Multi-Purpose Lighters; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comments and Information

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1210

Multi-Purpose Lighters; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;

Request for Comments and Information

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission has reason to believe that unreasonable risks

of injury and death may be associated with multi-purpose lighters that

can be operated by children under age 5. Multi-purpose lighters are

butane-fueled lighters with an extended nozzle from which the flame is

emitted. These lighters typically are used to light devices such as

charcoal and gas grills and fireplaces. The Commission is aware of 53

fires from January 1988 through October 1996 that were started by

children under age 5 using multi-purpose lighters. These fires resulted

in 10 deaths and 24 injuries. This advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (``ANPR'') initiates a rulemaking proceeding under the

authority of the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA''). One result of

the proceeding could be the promulgation of a rule mandating

performance standards for the child-resistance of the operating

mechanism of multi-purpose lighters.

The Commission solicits written comments from interested persons

concerning the risks of injury and death associated with multi-purpose

lighters, the regulatory alternatives discussed in this notice, other

possible means to address these risks, and the economic impacts of the

various regulatory alternatives. The Commission also invites interested

persons to submit an existing standard, or a statement of intent to

modify or develop a voluntary standard, to address the risks of injury

and death described in this notice.

DATES: Written comments and submissions in response to this notice must

be received by the Commission by March 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed, preferably in five copies, to the

Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20207-0001, or delivered to the Office of the

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West

Highway, Bethesda, Maryland; telephone (301) 504-0800. Comments should

be captioned ``ANPR for Multi-Purpose Lighters.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Jacobson, Directorate for

Epidemiology and Health Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone (301) 504-0477, ext. 1206.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Multi-purpose lighters are butane-filled lighters with an extended

nozzle, typically 4 to 8 inches long, from which the flame is emitted.

The long nozzle allows the user to reach hard-to-light places and also

keeps the user's hand away from the flames. Multi-purpose lighters are

usually nonrefillable. The lighters are activated by applying pressure

to a trigger or button mechanism, which initiates fuel flow and causes

a piezo-electric spark. They are most commonly used to light charcoal

or gas grills and fireplaces. The lighters also are used to light

campfires, camp stoves, LP gas ranges in recreational vehicles, and

pilot lights in household gas appliances. Most multi-purpose lighters

now sold include some type of on/off switch. Usually, this is a two-

position slider-type switch that

[[Page 2328]]

must be in the ON position before the lighter can be activated.

On July 12, 1993, the Commission published a consumer product

safety standard that requires disposable and novelty cigarette lighters

to have a child-resistant mechanism that makes the lighters difficult

for children under 5 years old to operate.1 16 CFR 1210. The

standard excludes lighters that are primarily intended for igniting

materials other than cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. Based on the

information currently available to the Commission, multi-purpose

lighters are not primarily intended for igniting tobacco, and thus are

not subject to the cigarette lighter standard. This conclusion could

change if additional information shows use or distribution patterns

demonstrating an intent for ignition of tobacco products.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 58 FR 37554. The standard became effective July 12, 1994.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the development of the cigarette lighter standard, the

Commission was not aware of any data indicating that multi-purpose

lighters presented an unreasonable risk of injury. The on/off switch

currently provided on multi-purpose lighters would not comply with the

requirements for child-resistance in the cigarette lighter standard,

since it is easy for young children to operate and does not reset to

the OFF position automatically after each operation of the ignition

mechanism of the lighter. 16 CFR 1210.3(b)(1).

In February 1996, Judy L. Carr petitioned the Commission to

``initiate Rulemaking Proceedings to amend 16 CFR 1210 Safety Standard

for Cigarette Lighters to include the Scripto Tokai Aim 'n

FlameTM disposable butane `multi-purpose' lighter within the scope

of that standard and its child resistant performance requirements.''

The petitioner provided information about eight incidents associated

with the Aim 'n FlameTM lighter. One of the incidents involved the

petitioner's child. Information about the other incidents was obtained

through discovery in the petitioner's litigation with the product's

manufacturer.

The petitioner's 4-year-old daughter was burned over 60 percent of

her body when a 6-year-old boy triggered the lighter and ignited her

clothing. The petitioner stated that the 6-year-old child was at a 3-

to 4-year-old developmental level due to Downs Syndrome. The other

seven incidents, all involving the Scripto Tokai Aim 'n

FlameTM lighter, occurred over the 6-year period from 1988 through

1993. In all, the eight incidents resulted in property damage, burn

injuries to three children and one adult, and one death. In an incident

where a 4-year-old child died, the fire was started by his 5-year-old

brother.

The petitioner alleged that the Aim 'n Flame'sTM ``gun-like

shape and trigger with trigger guard makes it more attractive than a

cigarette lighter as a play object.'' The petitioner highlighted

information in four of the incidents provided with the petition that

referenced the ``gun-like'' nature of the lighter. The petitioner also

alleged that repeated operation of the trigger will cause the on/off

switch to move from the OFF position to the ON position and that the

on/off switch is easier to disengage than to engage.

On May 7, 1996 (61 FR 20503), the Commission published a Federal

Register document soliciting comments on topics related to issues

raised by the petition. The Commission received a total of nine

comments, including four from lighter importers and one from the

Lighter Association, Inc.

B. Incident Data

The Commission's staff searched all relevant CPSC data bases since

1985, when multi-purpose lighters first entered the market, to identify

fires started with these lighters by children under 5 years old. These

data sources included consumer complaints, newspaper clippings, death

certificates, hospital emergency-room-treated injuries, and

investigation reports. All incidents involving fires started by

children under five that were submitted by the petitioner or by persons

commenting on the May 7, 1996, Federal Register document are included

in the analysis.

