Good morning, please to open this hearing to receive comments on the commission supplemental proposed safety standard for portable generators. CPFC staff along with interested stakeholders who have worked tirelessly developed a mandatory safety standard. As long as the deadly safety hazard persists development of an adequate standard protect lives has and will remain top priority for the commission. Portable generators are often necessary for people on their worst days, like when they've been through a natural disaster or major storm. And the temporary power, as they address the possible damage to their home, but this helpful tool can also be deadly. CPS estimates about 80 people died each year from carbon dioxide poisoning caused by portable generators. These desert tragic and can involve whole families. You know, just last week, it happened again, 2 members of a family of 5 in Florida died when the family turned on in January inside their home and went to sleep unaware of the carbon monoxide was building up in their home. It's incumbent upon us, the nation's consumer protection agency, to take steps to prevent deaths like these. This, this is a robust comment period on this proposed rule nearly 50 formal comments submitted today. I look forward to hearing from 9 witnesses who will provide a range of perspectives. And I look forward to everyone's testimony. Each panelist will have 10 minutes for the presentation. And then I will call myself and my colleagues to ask questions in order to seniority with 10 minutes per round multiple rounds necessary. So, now I'm going to introduce our 1st panel to of whom will be virtual today. We have 1st, the honorable, Maria Robinson, former CPSC commissioner. I have Ken voice who's senior director principal engineering solutions us solutions solutions who is appearing virtually. We have Susan, executive director, partable generator, manufacturing association who's also appearing virtually with Sean, director of forensics and reliability at harbor freight and will Wallace associate director for safety policy at consumer reports. Thank you all for being here and welcome back to Bethesda towers and you can begin when you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. It's so nice to be back and see somebody familiar faces, including commissioner Boyle and my old seat. Thank you so much for giving me the time today. I'm offering my testimony on behalf of myself as a former CPSC commissioner who has looked extensively at the safety issues relating to portable generators. I'm here today to express my very strong support for a safety standard for portable generators that would require a significant lowering of carbon monoxide emissions as CPSC staff has recommended requiring lower CO emissions has been a sticking point for most portable generator manufacturers for more than 20 years. While tens of thousands have died or been seriously injured from CO poisoning from these machines. It's essential that such a requirement be passed. I would like to offer my views in two areas that I hope may be helpful to this commission. I have submitted written comments, but want to verbally emphasize the comments that I made and also be here for any questions you may have. I was a CPSC commissioner from 2013 to 2018 and I became passionately involved in this issue. Once I understood, first of all, just how dangerous portable generators are from there because of their emissions. And also I was particularly focused as a commissioner on hidden hazards. And this is a classic hidden hazard and people will say, well, consumers know that portable generators emit carbon monoxide. What they don't know is the massive amounts of carbon monoxide that are that are emitted from these portable generators and also almost equally importantly, they don't understand that carbon monoxide migrates and what that means and that you can end up with more carbon monoxide in a distant bedroom from the machine than at the machine. Certainly the warning labels that I have seen over the years say nothing about these massive emissions and they do nothing to tell consumers about what migration is and what it means for the safety of them and their families. I quickly came to appreciate just how incredibly resistant most manufacturers were, dispending what was necessary to lower emissions, even though the available technology had been proven years before I became a commissioner to be effective in saving carbon monoxide. This was the first time I've seen people living lives in avoiding life altering injuries. This resistance was not unlike the automobile industry in the 1970s when they resisted safety measures that we take so for granted today, like airbags. We at the CPSC knew that at every, after every major storm, there would be a spike in profits to manufacturers of portable generators and in the number of inevitable deaths and injuries from carbon monoxide poisoning. My comments are in two areas. The cost benefit analysis, first of all, significantly understates the benefits of this regulation due to a paucity of data, not due to any fault of the CPSC staff. I understand well how decision making here is driven by cost benefit analysis. Staff has ably shown that the benefits of the decrease in deaths and injuries associated with the proposed standard far outweigh any cost to the industry. The benefits outweigh cost is true even taking into account that the data on which those benefits are calculated are very under inclusive. And it is true even though the ICM severely understates the costs of carbon monoxide, non-fatal carbon monoxide poisonings. I speak with assurance on this point because my staff and I during my five years here looked extensively and deeply into CPSC's sources of data and we found that it was very defective. They were very defective. Let me make three key observations about underlying the data on the cost benefit analysis in this case. First of all, the number of non-fatal carbon monoxide poisonings is significantly understated because the prescribed treatment hyperbaric chambers does not occur in emergency departments and we all know that nice data only captures a very, very limited number of emergency departments. The CPSC's injury cost model which was used for non-emergency department calculations relies on nice data which does not include injuries from hyperbaric chambers and thus very much understates the number of carbon monoxide injuries. Secondly, the cost of treating non-fatal carbon monoxide poisoning fails to include the cost of carbon monoxide lifelong injuries. The ICM explicitly states that it does not incorporate such recurring chronic costs. In 2016 we had a wonderful witness, Dr. Lindell Weaver, who's a world expert in the injuries that result from carbon monoxide poisonings and I urge you to look at that testimony. He testified about the actual costs which are significantly higher than those that are captured in the ICM. And thirdly and lastly with the data, we must remember that the number of deaths that we throw out there constantly that occur because of portable generators is nowhere near the real number. We only have CPSRMS which is comprised of anecdotal reports and I must note that the deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning from portable generators are disproportionately non-Hispanic blacks and African Americans. And the second area I would like to comment about is the history of the resistance of portable generator manufacturers in lowering carbon monoxide emissions. And I think this is important for this commission to understand and to remember as this regulation and the timing of required compliance are considered. Portable generator manufacturers have been resisted making machines safer by lowering the massive amounts of carbon monoxide emissions for more than 21 years of interactions with the CPSC. Several investigative reports, some of which I've cited in my written comments, have been written about this resistance and the resulting tragedies for so many. The 2002 CPSC requested the UL to develop a voluntary standard and that led manufacturers to finally put a warning label on the machines, albeit these warning labels were very confusing and very ineffective, and the deaths and the injuries continued. Four years later, the 2006 ANPR recommended requiring lower emissions and this recommendation was met with the now familiar industry arguments but resulted in the UL starting to work on a voluntary standard that would have required lower emissions. But as soon as the portable generator manufacturers saw that this was going to happen, they withdrew from that process and formed their own organization, PGMA, in 2009. But even then, PGMA did not have its first technical meeting for another year and it decided would not even address carbon monoxide emissions according to an attendee of that meeting. Deaths and injuries continued. It was the CPSC and not industry that took it upon itself to work with the University of Alabama and with NIST to produce a prototype of a generator that would produce much lower emissions since our staff engineers had reached the conclusion that was the only way to avoid the maximum number of deaths and injuries. On October 25, 2016, after years of trying to cajole industry into lowering emissions, CPSC staff presented the commissioners with a carefully prepared 600 page analysis concluding that industry needed to be required to lower emissions in order to save lives. I must say in my five years as a commissioner, I had never seen a more thoroughly and carefully prepared report. Staff had carefully examined the idea of a shutoff switch as an alternative to lowering emissions and had justifiably concluded that the shutoff switch alone was not going to be sufficient, in part because CO migrates. We voted four to one on November 21, 2016 to proceed with rulemaking. PGMA then started an all front attack to make sure that a such a requirement would never be made of them. These efforts included manipulating the acting chair nominated by the last president who was the sole vote against rulemaking to abdicate all CPSC authority to the EPA. They put one of their own in as general counsel which further stymied rulemaking. They represented data as showing lower emissions were not necessary while refusing to produce those data. They issued misleading statements concerning their data and even through the then acting chair blocked a letter to retailers from commissioners about portable generator safety. These were only some of their actions and I must say I don't know about all their actions by any stretch but I did spell out many more in my written comments. Since my term expired I followed the reports of unnecessary deaths and injuries from carbon monoxide poisoning from portable generators with a heavy heart that I could not have done more. So here we are 21 years after the CPSC first raised the critical issue with manufacturers and six and a half years after the then commission on which I served voted to proceed with rulemaking. And still many in PGMA are advocating against a requirement for lowering emissions. I was delighted to read in some of the comments for this hearing that some of those manufacturers have changed their position. But the deaths in the injuries from CO poisonings continue and hopefully today finally the commission this commission will move forward with this essential requirement for saving so many lives. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Robinson. Mr. Boyce, who will be virtual. Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Excellent. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and I'm very sorry that I could not be president person to do so. UL solutions commends the consumer product safety commission for its diligent and comprehensive efforts to reduce the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning from portable generator use. We are strongly in support of the proposed requirements being advanced by the commission and urge their adoption as a mandatory consumer product safety standard. For over century, the enterprise has been dedicated to advancing product safety and promoting safe living and working environments for people everywhere. UL solutions is a global leader in the application of safety science and hazard based safety engineering. For portable generators, we've applied this expertise to the certification of low carbon monoxide emitting portable generators to the requirements of UL 22 01. UL solutions has worked with the consumer product safety commission for many years to enhance portable generator safety. Second edition of UL 22 01 published in 2018 reflects the extensive work performed by a task group formed at the request of CPSC in 2014. This task group was asked to develop proposals to amend UL 22 01 for the purpose of reducing the carbon monoxide poisoning hazard. Over the course of 3 years, 37 members representing generator manufacturers, trade associations, government safety experts, academia, labor and the fire service met nearly 30 times via teleconference. The effort was chaired by Dr. Kevin Don of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. At the CPSC's request, the task group studied the feasibility of achieving significant reductions in CO generation via the application of existing or similarly performing technologies and produced a draft test procedure for a method of measuring generator CO emissions and necessary to establish a reduced CO emission performance standard. The proposal was submitted to the full UL 22 01 standards technical panel and accepted in May of 2017. The task group benefited from the active participation of all of its members and the proposal was approved by the fully balanced STP standards technical panel. Portable generators that are certified to the requirements of UL 22 01 provide elevated protection from CO poisoning. We commend the commission for its continued commitment to minimizing the dangerous effects of CO poisoning from portable generators and stand ready to extend our work with responsible parties to promote portable generator safety. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Boyce. And Mr. Ranga, you can begin. Good morning. Everyone hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. I'm Susan Arang. I'm privileged to serve as the executive director of PGMA, Portable Generator Manufacturers Association. I'm so sorry I couldn't be there this morning. That was due to unforeseen weather events that prevented my plane from leaving Cleveland. I'm joined today in person by Greg Wischdat, who is the president of PGMA. And we thank you for the opportunity to present on CPSC supplemental orders making on portable generators. Next slide. First and foremost, I want to emphasize that PGMA does take consumer safety very seriously. We developed a take it outside campaign in 2015 to promote the safe use of portable generators and have successfully collaborated with manufacturers, consumer advocates and the CPSC to develop the CPSC and CPGMA G300 or G300, a voluntary safety standard that addresses the risk associated with improper use of portable generators. In 2018, we worked with the CPSC to update the G300 standard and that revised standard focuses on the potential carbon monoxide CO hazards and requires a detection system that shuts off the generator when CO accumulates. Standard and G300 took effect in March of 2020 and our analysis indicates that industry's compliance rate is at 75% expected to increase to 85% next year and will be higher beyond that. PGMA is currently working on another revision to lower the CO level at which the generator shuts off. We look forward to continuing our work with the CPSC on the latest revision, which includes many of the measures from the proposed rule. And we expect to finalize our revision this fall. In light of this history and the consumer product safety acts, CPSA's focus on cooperation between industry and the CPSC, we are troubled by the proposed rule. The proposed rule would make generators less affordable to consumers and will take many generators out of the market. More concerning, the requirements in the proposed rule could increase safety risks for consumers. Our written comments explain the technical analysis of the proposed rule and also include several detailed analysis by industry experts. Our reason today focuses on four issues with the proposed rule that are among the most concerning to PGMA and its members. First is the authority to regulate carbon monoxide emissions. In the CPSA, Congress has placed clear limits on the CPSC's jurisdiction. Section 31 of the CPSA states that the CPSC has no authority to regulate an injury risk that could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by action taken under the Clean Air Act. Section 213 of the Clean Air Act expressly authorizes EPA to regulate CO emissions from non-road engines in order to achieve the greatest degree of emission reduction through available technology. Based on that authority, the EPA first set carbon monoxide emission limits for portable generators in 1991 and has revised those regulations three times since. It is illegal for manufacturers to sell portable generators in the United States without first obtaining EPA certifications that their products comply with those emissions requirements. Despite Section 31 and EPA's robust regulatory regime, the CPSC proposes to separately regulate carbon monoxide emissions from portable generators. In 2017, the EPA administrator sent the acting CPSC chair a letter explaining that the CPSC cannot regulate carbon monoxide emissions because the risk that the CPSC identified could be addressed under the Clean Air Act. The administrator offered to work with the CPSC in evaluating EPA's emissions requirements for portable generators. To the best of our knowledge, the CPSC has not taken advantage of that offer. PGMA urges the CPSC to work with the EPA and not strike out on its own to promulgate emissions limits that it lacks the authority to impose. Second is the assessment of injury risk and the sufficiency of a voluntary standard. Next slide, please. In addition to the concerns with the CPSC's lack of jurisdiction over CO emissions, under Section 9 of the CPSA, the CPSC may not promulgate a mandatory rule unless it analyzes the degree of injury risk and finds that a rule is reasonably necessary to address that risk in light of existing voluntary standards. The CPSC's findings on the risk are based on false assumptions about the G300 standard. I would like to highlight two of them. First, the CPSC mistakenly assumes that using a G300 compliant generator outside carries an unreasonably high fatality risk. The commission staff analyzed the effectiveness of the G300 standard and found that it would prevent 87% of the simulated fatalities. Among other things, that conclusion rests on the incorrect assumption that in 10% of all modeled scenarios where a G300 compliant generator is started or restarted outside the home, 22% of its CO emissions still enter the home. This assumption led to an inflated number of simulated fatalities and injuries and is inconsistent with actual fatalities reported outdoors in the CPSC's IDI summary report. In reality, according to the CPSC's own data, fatalities are rare in that scenario occurring only 28 times from 2011 to 2021. Once the assumptions are corrected, the G300 standard would prevent over 98% of the simulated fatalities in the CPSC's analysis. Next slide please. Second, the CPSC inaccurately assumes that only 30% of the portable generators sold in the US comply with the carbon monoxide shutoff requirements in the G300 standard. PGMA has provided information to the CPSC showing that industry-wide compliance rate is over 75%. PGMA expects that rate to continue to increase in part due to the retail requirements for products that must comply with the standard. Thus, the CPSC is vastly under estimated compliance. Third is an unjustified and unworkable effective date. The CPSC also has not justified the 180-day effective rate date or analyzed the potential safety risk created by its proposed emissions requirements. The proposed emissions requirements will lead to substantial additional heat, increasing fire risk, and reducing the lifespan of portable generators. Manufacturers will need sufficient time to engineer solutions to those challenges and the unintended safety risk created by the CPSC's proposed emissions limits. Further, the CPSC's view that industry can design and manufacture compliant products within 180 days is no basis in reality. Beyond these safety issues, the CPSC has not accounted for the need of manufacturers to completely redesign portable generators across models, product lines, including even more complex, complicated, multi-fuel generators. This is a lengthy and burdensome undertaking and involves creating new fuel mapping technologies, catalyst chemistry, engine cooling development, electronic fuel injection methods, and testing for electronic magnetic interference issues. Once a manufacturer designs a compliant prototype, it must initiate a lengthy development process, including design, validation, certification, and prototype tooling. That includes obtaining new emission certifications from EPA and the California Air Resources Board or CARB. All of that must happen before companies prepare to manufacture new products by building inventories, acquiring new suppliers, retooling and processing parts factories, and training manufacturing teams, among many other steps. And all of this activity must occur simultaneously for each engine size or family. PGMA's comments explain in detail that a realistic compliance timeline is a minimum of three years. As the CPSC recognized in the 2016 proposed rule, incorporating new emission control technologies into portable generators can take three years. Compliant with the updated proposed rule may take even longer because of CARB's new regulation and multi-fuel generators becoming more common. The CPSC must provide manufacturers with sufficient time to responsibly engineer products that can both meet the requirements in the proposed rule and to design around any unintended safety risks created by those requirements. Fourth, the G300 standard is a viable, less burdensome alternative to adequately address the risk associated with carbon monoxide. The CPSC's contrary finding is based primarily on the incorrect assumption that the G300 standard would prevent only 87% of simulated fatalities. The G300 standard represents years of collaboration between industry and the CPSC staff to effectively address carbon monoxide risks. The requirements in the G300 standard address nearly all of the CO risks associated with the improper use of portable generators without creating any safety risks. The rate of compliance with the G300 standard is already high and continues to grow. PGMA members alone have nearly 3 million compliant generators in the market today. Next slide, please. In conclusion, the PGMA urges the CPSC to work with the industry on the existing voluntary standard. Today, together, we can continue to devise and refine safety message that protects consumers and are achievable for many manufacturers. Thank you, and we look forward to answering your questions. Thank you, Ms. Ranga. Mr. Hearn, please begin. Mr. Chair and commissioners, thank you for taking the time to hold this hearing today. My name is Sean O'Hearn. I'm the Director of Forensics and Reliability at Harbor Freight Tools, where my role includes working with our team of engineers and inspectors to test products to ensure product safety. I've been with Harbor Freight for about a year and a half. Prior to my time here, I was a consultant with Exponent, where my work primarily focused on investigating the origin and cause of fires and explosions and performing hazards assessments and evaluations for various industrial processes and products. I'm a certified fire and explosion investigator and I'm a PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT. Today, I'm here to discuss one of Harbor Freight's key concerns with the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. We at Harbor Freight are concerned that if the SMPR is finalized, we will see a significant increase in the number of fires and burn injuries associated with the use of portable generators. The scope of my testimony and questions that I prepared to answer today is limited to the fire and burn hazards that would be created by mandating a low emissions requirement in the agency's final rule. The SMPR assumes that it is possible to meet the extremely low CO emission requirement because there currently exists four different UL-221 generators on the market. However, the current UL-221 generators on the market exhibit a different safety hazard not adequately evaluated by the CPSC during development of the SMPR, nor by UL during the development of 2201, extremely high exhaust temperatures. Harbor Freight has performed testing on a UL-221 generator and found that the exhaust temperature of a 2201 generator is about 500 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than a non-UL-221 generator, creating a substantial fire and burn injury risk above and beyond non-UL-221 compliant generators in certain misuse scenarios. The exhaust temperature is so hot that even at 50% load, materials such as cardboard, straw, and wooden walls would catch on fire within a few minutes if placed a few inches from the exhaust. At the same loading conditions, these materials will not catch on fire behind a non-UL-221 generator. We submitted videos of the testing conducted with our comments to demonstrate for the commission what the result of these substantially increased temperatures would be. As we are not able to show the videos at this hearing, I urge you to watch exhibits 5 through 8 to Harbor Freight's public comments. We have put together slides that I can walk through now showing some of the key points from our testing. This is our testing that we performed, UL-221 generator test, exhibit number 5. Next slide, please. We tested a UL-221 compliant generator, the Ryobi 4000-watt gasoline-powered digital inverter generator with CO shutdown, and compared it to a PGMA compliant generator, the Predator 4550-watt inverter generator with the CO shutdown. Next slide, please. So here's the technical specifications for the product. They are both open frame inverters. They have about the same engine size, and they have approximately the same rated output as marketed as about 3,500 watts. Next slide, please. The first test that we performed was to directly measure the exhaust temperature. We loaded it at 15 amps at 120 volts, which approximates running a refrigerator and a small air conditioner. Next slide, please. So here's our test setup. We have the Ryobi generator, the UL-221 generator on the left, and the Predator generator, the PGMA generator on the right. We applied the load for the generators using a Shochur generator load bank, model 632. Next slide, please. And we applied a 15 amp load. Next slide, please. After eight minutes, we measured the exhaust. As you can see, this is the Ryobi exhaust temperature as measured with a forward-looking infrared thermal imaging camera. And you can see that the exhaust temperature is almost 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit at 1,083 degrees Fahrenheit. Next slide, please. This is the exhaust temperature for the Predator exhaust. Here, the exhaust temperature is about 500 degrees. Next slide, please. The first combustion test we performed was with cardboard. This is to approximate using this generator near debris. So we placed a piece of cardboard about three and a half inches away from the exhaust. Again, we loaded it at 15 amps at 120 volts. Next slide, please. The Ryobi unit is on the left. You can see the cardboard there placed about three and a half inches behind the exhaust and the Predator unit is on the right. Next slide, please. And after three minutes, the cardboard behind the Ryobi unit ignited and caught fire. Next slide, please. And you can see it's quite running quite readily, whereas the cardboard behind the Predator unit is not ignited. In fact, it doesn't even have any char on it. Next slide, please. The next combustion test we performed was of straw. This is to approximate if this generator was used by dry brush or leaves. So we placed a bail of straw about four inches from the exhaust and again loaded it at 15 amps at 120 volts. Next slide, please. The Ryobi unit is on the left. The Predator unit is on the right. Next slide, please. After running for about three minutes, you can see that the straw behind the Ryobi unit is on fire with there's glowing embers and a significant amount of smoke. Next slide, please. Whereas behind the Predator unit, the straw has not caught on fire. Next slide, please. Final test we performed was placing the generators near an exterior wall. This was to simulate what would happen if you were to use your generator by say your shed or your house. We placed it two inches away from a wood-sided wall with the exhaust directed at the wall. The wall was a legitimate wall. It was a 16-inch on-center 2x6 lumber construction with R-19 bat insulation. The exterior sheathing was 5 eighths inch plywood with 60-minute building paper. The exterior siding was a Duratemp 9-32 inch primed wood siding and the interior wall was half inch gypsum border or typical drywall. Again, we loaded it at 15 amps and 120 volts. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Here's our setup again. The Ryobi unit is on the left. The Predator unit is on the right. Loaded at 15 amps. Next slide, please. After 11 minutes, the wall is starting to glow behind the Ryobi unit. You can see the glowing embers. Next slide, please. After 15 minutes, there is smoke coming out of the wall from behind the Ryobi unit. Next slide, please. After 35 minutes, the wall was on fire, so we removed the Ryobi unit. We didn't want the Ryobi unit to catch on fire. Next slide, please. And by an hour, the wall was fully engulfed in flames. We let the Predator unit run for another hour and there was no evidence that there was any char or thermal damage behind the Predator. We'd like to see these full videos. We have those again in our exhibits. So in response to questions about high temperatures associated with the extreme reduction in carbon monoxide emissions, we understand that the staff have explained the expect industry to be able to identify a solution. However, at the same time, staff has pointed to current UL-2201 generators on the market as evidence that it is feasible for the industry to achieve the low CO emission requirement as outlined in the SMPR. It is those very generators exhibiting the high temperatures at the exhaust and present the fire hazard as reflected in our testing, demonstrating that currently there is no technology in existing generators on the market that can meet the low CO requirement without increasing the risk of fire and burn injury. Furthermore, if a commercially feasible technology existed to reduce CO emissions without increasing the risk of fire or burn injury, then we would expect the very capable engineers at TTI, who manufactured the UL-2201 generator in our tests, would have implemented such technology into their products during development, yet they did not. In fact, the TTI product we tested included many of the technologies that the CPSC has pointed to as methods to protect against fire and burn injury, including adding heat shields, injecting secondary air into the exhaust part of the muffler, and directing additional cooling air to the muffler. Yet this generator still exhibited exhaust gas temperatures over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit at 50% load and caused quick ignition of nearby combustible material. Additionally, if a known solution existed, then we would expect that the CPSC would have included performance requirements in the proposed standard to address what we have demonstrated as a clear fire and burn hazard. Yet such a requirement is not part of the proposed standard. Therefore, any technological solution to address the increased risk of fire and burn injury will take significant development effort on the part of generator manufacturers and may not be possible for all types of generators. Most importantly, until such technology is developed, if ever, the SMPR, as written, will require manufacturers to place on the market generator generators that exhibit this elevated risk of fire or burn injury. And even if such a technology were to be developed, it would not be required as a part of the CPSC's portable generator safety standard if the agency moves forward with its proposal to mandate low CO emission requirements. I encourage the staff to further evaluate the fire and burn injury hazard associated with the low CO emission requirement. In my review of the SMPR briefing package and associated materials, I could find no evidence that the staff formally evaluated and conducted testing related to this hazard. Even though they acknowledge that reducing CO emissions releases a tremendous amount of heat, which can't present fire and burn safety concerns, even UL admitted that increased risk, fire risk was not considered during the development of the UL-21 standard. As reflected in my discussions with multiple individuals at UL, including George Morales, VP of Standards Development, who submitted comments on behalf of UL. I recommend that the agency perform a similar study to the study performed by the EPA during the development of the Phase 3 emission standards. In this study, the EPA performed multiple analyses to ensure that the regulations did not increase the risk of fire or burn injury with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These included failure modes and effects analyses, performance evaluations, and thermal measurements of 19 different engines that would fall under the proposed standard. Certainly, the engines tested as a part of the EPA study did not meet the UL-20201's emissions requirements mandated by the CPSC's SMBR, and therefore the EPA study cannot be used to support the contention that it shows this SMPR would not increase risks of fires or burns. The fire and burn hazard, Farber Freight has demonstrated in its testing already submitted to the agency is one of the several reasons why Farber Freight does not believe the agency should move forward with a low emissions requirement as a part of this rulemaking. Thank you again for your time. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you, Mr. Ahern. Mr. Wallace. Thank you very much to the whole commission and good morning. Consumer Reports or CR, the independent nonprofit member organization welcomes the opportunity to speak today regarding the CPSC's supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a mandatory safety standard for portable generators. CR strongly supports the CPSC's proposed safety standard and urges the commission to finalize it expeditiously. I will first summarize our comments then address some specific issues. Improving the safety of portable generators in particular to reduce the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning has been a long time priority for CR. Portable generators engines can emit carbon monoxide at an extremely high rate. Users might not be aware of the potentially deadly hazard posed by the gas nor the sheer quantity of carbon monoxide produced by these tools. For decades we have educated consumers about the utility of these products as well as their safety risks and advocated for stronger standards. We test and rate portable generators evaluating models on both safety and performance. To give consumers the knowledge they need to make informed decisions on purchases. Fundamentally, portable generators can help consumers but also hurt them and that's why we do what we do. People rely on portable generators to keep their homes powered and their families safe during emergency power outages. These are stressful and sometimes desperate circumstances in which they do not always follow safety guidelines. There have been a number of journalistic investigations over the last few years that have made this tragic reality clearer than ever. Back in 2018 the two voluntary standards UL-2201 and PGM AG 300 represented a step forward. When they were revised to include CO safety provisions and they have helped drive improvements in CO safety technology. They of course came about after the initial NPR from the CPSC. At the same time deaths and injuries linked to portable generators have not substantially decreased over the 18 years of incidents studied by the agency. As deaths and injuries remain high and they are even potentially trending in the wrong direction. The implementation of a strong mandatory safety standard for portable generators is vitally important. It's also urgent. It's time today to take the next step forward for safety. As I mentioned consumer reports test and rate portable generator models on both safety and performance. When CR started conducting safety testing of portable generators we evaluated safety on the basis of whether or not a generator had an automatic carbon monoxide shutoff that actually stopped the engine before CO built up to specified levels in a fully enclosed space. CR later updated our safety evaluation to better differentiate the level of safety protection among the models. Our scoring now also accounts for the results of a second test designed to capture what happens when a generator is used in a space that is partially enclosed like an attached garage with garage door open. Today CR's portable generator ratings award points to models that feature a carbon monoxide safety system, meaning a lower CO engine, an automatic shutoff or both. And our scoring penalizes those models that do not have such a system. In fact, we now only recommend to consumers those portable generators that have a carbon monoxide safety system. Going forward, portable generators should have both lower emissions and a detection and shutoff feature. As CR has noted before, there are potentially life threatening gaps that a detection and shutoff feature alone fails to address. CR scoring system reflects this reality. And we appreciate the proposed approach by the CPSC to take an integrated approach to make sure to use belt and suspenders. Consumer reports as evaluations and recommendations provide consumers with helpful information about portable generators that they can use to keep themselves and their loved ones safe. They are no substitute for our, however, or sensible rules that would apply across the entire market. It is said that anyone buying a new portable generator receives an adequate level of protection against CO poisoning and other safety hazards. Simply put, a mandatory safety standard for portable generators is urgently needed. The justification for the proposed safety standard is clear. Deaths and injuries linked to CO poisoning have not meaningfully declined despite decades of public awareness efforts, a CPSC warning label and the revised voluntary standards published in 2018. Deaths and injuries remain high and potentially are trending higher. While the CPSC has determined that high levels of compliance with the voluntary standards would greatly reduce deaths associated with consumers use portable generators. The agency also has found that the existing voluntary standards are not adequate to address the CO hazard and are not likely to eliminate or adequately address the risk of injury. In addition, the CPSC has determined that industry wide and manufacturer compliance with either voluntary standard is limited and that substantial compliance with either standard is unlikely in the future. Consumer reports agrees with both conclusions. Shortcomings in PGMA G300 and UL2201 and the lack of compliance or likely future compliance with one of these standards across the marketplace makes evident the necessity and appropriateness of a strong mandatory standard. We are glad to see a proposed rule that incorporates elements of both voluntary standards as CR has previously advocated doing and to see one that includes modifications to the voluntary standards where necessary to address safety gaps. Indeed, CR considers the CPSC's proposed rule the best way to substantially reduce deaths and injuries. This integrated proposal, as I mentioned, takes the best of both approaches and weaves them together in an intelligent and justified manner. In summary, Consumer Reports thanks the CPSC for issuing the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. While some manufacturers have contributed to solutions, others have four years failed to put safety first, leaving consumers at risk for serious injury or death from CO poisoning. The CPSC's strong mandatory standard incorporates the best elements of both current voluntary standards as CR has recommended and reflected in our ratings and modifies required elements to improve safety as needed. The CPSC has clearly demonstrated that the societal benefits of the proposed safety standard while potentially undervalued in the manner described by Commissioner Robinson and in other ways. The CPSC has demonstrated that the societal benefits nevertheless far outweigh the estimated compliance costs. As the independent agency that consumers rely on to help keep them safe from unreasonable product hazards, it is imperative for the agency to finalize this safety standard expeditiously. And now to take the rest of my time just to address a few specific issues. First, our interpretation of Section 31 of the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Clean Air Act is that the CPSC has clear authority and jurisdiction to take action in this space. And we strongly disagree with those who say otherwise. Second, I know there are some other stakeholders who have talked about having a longer time period for a concentration limit, perhaps the third concentration limit added to this standard, maybe a one hour limit, maybe a four hour limit. We would be open to such an idea. We are concerned about longer term exposure to CO. So again, if that were to be considered, we'd be open to it. But at this time we're primarily focused on what's on the table in this proposal. CR also encountered, this is a separate issue, CR encountered a battery issue recently that we want to bring to your attention. Our testing experts as a part of our program observed a potential safety issue. We removed a portable generator from warehouse storage. And although that generator had until the time of its retrieval remained in its original packaging and was never activated, CR staff could not start the unit. And we later found out that the CO sensors battery had drained entirely. Our testing team hypothesizes that maybe the generator CO sensor was actively detecting CO while the unit was turned off. The CO detector battery is internally sealed in the module and the team found that it is not replaceable. So to address this issue and increase the lifespan of portable generators, the commission should consider requiring that a CO sensor battery be accessible and replaceable by a consumer using ordinary tools. I know this is a little bit different than other aspects of the rule where we strongly support tamper resistance and strong tamper resistance requirements. But in this case, it might be necessary to provide more of an opportunity to replace that battery. Also, consumers should be clearly notified. And this probably I should have said first. Consumer should be clearly notified when a CO sensor battery is when a CO detector battery is drained. And that's that's an issue that we wanted to make sure to bring to your attention. Next, you know when it comes to the proposed revision to the PGMA standard that was raised earlier. It's not close to adequate. I just want to be blunt about that. And I don't want the commission to we at CR, don't consider it adequate for safety, and we urge the commission not to either. Finally, to take a step back for a second. I want to underscore the amount of time. And CPSC driven research that has taken to get to this point. Staff's work has been incredible. 15 even 20 years of work. Today, the CPSC needs to take action. The agency and its staff has been responsive to industry in numerous ways already, and any more delays are unacceptable. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Wallace. Thanks to everybody who came to testify today and this 1st panel. We're now going to turn to questions from the commissioners. Each commissioner will have 10 minutes for questions with multiple rounds necessary. I'm going to start by claiming my time first and for Commissioner Rums, then I just wanted to thank you for being here and providing your expertise and for all the work that you did while a commissioner at the CPSC. My 1st question I'm actually turned to Mr voice. This place to representing you well solutions and Mr her from Harbor Freight, obviously, discuss his demonstration performance of a you will compliant generator and running hotter than a PGMA compliant generator. Mr. Mr. and use demonstration backup as companies position, which is that there will be a significant risk of increased fires and burns associated. Do you have any comment. Mr voice on the Harbor Freight presentation and Mr her statements. Yes, thank you, Mr chair 1st, I'd like to point out that we are not aware of any safety incidents or reports associated with UL certified portable generators. The 2nd, we're not aware of any requirements and any standards on the topic of emission temperature. It is out of scope for answer. You will 22 1, which specifically addresses carbon monoxide emission rate. However, we're not aware of any standard that would address that particular topic. I'll also note that there are specific instructions provided with these generators to inform consumers about precautions associated with the exhaust. And the demonstrations are in direct conflict with with the instructions that are provided with the generators. Certainly at UL solutions, we spend a lot of time thinking about about all forms of hazards, including fire hazards. But we also know that the incident history has amply demonstrated that carbon monoxide poisoning is the predominant hazard associated with portable generators. CPSC databases contain records of more than 700 deaths associated with carbon monoxide poisoning with an average rate of over 70 deaths each year. We know that you all 20 to 1 is effective in mitigating carbon monoxide poisoning associated with portable generators. We know that the comprehensive study by the National Institute for Standards and Technology and CPSC indicated the carbon monoxide poisoning simulations demonstrate the compliance with you all 20 to 1 would have prevented nearly 100% of the deaths associated with carbon monoxide poisoning. And you all 20 to 1 again specifically addresses the topic of carbon monoxide emission rate does not contain requirements associated with exhaust temperature. And again, we're not aware of any standard that would address that specific topic of exhaust temperature.  And therefore you all 20 to 1 compliance would not necessitate any particular exhaust temperature. We see tremendous benefit in advancing the approach to mitigate injuries and deaths associated with portable generators, especially for vulnerable populations by addressing both stringent shut off and carbon monoxide emission limits. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just follow up and written comments submitted by electronic industry power equipment. Which makes generally is compliant with the UL standard they wrote that since launching its UL 20 to 1 certified generators in 2018 TTI has not received any. Fire claims resulting from exhaust heat or attributable to the existence of a catalyst, let alone a single death stemming from portable generator fires. Does this track your understanding of what you've seen out there in the market. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, it does. And again, we haven't seen any incidents reported to us. We have a very. Exhaustive market surveillance program to be very mindful of that and we have seen. Incidents reported for non UL certified generators, but nothing associated with the products that we've certified. Thank you. Thank you. I turn to Mr. Mr Wallace. You mentioned your testimony. The consumer reports considers carbon and oxide safety and its ratings for generators and ideally portable generators have both lower admissions and a shut off feature. I know that's of course it's in the proposed rule in front of us.  Yes, so we launched our testing and we recognized that both a shut off system and a lower emission system. Those are both good things for safety. What we came to realize after a period of testing for safety for these units is that the units that were not lower emission generators lower CO emission generators. If in our second test where you had a partially enclosed area.  CO could still build up to dangerous levels in those scenarios and so what we came to realize is that reducing CO emissions is a critical piece of the puzzle and today you cannot as manufacturer earn an excellent rating on safety on CO safety.  Thank you, Mr. Ross. This point I'm out like up to here for my fellow commissioners on their questions as well as the commissioner felmin. Do you have questions? Thank you, Mr. Sherman. I'd first like to thank all of our witnesses today on the first panel for your testimony and for your interest in this important issue. Commissioner welcome back. It's good to see you again. It's important that CPSC get it right when it comes to Portable generator safety. A fully developed record is a critical part of that process. So I thank all of you for your advocacy. I have no further questions. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Trump. Do you have questions? I do. Thank you, Mr. voice. You actually answered my first question response to the chair you all compliance does not require engines to burn hotter. And it doesn't even prescribe a specific method of compliance. And it's my understanding. Mr. voice that there are available options that may already be on the market that may comply with either the CPSC proposed rule. Or the standard you may know some offhand. I'm not sure if you do, but are there are there any that that you're aware of offhand. It's against. So thank you for the question. And there are a number of different approaches that have been proven in the marketplace to reduce the government carbon monoxide emission rate. One of them includes fuel injection, but again, you are 22 one specifically is agnostic on the method of demonstrating compliance with both requirements, reduce carbon monoxide emissions and carbon monoxide shut off. So I was referring to specific models and if you're not aware of any today, but, but you could figure some out. I'd appreciate if you could share a list of those if you have it. Oh, certainly. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And we also did a study with the University of Alabama that was referenced earlier to create a prototype portable generator back in 2012. Alabama made that prototype with commercially available products. 11 years ago, the drastically reduced CO emissions without any negative effects on fire burn risks. So there've been ways around this issue for a while. And Mr. Boys, if heat risk ever did become an issue in the future, is that the kind of thing that you could commit to quickly moving to address through your voluntary standards? Absolutely. You know, you well standards are open for proposed requests for for revision. 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, anybody can make a proposal. And those are acted on by the consensus body. Certainly, you know, as we see additional information becoming available, we want to be mindful of using our continued field experience to perpetually enhance the requirements so they're as effective as possible. Certainly, this is not an unsolvable engineering problem. There are there are a number of ways to address the heat concern if it were of interest. But again, I think the, you know, the predominant hazard of carbon monoxide poisoning, injuring and killing so many people every year for so many years really does mandate action. And I think that we want to make sure we see action on that particular topic. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. And Miss Rohan, you showed us some slides and I'm used to seeing CPSC staff testing looks a little bit different. You know, they published the research questions they were trying to answer their methods, their results. I didn't see that in your testimony. Would you commit to providing this week all documents concerning the scope of work, the research questions and methods and all results. So the purpose of this testing was not to do a full evaluation of the hazard that's what we're sure I'm just asking for the testing that you did do. I assume we didn't see everything that you looked at there and just, you know, the questions you were asked to look at the scope of work, how you want about it and other results that we didn't see. So these are the results that we have available to you to look at. So we all available to me. I'm asking for the ones you haven't made available to us. We've made available to you everything that we can make available to you. So that's a no, you're not going to provide us with the scope of work or the other testing results you did. We do not have a formal scope of work. We had a very short time period to understand what this hazard was going to be. We presented these. We performed these tests. There's not a formal scope of work. Would you share the informal discussions that scoped at your work? I will speak with Harbor Freight as to see what we can present to you. Okay. And to be clear on that request, it's the informal discussion on how you scoped out the work, the other test results that you did, but didn't show us. Those are the things I'm looking for. I'll talk with Harbor Freight about that. Thank you. And then we'll follow up with you to make sure you have the right people to talk to here when you get an answer. I see that you tested the Ryobi generator in the slideshow. Did you test any other UL compliant or comparably low CO emissions units? We looked at one other UL unit, another Ryobi unit and had very, very similar results. And that might be in what you decided to share with them. Yeah, we could share that with you. Okay. You showed us results of three different testing results of three different combustible materials, but you did so at three different distances from the exhaust. You showed us cardboard at three and a half inches away. How'd you pick three and a half inches? So again, we had a very short time period to make these decisions. Whatever we decided that we were going to run this test with, we actually have a test here. We did not show you that is also in our exhibits where we looked at what happens. How long does it take for the cardboard to catch on fire behind the predator generator? And so with that test, we needed to run until the generator ran out of gasoline. So we used three and a half inches as an easy way for us to create a mark using that two by four you see at the bottom of the page. So that's why we selected three and a half inches. Did you test any other distances other than three and a half for that one? No, we did not. And again, the point, the purpose of the testing was not to do a full evaluation. The purpose of the testing was simply to demonstrate something that hasn't been seen here yet. And that is that these exhaust temperatures can create hazards. I appreciate that. I'm going to have to stop you there because I have a few more questions on this. You changed the distance for the bale of straw, not three and a half inches. You changed that to four inches. How'd you pick four inches for that one? There was really no specific reason why we had four inches there. Again, we had a very short. Did you test other distances for the straw? No, we did not. And then you changed it up yet again for the wood paneling. You drew that all the way into two inches. Did you test any other distances there? No, we did not. Again, the purpose of the testing was not to do a full evaluation. I appreciate that. One has to wonder whether the purpose of the testing was to figure out where you could like these things on fire at and show us those results. But despite all the talk about how to best start a fire, I'm just not sure how it all relates to this proposed rule. And I think Mr. Boyd summed up the issue there. Our staff tells us that CO poisoning kills on average, at least 74 people per year, whereas fires caused by generators butted up against straw bills kill zero people that I'm aware of. You know, after all they're used typically after a wet storm that's left nothing dry and they're supposed to be outside and away from everything including combustible materials. Mr.  I'm aware of no. I'll throw out just a few examples and maybe if you're aware, you can let me know. Does the Honda gasoline EU3200 I model create an unreasonable fire risk? I can't just speak to that model specifically and I would ask that Greg wish that my colleague who is there in person. Be able to help address some of the questions. Are you aware of Mr wish that if that Honda gasoline EU3200 I model creates any unreasonable risk of injury. I'm going to stop there. Mr wish that a testifying is he on the list. He's on the list. We submitted myself and Greg wish that the president of PGMA to present today. I look to my general counsel to make sure that everything is in order. We pause the clock here and. Good morning. I think that since moringa is the designated witness the appropriate thing would be would have been for her to have her associate. I don't provide guidance, but since that's not. I'm a bit of a loss as to how to manage that given that that he is in person and she's remote. So, perhaps, maybe we could do this could in a second round. I assume that you two are in email communication. Maybe I can maybe I can simplify this if it's okay for one minute. I'll just stay it don't need a question they can follow up which we can look by colleagues don't seem to mind having Mr wish that help responses in the testimony. So, I'm happy to have him. Okay. Did you want to ask answer that first question of do any of the PGMA manufacturers generators pose an unreasonable fire risk. I'm not aware of any generators that any PGMA generators that pose a fire risk, but I wouldn't be. Okay. So, so not aware of the Honda gasoline EU 3200 I model, creating an unreasonable fire risk. No, sir. The Honda gasoline EB 10,000 or it's EB 6500 EB 5,000 EG 4000 EM 6500 sx or EM 5000 sx. Again, I'm, I'm, I'm not in a position to keep score per se on what Honda generators. I understand variance what issues only ask you one more model that the champion gasoline 9200 watt generator. The same would apply. So, so here's what I would ask and perhaps this would be to either one of you to both, you know, would you mind asking Honda and champion if they've already tested the exhaust model or the exhaust heat of those specific models. I can't commit to providing Honda's data, but we can certainly let Honda know you're interested in having it. All I ask is, can you ask them if they have it and if they've given it to you, would you then commit to producing that to us. I would commit to asking Honda if they have the data and and following up from there. Yes. Okay. Okay. And, and Mr. Ohren, you testified that you used to work as a consultant for a company called Exponent. Mr. Rango or Mr. Wilstead. PJMA has hired Exponent to provide analysis for this SNPR. Correct. That is correct. I've entered into the record three articles. The first is from the LA Times entitled Toyota calls in Exponent Inc. has hired gun. The second is a journal article from the American Journal of Industrial Medicine entitled secret ties to industry and conflicting interests of cancer research. And the third article is from a publication aptly called business ethics titled big companies and legal scrapes turn to science for higher giant exponent. These articles say that Exponent has argued that dioxins did not cause cancer. They defended companies over asbestos, secondhand smoke, dumping toxic waste and rainforests, sage and orange, arsenic, benzene and the deep water horizon oil spill. They even argued that shoulder seatbelts don't reduce injuries and car crashes. Mr. Levine might have something to say about that. Here's a quote from David Michaels, who was an assistant secretary of labor for OSHA from 2009 to 2017 and wrote the book doubt is their product quote while some might exist. I have yet to see an exponent study that does not support the conclusion needed by the corporation or trade association that is paying the bill. According to the exponents former CEO Roger McCarthy, the clients who funded the research own the data. And so they need to approve publication of any results. I think we need to consider various factors in rulemaking. And one of those factors is how evidence is created and where it comes from. So I'm inducing introducing this information into the record to inform it. Going forward. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner ball. Did you have questions? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to all the panelists here today. I do appreciate your testimony. Mr Wallace, the commission asked specifically for comments related to shut off notification for visually impaired consumers. I believe you did address this in your testimony. I would ask if you would elaborate on your assessment of both visual and audio warnings that are necessary to protect consumers. Thank you very much for the question and thank you for making sure that this was a included in a full some way in the in the request for comments. So we, we have experience at CR. When it comes to safety notifications across a wide range of products, I mean, even in cars. So wherever you can have both a visual and an auditory alert. That's, I mean, I can't think of a case where where that's not going to be beneficial when safety is concerned. So, you know, it's, it's, and then you think about people who are visually impaired and it just becomes all the more important for there to be an auditory alert as well to an audible alert as well to make sure that they can take action and keep themselves safe. Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Wallace. I don't have any other questions this year. Thank you, Commissioner. There's been a request for another round. I don't have questions at this point in time. Commissioner Feldman. Neither do I, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Trump. I do. Thank you, Commissioner Robinson. I should have done this to from the start, but thank you so much.  And I appreciate gaining the benefit of your testimony. It provides very valuable perspective here. I was disturbed to learn about some of the historic interactions with with PGMA and Ms. Hans it breaks and strattens you outlined in your testimony. And I wanted to give you a chance to elaborate on a little bit of that because you covered a lot of ground in your opening statements. So I wanted to look back at some of that. Do you think it was appropriate for former chair Burkle to have been wooing a generator industry attorney to become CPSC's general counsel while that attorney was actively lobbying against the rule we're here talking about today? None of those interactions were appropriate in my view. And it was deeply disturbing to me when I discovered some of the email exchanges that took place between industry and acting, acting chair Burkle that I had not known about before confirmation hearing. And especially since I was just in, I mean, the micro of that is trying to inform retailers about what they should be telling consumers about the safety of portable generators and that was immediately forwarded to PGMA and they put a nicks on it. And it was it was deeply troubling to me for for a lot of different reasons. Certainly hiring general counsel that came out of the industry who had just a very short time earlier been lobbying me against any requirement. And all of that was what it was deeply disturbing to me, but I'm not the important one. It should have been very disturbing to consumers that this agency that is assigned the task of protecting them had that kind of collaboration with industry.  They're supposed to divulge those and none of those were divulged. I can confirm that obligation is still in place and it's an important one. And so you did talk about some of those those those meetings that chair former chair Burkle had taken privately without noticing with industry representatives. We have that rule in place. Can you explain a little bit why you think that's important and what we're worried about happening in those types of interactions. Well, the and let me say that if you have one of those meetings and you don't think anything's going to come up that's business before the commission, you still have a retrospective duty to put a notice out so that others can can contribute. I just any meeting that I had with anyone you put a notice out and that gives the opportunity for someone who might disagree with the view being presented to you to also present their views. I think the transparency of the agency and the views that the commissioners are considering is extraordinarily important to the work that the commission does and to the public having faith in the work that the commission does. Yeah, and you reference this but I think it's worth highlighting because among the many troubling revelations that you outlined, there was one very stark example. And you said quote unbeknownst to me when I presented a draft letter to retailers that you just referenced to former chair Burkle, she quickly sent the letter to PGMA to see if they would have any objection when Greg will stat. I believe that you said he did. She simply told me that she could not sign it. And I find it shameful that anyone could take a government paycheck and deny the people on a services like that. Asking the industry that we regulate for permission to regulate it is corrupt and it's an abandonment of agency mission and I'm thankful that you brought it to our attention because I was not aware of that. I did want to give you a chance to elaborate on some of the things you said about the SNPR before us as well. You suggested that even with the thousands of deaths and injuries that we do attribute to generators were actually significantly underestimating those. And I just like to give you some more ground to explain how let me say that as a commissioner and I'm almost embarrassed to say this I did not appreciate how the cost benefit analysis is used to keep regulations from being passed. And because the costs are pretty easy to calculate and very rarely underestimated. But the benefits as I was sitting there as a previous attorney who had done personal injury cases on both sides and seen what injuries were really worth. And I would listen to our staff and what they were using for estimates. I just started to put together and then after I left the commission actually did a pretty in depth study of what of what how benefits are calculated. And if you look at this agency in particular, I was aware of the shortcomings of our data and my staff and I spent an enormous effort trying to improve our data. But but I didn't understand that this this this issue that's before the agency right now demonstrates perfectly that when you've got so I cited this in my in my written report and I don't have it in front of me right now. But I think there are five to 700 places just as an example that treat in hyperbaric chambers that aren't associated with hospitals. Let's put that as an example. So all the first responders who do the proper thing and take someone who's been poisoned by carbon monoxide, which can be very, very serious and not kill you. They'll take them to a hyperbaric chamber. None of those numbers end up being in the numbers of injured that we have. We only have less than a third of the hospitals that have hyperbaric chambers. First responders who know the proper treatment and we would like to think they all do are going to take somebody there and not to an emergency department. None of those numbers will show up. And when I looked at what the what the staff and I'm not saying this critically this is all they have when they use the ICM to calculate what wasn't in the day the nice data. The ICM says they rely on the nice categorizations and there is no such category categorization. So the number of people are just grossly underestimated. And then again the costs. I mean we're talking about millions of dollars. In my first exposure to what to what carbon monoxide can do to a person neurologically their life was when I was representing Whirlpool defending against a case where there had been carbon monoxide poisoning and of a couple and the husband died and the wife was severely injured. It was millions and millions of dollars of care and lost work and just lost some enjoyment of life that was just one injury. And I think this is calculated as something like $50,000 per injury. And the deaths are they are so grossly understated. I think the perfect demonstration of that is tab D of the of the staff's package that just took one metropolitan area New Orleans after one hurricane and look at the numbers that we had just because of fire marshal thought to contact the CPSC and our staff went and took a look at it. And that's one tiny, tiny micro of what the numbers are really like. And here we have to rely on newspaper reports on medical examiners and all of the deficiencies that go with that. So I hope that gives you more ammunition. Well, I appreciate the answer. I appreciate the context there. And yeah, with the seriousness of the hazard, and with the available solutions that we've known about since your time here and before it, I think. Why do you believe portable generator manufacturers have historically resisted adopting lower see emissions, CEO emissions lowering technology because it costs more. Pretty simple.  Lowering emissions cost money. Mr. Robinson. Thank you for your fight against inappropriate influences in this area. Thank you for sharing the illuminating background and thank you for giving us the context in which we should view comments today. Thank you. Thank you. It's a few more here. Mr. Ranga. While your list is PGMA is executive director. You're not a PGMA employee. You work for Thomas associate, saying trade association management company. Who are your other clients? We have 23 other clients. Power tool Institute. Metal Builder Manufacturers Association, the garage door manufacturers. Give me the whole list. Sure.  I don't know unless tomorrow right now at the top of my head. I don't know if they are all publicly listed on your website. I saw a few, but if you want to just follow up with the list, that's, that's fine with me. Can you do that? Sure. No problem, but they are on. Thank you. You've questioned whether it might be best for us to leave this whole matter to the EPA under the clean air act. And maybe it would if the risk posed by the consumer product could be eliminated or, or reduced to a sufficient extent through actions taken under the clean air act. Do you know when the clean air act was amended to give EPA regulatory authority over outdoor air emissions for non road, non road engines miss Ranga. Was that 1991. It was 1990. Yeah, that was very close. Do you know how many people were poisoned to death by carbon monoxide from portable generators in the year 2020 alone. 40 years after those amendments. I do have that number in front of me now. It was over 100 people and that's the highest number of portable generator related poisoning deaths and CPSC started collecting the data. So. I don't think the clean air act has eliminated or sufficiently reduced the risk here. I've got some more questions, but I am out of time. I need like 2 more minutes. I don't believe commissioner Boiles questions. So why don't you continue on. Okay, thank you as a 501 C6 nonprofit, you're required to publicly file your 4, 9, 90s on your 2021, 9, 90, you listed a program service accomplishment quote collect statistics regarding sales of portable generators to track supply and demand and better manage resources. You listed the same accomplishment in 2020 and 2019. I assume you continue that in 2022 and 2023 as well. That information would be useful to our analysis. Will you commit to producing that information to us this week. I cannot because it is private information for the numbers only it's only members who submit the data. We have provided. Over the past 2 years, the compliance numbers for compliance to G 300. But total shipments and that type of information I'd have to go back and get permission from the board in order to be able to provide that information system is proprietary. Mr. Will said, are you on the board. I am on the board. So, if she goes back to you and asked for that information, can I get your commitment that you're about to give it to us. We at Generac have provided that information separately already. I appreciate that. And if the question more broadly goes to the other members, I would appreciate your support having them share it as well. If the question comes back to the board, we'll discuss it. Absolutely. Well, Mr. Rang is going to bring the question to the board, right. Okay, so the questions coming back to you. I think it's important to hear all the positions at the board members. I look forward to hearing if we can see the information. I appreciate transparency there. Mr.  We pay them $180,000 in 2021, $180,000 and $18,000, $180,000, $18,000 in 2020, $180,000, 323 in 2019 and in 2018, just about the same amount. Can I take this to mean that the Bracewell is on retainer for the lobby for you. The most of its advocacy, and then some of its lobby, it's a percentage to both. But they're on retainer. We have a contract, yes. Okay, I mean, having a lobbying firm on that high of a retainer would have sounded unusual to me until I heard commissioner Robinson's testimony about just how much work is going on behind the scenes. And for too long, it seems like there was an unusual access to do that. And perhaps that's why you felt comfortable asking for a private meeting immediately following this hearing. I've entered into the record an email from Dylan Paseuk at your lobbying firm from June 15 and see seeing someone else at your lobbying firm named Edward Krennic. The email says quote PGMA leadership will be in town for the oral presentations on portable generator standards on 628 we would like to request a meeting with Commissioner Trump could directly after the oral presentation to discuss the standard as well as our comments. And I understand that your lobby has sent that to each of the commissioners. Years of special access at this agency may have given you in your lobbyist a distorted view of what's appropriate. It would be unethical for a commissioner to take that meeting. We're having an open hearing on this topic and open hearing made at your request. But you sought special access to try to lobbyist outside of public eyes on this very topic. It would be a dereliction of our duty to accept that meeting. It would be grounds for recusal going forward in my opinion and I can't imagine any of my fellow commissioners granted you that meeting did they. Yes they did. I'm sorry. Yes, they did. Who? The chair and. The chair has not granted you a meeting today. And you were about to say someone else. Yes, not today. No one was available today because we heard that there's a meeting directly after this, but we do have some conference call set up. For July to provide more background on the work that was done in the testimony. I would encourage everyone here who's shown an interest in this, in this subject to attend those. Because it's important to provide a counterbalance to information and to see what's going on. And for too long. There was not enough transparency and discussions and policymaking on this topic of this agency. So we should, we should crowd those meetings. Commissioner Robinson, given the prior undisclosed PGMA meetings with commissioner Burkle. Do you think it would be useful for us to have a full accounting of all meetings that PGMA its members or its lobbyists. Have had with commissioners in say the last 2 years to make sure they're being properly reported today. Yes, but I think you'd have to go back further. How much further. The election was in 2016. Burkle became acting chair, I believe in February of 2017. So you'd have to go back further because I think that there have been constant contacts. But probably before she became, I mean, in my time as a commissioner, Ms. Burkle never voted 1 time. For any position contrary to what industry asked. So I, in this context of PGMA, I'd go back further. And I think it would be important to know. I appreciate that. Mr. Ranga, will you commit to providing a full accounting of all meetings communications? What if I give you to the end of next week? I'm sorry. I'm having a little trouble with you. You say yes. I can provide what we have. Yes. Most of them were all on the public calendar. I just want to make sure I'll go match those up later. But let's see what you have on your end. Sure. Thank you. I have no more questions, but sure. Thank you. My colleagues have any more questions? No. Um, With that, I thank the 1st panel and we'll ask now the 2nd panel to get set up and we'll join starting just a minute. And just for, you know, the record, obviously we're open to or at least I'm open to speaking to all stakeholders. We do so consistent with the commission's process. All the meetings are open. We're open to speaking to all stakeholders. We do so consistent with the commission's process. Thank you. I have no more questions, but sure. Thank you. My colleagues have any more questions now. Um, With that, I thank the 1st panel and we'll ask now the 2nd panel to get set up and we'll join starting just a minute. And we'll ask now the commission's process. All the meetings will be noticed on our calendar and open to the public. I'd now like to introduce our 2nd panel, most of them who are appearing remotely. We have Sharon McNabb, president founder of the National Carp and Moxide Awareness Association. It's going to be virtual. I'm Matt Carpenter CEO Gen Tech safety canopies who is with us in person, Matt Gillen consultant to the national consumers league who will be virtual and Albert Donna a independent. Consulting toxicologist and environmental health engineer Donna a. So thank you all for being here and we're actually going to start with Mr. McNabb. Please begin. Thank you so much for the opportunity to address the commission. I'd like to start off by for saying that I am a survivor of carbon monoxide. And then I would like to quote to representatives. Representative Rush Democrat from the 1st district of Illinois. And representative Duncan. Republican from the 3rd district of South Carolina. Both members of the energy commerce committee. Last year, they wrote an op ed that was published in the Hill. And I quote. The tragic deaths and life threatening injuries caused by carbon monoxide emitting generators. Are 100% preventable. We know how to stop them. We can stop them. The clock is ticking. And American deaths are piling up at the national carbon monoxide awareness association. Next slide please. We also believe that poisonings are 100% preventable. And we thank the commission for this hearing and COA is a 501 C 3. We are focused on the grassroots efforts of eradicating CO poisoning and helping survivors recover. As representatives of CO survivors, we ask for your urgent attention to mitigate CO poisonings. That combustion that combustion poses to households with generators and all CO producing appliances. We applaud the steps that you've taken to get to this point. And we highly support the implementation of proposed rulemaking at a minimum. CO has been dubbed the silent killer because it's orderless, colorless, tasteless. It's also called the great mimiker. Do the CO poisoning symptoms that look like other illnesses, including all timers, which is what I was misdiagnosed with. And also Parkinson's, which is what the woman who lived in the home before me was misdiagnosed with. We believe that education on the dangers of CO poisoning has been inconsistent and marked with outdated research. For example, home CO alarms, those with displays are not allowed to display anything but zero until levels reach over 30 parts per million. This provides the consumers with an inconsistent messaging and a false sense of curate false sense of security. This false sense of security can be seen by a CPSC survey that was conducted in 2020 that says that 85% of respondents believe that their home CO alarms will alert them to the presence of CO. That is not the case. So messaging needs to be better. It needs to be more consistent. And it needs to be in line with science. The health effects of carbon monoxide poisoning while are widely varied. And they are based on the amount of concentration, the time of exposure, the size of the person, the physiological health status of each person. And the level of activity that that person is engaged in during the poisoning. We often talk about CO poisoning as a 1 size fits all 10% COHB 15% COHB 2% COHB, but we know based on the science that CO effects everyone differently. The World Health Organization says no more than. I'm sorry. Next slide please. Let's talk about low level CO poisoning. The World Health Organization says no more than 4 parts per million over the course of 24 hours. 30 parts per million over the course of an hour. That's because when we get anything above that, we're talking death. But low level CO poisoning cause many issues, heart failure, stroke, cognitive and memory impairments, emotional changes, congenital defects and low birth weights. So we urgently ask that the CPSC reevaluate the level in which the shutoffs are proposed. Now, it is absolutely a step in the right direction, but we believe it just doesn't go far enough. Next slide please. So carbon monoxide can also cause depression. It can cause delayed neurological sequelae. It can cause encephalopathy, which is brain disease. And we really need to understand the issues that carbon monoxide causes when we're talking about shutoffs for generators that are misplaced. We talk about 400 parts per million. But what we don't talk about is the effects that that 400 parts per million is going to have on the person who goes to investigate why their generator has been shut off. Next slide please. So, we strongly urge that the commission also considers a stronger user interface. So, when that person goes into the garage or the basement to investigate, there isn't a misunderstanding or a.  We recommend adding a digital display detailing the cause of the shutdown. We also recommend adding an audible alert that states carbon monoxide is present. This should be done both before the generator shuts off as well as after. We also recommend that those alerts and displays be used to, they should be done in multiple languages, English and Spanish at a minimum. And there should be alerts for those who are hearing and seeing impaired. As you talked about earlier. And lastly, we believe there is a cost benefit to adding these shutoffs. We talked earlier about the number of deaths being maybe underestimated. Neil Hansen published in a peer review. Journal in 2017 that societal costs for accidental non fire seal poisonings cost is approximately $3.5 billion. While generators account for approximately 40% of those deaths that represents just. Generators alone a cost to society of $1.4 billion. And if we use the numbers that were identified in your report of $60 additional costs per generator, that's a total cost of 21.5 million. So the caught the ROI of adding these simple shutoffs is over 100 fold. So for all of these reasons, we applaud your effort. And we asked that we move forward with these recommendations and additionally do a focus group that will identify how users interface with these generators. When the generator shuts off, because what we don't want is to. Forgo desk with injuries from people investigating in a highly toxic environment of 400 parts per million. And suffering from injuries. That day or weeks or months later to do to delay neural neurological sequelae. Next slide please. And last but not least. We'd like to recommend that all generators be included. Not just the portable generators. We understand that the CPSC may not necessarily have jurisdiction over RVs or boats, but we ask. That the CPSC urges the overseeing bodies for RVs and generators to similarly adopt these mandatory standards for generators. Thank you. Thank you miss McNabb. Mr carpenter. Please begin. Can you make sure it's on. Am I on? Yes. Good morning. I'd like to thank the chair and the commissioners and particularly commissioner Boyle for the opportunity to speak commissioner Boyle. You publicly asked for those with additional generator safety ideas to please come forward. I don't remember if I raised my hand at my desk, but I certainly stood up when I heard that. So thank you for that. That is exactly what I'm here to do. I'm the inventor of the gentent and CEO of gentent safety canopies a small business for over a decade. Based in Brentwood, New Hampshire. With nine employees, I believe we are the only company whose sole mission is portable generator safety. My request is to include generator tents and standardized safe distance safety language. These topics are a necessary compliment to the CEO mitigation and can immediately enhance generator safety. Generator tent product category was born out of necessity due to an ice storm in December 2008. Power outages are highly stressful, particularly in scenarios caused by life threatening storms. And as you know, uninformed people can make poor decisions and choices in stressful situations. Next slide please. Consumers rely on generators for storm response and emergency power in a recent consumer survey that we did 80% of the respondents stated that emergency backup was their primary use. Next slide. Further, as CPSC staff reported in the SNPR, approximately 75% of the portable generator carbon monoxide fatalities directly correlate to outages from ice storms, blizzards, tropical storms, hurricanes, and other weather related events. Next slide please. That issue is that expert guidance stresses not to use portable generators indoors and not to use portable generators in wet weather. This conflict adds stress during portable during power outages caused by storms. I learned this firsthand in 2008. Ice storms in New Hampshire can be life threatening. And we were without power for a week. I was shocked and angry to discover no viable solution. And I knew that my makeshift approach was itself dangerous. Expert guidance fails to inform consumers of today's solutions. And this often results in a coin flip decision. Running indoors or at an unsafe distance posing the risk of fire or CO poisoning or running an unprotected outdoors and storms and run the risk of electrocution or damage to the generator. Some consumers choose to use combustible materials to cover the generators. In fact, a big box store employee told me to run it in my garage with the door open. And when I said CO is dangerous, he said, well, then put it outside and put some plywood over it. Next slide please. Another ice storm hit New Hampshire this past December and a Maltenborough resident put the generator under the deck and a fire resulted. Luckily, everyone survived, but the home was lost. I do share PGM concerns. The SNPR will drive lower emission generators that will produce exceedingly high exhaust temperatures. I have grave concerns. Uninformed will continue to use combustible materials for makeshift get through the storm fixes and an increase of fires and injuries will result. The O sensor and shut off technology are necessary failsafe method to minimize CO injury and deaths. And I applaud the PGMA and the CPSC for driving this technology to market. Next slide please. However, behavioral studies do teach us about automation bias where individuals gain a false sense of security relying on automated systems or alarms. And this leads to decreased situational awareness. Next slide please. We should all share concern over scenarios such as running in the basement experience a shut off running in the garage with the door open and CO migrates back into the home. CO sensing technology will stop the generator should CO levels become dangerous. The idea is that consumers will restart in a safer location, but will they? Or will they choose a less risky spot and rely on the CO shut off? Further, without outdoor safety guidance, will we simply drive consumers back to those coin flip decisions? Next slide please. Let us not forget as the rollout of compliant generators occurs. Non-compliant generators remain a significant percentage of the generators in use today and at least for the next decade. Herein lies the safety issue that this commission, the industry and media must address. We know compliance will take time and consumers will still need to use generators during inclement weather. With current guidance causing confusion. How do we address wet weather usage? Next slide please. I firmly believe we must standardize solutions. Solutions based messaging current guidance leaves consumers uninformed. Let's tell consumers what they can do reference the use of generator tents and standardized safe distance. Next slide please. Education gives consumers a path to safe use and it will address the 75% of CO weather related events. Next slide please. 2012 generator tents have been a choice to run portable generators safely and inclement weather implemented properly. A generator tent uses NFPA 701 FR materials. It protects sensitive electrical components. It does not change the generator cooling profile or impede intake or exhaust. Next slide please. While I applaud the PGMAs take it outside campaign as a positive initiative. It falls short in the same areas as the SNPR neglecting the issue of using generators and wet weather conditions. This leaves consumers puzzled and unaware of available safety solutions when they need their generators most in outages caused by storms. Next slide please. Prior to 2015 gen tent was the only generator tent in the market. This made it really difficult for me to spread a consumer advocacy message without being dismissed as self serving. But since 2019 the category has greatly expanded. Two major portable generator companies have a branded version of my technology and there are at least 17 different generator tent brands on the market today. But this said we estimate generator tent penetration of new portable generator sales at less than 3% per year. So we have to ask is this a low percentage of interest or an awareness issue. Next slide please. In our survey consumers overwhelmingly indicated that if generator manufacturers offered a safety product that enabled safe usage and wet weather they would use it. This finding combined with the frantic increase in demand we see during storms leads us to conclude that's an awareness issue. Next slide please. Generator tents are a category that cause people to use their generators outdoors. Tents are used outdoors through cognitive association. Tented generators are used outdoors. Generator tents should be referenced as a proven solution for running generators and implement weather. This should be accompanied by implementing standardized safe distance language. These additions alongside seal fail safe technologies and the take it outside campaign messaging completes guidelines for safe generator usage. Next slide please. Our five point proposal is a request for advancing portable generator safety messaging to implement to eliminate consumer confusion. We're asking for assistance from the CPSC. To next slide. One provides standardized language in the proposed rulemaking for operating generators in storms and inclement weather conditions including prominent hazard guidance. Next slide please. To include in the language the use of generator tents as one solution for outdoor wet weather usage of portable generators. Next slide please. Three, standardized on 20 feet safe distance language to limit CO and fire risk with specific attention to the use of NFPA 701 FR rated non combustible materials. For next slide. Recommend the standardized language to government agencies specifically FEMA and CDC fire safety and other appropriate government agencies. Next slide please. Recommend the inclusion of standardized language to the industry voluntary standards PGMA UL utilities and media outlets. We applaud the body of work. Over decades of collaboration between CPSC and PGA members, which has resulted in the PGMA G 300 living standard. Generator tents are approved and approved and a competitive market exists today. We can affect consumer safety for all generators immediately by enabling changes in consumer behavior. Hope we can agree that the time and opportunity are now to act standardized language on solutions and empower consumers to get those generators outdoors. Next slide. Like to thank you very much for your time and consideration. I am certainly open to answering any questions that you may have. Thank you. Mr carpenter. Mr. Gillan. You're next. Thanks for holding this hearing. My name is Matt Gillan and I'm appearing on behalf of the national consumers. See no sound Greenberg who's traveling abroad and can't be here today. I'm a retired safety and health professional working as a consultant to NCL on portable generators and other issues. My time to highlight key issues we describe more fully in our written comments. To begin with, make some introductory points that consumers rely on these portable generators and utility provided power is not available. And how this includes many emergency settings as we heard from previous speaker during or after things such as tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, snowstorms or other severe weather. And as you know, portable generators, you make carbon dioxide and levels hundreds of times more than the average car. And CPSC reports about 74 deaths a year associated with many other cases are non fatal, but it involves serious health effects and we've included several studies on these effects in our written testimony. And of course, CPSC is finding that portable generators present an unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with acute carbon dioxide poisoning. We also want to point out that the ruling takes on extra urgency because extreme weather conditions are becoming more common with climate change and portable generator usage is likely to grow substantially in the years ahead. And we're also submitting several suggestions for improving the CPSC proposal. Our second point is that regulation is preferable to voluntary standards. Regulations that are superior to voluntary standards for protecting consumers from health and safety hazards of generators. Each of the two available voluntary standards have significant deficiencies. And the CPSC has taken the proper course in combining and strengthening useful features from each. And CPSC surveys have shown that substantial compliance with these standards has not occurred. And even if compliance were better, CPSC must proceed with regulation because the voluntary standards are not likely to eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury. Third, the best approach is primary prevention to reduce CO emissions at the source. And the first aspect of this is to maximize inherently safe development. And CO related deaths and poisonings are preventable. And by relying on inherently safer design measures, these risks can be eliminated at the source. And that primary design measure is to reduce emissions. And the secondary design measure is to incorporate CO alarms and mechanisms to shut off CO levels of concern are detected. And the CPSC proposed rule appropriately incorporates both of these measures. And we feel it's important to note that the fatal incidents and scenario simulations demonstrate that alarms and shut off systems while valuable secondary controls are insufficient as sole measures to protect consumers from death or serious injury. Portable generators that feature low CO emissions are currently on the market. And CO is not prescriptive and we understand there are no intellectual property obstacles to wider adoption of the technologies used to lower emissions. Should bonafide technical feasibility issues arise during CPSC's consideration of these issues, we urge the commission to be steadfast in pursuing primary prevention strategies. And without manufacturers additional time for compliance and to come compromise on inherently safer design requirements. The second aspect is to minimize reliance on residual risk warnings. Portable generators are used in complex and stressful settings, often found in the aftermath of severe weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, highways, flooding, snow and ice storms. And those may have worries about family member safety or structural damage to their homes or whether they have sufficient food and supplies to last through the emergency. The safer portable generators can be made the less likely that other distractions unfamiliarity with the device because of rare use or errors in attention will contribute to sub optimal operations related to placement and electrical options or fuel and considerations. Those warnings instructions must be clear, consistent and relevant to consumers for CO poisoning the most critical messages that portable generators must never be operated inside. The second most critical message is where and how to properly place the portable generator outside. At this point, NCL believes that the proposed rule does not sufficiently address the second critical message. The proposed rule calls for requiring this language only use outside and far away from windows doors and vents. Our concern is that quote far away does not provide the same clarity as the current learning language used by CPSC itself along with CDC and FEMA, which is to place portable generators at least 20 feet from the home. Without such bright line warnings, we're concerned that competing factors can influence consumers to place the generators closer to their homes. In our written comments describe the following examples in addition to detail, but here's a short version of that. One is just the electrical cord length, our review of several portable generator operating manuals from references to 10 and 15 foot length cords in various tables or describing power requirements. And so you can view this as an inconsistent message that could influence consumers to assume that 10 and 15 foot distances are sufficiently far away for generator place. As we just heard rain and wind is an issue, portable generators do not routinely include storage covers at the operating manual stress that units are not supposed to get wet. So conflicting concerns about operation during rainy and windy conditions can influence consumers to position or reposition generators to more sheltered positions closer to their homes or in garage door open. Yard size can be a factor placing a generator quote far away from windows doors and vents that also does not encroach on a neighbor's home may be challenging on smaller lots that are common in most cities and some suburbs. Thus yard size factors can constrain and influence consumers to position generators closer to their homes than recommended. That concerns unfortunately prolonged power outages can lead to hardship conditions and increases in crime such as that's looting. And this includes that's a portable generators. And such concerns may influence consumers to not position the portable generators far away from the house. So in some intended uses for portable generators include extreme weather events. While strong messages against using portable generators inside or warranted emissions reduction improved alarms and shutoffs and clear instructions will increase the margin of safety for exterior use of portable generators. For point four we did have some specific comments on the proposed requirements as far as the CO emission rate requirements we support including emission rate requirements as an essential inherently safe design feature. We also support including lower cutoff levels for the CO shutoff point. As far as CO shutoff event notification concern the consumers both visually impaired and those with normal vision may not receive a visible message that the generator mounted CO monitor has detected elevated levels and a shot off. So we recommend their requirements for audible indicators be added as well. As far as the marketing label and instructional requirements we support the proposed changes to strengthen and clarify the instructions but we believe the rule needs to go further by explicitly specifying that portable generators be placed at least 20 feet away from homes. And that instructions have a specific section in them to address how to find the best exterior location for the portable generator to to assist consumers with that decision. Also that the power cord instructions do not contradict the 20 foot instruction. And finally that it should address the steps that consumers should take for safe operation during what conditions. So, in conclusion, the national consumers will strongly supports the promulgation of the noted suggestions for improving specific language. And as stated by NCL CEO Sally Greenberg quote portable generators help consumers when the power goes out, but they cause an average of 74 carbon monoxide fatalities each year. The good news is that the CPSC proposed regulations substantially eliminate these preventable deaths. And with extreme weather events surging times of the essence to get this done. So that completes my comments today and thanks for the opportunity to appear. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gillan. Now turn to Mr. Donnie. You can begin. Thank you. It's Alfred Donnie and I might. Can you hang on it? You're pretty choppy. Can you try that again? Yes, I apologize. I'm speaking to you from. A United Airplane Airlines flight at 35,000 feet. My name is Albert Donnie. I'm a consulting toxicologist and environmental health engineer. I'm presenting testimony today on my own behalf and behalf of my clients who are mostly survivors of carbon monoxide poisoning. They're doctors and their attorneys. I have not consulted for the PGM a and I usually oppose the comments of exponent. But in this case, I actually agree with them. It's also in my testimony. Next slide, please. First point I want to make was referenced by Susan Ehringer and her testimony on behalf of PGM a and that concerns the CPSC authority. Back in 2017, when the NPR with issued. I testified about this possible concern that EPA authority. Here's to preempt CPSC regulation. And three months later, the administrator of EPA at the time Scott wrote the CPSC to say essentially that. And to welcome some collaboration where they might try to work together to reduce deaths. Acting chair will work with the time agreed. And as far as I can see, there's been no further correspondence. This should have been disclosed in the staff briefing package. And it should have been disclosed to the commissioners. I urge them to read these two letters before they proceed. Next slide, please.  We've heard several speakers today. Talk about how the EPA. Attempts to. Regulate carbon monoxide and the clear act. To prevent carbon monoxide poisoning deaths from generators. And I want to point out. With this slide. We're using EPA data on zero mission from automobiles. The light duty gas vehicles and gas trucks in America in 2008. We're on average. Releasing about 71. Rams per hour carbon monoxide. And heavy duty gas vehicles, heavy duty trucks. We're releasing 152. We're writing about the level that CPSC is now proposing. If cars are releasing. Only 70. For million, however. I think. And that's. So I. To rethink this. And to look at the other CO limits adopted by other federal agencies to protect the public. Especially EPA. Because these emission limits are not the only way in which to clean air act protects the public from carbon monoxide exposure. Next slide. This slide. Shows. The government oxide limits. Adopted by different agency. And at the top. I'm showing the CPSC proposal for generators. That would have a rolling average set off. Over 150 for 10 minutes.  If over 400. Well, let's just start by comparing that to the 2034 alarm. Which is now required. In over 40 states. And many homes have URL 2034 alarms. They are required to alarm over 70 parts per million within one to four hours. But they don't have any instant limit. At the high end. Over 400. They are actually required to wait. For four to 15 minutes. So let's just think about a home that's got a URL 2034 alarm. And. A. New generator. With this 150 ppm. Emissions limit. At the low end. If the generator is causing levels of 70 to say 140 in the home. Twice the level of cars.  It's never going to exceed that 150 over 10 minutes. If it's maximum is 140. And yet. Over one to four hours. The home alarm would go off. Alerting the occupants that something was wrong.  At the higher levels. Over 150. Or over 400. When the generator shuts off at either 10 minutes. Over 150. Or instantly at 400. In all likelihood the URL 2034 alarm will not have gone off. They'll now be confronting.  But my home seal alarm doesn't detect the problem. This. Is a really serious. Disconnect. And you will. In many other contexts. Very careful about making sure that any new standard. Is harmonized. With existing standards. So I just explained here these are not in harmony. And will cause a great deal of consumer confusion. The other ones I want to point out are much lower. Osha would only allow a 50 ppm limit. For eight hours. And 100 ppm maximum instant evacuation. U.S. Niosch has a recommended limit of 35 over eight hours. And a 200 evacuation limit. EPA is acute levels only allows 35 ppm for one hour. Which is. Less than one quarter. What the CPSC is going to tell people now. It's okay to. Be exposed to from a generator. And at the chronic level. You should be able to do that. But if you can do that. It's not a CPSC. EPA rather. Doesn't want people exposed to more than nine ppm. Over eight hours. All of these other standards would be exceeded by the CPSC. Generator. In the name of protecting people. And obviously. That. Doesn't make sense in this context. These much lower limits are sufficient to protect people. And if CPSC. at 35 for the very most 50 so that these can be used in occupational settings and protect workers as OSHA requires. Last slide, please. Next slide, please. Thank you. There are a few other requirements I've mentioned in my prior testimony that I think are required. And others have touched on the first one. We need both visible and audible alarms to be consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and to meet the needs of people who are unable to hear or see alarms clearly. They should be giving a recorded voice message in English and Spanish with an actionable message. It should not just be a beat, it doesn't tell people what to do. I recommend carbon monoxide detected, take generator outside before we start it. I also think these alarms need to continue as long as the CO remains shut off threshold so that anyone coming back into the space will know there's still a problem, shouldn't turn off after five minutes to continue until there's no longer an alarm condition. Third, the outlets should be protected with the GFI rating, which would shut them off in case they got wet. When they don't need a tent as interesting as that solution is, they could be protected with a much smaller, less expensive, rainproof cap on a hinge that could keep the outlets dry when plugs are in place. And lastly, there is another fire hazard nobody's mentioned today, and that is associated with refueling generators when they're still hot, and I recommend that people consider requiring gas caps with an interlock so that the gas cap could not be opened when the generator would be disabled and stop running if the gas tank was opened and that it couldn't be restarted until the gas tank was properly closed. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your final rule and any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nene. And thanks to the panel for all their testimony today. We're now going to turn to questions from the commissioners, each commissioner of tenants to ask questions, multiple rounds if necessary. I'm going to recognize myself first and really just going to make a comment. Now, I appreciate your dedication, your advocacy on issues related to carbon monoxide poisoning and taking the time to testify today, and particularly gratefully cited in your testimony of racial disparities with generator deaths. With that, I'm going to turn to my fellow commissioners to see if they have questions. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Carpenter, thank you for showing up in person to the rest of the panelists that presented remotely. Again, I appreciate the testimony. As I said earlier, our work here needs a fully developed record, and that's just such a critical part of the process. I have no further questions, but I do thank everybody for their testimony and for their advocacy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Feldman. Commissioner Tromka. Thank you, and thank you each for your commitment to portable generator safety. We do appreciate you being here and sharing your wisdom on this subject. Mr. Gillan, question for you. The SNPR you mentioned would require a warning that portable generators, quote, only be used outside and far away from windows, doors and vents. And you'd rather that we include a specific distance like we provide in other places. We often say 20 feet. You pointed that out. Can you explain why you think we need a more specific number there, Mr. Gillan? Again, can you hear me? Yes. Yes. I think it's because consumers just there's too much variation in how they can interpret far away. And I think where people have looked at this or done focus groups, we attached a study, for example, they did a focus group and they found range from 2 feet to 50 feet away is how certain consumers where they put their generator. So it's a little unclear to people. A nice thing about 20 feet is it is kind of a bright line that people can understand more clearly. And again, it's a slippery slope type thing. There's a little bit of a drift to failure. People can move it. Nothing bad seems to happen. And so you think you're okay, but then if the wind shifts or something else happened, you can you can get in trouble. So I think the more clear you can make it the better. Yeah, I appreciate clarity as well. And I think you pointed out elsewhere in your testimony that people are using these in stressful situations. So they are less likely to make great decisions and interpreting warnings and instructions effectively with that factor into having a bright line here as well. Yes, definitely. And Mr. Carpenter, I think you said something along the same lines. Would we would you sport a specific number in there? I completely agree with that. Particularly, as you said, Commissioner, when somebody's in a stressful situation, they need clarity. They need to know exactly what do I do because we're not using our generators all the time, right? We use it in an emergency. That's great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Gillan, you also pointed out that you found operating manuals with references to 10 and 15 foot extension cord length references. If you haven't already provided those examples to our staff, can you do so, please? Certainly, I can submit those pages in reference manual references, yes. I appreciate that. And then how would you recommend addressing that? Basically, I guess it's a matter of sort of walking through what the setup is going to be. And it could be the 20 feet long cord isn't enough either because you need extra distance to go inside your house, et cetera. And so in an occupational setting, a lot of times they talk about free job planning before you start the job, plan out how you're going to do it. And that makes for a safer operation. Here, if people are going to think about before the actual emergency occurs, where are they going to put it? How long are they, how long of a corridor are they going to need? It's hard to specify exactly what distance to provide because people might have to go a certain distance in their house. But you can say what's too short, do you see what I mean? And that was the point of the comment, 10 and 15. And even 20 feet, it's just too short if it has to also extend inside the house. So that was our point. I think I can't really give you a number for what the minimum length would be. But you can kind of see if you can explain it a little more detail in guidance and instructions or just walk people through how to set it up and include that question. I think it would help consumers quite a bit. Thank you. I appreciate that. And Ms. McNabb, you recommend that generators should not be able to be restarted unless moved to an environment with less than nine parts per million CO. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to expand on that idea. Absolutely. So EPA ambient air quality recommendations are no more than nine parts per million. So theoretically, if a generator is tried to start in an outside safe environment, the ambient CO should be no more than four parts per million. If I read the SMVR correctly, today it's stating that generators can restart at any level below 150. Theoretically, that person trying to restart in a garage can be in an environment of 150 parts per million forever restarting that generator. Therefore, it doesn't really make any sense. What we want is to have the generator started outside. And the only way to truly ensure that it's outside after a wrong start is to require a level of approximately nine parts per million in order to allow that generator to restart. Thank you. I appreciate that explanation. And again, I thank each for your testimony and for your commitment to safety here. So thank you. Thank you, Commissioner, Commissioner Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have questions, but I do want to just thank the panel for their testimony today. It was very helpful. So, I want to thank all the witnesses came to testify before us today. You know, testimony has been instructive. I'm sure it'd be helpful as staff begins development of the final rule making package. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.