I called around to a few libraries. According to the administrator of my hometown library, no book has enough lead in it to warrant concern. (Formaldehyde is another matter, but nobody's getting after that.) She believes the thrift shops which dumped their pre-1985 books were overreacting or possibly threatened. The local library said they weren't going to do anything since they have no kids' books printed before that date anyhow.

http://www.wo.ala.org/districtdispatch/?p=1850
http://overlawyered.com/2009/03/cpsc-no-we-didnt-ask-libraries-to-pull-pre-1985-books/

M.N.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

It may be an issue for some more rural or less-well-moneyed libraries, unless they've already sold or recycled or dumped their older hardbacks. I'm thinking of the wonderful NC Wyeth covers and illustrations in the older adventure books, for instance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

OK, the referenced article contains several factual errors.

1. If the CPSC published rules specifically banning children's books before 1985, I haven't seen it. I can't claim that it doesn't exist, but I can't find it.

2. If the CPSC is trying to apply the CPSIA of 2008 to thrift sotres, garage sales and the like, it is directly contrary to what they've said in the recent pat about how they're going to apply the law. Bureaucracries are notoriously fickle, though, so hey, they might be.

3. The statement: "The day before, (ed note: the day before February 10) the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) published guidelines telling thrift stores, as well as other resellers and distributors of used goods, what they could safely keep selling and what they should consider rejecting or subjecting to (expensive) lead testing." implies that a las-minute notice was given to said resellers about what could and could not be sold, without giving them time to comment. In fact, the CPSC could not have sid this as, they specifically said in the 23 FEBRUARY, 2009 Federal Regiter: The terms ‘‘children’s toy,’’ ‘‘toy that can be placed in a child’s mouth,’’ and ‘‘child care article’’ are defined in and the definitions apply only to this section of the Act." Further, the Register notice states: "The staff of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has received many inquiries from manufacturers seeking clarification on which products are subject to the requirements of section 108 and, in response, has developed a possible approach to guide manufacturers in determining which products might be subject to the requirements."

Notice two things: 1) as late as 23 February, the definition of which products are subject to the CPSIA are still not set, and 2) the inquiries and responses are made by, and aimed at manufacturers, not resellers.

In addition: "Section 108 of the CPSIA defines a ‘‘children’s toy’’ as a ‘‘consumer product designed or intended by the manufacturer for a child 12 years of age or younger for use by the child when the child plays.’’ Any determination as to whether a particular product is designed or intended for use by a child 12 years of age or younger during play will be made after consideration of the following factors:"

*WILL BE MADE* Not "has been made".

Finally, "Comments and submissions in response to this notice must be received by March 25, 2009."

So, the implication of the statement that this is somehow last-minute notice is totally false.

BTW, the text of the Federal Register notice can be found here: http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr09/draftphthalatesguidance.pdf

The conclusion that I draw is that if people are burning children's books, it's because of their paranoid overreaction to the proposed rules changes mandated by the law.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

It is "last minute" in that there's little time to amend the bill through regular legislative proceedings.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

I don't know anything about the writer of that article, but judging by his blog, Overlawyered, he seems to me to have an axe to grind. Less biased information can be found here at snopes.

(Reply to this)