[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24346-24375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07870]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1281
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2006-0057]
Safety Standard for Portable Generators
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of
opportunity for oral presentation of comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or
CPSC) has preliminarily determined that there is an unreasonable risk
of injury and death associated with acute carbon monoxide (CO)
poisoning from portable generators. To address this hazard, the
Commission proposes a rule under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)
that limits CO emissions from portable generators and requires
generators to shut off when specific emissions levels are reached. The
Commission is providing an opportunity for interested parties to
present comments on this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPR).
DATES:
Deadline for Written Comments: Written comments must be received by
June 20, 2023.
Deadline for Request to Present Oral Comments: Any person
interested in making an oral presentation must send an electronic mail
(email) indicating this intent to the Office of the Secretary at [email protected] by May 22, 2023.
ADDRESSES:
Written Comments: You may submit written comments in response to
the proposed rule, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2006-0057, by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments. CPSC typically does not accept comments submitted
by email, except as described below. CPSC encourages you to submit
electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
described above.
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier Written Submissions: Submit comments by
mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone: (301) 504-7479. If you wish to submit confidential business
information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected
information that you do not want to be available to the public, you may
submit such comments by mail, hand delivery, or courier, or you may
email them to: [email protected].
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. CPSC may post all comments without change, including any
personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal
information provided, to: www.regulations.gov. Do not submit through
this website: confidential business information, trade secret
information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do
not want to be available to the public. If you wish to submit such
information, please submit it according to the instructions for mail/
hand delivery/courier written submissions.
Docket for SNPR: For access to the docket to read background
documents or comments received, go to: www.regulations.gov, insert the
docket number CPSC-2006-0057 into the ``Search'' box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Buyer, Directorate for
Engineering Sciences, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Product Testing and
Evaluation Center, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone:
301-987-2293; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On April 5, 2023, the Commission voted (4-0) to publish this
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. Commissioners Boyle and
Feldman issued statements in connection with their votes: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/2023-04-05-COMB-Portable-Generator-SNPR-Statement.pdf?VersionId=ztywIcwqWcpY1eFObXtqXsdHjklGTgKa; and
https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Commissioner/Peter-A-Feldman/Statement/Statement-of-Commissioner-Peter-A-Feldman-Requesting-Comment-on-Portable-Generator-Intellectual-Property-and-Licensing-Concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, the Commission published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR) to consider whether there may be an unreasonable risk
of injury and death from CO poisoning associated with portable
generators.\2\ The ANPR began a rulemaking proceeding under the CPSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Portable Generators; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
Request for Comments and Information, 71 FR 74472 (Dec. 12, 2006)
(Document ID number CPSC-2006-0057-0001 in www.regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following publication of the ANPR, CPSC contracted with the
University of Alabama (UA) to conduct a demonstration of prototype low
CO emission technology for portable generators. CPSC also contracted
with the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) to
conduct comparative testing of generators in an attached garage of a
test house facility, and to perform indoor air quality (IAQ) modeling.
CPSC staff published a report regarding the results of the UA
technology demonstration and NIST's test results.\3\ NIST published a
report concerning the results of the comparative testing of generators
as well as IAQ modeling they performed using their test results.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Technology Demonstration of a Prototype Low Carbon Monoxide
Emission Portable Generator https://ecpsc.cpsc.gov/pmo/portgen/Shared%20Documents/staff%20report%20on%20technology%20demonstration.pdf (Document ID
number CPSC-2006-0057-0002 in www.regulations.gov).
\4\ NIST Technical Note 1781; Modeling and Measuring the Effects
of Portable Gasoline Powered Generator Exhaust on Indoor Carbon
Monoxide Level https://ecpsc.cpsc.gov/pmo/portgen/Shared%20Documents/CPSC%20staff%20cover%20statement%20and%20NIST%20TN%201781.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24347]]
In October 2016, staff delivered to the Commission a draft proposed
rule to address the CO poisoning hazard associated with portable
generators.\5\ The draft proposed rule would have limited the CO
emission rates of portable generators based on four different engine
size categories. Staff estimated the proposed CO emission rates equated
to reductions of approximately 75 percent for the smallest generators
to approximately 90 percent for the two largest size categories,
compared to the typical CO emission rates of current generators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CPSC Staff Briefing Package for Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking For Safety Standard For Carbon Monoxide Hazard For
Portable Generators, October 5, 2016, https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed-Rule-Safety-Standard-for-Portable-Generators-October-5-2016.pdf (Document ID CPSC-2006-0057-0032 in
www.regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission voted to approve publication of the draft proposed
rule, and the proposed rule was published on November 21, 2016.\6\ The
Commission received written comments and oral presentations from the
public. Section IX contains a summary of significant comments received
and staff's responses to these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Notice of proposed rulemaking, Safety Standard for Portable
Generators, 81 FR 83556 (Nov. 21, 2016) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/21/2016-26962/safety-standard-for-portable-generators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following publication of the NPR, Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
and the Portable Generator Manufacturers Association (PGMA) each
published new editions of their voluntary standards that included CO
hazard mitigation requirements. UL published ANSI-approved UL 2201,
Standard for Safety for Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emission Rate of Portable
Generators, Second Edition, on January 9, 2018 (UL 2201).\7\ PGMA
published ANSI-approved ANSI/PGMA G300-2018, Safety and Performance of
Portable Generators, on April 20, 2018 (PGMA G300).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ UL 2201, Standard for Safety for Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Emission Rate of Portable Generators, Second Edition, Dated Jan. 9,
2018.
\8\ ANSI/PGMA G300-2018 (Errata Update), Safety and Performance
of Portable Generators, available online at https://www.pgmaonline.com/pdf/ANSI_PGMAG300-2018(ErrataUpdateApril2020).pdf. On May 1, 2020, PGMA issued an
erratum update to PGMA G300-2018 that changed the requirement for
packaging marking from a logo to the following text or equivalent
wording: ``This product complies with the ANSI/PGMA G300-2018
standard.'' References to ``PGMA G300'' in this document refer to
ANSI/PGMA G300-2018 (Errata Update).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2019, the Commission announced the availability of and sought
comment on NIST Technical Note 2048, ``Simulation and Analysis Plan to
Evaluate the Impact of CO Mitigation Requirements for Portable
Generators.'' \9\ NIST Technical Note 2048 represents a plan developed
by CPSC staff and NIST staff to estimate the effectiveness of the CO
mitigation requirements in PGMA G300 and UL 2201. In August 2020, the
Commission announced the availability of a memorandum resulting from
CPSC and NIST staffs' review of the comments received, including
adjustments made to the simulation and analysis plan.10 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Notice of Availability: Plan to Evaluate CO Mitigation
Requirements for Portable Generators, 84 FR 32729 (July 9, 2019),
https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2048.
\10\ Notice of Availability: Revisions to the Plan Documented in
NIST Technical Note 2048: Simulation and Analysis Plan to Evaluate
the Impact of CO Mitigation Requirements for Portable Generators, 85
FR 52096 (Aug. 24, 2020).
\11\ Staff memorandum, https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/revisions-to-TN2048-and-comment-resolutions.pdf (Document ID CPSC-
2006-0057-0106 in www.regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2022, CPSC staff reported to the Commission its
findings regarding the effectiveness of the CO mitigation requirements
in PGMA G300 and UL 2201, ``CPSC Staff Briefing Package on Assessment
of Portable Generator Voluntary Standards' Effectiveness in Addressing
CO Hazard, and Information on Availability of Compliant Portable
Generators.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Briefing-Package-on-Portable-Generator-Voluntary-Standards.pdf?VersionId=hLnAkKQ6bCD_SKin8RE6Iax.BjZsB5x3 (Document
ID CPSC-2006-0057-0107 in www.regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is issuing this supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking because the revised proposed rule, based on requirements
from UL 2201 and PGMA G300 that did not exist at the time of the NPR,
is likely to reduce the risk of CO injuries and deaths to a greater
degree than those in the 2016 NPR. Additionally, the combination of
requirements in this SNPR builds on industry's own standards, which
should facilitate compliance. In particular, this SNPR adds
requirements related to shutoff when high CO levels are detected, which
have begun to achieve industry acceptance. The SNPR also adopts
emissions requirements consistent with the UL 2201 standard, because
both actual fatal incidents and scenario simulations show that an
effective shutoff system alone is not sufficient to protect consumers
from death and serious injury from accumulated CO.
The CO emission rates of portable generators are on the order of
hundreds of times the CO emission rates of gasoline powered
automobiles. From 2004 through 2021, there were at least 1,332 CO-
related consumer deaths involving portable generators, or an average of
about 74 lives lost annually, with thousands of non-fatal poisonings of
consumers per year. Fatalities have increased in recent years. For
example, for the three most recent years for which complete data are
available (2017 through 2019), generator-related CO deaths have
averaged 85 per year.
The Commission expects that the proposed rule would be highly
effective in avoiding generator-related CO incidents, producing
benefits that far exceed the estimated costs. Over 30 years, the
Commission estimates the rule would prevent 2,148 deaths (nearly 72
deaths per year) and 126,377 injuries (roughly 4,213 injuries per
year). The total benefits from the rule are estimated to be greater
than $1 billion per year during this period, using a discount rate of 3
percent. This represents approximately $273 of benefits for each
generator sold. Costs are far lower, such that the Commission estimates
net benefits, with a discount rate of 3 percent, to be approximately
$897 million per year. For every $1 in estimated direct cost to
consumers and manufacturers, the proposed rule generates more than $7
in benefits from mitigated deaths and injuries.
The information discussed in this preamble is derived from CPSC
staff's briefing package for the SNPR, ``Staff's SNPR Briefing
Package,'' which is available on CPSC's website at: www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/SupplementalNoticeofProposedRulemakingSNPRSafetyStandardforPortableGenerators.pdf?VersionId=zxwp.NpJj8nNCxLf7CIp3zMVqLB1MrgE. For a more
comprehensive and detailed discussion of the information in this
preamble, see the Staff's SNPR Briefing Package.
II. Statutory Authority
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking is authorized by
the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. Section 7(a) of the CPSA authorizes the
Commission to promulgate a mandatory consumer product safety standard
that sets forth performance or labeling requirements for a consumer
product if such requirements are reasonably necessary to prevent or
reduce an unreasonable risk of injury. 15 U.S.C. 2056(a). Section 9 of
the CPSA specifies the procedure that the Commission must follow to
issue a consumer product safety standard under section 7 of the CPSA.
The Commission commenced this rulemaking by issuing an ANPR.
[[Page 24348]]
According to section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, before promulgating a
consumer product safety rule, the Commission must consider, and make
appropriate findings to be included in the rule, on the following
issues:
The degree and nature of the risk of injury that the rule
is designed to eliminate or reduce;
The approximate number of consumer products subject to the
rule;
The need of the public for the products subject to the
rule and the probable effect the rule will have on utility, cost, or
availability of such products; and
The means to achieve the objective of the rule while
minimizing adverse effects on competition, manufacturing, and
commercial practices.
15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(1).
Under section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA, to issue a final rule, the
Commission must find that the rule is ``reasonably necessary to
eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with such
product'' and that issuing the rule is in the public interest. Id.
2058(f)(3)(A) & (B). Additionally, if a voluntary standard addressing
the risk of injury has been adopted and implemented, the Commission
must find that:
The voluntary standard is not likely to eliminate or
adequately reduce the risk of injury, or
Substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is
unlikely.
Id. 2058(f)(3)(D). The Commission also must find that expected benefits
of the rule bear a reasonable relationship to its costs and that the
rule imposes the least burdensome requirements that would adequately
reduce the risk of injury. Id. 2058(f)(3)(E) & (F).
III. Product Description
A portable generator is a consumer product that converts chemical
energy from the fuel powering the engine to rotational energy, which in
turn is converted to electrical power. The engine can be fueled by
gasoline, liquified propane gas (LPG), natural gas, or diesel fuel. The
generator has a receptacle panel that consumers use to connect
appliances, power tools, or other electrical loads to the generator via
a plug connection. These generators are designed for portability--
specifically, to be carried, pulled, or pushed by a person.
Manufacturers and retailers advertise portable generators by many
different features, but one of the primary features is the amount of
electrical power the generator can provide continuously. The industry
commonly refers to this as ``rated power,'' ``rated wattage,'' or
``running wattage,'' which ranges from less than 1,000 watts (1
kilowatt or 1 kW) to approximately 20 kW.
IV. Risk of Injury
A. Description of Hazard--Acute CO Poisoning
Portable generators produce CO. CO is a colorless, odorless,
poisonous gas formed during incomplete combustion \13\ of fossil fuels,
which occurs in all fuel burning products to varying degrees. Engines
like those in portable generators emit CO along with other exhaust gas
constituents that have noxious odors. Section II.B of the briefing
memorandum in Staff's SNPR Briefing Package describes the effects of CO
poisoning, and the relationship between exposure to CO and
carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) levels in the body. Even after CO has reached
a peak and is decreasing, such as when a generator shuts off, COHb will
continue to rise for some time before it decreases.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Incomplete combustion entails only partial burning of a
fuel. CO is a byproduct from incomplete combustion of carbon.
\14\ This is exemplified in test results presented in NIST
Technical Note 2049 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations and
Carboxyhemoglobin Profiles from Portable Generators with a CO Safety
Shutoff Operating in a Test House, available online at https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2049. In the vast majority of the tests, the
peak COHb levels were attained hours after the generator shut off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. CO Fatalities Associated With Portable Generators
[[Page 24349]]
Based on the data from the reports in CPSC's databases as of May
10, 2022, there have been at least 1,332 deaths associated with
generators for years 2004 through 2021.15 16 Figure 1 shows
the number of reported deaths involving a portable generator for each
of the years in this period. Data for the two most recent years, 2020
and 2021, are incomplete, because data collection is ongoing, and the
death count most likely will increase in future reports.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Death data for years 2004 through 2010 are from the
following report, with an additional death included in 2004 that was
reported in the NEISS data but was not previously accounted for:
Hnatov, M.V., Generators Involved in Fatal Incidents, by Generator
Category, 2004-2014, CPSC, Bethesda, MD, Sept. 2016. (TAB B in
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed-Rule-Safety-Standard-for-Portable-Generators-October-5-2016.pdf; Document ID CPSC-2006-0057-
0032 in www.regulations.gov).
\16\ Death data for years 2011 through 2021 are from the
following report, with 5 deaths from 3 incidents in 2011 excluded
because they involved stationary generators, which are outside the
scope of the proposed rule: Hnatov, M.V., Fatal Incidents Associated
with Non-Fire Carbon Monoxide Poisoning from Engine-Driven
Generators and Other Engine-Driven Tools, 2011-2021, CPSC, Bethesda,
MD, June 2022 https://www.cpsc.gov/content/Fatal-Incidents-Associated-with-Non-Fire-Carbon-Monoxide-Poisoning-from-Engine-Driven-Generators-and-Other-Engine-Driven-Tools-2011-2021 (Document
ID CPSC-2006-0057-0108 in www.regulations.gov).
\17\ For example, in staff's annual report covering the years
2010 through 2020, the number of deaths entered in CPSC's databases
as of May 17, 2021 for the years 2019 and 2020 was 89 and 54,
respectively. The deaths in these years increased to 95 and 103,
respectively, in the June 2022 report, for which the data were
pulled almost exactly one year later. See https://www.cpsc.gov/content/Generators-and-OEDT-CO-Poisoning-Fatalities-Report-2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AP23.000
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
The average number of generator-related CO fatalities in CPSC's
databases for the most recent 3 years of complete data (years 2017
through 2019) is 85 deaths per year.
C. Hazard Patterns of Fatal Incidents
CPSC Field Staff conducted in-depth investigations (IDI) on nearly
all 1,332 deaths represented in Figure 1 to gather more detailed
information about the incidents and to characterize the hazard
patterns. Two annual reports covering the 18-year period
18 19 categorize the incidents and characterize the hazard
patterns for these 1,332 fatalities, including, for example, the kind
of structure in which the incident occurred (e.g., fixed-structure
home, apartment, townhouse), the location of the
[[Page 24350]]
generator, and the time of year of the incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Hnatov, M.V., Fatal Incidents Associated with Non-Fire
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning from Engine-Driven Generators and Other
Engine-Driven Tools, 2011-2021, CPSC, Bethesda, MD, June 2022,
https://www.cpsc.gov/content/Fatal-Incidents-Associated-with-Non-Fire-Carbon-Monoxide-Poisoning-from-Engine-Driven-Generators-and-Other-Engine-Driven-Tools-2011-2021 (Document ID CPSC-2006-0057-0108
in www.regulations.gov).
\19\ Hnatov, M.V., Incidents, Deaths, and In-Depth
Investigations Associated with Non-Fire Carbon Monoxide from Engine-
Driven Generators and Other Engine-Driven Tools, 2004-2014, CPSC,
Bethesda, MD, June 2015, https://www.cpsc.gov/content/incidents-deaths-and-depth-investigations-associated-non-fire-carbon-monoxide-engine-1 (Document ID CPSC-2006-0057-0026 in www.regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. CO Injuries From Portable Generators
Based on the CPSC's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
(NEISS) database, which is a national probability sample of
approximately 100 hospitals in the United States and its territories,
the Commission estimates that there were at least 23,318 CO injuries
associated with generators that were seen in hospital Emergency
Departments (EDs) for the 18-year period from 2004 through 2021. See
Table 1.
