 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have one item on the agenda this morning that proposed safety standard for portable generators. For the discussion, the CPSC staff members are Ms. Janet Beyer, Mechanical Engineer in the Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction and Ms. Barb Liddle, and Attorney in the Office of the General Counsel. Thank you both for joining us again. We'll start with five minutes if there are any questions per commissioner, and then we'll turn into the decision all itself. I don't have any questions. Commissioner Adler, do you have any questions? I have no questions. Thank you. Commissioner Robinson. No questions. Thank you. Commissioner Burkle. Any questions? I do not have any questions. Thank you. Commissioner Mohorovic. Okay. With no questions, we can let the staff leave the table. That was a fist bump between Janet and Barbara. And we'll now move to consideration of the underlying package. Are there any amendments? And actually, I'm going to offer the first amendment, which is a manager's amendment. I'm going to describe it briefly and then ask for a second, and then we can go into a discussion of it. This manager's amendment is intended to collect a combination of additional questions and points that the commissioners wanted to add, including my office, into the rule making itself to try to spur some more requests for comments on some key issues. We have circulated the amendment. Is there a second? Second. Having heard a second, we'll now turn to discussion. I have no further comment on the manager's amendment. Commissioner Adler? I have no comments. I've read it, and I like it. Commissioner Robinson. I would just like to thank particularly Commissioner Mohorovic for his and his staff's contribution to this, and you, Chairman Kay, for yours and your staff's contribution to this. I very much support it. We're always interested in the comments that our stakeholders have, and I certainly hope that all of them will very actively participate in the comments, and I think it's important that we focus them on things that we're interested in hearing and considering before the final rule, and I thank you for working with your staff and with mine to put this together, and I support it. Excellent. Commissioner Burkle, any comments on the manager's amendment? I do not have any comments other than just echoing Commissioner Robinson's comments that I appreciate the work that your office, Commissioner Mohorovic's office, and Commissioner Robinson's office have done on this amendment, and I intend to support it. I'm a strong advocate for seeking stakeholders' comments, so I look forward to adding this amendment to the package. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Mohorovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an example of being not just the spirit, but the letter of compromise, so thank you for your office's openness to more contributions, to questions to have solicited for public comment, and I do want to recognize an incredible amount of work, long evenings and early mornings among all of the special assistants in coming to compromise language. I plan on supporting it and value the process and your openness to it, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Mohorovic. Having heard no further comments on the manager's amendment, we'll now call the vote. Commissioner Adler, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Robinson. I. Commissioner Burkle. I. Commissioner Mohorovic. I. And I vote I. The ayes are five, and the ayes are zero. The manager's amendment has been agreed to. Are there any additional amendments? I do have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. Mohorovic, you're recognized three minutes to describe the amendment. The amendment that I have and has been circulated among the commissioners has to do with something that I brought up at the hearing a couple of weeks ago with ex-ante retrospective review. That is the idea that perhaps this rule would be a good opportunity for us to think on the front end how we might evaluate the rules, effectiveness, what data points we might use to judge this on the front end. I think the benefit cost analysis provides us ample opportunity to start to look at ways to do that, and this particular amendment does suggest some language in the preamble and also solicits additional comments from the public in terms of how they might recommend if we should incorporate an ex-ante retrospective review plan, and if so, how to do so. With that, I'll yield any questions. Is there a second for Commissioner Mohorovic's amendment? Second. Having heard a second, we'll now turn to discussion. I'll start with the first five minutes. I do want to commend the commissioner for this, and speaking of the spirit of compromise I know that your office and Mr. Gentine in particular on your behalf really bent over backwards to try to accommodate all the different offices' concerns, and that's very much appreciated. When we put this concept in as a possibility in the rule review plan that the commission approved, I think it was earlier this year, we, I think there was an expectation, or at least I had an expectation, especially since during the time that Professor Sunstein had been running OIRA, that there would probably be more activity on this particular area than there has been in the federal government. So one of the aspects that I'm curious to see if commenters will end up responding to, if we approve your amendment, is why hasn't there been more activity in the federal government? This has been an issue that Professor Sunstein has pushed. I believe ACUS has even written about it in the last few years, and so, and may actually yield if you happen to know why there hasn't been, since at the time that