP NESHAP, OAR stated ``[i]n the case of 
formaldehyde, we have determined that the cancer potency derived using 
the approach developed by CIIT, which has been peer reviewed by an 
external review panel sponsored by EPA and the Canadian government, 
represents an appropriate alternative to EPA's current IRIS URE [unit 
risk estimate] for formaldehyde. Therefore, this potency represents the 
best available peer-reviewed science at this time.'' (Ref. 6, p. 8348). 
However, subsequent research published by EPA suggests that the CIIT 
model was not appropriate and was very sensitive to unmeasured 
parameters such that very different estimates, including the 1991 IRIS 
assessment values, were consistent with the available scientific data. 
Because the CIIT values do not reflect the extent of uncertainty in 
estimates using the data that are available, EPA has decided that those 
estimates do not reflect the broad range of possible risk and that the 
data are not supportive of interpreting 5.5 x 10-9 per 
[micro]g/m\3\ as providing a health-protective estimate of human risk. 
Furthermore, the 1991 IRIS assessment values are consistent with unit 
risks estimated by Schlosser et al. (2003) based on Benchmark Dose 
modeling of the best available data at the time. Thus, in 2010, EPA 
returned to using the Agency's current value on IRIS, 1.3 x 
10-5 per [micro]g/m\3\, which was last revised in 1991 as 
better reflecting the current state of the science as to the potential 
human cancer risk of exposure to formaldehyde (Ref. 7).
    The IRIS program in EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) 
recently completed a draft assessment of the potential cancer and non-
cancer health effects that may result from chronic exposure to 
formaldehyde by inhalation (Ref. 8). This draft IRIS assessment was 
peer-reviewed by the National Research Council of the National Academy 
of Sciences (NRC) with its review of the EPA's draft assessment 
completed in April of 2011 (Ref. 9). EPA will fully address all the NRC 
recommendations on formaldehyde. The draft formaldehyde IRIS assessment 
will be revised in response to the NRC peer review and public comments, 
and the final assessment will be posted on the IRIS Web site. In the 
interim, EPA will present findings using the 1991 IRIS value as a 
primary estimate, and may also consider other information as the 
science evolves. In addition, EPA developed concentration-response 
functions to estimate the impact of exposure to formaldehyde on eye 
irritation for use in the non-cancer benefits assessment to support 
this rule, and proposes additional analysis to address respiratory 
symptoms and other potential adverse effects. The derivation of these 
concentration-response functions, uncertainties, and EPA's proposed 
approach for using the concentration-response functions in the benefits 
assessment were externally peer reviewed in 2011 (Ref. 10). While the 
economic analysis of cancer benefits is based on the unit risk, which 
is a reasonable upper bound on the central estimate of risk, the non-
cancer benefits were evaluated using the estimated concentration-
response functions which reflect the central effect estimates rather 
than upper bounds.

E. History of This Rulemaking

    1. Overview of the CARB ATCM. In 2007, CARB issued an ATCM to 
reduce formaldehyde emissions from hardwood plywood, medium-density 
fiberboard, and particleboard, products referred to collectively as 
composite wood products. The CARB ATCM was approved on April 18, 2008, 
by the California Office of Administrative Law and the first emission 
standards took effect on January 1, 2009. The CARB ATCM requires 
manufacturers to meet formaldehyde emission standards for the covered 
composite wood products that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, or 
manufactured for use in California. The CARB ATCM also requires that 
compliant composite wood products be used in finished goods sold, 
offered for sale, supplied or manufactured for sale in California. The 
CARB ATCM does not apply to hardwood plywood and particleboard 
materials when installed in manufactured homes subject to regulations 
promulgated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD).
    The CARB ATCM Phase 1 emission standards for hardwood plywood 
veneer core, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard took effect 
on January 1, 2009. The Phase 1 standard for hardwood plywood composite 
core took effect on July 1, 2009. The more stringent Phase 2 standards 
first took effect on January 1, 2010, for hardwood plywood veneer core. 
Phase 2 standards for medium-density fiberboard and particleboard took 
effect on January 1, 2011, the Phase 2 standard for thin medium density 
fiberboard took effect on January 1, 2012, and the Phase 2 standard for 
hardwood plywood composite core took effect on July 1, 2012.
    The CARB ATCM requires manufacturers of the regulated composite 
wood products to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards by 
having their emissions tests and quality control processes certified by 
a TPC. TPCs must be approved by CARB and must follow specified 
requirements to verify that a manufacturer's production meets 
applicable formaldehyde emission standards and that the manufacturers 
follow prescribed quality control practices. Once approved by CARB, 
manufacturers who use NAF resin systems are exempted from ongoing 
testing requirements after 3 months of successful testing in 
cooperation with a TPC. Manufacturers who use ULEF resin systems may be 
approved by CARB to reduce the frequency of ongoing testing or, if they 
meet more stringent emissions requirements, may be exempted from 
ongoing testing requirements for 2 years. The exemption based on ULEF 
resin is granted after approval by CARB and 6 months of

[[Page 34824]]

testing in cooperation with a TPC. Manufacturers who receive exemptions 
based on NAF or ULEF resin can reapply every 2 years for the exemption 
from TPC oversight and formaldehyde emissions testing by submitting the 
chemical formulation of the resin and the results of at least one 
primary or secondary method test for each product type (based on a 
panel or set of panels randomly selected and tested by a TPC).
    Under the CARB ATCM, manufacturers of composite wood products are 
required to label their covered products to identify them as meeting 
either the Phase 1 or Phase 2 emission standards, or as being made with 
either NAF or ULEF resins. Manufacturers must also include a statement 
of compliance on the bill of lading or invoice for the composite wood 
product. The CARB ATCM also imposes recordkeeping requirements on 
manufacturers to document their compliance with the regulations, and 
the records must be kept for 2 years.
    The CARB ATCM requires distributors, importers, fabricators, and 
retailers to purchase and sell panels and finished goods that comply 
with the applicable formaldehyde emission standards. They must take 
``reasonable prudent precautions,'' such as communicating with their 
suppliers, to ensure that the products they purchase are in compliance 
with the applicable emission standards. Like manufacturers, 
distributors and importers must also provide a statement of compliance 
on the composite wood or finished good product bill of lading or 
invoice. Like manufacturers, distributors, importers, fabricators and 
retailers must also maintain records documenting compliance for a 
period of 2 years. Importers and fabricators must label their finished 
goods as compliant with the applicable standards. The labeling 
requirement also applies to distributors if the product is in some way 
modified. One example of a modification that would make a distributor 
subject to the labeling requirement is if the distributor receives 
composite wood product panels, cuts them into different shapes or 
sizes, and applies edge banding to them.
    More information on the specific requirements of the CARB ATCM and 
the relationship between the CARB ATCM and this proposal is presented 
in Unit III.
    2. TSCA section 21 petition. On March 24, 2008, 25 organizations 
and approximately 5,000 individuals petitioned EPA under section 21 of 
TSCA to use its authority under section 6 of TSCA to adopt the CARB 
ATCM nationally. The petitioners asked EPA to assess and reduce the 
risks posed by formaldehyde emitted from hardwood plywood, 
particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard by exercising its 
authority under TSCA section 6 to adopt and apply nationwide the CARB 
formaldehyde emissions regulation for these composite wood products. In 
addition, petitioners requested EPA to extend this regulation to 
include composite wood products used in manufactured homes.
    On June 27, 2008, EPA issued a Federal Register notice explaining 
the Agency's decision to grant in part and deny in part the 
petitioners' request (Ref. 11). EPA denied the petitioners' request to 
immediately pursue a TSCA section 6 rulemaking, stating that the 
available information at the time was insufficient to support an 
evaluation of whether formaldehyde emitted from hardwood plywood, 
particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard presents or will present 
an unreasonable risk to human health (including cancer and non-cancer 
endpoints) under TSCA section 6. As discussed in detail in the Federal 
Register notice announcing EPA's response to the petition, EPA's 
evaluation of the data provided by the petitioners revealed significant 
information gaps that would have needed to be filled to support an 
evaluation of whether use of formaldehyde in these products presents or 
will present an unreasonable risk under TSCA section 6. However, EPA 
did agree to initiate a proceeding to investigate whether and what type 
of regulatory or other action might be appropriate to protect against 
risks posed by formaldehyde emitted from pressed wood products.
    Accordingly, on December 3, 2008, EPA issued an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that announced EPA's intention to 
investigate whether and what regulatory or other action might be 
appropriate to protect against risks posed by formaldehyde emitted from 
the products covered by the CARB ATCM as well as other pressed wood 
products. To help inform EPA's decision on the best ways to address 
risks posed by formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood products, the 
Agency requested public comments and held 6 half-day public meetings in 
Research Triangle Park, NC; Portland, OR; Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; 
Washington, DC; and New Orleans, LA. These meetings took place January 
through March of 2009. EPA received and reviewed comments submitted 
during the ANPR comment period which can be found at regulations.gov 
under docket number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0627.
    3. The Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act. On 
July 7, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Formaldehyde 
Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, or Title VI of TSCA, 15 
U.S.C. 2697. The statute establishes formaldehyde emission standards 
that are identical to the CARB ATCM Phase 2 standards for hardwood 
plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard sold, supplied, 
offered for sale, or manufactured in the United States and directs EPA 
to issue final implementing regulations by January 1, 2013. Pursuant to 
TSCA section 3(7), the definition of ``manufacture'' includes import. 
TSCA Title VI does not give EPA the authority to raise or lower the 
established emission standards, and EPA must promulgate the 
implementing regulations in a manner that ensures compliance with the 
standards. Congress directed EPA to consider a number of elements for 
inclusion in the implementing regulations, many of which are aspects of 
the CARB program. These elements include: (a) Labeling, (b) chain of 
custody requirements, (c) sell-through provisions, (d) ultra low-
emitting formaldehyde resins, (e) no-added formaldehyde-based resins, 
(f) finished goods, (g) third-party testing and certification, (h) 
auditing and reporting of TPCs, (i) recordkeeping, (j) enforcement, (k) 
laminated products, and (l) exceptions from the requirements of 
regulations promulgated for products and components containing de 
minimis amounts of composite wood products.

III. Provisions of This Proposed Rule

A. Scope and Applicability

    Pursuant to TSCA Title VI, this proposed regulation would generally 
cover entities that manufacture (including import), supply, sell, or 
offer for sale hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and 
particleboard in the United States, whether in the form of a panel or 
incorporated into a finished good.
    1. Hardwood plywood--a. General definition. The statute defines the 
term ``hardwood plywood'' as a hardwood or decorative panel that is 
intended for interior use and composed of an assembly of layers or 
plies of veneer joined by an adhesive with a lumber, particleboard, 
medium-density fiberboard (MDF), or hardboard core or any other special 
core or back material. The statutory definition also references a 
voluntary consensus standard for hardwood plywood, American National 
Standards Institute/Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association HP-1-2009

[[Page 34825]]

(ANSI/HPVA HP-1) (Ref. 12). The statutory definition also describes 
four specific exclusions from the term: Military-specified plywood, 
curved plywood, structural plywood, and wood-based structural-use 
panels. The latter two are described by reference to voluntary 
consensus standards (Refs. 13 and 14). EPA is proposing to incorporate 
the basic statutory definition of hardwood plywood and the statutory 
exclusions into the regulation with one modification. Although the 
statutory definition of hardwood plywood does not specifically mention 
hardwood plywood made with a veneer core, TSCA section 601(b)(2)(A) 
establishes a formaldehyde emission standard for hardwood plywood with 
a veneer core. Therefore, in order to avoid any potential confusion 
about whether hardwood plywood made with a veneer core is covered by 
the regulations, EPA proposes to add ``veneer core'' to the list of 
cores in the definition of hardwood plywood.
    As part of this rulemaking, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy 
Review (SBAR) Panel. More information on the Panel process, including 
the final report of the Panel, is discussed in Unit V. The SBAR Panel 
made several recommendations on definitions associated with the 
definition of hardwood plywood (Ref. 15). The definition of the term in 
TSCA Title VI, and as proposed in this rulemaking, only includes 
products that are ``panels.'' Therefore, only hardwood plywood panels 
would be required to be tested and certified. The SBAR Panel 
recommended that EPA reduce uncertainty in the regulated community by 
clearly defining ``panel'' in a way that is based on the intent of the 
statute, and considers trade usage and the limitations of current test 
methods. EPA is proposing to define panel as a flat or raised piece of 
composite wood. Raised panels (e.g., raised panel cabinet doors) are 
specifically included in this proposed definition because they can be 
produced using a similar manufacturing procedure as flat panels, and 
have a similar potential to emit formaldehyde. EPA requests comment on 
test method limitations and the extent to which they should affect the 
definition of the term ``panel.''
    EPA is also proposing a definition of ``intended for interior 
use.'' Under TSCA Title VI, in order for a product to be regulated as 
hardwood plywood, it must be intended for interior use. The SBAR Panel 
recommended that EPA develop a clear definition for ``interior use'' in 
order to eliminate potential confusion in the regulated community. The 
Panel further recommended that the definition be based on the intent of 
the statute and with consideration of how the hardwood plywood is 
likely to be used and stored once incorporated into a finished good. 
EPA recognizes that the primary purpose of TSCA Title VI is to reduce 
formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products inside buildings 
and similar living areas, such as trailers and recreational vehicles. 
This is in contrast to other regulations, such as the PCWP NESHAP, 
which is designed to reduce emissions from buildings and other 
facilities. Therefore, EPA is proposing to define the phrase ``intended 
for interior use.'' When applied to products, the phrase would mean 
intended for use or storage inside a building or recreational vehicle, 
or constructed in such a way that it is not suitable for long-term use 
in a location exposed to the elements.
    b. Laminated products. For the purposes of TSCA Title VI, laminated 
products are a subset of hardwood plywood. The statute defines 
laminated product as a product made by affixing a wood veneer to a 
particleboard, MDF, or veneer-core platform. The statutory definition 
further provides that laminated products are component parts used in 
the construction or assembly of a finished good, and that a laminated 
product is produced by the manufacturer or fabricator of the finished 
good in which the product is incorporated. Congress granted EPA the 
authority to modify the statutory definition of laminated product 
through rulemaking (TSCA section 601(a)(3)(C)(i)(II)). EPA is also 
directed to use all available and relevant information to determine 
whether the definition of hardwood plywood should exempt engineered 
veneer or any laminated product. As discussed in this Unit, EPA is 
proposing to exempt some, but not all, laminated products from the 
definition of hardwood plywood. EPA is further proposing to delete from 
the definition of laminated product the provision that limits 
applicability to producers of finished goods.
    i. CARB ATCM. The CARB ATCM defines laminated product as a finished 
good or component part of a finished good made by a fabricator in which 
a laminate or laminates are affixed to a platform. Under this 
definition, if the platform consists of a composite wood product, the 
platform must comply with the applicable emission standards. The CARB 
ATCM defines fabricator as any person who uses composite wood products 
to make finished goods, including producers of laminated products. 
Laminate is defined under the CARB ATCM as a veneer or other material 
affixed as a decorative surface to a platform. Under the CARB ATCM, 
fabricators or laminated product manufacturers have different 
requirements compared with requirements for manufacturers of composite 
wood products. In particular, fabricators do not need to conduct 
formaldehyde emissions testing or comply with TPC certification 
requirements; instead, fabricators need to ensure that they are using 
compliant composite wood products through recordkeeping and labeling.
    Under the CARB ATCM, a facility that affixes wood veneers to 
purchased cores or platforms and then sells the panels (often referred 
to as a 3-ply mill) is considered a regulated hardwood plywood 
manufacturer. In addition, a facility that manufactures its own 
platforms or cores and attaches decorative face and back veneers is a 
regulated hardwood plywood manufacturer, whether or not the facility 
sells the resulting hardwood plywood panels or uses those panels to 
make a finished good. However, CARB considers a facility that affixes 
veneers to purchased platforms and then uses the panels to make a 
finished good to be a fabricator or laminated product manufacturer. For 
example, a cabinet manufacturer who affixes veneers to purchased 
composite wood platforms and then cuts the panels and assembles them 
into cabinets would be a fabricator or laminated product manufacturer. 
In addition, CARB considers a facility that produces architectural 
plywood or custom panels to be a fabricator or laminated product 
manufacturer.
    ii. Other background information on laminated products. The statute 
includes laminated products within the definition of hardwood plywood 
unless EPA specifically exempts them through rulemaking. The provision 
authorizing EPA to exempt any laminated products, TSCA section 
601(a)(3)(C), directs EPA to consider all available and relevant 
information on the topic in a rulemaking under TSCA section 601(d). 
Section 601(d) requires EPA to promulgate regulations to implement the 
formaldehyde emission standards of TSCA Title VI in a manner that 
ensures compliance with the emission standards.
    In determining whether to exempt any laminated products, EPA 
analyzed available information on formaldehyde emissions. A 2003 
Composite Panel Association (CPA) technical bulletin presents 
information on formaldehyde emission reductions resulting from the 
application of different types of laminates (e.g., vinyl, paper, 
melamine, polyethylene) and coatings (e.g., acrylate, acrylic, 
polyurethane) (Ref. 16).

[[Page 34826]]

According to the bulletin, documented emission reductions ranged from 
approximately 50% to 95% compared with unlaminated or uncoated 
products. However, the technical bulletin does not present emission 
reduction data for wood veneer laminates. The bulletin notes that wood 
veneer laminates have been shown to be effective barriers for some 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) but have only low to moderate 
effectiveness as a barrier for formaldehyde, depending on the type of 
wood veneer used. This may be related to the porosity of the wood 
veneer, since according to the technical bulletin, the effectiveness of 
an emission barrier is determined by its basic permeability or 
porosity, as well as the integrity of the laminate or coating. Some 
woods are more porous than others. In addition, the technical bulletin 
points out that wood veneers are frequently applied to particleboard 
and MDF using urea-formaldehyde adhesives, and these adhesives create 
the potential for another source of formaldehyde emissions. EPA 
requests comments, information, and data on the formaldehyde emissions 
of wood veneered laminated products, particularly relative to the 
emissions of comparable hardwood plywood products that are not 
considered laminated products under the CARB ATCM.
    As directed by the statute, EPA evaluated other available and 
relevant information. Some of this information came to EPA through the 
SBAR Panel process, particularly through the advice and recommendations 
of the Small Entity Representatives (SERs) to the SBAR Panel. Several 
SERs submitted oral or written comments on potential provisions for 
laminated products under TSCA Title VI. One SER argued that laminators 
add only about 1/10th the resin a platform manufacturer adds (e.g., 1.1 
pounds of resin per panel to attach the veneer versus 9.6 total pounds 
resin per panel) and that laminators use a minor, if not de minimis, 
amount of urea-formaldehyde resin (Ref. 15). Furthermore, this SER 
stated that laminators using NAF resins would not add at all to the 
formaldehyde emissions from the product (Ref. 15), but did not provide 
data supporting this assertion. Multiple SERs noted that if laminators 
are regulated under TSCA Title VI, they would be paying for their 
products to be certified twice (Ref. 15). According to these SERs, the 
composite wood platform manufacturer would pay for certification of the 
platform and pass that cost along to the laminator who purchases the 
platform. If the laminator is also regulated under TSCA Title VI, such 
that the laminator would have to have its product certified again after 
the veneer is attached, then the laminated product would have two 
certifications, one for the composite wood platform and one for the 
final product. These SERs contended that this would put them at a 
distinct disadvantage with respect to manufacturers who make the entire 
product in-house and therefore have only one certification for the 
final product. Another SER commented that if laminated products were 
regulated as hardwood plywood, it could be costly and burdensome to 
thousands of small cabinet makers that laminate on a kitchen-by-kitchen 
basis (Ref. 15). Several SERs suggested that many laminators laminate 
component parts, not panels. In particular, it was suggested that the 
``raised panel doors'' that are used on some cabinets do not meet the 
definition of a hardwood plywood panel under the ANSI/HPVA HP-1 
standard. Several SERs provided suggestions to EPA on which laminators 
should be exempted by rule; these included laminators not using urea-
formaldehyde, laminators using a certified composite wood platform or 
core, and cabinetmakers producing less than 10 million square feet of 
laminated product. One SER specifically suggested that EPA exempt from 
the third-party certification and testing requirements those laminators 
that certify that they use NAF resins to attach veneers to compliant 
cores or otherwise include a statement of compliance under penalty of 
perjury (Ref. 15). Many small manufacturers of laminated products have 
contended that the testing requirements would be extremely burdensome 
for them if they are required to test each product type because many of 
the smaller manufacturers and custom manufacturers produce many 
different product types, often made to order.
    In contrast, the Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association (HPVA) 
informed EPA both orally and in written comments submitted in response 
to EPA's 2008 ANPR that it considers the CARB ATCM provision for 
fabricators to be a ``giant loophole'' for certain hardwood plywood 
manufacturers (Ref. 17). HPVA's comments state that ``[t]he emission 
standards must apply to any and all hardwood plywood irrespective of 
who manufactures the hardwood plywood. CARB arbitrarily differentiates 
between a primary hardwood plywood manufacturer and a `fabricator' who 
also manufactures hardwood plywood but is exempt from having to certify 
the hardwood plywood they manufacture'' (Ref. 17). HPVA also contends 
that the processes that fabricators and manufacturers of hardwood 
plywood use to lay up the veneers or press the face and back onto a 
core or platform are identical as are the hardwood plywood panels that 
they produce.
    iii. Proposed exemption for laminated products. Because of the 
potential for increased formaldehyde emissions from attaching a wood 
veneer to a platform, and because the final laminated product can be 
indistinguishable from other products that are considered hardwood 
plywood, EPA proposes to conclude that there is an insufficient basis 
to categorically exempt all laminated products from the definition of 
hardwood plywood based on information currently available to EPA. 
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to exempt laminated products in which a 
wood veneer is attached to a compliant and certified platform using a 
NAF resin. EPA believes the proposed exemption would be consistent with 
the statutory directive to promulgate regulations in a manner that 
ensures compliance with the formaldehyde emission standards. If the 
laminated product is made from a veneer core platform that is certified 
as meeting the emission standards for hardwood plywood, and a veneer 
that is attached with a NAF resin, it is very unlikely that the 
laminated product would exceed the hardwood plywood standards. If the 
laminated product is made from a particleboard or MDF platform that is 
certified as meeting the applicable emission standards, and a veneer 
that is attached with a NAF resin, the final laminated product may not 
meet the hardwood plywood standard, but it is very unlikely that it 
would exceed the applicable particleboard or MDF emission standard. EPA 
interprets its statutory authority with respect to laminated products 
to give EPA the discretion to exempt laminated products from the 
definition of hardwood plywood if EPA has reasonable assurance that the 
exempted products would comply with the emission standards in TSCA 
section 601(b)(2) for the relevant platform. EPA believes that the 
proposed exemption is responsive to comments from SERs and other 
affected entities and that it is a reasonable approach to addressing 
policy inequities between entities making similar products. EPA also 
believes that the proposed exemption is protective of public health, 
because most laminated products made by attaching veneers with NAF 
resins to compliant platforms would meet the emission standards for 
hardwood plywood, and all would

[[Page 34827]]

comply with the standards for MDF or particleboard. EPA specifically 
requests comments, information, and data relating to the proposed 
exemption.
    To qualify for this exemption, laminated product producers would be 
required to maintain records demonstrating that they are using 
compliant platforms and NAF resins. These records could include records 
of purchases of NAF resins and of compliant, certified platforms, or, 
if the resins or platforms are made in-house, records demonstrating 
that the platforms have been certified by an accredited TPC and records 
demonstrating the production of NAF resins.
    The statute defines the term ``laminated product'' as a product in 
which a wood veneer is affixed to a particleboard platform, a medium-
density fiberboard platform, or a veneer-core platform, and that is a 
component part used in the construction or assembly of a finished good. 
The statute further defines a laminated product as being produced by 
the manufacturer or fabricator of the finished good in which the 
product is incorporated. EPA is proposing a definition of laminated 
product that is based on the statutory definition with several 
modifications. First, EPA is proposing to include not only wood 
veneers, but also woody grass veneers (e.g. bamboo). Woody grass 
veneers are similar to wood veneers in that they can be porous and 
therefore not effective barriers to formaldehyde emissions, and they 
can be affixed to cores and platforms using urea-formaldehyde resins. 
In addition, including woody grass veneers is consistent with the 
definition of hardwood plywood in the ANSI/HPVA HP-1 standard, which 
specifies that ``--the decorative face veneer is made from a hardwood 
or softwood species or woody grass.'' To ensure greater clarity in the 
regulatory provisions on this specific issue, EPA is proposing to 
include a definition of veneer that is based on the ANSI/HPVA HP-1 
standard, but also refers to woody grasses and their specific 
structure. EPA is proposing to define veneer as a thin sheet of wood or 
woody grass that is rotary cut, sliced, or sawed from a log, bolt, 
flitch, block, or culm. EPA is also proposing to define woody grass as 
a plant of the family Poaceae (formerly Gramineae) with hard lignified 
tissues or woody parts. EPA requests comment on these definitions and 
whether they are consistent with industry usage.
    EPA's proposed definition would not include a provision stating 
that a laminated product is produced by the manufacturer or fabricator 
of the finished good in which the product is incorporated. EPA does not 
believe that the application of the third-party certification and 
testing requirements under TSCA Title VI should differ depending on the 
identity of the product manufacturer. If the applicability limitation 
is retained, an entity that purchases certified particleboard or MDF 
panels, cuts and otherwise prepares them for future use as kitchen 
cabinet doors, attaches a hardwood veneer using a NAF resin, and then 
sells them to a kitchen cabinet manufacturer would not be considered a 
laminated product manufacturer and would not qualify for the proposed 
exemption from the definition of hardwood plywood. The door producer 
would then have to comply with the third-party certification and 
testing requirements applicable to hardwood plywood manufacturers. In 
contrast, still under a scenario where the applicability limitation is 
retained, if the entity also produced the kitchen cabinets, considered 
a finished good under the statute, then the entity would be a laminated 
product manufacturer and would be exempt from the proposed testing and 
certification requirements. EPA has no reason to believe that the 
formaldehyde emissions from the cabinet doors would differ depending on 
who makes the door. It may be that entities that produce the entire 
finished good in-house are smaller than entities that only produce part 
of the good, such as cabinet doors, and thus it would be significantly 
more burdensome for them to have to comply with the certification and 
testing provisions of this proposal. However, EPA has no evidence that 
this is the case. In addition, if the emissions from the products are 
the same, EPA does not currently perceive a reason that justifies 
additional testing, regardless of the size of the entity making the 
product. Considering these factors, EPA's proposed definition of 
laminated product does not include a provision limiting applicability 
to the manufacturer or fabricator of the finished good in which the 
product is incorporated. EPA specifically requests comments, 
information, and data on this aspect of the proposed definition of 
laminated product.
    In addition, to provide additional clarity for the regulated 
community and the public on the applicability of this regulation, EPA 
is proposing to define ``component part,'' a term used in the 
definition of ``laminated product,'' as a part that contains one or 
more composite wood products and is used in the assembly of finished 
goods. EPA is also proposing to define ``fabricator'' as an entity that 
incorporates composite wood products into component parts or into 
finished goods.
    TSCA Title VI also directs EPA to determine whether the definition 
of hardwood plywood should exempt engineered veneer. EPA interprets the 
phrase ``assembly of layers or plies of veneer'' in the definition of 
hardwood plywood to include engineered veneer. EPA understands 
engineered veneer to be a veneer that is created by dyeing and gluing 
together veneer leaves in a mold to produce a block. The block is then 
sliced into leaves of veneer with a designed appearance that is highly 
repeatable. EPA also understands that engineered veneer is often made 
using urea-formaldehyde resin, and EPA expects that engineered veneer 
made with urea-formaldehyde resin will have formaldehyde emission rates 
that are similar to other composite wood products made with urea-
formaldehyde resin. EPA has not identified any information justifying 
an exemption for engineered veneer, so this proposal does not include 
such an exemption.
    2. Particleboard and medium-density fiberboard. The statute defines 
the term ``particleboard'' as a panel composed of cellulosic material 
in the form of discrete particles (as distinguished from fibers, 
flakes, or strands) that are pressed together with resin, as determined 
under the voluntary consensus standard ANSI A208.1-2009 (Ref. 18). The 
statute further excludes products specified in the ``Voluntary Product 
Standard--Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels'' 
(Ref. 14). EPA is proposing to incorporate the statutory definition of 
particleboard into the implementing regulations without change.
    The statute defines the term ``medium-density fiberboard'' as a 
panel composed of cellulosic fibers made by dry forming and pressing a 
resinated fiber mat, as determined under the voluntary consensus 
standard ANSI A208.2-2009 (Ref. 19). EPA is proposing to incorporate 
the statutory definition of medium-density fiberboard without change. 
This proposed rule also includes a separate definition for a related 
term, ``thin medium-density fiberboard.'' The statute provides for a 
slightly-higher formaldehyde emission standard for thin medium-density 
fiberboard, 0.13 ppm, than it does for regular medium-density 
fiberboard, 0.11 ppm. CARB defines ``thin medium-density fiberboard'' 
as medium density fiberboard that has a maximum thickness of 8 
millimeters (mm). The voluntary consensus standard for medium-density 
fiberboard, ANSI A208.2-2009 (Medium Density

[[Page 34828]]

Fiberboard (MDF) For Interior Applications), defines ``thin medium-
density fiberboard'' as medium-density fiberboard with a thickness less 
than or equal to 8 mm or 0.315 inches (Ref. 19). EPA is proposing to 
use the same definition as the voluntary consensus standard because it 
is consistent with CARB and EPA believes that it reflects the common 
industry understanding of the term.
    3. Statutory exemptions. TSCA section 601(c) exempts a number of 
products from the formaldehyde emission standards for composite wood 
products. These exemptions include, but are not limited to, hardboard, 
structural plywood, structural panels, oriented strandboard, glued 
laminated lumber, prefabricated wood I-joists, finger-jointed lumber, 
wood packaging, composite wood products used inside new vehicles other 
than recreational vehicles, windows that contain less than 5% by volume 
of composite wood products, exterior doors and garage doors that 
contain less than 3% by volume of composite wood products, and exterior 
and garage doors that are made with NAF-based or ULEF-based resins. EPA 
proposes to incorporate these exemptions into the implementing 
regulations without modification.
    The statute exempts any finished good that has previously been sold 
or supplied to an individual or entity that purchased or acquired the 
finished good in good faith for purposes other than resale. The statute 
provides two examples: Antiques and secondhand furniture. EPA's 
interpretation of this exemption is such that once a finished good, 
such as a piece of furniture, is sold to an end-user, the piece of 
furniture is no longer subject to TSCA Title VI. Thus, dealers in 
secondhand furniture would not have any obligations under this proposed 
rule.
    With respect to exterior and garage doors made with NAF-based or 
ULEF-based resins, these resin types are defined elsewhere in the 
statute, with reference to both the composition of the resin and the 
formaldehyde emissions of composite wood products made with the resin. 
EPA interprets these statutory provisions to mean that, in order to be 
eligible for this exemption, exterior and garage doors must comply with 
the emission standards contained in the statutory definitions of NAF-
based resins and ULEF-based resins, as measured by the testing 
described in the statutory definitions. However, EPA is not proposing 
to require that manufacturers, fabricators, distributors, or retailers 
of these doors comply with the third-party certification, 
recordkeeping, or labeling provisions of the TSCA Title VI implementing 
regulations. EPA requests comments on whether any additional 
clarifications are needed, or whether manufacturers, fabricators, 
distributors, or retailers of such doors should be required to comply 
with any of the provisions of the TSCA Title VI implementing 
regulations. For example, should manufacturers of these doors be 
required to maintain records to demonstrate that they are purchasing or 
manufacturing NAF-based or ULEF-based resins or composite wood products 
made with NAF-based or ULEF-based resins and that the required testing 
has been conducted?
    While many of the exemptions are defined within the text of the 
exemption itself, by reference to an applicable voluntary consensus 
standard or other parameter, hardboard is not so defined. Rather, TSCA 
Title VI provides that ``the term `hardboard' has such meaning as the 
Administrator shall establish, by regulation pursuant to subsection 
(d).''
    Under the CARB ATCM, hardboard is defined as ``a composite panel 
composed of cellulosic fibers, made by dry or wet forming and hot 
pressing of a fiber mat with or without resins, that complies with one 
of the following ANSI standards: `Basic Hardboard' (ANSI A135.4-2004), 
`Prefinished Hardboard Paneling' (ANSI A135.5-2004), or `Hardboard 
Siding' (ANSI A135.6- 2006)'' (Refs. 20, 21 and 22). The CARB ATCM 
further excludes hardboard from the definition of composite wood 
product. Accordingly, hardboard is not subject to the emission 
standards in the CARB ATCM.
    EPA understands that the definition of hardboard has been recently 
reevaluated by industry in the context of a pending revision to the 
voluntary consensus standard for basic hardboard, ANSI A135.4 (Ref. 
20). EPA was informed that final approval of revisions to ANSI A135.4, 
along with revisions to the prefinished hardboard paneling standard, 
ANSI A135.5 and the hardboard siding standard, ANSI A135.6, would be 
anticipated by the end of 2011 (Refs. 20, 21 and 22).
    The Composite Panel Association, sponsor of the ANSI standard, also 
informed EPA in its comments to the SBAR Panel that the Association 
intended to vote on a proposed revision to ANSI A135.4 that included 
the following definition:

    Hardboard is a panel manufactured primarily from inter-felted 
lignocellulosic fibers consolidated under heat and pressure in a hot 
press to a density of 500 kg/m \3\ (31 lbs/ft \3\) or greater by:
    (A) a wet process, or
    (B) a dry process that uses:
    (a) a phenolic resin, or
    (b) a resin system in which there is no added formaldehyde as 
part of the resin cross-linking structure.

