July 3, 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.   

On December 16, 2019, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Published a Request for Comments on Recission of the Hearing and Speaking Requirements for the Drivers of Interstate Motor Carriers (49 CFR 591)

SUMMARY EXERPT: FMCSA requests public comments on the National Association of the Deaf’s (NAD) petition for rulemaking to rescind the requirement for interstate drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) to be able to hear. NAD also requests that FMCSA amend the requirement that interstate drivers be able to speak, and the rule prohibiting the use of interpreters during the administration of the commercial driver’s license (CDL) skills test.

DATES:  Comments should be filed on or before February 20, 2020.

On November 26, 2019, NHTSA Published Its Decision to Grant the Petitions for Reconsideration of the Final Rule it Published on October 2nd Regarding Odometer Disclosure Requirements (49 CFR 580)

NHTSA’s October 2, 2019, final rule amended its odometer disclosure requirements to allow States to adopt electronic odometer disclosure systems and changing the time when vehicles become exempt from federal odometer disclosure requirements from ten years to twenty years.

The America Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the State of Delaware Department of Transportation filed petitions requesting that the agency delay the effective date of the changes to the exemptions from odometer disclosure requirements for one year.  NHTSA granted these petitions. 

DATES: The effective date of the rule allowing States to adopt electronic odometer disclosure systems is still December 31,2019.  However, the change to the exemption from the odometer disclosure requirements will take effect on January 1, 2021 and will apply to model year 2011 and newer vehicles.  Petitions for Reconsideration of this notice must be filed on or before January 10, 2020.