>> Elliot Kaye: Good afternoon.
Welcome to this public meeting of the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission.
We have one item on the agenda
for this afternoon.
CPSC staff will brief the commission
on the proposed rule safety
standard for portable generators.
CPSC staff members briefing us today are Ms.
Janet Buyer, Mechanical Engineer in the Office
of Hazard Identification and
Reduction and Ms. Barbara Little,
Attorney in the Office of General Counsel.
At the conclusion of staffs briefing, we will
turn to questions from the commissioners.
We're now going to start with
the staff briefing, Ms. Buyer.
>> Barbara Little: Thank you chairman.
Good afternoon chairman and commissioners.
As the chairman just mentioned,
today, we will be briefing you
on the draft NPR for portable generators.
I will begin with the legal
requirements and then turn it
over to Janet to continue the briefing.
This is a rule-making under the CPSA.
Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the commission
to issue consumer product safety standards
that consist of performance requirements and
requirements for warnings or instructions.
The requirements must be reasonably necessary
to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk
of injury associated with the product.
Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the
procedure the commission must follow
and findings the commission must make
to issue a consumer product
safety standard under Section 7.
Section 9 now provides that the commission
may initiate rule-making through publication
of an ANPR in the Federal Register.
At the time the publication of the
portable generator ANPR however,
the ANPR was not optional, but was
required under Section 9A of the CPSA.
The commission published an ANPR in the
Federal Register on December 12, 2006.
Section 9 requires the commission in issuing
an NPR to identify the product and the risk
of injury, summarize the regulatory
alternatives considered by the commission,
present a preliminary regulatory analysis,
which includes a text or the proposed rule,
respond to comments received on the ANPR and
invite comments from the public on the NPR.
Section 9 also requires the commission
following publication of an NPR
to give interested persons an opportunity
for the oral presentation of data,
dues or arguments in addition to an
opportunity to make written submissions.
Commission must make certain findings
to issue a rule, a final rule.
The commission makes these findings
preliminary in the proposed rule.
These findings include the degree
and nature of the risk of injury.
The rule is designed to eliminate or reduce the
approximate number of consumer products subject
to the rule, the need of the public
for the products subject to the rule
and the probable effect of rule we have on the
cost, availability and utility of such products
and other means to achieve the objective of
the rule while minimizing adverse effects
on competition and manufacturing.
The commission must also find that the
rule is reasonably necessary to eliminate
or reduce an unreasonable risk of
injury associated with the product
and that issuing the rules
in the public interest.
Additionally, the commission must
find that the expected benefits
of the rule bear reasonable
relationship to the rule's costs.
And rule imposes the least
burdensome requirements
that would adequately reduce the risk of injury.
The commission makes these findings
on a preliminary basis in the NPR.
In addition, if a voluntary standard
addressing the risk of injury has been adopted
and implemented, the commission must find
that the voluntary standard is not likely
to eliminate or adequately reduce the risk
of injury or that substantial compliance
with the voluntary standard is unlikely.
And once again, the commission makes these
findings on a preliminary basis in the NPR.
I'll turn it over to Janet now to
continue with the presentation.
>> Janet Buyer: Thank you Barbara.
Good afternoon chairman and commissioners.
I will begin by answering the
question, what is a portable generator?
To put it simply, it is an engine-driven
machine that converts fuel to electricity.
It has a receptacle panel so that
appliances and tools can be plugged directly
into it or by use of extension cords.
It is designed for portability.
And for the portable generators we're
talking about today, we mean generators
that can be carried, pulled
or pushed by a single person.
It can provide as little as a few hundred watts
of power for the smallest generators to more
than 15,000 watts for the largest.
You'll see here pictures of generators that
span the full size range with the smaller models
on the top and the larger ones on the bottom.
The prices can vary quite
substantially depending on the size
of the generator and its features.
The primary fatal hazard associated
with portable generators is
carbon monoxide poisoning.
Carbon monoxide, commonly known
as CO for its chemical name,
is produced by the incomplete
combustion of the fuel in the engine.
Engines powering portable generators
typically have very high CO emission rates.
And to give you an example, a 5 kilowatt
generator operating outdoors produces
about the same amount of CO
as 450 idling mid-size cars.
Furthermore, when a current generator
is operated in an enclosed space,
we have found that CO emission
rate nominally triples.
In the nine-year period f 2004 to
2012, our databases have records
of 659 CO poisoning deaths
caused by portable generators,
which averages to about 73 deaths per year.
For the same period, we also
estimate that there were more
than 25,000 medically-treated CO injuries.
This is likely a conservative estimate
because medical staff often fail
to identify CO poisoning as being
responsible for victim's symptoms.
Twenty-five percent of the fatal
incidents involved multiple fatalities.
So, these account for 44% of all the deaths.
In fact, we have incidents where
entire families were killed.
In 2015, a father and his
seven children were killed
in a single incident along
the eastern shore of Maryland
when using a generator due
to terminated service.
In 2016, a couple and their four children
in Michigan were killed in a single incident
when using a generator due to
a weather-related power outage.
And most recently, in the aftermath of
Hurricane Matthew, a nine-year-old boy
in Daytona Beach died when a family brought a
generator into the house due to loss of power.
Last I heard his father was
in critical condition.
And in Port St. Lucie County, in two
separate incidents, one elderly couple died
after running a generator in their garage
and another elderly couple was hospitalized.
Also, there were 12 people from
separate incidents in Charleston,
South Carolina who were non-fatally
poisoned with various degrees
of severity caused by generators.
For more analysis of the incident data, we
found that three quarters of all deaths occurred
when generators were used
at a fixed-structure home.
And this includes detached and attached
homes, apartments, fixed mobile homes
and cabins used as permanent residences.
Twenty-five percent of the deaths
occurred at other locations.
For the 75% of deaths that
occurred at a fixed-structure home,
we found that 45% of the incidents
involved a generator located
in the living space inside the home, 25% had
a generator in a basement or crawl space,
25% had a generator in attached garage or
enclosed carport, 3% had a generator outside,
and 2% had a generator at home,
but in an unknown location.
We started bringing our concerns about the CO
hazard with generators to stakeholders in 2002
when Underwriters Laboratories
formed a Standards Technical Panel
or STP to develop the first US
voluntary standard dedicated
to portable generators UL 2201.
We joined the STP at its inception and have
been an active participant with a long record
of advocating that the standard address
the CO hazard through technical means.
UL 2201 addresses safety requirements
and tests related to electrical fire
and mechanical hazard-- hazards, but
only address the CO hazard by way
of incorporating CPSC's mandatory
hazard labeling requirements.
UL published the first edition of
UL 2201 as a UL standard in 2009.
We are not aware of any portable generators
that have been certified to UL 2201.
Nearly three years ago, in 2014, its
staffs request UL formed a task group
to develop performance and test
requirements to address the CO hazard
that the STP could consider
for adopting into UL 2201.
The subgroup-- the task group and
subgroups have met 27 times today,
but have not developed a proposal of
requirements for the STP to consider.
We have also met with the Portable
Generators Manufacturers Association, PGMA,
on numerous occasions since they formed in 2010
and subsequently developed a standard dedicated
to portable generators, G300, in 2014.
Again, we have advocated that their
standard address the CO hazard
through technical requirements.
G300 includes requirements and tests related
to electrical fire and mechanical hazards.
But like the UL standard,
only addresses the CO hazard
by referencing CPSC's mandatory hazard label.
PGMA's G300 standard obtained
ANSI recognition in 2015.
We are not aware of any portable
generators that have been certified to G300.
The only other applicable voluntary standard we
found is an international standard, ISO 8526-13.
Although, the standard is not
specific to portable generators,
some parts of it pertain to these products.
However, it also addresses the CO hazard
only through labeling requirements.
Because we believe that labeling requirements
alone are not sufficient to address the risk,
we have concluded that none of these voluntary
standards adequately address the CO hazard.
We received comments on the ANPR and two
other reports that staff released relative
to our prototype development work,
which I will discuss shortly.
The comments covered a variety of topics
and issues, but the primary ones were these.
We received comments both in favor of
in an opposition to shut-off concepts.
We were asked to review the
effectiveness of the label
in reducing CO deaths since
it was introduced in 2007.
It was suggested that the CO alarms are the
solution to addressing not only CO deaths
from portable generators, but
all other CO-producing products.
We received comments that proof does not
exist, that reduced CO emissions will result
in reduced deaths, and that reduced CO emissions
will negatively impact generator cost, utility,
availability, reliability and durability.
We looked at different ways that the
CO hazard might possibly be mitigated.
The first is CPSC's mandatory
hazard label about the CO hazard.
In 2007, CPSC adopted a mandatory CO
hazard label that describes the hazard,
its consequences and the steps that
consumers should take to avoid the hazard.
While we believe the warning label is important,
we do not think the label alone
adequately addresses the hazard.
So, we also looked at several
automatic generator shut-off concepts,
but we did not find any to be technically
feasible at this time due to a number of issues.
And these include concerns about how a system
could shut the generator off quickly enough
without having negative impact on generator
utility when used in proper locations,
concerns about reliability in the myriad
of fatal scenarios and weather conditions,
generators have been used, concerns about
the environments that they are stored
in between uses and other concerns as well.
We then looked at a CO emission
rate reduction strategy
which would reduce the hazard at its source.
Based on our investigation to the strategy,
we consider it the best most feasible option.
I will also add that the source reduction
strategy in general has been found
to be effective in reducing
deaths and injuries elsewhere.
For instance, a retrospective analysis
of CO deaths involving automobiles showed
that in the first 20 years
after vehicles were required
to have reduced emissions,
CO deaths decreased by 81%.
CO deaths caused by cars
most often happen as a result
of a car left idling in an attached garage.
When looking to address the CO hazard
and to have a good measure of confidence
that the CO emission rates from portable
generators could be substantially lowered using
proven existing emission control technology,
we investigated the technical
feasibility in multiple ways.
First off, we contracted with the University
of Alabama or UA to develop durability test
to prototype low CO emission portable generator.
UA made the prototype by taking a commercially
available generator and replacing the carburetor
with an electronic fuel injection
system or EFI tuning it to operate
in closed loop and adding a catalyst.
Excuse me.
Then we contract with the National Institute
for Standards and Technology or NIST to test it
in a common fatal scenario of a
generator operating in an attached garage.
I'll show you some of the results from
that testing in the next couple of slides.
We also considered the feasibility work that the
EPA did to examine how other exhaust emissions,
namely hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen could
be lowered using open loop EFI and a catalyst
which also resulted in substantially
lowered CO emission rates.
And finally, we also tested three
generators made by different manufacturers
that have fuel injection and
evaluated their emission rates.
Also, I'm going to just add one late addition to
this slide that just about an hour or two ago,
I received a press release from Kohler.