Other materials may be added to improve certain properties, such as 
stiffness, hardness, finishing properties, resistance to abrasion 
and moisture, as well as to increase strength, durability, and 
utility. (Ref. 15)

    EPA is concerned that, because hardboard and thin medium-density 
fiberboard share similar appearances and end uses, a broad definition 
of hardboard could lead to thin medium-density fiberboard being 
erroneously categorized as hardboard and exempted from the emission 
standards. This is contrary to the clear intent of TSCA Title VI which 
specifically includes an emissions standard for thin medium-density 
fiberboard. EPA believes that the definition quoted above would address 
this concern. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to base its definition of 
hardboard on this definition. EPA's proposal defines hardboard as a 
panel composed of cellulosic fibers made by dry or wet forming and hot 
pressing of a fiber mat, either without resins, or with a phenolic 
resin (e.g., a phenol-formaldehyde resin) or a resin system in which 
there is no added formaldehyde as part of the resin cross-linking 
structure, as determined under one of the following ANSI standards: 
ANSI A135.4 (Basic Hardboard), ANSI A135.5 (Prefinished Hardboard 
Paneling), or ANSI A135.6 (Hardboard Siding). EPA believes this is 
consistent with TSCA 601(d) which requires EPA to promulgate 
regulations in a manner that ensures compliance with the statutory 
emission standards.
    Revisions to the three ANSI hardboard standards have been made and 
the revised versions are now available (Refs. 23, 24 and 25). EPA 
requests comment on the proposed hardboard definition and whether any 
changes should be made to the definition in light of the recent ANSI 
standard revisions.
    In general, EPA believes that composite wood products made with 
phenol-formaldehyde resins have lower formaldehyde emission rates than 
do products made with urea-formaldehyde resins. In fact, phenol-
formaldehyde resin is mentioned in TSCA Title VI as a resin that may 
qualify for ULEF resin status. EPA has some data on formaldehyde 
emissions from hardboard made with phenol-formaldehyde resins (Refs. 26 
and 27). The data appear to support the idea that products made with 
phenol formaldehyde resins have lower formaldehyde emission rates. EPA 
requests comment, information, and data on hardboard made with phenol-

[[Page 34829]]

formaldehyde resins and whether such products should be included within 
the definition of the term hardboard, thereby exempting such products 
from the statutory emission standards.
    4. Other definitions. EPA is also proposing to define a number of 
other terms used in the proposed regulations to ensure that the meaning 
and applicability of the regulatory requirements are clear. These terms 
include ``distributor,'' ``importer,'' ``purchaser,'' and ``retailer.'' 
EPA is proposing to define ``distributor'' as an entity that supplies 
composite wood products, component parts, or finished goods to others. 
The term ``importer'' would be defined, consistent with the definition 
of the term ``manufacturer'' in TSCA section 3 and the definition of 
``importer'' in 40 CFR 710.3, as an entity that imports composite wood 
products, component parts that contain composite wood products, or 
finished goods that contain composite wood products into the customs 
territory of the United States (as defined in general note 2 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States). The term includes 
the entity primarily liable for the payment of any duties on the 
products, or an authorized agent acting on the entity's behalf. The 
term ``purchaser'' would be defined as an entity that acquires 
composite wood products in exchange for money or its equivalent. 
Finally, ``retailer'' would be defined as an entity that generally 
sells smaller quantities of composite wood products directly to 
consumers. EPA requests comment on the utility of these definitions, 
whether these definitions comport with typical industry usage, and 
whether any other general terms should be defined in EPA's regulation.

B. Formaldehyde Emission Standards

    TSCA Title VI establishes formaldehyde emission standards for 
composite wood products (hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-
density fiberboard) so that beginning July 1, 2012, or 180 days after 
the final implementing regulations are promulgated, whichever is later, 
the standards mirror the CARB ATCM Phase 2 emission levels. The statute 
also provides for emission standards that would apply after the 
effective date of the implementing regulations but before July 2011, or 
before July 2012. However, the July 2012 date has already passed, so 
these interim standards will not take effect.
    When the later TSCA Title VI emission standards take effect 180 
days after implementing regulations are promulgated, the emission limit 
for hardwood plywood will be 0.05 parts per million (ppm) formaldehyde. 
For medium-density fiberboard, the limit will be 0.11 ppm. For thin 
medium-density fiberboard, the limit will be 0.13 ppm. For 
particleboard, the limit will be 0.09 ppm. The statute does not give 
EPA authority to modify these emission standards.
    Because each of the two statutory emission standards for hardwood 
plywood is 0.05 ppm for any final rule taking effect after July 1, 
2012, the proposed regulation merely states that the emission standard 
for hardwood plywood is 0.05 ppm. With this language, EPA intends that 
any product that meets the definition of hardwood plywood is subject to 
the hardwood plywood emission limit, regardless of the makeup of its 
core. EPA notes that the statutory definition of hardwood plywood 
includes a number of different types of cores that may not appear to 
expressly fit under the statutory emission standards for veneer core 
and composite core. Yet, EPA does not believe that Congress intended to 
exempt hardwood plywood made with a lumber core, for example, from the 
emission standards of TSCA Title VI in part because the statute says 
that ``the emission standards . . . shall apply to hardwood plywood.'' 
Therefore, EPA proposes an emission standard for hardwood plywood of 
0.05 ppm, given that the two statutory emission standards for hardwood 
plywood are ultimately identical. EPA requests comment on whether and 
how this revision would affect entities making laminated products with 
lumber cores or any other special core material.

C. Product Certification in General

    Under this proposal, composite wood products sold, supplied, 
offered for sale, or manufactured (including imported) within the 
United States would have to be certified, unless they are specifically 
exempted by TSCA Title VI or excluded by the proposed rule. In general, 
this means that the formaldehyde emission levels from the composite 
wood products would have been demonstrated to be below the emission 
standards in TSCA Title VI. This demonstration would be through a 
combination of testing performed by an accredited third-party certifier 
(TPC), and repeated on a quarterly basis, and more frequent quality 
control testing performed by the maker of the composite wood product, 
an accredited TPC, or a contract laboratory. Specific proposed 
requirements for this testing are discussed in Unit III.D.
    EPA is proposing to require makers of composite wood product panels 
to apply to an accredited TPC for product certification, and to design 
and establish a quality control program, including testing, that is 
both approved by the accredited TPC and specific to the panel producer. 
For each product type to be certified, the panel producer would have to 
have at least one quarterly test result and 3 months of quality control 
testing data that demonstrate that the formaldehyde emission rates of 
the product are below the emission standards established by TSCA Title 
VI and discussed in greater detail in Unit III.C. Uncertified product 
produced after the manufactured-by date, discussed in Unit III.I., 
would not be permitted to be sold, supplied, or offered for sale in the 
United States. Under this proposal, products currently certified by 
approved TPCs under the CARB ATCM would be considered certified for 
purposes of TSCA Title VI. However, in the TPC proposal, EPA proposed 
to allow CARB-approved TPCs 1 year to become accredited under TSCA 
Title VI. If that provision is finalized as proposed, a panel producer 
whose TPC does not become accredited under TSCA Title VI in a timely 
manner would have to apply to an accredited TPC to be able to continue 
to make certified product after the manufactured-by date. EPA requests 
comment on this approach for CARB-certified products and whether a 
different approach or additional requirements should be imposed for 
these products.

D. Formaldehyde Emission Testing Requirements

    TSCA Title VI requires that composite wood products be measured for 
compliance with the statutory emission standards by quarterly tests 
pursuant to test methods ASTM E-1333-96 or ASTM D-6007-02 (Refs. 28 and 
29). TSCA Title VI also requires that quality control tests be 
conducted pursuant to ASTM D-6007-02, ASTM D-5582, or such other test 
methods as may be established by EPA through rulemaking (Refs. 29 and 
30). Under the statute, test results conducted using any test method 
other than ASTM E-1333-96 (2002) must include a showing of equivalence 
by means that EPA must establish through rulemaking. Under TSCA Title 
VI, EPA must also establish, through rulemaking, the number and 
frequency of tests required to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
standards. This unit of the preamble discusses EPA's proposed 
rulemaking on each of these statutory elements.
    1. CARB ATCM formaldehyde testing requirements. The CARB ATCM 
requires that compliance with the emission standards for hardwood 
plywood, medium-density fiberboard,

[[Page 34830]]

and particleboard be demonstrated by conducting emission tests, 
verified by TPCs using ASTM E-1333-96 (2002) (large chamber test 
method), referred to as the primary test method, or ASTM D-6007-02 
(small chamber test method), referred to as the secondary test method. 
If ASTM D-6007-02 is used, equivalence between ASTM D-6007-02 and ASTM 
E-1333-96 (2002) must be established at least once each year by the 
TPC. The CARB ATCM specifies minimum requirements for demonstrating 
equivalence in section 93120.9(a)(2)(B) of the ATCM; demonstration of 
equivalence for the purposes of this proposal is discussed in Unit 
III.D.3. of this document. The CARB ATCM allows alternate secondary 
test methods to be used if they are demonstrated to provide equivalent 
results to those obtained using ASTM E-1333-96 (2002) (following the 
requirements in section 93120.9(a)(2)(B)) and are approved in writing 
by the CARB Executive Officer, following submission of an application 
for approval. The CARB ATCM also requires quality control testing using 
a test method that is correlated to the primary, secondary, or 
alternate secondary test method. The CARB ATCM also provides that all 
panels must be tested in an unfinished condition, prior to the 
application of a finishing or topcoat.
    The CARB ATCM requires that an initial qualifying primary or 
secondary method test be conducted on each product type, from each 
production line of each facility; however, it also allows a 
manufacturer to group two or more product types together if they have 
``similar emission characteristics.'' The emissions from each product 
type from each production line cannot exceed the applicable standard. 
If an initial qualification test exceeds the emission standard, 
certification lapses on all of the products represented by that product 
group.
    Under the CARB ATCM, after the initial qualifying test, primary or 
secondary method tests must be conducted at least quarterly. For 
particleboard and medium-density fiberboard, these quarterly tests must 
be conducted on randomly selected samples of each product type (unless 
approved NAF or ULEF resins are used). Again, products can be grouped 
for testing, but if a quarterly test exceeds the emission standard, 
certification lapses on all of the products represented by that 
grouping. For hardwood plywood, a primary or secondary method test is 
required at least quarterly (unless approved NAF or ULEF resins are 
used) on randomly selected samples of the hardwood plywood product 
determined by the TPC to have the highest potential to emit 
formaldehyde.
    The CARB ATCM also requires ``small scale'' quality control tests 
that must be conducted at the composite wood product manufacturing 
facility, a contract laboratory, or a laboratory operated by an 
approved TPC. These tests must be conducted on all lots of each product 
type being certified unless prior notice is given, and tests must be 
reported to the TPC. The CARB ATCM lists the following as approved 
small-scale test methods: ASTM D 5582-00 (desiccator), ASTM D-6007-02 
(small chamber), and alternative tests that can be shown to correlate 
to the primary or secondary method tests and are approved by the CARB 
Executive Officer. CARB has approved the following for use as 
alternative small-scale test methods: EN 717-2 (gas analysis), DMC 
(dynamic micro chamber), EN 120 (perforator method), and JIS A 1460 
(24-hr desiccator). CARB does not expressly permit the grouping of 
product types for quality control testing. However, CARB does provide 
TPCs and manufacturers with some flexibility in interpreting the term 
``product type'' to allow similar products, particularly those made 
with the same resin system, to be considered to belong to the same 
product type for quality control testing purposes (Ref. 2).
    a. Basic testing frequency requirements for particleboard and 
medium-density fiberboard under the CARB ATCM. The CARB ATCM requires 
manufacturers of particleboard and medium-density fiberboard (that do 
not qualify for NAF or ULEF TPC exemption or reduced testing) to 
conduct routine small-scale quality control tests at least once per 
shift (8 or 12 hours, plus or minus 1 hour of production) for each 
production line for each product type. Quality assurance and quality 
control requirements for the purposes of this proposal are discussed in 
Unit III.E. Quality control tests must also be conducted whenever a 
product type production ends, even if 8 hours of production has not 
been reached, or whenever one of the following occurs: (1) The resin 
formulation is changed so that the formaldehyde to urea ratio is 
increased; (2) an increase by more than 10% in the amount of 
formaldehyde resin used, by square foot or by panel; (3) a decrease in 
the designated press time by more than 20%; or (4) the Quality Control 
Manager or Quality Control Employee has reason to believe that the 
panel being produced may not meet the requirements of the applicable 
standards. The CARB ATCM allows for reduced testing for particleboard 
and medium-density fiberboard when the facility demonstrates consistent 
operations and low variability of test values to the satisfaction of 
the TPC based on criteria established by the TPC. Testing frequency 
still must occur at least once per 48-hour production period.
    b. Basic testing frequency requirements for hardwood plywood under 
the CARB ATCM. The CARB ATCM requires manufacturers of hardwood plywood 
(that do not qualify for NAF or ULEF TPC exemption or reduced testing) 
to conduct routine small-scale quality control tests on each product 
type and product line based on production at the facility with the 
following testing frequency: At least one test per week per product 
type and product line if the weekly hardwood plywood production is less 
than 200,000 square feet; at least two tests per week per product type 
and product line if the weekly hardwood plywood production is between 
200,000 and 400,000 square feet; and at least four times per week per 
product type and product line if the weekly hardwood plywood production 
is greater than 400,000 square feet. The CARB ATCM also requires that 
quality control samples must be analyzed within a period of time 
specified in the manufacturer's quality control manual to avoid 
distribution of non-complying lots.
    2. Proposed general testing requirements. As an initial matter, EPA 
is proposing to define several terms that would be used in the testing 
requirements. EPA is proposing to use the term ``panel producer'' to 
refer to those facilities that actually make composite wood products or 
laminated products, excluding importers that do not also make the 
products. Because TSCA section 3 defines the term ``manufacture'' to 
include import, EPA believes that using another term would clarify the 
regulation by referring to facilities that actually make the products 
regulated under TSCA Title VI for the purposes of the testing, 
certification, and recordkeeping requirements. Under this proposal, 
some laminated products would not be hardwood plywood, and the act of 
making those products would, therefore, not be subject to the testing 
and certification requirements. However, EPA believes that there are 
some laminated products that cannot be made in such a way as to render 
them exempt from the testing and certification requirements. EPA is 
proposing to define ``panel producer'' as a manufacturing plant or 
other facility that manufactures (excluding facilities

[[Page 34831]]

that solely import products) composite wood products on the premises. 
EPA is also proposing to incorporate within this definition a statement 
that this includes laminated products not excluded from the definition 
of hardwood plywood. EPA requests comment on whether the term ``panel 
producer'' should apply separately to each specific facility owned or 
operated by an entity that produces composite wood products for the 
purposes of the testing, certification and recordkeeping requirements, 
or whether the term ``panel producer'' should apply to the entire 
business entity that produces the composite wood products. For example, 
should panel producers be required to have a quality control manual for 
each separate facility?
    EPA is proposing to incorporate the CARB definition of the term 
``product type'' with some modifications. The term ``manufacturer'' in 
the CARB definition would be replaced by the term ``panel producer.'' 
Under this proposal, ``product type'' means a type of composite wood 
product that differs from another made by the same panel producer, 
based on wood type, composition, thickness, number of plies (if 
hardwood plywood), or resin used. In order to make it clear that TPCs 
and manufacturers have the flexibility to treat similar products 
similarly, the proposed definition includes a statement that products 
with similar emissions made with the same resin systems may be 
considered to be the same product type.
    EPA is also proposing to define ``lot'' to mean a particular lot or 
batch of a product type made during a single production run. EPA 
believes that this is common industry usage of the term. Likewise, EPA 
is proposing to define ``production line'' as a set of operations and 
physical industrial or mechanical equipment used to produce a composite 
wood product. EPA requests comment on the utility of these definitions, 
and whether other terms should also be defined, such as ``production 
run.''
    In addition, entities conducting formaldehyde testing would be 
required to use the procedures, such as testing conditions and loading 
ratios, specified in the method being used. As required by CARB, EPA is 
also proposing to require that all equipment used in formaldehyde 
testing be calibrated in accordance with the equipment manufacturer's 
instructions. EPA believes that this requirement is important for 
ensuring that the equipment is working properly and that accurate 
results are obtained.
    a. Quarterly testing requirements. EPA is proposing to require that 
accredited TPCs conduct the quarterly tests required by TSCA Title VI. 
The statute requires these tests to be performed using ASTM E-1333-96 
(2002) or, upon a showing of equivalence as discussed in this unit, 
ASTM D-6007-02 (Refs. 28 and 29). In the TPC proposal, using the 
authority provided by TSCA section 601(d)(5), EPA proposed to 
incorporate ASTM E-1333-10, the most recent version of this method, 
into the testing requirements, rather than the 2002 version (Refs. 1 
and 31). EPA will review the comments received on the TPC proposal and 
determine whether to incorporate ASTM E-1333-10 into the testing 
requirements in place of ASTM E-1333-96 (2002) before issuing the final 
rule.
    EPA is proposing to require that the TPC laboratories test randomly 
chosen samples from a single lot that is ready for shipment by the 
panel producer. Neither the top nor bottom composite wood product of a 
bundle would be selected because the emissions from these products may 
not be representative of the bundle. For particleboard and medium-
density fiberboard, the proposed rule would require quarterly tests to 
be conducted on randomly selected samples of each product type (unless 
they qualify for reduced testing based on ULEF or NAF resin). For 
hardwood plywood, the proposed rule would require quarterly tests to be 
conducted on randomly selected samples of the hardwood plywood product 
determined by the TPC to have the highest potential to emit 
formaldehyde (unless they qualify for reduced testing based on ULEF or 
NAF resins).
    As under the CARB ATCM, this proposal would allow product types to 
be grouped for quarterly testing. EPA is proposing to allow accredited 
TPCs to approve the grouping of products with similar characteristics, 
particularly those characteristics that are most likely to affect 
emissions, such as the type of wood or the resin system(s) used to make 
the composite wood product. For hardwood plywood, other factors that 
are likely to influence formaldehyde emissions are core type, press 
time, veneer type (i.e., species), and whether or not the core is 
certified. EPA requests comment on the appropriate criteria for 
grouping product types for quality control testing, given the statutory 
directive to promulgate implementing regulations in a manner that 
ensures compliance with the emission standards. For example, one 
possibility could be to allow panel producers and accredited TPCs to 
identify the products that are likely to have the highest emissions and 
to test those products.
    Samples selected for quarterly testing would have to be dead-
stacked (i.e., closely stacked) or air tight wrapped between the time 
of sample selection and the start of test conditioning (as specified in 
ASTM E-1333-10 or, as appropriate, ASTM D-6007-02). Samples would have 
to be labeled as such, signed by the TPC, bundled air tight, wrapped in 
polyethylene, protected by cover sheets, and promptly shipped to the 
laboratory testing facility. EPA is proposing to require conditioning 
to begin as soon as possible, but no more than 30 days after 
production. This requirement, also included in the CARB ATCM, is 
designed to prevent panel producers from holding composite wood 
products to allow them to off-gas. TPCs must notify panel producers in 
writing within 24 hours of a failed quarterly test result. Lots 
represented by a failed quarterly test result, would have to be handled 
as non-complying lots in accordance with the proposed requirements 
discussed in Unit III.D.4. If lots were grouped for quarterly testing, 
all lots in the group represented by a failed quarterly test result 
would have to be treated as non-complying lots. EPA requests comment on 
all aspects of these sampling requirements, including whether the 30-
day requirement is appropriate.
    b. Quality control test methods. EPA is proposing that in addition 
to ASTM D-6007-02 and ASTM D-5582, the following methods would also be 
allowed for quality control testing (with a showing of equivalence as 
described in this Unit): EN 717-2 (gas analysis method) (Ref. 32), DMC 
(Dynamic Micro Chamber) (Ref. 33), EN 120 (Perforator Method) (Ref. 
34), and JIS A 1460 (24-hr Desiccator Method) (Ref. 35). EPA believes 
that these are appropriate methods for quality control testing based on 
CARB's evaluation and approval of these methods as alternative small-
scale test methods, and test results using these methods have been 
demonstrated to have adequate correlations with test results using ASTM 
E-1333-10. EPA proposes to establish these additional methods pursuant 
to section 601(b)(3)(A)(ii) for quality control testing; as a general 
matter, EPA does not endorse any particular method over others. Other 
methods may also be appropriate for quality control testing, such as EN 
717-1 (chamber method), EN 717-3 (flask method), ISO/DIS 12460-1(1-
cubic-meter chamber method), ISO/DIS 12460-2 (small-scale chamber 
method), ISO/DIS 12460-3 (gas analysis method), or ISO/DIS 12460-4 
(desiccator method). EPA requests comment on

[[Page 34832]]

whether these methods should also be allowed for quality control 
testing.
    c. Proposed quality control testing frequency for particleboard and 
medium-density fiberboard that do not qualify for reduced testing based 
on ULEF or NAF resins. EPA is proposing to require the same quality 
control testing frequency for particleboard and medium-density 
fiberboard as is required under the CARB ATCM. This proposal would 
require quality control tests at least once per shift (8 or 12 hours, 
plus or minus one hour of production) for each production line for each 
product type. Quality control tests would also be conducted whenever a 
product type production ends, even if 8 hours of production has not 
been reached, or whenever (1) there is a significant change to the 
resin formulation, e.g., an increase in the formaldehyde-to-urea ratio; 
(2) there is an increase by more than 10% in the amount of formaldehyde 
resin used; (3) there is a decrease in the designated press time by 
more than 20%; or (4) the quality control manager or quality control 
employee has reason to believe that the panel being produced may not 
meet the requirements of the applicable standards.
    Also consistent with the CARB ATCM, EPA is not proposing to allow 
the grouping of products for quality control testing purposes. However, 
EPA is proposing to allow accredited TPCs and panel producers some 
flexibility in determining which products constitute a product type. 
CARB's guidance to its TPCs on defining product type include mention of 
those characteristics most likely to affect product emissions, such as 
type of wood or the resin system(s) used to make the composite wood 
product. Again, for hardwood plywood, these factors include core type, 
press time, veneer type (i.e., species), and whether or not the core is 
certified.
    EPA is proposing to allow reduced quality control testing 
requirements similar to CARB's for particleboard and medium-density 
fiberboard when the panel producer demonstrates consistent operations 
and low variability of test values. Under the EPA proposal, the panel 
producer would be required to request approval for reduced quality 
control testing from an accredited TPC. If approved, quality control 
testing would still have to occur at least once per 48-hour production 
period. Unlike CARB, EPA is proposing to establish criteria for 
demonstrating consistency and low variability. Under EPA's proposed 
requirements, which are based on a Composite Panel Association 
voluntary program, a 30 panel running average would be maintained (Ref. 
36). If the 30 panel running average remains two standard deviations 
below the designated Quality Control Limit (QCL) for the previous 60 
consecutive days or more, testing frequency could be reduced to one 
test per 24-hour production period. When the 30 panel running average 
remains three standard deviations below the QCL for the previous 60 
days or more, testing frequency could be reduced to once every 48-hour 
production period. The QCL would be the quality control test value that 
is the correlative equivalent to the emission standard based on the 
ASTM E-1333-10 method. The QCL is established by using a simple linear 
regression where the dependent variables (Y-axis) are the quality 
control test results and the independent variables (X-axis) are the 
ASTM E-1333-10 test results. More information on the establishment of 
the QCL can be found in the TPC proposal (Ref. 1). An accredited TPC 
would be required to approve a request for reduced quality control 
testing as long as the data submitted by the panel producer demonstrate 
compliance with the criteria and the TPC does not otherwise have reason 
to believe that the data are inaccurate or that the panel producer's 
production processes are inadequate to ensure continued compliance with 
the emission standards. EPA will provide a list of panel producers and 
products types that are allowed reduced testing under this provision on 
the EPA Web site. EPA requests comment on whether there should be a 
finite time period for reduced testing, after which a new application 
and demonstration would be required, or whether reduced testing should 
continue to be allowed as long as the quality control test data 
demonstrate continued eligibility for reduced testing.
    As in the CARB ATCM, EPA is proposing that all panels would be 
tested in an unfinished condition, prior to the application of a 
finishing or topcoat. EPA believes that the proposed testing frequency 
is sufficient to ensure compliance with the emission standards, but is 
not overly burdensome. EPA believes that most U.S. producers of 
particleboard and medium-density fiberboard have been complying with 
the testing requirements under the CARB ATCM and thus, the rule, if 
finalized as proposed, would not impose an additional burden on these 
producers.
    d. Proposed quality control testing frequency for hardwood plywood 
that does not qualify for reduced testing based on ULEF or NAF resins. 
EPA is generally proposing to require the same frequency of testing for 
hardwood plywood that CARB requires. EPA believes that this testing 
frequency is adequate to ensure compliance with the TSCA Title VI 
emission standards and consistency with CARB makes it easier for panel 
producers already complying with CARB to comply with these proposed 
requirements. Similarly, if a quality control test exceeds the 
applicable emission standards for that product, all lots of products 
represented by that test result would be considered to be non-complying 
lots and would have to be treated and retested in accordance with the 
procedures discussed in Unit III.D.4.
    EPA's proposed quality control testing frequency requirements for 
hardwood plywood are generally similar to CARB and are likewise based 
on production volume. Under this proposal, hardwood plywood panel 
producers would be required to conduct routine quality control tests on 
each production line of each product type based on total hardwood 
plywood production by the panel producer with the following testing 
frequency: At least one test per week per production line of each 
product type if the weekly hardwood plywood production is between 
100,000 and 200,000 square feet; at least two tests per week per 
production line of each product type if the weekly hardwood plywood 
production is between 200,000 and 400,000 square feet; and at least 
four times per week per production line of each product type if the 
weekly hardwood plywood production is greater than 400,000 square feet. 
EPA believes that, for some small specialty panel producers, even one 
quality control test per week would be excessive. Very small custom 
manufacturers may make significantly less than 100,000 square feet of 
product per week per product type. In order to address the inequity of 
requiring small manufacturers to conduct many more tests than required 
of large manufacturers for the same production volume, if weekly 
production of hardwood plywood at the panel producer is less than 
100,000 square feet, EPA is proposing to require one quality control 
test per 100,000 square feet of each lot produced of each product type 
produced. If the panel producer never produces 100,000 square feet of a 
particular product type at one time, EPA is proposing to require just 
one quality control test of that product type per production run or lot 
produced.
    EPA believes that the proposed testing frequency for hardwood 
plywood is sufficient to ensure compliance with the emission standards 
but is not overly burdensome. EPA believes that most