The Commission knows of 53 reported incidents involving fires

started with multi-purpose lighters by children under age 5 from

January 1988 through October 1996. These fires resulted in 10 deaths

and 24 injuries. Although many of the reports did not indicate the

amount of property damage, 12 reports cited property damage that

exceeded $50,000. Two additional incidents involved fires started by

older children (ages 5 and 6) with Downs Syndrome, a condition that

affects mental development. These children, while over 5 years old,

might have been protected by a child-resistant lighter.

Children under age 5 typically are incapable of extinguishing a

fire, which puts them and their families at special risk of injury.

Almost all of the 10 fatalities were the children who started the

fires. At least 3 of the 24 injured persons required hospitalization

for treatment. One 15-month-old infant was hospitalized for second and

third degree burns over 80 percent of his body, after his 3-year-old

brother ignited the playpen in which the infant was sleeping.

Among the 49 fires where the sex of the fire starter was known, 5

were girls and 44 were boys. Many of the children found the multi-

purpose lighters in easily accessible locations, such as on kitchen

counters or furniture tops. Others, however, obtained the lighters from

more inaccessible locations, such as high shelves or cabinets, where

parents tried to hide them. Three investigation reports indicated that

the children involved (ages 3 and 4) demonstrated that they could

operate the on/off switch.

Five or fewer fires from young children using multi-purpose

lighters were reported each year from 1988 through 1994. In 1995,

however, 11 fires from this cause were reported; these resulted in 3

injuries and 2 deaths. During 1996, through October, 22 such fires have

resulted in 15 injuries and 4 deaths. And, there are likely additional

fires, deaths, and injuries from this cause, since some multi-purpose

lighter fires are reported only as ``lighter'' fires. In seven

incidents, the involvement of a multi-purpose lighter was known only

because there was a follow-up investigation.

The apparent increase in the number of fires may be related, in

part, to the increase in sales of multi-purpose lighters. As discussed

below, there were 1 million of these lighters sold in 1985. Since then

sales have risen steadily. Total industry sales for 1995 were estimated

at 16 million lighters.

Given the relatively limited number of known incidents, it is not

possible to make a national estimate of the total number of fires and

casualties at this time.

C. Market Information

The Product

The consumer type of multi-purpose lighter is sold at retail for

$2.50 to $8 each, with an average retail price of about $4. Another

type of multi-purpose lighter has additional features, such as

refillable fuel chambers, flexible extended nozzles, and piezo-electric

spark mechanisms powered by replaceable batteries. These lighters

retail for about $40 and are most likely to be used in commercial

applications, such as during installation or repair of gas appliances.

This lighter may not be a consumer product that would be subject to a

mandatory standard.

Manufacturers

The largest marketer of multi-purpose lighters is Scripto

Tokai, which

[[Page 2329]]

imports its lighters from Mexico. The Pinkerton Group Inc.

(Cricket Lighters) imports its lighters from the Philippines.

Both of these firms are members of the Lighter Association, Inc., a

trade association located in Washington, D.C. About a dozen other firms

market multi-purpose lighters under private labels. All of these

privately labeled-lighters are produced by two Chinese manufacturers.

Sales

Multi-purpose lighters were introduced to the U.S. market in 1985,

and about 1 million units were sold in the first year. Since 1985,

sales have risen steadily. Scripto Tokai estimated total

industry sales of 16 million units for 1995. Scripto Tokai

and the Lighter Association, Inc., estimated total industry sales in

excess of 100 million units since their introduction. These industry

sources expect sales of multi-purpose lighters to continue to increase,

at the rate of 5-10 percent annually, for the foreseeable future. For

1996, sales are projected at 17 to 18 million.

Lighters In Use

The service life of multi-purpose lighters depends on how they are

used. Lighters used seasonally for fireplaces or for camping may have

useful lives of two years or more. If used in everyday applications,

the useful life would be similar to that of disposable butane

lighters--i.e., less than one year. Based on an average useful life of

one to two years and a linear estimation of sales growth from 1985

forward, there were an estimated 23-36 million multi-purpose lighters

available for use at the end of 1995.

Product Substitutes

Readily available substitutes for multi-purpose lighters include

matches and disposable butane lighters. The closest substitutes are

probably long-stem matches, sometimes called fireplace matches.

However, fireplace matches are substantially more costly per light than

multi-purpose lighters. These matches commonly retail for about $5 for

a box of 50, or 10 cents per light ($5/50 lights). This compares to an

average retail price of $4 for a multi-purpose lighter, or 0.4 cents

per light ($4/1000 lights). Although disposable butane lighters cost

less per light than multi-purpose lighters, at 0.1 cents per light ($1/

1000 lights), they do not have features that allow the user to reach

hard-to-light places or keep the user's hand away from the flames.

Preliminary Economic Considerations Regarding a Child-Resistant

Mechanism

The Commission knows of 11 fires, 3 injuries, and 2 deaths from

fires started during 1995 associated with children under age 5 using

multi-purpose lighters. These incidents had an estimated societal cost

of about $10.3 million. If there were fires from this cause that are

not known to the Commission, the actual societal cost, and the cost per

lighter, of these fires would be higher.

It is unlikely that a child-resistant feature would eliminate all

fires started by young children with multi-purpose lighters. In

practice, some children would likely be able to operate even lighters

that have a child-resistant mechanism.

