text:
Final Rule.
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), requires the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission, CPSC, or we) to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. These standards are to be "substantially the same as" applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. The Commission is issuing a safety standard for hand-held infant carriers in response to the direction under section 104(b) of the CPSIA. The rule would incorporate ASTM F2050-13a by reference, with one modification.
The rule will become effective on June 6, 2014. The incorporation by reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 6, 2014.
Julio Alvarado, Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; email: firstname.lastname@example.com.
The CPSIA (Pub. L. 110-314) was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant and toddler products. These standards are to be substantially the same as applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.
The term "durable infant or toddler product" is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years. Infant carriers are one of the products specifically identified in section 104(f)(2)(H) as a durable infant or toddler product. The Commission has identified four types of products that could fall within the infant carrier product category, including: Frame backpack carriers, soft infant and toddler carriers, slings, and hand-held infant carriers. This rule addresses hazards associated only with hand-held infant carriers. Hazards associated with other types of carriers would be addressed in separate rulemaking proceedings.
On December 10, 2012, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for hand-held infant carriers. 77 FR 73354. The NPR proposed to incorporate by reference the then current voluntary standard, ASTM F2050-12, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Hand-Held Infant Carriers, with certain modifications to strengthen the ASTM standard. One proposed modification provided for a change in the warning label to better address suffocation and restraint-related hazards. The other proposed modification addressed the testing procedures for the carry handle auto-locking requirement and specified using an aluminum cylinder as the surrogate for the occupant of the carrier rather than a CAMI Mark II 6-month infant dummy (CAMI dummy).
Since the Commission published the NPR, ASTM has revised ASTM F2050 twice. On July 1, 2013, ASTM approved an updated version of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2050-13, which includes the warning label modification proposed in the NPR. On September 1, 2013, ASTM approved another revision of the voluntary standard, ASTM F2050-13a, which includes a carry handle auto-locking performance requirement that is different than the requirement proposed in the NPR. As explained in section VII of this preamble, the Commission agrees with the auto-locking requirement in ASTM F2050-13a. The draft final rule incorporates by reference the most recent version of the ASTM standard, ASTM F2050-13a, with one modification—a clarification of the definition of "hand-held infant carrier," to include a specific reference to both "rigid-sided" and "semi-rigid-sided" products.
ASTM F2050-13a defines a "hand held infant carrier" as a "freestanding, rigid-sided product intended to carry an occupant whose torso is completely supported by the product to facilitate transportation by a caregiver by means of hand-holds or handles." The ASTM voluntary standard published in August 2012, for the first time referenced two types of hand-held infant carriers: Hand-held bassinets/cradles and hand-held carrier seats. The current ASTM voluntary standard defines "hand-held carrier seat" as a "hand-held infant carrier having a seat back that is intended to be in a reclined position (more than 10° from horizontal)," and "hand-held bassinet/cradle" is defined as "a freestanding product, with a rest/support surface to facilitate sleep (intended to be flat or up to 10° from horizontal), that sits directly on the floor, without legs or a stand, and has hand-holds or handle(s) intended to allow carrying an occupant whose torso is completely supported by the product." Hand-held carrier seats often are used as infant car seats, or as attachments to strollers or high chairs bases. Some of the requirements in F2050-13a are different for hand-held bassinets/cradles and hand-held infant carriers because the intended position of the occupant (lying supine vs. sitting reclined) and the product designs used to accommodate the occupant can create different hazards.
A Moses basket is a freestanding product with a rest/support surface to facilitate sleep and has hand-holds or handles intended to allow carrying an occupant. Some Moses baskets are rigid-sided, but most have semi rigid sides. In the NPR, the Commission sought comment on whether Moses baskets are or should be covered by this safety standard. The Commission also asked: (1) If Moses baskets should be included in this safety standard, does the present definition cover Moses baskets, and (2) if the present definition does not cover Moses baskets, how should the standard be amended to cover Moses baskets? The Commission received no comments in response to these questions and will clarify the definition of "hand-held infant carrier" in the rule to specify that the definition includes both "rigid-sided" and "semi-rigid-sided" products.
The preamble to the NPR summarized incident data involving bassinets and cradles reported to the Commission as of June 8, 2012. 77 FR 73354 (December 10, 2012). The NPR stated that, according to reports to the CPSC, 242 incidents involving hand-held infant carriers occurred between January 1, 2007 and June 7, 2012. Of the 242 incidents, there were 36 fatalities, 60 nonfatal injuries, and 146 incidents where no injury occurred or was reported. Staff attributed the majority of the fatalities to the improper use or nonuse of the carrier's restraint system.
CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis has updated this information to include hand-held infant carrier-related incident data reported to the Commission from June 8, 2012 through June 21, 2013. A search of the CPSC epidemiological databases showed that there were 10 new incidents related to hand-held infant carriers reported during this time frame. Seven of the 10 were fatal, and three were nonfatal. None of the nonfatal incidents involved injuries. All of the new incidents reportedly occurred in late 2011 and 2012. Reporting is ongoing, however, so the incident totals are subject to change.
Most of the more recently reported seven fatalities involved a product-related issue. The ages of the decedents ranged from one month to 15 months. Staff attributes the majority of the fatalities to the improper use or nonuse of the carrier's restraint system. The incident reports indicate the following circumstances in these fatalities:
There were three hand-held carrier-related nonfatal incidents reported to the Commission from June 8, 2012 through June 21, 2013. All of the incidents occurred in 2012; none of these involved an injury. Two of the incident reports stated that the carrier handle broke. The third report was a complaint about the poor quality and design of a Moses basket carrier.
Staff did not identify any new hazard patterns among the 10 incident reports that CPSC staff received since the Commission published the hand-held infant carrier NPR. In order of frequency of incident reports, staff grouped the hazard patterns of the incidents reported since the NPR into the following categories:
1. Restraint issues: Three of the incidents—all fatalities—were associated with the incorrect use or nonuse of the harness straps. In two of these fatal incidents, the decedent was not restrained in the carrier at all. The decedents were found later to have turned over to a prone position, face down on a soft surface. One death resulted when the infant was left in the seat with only the shoulder straps connected, but unrestrained at the crotch strap, which allowed the infant to slide forward in the seat, just enough to get caught at the throat by the chest clip and become strangled.
2. Handle problems: Two incident reports state that the handle broke. One of these incidents involved a product that was already recalled for handle problems. There were no injuries reported in these incidents.
3. Issues with carrier design: There was one fatality in this category, which resulted when the occupied carrier was left on a soft surface (i.e., a bed), tipped upside down, and trapped the infant. In addition, one noninjury report complained about the poor and unsafe design of a Moses basket carrier.
4. Hazardous environment: One fatality resulted from an infant becoming trapped in the hand-held carrier by other unsupervised children. Details of the manner in which the entrapment occurred were unavailable.
5. Other product-related issue: One fatality report indicated that misuse of the product may have contributed to the incident; however, not enough information was available for CPSC staff to identify conclusively the hazard pattern involved.
6. Other/unknown issue: One fatality was reported with an undetermined official cause of death. There was insufficient evidence of any product involvement or the presence of any hazardous external circumstances.
ASTM F2050, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Hand-Held Infant Carriers, establishes safety performance requirements, test methods, and labeling requirements to minimize the identified hazard patterns associated with the use of hand-held infant carriers. The voluntary standard for hand-held infant carriers was first approved and published in August 2000, as ASTM F2050-00, Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Hand-Held Infant Carriers. ASTM has revised the standard six times since then. ASTM F2050-13 was approved on July 1, 2013, and the current version, ASTM F2050-13a, was approved on September 1, 2013. The more significant requirements of ASTM F2050 include:
The voluntary standard also includes: (1) Torque and tension tests to prevent components from being removed; (2) requirements to prevent entrapment and cuts (minimum and maximum opening size, small parts, hazardous sharp edges or points, and edges that can scissor, shear, or pinch); (3) requirements for the permanency and adhesion of labels; and (4) requirements for instructional literature.
The NPR proposed to incorporate by reference ASTM F2050-12 as a consumer product safety standard, with two modifications:
1. Warning Label: The NPR proposed requiring a strangulation warning label to be affixed to the outer surface of the cushion or padding of a hand-held carrier seat in or adjacent to the area where the child's head would rest. Under the proposal, the warning label for hand-held carrier seats that are intended to be used as restraints in motor vehicles would include a pictogram, while the warning label for hand-held carrier seats not intended to be used as restraints in motor vehicles would not include the pictogram because these seats do not have the chest clips depicted in the pictogram.
2. Handle Auto-Lock Test: The NPR proposed a modification of the test method for preventing the carrier from rotating and spilling an unrestrained infant when a caregiver picks up the carrier and the handle is not locked in the carry position. The test method in ASTM F2050-12 required the tester to use a standard CAMI dummy as an infant surrogate. The NPR proposed a change that would require the tester to use an aluminum cylinder designed as a surrogate for a 6-month-old infant, in lieu of the CAMI dummy, because testing had revealed that the CAMI dummy could be wedged into the seat padding or otherwise manipulated, so that the CAMI dummy did not fall out during the lift test when the CAMI dummy otherwise should fall. Furthermore, the Commission was concerned that the ability to pass or fail the test based on friction or placement of the CAMI would affect the consistency and repeatability of the test results.