[[Page 34833]]

U.S. hardwood plywood panel producers as well as many foreign producers 
have been complying with the CARB ATCM testing requirements and thus, 
the rule, if finalized as proposed, would not impose an additional 
burden on these producers. For laminated product producers that do not 
have to test under the CARB ATCM requirements, this proposed testing 
would be a new requirement; however, because the requirements are based 
on production volume, EPA believes that they would not be overly 
burdensome. EPA requests comment on whether these proposed requirements 
are sufficient to ensure compliance with the standards.
    Under the CARB ATCM, only particleboard and medium-density 
fiberboard producers are required to conduct quality control testing 
when product type production ends, changes are made to the resin 
formulation or the amount of resin used, or there is a significant 
decrease in press time. There is no similar provision applicable to 
hardwood plywood. EPA's proposal is consistent with the CARB ATCM, but 
EPA requests comment on whether quality control testing should be 
required for hardwood plywood production in these situations, or in any 
other situations, such as when the quality control manager or quality 
control employee has reason to believe that the panels in production 
may not meet the emission standard. EPA is also requesting comment on 
whether the proposed reduced quality control testing for consistent 
particleboard and medium-density fiberboard manufacturing operations 
should also be applicable to hardwood plywood.
    3. Means of showing test method equivalence. EPA is proposing that 
equivalence between ASTM E-1333-10 and any other test method used would 
be demonstrated by the TPC for each laboratory used by the TPC or panel 
producer that is using the alternative method at least once each year 
or whenever there is a significant change in equipment, procedures, or 
the qualifications of testing personnel.
    The CARB ATCM includes a specific method for demonstrating 
equivalence between ASTM E-1333-96 (2002) and ASTM D-6007-02. The CARB 
ATCM method requires at least 10 comparison sample sets, which compare 
the results of the 2 methods, for an equivalence demonstration. The 10 
comparison sample sets consist of testing a minimum of 5 sample sets in 
at least 2 out of 3 specified ranges of formaldehyde concentrations. 
For the ASTM E-1333-96 (2002) method, each comparison sample consists 
of the result of simultaneously testing an appropriate number of panels 
(factoring in the loading rate) from the same batch of panels tested by 
the ASTM D-6007-02 method. For the ASTM D-6007 method, each comparison 
sample consists of testing 9 specimens representing evenly distributed 
portions of an entire panel. The nine specimens are tested in groups of 
3 specimens (factoring in loading rate), resulting in 3 test results, 
which are averaged to represent one data point for the panel, and 
matched to their respective ASTM E-1333-96 (2002) comparison sample 
result. CARB requires that equivalence be established between the ASTM 
E-1333-96 (2002) and ASTM D-6007-02 methods to represent the range in 
emissions based on the emission standards for the composite wood 
products being tested.
    EPA is proposing the same general methodology as is required under 
the CARB ATCM. However, because the CARB phase 2 emission standards 
will be in effect by the time EPA issues a final rule, EPA believes 
that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to find products 
with emissions in the intermediate and upper ranges specified by the 
CARB equivalency demonstration requirements. EPA's proposed procedure, 
therefore, does not include the requirement of testing different 
formaldehyde concentration ranges. Instead, EPA is proposing that 
equivalence be demonstrated in a range of formaldehyde concentrations 
that is representative of the emissions of the products that the TPC 
certifies. Therefore, EPA is proposing to require a minimum of 5 
comparison sample sets rather than 10. In addition, EPA is proposing to 
allow for more flexibility in sampling and not require testing of 9 
specimens representing evenly distributed portions of an entire panel. 
EPA believes that for some types of panels, within panel variability is 
such that fewer specimens can be tested, but for other panels testing 
of at least 9 specimens would be needed. EPA believes that TPCs and 
panel producers are best able to determine the sampling and testing 
needed to account for within panel variability for a specific product 
type and is therefore proposing to allow for flexibility in the 
distribution and number of specimens to require for the small chamber 
test comparison sample set.
    EPA is proposing the following method for demonstrating equivalence 
between ASTM E-1333-10 and ASTM D-6007-02: An equivalence demonstration 
would include at least five comparison sample sets (i.e., five large 
chamber sample sets and five small chamber sample sets), which compare 
the results of the two methods. For the ASTM E-1333-10 method, each 
comparison sample would consist of the result of simultaneously testing 
an appropriate number of panels, using the applicable loading ratios 
from the method, from the same batch of panels tested by the ASTM D-
6007-02 method. For the ASTM D6007 method, each comparison sample would 
consist of testing specimens representing portions of panels tested in 
the ASTM E-1333-10 and matched to their respective ASTM E-1333-10 
method comparison sample result. The arithmetic mean, x and standard 
deviation, S, of the difference of all comparison sets would be 
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN13.001

Where x = arithmetic mean;
S = standard deviation;
n = number of sets;
Di = difference between the ASTM E-1333-10 and the ASTM D-6007-02 
method values for the ith set; and
i ranges from 1 to n.

    EPA is proposing that ASTM D-6007-02 method would be considered 
equivalent to the ASTM E-1333-10 method if the following condition were 
met:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN13.002

Where C is equal to 0.026 (Ref. 37).

    EPA believes that the proposed means for showing equivalence 
between ASTM

[[Page 34834]]

E-1333-10 and ASTM D-6007-02 is a reasonable method of showing 
equivalence. EPA independently analyzed this proposed method for 
demonstrating equivalence by evaluating CARB's Supplemental Analysis 
Supporting the Test for Demonstrating Equivalence between Primary and 
Secondary Methods for Measuring Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite 
Wood Products (Ref. 37) and by comparing CARB's method with the two-one 
sided t-test (TOST). EPA is proposing to use the CARB method because it 
appears to be satisfactory for the desired purpose, it is simpler than 
the TOST method, it is not overly burdensome, and industry is already 
using it. EPA requests comment on whether the proposed means of showing 
equivalence is appropriate. EPA specifically requests comment on 
whether 5 comparison sample sets are sufficient or whether 10 should be 
required. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether testing products 
in two different ranges of formaldehyde concentrations should be 
required, as is required under the CARB ATCM, and what ranges would be 
appropriate (e.g., lower range less than 0.05 ppm and upper range 0.05 
ppm-0.13 ppm as measured by ASTM E-1333-10). EPA also requests comment 
on whether sampling should be left to the TPCs and manufacturers, or 
whether EPA should require testing of nine specimens (representing 
evenly distributed portions of an entire panel) tested in groups of 
three specimens, resulting in three test results, which would be 
averaged to represent one comparison sample for the ASTM D-6007-02 
method, or whether some other sampling protocol should be required. EPA 
also requests comment on whether the proposed criteria for 
demonstrating equivalence are appropriate, or whether other criteria 
would be more appropriate, such as establishing equivalence criteria 
based on the TOST method.
    EPA is proposing to require that equivalence between ASTM E-1333-10 
and any formaldehyde quality control test method used other than ASTM 
D-6007-02 would be demonstrated by establishing a linear regression and 
an acceptable correlation, as defined by the correlation coefficient, 
or ``r'' value. Although correlation will not show that the test 
methods give equivalent results, it will demonstrate whether a quality 
control test method can be used to adequately estimate the 
corresponding ASTM E-1333-10 test result; therefore, if there is an 
acceptable correlation, the quality control test method can be used to 
estimate whether the product meets the emission standards. The 
correlation would be based on a minimum sample size of five data pairs 
and a simple linear regression where the dependent variable (Y-axis) is 
the quality control test value and the independent variable (X-axis) is 
the ASTM E-1333-10 test value. EPA is proposing the following minimum 
acceptable correlation coefficients (``r'' values) for the correlation:

            Minimum Correlation for Equivalency Correlations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Degrees of Freedom (n-2)                   ``r'' Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3..........................................................        0.878
4..........................................................        0.811
5..........................................................        0.754
6..........................................................        0.707
7..........................................................        0.666
8..........................................................        0.632
9..........................................................        0.602
10 or more.................................................        0.576
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of data pairs is represented by the letter ``n.'' For 
example, correlations based on five data pairs have 3-degrees of 
freedom, and the correlation coefficient would need to be 0.878 or 
greater. These values are the same as those recommended by CARB in its 
Certification Guideline No. CWP-10-001 (Ref. 38). EPA requests comment, 
information, and data on these values and whether they adequately 
account for the uncertainties (e.g., sample preparation, emission 
testing) and thus, are appropriate for this purpose.
    Because of the low emissions required for regulated composite wood 
products, it may be necessary to include more than five data pairs and/
or a range of products (with a suitable range in emissions, e.g., 0-0.1 
ppm) in the testing to achieve acceptable correlation coefficients. In 
addition to the requirement of establishing a new correlation annually 
or whenever there is a significant change in equipment, procedures, or 
the qualifications of testing personnel, EPA is proposing that a new 
correlation would need to be established by the TPC for the panel 
producer whenever a TPC's quarterly test results compared with the 
panel producer's quality control test results do not fit the previously 
established correlation. In addition, if a panel producer fails two 
quarterly tests in a row, a new correlation curve would have to be 
established.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed correlation method for 
demonstrating equivalence and whether the proposed acceptable 
correlation coefficients are reasonable. EPA also requests comment on 
whether the term ``equivalency'' needs to be defined more clearly and 
whether additional statistical parameters are needed to make a 
determination of ``equivalency'' for the quality control methods.
    4. Non-complying lots. EPA is proposing to require producers of 
non-complying lots of composite wood products to treat such lots in a 
manner similar to the CARB ATCM requirements. A non-complying lot would 
be any lot or batch represented by a quarterly or quality control test 
value that exceeds the applicable emission standard for the particular 
composite wood product. In the case of a quarterly test value, only the 
particular lot from which the sample was taken would be considered a 
non-complying lot; lots produced after the previous quarterly test but 
before the lot from which the sample was taken would still be 
considered certified product. However, future production of product 
type(s) represented by a failed quarterly test would not be considered 
certified and would have to be treated as a non-complying lot until the 
product type(s) are re-qualified through a successful quarterly test.
    TPCs would be required to notify EPA and the panel producer of any 
quarterly tests that exceed the applicable standard within 24 hours of 
obtaining the test result. Panel producers would be required to 
segregate the non-complying lot from other product. Products in non-
complying lots could only be sold, supplied, or offered for sale in the 
United States if a test value that meets the applicable standard is 
obtained after the products are treated with scavengers, to absorb 
excess formaldehyde, or treated through another process that reduces 
formaldehyde emissions, e.g. aging. EPA is proposing to define the term 
``scavenger'' as a chemical or chemicals that can be applied to resins 
or composite wood products to reduce the amount of formaldehyde that 
can be emitted from composite wood products. EPA requests comment on 
whether this definition is appropriate. EPA also requests comment on 
processes other than aging that could be used to reduce formaldehyde 
emissions from non-complying lots. Under this proposal, panel producers 
would be required to keep records of the disposition of non-complying 
lots, including the specific treatment used and the subsequent test 
results demonstrating compliance.
    Non-complying lots, by definition, do not meet the applicable 
emission standards and may not be sold, supplied, or offered for sale 
in the United States. In order to ensure that

[[Page 34835]]

this does not occur, EPA is proposing to require that panel producers 
retain lots of composite wood products from which quality control or 
quarterly samples have been selected until the samples have been tested 
and the results received. With respect to quarterly samples, this 
includes lots that are grouped for purposes of quarterly testing. EPA 
believes that this approach may be less burdensome overall and offer 
better protection to importers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, 
and consumers than an approach relying on after-the-fact enforcement 
actions and customer notifications.

E. Quality Assurance and Quality Control Requirements for Composite 
Wood Product Panel Producers

    Composite wood product panel producers are responsible for ensuring 
that their products meet the emission standards of TSCA Title VI. 
Quality assurance and quality control requirements for panel producers 
are necessary to ensure that all of their products comply with the 
applicable standards, including those that are not actually tested. EPA 
believes that the proposed quality assurance and quality control 
requirements would help ensure proper handling of test samples, test 
equipment, and quality control testing. EPA is generally proposing 
quality assurance requirements that are identical to the requirements 
under the CARB ATCM. As discussed in more detail in Unit III.F., these 
quality assurance and quality control requirements do not apply to any 
product type made with a NAF-based resin or ULEF resin for which the 
panel producer is eligible for an exemption from the third party 
certification requirements, except for the purpose of applying for re-
approval for the exemption.
    Under this proposal, each panel producer would be required to have 
a written quality control manual containing at a minimum: (1) 
Organizational structure of the quality control department; (2) 
sampling procedures; (3) method of handling samples, including a 
specific maximum time period for analyzing quality control samples; (4) 
frequency of quality control testing; (5) procedures to identify 
changes in formaldehyde emissions resulting from production changes 
(e.g., increase in the percentage of resin, increase in formaldehyde/
urea molar ratio in the resin, or decrease in press time); (6) 
provisions for additional testing; (7) recordkeeping requirements; (8) 
average percentage of resin and press time for each product type; (9) 
product grouping, if applicable, and (10) procedures for reduced 
quality control testing, if applicable. The TPC would review and 
approve the manual to ensure that the manual is complete and that the 
panel producer's procedures are adequate to ensure that the TSCA Title 
VI emission standards are being met on an ongoing basis. The proposed 
requirement for a quality control manual is consistent with CARB and 
with international voluntary consensus standards, such as the 
International Standards Organization (ISO) 9000 series of standards. 
EPA requests comment on what should be included in the quality control 
manual.
    This proposal would also require each panel producer to designate a 
quality control facility for conducting quality control formaldehyde 
testing of their product. The quality control facility must be a 
laboratory owned and operated by the panel producer, a TPC, or a 
contract laboratory.
    EPA is also proposing to require each panel producer to designate a 
person as quality control manager with adequate experience and/or 
training to be responsible for formaldehyde emission quality control. 
EPA is requesting comment on criteria for determining whether an 
individual's experience and/or training are appropriate for this 
position. For example, should the quality control manager have a 
certain number of years of experience in the wood products industry, or 
a degree in chemistry or a related field?
    The quality control manager would have to have the authority to 
take actions necessary to ensure that applicable emission standards are 
being met. The quality control manager would also be identified in 
writing to the TPC. Under this proposal, the panel producer would have 
to notify the TPC in writing within 10 days of any change in the 
identity of the quality control manager and provide the TPC with the 
new quality control manager's qualifications. The quality control 
manager would review and approve all reports of quality control testing 
conducted on the production of the panel producer. The quality control 
manager would also be responsible for ensuring that the samples are 
collected, packaged, and shipped according to the procedures specified 
in the quality control manual. The panel producer quality control 
manager would monitor the testing facility's results, and would 
immediately inform the TPC in writing of any significant changes in 
production that could affect formaldehyde emission rates.
    EPA is proposing to require panel producers to submit monthly 
product data reports for each panel producer, production line and 
product type, to their TPC. The content requirements for the product 
data reports would be similar to the CARB requirements and include a 
data sheet for each specific product with test and production 
information, and a quality control graph containing the established 
quality control limit (QCL) and shipping QCL, if applicable, the 
results of quality control tests, and retest values. EPA requests 
comment on whether other useful information, or a different format, 
should be required.
    EPA is also proposing to require that each quality control facility 
have quality control employees with adequate experience and/or training 
to conduct accurate and precise chemical quantitative analytical tests. 
EPA requests comment on the criteria for determining whether an 
individual's experience and/or training are appropriate for this 
position. The quality control manager would identify each person 
conducting formaldehyde quality control testing in the quality control 
manual and to the accredited TPC.

F. NAF and ULEF Resins

    TSCA Title VI section 601(d)(2)(D) and (E) directs EPA to include, 
in its implementing regulations, provisions related to products made 
with NAF and ULEF resins. The statute also defines, under section 
601(a)(7) and (10) respectively, what constitutes NAF-based and ULEF-
based resins, in terms of the composition of the resin system and 
maximum formaldehyde emissions for composite wood products made with 
these resin systems. In general, a NAF composite wood product cannot 
incorporate a resin formulated with formaldehyde. A ULEF composite wood 
product is one made from resins that may contain formaldehyde, but emit 
it at particularly low levels, such as melamine-urea-formaldehyde 
resin, phenol formaldehyde resin, resorcinol formaldehyde, or other 
formaldehyde-based resins. The statutory maximum emissions for products 
made with NAF-based or ULEF-based resins are identical to those in the 
CARB ATCM.
    Under the CARB ATCM, ULEF and NAF manufactures are provided with 
incentives such as reduced testing requirements for ULEF, and for NAF, 
a 2-year exemption from TPC oversight and formaldehyde emissions 
testing for one individual product type. If further reduced emission 
standards are met, ULEF manufacturers can also be exempted from TPC 
oversight and formaldehyde emissions testing. ULEF and NAF 
manufacturers must apply to CARB to get the initial exemption for

[[Page 34836]]

either the reduced testing of their individual products (for ULEF) or 
for a total exemption from TPC oversight and formaldehyde emissions 
testing (ULEF or NAF). A separate exemption is required for each 
composite wood product type. The NAF exemption under the CARB ATCM from 
TPC oversight and formaldehyde emissions testing requires an initial 3-
month formaldehyde emissions testing period with a TPC. For 
manufacturers to receive a ULEF exemption from TPC oversight and 
formaldehyde emissions testing, 6 months of formaldehyde emissions 
testing with a TPC is required. In addition, formaldehyde emissions 
must be reduced to below the standard ULEF emissions level. Exempt NAF 
and ULEF manufacturers must reapply to CARB for exemption from TPC 
oversight and formaldehyde emissions testing every 2 years by 
submitting test results for each product type for which an exemption is 
sought, based on a panel or set of panels randomly selected and tested 
by a TPC, and the chemical formulation of the resin.
    EPA is proposing a similar approach for the TSCA Title VI program. 
If certain emission thresholds are met, EPA proposes to provide 
producers of panels made with NAF-based resins or ULEF resins with an 
exemption from TPC oversight and formaldehyde emissions testing after 
an initial testing period of 3 months for each product type made with 
NAF-based resins or 6 months for each product type made with ULEF 
resins. These specific initial testing periods are required by the 
statute and are designed to ensure that the products meet the TSCA 
section 601(a) formaldehyde emission standards for products made with 
NAF-based or ULEF resins.
    Whether using a NAF-based or ULEF resin, to qualify for the 
exemption from TPC oversight and formaldehyde emission testing for a 
particular product type, there can be no test result higher than 0.05 
ppm of formaldehyde for hardwood plywood and 0.06 ppm for 
particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, and thin medium-density 
fiberboard during the initial testing period of 3 or 6 months for NAF-
based or ULEF resins, respectively. In addition, test results for 90% 
of the required 3 or 6 months of quality control testing must be no 
higher than 0.04 ppm of formaldehyde.
    EPA is also proposing that, if less stringent emission standards 
than these are met, producers of panels made with ULEF resins may still 
qualify for reduced formaldehyde emission testing--but not the TPC 
exemption or the exemption from emission testing after the initial 6 
months. To qualify for this reduced testing provision for products made 
with ULEF resins, there can be no test result higher than 0.05 ppm of 
formaldehyde for hardwood plywood, 0.08 ppm for particleboard, 0.09 ppm 
for medium-density fiberboard, and 0.11 ppm for thin medium-density 
fiberboard during the initial 6 month testing period. In addition, test 
results for 90% of the required quality control testing must be no 
higher than 0.05 ppm of formaldehyde for particleboard, 0.06 ppm for 
medium-density fiberboard, and 0.08 ppm for thin medium-density 
fiberboard. Under this reduced testing provision, qualifying panels 
would only need to be quality control tested at least once per week per 
product type and production line, except that hardwood plywood panel 
producers who qualify for less frequent quality control testing may 
continue to perform the lesser amount of testing. For these panels, 
what would otherwise be quarterly testing by an accredited TPC would 
instead only be required every 6 months.
    An accredited TPC would be required to oversee the testing during 
the initial testing period, which must include at least one test result 
for the NAF exemption or two test results for either ULEF provision 
under ASTM E-1333-10 or, upon a showing of equivalence as discussed in 
this Unit, ASTM D-6007-02 (Refs. 31 and 29). In contrast to the CARB 
ATCM, EPA is not proposing to require the panel producer to formally 
apply to EPA for reduced testing or a TPC exemption. Rather, the panel 
producer would be required to apply to an accredited TPC for reduced 
testing or a TPC exemption based on the regulatory requirements and to 
send a copy of the application to EPA. EPA intends to list panel 
producers and product types that have been approved for reduced testing 
and exemption from TPC requirements on EPA's Web site.
    To maintain eligibility for a TPC exemption, at least once every 2 
years after the conclusion of the initial testing period, the panel 
producer would have to reapply for exemption to an accredited TPC and 
have one test result under ASTM E-1333-10 or, upon a showing of 
equivalence as discussed in this unit, ASTM D-6007-02, which 
demonstrates continued compliance with the reduced formaldehyde 
emission standards for each product type (Refs. 31 and 29). The test 
must be based on products randomly selected and tested by an accredited 
TPC. In the case of approval for ULEF reduced testing, no periodic 
reapplication would be necessary because the panel producer would have 
ongoing TPC oversight.
    Testing records and other records demonstrating eligibility for a 
TPC exemption or reduced testing, such as records showing the chemical 
composition of the resins used to manufacture the eligible products, 
would have to be maintained for a minimum of 3 years from the date that 
the record was created. EPA requests comment on whether the test 
records from the initial testing period should be kept for as long as a 
panel producer claims a TPC exemption.
    Under this proposal, any change in the resin formulation, the core 
material, or any other part of the manufacturing process that may 
affect formaldehyde emission rates would render the product ineligible 
for the reduced testing approval or TPC exemption. EPA requests comment 
on whether other events, such as failed quarterly or routine quality 
control tests, should invalidate a reduced testing approval. EPA also 
requests comment on whether, in the event of such a change, the panel 
producer should be required to begin the TPC exemption process again 
with a 3 or 6 month testing period overseen by an accredited TPC, or 
whether a single TPC test of the modified product would be sufficient. 
EPA further requests comment on whether a distinction can be made 
between changes that are unlikely to result in changes in product 
emissions, which may not need extensive testing to confirm continued 
eligibility for the exemption, and more significant changes. EPA is 
particularly interested in specific examples of both types of changes.
    Although this proposal contains a ULEF reduced testing provision, 
EPA requests comment on the utility of this option. It is EPA's 
understanding that very few manufacturers have sought the ULEF reduced 
testing provision under the CARB ATCM in lieu of the total exemption 
from TPC oversight and formaldehyde emissions testing requirements 
after the initial testing period. As such, EPA anticipates that the 
vast majority of ULEF resin-based composite wood product manufacturers 
will apply for the full exemption from TPC oversight and formaldehyde 
emissions testing after the initial testing period.
    EPA is also requesting comments, information, and data on the 
broader question of giving composite wood products made with ULEF 
resins preferential treatment under TSCA. EPA is particularly concerned 
with products made with urea-formaldehyde-based resins. EPA believes 
that it is more

[[Page 34837]]

difficult to ensure that formaldehyde emissions from products made with 
these resins remain low over time, regardless of environmental 
conditions. It is well known that urea-formaldehyde resins can release 
formaldehyde when exposed to heat and humidity because of the chemistry 
of the resin. There are a number of older studies demonstrating that 
urea-formaldehyde resins have increased emissions in the presence of 
heat and humidity. For example, a 1985 review article analyzes data on 
the effects of temperature or humidity on formaldehyde emissions from 
urea-formaldehyde bonded particleboard and hardwood plywood from 
numerous studies from 1960-1984 (Ref. 39). This article concludes that 
formaldehyde emissions increased exponentially with increasing 
temperature. The relationship between humidity and formaldehyde 
emissions was more complex and variable, but the author concludes that 
the relationship was approximately linear.
    Since the 1980s, changes have been made to resins to lower 
formaldehyde emissions; for example, the ratio of formaldehyde to urea 
is often lower, and sometimes scavengers are added to the resin. 
Several recent emission studies have been conducted on composite wood 
products that have been produced to meet stringent emission standards. 
A study on a hardwood plywood product made with urea-formaldehyde resin 
and a similar hardwood plywood product made with a NAF resin 
demonstrated that the urea-formaldehyde product emitted more 
formaldehyde as the temperature and relative humidity increased. The 
study reports that both products met the CARB Phase 2 standard when 
initially tested in a small chamber under the test conditions specified 
by the method, i.e., 25 [deg]C and 50% relative humidity (Ref. 40). 
However, when the urea-formaldehyde product was tested at 35 [deg]C and 
100% relative humidity, its formaldehyde emissions increased by more 
than 31 times compared with the emissions measured at 25 [deg]C and 30% 
relative humidity. In contrast, the formaldehyde emissions from the NAF 
product only increased slightly (less than 4 times) over the same 
change in temperature and humidity conditions. In addition, for the NAF 
product, total formaldehyde emissions reached a plateau and decreased 
rapidly after a few days under all of the test conditions.
    Riedlinger et al measured formaldehyde emissions from four types of 
particleboard (PB) panels (made with UF, phenol-formaldehyde (PF), 
melamine-urea-formaldehyde (MUF), and polymeric diphenylmethane 
diisocyanate (pMDI) resins), one of which (the PF product) was 
certified as a ULEF panel under the CARB ATCM (Ref. 41). Testing was 
conducted at both the standard temperature/relative humidity conditions 
and at 30 [deg]C and 75% relative humidity using ASTM D-6007 and the 
Dynamic Microchamber Method (Refs. 29 and 33) for up to 50 days. 
Aspects of the testing confound comparisons of the data; for example, 
testing at the standard and elevated temperature/relative humidity 
conditions was conducted in two different laboratories, using different 
sampling procedures and analytical methods, with sampling at different 
time points. Nonetheless, the study appears to show that formaldehyde 
emissions from panels made with all four resin types increased by 
factors of 2 to 3 under the elevated temperature/relative humidity 
conditions. Emissions from panels made with two non-UF resin types 
(i.e., PF and pMDI) never exceeded the numerical emission limit of 0.09 
ppm for PB, even at elevated conditions, whereas emissions from panels 
made with the UF resins (i.e., UF and MUF) exceeded that numerical 
emission limit at elevated temperature and relative humidity until 
about 20 or 25 days after the start of the testing.
    EPA also recently conducted a study to investigate the effects of 
temperature and humidity on formaldehyde emissions from hardwood 
plywood made with different types of resins (Ref. 42). A CARB approved 
third-party certifier tested commercial hardwood plywood products 
certified as NAF or ULEF under the CARB ATCM using ASTM D-6007-02 
(small chamber testing) at two different temperatures (25 [deg]C and 30 
[deg]C) and three different relative humidities (50%, 70%, and 85%). 
The results demonstrate that while formaldehyde emissions increased 
from all panels with increasing temperature, the effect of temperature 
on emissions from ULEF panels made with urea-formaldehyde (ULEF-UF) was 
up to three times greater than on the NAF panels made with an acrylic 
resin or the ULEF panels made with phenol-formaldehyde. All 
formaldehyde emissions from the ULEF-UF panel exceeded the numerical 
emission limit for ULEF panels (0.05 ppm) except under standard 
conditions, while, in almost all cases, despite the chamber conditions, 
formaldehyde emissions for the ULEF-PF and NAF-acrylic panels were 
below the numerical emission standard.
    Given this information, EPA requests comment on whether there 
should be a reduced testing option or a TPC exemption available to 
products made with ULEF resins. EPA also requests comment on whether 
the ULEF provisions should be limited to products made with a subset of 
ULEF resins that do not contain urea-formaldehyde polymer--in other 
words, limited to no-added urea formaldehyde-based (NAUF) resins. EPA 
believes that encouraging the use of NAUF resins is a more reliable way 
of ensuring that formaldehyde emissions from a particular product 
remain low over time, regardless of environmental conditions, such as 
heat and humidity.

G. De Minimis Exception

    Section 601(d)(2)(L) of TSCA allows EPA to promulgate, for products 
and components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood 
products, an exception to all of the requirements of the implementing 
regulations other than the formaldehyde emission standards. After due 
consideration, EPA has decided not to propose an exception from any of 
the regulatory requirements for products containing de minimis amounts 
of composite wood products. EPA does not have data on the emission 
levels of such products, nor does EPA know of any information that 
suggests that such products would not have formaldehyde emissions that 
exceed the statutory emission standards. In addition, EPA has not 
identified any apparent dividing line between products that contain de 
minimis amounts of composite wood products and other products. EPA 
requests comment, information and data on whether there should be such 
an exception, how the exception should be delineated, and what 
regulatory provisions should apply or not apply to such products. EPA 
notes that any decision on this particular exception would not affect 
the statutory exemption from the emission standards for windows, 
exterior doors, and garage doors made with small amounts of composite 
wood products.