Several factors determine the range of benefits that would result

from including a child-resistant feature on multi-purpose lighters. One

important factor is the reduction that could be achieved in the ability

of young children to start fires by playing with these lighters. This

reduction would be based on the expected improvement in the child-

resistance of multi-purpose lighters caused by the child-resistant

feature. By applying the same methodology the Commission used to

estimate the incident reduction for child-resistant cigarette lighters,

the Commission preliminarily estimates that requiring a child-resistant

feature on multi-purpose lighters would reduce these fire incidents by

between 73 and 82 percent.2

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ An initial estimate of the extent to which non-child-

resistant multi-purpose lighters may resist operation by young

children can be calculated from tests that were performed with

children using non-child-resistant disposable cigarette lighters.

That testing showed that 55 percent of children were able to operate

non-child-resistant ``roll and press'' cigarette lighters

(``baseline'' child-resistance of 45 percent), and 84 percent were

able to operate non-child-resistant ``push-button'' (including

peizo-electric) cigarette lighters (baseline child-resistance of 16

percent). Similar tests have not been performed for multi-purpose

lighters, but the Commission assumes for present purposes that the

results would be within the range of those derived for cigarette

lighters.

The minimum percent reduction in fires and resulting deaths and

injuries would occur if all lighters just barely passed at the

specified pass/fail criteria, which for cigarette lighters is 85

percent. The minimum percent reduction thus is calculated as

follows: % reduction = [(% pass/fail criteria)-(% baseline CR)] x

100 (100-% baseline CR) Therefore, the estimated injury

reduction for push-button lighters would be 82 percent

[(85-16)(100)/(100-16)]. The estimated injury reduction for roll-

and-press lighters would be 73 percent [(85-45)(100)/(100-45)]. In

reality, the child-resistance performance of many lighters may be

substantially better than the pass/fail criteria. Therefore, the

actual injury and death reductions may be significantly greater than

estimated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another important factor in calculating the benefits per lighter

from a child-resistant requirement for multi-purpose lighters is the

useful life of such lighters. If multi-purpose lighters have a 1-year

useful life, then there were 23 million such lighters in use in 1995.

And, each of these 23 million lighters had an expected accident cost of

about $0.45 ($10.3 million in societal costs 23 million

lighters). If child-resistant multi-purpose lighters are 73 percent

effective in reducing incidents, the benefits will be about $0.33 per

lighter ($0.45 in accident costs x .73). If the lighters are 82

percent effective in reducing incidents, the benefits will be about

$0.37 per lighter ($0.45 in accident costs x .82).

If these lighters have a 2-year useful life, then there were 36

million multi-purpose lighters in use. And, each lighter had an

expected accident cost of about $0.57 ($10.3 million 36

million, for each of 2 years). Under this useful life assumption, the

benefits will be about $0.42 per lighter that is 73 percent effective

in reducing incidents ($0.57 in accident costs x .73), and about

$0.47 per lighter that is 82 percent effective ($0.57 in accident costs

x .82).

Industry sources estimate that a safety device that would comply

with the requirements of the cigarette lighter standard could add $0.20

to $0.40 to the retail price of a multi-purpose lighter. This

relatively high cost is attributed to the difficulty in designing a

safety feature that would provide enough fuel to allow ignition at the

end of the nozzle.

Thus, the preliminary estimate of the potential benefits, using

1995 data, are $0.33 to $0.47 per lighter, compared to the estimated

costs, noted above, of $0.20 to $0.40 per lighter.

Incomplete data for 1996 show 22 fires, 15 injuries, and 4 deaths,

for a societal cost of $20.5 million, with sales that are projected at

17 to 18 million multi-purpose lighters. Therefore, the range of

potentially achievable benefits per lighter based on the reported cases

for 1996 through October--using the same methodology as above,

including the .73 to .82 range of injury reduction--would be $0.65 to

$0.93. Additionally, it is likely that national estimates of fires and

casualties would be still greater than the number of incidents known

for both 1995 and 1996. And, the lighters' child-resistance may

substantially exceed the standard's minimum requirement in many cases.

Thus, the potential benefits are likely to be higher than estimated.

The costs per lighter of adding child-resistance to all multi-

purpose lighters produced in 1996, however, would be the same as for

1995. The total cost for providing the feature in 1996 would be

[[Page 2330]]

only 5 to 10 percent greater than in 1995, reflecting the increase in

the number of lighters produced. Thus, using 1996 data, benefits would

likely far exceed costs.

D. Issues Raised by the Petitioner

1. Issue: Manufacturer's Information. The petitioner stated that

Scripto Tokai Corporation possessed critical fire and injury

data concerning multi-purpose lighters that would have been useful to

the Commission during development of the Safety Standard for Cigarette

Lighters.

Response: Based on summary information submitted by the petitioner,

Scripto Tokai was aware of four fires started by young

children with Aim 'n Flame TM lighters prior to publication of the

Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters on July 12, 1993. Two of these

fires resulted in burn injuries, and two resulted in property damage.

None of the incidents involved a death. The fact that Scripto

Tokai did not communicate information on these incidents to

the Commission at that time did not affect the Commission's decision to

grant Ms. Carr's petition for multi-purpose lighters.

2. Issue: ``Gun-Like'' Shape. The petitioner stated that the Aim 'n

Flame's TM `` `gun-like' shape and trigger with trigger guard

makes it more attractive than a cigarette lighter as a play object.''

