Safety Standard for Portable Generators, 24346-24375 [2023-07870]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
24346
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
i.3. ‘Aerosol generating units’ ‘‘specially
designed’’ for fitting to the systems as
specified in paragraphs i.1 and i.2 of this
ECCN.
Technical Notes to 2B352.i:
1. Aerosol generating units are devices
‘‘specially designed’’ or modified for fitting to
aircraft and include nozzles, rotary drum
atomizers and similar devices.
2. This ECCN does not control spraying or
fogging systems, ‘‘parts’’ and ‘‘components,’’
as specified in 2B352.i, that are
demonstrated not to be capable of delivering
biological agents in the form of infectious
aerosols.
3. Droplet size for spray equipment or
nozzles ‘‘specially designed’’ for use on
aircraft or ‘‘UAVs’’ should be measured using
either of the following methods (pending the
adoption of internationally accepted
standards):
a. Doppler laser method
b. Forward laser diffraction method.
j. Nucleic acid assemblers and synthesizers
that are both:
j.1. Partly or entirely automated; and
j.2. Designed to generate continuous
nucleic acids greater than 1.5 kilobases in
length with error rates less than 5% in a
single run.
k. Peptide synthesizers that are:
k.1. Partly or entirely automated;
k.2. Capable of generating continuous
peptide sequences greater than 75 amino
acids; and
k.3. Capable of producing 100 mg of
peptide at 75% or greater purity in a single
run.
*
*
*
*
*
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023–08269 Filed 4–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–33–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1281
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2006–0057]
Safety Standard for Portable
Generators
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking; notice of
opportunity for oral presentation of
comments.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 cpsc-os@cpsc.gov 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: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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; jbuyer@
cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background 1
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.
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
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/2023-04-05COMB-Portable-Generator-SNPR-Statement.pdf?
VersionId=ztywIcwqWcpY1eFObXtqXsdHjklGTgKa;
and https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/
Commissioner/Peter-A-Feldman/Statement/
Statement-of-Commissioner-Peter-A-FeldmanRequesting-Comment-on-Portable-GeneratorIntellectual-Property-and-Licensing-Concerns.
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).
3 Technology Demonstration of a Prototype Low
Carbon Monoxide Emission Portable Generator
https://ecpsc.cpsc.gov/pmo/portgen/Shared
%20Documents/staff%20report%20on%20
technology%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.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
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.
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 ANSIapproved ANSI/PGMA G300–2018,
Safety and Performance of Portable
Generators, on April 20, 2018 (PGMA
G300).8
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
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-PortableGenerators-October-5-2016.pdf (Document ID
CPSC–2006–0057–0032 in www.regulations.gov).
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-forportable-generators.
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
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
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
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/s3fspublic/revisions-to-TN2048-and-commentresolutions.pdf (Document ID CPSC–2006–0057–
0106 in www.regulations.gov).
12 https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/BriefingPackage-on-Portable-Generator-VoluntaryStandards.pdf?VersionId=hLnAkKQ6bCD_
SKin8RE6Iax.BjZsB5x3 (Document ID CPSC–2006–
0057–0107 in www.regulations.gov).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24347
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/
SupplementalNoticeofProposed
RulemakingSNPRSafetyStandardfor
PortableGenerators.pdf?
VersionId=zxwp.NpJj8nNCxLf7CIp3z
MVqLB1MrgE. 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.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
24348
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
• 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
B. CO Fatalities Associated With
Portable Generators
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.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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
BILLING CODE 6355–01–C
C. Hazard Patterns of Fatal Incidents
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
The average number of generatorrelated CO fatalities in CPSC’s databases
for the most recent 3 years of complete
data (years 2017 through 2019) is 85
deaths per year.
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-forPortable-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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
ongoing, and the death count most
likely will increase in future reports.17
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
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
MD, June 2022 https://www.cpsc.gov/content/FatalIncidents-Associated-with-Non-Fire-CarbonMonoxide-Poisoning-from-Engine-DrivenGenerators-and-Other-Engine-Driven-Tools-20112021 (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-FatalitiesReport-2021.
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-IncidentsAssociated-with-Non-Fire-Carbon-MonoxidePoisoning-from-Engine-Driven-Generators-andOther-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-investigationsassociated-non-fire-carbon-monoxide-engine-1
(Document ID CPSC–2006–0057–0026 in
www.regulations.gov).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
EP20AP23.000</GPH>
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
24349
24350
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
generator, and the time of year of the
incident.
