What goes wrong

The average was read as a per-part limit

On this page14

The 0.25 percent was applied to each component So a compliant assembly was assumed to need compliant parts And a large one cannot Mass was used instead of area And the whole surface was counted Which matters most for a sealing article Installation was assumed not to matter So the dry articles were included A computation was expected from us And a wetted area was expected too The storage question was conflated with the lead question And the liner was skipped Two questions, two answers, one jar References

A small part contributes a small share.

The 0.25 percent was applied to each component

It is a weighted average with respect to the wetted surfaces of an assembly, not a limit on each part in it.

So a compliant assembly was assumed to need compliant parts

A small high-lead component can sit inside a compliant assembly, because its contribution is weighted by its share of the wetted area.

And a large one cannot

Which is the same arithmetic the other way, and is why the component list alone does not answer the question.

Mass was used instead of area

The weighting is by wetted surface area. A heavy component with a small wetted face contributes little.

And the whole surface was counted

Only the wetted surfaces count. A fitting's outside is not in the calculation at all.

Which matters most for a sealing article

An o ring has a large total surface and a thin wetted band, and only the band enters the average.

Installation was assumed not to matter

A tank bolt, a compression ferrule and teflon tape are each wetted to a degree that depends on how they are fitted.

So the dry articles were included

A pipe clip and a push fit clip never touch water and are outside the measure entirely.

A computation was expected from us

A weighted average is computed for a particular assembly with particular geometry, and none is performed anywhere on these pages.

And a wetted area was expected too

Which of an article's surfaces is wetted depends on the installation, and is not determined here.

The storage question was conflated with the lead question

Our temperature range field describes the container and is published on all 251. It has nothing to do with lead.

And the liner was skipped

59 of the 288 closures have no liner or no record, which for a metal part stored in a damp space is the corrosion risk.

Two questions, two answers, one jar

The lead question is about the part in service and the storage question is about the jar. Only the second is ours.

References

42 U.S.C. 300g-6(d) applies its 0.25 percent figure as a weighted average with respect to the wetted surfaces of pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures. So the measure is area-weighted across the surfaces in contact with water rather than applied to each component or to the mass of an assembly. No computation is performed on these pages for any assembly.

The Davis Pack Supply catalog, measured 19 October 2026. 539 rows: 251 containers and 288 closures. This is the store-small-dry shelf, shared identically by nine groups, and the sewing notions property enumerates the inventory. 5 to 500 mL with a median of 177, with 60 containers under 60 mL and 22 under 30. 210 jars, 27 bottles, 12 tubs and pails, 2 tubes. 117 PET, 78 PP, 56 glass. A temperature range is published on all 251. Buyability, a snapshot: 159 of 251 available, 91 not, 1 unrecorded; 93 quote only; 65 full case only, with case packs from 12 to 6,370 and a median of 288.

Written from 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(d) and from the catalog as it stood on 19 October 2026. That is a definition from the Safe Drinking Water Act and nothing here describes what the Act prohibits, where it applies, the exemptions, the certification or the effective dates, or determines whether any article is lead free. A weighted average over wetted surfaces is computed for a particular assembly and no computation is performed here. This shelf is shared identically by nine groups and the sewing notions property enumerates the inventory.