CPSC Changes Test Method, Standard Operating Procedure for Determining Lead in Paint and Other Similar Surface Coating To Permit Compositing
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.29.09
On April 26, 2009, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a new test method, CPSC-CH-E1003-09, for use in measuring the total lead content of paint and surface coating to determine compliance with 16 C.F.R. § 1303 and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). The CPSC's testing laboratory will now use this method, but outside laboratories and testing bodies are not required to use this or any specific operating procedure in testing paint and similar surface coatings for lead. The CPSC also notes that this new operating procedure does not alter existing laboratory accreditations.
The new test method permits compositing of paint and surface coating when conducting lead testing, a marked departure from the CPSC's prior statements on compositing. Previously, the CPSC's position was that compositing during testing - combining different paints or coatings to reduce the number of tests run - was not acceptable. The CPSC's new test method now permits composite testing of different parts, "combining different paints (e.g., multiple colors) from one or more samples to reduce the number of digestions and instrumental lead analyses performed." The new operating procedure warns that this type of compositing of different paints "must be done with adequate care, planning, and understanding of the limitations and propagations of error in measurements or the test may fail to detect excessive lead in one individual paint because of dilution." The CPSC's new Operating Procedure offers guidance on how to avoid these risks and provides an example demonstrating how to properly calculate test results for composited samples.
Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 06.30.25
AI Companies Prevail in Path-Breaking Decisions on Fair Use
Last week, artificial intelligence companies won two significant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by copyright holders, marking an important milestone in the development of the law around AI. These decisions – Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta (decided on June 23 and 25, 2025, respectively), along with a February 2025 decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence – suggest that AI companies have plausible defenses to the intellectual property claims that have dogged them since generative AI technologies became widely available several years ago. Whether AI companies can, in all cases, successfully assert that their use of copyrighted content is “fair” will depend on their circumstances and further development of the law by the courts and Congress.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.30.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
FDA Targets Gene Editing Clinical Trials in China and other “Hostile Countries”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.26.25