The petitioner highlights information in four of the incidents provided

with the petition that reference the ``gun-like'' nature of the

lighter.

Response. The Commission's human factors experts believe that, for

some children, the combination of the ``toy-like'' shape of multi-

purpose lighters and the size of the flame could enhance the

attractiveness of these lighters over ordinary cigarette lighters or

matches.

The appeal and attractiveness of the Aim `n FlameTM and other

multi-purpose lighters to children is based, in part, on the lighters'

toy-like appearance. Available incident data indicate some children

were first attracted to the product because of its shape. In one

incident, a 3-year-old boy saw the lighter on a basement workbench and

thought it was a toy gun. His mother reported the child called it a

``trigger gun.'

In addition to the shape, the flame of multi-purpose lighters is

also an attractive feature to children. Children's curiosity about fire

is a normal stage in their development. Fire appeals to young children

because it is bright, warm, and exciting. In the case of multi-purpose

lighters, the flame produced is larger than those of ordinary cigarette

lighters. This may heighten the multi-purpose lighter's appeal to

children.

Thus, all multi-purpose lighters produce a flame that appeals to

children. Furthermore, multi-purpose lighters other than the particular

model addressed by the petitioner have been involved in fire incidents.

Accordingly, this rulemaking applies to all multi-purpose lighters.

3. Comment: On/off switch. The petitioner stated that Scripto

Tokai has not notified the Commission under Section 15(b) of

the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA'') that the Aim `n FlameTM

contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard. The

petitioner alleged that repeated operation of the trigger will cause

the on/off switch to move from the OFF position to the ON position and

that the on/off switch is easier to disengage than to engage.

Response: The issue of whether the Aim `n FlameTM contains a

defect because of these aspects of the on/off switch will be considered

as a separate matter by the Commission's Office of Compliance.

E. Comments Received in Response to the May 7, 1996, Federal

Register Document

The Commission received nine comments in response to the May 7,

1996, Federal Register document. Commenters included: lighter importers

Scripto Tokai, Pinkerton Group Inc. (Cricket ),

Colibri Corporation, and Calico Brands, Inc.; the Lighter Association,

Inc.; Vinson & Elkins, the petitioner's attorneys; Ms. Diane L. Denton,

the petitioner for the cigarette lighter standard; Mr. Davis S. Carson,

an attorney; and Dr. John O. Geremia, a lighter expert. Copies of the

comments are available upon request from the Office of the Secretary.

Scripto Tokai and Cricket , both members of

the Lighter Association, Inc., currently import multi-purpose lighters.

Mr. Carson, Ms. Denton, and Calico Brands, Inc., wrote in support of

including multi-purpose lighters in the current standard. The

Commission's responses to the particular comments are given below.

1. Comment: Incidents Limited to One Product. The Pinkerton Group,

Inc., commented that the incidents appear to be limited to one

particular product on the market and questioned whether a rulemaking

proceeding for all multi-purpose lighters was warranted.

Response: One manufacturer, who represents approximately 90 percent

of U.S. sales, accounted for 20 of the 25 fires in which the product

was identified. The other 5 fires were associated with other

manufacturers' lighters, establishing that the incidents are not

limited to one product alone.

2. Comment: Risk Associated with Multi-Purpose Lighters. Scripto

Tokai and the Lighter Association, Inc., commented that

there are very few fire incidents involving multi-purpose lighters

relative to the number of units sold, and that these lighters present

an extremely low risk compared to other open flame products.

Response: At this time, fire data involving multi-purpose lighters

are obtained from sources that cannot be used to calculate a national

estimate of the fire hazard or the per-unit risk associated with multi-

purpose lighters. Even if the per-unit risk was identical for lighters,

matches, and multi-purpose lighters, however, there would be many times

more fires with matches and lighters, solely because of the larger

number of these products in use. Yet, it appears that there may be a

reasonable cost-effective standard for multi-purpose lighters that can

reduce the risk from these products.

The relative risks of open-flame devices are discussed in the

response to the next comment.

3. Comment: Consumers Will Switch to More Dangerous Matches.

Scripto Tokai states:

some consumers are switching to less safe means of lighting tobacco

products, such as matches. * * * [T]he number of fires started by

children using matches has not declined and in fact may have even

increased since the adoption of 16 CFR, Part 1210 [the Safety

Standard for Cigarette Lighters]. * * * More fires are started each

year by children playing with matches than with any other source.

The Lighter Association, Inc. states, ``[t]he difficulty in using

child-resistant multi-purpose lighters may cause some users to move to

long stem matches.''

Response: Current data do not support the claim that more fires are

started each year by children with matches than with any other source.

In both 1993 and 1994, about the same number of child-play fires

involved matches and lighters. In 1994, the most recent year for which

fire data are available, matches were involved in an estimated 9,100

child-play fires, compared to 10,600 for lighters.

Because matches are not child-resistant, there is no reason to

expect the number of child-play match fires to be declining. And, the

Commission is not aware of any data that indicate that child-play fires

have increased. As discussed in more detail below, the available data

(through 1994) do not allow a determination of whether the number of

child-play match fires has increased since the effective date of the

[[Page 2331]]

Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters--July 14, 1994.

The commenters did not provide any supporting evidence that

consumers are switching from child-resistant lighters to matches.

Additionally, non-child-resistant cigarette lighters present a greater

risk than matches. A CPSC study conducted in the late 1980's used the

number of lighters in accessible locations and the number of boxes or

books of matches in such locations as a measure of exposure to the

products. The study found that, using this measure of exposure,

lighters were 1.4 times as likely as matches to be involved in a child-

play fire, 3.3 times as likely to be involved in a child-play death,

and 3.9 times as likely to be involved in a child-play injury.

The Commission is finding that recently introduced child-resistant

lighters are easier for adults to use than some of those sold when the

rule first took effect. Based on this experience, the Commission

believes that child-resistant mechanisms for multi-purpose lighters can

be designed that are easy for most consumers to use. In addition,

matches are a less convenient and more expensive source of flame.

Accordingly, it is unlikely that many consumers would move from child-

resistant multi-purpose lighters to long-stem matches.

4. Comment: Requiring Multi-Purpose Lighters To Be Child-Resistant

May Create Other Hazards. Scripto Tokai and the Lighter

Association, Inc., commented that the automatic reset mechanism

required for child-resistant cigarette lighters could be unsafe for

multi-purpose lighters. The piezo-electric technology used in most

multi-purpose lighters is not completely reliable in producing a flame

each time it is activated. These commenters contend that the need to

operate the child-resistant mechanism after each actuation could

further delay ignition and increase the potential for mini-explosion or

flashback fire from accumulated pressurized gas.

Response: The failure of piezo-electric mechanisms to light after

each activation creates a potential for ``mini explosion'' or

``flashback fire'' under certain conditions. The probability and

severity of this type of reaction depends on a number of variables,

including whether the user turns the gas appliance on before obtaining

a flame from the lighter (which seems unnecessary in any event), the

length of time the gas flows, and the air circulation in the area where

the gas is to be ignited. The addition of a properly designed child-

resistant feature should not add significantly to the delay already

inherent in the device. If the Commission decides to develop a rule to

require multi-purpose lighters to be child-resistant, this issue will

be carefully evaluated.

5. Comment: Easy Operability of Multi-Purpose Lighters by Children.

Diane Denton, who in April 1985 petitioned for the current standard on

cigarette lighters, stated that multi-purpose lighters are easier to

operate than small, more common lighters.

Response: While there are no comparison data on the ease of

operability between these types of lighters, available incident reports

show how easy it is for young children to operate multi-purpose

lighters, most of which have a piezo-electric mechanism. After one

fire, a mother found that both of her children, ages 2 and 4, could

operate the lighter with little difficulty. In another incident, fire

investigators asked a 3-year-old to demonstrate how he used the

lighter. The child switched the ON/OFF switch to ON and pulled the

trigger with one hand. The father said the ON/OFF switch was similar to

that on some of his son's toys and the trigger pull action was similar

to that of toy guns.

Also, among various types of non-child-resistant lighters tested

during the development of the cigarette lighter standard, the piezo-

electric mechanism was the easiest to operate. Forty-six out of 50 (92

percent) of the children on a test panel were able to operate the

lighter. Multi-purpose lighters can easily be operated by children with

one hand, while two hands are required for children to operate most

disposable non-child-resistant lighters.

6. Comment: Accessibility of Multi-Purpose Lighters to Children.

Scripto Tokai claims that multi-purpose lighters are less

accessible to children than disposable lighters and therefore, do not

present a similar risk. According to Scripto Tokai, multi-

purpose lighters ``are typically stored away in the same manner as

tools or implements'' and ``are not carried in a pants or shirt pocket,

or in a purse.'' In addition, Scripto Tokai claims that

multi-purpose lighters cost more than disposable lighters, and thus are

``less likely to be left laying around.''

Response: In the available reports of fire incidents, children

found the multi-purpose lighters in a variety of locations, some easily

accessible and others less accessible. Multi-purpose lighters are

sometimes stored in accessible locations convenient to their use. For

example, a 2-year-old boy was burned with a multi-purpose lighter that

he took off a hook near a fireplace in his grandmother's home.

Storing multi-purpose lighters in the same manner as tools does not

necessarily make them inaccessible to children. In one incident, a 3-

year-old boy took a multi-purpose lighter out of a relative's tool box

and hid it in his toy box. Two weeks later he started a fire with the

lighter in the family's living room. Children started fires with

lighters that they retrieved from kitchen cabinets, the top of

microwave ovens, a 6-foot-high cabinet, a garage shelf, a bathroom

medicine chest, a bookcase, a bedroom dresser, a basement workbench,

and the top of a water heater in a utility closet.

In addition, these devices are not necessarily ``less likely to be

left laying around'' based on cost, as they are fairly inexpensive. In

fact, in some of the incidents, the lighters were obtained free as part

of a cigarette promotion. Further, since these lighters are not

commonly carried in a pocket or purse, they are likely to be in their

normal storage locations, some of which, as noted above, are accessible

to children.

7. Comment: ``False Sense of Security.'' The Lighter Association,

Inc., commented that ``there is always the possibility that parents and

caretakers will be more careless with child-resistant lighters,

erroneously thinking them child-proof.'' Similarly, Scripto

Tokai stated that child-resistant lighters ``are viewed frequently as

`childproof' leading parents to a false sense of security.''

Response: It is not likely that the issue of a ``false sense of

security'' will prevent the expected reduction of child-play fires

started with multi-purpose lighters. As detailed above, multi-purpose

lighters are currently stored in accessible locations convenient to

their use. Even when they are stored out of reach, in locations

considered inaccessible, children seek them out.

The same argument about a ``false sense of security'' could be

applied to child-resistant packaging used for drugs and household

chemicals. However, an article published in the June 5, 1996, Journal

of the American Medical Association, ``The Safety Effects of Child-

Resistant Packaging for Oral Prescription Drugs,'' demonstrates that

child-resistant packaging has reduced childhood poisoning from oral

prescription drugs for children under age 5 by about 45 percent since

1974, the year oral prescription drugs became subject to the child-

resistant packaging requirements.

8. Comment: Education and Supervision. Scripto Tokai

commented that education and supervision are the ``first line of

defense'' in lighter-related fires. They stated that parents must be

``repeatedly reminded to keep fire sources out of the

[[Page 2332]]

reach of children, and never leave small children unsupervised.''

Scripto Tokai further said warnings and labels must be used

``to adequately inform consumers of applicable hazards.'' They claim

that the Commission has ignored educational efforts and has narrowly

focused on product design.

Colibri Corporation recommended that the Commission review

educational materials on multi-purpose lighters.

Calico Brands, Inc., stated that they always place a label on their

lighters and lighter packaging warning parents ``to keep lighters out

of the reach of children.'' However, they also acknowledge that they

are aware the warning is not ``foolproof'' and that child-resistance is

also necessary ``to further protect the safety of our children.''

The Lighter Association, Inc., stated that ``ultimately the issue

of fire safety is an issue of parental supervision.'' The Association

recommended that the Commission consider whether this issue could be

dealt with through educational efforts.

Response: Educational efforts, warning labels, and supervision are

important. But, they are not the sole solution to the problem of child-

play fires started with multi-purpose lighters. If a product can be

designed at reasonable cost to address a hazard, that is the most

effective approach.

Available information indicates that even when consumers were aware

of the danger of these lighters and took precautions to keep them out

of reach, children still managed to access the lighters. In some

instances, it appeared that the lighter was normally stored in a

relatively inaccessible space, but was not returned there after its

latest use. This is a foreseeable scenario, since people can be

expected to be forgetful.

Many children under age 5 are old enough to engage in play

activities without being in the same room as a parent or guardian. At

the time of the known incidents, the children were under reasonable

levels of adult supervision. Fires were started while parents or

guardians were in the house. One mother was downstairs fixing lunch at

the time of the incident. In other cases, children started fires while

a parent was showering or sleeping. These are also foreseeable

scenarios, since people cannot be expected to stay in the same room as

their children every moment of the day.

9. Comment: Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters. A number of

comments were received about how the Safety Standard for Cigarette

Lighters might relate to a rulemaking proceeding for multi-purpose

lighters. These comments are discussed below.

a. Effectiveness of the current cigarette lighter standard. The

Lighter Association, Inc., states that it is not aware of any data

available for 1994 or 1995 to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

current standard.

Response: The most recent year for which complete fire data are

available is 1994. However, since the current standard became effective

July 12, 1994--as to lighters manufactured in or imported into the

United States on or after that date--non-child-resistant lighters

remained in the channels of distribution throughout 1994 and 1995. The

full effect of the cigarette lighter standard will not be achieved

until the non-child-resistant cigarette lighters made before July 12,

1994, are no longer in use. It will not be possible to fully evaluate

the standard's effectiveness until the previously produced non-child-

resistant lighters are used up and fire data for a period after then

are available.

However, based on tests of non-child-resistant and child-resistant

cigarette lighters, the Commission estimates the cigarette lighter

standard will eliminate 80 to 105 (53 to 70 percent) of the 150 deaths

each year resulting from young children playing with cigarette

lighters. The rationale for the cigarette lighter standard appears to

also support a child-resistant requirement for multi-purpose lighters.

The Commission believes it would not be in the public interest to delay

an examination of the need for a standard for multi-purpose lighters

until the effectiveness of the cigarette lighter standard can be fully

evaluated. Such a delay would allow the deaths and injuries associated

with child-play with this product to continue unabated.

b. Consumer resistance to the current standard. The Lighter

Association, Inc., commented that there is strong adverse consumer

reaction to cigarette lighters that comply with the current child-

resistance standard. Since the standard went into effect on July 12,

1994, member companies have received tens of thousands of letters

complaining about how difficult it is to operate the new child-

resistant lighters.

Scripto Tokai commented that child-resistant lighters

generated daily letters and phone calls from puzzled and upset

consumers expressing their frustration and resistance to the

inconvenience. According to the commenter, senior citizens and people

with disabilities, such as arthritis, found the new lighters difficult

to operate. Consumers without children complained there is no choice.

Some consumers even found ways to disarm the lighters' child-resistant

mechanisms.

Response: When the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters went into

effect, some consumers wrote to CPSC expressing dissatisfaction and

some manufacturers reported receiving complaints from consumers. This

is similar to the initial reaction to the requirement for child-

resistant packaging of prescription drugs under the Poison Prevention

Packaging Act in the early 1970's. It appears that consumer

dissatisfaction with child-resistant cigarette lighters has lessened

substantially, since the Commission now rarely receives complaint

letters.

Additionally, child-resistant mechanisms have been evolving during

the period the standard has been in effect. Originally, most of the

lighters used some type of lock that could be disabled by moving a

lever so that the lighter could then be actuated. These designs were

sometimes cumbersome and, for some people, may have required the use of

two hands. While some of these lighters are still on the market, the

trend now is toward more subtle movements to overcome the child-

resistant mechanism, such as pressure on the flint wheel or pressing a

button to disable the lock. The Commission expects consumer resistance

to be minimized by these new lighters, which are easy for adults to

operate but are still highly child resistant.

c. Products designed to defeat the child-resistant features of

cigarette lighters. The Lighter Association, Inc., Scripto

Tokai, and Colibri Corporation discussed products that have been

marketed that are designed to override the child-resistant features of

cigarette lighters. The Association provided a copy of a patent for

such a product issued to two inventors in Cottonwood, Arizona.

Scripto Tokai stated that CPSC failed to take action against

a particular device that is marketed for overriding the child-resistant

features of cigarette lighters.

Response: Although the marketing of tools designed to override the

child-resistant features of disposable lighters does not violate any

Commission regulation, the Commission has requested the manufacturer of

the device referred to by Scripto Tokai to discontinue its

marketing of the device. Increased consumer satisfaction with child-

resistant lighters as the designs become easier to operate should

drastically reduce if not eliminate the market for such products.

d. CPSC enforcement of the cigarette lighter standard. Without

giving details, the Lighter Association, Inc., and

[[Page 2333]]

Scripto Tokai alleged that there were a number of violations

of the stockpiling rule in the current cigarette lighter

standard.3 They believe that Chinese importers as a group brought

in over 100 million non-child-resistant lighters above the permissible

stockpiling limit. These commenters further claim that there are stores

still stocking (and restocking) non-child-resistant lighters.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2),

authorizes the Commission to issue rules prohibiting the stockpiling

of products that are subject to a consumer product safety rule.

Stockpiling means the manufacturing or importing of a product

between the date of promulgation of a consumer product safety rule

and its effective date at a specified rate that is significantly

greater than the rate at which such product was produced or imported

during a specified base period before the promulgation of the

consumer product safety rule. A stockpiling rule was issued as part

of the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters. 16 CFR Part 1210,

Subpart C.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lighter Association, Inc., stated that some distributors

apparently are buying child-resistant lighters, opening the master

cartons, disengaging the child-resistant features, repacking the

lighters, and selling the cartons at a substantial premium. Association

members believe that some importers are fraudulently bringing in non-

child-resistant lighters as child-resistant lighters using

``contrived'' testing or other ruses.

The Lighter Association, Inc., and Scripto Tokai request

tightening of the stockpiling requirements and stringent enforcement of

any new rule relating to multi-purpose lighters.

Response: The Commission has aggressively enforced the requirements

of both the safety standard and the anti-stockpiling provisions. In

cooperating with the U.S. Customs Service, the Commission has prevented

the importation of millions of non-child-resistant lighters. The

Commission will continue to vigorously enforce the standards and to

investigate any specific reports of possible noncompliance brought to

its attention.

e. Comment: Recommendations for requirements for multi-purpose

lighters. Scripto Tokai stated that the lessons learned from

the disposable cigarette lighter experience must be applied to any

effort to regulate new products. This company makes the following

recommendations if such a standard is undertaken:

The standard should include all multi-purpose lighters,

whether disposable or refillable, long or short, expensive or

inexpensive, or novelty or otherwise.

Acceptable child-resistant mechanisms should be clearly

defined.

All importers should be required to submit base period and

monthly reports to CPSC on importation of both child-resistant and non-

child-resistant lighters, including specific manufacturing source

information.

Actions should be taken to insure that importers do not

circumvent the stockpiling rules, including working closely with the

United States Customs Service and through diplomatic channels.

Enforcement measures should be applied evenly.

Dr. Geremia questioned the validity of allowing the industry to

conduct its own certification tests.4 He suggested that testing be

conducted by CPSC or an independent organization not paid directly by

the importers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See the explanation of certification in the discussion of

the CPSA in Section G of this document, ``Statutory Authority.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Geremia also recommends that lighters identify the

manufacturer's name and address and have a date code.

Response: The Commission does strive to evenly enforce all of its

regulations, and routinely works with the U.S. Customs Service as well

as other government agencies.

The Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters requires manufacturers

to certify compliance through a reasonable testing program which

includes (1) qualification tests on surrogates (non-flame-producing

versions) of each model of lighter produced, (2) development of a

specification of the characteristics of the surrogates found to meet

the child-resistance requirements, and (3) tests performed of lighters

from production to demonstrate that they continue to meet the original

specifications.

The Commission expects companies to be able to demonstrate that

they have a reasonable testing program that evaluates whether their

lighters are in compliance. It does not appear that the Commission has

express authority to require that certification tests be performed by

non-industry testers, particularly absent evidence that industry

testing is inadequate. However, the Commission may conduct its own

tests and take action against any product that does not comply. The

Commission conducts tests using an independent testing organization

where appropriate.

Other suggestions specific to an amendment involving multi-purpose

lighters will be considered if the Commission proceeds to develop a

proposed rule for multi-purpose lighters.

f. Designs for child-resistant features for multi-purpose lighters.

Dr. Geremia commented that the following child-resistant designs should

be considered:

(i) A trigger guard similar to those used on firearms, except it

would remain attached to the unit in some way.

(ii) A design which requires the burner nozzle and handle to be

pushed toward each other and then twisted in order for gas to flow.

(iii) A false trigger in the present location, with the real

trigger hidden at the base of the handle.

Response: Suggestions specific to child-resistant designs for

multi-purpose lighters will be considered if the Commission decides to

develop a proposed rule for multi-purpose lighters. It should be noted,

however, that the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters does not

specify product designs. Any design that meets the performance

requirements of the testing protocol is acceptable. This allows

industry greater flexibility and provides for market-driven solutions.

