I'm in no way an expert in the area, just thought this might help TX contractors avoid any potential headaches.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/feb/...r-sign-skyline/

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/feb/...raws-criticism/

Skimming though this draft it just appears "Expensive" for anyone wanting to adapt this. Special inspection this and that, all paid for by the building owner. Even in a bad economy I guess you can still push Guilt. I imagine their are government tax incentives to do so? With the way the things are now with such failed programs like "Cash for Clunkers", and soon others to follow suite under our existing government.

Let's all spend a lot up front,and get less back in return!

As I've said before "Green" just means the marketing of "Guilt", and made for you to "feel" good if you decide to follow through with it, IMO. A sucker (corp) rising everyday I suppose.

So anyway, thought I'd post the "not for public comment" draft proposed by the Green Mafiaoso for those interested (why do I feel like I'm wasting my time with this thread?). Sections 405, 503, 504, 609, 612 and 806.

IgCC_First_draft-v5.pdf

Not sure what any of this is worth to the ISA, the time, money, and energy that is, the reason for them to create a special committee. Why give it credit by participating?

IGCC, it just looks like a org looking to get funds and create jobs for themselves and their constituents. Well, there it is, I'll stop here.

http://www.kansascit...paper-over.html

Posted on Fri, Aug. 06, 2010

Did Congress really paper over American health care reform?

<h2 id="sub_headline" style="font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 20px; letter-spacing: -1px; margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; "></h2>By M. THERESA HUPP

Special to The StarIn March, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress had to pass health care reform so we could find out what's in it. Now we are finding out.

Buried in the voluminous bill is a provision that will increase paperwork for thousands of individual and corporate taxpayers, including me. This provision will supposedly reduce tax evasion.

Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amends Section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code to require businesses — the self-employed, for profit and nonprofit corporations, and governmental entities — to send Forms 1099-MISC to each vendor from which they buy goods valued at more than $600 annually, starting in 2012.

Before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Forms 1099 were required only for individuals and unincorporated businesses (not most corporations) that received more than $600/year "for services rendered." The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act broadens 1099 filings in two ways: The forms must be sent to corporations, and they will apply to goods as well as services. Debit and credit card payments are exempt, but card terms aren't always as favorable as cash or check.

In a news release dated July 7, the IRS said, "Beginning in 2012, all businesses, tax-exempt organizations, and federal, state and local government entities will be required to issue Forms 1099 to vendors from whom they purchase goods totaling $600 or more during a calendar year. …For example, if a self-employed individual makes numerous small purchases from an office supply store in a calendar year that total at least $600, the individual must issue a Form 1099 to the vendor and the IRS showing the exact amount of total purchases."

In other words, if your freelance business spends more than $600 during a year in supplies from OfficeMax, you have to send OfficeMax a 1099, and copy the IRS. If you have a small handyman business and buy more than $600/year in materials from Home Depot, you have to send Home Depot a 1099, and copy the IRS.

Of course, to send a 1099, you need each vendor's taxpayer identification number. If your supplier doesn't give you its identification number, you must deduct 28 percent of the purchase price and forward it to the IRS. How will that work at the cash register? "I'm sorry, Mr. Retail Clerk, I can only pay you 72 percent of the purchase price, unless you give me your employer's tax identification number."

I am an independent consultant and freelancer. Assuming my business continues into 2012, I will likely spend $600/year with two professional organizations and a few suppliers. How will health care be improved when I and thousands of other freelancers each send out several 1099s?

I am on the boards of several nonprofit organizations, each of which spends more than $600/year with many vendors. Their suppliers include national corporations and utility companies. Why should the limited resources of these non-profits be spent collecting taxpayer identification numbers so they can send these corporations 1099s?

I want to stop tax evasion as much as Congress does. Taxpayers who deduct business expenses should keep receipts to prove their claims.

If they can't, their deductions should be denied. But requiring small businesses to send large corporations Forms 1099 is not the way to stop tax evasion or to fund health care.

