Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1443 

1Acting Chairman Nancy A. Nord and 

Commissioner Thomas H. Moore each filed a 

statement. The statements are available from the 

Office of the Secretary or on the Commission’s Web 

site at http://www.cpsc.gov. 

2Earnest, G.S., Carbon Monoxide Poisonings from 

Small, Gasoline-Powered, Internal Combustion 

Engines: Just What is a ‘‘Well-Ventilated Area’’?, 

American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 

November 1997. 

■ 4. Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

No. 106 is added to part 135 to read as 

follows: 

SPECIAL FEDERAL AVIATION 

REGULATION NO. 106 

Editorial Note: For the text of SFAR No. 

106, see part 121 of this chapter. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 4, 

2007. 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations. 

[FR Doc. E7–339 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1407 

Portable Generators; Final Rule; 

Labeling Requirements 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (Commission or CPSC) is 

issuing a final rule requiring 

manufacturers to label portable 

generators with performance and 

technical data related to performance 

and safety. The required warning label 

informs purchasers that: ‘‘Using a 

generator indoors CAN KILL YOU IN 

MINUTES;’’ ‘‘Generator exhaust 

contains carbon monoxide. This is a 

poison you cannot see or smell;’’

‘‘NEVER use inside a home or garage, 

EVEN IF doors and windows are open;’’

‘‘Only use OUTSIDE and far away from 

windows, doors, and vents.’’ The 

warning label also includes pictograms. 

The Commission believes that providing 

this safety information will help reduce 

unreasonable risks of injury associated 

with portable generators.1

DATES: This regulation becomes 

effective May 14, 2007 and applies to 

any portable generator manufactured or 

imported on or after that date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy P. Smith, Project Manager, 

Division of Human Factors, Directorate 

for Engineering Sciences, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 EastWest Highway, Bethesda, Maryland; 

telephone (301) 504–7691; or e-mail: 

tsmith@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The total yearly estimated non-fire 

related carbon monoxide (CO) deaths for 

each of the years 1999 through 2002 are 

109, 138, 130 and 188, respectively. 

Since 1999, the percentage of estimated 

CO poisoning deaths specifically 

associated with generators has been 

increasing annually. In 1999, generators 

were associated with 7 (6%) of the total 

yearly estimated CO poisoning deaths 

for that year. In 2000, 2001 and 2002, 

they were associated with 19 (14%), 22 

(17%) and 46 (24%) deaths out of the 

total estimates for each of those years. 

On October 12, 2005, the staff was 

directed to undertake a thorough review 

of the status of portable generator safety. 

As part of this review, the staff was 

requested to assess the sufficiency of 

warning labels to address the CO 

poisoning hazard posed by portable 

generators that are used within or near 

residences. In response to this request, 

CPSC staff prepared a draft notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPR), in which 

the staff proposed that manufacturers be 

required to label portable generators 

with a CO-poisoning warning label. On 

August 15, 2006, the Commission voted 

unanimously (2–0) to approve the 

publication of a Federal Register notice 

issuing an NPR for portable-generator 

labeling requirements. This notice was 

published August 24, 2006. 71 FR 

50003. 

B. The Product 

Portable generators offer a means of 

providing electrical power to a location 

that either temporarily lacks it or is not 

provided with electrical service at all. A 

portable generator has an internal 

combustion engine to produce rotational 

energy, which is used to generate 

electricity. The engine may be fueled by 

gasoline, diesel, natural gas, or liquid 

propane. It is the engine that produces 

carbon monoxide as a byproduct of 

combustion. 

Estimates of sales of portable 

generators for consumer use vary, but 

could be more than a million units 

annually. The most popular of these 

generators are gasoline-powered and are 

priced in the $500 to $800 range. The 

output of the majority of light duty 

generators sold to consumers in 2005 

was in the 3.5 kW to 6.5 kW range. This 

is the size of most of the units involved 

in the fatal CO poisoning incidents 

CPSC staff investigated in which the 

rating of the involved generator was 

identified. 

C. Relevant Statutory Provisions 

Section 27(e) of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (CPSA) authorizes 

the Commission, by rule, to ‘‘require 

any manufacturer of consumer products 

to provide the Commission with such 

performance and technical data related 

to performance and safety as may be 

required to carry out the purposes of 

this Act, and to give such notification of 

such performance and technical data at 

the time of original purchase to 

prospective purchasers and to the first 

purchaser of such product for purposes 

other than resale, as it determines 

necessary to carry out the purposes of 

this Act.’’ As provided in section 2(b)(1) 

of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 

U.S.C. 2051(b)(1)), one purpose of the 

CPSA is ‘‘to protect the public against 

unreasonable risks of injury associated 

with consumer products.’’

Failure to comply with a rule under 

section 27(e) is unlawful under section 

19(a)(8) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 

2068(a)(8). Any person who knowingly 

violates this requirement is subject to a 

civil penalty of up to $8,000 per 

violation. 15 U.S.C. 2069; 64 FR 51963. 

D. Explanation of the Rule 

In 2002, CPSC staff assessed the 

effectiveness of current CO poisoning 

warnings found on the product and 

within the owner’s manuals of several 

models of portable generators found on 

store shelves. Staff found that the 

guidance provided for avoiding the 

hazard was typically twofold: (1) Do not 

use in a confined or enclosed space, and 

(2) provide proper ventilation. None of 

the evaluated warnings defined 

‘‘confined or enclosed space’’ or ‘‘proper 

ventilation.’’

The Commission believes these 

instructions and warnings do not 

adequately advise users how to avoid 

the CO poisoning hazard. Furthermore, 

the incident data includes fatalities 

where it appears that the victims 

attempted to provide adequate 

ventilation, to open confined areas, or to 

do both by, for example, opening doors, 

opening windows, and running exhaust 

fans. Prior research has shown that tools 

with gasoline-powered engines produce 

CO that ‘‘can rapidly accumulate, even 

in areas that appear to be wellventilated, resulting in dangerous and 

fatal concentrations within minutes.’’ 2

Thus, evidence suggests that the 

methods consumers typically use to 

provide ventilation or to open confined 

areas are insufficient to prevent 

hazardous levels of CO buildup. Even 

locating a generator outdoors can be 

insufficient if the generator is near 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
1444 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

3CDC, Carbon Monoxide Poisoning After Two 

Major Hurricanes—Alabama and Texas, August–

October 2005, MMWR March 10, 2006; 55(09); 236–

239. 

4Natalie E. Marcy and Debra S. Ascone, 

‘‘Incidents, Deaths and In-Depth Investigations 

Associated with Carbon Monoxide from EngineDriven Generators and other Engine-Driven Tools, 

1990–2004,’’ CPSC Memorandum to Janet Buyer, 

Directorate for Engineering Sciences, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, 

DC (1 December 2005) and Robin L. Ingle, ‘‘Nonfire Carbon Monoxide Fatalities Associated with 

Engine-Driven Generators and Other Engine Driven 

Tools in 2004 and 2005,’’ CPSC Memorandum to 

Janet Buyer, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Washington, DC (3 January 2006). 

5Timothy P. Smith, ‘‘Human Factors Assessment 

for the Small Engine-Driven Tools Project,’’ CPSC 

Memorandum to Janet L. Buyer, U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC (18 

June 2002). 

enough to openings to the home or other 

occupied structure to allow CO to 

permeate and subsequently accumulate 

indoors. CPSC is aware of at least 5 

deaths that occurred when a generator 

was situated outdoors but near openings 

to the home. In addition, the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention recently 

reported the results of a study of posthurricane related generator use in 2005 

that found up to 50% of non-fatal CO 

poisoning incidents involved generators 

operated outdoors but within one to 

seven feet from the home.3

The Commission believes that there 

are too many unknown variables to be 

able to recommend one single safe 

distance for the location of a portable 

generator relative to a home or dwelling. 

Variables such as the wind speed and 

direction relative to openings to indoor 

spaces, relative proximity of other 

structures in the area that could create 

wind vortices, direction in which the 

engine exhaust is pointing, and a 

multitude of other factors complicate 

attempts to define a safe distance. 

