80832 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

267–8262; facsimile: (202) 267–5229; 

email: robert.burke@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FAA 

Order 8900.1, Flight Standards 

Information Management System, was 

issued on September 13, 2007. This 

order consolidated and replaced FAA 

Orders 8300.1, 8400.1, and 8700.1, the 

FAA’s guidance to inspectors. There 

have been numerous inquiries by part 

135 certificate holders regarding the 

acceptance of training/evaluations 

previously completed by a crewmember 

while in the employment of another 

certificate holder. Regulations do not 

permit the crediting of such training 

(with the specific exception of CRM and 

DRM training). 

Additionally, some training centers 

have distributed a training program 

template that provides credit for 

training/evaluations conducted by 

another operator. Such provisions are 

contrary to the intent as well as the 

technical provisions of part 135 and are 

not appropriate for inclusion in a 

certificate holder’s approved training 

program. 

Part 135 certificate holders may 

develop and submit for approval 

multiple curriculums for a particular 

crewmember position and aircraft make/ 

model/variant. For example, a part 135 

certificate holder may have a an initial 

new-hire curriculum designed to meet 

the requirements of new hire 

crewmembers that have minimal flight 

time, no previous part 135 experience, 

or do not have qualifications related to 

the certificate holder’s operational 

environment. The certificate holder may 

then also apply for a reduced new hire 

curriculum for pilots that have previous 

experience as a crewmember in part 135 

operations and/or the particular aircraft 

and duty position. The second 

curriculum in this example may have 

less training hours due to the 

crewmember’s extensive experience. 

Each of these curriculums would also 

have detailed prerequisites to define the 

level of experience required to enter 

into either of these new hire programs. 

There are no hour requirements which 

need to be defined on a reduced training 

program, however all the training 

elements of the certificate holder’s full 

initial training program must be 

accomplished as well as the 

qualification module. 

While the FAA generally does not 

request comment on internal Notices 

and orders, the agency has established 

a docket for public comments regarding 

this guidance for inspectors in 

recognition of the interest of current 14 

CFR part 135 certificate holders. The 

agency will consider all comments 

received by January 26, 2012. Comments 

received after that date may be 

considered if consideration will not 

delay agency action on the review. A 

copy of the proposed order is available 

for review in the assigned docket for the 

Order at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on December 13, 

2011. 

John S. Duncan, 

Acting Deputy Director, FAA Flight Standards 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–33091 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part Chapter II 

Fire Pots and Gel Fuel; Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for 

Comments and Information 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘the Commission,’’ 

‘‘CPSC,’’ or ‘‘we’’) has reason to believe 

that firepots and gel fuel used together 

may present an unreasonable risk of 

injury. As of September 30, 2011, the 

Commission is aware of 76 incidents 

that resulted in 2 deaths and 86 injuries 

involving firepots used with gel fuel. All 

of these incidents occurred between 

April 3, 2010 and September 1, 2011. 

Many of the injuries were severe; over 

half of the victims reportedly required 

hospitalization. This advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) initiates 

a rulemaking proceeding under the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’). 

We invite comments concerning the risk 

of injury associated with firepots, gel 

fuel and gel fuel containers, the 

regulatory alternatives discussed in this 

notice, and other possible ways to 

address this risk. We also invite 

interested persons to submit an existing 

standard or a statement of intent to 

modify or develop a voluntary standard 

to address the risk of injury described in 

this notice. 

DATES: Written comments in response to 

this notice must be received by February 

27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2011– 

0095, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (email), except through 

www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of 

the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Such information should 

be submitted in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rohit Khanna, Fire Program Area Team 

Leader, Office of Hazard Identification 

and Reduction, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, National Product 

Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 

Research Place Rockville, MD 20850; 

telephone (301) 987–2508, or email 

rkhanna@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

CPSC staff identified firepots used 

with gel fuel as an emerging hazard in 

June 2011, after a severe injury was 

reported to the CPSC. We pursued 

investigations and conducted analyses 

of these incidents. As of September 30, 

2011, we are aware of 76 incidents 

involving firepots used with gel fuel 

that resulted in 2 deaths and 86 injuries. 

In an effort to address this emerging 

hazard, the CPSC’s Office of Compliance 

and Field Operations initiated several 

recalls of pourable alcohol gel fuel. To 

date, 12 voluntary recalls have been 

announced recalling more than 2 

million bottles of gel fuel. The products 

involved in the recalls were alcoholbased gel fuel in containers intended to 

be used with firepots. Each recalled 

product was marketed for use with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80833 

firepots. We seek to establish a more 

permanent means to reduce or eliminate 

the hazard posed by firepots using gel 

fuel. 

B. The Products 

The incidents discussed in this ANPR 

all involve firepots used with alcoholbased gel fuel. When firepots and gel 

fuel are used together, they can present 

serious burn and fire hazards. Firepots 

and gel fuel are usually sold as separate 

products, but they are often marketed 

for use together, and some companies 

manufacture both products. 

