It's Christmas Eve sonot mkuch time to for a long discussion but these two
links seem like a little light at the end of the tunnel, at least a hint of
a merry Christmas.


Children's Products Containing Lead: Proposed Determinations Regarding Lead
Content Limits on Certain Materials or Products; Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, December 24, 2008
(http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foi...leadlimits.pdf)

Children's Products Containing Lead: Notice of Proposed Procedures and
Requirements for a Commission Determination or Exclusion, December 24, 2008
(http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foi...procedures.pdf)

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT.

On Dec 24, 9:56 pm, "Curran Copeland"
wrote:
It's Christmas Eve sonot mkuch time to for a long discussion but these two
links seem like a little light at the end of the tunnel, at least a hint of
a merry Christmas.

Children's Products Containing Lead: Proposed Determinations Regarding Lead
Content Limits on Certain Materials or Products; Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, December 24, 2008
(http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foi...leadlimits.pdf)

Children's Products Containing Lead: Notice of Proposed Procedures and
Requirements for a Commission Determination or Exclusion, December 24, 2008
(http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foi...procedures.pdf)

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT.

Good news!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6522449

"Staff toxicologists at the product safety commission told agency
commissioners in the memo that some unfinished natural materials
should be considered lead free. The materials include wood and fibers
such as cotton, silk, wool, hemp, flax and linen."

It's only unfinished wood, and it's not set in stone yet, but it's a
start.

-Kevin

Just saw a fox new article on the clothing side of the CPSIA and was greatly
discouraged. Seems like they think that it is a good idea since everyone
throws away old clothing at the end of each season, and what if a few small
compinies go out of business, who cares.

sweet sawdust wrote:

Just saw a fox new article on the clothing side of the CPSIA and was
greatly
discouraged. Seems like they think that it is a good idea since everyone
throws away old clothing at the end of each season, and what if a few
small compinies go out of business, who cares.

Apparently they aren't talking to the right people. How many people here
throw out clothing at the end of the season? Mine goes to the shop rag
pile after maybe three or four seasons and then get tossed when they are
used up.

Who was saying they didn't care if a few small companies went out of
business? Was it "man on the street" types of interviews, the
commentators, or CPSA people?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
sweet sawdust wrote:

Just saw a fox new article on the clothing side of the CPSIA and was
greatly
discouraged. Seems like they think that it is a good idea since everyone
throws away old clothing at the end of each season, and what if a few
small compinies go out of business, who cares.

Apparently they aren't talking to the right people. How many people
here
throw out clothing at the end of the season? Mine goes to the shop rag
pile after maybe three or four seasons and then get tossed when they are
used up.

Who was saying they didn't care if a few small companies went out of
business? Was it "man on the street" types of interviews, the
commentators, or CPSA people?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
The Fox News Pro Expert. Probably from New York City, making 200grand + a
year and doesn't associate with real people.

Curran Copeland wrote:
"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
sweet sawdust wrote:

Just saw a fox new article on the clothing side of the CPSIA and was
greatly
discouraged. Seems like they think that it is a good idea since everyone
throws away old clothing at the end of each season, and what if a few
small compinies go out of business, who cares.
Apparently they aren't talking to the right people. How many people
here
throw out clothing at the end of the season? Mine goes to the shop rag
pile after maybe three or four seasons and then get tossed when they are
used up.

Who was saying they didn't care if a few small companies went out of
business? Was it "man on the street" types of interviews, the
commentators, or CPSA people?


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
The Fox News Pro Expert. Probably from New York City, making 200grand + a
year and doesn't associate with real people.


You ain't getting rich on 200 grand/year in NY city!

"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
...
Just saw a fox new article on the clothing side of the CPSIA and was
greatly
discouraged. Seems like they think that it is a good idea since everyone
throws away old clothing at the end of each season, and what if a few
small
compinies go out of business, who cares.

Is this thread arising from the ban on lead and phthalates in toys and other
items?
Axel

Axel Grease wrote:
"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
...
Just saw a fox new article on the clothing side of the CPSIA and was
greatly
discouraged. Seems like they think that it is a good idea since everyone
throws away old clothing at the end of each season, and what if a few
small
compinies go out of business, who cares.