The NPR also asked for comments regarding whether Moses baskets should be included in this safety standard, and if so, whether we should revise the definition of "hand-held infant carrier" to cover Moses baskets.
ASTM approved the current voluntary standard for hand-held infant carriers, ASTM F2050-13a, on September 1, 2013. ASTM balloted the NPR's provisions concerning the warning label requirement in 2013, and the provisions are now included in the latest revision of the voluntary standard, ASTM 2050-13a.
Several comments received in response to the NPR suggested that the aluminum cylinder was not an appropriate surrogate for use in the handle auto-lock test and maintained that other surrogates, including the CAMI dummy, would produce more repeatable and consistent test results if properly placed in the carrier. After considering these comments and the results of additional testing performed since the Commission published the NPR, Commission staff determined that using the CAMI dummy, with certain modifications to the test procedure, would produce more repeatable and consistent test results. ASTM F2050-13a retains the use of the CAMI dummy as the surrogate occupant and clarifies how the dummy should be situated in the seat during testing. The revised requirement also:
The Commission received five comments on the NPR, including: one from a consumer's group (Consumers Union); one from the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA); and three from hand-held infant carrier manufacturers. The comments raised several issues, which resulted in ASTM changing the handle auto-lock test procedures and including guidance for the placement of the CAMI dummy in the seat during the handle-auto lock test in ASTM F2050-13a. Several commenters made general statements supporting the overall purpose of the proposed rule. All of the comments can be viewed at: www.regulations.gov, by searching under the docket number of the rulemaking, CPSC-2012-0068. Following is a summary of, and responses to, the comments.
Comment: Two commenters supported the proposal to use the aluminum cylinder surrogate instead of the CAMI dummy during the handle auto-locking test. The other three commenters opposed using the aluminum cylinder surrogate. Specific concerns with the cylinder included: (1) The cylinder is not the same shape as a child and can roll from side to side during testing; (2) the weight distribution and center of gravity of the cylinder are different for a child, and the cylinder can tip forward in an unrealistic manner during testing; and (3) testing with the cylinder can be dangerous because the cylinder can fall out of the carrier during testing and potentially injure a tester. The three commenters who raised concerns about using the cylinder as a surrogate in the handle auto-locking test preferred using the CAMI dummy as the surrogate for this test. One commenter suggested that whichever surrogate was specified, more detail be provided for placing the surrogate into the carrier before the lift test. One commenter suggested that CPSC should allow ASTM additional time to develop a test procedure that will provide more repeatable results.
Response: Since publication of the NPR, Commission staff has reviewed the comments, witnessed additional testing, and participated in discussions at ASTM hand-held infant carrier subcommittee and task group meetings. Based on this additional work, the Commission agrees with the three commenters who stated that using the cylinder during testing would produce unrepeatable results for some carriers. The Commission believes that most of the issues presented by use of the CAMI dummy can be addressed with clarifications and modifications to the ASTM test procedure set forth in ASTM F2050-12 so that the test produces more repeatable and reliable results. ASTM revised the requirement in the most recent version of F2050, and staff believes the revision, as now stated in ASTM F2050-13a, is adequate to address the hazards associated with unlocked carry handles. Therefore, the final rule does not does not require any changes to the carry handle auto-locking requirement but incorporates by reference the latest version of the standard, ASTM F2050-13a.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Commission strengthen the warning regarding the fall hazard to discourage more strongly caregivers placing the carrier on elevated surfaces. The language in ASTM F2050-12 (the version in effect at the time of the NPR) stated: "Fall Hazard: Child's movement can slide carrier. NEVER place carrier near edges of counter tops, tables, or other elevated surfaces."
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter that the fall hazard warning stated in ASTM F2050-12 was not sufficiently strong. Leaving hand-held carriers on elevated surfaces is a foreseeable behavior, and the warning language should highlight the importance of not leaving the carriers on elevated surfaces. ASTM F2050-13a revises this warning. The warning language in ASTM's `13a version is presented below:
188.8.131.52Fall Hazard: Child's activity can move carrier. Never place carrier on counter tops, tables, or any other elevated surfaces.
The Commission agrees with the change in the ASTM standard, and thus, no further modifications are necessary in response to this comment.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the requirement that the label be placed "in or adjacent to the area where the child's head would rest" does not specify sufficiently the proper placement of the label, and therefore, the label could be obscured when a child is in the seat. The commenter suggested requiring the label to be placed "adjacent to where the infant's head or torso would rest with or without the child installed in the seat." The commenter explained that this change would permit the caregiver to see the warning label at all times and allow the manufacturer the space and flexibility to place the label in a location that is effective, without impacting NHTSA's airbag warning label.
Response: The requirement in ASTM F2050-13a specifying the location for the warning label mirrors NHTSA's airbag warning label requirement. The Commission believes the warning label location requirement clearly describes the proper location of the label and further believes that adopting the commenter's suggestion may create confusion regarding the placement of the label and may reduce the warning's effectiveness if a manufacturer decides to locate the label toward the lower end of the infant carrier. The Commission agrees with the current language in ASTM F2050-13a and believes that the warning label is more likely to be seen if placed on the outer surface of the cushion or padding, in or adjacent to where child's head rests, and also believes that there is sufficient area in that part of the seat to accommodate both NHTSA's and ASTM's labels independently. Therefore, the Commission declines to make the change suggested by the commenter.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Commission look for feasible means to bolster the protection against the hazards posed by improper use of the harness restraint system, by requiring an alert mechanism that would clearly signal or indicate whether a harness restraint system is properly secured.
Response: Although alerting the user to the existence of improperly secured or unsecured harnesses would be beneficial, the Commission is uncertain how to accomplish this. Visual indicators are unlikely to get the attention of the user, and an auditory signal (similar to vehicle seat belt reminders) would require a power source that would energize the alert mechanism when the carrier is inside and outside of a vehicle. Adding a power source to the child restraint would require a redesign that may fall under NHTSA's jurisdiction.
Comment: One commenter supported the proposed six-month effective date. Another commenter requested an 18-month effective date, assuming that the final rule would reference the use of the cylinder as the surrogate for the carry handle auto-locking test. The commenter seeking an 18-month effective date expressed concern that requiring the cylinder might necessitate substantial design changes.
Response: Because the Commission has determined that the CAMI dummy will be used as a surrogate in the carry handle auto-locking test, the commenter's basis for requesting an 18-month effective date no longer exists. A six-month effective date should be sufficient for manufacturers of hand-held infant carriers to comply with the rule.
We did not receive any comments concerning Moses baskets. Despite the lack of comments, the Commission has determined that a revision to the definition of "hand-held infant carrier" is warranted to clarify that Moses baskets are subject to the standard. The final rule modifies the definition of "hand-held infant carrier" as follows (underline represents additional wording): "Hand-held infant carrier—a freestanding, rigid-or semi-rigid- sided product intended to carry an occupant whose torso is completely supported by the product to facilitate transportation by a caregiver by means of hand-holds or handles."
Consistent with section 104(b) of the CPSIA, this rule establishes new 16 CFR part 1225, "Safety Standard for Hand-Held Infant Carriers." The new part incorporates by reference the requirements for hand-held infant carriers in ASTM F2050-13a, with one modification to clarify that semi-rigid sided products, such as Moses baskets, are included in the scope of the rule. The following discussion describes the final rule, the changes, and the additions to the ASTM requirements.
The final rule states that part 1225 establishes a consumer product safety standard for hand-held infant carriers manufactured or imported on or after the date that is six months after the date of publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.
Section 1225.2(a) explains that, except as provided in § 1225.2(b), each hand-held infant carrier must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F2050-13a, "Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Hand-Held Infant Carriers," which is incorporated by reference. Section 1225.2(a) also provides information on how to obtain a copy of the ASTM standard or to inspect a copy of the standard at the CPSC. The Commission received no comments on this provision in the NPR, but the Commission is changing the language in the incorporation in the final rule to refer to ASTM F2050-13a, the current version of the ASTM standard.
The final rule modifies the definition of "hand-held infant carrier" to clarify that the definition includes products with semi rigid sides, as well as products that are rigid-sided. ASTM revised the hand-held infant carrier standard in 2012, to include a separate definition for "hand-held bassinets/cradles." A Moses basket meets the definition of a "hand-held bassinet" because a Moses basket is a freestanding product with a rest/support surface that is no more than 10° from horizontal, that sits directly on the floor, without legs or a stand, and has handles or hand-holds intended to allow carrying an occupant whose torso is completely supported by the product. However, because hand-held infant carriers (of which hand-held bassinets/cradles are a subset) are defined in part as "a rigid-sided product" and many Moses baskets have flexible sides, some manufacturers and importers may have interpreted the standard as excluding semi-rigid-sided products such as Moses baskets. Because Moses baskets meet the definition of "hand-held bassinet/cradle," and Moses baskets are not subject to any other durable children's product standard (specifically ASTM F2194-13, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Bassinets and Cradles), the Commission has determined that Moses baskets are within the scope of the rule. The modification of the definition of "hand-held infant carrier" to include semi rigid-sided products clarifies that Moses baskets are covered by the rule.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). To allow time for hand-held carriers to come into compliance, the final rule provides that the standard will become effective 6 months after publication in the Federal Register for products manufactured or imported after that date.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to consider the impact of rules on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA requires that agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when the agency promulgates a final rule, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final regulatory flexibility analysis must describe the impact of the rule on small entities and identify any alternatives that may reduce the impact. Specifically, the final regulatory analysis must contain:
The majority of hand-held infant carriers are produced and/or marketed by juvenile product manufacturers and distributors. A potential exception is the Moses basket, which is often marketed by bedding manufacturers and distributors. The Commission estimates that currently, there are at least 47 suppliers of hand-held infant carriers to the U.S. market. Fifteen are domestic manufacturers, 22 are domestic importers, and 1 is a domestic firm with an unknown supply source. In addition, eight foreign firms distribute products from outside of the United States (four manufacturers, two importers, one retailer, and one firm with an unknown supply source). One firm, about which the staff has little information, sells hand-held infant carriers through an online marketplace. An additional 24 domestic firms supply Moses basket bedding, along with Moses baskets. Staff does not know the source of the Moses baskets supplied by these 24 firms.