1. Firepots 

This ANPR covers firepots that are 

designed and intended to be used with 

gel fuel. Firepots are portable, 

decorative lighting accents marketed for 

indoor and outdoor use. Their purpose 

is decorative. They provide some 

illumination and are not intended to 

provide heat. Many are made of ceramic 

material and look like vases or 

decorative pots, but some have different 

features and materials, such as a partial 

enclosure made of glass. Firepots are 

also sometimes called personal 

fireplaces, personal fire pits, firelights, 

or fire bowls. These products have the 

following characteristics in common. 

They: (1) Are portable; (2) are open on 

at least one side; (3) have an open cup, 

usually made of stainless steel, to hold 

the gel fuel; and (4) are used with 

alcohol-based gel fuel. This ANPR does 

not cover stationary fireplaces or 

lighting products that have a wick or 

use a type of fuel other than alcoholbased gel fuel. 

Firepots are relatively new products. 

They were not prominently marketed 

until late 2009. Firepots range in price 

from under $20 to more than $100. 

Based on a review of online retailers’ 

product offerings, most models are 

priced at $20 to $40. Based on 

information relating unit sales of gel 

fuel by a leading manufacturer to its 

sales of firepots, we estimate that nearly 

2.5 million firepots could have been 

sold to consumers since the product was 

introduced. Most units likely were 

purchased in 2010, and during the first 

six months of 2011. We have identified 

at least 10 companies that have 

manufactured firepots or have been 

wholesalers/private labelers of firepots. 

These firepots have been sold online or 

through retail outlets that market home 

and garden products. Most of the 

leading marketers of firepots also have 

marketed their own brands of gel fuel. 

The leading firms in the firepot market 

have fewer than 20 employees, and they 

are categorized primarily as 

wholesalers. Under size standards 

issued by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’), wholesalers 

with fewer than 100 employees could be 

considered small businesses. Barriers to 

market entry are minimal, and 

additional firms could market firepots 

that they manufacture or import. 

2. Gel Fuel 

This ANPR also covers gel fuel that is 

designed and intended to be used as 

fuel for firepots. Gel fuel is composed 

primarily of alcohol, and it produces a 

clean-burning flame with no visible 

smoke or ash. CPSC staff analyzed 18 

samples of firepot gel fuels to determine 

chemical composition, flash point, and 

viscosity. The analyses showed that 

firepot gel fuel is primarily alcoholbased (containing approximately 80 

percent alcohol). The types of alcohol 

most commonly included were ethanol, 

isopropanol (‘‘IPA’’), and ethanol and 

IPA mixtures. The remaining 

components in the gel fuel samples 

were water, gelling agents, and 

additives, including citronella and 

eucalyptus. The analysis determined 

that the flashpoint for these samples 

was less than or equal to 74 °F (‘‘F’’), 

with the lowest measure being 32 °F. 

Gel fuel has a higher viscosity than 

liquid fuels. The analysis found that gel 

fuel viscosities ranged from 5,000 to 

25,000 CentiPoise (‘‘cP’’). These 

viscosities are similar to those of 

molasses (5,000 cP) or chocolate syrup 

(10,000 to 25,000 cP). 

Gel fuel intended for use with firepots 

has been sold in sizes ranging from one 

pint to one gallon, with one-quart 

containers apparently the most common 

size. Individual containers of gel fuel 

generally have sold at retail for $5 to 

$20 per unit. Although firepots have 

had a significant presence in the 

consumer market for the last two years 

only, at least one firm has marketed gel 

fuel similar to what is used in firepots 

for approximately the last 10 years to be 

used as fuel for gel fuel fireplaces. Gel 

fuel for fireplaces has been available in 

single-use cans since at least the middle 

1980s. These products continue to be 

marketed by some firms, including firms 

that had been active in the market for 

firepots. Gel fuel also is available in 

single-use cans that can be placed in the 

firepot. Single-use cans of gel fuel 

intended for use with firepots are 

covered by this ANPR. Most 

manufacturers and private labelers 

identified by CPSC staff who offer gel 

fuel in bottle containers did not offer it 

for sale until 2009 or later. 

Information on unit sales of gel fuels 

was provided by 11 of the firms that 

agreed to voluntary recalls of their 

products during 2011. These firms had 

combined shipments of about 2.5 

million units since 2008. One firm 

accounted for nearly two-thirds of the 

total reported unit sales. A twelfth firm 

also agreed to a recall of its products, 

but information on its unit sales is not 

available. Available information 

indicates that the firms would be 

considered small businesses under SBA 

guidelines. 

C. The Risk of Injury 

1. Incident Data Overview 

As of September 30, 2011, we are 

aware of 76 incidents involving firepots 

that were using gel fuel. These incidents 

resulted in 2 deaths and 86 injuries, a 

majority of which resulted in severe 

burns that reportedly required 

hospitalization. The incidents occurred 

between April 3, 2010 and September 1, 

2011. A majority of the reported 

incidents (as well as a majority of the 

injuries and both fatalities) occurred 

when a consumer was pouring more 

fuel into a firepot (referred to as 

‘‘refueling’’), resulting in an explosion. 

This and other hazard scenarios are 

discussed in section C.2 of this 

preamble. Many injuries were severe. Of 

the 86 injury victims, 48 of them (56%) 

were hospitalized. Many victims who 

were not hospitalized received 

treatment in emergency rooms for their 

burn injuries. Most (53) of the incidents 

involved 1 victim, but 9 had no victims, 

and 14 had multiple victims. 

