 Welcome back this afternoon to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Products Commission The hearing that we began this morning will now resume just a reminder from this morning that we we convene these public meetings pursuant to our statuette statute to solicit public comment on CPSC's notice of proposed Rulemaking concerning portable generators. We have two panels We've heard from the first panel this morning and now we're going to hear from our second panel this afternoon On this panel on the panel this afternoon. We are pleased to have mr. Joe Moses Generic power systems mr. Gordon Shelby Johnson, excuse me. Mr. Gloucester that again Mr. Gordon Shelby Johnson jr. My attorney mr. Tim. Is it shively or shively? Mr. Tim shively from fireboy Exxon-Tex Zintex Inc. I'll start that one again fireboy Zintex Inc Mr. Antonio Santos manufacturers of a mission controls association and mr. Albert Dona Consulting detoxicologist Environmental health engineer and carbon monoxide analyst I want to thank all of you on behalf of myself and my commissioner that my colleagues for joining us today We really do appreciate you taking the time and the effort to get here and to share your expertise with us Again, each of the panelists will go ahead and speak for up to 10 minutes And once you all have concluded your testimony I will turn to the commissioners for two five minute rounds of questions with that mr. Moses you may begin and I thank you Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Joe Moses. I'm the vice president of global product engineering for Generic power systems Commissioners, thank you for allowing me and Generic power systems the opportunity to submit testimony to the Commission regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking on portable generators This is very important issue that I can assure you Generic is committed to solve Generic is a leading manufacturer of portable generators here in the United States And we have the broadest and most diverse product lineup of portable generators in the industry We presently have over 100 unique portable generator products ranging in power from 800 watts to 17.5 kilowatts Our products are designed and optimized for multiple consumer uses including recreation general purpose emergency backup and construction We produce portable generators that can be fueled by a broad range of fuels including gasoline liquid propane and diesel Generic has been an active member of the portable generator manufacturers association Pgma since the organization was founded in 2009 Generic joined Pgma because we believe very strongly in the mission of Pgma to develop and influence safety and performance standards for portable generators We are committed to continuously improving the safety of our products Generic's engineering team has been actively working to develop product solutions and standards that address this issue We have explored multiple solution options such as reduced emissions strategies in detection Prototypes have been built and tested in multiple operational scenarios We've been contributing many of the results of these efforts to the Pgma technical committee in the hopes that Pgma Would be able to complete the revision of G 300 as quickly as possible We believe that Pgma has made great progress towards the standard revision in a very short period of time Generic supports Pgma's approach towards addressing the hazard giving Pgma's demonstrated progress towards the development of a voluntary standard We request that the Commission defer the rulemaking activities to allow Pgma the time needed to complete their standard making process We appreciate the work CPSC staff has done to prepare the NPR Although we are still waiting for the release of additional important information The studies and tests that were published as NIST technical notes and Contam models have been instrumental for Generic and other manufacturers to compare the impact of detection versus the various emissions reductions Generic is in support of the detection based approach and believes that it will offer superior results when compared to the reduced emissions strategy That is outlined in the NPR We believe that detection has significant advantages over the emissions reductions outlined in the NPR These advantages include more life-saving Modeling and testing to date comparing shutoff versus emissions reductions are indicating that nearly twice as many deaths could have been avoided with a shutoff approach This conclusion is preliminarily based on the data and models that have already been supplied from NIST through the four-year request Comparing a shutoff to reduced emissions levels consistent with the NPR requirements With additional testing and modeling we expect to show that the shutoff approach is a superior method to reduce the risks from the CO hazard In order to complete this activity. We need the second four-year request to be fulfilled Hazard elimination Detection offers the advantage of being able to stop the hazardous condition altogether by shutting the generator off before the CO levels become potentially fatal Alerting the consumer the shutoff system offers the advantage of Annunciation when the system recognizes the hazardous condition not only is it possible to stop the generation of harmful CO But it's also possible to provide an audible or visual visible alert to the occupants making them aware of the hazardous condition and Notifying them to take appropriate action Universal application the shutoff system is scalable This type of system can be applied to all types of portable generators regardless of size or intended purpose Generac has tested prototype shut off systems and is able to achieve similar results on small handheld generators liquefied propane generators diesel generators and very large v-twin sized engine generators Emissions control systems are not available for and cannot be applied to all types and sizes of the commercially available generators today No fuel source restrictions the shutoff system does not discriminate fuel type or source as a result The shutoff system will apply to all fuels that are used for portable generators both now and in the future Today there are no known emissions control systems that would allow the reduced CO thresholds to be met for many of these fuel types And it is unclear what impact there would be as fuel blends evolve in the future faster implementation The shutoff system can be implemented much faster on product lines in the emissions reduction suggested by the NPR Our testing has already indicated that will be possible to develop a single shutoff system That could be deployed on multiple generator models very easily Emissions controls and catalysts will require complete redevelopment of the system for every engine consuming far more resources in time Generac's product portfolio currently contains more than 25 unique engines Retroactive application we believe it will be possible to develop shutoff system accessories that consumers could purchase and apply to their existing generators Generators used for general purpose and home backup scenarios could be expected to have service excuse me service lives More than ten years our estimates also indicate there are more than 10 million portable generators currently owned by consumers Reliability concerns associated with emissions control and catalyst systems need to be understood and addressed as part of this NPR Staff has been critical of the shutdown approach due to reliability concerns But the same level of expectations have not been applied to the low CO emissions controls and catalyst systems Reliability concerns must be considered as part of any ruler standard relating to either a detection or reduce CO emissions strategy The design choices that are commonly made by designers of engines and emissions control systems can have dramatic impacts on the emissions rates under various conditions Likewise catalyst reliability is also a source for concern and must be addressed There have been several documented studies and field reports that support the reliability concern some of these concerns include Cold startup engine choking logic, which typically runs the engine rich Wide temperature range ECU map values and cold start conditions operation at elevated altitudes Transient conditions that result from load changes on the engine Emissions control systems typically default to open-loop operation when input conditions are outside of their pre-program maps The effects of engine wear over the life of the generator Catalyst degradation and contamination oil carry over into the catalyst that can result from operator misuse or early engine failure System mechanical vibration and jarring of the catalyst and oxygen sensor thermal stresses that degrade or destroy catalyst operation More detail and specific case studies illustrating these reliability concerns will be highlighted in our complete NPR comments before the end of the comment period Generic also has many concerns related to potential unintended consequences that we foresee with a reduction of emissions as proposed by the NPR Consumers may mistakenly believe that reduced emissions means it is safe to operate the generators indoors It will never be safe to operate a generator indoors The proposed rule is based on the premise that the occupants will become aware of the hazard and take Appropriate steps to remove themselves from the hazard. There is no basis to support this premise The significant cost increases to consumers that will result from this ruling could lead to consumers identifying ways of extending the service life of their existing generators and potential refurbishment programs This activity was seen recently when the EPA tier 4 regulations for non-road diesel products became active This could significantly delay the benefits from a rule beyond the already long operating lives of these products Generic has been and will remain committed to developing the best solution to this hazard We believe that the solution is a co-detection and shut off system for the reasons expressed here today As our development of both the ANSI G 300 standard revision and product designs continue to progress We feel that this will become even more evident We ask that the Commission consider a suspension of the rulemaking process to allow us the time to continue working with PGM And others to fully develop and complete the revision to ANSI G 300 These activities have made great progress to date and Generac offers its assurances that we will continue to drive forward with the same energy and commitment In order to complete the process quickly Suspending the rulemaking would allow us to share our efforts and avoid the unnecessary unnecessary duplication of efforts that has been Solving progress to date We welcome input from piece CPSC staff on the approach we are taking and are looking forward to working together Through the PGMA technical summit activities We will be providing more detailed comments through the NPR comment process as we get closer to the deadline in April We have several commercial and technical concerns with the proposed rule that we're not outlined in our testimony today It is our hope that the four-year request PGMA has outstanding will be fulfilled in short order So that we will have the attic have adequate time to perform the remaining modeling analysis and may represent the results in our comments Thank you for allowing me to represent Generac here today to share our thoughts. Thank you. Mr. Moses. Mr. Johnson Yes, I I'm gonna start by reading a news story Nine hospitalized in Alaska after carbon monoxide exposure Date line March 7th 8 11 p.m. That's last night. It's on the monitors. It the story begins Anchorage nine people in a small Alaska town of Houston have been hospitalized after being exposed to carbon monoxide in a home The Houston fire chief Christian Hartley says the Monday night incident occurred at a home That had a generator running in the basement and this is perhaps as significant as the fact there's a generator is the next paragraph Hartley says a resident had left the home because of a headache and went to the home of a friend He says that the two went back to the affected home and dragged the other people out This is happening Within hours of us convening today Who am I? My name is Gordon Johnson I'm a personal injury lawyer. That means I represent plaintiffs in situations like what might have happened here I'm also a brain injury attorney. I've been doing nothing, but brain injury representation since 1994 I'm also a carbon monoxide attorney And the reason is that the most significant aspect of a carbon monoxide poisoning for those who survive is brain damage. I currently represent in excess of 80 people in carbon monoxide poisoning cases The reason the numbers are so high is that in many of the cases we see in carbon monoxide There are multiple people exposed one of the cases I'm involved in is a case where there were four generators set up and inside at a wedding inside and More than 300 people were poisoned in that event over a hundred taken to the hospital I hope we're also