[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1443-1453]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-11]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1407
Portable Generators; Final Rule; Labeling Requirements
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is
issuing a final rule requiring manufacturers to label portable
generators with performance and technical data related to performance
and safety. The required warning label informs purchasers that: ``Using
a generator indoors CAN KILL YOU IN MINUTES;'' ``Generator exhaust
contains carbon monoxide. This is a poison you cannot see or smell;''
``NEVER use inside a home or garage, EVEN IF doors and windows are
open;'' ``Only use OUTSIDE and far away from windows, doors, and
vents.'' The warning label also includes pictograms. The Commission
believes that providing this safety information will help reduce
unreasonable risks of injury associated with portable generators.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Acting Chairman Nancy A. Nord and Commissioner Thomas H.
Moore each filed a statement. The statements are available from the
Office of the Secretary or on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov
.
DATES: This regulation becomes effective May 14, 2007 and applies to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
any portable generator manufactured or imported on or after that date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy P. Smith, Project Manager,
Division of Human Factors, Directorate for Engineering Sciences,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda,
Maryland; telephone (301) 504-7691; or e-mail: tsmith@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The total yearly estimated non-fire related carbon monoxide (CO)
deaths for each of the years 1999 through 2002 are 109, 138, 130 and
188, respectively. Since 1999, the percentage of estimated CO poisoning
deaths specifically associated with generators has been increasing
annually. In 1999, generators were associated with 7 (6%) of the total
yearly estimated CO poisoning deaths for that year. In 2000, 2001 and
2002, they were associated with 19 (14%), 22 (17%) and 46 (24%) deaths
out of the total estimates for each of those years.
On October 12, 2005, the staff was directed to undertake a thorough
review of the status of portable generator safety. As part of this
review, the staff was requested to assess the sufficiency of warning
labels to address the CO poisoning hazard posed by portable generators
that are used within or near residences. In response to this request,
CPSC staff prepared a draft notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), in
which the staff proposed that manufacturers be required to label
portable generators with a CO-poisoning warning label. On August 15,
2006, the Commission voted unanimously (2-0) to approve the publication
of a Federal Register notice issuing an NPR for portable-generator
labeling requirements. This notice was published August 24, 2006. 71 FR
50003.
B. The Product
Portable generators offer a means of providing electrical power to
a location that either temporarily lacks it or is not provided with
electrical service at all. A portable generator has an internal
combustion engine to produce rotational energy, which is used to
generate electricity. The engine may be fueled by gasoline, diesel,
natural gas, or liquid propane. It is the engine that produces carbon
monoxide as a byproduct of combustion.
Estimates of sales of portable generators for consumer use vary,
but could be more than a million units annually. The most popular of
these generators are gasoline-powered and are priced in the $500 to
$800 range. The output of the majority of light duty generators sold to
consumers in 2005 was in the 3.5 kW to 6.5 kW range. This is the size
of most of the units involved in the fatal CO poisoning incidents CPSC
staff investigated in which the rating of the involved generator was
identified.
C. Relevant Statutory Provisions
Section 27(e) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) authorizes
the Commission, by rule, to ``require any manufacturer of consumer
products to provide the Commission with such performance and technical
data related to performance and safety as may be required to carry out
the purposes of this Act, and to give such notification of such
performance and technical data at the time of original purchase to
prospective purchasers and to the first purchaser of such product for
purposes other than resale, as it determines necessary to carry out the
purposes of this Act.'' As provided in section 2(b)(1) of the Consumer
Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051(b)(1)), one purpose of the CPSA is
``to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated
with consumer products.''
Failure to comply with a rule under section 27(e) is unlawful under
section 19(a)(8) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(8). Any person who
knowingly violates this requirement is subject to a civil penalty of up
to $8,000 per violation. 15 U.S.C. 2069; 64 FR 51963.
D. Explanation of the Rule
In 2002, CPSC staff assessed the effectiveness of current CO
poisoning warnings found on the product and within the owner's manuals
of several models of portable generators found on store shelves. Staff
found that the guidance provided for avoiding the hazard was typically
twofold: (1) Do not use in a confined or enclosed space, and (2)
provide proper ventilation. None of the evaluated warnings defined
``confined or enclosed space'' or ``proper ventilation.''
The Commission believes these instructions and warnings do not
adequately advise users how to avoid the CO poisoning hazard.
Furthermore, the incident data includes fatalities where it appears
that the victims attempted to provide adequate ventilation, to open
confined areas, or to do both by, for example, opening doors, opening
windows, and running exhaust fans. Prior research has shown that tools
with gasoline-powered engines produce CO that ``can rapidly accumulate,
even in areas that appear to be well-ventilated, resulting in dangerous
and fatal concentrations within minutes.'' \2\ Thus, evidence suggests
that the methods consumers typically use to provide ventilation or to
open confined areas are insufficient to prevent hazardous levels of CO
buildup. Even locating a generator outdoors can be insufficient if the
generator is near
[[Page 1444]]
enough to openings to the home or other occupied structure to allow CO
to permeate and subsequently accumulate indoors. CPSC is aware of at
least 5 deaths that occurred when a generator was situated outdoors but
near openings to the home. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention recently reported the results of a study of post-
hurricane related generator use in 2005 that found up to 50% of non-
fatal CO poisoning incidents involved generators operated outdoors but
within one to seven feet from the home.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Earnest, G.S., Carbon Monoxide Poisonings from Small,
Gasoline-Powered, Internal Combustion Engines: Just What is a
``Well-Ventilated Area''?, American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal, November 1997.
\3\ CDC, Carbon Monoxide Poisoning After Two Major Hurricanes--
Alabama and Texas, August-October 2005, MMWR March 10, 2006; 55(09);
236-239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that there are too many unknown variables
to be able to recommend one single safe distance for the location of a
portable generator relative to a home or dwelling. Variables such as
the wind speed and direction relative to openings to indoor spaces,
relative proximity of other structures in the area that could create
wind vortices, direction in which the engine exhaust is pointing, and a
multitude of other factors complicate attempts to define a safe
distance. Notwithstanding the issue of defining a safe operating
distance, the Commission believes that warning labels must instruct
consumers to keep generators outdoors and away from air intakes during
use.