The two fatalities were a 51-year-old 

man and an 84-year-old woman. Of the 

86 nonfatal injury victims, 19 were 

victims of unknown age. Among the 67 

injury victims whose age is known, 1 

was under 5 years of age, 7 were 

between ages 5 and 14, 12 were between 

ages 15 and 29, 39 were between ages 

30 and 49, 7 were between 50 and 64, 

and 1 was older than 64. 

2. Hazard Scenarios 

From the reported incidents, we 

identified eight hazard scenarios 

associated with firepots using gel fuel. 

The most common hazard scenario 

involves refilling the firepot with gel 

fuel. The eight identified hazard 

scenarios are discussed below. 

Refueling firepot. The majority of 

incidents, the majority of high severity 

injuries, and both deaths reported to 

date, occurred when consumers were 

attempting to refill a firepot that had 

just recently been in use. In 49 incidents 

(64 percent of all reported incidents), 

consumers were reportedly in the 

process of, or had just finished, refilling 

a firepot when the flame in the firepot 

ignited the vapors in the fuel container 

and an explosion resulted. These 49 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

80834 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

incidents caused 2 fatalities and 61 

injuries, 35 of which were high severity 

burns needing hospitalization. In 36 of 

the 49 refueling incidents, the most 

seriously injured person was not the 

person who was refilling the firepot. 

Details on the extent of the burns 

frequently are missing for the 

hospitalized cases, but at least nine 

victims of this scenario reportedly 

sustained between 20 to 70 percent total 

body surface area (‘‘TBSA’’) burns. In 26 

of these 49 incidents, consumers 

reported that they believed the firepot 

had run out of fuel because they did not 

see any flames in the firepot. In 6 of 

these 49 incidents, consumers reported 

that a low flame was present in a nearly 

empty firepot. 

For example, in one incident, a 51- 

year-old man sustained 60 percent 

TBSA burns and died after being 

hospitalized for 33 days. His wife also 

was hospitalized with serious burns. 

According to the incident report, ‘‘His 

wife was sitting at the table as he was 

pouring the fuel. Suddenly there was an 

explosion and the husband, wife, lanai, 

plants, clothing. etc., were all on fire.’’ 

Flaming gel fuel was dripping from the 

top of the lanai onto the victims and 

patio. 

According to another refueling 

incident report, a firepot was at the 

center of a patio table and had been 

burning for nearly two hours. The four 

people present believed that the flame 

had gone out. One began to pour more 

gel fuel into the burn cup. According to 

the incident report, ‘‘Once the bottle 

was tilted in a direction to pour the gel 

fuel, a fireball erupted. The fireball 

appeared to come from outside the 

bottle and above the gel burner. The 

‘explosion’ knocked the victim 

backwards out of her chair where she 

laid with parts of her upper body on 

fire.’’ The victim was hospitalized 

(including three nights in the intensive 

care unit) and released with seconddegree burns on 10 percent of her 

body—on her face, arms, chest, 

stomach, and back. The person pouring 

the gel fuel suffered minor burn injuries. 

Explosion while lighting firepot. In 

five incidents (about 7 percent) an 

explosion occurred in the firepot, which 

already had fuel in it, when the 

consumer attempted to light the firepot 

with an open-flame ignition source 

(such as a match or lighter). These 

incidents resulted in nine injuries, four 

of which were high severity burn 

injuries needing hospitalization. 

According to the incident reports, in 

three cases the firepot had already been 

in use that day and was being relit 

having just been refilled. In two cases, 

it was not clear whether the firepot had 

previously been in use that day. 

Fuel container explosion. In two 

incidents (about 3 percent), the gel fuel 

container was a short distance away 

from a lit firepot when the container 

exploded. In both incidents, the victims 

were hospitalized, one with high 

severity burn injuries. In one incident, 

the consumer reportedly poured the fuel 

from a gallon jug into a ceramic firepot, 

lit it with a long BBQ lighter, and placed 

the jug of fuel a foot away when the jug 

of fuel ignited and exploded. A 50-yearold female was injured and 

hospitalized. In the other incident, the 

25-year-old victim reported: ‘‘We 

poured (brand X) fuel gel into our fire 

pot and lit it. We sat the bottle of gel 

about a foot away from the pot. (We 

don’t remember if the top was on or off 

the bottle.) All of the sudden, the bottle 

exploded. The gel that passed over the 

open flame of the pot ignited and 

landed on me. (It sounded like a 

gunshot.) The flash sunburned my face, 

synged (sic) my eyelashes, and burned 

my left ear. It caught my left arm, back, 

hair and shirt on fire.’’ Engineering 

analysis of these incidents suggests that 

it was likely that a small flame was 

present on the bottle after refueling of 

the firepot, which could have ignited 

the flammable vapors in the fuel 

container. 

Burn cup ejection. In six incidents 

(about 8 percent), reports stated that the 

burn cup ejected spontaneously from 

the firepot during use. These incidents 

resulted in three injuries, one of which 

required hospitalization. Although we 

could not replicate this scenario in 

laboratory testing, we believe that the 

burn cup ejections may be caused by 

excessive pressure that builds up due to 

inadequate venting in the interior of the 

firepot. 

