Codify — Article

Safe Stay Act requires CO alarms in public accommodations

Updates fire-safety standards by mandating compliant carbon monoxide alarms in all lodging facilities, with guest-notice duties and FTC enforcement.

The Brief

The Safe Stay Act amends the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to require compliant carbon monoxide alarms in every sleeping or dwelling unit within places of public accommodation that affect commerce. It updates the applicable standards by replacing Standard 74 with Standard 72 and expands the definition of compliant alarms to align with NFPA 72, the International Fire Code, and UL standards.

The bill also requires dissemination of information, updates to state lists and the federal master list, a guest-facing notice at check-in attesting compliance, and FTC enforcement with penalties for noncompliance. An effective date is set for one year after enactment.

At a Glance

What It Does

The bill requires compliant carbon monoxide alarms in each sleeping or dwelling unit within places of public accommodation and updates the wiring/standard references to NFPA 72, IFC, and UL standards.

Who It Affects

Lodging operators (hotels, motels, inns) and other public accommodations that affect commerce, along with their guests and staff.

Why It Matters

It creates a nationwide safety standard for CO protection in lodging, aligns federal guidelines with leading codes, and empowers federal enforcement to deter noncompliance.

More articles like this one.

A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.

Unsubscribe anytime.

What This Bill Actually Does

The Safe Stay Act modernizes fire-safety requirements to protect guests from carbon monoxide exposure in lodging and other public accommodations. It requires that every sleeping or dwelling unit in a property that serves the public—like hotels and inns—have a compliant carbon monoxide alarm installed.

A compliant alarm must meet established codes (NFPA 72, the International Fire Code, and UL standards), and the bill updates the current standards to reflect these references. The act also requires properties to share information about compliance with guests at check-in and to maintain up-to-date lists of compliant properties in federal and state registers.

To ensure the rules are followed, the Federal Trade Commission would enforce the new requirements and penalize deceptive practices around notices of compliance. The effective date for these changes is one year after enactment.

The bill preserves the ability for higher standards to apply where a jurisdiction already requires them, ensuring that more stringent local or state codes remain permissible on top of federal minimums.

The Five Things You Need to Know

1

The bill adds a new requirement that compliant carbon monoxide alarms be installed in each sleeping or dwelling unit within every place of public accommodation affecting commerce.

2

Alarms must conform to NFPA 72, the International Fire Code, and UL standards as defined in the bill.

3

Owners or operators must provide guests with a written notice at check-in attesting that the property is in compliance with the CO alarm requirement.

4

The Federal Trade Commission is given authority to enforce the CO alarm notice requirement and regulate related practices.

5

State lists and the federal master list must be updated to reflect these amendments, with an effective date one year after enactment.

Section-by-Section Breakdown

Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections. Expand all ↓

Section 2

CO alarm installation in places of public accommodation

Section 2(a) amends Section 29(a) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act to require compliant carbon monoxide alarms in each sleeping or dwelling unit within places of public accommodation affecting commerce, replacing Standard 74 with Standard 72. It also broadens the regulatory framework to ensure alarms installed meet current safety codes and performance standards. This creates a uniform baseline for safety across public accommodations.

Section 2

Definitions for compliant alarms and standards

Section 2(b) adds definitions clarifying what constitutes a compliant carbon monoxide alarm, tying compliance to the latest editions of NFPA 72, the International Fire Code, and UL standards referenced by those codes. It also defines terms related to these standards to prevent ambiguity in enforcement or procurement.

Section 2

Dissemination of information

Section 2(c) expands information requirements so that carbon monoxide alarm compliance is captured alongside existing safety disclosures. This ensures that properties communicate clearly about alarm presence and compliance, helping guests verify safety efforts before or during stays.

3 more sections
Section 2

Updating state and master lists

Section 2(d) directs the FEMA Administrator to update state lists and the federal master list to reflect the amendments, ensuring consistent nationwide tracking of compliant properties and avoiding mismatches between state codes and federal requirements.

Section 2

Interpretation and higher standards

Section 2(e) clarifies that nothing in the act prevents applying higher safety standards than the federal baseline if a jurisdiction adopts stricter requirements or newer editions of cited codes.

Section 3

Notice of compliant carbon monoxide alarms

Section 3 requires owners or operators of public accommodations to provide guests with written notice at check-in attesting that the property complies with the CO alarm requirement added in Section 2. The enforcement framework and penalties are set out in FCCA-based provisions as described in the bill.

At scale

This bill is one of many.

Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.

Explore Government in Codify Search →

Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost

Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.

Who Benefits

  • Hotel, motel, and other lodging operators maintain safety compliance and reduce liability by meeting a clear, enforceable standard.
  • Guests and temporary occupants gain a verifiable safety feature and confidence in accommodations.
  • Property managers and public-accommodation owners achieve standardization across properties, easing audits.
  • Fire-safety regulators and inspectors benefit from a unified, codified standard that facilitates enforcement.
  • CO alarm manufacturers and installers may see increased demand for compliant systems and professional installation services.

Who Bears the Cost

  • Lodging operators and property owners cover installation and ongoing maintenance costs for CO alarms.
  • Small lodging providers with limited budgets face upfront expenditure and potential ongoing service costs.
  • State and local agencies incur administrative costs to update master lists and disseminate compliance information.
  • Installers and service firms bear workload and potential costs associated with scaling installations across multiple properties.
  • Ongoing replacement and battery costs for alarms contribute to recurring operating expenses for affected businesses.

Key Issues

The Core Tension

The central dilemma is safety versus cost and administrative burden: mandating CO alarms improves protection for guests, but imposes installation, maintenance, and disclosure duties on lodging providers, while granting FTC enforcement may broaden penalties for noncompliance and create a patchwork of federal-state interactions where some jurisdictions already apply stricter codes.

The bill meaningfully raises safety standards by mandating compliant carbon monoxide alarms in all sleeping or dwelling units within places of public accommodation. This creates a uniform nationwide requirement, but it also shifts costs to lodging operators and increases regulatory administrative tasks for states and federal agencies tasked with maintaining lists and disseminating information.

The enforcement framework under FTC authority adds a consumer-protection dynamic to compliance, treating misrepresentations about alarm compliance as unfair or deceptive acts or practices. One practical challenge is the one-year lead time before the standard takes effect, which may strain small operators if not paired with outreach and assistance.

Questions remain about the balance between safety gains and the administrative burden on small businesses, as well as how higher local standards interact with a new federal baseline.

Try it yourself.

Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.