[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 8 (Friday, January 12, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1443-1453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-80]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1407


Portable Generators; Final Rule; Labeling Requirements

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is 
issuing a final rule requiring manufacturers to label portable 
generators with performance and technical data related to performance 
and safety. The required warning label informs purchasers that: ``Using 
a generator indoors CAN KILL YOU IN MINUTES;'' ``Generator exhaust 
contains carbon monoxide. This is a poison you cannot see or smell;'' 
``NEVER use inside a home or garage, EVEN IF doors and windows are 
open;'' ``Only use OUTSIDE and far away from windows, doors, and 
vents.'' The warning label also includes pictograms. The Commission 
believes that providing this safety information will help reduce 
unreasonable risks of injury associated with portable generators.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Acting Chairman Nancy A. Nord and Commissioner Thomas H. 
Moore each filed a statement. The statements are available from the 
Office of the Secretary or on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov.

DATES: This regulation becomes effective May 14, 2007 and applies to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
any portable generator manufactured or imported on or after that date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy P. Smith, Project Manager, 
Division of Human Factors, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland; telephone (301) 504-7691; or e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    The total yearly estimated non-fire related carbon monoxide (CO) 
deaths for each of the years 1999 through 2002 are 109, 138, 130 and 
188, respectively. Since 1999, the percentage of estimated CO poisoning 
deaths specifically associated with generators has been increasing 
annually. In 1999, generators were associated with 7 (6%) of the total 
yearly estimated CO poisoning deaths for that year. In 2000, 2001 and 
2002, they were associated with 19 (14%), 22 (17%) and 46 (24%) deaths 
out of the total estimates for each of those years.
    On October 12, 2005, the staff was directed to undertake a thorough 
review of the status of portable generator safety. As part of this 
review, the staff was requested to assess the sufficiency of warning 
labels to address the CO poisoning hazard posed by portable generators 
that are used within or near residences. In response to this request, 
CPSC staff prepared a draft notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), in 
which the staff proposed that manufacturers be required to label 
portable generators with a CO-poisoning warning label. On August 15, 
2006, the Commission voted unanimously (2-0) to approve the publication 
of a Federal Register notice issuing an NPR for portable-generator 
labeling requirements. This notice was published August 24, 2006. 71 FR 
50003.

B. The Product

    Portable generators offer a means of providing electrical power to 
a location that either temporarily lacks it or is not provided with 
electrical service at all. A portable generator has an internal 
combustion engine to produce rotational energy, which is used to 
generate electricity. The engine may be fueled by gasoline, diesel, 
natural gas, or liquid propane. It is the engine that produces carbon 
monoxide as a byproduct of combustion.
    Estimates of sales of portable generators for consumer use vary, 
but could be more than a million units annually. The most popular of 
these generators are gasoline-powered and are priced in the $500 to 
$800 range. The output of the majority of light duty generators sold to 
consumers in 2005 was in the 3.5 kW to 6.5 kW range. This is the size 
of most of the units involved in the fatal CO poisoning incidents CPSC 
staff investigated in which the rating of the involved generator was 
identified.

C. Relevant Statutory Provisions

    Section 27(e) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) authorizes 
the Commission, by rule, to ``require any manufacturer of consumer 
products to provide the Commission with such performance and technical 
data related to performance and safety as may be required to carry out 
the purposes of this Act, and to give such notification of such 
performance and technical data at the time of original purchase to 
prospective purchasers and to the first purchaser of such product for 
purposes other than resale, as it determines necessary to carry out the 
purposes of this Act.'' As provided in section 2(b)(1) of the Consumer 
Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051(b)(1)), one purpose of the CPSA is 
``to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated 
with consumer products.''
    Failure to comply with a rule under section 27(e) is unlawful under 
section 19(a)(8) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(8). Any person who 
knowingly violates this requirement is subject to a civil penalty of up 
to $8,000 per violation. 15 U.S.C. 2069; 64 FR 51963.

D. Explanation of the Rule

    In 2002, CPSC staff assessed the effectiveness of current CO 
poisoning warnings found on the product and within the owner's manuals 
of several models of portable generators found on store shelves. Staff 
found that the guidance provided for avoiding the hazard was typically 
twofold: (1) Do not use in a confined or enclosed space, and (2) 
provide proper ventilation. None of the evaluated warnings defined 
``confined or enclosed space'' or ``proper ventilation.''
    The Commission believes these instructions and warnings do not 
adequately advise users how to avoid the CO poisoning hazard. 
Furthermore, the incident data includes fatalities where it appears 
that the victims attempted to provide adequate ventilation, to open 
confined areas, or to do both by, for example, opening doors, opening 
windows, and running exhaust fans. Prior research has shown that tools 
with gasoline-powered engines produce CO that ``can rapidly accumulate, 
even in areas that appear to be well-ventilated, resulting in dangerous 
and fatal concentrations within minutes.'' \2\ Thus, evidence suggests 
that the methods consumers typically use to provide ventilation or to 
open confined areas are insufficient to prevent hazardous levels of CO 
buildup. Even locating a generator outdoors can be insufficient if the 
generator is near

[[Page 1444]]

enough to openings to the home or other occupied structure to allow CO 
to permeate and subsequently accumulate indoors. CPSC is aware of at 
least 5 deaths that occurred when a generator was situated outdoors but 
near openings to the home. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention recently reported the results of a study of post-
hurricane related generator use in 2005 that found up to 50% of non-
fatal CO poisoning incidents involved generators operated outdoors but 
within one to seven feet from the home.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Earnest, G.S., Carbon Monoxide Poisonings from Small, 
Gasoline-Powered, Internal Combustion Engines: Just What is a 
``Well-Ventilated Area''?, American Industrial Hygiene Association 
Journal, November 1997.
    \3\ CDC, Carbon Monoxide Poisoning After Two Major Hurricanes--
Alabama and Texas, August-October 2005, MMWR March 10, 2006; 55(09); 
236-239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that there are too many unknown variables 
to be able to recommend one single safe distance for the location of a 
portable generator relative to a home or dwelling. Variables such as 
the wind speed and direction relative to openings to indoor spaces, 
relative proximity of other structures in the area that could create 
wind vortices, direction in which the engine exhaust is pointing, and a 
multitude of other factors complicate attempts to define a safe 
distance. Notwithstanding the issue of defining a safe operating 
distance, the Commission believes that warning labels must instruct 
consumers to keep generators outdoors and away from air intakes during 
use.
    In 2003, the staff developed recommended warning language for 
engine-driven tools, with particular focus on portable generators, as a 
follow-up to the staff's assessment of the inadequacy of current 
warnings. This was later provided to the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 
voluntary standard development committee. In February 2006, staff 
developed a further refined warning label for portable generators and 
presented it to UL in response to their request for CPSC staff comments 
on a proposed UL Outline of Investigation. UL incorporated staff 's 
proposed warning label into their Outline of Investigation, which 
became effective April 2006 and serves as the requirements with which a 
product must conform in order to be eligible to bear the UL mark. This 
document is not a consensus standard. The Commission believes a final 
rule is needed to ensure that all products will bear the proposed 
warning label as opposed to only those that seek UL's mark.