In 2003, the staff developed recommended warning language for
engine-driven tools, with particular focus on portable generators, as a
follow-up to the staff's assessment of the inadequacy of current
warnings. This was later provided to the Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
voluntary standard development committee. In February 2006, staff
developed a further refined warning label for portable generators and
presented it to UL in response to their request for CPSC staff comments
on a proposed UL Outline of Investigation. UL incorporated staff 's
proposed warning label into their Outline of Investigation, which
became effective April 2006 and serves as the requirements with which a
product must conform in order to be eligible to bear the UL mark. This
document is not a consensus standard. The Commission believes a final
rule is needed to ensure that all products will bear the proposed
warning label as opposed to only those that seek UL's mark.
E. Description of the Rule
The warning label appears at fig. 1 (and fig. 3 for the on-package
label). The warning label provides technical data, i.e., it indicates
the presence of carbon monoxide in the portable generator exhaust and
informs that carbon monoxide is a poison you cannot see or smell. The
label uses the phrase ``you cannot see or smell'' rather than terms
such as ``odorless'' and ``colorless,'' because the latter terminology
may be less familiar and understandable to some consumers.
The label also includes statements which connect the technical data
with safety concerns. Specifically, the label warns: ``Using a
generator indoors CAN KILL YOU IN MINUTES.'' The phrase ``in minutes''
is intended to emphasize the imminence of the carbon monoxide poisoning
hazard to provide consumers with a better understanding of the speed
with which incapacitation can occur. In addition, research indicates
that information about hazard scenarios affects consumers' risk
judgments. Thus, the label includes a description not just of the
hazard, carbon monoxide, but of the primary hazard scenario associated
with CO-poisoning deaths, i.e., using a generator indoors. The label
also warns, ``NEVER use inside a home or garage, EVEN IF doors and
windows are open.'' The label warns specifically against use in the
home and in garages, since these are known places in which consumers
have used generators. The label includes prescriptive advice to ``Only
use OUTSIDE and far away from windows, doors, and vents,'' so consumers
can know what positive action they can take to avoid the hazard, rather
than focusing exclusively on prohibited behaviors, or what consumers
should not do. This is consistent with the requirements of ANSI Z535.4-
2002, which is the primary U.S. voluntary consensus standard on product
safety signs and labels, and with warning design guidelines in general.
The accompanying pictograms are based on the pictograms developed by
the Underwriters Laboratories Standards Technical Panel. Research shows
that labels with pictograms tend to capture a consumer's attention more
readily than a label without pictograms.
F. Unreasonable Risk of Injury
Portable generators are powered by gasoline, diesel, or propane
engines and exhaust CO. If the generator is used in enclosed or even
partially enclosed spaces, the CO can very quickly build to hazardous
levels. Serious injury can also result when the generator is placed
outdoors but near an open window or vent and the exhaust is pulled into
a house. In the 6-year period from 2000 through 2005, the Commission is
aware of at least 222 deaths related to CO poisoning associated with
generators.\4\ Non-fatal CO injuries can have serious consequences
since permanent brain or neurological damage can result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Natalie E. Marcy and Debra S. Ascone, ``Incidents, Deaths
and In-Depth Investigations Associated with Carbon Monoxide from
Engine-Driven Generators and other Engine-Driven Tools, 1990-2004,''
CPSC Memorandum to Janet Buyer, Directorate for Engineering
Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC (1
December 2005) and Robin L. Ingle, ``Non-fire Carbon Monoxide
Fatalities Associated with Engine-Driven Generators and Other Engine
Driven Tools in 2004 and 2005,'' CPSC Memorandum to Janet Buyer,
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Washington, DC (3 January 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A well-designed warning label should inform the consumer of the CO
hazard associated with generators and how to avoid the hazard while
using the generator. A label placed in a prominent position on the
generator is expected to reinforce this information each time the
consumer used the generator. For example, the proposed label reminds
the consumer that generator exhaust contains CO, which cannot be seen
or smelled, and can quickly kill. The label also clarifies that a
generator should only be used outside and far away from windows and
vents and should not be used inside a home or garage. This information
is important since some consumers have apparently been aware that a CO
hazard was associated with generators, but believed that they would
avoid the hazard by running the generator in a garage with the door
open or outside the house, and did not understand that it was necessary
to place it away from open windows and vents.\5\ The costs of a warning
label include the one-time cost of designing the label and the
continuing costs of printing and applying the labels to the generators
and packages. These costs are expected to be low--less than one dollar
per generator. Based on the hazards associated with carbon monoxide
poisoning from portable generators, and the low cost of labeling
generators, the Commission finds that there is an unreasonable risk of
injury associated with portable generators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Timothy P. Smith, ``Human Factors Assessment for the Small
Engine-Driven Tools Project,'' CPSC Memorandum to Janet L. Buyer,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC (18 June
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Environmental Considerations
The National Environmental Policy Act and the Council on
Environmental Quality Act regulations and CPSC procedures for
environmental review require the Commission to assess the possible
environmental effects associated with the labeling requirement for
portable generators. Labeling rules
[[Page 1445]]
are not expected to have an adverse impact on the environment and are
considered to fall within the ``categorical exclusions'' for the
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act according to the CPSC
regulations that cover its ``environmental review'' procedures (16 CFR
Part 1021.5(c)(2)). Thus, the Commission concludes that no
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required
in this proceeding.
H. Impact on Small Business
When an agency issues a final rule such as the labeling requirement
for portable generators, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires the agency to prepare a
final regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the rule
on small businesses and other small entities. Section 605 of the RFA
provides that an agency is not required to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis if the head of an agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
The Commission's Directorate for Economic Analysis prepared a
preliminary assessment of the impact of a rule to require labeling on
portable generators. That assessment reported that, while small
manufacturers will be responsible for ensuring that their generators
are properly labeled, the labeling requirement is not expected to pose
a significant burden to small business because the cost of adding the
labels per generator is expected to be less than a dollar per generator
set. The incremental cost of the rule issued today is likely to be
minimal.
Based on the foregoing assessment, the Commission certifies that
the rule issued today to require labeling for portable generators will
not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small
businesses or other small entities.
I. Executive Order 12988
As provided for in Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), the
CPSC states that the preemptive effect of these regulations is as
follows. The preemption provisions of section 26 of the CPSA apply only
to ``consumer product safety standards.'' By definition in the CPSA,
section 27(e) rules are not consumer product safety standards. There
is, therefore, no express preemption for a final rule under section
27(e) of the CPSA. Preemption of state requirements could still occur
if, for example, it is impossible to comply with both this rule and a
state requirement.
J. Effective Date
Part 1407 requires a label on any portable generator manufactured
or imported on or after May 11, 2007.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Note that the rule does not apply to any portable generator
that is an ``accessory'' to a motor vehicle as defined in 49 U.S.C.
