CHAIR BUERKLE: Good morning, and
welcome to this public meeting
of the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission.
We have one item on the agenda this
morning, a hearing to give interested members
of the public a chance to provide
oral comment on the CPSC's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning
Portable Generators.
As seen on the slide I have prepared --
it will be up on the screen in a minute --
I will read from the statute,
the CPSIA, which says, quote,
the Commission shall give interested persons an
opportunity for the oral presentation of data,
views or arguments, in addition to an
opportunity to make written submissions.
A transcript shall be kept
of any oral presentations.
I am grateful today for all of the presenters
who have come here, both in this first panel
and the second panel, and have really taken
a tremendous amount of time and effort
to come here and provide us with
your insights and your expertise.
Your input -- and believe me, your input to
this Commission is extremely valuable to us.
To begin, I just kind of want to give everyone
an overview of how today will play out.
So bear with me, there are a few little details.
The presenters, as you can see on the agenda,
have been divided into two
panels, as seen on the agenda.
Each presenter will have 10 minutes
to deliver their opening comments.
Our secretary, Mr. Todd Stevenson,
will keep track of the time.
And I want to thank Mr. Stevenson, Ms.
Rocky Hammond and all of the Office
of the Secretary for their assistance today.
Presenters, I would ask that you
watch in front of you the lights,
the light on your little speaker,
to track your remaining time.
The yellow light indicates
that you have one minute left.
If necessary, Mr. Stevenson will orally
remind people of where they are in their time.
Commissioners will have five
minutes to ask questions
and we will have two five-minute
rounds of questions.
In the interests of time and out of
respect for all of our presenters,
especially those who are waiting patiently
to present in the second panel, Mr. Stevenson
and I will hold the presenters as well as
the commissioners to their time allotments.
At noon, following the first panel, there
will be an hour-long break for lunch.
The second panel will begin at 1:00.
Now, that will be -- depending on how long
the first panel goes, that could be open
to a little bit of change, but we will
try to stick very closely to our schedule.
We are now going to hear from our first panel.
The first presenter is Dr. Lindell
Weaver, who is participating by phone,
and I will he is on the phone this morning.
Due to other commitments, he is
unable to remain on the phone
for the duration of this first panel.
So following Dr. Weaver's remarks, I will
ask if any of my colleagues have questions
for him before he departs the phone call.
If they do, that time will be deducted
from the first round of five minutes.
Once any questions for Dr.
Weaver have been completed,
I will return to the remaining
presenters who are here this morning,
who will give their opening remarks
as well, and then we will turn back
to the commissioners for their questions.
PANEL 1 The first panel includes Dr. Lindell
Weaver, who we will hear from shortly,
who is the medical director and division
chief of hyperbaric medicine at LDS Hospital;
Mr. Greg Wischstadt, Portable
Generators Manufacturers Association;
Dr. Kevin Dunn from the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health;
Ms. Kimberly Pendo from the Truck and Engine
Manufacturers Association; Mr. William Wallace
from the Consumer Union; Mr. Marvin Klowak
from Briggs and Stratton Corporation;
and Mr. Lee Sowell from Techtronic
Industries, Inc.
Thank you all very much for
being here this morning.
And with that, I will ask Dr.
Weaver to begin your testimony.
And thank you again, Dr. Weaver,
for participating by phone.
DR. WEAVER: Yes, thank you, Ms. Chairman.
I appreciate this opportunity.
Can you all hear me okay?
CHAIR BUERKLE: Yes, we can hear you fine.
Everyone can hear Dr. Weaver?
Good. They're all nodding yes.
Thank you.
DR. WEAVER: Terrific, thank you.
And I only have one slide, so I
don't know if that's loaded yet.
Can you help me out?
Is it up yet?
CHAIR BUERKLE: It is up, thank you.
DR. WEAVER: Very good.
Thank you.
So let me explain just for a moment who I am.
Basically, I am a clinician researcher.
I work for Intermountain Health Care at both
LDS Hospital and Intermountain Medical Center,
located in the Salt Lake Valley;
professor, University of Utah;
adjunct professor of Duke University.
And I have been involved in carbon
monoxide treatment for 30 years.
I have evaluated and treated over a thousand
patients, and very well published in this field.
I get asked about carbon monoxide
poisoning almost every day.
And every day, I'm involved in either
treating a patient, following a patient,
thinking about something, writing
about something or reviewing an article
or manuscript written by someone else,
often from anywhere in the world.
Some of the work has included a paper that
Dr. Hanson and I authored a few years ago
in which we identified there were
50,000 carbon monoxide poisoned patients
across the United States annually.
Probably more.
I mean, our numbers undoubtedly
underestimate the true number.
So with that, carbon monoxide poisoning
is very common and today, of course,
is focusing on one topic in particular,
and that caused by portable generators.
Just a week ago, I treated a patient
who was poisoned pretty badly
by carbon monoxide from a generator.
I'm still following him.
He got hyperbaric oxygen
promptly and I have a feeling --
I can't predict yet, but
I feel he's likely going
to have permanent nerucognitive
and neurological damage.
So this is something that I'm certainly very
familiar with, is the harm from carbon monoxide.
So it causes harm, and it
certainly can cause death.
And generators are great devices, of course.
I have one myself.
But they produce a lot of carbon monoxide.
I mean, all internal combustion engines
without catalytic converters and all sorts
of emissions standards that's required,
for example, of automobiles produce a lot
of carbon monoxide, especially
at startup when they're cold.
And there's no question everyone
in the room understands
that portable generators producing carbon
monoxide have harmed people and killed some.
And the harm is not only acute harm,
it's long-term, permanent damage.
Anyone who has CO poisoning is at
risk for permanent, long-term damage.
And that rate is about 30 percent,
maybe 40 percent of those poisoned.
So it just seems to me, as a clinician who may
not know all the details about this subject,
that if there is a way to reduce carbon
monoxide emissions from any engine,
and specifically from portable
generators, it seems sensible to do so.
Other opportunities might include even
having a remote sensor that's linked back
to the generator that, when a level got to a
certain amount, the generator would turn off.
These are engineering details that
the engineers can work through.
But it seems to me, and I have an engineering
background, by the way, but it seems to me
that if we recognize there is problems caused
by some mechanical device, there really ought
to be engineering solutions that are
satisfactory to all to reduce the harm.
And that's really the bottom line of the
few minutes that I'm allowed here to talk
about carbon monoxide from
a clinician's perspective.
Because it causes a lot of hardship.
I mean, I've followed patients
now for many years of time,
and their life often is completely
disrupted, family relationships disrupted,
not going back to work, et cetera.
So the notion that people all
have a universally good outcome
after CO poisoning is not
supported by the evidence.
So with that, I would be
glad to field any questions
and I do appreciate the opportunity
to talk this morning.
Thank you.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much, Dr. Weaver.
And again, thank you for joining us by phone.
I will ask the commissioners now
whether they have any questions.
I have no questions.
Commissioner Adler?
COMMISSIONER ADLER: I do
have one quick question.
Dr. Weaver, your PowerPoint slide raises
two possible ways to reduce CO emissions,
one is to reduce the CO emissions, the other is
to turn off generators if
CO levels are two high.
I'm curious if you have a preferred approach,
and I'm also curious about what you think
about doing both, as Mr.
Sowell from TTI has suggested.
DR. WEAVER: I think doing both.
Because the thing is, you're not
going to train the public, right?
I mean, they put generators in all sorts
of places where they ought not put them.
And we know that's the problem.
So it seems to me the engineering solution is
to reduce the emissions and to turn them off.
Both. Why not.
Yeah, I get it, it costs more money.
But if the money is spread across the entire
industry, I don't know that that's a big issue
because everybody on the manufacturing
side is going to have to pony
up to cover those costs,
those engineering costs.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Thank you.
No further questions.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Robinson?
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Thank you so
much, Dr. Weaver, for taking time today.
Our time for questioning is also
very limited, so I will be quick.
You have talked about the long-term sequelae
of non-fatal carbon monoxide poisoning.
Could you just amplify on that a
little bit in terms of the kind
of permanent cognitive sequelae
or affective changes
that you've seen in people whom you've treated?
DR. WEAVER: Sure, be glad to.
Well, I'm sure most of the people in the room
are familiar with post-concussive syndrome.
There's a lot of traumatic brain injury around.
Football players, college
football, U.S. service members.
So many of the people with long-term
damage from carbon monoxide act just
like they have post-concussive syndrome.
Headaches, dizziness, instability, imbalance,
irritability, can't sleep well at night,
change in personality, change in mood,
depression, anxiety, very common.
And, of course, there's a spectrum.
Some people are really very bad
and some people are not so bad.
But in the people who develop sequelae,
the themes are neurocognitive, balance,
sometimes some problems with vision.
And it's again just like they had
any other type of brain injury.
Carbon monoxide brain injury is really not that
different than any brain injury, concussion.
And then about 15 percent of the
patients that have symptoms at one year,
they actually develop mild heart failure.
And I've got quite a few people now in my
practice that we're treating for heart failure.
I can't share with you how they do over long,
long periods of time, because
I don't know that yet.
But that's another aspect of CO
poisoning that's rather different
than blunt force trauma to the brain.
So neurocognitive problems,
and they are of consequence.
I mean, it impacts their life,
their family relationships,
impacts their ability to work and to carry on.
True shame.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: One of the things
that we have to do as an agency if we're
to pass a mandatory standard with
respect to carbon monoxide emissions,
is we have to do a cost/benefit analysis.
And in doing that, we have to look at the
numbers of people who have actually been --
died or been injured from carbon monoxide.
And one of our most important ways of looking at
that who are patients who are medically treated,
either in emergency departments
or in physicians' offices.
Of the thousand patients that you've
treated, can you give us any sort of estimate
as to the numbers of those who
might not get counted as those
who actually seek treatment
for carbon monoxide poisoning?
DR. WEAVER: Not sure, actually.
Dr. Hanson, Neil Hanson, a good friend of
mine, retired now, he recently authored a paper
about the cost of carbon
monoxide to U.S. citizens.
And I don't have that paper in front of
me, but it seems to me it was on the order
of a thousand -- no, I'm sorry,
a billion dollars or so --
let's see, I think it's right here.
Yeah, I've got it.
It was in Preventive Medicine
Reports just a couple of months ago.
And it's a lot of money that goes into this.
He said approximately 6,000
individuals estimated
to sustain long-term cognitive
sequelae and he puts the total loss
in earnings at just under $1 billion.
And then there's some other money for
loss of productivity and hospitalization.
So it all adds up to about
$1.4 billion annually.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Okay, thank you.
I'm out of time, thanks.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you, and Commissioner Kaye?
COMMISSIONER KAYE: I have no questions.
Thank you, Doctor, for your testimony.
DR. WEAVER: You're very welcome.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Commissioner Mohorovic?
COMMISSIONER MOHOROVIC: No questions.
Thank you.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you, Dr. Weaver.
Unless my colleagues have
any additional questions --
they're all shaking their heads no -- we
appreciate your participation this morning.
And thank you very much for your expertise
and we will excuse from this call.
Thank you again, Dr. Weaver.
DR. WEAVER: Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Bye bye. CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
And now we will turn back to our
presenters who are here this morning,
who will each give their presentations.
And just a gentle reminder that we
will give each presenter 10 minutes
and then the commissioners
will ask their questions.