H. Chain-of-Custody, Recordkeeping, and Labeling Requirements

    Section 601(d)(2) of TSCA Title VI also directs EPA to consider 
chain of custody, recordkeeping, and labeling requirements. For 
labeling, EPA is proposing requirements that generally follow the 
approach taken in the CARB ATCM because EPA believes that this approach 
supports compliance with the TSCA Title VI emission standards while not 
being unduly burdensome. With respect to chain of custody and 
recordkeeping requirements, EPA is proposing requirements similar to 
that of the CARB ATCM for entities that are manufacturers under TSCA. 
This

[[Page 34838]]

includes entities who import, produce, or manufacture composite wood 
panels, component parts, or finished goods. Again, EPA believes that 
this approach supports compliance with TSCA Title VI without undue 
burden. However, for distributors and retailers who are not 
manufacturers under TSCA, EPA is proposing that they only be required 
to keep invoices and bills of lading. EPA has determined that these 
ordinary business records would provide enough information to enable 
EPA to trace back a particular composite wood product to the panel 
producer and thus allow EPA to monitor compliance with TSCA Title VI. 
Each of these proposed requirements is discussed in more detail in this 
Unit.
    1. Chain of custody and recordkeeping requirements. Most records 
would have to be kept for a period of 3 years from the date that they 
are generated. In addition, all records that would be required by this 
proposal would also have to be provided to EPA upon request to 
facilitate EPA's compliance monitoring activities.
    Producers of hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density 
fiberboard panels would be required to maintain records of quarterly 
emission testing and records of quality control testing. These records 
would have to identify the accredited TPC conducting or overseeing the 
testing, and would include the date, the product type tested, the lot 
or batch number that the tested material represents, and the test 
results. In addition, panel producers would have to maintain the 
following records:
     Production records, including a description of the 
composite wood product(s), date of manufacture, lot or batch numbers, 
and tracking information allowing each product to be traced to a 
specific lot number or batch produced.
     Changes in production, including changes in resin use, 
resin composition, and changes in the process, e.g., press time.
     Purchaser information for each composite wood product, if 
applicable, including name, contact person, address, telephone number, 
purchase order or invoice number, and amount purchased.
     Transporter information for each composite wood product, 
if applicable, including name, contact person, address, telephone 
number, shipping invoice number, and amount transported.
     Information on the disposition of non-complying lots or 
batches, including product type and amount of composite wood products 
affected, lot or batch numbers, mitigation measures used, results of 
retesting, and final disposition of the lots or batches.
    In addition, laminated product producers whose products are exempt 
from the definition of hardwood plywood would have to maintain records 
demonstrating use of a NAF resin, including the resin trade name, resin 
manufacturer contact information, and resin supplier contact 
information, or, if the resin is made in-house, records sufficient to 
demonstrate that the resin is a NAF resin.
    In order to assist customers such as fabricators, distributors, 
importers, and retailers in determining whether they are purchasing 
compliant composite wood products, EPA would require that all records 
pertaining to the compliance status of a particular lot, batch, or 
shipment of composite wood products be provided to purchasers upon 
request. EPA realizes that some of the information contained in these 
records is information that manufactures might claim as Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) in other contexts. While information 
collected under TSCA may be entitled to confidential treatment if it 
meets the standard for Exemption 4 in the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), TSCA provides that health and safety 
studies and data derived from health and safety studies, are not 
entitled to confidential treatment, irrespective of the Exemption 4 
standard, unless the data derived from such studies disclose 
confidential processes used in the manufacturing or processing of a 
chemical substance or mixture or, in the case of a mixture, the release 
of data disclosing confidential portion of mixture information.
    TSCA defines a ``health and safety study'' as any study of any 
effect of a chemical substance or mixture on health or the environment 
or on both, including underlying data and epidemiological studies, 
studies of occupational exposure to a chemical or mixture, 
toxicological, clinical, and ecological studies of a chemical or 
mixture, and any test performed pursuant to TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2602(6)). 
Because the testing required by TSCA Title VI and the implementing 
regulations would be ``any test performed pursuant to the Act,'' such 
tests would be health and safety studies. Therefore, under TSCA, the 
formaldehyde emission test results of specific products are not 
entitled to confidential treatment. The names of the producers of 
panels for which formaldehyde emission data are generated similarly are 
not entitled to confidential treatment, analogous to how EPA treats the 
confidentiality of chemical identities in health and safety studies. It 
is a long established principle that the chemical name is part of, or 
underlying data to, a health and safety study. (See 40 CFR 716.3; 40 
CFR 720.3(k)) The rationale for this is that the chemical name provides 
context for the study results, i.e., the test relates to a specific 
chemical. Without knowing the chemical name, there is no basis for 
understanding the results of the test.
    The same principle applies to producer names. The requirement to 
test formaldehyde emissions from specific composite wood products 
produced by specific panel producers, and an obligation to make those 
results available to downstream purchasers so that purchasers can 
determine whether they are purchasing compliant products, is integral 
to TSCA Title VI and these implementing regulations. In order to have 
context, the raw emission numbers must be linked to the products 
tested. For this reason, the product name and the producer of the 
product constitute part of, or are underlying data to, a health and 
safety study. Therefore under TSCA, the product and panel producer name 
are not entitled to confidential treatment.
    Producers of hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium-density 
fiberboard panels using NAF-based resins or ULEF resins who qualify for 
the reduced testing and third-party certification requirements 
discussed in Unit III.F. would have to maintain records demonstrating 
initial eligibility for the reduced testing. In addition, the panel 
producer would have to keep records documenting the following for each 
product type:
     The amount of resin use by volume and weight.
     Production volume, reported as square feet per product 
type.
     Resin trade name, resin manufacturer contact information, 
and resin supplier contact information.
     Changes in the production method, including changes in 
press time by more than 20%.
     Changes in the resin formulation.
    Importers, fabricators of finished goods that incorporate composite 
wood products, laminated product producers whose products are exempt 
from the definition of hardwood plywood, distributors, and retailers 
would be required to take steps to ensure that they are purchasing 
composite wood products or component parts that comply with the 
emission standards. Importers, fabricators, and laminated product 
producers would be required to document these steps. In general, this 
means that the importer, fabricator, or producer would be required to 
obtain

[[Page 34839]]

from the supplier records identifying the panel producer(s) that 
produced the composite wood products and the dates that the products 
were manufactured and purchased from the panel producer(s), and bills 
of lading or invoices that include a written affirmation from the 
supplier that the composite wood products are compliant with this 
subpart. EPA requests comment on what documentation ought to be 
required of distributors and retailers in this regard. For example, 
should distributors and retailers be required to obtain bills of lading 
or invoices from their suppliers that include a written affirmation 
that the composite wood products are compliant with this subpart? Or 
should distributors and retailers be required to obtain the same 
records that EPA is proposing to require for importers, fabricators, 
and laminators? In addition, laminated product producers whose products 
are exempt from the definition of hardwood plywood would have to 
maintain records demonstrating use of a NAF resin, including the resin 
trade name, resin manufacturer contact information, and resin supplier 
contact information, or, if the resin is made in-house, records 
sufficient to demonstrate that the resin is a NAF resin.
    For distributors and retailers who do not import, produce, or 
manufacture composite wood panels, component parts, or finished goods, 
EPA is proposing to require that they maintain invoices and bills of 
lading. The invoices and bills of lading would not be required to 
contain an affirmation by the supplier that the goods comply with TSCA 
Title IV. EPA believes that invoices and bills of lading are usually 
kept by most distributors and retailers already, as part of their 
general recordkeeping practices. EPA has determined that these records 
will enable EPA to identify the producer or importer of composite wood 
panels, component parts, or finished goods being sold by distributors 
and retailers. For finished goods, this will allow EPA to ultimately 
identify the producer of the composite wood panels that make up the 
finished goods. Without imposing additional recordkeeping burdens on 
most distributors and retailers, this requirement will allow EPA to 
effectively monitor compliance with TSCA Title VI.
    Entities that fit within two or more of these recordkeeping 
categories, such as a fabricator of finished goods who also buys 
finished goods for resale, or a distributor that buys finished goods 
from both foreign and domestic companies for resale, would be required 
to keep only the records for each product that correspond to the 
activities the entity undertook with respect to that product. For 
example, a domestic fabricator of finished goods who also buys domestic 
finished goods and sells both categories of finished goods to a 
domestic distributor for resale would have to keep the records required 
for fabricators on those products that the fabricator produces, and 
invoices and bills of lading only for those finished goods that the 
fabricator buys and resells. A distributor who purchases both foreign 
and domestic finished goods for resale would be required to keep the 
following records:
     For foreign finished goods that the distributor imports, 
records identifying the panel producer(s) that produced the composite 
wood products and the dates that the products were manufactured and 
purchased from the panel producer(s) as well as bills of lading or 
invoices that include a written affirmation from the supplier that the 
composite wood products are compliant with this subpart.
     For domestic finished goods, only invoices and bills of 
lading, which need not contain a written compliance affirmation from 
the supplier.
    For imported finished goods, only the importer would be responsible 
for keeping the records identifying the panel producer and the date 
that the composite wood products were manufactured. For example, if the 
importer sells the goods to a domestic distributor, who then sells them 
to a domestic retailer, only the importer would have to keep the 
additional records. The domestic distributor and retailer would only be 
required to keep invoices and bills of lading.
    With respect to home builders or producers of goods such as modular 
homes, manufactured homes, or recreational vehicles that contain 
composite wood products, EPA will generally consider these entities to 
be either fabricators or retailers for recordkeeping purposes, 
depending on their activities with respect to composite wood products. 
For example, a home builder or manufactured home producer who purchases 
finished kitchen cabinets made of composite wood products from another 
entity, installs them in the home, and then sells the home to a 
consumer would be considered to be a retailer so long as no major 
modifications were made to the cabinets in the process of installing 
them. In contrast, a manufactured home producer would be considered a 
fabricator if the producer purchased finished composite wood panels, 
cut them into shelves or countertops, edge-banded them, and then 
installed them into a manufactured home and sold the home to a 
consumer. EPA believes that this approach is consistent with CARB's 
approach (Ref. 43, Questions 87, 89, and 91). These entities may also 
be importers if they import composite wood products, or components made 
with composite wood products, for installation into their homes or 
recreational vehicles. EPA requests comment on how the definition of 
``fabricator'' and the record keeping requirements for fabricators 
would affect manufactured home producers.
    In order for this recordkeeping system to function effectively, 
allowing EPA to determine the source of the composite wood products 
that make up an imported finished good, the records required to be kept 
by the importer would have to be accessible to EPA. EPA requests 
comment on alternative ways to ensure that this is the case. For 
example, EPA could require importer records to be maintained in the 
United States, either at the importer's place of business or at a 
registered agent's. Or EPA could require an electronic copy of the 
importer records to be available in the United States at the importer's 
place of business or with the importer's registered agent.
    2. Labeling. The CARB ATCM requires that each panel or bundle of 
regulated composite wood products be labeled with the manufacturer 
name; product lot number or batch produced; markings that denote the 
product complies with the applicable Phase 1 or Phase 2 emission 
standards; markings if the product was made using ULEF or NAF-based 
resins; the CARB assigned number of the TPC; and a statement of 
compliance on the bill of lading or invoice.
    EPA is proposing similar labeling requirements. Under this 
proposal, panels or bundles of panels that are sold, supplied, or 
offered for sale in the United States would have to be labeled with the 
name of the panel producer, the lot or batch number, the number of the 
accredited TPC, and markings indicating that the product complies with 
the TSCA Title VI emission standards. Labels for products produced 
under the NAF or ULEF exemptions discussed in Unit III.F. would also 
have to include the designation ``no-added formaldehyde'' or ``ultra 
low-emitting formaldehyde.'' There would also have to be a statement of 
compliance on the bill of lading or invoice. Distributors and 
wholesalers who receive labeled bundles of regulated composite wood 
products and then divide and repackage them, whether in bundles or 
separately, would be required to label each separate bundle or item 
with the same

[[Page 34840]]

information as required on the original label. EPA is proposing to 
define the term ``bundle'' as more than one composite wood product 
panel, component part, or finished good fastened together for 
transportation or sale. EPA requests comment on the utility of this 
definition and whether it represents common industry usage.
    EPA is interested in any information or data available on how often 
retailers receive bundles of regulated composite wood products and then 
divide and repackage them. In addition, EPA requests comment on whether 
these retailers should then be required to label each separate bundle 
or item with the same information as required on the original label. 
EPA would also be interested in comments on other approaches that could 
be used to convey the information; for example, allowing retailers to 
use signage in the retail display area, which contains the information 
on the label, to meet this requirement in lieu of separate labels on 
each product once debundled. Alternatively EPA requests comment on 
requiring fabricators and manufacturers to label every regulated 
product separately prior to bundling and also requiring wholesalers, 
distributors, and retailers to maintain those labels at all times.
    Fabricators of finished goods containing composite wood products 
would be required to label every finished good they produce, or every 
box containing finished goods. As permitted by under the CARB ATCM, EPA 
is proposing to allow the label to be applied as a stamp, tag, sticker, 
or bar code. It would have to include, at a minimum, the fabricator's 
name, the date the finished good was produced and a marking to denote 
that the product was made in compliance with TSCA Title VI. EPA 
requests comment on whether a label applied as a bar code should be 
permitted, given that consumers of finished goods may not be able to 
read bar codes. EPA believes that many consumers of finished goods will 
be aware of the labeling requirements, either under the CARB ATCM or 
TSCA Title VI, and will be looking for a label that indicates 
compliance with the emission standards.
    EPA proposes to allow boards to be shipped into and around the 
United States for quality control or quarterly tests. These boards may 
not be sold, offered for sale or supplied to any entity other than a 
TPC laboratory or contract laboratory prior to successful emissions 
testing. These boards or bundles must be labeled ``For TSCA Title VI 
testing only, not for sale in the United States.'' The boards or 
bundles may be re-labeled as compliant with TSCA and offered for sale 
once they have successfully completed testing.

I. Sell-through Provisions and Stockpiling

    TSCA Title VI directs EPA to establish sell-through provisions for 
composite wood products, and finished goods containing regulated 
composite wood products, based on a designated date of manufacture, or 
``manufactured-by'' date. Under the statute, composite wood products or 
finished goods manufactured before the specified manufactured-by date 
are not subject to statutory emission standards or testing 
requirements. TSCA Title VI states that the manufactured-by date must 
be no earlier than 180 days after promulgation of the final 
implementing regulations, but EPA has the discretion to establish, by 
rulemaking, a later date.
    The manufactured-by date approach directed by TSCA Title VI differs 
from the CARB ACTM approach, which is based on a sell-through date. 
CARB established a series of dates by which products that are not 
compliant with all of the CARB requirements must be sold. In contrast, 
TSCA Title VI requires EPA to set a date by which all new products that 
are manufactured must be compliant with the emission standards. This 
approach should avoid some of the implementation issues encountered by 
CARB. For example, due to the economic recession, CARB found it 
necessary to extend the sell-through dates more than once to allow for 
the slow turnover of preexisting inventory (Refs. 44 and 45).
    TSCA Title VI also directs EPA to prohibit the sale of inventory 
that was stockpiled, which is defined in the statute as manufacturing 
or purchasing composite wood products between the date the statute was 
enacted and the manufactured-by date at a rate significantly greater 
than the rate during a particular base period. EPA is directed to 
define what constitutes ``a rate significantly greater'' and to 
establish the base period. Under the statute, the base period must end 
before July 7, 2010, the date that the Formaldehyde Standards for 
Composite Wood Products Act was enacted.
    EPA believes that because many products are already CARB ATCM-
compliant, and because of a low consumer demand for products not CARB 
ATCM-compliant, stockpiling is not likely to be advantageous for 
manufacturers. During the SBAR Panel process, at least one SER 
commented that consumers were asking for CARB-compliant products prior 
to the end of the CARB sell-through periods (Ref. 15). Moreover, EPA 
believes that the cost of storing stockpiled goods would reduce or 
eliminate any economic advantage to stockpiling. Another SER commented 
that ``[g]iven the cost of carrying inventory there is a natural brake 
on accumulating non-complying inventories long before the effective 
date of the regulation.'' (Ref. 15).
    EPA proposes to set the manufactured-by date at 1 year after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Although TSCA 
Title VI allows EPA to set this date at 180 days after promulgation of 
the final implementing regulations, EPA believes that more time will be 
needed to get all of the infrastructure, such as the accredited TPCs, 
in place and allow panel producers time to develop their initial 
qualifying data for certification. The manufactured-by date would apply 
to both regulated composite wood panels and finished goods containing 
regulated composite wood panels. Composite wood products that can be 
shown to be manufactured before the established manufactured-by date 
would not be subject to the emissions standards, nor would they be 
required to be labeled or tested for emissions. Composite wood products 
manufactured before the manufactured-by date could be incorporated into 
finished goods at any time. Retailers, fabricators, and distributors 
would be permitted to continue to buy and sell these composite wood 
products and finished goods that incorporate these products, because 
they would be considered compliant with TSCA Title VI and its 
implementing regulations, assuming the absence of stockpiling as 
discussed below. Under TSCA, the term ``manufacture'' includes import, 
so the ``manufactured-by'' date would effectively be an ``imported-by'' 
date for imported goods.
    In order to establish that a regulated composite wood product panel 
was made before the manufactured-by date, the panel producer or 
importer and any subsequent distributor, retailer or fabricator would 
be required to keep records that document when the product was 
manufactured. In the case of a finished good, any subsequent 
distributor, retailer or fabricator would be required to keep records 
that document that the composite wood products making up the finished 
good were either manufactured before the manufactured-by date or were 
manufactured in accordance with TSCA Title VI. In order to reduce 
consumer confusion, products that are made before the manufactured-by 
date would not be labeled as compliant with TSCA Title VI. Selling 
stockpiled regulated

[[Page 34841]]

composite wood panels and finished goods containing regulated composite 
wood products would be prohibited. EPA proposes to define stockpiling 
as manufacturing or purchasing composite wood products between July 7, 
2010, the date that the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood 
Products Act was signed into law by the President, and the established 
manufactured-by date (1 year after the final regulations are 
promulgated), for the purpose of circumventing the TSCA Title VI 
emission standards, at an average annual rate 20% t greater than the 
amount manufactured or purchased during the 2009 calendar year. For 
producers of regulated composite wood panels, stockpiling would be 
measured by square footage of regulated composite wood panels produced. 
For importers and fabricators of finished goods containing regulated 
composite wood products, stockpiling would be measured by the square 
footage of regulated composite wood panels purchased to be incorporated 
into finished goods. In either case, entities that can demonstrate that 
they have a greater than 20% increase in purchasing or production of 
regulated composite wood panels for some reason other than 
circumventing the emissions standards would not be deemed to be 
stockpiling. Other reasons may include an immediate increase in 
customer demand or sales, or a planned business expansion. EPA requests 
comment on whether the stockpiling provisions should apply to entities 
that were not in existence at the beginning of calendar year 2009.
    EPA specifically requests comment on whether it is appropriate to 
set the proposed manufactured-by date at the date 1 year after the 
final implementing regulations are promulgated. EPA requests comment on 
alternate dates, and the rationale, including any available information 
and data, for selecting another date. EPA is also interested in how 
different manufactured-by dates would affect panel producers and 
fabricators of products that are not regulated under the CARB ATCM, but 
would be regulated under TSCA Title VI. EPA recognizes that increased 
production during the period after the statute was enacted may very 
well be due to the economic recovery and not to a desire on the part of 
panel producers, importers, and fabricators to circumvent the emission 
standards. EPA requests comment on the proposed stockpiling definition, 
including information and data for alternate baseline periods, rates, 
and measurements. EPA also requests comment on any data that might be 
available from which to derive an appropriate rate for determining 
potential stockpiling.

J. Import Certification

    TSCA Title VI directs EPA, in coordination with U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) and other appropriate Federal departments and 
agencies, to revise regulations promulgated pursuant to TSCA section 13 
as necessary to ensure compliance. The TSCA section 13 regulations, 
promulgated by CBP, require importers to certify that shipments of 
chemical substances and mixtures are in compliance with TSCA or not 
subject to TSCA. EPA believes that most, if not all, products subject 
to TSCA Title VI would be considered articles. Articles, defined in 19 
CFR 12.120(a), are generally formed to specific shapes or designs 
during manufacture and have end use functions related to their shape or 
design. Articles are generally exempt from the TSCA section 13 
certification requirements, but the regulations at 19 CFR 12.121(b) 
recognize that EPA has the authority to, by regulation or order, make 
the requirements applicable to articles.
    EPA is proposing to specifically require TSCA section 13 import 
certification for composite wood products that are articles. TSCA 
section 13 import certification is a compliance monitoring tool and 
import certification for articles subject to TSCA Title VI would also 
serve as an important reminder of the TSCA Title VI requirements to the 
importer. The certification requirement would apply to imports of 
hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard panels, 
as well as finished goods containing such materials. Persons importing 
specifically exempted products, such as structural or curved plywood, 
and finished goods incorporating such products, would not be required 
to certify.
    EPA generally believes that the existing import certification 
regulations, along with the specific labeling and recordkeeping 
requirements for composite wood products discussed in Unit III.H., are 
sufficient to ensure compliance with TSCA Title VI. However, EPA has 
begun consultations with CBP on the TSCA section 13 import regulations 
to determine whether revisions are warranted.

K. Enforcement

    The failure to comply with any provision of TSCA Title VI, or the 
regulations implementing TSCA Title VI, is a prohibited act under TSCA 
section 15. Any person who commits a prohibited act under TSCA section 
15 can be held liable for civil and criminal penalties.

L. Report to Congress

    Section 3 of the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products 
Act requires EPA to report to Congress on an annual basis beginning in 
July 2011, and continuing through 2014. These reports must describe the 
status of the measures carried out or planned to be carried out 
pursuant to TSCA Title VI and the extent to which relevant industries 
have achieved compliance with the requirements of TSCA Title VI. The 
statute directs EPA to promulgate final implementing regulations by 
January 1, 2013. EPA is proposing to make the manufactured-by date 1 
year after the final rule is promulgated, which would mean composite 
wood products manufactured through 1 year after promulgation would not 
be subject to the emission standards. EPA requests comment on how data 
on industry compliance could or should be obtained, and whether a 
reporting requirement would best accomplish this goal.

M. HUD's Manufactured Housing Program

    Under the authority of the National Manufactured Housing 
Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq., 
HUD regulates the construction of all manufactured (mobile) homes built 
in the United States. The HUD standards established pursuant to the 
1974 Act cover many aspects of manufactured home construction, 
including body and frame requirements, thermal protection, plumbing, 
electrical, and fire safety. (See 24 CFR parts 3280 and 3282) HUD 
oversees the enforcement of the construction standards through third 
party inspection agencies and State governments.
    The HUD standards for manufactured housing include specific 
formaldehyde emission limits for plywood and particleboard materials 
installed in manufactured housing. In contrast, TSCA Title VI covers 
only hardwood plywood, a subset of plywood. In addition, TSCA Title VI 
also covers MDF, which is not covered by the current HUD standards. The 
HUD emission limits apply to any plywood or particleboard that is 
bonded with a resin system. In addition, HUD's limits also apply to 
plywood or particleboard that is coated with a surface finish 
containing formaldehyde. HUD's current formaldehyde emission limits are 
0.2 parts per million (ppm) for

[[Page 34842]]

plywood and 0.3 ppm for particleboard, as measured by ASTM E-1333-96 
(Ref. 28). These emission limits are higher than those established by 
the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act of 2010, but 
section 4 of the 2010 Act directs HUD to update its regulations to 
ensure that the regulations reflect the standards established by 
section 601 of TSCA.
    EPA is requesting comment on how best to harmonize EPA's regulatory 
program under TSCA Title VI with HUD's manufactured homes program. In 
particular, the focus of TSCA Title VI, with its emphasis on composite 
wood product panel producers and product certification, is somewhat 
different from the focus of the National Manufactured Housing 
Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 on manufactured home 
producers and consumer protection. In view of the differences in 
statutory authorities provided to EPA and HUD, are there additional 
provisions that EPA should consider or other actions that EPA and HUD 
should take to ensure that their respective programs are complementary?

IV. References

    As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for 
this rulemaking under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018. The 
following is a listing of the documents that are specifically 
referenced in this proposed rule. The docket includes these documents 
and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are 
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even 
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For 
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the 
technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Formaldehyde; Third-
Party Certification Framework for the Formaldehyde Standards for 
Composite Wood Products; Proposed Rule. (published in this issue of 
the Federal Register) (FRL-9342-4).
2. California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. 
Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from 
Composite Wood Products. Final Regulation Order. April 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/compwood07.htm
3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. 
Toxicological Profile for Formaldehyde and 2010 Addendum to the 
Profile. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Public Health Service.
4. National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS), 12th Report on Carcinogens, June 10, 2011.
5. USEPA Office of Research and Development (ORD). Formaldehyde. 
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 1991. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0419.htm.
6. USEPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR). National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood 
Products; List of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Lesser Quantity 
Designations, Source Category List; Final Rule. Federal Register (71 
FR 8341, February 16, 2006) (FRL-8028-9). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/plypart/fr16fe06.pdf.
7. USEPA, ORD. Memorandum from Peter Preuss to Steve Page entitled 
``Recommendation for Formaldehyde Inhalation Cancer Risk Values'' 
(January 22, 2010).
8. USEPA, ORD. IRIS Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde-Inhalation 
Assessment (2010 External Review Draft). http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris_drafts/recordisplay.cfm?deid=223614.
9. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences 
(NRC). Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Draft IRIS 
Assessment of Formaldehyde (2011). http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13142.
10. Approach to Assessing Non-cancer Health Effects from 
Formaldehyde and Benefits from Reducing Non-cancer Health Effects as 
a Result of Implementing Formaldehyde Emission Limits for Composite 
Wood Products (2013).
11. USEPA. Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products; 
Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition; Notice. Federal Register 
(73 FR 36504, June 27, 2008).
12. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Hardwood Plywood 
and Veneer Association (HPVA). American National Standard for 
Hardwood and Decorative Plywood, ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2009.
13. US Department of Commerce (DOC), National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST), Technology Administration. Voluntary Product 
Standard PS-1-07 (2007), Structural Plywood.
14. USDOC, NIST. Voluntary Product Standard PS-2-04 (2004), 
Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels.
15. USEPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on 
EPA's Planned Proposed Rule Implementing the Formaldehyde Standards 
for Composite Wood Products Act (TSCA Title VI) (April 4, 2011).
16. Composite Panel Association (CPA). VOC Emission Barrier Effects 
of Laminates, Overlays and Coatings for Particleboard, Medium 
Density Fiberboard (MDF) and Hardboard (2003), available at http://www.pbmdf.com/cpa30/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000000738/TB%20VOC.pdf.
17. HPVA. Comments of the Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association 
(HPVA) Submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the 
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for Formaldehyde from 
Certain Wood Products (March 19, 2009).
18. ANSI. American National Standard for Particleboard A208.1-2009.
19. ANSI. American National Standard for Medium Density Fiberboard 
(MDF) for Interior Applications, ANSI A208.2-2 2009.
20. ANSI. American National Standard, Basic Hardboard, ANSI A135.4 
2004.
21. ANSI. American National Standard, Prefinished Hardboard 
Paneling, ANSI A135.5 2004.
22. ANSI. American National Standard, Hardboard Siding, ANSI A135.6 
2006.
23. ANSI. American National Standard, Basic Hardboard, ANSI A135.4-
2012.
24. ANSI. American National Standard, Prefinished Hardboard 
Paneling, ANSI A135.5-2012.
25. ANSI. American National Standard, Engineered Wood Siding, ANSI 
A135.6-2012.
26. Kelly, T.I., D.L. Smith, J. Satola. Emission Rates of 
Formaldehyde from Materials and Consumer Products Found in 
California Homes. Environmental Science & Technology Vol. 33: 81-88 
(1999).
27. Georgia Pacific LLC. Letter (August 15, 2011).
28. ASTM International. ASTM E-1333-96, Standard Test Method for 
Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air and Emission Rates 
from Wood Products Using a Large Chamber.
29. ASTM International. ASTM D-6007-02 (2008), Standard Test Method 
for Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air from Wood 
Products Using a Small-Scale Chamber.
30. ASTM International. ASTM D 5582-00 (2006), Standard Test Method 
for Determining Formaldehyde Levels from Wood Products Using a 
Desiccator.
31. ASTM International. ASTM E-1333-10, Standard Test Method for 
Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air and Emission Rates 
from Wood Products Using a Large Chamber.
32. CEN, European Committee for Standardization. EN 717-2 (1995), 
Wood-based panels. Determination of formaldehyde release-
Formaldehyde release by the gas analysis method, English Version.
33. Huber, C.W., Anderson, W.H., Vieira, J. W., and Liles, W.T., The 
Dynamic Microchamber Computer Integrated Formaldehyde Test System: 
User Manual, revised version (March 2007); available at http://www.gp-dmc.com.
34. CEN, European Committee for Standardization. EN 120 (1992), Wood 
based panels. Determination of formaldehyde content-Extraction 
method called the perforator method, English Version.
35. Japanese Standards Association, Japanese Industrial Standards. 
JIS A 1460 (2001), Building boards determination of Formaldehyde 
emission-Desiccator method, English Version.
36. Composite Panel Association, Formaldehyde Grademark Program 
Quality Assurance Manual (January 1, 2007).
37. CARB. Supplemental Analysis Supporting the Test for 
Demonstrating

[[Page 34843]]