We expect that the products of 29 of the 47 hand-held infant carrier suppliers will be compliant with ASTM F2050-13a (7 are JPMA certified to F2050; 6 claim compliance with F2050; and 16 have ASTM-compliant strollers with hand-held infant carrier attachments). We do not believe that any of the Moses baskets currently on the market comply with the voluntary standard; however, the requirements that apply to Moses baskets involve slip resistance, adding warnings, and instructional literature. Staff believes that the majority of Moses baskets on the market would not require adjustments to meet the slip resistance requirement, and that adding warnings and instructional literature would not be costly.
The product ownership data available is limited to infant car seats, which represented nearly the entire hand-held infant carrier market prior to the publication of ASTM F2050-12, which expanded the scope of the standard to include hand-held bassinets and cradles. According to a 2005 survey conducted by the American Baby Group (2006 Baby Products Tracking Study), 68 percent of new mothers own infant car seats. Approximately 25 percent of infant car seats were handed down or purchased secondhand. Thus, about 75 percent of infant car seats were acquired new. This suggests annual sales of about 2.1 million infant car seats (.68 × .75 × 4 million births per year). (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, "Births: Final Data for 2010,"National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 61, Number 1 (August 28, 2012): Table I. Number of births in 2010 is rounded from 3,999,386.) These 2 million infant car seats represent the minimum number of units sold per year that might be affected by the hand-held infant carrier standard. We do not know how many Moses baskets and other bassinet/cradle-style carriers are sold annually.
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, section 104 of the CPSIA, requires the CPSC to promulgate a mandatory standard for hand-held infant carriers that is substantially the same as, or more stringent than, the voluntary standard. CPSC worked closely with ASTM to develop the new requirements and test procedures that have been added to the voluntary standard since 2010. These new requirements address several known hazard patterns and will help to reduce injuries and deaths in hand-held carriers, and they have resulted in the current voluntary standard, F2050-13a, upon which the rule is based.
The final rule modifies the definition of "hand-held infant carrier" in ASTM F2050-13a to clarify that the standard includes products with semi rigid sides, as well as products that are rigid-sided. This modification resulted from the Commission receiving no comments in response to the NPR's question whether Moses baskets should be included within the scope of this rule and the Commission's determination that Moses baskets (which typically have semi rigid as opposed to rigid sides) should be covered by the rule.
The final rule adopts the voluntary ASTM standard for hand-held infant carriers (ASTM F2050-13a), with a modification of the definition of "hand-held infant carrier," as discussed above. Some of the more significant requirements of the current voluntary standard for hand-held infant carriers are listed below:
The voluntary standard also includes: (1) Torque and tension tests to prevent components from being removed; (2) requirements for several hand-held infant carrier features to prevent entrapment and cuts (minimum and maximum opening size, coverage of exposed coil springs, small parts, hazardous sharp edges or points, smoothness of wood parts, and edges that can scissor, shear, or pinch); (3) marking and labeling requirements; (4) requirements for the permanency and adhesion of labels; (5) requirements for instructional literature; and (6) toy accessory requirements. ASTM F2050-13a includes no reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
The final rule does not alter ASTM F2050-13a, except to clarify that the definition of "hand-held infant carrier" includes products with semi rigid sides, as well as products that are rigid-sided. We do not expect this modification to the final rule to have a negative economic impact on firms because it is a clarification of the intended scope, rather than a change. In the 2012 version of the hand-held carrier standard (F2050-12), ASTM changed the standard to include a separate definition for "bassinet-style carriers," which may have been interpreted by some manufacturers to include Moses baskets. The Commission proposed the same scope in the NPR but requested comments on including Moses baskets. In the absence of comments, the Commission determined that Moses baskets were intended to and should be included in the scope and that the definition of a "hand-held infant carrier" should be modified to include "semi rigid-sided," as well as "rigid-sided" products, consistent with the scope's intent.
Two federal rules would interact with the hand-held infant carrier mandatory standard: (1) 16 CFR part 1107, Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification (1107 rule or testing rule); and (2) 16 CFR part 1112, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies (1112 rule).
The 1107 rule implementing sections 14(a)(2) and 14(i)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), as amended by the CPSIA, became effective on February 13, 2013. Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires every manufacturer of a children's product that is subject to a product safety rule to certify, based on third party testing, that the product complies with all applicable safety rules. Section 14(i)(2) of the CPSA requires the Commission to establish protocols and standards: (i) For ensuring that a children's product is tested periodically and when there has been a material change in the product; (ii) for the testing of representative samples to ensure continued compliance; (iii) for verifying that a product tested by a conformity assessment body complies with applicable safety rules; and (iv) for safeguarding against the exercise of undue influence on a conformity assessment body by a manufacturer or private labeler.
Because hand-held infant carriers will be subject to a mandatory children's product safety rule, the product will also be subject to the third party testing requirements of section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and the 1107 rule when the hand-held infant carrier mandatory standard and the notice of requirements (NORs) become effective.
The 1112 rule, which became effective on June 10, 2013, established requirements for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies to test for conformance with a children's product safety rule in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. The final rule also codified all of the NORs that the CPSC had published, to date. However, any new NORs require an amendment to this rule. Therefore, this rule amends 16 CFR part 1112 to establish the requirements for accepting the accreditation of a conformity assessment body to test for compliance with the hand-held infant carrier final rule.
There are at least 47 firms currently known to be marketing hand-held infant carriers in the United States, as well as 24 firms supplying Moses basket bedding and Moses baskets whose source is unknown. Under U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a manufacturer of hand-held infant carriers is small if the firm has 500 or fewer employees, and importers and wholesalers are considered small, if they have 100 or fewer employees. Based on these guidelines, about 50 of the firms known to be marketing hand-held infant carriers in the United States are small firms—10 domestic manufacturers, 17 domestic importers, 1 domestic firm with an unknown supply source, and 22 firms supplying Moses basket/bedding suppliers. There may also be additional small hand-held infant carrier suppliers operating in the U.S. market.
The expected impact on small manufacturers of the standard will differ based on whether the firm's hand-held infant carriers already comply with F2050-12. Firms whose hand-held infant carriers meet the requirements of F2050-12 are likely to continue to comply with the voluntary standard as ASTM publishes new versions of the ASTM standard. In addition, firms currently in compliance are likely to meet any new standard within six months after approval because six months is the established amount of time that JPMA allows for products in JPMA's certification program to shift to a new standard. Compliance with the voluntary standard in the six-month time frame is part of an established business practice. Additionally, modifying warning labels and updating instructional literature should not result in significant expenditures for most firms. As a result, the direct impact of the rule on manufacturers whose products are likely to meet the requirements of ASTM F2050-13a (eight of ten small domestic manufacturers) is not likely to be significant. One or more firms might have to modify their carry handles to continue to pass the auto-locking test, but staff believes that a complete product redesign should not be necessary. Thus, for manufacturers whose products are likely to meet the requirements of ASTM F2050-13a (eight of ten firms), staff estimates little or no incremental impact on the costs of producing hand-held infant carriers.
For either or both of the hand-held infant carrier suppliers staff believes do not comply with the current version of the voluntary standard, however, meeting ASTM F2050-13a's requirements could necessitate product redesign. A redesign would be minor if most of the changes involve adding straps and fasteners or using different mesh or fabric; but could be more significant if changes to the frame are required, including changes to the handles. Some firms have estimated product redesigns, including engineering time, prototype development, tooling, and other incidental costs, to cost approximately $500,000. Consequently, the final rule could potentially have a significant direct impact on small manufacturers whose products currently do not conform to the voluntary standard, depending on the scope of the redesign that ultimately is necessary. Where the products need not be completely redesigned, actual costs are likely to be lower than the $500,000 level.
Even though the hand-held infant carriers sold by two firms are neither certified as compliant, nor claim compliance with F2050-12, the products may, in fact, comply with the current standard. Staff has identified many such cases with other products. To the extent that some of these firms may supply compliant hand-held infant carriers and have developed a pattern of compliance with the voluntary standard, the direct impact of the standard will be less significant than described above.
In addition to the direct impact of the standard described above, the rule will have indirect impacts. These impacts are considered indirect because they do not arise directly as a consequence of the hand-held infant carrier rule's requirements. Nonetheless, they could be significant. Once the rule becomes final and the NOR is in effect, all manufacturers will be subject to the additional costs associated with the third party testing and certification requirements. These costs will include any physical and mechanical test requirements specified in the final rule; lead and phthalates testing is already required, and hence, related costs are not included here.
