We are consulting for a 460,000 sqft school in Manhattan, New York City. We would like to obtain the EQc4.4 credit by using composite wood products that are free from added urea-formaldehyde resins. A small fraction of the composite wood on the project consists of veneered paneling that, because if its location in the building, must have a fire-retardant substrate. We are aware of two UF-free fire-retardant panels on the market. One of these products is not approved for use in New York City. The other substrate, which is approved by the New York City Fire Department, has an intumescent fire-retardant coating. Unfortunately, experience has proved that adhesives without added urea formaldehyde do not reliably adhere to this intumescent surface. The manufacturer does not provide a guarantee of attachment if other adhesives are used. While market transformation is occurring, the pace is sometimes not rapid enough to affect such specialty products. We are blocked from obtaining the credit for UF-free composite materials by a small fraction of material that cannot be made UF-free. Even if a compliant substrate were available somewhere, procurement issues may impede sole-sourcing it. With a limited budget, if this credit is not obtainable, the school may have to pursue another credit that it considers less desirable. We request that USGBC consider allowing a small fraction - we suggest 5% - of the composite wood on the project to be exempted from the credit requirement. Not requiring 100% compliance is consistent with other MR and IEQ credits. With the current requirement, even a minute amount of non-compliant material removes the incentive to meet the intent of the credit.