Comment submitted by Alex Bernhardt, Chief Executive Officer, Bernhardt Furniture Company

Feb 09 2009 VIA FEDERAL E-RULEMAKING PORTAL Document Control Office (7407M) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460-0001 RE: Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0627; Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products Dear Sir or Madam: This letter constitutes the comments of Bernhardt Furniture Company in Lenoir North Carolina, on the above-referenced Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products issued by EPA on December 3, 2008. Bernhardt Furniture Company has been in operation for over 120 years as a manufacturer of fine household furniture and is a significant global presence represented by offices in the United States, China, Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines. Most of the products produced through this network are constructed of wood and composite wood products. We are very aware of the health risks posed by formaldehyde emissions from these products. To this end we have been working closely with the AHFA and the California Air Resource Board on implementing the ATCM over the last few years. Bernhardt Furniture is undoubtedly supportive of both the ATCM and the initiation of a process to move toward applying the requirements of the ATCM as a preemptive national standard. A national approach to this issue is crucial in order to avoid conflicting state standards. Furthermore, Bernhardt hopes that a uniform U.S. standard would serve as a starting point for the development of a harmonized international standard that addresses the global nature of the furnishings industry. We applaud EPA’s work on these issues, and request that the agency consider the most current and readily available science related to formaldehyde emissions throughout this rule making process. However, Bernhardt Furniture encourages EPA to move cautiously on this matter because a number of issues remain with the CARB ATCM. Most importantly, the deconstructive testing protocol required under the ATCM for finished goods is not well established with scientific protocols or currently available. There are also no established correlations between the proposed field screen method CARB plans to implement and the original test data. There are limits to availability of certified and registered Third Party Certifiers and large chamber testing labs outside of the continental United States. Our industry is already working diligently to comply with the ATCM; it is imperative that any national standard generally follow the CARB program, using it as a model. We would request that the EPA does not revise the ATCM beyond a more relevant science for field compliance testing, as it is currently a global de facto standard, and has set the lowest emission limits for formaldehyde in the world. It is important to note as well, however, that many of our suppliers are not domestic, and have been meeting the internationally recognized European E-1 standard for formaldehyde for two decades and the Japanese F4 Star standards for years. We therefore propose that EPA adopt a harmonization of these three standards. It is important to minimize the ‘unintended consequences’ of having the promulgation of this rule create an uneven playing field for imported finished goods and affectively erecting a trade barrier that further burdens the industry in these challenging economic times. The European E-1 standard regarding formaldehyde emissions from particle board and medium density fiberboard (MDF) is recognized by at least 27 countries. It has been mandatory for European countries since 1986 and is widely used in Southeast Asia to test and certify particle board and MDF used by the furniture industry in imported finished goods sold in U.S. markets. The permissible formaldehyde levels have been reduced over the years, driving the wood industry to continually improve its production processes. Indeed, a new lower standard, referred to as 1/2 E-1, is under development. This standard will reduce the permissible formaldehyde emissions for particle board and MDF by half. These 1/2 E-1 levels will be comparable to or more stringent than the CARB ATCM Phase 2 levels.1 Boards meeting 1/2 E-1 are already currently available. Specifically, with regard to hardwood plywood (HWPW) emission levels, EPA should consider the harmonization of the ATCM to the Japanese F4 Star program. The limits prescribed by the F4 Star program for HWPW are comparable to the limits included in the ATCM. Thus, it follows that the industry should be allowed to use the ATCM, the E-1 standard or Japanese F4 Star program to certify compliance of HWPW. Bernhardt Furniture believes that several significant problems will occur if EPA adopts either a national standard that is identical to the CARB ATCM without taking into account the E-1 and Japanese F4 Star standards, or a national standard that is different from both the CARB ATCM and the identified international standards: increased cost, increased time before compliance can be attained, and decreased efficiency. For example, the testing procedures required by CARB are similar, but different from the testing procedures required under the E-1 standard and the Japanese F4 Star program. If a new national standard is adopted that requires yet another type of testing, some mills will not be able to afford to perform three or four different types of testing, depending on where the goods will be shipped. The CARB ATCM requires testing using a North America ASTM test method (E1333) that differs in details from the internationally accepted standard for testing composite wood for formaldehyde emissions (DIN EN 717-1)and from the Japanese F4 Star testing method (JIS A1460). Many of our suppliers, therefore, are being required to perform two or three tests already. It would be much more feasible to simply recognize either test under a national standard. Further, CARB requires that all composite wood products be produced in mills that are certified by a system of CARB approved “third-party certifiers” (TPCs). While this may work for our North American suppliers, as there are already 6 approved TPCs in North America, it is nearly impossible in other parts of the world. For example, as of January 12, 2009, there was only one TPC in New Zealand, one in Malaysia, and one in China. The lack of certified TPC in Southeast Asia has severely truncated the capacity of certified board to meet sourcing demands for finished goods. It should be noted that no TPC exists in Vietnam, an emerging industrial partner. Mills in those countries are producing composite wood products that currently meet the European E-1 and Japanese F4 Star standards and their prescribed testing requirements. The best course will be for EPA to adopt a preemptive national standard that allows board manufacturers to certify and comply with the prescribed emission limits by either using the testing requirements of the ATCM, the European E1 or Japanese F4 Star standards. At this time, Bernhardt Furniture makes three main recommendations to the EPA: 1. EPA should promulgate regulations that have two phases, as included in the CARB ATCM. The EPA regulations should preempt all state regulations. Further, any EPA regulations should allow board manufacturers to meet the prescribed emission limits of the proposed national standard by either using the testing requirements of the ATCM, the European E-1 or Japanese F4 Star standards. 2. EPA should not regulate other pressed wood products —it should follow CARB’s lead and only regulate HWPW, PB and MDF with regard to formaldehyde. 3. The EPA should only regulate the “raw board” component parts of finished goods. The EPA should not promulgate a regulation that requires the testing of finished goods, i.e., furniture or cabinets. Such a process has not been vetted and an established testing protocol has not yet been defined. If the raw board component parts are properly regulated, the finished goods containing those component parts should be in compliance without additional testing expense. Very truly yours, Alex Bernhardt CEO Bernhardt Furniture