Mr. Wischstadt, we will begin
with you from Portable Generators.
Is your mic on, sir?
MR. WISCHSTADT: There we go.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
MR. WISCHSTADT: Sorry about that.
I would like to first begin by thanking
Acting Chairman Buerkle and the commissioners
for allowing me and PGMA to come
here today and share our thoughts
and testimony with the Commission.
My name is Greg Wischstadt.
I serve as president of Portable
Generators Manufacturers Association.
PGMA is a voluntary trade
organization which began in 2009,
representing major manufacturers
of portable generators.
PGMA has seven member companies, in
addition to one associate member company,
which employ thousands of
individuals in the United States.
PGMA and its members are dedicated to the
safe use of power portable generators.
As such, PGMA has developed the
first and only ANSI standard
for portable generators, ANSI PGMA G300.
although the standard was only finalized
and approved by ANSI later in 2015,
PGMA decided to go a step further by
reopening the standard to include requirements
to address potential CO hazards
when generators are used improperly.
PGMA is also involved in the voluntary standards
process with UL, Underwriters Laboratories,
serving on the UL 2201 CO task group.
However, we would note that
PGMA is not comfortable
with the task group's current direction.
In addition to our standards activities,
PGMA members contribute extensive resources
to educating consumers on the
safe use of portable generators.
In 2015, PGMA developed the Take It Outside
safety campaign that includes a website,
fact sheet, video and resources that our
members use to promote consistent messaging
around the safe use of portable
generators and the potential hazards
if generators are misused
by running them indoors.
The campaign also includes
ongoing press releases
that highlight different usage scenarios
and provide information reminding consumers
of the importance of properly working CO alarms.
We also track major storms and send media alerts
with pertinent information about the safe use
of generators when there is a power outage.
Since its inception, our Take It Outside
campaign has garnered nearly 35,000 media
placements and over a billion impressions.
Since inception, PGMA has been
focused on dangers of carbon monoxide,
and we have taken numerous steps to
focus our attention on a solution.
These efforts include the following:
First, CPSC's incidence, deaths,
in-depth investigations associated with nonfire
carbon monoxide from engine-driven generators
and other engine-driven tools, 2004-2014 report,
indicated that the second most common reason
for portable generator use was shutoff of
utilities, which accounted for 20 percent
of all of the deaths in that report.
PGMA has reached out to utility commissioners
-- commissions, excuse me, across the country,
and provided them with the Take It Outside fact
sheet, requesting that when they shut power off,
they include the fact sheet
with the shutoff notice
and post the information on their websites.
PGMA has also made several requests
to CPSC to help in this outreach.
In addition, in 2013, PGMA worked with
NARUC on their adoption of CA-1 resolution,
recognizing the importance
of educating power consumers
on portable generator carbon monoxide safety.
Unfortunately, follow-up attempts to
ensure utilities sharing safety information
on their websites and through consumer
notifications has been challenging.
As requested previously, we would appreciate
Consumer Product Safety Commission assistance
in this matter.
The same incident report previously
noted indicated more than 92 percent
of engine-driven carbon monoxide deaths
occurred without properly operating CO alarms.
PGMA has provided support to the Nicholas
and Zachary Burt Memorial Carbon Monoxide
Poisoning Prevention Act, S. 1250,
which would make carbon monoxide
detectors more readily available.
PGMA has also requested the
CPSC help in requiring CO alarms
in residential buildings in past meetings.
In 2016, PGMA held a technical summit,
bringing together PGMA members,
Consumer Product Safety Commission staff, NIST,
Underwriters Laboratories, technical experts
and others to gather input for how to address
the potential carbon monoxide hazards that occur
with misuse of portable generators.
We appreciate the work CPSC has done
with the notice of proposed rulemaking.
This effort, combined with the
input from technical summit held
in 2016 helped PGMA members with their
individual research and development efforts
on the issue, and PGMA to get very close
to releasing a revised ANSI
PGMA G300 standard for canvass.
However, as you're aware, our Freedom of
Information request to the National Institute
of Standards and Technology has not provided
all of the necessary data for us to continue
with our testing to ensure that the solution
we are recommending is best for consumers.
NIST is no requesting $8,000
for the rest of the data
and PGMA is not guaranteed we will
receive all the information requested
that we require for our testing.
Also, as a nonprofit, $8,000 is a
high cost that had not been allocated
for in PGMA's 2017 operating budget.
PGMA believes that since CPSC's NPR
largely relies upon the NIST modeling,
it's in the public's interest
to have this data released.
We would ask that CPSC contact NIST and ask them
to release this crucial information
used to develop your rule.
This information should not be withheld,
especially when CPSC itself has an
open comment period on the rule.
Having access to the NIST data is particularly
important for our standard revision.
In addition to being able to respond
to the NPR, PGMA's newest iteration
of the standard will propose a detection
methodology with shutoff mechanism
to help ensure CO doesn't
build up in an enclosed space
if the generator is being misused.
Initial modeling based on FOIA
data we did receive from CPSC shows
that a shutoff sensor approach will be
more effective towards minimizing deaths,
and missing data from the NIST is crucial to
better understanding the proposed solution
in the NPR and in PGMA's work on its
standard to address the potential hazards.
As a whole, PGMA members are committed
to quickly finalizing revisions
to ANSI PGMA G300 standard to address potential
CO hazards if generators are used improperly.
To assist in this effort and to ensure
we have all of the relevant information
and feedback necessary, we have scheduled a
second technical summit for April 3, 2017,
where we have invited PGMA
technical committee members,
Consumer Product Safety Commission staff, health
experts, CO experts including those versed
in detection, NIST, Underwriters
Laboratories and other interested parties
to review the revisions to the standard
and ask any questions and present feedback.
This summit will result in a steering
committee to help PGMA finalized the standard.
Once PGMA has this input, PGMA's technical
committee will make the appropriate updates
to the standard and proceed
with the ANSI canvass process.
A majority of the PGMA member manufacturers are
in line with PGMA's voluntary standard revisions
which address the potential
CO hazards and ultimately feel
that this method will prevent more incidents
than the lower CO emissions
solution that is outlined in the NPR.
The revised PGMA draft standard
that will be shared
and published shortly reflects
a detection and shutoff strategy
to address the CO hazard posed by indoor use.
While PGMA's full comments on the NPR
will come closer to April 24, 2017,
pending release of the data from NIST, we do
have several initial concerns with the NPR
that include: The unintended consequences
of a low CO emissions solution.
Individuals may think generators are safe to
take indoors which, with any CO emissions,
they will never be safe to take indoors.
Congress has directed the jurisdiction of
regulating carbon monoxide emissions to the EPA.
As a separate federal agency, CPSC
moving forward with a mandatory standard
that regulates emissions is misplaced.
Job loss, a reduction of choice in
the marketplace, price increases,
potential unintended consequences of
incidents and deaths with the misunderstanding
that generators are safe to bring
indoors are all very real concerns
of a mandatory portable generator
rulemaking moving forward.
Given our good faith effort to take all
opinions into account and work on a revision
to our ANSI standard that addresses the
risk of CO poisoning from improper use,
we urge the Commission to halt or delay
the NPR and continue to work with industry
and the voluntary standards process
to address portable generator safety.
Thank you for your time and consideration today.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Dunn? MR. DUNN: Hello.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and the
commissioners for allowing me to talk today.
My name is Kevin Dunn, I'm a research
mechanical engineer from the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health
and I will be presenting some research
that has been conducted at NIOSH.
Are my slides up or can -- I had some slides.
I'm not sure -- CHAIR BUERKLE:
We have the slides in front of us
but we don't see them on the screen.
MR. DUNN: Okay, so I will move -- CHAIR
BUERKLE: Excuse me one second, Mr. Dunn.
Is there a way, John, that they can get
up on the screen so everyone can see them?
Thank you.
Thank you.
MR. DUNN: Do you want me to go ahead?
CHAIR BUERKLE: Go ahead.
Thank you.
MR. DUNN: NIOSH has conducted research to
prevent carbon monoxide or CO poisonings
from small gasoline-powered
engines for over 20 years.
NIOSH continues to do research -- to research
this problem, particularly after identification
of CO poisonings and deaths associated with
marine engines and generators beginning in 2000.
The CO emission hazard from portable
generators continue to be a very serious concern
for both workers and the general public.
In the next slide -- do I have control of this?
There we go.
In August 2000, the National Park Service, the
Department of the Interior, requested assistance
from NIOSH and the U.S. Coast Guard to evaluate
visitor and employee carbon monoxide exposures
from generators and propulsion
engines on houseboats.
This investigation characterized the CO
poisonings by collecting epidemiological data
and measuring severely hazardous
CO concentrations
on houseboats at Lake Powell, Arizona.
From 1990 to 2008, over 800 boating-related
poisonings in 35 states have been identified,
with over 140 of these poisonings
resulting in death.
Over 300 of the poisonings occurred inside or
outside of houseboat cabins, with more than 200
of these poisonings being attributed
to generator exhaust alone.
This chart provides some references
for concentrations of carbon monoxide
which can result in acute health effects.
The NIOSH ceiling limit is 200 parts per
million and is a concentration that is never
to be exceeded in a workplace at any time.
The NIOSH immediately dangerous
to life and health
or IDLH for carbon monoxide
is 1,200 parts per million.
An IDLH condition is defined as follows:
Any condition that poses an immediate
or delayed threat to life, or that would
cause irreversible adverse health effects
or that would interfere with an individual's
ability to escape unaided from a permit space.
This picture shows the rear of a
houseboat, the back of a houseboat
where the generator is exhausted
underneath -- let's see --
underneath the swim platform
on the back of the boat.
Our initial evaluations showed air
concentrations of carbon monoxide between 7,000
and 10,000 parts per million in
open air on the swim platform,
and concentrations exceeding the level
considered to be immediately dangerous to life
and health on the back deck of the houseboat.
We measured a concentration greater then the
NIOSH ceiling for workplaces at a distance
of 10 foot from the back of the boat.
An area that was particularly
dangerous was under the swim platform,
where the generator is typically exhausted,
because the emissions of these engines
and the enclosed environment, the
concentrations often reach many times greater
than the NIOSH immediately
dangerous to life and health.
This posed a significant threat
to those that entered this area,
which included children looking to play
and above-boat operations who needed access
to untangle the ropes from the propellers.
Initially, the major obstacle to the safe use
of gasoline powered generators was
the absence of any emissions controls.
In 2001, NIOSH researchers again partnering with
boat builders and marine engine manufacturers
to prevent CO poisonings
from gasoline marine engines.
A prototype emission control, an aftermarket
catalytic converter, was introduced in 2001.
Initial findings showed that this technology
greatly removed the emissions at the source,
reducing concentrations on
and around houseboats.
Following these findings concerning prototype
generating controls, two major manufacturers
of marine power generation systems
developed low CO emission generators.
NIOSH evaluations found that these
new technologies for marine engines,
such as catalytic converters
and electronic fuel injection,
reduced CO emissions by over 99 percent.
This is a picture of those two large
manufacturers, Westerbeke and Kohler,
and some details on the family of generators
that they now produce for marine engines.
This is an example from the evaluation of CO
concentrations on the back deck of the houseboat
with only the generator operating.
And, as you can see, the low-emission generator
resulted in substantially lower CO emissions
in open air on the back of this boat.