Based on durable nursery product industry input and confidential business information supplied for the development of the third party testing rule, testing to the ASTM voluntary standard could cost $500-$1,000 per model sample. Testing overseas could potentially reduce some testing costs, but such testing may not always be practical.
On average, each small domestic manufacturer supplies two different models of hand-held infant carriers to the U.S. market annually. Therefore, if third party testing were conducted every year on a single sample for each model, third party testing costs for each manufacturer would be about $1,000-$2,000 annually. Based on a review of firm revenues, the impact of third party testing to ASTM F2050-13a is unlikely to be significant if only one hand-held infant carrier sample per model is necessary to comply with the third party testing requirements. However, if more than one sample would be needed to meet the testing requirements, that third party testing costs potentially could have a significant impact on one or more of the small manufacturers.
As with manufacturers of compliant hand-held infant carriers, we do not believe that the eight small importers of hand-held infant carriers currently in compliance with F2050-12 will experience significant direct impacts as a result of the final rule. In the absence of regulation, these importing firms would likely continue to their established practice of complying with the voluntary standard as the standard evolves.
Importers of hand-held infant carriers would need to find an alternate supply source if their existing supplier does not comply with the requirements of the rule, which may be the case with all four small importers of hand-held infant carriers, whom we believe do not comply with F2050-12. Some of these importers could react to the rule by discontinuing the import of noncomplying hand-held infant carriers, possibly discontinuing the product line altogether. However, the impact of such a decision could be mitigated by replacing the noncompliant hand-held infant carriers with compliant hand-held infant carriers. Deciding to import an alternative product would be a reasonable and realistic way to offset any lost revenue. However, for some importers, switching suppliers might not be an option.
As is the case with manufacturers, all importers will be subject to third party testing and certification requirements, and consequently, importers will incur costs similar to those for manufacturers if their supplying foreign firm(s) does not perform third party testing. The resulting costs could have a significant impact on a few small importers who must perform the testing themselves, if more than one sample per model is required.
Staff also assessed the potential impact of the rule on firms that supply Moses baskets. There are 22 known small firms supplying Moses baskets to the U.S. market. Most of these firms also supply bedding; some of them manufacture the bedding, and others act as importers. Because a separate definition for "hand-held bassinets" was added to the standard relatively recently in 2012, and some manufacturers may be uncertain whether Moses baskets (a type of hand-held bassinet) are covered by the standard because they are not rigid-sided, Moses baskets currently on the market may not have been designed to comply with this standard.
Many Moses baskets on the market, however, might be able to comply with the standard with minimal modifications. For example, although Moses baskets would not be subject to most of the hand-held carrier standard's performance requirements, Moses baskets would likely have to meet the slip-resistance requirement. Because typical Moses baskets are fabricated from textured materials, we believe that these products likely would not require modifications to meet the slip-resistance requirement (that the product does not slip on surface 10 degrees from horizontal while facing forward, sideways, and to the rear). Therefore, the biggest changes might be to add warnings and instructional literature, actions that the staff expects would not be costly.
Alternatively, Moses basket suppliers could remove themselves from the scope of the final rule by eliminating the handles from their products. Because most Moses baskets come with warnings against carrying an infant in the basket, eliminating handles would conform to those instructions.
All Moses basket manufacturers within the scope of the rule will be subject to third party testing and certification requirements. Importers of Moses baskets could experience testing costs if their supplying firm does not perform third party testing. Because Moses baskets would not be subject to most of the mechanical tests in the standard, we expect that third party testing costs, at most, will be half the amount of other types of hand-held infant carriers, or approximately $250-$500 per model sample. Review of each firm's product line reveals that most firms use only one model of Moses basket for their bedding; although some firms have up to four variations of Moses baskets. The resulting costs are unlikely to have a significant impact on firms that must perform the testing themselves.
An alternative to the rule would be to set an effective date later than six months, which is generally considered sufficient time for suppliers to come into compliance with a rule. Setting a later effective date would allow suppliers additional time to develop compliant hand-held infant carriers and spread the associated costs over a longer period of time.
The Commission's regulations address whether we are required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. These regulations provide a categorical exclusion for certain CPSC actions that normally have "little or no potential for affecting the human environment." Among those actions are rules or safety standards for consumer products. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The rule falls within the categorical exclusion.
This rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR at 73363 through 73364) discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule and specifically requested comments on the accuracy of our estimates. Briefly, sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F2050-13a contain requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature. These requirements fall within the definition of "collection of information," as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).
In compliance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), we have submitted the information collection requirements of this rule to the OMB for review. OMB has assigned control number 3041-0158 to this information collection. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the information collection burden of this proposal. However, the final rule makes modifications regarding the information collection burden because the number of estimated suppliers subject to the information collection burden is now estimated to be 71 firms, rather than the 43 firms initially estimated in the proposed rule.
Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information is modified as follows:
Our estimates are based on the following:
Section 8.1 of ASTM F 2050-13a requires that the name of the manufacturer, distributor, or seller, and either the place of business (city, state, and mailing address, including zip code) or telephone number, or both, be marked clearly and legibly on each product and its retail package. Section 8.2 of ASTM F 2050-13a requires a code mark or other means that identifies the date (month and year, as a minimum) of manufacture.
There are 71 known entities supplying hand-held infant carriers to the U.S. market. All 71 firms are assumed to use labels already on both their products and their packaging, but they might need to modify existing labels. The estimated time required to make these modifications is about 1 hour per model. Each entity supplies an average of two different models of hand-held infant carriers; therefore, the estimated burden associated with labels is 1 hour per model × 71 entities × 2 models per entity = 142 hours. We estimate the hourly compensation for the time required to create and update labels is $27.44 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation," March 2013, Table 9, total compensation for all sales and office workers in goods-producing private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/). Therefore, the estimated annual cost to industry associated with the labeling requirements is $3,896.48 ($27.54 per hour × 142 hours = $3,896.48). There are no operating, maintenance, or capital costs associated with the collection of information.
Section 9.1 of ASTM F2050-12 requires the supply of instructions with the product. Hand-held infant carriers often require installation or assembly, and products sold without such information would not be as attractive to consumers as products supplying this information. Under the OMB's regulations (5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)), the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with a collection of information that would be incurred by persons in the "normal course of their activities" are excluded from a burden estimate, where an agency demonstrates that the disclosure activities required to comply are "usual and customary." Therefore, because we are unaware of hand-held infant carriers that generally require installation or some assembly but lack any instructions to the user about such installation or assembly, we estimate that there are no burden hours associated with section 9.1 of ASTM F 2050-12 because any burden associated with supplying instructions with hand-held infant carriers would be "usual and customary" and not within the definition of "burden" under the OMB's regulations.
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury, unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as "consumer product safety rules," thus implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when the rule becomes effective.
Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that children's products subject to a children's product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). For children's products, such certification must be based on tests on a sufficient number of samples by a third party conformity assessment body accredited by the Commission to test according to the applicable requirements. As discussed in section I of this preamble, section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA refers to standards issued under this section as "consumer product safety standards." Accordingly, a safety standard for hand-held infant carriers issued under section 104 of the CPSA is a consumer product safety rule that is subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA. Because hand-held infant carriers are children's products, they must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has been accepted by the CPSC. Notices of requirements (NORs) provide the criteria and process for our acceptance of accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies.
The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as part 1112). This rule became effective on June 10, 2013. Part 1112 establishes requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's product safety rule in accordance with Section14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 also codifies a list of all of the NORs that the CPSC had published at the time part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued after the Commission published part 1112, such as the hand-held infant carrier standard, require the Commission to amend part 1112. Accordingly, this rule amends part 1112 to include the hand-held infant carrier standard in the list with the other children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued NORs.
Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for hand-held infant carriers are required to meet the third party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in 16 CFR part 1112. When a laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1225, Safety Standard for Hand-Held Infant Carriers included in the scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.
In connection with the part 1112 rulemaking, CPSC staff conducted an analysis of the potential impacts on small entities of the rule establishing accreditation requirements, 78 FR 15836, 15855-58 (March 12, 2013), as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small laboratories because no requirements are imposed on laboratories that do not intend to provide third party testing services under section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. The only laboratories that are expected to provide such services are those that anticipate receiving sufficient revenue from providing the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision. Laboratories that do not expect to receive sufficient revenue from these services to justify accepting these requirements would not likely pursue accreditation for this purpose. Similarly, amending the part 1112 rule to include the NOR for the hand-held infant carrier standard would not have a significant adverse impact on small laboratories. Most of these laboratories will have already been accredited to test for conformance to other juvenile product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of adding the hand-held infant carrier standard to their scope of accreditation. As a consequence, the Commission certifies that the NOR for the hand-held infant carrier standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
To ease the transition to new third party testing requirements for hand-held infant carriers subject to the standard and to avoid a "bottlenecking" of products at laboratories at or near the effective date of required third party testing for hand-held infant carriers, the Commission, under certain circumstances, will accept certifications based on testing that occurred before the effective date for third party testing.
The Commission will accept retrospective testing for 16 CFR part 1225, safety standard for hand-held infant carriers, if the following conditions are met:
1.The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows:
Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063.
