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)

On Jan 4, 10:18 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

"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.

Well, I don't think you have much to worry about there anyway, but
according to the spokesperson for the CPSC, if you make something one-
of-a-kind it is exempt. I don't know where they are getting the
authority to say that, it sure doesn't say it in the law, but they are
the ones enforcing it and that's what they say.

______________________________

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/bus...212814/162286/

There are exceptions to the testing rule for crafters making only one
unique copy of each item, said Julie Vallese, spokeswoman for the
Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Small toymakers have inundated the commission with questions and
complaints about the new standards, she said. Many are confused about
whether the new rules apply to their operations.

"It's sticky and it's tricky, but if we can't see that the products
are truly one-of-a-kind, they have to be tested," she said. "This is
not a time where a manufacturer should be rolling the dice on
compliance with the law."
_____________________________


-Kevin

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

wrote:
On Jan 4, 10:18 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

"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.

Well, I don't think you have much to worry about there anyway, but
according to the spokesperson for the CPSC, if you make something
one-
of-a-kind it is exempt. I don't know where they are getting the
authority to say that, it sure doesn't say it in the law, but they
are
the ones enforcing it and that's what they say.

When law enforcement has a power, they will use it.

______________________________

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/bus...212814/162286/

There are exceptions to the testing rule for crafters making only
one
unique copy of each item, said Julie Vallese, spokeswoman for the
Consumer Product Safety Commission.

She can say it all he wants to, the statute says
"CERTIFICATION.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), every
manufacturer . . ." Note _every_. Neither paragraph 2 nor paragraph
3 exempt crafters making only one unique copy of each item.

Small toymakers have inundated the commission with questions and
complaints about the new standards, she said. Many are confused
about
whether the new rules apply to their operations.

"It's sticky and it's tricky, but if we can't see that the products
are truly one-of-a-kind, they have to be tested," she said. "This is
not a time where a manufacturer should be rolling the dice on
compliance with the law."

In other words it's going to be up to grandpa to prove that the crib
he made for his grandkid is "one of a kind". And is something that
one made from plans from Rockler or wherever truly "one of a kind" to
a bureaucrat?

Any time we are dependent on the good will and sound judgment of
bureaucrats, we are in trouble.

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

sweet sawdust wrote:


.... snip

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/

One thought that comes to mind: If the cpsia is hell-bent on implementing
regulations that implement this brain-dead feel-good legislation (sorry,
I'll refrain), the testing requirement makes sense for imported items since
it is apparent that no control can be exerted over foreign suppliers.
However, for domestically produced items, it would seem that if the
manufacturer or fabricator can produce documentation for all components
going into the construction of the toy that shows none of the banned items
are contained in those components, then compliance could be shown. While
it would require additional book-keeping, it would not be as costly because
the actual component testing has already been performed by the component
manufacturers. This also protects the fabricator against any changes in
formulation that may occur in the future since the documentation should be
kept current by the chemical manufacturers. For example, if you are making
and finishing a wooden top, you would have a compliance list of:

1) Wood -- natural ingredient, perhaps the MSDS for the wood
2) Shellac -- MSDS or other ingredients documenation from the shellac
supplier
3) Wax -- MSDS or other ingredients documentation from supplier


This would at least be something that would not force people out of
business.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Jan 5, 12:02 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
sweet sawdust wrote:

... snip

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/

One thought that comes to mind: If the cpsia is hell-bent on implementing
regulations that implement this brain-dead feel-good legislation (sorry,
I'll refrain), the testing requirement makes sense for imported items since
it is apparent that no control can be exerted over foreign suppliers.
However, for domestically produced items, it would seem that if the
manufacturer or fabricator can produce documentation for all components
going into the construction of the toy that shows none of the banned items
are contained in those components, then compliance could be shown. While
it would require additional book-keeping, it would not be as costly because
the actual component testing has already been performed by the component
manufacturers. This also protects the fabricator against any changes in
formulation that may occur in the future since the documentation should be
kept current by the chemical manufacturers. For example, if you are making
and finishing a wooden top, you would have a compliance list of:

1) Wood -- natural ingredient, perhaps the MSDS for the wood
2) Shellac -- MSDS or other ingredients documenation from the shellac
supplier
3) Wax -- MSDS or other ingredients documentation from supplier

This would at least be something that would not force people out of
business.

They are taking comments for which types of products to allow
component testing, but as it stands now very specifically component
testing is not acceptable, you have to test each type of final
product. MSDS usually have disclaimers on them, like this one from
General Finishes:

"General Finishes believes that the information contained in this MSDS
is correct as of this date. However,
because the material may be used under conditions over which General
Finishes has no control or in ways we
cannot anticipate, we give no warranty, expressed or implied, as to
the accuracy of the information. General
Finishes assumes no responsibility for any damage to person, property
or user of this material or to insure that
it is properly and safely used."