involved in two large skills school poisonings a bank poisoning and I've done some hotel cases I want to focus my testimony on three things the first is why is it the statistics that we have as Scary as they are as scary as this story is understate the number and the impact of this The degree of carbon monoxide poisoning and when I talk about carbon monoxide poisoning What we're doing here is we're trying to reduce the amount of carbon monoxide which by definition Reduces the number and the severity of poisonings I also want to focus on the impact that this regulation would have on what the general category of chronic carbon monoxide poisoning which did come up this morning and another issue which came up this morning, which is the full economic and societal impact of carbon monoxide poisoning Why are the statistics the scary statistics that in your numbers? Why are they underestimated? They're underestimated for the same reason that instead of having Nine people with a headache in this anchored story today. There are All these people hospitalized because when you get the first symptoms of carbon monoxide, it's not specific The body is a carbon monoxide detector, but it's not a very Clear one we get the same symptoms we have with flu we get the same symptoms We might have with food poisoning I had clients who were in a hotel and thought they had food poisoning and of course went to sleep Fortunately, they did wake up the next morning, but severely poisoned So the first problem is that the patients the people who are getting poisoned don't realize it because it's So similar to other things and the other things are the kind of things that you might just lay down and and hope you Feel better in the morning. Well, if it's a severe poisoning, they don't wake up in the morning The other reason is that the medical people don't recognize it either when they get to the ER I would estimate it three quarters of the people who have carbon monoxide poisoning never have a blood drawn They never are told by the the medical people that they have been poisoned We I know this not statistically, but I know it from my own experience of talking to hundreds of people with carbon monoxide poisoning Most of the time when they go to the hospital if there isn't some connection to an event like in Madison where they came in on buses They are not The medical people just don't think that if it's in the middle of the winter and they've had a rush Rache of these things maybe they will but most of the time it's too nonspecific Often even when they know it's carbon monoxide poisoning, they don't do the right things Rarely is there a referral for hyperbaric oxygen, which I believe statistically makes a difference in almost all outcomes The second area is we're talking here now about a reduction Perhaps 90% I think your testing showed 93% in the marine area, which may not be feasible for smaller generators It's 99% is that going to make a difference? Well one category clearly will make a difference is those people who have the chronic exposures You could chronically get exposed to a generator That was too close to your house day after day day after day these utility situations would be a good example But the thing about most chronic exposures is they're not so severe that they set off the carbon monoxide detector in the body And say we're have something happen those poisonings can be very severe because they happen again and again and again They're not likely to ever get severe enough In this situation because the levels will be 10% of something that wasn't clinically recognizable as carbon monoxide poisoning. That's probably de minimis We may hear some people who disagree with that, but I'm very familiar with the research in this field I basically cross-examine expert witnesses and doctors neuropsychologists engineers as my primary living and Generally, it's if these levels are Well below 10% they're probably not going to be significant. They may have some Issues, but it's not likely to be I would analogize it to the situation that we have in football The sub-concussive hits in a career of playing football can wind up to be CTE But you're not going to have a career of those kind of blows if you drop the carbon monoxide Emissions by 90 some percent. It's just not going to get to be severe enough to make a difference The final area which is an area that was touched on earlier today, which I probably have More experience than anyone else on the panel with is putting into economic and societal terms the impact of a carbon monoxide Poison in all of our cases our duty Representing our clients is to put economic numbers on the impact. None of the people I represent died Very few of them have carboxy hemoglobin levels above 30 yet in almost every one of those cases There is an economic impact that would include at the minimum a shortened work life expectancy But also an inability to function independently in the world It's in many ways like we suddenly turned young children Productive adults into people late in life who need supportive care to get through day to day And the reason for that is a carbon monoxide does much more than impact cognition We can measure its effect on cognition, but like other brain injury. It impacts mood. It impacts behavior It impacts the way the body functions the neurological system functions the heart and the other organs The areas in between those functions the gray area, but it's not just the gray white matter junction It's the junction between cognition and mood the junction to a mood and behavior These are the areas that are most difficult to quantify but have the greatest impact and in many ways The only way to really take care of the survivor is to provide human assistance from another person Careers are likely in many cases are affected because Even if the cognition is there the ability to get along with co-workers the ability to control Yourself the ability to try to keep your remarks to 10 minutes is gone the ability to plan the ability to initiate Those things have a much larger impact than just the economic cost of a shortened work life expectancy Couple of quick points and re-bottle There's a lot of talk here about now. We're gonna do this now We're gonna do that. I'm pretty sure when I read the materials for this proposed regulation that this goes back 10 years Why if the industry was going to make a difference did it not make a difference over those 10 years of the 75 Average people per year who died and the 25,000 total people We know we're hospitalized and likely another 25 or 50,000 more impacted The industry's had a long time to do it as trial lawyers. We make a difference too, but we can't do it alone We need your help. We need this commission's To establish clear regulations that will make the world safer. Thank you Thank you very much. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Shively Excuse me one second before you begin. Are there any members of the panelists who are doctors? I failed this morning. Mr. Dunn is actually a doctor. I know you're a doctor of law Yeah, Dr. Weaver is available this afternoon if you do you need to have any further questions? Thank you No, I just in terms of protocol and the proper PhD versus MD, but I just want to make sure I'm addressing everyone properly. Mr. Shively, you may continue Good afternoon Thank you for having me I Kind of give you a perspective from a carbon monoxide detector manufacturers point of view fire boys in techs has been Manufacturing safety products for over 30 years We manufacture fire suppression fire detection all sorts of gas detection we You know we make gasoline detectors we make propane detectors We and obviously today we're talking about carbon monoxide detectors And I and I wanted to to share with you a little bit of What technology is out there and some of the applications that that we have used the detectors in? We primarily are in the marine industry. So there were some comments made earlier on About the marine industry and unfortunately, there's there's not a lot of statistics to support Decision-making however, I can say that there's there's several things a portable generator for instance is a You know, it's a unit that's running on its own and it has vibration and it has a lot of different things Our products have been certified under UL 2034 Which is a residential single and multiple alarm detection system, but then we take it to another level and that is that we also certify it to the marine standard and The marine standard is a bit more rigorous testing It's exposed to extreme temperatures Shock and vibration Yeah, there's a water resistance test a splash test And the net result is you end up with a fairly durable reliable product compared to And off-the-shelf residential unit that a lot of people think that They would like to use so You know in our years of service back in 2005 a very large recreational boat manufacturer came to us and You know had requested because there were they were having some trouble with co issues on Boats that they provided with a generator where the generator is mounted in the engine room We developed a co-detector with basically the relay shutdown feature and so what happens is the co-detector is located in the salon area or the living area of the boat and If the levels because of station wagon effect and a lot of other things that happen on boats Reaches to the alarm point then what would happen is that the our unit as it went into alarm would also shut down the generator So we've been building, you know that unit since 05 You know tens of thousands of boats out there Not all of them with the shutdown, but most of them with a co-detector of one type or another And so that's one application where the shutdown feature has been used for many years another one is at the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan We had a tent supplier who supplies tents for medical reasons for You know the military US Army Purposes they actually purchased our co-detector and what they did is they mounted them on board their generator And they also used our shutdown feature Which if the co-level would rise then it would shut down the generator the source of the of the co so those are a couple of Applications where we have been using that technology and shutting down generators for many years and you know We don't have specific, you know statistics to say how many lives saved or how many incidences where? it actually You know proved worthy, but we believe that through the years that we have saved lives as a result of that We used in those designs for that those applications the the actual co-sensor that we used was a metal oxide type and You know metal oxide is an okay sensor. However, it is susceptible To certain things that with an electrochemical sensor the new model that we just came out with We did an evaluation of the latest metal oxide and we compared that to electrochemical and we believe the electrical electrochemical sensor is a far superior Sensor improved accuracy Less susceptible to contamination And and contamination is a big thing if you had a metal oxide sensor setting in a garage And it's exposed to ammonia is and it's exposed to you know varnish and those type of things it will absolutely kill the sensor and in the case of if it's you know, I actually Was painting or varnishing in my boat and the co-detector that I had I left it in there on purpose Took it back to the factory and what happens is it completely glazed over and basically would not sense co What so ever it won't false alarm if it doesn't give you a a premature alarm It simply doesn't work. So when we developed our new co-detector, we we chose the electrochemical That was one of the main reasons That sensors also stable and different humidity Changes so if you have high humidity low humidity different temperature ranges And it's really unaffected from those type of normal environmental changes that happen and The other thing about the electrochemical is that there's really no warm-up period that once it's powered. It's ready to go And it's sensing accurately With that technology it is also allowed us to come out with a battery-powered only unit So therefore you don't have to rely on a source of power from the generator You can have power all the time. So it's always sensing and so during that startup period it would it would be sensing and because of the technology of the sensor that It will last seven to ten years and that's maintenance free without without having to change batteries So, you know, we just really believe that that it is a superior product And that's what we have incorporated into our new marine. It will be residential marine and RV co-detector You know currently we have been in discussions with a portable generator generator manufacturer And we did a very we basically designed a Variation of the true UL 2034 unit, however it alarms at the same kind of levels So, you know, if the CO level gets to a point where it's going to harm someone That that we can shut down the generator It would be an on-board mounted unit. It would be water-resistant We we Have a way through software of determining if it's being