2.Amend § 1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(34) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(34) 16 CFR part 1225, Safety Standard for Hand-Held Infant Carriers.
3.Add part 1225 to read as follows:
Pub. L. 110-314, sec. 104, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008).
This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for hand-held infant carriers.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each hand-held infant carrier must comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F 2050-13a, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Hand-Held Infant Carriers, approved on September 1, 2013. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://www.astm.org. You may inspect a copy at the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone 301-504-7923, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(b) Instead of complying with section 3.1.3 of ASTM F2050-13a, comply with the following:
(1) 3.1.3 hand-held infant carrier, n—a freestanding, rigid- or semirigid-sided product intended to carry an occupant whose torso is completely supported by the product to facilitate transportation by a caregiver by means of hand-holds or handles.
(2) [Reserved]
Dated: December 2, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-29061 Filed 12-5-13; 8:45 am]
View Regulated Products and Related Regulations, Laws and Business Guidance
View Products Outside of CPSC's Jurisdiction
Download the Federal Register's PDF Notice
The link you selected is for a destination outside of the Federal Government. CPSC does not control this external site or its privacy policy and cannot attest to the accuracy of the information it contains. You may wish to review the privacy policy of the external site as its information collection practices may differ from ours. Linking to this external site does not constitute an endorsement of the site or the information it contains by CPSC or any of its employees.
Click Ok if you wish to continue to the website; otherwise, click Cancel to return to our site.


text:
Tampa Bay Rays vs Philadelphia Phillies
Time: 1:05 pm
Charlotte Sports Park – Port Charlotte, FL
Weather: 64, Clear
TV: No TV today, folks. Just MLB Radio.
Follow Phillies Nation on Twitter
John Lannan will take the hill today followed by Antonio Bastardo, Jeremy Horst, and Justin De Fratus. The Phils hitters will take on Matt Moore.
Some housekeeping items: the Phillies have released RHP Garrett Claypool, an 11th round pick from 2010, as first reported exclusively by our Jay Floyd. According to the Phillies, 2B Cesar Hernandez has been reassigned to the Lehigh Valley IronPigs, joining pitchers Tyler Cloyd, Ethan Martin, Jonathan Pettibone, B.J. Rosenberg, Mauricio Robles, and Joe Savery, catcher Sebastian Valle, and outfielder Tyson Gillies. Finally, the Phillies have finalized the assignment of Zach Collier, who will start the year with the Double-A Reading Fightin' Phils.
1. Revere – CF
2. Frandsen – 2B
3. Young – 3B
4. Brown – RF
5. Ruf – LF
6. Ruiz – C
7. Mayberry – 1B
8. Fields – DH
9. Galvis – SS
Go Phillies!
28 Comments
Awesome. Brownie bats cleanup against a challenging lefty. Thanks you, Charlie. My first half goal for DB is to play well enough to make the fans feel a responsibility to react to the late publicity push that would come to get him to the all-star game. Like Chooch last year. Dom gotta do his part, but he keeps earning the chance to do that with playing time. Just do it, number 9.
And if I'm not mistaken, the game is on Tampa television, available through MLB.com. By the time CS gets to follow another game in real time, it might be a warm day in Siberia.
Domonic is a lifetime .236 hitter. We should wait a while before we start wondering how we're going to get him into the All Star game.
Yes, we should wait, but he has also hit better through age 24 than any current Phillie, with the lone exception of Delmon Young. Using the comprehensive hitting stat wRC+, he has been a better hitter through age 24 than Rollins, Utley, M. Young, Revere, or any others with 150+ plate appearances. Howard only had 40 or so through age 24.
Young has gone downhill in the last two years since his age 24 season (Brown has hit better than him the last two years), so if Brown can continue improving after his age 24 season, like most players do, he should be in good shape.
I'm sorry that the ignorance of attaching to a lifetime batting average reflects your inability to reach for higher aspirations and recognize the sensibility of a very practical goal.
I'm even sorrier that you decided to go pronoun on me, and use the word "we" like I'd entertain the foolishness of your visionary inability to think outside the box.
I said it before, I'll say it again.
My first half goal for DB is to play well enough to make the fans feel a responsibility to react to the late publicity push that would come to get him to the all-star game. Like Chooch last year. Dom gotta do his part, but he keeps earning the chance to do that with playing time.
That's how we think around here. And how we'll always think.
You gotta have heavenly intervention to have a better 1st than Matt Moore just did. 7 pitches, 7 strikes, which for the mentally impaired, includes 3 1st pitch strikes, and 3 up 3 down. So Dom plays leadoff hitter when we go to the 2nd.
Meanwhile, with DeWayne Staats and TODD KALAS in the Ray telecast booth, both havig graduated from The University of Harry, it's too bad they'll probaby stick to the game, because the stories they could tell would no doubt be great.
Excellent Phillie defense in the first. Gloveman Galvis teams with Fransden for a double play on a John "That's My Game" Lannan induced double play grounder, then Freddy snares a liner off the bat of Longoria that took some alert reaction.
Good stuff.
30 some pitches for Moore in the 2nd, including Mayberry , about a 10 pitch at bat before striking out.
Good opportunity for Galvis now with 2 on, and a run in.
It's only spring, and the players are different, but that sort of inning makes me wonder if the Phils might have better plate discipline this year than expected. Actually, they have to since the expectations are so low.
Swung at 2-3 pretty outside the zone pitches from Moore, but took a lot of pitches, and sem to have shown decent plate discipline as we do a mental reconciliation of prior games.
I guess there's hope.
The question around here yesterday was who, aside from Brown has impressed. Altered, and maybe a lot would be based on the spring, aside from a coming out spring from Brown, what Phil is ready to surprise.
People talk about breakout ages, and 27-28 is often associated with the discussed person. Mayberry attracted that a couple years ago, Bennie Fresh did, Ruf gets it. And I'm wondering if John Lannan might not be a candidate to at least take it to a higher level. People have discussed KK, and how he might, but the 5 guy in the rotation has had a pretty solid spring.
He's certainly in a position to set the Rube bashers back a few steps. The team needs multiple guys to overachieve, but Lannan should be part of that discussion.
Mike Young doing a good job at 3rd today. 3-4 assists, including 1 nice play, catching what he's supposed to. Shoddy start first couple games, but he's had an adequate defensive spring.
Good job by Lannan today, giving way to DeFratus. 5 shut 'em out innings. Now the pen gets to work in a competitive game, noit a frequent spring occurence in the low scoring zone.
Couple weeks ago, someone asked about cool Phillie nicknames. Knock yourself out, courteosy Phils beat writer Chris Branch.
Onliest thing that's gonna defend Doc Halladay at this point is good pitching, starting as early as Sunday V Baltimore.
But for those looking to ease concerns, Dan Haren pitched for the Nats today, and had a miserable 1st inning, anchoring a poor outing V The Cardinals.
Hius post game reaction sounds awful familiar
"I felt like I was throwing a weighted ball," Haren said. No physical concerns, just didn't have anything. "I had slop out there."
It's premature to say Doc will be fine. It's not appropriate to overreact, either. We'll see how Sunday goes, but the Doc's last game, and I understand you could say its a trend, is not unique.
9th inning baseball. LET"S GET SOME RUNS!!!
Davey on Dan Haren: "I didn't need to see the radar gun. I could tell the way he was throwing.
I was ready to go hit."
The Fightless Phils go 1-2-3 in the 9th, and according to usual spring custom, it looks like kissing the sister is the best we can hope for. Somehow, that doesn't inspire much passion. I guess it depends who your sister is, or how kinky you like to get. One of the two. For the record, I got no problem with giving my caring sister a peck on the cheek. I might kiss a nun sort of sister, but those nun uniforms have always been about as inspiring as some of those old Astro uniforms.
Enjoyed your final comment, Ken.
This idea bandied about the site about working out a deal with the Diamondbacks the last couple weeks apparently is a discussion irrelavant to reality.
From Jordan Hall this morning at CSNPhilly.com
"As a Rule 5 selection, Inciarte's situation is tricky. He must make the Phillies' 25-man roster and if he doesn't, the Phillies are forced to place him on waivers. If another team doesn't pick him up, Inciarte is offered back to Arizona for $25,000. Only if the Diamondbacks do not take him back can the Phillies place him in the minors"
So my interpretation of the situation is 1 of 30 other clubs are bound to put in a claim, interrupting any deal between the Phils and Diamondbacks. And he's very appealing to a waiver claiming team not ony because of how he's played this spring, but being short on experience, and not acquiring him as a Rule 5, they can send him to higher than Class A for the first time in his pro career and allow him to further develop in timely fashion.
So as I see it, and I am very open to correction if I have misstated anything, he's a Phillie only if he makes the parent club. It's not impossible that winds up good. But it's fact that they will be playing a guy skipping a few minor league steps, and forced to cut a pretty average,but experienced player to accomodate that.
Youthful energy might actually be worth that, but I think it's keep him or lose him, period.
Am I wrong anyone?
I'm totally unfamiliar with Jordan Hall, but have no reason NOT to think he's credible. There's zero mention of an ability to trade for him. .
I'm asking around, doesn't seem right.
Early answers are telling me that Hall is correct, however very few teams claim these players because they then have to keep them on their 25 man, without having the benefit of seeing him play all spring. So usually these guys usually end up kept or offered back to the original team.