The IRS announced in Notice 2010-51 a public comment period until Sept. 29 on this expansion of Form 1099 filings. If the new law affects you, go tohttp://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=225029,00.html to learn how to submit a comment. And copy your congressional representatives. Ask them to repeal this aspect of the health care legislation, particularly if they voted for it in March, before we knew what was in the bill.

Neon bill passes committee hurdle

ISA Smart Brief

On Tuesday, an important Rhode Island state Senate committee voted in favor of SB 2179, a bill to make permanent the exemption of neon lamps from the state's mercury phase-down program. The Committee on Corporations unanimously approved state Sen. Frank DeVall's bill and sent it on to the full Senate for a vote, which should occur sometime over the next week. ISA members Bill Gavigan of the Northeast States Sign Association and Ray Dion of Dion Signs spoke in front of the committee in support of SB 2179, and ISA Director of Government Relations David Hickey answered questions from the committee about how these products are recycled and how they help small businesses have visible and attractive signs. If you have any questions about this issue, please contact David Hickey at david.hickey@signs.org.

ISA efforts improve a key requirement for the UL 48 Standard

ISA has successfully influenced the modification of a proposed requirement for the UL 48 Standard which otherwise would have presented a significant obstacle for electric-sign manufacturers.

At the UL 48 Standards Technical Panel meetings held on Feb. 23 and 24, ISA members serving on the panel raised objections because the proposed revision would have prohibited sign manufacturers from installing wiring inside flexible metal conduit prior to painting. In effect, therefore, this language would prohibit factory pre-wiring of many electric signs.

In response to objections by ISA panel members, however, UL has agreed to revise this requirement to incorporate the following conditions:

Flexible metal conduit may be painted under the following conditions, all of which must apply:

• All painted flexible metal conduit must be WITHIN the sign body.

• The flexible metal conduit must have been completely installed PRIOR to painting.

• Painted flexible metal conduit cannot be used as the sole grounding/bonding path in a sign.

Sometimes I don't understand U.L.

AB 370 (Eng)

Unlicensed contractors.

AB 370, as amended, Eng. Unlicensed contractors.

Existing law, the Contractors' State License Law, provides for the

licensure and regulation of contractors by the Contractors' State

License Board. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person to

engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor without

having a license and makes a first offense punishable by

imprisonment in the county jail for no more than 6 months, or by a

fine not exceeding $1,000, or both. Existing law requires a court to

impose upon a person who has been previously convicted of that

offense a fine of 20% of the price of the contract, as specified, or

$4,500, whichever is greater, and imprisonment in the county jail for

at least 90 days, except as specified. Existing law specifies that a

3rd or subsequent conviction is punishable by a fine of not less

than $4,500 nor more than the greater of $10,000 or 20% of the

contract price or by imprisonment in the county jail, as specified,

or both, and applies those penalty provisions to a person who is

named on a revoked license and is held responsible for the act or

omission resulting in the revocation. Existing law requires a court

to order a defendant convicted of a crime under those provisions, or

under provisions related to the offering or performance of repairs

caused by a natural disaster, to pay restitution to the victim, as

specified.

This bill would make a first conviction punishable by a fine not

exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment in a county jail for no more than

6 months, as specified, or both. The bill would require that the

fine for a 2nd conviction be the greater of 20% of the price

of the contract price , 20% of the aggregate

payments made to, or at the direction of, the unlicensed contractor,

or $5,000. In addition, the bill would require that a 3rd or

subsequent conviction be punishable by both a fine and imprisonment

in a county jail, as specified, and would require that the fine be no

less than $5,000 and no more than the greater of $10,000, 20% of the

price of the contract price , or 20%

of the aggregate payments made to, or at the direction of, the

unlicensed contractor. By requiring 3rd or subsequent convictions to

be punishable by imprisonment in a county jail, the bill would impose

a state-mandated local program. Under the provisions described

above, the bill would also provide that a person who used the

services of an unlicensed contractor is a victim of crime and

eligible for restitution for economic losses , regardless of

whether that person had knowledge that the contractor was unlicensed.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local

agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the

state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that

reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this

act for a specified reason.

By ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON and PAUL GLADER

Wall Street Journal

The financial crisis hasn't been kind to General Electric Co. Its stock has lost almost half its value, the government has stepped in to prop up its enormous financial arm, and sales have slumped in core industrial businesses.

But Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt now has his eye on a huge new pool of potential revenue: Uncle Sam's stimulus dollars. Mr. Immelt, a registered Republican, quips about the shift in thinking in the nation's corner offices: "We're all Democrats now."

GE has high hopes for the strategy. It says that over the next three years or so it could bring in as much as $192 billion from projects funded by governments around the globe, such as electric-grid modernization, renewable-energy generation and health-care technology upgrades.

The company is just starting to see a payoff. Last month, for example, President Barack Obama announced $3.4 billion in government-stimulus grants for power-grid projects. About one-third of the recipients are GE customers. GE expects them to use a good chunk of that money to buy its equipment.

The government has taken on a giant role in the U.S. economy over the past year, penetrating further into the private sector than anytime since the 1930s. Some companies are treating the government's growing reach -- and ample purse -- as a giant opportunity, and are tailoring their strategies accordingly. For GE, once a symbol of boom-time capitalism, the changed landscape has left it trawling for government dollars on four continents.

"The government has moved in next door, and it ain't leaving," Mr. Immelt said at the International Economic Forum of the Americas in Montreal in June. "You could fight it if you want, but society wants change. And government is not going away."

A close look at GE's campaign to harvest stimulus money shows Mr. Immelt to be its driving force. The 53-year-old executive supported the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, yet scored an invitation onto the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, led by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. Inside GE, he pushed his managers hard to devise plans for capturing government money.

As part of that effort, GE has promoted policy proposals such as a government-backed power-grid modernization, and pressed the government to increase the size of stimulus grants for that purpose. It also has helped customers design projects and apply for government money, with the expectation that those customers will then buy GE equipment.

The initiative comes as a sluggish global economy is weighing on GE's core industrial businesses. Pursuing government contracts has become a centerpiece of its strategy around the globe. The company estimates $2 trillion in global infrastructure spending will get under way in coming years. It has announced a flurry of energy deals with foreign governments from Iraq to China.

"I think we will do better than most on the stimulus," Mr. Immelt told analysts in April. He declined to elaborate on the effort for this article.

The strategy is not without risks, say two GE executives who have been critical of the plan. Government policy could change. Stimulus projects could roll out more slowly than GE expects and generate less revenue than forecast. GE could fail to win competitions to supply hardware and services to companies and public entities that receive stimulus dollars.

GE isn't in agreement with the Obama administration on some proposals. Its GE Capital financial unit, which contributed nearly half of its earnings in recent years, received government backing for its debt when the credit markets seized up last fall. Now GE is lobbying against proposals that would separate GE Capital or its industrial-loan company from the parent company. More regulation on its finance division seems inevitable. The company also is opposed to health-care proposals that would result in $40 billion in fees on health-care device makers such as GE.

GE, whose businesses range from washing machines and lights bulbs to aircraft engines, wind turbines and nuclear reactors, has long done business with the U.S. government.

Over the years, the company has been associated with Republican politics. President Ronald Reagan, voice of GE ads and host of the GE Theater television show from 1954 to 1962, said the views he encountered at GE helped transform him into a free-market conservative. Former CEO Jack Welch, who handpicked Mr. Immelt to succeed him, was a prominent supporter of several Republican presidential candidates. Nancy Dorn, the current head of GE's government-relations office in Washington, served in the administrations of Mr. Reagan and both Mr. Bushes.

