[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34820-34866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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