Explosion during use. In four 

incidents (about 5 percent), reports 

stated that fuel in the burn cup 

exploded spontaneously while the 

firepot was in use. Single victims were 

injured in three of these cases, with one 

victim, a 5-year-old boy, reportedly 

hospitalized for four days for burn 

injuries to his face, eyes, and chest. In 

another incident, a dog was set on fire; 

it ran into the house, causing a fire and 

substantial property damage. We could 

not replicate this scenario in laboratory 

testing, but we believe that fuel 

explosions may be due to exposure to 

contaminants. 

Tip over of firepot. In three incidents 

(about 4 percent), lit firepots tipped 

over, causing burning gel fuel to spill. 

These incidents resulted in six injuries, 

four of which were high severity burn 

injuries requiring hospitalization. Two 

of the victims were young children. In 

these scenarios, the firepot was placed 

on a surface, such as a table or stool, 

when a person bumped into the 

supporting surface or accidentally 

knocked over the firepot, causing the 

burning gel fuel to fall onto the victims. 

Firepot breakage. In three incidents 

(about 4 percent), the firepot reportedly 

broke while it was in use. In one 

incident it was reported that when the 

firepot broke, ceramic shards went 

flying. These incidents did not result in 

injury. We did not observe this scenario 

in our laboratory testing. However, it is 

possible that the temperature and 

internal pressure generated during use 

of the firepot could cause the ceramic 

firepot to break. 

Explosion while extinguishing flame. 

In one incident, a consumer reported 

that when she attempted to extinguish 

a firepot using the snuffer device that 

was supplied with the firepot, a flame 

erupted and flaming gel spurted up to 

five feet away. The burning gel ignited 

furniture and carpeting, causing 

property damage but no injuries. This 

scenario also was not observed in 

laboratory testing. 

Not enough information. In three 

incidents, not enough information was 

available to classify the hazard pattern. 

These incidents resulted in three 

injuries, one requiring hospitalization. 

3. Details Concerning Injuries 

Injuries resulting from these incidents 

can be extensive and life-threatening, 

requiring lengthy, costly, and painful 

treatment. Burn injuries are classified by 

the depth of tissue that is burned, which 

is expressed as the degree of burn 

(first-, second-, or third- degree). Burn 

severity is a function of the victim’s age, 

the depth of burn, the extent of burn 

(generally expressed as the percentage 

of total body surface area that has 

second- or third-degree burns), and by 

the specific location of the burned 

area(s). Certain areas of the body are 

considered to be critical areas (face, 

ears, hands, feet, joints, genitals, and 

perineum). As a general rule, any 

injuries involving second- or thirddegree burns in critical areas, and/or 

>20 percent TBSA, are considered high 

severity and require hospitalization. 

The reported injuries range from 

minor to high severity, and two victims 

are known to have died from their 

severe burns. Surviving victims of 

firepot incidents may require lifesupport and medical treatment in 

intensive care units. Detailed 

information is not available for all 

hospitalization cases involving high 

severity injuries, but we are aware of at 

least 15 hospitalized victims who were 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80835 

admitted for extensive periods (from 10 

to 76 days based on the most recent 

update of each specific case). Eleven 

cases specifically noted that between 20 

to 70 percent of the total body surface 

area was burned. Victims may require 

multiple surgeries, including skin grafts, 

and they may be at risk from 

complications, such as shock, fluid loss, 

and infection. In addition, victims may 

be left with extensive deep scarring, 

permanent disfigurement and functional 

impairment, and severe psychological 

trauma, especially if the face is 

involved. 

D. Analysis of Hazards Posed by 

Firepots and Gel Fuel 

Firepots used together with gel fuel 

create a serious hazard that consumers 

may not perceive accurately. Various 

characteristics of both firepots and gel 

fuels may be responsible for this. We 

have analyzed the incidents and 

samples of the products to understand 

these hazards better. 

1. Firepots 

a. Physical Characteristics 

Firepots have certain physical 

characteristics that our analysis 

indicates could contribute to the hazard 

reported in these incidents. All firepots 

subject to this ANPR have an open 

receptacle, referred to as a ‘‘burn cup,’’ 

to hold gel fuel. The burn cup is usually 

made of stainless steel or ceramic 

material. It has no covering. If the 

firepot falls or is knocked over, the 

burning gel fuel can spread onto people 

or combustible items. Unlike candles, 

oil lamps, or other outdoor lighting 

accessories that require a wick to 

produce a flame, firepots do not need a 

wick to sustain a flame; so when a 

firepot is knocked over, the fuel and fire 

will spread readily. 

Firepots are available in a variety of 

shapes and sizes. The geometry of some 

may make them more likely to tip over 

if the firepot, or the surface on which it 

sits, is bumped accidentally. We 

conducted tests of several tip-over 

scenarios. In these tests, when firepots 

placed on a flat surface were tipped, 

fuel was ejected up to 5 feet. When 

firepots were positioned on heights 

simulating placement on a table or bar, 

as reported in the incident data, a 

firepot falling from a 31-inch height 

splattered fuel approximately 5 feet, and 

falls from a 42-inch height splattered 

fuel about 9 feet. Consumers are not 

likely to anticipate the significant 

distance that gel fuel can spatter. We are 

aware of three firepot tip-over incidents 

injuring six victims in which four 

victims were hospitalized. 