Notwithstanding the issue of defining a 

safe operating distance, the Commission 

believes that warning labels must 

instruct consumers to keep generators 

outdoors and away from air intakes 

during use. 

In 2003, the staff developed 

recommended warning language for 

engine-driven tools, with particular 

focus on portable generators, as a 

follow-up to the staff’s assessment of the 

inadequacy of current warnings. This 

was later provided to the Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL) voluntary standard 

development committee. In February 

2006, staff developed a further refined 

warning label for portable generators 

and presented it to UL in response to 

their request for CPSC staff comments 

on a proposed UL Outline of 

Investigation. UL incorporated staff ’s 

proposed warning label into their 

Outline of Investigation, which became 

effective April 2006 and serves as the 

requirements with which a product 

must conform in order to be eligible to 

bear the UL mark. This document is not 

a consensus standard. The Commission 

believes a final rule is needed to ensure 

that all products will bear the proposed 

warning label as opposed to only those 

that seek UL’s mark. 

E. Description of the Rule 

The warning label appears at fig. 1 

(and fig. 3 for the on-package label). The 

warning label provides technical data, 

i.e., it indicates the presence of carbon 

monoxide in the portable generator 

exhaust and informs that carbon 

monoxide is a poison you cannot see or 

smell. The label uses the phrase ‘‘you 

cannot see or smell’’ rather than terms 

such as ‘‘odorless’’ and ‘‘colorless,’’

because the latter terminology may be 

less familiar and understandable to 

some consumers. 

The label also includes statements 

which connect the technical data with 

safety concerns. Specifically, the label 

warns: ‘‘Using a generator indoors CAN 

KILL YOU IN MINUTES.’’ The phrase 

‘‘in minutes’’ is intended to emphasize 

the imminence of the carbon monoxide 

poisoning hazard to provide consumers 

with a better understanding of the speed 

with which incapacitation can occur. In 

addition, research indicates that 

information about hazard scenarios 

affects consumers’ risk judgments. Thus, 

the label includes a description not just 

of the hazard, carbon monoxide, but of 

the primary hazard scenario associated 

with CO-poisoning deaths, i.e., using a 

generator indoors. The label also warns, 

‘‘NEVER use inside a home or garage, 

EVEN IF doors and windows are open.’’

The label warns specifically against use 

in the home and in garages, since these 

are known places in which consumers 

have used generators. The label includes 

prescriptive advice to ‘‘Only use 

OUTSIDE and far away from windows, 

doors, and vents,’’ so consumers can 

know what positive action they can take 

to avoid the hazard, rather than focusing 

exclusively on prohibited behaviors, or 

what consumers should not do. This is 

consistent with the requirements of 

ANSI Z535.4–2002, which is the 

primary U.S. voluntary consensus 

standard on product safety signs and 

labels, and with warning design 

guidelines in general. The 

accompanying pictograms are based on 

the pictograms developed by the 

Underwriters Laboratories Standards 

Technical Panel. Research shows that 

labels with pictograms tend to capture 

a consumer’s attention more readily 

than a label without pictograms. 

F. Unreasonable Risk of Injury 

Portable generators are powered by 

gasoline, diesel, or propane engines and 

exhaust CO. If the generator is used in 

enclosed or even partially enclosed 

spaces, the CO can very quickly build to 

hazardous levels. Serious injury can 

also result when the generator is placed 

outdoors but near an open window or 

vent and the exhaust is pulled into a 

house. In the 6-year period from 2000 

through 2005, the Commission is aware 

of at least 222 deaths related to CO 

poisoning associated with generators.4

Non-fatal CO injuries can have serious 

consequences since permanent brain or 

neurological damage can result. 

A well-designed warning label should 

inform the consumer of the CO hazard 

associated with generators and how to 

avoid the hazard while using the 

generator. A label placed in a prominent 

position on the generator is expected to 

reinforce this information each time the 

consumer used the generator. For 

example, the proposed label reminds 

the consumer that generator exhaust 

contains CO, which cannot be seen or 

smelled, and can quickly kill. The label 

also clarifies that a generator should 

only be used outside and far away from 

windows and vents and should not be 

used inside a home or garage. This 

information is important since some 

consumers have apparently been aware 

that a CO hazard was associated with 

generators, but believed that they would 

avoid the hazard by running the 

generator in a garage with the door open 

or outside the house, and did not 

understand that it was necessary to 

place it away from open windows and 

vents.5 The costs of a warning label 

include the one-time cost of designing 

the label and the continuing costs of 

printing and applying the labels to the 

generators and packages. These costs are 

expected to be low—less than one dollar 

per generator. Based on the hazards 

associated with carbon monoxide 

poisoning from portable generators, and 

the low cost of labeling generators, the 

Commission finds that there is an 

unreasonable risk of injury associated 

with portable generators. 

G. Environmental Considerations 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act and the Council on Environmental 

Quality Act regulations and CPSC 

procedures for environmental review 

require the Commission to assess the 

possible environmental effects 

associated with the labeling requirement 

for portable generators. Labeling rules 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1445 

6Note that the rule does not apply to any portable 

generator that is an ‘‘accessory’’ to a motor vehicle 

as defined in 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7). 

7Section 30(d) of the CPSA provides that a risk 

of injury which is associated with a consumer 

product and which could be eliminated or reduced 

to a sufficient extent by action under the Federal 

Hazardous Substances Act, the Poison Prevention 

Packaging Act of 1970, or the Flammable Fabrics 

Act may be regulated under the CPSA only if the 

Commission by rule finds that it is in the public 

interest to regulate such risk of injury under the 

CPSA. 

8Section 7(a) of the CPSA provides that the 

Commission may promulgate a consumer product 

safety standard requiring that a consumer product 

be marked with or accompanied by clear and 

adequate warnings or instructions. Any requirement 

of such a standard is to be ‘‘reasonably necessary 

to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury 

associated with such product.’’ Id. 

are not expected to have an adverse 

impact on the environment and are 

considered to fall within the 

‘‘categorical exclusions’’ for the 

purposes of the National Environmental 

Policy Act according to the CPSC 

regulations that cover its 

‘‘environmental review’’ procedures (16 

CFR Part 1021.5(c)(2)). Thus, the 

Commission concludes that no 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement is 

required in this proceeding. 

H. Impact on Small Business 

When an agency issues a final rule 

such as the labeling requirement for 

portable generators, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires the 

agency to prepare a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis describing the 

impact of the rule on small businesses 

and other small entities. Section 605 of 

the RFA provides that an agency is not 

required to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis if the head of an 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The Commission’s Directorate for 

Economic Analysis prepared a 

preliminary assessment of the impact of 

a rule to require labeling on portable 

generators. That assessment reported 

that, while small manufacturers will be 

responsible for ensuring that their 

generators are properly labeled, the 

labeling requirement is not expected to 

pose a significant burden to small 

business because the cost of adding the 

labels per generator is expected to be 

less than a dollar per generator set. The 

incremental cost of the rule issued today 

is likely to be minimal. 

Based on the foregoing assessment, 

the Commission certifies that the rule 

issued today to require labeling for 

portable generators will not have a 

significant adverse impact on a 

substantial number of small businesses 

or other small entities. 

I. Executive Order 12988 

As provided for in Executive Order 

12988 (February 5, 1996), the CPSC 

states that the preemptive effect of these 

regulations is as follows. The 

preemption provisions of section 26 of 

the CPSA apply only to ‘‘consumer 

product safety standards.’’ By definition 

in the CPSA, section 27(e) rules are not 

consumer product safety standards. 

There is, therefore, no express 

preemption for a final rule under 

section 27(e) of the CPSA. Preemption 

of state requirements could still occur if, 

for example, it is impossible to comply 

with both this rule and a state 

requirement. 

