In one of my many discussions on the new proposed formaldehyde regulations that include engineered wood flooring, I was told this regulation would only really impact the manufacturer and not really have an effect on others in the NWFA. I disagreed completely with that position. I think there are huge issues for everyone in the industry, and everyone should be reviewing the proposed regulations with a fine-tooth comb.
In one of my many discussions on the new proposed formaldehyde regulations that include engineered wood flooring, I was told this regulation would only really impact the manufacturer and not really have an effect on others in the NWFA. I disagreed completely with that position. I think there are huge issues for everyone in the industry, and everyone should be reviewing the proposed regulations with a fine-tooth comb.
As just a single quick example, I outlined some of the contradictions in the regulations as currently proposed as to the responsibilities for a distributor or a retailer:
- from p. 34838: "However, for distributors and retailers who are not manufacturers under TSCA, EPA is proposing that they only be required to keep invoices and bills of lading."
- from p. 34864: "…distributors, and retailers must take reasonable precautions to ensure that they are purchasing composite wood products, whether in the form of panels, component parts, or finished goods, that comply with the emission standards and other requirements of this subpart."
- from p. 34865: "Distributors and retailers must retain invoices and bills of lading and copies of labels used."
The first statement suggests that the only obligation is to keep invoices and BL's, while the second adds a due care responsibility and the third adds a label tracking responsibility. Most importantly, the EPA has not defined "reasonable precautions." As many members of the NWFA are retailers, distributors, builders, and installers, it is a tremendous concern what might happen if they purchase material in good faith that is later determined to be non-compliant. Or compliant but with insufficient recordkeeping? Are they out the cost of material? Are they legally liable (to the government or to their customers?) Is this opening up an opportunity for lawsuits against a builder who purchased and installed material that is later problematic? Or there could be issues even if the product is not a problem. We all know how common nuisance lawsuits can be or people just seeking any scapegoat for a problem-you can be completely innocent and your product can be perfectly made, but just defending yourself can put you out of business. With undefined and even conflicting responsibilities in this regulation, every member of our industry is at risk.
This is just one example, and the issues go much deeper and get more complex as you dig further into the regulations. This is not just for manufacturers and everyone needs to participate in the process. Go here to make your voice heard.