The burn cup sits within the firepot 

and is not secured to the base of the 

firepot by any means. We are aware of 

six incidents in which the burn cup 

ejected from the firepot. Staff did not 

observe this scenario in laboratory 

testing. One possible explanation for 

this scenario is that while the firepot is 

in use with the gel fuel, it reaches very 

high temperatures, which produces 

increased pressure within the firepot. 

This build up of pressure, without 

adequate venting, may cause the burn 

cup to eject. 

b. Warnings and Use 

We examined 11 samples of firepots 

to assess the warnings provided with 

the products and to consider hazards 

related to how consumers are likely to 

use firepots. Most of the firepots that we 

examined have a warning directing the 

consumer not to leave a burning firepot 

unattended and to keep it away from 

children and pets. Some firepots 

instruct the user to place the firepot on 

a flat and level surface only. Most of the 

firepots that we examined had a 

warning directing the user not to add 

fuel to an open flame and to check that 

the flame is out before refueling. 

These warnings were usually on the 

package or in the instructions enclosed 

in the package. One sample had the 

warning on the product, but it was not 

affixed permanently and would be 

removed by the consumer before using 

the firepot because the warning blocks 

the burn cup. None of the samples had 

permanent warnings about refilling that 

could be noticed each time the product 

is used. We believe that the warnings 

we examined are not likely to be 

effective. They were not conspicuous 

due to their placement, lack of visual 

differentiation, and lack of pictorial 

symbols. Moreover, only one warning 

label clearly stated that the consequence 

of not following the warning was severe 

burns. 

Consumers may not observe and 

follow warning labels on or 

accompanying firepots, even if the 

warnings are present. In general, the 

safer a product is perceived to be, the 

less likely people are to read the 

instructions and warnings that 

accompany it. Also, the more familiar 

people are with a product, the less 

likely they are to read instructions and 

warnings. Firepots appear to be simple 

and familiar decorative accessories that 

are easy to use. They may resemble 

familiar and less hazardous products, 

such as candle holders. In addition, it 

may be difficult for consumers to 

comply with a warning not to refill the 

firepot while it is still hot or burning. As 

discussed in section D.2.a. of this 

preamble, gel fuel produces a nearly 

invisible flame that consumers may not 

detect. In 26 of the 49 incidents that 

reportedly occurred while a consumer 

was refilling a firepot, consumers 

reported that the flame was out, that 

there were no visible flames, or that no 

gel fuel was left in the firepot. In 10 of 

the refilling incidents, consumers 

acknowledged that the flame was low, 

the pot was hot, or that there was a 

small amount of gel fuel left in the pot 

before they refilled it. In these 

situations, consumers may be refilling 

the firepots because they are not 

sufficiently knowledgeable about the 

behavior of alcohol-based fuels, and 

they identify firepots with familiar and 

less hazardous products. 

2. Gel Fuel 

a. Physical and Chemical Characteristics 

We examined the physical and 

chemical properties of 18 samples of gel 

fuel to evaluate how these 

characteristics may contribute to the 

firepot incidents that have been 

reported. The gel fuel samples that we 

analyzed were composed primarily of 

alcohol (approximately 80 percent 

alcohol with the balance being water, 

gelling agent, and additives like 

citronella). Most contained ethanol and/ 

or IPA. Gel fuel is flammable. According 

to regulations under the Federal 

Hazardous Substances Act (‘‘FHSA’’), a 

substance is considered flammable if it 

has a flashpoint above 20 °F and below 

100 °F. 16 CFR 1500.3(c)(6)(ii). The 

flashpoint for the samples that we 

examined was less than or equal to 74 

°F. (Two samples that contained butane 

had flashpoints of 32 °F and 36 °F.) 

Under a widely recognized 

classification system, gel fuel would 

also be considered a Class 1 Flammable 

Liquid. See National Fire Protection 

Association (‘‘NFPA’’) 30, Flammable 

and Combustible Liquids Code, Chapter 

4. 

Gel fuel produces a clean-burning 

flame and generates very little smoke or 

soot. This makes the flame less visible 

than flames produced by other types of 

fuel, particularly if it is burning during 

daylight. Moreover, as the gel fuel in the 

burn cup burns, the flames become 

more obscured in the bottom of the cup. 

