| Pages:
1
2 |
enlight
Harmless
Posts: 30
Registered: 8-2-2021
Member Is Offline
Mood: dephlogisticated
|
|
21 CFR part 1310.04 (§1310.04) states the following:
| Quote: |
For listed chemicals for which no thresholds have been established, the size of the transaction is not a factor in determining whether the transaction
meets the definition of a regulated transaction as set forth in §1300.02 of this chapter. All such transactions, regardless of size, are subject to
recordkeeping and reporting requirements as set forth in this part and notification provisions as set forth in part 1313 of this chapter.
|
Unfortunately, iodine does not have an established threshold. §1310.08 does make an exception for iodine solutions, but it also establishes a
reporting threshold:
| Quote: |
Domestic and international transactions of Lugol's Solution (consisting of 5 percent iodine and 10 percent potassium iodide in an aqueous solution) in
original manufacturer's packaging of one-fluid- ounce (30 milliliters) or less, and no greater than one package per transaction.
|
If anybody knows of any exceptions for iodine that are not covered in the above articles, let me know.
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by arkoma  | | WHAT exactly are you required to do, and what am i required to do if say, i wanted several hundred grams of my favorite halogen?
|
Import, export, and distribution of threshold amounts of list 1 chems requires DEA registration. The seller is required to positively ID the customer
and keep records, they must be registered also.
BTW as far as "cartels and mob bosses" goes...it doesn't take much to be considered a cartel or mob boss in some places...the chemical doesn't have to
be on any list either.
[Edited on 18-5-2021 by S.C. Wack]
|
|
|
LabDIRECT
Harmless
Posts: 49
Registered: 3-5-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by arkoma | gonna say what i told the kids that opened the marijuana dispensary in texarkana--"please keep your T's crossed and I's dotted, we need you in
business"
Now could you clarify a finer point for me? WHAT exactly are you required to do, and what am i required to do if say, i wanted several hundred grams
of my favorite halogen? KI is a pain in the ass, and it takes a boatload of it (I) to halogenate anything. |
Sure! I assume you're talking about elemental/prilled Iodine? The DEA manual states that anything under 400g is exempted from reporting unless it's a
"suspicious" order. Here's what they say about that:
| Quote: |
The law, 21 U.S.C. § 830 (b)(1)(A), requires that each regulated person shall report to the Attorney General any regulated transaction involving
an extraordinary quantity of a listed chemical, an uncommon method of payment or delivery, or any other circumstance that the regulated
person believes may indicate that the listed chemical will be used in violation of the law. (....) When a regulated person suspects that
an order may be intended for illicit purposes, good practice requires that every reasonable effort be made to resolve those suspicions. In addition to
making the required reports, the transaction should not be completed until the customer is able to eliminate the suspicions. The distributor may have
to forego some transactions. When DEA reviews distributor decisions, minor events are not cause for government action. (...) |
So if we know you and you're ordering 250g of I2 with, say, HgO and benzene, something that makes it obvious it's for legitimate chemistry, that's
clearly not suspicious and we're not required to submit any paperwork for anything under 400g. But if someone we don't know comes along and fills out
a special order form as Tweak and says "Hey bro, can you hook me up with 399g I2, a pound of Aluminum Sulfate, and 500g Red Phosphorous? Oh and can I
pay with bitcoin and I need you to ship it to a vacant lot under the name John Doe." then we have to submit a report. Appendex E on page 38 of the DEA Chemical Handlers Manual (43 of the PDF) gives a good list of examples of what constitutes a suspicious order.
I couldn't agree more about staying on the right side of the laws and we definitely aren't lackadaisical about it, but the fact is that these
exemptions were put in place specifically so people like us are able to continue to do chemistry within the law. The fact that most suppliers treat
everyone as guilty until proven innocent isn't because it's the law, it's because it's easier for them - and the fact that the major institutions they
do sell to will pay pretty much any price they ask means they can afford to turn away legitimate amateur chemists and independent researchers by
default. We believe that the vast majority of customers genuinely have the same passion for science we do and deserve to be treated as such unless
they prove otherwise, and we're willing to put in a bit more legwork getting to know our customers and verifying things if it means a stronger
independent chemistry community.
|
|
|
Keras
National Hazard
Posts: 897
Registered: 20-8-2018
Location: (48, 2)
Member Is Online
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by LabDIRECT |
Sure! I assume you're talking about elemental/prilled Iodine? The DEA manual states that anything under 400g is exempted from reporting unless it's a
"suspicious" order.