J. Effective Date 

Part 1407 requires a label on any 

portable generator manufactured or 

imported on or after May 11, 2007.6

K. Response to Comments on the NPR 

In response to the Federal Register 

notice proposing labeling requirements 

for portable generators, the Commission 

received 19 comments. The comments 

were largely positive and supported the 

proposed labeling, but two comments 

explicitly requested that the 

Commission withdraw the NPR. Many 

of the comments, even those that 

supported the general intent and 

approach of the rule, raised specific 

issues or concerns. 

1. Procedural Issues and Choice of 

Statutes 

Comments: Two comments claim that 

the Federal Hazardous Substances Act 

(FHSA), not the CPSA, is the 

appropriate statute under which to 

address through labeling the COpoisoning risk associated with portable 

generators. If, as the commenters claim, 

the risk of injury is one which could be 

eliminated or reduced by action under 

the FHSA, then the Commission, 

pursuant to section 30(d) of the CPSA, 

would have been required to find by 

rule that it was in the public interest to 

regulate the risk of injury under the 

CPSA (‘‘section 30(d) finding’’).7

These commenters also claim that the 

label proposed in the NPR appears to be 

the type of warning that Section 7 of the 

CPSA contemplates, since the NPR 

characterizes the risk of CO poisoning 

associated with generator emission as an 

‘‘unreasonable risk of injury.’’ 8

Response: The FHSA defines 

‘‘hazardous substance’’ as including any 

‘‘substance or mixture of substances 

which (I) is toxic * * * if [it] may cause 

substantial personal injury or 

substantial illness during or as a 

proximate result of any customary or 

reasonably foreseeable handling or use 

* * *.’’ Hazardous substances are 

misbranded if they do not bear the 

labeling required by section 2(p)(1) of 

the FHSA, 15 U.S.C. 1261(p)(1). In order 

to label a product under the authority of 

the FHSA, the product must constitute 

or contain a hazardous substance. 

The commenters analogize the 

labeling of portable generators to the 

labeling of charcoal packaging under the 

FHSA, in that charcoal, when burned, 

generates carbon monoxide. A 

significant difference between charcoal 

and portable generators, however, is that 

charcoal, as a substance which is toxic, 

constitutes a hazardous substance, and 

its packaging is therefore required to be 

labeled under the FHSA. In contrast, 

portable generators, when sold, are 

empty. Portable generators as sold thus 

do not contain any hazardous substance, 

or any substance, such as gasoline, that 

would produce the hazardous 

substance. A more appropriate analogy 

to portable generators might be gasoline 

containers that, when sold empty, are 

subject to the authority of the CPSA. 

Because the risk of injury associated 

with carbon monoxide poisoning from 

portable generators cannot be 

eliminated or adequately reduced by 

action under the FHSA, no finding 

under section 30(d)of the CPSA is 

required. 

Commenters also suggest that the 

label proposed in the NPR appears to be 

the type of warning that Section 7 of the 

CPSA contemplates, since the NPR 

characterizes the risk of CO poisoning 

associated with generator emission as an 

‘‘unreasonable risk of injury.’’ Section 

27(e) of the CPSA authorizes the 

Commission to issue rules requiring a 

consumer product manufacturer to 

provide the Commission and consumers 

with ‘‘performance and technical data 

related to performance and safety as 

may be required to carry out the 

purposes of this Act .’’ One of the 

purposes of the CPSA, as provided in 

section 2(b)(1) of the CPSA, is ‘‘to 

protect the public against unreasonable 

risks of injury associated with consumer 

products.’’ The risk of CO poisoning 

posed by portable generators was fully 

addressed in the NPR (71 FR 50003) and 

the use of section 27(e) to protect the 

public against risk of injury is 

completely appropriate. This is not to 

say that it would be inappropriate to 

adopt a CO warning label for generators 

under section 7 of the CPSA. Indeed, the 

Commission intends to consider that 

approach in connection with its ongoing 

generator rulemaking (71 FR 74472). 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
1446 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

9Among the 262.4 million people in the U.S. aged 

5 years or older, 47.0 million (18 percent) speak a 

language other than English at home. About 60 

percent of these (28.1 million) speak Spanish and 

about 0.4 percent (2.0 million) speak Chinese. 

10Those with below basic literacy in English 

prose lack the skills necessary to perform simple 

everyday literacy activities such as reading and 

understanding information in short commonplace 

continuous texts. 

2. Scope and Definition Issues 

Comments: Two comments address 

scope and definition issues related to 

the proposed rule. One comment seeks 

clarification on whether fuel-cell 

portable generators are included within 

the scope of the rule. Another comment 

proposes that the definition of a 

‘‘portable generator’’ reflect the 

definition within Underwriters 

Laboratories’ Outline of Investigation for 

Portable Engine-Generator Assemblies, 

UL 2201. 

Response: The CPSC rule is intended 

to generally cover the same range of 

portable generators as UL 2201. 

Therefore, Section 1407.2(b) is revised 

to read, ‘‘A portable generator is an 

internal combustion engine-driven 

electric generator rated no higher than 

15 kilowatts and 250 volts that is 

intended to be moved for temporary use 

at a location where utility-supplied 

electric power is not available. It has 

receptacle outlets for the alternatingcurrent (AC) output circuits, and may 

have alternating- or direct-current (DC) 

sections for supplying energy to battery 

charging circuits. ’’ As specified in this 

definition, portable generators that are 

covered under this rule must have an 

internal combustion engine and 

receptacle outlets for AC output circuits. 

(The generator may have other outlets, 

for example, for low voltage DC 

accessories.) Fuel-cell portable 

generators are not be covered by the 

rule. The rule also does not cover 

generators that fall within the definition 

of ‘‘motor vehicle equipment,’’ or 

otherwise fall outside the Commission’s 

jurisdiction under the CPSA. 

3. Effective Date of Rule 

Comments: Three comments from 

portable generator manufacturers state 

that they will need at least six months, 

rather than the 90 days proposed in the 

NPR, from issuance of the final 

regulation in the Federal Register to 

comply with the new requirements. 

Response: As noted by the staff of the 

CPSC Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, the time and resources 

required by manufacturers to redesign 

their portable generator labels are likely 

to be low since the content and format 

of the labeling will be specified in the 

rule. The Commission, therefore, 

believes that most manufacturers should 

be able to comply with the requirements 

within 90 days of publication of the 

final rule. Nevertheless, some 

manufacturers may have to reschedule 

other work and shift resources such as 

labor from other projects. There would 

be some costs associated with these 

adjustments and these costs could be 

alleviated somewhat by delaying the 

effective date of the rule. To provide 

some relief to manufacturers that might 

have trouble incorporating the label 

change within 90 days, the Commission 

has decided to post-pone the effective 

date of the rule such that the label 

would be required on any portable 

generator manufactured or imported 120 

days after the publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. 

4. Labeling Text Issues 

(a) Multiple Languages 

Comments: Five comments address 

the issue of whether the message text of 

the proposed labeling should also be 

required in a language other than 

English. Two comments support the 

addition of other languages, and one of 

these suggests that Spanish be the 

second language to include. Two 

comments oppose requiring additional 

languages. The remaining comment 

does not take a position on the matter, 

but suggests that Spanish is the 

appropriate language to include if 

another language is added. 

Response: The staff’s previous 

analyses of generator-related incident 

data have revealed no pattern of 

incidents involving people who could 

not read English. To confirm this, the 

staff of the CPSC Directorate for 

Epidemiology (EP) selected and 

thoroughly examined a random sample 

of 25 out of 150 in-depth investigations 

into generator-related CO-poisoning 

deaths that occurred in the 2002 to 2005 

time frame. None of the examined 

investigation reports described the 

victims’ literacy in English, Spanish, or 

any other language. Consequently, these 

investigations provide no basis for 

concluding that labeling in Spanish 

would have prevented deaths. 

According to the 2000 U.S. census, 

most people who speak a language other 

than English at home speak Spanish, 

with Chinese ranking a very distant 

second (Shin & Bruno, 2003).9

Additionally, the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) has found 

that about 35 percent of American 

adults who have below basic literacy in 

English prose 10 spoke Spanish before 

starting school; only 9 percent could not 

speak either English or Spanish (NCES, 

2005). Adding Spanish to an Englishlanguage warning label, therefore, 

would be expected to improve its 

readability among the U.S. population 

more than adding any other language. 