used inside or out. So it's going to get away from false Shutdowns when it's in an outside and it happens to get a shift of wind that runs, you know That blows a plume of CO across the sensor So, you know in conclusion As that that story that he just read about in Alaska two and a half weeks ago one hour from where our Manufacturing facility is in Grand Rapids, Michigan 11-year-old girl died Both parents are still in critical condition and being treated for CO poisoning And what happened is that they were their power was shut down and they were operating a portable generator in the garage of the Basically facility where they were living which was actually a a commercial facility But unfortunately that 11-year-old girl is no longer with us I believe that if you had a CO detector On board that would have identified that there was high CO levels and you would have shut down that that generator That, you know, perhaps that that young lady could be with us today So, you know, we really believe that you know, it's a technically viable solution That It's a relatively simple installation It is field retrofitable It's a very cost-effective solution in high volumes. We could be looking at less than $20 And we believe at the end of the day that shutting down generators will save lives Thank you very much, Mr. Shively. Mr. Santos Thank you Hi, my name is Antonio Santos. I am the director of special projects at the manufacturers of emission controls association Thank you for the opportunity today to come before you to provide oral comments and support of the US consumer product safety Commission's proposed rulemaking to limit carbon monoxide emissions from operating portable generators We thank CPSC for its efforts to develop a comprehensive proposal that effectively addresses the risk of injury associated with CO poisoning from portable generators We believe the Commission's recommended maximum CO emission rates for portable generators are reasonable and can be met through the use of a variety of readily available Technologies including electronic fuel injection closed-loop control and three-way catalyst technology Mika's a nonprofit association of the world's leading manufacturers of emission control technology for mobile sources our members have over 40 years of experience in a proven track record in developing and manufacturing and mission control technology for a wide variety of On-road and off-road vehicles and equipment including fuel injectors oxygen center sensors for closed-loop control in catalyst technology In addition our members have over 20 years of experience in the safe application of catalyst to a wide variety of on-road and off-road Small displacement spark ignited engines like those used in portable generators Mika commenced CPSC staff for its thorough technical work conducted in support of the proposed rulemaking Including staff's two-part technology demonstration program Staff's assessment of feasible CO rates based upon the EPA's 2006 technology demonstration program for non-road SI engines and Staff's testing of fuel injected generators Based on this extensive analysis CPSC staff concluded and Mika agrees That significant reductions in the CO emission rates of portable generators are technically feasible for each of the designated generator categories Specifically CPSC's analysis found that existing emission control technology Namely closed-loop electronic fuel injection engine calibration and a small catalyst Can be applied to the engines that port power portable generators to significantly reduce their CO emission rate to a level that is expected to Result in fewer deaths and injuries when used in scenarios that currently cause fatalities Mika believes the levels of this maximum CO emission rates proposed by CPSC for the four designated generator categories are reasonable and can be met within the proposed time frames for compliance In testing conducted at Southwest Research Institute over 10 years ago Carbureted class 1 and class 2 non-road spark ignited engines 19 kilowatts and below with installed catalysts Should significant reductions in criteria pollutants with reductions ranging from 50 to 70% for CO and 60 to 80% for HC hydrocarbons plus NOx Oxides of nitrogen Mika member companies have been developing both precious metal and less expensive base metal catalyst technology for effectively reducing CO The CO reduction performance of these cost effective catalyst solutions Can be further enhanced through the combined use of fuel injection and closed-loop air fuel control Recent testing by Mika member companies on small spark ignited engines used a combination of electronic fuel injection and catalyst technology Have demonstrated an 80 to 90% reduction in CO emissions Mika last year analyzed EPA certification database for model year 2015 non handheld engines Of the over a thousand engines listed approximately 100 of these engines are certified with CO levels of less than 50 grams per kilowatt hour Of the nine gasoline fueled engines all use catalysts and closed-loop control The remaining low CO engines are either natural gas or propane some of which use catalysts Looking towards the future several portable generator manufacturers have already announced they will begin selling low CO generators later this year Regarding the design of emission control systems for portable generators manufacturers may choose to include Three-way catalysts in the mufflers of the engines to achieve the low CO emission rates that would be required by the proposed standard Mika members have invested millions of dollars in developing catalyst technology for small SI engines to ensure their effective and safe operation Installation of catalysts into mufflers used on small spark ignited engines utilize basic manufacturing techniques and catalyst integration methods Such as heat management and packaging which are straightforward engineering challenges that are well understood EPA and ARB test programs both conducted 10 years ago have shown that catalysts can be applied to class 1 and class 2 small engines without increasing safety risks associated with exhaust component surface temperatures Strategies to mitigate these issues are available today to ensure the safe operation of catalyzed mufflers used on small spark ignited engines These types of design issues have been raised and addressed every time the use of catalyst technology has been proposed for use on spark ignited engines Be it for passenger cars, heavy-duty trucks, large non-road equipment such as forklifts or small non-road engines used in lawn and garden equipment and generators All of these issues have been successfully addressed for each application Finally, although it is likely that manufacturers will utilize closed-loop electronic fuel injection and catalysts to meet the proposed CO performance requirements Mika agrees with CPSC that the requirements of the rule should be performance-based and should not dictate how generators should meet the CO emission limits Companies should have the flexibility to determine the appropriate technology to use to meet the specified CO emission rates In fact, the ingenuity of engine manufacturers has been demonstrated in the development of new advanced designs in class 1 and class 2 engines to meet the current phase 3 tier 3 small spark ignited standards without the use of catalysts In conclusion, Mika commends CPSC for taking important steps to reduce CO emissions from portable generators We believe that the application of readily available technology such as closed-loop electronic fuel injection and 3-way catalyst technology to small non-road spark ignited engines is a cost-effective solution for reducing exhaust emissions from these engines And Mika is committed to do our part to ensure that emission control technology is available to meet CPSC's requirements Thank you Thank you very much Mr. Santos. Mr. Dine Excuse me, a consulting detoxicologist Excuse me, is your microphone on? Sorry Thank you I'm a consulting detoxicologist and an environmental health engineer and CO analyst I've been working on CO issues for over 20 years and I've worked with a lot of different kinds of poisoning scenarios and investigated them I first shared these concerns with CPSC staff at the summit earlier this last year, rather, that the PGMA sponsored And I was the only one with these concerns. I'm glad they're now shared by others And I think there's been a real significant change in the industry response I'm hoping that the commissioners will reconsider these concerns. I sent them to you in a letter back in October First it's been raised before CPSC doesn't have the authority to regulate these air pollution, but EPA does And critically, they have been doing this for over 20 years Most significant is that they have split their regulations of generators into very strict limits for large generator engines Just 4.4 grams per kilowatt hour if they're over 19 kilowatt But much more, 610 to 805 if they're these smaller engines So while an EPA compliant 2-cylinder 20 kilowatt commercial generator could emit only up to 88 grams per hour, the entire machine An EPA compliant 1-cylinder 5.5 kilowatt generator, a very common consumer size, can emit 3,800 percent more Or 3,355 grams per hour. That clearly is the problem and it's EPA's problem If they just extended this lower limit to the small generators, the small generator limit would fall over 99 percent and would be at 24 grams per hour So CPSC is now proposing to preempt EPA CO emission limits on generators up to 25 kilowatts That's how they defined it in the proposed rule So this would limit the smaller engines to 150 grams per hour But the CO limit for the 2-cylinder 20 kilowatt engine would increase over 300 percent under this rule CPSC would allow these engines to give off 300 grams per hour and that seems to be going in the wrong direction CPSC said it believes lower emission rates are technically feasible for the smaller engines So why not if you want to go down this road propose the limits that are at least as low as those already met by larger generators for 20 years My second concern is this claim of a 90 percent decrease. We've heard lots of people hail it. It's a big number. I agree But it's based on ignoring the cold start. All of the data from NIST ignored the cold start and they ignored it for 60 minutes In the rule, they proposed letting it go for 20 minutes But the manufacturers wouldn't have to tell us what the maximum CO emission rate was, how long it took to reach this peak, what level of CO accumulated in the test chamber All of these factors affect the ability of consumers to survive because they're not going to start the generator in the driveway and bring it in the house 20 minutes later When they started inside, all of these emissions from the cold start are going to stay inside And I ask you what this really depends on for success is answering this one question Will low CO or safe CO or ultra low CO generators really cause consumers to behave better, to bring them inside less commonly If they don't, if they still bring them inside, and I suggest they might be more likely to do so, we haven't solved any problem There'll still be a very high, fast rise in CO, carboxy-humane globin will go up high quickly in the person's blood And 5, 10, or 20 minutes later when CO emissions fall by 90%, that CO level in their blood will not fall quickly It takes many times longer to get rid of CO than to absorb it, all my colleagues who've studied this agree on that point So we don't solve the problem if we miss that cold start My third concern is this claim that the limits are based on technical feasibility As I mentioned, EPA has had lower limits for a long time Neither the briefing package or the proposed rule mentioned that these ostensibly technology-based limits of 75, 50, and 300 grams per hour Depending on the size of the generator are almost identical to a completely different set of numbers To EPA's 2008 estimates of the average CO emissions from idling U.S. vehicles in three categories 71 grams per hour, that's the whole vehicle, not just per horsepower, that's the whole engine for cars 152 for trucks and 301 for motorcycles Given that EPA's been working with CPSC staff on this since 2006 I don't think this is a coincidence, it begs an explanation, I can't find anybody at CPSC staff or EPA who can explain it Why is CPSC only proposing the lower CO to the average level of U.S. vehicles when vehicles are still the number one cause of CO deaths and poisonings? You wouldn't know this reading CPSC staff reports because since they don't have jurisdiction they never mention those numbers But they still cause more deaths than the generators So 90% is nice but it's not enough And I urge you to find out where these limits actually came from because they're clearly not technically based My last concern is the staff's dismissal of shut-off devices mounted on generators, they had numerous vulnerabilities But they didn't allow the public to look at this data for eight years, they sat on that report for eight years It took two years after I filed a FOIA to get it and the report shows