Mr. Immelt's push to corral federal money began even before Mr. Obama took office. In December, with the economy in a skid, Mr. Immelt was under fire from shareholders. Advisers to Ecomagination, the company's green-technology-development initiative, gathered at GE's boardroom in midtown Manhattan. Among other things, the group discussed how an Obama stimulus plan might shape the nation's energy future.

Mr. Immelt concluded that the company needed to capitalize on the surge in government spending. According to two people present at the meeting, Mr. Immelt told the group that business people needed to support the Democrats' stimulus package.

By January, Mr. Immelt had become a leading corporate voice in favor of the $787 billion stimulus bill, supporting it in op-ed pieces and speeches. Reporters who called the Obama administration for information on renewable-energy provisions in the legislation were directed to GE.

As the bill worked its way through Congress, GE lobbyists pressed for grants, tax cuts or rebates aimed at businesses GE is engaged in, including provisions worth more than $80 billion for energy projects, appliances, health-care information systems and wind farms. GE would have to compete with rivals for a share of these grants.

When the stimulus package was rolled out, Mr. Immelt instructed executives leading the company's major business units "to put together swat teams to get stimulus money, and [identify] who to fire if they don't get the money," says a person who heard him issue the instructions.

In February, a few days after President Obama signed the stimulus plan, GE lawyers, lobbyists and executives crowded into a conference room at GE's Washington office to figure out how to parlay billions of dollars in spending provisions into GE contracts. Staffers from coal, renewable-energy, health-care and other business units broke into small groups to figure out "how to help companies" -- its customers, in particular -- "get those funds," according to one person who attended.

The group put together a colorful two-page fact sheet about how the stimulus plan works, then printed hundreds of copies for GE salespeople to distribute to customers, including local governments and power companies. The fact sheet said GE would be involved with setting national standards and energy-transmission policy. The sheet also said that GE could help regional utilities and governments win federal stimulus money earmarked for making the power grids more efficient.

Separately, Mr. Immelt got an invitation to serve on the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which would afford him access to the president's economic inner circle. The bipartisan board is composed of industrial, finance and union leaders, and Mr. Immelt has become one of the administration's advisers on jump-starting manufacturing and creating jobs.

"We think he is an important voice...we talk about energy being a place where America can produce jobs in the manufacturing space," says White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "He has those interests, and they match ours. But we didn't come to them because of him."

At the board's first public meeting in May, Mr. Immelt and fellow board member John Doerr, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist and prominent Democrat, led a discussion of the advantages to business of a proposal to make companies pay for greenhouse-gas emissions. The board voted to adopt that position.

"This was an early example of a group of business leaders willing to say that a clean-energy policy that put a price on carbon could create major opportunities for the economy if done right," says Austan Goolsbee, staff director and chief economist on the recovery board. A so-called cap-and-trade bill will likely not be considered by Congress until early next year.

One plank of the stimulus bill provides for energy grants for the development of "smart grids" -- sophisticated transmission systems in which power consumption and demand is carefully monitored to conserve energy. GE says it, along with others, urged the Department of Energy to increase its maximum energy grant 10-fold, to $200 million. Then GE helped some 100 customers, mostly power providers such as Florida Power & Light, to apply for money.

GE General Counsel Brackett Denniston III says the company frequently provides expertise to governments and clients, and that its assistance on government-grant applications does not ensure its clients will win the resulting contracts.

GE makes a wide array of equipment that its customers can use in conjunction with smart grids. GE sells appliances, for example, designed to make use of power at quiet times of day or night, when rates could be cheaper.

Of the 100 smart-grid grant recipients Mr. Obama announced last month, one-third were GE clients. GE declines to say what portion of the $3.4 billion in government money went to its customers. Its executives have told analysts that GE stands to reap up to $500 million in contracts from every smart-grid project built in a city with a population of more than one million.

GE has said that the state of Florida and partners plan to invest $800 million by 2014 to upgrade its power grid, and that the bulk of the equipment would come from GE. "If we can do this in Miami, we ought to be able to do this in 100 more large cities across the country," Steve Fludder, vice president of GE's Ecomagination green-technology initiative, told analysts at a conference in May.