Is this thread arising from the ban on lead and phthalates in toys and other
items?
Axel


I think so.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Axel Grease" wrote in message
eonecommunications...
"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
...
Just saw a fox new article on the clothing side of the CPSIA and was
greatly
discouraged. Seems like they think that it is a good idea since everyone
throws away old clothing at the end of each season, and what if a few
small
compinies go out of business, who cares.

Is this thread arising from the ban on lead and phthalates in toys and
other
items?
Axel


YES

"Curran Copeland" wrote in message
...

"Axel Grease" wrote in message
eonecommunications...
"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
...
Just saw a fox new article on the clothing side of the CPSIA and was
greatly
discouraged. Seems like they think that it is a good idea since
everyone
throws away old clothing at the end of each season, and what if a few
small
compinies go out of business, who cares.

Is this thread arising from the ban on lead and phthalates in toys and
other
items?
Axel


YES

Thanks.
A coupld of people in this group seem upset by the ban. I would ask -
"How does this affect woodworkers?"
What products that we use contain lead or phthalates?
So far as I know, lead paint, adhesives, and solvents have not been produced
in America since the '60s. It should not be a big problem to avoid.

Phthalates?
For now, California has banned them in children's toys. The Feds have
restricted three types of phthalates permanently, and put interim
restrictions on three others.

As I understand them, esters of phthalic acid are plasticizers commonly used
to soften PVC (for flexibility). How common are the restricted ones in
paint, sealers, and woodworking adhesives? How many woodworking tools will
be affected by a ban?

Phthalates are not natually occuring chemicals, so there seems little to
worry about from phthalates leaching from wood.
Fishermen who like plastic jelly worms may be upset and certain "adult" toys
may also be effected, but those are OT here.

Axel

"Axel Grease" wrote in message
eonecommunications...
"Curran Copeland" wrote in message
...

"Axel Grease" wrote in message
eonecommunications...
"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
...
Just saw a fox new article on the clothing side of the CPSIA and was
greatly
discouraged. Seems like they think that it is a good idea since
everyone
throws away old clothing at the end of each season, and what if a few
small
compinies go out of business, who cares.

Is this thread arising from the ban on lead and phthalates in toys and
other
items?
Axel


YES

Thanks.
A coupld of people in this group seem upset by the ban. I would ask -
"How does this affect woodworkers?"
What products that we use contain lead or phthalates?
So far as I know, lead paint, adhesives, and solvents have not been
produced
in America since the '60s. It should not be a big problem to avoid.

Phthalates?
For now, California has banned them in children's toys. The Feds have
restricted three types of phthalates permanently, and put interim
restrictions on three others.

As I understand them, esters of phthalic acid are plasticizers commonly
used
to soften PVC (for flexibility). How common are the restricted ones in
paint, sealers, and woodworking adhesives? How many woodworking tools
will
be affected by a ban?

Phthalates are not natually occuring chemicals, so there seems little to
worry about from phthalates leaching from wood.
Fishermen who like plastic jelly worms may be upset and certain "adult"
toys
may also be effected, but those are OT here.

Axel



The problem is primarily for anyone making items for children (12 and
under). As the law now stands all items made for children must be tested
for lead and Phthalates regardless of what they are made of. This includes
wood, cotton, and other natural materials with no exceptions. They are
looking at exempting items made of some natural untreated materials, but
that has not gone through yet. Any natural material that is treated with
pigment must be tested. Just because paint is made in the U.S. does not
exempt it once it is applied to wood. This is not just the big companies but
all items, including that baby rattle that Grandpa makes for Jr. or the baby
blanket for little Tess from Grandma. The test can cost up to $50,000 for
clothing and up to $4000 for wooden items. Each item must be tested not
just the materials themselves. Fines for noncompliance are in the $100,000
range per incident and all tests must be done yearly or more often. This
would also include existing items such as those found at yard sales and
thrift shops. The only tools affected would be those for children as far as
I can tell, so if you only make items for adults you would not be affected.
For more information go to the links below.

http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html
http://www.handmadetoyalliance.org/

Axel Grease wrote:
"Curran Copeland" wrote in message
...

"Axel Grease" wrote in message
eonecommunications...
"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
...
Just saw a fox new article on the clothing side of the CPSIA and
was greatly discouraged. Seems like they think that it is a good
idea since everyone throws away old clothing at the end of each
season, and what if a few small compinies go out of business, who
cares.

Is this thread arising from the ban on lead and phthalates in toys
and other
items?
Axel


YES

Thanks.
A coupld of people in this group seem upset by the ban. I would
ask -
"How does this affect woodworkers?"