some remarkable findings Even though they only used UL 2034 home CO alarms hardwired to the generator A purpose for which they're explicitly not meant to be used, they're not even supposed to be in the same room as a CO source They still worked perfectly, they took 13 to 14 minutes to shut off generators When they were over 400 ppm the UL limit allows 4 to 15 minutes And when they were in the range of 150 to 400 ppm in the room they took 40 to 49 minutes And that again is within 15 to 50 minutes allowed Most importantly, and this goes to Commissioner Robinson's question about what evidence do we have This test is the evidence, there were no false positives or false negatives indoors or out It worked perfectly, the staff never tested any commercially available CO detectors designed to control relays Such as the $5 devices installed in vehicles with electronic climate control These meant to last over 10 years, don't need any recalibration And I point as someone else already has to the low oil shut-off sensors in these devices They very reliably protect generator engines, we need a high CO shut-off to protect generator operators Here is the CPSC staff version on the left and on the right is one of these small CO modules inside of BMW controlling your HVAC Opening and closing it in response to CO levels on the road These are extremely robust devices, they're all smaller than your thumb, they're extremely robust I don't think they're all metal oxide anymore, they were originally But just to show you that if they can survive 10 years under the hood of a car on the road anywhere from Arizona to Alaska I think they can survive 10 years on a generator Some of the reasons to vote against the rule, it's crazy to raise the emission limits for larger generators We should be deferring to EPA to lower them all Even if we achieve the 90% reductions after they warm up, they're still allowed to emit unlimited CO for 20 minutes And if misused indoors they will still poison people, they will not prevent a single case of poisoning if the generators brought indoors Staff presented no evidence that consumers will be less likely to bring these low CO generators indoors And the rule doesn't give manufacturers the best option of putting a fail-safe CO sensor that would prevent all deaths And I said even all poisonings into these devices as an alternative But this is done with other things, I leave you with this analogy CPSC doesn't make electric outlets safe under wet conditions by requiring them to lower their voltage or current But as a hazardous water condition we have a fail-safe GFI outlet, it instantly interrupts the circuit And users are inconvenienced by losing power and having to reset it but that's a price we're all willing to pay Another analogy is CPSC doesn't make water heaters safer for consumer use, rather you do make them safer By setting a maximum limit on the water temperature But this only works when you set that temperature limit below the hazard It wouldn't work if you set the temperature at 190 degrees, it works because you set it at 140 or less My parting question to you is why did CPSC spend all these millions of dollars take 10 years to develop this unproven, expensive, complicated approach That won't work during cold starts, has many critical parts that could fail without warning An approach the staff has estimated would only prevent about a third of recent deaths without even testing A simple proven fail-safe $5 CO sensor that's been installed in over 100 million vehicles in the last 15 years with no reported failures or recalls I know the answer to this question, the staff never heard of it and they didn't do a Google search to look for them Thank you, I appreciate any questions and I appreciate again the opportunity Thank you all very much, thank you for your testimony, I'll now begin the questioning from the commissioners Again we'll have two rounds of five minutes and I will begin that questioning Mr. Moses, with regards to Generac, in your points here in your testimony you talked about faster implementation I'd like to first of all ask you, do you have any concerns with the timing or the effective date of our standard pursuant to our package And then what you're saying here is that you could, there could be, it was with shut off technology there would be a faster implementation of the technology Yes, yes, the comments are our first portion of your question relative to concerns with the timing We do have concerns with that, as we mentioned or I mentioned earlier in the testimony we have a very wide portfolio of products Over 25 different engines, to implement a low CO or EFI slash catalyst type option would require quite a bit of redesign on the products In some cases very significant redesign due to packaging constraints as well as dealing with heat loads with that type of a system The amount of testing etc that we'd have to go through, it's unlikely we would be able to complete it in the time allowed in the NPR The shutdown solution is something that is much simpler, I believe that was brought up this morning as well So the implementation would be much quicker in terms of designing it in either as an accessory or as a built in part of the machine Thank you and then I have one other question with regards to your testimony Some of the concerns, the number one concern here and I'm not necessarily saying it's your number one concern but it was the one first listed Could start up engine choking logic which typically runs the engine rich Can you just explain that and is that relevant to the issue that Mr. Dene brought up with regards to cold start up? Yes, yes it is. Essentially what he had pointed out as well as what we had in our testimony is that at start up in order to get the engine started The air fuel mixture would be rich which typically would create excessive CO relative to say running lean where you've got a warmed up engine Most of our generators are designed to run at lean or more along lines of a stoichiometric which is kind of in between But it points it does have to run rich when the engine is cold and so you're producing excessive CO Thank you very much. Mr. Dene, you also brought up the cold start issue and you mentioned that the NIST study uses 60 minutes So the engine runs for 60 minutes then they begin measuring you mentioned that our NPR uses 20 minutes When would you advise that you should begin measuring the CO output? From the moment you turn on the engine I was told by people at NIST that this was too hard to model That there was too much variety among the engines they looked at to me that's the reason you should require them to test and see what happens But we know this problem is unsolvable in the real world and it's just a great reason to look for another solution The people who are exposed to CO begin to be poisoned the moment they inhale it There's no threshold below which it's safe except the level that's already in their own body We all begin to absorb CO when it exceeds the level in our body and most of us have less than 10 or 20 ppm in our body Even smokers are under 100 so above that level they'll start absorbing right away And as I mentioned their COHB will go up much higher than it would if there was no cold start Thank you very much Mr. Johnson. You also talked about exposure and really the compromise to one's cognitive skill abilities as they're being exposed to the carbon monoxide So in terms of technology whether it's shut off or a low emission would you have a preference in terms of if someone you've said quite eloquently I would say that it's nonspecific that the consumer doesn't realize there's CO intoxication they begin to have impaired judgment and issues It would seem to me and I don't know whether you'll agree with me or not that the shut off technology which takes the consumer out of the equation would be preferential And I'd like to hear your comments on that I thought Mr. Soll's testimony today was very persuasive on that issue as well as what he said over the break And we asked him specifically about the cold start and he said it was about 2 minutes That's 10% of what Mr. Dane is expressing concerns about And I do think that a 2 minute period is insufficient in most situations to get the poisoning into a level that would be clinically significant I think both as Dr. Weaver said both Especially if the shut off is not a terribly expensive add-on But the goal is to get the emissions down and we've been getting emissions down in automobiles since I was in high school There's no reason for this Thank you very much. Mr. Johnson commissioner Adler Thank you madam chairman and again thank all of you for taking time out of very busy schedules to come and testify we really appreciate it So mr. Moses, I think you're the first third person here who's talked about this impediment to getting the materials from nest the $8,000 Why should the taxpayers have to spend that money Surely even an impoverished organization like PGMA could scare up $8,000 if this were so critical Could you please explain why this hasn't been done I think the bigger issue is the fact that at least my understanding and I'm a little removed from the request But my understanding is that it was not stated that we would explicitly get everything we were asking for There was some question you you're going to get some information but it may or may not be everything you need I think that's the bigger concern Okay, that's a new twist on it but that at least in terms of the $8,000 I would plead with all of you to reach down into petty cash and help PGMA get this information One of the things that that I'm concerned about is the sensors for these machines will not be remote sensors which is the technology Mr. Scheivel, I'm going to come and ask you about this But these would be sensors actually on the generator Has PGMA or has Generec itself thought about trying to set even if the sensors remain on the generator remote sensors Because if you have a generator that's 40 feet away and a generator that's 10 feet away if you've got the shutoff technology It's going to shut them both off under either circumstances even though one might not be hazardous at all Sure, I understand I haven't been with the company tremendously long time so there may have been some exploration of the remote sensors Since I joined the company and have been working with this it's primarily been focused on the onboard type sensor And I think what we've seen from our testing is that even if the generator is positioned in different locations, different scenarios By setting the limits carefully and making sure you've got the correct type of an algorithm to watch what it's sensing We feel confident that we're still able to detect when the CO potentially could be building up elsewhere just by watching the proximity of the generator Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Scheivel, I was extremely impressed by your testimony because you seem to have real life experience with the shutoff approach to generator issues The first question I have is that when you're putting a shutoff device in a sensor on a boat or a tent, those are remote sensors Is that correct? Removed in distance from the generator itself? Do you have anywhere you actually attach the sensor in the shutoff device directly to the generator? Any experience with that? In the case of the boat the CO detector is located in the area where the galley The cabin is what I would call it The generator is in the engine room so that is a remote sensor and then we have the capability of tying sensors together And then in series with that we connect up to the generator so if any sensor goes into alarm that it will turn off the generator My question is do you have experience with the sensor directly attached to the generator and only to the generator? Yeah, only to the generator. That is what the tent manufacturer was doing. Because it was a military type of venture we did not get too close to that But they were actually mounting it on board their generator Yeah, you said on board and I was not clear what the term on board meant. It was attached directly to the generator That is correct And the other question I had is you have moved from metal oxide to electrochemical And I am wondering if you have seen any problems with electrochemical and it is that same issue They are going to go from minus 30 degrees to 100 plus degrees and this could be over the course of months And have you done tests on the reliability in particular the durability of these sensors? Yeah, we just completed the marine section of that test for our new detector coming out And that temperature range is minus 30 to plus 70 is the range that it will operate in and it is tested to The next step is to do the RV testing and that will take it from a minus 40 C to a plus 70 C C as opposed to F That is correct Okay, thank you very much Mr. Robinson Mr. Shively, I am fascinated by your experience for the simple reason that I think your success in your limited applications Explains precisely what my problem is with the sensor and shutoff So you are at this point you are involved in boats and tents, that is it, right? That