Nevertheless, the overall impact of 

adding Spanish to a label may be small. 

In the case of portable generators, 

Synovate DuraTrendTM consumer 

survey data obtained by the EC staff 

show that only 5.6 percent of generator 

purchasers in 2005 were Hispanic. 

Furthermore, many of these people are 

likely to be literate in English; for 

example, less than half of all adult 

Hispanics in the U.S. have below basic 

literacy in English prose (NCES, 2005). 

Thus, Hispanics with below basic 

literacy in English prose—the subpopulation most likely to include 

individuals who cannot read English yet 

can read Spanish, and who would 

potentially benefit the most from the 

addition of Spanish to the proposed 

warning label—almost certainly 

represent less than five percent of all 

generator purchasers in the U.S., and 

may comprise substantially less than 

this. Some of these people may also lack 

basic literacy in Spanish and, therefore, 

would be unable to read a label even if 

it included written Spanish. Despite 

these findings, the Commission does not 

dismiss the potential usefulness of 

providing the information in the 

labeling in Spanish, especially in 

regions of the country with large 

Hispanic populations. Thus, the rule 

does not prohibit manufacturers from 

providing a Spanish-language version of 

the labeling in addition to the 

prescribed English-language label. If the 

product label is provided by the 

manufacturer in additional languages, 

however, the staff believes that 

additional-language versions of the label 

should appear adjacent to or below the 

English-language version of the product 

label. This formatting is consistent with 

ANSI Z535.4—2002, the most recent 

published version of the American 

National Standard for Product Safety 

Signs and Labels. The staff further 

recommends that any additionallanguage versions of the label, whether 

they be on the product or on the 

generator package, be no larger than the 

English-language version of the label. 

Thus, the final rule includes these 

requirements at § 1407.3(a)(1) and 

§ 1407.3(a)(2). 

(b) Signal Word Choice 

Comments: Four comments assert that 

the signal word WARNING is more 

appropriate than DANGER for the 

proposed labeling. Arguments made by 

the commenters include that the use of 

DANGER is inconsistent with the 

hierarchy specified in the ANSI Z535 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1447 

series of standards and that its use 

might reduce the perceived risk 

associated with the WARNING hazards 

of fire during refueling, electrocution 

from use in wet conditions, and 

electrocution from connection to a 

commercial power source. 

Response: According to the ANSI 

Z535 series of standards, the selection of 

a signal word for a hazard label should 

be made based on the seriousness of the 

hazard situation or scenario. For 

example, ANSI Z535.4—2002, the most 

recent published version of the 

American National Standard for Product 

Safety Signs and Labels, defines 

DANGER as an ‘‘imminently hazardous 

situation which, if not avoided, will 

result in death or serious injury’’

(Section 4.13.1). The latest revision of 

ANSI Z535.4 clarifies that use of the 

term—will’’ in this definition indicates 

an event that is nearly, but not 

absolutely, certain (Annex E, due for 

publication 2006). While the mere 

presence of carbon monoxide in 

portable generator exhaust could lead to 

death or serious injury, the use of 

generators indoors—the hazard scenario 

specifically highlighted in the label—

would almost certainly result in death 

or serious injury due to a generator’s 

high rate of CO production (for example, 

see Inkster, 2004). The CPSC continues 

to believe, therefore, that DANGER is 

the appropriate signal word for the 

proposed labeling. 

The Commission cannot confirm the 

assertion that using DANGER for the CO 

poisoning hazard would necessarily 

reduce the perceived hazard associated 

with the WARNING hazards mentioned. 

One could argue instead that the use of 

DANGER simply increases the 

perceived hazard associated with CO 

poisoning without having any effect on 

consumer perceptions related to the 

other hazards being warned about on 

the product. Additionally, the selection 

of a signal word for a given hazard is 

supposed to be based on the standard 

signal-word definitions (for example, 

those used in ANSI Z535.4), which 

denote the seriousness of the hazard 

situation or scenario, not on how the 

signal word might impact the 

perceptions of hazard labels that use 

other signal words. To the extent that a 

hazard situation or scenario is serious 

enough to demand the use of DANGER, 

one would expect and hope that people 

exposed to the hazard label would 

correctly interpret this as meaning that 

the hazard situation is more serious 

than a hazard label that relies on a less 

serious signal word such as WARNING 

or CAUTION. Accordingly, the final 

rule requires that the label include the 

signal word DANGER. 

(c) Message Text Issues 

Comments: Five comments are 

associated with the specific message 

text of the proposed labeling. Two 

comments express concerns that the 

message text has not been 

independently tested—for example, 

through the use of focus groups—and 

suggest various alternatives to the 

wording of this text. Both also argue that 

the phrase, ‘‘* * * WILL KILL YOU IN 

MINUTES’’ is not accurate. One 

comment includes the results of focus 

group testing, performed on low-literacy 

individuals by a contractor for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), which found that some people 

had difficulty understanding the phrase 

‘‘partly enclosed area’’ and 

misinterpreted the word ‘‘gas’’ as 

gasoline. The contractor recommended 

that ‘‘partly enclosed area’’ be deleted 

from the label. One comment states that 

the label does not alert consumers to the 

symptoms of CO poisoning or refer 

users to the manual for additional 

instructions. Another comment states 

that the phrase, ‘‘Please read the manual 

before use,’’ is already attached to the 

generator in another label and that, 

therefore, the packaging label should be 

identical to the product label if one is 

used. One comment recommends the 

addition of the phrase, ‘‘FOR 

OUTDOOR USE ONLY,’’ after the initial 

sentence of the proposed labeling. 

Response: As referenced in the 

comment summary, above, an 

independent contractor performed focus 

group testing on the proposed product 

label with low literacy individuals as 

part of the EPA’s efforts to develop a 

flood-cleanup brochure. This testing 

identified two specific comprehension 

problems with the message text of the 

proposed labeling. First, testing revealed 

that some low-literacy individuals had 

difficulty understanding the phrase 

‘‘partly enclosed area.’’ The available 

CPSC data on CO poisoning deaths 

associated with portable generators 

show that most incidents in which the 

generator was reportedly used in an 

enclosed or partially enclosed area 

occurred either within the home or in a 

garage or enclosed carport (Marcy & 

Ascone, 2005). Thus, the staff believes 

it would be acceptable to remove 

‘‘partly enclosed area’’ from the 

proposed labeling, as recommended by 

the EPA’s contractor. The staff is 

concerned, however, about simply 

deleting this phrase, since its absence 

could mislead some into believing that 

generators are only hazardous if used in 

fully enclosed areas. Thus, the staff 

recommends adding the phrase, ‘‘EVEN 

IF doors and windows are open,’’ to the 

end of the revised portion of the 

warning. The entire relevant statement, 

therefore, is changed in the final rule 

from, ‘‘NEVER use in the home or in 

partly enclosed areas such as garages, ’’

to, ‘‘NEVER use inside a home or garage, 

EVEN IF doors and windows are open.’’

The testing also revealed that ‘‘gas’’

may be misinterpreted as ‘‘gasoline’’ by 

some low literacy individuals. To 

address this comment, the label is 

revised to read as follows: ‘‘Exhaust 

contains carbon monoxide, a poison gas 

you cannot see or smell,’’ with, 

‘‘Generator exhaust contains carbon 

monoxide. This is a poison you cannot 

see or smell.’’ Because they address the 

specific comprehension problems 

identified with the message text during 

testing, these revisions should make the 

proposed labeling more understandable 

to all generator users. The CPSC staff 

believes that an explanation of the 

intended function of a portable 

generator, which the EPA ’s testing 

contractor also recommended adding, is 

unnecessary for a product label since 

people who do not know this 

information are unlikely to purchase, 

rent, borrow, or otherwise use a portable 

generator. Thus, the final rule does not 

include an explanation of the intended 

function of a portable generator. 