Equivalence between Primary and Secondary Methods for Measuring 
Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products (January 2008).
38. CARB. Third Party Certification Guideline: Establishing a 
Correlation with an Acceptable Correlation Coefficient (``r'' 
Value), Guideline No. 10-001 (June 8, 2010).
39. Myers, G.E. The effects of temperature and humidity on 
formaldehyde emission from UF-bonded boards: a literature critique. 
Forest Prod. J. 35(9):20-31 (1985).
40. Frihart, C.R., Wescott, J.M., Birkeland, M. J., and Gonner, K.M. 
``Formaldehyde Emissions from ULEF- and NAF-Bonded Commercial 
Hardwood Plywood as Influenced by Temperature and Relative 
Humidity.'' Proceedings of the International Convention of Society 
of Wood Science and Technology and United Nations Economic 
Commission for Europe--Timber Committee, October 11-14, 2010, 
Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2010/fpl_2010_frihart005.pdf.
41. Riedlinger, D., Martin, P., and Holloway, T. Particleboard 
Formaldehyde Emissions and Decay under Elevated Temperature and 
Humidity Conditions, study conducted for Arclin, (March 28, 2012).
42. USEPA. Measuring Formaldehyde Emissions from Low Emitting 
Hardwood Plywood Panels under Different Conditions of Temperature 
and Relative Humidity (April 2013).
43. CARB. Composite Wood Products ATCM Frequently Asked Questions 
(Version 6--August, 2012).
44. CARB. Composite Wood Products Regulation Advisory: 10-01, 
Extension of Sell-Through Date for Distributors, Fabricators, and 
Retailers of Pre-Phase 1 Finished Goods (July 2010).
45. CARB. Composite Wood Products Regulation Advisory: 11-01, 
Extension of Sell-Through Dates for Distributors, Importers, 
Fabricators, and Retailers of Finished Goods Containing Phase 1 
Hardwood Plywood--Veneer Core and Distributors of Phase 1 
Particleboard and Medium Density Fiberboard Panels (May 2011).
46. USEPA. Economic Analysis of the Formaldehyde Standards for 
Composite Wood Products Act Implementing Regulations Proposed Rule 
(Economic Analysis) (May 2013).
47. Hanrahan, L.P., K.A. Dally, H.A. Anderson, M.S. Kanarek and J. 
Rankin. Formaldehyde vapor in mobile homes: a cross sectional survey 
of concentrations and irritant effects. American Journal Public 
Health. 74: 1026-1027 (1984).
48. Neghab, M., A. Soltanzadeh, and A. Choobineh. Respiratory 
morbidity induced by occupational inhalation exposure to 
formaldehyde. Industrial Health, 49(1), 89-94 (2011).
49. Herbert, F.A., P.A. Hessel, L.S. Melenka, K. Yoshida, and M. 
Nakaza. Respiratory consequences of exposure to wood dust and 
formaldehyde of workers manufacturing oriented strand board. Arch. 
Environ. Health 49(6):465-470 (1994).
50. Malaka, T., and A.M. Kodama. Respiratory health of plywood 
workers occupationally exposed to formaldehyde. Arch. Environ. 
Health 45:288-294 (1990).
51. Alexandersson, R., and G. Hedenstierna. Pulmonary function in 
wood workers exposed to formaldehyde: A prospective study. Arch. 
Environ. Health 44:5-11 (1989).
52. Horvath, E, Jr., J. Anderson, W.E. Pierce, L. Hanrahan, and J.D. 
Wendlick. Effects of formaldehyde on the mucous membranes and lungs: 
A study of an industrial population. JAMA 259:701-707 (1988).
53. Holmstr[ouml]m, M., and B. Wilhelmsson. Respiratory symptoms and 
pathophysiological effects of occupational exposure to formaldehyde 
and wood dust. Scand J Work Environ Health 14:306-311 (1988).
54. Alexandersson, R., G. Hedenstierna, and B. Kolmodin-Hedman. 
Exposure to formaldehyde effects on pulmonary function. Arch. 
Environ. Health 37:279-284 (1982).
55. Garrett, M.H., M.A. Hooper, B.M. Hooper, P.R. Rayment, and M.J. 
Abramson. Increased risk of allergy in children due to formaldehyde 
exposure in homes. Allergy 34:330-337 (1999).
56. Krzyzanowski, M. J.J. Quackenboss, and M.D. Lebowitz. Chronic 
respiratory effects of indoor formaldehyde exposure. Environ. Res. 
52:117-125 (1990).
57. Taskinen, H. K., P. Kyyronen, M. Sallmen, S. V. Virtanen, T. A. 
Liuldwnen, O. Huida, M. L. Lindbohm and A. Anttila. Reduced 
Fertility Among Female Wood Workers Exposed to Formaldehyde. 
American Journal of Industrial Medicine 36: 202-221 (1999).
58. Taskinen, H. K., P. Kyyronen, K. Hemminki, M. Holkkala, K. 
Lajunen, and M. L. Lindbohm. Laboratory Work and Pregnancy Outcome. 
J. Occup. Med. 36 (3): 311-319 (1994).
59. John, E.M., D.A. Savitz, and C.M. Shy. Spontaneous Abortions 
among Cosmetologists. Epidemiology 5 (2): 147-55 (1994).
60. USEPA. Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Formaldehyde 
Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products Act Implementing 
Regulations (Proposed Rule). EPA ICR No. 2446.01 and OMB No. 2070-
[NEW].
61. USEPA. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Formaldehyde 
Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products; Proposed Rule (May 
2013).
62. USEPA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Statement. Formaldehyde 
Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products; Proposed Rule (May 
2013).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA 
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 
documented in the docket for this action.
    EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits 
associated with this rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the 
Economic Analysis of the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood 
Products Act Implementing Regulations Proposed Rule (Economic Analysis, 
Ref. 46) and is briefly summarized in Table 2, and in more detail 
below.

                               Table 2--Summary of Costs and Benefits of Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                                                Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits....................................  This proposed rule will reduce exposures to formaldehyde,
                                               resulting in benefits from avoided adverse health effects. For
                                               the subset of health effects where the results were quantified,
                                               the estimated annualized benefits (due to avoided incidence of
                                               eye irritation and nasopharyngeal cancer) are $20 million to $48
                                               million per year using a 3% discount rate, and $9 million to $23
                                               million per year using a 7% discount rate. There are additional
                                               unquantified benefits due to other avoided health effects.
Costs.......................................  The annualized costs of this proposed rule are estimated at $72
                                               million to $81 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and $80
                                               million to $89 million per year using a 7% discount rate.
Effects on State, Local, and Tribal           Government entities are not expected to be subject to the rule's
 Governments.                                  requirements, which apply to entities that manufacture,
                                               fabricate, distribute, or sell composite wood products. The
                                               proposed rule does not have a significant intergovernmental
                                               mandate, significant or unique effect on small governments, or
                                               have Federalism implications.
Small Entity Impacts........................  This proposed rule would impact nearly 879,000 small businesses:
                                               over 851,000 have costs impacts less than 1% of revenues, over
                                               23,000 firms have impacts between 1% and 3%, and over 4,000 firms
                                               have impacts greater than 3% of revenues. Most firms with impacts
                                               over 1% have annualized costs of less than $250 per year.

[[Page 34844]]

 
Environmental Justice and Protection of       This proposed rule increases the level of environmental protection
 Children.                                     for all affected populations without having any
                                               disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
                                               effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
                                               population or children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Entities subject to the proposed rule. EPA analyzed the effect 
of this proposal on panel producers, fabricators, wholesalers (i.e., 
distributors and importers), and retailers. Due to the similarities 
between this proposal and the CARB ATCM, the incremental costs and 
benefits of this proposal are determined in part by the degree to which 
firms are already complying with the ATCM. So the following discussion 
of the number of entities subject to the TSCA Title VI rule includes an 
estimate of baseline compliance with the CARB ATCM. These estimates are 
displayed in Table 3.
    Mills making hardwood plywood, MDF, or particleboard panels that 
would be classified as a composite wood product under the CARB ATCM are 
referred to here as stock panel producers. Thus, stock panel producers 
do not include facilities that only make products exempted from the 
CARB ATCM (and that are statutorily excluded from the TSCA Title VI 
rule) such as curved plywood, military specified plywood, structural 
plywood, and wood-based structural-use panels. There are approximately 
90 stock panel mills in the U.S., operated by 54 firms. This count of 
stock panel producers excludes firms making laminated products that are 
included in the definition of hardwood plywood. These laminated product 
producers are discussed separately below.
    A total of 79 stock panel mills have been certified as meeting the 
CARB Phase 2 standards for at least one of their composite wood 
products. (The Phase 2 standards are equivalent to the emissions 
standards in this proposal.) The CARB certified mills are responsible 
for virtually all the U.S. production volume of composite wood 
products. Approximately 99.6% of stock hardwood plywood produced in the 
U.S. is certified as meeting the CARB Phase 2 emissions standard, as is 
100% of the MDF production and 98% of the particleboard production. All 
of these mills would incur costs for the time spent on rule 
familiarization under the TSCA Title VI program (i.e., becoming 
familiar with the requirements of the rule).
    There are 16 U.S. stock panel mills making at least one product 
that is not certified as meeting the CARB Phase 2 standards. (Some of 
the 90 stock panel mills make both product lines that are certified 
under the CARB ATCM as well as product lines that are not certified 
because they are not intended to be sold in California.) These mills 
would incur costs for certification and testing due to the proposal, 
and some may incur costs to change raw materials and production 
processes in order to meet the emission standards in this proposal. 
They would also incur costs for rule familiarization and labeling.
    Approximately 7,000 to 14,000 laminated product producers in the 
U.S. make products (such as custom hardwood plywood and architectural 
panels, windows, doors, kitchen cabinets, furniture, architectural 
woodwork and millwork, engineered wood flooring, and other goods) by 
affixing veneer to purchased platforms as part of the production 
process. These laminated products are regulated as hardwood plywood 
under this proposal unless they are made using NAF resins to attach the 
veneer to compliant and certified platforms, in which case they are 
exempted from the definition of hardwood plywood.
    The wood products industry commonly uses the term laminates to 
describe products that are laminated with materials other than veneer, 
such as high pressure laminate, thermally fused paper, vinyl film, 
decorative foil, or polypropylene film. Such products are not 
considered to be hardwood plywood under this proposal regardless of the 
type of resin used. So firms making these products are considered 
fabricators (discussed below), and are not counted as laminated product 
producers.
    The estimate of 7,000 to 14,000 laminated product producers 
excludes firms that use veneer to make products that are exempted from 
the definition of hardwood plywood because they do not create panels 
(flat or raised pieces of composite wood product) during the production 
process; the products are made by affixing veneer to substrates other 
than particleboard, MDF, or veneer core platforms; or the products are 
statutorily exempted by TSCA Title VI (including products used in boats 
and aircraft, and products not intended for interior use) or otherwise 
do not qualify as regulated hardwood plywood (such as curved plywood, 
military specified plywood, and structural plywood).
    Since laminated products are not considered to be hardwood plywood 
under the CARB ATCM, they are not certified or tested for emissions 
under that rule. But in order to be sold in California, such products 
must be made using certified composite wood products as platforms, and 
they must comply with the labeling and chain of custody requirements in 
the CARB ATCM.
    Nationally, 2,700 to 4,000 of these laminated product producers are 
assumed to be using formaldehyde-based resins. It is generally less 
expensive for these firms to switch to a NAF resin than to pay for the 
certification and product testing required for panel producers under 
this proposal. EPA believes that nearly all laminated product producers 
using formaldehyde-based resins to attach wood or woody grass veneer to 
compliant and certified platforms will switch to NAF resins, in order 
to qualify for the exemption from the definition of hardwood plywood in 
this proposal. EPA assumes that only about 150 to 300 U.S. laminated 
product producers will continue using formaldehyde-based resins, and 
thus will need to certify and test their products as a result of this 
proposal.
    There are approximately 80,000 fabricators in the U.S. making 
composite wood products into component parts or finished goods, 
including the 7,000 to 14,000 laminated product producers. The other 
66,000 to 73,000 fabricators use composite wood products to make goods 
such as architectural components, cabinets, and furniture, without 
affixing veneer themselves. Under the CARB ATCM, fabricated products 
sold in California must be made using certified composite wood 
products, and they must comply with the ATCM's labeling and chain of 
custody requirements. Nationwide, approximately 32,000 fabricators 
(including some laminated product producers) are estimated to comply 
with the labeling and chain of custody requirements in the CARB ATCM 
because their products may be sold in California. Firms that sell any 
products in California typically follow

[[Page 34845]]

the CARB ATCM's requirements for all of their products, including 
products that are sold outside of California. Such firms would still 
incur rule familiarization costs due to this proposal. The remaining 
48,000 fabricators that do not comply with the CARB ATCM because they 
do not sell any products in California would incur costs to comply with 
the chain of custody requirements in this proposal, as well as rule 
familiarization costs.
    Approximately 86,000 U.S. distributors (also referred to as 
wholesalers) are estimated to sell goods containing composite wood 
products. As many as 24,000 wholesalers may be importing composite wood 
panels or component parts or finished goods containing composite wood 
products, and are considered manufacturers under TSCA. (This is the 
number of firms that may import the goods themselves, not those that 
only buy and sell goods imported by others.) Approximately 32,000 of 
the 86,000 wholesalers have at least one facility in California, and 
thus must comply with the labeling and chain of custody requirements in 
the CARB ATCM. Of the approximately 759,000 retailers in the U.S. that 
sell products containing composite wood products, about 101,000 have at 
least one facility in California and are following the chain of custody 
requirements in the CARB ATCM. Again, firms that sell any products in 
California typically follow the CARB ATCM's requirements for all of the 
products they sell, including products that are sold outside of 
California. All wholesale and retail firms will incur additional costs 
for rule familiarization due to the Title VI rule. Of the 24,000 
wholesalers importing composite wood products (who are subject to the 
rule's recordkeeping requirements for TSCA manufacturers), about 15,000 
do not have any facilities in California. Wholesalers that repackage 
products may incur additional labeling costs due to this proposal.

                      Table 3--Number of Entities in the United States Subject to the Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Type                           TSCA Universe          Baseline condition (CARB ATCM Universe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock panel producers (i.e.,              90 mills operated by 54      79 mills have been certified by CARB for
 manufacturers).                           firms.                       at least one product, but 16 mills make
                                                                        at least one product that is not CARB
                                                                        certified. Depending on the product
                                                                        type, 98% to 100% of U.S. production
                                                                        volume is CARB certified.
Laminated product producers (i.e.,        7,000 to 14,000 firms......  Laminators are considered fabricators
 laminators).                                                           under the CARB ATCM. Nationally, 32,000
                                                                        of the combined group are subject to
                                                                        CARB ATCM requirements.
Fabricators.............................  66,000 to 73,000 firms.....
Wholesalers (i.e., distributors)........  86,000 firms, of which       32,000 are subject to CARB ATCM
                                           24,000 are importers.        requirements, of which 9,000 are
                                                                        importers.
Retailers...............................  759,000 firms..............  101,000 are subject to CARB ATCM
                                                                        requirements.
                                         -----------------------------
    Total...............................  925,000 firms                .........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Options evaluated. Congress directed EPA to consider a number of 
elements for inclusion in the implementing regulations, and EPA 
considered various options for addressing these elements. For many of 
the provisions, such as the product-inventory sell-through provision 
and the stockpiling prohibition, EPA did not have the data needed to 
make quantitative estimates of the effects of different options. EPA 
did have sufficient information to analyze several different options 
for how laminated products might be included in the definition of 
hardwood plywood, for the certification of ULEF products, and for the 
chain of custody and recordkeeping required by the rule. The Economic 
Analysis discusses emissions standards that are different from those 
set in TSCA Title VI. That discussion is simply for informational 
purposes, and the breadth of the discussion should not necessarily 
imply that EPA has corresponding flexibility in implementing the 
statute. The options EPA analyzed with emissions standards consistent 
with TSCA Title VI are displayed in Table 4.

           Table 4--Options Analyzed in the Economic Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Option                             Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option SE.........................  All laminated products are exempt
                                     from the definition of hardwood
                                     plywood.
Option SI.........................  All laminated products are included
                                     in the definition of hardwood
                                     plywood.
Option SP.........................  All laminated products are exempt
                                     from the definition of hardwood
                                     plywood except architectural panels
                                     and custom plywood.
Option SN.........................  Laminated products made using NAF
                                     resins to attach veneer to
                                     platforms certified as NAF are
                                     exempt from the definition of
                                     hardwood plywood.
Option SC.........................  Laminated products made using NAF
                                     resins to attach veneer to
                                     compliant and certified platforms
                                     are exempt from the definition of
                                     hardwood plywood.
Option SCR........................  Laminated products made using NAF
                                     resins to attach veneer to
                                     compliant and certified platforms
                                     are exempt from the definition of
                                     hardwood plywood; reduced
                                     recordkeeping requirements for
                                     firms that do not qualify as
                                     manufacturers under TSCA; no
                                     requirement to inform suppliers
                                     that the products supplied must
                                     comply with TSCA Title VI.
Option SEUR.......................  All laminated products are exempt
                                     from the definition of hardwood
                                     plywood; ULEF certification
                                     allowed; reduced recordkeeping
                                     requirements for firms that do not
                                     qualify as manufacturers under
                                     TSCA; no requirement to inform
                                     suppliers that the products
                                     supplied must comply with TSCA
                                     Title VI.
Option SFCC.......................  All laminated products are exempt
                                     from the definition of hardwood
                                     plywood; ULEF certification
                                     allowed; tested lots may be shipped
                                     before test results are available.

[[Page 34846]]

 
Proposed Option--Option SCUR......  Laminated products made using NAF
                                     resins to attach veneer to
                                     compliant and certified platforms
                                     are exempt from the definition of
                                     hardwood plywood; ULEF
                                     certification allowed; reduced
                                     recordkeeping requirements for
                                     firms that do not qualify as
                                     manufacturers under TSCA; no
                                     requirement to inform suppliers
                                     that the products supplied must
                                     comply with TSCA Title VI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Benefits. Reductions of formaldehyde emissions from composite 
wood products benefits individuals who reside, work, or otherwise spend 
a substantial amount of time where new composite wood products are 
introduced to an indoor space. The Economic Analysis (Ref. 46) 
estimates the benefits of the options over a 30-year period for 
lowering formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
    This benefits analysis uses an age-dependent exposure analysis that 
includes formaldehyde exposure from homes, daycare, schools, workplace, 
vehicles, and outdoors. For each option, there are 3,300 different 
exposure scenarios derived from 22 different composite wood product 
age/source combinations, 5 structure types, 5 climate zones, and 6 
individual age/employment status combinations. Changes in exposure are 
estimated by changing the two broad categories where a substantial 
amount of new composite wood products might be introduced: New home 
construction and major renovations that include kitchen remodeling. 
Changes in the risk of the adverse health outcomes associated with the 
changes in exposure are estimated for nasopharyngeal cancer and sensory 
irritation. Table 5 displays the benefits for the options described in 
Table 4.
    The total quantified benefits of the proposed option are between 
$20 million and $48 million per year (in 2010 dollars) using a 3% 
discount rate, and between $9 million and $23 million per year using a 
7% discount rate. The majority of the quantified benefits are 
attributable to reductions in cancer risk. The benefits under the 
proposed option (Option SCUR) are less than 5% lower those of the most 
protective option (Option SN). The proposed option has benefits that 
are 14% larger than the options that exclude laminated products from 
the definition of hardwood plywood (Options SE, SEUR, and SFCC).
    There are additional unquantified benefits for all of the options 
from respiratory and other avoided health effects. While EPA has not 
valued these avoided health effects in this proposal, EPA believes that 
the effects could be substantial and has represented their inclusion in 
the table below using the letter indicator ``B''.

                                                       Table 5--Summary of the Monetized Benefits
                                                                    [Millions 2010$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                 Annualized benefits ($ million)
                  Regulatory option                       Benefit category       Annual cases avoided  -------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            3% Discount rate         7% Discount rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Options SE, SEUR, and SFCC..........................                   Cancer                  9 to 21               $17 to $38                $8 to $17
                                                               Eye Irritation        22,133 to 170,214                 $1 to $4                 $1 to $4
                                                                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total Benefits  .......................           $18 to $42 + B            $8 to $20 + B
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option SP...........................................                                             Not estimated
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option SN...........................................                   Cancer                 11 to 25               $20 to $45                $9 to $20
                                                               Eye Irritation        24,154 to 198,950                 $1 to $5                 $1 to $5
                                                                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total Benefits  .......................           $21 to $50 + B           $10 to $24 + B
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Options SI, SC, SCR, and SCUR (Proposed Option).....                   Cancer                 10 to 24               $20 to $43                $9 to $19
                                                               Eye Irritation        23,650 to 191,590                 $1 to $5                 $1 to $4
                                                                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total Benefits  .......................           $20 to $48 + B            $9 to $23 + B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals may not add due to rounding.
``B'' represents the unquantified health benefits.

    Formaldehyde is classified as a known human carcinogen by the 
National Toxicology Program, based on evidence in humans and animals 
(Ref. 4). This analysis uses EPA's 1991 IRIS Inhalation Unit Risk 
factor of 1.3x10-5 cancer cases per [mu]g/m\3\ of 
formaldehyde. In June 2010, EPA released a draft IRIS Toxicological 
Review of Formaldehyde that recommended a different unit risk factor 
and recommended the use of age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAFs) to 
account for age-specific susceptibility. This draft assessment 
underwent independent scientific peer review by the NRC. However, given 
that EPA is currently in the process of revising the IRIS assessment 
based on the NRC review and public comments, the 1991 IRIS value is 
used to analyze this proposed rule.
    The benefits of a reduction in cancer risk are based on the value 
of a reduction in the risk an individual will ultimately die from the 
cancer (referred to as fatal cancer), and a reduction in the risk an 
individual will ultimately die from something other than the cancer 
(referred to as non-fatal cancer).

[[Page 34847]]

These two categories reflect the two possible outcomes for 
nasopharyngeal cancer and do not reflect different types of cancer. The 
number of excess cancer cases was estimated and then divided into these 
two categories: 44.7% of the cancer risk reductions are assumed to be 
reductions in non-fatal cancer risk and 55.3% of the reductions are 
assumed to be reductions in fatal cancer (mortality) risk. The value of 
reduced mortality risk is $8.01 per mortality micro-risk reduction--
that is, a reduction of \1/1\,000,000 in the risk of 
mortality. Non-fatal cases of nasopharyngeal cancer were valued using a 
cost-of-illness approach. The value of an avoided case of non-fatal 
nasopharyngeal cancer was estimated to be the present discounted value 
of the stream of expected medical expenditures and opportunity costs 
associated with the illness from the year of diagnosis, taking into 
account that the individual may die of other causes. Costs include the 
cost of diagnosis, initial treatment costs, and ``maintenance'' costs 
in each subsequent year. The stream of annual costs depends on the 
stage of the cancer at diagnosis, the individual's age at diagnosis, 
and the individual's employment status each year after diagnosis, 
resulting in a value of $0.09 to $0.14 per micro-risk reduction.
    The benefits associated with avoiding non-cancer health impacts are 
described in an EPA report titled ``Approach to Assessing Non-cancer 
Health Effects from Formaldehyde and Benefits from Reducing Non-cancer 
Health Effects as a Result of Implementing Formaldehyde Emission Limits 
for Composite Wood Products'' (Ref. 10). The 2010 draft IRIS assessment 
identified seven categories of non-cancer health effects and proposed 
RfCs based on four effects: Sensory irritation, pulmonary function 
effects, asthma and allergic sensitization (atopy), and reproductive 
toxicity. The NRC supported the derivation of candidate reference 
concentrations (RfCs) for each of these four endpoints based on human 
epidemiologic data (Ref. 9), but EPA determined there was sufficient 
information for quantitative concentration-response modeling for only 
three categories of effects. In the 2011 non-cancer approach document, 
EPA derived concentration-response functions from preferred studies for 
these three endpoints and recommended accompanying unit values. The 
available data on pulmonary function effects could not be advanced 
because it was not possible to link specific decrements in pulmonary 
function with specific economic costs and any associated benefits were 
not monetized. Likewise, benefits from the reduction of the other non-
cancer effects for which candidate RfCs were not derived were also not 
monetized. EPA later concluded that, at this time, it only has 
sufficient information on the relationship between formaldehyde 
exposure and eye irritation to include a valuation estimate in the 
overall benefits analysis.
    Information from two studies reporting sensory irritation in humans 
from chronic formaldehyde inhalation exposures in a residential 
environment were combined to create the concentration-response function 
for eye irritation. The function was based on a power model fit to the 
odds ratio of the prevalence of burning eyes reported in Figure 1 of 
Hanrahan et al. (Ref. 47). This function was then used with a 
willingness to pay to avoid eye irritation of $26 to calculate the 
monetized benefits of reduced sensory irritation for all individuals.
    Formaldehyde exposure is associated with a range of respiratory 
related effects. Effects from repeated exposure in humans include 
irritation of the upper respiratory tract, decrements in pulmonary 
function, and nasal epithelial lesions such as metaplasia and loss of 
cilia. Animal studies suggest that formaldehyde may also cause airway 
inflammation.
    In occupational studies of formaldehyde exposure, lung function 
deficits and decreases in spirometric values (that is, the volume and 
speed of air that is exhaled or inhaled) have been reported both in 
preshift versus postshift measurements and as a result of long-term 
exposures (Refs. 48-54). Studies of long-term formaldehyde exposure 
also report increased respiratory symptoms, such as cough, increased 
phlegm, chest tightness, and chest colds, in exposed workers (Refs. 48-
51 and 53-54). In addition, some studies report an association between 
formaldehyde exposure in residential settings and respiratory symptoms 
(Ref. 55). Furthermore, there are also studies that report that 
formaldehyde exposure may increase the prevalence of asthma--
particularly in the young (Ref. 56). Studies on asthma, as well as 
mechanistic information and their analyses, were evaluated in EPA's 
recent Draft Toxicological Review of Formaldehyde--Inhalation 
Assessment through the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) 
Program (Ref. 8). This draft IRIS assessment was released in June 2010 
for public comment and external peer review by the National Research 
Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC). The NRC released 
their review report in April 2011 (Ref. 9). The NRC suggested EPA 
should examine studies relating formaldehyde exposures to asthma, 
pulmonary function and changes in pulmonary pathology. EPA is currently 
revising the draft assessment in response to the NRC review.
    EPA is committed to evaluating alternative approaches to 
quantifying the benefits associated with reduced respiratory symptoms 
such as exacerbation of symptoms among those who have chronic 
respiratory diseases, e.g., bronchitis and asthma. For instance, the 
Agency will explore the extent to which approaches used to quantify 
respiratory symptoms in air quality rules might be applied to 
residential exposure to formaldehyde. If a scientifically defensible 
approach is available by the time the final rule is promulgated, EPA 
will include such quantification as part of the benefits analysis. 
Although uncertainty remains regarding how best to quantify the 
formaldehyde exposure's effect on respiratory outcomes, EPA considers 
these effects to be important non-monetized impacts that contribute to 
the overall benefits of this rule, as indicated by the ``+B'' in the 
various tables summarizing benefits.
    Epidemiologic studies suggest an association between occupational 
exposure to formaldehyde and adverse reproductive outcomes in women, 
including reduced fertility (Refs. 57, 58 and 59). EPA does not feel 
that it has sufficient information at this time on the relationship 
between formaldehye exposure and reduced fertility to include a 
valuation estimate in the overall benefits analysis.
    There are three reasons why the total economic benefits reported 
above may be underestimated. First, there are a number of potential 
health effects that are not included in this analysis. In addition to 
cancer, the 2010 draft IRIS assessment enumerated potential health 
outcomes from formaldehyde exposure including sensory irritation, upper 
respiratory tract pathology, pulmonary function effects, asthma and 
allergic sensitization, immune function effects, neurological and 
behavioral toxicity, and developmental and reproductive toxicity. The 
NRC review of the draft IRIS assessment was released in April 2011 
(Ref. 9), and EPA is currently revising the draft in response. 
Monetization of any health endpoint requires an estimated 
concentration-response function that can be appropriately linked for 
use in the economic analyses. At this time, only sensory irritation has 
sufficient data to quantify the benefits. Second, while the cancer 
benefits were evaluated using the

[[Page 34848]]

unit risk as a reasonable upper bound on the central estimate of risk, 
the sensory irritation benefits were evaluated using a central estimate 
of the concentration-response function rather than an upper (or lower) 
bound which could also underestimate any associated economic benefits. 
Third, the valuation of some of these endpoints relies on cost-of-
illness estimates rather than willingness to pay. In general, cost of 
illness estimates only capture mitigating and indirect costs, omitting 
averting expenditures and lost utility associated with pain and 
suffering, and are, therefore, considered to be underestimates of 
economic benefits.
    4. Costs. The Economic Analysis estimates the incremental cost to 
firms located in the U.S. of complying with the requirements of the 
proposal compared to the activities that firms are already undertaking, 
often in response to the CARB ATCM. The costs of the proposal for the 
industries subject to the rule are displayed in Tables 6 and 7.
    Depending on their baseline compliance with the CARB ATCM, panel 
producers may incur costs for third-party certification, testing, and 
changes to raw materials and production processes where necessary to 
meet the emissions standards. Panel producers and other regulated firms 
may incur costs for labeling, recordkeeping and rule familiarization.
    Stock panel producers are estimated to incur a total annualized 
cost of $1 million per year under either a 3% or 7% discount rate. 
Laminated product producers incur a total annualized cost of $18 
million to $32 million per year using a 3% discount rate and $18 
million to $33 million per year using a 7% rate. Of this, $3 million 
per year is incurred by firms that convert to NAF resins in order to 
qualify for the exemption from the definition of hardwood plywood, $8 
million to $17 million per year is spent on resin changes, testing and 
certification by firms that continue to use formaldehyde-based resins 
and thus do not qualify for the exemption, and the balance is spent on 
rule familiarization, labeling, and recordkeeping. The remaining 
fabricators incur a total annualized cost of $21 million to $26 million 
per year using a 3% discount rate and $21 million to $27 million per 
year using a 7% discount rate. Wholesalers incur total annualized costs 
of $16 million per year under a 3% discount rate and $17 million per 
year using a 7% discount rate. Retailers are estimated to incur total 
annualized costs of $10 million per year using a 3% discount rate and 
$16 million per year using a 7% discount rate. The proposal is 
estimated to result in a total cost of $434 million to $447 million in 
the first year. Annualized costs of the proposal are $72 million to $81 
million per year using a 3% discount rate and $80 million to $89 
million per year using a 7% discount rate.
    Given the formaldehyde emissions standards that are set in Title VI 
of TSCA, annualized costs for the other options for laminated products 
ranged from $60 million to $293 million per year using a 3% discount 
rate, and $68 million to $311 million per year using a 7% discount 
rate. The total costs by option are displayed in Table 8.