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
NEISS
code
Treatment
Estimated
injuries
Coefficient
of variation
Sample
size
95% Confidence
interval
1 .............
6 .............
Treated and released, or examined and released without treatment .......
Left without being seen/Left against medical advice.
17,569
0.2612
450
8,575–26,563
2 .............
4 .............
5 .............
Treated and transferred to another hospital .............................................
Treated and admitted for hospitalization (within same facility).
Held for observation (includes admitted for observation).
5,727
0.2864
149
2,512–8,942
8 .............
Fatality, including dead on arrival, died in the ED, died after admission
(*)
(*)
1
(*)
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
to approve, and UL published, the
ANSI-approved second edition of UL
2201.
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:
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1. 150 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) of CO during a 10-minute rolling
average 21 (§ 6.5.3), or
2. an instantaneous reading of 400
ppmv (§ 6.5.2).22
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 hazardmitigation 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
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.
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.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 selfmonitoring 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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.
PGMA G300–2018 also requires
notification after a shutoff event. The
PGMA G300 shutoff ‘‘notification’’
23 Edition Date: March 31, 2017; ANSI approved:
October 7, 2022. UL 2034 is available for free digital
view at https://www.shopulstandards.com/Product
Detail.aspx?UniqueKey=32610.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24351
requirements consist of a ‘‘red
indication’’ (§ 3.9.1.3.1) and associated
product markings (§ 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.’’
§ 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’’ (§ 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.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
24352
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
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
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
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
Fatality .....................................................................................................................................................
Percentage of death averted versus baseline generators ......................................................................
Survivors who are hospitalized or transferred to specialized treatment center ......................................
Survivors who seek medical treatment and are treated and released ...................................................
Survivors who are likely not symptomatic and not seeking medical treatment ......................................
68.50
86.6%
54.22
87.96
300.42
UL 2201
0.04
99.99%
3.22
24.28
483.56
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
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
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.
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/BriefingPackage-on-Portable-Generator-Voluntary-
Standards.pdf?VersionId=hLnAkKQ6bCD_SKin8
RE6Iax.BjZsB5x3 (Document Id number CPSC–
2006–0057–0107 in www.Regulations.gov).
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.
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).
2. Estimates of Deaths and Injuries
Assuming Compliance With Either
Voluntary Standard
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
511
....................
....................
....................
....................
G300
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
24353
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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
Fatalities ...................................................................................................................................................
Percentage of deaths averted versus baseline (BL) generators ............................................................
Survivors who are hospitalized or transferred to specialized treatment center ......................................
Survivors who seek ED treatment and are treated and released ...........................................................
Survivors who visit doctor/clinic and are treated and released ..............................................................
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 selfmonitoring 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 selfmonitoring 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1,332
....................
7,307.67
17,568.97
52,781.62
G300
183.77
86.20%
1,136.54
3,227.44
9,544.73
UL 2201
0.09
99.99%
8.85
62.21
242.20
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
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24354
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 ft3
(25.34–59.47 m3)—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 ft3 (25.34–59.47 m3) 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(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
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
‘‘blinking, with a maximum period of 2
seconds’’ (§ 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 (§ 3.9.1.3);
• Be ‘‘prominent and conspicuous
. . . in a readily visible location’’ that
is ‘‘not easily obscured during use’’
(§ 3.9.1.3);
• Contrast with the background color
(§ 3.9.1.3);
• ‘‘[R]emain’’ for at least 5 minutes
after shutoff occurs, or until the
generator is restarted (§ 3.9.1.3.1);
• Not be present if the generator is
restarted (§ 3.9.1.3.1); and
• Be labeled or marked with an
indication of its function and the
required action to activate its function
(§ 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’’
(§ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24355
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
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24356
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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’’ (§ 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 alluppercase text are less legible than
words in lowercase text, and alluppercase 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
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 sparkignition 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
(§ 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 (§ 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.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
3. Shutoff Requirements (§ 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 10minute 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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
(§ 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 (§ 1281.3(i))
As specified in section 4.1.1.3 of
PGMA G300–2018, the Commission
proposes to require that portable
24357
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 shutdown 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 (§ 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 alluppercase 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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
TABLE 4—REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE VERSUS VOLUNTARY STANDARDS
Requirement
PGMA G300
UL 2201
Proposed rule
Limit weighted CO emissions rate of portable generator to a maximum of 150 g/h,
including test methods for verifying compliance .......................................................