E. Description of the Rule

    The warning label appears at fig. 1 (and fig. 3 for the on-package 
label). The warning label provides technical data, i.e., it indicates 
the presence of carbon monoxide in the portable generator exhaust and 
informs that carbon monoxide is a poison you cannot see or smell. The 
label uses the phrase ``you cannot see or smell'' rather than terms 
such as ``odorless'' and ``colorless,'' because the latter terminology 
may be less familiar and understandable to some consumers.
    The label also includes statements which connect the technical data 
with safety concerns. Specifically, the label warns: ``Using a 
generator indoors CAN KILL YOU IN MINUTES.'' The phrase ``in minutes'' 
is intended to emphasize the imminence of the carbon monoxide poisoning 
hazard to provide consumers with a better understanding of the speed 
with which incapacitation can occur. In addition, research indicates 
that information about hazard scenarios affects consumers' risk 
judgments. Thus, the label includes a description not just of the 
hazard, carbon monoxide, but of the primary hazard scenario associated 
with CO-poisoning deaths, i.e., using a generator indoors. The label 
also warns, ``NEVER use inside a home or garage, EVEN IF doors and 
windows are open.'' The label warns specifically against use in the 
home and in garages, since these are known places in which consumers 
have used generators. The label includes prescriptive advice to ``Only 
use OUTSIDE and far away from windows, doors, and vents,'' so consumers 
can know what positive action they can take to avoid the hazard, rather 
than focusing exclusively on prohibited behaviors, or what consumers 
should not do. This is consistent with the requirements of ANSI Z535.4-
2002, which is the primary U.S. voluntary consensus standard on product 
safety signs and labels, and with warning design guidelines in general. 
The accompanying pictograms are based on the pictograms developed by 
the Underwriters Laboratories Standards Technical Panel. Research shows 
that labels with pictograms tend to capture a consumer's attention more 
readily than a label without pictograms.

F. Unreasonable Risk of Injury

    Portable generators are powered by gasoline, diesel, or propane 
engines and exhaust CO. If the generator is used in enclosed or even 
partially enclosed spaces, the CO can very quickly build to hazardous 
levels. Serious injury can also result when the generator is placed 
outdoors but near an open window or vent and the exhaust is pulled into 
a house. In the 6-year period from 2000 through 2005, the Commission is 
aware of at least 222 deaths related to CO poisoning associated with 
generators.\4\ Non-fatal CO injuries can have serious consequences 
since permanent brain or neurological damage can result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Natalie E. Marcy and Debra S. Ascone, ``Incidents, Deaths 
and In-Depth Investigations Associated with Carbon Monoxide from 
Engine-Driven Generators and other Engine-Driven Tools, 1990-2004,'' 
CPSC Memorandum to Janet Buyer, Directorate for Engineering 
Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC (1 
December 2005) and Robin L. Ingle, ``Non-fire Carbon Monoxide 
Fatalities Associated with Engine-Driven Generators and Other Engine 
Driven Tools in 2004 and 2005,'' CPSC Memorandum to Janet Buyer, 
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, Washington, DC (3 January 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A well-designed warning label should inform the consumer of the CO 
hazard associated with generators and how to avoid the hazard while 
using the generator. A label placed in a prominent position on the 
generator is expected to reinforce this information each time the 
consumer used the generator. For example, the proposed label reminds 
the consumer that generator exhaust contains CO, which cannot be seen 
or smelled, and can quickly kill. The label also clarifies that a 
generator should only be used outside and far away from windows and 
vents and should not be used inside a home or garage. This information 
is important since some consumers have apparently been aware that a CO 
hazard was associated with generators, but believed that they would 
avoid the hazard by running the generator in a garage with the door 
open or outside the house, and did not understand that it was necessary 
to place it away from open windows and vents.\5\ The costs of a warning 
label include the one-time cost of designing the label and the 
continuing costs of printing and applying the labels to the generators 
and packages. These costs are expected to be low--less than one dollar 
per generator. Based on the hazards associated with carbon monoxide 
poisoning from portable generators, and the low cost of labeling 
generators, the Commission finds that there is an unreasonable risk of 
injury associated with portable generators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Timothy P. Smith, ``Human Factors Assessment for the Small 
Engine-Driven Tools Project,'' CPSC Memorandum to Janet L. Buyer, 
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC (18 June 
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Environmental Considerations

    The National Environmental Policy Act and the Council on 
Environmental Quality Act regulations and CPSC procedures for 
environmental review require the Commission to assess the possible 
environmental effects associated with the labeling requirement for 
portable generators. Labeling rules

[[Page 1445]]

are not expected to have an adverse impact on the environment and are 
considered to fall within the ``categorical exclusions'' for the 
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act according to the CPSC 
regulations that cover its ``environmental review'' procedures (16 CFR 
Part 1021.5(c)(2)). Thus, the Commission concludes that no 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required 
in this proceeding.

H. Impact on Small Business

    When an agency issues a final rule such as the labeling requirement 
for portable generators, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires the agency to prepare a 
final regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the rule 
on small businesses and other small entities. Section 605 of the RFA 
provides that an agency is not required to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis if the head of an agency certifies that the rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    The Commission's Directorate for Economic Analysis prepared a 
preliminary assessment of the impact of a rule to require labeling on 
portable generators. That assessment reported that, while small 
manufacturers will be responsible for ensuring that their generators 
are properly labeled, the labeling requirement is not expected to pose 
a significant burden to small business because the cost of adding the 
labels per generator is expected to be less than a dollar per generator 
set. The incremental cost of the rule issued today is likely to be 
minimal.
    Based on the foregoing assessment, the Commission certifies that 
the rule issued today to require labeling for portable generators will 
not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses or other small entities.

I. Executive Order 12988

    As provided for in Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), the 
CPSC states that the preemptive effect of these regulations is as 
follows. The preemption provisions of section 26 of the CPSA apply only 
to ``consumer product safety standards.'' By definition in the CPSA, 
section 27(e) rules are not consumer product safety standards. There 
is, therefore, no express preemption for a final rule under section 
27(e) of the CPSA. Preemption of state requirements could still occur 
if, for example, it is impossible to comply with both this rule and a 
state requirement.