is our primary business Okay, and how big of boats have you worked with? I mean do you work with the mega yachts? Yes Okay, so have you done studies with respect to migration of carbon monoxide? We have not What we typically do is We in where there is multiple combination spaces then there are certain regulations for how many CO detectors and detection devices that are required So if you have multiple spaces on the boat where there will be occupants, let's say bedrooms You will have a sensor in each of those, right? That is correct And then it will be wired to the generator, right? That is how there are several applications that way, yes Okay, because the only way that you know of obviously you are not going to on a boat put it on the generator because it is in a closed environment and it will shut the generator down, right? Correct Okay, so if you put the sensors outside it is wired to the generator what you are doing is you are trying to put a sensor wherever people might be exposed to carbon monoxide Is that fair to say? That is correct In the tent where you have got the sensor on the generator you have got a very limited space So if the generators getting enough carbon monoxide that it is sensing that it would be dangerous to human being it is in the same space, correct? That is correct Okay, have you worked with any applications where you have got the sensor on the generator but the carbon monoxide could migrate to spaces quite a distance away from the portable generator? We do not Okay And one other thing I am assuming, well let me just ask you, have you worked at all with tamper resistance? I do not think you would need to in the boat environments because people are not going to tamper with something because you are not going to get nuisance shutdowns But I just wonder if you have had situations where you have worried about a nuisance shutdown such that people might tamper with any of your devices Yeah, nuisance alarms are certainly something that are a concern And in many CO deaths that have happened in marine that I have actually investigated Because of older sensor technology and sensors get contaminated that they false alarm So what happens is that people bypass them and they do not wake up the next day They think they are getting a false alarm but they are really sensing CO So you talked about the new CO detectors that you are working on But what we have talked about in terms of a detector on the generator applies to the new one too, right? Is it just in the marine environment that you are working on? No, we are currently working with a generator manufacturer and we are using the electrochemical which is the new style Which is less susceptible to contamination and a lot of the other issues And with that one it is But what is the venue and what you are going to use it? Are you going to use it at RVs, marines? No, on a portable generator On a portable generator Where is the generator going to be used? The generator would be operated outside Okay Mr. Moses, I met with a lot of the people from PGMA probably two years ago And it may have been a year ago And never heard and I was pushing, pushing, pushing for anything that you guys would do to make the generator safer And all I was hearing about was warnings And now we are hearing about these sensors and shutoffs When did you guys start working on this? Again, I have only been with the company a short time but I believe we really started focusing fairly heavily on this last year How long have you been with the company? About 11 months Okay, so conceptually my problem is I cannot fathom how you are going to get a portable generator with a sensor on the generator That is going to shut down the generator when carbon monoxide has migrated to a separate part of an arena at a wedding A separate part of the house, a bedroom How that is going to like intuitively know at the generator level That somehow when you use some phrase that you can tell what the CO level is just based on proximity to the generator That doesn't make any sense to me Based on the settings and what type of an algorithm you are using in the sensor in terms of what you are sensing and where you are trying to shut the machine down What I would suggest is because there is a lot of detail that I am either not in a position to share at this point Or probably not the right person to share At the technical summit and also at the closed meeting that has been proposed Generat present much more information behind the testing that we have done Because I think once you see that, I think you will feel or at least understand better what we are talking about Okay, I am way over my time, thanks Thank you Commissioner Kay Thank you Madam Chair Mr. Moses, can you give us a rough approximation please of how many, what percentage of the market is covered by PGMA membership? Do you know that? I do not know that Any sense off the top of your head No, again I am relatively new to the industry and I am not real sure what that percentage would be So let me ask you this, do you, is it your understanding that every single portable generator that is sold in the United States is sold by a PGMA member? I do not know that for sure Okay, let's just assume for the sake that it is not, that there are imports coming from overseas, does that sound fair? Sure, that is probably safe Are you, if it turns out that the sensor technology is a viable option and addresses the hazard Are you comfortable with the commission locking that into a mandatory standard from a competitiveness standpoint? I think that if the playing field is equal then yes, I do not think we have an issue with that Okay, so the issue here is not a philosophical one of voluntary standard versus mandatory standard I am asking you, I am not putting words in your mouth, it is making sure we get it right Agreed, I think that is what was expressed this morning in some of the comments We at Generac want to make sure that we provide the best, safest solution Okay, and I appreciate that because Mr. Wishtad and maybe he was speaking on behalf of PGMA He expressly asked that we pause the rule making while PGMA moves forward Well, I think, and I understand that and I think I had the same comment in here as well Because I think there is still more that we need to understand in terms of the application of the sensors So again, we offer the best solution We want to make sure that what we are doing is, one, safe Two, is cost effective for the consumers If we just throw technology at a machine, ultimately we potentially can price it out of the market And then, you know, there is no advantage there So I think we are saying the same thing, we want time to make sure we understand what is that best solution Which would then be proposed through the PGMA And one of the areas again, let me make sure I got this right, you said you didn't want to have, I think you said duplication of efforts Is that accurate? And those efforts that you are talking about duplicating are the efforts in PGMA versus the CPSC's efforts So two different entities trying to address this hazard simultaneously There are some of that as well as potential duplication of effort between industries Because we may be going after different ways to solve the same problem If we can have a clear focus on what it is we are going after then we can work together more effectively Got it, and do you have the same concern about duplication of efforts of PGMA duplicating efforts Or doing efforts on top of what UL is already doing? There are some concerns there, yes And are you comfortable then or would you recommend that Generac have PGMA stand down and let UL complete its work first? Actually, I think we prefer the other way Didn't UL start first? Didn't UL, and I realize you are new to this Sure, sure, but my understanding is the direction they are going in I believe where PGMA is going is a more comprehensive look at things And what are you basing that on? What I have heard in terms of what the UL activities are, focusing on a particular test method So you are not basing it on hazard patterns that are being addressed You are just talking about solutions that might be offered I am trying to understand when you say more comprehensive Focus of the effort I should say in terms of what the ultimate deliverable would be I think the PGMA standard covers a broad range of items Items meaning products? Product, performance, safety, et cetera There are a lot of good standards if you will in there I see, and do you have a sense as to, can you explain to me the hazard patterns that the proposed PGMA standard would address? No, I am probably not the right person to explain that Okay, and in your list, in your testimony you had a list of items that all in essence, and I would love to have more time to get to Mr. Santos for his comment on it Maybe we will A long list of items that appeared to be concerns about limitations in your mind or Generac's mind about the performance of EFI technologies and incorporating catalysts as well What did you base that on? I think a lot of this is based on current industry technology testing I believe the team that has been working on this for some time now Has referenced to industry reports, et cetera So that's where essentially this comes from Do you have specific Generac tests that would validate these concerns? I know in some cases we do, and again I think that's information we can share, either the technical summon or during the visit For instance the cold startup, running rich, producing more CO, we have done tests where we show that, where that is happening Yeah, my time has expired, I would just ask that you submit that as part of the comment period I don't think that's proprietary data, that's just test data that would be valuable for the commission to validate what you've said here Commissioner Horovic Thank you Madam Chairman, thank you to the entire panel for your contributions to today's hearing I have a couple of questions, I have a question for beginning with Mr. Moses I want to talk about the product service life of the different generators that would be subject to the proposed rule Generally speaking I know there are different classes, but what is the product service life for your products? I'm not sure that's specifically again being relatively new to the industry, but I know we anticipate the products being used up to as much as 10 years or more 10 years or more I think our staff mentioned 10 to 15 years, which gives me a little bit of concern, Mr. Shively I think I heard you mention that with the electrochemical type sensors at a 7 to 10 year product service life for those particular kinds of sensors Did I hear that correctly? Yes, that is correct 7 to 10 would be the expected life and it certainly would be an easy change in the field as a replacement part I know if my neighborhood is any indicator in terms of the product service life of many of the generators using the Glen Ellen area They do surpass 10 years to the industry's credit But if the sensors are going to last 7 to 10 years and the generators are going to last more than 10 years Either they have to start making worse products or you have to start making a better product if we're going to rely on that to mitigate the hazard Do you have any thoughts in terms of what you might be able to do given an expansive market if in fact this was a viable alternative to meet a mandatory performance standard And therefore it would be rational for you to make those kind of investments in the technology to make them to expand the product service life Right, the electrochemical sensor, it actually has a liquid inside so as it's operating and after it has been installed What happens is that electrolyte starts to evaporate and when it evaporates to the point where it's gone Then it will give you a signal saying that I'm entering end of life And that's really the limitation of the sensor itself as opposed to how we are incorporating it into a overall detector That's a limitation of the sensor itself Thank you Mr. Shively I think the answer you're looking for is maybe that these can be installed in a fail-safe manner So whether someone tempers with them or they reach end of life, they'll lock out the generator Problem solved They're going to see that their generator doesn't work, they'll call the 800 number, they'll take it to a repair place and they'll learn, oh you need a new CO sensor Thank you very much, that's all the questions I had Thank you very much, we'll begin now round two of our questions Mr. Diney, when I talked about cold start and I addressed it with you as well as Mr. Johnson and on the panel this morning as well Mr. Johnson didn't take what you were saying seriously about the 10% and the amount, with a cold start, the amount of CO emissions that can occur during that period of time Either prior to 20 minutes or up to 60 minutes, do you want to comment on that or do you want to explain I'll give you no cold start, pretend it didn't happen Just expose human beings to the emissions from the perfectly working modified generator If it's allowed to emit the same level of CO as the average of vehicles, cars, trucks, motorcycles It won't prevent any poisonings because when cars, trucks and motorcycles are run in garages, usually accidentally left on, the occupants of the home die They don't have to die in the garage sitting in the car, the CO is effectively transported through the house And Commissioner Robinson's concern about that, if the CO sensor is working on the machine it may not be the first one in the room to go off But as the staff testing found, even when it was over a thousand ppm in one corner of the room, the unit on the generator still shut it off within the CPSC UL limits And if you lower those limits, the detector will respond appropriately, there doesn't have to be even two minutes of poisoning And I don't understand why we would completely allow the cold start when we can prevent any exposure at all Thank you very much Mr. Moses, I want to go back to the line of questioning from Commissioner Kay with regards to ULs and the development of their, is it a standard or did you say it was a test? My understanding was it was a standard that focused on testing So do you want to explain just a little bit? I was getting ready to say, I'm probably not very qualified to get much deeper than that into that Okay, thank you Mr. Johnson, I just wanted to know when you're talking about oxygen levels, and this goes to your experience with carbon monoxide, carbon monoxide poisoning Maybe you could speak to how a reduced oxygen level or that environment would affect the consumer, say at 15 to 18% levels of oxygen Well, the issue is not the reduction in oxygen, it's the increase in carbon monoxide because of carbon monoxides greatly enhance capacity to mine to hemoglobin And then it's much greater capacity for the cells to grab it off of the blood as it goes through than oxygen Rarely do we have people asphyxiated because they don't have enough oxygen in the room, they're breathing air in It's because the carbon monoxide takes the place of the oxygen when it reaches the cell With respect to some of the comments made by Mr. Denay, he says we would have no reduction in deaths, yet we've had an 80% reduction of deaths with respect to automobiles and carbon monoxide At one point he said there was one third reduction and then he said there was no reduction, so I don't understand He takes this attitude that one drop, so to speak, of carbon monoxide is going to kill us and that's just not the case It is a gradient and well, I wouldn't want to say that no harm could come from a carboxy hemoglobin, any measurable carboxy hemoglobin level The reality is that the greater the level, the greater the harm, up to it may start to, you may start to have a convergence of problems when you get above a 10% But there's a lot of evidence that would indicate that if the highest level net forgot above 5% that it would not likely have the kind of morbidity we see now And we're talking about a 90% reduction and that should translate to a 90% reduction of the carboxy hemoglobin levels Thank you, thank you very much for that answer. I think probably one of the complications of that matter is that as the carbon monoxide level rises, as you mentioned earlier The cognitive abilities and the awareness of the consumer is affected. My time is almost up I just want to comment on one thing and that is Commissioner Adler and the NIST data My only concern is the taxpayer has already paid for, we paid NIST to do a study for us and so they've done their fair share and we're not asking I think that NIST owes us the data as well as anyone else who's for you that Yes, NIST has done the work for us but they're asking for that work and there is this thing called the Freedom of Information Act which also permits government that's developed information When somebody makes a request and this must be thousands and thousands of pages that they get some degree of reimbursement that's specifically set forth in the Freedom of Information Act So I'm not exactly sure what the point is other than maybe I've heard a plea that we abolish costs reimbursement for the Freedom of Information Act My time is expired. Commissioner Adler? Thank you very much. Mr. Santos, first of all thank you for your testimony and I didn't want to leave you unaddressed with questions So I do know that notice on page four of your testimony you refer to the ingenuity of engine manufacturers in developing new advanced design for certain small spark ignited engines to meet phase three, tier three standards without the use of catalysts And I was wondering if you could explain what this technology is and whether we're near to seeing it widespread That references to in general, so the standards that were set back when EPA and both ARB in California set their tier three, the tighter standards that are currently in place for small class one and class two hand held and non hand held engines The expectation I think at the time was that the standards could be met through the use of catalyst technology and electronic fuel injection But it's turned out over time in the ten years that the standards that were set and we can debate whether or not we consider them to be stringent enough both for HC plus NOx and CO and are being met by several manufacturers working with engine manufacturers without the use of catalysts So my comment was to acknowledge that that has been the case through engine calibration and without having to use emission control technology standards themselves aren't forcing enough to require the use of catalysts So a lot of test work was done to support that to say that you could meet these lower through the use of catalysts but in the end the standards that were set and through the ingenuity of the engine manufacturers working with the generator manufacturers were able to meet these And I think what you've just done is to underscore the wisdom not to say the necessity of doing it as a performance standard so we're not saying you must use EFI and you must use catalytic converters You must get your levels below a certain amount so I guess another fair question to ask for an emission control group is what do you think about the shut off approach that PGMA is suggesting do you have any reservations or any approval of it? Yeah and listening through the conversation this morning and today I was thinking about that and whether that would be I mean we came here today as Mika to support CPSC and specifically that the conclusions they came to within their NPR that these CO standards could be met through the use of readily available technology that we agree with that I didn't actually personally we have not talked within Mika within our member companies with our staff how we directly feel about the option that's being discussed about shut off and whether one or the other or both except to say that the technology is available to meet the standards that are currently being proposed by CPSC I'll hazard a guess that that conversation probably will take place after today's hearing Well given the fact that you've requested it before we've ever written comments might come back And I guess one other question I have is that you talked about EPA standards and you talked about CPSC standards and we have been told that you can't meet both that they will directly contradict do you have any view as to whether it's possible to meet the EPA standard and to meet if it goes into effect the proposed CPSC standard? Well the EPA standards are currently being well the standards have been in effect for a while and the engines that are being certified are currently meeting the HC plus NOx and CO standards and so what CPSC is proposing with this in use operating level We are just echoing that it could be met similarly with the same technologies that were being tested and demonstrated to be met to meet the tier three phase three standards I don't really see necessarily see a conflict there in terms of I mean I'm not going to get into the legality that was raised No not the legality I was talking about the technical feasibility But from the technical feasibility point we are here to support the fact that both very specifically in the work that was done by CPSC The work that was done by the ARB and EPA as well as Southwest Reachers Institute that I cited as well as the work that's been done within our member companies specifically And then in general which we refer to by others as well about the work that's been done with catalyst technology not just with portable generators But with the latest and greatest state of the art is currently on passenger cars being certified out in California And these issues we've talked about with light off which by the way There's some confusion about the time frames I mean light off is an issue and it's being addressed and actually to address but also to generate comments about catalysts No one within Mika would not acknowledge that there are concerns with the use of catalyst technology on spark ignited engines The point that it's being made in a general sense is that whether it's packaging, durability, poisoning That they're all being met and have been met and proven to be met through these demonstration programs as well as what's currently in the market today For these other sources and sectors like duty, heavy duty, spark forklifts, weed whackers and lawn mowers And that is sort of where we come from to make the point within our testimony that the technology is available to address and meet the CEO proposed standards Well thank you for talking so fast and I've been trying to listen fast but my time has expired thank you Thank you Commissioner Robinson Thank you I confess it as I've circled this issue for a really long time now that I am getting the lights up constantly on how people actually use portable generators As somebody who's never used one And Mr. Johnson you have represented a number of clients who have suffered from carbon monoxide poisonings with various uses And I wonder if you could just discuss some of the different circumstances in which people suffer from carbon monoxide poisoning Well in addition to what's been documented with respect to generators Probably the other largest segment of it is some type of malfunctioning HVAC system The school cases, one was a improper obstruction of the intake air for a boiler that was heating the building Another one was a hot water heater that the pipe had rusted through The hotel was inability to get enough fresh air for the furnaces when they were running Bank building similar type problems so it's usually in a building, in a static type building HVAC It has something to do with the absence of enough oxygen to make sure that the exhaust flows properly through the system So you talked about this wedding that you had a number of people who were poisoned at it Were these portable generators that were being used there? Yeah they were four, three kilowatt, brought into a wedding The band apparently needed higher capacity electrical demands for their amplifiers Then what the building was willing or able to provide them And they went out and rented, four generators took them inside Now one of the most important parts of that story is that the warnings are in English And none of the people involved in that poisoning spoke very good English And even though there's pictures, I don't think the pictures work very well without language And if we're going to have warnings that don't warn in all the languages we know that our people speak And especially the kind of people who are more likely to have that need in an emergency situation The warnings are going to be very effective And were these rented generators? Yes they were rented Do you have an opinion about, you know, candidly up until very, very recently All I've been hearing from many members of industry is that warnings are sufficient And I just wonder if you have an opinion as to whether they are sufficient Well in the hierarchy of safety, warnings should always be the last option You should either eliminate the hazard, guard against it Which I think we have two options A, lowering the emissions is eliminate, warned against it would be the shut off And the warning is the worst of that, options If you can't eliminate and you can't guard against it, then you warn We can do both of those other things We should not rely on warnings, especially warnings that are only in English And when you're talking about the rental situation, you're talking about people who have probably never used a generator before And we don't talk as much about carbon monoxide as we did when I was a kid When we had all these EPA requirements and we had smog and all of these things in our cities I'm not sure that the 20 year olds or the 15 year olds or the 30 year olds even understand what carbon monoxide is Because it's not part of our public conversation like it used to be And have you ever seen any warnings that really communicate the incredible danger of portable generators in terms of carbon monoxide? I mean I was shocked and whenever I've spoken with people anecdotally and said how many hundreds of times the carbon monoxide that a portable generator puts out Compares with what an idling automobile puts out, I always am met with shock But I just