CPSIA Update

Page 2 of 3  


Taxes. Enforcement. Why is it even a government concern?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
MikeWhy wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
MikeWhy wrote:

Because the taxypaying, voting, letter-writing citizens want it to be.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not all of them, my friend. Constitutionally, what purvue does the US federal government have to pass this into law?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@YAHOO.COM wrote:
... snip

That's unfortunate (and not very enlightened).

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.

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Axel Grease wrote:

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.

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

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

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.

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

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@YAHOO.COM wrote:

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

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/local/article/E-TOYS26_20081225-212814/162286 /
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.

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Curran Copeland wrote:

<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2008587800_danny04.html?syndication=rss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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: ' snipped-for-privacy@bellsouth.net' 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sweet sawdust wrote:

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

determine Interstate Commerce. If you make a interstate telephone call to order even a screw you are engaged in covered activities. GOTYA....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.