"…And he's very appealing to a waiver claiming team not only because of how he's played this spring, but being short on experience, and not acquiring him as a Rule 5, they can send him to higher than Class A for the first time in his pro career and allow him to further develop in timely fashion."
I'm pretty sure that the Rule 5 qualification sticks with the player for the entire season, so any team that would acquire Inciarte from the Phils, either through trade or waiver claim, could not send him to the minors for further seasoning this year. This doesn't mean that he would make it through waivers – a team like Houston might give him a roster spot – but it makes it more likely. Of course, like you, I may be wrong.
Well, first. I was making what I thought was a reasonable assumption that a waiver claim would be separate of the original Rule 5 pick. I wasn't speaking from knowledge, so unless we get certain confirmation that it is separate, it's reasonable to go with a claiming team having to claim him since we are getting otherwise feedback from hk's .
Fact is, we're talking about a player with limited experience, INCLUDING spring training, who
admittedly looks quite good in the areas of skill he offers. One thing that made little sense to me was the feedback Lefty got about clubs usually not claiming these guys because they haven't seen much of them, and the aforementioned having to keep them on the 25 man. I get the complexity of keeping the guy on the 25 man, but the not having seen them seems precarious. There aren't many personnel secrets in this day and age, and since scouts are definitely present throughout the Cactus and G'fruit, I'd assume the guy is a known commodity, and not that I'm speaking with insight, but I'd imagine he wouldn't get through waivers, despite the obstacles he offers with inexperience. Frankly, even with the limited time, but still seemingly good rep he's getting, I'd expect more than Houston to be interested in a claim. We'll see if he gets to waivers and that guess is tested.
I just found the following on baseball-reference.com. The final paragraph is the key one because, if correct, it implies that the Phils can trade a player to Arizona for Inciarte and then put Inciarte in the minors.
Any player drafted must remain on the drafting team's 25-man roster the entire first season he is with the drafting club (This rule also changed some time in the early 1980's. Previously the drafted player had to remain on the drafting team's roster for the first 90 days of the season).
At least 90 days of that first season must be maintained at "active status" (not on any disabled list). If a player cannot be active for 90 days in that first year due to a legitimate extended injury, whatever remains of the 90 day obligation MUST be met from the beginning of the following year, his 2nd season with the drafting club.
In order to be sent to the minors in that first year (or a 2nd season extension, due to a legitimate extended injury in the first year), the player drafted under Rule 5 must be offered back to the club from which he had been drafted for a $25,000 waiver fee. Should the team from which the draftee was taken via Rule 5 not accept him back, it is the same as releasing the drafted player from that team's interest, and the Rule 5 obligations of the drafting team cease upon that release.
Occasionally drafting teams will return another player in lieu of the waiver fee if they wish to keep the drafted player in their organization, but send him to the minor leagues during that first year's obligation. This effectively negates the Rule 5 draft by converting the acquisition of the Rule 5 eligible player into a trade, rather than continuing with the Rule 5 obligations of the drafting team.
It makes little sense to you that a club would just give a guaranteed spot for a full year on a 25 man roster to a player they have not even had in their camp? Based on scouting reports?
Oh well, it makes total sense to me, those 25 spots are too valuable to take a chance on wasting on a bad player.
e.g; Martinez, Michael- And they got to see him through the whole camp.
Okay, I digested the last paragraph. Lord knows what "occasionally" means, but I'll accept it, however it applies.
Seems we're back to the original contention that the Phis can deal with Arizona if they wish to keep Inciarte, so we're back to where we were when the idea of trading for him was first mentioned.
I guess at the end of the day, I'm left wondering how this waiver process applies where teams can "occasionally" deal directly, but that's more vent at the confusion of this incredible "occasiuonally" clause.
Tis what tis, I guess.
I believe I separated the two things. I get the complexity of keeping the guy on the roster, I just was not on board with the not seeing the guy part. Sure, it's not the same as having him in your own camp, but I think all clubs have a pretty fair idea of what is in the enemy's camp.
In other words,I wouldn't think Inciarte, or any prospect that pulls some eye opening play is any secret. Now how that positive impression translates to keeping a guy on the roster is indeed a trickier process.
I did a little research on rule 5 after Ken posed his thoughts, and also came up with a similar interpretation to the one hk cites, although I didn't find it on baseball reference so the wording was a little different.
From what I read, it does appear that a team can make a trade with the pick's original team which would remove the rule 5 status.
The questions then become would the Phils even want Inciarte, or be willing to give up what Arizona might ask for him, or do the Phils keep him as a rule 5 and dump a more experienced player from the 25 man roster? They kept Michael Martinez, even though there were probably better guys to keep around, so who knows?
I have not seen Inciarte play at all this Spring. From what you've seen and/or read, does his bat project for him to ever be a corner OF?
Simply want to say your article is as astonishing. The clearness in your post is simply spectacular and that i could think you're an expert in this subject. Govoni http://www.thestandard.co.zw/2012/12/23/being-stressed-as-damaging-as-smoking/

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I mean their system isn't designed to utilize a big off the low blocks. He does exactly what the system needs him to do, what our system needs someone to do, and he's one of the best at it.
Size, set screens
Intimidates, alters shots, blocks
Get put backs.
The dirty work. He's not really the focus of their system, but when he gets it going, he gets his regardless. What he lacks is grace and decision making. That usually comes with maturity.
Do you think our systems are similar? One thing I notice is our system really isn't desinged for any individual, but rather a team based system, where anyone can go off.
That to me can be good and bad. Because at times a player might be hot, or have a mismatch and it cantbe exploited. And two when (if) we get stars, they expect plays to be run for them. I really don't see that. I see the basic get Amare the ball at the elbow let him do soemthing, but not really the curls screens used for specific players. Its more of a ball movement team concept, wait for the open shot, and again if a certain player is on fire it seems the only way he can keep it up is running the same exact play. If we deviate then chances are another takes the shot.
Simmons put my thoughts on D12 pretty well (and better than I ever could, seeing as he is a pro writer):
I do think that Amare would be a good "share-er" in the system, he loves the spotlight, which is why he is in NY. But he wants Carmelo here. He wants a title, and I think he knows that to attain it we are going to add significant pieces (but not at the cost of losing all the assets we have). If anything, I think that most people will admit that if you are not in the D'Antoni-doghouse (see: Robinson, Nate and Hill, Jordan), he is the best players coach. Amare, Carmelo and whomever of the 3 Fields, Gallo, Chandler are left never (excuse the pun) will even SNIFF the doghouse. Say what you want about D'Antoni, he dealt with personalities and stars on Team USA, he knows how to deal with big-time players, something that not everyone (see: Brown, Mike and Spoelstra, Eric (early season)) can do. If we get Carmelo, I don't see many people being able to deal with star power as much as I think D'Antoni can.He's one of the best players in the league, but you'd never make the case that he's the best. He's one of the most valuable players in the league, but you'd never say he's most valuable. We don't take him for granted, and we don't think he's overrated. He's Dwight Howard: the best center since Shaq, a franchise player for a fringe contender, someone who's very very very very very very good but not quite great. And that's why he's properly rated.
Originally Posted by Knicksin60
If you remember he tried a 10 man rotation at the beginning of this season. Unfortunately he found he did not have the players to sustain it and win consistently.
In Phoenix he usually ran teams game to game w an 8-9 man rotation during the reg reason and in the playoffs. This, unequivocally, did not work--> =great reg season, deep playoff runs & no chip.
I think and hope Mike D has learned from his experience, as well as what he's seen work for his former assistant coach Gentry.
IME, if coach D'antoni gets enough solid players to implement a 10 man rotation during the reg season, he could keep his players sufficiently fresh enough to shorten his rotation in the playoffs w positive effect- ie ability for his players to sustain effort on the defensive end while continuing to flow and flourish w SSOL style.
We need to be able to be fresh enough come playoff time to run and give a good 48 effort on dfense. To do this expanding the rotation during the regular season is the key. In order to expand it w good effect we need players. We're only in the first phase at this point. This is the formula I see for our team w Mike D going forward.
And yes theoretically we'd have to field a better team than what Mike D had in Phoenix. But isn't that the direction we're going in? I mean, its not out of bounds to ask for the best playerz possible to run your system right? That's the expectation of any org/ coach. And if you think about it those teams Mike D had in Phoenix over achieved IMO. We NEED to fill out our roster.
Last edited by ronoranina; Feb 18, 2011 at 17:15.
Maybe if we overachieve this year, and go deep next year.
But like Lupica says the pressure is on coach to achieve and mounting the more "better" players we acquire.
And patience has never been our strong suit.
Seriously Hitman, I get you don't agree with the thread, won't I don't get is why take time to reply with nothing to say?smh.
You see, everyone always assumes hidden motives, but I tryuly wanted to facilitate this site, because I read the threads and noticed we go off course and don't stick on topic. I don't need a thread to defend my position on MDA because I already have.
Notice how we can NOW discus Melo in the trade thread, and anything else in another appropriate thread without getting into MDA. Here is for MDA.
When I want to hear from you, I'll create a KO's worst poster thread. K?
And kudos to you adults who stayed on topic and decreased the insults.
Black be the bigger person and discuss your stance. No one will care who was first. Unless you have nothing new, but you and I know it will be rehashed at some point.