GE has said that its goal is to increase its Ecomagination revenues to $25 billion by 2010, from $18 billion in 2008. Ecomagination products accounted for about 17% of revenues of GE's industrial businesses, Mr. Fludder said.

GE spent $7.55 million lobbying in the second quarter, a 34% increase from the year-earlier period and more than any other single company, according to federal data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

GE does not disclose how much revenue it has gleaned from the government stimulus program. So far, the returns appear to have been modest, relative to GE's $182.5 billion of revenue in 2008. Nine months after Mr. Obama signed the stimulus bill, about half the federal money has been allocated. Most of it went to initiatives like individual tax cuts and aid to states, which don't directly benefit GE's businesses.

Mr. Immelt said last month that GE won't see a bigger impact on its revenues from stimulus spending until the current quarter, at the earliest. "We have a couple billion dollars of orders already into it," he said. "That's not just the U.S. It's China and other countries."

The effort could be hampered if Congress or the administration, anxious about rising unemployment and a growing deficit, decides to cut back on stimulus programs or redirect money toward job-creating measures less beneficial to GE, such as employer-tax credits.

GE shares have rallied in November on signs that troubles in the company's finance unit could be easing. But some analysts question the company's projections for added revenue from stimulus projects.

"We remain very skeptical on the stimulus, overall," says Scott Davis, an analyst at Morgan Stanley. He says GE's estimates of what it could reap from the stimulus programs is "way too high." Mr. Davis and other analysts at Morgan Stanley say they expect only $30 billion of the stimulus plan's $275 billion infrastructure spending to flow this year.

Asked last month if its government-contracting estimates were too optimistic, Mr. Immelt replied: "We'll see. We'll keep the target out there."

Write to Elizabeth Williamson at elizabeth.williamson@wsj.com and Paul Glader at paul.glader@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A18

How GE's green lobbying is killing U.S. factory jobs

By: Timothy P. Carney

Examiner Columnist

August 28, 2009

WINCHESTER, VA--“Government did us in,” says Dwayne Madigan, whose job will terminate when General Electric closes its factory next July.

Madigan makes a product that will soon be illegal to sell in the U.S. - a regular incandescent bulb. Two years ago, his employer, GE, lobbied in favor of the law that will outlaw the bulbs.

Madigan’s colleagues, waiting for their evening shift to begin, all know that GE is replacing the incandescents for now with compact fluorescents bulbs, which GE manufactures in China.

Last month, GE announced it will close the Winchester Bulb Plant 80 miles west of D.C. As a result, 200 men and women will lose their jobs. GE is also shuttering incandescent factories in Ohio and Kentucky, axing another 200 jobs.

GE blamed environmental regulations for the closing. The first paragraph of the company’s July 23 press release explained:

“A variety of energy regulations that establish lighting efficiency standards are being implemented in the U.S. and other countries, in some cases this year, and will soon make the familiar lighting products produced at the Winchester Plant obsolete.”

The U.S. legislation in question was a provision in the 2007 energy bill that required all bulbs sold in the U.S.—beginning in 2012 for some wattages—to meet high efficiency standards.

Given the steady death of U.S. manufacturing, this factory was going to close sooner or later, anyway. Workers tell me they were happy when they heard in June that the factory was staying open at least through mid-2011—a plan GE abandoned the next month.

But the light bulb law is clearly the main driver in closing this factory. After all, the product they make here will be contraband by 2014.

“That was the nail in the coffin,” Madigan says.

These men, waiting in the shade in front of the employees’ entrance to the plant on a hot afternoon, all know another pertinent fact about the light-bulb law that is killing their jobs: GE lobbied in favor of it.

Why did GE, founded by Thomas Edison, support a bill that killed the traditional incandescent light bulb?

