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/foia09/brief/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/foia09/brief/leadprocedures.pdf)
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT.
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: '[email protected]'
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
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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
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?
"sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> 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.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
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:
>
>> 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: '[email protected]'
>> 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....
"Axel Grease" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Axel Grease" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> 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
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.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> 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?
That's all just plain NUTS. Wouldn't voluntary self-compliance have been
sufficient, as for the film industry's G, PG, R ratings?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:dce3e2e7-540e-4ac4-a4e5-f0058a2a701c@f11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 5, 12:02 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> 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
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/foia09/brief/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/foia09/brief/leadprocedures.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>
MikeWhy wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> 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".
[email protected] 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: '[email protected]'
> 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
On Dec 24, 9:56 pm, "Curran Copeland" <[email protected]>
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/foia09/brief/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/foia09/brief/leadprocedures.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
On Jan 4, 10:18 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> 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/business/local/article/E-TOYS26_20081225-212814/162286/
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
On Jan 5, 5:33=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> MikeWhy wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> 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. =A0Voluntary 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. =A0Hell, 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!'
On Jan 5, 12:02 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> 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
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:
> 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
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:db1d3048-8ee3-4a58-a3c8-c5af577e09da@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 5, 5:33 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> MikeWhy wrote:
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> 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? ;)
Axel Grease wrote:
> "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Axel Grease wrote:
> "Curran Copeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Axel Grease" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> 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)
[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 4, 10:18 am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> 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/business/local/article/E-TOYS26_20081225-212814/162286/
>
> 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)
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.
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:dce3e2e7-540e-4ac4-a4e5-f0058a2a701c@f11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 5, 12:02 am, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> 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)
MikeWhy wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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)
MikeWhy wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:db1d3048-8ee3-4a58-a3c8-c5af577e09da@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 5, 5:33 pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> 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)
MikeWhy wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> MikeWhy wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> 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)
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: '[email protected]'
>>> 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)
In article <[email protected]>
"MikeWhy" <[email protected]> writes:
>"sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 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
|
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
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
"Axel Grease" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Curran Copeland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Axel Grease" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> 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/
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Our Congress Critters are getting annoyed at the CPSC:
>
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1474&Itemid=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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?
Curran Copeland wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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!
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> 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?
"sweet sawdust" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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