wonder if you've ever seen a warning that actually tells people how incredibly dangerous these are If I followed my father into engineering these types of generators, which is what he did for his career I wouldn't be very happy knowing that that little picture on the side of the generator is the only protection that I was going to have My product was going to have from this kind of mortality and morbidity And my last question for you is could you tell us the range of long term effects that you've seen from carbon monoxide poisoning Where there isn't severe brain injury? Well define severe brain injury if you're going to talk about severe brain injury and the kind of thing that puts a person in a coma I think that's a good point Most carbon monoxide people those who survive are awake within hours if not by the time they're evacuated So they falls into what might be considered a mild to moderate category for brain injury But the disability especially when you're talking about mood and behavior is perhaps more severe than with traumatic brain injury It's a more systemic wide system it seems to impact more things than a specific traumatic brain injury might And because it affects so many things and also affecting the organs I think it has an overall greater cumulative disability than even what we see in fairly towards the moderate side of the mild brain injury spectrum Thank you Commissioner Kay Thank you Madam Chair I appreciate it earlier during your testimony I appreciate it very much your mention of chronic exposure And I thought it was a great analogy to the sub-concussive hits that are going on in sports I don't think that we have a mechanism from my perspective to properly capture those types of incidents Because that's not likely getting reported for instance through an emergency department or even a physician's office And so whatever data you have related to that I would just request please that you submit that as part of this open rulemaking The issue of chronic has not been studied nearly as much as those who've been hospitalized And in most cases the chronic people don't realize what's happening when their blood levels are actually positive So it's much more difficult to categorize but the studies that have been done have actually showed worse results from those with chronic exposures than those with more severe acute ones And I think the reason is the multiple concussion phenomenon that's going on We're not sure of the biomechanism because we don't have autopsies of a large group of people like to do with the NFL But I suspect there may be something similar going on And I think from our perspective of having a more refined cost-benefit analysis that would be very important data Mr. Shively can you explain to me please or us help us understand how do you set the shut off threshold What's the trigger for your detector? What is that based on? It's based on 10% COHB So in the UL 2034 standard your alarm must activate depending on the PPM level that you're seeing in the area It has to alarm within a given time frame And so every unit is tested to that you actually subject it to CO and make verify that it does alarm at those various points Got it. And Mr. Diney are you comfortable with that threshold from what you've heard? Absolutely not The UL 2034 standard says very clearly in every manual do not put this detector in a room It says the UL 2034 standard says don't put these detectors in Garages furnace rooms and kitchens where the source is located They're not designed to respond to that and the specs for all other CO controllers in commercial parking garages in Cars they instantly trip when their level is exceeded They don't wait until you're poisoned up to the level of danger CO poisoning begins the moment you start to inhale CO and absorb it in your tissues I don't say that that will kill you I say that poisons you and I urge you to prevent that because it's easily preventable So do you have a suggestion or do you plan to participate in the PGMA process to help them come up with the right threshold? Well, thank you. I proposed 35 ppm in 2006 to the Commission in the comments on the ANPR and I was Correctly, I think told that that would be too low I didn't know about the vehicle detectors at the time and I was citing the standards for commercial parking garages I thought humans should be protected at least as well as we protect parked cars I am willing to go up to 200 which is the NIOSH immediate evacuation limit for any workplace I'm not willing to go to the CPSC 400 of the UL alarm standard I believe that's too high. It doesn't deserve to wait four to 15 minutes at that level If you were in a workplace, you would be notified and evacuated immediately So if the cold start concerns legitimate and I'm not at this point conceding that it is but or at least the extent of it And to mr. Moses's point machines have to run rich during cold start from a performance perspective What how much poisoning in essence will go on to somebody who is exposed to that unit until the threshold is triggered and that shutoff kicks in I urge you all to think of this very simple analogy which fortunately is well established Every breath you take in a CO environment Approximately half of that CO will enter and stay in your body and half will be exhaled So the time is very critical the longer you're exposed every single breath is adding CO to your blood And until you reach equilibrium it doesn't stay in your blood it goes right through into your tissues And all together the tissues and blood rise until they reach the level in air If it's a thousand ppm or ten thousand ppm in air you'll reach that equilibrium in a few hours But if it's lower what the cpsc is proposing if we are down to hundreds of ppm It will take much much longer and the total exposure time and the total absorbed dose may actually be greater Great and my last question during this round is what was the basis of your assertion please that cpsc staff was unaware of the The unit that you said is cheaper than five dollars and smaller than a thumb I had extensive discussions with Chris Brown over the years who did the staff report and who was trying to get it released And he told me that when they developed the project their sole focus was to use what they had in the lab which was 2034 Alarms on the shelf and it just never occurred to them to go look for a commercial device They just weren't aware that they exist and I myself wasn't aware of them in automobiles Even though they've been there since 2000 but now that we know I don't think we should ignore them There's never been a recall or a failure of these devices and automobiles that I know of and I've checked with auto parts suppliers And said you ever sell this part to anyone? No it doesn't fail Okay, thank you. I hope to have further rounds. Thanks Thank you commissioner rovick. Thank you madam chairman and I appreciate the discussion I just wanted to I don't have any questions myself, but with five panelists and one minute each I wanted to maybe move from my left to my right in case there was any part of the discussion or a dialogue Q&A that was taking place, but you felt you weren't fortunate enough to be asked to engage in it So mr. Moses is there anything else at this point you'd like to add not that this might be your last opportunity But I'm willing to donate it No, I think I think based on the comments in my testimony as well as the follow-up questions I feel like I've said what I can say mr. Johnson Yeah with respect to your mic with respect to commissioners case question about the levels the the WHO is a pretty comprehensive Submit paper on this. I don't know if it's in your materials or not. I can submit it on page 87 of 484 They do have indoor guidelines Which is a hundred parts per million for 15 minutes 35 for an hour 10 for eight hours and 24 for seven I don't want anything in my testimony to indicate that I disagree with mr. Donne about the severity of carbon monoxide poisoning It's just To use the fact that some poisoning could occur as a justification not to Reduce the potential by 90 by 90 percent. I think it's inappropriate mr. Johnson. I'll yield to my colleague commissioner Kada engage Thank You commissioner Marovic and was that WHO reports specific to portable generator is the source of this is this is an indoor carbon monoxide Guideline that's published in by the WHO and I think it's there 2013 2010 I'm sorry paper. I will I will submit it upon the completion of the hearing great. Thank you Welcome anything else mr. Johnson. No, thank you terrific mr. Shively Yeah, the only thing I'd like to say is the the detector that we currently manufacture We we do manufacture that to you out 2034 and so there are certain levels that we have to meet That doesn't say that a detector can't be calibrated to to alarm at much lower levels But that's currently the standard that we're working with And as we understand it going forward You know we can certainly manufacture Detector that would meet the specs. I believe of anything that's coming out One one comment to Commissioner Robinson My understanding is that the majority of the deaths are caused from CO poisoning in enclosed spaces The majority In the case of a shutdown system That is going to prevent those deaths by turning the unit off Okay Where you have CO And if it is being pushed by the wind To remote areas You know a detector on the unit itself Is not going to cover all cases So if it's being operated outside and if CO does get Accumulate in a camper a house whatever I think the answer is that in all of those areas they should have CO detectors In those enclosed spaces And that is the only way that you're going to You know prevent CO deaths across the board You know reducing CO levels certainly is going to help It's not going to eliminate it But again the majority of the deaths are because people are not using portable generators properly And they're putting them inside in enclosed spaces The one he just mentioned today that happened The one that happened two weeks ago The one that happened three years ago It's where portable generators are being operated inside of an enclosed space Thank you Commissioner Robinson did you want me to yield No okay Mr. Santos Yeah I just wanted to echo my previous testimony about technologies being really available to meet CPSC's proposed requirements And that once again just to make the point that the type of technology we're talking about is not some Unknown black box that needs to be done to meet these proposed standards Whether it was CPSC's or even EPA ARB's CO standards from ten years ago The current phase three tier three I didn't want to make one specific comment on the Two seconds On the CO shut off issue was that I think relative to the time frame that these generators are being used The CO Light off time is minimal Seconds on passenger cars and probably at most a couple minutes on portable generators So whatever elevated levels you might see in HE plus NOx and CO Thank you very much Thank you So I've had a request from Commissioner Kay that we extend for another round of questions First of all I want to check with the panel to make sure that doesn't conflict with your schedules or your travel plans If you have them and it would affect you I will say that we'll have this last round will be three minutes long as we did this morning Just so we don't interfere we had a hard stop at 240 in terms of scheduling But since we've had this request if you need to leave because of a flight Please feel free to do that But we'll just extend this to one last round of three minute questions per commissioner I don't do not have any additional questions so I will ask Commissioner Adler I'm not sure if this is a question or a comment But Mr. Johnson one of the things that I have argued for years is And I can't tell you how much I appreciate you're addressing the economic impact of these injuries and fatalities from generators Is that when we talk about a standard people are always talking about the increased cost of the product But they never understand that when you're getting an increased cost of the product what you're doing is taking Costs that are really being externalized and imposed on the public in the nature of fatalities or injuries And you're internalizing them you're reallocating those costs and putting them in to the cost of the product where they ought to be So that the manufacturer that's benefiting and profiting from the sale of that product is absorbing the costs of their product and not externalizing them And frankly consumers are paying higher prices when that occurs because they're getting the benefit of these savings And so it's not necessarily going to result in increased societal costs it's just reallocating the costs I'm wondering if you have any comment on that observation My math isn't very good but I'll give you a quick summary if you multiply ten thousand times a million And I don't know if that's a billion or ten billion I think it must be ten billion Law school last refuge of the non-athletical mind The problem is I pulled out my calculator and gave it to me an answer that couldn't do