The company said in 2007 it wanted to make sure it was working under a single federal efficiency standard, rather than a patchwork of state regulations. GE also touts its compact fluorescents as one of the green products in its “eco-magination” initiative.

The workers don’t buy the green arguments, pointing to the mercury gas that’s in the fluorescents. “It’s illegal to dump mercury in the river, but not in the landfill,” two of them say in unison—it’s become a dark joke at the factory.

Robert Pifer, who will also be laid off in July if he doesn’t find a new job by then, has an explanation for GE’s support of the light-bulb law and its shift to the more expensive fluorescents. “Are they not just trying to force-feed people stuff they don’t want to buy?”

So, GE gets environmentalist brownie points for selling “clean” light bulbs, and they also get to charge more for their bulbs. But there’s another advantage—they save on labor with fluorescents, because they make the fluorescents in China.

Not only are wages lower there, but so are the regulatory burdens, both environmental and labor. The Times of London recently reported, “Large numbers of Chinese workers have been poisoned by mercury, which forms part of the compact fluorescent lightbulbs.”

CFLs, however, are probably not the light bulb of the future. Right before it started lobbying for a federal light bulb law, GE announced that it would start making high-efficiency incandescent by 2010. GE doesn’t say where it will manufacturer its high-efficiency incandescent bulb, but all signs suggest it won’t be here in Winchester.

GE spokesman Peter O’Toole responded by pointing out GE has relocated its manufacturing of Hybrid Electric Heat Pump Water Heaters to Kentucky, from China. They promise 400 new “green-collar” jobs, offsetting the loss of the light-bulb jobs—but not in Winchester.

I ask the men what they plan to do when the factory closes down. Some say they’ll retire. Others can only shrug their shoulders. Pifer says he’ll just have to take a job at less than half of what he currently makes.

“I live paycheck to paycheck,” Pifer tells me. He has a son, and he owns a house nearby, he says. “So what am I going to do when I’m earning $11 an hour?”

These men are the victims of the green revolution—a revolution their employer is leading.

On January 22nd, the City of Los Angeles proposed one of the most restrictive sign codes for a major metropolitan area ever witnessed by the industry.

This proposed sign code severely restricts sign sizes and height limits, bans new “digital” signs and eliminates the distinction between on-premise and off-premise signs.

According to the California Sign Association, no input was sought from the sign industry or end users when the Los Angeles City Planning Department drafted the proposed ordinance - a very undemocratic and biased process.

The proposed code will allow just 80 square feet (currently 400 sq. ft.) and a maximum height of 20 feet (currently 42 feet max.) for double-faced pole signs. Other types of signs have been similarly reduced in allowable sizes and heights. None of these size and height restrictions are based on scientific evidence or studies. The proposed changes also fail to take into account basic driver needs and factors such as legibility, conspicuity, setback and traffic speed/lanes. In fact, while the city claims that traffic safety is a justification for the new sign code, mandating smaller and shorter signs makes it more difficult for passing motorists to read signs, which will endanger drivers.

The proposed code also aims to ban all roof signs, wall signs higher than 35 feet, and all new “digital” signs – including the on-premise electronic message centers (EMCs) used by thousands of local businesses.

Furthermore, the proposed code seeks to eliminate the longstanding, historical distinction between on-premise and off-premise signs. These types of signs have traditionally been treated differently under the law and in sign codes for many valid and important reasons. If this distinction is eliminated, the ability of a business to site or erect an on-premise sign could be restricted by the presence of an existing off-premise sign.

This proposed sign code is an undisguised attack on the on-premise sign industry and the businesses that depend on them for their livelihood. Thousands of small businesses will be adversely affected if this sign code is passed. With our economy in a state of crisis, now is definitely NOT the time for the second largest city in the United States to take away the ability of local retailers and national franchises to effectively and inexpensively identify their business and advertise their goods and services!