                               Table 6--Costs of Proposed Option by Industry Type
                                                [Millions 2010$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           First year              Annualized (3%)           Annualized (7%)
           Industry type           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Low          High         Low          High         Low          High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock panel producers.............           $2           $2           $1           $1           $1           $1
Laminators........................           55          102           18           32           18           33
Fabricators (excluding laminators)           91           57           26           21           27           21
Wholesalers.......................           71           71           16           16           17           17
Retailers.........................          215          215           10           10           16           16
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................          434          447           72           81           80           89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low and high end scenarios reflect the estimated number of laminators and the number of product lines certified
  per firm, not the low and high costs for each category of entities.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 34849]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN13.003

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 34850]]

                                         Table 8--Total Costs by Option
                                                [Millions 2010$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           First year              Annualized (3%)           Annualized (7%)
              Option               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Low          High         Low          High         Low          High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option SE.........................         $595         $595         $100         $100         $112         $112
Option SI.........................          919        1,254          204          293          218          311
Option SP.........................          600          600          104          104          115          115
Option SN.........................          626          639          128          137          139          148
Option SC.........................          609          621          112          121          123          132
Option SCR........................          435          447           72           81           80           89
Option SEUR.......................          420          420           60           60           68           68
Option SFCC.......................          594          594          100          100          111          111
Proposed Option--Option SCUR......          434          447           72           81           80           89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Net benefits. Net benefits are the difference between benefits 
and costs. The net benefits for the options are displayed in Tables 9 
and 10. The proposal is estimated to result in quantified net benefits 
of -$24 million to -$60 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and 
-$57 million to -$79 million per year using a 7% discount rate. 
Quantified net benefits for the other options based on the formaldehyde 
emissions standards that are set in Title VI of TSCA range from -$18 
million to -$273 million per year using a 3% discount rate and -$48 
million to -$302 million per year using a 7% discount rate. There are 
additional unquantified benefits due to respiratory and other avoided 
health effects. EPA considers health benefits from avoided health 
effects to be potentially important non-monetized impacts that 
contribute to the overall net benefits of this proposed rule, and has 
represented their inclusion in the table below using the letter ``B''.

                                                                           Table 9--Annualized Net Benefits by Option
                                                                               [Millions 2010$, 3% discount rate]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs                                          Benefits                                                 Net benefits
               Option                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Low estimate      High estimate           Lower estimate                Higher estimate            Lower net  estimate          Higher net  estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option SE...........................               $100               $100  $18+B.......................  $42+B.......................  ($82)+B....................  ($58)+B
Option SI...........................                204                293  $20+B.......................  $48+B.......................  ($273)+B...................  ($157)+B
Option SP...........................                104                104  Not estimated...............  Not estimated...............  Not estimated..............  Not estimated
Option SN...........................                128                137  $21+B.......................  $50+B.......................  ($116)+B...................  ($79)+B
Option SC...........................                112                121  $20+B.......................  $48+B.......................  ($101)+B...................  ($64)+B
Option SCR..........................                 72                 81  $20+B.......................  $48+B.......................  ($61)+B....................  ($24)+B
Option SEUR.........................                 60                 60  $18+B.......................  $42+B.......................  ($42)+B....................  ($18)+B
Option SFCC.........................                100                100  $18+B.......................  $42+B.......................  ($82)+B....................  ($58)+B
Proposed Option--Option SCUR........                 72                 81  $20+B.......................  $48+B.......................  ($60)+B....................  ($24)+B
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``B'' represents the unquantified health benefits.

                                                                           Table 10--Annualized Net Benefits by Option
                                                                               [Millions 2010$, 7% discount rate]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs                                          Benefits                                                 Net benefits
               Option                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Low estimate      High estimate           Lower estimate                Higher estimate            Lower net  estimate          Higher net  estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option SE...........................               $112               $112  $8+B........................  $20+B.......................  ($103)+B...................  ($91)+B
Option SI...........................                218                311  $9+B........................  $23+B.......................  ($302)+B...................  ($195)+B
Option SP...........................                115                115  Not estimated...............  Not estimated...............  Not estimated..............  Not estimated
Option SN...........................                139                148  $10+B.......................  $24+B.......................  ($138)+B...................  ($114)+B
Option SC...........................                123                132  $9+B........................  $23+B.......................  ($123)+B...................  ($100)+B
Option SCR..........................                 80                 89  $9+B........................  $23+B.......................  ($80)+B....................  ($57)+B
Option SEUR.........................                 68                 68  $8+B........................  $20+B.......................  ($60)+B....................  ($48)+B
Option SFCC.........................                111                111  $8+B........................  $20+B.......................  ($103)+B...................  ($91)+B
Proposed Option--Option SCUR........                 80                 89  $9+B........................  $23+B.......................  ($79)+B....................  ($57)+B
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``B'' represents the unquantified health benefits.

    Costs exceed quantified benefits by a larger margin for the 
proposed rule (Option SCUR) than for Option SEUR, which exempts all 
laminated products from the definition of hardwood plywood. However, 
both the relative

[[Page 34851]]

ranking of the options and the fact that quantified net benefits are 
negative for all the options might change if EPA could quantify 
additional health benefits. Furthermore, as explained elsewhere in this 
proposal, currently available information indicates that laminated 
products can exceed the formaldehyde emission standards. Therefore, on 
the basis of information currently available to the Agency, EPA has 
concluded that exempting all laminated products from the definition of 
hardwood plywood is not consistent with TSCA Title VI's statutory 
mandate that EPA promulgate regulations in a manner that ensures 
compliance with the emission standards in TSCA section 601(b)(2). Of 
the options that are consistent with the statutory mandate, the 
proposed rule has the lowest costs as well as the best balance between 
costs and quantified benefits. After assessing both the costs and the 
benefits of the proposal, including the unquantified benefits, EPA has 
made a reasoned determination that the benefits of the proposal justify 
its costs.
    To further improve the analysis for the final rule, the Agency is 
also specifically interested in supporting information on the following 
questions related to the data, estimates, and assumptions used in the 
Agency's analysis:
    1. What, if any, differences are there in actual formaldehyde 
emissions levels between products made domestically and those imported 
into the U.S.? Are data available characterizing the differences in 
emissions between products that are certified under the CARB ATCM and 
those that are not certified because they are sold in the U.S. outside 
of California?
    2. Is there evidence that products that do not comply with the CARB 
ATCM are being sold in California? If so, are there differences in 
compliance between products made domestically and those imported into 
the U.S.? Is there information available to indicate how the level of 
compliance with the TSCA Title VI rule can be expected to differ from 
compliance with the CARB ATCM?
    3. Did firms located outside of California that sell regulated 
composite wood products in California incur different costs due to the 
CARB ATCM compared to firms located in California? If so, what 
influenced these differences in costs? How did the differences, if any, 
depend on firm type (panel producer, fabricator, distributor, or 
retailer), firm size, complexity of the supply chain, or other factors?
    4. To what extent are wholesalers that do not have a physical 
location in California complying with the CARB ATCM's recordkeeping 
requirements because they sell goods that may ultimately be sold in 
California?
    5. In addition to the Census data that EPA used in its analysis, 
what other information is available that would allow EPA to better 
characterize the number of firms in different industries affected by 
the rule?
    6. For each industry that uses veneer to manufacture products, how 
many firms make laminated products sold in the U.S. that could 
potentially be included in the definition of hardwood plywood under 
TSCA Title VI because they meet all of the following criteria: (a) They 
affix a wood or woody grass veneer to the face and/or back of a 
purchased platform to produce a component part used in the construction 
or assembly of a finished good; (b) they are applying veneer to a 
particleboard, MDF, or veneer-core platform; (c) they are making a 
product that qualifies as a panel under the proposed rule, where a 
panel is defined as a flat or raised piece of composite wood product; 
and (d) they are making a product that does not qualify for one of the 
statutory exemptions in TSCA Title VI (such as the exemptions for 
products intended for use in a new vehicle such as a rail car, boat, or 
aircraft, or the exemption for products intended for exterior use)?
    7. To what extent are the laminated products described above 
currently made using an added formaldehyde resin to affix the veneer to 
the platform? To what extent will these products continue to use added 
formaldehyde resins after the TSCA Title VI rule is implemented? What 
if any process or performance issues will face laminated product 
producers that switch to NAF resins?
    8. To what extent were firms' customary recordkeeping practices 
generally sufficient to meet the chain of custody requirements in the 
CARB ATCM? For firms that had to modify their recordkeeping systems or 
practices to comply with the CARB ATCM, how much additional effort or 
cost was required, on a one-time or ongoing basis? How do those costs 
depend on firm type (panel producer, fabricator, distributor, or 
retailer), firm size, complexity of the supply chain, or other factors?
    9. If your firm has a schedule for the retention of records, how 
long do you retain records such as purchasing records, invoices, bills 
of lading, production records, shipping information, and product 
testing information? What policies does your firm have for the 
retention or destruction of these records? In light of your firm's 
records retention and destruction policies or your ordinary business 
practices, how would the differences between a 2-year recordkeeping 
period, a 3-year period, and a 5-year period affect your recordkeeping 
cost under TSCA Title VI? What are the key components of your 
recordkeeping costs (labor, computer storage, physical storage for 
paper records, etc.), and how do these costs change as the 
recordkeeping period increases? Please provide a detailed response.
    10. What costs did fabricators incur to label their products due to 
the CARB ATCM? What factors, such as production volume or the number or 
complexity of the products, determined the magnitude of those costs? 
Were there additional costs due to the CARB labeling requirement after 
the first year? If so, what were the costs for, how large were they, 
and what factors influenced those costs? How common is it for 
distributors or retailers to repackage or relabel goods? To what extent 
do distributors or retailers apply labels under the CARB ATCM, either 
because they are repackaging goods that were originally labeled on the 
packaging instead of on the individual items, or because they are 
replacing an original label applied by the panel producer or fabricator 
with a label listing a different company name?
    11. What data are available on the types and quantities of goods 
containing composite wood products used within a typical residence? How 
do these quantities differ by the type of dwelling (single family 
attached housing, single family detached housing, multi-family housing, 
manufactured housing, etc.)? Are there differences in the typical 
quantities of composite wood products used associated with the race or 
income of the residents?
    12. In the absence of a requirement that panel producers hold lots 
selected for testing until the test results are received, how likely is 
it that panels would be shipped before the test results are available? 
Given the lower frequency of quality control testing for hardwood 
plywood producers (including laminators produced panels defined as 
hardwood plywood), how would such a requirement affect their decision 
about whether to perform quality control testing for formaldehyde 
emissions in-house or to send the panels to a third party for testing?
    13. What data are available on the amount of work or leisure time 
patients typically miss as a result of treatment for nasopharyngeal 
cancer, including

[[Page 34852]]

the time recovering from chemotherapy or radiation?
    14. How should EPA quantify the benefits of avoiding respiratory 
effects related to formaldehyde exposure? Which symptoms should be 
valued? How should the results be presented to reflect the underlying 
uncertainty in such estimates?
    15. How should EPA evaluate and quantify the benefits of improved 
fecundity due to reductions in formaldehyde exposure? How should the 
results be presented to reflect the underlying uncertainty in such 
estimates?

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared 
by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 2446.01, and the OMB Control 
No. 2070--[new] (Ref. 60).
    The new information collection activities contained in this 
proposed rule are designed to assist the Agency in meeting the 
requirement in Section 601(d) of TSCA that EPA promulgate implementing 
regulations in a manner that ensures compliance with the TSCA Title VI 
emission standards. The new information collection requirements affect 
firms that sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture (including 
import) hardwood plywood, particleboard, MDF, or finished goods 
containing these materials in the United States. Although firms have 
the option of choosing to engage in the covered activities, once a firm 
chooses to do so, the information collection activities contained in 
this proposed rule become mandatory for that firm.
    The ICR document provides a detailed presentation of the estimated 
burden and costs for 3 years of the program. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b). Since the proposed rule applies to products imported into 
the U.S., the certification, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements also apply to entities outside the U.S. Therefore, the ICR 
document considers the burden and cost to both foreign and domestic 
entities. This is in contrast to the Economic Analysis for the proposed 
rule (Ref. 46), where the cost analysis is limited to domestic 
entities. The ICR document also accounts for the burdens of baseline 
reporting and recordkeeping activities in two ways. One estimates the 
incremental burden and cost excluding all the activities performed to 
comply with the CARB ATCM in the baseline, which is consistent with the 
cost estimates in the Economic Analysis. The other estimates the burden 
and cost of future activities even if those activities would be 
performed in the absence of the TSCA Title VI rule (i.e., to comply 
with the CARB ATCM), which yields higher cost estimates than those in 
the Economic Analysis.
    The ICR document estimates that more than 990,000 firms are subject 
to the rule's reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Of these, 
nearly 925,000 are domestic firms and approximately 66,000 are foreign 
firms. Over the 3-year period covered by the ICR, the incremental 
burden of the rule (excluding burden for activities performed in the 
baseline) is estimated to average 5.8 million hours per year. The total 
annual burden (including burden for required activities performed in 
the baseline) is estimated to average 7.9 million hours per year. The 
total burden reflects nearly 1.7 million responses per year over the 3 
years of the ICR, where the number of responses includes both responses 
that are submitted to EPA or a third party as well as recordkeeping 
activities conducted by firms that only maintain records. The total 
annual burden equates to an average of approximately 5 hours per 
response.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to an ICR unless it displays a currently valid OMB control 
number, or is otherwise required to submit the specific information by 
a statute. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations codified in 
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, after appearing in the 
preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication 
in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the 
related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of 
OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in a 
list at 40 CFR 9.1.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this proposed rule, which includes the ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2012-0018. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA and 
OMB. See the ADDRESSES unit at the beginning of this document for where 
to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 
to 60 days after June 10, 2013, a comment to OMB is best assured of 
having its full effect if OMB receives it by July 10, 2013. The final 
rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts 
of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined as:
    1. A small business as defined by the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201.
    2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a 
city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000.
    3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which 
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that 
could reduce that impact (Ref. 49). The IRFA is available for review in 
the docket and is summarized below.
    1. Need for the rule. TSCA section 601(d) directs EPA to promulgate 
regulations to implement the formaldehyde standards for composite wood 
products described in TSCA section 601(b)(2). EPA is issuing a proposed 
rule under TSCA Title VI to implement the statutory formaldehyde 
emission standards for hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and 
particleboard sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured 
(including imported) in the United States. As directed by the statute, 
this proposal includes provisions relating to, among other things, 
laminated products, products made with ultra low-emitting formaldehyde 
resins, products made with no-added formaldehyde resins, testing 
requirements, product labeling, chain of custody documentation and 
other recordkeeping requirements, and product inventory sell-through

[[Page 34853]]

provisions, including a product stockpiling prohibition.
    2. Objectives and legal basis for the rule. The legal basis for the 
rule is TSCA section 601(d), which provides authority for the 
Administrator to ``promulgate regulations to implement the standards 
required under subsection (b) in a manner that ensures compliance with 
the emission standards described in subsection (b)(2).'' Therefore, the 
central objective of the regulatory provisions of this proposal is to 
ensure compliance with the TSCA Title VI formaldehyde emission 
standards.
    3. Description and number of small entities to which the rule will 
apply. The small entities potentially affected by the rule are 
manufacturers (including importers), fabricators, distributors, and 
retailers of composite wood products. For purposes of assessing the 
impacts of the rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) 
A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's 
(SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. EPA 
estimates that the rule will affect approximately 879,000 small 
entities.
    4. Projected compliance requirements. This proposal implements the 
statutory formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood plywood, medium-
density fiberboard, and particleboard sold, supplied, offered for sale, 
or manufactured (including imported) in the United States. As directed 
by the statute, this proposal includes provisions relating to, among 
other things, laminated products, products made with ultra low-emitting 
formaldehyde resins, products made with no-added formaldehyde resins, 
testing requirements, product labeling, chain of custody documentation 
and other recordkeeping requirements, and product inventory sell-
through provisions, including a product stockpiling prohibition. This 
proposal would establish requirements for manufacturers (including 
importers), fabricators, distributors, and retailers of composite wood 
products. The regulatory provisions in this proposal are designed to 
ensure compliance with the TSCA Title VI formaldehyde emission 
standards while aligning, where practical, with the regulatory 
requirements under the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Airborne 
Toxic Control Measure (ATCM). By aligning itself with the existing CARB 
requirements, EPA seeks to avoid differing or duplicative regulatory 
requirements that would result in an increased burden on the regulated 
community.
    5. Classes of small entities subject to the compliance 
requirements. Small entities include small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The small entities 
that are potentially directly regulated by this proposed rule are small 
businesses that are manufacturers (including importers), fabricators, 
distributors, or retailers of composite wood products. No small 
governments or small organizations are expected to be directly 
regulated by the rule.
    6. Professional skills needed to comply. Each panel producer must 
designate a person as quality control manager with adequate experience 
and/or training to be responsible for formaldehyde emission quality 
control. EPA has not proposed criteria for determining whether an 
individual's experience or training are appropriate for this position, 
but experience in the wood products industry or a degree in chemistry 
or a related field might provide the skills need to comply with the 
requirements.
    A panel producer must be able to follow sampling and handling 
procedures for the material that is to be tested. However, those 
procedures must be described in the panel producer's quality control 
manual, and specified skills should not be needed to follow the written 
procedures.
    Each panel producer must also designate a quality control facility 
for conducting quality control formaldehyde testing, and the quality 
control facility must have quality control employees with adequate 
experience and/or training to conduct accurate chemical quantitative 
analytical tests. But instead of performing these functions themselves, 
panel producers have the option of hiring an accredited TPC or a 
contract laboratory to fulfill these requirements.
    To obtain product certification, a panel producer must apply to an 
accredited TPC, and must provide information and notifications to the 
TPC. Finally, manufacturers, fabricators, distributors, or retailers of 
composite wood products must maintain records. None of these activities 
requires any special skills.
    7. Relevant Federal rules. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) has regulations governing formaldehyde emission 
levels from plywood and particleboard materials installed in 
manufactured homes. (See 24 CFR 3280.308.) However, TSCA Title VI 
establishes specific formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood 
plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard and does not 
provide EPA with the authority to modify these standards. Furthermore, 
the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, which 
includes TSCA Title VI, directs HUD to revise their regulations to 
ensure that they reflect the emission standards in TSCA Title VI. The 
HUD regulations do not deal with the other elements addressed in these 
implementing regulations (where EPA does have the authority to make 
determinations) such as laminated products, products made with ultra 
low-emitting formaldehyde resins, products made with no-added 
formaldehyde resins, testing requirements, chain of custody 
documentation, and product inventory sell-through provisions. 
Therefore, the regulatory provisions of this proposal for which EPA has 
flexibility in implementing the statute do not duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with any other Federal rules.
    8. Potential economic impacts on small entities. Of the 879,000 
small firms affected by the proposal, over 851,000 (about 97%) are 
expected to have costs impacts that are less than 1% of their revenues, 
over 23,000 firms (about 3%) are expected to experience impacts at 
levels between 1% to 3% of their revenue, and over 4,000 firms (less 
than 1%) are expected to incur costs exceeding 3% of their revenues.
    Many of the firms with cost impacts above 1% of their revenues are 
fabricators, wholesalers, and retailers with annualized costs less than 
$250 (i.e., they are firms with annual revenues below $25,000). These 
firms account for 92% of the firms with cost impacts that are between 
1% to 3% and 42% of the firms with cost impacts that exceed 3%.
    9. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. As required here by 
section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), EPA also conducted outreach to small 
entities and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on 
February 3, 2011, to obtain advice and recommendations of 
representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject 
to the proposed rule's requirements. The Panel solicited input on all 
aspects of these proposed regulations and on the framework for the 
third-party certification program under TSCA Title VI. Seventeen 
potentially-impacted small entities served as small-entity 
representatives

[[Page 34854]]

(SERs) to the Panel, representing a broad range of small entities from 
diverse geographic locations, and five trade associations. The Panel 
concluded its deliberations on April 4, 2011.
    Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated 
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to 
elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in the 
docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 15). It is important to note that 
the Panel's findings and discussion were based on the information 
available at the time the final report was prepared. EPA has continued 
to conduct analyses relevant to the proposed rule, and additional 
information may be developed from public comment on the proposed rule.
    The Panel's recommendations on the TPC framework were discussed in 
the TPC Proposal (Ref. 1). The Panel's most significant findings and 
recommendations on other aspects of the TSCA Title VI implementing 
regulations are summarized below.
    a. In general. The Panel recommended that EPA adopt regulatory 
requirements that are consistent with the CARB ATCM wherever possible. 
EPA agrees with this recommendation and has tried throughout this 
proposal to remain consistent with CARB where it is practical to do so.
    b. Manufactured-by dates and stockpiling. The Panel generally 
agreed with those SERs that recommended that EPA propose to establish 
the manufactured-by date at 180 days after promulgation of the final 
rule and make the reference period for determining whether stockpiling 
has occurred the 12-month period prior to promulgation of the final 
rule. The Panel also recommended that EPA request comments and data on 
alternative dates and reference periods.
    EPA is proposing to establish the manufactured-by date at 1 year 
after promulgation of the final rule. This is primarily to allow for 
development of the third-party certification infrastructure and to give 
panel producers who are not already complying with the CARB ATCM 
adequate time before the manufactured-by date to select an accredited 
TPC, develop a quality control manual, and complete the initial testing 
to qualify for product certification.
    EPA is proposing to establish the stockpiling reference period, or 
base period, as the calendar year 2009 because, under TSCA Title VI, 
the base period must end before the statute was enacted. EPA requests 
comments and data on both the proposed manufactured-by date and the 
proposed base period for determining whether stockpiling has occurred.
    c. Quality control and compliance testing. The Panel recommended 
that EPA consider CARB's method of establishing equivalency and 
carefully evaluate any alternative test method permitted. After 
considering the options, EPA is proposing to use CARB's method of 
establishing equivalency between test methods and EPA is also proposing 
to recognize those alternative test methods that CARB has approved.
    The Panel further recommended that EPA provide clear direction on 
product decertification and recertification procedures and the recall 
of noncompliant products. In response to these recommendations, EPA has 
proposed specific provisions on what actions are required and allowed 
in the event of a failed test result. EPA has also proposed to require 
panel producers to hold lots selected for testing until the test 
results are received.
    d. Labeling and recordkeeping. The Panel generally recommended that 
labeling and recordkeeping provisions should be closely harmonized with 
CARB's requirements, including allowing panels to be labeled by bundle, 
rather than individually. The Panel did recognize that subtle 
differences between the TSCA Title VI implementing regulations and the 
CARB ATCM may make identical labels impossible. EPA is proposing 
labeling requirements that are virtually identical to CARB's, except 
that the labels must say that the products are TSCA Title VI compliant 
instead of CARB compliant. For entities that are manufacturers under 
TSCA (i.e., they manufacture, produce, or import composite wood panels, 
component parts, or finished goods), EPA's proposed recordkeeping and 
chain of custody documentation requirements are also virtually 
identical to CARB's. For distributors and retailers that are not 
manufacturers under TSCA, EPA is proposing that the only records they 
be required to keep are invoices and bills of lading. This requirement 
is less burdensome than recordkeeping and chain of custody requirements 
similar to those in the CARB ATCM.
    e. Laminated products and engineered veneer. The Panel recommended 
that EPA continue to seek available information, and exempt those 
laminated products that can be exempted consistent with the direction 
given in TSCA Title VI. The Panel further recommended that EPA work 
with small businesses, especially those laminating on a made-to-order 
basis, to design a testing scheme that is practical for those 
businesses, and at the same time, is calculated to ensure compliance 
with the emissions standards. The Panel also recommended that EPA 
consider basing the number and frequency of required quality control 
tests on production volume, thereby requiring fewer tests for smaller 
producers. EPA has incorporated all of these recommendations into this 
proposal, by proposing to exempt laminated products that are made with 
certified platforms and NAF resins, and by proposing to allow for 
quality control testing frequency based on production volume for 
hardwood plywood producers.
    f. Definitions. The Panel recommended that EPA develop a definition 
of ``hardboard'' that takes the revised ANSI standard into account 
while ensuring that similar products are similarly regulated under TSCA 
Title VI. EPA believes that its proposed definition takes into account 
both widespread industry usage of the term and the intent of the 
statute.
    Recognizing that TSCA Title VI was not intended to apply to 
structural plywood, the Panel also recommended that EPA develop a clear 
definition for ``interior use'' in order to eliminate confusion in the 
regulated community. According to the Panel, the definition should be 
based on the intent of the statute and consider how the hardwood 
plywood is likely to be used and stored once incorporated into a 
finished good. EPA has proposed a definition of ``intended for interior 
use'' that includes these considerations and requests comments on the 
appropriateness of this definition.
    While the SERs differed in their advice on the definition of the 
term ``panel,'' the SBAR Panel recommended that EPA reduce uncertainty 
in the regulated community by including in its regulation a clear 
definition of ``panel'' that is based on the intent of the statute, and 
considers trade usage and the limitations of current test methods. 
Again, EPA is proposing a definition that takes these factors into 
account, and EPA requests comment on all aspects of the proposed 
definition.
    10. Alternatives considered. Over the course of this rulemaking, 
EPA considered alternatives for various provisions of the rule. Most of 
these alternatives would have applied to both small and large entities 
but, given the number of small entities in the affected industries, 
some of these alternatives could affect many small entities. EPA made a 
concerted effort to keep the costs and burdens associated with this 
rule as low as possible while still ensuring compliance with the TSCA 
Title VI emissions standards. In developing the proposed rule, EPA 
considered the

[[Page 34855]]

statutory requirements and the benefits from protection of human health 
and the environment, as well as the compliance costs imposed by the 
rule, both in general and on small entities. EPA took a number of steps 
to reduce the economic impacts of the rule where doing so was 
consistent with the statutory mandate. The steps where EPA was able to 
quantify the resulting cost reductions are:
     Aligning with the CARB ATCM where practical. This 
regulatory proposal is designed to ensure compliance with the TSCA 
Title VI formaldehyde emission standards while aligning, where 
practical, with the regulatory requirements in California. Some of the 
areas where EPA has aligned the proposal with the CARB ATCM are 
described below. Aligning the TSCA implementing regulations with 
California's requirements helps reduce costs for the nearly 100 
composite wood product mills, the 32,000 fabricators, the 32,000 
wholesalers, and the 101,000 retailers that are already complying with 
the CARB ATCM in the baseline. However, EPA deviated from the CARB ATCM 
where doing so would reduce burden while still ensuring compliance with 
the TSCA Title VI emissions standards. The proposed rule costs $19 
million to $31 million per year less than an option that is fully 
consistent with the CARB ATCM.
     Defining hardwood plywood to exclude laminated products in 
which a wood veneer is attached to a compliant and certified platform 
using a NAF resin, and defining laminated products without limiting 
applicability to the manufacturer or fabricator of the finished good in 
which the product is incorporated. These definitions will result in 98% 
of laminated product producers being regulated as fabricators rather 
than panel producers. As a result, the rule will cost $92 million to 
$172 million per year less than if all laminated products were included 
in the definition of hardwood plywood.
     Reducing recordkeeping for non-manufacturers. The rule 
costs $40 million per year less than if EPA had proposed recordkeeping 
requirements similar to the CARB ATCM's.
     Reducing TPC oversight and testing requirements for NAF 
and ULEF products. The ULEF provisions alone reduce the total rule 
costs by $0.5 million per year.
    EPA also took a number of steps to reduce burden where it did not 
have sufficient information to quantify the resulting cost reductions. 
Some of these steps include:
     Not requiring retailers to relabel items that they divide 
or repackage.
     Reducing quality control testing for small hardwood 
plywood producers.
     Reducing quality control testing for particleboard and 
medium-density fiberboard producers that demonstrate consistent 
operations and low variability of test values.
     Allowing panel producers to group products and product 
types for testing.
     Adopting a definition of hardboard that exempts hardboard 
products (including those made with phenol-formaldehyde resin) from the 
statutory emission standards and the testing and certification 
requirements.
     Setting the manufactured-by date for the sell-through 
provisions at 1 year after promulgation of the final rule, instead of 
the statutory minimum of 180 days.
     Allowing alternate test methods to ASTM D-6007-02 and ASTM 
D-5582 for quality control testing, after demonstrating equivalence.
     Not requiring recordkeeping for exempt products.
     Allowing TPCs approved by CARB to certify products under 
TSCA Title VI until one year after the publication of the final rule, 
and allowing products currently certified by these TPCs to be 
considered certified for purposes of TSCA Title VI during that same 
period. Allowing equivalence between ASTM E-1333-10 and any other 
approved test method to be demonstrated in a range of formaldehyde 
concentrations that is representative of the emissions of the products 
that a TPC certifies.
    EPA also considered and rejected various alternatives to the rule 
that could affect the economic impacts of the rule on small entities. 
For the reasons described below, these alternatives are not consistent 
with the statutory objectives of the rule and are not included in the 
proposed rule.
     Exempting all laminated products from the definition of 
hardwood plywood. EPA considered excluding all laminated products from 
the definition of hardwood plywood. Because eligibility for such an 
exemption would not be based on the type of resins used to attach a 
wood veneer to a platform, currently available information indicates 
that this would have allowed laminated products that exceed the 
formaldehyde emission standards to be exempted from the definition of 
hardwood plywood. Therefore, on the basis of information currently 
available to the Agency, EPA has concluded that exempting all laminated 
products from the definition of hardwood plywood is not consistent with 
TSCA Title VI's statutory mandate that EPA promulgate regulations in a 
manner that ensures compliance with the emission standards in TSCA 
section 601(b)(2).
     Providing additional de minimis exceptions. EPA has 
decided not to propose an exception from any of the regulatory 
requirements for products containing small amounts of composite wood 
products, other than implementing the statutory exceptions for certain 
windows and doors. EPA does not have the authority to promulgate a de 
minimis exception to the statutory requirements (e.g., emissions 
standards, or quarterly testing); rather EPA has the authority to 
promulgate a de minimis exception for the other regulatory provisions 
(e.g., record keeping, chain-of-custody, quality control testing, and 
labeling). EPA does not know of any information that suggests that 
products with a de minimis amount of composite wood products would 
necessarily be made from panels that meet the statutory emissions 
standards, as required by the statute. Thus, EPA believes it is 
necessary to make these products subject to the already reduced 
regulatory requirements. EPA has concluded that, on the basis of 
information currently available to the Agency, excepting such products 
would not be consistent with TSCA Title VI's statutory mandate that EPA 
promulgate regulations in a manner that ensures compliance with the 
emission standards in TSCA section 601(b)(2).
     Not requiring retention of tested lots. EPA is proposing 
to require that panel producers retain lots of composite wood products 
from which quality control or quarterly samples have been selected 
until the samples have been tested and the results received. Without 
this requirement, panel producers could inadvertently sell products 
exceeding the emission standards in TSCA section 601(b)(2). 
Furthermore, EPA believes that the proposed approach may be less 
burdensome overall and offer better protection to importers, 
distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers than an approach 
relying on after-the-fact enforcement actions and customer 
notifications.
    Additional information on the alternatives that EPA considered is 
presented elsewhere in this proposal, and in the IRFA (Ref. 61).
    EPA invites comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts 
on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, establishes requirements for 
Federal agencies to assess the effects of their

