It's some 90 plus pages long, and you can read it here. I am only going to address what they say about books right now, and that section is about 9 pages long. So let's begin. The Commission states:
“Under section 101(a) of the CPSIA, the Commission is required to evaluate the lead content limit for any part of an item. Accordingly, we must assess whether each part of a children’s book would contain lead over the lead content limits.”
A reminder: those limits go down this month to 300 parts per million. In layman’s terms, that means really, really, really, really leetle, hardly nothin’ at all.
Or you could say 0.03% percent by mass, and I think you could call that 3/100ths of 1 percent as well. I think you could also call that negligible if you were being polite, and outrageously and stupidly nanny- ( and ninny) minded if you were being more accurate than civil.
To return to the document, they explain that they are required by the law as Congress wrote it to assess lead content of each part of the product- It's not about whether there’s enough lead in the product to cause a kid to get elevated blood lead levels, and certainly not whether the kid is actually likely to ingest any of those parts. That would be reasonable, and reasonable isn't what Congress did.
So the Commission looked at papers, inks, coating, and bindings to see if any of them are likely to have hit that dangerous, dangerous threshold of lead to the tune of 3/100ths of 1 percent.
They determined that paper ‘and similar cellulosic’ materials don’t. That’s good news.
It turns out that, according to testimony from the book people, a 1976 law requires that any inks (and other stuff, but we’re concerned with inks here) that contained lead in greater than 5 ppm had to be treated as hazardous waste, and this and other similar acts (together, I gather, known as CONEG) pretty much are adhered to by the entire book publishing community, especially for children's books, so kids' books don't have lead in them. So say the book publishing lobbyists, and if true, then it would make more sense to push back the 'sequestering' that bright line Thomas Moore wants, to 1976 instead of 1984, but I don't work for the government.
Also, lead is not compatible with the four color ink system (which we learn is called CMYK, in case you were curious), now commonly used so it appears that publications made using only the four color process known as CMYK may be exempt from the CPSIA as well. That’s good news.
But there’s something called ‘spot colours.’ These are used to get a colour that cannot be reproduced with the four color system, and spot colours might have leaded pigments. Might. Such a horrible word with this legislation.
“Accordingly,” writes the Commission, “new 1500.91(d)(6) specifies that spot colors, other inks that are not used in the CMYK process, and inks that do not become part of the substrate under 16CFR part 1303 (I‘m sorry, it’s not my fault, I am only quoting) and currently require certification based on third-party testing by an accredited laboratory.”
“other inks that are not used in the CMYK process…” require expensive, accredited third party testing. And that would mean every single blinking color would require a separate test. That’s bad news, oh best beloved, very bad indeed. I think I need to listen to They Might Be Giants singing “It’s the end of the world as we know it” to cheer me up. But let's move on:
Inks used in any ‘after treatments’ (in ‘decals, transfers and other prints) will also require third party certified lab testing. I don’t think that has much to do with books, though- it sounds more like stickers, removable tattoos, cards, perhaps notebooks, that sort of thing.
Now we discuss bindings: most adhesives, they say, won’t require testing, hooray. Animal threads and glues don’t have high lead limits, either, they have limits, if they have lead at all, well below the ceiling imposed by the government, so they are excluded, which is bad news for vegetarians and the animals sources of those glues and threads, but good for book-lovers. Well, book lovers who are not also vegetarians.
Now this is puzzling. I am on page 32 of the PDF file (page 29 of the document printed out) and the Commission is discussing plastic and metal wire binding- I assume they mean spiral binding, such as in the Klutz books and some cookbooks so that the book lays flat and you can consult the pages more easily while using your hands for some other project. The Commission doesn’t see these binding materials as any different from the novelty books they refuse to exempt, and, they say:
“Although the commenters claim that all of their materials are CONEG compliant, the certification of compliance under CONEG is currently based on self-certification by the supplier or manufacturer and not based on a third-party certification by a CPSC accredited laboratory as required…. Accordingly, the Commission cannot adopt those certifications “ instead of the third party accredited laboratory certifications required by the CPSIA as written. It seemed to me they did give credence to CONEG compliance in the matter of inks, but now it won’t work for spiral bindings.