J. Effective Date

    Part 1407 requires a label on any portable generator manufactured 
or imported on or after May 11, 2007.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Note that the rule does not apply to any portable generator 
that is an ``accessory'' to a motor vehicle as defined in 49 U.S.C. 
30102(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Response to Comments on the NPR

    In response to the Federal Register notice proposing labeling 
requirements for portable generators, the Commission received 19 
comments. The comments were largely positive and supported the proposed 
labeling, but two comments explicitly requested that the Commission 
withdraw the NPR. Many of the comments, even those that supported the 
general intent and approach of the rule, raised specific issues or 
concerns.

1. Procedural Issues and Choice of Statutes

    Comments: Two comments claim that the Federal Hazardous Substances 
Act (FHSA), not the CPSA, is the appropriate statute under which to 
address through labeling the CO-poisoning risk associated with portable 
generators. If, as the commenters claim, the risk of injury is one 
which could be eliminated or reduced by action under the FHSA, then the 
Commission, pursuant to section 30(d) of the CPSA, would have been 
required to find by rule that it was in the public interest to regulate 
the risk of injury under the CPSA (``section 30(d) finding'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 30(d) of the CPSA provides that a risk of injury 
which is associated with a consumer product and which could be 
eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by action under the 
Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Poison Prevention Packaging 
Act of 1970, or the Flammable Fabrics Act may be regulated under the 
CPSA only if the Commission by rule finds that it is in the public 
interest to regulate such risk of injury under the CPSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These commenters also claim that the label proposed in the NPR 
appears to be the type of warning that Section 7 of the CPSA 
contemplates, since the NPR characterizes the risk of CO poisoning 
associated with generator emission as an ``unreasonable risk of 
injury.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Section 7(a) of the CPSA provides that the Commission may 
promulgate a consumer product safety standard requiring that a 
consumer product be marked with or accompanied by clear and adequate 
warnings or instructions. Any requirement of such a standard is to 
be ``reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk 
of injury associated with such product.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The FHSA defines ``hazardous substance'' as including any 
``substance or mixture of substances which (I) is toxic * * * if [it] 
may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness during or 
as a proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable 
handling or use * * *.'' Hazardous substances are misbranded if they do 
not bear the labeling required by section 2(p)(1) of the FHSA, 15 
U.S.C. 1261(p)(1). In order to label a product under the authority of 
the FHSA, the product must constitute or contain a hazardous substance.
    The commenters analogize the labeling of portable generators to the 
labeling of charcoal packaging under the FHSA, in that charcoal, when 
burned, generates carbon monoxide. A significant difference between 
charcoal and portable generators, however, is that charcoal, as a 
substance which is toxic, constitutes a hazardous substance, and its 
packaging is therefore required to be labeled under the FHSA. In 
contrast, portable generators, when sold, are empty. Portable 
generators as sold thus do not contain any hazardous substance, or any 
substance, such as gasoline, that would produce the hazardous 
substance. A more appropriate analogy to portable generators might be 
gasoline containers that, when sold empty, are subject to the authority 
of the CPSA. Because the risk of injury associated with carbon monoxide 
poisoning from portable generators cannot be eliminated or adequately 
reduced by action under the FHSA, no finding under section 30(d)of the 
CPSA is required.
    Commenters also suggest that the label proposed in the NPR appears 
to be the type of warning that Section 7 of the CPSA contemplates, 
since the NPR characterizes the risk of CO poisoning associated with 
generator emission as an ``unreasonable risk of injury.'' Section 27(e) 
of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue rules requiring a 
consumer product manufacturer to provide the Commission and consumers 
with ``performance and technical data related to performance and safety 
as may be required to carry out the purposes of this Act .'' One of the 
purposes of the CPSA, as provided in section 2(b)(1) of the CPSA, is 
``to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated 
with consumer products.'' The risk of CO poisoning posed by portable 
generators was fully addressed in the NPR (71 FR 50003) and the use of 
section 27(e) to protect the public against risk of injury is 
completely appropriate. This is not to say that it would be 
inappropriate to adopt a CO warning label for generators under section 
7 of the CPSA. Indeed, the Commission intends to consider that approach 
in connection with its ongoing generator rulemaking (71 FR 74472).

[[Page 1446]]

2. Scope and Definition Issues

    Comments: Two comments address scope and definition issues related 
to the proposed rule. One comment seeks clarification on whether fuel-
cell portable generators are included within the scope of the rule. 
Another comment proposes that the definition of a ``portable 
generator'' reflect the definition within Underwriters Laboratories' 
Outline of Investigation for Portable Engine-Generator Assemblies, UL 
2201.
    Response: The CPSC rule is intended to generally cover the same 
range of portable generators as UL 2201. Therefore, Section 1407.2(b) 
is revised to read, ``A portable generator is an internal combustion 
engine-driven electric generator rated no higher than 15 kilowatts and 
250 volts that is intended to be moved for temporary use at a location 
where utility-supplied electric power is not available. It has 
receptacle outlets for the alternating-current (AC) output circuits, 
and may have alternating- or direct-current (DC) sections for supplying 
energy to battery charging circuits. '' As specified in this 
definition, portable generators that are covered under this rule must 
have an internal combustion engine and receptacle outlets for AC output 
circuits. (The generator may have other outlets, for example, for low 
voltage DC accessories.) Fuel-cell portable generators are not be 
covered by the rule. The rule also does not cover generators that fall 
within the definition of ``motor vehicle equipment,'' or otherwise fall 
outside the Commission's jurisdiction under the CPSA.

3. Effective Date of Rule

    Comments: Three comments from portable generator manufacturers 
state that they will need at least six months, rather than the 90 days 
proposed in the NPR, from issuance of the final regulation in the 
Federal Register to comply with the new requirements.
    Response: As noted by the staff of the CPSC Directorate for 
Economic Analysis, the time and resources required by manufacturers to 
redesign their portable generator labels are likely to be low since the 
content and format of the labeling will be specified in the rule. The 
Commission, therefore, believes that most manufacturers should be able 
to comply with the requirements within 90 days of publication of the 
final rule. Nevertheless, some manufacturers may have to reschedule 
other work and shift resources such as labor from other projects. There 
would be some costs associated with these adjustments and these costs 
could be alleviated somewhat by delaying the effective date of the 
rule. To provide some relief to manufacturers that might have trouble 
incorporating the label change within 90 days, the Commission has 
decided to post-pone the effective date of the rule such that the label 
would be required on any portable generator manufactured or imported 
120 days after the publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register.