The problem is with the requirement to submit samples for testing. If
you're making things on a production line it's not a problem, if
you're making something for your grandchildren it is, and the wording
of the law is such that there is _no_ difference between the two. The
requirement applies to "every manufacturer of a product which is
subject to a consumer product safety rule" when the product is
"distributed in commerce". The statute defines "Manufacturer" as "any
person who manufactures or imports a consumer product". It defines
"distribution in commerce" as "to sell in commerce, to introduce or
deliver for introduction into commerce, or to hold for sale or
distribution after introduction into commerce". Now, here's the
kicker. It defines "commerce" as "trade, traffic, commerce, or
transportation— (A) between a place in a State and any place outside
thereof, or (B) which affects trade, traffic, commerce, or
transportation described in subparagraph (A)." All quotes in this
paragraph were cut and pasted from
"http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/cpsa.pdf".

Note that the mere act of transportation suffices to put a product
under the testing requirement. It doesn't have to be sold or offered
for sale. If I turn a toy top and put it in my pocket and drive up to
Woodcraft in Springfield and back home, a strict interpretation of the
law would say that I was committing a crime because before doing so I
needed to have it tested. I know this sounds ridiculous and that is
the entire point--the statute is effectively a ban on making toys for
your grandkids living in other states. This is totally aside from the
effect on people who do one-off custom work--if you want to make a
one-off unique rocking horse for example you have to make x number of
them and send them off for testing and pay for the testing, which is
reputed to cost several thousand dollars, before you can sell the one.
A rigid interpretation of the statute would in fact require a kid to
make several copies of a soapbox derby racer and submit them for
testing before he could take one across a state line to go to the next
level of competition.

I don't think that the intent of the legislators was to do this, I
think that somebody either didn't think or screwed up, but that
doesn't alter the law as enacted.

What products that we use contain lead or phthalates?

Doesn't matter. We are required to submit samples of our work for
testing regardless.

So far as I know, lead paint, adhesives, and solvents have not been
produced in America since the '60s. It should not be a big problem
to avoid.

You know that, I know that, the government doesn't trust us to do the
avoiding.

Phthalates?
For now, California has banned them in children's toys. The Feds
have
restricted three types of phthalates permanently, and put interim
restrictions on three others.

And yet, the government not being satisified with that, we are still
required to submit samples of our hypothetical toy top, made from one
solid piece of unfinished wood, containing wood and nothing but wood,
for testing.

As I understand them, esters of phthalic acid are plasticizers
commonly used to soften PVC (for flexibility). How common are the
restricted ones in paint, sealers, and woodworking adhesives? How
many woodworking tools will be affected by a ban?

Tools are not the issue, the issue is home-made and custom made toys.

Phthalates are not natually occuring chemicals, so there seems
little
to worry about from phthalates leaching from wood.
Fishermen who like plastic jelly worms may be upset and certain
"adult" toys may also be effected, but those are OT here.

Tell it to the government, they are the ones who are so worried about
it that they require individually made gifts containing no plastic to
be tested for phthalates.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Curran Copeland wrote:
It's Christmas Eve sonot mkuch time to for a long discussion but these two
links seem like a little light at the end of the tunnel, at least a hint of
a merry Christmas.


Children's Products Containing Lead: Proposed Determinations Regarding Lead
Content Limits on Certain Materials or Products; Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, December 24, 2008
(http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foi...leadlimits.pdf)

Children's Products Containing Lead: Notice of Proposed Procedures and
Requirements for a Commission Determination or Exclusion, December 24, 2008
(http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foi...procedures.pdf)

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT.


Apparently it's not affecting just new toy makers:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2008587800_danny04.html?syndication=rss

The is a copy of an e-mail and FAX I recieved from Sen. Jim Bunning's
(R-KY) office that I thought might be interesting.

From: Haas, Carrie (Bunning)
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:11 AM
To: '
Subject: Consumer Product Safety Act



Curran-



I spoke with a person at the Consumer Product Safety Commission yesterday
regarding the third party lab testing fees. They have been hearing from
several hand crafted toymakers about this issue. As of right now, the fees
will go into effect. He said that they are working on a way to redefine the
way it reads so that hand crafted toys made from products that have already
been tested for lead don't have to be tested again. In about a month or so
they are going to release some clarifications regarding the issues that have
been brought up. I will follow up with the CPSC in January and forward to
you a copy of the document they release when I get it. Please feel free to
call me or email if you have any further questions.



