[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34820-34866]
[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<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, 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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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).

     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

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

(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

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

(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).

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

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

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-

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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