Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. v. US Consumer Product Safety Com'n, Civ. A. No. 76-44.
Decision Date | 27 May 1976 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 76-44. |
Citation | 414 F. Supp. 1047 |
Parties | KAISER ALUMINUM AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Charles S. Crompton, Jr., Potter, Anderson & Corroon, Wilmington, Del., Arnold M. Lerman, and Ronald J. Greene, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D. C., Max Thelen, Jr., Fredric C. Nelson, and Kennedy P. Richardson, Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, San Francisco, Cal., Robert W. Turner, and Dennis M. Day, Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., Oakland, Cal., for plaintiff.
W. Laird Stabler, Jr., U. S. Atty., Wilmington, Del., Thomas S. Brett, and Edward B. Craig, IV, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Michael A. Brown, and David Schmeltzer, U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
On October 27, 1972, the Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC" or "the Commission") was launched pursuant to the Consumer Product Safety Act ("CPSA" or "the Act"). The CPSC was given regulatory authority over "consumer products" as defined in the Act.1 That regulatory authority included the power to "collect, investigate, analyze, and disseminate injury data, and information" regarding hazards associated with consumer products.2 It also included the power to develop safety standards respecting the products under its jurisdiction,3 and to promulgate these standards by rule where "reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with such product."4 In addition, the Commission's authority included the power, after conducting an adjudicatory-type hearing, to declare appropriate products to be "substantial product hazards" with certain potentially dire consequences to the products in question and their manufacturers and sellers.5
About a year after it came into existence, the Commission made an official determination that it had jurisdiction "to deal with those hazards to consumers which may result from the use of aluminum wiring in homes."6 Soon after that decision the Commission contracted with the National Bureau of Standards for the assistance of its Technical Analysis Division ("TAD") in evaluating the safety of aluminum wiring.7 Then, in the Spring of 1974, the Commission held public hearings in Washington, D. C., and Los Angeles, California, on the subject of "fire hazards associated with electrical wiring systems utilizing aluminum conductors".8
July of 1975 found the Commission deciding to make a public statement about what it had come to call the "aluminum wiring problem". In an issue of N.E.I.S.S. News,9 an official publication of the Commission, it was stated that:
It next developed that, on August 7, 1975, the Commission voted unanimously to commence a safety standard development proceeding respecting "aluminum wire in sizes AWG No. 10 and smaller and devices intended for use with it in branch circuits. . . ."11 and, by a split vote, to prepare for the commencement of a "substantial product hazard" proceeding respecting "`old technology' aluminum wire12 in sizes AWG No. 10 and smaller and wiring devices intended for use with, or that could reasonably have been expected to be used with, `old technology' wire in new installations."13 These actions were followed in September, 1975, by the publication of a document called a "Technical Fact Sheet", which stated in part:
On November 4, 1975, the Commission issued the required public notice of the authorized safety standard development proceeding, in which notice the following statements were made:
In conjunction with this notice of proceeding, the CPSC issued a written press release, stating in part:
Sections 6(b)(1) and (2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2055(b)(1), (b)(2) provide, in part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reliable Auto. Sprinkler v. Consumer Prod. Safety
...to [Reliable's] business, `including sales, good will and certain of its business relationship.'" (Pl.'s Opp. at 6 (quoting Kaiser, 414 F.Supp. at 1055, 1056).) Reliable also suggests that the costs of corrective action might threaten the viability of its business, noting that the execution......
-
United States v. Anaconda Co.
...Stapleton in Delaware reached the opposite conclusion on the import of Congress' action in creating NIBS. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. CPSC, 414 F.Supp. 1047, 1060-61 (D.Del. 1976). Judge Stapleton relies heavily on the intent of Congress not to preempt state and local building codes by......
-
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COM'N v. Chance Mfg. Co.
...the Zipper machine, and the uses to which it is put, the jurisdictional issue is exclusively one of law. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. CPSC, 414 F.Supp. 1047, 1056 (D.Del.1976). 1. The Consumer Product Safety Commission came into being October 27, 1972, with the passage of the Consume......
-
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Federal Energy Administration
...not be considered in exception proceedings, exhaustion of those proceedings is not required. Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 414 F.Supp. 1047, 1055 (D.Del.1976); Shell Oil Co. v. FEA, supra. A court should not stand aside just because there is available to ......