15 U.S.C. § 2075

State standards

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) State compliance to Federal standards

Whenever a consumer product safety standard under this chapter is in effect and applies to a risk of injury associated with a consumer product, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish or to continue in effect any provision of a safety standard or regulation which prescribes any requirements as to the performance, composition, contents, design, finish, construction, packaging, or labeling of such product which are designed to deal with the same risk of injury associated with such consumer product, unless such requirements are identical to the requirements of the Federal standard.

(b) Consumer product safety requirements which impose performance standards more stringent than Federal standards

Subsection (a) of this section does not prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision of a State from establishing or continuing in effect a safety requirement applicable to a consumer product for its own use which requirement is designed to protect against a risk of injury associated with the product and which is not identical to the consumer product safety standard applicable to the product under this chapter if the Federal, State, or political subdivision requirement provides a higher degree of protection from such risk of injury than the standard applicable under this chapter.

(c) ExemptionsUpon application of a State or political subdivision of a State, the Commission may by rule, after notice and opportunity for oral presentation of views, exempt from the provisions of subsection (a) (under such conditions as it may impose in the rule) any proposed safety standard or regulation which is described in such application and which is designed to protect against a risk of injury associated with a consumer product subject to a consumer product safety standard under this chapter if the State or political subdivision standard or regulation—(1) provides a significantly higher degree of protection from such risk of injury than the consumer product safety standard under this chapter, and(2) does not unduly burden interstate commerce.In determining the burden, if any, of a State or political subdivision standard or regulation on interstate commerce, the Commission shall consider and make appropriate (as determined by the Commission in its discretion) findings on the technological and economic feasibility of complying with such standard or regulation, the cost of complying with such standard or regulation, the geographic distribution of the consumer product to which the standard or regulation would apply, the probability of other States or political subdivisions applying for an exemption under this subsection for a similar standard or regulation, and the need for a national, uniform standard under this chapter for such consumer product.(Pub. L. 92–573, § 26, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1227; Pub. L. 94–284, § 17(d), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 514.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1976—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94–284 substituted provision that a standard provide a significantly higher degree of protection from the risk of injury for the provision that the standard impose a higher level of performance.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94–284 substituted requirement that a State standard provide a significantly higher degree of protection from the risk of injury than the standard under this chapter for the requirement that the State standard impose a higher level of performance, eliminated the requirement of a compelling local condition, and inserted the requirement that the Commission make specific findings in determining the burden on interstate commerce.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective on the sixtieth day following Oct. 27, 1972, see section 34 of Pub. L. 92–573, set out as a note under section 2051 of this title.

Preemption

The provisions of this section establishing the extent to which the Consumer Product Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.] preempts, limits, or otherwise affects any other Federal, State, or local law, any rule, procedure, or regulation, or any cause of action under State or local law not to be expanded or contracted in scope, or limited, modified or extended in application, by any rule or regulation under the Consumer Product Safety Act, or by reference in any preamble, statement of policy, executive branch statements, or other matter associated with the publication of any such rule or regulation, see section 231 of Pub. L. 110–314, set out as a note under section 2051 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: Frith v. Bic Corp., 863 So. 2d 960 (Miss. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Frith v. Bic Corp., 863 So. 2d 960 (Miss. 2004). · cites it 7× “15 U.S.C. § 2075 (a) (1997). C. The CPSC Regulations.”

Colon Ex Rel. Molina v. Bic USA, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 2d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). · cites it 4× “The preemption provision states: [N]o State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish or to continue in effect any provision of a safety standard or regulation which prescribes any requirements as to the performance, composition, contents,…”

Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2000). · cites it 2× “” 15 U.S.C. § 2075 (a). State laws that conflict with CPSA rules may only be permitted if they impose a higher degree of protection from the risk of injury prescribed under the CPSA.”

Phillips Ex Rel. Williams v. Cricket Lighters, 773 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 2075 (b) (emphasis added), entitled “Consumer product safety requirements which impose performance standards more stringent than Federal standards,” states: [s]ubsection (a) 6 of this section does not prevent .”

Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter Ex Rel. Carter, 251 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2008). “15 U.S.C. § 2075 (c). This provision indicates that Congress considered the need to balance a state’s desire for a higher liability standard with the concomitant burden a non-uniform state standard might impose on interstate commerce.”

Alsup v. 3-Day Blinds, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 838 (S.D. Ill. 2006). “” 15 U.S.C. § 2075 (a). As discussed, the CPSC has promulgated no regulations and safety standards with respect to corded window blinds such as could give rise to preemption of state law by federal law.”

Nat'l Kerosene Heater Ass'n v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 653 F. Supp. 1079 (D. Mass. 1987). · cites it 3× “NKHA contends that the Commonwealth’s regulation of “new generation” kerosene heaters is expressly preempted by the preemption provision of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2075 (a), because the Commission relied on UL 647 as a voluntary consumer product safety standard as required by 15 U.”

Cortez v. MTD Prods., Inc., 927 F. Supp. 386 (N.D. Cal. 1996). · cites it 4× “15 U.S.C.A. § 2075 (a) (West 1982) (emphasis added).”

Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. United States Consum. Prod. Saf. Comm'n, 414 F. Supp. 1047 (D. Del. 1976). · cites it 2× “For the final version of the preemption section, see 15 U.S.C. § 2075 . 46 . 15 U.S.C. § 2075 (c).”

Hittle v. Scripto-Tokai Corp., 166 F. Supp. 2d 142 (M.D. Penn. 2001). “15 U.S.C. § 2075 (a). The terms of the Act provide that if a federal safety standard is in effect and applies to a risk of injury associated with a product, no state may honor any safety standard or regulation associated with that product unless the standard is identical to the…”

Am. Shooting Sports Council, Inc. v. Attorney Gen., 429 Mass. 871 (Mass. 1999). “With respect to the regulation of product safety and performance, the following considerations have pertinence to the Attorney General’s authority.”

Leipart v. Guardian Indus., Inc., 234 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “15 U.S.C. § 2075 (a). The pre-emption clause is, however, subject to two saving clauses.”

Show all 32 citing cases →

— 15 U.S.C. § 2075(c) — 1 case

Colon Ex Rel. Molina v. Bic USA, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 2d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “The preemption provision states: [N]o State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish or to continue in effect any provision of a safety standard or regulation which prescribes any requirements as to the performance, composition, contents,…”

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.