|
Frankly, 400 g of iodine isn't that much. Iodine is quite heavy, so 400g is only about 3 mol. The same molar amount of phosphorus would be 100 g
only…
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4581
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Online
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
It’s plenty if you typically work on a sub-molar scale
|
|
|
LabDIRECT
Harmless
Posts: 49
Registered: 3-5-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack | | Quote: Originally posted by arkoma | | WHAT exactly are you required to do, and what am i required to do if say, i wanted several hundred grams of my favorite halogen?
|
Import, export, and distribution of threshold amounts of list 1 chems requires DEA registration. The seller is required to positively ID the customer
and keep records, they must be registered also.
[Edited on 18-5-2021 by S.C. Wack] |
You got it. And to clarify, the record keeping requirements are not anything exclusive to the DEA or chemical sales, and there's not really any
requirements beyond what is mandated of any business in the US. If you buy a pound of cheddar cheese from Walmart.com, they are required to keep a
record of the transaction information on file for x years, and it's the same here. There's no requirement to submit them, etc, or anything beyond
filling them away (that doesn't apply to ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine however - for those you are required to submit a full
transaction report monthly regardless of quantity, but we don't sell those obviously.)
| Quote: |
BTW as far as "cartels and mob bosses" goes...it doesn't take much to be considered a cartel or mob boss in some places...the chemical doesn't have to
be on any list either.
|
That's definitely not wrong - it's definitely possible for someone to act suspiciously enough to raise red flags even if they aren't buying any
Listed/Watched items. Again I direct anyone to page 38 (PDF p43) of the DEA Chemical Handlers Manual - the fact that it's up to the discretion of distributers to determine what is and isn't suspicious means that some
places will flag anything on the list even if there's no other reason to (or in fact, additional reasons NOT to) believe its actually suspicious. But
I feel distributers should always try their best to clear any doubts or questions up and get to understand the customer, what they are trying to do,
what they're like, etc. They shouldn't just shut them down and file a report for orders of non listed/watched chemicals as a first reaction. Doing so
is just wasting taxpayer resources and in fact, the DEA manual even specifically states: "When DEA reviews distributor decisions, minor events
are not cause for government action."
|
|
|
LabDIRECT
Harmless
Posts: 49
Registered: 3-5-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by enlight | 21 CFR part 1310.04 (§1310.04) states the following:
| Quote: |
For listed chemicals for which no thresholds have been established, the size of the transaction is not a factor in determining whether the transaction
meets the definition of a regulated transaction as set forth in §1300.02 of this chapter. All such transactions, regardless of size, are subject to
recordkeeping and reporting requirements as set forth in this part and notification provisions as set forth in part 1313 of this chapter.
|
Unfortunately, iodine does not have an established threshold. §1310.08 does make an exception for iodine solutions, but it also establishes a
reporting threshold:
| Quote: |
Domestic and international transactions of Lugol's Solution (consisting of 5 percent iodine and 10 percent potassium iodide in an aqueous solution) in
original manufacturer's packaging of one-fluid- ounce (30 milliliters) or less, and no greater than one package per transaction.
|
If anybody knows of any exceptions for iodine that are not covered in the above articles, let me know. |
Not sure if that's outdated or what but the DEA's current listings for List II indicates that Iodine (elemental not solution) has a 400g threshold for
domestic sale. I attached the relevant table of appendix B.
As far as other exceptions, the big one would be for imports - if it's not a domestic sale, any I2 coming directly from an overseas supplier is not
regulated and there is no threshold amount/limit.
We don't sell in over 400g quantities domestically, and while it would technically be legal for us to just dropship from our overseas suppliers, it's
enough of a grey area that we feel more comfortable passing anyone with larger orders off to our overseas suppliers directly.
|
|
|
Keras
National Hazard
Posts: 897
Registered: 20-8-2018
Location: (48, 2)
Member Is Online
|
|
I mean, yeah, sure. But don’t expect to fill a big flask of MeI with 400g of I₂. 1 mole MeI ~ 70 mL… so 3 would be 200 mL, and that’s with a
100% yield…
|
|
|
student
Harmless
Posts: 9
Registered: 30-3-2018
Location: I will not say
Member Is Offline
Mood: Full of Love
|
|
This discussion of iodine is confusing and surprising the heck out of me!