The staff agrees that the sentence, 

‘‘Using a generator indoors WILL KILL 

YOU IN MINUTES,’’ is questionable 

because death may occur in a longer 

time frame than what most people 

would deem ‘‘in minutes’’ and because 

generator use indoors may result in 

severe CO poisoning rather than death. 

The staff is also concerned that people 

who have previously used a generator 

indoors and survived could question the 

credibility of a label that states death is 

essentially inevitable. If the label is not 

credible, people may choose to ignore 

the safety message. Therefore, the 

Commission has revised this statement 

to read, ‘‘Using a generator indoors CAN 

KILL YOU IN MINUTES.’’ This revision 

has no effect on the appropriateness of 

using DANGER as the signal word for 

this label, as discussed earlier, since the 

use of generators indoors would still 

almost certainly result in death or 

serious injury due to a portable 

generator’s high rate of CO production. 

The revised phrase simply emphasizes 

the possibility that death can occur 

within minutes. 

In its 2003 memorandum that 

proposed warning labels to accompany 

portable generators, the CPSC staff 

specifically recommended against 

including a description of CO-poisoning 

symptoms within the product label 

because this information would add a 

substantial amount of text to the label 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
1448 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

and was believed to be of limited value 

for a label to be affixed to the product 

itself (Smith, 2003). The staff continues 

to support this position. Regarding the 

statement, ‘‘See product manual for 

more details,’’ which originally 

appeared at the bottom of the onproduct label in the staff’s 2003 

memorandum (Smith, 2003), the staff 

does not believe this statement should 

be required on portable generators 

because the information that is provided 

in the labeling required in this final rule 

addresses the key safety information of 

which people must be aware when 

using a generator and generator 

manufacturers may include a statement 

that refers users to the product manual 

elsewhere on the generator. As pointed 

out in one public comment, some 

manufacturers already include the 

phrase, ‘‘ Please read the manual before 

use,’’ in other generator labels. For the 

packaging label, however, the 

statements, ‘‘Avoid other generator 

hazards. READ MANUAL BEFORE 

USE,’’ are needed since this label may 

very well be the only label on the 

packaging that will alert the purchaser 

to possible hazards associated with 

generator use. Therefore, the provision 

has been retained in the final rule. 

The CPSC staff believes it would be 

inappropriate to add the phrase, ‘‘FOR 

OUTDOOR USE ONLY,’’ after the initial 

sentence of the message text in the 

proposed labeling. Placing this phrase 

after the initial sentence interrupts the 

logical flow of the warning from the 

explanation of the hazard situation to 

the descriptions of the appropriate 

hazard avoidance behaviors. A more 

appropriate location for this phrase, if it 

were used, would be at the beginning of 

the message text as the first sentence of 

the warning. However, the staff is 

concerned that using this phrase as the 

first sentence would tend to deemphasize the description of the hazard 

situation and its consequences (that is, 

‘‘Using a generator indoors CAN KILL 

YOU IN MINUTES.’’), could lead people 

to stop reading further because it is a 

highly familiar phrase that people are 

likely to believe they already 

understand, and is redundant with the 

already-present and more-detailed 

admonition to use the generator outside 

and far away from windows, doors, and 

vents. Thus, although this statement 

would not add a substantial amount of 

text to the label, the Commission does 

not believe it should be added to the 

labeling and the statement is not 

included in the final rule. However, 

manufacturers are not prohibited from 

including a statement of this kind 

elsewhere on the product, packaging, or 

product manual. 

5. Labeling Pictogram and Symbol 

Issues 

(a) Prohibition Symbol Choice 

Comments: Four comments propose 

the use of a circle-slash symbol rather 

than an ‘‘X’’ symbol to indicate 

prohibited actions in the pictograms 

that appear in the proposed labeling. 

Arguments made within these 

comments in favor of the circle-slash 

symbol include the fact that it is 

consistent with the ANSI Z535 series of 

standards, is internationally recognized, 

and obscures less of the underlying 

pictogram than an ‘‘X.’’ One comment 

states that a transparent circle-slash 

symbol may be superior since it does 

not obscure the underlying pictorials. 

Response: The CPSC staff 

acknowledges that the ANSI Z535 series 

of standards recommends the use of a 

circle-slash symbol to indicate 

prohibited actions in pictograms. When 

developing the proposed labeling, the 

CPSC staff chose to use ‘‘X’’ symbols 

rather than circle-slash symbols because 

both the circle-slash and ‘‘X’’ symbols 

are commonly recognized as conveying 

the prohibition concept (Dreyfuss, 1972; 

Wogalter & Leonard, 1999), there was no 

evidence that English-reading 

consumers would have difficulty 

understanding the meaning of an ‘‘X’’

symbol, and the only known evidence of 

comprehension problems with either 

prohibition symbol were those 

encountered with the circle-slash 

symbol by some Latin American 

individuals during charcoal-pictogram 

testing previously performed for the 

CPSC (Requirements for Labeling of 

Retail Containers of Charcoal, 1996). 

The staff also found that circle-slash 

symbols tended to obscure more of the 

underlying pictograms than did ‘‘X’’

symbols of the same size. For example, 

the circle portion of the circle-slash 

symbols tended to obscure the outlines 

of the home and garage pictograms, 

making these portions of the pictograms 

difficult to discern. Since publication of 

the Federal Register notice regarding 

the NPR, the staff has become aware of 

an internal Douglas Aircraft research 

report that identified possible 

comprehension problems with the use 

of an ‘‘X’’ to indicate prohibition. For 

example, the researchers found that a 

graphic using an ‘‘X’’ to indicate that a 

part should not be touched was 

misinterpreted by some as meaning the 

opposite, indicating where the person 

should touch (Johnson, 1974, as cited in 

Johnson, 2006). In light of this research, 

the staff agrees that the use of ‘‘X’’

symbols rather than circle-slash symbols 

to indicate prohibition in the proposed 

labeling may not be preferable. The final 

rule, therefore, includes the opaque 

circle-slash symbols rather than ‘‘X’’

symbols. Additionally, to avoid 

problems with the circle-slash obscuring 

the outlines of the home and garage, the 

final rule uses smaller circle-slash 

symbols, centered over the generator 

pictograms. Although a transparent 

circle-slash symbol would not obscure 

the underlying symbol, its use is 

inconsistent with the prohibition 

symbol recommended in the ANSI Z535 

series of standards. 

(b) Use of Hazard-Avoidance Pictograms 

Comments: Three comments are 

associated with the staff’s decision to 

use pictograms depicting hazard 

avoidance behavior in the proposed 

labeling. Two comments state that these 

pictograms have not been 

independently tested, and question 

whether the pictograms of the generator 

will be readily recognized. One of these 

comments suggests that the standard 

hazardous gas/vapors pictogram, which 

shows a person inhaling gas, might be 

a better choice since it had undergone 

successful consumer testing. One 

comment, which includes the results of 

EPA-sponsored focus group testing on 

the proposed product label, reports that 

some low-literacy individuals had 

difficulty recognizing the generator 

pictogram. The contractor 

recommended enlarging this pictogram 

to improve the likelihood that it will be 

correctly identified. 

Response: The CPSC staff had 

originally considered the use of the 

hazardous gas/vapors pictogram referred 

to in the comments, but expressed 

reservations about its use since the gas 

in the pictogram is visible even though 

carbon monoxide is not (Smith, 2003, 

2006). The staff continues to be 

concerned about this potential for 

confusion. In addition, although testing 

has revealed that most people can 

recognize the referenced pictogram as 

indicating hazardous gas or vapors 

(Mayer & Laux, 1989), this pictogram 

provides no information regarding 

appropriate hazard-avoidance 

behaviors. In fact, since this pictogram 

could indicate hazardous gases with 

varying degrees of lethality, the 

appropriate hazard-avoidance behavior 

may vary substantially among different 

hazardous gases. For example, some 

products that release hazardous gases 

might be safely used within an open 

garage, but this is not true for an 

operating portable generator. The final 

rule uses pictograms depicting 

appropriate and inappropriate behaviors 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1449 

11ANSI Z535.3–2002 requires explanatory text 

for any symbol without demonstrated 

understandability; for example, one that is not 

understood by at least 85 percent of the target 

audience using the methodology specified in Annex 

B of the standard. Research suggests that few safety 

symbols can meet this requirement, so 

accompanying text is almost always required. 

specific to portable generators to avoid 

this ambiguity. 