4. Labeling Text Issues

(a) Multiple Languages
    Comments: Five comments address the issue of whether the message 
text of the proposed labeling should also be required in a language 
other than English. Two comments support the addition of other 
languages, and one of these suggests that Spanish be the second 
language to include. Two comments oppose requiring additional 
languages. The remaining comment does not take a position on the 
matter, but suggests that Spanish is the appropriate language to 
include if another language is added.
    Response: The staff's previous analyses of generator-related 
incident data have revealed no pattern of incidents involving people 
who could not read English. To confirm this, the staff of the CPSC 
Directorate for Epidemiology (EP) selected and thoroughly examined a 
random sample of 25 out of 150 in-depth investigations into generator-
related CO-poisoning deaths that occurred in the 2002 to 2005 time 
frame. None of the examined investigation reports described the 
victims' literacy in English, Spanish, or any other language. 
Consequently, these investigations provide no basis for concluding that 
labeling in Spanish would have prevented deaths.
    According to the 2000 U.S. census, most people who speak a language 
other than English at home speak Spanish, with Chinese ranking a very 
distant second (Shin & Bruno, 2003).\9\ Additionally, the National 
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has found that about 35 percent 
of American adults who have below basic literacy in English prose \10\ 
spoke Spanish before starting school; only 9 percent could not speak 
either English or Spanish (NCES, 2005). Adding Spanish to an English-
language warning label, therefore, would be expected to improve its 
readability among the U.S. population more than adding any other 
language. Nevertheless, the overall impact of adding Spanish to a label 
may be small. In the case of portable generators, Synovate 
DuraTrendTM consumer survey data obtained by the EC staff 
show that only 5.6 percent of generator purchasers in 2005 were 
Hispanic. Furthermore, many of these people are likely to be literate 
in English; for example, less than half of all adult Hispanics in the 
U.S. have below basic literacy in English prose (NCES, 2005). Thus, 
Hispanics with below basic literacy in English prose--the sub-
population most likely to include individuals who cannot read English 
yet can read Spanish, and who would potentially benefit the most from 
the addition of Spanish to the proposed warning label--almost certainly 
represent less than five percent of all generator purchasers in the 
U.S., and may comprise substantially less than this. Some of these 
people may also lack basic literacy in Spanish and, therefore, would be 
unable to read a label even if it included written Spanish. Despite 
these findings, the Commission does not dismiss the potential 
usefulness of providing the information in the labeling in Spanish, 
especially in regions of the country with large Hispanic populations. 
Thus, the rule does not prohibit manufacturers from providing a 
Spanish-language version of the labeling in addition to the prescribed 
English-language label. If the product label is provided by the 
manufacturer in additional languages, however, the staff believes that 
additional-language versions of the label should appear adjacent to or 
below the English-language version of the product label. This 
formatting is consistent with ANSI Z535.4--2002, the most recent 
published version of the American National Standard for Product Safety 
Signs and Labels. The staff further recommends that any additional-
language versions of the label, whether they be on the product or on 
the generator package, be no larger than the English-language version 
of the label. Thus, the final rule includes these requirements at Sec.  
1407.3(a)(1) and Sec.  1407.3(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Among the 262.4 million people in the U.S. aged 5 years or 
older, 47.0 million (18 percent) speak a language other than English 
at home. About 60 percent of these (28.1 million) speak Spanish and 
about 0.4 percent (2.0 million) speak Chinese.
    \10\ Those with below basic literacy in English prose lack the 
skills necessary to perform simple everyday literacy activities such 
as reading and understanding information in short commonplace 
continuous texts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Signal Word Choice
    Comments: Four comments assert that the signal word WARNING is more 
appropriate than DANGER for the proposed labeling. Arguments made by 
the commenters include that the use of DANGER is inconsistent with the 
hierarchy specified in the ANSI Z535

[[Page 1447]]

series of standards and that its use might reduce the perceived risk 
associated with the WARNING hazards of fire during refueling, 
electrocution from use in wet conditions, and electrocution from 
connection to a commercial power source.
    Response: According to the ANSI Z535 series of standards, the 
selection of a signal word for a hazard label should be made based on 
the seriousness of the hazard situation or scenario. For example, ANSI 
Z535.4--2002, the most recent published version of the American 
National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels, defines DANGER 
as an ``imminently hazardous situation which, if not avoided, will 
result in death or serious injury'' (Section 4.13.1). The latest 
revision of ANSI Z535.4 clarifies that use of the term--will'' in this 
definition indicates an event that is nearly, but not absolutely, 
certain (Annex E, due for publication 2006). While the mere presence of 
carbon monoxide in portable generator exhaust could lead to death or 
serious injury, the use of generators indoors--the hazard scenario 
specifically highlighted in the label--would almost certainly result in 
death or serious injury due to a generator's high rate of CO production 
(for example, see Inkster, 2004). The CPSC continues to believe, 
therefore, that DANGER is the appropriate signal word for the proposed 
labeling.
    The Commission cannot confirm the assertion that using DANGER for 
the CO poisoning hazard would necessarily reduce the perceived hazard 
associated with the WARNING hazards mentioned. One could argue instead 
that the use of DANGER simply increases the perceived hazard associated 
with CO poisoning without having any effect on consumer perceptions 
related to the other hazards being warned about on the product. 
Additionally, the selection of a signal word for a given hazard is 
supposed to be based on the standard signal-word definitions (for 
example, those used in ANSI Z535.4), which denote the seriousness of 
the hazard situation or scenario, not on how the signal word might 
impact the perceptions of hazard labels that use other signal words. To 
the extent that a hazard situation or scenario is serious enough to 
demand the use of DANGER, one would expect and hope that people exposed 
to the hazard label would correctly interpret this as meaning that the 
hazard situation is more serious than a hazard label that relies on a 
less serious signal word such as WARNING or CAUTION. Accordingly, the 
final rule requires that the label include the signal word DANGER.
(c) Message Text Issues
    Comments: Five comments are associated with the specific message 
text of the proposed labeling. Two comments express concerns that the 
message text has not been independently tested--for example, through 
the use of focus groups--and suggest various alternatives to the 
wording of this text. Both also argue that the phrase, ``* * * WILL 
KILL YOU IN MINUTES'' is not accurate. One comment includes the results 
of focus group testing, performed on low-literacy individuals by a 
contractor for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which 
found that some people had difficulty understanding the phrase ``partly 
enclosed area'' and misinterpreted the word ``gas'' as gasoline. The 
contractor recommended that ``partly enclosed area'' be deleted from 
the label. One comment states that the label does not alert consumers 
to the symptoms of CO poisoning or refer users to the manual for 
additional instructions. Another comment states that the phrase, 
``Please read the manual before use,'' is already attached to the 
generator in another label and that, therefore, the packaging label 
should be identical to the product label if one is used. One comment 
recommends the addition of the phrase, ``FOR OUTDOOR USE ONLY,'' after 
the initial sentence of the proposed labeling.
    Response: As referenced in the comment summary, above, an 
independent contractor performed focus group testing on the proposed 
product label with low literacy individuals as part of the EPA's 
efforts to develop a flood-cleanup brochure. This testing identified 
two specific comprehension problems with the message text of the 
proposed labeling. First, testing revealed that some low-literacy 
individuals had difficulty understanding the phrase ``partly enclosed 
area.'' The available CPSC data on CO poisoning deaths associated with 
portable generators show that most incidents in which the generator was 
reportedly used in an enclosed or partially enclosed area occurred 
either within the home or in a garage or enclosed carport (Marcy & 
Ascone, 2005). Thus, the staff believes it would be acceptable to 
remove ``partly enclosed area'' from the proposed labeling, as 
recommended by the EPA's contractor. The staff is concerned, however, 
about simply deleting this phrase, since its absence could mislead some 
into believing that generators are only hazardous if used in fully 
enclosed areas. Thus, the staff recommends adding the phrase, ``EVEN IF 
doors and windows are open,'' to the end of the revised portion of the 
warning. The entire relevant statement, therefore, is changed in the 
final rule from, ``NEVER use in the home or in partly enclosed areas 
such as garages, '' to, ``NEVER use inside a home or garage, EVEN IF 
doors and windows are open.''
    The testing also revealed that ``gas'' may be misinterpreted as 
``gasoline'' by some low literacy individuals. To address this comment, 
the label is revised to read as follows: ``Exhaust contains carbon 
monoxide, a poison gas you cannot see or smell,'' with, ``Generator 
exhaust contains carbon monoxide. This is a poison you cannot see or 
smell.'' Because they address the specific comprehension problems 
identified with the message text during testing, these revisions should 
make the proposed labeling more understandable to all generator users. 
The CPSC staff believes that an explanation of the intended function of 
a portable generator, which the EPA 's testing contractor also 
recommended adding, is unnecessary for a product label since people who 
do not know this information are unlikely to purchase, rent, borrow, or 
otherwise use a portable generator. Thus, the final rule does not 
include an explanation of the intended function of a portable 
generator.
    The staff agrees that the sentence, ``Using a generator indoors 
WILL KILL YOU IN MINUTES,'' is questionable because death may occur in 
a longer time frame than what most people would deem ``in minutes'' and 
because generator use indoors may result in severe CO poisoning rather 
than death. The staff is also concerned that people who have previously 
used a generator indoors and survived could question the credibility of 
a label that states death is essentially inevitable. If the label is 
not credible, people may choose to ignore the safety message. 
Therefore, the Commission has revised this statement to read, ``Using a 
generator indoors CAN KILL YOU IN MINUTES.'' This revision has no 
effect on the appropriateness of using DANGER as the signal word for 
this label, as discussed earlier, since the use of generators indoors 
would still almost certainly result in death or serious injury due to a 
portable generator's high rate of CO production. The revised phrase 
simply emphasizes the possibility that death can occur within minutes.
    In its 2003 memorandum that proposed warning labels to accompany 
portable generators, the CPSC staff specifically recommended against 
including a description of CO-poisoning symptoms within the product 
label because this information would add a substantial amount of text 
to the label