Better now than never. Besides we got a whole week of Melo and no bb!
with the way the Knicks treated Ewing, I hope Pat does a Charles Oakley and tells Dwight Howard to stuff it in the Knicks face.
image courtesy amareisreal
Step 1. He gives old arguments beaten to death in other threads.
Step 2. I give rational responses, which inevitably are similar to or the same as the old responses because they are responding to the old arguments.
Step 3. Clyde does not read the post, consider the other side of the argument, calls me an idiot and tells me to find people who can explain it to me.
Not worth my time...on the other hand, if he wanted to discuss how he "only presents facts" in the other thread, I am happy to discuss, but he ran from that thread too.
Originally Posted by Knicksin60
Red, I completely agree with you, I think Mike D'Antoni gets way too much of a pass for the consistent lack of defense his teams traditionally display. Having a fast-paced offensive system is no excuse for the lack of defensive intensity the Knicks have demonstrated since he's been the head coach. Other Knicks coaches were lambasted for the same types of consistent mental lapses and lack of defensive intensity, why is D'Antoni given a pass by some? In the third year of his coaching regime I would have hoped to see more improvement in this area. I think offensively the team looks alot better with STAT anchoring the offense he obviously plays a huge role but I'll give D'Antoni credit for that much. But any Knick fan who seriously ever wants to contend for a championship should hope to see much better defense being played than what we've seen so far under this head coach.
You've been asking me the same question for two weeks. So show some intelligence and figure it out for yourself. I'll give you some options.
a) I feel I answered your question
b) I dont have an answer
c) You dont understand the point being made
d) You're an idiot
Choose one. Hell choose 2, 3 or all of the above just move on.
I notice you still haven't presented any dispute on TODAY'S topic. Cat got your tongue?


text:
|Chronic myeloid leukemia - Felis catus (domestic cat)
|Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) originates in a pluripotent hematopoetic stem cell of the bone marrow and is characterized by greatly increased numbers of granulocytes in the blood. Myeloid and other hematopoetic cell lineages are involved in the process of clonal proliferation and differentiation. On the cellular level, CML is associated with a specific chromosome abnormality, the t(9; 22) reciprocal translocation that forms the Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome. The Ph chromosome is the result of a molecular rearrangement between the c-ABL proto-oncogene on chromosome 9 and the BCR (breakpoint cluster region) gene on chromosome 22. The BCR/ABL fusion gene encodes p210 BCR/ABL, an oncoprotein, which, unlike the normal p145 c-Abl, has constitutive tyrosine kinase activity and is predominantly localized in the cytoplasm. While fusion of c-ABL and BCR is believed to be the primary cause of the chronic phase of CML, progression to blast crisis requires other molecular changes. Common secondary abnormalities include mutations in TP53, RB, and p16/INK4A, or overexpression of genes such as EVI1. Additional chromosome translocations are also observed,such as t(3;21)(q26;q22), which generates AML1-EVI1.


text:
Ruben A. Roca
Class Year:1962
Outstanding Alumni Award Winner 1997
Ruben Roca was born and raised in Cuba, then came to the United States in order to escape the political fallout from the rise of Castro. He represented Cuba in swimming at the 1959 Pan-American Games and the 1960 Olympic Games in Rome. At North Central, was a member of the legendary Cardinal men's swim team of the early 60s. He pursued graduate work in economics at American University in Washington, D.C., and then became vice president and director of retail strategies for the Rouse Company of Columbia, Md.—best known for its high-profile city projects like Faneuil Hall in Boston and South Street Seaport in Manhattan. He edited and coordinated the publication and preparation of an International Council of Shopping Centers book titled Market Research for Shopping Centers, which was published in 1980. Today, Roca is retired from Rouse Company and has developed Roca Real Estate Advisors, which provides advisory services to corporate entities in Spain and other European countries. He also assists European retailers entering the U.S. market.


text:
Business & Government
Fleet Tracking
Retail Loss Prevention
Law Enforcement
Employee Monitoring
Local Partners
Dealers & Integrators
Private GPS License
0 items
Your shopping cart is empty.
My Account
Order Status
GPS Tracking
MORzA Video
MORzA Home Security
Tech Support
Customer Service
Order Tracking
Activate GPS Device
Update Subscription Billing
Knowledge Base
How to Videos
Email Support
Shipping Policy
(800) 654-7966
GPS Trackers
Hidden Cameras
Security Cameras
Counter Surveillance
Alarm Systems
New Arrivals
Business & Government
Home Automation
Employee Monitoring
Spy Gear
Electronic Locks
Child Safety
Audio Surveillance
Elder Care/Special Needs
Emergency Survival Gear
Scopes & Optics
Self Defense
GPS Trackers
Shop by Need
Best GPS Trackers
Personal Tracking
Vehicle Tracking
Asset Tracking
Fleet Tracking
GPS for Business
Shop by Type
Real Time GPS Trackers
GPS Data Loggers
Accessories - GPS
How to Choose a GPS Tracker
How Does GPS Tracking Work?
GPS Tracking Laws Explained
Your GPS Tracker and Cellular Service
Benefits of Asset Tracking
GPS Trackers & Teen Driving
GPS Tracking Apps vs GPS Trackers
GPS Trackers For Kids
Hidden Cameras
Most Popular
Best Hidden Cameras
Nanny Cams
Internet Hidden Cameras
Camscura Hidden Cams
WiFi Hidden Cams by SleuthGear
Zone Shield WiFi Hidden Cameras
Xtreme Life WiFi Hidden Cameras
Shop For:
Indoor Cameras
Outdoor Cameras
Bodyworn Cameras
Hidden Camera Loss Prevention Kits
Accessories - Hidden Cameras
Top Learning
How to Choose a Hidden Camera
How to Make a Hidden Camera
Hidden Camera Reviews
How Smoke Detector Cameras Work
Security Cameras
Most Popular
Best Security Cameras
MORzA Video Monitoring
Multi-Camera Kits
Pro CCTV
IP Cameras
Shop For:
Home Security Cameras
Business Surveillance
Car Cameras
Accessories - Video Surveillance
How to Choose a Video Camera
Internet Cameras Explained
CCTV Systems Primer
Counter Surveillance
Best Counter Surveillance
Camera Detectors
Bug Detectors
Cell Phone Detectors
GPS Detectors
Audio Jammers
Home Counter Surveillance
Business Counter Surveillance
Government Counter Surveillance
About Wiretaps and Bugs
Counter Surveillance Explained
Choosing Counter Surveillance
Alarm Systems
Most Popular
Home Security Systems
Home Automation
Business Alarms
Alarms for Apartments
Choosing Home Security Systems
How Wireless Alarms Work
What If Your Alarm Sounds?
New Arrivals
The Latest and Greatest in Security & Surveillance
Our Best Deals of the Season on Customer Favorites
Hidden Cameras
Wireless Hidden Cameras
WindTunnel Wireless Camera
WindTunnel Wireless Camera
Record Activity in Your Office or Home Discreetly
View hidden camera footage with this easy to use tower fan camera. Features a fully functional tower fan that won't draw any unwanted attention to itself.
Read Reviews
Write Review
Quiet, Lightweight, and Covert
Wireless Real-time Viewing
Choose High Res Black & White or Color
WindTunnel Wireless Camera
Item: WIND-TUNNEL
$279.95 - $299.95
Out of Stock
Discontinued - Call for Alternative
The tower fan hidden camera is ideal for most locations in your home. The fully-functioning space-saver tower fan hidden camera was designed for quiet performance. The fan's wireless 2.4 GHz receiver allows you to view video in real time, or connect the device to a DVR to review video at your convenience.
Since the fan rotates back and forth to circulate air more efficiently, the camera also pans left and right for added range of viewing. The fan's three speeds allow you to choose just how quickly you want the camera to pan, and the safety grill protects your children's fingers from the fan's innards.
Image Sensor: 1/4" CCD (color)
380 Lines (color)
1 Lux (color)
Lens: 3.7mm Wide Angle
Power Required: 12 Volts
Dimensions: 12.25" x 4.9" x 5.4"
1 2.4GHZ Wireless Color Wind Tunnel Camera
1 2.4 GHz Receiver
All Necessary Power Supplies
1 Battery Pack
In the Box
Sign-up now for exclusive discounts and news
Connect with us:
About Us
Our Mission
Our Guarantee
Media Relations
NYC Showroom
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Customer Service
Customer Service
Order Status
Contact Us
En Espanol
Shipping Info
Site Map
Product Support
Tech Support
Knowledge Base
How to Videos
GPS Login
Fleet Tracking
BrickHouse Blog
BrickHouse Security Reviews
Like Us on Facebook
Follow Us on Twitter
Affiliate Programs
Call us to inquire about volume pricing discounts 800-654-7966


text:
Thanks for giving!
November 21, 2012 —
"Charity begins at home," Thomas Fuller wrote, "but should not end there." With Thanksgiving upon us, it's time once again to take stock and give thanks, which is easy (for me, anyhow) to lose sight of in the workaday world of bills, stress and everyday worries that sometimes seem insurmountable. As school children, we are taught that the first Thanksgiving began with the Pilgrims stepping off Plymouth Rock, but a bit of research (www.wikianswers.com) informs us that this is a "hotly debated" topic and goes on to say, "It is believed that the first 'Day of Thanksgiving' actually occurred before the arrival of the Pilgrims. This festival was completely religious in nature and did not involve any feasting." (OMG!) And it did not involve Plymouth Rock. "On 4 December, 1619, a group of settlers from England arrived at Berkeley Plantation on the James River, now known as Charles City, Virginia. This group dedicated this day of their arrival as a Day of Thanksgiving to God." Hmmm.