........................................
✓
✓
Same as UL 2201
✓
800 ppmv
instantaneous &
400 ppmv over 10
minute average
✓
400 ppmv
instantaneous &
150 ppmv over 10
minute average
✓
Same concentrations
as UL 2201
✓
✓
✓
PGMA G300 with
modifications
Require the generator to shut off before the concentration measured above the generator exceeds a threshold for either an instantaneous reading or 10-minute rolling average ................................................................................................................
Test Method for Verifying Compliance with CO shutoff requirement ...........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
24358
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE VERSUS VOLUNTARY STANDARDS—Continued
Requirement
PGMA G300
UL 2201
Proposed rule
Sensor/Shutoff System—Maintaining functionality .......................................................
✓
........................................
✓
PGMA G300 with
modifications
Sensor/Shutoff System—Self-monitoring ......................................................................
✓
........................................
✓
Same as PGMA G300
Sensor/Shutoff System—Durability & Reliability ...........................................................
✓
........................................
✓
Same as PGMA G300
Notification, Markings, and 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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 nonfire 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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
24359
Staff’s SNPR Briefing Package for
additional information regarding this
analysis.
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
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2022–2030
2030–2040
2040–2050
2050–2053
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
Household growth:
1.26 × population
growth
(%)
0.60
0.46
0.37
0.29
0.75
0.58
0.46
0.37
Sales growth:
2.13 × household
growth
(%)
1.60
1.24
0.98
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.
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.
32 See the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s Climate Change Indicators at Climate
Change Indicators: Weather and Climate | US EPA.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
EP20AP23.001</GPH>
Population growth
rates
(%)
Growth rates in sales
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
EP20AP23.002</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24360
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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
$1.78 billion discounted at 7 percent.
2. Annualized and per Unit Cost of the
Proposed Rule
This section converts the aggregate
costs over the 30-year study period into
annualized and per-unit outputs. An
annualized output converts the
aggregate costs over 30 years into a
consistent annual amount while
considering the time value of money.
This metric is helpful when comparing
the costs among different rules or policy
alternatives that may have different
timelines, or those that have similar
timelines but costs for one are front-
24361
loaded while the other’s maybe
backloaded. A per-product metric
expresses the costs from the rule in one
unit of product. This metric is helpful
when assessing the impact in marginal
terms—for example, comparing costs to
an increase in retail price.
Table 6 summarizes the net cost of the
proposed rule in annualized terms
under staff’s assumptions:
TABLE 6—ANNUALIZED COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Annualized cost ($M)
Cost categories
Undiscounted
3% Discount
7% Discount
Manufacturing ..............................................................................................................................
Model Redesign and Testing .......................................................................................................
CO Sensor Replacement .............................................................................................................
Deadweight Loss .........................................................................................................................
$127.31
6.39
19.83
0.90
$120.86
10.33
16.90
0.85
$113.20
16.27
13.30
0.80
Total Cost .............................................................................................................................
154.43
148.94
143.56
Table 7 summarizes these net costs in
per unit terms:
TABLE 7—PER UNIT COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Cost per product ($)
Cost per product
3% Discount
7% Discount
Manufacturing Cost ......................................................................................................................
Model Redesign and Testing .......................................................................................................
CO Sensor Replacement .............................................................................................................
Deadweight Loss .........................................................................................................................
$50.83
2.55
7.92
0.36
$31.53
2.69
4.41
0.22
$18.69
2.69
2.20
0.13
Total Cost .............................................................................................................................
61.66
38.85
23.71
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
EP20AP23.003</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Undiscounted
24362
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 30year 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 ..........................................................................................................................................
Injuries .........................................................................................................................................
$977.85
224.24
$848.90
197.10
$695.08
164.05
Total Benefits ........................................................................................................................
1,202.09
1,046.00
859.13
Table 9 summarizes the cost of the
proposed rule in per unit terms.
TABLE 9—PER UNIT BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE
Per unit benefits ($)
Prevented casualties
Undiscounted
3% Discount
7% Discount
Deaths ..........................................................................................................................................
Injuries .........................................................................................................................................
