Multi-Purpose Lighters; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1212

Multi-Purpose Lighters; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission has reason to believe that unreasonable risks

of injury and death are associated with multi-purpose lighters that can

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

held, self-igniting, flame-producing products that operate on fuel and

typically are used to light devices such as charcoal and gas grills and

fireplaces. Devices intended primarily for igniting smoking materials

are excluded; such products are already subject to a child-resistance

standard at 16 CFR part 1210.

The Commission is aware of 178 fires from January 1988 through

August 6, 1998, that were started by children under age 5 using multi-

purpose lighters. These fires resulted in 29 deaths and 71 injuries.

This notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') proposes a rule

mandating performance standards for the child resistance of multi-

purpose lighters. The Commission solicits written comments from

interested persons on the proposed rule.

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

be received by the Commission by December 14, 1998.

Comments on elements of the proposal that, if issued, would

constitute collection of information requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act may be filed with the Office of Management and Budget

(``OMB'') and with the Commission. Comments will be received by OMB

until November 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments to CPSC should be mailed, preferably in five

copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission, Washington, DC 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

may also be filed by telefacsimile to (301) 504-0127 or by email to

[email protected]. Comments should be captioned ``NPR for Multi-purpose

lighters.''

Comments to OMB should be directed to the Desk Officer for the

Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503. The Commission asks

commenters to provide copies of such comments to the Commission's

Office of the Secretary, with a caption or cover letter identifying the

materials as comments submitted to OMB on the proposed collection of

information requirements for multi-purpose lighters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Jacobson, Project Manager,

Directorate for Epidemiology and Health Sciences, Consumer Product

Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-0477, ext.

1206; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

1. The product. Multi-purpose lighters are defined in

Sec. 1212.2(a)(1) of the rule proposed below as follows:

(a)(1) Multi-purpose lighter, also known as grill lighter,

fireplace lighter, utility lighter, micro-torch, or gas match, means: A

hand-held, self-igniting, flame-producing product that operates on fuel

and is used by consumers to ignite items such as candles, fuel for

fireplaces, charcoal or gas-fired grills, camp fires, camp stoves,

lanterns, fuel-fired appliances or devices, or pilot lights, or for

uses such as soldering or brazing.

(2) Exclusions. The following products are not multi-purpose

lighters:

(i) Devices intended primarily for igniting smoking materials that

are within the definition of ``lighter'' in the Safety Standard for

Cigarette Lighters (16 CFR 1210.2(c)).

(ii) Devices that contain more than 10 oz. of fuel.

(iii) Matches.

Multi-purpose lighters often have a nozzle long enough to reach

hard-to-light places. Further, the long nozzle allows safer ignition of

products, such as gas grills, where the fuel may flare up when ignited.

On certain lighters, the nozzle is flexible. Multi-purpose lighters

also include lighters with shorter nozzles. Some of this group include

a burner that operates at a higher flame temperature than other multi-

purpose lighters. These lighters are sometimes referred to as micro-

torches.

Multi-purpose lighters are activated by applying pressure to a

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

spark. Most multi- purpose lighters now sold include some type of on/

off switch. Usually, this is a two-position slider-type switch that

must be in the ``on,'' or unlocked, position before the lighter can be

activated.

Some multi-purpose lighters (micro-torches) may have a control that

allows the lighter to remain lit after the user lets go of the lighter.

This, in conjunction with a stable base or stand, allows hands-free

operation of the lighter during operations such as soldering.

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 the on/off switch 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).

2. Procedural background. 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 Part 1210. The cigarette lighter standard

excludes lighters that are primarily intended for igniting materials

other than cigarettes, cigars, and pipes.

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

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

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

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

``initiate Rulemaking Proceedings to amend 16 CFR Part 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.''

On May 7, 1996, the Commission published a Federal Register notice

soliciting comments on topics related to issues raised by the petition.

61 FR 20503. The Commission received nine comments in response to that

notice. After considering these comments and the other available

information, the Commission voted to grant the petition and commence a

rulemaking proceeding that could result in a mandatory standard for the

child resistance of multi-purpose lighters.

The rulemaking was commenced by publication in the Federal Register

of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (``ANPR''). 62 FR 2327

(January 16, 1997). In a notice published January 8,

[[Page 52398]]

1998, the Commission extended the time for publishing a notice of

proposed rulemaking until September 30, 1998. 63 FR 1077.

Nine comments were received in response to the ANPR. The Commission

responds to these comments, and to three comments received earlier, in

Section H of this notice. After considering these comments, the results

of baseline testing of currently-marketed multi-purpose lighters for

child resistance, and other available information, the Commission voted

to propose the mandatory standard for multi-purpose lighters set forth

below.

B. Incident Data

The CPSC's staff identified a total of 249 fires reportedly started

by children playing with multi-purpose lighters from January 1988 to

the present. These fires resulted in a total of 45 deaths and 97

injuries. For the incidents where age of the fire starter was known,

children under age 5 ignited 178 fires (76%). These 178 fires resulted

in 29 deaths and 71 injuries. See Table 1. Children age 5 and older

ignited 57 fires that resulted in 16 deaths and 19 injuries. An

additional 14 fires, which resulted in 7 injuries, were described as

being caused by children, but their ages were not given.

Table 1.--Fires, Deaths, and Injuries Caused by Children Under Age 5

Playing with Multi-purpose Lighters, by Year

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

Year Fires Deaths Injuries

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

1988...................................... 3 ........ ........

1989...................................... 1 ........ 2

1990...................................... 2 ........ 1

1991...................................... 2 ........ ........

1992...................................... 4 1 1

1993...................................... 7 3 4

1994...................................... 7 ........ 1

1995...................................... 17 6 8

1996...................................... 55 8 32

1997...................................... 47 4 8

1998*..................................... 33 7 14

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

Total................................. 178 29 71

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

* Reports received through August 6, 1998.

Source: Consumer complaints, newspaper clippings, hospital emergency

room-treated injuries, fire department reports, and investigation

reports.

Twenty-four of the 29 fatalities were children. See Table 2. Twenty

were under age 5; four were between the ages of 5 and 14. Fourteen of

the children who died had started the fire. Seven of the children who

died were siblings of the fire starter. Four of the five adults who

died were mothers of the children who started the fires. The four

remaining fatalities were other relatives, friends, and a child in a

home child-care setting.

Table 2.--Fatalities That Occurred in Multi-Purpose Lighter Fires Caused

by a Child Under Age 5, by Age and Relationship to the Child Who Ignited

the Fire, 1/1/88--8/6/98

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

Ages(years) of fatalities

Relationship to Fire Starter -------------------------------

Total [email protected].

Comments should be captioned ``NPR for Multi-purpose lighters.'' All

comments and submissions should be received no later than December 14,

1998.

F. Market Information

The Product. Most multi-purpose lighters are sold at retail for

$2.50 to $8 each. Other multi-purpose lighters have additional

features, such as refillable fuel chambers, flexible extended nozzles,

and spark mechanisms powered by replaceable batteries. These lighters

can retail for about $20 or more. The type of multi-purpose lighter

known as ``micro-torches'' also have applications in soldering,

hobbies, and crafts.

Manufacturers. Although the precise number is unknown, industry

sources estimate that there may be as many as 20 manufacturers of

multi-purpose lighters and as many more importers and private labelers.

Some manufacturers supply more than one importer or private labeler.

The number of firms participating in the market is expected to increase

as sales increase. Three manufacturers are members of the Lighter

Association, a trade association representing manufacturers of

cigarette lighters. The Lighter Association estimates that its members

have more than 95 percent of the market for multi-purpose lighters in

the United States. The manufacturer with the largest market share is

Scripto-Tokai Corporation. Industry sources indicate that Scripto-Tokai

may have 90 percent of the market. Other major manufacturers include

Swedish Match (Cricket'' brand), BIC, and Flamagas.

Retail prices for multi-purpose lighters generally start at less

than $2.50, and most retail for less than

[[Page 52401]]

$8.00. However, some high-end multi-purpose lighters retail for $20 to

$40 or more. These are generally refillable lighters with battery

powered ignition systems that ensure a more reliable ignition. Micro-

torches have been observed retailing for as little as $12, but they

more frequently retail for from about $20 to more than $100. The high-

end and micro-torch lighters combined may have less than three percent

of the market for multi-purpose lighters.

BIC Corporation recently introduced a multi-purpose lighter that is

believed to meet the requirements of the proposed rule. BIC expected

that its multi-purpose lighter would sell for between $3.99 and $4.99,

but its observed retail prices have been as low as $3.49 and as high as

$5.49.

BIC Corporation manufactures its multi-purpose lighter at a

facility in South Carolina. Only one other manufacturer, Donel, is

known to produce multi-purpose lighters domestically. Scripto-Tokai

imports its lighters from Mexico. Flamagas (Clipper brand) lighters are

produced in Spain. Most other lighters are manufactured in Asian

countries, such as the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, and China.

Another manufacturer is marketing a multi-purpose lighter for about

$25 that has features designed to be child resistant, but this lighter

has not been tested according to the protocol in the Safety Standard

for Cigarette Lighters, 16 CFR part 1210.

Sales and useful product life. The most common type of multi-

purpose lighters was introduced by Scripto-Tokai in 1985. According to

Scripto-Tokai, it sold one million units the first year. Micro-torches,

representing a small portion of the annual unit sales of multi-purpose

lighters, were also introduced around 1985. Sales of multi-purpose

lighters have been increasing rapidly since their introduction. An

estimated 16 million units were sold in 1995, and an estimated 20

million units are expected to be sold in 1998. Industry sources expect

sales to increase at the rate of 5 to 10 percent annually over the next

several years. More than 100 million multi-purpose lighters have been

sold since 1985.

The useful life of a multi-purpose lighter depends on the frequency

and purpose for which it is used. If a typical multi-purpose lighter

contains enough fuel for an average of 1,000 lights\2\, a multi-purpose

lighter that is used several times a day would last less than one year.

On the other hand, a lighter that is used less than once a day, or only

seasonally, could be expected to be used much longer. While about 20

million lighters were reportedly sold in 1997, a study based on a panel

of 20,000 households indicated that fewer than 8 million U.S.

households purchased multi-purpose lighters between October 1996 and

October 1997.\3\ This suggests that most multi-purpose lighters have a

useful life of less than one year, and/or that a large proportion of

households that have multi-purpose lighters use more than one lighter

over the course of a year. The useful life of the more expensive

models, however, can be substantially longer, since they are refillable

and not designed to be disposable. Therefore, these lighters can be

expected to have useful lives of several years. Thus, although the unit

sales of these products account for a very small portion of the annual

sales of multi-purpose lighters, they can be expected to account for a

larger portion of the products in consumers' hands because they do not

have to be replaced as often.

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

\2\ What constitutes an ``average'' light is less certain than

with cigarette lighters, where the average time to light a cigarette

is fairly predictable. While using a multi-purpose lighter to light

a candle may require little time (and fuel), lighting a gas grill

may require more time. The multi-purpose lighter would have to be

lit and the gas turned on, and then the gas would have to build up

to an ignitable level.

\3\ Information Resources Inc. study. Results provided by BIC

Corporation.

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

Substitutes for multi-purpose lighters. Several products are

reasonable substitutes for multi-purpose lighters. The most common

substitute is probably the match. Compared with about 8 million

households purchasing multi-purpose lighters in 1997, a 1991 study for

the CPSC indicated that more than 60 million households had either book

or box matches. Cigarette lighters are also common substitutes for

multi-purpose lighters.

Assuming that the typical multi-purpose lighter has enough fuel for

1,000 lights, the consumer cost per light is between 0.25 cents (i.e.,

one-fourth of one cent) and 0.8 cents.\4\ The consumer cost per light

for kitchen matches is estimated to be less than 0.3 cents. Other types

of matches, such as book matches, cost less per light. The cost per

light of cigarette lighters is about 0.1 cents.

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

\4\ If the retail price of a multi-purpose lighter is $2.50,

then $2.50/1,000 lights is $0.0025/light. If the retail price of a

multi-purpose lighter is $8.00, then $8.00/1,000 lights is $0.008/

light.

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

There are also reasonable substitutes for micro-torches when they

are used in applications such as soldering. The closest substitutes

would likely be non-self-igniting micro-torches. These are functionally

identical to self-igniting micro-torches, except that they must be

ignited with a match or other external lighter. Electric soldering

irons can also be used for many of the same applications. The cost to

consumers of these substitutes may be similar to the cost of micro-

torches when used in some applications.

G. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis

Potential benefits of the proposed rule. The proposed rule is

intended to reduce fires resulting from young children playing with, or

otherwise attempting to operate, multi-purpose lighters. The benefits

to society of the proposed rule are the expected reduction in fires and

in the deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with these

fires. While the proposed rule is intended to address such fires caused

by children under the age of 5 years, there may also be some reduction

in the number of fires started by children over the age of 5 years.

The Commission is aware of 119 fires from 1995 through 1997 that

were started by children under age 5 years playing with, or otherwise

attempting to operate, multi-purpose lighters. These incidents, which

are summarized in Table 5 below, resulted in 18 deaths, 48 injuries,

and substantial property damage. Assuming a cost of $5 million for each

fatality, an estimate that is consistent with the existing literature,

a point estimate of the societal costs of the known fatalities between

1995 and 1997 is approximately $90 million. Of the 48 nonfatal

injuries, 12 involved victims that were hospitalized with burns, some

severe. An earlier CPSC study estimated that the average cost of a

hospitalized fire burn was $898,000; the average cost of a

nonhospitalized burn injury was estimated to be $15,000.\5\ These

estimates include medical treatment, lost income, and pain and

suffering. Using these estimates, the total cost of known injuries from

Table 5 is approximately $11.3 million [(12 x $898,000) + (34 x

$15,000)]. The property damage associated with cigarette lighter fires

from child play was estimated to be an average of $15,000 per incident.

Assuming the incidents with multi-purpose lighters are similar to those

resulting from cigarette lighters, the total property damage associated

with the incidents in Table 5 is estimated to be at least $1.8 million

($15,000 x 117 fires).

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

\5\ Ray, Dale R. and William W. Zamula, Societal Costs of

Cigarette Fires. U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, August,

1993.

[[Page 52402]]

Table 5.--Fire Losses Resulting From Children Under 5 Operating Multi-

Purpose Lighters

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

Year 1995 1996 1997 Total

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

Fires................................... 17 55 47 119

Deaths.................................. 6 8 4 18

Injuries................................ 8 32 8 48

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

The total societal cost of the known incidents for the three years,

including the costs associated with deaths, injuries, and property

damage, is about $103 million. This averages about $34.4 million per

year. It is important to note that these cost estimates are based only

on the incidents reported to CPSC, not on aggregate fire loss

estimates. There likely are other incidents of which CPSC is not aware.