F. Existing Standards

Multi-purpose lighters are subject to the labeling requirements of

section 2(p) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (``FHSA''), 15

U.S.C. 1261 (p), because they contain a hazardous substance that is

intended or packaged in a form suitable for use in the household. The

required statements include: ``DANGER--EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE'' ``CONTENTS

UNDER PRESSURE'' ``Keep out of the reach of children.''

The only other existing mandatory standard that the Commission is

aware of that may be relevant to this proceeding is the Safety Standard

for Cigarette Lighters, which does not apply to lighters not primarily

intended for lighting tobacco products. 16 CFR 1210.

G. Statutory Authority for This Proceeding

Three of the statutes administered by the Commission have at least

some apparent relevance to the risk posed by non-child-resistant multi-

purpose lighters. These are the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA''),

15 U.S.C. 2051-2084; the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (``PPPA''), 15

U.S.C. 1471-1476; and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (``FHSA''),

15 U.S.C. 1261-1278. In issuing its standard for cigarette lighters,

the Commission decided to use the authority of the CPSA. A full

explanation of the Commission's reasons for that decision was published

in the Federal Register on July 12, 1993. 58 FR 37554. See also 58 FR

37557 (July 12, 1993). For the reasons stated in those notices, the

Commission expects that any rule regarding the child-resistance of

multi-

[[Page 2334]]

purpose lighters also would be issued under the CPSA.

Before adopting a CPSA standard, the Commission first must issue an

ANPR as provided in section 9(a) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2058(a). If the

Commission decides to continue the rulemaking proceeding after

considering responses to the ANPR, the Commission must then publish the

text of the proposed rule, along with a preliminary regulatory

analysis, in accordance with section 9(c) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C.

2058(c). If the Commission then wishes to issue a final rule, it must

publish the text of the final rule and a final regulatory analysis that

includes the elements stated in section 9(f)(2) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C.

2058(f)(2). And before issuing a final regulation, the Commission must

make certain statutory findings concerning voluntary standards, the

relationship of the costs and benefits of the rule, and the burden

imposed by the regulation. CPSC, section 9(f)(3), 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3).

H. Regulatory Alternatives Under Consideration

The Commission is considering alternatives to reduce the number of

injuries and deaths associated with multi-purpose lighters. In addition

to possible performance standards similar to those adopted for

cigarette lighters, the potential for labeling requirements and

information and education campaigns to reduce the risk will be

considered. It is also possible that a voluntary standard could be

developed that would adequately reduce the risk of child-play fires

associated with this product. These alternatives are discussed below.

1. Performance Standard

The Commission will consider issuing a mandatory performance

standard for multi-purpose lighters similar to that for cigarette

lighters.

2. Labeling

Labeling to warn of the risk of child-play fires from multi-purpose

lighters could be required, either instead of or in addition to a

mandatory performance standard.

3. Voluntary Standards

The Commission is not aware of any voluntary standards in effect

that apply to the risk of children starting fires that is associated

with this product. However, if such standards are developed and

implemented, the Commission would take this into account in deciding

whether a mandatory standard is necessary.

I. Solicitation of Information and Comments

This ANPR is the first step of a proceeding which could result in a

mandatory performance or labeling standard for multi-purpose lighters

to address the risk that young children will use these lighters to

start fires. All interested persons are invited to submit to the

Commission their comments on any aspect of the alternatives discussed

above. In particular, CPSC solicits the following additional

information:

1. The types and numbers of multi-purpose lighters produced

annually for sale in the U.S. from 1985 to the present;

2. The names and addresses of manufacturers and distributors of the

product;

3. The number of persons injured or killed in fires started by

children under the age of 5 years using multi-purpose lighters;

4. The circumstances under which these injuries and deaths occur,

including the ages of the children who started the fires, the ages of

the victims, the locations from which the children obtained the

lighters, and physical descriptions of the products involved (including

identification of the manufacturers and models, if available);

5. An explanation of designs that could be adapted to multi-purpose

lighters to increase their child-resistance;

6. Characteristics of the product that could or should not be used

to define which products might be subject to the requested rule;

7. Other information on the potential costs and benefits of the

requested rule;

8. Steps that have been taken by industry or others to reduce the

risk of injuries from the product;

9. The likelihood and nature of any significant economic impact on

small entities;

10. The extent to which consumers turn on the gas flow to

appliances before lighting a lighter or match to ignite the appliance;

11. The likely effects on fire incidents and on the multi-purpose

lighter market of possible design changes to multi-purpose lighters;

12. The results of any tests on the child-resistance of multi-

purpose lighters, whether or not the lighter has features intended to

increase child-resistance;

13. The reasons why multi-purpose lighters sometimes require

repeated actuations in order to light, and ways the performance of the

lighters could be improved in this regard;

14. Designs of child-resistant lighters that would allow repeated

actuations of the lighter without substantially delaying ignition

compared to non-child-resistant lighters; and

15. The costs and benefits of mandating a labeling requirement.

Also, in accordance with section 9(a) of the CPSA, the Commission

solicits:

1. Written comments with respect to 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 which could be

issued as a proposed regulation.

3. A statement of intention to modify or develop a voluntary

standard to address the risk of injury discussed in this notice, along

with a description of a plan (including a schedule) to do so.

Comments should be mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office

of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C.

20207-0001, or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer

Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda,

Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504-0800. All comments and submissions

should be received no later than March 17, 1997.

Dated: January 13, 1997.

Sayde E. Dunn,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.

[FR Doc. 97-1110 Filed 1-15-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P