Table 1--National Estimates of Injuries Associated With Generators Seen in Emergency Departments With Narratives
Indicative of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning 2004-2021, by Disposition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coefficient
NEISS code Treatment Estimated of Sample 95% Confidence
injuries variation size interval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................... Treated and released, or 17,569 0.2612 450 8,575-26,563
examined and released without
treatment.
6....................... Left without being seen/Left
against medical advice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2....................... Treated and transferred to 5,727 0.2864 149 2,512-8,942
another hospital.
4....................... Treated and admitted for
hospitalization (within same
facility).
5....................... Held for observation (includes
admitted for observation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8....................... Fatality, including dead on (*) (*) 1 (*)
arrival, died in the ED, died
after admission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9....................... Not recorded.................... (*) (*) 1 (*)
-----------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 23,318 0.2540 601 11,709-34,927
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission National Electronic Injury Surveillance System and Children and
Poisoning System, 2004-2018.
Rows may not sum to the total due to rounding.
* Too few observations to produce an estimate.
Staff also estimated CO injuries using CPSC's Injury Cost Model
(ICM). The ICM estimates injuries treated in locations other than
hospital EDs. For the years 2004 through 2021, staff estimates 1,580
injuries resulted in direct hospital admissions and 52,782 injuries
resulted in a doctor's or clinic's visit. Combined with the NEISS
estimates stated previously, this means that there were an estimated
77,658 nonfatal injuries that were treated in the same 18-year period.
See Tab A of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package.
V. Voluntary Standards
To issue a final rule under section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA if a
voluntary standard addressing the risk of injury has been adopted and
implemented, the Commission must find that:
The voluntary standard is not likely to eliminate or
adequately reduce the risk of injury, or
Substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is
unlikely.
As mentioned in section I of this preamble, there are two voluntary
standards with CO mitigation requirements intended to address the risk
of acute CO poisoning from portable generators: UL 2201 and PGMA G300.
A. UL 2201
In 2002, UL convened a standards technical panel (STP) of
stakeholders with varied interests and backgrounds to develop
requirements for their safety standard for portable generators, UL
2201. On January 9, 2018, the STP voted to approve, and UL published,
the ANSI-approved second edition of UL 2201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The weighted CO emission rate is calculated from the
emission rates that are measured while each of six different
prescribed loads are applied to either the engine or the generator
(depending on which of the two the test methods in the proposed rule
is used) and multiplying each emission rate with a prescribed weight
factor, then summing the product of weight factor and emission rate
for each of the six loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1 of UL 2201 2nd Edition provides that the requirements in
UL 2201 apply to spark-ignited engines installed in portable generators
for each fuel type recommended by the manufacturer.
Section 5.2.8 and section 5.3.3 of UL 2201 specify that the
calculated weighted CO emission rate \20\ of a generator shall not
exceed 150 g/h, using the formula specified in sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.2
of UL 2201, respectively. Section 5.2.2 involves testing with the
engine installed in the generator assembly, in the configuration when
the consumer purchases it. Section 5.3.2 involves testing the
standalone engine in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) engine emission test procedure defined in Engine Testing
Procedures, 40 CFR part 1065.
UL 2201 also includes shutoff requirements. Under section 6.5 of UL
2201 the generator must shut off when the CO concentration registers
either:
1. 150 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of CO during a 10-minute
rolling average \21\ (Sec. 6.5.3), or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ A rolling average is a calculation averaging data over an
interval of time that changes its initial point and end point as
specified by the duration of the time interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. an instantaneous reading of 400 ppmv (Sec. 6.5.2).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Parts per million by volume is a measurement of
concentration on a volume basis. This is commonly used to measure
the concentration of gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the test method to verify compliance with the CO shutoff
requirements, the generator is operated in a closed room and the room
CO concentration is measured 1 foot above the centerline (the geometric
center) of the generator. The generator must shut off when the CO
measured above the generator meets either one of the shutoff
concentrations. Any product certified to UL 2201 after publication of
the 2nd Edition on January 9, 2018, must meet the requirements of the
2nd Edition.
B. PGMA G300-2018
In late 2016, PGMA's technical committee began developing CO
hazard-mitigation requirements for its own standard, PGMA G300-2015.
PGMA's efforts culminated on April 20, 2018, after a canvass committee
of stakeholders with varied interests and backgrounds voted to approve,
and PGMA published, the ANSI-approved 2018 edition of PGMA G300.
Section 1 of PGMA G300-2018 provides that the standard applies to:
``15 kW or smaller; single phase; 300 V
[[Page 24351]]
or lower; 60 hertz; gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and diesel
engine driven portable generators intended to be moved, though not
necessarily with wheels.'' According to section 1 of PGMA G300,
permanent stationary generators, 50 hertz generators, marine
generators, trailer mounted generators, generators in motor homes,
generators intended to be pulled by vehicles, engine driven welding
power sources and portable generators with AC output circuits that are
not compatible with NEMA receptacles are not included within the scope
of the standard.
PGMA G300-2018 has shutoff system requirements but does not have CO
emission rate requirements. PGMA G300 includes a requirement for
generators to be equipped with an onboard CO sensor that is certified
to appropriate requirements in the U.S. voluntary standard for
residential CO alarms, UL 2034, Standard for Safety, Single and
Multiple Station Carbon Monoxide Alarms. Section 6.2.11.1 provides the
acceptance criteria for the CO shutoff system. The CO sensor, when
tested to the requirements in the standard, must shut off the generator
before the CO concentration, when measured at a location 1 to 2 inches
above the approximate center of the portable generator's top surface,
exceeds either 400 ppmv for a 10-minute rolling average of CO, or an
instantaneous reading of 800 ppmv.
PGMA G300-2018 section 3.9.1.1 includes requirements for a self-
monitoring system to detect the correct operation of the CO sensing
element, loss of power source for the portable generator system for
controlling CO exposure, and the end of life of the CO sensor. The
standard requires that the self-monitoring system shut off the portable
generator engine upon fault detection and end of life.
Section 3.9.1.2.1 requires that the portable generator system for
controlling exposure be tamper resistant and specifies when a system is
considered tamper resistant. According to section 3.9.1.2.1, the system
is considered tamper resistant when all parts that affect the proper
operation of the portable generator system for controlling CO exposures
meet at least one of the following: (1) the part is permanently sealed;
(2) the part is not normally accessible by hand or with ordinary tools;
or (3) removal or disconnection of the part prevents the engine from
running. Section 3.9.1.2.1 allows for different parts of the portable
generator system that control exposure to meet the requirement for
tamper resistance using any of the options, provided all of the
different parts meet at least one of the options.
Section 3.9.1.2.2 of PGMA G300-2018 requires that construction of
the portable generator minimize the risk of intentional blockage of the
gas inlet of the portable generator system for controlling CO exposure.
Section 3.9.1.2.3 provides that the construction of the portable
generator shall minimize the risk of incidental damage to the portable
generator system for controlling CO exposure. Section 3.9.1.2.4
provides that the portable generator system for controlling CO exposure
shall not incorporate any type of override function or feature.
PGMA G300-2018 includes construction and performance requirements
for the CO sensor. Section 3.9.1 and 3.9.1.4 of PGMA G300 include
requirements from UL 2034, Single and Multiple Station Carbon Monoxide
Alarms, to address the construction and performance of the CO safety
shutoff system.\23\ UL 2034 provides design and performance
requirements for CO alarms that cover topics related to the
construction of the CO shutoff system such as gas and vapor
interference, dust exposure, vibration, corrosion, and extreme
temperature and humidity exposure. Additionally, section 3.9.1.4 of
PGMA G300 requires that the shutoff system contain a carbon monoxide
sensing element bearing a UL mark or equivalent Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL) mark, to indicate that the sensor is capable
of meeting the requirements for use in UL 2034 compliant systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Edition Date: March 31, 2017; ANSI approved: October 7,
2022. UL 2034 is available for free digital view at https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=32610.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMA G300-2018 also requires notification after a shutoff event.
The PGMA G300 shutoff ``notification'' requirements consist of a ``red
indication'' (Sec. 3.9.1.3.1) and associated product markings (Sec.
7.2.2.4).
The notification is required to be ``a red indication,'' but the
indication is not required to be a light. The standard allows, but does
not require, the indication to be ``blinking, with a maximum period of
2 seconds.'' Sec. 3.9.1.3.1. The indication must remain for a minimum
of 5 minutes after shutoff occurs unless the generator is restarted.
Sections 3.9.1.3, 3.9.1.3.1, and 4.1.1.3 of PGMA G300 prescribe
additional requirements for the indication.
PGMA G300 also requires product markings that relate to the
notification system. These markings include the following, which must
be ``in a readily visible location'' (Sec. 7.2.2.4):
An identification of the hazard associated with tampering
with the CO shutoff system.
An identification and description of the CO shutoff system
notifications that are ``in close proximity to each CO shutoff
notification.''
An identification of the direction of the engine exhaust,
including instructions to direct the exhaust away from occupied
structures.
A label about the automatic shutoff that instructs the
consumer to move the generator to an open, outdoor area; point the
exhaust away; not to run the generator in enclosed areas; and move to
fresh air and get medical help if sick, dizzy, or weak. See Tab F of
SNPR Staff Briefing Package. The label must be ``in close proximity to
the notification.''
C. Assessment of Compliance With UL 2201 and PGMA G300
In a February 1, 2023, letter to CPSC, PGMA states that at the end
of 2022, ``over 68% of PGMA member company generators shipped complied
with the CO shutoff requirement in PGMA G300.'' \24\ This number,
however, is limited to PGMA member companies, which represent a small
fraction of all generator manufacturers (although those manufacturers
account for a substantial percentage of total sales).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See https://www.regulations.gov/search?filter=cpsc-2006-0057-0111%20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24352]]
In 2021 and 2022, CPSC staff surveyed manufacturers regarding their
production of compliant generators.\25\ In both surveys, three
manufacturers indicated that most or all their models comply with PGMA
G300, and one of these manufacturers also stated its models are
compliant with UL 2201. In 2021, four other manufacturers reported that
their compliance rates with PGMA G300 were expected to increase
substantially in the next year. However, in 2022, one of these firms
responded to the updated 2022 survey and reported compliance rates that
fell short of their target established the prior year. Based on this
review, the unabated number of incidents as shown in Figure 1, and the
market analysis discussed below, the Commission concludes that
compliance with UL 2201 is limited while compliance with PGMA G300,
although greater, is not sufficient to significantly reduce the risk of
injury and death. Based on information provided by manufacturers and in
market research, staff estimates a 30 percent compliance rate with PGMA
G300's sensor and shutoff requirements as of 2022. One sixth of those
PGMA-compliant units (or 5 percent of the total) are estimated to also
be compliant with the emissions requirements of UL 2201. Even if
compliance with PGMA G300 is greater than the estimated 30 percent, the
G300 standard does not appear at present to have substantial
compliance. Additionally, the Commission, as described in section IV.D
of this preamble, assesses that the requirements in PGMA G300 are
inadequate to reduce the risk of acute CO poisoning associated with
portable generators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Staff conducted surveys of a subset of large manufacturers
in 2021 and 2022. In 2022, in addition to assessing compliance with
the voluntary standards, staff obtained cost information regarding
the required modifications to make portable generators compliant
with each of these voluntary standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Assessment of UL 2201 and PGMA G300
1. CO Emission Rate and Shutoff Levels
To evaluate the effectiveness of the CO mitigation requirements in
UL 2201 and PGMA G300-2018, CPSC staff worked with NIST to simulate the
scenarios of 511 fatalities that are known to CPSC, using an indoor air
quality (IAQ) modeling program called ``CONTAM.'' \26\ The 511
simulations are based on the actual deaths found in CPSC records over
the 9-year period from 2004 through 2012 that occurred at fixed
residential structures or similar structures. Staff completed
approximately 140,000 simulations for 37 different house models and
three detached garages, with various generator locations and generator
sizes in 28 different weather conditions. Staff's briefing package,
``Assessment of Portable Generator Voluntary Standards' Effectiveness
in Addressing CO Hazard'' (Feb. 16, 2022) provides a detailed
description of these simulations.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ CONTAM is a multizone airflow and contaminant transport IAQ
modeling program that was developed by NIST and has been used for
several decades. It accurately models the buildup and transport of
contaminants within, into, and out of a building. (Why delete?)
\27\ https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Briefing-Package-on-Portable-Generator-Voluntary-Standards.pdf?VersionId=hLnAkKQ6bCD_SKin8RE6Iax.BjZsB5x3 (Document
Id number CPSC-2006-0057-0107 in www.Regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff's analysis of the simulation results found that under
simulated conditions, generators compliant with the CO emission rate
and shutoff requirements of the UL 2201 standard would avert nearly all
of the 511 deaths, or nearly 100%, with three survivors requiring
hospitalization, and 24 survivors seeking medical treatment and being
released. Staff's analysis found that generators compliant with the
shutoff requirements of the PGMA G300-2018 standard would avert about
87 percent of the 511 deaths, resulting in 69 deaths, with 54 survivors
requiring hospitalization and 88 survivors seeking medical treatment
and being released. The results of that analysis are shown in Table
2.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Some of the results differ slightly from those previously
published in staff's briefing package on effectiveness of the
voluntary standards because staff found a tabulation error in the
analysis of the simulation results after publication. See Tab A of
Staff's SNPR Briefing Package.
Table 2--Results of Effectiveness Analysis of Voluntary Standards, Based on Simulations of 511 CO Deaths in CPSC
Databases From Generators, 2004-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline vs. Standards
Outcome for operators and collateral occupants --------------------------------------
Baseline G300 UL 2201
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatality................................................................. 511 68.50 0.04
Percentage of death averted versus baseline generators................... ........... 86.6% 99.99%
Survivors who are hospitalized or transferred to specialized treatment ........... 54.22 3.22
center..................................................................
Survivors who seek medical treatment and are treated and released........ ........... 87.96 24.28
Survivors who are likely not symptomatic and not seeking medical ........... 300.42 483.56
treatment...............................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Estimates of Deaths and Injuries Assuming Compliance With Either
Voluntary Standard
This section discusses the fatalities in CPSC databases and provide
estimates of generator-related CO deaths and injuries seen in EDs, if
generators meeting either voluntary standard had been involved in those
incidents. At least 1,332 fatalities occurred from 1,009 separate
incidents in CPSC's databases as of May 10, 2022, for the 18-year
period 2004 through 2021.29 30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Death data for years 2004 through 2010 are from the
following report, with an additional death included in 2004 that was
reported in the NEISS data but was not previously accounted for:
Hnatov, M.V., Generators Involved in Fatal Incidents, by Generator
Category, 2004-2014, U.S. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Bethesda, MD, Sept. 2016 (TAB B in Document ID CPSC-2006-0057-0032
in www.regulations.gov).
\30\ Death data for years 2011 through 2021 are from the
following report, with 5 deaths from 3 incidents in 2011 excluded
because they involved stationary generators, which are outside the
scope of the proposed rule: Hnatov, M.V., Fatal Incidents Associated
with Non-Fire Carbon Monoxide Poisoning from Engine-Driven
Generators and Other Engine-Driven Tools, 2011-2021. U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD, June 2022 (Document ID
CPSC-2006-0057-0108 in www.regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission applied the information from the simulations and
actual fatal incidents to the NEISS injury estimates (and inputs from
the Injury Cost Model) to derive the estimates of generator-related CO
deaths, hospital admissions, and injuries seen in EDs if generators
uniformly meeting one or the other voluntary standard had been used in
the incident scenarios instead of the generators that actually were
involved. The results are presented in Table 3 below. This estimation
assumed that the distribution of NEISS injuries was similar to the
distribution of 511 fatality scenarios used in the NIST simulations. In
fact, because the simulations used in the effectiveness analysis
accounted for
[[Page 24353]]
the generator operating only outside in just 2 percent (8 of the 511)
of the deaths, yet this scenario accounts for 6 percent (79 out of
1,332) of the deaths in CPSC's databases, unaddressed injuries from
G300-compliant generators may exceed these estimates.
Table 3--Estimates of Generator-Related CO Deaths and Injuries Seen in EDs if Generators Meeting Either
Voluntary Standard Had Been Involved, 2004-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline vs. Standards
Outcome for operators and collateral occupants --------------------------------------
Baseline G300 UL 2201
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities............................................................... 1,332 183.77 0.09
Percentage of deaths averted versus baseline (BL) generators............. ........... 86.20% 99.99%
Survivors who are hospitalized or transferred to specialized treatment 7,307.67 1,136.54 8.85
center..................................................................
Survivors who seek ED treatment and are treated and released............. 17,568.97 3,227.44 62.21
Survivors who visit doctor/clinic and are treated and released........... 52,781.62 9,544.73 242.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis found that under simulated conditions, generators
compliant with the CO emission rate and shutoff requirements of the UL
2201 standard would avert nearly 100 percent of the 511, with three
survivors requiring hospitalization, and 24 survivors seeking medical
treatment and being released. Staff's analysis found that generators
compliant with the shutoff requirements of the PGMA G300 standard would
avert about 87 percent of the deaths, resulting in 69 deaths, with 54
survivors requiring hospitalization, and 88 survivors seeking medical
treatment and being released. See Tab A of Staff's SNPR Briefing
Package.
E. CO Shutoff System Requirements
The foregoing analysis demonstrates that UL 2201's weighted CO
emission rate limit of 150 g/h and shutoff concentrations of 150 ppmv
at a rolling 10-minute rolling average or an instantaneous measurement
of 400 ppmv are extremely effective in the simulated conditions where
the system, including shutoffs, operates as designed. To ensure that
these simulated performance requirements are effective in real-world
scenarios, however, the CO shutoff system must be reliable, functional,
and durable.
1. Functionality of the CO Shutoff System
The analysis of the effectiveness of the performance requirements
in the voluntary standards assumed the shutoff system functioned
properly and shut the generator off when the shutoff criteria in each
voluntary standard were met. If the shutoff system is bypassed,
damaged, or overridden such that the generator can operate without the
shutoff system functioning, or functioning properly, the effectiveness
of the performance requirements would be reduced. Thus, requirements to
maintain the functionality of the shutoff system are included in the
proposed rule.
Specifically, as discussed in section IV.B. above, PGMA G300 has
requirements regarding tamper resistance in sections 3.9.1.2.1. through
3.9.1.2.4. The Commission concludes that these requirements, with
modifications as specified in section VI.C.5 of this preamble, are
necessary and adequate to ensure the CO shutoff system maintain
functionality.
2. Self-Monitoring of CO Shutoff System
Similarly, if the system has a fault, loss of power, or the system
reaches end-of-life yet the generator operates without the shutoff
system functioning, the effectiveness will be reduced. Therefore, the
Commission assesses that requirements for self-monitoring of the
shutoff system are necessary. PGMA G300 provides requirements for self-
monitoring while UL 2201 does not. PGMA G300's requirements in section
3.9.1.1 require that faults involving the CO sensing element, loss of
power source for the CO shutoff system, and end of life condition, be
applied one at a time to the system's circuitry while the engine is
running. The engine is required to shut off after each fault or end of
life is introduced. The Commission concludes that these self-monitoring
requirements are necessary for ensuring proper functioning of the
shutoff system. Thus, the requirements are included in the proposed
rule.
3. Durability Requirements for the Shutoff System
Durable and reliable operation of the CO shutoff system also is
critical for effectiveness. Section 3.9.1 and 3.9.1.4 of PGMA G300
includes requirements from UL 2034, Single and Multiple Station Carbon
Monoxide Alarms, to address the construction and performance of the CO
safety shutoff system. This standard is the leading U.S. standard for
CO alarms and provides a robust set of requirements for CO alarms. CO
alarms that meet the requirements of UL 2034 have demonstrated reliable
operation for many years. UL 2034 provides design and performance
requirements for CO alarms that cover topics related to the
construction of the CO shutoff system such as gas and vapor
interference, dust exposure, vibration, corrosion, and extreme
temperature and humidity exposure. Additionally, section 3.9.1.4 of
PGMA G300 requires that the carbon monoxide sensor used in the shutoff
system have a UL mark or equivalent NRTL mark, which is indicative that
the sensor is capable of meeting the requirements for use in UL 2034
compliant systems.
UL 2201 on its own is not adequate to address the CO shutoff system
because it does not prescribe requirements for the construction of the
CO shutoff system. If the system does not function properly because of
conditions affecting its durability and ability to reliably shut the
generator off when the shutoff criteria are met, the effectiveness will
be reduced below the near-100 percent level modeled in the simulation
by CPSC staff and NIST. The Commission concludes that the related
construction and performance requirements in section 3.9.1 and 3.9.1.4
of PGMA G300, with the modification that the shutoff criteria need to
correspond to those of the proposed rule, are necessary to address the
environmental conditions (gas and vapor interference, dust, vibration,
corrosion, and variable temperature and humidity) that the shutoff
system could be exposed to when mounted on a portable generator.
4. Test Method To Verify Compliance With CO Shut-Off Criteria
An effective test method must expose the CO safety shutoff system
to CO concentrations that will initiate shutoff. The test method also
must verify that the CO safety shutoff system functions properly or
does not allow the generator to start when the power supply to the
[[Page 24354]]
system is not functioning. The Commission assesses that the test method
in PGMA G300 provides a reasonable foundation for a test method to
reliably assess the safety shutoff system.
UL 2201 and PGMA G300 provide similar test methods for evaluating
the performance of the CO safety shutoff system to a set of acceptance
criteria. Both test the generator assembly in an enclosed space that is
filled with exhaust emissions from the generator while an air sample is
taken from above the generator to determine if the generator shuts off
before the room reaches the shutoff acceptance criteria. Tab E of
Staff's SNPR Briefing Package provides a detailed description of the
test methods in PGMA G300 and UL 2201.
The Commission concludes that the test method in Section 6.2.11.2
of PGMA G300 and related definitions from Section 2 of PGMA G300 are
generally appropriate to evaluate the CO safety shutoff system.
However, some changes to the PGMA test method and definitions in
Section 2 will result in better assessment of the CO safety shutoff
system and therefore further reduce the risk of death and injury
associated with portable generator CO poisoning. Accordingly, the
Commission is proposing to modify the test method as follows.
(a) Test Room Volume and Dimensions: The Commission preliminarily
assesses that it is not necessary for the room volume to be constrained
to the volumes identified in PGMA G300 or UL 2201, and additional
flexibility is appropriate. Currently, there are generators on the
market that certify to UL 2201 and generators on the market that
certify to PGMA G300; therefore, testing has been performed using both
ranges of test room volumes specified in each standard. Increasing the
range of volumes to 895-2,100 ft\3\ (25.34-59.47 m\3\)--a greater range
than in either test alone--encompasses the ranges specified in both
standards. Accordingly, the proposed rule specifies that the test room
shall be designed such that the room volume is between 895-2,100 ft\3\
(25.34-59.47 m\3\) with a ceiling height between 8-12 ft (2.44-3.66 m)
and be capable of meeting the requirements for generator position.
(b) Test Room Air Inlet and Outlet Specifications: PGMA G300's test
method does not specify the location and dimensions of the air inlet
and outlet of the test room. The Commission preliminarily assesses that
specifying the location and dimensions of the air inlet and outlet is
necessary because the air flow near the inlet and outlet could affect
CO concentrations near the onboard sensor or the sample port for the CO
analyzer. Accordingly, the proposed rule defines the location of the
air inlet and outlet by specifying their configuration based on
performance. Specifically, the proposed rule requires that the
configuration of the air inlet and outlet for ventilation be designed
such that neither port creates a flow directly onto or near the CO
analyzer sample port above the generator or the CO sensor onboard the
generator that is used as part of the CO safety shutoff system.
(c) Ventilation: PGMA G300 does not specify a requirement for how
ventilation is induced. Requiring a fan on the air outlet will ensure
that the ventilation system will not create a positive pressure within
the room. A scenario with no ventilation, or 0 air changes per hour
(ACH), induced by an air inlet fan can pose a safety risk to test
operators because the pressure in the room may exceed the pressure
outside of the room as the generator heats the space. This could result
in leakage from the test room. Specifying a minimum of 0.1 ACH will
create a slightly negative pressure in the room, which will assist in
preventing leakage. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to change
the ventilation range from ``0-1.0 ACH'' as stated in the PGMA G300
standard to ``0.1-1.0 ACH,'' to reduce the potential of gas leakage
from the test room. Additionally, the Commission is requiring an
exhaust fan on the air outlet to induce ventilation from the room and
prescribing that no air inlet fan can be used. The proposed rule
requires that the ventilation rate of the test room shall be between
0.1-1.0 ACH and ventilation shall be induced by a fan on the air
outlet.
(d) Generator Position within the Room: The Commission proposes
that it is necessary to provide constraints on the position of the
generator to accommodate different test room dimensions. These
constraints address concerns related to airflow around the CO sensor
onboard the generator and CO analyzer sampling port, as well as exhaust
gas diffusion within the space. Accordingly, the proposed rule requires
that the generator be positioned such that the exhaust jet centerline
is along one of the test room centerlines; the exhaust outlet on the
generator be at least 6 ft (1.83 m) from the opposite wall; the outer
surfaces of the generator housing or frame are at least 3 ft (0.91 m)
from the walls on all other sides; and the onboard CO sensor used for
the CO safety shutoff system be at least 1 ft (0.30 m) away from any
obstruction.
(e) CO Measurement Location: PGMA G300 specifies that the CO sample
port, which is used in conjunction with the CO analyzer to measure the
concentration of CO above the generator, be placed 1 to 2 inches above
the approximate center of the generator's top surface. CPSC staff has
assessed that this location is too close to the generator and the
sample may be affected by low flow/mixing conditions present near the
surfaces of the generator. Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to
increase the height of the CO sample port above the generator. The
proposed rule requires that the CO sample port connected to the CO
analyzer for determining room concentration shall be placed 1 ft (0.30
m) above the center point of the top of the generator.
(f) Load Bank and Power Meter Specifications: The load bank is used
to apply an electrical load on the generator. Applying an electrical
load to the generator will simulate the conditions of a generator under
typical use. PGMA G300 specifies a range of requirements for a
voltmeter, wattmeter, ammeter, frequency sensor, and load bank. These
requirements include tolerances for measurement of true root mean
square (RMS) voltage, wattage, and current. The Commission believes
that these requirements are unnecessary and an exact load or associated
emission rate is not required to test the CO safety shutoff system.
Instead, the proposed rule reflects the Commission's preliminary
assessment that a resistive load bank and power meter with an accuracy
of 5 percent is sufficient to achieve the goals of testing.
5. PGMA G300 Shutoff Notification Requirements
PGMA G300 includes several requirements specific to notifying
consumers if the generator automatically shuts off in response to
detecting sufficiently high levels of CO in its vicinity. In contrast,
UL 2201 lacks such notification requirements, even though it, too,
includes CO shutoff performance requirements. The Commission considers
CO shutoff notification requirements to be reasonably necessary for any
portable generator standard that includes CO shutoff performance
requirements.
The PGMA G300 shutoff ``notification'' requirements consist of two
main parts: (1) a ``red indication'' (section 3.9.1.3.1) and (2)
associated product markings. However, the voluntary standard does not
specify many of the qualities of the ``red indication.'' For example,
the G300 standard permits the indication to be
[[Page 24355]]
``blinking, with a maximum period of 2 seconds'' (Sec. 3.9.1.3.1), but
this is not required and there is no requirement for the indication to
be illuminated. However, the standard does require that the indication:
Be able to be viewed by a user with normal vision, under
expected visibility conditions (Sec. 3.9.1.3);
Be ``prominent and conspicuous . . . in a readily visible
location'' that is ``not easily obscured during use'' (Sec. 3.9.1.3);
Contrast with the background color (Sec. 3.9.1.3);
``[R]emain'' for at least 5 minutes after shutoff occurs,
or until the generator is restarted (Sec. 3.9.1.3.1);
Not be present if the generator is restarted (Sec.
3.9.1.3.1); and
Be labeled or marked with an indication of its function
and the required action to activate its function (Sec. 4.1.1.1.3).
As noted, the PGMA G300 standard also requires product markings
that relate to the notification system. These markings include the
following, which must be ``in a readily visible location'' (Sec.
7.2.2.4):
An identification of the hazard associated with tampering
with the CO shutoff system;
An identification and description of the CO shutoff system
notifications that are ``in close proximity to each CO shutoff
notification'';
An identification of the engine exhaust, including
instructions to direct the exhaust away from occupied structures;
A label, ``in close proximity to the notification,'' with
the content as shown in Tab F, Figure 26 of the Staff's SNPR Briefing
Package, or as ``Figure 5--User instruction label'' in PGMA G300.
(a) Notification Indicator Requirements
The Commission considers the notification requirements in PGMA G300
to be a reasonable foundation for similar requirements in the proposed
rule. However, the Commission preliminarily considers the
``indication'' requirements specified in PGMA G300 to be insufficient
for the proposed rule, for the reasons outlined below, and concludes
that the following revisions are reasonably necessary to further reduce
the risk of injury or death associated with portable generators. Tab F
of the Staff's SNPR Briefing Package provides a detailed discussion of
the rationale for these changes.
Require that the ``red indication'' be illuminated. PGMA
G300 permits, but does not require, the ``red indication'' to be
``blinking'' and does not require the indication to be illuminated.
Human engineering and human factors guidelines for displays most
commonly recommend illuminated (also known as ``transilluminated'')
indicators, generally taking the form of simple indicator lights or
legend lights for detectability. Red indicator lights typically are
used to alert operators that a system is inoperative, that corrective
action is needed to restore operation, or that there has been a
malfunction. Thus, the proposed rule requires that the red light be
illuminated.
Require the indicator to meet visibility and
conspicuousness requirements for a consumer positioned in front of the
startup controls. PGMA G300 specifies that the indication must be
prominent, conspicuous, and in a ``readily visible location'' that is
``not easily obscured during use.'' The Commission generally agrees
with these requirements but believes additional specificity about where
around the generator one would make these assessments would be
beneficial. Positioning the indicator, and associated label, so they
are prominent, conspicuous, and not obscured when viewed from the
startup controls increases the likelihood that consumers will notice
the indicator and follow the recommended action before restarting.
Accordingly, the proposed rule specifies such placement.
Require the red indicator to be at least 0.4 inches
diameter in size. PGMA G300 does not include any size requirements for
the indication, meaning an indication of any size would be permitted.
Based on the analysis in Tab F of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package, the
Commission considers a minimum indicator size of 0.4 inches, or 10 mm,
diameter to be a reasonable requirement.
Specify that the indicator, if flashing, must flash at a
rate of between 3 and 10 Hertz (Hz), with equivalent light and dark
durations. Although the Commission does not consider requiring a
flashing light to be necessary, if a manufacturer chooses to use a
flashing light, then it should be no less visible than a steady light.
The proposed rule therefore specifies that the indicator, if flashing,
must be at a more detectable flash rate, with equal light and dark
periods.
In addition to the proposed requirements above, the Commission
seeks public comments on the following issues:
Minimum indicator brightness or luminance. PGMA G300 does
not specify the brightness of the indication. The Commission seeks
comments regarding whether a minimum luminance requirement is needed
for the notification indicator, and if so, what would be an appropriate
requirement.
Minimum indicator duration, if not restarted. PGMA G300
specifies that the indicator must ``remain'' for at least 5 minutes
after shutoff occurs, or until the portable generator is restarted.
Although the Commission agrees that the indicator should not remain
illuminated after the generator has restarted, we question whether 5
minutes is an appropriate minimum duration for the indicator to remain.
A more appropriate requirement would base the duration on the amount of
time needed before CO concentrations in the environment have dropped to
a reasonably safe level. The Commission is uncertain whether 5 minutes
achieves this goal, particularly given the range of possible
environmental conditions. Therefore, the Commission seeks public
comment on this issue.
Shutoff Notification for visually impaired consumers. The
Commission seeks public comment on the need for shutoff notification
requirements that are accessible to consumers other than ``a user with
normal vision,'' such as an audible warning to alert visually impaired
consumers when a portable generator shuts off and a means to
communicate actions to take in response to the shutoff to reduce the
risk of CO poisoning.
(b) Labeling for the CO Shutoff System
The Commission considers the notification-related marking and
labeling requirements in PGMA G300 to be a reasonable basis for similar
requirements in the proposed rule for portable generators. For example,
the Commission agrees with the PGMA G300 requirements for portable
generators to be marked with the location of the engine exhaust and
instructions to direct the exhaust away from occupied structures, and
the requirement is worded in a way that allows for substantial
flexibility regarding how to communicate these two issues. The
Commission also agrees with the PGMA G300 requirement for portable
generators to be marked for the ``hazard due to tampering with'' the CO
shutoff system and to identify and describe the CO shutoff system
notifications ``in close proximity to each CO shutoff notification.''
However, for the reasons given below and explained more fully in
Tab F of the Staff's SNPR Briefing Package, the Commission concludes
that the PGMA G300 requirements specific to the label are insufficient
and the following revisions are reasonably necessary to adequately
reduce the risk of injury or
[[Page 24356]]
death associated with CO emissions from portable generators.
Require the label to be located no more than 0.25 inches
from the notification indicator, or for the indicator to be
incorporated into the label. PGMA G300 specifies that the notification
label must be ``in a readily visible location . . . in close proximity
to the notification'' (Sec. 7.2.2.4); however, it is unclear how
``close'' the label must be to the notification indicator to meet the
requirement. Given that the label is intended to communicate to
consumers what must be done when the CO shutoff system activates, and
for clarity of administration, the Commission is proposing that the
label be located where consumers are likely to be looking when they are
notified that the generator has shut off due to elevated CO levels.
State explicitly why the generator shutoff. The label
specified in PGMA G300 instructs consumers what to do in response to
the generator shutting off but does not explain why the generator shut
off. Consumers should not be required to infer why they should move the
generator, and an explicit description of the potential hazard
associated with not performing the recommended action is likely to
increase consumers' motivation to comply. Thus, the Commission proposes
that the phrase ``YOU MUST'' be replaced with ``HIGH LEVELS OF CARBON
MONOXIDE.'' Figure 27 in Tab F of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package
provides an illustration of how this change may be accomplished.
Use sentence capitalization rather than all-uppercase
text, except when highlighting key phrases. Words in all-uppercase text
are less legible than words in lowercase text, and all-uppercase text
is less readable than mixed-case text (i.e., both uppercase and
lowercase letters) particularly under low-light conditions or for
longer strings of text.
Clarify that the generator must be moved before restarting
the generator, and reduce redundancy with the mandatory DANGER label.