[[Page 1448]]

and was believed to be of limited value for a label to be affixed to 
the product itself (Smith, 2003). The staff continues to support this 
position. Regarding the statement, ``See product manual for more 
details,'' which originally appeared at the bottom of the on-product 
label in the staff's 2003 memorandum (Smith, 2003), the staff does not 
believe this statement should be required on portable generators 
because the information that is provided in the labeling required in 
this final rule addresses the key safety information of which people 
must be aware when using a generator and generator manufacturers may 
include a statement that refers users to the product manual elsewhere 
on the generator. As pointed out in one public comment, some 
manufacturers already include the phrase, `` Please read the manual 
before use,'' in other generator labels. For the packaging label, 
however, the statements, ``Avoid other generator hazards. READ MANUAL 
BEFORE USE,'' are needed since this label may very well be the only 
label on the packaging that will alert the purchaser to possible 
hazards associated with generator use. Therefore, the provision has 
been retained in the final rule.
    The CPSC staff believes it would be inappropriate to add the 
phrase, ``FOR OUTDOOR USE ONLY,'' after the initial sentence of the 
message text in the proposed labeling. Placing this phrase after the 
initial sentence interrupts the logical flow of the warning from the 
explanation of the hazard situation to the descriptions of the 
appropriate hazard avoidance behaviors. A more appropriate location for 
this phrase, if it were used, would be at the beginning of the message 
text as the first sentence of the warning. However, the staff is 
concerned that using this phrase as the first sentence would tend to 
de-emphasize the description of the hazard situation and its 
consequences (that is, ``Using a generator indoors CAN KILL YOU IN 
MINUTES.''), could lead people to stop reading further because it is a 
highly familiar phrase that people are likely to believe they already 
understand, and is redundant with the already-present and more-detailed 
admonition to use the generator outside and far away from windows, 
doors, and vents. Thus, although this statement would not add a 
substantial amount of text to the label, the Commission does not 
believe it should be added to the labeling and the statement is not 
included in the final rule. However, manufacturers are not prohibited 
from including a statement of this kind elsewhere on the product, 
packaging, or product manual.

