Comment Log Display

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