This change advances the primary function of the notification label,
i.e., to explain why the generator shut off, and what actions the
consumer should take before restarting the generator. The label is not
intended to reiterate the information that is already present on the
mandatory DANGER label. The Commission is also proposing that consumers
be told upfront to move the generator to a ``more open'' outdoor area
``before restarting,'' to emphasize that moving the generator is
directly relevant to restarting the generator, and to make it clear
that even if consumers believed that the generator was already in an
open area, the generator must be moved to a more open area.
Add sizing requirements for the label. PGMA G300 currently
does not include any requirements for the size of the label, suggesting
that a label of any size, even one too small to be reasonably legible
or readable, would be permitted. In the label presented in the PGMA
G300 standard document itself, the header text measures approximately
0.12 inches in height and the remaining text is printed in text whose
uppercase letters measure about 0.10 inches in height. The Commission
considers these to be reasonable dimensions and the proposed rule
specifies these as the minimum text size for the label.
VI. Description of the Proposed Rule
This section summarizes the provisions of the proposed rule to
improve the safety of portable generators.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Note the change in the CFR Part. The NPR proposed to add a
new Part 1241. Because Part 1241 is now associated with a final
regulation, this SNPR proposes to add a new Part 1281.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Description of Proposed Section 1281.1--Scope, Application, and
Effective Date
Proposed section 1281.1 provides that new part 1281 establishes a
consumer product safety standard for portable generators to address the
acute CO poisoning hazard associated with portable generators.
Proposed section 1281.1 provides that, for purposes of the rule,
portable generators include single-phase, 300 V or lower, 60-hertz
generators that are provided with receptacle outlets for alternating
current (AC) output circuits and intended to be moved by the consumer,
although not necessarily with wheels. The engines in these portable
generators are small, nonroad spark-ignition engines, based on the
EPA's engine classifications per 40 CFR 1054.801, and are fueled by
gasoline, LPG, or natural gas. Proposed section 1281.1 provides that,
for purposes of this rule, portable generators do not include:
(1) Permanent stationary generators;
(2) 50-hertz generators;
(3) Marine generators;
(4) Generators solely intended to be pulled by, or mounted on
vehicles;
(5) Generators permanently mounted in recreational vehicles or
motor homes;
(6) Generators powered by compression-ignition engines fueled by
diesel;
(7) Industrial-type generators intended solely for connection to a
temporary circuit breaker panel at a jobsite.
Proposed section 1281.1 provides that the rule would apply to
generators manufactured after 180 days following publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register.
B. Description of Proposed Section 1281.2--Definitions
Proposed section 1281.2 provides definitions that apply for
purposes of part 1281, in addition to the definitions in section 3 of
the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2051). These definitions include: units of
measurement; maximum available observed wattage; air change rate; CO
analyzer; engine; ordinary tools; portable generator system for
controlling CO exposure; rated wattage; CO shutoff system, and test
room. Many of these definitions define terms that are used in the
incorporated voluntary standards.
C. Description of Proposed Section 1281.3--Requirements
Proposed section 1281.3 sets forth the requirements for portable
generators.
1. CO Emission Rate Requirements (Sec. 1281.3(a))
The Commission proposes to require that, as specified in sections
5.2.8 and 5.3.3 of UL 2201, portable generators shall emit no more than
a weighted CO rate of 150 g/h, when tested to one of two methods
specified in sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.2 of UL 2201. The first method
measures the CO emission rate with the engine installed in the
generator assembly, in the configuration as purchased by the consumer.
The second method measures the CO emission rate of a standalone engine
mounted on a dynamometer.
2. CO Shutoff Construction Requirements (Sec. 1281.3(b))
Section 3.9.1 of PGMA G300 prescribes concentrations required to be
achieved in the test chamber for purposes of determining activation to
the CO shutoff requirements. The Commission proposes to require that
portable generators meet section 3.9.1 of PGMA G300, with changes to
the concentrations to align the concentrations required to be achieved
in the test chamber with the shutoff concentration requirements in UL
2201. Testing to these modified concentrations ensures that the sensor
is tested to the full range of concentrations within the bounds of the
shutoff requirements in UL 2201.
[[Page 24357]]
3. Shutoff Requirements (Sec. 1281.3(c) and (d))
The Commission proposes to require that portable generators meet
the shutoff levels in UL 2201, specifically, CO concentrations of 400
ppm instantaneous or 150 ppm for a 10-minute rolling average, measured
above the generator during compliance testing, in place of the
concentrations in section 6.2.11.1 of PGMA G300. The Commission
proposes to require that the portable generator be tested in accordance
with section 6.2.11.2 of PGMA G300, using the proposed definition of
``test room'' in section 1281.2 for purposes of the test.
4. Self-Monitoring System (Sec. 1281.3(e))
The Commission proposes requirements for self-monitoring of the
portable generator. Section 1281.3(e) requires that, pursuant to
section 3.9.1.1 of PGMA G300, faults indicative of a fault with the CO
sensing element, loss of power source for the CO shutoff system, and
end-of-life condition, be applied one at a time to the system's
circuitry while the engine is running. The engine is required to shut
off after each fault or end of life is introduced.
5. Tamper Resistance (Sec. 1281.3(f))
Section 1281.3(f) proposes requirements for tamper resistance for a
portable generator system for controlling exposures. The system is
considered tamper resistant when any part that is shorted,
disconnected, or removed to disable the operation of the system
prevents the engine from running. In addition, all parts, including
wiring, that affect proper operation of the portable generator system
for controlling CO exposure, must be (a) permanently sealed or (b) not
normally accessible by hand or with ordinary tools. Under section
1281.3(f)(1), it is permissible for different parts of the portable
generator system for controlling CO exposure to meet either option (a)
or (b), provided all of the different parts meet at least one of these
two options.
In addition, section 1281(f)(2) would require that, pursuant to
PGMA G300, the construction of the portable generator must minimize the
risk of intentional blockage of the portable generator's system for
controlling CO exposure and minimize the risk of incidental damage to
that system. The portable generator system for controlling exposure is
not permitted to incorporate any type of override function or feature.
6. Notification (Sec. 1281.3(g))
Section 1281.3(g) includes CO shutoff notification requirements.
The proposed rule requires that the portable generator system for
controlling CO exposure include a prominent and conspicuous
notification in a readily visible location to a consumer who is
positioned in front of the start-up controls. The portable generator
system for controlling CO exposure must provide a notification after a
CO shutoff event. The notification must be at least 0.4 inches (10mm)
in diameter, illuminated and, if flashing, must flash at a rate of
between 3 and 10 Hertz (Hz), with equivalent light and dark durations.
Section 1281.3(g) requires a non-red system fault event notification if
an end-of-life condition or a system electrically detectable fault is
present, except for loss of the power source for the portable generator
system for controlling CO exposure.
7. Carbon Monoxide Sensor (Sec. 1281.3(h))
The Commission proposes to require that a portable generator system
for controlling exposure contain a carbon monoxide sensing element
bearing the UL recognized Component Mark or an equivalent NRTL
component mark.
8. Shut-Down Safety (Sec. 1281.3(i))
As specified in section 4.1.1.3 of PGMA G300-2018, the Commission
proposes to require that portable generators be equipped with a means
for shut-down that requires only one action and overrides all run
commands. Additionally, as specified in PGMA G300-2018, a minimum of
one shut-down mechanism shall be open for access at all times and shall
not be positioned in such a manner that requires the removal or opening
of any material that requires use of a tool, and all shut down
mechanisms are to be labeled or marked with an indication of their
function and the required action to activate the function.
9. Marking, Labeling, and Instructional Requirements (Sec. 1281.3(j))
Section 1281.3(j) of the proposed rule incorporates the
requirements pertaining to the operator's manual, operating
instructions, and warnings from section 8 of PGMA G300-2018. The
Commission proposes to include Figure 5 from PGMA G300-2018 (see Tab F
of Staff NPR Briefing Package) with the following changes: the label is
to be located not more than 0.25 inches from the notification
indicator, or the indicator is to be incorporated into the label; the
header must read ``AUTOMATIC SHUTOFF--HIGH LEVELS OF CARBON MONOXIDE'';
use sentence capitalization rather than all-uppercase text in the
message panels, except when highlighting key phrases; revise the
language to clarify that the generator must be moved before restarting
the generator, and to reduce redundancy with the content of the
mandatory DANGER label; the size height of the text in the header must
be at least 0.12 inches, and all other text in the label must be sized
so the height of its uppercase letters measure at least 0.1 inches.
Table 4 summarizes the performance and labeling requirements of the
proposed rule and provides a comparison with the corresponding
requirements in PGMA G300 and UL 2201.
Table 4--Requirements of the Proposed Rule Versus Voluntary Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement PGMA G300 UL 2201 Proposed rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit weighted CO emissions rate ........................ [check] [check]
of portable generator to a
maximum of 150 g/h, including
test methods for verifying
compliance.......................
Same as UL 2201
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Require the generator to shut off [check] [check] [check]
before the concentration measured
above the generator exceeds a
threshold for either an
instantaneous reading or 10-
minute rolling average...........
800 ppmv 400 ppmv Same concentrations
instantaneous & instantaneous & as UL 2201
400 ppmv over 10 150 ppmv over 10
minute average minute average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Method for Verifying [check] [check] [check]
Compliance with CO shutoff
requirement......................
PGMA G300 with
modifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24358]]
Sensor/Shutoff System--Maintaining [check] ........................ [check]
functionality....................
PGMA G300 with
modifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensor/Shutoff System--Self- [check] ........................ [check]
monitoring.......................
Same as PGMA G300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sensor/Shutoff System--Durability [check] ........................ [check]
& Reliability....................
Same as PGMA G300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification, Markings, and [check] ........................ [check]
Labeling.........................
PGMA G300 with
modifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Proposed Section 1281.4--Prohibited Stockpiling
Pursuant to section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2), the
proposed rule would prohibit a manufacturer from ``stockpiling'' or
substantially increasing the manufacture or importation of noncompliant
portable generators between the promulgation of the final rule and the
effective date. The provision, which is explained more fully in Tab B
of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package, would prohibit the manufacture or
importation of noncompliant products at a rate that is greater than 105
percent at which the firm manufactured and/or imported portable
generators during the base period. The base period is the calendar
month with the median manufacturing or import volume within the last 13
months immediately preceding the month of promulgation of the final
rule.
The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
E. Proposed Findings--Section 1281.5
The findings required by section 9 of the CPSA are discussed
throughout this preamble and set forth in section 1281.5 of the
proposed rule.
VII. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
Pursuant to section 9(c) of the CPSA, publication of a proposed
rule must include a preliminary regulatory analysis containing:
A preliminary description of the potential benefits and
potential costs of the proposed rule, including any benefits or costs
that cannot be quantified in monetary terms, and an identification of
those likely to receive the benefits and bear the costs.
A discussion of why a relevant voluntary safety standard
would not eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury addressed
by the proposed rule.
A description of any reasonable alternatives to the
proposed rule, together with a summary description of their potential
costs and benefits and why such alternatives should not be published as
a proposed rule.
This preamble contains a summary of the preliminary regulatory
analysis for the proposed rule. Tab B of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package
contains a detailed analysis.
A. Market Information
1. The Product
Portable generators have historically been the leading product
among all engine-driven tools (EDTs) to cause non-fire CO poisoning
deaths and injuries to consumers, accounting for over 90 percent of the
900 reported fatalities associated with all EDTs during the period 2011
to 2021, and 88 percent of the 710 EDT incidents that occurred in this
period. The pattern of deaths and injuries has not subsided over time.
While data collection is ongoing, the number of CO deaths caused by
portable generators in year 2020 is likely to exceed the highest number
of annual deaths (103) that was previously reported, in 2005.
The expected useful life of portable generators is largely a
function of engine size, loads placed upon the unit, hours of use, and
appropriate maintenance and storage. Staff's evaluation of data on
historical sales in relation to surveys of product ownership suggests
an expected useful product life of 11 years.
New series of portable generator models are introduced every year.
Staff estimates that the average shelf life (period when a particular
model is on the market) for a specific model is 12 years. Staff assumes
the market has reached a steady state in the number of models available
for sale. Under this assumption, firms introduce new models to
essentially replace retiring models.
Staff collected retail prices of 108 portable generators of various
sizes from top selling manufacturers. The weighted average price across
different sizes of portable generators from that sample of models is
$1,000.
2. Current Market Trends for Portable Generators
Staff identified 110 manufacturers of portable generators sold in
the United States in 2021. The largest 10 firms by volume sold
accounted for roughly 70 percent of sales. Top sellers fluctuate
yearly, but a majority of the top 10 firms each year are U.S. based
companies. In recent years, portable generators manufactured in the
U.S. represented between 55 and 60 percent of all portable generator
sales.
Staff used multiple sources to estimate portable generator sales in
2021 of 2.1 million units, which results in total revenue for the
portable generator industry of $2.1 billion. Staff estimated the total
number of portable generators in use to be 21.46 million in 2021. Staff
estimated the number of individual models available for sale each year
from the Power Systems Research sales dataset; in 2021, there were a
total of 1,355 models for sale in the U.S. Staff also produced
estimates of the number of new portable generator models introduced
each year, as well as the total number of models for sale in any given
year within the time horizon of the analysis. Based on staff's
estimations, there was a net gain of six additional models available
for sale in 2021. See Tab B of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package.
3. Future Market Size for Portable Generators
Consumer demand for portable generators fluctuates annually with
power outages, which are generally caused by hurricanes and other
storms along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, or by winter storms in other
areas. Power outages or the presence of storms create periods of
increased demand for portable generators that tend to be followed by
periods of reduced demand, because the purchases in the prior period
saturated a portion of the market demand. This cyclicality of demand
can impact the industry, whose inventories
[[Page 24359]]
and orders vary along the same continuum. In spite of this cyclicality
of demand, staff projected future sales at a rate of growth that is
unrelated to the occurrence of specific weather events. Staff
postulates that the sales of portable generators are linked in the long
run to the growth in the number of households in the U.S.; however, due
to the increased frequency of weather events in the last decades and
the predictions of more frequent and severe storms in the future,\32\
staff expects demand for portable generator to grow more quickly than
the expected growth in the number of households over time. See TAB B of
Staff's SNPR Briefing Package for additional information regarding this
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Climate
Change Indicators at Climate Change Indicators: Weather and Climate
[verbar] US EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff estimated the rate of growth of portable generator sales for
the 30-year period of analysis, as displayed in Table 5.
Table 5--Growth Rate of Portable Generator Sales, 2022-2053
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household growth: Sales growth: 2.13
Growth rates in sales Population growth 1.26 x population x household growth
rates (%) growth (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022-2030....................................... 0.60 0.75 1.60
2030-2040....................................... 0.46 0.58 1.24
2040-2050....................................... 0.37 0.46 0.98
2050-2053....................................... 0.29 0.37 0.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2 displays projected portable generator sales from 2024
through 2053 in the absence of the proposed rule and distinguishes
their compliance with either of the voluntary standards: PGMA G300 or
UL 2201.\33\ Based on information provided by manufacturers and in
market research, staff estimates a 30 percent compliance rate with PGMA
G300's sensor and shutoff requirements. One-sixth of those PGMA-
compliant units (or 5 percent of the total) are estimated to also be
compliant with the emissions requirements of UL 2201. Staff assumed
that in the absence of the proposed rule those compliance rates would
continue into the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Staff assumed that if a generator complies with the
emission requirements included in UL 2201, it also complies with the
sensor/shutoff requirements from PGMA G300; therefore, some portable
generators comply with the sensor/shutoff requirements only, while
others would comply with both sensor/shutoff and emission
requirements.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AP23.001
Figure 2 shows that under these assumptions the number of portable
generators sold per year is expected to reach three million units by
2045, and close to 3.25 million units by the end of the period of
analysis.
Portable generators have an expected product life of 11 years.
Staff used forecasted sales and the expected product life with a
statistical distribution to estimate the likelihood of their continued
use by consumers, and as a result produced an estimate of the total
number of portable generators in use every year during the 30-year
period of the analysis. Figure 3 shows the estimated number of products
in use without the implementation of the proposed rule.
[[Page 24360]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AP23.002
Figure 3 shows that under staff's assumptions the number of
portable generators that would be in use without the proposed rule are
roughly 22 million in 2022 and expected to grow by more than 50 percent
over the next 30 years. By 2053, staff estimates that the total number
of portable generators in use will reach nearly 34 million. The share
of noncompliant portable generators decreases over time, from 91.4
percent in 2022, to 70 percent by 2053, matching the share of
noncompliant portable generators continuing to be sold on a year-by-
year basis, as older noncompliant units are retired.
Staff also estimated the number of models available for sale each
year during the period of analysis, as well as the number of new models
introduced each year. Staff concluded that the number of models has
essentially reached a steady state and that the number of new models
introduced each year replaces models being retired at a rate of 8.3
percent per year. Staff estimates that approximately 113 or 114 new
portable generator models are introduced each year. The number of
models available for sale will reach 1,414 in 2023, and only 1,424 in
2053.
B. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis: Cost Analysis
The proposed rule would impose the following costs: one-time
conversion costs of redesigning existing portable generator models and
modifying manufacturing operations for the development of portable
generators with reduced emissions and with CO sensors/shutoff systems;
increased variable costs of producing portable generators with reduced
CO emission rates and CO sensors with shutoff capabilities; recurrent
testing cost to validate compliance of each new model with the proposed
standard; sensor replacement costs to consumers for the substitution of
failed CO sensors or CO sensors that have reached end of life; and
deadweight loss \34\ caused by price increases resulting from increased
manufacturing costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Deadweight loss is the net loss to consumers and producers
of the value generated from lost transactions that would have
occurred in the absence of the new regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 30-Year Total Cost of the Proposed Rule
Staff added up all cost categories to determine the total cost of
the proposed rule over the 30-year study period, as show in Figure 4.
[[Page 24361]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AP23.003
Over the 30 years, the net cost of implementing the proposed rule
add up to $4.63 billion undiscounted, $2.92 billion discounted at 3
percent, and $1.78 billion discounted at 7 percent.
2. Annualized and per Unit Cost of the Proposed Rule
This section converts the aggregate costs over the 30-year study
period into annualized and per-unit outputs. An annualized output
converts the aggregate costs over 30 years into a consistent annual
amount while considering the time value of money. This metric is
helpful when comparing the costs among different rules or policy
alternatives that may have different timelines, or those that have
similar timelines but costs for one are front-loaded while the other's
maybe backloaded. A per-product metric expresses the costs from the
rule in one unit of product. This metric is helpful when assessing the
impact in marginal terms--for example, comparing costs to an increase
in retail price.
Table 6 summarizes the net cost of the proposed rule in annualized
terms under staff's assumptions:
Table 6--Annualized Cost of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized cost ($M)
Cost categories -----------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 3% Discount 7% Discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing................................................... $127.31 $120.86 $113.20
Model Redesign and Testing...................................... 6.39 10.33 16.27
CO Sensor Replacement........................................... 19.83 16.90 13.30
Deadweight Loss................................................. 0.90 0.85 0.80
-----------------------------------------------
Total Cost.................................................. 154.43 148.94 143.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 summarizes these net costs in per unit terms:
Table 7--Per Unit Cost of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per product ($)
Cost per product -----------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 3% Discount 7% Discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing Cost.............................................. $50.83 $31.53 $18.69
Model Redesign and Testing...................................... 2.55 2.69 2.69
CO Sensor Replacement........................................... 7.92 4.41 2.20
Deadweight Loss................................................. 0.36 0.22 0.13
-----------------------------------------------
Total Cost.................................................. 61.66 38.85 23.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24362]]
C. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis: Benefits Analysis
To estimate benefits from the proposed rule, staff estimated the
number of injuries from casualties reported through the NEISS--a
national probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments
(ED)--and counted the number of deaths entered in the Consumer Product
Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS), a database of consumer incident
reports. In addition to these two databases, staff used estimates
generated by the CPSC's Injury Cost Model (ICM). See Section IV of this
preamble and Tab A of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package for further
description.
Staff then used death counts and the ICM national estimates of the
number of injuries to forecast the number of expected deaths and
injuries for a 30-year study period. To produce a forecast, staff
assumed the incident rates by type of injury per million portable
generators would remain at the same levels experienced during the
period 2004 through 2021. Staff then used the expected effectiveness of
the proposed rule in preventing deaths and injuries to estimate the
number of prevented fatalities and injuries, which were then monetized
using the value of statistical life (VSL) for deaths and ICM cost
estimates for injuries. Over 30 years, the Commission estimates the
rule would prevent 2,148 deaths (nearly 72 deaths per year) and 126,377
injuries (roughly 4,213 injuries per year).
Staff then converted the aggregate benefits over the 30-year study
period into annualized and per unit outputs. For detailed information
on this analysis, see Tab B of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package.
Table 8 summarizes the benefits of the proposed rule in annualized
terms.
Table 8--Annualized Benefits of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized benefits ($M)
Prevented casualties -----------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 3% Discount 7% Discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deaths.......................................................... $977.85 $848.90 $695.08
Injuries........................................................ 224.24 197.10 164.05
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits.............................................. 1,202.09 1,046.00 859.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9 summarizes the cost of the proposed rule in per unit terms.
Table 9--Per Unit Benefits of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per unit benefits ($)
Prevented casualties -----------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 3% Discount 7% Discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deaths.......................................................... $390.39 $221.43 $114.78
Injuries........................................................ 89.52 51.41 27.09
-----------------------------------------------
Total Benefits.............................................. 479.92 272.84 141.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these estimates, the benefits of the rule outweigh the
costs by a factor of 7.02, when discounted at 3 percent. Table 10
displays annualized metrics for both the benefits and costs of the
proposed rule. The benefits of the proposed rule far exceed the
estimated costs. The Commission calculates net benefits, discounted at
3 percent, to be $1.046 billion in benefits less $148.94 million in
costs, or $897.06 million on an annualized basis.
Table 10--Annualized Net Benefits and B/C Ratio
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits compared to costs
Annualized net benefits ($M) -----------------------------------------------
Undiscounted 3% Discount 7% Discount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits........................................................ $1,202.09 $1,046.00 $859.13
Costs........................................................... $154.43 $148.94 $143.56
Net Benefits (Benefits-Costs)................................... $1,047.65 $897.06 $715.57
B/C Ratio....................................................... 7.78 7.02 5.98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sensitivity Analysis
Even in the absence of the rule, there are a number of portable
generators for sale in the market that currently comply with PGMA G300,
and a smaller number of generators that comply with UL 2201. Based on
information provided by large U.S. manufacturers about their existing
models and plans, which was then supported by an analysis of portable
generators for sale online, CPSC staff estimated that the current level
of compliance with the sensor and shutoff requirement (i.e., PGMA G300)
is at 30 percent, while compliance with both requirements (i.e., UL
2201) is at 5 percent of total annual sales. The Commission assumes
that in the absence of the proposed rule, those compliance rates would
stay constant in future years.
Because voluntary compliance with either standard can potentially
reduce the costs and benefits of the proposed rule, and because PGMA
has suggested that staff's estimate of 30 percent compliance with PGMA
G300 is too low, the Commission provides a sensitivity analysis to
assess the
[[Page 24363]]
significance of a higher level of compliance in the baseline scenario
(i.e., no proposed rule implemented) on the net benefits of the
proposed rule. For this analysis, CPSC doubles the assumed level of
compliance with PGMA G300 to 60 percent, while maintaining the level of
compliance with UL 2201 at 5 percent.
Table 11 presents the annualized and per product benefits of the
main analysis and the corresponding metrics for this sensitivity
analysis. A higher compliance with the PGMA G300 voluntary standard
reduces the annualized benefits from the proposed the rule from $1,046
million to $678.17 million and reduces the benefits per product from
$272.84 to $176.72. Estimated benefits would still exceed estimated
costs by a ratio of more than five to one.
Table 11--Sensitivity Analysis--Change in Annualized and per Product Benefits of the Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized net benefits ($M) Net benefits per product ($)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits-costs (present values disc. at 3%) Sensitivity at Sensitivity at
Main analysis 60 percent Main analysis 60 percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits........................................ $1,046.00 $678.17 $272.84 $176.72
Costs........................................... $148.94 $132.31 $38.85 $34.48
Net Benefits (Benefits-Costs)................... $897.06 $545.86 $233.99 $142.24
B/C Ratio....................................... 7.02 5.13 7.02 5.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there is significant uncertainty about the levels of
current compliance with the sensor/shutoff and emission requirements in
the voluntary standards, including PGMA's recent assertion that over
68% of the PGMA member company generators comply with the CO shutoff
requirement, the Commission has conducted additional sensitivity
analyses to produce a more comprehensive assessment of the benefits and
costs of the proposed rule. The levels of assumed compliance used for
this purpose may either overstate or understate actual compliance with
particular requirements of the standards, but they are useful to
illustrate the direction of the benefit-cost analysis under these
threshold situations.
With this objective in mind, Commission staff conducted a
sensitivity analysis that increased compliance with the sensor/shutoff
requirement (i.e., PGMA G300) from the estimated 30 percent used in the
main analysis to 80 percent, while maintaining compliance with the UL
2201 emissions requirement at 5 percent of total annual sales. As shown
in Table 12, even with such high compliance rate with the sensor/
shutoff requirement of the PGMA G300 in the baseline, the
implementation of the rule generates annualized net benefits of $311.4
million due to reduced deaths and injuries. The benefits are less than
half the benefits in the main analysis, and the cost of implementation
are also lower. However, this modeled situation again produces benefits
that significantly exceed the costs, with every $1 in costs generating
$3.56 in benefits.
Table 12--Sensitivity Analysis at 80 Percent Compliance Rate With Sensor/Shutoff Requirement--Annualized and per
Product Benefits of the Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized net benefits ($M) Net benefits per product ($)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits-costs (present values disc. at 3%) Sensitivity at Sensitivity at
Main analysis 80 percent Main analysis 80 percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits........................................ $1,046.00 $432.95 $272.84 $112.75
Costs........................................... $148.94 $121.55 $38.85 $31.65
Net Benefits (Benefits-Costs)................... $897.06 $311.40 $233.99 $81.09
B/C Ratio....................................... 7.02 3.56 7.02 3.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission staff also conducted a sensitivity analysis that changed
compliance with the emissions requirement of UL 2201 from the estimated
5 percent used in the main analysis to 1 and 10 percent, while
maintaining compliance with the sensor/shutoff requirement of PGMA G300
at 30 percent of total annual sales. Table 13 displays annualized
benefits, costs, net benefits and benefit-cost ratios of the proposed
rule under these assumptions. These compliance rates have small impacts
on the annualized net benefits compared to the baseline, with a change
of less than $5 million in each case. Benefits still exceed costs by a
factor of almost seven, with every $1 in costs generating $6.87 in
benefits at the 1 percent compliance rate, and $7.20 at the 10 percent
compliance rate.
Table 13--Sensitivity Analysis at 1 and 10 Percent Compliance Rate With the Emissions Requirement--Annualized
and per Product Benefits of the Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized net benefits ($M) Net benefits per product ($)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits-costs (present values disc. at 3%) Sensitivity at Sensitivity at Sensitivity at Sensitivity at
1 percent 10 percent 1 percent 10 percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits........................................ $1,053.90 $1,036.12 $263.77 $285.34
Costs........................................... $153.49 $143.92 $38.41 $39.64
Net Benefits (Benefits--Costs).................. $900.42 $892.20 $225.36 $245.70
[[Page 24364]]
B/C Ratio....................................... 6.87 7.20 6.87 7.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Unquantified Benefits and Costs
The benefit-cost analyses above estimate the cost to consumers and
producers pushed out of the market by calculating deadweight loss.
However, Commission staff was unable to quantify the increased utility
to consumers from having safer portable generators. This utility is
derived from the sense of additional safety or reduction in anxiety
when operating the product knowing that the hazard has been mitigated.
This benefit is in addition to the reduced deaths and injuries
quantified in this analysis and would indicate that the benefits
estimated in this analysis are likely an underestimate of all benefits
accrued to consumers. See Tab B of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package for
further discussion of the assessment of intangible benefits.
The Commission was also unable to quantify precisely the benefits
of reducing injuries from the increased level of safety provided by the
proposed rule's CO emissions requirement with respect to the outdoor
operation of G300-compliant portable generators.\35\ Although the
hazard pattern of injuries is largely unknown because of minimal
narratives from NEISS records, the Commission believes it is reasonable
to assume that at least some of the injuries--like some of the reported
deaths for which scenarios are known--were caused by portable
generators operated outdoors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The shutoff systems required by PGMA G300 and UL 2201 are
expected to perform well indoors. When the generator is operated
outdoors, however, weather conditions, the direction of the
generator exhaust, and other situational factors may lower the level
of CO concentration near the generator and not activate the shutoff
system. Because G300 does not require a CO emission rate reduction,
a G300-compliant portable generator (that is not compliant with UL
2201) running outdoors that does not shut off presents the same risk
of CO poisoning as a noncompliant generator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission assumed the effectiveness shown in the simulations
could be extended to all incidents; however, of the 511 deaths
replicated in the simulations, less than 2 percent (8 deaths)
replicated the scenario of the generator operating outdoors the entire
time, whereas CPSC's fatality data shows that 6 percent of the deaths
were reported to have occurred with the generator operating outdoors
(79 out of 1332 deaths, as of May 10, 2022). Thus, the outdoor scenario
is underrepresented in the injury estimates. Taking into consideration
the diminished CO concentrations around the portable generator when it
is operated outside, the Commission believes the effectiveness rate of
G300-compliant generators in reducing injuries may be overstated, and
the benefits of implementing the emission requirements of UL 2201 are
consequently understated. The Commission requests information regarding
CO exposures, CO injuries, and CO alarm activations that have occurred
from portable generators operating outdoors as well as indoors.
Depending on the emission control strategy that manufacturers use
to meet the CO emission rate performance requirement in the proposed
rule, it is possible product modifications made to comply with the
proposed rule could improve portable generators' fuel-efficiency, as
well as other characteristics such as ease of starting, altitude
compensation, fuel adaptability, power output, reliability, and engine
life. The Commission did not quantify the secondary benefits associated
with these features, but if these incremental benefits were realized,
they would improve the overall benefit-cost ratio of the proposed rule.
Regarding costs, an underlying assumption in this assessment is
that there would be no behavioral adaptation in response to the reduced
rate of CO emissions from portable generators under the proposed rule.
However, consumers' perceptions of injury likelihood and health impacts
may be affected by the reduced CO emissions and shutoff features under
the rule, which may give consumers a greater sense of security from CO
hazards. This, in turn, could result in less careful behavior.
In addition, the portable generators within the scope of this
proposed rule are commonly used by consumers to provide electrical
power during power outages caused by storms, and at other times when
power has been shut off to a home. In a small number of instances, CO
sensor failures that cause shutoff pursuant to the Commission's rule,
that would not have occurred absent the rule, may disrupt these
critical uses of portable generators and produce disutility costs that
are not reflected in the costs estimated above. We seek comment on this
possibility.
D. Evaluation of Voluntary Standards
The Commission finds that while the existing voluntary standards
are not adequate to address the CO hazard for portable generators,
requirements in the UL 2201 and PGMA G300 voluntary standards are
effective when paired with the additional requirements in the proposed
rule. In particular, under simulated conditions, the sensor/shutoff and
emission requirements in UL 2201 would have averted essentially all of
the deaths related to portable generators. Consequently, high levels of
compliance with these requirements would greatly reduce deaths
associated with consumers' use of portable generators. However, to
achieve the simulated level of efficacy in real-life situations, there
are a number of environmental factors and other considerations that
must be addressed. These considerations create the need for additional
requirements, which in some cases can be found in the PGMA G300
standard. Some of these requirements relate to the shutoff system's
construction, ability to self-monitor, and tamper resistance. There are
also requirements related to the inclusion of a CO shutoff notification
system and labeling (to make the consumer aware of the reason for the
shutoff), as well as requirements related to the inclusion of a
notification marking the direction of the engine exhaust and
instructions to direct the exhaust away from the occupied structures
(to ensure safe operation outdoors), among others. Without these
additional requirements, the real-world effectiveness of the standard
is unlikely to approach the simulated level of efficacy. For these
reasons, the proposed rule does not implement UL 2201 as the mandatory
standard, but instead takes key requirements from both standards and
adds additional requirements needed to reduce the risk of CO poisoning
from operation of portable generators by consumers.
[[Page 24365]]
Even if UL 2201 included all the requirements discussed in the
previous paragraph, the need for a mandatory standard arises also as a
result of a low level of manufacturer compliance with either voluntary
standard, and the UL standard in particular. Staff reviewed portable
generator models available for sale and found that non-compliant
generators are prevalent. The large majority of models produced by
smaller manufacturers abroad are non-compliant with either standard.
Staff also conducted surveys of large U.S. manufacturers and found that
compliance with UL 2201 is minimal, with most manufacturers lacking a
clear path for implementation or even plans to become compliant with UL
2201. See Tab B of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package.
E. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
The Commission considered five alternatives to the proposed rule:
(1) implement the proposed rule without the emission requirements
included in UL 2201 and using the CO concentration limits required for
shutoff that are found in PGMA G300-2018; (2) rely on the voluntary
standard organizations' adoption of the requirements of the proposed
rule into one of the voluntary standards; (3) issue a rule that relies
on either UL 2201 2nd Edition or PGMA G300-2018 as they are currently
written; (4) continue to conduct education and information campaigns
regarding the CO hazard from portable generators, and (5) take no
action. Each alternative is discussed below.
1. Implement the Proposed Rule Without the Emission Requirements and CO
Concentrations for Shutoff From UL 2201
An alternative to the proposed rule is to require portable
generator manufacturers to comply with the PGMA G300-2018 voluntary
standard with only the modifications required to ensure durability,
reliability, and safe operation of the sensor/shutoff system. The
Commission considered this alternative because it provides some
reduction of risk of acute CO poisoning from portable generators in
enclosed spaces, and also because implementation costs are likely
lower, while current compliance with the voluntary sensor/shutoff
requirement is higher (compared to compliance with the UL standard's
emission requirement). The Commission preliminarily rejects this
alternative because it would result in 372 more deaths and 11,135 more
injuries over 30 years compared to the proposed rule, and the net
benefits of the proposed rule are higher than the benefits of this
alternative. Tab B of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package provides a more in-
depth analysis of this alternative.
