Fire Pots and Gel Fuel; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comments and Information, 80832-80838 [2011-32908]

Agencies

• Consumer Product Safety Commission

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80832-80838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32908]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: https://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 https://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 https://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 alcohol-based gel fuel in containers intended to be used 
with firepots. Each recalled product was marketed for use with

[[Page 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 
alcohol-based 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 alcohol-based 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 alcohol-based (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[emsp14][deg]F (``F''), with the lowest measure being 
32[emsp14][deg]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

[[Page 80834]]

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 second-degree 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-year-
old 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 third-degree 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 life-support 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

[[Page 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 [deg]F and below 100 [deg]F. 16 CFR 1500.3(c)(6)(ii). The 
flashpoint for the samples that we examined was less than or equal to 
74 [deg]F. (Two samples that contained butane had flashpoints of 32 
[deg]F and 36 [deg]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.

[[Page 80836]]

    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 open-mouth 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27DE11.002


[[Page 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,'' ``eco-friendly,'' ``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

[[Page 80838]]

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