16 C.F.R. § 1115.1
Purpose
The purpose of this part 1115 is to set forth the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (Commission's) interpretation of the reporting requirements imposed on manufacturers (including importers), distributors, and retailers by section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, as amended (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2064(b)) and to indicate the actions and sanctions which the Commission may require or impose to protect the public from substantial product hazards, as that term is defined in section 15(a) of the CPSA.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1981–1989 · leading case: Swenson v. Emerson Elec. Co., 374 N.W.2d 690 (Minn. 1985).
Swenson v. Emerson Elec. Co., 374 N.W.2d 690 (Minn. 1985). “34,988 (1978), codified at 16 C.F.R. § 1115.1 -.22 (1985). ■In introducing the interpretive rule, the CPSC said: The Commission considered the difference between promulgating the rule as substantive or interpretive, sought public comment on the issue * * * and has decided to…”
Vicki Lynn Drake v. Honeywell, Inc. v. Wagoner Water Heater Co., Inc., 797 F.2d 603 (8th Cir. 1986). “” 16 C.F.R. § 1115.1 . This description summarizes the position taken upon publication of the final version of the reporting rules, when the Commission flatly stated that it had “promulgate[d] the rule[s] as interpretive.”
Butcher v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 550 F. Supp. 692 (D. Maryland 1981). “” 16 C.F.R. § 1115.1 This rule thus implements the statutory directive of 15 U.”
Young v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 560 F. Supp. 288 (N.D.N.Y. 1983). “For example, 16 C.F.R. § 1115.1 provides: The purpose of this Part 1115 is to set forth the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (Commission’s) interpretation of the reporting requirements imposed on manufacturers (including importers), distributors, and retailers by section…”
Kukulka v. Holiday Cycle Sales, Inc., 680 F. Supp. 266 (E.D. Mich. 1988). “Defendant argues that there is no private right of action for violation of the reporting requirements found in 16 C.F.R. § 1115.1 et seq. and that, absent a federal question this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case which must be dismissed.”
Sara Lee Corp. v. Homasote Co., 719 F. Supp. 417 (D. Maryland 1989). “Part 1115 are by their own terms interpretive rules: 16 C.F.R. § 1115.1 states in relevant part that the purpose of Part 1115 is “to set forth the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s .”
Swenson v. Emerson Elec. Co., 356 N.W.2d 313 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). “See 16 C.F.R. §§ 1115.1 -.22 (1984). At issue is whether these regulations constitute another rule or order issued by the Commission within the meaning of 15 U.”
Martin v. Int'l Dryer Corp., 637 F. Supp. 101 (E.D.N.C. 1986). “, 16 C.F.R. § 1115.1 et seq. This rule expands on the Act’s statutory disclosure provision and provides disclosure guidelines for use by manufacturers, retailers and distributors.”
Kahn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., USA, 607 F. Supp. 957 (N.D. Ga. 1985). “The plaintiff contends, however, that she has a cause of action for Sears’ and Manco’s alleged failure to comply with the reporting requirements of section 2064(b) as detailed in certain interpretive rules issued by the Commission at 16 C.”
Brown v. Daisy Mfg. Co., 724 F. Supp. 44 (N.D.N.Y. 1989). “To prove causation between the plaintiff's injuries and the defendant's alleged failure to disclose information, sufficient to impose liability under the "by reason of" standard, the plaintiff's must show that the Commission would have: (1) held hearings had the alleged…”
Lundquist v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 773 F. Supp. 1195 (W.D. Wis. 1988). “The purpose of this Part 1115 is to set forth the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (Commission’s) interpretation of the reporting requirements imposed on manufacturers (including importers), distributors, and retailers by section 15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, as…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.