As discussed earlier, an independent 

contractor performed focus-group 

testing on the proposed product label 

with low-literacy individuals as part of 

the EPA’s efforts to develop a floodcleanup brochure. The only identified 

problem with the pictograms that 

appear in the proposed labeling was that 

some people had difficulty recognizing 

the graphic of the generator. These test 

results, however, almost certainly 

underestimate the extent to which the 

generator graphic would be recognized 

in a real-life scenario. For example, 

testing was not performed with the label 

affixed to a generator. When presented 

in the appropriate context, generator 

graphics are more likely to be 

recognized (Wogalter, Silver, Leonard, & 

Zaikina, 2006). Additionally, the EPA 

testing found that some of the 

participants in the testing did not even 

know what a generator was. People who 

do not know the intended function of a 

portable generator are unlikely to 

purchase, rent, borrow, or otherwise use 

a portable generator, and would not be 

expected to correctly identify a graphic 

of this product. Nevertheless, to 

improve the likelihood that people will 

correctly identify the generator graphic 

as a portable generator and to increase 

the overall legibility of the pictograms, 

the CPSC has slightly increased the size 

of the pictograms in the final rule, as 

recommended by the EPA’s testing 

contractor. The Commission also notes 

that Section 1407.3(a)(1) of the final rule 

specifies that ‘‘[a] different 

representation of the generator [within 

the proposed labeling] may be 

substituted for accuracy if consumers 

are more likely to recognize the 

substituted representation as the 

generator to which this label is affixed.’’

Manufacturers, therefore, may substitute 

a graphic of the specific generator to 

which the label will be affixed if they 

so choose. 

(c) Other Hazard-Avoidance Pictogram 

Issues 

Comments: Five comments are 

associated with specific features of the 

hazard-avoidance pictograms that 

appeared within the proposed labeling. 

Two comments suggest deleting the 

symbol depicting the use of a generator 

within a garage. This pictogram, 

according to three comments, could be 

interpreted as meaning that one should 

not store the generator in a garage. Two 

comments claim that the two-headed 

arrow graphic that appears in the 

pictogram depicting appropriate 

behavior could be misinterpreted. One 

of these states that the two-headed 

arrow graphic could be interpreted as 

meaning that use both in and away from 

the home is acceptable; the commenter 

suggests that this arrow be replaced 

with a single-headed arrow that points 

away from the home. The other 

comment claims that this graphic could 

be interpreted as meaning that the 

person should connect the generator by 

electrical wire to a commercial power 

supply as a backup, and recommended 

deleting the pictogram entirely. 

Response: The Commission believes 

that both pictograms that depict 

inappropriate behaviors—one showing 

generator use within a home or enclosed 

space and one showing generator use 

within a garage—are necessary to 

convey the key safety message. Relying 

solely on the pictogram of the generator 

within a home or enclosed space to 

indicate inappropriate behavior, as 

recommended by the commenters, 

could lead people to believe that 

generators are only hazardous if used 

within a completely enclosed space. 

Many CO-poisoning deaths associated 

with portable generators occurred when 

the generator was being used in a garage 

with the door at least partially open. 

The pictogram depicting generator use 

in the garage as being inappropriate 

directly addresses incidents of this type. 

Although the CPSC acknowledges that 

one could infer from these pictograms 

that generators should not be stored in 

the home or garage, alternative 

pictograms such as the poisonous gas/ 

vapors pictogram are also open to 

various interpretations regarding 

appropriate and inappropriate behaviors 

specific to portable generators, as 

discussed in the response to the 

previous topic. As demonstrated by the 

earlier discussion of comprehension 

problems encountered with common 

prohibition symbols, virtually no hazard 

pictogram or symbol will be understood 

by all people. For this reason, 

explanatory text is very often 

recommended or required,11 especially 

for complex hazards (Wogalter, Silver, 

Leonard, & Zaikina, 2006). The CPSC 

believes that the explanatory message 

text that appears in the label should 

limit the extent to which 

misinterpretations of the pictograms 

would prevent people from 

understanding the overall message of 

the labeling. 

Regarding the use of a double-headed 

arrow in the pictogram depicting the 

appropriate use of a portable generator, 

the American National Standard Criteria 

for Safety Symbols, ANSI Z535.3, 

recommends the consistent use of arrow 

graphics to represent different types of 

movement or spatial relationships. 

Single-headed arrows are used to 

represent the motion of objects or 

components or to represent the exertion 

of pressure or force; in contrast, doubleheaded arrows are used to represent the 

idea of keeping a safe distance away 

from a hazard (ANSI Z535.3–2002, 

Figure A1). Thus, the use of a doubleheaded arrow is appropriate, and the 

direct replacement of the double-headed 

arrow with a single-headed one, as 

recommended by one commenter, 

would suggest the movement of the 

home toward the generator, which is 

opposite the intended meaning and 

could create critical confusion among 

the intended audience. Despite this, in 

the final rule issued today, the original 

appropriate-use pictogram is replaced 

with a pictogram that avoids the 

possible misinterpretations identified by 

the commenters yet remains consistent 

with ANSI Z535.3. This pictogram 

employs a single-headed arrow but 

places the arrow on the opposite side of 

the generator pictogram to suggest the 

movement of the generator away from 

the home. The length of the arrow has 

also been shortened so the generator 

pictogram is not located immediately 

adjacent to the graphic of the home. 

6. Explicit Safe Distance 

Comments: Six comments point out 

that the proposed labeling does not 

include an explicit distance (for 

example, measured in feet) that should 

be maintained between the generator 

and the home or other partially enclosed 

area. Some suggest that this distance 

could be inserted within the message 

text or within the pictogram depicting 

the generator being kept away from the 

home. One comment suggests a 

minimum distance of 10 feet; another 

comment suggests at least 15 feet. 

Response: The CPSC agrees that 

explicitly identifying a safe operating 

distance between the generator and the 

home or other partially enclosed area 

would be more useful than relying on 

terms such as ‘‘far,’’ but has been unable 

to develop a consensus as to what 

distance is adequate given the widely 

varying conditions under which 

portable generators may be used. As 

discussed in the staff’s 2006 briefing 

package on portable generator safety, 

some portable generator manufacturers 

currently provide minimum clearance 

requirements for placement of the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
1450 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

generator; however, these distances 

appear to represent the clearances 

needed to allow for adequate 

combustion and cooling airflow, not to 

avoid CO poisoning (Buyer, 2006). 

Variables such as the speed and 

direction of wind relative to openings to 

indoor spaces and the relative proximity 

of other structures to the generator 

complicate attempts to define a 

reasonably safe distance. 

In a study of nonfatal CO-poisoning 

incidents following two major 

hurricanes in 2005, the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

found that half of those interviewed 

who had been involved in generatorrelated incidents had placed the 

generator outside in the open, but that 

all of these individuals had placed the 

generator within seven feet of the home 

(CDC, 2006). Thus, a ‘‘reasonably safe’’

distance likely would be greater than 

seven feet. However, available data do 

not allow the Commission to reach 

consensus on how much farther than 

seven feet would constitute a reasonably 

safe distance. The phrase ‘‘far away,’’

used in the label required by this final 

rule, while not as explicit as a specified 

distance, still emphasizes the need to 

keep the generator well away from, 

rather than immediately outside, the 

home or other partially enclosed areas. 

7. Labeling Placement 

Comments: Three comments address 

the proposed location or placement of 

the label on the product. Two comments 

state that it is not technically feasible to 

meet a requirement that the label be 

placed on a part of the generator that, 

if removed, would impair the operation 

of the generator. The commenters 

propose an alternative requirement that 

the label be placed on a part of the 

portable generator that cannot be 

removed without the use of tools. One 

comment suggests that the label be 

located close to the ‘‘on/off’’ switch, the 

starter, or the power outlets, and 

suggests that the label be more ‘‘active’’

by requiring the user to take an action 

that draws attention to the label each 

time the generator is used. 