$390.39
89.52
$221.43
51.41
$114.78
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
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Benefits ........................................................................................................................................
Costs ............................................................................................................................................
Net Benefits (Benefits¥Costs) ....................................................................................................
B/C Ratio .....................................................................................................................................
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$1,202.09
$154.43
$1,047.65
7.78
3% Discount
$1,046.00
$148.94
$897.06
7.02
7% Discount
$859.13
$143.56
$715.57
5.98
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
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
24363
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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)
Benefits¥costs
(present values disc. at 3%)
Main
analysis
Benefits ............................................................................................................
Costs ................................................................................................................
Net Benefits (Benefits¥Costs) ........................................................................
B/C Ratio .........................................................................................................
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
$1,046.00
$148.94
$897.06
7.02
particular requirements of the
standards, but they are useful to
illustrate the direction of the benefitcost 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
Sensitivity at
60 percent
$678.17
$132.31
$545.86
5.13
Net benefits per product ($)
Main
analysis
$272.84
$38.85
$233.99
7.02
Sensitivity at
60 percent
$176.72
$34.48
$142.24
5.13
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)
Benefits¥costs
(present values disc. at 3%)
Main analysis
Benefits ............................................................................................................
Costs ................................................................................................................
Net Benefits (Benefits¥Costs) ........................................................................
B/C Ratio .........................................................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
$1,046.00
$148.94
$897.06
7.02
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
Sensitivity at
80 percent
$432.95
$121.55
$311.40
3.56
Net benefits per product ($)
Main analysis
$272.84
$38.85
$233.99
7.02
Sensitivity at
80 percent
$112.75
$31.65
$81.09
3.56
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 $7.20
at the 10 percent compliance rate.
TABLE 13—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AT 1 AND 10 PERCENT COMPLIANCE RATE WITH THE EMISSIONS REQUIREMENT—
ANNUALIZED AND PER PRODUCT BENEFITS OF THE RULE
Benefits¥costs
(present values disc. at 3%)
Annualized net benefits ($M)
Net benefits per product ($)
Sensitivity at
1 percent
Sensitivity at
1 percent
Benefits ............................................................................................................
Costs ................................................................................................................
Net Benefits (Benefits—Costs) ........................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$1,053.90
$153.49
$900.42
Sensitivity at
10 percent
$1,036.12
$143.92
$892.20
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
$263.77
$38.41
$225.36
Sensitivity at
10 percent
$285.34
$39.64
$245.70
24364
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 13—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AT 1 AND 10 PERCENT COMPLIANCE RATE WITH THE EMISSIONS REQUIREMENT—
ANNUALIZED AND PER PRODUCT BENEFITS OF THE RULE—Continued
Benefits¥costs
(present values disc. at 3%)
Annualized net benefits ($M)
Net benefits per product ($)
Sensitivity at
1 percent
Sensitivity at
1 percent
B/C Ratio .........................................................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
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
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 G300compliant 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
6.87
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 G300compliant 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’ fuelefficiency, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Sensitivity at
10 percent
7.20
6.87
Sensitivity at
10 percent
7.20
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 selfmonitor, 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.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 noncompliant 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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
are higher than the benefits of this
alternative. Tab B of Staff’s SNPR
Briefing Package provides a more indepth 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24365
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
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
24366
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
significant economic impact on small
entities. Staff’s initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is provided in Tab C
of Staff’s SNPR Briefing Package.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 generatorrelated 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 RecordKeeping 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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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.
24367
cannot be reduced to a sufficient extent
under one of the enumerated Acts.37
The Conference Report explains:
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.
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
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 § 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
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
24368
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 workrelated setting or environment, and
typically are not consumer products.
Thus, the Commission is not including
diesel generators in the scope of the
proposed rule.
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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 aircooled 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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
24369
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
involving a PGMA G300 generator used
outside and near a home. See Tab G of
Staff’s SNPR Briefing Package.
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: cpscos@cpsc.gov. In addition, UL 2201 is
available for free digital view at
www.shopulstandards.com/Product
Detail.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
respondents
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Burden type
Frequency of
responses
Total annual
responses
Hours per
response
Total burden
hours
Annual cost
Labeling ........................................................
Testing .........................................................
110
110
12
12
........................
........................