If the manufacturer won't stand behind the information in the MSDS I
don't see how you can use that MSDS as a basis for proof that the
product is safe. And manufacturers aren't going to take that
liability out of the goodness of their hearts.

-Kevin

That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance have been
sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?


wrote in message
...
On Jan 5, 12:02 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
sweet sawdust wrote:

... snip

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/

One thought that comes to mind: If the cpsia is hell-bent on
implementing
regulations that implement this brain-dead feel-good legislation (sorry,
I'll refrain), the testing requirement makes sense for imported items
since
it is apparent that no control can be exerted over foreign suppliers.
However, for domestically produced items, it would seem that if the
manufacturer or fabricator can produce documentation for all components
going into the construction of the toy that shows none of the banned
items
are contained in those components, then compliance could be shown. While
it would require additional book-keeping, it would not be as costly
because
the actual component testing has already been performed by the component
manufacturers. This also protects the fabricator against any changes in
formulation that may occur in the future since the documentation should
be
kept current by the chemical manufacturers. For example, if you are
making
and finishing a wooden top, you would have a compliance list of:

1) Wood -- natural ingredient, perhaps the MSDS for the wood
2) Shellac -- MSDS or other ingredients documenation from the shellac
supplier
3) Wax -- MSDS or other ingredients documentation from supplier

This would at least be something that would not force people out of
business.

They are taking comments for which types of products to allow
component testing, but as it stands now very specifically component
testing is not acceptable, you have to test each type of final
product. MSDS usually have disclaimers on them, like this one from
General Finishes:

"General Finishes believes that the information contained in this MSDS
is correct as of this date. However,
because the material may be used under conditions over which General
Finishes has no control or in ways we
cannot anticipate, we give no warranty, expressed or implied, as to
the accuracy of the information. General
Finishes assumes no responsibility for any damage to person, property
or user of this material or to insure that
it is properly and safely used."

If the manufacturer won't stand behind the information in the MSDS I
don't see how you can use that MSDS as a basis for proof that the
product is safe. And manufacturers aren't going to take that
liability out of the goodness of their hearts.

-Kevin

MikeWhy wrote:
That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance have
been sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?

Well, now, there's the problem. Voluntary self-compliance didn't
_work_.

But as enacted the legislation is either an overreaction or a screw
up.

wrote in message
...
On Jan 5, 12:02 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
sweet sawdust wrote:

... snip

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/

One thought that comes to mind: If the cpsia is hell-bent on
implementing
regulations that implement this brain-dead feel-good legislation
(sorry, I'll refrain), the testing requirement makes sense for
imported items since
it is apparent that no control can be exerted over foreign
suppliers. However, for domestically produced items, it would seem
that if the manufacturer or fabricator can produce documentation
for all components going into the construction of the toy that
shows none of the banned items
are contained in those components, then compliance could be shown.
While it would require additional book-keeping, it would not be as
costly because
the actual component testing has already been performed by the
component manufacturers. This also protects the fabricator
against
any changes in formulation that may occur in the future since the
documentation should be
kept current by the chemical manufacturers. For example, if you
are
making
and finishing a wooden top, you would have a compliance list of:

1) Wood -- natural ingredient, perhaps the MSDS for the wood
2) Shellac -- MSDS or other ingredients documenation from the
shellac supplier
3) Wax -- MSDS or other ingredients documentation from supplier

This would at least be something that would not force people out
of business.

They are taking comments for which types of products to allow
component testing, but as it stands now very specifically component
testing is not acceptable, you have to test each type of final
product. MSDS usually have disclaimers on them, like this one from
General Finishes:

"General Finishes believes that the information contained in this
MSDS is correct as of this date. However,
because the material may be used under conditions over which
General
Finishes has no control or in ways we
cannot anticipate, we give no warranty, expressed or implied, as to
the accuracy of the information. General
Finishes assumes no responsibility for any damage to person,
property
or user of this material or to insure that
it is properly and safely used."

If the manufacturer won't stand behind the information in the MSDS
I
don't see how you can use that MSDS as a basis for proof that the
product is safe. And manufacturers aren't going to take that
liability out of the goodness of their hearts.

-Kevin

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

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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance have
been sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?

Well, now, there's the problem. Voluntary self-compliance didn't
_work_.

But as enacted the legislation is either an overreaction or a screw
up.

Hmmm. I don't mean about the foreign purveyors of salmonella and lead
painted toys. I mean more like a UL label that indicates privately tested
compliance with industry established standards, coupled with an awareness
campaign. We're obviously paying too much in taxes to have those dickheads
think this is a good use of my money. Why should this require force of law?
Why should even a single dollar of public money come from unrelated
businesses to govern how a child's toy is made?

MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance
have
been sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?

Well, now, there's the problem. Voluntary self-compliance didn't
_work_.

But as enacted the legislation is either an overreaction or a screw
up.

Hmmm. I don't mean about the foreign purveyors of salmonella and
lead
painted toys. I mean more like a UL label that indicates privately
tested compliance with industry established standards, coupled with
an awareness campaign.

The testing required by the law is "private", there is no government
testing agency established and no requirement that the government
perform the tests. Hell, UL may end up the outfit doing it.

We're obviously paying too much in taxes to
have those dickheads think this is a good use of my money. Why
should
this require force of law? Why should even a single dollar of public
money come from unrelated businesses to govern how a child's toy is
made?

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on what you're on about with "even a
single dollar of public money".

What public money do you believe is being spent here?

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

On Jan 5, 5:33*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance
have
been sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?

Well, now, there's the problem. *Voluntary self-compliance didn't
_work_.

But as enacted the legislation is either an overreaction or a screw
up.

Hmmm. I don't mean about the foreign purveyors of salmonella and
lead
painted toys. I mean more like a UL label that indicates privately
tested compliance with industry established standards, coupled with
an awareness campaign.

The testing required by the law is "private", there is no government
testing agency established and no requirement that the government
perform the tests. *Hell, UL may end up the outfit doing it.

We're obviously paying too much in taxes to
have those dickheads think this is a good use of my money. Why
should
this require force of law? Why should even a single dollar of public
money come from unrelated businesses to govern how a child's toy is
made?

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on what you're on about with "even a
single dollar of public money".

What public money do you believe is being spent here?

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

Careful, MikeWhy... Clarke is trying to set a trap... just so he can
win at 'something!'

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance
have
been sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?

Well, now, there's the problem. Voluntary self-compliance didn't
_work_.

But as enacted the legislation is either an overreaction or a screw
up.

Hmmm. I don't mean about the foreign purveyors of salmonella and
lead
painted toys. I mean more like a UL label that indicates privately
tested compliance with industry established standards, coupled with
an awareness campaign.

The testing required by the law is "private", there is no government
testing agency established and no requirement that the government
perform the tests. Hell, UL may end up the outfit doing it.

We're obviously paying too much in taxes to
have those dickheads think this is a good use of my money. Why
should
this require force of law? Why should even a single dollar of public
money come from unrelated businesses to govern how a child's toy is
made?

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on what you're on about with "even a
single dollar of public money".

What public money do you believe is being spent here?

Taxes. Enforcement. Why is it even a government concern?

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Jan 5, 5:33 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance
have
been sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?

Well, now, there's the problem. Voluntary self-compliance didn't
_work_.

But as enacted the legislation is either an overreaction or a screw
up.

Hmmm. I don't mean about the foreign purveyors of salmonella and
lead
painted toys. I mean more like a UL label that indicates privately
tested compliance with industry established standards, coupled with
an awareness campaign.

The testing required by the law is "private", there is no government
testing agency established and no requirement that the government
perform the tests. Hell, UL may end up the outfit doing it.

We're obviously paying too much in taxes to
have those dickheads think this is a good use of my money. Why
should
this require force of law? Why should even a single dollar of public
money come from unrelated businesses to govern how a child's toy is
made?

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on what you're on about with "even a
single dollar of public money".

What public money do you believe is being spent here?

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

Careful, MikeWhy... Clarke is trying to set a trap... just so he can
win at 'something!'

------
Oooh! What's the prize?

MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance
have
been sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?

Well, now, there's the problem. Voluntary self-compliance didn't
_work_.

But as enacted the legislation is either an overreaction or a screw
up.

Hmmm. I don't mean about the foreign purveyors of salmonella and
lead
painted toys. I mean more like a UL label that indicates privately
tested compliance with industry established standards, coupled with
an awareness campaign.

The testing required by the law is "private", there is no government
testing agency established and no requirement that the government
perform the tests. Hell, UL may end up the outfit doing it.

We're obviously paying too much in taxes to
have those dickheads think this is a good use of my money. Why
should
this require force of law? Why should even a single dollar of public
money come from unrelated businesses to govern how a child's toy is
made?

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on what you're on about with "even a
single dollar of public money".

What public money do you believe is being spent here?

Taxes. Enforcement. Why is it even a government concern?

Cuz "it's for the children".

MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance
have
been sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?

Well, now, there's the problem. Voluntary self-compliance didn't
_work_.

But as enacted the legislation is either an overreaction or a
screw
up.

Hmmm. I don't mean about the foreign purveyors of salmonella and
lead
painted toys. I mean more like a UL label that indicates privately
tested compliance with industry established standards, coupled
with
an awareness campaign.

