FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CPSC letters, politics, and news affecting the agency

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fashion-Incubator User Forum Forum Index -> CPSIA & Consumer Safety
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11497
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:38 am    Post subject: CPSC letters, politics, and news affecting the agency Reply with quote

Let's try to aggregate discussion of CPSC's problems here. This is not a thread to post *your* letters to the CPSC. No offense intended but I'm thinking of correspondence between entities on the same playing field. You know, and we're just in the stands watching. Also, totally inappropriate to go OT and rant on CPSC. If you feel that way, you've got some catching up to do.

I'm expecting we'll need this this thread because after Friday's announcement, I think the special interest groups are going to become more active and here's one place to do it.

Anyway, remember [url=//fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-rant-blame-special-interest-groups/]the Waxman letter sent to Nord[/url]? Well [url=//fashion-incubator.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Nord_to_Waxman.pdf]she wrote one back[/url], dated the 30th. My, they were busy on Friday. It basically says, "you can't blame us for this when this is congress' fault" etc. It's not defensive but does put the ball back in Waxman's court after his attempt in trying to avoid the blame for this problem and blaming it all on the CPSC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pamela
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a fantastic letter Nancy Nord wrote, she really does understand what is going on. Are these letters like this actually public record? Must be but it sure makes the government more responsible for their actions when everyone can see the paper trail.

Pam
Back to top
Lisa DOWNTOWN JOEY
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really liked Nancy Nord's letter. I feel bad for her having to deal with all this crap. I wouldn't wish her job on my worst enemy.

Her letter eloquently defends her position and helps spell things out for me.
Back to top
Sarah R
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hate to post a link to a blog and not the actual letter, but I'm sure you're aware of the letter from Waxman, Rush, and a few others asking Obama to can Nord.

http://ceska.typepad.com/little_ida/2009/02/rush-waxman-rockefeller-pryor-ask-obama-to-remove-nord-from-cpsc.html

I really don't know how to find the original .gov posting of this letter.

(also, and delete if this is too off topic, I chuckle when I read the USPIRG et al letter, and see they define "small" as fewer than 50,000 units, because I see that as SO MUCH bigger than most "small" manufacturers I know.)
Back to top
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11497
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[url=//fashion-incubator.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/waxman_to_nord_moore_020409.pdf]Yet another letter[/url]. This one is from Waxman et al in response to Moore (2/3/09) and Nord's response ([url=//fashion-incubator.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Nord_to_Waxman.pdf]1/30/09[/url]) to the letter et al [url=//fashion-incubator.com/archive/cpsia-rant-blame-special-interest-groups/]had sent[/url] mid January. The legislators are requesting "immediate action" and describe the stay as "unfortunate".

If you haven't seen Moore's letter, it is quite critical of Nord's leadership. Previously, these legislators sent a letter to Obama requesting Nord's removal. That's in [url=//fashion-incubator.com/archive/six-days-until-national-bankruptcy-day/]yesterday's blog post[/url].
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pamela
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find this all very interesting yet I myself really can't quite determine who is right in this situation. If Nancy Nord is right her hands are tied due to the way the law is written. Yet if you read all of the Waxman/Rush letters you get the idea she has much more power and authority over this law than she thinks.

Is anyone here knowledgeable in this area to give an idea of who is really in the wrong or right?

Pam
Back to top
DeputyHeadmistress
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:53 pm    Post subject: Moore and Nord Reply with quote

I don't think anybody can know for certain if Nord's hat is entirely white and Moore's black, but I do find it interesting that Moore is a Clinton appointee, and so more likely to keep his job. His letter struck me as working toward that end.

I also found this part, on page 3, as carefully as he tried not to say so, actually did support exactly what Nord has said and Congress pretends not to know:
"We have not gotten the kind of information we need about all the components of children’s books to be able to issue them a blanket exemption. The industry has made assertions and done very limited testing, but the Act requires more, as it should, before we can exempt a children’s product from the lead content requirements of the law. We cannot act on the “everyone knows children’s books don’t contain lead” and “historically there has never been a problem with lead in children’s books” assertions, particularly when we now know that children’s books have indeed contained lead in the past. Our staff has asked the book industry to provide us with additional information. They need to provide all of the information that our staff believes is necessary in order for the Commission to act based on sound science and comprehensive market coverage."

I disagree with the 'as it should' part. The sound science should have been the basis for including a product in the first place.
Back to top
Bente
Renewing Member
Renewing Member


Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 281
Location: TX Houston

PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a way it's good that there are only a few days left of this war.
At least we will know if it will be given one year or not, before Feb. 10.
I already got a e-mail from one of my supplier telling me that the SPCIA has been pospned one year. Looks like they know it all..
Guess they got the news from LATimes: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fi-consumer-lead31-2009jan31,0,7179159.story

What is the press doing here? It seams like nobody around me know about it unless I told them!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11497
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More bad news. Recall the [url=//fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=24483#24483]NAM petition requesting an emergency stay[/url] of six months? It was voted down today. Two to zero.
Quote:
Subject: FW: Denial of NAM Petition for Stay

Good afternoon again. The Commission voted 2 to 0 this afternoon to deny the National Association of Manufacturers' request that the agency promulgate an emergency rule staying the effective date for the lead substrate provisions of the CPSIA for 165 days or until 90 days after the Commission issues regulations implementing those requirements. No information is yet available on the rationale(s) for the denial. I will keep you informed as I obtain more information.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sarah R
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Moore and Nord Reply with quote

DeputyHeadmistress wrote:
I do find it interesting that Moore is a Clinton appointee, and so more likely to keep his job. His letter struck me as working toward that end.


I agree. Regardless of how Moore actually feels, he knows his best bet at keeping his job is to side with Congress. It's like a soap opera.
Back to top
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11497
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dillybopdesigns wrote:
Okay, Big Dogs, do tell, how do we interpret this in a non-kneejerk type of way? Smile (I got a little too excited about the stay last week...Smile

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09120.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bente
Renewing Member
Renewing Member


Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 281
Location: TX Houston

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anybody read the news from CPSC today?
This looks quite good to me. Any comments?
I posted the news as a comment on wednesdays "Six days until National Bankruptcy Day" if you don't want to go tired on the CPSC web site.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11497
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cross posted from [url=//fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=25294#25294]here[/url]:

Kathleen F. wrote:
There have been seven releases since thursday, all bearing discussion. The releases are:

CPSC Spells Out Enforcement Policy For New Lead Limits In Children’s Products Effective February 10, February 6, 2009

Record of Commission Action: Draft Statement of Commission's Enforcement Policy on Section 101 Lead Limits, February 6, 2009 (pdf)

Draft Statement of Commission Enforcement Policy on Section 101 Lead Limits, February 5, 2009 (pdf)

Record of Commission Action: Children’s Products Containing Lead; Exemption for Certain Electronic Devices; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule; and Interim Final Rule, February 6, 2009 (pdf)

Children’s Products Containing Lead; Exemptions for Certain Electronic Devices; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule and Children’s Products Containing Lead; Exemptions for Certain Electronic Devices; Interim Final Rule, February 5, 2009 (pdf)

Phthalates Ruling: Memorandum Opinion and Order in National Resources Defense Council v. US CPSC, February 5, 2009 (pdf)

Record of Commission Action: Request for Emergency Stay of Effective Date of CPSIA Section 101(a)(2), February 5, 2009 (pdf)

This is a big chunk; the stuff from thursday is kind of a downer but I do plan on summarizing these. I was complaining yesterday that the CPSC's propensity for releasing a flood of documents at the close of business on Friday gums up the works for quite a few people. I rather take my time and go through them well rather than commenting after a brief scan of the material.


Please, I'm asking your cooperation is restraining from making further comment on these releases in this thread. PLEASE go [url=//fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=25294#25294]here[/url] and comment so we don't have a multitude of threads going on the same topic. If you forget and come back here and don't find your comment, it's probably over there. Thanks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kathleen F.
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 11497
Location: NM Albuquerque

PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Starting another entry to trigger notification emails: My entry on what this means is up now. Please discuss it [url=//fashion-incubator.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=25299#25299]here[/url] (not in this thread please) or in comments on the blog. Here's a round up of suggested activities.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fashion-Incubator User Forum Forum Index -> CPSIA & Consumer Safety All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group