Carrie Haas

United States Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY)

(202) 224-4343

sweet sawdust wrote:

The is a copy of an e-mail and FAX I recieved from Sen. Jim Bunning's
(R-KY) office that I thought might be interesting.

From: Haas, Carrie (Bunning)
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:11 AM
To: '
Subject: Consumer Product Safety Act



Curran-



I spoke with a person at the Consumer Product Safety Commission yesterday
regarding the third party lab testing fees. They have been hearing from
several hand crafted toymakers about this issue. As of right now, the
fees
will go into effect. He said that they are working on a way to redefine
the way it reads so that hand crafted toys made from products that have
already
been tested for lead don't have to be tested again. In about a month or
so they are going to release some clarifications regarding the issues that
have
been brought up. I will follow up with the CPSC in January and forward to
you a copy of the document they release when I get it. Please feel free
to call me or email if you have any further questions.



Carrie Haas

United States Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY)

(202) 224-4343


Something at least.

I'm going to push here again. What if those handcrafted toymakers refuse
to sell interstate? Would that not remove the authority of the federal
government to require anything? The federal government only has authority
to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. If you are only selling
intra-state, then the federal authority should be nullified.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...
sweet sawdust wrote:

I'm going to push here again. What if those handcrafted toymakers refuse
to sell interstate? Would that not remove the authority of the federal
government to require anything? The federal government only has authority
to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. If you are only selling
intra-state, then the federal authority should be nullified.



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough


Good question, I don't know. Most of sell in several states so it would
hurt us, but for those who don't sell interstate it might work.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
sweet sawdust wrote:

The is a copy of an e-mail and FAX I recieved from Sen. Jim Bunning's
(R-KY) office that I thought might be interesting.

From: Haas, Carrie (Bunning)
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:11 AM
To: '
Subject: Consumer Product Safety Act



Curran-



I spoke with a person at the Consumer Product Safety Commission yesterday
regarding the third party lab testing fees. They have been hearing from
several hand crafted toymakers about this issue. As of right now, the
fees
will go into effect. He said that they are working on a way to redefine
the way it reads so that hand crafted toys made from products that have
already
been tested for lead don't have to be tested again. In about a month or
so they are going to release some clarifications regarding the issues that
have
been brought up. I will follow up with the CPSC in January and forward to
you a copy of the document they release when I get it. Please feel free
to call me or email if you have any further questions.



Carrie Haas

United States Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY)

(202) 224-4343


Something at least.

I'm going to push here again. What if those handcrafted toymakers refuse
to sell interstate? Would that not remove the authority of the federal
government to require anything? The federal government only has authority
to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. If you are only selling
intra-state, then the federal authority should be nullified.



Unfortunately the US Government also uses your purchasing practices to
determine Interstate Commerce. If you make a interstate telephone call
to order even a screw you are engaged in covered activities. GOTYA....

David G. Nagel wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
sweet sawdust wrote:

The is a copy of an e-mail and FAX I recieved from Sen. Jim
Bunning's (R-KY) office that I thought might be interesting.

From: Haas, Carrie (Bunning)
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 10:11 AM
To: '
Subject: Consumer Product Safety Act



Curran-



I spoke with a person at the Consumer Product Safety Commission
yesterday regarding the third party lab testing fees. They have
been hearing from several hand crafted toymakers about this issue.
As of right now, the fees
will go into effect. He said that they are working on a way to
redefine the way it reads so that hand crafted toys made from
products that have already
been tested for lead don't have to be tested again. In about a
month or so they are going to release some clarifications
regarding
the issues that have
been brought up. I will follow up with the CPSC in January and
forward to you a copy of the document they release when I get it.
Please feel free to call me or email if you have any further
questions.



Carrie Haas

United States Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY)

(202) 224-4343


Something at least.

I'm going to push here again. What if those handcrafted
toymakers
refuse to sell interstate? Would that not remove the authority of
the federal government to require anything? The federal government
only has authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. If
you are only selling intra-state, then the federal authority should
be nullified.



Unfortunately the US Government also uses your purchasing practices
to
determine Interstate Commerce. If you make a interstate telephone
call
to order even a screw you are engaged in covered activities.
GOTYA....

The catch in the statute there is "impacts interstate commerce" or
words to that effect.