If so, the $34.4 million figure understates the average annual societal

cost of child-play multi-purpose lighter fires that occurred between

1995 and 1997.

The proposed rule is not expected to eliminate all fire incidents

involving children under the age of 5. Some children will probably be

able to operate multi-purpose lighters that meet the requirements of

the rule. Indeed, a multi-purpose lighter will meet the requirements of

the proposed rule if no more than 15 percent of the subjects in the

test panel can operate the lighter (or the surrogate used in place of

the lighter).

On the other hand, some children under the age of 5 cannot operate

the ``non-child-resistant'' multi-purpose lighters currently on the

market. CPSC baseline testing indicates that, depending on the model, 4

to 41 percent of test subjects cannot operate non-child-resistant

multi-purpose lighters. Therefore, all other things being equal, the

proposed rule for multi-purpose lighters is expected to reduce the

number of children under the age of 5 that can operate multi-purpose

lighters by 75 to 84 percent, depending on the model.\6\ Assuming that

this reduces the number of fires started with multi-purpose lighters by

children under the age of 5 by the same percentage, the societal costs

of the fires will be reduced. For example, for the period 1995 through

1997, societal costs would have been reduced by at least $25.7 million

to $28.8 million annually had all multi-purpose lighters been child

resistant.

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

\6\ For lighters that already have a high baseline child

resistance (e.g., could not be operated by 41 percent of the test

subjects, the improvement will be 75 percent [(0.85-0.41)/

(1.0-.41)=0.75]. For lighters that do not have a high degree of

baseline child resistance (e.g., could not be operated by only 4

percent of the test subjects, the improvement will be 84 percent

[(.85-.04)/(1-.04)=.84].

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

The expected benefits of the proposed rule will be even higher if

manufacturers achieve a child-resistance level greater than 85 percent.

The experience with cigarette lighters indicates that most

manufacturers achieve 90 percent or higher child resistance. If

manufacturers of multi-purpose lighters achieve the same level of child

resistance, the estimated societal benefits of the proposed rule could

be 6 to 11 percent higher than set forth above.

Potential costs of the proposed rule. There would be several types

of costs associated with the proposed rule. Manufacturers would have to

devote some resources to develop or modify technology to produce child-

resistant multi-purpose lighters. Before being marketed, the lighters

must be tested and certified to the new standard. Manufacturing child-

resistant lighters may require more labor or material than non-child-

resistant lighters. Finally, the utility that consumers derive from

lighters may be diminished if the new lighters are more difficult to

operate.

Manufacturing costs. Manufacturers will have to modify their

existing multi-purpose lighters to comply with the proposed rule. In

general, costs that manufacturers would incur in developing, producing,

and selling new complying lighters include the following:

Research and development toward finding the most promising

approaches to improving child resistance, including building prototypes

and surrogate lighters for preliminary child panel testing;

Retooling and other production equipment changes required

to produce more child-resistant multi-purpose lighters, beyond normal

periodic changes made to the plant and equipment;

Labor and material costs of the additional assembly steps,

or modification of assembly steps, in the manufacturing process;

The additional labeling, recordkeeping, certification,

testing, and reporting that will be required for each new model;

Various administrative costs of compliance, such as legal

support and executive time spent at related meetings and activities;

and

Lost revenue if sales are adversely affected.

Industry sources have not been able to provide firm estimates of

these costs. One major manufacturer, BIC, has introduced a child-

resistant multi-purpose lighter. However, because BIC did not

manufacture a non-child-resistant lighter, it was unable to estimate

the incremental cost of developing and manufacturing child-resistant

multi-purpose lighters.

A representative of another manufacturer speculated that the costs

of developing, testing, and retooling for production of multi-purpose

lighters might be $1 million, if it is possible to adapt the same

technology used to make cigarette lighters child resistant. However, if

it were not possible to adapt the cigarette lighter technology, the

commenter said that costs could be as much as $5 million. Another

manufacturer expected these costs to be significantly less than $1

million.

Although it is conceivable that some manufacturers will spend as

much as $5 million to develop and retool to produce child-resistant

multi-purpose lighters, especially if they have to make several

attempts before they come up with acceptable designs, the investment in

research and development by most manufacturers will likely be closer to

$1 million.7 If, however, it is assumed that there are 15

manufacturers and that each invests an average of $2 million to develop

and market complying lighters, the total industry cost for research,

development, retooling, and compliance testing would be approximately

$30 million. If amortized over a period of 10 years, and assuming a

modest 3 percent sales growth each year, the average of these costs

would be about $0.13 per unit.8 For a manufacturer with a

large market share (i.e., selling several million units or more a

year), the cost per unit for the development could be lower than the

estimated $0.13 per unit, even at the high end of the estimates. On the

other hand, for manufacturers with a small market share, the per-unit

development costs would be greater. Some manufacturers with small

market shares may even drop out of the market (at least temporarily) or

delay entering the market.

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

\7\ This estimate is similar to the estimate used in evaluating

the cigarette lighter standard.

\8\ If 20 million lighters are sold in the first year

(approximately the current annual sales volume) and sales increase

at the rate of 3 percent a year (industry sources indicate that they

have been growing at 5 to 10 percent annually), then over a 10-year

period approximately 230 million lighters would be sold. $30

million/230 million = $0.13/unit.

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

The costs per unit to develop and retool to produce child-resistant

designs may be higher for micro-torches, since these costs would be

amortized over a significantly lower production volume. The number of

micro-torches sold annually is not known. One industry source estimated

that sales of micro-

[[Page 52403]]

torches are at least in the ``tens of thousands.'' Another stated that

industry sales were in ``thousands rather than millions.''

Another factor that may increase the development costs for micro-

torches over the costs for other multi-purpose lighters is the fact

that some micro-torches can be set to allow ``hands-free'' operation.

Therefore, some manufacturers may have to develop modifications in

child-resistance technologies to work with this feature. Alternatively,

manufacturers could eliminate the self-igniting features from micro-

torches intended for hands-free operation, thus removing the micro-

torch from the definition of multi-purpose lighter. Although this

option would not likely impose a substantial cost on manufacturers, it

could reduce the convenience and utility of multi-purpose lighters for

some users.

In addition to the research, development, retooling, and testing

costs, material and labor costs are likely to increase. For example,

additional labor will be required to add the child-resistant mechanism

to the lighter during assembly. Additional materials may also be needed

to produce the child-resistant mechanism. While the CPSC staff was

unable to obtain reliable estimates, some industry sources indicated

that they believed that these costs would be relatively low, probably

less than $0.25 per unit.

Multi-purpose lighters will also be required to have a label that

identifies the manufacturer and the approximate date of manufacture.

However, virtually all products are already labeled in some way. Since

the requirement in the proposed rule allows substantial flexibility to

the manufacturer in terms of things such as color, size, and location,

this requirement is not expected to increase the costs significantly.

Certification and testing costs include costs of producing

surrogate lighters, conducting child panel tests, and issuing and

maintaining records for each model. The largest component of these

costs is believed to be conducting child-panel tests, which, based on

CPSC experience, may cost about $25,000 per lighter model.

Administrative expenses associated with the compliance and related

activities are difficult to quantify, since many such activities

associated with the proposed rule would probably be carried out anyway

and the marginal impact of the recommended rule is probably slight.

Overall, certification, testing, and administrative costs are expected

to cost less than $450,000 annually, industry wide.9 On

average, these costs are expected to add about $0.02 per unit to the

per-unit cost of producing multi-purpose lighters ($450,000 for 20

million units).

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

\9\ Assuming 15 manufacturers with 1 multi-purpose lighter model

each and an average of $30,000 for certification, testing, and

administrative costs per lighter, the total costs would be $450,000.

Although the estimate assumes that these costs are incurred

annually, in fact, these costs are likely to be lower in subsequent

years.

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

In total, the proposed rule will likely increase the cost of

manufacturing multi-purpose lighters by about $0.40 per

unit.10 The proposed rule will likely increase the cost of

manufacturing micro-torch lighters by a greater amount than for other

multi-purpose lighters. However the available information is

insufficient to provide a reliable estimate of the increase in cost for

micro-torch lighters.

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

\10\ This estimate is based on the following estimates: $0.13/

unit for research, development and retooling; $.25/unit for labor

and materials; and $.02/unit for certification, testing and

administrative costs.

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

The proposed rule contains anti-stockpiling provisions, authorized

by section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2)), to prohibit

excessive production or importation of noncomplying lighters during the

12-month period between the final rule's publication date and its

effective date. The provision limits the production or importation of

noncomplying products to 120 percent of the amount produced or imported

in the most recent calendar year before the publication date of the

rule. Although the anti-stockpiling provision may, in the short term,

prevent some companies from increasing their sales volume as quickly as

they could otherwise, the Commission believes the provision should have

little impact on the market as a whole.

Effects on competition and international trade. At the present

time, one manufacturer has about 90 percent of the market for multi-

purpose lighters. The other manufacturers, importers, and private

labelers divide up the remaining 10 percent of the market, with none of

the other manufacturers thought to have more than 2 or 3 percent of the

market. Thus, there is already a very high degree of concentration in

the market. Even so, one manufacturer has already entered the market

with a model that is believed to meet the requirements of the proposed

rule, another manufacturer has a model that they claim is child

resistant, and at least one other firm is believed to be actively

developing a child-resistant lighter. Moreover, other firms are

expected to enter the market for multi-purpose lighters, and thereby

increase competition, as the market expands. Therefore, the proposed

rule is not expected to have any adverse impact on competition.

With the exception of BIC, which manufactures its multi-purpose

lighters in South Carolina, and one smaller manufacturer, most multi-

purpose lighters are imported. To the extent that BIC has developed a

child-resistant multi-purpose lighter before other manufacturers have,

it may enjoy at least a short-term competitive benefit from the

proposed rule, particularly to the extent its competitors are not yet

in a position to manufacture child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.

However, other manufacturers are expected to have child-resistant

multi-purpose lighters ready to market on or before the rule's

effective date.

Impact on small business. The Commission gives special

consideration to the potential impact of its rules on small businesses.

There are more than 30 manufacturers, importers, or private labelers of

multi-purpose lighters. The number of firms participating in the market

is increasing as the market grows. Although the dominant firms are not

small, about half of the other firms may be considered to be small

businesses. The cost of developing a product that complies with the

proposed rule could cause some of the small importers or private

labelers to stop offering multi-purpose lighters, at least temporarily.

However, many of the smaller importers and private labelers are not

believed to manufacture the lighters themselves, but instead import or

distribute the lighters for manufacturers based, for the most part, in

other countries. It is the manufacturers that will likely bear most of

the costs for development of the child-resistant models. Moreover,

multi-purpose lighters probably account for only a small percentage of

many of the smaller importers' and private labelers' sales. Therefore,

even if a small importer or private labeler stopped importing or

distributing its own line of multi-purpose lighters, it is not likely

to suffer a significant adverse effect if multi-purpose lighters

accounted for a small percentage of its total sales. Some small firms

that manufacture or import their own proprietary multi-purpose lighters

may be more severely impacted. There are at least two small firms that

market high-end and micro-torch multi-purpose lighters that market

their proprietary designs.

The Commission examined the information available on 30 firms that

were identified as being manufacturers, importers, or private labelers

of multi-purpose lighters. Of these, 16 have

[[Page 52404]]

fewer than 100 employees and, thus, are considered to be small

businesses according to guidelines established by the Small Business

Administration. Of the 16 small businesses, one is known to manufacture

its own lighters, and 12 are believed to be importers. Insufficient

information was available to make these determinations on the other

three firms.

Impact on consumers. Aside from increased safety, the proposed rule

is likely to affect consumers in two ways. First, the increased cost

for producing the child-resistant models will likely result in higher

retail prices for multi-purpose lighters. Second, the utility derived

from child-resistant lighters may be decreased if complying lighters

are more difficult to operate.

Consumers ultimately will bear the increased cost of manufacturing

multi-purpose lighters. Assuming a typical 100 percent markup over the

incremental cost to manufacturers (estimated at $0.40/unit), the

proposed rule may be expected to increase the retail price of multi-

purpose lighters by $0.80 per unit. However, some manufacturers may be

unable to pass all of the incremental costs directly to consumers. In

these cases, the costs may be indirectly borne by consumers in the form

of generally higher prices on the range of other products produced by

the manufacturer or in the form of reduced earnings on investments in

the company. The retail prices for micro-torch and high-end multi-

purpose lighters will probably increase by a greater amount since the

manufacturing costs per unit are greater for these lighters.

The utility that consumers receive from multi-purpose lighters may

be reduced if the rule makes the lighters more difficult to operate.

This could result in some consumers switching to substitute products,

such as cigarette lighters or matches. However, as with child-resistant

cigarette lighters, the manufacturers should be able to develop

lighters that are only slightly, if any, more difficult for adults to

operate. Therefore, the number of consumers who stop using multi-

purpose lighters because of the child-resistant mechanisms is expected

to be small.

Moreover, even if some consumers do switch to other products, the

risk of fire is not expected to increase significantly. Most cigarette

lighters (one possible substitute) must already meet the same child-

resistant standard being proposed for multi-purpose lighters. Although

consumers that switch to matches may increase the risk of child-play

fires somewhat, matches seem to be inherently more child resistant than

non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters. Previously, the CPSC

determined that non-child-resistant cigarette lighters were 1.4 times

as likely as matches to be involved in child-play fires and 3.9 times

as likely to be involved in a child-play death.11 Thus, even

if some consumers did switch to using matches, the risk of child-play

fires would still likely be less than if they continued to use non-

child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.

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

\11\ Smith, Linda E., Charles L. Smith, and Dale R. Ray,

Lighters and Matches: An Assessment of Risks Associated with

Household Ownership and Use,'' U.S. Consumer Product Safety

Commission, Washington, DC (June 1991).

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

Some manufacturers of micro-torches may respond to a rule requiring

all multi-purpose lighters to be child-resistant by no longer offering

micro-torches that are self-igniting. Products that are not self-

igniting do not present the same risk of child-play fires and are not

included within the definition of multi-purpose lighter. In this case,

the consumer would have to use an external ignition source to light the

torch. Although this option may not increase manufacturing costs, it

could reduce the convenience and utility of the multi-purpose lighters.

Consumers will have to provide external ignition sources, such as

matches or other multi-purpose lighters, to ignite the torches.

Estimated net benefits of the proposed rule. As previously stated,

the total societal costs of fires known to have been started during

1995 through 1997 by young children playing with, or otherwise

attempting to operate, multi-purpose lighters was approximately $103

million, or approximately $34.4 million per year. This is probably an

underestimate, since it only includes the cases of which CPSC is aware.

During the same period, there were an average of an estimated 19.4

million multi-purpose lighters, including micro-torches, were available

for use each year.12 The societal costs of the fires started

by young children with multi-purpose lighters are, therefore, about

$1.77 per lighter ($34.4 million 19.4 million lighters). The

proposed rule is expected to reduce this cost by 75 to 84 percent.

