of the FIFRA. Comeaux, 81 F.3d at 43; accord Moss, 985 F.2d at 740 n. 3; Chem. Specialties Mfrs. Ass’n, Inc. v. Allenby, 958 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir.1992). Indeed, both refer only to the labeling of products. Compare 15 U.S.C. § 1261 note (b)(1)(A) (FHSA), unth 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b) (FIFRA). Given that the two preemption provisions are thus essentially the same, there is no reason to believe that the Supreme Court’s analysis in Bates does not equally apply to the labeling preemption provision of the FHSA. In light of the plain language of that provision, and the traditional presumption against preemption, the Court therefore concludes that Plaintiffs remaining claims are not expressly preempted by the FHSA. Accord Gougler v. Sirius Prods., Inc., 370 F.Supp.2d 1185, 1194-1199 (S.D.Ala.2005) (<HOLDING>). b. Implied preemption under the FHSA The
holding that in light of bates the fhsa does not expressly preempt a design defect claim holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion holding flsa did not preempt state law fraud claim holding that complaint alleging design defect likely to cause damage failed to state a claim holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer