- Targeted stakeholdersLikely reduces carbon monoxide poisoning incidents among guests by ensuring detection in sleeping units.
- Targeted stakeholdersCreates a uniform national baseline for carbon monoxide alarms in public accommodations, simplifying compliance standar…
- Targeted stakeholdersIncreases demand for carbon monoxide alarm manufacturing, installation, and maintenance, potentially creating related j…
Safe Stay Act
Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in…
Amends the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act to require compliant carbon monoxide (CO) alarms in every sleeping or dwelling unit within places of public accommodation affecting commerce.
Defines “compliant carbon monoxide alarm,” references NFPA 72 and the International Fire Code, requires states and FEMA to update lists, mandates guest check-in notices attesting compliance, gives the FTC enforcement authority for the notice requirement, and allows higher local standards.
The notice requirement takes effect one year after enactment.
Modest overall chance: clear safety purpose aids passage, but regulatory cost burden without funding and Senate hurdles reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly creates new legal obligations (mandatory carbon monoxide alarm installation) and integrates those obligations into existing codes and enforcement authorities, but it lacks fiscal acknowledgement, detailed timelines for achieving physical compliance, and robust handling of edge cases.
Progressives emphasize public-health and equity benefits.
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
- Targeted stakeholdersImposes upfront purchase and installation costs on owners of hotels, motels, and other lodging providers.
- Targeted stakeholdersCreates recurring costs for testing, battery replacement, and equipment upkeep for lodging operators.
- Targeted stakeholdersSubjects operators to FTC enforcement and potential penalties for noncompliant or inaccurate check-in notices.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Progressives emphasize public-health and equity benefits.
Likely supportive because the bill advances public safety, consumer protection, and equitable safety standards in lodging.
Would favor stronger enforcement, funding assistance for small operators, and broader coverage where gaps exist.
Generally favorable as a targeted public-safety upgrade with a one-year phase for the notice provision.
Sees practical benefits but wants clarity on costs, scope, and administrative burden.
Skeptical of a federal mandate imposing installation and notification requirements on private businesses.
Prefers state/local code control, voluntary approaches, or federal cost-sharing rather than FTC-driven enforcement.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest overall chance: clear safety purpose aids passage, but regulatory cost burden without funding and Senate hurdles reduce likelihood.
- Absent cost estimates for installations and compliance
- Potential opposition from hotel/motel and small-business groups
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Progressives emphasize public-health and equity benefits.
Modest overall chance: clear safety purpose aids passage, but regulatory cost burden without funding and Senate hurdles reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory amendment that clearly creates new legal obligations (mandatory carbon monoxide alarm installation) and integrates those obligations into e…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.