SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act”.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) COMMISSION.—The term “Commission” means the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
(2) GAS STOVE.—The term “gas stove” means any gas range, gas stove, or household cooking gas appliance that meets the standard set forth in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z21.1/ CSA Z21.1 or any successor standard.
(3) SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE AVERAGE PRICE OF GAS STOVES.—The term “substantially increase the average price of gas stoves” means that the average price of a gas stove, annualized over its expected life, would likely be substantially higher than the average spending by United States homeowners on cooking stoves and ovens based on the most recent data for consumer expenditures reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CPSC BANNING GAS STOVES.
No Federal funds may be used by the Commission to regulate a gas stove as a banned hazardous product under section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057) or to impose or enforce any consumer product safety standard or rule on gas stoves under section 7 or 9 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 or 2058) that would otherwise result in a prohibition on the use or sale of gas stoves in the United States or would otherwise substantially increase the average price of gas stoves in the United States.
Honestly, I disagree. The definitions of things make a huge difference in how people can consider a law applicable. One of the reasons there is so much complexity with law is because there are many loopholes definitionally. Making enforceable laws means providing clear and actionable definitions for each aspect of a general law.
For example if you had a law protecting cyclists in bike lanes from being blocked by vehicles, you need to clearly define what kinds of vehicles, bikes, and types of blocking you are taking about.
My point being why not ‘export’ some of the definition to within the text of the bill…
And the definition itself ‘Substantially more’… ‘Substantial increase’ is pretty redundant IMO
And part 3 of the definition is basically useless as it just defines it as the same language again!
There clearly needs to be a 4th definition defining “substantially.” And maybe throw in a definition for what “is” is too.