A small flame or smoldering 

combustion of the spent gel fuel may 

remain in the base of the burn cup when 

the fuel is almost exhausted. This can 

mislead consumers into thinking that 

the firepot’s flame is out and needs 

more fuel. If the consumer adds fuel to 

the firepot when there is a small flame 

or smoldering combustion in the burn 

cup, the gel fuel can easily ignite. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

80836 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Gel fuel has a higher viscosity than 

liquid fuels, such as gasoline or 

kerosene. Its consistency is similar to 

molasses or honey. This higher viscosity 

means that a pool of spilled gel fuel will 

not spread as widely as a less viscous 

liquid. However, the higher viscosity 

increases the risk of injury with these 

burning fuels. Most incidents involved 

burning gel fuel that contacted victims 

when the fuel exploded, was ejected, or 

spilled. Due to its viscosity, burning gel 

fuel, when it contacts skin or clothing, 

sticks to that surface more than liquid 

fuel. Burning gel fuel is difficult to 

extinguish with the usual methods used 

to put out a fire. The reaction that most 

individuals would have when they are 

on fire would be to ‘‘stop, drop, and 

roll.’’ However, this maneuver is 

ineffective because patting the flaming 

gel fuel actually spreads the burning 

surface. Using water to extinguish a gel 

fuel fire also is not likely to be effective 

because, to be successful, a significant 

amount of water would be needed, and 

initially pouring water on the fire is 

likely to spread the burning gel fuel over 

a larger surface area. 

b. Characteristics of Gel Fuel Containers 

Most of the reported incidents 

occurred when a consumer was in the 

process of pouring more gel fuel into a 

firepot that was, or recently had been, 

in use. We examined the gel fuel 

containers and assessed how the 

combination of the properties of the gel 

fuel and characteristics of the gel fuel 

containers may contribute to the risk of 

injury in these incidents. 

In the majority of incidents, 

consumers reported ‘‘explosions’’ and/ 

or ejecting of burning alcohol fuel 

during refilling, or bottles ‘‘exploding’’ 

after refilling. These phenomena can be 

explained by understanding the 

chemistry within the vapor space (also 

called the ‘‘headspace’’) of the bottle. 

(See Figure 1.) The headspace is the area 

inside the container that is above the 

level of the fuel in the container. With 

alcohol-based gel fuel at room 

temperature, the concentration of the 

alcohol vapors in the headspace is 

above the lower flammable limit 

(‘‘LFL’’) and below the upper flammable 

limit (‘‘UFL’’). This means that, at room 

temperatures, there is an explosive 

concentration within the alcohol fuel 

bottle headspace. When exposed to an 

open flame, this atmosphere will cause 

an explosion and eject burning fuel. For 

this to happen, the bottle must have a 

sufficient amount of gaseous headspace 

but still have a substantial amount of 

fuel remaining. The amount of gaseous 

headspace governs the energy of the 

explosion, which then ejects the 

remaining gel fuel. If the bottle is in an 

orientation where fuel is near the bottle 

throat and a flame is able to penetrate 

into the headspace igniting the 

explosive atmosphere, an explosion can 

occur, which rapidly increases the 

pressure inside the bottle and ejects the 

remaining liquid or gel fuel, igniting it 

as it exits. Testing at CPSC has 

confirmed this scenario. 

Most gel fuel containers are openmouth containers that resemble water 

bottles or containers used for storing 

cleaning liquids. They do not have 

safety features, such as venting, 

grounding, or flame arrestors to prevent 

ignition of flammable vapors. 

Furthermore, while a majority of the 

incidents involved refueling, there are 

incidents, such as tipovers, can 

ejections, and explosions, which would 

not be addressed by requiring safety 

features on the gel fuel containers. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP27DE11.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80837 

c. Warnings and Use of Gel Fuel 

As noted, gel fuel is flammable. Under 

the FHSA, it is required to have labeling 

that warns of the flammability hazard. 

15 U.S.C. 1261(p). Almost all of the gel 

fuel samples we examined complied 

with the warning label requirements of 

the FHSA. However, we found that 

these warnings do not effectively 

address the hazards posed by gel fuel. 

As with the firepot warnings, the gel 

fuel warnings are not conspicuous. The 

majority of gel fuel bottles that we 

examined warn against refilling a 

firepot. However, this warning is only 

one element in a long list of directions 

for use or that is included in the list of 

generic warnings, such as: ‘‘keep away 

from children’’ or ‘‘never leave a 

burning fire pot unattended.’’ The 

refilling warnings are not differentiated 

from other statements on the containers, 

and they do not have any pictorial 

symbols. None of the warnings state the 

consequence of refilling a firepot while 

it is hot or burning. 

As with firepots, consumers are not 

likely to perceive the hazard posed by 

gel fuel. Gel fuel containers often are 

packaged in containers that look 

familiar, resembling water bottles. They 

do not have any special closures, such 

as child-resistant packaging, that might 

alert a consumer to the potential hazard. 

The containers may have phrases such 

as ‘‘environmentally friendly,’’ ‘‘ecofriendly,’’ ‘‘live safe, burn safe,’’ and 

‘‘non-toxic’’ that may reduce the 

likelihood that a consumer would 

consider the substance to be hazardous. 

This may lead consumers to ignore 

warnings on the product. 

E. Relevant Statutory Provisions 

We are conducting this proceeding 

under the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(‘‘CPSA’’). 15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq. 

Firepots and gel fuel are consumer 

products. Id. 2052(a)(5). Under section 7 

of the CPSA, the Commission can issue 

a consumer product safety standard if 

the requirements of such a standard are 

‘‘reasonably necessary to prevent or 

reduce an unreasonable risk of injury 

associated with [a consumer product].’’ 