So much energy here has been poured into, for example, the production of elemental phosphorous on the grounds that it can't be legally purchased in
the United States, it being on the DEA List 1 of chemicals. All this time I was lead to believe that List 1 chemicals were treated basically the same as controlled substances, for
which sale or possession is a most heinous crime. While it seems contradictory that phosphorous is on legal match boxes and iodine is in legal OTC
antiseptic, we also see this craziness in opium poppy seeds legally sold at grocery and hardware stores, while fields for cultivation remain illegal.
So what am I missing here? I thought the difference between list 1 and list 2 is that there is a threshold for purchasing such ubiquitous solvents as
acetone (list 2), while there is none for ergotamine (list 1). So what is the difference? I would like to know, because while I could legally buy
highly useful PCl3, for example, it would cost many times more than elemental phosphorous, bleach and HCl, and us hobbyists are on a small budget, not
making sales.
| Quote: Originally posted by Keras | | Frankly, 400 g of iodine isn't that much. Iodine is quite heavy, so 400g is only about 3 mol. The same molar amount of phosphorus would be 100 g
only… |
Even if the limit to buy is 400 grams that would be great, if there is no limit to how many times such an order could be placed. Besides, I use iodine
mainly to stain TLC. Do you know how many TLC could be stained with 400 grams of iodine? 
|
|
|
enlight
Harmless
Posts: 30
Registered: 8-2-2021
Member Is Offline
Mood: dephlogisticated
|
|
One could argue that 21 CFR §1310 is more applicable 21 USC §830, due to the former being an interpretation of the latter by the DEA. It appears
that the DEA Chemical Handler's Manual was published in 2004, but the attached CFR entry (revised 04-01-2020) expounds the provisions of 21 USC §830.
The distinction is statutory vs. regulatory and I have no professional experience interpreting either of the two, so I can't attest to which is most
applicable.
Along with all this nonsense I've stated, as long as your recordkeeping is hygienic, you should not have an issue
That being said, I would definitely consider taking a close look at the attached document.
Attachment: CFR-2020-title21-vol9-sec1310-04.pdf (249kB)
This file has been downloaded 405 times
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
The iodine law was changed almost 14 years ago, it was likely mentioned here...see the Federal Register July 2 2007 pp. 35920-35931 for the final rule
and discussion. "Household products such as 2 percent iodine tincture/solution and household disinfectants containing iodine complexes will not be
adversely impacted by this regulation. Additionally, the final rule exempts transactions of up to one-fluid ounce (30 ml) of Lugol's Solution."
|
|
|
Keras
National Hazard
Posts: 897
Registered: 20-8-2018
Location: (48, 2)
Member Is Online
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by student | | Even if the limit to buy is 400 grams that would be great, if there is no limit to how many times such an order could be placed. Besides, I use iodine
mainly to stain TLC. Do you know how many TLC could be stained with 400 grams of iodine? |
I don’t take part in the legal discussion since I’m outside the US, as my stubborn use of British English testifies. But yeah, if you use iodine
for TLC staining or Grignard initiation, you’re more than fine with 400g. You won’t feel cramped until you start using iodine as a nucleophile.
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
The confusion revolves around statutory, regulatory and advisory output of agencies.
Statutory is hard and fast, it is law.
However if an agency puts out regulatory and advisory guidance that contradict each other, then the least stringent portion prevails. Ie. you can't
tell people to do it one way and then punish them because you put out contradictory information.
Simply keeping credit card and shipping information on file is adequate for non-suspicious transactions.
I am not a lawyer and the DEA may differ in their interpretation but that is my understanding.
paying with a credit card and ordering to a business is not generally suspicious.
paying with bitcoin for local pick up would be suspicious (and not meet ID requirements).
reporting requirements are annually I believe.
|
|
|
LabDIRECT
Harmless
Posts: 49
Registered: 3-5-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by enlight | One could argue that 21 CFR §1310 is more applicable 21 USC §830, due to the former being an interpretation of the latter by the DEA. It appears
that the DEA Chemical Handler's Manual was published in 2004, but the attached CFR entry (revised 04-01-2020) expounds the provisions of 21 USC §830.
The distinction is statutory vs. regulatory and I have no professional experience interpreting either of the two, so I can't attest to which is most
applicable.