5. Labeling Pictogram and Symbol Issues

(a) Prohibition Symbol Choice
    Comments: Four comments propose the use of a circle-slash symbol 
rather than an ``X'' symbol to indicate prohibited actions in the 
pictograms that appear in the proposed labeling. Arguments made within 
these comments in favor of the circle-slash symbol include the fact 
that it is consistent with the ANSI Z535 series of standards, is 
internationally recognized, and obscures less of the underlying 
pictogram than an ``X.'' One comment states that a transparent circle-
slash symbol may be superior since it does not obscure the underlying 
pictorials.
    Response: The CPSC staff acknowledges that the ANSI Z535 series of 
standards recommends the use of a circle-slash symbol to indicate 
prohibited actions in pictograms. When developing the proposed 
labeling, the CPSC staff chose to use ``X'' symbols rather than circle-
slash symbols because both the circle-slash and ``X'' symbols are 
commonly recognized as conveying the prohibition concept (Dreyfuss, 
1972; Wogalter & Leonard, 1999), there was no evidence that English-
reading consumers would have difficulty understanding the meaning of an 
``X'' symbol, and the only known evidence of comprehension problems 
with either prohibition symbol were those encountered with the circle-
slash symbol by some Latin American individuals during charcoal-
pictogram testing previously performed for the CPSC (Requirements for 
Labeling of Retail Containers of Charcoal, 1996). The staff also found 
that circle-slash symbols tended to obscure more of the underlying 
pictograms than did ``X'' symbols of the same size. For example, the 
circle portion of the circle-slash symbols tended to obscure the 
outlines of the home and garage pictograms, making these portions of 
the pictograms difficult to discern. Since publication of the Federal 
Register notice regarding the NPR, the staff has become aware of an 
internal Douglas Aircraft research report that identified possible 
comprehension problems with the use of an ``X'' to indicate 
prohibition. For example, the researchers found that a graphic using an 
``X'' to indicate that a part should not be touched was misinterpreted 
by some as meaning the opposite, indicating where the person should 
touch (Johnson, 1974, as cited in Johnson, 2006). In light of this 
research, the staff agrees that the use of ``X'' symbols rather than 
circle-slash symbols to indicate prohibition in the proposed labeling 
may not be preferable. The final rule, therefore, includes the opaque 
circle-slash symbols rather than ``X'' symbols. Additionally, to avoid 
problems with the circle-slash obscuring the outlines of the home and 
garage, the final rule uses smaller circle-slash symbols, centered over 
the generator pictograms. Although a transparent circle-slash symbol 
would not obscure the underlying symbol, its use is inconsistent with 
the prohibition symbol recommended in the ANSI Z535 series of 
standards.
(b) Use of Hazard-Avoidance Pictograms
    Comments: Three comments are associated with the staff's decision 
to use pictograms depicting hazard avoidance behavior in the proposed 
labeling. Two comments state that these pictograms have not been 
independently tested, and question whether the pictograms of the 
generator will be readily recognized. One of these comments suggests 
that the standard hazardous gas/vapors pictogram, which shows a person 
inhaling gas, might be a better choice since it had undergone 
successful consumer testing. One comment, which includes the results of 
EPA-sponsored focus group testing on the proposed product label, 
reports that some low-literacy individuals had difficulty recognizing 
the generator pictogram. The contractor recommended enlarging this 
pictogram to improve the likelihood that it will be correctly 
identified.
    Response: The CPSC staff had originally considered the use of the 
hazardous gas/vapors pictogram referred to in the comments, but 
expressed reservations about its use since the gas in the pictogram is 
visible even though carbon monoxide is not (Smith, 2003, 2006). The 
staff continues to be concerned about this potential for confusion. In 
addition, although testing has revealed that most people can recognize 
the referenced pictogram as indicating hazardous gas or vapors (Mayer & 
Laux, 1989), this pictogram provides no information regarding 
appropriate hazard-avoidance behaviors. In fact, since this pictogram 
could indicate hazardous gases with varying degrees of lethality, the 
appropriate hazard-avoidance behavior may vary substantially among 
different hazardous gases. For example, some products that release 
hazardous gases might be safely used within an open garage, but this is 
not true for an operating portable generator. The final rule uses 
pictograms depicting appropriate and inappropriate behaviors

[[Page 1449]]

specific to portable generators to avoid this ambiguity.
    As discussed earlier, an independent contractor performed focus-
group testing on the proposed product label with low-literacy 
individuals as part of the EPA's efforts to develop a flood-cleanup 
brochure. The only identified problem with the pictograms that appear 
in the proposed labeling was that some people had difficulty 
recognizing the graphic of the generator. These test results, however, 
almost certainly underestimate the extent to which the generator 
graphic would be recognized in a real-life scenario. For example, 
testing was not performed with the label affixed to a generator. When 
presented in the appropriate context, generator graphics are more 
likely to be recognized (Wogalter, Silver, Leonard, & Zaikina, 2006). 
Additionally, the EPA testing found that some of the participants in 
the testing did not even know what a generator was. People who do not 
know the intended function of a portable generator are unlikely to 
purchase, rent, borrow, or otherwise use a portable generator, and 
would not be expected to correctly identify a graphic of this product. 
Nevertheless, to improve the likelihood that people will correctly 
identify the generator graphic as a portable generator and to increase 
the overall legibility of the pictograms, the CPSC has slightly 
increased the size of the pictograms in the final rule, as recommended 
by the EPA's testing contractor. The Commission also notes that Section 
1407.3(a)(1) of the final rule specifies that ``[a] different 
representation of the generator [within the proposed labeling] may be 
substituted for accuracy if consumers are more likely to recognize the 
substituted representation as the generator to which this label is 
affixed.'' Manufacturers, therefore, may substitute a graphic of the 
specific generator to which the label will be affixed if they so 
choose.
(c) Other Hazard-Avoidance Pictogram Issues
    Comments: Five comments are associated with specific features of 
the hazard-avoidance pictograms that appeared within the proposed 
labeling. Two comments suggest deleting the symbol depicting the use of 
a generator within a garage. This pictogram, according to three 
comments, could be interpreted as meaning that one should not store the 
generator in a garage. Two comments claim that the two-headed arrow 
graphic that appears in the pictogram depicting appropriate behavior 
could be misinterpreted. One of these states that the two-headed arrow 
graphic could be interpreted as meaning that use both in and away from 
the home is acceptable; the commenter suggests that this arrow be 
replaced with a single-headed arrow that points away from the home. The 
other comment claims that this graphic could be interpreted as meaning 
that the person should connect the generator by electrical wire to a 
commercial power supply as a backup, and recommended deleting the 
pictogram entirely.
    Response: The Commission believes that both pictograms that depict 
inappropriate behaviors--one showing generator use within a home or 
enclosed space and one showing generator use within a garage--are 
necessary to convey the key safety message. Relying solely on the 
pictogram of the generator within a home or enclosed space to indicate 
inappropriate behavior, as recommended by the commenters, could lead 
people to believe that generators are only hazardous if used within a 
completely enclosed space. Many CO-poisoning deaths associated with 
portable generators occurred when the generator was being used in a 
garage with the door at least partially open. The pictogram depicting 
generator use in the garage as being inappropriate directly addresses 
incidents of this type. Although the CPSC acknowledges that one could 
infer from these pictograms that generators should not be stored in the 
home or garage, alternative pictograms such as the poisonous gas/vapors 
pictogram are also open to various interpretations regarding 
appropriate and inappropriate behaviors specific to portable 
generators, as discussed in the response to the previous topic. As 
demonstrated by the earlier discussion of comprehension problems 
encountered with common prohibition symbols, virtually no hazard 
pictogram or symbol will be understood by all people. For this reason, 
explanatory text is very often recommended or required,\11\ especially 
for complex hazards (Wogalter, Silver, Leonard, & Zaikina, 2006). The 
CPSC believes that the explanatory message text that appears in the 
label should limit the extent to which misinterpretations of the 
pictograms would prevent people from understanding the overall message 
of the labeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ANSI Z535.3-2002 requires explanatory text for any symbol 
without demonstrated understandability; for example, one that is not 
understood by at least 85 percent of the target audience using the 
methodology specified in Annex B of the standard. Research suggests 
that few safety symbols can meet this requirement, so accompanying 
text is almost always required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the use of a double-headed arrow in the pictogram 
depicting the appropriate use of a portable generator, the American 
National Standard Criteria for Safety Symbols, ANSI Z535.3, recommends 
the consistent use of arrow graphics to represent different types of 
movement or spatial relationships. Single-headed arrows are used to 
represent the motion of objects or components or to represent the 
exertion of pressure or force; in contrast, double-headed arrows are 
used to represent the idea of keeping a safe distance away from a 
hazard (ANSI Z535.3-2002, Figure A1). Thus, the use of a double-headed 
arrow is appropriate, and the direct replacement of the double-headed 
arrow with a single-headed one, as recommended by one commenter, would 
suggest the movement of the home toward the generator, which is 
opposite the intended meaning and could create critical confusion among 
the intended audience. Despite this, in the final rule issued today, 
the original appropriate-use pictogram is replaced with a pictogram 
that avoids the possible misinterpretations identified by the 
commenters yet remains consistent with ANSI Z535.3. This pictogram 
employs a single-headed arrow but places the arrow on the opposite side 
of the generator pictogram to suggest the movement of the generator 
away from the home. The length of the arrow has also been shortened so 
the generator pictogram is not located immediately adjacent to the 
graphic of the home.

6. Explicit Safe Distance

    Comments: Six comments point out that the proposed labeling does 
not include an explicit distance (for example, measured in feet) that 
should be maintained between the generator and the home or other 
partially enclosed area. Some suggest that this distance could be 
inserted within the message text or within the pictogram depicting the 
generator being kept away from the home. One comment suggests a minimum 
distance of 10 feet; another comment suggests at least 15 feet.
    Response: The CPSC agrees that explicitly identifying a safe 
operating distance between the generator and the home or other 
partially enclosed area would be more useful than relying on terms such 
as ``far,'' but has been unable to develop a consensus as to what 
distance is adequate given the widely varying conditions under which 
portable generators may be used. As discussed in the staff's 2006 
briefing package on portable generator safety, some portable generator 
manufacturers currently provide minimum clearance requirements for 
placement of the

[[Page 1450]]

generator; however, these distances appear to represent the clearances 
needed to allow for adequate combustion and cooling airflow, not to 
avoid CO poisoning (Buyer, 2006). Variables such as the speed and 
direction of wind relative to openings to indoor spaces and the 
relative proximity of other structures to the generator complicate 
attempts to define a reasonably safe distance.
    In a study of nonfatal CO-poisoning incidents following two major 
hurricanes in 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC) found that half of those interviewed who had been involved in 
generator-related incidents had placed the generator outside in the 
open, but that all of these individuals had placed the generator within 
seven feet of the home (CDC, 2006). Thus, a ``reasonably safe'' 
distance likely would be greater than seven feet. However, available 
data do not allow the Commission to reach consensus on how much farther 
than seven feet would constitute a reasonably safe distance. The phrase 
``far away,'' used in the label required by this final rule, while not 
as explicit as a specified distance, still emphasizes the need to keep 
the generator well away from, rather than immediately outside, the home 
or other partially enclosed areas.

7. Labeling Placement

    Comments: Three comments address the proposed location or placement 
of the label on the product. Two comments state that it is not 
technically feasible to meet a requirement that the label be placed on 
a part of the generator that, if removed, would impair the operation of 
the generator. The commenters propose an alternative requirement that 
the label be placed on a part of the portable generator that cannot be 
removed without the use of tools. One comment suggests that the label 
be located close to the ``on/off'' switch, the starter, or the power 
outlets, and suggests that the label be more ``active'' by requiring 
the user to take an action that draws attention to the label each time 
the generator is used.
    Response: The Commission is not opposed to the commenters' proposed 
alternative requirement that the label be placed on a part that cannot 
be removed without the use of tools. Therefore, section 
1407.3(a)(1)(iii)(A) of the final rule states, ``On a part of the 
portable generator that cannot be removed without the use of tools.'' 
Regarding the comment about making the label more ``active'' by 
requiring the user to take an action that draws attention to the label 
each time the generator is used, the Commission believes that such a 
requirement is unnecessary at this time since the label is already 
required to be placed in a location that is prominent and conspicuous 
to an operator while performing at least two of the following tasks: 
Filling the fuel tank, accessing the receptacle panel, and starting the 
engine (see section 1407.3(a)(1)(iii)(B) of the final rule).

8. Need for Packaging Label

    Comments: Two comments propose that the requirement for a packaging 
label be dropped from the rule. Both believe this label is unnecessary 
since the packaging will be discarded.
    Response: The intent of the packaging label is to directly provide 
potential purchasers of portable generators with information at the 
point of purchase emphasizing the danger of CO poisoning, and to 
reinforce the warning when the generator is removed from the packaging 
at home, not to assist consumers while they are operating the generator 
after the packaging is discarded. The packaging label provides the CO 
poisoning information irrespective of sales staff interaction or other 
messaging at the point of sale. Without the information presented by 
the packaging label, purchasers may not discover until they are home 
that they do not have an appropriate place to operate the generator. 
Accordingly, the proposed requirement for the packaging label is 
retained in this final rule.

9. Missing Manual Warning

    Comments: One comment notes that a previous CPSC staff memo 
included a recommendation for a product-manual warning, which included 
information about CO-poisoning symptoms, and that the NPR does not 
include a recommendation for such a warning.
    Response: The rule does not include specific recommendations for 
CO-poisoning warnings to appear within the manuals that accompany 
portable generators because prior analyses of the CO-poisoning 
information provided on the product and within the product manuals 
found that the product labeling was often far more deficient (Smith, 
2002). Since the on-product labeling is available to consumers even 
after the product manual is lost, discarded, or otherwise not 
available, improved product labels are of paramount importance. The 
Commission does agree, however, that providing more detailed 
information about CO poisoning within the product manual, including 
information about the symptoms of CO poisoning, would be advantageous, 
and the staff may consider additional requirements of this type as part 
of the CPSC 's ongoing activities associated with improving portable 
generator safety.

10. Extension Cord Warning

    Comments: One comment notes that increasing the distance between 
the generator and any partially enclosed spaces necessarily increases 
the distance between the generator and the load, which could result in 
some consumers using extension cords with insufficient capacity. The 
commenter suggests that a warning label that states, ``ONLY USE 
PROPERLY SIZED EXTENSION CORDS IN GOOD CONDITION,'' be affixed to the 
generator's electrical panel.
    Response: The Commission agrees that the capacity and condition of 
extension cords to be used with portable generators must be adequate to 
support the intended load and allow the generator to be kept far away 
from homes and other partially enclosed areas. However, this issue is 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.

11. Alternatives to Labeling

    Comments: Three comments suggest that labeling alone is not 
sufficient to address the CO-poisoning hazard and recommend technical 
solutions such as reduced CO emissions or integrated CO monitors that 
will automatically shut off the generator if necessary.
    Response: Specific technical approaches to addressing the CO 
poisoning hazard associated with portable generators are outside the 
scope of this rule and are addressed in a separate Commission 
rulemaking commenced with the recent publication of an advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking, 71 FR 74472 (December 12, 2006).