30102(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Response to Comments on the NPR
In response to the Federal Register notice proposing labeling
requirements for portable generators, the Commission received 19
comments. The comments were largely positive and supported the proposed
labeling, but two comments explicitly requested that the Commission
withdraw the NPR. Many of the comments, even those that supported the
general intent and approach of the rule, raised specific issues or
concerns.
1. Procedural Issues and Choice of Statutes
Comments: Two comments claim that the Federal Hazardous Substances
Act (FHSA), not the CPSA, is the appropriate statute under which to
address through labeling the CO-poisoning risk associated with portable
generators. If, as the commenters claim, the risk of injury is one
which could be eliminated or reduced by action under the FHSA, then the
Commission, pursuant to section 30(d) of the CPSA, would have been
required to find by rule that it was in the public interest to regulate
the risk of injury under the CPSA (``section 30(d) finding'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Section 30(d) of the CPSA provides that a risk of injury
which is associated with a consumer product and which could be
eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by action under the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Poison Prevention Packaging
Act of 1970, or the Flammable Fabrics Act may be regulated under the
CPSA only if the Commission by rule finds that it is in the public
interest to regulate such risk of injury under the CPSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These commenters also claim that the label proposed in the NPR
appears to be the type of warning that Section 7 of the CPSA
contemplates, since the NPR characterizes the risk of CO poisoning
associated with generator emission as an ``unreasonable risk of
injury.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Section 7(a) of the CPSA provides that the Commission may
promulgate a consumer product safety standard requiring that a
consumer product be marked with or accompanied by clear and adequate
warnings or instructions. Any requirement of such a standard is to
be ``reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk
of injury associated with such product.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The FHSA defines ``hazardous substance'' as including any
``substance or mixture of substances which (I) is toxic * * * if [it]
may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness during or
as a proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable
handling or use * * *.'' Hazardous substances are misbranded if they do
not bear the labeling required by section 2(p)(1) of the FHSA, 15
U.S.C. 1261(p)(1). In order to label a product under the authority of
the FHSA, the product must constitute or contain a hazardous substance.
The commenters analogize the labeling of portable generators to the
labeling of charcoal packaging under the FHSA, in that charcoal, when
burned, generates carbon monoxide. A significant difference between
charcoal and portable generators, however, is that charcoal, as a
substance which is toxic, constitutes a hazardous substance, and its
packaging is therefore required to be labeled under the FHSA. In
contrast, portable generators, when sold, are empty. Portable
generators as sold thus do not contain any hazardous substance, or any
substance, such as gasoline, that would produce the hazardous
substance. A more appropriate analogy to portable generators might be
gasoline containers that, when sold empty, are subject to the authority
of the CPSA. Because the risk of injury associated with carbon monoxide
poisoning from portable generators cannot be eliminated or adequately
reduced by action under the FHSA, no finding under section 30(d)of the
CPSA is required.
Commenters also suggest that the label proposed in the NPR appears
to be the type of warning that Section 7 of the CPSA contemplates,
since the NPR characterizes the risk of CO poisoning associated with
generator emission as an ``unreasonable risk of injury.'' Section 27(e)
of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue rules requiring a
consumer product manufacturer to provide the Commission and consumers
with ``performance and technical data related to performance and safety
as may be required to carry out the purposes of this Act .'' One of the
purposes of the CPSA, as provided in section 2(b)(1) of the CPSA, is
``to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated
with consumer products.'' The risk of CO poisoning posed by portable
generators was fully addressed in the NPR (71 FR 50003) and the use of
section 27(e) to protect the public against risk of injury is
completely appropriate. This is not to say that it would be
inappropriate to adopt a CO warning label for generators under section
7 of the CPSA. Indeed, the Commission intends to consider that approach
in connection with its ongoing generator rulemaking (71 FR 74472).
[[Page 1446]]
2. Scope and Definition Issues
Comments: Two comments address scope and definition issues related
to the proposed rule. One comment seeks clarification on whether fuel-
cell portable generators are included within the scope of the rule.
Another comment proposes that the definition of a ``portable
generator'' reflect the definition within Underwriters Laboratories'
Outline of Investigation for Portable Engine-Generator Assemblies, UL
2201.
Response: The CPSC rule is intended to generally cover the same
range of portable generators as UL 2201. Therefore, Section 1407.2(b)
is revised to read, ``A portable generator is an internal combustion
engine-driven electric generator rated no higher than 15 kilowatts and
250 volts that is intended to be moved for temporary use at a location
where utility-supplied electric power is not available. It has
receptacle outlets for the alternating-current (AC) output circuits,
and may have alternating- or direct-current (DC) sections for supplying
energy to battery charging circuits. '' As specified in this
definition, portable generators that are covered under this rule must
have an internal combustion engine and receptacle outlets for AC output
circuits. (The generator may have other outlets, for example, for low
voltage DC accessories.) Fuel-cell portable generators are not be
covered by the rule. The rule also does not cover generators that fall
within the definition of ``motor vehicle equipment,'' or otherwise fall
outside the Commission's jurisdiction under the CPSA.
3. Effective Date of Rule
Comments: Three comments from portable generator manufacturers
state that they will need at least six months, rather than the 90 days
proposed in the NPR, from issuance of the final regulation in the
Federal Register to comply with the new requirements.
Response: As noted by the staff of the CPSC Directorate for
Economic Analysis, the time and resources required by manufacturers to
redesign their portable generator labels are likely to be low since the
content and format of the labeling will be specified in the rule. The
Commission, therefore, believes that most manufacturers should be able
to comply with the requirements within 90 days of publication of the
final rule. Nevertheless, some manufacturers may have to reschedule
other work and shift resources such as labor from other projects. There
would be some costs associated with these adjustments and these costs
could be alleviated somewhat by delaying the effective date of the
rule. To provide some relief to manufacturers that might have trouble
incorporating the label change within 90 days, the Commission has
decided to post-pone the effective date of the rule such that the label
would be required on any portable generator manufactured or imported
120 days after the publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
4. Labeling Text Issues
(a) Multiple Languages
Comments: Five comments address the issue of whether the message
text of the proposed labeling should also be required in a language
other than English. Two comments support the addition of other
languages, and one of these suggests that Spanish be the second
language to include. Two comments oppose requiring additional
languages. The remaining comment does not take a position on the
matter, but suggests that Spanish is the appropriate language to
include if another language is added.