One of these days maybe the Supremes will get sick of that one and
toss it. I suspect that Satan will buy a down parka before that
happens.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Others are starting to take note of this goat rope:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/07/video-cpsia-threatens-thrift-stores-and-charities/

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

NEWS from CPSC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Office of Information and Public Affairs
Washington, DC 20207

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 6, 2009
Release #09-120 CPSC

Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908

CPSC Spells Out Enforcement Policy For New Lead Limits In Children's
Products Effective February 10

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Starting on February 10, 2009, consumer products intended
for children 12 and under cannot have more than 600 parts per million of
lead in any accessible part. This new safety requirement is a key component
of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) aimed at further
reducing children's exposure to lead.

In an effort to provide clear and reasonable guidance to those impacted by
this important law, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is
announcing its enforcement policy on the lead limits established by the
CPSIA.

Manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers should also be aware
that CPSC will:

*Not impose penalties against anyone for making, importing, distributing, or
selling

**a children's product to the extent that it is made of certain natural
materials, such as wood, cotton, wool, or certain metals and alloys which
the Commission has recognized rarely, if ever, contain lead;

**an ordinary children's book printed after 1985; or

**dyed or undyed textiles (not including leather, vinyl or PVC) and
non-metallic thread and trim used in children's apparel and other fabric
products, such as baby blankets.

(The Commission generally will not prosecute someone for making, selling or
distributing items in these categories even if it turns out that such an
item actually contains more than 600 ppm lead.)
Sellers will not be immune from prosecution if CPSC's Office of Compliance
finds that someone had actual knowledge that one of these children's
products contained more than 600 ppm lead or continued to make, import,
distribute or sell such a product after being put on notice. Agency staff
will seek recalls of violative children's products or other corrective
actions, where appropriate.

*Issue an interim final rule effective February 10, 2009, which establishes
alternative lead limits for certain electronic devices, in order to prevent
unnecessary removal of certain children's products from store shelves.

*Accept a manufacturer's determination that a lead-containing part on their
product is inaccessible to a child and not subject to the new lead limits,
if it is consistent with the Commission's proposed guidance or is based on a
reasonable reading of the inaccessibility requirement. Paint and other
coatings or electroplating are not considered barriers that make a component
inaccessible.

This enforcement policy will remain in effect until superseded by action of
the Commission.

CPSC still expects companies to meet their reporting obligation under
federal law and immediately tell the Commission if they learn of a
children's product that exceeds the new lead limits starting on February 10,
2009. Companies also should know that the CPSIA generally prohibits the
export for sale of children's products that exceed the new lead limits.

As announced on January 30, 2009, the Commission approved a one year stay of
enforcement for certain testing and certification requirements for
manufacturers and importers. Significant to makers of children's products,
the 'stay' provides limited relief from the testing and certification for
total lead content limits, phthalates limits for certain products and
mandatory toy standards. Manufacturers and importers - large and small - of
children's products will not need to test or certify to these new
requirements, but will still need to meet the lead and phthalates limits,
mandatory toy standards and other requirements. Certification based on
testing by an accredited laboratory is still required for painted children's
products and soon will be required for children's metal jewelry, as well as
certain other products for non-lead issues.

Good News! As chair of our Toy Factory under the previous CPSC announcements
I'd been concerned about the thousands of toys, tool totes, bird houses and
other wooden items my woodworker's club gives away each year at our shows,
at schools, and other venues. This new press release is timely and good
news!

BTW, our show in Saratoga is the last weekend of March this year.

http://www.nwawoodworkingshow.org/

I'm doing lectures on shooting boards and bench hooks this year... did
dovetails and and advanced dovetails the previous two years.
http://www.nwawoodworkingshow.org/showcaseschedule.htm



"Curran Copeland" wrote in message
...

NEWS from CPSC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Office of Information and Public Affairs
Washington, DC 20207

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 6, 2009
Release #09-120 CPSC

Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908

CPSC Spells Out Enforcement Policy For New Lead Limits In Children's
Products Effective February 10

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Starting on February 10, 2009, consumer products
intended for children 12 and under cannot have more than 600 parts per
million of lead in any accessible part. This new safety requirement is a
key component of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) aimed
at further reducing children's exposure to lead.

In an effort to provide clear and reasonable guidance to those impacted by
this important law, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is
announcing its enforcement policy on the lead limits established by the
CPSIA.

Manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers should also be aware
that CPSC will:

*Not impose penalties against anyone for making, importing, distributing,
or selling

**a children's product to the extent that it is made of certain natural
materials, such as wood, cotton, wool, or certain metals and alloys which
the Commission has recognized rarely, if ever, contain lead;

**an ordinary children's book printed after 1985; or

**dyed or undyed textiles (not including leather, vinyl or PVC) and
non-metallic thread and trim used in children's apparel and other fabric
products, such as baby blankets.

(The Commission generally will not prosecute someone for making, selling
or distributing items in these categories even if it turns out that such
an item actually contains more than 600 ppm lead.)
Sellers will not be immune from prosecution if CPSC's Office of Compliance
finds that someone had actual knowledge that one of these children's
products contained more than 600 ppm lead or continued to make, import,
distribute or sell such a product after being put on notice. Agency staff
will seek recalls of violative children's products or other corrective
actions, where appropriate.

*Issue an interim final rule effective February 10, 2009, which
establishes alternative lead limits for certain electronic devices, in
order to prevent unnecessary removal of certain children's products from
store shelves.

*Accept a manufacturer's determination that a lead-containing part on
their product is inaccessible to a child and not subject to the new lead
limits, if it is consistent with the Commission's proposed guidance or is
based on a reasonable reading of the inaccessibility requirement. Paint
and other coatings or electroplating are not considered barriers that make
a component inaccessible.

This enforcement policy will remain in effect until superseded by action
of the Commission.

CPSC still expects companies to meet their reporting obligation under
federal law and immediately tell the Commission if they learn of a
children's product that exceeds the new lead limits starting on February
10, 2009. Companies also should know that the CPSIA generally prohibits
the export for sale of children's products that exceed the new lead
limits.

As announced on January 30, 2009, the Commission approved a one year stay
of enforcement for certain testing and certification requirements for
manufacturers and importers. Significant to makers of children's products,
the 'stay' provides limited relief from the testing and certification for
total lead content limits, phthalates limits for certain products and
mandatory toy standards. Manufacturers and importers - large and small -
of children's products will not need to test or certify to these new
requirements, but will still need to meet the lead and phthalates limits,
mandatory toy standards and other requirements. Certification based on
testing by an accredited laboratory is still required for painted
children's products and soon will be required for children's metal
jewelry, as well as certain other products for non-lead issues.

NEWS from CPSC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Office of Information and Public Affairs Washington, DC 20207

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 8, 2009
Release #09-086 CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908



CPSC Clarifies Requirements of New Children's Product Safety Laws Taking
Effect in February
Guidance Intended for Resellers of Children's Products, Thrift and
Consignment Stores
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In February 2009, new requirements of the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) take effect. Manufacturers, importers
and retailers are expected to comply with the new Congressionally-mandated
laws. Beginning February 10, 2009, children's products cannot be sold if
they contain more than 600 parts per million (ppm) total lead. Certain
children's products manufactured on or after February 10, 2009 cannot be
sold if they contain more than 0.1% of certain specific phthalates or if
they fail to meet new mandatory standards for toys.

Under the new law, children's products with more than 600 ppm total lead
cannot lawfully be sold in the United States on or after February 10, 2009,
even if they were manufactured before that date. The total lead limit drops
to 300 ppm on August 14, 2009.

The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that
children's products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards
and the lead ban. Sellers of used children's products, such as thrift stores
and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet
the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.

The new safety law does not require resellers to test children's products in
inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However,
resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead limit and
therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless
they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold
have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in
violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties.

When the CPSIA was signed into law on August 14, 2008, it became unlawful to
sell recalled products. All resellers should check the CPSC Web site
(www.cpsc.gov) for information on recalled products before taking into
inventory or selling a product. The selling of recalled products also could
carry civil and/or criminal penalties.

While CPSC expects every company to comply fully with the new laws resellers
should pay special attention to certain product categories. Among these are
recalled children's products, particularly cribs and play yards; children's
products that may contain lead, such as children's jewelry and painted
wooden or metal toys; flimsily made toys that are easily breakable into
small parts; toys that lack the required age warnings; and dolls and stuffed
toys that have buttons, eyes, noses or other small parts that are not
securely fastened and could present a choking hazard for young children.