L. Conclusion

    For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission finds that 
a requirement for a carbon monoxide warning statement on portable 
generators is necessary to help protect the public against the risk of 
CO poisoning associated with such products.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1407

    Consumer protection, labeling.


0
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission 
amends Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new Part 
1407 to read as follows:

[[Page 1451]]

PART 1407--PORTABLE GENERATORS: REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE PERFORMANCE 
AND TECHNICAL DATA BY LABELING

Sec.
1407.1 Purpose, scope, and effective date.
1407.2 Definitions.
1407.3 Providing performance and technical data to purchasers by 
labeling.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2076(e).


Sec.  1407.1  Purpose, scope, and effective date.

    This part 1407 establishes requirements under section 27(e) of the 
Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2076(e)) for manufacturers to 
provide consumers with a specified notification concerning the carbon 
monoxide poisoning hazard associated with the use of portable 
generators. The notification is intended to provide consumers with 
technical and performance information related to the safety of portable 
generators. This part applies to any generator manufactured or imported 
on or after May 14, 2007.


Sec.  1407.2  Definitions.

    (a) The definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act 
(15 U.S.C. 2052) apply to this part 1407.
    (b) A portable generator is an internal combustion engine-driven 
electric generator rated no higher than 15 kilowatts and 250 volts that 
is intended to be moved for temporary use at a location where utility-
supplied electric power is not available. It has receptacle outlets for 
the alternating-current (AC) output circuits, and may have alternating- 
or direct-current (DC) sections for supplying energy to battery 
charging circuits.


Sec.  1407.3  Providing performance and technical data to purchasers by 
labeling.

    (a) Notice to purchasers. Manufacturers of portable generators 
shall give notification of performance and technical data related to 
performance and safety to prospective purchasers of such products at 
the time of original purchase and to the first purchaser of such 
product for purposes other than resale, in the manner set forth below.
    (1) On-product label. The CO poisoning hazard label shown in fig. 1 
shall be used on the product. A different representation of the 
generator may be substituted for accuracy if consumers are more likely 
to recognize the substituted representation as the generator to which 
this label is affixed. Alternate-language versions of this label may 
appear on the product in addition to the label specified in figure 1. 
If the product label is also provided by the manufacturer in additional 
language(s), it shall appear adjacent to or below the English-language 
version of the product label, and shall be no larger than the English-
language version of the label. Versions of the product label that are 
in a language other than English may appear without the pictograms that 
appear in the English-language versions.
    (i) The signal word ``DANGER'' shall be in letters not less than 
0.15 inch (3.8 mm) high. The remaining text shall be in type whose 
uppercase letters are not less than 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) high.
    (ii) The signal word ``DANGER'' shall appear in white letters on a 
safety red background. The safety alert symbol shown in fig. 2 shall 
appear immediately before and next to the signal word and be no smaller 
than the height of the signal word with the base of the triangle on the 
same horizontal line as the base of the signal word. The solid portion 
of the triangle (within the lines of the triangle, around the 
exclamation mark) shall be white and the exclamation mark shall be 
safety red. The prohibition circle-slash symbols shall be opaque.
    (iii) The on-product hazard label shown in fig. 1 shall be located:
    (A) On a part of the portable generator that cannot be removed 
without the use of tools, and
    (B) On a location that is prominent and conspicuous to an operator 
while performing at least two of the following actions: Filling the 
fuel tank, accessing the receptacle panel, and starting the engine.
    (iv) The on-product hazard label shown in fig. 1 shall be designed 
to remain permanently affixed, intact, legible, and largely unfaded in 
the environment in which the product is expected to be operated and 
stored over the life of the product.
    (2) Carbon monoxide poisoning hazard label for package. The CO 
poisoning hazard label shown in fig. 3 shall be affixed to the 
principal display panel(s) of the package, as well as the surface 
containing the top flaps of the package. The principal display panel(s) 
of the package is the portion(s) of the outer packaging that is 
designed to be most prominently displayed, shown, presented, or 
examined under conditions of retail sale. Any panel of the package that 
includes text in a language other than English shall also include a CO 
poisoning hazard label in that language. Alternate-language versions of 
the label, in addition to the label specified in figure 3, may also 
appear on the top flaps of the package as long as they are physically 
separate from one another. A different representation of the generator 
may be substituted for accuracy if consumers are more likely to 
recognize the substituted representation as the generator contained 
within the packaging.
    (i) The signal word ``DANGER'' shall be in letters not less than 
0.15 inch (3.8 mm) high. The remaining text shall be in type whose 
uppercase letters are not less than 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) high.
    (ii) The signal word ``DANGER'' shall appear in white letters on a 
safety red background. The safety alert symbol shown in fig. 2 shall 
appear immediately before and next to the signal word and be no smaller 
than the height of the signal word with the base of the triangle on the 
same horizontal line as the base of the signal word. The solid portion 
of the triangle (within the lines of the triangle, around the 
exclamation mark) shall be white and the exclamation mark shall be 
safety red. The prohibition circle-slash symbols shall be opaque.
    (b) [Reserved]

[[Page 1452]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA07.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA07.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA07.003


    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix--List of Relevant Documents

    1. Memorandum from Timothy P. Smith, Engineering Psychologist, 
Division of Human Factors, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, to 
Janet L. Buyer, Project Manager, Division of Combustion and Fire 
Sciences, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, ``Product labels for 
generators to address carbon monoxide poisonings,'' May 26, 2006.
    2. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, Economist, Directorate for 
Economic Analysis,``Economic Issues Related to a CO Warning Label on 
Portable Generators,'' December 27, 2006.

[[Page 1453]]

    3. Memorandum from Natalie E. Marcy, Mathematical Statistician, 
Division of Hazard Analysis, Directorate of Epidemiology, and Debra 
S. Ascone, Mathematical Statistician, Division of Hazard Analysis, 
Directorate for Epidemiology, to Janet Buyer, Project Manager, 
Division of Combustion and Fire Sciences, Directorate for 
Engineering Sciences, `` Incidents, Deaths, and In-Depth 
Investigations Associated with Carbon Monoxide from Engine-Driven 
Generators and Other Engine-Driven Tools, 1990-2004,'' December 1, 
2005.
    4. Memorandum from Robin L. Ingle, Health Statistician, Division 
of Hazard Analysis, Directorate for Epidemiology, to Janet Buyer, 
Project Manager, Division of Combustion and Fire Sciences, 
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, ``Non-fire Carbon Monoxide 
Fatalities Associated with Engine-Driven Generators and Other 
Engine-Driven Tools in 2004 and 2005,'' January 13, 2006.
    5. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, Directorate for Economic 
Analysis, ``Effective Date of CO Warning Label for Generators--
Response to Comments,'' December 27, 2006.

    Dated: January 5, 2007.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-80 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P