It would seem that my own family traditions, including homemade chopped liver and chocolate cream pie, are a bit of a stretch (if Wiki's answer is to be believed), but thanks, nonetheless, are in order. To that end, I look to the community-at-large for ways that I can give back, and from my vantage point, the food-fest propels. Just before diving into the charity pool, I received an invitation to take part in the first Sullivan County "Tweet-up" held last week in Bethel, NY ( www.catskilldistillingcompany.com ), and (having no clue what a "tweet-up" is) my interest was piqued. Co-sponsored by Green Door Magazine's Akira Ohiso (www.greendoormag.com) and Large Media's David Binkowski (www.davidbinkowski.com), the event was designed primarily to bring people together.
"When it started out, a tweet-up was simply a small group using the new [Twitter] technology," Binkowski explained, "and presently, we are launching a local chapter here in the Catskills to give residents and weekend visitors an opportunity to participate. For city dwellers, who call the Upper Delaware Valley their 'second home,' we want them to understand that this region is on the cutting edge of technology as well, and that their attachment to social networking reaches beyond the city limits."


text:
Premier® 12
400 Watts Nominal Power
4-Ohm Single Voice Coil (C) or Dual Voice Coil (DVC)
Recommended Enclosure Use: 0.85 ~ 1.75 Cubic Feet
Suggested Price: $120.00
These two powerhouse subs feature an all-new design, with cone reinforcement arcs and an inverted dustcap, for improved cone rigidity. Each has 1,000 watts max. power, up from 800 watts last year. For extraordinary performance, the cones are made of Pioneer's IMPP with aramid fiber, and we've used a dual mass magnet assembly for higher magnetic force — and more power. The wire terminals are spring-loaded and can take up to 8-gauge wire. The TS-W126DVC is the dual voice coil version of this model.
IMPP with aramid fiber Cone
Pioneer is the world's largest car speaker manufacturer, and our work in advanced materials and manufacturing processes has led to major breakthroughs in mobile audio. One of these was IMPP (Injection-Molded Polypropylene), which allowed cones to be lighter AND more rigid. Now we've combined this with Aramid fiber, a material used in the manufacture of bulletproof products. This combination produces a cone that's incredibly strong, very light, and very rigid. In other words, it's perfect for a high-performance subwoofer.
3-Layer Radial Surround
A sub's surround plays a key role in its overall performance. In order for bass response to be clear and tight, the surround has to respond evenly around its entire circumference without flexing or puckering, even at high volume levels. That's why Pioneer created a surround consisting of two layers of urethane, with a layer of interwoven fiber between them. It's strong, stable, and it reduces distortion.
Dual Mass Magnet with Magnet Cover
It's simple, really. Follow us here: to accurately drive and control its voice coil, a speaker needs a magnet and a pole yoke, to create magnetic force. The bigger or denser the magnet, the greater the magnetic force. The greater the magnetic force, the greater the power and control that's exerted over the voice coil. To make this happen in a big way, we use a Dual Mass Magnet assembly (weighing in at 83oz.) to significantly increase the magnetic force. SO, you get bigger and more accurate music. And yes, we even included a magnet cover.
Aluminum Voice Coil
Aluminum happens to be an excellent material for use in voice coils. It conducts heat so the voice coil can cool. And its light weight allows the voice coil to do its work — creating a magnetic field — as efficiently as possible.
Spring-Compression Binding Posts
Why do we use Spring-Compression Binding Posts, instead of standard speaker wire terminals? So your speaker wire NEVER shakes loose due to vibration (either from the road or from your music). When you insert the wire, the connector keeps a constant pressure on it. And it won't let go. These binding posts will accept wire as large as 8-gauge.
Dual Voice Coil (TS-W126DVC only)
TS-W126DVC provides two voice coils, each at 4 ohms. This design offers you the flexibility of turning the TS-W126DVC into either a 2-ohm sub (voice coils connected in parallel) or an 8-ohm sub (connected in a series). So you can use a low-impedance amp to produce much bigger, much more powerful bass. More options, more power: that's what DVC is all about.


text:
Malek: Live within meansMay 06,2013
Families do it. Businesses do it. Government needs to do it.
The Central Vermont Chamber of Commerce asks the Vermont Legislature to live within budgets that grow no more than adjusting for inflation.
That was the Cliff Notes version of lengthy discussions about taxes in committee and before the full board.
Legislators are debating whether its better to further tax the rich or tax everyones soda. Board members had little interest in debating which taxes were least onerous. They identified the culprits as too much spending and too little cutting.
When a great new program comes along, a fabulous opportunity arises, a tremendous need emerges, the Chamber suggests cutting a tired old program, trimming a lesser need, and carrying on without new revenues.
It was noted, however, that tax policy has predictable implications: to reduce demand for something, tax it; to increase demand, subsidize it.
Several directors pointed out that these statements are just as true relative to wealthy residents and employers as they are to sugary drinks and cigarettes. Legislators contend that raising taxes on tobacco products and soft drinks will reduce consumption, but they often dont apply the same rules to business and income taxes.
The fact is that employers and high-earners can, and do, consider the cost of doing business and the cost of living in the Green Mountains on a regular basis. With increases in property taxes, fuel taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes all in various stages of consideration, business owners are nervous, and additional pressures loom as health care reform moves forward.
Area businesses have struggled to succeed through years of economic challenge.
They look forward to legislators holding the line on spending and taxes so they have a chance to participate in recovery.
George Malek is executive director of the Central Vermon Chamber of Commerce.MORE IN LettersA sixth-offense DUI gets plead down to a misdemeanor. A breathalyzer is refused. Full StoryBurr Morses recollection (Whats good for the goose, Nov. Full StoryMSNBC news analyst Rachel Maddows report on the election of Republican Rutherford B. Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed


text:
Classical Stretch: The Esmonde Technique
Weight Loss: Full Body Workout (All Standing)Series Website »
Episode Guide »
CLASSICAL STRETCH: THE ESMONDE TECHNIQUE focuses on overall wellness and physical fitness. This series, hosted by Miranda Esmonde-White, features a graceful, fluid and controlled method of stretching the entire body. It combines yoga, tai chi, Pilates and ballet techniques, plus specific movements and stretches that reach muscles and ligaments not normally targeted in the average fitness program. The movements, designed in consultation with a physician and a physiotherapist, are simple, safe, effective and appropriate for all ages and fitness levels.
CommentsShare your thoughts, questions, and comments on "Classical Stretch: The Esmonde Technique" here.
Vermont PBS educates, informs, entertains and inspires Vermonters to be lifelong learners and engaged in their community.
Join our Vermont PBS Kids' Club!
PBS Kids - many videos and games for children!
Educator Resources - for teachers and parents.
PBS Parents - your child's first, best teacher.
Our weekly email newsletter highlighting upcoming shows and important station news. Sign up today!


text:
Remember Me
Forgot your password?
Become a CBA Member
11/17/2016CBA Nominating Committee Looking to Fill Officer Positions
11/4/2016Associate Justice Peter. T. Zarella Retires
11/4/2016Legislative Update: November 4, 2016
12/12/2016Joint Meeting: House of Delegates and Board of Governors (CBG161212)
12/12/2016Commercial Law & Bankruptcy Section and Turnaround Management Association Holiday Party (SCB161212)
12/13/2016Elder Law Section Meeting (SEL161213)
12/13/2016Business Law Section Meeting (SBL161213)
12/13/2016Family Law Holiday Party (SFL161213)
Litigation Section meeting. Location TBD.
30 Bank Street
New Britain, CT 06050
Directions to the CBA
Phone: (860)223-4400
Fax: (860)223-4488
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Wurtsboro Man Sentenced to 17 years in Prison in Sexual Assault of Children
November 9, 2012 —
District Attorney Jim Farrell announced today that Herbert Ploschke, 68, of Wurtsboro, N.Y. was sentenced in Sullivan County Court to a total of 17 years in state prison and 10 years of post release supervision for the rape and sexual abuse of two minor girls by County Judge Michael McGuire.
Ploschke pled guilty to two counts of Rape in the 2nd Degree and one count of Criminal Sexual Act in the 2nd Degree, all class D violent felonies, for the abuse of a 13 year old child and also pled guilty to Sexual Abuse in the 2nd Degree, a class A misdemeanor, for having sexual contact with another 11 year old child. Ploschke was also charged in Orange County with abusing the same children and pled guilty to those charges, as well, and is pending sentencing later this month. He is expected to receive a concurrent sentence in that case.
Farrell said that Plotschke was arrested after a joint investigation by the Orange County Child Abuse Unit and the Sullivan County Family Violence Response Team. "The investigation here was thorough and professional and the result is that a child predator has been removed from our community for a lengthy period of time where he cannot harm any other children. The Sullivan County Family Violence Response Team has worked very hard to protect our children and will continue to do so.", Farrell said. A permanent order of protection was also issued for the children and Ploschke was ordered to register as a sex offender.