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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