Along with all this nonsense I've stated, as long as your recordkeeping is hygienic, you should not have an issue
That being said, I would definitely consider taking a close look at the attached document. |
That's the great thing about US law - it's so tangled up in itself, trying to unravel it is a nightmare. According to that document, the info on
no-threshold transactions is dated [54 FR 31665, Aug. 1, 1989] but the document seems to be newer than the current DEA Manual... But assuming that
DOES supersede the manual, this seems like a very relevant excerpt:
| Quote: | § 1310.05 Reports.
(a)(1) Each regulated person must report to the Special Agent in Charge of
the DEA Divisional Office for the area in which the regulated person making
the report is located any regulated transaction involving an extraordinary
quantity of a listed chemical, an uncommon method of payment or delivery, or any other circumstance that the regulated person believes may indicate
that the listed chemical will be used in violation of this part. The regulated person will orally report to the... |
So again, that would seem to indicate it's basically left up to the distributor to determine what constitutes an extraordinary/suspicious quantity for
no-threshold transactions based off the guide in the manual, with the only requirement for legitimate/non suspicious transactions being
record-keeping.
Thank you for the research by the way and I welcome your input. For a small fish in a big pond, every bit of support really goes a long way.
|
|
|
LabDIRECT
Harmless
Posts: 49
Registered: 3-5-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack | | The iodine law was changed almost 14 years ago, it was likely mentioned here...see the Federal Register July 2 2007 pp. 35920-35931 for the final rule
and discussion. "Household products such as 2 percent iodine tincture/solution and household disinfectants containing iodine complexes will not be
adversely impacted by this regulation. Additionally, the final rule exempts transactions of up to one-fluid ounce (30 ml) of Lugol's Solution."
|
The fact that the DEA STILL haven't updated the documentation they point distributers to on their website is hard to wrap my head
around - it seems like you're correct however as I pointed out in my last post, by making it a no-threshold item, it leaves it to the distributer to
parse the guidelines and determine what is and isn't a suspicious amount. With all the contradicting guidance and documentation, I think ultimately it
comes down to "Good Faith". I can't find any examples of the DEA going after a small company that was clearly making a good faith effort towards the
spirit of the law.
You can find plenty of laws that have been counterproductive or that have hurt the chemistry community, but as I said before, that's more down to the
suppliers' reaction to the laws, not the laws themselves; the DEA has actually done a fairly decent job of carving out exceptions to make room for a
healthy chemistry community. They aren't wasting money and manpower trying to hassle individuals who have a passion for thin-layer chromatography or
who have a CRISPR kit in their garage. When you read their documentation regarding chemical supply and distribution, as well as the regs themselves,
it's pretty clear they're designed to target large-scale illicit cartel chemistry (acetone, MEK, ether, south American country-specific laws, etc), or
people who have no passion for science and zero chemistry knowledge trying to brew up kilos of methamphetamine in 2-liter coke bottles (ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine, iodine, etc). The section about suspicious orders emphasizes how verifying the customer speaks knowledgeably about the chemistry is
an important part of clearing up red flags, which says a lot about their attitude to the community, and to independent researchers and legitimate
amateur/hobby chemistry as a whole IMO.
|
|
|
LabDIRECT
Harmless
Posts: 49
Registered: 3-5-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone | The confusion revolves around statutory, regulatory and advisory output of agencies.
Statutory is hard and fast, it is law.
However if an agency puts out regulatory and advisory guidance that contradict each other, then the least stringent portion prevails. Ie. you can't
tell people to do it one way and then punish them because you put out contradictory information.
Simply keeping credit card and shipping information on file is adequate for non-suspicious transactions.
I am not a lawyer and the DEA may differ in their interpretation but that is my understanding.
paying with a credit card and ordering to a business is not generally suspicious.
paying with bitcoin for local pick up would be suspicious (and not meet ID requirements).
reporting requirements are annually I believe.
|
This. I think you laid it out perfectly.
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4581
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Online
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Richard, it’s really nice to see such a responsive and transparent company that’s willing to support this community! I’m not practicing home
chemistry currently, but I’m working on my PhD in a university research lab. Sometimes I have to order chemicals for my project. If we ever need
something that you supply, I will try to order it from you first instead of giving more money to Sigma-Aldrich, Fisher, or VWR.
|
|
|
S.C. Wack
bibliomaster
Posts: 2419
Registered: 7-5-2004
Location: Cornworld, Central USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enhanced
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by LabDIRECT | | The fact that the DEA STILL haven't updated the documentation they point distributers to on their website is hard to wrap my head
around |
It was a one-time thing AFAIK...their budget must not be big enough now...has anyone in the past 10 years (outside of academic publishing) made a pdf
that wasn't converted powerpoint slides? The dumbing down, the progressively lower standards, the shoddification of the country would be obvious to
anyone of a certain age, if it wasn't for the unawareness black hole which came with that.
The entire part 1310 "records and reports of listed chemicals and certain machines" of a newer 21 CFR has to be read as a single document, to see the
forest.
[Edited on 22-5-2021 by S.C. Wack]
|
|
|
Keras
National Hazard
Posts: 897
Registered: 20-8-2018
Location: (48, 2)
Member Is Online
|
|
Unfortunately, that happens everywhere on this globe, so you'd rather use ‘world’ here.
Hey- and halcyon days are behind us guys… (half-joking, but half only).
[Edited on 22-5-2021 by Keras]
|
|
|
LabDIRECT
Harmless
Posts: 49
Registered: 3-5-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Texium | | Richard, it’s really nice to see such a responsive and transparent company that’s willing to support this community! I’m not practicing home
chemistry currently, but I’m working on my PhD in a university research lab. Sometimes I have to order chemicals for my project. If we ever need
something that you supply, I will try to order it from you first instead of giving more money to Sigma-Aldrich, Fisher, or VWR.
|
Thanks Texium! We feel it's so important to be open and transparent, as well as accessible to the entire community. I know so many people who got into
chemistry professionally due to an interest that began here, or reddit, or youtube - if these communities are left to wither, it would be a TREMENDOUS
loss for the entire discipline.
Best of luck with the PhD! I'd love to hear your thesis! I've personally been working closely with a few other Doctoral/Masters candidates currently
(a few at UConn, one at Virginia Tech and another on the west coast) to supply them with whatever they need their research - the kind words and great
feedback we've been getting really gives us the best kind of motivation possible. We love doing whatever we can to support research and education and
try to give students and professors whatever discounts we can so be sure to email us before you order and let us know it's you!
|
|
|
LabDIRECT
Harmless
Posts: 49
Registered: 3-5-2021
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by S.C. Wack | | Quote: Originally posted by LabDIRECT | | The fact that the DEA STILL haven't updated the documentation they point distributers to on their website is hard to wrap my head
around |
It was a one-time thing AFAIK...their budget must not be big enough now...has anyone in the past 10 years (outside of academic publishing) made a pdf
that wasn't converted powerpoint slides? The dumbing down, the progressively lower standards, the shoddification of the country would be obvious to
anyone of a certain age, if it wasn't for the unawareness black hole which came with that.
The entire part 1310 "records and reports of listed chemicals and certain machines" of a newer 21 CFR has to be read as a single document, to see the
forest.
[Edited on 22-5-2021 by S.C. Wack] |
I have to admit, I chuckled at "their budget must not be big enough now..." ... And the part about Powerpoint slides. So true. And as for the dumbing
down, the progressively lower standards, and the shoddification of the country - truer words my friend. Although it's not just people of a certain age
that see it anymore - I know plenty of 30-somethings who have seen it for ages now, and even a fair number of bright 20-somethings see right through
the BS surprisingly enough. The bus can only veer towards the cliff so far until the passengers start jumping up to take the wheel back...
|
|
|
Jenks
Hazard to Others
Posts: 163
Registered: 1-12-2019
Member Is Offline
|
|
My purchase with LabDIRECT went smoothly. There was some delay because I ordered outside of their "chemicals on hand" list, but communication was
excellent. The chemicals arrived well packaged and well packed.
|
|
|
enlight
Harmless
Posts: 30
Registered: 8-2-2021
Member Is Offline
Mood: dephlogisticated
|
|
I ordered some reagents (benzyl alcohol and p-toluenesulfonic acid) that were not stocked by LabDirect. They were able to acquire those from TCI at a
very reasonable price. This will be some of the only chemicals on my collection bearing original labels from a major chemical
manufacturer/distributor! I'm glad they are able to offer this service.
I also inquired about some of the glassware they were advertising, and Richard was able to find a great chromatography column (ChemGlass, rodaviss
joints) that met my exact specifications. It'll be great when I can make use of the additional functionality, as I'm still saving for a proper
enclosure (fume hood). Then, I can safely perform some flash chromatography.
*Edited for spelling
Friendly, good service, good prices, best of luck to Richard and the rest at LabDirect!
[Edited on 26-7-2021 by enlight]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