These measurements were taken where
occupants would normally stand or sit.
And CO measurements taken directly in the
exhaust pipe of the generators range from 16,800
to 55,300 parts per million in the baseline
generator without engineering controls,
and from 1 to 39 parts per million
in the generator with controls,
such as fuel injection and catalytic converter.
Due to these efforts to develop emission
control technologies, boating exhaust standards
and regulations have been implemented which will
inevitably reduce boating-related CO deaths.
The American Boat and Yacht
Council modified their standards
for generator exhausts to
include exhaust stacks.
The EPA, using NIOSH engineering
control research developed
and promulgated a low CO emissions
standard for all marine generators.
This level is 5 grams per kilowatt hour,
versus the 610 grams per kilowatt hour,
which is currently allowed for
most portable home generators.
The addition of catalytic converters
has proven to be a lifesaver
in preventing motor vehicle
related CO poisonings.
This graph is from an article by Mott, et al.,
in the Journal of the American
Medical Association.
In 1970, Congress established the U.S.
EPA and enacted the Clean Air Act,
which set emission limits on automobiles.
Beginning in 1975, automobile manufacturers
began installing catalytic converters
on automobiles in the U.S.
to meet these standards.
And analysis of the effect of these technologies
and related policies showed a decline
of unintentional vehicle-related CO deaths
of greater than 80 percent from 1975 to 1996.
Thank you for the opportunity to talk to
you today about this very important issue.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
Ms. Pendo, you may proceed.
MS. PENDO: Okay, thank you very much.
Good morning.
My name is Kimberly Pendo and I am
here today on behalf of the Truck
and Engine Manufacturers Association, or EMA.
EMA appreciates the opportunity
to testify regarding the Consumer Product
Safety Commission's proposed safety standard
for portable generators that seeks to
regulate carbon monoxide emissions generated
by portable generators.
EMA represents the world's leading manufacturers
of non-handheld, small, spark-ignited engines.
EMA's members manufacture the engines
used to power the portable generators
that are the subject of the proposed rule.
While CPSC's proposal seeks to
regulate portable generators,
it is the engines that power
generators that create CO emissions.
Accordingly, EMA and its members have a direct
and significant stake in the proposed rule.
EMA has been actively involved in the
Commission's rulemaking process from the outset
and has participated in the
Commission's working groups
and related activities organized
by Underwriters Laboratory.
In addition, EMA has collaborated
other industry associations,
including the Portable Generator
Manufacturers Association,
and generally supports PGMA's efforts
and comments provided this morning.
EMA remains committed to working
with CPSC and other stakeholders
to address the safety concerns raised
in the proposed rule in a manner
that meets applicable legal standards and
requirements and results in a feasible,
realistic and workable means to address
safety concerns without the imposition
of overly burdensome, redundant and
unnecessary government regulation.
As the Commission is aware, industry
is actively engaged in the development
of an independent ANSI standard that
would address CPSC's safety concerns
through cost effective and efficient
self-regulation, thus avoiding the need
for government interference or the
imposition of unnecessary regulation.
Industry self-regulation is
particularly warranted in this situation,
because CPSC lacks the authority
to regulate CO emissions.
The proposed rule is based on the premise
that CPSC has the authority and capability
to regulate the generator manufacturer.
However, the generator manufacturer does
not and cannot control the CO emissions
that the proposed rule seeks to regulate.
The CO emissions that are the subject of the
proposed standard are produced by the engines
that power the generator and those engines
and engine manufacturers are preemptively
and exclusively regulated by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
Engine manufacturers are required to
comply with EPA emission regulation.
And such EPA regulatory requirements
preclude the generator manufacturer
from changing any aspect of the engine that
would affect emissions regulated by EPA.
CO emissions are regulated by EPA
under Section 213 of the Clean Air Act.
And the Consumer Product Safety Act specifically
states that the CPSC has no authority
to regulate "any risk of injury
associated with a consumer product
if such risk could be eliminated
or reduced to a sufficient extent
by actions taken under the Clean Air Act."
Accordingly, EPA and not the CPSC
has the sole and exclusive authority
to regulate engine CO emissions
associated with portable generators.
As such, CPSC must withdraw the
proposed rule and work with industry
on the ANSI standard development process.
In addition, the standard levels proposed
in the proposed rule are not supported
by CPSC's technology demonstration.
CPSC's two-part prototype low-CO emission
generator technology demonstration program, one,
covered only one of the three classifications
for which CPSC has proposed regulations and,
two, showed that the technology required to
achieve the demonstrated CO levels results
in increased exhaust temperatures which
itself could create significant safety issues.
Such increased exhaust temperatures
were well documented in work done by EPA
in the development of the existing EPA Phase
III exhaust emission standards for the type
of small, spark-ignited engines used in
portable generators and were the subject
of safety studies included in the Environmental
Protection Agency's rulemaking docket.
Further, the proposed rule improperly proposes
to measure CO emissions on
a grams per hour basis.
The proper way to measure emissions, as
used by EPA, is to account for the work done
by the engine on a grams
per kilowatt hour basis.
And that way, small and large engines
can be compared and treated fairly based
on the amount of work the engine does.
EPA's method results in significantly
greater accuracy, e.g., less errors.
The measurement methodology
and standard levels proposed
in the proposed rule do not
effectively address the implications
of different engine sizes or efficiencies.
EMA and its member companies are committed
to continuing to work with the CPSC, ANSI,
Underwriters Laboratory, PGMA
and other interested stakeholders
to minimize any risks associated
with the use of portable generators.
Thank you for your time.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Wallace, please.
MR. WALLACE: Good morning.
Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm
of Consumer Reports, welcomes the opportunity
to present oral comments to the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
on the proposed safety standard
for portable generators.
We appreciate the work done by the commissioners
and CPSC staff to research the risk
of carbon monoxide poisoning and issue
the notice of proposed rulemaking
to reduce future injuries and deaths
associated with portable generators.
CPSC has been taking steps
to make these products safer.
The agency has long urged consumers never to
operate a portable generator inside or too close
to the house, a message that we at CR and CU
have communicated as well through articles,
videos and public outreach, oftentimes
in snow season or hurricane season.
For example, we published a story featuring this
critical advice on cr.org on February 3, 2017.
Additionally, starting 10 years ago, CPSC
required a clear label on portable generators
that warns consumers in appropriately
descriptive and severe terms
about the deadly risks of operating
the product in the wrong place.
We at CR and CU always consider it important for
us to urge consumers to heed safety instructions
and to be responsible for
the safe use of products.
However, as the incident
data make tragically clear,
education and warning labels
alone are not enough
to protect consumers from
carbon monoxide poisoning.
With an average of some 70 deaths and
several thousand nonfatal injuries annually,
we strongly agree with the Commission
that performance requirements are
needed and without any further delay.
Consumer Reports periodically tests and rates
generators, including portable generators.
Our overall score is based on power
delivery, the wattage delivered
and how well it handled surges; power
quality, the ability to deliver power smoothly
with consistent voltage; noise level;
ease of use, including starting,
transport and helpful features such
as fuel shutoff; and runtime range,
our average of how long a
generator ran over various loads.
The generators we recommend produce smooth,
steady power for refrigerators, well pumps
and other home items, without
losing voltage under load,
and most shut off automatically
if engine oil is low.
We also identify CR best buys
that blend performance and value.
In the name of one of our
guiding principles, safety,
Consumer Reports is exploring potential
changes to our testing to account
for portable generators'
carbon monoxide emissions.
Consumers deserve to have the opportunity
-- to have independently evaluated,
comparative information about this
aspect of the product and to know
which models perform better
within a class of generators.
While we fully recognize that the risk
of poisoning from carbon monoxide depends
on many factors, including the generator's
placement and the local air flow,
reducing CO emissions can be a feasible
and effective way to reduce the risk.
Consumers who want to know which
models have lower CO emissions and want
to use this information as part
of their purchasing decision
should have the ability to do so.
This would empower individual consumers
and help shape the marketplace.
That is in keeping with our mission,
and we take our role seriously.
We also recognize, though, that
effective safety standards are those
which apply across the marketplace.
Substantial compliance is an important
component in maximizing the number
of injuries and deaths prevented.
It is also important to promote a level
playing field for the businesses that make
up an industry, so that marketplace
competition is fair and leads to safer products
that also provide a meaningful
value to consumers.
Accordingly, and especially given the
inadequacy of current voluntary standards,
we support the proposed rule and urge
the commission to keep moving forward
on its development of a mandatory
safety standard.
As it does so, we encourage
portable generator manufacturers
to deliver product changes expeditiously
and with across-the-board participation
that would meaningfully address the
risks of carbon monoxide poisoning
and would further inform the
Commission's safety standard development.
In most scenarios, these changes should
substantially extend the time consumers have
to identify that something is wrong before being
exposed to CO levels that seriously injure them.
Or eliminate the hazard entirely.
We look forward to working together with both
industry and CPSC to achieve these changes
that would protect consumers from harm.
Turning back to the proposed rule, we
have several preliminary views to share
with the Commission about
various aspects of the NPRM.
Our more detailed comments
will be submitted in writing.
Purpose. The purpose of the stated rule, to set
requirements for carbon monoxide emission rates
for categories of portable
generators, is appropriate for the goal
of reducing the unreasonable risk of injury
and death associated with these products.
We also note that another factor in CO poisoning
and death may be the length of the electric cord
that connects the generator
to a home's transfer switch.
Including 10-foot cords with portable
generators may suggest to consumers
that they can place their
generators close to their homes.
In addition to addressing CO levels, banning
short cords and requiring cords to be
at least 30 or 40 feet long could
help reduce that risk to consumers.
Scope. Generally, the scope of the proposed
rule is appropriately tailored to products
that are portable and are
typically used by consumers.
However, we recognize that products outside
this scope, especially the products listed
under items 1 through 8 in Section 1241.1B,
that are intended to be used with a vehicle,
may pose similar risks to
consumers who use them.
We encourage careful monitoring of the
marketplace for any consumer product
that presents an unreasonable
risk of injury or death.
Compliance dates.
We understand that design modifications may be
necessary under the rule and an effective date
that is one year after the final rule of
issued therefore may be in the public interest.
We also understand that design challenges
may be more difficult for smaller units.
However, we urge the Commission to set
an earlier compliance date for handheld
and Class 1 generators than three years
after publication of the final rule.
No justification is given for why such an
extended period of time would be necessary
for compliance or why such a delay would
outweigh the benefits to the public of the rule.
The Commission instead should adopt a compliance
date for these smaller products that is,
at most, 18 months from the
date of the final rule.
Findings. We appreciate that the proposed rule
includes appropriate context on incident data,
indicating that the documented fatality
and injury reports in CPSC databases,
including NEISS, likely represent an
underestimate of the true number of fatalities
and injuries associated with the risk of
generator-related carbon monoxide poisoning.
In addition, we agree with the
Commission that, under the proposed rule,
there may be noticeable positive changes in the
utility of portable generators to consumers,
in terms of fuel efficiency and other aspects.
Automatic shutoff systems.
In previous comments, including comments on
the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
Consumers Union suggested that automatic
shutoff systems were the most promising way
to reduce injuries and deaths
from carbon monoxide poisoning.
This view was based partially
on the fact that many generators
on the market have a similar system
designed to cut off the equipment
when it senses that the machine is low on oil.
