First Name | C. Richard |
---|---|
Last Name | Titus |
Email Address | dtitus@kcma.org |
Affiliation | Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Associatio |
Subject | KCMA Comments on ATCM for Composite Wood Products |
Comment | The Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA) is the national trade association for manufacturers of kitchen cabinets, bath vanities and cabinets for other rooms. The association was founded 53 years ago and now has 380 members. KCMA member companies who manufacture or market in California account for 50% to 60% of the California market. It should be pointed out that California is unique in that there are approximately 1,200 small cabinetmaking shops (1-20 employees) operating in California. This is approximately 60% more than any other state. Thus, the proposed ATCM will have an enormous impact on small businesses across the state, particularly when you factor in the many components of the distribution chain – retailers, home centers, remodelers, and builders. Since virtually all cabinetry produced today contains a mixture of solid wood, particleboard, plywood or medium density fiberboard, the proposed ATCM on compwood is very significant to this industry. The proposed ATCM has the potential to disrupt existing supply chain relationships, contribute to possible material shortages in the future, impose a significant paperwork burden on all manufacturers, and greatly increase liability for cabinet manufactures and their suppliers. The regulation is certain to increase manufacturing costs, likely more than estimated by the CARB staff, and, therefore, is a major cause of concern when global competition threatens all U.S. manufacturing. Today, cabinet manufacturing remains a predominately North American industry. That could change. Considering the huge additional cost and questionable ability of composite wood producers to meet the extremely low emission levels of Phase II of the proposed ATCM, we request the Board to lower the Phase II ceiling values to achievable levels requested by the California Wood Industry Coalition. The Board needs to understand that the ATCM will become a de facto national standard. KCMA members with production outside the state but who market in California will be forced to use only ATCM compliant materials in order to insure compliance. Today’s advanced production technology makes it impossible to track individual pieces obtained from a specific composite wood panel so as to verify compliance. I am aware of no company, other than those operating in California, that could dedicate an entire plant’s operations exclusively to products for the California market and remain competitive. The ATCM defines cabinet manufacturers as “fabricators.” KCMA agrees with the approach taken in the ATCM to focus testing requirements on the composite wood products used to make cabinetry and not on the finished product. It would be extremely difficult and costly to develop test methodology for the vast array of possible combinations of materials and sizes typical of industry products. The certification requirements and so-called “paper trail” contained in the ATCM and required through the cabinet manufacturing/distributor chain should provide the necessary information for enforcement and notice purposes. There is no reason to exclude local government agencies or school districts from the definition of “fabricator,” particularly if they will engage in commerce and compete with those who are regulated. Key elements of the enforcement phase remain vague and incomplete. For example, how the regulation will be enforced with hundreds of small cabinet makers in the state who go direct to the consumer versus cabinets obtained by enforcement officials from retail operations still is unclear. The regulation, particularly Phase II could lead to material shortages, which would drive prices up and devastate small companies who would find it more difficult to compete with larger companies who often are able to obtain supply advantages due to the size and volume of their activities. It appears that the cost estimates both for cabinet manufacturers and home buyer/remodelers have been underestimated by 20 percent or more. Contrary to the assumption in the staff report, cabinet manufacturers typically are able to achieve approximately 80% efficiency from the composite panel products used to produce the requisite cabinet parts; not the 100% yield assumed in the staff report. It was difficult to fully address this issue since two tables (VIII, 18 & 19, p. 215) referenced in the report were not available for review. Nonetheless, it appears that the added cost to consumers and to manufacturers is seriously understated in the report. We question the wisdom of a regulatory approach that rewards unproven or questionable substitute adhesives, many of which have safety and health issues of their own. Substitute products need to prove themselves under actual manufacturing/real usage conditions over an adequate period of time to determine their acceptability. There has been little or no discussion of the performance characteristics of proposed alternatives to compwood. For example, there have been reports of delamination problems from the formaldehyde-free soy substitute touted in several of the public workshops. Phenol formaldehyde can have appearance issues, based on experience in the cabinet industry. Those who purchase cabinetry expect them to last many years. Research by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has found that cabinets last an average of 50 years. In comparison, appliances last only 13-15 years, steel sinks 10, and cultured marble countertops 20, two and one-half times less than cabinets. The UF products used by the cabinet industry have a long history of helping to achieve this standard. The industry is concerned that without the benefit of additional pilot studies or adequate time to effectively gauge the performance characteristics of the substitute products against the real-life conditions typical for our products, the hard-won reputation for durable, fashionable and long-lasting cabinetry could be lost or damaged. Any loss of consumer confidence would do irreparable harm to the industry. CARB staff has done a most commendable job in compiling its 200+ page report on formaldehyde. Absent, however, is reference to the ongoing effort at the U.S. EPA, the National Cancer Institute, and others in the scientific community to better measure and assess the risk from exposure to low levels of formaldehyde. Before implementing Phase II of the proposed ATCM, we request that CARB consider the latest science developed since the IARC decision and adjust your 1992 formaldehyde risk assessment as appropriate. With formaldehyde being a naturally occurring substance for thousands of years, clearly there is a safe exposure level. An accurate determination of risk is essential. We believe that requiring both product labeling and written notice on contracts or bills-of-lading (93120.7(d) (1) and (2) is duplicative and imposes an unnecessary additional paperwork burden, particularly on smaller companies. We suggest that the labeling requirement, with the option to present the required information on the cardboard boxes in which cabinets most often are shipped, is the best alternative. Finally, the sell-through provisions in the ATCM require U.S. fabricators of cabinets to be in compliance within 12 months while importers are granted 18 months to come into compliance. This is very unfair to U.S. manufacturers and should be changed. This provision alone could force many U.S. companies out of business. Thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns and to be involved in these important deliberations. CARB staff has managed an open process and given KCMA opportunity to comment and react to several drafts of the ATCM. The proposal before you reflects this process. Hopefully, you will agree with our remaining concerns and incorporate these suggestions as a way to strengthen the final regulation. Yours truly, C. Richard Titus Executive Vice President Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association 1899 Preston White Drive Reston, VA 20191 (703) 264-1960/FAX (703) 620-6530 |
Attachment | |
Original File Name | |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2007-04-19 11:20:22 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.