The agency has underway a number of rulemaking proposals intended to provide
guidance on the new lead limit requirements. Please visit the CPSC website
at www.cpsc.gov for more information.

---

Send the link for this page to a friend! The U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of
serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under
the agency's jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and
families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical
hazard. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as
toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals -
contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries
associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC's
hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC's teletypewriter at (800) 638-8270, or
visit CPSC's web site at www.cpsc.gov/talk.html. To join a CPSC email
subscription list, please go to https://www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.aspx.
Consumers can obtain this release and recall information at CPSC's Web site
at www.cpsc.gov.

"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
...


NEWS from CPSC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Office of Information and Public Affairs Washington, DC 20207

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 8, 2009
Release #09-086 CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908



CPSC Clarifies Requirements of New Children's Product Safety Laws Taking
....
The new safety law does not require resellers to test children's products
in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold.
However, resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead
limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead
content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the
products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do
sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or
criminal penalties.

Just WTF does that mean? Resellers can be charged and prosecuted for selling
tainted items, but will be spared criminal charges for not testing? What age
group does "children's product" include? What is a "product" in this
context? This world has gone mad.

The good news: the electronics industry has been lead free for some time
now. Irony. Irony. Irony.

In article
"MikeWhy" writes:
"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
. ..

CPSC Clarifies Requirements of New Children's Product Safety Laws Taking
...
The new safety law does not require resellers to test children's products
in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold.
However, resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead
limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead
content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the
products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do
sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or
criminal penalties.

Just WTF does that mean? Resellers can be charged and prosecuted for selling
tainted items, but will be spared criminal charges for not testing?

Products exceeding the stated lead limits cannot be sold after the
law goes into effect. That is true regardless of whether they are
tested by the seller.

Products that are already in inventory when the law goes into effect
are exempted from the testing requirement. But if you are selling
those metal trucks that came from China, "I assumed they were fine"
won't save your butt.

All products produced after the law goes into effect have to be
covered by the testing.

What age
group does "children's product" include? What is a "product" in this
context? This world has gone mad.

Both of those terms are well defined.
The law may be bad, but it isn't ambiguous.


--
Drew Lawson | What is an "Oprah"?
| -- Teal'c
|

sweet sawdust wrote:

.... snip o' stuff written by lawyers



So, re-sellers don't have to test, but re-sellers can't sell stuff that
contains lead. Oh, and re-sellers need to make sure that none of their
merchandise is under a recall. Yeah, that'll be easy and cost-effective to
check.

Again the question, if the re-sellers are local to a region, how does the
US Government, limited ONLY to INTER-state and FOREIGN commerce have any
jusrisdiction? ... and the answer better not be that the clothes at one
time were part of interstate commerce -- that is ridiculous, with that
argument, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that would not be subject to
federal intervention.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Mark & Juanita wrote:
sweet sawdust wrote:

... snip o' stuff written by lawyers

So, re-sellers don't have to test, but re-sellers can't sell stuff that
contains lead. Oh, and re-sellers need to make sure that none of their
merchandise is under a recall. Yeah, that'll be easy and cost-effective to
check.

Again the question, if the re-sellers are local to a region, how does the
US Government, limited ONLY to INTER-state and FOREIGN commerce have any
jusrisdiction? ... and the answer better not be that the clothes at one
time were part of interstate commerce -- that is ridiculous, with that
argument, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that would not be subject to
federal intervention.


Well, shucks - the nationalised retirement program is justified under
the commerce clause. What's the big deal?

Our Congress Critters are getting annoyed at the CPSC:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/inde...474&Ite mid=1

wrote in message
...
Our Congress Critters are getting annoyed at the CPSC:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/inde...474&Ite mid=1


A little more hope. I never thought of book being affected, this thing is
more ridiculous every time I look at it.

Brought the CPSIA up at a meeting of artisans and had some of the members
call me a liar and the documents I had fakes, they would not believe that
any one would pass a law so stupid.

"sweet sawdust" wrote in message
news

Brought the CPSIA up at a meeting of artisans and had some of the members
call me a liar and the documents I had fakes, they would not believe that
any one would pass a law so stupid.


Quotes -

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I
repeat myself." - Mark Twain

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in
session." - Gideon J. Tucker (1866) but often attributed to Mark Twain.


Some members of your artisan club would do well to keep better tabs on what
comes out of Washington DC. The problem is not new and should be no
surprise to anyone.
Axel