Since many deaths occur from
generators running in enclosed spaces,
lowering the allowable CO levels may
simply serve to increase the amount
of time before consumers are
exposed to lethal CO levels.
This is not trivial.
It could save lives and prevent injuries.
But if automatic shutoff systems adequately
address the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning,
then that technology might be
preferable to the Commission,
if it has superior hazard reduction value.
In our view, of course, the best of all worlds
from a consumer safety perspective would be
if industry can lower generator CO emissions
and have an automatic safety shutoff.
Voluntary standards.
Although we would look forward to working
with industry and CPSC in any venue
that would facilitate substantial advances for
consumer safety, we agree with the Commission
that the voluntary standards, UL
2201, and ANSI/PGMA G300-2015,
are inadequate because they
do not address the risks
of carbon monoxide poisoning beyond
the mandatory labeling requirement.
Least burdensome requirement.
While we recognize that regulatory alternatives
can change as previously unknown facts come
to light -- including, for instance, the
existence of new technologies effective
at reducing a hazard -- we consider the
Commission's reasoning appropriate that leads it
to conclude preliminarily that none
of the less burdensome alternatives
to this rule would adequately
reduce the risk of injury.
Thank you for your consideration
of our comments.
We look forward to continuing to work with
the Commission, CPSC staff, manufacturers
and other stakeholders to make portable
generators safer for consumers nationwide.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace.
Mr. Klowak.
Am I saying that correctly?
Klowak? MR. KLOWAK: Klowak, that's correct.
Thank you.
I do have a presentation
to complement my comments.
Yes. Okay, thank you.
Good morning.
Dear members of the Commission and
the public, my name is Marv Klowak.
I am the global vice president of
research and development at Briggs
and Stratton, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Briggs and Stratton is a trusted
company with a long history
of manufacturing safe and reliable products.
These products make lives better by
empowering customers to get work done.
Portable generators are among
the products that we produce.
They provide essential electric power for
work, recreation and emergency backup.
The CPSC is seeking to address the
risks associated with the production
of carbon monoxide gas, or CO, a
byproduct of the internal combustion engine
that powers the portable generator.
The CPSC's proposed regulation,
which we refer to as the low CO,
would establish lower exhaust
emission limits for CO from the engine,
with the intent to reduce fatalities
from misuse of portable generators.
Briggs and Stratton believes a
performance standard which allows
for a CO shutdown would be
a more effective approach.
We believe that the CO shutdown is more
effective than the low CO for several reasons.
First of all, a low-CO engine, as proposed
by CPSC, running in an enclosed space,
will still produce poisonous levels of
CO. this premise is demonstrated today
in the automotive industry.
Although automobiles produce lower
levels of CO than this proposal,
the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration has engaged
in regulatory development designed
to address the low-level exposure
to CO over long periods of time.
The NHTSA has expressed concerns
over automobiles with keyless start
where poisonous levels of CO have been produced.
Another concern is that the CO production
raised from portable generators will result
in longer exposure times for consumers.
Exposure to low levels of CO over long periods
of time will delay the onset of symptoms
and will result in CO blood
levels to become higher
than if the generator was to have shut down.
CO will continue to build up with a low-CO
generator, while CO will not continue
to build up with a CO shutdown generator.
In comparison, a CO shutdown system
would work quickly and automatically
to shut the portable generator and
force a task-orientated change --
and I emphasize a task-oriented
change -- in consumer behavior.
As cited b y the NPR, the Commission
recognizes that consumers cannot be relied upon
to react appropriately to any
indication of CO exposure.
A CO shutdown system does not rely on the
consumer taking the correct and active response.
Another fact to consider is that a
low-CO generator requires a catalyst.
Before the catalyst becomes
effective, it must warm up.
This usually takes several minutes, during
which the CO will be produced at a higher rate
than when the catalyst is warmed up.
Finally, an inherent characteristic of the
catalyst is that additional heat is generated.
As such, low-CO systems will
result in unintended consequences,
such as higher operating
temperatures, which increase other risks
than when using a generator without a catalyst.
Did the next slide advance?
CHAIR BUERKLE: It did not.
MR. KLOWAK: It did not.
Okay, thank you.
Briggs and Stratton also believes that CO
shutdown is substantially more reliable
and durable than low CO. As previously
mentioned, low CO requires a catalyst.
Catalyst degradation occurs naturally and can
be accelerated with exhaust contamination.
While diagnostics can be added,
they introduce complexity
with an additional O2 sensor
and control algorithms.
On the other hand, CO sensor technology used for
CO shutdown has greatly advanced since the time
of the CPSC shutoff device study conducted in
2005, which was subsequently published in 2013.
Additionally, COs are now commercially
available with longer and increased --
longer life and increased durability.
They are also used in numerous applications,
including houseboats and
the automotive industry.
Additionally, CO censor modules
now have the provisions
for expanded self-diagnostic capabilities
which will make them more reliable.
Finally, durability and reliability
are closely related.
A consideration in reliability and
long-term durability is the number
of components in a given system.
CO shutdown involves a fewer
number of components than low CO,
which reduces the system complexity.
This results in a higher effectiveness
over the life of the generator.
Briggs and Stratton also wishes to communicate
that there are other regulatory considerations.
The first is that the CPSC has yet to
complete the study of the effectiveness
of the 2007 mandatory safety label to
determine whether additional regulation should
be considered.
Based on the information available,
the fatality rate is trending downward.
Another consideration is that the Portable
Generator Manufacturers Association has
published a comprehensive ANSI safety standard
for portable generators and is in the process
of updating it to include a
CO performance requirement.
The CPSC should defer to the voluntary
industry standard setting procedures.
Finally, the EPA has already
adopted emissions regulation
which includes CO limits
occupying the regulatory space.
Briggs and Stratton supports the
Engine Manufacturers Association
or EMA, and PGMA's position on this.
Next actions which we respectfully
request are as follows.
First of all, the CPSC should work with NIST
to fulfill the PGMA's outstanding FOIA request
for modeling information so that PGMA members
can model alternative solutions following the
CPSC's methodology.
We would also like to note that additional
detailed written comments will be submitted
by Briggs and Stratton prior to the
close of the public comment period.
Additionally, Briggs and Stratton welcomes the
CPSC's support in the PGMA's effort to refresh
and modernize the current
2007 mandatory safety label.
Next, on behalf of Briggs and Stratton, I would
like to formally extend an invitation to CPSC
for a private technology demonstration
and discussion at our facility.
We are becoming more and more
confident on a daily basis
with our approach to shutting
down the generator.
And finally, we would like to respectfully
request that the CPSC forgo the NPR activity,
work with industry and endorse the CO
performance-based voluntary standard being
developed by the PGMA.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Sowell.
MR. SOWELL: Good morning.
My name is Lee Sowell.
I am the president of the
outdoor product division
for Techtronic Industries
Power Equipment, known as TTI.
We are a major manufacturer of outdoor power
equipment, including portable generators.
We sell generators under the Ryobi
brand, Blackmax and Powerstroke
to major retailers like Home Depot and others.
Though industry data is limited for
determining U.S. generator market share,
we estimate we are the fourth largest supplier
of portable generators in the industry.
We have a manufacturing facility in Anderson,
South Carolina, where we produce some
of our generators, and we also produce some
overseas in various manufacturing locations.
I want to thank the Commission
and the CPSC staff
for their leadership on this important topic.
We share the CPSC's goal of ensuring the safety
of all consumer products sold to U.S. consumers.
I'd like to point out, too, that we are
one of the founding members of the PGMA
and are active on the board of directors.
And also we chair the PGMA technical committee.
We are here today to publicly
support the portable generator NPR
because it promotes the technical standard
that will address the CO hazard associated
with portable generators in enclosed
and partially enclosed misuse scenarios,
as well as outdoor use scenarios,
not just enclosed spaces.
Data from the CDC, Florida, 2004, on
portable generators, for injuries,
which we tend to talk more about deaths
versus injuries -- but as we've heard today,
it's a much higher number -- 46 percent of
the cases, the generator was used outdoors,
not indoors in an enclosed space.
From August and September of '05 from Katrina,
in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi,
64 percent of the cases of injuries and
fatalities, the generator was used outside,
not indoors in an enclosed space.
So we feel it's important not to ignore
that piece of the misuse scenarios.
If you look on our TTI website,
we list our six core values
and the number one is doing the right thing.
And we believe doing the right thing is
providing the safest possible generator safety
standard, and I will talk
about that in a minute.
We offer our comments from the perspective
of a manufacturer of portable generators
that has a track record of consistently
demonstrating its utmost importance.
Today, I highlight our support of the proposed
rule and how we spent significant time
and resources doing the R&D
and testing of low CO emissions
to prove the technical feasibility
of the technology.
We wholeheartedly support the CPSC's
mission of product safety and proposed rule
to limit the CO emissions rate of
portable generators at the source.
This is, in our opinion, the most sure way
to directly reduce the chances of injuries
and fatalities as a result of the
misuse of portable generators.
To illustrate my point, let me refer you
to an example of a case that was included
in a recently submitted comment to
the portable generator NPR site.
Ed and Christine Watson from Clarksville,
Tennessee, lost a daughter and her husband
and three friends due to CO poisoning
while operating their generator outside
of their camper.
Like most consumers, the Watsons,
despite warning labels provided,
may not have realized how dangerous generator
exhaust can be resulting from misuse.
From the Watsons' perspective, they
were operating the generator correctly.
It was not inside the camper.
Rather, it was intentionally placed outside.
Unfortunately, placing the generator outside
was not enough to avoid a tragic accident.
This scenario and many others like
it will most likely not be prevented
by shutoff technology alone.
Rather, the most effective way to mitigate
the potential for CO-related injury is
to first address the hazard at its source,
by lowering the amount of CO produced,
and then focusing on shutoff technology.
The work that CPSC did in conjunction
with the University of Alabama
to make a working prototype demonstration
provided us with a solid foundation
of technical understanding and a very
helpful framework of reference points
that helped guide our development
teams to achieve CO emissions results
that were otherwise thought to be
unachievable for portable generators.
Our teams have been able to generate low CO
emissions on many different types of engines
and engine sizes, both Class 2, Class
1 and handheld, of up to 90 percent,
as well as successful demonstrations
using multiple fuel types.
With each passing phase of development,
our teams are making further discoveries,
improvements and helping to push the
base of knowledge and understanding
of what the technology is capable of
achieving and how it perfectly fits
as a technical solution to solve the CO
hazard associated with portable generators.
We have also found that,
from a durability standpoint,
we're actually getting extended
life of the engines.
We're getting 20 percent fuel savings.
And we see less than 10 percent
degradation over time
of the CO reduction emissions from these units.
We also are seeing no increase in
heat from the generator itself.
I would like to point out at the PGA
technical summit in March of 2016,
we were the only company that
publicly presented the results
of our reduced CO emission development efforts.
Since then, we have continued our development
to be able to incorporate a shutoff technology
that does not rely on chemical
sensing devices and has the potential
to demonstrate much higher reliability.
The optimal solution for limiting the CO hazard
would be prevention via reduced CO emissions
and detection via shutoff feature.
We can never market a generator as safe.
