PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 12, 2014
Nicholas and Zachary Burt Memorial Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act of 2014 - Directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to establish a grant program to provide assistance to states that require compliant carbon monoxide alarms to be installed in dwelling units.
Defines "compliant carbon monoxide alarm" as an alarm that complies with the American National Standard for Single and Multiple Station Carbon Monoxide Alarms as well as the American National Standard for Gas and Vapor Detectors and Sensors.
Permits states receiving grants to use such funds to: (1) purchase and install such alarms in dwelling units of low-income families or elderly persons, childcare facilities, public schools, senior centers, or student dwelling units owned by public universities; (2) train state or local fire code enforcement officials regarding compliance and installation; and (3) educate the public about the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning.
People & committees
Rep. Kuster, Ann M. [D-NH-2] · D–NH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4864 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4864 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4864 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4864 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.