The testing required by the law is "private", there is no
government
testing agency established and no requirement that the government
perform the tests. Hell, UL may end up the outfit doing it.

We're obviously paying too much in taxes to
have those dickheads think this is a good use of my money. Why
should
this require force of law? Why should even a single dollar of
public
money come from unrelated businesses to govern how a child's toy
is
made?

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on what you're on about with "even a
single dollar of public money".

What public money do you believe is being spent here?

Taxes. Enforcement. Why is it even a government concern?

Because the taxypaying, voting, letter-writing citizens want it to be.


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

MikeWhy wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
On Jan 5, 5:33 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance
have
been sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?

Well, now, there's the problem. Voluntary self-compliance didn't
_work_.

But as enacted the legislation is either an overreaction or a
screw
up.

Hmmm. I don't mean about the foreign purveyors of salmonella and
lead
painted toys. I mean more like a UL label that indicates privately
tested compliance with industry established standards, coupled
with
an awareness campaign.

The testing required by the law is "private", there is no
government
testing agency established and no requirement that the government
perform the tests. Hell, UL may end up the outfit doing it.

We're obviously paying too much in taxes to
have those dickheads think this is a good use of my money. Why
should
this require force of law? Why should even a single dollar of
public
money come from unrelated businesses to govern how a child's toy
is
made?

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on what you're on about with "even a
single dollar of public money".

What public money do you believe is being spent here?

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

Careful, MikeWhy... Clarke is trying to set a trap... just so he can
win at 'something!'

------
Oooh! What's the prize?

plonk

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

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
MikeWhy wrote:
That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance
have
been sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?

Well, now, there's the problem. Voluntary self-compliance didn't
_work_.

But as enacted the legislation is either an overreaction or a
screw
up.

Hmmm. I don't mean about the foreign purveyors of salmonella and
lead
painted toys. I mean more like a UL label that indicates privately
tested compliance with industry established standards, coupled
with
an awareness campaign.

The testing required by the law is "private", there is no
government
testing agency established and no requirement that the government
perform the tests. Hell, UL may end up the outfit doing it.

We're obviously paying too much in taxes to
have those dickheads think this is a good use of my money. Why
should
this require force of law? Why should even a single dollar of
public
money come from unrelated businesses to govern how a child's toy
is
made?

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear on what you're on about with "even a
single dollar of public money".

What public money do you believe is being spent here?

Taxes. Enforcement. Why is it even a government concern?

Because the taxypaying, voting, letter-writing citizens want it to be.

Not all of them, my friend. Constitutionally, what purvue does the US
federal government have to pass this into law?

wrote:

.... snip

One thought that comes to mind: If the cpsia is hell-bent on
implementing
regulations ... snip it would seem that
if the manufacturer or fabricator can produce documentation for all
components going into the construction of the toy that shows none of the
banned items
are contained in those components, then compliance could be shown. While
.... snip
They are taking comments for which types of products to allow
component testing, but as it stands now very specifically component
testing is not acceptable, you have to test each type of final
product.

That's unfortunate (and not very enlightened).

MSDS usually have disclaimers on them, like this one from
General Finishes:

"General Finishes believes that the information contained in this MSDS
is correct as of this date. However,
because the material may be used under conditions over which General
Finishes has no control or in ways we
cannot anticipate, we give no warranty, expressed or implied, as to
the accuracy of the information. General
Finishes assumes no responsibility for any damage to person, property
or user of this material or to insure that
it is properly and safely used."

If the manufacturer won't stand behind the information in the MSDS I
don't see how you can use that MSDS as a basis for proof that the
product is safe. And manufacturers aren't going to take that
liability out of the goodness of their hearts.


Understand that, but let's also look at the flip side. If you have to
test the product, how often does it have to be tested? Once? When you
change batches? When you change process? When you buy components that are
from different batches than what was used on the original test specimen?
The latter could become a real nightmare for any size manufacturer it that
were the case. Imagine swapping out shellac or other finish supply in the
middle of a production run -- not talking brand or type, just supplier
batch. Nothing says a supplier has to use the same components for various
inert or fill materials (or even solvents for that matter) from batch to
batch as long as the MSDS notes the appropriate components and precautions.
This seems to be a very poorly thought out piece of legislation. Just
thinking about even the imported stuff -- what sampling rate is required?
Nothing says that the first 5000 of any given batch are made with safe
materials while the next 5000 were painted with a lead containing product
when the original drum ran empty.

It really seems like the MSDS component approach would be more traceable
and verifiable, disclaimers notwithstanding. I would suspect that some of
those disclaimers would not stand up in court if some issue were to
arise -- either in civil or criminal court.


-Kevin

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

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
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.

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?

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
|