Today, they announced that they're
ruling out a new low emission engine
that they say reduces CO emissions
without sacrificing engine performance,
which they say it is important for the
health and safety of equipment operators.
They're showcasing this at an
industry expo in Louisville, Kentucky,
and they just announced that today.
This slide shows the test house on the NIST
campus that was used in the generator testing.
It's a double-wide manufactured house
with an attached garage shown here
in the-- on the right in this floor plan.
The generators in both the unmodified carbureted
and prototype configurations were tested
in the garage to compare the difference
of the resulting CO concentrations in--
that each produced in the
garage and throughout the house.
And here are the comparative results from
one test of the test house configurations
with the bay door fully closed in the connecting
door between the garage and the house closed.
This top solid green trace is the CO
concentration in the garage over the course
of the two and a quarter hour period
that the generator was operating.
The garage CO concentration
reached over 21,000 ppm.
At the end of that two and a quarter hour, the
test operator shut-off the generator and turned
on an exhaust fan to vent the house and garage.
And so, the CO concentration dropped
very quickly compared to how it would
if we had allowed it to decay naturally.
The dotted green trace near the bottom is the CO
concentration in the family room of the house.
By the end of the two and a quarter
hours of runtime, the CO concentration
at that location was about 1800 ppm.
In stark contrast, the prototype generator
was run for six hours in the garage.
And the garage CO concentration
reached about 900 ppm,
and the family room CO concentration
reached a peak
of about 145 ppm at the end of that six hours.
The purpose of this slide is
just to give you an example
of how quickly a current generator can
create an unsafe exposure and it is possible
to significantly reduce CO
emission rates to levels
that will significantly reduce the
exposure and are expected to save lives.
Though we applied what we learned from all
the evaluations I just mentioned previously
by considering generators as fitting into one
of these four different generator categories.
These categories which we call
handheld class 1, class 2 single and--
cylinder and class 2 twin cylinder are
largely based on the EPA's classifications
of the different engine sizes,
which the EPA distinguishes
by engine displacement in
cubic centimeters or ccs.
But we also made an additional distinction of
whether the largest of these engine classes,
the class 2 engines has just
one cylinder or two cylinders
up to a maximum engine power of 25 kilowatts.
We looked at generators and these
different categories so that we could take
into consideration the different
hazard patterns,
costs and technically feasible CO
emission rates associated with each.
This table presents what we believe to
be technically feasible CO emission rates
for the four generator categories when
used outdoors, shown in the middle column,
and the CO emission rates we assume to
each category would increase to when used
in an enclosed space, shown
in the right-hand column.
We used the CO rates in the right-hand column
in our benefits analysis to estimate the deaths
that would have been averted
by the draft proposed standard.
And I'll talk more about that
analysis in the next slides.
But first, I want to point out that the rates
in this right hand column are three times
the rates shown in the middle column.
Now, as I mentioned earlier, the CO emission
rate for current generators normally triples
when operated in an enclosed space.
So, we are assuming that the
same would happen for generators
that meet the draft proposed standard.
These rates are weighted rates, meaning that
they are calculated from the emission rates
when they're-- that are measured when each
of six particular loads are
applied to the generator.
Then, to assess the benefits that would
be derived from these CO rates for each
of the four generator categories, we
contracted with NIST to perform modeling for us.
The first step in that process was the selection
of 40 different structures
that best fit within reason.
Many of the houses and garages
in which fatal incidents occurred
and which broadly represent
were 76% of the deaths occurred.
The other 24% of the deaths occurred with
a generator operating inside structures
that NIST did not have existing models for or
were caused by the generator operating outside.
In those 40 structures, NIST
modeled the resulting distribution
from a generator operating
within it for eight to 10 hours
to stimulate the runtime on a full tank of gas.
This was done for both the estimated current--
estimated CO rates of current generators in each
of the four categories as well as the
reduced CO emission rates in the range
of those we estimated would
be technically feasible.
Fourteen to 16 hours after the eight
to 10-hour runtime were also modeled
to complete a full 24-hour modeled period.
NIST's modeling also used different generator--
locations and different seasonal weather data
to have the modeled scenarios
replicate the fatal incident data
as much as reasonably possible.
The second step in the process involved
predicting the home's occupants' CO exposure
profiles that would result from the predicted
CO distribution throughout the house.
This was done using a physiological
model to estimate the carboxyhemoglobal--
hemoglobin level or COHb for
someone in each room of the house.
COHb is a measure of the body's exposure
to CO. We then took that modeling output,
and in the third step, matched it to
reflect the frequency of occurrence
of these modeled scenarios in the incident data.
Finally, in the fourth step, we estimated the
number of deaths that could have been averted
with generators if they had
emitted the reduced CO rates.
I'll explain this fourth step in a later slide.
I'll add here though that we purposely
used conservative estimates and assumptions
in the modeling such as occupant's air intake
rates, generator CO emission rates when used
in an enclosed space, generator runtimes and
other aspects so that we would likely derive
and underestimate of the benefits rather
than risk overstating the benefits.
Now, just to give you an example of
the modeled CO distribution output,
here are some results of the modeling.
For a mid-size house on a winter day with
a class 1 generator running in a garage
that has a living space above it, the blue
trace is the CO distribution resulting
in the living room and garage from a current
generator, and the lower yellow trace is
that from one of the reduced CO
emissions rates that is in the range
of what we think is technically
feasible for this generator category
when operated in an enclosed space.
The hump in both traces is due to the generator
running out of fuel after 10 hours of operation.
Now, to make estimates of the deaths
for each CO rate that NIST modeled,
we applied these four criteria
to the modeled COHb output.
In other words, these are all the
criteria we used to make a determination
or assumption of death or survival.
If the peak level was below 40%
COHb, we assume that person survived.
If the peak level was at or above
60% COHb, we assume that person died.
And if the peak was somewhere
in between these two levels,
then we took into account not
only what the peak level was,
but how long the person would have been exposed
at that level to determine survival or death.
And just as a quick example of this before I go
on referring back to that mid-size house I spoke
of a moment ago, these are the COHb levels that
were calculated from the modeled CO distribution
in the living room and the garage.
Again, the resulting trace from a current
class 1 generator is the top blue trace,
and that resulting from the
reduced CO rate is the lower trace.
By comparing them, you can see that the
occupant's peak COHb level is much lower,
and the amount of time that took to
get to that peak level is increased.
We then estimated the deaths averted by
determining the difference between the number
of known fatalities in current--
involving current generator models versus those
predicted based on reduced CO emission rates.
In doing so, we assumed an equal
probability of intervention over 24 hours.
And we made this assumption because we
don't have enough complete information
to know exactly how long people were exposed
when they died and when they were discovered.
Furthermore, the high ratio of injuries
to deaths in the incident data suggest
that occupants often do leave the exposure
or are removed by-- before death can occur.
From our analysis and given our assumptions,
we estimate that 208 out of the 503 deaths
that were modeled could have been averted
by generators that emitted CO rates based
on the draft proposed standards
limit for each category.
Further, we expect an unquantified number of the
156 deaths from scenarios that were not modeled
to also have been averted, especially since some
of these involved the generator operating
outdoors or inside large structures
such as churches and apartment buildings.
The benefits that we calculated then--
were then used as one of the inputs into
staffs preliminary regulatory analysis.
This analysis included an assessment
of the portable generator market.
In our market analysis, we had
identified about 80 manufacturers
and importers of portable generators.
We observed that sales fluctuate fairly
significantly with major power outages.
We estimate that annual shipments
in recent years ranged
from 1.2 million to 1.6 million units.
We estimate that there were more than 11 million
units in use during the period considered
by our benefits analysis which
again is from 2004 through 2012.
And we observed a recent trend in the market
of increased sales of the smaller handheld
and class 1 generators compared
to earlier years.
This last point is important because
our hazard analysis indicates
that smaller generators are more likely
to be brought inside the home compared
to larger generators which are often--
most often used in attached garages.
Two thirds of residential CO fatalities
occurred with a generator brought into the home.
So, an increase in smaller generator
use might increase the incidents
of people bringing the generator into the home
which is already the most deadly usage pattern.
This slide summarizes the major findings
of the preliminary regulatory analysis.
The base analysis considers the estimated impact
of reduced CO emissions on deaths and injuries
in scenarios modeled by NIST, and it suggests
substantial gross benefits for most generators.
The estimated gross benefits per generator shown
in the first row ranged from the $214 to $254
for handheld, class 1 and single
cylinder class 2 generators.
However, the expected gross benefits for class 2
cylinder generators are only about $4 per unit.
The estimated cost of the
draft proposed standard shown
in the second row were generally similar across
the generator types ranging from $112 to $139.
Given these findings and with the exception
of the class 2 twin cylinder models
estimated net benefits per generator,
meaning the benefits minus the costs would
be about $122 for handheld generators,
$136 for class 1 generators and $101
for class 2 single cylinder generators.
Estimated net benefits were a negative of
$135 for class 2 twin cylinder generators.
Total costs, benefits and net benefits were
estimated by multiplying per unit estimates
by the projected annual unit
sales of each generator type.
The aggregate estimated net
benefits are $144.6 million annually.
These net benefits do not include the
unquantified additional benefit staff expects
from the 156 deaths from
scenarios that were not modeled.
The preliminary regulatory analysis indicates
that excluding class 2 twin cylinder generators
from the draft proposed rule would increase
aggregate net benefits to $153.2 million.
The main findings of the base analysis
were not altered by the results
of our sensitivity analysis which considered
variations in product's expected product life,
discount rate, higher compliance costs,
the value of statistical life applied,
and the estimated effectiveness in reducing
CO emissions for each generator category.
For each variation that we analyze,
the overall estimated net benefits
of the draft proposed standard were positive.
And as with the base analysis, class
2 twin cylinder generators were found
to have estimated cost that were greater than
the present value of the projected benefits.
As part of our regulatory-- oh, thank you.
As part of our regulatory analyses,
we also performed an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis to assess the impact
of the proposed rule on small business.
We've identified 13 domestic manufacturers
of portable generators which could--
would be considered small based on the size
guidelines of the small business administration.
For nine of these firms, portable
generators could comprise a significant part
of their business.
We've also identified 20
small importers of generators
that could also be affected
by the draft proposed rule.
Small manufacturers could face higher compliance
costs per unit if their fixed costs are spread
over lower production volume and if they have
to pay higher per unit cost for components
that they purchase in lower quantities.
Given all the analyses I just stepped
through, we are recommending proposed rule
for portable generators that includes
performance requirements and effective dates
and compliance dates for
four generator categories.
Our recommendation for the scope of the draft
proposed rule is to apply these requirements
to portable generators powered
by small spark-ignited engines
and exclude portable generators that are utility
type such trailer and truck-mounted generators
and combine generator welding machines.
We also recommend an anti-stockpiling provision
that is intended to allow manufacturers
to continue to meet market demand in a
period between when the rule is promulgated
and when manufactures would have to comply
without allowing too much of a surplus
of non-complying generators after that period.
And these are the performance
requirements we recommend.
The CO rates that are in this table are
emission rates again that are calculated
from CO emission rates emitted by a
generator when operating in normal oxygen,
when each of six particular
loads applied to the generator.
These rates assume that manufacturers
will have 50% manufacturing variation
around the target production rate
based on technical feasibility.
For example, to meet a rate
of 75 grams per hour,
we think firms will set a manufacturing target
rate of 50 grams per hour so that they can have
as much as 25 grams per hour margin
to account for production variation.
Manufacturers can meet the proposed
standard at any number of ways.
It is a performance requirement,
and it's not prescriptive.
We are also not prescribing a particular test
that manufactures must follow
to demonstrate compliance.
We recommend this to lessen
the burden on manufacturer.
We have a list of options you could consider
as alternatives to staffs recommendation.
These include less stringent CO emission rates.
Regarding this, when we looked at
increasing the CO emission rates to levels
that would reduce the cost, the
benefits decreased greater than the--
decreased greater than the cost decreased.
So, increased CO emission
rates actually resulted
in decreased net benefits exempting
the class 2 twin cylinder generators.
We offer this as an option
because as we already said,
this category of generators
has a negative net benefit.
However, we recommend keeping them in the
proposed rule because we are concerned
about the possibility for creating a market
for smaller twin cylinder generators.
We would like to get comments on whether
there is a real potential for that
or not allowing the use of automatic shut-off
systems as either as supplement to limits
on CO emission rate or as alternative shut-off
standard instead of reduced CO emission rates.
We do not believe shut-off
concepts are feasible at this time.
But if we get comments that
demonstrate otherwise along
with recommended requirements,
we'll certainly consider that.
Allowing later effective
dates, later effective dates
and compliance dates would give more
time for manufacturers to comply.
We believe however that given
the emission control technology,
we expect manufacturers would use to comply with
the standard are already in the market place.
We believe the dates we recommend
are reasonable.
Informational measures, the
commission could decide
to take additional informational
measures beyond what we're already doing
such as telephone hotlines or public
interest broadcast announcements.
However, staff believes the informational
measures alone would not adequately address the
risks presented by these products or the
commission could choose to take no action
to establish a mandatory standard.
In that case, manufacturers could
market low CO-emitting generators
if they believe there would
be a market for such products.
However, generators with
CO emission rates proposed
by the draft standard probably
would not be marketed
in significant numbers voluntarily,
at least in the short run.
So now, I'll close with staff's recommendations.
CPSC staff recommends that the commission
publish an NPR, as drafted by the Office
of the General Counsel, to reduce CO
poisoning deaths and injuries associated
with portable generators, that includes
specific performance requirements
for the CO emission limits of four
different generator categories.
Staff recommends an effective date after--
of one year after publication of a final rule
for manufacturers to comply
with the requirements
for class 2 single and twin cylinder generator.
Staff recommends a compliance date of three
years after publication of a final rule
for manufacturers to comply
with the requirements
for handheld and class 1 generators.
Thank you.
We can now field any questions you might have.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you, Ms. Little.
Thank you, Ms. Buyer.
We'll now turn to questions from the commission.
It'll be 10 minutes per commissioner.
I'm just going to start with
a couple of comments.
I've seen a lot of great packages
since I've been at the commission,
but I don't think I've seen any package
that better exemplifies the best
of what this agency is and what it stands for.
It's so well done.
It's so thorough.
It's so technically sound, from a
layperson's perspective at least.
It's so clearly written.
It addresses such a critical issue and
it does it in such a thoughtful manner.
And I know that while the two of you are
here presenting, I can see you have everyone
or many of the key members of the team have your
back with Mr. Hanway, Mr. Smith, Mr. Brookman,
Mr. Hnatov, Dr. Inkster and so
many more who have worked on this.
It's a really proud day for the agency.
And I know, in particular Ms. Buyer,
because you and I have had many discussions,
visiting many different manufacturers of how
much you have put into this package and how much
of your life you have given to it.
So, bravo for the work that was
done, I think it's phenomenal.
A couple of questions that I'll start out with,
and I don't think I'll use my full
round, but we'll see how it goes.
You mentioned in the package four different auto
shut-off technologies that the staff pursued.
And I anticipate that one of the themes that
we'll hear probably today and in the coming days
and months is that even though we
call this a performance standard
that it's actually very prescriptive because
there are other potential technologies out there
that staff, and I'm not saying I believe
this, but I think we'll be told this
that staff has not accommodating in
particular auto shut-off technology.
So, can you give us a fuller sense please
as to what kind of work went into looking
at those four different areas and why at the end
of the day the staff did not feel comfortable
recommending with all the work that you've done
and all the different things you've
looked at, why did that not make the cut?
>> Janet Buyer: Sure, I'll be happy to do that.
If I could just take a moment, I really would
like to acknowledge the team first because much
of what you heard today is-- was a
phenomenal team effort, and I would like to--
I know rattled off almost all the
names, but I don't think it was all.
>> Elliot Kaye: It wasn't.
And I-- And please use my time to--
>> Janet Buyer: So, I'm sorry to cut
into your time, I'll make it quick.
>> Elliot Kaye: This is the best
use of my time possible, please go.
>> Janet Buyer: OK.
So of course, Barbara Little in General Counsel,
and we have Susan Bathalon, Matt Brookman,
Steve Hanway, Matt Hnatov, Sandy Inkster, Charu
Krishnan, Han Lim, Barbara Little, Chuck Smith,
Tim Smith, Robert Squibb, Andrew Trotta, Troy
Whitfield and last but not least, but many,
many field investigators who
investigated these tragic incidents.
Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you for that.
>> Janet Buyer: Thank you
for allowing me to say that.
OK. So to your question, yes, we did look
at four different types of shut-off concepts
that we would automatically-- the intent was
to automatically shut-off a generator
before creating an unsafe exposure.
And this included global positioning system,
mounted system on the generator to try
and infer indoor operation when it received--
didn't receive signal from the
outside-- from the satellites.
We also looked at CO sensors
mounted on a generator
to detect elevated CO emission
concentrations around the generator.
We also looked at a remote concept where there's
a CO sensor located away from the generator.
Ideally, the consumer would place that
where it's appropriate within their house.
So if there were high levels detected in these
locations, it would shut the generator off
by way of a wireless communication
to the generator.
And lastly, we-- as part of our contract with
University of Alabama, we tasked them to try
and develop a sensor-based algorithm
that made use of just the sensors
that were part of the EFI system.
And with each one of those, we had concern--
different concerns, sometimes overlapping
concerns that amounted to negative impact
on shutting the generator off when
it is used in a proper location.
We don't want to negatively impact
the proper use of a generator.
Tamper resistance, the concept of the remote
CO sensor for staff relying on the consumer
to find the most appropriate place to put it.
And he can easily choose
to put it out the window
if he thinks it's shutting the generator
off without feeling any symptoms.
The ability to shut-off quickly
enough, that was something we observed
with the generator mounted CO sensing concept.
We mentioned CO concentrations
on the far side of the room
that were a thousand PPM before
the sensor that was mounted
on the generator actually shut it off.
So, we had a number of concerns like that.
And so, we pursued other paths.
But at the same time, we also in
response to our ANPR, we did get comments
from generator manufacturers who were
also opposed to the shut-off concept.
And we concurred with all their comments.
We did get comments in favor
of and we considered all
that as well in addressing those comments.
So the team decided to move forward
with reducing the CO emission rate
because it does address the
hazard at the source.
And like I say, it's all-- it is a proven
strategy to help reduce the hazard.
>> Elliot Kaye: Is it-- Thank you for that.
Is it fair to say as we consider the safety
hierarchy where you first try to design
at a hazard, and if that doesn't
work, you try to guard against it.
And if that doesn't work,
you try to warn against it.
In simple terms is what staff
proposed really at the top
of that hierarchy were to design change and--
>> Janet Buyer: Yes.
>> Elliot Kaye: -- CO center and auto shut-off.
Is that really more of a guard?
>> Janet Buyer: That's correct.
Yes.
>> Elliot Kaye: And so from a staff
perspective at least for addressing hazards,
the staff approaches is at the
highest level of safety in terms
of what you would prefer
to see, is that correct?
>> Janet Buyer: That's correct.
>> Elliot Kaye: So-- And
recently we're all aware of this.
I think everyone at least at the commission
level and I know that you've seen this too
that the port of our generator
manufacturers association, the standards body
that has been working on this or at
least as the most of industry involved
in it has recently pledged that
they are reopening the standard
and then they are very aggressively moving
toward their own CO reduction or their own way
of measuring or meeting the issue.
What do they know that we don't know in terms
of auto shut-off technology because they believe
that they-- that that's a viable path.
Is there any technical information that we are
not aware of that you think that they possess
that would lead you to believe
that is a viable path?
>> Janet Buyer: We haven't seen that.
We have not seen that.
They-- we did receive the same letter as you.
And we did meet with the PGMA staff
and representatives, buy they spoke off
and include it in their letter only broad
generalities without any specifics really
about what they're thinking to offer
and the way of an alternative standard.
So, given that broad general framework,
we do think that it would take a long time
to evolve those generalities into clear
concepts before you could even begin
to develop requirements, performance and
test requirements that we could then have
to take time to evaluate, would take time
to evaluate the effectiveness of those.
So, we haven't seen any data to, you know, or
really anything beyond this broad generalities.
>> Elliot Kaye: Got it.
And fair to say that you'll continue
to participate in PGMA and ULs,
voluntary standards efforts even while
they were making moves to the process
if the commissioner were to approve the MPR.
>> Janet Buyer: Yeah.
Absolutely.
Like I say, we've been engaged since
four years and I care to admit.
So we would not stop that.
>> Elliot Kaye: Great.
Thank you.
Commissioner Adler?
>> Robert Adler: Well, I think the chairman
said it best, but I'm still going to try
to add a few thoughts about the
quality of this briefing package.
In waxing philosophical just for a second, this
is an indication of government at its best.
We setup governments to protect citizens.
I can't think of any higher calling
for government than taking steps
to protect especially vulnerable consumers.
I've been following the commission as I'm
sure everybody knows for over 40 years,
I cannot think of a better drafted
package than I've seen here.
This is the platinum standard for packages.
And I hope everybody here knows
how much we appreciate it,
but not just us, consumers at large.
And this is also an indication
that the free market can fail.
We all appreciate support and
advocate for free market approaches.
But this is one where for a variety of
reasons, without government involved,
you would not have industry taking action
at least not in any sort of expeditious way.
And on that very point, I
wanted to go back to the ANPR,
which was published back
in-- was it December of 2006?
So that's roughly 10 years ago.
And when we publish an ANPR, we are directed in
the ANPR to invite persons to submit a notice
of an intention to submit or to draft a
voluntary standard, a statement of intention
to modify or develop a voluntary
consumer product safety standard.
Now, it's been 10 years.
Can you tell me has anybody for this
September letter from PGMA walked in
and offered a statement of intention,
a plan to develop a voluntary standard
to address the risks associated
with this product?
>> Janet Buyer: No, we have not.
>> Robert Adler: What we have basically
is talk about a midnight submission,
what we have is a midnight
submission from the industry.
I don't doubt their sincerity, but I
do think this is a reflection effect
that the free market doesn't always
provide a response that we would need.
And I would also make the observation that
this is-- to me a classic hidden hazard.
I remember when I had to go to Chicago to
talk about the hazards of portable generator
since staff said something to me on the
order of one generator produces CO at rate.
And I think they said of dozens of idling cars.
And I took that out of the statement
because I didn't believe it.
I said this can't be right.
It can't be that these things are so hazardous
that they actually would match or equal
so many cars idling and now
to hear 450 idling cars.
It just tells us how little we all appreciate
the hazards associated with this product.
And the thing that is also chilling
me is every time I read the news now
and I see a storm coming, an ice storm, a snow
storm, a hurricane, I have trouble sleeping
because I know people are going to die.
And there's almost no way to reach out to them
and say, "Please look at the warning label."
"Please really believe it."
"Please don't put it in your garage."
"Please move it outside."
But we see even a small percentage,
but a real percentage of people
who move it outside the house
structure and it still produce
so much CO that it's caused fatalities.
And so, I guess one thing that I did wanted
ask you to delve into a little bit more length.
We have been working with
the industry through UL.
Can you just give a rough estimate?
Is it been that same 10 year period
that we've been working with them?
>> Janet Buyer: Yes.
I joined the-- we joined the standards technical
panel when they first formed it in 2002.
And we were still involved in it.
The STP itself is not particularly active right
now, but the task group that we asked UL to form
to develop requirements to feed to the
standards technical panel has been very active.
We sent that letter to UL in January of 2014.
We kicked off meetings.
We do it all by teleconference
meetings starting in May.
And we've had 27 meetings today.
>> Robert Adler: And can you tell me how many
consumer groups or consumers were involved
in the development of the voluntary
standard over this period of time?
I'm guessing none but--
>> Janet Buyer: Yeah.
>> Robert Adler: We-- As I said, we-- what
we do is you own, I'm not picking them
out other than their convenient example.
They try to give us balance but what
they do is they setup a category
of user producer general interest.
And then when you look at the people who are
in the general interest, they are all retirees
from the industry, they are
consultants to the industry,
they are expert witnesses for the industry.
And there I say their professors,
legitimately so but who are working
for financial gain for the industry.
Question is, are there any
independent technical--
is there any independent technical input from
consumers or consumer groups in this process?
And my sense is no.
>> Janet Buyer: Yeah.
I don't believe so.
Yes.
>> Robert Adler: I guess the other
question, this is just a pet peeve.
And whenever the-- I've talked to
the portable generator manufacturers
and I've always asked this question.
And I think I know the answer,
but to your knowledge,
no one who sells portable
generator is actually set--
includes a little cheap CO alarm when
they sell the portable generator.
Is that correct?
>> Janet Buyer: That's correct.
Yes.
>> Robert Adler: OK.
And this is one where I blame the lawyers in
part because every time I've suggested it,
they say, the lawyers would
kill us if we did that.
And-- excuse me, but this is one of
those situations where it seems to me,
even if it wouldn't be a perfect solution,
it might be some measure along the spectrum
of safety that would reduce deaths and injuries,
but unfortunately we do have a lawyer
infested society of which I am a proud member.
And I also want to command you from
putting in an any stock piling provision.
In previous standards we've not done that.
And I think this is a truly important step
forward because otherwise we're going to find
for years afterwards legally sold inventory.
And that then undermines the
ability to take steps toward safety.
So again, I thank you and commend
you for a job extremely well done.
>> Elliot Kaye: Ms. Robinson?
>> Marietta Robinson: I have been privileged
in my very long career to work in a variety
of environments where excellence
has really been something
that was people wrote for and achieved.
I have never seen anything out of any
of those environments that is any better
than what you guys have put together.
It just was outstanding.
And I know that it's a huge team, you know,
I'm one of those, it's always complaining
about the inertia of government,
this is not one of those times.
When you look at this package
that was put together,
it's just so impressive,
so thoughtful, so clear.
And I think every single one of you who
were involved in putting it together,
it really helped us do our job so much better.
I was involved years ago in a case where I
was representing rural pool and a furnace case
that had caused injury and
death, husband and wide.
And even though I was representing
the manufacturer in that lawsuit,
I became intimately familiar
with the injuries that--
not just deaths because that's
something we all understand.
But I think that some do not understand
the incredibly grave injuries.
In this case, it was a woman who was
going to have a normal life expectancy,
but she was severely brain injured
for her life from the carbon monoxide.
So this is a problem that I'm
so glad that we are addressing.
And I have to say that-- and
looking at your package just I start
with the incident data that you discussed.
And I can't help but think that even those--
these numbers that are in your
package are pretty astronomical
that they're pretty low given the
fact that there are as you point out,
so many instances of misdiagnosis because
the symptoms mirror other illnesses
and also the ones that are treated
outside of emergency departments.
And so, I-- these numbers are really
impressive in the most serious way.
The first time, the first time I met you,
Ms. Buyer was when I came out to the lab
and it was after-- I can't honestly remember
if it was just before or just after a visit
from PGMA and other industry
people who came in to talk to me
about how we needed to something
about the labels.
And I hadn't really focused on what the
work was here at the agency until that time.
And I have to say that I was really-- I
walked away so impressed with the passion
with which you were going, you and
your team were going after trying
to get a better solution than just the labels.
And I-- Chairman Kaye just brought up your--
and you answered questions about the
shut-off switch and why that wouldn't work.
Commissioner Adler said that-- asked you whether
you'd seen anything before the September letter
that the industry was trying to
address the amount of CO emissions.
I'm going back a little more
in depth than that just
because of our conversation
at that time and the visit.
Could you just sort of describe for
us the efforts that you have made?
And I know it's been years, but the efforts
that you and your team have made to try
to get industry to do something to
lower CO emissions portable generators.
>> Janet Buyer: Well-- And I will say at
the outset, you know, we were just looking
for CO mitigation strategies,
you know, requirements.
>> Marietta Robinson: That's
a much better phrase.
>> Janet Buyer: Right.
>> Marietta Robinson: Yes.
>> Janet Buyer: So that's
what we were advocating
for beyond the labeling requirements,
a technical solution.
And we started having that
conversation back in 2002.
So, like I say when we first joined the
standards technical panel and that's
when the project first entered
the CPSC operating plan
where we were monitoring these deaths
that were occurring and increasing numbers
as the year went, you know, went on.
So we did bring it to ULs.
And we had, you know, as Commissioner Adler
pointed out, we had well representation
of our manufacturing community on the STP
hearing us bring this in repeated meetings
to the standards technical panel at UL.
Outside of that in 2004, we held a public forum
and we invited many stakeholders to attend--
to attend that meeting where we
presented hazard patterns and hazard data
that we had death data at that point in time.
So these are just some examples.
We met with PGMA for the first
time when they formed in 2010
and they formed to develop a safety standard.
And we asked them to address the hazards.
So that was back in 2010.
And like I say, three years ago, we've
had active, you know, encouraging industry
through our task group meetings
with UL, same thing.
We have well representation
and a lot of contribution,
good contribution from an
industry in those meetings.
So that's been-- and it has been very helpful.
And PGMA hosted a technical
summit in March of this year.
So we presented at that and participated.
And then also I traveled with
the chairman back in 2013
when he was then Chairman Tenenbaum's office.
And he personally wanted to reach out to
manufacturers to see if they were going
to help us find the technical solution.
And we found from some of those meetings
that some of them are doing just that.
>> Marietta Robinson: So the information
that you gave us in the package in terms
of the technological developments that
came through northeast of Alabama,
through what we learned from this
as these things were going on,
I assume we were informing
industry of what we were finding out
and what they might be able to do.
>> Janet Buyer: Yes, absolutely.
In fact, we voluntarily solicited comments
after we completed our technology
demonstration program
with our prototype at UA and then at NIST.
We put that on our website,
we notified many stakeholders
so we could get their feedback on that.
And we did, we got comments on that.
So we've-- yeah, we've really
doubled down our efforts
to keep the industry informed of our activities.
>> Marietta Robinson: And we've
seen and you just brought up Kohler,
which I'm going to ask you a
follow up question on in a second.
But we've seen industry certainly don't
want to paint broad brush-- about industry.
But in terms of the standards
committees, what you just said in response
to Commissioner Adler's question that we
haven't seen any indication that they wanted
to do something with the standard such
as you're advocating in this NPR today.
Is that correct?
>> Janet Buyer: Yes.
>> Marietta Robinson: I know
it's going to be more expensive
to make these generators in a way that's safe.
That's for sure, we all know that.
And you've done-- your team has done an
excellent job with the analysis on that.
But have you seen any other-- I was going to
say legitimate, and that's a pejorative term,
but have you seen any other basis other
than the cost that industry has told you?
I don't want to say industry, I'm sorry.
That the standards committees have told you
is a reason that they will not do something
or haven't until expressing
this desire a couple month--
a few weeks ago, why they won't do anything
with respect to addressing CO emissions?
>> Janet Buyer: I think it's a number of things.
They've-- The comments against
it or we haven't proven
that reducing emission rates
will actually reduce deaths.
We have done the analysis to support that
we do believe that it will save lives.
That's been one argument that, you
know, that proof doesn't exist.
There have been some complaint--
some comments on the ANPR
that we would negatively impact
engine durability and reliability,
but the analysis that we've looked at and others
as well does not bare that out to be the case.
In fact if you're looking for applying
fuel injection as the technology
to meet the standard, that actually
improves reliability and durability.
There are many benefits associated
with that particular emission control
strategy to meet the standard.
And manufacturers doubt those benefits
as part of advertising engines that have
that emission control technology.
>> Marietta Robinson: If we proceed with this
NRP, is there any reason that you will work
with voluntary standards
committees can't continue?
>> Janet Buyer: Oh no, we would
continue working with them.
Yes.
>> Marietta Robinson: I just
wanted to ask a follow
up question about the Kohler press release.
And then we'll set a time for this round.
But, you said it was a low
CO engine that was available.
Can this technology that they're talking
about be used on all portable generators?
>> Janet Buyer: They're advertising it as an
engine, so it can go in multiple products.
And although Kohler is now in
the portable generator market
as well-- I lost my train of thought.
Let me go back.
>> Marietta Robinson: Because I asked
the question for which-- is it--
can this engine go in all portable generators?
>> Janet Buyer: Yeah.
It's a single cylinder class 2 engine.
So it would normally power a
generator that's in the five
to seven kilowatt range from
what I read about it.
And yeah, it would--
>> Marietta Robinson: OK.
And just one more because I know my time is up.
Do you know of the color engine that they're
advertising would meet the performance
requirements in our NPR?
>> Janet Buyer: I don't know that yet.
>> Marietta Robinson: OK.
OK.
>> Janet Buyer: Yeah.
>> Marietta Robinson: Thank you, sorry.
>> Elliot Kaye: Thank you Commissioner Robinson.
My understand from Commissioner Buekle who's
joining us by phone today is that she would
like for this round for Commissioner
Mohorovic to go next.
Commissioner Mohorovic?
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
congratulations to the staff in this package.
Like the rest of the commission I was
waiting in great anticipation for this.
And it absolutely did not disappoint.
So congratulations on all
the work of the entire team.
And it was said much better by my colleagues.
I do have some specific questions
that I'll do my best.
We've had a long day to get to.
The first have to do with handhelds
in particular with regards to utility.
So with the-- in regards to the weight,
now we acknowledge that the models
with handheld engines often are valued and
promoted for the compactness and lightweight.
And I've spent a lot of time reading a lot
of customer reviews and a lot of websites,
so I can personally confirm that
at least from what I've seen
from my study of consumer feedback.
The package does talk about
utility as it relates to EFI
and the marketable benefits of EFI.
And I think from my own perspective, I
guess late perspective that with class 1s
and class 2 generators, I would imagine they
could more reasonably carry increased weights
without a utility loss.
But the testimony suggests that
there is an increase weight.
And if the average weight might increase by
25% with the handhelds in particular knowing
that they're handhelds so they're meant to be
carried as opposed to on a dolly [phonetic]
like situation where what might
be an incremental amount of weight
on a much heavier unit might be
more impactful on a handheld.
Do you have any comment on how
increased weight for the reasonable ways
that manufacturers might be able to meet the
proposed performance standards outlined might
impact utility specifically for handhelds?
>> Janet Buyer: Right.
Within-- we've been mindful of that impact
because there are additional components
that have to go if they choose the EFI
route for meeting the emission standard.
And so-- oh my gosh, I'm-- let me--
>> Joe Mohorovic: Just general
utility on the weight.
>> Janet Buyer: Oh OK.
I know where I was going with this.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Is it a different distinction
with a difference or-- sorry, it's OK.
>> Janet Buyer: We do-- we are mindful of that.
And that was one reason that we are
suggesting a longer compliance date
for the smaller generators because
we expect that manufacturers--
I mean we're seeing largely this
emission control technology coming
in to the marketplace on the larger engines.
And so we figured they can use-- they can
leverage what they learned from applying it
to the larger generators in that learning curve
and then later apply it to
the smaller generator.
So that 25% weight that you just mentioned,
that was discussed during one
of the task group meetings.
And I think that's largely a bulk of
that weight comes from the battery.
And so there has been look
at battery lists, EFI.
And so, I think that needs to mature more.
>> Joe Mohorovic: OK.
>> Janet Buyer: And it would
help address that concern.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
And also specifically with handhelds and I
recognize what you emphasize in the presentation
with regards to their increase market share
or what we think is an increase market
share specifically with the smaller
and I think you mentioned handhelds as well.
As regards also our concern that there
may be a greater propensity to bring
that into the home maybe even by just-- by
virtue of looking at it because they're mostly
in an enclosed-- it's an enclosed product that
just quite frankly doesn't look as dangerous
as a running engine and with the open frame.
So our proposed regulation
inspires to reduce the deaths
from foreseeable misuse around the dwellings.
And though our staffs as we can
quantify the safety benefits
from the outdoor non-dwelling use, we do think
that they're ancillary benefits
to be achieved there too.
But with the handhelds in over 15 years,
we've still only seen two incidence related
to fatalities around and in the dwelling.
So, I'm looking at the-- I should reference it
specifically for our friends playing at home
to have L of he package of this is the
preliminary regulatory package, the RIA.
Anyway this table two that has the-- that has
some of the average engine displacements as well
as the power ratings and watts,
so bare with me with the handheld.
And in table two we identified that the
average rated power wattages is a 1094
with a median of a 1050.
And I'm not a mechanical engineer, but
what I really wanted to spend time is
to really understand whether or not is
a handheld generator likely to be used
in that scenario of a power outage
to run the kind of units that are in
and around the dwelling as opposed to the
camp site or the, you know, the tailgate party
where it's a TV and speakers, but,
you know, AC units and refrigerator.
So I went through countless testimonials
and got a bit of a education whether
or not it's the right education to have by
reading that from consumers with regards
to what the small or rated products
might be able to reasonably power.
So I'm just wondering-- trying to understand if
it's really not fit for purpose for that use,
but would it really work in that scenario as
I understand that AC units and refrigerators
when they kick on, they have as
much of a six times power surge.
So if you could explain that dynamic in
terms of what you think that a handheld
that those averages might be able to power
and can we really see consumers wanting
to use a handheld when they've got, you know,
critical elements of their
home they need to power.
>> Janet Buyer: Sure.
I would say that in an emergency situation
if there's a power outage at somebody's home
and they have one of these handheld portable
generators because if they take a tailgating
or camping recreational uses,
they're going to use that.
They may use it-- and we've seen in the
incident data, the charge of cell phone.
And so, if they have it, they'll
use whatever generator they have.
And the thing about the smaller handhelds
is they can also be connected in parallel.
So you can-- if you have multiple
ones you can actually up the voltage,
the wattage to power larger appliances.
Now, granted yes, how many people are going
to have multiple ones have those around?
But people will use what they have.
If it is an emergency situation.
So they may not be able to, you know,
keep their refrigerator running,
but if they want to keep fire up their
laptop and/or charge their cellphone,
they bring it inside and they do that.
The other thing with regards to
the two fatalities, you're right.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Three I
think, but two incidents.
>> Janet Buyer: OK.
That's right.
The thing to bear in mind
with that is there was--
has a very low population of those
handhelds in that benefits analysis period.
I think they covered a very small fraction,
a much smaller fraction and the fraction
of the fatalities associated with them.
And that's why they do have a net
positive benefit associated with them.
We do have concerns that
if those become the more--
particularly if they are excluded from the
rule that those will become very popular
and we would expect to see not only more deaths
but more if they are excluded from the rule.
So that would be a real concern.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
Thank you.
I think I have time for just one other
set of questions around the benefit--
I guess directly towards the benefit side
of the benefit cost analysis and the premise
of the three times carbon monoxide
emissions at low C-- at low oxygen level.
We have been provided whereby at 17%
oxygen what we recognize to be low O2,
while performing the six stage test,
a manufacturer's experience actually
lowers CO emissions than normal
at lower loads for carbureted engines.
And then lower CO emissions at higher
loads for a proposed EFI engine.
So, I recognize that we're saying that the lower
oxygen levels we should be seeing three times
the emissions of carbon monoxide.
Why do you imagine in those tests that we
saw actually lower Cos given those scenarios?
>> Janet Buyer: Are you referring to
data from our report or something?
>> Joe Mohorovic: Either that
was provided to the commission.
>> Janet Buyer: OK.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I know if I've gotten
it you've gotten it, but I-- well--
>> Janet Buyer: Yeah.
>> Joe Mohorovic: -- have you done
that in running the six stage test
with either prototypes or carbureted engines
and experienced actually some of the six stages,
lower CO or-- I was just surprised to see
that because it's fematic [phonetic]
throughout the package that--
>> Janet Buyer: Right.
>> Joe Mohorovic: -- at lower-- at lower oxygen,
we're going to see three time CO emission.
>> Janet Buyer: Oh I see what you're saying.
>> Joe Mohorovic: And I was expecting to see
that as they were showing output by stage,
stage one, stage two, stage three.
>> Janet Buyer: Right.
So the factor of three that we're referring
to is the calculated weighted rate.
So it's not-- we're not referring
to the factor of three.
Anyone of those individuals six
modes, six loads, it's the--
you calculate the weighted
rate across all six loads.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I see.
>> Janet Buyer: I can help
explain that maybe better offline--
>> Joe Mohorovic: I think that will take offline
explanation but I appreciate where that--
because I have seen at some
of the other stages--
>> Janet Buyer: Yes.
>> Joe Mohorovic: -- significantly higher COs
to be able to get a better appreciate for that--
>> Janet Buyer: Sure.
>> Joe Mohorovic: -- will
be something for later.
So thank you.
>> Janet Buyer: Yeah.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you, Chairman.
Commissioner Buerkle, I think we have
you for one round, is that correct?
>> Ann Marie Buekle: Yes.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And let me begin by echoing my
colleagues, really prays to both of you
and all of the staff that's been
involved in putting this package together.
It's a remarkable package.
And certainly the most complicated
one I've seen.
And I thin my colleagues agree with me.
That's probably most complicated one ever.
We thought that ROVs was a difficult one, but
I think you put together a remarkable package.
And I thank you for all of your efforts
and all of the work that's got into this.
This morning in the [inaudible] plan
we talked about with EMI batteries.
And over the course of the last few month, we've
talked about nano technology and recycled lever
and how various arms of the
government are doing different things.
And so, with regards to portable generator,
I'd like to focus on another government agency,
the EPA and just get some
clarification with regards
to what their jurisdiction is versus ours.
I kind of telegraph this
morning in my closing statement.
And-- So I just want to spend
a little bit of time with this.
And I'm not sure, this may be Ms. Little's--
>> Barbara Little: Yes.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: -- [inaudible].
So let me just begin with regards to the EPA--
are they currently regulating carbon monoxide
emissions from a portable generators?
>> Barbara Little: EPA is focusing on large
scale ambient air pollution with regard
to CO emissions, whereas in this drop proposed
rule, EPSC staff is intense to or seeking
to address the acute poisoning hazard
to an individual consumer from
carbon monoxide emissions.
EPA just regulate on a broad national scale.
And they have national air quality achievement
standards that different regional areas
across the country must meet in terms of CO
emissions, but they're not regulating the--
from portable generators that we're
attempting-- seeking to regulate today.
They're not regulating acute CO
emissions from these generators.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So they're only
regulating the emissions from engines used
in portable generators that are larger
than what we're talking about today.
>> Barbara Little: Not.
No. Their focus is on the large scale
sort of ambient air pollution in contrast
to the exposure to individual consumers.
And if I could-- you know the Section
31 of the CPSA and I think this is maybe
where your question is originating from, it
provides that the commission lacks authority
to regulate a risk of injury
associated with a consumer product.
If that risk could be eliminated or reduced
to a sufficient extent through actions taken
under a number of a numerated
statutes, one of which is Clean Air Act,
but the legislative history and the
case law indicate that the CPSC is
to consider all aspects of the risk as
well as the remedial powers available to it
and the agency administering the alternate
statute to make a judgment of whether
that statute can reduce the risk
of injury to sufficient extent.
And the commission has authority if
there has not been sufficient reduction
or elimination of the risk of injury.
And here, you know, as I was mentioning, CPSC
would be seeking to address a different risk
of injury from CO emissions
than EPA and staff believes
that this risk hasn't been sufficiently reduced.
You know, again, the EPA is focusing and
their regulations are sort of designed
to address the large scale ambient air
pollution whereas ours are would be seeking
to address the localized risk to
consumers from acute CO poisoning.
And as Janet mentioned, there have been
at least 751 generator CO related
fatalities between 2004 and 2014.
So, staff believes that EPA regulations
have not sufficiently reduce--
sorry, reduce the risk of injury to
individual consumers from CO poisoning.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK.
>> Barbara Little: And we do address this
in greater detail and our legal memo.
And I'd be happy to discuss with you separately.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Good.
And I just have a couple other
questions along the same line.
And I mentioned to-- and I believe that the
Chairman is aware of this, but I can only stand
for this first round of question and--
but I also admit additional questions for the
record following the hearing or debriefing.
So just talking about EPA and their standards,
do their existing CO standards differ
from what the staff is-- was proposing?
>> Barbara Little: They have
a different emission rate.
I think Janet could better speak to that.
>> Ann Marie Buekle: OK.
That would be helpful.
Thank you.
>> Janet Buyer: Yes, Commissioner Buerkle.
So, the EPA CO emission standards for the
small spark-ignited engines is 610 grams per
kilowatt hour.
So they have a sliding scale if you will that
scales with the amount of grams per hour of CO
that can be emitted as a
function of the kilowatt rating,
the max engine power of the engine.
So that's 610 grams per kilowatt hour.
We're proposing a standard that is in
grams per hour and it's product specific.
The EPA standards are based on engine
testing on a specific test platform.
And ours is what we are concerned about
is consumer exposure to tailpipe emissions
when that engine is operating in the generator.
So, that's a distinct difference because we--
we don't care what the engine does when it's
on a dynamometer, what we care about is
when that engine is loaded in the generator.
And I've heard Commissioner
Mohorovic you're a little bit
about the prescriptive nature of our standard.
And I'll just offer that it is a performance
requirement that we are proposing.
Manufacturers don't have to use EFI, that's how
we chose to do our technology demonstration.
That's how manufacturers who are working
towards the same end as us are planning
to meet the standard or working towards meeting
the standard, but because we have a standard
that we're proposing that is
with the engine in the product,
we don't care what the emission rate is
at max engine power on a dynamometer.
And so, manufacturers could choose to
use current existing carbureted engines
and oversized engine for the current size
generator they put it in and they just have
to design it such that it doesn't
operate at those high CO loads.
So, they can meet the standard
any number of ways.
We went with the way that we
think the technology is headed,
but that is a fine distinction.
I'm sorry, I'm straying away from
your question Commissioner Buerkle,
but that is a fine distinction between
what the EPA does and we're doing.
The EPA does not have products
specific emission rates.
They just care about the engine
not the product that goes in.
We're looking at the product that goes in.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK.
So, I guess one of my concerns, oh I mentioned
some of the other issues that we're still going
to share across government is making sure
what we do or what they do doesn't affect
or have some unintended consequences.
And so, if we're going to have a tighter
CO emissions standard like we're proposing
in this NPR, how does that
affect the ability to comply
with the EPA regulations limiting
other pollutants that may--
that the EPA regulate such as,
you know, hydrocarbons the rest.
>> Janet Buyer: That's a very
fair question and concern.
And I will say that we went to great lengths
in our durability and demonstration program
to make sure we were not going to
be looking at lowering CO emission
such that we would drive the engines
out of compliance with EPA standards.
And so, we've been cognizant of that all along.
And in fact, our work as well as that
of contributing industry members as well
as the EPA data that I mentioned
before that we looked at,
when you significantly lower CO emissions you
actually also lower the hydrocarbons and NOx.
So you do have more of a benefit
than what we're concerned about.
And so, we are not-- with our emission
standard that we're proposing is not going
to drive engines out of compliance.
In fact they'll drive the HC plus NOx lower,
which is what the EPA's emission
standards primarily care about.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK.
So just so understand, so tightening up
our CO standards for emissions is not going
to make it harder for others to comply
with EPA standards at the same time.
>> Janet Buyer: No.
That's correct.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK.
And I just have one other question.
So I'm wondering if we propagate the
standard, the CPSC emission standard
for carbon monoxide from portable generators.
How does that fit in to-- does it preempt
California or other state emission standards?
>> Barbara Little: I think that's something
I would better address at a separate date.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Got it.
OK. So is that required that we'd have
a close discussion on that, I guess.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Buerkle, I think
OGC staff can follow up with you directly
in your office if that works for you.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK.
That's fine.
I appreciate, then I appreciate the
consideration and going out of order
and all the accommodations for today.
I thank you all very much.
>> Elliot Kaye: And Commissioner
Buerkle, do we have it right
that you'll not be joining us any longer
and you'll submit questions, I
think you said for the record?
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Yes.
Unfortunately I have to drop off here.
I've got some responsibility but yes.
So I will submit any additional
questions for the record.
>> Elliot Kaye: Understood.
Well, we wish you the best and again we
continue to think about you and your mom.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: I so appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
>> Elliot Kaye: So we'll go to
the next round of questions.
I'm going to pick up I think somewhere
where Commissioner Mohorovic was,
was the smaller size, the
handhelds and the class 1.
And one of the pieces in the package was
that you do have staggered
effective dates that you proposed.
And so, I'm curious to know your thoughts
from a technological feasibility standpoint
if you think that we could potentially bring
that three year date closer because even
if today where the date of the commission were
to approve a final rule, and it were three years
out for those to comply it seems to me that
from what we've heard from some companies
that they are moving that much more
rapidly to be able to incorporate some type
of compliant product probably through EFI and
a catalyst to meet these emission requirements.
And I do want to call out in particular three
individuals, Lee Sowell, Michael Gardner
and Mark Rowe from TTi and
the work that they've done.
They are PGMA members TTi, but I think that
they've played a tremendous leadership role
and showing that this could be done.
And I believe that it is feasible, maybe
I'm wrong, but I believe it's feasible
that we could potential see
compliance earlier than three years.
And if we build in, right, getting back
to that this is an NPR, not a final rule,
it's probably going to be another year or
two before the commission is able to turn
around a final rule and vote it out.
That's potentially four or
five years from today's date.
Do you think it's technologically feasible that
if the commission were to consider bringing
that compliance date forward by a year that
that could be met without undue hardship?
>> Janet Buyer: I think that's
a reasonable possibility.
I do know that, you know, the companies who've
been working towards this end have started
with the larger generators, because it does
seem to be a more natural fit and that's
where you do see this technology applied
to these engines in the marketplace.
But I do think there is-- there are rapid
advances happening like I say in the package.
There is already a handheld
engine with fuel injected.
It's not for low CO, but it's a
concrete cutter made by steel that has--
so there's one engine in the marketplace already
with handheld engine with that technology.
So, I would say that's a real possibility.
>> Elliot Kaye: And certainly-- and
this is obvious so we can get into later
with the general council's office, but
it seems to me that it's easier for us
to have a tighter requirement on
the effective date now and the NPR.
And then if we get comments, we can loosen that
as opposed to trying to rein it in a final rule.
That's just me speculating
what he needs to comment.
One of the issues that was brought up and
I don't know if this is still an issue
when we traveled and I don't want to name
a company, but one of the companies talked
about that they felt through the university of
Alabama work that we would be requiring them
to tune these [inaudible] as
close to Stoke as possible,
and that from a functionality
standpoint, that was not realistic.
Do you-- has that born out, do
you feel like that's a requirement
to meet the performance standard or can
it be tuned more ritually and can you deal
with it either through the catalyst or in some
other way to meet their performance requirement.
And as Commissioner Buerkle
mentioned not have EPA issues as well.
>> Janet Buyer: Yes.
I do believe that that-- there may be
some engines that just cannot operate
at the fuel control strategy needed to get
the emissions lowest at the highest loads.
There may be engines that due to their
design that that would be a challenge
without doing engine design modification.
Again, going back to what we care about is the
emission rate when that engine is operating
in the product is what matters to us.
So if they can't operate at wide open throttle,
which the engine should not be operating there
in their product, if the circuit breaker
and the circuitry is operating properly,
then you just have to take that and
take consideration in your integration,
your engine integration strategy into
the product, so that it doesn't operate
at those high CO, high fuel flow load points.
So I think that's a strategy
to avoid that concern.
>> Elliot Kaye: But you don't feel
like for somebody who asked to-- who--
for our performance when if it
has to be tuned more rituality,
you do feel like that can
still comply, that there's a--
there are different strategies to
comply with the performance standard?
>> Janet Buyer: Yes.
Yes.
>> Elliot Kaye: OK.
And one of the areas in the package I'll talk
about, the staff seeking more information
on is the oxygen level and whether
it's at normal range or at 17%.
Can you talk about why staff
might be interested in 17%?
What kind of data you're
looking for and ultimately why--
how you would choose between the two of them
as to which one you'd be more comfortable with?
>> Janet Buyer: Well, first off, the reason the
whole oxygen level comes in to the picture is
because when you-- what we found
from our testing with NIST,
when we did that house garage house
testing that I spoke about earlier,
we noticed that where the generator is operating
starts to deplete the oxygen in that space.
It's an air breathing engine.
It's consuming the oxygen faster
than the space can replenish it.
So the oxygen level starts to drop.
And in that physical testing in the
garage, we noticed that the oxygen did drop
down for the carbureted units
even as low as like 16% oxygen.
For the prototype unit, the engine--
I'm sorry, the garage oxygen level
dropped somewhere in the 17% range.
And as part of the NIST testing to
characterize what those emissions rates were
that we're creating the CO
distribution profiles,
they ran emission testing that's entirely
different than how the EPA does it
with running the generator in
an enclosed single zone space
and calculating an emission
rate as its operating there.
And in the course of that testing,
we noticed that the emission rate,
as soon as the oxygen starts to drop,
the emission rate starts to decline
and it reaches a peak around 17% oxygen
based on the testing that NIST did as well
as Matt Brookman did here in our
combustion lab on separate generator.
So, we felt 17% is a reasonable oxygen level
to expect in these incident scenarios to occur.
So, that's where the 17% came in.
And-- But we also found with our prototype and--
prototype testing at NIST was that originally
and a lot of the work with the NIST task--
sorry, the UL task group was focused on,
it appeared that the prototype
generator emission rate did not climb
as the oxygen dropped.
But the more we analyzed other data that
we had on different generators that are
in the marketplace now with fuel
injection on them enclosed loop,
and we analyze the modal data that
Commission Mohorovic was talking about,
we saw CO emission rate increase even though in
generators that we're operating in closed loop.
So, it kind of rattled our philosophy
that the emission rate would not climb
for a closed loop fuel injected generator.
The whole intent behind have-- originally
trying to work with a task group
to develop a test method for a low oxygen
environment is because we wanted to make sure
that if we have a performance standard for
generators to meet to reduce deaths and injuries
and most of our deaths are incurring
in reduced oxygen environments,
we didn't want to have few different
emission controlled technologies
that could meet a normal oxygen and then
you go and put it in an incident scenario
and one of them, you know, has the
CO flight as we were calling it
in the task group and the other does it.
One is going to address the
hazard and one is not.
So, that was the whole intent behind
spending a lot of time in the UL task group
to develop a reduced oxygen emission rate test.
But the more we look at the data, we couldn't
really rationalize the burden for doing that,
although Matt Brookman did a wonderful
job in streamlining that test process,
but we felt we didn't really have
the support needed to justify it.
So we right now are proposing.
And again, it's-- we are proposing
how we would test for compliance,
we're not requiring manufacturers to
do that, but if they wanted to do it,
it would just be a normal oxygen test, but
if people come to different conclusions
than what we have, we won't-- we want to hear
about that, because we do want a standard
that is going to address the hazard.
That's our primary goal.
>> Elliot Kaye: Right.
Thank you, that was very helpful.
And then my remaining time, I just want to ask
from we're using on the marketplace with EFI,
do you see mostly closed loop and I realized
that they're not being put on the market
for the purpose of reduced
CO, there's other reason
to why it's closed loop fuel
efficiency or something else.
But are you seeing more open loop or more closed
loop EFI engines just as a matter of course?
>> Janet Buyer: Well, it's hard to say, because
that's not usually a feature that they are going
to advertise in the-- that's not something
that the typical consumer is going
to understand what that feature is.
So-- And they may say closed loop,
but it's only for certain mode points,
though it's a little bit of a mixed bag.
>> Elliot Kaye: OK.
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Adler?
>> Robert Adler: Thank you very much.
And I'm glad to hear the explanation
that you gave to Commissioner Buerkle
about the relative approach that EPA
adapts versus what the staff is doing,
because when you're talking ambient air,
you're talking about when I step outside
and take a deep breath, what's
the degree of CO in the air.
And that comes from a variety of sources.
But they're really not looking at the acute
hazard in close spaces and people's homes.
And even if they were, they'd
still have to convince us
that they're addressing it
to a sufficient extent.
And I think 750, that's a pretty good
indicator that it's not, but just on the--
a broader level, we have--
have we not consulted with EPA?
Had they ever voiced an objection to
what the commission is doing with respect
to addressing Co from portable generators?
>> Janet Buyer: No, they have not.
In fact we-- they assisted
us with the development early
in the University of Alabama program.
They actually helped us write the statement of
work and evaluate the proposals that we got in.
And after the contract was emplaced, they
provided technical advice along the way
and consulted with them a number of times.
So they're-- so they do well
know what we've been doing.
And, you know, we have good communication
throughout the development of the NPR package.
>> Robert Adler: Which is yet another
indication of how effective the staff has been
and how comprehensive the
approach staff has taken.
I did want to talk a little bit about a
point that Commissioner Robinson raised
because it's something we've heard
and we're going to hear again.
And that is you're raising
the cost of these generators,
but one thing I want everybody understand is
these generators are imposing a societal cause
now by your calculation.
If I read it correctly, it's
820 million dollars.
And that's from fatalities
and non fatal injuries.
That's a societal cause that
is being incurred now.
And so, what we're saying is some of those
cost actually ought to be born by the people
who are making the product and
profiting from it and also from consumers
who are getting the benefit of a safer product.
So it's not as though there aren't cost already.
And when we're done with this,
I'm guessing that those costs
which are being externalized will now
be appropriately rationally internalized
with respect to the price of the product.
So that's point one.
The second point I would make and this is just
general observation requirements no response.
And that is we've seen cost at their
highest just as a standard is developed.
But-- and this is a tribute
to manufacturers and industry,
they're almost always clever enough
especially when there's mass production to come
up with much cheaper ways of making the product.
So, although the staff properly and
conservatively is estimating cost
of these products, I would guess within a
year even, you're going to see the price
of these products drop dramatically.
That's certainly been the experience we've had
with almost every product
the commission has regulated.
But I did have one question and that is-- it's
my understanding, EFI and catalysts have been
around a fair amount of time
especially with respect to cars.
Is this an expanding technology
through engines because I see
that in ROVs we're getting
electronic fuel injection?
Is this a technology that's well
known and trying to think of one
that even manufacturers aren't using
it would have access to fairly readily?
>> Janet Buyer: Yes, absolutely.
Yes.
>> Robert Adler: And I guess one of the question
is when we're talking about the efficiency
of portable gas generator, would the
technology that is likely to be adapted,
would that have a negative neutral
or positive effect in general
on the efficiency of this product?
>> Janet Buyer: Have a positive effect.
Yeah. They could claim higher fuel efficiency.
>> Robert Adler: But their actual benefits
immediate tangible benefits other than not dying
to consumers from purchasing these products.
>> Janet Buyer: Right.
>> Robert Adler: OK.
Thank you very much.
>> Elliot Kaye: Ms. Robinson?
>> Marietta Robinson: I think I
just have a couple of questions.
In looking at the cost benefit analysis
that Commissioner Adler was
obviously referencing at some level.
The-- I note that with the--
well, let me just ask it this way.
The class 2-- twin cell-- twin cell
generators or twin cylinder generators,
if we were to exclude those, what effect do
you think that we'd have in the marketplace?
>> Janet Buyer: Well, we do have a concern
and we don't-- we don't know how real it is,
but we do have a concern that we might see.
Right now, twin cylinder, last two engines
powering generators are nominally graded 9
kilowatts and higher.
They're fairly large units.
We have a concern that maybe we would
start to see generators more down in the--
in what we call the storm generator,
which is in the 5 to 6 kilowatt, you know,
just in the smaller than below 9 kilowatts
than what we're seeing now possibly coming
on the marketplace with twin cylinder
engines and then to avoid having to comply
if twin cylinder class 2 engines
were excluded from the rule.
>> Marietta Robinson: Because then they
would be less expensive to purchase.
>> Janet Buyer: Well, I don't--
I mean we don't know that.
Actually I don't--
>> Marietta Robinson: OK.
OK.
>> Janet Buyer: It may not be that
that's an advantageous strategy to take.
So we'd like to receive comments on that.
>> Marietta Robinson: Commissioner Adler
in the last round referred to CO alarms.
And my reading of the package made me think that
CO alarms were not the answer to this problem.
Could you address that?
>> Janet Buyer: CO alarms, we definitely--
CPSC promotes and encourages use of CO alarms
to address any source of CO
poisoning around the home.
So we definitely agree on that
point that CO alarms are important,
but we think the most effective way to
address the hazard and I think this gets back
to Chairman Kaye's point is design the
hazard out of the product if you can do that.
That's the first strategy.
The Co alarm is the backup
if you have, you know,
if you have nothing else to
do, you know, to address it.
>> Marietta Robinson: And I was looking at the
tab A page 75, you don't need to refer to it,
but this was talking about the incident data
with respect to the analysis of CO alarm usage.
And it-- find like it was the answer.
>> Janet Buyer: Right, right.
>> Marietta Robinson: I guess I focused
on that because it came along with the--
as the only person on the commission
who's at-- who devoted her--
his or her life to practicing
law in the courtroom,
I take Ambridge to comments
like lawyer invested.
We don't dismiss all doctors
because they're contributing
to an opioid epidemic in the country.
And I don't think we should
dismiss all always as being bad.
So, with that, I have nothing further.
Thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Mohorovic?
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Robinson is a former
member of the testing industry.
We're also much maligned for many, many years
based on CPSIA imposed mandatory testing.
OK. Sorry, I don't want to
exhaust my colleagues and staffs.
>> Marietta Robinson: All of our burdens today.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One question, all right, this year in March we--
actually April, we at the CPSC
passed a retrospective review plan.
And in Article 5 of that retrospective
review plan, one of my favorites
at the agency it speaks to providing
for retrospective review provisions
and new rulemakings, XANT retrospective review.
That is some consideration of future
rulemakings will conceive in the front end,
how we're going to measure the
effectiveness down the road?
What will be those metrics incorporated?
So, I will note that we pass
this on April fool's day.
So I hope the answer isn't jokes on
me in terms of whether or not I should
or should not have expected to see a
retrospective review plan in the rule.
Can you describe whether or not
the team considered it, rejected it
or why there isn't a retrospective review plan
in this new rule pursuant
to the commission's wishes?
>> Janet Buyer: Not sure if
we're prepared to speak to that.
Not sure if it's appropriately directed.
>> Joe Mohorovic.: Yeah.
Well, we've got a proposed rule
in front of us, we have a plan,
the commission voted five O saying in
new perspective rulemakings we're going
to embed retrospect or review as a manner of
policy for new reviews and it doesn't exist.
So, I guess there's no answer
why that doesn't exist.
>> Janet Buyer: Not at the moment.
>> Joe Mohorovic: OK.
No answer.
All right, I've stumped with that.
I apologize.
Maybe on more mundane matters, the cost benefit
analysis, so you might need one of your experts
for this Ms. Buyer, but if you can
fill them then let's have at it.
With regards to the cost in tab L of
the preliminary regulatory analysis,
we recognize that some manufacturers
that we discussed--
suggested are preliminary
direct costs were understated.
And we've-- I've heard personally in this
meantime that they might be in fact as much
as double what we have identified
as direct costs.
Did we use the EPA estimates or
in fact did we reach out directly
to component manufacturers themselves
to understand and get an identification
for the direct cost that we
incorporated in the [inaudible]?
>> Smith: Yes, Commissioner.
We did EPA estimates.
We-- but we also reached out to firms
this summer as part o the effort
with the contractor economics analysis
stat participated in interviews
with manufacturers trying to get their
estimates of cost of these components.
And generally they ranged quite widely from
the four firms that provided information.
But I'd say that probably in-- at least two of
the manufacturers for the individual components
that we provided cost estimates for-- they
were sort of in the same ball park as ours.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Oh OK.
>> Smith: So I gave it some confidence
that our estimates were still reasonable.
I'd say that the EPA estimates
their result of extensive analysis
and research and widely reviewed.
And because it appears that the cost in-- to
the industry haven't changed all that much
since the EPA estimates where provided and we've
also taken steps to update those cost based
on producing price index that we
think is appropriate for this product.
So, ideally we would have more recent
estimates to base our analysis on but we think
that with the adjustments we made that are--
and the information we've considered by the--
provided by the firms that are preliminary
cost estimates are reasonable and supportable.
>> Joe Mohorovic: OK.
Thank you, Mr. Smith.
And I recognize also you have a
sensitivity analysis in here as well.
>> Smith: Yes.
And generally the firms that did
provide information somewhat--
provided somewhat overall higher
cost than we have estimated.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I'm sorry,
I don't mean to interrupt you,
but we'll have notice and comment too.
So those that--
>> Smith: Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah.
>> Joe Mohorovic: -- these or out
in the street we'll be able to--
>> Smith: All right, our sensitivity analysis--
>> Joe Mohorovic: This guy is
going to get real annoyed with me
if I don't start moving along,
if you don't mind?
>> Smith: OK.
OK. We get account for 50% increase in cost.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I do recognize that.
One of the other assumptions or one of
the assumptions that were made to us
from manufacturers was that there would be
a disproportionate cost impact on handhelds
and the smaller versus the larger engines
to incorporate EFI as well as the catalyst
because of the-- the reasonable limitations
which-- with regards to size and weight,
yet I recognize in our preliminary
analysis the costs don't reflect that.
Do we just not agree with
that point of view that--
or we surprised that there are actually
lower cost to incorporate the same technology
and smaller units with reduced
housing and geography to work with?
>> Smith: I think we would benefit from
more specific information on the handhelds.
It's a very small part of the market right now.
And although it is growing somewhat,
still only about 1% of the market
in recent year sales and-- but we do recognize
that there are some features of those generators
that create problems, additional
problems for incorporating these features.
And so--
>> Joe Mohorovic: OK.
Ms. Buyer, this is a specific question
with regards to why I've got a couple
with the potential for loss
consumer surplus per unit.
And it gets to a point that you were
making I think with the chairman.
And I'm not a mechanical
expert or mechanical engineer,
but I recognize in the program stated objectives
that we sought out a prototype that we quote,
"not negatively impacting the engine's
power output, durability, maintainability,
fuel economy and risk of fire and burn."
Yet I notice in the package there are several
places where we would expect that generators
in order to perform at the proposed performance
elements would need to run at stoichiometric.
And I was-- I can only partially understand
some of the dialog you had with Chairman Kaye.
But do in fact we expect that to achieve the
performance outputs that we're recommending
that engines would need to
run at stoichiometric.
And if so, how would that or would that impact
any of the stated objectives particularly--
you know, with durability or power or anything?
>> Janet Buyer: With the
fuel injection operate--
if closed loop you're talking
about stoichiometric fuel control,
that's where stoichiometry is where
you obtain your lowest CO emission rate
in the spectrum of air to fuel ratio.
So, it does-- our findings are that it doesn't
impact power, it improves fuel economy.
And again, we were acknowledging
that maybe not all engines--
not all engines are built the same.
So some engines may not be able to
be modified enough and design either
in the combustion chamber or the valve seats
to tolerate operation at stoichiometric.
Again, if you can-- if you can have
the engine operate in the generator
around those load points where
you need the fuel enrichment,
due to concerns about engine durability and
temperatures, then you just need to take
that into account as you integrate
that engine into the generator.
>> Joe Mohorovic: OK.
Under the same idea of the objectives
provided, some have indicated a lack of--
loss of power as a result of
achieving the performance elements
for lower CO as identified in the package.
Do you agree with that?
And if so, from the economist point of
view, should that have been incorporated
into loss consumer surplus per unit
if in fact these new performance elements
will result in a loss of power by the units.
>> Janet Buyer: Well, I'll
address the first part of that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Please.
Thank you.
>> Janet Buyer: Well, I don't
think we've heard that.
We haven't heard that specific
concern from manufacturers' release.
I'm not recalling it at the moment.
I can go back and check.
On our prototype we achieve nominally, it
was slightly less than the max engine power
when it was the carbureted configuration,
but it was very close to what it had been.
And I-- we haven't heard that from
the manufacturers who've been--
>> Joe Mohorovic: OK.
>> Janet Buyer: -- working this out.
>> Joe Mohorovic: We've gotten
a lot of proprietary stuff.
I know you have too, so that's what--
forgive me for the lack of transparency,
but we'll be able to discuss that offline.
But from the economist point of view, if it
was in fact determined that there was a loss
of power, we would incorporate that
logically into loss consumer surplus.
>> Smith: I'd say we'd make
an effort to do that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Yes.
>> Smith: I'm not sure if we have adequate
information to make-- to monetize that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Right.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
>> Elliot Kaye: I'm going
to go ahead and yield if you
like my 10 minutes since you're on a roll.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
I'll go as fast as I can.
Thank you for your patience.
I have another-- we talked about the
increased weight of the handhelds
and what might be the 25% increase weight.
Would that also be something with regards
to the cost analysis that can be analyzed
as impacting loss consumer surplus and factored
into the benefit cost analysis
for the handhelds.
And in particular could that be monetized?
>> Smith: I have my doubts that it
could be, to tell you the truth,
but we could at least make a
reference to it in the final analysis.
>> Joe Mohorovic: I would hope we might.
I mean if you think if it's a handheld product
and, you know, it's meant to be carried
and carried by one's hand and if they
just can't make it to their tailgate party
or to the camp site from car
camping out to the tents, that's--
>> Smith: As Janet mentioned earlier, I
think during this process of adjusting
to this regulation, should it become a
regulation, I think there could be features
that will become available that would mitigate
those problems for the smaller generators,
such as the battery-less EFI technology--
>> Joe Mohorovic: I see.
>> Smith: -- that's being used
in some products such as--
>> Joe Mohorovic: That would not add
additional weight to the product to--
>> Smith: That would reduce the amount
of additional weight that would--
>> Joe Mohorovic: And the reduction of--
>> Smith: -- resulting--
>> Joe Mohorovic: -- carburetor
as well I imagine too.
OK. Thank you.
Now, we-- Mr. Smith, we talked a little bit
about price elasticity privately
in advance of the meeting.
And I recognized that especially
with the handhelds,
many are marketing these for recreational use.
And that's the main marketability
of these particular products.
And I do recognize in our preliminary
benefit cost analysis, we used a surrogate
by using household appliances with the
assumption that we'll have inelasticity
with regards to price demand for the product
that's based on I think the assumption
that these products are being used generally
across all generators for
a power outage situation.
But for the handhelds where the marketing is
somewhat distinctly different with regards
to not DIY projects, not construction
purposes but specifically for camping
and recreational usages, would you recommend
a price elasticity figure that is more--
that is more properly associated with
recreational use products as opposed
to the other because it was
broken down by class.
And I'm just questioning whether or not
there should be a greater elasticity to price
for the handhelds versus the other
particular classes of generators.
>> Smith: At this point I'd say that it's
possible that given the different nature
of the smaller generators that their
used patterns might involve different
price elasticity.
And you might say that it might be more elastic
than we've assumed for generators as a whole.
And the result of that if we increase
the price elasticity that would result
in greater reduction in purchases--
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
>> Smith: -- relatively--
relative to the increase in prices.
So we could attempt to account for that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you very much.
And on the few-- on the other side of
the ledger, Chairman, can I continue?
>> Elliot Kaye: I've yielded
my 10 minutes to you.
So, you're--
>> Joe Mohorovic: Oh thank you.
>> Elliot Kaye: -- you're good to go.
>> Joe Mohorovic: With regards to the potential
for increased consumer surplus per unit,
with fuel efficiency when we've heard that he
fuel efficiency savings is recognized benefit
for the commercial users with heavy
used rates and some have claimed
that there were cooping the incremental cost of
EFI within maybe as little as one year of use.
So I understand the monetizing the benefit
of electronic starting in other soft,
consumer use benefits is difficult, but with
an estimated 11-year product life cycle,
I wonder why we can't monetize the increased
consumer surplus from increased fuel economy?
>> Smith: I think we might be able to do that if
we have more information about usage patterns,
although the products might
last 11 years on average.
If consumers purchase them for
power outages and the like,
it might be that they might not
get much use over the course
of a couple of years, they might.
So in terms of fuel efficiency, it
might be 20% greater efficiency.
We need more information on usage
to calculate what that might be
over the course of the life of the product.
>> Joe Mohorovic: If the commission does
move forward, perhaps you might want
to consider asking or soliciting
increased questions in terms of the--
>> Smith: Sure.
We identified that as an
ancillary benefit, but--
>> Joe Mohorovic: Right.
>> Smith: -- it's something
we should try to monetize.
>> Joe Mohorovic: But it might be
monetized and perhaps we're not--
we're undervaluing the benefits by not
really being able to look at the reduced cost
of the consumer by using a
more fuel efficient generator.
>> Smith: I'd agree with that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you.
And the last one, I've read many
reviews with the consumer value,
the noise produced by the generator.
Now does-- and this may be for Janet
first, excuse me Ms. Buyer first.
Does the EFI catalyst increase
or suppress noise?
>> Janet Buyer: I think the noise
is mostly related to the muffler
that you use primarily the engine noise.
And I can't say-- I really can't answer that.
>> Joe Mohorovic: You can say whether or
not it creates a nice or a less noise.
>> Janet Buyer: Yeah.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Oh very well then.
Fine. I understand.
Thank you.
The last question I have is with
regards to generator location.
So, Ms. Buyer, we recognize that
25% of the 565 deaths that occurred
at a fixed structure home
occur when the generator was
in the attached garage or the enclosed car port.
Now, when a generator is located in a garage,
do we know how often the garage door was
found open or partially open or closed?
I understand our models and the
rational behind those models,
but that's a pretty big sample there 25% of 565,
you should have been paying closer
attention around the 140 marker cell.
Do we know that?
>> Janet Buyer: I think I could defer
to Matt Natof [assumed spelling] here,
but my recollection is it's
not frequently reported.
You can correct me if I'm wrong, Matt?
[ Inaudible Remark ]
It's not reported very often.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Not frequently reported.
OK.
>> Janet Buyer: Yeah.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Very well,
then that does it for me.
>> Janet Buyer: So they're saying that
it's frequently it is a fully closed door
when that information is available.
>> Joe Mohorovic: Thank you very much.
I appreciate.
And thank you Chairman for
yielding into my colleagues.
I hope I didn't exhaust your patience.
>> Elliot Kaye: I have no further questions.
Commissioner Adler?
>> Robert Adler: No further questions.
>> Elliot Kaye: Commissioner Robinson?
Mr. Mohorovic, anything else?
Great. Having no-- having heard no further
questions concludes this public meeting
of the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission.
Thank you.