Response: The staff's previous analyses of generator-related
incident data have revealed no pattern of incidents involving people
who could not read English. To confirm this, the staff of the CPSC
Directorate for Epidemiology (EP) selected and thoroughly examined a
random sample of 25 out of 150 in-depth investigations into generator-
related CO-poisoning deaths that occurred in the 2002 to 2005 time
frame. None of the examined investigation reports described the
victims' literacy in English, Spanish, or any other language.
Consequently, these investigations provide no basis for concluding that
labeling in Spanish would have prevented deaths.
According to the 2000 U.S. census, most people who speak a language
other than English at home speak Spanish, with Chinese ranking a very
distant second (Shin & Bruno, 2003).\9\ Additionally, the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has found that about 35 percent
of American adults who have below basic literacy in English prose \10\
spoke Spanish before starting school; only 9 percent could not speak
either English or Spanish (NCES, 2005). Adding Spanish to an English-
language warning label, therefore, would be expected to improve its
readability among the U.S. population more than adding any other
language. Nevertheless, the overall impact of adding Spanish to a label
may be small. In the case of portable generators, Synovate
DuraTrendTM consumer survey data obtained by the EC staff
show that only 5.6 percent of generator purchasers in 2005 were
Hispanic. Furthermore, many of these people are likely to be literate
in English; for example, less than half of all adult Hispanics in the
U.S. have below basic literacy in English prose (NCES, 2005). Thus,
Hispanics with below basic literacy in English prose--the sub-
population most likely to include individuals who cannot read English
yet can read Spanish, and who would potentially benefit the most from
the addition of Spanish to the proposed warning label--almost certainly
represent less than five percent of all generator purchasers in the
U.S., and may comprise substantially less than this. Some of these
people may also lack basic literacy in Spanish and, therefore, would be
unable to read a label even if it included written Spanish. Despite
these findings, the Commission does not dismiss the potential
usefulness of providing the information in the labeling in Spanish,
especially in regions of the country with large Hispanic populations.
Thus, the rule does not prohibit manufacturers from providing a
Spanish-language version of the labeling in addition to the prescribed
English-language label. If the product label is provided by the
manufacturer in additional languages, however, the staff believes that
additional-language versions of the label should appear adjacent to or
below the English-language version of the product label. This
formatting is consistent with ANSI Z535.4--2002, the most recent
published version of the American National Standard for Product Safety
Signs and Labels. The staff further recommends that any additional-
language versions of the label, whether they be on the product or on
the generator package, be no larger than the English-language version
of the label. Thus, the final rule includes these requirements at Sec.
1407.3(a)(1) and Sec. 1407.3(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Among the 262.4 million people in the U.S. aged 5 years or
older, 47.0 million (18 percent) speak a language other than English
at home. About 60 percent of these (28.1 million) speak Spanish and
about 0.4 percent (2.0 million) speak Chinese.
\10\ Those with below basic literacy in English prose lack the
skills necessary to perform simple everyday literacy activities such
as reading and understanding information in short commonplace
continuous texts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Signal Word Choice
Comments: Four comments assert that the signal word WARNING is more
appropriate than DANGER for the proposed labeling. Arguments made by
the commenters include that the use of DANGER is inconsistent with the
hierarchy specified in the ANSI Z535
[[Page 1447]]
series of standards and that its use might reduce the perceived risk
associated with the WARNING hazards of fire during refueling,
electrocution from use in wet conditions, and electrocution from
connection to a commercial power source.
Response: According to the ANSI Z535 series of standards, the
selection of a signal word for a hazard label should be made based on
the seriousness of the hazard situation or scenario. For example, ANSI
Z535.4--2002, the most recent published version of the American
National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels, defines DANGER
as an ``imminently hazardous situation which, if not avoided, will
result in death or serious injury'' (Section 4.13.1). The latest
revision of ANSI Z535.4 clarifies that use of the term--will'' in this
definition indicates an event that is nearly, but not absolutely,
certain (Annex E, due for publication 2006). While the mere presence of
carbon monoxide in portable generator exhaust could lead to death or
serious injury, the use of generators indoors--the hazard scenario
specifically highlighted in the label--would almost certainly result in
death or serious injury due to a generator's high rate of CO production
(for example, see Inkster, 2004). The CPSC continues to believe,
therefore, that DANGER is the appropriate signal word for the proposed
labeling.
The Commission cannot confirm the assertion that using DANGER for
the CO poisoning hazard would necessarily reduce the perceived hazard
associated with the WARNING hazards mentioned. One could argue instead
that the use of DANGER simply increases the perceived hazard associated
with CO poisoning without having any effect on consumer perceptions
related to the other hazards being warned about on the product.
Additionally, the selection of a signal word for a given hazard is
supposed to be based on the standard signal-word definitions (for
example, those used in ANSI Z535.4), which denote the seriousness of
the hazard situation or scenario, not on how the signal word might
impact the perceptions of hazard labels that use other signal words. To
the extent that a hazard situation or scenario is serious enough to
demand the use of DANGER, one would expect and hope that people exposed
to the hazard label would correctly interpret this as meaning that the
hazard situation is more serious than a hazard label that relies on a
less serious signal word such as WARNING or CAUTION. Accordingly, the
final rule requires that the label include the signal word DANGER.
(c) Message Text Issues
Comments: Five comments are associated with the specific message
text of the proposed labeling. Two comments express concerns that the
message text has not been independently tested--for example, through
the use of focus groups--and suggest various alternatives to the
wording of this text. Both also argue that the phrase, ``* * * WILL
KILL YOU IN MINUTES'' is not accurate. One comment includes the results
of focus group testing, performed on low-literacy individuals by a
contractor for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
found that some people had difficulty understanding the phrase ``partly
enclosed area'' and misinterpreted the word ``gas'' as gasoline. The
contractor recommended that ``partly enclosed area'' be deleted from
the label. One comment states that the label does not alert consumers
to the symptoms of CO poisoning or refer users to the manual for
additional instructions. Another comment states that the phrase,
``Please read the manual before use,'' is already attached to the
generator in another label and that, therefore, the packaging label
should be identical to the product label if one is used. One comment
recommends the addition of the phrase, ``FOR OUTDOOR USE ONLY,'' after
the initial sentence of the proposed labeling.