We would not in any way reduce our
efforts on warning and instructing users
to use it outdoors, a minimum of 20 feet
away from a structure, which we say in all
of our manuals, and we would continue
to do that, as we do today, certainly.
We have been working with multiple partners
that have significant technical experience
to enable us to replicate the
University of Alabama results
and make what we feel is a commercially viable
reduced CO emissions technical solution.
The technology to reliably control CO
emissions in small engines is readily available
on the market today from multiple sources.
Anyone who is serious about
addressing this hazard can do so.
It is becoming more and more commonly used on
commercial mowing equipment, as an example,
becoming more prevalent on a lot
of commercial mowing equipment
and they are touting fuel savings as a benefit.
We have plans to launch multiple generators
during the 2017 calendar year using our own
reduced CO emission engines, as
well as using third party engines
that are readily available on the market.
Kohler announced in 2016, October 2016,
they have developed an engine for use
on portable generators which
has a reduced CO emissions rate.
We are proud to partner with
them to resolve the CO hazard
and improve the health and
safety of U.S. consumers.
We are also partnering with another
engine manufacturer from Japan,
and we welcome the opportunity
to work with others.
We also have used multiple Chinese
manufacturer partners, and this technology works
across every supplier that we have worked with.
TTI remains strongly committed to working with
industry to address the hazards associated
with the use of portable generators.
We do appreciate the opportunity to
provide our view on the proposed rule.
Thank you, and I will be
happy to answer questions.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very
much, and thank you to all
of our panelists for your presentations.
We will now begin the commissioners' questions
and I will begin my round of five minutes.
PANEL 1 QUESTIONS CHAIR BUERKLE: I
wanted to talk to Ms. Pendo just briefly
about what you said with regards to
EPA and the jurisdictional issue.
How would your members be affected if
our agency took up CO emissions along
with what the EPA has already
done with CO emissions?
MS. PENDO: Thank you.
Our members would be affected
by having to potentially comply
with different standards
regulating the same emissions.
In addition, it could create a
situation, especially, you know,
given the current proposed rule, which
uses a different basis for measurement
for the kilowatt per hour -- on
a grams per hour basis as opposed
to a kilowatt per hour basis
would not be possible to comply
with different regulations and standards.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Klowak, in your testimony, you talked
about catalysts and the time it takes
for that catalyst to warm up before
we would see low CO emissions.
MR. KLOWAK: Correct.
CHAIR BUERKLE: I wanted to just relate back to
something Dr. Weaver said about the amount of CO
that is emitted until the engine warms up.
Can you explain his comments in
light of what you testified, as well?
MR. KLOWAK: And I don't recall
his specific comments.
CHAIR BUERKLE: He said especially at startup,
when the engine is cold,
that you see CO emissions.
MR. KLOWAK: Yeah.
So with a catalyst that's placed on
-- in the exhaust system of an engine,
it takes a certain amount of time
for the catalyst to become active
or it's commonly called lightoff,
which can take several minutes.
So until that point, it's going to
produce CO and emissions at a rate just
like the catalyst was not there, okay?
So that -- even with a low CO approach,
you've got to be mindful that you're going
to be producing CO at a high rate until that
catalyst becomes warmed up and effective.
CHAIR BUERKLE: And can you speak to, is
it by the engine and by the catalyst,
how long it takes for that to warm up?
MR. KLOWAK: It would vary,
depending on the engine.
You know, and it could be several minutes, just
to give you a ballpark understanding of it.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much.
My next question is for PGMA, Mr. Wischstadt.
I wanted to talk to you, in your testimony, you
mentioned about your concern with the direction
that UL is taking with regards
to their voluntary standard.
Could you expand on that a little bit for us?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Certainly.
The UL task group was formed and they
brought a number of members together.
And that task group completed its
activity with a test for emissions.
It did not complete its activity
with an actual performance standard.
That's currently in UL's hands.
It's out for comment that concluded last week.
Our members have a number
of concerns with that test.
Some of the repeatability, reproducibility
issues, as well, as well as the approach.
We have -- PGMA has a strong
history of developing standards.
We were able to get the first ANSI standard
in a very short period of time; whereas,
UL 2201 has been out for multiple
canvasses over several years,
spanning something close to 15 years.
So we feel that PGMA is in a better position
to be able to move forward with the standard.
To that end, we have also been recently notified
by Underwriters Laboratories that if our members
or PGMA itself contributes to
their standard making activity,
anything we contribute becomes the sole
and exclusive intellectual property
of Underwriters Laboratories, which is making us
really difficult for us to team up in an effort.
So we have actually invited them to
participate on our standards making activities
through the upcoming events and
the April 3 technical summit
and steering committee that we'll be forming.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Dunn, in your comments about reducing
the number of deaths with marine engines
and CO poisoning, I am interested to know was
it a low CO emission technology that brought
down the number of deaths, or was it a
different technology, such as venting the CO?
MR. DUNN: I think with -- with
regard to the final graph that I had,
that was about motor vehicles and
specifically about the addition
of catalytic converters on
engines and motor vehicles.
And the study that looked at that was
particularly looking at the addition
of catalytic converters on automobiles.
In the boating industry, there's not a
similar tracking of poisonings and deaths.
Some tracking has been done looking at the
U.S. Coast Guard database and news clippings.
But one of the issues with tracking
poisonings is that poisonings,
carbon monoxide poisonings have nonspecific
symptoms like headache and dizziness.
And so we think, as Mr. Wallace said,
that they are tremendously underreported
because they mimic other things.
So in the boating industry, you know, we
don't have a track on the number of deaths
that have happened prior to or after the --
after the introduction of the
low CO emission generators.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
I have a follow-up question, but I'm out of
time, and I will now go to Commissioner Adler.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Thank you very much.
And thank you very much to the panel,
to all of you, for participating.
Mr. Sowell, you raised some concerns about
a shutoff only approach to generator safety,
and I was wondering on if you
could expand on what your concerns
about shutoff only as an approach would be.
MR. SOWELL: We have no doubt that
it would be or could be effective
in an enclosed space scenario,
where there is no ventilation.
But the data shows that, as I reported, as
many as 60 percent of the cases are done
where the generator is either in a garage
with the door open or outside of a window
or under a porch or a patio, and the
exhaust is drawn in through the window.
And if the shutoff device were on the
generator, it would not detect the CO levels
that would be inside the
home where the occupants are,
versus where the generator might be parked.
So that's our concern.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Yeah, and I did note that
Mr. Dunn was talking about remote sensors.
But the actual PGMA approach, as I
understand it, is to place the sensor
on the generator itself; am
I correct in saying that?
MR. SOWELL: Correct.
And the issue with remote
sensors is where do you put it?
You know, people are mobile within
the house and that addresses that.
We also are concerned some about if you're
only doing detection, is the durability
and the chemical sensitivity to those sensors.
We're doing it through oxygen sensor on the
unit, which is, we think, a better approach.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Thank you very much.
And Mr. Klowak, in your statement and in
response to Chairman Buerkle's question,
you indicate that catalyst degradation
can occur with a low emission approach.
We know this technology has
been used in other contexts,
as Mr. Dunn said, in automobiles and boats.
Do you have any evidence to suggest
that, although this is a concern,
that it would be a serious safety risk if
it were adopted for portable gas generators?
MR. KLOWAK: Yeah, so we -- the data
that we've run with catalysts shows
that there is a natural degradation of it,
where it loses its effectivity
throughout the life of it.
Several things can influence that.
There can be oil contamination,
any time you start it it's going
to run a little rich, which will do that.
So we see varying degrees of degradation,
depending on the engines that we've run it on.
You know, so to give it a number would be --
would be difficult, but it does degrade
throughout the life of the product.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: No, I understand that.
And I can understand that in a
laboratory you might see that.
But my question is, when you've seen it actually
applied in context like automobiles and boats,
have you seen serious concerns arising
because of catalyst degradation?
MR. KLOWAK: Yeah, I don't know that
I'm qualified to speak on behalf of --
COMMISSIONER ADLER: I'm certainly not --
MR. KLOWAK: So I think I'll defer that.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Okay.
And just one last question.
You're a multibillion dollar
organization; is that correct?
MR. KLOWAK: Our sales are
just short of two billion.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Okay.
And you are a member of PGMA?
MR. KLOWAK: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: I'm just curious.
Would it be possible to dip into petty
cash and help PGMA come up with the amount
of money needed to pursue this FOIA request?
I really have trouble understanding how --
how an organization that has such rich members
can't come up with $8,000 for a FOIA request.
MR. KLOWAK: That can certainly be considered.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Okay.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Wischstadt, first of all, thank you
for your testimony and I hope that PGMA
and CPSC will continue to work
together jointly and collaboratively.
MR. WISCHSTADT: As to I.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: I certainly appreciate that.
I guess one question I have, and this
is just something that perplexes me,
is that you talk very much about the necessity
of CO detectors, monitors in people's homes,
and I am always sad to see
that people have not adopted
that the same way they have smoke alarms.
Have any of your members including with the
sale of a portable generator a CO detector?
To my knowledge, nobody does that, and
I'm curious if you've considered it
and if you've rejected it, why that is?
MR. WISCHSTADT: We have actually
considered that.
In fact, in one of the first meetings that PGMA
came to share some of the efforts and activities
that we had with your -- with your commission,
we were suggesting that as an opportunity
to where we could maybe work
together to do such a thing.
But nothing has ever resulted
from that activity.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Well, I hope that
you will continue to investigate that.
And just a quick question, in terms of shutoff
technology versus low emission technology,
is it PGMA's position that it's
either or, or is there any approach
to adopting both, as Mr. Sowell was suggesting?
MR. WISCHSTADT: So right now, the
PGMA group is aligned strongly
around a detection only approach.
A big factor in getting to that position is
that, number one, that is what we've seen
to be the most effective solution towards indoor
space, which the technical group at PGMA defines
as anything in a covered space, which
would include a garage with an open door,
or an interior room where the windows
have been attempted to ventilate.
We have seen some initial results from the
NIST 1782 data that we did receive, thank you,
from the FOIA request that actually indicate
that we would see far more lives saved
under those conditions, again, targeting
indoor applications, which I think amounts
to 90-some percent, as we've -- as we've defined
an indoor application of the deaths in the IDIs.
We also saw some early evidence some of the --
some of the member participants
shared some evidence that suggests
that combining the two technologies together
may actually be harmful in terms of the impact
on the result, that the detection
alone might actually save more lives
than trying to combine the two together.
And this was some the NIST data.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: I've dragged
you into dangerous territory,
because you've run over my time limit.
Thank you very much for your
answer, and I'm sorry.
Because I could see Chairman
Buerkle was about to cut you off.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you, Commissioner Adler.
Commissioner Robinson?
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: First of all, thank
you to all of you for participating in this.
This is so important that we have people like
you coming in and telling us what we should
or should not be doing in
terms of our rulemaking.
Mr. Wischstadt, there's been a
lot of complaining from PGMA,
as you very well know, about
the FOIA request to NIST.
But my understanding is that our
staff very specifically told you
that if you would just request -- if
you would do a FOIA request initially
of what they actually relied
on, which wasn't all --
the millions of documents that you've
requested, but rather what they've relied
on as the modeling information
from NIST Technical Note 1925,
and that's readily available and could
have been easily and quickly obtained.
But my understanding is that you
did not follow that recommendation
and that you instead requested
millions of documents about things
that have absolutely nothing to do with
what we relied on, including outdoor tests.
And so my question of you is, have you
considered limiting it to the information
that our staff has told you that
they relied upon for their NPR?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Well, I would like
to explain that when we requested,
the first request that was made to Consumer
Product Safety Commission, we outlined the items
that we felt we needed out of the NIST data,
which included the items
specifically used by the NPR.
To our knowledge, all of those
items were used in the NPR.
Your own organization came back to us and
indicated which items they could not fulfill
and suggested that we go to NIST,
at which time we went to NIST
with a very specific request
around those additional items.
And what we are looking for
help for with regards
to fulfilling this FOIA request is right
now we're in a state of waiting of NIST.
They've provided us with a letter.
Of course, it was the $8,000 -- COMMISSIONER
ROBINSON: Okay, I'm just going to interrupt you,
because I literally have five minutes.
But my question very specifically is,
have you tried limiting your
request to the technical note 1925.
That's just a yes or no, and then
I have more questions for you.
MR. WISCHSTADT: Our request
is already limited to that.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Just 1925?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Just the documents
relating to the activity that would allow us
to run the 100,000 simulations in 1925.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: That
isn't my question, sir.
You were told by staff, as I understand
it, that all we relied on was the data
that had to do with technical note 1925.
Have you tried to get just that
specific information that we relied upon?
MR. WISCHSTADT: I have personally reached out to
Kevin Dunn at NIST to try and explain that, yes.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: And
you still don't have that?
That's easily obtained.
MR. WISCHSTADT: We do not.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Okay,
that's not my understanding
of what NIST understands you're asking for.
But let me ask you this, everybody seems to
agree, whether you're for or against the NPR,
that it would be lovely if we had a strategy
of detection and shutoff that actually worked.
Does anybody on the panel know of a
prototype of a machine that has been --
a portable generator that has been tested that
actually will not have the nuisance shutoff
if it's on the generator, but will
actually save lives because it's been looked
at in real life situations
in terms of the CO migration?
Does anybody know of any
testing that's been done?
MR. WISCHSTADT: I'll take that
one, on behalf of Generac.
Generac has tested such a device
in indoor and outdoor applications.
And our test data indicates that you would
be able to reliably detect the difference
between the two with a CO detector.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Reliably
detect a difference between what?
MR. WISCHSTADT: A nuisance condition where
you would not shut off and a condition
where you would reliably need to shut off.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Okay, and
has that been tested in terms of --
I mean, I'm looking at the CPSC study on the
safety shutoff device that we published in 2013,
which I'm sure you're very familiar with,
where we looked at various scenarios
where the CO had migrated to places
where people might be and be injured,
but wasn't near the generator itself.
So that it wasn't going to save lives,
because the switch wasn't going to turn off,
but people could be killed or injured.
MR. WISCHSTADT: So we have tested prototype
generators in indoor and outdoor situations.
In outdoor situations where the CO
-- the carbon monoxide is disbursing,
the generator would not shut
off, as desired to do.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: So my question
is, have you found one that's successful?
And the reason I'm asking this is because
we know it's technologically feasible
to lower CO emissions by 90
percent from portable generators.
So if we're going to look at another
kind of answer to this problem
that we're all concerned with, do we
have anything close to a machine --
a sensor and a shutoff device that
will work with a portable generator,
in terms of turning it off appropriately,
taking into consideration the
migration of the carbon monoxide?
MR. WISCHSTADT: We believe we have made progress
towards that end and have initial test results
that suggest that would be the case.
And for that reason, we're trying to arrange
a closed meeting with members of CPSC staff
to invite them out to participate
and actually witness these tests.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Okay.
My understanding from staff is that no data has
been yet shared, so we look forward to that.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Kaye.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the panelists.
This is a critical issue.
If you look at our daily death
reports, it's one of the top issues
and it's been going on for years.
I think many of you recognize that
there has to be a solution to this
and hopefully what will come
out of this process is something
that conclusively addresses the deaths and
injuries associated with these products.
Mr. Klowak, I would like
to begin with you, please,
and make sure I understand Briggs's position.
Do I have it correct that Briggs
believes that if consumers understand
that CO reduction occurred from the CO reduced
technology, that they might mistakenly believe
that it's safe to operate
one of those units indoors?
Is that Briggs's position?
MR. KLOWAK: I wouldn't say that's our
position, but that's a possibility.
It's hard to predict all consumers'
reactions to given situations,
but that definitely is a possibility.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: So maybe then I should turn
to Mr. Wischstadt, because I think you testified
on behalf of PGMA, that that
was PGMA's position, at least,
that consumers would be likely or might believe
that a reduced CO-producing portable generator
is safe to operate indoors; is that correct?
MR. WISCHSTADT: We do have that concern,
as a member organization of PGMA, yes.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Okay.
And so back to you, Mr. Klowak.
Is Briggs -- does Briggs share that concern?
Is PGMA properly representing
Briggs individually?
MR. KLOWAK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: They are?
MR. KLOWAK: Yeah, we're --
we're concerned with that, too.
That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Okay.
And so back to you -- and thank
you, Mr. Wischstadt, for that.
If a consumer believed that a
portable generator that was outfitted
with an auto shutoff would cut
off any type of harmful scenario,
why wouldn't a consumer believe
that was safe to operate indoors?
What's the difference, I guess I'm asking,
in terms of consumer misunderstanding
between an auto shutoff and
a reduced emission unit?
MR. KLOWAK: I guess the point
is, if they did operate it --
and I can't speak for all consumers,
as far as how they react to things.
But if they did operate it indoors, it
would shut off in a very quick period
of time and the consumer would be safe.
So independent of their disposition
on what they think could work
or what couldn't work, the
incident would not occur.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Sure, I understand
that's the theory behind it.
But, as you just confirmed, that one of the
concerns that Briggs has is that consumers,
being aware of the technology that the
unit would have an auto shutoff capability
in the event of too much CO in that
concentrated area, that consumers would --
that there would be a different understanding --
I'm trying to understand why consumers would
necessarily misuse a product that was low CO
and bring that indoors but they wouldn't
misuse a product that was labeled
as having an auto shutoff
and bring that indoors.
That's the core concern and one of
the criticisms of the reduced CO unit.
MR. KLOWAK: Yeah, but I guess under those
conditions, if they did bring the generator
with a shutdown system inside, it would shut
down safely, the low CO would not by itself.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: But, of course,
it would run at such a reduced level
that consumers would have time to
recognize the symptoms and get out.
MR. KLOWAK: If they do indeed
recognize the symptoms.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Okay.
So I'm not hearing anything about a reduced --
sorry, about an auto shutoff that
would avoid consumer misuse, correct?
MR. KLOWAK: Yeah, I don't know that we can
prevent all misuse for products that we sell.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Okay, Mr. Wischstadt,
do you want to jump in on that one,
just on behalf of PGMA and
then maybe Generac separately?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Well, a couple points
that I would share, comparing the two.
First of all, generators are never going to be
safe to operate indoors at reduced CO levels,
whether they have shutoffs or not.
There are a number of hazards
related to bringing them indoors.
Our concern is that, in the event that
you bring a reduced CO generator indoors,
you will be building CO, and the
reliance on the consumer to become aware
that they are being poisoned by CO at some
point is a very big open human factors question.
The shutoff provides the advantage that
you can provide the consumer with feedback
that the environment has become
dangerous and carbon monoxide is building.
And in addition to shutting off
the generator, they understand why.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: And so I think
you just gave a ringing endorsement
for combining the two technologies,
from my perspective.
Do you disagree or does PGMA disagree
that combining the technologies would
actually cover more of the incident data
than just using one alone,
whichever one you choose?
MR. WISCHSTADT: What I can say is
what I was elaborating on earlier,
that we still are looking for
the balance of the NIST data,
because the data that we do have suggests
that it may actually be less impactful
to combine the two technologies as it
is to just go with a detection approach.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: And, Mr. Sowell,
is there anything you've seen
that would support Mr. Wischstadt's
contention or belief?
MR. SOWELL: No, it seems
logical that if you reduce
by 90 percent, you're making things safer.
And then have shutoff as a backup,
just in case the consumer does put it
in such an enclosed space that the
CO levels would get dangerously high.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Great, thanks.
I'll come back to you in my second round.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Mohorovic.
COMMISSIONER MOHOROVIC: Thank
you, Madam Chairman.
I don't have any questions.
I just wanted to thank the panelists for
their contributions to today's activity.
Thank you.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much.
I will now being second round of questions.
Again, the commissioners will have
five minutes per commissioner.
I wanted to follow up, Mr. Wischstadt,
with regards to the question you were asked
from Commissioner Adler with regards to --
and Commissioner Kaye brought it up as well --
the combination of the two technologies
with regards to shutoff and low emission.
Your concern with regards to whether
or not that may not be as impactful
as one might intuitively think
if you have both technologies.
And you're saying that the answer
to that are in the NIST data?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Based on what we've seen in
NIST 1782 and the analysis we've been able
to replicate comparing the two approaches
and the combination of the approaches,
it suggests that if we're able to expand
our analysis from NIST 1925 that, yes,
we would see a reduced impact
from combining both technologies.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
We have heard quite a bit this morning
about the revised ANSI standard.
And maybe you could tell us a little bit any
of the details that you feel free to share
with us this morning about
the revisions to the standard.
MR. WISCHSTADT: Well, as of this point,
the PGMA technical committee
has completed a draft standard.
Since PGMA were last visiting the Commission,
the technical committee has addressed some
of the reliability concerns
that have been presented.
As you have already heard today, that
standard will be published for members
to participate in a steering committee.
That will take place starting later this week.
We are having our first in-person meeting
with that steering committee on April 3.
Thank you very much for hosting that here.
We have, as an organization, set a deadline
for the steering committee of 60 days
to address the reliability concerns,
based on input from manufacturers
that feel we can get there in that time frame.
And so if all goes as planned and we get to our
60 days, we could be in as early as June ready
to take a final version of our standard
out for canvass and full public comment.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much.
I just wanted to ask Mr. Dunn
and Mr. Wallace because it came
up in Commissioner Kaye's questions, with
regard to this unintended consequence
if you just have a low CO emissions, do
either one of you, and I start with Mr. Dunn
and then go to Mr. Wallace, have any
concerns that the consumer would,
thinking that now this is a low-emission
technology, it's safer to bring indoors
and that may be one of the
unintended consequences?
MR. DUNN: I think there is a possibility
that generators will be misused,
even low-emission generators.
However, I think our -- our
understanding and experience from cars are
that there are still deaths due
to carbon monoxide from cars.
It's just that they're dramatically
lower, they're 80 percent lower.
So they can also -- people can also be
poisoned and die from emissions from cars.
So I think the concept of lower emissions,
it's by itself a more inherently safe design
than a system with higher emissions.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
Mr. Wallace?
MR. WALLACE: I agree with the final part
of the statement, that inherently a product
with lower emissions is going to be helpful for
preventing the risk, preventing the injuries
and deaths that could occur here.
I would say also that, you know, we don't
-- we don't think -- we don't have a --
we don't think one way or the other
that that's necessarily the case,
that consumers would respond in that way.
We certainly don't think it justifies
taking a detection only approach.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
Mr. Klowak, I just want to
get back to the questions
from Mr. Kaye with regards to the shutoff.
So essentially, are you saying that the
shutoff technology takes the consumer
out of the decision-making?
MR. KLOWAK: Correct.
Basically, it gives them a feedback that they're
operating the generator in an unsafe manner
with a warning and that their behavior
needs to be changed to alleviate that.
And if they continue to do it, it
will continue to shut off, by the way.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
Those are all the questions I have.
Commissioner Adler.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Thank you
very much, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Pendo, I just have a quick
question about your point with respect
to CPSC lacking explicit statutory authority to
regulate air pollutants or set emission limits.
You did quote from Section 31
of CPSA, and I'm impressed.
And one way of reading that
is the way you read it.
Another way of reading it is to say
that it permits the CPSC to regulate
where EPA has not eliminated
or sufficiently reduced a risk
of injury under the Clean Air Act.
Now, you've been listening to the
testimony today about the severe issues
with respect to portable gas generators.
So my question is, to your knowledge and belief,
has EPA solved the problem of the acute risk
of poisoning to consumers, as
opposed to the risk arising
from concentrations in the ambient air?
MS. PENDO: Thank you for your question.
You know, I will again assert that EPA has
preemptive jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act.
EPA has taken action to regulate marine
portable generators to a sufficient level.
And I would urge CPSC to work with EPA, as
EPA is the authority that has the ability
and the obligation to regulate in the area.
So I think an appropriate approach would be for
CPSC to ask EPA to further introduce regulations
that would appropriately address this --
COMMISSIONER ADLER: I would take strong issue
with your notion that they
have preemptive authority.
We have a statute similar to the Clean Air Act.
Our statute is every bit as strong
and valid and our statute was written
after the Clean Air Act was written.
So Congress clearly knew
what EPA's authority was.
And yet they, in effect, said that where
EPA has not acted to sufficiently reduce
or eliminate the risk of injury,
CPSC would have authority.
And so my question is, based on
what you know about EPA regulations,
have they solved the problem of acute
poisoning from portable gas generators?
MS. PENDO: I'd say they have
not solved the problem; however,
I would take a difference approach
or I have a different viewpoint
with respect to the Commission's authority.
And that it's not that EPA has not taken
action, it's that there is sufficient --
it has not been eliminated or reduced
to a sufficient extent by
actions taken under the CAA.
So they do have that authority, they can take
that action, they do regulate CO emissions.
And I would suggest that it's up to the
Commission to ask EPA to go further in their --
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Thank you
very much for that answer.
Mr. Wallace, you raised an intriguing
recommendation that I hadn't thought about.
And that is about limiting the length,
which is done now, of the cords to 10 feet.
And that does seem to send an implicit
message to consumers that 10 feet is good.
And so one of the recommendations
I had never thought about
and I will certainly contemplate is to increase
the length of generator cords to 30 to 40 feet.
But you heard Mr. Wischstadt's comments,
which I think are quite accurate,
that a significant number of
deaths are resulting from people
who have had their utilities cut off.
They don't want their neighbors to
know that they're using a generator.
And then there are certain
neighborhoods where people don't want
to put a generator 30 or 40 feet away.
I love the idea of including that,
but it is not your suggestion
that that would be sufficient
to solve the problem?
MR. WALLACE: That's correct, it wouldn't
be sufficient to solve the problem.
It's a suggestion we're making, based
on what you discussed, as being --
possibly consumers getting the misapprehension
that they could use it that close
to their house if the cord is only 10 feet.
But again, it's not sufficient.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: And so I gather that
CU's engineers have looked at the feasibility
of automatic shutoff technologies?
And if I read your testimony correctly,
it sounded to me like you were saying they have
not concluded that the technology is there now.
Have they guessed how long it would take
for such technologies to be developed?
I'm not asking you as an engineer, but --
MR. WALLACE: No, our work and
our analysis is continuing.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Mr. Dunn, one of
the things that you -- I'm out of time.
But it would have been a great question.
Thank you.
(Laughter.)
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Robinson?
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Probably
the best one today, right?
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Mr. Wallace, you made the
statement that the fatality and injury reports
in the CPSC databases including NICE probably
are an underestimate of the injuries and deaths.
Could you tell us why?
MR. WALLACE: Sure.
Well, one reason has been raised already,
which is that potential generator-related
injuries may be mischaracterized
when treated at medical facilities.
Another reason is -- can come from --
can come from those occasions when
people do not -- people aren't treated.
People, you know, suffer -- suffer an
injury that they may not realize is
as long-lasting or permanent as they may think.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Thank you.
Mr. Klowak, in your testimony, you said
that carbon monoxide sensor
technology has greatly advanced
since the CPSC's shutoff device study.
And what you mention are that the advancements
are longer life and increased durability.
Can you tell us -- you mentioned houseboats
but they have lower emissions standards now,
and cars, which also have
lower emissions standards.
So can you tell us what you mean by the
sensor technology is greatly advanced?
MR. KLOWAK: Yeah, so we've been running
tests are our facility and that's one
of the reasons why we're
inviting the CPSC commissioners
to come and witness some of those tests.
We have used a couple of sensor
technologies that seem reliable, to date.
We've had extension discussions
with manufacturers
who are quite confident that they're reliable.
So the whole industry has progressed
quite rapidly in the direction
of making them more reliable to the
point where we're getting comfortable
that this is a solution where we can be
confident will give us a safe shutdown.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Okay.
I -- I need something a little
more specific than that.
When you say it's more reliable, are you testing
it in situations where you're looking at air
in other rooms of a house, or where occupants
might actually be, or more reliable in terms
of shutting it down if the carbon
monoxide is around the generator?
Or what do you mean by that?
MR. KLOWAK: So we're doing -- I think the
word nuisance was used earlier in some
of the -- some of the commentary.
So we are doing a variety of tests to make
sure that it doesn't get tricked or shuts
down prematurely in the event that it's outside.
I think that was a lot of the earlier
discussions from the CPSC findings, that the --
from what I remember from reading that, they
weren't confident that it would reliably shut it
down and that there wouldn't
be these nuisance shutdowns
and consumers would get annoyed with it.
So we have done a variety of tests,
some in enclosed areas, completely.
Some with semi-enclosed areas, and some outside.
And we are getting more confident,
as time goes on,
that we can reliably design a
system to shut down reliably.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Okay.
I wish I had more time, because I'm
not sure that I understand that.
Am I out of time?
CHAIR BUERKLE: You are out of time, yes.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Okay.
CHAIR BUERKLE: We will continue with
Commissioner Kaye and Commissioner Mohorovic.
But if the commissioners agree to a three-minute
round of questions, we will have a hard stop
at noon so everyone can have a break.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Mr. Wischstadt, just
picking back up with you, please, why --
how is PGMA able to move forward with
a voluntary standard if you haven't
yet received the NIST data and analyzed the NIST
data to understand what the interplay might be
between low CO and shutoff technology?
MR. WISCHSTADT: We're moving
forward based on what we've seen
with the FOIA request that was fulfilled.
We are hopeful that we will have that NIST
data here within the 60-day period of time,
so that we will be able to take that
into account with our standard as well.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: If it turns out that, based
on your analysis, your concerns are not valid
that combining the two technologies might be
less effective, but in fact more effective,
is PGMA willing to include in the
standard a low CO methodology?
MR. WISCHSTADT: I am confident that the
PGMA technical group, with input from others
in the steering committee will
reach the best decision for all.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: And when you
say the best decision for all,
is safety going to be the number one concern?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Safety is
always the number one concern.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Okay, so I have your
commitment that if there is a safer option
than the shutoff technology alone,
PGMA will pursue that robustly?
MR. WISCHSTADT: I can't make that commitment
for all of the members here today, sorry.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Can you
do that on behalf of Generac?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Generac is committed to finding
the safest solution to this problem, yes.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Period.
Safety over any other factor?
MR. WISCHSTADT: It has to be reliable as well.
So there are multiple factors
that have to be inclusive in that.
You can't simply rely on just
the one aspect of safety.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Sure.
But assuming that what Mr. Sowell at TTI and
what Kohler have demonstrated are reliable,
if we take that as a given just for the sake of
this argument, do I have Generac's commitment
at least or do we have Generac's commitment at
least that safety will be the number one driver
for whatever you pursue through PGMA?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Safety is an
important driver in this, and yes.
But I will contend that we still need to look
at all the aspects of making a reliable solution
that lasts for consumers and is -- is going
to work over long periods of time and work
in all conditions that we
can possibly come up with.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: And again then, if you're
concerned about long-term reliability,
how do you push through a standard
very quickly if you haven't
yet assessed the long-term
validity of the sensor technology?
MR. WISCHSTADT: The sensor technology that we've
seen, you've heard Briggs and Stratton talk
about it here today based on some of their
testing, I know that other manufacturers
on PGMA have done similar testing and are
seeing similar results, and we're confident
that the detection methodologies that
are available today are reliable and,
in and of themselves, not only would be far
faster to market in terms of the ability
to get this solution deployed, but also
might bring the advantages of retroactivity,
where a device could be manufactured
that a consumer could choose
to add to their existing generator.
We all know that generator
lifespan in consumer hands is 10
to 15 years, and even more in some cases.
And in that case, any rule that
contemplates significant design changes
without a retroactive perspective
would take years and years and years
to actually have the impact we'd
all like to see happen tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: And I am talking to you
now in your Generac capacity, not PGMA.
I don't want to get into clearly the proprietary
information that you shared and you were kind
to share with us during our trip in 2013 -- I
think it was 2013 -- but safe to say that --
or is it safe to say that Generac
had at that time an open mind
of pursuing whatever technologies
and researching whatever technologies would be
most likely to yield the best safety results,
including reliability and
performance, blah, blah, blah?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Generac has an
open mind towards that, of course.
We were at the very beginning stages of
understanding of this problem at that point.
So I would say that it would make a lot of
sense for you to come out and let us share
with you what we have done since.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Yeah, and I guess that's
the problem that I'm having reconciling,
is the Generac visit that we had, I'm not
feeling is consistent with the direction
and limited approach that PGMA is taking.
And that's something you and I
might have to discuss privately,
as to why I have that misunderstanding
and what --
if there is any disconnect between what
Generac has been pursuing, the robust
and broad way Generac had been looking at
it, and the in my mind narrow way that PGMA
and your role in PGMA, the
way that's proceeding.
But we can talk offline about that.
MR. WISCHSTADT: Happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: In my remaining time, Mr.
Klowak, I do want to tell you right here,
I'll take you up on your offer to come out.
When I did make my visit, as Mr. Sowell knows as
well, because we visited them as well as Honda
in 2013, at that time Briggs
declined to have us visit.
That was very disappointing,
considering your market presence.
But it's heartening to know at this point
that you feel you've developed something
that's sufficient enough to share with us
and we will be eager to have that visit.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you, Commissioner Kaye.
Commissioner Mohorovic?
COMMISSIONER MOHOROVIC: Thank
you, Madam Chairman.
I should have objected to your offer of the
Commission for another round of questioning,
because I thought maybe I could sell yielding
some of my time to some of my colleagues,
I was thinking maybe for
the consideration of support
for ex ante retrospective
review embedded into the rule.
But I think it makes it less valuable now.
No questions.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you,
Commissioner Mohorovic.
I wanted to talk -- now, Mr. Stevenson,
we're going to have a round of
three-minute questions, okay?
Thank you.
I wanted to just talk about,
because it was referred to,
the study that had been done
on shutoff technology by CPSC.
Between now -- between then and now, has the
technology improved on shutoff technology?
I guess I will ask Mr. Klowak
and then Mr. Wischstadt.
MR. KLOWAK: Yes.
Based on -- based on working with suppliers
and as well as surveying what's going
on in industry, the technology has improved.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
Mr. Wischstadt?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Yeah, we've seen
significant advancements in the technology
since the staff looked at
the shutoff technology,
which I believe was over 10 years ago now.
At that time, the detection
technology that was employed was, one,
had algorithms that were specifically tuned to
2034's requirements, which are longer-term sort
of periods of time that it takes
for the shutoff to respond.
Those devices are not tuned to the situation
that is presented by a generator running
in a space where CO is accumulating.
And so we have seen algorithms themselves
who have advanced quite significantly.
We have also seen advances in the
technology itself, both from reliability,
manufacture-ability, survivability
of contamination to CO
or other hazardous chemicals
has improved greatly.
Mechanical robustness has
also improved significantly
since the time of the initial studies, yes.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Dunn, I wanted to just talk to you about --
and also for Mr. Wallace, with regards to CO,
and of course its very insidious effects on the
consumer, if someone is exposed to low levels
of CO, which would happen if you lower
the emissions but then there's a misuse
of the product, I'm interested
to know, does the low --
even though the CO emission is much lower,
will that have an effect on the consumer?
MR. DUNN: As an engineer, not as a physician,
I struggle with some of these questions.
There have been some studies looking
at low CO exposure and health effects,
and unfortunately Dr. Weaver could
probably help us answer those,
but I don't have a good read on that.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
Mr. Wallace, do you have
anything to add to that?
MR. WALLACE: No, nothing to add on that.
It's outside my area of expertise.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
Ms. Pendo, I wanted to go back to the
jurisdictional issue, because that's of concern
to me and I raised it when
we had our public hearing --
our briefing, I should say,
about portable generators.
With regards to what you're saying to
us, with regards to EPA's jurisdiction
over emission controls, you're not saying
we can't regulate the shutoff technology,
you're saying that the low emission piece
of this in our NPR is of concern to you?
MS. PENDO: Correct.
I'd say correct.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Okay, all right.
Thank you.
I am almost out of time, so I
will yield to Commissioner Adler.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Now I'm put to
my proof of asking a great question.
Wasn't that great.
But again, thank you all for
enduring three rounds of questioning.
We really do appreciate it.
So my question to you is that, one of
the statistics you cited Mr. Dunn --
excuse me, it's Dr. Dunn, isn't it?
-- Dr. Dunn, since 1975, when auto makers began
installing catalytic converters on their cars,
there was a greater than 80 percent decline
in unintentional vehicle-related CO deaths.
And I know cars are different
from portable gas generators.
But have you seen any estimates about
the likelihood of low emission generators
with this catalytic technology and
the likely effectiveness of that?
MR. DUNN: It's hard to say on that.
But I would say with cars,
it's the best example we have.
And so we look at that and, because
as I've mentioned to Madam Chairwoman,
that as the emissions have come down --
in that graph, you can see the
trends follow very closely that,
there are still deaths related
to motor vehicle exhaust.
It's just the emissions came
down by about 75 percent,
and unintentional deaths also
came down about 80 percent.
So they tracked very well.
And so I think that that's the
example that we have to look at now.
And I don't have, you know, any
other insight beyond, you know,
that example when we try to look at it.
Because I think we're talking about
engine and engine exhaust and misuse.
So many of the characteristics may
be similar across both examples.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Thank
you very much for that.
Mr. Sowell, you indicate that TTI will be
able to incorporate a shutoff technology
that does not rely on chemical sensing devices
and that has the potential
to have a higher reliability.
Can you explain in a little bit more detail
how your shutoff technology would work
and why you think it's superior?
MR. SOWELL: Yes.
Well, when you're in an enclosed space
and the carbon monoxide levels increase,
the oxygen levels will decrease.
And through an oxygen sensor, which is
readily used in the automotive industry,
located in the engine, you
can shut off using that.
So if oxygen gets below the
amid of around 19 percent,
down in the 17 percent realm,
the engine can shut off.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: It would be lovely
if it were also less costly,
but I won't ask you about cost.
I did want to ask Mr. Wischstadt about cost.
I love the idea about a retrofit
to portable gas generators.
And I was curious, has anybody
done any pricing of that
versus just mailing out carbon
monoxide detectors?
I love the idea of doing both.
But has anybody done any cost
estimates for the retrofit?
MR. WISCHSTADT: I honestly don't know.
COMMISSIONER ADLER: Thank you.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Robinson?
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Yes, there are
several witnesses who are appearing
and will appear before us who are
saying that the shutoff sensor
and shutoff technology are
superior and more reliable and a lot
of statements that I hope are true.
But I know that our staff
has been very frustrated
at having no data whatsoever
presented to them to support that.
And I don't have any question in my mind at all
that we are very much trying to get it right
and we are trying to find the -- the
technology that is going to save the most lives,
and we want to get started quickly.
So I am glad, Mr. Wischstadt, that you are going
to share the data that I understand is going
to show why a shutoff mechanism and sensor
today is going to shut off appropriately even
if the carbon monoxide has migrated.
Mr. Klowak, I also will take you up on your
invitation and I -- and I have not asked you,
but I assume you will share
any data you have with respect
to the sensor and shutoff technology?
MR. KLOWAK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Okay, great.
Mr. Sowell, why have you determined
that you really need both?
You guys are obviously working on the
sensor and the shutoff technology.
But why have you decided you need
both that and the lower emissions?
MR. SOWELL: Well, the lower
emissions seems to be pretty obvious
to us that it would reduce deaths.
In some of the NIST simulations, over
100,000 of them, showed that to be the case.
The shutoff is there more or
less as a failsafe measure.
For some reason, someone does misuse it, put
it in a garage, they're in the garage with it,
there's no problem with providing
a shutoff as well.
And with the O2 sensor, it's
a relatively inexpensive
and effective way to do it, we believe.
And we believe also we can shut off at
a much lower level of parts per million
than is necessarily, somewhere
around the 200 range.
So why not provide an additional -- what
we feel is a safe measure when it's there
and able to be done technologically.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: And why is it that
you've decided that's not sufficient in
and of itself, without the lower emissions?
MR. SOWELL: Our concern,
back to my earlier comments,
is when the generators are used outdoors, and
I've read cases where they're used on a porch,
near a window air conditioner,
and people inside pass away.
It's also more prevalent from the
injury side, where if you're in the room
with it, deaths are more likely to occur.
When you have a scenario where the generator is
further away, maybe underneath a mobile home --
there's lots of cases of that,
campers, horse trailers, et cetera,
where the concentrations may not be
as high and you get injuries instead,
we feel confident it would
prevent those as well.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: Okay.
Let me ask the entire panel.
There has been a lot of talk
about the cold start
and that there are more emissions
at the beginning.
Does anyone know of a single incident,
injury or death that occurred while
the generator is being started,
during the cold start.
Because I don't know of any bodies
we've found in those circumstances.
Nobody? MR. WISCHSTADT: That detail is
generally not present in the IDI database
that we received through the FOIA request.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: So you don't
know of any that have happened,
at the very beginning when it's first started?
MR. WISCHSTADT: No, because the data
wouldn't substantiate one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER ROBINSON: I'm out of time again.
MR. STEVENSON: Chairman, Dr.
Weaver is on the phone again,
just in case you have any
other questions for him.
CHAIR BUERKLE: Thank you
very much, Mr. Stevenson.
Commissioner Kaye.
COMMISSIONER KAY: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Pendo, if I can go back to
something I think you said earlier,
and maybe you can reiterate it, please?
If you could please explain your concerns about
measuring in both grams per kilowatt hour,
as required by EPA, and grams
per hour, as would be required
by the staff's proposal or
by the Commission's proposal?
What are those concerns, please?
MS. PENDO: Sure.
The concerns are that the -- the technique
to measure emissions that's proposed
by the proposed rule is -- is not a methodology
that will accurately represent the difference
between emissions produced by small and
large engines, because it doesn't take
into account the amount of
work that the engine does.
So the measurement that EPA uses in its
regulations account for the work done
by the engine on a grams
per kilowatt hour basis.
And in that way, both small and large engines
can be compared to each other and treated fairly
by the standards, based on the
amount of work that the engine does.
And, you know, EPA has demonstrated
and we have demonstrated
that EPA's method results in greater accuracy.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: So as Commissioner Mohorovic
was whispering the same question to me I'm
about to ask you now, why is that relevant?
Meaning -- and I am not an engineer.
That is probably very evident to
anybody that has ever spoken with me.
But I have worked on this issue for a number
of years and I have never heard that before.
What I have heard is that if you measure
in grams per kilowatt hour, of course,
larger machines produce more CO, and
it would not be an equal comparison.
Meaning, a smaller machine in a grams per
kilowatt hour measurement would produce less CO
than a larger machine in a grams
per kilowatt hour measurement.
But what the grams per hour measurement
does is it equalizes it across machines.
And so, first of all, is that accurate?
Whether or not you agree with the technical
validity behind that, is it accurate to say
that if you measure by grams per hour, you
are measuring objectively the CO that comes
from a machine, regardless of its engine size?
Is that accurate?
MS. PENDO: I apologize, I
am not an engineer, either.
So I don't have the expertise to
definitively answer your question.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Mr. Wischstadt,
is that accurate?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Grams per hour an
slut measurement of emissions, yes.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: So it doesn't
matter regarding the engine size,
you still would get an absolute
measurement of the CO that comes
out of that unit; is that correct?
By a grams per hour measurement, as opposed
to a grams per kilowatt hour measurement?
MR. WISCHSTADT: Under the
conditions of the test, yes.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: And so, ultimately, aren't
we concerned about -- back to Ms. Pendo --
aren't we mostly concerned about consumers?
Meaning, for a consumer, doesn't
it matter objectively what
that absolute number or that
absolute CO emission is?
Meaning, they don't know, under
the grams per kilowatt hour,
that they might actually be putting
themselves in a riskier scenario --
and I notice my time is expiring,
which is very unfortunate --
riskier scenario if they buy a bigger machine
than if they have a small
machine; is that correct?
MS. PENDO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER KAYE: Okay, I'm out of time.
I would just mention, Madam Chair, while
I certainly appreciate having run meetings
and the time of the panelists, there was no time
in the last few years where
we ever cut off questions.
I believe other commissioners
might still have questions.
And my hope is that, unless -- and if
panelists have to leave, we've done that too,
let them leave -- that we would
consider accommodating another round.
Thank you.
CHAIR BUERKLE: To Commissioner Kaye's point,
this was discussed with the executive director
and I think we have a plan in place.
If there are other questions, I'm
sure the panelists would be willing
to take something in writing to them.
But I would say that we're
going to stick to the schedule.
I apologize if you feel you've been
cut off, but that's our schedule.
And I apologize to anyone, if
you feel you have something more
to say, especially to my colleagues.
But the schedule has been set.
We will reconvene at 1:00.
Thank you very much to all
of the panelists here today.
I want to thank you for taking the
time to come here, time and treasure,
and we do appreciate your input very, very much.
Thank you.