Comment Log Display

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