Top 7 Chairs for Office Visitors image The majority of offices receive many visitors on a daily basis, ranging from current clients to prospective ones, as well as suppliers and other business partners. Since these visitors want to feel as... Read More about Top 7 Chairs for Office Visitors Firm's Recall Hotline: (800) 283-7674 WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Name of Product: Office Max Task Chairs Importer: OfficeMax Inc., of Naperville, Ill. Hazard: The back and the base post of the chair can break while in use, posing a fall hazard to consumers. Incidents/Injuries: OfficeMax has received about 35 reports of the chair backs or posts breaking, including 15 reports of injuries involving lacerations, muscle strains, contusions and concussions.

Description: The recall involves OfficeMax Task Chairs with model numbers OM182 and OM96614. The model number is located under the chair's seat on a white UPC label. The chairs are charcoal or dark charcoal in color and have black plastic arms and a rolling plastic and metal base. , in OfficeMax catalogs, and through direct commercial sales to businesses from September 2003 through July 2008 for between $40 and $65. Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and return them to any OfficeMax store for a full refund or a $55 gift card if the consumer does not have a receipt.WASHINGTON — A decade after emergency trailers meant to shelter Hurricane Katrina victims instead caused burning eyes, sore throats, and other more serious ailments, the Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of regulating the culprit: formaldehyde, a chemical that can be found in commonplace things like clothes and furniture. But an unusual assortment of players, including furniture makers, the Chinese government, Republicans from states with a large base of furniture manufacturing, and even some Democrats who championed early regulatory efforts, have questioned the EPA proposal.

The agency is now preparing to ease key testing requirements before it releases the landmark federal health standard. The EPA’s five-year effort to adopt a rule offers another example of how industry opposition can delay and hamper attempts by the government to issue regulations, even to control substances known to be harmful to human health. Formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, can also cause respiratory ailments like asthma, but the potential of long-term exposure to cause cancers like myeloid leukemia is less well understood.wheelchairs for sale hampshire Thank you for signing up!where to buy maclaren pushchair Sign up for more newsletters hereleather swivel chair crate and barrel

The EPA’s decision would be the first time the government has regulated formaldehyde inside most American homes. “The stakes are high for public health,” said Tom Neltner, senior adviser at the National Center for Healthy Housing. “What we can’t have here is an outcome that fails to confront the health threat we all know exists.” The proposal is not to ban formaldehyde — commonly used as an ingredient in wood glue in furniture and flooring — but to impose rules to prevent dangerous levels of the chemical’s vapors and set testing standards for products sold in the United States.table and chairs for sale inverness The debate has sharpened in the face of growing concern about the safety of formaldehyde-treated flooring imported from Asia, especially China.used chiavari chairs wholesale

What is certain is that a lot of money is at stake: US companies sell billions of dollars’ worth of wood products each year that contain formaldehyde, and some argue the proposed regulation would impose unfair costs and restrictions. Determined to block the agency’s rule as proposed, these industry players have turned to the White House, Congress, and top EPA officials, pressing them to roll back the testing requirements in particular, calling them redundant and too expensive.rocking chairs for sale dublin “There are potentially over a million manufacturing jobs that will be impacted if the proposed rule is finalized without changes,” wrote Bill Perdue, chief lobbyist at the American Home Furnishings Alliance, in one letter to the EPA.zig zag chair 3d model Industry opposition helped create an odd alignment of forces. table and chair rental midland mi

The White House moved to strike out key aspects of the proposal. Subsequent appeals for more changes were voiced by players as varied as Senators Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, and Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, as well as furniture industry lobbyists. Industry groups like the American Chemistry Council have repeatedly challenged the science linking formaldehyde to cancer, a position championed by David Vitter, Republican senator from Louisiana, who is a major recipient of chemical industry campaign contributions, and whom environmental groups have mockingly nicknamed “Senator Formaldehyde.”chair and table rentals bronx ny By 2010, public health advocates and some industry groups had secured bipartisan support in Congress for legislation that ordered the EPA to issue federal rules that largely mirrored California’s restrictions. At the time, concerns were rising over the growing number of lower-priced furniture imports from Asia that might include contaminated products, while also hurting sales of US-made products.

Maneuvering began almost immediately after the EPA prepared draft rules. ‘The stakes are high for public health. What we can’t have here is an outcome that fails to confront the health threat we all know exists.’ --Tom Neltner, National Center for Healthy Housing White House records show at least five meetings in mid-2012 with industry executives — kitchen cabinet makers, chemical manufacturers, furniture trade associations, and their lobbyists, like Brock R. Landry of the Venable law firm. These parties, along with Vitter’s office, appealed to top administration officials, asking them to roll back the EPA proposal. The White House Office of Management and Budget apparently agreed. After the White House review, the EPA “redlined” many of the estimates of the monetary benefits that would be gained by reductions in related health ailments, like asthma and fertility issues, documents reviewed by The New York Times show. As a result, the estimated benefit of the proposed rule dropped to $48 million a year, from as much as $278 million a year.

The much-reduced amount deeply weakened the agency’s justification for the sometimes costly new testing that would be required, a federal official involved in the effort said. Opponents in the furniture industry then targeted a provision that mandated new testing of laminated wood, a cheaper alternative to hardwood. (The California standard on which the law was based did not require such testing.) But EPA scientists had concluded that these laminate products posed a particular risk. They said that when thin layers of wood, also known as laminate or veneer, are added to furniture or flooring, the resulting product can generate dangerous levels of fumes from often-used formaldehyde-based glues. Industry executives turned every lever within reach to get the requirement removed. It would be particularly onerous, they argued, for small manufacturers that would have to repeatedly interrupt their work to do expensive new testing. The EPA estimated the expanded requirements for laminate products would cost the furniture industry tens of millions of dollars annually.

The industry said that the proposed rule would cost its 7,000 US manufacturing facilities more than $200 million each year. “A lot of people don’t seem to appreciate what a lot of these requirements do to a small operation,” said Dick Titus, executive vice president of the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association, whose members are predominantly small businesses. “A 10-person shop, for example, just really isn’t equipped to handle that type of thing.” Big industry players also weighed in. Executives from companies including La-Z-Boy, Hooker Furniture, and Ashley Furniture all flew to Washington for meetings with the offices of lawmakers including House Speaker John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, asking several of them to sign a letter prepared by the industry to press the EPA to back down, according to an industry report. Within weeks, two letters — using nearly identical language — were sent by House and Senate lawmakers to the EPA, with the industry group forwarding copies to the agency as well, and then posting them on its website.