February 21, 2024

On February 25, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Published a Direct Final Rule for Portable Bed Rails (15 CFR 1224), Replacing the 2012 Version of ASTM F 2085-12 with the 2019 Version ASTM F 2085-19

SUMMARY: This rule pertains to portable bed rails intended to be installed on an adult bed to prevent children from falling out of bed.

Section 104(b)(1)(B) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) requires the CPSC to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. The law requires these standards to be ‘‘substantially the same as’’ applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.

The CPSC is updating 15 CFR 1224 by replacing the 2012 Version of ASTM F 2085-12 with the 2019 Version, ASTM F 2085-19.

The CPSC found that all of the non-substantive changes made in ASTM F2085–19 were neutral regarding safety for portable bed rails because they were editorial in nature. The one substantive change to the standard was the change in the type of twin bed sheet from 50/50 polyester cotton blend to 60/40 polyester cotton blend. The test labs had indicated that it was difficult to find a sheet that could be verified as a 50/50 blend and that most twin sheets on the market were the 60/40 blend.

The CPSC staff believes that changing the sheet source from a 50/50 blend to a 60/40 blend would not affect how a technician performs the test or alter the results of the testing. Therefore, the CPSC concludes that this change is neutral regarding safety while increasing the ease of sourcing the test materials and is adopting this revision as the new safety standard.

DATES: The rule is effective on May 20, 2020, unless the CPSC receives significant adverse comment by March 26, 2020.

On February 24, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Published a Final Rule Incorporation by Reference; North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria; Hazardous Materials Safety Permits (49 CFR 385)

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends its Hazardous Materials Safety Permit regulations to incorporate by reference the April 1, 2019, edition of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance’s (CVSA) ‘‘North American Standard Out- of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of- Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.’’ The Out-of-Service Criteria provide uniform enforcement tolerances for roadside inspections to enforcement personnel nationwide, including FMCSA’s State partners.

The 2019 edition identifies (1) driver- related violations of the FMCSRs that are so severe as to warrant placing the CMV driver out of service, (2) vehicle equipment-related violations of the FMCSRs that are so severe as to warrant placing the CMV out of service, and (3) unsafe conditions in the transportation of hazardous materials. The purpose of the publication is to provide inspection criteria for Federal and State motor carrier safety enforcement personnel to promote uniform and consistent inspection procedures of CMVs operated in commerce.

Thirteen updates distinguish the April 1, 2019, handbook edition from the 2018 edition. The updates are all described in detail in the NPRM (85 FR at 52434–36). The incorporation by reference of the 2019 edition does not impose new regulatory requirements. The various changes

DATES: This final rule is effective March 25, 2020. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is as of March 25, 2020. Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted to the FMCSA Administrator no later than March 25, 2020.

On January 31, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Published a Request for Comments on an Evaluation of the CPSC Safety Standards for Full-Size and Non-Full-Size Baby Cribs (16 CFR 1219 and 1220)

DATES: Written comments should be filed on or before March 31, 2020.

SUMMARY:  The CPSC is conducting this review as mandated by Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act which requires a review within 10 years of when a Standard is issued, if the Standard has a significant economic impact on small entitiesl

The CPSC is seeking comments on:

  1. Safety and Effectiveness
    1. Are there any technological developments that would improve the full-size or non-full-size crib standards?  If so, what would be the impact on large or small suppliers?
    2. Could the standards be improved?  If so, how would this impact suppliers?
  2. Costs and Impacts—Suppliers
    1.  Are there any requirements of the current standards that are unduly burdensome?
    2.  How does the cost of compliance affect crib production?
    3.  What kinds of modifications did manufacturers have to make to comply with the standards?
    4.  Have new entrants come into the market since the standards were issued?  Did the standards presented any difficulties for new entrants?
    5.  Have any manufacturers dropped crib models or crib lines because of the standards?
    6. Was the impact of the standards reduced due to the longer effective date of childcare facilities?
    7.  Are any other small entities affected by these standards?
  3. Recordkeeping and Third Party Testing
    1.  Questions regarding the cost and time required to certify to the standards.
    2.  Are the recordkeeping requirements of the standards adequate, inadequate, or unduly burdensome?
    3.  How frequently do suppliers submit samples to third party testing organization to test conformity of their products?
    4. To what extent has third party testing replaced in-house testing, and therefore not substantially increased the costs to manufacturers?
    5.  Could changes be made in third party testing procedures that would reduce the burden to crib manufacturers while still assuring compliance with the standards?
  4. Clarity and Duplication
    1.  Are there any aspects of the standards that are unclear?
    2.  Do any parts of the standards duplicate or conflict with other federal, state, or local government rules?
  5. Outreach and Advocacy
    1.  Are any suppliers of cribs unaware of the CPSC standards?  How can the CPSC more effectively communicate the standards to those suppliers?
    2.  Are there any cribs as small child care facilities or public accommodation facilities that do not meet the standards?  What can the CPSC do the increase awareness of the standards?

On January 21, 2020 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Published a Decision that the Hours of Services Provisions of 49 CFR 593 Preempted California’s Meal and Rest Break Rules

The Preemption Decision  

  1.  Section 31141 Expressly Preempts State Law Therefore the Presumption Against Preemption Does Not Apply
  2. The California Meal and Rest Break (MRB) Rules, as Applied to Drivers of Passenger- Carrying CMVs, Are Laws or Regulations ‘‘on Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety’’ Within the Meaning of 49 U.S.C. 31141
  3. The MRB Rules Are ‘‘Additional to or More Stringent Than’’ the Agency’s HOS Regulations for Passenger-Carrying Vehicles Within the Meaning of Section 31141
  4. The MRB Rules Have No Safety Benefits That Extend Beyond Those Provided by the FMCSRs
  5. The MRB Rules are Incompatible with the Federal HOS Regulations for Passenger-Carrying CMVs.
  6. Enforcement of the MRB Rules Would Cause an Unreasonable Burden on Interstate Commerce

Accordingly, FMCSA grants ABA’s petition for preemption and determines that the MRB rules are preempted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31141. Effective the date of this decision, California may no longer enforce the MRB rules with respect to drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs subject to FMCSA’s HOS rules.

On January 7, 2020, NHTSA Published an NPRM on Replica Motor Vehicles; Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Requirements; Manufacturer Identification; Certification 49 CFR Parts 565, 566, 567, and 586

DATES:  Comments should be filed on or before February 6, 2020.

This Rulemaking is mandated by the FAST Act, which requires NHTSA to exempt certain replica vehicles manufactured low volume vehicle manufacturers from Safety Standards.  The proposed rule would provide a framework to allow low volume replica motor vehicle manufacturers to safely provide 350 or fewer vehicles annually into interstate commerce. 

NHTSA believes a  shorter comment period is in the public interest because it will allow NHTSA to issue a final rule more quickly and allow qualifying low-volume manufacturers to begin manufacturing replica motor vehicles sooner. NHTSA does not believe a longer comment period is necessary for the public to consider this proposal because most of the proposed requirements are mandated or contemplated by the FAST Act.