that many zeros Forty percent of the people are going to have a million dollar case that's how I would look at it Forty percent are going to be disabled of that twenty five thousand that got hospitalized And if you're disabled it's going to be an average of a million dollar case It's probably going to be considerably more than that in most of the cases And just this again may not be a question may be an observation Mr. Shively one of the things you said is a necessity for more carbon monoxide detectors And I'm still struggling to understand why they haven't spread the same way smoke alarms are because you can buy them in joint units What do you think about either a requirement or a strong suggestion to the industry that when they sell a portable generator at a minimum They include a free or a couple of free co detectors Can you see a problem with that concept? No as a matter of fact as a manufacturer of them we actually kind of like that but But you know certainly I believe that that's the thing that people don't get I mean I have a generator at my house I have a co detector in the garage I have one on each level of the house I have it throughout because I understand Okay, but most people do not so I certainly think that at a very minimum That there is some kind of recommendation that if you are going to operate a generator in or around your area That any enclosed space should really have a co detector installed I live on the seventh floor of a condominium and my wife insists that we have two co detectors So at least I'm keeping you in business Thank you very much. Thank you commissioner Robinson In the marine environment where you're dealing with sensors that are in rooms wired to the generator You're already in a situation where you've got reduced emissions from carbon monoxide because that's required in that marine environment correct? Yes, that's correct So you basically got the two for that everybody's been advocating today Yes, that's correct Mr. Santos, I you've said you've said that the technology is there but I want to be very specific about this technology in terms of emissions reducing Adding this requirement that is being proposed in the CPSC NPR The first question is would that would it involve significant design changes to most portable generators to meet that standard? No, I think that's been demonstrated in what CPSC's own work and the test programs that have been done And would these design changes be cost prohibitive? There would be an incremental cost through the use of a catalyst technology in addition to the engine I think Mika actually did when EPA and ARB were running their test programs ten years ago But this was on once again older engines, but we estimate it at the time I think it was like two to three dollars per horsepower increase So obviously the bigger the engine and this is just within the small engine world And do you know what rate of reduction of the CO emissions is feasible? Well the as reported in my testimony the eighty to ninety percent is what we've seen within our manufacturers And are these engines reliable? Yes Safe to operate? Yes Are there concerns about overheating or hot exhaust? The concerns that have been raised have been addressed And you were about to say something about the duration of a cold start and somebody's time ran out Yeah, sorry I just wanted when I didn't realize we were making not making last comments Which is to I think I've heard first earlier this morning as well as Mr. Donnie and others talking about cold start and light off etc I just want to make comment from from our perspective as Mika the whole catalyst light off issue is an issue But it is being addressed in terms of they're talking about these elevated emission levels that happen when you first turn on an engine But that the time frames we're talking about are in the order of minutes and obviously making assumption typical usage Of portable generator would be over you know in a minimum several hours to more so Yeah, so just sort of making that issue that it's not I wasn't quite sure if I was hearing correct that others were raising that it was a much longer duration I just wanted to make sure that it's a small and even more so on the later technology engines like on passenger cars We're talking seconds Okay, and are you aware of anyone dying from the the emissions of carbon monoxide during the starting process? No, I'm not Thank you. I'm nothing Thank you. Mr. Commissioner K. Thank you madam chair and mr. Donnie. I'm just going to finish up quickly with you on where we left off please Which was your explanation that when you spoke with CPSC staff a number of years ago They had not looked at the particular technology that you mentioned or that particular component I get that you're very passionate about this issue I get your frustration level where passionate we're frustrated But I think that your passion and your frustration got a little bit of the best of you by saying that CPSC staff was not aware of it And hadn't even googled it I don't think that's a fair characterization of them and I would just point that out to you I don't know if you want to add anything else to that I do I can see why you'd be upset about it But I already I'm telling the truth then Chris Brown will back me up on that if you can find him I don't know what agency he's been seconded to but That was the answer I was given the other staff I'd spoken with going to janitor They simply were not aware of these technologies and I wasn't either somebody has to go look for them Yeah, and I think in the interim they are aware of it and they felt like from a technical perspective There wasn't so much of a difference in the way that that was manufactured that component was made that based on what they had Tested that it was worth going out and purchasing it but my understanding is they were aware of it And so I did I was concerned about the characterization of their work and the depth of their work and I didn't think it was I congratulate them for proving that the devices worked perfectly fail safe no false positives or no negatives My question is why was that not moved forward? Why was that left behind in 2006 for a multimillion dollar program to develop things that are not yet in commercial use I thought one of the main priorities here was to always encourage staff to look at commercially available off-the-shelf solutions That wouldn't require expensive new designs and engineering I'm an engineer originally and I go with keep it simple stupid This is simple absolutely And I'm sure when you submit comments to that effect that the commission through including the staff will address lives in the comments My fear is that the time is the real issue not the level the longer you're exposed without warning someone the longer they're absorbing CO And to stop CO poisoning you have to stop the duration of exposure Understood Mr. Moses How quickly will you come to market with units that have the shutoff technology on them We're still completing our evaluation studies etc. It's difficult to give a time frame at this point we make good progress today we plan to share that But I can't I can't give you a definitive is it within five years would you say I would certainly hope within five years Hope within five years and are the from your perspective are the shutoff technologies and the reduced CO technologies mutually exclusive Meaning can a unit only have one or the other from an engineering perspective or could it have both No, they're not mutually exclusive there as we discussed this morning there's an argument whether there's an added benefit or not If there's negligible benefit and added cost does it make sense but they're not mutually exclusive There's no reason why you at least won't go forward especially a PGMA adopts its proposal Regardless of whether reduced CO technologies are also come to whether from UL or from us or from anybody else Assuming we get through all of our evaluation and it's positive and we feel that's the best solution absolutely Great thank you I have more questions but I understand there's no more time Thank you Commissioner Horovic Thank you Madam Chairman I'll yield my time to Commissioner Kay Very kind of you thank you I appreciate that Mr. Shively so one of the areas that we've been frustrated as a commission and trying to adjust CO and Mr. Johnson Jr. mentioned this earlier as furnaces And my understanding is that sensors have proven to be unreliable in that difficult thermal environment Have you looked at that and I'm trying to understand if you're confident about the functioning of your sensors Why that wouldn't be applicable to furnaces as a shut-off technology Right as I stated we've been primarily focused on marine you know that is our core business However over the last few years we have been expanding and we're doing methane detection now in the truck and bus market And some of the mining equipment So we're expanding our horizons one of the things that we did talk about and we've made propane sensors for many years and we approached that market About having some kind of shut-off device and detection system You know and quite honestly we really just didn't get anywhere The product that we're developing along with one of the portable generator manufacturers That certainly could be adapted to that market And as I said the sensors that we're currently using there's absolutely no issue with temperature swings humidity swings So I think it certainly is something that could be applicable to that market We have not looked at it yet Right and obviously I think staff would appreciate as we continue that work on the furnace side that if you would engage as well there Because the sensor is the sensor and it's going to be useful for different applications for us Just real quick as far as getting it to market once we understand a specification We could be looking at six to eight months for high volume ready for market ready for distribution So that's on the generator side or anything Either Okay and Mr. Santos you heard a long list during Mr. Moses's testimony of all of the perceived limitations of EFI technologies And why they are not reliable for this application They basically were summed up as not reliable in wide temperature ranges Concerns about durability over time and degradation Concerns about needing to run rich and how long it would take for EFI to kick in Can you address those please from your significant experience with these technologies Yes I mean I would I mean obviously that was an extensive list and I'm not going to deny that to some degree that they've seen that I think that the general point that I made earlier is the one that I will lean on again and that is to say That the concerns if we could categorize all of these things under whether they be heat management or durability or potential poisoning That they have been that they are concerns that they have been addressed And I think whether that is been demonstrated through the test program that CPSC has already done themselves The work that some of the Mika members I reported just a little bit of that we can obviously cite that in our written testimony More about the work that's been done that demonstrates that these issues have been addressed Whether it be that or lastly the work that was done 10 years ago on these small engines back by EPA or B in Southwest To demonstrate all of these these I'm not saying they had these list of concerns and went through and checked all of them per se But in the end they came to the final conclusion that you could install catalysts on these engines And you could use AC plus NOx and CO safely and effectively I would just make one other comment on that cold start issue just quickly is that I mean the engines have become so clean these days That the cold start issue actually is making more of an impact because that elevated level is so high relative to how clean engines are Once the catalyst kicks in that it's becoming more of an issue and in fact when you're looking at that last bit of control on AC plus NOx and CO From spark United engines it is on the cold start front because that little bit of elevation relative to how clean these engines run Once the catalyst is running optimally and stoichiometric is now one of the main issues that are being investigated with by the catalyst manufacturers Good to know thank you thank you to the rest of the panelists Thank you very much again our sincere thanks to all of you this afternoon as well as our panel from this morning For sharing your expert testimony with us and answering our questions and accommodating the request for an extension so we appreciate that very much I also want to just thank our staff Executive Director Patricia Adkins our General Counsel Mary Boyle The Office of Secretary Todd Stevenson and Ms. Rocky Hammond who really put this all together and bore with us during this process And last but not least to John McGuggan who does all of our AV and we thank all of them for being here today and for supporting this public hearing This concludes the public hearing of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and again thank you all very much