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 | 2 min read | 05.27.25
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel
As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”). Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR. But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.23.25
Executive Order Seeks Most-Favored-Nation Drug Pricing and HHS Announces Price Targets
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.22.25
Opportunities for Procurement on the Horizon as UK Concludes Free Trade Agreement With India
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.22.25
What Trump’s Nominee for IRS Commissioner Could Mean for Employee Retention Tax Credit Enforcement