2. Await Possible Adoption of the Proposed Rule Requirements Into UL
2201 or PGMA G300
Alternative 2 proposes reliance on voluntary standard stakeholders
to adopt all the requirements included in the proposed rule into either
the UL 2201 or the PGMA G300 voluntary standard. The Commission is not
proposing to adopt this alternative because obtaining consensus on a
voluntary standard that has all the requirements of the proposed rule
is unlikely, and staff assesses that current compliance with either
voluntary standard is low. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that
even if a voluntary standard with all of the proposed rule's
requirements were to achieve consensus, it would not be substantially
complied with by manufacturers.
3. Issue a Rule That Relies on Either UL 2201 2nd Edition or PGMA G300-
2018 as Currently Written
This alternative to the proposed rule would require portable
generators to comply with either the UL 2201 (2nd Edition; 2018) or
PMGA G300-2018. The Commission is not proposing this alternative
because, as explained earlier, neither standard is adequate. The
Commission assesses that the shutoff requirements in PGMA G300 would
leave 69 of the 511 fatalities in the staff/NIST simulation
unaddressed. In addition, other requirements of PGMA G300 are not
adequate such as those for tamper resistance, verifying compliance with
the shutoff requirements, and notification and labeling requirements.
The Commission assesses that the CO emission rate and shutoff
performance requirements from UL 2201 are extremely effective in
reducing the risk injury or death associated with CO poisoning from
portable generators. This standard, however, lacks the requirements
necessary to ensure the durability, reliability, and functionality of
the CO shutoff system and notification and labeling requirements.
4. Not Issue a Rule and Continue To Conduct Information and Education
Campaigns
The Commission considered the merits of continuing to conduct
education and information campaigns without a rule, as an alternative
to the proposed rule. Existing CPSC education and information campaigns
on the hazards associated with CO, and continued CPSC advocacy on smoke
and CO alarm adoption, could potentially avoid some deaths associated
with portable generators. The Commission supports and acknowledges the
importance of such efforts; however, these efforts have not resulted in
a decrease in the number of annual generator-related CO deaths, and in
fact, deaths have increased in recent years.
5. Take No Action
Finally, the Commission considered the merits of taking no action.
An assessment of the trends in deaths and injuries and the low adoption
of the voluntary standards, indicate this problem will not correct
itself. Over the next 30 years at current levels of compliance with the
voluntary standards, deaths are expected to exceed 2,600 with roughly
154,000 injuries, and a total societal cost in excess of $27 billion
(discounted at 3 percent). See Tab B of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package.
For these reasons, the Commission is not adopting this alternative.
VIII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Whenever an agency publishes an NPR, Section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires agencies to prepare
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), unless the head of
the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The IRFA, or a
summary of it, must be published in the Federal Register with the
proposed rule. Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, each IRFA must include:
(1) a description of why action by the agency is being considered;
(2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
(3) a description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(5) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
The IRFA must also describe any significant alternatives to the
proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives and that
minimize any
[[Page 24366]]
significant economic impact on small entities. Staff's initial
regulatory flexibility analysis is provided in Tab C of Staff's SNPR
Briefing Package.
A. Reason for Agency Action
The purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce the risk of death or
injury from acute CO poisoning resulting from consumer use of portable
generators. There were at least 1,332 deaths involving portable
generators from 2004 through 2021 as of May 10, 2022 (see Section IV.
of this preamble), or an average of about 74 annually. From 2004
through 2021, there were a total of 17,569 nonfatal CO poisonings
involving portable generators that were treated in hospital emergency
departments (about 976 annually); 7,308 hospital admissions (an average
of 406 per year); and 52,782 medically attended injuries treated in
other settings (an estimated 2,932 per year). The Commission is
promulgating the proposed rule to reduce these generator-related CO
injuries and deaths and the associated societal costs. Although there
are two voluntary standards that address CO poisoning from portable
generators, the Commission assesses that there is not substantial
compliance with these voluntary standards throughout the industry, nor
would adoption of either of these standards reduce the hazard risk as
effectively as the proposed rule.
B. Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule
The Commission proposes this rule to reduce deaths and injuries
resulting from acute exposure to CO associated with portable electric
generators. The Commission published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking in December 2006, which initiated this proceeding to
evaluate regulatory options and potentially develop a mandatory
standard to address the risks of acute CO poisoning associated with the
use of portable generators. In 2016, the Commission published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPR) that proposed CO emission rate
requirements for portable generators based on four different categories
of engine sizes. PGMA and UL published revisions to their voluntary
standards in 2018. The Commission has assessed the effectiveness of the
CO-mitigation provisions in the voluntary standards and preliminarily
concludes that neither standard is adequate to address the unreasonable
risk of injury associated with portable generators. Additionally,
Commission data indicate that compliance with PGMA G300 and UL 2201 has
not increased substantially since the publication of their 2018
revisions while the number of deaths and injuries has continued to
increase. See Tab B of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package. The Commission
concludes a mandatory standard is required to reduce the significant
hazards associated with this consumer product. The proposed rule is
being issued under the authority of sections 7 and 9 of the CPSA.
C. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
The proposed rule would apply to all entities that manufacture or
import portable generators that are powered by spark-ignited engines.
Based on data collected by Power Systems Research, along with other
market research, staff identified 110 manufacturers of generators that
have at some time supplied portable generators to the U.S. market. Most
of these manufacturers were based in other countries. Staff identified
13 domestic manufacturers of gasoline, natural gas, and LPG-powered
portable generators, four of which would be considered small based on
the Small Business Administration size guidelines. Three of the four
small manufacturers are primarily engaged in the manufacture or supply
of larger, commercial, industrial, or backup generators, or other
products, such as electric motors, that are not subject to the proposed
rule. For the one remaining small manufacturer, portable generators
likely account for a significant portion of that firm's total sales.
Using the same sources of data described above, staff identified
more than 90 firms that have produced or imported gasoline and LPG-
powered portable generators. However, in most cases, these firms have
not imported portable generators regularly, or portable generators
account for an insignificant portion of their sales. Of these 90 firms,
staff assessed that 20 may be small importers of gasoline and propane-
powered portable generators that could be affected by the proposed
rule.
D. Compliance, Reporting, and Record-Keeping Requirements of Proposed
Rule
The CPSA requires manufacturers (the term includes importers) to
certify that their products comply with applicable CPSC standards and
regulations. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1). If the Commission should finalize a
portable generator rule, manufacturers, including importers, would need
to certify that the product conforms to the standard. For products that
manufacturers certify, manufacturers would issue a general certificate
of conformity (GCC). The requirements for the GCC are stated in Section
14 of the CPSA and discussed in Tab C of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package.
E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
CPSC has not identified any other Federal rules involving the risk
of acute CO poisoning from portable generators that duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with the proposed rule.
F. Potential Impact on Small Entities
1. Impact on Small Manufacturers
To comply with the proposed rule, small manufacturers would incur
the costs to redesign, test, and manufacture compliant generators. As
discussed in the preliminary regulatory analysis (Section VII of this
preamble), the undiscounted cost of redesigning, testing, and
manufacturing associated with the proposed rule is expected to be, on
average, about $53.38 per portable generator upgraded because of the
proposed rule, or $34.22 discounted at 3 percent. The retail prices
staff observed for portable generators from manufacturers and importers
of all sizes ranged from a low of $149 to $6,649, depending upon the
characteristics of the generator. The estimated average increase of
$34.22 in discounted costs represents roughly 3 percent of the average
retail price of a portable generator.
Generally, impacts that exceed one percent of a firm's revenue are
considered to be potentially significant. Depending on the size of the
generator, the average discounted cost of the upgrade would be between
0.5 percent and 23 percent of the retail prices (or average revenue) of
generators; therefore, the proposed rule could have a significant
impact on manufacturers and importers that receive a significant
portion of their revenue from the sale of the lowest priced portable
generators.
2. Impact on Small Importers
For small importers, the impact of the proposed rule would be
similar to small manufacturers. In some cases, the foreign suppliers
could opt to withdraw from the U.S. market rather than incur the costs
of redesigning their generators to comply with the proposed rule. If
this occurs, the domestic importers will have to find other suppliers
of portable generators or exit the portable generator market. Exiting
the portable generator market could be considered a significant impact
if portable generators accounted for a significant percentage of the
firm's revenue. However, at least three of these
[[Page 24367]]
firms focus on mobile generators, which are not the same as portable
and are generally larger products that are trucked to a site in need of
electricity for industrial or business requirements.
Small importers will be responsible for issuing a GCC certifying
that their portable generators comply with the proposed rule should it
become final. However, importers may rely upon testing performed and
GCCs issued by their suppliers in complying with this requirement.
3. Alternatives Considered To Reduce the Burden on Small Entities
Under section 603(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
603(c), an initial regulatory flexibility analysis should ``contain a
description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which
accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and which
minimize any significant impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.'' The Commission examined several alternatives to the
proposed rule which could reduce the impact on small entities. These
alternatives, along with the reasons the Commission is not adopting
them, are discussed in section VII.G of this preamble.
IX. Response to Comments
Based on changes to the proposed requirements in the SNPR compared
to those initially proposed in the NPR, many of the comments to the
2016 NPR are no longer pertinent. Many other comments have been
addressed since the NPR through staff's simulation plan and
effectiveness analysis of the CO mitigation requirements in the
voluntary standards. Following is a summary of and response to
significant comments received following publication of the 2016 NPR.
Different Emission Rates Based on Engine Size
(Comment 1) Four commenters (PGMA, Briggs & Stratton, Champion
Power Equipment, and Generac) objected to the 2016 NPR's proposal of
four different levels of maximum CO emissions, depending on the size of
engine. Commenters claimed that the tiered emission levels were based
on achievable rates using best available technology rather than
evidence regarding the safety of the levels. These commenters claimed
that the impact on consumer safety or the reduction of CO injuries was
not clearly presented for each of these tiered levels.
(Response 1) The proposed requirements detailed in this SNPR do not
require different rates for different engine sizes. The requirements of
the current proposed rule, which are applicable to generators of all
engine sizes, are expected to eliminate nearly all deaths and most
injuries.
Mandatory Label for Portable Generators Has Accomplished What Is
Necessary
(Comment 2) PGMA and Briggs & Stratton claimed that, since the
introduction of CPSC's 2007 mandatory portable generator safety label,
16 CFR part 1407, the rate of unintentional CO fatalities associated
with portable generators had decreased.
(Response 2) Staff disagrees. The effective date of CPSC's
mandatory label was February 2007, which was more than 15 years ago. As
the data in Figure 1 of this preamble show, there has been no obvious
and consistent reduction in CO fatalities since that time, and CO
fatalities associated with portable generators have been increasing in
recent years. While data collection for 2020 is ongoing, the number of
CO deaths caused by portable generators in 2020 is likely to exceed the
highest number of annual deaths over the reporting period of 2004 to
2021, which occurred in 2005 (103 deaths), prior to the mandatory
label.
Authority To Regulate
(Comment 3) Four commenters (PGMA, Briggs & Stratton, Generac, and
the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association) stated that pursuant to
section 31 of the CPSA, the CPSC lacks the authority to regulate the
risk of injury associated with CO emissions from portable generators
because that risk could be addressed by EPA under the Clean Air Act
(CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
(Response 3) Section 31 provides that the CPSC lacks authority to
regulate a consumer product if that risk ``could be eliminated or
reduced to a sufficient extent through actions'' taken under the CAA or
other listed statutes. 15 U.S.C. 2080(a). The legislative history
reveals that Congress contemplated a stricter ban on CPSC's
jurisdiction but rejected it. The Senate version of the language that
became section 31 would have precluded CPSC's jurisdiction if the
product was ``subject to safety regulation,'' defined as ``authorized
to be regulated for the purpose of eliminating any unreasonable risk of
injury or death,'' under any of the statutes listed.\36\ The House
version of the bill, which was eventually enacted, instead gave the
Commission the authority to regulate if the risk of injury cannot be
reduced to a sufficient extent under one of the enumerated Acts.\37\
The Conference Report explains:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ S. Rep. No. 92-749, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 12-13 (1972).
\37\ H.R. Rep. No. 92-1593, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 38 (1972).
In determining whether a risk of injury can be reduced to a
sufficient extent under one of the Acts referred to in this section,
it is anticipated that the Commission will consider all aspects of
the risk, together with the remedial powers available, to it under
both the bill and the remedial powers under the other law available
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to the agency administering the law.
Id.
Case law confirms that section 31 does not restrict CPSC from
regulating simply because another agency has acted or could act in the
same area. In ASG Industries, Inc. v. CPSC, 593 F.2d 1323 (D.C. Cir.
1979), the D.C. Circuit rejected the argument that the Commission
lacked authority to regulate architectural glazing materials used in
most non-residential buildings because it could be regulated under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), which is a statute listed in
section 31. The court concluded ``that CPSA Sec. 31 was not intended
to preclude the exercise of jurisdiction by CPSC whenever a product-
hazard either potentially could be or was in part being regulated under
OSHA. Congress required CPSC to make a judgement.'' 593 F.2d at 1328-
29.
Section 213(a)(1) of the CAA directs the EPA to conduct a study of
emissions from nonroad engines to determine if they cause or contribute
to air pollution, ``which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare.'' Within 12 months of completion of the
study, section 213 directs the EPA to make a determination on whether
CO emissions from nonroad engines are ``significant contributors to
ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations in more than 1 area which has
failed to attain the national ambient air quality standards for ozone
or carbon monoxide.'' 42 U.S.C. 7547(a)(2).
The statutory authority for EPA to address CO emissions thus is
tied to a determination that the emissions are contributing to air
pollution. The CPSC does not seek to address the effects of CO emission
on ambient air pollution, but instead, the acute CO poisoning hazard to
consumers associated with use of portable generators in which nonroad
spark engines are installed.
EPA's large-scale focus on carbon monoxide emissions is not
directed to the protection of individual consumers from carbon monoxide
poisoning. The risk of CO poisoning from portable generators has
persisted, and deaths and
[[Page 24368]]
injuries associated with CO emissions from portable generators have
increased, even with EPA's adoption of regulations to limit CO
emissions from nonroad spark engines to address air pollution and
ambient air quality. This rulemaking is intended to address this acute
risk to consumers of CO poisoning from portable generators and is
within CPSC's regulatory authority.
Include Compression Units Within the Scope of the Rule
(Comment 4) PGMA stated that any proposed requirement should be
applicable to all portable generators, not just spark-ignited units.
PGMA pointed out that compression units, as well are within the scope
of the PGMA G300 voluntary standard.
(Response 4) The Commission disagrees. Compression ignition engines
\38\ (i.e., diesel engines) emit significantly less CO compared to
spark ignited engines. CPSC staff has not identified any fatality as
involving emissions from a diesel generator. Furthermore, diesel
generators are primarily used by individuals in a work-related setting
or environment, and typically are not consumer products. Thus, the
Commission is not including diesel generators in the scope of the
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Compression ignition engines use a higher compression ratio
than a spark to heat air in the engine cylinder, and thus do not use
a spark plug to ignite the air-fuel mixture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO Shutoff System
(Comment 5) Four commenters (PGMA, Briggs & Stratton, Generac, and
Champion) stated that the 2016 NPR did not adequately consider the
potential for using generator shutoff concepts. The commenters asserted
that the CO shutoff solution was a morefeasible and reliable solution
to that proposed in the 2016 NPR.
(Response 5) The revised proposed rule includes requirements for a
CO shutoff system.
Modeling of Generators Running Outdoors
(Comment 6) PGMA and Briggs & Stratton stated that CPSC needs to
conduct modeling of generators running outdoors.
(Response 6) The analyses of the PGMA G300 and UL 2201 voluntary
standards that support this SNPR include results from testing and
modeling of generators running outdoors.
Closed Loop Electronic Fuel Injection System (EFI) and Catalyst
(Comment 7) Four commenters (PGMA, Generac, Briggs & Stratton, and
the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association) stated that the NPR
proposed to reduce CO emission rates using closed loop electronic fuel
ignition (EFI) and 3-way catalysts, and that these technologies can be
detrimental to a catalyst-equipped air-cooled engine's durability,
performance, and emissions maintenance. PGMA has also alleged that the
elevated exhaust temperatures from these technologies could lead to
burn and fire hazards.
(Response 7) The 2016 NPR did not prescribe emissions control
technologies. As discussed in more detail in Staff's SNPR Briefing
Package, staff has observed portable generator models currently in the
marketplace that are certified to UL 2201 and/or appear to meet the CO
emission rate of the proposed rule, using various technologies as well
as techniques to address additional heat.
Elimination of LPG and Dual Fuel Generators From the Market
(Comment 8) In response to the requirements in the 2016 NPR,
Champion and Generac stated that if EFI is the primary technical
solution adopted to achieve compliance, then the standard would
eliminate conventional and dual fuel generators from the market. The
commenters stated that LPG and dual fuel generators represent a
significant portion of portable generator sales.
(Response 8) The proposed rule does not prescribe how manufacturers
must meet the CO emission rate requirement. Manufacturers are using
different emission control strategies to lower the CO emission rate to
levels the Commission expects will meet the CO emission rate
requirement in the proposed rule. Furthermore, due to propane's
chemical composition, it produces less CO compared to gasoline, thereby
making it less challenging for an LPG generator to meet the proposed
rule than a gasoline generator of equivalent rated wattage.
False Sense of Security
(Comment 9) Four commenters (PGMA, Briggs & Stratton, Champion, and
Generac) claimed that consumers may mistakenly believe that reduced CO
emissions means it is safe to operate aportable generator indoors.
(Response 9) The revised proposed rule does not rely on reduced
emissions alone. The proposed rule's addition of a shutoff requirement,
similar to that supported by PGMA in response to the 2016 NPR, further
reduces the risk of death and injury from these products.
PGMA G300
(Comment 10) Three commenters (PGMA, Generac, Briggs & Stratton)
asserted that the then-proposed revisions to PGMA G300 (now part of
PGMA G300-2018), would address nearly all fatalities resulting from
misuse of portable generators in enclosed spaces.
(Response 10) The Commission disagrees. The effectiveness analysis
that replicated 511 generator-related CO deaths in CPSC's databases
found that if the generators complied with PGMA G300, there still would
have been 69 deaths. Moreover, of the 442 survivors from the 511
simulations assuming G300 compliance, 142 would have been injured such
that 54 would have been hospitalized and 88 would have been treated and
released.
Additionally, staff's testing of commercially available generators
compliant with PGMA G300 and UL 2201, documented in NIST Technical Note
2200,\39\ show that two generators that were PGMA G300-compliant, when
run in an attached garage with the bay door fully open, did not result
in localized CO levels sufficient to activate the CO shutoff system,
yet resulted in CO concentrations in the living space of the house that
would have caused injuries to the home's occupants. In one test, the
generator ran out of fuel after 329 minutes, resulting in COHb values
for theoretical occupants in the house that peaked in the range of 27
percent to 37 percent. This is in the range of where symptoms such as
severe headache, nausea, vomiting, and cognitive impairment are
expected to occur. In the other test, the generator ran for 468 minutes
before the test operator manually shut the generator off because of
time constraints and stopped data collection. The COHb values for
theoretical occupants at the time the generator was stopped ranged from
20 percent to 26 percent, which is in the range of where symptoms such
as throbbing headache and mild nausea are expected to occur.
Furthermore, PGMA G300 does not address deaths and injuries from
generators used outdoors, where local CO concentrations are less likely
to build to a sufficient level to activate the CO shutoff system, as
evidenced by a 3-fatality incident
[[Page 24369]]
involving a PGMA G300 generator used outside and near a home. See Tab G
of Staff's SNPR Briefing Package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ NIST TN 2200 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations and
Carboxyhemoglobin Profiles from Commercially Available Portable
Generators Equipped with a CO Hazard Mitigation System, available
online https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
X. Incorporation by Reference
The Commission proposes to incorporate by reference UL 2201,
Standard for Safety, Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emission Rate of Portable
Generators, Second Edition, and ANSI/PGMA G300-2018 (Errata Update),
Safety and Performance of Portable Generators. The Office of the
Federal Register (OFR) has regulations regarding incorporation by
reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must
discuss, in the preamble, ways in which the material the agency
incorporates by reference is reasonably available to interested
parties, and how interested parties can obtain the material. In
addition, the preamble must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).
In accordance with the OFR regulations, section V of this preamble
summarizes the major provisions of UL 2201 and PGMA G300 that the
Commission proposes to incorporate by reference into 16 CFR part 1281.
The standards are reasonably available to interested parties.
Interested parties can schedule an appointment to inspect a copy of the
standard at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814,
telephone: (301) 504-7479; email: [email protected]. In addition, UL
2201 is available for free digital view at www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL2201_2_S_20180109. Interested parties
can purchase a copy of UL 2201 from www.shopulstandards.com. PGMA G300
is available for free download at www.pgmaonline.com/publications.asp.
XI. Environmental Considerations
Generally, the Commission's regulations are considered to have
little or no potential for affecting the human environment, and
environmental assessments and impact statements are not usually
required. See 16 CFR 1021.5(a). The proposed rule is not expected to
have an adverse impact on the environment and is considered to fall
within the ``categorical exclusion'' for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. 16 CFR 1021.5(c).
XII. Preemption
Executive Order (E.O.) 12988, Civil Justice Reform (Feb. 5, 1996),
directs agencies to specify the preemptive effect of a rule in the
regulation. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). The proposed regulation for
portable generators is issued under authority of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C.
2051-2089. Section 26 of the CPSA provides that ``whenever a consumer
product safety standard under this Act is in effect and applies to a
risk of injury associated with a consumer product, no State or
political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to
establish or to continue in effect any provision of a safety standard
or regulation which prescribes any requirements as to the performance,
composition, contents, design, finish, construction, packaging or
labeling of such product which are designed to deal with the same risk
of injury associated with such consumer product, unless such
requirements are identical to the requirements of the Federal
Standard.'' Id. 2075(a). Thus, the proposed rule for portable
generators, if finalized, would preempt non-identical state or local
requirements for portable generators designed to protect against the
same risk of injury.
States or political subdivisions of a state may apply for an
exemption from preemption regarding a consumer product safety standard,
and the Commission may issue a rule granting the exemption if it finds
that the state or local standard: (1) provides a significantly higher
degree of protection from the risk of injury or illness than the CPSA
standard, and (2) does not unduly burden interstate commerce. Id.
2075(c).
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA). 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. We describe the provisions in this section
of the document with an estimate of the annual reporting burden. Our
estimate includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing each collection of information.
CPSC particularly invites comments on: (1) whether the collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the CPSC's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to
reduce the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate,
and other forms of information technology; and (5) estimated burden
hours associated with label modification, including any alternative
estimates.
Title: Safety Standard for Portable Generators.
Description: The proposed rule would require each portable
generator to comply with the labeling requirements in PGMA G300, Safety
and Performance of Portable Generators, with modifications. Sections
7.2 of PGMA G300 contains requirements for labels, warnings and
instructional literature.
Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import
portable generators.
Staff estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows in Table 14:
Table 14--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Frequency of Total annual Hours per Total burden
Burden type respondents responses responses response hours Annual cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling................................................... 110 12 .............. 1 1,320 $39,930.00
Testing.................................................... 110 12 .............. 4 5,280 384,964.80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Burden........................................... .............. .............. .............. ........... 6,600 424,894.80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our estimate is based on the following. There are 110 known
entities supplying portable generators to the U.S. market. On average,
each entity supplies 12 portable generator models to the market. All
110 entities are assumed to already use labels on both their products
and packaging. However, all of the entities will need to make
[[Page 24370]]
modifications to their existing labels to comply with the proposed
rule. The estimated time required to make these modifications to the
labeling is about 1 hour per model. Each entity supplies an average of
12 different portable generator models. Therefore, the estimated burden
associated with labels is 1,320 hours (110 entities x 12 models per
entity x 1 hour per model = 1,320 hours). We estimate the hourly
compensation for the time required to create and update labels is
$30.25 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation,'' March 2022, total compensation for all sales and office
workers in goods-producing private industries: www.bls.gov/ncs/.)
Therefore, the estimated annual cost to industry associated with the
labeling requirements is $39,930 ($30.25 per hour x 1,320 hours). There
are no operating, maintenance, or capital costs associated with the
collection.
The proposed rule would also require that manufacturers certify
that their products conform to the rule and issue a GCC. There are 110
known entities supplying portable generators to the U.S. market. On
average, each entity supplies 12 portable generators to the market.
Issuing a GCC would be new for all 110 manufacturers. The estimated
time required to test the product and issue a GCC is about 4 hours per
model. Each entity supplies an average of 12 different portable
generator models. Therefore, the estimated burden associated with
testing and issuance of a GCC is 5,280 hours (110 entities x 12 models
per entity x 4 hours per model = 5,280 hours). We estimate the hourly
compensation for the time required to test and issue GCCs is $72.91
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation,'' March 2022, total compensation for all sales and office
workers in goods-producing private industries: www.bls.gov/ncs/.)
Therefore, the estimated annual cost to industry associated with
testing and issuance of a GCC is $384,964.80 ($72.91 per hour x 5,280
hours). There are no operating, maintenance, or capital costs
associated with the collection.
Based on this analysis, the proposed standard for portable
generators would impose a burden to industry of 6,600 hours, at an
estimated cost of $424,894.80 annually ($39,930.00 + $384,964.80).
Existing portable generator entities would incur these costs in the
first year following the proposed rule's effective date. In subsequent
years, costs could be less, depending on the number of new portable
generator models introduced by existing entities and/or by entities
entering the portable generator market. As required under the PRA (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), CPSC has submitted the information collection
requirements of this proposed rule to the OMB for review. Interested
persons are requested to submit comments regarding information
collection by May 22, 2023, to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB as described under the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
XIV. Certification
Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a
consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban,
standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission,
must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced
requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). A final rule would subject portable
generators to this requirement.
XV. Effective Date
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the
effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of a
final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Section 9(g)(1) of the CPSA states that a
consumer product safety rule shall specify the date such rule is to
take effect, and that the effective date must be at least 30 days after
promulgation but cannot exceed 180 days from the date a rule is
promulgated, unless the Commission finds, for good cause shown, that a
later effective date is in the public interest and publishes its
reasons for such finding.
For this proposed rule, the Commission is proposing an effective
date of 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register, and the rule would apply to portable generators manufactured
after the effective date. The 2016 NPR proposed an effective date 1
year after publication of the final rule for larger generators and 3
years for smaller generators, to allow enough time to comply. However,
significant changes have occurred since the NPR. The Commission
assesses that a 1-year effective date for larger generators, and 3-year
effective date for smaller generators, is no longer necessary.
Since the NPR, industry has published voluntary standards and some
manufacturers have adopted them, which demonstrate their feasibility.
In 2018, UL published UL 2201, which has a requirement of a maximum
weighted CO emission rate of 150 g/h for all portable generators.\40\
At least one portable generator manufacturer currently certifies
products to both UL 2201 and PGMA G300. Two other manufacturers each
have one model in the marketplace that are certified to PGMA G300; and
although not certified to UL 2201, CPSC staff expects these models
would meet the proposed rule's CO emission rate requirement. One is a
popular model of a brand-name gasoline generator that has been
converted to run on propane, and the other is a recently introduced
gasoline generator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ UL 2201, Standard for Safety for Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Emission Rate of Portable Generators, Second Edition, Dated January
9, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding these models currently on the market, the
Commission assesses that most manufacturers will likely need time to
develop, test, and plan for production of portable generators that
would meet the proposed requirements, particularly the CO emission rate
requirement. While the technology that the proposed rule would require
is based on existing technology and the requirements are based on those
in the existing voluntary standards, portable generators will need to
be altered to be compliant. Therefore, the Commission is proposing 180
days, the maximum time allowed under CPSA section 9 absent a special
showing of good cause, and seeks public comment on this time frame.
XVI. Request for Comments
We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect
of the proposed rule. Specifically, the Commission seeks comments on
the following:
Information regarding CO exposures, CO injuries, and CO
alarm activations that have occurred from portable generators operating
outdoors as well as indoors;
The appropriateness of both the base period and the
production limits included in the stockpiling provision. This would
include evidence of variation in monthly portable generator
manufacturing volumes, including whether any portable generator
manufacturers vary their production seasonally, information regarding
the growth rate and variability of production and sales, and any other
useful information;
Information regarding any potential costs or benefits of
the proposed rule that were not included in the foregoing preliminary
regulatory analysis;
Information regarding the number of small businesses
impacted by the proposed rule and the magnitude of the impacts of the
proposed rule;
[[Page 24371]]
Information regarding potential differential impacts of
the proposed rule on small manufacturers or suppliers that compete in
different segments of the portable generator market;
Whether any manufacturing costs that might
disproportionately impact small businesses were not considered in this
analysis;
Whether the potential for CO sensor failures during usage
in emergency situations that cause shutoff, that would not have
occurred absent the rule, should be considered as a reduction in
consumer welfare;
Information regarding the necessity of a minimum luminance
requirement for the indication associated with the notification for the
portable generator system for controlling CO exposure, and what an
appropriate luminance requirement might be;
Information regarding CPSC's jurisdiction to regulate the
acute CO poisoning hazard from portable generators, including
information from interested agencies;
Information regarding whether PGMA G300's minimum
notification indication duration of 5 minutes after shutoff occurs,
unless the generator is restarted, is sufficient;
Information regarding the costs of the testing and
certification requirements of the proposed rule;
The appropriateness of the 180-day effective date.
Comments recommending a longer effective date should describe the
problems associated with meeting the proposed effective date and the
justification for a longer one; and
Information demonstrating whether it would be useful to
add to the automatic shutoff warning either a visual representation of
the risk presented, such as a skull and crossbones symbol, and/or the
word ``DANGER,'' ``DANGEROUS,'' or ``POISONOUS'' before ``CARBON
MONOXIDE.''
XVII. Notice of Opportunity for Oral Presentation
Section 9 of the CPSA requires the Commission to provide interested
parties ``an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or
arguments.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). The Commission must keep a
transcript of such oral presentations. Id. Any person interested in
making an oral presentation must contact the Commission, as described
under the DATES and ADDRESSES section of this notice.
XVIII. Promulgation of a Final Rule
Section 9(d)(1) of the CPSA requires the Commission to promulgate a
final consumer product safety rule within 60 days of publishing a
proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(1). Otherwise, the Commission must
withdraw the proposed rule if it determines that the rule is not
reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of
injury associated with the product or is not in the public interest.
Id. However, the Commission can extend the 60-day period, for good
cause shown, if it publishes the reasons for doing so in the Federal
Register. Id.
The Commission finds that there is good cause to extend the 60-day
period for this rulemaking. There have been substantial changes to the
relevant voluntary standards, as well as extensive technical
investigation requiring substantial time, since publication of the NPR
in 2016. Regarding this SNPR and a final rule, under both the APA and
the CPSA, the Commission must provide an opportunity for interested
parties to submit written comments on a proposed rule. 5 U.S.C. 553; 15
U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). The Commission is providing 60 days for interested
parties to submit written comments. Additionally, the CPSA requires the
Commission to provide interested parties with an opportunity to make
oral presentations of data, views, or arguments. 15 U.S.C. 2058. This
requires time for the Commission to arrange a public meeting for this
purpose and provide notice to interested parties in advance of that
meeting, if any interested party requests the opportunity to present
such comments. After receiving written and oral comments, CPSC staff
must have time to review and evaluate those comments.
These factors make it impractical for the Commission to issue a
final rule within 60 days of this proposed rule. Issuing a final rule
within 60 days of this SNPR may limit commenters' ability to provide
useful input on the rule, and CPSC's ability to evaluate and take that
information into consideration in developing a final rule. Accordingly,
the Commission finds that there is good cause to extend the 60-day
period for promulgating the final rule.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1281
Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection,
Incorporation by reference, Portable generators.
0
For the reasons discussed in this preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new part
to read as follows:
PART 1281--SAFETY STANDARD FOR PORTABLE GENERATORS
Sec.
1281.1 Scope, purpose, and effective date.
1281.2 Definitions.
1281.3 Requirements.
1281.4 Prohibited stockpiling.
1281.5 Findings.
1281.6 Standards Incorporated by Reference.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058.
PART 1281--SAFETY STANDARD FOR PORTABLE GENERATORS
Sec. 1281.1 Scope, purpose, and effective date.
(a) This part 1281 establishes a consumer product safety standard
for portable generators, as defined in Sec. 1281.1(b), to address the
acute carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning hazard associated with portable
generators.
(b) For purposes of this rule, portable generators include single-
phase, 300 V or lower, 60-hertz generators that are provided with
receptacle outlets for alternating current (AC) output circuits and
intended to be moved by the consumer, although not necessarily with
wheels. The engines in these portable generators are small, nonroad
spark-ignition engines, based on the EPA's engine classifications per
40 CFR 1054.801, and are fueled by gasoline, liquified propane gas, or
natural gas. For purposes of this rule, portable generators do not
include:
(1) Permanent stationary generators;
(2) 50-hertz generators;
(3) Marine generators;
(4) Generators solely intended to be pulled by, or mounted on
vehicles;
(5) Generators permanently mounted in recreational vehicles or
motor homes;
(6) Generators powered by compression-ignition engines fueled by
diesel;
(7) Industrial-type generators intended solely for connection to a
temporary circuit breaker panel at a jobsite, and not for consumer use.
(c) Any portable generator manufactured after [DATE 180 DAYS AFTER
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] shall
comply with the requirements stated in Sec. 1281.3.
Sec. 1281.2 Definitions.
In addition to the definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051), the following definitions apply for
purposes of this part 1281.
Air change rate, as defined in section 2 of PGMA G300-2018.
[[Page 24372]]
CO analyzer, as defined in section 2 of PGMA G300-2018.
CO shutoff system. Same as ``portable generator system for
controlling CO exposure.''
Engine, as defined in section 2 of PGMA G300-2018.
Maximum available observed wattage. Same as rated wattage.
Ordinary tools, as defined in section 2 of PGMA G300-2018.
Portable generator system for controlling CO exposure, as defined
in section 2 of PGMA G300-2018.
Rated wattage. The output power rating of a portable generator as
determined under section 6.3.2 of PGMA G300-2018.
Test room. A fully enclosed space with a volume of 895-2,100 ft\3\
(25.34-59.47 m\3\) and a ceiling height of 8-12 ft (2.44-3.66 m). The
room dimensions shall allow for the requirements of the generator
position to be met. The generator shall be positioned such that the
exhaust jet centerline is along one of the room centerlines; the
exhaust outlet on the generator is at least 6 ft (1.83 m) from the
opposite wall; the outer surfaces of the generator housing or frame is
at least 3 ft (0.91 m) from the walls to other sides; and the onboard
CO sensor used for the CO safety shutoff system be at least 1 ft (0.30
m) away from any obstruction. The room shall be constructed to control
ventilation within a range of 0.1-1.0 air changes per hour (ACH).