Response: As referenced in the comment summary, above, an
independent contractor performed focus group testing on the proposed
product label with low literacy individuals as part of the EPA's
efforts to develop a flood-cleanup brochure. This testing identified
two specific comprehension problems with the message text of the
proposed labeling. First, testing revealed that some low-literacy
individuals had difficulty understanding the phrase ``partly enclosed
area.'' The available CPSC data on CO poisoning deaths associated with
portable generators show that most incidents in which the generator was
reportedly used in an enclosed or partially enclosed area occurred
either within the home or in a garage or enclosed carport (Marcy &
Ascone, 2005). Thus, the staff believes it would be acceptable to
remove ``partly enclosed area'' from the proposed labeling, as
recommended by the EPA's contractor. The staff is concerned, however,
about simply deleting this phrase, since its absence could mislead some
into believing that generators are only hazardous if used in fully
enclosed areas. Thus, the staff recommends adding the phrase, ``EVEN IF
doors and windows are open,'' to the end of the revised portion of the
warning. The entire relevant statement, therefore, is changed in the
final rule from, ``NEVER use in the home or in partly enclosed areas
such as garages, '' to, ``NEVER use inside a home or garage, EVEN IF
doors and windows are open.''
The testing also revealed that ``gas'' may be misinterpreted as
``gasoline'' by some low literacy individuals. To address this comment,
the label is revised to read as follows: ``Exhaust contains carbon
monoxide, a poison gas you cannot see or smell,'' with, ``Generator
exhaust contains carbon monoxide. This is a poison you cannot see or
smell.'' Because they address the specific comprehension problems
identified with the message text during testing, these revisions should
make the proposed labeling more understandable to all generator users.
The CPSC staff believes that an explanation of the intended function of
a portable generator, which the EPA 's testing contractor also
recommended adding, is unnecessary for a product label since people who
do not know this information are unlikely to purchase, rent, borrow, or
otherwise use a portable generator. Thus, the final rule does not
include an explanation of the intended function of a portable
generator.
The staff agrees that the sentence, ``Using a generator indoors
WILL KILL YOU IN MINUTES,'' is questionable because death may occur in
a longer time frame than what most people would deem ``in minutes'' and
because generator use indoors may result in severe CO poisoning rather
than death. The staff is also concerned that people who have previously
used a generator indoors and survived could question the credibility of
a label that states death is essentially inevitable. If the label is
not credible, people may choose to ignore the safety message.
Therefore, the Commission has revised this statement to read, ``Using a
generator indoors CAN KILL YOU IN MINUTES.'' This revision has no
effect on the appropriateness of using DANGER as the signal word for
this label, as discussed earlier, since the use of generators indoors
would still almost certainly result in death or serious injury due to a
portable generator's high rate of CO production. The revised phrase
simply emphasizes the possibility that death can occur within minutes.
In its 2003 memorandum that proposed warning labels to accompany
portable generators, the CPSC staff specifically recommended against
including a description of CO-poisoning symptoms within the product
label because this information would add a substantial amount of text
to the label
[[Page 1448]]
and was believed to be of limited value for a label to be affixed to
the product itself (Smith, 2003). The staff continues to support this
position. Regarding the statement, ``See product manual for more
details,'' which originally appeared at the bottom of the on-product
label in the staff's 2003 memorandum (Smith, 2003), the staff does not
believe this statement should be required on portable generators
because the information that is provided in the labeling required in
this final rule addresses the key safety information of which people
must be aware when using a generator and generator manufacturers may
include a statement that refers users to the product manual elsewhere
on the generator. As pointed out in one public comment, some
manufacturers already include the phrase, `` Please read the manual
before use,'' in other generator labels. For the packaging label,
however, the statements, ``Avoid other generator hazards. READ MANUAL
BEFORE USE,'' are needed since this label may very well be the only
label on the packaging that will alert the purchaser to possible
hazards associated with generator use. Therefore, the provision has
been retained in the final rule.
The CPSC staff believes it would be inappropriate to add the
phrase, ``FOR OUTDOOR USE ONLY,'' after the initial sentence of the
message text in the proposed labeling. Placing this phrase after the
initial sentence interrupts the logical flow of the warning from the
explanation of the hazard situation to the descriptions of the
appropriate hazard avoidance behaviors. A more appropriate location for
this phrase, if it were used, would be at the beginning of the message
text as the first sentence of the warning. However, the staff is
concerned that using this phrase as the first sentence would tend to
de-emphasize the description of the hazard situation and its
consequences (that is, ``Using a generator indoors CAN KILL YOU IN
MINUTES.''), could lead people to stop reading further because it is a
highly familiar phrase that people are likely to believe they already
understand, and is redundant with the already-present and more-detailed
admonition to use the generator outside and far away from windows,
doors, and vents. Thus, although this statement would not add a
substantial amount of text to the label, the Commission does not
believe it should be added to the labeling and the statement is not
included in the final rule. However, manufacturers are not prohibited
from including a statement of this kind elsewhere on the product,
packaging, or product manual.
5. Labeling Pictogram and Symbol Issues
(a) Prohibition Symbol Choice
Comments: Four comments propose the use of a circle-slash symbol
rather than an ``X'' symbol to indicate prohibited actions in the
pictograms that appear in the proposed labeling. Arguments made within
these comments in favor of the circle-slash symbol include the fact
that it is consistent with the ANSI Z535 series of standards, is
internationally recognized, and obscures less of the underlying
pictogram than an ``X.'' One comment states that a transparent circle-
slash symbol may be superior since it does not obscure the underlying
pictorials.
Response: The CPSC staff acknowledges that the ANSI Z535 series of
standards recommends the use of a circle-slash symbol to indicate
prohibited actions in pictograms. When developing the proposed
labeling, the CPSC staff chose to use ``X'' symbols rather than circle-
slash symbols because both the circle-slash and ``X'' symbols are
commonly recognized as conveying the prohibition concept (Dreyfuss,
1972; Wogalter & Leonard, 1999), there was no evidence that English-
reading consumers would have difficulty understanding the meaning of an
``X'' symbol, and the only known evidence of comprehension problems
with either prohibition symbol were those encountered with the circle-
slash symbol by some Latin American individuals during charcoal-
pictogram testing previously performed for the CPSC (Requirements for
Labeling of Retail Containers of Charcoal, 1996). The staff also found
that circle-slash symbols tended to obscure more of the underlying
pictograms than did ``X'' symbols of the same size. For example, the
circle portion of the circle-slash symbols tended to obscure the
outlines of the home and garage pictograms, making these portions of
the pictograms difficult to discern. Since publication of the Federal
Register notice regarding the NPR, the staff has become aware of an
internal Douglas Aircraft research report that identified possible
comprehension problems with the use of an ``X'' to indicate
prohibition. For example, the researchers found that a graphic using an
``X'' to indicate that a part should not be touched was misinterpreted
by some as meaning the opposite, indicating where the person should
touch (Johnson, 1974, as cited in Johnson, 2006). In light of this
research, the staff agrees that the use of ``X'' symbols rather than
circle-slash symbols to indicate prohibition in the proposed labeling
may not be preferable. The final rule, therefore, includes the opaque
circle-slash symbols rather than ``X'' symbols. Additionally, to avoid
problems with the circle-slash obscuring the outlines of the home and
garage, the final rule uses smaller circle-slash symbols, centered over
the generator pictograms. Although a transparent circle-slash symbol
would not obscure the underlying symbol, its use is inconsistent with
the prohibition symbol recommended in the ANSI Z535 series of
standards.