Plus, the commission says, they KNOW lead has been used in some plastic and metal parts- and they specifically reference heavy duty staples. Aha. The staples in books! I knew the commission would have to be after those like a starving tick on a dog- after all, so many children do suck on, lick ,and swallow those little devils.
Now we get to ‘older books,’ section d, page 33.
The American Library Association sought an exemption because they say they do not distribute books in commerce and they haven’t the resources to test the books on the shelves . The Commission says they disagree.
However, they say that ‘currently, only manufactures and importers of children’s products are required to obtain testing showing compliance , and a library isn’t either, so it doesn’t have to certify books before sale or distribution. However, in regards to the ‘we don’t distribute books in commerce’ argument the Commission says:
“As explained in the House Report No. 92-1153 accompanying the Consumer Product Safety Act or [sic] 1972, the definition of “consumer product” was not limited to the sale of a product to a consumer. “it is not necessary that a product be actually sold to a consumer, but only that it be produced or distributed for his use. Thus products which are manufactured for lease and products distributed without charge (for promotional purposes or otherwise) are included within the definition and would be subject to regulation under this bill.”
Think about that for a moment- ‘for promotional purposes or OTHERWISE” Isn’t that ‘otherwise’ term awfully broad and vague and just a wide open trap for anybody? What does ‘otherwise’ not cover? Products distributed without charge for charity? Out of the goodness of your heart? They seem to be covered as well. "Otherwise" is a nasty catch-all in government hands.
Basically, they conclude by asserting that they have authority over” any consumer products, including children’s products, that are distributed in commerce whether the items are sold or lent if they are for the use of the child.”
The ALA then attempted a claim I am not following well (it’s really late as I work on this): “library books should not become a ‘hazardous substance’ unless they are ‘reintroduced’ into interstate commerce after the effective dates of the lead limits. “
I think they are trying to protect their pre 1985 books here, and say that they cannot be called hazardous substances unless they are sold again after the law went into effect (basically, did the ALA just try to throw used booksellers under the bus?)
The Commission says nyet. The definition of banned hazardous substances isn’t limited to new products or their first sale. It is
‘any toy, or other article intend [sic] for use by children, which is a banned hazardous substance, or which bears or contains a hazardous substance in such manner as to be susceptible of access by a child to whom such toy or other article is entrusted.”
Yes, a banned hazardous substance is any item which is a banned hazardous substance, that’s clear. And is ‘susceptible’ really the word they want?
The commission also quotes the FHSA which forbids the receipt in interstate commerce of any banned hazardous substance for pay or otherwise… That lovely ‘otherwise’ word again. It covers a multitude of sins.
Children’s products which don’t meet the lead content within the specified dates are, by law, banned hazardous substances. They cannot provide relief from the lead content limits except under the specific exclusions provided by the CPSIA. (you know what’s funny? This is pretty much EXACTLY what Nancy Nord was saying) And here comes the kick in the gut:
“Absent a finding that all used books fall within the scope of an exclusion, the Commission is bound by the statutory language of the CPSIA. Unfortunately, the Commission is unable to make such a determination in this proceeding. Because older books have not been manufactured using modern printing processes, such as the CMYK color process and have been found , in some circumstances, to contain leaded ink or components…”the Commission can’t make an exception or exclude older children’s books from the CPSIA and still be incompliance with the law as Congress wrote it. Which is what Nord said as well, and it’s what we who have been fighting the CPSIA have said, and it’s what those insisting this is hysterical over-reaction have insisted would not happen once Nord left. I wish such vindication didn’t taste like ashes in my mouth.
Heres’ another kicker:
For older used children’s books that are sold, many of these books may be collector’s items that are sold to adults. The Commission says these can still be sold to adults because they aren’t considered as primarily for children. But… oh, but…
“for older used children’s books that are lent out, ALA has requested additional guidance regarding the treatment of these products.”
So the Commission will think about this some more and issue a separate statement about older children’s books, but it doesn't appear promising.
Picture above from a pre-1985 children's book.
If you want to read about other aspects of the bill, see here and here (I LOVE her assessment of the quality of the ALA's arguments. They were seriously. Lame. and I wanted to agree with them. I am sure the poor quality of their reasoning made the CPSC's job much harder). Pin It