Response: The Commission is not 

opposed to the commenters’ proposed 

alternative requirement that the label be 

placed on a part that cannot be removed 

without the use of tools. Therefore, 

section 1407.3(a)(1)(iii)(A) of the final 

rule states, ‘‘On a part of the portable 

generator that cannot be removed 

without the use of tools.’’ Regarding the 

comment about making the label more 

‘‘active’’ by requiring the user to take an 

action that draws attention to the label 

each time the generator is used, the 

Commission believes that such a 

requirement is unnecessary at this time 

since the label is already required to be 

placed in a location that is prominent 

and conspicuous to an operator while 

performing at least two of the following 

tasks: Filling the fuel tank, accessing the 

receptacle panel, and starting the engine 

(see section 1407.3(a)(1)(iii)(B) of the 

final rule). 

8. Need for Packaging Label 

Comments: Two comments propose 

that the requirement for a packaging 

label be dropped from the rule. Both 

believe this label is unnecessary since 

the packaging will be discarded. 

Response: The intent of the packaging 

label is to directly provide potential 

purchasers of portable generators with 

information at the point of purchase 

emphasizing the danger of CO 

poisoning, and to reinforce the warning 

when the generator is removed from the 

packaging at home, not to assist 

consumers while they are operating the 

generator after the packaging is 

discarded. The packaging label provides 

the CO poisoning information 

irrespective of sales staff interaction or 

other messaging at the point of sale. 

Without the information presented by 

the packaging label, purchasers may not 

discover until they are home that they 

do not have an appropriate place to 

operate the generator. Accordingly, the 

proposed requirement for the packaging 

label is retained in this final rule. 

9. Missing Manual Warning 

Comments: One comment notes that a 

previous CPSC staff memo included a 

recommendation for a product-manual 

warning, which included information 

about CO-poisoning symptoms, and that 

the NPR does not include a 

recommendation for such a warning. 

Response: The rule does not include 

specific recommendations for COpoisoning warnings to appear within the 

manuals that accompany portable 

generators because prior analyses of the 

CO-poisoning information provided on 

the product and within the product 

manuals found that the product labeling 

was often far more deficient (Smith, 

2002). Since the on-product labeling is 

available to consumers even after the 

product manual is lost, discarded, or 

otherwise not available, improved 

product labels are of paramount 

importance. The Commission does 

agree, however, that providing more 

detailed information about CO 

poisoning within the product manual, 

including information about the 

symptoms of CO poisoning, would be 

advantageous, and the staff may 

consider additional requirements of this 

type as part of the CPSC ’s ongoing 

activities associated with improving 

portable generator safety. 

10. Extension Cord Warning 

Comments: One comment notes that 

increasing the distance between the 

generator and any partially enclosed 

spaces necessarily increases the 

distance between the generator and the 

load, which could result in some 

consumers using extension cords with 

insufficient capacity. The commenter 

suggests that a warning label that states, 

‘‘ONLY USE PROPERLY SIZED 

EXTENSION CORDS IN GOOD 

CONDITION,’’ be affixed to the 

generator’s electrical panel. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

that the capacity and condition of 

extension cords to be used with portable 

generators must be adequate to support 

the intended load and allow the 

generator to be kept far away from 

homes and other partially enclosed 

areas. However, this issue is outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

11. Alternatives to Labeling 

Comments: Three comments suggest 

that labeling alone is not sufficient to 

address the CO-poisoning hazard and 

recommend technical solutions such as 

reduced CO emissions or integrated CO 

monitors that will automatically shut off 

the generator if necessary. 

Response: Specific technical 

approaches to addressing the CO 

poisoning hazard associated with 

portable generators are outside the 

scope of this rule and are addressed in 

a separate Commission rulemaking 

commenced with the recent publication 

of an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking, 71 FR 74472 (December 12, 

2006). 

L. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated in this 

preamble, the Commission finds that a 

requirement for a carbon monoxide 

warning statement on portable 

generators is necessary to help protect 

the public against the risk of CO 

poisoning associated with such 

products. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1407 

Consumer protection, labeling. 

■ Therefore, for the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Commission amends Title 

16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by 

adding a new Part 1407 to read as 

follows: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1451 

PART 1407—PORTABLE 

GENERATORS: REQUIREMENTS TO 

PROVIDE PERFORMANCE AND 

TECHNICAL DATA BY LABELING 

Sec. 

1407.1 Purpose, scope, and effective date. 

1407.2 Definitions. 

1407.3 Providing performance and 

technical data to purchasers by labeling. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2076(e). 

§ 1407.1 Purpose, scope, and effective 

date. 

This part 1407 establishes 

requirements under section 27(e) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 

2076(e)) for manufacturers to provide 

consumers with a specified notification 

concerning the carbon monoxide 

poisoning hazard associated with the 

use of portable generators. The 

notification is intended to provide 

consumers with technical and 

performance information related to the 

safety of portable generators. This part 

applies to any generator manufactured 

or imported on or after May 14, 2007. 

§ 1407.2 Definitions. 

(a) The definitions in section 3 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 

2052) apply to this part 1407. 

(b) A portable generator is an internal 

combustion engine-driven electric 

generator rated no higher than 15 

kilowatts and 250 volts that is intended 

to be moved for temporary use at a 

location where utility-supplied electric 

power is not available. It has receptacle 

outlets for the alternating-current (AC) 

output circuits, and may have 

alternating- or direct-current (DC) 

sections for supplying energy to battery 

charging circuits. 

§ 1407.3 Providing performance and 

technical data to purchasers by labeling. 

(a) Notice to purchasers. 

Manufacturers of portable generators 

shall give notification of performance 

and technical data related to 

performance and safety to prospective 

purchasers of such products at the time 

of original purchase and to the first 

purchaser of such product for purposes 

other than resale, in the manner set 

forth below. 

(1) On-product label. The CO 

poisoning hazard label shown in fig. 1 

shall be used on the product. A different 

representation of the generator may be 

substituted for accuracy if consumers 

are more likely to recognize the 

substituted representation as the 

generator to which this label is affixed. 

Alternate-language versions of this label 

may appear on the product in addition 

to the label specified in figure 1. If the 

product label is also provided by the 

manufacturer in additional language(s), 

it shall appear adjacent to or below the 

English-language version of the product 

label, and shall be no larger than the 

English-language version of the label. 

Versions of the product label that are in 

a language other than English may 

appear without the pictograms that 

appear in the English-language versions. 

(i) The signal word ‘‘DANGER’’ shall 

be in letters not less than 0.15 inch (3.8 

mm) high. The remaining text shall be 

in type whose uppercase letters are not 

less than 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) high. 

(ii) The signal word ‘‘DANGER’’ shall 

appear in white letters on a safety red 

background. The safety alert symbol 

shown in fig. 2 shall appear 

immediately before and next to the 

signal word and be no smaller than the 

height of the signal word with the base 

of the triangle on the same horizontal 

line as the base of the signal word. The 

solid portion of the triangle (within the 

lines of the triangle, around the 

exclamation mark) shall be white and 

the exclamation mark shall be safety 

red. The prohibition circle-slash 

symbols shall be opaque. 

(iii) The on-product hazard label 

shown in fig. 1 shall be located: 

(A) On a part of the portable generator 

that cannot be removed without the use 

of tools, and 

(B) On a location that is prominent 

and conspicuous to an operator while 

performing at least two of the following 

actions: Filling the fuel tank, accessing 

the receptacle panel, and starting the 

engine. 

(iv) The on-product hazard label 

shown in fig. 1 shall be designed to 

remain permanently affixed, intact, 

legible, and largely unfaded in the 

environment in which the product is 

expected to be operated and stored over 

the life of the product. 

