 All right, Cindy, we're going to start up. So, welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission. We are meeting today to consider a draft supplemental notice proposed rulemaking on safety standards for portable generators. Before we begin, I want to confirm that Commissioner Trump is participating virtually can see and hear us. Again, good morning. Good morning. Portable generator safety has been on this agencies agenda for years. Generators are vital pieces of equipment that are often used in emergencies to keep people safe. Often in the wake of devastating storms or other national disasters or during extended power outage. But most portable generators admit hazardous carbon monoxide at rates that can kill users in minutes. Consumers rely on portable generators to revive light power electronics, preserve refrigerator food and heat homes. They have a right to expect that the generators will be safe for these uses and not themselves present a potential deadly hazard. Look forward to working with staff and colleagues to consider this proposal to develop a strong final rule that will protect consumers from injury and death when they're using portable generators. We have several staff members present in the event. There are any questions in the opening around with this is Janet buyer portable generators project manager directorate for engineering sciences. Also in attendance are Jason Levine, CPSC executive director Austin Schlick, general counsel Dwayne Ray. So deputy executive director actually over there and Alberta Mills, the commission secretary will begin with questions for staff. If there are any, each of the commissioners will have 5 minutes for questions after questions are complete and excuse staff and move to consideration of the draft supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking for safety standards. Portable generators. Once again, I remind everybody it's perfectly appropriate to voice our personal opinions on legal issues, but the vice given to us by the office of general counsel must remain confidential and shouldn't be discussed in a public session. So we'll start now with a round of questions and in this case, I don't have questions when I go down by seniority with my fellow commissioners commissioner Felman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Other than to thank Ms. buyer for her work on this NPR. I have no questions. Commissioner Trump, you have questions. No, thank you for the tremendous work on this package. I had no questions and commissioner and boil. I don't have any questions either. Mr. Chair. Thank you. So with that, I also will thank you and excuse you and we're going to move to consideration of the package. That's before us. Before, before we're putting this matter as proposed by staff to a vote, I'm going to entertain any motions from the commissioners to amend the staff proposal. I'm going to start by putting forward a manager's amendment that includes proposals from two of my colleagues and ask my staff to distribute copies of the amendment and ask if there's a second for the amendment. Second. Thank you having heard a second. I'm going to ask consent to allow my colleagues to introduce some portions of the manager's amendment. And if you might hold your comments and questions for that purpose, so I'll turn to commissioner Trump the 1st. Great. Thank you. The 1st of the 2 amendments that we have in here solicits feedback from commenters on 2 questions. The 1st question asks for comment on whether there's evidence that portable generator manufacturers vary their production seasonally. I understand the demand can spike around extreme weather events and we heard some suggestion of seasonality of production, but we haven't seen compelling evidence that manufacturers to produce higher volumes of generators. And certainly look forward to learning more there. The 2nd question asks for comment on whether the warning that appears after the automatic shut off feature has been triggered is explicit enough about the danger. There may be some consumers who it's not immediately obvious to them the danger of carbon monoxide if they see that word or those 2 words and if that's the case, I wonder whether it might be more clearly conveyed that danger if we use the word danger or dangerous or poison before carbon monoxide. Or whether the addition of visual representations such as a spelling crossbones, for example, might be useful the 2nd amendment that was included in the manager's amendment. It would prohibit manufacturers from excessive stockpiling by reverting the stockpiling provision back to the commission standard. It's been the commission's new standard practice to define base period as the 1 month out of the last 13 months with the median import or manufacture volume. And it allows companies to import a manufacturer 5% more than that base period. In each month between the final rule and the effective date under our law, it's about as protective as we can get. Now, I'm certainly open to seeing if there's any reason to adjust base period and I could potentially be persuaded if manufacturers submit evidence of drastic monthly production swings, which is why we had that question at the start. But as many deaths as are associated with the product year over year, allowing excessive stockpiling could very well kill people. I don't think we should accept that. So, thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment's very straightforward. It seeks additional comment on accessibility for visually impaired consumers who may be unable to perceive a warning lighter of the visual prompt. When a generator shut off due to CO level, so I appreciate. I look forward to comment on that and I appreciate my colleague support. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. At this point in time, we're going to turn to around for questions and comments on the amendment and I'm going to recognize myself 1st and say that I'm going to, I support this amendment includes additional questions for commenters. And I have no objective to seeking more information for our consideration. Also, propose to bring the proposed stockpiling language in line with the other rules we've recently considered in this package. Staff has made a case about the violent volatility and growth of generator market calls for that calls for a higher stockpiling allowance. And while I understand this argument and note the safety risks that could occur if there was a shortage of available generators doing an emergency. I have less of an understanding as to what the right allowance is, whether it's 105%, 120% or something else. So nor are we certain about the correct base. I urge commenters to provide us with information. The staff may find useful as we developed this whole rule so that the stockpiling allowance can be based on the best possible data. So with that, I'm supporting the amendment. And I turn to Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too am supportive of the managers. I have no questions. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Trump, do you have any additional comments or questions? I don't. Thank you. Commissioner Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do just want to thank Commissioner Trump for his amendments, particularly his continued focus on the stockpiling issues because I think that reflects an important contribution to ensuring that consumers are not at risk from legacy products long after a rulemaking has been adopted. This is an area he has raised repeatedly since coming to the commission. And I do appreciate that focus on consumers. And I also thank him for his other amendment seeking comments. So I support the managers amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Having heard no other, does that confirm the round for comments or questions? We're going to move to a vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote yes. Commissioner Trump. I vote yes. And Commissioner Boyle. I vote yes. I vote yes as well. There are four yeses, noes or zero, and the amendment is adopted. Now we go to other amendments by commissioners. I turn to Commissioner Feldman. Do you have any amendments? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to call up Feldman one for consideration. Great. I'm going to recognize Commissioner Feldman for up to three minutes. Describe the amendment and then ask for a second has been passed out. And then we can move to questions and comments. Thank you. So the supplemental notice that we're considering today asks for comments on a long list of topics. My amendment would add two questions so that commentators could inform us about potential intellectual property. Issues that might affect this rule's ultimate implementation. In crafting these questions, I worked with CPSC staff who raised no objections to including them. If there's someone who holds or could hold IP rights that might affect the timing, cost or availability of others to comply with our rule, we should know that before we finalize it, not after. If licensing of IP could pose a litigation risk that could delay implementation of our rule, we should also be aware of that. If my math is correct, the SNPR is 95 pages long asking the public to comment on these two additional questions, each comprised of two short paragraphs, costs us nothing, asking for comments on these issues won't increase staff's workload. If we find out that there are possible IP issues that could result in some sort of monopoly, it could save a great deal of work on the back end. With that, I'd ask for a second to proceed to consideration of Feldman one. Second. Thank you. Having heard a second, we're now moved to consideration of the amendment. I'm going to recognize commissioners to ask any questions or making comments with respect to the amendment. Then I'm going to come back to Commissioner Feldman at the end. So each commissioner will have five minutes per round and we can have multiple rounds if necessary. So I'm going to recognize myself and say thank you for the amendment, proposing to insert additional questions for commenters as a general matter. I'll support open process for seeking relevant information in a rulemaking proceeding. This issue was raised earlier in the proceeding and I understand that there was no indication of prior to your technologies being used with respect to the standard. I don't know if anything's changed or if issues exist with the standard and you know, it's all relevant all matters. If there's relevant information submitted in the common process, we'll consider it accordingly. I'll support the amendment commissioner Trump. I have no questions. Thank you. Commissioner more. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I don't have any questions. I will not, however, be supporting the amendment. I do appreciate my colleagues thoughts on this, but I think the questions in the package already on economic impact are sufficiently broad to subsume this issue. And I look forward to commenters who are, you know, certainly welcome to submit comments on this issue. And I think the questions in the package already address allow them to do so in a very clear way. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner and good back to you. Commissioner film, if any final comments, thank you. I'm concerned that this amendment may lack majority support for adoption. And I think that's a mistake. Not only is it a deviation from longstanding commission precedent to include commissioner questions for public comments in our NPRs, but I'm concerned that we might be turning a blind eye to the important competition issues that that may be present. Why should we care for starters? I believe it's universally held that monopolies are inherently bad. Government sanctioned monopoly, which would a mandatory standard would could create would enjoy protections outside of the reach of our antitrust laws. But in terms of our safety mission, they're also important considerations for for for things that we should account for a would be monopolist could raise the price on these products increasing their profits while at the same time limiting the availability of safe and affordable generators for consumers who might need them in emergencies. But I'm also concerned that ignoring a key fact like the IP rights, if they exist, would threaten the viability of a future final mandatory standard because we failed to account for the full cost and subjecting our rule to legal challenge, which we could avoid. I've said it before, but a rule that is state or overturned offers zero consumer protections. Accordingly, I would request a second for the yeas and nays on felt than one. Here in second, we'll turn to a vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote yes. Commissioner Trump. I vote no. Commissioner Boyle. I vote no. And I vote yes. The answers are twos and those are to the amendments not adopted. Turn to any additional amendments. Commissioner Feldman, I have no further amendments. Thank you. Commissioner Trump. Could you have any amendments? I do not. Thank you. And Commissioner Boyle, do you have any amendments? No, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you to all my fellow commissioners and hearing no additional amendments. I move to approve the staff's draft supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking as amended and to direct publication of the same in the federal register. Is there a second? Second. Having heard a second, we can move to a vote. Commissioner Feldman, how do you vote? I vote yes. Commissioner Chonka, how do you vote? I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle, how do you vote? I vote yes. And I vote yes as well. So the yeses are for the noes are zero. The motion to approve staff's draft supplemental notice proposed for rulemaking as amended on portable generator safety passes. The supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking as amended has been approved and shall be published in the federal register. And at this point in time, we're going to have closing remarks 10 minutes for each commissioner and we'll recognize myself for the first 10 minutes. And as I said at the beginning of this meeting, portable generators can be an essential equipment during emergencies. When electric services go out, they provide heat, light, refrigeration, power for phones and other electric equipment. This means also that portable generators are often used during times of stress and disruption. Recently, tornadoes devastated large parts of this country, leaving dozens dead. They left homes destroyed and infrastructure in shambles. Families facing such devastation shouldn't have to worry about the dangers associated with generators they're using to put their lives back together. And we know the generators can be extremely hazardous. Each one can emit as much carbon monoxide as 100 or more cars. The odorless, colorless gas can kill unsuspecting users in minutes. And on average, more than 80 Americans die each year from carbon monoxide poisoning from portable generators. Some particularly tragic cases, whole families have been lost. This agency began evaluating the safety of portable generators nearly 20 years ago. At that time, there is no voluntary standard in place. And this has been a long process, but today represents an important milestone. And that work has largely been done on the work of the staff. And I thank them for all the work they've done during that time. We've approved the publication of a supplemental notice proposed from Lake World making the draws from two voluntary standards, both of which were published in the years that CPSC has been working on this issue. Each standard has strong components, but the staff has evaluated that both could be improved and appears that neither is widely complied with. Staff estimates that if the proposed standard were in place, nearly 100% of the carbon monoxide deaths that we see each year for portable generators could be avoided. We owe it to consumers to try. I expect there will be a robust comment from stakeholders as they examine this proposal and look forward to that engagement and to seeing a final rule emerge later this year. American families shouldn't have to put themselves at risk when they start up their portable generator. And I look forward to working with my colleagues, stakeholders, and staff on this proceeding. Commissioner Feldman, did you have comments? I did. I wanted to thank you for the proceeding today and to say that this is a serious issue. I'm pleased that we're publishing out an SNPR today. I want to thank staff for their work that's gone on for a significant amount of time on this issue to get to this stage today. So congratulations to you. I look forward to reviewing the comments and seeing where we are on the back end of all of this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Trumka, did you have comments? Thank you. I'm so proud of the work this agency has done to develop this incredibly strong mandatory safety rule for portable generators. We are talking about a deadly problem. Over 1,300 people died from high-side poisoning caused by 1,004 in 2021 alone. And another 77,000 people heard in that same time period. And it's incredibly troubling to know that a quarter of all those fatal incidents associated with portable generators involve multiple deaths at once, so I'm involving entire families. So this rule that we've adopted today is incredible in the fact that it's going to virtually eliminate that death and injury risk. And emissions limits, carbon dioxide detection, automatic shutoff features. The technology exists. And by requiring companies to incorporate it, the proposed rule will save over 2,100 lives and prevent over 126,000 injuries over the coming decades. And at the same time, it will save American people over 1 billion dollars per year in costs related to those deaths and injuries. It's fantastic. And the agency's approach here should really be a model going forward. Staff designed an extremely protective solution by combining the most protective elements from two voluntary standards. By taking the best of all works and leaving the rest behind, we certainly do right by American consumers. And our amendments today make this package even stronger. After we pass a final rule. Anyway, I feel very strongly that we can't let manufacturers build up stockpiles of the products we would have just determined to be too dangerous to exist. Because if they build up those stockpiles, it delays the life-saving benefits of our rule and it keeps putting people at risk while companies sell off that unreasonably dangerous stock. With portable generators, every unit we allow to be produced and sold without carbon dioxide detection and shutoff features, at that point, we'll run the risk that more Americans will die entirely preventable deaths from carbon dioxide poisoning. So I'm glad we've embraced the Commission's standard stockpiling approach by amendment, which is the more protective approach. And I'd like to extend particular thanks to staff and really particular thanks to Janet Byer, who spearheaded this project over many years. She was steadfast in her advocacy for consumers and her commitment to safety will save thousands of lives here. So this is a resounding win for safety. And I hope we're here discussing a final rule soon. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Boyle. Thank you. As I reflect on my own experience with the Commission's multi-year effort to address safety and portable generators, I recognize that we are at a pivotal moment. I want to underscore both the gravity of this hazard and the power of this proposed rule to make a meaningful difference. CO poisoning is a silent killer. A single portable generator can emit as much exhaust as several hundred midsize cars. Over the 18 year period covered by our data, at least 1,332 people have died because of CO poisoning linked to portable generators. These are not abstractions, but real people who turned to generators for help when they were in crisis. During the same period, according to conservative estimates from our data on this hazard, over 17,000 injuries were treated in emergency rooms and over 5,000 patients required hospitalization. And the latest information we have suggests that this disheartening pattern of death and injury continues unabated. Despite wishing that action on this issue could have come sooner, I believe that we are now on a trajectory toward the goal of eliminating this hazard. We can do this. The proposed rule sets clear science-based expectations for manufacturers. It requires them to build safer generators with lower emissions and automatic shutoff mechanisms. The specifics in the rule match up with Sanders developed by industry-led organizations. Not only can we do this, but we must do this to save lives. I welcome comments on the proposed rule that aim to further this goal. And I expect industry to embrace this chance to partner with us in protecting consumers. The importance of safety for portable generators will only grow as demand for them grows in the face of extreme weather events like those we have seen just over the past week. In closing, I want to acknowledge that getting to this point has not been easy. No one knows this better than Janet Byer, whose professionalism and determination over many years at the helm of this project have demonstrated her tremendous commitment to public service and to our agency's mission. We owe our thanks to her and to Barbara Little and to the many others who have done their rigorous technical analysis, carefully reviewed the data, and navigated the ins and outs of the rulemaking process, not to mention those who worked on research, reports, and education campaigns to raise public awareness of life-threatening hazards related to portable generators and CO poisoning. You can truly say that your hard work makes a difference. I am more optimistic than ever about the prospects for progress, and I look forward to a swift advancement to the final stage. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Thanks to all my fellow commissioners for engaging on this important issue. And thanks again to the staff who have been working on this package. And with that, this concludes today's decisional meeting of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.