Professor Sunstein was at OIRA and has left, if you happen to know why this hasn't been more widely adopted in the federal government. No, Chairman, it's a great question. And obviously not a loaded one. And just to share in the questions too, I've been, my staff also have been actively looking at all the academic materials, et cetera. There are some horizontal views of the federal government in terms of the ex-post retrospective reviews and some examples of best practices. I think OIRA does a nice job of trying to identify and highlight the great successes. But in terms of that ex-anti-retrospective review, there aren't a tremendous amount of examples for us to look at. So I think our permissive language in our commission policy I think is appropriate. And this amendment as well does not suggest that it's a must. I'm obviously a strong proponent of it, but it's soliciting whether or not this would be a good candidate for it given the very technical nature of this particular rule. So I hope we get some feedback from it. But sorry for not understanding more. Yeah, definitely. And one of the areas that I'm most interested in both in terms of the request for comments that we just approved as part of the manager's amendment but also in relation to this is whether or not we should have some mechanism in the rule as we go final that would push as technology increases and it becomes more feasible to lower the CO levels even more should we have some mechanism built in to modify the rule to address the hazard even further. Because even the staff package is acknowledged. The staff package acknowledges that this rule if adopted by the commission in final form I think we'll get to about 50% is projected about 50% of the deaths and injuries and I hope we can do better at some point as technology allows. Commissioner Adler. Thank you. I appreciate Commissioner Mohorovic's work and I particularly want to thank his special assistant Mike Gentine who's been incredibly helpful in explaining things to me. The only observation I would make is that retrospective rule review has been something we have done at the commission for many years. In part we're legally obligated to do that by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. But also we've tried to follow executive orders which call for retrospective rule review. And the thing that I appreciate about Commissioner Mohorovic's approach is that it doesn't ex ante point us in one particular direction. I think in past years the debate has been with respect to narrowing or withdrawing rules. And that's a perfectly appropriate thing to do. Rules can go stale. But in other occasions we may need to modify something. We may need to streamline it. We may need to expand it. Or in some cases we may need to withdraw it. We have a rule on our books right now that is 63 years old. That's a general wearing apparel standard. I hope we can take a look at that. That said I greatly appreciate Commissioner Mohorovic's initiative. And I plan to support it. Commissioner Robinson. Earlier this year in April we voted unanimously to pass our plan for retrospective review of existing rules. And this plan was consistent with executive orders 15, 5, 79, 13, 5, 63 and 13, 6, 10. And as Commissioner Adler just said we have tried to comply with the executive orders even though as an independent agency we are not compelled to do so. The plan that we approved in April outlines the process and criteria for determining which rules are to be considered for review. And includes an opportunity for stakeholders to weigh in on what rules they think we should review through our agenda and priorities hearing. The prioritization process is systematic and it involves staff across directorates including subject matter experts who will review the data and information provided from a range of sources to identify which of the rules we should consider for review. And while retrospective review may be included as provisions in new rule makings the agency considers retrospective review when developing our operating plan and our performance budget. I am going to support this amendment as worded and I appreciate Commissioner Mohorovic and his staff's flexibility and putting this into language that I think is appropriate to put into the rule itself. In this case what we're really asking for in the amendment is for public comment first on the appropriateness of including retrospective review in this NPR. And then if we put it into this rule what criteria we should use for determining the need for rule review. When Commissioner Mohorovic first came into me with this I said well it's hard to imagine that we're going to look at this and then ten years from now say okay never mind have at it go ahead and emit carbon monoxide again. But obviously there are many more purposes to a retrospective review than this and gathering this data makes sense and I'm sure that it will help staff and putting together our final rule in terms of what we should do by way of review going forward. So I will support this thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. I also will be supporting this amendment and I want to thank Commissioner Mohorovic's office and Mike Gentine as well as my staff and all of the commission staff who worked hard on this amendment as well as the others especially with me not there they had to do a lot of telegraphing and additional emails and so again I want to thank them. I do think it is good governance to ensure that the rules we promulgate are effective in addressing hazards and retrospective review is part of that and I do have some concerns about the reason for retrospective review and not only is it to see if we can tap into additional and improved technology but also it is to see whether or not that standard or that rule I