Id. 2056(a). Such a standard must be 

expressed in terms of performance 

requirements or requirements for 

warnings or instructions. Id. Under 

section 8 of the CPSA, the Commission 

can issue a rule declaring a product to 

be a banned hazardous product when 

the Commission finds that a consumer 

product is being, or will be, distributed 

in commerce and there is no feasible 

consumer product safety standard that 

would adequately protect the public 

from the unreasonable risk associated 

with the product. Id. 2057. 

Section 9 of the CPSA sets out the 

procedure that the Commission must 

follow in order to issue a standard or a 

banning rule. The rulemaking may begin 

with an ANPR that identifies the 

product and the nature of the risk of 

injury associated with the product, 

summarizes the regulatory alternatives 

being considered by the Commission, 

and provides information about any 

relevant existing standards and a 

summary of the reasons the Commission 

believes they would not eliminate or 

adequately reduce the risk of injury. The 

ANPR also must invite comments 

concerning the risk of injury and 

regulatory alternatives and invite 

submission of an existing standard or a 

statement of intent to modify or develop 

a voluntary standard to address the risk 

of injury. Id. 2058(a). The next step in 

the rulemaking would be for us to 

review comments submitted in response 

to the ANPR and decide whether to 

issue a proposed rule along with a 

preliminary regulatory analysis. The 

preliminary regulatory analysis would 

describe potential benefits and costs of 

the proposal, discuss reasonable 

alternatives, and summarize the 

potential benefits and costs of the 

alternatives. Id. 2058(c). We would then 

review comments on the proposed rule 

and decide whether to issue a final rule 

along with a final regulatory analysis. 

Id. 2058(d)–(g). 

F. Relevant Existing Standards 

We are not aware of any existing 

mandatory or voluntary standards that 

would address the risk of injury 

associated with firepots and gel fuel. 

Other federal agencies have regulations 

concerning Class I flammable liquids. 

For example, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (‘‘DOT’’) sets out certain 

requirements for storage and 

transportation of these substances. See, 

e.g., 49 CFR parts 172 through 177. The 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (‘‘OSHA’’) regulates 

these substances in the workplace. 29 

CFR 1910.106. These regulations do not 

establish any requirements related to the 

risk of injury identified in the reported 

incidents. NFPA 30, Flammable and 

Combustible Liquids Code, is a 

voluntary standard concerning 

classification, storage, and handling of 

flammable and combustible liquids. It 

does not directly address the firepot gel 

fuel incidents. However, some of the 

provisions concerning containers for 

storing flammable liquids could provide 

guidance for requirements for gel fuel 

containers. 

G. Regulatory Alternatives 

We are considering the following 

alternatives to address the risk of injury 

associated with firepots and gel fuel: 

1. Mandatory standard. We could 

issue a rule establishing performance 

requirements for firepots and/or gel fuel 

to prevent or reduce an unreasonable 

risk of injury associated with these 

products. For example, possible 

performance requirements for firepots 

might include stability requirements to 

address the tip-over hazard. Possible 

requirements for gel fuel might include 

performance requirements for flame 

visibility to increase consumers’ 

awareness of the presence of a flame. To 

address the refueling hazard, one option 

may be requirements for gel fuel 

containers to prevent ignition of the 

flammable headspace or to require 

venting of the container. 

2. Mandatory labeling rule. We could 

issue a rule setting requirements for 

labeling and/or instructions for firepots 

and/or gel fuel if we found that such 

warnings and instructions could 

sufficiently reduce the risk of injury 

identified in the reported incidents. 

3. Voluntary standard. If we 

determined that a voluntary standard 

was adequate to address the risk of 

injury associated with firepots and gel 

fuel, we could defer to the voluntary 

standard in lieu of issuing a mandatory 

rule. 

4. Banning rule. We could issue a rule 

declaring firepots and/or gel fuel to be 

banned hazardous products if we found 

that no feasible consumer product safety 

standard would adequately protect the 

public from the unreasonable risk of 

injury associated with these products. 

5. No regulatory action. We could take 

no regulatory action, but continue to 

rely on corrective actions under section 

15 of the CPSA to address the risk of 

injury associated with firepots and gel 

fuel. 

H. Solicitation of Information and 

Comments 

This ANPR is the first step of a 

proceeding that could result in a 

mandatory rule for firepots and gel fuel. 

We invite interested persons to submit 

comments on any aspect of the 

alternatives discussed above. 

In accordance with section 9(a) of the 

CPSA, we also invite comments on: 

1. The risk of injury identified by the 

Commission, the regulatory alternatives 

being considered, and other possible 

alternatives for addressing the risk. 

2. Any existing standard or portion of 

a standard that could be issued as a 

proposed regulation. 

3. A statement of intention to modify 

or develop a voluntary standard to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

80838 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1The revised regulations explain that, for the 

purposes of the Commission’s filing requirements, 

information subject to an outstanding claim of 

exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) will be referred to as 

privileged. See proposed section 388.112(a)(1). 