COMcheck, a software tool developed by DOE, can be used to assist commercial building owners demonstrate compliance with building energy codes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has agreed that the software can be used to help determine eligibility for lighting tax credits by calculating the percentage reduction in a project's lighting power density (LPD) compared to a code building as defined by Standard 90.1-2001. This helps owners plan improvements and claim credit as these interim rules permit. Owners can qualify for a tax credit between 30 and 60 cents per square foot off the cost of purchasing an energy efficient lighting system. The full range of credits will be available when the IRS finishes its final rules. The COMcheck tool is available for download at

http://www.energycodes.gov/comcheck/ez_download.stm

a web-based version is also available.

Interesting development:

http://www.signs.org/Newsroom/ISABriefingd...ItemNumber=2853

gn

CaliforniaRoHSrules.pdf

Just curious

VERMONT BANS MERCURY-ADDED, NEON TUBES

On January 1, 2007, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

(VDEC) imposed a ban on the sale of various products that incorporate mercury. This

ban includes neon signs and tubes that contain mercury. Sign manufacturers and neon

shops may file the necessary compliance forms individually or collectively (sign

associations are eligible to file on behalf of their members). Please note the filing

requirements as follows:

1) Labeling requirement: Products that incorporate mercury must be properly

labeled. Download the necessary form: www.mercvt.org/label/forms.htm.

2) Notification requirement: Producers of mercury-added neon tubes must submit

formal notification to the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction

Clearinghouse (IMERC). Download the necessary form:

www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/notificationforms.cfm

3) Exemption: Using the process described below, producers may apply for

exemptions to this ban. But this does not relieve a producer of the obligation to

comply with labeling and notification requirements.

Exemption process:

*Applications for exemptions should be submitted as an original to the Vermont

Department of Environmental Conservation and a copy should be sent to IMERC.

*A manufacturer, manufacturer's agent, or an agent (who may be a user of a product)

may apply for an exemption.

*The exemption will be processed through a multi-state review conducted by

IMERC.

*Vermont will advise the manufacturer of either approval or denial of the request.

*The application for the exemption may be obtained on the IMERC webpage at:

www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/phaseoutforms.cfm

*Deadline for submitting applications for exemption is March 1, 2006; however,

Vermont will be accepting applications submitted (and must be approved) prior to

January 1, 2007.

*If a manufacturer has not applied for an exemption through the IMERC process and

has not received exemption approval prior to January 1, 2007, the mercury-added

products are banned from sale in the State of Vermont after January 1, 2007.

*If a manufacturer or their agent has already received approval from another state on

any exemption request that has handled through the IMERC exemption review

process, a copy of the approval documentation from another IMERC member state

should be forwarded to the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

with a request that this information also be considered for an exemption in

Vermont. Upon receipt, this exemption request will be reviewed and approval will

be considered in Vermont for the same duration. The Department will send a letter

to the manufacturer to advise if the request has been approved for the same

duration, or denied.

Page 2

*Note: The ban on sales of mercury-added products is effective January 1, 2007, but

producers may apply for exemptions after this date.

Requirements for other states: Labeling and notification requirements currently exist in

other states that do not currently ban the sale of neon signs and tubes. For information,

see: www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/plnotification.cfm

Information: VDEC Website (www.mercvt.org)

IMERC Website (www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc.cfm)

Questions: Contact Karen Knaebel at VDEC: (802) 241-3455 or

Karen.Knaebel@state.vt.us

December 23, 2006

CONCORD, N.H. --Businesses challenging the city's ban on electronic signs are getting help from a major sign manufacturer and an international trade association.

Carlson's Chrysler and Naser Jewelers are suing the city over an ordinance that initially limited the signs and then banned them entirely. Barlo Signs, a Hudson-based sign maker that earns about $12 million a year in revenue, helped Carlson's find a lawyer and provided money for legal fees, as has the International Sign Association.

A spokesman for the association, David Hickey, said the group got involved because the lawsuits could set a regional and national precedent for regulating electronic signs.