(2) Carbon monoxide poisoning 

hazard label for package. The CO 

poisoning hazard label shown in fig. 3 

shall be affixed to the principal display 

panel(s) of the package, as well as the 

surface containing the top flaps of the 

package. The principal display panel(s) 

of the package is the portion(s) of the 

outer packaging that is designed to be 

most prominently displayed, shown, 

presented, or examined under 

conditions of retail sale. Any panel of 

the package that includes text in a 

language other than English shall also 

include a CO poisoning hazard label in 

that language. Alternate-language 

versions of the label, in addition to the 

label specified in figure 3, may also 

appear on the top flaps of the package 

as long as they are physically separate 

from one another. A different 

representation of the generator may be 

substituted for accuracy if consumers 

are more likely to recognize the 

substituted representation as the 

generator contained within the 

packaging. 

(i) The signal word ‘‘DANGER’’ shall 

be in letters not less than 0.15 inch (3.8 

mm) high. The remaining text shall be 

in type whose uppercase letters are not 

less than 0.1 inch (2.5 mm) high. 

(ii) The signal word ‘‘DANGER’’ shall 

appear in white letters on a safety red 

background. The safety alert symbol 

shown in fig. 2 shall appear 

immediately before and next to the 

signal word and be no smaller than the 

height of the signal word with the base 

of the triangle on the same horizontal 

line as the base of the signal word. The 

solid portion of the triangle (within the 

lines of the triangle, around the 

exclamation mark) shall be white and 

the exclamation mark shall be safety 

red. The prohibition circle-slash 

symbols shall be opaque. 

(b) [Reserved] 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
1452 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Note: The following appendix will not 

appear in the code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix—List of Relevant Documents 

1. Memorandum from Timothy P. Smith, 

Engineering Psychologist, Division of Human 

Factors, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 

to Janet L. Buyer, Project Manager, Division 

of Combustion and Fire Sciences, Directorate 

for Engineering Sciences, ‘‘Product labels for 

generators to address carbon monoxide 

poisonings,’’ May 26, 2006. 

2. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, 

Economist, Directorate for Economic 

Analysis,‘‘Economic Issues Related to a CO 

Warning Label on Portable Generators,’’

December 27, 2006. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULESER12JA07.001</GPH> ER12JA07.002</GPH> ER12JA07.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 8 / Friday, January 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 1453 

3. Memorandum from Natalie E. Marcy, 

Mathematical Statistician, Division of Hazard 

Analysis, Directorate of Epidemiology, and 

Debra S. Ascone, Mathematical Statistician, 

Division of Hazard Analysis, Directorate for 

Epidemiology, to Janet Buyer, Project 

Manager, Division of Combustion and Fire 

Sciences, Directorate for Engineering 

Sciences, ‘‘ Incidents, Deaths, and In-Depth 

Investigations Associated with Carbon 

Monoxide from Engine-Driven Generators 

and Other Engine-Driven Tools, 1990–2004,’’

December 1, 2005. 

4. Memorandum from Robin L. Ingle, 

Health Statistician, Division of Hazard 

Analysis, Directorate for Epidemiology, to 

Janet Buyer, Project Manager, Division of 

Combustion and Fire Sciences, Directorate 

for Engineering Sciences, ‘‘Non-fire Carbon 

Monoxide Fatalities Associated with EngineDriven Generators and Other Engine-Driven 

Tools in 2004 and 2005,’’ January 13, 2006. 

5. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, 

Directorate for Economic Analysis, ‘‘Effective 

Date of CO Warning Label for Generators—

Response to Comments,’’ December 27, 2006. 

Dated: January 5, 2007. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 07–80 Filed 1–11–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 11 

[Docket No. RM07–5–000] 

Update of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission’s Fees 

Schedule for Annual Charges for the 

Use of Government Lands 

December 21, 2006. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; update of Federal 

land use fees. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Commission’s regulations, the 

Commission by its designee, the 

Executive Director, is updating its 

schedule of fees for the use of 

government lands. The yearly update is 

based on the most recent schedule of 

fees for the use of linear rights-of-way 

prepared by the United States Forest 

Service. Since the next fiscal year will 

cover the period from October 1, 2006 

through September 30, 2007 the fees in 

this notice will become effective 

October 1, 2006. The fees will apply to 

fiscal year 2007 annual charges for the 

use of government lands. 

The Commission has concluded, with 

the concurrence of the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs of OMB that this rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined in section 251 

of the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 

U.S.C 804(2). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Fannie Kingsberry, Division of Financial 

Services, Office of the Executive 

Director, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6108. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Document 

Availability: In addition to publishing 

the full text of this document in the 

Federal Register, the Commission 

provides all interested persons an 

opportunity to view and/or print the 

contents of this document via the 

Internet through FERC’s Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in FERC’s 

Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., 

Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 

From FERC’s Home Page on the 

Internet, this information is available in 

the eLibrary (formerly FERRIS). The full 

text of this document is available on 

eLibrary in PDF and MSWord format for 

viewing, printing, and/or downloading. 

To access this document in eLibrary, 

type the docket number excluding the 

last three digits of this document in the 

docket number field. 

User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the FERC’s Web site during 

normal business hours by contacting 

FERC Online Support by telephone at 

(866) 208–3676 (toll free) or for TTY, 

(202) 502–8659, or by e-mail at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 11 

Electric power, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Thomas R. Herlihy, 

Executive Director, Office of the Executive 

Director. 

■ Accordingly, the Commission, 

effective October 1, 2006, amends part 

11 of Chapter I, Title 18 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 11—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 11 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a–825r; 42 U.S.C. 

7101–7352. 

■ 2. In part 11, Appendix A is revised 

to read as follows. 

APPENDIX A TO PART 11—FEE 

SCHEDULE FOR FY 2007 

State County (Fee/acre/yr) 

.

ALABAMA .................. ALL COUNTIES ...................................................................................................................................... $29.20 

ARKANSAS ................ ALL COUNTIES ...................................................................................................................................... 21.90 

ARIZONA ................... COCHISE, GILA, GRAHAM, LA PAZ, MOHAVE, NAVAJO, PIMA, YAVAPAI, YUMA, COCONINO, 

(NORTH OF COLORADO R.).

7.28 

COCONINO (SOUTH OF COLORADO R.), GREENLEE, MARICOPA, PINAL, SANTA CRUZ ........... 29.20 

CALIFORNIA .............. IMPERIAL, INYO, LASSEN, MODOC, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO ............................................ 14.60 

SISKIYOU ............................................................................................................................................... 21.90 

ALAMEDA, ALPINE, AMADOR, BUTTE, CALAVERAS, COLUSA, CONTRA COSTA, DEL NORTE, 

EL DORADO, FRESNO, GLENN, HUMBOLDT, KERN, KINGS, LAKE, MADERA, MARIPOSA, 

MENDICINO, MERCED, MONO, NAPA, NEVADA, PLACER, PLUMAS, SACRAMENTO, SAN 

BENITO, SAN JOAQUIN, SANTA CLARA, SHASTA, SIERRA, SOLANO, SONOMA, 

STANISLAUS, SUTTER, TEHAMA, TRINITY, TULARE KINGS, TUOLUMNE, YOLO, YUBA.

36.49 

LOS ANGELES, MARIN, MONTEREY, ORANGE, SAN DIEGO, SAN FRANCISCO, SAN LUIS 

OBISPO, SAN MATEO, SANTA BARBARA, SANTA CRUZ, VENTURA.

43.81 

COLORADO ............... ADAMS, ARAPAHOE, BENT, CHEYENNE, CROWLEY, ELBERT, EL PASO, HUERFANO, KIOWA, 

KIT CARSON, LINCOLN, LOGAN, MOFFAT, MONTEZUMA, MORGAN, PUEBLO, SEDGEWICK, 

WASHINGTON, WELD, YUMA.

7.28 

BACA, BROOMFIELD, DOLORES, GARFIELD, LAS ANIMAS, MESA, MONTROSE, OTERO, 

PROWERS, RIO BLANCO, ROUTT, SAN MIGUEL.

14.60 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES