[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