(b) Use of Hazard-Avoidance Pictograms
Comments: Three comments are associated with the staff's decision
to use pictograms depicting hazard avoidance behavior in the proposed
labeling. Two comments state that these pictograms have not been
independently tested, and question whether the pictograms of the
generator will be readily recognized. One of these comments suggests
that the standard hazardous gas/vapors pictogram, which shows a person
inhaling gas, might be a better choice since it had undergone
successful consumer testing. One comment, which includes the results of
EPA-sponsored focus group testing on the proposed product label,
reports that some low-literacy individuals had difficulty recognizing
the generator pictogram. The contractor recommended enlarging this
pictogram to improve the likelihood that it will be correctly
identified.
Response: The CPSC staff had originally considered the use of the
hazardous gas/vapors pictogram referred to in the comments, but
expressed reservations about its use since the gas in the pictogram is
visible even though carbon monoxide is not (Smith, 2003, 2006). The
staff continues to be concerned about this potential for confusion. In
addition, although testing has revealed that most people can recognize
the referenced pictogram as indicating hazardous gas or vapors (Mayer &
Laux, 1989), this pictogram provides no information regarding
appropriate hazard-avoidance behaviors. In fact, since this pictogram
could indicate hazardous gases with varying degrees of lethality, the
appropriate hazard-avoidance behavior may vary substantially among
different hazardous gases. For example, some products that release
hazardous gases might be safely used within an open garage, but this is
not true for an operating portable generator. The final rule uses
pictograms depicting appropriate and inappropriate behaviors
[[Page 1449]]
specific to portable generators to avoid this ambiguity.
As discussed earlier, an independent contractor performed focus-
group testing on the proposed product label with low-literacy
individuals as part of the EPA's efforts to develop a flood-cleanup
brochure. The only identified problem with the pictograms that appear
in the proposed labeling was that some people had difficulty
recognizing the graphic of the generator. These test results, however,
almost certainly underestimate the extent to which the generator
graphic would be recognized in a real-life scenario. For example,
testing was not performed with the label affixed to a generator. When
presented in the appropriate context, generator graphics are more
likely to be recognized (Wogalter, Silver, Leonard, & Zaikina, 2006).
Additionally, the EPA testing found that some of the participants in
the testing did not even know what a generator was. People who do not
know the intended function of a portable generator are unlikely to
purchase, rent, borrow, or otherwise use a portable generator, and
would not be expected to correctly identify a graphic of this product.
Nevertheless, to improve the likelihood that people will correctly
identify the generator graphic as a portable generator and to increase
the overall legibility of the pictograms, the CPSC has slightly
increased the size of the pictograms in the final rule, as recommended
by the EPA's testing contractor. The Commission also notes that Section
1407.3(a)(1) of the final rule specifies that ``[a] different
representation of the generator [within the proposed labeling] may be
substituted for accuracy if consumers are more likely to recognize the
substituted representation as the generator to which this label is
affixed.'' Manufacturers, therefore, may substitute a graphic of the
specific generator to which the label will be affixed if they so
choose.
(c) Other Hazard-Avoidance Pictogram Issues
Comments: Five comments are associated with specific features of
the hazard-avoidance pictograms that appeared within the proposed
labeling. Two comments suggest deleting the symbol depicting the use of
a generator within a garage. This pictogram, according to three
comments, could be interpreted as meaning that one should not store the
generator in a garage. Two comments claim that the two-headed arrow
graphic that appears in the pictogram depicting appropriate behavior
could be misinterpreted. One of these states that the two-headed arrow
graphic could be interpreted as meaning that use both in and away from
the home is acceptable; the commenter suggests that this arrow be
replaced with a single-headed arrow that points away from the home. The
other comment claims that this graphic could be interpreted as meaning
that the person should connect the generator by electrical wire to a
commercial power supply as a backup, and recommended deleting the
pictogram entirely.
Response: The Commission believes that both pictograms that depict
inappropriate behaviors--one showing generator use within a home or
enclosed space and one showing generator use within a garage--are
necessary to convey the key safety message. Relying solely on the
pictogram of the generator within a home or enclosed space to indicate
inappropriate behavior, as recommended by the commenters, could lead
people to believe that generators are only hazardous if used within a
completely enclosed space. Many CO-poisoning deaths associated with
portable generators occurred when the generator was being used in a
garage with the door at least partially open. The pictogram depicting
generator use in the garage as being inappropriate directly addresses
incidents of this type. Although the CPSC acknowledges that one could
infer from these pictograms that generators should not be stored in the
home or garage, alternative pictograms such as the poisonous gas/vapors
pictogram are also open to various interpretations regarding
appropriate and inappropriate behaviors specific to portable
generators, as discussed in the response to the previous topic. As
demonstrated by the earlier discussion of comprehension problems
encountered with common prohibition symbols, virtually no hazard
pictogram or symbol will be understood by all people. For this reason,
explanatory text is very often recommended or required,\11\ especially
for complex hazards (Wogalter, Silver, Leonard, & Zaikina, 2006). The
CPSC believes that the explanatory message text that appears in the
label should limit the extent to which misinterpretations of the
pictograms would prevent people from understanding the overall message
of the labeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ANSI Z535.3-2002 requires explanatory text for any symbol
without demonstrated understandability; for example, one that is not
understood by at least 85 percent of the target audience using the
methodology specified in Annex B of the standard. Research suggests
that few safety symbols can meet this requirement, so accompanying
text is almost always required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the use of a double-headed arrow in the pictogram
depicting the appropriate use of a portable generator, the American
National Standard Criteria for Safety Symbols, ANSI Z535.3, recommends
the consistent use of arrow graphics to represent different types of
movement or spatial relationships. Single-headed arrows are used to
represent the motion of objects or components or to represent the
exertion of pressure or force; in contrast, double-headed arrows are
used to represent the idea of keeping a safe distance away from a
hazard (ANSI Z535.3-2002, Figure A1). Thus, the use of a double-headed
arrow is appropriate, and the direct replacement of the double-headed
arrow with a single-headed one, as recommended by one commenter, would
suggest the movement of the home toward the generator, which is
opposite the intended meaning and could create critical confusion among
the intended audience. Despite this, in the final rule issued today,
the original appropriate-use pictogram is replaced with a pictogram
that avoids the possible misinterpretations identified by the
commenters yet remains consistent with ANSI Z535.3. This pictogram
employs a single-headed arrow but places the arrow on the opposite side
of the generator pictogram to suggest the movement of the generator
away from the home. The length of the arrow has also been shortened so
the generator pictogram is not located immediately adjacent to the
graphic of the home.
6. Explicit Safe Distance
Comments: Six comments point out that the proposed labeling does
not include an explicit distance (for example, measured in feet) that
should be maintained between the generator and the home or other
partially enclosed area. Some suggest that this distance could be
inserted within the message text or within the pictogram depicting the
generator being kept away from the home. One comment suggests a minimum
distance of 10 feet; another comment suggests at least 15 feet.
Response: The CPSC agrees that explicitly identifying a safe
operating distance between the generator and the home or other
partially enclosed area would be more useful than relying on terms such
as ``far,'' but has been unable to develop a consensus as to what
distance is adequate given the widely varying conditions under which
portable generators may be used. As discussed in the staff's 2006
briefing package on portable generator safety, some portable generator
manufacturers currently provide minimum clearance requirements for
placement of the
[[Page 1450]]
generator; however, these distances appear to represent the clearances
needed to allow for adequate combustion and cooling airflow, not to
avoid CO poisoning (Buyer, 2006). Variables such as the speed and
direction of wind relative to openings to indoor spaces and the
relative proximity of other structures to the generator complicate
attempts to define a reasonably safe distance.
In a study of nonfatal CO-poisoning incidents following two major
hurricanes in 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) found that half of those interviewed who had been involved in
generator-related incidents had placed the generator outside in the
open, but that all of these individuals had placed the generator within
seven feet of the home (CDC, 2006). Thus, a ``reasonably safe''
distance likely would be greater than seven feet. However, available
data do not allow the Commission to reach consensus on how much farther
than seven feet would constitute a reasonably safe distance. The phrase
``far away,'' used in the label required by this final rule, while not
as explicit as a specified distance, still emphasizes the need to keep
the generator well away from, rather than immediately outside, the home
or other partially enclosed areas.
7. Labeling Placement
Comments: Three comments address the proposed location or placement
of the label on the product. Two comments state that it is not
technically feasible to meet a requirement that the label be placed on
a part of the generator that, if removed, would impair the operation of
the generator. The commenters propose an alternative requirement that
the label be placed on a part of the portable generator that cannot be
removed without the use of tools. One comment suggests that the label
be located close to the ``on/off'' switch, the starter, or the power
outlets, and suggests that the label be more ``active'' by requiring
the user to take an action that draws attention to the label each time
the generator is used.
Response: The Commission is not opposed to the commenters' proposed
alternative requirement that the label be placed on a part that cannot
be removed without the use of tools. Therefore, section
1407.3(a)(1)(iii)(A) of the final rule states, ``On a part of the
portable generator that cannot be removed without the use of tools.''
Regarding the comment about making the label more ``active'' by
requiring the user to take an action that draws attention to the label
each time the generator is used, the Commission believes that such a
requirement is unnecessary at this time since the label is already
required to be placed in a location that is prominent and conspicuous
to an operator while performing at least two of the following tasks:
Filling the fuel tank, accessing the receptacle panel, and starting the
engine (see section 1407.3(a)(1)(iii)(B) of the final rule).
8. Need for Packaging Label
Comments: Two comments propose that the requirement for a packaging
label be dropped from the rule. Both believe this label is unnecessary
since the packaging will be discarded.
Response: The intent of the packaging label is to directly provide
potential purchasers of portable generators with information at the
point of purchase emphasizing the danger of CO poisoning, and to
reinforce the warning when the generator is removed from the packaging
at home, not to assist consumers while they are operating the generator
after the packaging is discarded. The packaging label provides the CO
poisoning information irrespective of sales staff interaction or other
messaging at the point of sale. Without the information presented by
the packaging label, purchasers may not discover until they are home
that they do not have an appropriate place to operate the generator.
Accordingly, the proposed requirement for the packaging label is
retained in this final rule.
9. Missing Manual Warning
Comments: One comment notes that a previous CPSC staff memo
included a recommendation for a product-manual warning, which included
information about CO-poisoning symptoms, and that the NPR does not
include a recommendation for such a warning.
Response: The rule does not include specific recommendations for
CO-poisoning warnings to appear within the manuals that accompany
portable generators because prior analyses of the CO-poisoning
information provided on the product and within the product manuals
found that the product labeling was often far more deficient (Smith,
2002). Since the on-product labeling is available to consumers even
after the product manual is lost, discarded, or otherwise not
available, improved product labels are of paramount importance. The
Commission does agree, however, that providing more detailed
information about CO poisoning within the product manual, including
information about the symptoms of CO poisoning, would be advantageous,
and the staff may consider additional requirements of this type as part
of the CPSC 's ongoing activities associated with improving portable
generator safety.
10. Extension Cord Warning
Comments: One comment notes that increasing the distance between
the generator and any partially enclosed spaces necessarily increases
the distance between the generator and the load, which could result in
some consumers using extension cords with insufficient capacity. The
commenter suggests that a warning label that states, ``ONLY USE
PROPERLY SIZED EXTENSION CORDS IN GOOD CONDITION,'' be affixed to the
generator's electrical panel.
Response: The Commission agrees that the capacity and condition of
extension cords to be used with portable generators must be adequate to
support the intended load and allow the generator to be kept far away
from homes and other partially enclosed areas. However, this issue is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
11. Alternatives to Labeling
Comments: Three comments suggest that labeling alone is not
sufficient to address the CO-poisoning hazard and recommend technical
solutions such as reduced CO emissions or integrated CO monitors that
will automatically shut off the generator if necessary.
Response: Specific technical approaches to addressing the CO
poisoning hazard associated with portable generators are outside the
scope of this rule and are addressed in a separate Commission
rulemaking commenced with the recent publication of an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking, 71 FR 74472 (December 12, 2006).
