First Name | Brad |
---|---|
Last Name | Miller |
Email Address | bmiller@bifma.org |
Affiliation | BIFMA International |
Subject | Office Furniture Industry Comments |
Comment | California Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812-2815 Dear Mr. Aguila: We appreciate this additional opportunity to comment on the Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. BIFMA strongly supports the changes related to laminated products as produced by fabricators. These changes are essential as they address potential confusion and ensure consistency of the scope and application of the regulation with CARB direction and efforts throughout the development of the rule. BIFMA also strongly supports the exemption for curved plywood as this helps to clarify the focus of the regulation on the areas with maximum effect. Your efforts to better define the roles of manufacturers and fabricators under the rule has been helpful and the informal response to our questions earlier this week was also insightful. For labeling purposes, we understand that a label shall be applied on "every finished good produced or on every box containing finished goods". That means one label on the box would comply with the regulation but labeling both the box and finished goods would aide in enforcement. Separate labels can be used to identify fabricator name, production date, and that the finished good was made with complying composite wood products, as long as the labels are all visible (e.g., inside a cabinet door or on the back of a credenza). If three different finished goods were all packed on a single skid, each would need a separate label. A label for a finished good does not need to list the name of the panel manufacturer. The fabricator only needs to keep records of panel purchases to demonstrate that all composite wood products used in finished goods complied with the regulation. Records on the amount of composite wood used to make finished goods would need to match the amount of complying composite wood purchased from the mills. With regard to potential inspections, fabricators and retailers need to keep records to show they've taken "reasonable prudent precautions" to ensure compliance. These records need to be kept in hard copy or electronic form and must show that the fabricators and retailers instructed their suppliers of the need for complying products. The fabricators and retailers must also keep records to show that their suppliers have stated that the products being provided comply. This requirement would stop at the retailer and not be carried on to the purchaser (e.g., home or place of business). Another issue to come forward from one our members concerned having enough time to meet the California requirements by the end of the year. If no mechanism is in place to find out if that is a widespread reality, we recommend a mid-summer review to determine if an extension is warranted. Specific to the testing methods, in section 93120.9 (a) (2) (B), the requirement to demonstrate equivalence between the primary and secondary method every year appears excessive. Once a laboratory has demonstrated equivalence, if laboratories are accredited with each of the test methods within their scope, approved third-party certifiers can observe the testing at any time, and if the test methods have not been changed or updated, it appears to be a wasteful exercise to repeat the extensive equivalence determination testing every year. We respectfully suggest it is more efficient to define any changes, which would trigger more frequent determinations of equivalence, but otherwise default to a frequency of every three, four, or even five years. Similarly, mandating inter-laboratory comparisons be conducted every two years is extremely onerous and expensive, as required in Appendix 3 (b) (1) (F). BIFMA’s experience coordinating a round-robin study for the ANSI/BIFMA furniture emissions standards has shown the tremendous complexity and coordination effort that such a study requires. The requirement for inter-laboratory comparison studies would be much more appropriate if it was required every five years or anytime there was a significant change in the standard testing methods. Thank you for clarification of these important topics and consideration of our concerns. We look forward to participating in the Finished Product Test Method Task Group to help assure appropriate tests for formaldehyde in finished products when necessary in the enforcement process. Sincerely, Brad Miller Director of Communications and Government Affairs Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association (BIFMA) International |
Attachment | www.arb.ca.gov/lists/compwood07/122-carb_comments.doc |
Original File Name | CARB Comments.doc |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2008-02-15 14:19:20 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.