Ventilation shall be induced by a fan on the air outlet. The
configuration of the air inlet and outlet for ventilation shall be
designed such that neither port creates a flow directly onto or near
the CO analyzer sample port above the generator or the CO sensor
onboard the generator that is used as part of the CO safety shutoff
system. The CO sample port connected to the CO analyzer for determining
the concentration of CO within the test room shall be placed 1 ft (0.30
m) above the center point of the portable generator's top surface.
Units of measurement, as defined in section 2.1 of UL 2201.
Sec. 1281.3 Requirements.
(a) CO Emission Rate Requirements. The calculated weighted CO
emission rate of the generator shall not exceed 150 g/h using one of
two test methods, either the Portable Generator Assembly CO Emissions
Method, as described in section 5.2 of UL 2201, or the Portable
Generator Engine-Only CO Emissions Method, as described in section 5.3
of UL 2201.
(b) CO shutoff construction requirements. Comply with section 3.9.1
of PGMA G300, except replace all instances of ``810-850 ppm'' with
``410-450 ppm''; ``800 ppm'' with ``400 ppm''; ``810-850 ppm'' with
``410-450 ppm''; ``410-430 ppm'' with ``160-180 ppm''; and ``400 ppm''
with ``150 ppm''. Replace each instance of ``before'' with ``at or
before''.
(c) CO shutoff levels. Comply with section 6.2.11.1 of PGMA G300,
except replace 800 ppm with 400 ppm and 400 ppm with 150 ppm.
(d) CO shutoff test method. Comply with section 6.2.11.2 of PGMA
G300. The definition of ``test room'' in Sec. 1281.2 shall apply for
purposes of the CO shutoff test method.
(e) Self-monitoring system. Comply with section 3.9.1.1 of PGMA
G300-2018.
(f) Tamper resistance. (1) A portable generator system for
controlling CO exposure shall be tamper resistant. The system is
considered tamper resistant when any part that is shorted,
disconnected, or removed to disable the operation of the system
prevents the engine from running. In addition, all parts, including
wiring, which affect proper operation of the portable generator system
for controlling CO exposure, must be (a) permanently sealed or (b) not
normally accessible by hand or with ordinary tools. It is permissible
for different parts of the portable generator system for controlling CO
exposure to meet either option (a) or (b), provided all of the
different parts meet at least one of these two options.
(2) Comply with section 3.9.1.2.2-3.9.1.2.4 of PGMA G300-2018.
(g) Notification. (1) Comply with 3.9.1.3 of PGMA G300-2018.
(2) The portable generator system for controlling CO exposure shall
include a prominent and conspicuous notification of shutoff event or
system fault event in a readily visible location to a consumer who is
positioned in front of the start-up controls.
(3) CO Shutoff Event Notification. The portable generator system
for controlling CO exposure shall provide a notification after a CO
shutoff event. The notification shall be a red indication. The red
indication shall be at least 0.4 inches (10 mm) in diameter,
illuminated and, if flashing, must flash at a rate of between 3 and 10
Hertz (Hz), with equivalent light and dark duration. The notification
shall remain for a minimum of 5 minutes after a shutoff occurs unless
the portable generator engine is restarted. If the portable generator
engine is restarted, the notification shall not be present.
(4) System Fault Event Notification. Comply with 3.9.1.3.2 of PGMA
G300-2018.
(h) Carbon Monoxide Sensor. Comply with section 3.9.1.4 of PGMA
G300-2018.
(i) Shut-Down Safety. Comply with section 4.1.1.1.3 of PGMA G300-
2018.
(j) Marketing, labeling and instructional requirements. (1) Comply
with section 7.2.1, 7.2.2.1, 7.2.2.2, 7.2.2.3, and 7.2.2.5 of PGMA
G300-2018.
(2) Comply with section 7.2.2.4 of PGMA G300-2018, with the
following changes:
(i) When referring to the placement of the label shown in Figure 5
of PGMA G300-2018, replace ``shall be in close proximity to'' the
notification with ``shall be no more than 0.25 inches (6.35 mm) from''
the notification.
(ii) Revise the label shown in Figure 5 of PGMA G300-2018 as
follows: replace the phrase, ``YOU MUST:'' with ``HIGH LEVELS OF CARBON
MONOXIDE.''; replace the language in the second panel with the
following: ``BEFORE RESTARTING, move generator to a more open, outdoor
area. Point exhaust away. See DANGER label and product manual for more
information.''; in the bottom panel, change replace the phrase ``IF
SICK'' with ``if you feel sick.''; specify that the text in all but the
top panel must be formatted using sentence capitalization, except for
the following words and phrases: ``BEFORE RESTARTING,'' ``DANGER,'' and
``MOVE TO FRESH AIR AND GET MEDICAL HELP.'' The text in the top panel,
or header, must have letter heights of at least 0.12 inches, and all
other text in the label must have text whose uppercase letters measure
at least 0.1 inches in height.
(3) Comply with section 8 of PGMA G300-2018.
Sec. 1281.4 Prohibited stockpiling.
(a) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and importers of portable
generators shall not manufacture or import portable generators that do
not comply with the requirements of this part in any 1-month period
between [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE] at a rate that is greater than 105 percent of the rate at
which they manufactured or imported portable generators during the base
period for the manufacturer or importer.
(b) Base period. The base period for portable generators is the
calendar month with the median manufacturing or import volume within
the last 13 months immediately preceding the month of promulgation of
the final rule.
[[Page 24373]]
Sec. 1281.5 Findings.
(a) General. The CPSA requires the Commission to make certain
findings when issuing a consumer product safety standard. 15 U.S.C.
2058(f). This section discusses support for those findings.
(b) Degree and Nature of the Risk of Injury. As of May 10, 2022,
there were at least 1,332 deaths involving portable generators from
2004 through 2021, or an average of about 74 annually. Because death
certificate data often have a lag time of around two to three years
from the date of reporting to CPSC, the actual number of incidents for
2020 and, 2021 is likely higher. From 2004 through 2021, there were a
total of 17,569 nonfatal CO poisonings involving portable generators
that were treated in hospital emergency departments (about 976
annually); 7,308 hospital admissions (an average of 406 per year); and
52,782 medically attended injuries treated in other settings (an
estimated 2,932 per year).
(c) Number of Consumer Products Subject to the Rule. In 2021, there
were approximately 1,355 individual models for sale in the U.S. There
were an estimated 2.1 million units sold in 2021.
(d) Need of the Public for the Products and Probable Effect on
Utility, Cost, and Availability of the Product. (1) The portable
generators within the scope of this proposed rule are commonly
purchased by household consumers, particularly to provide electrical
power during emergencies (such as power outages caused by storms); when
power to the home has been shut off or it is needed at locations around
or away from the home that lack access; and for recreational activities
such as camping. Built-in wheels or optional wheel kits are often
available for heavier, more powerful units (e.g., those with 3 kW power
ratings or more).
(2) The proposed rule's emission requirement may improve portable
generator's fuel efficiency, as well as other characteristics such as
ease of starting, altitude compensation, fuel adaptability, power
output, reliability, and engine life; features that would likely
increase the utility of the generator to the consumer in a meaningful
way. In addition to this, safer portable generators from the
implementation of the emissions and sensor/shutoff requirements would
mitigate the anxiety of operating a hazardous product, and hence
improve consumer utility as well. Conversely, consumer utility may
decrease as a result of potential consumer behavioral adaption to a
safer product that could lessen the attention paid to CO safety.
(3) The proposed rule would increase the undiscounted cost of
redesigning, testing, and manufacturing portable generators by an
average of $53.38. About three fifths of the cost increase would be
transferred to consumers through price increases. The cost increase
represents slightly more than 5 percent of the average price of a
portable generator, of which more than 3 percent would be transferred
to consumers. This transfer would increase the average price per
portable generator from about $1,000 to $1,034. The quantity of
portable generators demanded by consumers would decrease as a result of
this price increase by less than 2 percent. Nevertheless, except for
potential shortages associated with the inability of manufacturers to
comply with the requirements of the rule prior to the effective date,
it is unlikely that the rule has any significant impact on the
availability of the product to consumers. The potential transitional
shortages would likely last only for a brief period of time, and would
be alleviated as manufacturers become increasingly compliant with the
proposed rule.
(e) Any Means to Achieve the Objective of the Proposed Rule, While
Minimizing Adverse Effects on Competition and Manufacturing. (1) The
rule achieves the objective of addressing acute CO poisoning hazards
from portable generators while minimizing the effect on competition and
manufacturing. The rule is largely based on requirements in two
existing voluntary standards, and manufacturers are generally aware of
the requirements. At least one manufacturer already complies with the
main requirements of the rule, and has done so cost-effectively. The
rule would apply to all manufacturers and importers of portable
generators, so its economic impacts should not be highly burdensome for
any particular manufacturer or importer. Additionally, manufacturers
can transfer some, or all, of the increased production cost to
consumers through price increases. Finally, the regulatory flexibility
analysis concluded that only one small business is likely to be
significantly impacted by the implementation of the rule.
(2) The Commission considered alternatives to the rule to minimize
impacts on competition and manufacturing including: (1) implementing
the proposed rule without the emission requirements and shutoff
requirement levels from UL 2201; (2) relying on the voluntary adoption
of the proposed rule requirements into UL 2201 or PGMA G300; (3)
issuing a rule that relies on either UL 2201 or PGMA G300 as currently
written; (4) not issuing a rule and continue to conduct information and
education campaigns; and (5) taking no action. The Commission
determines that none of these alternatives would adequately reduce the
risk of deaths and injuries associated with the acute CO poisoning
hazard associated with portable generators that the rule addresses. The
rule is expected to generate more net societal benefits (benefits minus
costs) than any of these alternatives.
(f) Unreasonable Risk. (1) Based on the data from the reports that
were entered in CPSC's databases as of May 10, 2022, there have been at
least 1,332 deaths for years 2004 through 2021.
(2) Based on data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance
System, for the 18-year period from 2004 through 2021 there were at
least 17,569 CO injuries associated with portable generators that were
treated in emergency departments (ED) in which the patient was
subsequently released without being admitted, and 5,727 injuries that
required hospitalization after the ED.
(3) Based on data from CPSC's Injury Cost Model (ICM), for the
years 2004 through 2021, there were an estimated 1,580 injuries that
resulted in direct hospital admissions and 52,782 injuries resulted in
a doctor's or clinic's visit. Combined with the NEISS estimates, there
were an estimated 77,658 nonfatal injuries that were treated in the
same 18-year period.
(4) Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
provide a source of comparison of the relative risk of CO poisoning
associated with portable generators. CDC estimates that at least 430
people die in the United States from accidental CO poisoning every
year. These are deaths caused by CO from any source, including motor
vehicles. The average number of generator-related consumer CO deaths
per year in CPSC's databases for the three most recent years of
complete data, years 2017 through 2019, is 85, which is nearly 20
percent of CDC's estimate.
(5) The Commission estimates that the rule would result in
aggregate net benefits of about $897.06 million annually, discounted at
3 percent. The Commission estimates that the net benefits on a per-unit
basis, when discounted at 3 percent, are $233.99. These net benefits
per product represent roughly 23 percent of the average price of a
portable generator, whereas total unit costs discounted at 3 percent
are less than 4 percent of the average price. The Commission concludes
that portable generators pose an unreasonable risk of injury and finds
[[Page 24374]]
that the rule, including its effective date, are reasonably necessary
to reduce the unreasonable risk of injury.
(g) Public Interest. The rule addresses an unreasonable risk of
acute CO poisoning associated with portable generators. Adherence to
the requirements of the proposed rule would reduce deaths and injuries
from portable generator acute CO poisoning; thus, the rule is in the
public interest.
(h) Voluntary Standards. (1) Under section 9(f)(3)(D) of the CPSA,
if a voluntary standard addressing the risk of injury has been adopted
and implemented, then, in order to proceed with rulemaking, the
Commission must find either that: the voluntary standard is not likely
to eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury, or substantial
compliance with the voluntary standard is unlikely.
(2) There are two voluntary standards that address the risk of
acute CO poisoning from portable generators: UL 2201, Standard for
Safety for Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emission Rate of Portable Generators,
Second Edition (``UL 2201'') and ANSI/PGMA G300-2018 (Errata Update),
Safety and Performance of Portable Generators (``PGMA G300'').
(3) Based on information provided by manufacturers and in market
research materials, the Commission estimates a 30 percent compliance
rate with PGMA G300's sensor and shutoff requirements. One sixth of
those PGMA-compliant units (or 5 percent of the total) are estimated to
also be compliant with the emissions requirements of UL 2201. In
addition, the CO hazard mitigation requirements have been included in
both standards since 2018, approximately 5 years ago, yet the number of
fatalities since then have not only not abated but appear to be
increasing. The Commission concludes that compliance in the marketplace
with either voluntary standard is not substantial, and substantial
compliance is unlikely in the future.
(4) The Commission finds that the CO emission rate requirements and
CO shutoff levels from UL 2201 are extremely effective in reducing
deaths and injuries associated with acute CO poisoning from portable
generators in simulations. The Commission concludes that these
requirements are not adequate without additional requirements that
ensure the durability, reliability and functionality of the CO shutoff
system, and requirements pertaining to CO shutoff notification and
labeling. Therefore, the rule incorporates PGMA G300's CO shutoff test
method, and requirements from PGMA G300 specifying aspects of the
shutoff system's construction, ability to self-monitor, and tamper
resistance, and labeling, with modifications that are necessary to
ensure the effectiveness of these requirements.
(i) Reasonable Relationship of Benefits to Costs. (1) The rule
would impose the following quantifiable costs: (a) increased variable
costs of producing portable generators with reduced CO emission rates
and CO sensors with shutoff capabilities; (b) one-time conversion costs
of redesigning existing portable generator models, modifying
manufacturing operations, and the recurrent testing costs to validate
compliance of each new model with the proposed standard; (c) sensor
replacement costs to consumers for failed CO sensors or sensors that
have reached end of life; and (d) deadweight loss caused by price
increases resulting from increased manufacturing costs. The Commission
performed a 30-year prospective cost assessment (2024-2053) of these
four cost categories and estimated the total annualized cost from the
proposed rule to be $148.94 million, discounted at 3 percent. The
Commission estimated the costs per portable generator to be $38.85,
discounted at 3 percent.
(2) The Commission also conducted a benefits assessment of the
rule. The benefits assessment accounted for the prevention of deaths
and injuries from introducing compliant portable generators, which the
Commission monetized using the value of statistical life for deaths and
estimates of the cost per type of injury from the CPSC's Injury Cost
Model. Over the 30-year study period, the Commission estimated the rule
would prevent 2,148 deaths (nearly 72 deaths per year) and 126,377
injuries (roughly 4,213 injuries per year). The total annualized
benefits from the rule are $1,046 million, discounted at 3 percent. The
Commission estimates the per-unit benefits from the rule to be $272.84,
discounted at 3 percent.
(3) The estimated benefits of the rule far exceed its estimated
costs. The Commission calculates net benefits (benefits less costs) to
be $897.06 million on an annualized basis, discounted at 3 percent.\41\
The net benefits on per-unit basis are $233.99, discounted at 3
percent. Overall, the rule has a benefit-cost ratio of 7.02; that is,
for every $1 in direct cost to consumers and manufacturers, the
proposed rule generates $7.02 in benefits from mitigated deaths and
injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Over the 30-year period, net benefits reach $17.58 billion,
discounted at 3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(j) Least-Burdensome Requirement that Would Adequately Reduce the
Risk of Injury. The Commission considered five alternatives to the rule
including: (1) implementing the rule without the emission requirements
and shutoff requirement levels from UL 2201; (2) relying on voluntary
adoption of the rule requirements into UL 2201 or PGMA G300; (3)
issuing a rule that relies on either UL 2201 or PGMA G300 as currently
written; (4) not issuing a rule and continue to conduct information and
education campaigns; and (5) taking no action. Although most of these
alternatives may be a less burdensome alternative to the rule, the
Commission determines that none of the less burdensome alternatives
would adequately reduce the risk of deaths and injuries associated with
portable generators that is addressed in the rule.
Sec. 1281.6 Standards Incorporated by Reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material is available for
inspection at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission at: Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda,
MD 20814, telephone (301) 504-7479, email [email protected], and is
available from the sources listed below. For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, email [email protected], or
go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
(b) Portable Generator Manufacturers' Association, 1300 Summer
Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115-2851; phone: 216.241.7333; email:
[email protected]; www.pgmaonline.com. ANSI/PGMA G300-2018 (Errata
Update) Safety and Performance of Portable Generators, approved [DATE];
IBR approved for [SECTIONS]. A read-only copy is available at
www.pgmaonline.com/pdf/ANSI_PGMAG300-2018(ErrataUpdateApril2020).pdf.
(c) Underwriters Laboratories, 1850 M St. NW, STE. 1000,
Washington, DC 20036; 202.296.7840; www.ul.com. UL 2201, 2nd Edition,
Standard for Carbon Monoxide (CO) Emission Rate of Portable Generators,
approved January 24, 2018; IBR approved for [SECTIONS]. A read-only
copy is available at www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=33821,
[[Page 24375]]
or it can be purchased at www.shopulstandards.com.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-07870 Filed 4-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P