EPA Wood Formaldehyde Emission Standards Unfair to Importers, Says IWPA

EPA proposed its formaldehyde emissions standard for composite wood products in June (see 13060715). As proposed, the standards would apply to manufacturers, importers, and suppliers of hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard, whether in the form of a panel or a finished good. Laminated products would be included as a subset of hardwood plywood. The standard includes testing, recordkeeping, labeling, and certification requirements.

Comments from the Chinese government said EPA’s proposed rule would have a substantial impact on trade in wood products. Industry could see the cost of “board materials” rise by 30 to 50 percent, and furniture by 15 to 25 percent, the Chinese government warned. “Undoubtedly, it will bring about a comparatively great barrier” to Chinese exports, it said.

Rule Hits Importers Harder Than Domestic Industry

The proposed rule’s requirement of Toxic Substances Control Act import certifications would be unnecessary and “excessively burdensome” for importers, IWPA said in its comments. EPA has never before applied TSCA import certification requirements to articles, IWPA said, and doing so here wouldn’t have any additional benefit. Importers and their foreign suppliers would already be subject to testing, third-party certification, quality control, chain-of-custody, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The proposed rule would require importers to assure their foreign suppliers document compliance, and importers would have to supply documentation of that compliance to EPA. “The addition of import certification on top of all of these other requirements adds no new substantive check on the compliance processes and would be simply duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to EPA,” said IWPA.

IWPA disagreed with EPA’s statement from its information collection request on import certification that such a requirement would “not generally impose a significant burden. TSCA import certification of compliance with the formaldehyde standard may require importers to coordinate with their agents and brokers, revise forms and internal documents and submit more paperwork, adjust internal processes, and train personnel, IWPA said. The proposed requirement would also burden CBP with having to review the certifications, it said.

Beyond the certification requirement, the proposed compliance dates of the proposed formaldehyde standard would require importers to comply much sooner than domestic manufacturers. The proposal requires compliance for regulated products manufactured one year after the final rule, but includes imports under the term ‘manufactured’ so that goods with a date of import one year after the final rule would also have to comply. Because production changes have to occur months before goods are imported, the proposal would effectively give importers less lead-time, IWPA said. EPA should give importers an extra three months to comply, it said. “This will allow time for imports to clear customs, while still maintaining the integrity of the regulation.”

EPA Differences From CARB Rule Would Add Unnecessary Costs, IWPA Says

IWPA said the proposed federal formaldehyde standard has several key differences from the existing California Air Resources Board standard that would create confusion and add to costs for industry. By issuing a federal regulation that has “large portions” that differ from the CARB regulation, “EPA is unnecessarily creating a duplicative and confusing regulatory structure that all regulated companies … will have to meet,” the group said. One example is recordkeeping -- regulated companies must retain records for at least two years under the CARB standard, but the EPA proposal would require records be kept for three.

The most expensive difference between the existing CARB formaldehyde standard and the proposed federal regulation is the extension of the federal standard to laminated wood products, IWPA said. The CARB standard does not require testing or certification for laminated products, but instead requires assurances that laminated wood is made of compliant composite wood through recordkeeping and labeling. The federal standard expands testing and certification requirements to include laminated wood products, IWPA said.

IWPA requested that the federal standard exempt laminated wood products, citing the unnecessary burden it would impose on industry. “The vast majority of newly affected businesses do not understand that this rule applies to them and most will have a huge learning curve in order to achieve compliance,” said IWPA. “The application of a face veneer over a certified and compliant [particle board], [medium-density fiberboard], or [hardwood plywood] platform should not be subjected to additional testing.”

De Minimis Needed

Products that contain only a small amount of wood should also be exempted, IWPA said. EPA declined to include a de minimis exemption in its proposed rule, instead requesting comment on whether and how a de minimis provision should be implemented. IWPA suggested EPA exempt products containing a small amount of wood based on a percentage limit and a maximum quantity in cubic meters. Without such an exemption, companies would be reluctant to include wood in their products, said IWPA. “A costly and highly complicated regulation would serve as a disincentive for wood to be used in a variety of products and could lead to it being replaced with other substances such as plastic,” it said.

The Consumer Electronics Association agreed in its own comments. Without a de minimis provision, consumer electronics containing only small amounts of wood would be covered by the federal standard, it said. “The small amounts of composite wood in consumer electronics is not a significant source of formaldehyde emissions and CEA urges EPA to establish a de minimis exception for such applications,” it said.