Therefore, the expected societal benefit of the proposed rule in terms

of reduced fires, deaths, injuries, and property damage is expected to

be $1.33 to $1.49 per complying lighter sold. Based on the number of

multi-purpose lighters now in use (over 20 million), the total societal

costs of these fires exceed $35 million annually.

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

\12\ The average number of multi-purpose lighters, excluding

micro-torches, that were in use was 18 million. This estimate was

based on estimated annual sales and an estimated useful life of 1

year. The number of micro-torches available for use was estimated to

be about 1.4 million. This estimate is based on less certain data

and may be subject to change as more information becomes available.

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

The computation of the net benefits of the proposed rule depends on

the expected number of years that a multi-purpose lighter is available

for use. The Commission estimates that the useful life of most multi-

purpose lighters, excluding micro-torches, is about one year.

Therefore, since the proposed rule may increase the cost of

manufacturing multi-purpose lighters by $0.40 and may increase the

retail prices by as much as $0.80, the net benefit to society of the

proposed rule is expected to be at least $0.53 per unit ($1.33 -

$0.80). If 20 million units are sold per year, the proposed rule would

result in an annual net benefit to consumers would be about $10.6

million (20 million x $0.53) each year.

Some multi-purpose lighters have useful lives of greater than one

year. Therefore, the gross benefit of the proposed rule per lighter of

this type is computed by summing the expected annual net benefit

(estimated as $1.33 per unit above) over the expected life of the

lighter. For example, if a multi-purpose lighter, such as a micro-

torch, had an expected useful life of 10 years, the gross benefit would

be $11.14 per lighter, assuming a discount rate of 4 percent. As stated

earlier, the costs/unit for manufacturing these micro-torch type multi-

purpose lighters is likely to be higher. Assuming a markup at retail of

100 percent over manufacturing costs and a 10-year product life, if the

cost per unit to manufacture child-resistant micro-torches is less than

$5.57/unit, net social benefits would result. However, if the expected

useful life of a micro-torch was only 5 years, the gross benefit would

be $6.14/unit. This would suggest positive net benefits if the per-unit

manufacturing costs are less than $3.12 per unit.

The preceding benefit estimates may tend to be low because they are

based on the test results for the model of multi-purpose lighter with

the highest level of baseline child resistance (41 per cent) for the

tests conducted with the switch in the ``off,'' or locked, position.

The choice of this test for baseline purposes would tend to lower the

benefit estimate in two ways. The child resistance of the other three

models tested with the switch in the locked position ranged from 24

percent to 37 percent. Thus, the effective child resistance of

currently used multi-purpose lighters likely is somewhat lower than the

baseline figure used for the benefit estimates. In addition,

essentially all of the children on the test panel were able to operate

the model with no on/off switch (96 percent) and

[[Page 52405]]

the model with the switch in the unlocked position (88 percent). This

means that, to the extent that adults do not return the switch to the

locked position after use, the effective child resistance of multi-

purpose lighters in use would be less than that obtained from a test of

a lighter in the ``off'' position. Thus, a child-resistant mechanism

could provide a greater benefit than estimated above.

Alternatives to the proposed rule. There are possible alternatives

to the proposed rule. These alternatives include not taking any action

and relying on voluntary efforts, having only labeling requirements,

narrowing the scope of the rule and establishing a different effective

date. These alternatives are discussed below.

1. No action and rely on voluntary efforts. One alternative is to

take no action to reduce the occurrence of fires started by children

playing with multi-purpose lighters. If no mandatory rule were issued,

some manufacturers might still introduce child-resistant multi-purpose

lighters. While these manufacturers can emphasize the safety of their

product, they could be at a competitive price disadvantage compared to

manufacturers who continue to sell non-child-resistant lighters.

Although the portion of the market that would be captured by

manufacturers of child-resistant lighters is not known, it is

reasonable to assume it would be substantially less than 100 percent,

especially since many of the products are imported. Perhaps only two or

three firms would offer such products. For example, if child-resistant

lighters captured 20 percent of the market under this alternative, the

annual benefits would be approximately 20 percent of the benefits of a

mandatory rule.

Currently, there is no voluntary standard for child-resistant

multi-purpose lighters. The Commission could work with appropriate

standards-setting organizations to develop such a standard. However,

for the reasons stated above, conformance with such a standard is

likely to be low.

2. Labeling requirements. The Commission could choose not to issue

a performance standard, but instead opt to rely on additional warning

labels on multi-purpose lighters. However, the FHSA already requires

multi-purpose lighters to be labeled ``Keep out of reach of children.''

The effectiveness of additional labeling would likely be low.

3. Narrowing the scope. The Commission considered exempting the

more expensive lighters (e.g., those retailing for more than $20) from

the proposed rule. This would have been similar to the exemption in the

cigarette lighter standard for lighters with a customs value or ex-

factory value greater than $2.00. This was intended to exempt certain

luxury cigarette lighters for which there was little evidence of

involvement in child-play fires. However, the CPSC does not have

evidence that the more expensive multi-purpose lighters are less likely

to be involved in child-play fires than the less expensive models.

There is no evidence that the more expensive multi-purpose lighters are

stored or used differently around the home than are the more common and

less expensive lighters. Furthermore, baseline testing indicates that

some of the expensive lighters are at least as easy for children to

operate as less expensive models. Therefore, there is insufficient

evidence to conclude that exempting the more expensive multi-purpose

lighters from the proposed rule would significantly reduce the costs

without significantly reducing the benefits.

The Commission also considered narrowing the scope of the rule by

excluding from its coverage products known as micro-torches. The

Commission decided against this because micro-torches serve the same

function as other types of multi-purpose lighters--to provide consumers

with a useful tool for accomplishing a variety of household and

recreational tasks requiring a flame--and present the same risk of

operation by children. Although some micro-torches have a shorter

nozzle or operate at a higher temperature than do other multi-purpose

lighters, the similarity of the products in function and risk outweighs

any differences and warrants inclusion of micro-torches within the

definition of multi-purpose lighter.

Multi-purpose lighters and micro-torches share the same features;

they are hand-held, lightweight, compact, self-igniting (e.g., by

pressing a trigger or button), easy to carry, and convenient to store.

Further, the packaging and catalog descriptions for micro-torches

promote them for lighting grills, fireplaces, camp fires, camp stoves,

and lanterns. In one fire incident, a micro-torch had been used by a

consumer to light a furnace pilot light. These are the same types of

tasks for which other multi-purpose lighters are promoted and used.

Children also will be attracted to micro-torches in the same ways

that they are attracted to other multi-purpose lighters. At age two,

children begin true role play and symbolic play, and make use of less

realistic objects as props for pretend play.13 The

Commission's Human Factors staff believes that micro-torches are likely

to appeal to and be attractive to children because of their shapes,

which, for some pocket-type micro-torches, resemble toy ``ray guns'' or

hose nozzles that children often play with in the summer. Upon seeing

them operated, some children will want to play with the micro-torches

because of a natural curiosity about fire and because they desire to

imitate adults in their make-believe play. For children, micro-torches

and other types of multi-purpose lighters are the same product

perceptually and cognitively, with the same attraction and the same

potential hazard.

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

\13\ Goodson, B.D. & Bronson, M.B. (1985). Guidelines for

Relating Children's Ages to Toy Characteristics (Contract No. CPSC-

85-1089). Prepared for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Washington, DC.

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

It also can be expected that children will have access to micro-

torches, as well as other multi-purpose lighters. Like other multi-

purpose lighters, micro-torches are often used and stored in and around

the home, making them accessible to children. The Commission is aware

of one case in which a three-year-old boy ignited bedding materials

with a micro-torch that had been used for lighting a furnace pilot

light. Even if some micro-torches are stored in home tool boxes, tackle

boxes, workbenches, or other places where tools are located, the

Commission's incident information shows that children obtain multi-

purpose lighters from such locations.

Furthermore, micro-torch lighters represent only a small portion of

the multi-purpose lighters in use. Micro-torches probably account for

less than five percent of the multi-purpose lighters in use and perhaps

one percent of unit sales of multi-purpose lighters. Therefore, the

fact that the Commission is aware of only one incident involving a

micro-torch lighter may be related to the low number of these products

in use and not because these products are used more safely around the

house. Although the per-unit costs to make torch-type lighters child

resistant may be higher than for other multi-purpose lighters, the

benefits may also be higher, since torch-type lighters have a longer

useful life, which would result in exposure to children over a longer

period of time for each lighter.

In sum, micro-torches and other multi-purpose lighters share

sufficient similarity of function and risk to be considered as a single

product for the purposes of the proposed rule.

4. Alternate effective date. The proposed rule incorporates an

effective date of 12 months from the date of

[[Page 52406]]

publication in the Federal Register. However, the Commission could

consider shorter or longer effective dates. The 12-month effective date

lessens the economic burden of the rule while providing protection to

consumers as soon as reasonably possible.

While developing the Cigarette Lighter Safety Standard, the

Commission estimated that it would take an average of 12 months to

develop, test, retool for production, perform production tests, and

manufacture and ship the product.14 Some manufacturers,

especially those that have been following the Commission's activities

on cigarette lighters and multi-purpose lighters may have already begun

work on child-resistant models or can take advantage of their

experience with the cigarette lighter standard and be able to

manufacture and market child-resistant lighters sooner than 12 months.

In fact, at least one model is already on the market.

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

\14\ CPSC Memorandum dated February 8, 1991, from Dale R. Ray

(ECPA) to Barbara Jacobson (HS).

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

On the other hand, manufacturers who have not until very recently

started following the Commission's activity with regard to this

rulemaking procedure may not have begun any development work.

Manufacturers of multi-purpose lighters that do not also manufacture

cigarette lighters, such some micro-torch manufacturers, do not have

the experience manufacturing child-resistant cigarette lighters. These

manufacturers may be adversely affected by an effective date shorter

than 12 months.

A 12-month effective date does not mean that no benefits will occur

until 1 year after the publication of the rule in the Federal Register.

Indeed, one manufacturer already has a child-resistant multi-purpose

lighter on the market. Other manufacturers can be expected to introduce

their own models as they get them developed. Therefore, the Commission

expects that the number of child-resistant multi-purpose lighters on

the market to begin increasing prior to the effective date of the rule.

Conclusion. The proposed rule would have substantial net benefits

to consumers. The rule should approach its maximum effectiveness within

a couple of years after its effective date, since multi-purpose

lighters typically have useful lives of about one year or less. At that

time, as a result of the proposed rule, the number of fires started by

young children playing with, or otherwise attempting to operate, multi-

purpose lighters should be at least 75 percent lower than what would be

expected in the absence of a rule.

There is at least one model of multi-purpose lighter on the market

now that probably complies with the proposed rule. It is expected that

other manufacturers should be able to produce complying multi-purpose

lighters before a final rule goes into effect. Therefore, the

Commission does not anticipate that the rule will cause any disruption

in the supply of multi-purpose lighters.

Some manufacturers, especially those with a small share of the

market, may decide not to make the needed investment to develop child-

resistant multi-purpose lighters. However, since the market for multi-

purpose lighters is growing, other firms can be expected to enter the

market as the market expands. Therefore, since a permanent reduction in

the number of firms affected by the rule is not expected, any adverse

impact on competition in the market would be small and temporary. Any

adverse impacts would be mitigated even further if the standard in the

proposed rule were adopted internationally.

A number of alternatives to the rule exist, including options

regarding various aspects of the proposed rule itself. While some of

the options may reduce total costs, none of the alternatives would

increase the overall level of safety to consumers.

H. Comments on the ANPR

The public comment period on the ANPR closed on March 17, 1997. The

Commission received nine written comments, including two received after

the comment period closed. Three additional written comments that were

received before the ANPR was published, but not addressed previously,

are also discussed in this notice. Copies of all written comments are

available from the Commission's Office of the Secretary.

The President of the Ohio Chapter of the International Association

of Arson Investigators Inc., and the President of the National

Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates and Practitioners, Inc.,

wrote in support of Commission action to require multi-purpose lighters

to be child resistant.

Conrad Guthrie of Vinson & Elkins, the petitioner's attorneys,

submitted information on four additional incidents, involving three

deaths. Mark W. Collmer, of McDowell Collmer, L.L.P., submitted

information about another incident involving a death.

D. Bruce Kehoe of Wilson, Kehoe & Winingham submitted information

about an incident involving a child who is permanently disabled due to

severe burns. This law firm also submitted information on 60 incidents

reported to them in response to their advertisement requesting

information on multi-purpose lighter incidents in the December 1997

issue of Fire and Arson Magazine. For a number of these incidents, the

submitted information did not state that a multi-purpose lighter was

used. In 22 of the 60 incidents, the child who started the fire was

reported to have used a multi-purpose lighter and to be under age 5.

Carrie Craig wrote a letter describing her experience when her home

burned down after her 3-year-old daughter ignited a couch with a multi-

purpose lighter obtained from the fireplace mantle.

Scripto-Tokai Corporation (Scripto) and Swedish Match North America

Inc., (Cricket), importers of multi-purpose lighters,

submitted comments regarding incidents. Scripto stated that during the

past 12 years it has distributed approximately 100 million multi-

purpose lighters and has received only about two dozen reports of

children allegedly operating a multi-purpose lighter. Scripto commented

that most of the incidents did not involve any claim of personal

injury. Cricket reported it has sold several million multi-

purpose lighters since 1992 and never had a single report of any child-

play incident.

Scripto, Cricket, and the Lighter Association, Inc.,

requested that any requirement for child resistance be developed as a

separate standard from the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters.

A summary of other issues raised by the commenters, and the

Commission's responses, are provided below.

Issue: Risk of Injury

The President of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse

Associates & Practitioners, Inc., ``agrees that multi-purpose lighters

which can be operated by children under the age of 5 pose an

unreasonably dangerous risk to children and their families.''

The Lighter Association, Inc., questions the validity of the

Commission's incident data on multi-purpose lighters and whether the

incidents resulting in deaths involved a fire started by children under

the age of 5.

Scripto states that the data reported in the ANPR (53 fires over

106 months) equates to one child-play fire incident every two months

that may have involved a multi-purpose lighter. ``Based upon available

data, Scripto does not believe that multi-purpose lighters, as a class

of products, present an unreasonable risk of serious injury or

[[Page 52407]]

death to consumers under the definitions provided by either the

Consumer Product Safety Act or the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.''

Scripto states that it is unclear why the Commission has selected

multi-purpose lighters for possible regulation as opposed to arguably

more hazardous fire producing consumer products such as matches,

stoves, candles, and heaters, as evidenced in the Commission's report,

``1994 Residential Fire Loss Estimates.'' Scripto states that ``there

would be a far greater societal benefit in regulating matches than

multi-purpose lighters.''

Response

The staff reported 178 fire incidents that were started by children

under age 5. The staff did not include incidents in this tabulation

where there was a question about the age of the child who started the

fire or where there was a question about whether a multi-purpose

lighter was involved.

There are no data currently available to compare the per-unit risk

associated with multi-purpose lighters with any other flame source. As

expected, there are many more child-play incidents involving matches,

because of the larger number of these products in use. The per-unit

risk for other products may or may not be greater than the per-unit

risk for multi-purpose lighters. However, this does not preclude

Commission action on multi-purpose lighters if the risk of injury and

death can be addressed at a reasonable cost.

Issue: Effectiveness of the Cigarette Lighter Standard

The Lighter Association, Inc., states that several of the larger

distributors of disposable cigarette lighters began selling child-

resistant lighters before the July 12, 1994, effective date of the

Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters. The Association cites an

increase in the estimated number of child-play deaths from lighters,

from 170 in 1993 to 230 in 1994, as evidence that the Cigarette Lighter

Standard has not been effective.

Scripto states that there are no available data to conclude that

incorporating child-resistant mechanisms into multi-purpose lighters

will reduce the incidence of child-play fires. ``Until the Commission

has analyzed the accident data for 1995 and 1996, there is no empirical

basis to conclude that the Cigarette Lighter Safety Standard has been

effective in reducing the number of child play fire incidents.''

Cricket also comments that the Commission should defer

a decision about extending the standard to multi-purpose lighters until

it is determined whether the cigarette lighter standard has had an

impact on the incidence of child-play fires.

Response

Fire loss estimates are now available for 1995. These data were not

previously available to the commenters. There were an estimated 8,200

residential structure fires caused by children (regardless of age)

playing with all types of lighters in 1995, resulting in 180 deaths and

1,220 injuries. Fire and injury estimates are lower for 1995 than for

any of the four preceding years. Comparing 1995 to 1994, when the

Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters went into effect, there was a

greater percentage reduction in child-play lighter fires than the

reduction in residential structure fires overall. This reduction could

be the first indication that child-resistant cigarette lighters help

prevent child-play fires. However, there was also a reduction in child-

play fires started with matches in 1995, indicating that other factors,

such as general fire prevention efforts, could also be involved.

However, the reduction for child-play lighter fires (23 percent) was

greater than the reduction for child-play match fires (6 percent).

The Commission's experience with the Poison Prevention Packaging

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1471-1476, provides ample evidence that requiring a

product to be child resistant effectively reduces the risk of injury.

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 poisonings from oral prescription drugs

for children under age 5 by about 45 percent since 1974, the year these

drugs became subject to the packaging requirements. The Commission

believes the child-resistant concept used under the PPPA is applicable

to requiring child-resistant features on cigarette and multi-purpose

lighters.

More accurate information about the effectiveness of the cigarette

lighter standard will be available when the Commission completes a

lighter study in the year 2000. The results of this special study will

identify the specific types of lighters involved in child-play fires

(e.g., cigarette lighter or multi-purpose lighter) and will also

identify the proportion of fires started by children under 5 years old

(the group of children most afforded protection by child resistance).

Despite the current lack of specific information on the

effectiveness of the cigarette lighter standard, the Commission

concludes that it should proceed with the development of a standard for

multi-purpose lighters. The Commission has no reason to conclude that

the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters is not reasonably effective

in reducing child-play fires started by children under age 5 with

lighters. When the cigarette lighter standard was issued, the

Commission estimated that it would eventually prevent about 70 percent

of child-play fire deaths with cigarette lighters. Since an even higher

percentage reduction is expected from a standard for multi-purpose

lighters, the Commission cannot justify risking possibly dozens of

lives while waiting for enough time to pass to complete a detailed

study of the effectiveness of the cigarette lighter standard.

Issue: False Sense of Security

The Lighter Association, Inc., and Scripto question whether the

1994 fire incident data, showing an increase in child-play fires

involving cigarette lighters, indicate that smokers are becoming more

careless in storing child-resistant lighters away from children because

they assume ``child resistant'' means ``child-proof.'' The Lighter

Association, Inc., states that some distributors began selling child-

resistant lighters as early as mid-1992, in advance of the July 1994

effective date. Therefore, it contends, one would not expect the number

of child-play deaths to increase 35 percent (from 170 in 1993 to 230 in

1994.)

Response

The Commission is unaware of any evidence that the number of child-

play deaths associated with cigarette lighters increased in 1994 as a

result of smokers becoming more careless in storing child-resistant

lighters away from children. The 1994 fire loss estimates are too near

the July 1994 effective date of the Safety Standard for Cigarette

Lighters to provide a measure of its effectiveness. The 1995

Residential Fire Loss Estimates are now available. Fire and injury

losses associated with lighters are lower for 1995 than for any of the

4 preceding years. In 1995, the number of child-play deaths associated

with cigarette lighters is down to 180 from the 230 estimated for 1994.

Issue: Attractiveness

The President of the Ohio Chapter of the International Association

of Arson Investigators Inc., and the President of the National

Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners, Inc.,

expressed concern that the attractiveness of the design (gun or toy

[[Page 52408]]

shape) and colorful packaging of multi-purpose lighters would attract

children to play with them.

Response

Multi-purpose lighters do have physical characteristics similar to

a gun (barrel, trigger, and in some cases, trigger guard). Most are

also functionally similar to a gun since they are activated by pulling

a trigger mechanism. It seems likely that children might play with

these lighters by ``shooting'' them as they would a toy gun. There are

references to a ``gun'' or ``toy-like shape'' in a number of the

reports of fires associated with multi-purpose lighters. It seems

likely 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 as play objects compared with

ordinary cigarette lighters or matches. Even without a toy-like appeal,

knowledge that the lighter can produce a flame would motivate many

children to play with it. This is one reason the Commission is

proposing this new rule.

The Commission is not aware of any incidents in which the packaging

was influential in attracting children to the lighters.

Issue: Supervision

Scripto comments ``that unsupervised young children are vulnerable

to an array of environmental and household hazards * * *.

Unfortunately, a common element among the most serious injuries to

young children is a lack of proper adult supervision.''

Response

The Commission agrees that proper adult supervision is very

important. However, after reviewing the fire incident reports, the

Commission has concluded that the children were under reasonable levels

of supervision at the time they started the fires. Fires were started

while parents or guardians were present in the house.

Furthermore, children of the ages of those involved in the

incidents are old enough to engage in play activities in rooms other

than where their parents or guardians are present. In fact, child

development experts state that at 3 and 4 years of age, children can be

given some freedom from direct adult supervision. Thus, it is not

realistic to expect parents to directly observe children of these ages

during each moment of the day.

Issue: Voluntary Standards, Education, and Labeling as Alternative

Means To Address the Hazard

The Lighter Association, Inc., refers to section 7 of the Consumer

Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056), which states that the Commission

can issue performance and/or labeling standards in addressing potential

risks. The Association states the ANPR ignores voluntary standards,

education, and labeling, in favor of a position that product design is

the most effective approach to address a hazard.

Cricket suggests that the Commission consider

addressing identified problems with ``enhanced public awareness and

education programs.''

Scripto states, ``Whether or not the Commission elects to mandate a

child resistancy standard for multi-purpose lighters, it must not lose

sight of the goal of educating children and parents on fire safety.''

Scripto comments, ``Clear, effective warnings and labels must be

provided with fire sources to adequately inform consumers of the

applicable hazards * * *. Such efforts must receive immediate top

priority.''

Response

The Commission does not agree that the advance notice of proposed

rulemaking ignores education, labeling, and voluntary standards as

possible means to address the risk of injury associated with multi-

purpose lighters. The ANPR specifically invited 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

associated with multi-purpose lighters. The ANPR also solicited

comments on other possible means to effectively address the hazard.

At an April 16, 1998, meeting of ASTM Subcommittee F15.02, Safety

Standards for Cigarette Lighters, the members voted to support the

Commission action to develop a mandatory standard for multi-purpose

lighters. Manufacturers whose multi-purpose lighters comprise a major

share of the market are members of this subcommittee. The members also

voted to form a technical task group for the purpose of providing input

to the Commission on the provisions of the draft standard. Based on

these actions, the CPSC does not expect a voluntary standard to be

developed.

The Commission does not believe that warning labels or education

alone can effectively address the risks associated with multi-purpose

lighters. Multi-purpose lighters have always been subject to labeling

requirements under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The required

statements include: ``Keep out of the reach of children.'' The

incidents indicate that many consumers were aware of the danger of

lighters and took precautions to keep them out of the reach of their

children.

When attempting to keep objects out of reach, caregivers often find

a storage place that is up high. However, children learn to conquer

height at an early age. At 2 years of age, a child can climb a play

gym; at 2\1/2\ years of age, a child is quite skillful in climbing. By

the time a child is 4 to 5 years of age, the motor abilities have

evolved to the point where a child has the coordination and balance of

an adult. The motor abilities of children in these age ranges make it

very difficult to find a storage place that provides both convenient

access for users and safety for young children.

Since most caregivers are fully aware of the dangers of young

children playing with lighters, and since children access them in spite

of attempts to store them out of reach, the Commission concludes that

additional or different warning statements would not reduce the

incidence of fires. The Commission preliminarily concludes that a

child, resistant feature on multi-purpose lighters would be the most

effective approach of addressing the hazard.

Issue: Scope

Cricket urges the Commission to determine whether the

child-play problem is related to ``issues with a particular product''

rather than to all multi-purpose lighters.

Response

Although the large majority of the reported fire incidents involved

one manufacturer, there were also five other brands identified. In

addition, the results of the baseline testing of five different models

of multi-purpose lighters demonstrate that the majority (59 to 96

percent) of the children on the test panels were able to operate them.

This is a range of child resistance of 4 to 41 percent, in contrast to

the minimum requirement of 85 percent in the standard proposed below.

The baseline results indicate that when the on/off switch is left

unlocked, as is expected to be the case in many households, most of the

children in the test panel could operate the lighters.

Issue: Requirements for Multi-purpose lighters May Create New

Hazards

Scripto states that there is a concern that requiring the child-

resistant mechanism to reset itself automatically

[[Page 52409]]

after each operation of the ignition mechanism, as required in the

cigarette lighter standard, ``could create new and serious hazards for

the product's users.'' Scripto states, ``It is not uncommon for piezo

ignition devices to require more than one attempt to ignite.

Environmental factors such as wind, low temperature, altitude or

moisture can also affect the consumer's ability to properly ignite the

piezo lighter.'' Scripto states that, because a child-resistant

mechanism would further delay ignition, the potential for ``flashback

explosions or fires'' is increased in applications such as igniting a

gas grill.

Cricket states that multi-purpose lighter ``mechanisms

do not light 100% of the time, particularly when used in outdoor

conditions.'' They strongly believe that the Commission should analyze

the potential for a small fire or explosion as a result of the delays

associated with a child-resistant mechanism before proceeding to

institute a standard.

The Lighter Association, Inc., comments that ``Flashback fire is a

very real issue * * *. If the new regulation reduces risks to children,

but increases risks to adults (the ones who are supposed to be using

the product!), then the regulation should be rejected.''

Response

The Commission acknowledges that piezo devices, such as multi-

purpose lighters, often require more than one attempt to ignite. This

is due, in large part, to the fact that the fuel may not reach the end

of the lighter nozzle at the same time the spark is generated.

Therefore, the consumer may need to pull the trigger more than once in

order to create multiple sparks.

However, the Commission does not agree that child-resistant multi-

purpose lighters will create hazardous use conditions. Based on testing

using gas barbecue grills, the Commission's Division of Engineering

concluded that the risk of flame-up or small explosion for some grills

is minimal for short periods of delayed ignition, such as 5-10 seconds.

The consumer can avoid this risk altogether by igniting the lighter

before turning on the gas.

To further minimize the possibility of creating a hazardous use

condition, the draft standard requires that multi-purpose lighters

allow multiple operation attempts before letting go of the lighter

causes the child-resistant feature to reset. One manufacturer is

currently marketing a child-resistant multi-purpose lighter with such a

design. This manufacturer has tested the lighter according to the

protocol in the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters to establish

that it is child resistant.

The Commission is aware of other manufacturers that are working on

child-resistant designs that function similarly. With such designs, the

lighting efficiency of a child-resistant multi-purpose lighter should

be essentially the same as that of the non-child-resistant multi-

purpose lighters currently in use.

The Commission is also aware of some multi-purpose lighters that

have a feature that can be used to lock the fuel supply open. This

allows hands-free operation of the lighter during soldering or similar

activities; some consumers find this a useful feature. However, it

might be difficult for this type of lighter to comply with a

requirement that the child-resistant feature reset when the user puts

the lighter down. To retain the potential for hands-free operation, the

Commission is specifying that, for lighters that remain lit after being

released, the lighter must return automatically to a child-resistant

state by the time the user lets go of the lighter after turning off the

flame. This scenario is not expected to increase the risk of fires

started by children, since the lighter's user would likely turn the

lighter off when leaving it for any period of time that would allow

access by children.

The Commission is also proposing a requirement to help prevent the

dangerous situation where a child who operated the child-resistant

mechanism and lit the lighter could create a flame that would not go

out when the lighter is released, even if it is dropped. The proposed

rule specifies that, after the lighter is lit, an additional manual

operation must be performed to activate the feature that allows the

lighter to burn without being held by the user.

Issue: Consumer Resistance to Child-Resistant Features

Scripto challenges the Commission's position in the ANPR that

consumer resistance to a child-resistant feature on multi-purpose

lighters will not negate the feature's effectiveness. Scripto states

that ``many consumers would resist the introduction of child-resistant

multi-purpose lighters. Scripto's experience with the tremendous

negative reactions to its child-resistant cigarette lighters form a

solid basis for this assertion * * *. Consideration must be given to

those populations that may be exposed to potentially greater fire

hazards if they were physically unable to successfully operate a child

resistant multi-purpose lighter. Such individuals may switch to such

less safe 'non-CR' alternatives as long stem matches or a rolled up

newspaper * * *.''

The Lighter Association, Inc. states that ``contrary to the (CPSC)

staff's representations, complaints regarding lighters that comply with

the rule continue to come in from every region of the country * * *

Industry receives thousands of complaints every year. Products are

being invented every month to override child-resistant lighters.''

Response

Although there were numerous complaints about the safety standard

when child-resistant cigarette lighter models first became available in

large numbers and non-child-resistant lighters became scarce, the

number of complaints from consumers to the Commission has dwindled to

almost nothing in 1998. Many of the initial complaints had to do with

the difficulty of operating the child-resistant mechanism on the

lighter models that were generally available in the marketplace in 1994

and early 1995. These early models usually had a lever or push-in tab

to permit the gas release lever to function when the flint wheel was

rotated to generate a flame. Later models of child-resistant lighters

employ child-resistant features that are integrated into the lighter so

that adults can operate the lighters much like they did the non-child-

resistant pre-standard roll-and-press lighters.

The proposed rule requires that multi-purpose lighters must not be

capable of having its child-resistant mechanism easily deactivated. The

Commission interprets this as requiring that the child-resistant

mechanism cannot easily be disabled with a common household tool, such

as a knife or pliers, and still remain operable.

In the 4 years since the lighter standard became effective, the

Commission became aware of two devices that were designed and promoted

for defeating the child-resistant mechanisms on certain brands of

disposable child-resistant lighter models. CPSC contacted both of those

firms to discourage them from selling these devices. If the Commission

obtains information indicating that such devices pose a substantial

risk of injury to the public, the Commission could seek corrective

actions pursuant to Section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064.

Furthermore, actions could be brought against persons who disable the

child-resistant mechanisms on lighters intended for resale.

The Commission would also expect some consumers to write about

their dissatisfaction with child-resistant

[[Page 52410]]

features on multi-purpose lighters. However, the Commission believes

that the level of consumer resistance would not prevent the expected

reduction of child-play fires started with multi-purpose lighters.

Furthermore, the Commission believes that manufacturers can design

child-resistant multi-purpose lighters that offer minimal inconvenience

to consumers.

Issue: Enforcement

The Lighter Association, Inc., comments, ``The record is full of

examples of problems with enforcement of the current child resistancy

rule * * * Importers are devising new ways every week to evade the

rule. Indeed, Compliance has recently advised industry that it is now

reviewing non-child-resistant lighters from Europe and Asia being

rerouted to the U.S. for sale. Substantial premiums are paid for non-

child-resistant lighters.''

The Lighter Association, Inc., states that the Commission's

enforcement program is inadequate because of the cost of testing to

assure compliance. ``If the Commission cannot enforce the existing

regulation, it is absurd to extend it to another product line.

Ultimately, non-complying imports will take over this product line as

well.''

Scripto states that it has ``been disappointed by the Commission's

historical failure to evenly enforce the labeling requirements of the

Federal Hazardous Substances Act on other multi-purpose lighter

distributors.'' Additionally, Scripto expresses disappointment that the

Commission has not taken action against the ``Quick Fix,'' a device

being sold to disable the child-resistant mechanism on cigarette

lighters. It suggests that the cigarette lighter standard be amended to

prohibit the intentional disarming of lighter safety devices. It also

recommends that the Commission take a more proactive enforcement stance

to prevent further violations of the Cigarette Lighter Standard.

``Before moving forward to implement new regulations, the Commission

must be prepared to ensure consumers, distributors and manufacturers

that any such regulation will be fully enforced, without loopholes and

without exception.''

Cricket comments that it has ``seen ample anecdotal

evidence that disreputable importers have violated, and are continuing

to flout, both the stockpiling and substantive requirements of the

child-resistancy standard'' in spite of information about apparent

violations provided to the Commission staff by importers and the

Lighter Association.

Cricket urges the Commission to work for international

acceptance of lighter standards to address the enforcement evasion

issue.

Response

While CPSC is aware that some unscrupulous importers and

distributors of lighters have taken actions to circumvent the intent

and purposes of the standard, their overall numbers have been small,

and hardly constitute a large number of schemes to ``evade the rule,''

as alleged in this comment. CPSC and Customs have taken vigorous action

against importers and distributors who do not comply with the standard,

seizing and refusing entry to millions of noncomplying lighters since

July 1994, working with importers to recall millions of lighters that

made it into the marketplace before their noncompliance with the

standard was discovered, and filing legal actions against firms that

purposely distributed and sold lighters that had the child-resistant

feature intentionally removed or disabled prior to sale to the public.

Finally, CPSC and Customs have seized several small shipments that

originated in Europe of popular name brand non-child-resistant

disposable cigarette lighters manufactured for the European market that

were sent to United States importers as premium items with other

products intended for sale in the United States. These lighters

invariably were decorated with product logos (e.g., liquor or beer

brands, or other consumer product logos). They were included in the

shipment by the European exporter as advertising items, not products

intended to be sold separately from the main goods in the shipment.

Evidence in these cases suggests that in almost every instance, the

inclusion of the non-child-resistant lighters in the shipment was done

due to ignorance of the standard on the part of the exporter in Europe,

not on an intentional attempt to thwart the safety standard. Based on

this experience with the cigarette lighter standard, the Commission

concludes that the compliance with a multi-purpose lighter standard

will be sufficient to produce the benefits discussed above.

Issue: Requirements

Scripto comments, ``The cigarette lighter experience has seen the

approval of some mechanisms which are so easy to operate that safety

objectives are compromised * * *. Any device which lends child

resistancy to a product must be more inconvenient to use or it will not

be effective * * *. Therefore, definitions must recognize and clarify

this fundamental trade-off between safety and convenience.''

Response

The Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters requires manufacturers

to conduct testing to assure that their lighters comply with all of the

requirements. The manufacturers are also required to report the results

of this testing to CPSC's Office of Compliance and to certify to their

distributors or retailers that the lighters comply. If there is any

reason to believe that the lighters are not child resistant, the Office

of Compliance requests further substantiation from the manufacturer.

Additionally, a program is in place at CPSC to conduct enforcement

testing of cigarette lighters where warranted.

In regard to Scripto's recommendation that definitions be developed

to preclude child-resistant mechanisms that are too easy to operate,

the Commission points out that, just like the cigarette lighter

standard, the proposed standard for multi-purpose lighters is drafted

as a performance standard rather than a design standard. Any multi-

purpose lighter, however designed, that meets the requirements in the

proposed rule would be considered child resistant:

Issue: Market Impact

Swedish Match stated:

The market for the multi-purpose lighters is totally different

from the one analyzed by the CPSC in connection with the cigarette

lighter standard. As there are fewer competitors, we strongly urge

the CPSC to study closely the likely competitive impact of the

imposition of a child resistancy requirement on the multi-purpose

lighter industry * * *. Any company would have to consider whether

it could absorb successfully the added research, development, and

production costs that surely would be associated with the standard

and still remain competitive in the market * * *. Many firms

(especially those with a marginal position in the market place)

likely will react to the standard by exiting the market, thereby

resulting in less competition and higher prices to be borne by the

consuming public.

Response

The market for multi-purpose lighters is obviously smaller than the

market for cigarette lighters, in terms of both the number of units

sold annually and the number of manufacturers. It is conceivable that

some firms may react to the standard by exiting the market. However,

the CPSC does not agree that this will likely have a significant

adverse impact on competition.

Currently, the market for multi-purpose lighters already is highly

concentrated, with one manufacturer having approximately a 90 percent

[[Page 52411]]

market share. However, CPSC expects that the degree of competition in

the market may increase. One major cigarette lighter manufacturer

recently entered the market for multi-purpose lighters with a model

that is child resistant. Additionally, the market for multi-purpose

lighters is growing at a rate of 5 to 10 percent annually, according to

industry sources. As the market expands, more manufacturers may enter

and thereby increase the level of competition. Furthermore, multi-

purpose lighters face competition from other flame sources, including

matches and cigarette lighters. These products are less expensive than

multi-purpose lighters and, therefore, limit the amount that

manufacturers can increase prices for multi-purpose lighters without

significant sales loss, even if there are few manufacturers in the

market. Finally, CPSC expects that only manufacturers with a minor

presence in the market might exit. The loss of these firms would not

substantially reduce the level of competition in this already highly-

concentrated industry.

Issue: International Application

Swedish Match commented that one way to attempt to address the

concern about the evasion of a standard by foreign manufacturers is

``the adoption, internationally of any standard that is applied in the

United States.''

Response

The CPSC agrees that international adoption of the standard would

reduce the likelihood that some manufacturers or importers would

attempt to evade the requirements of the rule. However, CPSC does not

have the authority to regulate products intended solely for use in

other countries.

Issue: Lulling Effect

The Lighter Association and Scripto-Tokai stated that ``child

resistant'' is often incorrectly construed by the general public as

``childproof.'' They argue that this can create a false sense of

security and sometimes results in parents taking less care to protect

children from the product.

Response

The CPSC agrees that parents sometimes mistake child resistant as

meaning childproof. However, the evidence suggests that the impact is

less significant than some claim. For example, studies of poisoning

deaths of children have shown that child-resistant packages have been

effective in reducing poisonings in young children. Therefore, on

balance, even if some parents do become less vigilant, the overall

impact of the rule is expected to be positive.

Issue: Estimates of Incidents

The Lighter Association states that the Commission improperly used

a peak year or years of injuries and fatalities for its cost-benefit

analysis, rather than an average over a more reasonable period.

Response

In the preliminary regulatory analysis included in this notice, the

Commission based its estimates on the incidents of which CPSC is aware

that occurred from 1995 through 1997. These are the best data

available. CPSC did not have a special project or study that attempted

to collect data before 1995, and, therefore, data before that time are

incomplete. Furthermore, our analysis of the data from 1995 through

1997 may understate the number of fires involving multi-purpose

lighters because they consist strictly of cases of which the CPSC is

aware. There are likely other cases of which the Commission is not

aware. Finally, preliminary data suggest that the 1998 experience will

be similar to the period 1995 to 1997. Already in 1998, the CPSC knows

of 33 fires that resulted in 7 deaths and 14 injuries. The actual

number is probably higher.

Issue: Costs of Modifying Lighters

The Lighter Association and Scripto-Tokai commented that the

Commission underestimates the costs of modifying multi-purpose lighters

and ignored the Lighter Association-provided data that it would cost

$.25 to $.75 per unit to modify multi-purpose lighters.

Response

These commenters are referring to a preliminary examination of the

economic issues made by the Commission that was based on very limited

data. The regulatory analysis included with this notice is based on

more recent data, including the Lighter Association's estimates of

costs.

Comments provided by the Lighter Association, and conversations

between the CPSC's staff and several manufacturers, suggest that the

upper end of the industry's cost estimates were based on the assumption

that the proposed rule would contain provisions which it does not

(e.g., requiring a minimum level of reliability in achieving ignition

on each attempt). Therefore, the Commission believes that the low and

middle ranges of the cost estimates provided by the Lighter Association

are more reasonable. The cost estimate included in the preliminary

regulatory analysis was $0.40 per unit. This is roughly in the mid-

range of these estimates. Even if retail markups added another $0.40/

unit to the retail price, the proposed rule would result in net

benefits of $0.53 per multi-purpose lighter sold.

Issue: Costs of Development

The Lighter Association and Scripto-Tokai argued that it should be

understood that the technology for cigarette lighters cannot simply be

added to a multi-purpose lighter. Rather, the multi-purpose lighter

must be completely redesigned, resulting in research and development

costs, investment in new equipment or retooling of existing equipment,

testing of the product, and further review of the product. These

commenters contend that the Commission's assumption that one simply

takes an existing child-resistant feature and adds it to a multi-

purpose lighter is simplistic and inaccurate.

Response

CPSC is aware that manufacturers will incur costs to develop and

test new designs for child-resistant multi-purpose lighters, as well as

to retool their plants for production. The CPSC accounted for these

costs in its preliminary regulatory analysis, which is based on the

information currently available (much of it provided by industry). CPSC

does not assume that any particular child-resistant design can be

adapted from a cigarette lighter to a multi-purpose lighter without

further development, if at all. CPSC welcomes additional information on

these costs from manufacturers or other parties with such knowledge,

and will include the most recent cost information in any future

analysis of this issue.

Issue: Need for Regulation of Matches

Scripto-Tokai stated that the 750 injuries and 140 deaths

attributable to children playing with matches in 1994 represents a

societal cost in the billions of dollars, as opposed to $10.2 million

for children playing with multi-purpose lighters. The commenter

concludes that there would be a far greater benefit in regulating

matches than multi-purpose lighters.

Response

The CPSC is concerned about the societal costs of fires

attributable to children playing with matches. However, in taking

action to address a problem, it is necessary to take into account the

feasibility of a solution and its costs, as well as its benefits. The

manner in which multi-purpose lighters are operated can be changed in

ways that will substantially reduce the

[[Page 52412]]

number of incidents resulting from children playing with multi-purpose

lighters. Such changes will increase societal benefits more than they

will increase societal costs. According to the preliminary regulatory

analysis, the proposed rule is expected to result in substantial net

benefits to consumers. The fact that the Commission might investigate

or regulate other products, which present their own feasibility and

cost-benefit issues, does not counsel against action on multi-purpose

lighters.

I. Preliminary Environmental Assessment

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and in accordance

with CPSC's procedures, the Commission considered the potential

environmental effects of the proposed rule. Less than 1 percent of the

approximately 20 million non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters

that are sold in this country each year are manufactured domestically.

One large manufacturer has begun to produce multi-purpose lighters

domestically, but these lighters are already child resistant.

The proposed rule is not expected to significantly alter the amount

of materials, energy, or waste generated during production of the

lighters. Nor is the proposed rule expected to cause manufacturers to

shift production to other countries or locations. Molds and other tools

used by manufacturers in the production of multi-purpose lighters or

their components are periodically replaced. The proposed rule may cause

some manufacturers to replace the molds and other tools earlier than

they would have otherwise. However, the proposed effective date of 1

year from the publication date of a final rule should allow

manufacturers time to plan and minimize any impact.

Pursuant to section 9(g)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1), the

proposed rule does not apply to non-child-resistant lighters

manufactured before the rule's effective date. Therefore, no non-child-

resistant lighters in use or in U.S. commerce on the effective date

will need to be recalled or disposed of. Accordingly, there are not

disposal issues with regard to such lighters. Further, the proposed

rule is not expected to affect the manner in which multi-purpose

lighters are packaged for sale or the amount of butane or other fuel

used in the operation of the lighters.

From the available information, the Commission concludes that the

proposed rule would not significantly affect raw material use, air or

water quality, manufacturing processes or disposal practices in such a

way as to cause any significant impact on the environment.

J. Paperwork Reduction Act

As explained above, the standard and certification provisions will

require manufacturers and importers of multi-purpose lighters to

perform testing, maintain records, and report data to the Commission

relating to the multi-purpose lighters that they produce or import. For

this reason, the rule published below contains ``collection of

information requirements,'' as that term is used in the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Therefore, the proposed rule has

been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') in

accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and implementing regulations codified

at 5 CFR 1320.11.

Based on estimates made in the course of developing the cigarette

lighter standard and on information obtained from industry sources, the

Commission estimates that complying with the testing, recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements of the proposed rule will require

approximately 100 hours per model annually. The time required for

testing is expected to average about 80 hours per model per year. The

time required for recordkeeping and reporting is expected to be about

10 hours for each model per year. The exact number of manufacturers and

importers is not known. However, the number of manufacturers and

importers appears to be increasing. Currently, the Commission believes

that there may be as many as 40 different models of multi-purpose

lighters on the market. With a few exceptions, most manufacturers and

importers have only one model. Therefore, the total amount of time that

will be required for complying with the testing, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements of the proposed rule is approximately 4,000

hours annually.

OMB may comment to CPSC between 30 and 60 days after the

publication of the proposal. Therefore, although OMB will accept

comments until November 30, 1998, a comment will be assured of having

its maximum effect if it is filed by October 30, 1998.

Comments to OMB should be directed to the Desk Officer for the

Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503; telephone (202)395-7340.

The Commission encourages commenters to provide copies of such comments

to the Commission's Office of the Secretary, with a caption or cover

letter identifying the materials as comments submitted to OMB on the

proposed collection of information requirements for multi-purpose

lighters.

K. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

When an agency undertakes a rulemaking proceeding, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires the

agency to prepare initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses

describing the impact of the rule on small businesses and other small

entities. The purpose of the RFA, as stated in section 2(b) (5 U.S.C.

602 note), is to require agencies, consistent with their objectives, to

fit the requirements of regulations to the scale of the businesses,

organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the

regulations.15

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

\15\ The Regulatory Flexibility Act provides than an agency is

not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis if the

head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. 5 U.S.C. 605.

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

Section 603 of the RFA calls for the Commission to prepare and make

available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis

describing the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and

identifying impact-reducing alternatives. The initial regulatory

flexibility analysis is to contain:

(1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being

considered;

(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,

the proposed rule;

(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number

of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;

(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and

other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an

estimate of the classes of small entities subject to the requirements

and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of

reports or records; and

(5) An identification, to the extent possible, of all relevant

Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the

proposed rule.

In addition, the initial regulatory flexibility analysis must

describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would

accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and that

would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on

small entities. RFA-suggested alternatives for discussion include:

different compliance or reporting requirements for small entities;

clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or

[[Page 52413]]

reporting requirements for small entities; the use of performance

rather than design standards; and partial or total exemptions from

coverage for small entities.

The Commission routinely considers the potential effects on

competition and small businesses as part of the agency's overall

evaluation of potential economic effects of rulemaking actions. A

summary of these effects is included in the preliminary regulatory

analysis required for the proposed rule under section 9(c) of the CPSA.

Since some number of the affected firms are considered to be small

companies, the Commission gives particular consideration to the

potential economic effects of the proposed rule on such firms, and is

issuing this initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the proposed

rule.

Reasons for Agency Action

The Commission's proposed rule on multi-purpose lighters addresses

the risk of death and injury from accidental residential fires started

by young children playing with these lighters. Detailed data concerning

these fires is presented in Section B of this notice.

The Commission is required to consider whether appropriate

voluntary standards could adequately address the problem rather than

imposing a mandatory rule. However, no voluntary standard was submitted

to the Commission for its consideration in response to the ANPR, and

the Commission is not aware of any voluntary standard that addresses

the problem. Therefore, deferring to a voluntary standard does not

represent an adequate alternative to the proposed mandatory rule.

Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule

The history of this rulemaking proceeding is set forth in Section A

of this notice. The legal basis for this action is described in Section

E of this notice, which discusses the Commission's statutory

authorities. Other than the definition of the covered product, the

provisions of the proposed rule are essentially the same as the Safety

Standard for Cigarette Lighters, 16 CFR Part 1210.

The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce the risk of

accidental child-play multi-purpose lighter fires. It is expected that

making multi-purpose lighters child-resistant will substantially reduce

the incidence and cost to society of these fires. The rule is being

proposed under the authority of the CPSA. Section 9(c) of the CPSA

requires the agency to consider economic effects of the proposed rule

on industry and consumers, and to consider alternatives that might

reduce the burden of the rule generally.

Requirements of the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule contains performance requirements that would

require all lighters that meet the definition of a multi-purpose

lighter to be child-resistant. It also describes the test protocol to

be used in establishing and verifying compliance. The protocol

prescribes tests in which panels of young children attempt to operate

modified or non-fuel-containing multi-purpose lighters. Manufacturers

and importers would be required to label individual lighters, certify

that their products comply with the rule, provide evidence of a

reasonable testing program to support such certification, maintain

testing and production records, and provide reports and product samples

to the Commission.

Most manufacturers would build modified or surrogate lighters to

perform the test protocol. Complying lighter designs would be those for

which the test lighters or surrogates were successfully operable by

fewer than 15 percent of children tested. All multi-purpose lighters

manufactured or imported 12 months after the date of publication of a

final rule in the Federal Register would have to comply. In addition,

proposed anti-stockpiling provisions would limit the production or

importation of noncomplying lighters between the publication date and

the effective date of a final rule.

Firms Subject to the Proposed Rule and Possible Impacts

The proposed rule covers manufacturers and importers of multi-

purpose lighters intended for sale to consumers. The number of firms

that manufacture or import these lighters is increasing. While at least

30 firms have been identified, there probably are other companies that

manufacture or import multi-purpose lighters in the U.S. that have not

been identified. With the exception of one large manufacturer and

perhaps one other smaller manufacturer, all firms are believed to be

importers rather than domestic manufacturers. Several of the firms are

affiliates or subsidiaries of larger firms or foreign manufacturers.

The Commission examined the information available on 30 firms that

were identified as being manufacturers, importers, or private labelers

of multi-purpose lighters. Of these, 16 are believed to have fewer than

100 employees and are, therefore, considered to be small businesses

according to size standards established by the Small Business

Administration. 13 CFR 121.601. Of these 16 small businesses, 12 are

believed to be importers that also sell products other than multi-

purpose lighters. One of these firms may manufacture its own multi-

purpose lighters. At least two importers have lighters that are

produced exclusively for them by foreign manufacturers. The information

available was not sufficient to make such determinations on the

remaining 3 small businesses. One small firm claims that its multi-

purpose lighter has child-resistant features. However, it has not

tested its product according to the requirements of the proposed rule.

Most of the small importers and private labelers distribute

lighters produced by foreign manufacturers. It is likely that the

manufacturers will bear most of the costs for development and testing

of the child-resistant models and amortize these costs over several

years of production. These costs, as well as increases in the costs of

production attributable to the child-resistant mechanism, are expected

to be passed through importers and private labelers to the consuming

public.

Some small importers may experience some disruption in their supply

of multi-purpose lighters if some of the foreign suppliers opt not to

develop child-resistant multi-purpose lighters. However, the 12-month

period between the publication of the final rule and its effective date

should allow time for most importers to take action to ensure that they

have a source for child-resistant multi-purpose lighters. Many of the

smaller importers of multi-purpose lighters appear to be primarily

engaged in manufacturing or importing other products, such as

housewares, kitchen and barbecue utensils, hardware products, cigarette

lighters, and other tobacco accessories. Multi-purpose lighters

probably account for only a small percentage of these importers' sales.

Therefore, even if a small importer stopped distributing multi-purpose

lighters, it probably would not suffer a significant adverse effect if

sales of multi-purpose lighters accounted for only a small percentage

of the firm's total sales.

Since the rule contains performance requirements, rather than

requiring a specific technology, it allows flexibility to firms in

designing child-resistant mechanisms. This should reduce the burden of

compliance on many firms, both large and small. However, some small

firms that manufacture their own multi-purpose lighters may not have

the technical or financial resources to develop lighters that would

meet the

[[Page 52414]]

proposed rule. It is also possible that some small manufacturers will

determine that the cost of developing a product that complies with the

proposed rule is too high relative to their market share or output

level. This could lead some small manufacturers to leave the market.

However, the number of small firms that actually manufacture their own

multi-purpose lighters is believed to be low. As noted above, the

Commission is aware of only one small firm that may manufacture its own

lighters and two small firms that have their proprietary designs of

lighters that are manufactured for them overseas.

Small manufacturers and importers would be subject to all of the

performance, testing, certification, and reporting provisions of the

proposed rule. Although some small manufacturers and importers may not

possess the necessary skills to conduct the required testing, there are

independent quality control and engineering laboratories, and other

private consultants, that could perform the required testing with which

these firms could contract. Records of the testing would probably be

compiled by the testing laboratory and maintained by the manufacturer

personnel. Copies of the reports and certification records would

probably be maintained by the importers or their legal counsels.

The proposed rule allows importers to rely on testing that has been

performed by or for a foreign manufacturer to support the certification

and reporting requirements of the proposed rule, provided that the

records: (1) Are in English, (2) are complete, (3) can be provided to

the Commission within a reasonable time period, if requested, and (4)

provide reasonable assurance the multi-purpose lighters are child

resistant. This provision may reduce the testing burden on some small

importers, since some manufacturers may supply product to more than one

importer.

The reporting requirements of the proposed rule are necessary for

the CPSC to monitor compliance. The Commission is not aware of any

method by which the reporting burden on small businesses could be

reduced while still accomplishing the purpose of the proposed rule. The

estimated reporting burden, however, is low, probably less than 100

hours per model per year.

Other Federal Rules

No Federal rules are known to exist that may duplicate, overlap, or

conflict with the proposed rule. Although the Cigarette Lighter Safety

Standard is similar to the proposed rule, multi-purpose lighters are

not subject to that rule, because multi-purpose lighters are not

intended primarily for lighting tobacco products.

Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

The Commission considered four basic alternatives to certain

elements of the proposed rule. Specifically, the CPSC considered (1)

narrowing the scope to exclude micro-torches and the more expensive

multi-purpose lighters, (2) requiring only additional labeling, (3)

taking no action and relying on voluntary efforts, and (4) changing the

effective date.

Narrowing the Scope

The CPSC considered excluding from coverage of the proposed rule

the more expensive multi-purpose lighters, some of which retail for

more than $20, as opposed to the less than $8 for which most multi-

purpose lighters retail. This would have been similar to the exemption

in the cigarette lighter standard for lighters with a customs value or

ex-factory value greater than $2.00. The CPSC also considered excluding

micro-torches from coverage.

Industry sources believe that the market share of the more

expensive multi-purpose lighters, including micro-torches, is low,

probably accounting for less than three percent of the unit sales.

There are three firms that are known to market high-end multi-purpose

lighters. All of these firms have fewer than 100 employees and are

considered to be small businesses. (One firm claims that its multi-

purpose lighter has features that should make it child-resistant.) Of

the six firms that are known to distribute micro-torches, three have

fewer than 100 employees and are considered to be small businesses.

While excluding the more expensive multi-purpose lighters from the

scope of the proposed rule might reduce the impact of the rule on some

small businesses, the CPSC does not have evidence that these multi-

purpose lighters are less likely to be involved in child-play fires

than the less expensive models. Baseline testing indicates that some of

the more expensive models are at least as easy to operate as some less

expensive models. And, there is no evidence that the more expensive

multi-purpose lighters are stored or used differently around the home

than are the less expensive lighters. Therefore, the Commission

determined that the more expensive multi-purpose lighters and micro-

torches should be required to meet the same child-resistance standard

that the less expensive ones must meet.

Labeling Requirements

Although a labeling-only requirement would significantly reduce the

burden of the proposed rule on all firms, large and small, the

Commission did not believe that any additional labeling would have a

significant impact on the incidence of child-play fires. Furthermore,

all multi-purpose lighter labels are already labeled ``Keep out of

reach of children.'' Therefore, a labeling-only rule was not considered

to be a preferable alternative to the proposed rule.

Taking No Action or Relying on a Voluntary Standard

Because there currently is no voluntary standard for child-

resistance for multi-purpose lighters and none is being developed,

relying on a voluntary standard is not an alternative for the

Commission. Additionally, it seems unlikely that many firms would

voluntarily market child-resistant multi-purpose lighters in the

absence of a mandatory standard. If the non-child-resistant multi-

purpose lighters cost less than the child-resistant lighters, the

manufacturers of child-resistant lighters would be at a cost

disadvantage in the marketplace, resulting in a limited market share

for the child-resistant lighters. Consequently, reliance on voluntary

efforts would not adequately address the hazard associated with multi-

purpose lighters.

Summary and Conclusions

The proposed rule for multi-purpose lighters will affect all

manufacturers and importers of such lighters in the U.S. Perhaps half

or more of these firms would be considered to be small businesses. Most

of the small firms are believed to be importers of lighters

manufactured by foreign suppliers. These importers will be impacted by

the proposed rule's certification, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements. The higher costs of manufacturing child-resistant

lighters incurred by their suppliers will likely be passed onto to

these firms as well. Some of the firms may also have temporary

disruptions in their supply of multi-purpose lighters. However, it is

uncertain whether any of these effects would be ``significant.''

In addition to the small importers, there may be a few small firms

that manufacture their own multi-purpose lighters or have their own

proprietary designs manufactured for them. The proposed rule may have a

significant impact on these firms if the firms do not have the

technical expertise or resources to develop child-resistant mechanisms

for their multi-purpose lighters.

Some alternatives to the proposed rule were considered that might

have reduced the burden on small

[[Page 52415]]

manufacturers. However, these alternatives were rejected, since the

number of injuries would be larger. These alternatives included taking

no action, requiring additional labeling only, exempting micro-torches

or the more expensive multi-purpose lighters from the scope of the

proposed rule, and different effective dates.

L. Executive Orders

This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with Executive

Order No. 12,612, and the rule raises no substantial federalism

concerns.

Executive Order No. 12,988 requires agencies to state the

preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation. The

preemptive effect of this rule is established by 15 U.S.C. 2075(a),

which states:

(a) Whenever a consumer product safety standard under the CPSA

applies to a risk of injury associated with a consumer product, no

State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority

either to establish or continue in effect any provision of a safety

standard or regulation which prescribed any requirements as to the

performance, composition, contents, design, finish, construction,

packaging, or labeling of such products which are designed to deal

with the same risk of injury associated with such consumer product,

unless such requirements are identical to the requirements of the

Federal standard.

Subsection (b) of 15 U.S.C. 2075 provides a circumstance under

which subsection (a) does not prevent the Federal Government or the

government of any State or political subdivision of a State from

establishing or continuing in effect a safety standard applicable to a

consumer product for its own (governmental) use, and which is not

identical to the consumer product safety standard applicable to the

product under the CPSA. This occurs if the Federal, State, or political

subdivision requirement provides a higher degree of protection from

such risk of injury than the consumer product safety standard.

Subsection (c) of 15 U.S.C. 2075 authorizes a State or a political

subdivision of a State to request an exemption from the preemptive

effect of a consumer product safety standard. The Commission may grant

such a request, by rule, where the State or political subdivision

standard or regulation (1) provides a significantly higher degree of

protection from such risk of injury than does the consumer product

safety standard and (2) does not unduly burden interstate commerce.

M. Extension of Time To Issue Final Rule

Section 9(d)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(1), provides that a

final consumer product safety rule must be published within 60 days of

publication of the proposed rule unless the Commission extends the 60-

day period for good cause and publishes its reasons for the extension

in the Federal Register.