Until last spring, the city allowed electronic signs that displayed the time, temperature and date but prohibited all other messages. After a judge ruled that the ordinance violated the First Amendment because it limited the kind of speech displayed, the city voted to ban all electronic signs so it could have some time to come up with new regulations.

City officials have cited concerns about flashing or scrolling messages distracting drivers, though they acknowledge no traffic studies link the signs to accidents. Ham Rice, the city's code administrator, said he doesn't want the city to look like Exit 20 in Tilton.

"The signs become overpowering," he said. "I find it very distracting and difficult to see at night."

City manager Tom Aspell said the city has a right to determine what it will look like years from now.

"Does the community have a right to set its standards for what it wants to be, whether it's downtown or on Loudon Road or anything else?" he said.

Businesses say the city could regulate the signs without banning them altogether.

"To not allow someone to have the use of electronic signs is really living in the dark ages as far as how retail works now," said Holly Carlson, the car dealership's general manager. The dealership was allowed to install an electronic sign when it applied for one after the court repealed the ordinance and before officials approved the ban.

Don Reed, a spokesman for Barlo Signs, said adding an electric component to a sign can cost up to $50,000 but is one of the most inexpensive ways for a business to increase advertising. Businesses switching from a sign with letters that are changed manually have seen business increase by as much as 25 percent, he said.

------

Information from: Concord Monitor, http://www.cmonitor.com

established a year 2010 goal for the elimination of the use of Mercury in the state.

In other words, no more mercury filled neon lamps

This was an article posted by Mark earlier in the News Forum but thought I'd also past it here.

Posted By: B.O.P. @ Feb 9 2007, 05:36 AM (News Forum)

By DAVID PORTER - Associated Press Writer

EDISON, N.J.(AP) One of the inventions that put this central New Jersey town on the map could go the way of the typewriter and the horse and buggy if some lawmakers have their way.

The incandescent light bulb, perfected for mass use by Thomas A. Edison in the late 19th century, is being supplanted by fluorescent lighting that is more efficient and longer lasting.

Last month, California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine announced he would propose a bill to ban the use of incandescent bulbs in his state.

And Thursday, New Jersey Assemblyman Larry Chatzidakis introduced a bill that calls for the state to switch to fluorescent lighting in government buildings over the next three years.

"The light bulb was invented a long time ago and a lot of things have changed since then," said Chatzidakis, a Democrat from Burlington. "I obviously respect the memory of Thomas Edison, but what we're looking at here is using less energy."

Many states encourage their residents to replace their incandescent bulbs through a federal program supported by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.

In New Jersey, the state where Edison acquired more than 400 patents for innovations such as the phonograph and electric railroad car, utility is trumping nostalgia. The state recommends switching to compact fluorescent lamps as part of its Clean Energy Program.

More than 1.2 million of the lamps and fixtures were distributed in 2005 through the program, according to the state Board of Public Utilities.

If the bulb's demise is on the horizon, Jack Stanley isn't ready to flip the "off" switch just yet.

"It's a convenient target. It's easy to see and easy to critique," said Stanley, curator of a museum that celebrates Edison's inventions in the town that has borne his name since the 1950s. "But think about the benefits and compare them to the drawbacks and your argument is already made."

Edison perfected the process of making the long-burning filaments used inside incandescent light bulbs so they could be mass produced.

Fluorescents, which create light by heating gases inside a glass tube, were developed in the early 20th century and sold publicly by the 1940s. They are generally considered to use more than 50 percent less energy and last several times longer than incandescent bulbs.

However, the mercury vapor inside fluorescents can damage the environment if the bulbs are broken, leading some states to require businesses that use large quantities of fluorescent lights to recycle them.

Even Stanley acknowledges that, more than 125 years after its invention, the day may be approaching when the incandescent bulb takes its place alongside Edison's original phonograph in the pantheon of revolutionary-but-outdated inventions.

"It's a 19th-century invention that was perfected in the 20th century," he said. "That's part of the evolution of all inventions."