You should know that a number of people, including lawyers, do not find that clarification reassuring. Resale shops are still at risk. All they really said is that the shops don’t have to test, but they are still liable to be prosecuted for selling untested items.

Allan Adler, VP for legal and government affairs at the Association of American Publishers also looked at the ‘clarification’ for resale shops and sees it as unclarified as I do. He:

believes the clarification is contradictory to the Act and would not necessarily protect resellers from liability.

(the Smartmama also sees that clarification as I did, see her January 10th article both for her take on that, and a very helpful list of those things she finds typically have lead).

Random House and other publishing houses are now involved in fighting the CPSIA, and the ALA has sought further clarification from the Commission as well, as their lawyers do not see how the Commission can legally excempt them.

In addition, the ‘clarifications’ are not binding. They aren’t legal advice. And they have an expiration date- the current Commission of two will have three more people added when Obama becomes President, and they may well be replaced altogether. The new Commission can overturn whatever this one has done.

See my regular blog and click on the CPSIA label to follow the latest on this bill.

Thanks.

Why doesn’t it appear in the records this way?

Because those 3 failed to appear for the vote. Who knows if these 3 would have voted for or against it.

Thanks for commenting on my blog:)