1
4
1,320
5,280
$39,930.00
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
U.S. market. On average, each entity
supplies 12 portable generator models to
the market. All 110 entities are assumed
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
to already use labels on both their
products and packaging. However, all of
the entities will need to make
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24370
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 × 12 models
per entity × 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 goodsproducing 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 × 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 × 12
models per entity × 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 goodsproducing 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
× 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 CPSCenforced 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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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;
40 UL 2201, Standard for Safety for Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Emission Rate of Portable
Generators, Second Edition, Dated January 9, 2018.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
• 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.’’
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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.
For the reasons discussed in this
preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal
■
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24371
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
§ 1281.1
date.
Scope, purpose, and effective
(a) This part 1281 establishes a
consumer product safety standard for
portable generators, as defined in
§ 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 sparkignition 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 § 1281.3.
§ 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.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
24372
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 ft3 (25.34–
59.47 m3) 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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
§ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
§ 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 startup 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(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.
§ 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.
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
§ 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 costeffectively. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24373
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
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24374
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
system’s construction, ability to selfmonitor, 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(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.
§ 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 cpscos@cpsc.gov, and is available from the
sources listed below. For information on
the availability of this material at
NARA, email fr.inspection@nara.gov, or
go to: www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
(b) Portable Generator Manufacturers’
Association, 1300 Summer Avenue,
Cleveland, OH 44115–2851; phone:
216.241.7333; email: pgma@
pgmaonline.com;
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(ErrataUpdate
April2020).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,
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 76 / Thursday, April 20, 2023 / Proposed Rules
or it can be purchased at
www.shopulstandards.com.
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
II. Background, Purpose, and Legal
Basis
[FR Doc. 2023–07870 Filed 4–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR 165
[USCG—USCG–2023–0229]
1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Illinois River Mile Markers
163.3 to 162.7, Peoria, IL
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is proposing
to establish a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters in the Illinois River
at Mile Marker (MM) 162.7 through
163.3. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on these
navigable waters near Peoria, IL, during
a drone show on June 10, 2023. This
proposed rulemaking would prohibit
persons and vessels from being in the
safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sector Upper
Mississippi River or a designated
representative. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before April 30th, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2023–0229 using the Federal DecisionMaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public
Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
further instructions on submitting
comments.
SUMMARY:
If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email MSTC
Nathaniel Dibley, Sector Upper
Mississippi River Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone 314–269–2550, email
Nathaniel.D.Dibley@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:43 Apr 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
The Peoria, IL Parks District notified
the Coast Guard that it will be
conducting a drone show from 9 p.m. to
10 p.m. on June 10, 2023. The drones
are to be launched shoreside from
Peoria Riverfront Park over the Illinois
River at MM 162.9. Hazards from the
displays include nonresponsive drones
falling from the sky and lights
associated with the display interfering
with lighted bridge or navigation aids.
The Captain of the Port Sector Upper
Mississippi River (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards
associated with the drones to be used in
this display would be a safety concern
for anyone within a quarter miles radius
on the event.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to
ensure the safety of vessels and the
navigable waters within a quarter mile
of MM 162.9 before, during, and after
the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The COTP is proposing to establish a
safety zone from MM 162.7 through
163.3 on June 10, 2023, 8:45 p.m.
through June 10, 2023, 10:15 p.m. The
safety zone would cover all navigable
waters within a quarter mile MM 162.9
in the Illinois River. The duration of the
zone is intended to ensure the safety of
vessels and these navigable waters
before, during, and after the scheduled
9 p.m. to 10 p.m. drone display. No
vessel or person would be permitted to
enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The
regulatory text we are proposing appears
at the end of this document.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and
Executive orders, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
This NPRM has not been designated a
‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24375
the NPRM has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
This regulatory action determination
is based on the size, location, duration
of the drone show, and time-of-day of
the safety zone.
B. Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to consider
the potential impact of regulations on
small entities during rulemaking. The
term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit the safety
zone may be small entities, for the
reasons stated in section IV.A above,
this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have
a significant economic impact on it,
please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree
this rule would economically affect it.
Under section 213(a) of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121),
we want to assist small entities in
understanding this proposed rule. If the
proposed rule would affect your small
business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please call or email the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about
this proposed rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.
C. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would not call for
a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
D. Federalism and Indian Tribal
Governments
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the
E:\FR\FM\20APP1.SGM
20APP1
]]>Agencies
[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