Executive Order No. 12662, which implements the United States-

Canada Free-Trade Implementation Act, provides that publication of

standards-related measures shall ordinarily be at least 75 days before

the comment due date. Accordingly, the Commission provided a comment

period of 75 days for this proposal.

After the comment period ends, the CPSC's staff will need to

prepare draft responses to the comments, along with a draft regulatory

analysis and either a draft regulatory flexibility analysis or a draft

finding of no substantial impact on a significant number of small

entities. Then the staff will prepare a briefing package for the

Commission. The Commission is likely to then be briefed, and will later

vote on whether to issue a final rule. The Commission expects that this

additional work will take about 9 months. Accordingly, the Commission

extends the time by which it must either issue a final rule or withdraw

the NPR until June 30, 1999. If necessary, this date may be further

extended.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1212

Consumer protection, Fire prevention, Hazardous materials, Infants

and children, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Multi-purpose lighters.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission proposes to

amend Title 16, Chapter II, Subchapter B, of the Code of Federal

Regulations as set forth below.

1. A new part 1212 is added to read as follows:

PART 1212--SAFETY STANDARD FOR MULTI-PURPOSE LIGHTERS

Subpart A--Requirements for Child-Resistance

Sec.

1212.1 Scope and application.

1212.2 Definitions.

1212.3 Requirements for multi-purpose lighters.

1212.4 Test protocol.

1212.5 Findings.

Subpart B--Certification Requirements

1212.11 General.

1212.12 Certificate of compliance.

1212.13 Certification tests.

1212.14 Qualification testing.

1212.15 Specifications.

1212.16 Production testing.

1212.17 Recordkeeping and reporting.

1212.18 Refusal of importation.

Subpart C-- Stockpiling

1212.20 Stockpiling.

Subpart A--Requirements for Child-Resistance

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058, 2079(d).

Sec. 1212.1 Scope and application.

This part 1212, a consumer product safety standard, prescribes

requirements for multi-purpose lighters. These requirements are

intended to make the multi-purpose lighters subject to the standard's

provisions resistant to successful operation by children younger than 5

years of age. This standard applies to all multi-purpose lighters, as

defined in Sec. 1212.2, that are manufactured or imported after the

date that is 12 months after publication of a final rule in the Federal

Register.

Sec. 1212.2 Definitions.

As used in this part 1212:

(a)(1) Multi-purpose lighter, (also known as grill lighter,

fireplace lighter, utility lighter, micro-torch, or gas match) means: A

hand-held, self-igniting, flame-producing product that operates on fuel

and is used by consumers to ignite items such as candles, fuel for

fireplaces, charcoal or gas-fired grills, camp fires, camp stoves,

lanterns, fuel-fired appliances or devices, or pilot lights, or for

uses such as soldering or brazing.

(2) The following products are not multi-purpose lighters:

(i) Devices intended primarily for igniting smoking materials that

are within the definition of ``lighter'' in the safety standard for

cigarette lighters (16 CFR 1210.2(c)).

(ii) Devices containing more than 10 oz. of fuel.

(iii) Matches.

(b) Successful operation means one signal of any duration from a

surrogate multi-purpose lighter within either of the two 5-minute test

periods specified in Sec. 1212.4(f).

(c) ``Surrogate multi-purpose lighter'' means a device that

approximates the appearance, size, shape, and weight of, and is

identical in all other factors that affect child resistance (including

operation and the force(s) required for operation), within reasonable

manufacturing tolerances, to, a multi-purpose lighter intended for use

by consumers, has no fuel, does not produce a flame, and produces an

audible, or audible and visual, signal that will be clearly discernible

when the surrogate multi-purpose lighter is activated in each manner

that would produce a flame in a fueled production multi-purpose

lighter. (This definition does not require a multi-purpose lighter

[[Page 52416]]

to be modified with electronics or the like to produce a signal.

Manufacturers may use a multi-purpose lighter without fuel as a

surrogate multi-purpose lighter if a distinct audible signal, such as a

``click,'' can be heard clearly when the mechanism is operated in each

manner that would produce a flame in a production lighter and if a

flame cannot be produced in a production multi-purpose lighter without

the signal. But see Sec. 1212.4(f)(1).)

(d) Child-resistant mechanism means the mechanism of a multi-

purpose lighter that makes the lighter resist successful operation by

young children, as specified in Sec. 1212.3.

(e) Model means one or more multi-purpose lighters from the same

manufacturer or importer that do not differ in design or other

characteristics in any manner that may affect child resistance. Lighter

characteristics that may affect child resistance include, but are not

limited to, size, shape, case material, and ignition mechanism

(including child-resistant features).

Sec. 1212.3 Requirements for multi-purpose lighters.

(a) A multi-purpose lighter subject to this part 1212 shall be

resistant to successful operation by at least 85 percent of the child-

test panel when tested in the manner prescribed by Sec. 1212.4.

(b) A multi-purpose lighter must:

(1) allow multiple operations of the ignition mechanism (with fuel

flow) without further operation of the child-resistant mechanism,

unless the lighter requires only one motion to both:

(i) Overcome the child-resistant mechanism and

(ii) Ignite the fuel,

(2) Not allow the lighter to remain lit after the user has let go

unless an additional manual operation is performed after the lighter is

lit,

(3) Return automatically to the child-resistant condition either:

(i) When or before the user lets go of the lighter or

(ii) For multi-purpose lighters that remain lit after the users

have let go, when or before the user lets go of the lighter after

turning off the flame,

(4) Operate safely when used in a normal and convenient manner,

(5) Comply with this Sec. 1212.3 for the reasonably expected life

of the lighter, and

(6) Not be capable of having its child-resistant mechanism easily

deactivated or prevented from complying with this Sec. 1212.3.

Sec. 1212.4 Test protocol.

(a) Child test panel. (1) The test to determine if a multi-purpose

lighter is resistant to successful operation by children uses a panel

of children to test a surrogate multi-purpose lighter representing the

production multi-purpose lighter. Written informed consent shall be

obtained from a parent or legal guardian of a child before the child

participates in the test.

(2) The test shall be conducted using at least one, but no more

than two, 100-child test panels in accordance with the provisions of

Sec. 1212.4(f).

(3) The children for the test panel shall live within the United

States.

(4) The age and sex distribution of each 100-child panel shall be:

(i) 30 2 children (20 1 males; 10

1 females) 42 through 44 months old;

(ii) 40 2 children (26 1 males; 14

1 females) 45 through 48 months old;

(iii) 30 2 children (20 1 males; 10

1 females) 49 through 51 months old.

Note: To calculate a child's age in months: Subtract the child's

birth date from the test date. The following calculation shows how

to determine the age of the child at the time of the test. Both

dates are expressed numerically as Month-Day-Year.

Example: Test Date (e.g., 8/3/94) minus Birth Date--(e.g., 6/23/

90). Subtract the number for the year of birth from the number for

the year of the test (i.e., 94 minus 90 = 4). Multiply the

difference in years by 12 months (i.e., 4 years x 12 months = 48

months). Subtract the number for the month of the birth date from

the number of the month of the test date (i.e., 8 minus 6 = 2

months). Add the difference in months obtained above to the number

of months represented by the difference in years described above (48

months + 2 months = 50 months). If the difference in days is greater

than 15 (e.g., 16, 17 * * * ), add 1 month. If the difference in

days is less than -15 (e.g., -16, -17), subtract 1 month (e.g., 50

months - 1 month = 49 months). If the difference in days is between

-15 and 15 (e.g., -15, -14, * * * 14, 15), do not add or subtract a

month.

(5) No child with a permanent or temporary illness, injury, or

handicap that would interfere with the child's ability to operate the

surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be selected for participation.

(6) Two children at a time shall participate in testing of

surrogate multi-purpose lighters. Extra children whose results will not

be counted in the test may be used if necessary to provide the required

partner for test subjects, if the extra children are within the

required age range and a parent or guardian of each such child has

signed a consent form.

(7) No child shall participate in more than one test panel or test

more than one surrogate multi-purpose lighter. No child shall

participate in both surrogate multi-purpose lighter testing and either

surrogate cigarette lighter testing or child-resistant package testing

on the same day.

(b) Test sites, environment, and adult testers. (1) Surrogate

multi-purpose lighters shall be tested within the United States at 5 or

more test sites throughout the geographical area for each 100-child

panel if the sites are the customary nursery schools or day care

centers of the participating children. No more than 20 children shall

be tested at each site. In the alternative, surrogate multi-purpose

lighters may be tested within the United States at one or more central

locations, provided the participating children are drawn from a variety

of geographical locations.

(2) Testing of surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall be conducted

in a room that is familiar to the children on the test panel (for

example, a room the children frequent at their customary nursery school

or day care center). If the testing is conducted in a room that

initially is unfamiliar to the children (for example, a room at a

central location), the tester shall allow at least 5 minutes for the

children to become accustomed to the new environment before starting

the test. The area in which the testing is conducted shall be well-

lighted and isolated from distractions. The children shall be allowed

freedom of movement to work with their surrogate multi-purpose

lighters, as long as the tester can watch both children at the same

time. Two children at a time shall participate in testing of surrogate

multi-purpose lighters. The children shall be seated side by side in

chairs approximately 6 inches apart, across a table from the tester.

The table shall be normal table height for the children, so that they

can sit up at the table with their legs underneath and so that their

arms will be at a comfortable height when on top of the table. The

children's chairs shall be ``child size.''

(3) Each tester shall be at least 18 years old. Five or 6 adult

testers shall be used for each 100-child test panel. Each tester shall

test an approximately equal number of children from the 100-child test

panel (20 2 children each for 5 testers and 17

2 children each for 6 testers).

Note: When a test is initiated with five testers and one tester

drops out, a sixth tester may be added to complete the testing. When

a test is initiated with six testers and one tester drops out, the

test shall be completed using the five remaining testers. When a

tester drops out, the requirement for each tester to test an

approximately equal number of children does not apply to that

tester. When testing is initiated with five testers, no tester shall

test more than 19 children until

[[Page 52417]]

it is certain that the test can be completed with five testers.

(c) Surrogate multi-purpose lighters. (1) Six surrogate multi-

purpose lighters shall be used for each 100-child panel. The six multi-

purpose lighters shall represent the range of forces required for

operation of multi-purpose lighters intended for use. All of these

surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall have the same visual appearance,

including color. The surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall be labeled

with sequential numbers beginning with the number one. The same six

surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall be used for the entire 100-child

panel. The surrogate multi-purpose lighters may be used in more than

one 100-child panel test. The surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall

not be damaged or jarred during storage or transportation. The

surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall not be exposed to extreme heat

or cold. The surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall be tested at room

temperature. No surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be left

unattended.

(2) Each surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be tested by an

approximately equal number of children in a 100-child test panel (17

2 children).

Note: If a surrogate multi-purpose lighter is permanently

damaged, testing shall continue with the remaining multi-purpose

lighters. When a multi-purpose lighter is dropped out, the

requirement that each multi-purpose lighter be tested by an

approximately equal number of children does not apply to that

lighter.

(3) Before each 100-child panel is tested, each surrogate multi-

purpose lighter shall be examined to verify that it approximates the

appearance, size, shape, and weight of a production multi-purpose

lighter intended for use.

(4) Before and after each 100-child panel is tested, force

measurements shall be taken on all operating components that could

affect child resistance to verify that they are within reasonable

operating tolerances for the corresponding production multi-purpose

lighter.

(5) Before and after testing surrogate multi-purpose lighters with

each child, each surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be operated

outside the presence of any child participating in the test to verify

that the surrogate multi-purpose lighters produce a signal. If the

surrogate multi-purpose lighter will not produce a signal before the

test, it shall be repaired before it is used in testing. If the

surrogate multi-purpose lighter does not produce a signal when it is

operated after the test, the results for the preceding test with that

multi-purpose lighter shall be eliminated. An explanation shall be

recorded on the data collection record. The multi-purpose lighter shall

be repaired and tested with another eligible child (as one of a pair of

children) to complete the test panel.

(d) Encouragement. (1) Prior to the test, the tester shall talk to

the children in a normal and friendly tone to make them feel at ease

and to gain their confidence.

(2) The tester shall tell the children that he or she needs their

help for a special job. The children shall not be promised a reward of

any kind for participating, and shall not be told that the test is a

game or contest or that it is fun.

(3) The tester shall not discourage a child from attempting to

operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter at any time (either

verbally or with body language such as facial expressions), unless a

child is in danger of hurting himself or another child. The tester

shall not discuss the dangers of multi-purpose lighters or matches with

the children to be tested prior to the end of the 10-minute test.

(4) Whenever a child has stopped attempting to operate the

surrogate multi-purpose lighter for a period of approximately one

minute, the tester shall encourage the child to try by saying ``keep

trying for just a little longer.''

(5) Whenever a child says that his or her parent, grandparent,

guardian, etc., said never to touch lighters, say ``that's right--never

touch a real lighter--but your [parent, etc.] said it was OK for you to

try to make a noise with this special lighter because it can't hurt

you.''

(6) The children in a pair being tested may encourage each other to

operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter and may tell or show each

other how to operate it. (This interaction is not considered to be

disruption as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.) However,

neither child shall be allowed to touch or operate the other child's

multi-purpose lighter. If one child takes the other child's surrogate

multi-purpose lighter, that surrogate lighter shall be immediately

returned to the proper child. If this occurs, the tester shall say

``No. He(she) has to try to do it himself(herself).''

(e) Children who refuse to participate. (1) If a child becomes

upset or afraid, and cannot be reassured before the test starts, select

another eligible child for participation in that pair.

(2) If a child disrupts the participation of another child for more

than 1 minute during the test, the test shall be stopped and both

children eliminated from the results. An explanation shall be recorded

on the data collection record. These two children should be replaced

with other eligible children to complete the test panel.

(3) If a child is not disruptive but refuses to attempt to operate

the surrogate multi-purpose lighter throughout the entire test period,

that child shall be eliminated from the test results and an explanation

shall be recorded on the data collection record. The child shall be

replaced with another eligible child (as one of a pair of children) to

complete the test panel.

(f) Test procedure. (1) To begin the test, the tester shall say ``I

have a special multi-purpose lighter that will not make a flame. It

makes a noise like this.'' Except where doing so would block the

child's view of a visual signal, the adult tester shall place a 8\1/2\

by 11 inch sheet of cardboard or other rigid opaque material upright on

the table in front of the surrogate multi purpose lighter, so that the

surrogate multi-purpose lighter cannot be seen by the child, and shall

operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter once to produce its signal.

The tester shall say ``Your parents said it is OK for you to try to

make that noise with your lighter.'' The tester shall place a surrogate

multi-purpose lighter in each child's hand and say ``now you try to

make a noise with your lighter. Keep trying until I tell you to stop.''

Note: For multi-purpose lighters with an ``off/on'' switch, the

surrogate lighter shall be given to the child with the switch in the

``off,'' or locked, position.

(2) The adult tester shall observe the children for 5 minutes to

determine if either or both of the children can successfully operate

the surrogate multi-purpose lighter by producing one signal of any

duration. If a child achieves a spark without defeating the child-

resistant feature, say ``that's a spark--it won't hurt you--try to make

a noise with your lighter.'' If any child successfully operates the

surrogate multi-purpose lighter during this first 5-minute period, the

lighter shall be taken from that child and the child shall not be asked

to try to operate the lighter again. The tester shall ask the

successful child to remain until the other child is finished.

(3) If either or both of the children are unable to successfully

operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter during the 5-minute period

specified in Sec. 1212.4(f)(3), the adult tester shall demonstrate the

operation of the surrogate multi-purpose lighter. To conduct the

demonstration, secure the children's full attention by saying ``Okay,

give me your lighter(s) now.''

[[Page 52418]]

Take the surrogate multi-purpose lighters and place them on the table

in front of you out of the children's reach. Then say, ``I'll show you

how to make the noise with your lighters. First I'll show you with

(child's name) lighter and then I'll show you with (child's name)

lighter.'' Pick up the first child's surrogate multi-purpose lighter.

Hold the lighter approximately 2 feet in front of the children at their

eye level. Hold the surrogate multi-purpose lighter in a vertical

position in one hand with the child-resistant feature exposed (not

covered by fingers, thumb, etc.). Orient the child-resistant mechanism

on the multi-purpose lighter toward the children. (This may require a

change in your orientation to the children such as sitting sideways in

the chair to allow a normal hand position for holding the multi-purpose

lighter while assuring that both children have a clear view of the

mechanism. You may also need to reposition your chair so your hand is

centered between the children.) Say ``now watch the lighter.'' Look at

each child to verify that they are looking at the lighter. Operate the

multi-purpose lighter one time in a normal manner according to the

manufacturer's instructions. Do not exaggerate operating movements. Do

not verbally describe the lighter's operation. Place the first child's

lighter back on the table in front of you and pick up the second

child's lighter. Say, ``Okay, now watch this lighter.'' Repeat the

demonstration as described above using the second child's multi-purpose

lighter. Notes: The demonstration is conducted with each child's

lighter, even if one child has successfully operated the lighter.

Testers shall be trained to conduct the demonstration in a uniform

manner, including the words spoken to the children, the way the multi-

purpose lighter is held and operated, and how the tester's hand and

body is oriented to the children. All testers must be able to operate

the surrogate multi-purpose lighters using only appropriate operating

movements in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If any of

these requirements are not met during the demonstration for any pair of

children, the results for that pair of children shall be eliminated

from the test. Another pair of eligible children shall be used to

complete the test panel.

(4) Each child who fails to successfully operate the surrogate

multi-purpose lighter in the first 5 minutes is then given another 5

minutes in which to attempt to complete the successful operation of the

surrogate multi-purpose lighter. After the demonstrations, give the

same surrogate multi-purpose lighter back to each child who did not

successfully operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter in the first 5

minutes by placing the multi-purpose lighter in the child's hand. Say

``Okay, now you try to make the noise with your lighter(s)--keep trying

until I tell you to stop.'' If any child successfully operates the

surrogate multi-purpose lighter during this period, the surrogate

multi-purpose lighter shall be taken from that child and the child

shall not be asked to try to operate the lighter again. If the other

child has not yet successfully operated the surrogate multi-purpose

lighter, the tester shall ask the successful child to remain until the

other child is finished.

Note: Multi-purpose lighters having an on/off switch shall have

the switch returned to the position the child left it at the first

5-minute test period before returning the lighter to the child.

(5) At the end of the second 5-minute test period, take the

surrogate multi-purpose lighter from any child who has not successfully

operated it.

(6) After the test is over, ask the children to stand next to you.

Look at the children's faces and say: ``These are special lighters that

don't make fire. Real lighters can burn you. Will you both promise me

that if you find a real lighter you won't touch it and that you'll tell

a grownup right away?'' Wait for an affirmative response from each

child; then thank the children for helping.

(7) Escort the children out of the room used for testing.

(8) After a child has participated in the testing of a surrogate

multi-purpose lighter, and on the same day, provide written notice of

that fact to the child's parent or guardian. This notification may be

in the form of a letter provided to the school to be given to a parent

or guardian of each child. The notification shall state that the child

participated, shall ask the parent or guardian to warn the child not to

play with matches or lighters, and shall remind the parent or guardian

to keep all lighters and matches, whether child-resistant or not, out

of the reach of children. For children who operated the surrogate

multi-purpose lighter, the notification shall state that the child was

able to operate the child-resistant multi-purpose lighter. For children

who do not defeat the child-resistant feature, the notification shall

state that, although the child did not defeat the child-resistant

feature, the child may be able to do so in the future.

(g) Data collection and recording. Except for recording the times

required for the children to activate the signal, recording of data

should be avoided while the children are trying to operate the multi-

purpose lighters, so that the tester's full attention is on the

children during the test period. If actual testing is videotaped, the

camera shall be stationary and shall be operated remotely in order to

avoid distracting the children. Any photographs shall be taken after

actual testing and shall simulate actual test procedure(s) (for

example, the demonstration). The following data shall be collected and

recorded for each child in the 100-child test panel:

(1) Sex (male or female).

(2) Date of birth (month, day, year).

(3) Age (in months, to the nearest month).

(4) The number of the multi-purpose lighter tested by that child.

(5) Date of participation in the test (month, day, year).

(6) Location where the test was given (city, state, and the name of

the site).

(7) The name of the tester who conducted the test.

(8) The elapsed time at which the child achieved any operation of

the surrogate signal in the first 5-minute test period.

(9) The elapsed time at which the child achieved any operation of

the surrogate signal in the second 5-minute test period.

(10) For a single pair of children from each 100-child test panel,

photograph(s) or video tape to show how the multi-purpose lighter was

held in the tester's hand, and the orientation of the tester's body and

hand to the children, during the demonstration.

(h) Evaluation of test results and acceptance criterion. To

determine whether a surrogate multi-purpose lighter resists operation

by at least 85 percent of the children, sequential panels of 100

children each, up to a maximum of 2 panels, shall be tested as

prescribed below.

(1) If no more than 10 children in the first 100-child test panel

successfully operated the surrogate multi-purpose lighter, the multi-

purpose lighter represented by the surrogate multi-purpose lighter

shall be considered to be resistant to successful operation by at least

85 percent of the child test panel, and no further testing is

conducted. If 11 through 18 children in the first 100-child test panel

successfully operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter, the test

results are inconclusive, and the surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall

be tested with a second 100-child test panel in accordance with this

Sec. 1212.4. If 19 or more of the children in the first 100-child test

panel successfully operated the surrogate multi-purpose lighter, the

lighter represented by the

[[Page 52419]]

surrogate shall be considered not resistant to successful operation by

at least 85 percent of the child test panel, and no further testing is

conducted.

(2) If additional testing of the surrogate multi-purpose lighter is

required by paragraph (h)(1) of this section, conduct the test

specified by this Sec. 1212.4 using a second 100-child test panel and

record the results. If a total of no more than 30 of the children in

the combined first and second 100-child test panels successfully

operated the surrogate multi-purpose lighter, the multi-purpose lighter

represented by the surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be considered

resistant to successful operation by at least 85 percent of the child

test panel, and no further testing is performed. If a total of 31 or

more children in the combined first and second 100-child test panels

successfully operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter, the multi-

purpose lighter represented by the surrogate shall be considered not

resistant to successful operation by 85 percent of the child test

panel, and no further testing is conducted. Thus, for the first panel

of 100 children, the surrogate passes if there are 0-10 successful

operations by the children; the surrogate fails if there are 19 or

greater successful operations; and testing is continued if there are

11-18 successes. If testing is continued with a second panel of

children, the surrogate passes if the combined total of the successful

operations of the two panels is 30 or less, and it fails if there are

31 or more.

Sec. 1212.5 Findings.

Section 9(f) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058(f))

requires the Commission to make findings concerning the following

topics and to include the findings in the rule.

(a) The degree and nature of the risk of injury the rule is

designed to eliminate or reduce. The standard is designed to reduce the

risk of death and injury from accidental fires started by children

playing with multi-purpose lighters. The CPSC's staff has identified

178 fires that occurred between January 1988 and August 6, 1998, that

were started by children under age 5 playing with multi-purpose

lighters. These fires resulted in a total of 29 deaths and 71 injuries.

Fire-related injuries include thermal burns--many of high severity--as

well as anoxia and other, less serious injuries. The annual cost of

these fires, which averaged about $34.4 million per year during 1996-

1997, are now estimated to exceed $35 million annually. This is based

on increases in the sales and use of multi-purpose lighters in recent

years. Because these data are from known fires rather than national

estimates, the extent of the total problem may be greater. Fires

started by children under age 5 are those which the standard would most

effectively reduce.

(b) The approximate number of consumer products, or types or

classes thereof, subject to the rule. The standard covers certain

flame-producing devices, commonly known as multi-purpose lighters, that

are defined in Sec. 1212.2(a) of this part 1212. This definition

includes products that are referred to as micro-torches. Multi-purpose

lighters may use any fuel and may be refillable or nonrefillable. Over

20 million multi-purpose lighters are expected to be sold to consumers

in the U.S. during 1998. Multi-purpose lighters manufactured after

[insert date that is 1 year after publication of a final rule] will be

required to meet child-resistance requirements.

(c) The need of the public for the consumer products subject to the

rule, and the probable effect of the rule on the utility, cost, or

availability of such products to meet such need. Consumers use multi-

purpose lighters primarily to ignite items such as candles, fuel for

fireplaces, charcoal or gas-fired grills, camp fires, camp stoves,

lanterns, or fuel-fired appliances or devices or their pilot lights.

The following products are not multi-purpose lighters: devices,

intended primarily for igniting smoking materials, that are within the

definition of ``lighter'' in the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters

(16 CFR 1210.2(c)); devices that contain more than 10 oz. of fuel; and

matches. The standard's requirements should ensure that most children

under 52 months of age cannot operate the lighters.

(1) There will be several types of costs associated with the rule.

Manufacturers would have to devote some resources to the development or

modification of technology to produce child-resistant multi-purpose

lighters. Before being marketed, the lighters must be tested and

certified to the new standard. It is also possible that manufacturing

child-resistant lighters may require more labor or material than non-

child-resistant lighters.

(2) Manufacturers will have to modify their existing multi-purpose

lighters to comply with the rule. In general, costs that manufacturers

would incur in developing, producing, and selling new complying

lighters include the following:

(i) Research and development toward finding the most promising

approaches to improving child resistance, including building prototypes

and surrogate lighters for preliminary child panel testing;

(ii) Retooling and other production equipment changes required to

produce more child-resistant multi-purpose lighters, beyond normal

periodic changes made to the plant and equipment;

(iii) Labor and material costs of the additional assembly steps, or

modification of assembly steps, in the manufacturing process;

(iv) The additional labeling, recordkeeping, certification,

testing, and reporting that will be required for each new model;

(v) Various administrative costs of compliance, such as legal

support and executive time spent at related meetings and activities;

and

(vi) Lost revenue if sales are adversely affected.

(3) Industry sources have not been able to provide firm estimates

of these costs. One major manufacturer has introduced a child-resistant

multi-purpose lighter. However, because that company did not previously

manufacture a non-child-resistant lighter, it was unable to estimate

the incremental cost of developing and manufacturing child-resistant

multi-purpose lighters.

(4) Assuming that there are 15 manufacturers and that each invests

an average of $2 million to develop and market complying lighters, the

total industry cost for research development, retooling, and compliance

testing would be approximately $30 million. If amortized over a period

of 10 years, and assuming a modest 3 percent sales growth each year,

the average of these costs would be about $0.13 per unit.1

For a manufacturer with a large market share (i.e., selling several

million units or more a year) the cost per unit of the development

costs could be lower than the estimated $0.13 per unit, even at the

high end of the estimates. On the other hand, for manufacturers with a

small market share, the per-unit development costs would be greater.

Some manufacturers with small market shares may even drop out of the

market (at least temporarily) or delay entering the market.

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

\1\ If 20 million lighters are sold in the first year

(approximately the current annual sales volume) and sales increase

at the rate of 3 percent a year (industry sources indicate that they

have been growing at 5 to 10 percent annually), then over a 10-year

period approximately 230 million lighters would be sold. $30

million/230 million = $0.13/unit.

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

(5) In addition to the research, development, retooling, and

testing costs, material and labor costs are likely to increase. For

example, additional

[[Page 52420]]

labor will be required to add the child-resistant mechanism to the

lighter during assembly. Additional materials may also be needed to

produce the child-resistant mechanism. While CPSC was unable to obtain

reliable estimates, some industry sources indicated that they believed

that these costs would be relatively low, probably less than $0.25 per

unit.

(6) Multi-purpose lighters will also be required to have a label

that identifies the manufacturer and the approximate date of

manufacture. However, virtually all products are already labeled in

some way. Since the requirement in the rule allows substantial

flexibility to the manufacturer in terms of things such as color, size,

and location, this requirement is not expected to increase the costs

significantly.

(7) Certification and testing costs include costs of producing

surrogate lighters; conducting child panel tests; and issuing and

maintaining records for each model. The largest component of these

costs is believed to be building surrogates and conducting child panel

tests, which, based on CPSC experience, may cost about $25,000 per

lighter model. Administrative expenses associated with the compliance

and related activities are difficult to quantify, since many such

activities associated with the rule would probably be carried out

anyway and the marginal impact of the recommended rule is probably

slight. Overall, certification, testing, and administrative costs are

expected to add about $0.02 per unit to the cost of producing multi-

purpose lighters. Because of lower sales volume, the per-unit cost for

micro-torches is expected to be higher.

(8) Multi-purpose lighters are sold in countries other than the

United States. Some manufacturers may develop lighters that meet the

requirements of the rule for distribution in the United States, but

continue to distribute the current, non-child-resistant models in other

countries. Thus, some manufacturers may incur the incremental costs

associated with producing multiple lines of similar products. These

costs could include extra administrative costs required to maintain

different lines and the incremental costs of producing different lines

of similar products, such as using different molds or different

assembly steps. These costs would, however, be mitigated if similar or

identical standards were adopted by other countries.

(9) In total, the rule will likely increase the cost of

manufacturing multi-purpose lighters by about $0.40 per unit. The

proposed rule will likely increase the per-unit cost of manufacturing

micro-torches and other high-end multi-purpose lighters by a greater

amount. However the available information is insufficient to make a

reliable estimate of this cost.

(10) At the present time, one manufacturer has about 90 percent of

the market for multi-purpose lighters. The other manufacturers,

importers, and private labelers divide up the remaining 10 percent of

the market. Thus, there is already a very high degree of

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.