Section 1392(d), Title 15.’ Honda contends that appellant’s air bag claim falls squarely within the scope of this clause. Honda urges that appellant’s air bag claim amounts to a state safety “standard” because appellant’s claim “requires manufacturers to install airbags, not seat belts, in all vehicles.” Therefore, according to Honda, appellant’s “purported standard is not ‘identical’ to the federal standard, and federal law expressly preempts it.” This court has recognized that, in the appropriate case, state tort claims can be within the preemptive reach of a federal statute. Jenkins, 69 Ohio St.3d at 544, 634 N.E.2d at 1001, citing In re Miamisburg, 68 Ohio St.3d at 262, 626 N.E.2d at 91. See, also, Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 520-523, 112 S.Ct. at 2619-2621, 120 L.Ed.2d at 425-427 (<HOLDING>); and Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 664, 113 S.Ct. at
holding that the phrase requirements or prohibitions    imposed under state law in section 5b of the public health cigarette smoking act of 1969 codified at section 1334b title 15 uscode is not limited to positive enactments by legislatures and agencies but may also include certain state law damage actions holding that sources of state law identifying a final policymaker include not only positive state law but also custom or usage having the force oflaw holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt plaintiffs state law claims holding that state law controlled damage issues holding that the federal cigarette labeling and advertising act did not preempt state law damages actions