should say is actually advancing the cause of safety and if we're doing it in a prudent way and it couldn't be done any other way so I look forward to supporting this amendment and again thank you to all the staff for your work on this. Commissioner Mohorovic. Well thank you I want to thank again all my commissioners for their input into the final language I think it's the comments that were just represented by my colleagues are smart ones and we should think about retrospective review and ex ante in particular as really getting to the optimism that we have for this rule I will expect that this commission will vote to approve an NPR here in a matter of moments and I'm very enthusiastic about this rule I have very high expectations and I think the commission has high expectations and for those reasons I appreciate Commissioner Adler mentioning the reg flex act some of them have horizons ten years out and really far out I think with this particular rule we're really expecting to see if in fact it goes into effect the benefits the welfare the benefits in the very short term so we do the best we can to come up with performance standards but the purpose of the ex ante retrospective review is to make sure that it's achieving the goals for the public that we hope that they do so with that thank you all for your input and Mr. Chairman. Thank you Commissioner Mohorovic hearing no further comments on the amendment we'll now call the vote Commissioner Adler how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Robinson. Aye. Commissioner Burkle. No. Commissioner Mohorovic. Aye. And I vote aye. The a's are four and the nays zero. I just want to ask Commissioner Burkle just this is on the Mohorovic amendment Well I am very sorry. Okay I'll ask again Commissioner Burkle how do you vote on the Mohorovic amendment? Commissioner Burkle you still on the line? Yes I am. I am Mr. Chair. Oh sorry okay Okay now the a's are five and a's zero the Mohorovic amendment has been adopted Are there any more amendments or motions? Somehow I think we know Commissioner Burkle's vote on the next round. I think she did telegraph that. Having heard no further amendments or motions we'll now turn to the final vote. Any further comment on the underlying package as amended before we vote on it? Commissioner Adler No further comments thank you. Commissioner Robinson. No. Commissioner Burkle No further comments? No thank you. Commissioner Mohorovic. Okay having heard no further comments we'll now vote on the staff package as amended. Commissioner Adler how do you vote? Aye. Commissioner Robinson. Aye. Commissioner Burkle. We'll come back to you. Commissioner Mohorovic. No I apologize I'm having trouble with this phone. I have a no vote thank you. Commissioner Mohorovic. Aye. And I vote aye. The a's are four the nays is one. The staff package as amended has been approved. Congratulations to the staff. We'll now turn to closing statements and we'll have up to ten minutes. I do want to really thank the generator team for your diligence and your fantastic work. I think you've made, you've really set the standard and you're going to make a real difference should we go final with this rule. And even the step that we've taken today is going to change industry perceptions. It's going to change consumer expectations about what these machines should do and what they shouldn't do. And so it's been a tremendous effort and I hope you're really proud of what you've done. I certainly am very proud and I know that commissioners are too. From the proof of concept work that began with the University of Alabama, the modeling experiments at NIST and the heavy engagement with the voluntary standards bodies and other stakeholders. CPSC staff has really delved into the details and produced an incredible path forward on safety. Of course this is a notice to propose rule making. It's not a final rule. And as we mentioned in earlier comments we are soliciting additional information on key concepts related to this rule. So there's a lot of work to do before we get to a final rule. Staff will definitely continue to engage with stakeholders and I do want to reiterate that as voluntary standards work continues staff will be at the table as a very willing and able participant. I do want to express my appreciation to my fellow commissioners. I think this has been an excellent example at the commission level of compromise and maybe everyone didn't get what they want but I think we can all feel very proud of the additions to the package and how it's moving forward. I do also want to thank your staffs because they obviously do the hard work behind the scenes in making sure that everything gets negotiated out and I want to thank Jacqueline Campbell in particular for my staff for all the work that she's done. In closing I do want to just reiterate one more time how proud I am and especially to Janet Byer. Janet Byer and Jay Howell is no longer with the commission and I did a lot of traveling in 2013 to a number of different manufacturers across the country to try to learn more about what they were doing and to urge them to try to step up and help solve this problem and many of them have taken that to heart and are moving forward with solutions. This is a tremendous advancement for safety as I mentioned by the CPSC and it's something that I'm sure that we'll continue to champion for many years as we address this. The deaths and injuries from this hazard that is just happening too much in America especially during storms and other power outages but it's a solvable problem and we're taking a major step forward today. Thank you. Commissioner Adler. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and I want to join in congratulating staff on a job superbly done. I said last week that I think this stands as the platinum standard for drafting work and I can't thank Janet Byer and all of her team for the superb work that they've done. I think this shows that a tiny agency can do big things. This is an exceptionally hazardous product. We're not used properly and as my colleague Commissioner Mohorovic has pointed out, this is pretty much a hidden hazard. People really don't anticipate just how much CO is emitted when they've got a portable generator operating and this ought to dramatically reduce the amount of CO that is issued. Again I want to thank all of my colleagues and I want to thank the CPSC staff and I want to particularly thank my own staff Sarah Klein and Jen Feinberg for the excellent work they've done. Thank you. Commissioner Robinson. I also want to add my thanks once again to the staff and to Ms. Byer and Ms. Little particularly for the outstanding work. Years of hard work and collaboration has gone into this package across directorates and I could not be any more pleased to have voted for this NPR. It's just a superb package and I thank you so much for your hard work on this. It's important to note that the completion of this NPR for portable generators was an onerous task because it had to meet both the requirements of the APA and the requirements that we uniquely have under section 7 and 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act and I particularly would like to thank the staff of our economics department for their hard work on meeting the requirements that were required of both the APA and section 7 and 9 in coming up with this package. It was extremely hard work and it was excellent work. As an agency we know all too well the hazards posed by portable generators and the resulting carbon monoxide poisoning. Our efforts to address this hazard have spanned a decade which I don't need to tell anyone in this room. CPSC spent years working with the Voluntary Standards Committees trying to ensure that robust performance standards would be put in place that would make portable generators safer but the voluntary standards remain completely insufficient. We've been working with UL since 2002 when the first standards technical panel was formed to address portable generators and we worked with PGMA since they were formed in 2009. Despite dozens of meetings technical summits and meetings with manufacturers and industry reps neither standard addresses carbon monoxide emissions and staff is not aware of any manufacturer that even complies with either the UL or the PGMA standard as they are. With some exceptions as the chairman has pointed out industry has generally refused to address lowering carbon monoxide emissions even after they were made aware of technologically feasible ways that they could do so. The CPSC has dedicated an enormous amount of time and resources through our communications department on targeted education and outreach efforts on the proper use of portable generators and the importance of installing carbon monoxide detectors in the home and yet we continue to see tragic incidents resulting in death or serious injuries. We've made some progress including the passing of a mandatory labeling standard and have seen a rise in the number of consumers who have installed carbon monoxide detectors in the homes but the data are simply not reassuring. From 2004 to 2014 there have been at least 751 generator related carbon monoxide deaths and we have no doubt that this is an under reporting number. For each of these deaths our staff estimates there are 39 generator related injuries some of them extremely debilitating. These are grim numbers and the data clearly show that mandatory labels and education alone are simply not enough. That's because of this incident data that in 2006 the CPSC issued the ANPR and today is with relief that I vote to issue this NPR. In the proposed rule the staff is focused on addressing the main hazard caused by portable generators that is the emission of carbon monoxide. Staff's approach appropriately was to design out this hazard. As a result of CPSC's rulemaking requirements staff not only had to identify the best and least burdensome way to address the hazard but they also had to consider alternative solutions and justify why and they did so convincingly. One of the alternatives that was considered and appropriately I think rejected was the automatic shut off strategy. Staff studied four types of auto shut off systems and identified a number of issues with the shut off concept including reliability and durability of these systems and after performing a series of tests staff determined that the shut off concept without reduced carbon monoxide emissions was not technologically feasible nor effective in reducing the hazard. What is technologically feasible at this time however is staff's proposed performance standard that sets a maximum carbon monoxide emission rate for these four categories of portable generators and this proposed performance standard directly addresses the hazard of carbon monoxide emissions. The proposal to set a safety standard limiting emissions of carbon monoxide and portable generators is of course not prescriptive in terms of requiring a specific technological solution but instead sets out performance requirements which have been proven to be attainable using currently available technology and I'm very optimistic that with this performance standard we will inspire new technologies and innovation in the field and may even be able to improve the standard further. As we're in this NPR stage of the process I'm eager to receive comments on proposed room making. This is the next step in the longer journey to reduce injuries and deaths from portable generators and the resulting carbon monoxide poisoning. I want to thank my fellow commissioners for working together on the proposed amendments both the rule review amendment and the managers amendment which I strongly support and I would like to address in the comment that Commissioner Birkel made in the fiscal year 2017 operating plan hearing where she raised concerns about the CPSC issuing a mandatory standard for portable generators that included a performance test that evaluates carbon monoxide emissions and her reasoning was that the EPA and not the CPSC has the authority to regulate carbon monoxide emissions. I firmly disagree with Commissioner Birkel's understanding of this issue. After reviewing all of the materials including statutory and case law and looking at how operationally the EPA and the CPSC regulate entities and various products I'm confident that the CPSC has the authority, jurisdiction and obligation to regulate the four categories of portable generators addressed in this NPR and to utilize a performance requirement that includes measuring carbon monoxide emission in furtherance of our public health safety mission. Even if a product is regulated under EPA's Clean Air Act the CPSC retains its authority to regulate if the existing regulations are not sufficient to protect consumers. The Clean Air Act regulates predominantly at the regional level and was originally passed in response to poor air quality and was meant to address issues like smog and later amended to address acid rain. In theory one of the goals of the Clean Air Act was to protect health which it has done. Air quality has improved since the Clean Air Act was passed but again that regulation focused more on ambient air quality and chronic health conditions and not the acute health risks like carbon monoxide poisoning from portable generators which we are addressing as the CPSC in this NPR. I would also like to briefly comment on a letter received by sent to CPSC from the Portable Generators Manufacturers Association PGMA. The letter urged us to delay rulemaking because PGMA has decided finally to reopen their standard and at long last after years of resistance apparently try to address the need to lower carbon monoxide emissions. Well I'm always supportive of voluntary standards efforts. There is nothing in PGMA's conduct since its inception that provides any reason to delay voting on this NPR. I met with PGMA about a year ago in October 2015 after having been briefed by our staff and Ms. Byer in particular on the work we and others were doing that was so exciting in significantly reducing carbon monoxide emissions in portable generators. I was hoping that PGMA representatives would come in and discuss the efforts its members were making in the same direction since this is the only real way to address this danger, design out the hazard. I appreciated that this would require a significant investment, monetary investment from industry but given that low carbon monoxide technology is available combined with the horrific statistics on poisonings in this country I was hopeful. Instead I was presented with one focus only of PGMA's efforts and that was labeling and education. This is certainly one solution that would cost industry virtually nothing but it has failed so miserably. When I asked about PGMA's efforts to lower carbon monoxide emissions I was told essentially that they did not believe that lowering emissions in portable generators is a path forward because consumers exposed to carbon monoxide from portable generators will still die. Lowering carbon monoxide emissions will only delay their death. PGMA even suggested without any facts or data to support it that reduced emissions would somehow be more dangerous because people might be more inclined to move the generated into their house. The analogies I can make to this argument in different contexts are all equally macabre and ridiculous. Suffice it to say that this argument was totally specious. A portable generator can emit up to 1500 times the carbon monoxide than that of an idling automobile. People may start to notice early symptoms and realize carbon monoxide is getting into their living space, go to shut off the generator and be overcome. That's how overwhelming the emissions are presently. Having more time before one dies allows for so many possibilities that will save lives and reduce injuries from neighbors or family discovering what's going on, recognizing early symptoms and getting out of the environment, mitigating the injuries the list goes on and on. Our data show that there were at least 25,400 medically attended carbon monoxide injuries between 2004-2012. People can survive and without sequelae, especially if we can lower carbon monoxide emissions. Our staff estimates that 208 of the 503 deaths that occurred from carbon monoxide poisonings between 2004 and 2012 could have been averted if low emissions generators were in place. Therefore PGMA's position that lowering emissions will simply mean it will take people longer to die is belied by the data. In one study the time interval required for carbon bahoxy hemoglobin level to reach the benchmark representing incapacitation increased from 8 minutes to 96 minutes when using low carbon monoxide emission prototype generator and enclosed garage. This time interval further increases for potential victims who may be in the home. This is precious time, critical time and can mean the difference between life and death. Labeling and marketing were essentially all PGMA planned at that time and our conversation even refused to require a longer extension cord which would make it easier for consumers to use the generators a safe distance from the house. So I will just say PGMA I'm delighted that you're willing to reopen the standard I always am hopeful because I'm an eternal optimist that something will be done with the voluntary standard but there's absolutely nothing about finally reopening the standard that should keep us from going forward with this NPR. Indeed the rule wasn't reopened until PGMA knew that there was an NPR that was imminent. So our staff has committed to and I'm sure will continue to work with industry toward a voluntary standard and we are hopeful that we can reach it but if not we should go forward with this because this is the only way we can save lives. Thank you again for your hard work. Commissioner Buerkle. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the generator team for all of their work and the work that they will continue to do as this process plays out. Ms. Byer are you and all of your team really deserve recognition for the efforts you've put into this as well to my staff and all of the commission staff. Thank you for the work that went into today's NPR package. I'm a strong supporter of voluntary standards in lieu of mandatory government regulations whenever voluntary standards reduce the risk of concern. Congress enshrined this reference for voluntary standards in our statutes and I believe it is the course we as an agency should pursue. Despite Commissioner Robinson's skepticism the Portable Generator Manufacturers Association has advised this by letter that it has reopened voluntary standards for portable generators to incorporate performance criteria focused on limiting carbon monoxide concentrations. PGMA's letter states that it is well along the way in developing a performance based standard which will effectively address the challenges that we face in the future. We should allow the industry and I believe Congress would agree the time it needs to pursue a voluntary, a strong voluntary standard. Issuing the notice of proposed rulemaking at this time is only going to distract them from their efforts on the voluntary standards and delay the process unnecessarily. This is particularly true when the rulemaking package is as technical as a common period of only 75 days stretched over two holiday periods. Our experience of the proposed standard for recreational off-highway vehicles vividly illustrates this point. The ROV manufacturers were the ones who came up with innovative solutions to the safety challenges and they probably would have done some more quickly if they had not been obliged to give priority to our rulemaking proposal. In the case of portable generators there are additional reasons I believe there are additional reasons to support work on voluntary standards in preference to this mandatory regulation. To begin with, and I disagree wholeheartedly with Commissioner Robinson, to begin with there are serious questions about our legal authority to regulate carbon monoxide emissions from generators. Section 31 of the CPSA clearly states that it removes the commission's authority to regulate a risk of injury if it, quote, could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by actions taken under the Clean Air Act, end quote. In my view it is clear that EPA can regulate these carbon monoxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. In fact, EPA has already promulgated CO emission standards for the spark big mission engines used to power these generators. Those standards are part of a far more comprehensive regulatory scheme that is administered by the EPA. I do not believe CPSC should be disrupting that scheme without a strong showing that EPA is legally unable to continue tightening its own standards to levels that would sufficiently reduce the hazards of concern to us. Beyond this threshold question, there are other noteworthy problems raised by this notice proposal making. I'm particularly concerned that we are proposing regulations whose costs by our own calculations significantly outweigh the benefits, at least for some of the generator classes. I also question why we are proposing tighter standards for smaller generators that the standards for larger generations are adequate, excuse me, generators are adequate to protect against the risk of concern. Under the Consumer Product Safety Act, before we adopt a mandatory standard, we must find that it imposes the, quote, least burdensome and, quote, requirements that adequately reduces the risk of concern. Pursuing our objectives in the voluntary standards arena would avoid all of these warning legal issues. A consensus standard as Congress has repeatedly instructed us to take is the course that CPSC should take at this point. Thank you again to everyone, and in particular to John McGuggan for this recommendation and for your assistance this morning in making my participation possible. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Berkel. We continue to think of your mom and certainly talking a lot about that and wishing you as well as possible under circumstances. Commissioner Mohorovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to my fellow commissioners, Commissioner Adler and Commissioner Berkel, it's a little bit lonely up here without you. So as the chairman mentioned, and I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues that you are in our thoughts and we look forward to your return. Thanks as well to the entire generator team, especially Ms. Byer, Ms. Little, and the entire team for a job very well done and those beyond the team that contributed to this notice of proposed rulemaking. I want to also thank my colleagues for supporting my amendment. I believe a culture of retrospective review is an important hallmark of a sophisticated effective administrative state. As we all know, part of CPSC's mission is to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products. We often focus on the word protect as we should, but we cannot lose sight of the word unreasonable. Our job is not to replace consumers' own judgment as their best protection against all risk. Our job is to facilitate that judgment by addressing unreasonable risk. We're supposed to supplement responsible decision-making, not supplant it. There are some hazards that consumers fully understand and choose to encounter. Sometimes they even increase their risks by disabling safety features. Those choices are the consumers to make. Even if we would make different choices, they are not necessarily unreasonable. In the case of carbon monoxide poisoning from portable generators, I believe there is an unreasonable risk we should address. Each year we see dozens of CO related deaths from generator use. What I find compelling in these tragedies is not just their number which is staggering, but also their nature. These incidents demonstrate that consumers don't fully appreciate the hazard posed by CO emission from generators. It is a latent hazard I appreciate Commissioner Adler pointing out again that that has been an emphasis of mine with this particular hazard category. It is a latent hazard rather than a patent one. This hazard is addressable. There is a technological path towards less hazardous generators and that path is reasonable. The proposed rule asks industry to do something that is well within their reach and so we have the opportunity to meaningfully address a hazard that has resulted in hundreds of preventable deaths. We should take that opportunity. As a conservative who believes in the power of free market to correct itself, I am usually reluctant to support regulation. Most of the time I believe that government intervention however melt well meaning doesn't create as many problems as it solves. But sometimes government is in the best position to solve a problem. I believe this is one of those times. Usually government's most appropriate role is to correct an information imbalance. When one player in a market has far more information than others, the market doesn't function properly. In some ways the problem with CO from portable generators is an information imbalance. Generator manufacturers safety experts and regulators have the specialized experience to know how serious the hazard is. Consumers do not. Certainly many consumers understand that engines including generator engines produce carbon monoxide. That's why many consumers take steps to mitigate the hazard. However I believe many consumers do not understand just how much carbon monoxide generators produce or how quickly the hazard can emerge. That's why even some consumers who have taken steps to mitigate the hazard are included in our very sobering statistics. This size of this knowledge gap, the gap between the perception of a hazard and its reality is startling. For example consumers understand that running a car in a closed garage is a lethal mix. Based on the number of incidents we see with generators in open garages consumers may assume the CO hazards from cars and generators and the mitigation strategies are roughly equal. Our staff has demonstrated just how inaccurate and how deadly that assumption is. Our staff has shown that a 5 kilowatt generator can produce as much CO as hundreds of cars. An open door isn't enough and a closed one is a recipe for disaster. Our task is to help consumers close their knowledge gap. As with any gap we can try to close it from either direction. We can give consumers more knowledge or we can bring the hazard closer to consumers current understanding. We are trying to close the gap on the consumer side. We have ongoing targeted education campaigns and we require warning labels on generators that is clear and direct as any label I've seen. Unfortunately though the incidents remain pretty consistent. In closing the gap from the education side isn't working we have to explore closing it from the hazard side. We have to look for a solution that will address the hazard with as little market disruption as possible. This package demonstrates that we have at least one viable way to address the hazard of portable generator CO emissions through the use of existing technology. We can reduce generators emissions to a level that is closer to consumers expectations. Moreover off the shelf proven technology is available at costs that I believe the market can reasonably bear. Our statutes tell us to prefer performance standards to design mandates. And this proposal is a performance standard. Right now there might be only one technological game in town but it doesn't have to stay that way. I believe in the power of American innovation and I would not be at all surprised to see someone build a better low CO mouse trap in the near future. In the interim even if everyone uses the same approach at least that approach is readily available to everyone. In this proposed rule we're not mandating a proprietary technology that would unfairly restrict access to the market. This is how CPSC regulations should function and it's an approach that I can support. In closing one of my favorite quotes about this agency's mission comes from one of our earliest court cases. In Aqua Slide and DiveCorp versus CPSC the aptly named Judge Wisdom wrote that quote an important predicate to commission action is that consumers be unaware of either the severity, frequency, or ways of avoiding the risk. If consumers have accurate information and choose to incur the risk then their judgment may well be reasonable. I do not believe consumers fully appreciate either the severity of generators see a risk or the ways of avoiding the risk. I do not believe consumers partial understanding is based on accurate information and so I believe this risk is unreasonable and commission action is appropriate. With that, go Cubs. Thank you Mr. Chairman. On that note this concludes this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Thank you.