L. Conclusion
For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission finds that
a requirement for a carbon monoxide warning statement on portable
generators is necessary to help protect the public against the risk of
CO poisoning associated with such products.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1407
Consumer protection, labeling.
0
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission
amends Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new Part
1407 to read as follows:
[[Page 1451]]
PART 1407--PORTABLE GENERATORS: REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE PERFORMANCE
AND TECHNICAL DATA BY LABELING
Sec.
1407.1 Purpose, scope, and effective date.
1407.2 Definitions.
1407.3 Providing performance and technical data to purchasers by
labeling.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2076(e).
Sec. 1407.1 Purpose, scope, and effective date.
This part 1407 establishes requirements under section 27(e) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2076(e)) for manufacturers to
provide consumers with a specified notification concerning the carbon
monoxide poisoning hazard associated with the use of portable
generators. The notification is intended to provide consumers with
technical and performance information related to the safety of portable
generators. This part applies to any generator manufactured or imported
on or after May 14, 2007.
Sec. 1407.2 Definitions.
(a) The definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act
(15 U.S.C. 2052) apply to this part 1407.
(b) A portable generator is an internal combustion engine-driven
electric generator rated no higher than 15 kilowatts and 250 volts that
is intended to be moved for temporary use at a location where utility-
supplied electric power is not available. It has receptacle outlets for
the alternating-current (AC) output circuits, and may have alternating-
or direct-current (DC) sections for supplying energy to battery
charging circuits.
Sec. 1407.3 Providing performance and technical data to purchasers by
labeling.
(a) Notice to purchasers. Manufacturers of portable generators
shall give notification of performance and technical data related to
performance and safety to prospective purchasers of such products at
the time of original purchase and to the first purchaser of such
product for purposes other than resale, in the manner set forth below.
(1) On-product label. The CO poisoning hazard label shown in fig. 1
shall be used on the product. A different representation of the
generator may be substituted for accuracy if consumers are more likely
to recognize the substituted representation as the generator to which
this label is affixed. Alternate-language versions of this label may
appear on the product in addition to the label specified in figure 1.
If the product label is also provided by the manufacturer in additional
language(s), it shall appear adjacent to or below the English-language
version of the product label, and shall be no larger than the English-
language version of the label. Versions of the product label that are
in a language other than English may appear without the pictograms that
appear in the English-language versions.
(i) The signal word ``DANGER'' shall be in letters not less than
0.15 inch (3.8 mm) high. The remaining text shall be in type whose
uppercase letters are not less than 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) high.
(ii) The signal word ``DANGER'' shall appear in white letters on a
safety red background. The safety alert symbol shown in fig. 2 shall
appear immediately before and next to the signal word and be no smaller
than the height of the signal word with the base of the triangle on the
same horizontal line as the base of the signal word. The solid portion
of the triangle (within the lines of the triangle, around the
exclamation mark) shall be white and the exclamation mark shall be
safety red. The prohibition circle-slash symbols shall be opaque.
(iii) The on-product hazard label shown in fig. 1 shall be located:
(A) On a part of the portable generator that cannot be removed
without the use of tools, and
(B) On a location that is prominent and conspicuous to an operator
while performing at least two of the following actions: Filling the
fuel tank, accessing the receptacle panel, and starting the engine.
(iv) The on-product hazard label shown in fig. 1 shall be designed
to remain permanently affixed, intact, legible, and largely unfaded in
the environment in which the product is expected to be operated and
stored over the life of the product.
(2) Carbon monoxide poisoning hazard label for package. The CO
poisoning hazard label shown in fig. 3 shall be affixed to the
principal display panel(s) of the package, as well as the surface
containing the top flaps of the package. The principal display panel(s)
of the package is the portion(s) of the outer packaging that is
designed to be most prominently displayed, shown, presented, or
examined under conditions of retail sale. Any panel of the package that
includes text in a language other than English shall also include a CO
poisoning hazard label in that language. Alternate-language versions of
the label, in addition to the label specified in figure 3, may also
appear on the top flaps of the package as long as they are physically
separate from one another. A different representation of the generator
may be substituted for accuracy if consumers are more likely to
recognize the substituted representation as the generator contained
within the packaging.
(i) The signal word ``DANGER'' shall be in letters not less than
0.15 inch (3.8 mm) high. The remaining text shall be in type whose
uppercase letters are not less than 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) high.
(ii) The signal word ``DANGER'' shall appear in white letters on a
safety red background. The safety alert symbol shown in fig. 2 shall
appear immediately before and next to the signal word and be no smaller
than the height of the signal word with the base of the triangle on the
same horizontal line as the base of the signal word. The solid portion
of the triangle (within the lines of the triangle, around the
exclamation mark) shall be white and the exclamation mark shall be
safety red. The prohibition circle-slash symbols shall be opaque.
(b) [Reserved]
[[Page 1452]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA07.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA07.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA07.003
Note: The following appendix will not appear in the code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix--List of Relevant Documents
1. Memorandum from Timothy P. Smith, Engineering Psychologist,
Division of Human Factors, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, to
Janet L. Buyer, Project Manager, Division of Combustion and Fire
Sciences, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, ``Product labels for
generators to address carbon monoxide poisonings,'' May 26, 2006.
2. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, Economist, Directorate for
Economic Analysis,``Economic Issues Related to a CO Warning Label on
Portable Generators,'' December 27, 2006.
[[Page 1453]]
3. Memorandum from Natalie E. Marcy, Mathematical Statistician,
Division of Hazard Analysis, Directorate of Epidemiology, and Debra
S. Ascone, Mathematical Statistician, Division of Hazard Analysis,
Directorate for Epidemiology, to Janet Buyer, Project Manager,
Division of Combustion and Fire Sciences, Directorate for
Engineering Sciences, `` Incidents, Deaths, and In-Depth
Investigations Associated with Carbon Monoxide from Engine-Driven
Generators and Other Engine-Driven Tools, 1990-2004,'' December 1,
2005.
4. Memorandum from Robin L. Ingle, Health Statistician, Division
of Hazard Analysis, Directorate for Epidemiology, to Janet Buyer,
Project Manager, Division of Combustion and Fire Sciences,
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, ``Non-fire Carbon Monoxide
Fatalities Associated with Engine-Driven Generators and Other
Engine-Driven Tools in 2004 and 2005,'' January 13, 2006.
5. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, Directorate for Economic
Analysis, ``Effective Date of CO Warning Label for Generators--
Response to Comments,'' December 27, 2006.
Dated: January 5, 2007.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-80 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P