[[Page 34856]]

regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the 
private sector. This rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures exceeding the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. Accordingly, EPA has 
prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written statement which is 
summarized below (Ref. 62).
    1. Authorizing legislation. This proposed rule is issued under the 
authority of section 601 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2697.
    2. Cost-benefit analysis. EPA has prepared an analysis of the costs 
and benefits associated with this rulemaking, a copy of which is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 46). The Economic 
Analysis presents the costs of the rule as well as various regulatory 
options and is summarized in Unit V.A. EPA has estimated that this 
proposal will result in a total cost of $434 million to $447 million in 
the first year. The cost is estimated to drop to $56 million to $65 
million in the second year. The total annualized cost of this proposal 
is $72 million to $81 million per year when using a 3% discount rate 
and $80 million to $89 million per year using a 7% discount rate. When 
adjusted for inflation, the $100 million UMRA threshold is equivalent 
to approximately $143 million in 2010 dollars. Thus, the cost of the 
rule to the private sector and State, local, and Tribal governments in 
the aggregate exceeds the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold in the 
first year.
    This proposed rule will reduce exposures to formaldehyde, resulting 
in benefits from avoided adverse health effects. For the subset of 
health effects where the results were quantified, the estimated 
annualized benefits (due to avoided incidence of nasopharyngeal cancer 
and eye irritation) are $20 million to $48 million per year using a 3% 
discount rate, and $9 million to $23 million per year using a 7% 
discount rate. There are additional unquantified benefits due to other 
avoided health effects.
    Net benefits are the difference between benefits and costs. The 
proposal is estimated to result in quantified net benefits of -$24 
million to -$60 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and -$57 
million to -$79 million per year using a 7% discount rate. EPA 
considers the additional unquantified health benefits from avoided 
cases of respiratory related and other effects to be potentially 
important non-monetized impacts that contribute to the overall net 
benefits of this proposed rule.
    3. State, local, and Tribal government input. Consistent with the 
intergovernmental consultation provisions of section 204 of the UMRA 
EPA has initiated consultations with governmental entities affected by 
this proposed rule. EPA has met with officials from the state of 
California on numerous occasions to discuss aspects of the CARB ATCM 
and its implementation. With the assistance of the National Conference 
of State Legislatures, EPA has also initiated consultations with state 
environmental health directors.
    4. Least burdensome option. Consistent with section 205, EPA has 
identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives. TSCA Title VI establishes specific formaldehyde emission 
standards for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density 
fiberboard and does not provide EPA with the authority to modify these 
standards. The statute further directs EPA to promulgate implementing 
regulations that address elements such as laminated products, products 
made with ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins, products made with 
no-added formaldehyde resins, testing requirements, product labeling, 
chain of custody documentation and other recordkeeping requirements, 
and product inventory sell-through provisions. Section 601(d) of TSCA 
requires EPA to promulgate implementing regulations in a manner that 
ensures compliance with the TSCA Title VI emission standards. Within 
those constraints, EPA has considered a number of regulatory 
alternatives for regulating laminated products, as described in Unit 
III. and elsewhere in this unit, as well as in the Economic Analysis 
(Ref. 46). One of the alternative options that EPA considered, which 
would have exempted all laminated products from the definition of 
hardwood plywood, had lower costs than the proposed rule. But as 
explained elsewhere in this proposal, currently available information 
indicates that laminated products can exceed the formaldehyde emission 
standards. Therefore, on the basis of information currently available 
to the Agency, EPA has concluded that exempting all laminated products 
from the definition of hardwood plywood is not consistent with TSCA 
Title VI's statutory mandate that EPA promulgate regulations in a 
manner that ensures compliance with the emission standards in TSCA 
section 601(b)(2). EPA has determined that the proposed rule is the 
least burdensome option that is consistent with TSCA Title VI's 
statutory mandate that EPA promulgate regulations in a manner that 
ensures compliance with the emission standards in TSCA section 
601(b)(2).
    This rule does not contain a significant Federal intergovernmental 
mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA, because it neither imposes 
enforceable duties on State, local, or tribal governments nor reduces 
an authorized amount of Federal financial assistance provided to State, 
local, or tribal governments. And this proposed rule contains no 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The proposed rule would regulate entities that 
manufacture (including import), fabricate, distribute, or sell 
composite wood products. Governments do not typically engage in these 
activities, so government entities are not expected to be subject to 
the rule's requirements.

E . Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The 
proposed rule would not regulate governments directly, it would 
regulate entities that manufacture (including import), fabricate, 
distribute, or sell composite wood products. Governments do not 
typically engage in these activities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA has met with officials from the state of California on 
numerous occasions to discuss aspects of the CARB ATCM and its 
implementation. With the assistance of the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, EPA has also initiated consultations with state 
environmental health directors. EPA specifically solicits comment on 
this proposed action from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The proposed 
rule would not regulate tribal governments directly, it would regulate 
entities that manufacture (including import), fabricate, distribute, or 
sell composite wood products. Tribal

[[Page 34857]]

governments do not typically engage in these activities. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed 
action from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 
April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Nevertheless, 
EPA has evaluated the environmental health effects of formaldehyde 
emissions from composite wood products on children. The results of this 
evaluation are described in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 46). The 
analysis shows that children aged 0 through 1 represent 3% of the 
individuals affected by the rule and are estimated to accrue about 2% 
to 10% of the proposed rule's total quantified benefits. Children aged 
2 through 15 represent 20% of the individuals affected by the proposed 
rule and are estimated to accrue about 16% to 22% of the proposed 
rule's total quantified benefits. Given these results, EPA has 
determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionally high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on children. These 
proposed standards would reduce emissions of formaldehyde from 
composite wood products for individuals of all ages that are exposed 
and children may accrue higher benefits from the exposure reductions 
compared to adults.
    The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed 
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to 
formaldehyde.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because 
it is not likely to have any adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, directs EPA to use 
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do 
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. 
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves numerous technical standards, 
many of which EPA is directed to use by TSCA Title VI. Technical 
standards identified in the statute include the two quarterly test 
methods, ASTM E-1333-96 and ASTM D-6007-02, a quality control test 
method, ASTM D-5582-00, and various standards that define specific 
composite wood products, such as ASTM D-5456-06 (Structural Composite 
Lumber Products), ASTM D-5055-05 (Prefabricated Wood I-Joists), ANSI 
A190.1 (Structural Glued Laminated Timber), ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2009 
(Hardwood and Decorative Plywood), ANSI A208.2-2 2009 (Medium Density 
Fiberboard), ANSI A208.1-2009 (Particleboard), PS-1-07 (Structural 
Plywood), and PS-2-04 (Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels).
    In addition, EPA has identified other voluntary consensus standards 
that EPA is proposing to incorporate into this regulation. These 
include the revised quarterly test method, ASTM E-1333-10, and 
standards that define hardboard, ANSI A135.4, ANSI A135.5, and ANSI 
A135.6. EPA is also proposing to allow three alternative quality 
control test methods that are incorporated in voluntary consensus 
standards, EN 717-2 (gas analysis), EN 120 (perforator), and JIS A 1460 
(24-hour desiccator).
    EPA is proposing the use of voluntary consensus standards issued by 
the International Organization for Standardization, ASTM International, 
the American National Standards Institute, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, the European Committee for Standardization, 
Georgia Pacific Chemicals LLC, and the Japanese Standards Association. 
Copies of the standards referenced in the proposed regulatory text at 
Sec. Sec.  770.1, 770.3, 770.10, 770.15, 770.17, and 770.20 have been 
placed in the docket for this proposed rule. You may also obtain copies 
of these standards from:
    (1) International Organization for Standardization, Case postale 
56, CH[middot]1211, Geneve 20, Switzerland, telephone +41-22-749-01-11, 
http://www.iso.org.
    (2) ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West 
Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959 USA, telephone (877) 909-ASTM, http://www.astm.org.
    (3) ANSI, American National Standards Institute, 1899 L Street, 
NW., 11th Floor, Washington, DC 200036, telephone (202) 293-9287, 
http://ansi.org/.
    (4) National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 2150, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2150; http://ts.nist.gov/docvps.
    (5) CEN, European Committee for Standardization, CEN-CENELEC 
Management Centre, 4th Floor, Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels, 
telephone +32-3-550-08-11, http://www.cen.eu/cen/pages/default.aspx.
    (6) Georgia-Pacific Chemicals LLC, 133 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, 
GA 30303, telephone (877) 377-2737, http://www.gp-dmc.com/default.aspx.
    (7) Japanese Standards Association, Japanese Industrial Standards, 
1-24, Akasaka 4, Minatoku, Tokyo 107-8440, Japan, telephone +81-3-3583-
8000, http://www.jsa.or.jp/.

In the final rule, EPA intends to seek approval from the Director of 
the Federal Register for the incorporation by reference of the 
standards referenced in the final rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and 
specifically invites the public to identify additional potentially 
applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such 
standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionally high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income 
population. These proposed standards would reduce emissions of 
formaldehyde from composite wood products for all populations that are 
exposed, with slightly larger benefits for individuals

[[Page 34858]]

from minority or low-income affected populations.
    This proposed rule establishes standards that reduce emissions of 
formaldehyde from composite wood products. Formaldehyde exposure may 
cause a range of health effects including nasopharyngeal cancer, 
sensory irritation, respiratory related and other effects.
    The Economic Analysis (Ref. 46), described in Unit V.A., monetizes 
the benefits from reducing the number of cases of nasopharyngeal cancer 
and sensory irritation. Benefits valuation is done for formaldehyde 
exposure in five climate zones from nine different housing types (five 
types of new housing and four types of renovated housing), allowing for 
off-gassing of up to 10 years, as well as occupational, school, and 
outside formaldehyde exposure. The population in these climate zones 
and housing types is broken down into broad age and employment 
categories to assess exposure.
    The Economic Analysis (Ref. 46) includes an environmental justice 
analysis that expands on the primary benefits analysis by analyzing the 
monetized impacts specifically for minority and low-income populations. 
Results indicate that disaggregation of total benefits by population 
groups leads to variation in the range of individual benefits, by 
minority population. Benefits estimates are reported in 2010 dollars, 
annualized at a 3% rate. The population of all individuals affected by 
the proposed rule shows the same estimates reported in the total 
benefits analysis; quantified benefits for the proposed rule range from 
$20 million to $48 million, and average $0.19 to $0.45 per individual. 
The affected Non-Hispanic White population account for 65% of the total 
affected population, accrue 60% to 61% of the quantified benefits, and 
experience average annualized quantified benefits ranging from $0.18 to 
$0.42 per individual. In comparison, benefits for minority populations 
are higher. Minority populations represent about 35% of the individuals 
affected by the rule and are estimated to accrue about 40% of the 
proposed rule's quantified benefits. The affected Non-Hispanic Black 
population account for 12% of the total affected population, accrue 13% 
of the quantified benefits, and experience average annualized 
quantified benefits ranging from $0.21 to $0.49 per individual. The 
affected Hispanic population account for 15% of the total affected 
population, accrue 18% of the quantified benefits, and experience 
average annualized quantified benefits ranging from $0.22 to $0.51 per 
individual. The affected Non-Hispanic Native American or Alaskan Indian 
population account for 0.6% of the total affected population, accrue 
0.6% of the quantified benefits, and experience average annualized 
quantified benefits ranging from $0.19 to $0.43 per individual. The 
affected low-income population account for 12% of the total affected 
population, accrue 14% to 15% of the quantified benefits, and 
experience average annualized quantified benefits ranging from $0.22 to 
$0.53 per individual.
    To further improve the analysis for the final rule, the public is 
invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed studies and data 
that assess the exposures of minority or low-income populations to 
formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and the health 
effects of those exposures.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 770

    Environmental protection, Formaldehyde, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Toxic substances, Wood.

    Dated: May 23, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
    Therefore, 40 CFR part 770 is proposed to be amended to read as 
follows

0
1. The authority citation for part 770 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2697(d).

0
2. Section 770.1 is amended by adding paragraphs (b) through (e) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  770.1  Scope and applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) This subpart applies to any hardwood plywood, particleboard, or 
medium-density fiberboard, or finished goods containing these 
materials, that are sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured 
(including imported) in the United States.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to the following:
    (1) Any finished good that has previously been sold or supplied to 
an individual or entity that purchased or acquired the finished good in 
good faith for purposes other than resale, e.g., an antique or 
secondhand furniture.
    (2) Hardboard, unless the hardboard is used as a core for hardwood 
plywood.
    (3) Structural plywood, as specified in PS-1-07, Voluntary Product 
Standard--Structural Plywood.
    (4) Structural panels, as specified in PS-2-04, Voluntary Product 
Standard--Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels.
    (5) Structural composite lumber, as specified in ASTM D5456-06, 
Standard Specification for Evaluation of Structural Composite Lumber 
Products.
    (6) Oriented strand board.
    (7) Glued laminated lumber, as specified in ANSI A190.1-2002, 
Structural Glued Laminated Timber.
    (8) Prefabricated wood I-joists, as specified in ASTM D5055-05, 
Standard Specification for Establishing and Monitoring Structural 
Capacities of Prefabricated Wood I-Joists.
    (9) Finger-jointed lumber.
    (10) Wood packaging, including pallets, crates, spools, and 
dunnage.
    (11) Composite wood products used inside the following:
    (i) New vehicles (other than recreational vehicles) that are 
constructed entirely from new parts and that have never been the 
subject of a retail sale or registered with the applicable State or 
other governmental agency.
    (ii) New rail cars.
    (iii) New boats.
    (iv) New aerospace craft.
    (v) New aircraft.
    (d) The emission standards in Sec.  770.10 do not apply to windows 
that contain composite wood products, if the windows contain less than 
5% by volume of hardwood plywood, particleboard, or medium-density 
fiberboard, combined, in relation to the total volume of the finished 
window.
    (e) The emission standards in Sec.  770.10 do not apply to exterior 
doors and garage doors that contain composite wood products, if:
    (1) The doors are made from composite wood products manufactured 
with no-added formaldehyde-based resins or ultra low-emitting 
formaldehyde resins; or
    (2) The doors contain less than 3% by volume of hardwood plywood, 
particleboard, or medium-density fiberboard, combined, in relation to 
the total volume of the finished exterior door or garage door.
0
3. Section 770.2 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  770.2  Effective dates.

* * * * *
    (d) After [date 1 year after publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register], all hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-
density fiberboard, and finished goods containing these materials, 
sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured (including imported) 
in the United States must comply with this subpart. Except: Hardwood 
plywood, particleboard, and

[[Page 34859]]

medium-density fiberboard manufactured (including imported) before 
[date 1 year after publication of the final regulations in the Federal 
Register] may be sold, supplied, offered for sale, or used to fabricate 
component parts or finished goods at any time.
    (e) After [date 1 year after publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register], all manufacturers (including importers), 
fabricators, suppliers, distributors, and retailers of hardwood 
plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard, and finished 
goods containing these materials, must comply with this subpart.
0
4. Section 770.3 is amended by revising the definition for ``Panel 
producer'' and alphabetically adding the definitions for ``Article'', 
``Bundle'', ``Component part'', ``Distributor'', ``Fabricator'', 
``Finished good'', ``Hardboard'', ``Hardwood plywood'', ``Importer'', 
``Intended for interior use'', ``Laminated product'', ``Laminated 
product producer'', ``Lot'', ``Medium-density fiberboard'', ``No-added 
formaldehyde-based resin'', ``Non-complying lot'', ``Panel'', ``Panel 
producer'', ``Particleboard'', ``Product type'', ``Product line'', 
``Purchaser'', ``Quality control limit'', ``Recreational vehicle'', 
``Retailer'', ``Scavenger'', ``Stockpiling'', ``Thin medium-density 
fiberboard'', ``Ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resin'', ``Veneer'', 
and ``Woody grass'' to read as follows:

Sec.  770.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Article means a manufactured item which:
    (1) Is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture.
    (2) Has end use functions dependent in whole or in part upon its 
shape or design during the end use.
    (3) Has either no change of chemical composition during its end use 
or only those changes of composition which have no commercial purpose 
separate from that of the article and that may occur as described in 19 
CFR 12.120(a)(2); except that fluids and particles are not considered 
articles regardless of shape or design.
    Bundle means more than one composite wood product panel, component 
part, or finished good fastened together for transportation or sale.
    Component part means a part that contains one or more composite 
wood products and is used in the assembly of finished goods.
* * * * *
    Distributor means an entity that supplies composite wood products, 
component parts, or finished goods to others.
* * * * *
    Fabricator means an entity that incorporates composite wood 
products into component parts or into finished goods.
    Finished good means any good or product, other than a panel, that 
contains hardwood plywood, particleboard, or medium-density fiberboard 
and that is not a component part or other part used in the assembly of 
a finished good.
    Hardboard means a panel composed of cellulosic fibers made by dry 
or wet forming and hot pressing of a fiber mat, either without resins, 
or with a phenolic resin (e.g., a phenol-formaldehyde resin) or a resin 
system in which there is no added formaldehyde as part of the resin 
cross-linking structure, as determined under one of the following ANSI 
standards: ANSI A135.4 (Basic Hardboard), ANSI A135.5 (Prefinished 
Hardboard Paneling), or ANSI A135.6 (Hardboard Siding).
    Hardwood plywood means a hardwood or decorative panel that is 
intended for interior use and composed of (as determined under ANSI/
HPVA HP-1-2009) an assembly of layers or plies of veneer, joined by an 
adhesive with a lumber core, a particleboard core, a medium-density 
fiberboard core, a hardboard core, a veneer core, or any other special 
core or special back material. Hardwood plywood does not include 
military-specified plywood, curved plywood, or any plywood specified in 
PS-1-07, Voluntary Product Standard--Structural Plywood, or PS-2-04, 
Voluntary Product Standard--Performance Standard for Wood-Based 
Structural-Use Panels. In addition, hardwood plywood does not include 
laminated products that are made by attaching a wood or woody grass 
veneer with a no-added formaldehyde-based resin to a core that has been 
manufactured in compliance with this subpart and that is either 
certified in accordance with Sec.  770.15, manufactured with no-added 
formaldehyde-based resins under Sec.  770.17, or manufactured with 
ultra low-emitting formaldehyde-based resins under Sec.  770.18(d).
    Importer means an entity that imports composite wood products, 
component parts that contain composite wood products, or finished goods 
that contain composite wood products into the customs territory of the 
United States (as defined in general note 2 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedules of the United States). Importer includes:
    (1) The entity primarily liable for the payment of any duties on 
the products, or
    (2) An authorized agent acting on the entity's behalf.
    Intended for interior use means intended for use or storage inside 
a building or recreational vehicle, or constructed in such a way that 
it is not suitable for long term use in a location exposed to the 
elements.
* * * * *
    Laminated product means a product in which a wood or woody grass 
veneer is affixed to a particleboard platform, a medium-density 
fiberboard platform, or a veneer core platform. A laminated product is 
a component part used in the construction or assembly of a finished 
good.
    Laminated product producer means a manufacturing plant or other 
facility that manufactures (excluding facilities that solely import 
products) laminated products on the premises.
    Lot means the particular batch of a product type made during a 
single production run.
    Medium-density fiberboard means a panel composed of cellulosic 
fibers made by dry forming and pressing a resinated fiber mat (as 
determined under ANSI A208.2-2009).
    No-added formaldehyde-based resin means a resin formulated with no 
added formaldehyde as part of the resin cross-linking structure in a 
composite wood product that meets the emission standards in Sec.  
770.17(c).
    Non-complying lot means any lot or batch of composite wood product 
represented by a quarterly or quality control test value that exceeds 
the applicable standard for the particular composite wood product. In 
the case of a quarterly test value, only the particular lot or batch 
from which the sample was taken would be considered a non-complying 
lot. However, future production of the product type(s) represented by a 
failed quarterly test are not considered certified and must be treated 
as a non-complying lot until the product type(s) are re-qualified 
through a successful quarterly test.
    Panel means a flat or raised piece of composite wood product.
    Panel producer means a manufacturing plant or other facility that 
manufactures (excluding facilities that solely import products) 
composite wood products on the premises. This includes laminated 
products not excluded from the definition of hardwood plywood.
    Particleboard means a panel composed of cellulosic material in the 
form of discrete particles (as

[[Page 34860]]

distinguished from fibers, flakes, or strands) that are pressed 
together with resin (as determined under ANSI A208.1-2009). 
Particleboard does not include any product specified in PS-2-04, 
Performance Standard for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels.
* * * * *
    Product type means a type of composite wood product that differs 
from another, made by the same panel producer, based on wood type, 
composition, thickness, number of plies (if hardwood plywood), or resin 
used. Products with similar emissions made with the same resin system 
may be considered to be the same product type. Factors to consider in 
determining whether products belong to the same product type include 
those factors likely to affect emissions, such as wood type, resin 
type, core type, veneer type, and press time.
    Production line means a set of operations and physical industrial 
or mechanical equipment used to produce a composite wood product.
    Purchaser means an entity that acquires composite wood products in 
exchange for money or its equivalent.
    Quality control limit means the quality control method test 
formaldehyde value that is the correlative equivalent to the applicable 
emission standard based on the ASTM E1333-10 method.
    Recreational vehicle means a vehicle which is:
    (1) Built on a single chassis.
    (2) Four hundred square feet or less when measured at the largest 
horizontal projections.
    (3) Self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck.
    (4) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as 
temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or 
seasonal use.
    Retailer means an entity that generally sells smaller quantities of 
composite wood products directly to consumers.
    Scavenger means a chemical or chemicals that can be applied to 
resins or composite wood products to reduce the amount of formaldehyde 
that can be emitted from composite wood products.
    Stockpiling means manufacturing or purchasing composite wood 
products, whether in the form of panels or incorporated into finished 
goods, between July 7, 2010 and [date 180 days after publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register] at an average rate at least 20% 
greater than the average rate of manufacture or purchase during the 
2009 calendar year for the purpose of circumventing the emission 
standards and other requirements of this subpart.
    Thin medium-density fiberboard means medium-density fiberboard that 
has a thickness less than or equal to 8 millimeters or 0.315 inches.
* * * * *
    Ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resin means a resin in a composite 
wood product that meets the emission standards in Sec.  770.18(c).
    Veneer means a thin sheet of wood or woody grass that is rotary 
cut, sliced, or sawed from a log, bolt, flitch, block, or culm.
    Woody grass means a plant of the family Poaceae (formerly 
Gramineae) with hard lignified tissues or woody parts.
0
5. Subpart C is added to read as follows:
Subpart C--Composite Wood Products
Sec.
770.10 Formaldehyde emission standards.
770.12 Stockpiling.
770.15 Composite wood product certification.
770.17 No-added formaldehyde-based resins.
770.18 Ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins.
770.20 Testing requirements.
770.22 Non-complying lots.
770.24 Samples for testing.
770.30 Importers, fabricators, laminated product producers, 
distributors, and retailers.
770.40 Reporting and recordkeeping.
770.45 Labeling.
770.55 Prohibited acts.

Subpart C--Composite Wood Products

Sec.  770.10  Formaldehyde emission standards.

    (a) Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  770.1 and 770.17, the emission 
standards in this section apply to composite wood products sold, 
supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured (including imported) in the 
United States. These emission standards apply regardless of whether the 
composite wood product is in the form of a panel, a component part, or 
incorporated into a finished good.
    (b) The emission standards are based on test method ASTM E1333-10, 
and are as follows:
    (1) For hardwood plywood, 0.05 parts per million (ppm) of 
formaldehyde.
    (2) For medium-density fiberboard, 0.11 ppm of formaldehyde.
    (3) For thin medium-density fiberboard, 0.13 ppm of formaldehyde.
    (4) For particleboard, 0.09 ppm of formaldehyde.

Sec.  770.12  Stockpiling.

    (a) The sale of stockpiled inventory of composite wood products, 
whether in the form of panels or incorporated into finished goods, is 
prohibited after [date 1 year after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register].
    (b) To determine whether stockpiling has occurred, the rate of 
manufacture or purchase is measured as follows:
    (1) For composite wood products in the form of panels, the rate is 
measured in terms of square footage of panels produced.
    (2) For composite wood products incorporated into component parts 
or finished goods, the rate is measured in terms of the square footage 
of composite wood product panels purchased for the purpose of 
incorporating them into component parts or finished goods.
    (c) Manufacturers or purchasers who can demonstrate that they have 
a greater than 20% increase in manufacturing or purchasing composite 
wood products for some reason other than circumventing the emissions 
standards would not be in violation of this section. Such reasons may 
include, but are not limited to:
    (1) A quantifiable immediate increase in customer demand or sales.
    (2) A documented and planned business expansion.
    (3) The manufacturer or purchaser was not in business at the 
beginning of calendar year 2009.
    (4) An increase in production to meet increased demand resulting 
from an emergency event or natural disaster.

Sec.  770.15  Composite wood product certification.

    (a) Only certified composite wood products, whether in the form of 
panels or incorporated into component parts or finished goods, are 
permitted to be sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured 
(including imported) in the United States, unless the product is 
specifically exempted by this subpart.
    (b) Certified composite wood products are those that are produced 
or fabricated in accordance with all of the provisions of this subpart.
    (c) To obtain product certification, a panel producer must apply to 
a TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC. The application must contain the 
following:
    (1) The panel producer's name, address, telephone number, and other 
contact information.
    (2) A copy of the panel producer's quality control manual as 
required by Sec.  770.20(e)(1).
    (3) Name and contact information for the panel producer's quality 
control manager.
    (4) An identification of the specific products for which 
certification is requested, and the chemical formulation of the resins, 
including base resins, catalysts, and other additives used in panel 
production.

[[Page 34861]]

    (5) At least one test conducted in accordance with Sec.  770.20(c).
    (6) Three months of routine quality control tests conducted in 
accordance with Sec.  770.20(b).
    (d) The TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC must act on a panel producer's 
complete application within 90 days of receipt.
    (1) If the application demonstrates that the candidate product 
achieves the applicable emission standards described in Sec.  770.10, 
the TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC will approve the application.
    (2) If the application does not demonstrate that the candidate 
product achieves the applicable emission standards described in Sec.  
770.10, the TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC will disapprove the 
application. A new application may be submitted for the candidate 
product at any time.
    (e) If a panel producer fails a quarterly test, certification for 
any product types represented by the sample is suspended until a 
compliant quarterly test result is obtained.

Sec.  770.17  No-added formaldehyde-based resins.

    (a) Producers of composite wood product panels made with no-added 
formaldehyde-based resins may apply to a TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC 
for a 2-year exemption from the testing and certification requirements 
in Sec.  770.20. A copy of the application must be sent to EPA. The 
application must contain the following:
    (1) The panel producer's name, address, telephone number, and other 
contact information.
    (2) An identification of the specific product and the chemical 
formulation of the resins, including base resins, catalysts, and other 
additives as used in manufacturing.
    (3) At least one test conducted under the supervision of a TSCA 
Title VI Accredited TPC pursuant to test method ASTM E1333-10 or ASTM 
D6007-02. Test results obtained by ASTM D6007-02 must include a showing 
of equivalence in accordance with Sec.  770.20(d)(1).
    (4) Three months of routine quality control tests under Sec.  
770.20, including a showing of equivalence in accordance with Sec.  
770.20(d)(2).
    (b) The TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC will approve a panel 
producer's application within 90 days of receipt if the application is 
complete and demonstrates that the candidate product achieves the 
emission standards described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) As measured according to paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this 
section, the emission standards for composite wood products made with 
no-added formaldehyde-based resins are as follows:
    (1) No test result higher than 0.05 parts per million (ppm) of 
formaldehyde for hardwood plywood and 0.06 ppm for particleboard, 
medium-density fiberboard, and thin medium-density fiberboard.
    (2) No higher than 0.04 ppm of formaldehyde for 90% of the 3 months 
of routine quality control testing data required under paragraph (a)(4) 
of this section.
    (d) After the initial 2-year period, and every 2 years thereafter, 
in order to continue to qualify for the exemption from the testing and 
certification requirements, the panel producer must reapply to a TSCA 
Title VI Accredited TPC and obtain at least one test result in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section that complies with the 
emission standards in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (e) Any change in the resin formulation, the core material, or any 
other part of the manufacturing process that may affect formaldehyde 
emission rates invalidates the exemption for any product produced after 
such a change.

Sec.  770.18  Ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins.

    (a) Producers of composite wood product panels made with ultra low-
emitting formaldehyde resins may apply to a TSCA Title VI Accredited 
TPC for approval either to conduct less frequent testing than is 
specified in Sec.  770.20 or approval for a 2-year exemption from the 
testing and certification requirements in Sec.  770.20. A copy of the 
application must be sent to EPA. The application must contain the 
following:
    (1) The panel producer's name, address, telephone number, and other 
contact information.
    (2) An identification of the specific product and the chemical 
formulation of the resins, including base resins, scavenger resins, 
scavenger additives, catalysts, and other additives as used in 
manufacturing.
    (3) At least two tests conducted under the supervision of a TSCA 
Title VI Accredited TPC pursuant to test method ASTM E1333-10 or ASTM 
D6007-02. Test results obtained by ASTM D6007-02 must include a showing 
of equivalence in accordance with Sec.  770.20(d)(1).
    (4) Six months of routine quality control tests under Sec.  770.20, 
including a showing of equivalence in accordance with Sec.  
770.20(d)(2).
    (b) The TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC will approve a panel 
producer's application within 90 days of receipt if the application is 
complete and demonstrates that the candidate product achieves the 
emission standards required for reduced testing as described in 
paragraph (c) of this section or the emission standards required for a 
2-year exemption as described in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (c) As measured according to paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this 
section, the emission standards for reduced testing for composite wood 
products made with ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins are as 
follows:
    (1) No test result higher than 0.05 parts per million (ppm) of 
formaldehyde for hardwood plywood, 0.08 ppm for particleboard, 0.09 ppm 
for medium-density fiberboard, and 0.11 ppm for thin medium-density 
fiberboard.
    (2) For 90% of the 6 months of routine quality control testing data 
required under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, no higher than 0.05 
ppm of formaldehyde for particleboard, no higher than 0.06 ppm of 
formaldehyde for medium-density fiberboard, and no higher than 0.08 ppm 
of formaldehyde for thin medium-density fiberboard.
    (d) As measured according to paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this 
section, the emission standards for an exemption from the testing and 
certification requirements of Sec.  770.20 for composite wood products 
made with ultra low-emitting formaldehyde resins are as follows:
    (1) No test result higher than 0.05 ppm of formaldehyde for 
hardwood plywood or 0.06 ppm of formaldehyde for particleboard, medium-
density fiberboard, and thin medium-density fiberboard.
    (2) For 90% of the 6 months of routine quality control testing data 
required under paragraph (a)(4) of this section, no higher than 0.04 
parts per million of formaldehyde.
    (e) After the initial 2-year period, and every 2 years thereafter, 
in order to continue to qualify for an exemption from the testing and 
certification requirements, the panel producer must reapply to a TSCA 
Title VI Accredited TPC and obtain at least one test result in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section that complies with the 
emission standards in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (f) Any change in the resin formulation, the core material, or any 
other part of the manufacturing process that may affect formaldehyde 
emission rates invalidates the exemption from the testing and 
certification requirements for any product resulting from such a

[[Page 34862]]

change and produced after such a change.

Sec.  770.20  Testing requirements.

    (a) General requirements--(1) All panels must be tested in an 
unfinished condition, prior to the application of a finishing or 
topcoat.
    (2) Facilities that conduct the formaldehyde testing required by 
this section must follow the procedures and specifications, such as 
testing conditions and loading ratios, of the test method being used.
    (3) All equipment used in the formaldehyde testing required by this 
section must be calibrated and otherwise maintained and used in 
accordance with the equipment manufacturer's instructions.
    (b) Quality control testing--(1) Allowable methods. Quality control 
testing may be performed using any of the following methods, with a 
showing of equivalence for each method pursuant to paragraph (d) of 
this section:
    (i) ASTM D6007-02.
    (ii) ASTM D5582.
    (iii) EN 717-2 (Gas Analysis Method).
    (iv) DMC (Dynamic Micro Chamber).
    (v) EN 120 (Perforator Method).
    (vi) JIS A 1460 (24-hr Desiccator Method).
    (2) Frequency of testing--(i) Particleboard and medium-density 
fiberboard must be tested at least once per shift (8 or 12 hours, plus 
or minus 1 hour of production) for each production line for each 
product type. Quality control tests must also be conducted whenever:
    (A) A product type production ends, even if 8 hours of production 
has not been reached.
    (B) The resin formulation is changed so that the formaldehyde to 
urea ratio is increased.
    (C) There is an increase by more than 10% in the amount of 
formaldehyde resin used, by square foot or by panel.
    (D) There is a decrease in the designated press time by more than 
20%.
    (E) The quality control manager or quality control employee has 
reason to believe that the panel being produced may not meet the 
requirements of the applicable standards.
    (ii) Particleboard and medium-density fiberboard panel producers 
are eligible for reduced quality control testing if they demonstrate 
consistent operations and low variability of test values. To qualify, 
panel producers must:
    (A) Apply in writing to a TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC.
    (B) Maintain a 30 panel running average.
    (C) If the 30 panel running average remains 2 standard deviations 
below the designated quality control limit for 60 days or more, the 
TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC may approve a reduction to 1 quality 
control test per 24-hour production period.
    (D) If the 30 panel running average remains 3 standard deviations 
below the designated quality control limit for 60 days or more, the 
TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC may approve a reduction to 1 quality 
control test per 48-hour production period.
    (E) The TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC will approve a request for 
reduced quality control testing as long as the data submitted by the 
panel producer demonstrates compliance with the criteria and the TSCA 
Title VI Accredited TPC does not otherwise have reason to believe that 
the data are inaccurate or the panel producer's production processes 
are inadequate to ensure continued compliance with the emission 
standards.
    (iii) Hardwood plywood must be tested as follows:
    (A) At least one test per week per product type and production line 
if the weekly hardwood plywood production at the panel producer is more 
than 100,000 but less than 200,000 square feet.
    (B) At least two tests per week per product type and production 
line if the weekly hardwood plywood production at the panel producer is 
200,000 square feet or more, but less than 400,000 square feet.
    (C) At least four times per week per product type and production 
line if the weekly hardwood plywood production at the panel producer is 
400,000 square feet or more.
    (D) If weekly production of hardwood plywood at the panel producer 
is 100,000 square feet or less, at least one test per 100,000 square 
feet for each product type produced; or, if less than 100,000 square 
feet of a particular product type in a single production run is 
produced, one quality control test of that product type per production 
run or lot produced.
    (iv) Composite wood products that have been approved by TSCA Title 
VI Accredited TPC for reduced testing under Sec.  770.18(b) through (c) 
must be tested at least once per week per product type and production 
line, except that hardwood plywood panel producers who qualify for less 
frequent testing under paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(D) of this section may 
continue to perform quality control testing under that provision.
    (3) Lots selected for sampling. All lots from which samples are 
selected for quality control testing must be retained at the panel 
producer's facility until the quality control test results are received 
by the panel producer.
    (i) Lots represented by passing quality control test results may be 
shipped as soon as the test results are received by the panel producer.
    (ii) Lots represented by failing quality control test results must 
be handled as non-complying lots in accordance with Sec.  770.22
    (4) Results. Any sample that exceeds the quality control limit 
established pursuant to this section must be reported to the TSCA Title 
VI Accredited TPC in writing within 24 hours. Any lot or batch 
represented by a quality control sample that exceeds the quality 
control limit must be handled in accordance with Sec.  770.22.
    (c) Quarterly testing. Quarterly testing must be supervised by TSCA 
Title VI Accredited TPCs and performed by laboratories accredited under 
Sec.  770.7.
    (1) Allowable methods. Quarterly testing must be performed using 
ASTM E1333-10 or, with a showing of equivalence pursuant to paragraph 
(d) of this section, ASTM D6007-02.
    (2) Sample selection--(i) Samples must be randomly chosen by a TSCA 
Title VI Accredited TPC from a single lot or group of lots that is 
ready for shipment by the panel producer.
    (ii) Lots may be grouped for quarterly testing purposes. For 
hardwood plywood samples, the samples must be randomly selected from 
products that have the highest potential to emit formaldehyde.
    (iii) Samples must not include the top or the bottom composite wood 
product of a bundle.
    (iv) All lots from which samples are selected for quarterly testing 
must be retained at the panel producer's facility until the quarterly 
test results are received by the panel producer. This includes lots 
that are grouped for purposes of quarterly testing.
    (A) Lots represented by passing quarterly test results may be 
shipped as soon as the test results are received by the panel producer.
    (B) Lots represented by failing quarterly test results must be 
disposed of as non-complying lots in accordance with Sec.  770.22
    (3) Sample handling. Samples must be dead-stacked or air-tight 
wrapped between the time of sample selection and the start of test 
conditioning. Samples must be labeled as such, signed by the TSCA Title 
VI Accredited TPC, bundled air-tight, wrapped in polyethylene, 
protected by cover sheets, and promptly shipped to the laboratory 
testing facility. Conditioning must begin

[[Page 34863]]

as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the samples were 
produced.
    (4) Results. Any sample that exceeds the applicable formaldehyde 
emission standard in Sec.  770.10 must be reported by the TSCA Title VI 
Accredited TPC to the panel producer and to EPA in writing within 24 
hours. Any lot or batch represented by a sample result that exceeds the 
applicable formaldehyde emission standard must be disposed of in 
accordance with Sec.  770.22. Where lots are grouped for testing, this 
includes all lots in the group represented by the sample.
    (5) Reduced testing frequency. Composite wood products that have 
been approved by TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC for reduced testing under 
Sec.  770.18(b) through (c) need only undergo quarterly testing every 
six months.
    (d) Equivalence. Equivalence between ASTM E1333-10 and any other 
test method used for quality control or quarterly testing must be 
demonstrated by TSCA Title VI Accredited TPCs at least once each year 
or whenever there is a significant change in equipment, procedure, or 
the qualifications of testing personnel.
    (1) Equivalence between ASTM E1333-10 and ASTM D6007-02. 
Equivalence must be demonstrated for at least five comparison sample 
sets, which compare the results of the two methods.
    (i) Samples--(A) For the ASTM E1333-10 method, each comparison 
sample must consist of the result of simultaneously testing panels, 
using the applicable loading ratios specified in the ASTM E1333-10 
method, from the same batch of panels tested by the ASTM D6007-02 
method.
    (B) For the ASTM D6007-02 method, each comparison sample shall 
consist of testing specimens representing portions of panels tested in 
the ASTM E1333-10 method and matched to their respective ASTM E1333-10 
method comparison sample result.
    (C) The five comparison sample sets must consist of testing a 
minimum of five sample sets as measured by the ASTM E1333-10 method.
    (ii) Average and standard deviation. The arithmetic mean, x, and 
standard deviation, S, of the difference of all comparison sets must be 
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN13.004

Where x = arithmetic mean;
S = standard deviation;
n = number of sets;
Di = difference between the ASTM E1333-10 and ASTM D6007-02 method 
values for the ith set; and
i ranges from 1 to n.

    (iii) Equivalence determination. The ASTM D6007-02 method is 
considered equivalent to the ASTM E1333-10 method if the following 
condition is met:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN13.005

Where C is equal to 0.026.

    (2) Equivalence Between ASTM E1333-10 and any quality control test 
method other than ASTM D6007-02. Equivalence must be demonstrated by 
establishing an acceptable correlation coefficient (``r'' value).
    (i) Correlation. The correlation must be based on a minimum sample 
size of five data pairs and a simple linear regression where the 
dependent variable (Y-axis) is the quality control test value and the 
independent variable (X-axis) is the ASTM E1333-10 test value. Either 
composite wood products or formaldehyde emission reference materials 
can be used to establish the correlation.
    (ii) Minimum acceptable correlation coefficients (``r'' values). 
The minimum acceptable correlation coefficients for equivalency 
correlations are as follows, where ``n'' is equal to the number of data 
pairs, and ``r'' is the correlation coefficient:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Degrees of freedom (n-2)                     r Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3..........................................................        0.878
4..........................................................        0.811
5..........................................................        0.754
6..........................................................        0.707
7..........................................................        0.666
8..........................................................        0.632
9..........................................................        0.602
10 or more.................................................        0.576
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Variation from previous results. If data from a TSCA Title VI 
Accredited TPC's quarterly test results and a panel producer's quality 
control test results do not fit the previously established correlation, 
the TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC must establish a new correlation, and 
new quality control limits.
    (iv) Failed quarterly tests. If a panel producer fails two 
quarterly tests in a row for the same product type, the TSCA Title VI 
Accredited TPC must establish a new correlation curve.
    (e) Quality assurance and quality control requirements for panel 
producers. Panel producers are responsible for product compliance with 
the applicable emission standards.
    (1) Quality control manual--(i) Each panel producer must have a 
written quality control manual containing, at a minimum, the following:
    (A) A description of the organizational structure of the quality 
control department, including the names of the quality control manager 
and quality control employees.
    (B) A description of the sampling procedures to be followed.
    (C) A description of the method of handling samples.
    (D) A description of the frequency of quality control testing.
    (E) A description of the procedures used to identify changes in 
formaldehyde emissions resulting from production changes (e.g., 
increase in the percentage of resin, increase in formaldehyde/urea 
molar ratio in the resin, or decrease in press time).
    (F) A description of provisions for additional testing.
    (G) A description of recordkeeping procedures.
    (H) The average percentage of resin and press time for each product 
type.
    (I) A description of product grouping, if applicable.
    (J) Procedures for reduced quality control testing, if applicable.
    (ii) The quality control manual must be approved by a TSCA Title VI 
Accredited TPC.
    (2) Quality control facilities. Each panel producer must designate 
a quality control facility for conducting quality control formaldehyde 
testing.
    (i) The quality control facility must be a laboratory owned and 
operated by the panel producer, a TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC, or a 
contract laboratory.

[[Page 34864]]

    (ii) Each quality control facility must have quality control 
employees with adequate experience and/or training to conduct accurate 
chemical quantitative analytical tests. The quality control manager 
must identify each person conducting formaldehyde quality control 
testing to the TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC.
    (3) Quality control manager. Each panel producer must designate a 
person as quality control manager with adequate experience and/or 
training to be responsible for formaldehyde emission quality control. 
The quality control manager must:
    (i) Have the authority to take actions necessary to ensure that 
applicable formaldehyde emission standards are being met on an ongoing 
basis.
    (ii) Be identified to the TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC that will be 
overseeing the quality control testing. The panel producer must notify 
the TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC in writing within 10 days of any 
change in the identity of the quality control manager and provide the 
TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC with the new quality control manager's 
qualifications.
    (iii) Review and approve all reports of quality control testing 
conducted on the production of the panel producer.
    (iv) Ensure that the samples are collected, packaged, and shipped 
according to the procedures specified in the quality control manual.
    (v) Immediately inform the TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC in writing 
of any significant changes in production that could affect formaldehyde 
emissions.

Sec.  770.22  Non-complying lots.

    (a) Non-complying lots are not certified composite wood products 
and they may not be sold, supplied or offered for sale in the United 
States except in accordance with this section.
    (b) Non-complying lots must be isolated from certified lots.
    (c) Non-complying lots may be retested using the same test method 
if each panel is treated with a scavenger or handled by other means of 
reducing formaldehyde emissions, such as aging. Tests must be performed 
as follows:
    (1) At least three test panels must be selected from three separate 
bundles. They must be selected so that they are representative of the 
entire lot. Test samples must not be selected from the top or bottom 
panels of a bundle.
    (2) The average of all samples must test at or below the applicable 
emission standards in Sec.  770.10.
    (d) Information on the disposition of non-complying lots, including 
product type and amount of composite wood products affected, lot or 
batch numbers, mitigation measures used, results of retesting, and 
final disposition, must be provided to the TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC 
within 7 days of final disposition.

Sec.  770.24  Samples for testing.

    (a) Composite wood product panels may be shipped into and 
transported across the United States for quality control or quarterly 
tests.
    (1) Such panels may not be sold, offered for sale or supplied to 
any entity other than a TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC laboratory or a 
contract laboratory before testing in accordance with Sec.  770.20.
    (2) If test results for such panels demonstrate compliance with the 
emissions standards in this subpart, the panels may be relabeled in 
accordance with Sec.  770.50 and sold, offered for sale, or supplied.
    (b) [Reserved]

Sec.  770.30  Importers, fabricators, laminated product producers, 
distributors, and retailers.

    (a) Importers, fabricators, laminated product producers whose 
products are exempt from the definition of hardwood plywood, 
distributors, and retailers must take reasonable precautions to ensure 
that they are purchasing composite wood products, whether in the form 
of panels, component parts, or finished goods, that comply with the 
emission standards and other requirements of this subpart.
    (b) For importers, fabricators, and laminated product producers, 
taking reasonable precautions means specifying TSCA Title VI compliant 
products when ordering or purchasing from suppliers and obtaining the 
following records:
    (1) Records identifying the panel producer and the date the 
composite wood products were produced.
    (2) Records identifying the date the composite wood products were 
purchased.
    (3) Bills of lading or invoices that include a written affirmation 
from the supplier that the composite wood products are compliant with 
this subpart.
    (c) Importers of articles that are composite wood products, or 
articles that contain composite wood products, must comply with the 
import certification regulations for ``Chemical Substances in Bulk and 
As Part of Mixtures and Articles,'' as found at 19 CFR 12.118 through 
12.127 or as later promulgated.
    (d) Records required by this section must be maintained in 
accordance with Sec.  770.40(d).

Sec.  770.40  Reporting and recordkeeping.

    (a) Panel producers must maintain the following records for a 
period of 3 years. The following records must also be made available to 
the panel producers' TSCA Title VI Accredited TPCs. Records described 
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must also be made available to 
purchasers of their composite wood products.
    (1) Records of all quarterly emission testing and all ongoing 
quality control testing. These records must identify the TSCA Title VI 
Accredited TPC conducting or overseeing the testing and the laboratory 
or quality control facility actually performing the testing. These 
records must also include the date, the product type tested, the lot or 
batch number that the tested material represents, the test method used, 
and the test results.
    (2) Production records, including a description of the composite 
wood product(s), the date of manufacture, lot or batch numbers, and 
tracking information allowing each product to be traced to a specific 
lot number or batch produced.
    (3) Records of changes in production, including changes of more 
than 10% in the resin use percentage, changes in resin composition that 
result in a higher ratio of formaldehyde to other resin components, and 
changes in the process, such as changes in press time by more than 20%.
    (4) Records demonstrating initial and continued eligibility for the 
reduced testing provisions in Sec. Sec.  770.17 and 770.18, if 
applicable. These records must include:
    (i) Approval for reduced testing from a TSCA Title VI Accredited 
TPC.
    (ii) Amount of resin use reported by volume and weight.
    (iii) Production volume reported as square feet per product type.
    (iv) Resin trade name, resin manufacturer contact information, and 
resin supplier contact information.
    (v) Any changes in the formulation of the resin.
    (5) Purchaser information for each composite wood product, if 
applicable, including the name, contact person, address, telephone 
number, email address if available, purchase order or invoice number, 
and amount purchased.
    (6) Transporter information for each composite wood product, if 
applicable, including name, contact person, address, telephone number, 
email address if available, and shipping invoice number.
    (7) Information on the disposition of non-complying lots, including 
product type and amount of composite wood products affected, lot or 
batch numbers,

[[Page 34865]]

mitigation measures used, results of retesting, and final disposition.
    (8) Copies of labels used.
    (b) Panel producers must provide their TSCA Title VI Accredited TPC 
with monthly product data reports for each production facility, 
production line, and product type, maintain copies of the reports for a 
minimum of 3 years from the date that they are produced. Monthly 
product data reports must contain a data sheet for each specific 
product type with test and production information, and a quality 
control graph containing the following:
    (1) Quality Control Limit (QCL).
    (2) Shipping QCL (if applicable).
    (3) Results of quality control tests.
    (4) Retest values.
    (c) Laminated product producers whose products are exempt from the 
definition of hardwood plywood must keep records demonstrating 
eligibility for the exemption. These records include:
    (1) Resin trade name, resin manufacturer contact information, resin 
supplier contact information, and resin purchase records.
    (2) Panel producer contact information and panel purchase records.
    (3) For panels produced in-house, records demonstrating that the 
panels have been certified by an accredited TPC.
    (4) For resins produced in-house, records demonstrating the 
production of NAF resins.
    (d) Importers, fabricators, and laminated product producers whose 
products are exempt from the definition of hardwood plywood must 
maintain the records described in Sec.  770.30 and copies of labels 
used. These records must be maintained for a minimum of 3 years from 
the date that they are produced.
    (e) Distributors and retailers must retain invoices and bills of 
lading and copies of labels used. These records must be maintained for 
a minimum of 3 years from the date that they are produced.

Sec.  770.45  Labeling.

    (a) Panels or bundles of panels that are sold, supplied, or offered 
for sale in the United States must be labeled with the panel producer's 
name, the lot or batch number, the number of the TSCA Title VI 
Accredited TPC, and a statement that the products are TSCA Title VI 
certified.
    (1) A panel producer number may be used instead of a name to 
protect identity, so long as the identity of the panel producer can be 
determined at the request of EPA.
    (2) Panels or bundles of panels manufactured in accordance with 
Sec.  770.17 must also be labeled that they were made with no-added 
formaldehyde-based resins in addition to the other information required 
by this section.
    (3) Panels or bundles of panels manufactured in accordance with 
Sec.  770.18 must also be labeled that they were made with ultra low-
emitting formaldehyde in addition to the other information required by 
this section.
    (b) Panels imported into or transported across the United States 
for quarterly or quality control testing purposes in accordance with 
Sec.  770.20 must be labeled ``For TSCA Title VI testing only, not for 
sale in the United States.'' The panels may be re-labeled if test 
results are below the applicable emissions standards in this subpart.
    (c) Fabricators of finished goods containing composite wood 
products must label every finished good they produce, or every box 
containing finished goods.
    (1) The label may be applied as a stamp, tag, sticker, or bar code.
    (2) The label must include, at a minimum, the fabricator's name, 
the date the finished good was produced, and a statement that the 
finished goods are TSCA Title VI compliant.
    (d) Distributors and wholesalers who receive labeled bundles of 
regulated composite wood products and then divide and repackage them, 
whether in bundles or separately, must label each separate bundle or 
item with the same information as required on the original label. 
Labels on bundles that are not so repackaged must be kept intact by 
distributors, wholesalers, and retailers.

Sec.  770.55  Prohibited acts.

    (a) The following are prohibited acts under TSCA section 15:
    (1) Manufacturing (including import) non-certified composite wood 
products unless the products are specifically exempted by this subpart.
    (2) Manufacturing (including import) composite wood products 
without complying with the testing provisions in Sec.  770.20, unless 
the products are specifically exempted by this subpart.
    (3) Selling, offering for sale, or supplying non-certified 
composite wood products unless the products are specifically exempted 
by this subpart.
    (4) Selling, offering for sale, or supplying composite wood 
products belonging to non-complying lots without first complying with 
the provisions of Sec.  770.22.
    (5) Selling, offering for sale, or supplying certified composite 
wood products that are not labeled in accordance with Sec.  770.45.
    (6) Selling, offering for sale, or supplying composite wood 
products that exceed the applicable emission standards of Sec.  770.10.
    (7) Failing to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  
770.40.
0
6. Section 770.99 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  770.99  Incorporation by reference.

    The materials listed in this section are incorporated by reference 
into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal 
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any 
edition other than that specified in this section, a document must be 
published in the Federal Register and the material must be available to 
the public. All approved materials are available for inspection at the 
OPPT Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA, West 
Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public 
Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the 
EPA/DC Public Reading room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number 
for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. In addition, these materials are 
also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this 
material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ ibr_locations.html. 
These materials may also be obtained from the sources listed in this 
section.
    (a) ANSI material. Copies of these materials may be obtained from 
the American National Standards Institute, 1899 L Street NW., 11th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20036, or by calling (202) 293-8020, or at http://ansi.org/.
    (1) ANSI A135.4- 2004, American National Standard, Basic Hardboard, 
IBR approved for Sec.  770.3.
    (2) ANSI A135.5-2004, American National Standard, Prefinished 
Hardboard Paneling, IBR approved for Sec.  770.3.
    (3) ANSI A135.6-2006, American National Standard, Hardboard Siding, 
IBR approved for Sec.  770.3.
    (4) ANSI A190.1-2002, American National Standard for Wood Products, 
Structural Glued Laminated Timber, IBR approved for Sec.  770.1.
    (5) ANSI A208.1-2009, American National Standard, Particleboard, 
IBR approved for Sec.  770.3.
    (6) ANSI A208.2-2-2009, American National Standard, Medium Density 
Fiberboard (MDF) for Interior Applications, IBR approved for Sec.  
770.3.

[[Page 34866]]

    (7) ANSI/HPVA HP-1-2009, American National Standard for Hardwood 
and Decorative Plywood, IBR approved for Sec.  770.3.
    (b) ASTM material. Copies of these materials may be obtained from 
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., P.O. Box C700, West 
Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959, or by calling (877) 909-ASTM, or at 
http://www.astm.org.
    (1) ASTM D5055-05 (2005), Standard Specification for Establishing 
and Monitoring Structural Capacities of Prefabricated Wood I-Joists, 
IBR approved for Sec.  770.1.
    (2) ASTM D5456-06 (2006), Standard Specification for Evaluation of 
Structural Composite Lumber Products, IBR approved for Sec.  770.1.
    (3) ASTM D5582-00 (Reapproved 2006), October 1, 2006, Standard Test 
Method for Determining Formaldehyde Levels from Wood Products Using a 
Desiccator, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  770.7(a) through (c) and 
770.20.
    (4) ASTM D6007-02 (Reapproved 2008), October 1, 2008, Standard Test 
Method for Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air from Wood 
Products Using a Small-Scale Chamber, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
770.7(a) through (c), 770.15, 770.17, and 770.20.
    (5) ASTM E1333-10 (Approved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determining Formaldehyde Concentrations in Air and Emission Rates from 
Wood Products Using a Large Chamber, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
770.7(a) through (c), 770.10, 770.15, 770.17, and 770.20.
    (c) CEN materials. Copies of these materials are not directly 
available from the European Committee for Standardization, but from one 
of CEN's National Members, Affiliates, or Partner Standardization 
Bodies. To purchase a standard, go to CEN's Web site, http://www.cen.eu, and select ``Products'' for more detailed information.
    (1) EN 120:1992, Wood based panels. Determination of formaldehyde 
content- Extraction method called the perforator method, English 
Version, IBR approved for Sec.  770.20.
    (2) EN 717-2:1995, Wood-based panels. Determination of formaldehyde 
release-Formaldehyde release by the gas analysis method, English 
Version, IBR approved for Sec.  770.20.
    (d) Georgia Pacific material. Copies of this material may be 
obtained from Georgia-Pacific Chemicals LLC, 133 Peachtree Street, 
Atlanta, GA 30303, or by calling (877) 377-2737, or at http://www.gp-dmc.com/default.aspx.
    (1) GP DMC (Dynamic Micro Chamber) Manual, 2011 Edition, IBR 
approved for Sec.  770.20.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (e) ISO material. Copies of these materials may be obtained from 
the International Organization for Standardization, 1, ch. de la Voie-
Creuse, CP 56, CH-1211, Geneve 20, Switzerland, or by calling +41-22-
749-01-11, or at http://www.iso.org.
    (1) ISO/IEC 17011:2004(E), Conformity Assessments--General 
Requirements for Accreditation Bodies Accrediting Conformity 
Assessments Bodies (First Edition), IBR approved for Sec.  770.7(a) 
through (c).
    (2) ISO/IEC 17020:1998(E), General Criteria for the Operation of 
Various Types of Bodies Performing Inspections (First Edition), IBR 
approved for Sec.  770.7(a) through (c).
    (3) ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), General Requirements for the Competence 
of Testing and Calibration Laboratories (Second Edition), May 15, 2005, 
IBR approved for Sec.  770.7(a) through (c).
    (4) ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996(E), General Requirements for Bodies 
Operating Product Certification Systems (First Edition), 1996, IBR 
approved for Sec.  770.7(a) through (c).
    (f) Japanese Standards Association. Copies of this material may be 
obtained from Japanese Industrial Standards, 1-24, Akasaka 4, Minatoku, 
Tokyo 107-8440, Japan, or by calling +81-3-3583-8000, or at http://www.jsa.or.jp/.
    (1) JIS A 1460:2001 Building boards Determination of formaldehyde 
emission-Desiccator method, English Version, IBR approved for Sec.  
770.20.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (g) NIST material. Copies of these materials may be obtained from 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by calling 
(800) 553-6847 or from the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO). To 
purchase a NIST publication you must have the order number. Order 
numbers may be obtained from the Public Inquiries Unit at (301) 975-
NIST. Mailing address: Public Inquiries Unit, NIST, 100 Bureau Dr., 
Stop 1070, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070. If you have a GPO stock number, 
you can purchase printed copies of NIST publications from GPO. GPO 
orders may be mailed to: U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 
979050, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, placed by telephone at (866) 512-1800 
(DC Area only: (202) 512-1800), or faxed to (202) 512-2104. Additional 
information is available online at: http://www.nist.gov.
    (1) Voluntary Product Standard PS-1-07 (2007), Structural Plywood, 
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  770.1 and 770.3.
    (2) Voluntary Product Standard PS-2-04 (2004), Performance Standard 
for Wood-Based Structural-Use Panels, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  770.1 
and 770.3.

[FR Doc. 2013-13258 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P