Thus, material that is filed pursuant to any claim 

that it is privileged, confidential, commercially 

sensitive or Critical Energy Infrastructure 

Information (CEII), or otherwise constitutes material 

for which an exemption may be asserted under the 

Freedom of Information Act will be referred to as 

privileged. 5 U.S.C. 552; 18 CFR 388.107. One 

distinction outside of the proposed section 388.112 

context between materials claimed to be privileged 

and those claimed to be CEII is that materials 

designated privileged may be accessed in 

accordance with 18 CFR 388.108, and those 

designated CEII in accordance with 18 CFR 388.113. 

2Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995). 

3Title XVII, Public Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 

(1998). 

4Public Law 107–347, 116 Stat. 2899 (2002). 

address the risk of injury discussed in 

this notice, along with a description of 

a plan (including a schedule) to do so. 

In addition, we invite comments and 

information concerning the following: 

1. What products should we include 

in or exclude from the rulemaking? For 

example, gel fuels tend to use ethanol, 

isopropanol, and ethanol and 

isopropanol mixtures. Specifying the 

type of alcohol used in gel fuel would 

provide clarity as to the scope of any 

rule on gel fuel. However, if a gel fuel 

manufacturer could substitute a 

different alcohol or chemical for ethanol 

or isopropanol, a rule that was specific 

with respect to the type of alcohol used 

might then be inapplicable. 

2. What possible warnings or 

instructions for firepots and/or gel fuel 

could address the risk of injury? 

3. What possible performance 

requirements for firepots, gel fuel, and/ 

or gel fuel containers could address the 

risk of injury? Examples of possible 

performance requirements are a stability 

test for firepots making them less likely 

to tip over or a flame visibility test for 

gel fuel so that the flame would be more 

apparent. 

4. What are the potential costs to 

manufacturers of labeling or 

performance requirements? 

5. What are the potential benefits of 

a rule that would require warnings or 

instructions? 

6. What are the potential benefits of 

a rule that would establish performance 

requirements for firepots, gel fuel, and/ 

or gel fuel containers? 

7. What is the potential economic 

impact of banning firepots and/or gel 

fuel? What alternative products would 

remain available? 

8. What is the potential impact of a 

rule on small entities? 

9. What other uses exist for pourable 

gel fuels other than the firepots covered 

by the ANPR and the fireplaces that are 

expressly not covered by this ANPR? 

What is the potential impact on gel fuel 

sold for stationary fireplaces of any 

rule? 

10. Should pourable gel fuels ever be 

allowed to be used in open containers 

or open flame applications that might 

allow for spillage or splattering of gel 

fuels? 

11. Do single-use cans of gel fuel 

present the same hazard as pourable gel 

fuels? Should single-use cans be treated 

differently under a rule? 

Dated: December 20, 2011. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–32908 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Parts 4, 5, 16, 33, 35, 157, 348, 

375, 380, 385 and 388 

[Docket No. RM12–2–000] 

Filing of Privileged Materials and 

Answers to Motions 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes 

changes in its rules and regulations 

relating to the filing of privileged 

material, in keeping with the 

Commission’s efforts to comply with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, the 

Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act, and the E-Government Act of 2002. 

First, the Commission will establish for 

filing purposes two categories of 

privileged material: Privileged material 

and Critical Energy Infrastructure 

Information. This revision will expand 

the ability to file electronically by 

permitting electronic filing of materials 

subject to Administrative Law Judge 

protective orders. Second, the 

Commission proposes to revise its 

regulations to provide a single set of 

uniform procedures for filing privileged 

materials. This effort is being 

undertaken as part of the Commission’s 

effort to reassess and streamline its 

regulations to ensure that they are 

efficient, effective and up to date. 

Also, the Commission proposes to 

revise Rule 213(d) of its Rules of 

Practice and Procedure, which 

establishes the timeline for filing 

answers to motions, to clarify that the 

standard fifteen day reply time will not 

apply to motions requesting an 

extension of time or a shortened time 

period for action. Instead, the 

Commission proposes to set the time for 

responding to such motions at five days, 

unless another time period is 

established by notice based on the 

circumstances. 

DATES: Comments are due February 27, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by 

docket number, may be filed in the 

following ways: 

• Electronic Filing through http:// 

www.ferc.gov. Documents created 

electronically using word processing 

software should be filed in native 

applications or print-to-PDF format and 

not in a scanned format. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable 

to file electronically may mail or handdeliver comments to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. 

• Instructions: For detailed 

instructions on submitting comments 

and additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the Comment 

Procedures Section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Cook (Technology/ 

Procedural Information), Office of the 

Executive Director, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

Telephone: (202) 502–8102. 

Richard M. Wartchow (Legal 

Information), Office of the General 

Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: 

(202) 502–8744. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, 

Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, John R. 

Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Issued December 16, 2011.) 

1. The Commission proposes changes 

in its rules and regulations relating to 

the filing of privileged material,1 in 

keeping with the Commission’s efforts 

to comply with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act,2 the Government 

Paperwork Elimination Act 3 and E– 

Government Act of 2002.4 First, the 

Commission proposes to establish only 

two categories for filing privileged 

material: Privileged and Critical Energy 

Infrastructure Information (CEII). This 

change will expand the ability to file 

electronically by permitting electronic 

filing of material subject to protective 

orders in proceedings set for hearing 

before Administrative Law Judges (ALJ). 

2. Second, the Commission proposes 

to revise section 388.112 of its 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS