Safety Standard for Multi-Purpose Lighters
Federal RegisterDec 22, 1999
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: The Commission issues performance requirements for the child
resistance of multi-purpose lighters. These requirements address
unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with multi-purpose
lighters that can be operated by children under age 5. Multi-purpose
lighters are hand-held flame-producing products that operate on fuel
and have an ignition mechanism. They typically are used to light
devices such as charcoal and gas grills and fireplaces. Devices
intended primarily for igniting smoking materials are excluded; many
such products are already subject to a child-resistance standard at 16
CFR Part 1210.
DATES: The rule will become effective December 22, 2000 and apply to
multi-purpose lighters manufactured in the United States or imported on
or after that date.
ADDRESSES: Copies of documents relevant to this rulemaking can be
obtained from the Commission's Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Washington DC 20207-0001, Telephone (301)
504-0800, fax (301) 504-504-0127, e-mail [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Bogumill, Office of
Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207;
telephone (301) 504-0477, ext. 1368; e-mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
1. The product. Multi-purpose lighters are defined in
Sec. 1212.2(a)(1) of the rule issued below as follows:
(a)(1) Multi-purpose lighter, (also known as grill lighter,
fireplace lighter, utility lighter, micro-torch, or gas match, etc.)
means: A hand-held, flame-producing product that operates on fuel,
incorporates an ignition mechanism, 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.
Some multi-purpose lighters have a feature that allows for hands-free
operation.
(2) The following products are not multi-purpose lighters:
(i) Devices intended primarily for igniting cigarettes, cigars, and
pipes, whether or not such devices are subject to the requirements of
the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters (16 CFR 1210).
(ii) Devices containing more than 10 oz. of fuel.
(iii) Matches.
Most multi-purpose lighters have an extended nozzle from which the
flame is emitted. The nozzle is typically four to eight inches in
length, but can be longer or shorter. Some multi-purpose lighters
include a burner that operates at a higher flame temperature than other
multi-purpose lighters. These lighters are sometimes referred to as
micro-torches. Most micro-torches do not have extended nozzles, but
have relatively long, thin, and steady flames that can be directed to
their targets. Some 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.
Most multi-purpose lighters use butane fuel. The more expensive
multi-purpose lighters are refillable. Many of the less expensive Asian
imports are also refillable.
Multi-purpose lighters are operated by applying pressure to a
trigger, button, or sliding mechanism. This action releases the fuel
and activates a spark at the end of the nozzle that ignites the fuel.
Because the fuel must travel from the reservoir, usually located in the
handle, to the end of the nozzle, the spark is sometimes activated
before the fuel reaches the end of the nozzle. When this happens, the
fuel will not be ignited. Users of multi-purpose lighters sometimes
have to make more than one ignition attempt before successfully
producing a flame. Some higher-priced multi-purpose lighters overcome
this problem by using a battery that causes a spark to be continuously
generated. This is less of a problem with micro-torch lighters because
they do not have a long nozzle.
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.
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 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 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. After considering the comments received in response to
that notice and the other available information, the Commission granted
the petition.
On January 16, 1997, the Commission commenced a rulemaking
proceeding by publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPR) in the Federal Register: 62 FR 2327. The ANPR solicited comments
on the risks of injury and death associated with multi-purpose
lighters, the regulatory alternatives, and the economic impacts of the
regulatory alternatives. The Commission also invited interested persons
to submit an existing standard, or a statement of intent to modify or
develop a voluntary standard, to address the identified risks.
On January 8, 1998, the Commission published a Federal Register
notice extending the period for issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking
until September 30, 1998. 63 FR 1077. This extension was required so
the staff could complete the technical work necessary for a Commission
decision on whether to issue a proposed rule.
On September 30, 1998, the Commission published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) that proposed a safety standard to address
the risk of death and injury associated with multi-purpose lighters
that could be operated by children under age 5. 63 FR 52397. This
notice extended the period for issuing a final rule or withdrawing the
NPR until June 30, 1999.
Also on September 30, 1998, the Commission published a Federal
Register notice proposing a rule finding that it is in the public
interest to issue a standard, or take other regulatory action on multi-
purpose lighters, under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).
Elsewhere in today's issue of
[[Page 71855]]
the Federal Register, the Commission issues a final rule, under Section
30(d) of the CPSA, making this determination.
On October 29, 1998, the staff sent a copy of the proposed safety
standard, with a cover letter outlining the Commission's action, to
small importers and manufacturers that could be subject to the
standard. The letter invited interested parties to submit comments
during the comment period.
On January 20, 1999, the Commission met so interested parties could
present oral comments. Mr. Don Cooke, Attorney at Law; Dr. Carol
Pollack-Nelson, President, Independent Safety Consulting; and Mr. David
Baker, General Counsel of the Lighter Association, Inc. presented oral
comments at that meeting.
On August 4, 1999, the Commission published a Federal Register
notice proposing that the child-panel tests be conducted with the
lighter on/off switch in the ``on,'' or unlocked, position, instead of
in the ``off,'' or locked, position as originally proposed. 64 FR
42302. This change in the test procedure would protect children in
situations where the users of the lighters do not return the switch to
the ``off'' position after use. The comment period closed on October
18, 1999. The notice provided an opportunity for oral comments on the
proposed change to be presented on September 15, 1999. The Commission
received one written comment and no requests for presentation of oral
comments. The notice also extended the time for issuing a final rule or
withdrawing the NPR until December 31, 1999.
B. Incident Data
Overall, the Commission's staff has identified a total of 340 fires
occurring from January 1, 1988, through October 15, 1999, that were
reportedly started by children playing with multi-purpose lighters.
These fires caused 65 deaths and 138 injuries. For the incidents where
the age of the fire starter was known, children under age 5 ignited 237
of these fires, which resulted in 45 deaths and 103 injuries. Twenty-
eight of the 45 fatalities were children younger than age 5.
In addition to the fatalities, these fires resulted in severe
injuries. Among the fires caused by children younger than age 5, four
surviving children received burns over 70% or more of their bodies.
These burns will require extensive long-term treatment.
The high proportion of fatalities that were children younger than
age 5, and the severity of the injuries, illustrate the hazard
associated with children playing with multi-purpose lighters. Because
the data are incidents reported to CPSC rather than national estimates,
the full extent of the problem may be greater.
Many of the children found the multi-purpose lighters in easily
accessible locations, such as on kitchen counters or furniture tops.
Others, however, obtained the lighters from more inaccessible
locations, such as high shelves or cabinets, where parents tried to
hide them.
C. Description of the Final Standard
1. Scope and Definition
Multi-purpose lighters subject to the standard are also known as
grill lighters, fireplace lighters, utility lighters, micro-torches, or
gas matches. The rule's definition of multi-purpose lighters is given
in Section A of this notice. Both refillable and non-refillable
lighters are covered, regardless of their cost.
2. Requirements
Most of the provisions of the standard are essentially the same as
the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters, including a required child
resistance of 85%. The child resistance of a multi-purpose lighter
would be determined by tests using panels of children. To avoid harming
the children in the test panels, the lighters used for the tests are
modified so they will not produce a flame when operated. Rather, the
lighters are modified (if necessary) to produce a signal that can be
seen or heard when the lighter is operated in a manner that would
produce a flame in a production lighter. The child-resistant mechanism
would be required to: operate safely when used in a normal and
convenient manner, comply with the rule's requirements for the
reasonably expected life of the lighter, and not be easily deactivated
or prevented from complying with the rule's requirements.
The child-resistant mechanisms in multi-purpose lighters must reset
automatically, either (1) after each operation of the lighter or (2)
after multiple operations but when or before the user lets go of the
lighter. This differs from the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters,
which requires the child-resistant mechanism to reset after each
operation. Some multi-purpose lighters, however, allow the lighter to
remain lit after it is released by the user. This can allow hands-free
operation during operations such as soldering. To address the child-
resistance issue with respect to lighters that have this hands-free
feature, the rule contains two requirements that are not in the
cigarette lighter standard.
The first additional requirement (Sec. 1212.3(b)(2)) will help
prevent the dangerous situation where a child who operates the child-
resistant mechanism and lights the lighter could create a flame that
would not go out when the lighter is released, even if it is dropped.
The rule specifies that, after the lighter is lit, an additional manual
operation must be performed to activate any feature that allows the
lighter to burn without being held by the user.
The second additional requirement is that a lighter that remains
lit after it is released need not return automatically to the child-
resistant condition when it is released. It must automatically reset,
however, when or before the user lets go of the lighter after turning
off the flame.
3. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
The final standard has recordkeeping and reporting requirements
that will allow the staff to ensure that lighters comply. The standard
also requires manufacturers and importers to provide a certificate of
compliance to any distributor or retailer to whom the lighters are
delivered.
4. Anti-Stockpiling Provisions
The final rule contains anti-stockpiling provisions to prohibit
excessive production or importation of noncomplying lighters during the
12-month period between the final rule's publication and its effective
date. The provision limits the production or importation of
noncomplying products to 120% of the amount produced or imported in the
1-year period before the publication of the rule. To help assure
compliance, manufacturers or importers must provide supporting
information to CPSC to establish the number of lighters made or
imported during the base period. They must also report shipments of
non-child-resistant lighters to CPSC within 10 days after the end of
each calendar month during the anti-stockpiling period.
5. Effective Date
The final rule will become effective [insert date that is 12 months
after publication] (12 months after it is published), and will apply to
all multi-purpose lighters manufactured in, or imported into, the
United States on or after that date. Based on its experience with the
Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters, the Commission concludes that
this will provide firms with sufficient time to design child-resistant
multi-purpose lighters and bring them to market. The Commission is
aware of one such lighter already on the market,
[[Page 71856]]
and additional lighters are in the final stages of development and
testing.
D. Statutory Authority for This Proceeding
Three of the statutes administered by the Commission have at least
some relevance to the risk posed by non-child-resistant multi-purpose
lighters. These are the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C.
2051-2084; the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA), 15 U.S.C. 1471-
1476; and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261-
1278. The Commission has decided to use the authority of the CPSA to
issue the standard for the child resistance of multi-purpose lighters.
A full explanation of the Commission's reasons for that decision is
published in this issue of the Federal Register in a notice, under
Section 30(d) of the CPSA, that issues a rule determining that it is in
the public interest to regulate this risk under the CPSA, rather than
the FHSA or the PPPA. 15 U.S.C. 2079(d).
E. Discussion of Comments on the Proposed Standard
The Commission received 23 written comments on the proposed
standard. Three individuals presented oral comments to the Commission
on January 20, 1999. Copies of all comments and a transcript of the
January 20, 1999, public hearing are available from the Office of the
Secretary. The major issues raised in the comments and the Commission's
responses are discussed in this section.
Overall Description of Comments
The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote in support of the
Commission's action to require multi-purpose lighters to be child-
resistant, stating that in addition to the quantitative benefits, the
rule will reduce the pain and heartache that result from the death and
injury caused by children playing with multi-purpose lighters.
The Executive Director of the National Fire Protection Association
Center for High-Risk Outreach wrote in support of CPSC's efforts to
reduce the number of deaths and injuries associated with children
playing with fires. She stated that preschool age children are at more
than twice the risk of fire death than the population at large. She
also commented on the August 4, 1999, Federal Register notice that
proposed a change to the test protocol.
Douglas Lant, Chairman of the British Standards Institute Technical
Committee on Matches and Lighters, wrote in support of the Commission's
action. He stated that the European Standards Organization (CEN) was
considering improvements to the Lighter Standard for Europe, including
requirements for child-resistance.
The Chairman of the Coalition for Consumer Health & Safety wrote to
urge the Commission to publish a final rule on multi-purpose lighters.
This organization is a partnership of consumer, health, and insurer
groups working to educate the public and to identify and promote policy
solutions to a broad range of health and safety threats.
The Lighter Association, Inc. (Lighter Association), and several
member firms, BIC Corporation (BIC), The Colibri Group, Scripto-Tokai
Corporation (Scripto), Zippo Manufacturing Company (Zippo), and Swedish
Match, wrote in general support of child-resistance for multi-purpose
lighters but requested that the Commission address certain concerns
about the definition and requirements for multi-purpose lighters
(discussed below).
Several small firms, Donel, Inc. (Donel), SNC Group, and Zelco
Industries, Inc. (Zelco), commented that a standard for multi-purpose
lighters would have adverse impacts on small businesses because of the
expense of developing and certifying a child-resistant design and
because some manufacturers have already applied for, or obtained, broad
patents that limit the number of design options. These firms asked the
Commission for relief, either in the form of funding to offset their
development and testing expenses or in the form of an extension of the
effective date of the rule.
Blazer Corporation, a company that specializes in the distribution
of micro-torches, wrote that it agrees in principle that lighters
likely to be handled by children should be child-resistant. It also
expressed concern that the definition of multi-purpose lighters would
include micro-torches used by professionals.
Vinson & Elkins, the law firm that filed the original petition on
behalf of Judy L. Carr, and four other law firms, Joseph P. Moschetta
and Associates, McDermott and Hansen, Don Cooke, and Sugarman and
Sugarman, P.C., provided information on incidents involving multi-
purpose lighters. Mr. Cooke appeared before the Commission at the
January 20, 1999, meeting to present information about a fire started
by a two-year-old boy with a multi-purpose lighter that resulted in the
death of the child and his mother. Another 4-year-old child was
severely injured in the fire.
Independent Safety Consulting presented comments about children's
fire knowledge and attraction to fire and lighters, parental
perceptions regarding the hazard and storage of lighters, parental
supervision, and the appropriateness of a warning label as a hazard
avoidance strategy.
Ms. Lorraine Daly and Ms. Eve Mallett, both consumers, questioned
the need for child resistance for products in homes without small
children.
Milford Consulting Associates, a testing agency with experience
testing child-resistant packaging, cigarette lighters, and multi-
purpose lighters, requested certain changes to the procedures for
evaluating the child-resistance of multi-purpose lighters.
Particular issues that the comments raised are discussed below.
1. Issue: Effectiveness of the Cigarette Lighter Standard
Scripto stated that there are insufficient data to conclude that
the Cigarette Lighter Standard has proven effective in reducing the
number of child-play fire losses associated with lighters.
Response: National fire loss estimates show a reduction in the
number of estimated residential structure fires caused by children
playing with all types of lighters. This reduction is occurring in
spite of the fact that these estimates include fires started with
multi-purpose lighters (which are not subject to a standard) and fires
started by children 5 years old and older (who are older than the
children addressed by child-resistant features). The estimated number
of lighter child-play fires decreased from 10,600 in 1994, the year the
cigarette lighter standard took effect, to 7,200 in 1996. During the
same period, estimated deaths decreased from 230 to 130 and estimated
injuries decreased from 1,560 to 1,090 (Ault, K., Singh, H., & Smith,
L., ``1996 Residential Fire Loss Estimates,'' 10/15/98). Comparing 1996
to 1994, there was a greater percentage reduction in child-play lighter
fires (32%) than the reduction in residential structure fires overall
(5%). The Commission believes this reduction indicates that child-
resistant cigarette lighters are preventing child-play fires. Because
there was also a reduction in child-play fires started with matches,
other factors, such as fire safety education or general improvements in
fire safety (e.g., use of smoke detectors), are also likely to have
contributed to the decrease. However, the reduction for child-play
lighter fires (32%) is greater than the reduction for child-play match
fires (21%). The Commission believes that the available information
supports the conclusion that the Safety Standard for Cigarette
[[Page 71857]]
Lighters is effective in reducing child-play fires started by children
under age 5 with lighters. The Commission expects child-play lighter
fires to continue to decline.
Even if these data were not available, the Commission would be
justified in issuing the standard. The Commission has estimated the
effectiveness of the standard based on test results with children, as
it did in issuing the cigarette lighter standard. As discussed in
Section H of this notice, the rule is expected to reduce the number of
child-play fires associated with multi-purpose lighters by at least
75%.
2. Issue: Relative Risk of Injury
Swedish Match commented that the Commission provided no data to
show relative risk rates between matches and non-child-resistant multi-
purpose lighters. Zelco commented that the number of fires resulting
from matches is surely higher than those from multi-purpose lighters,
yet matches are specifically excluded from the rule. Scripto
recommended that the CPSC vigorously pursue regulatory action on
matches. It stated that the societal benefits of regulating matches
would far exceed those of regulating multi-purpose lighters.
Response: Comparisons between child-play fires with matches and
with multi-purpose lighters are not valid, because they largely involve
children of different age groups. A study of 551 juvenile fire setters
conducted in Portland, Oregon, found that use of matches by children
younger than age 5 was rare, but was relatively common among children
of ages 6 to 11 (Porth, 1999). This is consistent with the differences
in motor development for the two age groups. Using a match requires
two-hand coordination, a combination of force and precision, and the
control to maintain a flame long enough to light something. These
factors make it a challenging task for a 3- or 4-year-old child, but
much less so for older children. In short, regulating matches would
have little impact on child-play fires involving children under 5.
Further, the overlap in the abilities of elementary school children and
adults makes it impractical to modify the design of matches so they
cannot be used by older children.
In contrast, based on CPSC incident data for the period January 1,
1988, through October 15, 1999, about 70 percent of the fires started
with multi-purpose lighters were started by children under 5. These
fires could be effectively reduced by a requirement that multi-purpose
lighters be child-resistant. In baseline testing with children 42 to 51
months of age, the child-resistance of current multi-purpose lighters
ranged from 4 to 41 percent. The standard would increase the level of
child-resistance to a minimum of 85 percent. The feasibility of making
lighters child-resistant, yet acceptable to adults, has been
demonstrated by the experience with the Safety Standard for Cigarette
Lighters.
In any event, 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.
3. Issue: Definition of Multi-Purpose Lighters
a. Exclude high-end multi-purpose lighters. Zelco commented that
the scope should be narrowed to exclude higher-end multi-purpose
lighters.
Response: The Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters excluded
luxury lighters (customs or ex-factory value greater than $2.00)
because they differed from disposable cigarette lighters in certain
characteristics affecting risk. The staff stated that because of their
cost, consumers would be less likely to leave luxury cigarette lighters
in household locations accessible to young children.
Unlike luxury cigarette lighters, the more expensive multi-purpose
lighters are as likely to be involved in child-play fires as the less
expensive models because they are stored and used in the same manner.
In fact, some of the more expensive multi-purpose lighters are
relatively large and may be more difficult to store out of the reach of
children. At least one expensive multi-purpose lighter is appropriate
for display near the fireplace.
In addition, luxury cigarette lighters often have unusual ignition
mechanisms that may be difficult for young children to operate. In the
case of multi-purpose lighters, most ignition mechanisms are similar
and easy for young children to operate. Multi-purpose lighters are
activated by applying pressure to a trigger or button, which initiates
fuel flow and causes a spark. Baseline testing indicates that one
expensive lighter is as easy for children to operate as less expensive
models.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that excluding the more
expensive lighters would reduce the benefits of a rule for multi-
purpose lighters.
b. Exclude micro-torch lighters. Both the Lighter Association and
Swedish Match question the inclusion of micro-torch lighters within the
scope of the rule because they do not consider micro-torches to be
comparable to the grill-type or ``utility'' multi-purpose lighters. The
commenters argued that micro-torches are more suited for use in
activities such as soldering, welding, heat shrinking, and household
repairs.
The Lighter Association, Swedish Match, and The Colibri Group
suggested that the term ``micro-torch'' be deleted in order to prevent
lighters primarily intended for igniting smoking materials from being
incorrectly identified as multi-purpose lighters.
Blazer Corporation, a company that specializes in the distribution
of micro-torches, expressed concerns that the broad definition of
multi-purpose lighter in the proposed rule may be interpreted to apply
to micro-torch products used by professional tradesmen or in industrial
settings.
Response: The Commission considers micro-torches comparable to
other types of multi-purpose lighters. As stated in the proposal,
``micro-torches'' are marketed for multiple purposes that overlap those
of ``grill'' or ``utility'' lighters (e.g., lighting fireplaces, camp
fires, barbecues, camp stoves, etc.). All types of multi-purpose
lighters are likely to be used and stored in the home in locations
accessible to young children. For example, there is an incident where a
child under the age of 5 started a fire with a micro-torch. It appears
the child found the lighter near a gas furnace where it was used to
light the pilot light.
The Commission clarified the definition of multi-purpose lighters
to specifically exclude devices intended primarily for igniting smoking
materials, whether or not they are subject to the requirements of the
Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters.
Regarding Blazer Corporation's concern about the application of a
safety standard for micro-torch lighters to products used by
professional tradesmen or in industrial settings, products intended and
sold only for professional or industrial use would not be subject to a
rule promulgated under the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). If, however, a
particular micro-torch model was advertised in general-circulation
media (e.g., consumer magazines, catalogs, newspapers, television
programs, consumer-oriented Internet web sites, etc.), or was sold in
hardware or other stores open to the general public, it would be
considered a consumer product subject to the standard. Therefore, if
Blazer's products are available to consumers, they will need to comply
with the rule.
c. Define multi-purpose lighters on the basis of length. The
Lighter Association recommended alternative language that would define
multi-purpose lighters as
[[Page 71858]]
``a hand-held, flame producing device, * * * four inches or greater in
length when in the fully extended position * * *'' It maintained that
the obvious distinguishing characteristic of a grill lighter is the
length of the product, which is designed to ``reach over fire or into
inaccessible places.'' Zippo also supported a dimensional limitation.
Response: The Commission did not use length to define multi-purpose
lighters. There are micro-torch designs that are less than 4 inches
long. The hotter, directional flame of a micro-torch compensates to an
extent for its shorter nozzle, making it useful for many of the same
purposes as ``grill'' lighters. CPSC staff members found micro-torches
convenient to use for lighting a gas grill, a gas stove burner,
candles, and a water heater pilot light. Other types of multi-purpose
lighters could also be designed to be under 4 inches in length and
still be functionally equivalent to longer lighters.
d. Specify the type of fuel used by multi-purpose lighters. The
Lighter Association and Zippo supported including only those lighters
that use a gaseous fuel. Both indicated that it is not technologically
or commercially feasible to create a utility lighter that uses liquid
fuel. The Lighter Association states that they believe no liquid-fuel
utility lighters are produced anywhere in the world and question the
Commission's authority to regulate products that do not exist.
Response: As proposed, a multi-purpose lighter was defined as a
``flame-producing product that operates on fuel.'' There is no
reference to any specific type of fuel, liquid or otherwise. The
Commission concludes that any lighter that is used by consumers to
ignite items such as candles, fuel for fireplaces, charcoal or gas-
fired grills, and the like should be required to be child-resistant,
regardless of the type of fuel, since these lighters would all present
the same risk.
e. Change the words ``self-igniting'' to ``manually operated.'' The
Lighter Association recommended changing ``self-igniting'' in the
definition of multi-purpose lighter to ``manually operated ignition
mechanism'' since the term ``self-igniting'' is not accurate because
some action is required to ignite a lighter.
Response: The Commission agrees that the term ``self-igniting'' is
imprecise. Therefore, the Commission revised the definition of multi-
purpose lighters in the final rule to read ``A hand-held, flame-
producing product that operates on fuel [and] incorporates an ignition
mechanism. * * *''
f. Delete the exclusion for lighters with more than 10 ounces of
fuel. The Lighter Association, BIC, and Scripto objected to the
exclusion of multi-purpose lighters that contain more than 10 ounces of
fuel. They question the basis for this exclusion and express concern
that an arbitrary cut-off invites the introduction of products that
will fall outside of the scope of the rule. The Lighter Association and
BIC state that there should be no limit on the amount of fuel because
there are lighter attachments sold without any fuel or fuel reservoir
that work with any quantity of fuel. In support of this argument, they
provided a lighter attachment, with an ignition mechanism, that
accommodates a 14.1 ounce propane cylinder.
Response: The final rule continues to exclude lighters that contain
more than 10 ounces of fuel. As the Lighter Association recognized in
its comments, this provision's purpose is to distinguish multi-purpose
lighters from large propane torches, which are also used for soldering
and brazing. Most multi-purpose lighters contain less than 2 ounces of
fuel. A lighter with a fuel capacity of more than 10 ounces would be
quite large--on the order of 3 inches in diameter by 7 inches high.
Such a lighter would not be convenient for the typical uses of the
lighters within the scope of the final rule. Therefore, such lighters
would not likely be stored in the same locations as the smaller
lighters that have been involved in child-play fires, and thus may not
present the same risks.
A lighter mechanism designed to accommodate a fuel cylinder with a
capacity of 10 ounces or less would clearly be subject to the
requirements of the final rule. The mechanism cannot function as a
multi-purpose lighter without a fuel source being attached. This is
true whether the attachment is sold with or without a fuel cylinder.
For example, there are currently micro-torch multi-purpose lighters
that utilize disposable butane cigarette lighters as the fuel source.
Some of these micro-torches are sold with the cigarette lighter and
some are sold without the cigarette lighter. Both products would be
subject to the requirements for child-resistance.
4. Issue: The Proposal to Require Multiple Operation Capability is
Design-Restrictive
The Lighter Association, BIC, Scripto, Zippo, Swedish Match, and
SNC Group strongly opposed the requirement that a multi-purpose lighter
must allow multiple operations of the ignition mechanism (Sec. 1212.3
(b)). They characterize this provision as a design requirement that
would reduce competition by narrowing the scope of complying designs
and would result in wasteful patent disputes. The Lighter Association
and SNC Group indicate that, as proposed, this requirement essentially
mandates a design that is currently marketed by a single company. BIC
reported that they have patent applications pending in the United
States and in countries around the world for a multi-purpose lighter
that allows for multiple operations of the ignition mechanism. BIC
commented that finalizing the requirement as proposed would invite
multiple patent infringement suits and severely hinder the design and
implementation of creative child-resistant mechanisms. Scripto provided
a test method for evaluating the lighting reliability of a lighter. The
Lighter Association proposed alternative language that they believe
would not limit design options.
Response: The Commission acknowledges that the multiple-operation
requirement is design restrictive. For example, designs for child-
resistant lighters that did not increase the risk of flashback hazard
because they had a high degree of lighting efficiency and would light
on the first try, but did not allow for multiple operations of the
ignition mechanism, would not have been allowed.
The Commission proposed the requirement for multiple operations in
response to a concern raised by Scripto and the Lighter Association
that adding a child-resistant feature that resets after each operation
of the ignition mechanism would create the potential for flashback in
situations such as igniting a gas grill. Flashback in this context is
the sudden ignition of excess fuel that has accumulated while the user
is trying to light the device to be used to ignite the fuel. This is
largely due to the inherent unreliability of some multi-purpose
lighters to ignite with each operation of the ignition mechanism. With
designs that allow multiple operation attempts before the child-
resistant mechanism resets, the lighting efficiency of a child-
resistant multi-purpose lighter should be essentially the same as that
of the non-child-resistant lighters currently in use. Scripto's
suggested lighting efficiency test was rejected because of insufficient
data to show that the test represented the conditions under which
consumers would use the lighters.
The central issues concerning this risk of flashback are:
[[Page 71859]]
1. Would a child-resistant mechanism that resets after each
operation, and thus must be manipulated again before another ignition
attempt can be made, delay successful ignition of a gas appliance to
the extent that a flashback would result when the lighter finally
ignites?
2. And if so, would the flashback have the potential to produce a
serious burn injury?
The Directorate for Laboratory Sciences (lab), Division of
Engineering (LSE), conducted a number of tests using gas-fired grills.
The testing was conducted to determine the duration of ``delayed
ignition'' that could be permitted without resulting in a ``flashback''
that could cause a serious burn injury.
Preliminary tests were conducted with three sizes of grills. The
lab found that the smallest grill presented the worst-case condition.
When the accumulated propane gas was ignited in the shallow well of the
smallest grill, the resulting flashback reached the highest level above
the cooking surface of the three grills tested. The lab used
cheesecloth sleeves to determine whether clothing would ignite as a
result of the flashback. The lab found that allowing the propane gas to
accumulate for 20 seconds could result in a flashback that would ignite
the cheesecloth sleeve. The sleeve did not ignite with a 15-second
accumulation of gas.
The lab conducted 15 additional tests using the smallest grill. The
gas was turned on and allowed to accumulate for 15 seconds before
ignition. The tests were conducted with the cheesecloth sleeves
touching the cooking surface of the grill directly above the ignition
point. The cheesecloth sleeves did not ignite. Videotapes of the
testing showed that the duration of the flashback events ranged from
0.6 to 1.1 seconds.
The Directorate for Health Sciences used the laboratory test
results and information from the published literature on flash fires to
evaluate the potential for serious burn injury. Health Sciences
concluded that exposure to a very short duration flashback from propane
fuel is unlikely to cause serious injury (i.e., second-or third-degree
burns). Furthermore, the Division of Human Factors concluded that the
actual exposure to the flashback would be even shorter than the
measured duration because of the user's normal reflex to withdraw from
the flashback. A shorter period of exposure would further reduce the
potential for injury.
The Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Division of Mechanical
Engineering (ESME), tested six brands of non-child-resistant multi-
purpose lighters to determine the number of times a consumer might need
to operate the ignition mechanism to produce a flame. In 50 of 53
trials, a flame was obtained in 5 or fewer attempts and, in 47 of 53
trials, in 3 or fewer attempts. The number of attempts averaged less
than 3 for all brands of lighters.
The Division of Human Factors conducted a study to determine if
users are capable of operating child-resistant lighters that reset
after each operation at least 5 times within 15 seconds. Disposable
child-resistant cigarette lighters were used for this study because, at
that time, the staff was not aware of any multi-purpose lighters with
child-resistant mechanisms that reset after each operation attempt. For
the 7 lighters tested, the minimum number of operations achieved in 15
seconds ranged from 4 to 8. The maximum ranged from 14 to 24
operations. In most of the trials (195/209), the subjects operated the
lighters 6 or more times.
The Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis,
reviewed the incident data on flashback incidents associated with
igniting gas appliances such as ranges, grills, water heaters, etc. The
NEISS data from 1996-1998 indicated that, of the estimated 1,500
victims treated each year for burn injuries related to flashback, the
majority were treated and released. About 8% of the injuries required
hospitalization. Malfunction of the products being ignited, fuel leaks,
and user error appeared to be contributing factors in incidents that
resulted in serious injury. Although delays in ignition apparently
caused several incidents, the available data provide no evidence that
delay caused by difficulty in operating multi-purpose lighters results
in flashback that causes serious injury.
The staff found that a flashback resulting from a 15-second
accumulation of propane gas is unlikely to ignite clothing or cause a
serious burn injury. The tests showed that a flame can be produced with
most non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters in 5 or fewer
operations. Cigarette lighters with child-resistant features that reset
after every operation were operated at least 6 times within 15 seconds
in most of the trials. Therefore, the staff concluded that a child-
resistant mechanism that resets after each operation of a multi-purpose
lighter would not prevent a user from successfully producing a flame
and igniting a gas appliance before a hazardous flashback condition
could occur.
The staff found insufficient evidence to conclude that current
multi-purpose lighters pose a risk of injury due to flashback, or that
the addition of a child-resistant mechanism that resets after each
operation would pose such a risk.
Even without the results of these tests, however, the Commission
would be justified in eliminating the requirement for multiple-
operation capability from the rule. First, the commenters who first
raised the issue of flashback provided no persuasive data to support
their concern. Second, the injury data from flashback incidents do not
reveal any injuries due to small delays such as might result from
child-resistant mechanisms. (The only exception to this was one
incident where the person put his face over a grill to see why it did
not light and kept operating the (non-child-resistant) lighter.)
Third, market pressures likely will act to reduce the risk of
flashback. The only child-resistant multi-purpose lighter now on the
market is capable of multiple operations without operating the child-
resistant feature each time. This lighter is easy to use and is made by
BIC, a large manufacturer with an extensive distribution network. This
lighter is likely to bring a competitive pressure for other
manufacturers to make their child-resistant multi-purpose lighters easy
to use. Thus, any risk of flashback would be reduced. In addition,
repeat sales of a lighter model that is hard to light would suffer. The
Commission concludes that the proportion of multi-purpose lighters with
inefficient ignition mechanisms that will be marketed, if any, will be
small. Of this small percentage, some persons would be cautious, or
follow the instructions of some appliance manufacturers, and light the
flame before turning on the gas; these persons would not be at risk of
flashback. The Commission notes that of the non-child-resistant multi-
purpose lighters that staff tested, one manufacturer had two models
that were significantly less efficient in lighting than most of the
other models. While this rule contains no lighting efficiency test,
should any child-resistant multi-purpose lighter's poor lighting
performance result in a flashback problem, the Office of Compliance
would consider appropriate action.
Therefore, the Commission is unable to support a requirement in the
final rule that multi-purpose lighters must allow multiple operation
attempts before the child-resistant mechanism resets. The Commission
revised the requirement for multi-purpose lighters in the final rule to
allow a child-
[[Page 71860]]
resistant feature to reset after one or more operations of the ignition
mechanism.
For the reasons given above, the requirements for multi-purpose
lighters in Sec. 1212.3 of the final rule read as follows:
(a) A multi-purpose lighter subject to this part 1212 shall be
resistant to successful operation by at least 85% of the child-test
panel when tested in the manner prescribed by Sec. 1212.4.
(b) The child-resistant mechanism of a multi-purpose lighter
subject to this Part 1212 must:
(1) Operate safely when used in a normal and convenient manner,
(2) Comply with this Sec. 1212.3 for the reasonably expected life
of the lighter,
(3) Not be easy to deactivate or prevent from complying with this
Sec. 1212.3.
(4) Except as provided in subparagraph (b)(5) of this section,
automatically reset when or before the user lets go of the lighter.
(5) The child-resistant mechanism of a multi-purpose lighter
subject to this Part 1212 that allows hands-free operation must:
(i) Require operation of an additional feature (e.g., lock, switch,
etc.) after a flame is achieved before hands-free operation can occur;
(ii) Have a manual mechanism for turning off the flame when the
hands-free function is used; and either
(iii) Automatically reset when or before the user lets go of the
lighter when the hands-free function is not used; or
(iv) Automatically reset when or before the user lets go of the
lighter after turning off the flame when the hands-free feature is
used.
5. Discussion of ``easily deactivated''
The Lighter Association, BIC, and Scripto objected to language in
the discussion of comments on the ANPR in the preamble of the proposal
that states that the Commission considers an ``easily deactivated''
child-resistant mechanism to be one that can be easily disabled with a
common household tool. The Lighter Association stated that this is a
very significant issue because no lighter is designed to this standard
and that such a requirement would mean that a lighter must be tamper-
proof. BIC stated that this interpretation is unreasonable and
unworkable. Scripto commented that no standard can prevent a consumer's
intentional destruction or alteration of a product's safety features,
and that a ``tamper-proof'' requirement is unreasonable and
impractical. Scripto suggested establishment of performance criteria to
determine what would constitute ``easily deactivated.''
Response: Disabling or removing the child-resistant mechanism was a
common problem in the first 2 or 3 years after the effective date of
the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters. In part, this was due to
general consumer resistance to something new and less convenient. In
addition, some of the early child-resistant cigarette lighter designs
were difficult to operate. Effective enforcement of the standard,
including pursuit of firms who purposely disabled child-resistant
mechanisms on cigarette lighters offered for sale, and design changes
by manufacturers to make mechanisms easier for consumers to use, appear
to have reduced this problem for cigarette lighters.
The Commission expects that manufacturers will use their experience
with cigarette lighters to design child-resistant mechanisms for multi-
purpose lighters that will be easy for consumers to operate. In
addition, many consumers have had experience with child-resistant
mechanisms on other types of lighters.
The Commission is expressing no position at this time on any
criterion for when a lighter is easily deactivated. If the staff
identifies either a cigarette lighter or a multi-purpose lighter model
with a child-resistant mechanism that it believes can be easily
deactivated, the Office of Compliance would consider appropriate
action.
6. Issue: Impact of a Rule on Small Companies
Donel, a small U.S. manufacturer of more expensive multi-purpose
lighters, wrote that the cost and time to redesign and certify a
lighter will make it very difficult for it to continue in the
marketplace. It requested an additional 2-year grace period to comply
with the regulations. The purpose of its request was its understanding
that other firms were actively pursuing patent applications for child-
resistant technology and that it needed to see what these patents
covered before beginning to work on its own technology. They stated
that, once the pending patents are issued, it would be able to proceed
with redesigning or licensing to comply with the requirements.
SNC Group, a small U.S. firm, commented that patents filed by some
companies may restrict competition, create hardship on small companies,
and ultimately raise the cost to consumers. SNC Group suggested a
number of possible ways to reduce the burden of a rule on small firms,
including CPSC-mandated design standards in which no one manufacturer
or importer has intellectual property rights, free legal counsel and
testing for small businesses with proprietary designs, and providing
loans to small businesses to lessen the financial hardship associated
with legal advice and retooling.
Response:
Effective date. The costs of developing and testing lighters that
would meet the rule's requirements may have a significant impact on
some small firms that have proprietary or exclusive rights to a non-
child-resistant multi-purpose lighter design. The rule provides an
effective date of 12 months from the date of publication in the Federal
Register, as to products manufactured in, or imported into, the United
States on or after that date. However, an additional 2-year grace
period for small firms is not appropriate.
In order to issue a rule with an effective date of more than 180
days or less than 30 days, the Commission has to find that the longer
or shorter date is in the public interest. 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). The
12-month effective date lessens the economic burden of the rule,
especially on small firms, while providing protection to consumers in a
reasonably expeditious manner.
Based on experience with the Cigarette Lighter Safety Standard, the
Commission estimates that it will take an average of 12 months to
develop, test, retool for production, perform production tests, and
manufacture and ship the product. The results of the conformance
testing must be reported to CPSC at least 30 days in advance of the
importation or distribution of the lighters. In addition, the time
required for importing complying lighters into the United States will
be a significant consideration for many firms.
Some manufacturers, especially those that have been following this
rulemaking proceeding, may have already begun developing child-
resistant models. Manufacturers who have had experience with developing
child-resistant cigarette lighters may be able to take advantage of
that experience 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 and we are aware of other manufacturers that are working
on child-resistant designs.
Manufacturers who have not followed, or only very recently started
following, this rulemaking proceeding may not have begun any
development work. Additionally, manufacturers that do not also produce
cigarette lighters, such as some micro-torch
[[Page 71861]]
manufacturers, do not have prior experience developing child-resistant
designs. These manufacturers may be adversely affected by an effective
date shorter than 12 months.
Based on the Commission's experience with the Safety Standard for
Cigarette Lighters, firms will continue to file new patents for child-
resistant designs. New firms will enter the market, and others will
continue working on technology for new or improved child-resistant
designs. The commenters did not explain why they would not face similar
issues on the delayed effective date as they will face on the proposed
effective date.
Existing or pending patents may make entry into the market more
difficult. However, any negative impact regarding patent infringement
issues will be minimized because the standard is a performance standard
rather than a design standard. Revising the requirements in the final
rule to allow the child-resistant mechanism to reset either after one
or more operations should also reduce some patent infringement concerns
by allowing a wider variety of designs to comply with the standard.
A 12-month effective date does not mean that no benefits will occur
until 1 year after the publication of the final rule. 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 are developed. Therefore, CPSC expects that the number
of child-resistant multi-purpose lighters on the market will increase
prior to the effective date of the rule. For the reasons, stated above,
the Commission concludes that a 12-month effective date is in the
public interest.
Other actions. The Consumer Product Safety Act requires that
consumer product safety standards be expressed in terms of performance
requirements. This may prevent the Commission from mandating a single
design. Also, mandating a single design would stifle the creativity of
individual manufacturers and preclude future design improvements. The
Commission does not have the authority or the funding to provide loans
or subsidies for legal counsel, retooling, or testing.
As noted above, the rule will adversely affect some small
businesses. Nevertheless, these impacts are justified by the
overwhelming fire-prevention benefits expected from the rule.
7. Costs of Testing and Certifying
Zelco commented that the Commission has failed to make allowances
for small business. Zelco stated that the cost of testing and
certification is exorbitant and an unnecessary burden on small
companies. Zelco requested that the testing requirements be reduced or
that the Commission subsidize the costs for small businesses. Donel
commented that there are enormous costs involved in redesigning and
certifying a child-resistant lighter.
Response: The Commission did consider the impact of testing and
certifying on small businesses. The Preliminary Regulatory Analysis in
the proposal estimated the average cost of testing at about $25,000 per
model. However, testing and certification are necessary to ensure that
all multi-purpose lighters on the market are child-resistant.
8. Issue: Supervision
Zelco commented that lighters are adult products and that, if
children were supervised and taught to respect them, there would be no
need for these regulations. Scripto stated that child-resistant
mechanisms are not a substitute for proper adult supervision. Scripto
stated that, in their experience, most instances of serious injury
associated with child-play fires involved gross parental neglect.
Independent Safety Consulting commented that incidents involving
multi-purpose lighters demonstrate the normal and expected range of
parental behavior when it comes to supervision; accidents happen even
when children are appropriately supervised. The American Academy of
Pediatrics commented that adult supervision can never be perfect.
Response: Proper adult supervision is very important. Teaching
children to ``respect'' adult items, and otherwise avoid hazards, is a
necessary component of child rearing. It is, however, an unreliable
strategy for injury prevention. Three-and 4-year-old children are fully
capable of verbalizing rules repeated to them by adult caretakers. This
is simple mimicry to a large extent, and does not imply either that
children have a full understanding of the potential consequences of
their behavior, or that they have developed sufficient control of their
impulses to obey the rules with 100-percent consistency.
Congress addressed the general issue of adult responsibility in its
passage of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act. The Report of the
Senate Committee on Commerce (1970) stated that negligence is not the
principal cause of poisoning incidents, and that there are too many
potential hazards to expect that children will be adequately protected
from all of them solely through adult intervention. S. Rep. No. 91-845
at 3 (1972).
The fire incident reports show that children generally were under
reasonable levels of supervision at the time they started the fires.
While child-resistant mechanisms do not substitute for parental
supervision, they can provide a valuable measure of safety.
9. Issue: Labeling
Zelco commented that labeling requirements would be sufficient. The
American Academy of Pediatrics stated that product labeling is very
important, but that it will not be as effective as making the lighters
child-resistant. Independent Safety Consulting commented that a label
is not likely to significantly reduce these fires and that warning
labels cannot affect behavior nearly as well as can a technical design
change.
Response: The Commission does not believe that warning labels alone
can effectively address the risks associated with multi-purpose
lighters. Labeling of multi-purpose lighters (including ``Keep out of
reach of children'') has always been required under the FHSA, and this
has clearly been insufficient to prevent child-play fires. Since most
caregivers are fully aware of the dangers of young children playing
with lighters, and since incident information shows that children
access these lighters 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 child-play fires with
multi-purpose lighters.
10. Issue: Education
Zelco stated that the aim of these regulations could be
accomplished just as easily through education. Scripto commented that
the Commission must consider the need for concomitant education
efforts. Swedish Match recommended that the Commission fund a strong
education program to ``address consumer behavior in leaving their
lighters and their young children unattended.''
The American Academy of Pediatrics commented that consumer
education is very important but that it will not be as effective as
making the lighters child-resistant. Independent Safety Consulting
states that an education campaign is not likely to significantly reduce
these fires. Child-resistant mechanisms should be coupled with
information and education so that parents can be aware of the
limitations of a child-resistant feature.
The Lighter Association provided information about education
programs they developed with the Learn Not to Burn Foundation and the
National Fire
[[Page 71862]]
Protection Association. The programs warn preschoolers and adults of
the risk of lighters and matches. The Lighter Association also
submitted an article from the January/February 1999 National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Journal reporting that the Portland,
Oregon, program showed a 36-percent decline in juvenile fire-setting as
a result of use of the Youth Education Program.
BIC submitted a copy of their ``play safe! be
safe!'' safety program, which was developed in 1994 in
cooperation with Fireproof Children of Pittsford, New York. This
program teaches young children the basics of fire prevention and shows
them how to respond to specific situations in case of fire. The program
is being utilized in hundreds of pre-school classrooms in the U.S. and
Canada.
Response: The Commission does not believe that education alone can
effectively address the risks associated with multi-purpose lighters.
As an injury prevention strategy, education is less effective than
product modifications, which do not rely on behavior changes. Education
serves to provide the public with accurate information. For example, it
may be appropriate to advise consumers that child-resistant does not
mean child-proof, and that child-resistant mechanisms are intended to
prevent lighter use by most children under 5.
The incident data, however, show little need for an education
program to ``address consumer behavior in leaving their lighters and
their young children unattended.'' The data show that, in general,
children were not ``unattended,'' and that in many cases, lighters were
placed where they could be thought to be ``out of reach'' but were
nevertheless reached.
The effectiveness of the Youth Education Program is unsubstantiated
because there are important confounding factors that preclude a valid
inference of a direct cause-effect relationship between the program and
any statistically significant change in fires set by juveniles.
Furthermore, it is not clear that the Youth Education Program addressed
the age group targeted by a standard for child resistance.
The Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters was issued in 1993 and
became effective in 1994. It is possible that the use of child-
resistant cigarette lighters contributed to the drop in the proportion
of fires attributable to juveniles over the 4-year period (1993/1994 to
1996/1997) cited in the NFPA Journal article (if, as noted above,
children under 5 are included in the age group studied).
Given the lack of consistent evidence of their effectiveness, the
Commission concludes that education programs are an inadequate
substitute for the a standard that requires multi-purpose lighters to
be child resistant.
11. Issue: Provisions of Test Protocol
a. Position of on/off switch. BIC contended that multi-purpose
lighters with on/off switches should be tested with the switch in the
unlocked position, rather than in the locked position, as proposed. BIC
stated that many consumers would leave the lighter in the unlocked
position. Further, BIC pointed out that a manufacturer could design a
lighter with an on/off switch that is very difficult for a child to
unlock, and with a very simple child-resistance mechanism which, in
itself, would not meet the 85% child-resistance requirement.
Response: The Commission agrees with BIC's recommended modification
to the test protocol because on/off switches are not adequate to serve
as part of the child-resistance mechanism. First, as the Commission's
baseline testing demonstrated, most children in the panel age group (42
to 51 months old) can operate the switches, which are similar to those
used on many types of toys. Second, when practical, safety devices
should function automatically. When in the locked position, the switch
may help delay or deter some proportion of children. This protection,
however, is not reliable. To provide this protection, intended users
must return the switch to the locked position every time the lighter is
used. For a variety of reasons, even careful adults may fail to do so.
Thus, as BIC points out, test results for lighters tested with the
switch in the locked position may not reflect the true child-resistance
of the product as actually used by consumers.
Therefore, on August 4, 1999, the Commission published a notice in
the Federal Register to propose that the test protocol should require
that lighters with on/off switches that do not automatically reset to
the locked position be tested with the switch in the on, or unlocked,
position. The Commission also provided an opportunity for interested
parties to present oral comments on this issue on September 15, 1999.
The Executive Director of the National Fire Protection Association
Center for High-Risk Outreach commented that conducting the protocol
test with the lighter on/off switch in the unlocked position would add
an important element of realism to the test.
Accordingly, the Commission revised the test procedure at
Sec. 1212.4(f)(1) in the final rule to provide:
Note: For multi-purpose lighters with an ``on/off'' switch that
does not automatically reset to the locked position, the surrogate
lighter shall be given to the child with the switch in the ``on,''
or unlocked, position.
b. Participation of children in multiple tests. Milford Consulting
Associates endorses the provision that allows the same children to test
child-resistant packaging, cigarette lighters, and multi-purpose
lighters, so long as the children participate in each test on a
different day. It stated that the cross learning from test to test
would be negligible, but that the children's familiarity with the test
setting would be facilitated by multiple tests, making the test less
intimidating to the children.
Response: The Commission agrees that the cross learning from one
type of test to another would be negligible. The test procedure in
Sec. 1212.4(a)(7) of both the proposal and the final rule allows
children to participate in tests of different products, provided that
the tests are conducted on different days.
c. Tester quotas and lighter quotas. Milford Consulting Associates
requested some changes to the requirements for the number of children
who are tested by each tester and in the number of tests conducted with
each surrogate lighter. They requested that when two central location
test sites are used and a tester or a surrogate lighter drops out, the
remaining tests be allocated equally to the remaining testers at that
one test site.
Response: Currently, the test procedure has very specific
requirements for the number of children who can be tested by each
tester and the number of times each surrogate lighter can be used in
testing. The reason for these requirements is to minimize the impact of
any one tester or any one lighter on the final test results. Based on
the staff's experience with the standard for cigarette lighters, tester
variability can influence the test results. In addition, surrogate
lighters may vary in operation forces. Because exceeding the proposed
quotas could introduce test bias, the Commission did not make any
changes.
d. Participation. Milford Consulting Associates requested that
children who refuse to attempt to operate the surrogate multi-purpose
lighter throughout the entire test period should be counted in the test
results, provided they are not disruptive. They stated that in a real-
life situation some children would refuse to touch a lighter even while
a companion is doing so.
Response: The Commission believes that refusing children should
continue to be eliminated from the test results because it provides a
more appropriate
[[Page 71863]]
test for the lighter. A child's refusal in a test may be related to the
circumstances of the test and does not necessarily mean that the child
would not attempt to operate a lighter in the home. The Commission
believes that the 85% acceptance criterion should be based on the
number of children who attempt to operate the lighter and are unable to
do so. This is the procedure used in the Safety Standard for Cigarette
Lighters.
e. Orientation of lighter during demonstration. BIC Corporation and
Milford Consulting Associates requested a change in Sec. 1212.4(f)(3)
of the test protocol. In the proposed rule, during the demonstration of
lighter operation to the children, the tester was instructed to hold
the surrogate multi-purpose lighter in a vertical position in one hand
with the child-resistant feature exposed. BIC pointed out that the
normal operating position of multi-purpose lighters for many purposes
is horizontal.
Response: The Commission agrees that this requirement should be
changed because some multi-purpose lighters are operated in a vertical
position and some are operated in a horizontal position. The final rule
eliminates reference to any specific orientation. Instead, the rule
provides that the tester should hold the lighter in a comfortable
operating position in one hand so both children can see the operation
of the child-resistant mechanism and the ignition mechanism during each
demonstration. The purpose of this provision is to assure that the
children are able to clearly see the operation of the lighter. As long
as the children can see the operation, there is no need to hold the
lighter in any particular position.
12. Issue: Anti-Stockpiling Reporting
Scripto recommends a change to the anti-stockpiling provision. This
change would require information used to establish the number of
lighters made or imported during the year following publication of the
final rule to be filed with CPSC at the end of each calendar month
instead of within 10 days of shipment, as proposed. Scripto states that
this would reduce the reporting requirements and provide the Commission
with better visibility and control of these shipments.
Response: Because industry members reported abuses of the similar
anti-stockpiling requirement in the Safety Standard for Cigarette
Lighters, the Commission proposed a reporting requirement for this
rule. The Commission agrees with Scripto's recommendation, in the
interest of reducing the paperwork burden on manufacturers and the
staff without compromising the ability of the Commission to effectively
enforce the anti-stockpiling provision. The final rule requires
reporting within 10 days of the end of each calendar month, for
lighters shipped within that month, instead of within 10 days of
lighter shipment.
13. Issue: In-Bond Shipments
Scripto reported problems it has experienced with seizures by
customs and delays at foreign ports of shipments of non-child-resistant
lighters that are imported into the U.S. in bond for export to other
nations. It requested CPSC to review this transit-and-export process in
order to reduce unnecessary delays and paperwork in the future.
Response: Scripto refers to the process of moving noncomplying
cigarette lighters manufactured in Mexico through the United States, in
bond, for export to foreign countries that do not require the lighters
to be child-resistant. This process is a program of the U.S. Customs
Service. If contacted in advance of such shipments, the Office of
Compliance is able to work with manufacturers and importers to
facilitate the smooth movement of in-bond shipments.
14. Issue: Households Without Young Children
Ms. Lorraine Daly, a consumer, wrote that there is a very large
percentage of older citizens in the country who don't have children in
their homes and therefore don't need the protection of child-resistance
on medicines or lighters. Similarly, Ms. Eve Mallett wrote, ``We can't
child proof the world at the expense of childless or older people.''
Response: Available data indicate that both lighter child-play
fires and accidental ingestions of medicines have occurred in the homes
of older consumers. These incidents commonly occur while grandparents
are baby-sitting or during family visits. The Poison Prevention
Packaging Act has provisions that allow for availability of non-child-
resistant packaging for medicines otherwise required to be in child-
resistant packaging. These provisions allow handicapped or arthritic
consumers to have ready access to their medicines. However, there is no
comparable need for a consumer to have a non-child-resistant multi-
purpose lighter.
In addition, unlike multi-purpose lighters, the particular design
of child-resistant packaging for medicines is selected by the
manufacturer or the pharmacist, not the consumer. Like child-resistant
cigarette lighters, there will be a number of different multi-purpose
lighter designs to choose from. The Commission believes that older
consumers who can operate a current multi-purpose lighter will find a
child-resistant multi-purpose lighter that they are able to operate
with little or no difficulty.
Therefore, there is no need to forego the lifesaving benefits of
the rule to accommodate the special needs of elderly or handicapped
persons.
F. Environmental Considerations
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and CPSC's
procedures, the Commission considered the potential environmental
effects of the rule. Under CPSC's regulations, this rule falls within a
category of actions that normally have little or no potential for
affecting the human environment, and for which neither an environmental
impact assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. 16
CFR 1021.5(c)(1).
Less than 1% of the non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters that
are sold in this country are manufactured domestically. The rule is not
expected to significantly alter the amount of materials, energy, or
waste generated during production of the lighters. Nor should the rule
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. Potentially, the rule may cause some
manufacturers to replace the molds and other tools earlier than they
would have otherwise.
The rule does not require any recall of non-child-resistant
lighters manufactured or imported before the effective date; therefore,
there are no disposal issues with regard to such lighters. The rule is
not expected to affect the manner in which multi-purpose lighters are
packaged for sale, or to affect the amount of butane or other fuel used
in the operation of the lighters.
The Commission concludes, from the available information, that the
rule will not significantly affect raw material usage, air or water
quality, manufacturing processes, or disposal practices in a way that
will significantly impact the environment.
G. Statutory Findings
The CPSA also requires the Commission to make the following
findings before it promulgates a rule:
(A) That the rule (including its effective date) is reasonably
necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable
[[Page 71864]]
risk of injury associated with such product;
(B) That the promulgation of the rule is in the public interest;
(C) That the benefits expected from the rule bear a reasonable
relationship to its costs; and
(D) That the rule imposes the least burdensome requirement that
prevents or adequately reduces the risk of injury for which the rule is
being promulgated. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3).
The Commission has made the required findings, which are published
as Appendix A to the final rule.
H. Regulatory Analysis
Before issuing a final rule, the CPSA requires the Commission to
consider and make appropriate findings for inclusion in the rule with
respect to:
(A) The degree and nature of the risk of injury the rule is
designed to eliminate or reduce;
(B) The approximate number of consumer products, or types or
classes thereof, subject to such rule;
(C) The need of the public for the consumer products subject to
such rule, and the probable effect of such rule, upon the utility,
cost, or availability of such products to meet such need; and
(D) Any means of achieving the objective of the order while
minimizing adverse effects on competition or disruption or dislocation
of manufacturing and other commercial practices consistent with the
public health and safety. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(1). These findings are also
published in the appendix to the final rule.
Based on these findings, the Commission must, if it issues a final
rule, publish a final regulatory analysis with the rule, containing:
(A) A description of the potential benefits and the potential costs
of the rule, including costs and benefits that cannot be quantified in
monetary terms, and the identification of those likely to receive the
benefits and bear the costs;
(B) A description of any alternatives to the final rule which were
considered by the Commission, together with a summary description of
their potential benefits and costs and a brief explanation of the
reasons why these alternatives were not chosen; and
(C) A summary of any significant issues raised by the comments
submitted during the public comment period in response to the
preliminary regulatory analysis, and a summary of the assessment by the
Commission of such issues. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(2).
The Commission's final regulatory analysis of the rule on multi-
purpose lighters is published below.
Final Regulatory Analysis
Requirements of the Rule
The rule addresses the risk of death and injury caused by children
under the age of 5 playing with multi-purpose lighters, including
micro-torches. Manufacturers or importers of products meeting the
definition of ``multi-purpose lighters'' will have to certify that
their products comply with the rule and provide evidence of a
reasonable testing program, as required by 15 U.S.C. 2063, to support
the certification. The rule specifies minimum requirements and features
of the required testing program.
The test protocol is intended to determine the percentage of
children in a specified age range that could be expected to be able to
operate the lighter. It requires surrogates that will not produce a
flame be used in the tests in place of production lighters. Up to two
panels of 100 children are used to test the surrogates. If a child
succeeds in operating a surrogate, a visual or audible signal is
produced. If at least 85% of the children in the test panels are unable
to operate the surrogates, the production lighters comply with the
child-resistance requirements.
The rule also establishes certain minimum recordkeeping and
reporting obligations for manufacturers, importers, and distributors.
The effective date of the rule is December 22, 2000. All multi-purpose
lighters manufactured in the U.S. or imported on or after this date
will have to comply with the requirements of the rule.
Product and Market Information
The Product
The product subject to this rule, multi-purpose lighters, is
described in Section A of this notice.
Sales, Retail Prices and Useful Product Life
Multi-purpose lighters, including micro-torches, were introduced
around 1985. Sales of multi-purpose lighters increased rapidly after
their introduction. Scripto-Tokai, the firm that introduced multi-
purpose lighters, reports that it sold one million units the first
year. Industry sources estimate that sales of multi-purpose lighters
were about 20 million units in 1998 and will be approximately 21
million units in 1999. Industry sources are divided over their
expectations for future sales. Some expect sales to continue to
increase at the rate of 5 to 10% annually over the next several years.
Others believe that the market for multi-purpose lighters is becoming
satiated and that sales are likely to increase at a slower pace than in
the past.
Retail prices of multi-purpose lighters have declined over the last
couple of years. Currently, retail prices for multi-purpose lighters
start at less than $2.50, and most sell for less than $6.00. However,
some high-end multi-purpose lighters retail for $20 to $40 or more.
Micro-torches have been observed retailing for as little as $12, but
they more frequently retail for around $20 to more than $100. Micro-
torches and other high-end multi-purpose lighters combined probably
have less than 5% of the market for multi-purpose lighters.
The useful life of a multi-purpose lighter depends on how often and
for what purpose it is used. If a typical multi-purpose lighter
contains enough fuel for an average of 1,000 lights, a multi-purpose
lighter that is used several times a day would be expected to last less
than 1 year. On the other hand, a lighter that is used less than once a
day, or only seasonally, could last longer.
The fuel supply is not the only thing that limits the useful life
of a multi-purpose lighter. A multi-purpose lighter can break or wear
out, the piezo crystals can become dirty or misaligned, the fuel lines
can become clogged, and the O-rings may fail and allow fuel to leak out
of the lighter. Since most multi-purpose lighters are relatively
inexpensive, some may simply be misplaced by consumers.
According to industry sources, more than 18 million lighters were
sold in 1997. At the same time, 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.
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 and micro-torches can
be longer. These lighters are refillable and retail for $20 to more
than $100. Although the unit sales of the more expensive lighters
account for only a small portion of the annual sales of multi-purpose
lighters, the number in use at any given time, because of their longer
expected life, is likely to be somewhat higher than their share of the
annual sales.
Based on the assumption that the average useful life of multi-
purpose lighters is approximately one year or less, the Commission
estimates that the number of multi-purpose lighters used during a given
year is roughly equal to the estimated annual sales. Thus, in the
period 1995 through 1998, the number
[[Page 71865]]
of multi-purpose lighters in use in a given year was probably in the
range of 16 million to 20 million.
Manufacturers
CPSC has identified about 40 firms that manufacture, import, or
privately label multi-purpose lighters. There are likely other firms,
especially small importers or private labelers, that have not been
identified. The number of firms participating in the market has
increased as sales have increased.
Four manufacturers are members of the Lighter Association Inc., a
trade association representing manufacturers of cigarette lighters. In
1997, the Lighter Association estimated that its members had more than
90% of the market for multi-purpose lighters in the United States.
However, the market share of the Lighter Association members appears to
be declining as competition from Asian and other imports is increasing.
The manufacturer with the largest market share is Scripto-Tokai
Corporation. Although Scripto once had over 90% of the market, industry
sources indicate that its share has fallen, and probably is now in the
range of 80 to 90%. Most of the remaining 10 to 20% are manufactured by
companies such as BIC, Swedish Match, Ronson, and various Asian
manufacturers.
BIC Corporation manufactures its multi-purpose lighter in South
Carolina. Only one other manufacturer, Donel, a manufacturer of high-
end lighters, 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 Asia.
There are a handful of small U.S.-based companies that have
proprietary designs for multi-purpose lighters. These companies
generally work with Asia-based manufacturers to manufacture their
products. However, the U.S.-based companies have often borne the
research and development costs. Other small U.S.-based companies are
known to import and privately label multi-purpose lighters for which
they do not hold proprietary designs.
Substitutes for Multi-Purpose Lighters
There are a number of products that can be used for the same
purposes as multi-purpose lighters. The most likely and versatile
substitute is probably ordinary box or book matches. 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 matches (either book or box matches). Cigarette lighters can also
be used for many of the purposes for which multi-purpose lighters are
used. The retail prices of the substitutes are reasonably close to the
retail prices of multi-purpose lighters. However, since sales of multi-
purpose lighters have climbed rapidly from approximately 1 million
units in 1985 to 20 million in 1998, we can infer that some consumers
perceive that they receive greater utility from multi-purpose lighters
than they would from the substitutes in some applications.
There are also reasonable substitutes for micro-torches when they
are used in applications such as soldering. The closest substitutes
would likely be butane or propane torches that do not have internal
ignition mechanisms. These are functionally nearly identical to micro-
torches when used for torch applications, 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 reasonably similar to the cost of
micro-torches.
Potential Benefits of the Rule
Societal Costs of Child-Play Fires
The rule is intended to reduce fires resulting from children under
the age of 5 playing with multi-purpose lighters. The benefits to
society of the rule will be the expected reduction in the societal
costs of the deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with
these fires.
The Commission is aware of 196 fires from 1995 through 1998 started
by children under age 5 playing with multi-purpose lighters. These
incidents resulted in 35 deaths, 81 injuries, and substantial property
damage. The societal costs of these fires are discussed below. The
analysis is limited to this 4-year period because the data available
for other years are less complete.
Deaths: If we assume 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
1998 is $175 million.
Injuries: Many of the 81 non-fatal injuries were severe. At least
43 involved burn injuries. Fire burns are among the most costly of
injuries in terms of the cost of medical treatment and the pain and
suffering of the victim. A CPSC study estimated that: the average cost
of a hospitalized fire burn injury was $898,000; the average cost of a
burn injury where the victim was treated and released was estimated to
be $15,000; and the average cost of a burn injury treated elsewhere was
$2,000. These costs include medical and transportation costs, lost
productivity, and pain and suffering. Of the 43 burn injuries, at least
15 were hospitalized and 12 were treated and released. The remaining 16
burn victims were either treated at the scene or the treatment they
received is unknown. Based on the average societal costs from these
types of injuries, the total cost of the burn injuries known to have
occurred during this period is estimated to be at least $13.7 million
(15 x $898,000 + 12 x $15,000 + 16 x $2,000).
At least 20 of the 81 injuries involved smoke inhalation. The CPSC
study referenced above estimated that the average societal cost of a
smoke inhalation injury was about $130,000 if the victim was
hospitalized, and $13,000 if the victim was treated and released. If
the victim was treated at the scene or received other treatment, the
average societal cost was estimated to be $2,000. At least one of the
smoke inhalation victims was hospitalized, and 12 were treated and
released. If we assume that the remaining 7 victims were treated at the
scene, the total societal costs associated with the smoke inhalation
cases are estimated to be about $0.3 million (1 x $130,000 + 12 x
$13,000 + 7 x $2,000).
The remaining 18 victims either had other types of injuries, such
as broken bones or lacerations, or the type of injury was not reported.
The treatment of these 18 victims was either unknown or not reported.
Based on the above referenced CPSC study, the average societal costs of
other non-hospitalized injuries is estimated to be $13,000. Therefore,
the total societal costs of the 16 victims who had injuries other than
burns or smoke inhalation can be estimated at $.2 million (18 x
$13,000).
Based on the above discussions, the Commission estimates that the
total societal costs of the injuries associated with children playing
with multi-purpose lighters that we know to have occurred during the
1995 through 1998 period to be $13.4 million. This is a conservative
estimate, as it includes only the incidents of which the CPSC is aware.
Property Damage: The total property damages from the 196 child-play
fires known to have occurred from 1995 through 1998 exceeded $5
million. This number is conservative because it only includes the fires
known to CPSC. And, of those known fires, it only includes fires where
a property damage estimate was reported to CPSC.
Total Societal Costs: Summarizing all of the above costs (deaths,
injuries, and property damage), the total estimated societal costs of
the known incidents for
[[Page 71866]]
the 4-year period 1995 through 1998 is about $194.2 million, or $48.6
million annually. This comes to about $2.43 per year for each multi-
purpose lighter in use. It is important to note that these cost
estimates are based only on the incidents reported to CPSC, not on
national fire loss estimates. There are likely to be other incidents of
which CPSC is not aware.
Expected Reduction in Societal Costs
The rule is not expected to eliminate all fire incidents involving
children under the age of 5. Some children in that age range will 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 rule even if up to 15% of the subjects in the test panel can
operate 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%
of test subjects cannot operate non-child-resistant multi-purpose
lighters. Therefore, the 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%.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The estimated minimum improvement in child resistance due to
the rule for any given non-child-resistant lighter is calculated by
dividing the percentage improvement in child resistance (the 85%
minimum requirement of the rule minus the baseline child resistance
of the non-child-resistant lighter) by the percentage of children
that can operate the non-child-resistant lighter (100% minus the
baseline %). For example, the least child-resistant lighter in the
baseline testing (4% child resistance) would show an estimated 84%
improvement in child resistance, and the same percent reduction in
child-play fires [(85 - 4)/(100 - 4) = 81/96 = 84%]. The most child-
resistant lighter in the baseline testing would show a 75%
improvement [(85 - 41)/(100 - 41) = 44/59 = 75%].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the overall effectiveness of the standard may be
higher than the 75 to 84% estimated above for two reasons. First,
manufacturers may achieve an average level of child-resistance greater
than 85% to ensure that their design will always achieve at least the
minimum level of child resistance required by the rule. The experience
with cigarette lighters, for example, indicates that most manufacturers
achieve 90% or higher child resistance.
Second, CPSC probably over-estimated the baseline child-resistance
of the non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters in use. This is
because CPSC tested lighters with on/off switches in the off, or
locked, position. If the lighter had been tested with the switch in the
on, or unlocked, position, as required by the final rule, the baseline
child-resistance would have been much lower than the 41% estimated
above. We expect that some multi-purpose lighters will at times be
stored with the switch in the unlocked position.
Using the lower end of the range of the estimated effectiveness of
the rule, during the 1995 through 1998 time frame, societal costs of
child-play fires involving multi-purpose lighters would have been
reduced by about $36.5 million annually had all multi-purpose lighters
been child-resistant.3 Assuming that an average of 20
million multi-purpose lighters were used each year, the gross benefit
per lighter would have been about $1.82. If there were child-play fires
involving multi-purpose lighters during this period of which CPSC is
not aware, or if a substantial number of consumers store multi-purpose
lighters unlocked, the estimated benefits would have been higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Calculated by multiplying the estimated $48.6 million in
societal costs by 0.75 (the expected reduction in such fires).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Costs of the Rule
Manufacturing costs. Manufacturers will incur costs to modify their
products to comply with the rule. In general, costs that would be
incurred by the manufacturers 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 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 of the modification of assembly steps, in the manufacturing process;
The additional labeling, recordkeeping, certification,
testing, and reporting that will be required for each model.
Various administrative costs of compliance, such as legal
support and executive time spent at related meetings and activities;
and
Lost revenue if the child-resistant features adversely
affect sales.
Industry sources have not provided firm estimates of these costs.
However, the Lighter Association stated that its members believed the
costs would average between $0.25 and $0.75 per lighter. One major
manufacturer, BIC, has introduced a child-resistant multi-purpose
lighter. Because BIC did not previously manufacture a non-child-
resistant lighter, a spokesman was unable to estimate the incremental
cost of developing and manufacturing child-resistant multi-purpose
lighters.
Research and Development Costs. One manufacturer speculated that
the costs of developing, testing, and retooling for production of
multi-purpose lighters might be $1 million per manufacturer, if it is
possible to adapt the same technology used to make cigarette lighters
child-resistant. However, the manufacturer stated that, if it were not
possible to adapt the cigarette lighter technology, the costs could be
as high as $5 million per manufacturer. Two other manufacturers
provided lower estimates of the costs. They expected to spend $100,000
to $1 million. However, they stressed that these were guesses and that
unforeseen problems, such as problems stemming from patents owned by
others, could increase the costs. After evaluating this conflicting
information from some manufacturers, it seems likely that the average
investment in research, development, and retooling would be no more
than $2 million.
If, as discussed above, there are 20 manufacturers of multi-purpose
lighters and research and development costs are as high as $2 million
per manufacturer, then the total industry-wide research, development,
and retooling costs will be about $40 million. If these costs are
amortized over 10 years and sales increase at an annual rate of 1% from
a base of 21 million units in 1999, then the research, development and
retooling costs will average about $0.23/unit. For a manufacturer with
a large market share (i.e., selling several million units annually) the
cost per unit for research, development and retooling may be
significantly lower than this. On the other hand, for manufacturers
with a small market share, such as the manufacturers of high-end
lighters and micro-torch lighters, the per-unit development costs could
be substantially greater, because these costs would be amortized over a
significantly lower production volume. However, the information
available is insufficient to provide a reliable estimate of the cost
per unit for the higher-end and micro-torch-type lighters.
Material and Labor Costs. In addition to the research, development,
and retooling costs, material and labor costs are likely to increase.
For example, additional labor will be required to add the child-
resistant mechanism to the
[[Page 71867]]
lighter during assembly. Additional materials may also be needed to
produce the child-resistant mechanism. While CPSC was unable to get
reliable estimates, some industry sources indicated that these costs
would be 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 rule allows substantial flexibility to the
manufacturer for things such as color, size, and location, this
requirement is not expected to increase the costs significantly.
Certification and Testing Costs. Certification and testing costs
include the costs of producing the surrogates needed in the testing,
conducting the child-panel tests, and issuing and maintaining records
for each model. These costs could average $25,000 per model. However,
the cost for any individual firm may be different. The cost for
conducting child-panel tests for one model could be substantially lower
if only one panel is required. The cost could be higher if the
manufacturer must use a second panel or redesign a model that failed
the initial test. The cost of designing surrogates could range from
virtually nothing (if the production lighter has an audible signal,
such as a click, that occurs when it has been operated successfully) to
several thousand dollars (if surrogates must be designed and built).
These costs are incurred only once, and would therefore, be
amortized over the entire production of the model. Based upon the
estimates described above, the amortized certification and testing
costs are expected to average less than one cent per unit. However, for
models with small market shares, the cost per unit for certification
and testing may be higher.
Administrative Costs. There may be some additional and ongoing
administrative expenses associated with compliance and related
activities. While these expenses are difficult to quantify, they are
expected to be slight and have little impact on the unit costs.
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 may
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 be mitigated if other countries
adopted similar standards.
Total Manufacturing Costs. The rule will likely increase the total
cost of manufacturing multi-purpose lighters by about $0.48 per unit.
This estimate is in the $0.25 to $0.75 per unit range provided by the
Lighter Association in response to the ANPR. The low end of the range
provided by the Lighter Association may be more accurate if the
additional material and labor costs are significantly less than
estimated above.
The increased cost of manufacturing multi-purpose lighters will,
for the most part, ultimately be borne by consumers. Generally, the
increased cost of production will be passed on to the consumer in the
form of higher prices. Assuming a 100% markup over the incremental cost
to manufacturers (estimated at $0.48/unit) the rule may be expected to
increase the retail price of multi-purpose lighters by $0.96 per unit.
However, some manufacturers may be unable to pass all of the
incremental costs directly to the consumers. This may be especially
true in the case of the up-front research and development costs. In
these cases, the costs may be indirectly borne by consumers in such
forms as generally higher prices on the range of products produced by
the manufacturer. The retail prices for high-end and micro-torch multi-
purpose lighters will probably increase by more than $0.96 per unit,
since their costs per unit are greater. However, since the high-end and
micro-torch lighters comprise such a small portion of the market, this
should not significantly affect the average cost of producing multi-
purpose lighters.
Net Benefits
As previously discussed, the rule is expected to produce a gross
societal benefit of $1.82 per lighter and to increase the cost to
consumers by about $0.96 per unit. Therefore, the expected net benefit
of the rule is $0.86 per multi-purpose lighter sold ($1.82--$0.96).
Since annual sales of multi-purpose lighters exceed 20 million units,
the rule should result in net societal benefits of at least $17.2
million annually ($0.86 x 20 million = $17.2 million). As discussed
previously, the actual net benefits may differ from the estimates if
some of the assumptions used in computing the estimates prove
inaccurate.
Other Impacts of the Rule
Stockpiling. The rule contains anti-stockpiling provisions,
authorized by section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA, to prohibit excessive
production or importation of noncomplying lighters during the 12-month
period between the publication date and the effective date of the rule.
The provision would limit the production or importation of noncomplying
products to 120% of the amount produced or imported in the most recent
calendar year before the issuance of the final rule.
While the anti-stockpiling provision should have little impact on
the market as a whole, it may adversely impact any small importers or
manufacturers that were just entering the market. Such firms may have
had low sales volume in their first year or two of operation, and thus
their base volume would be low. In the absence of the anti-stockpiling
provisions, they may have been able to increase their sales volume by a
greater proportion than would be allowed under the anti-stockpiling
provision. There is no limit on the number of child-resistant multi-
purpose lighters that may be imported, manufactured, or sold during
this period.
Effects on Competition and International Trade
The rule is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on
competition. Scripto-Tokai Corporation introduced multi-purpose
lighters in 1985 and for many years maintained a market share of 90% or
more. Although Scripto-Tokai is still the dominant manufacturer, its
market share has dropped in the face of increased competition from
other manufacturers and importers. BIC has already introduced a multi-
purpose lighter that meets the requirements of the rule. Moreover, the
Commission is aware of several other manufacturers, including some
small firms that are actively developing child-resistant multi-purpose
lighters. These multi-purpose lighters are expected to be on the market
by the time the rule becomes effective.
Impact on Small Business
CPSC has identified about 40 manufacturers, importers, and private
labelers of multi-purpose lighters. Although the dominant firms are not
small, a significant number of the remaining firms are considered to be
small businesses according to guidelines established by the Small
Business Administration (SBA). The rule may have a significant impact
on some of the small firms.
The small businesses that are most likely to be impacted by the
rule are
[[Page 71868]]
those that market multi-purpose lighters to which they have proprietary
or exclusive rights. These firms will likely have to bear the up-front
costs of developing the child-resistant features, as well as the
retooling and certification costs. As noted, these costs could exceed
$100,000 even if few problems are encountered. If problems are
encountered (e.g., designs that infringe upon patents held by others or
initial designs that fail the certification tests) the costs could
exceed $2 million.
Of the small firms known to the Commission, seven have proprietary
or exclusive rights to particular multi-purpose lighter models. Some of
these firms are actively developing child-resistant models, and one is
already marketing a multi-purpose lighter that it believes to be child-
resistant (although it has not been tested). Thus the added burden is
not insurmountable by small firms. However, some small firms may decide
that the added costs are too great and cease marketing their
proprietary designs. Other small businesses that currently market
multi-purpose lighters and micro-torches do not have proprietary or
exclusive rights to any multi-purpose lighter model. These companies
either import or privately label lighters produced by other firms. In
these cases, the manufacturer or firm that actually owns the design
will likely bear most of the research, development, retooling, and
certification costs. Since these manufacturers often supply product to
more than one importer or private labeler, the costs are likely spread
over a higher production volume. Moreover, multi-purpose lighters
usually account for only a small percentage of many of the importers'
and private labelers' sales. Therefore, even if a small importer or
private labeler stopped importing or distributing 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.
Although there will be adverse effects on some small businesses,
these effects are justified by the greater safety benefits expected
from the rule.
Impact on Utility to the Consumer
The rule may reduce the utility that consumers receive from multi-
purpose lighters if child-resistant multi-purpose lighters are more
difficult to operate than are non-child-resistant models. This could
result in some consumers switching to substitute products, such as
cigarette lighters or matches. However, as was the case with child-
resistant cigarette lighters, manufacturers are likely to develop
child-resistant multi-purpose lighters that are at most only slightly
more difficult for adults to operate than are non-child-resistant
lighters. 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 must already meet the same child-resistance
standard that multi-purpose lighters will have to meet. Although
consumers that switch to matches (as opposed to using child-resistant
cigarette or multi-purpose lighters) may increase the risk of child-
play fires from matches somewhat, matches are inherently more child-
resistant than non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters. 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.
Some manufacturers of micro-torches may respond to the rule by no
longer offering micro-torches that have internal ignition mechanisms.
The consumer would, therefore, have to use an external ignition source
to light the torch. Although this option could decrease manufacturing
costs, it could reduce the convenience and utility of the micro-
torches. Consumers will have to provide external ignition sources, such
as matches, to ignite the torches. It will also take more time to
ignite such a torch, since both hands will be required and the worker
or consumer will have to put down what they were working with to pick
up the ignition source.
Alternatives Considered to the Rule
The Commission considered several possible alternatives to the
rule. These alternatives included (1) not taking any action and relying
on voluntary efforts, (2) issuing labeling requirements instead of
performance requirements, and (3) narrowing the scope of the rule. The
Commission also considered different effective dates and some
alternatives aimed at reducing the burden on certain small businesses.
No Action/Rely on Voluntary Efforts. The Commission considered the
impact of taking no action to reduce the occurrence of fires started by
children playing with multi-purpose lighters. If no mandatory rule is
issued, some manufacturers may still introduce child-resistant multi-
purpose lighters. While these manufacturers can emphasize the safety of
their product, they would be at a competitive price disadvantage
compared to manufacturers who continued to sell non-child-resistant
lighters. This would result in a lower level of benefits than would be
obtained with the rule.
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%. Thus,
the benefits to society of taking no action or relying on voluntary
efforts would be lower than they would be under a mandatory rule.
Currently, there is no voluntary standard for child-resistant
multi-purpose lighters, and no apparent industry interest in adopting
one. The Commission potentially could work with appropriate standards-
setting organizations to try to develop such a standard, but it is not
clear that an acceptable voluntary standard could be developed with
sufficient speed, or that conformance would be adequate.
Labeling Requirements
The Commission considered the impact of not issuing a performance
standard, but to instead require 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 be low.
Narrowing the Scope
The Commission considered the impact of exempting the more
expensive multi-purpose lighters from the rule. This would have been
analogous to the exemption in the cigarette lighter standard for the
more expensive non-novelty cigarette lighters. In that case, however,
there was little evidence of involvement of those expensive lighters in
child-play fires.
There are 3 firms that are known to market high-end multi-purpose
lighters; all 3 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 6 firms that are known to distribute micro-torches, 3 have fewer
than 100 employees and are considered to be small businesses.
For the reasons given in the response to comments on the proposal,
Section E of this notice, the Commission believes that the more
expensive multi-purpose lighters are as likely to be involved in child-
play fires as are the less expensive models and should not be excluded.
The Commission also considered the impact of excluding micro-
torches from the rule. As noted, the Commission
[[Page 71869]]
received several comments from the lighter industry, in response to the
NPR, encouraging the Commission to exclude micro-torches. For the
reasons given in the response to comments in Section E of this notice,
the Commission believes that micro-torches will be stored around the
home in the same way that multi-purpose lighters are. Therefore, they
will be accessible to small children and should not be excluded from
the standard.
The Commission is aware of one incident involving a fire started by
a child under the age of 5 with a micro-torch-type lighter. The lighter
was being used to light the pilot light of a gas furnace, a use more
characteristic of multi-purpose lighters than of torches. However,
micro-torch lighters represent only a small portion of the multi-
purpose lighters in use. Micro-torches probably account for
significantly less than 5% of sales of multi-purpose lighters.
Therefore, the lack of other incidents involving micro-torches may be
related to the low number of these products in use.
Alternatives To Reduce the Burden on Small Businesses
The Commission considered several exemptions or special provisions
to reduce the regulatory burden on certain small businesses. These
provisions would have applied only to businesses that met the SBA
definition of a small business and were not owned by or a subsidiary of
a larger company, unless the combined employment would still meet the
SBA criteria.
Alternative Effective Date. The Commission considered establishing
an effective date of more than the proposed 12 months after the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, for some small
manufacturers. The intent of such an extension would be to reduce the
burden of the rule on small firms by giving them extra time to develop
child-resistant lighters and bring them to market. However, for the
reasons given in Section E of this notice, the Commission decided that
an effective date exceeding 1 year from the rule's publication was not
in the public interest.
Exemption from testing. The Commission considered exempting some
small businesses from the requirement to conduct the child-panel
certification tests, if the firm had a reasonable basis to believe that
the multi-purpose lighter would pass the tests if they were conducted.
However, the Commission concluded that conducting these tests is
necessary to ensure that the lighter is child-resistant. The actual
child-panel tests are a small part of the entire cost of designing and
bringing a child-resistant lighter to market. Although the average cost
of this testing per model may be about $25,000, the costs may vary
among firms. On the low end, the costs may be as low as $10,000 if
surrogates do not have to be designed, only one panel of children is
required, and the company can conduct much of the testing internally.
On the other hand, the costs could exceed $40,000 if the company has to
design surrogates, use more than one child-panel for the tests or has
to redesign the lighter because it fails the test. If a manufacturer is
confident that its design is child-resistant, it should also be
confident that the cost of the certification testing will be on the low
side of the estimated range of costs. Furthermore, the testing is a
one-time cost. Once a design passes the qualification test, it does not
have to be tested again for child-resistance.
If certain small firms were exempted from the testing, and one of
their models was later found not to be child-resistant, the cost to the
manufacturer of a recall could exceed the cost of the testing.
Moreover, if an exemption from testing were granted and a lighter model
were in fact not child-resistant, it could lead to hundreds of
thousands, or even millions, of non-child-resistant multi-purpose
lighters being introduced into commerce. Just one additional child-play
fire incident associated with such a lighter could result in societal
costs that greatly exceed the cost of the certification testing.
Therefore, the Commission does not believe that it is in the public
interest to exempt small firms from the testing requirements of the
rule.
I. Final 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 Sec. 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.4 The Commission's initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) was published with the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Regulatory Flexibility Act provides that 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) is to contain:
(1) A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the
rule;
(2) A summary of the significant issues raised by public comments
in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a summary
of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any
changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
(3) A description of, and an estimate of the number of, the small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities that will be subject to the requirement and a
description of the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(5) A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected.
The Need for and Objectives of the Rule
The rule addresses the risk of death and injury from residential
fires started by young children under the age of 5 playing with multi-
purpose lighters. Since 1988, the Commission has identified 237 fires
that were started by children under age 5 who were playing with multi-
purpose lighters. These fires resulted in a total of 45 deaths and 103
injuries. Because these are only the incidents known to the CPSC, the
actual numbers may be higher. The societal cost of these fires is about
$48.6 million annually. Requiring that multi-purpose lighters be child-
resistant, as defined in the rule, will significantly reduce the number
of fires started by children under the age of 5.
Firms Subject to the Rule
The rule covers manufacturers, importers, private labelers,
distributors, and retailers of multi-purpose lighters, including micro-
torches, intended for sale to consumers. All firms that manufacture or
import multi-purpose lighters will have to certify that their
[[Page 71870]]
multi-purpose lighters are child-resistant. These firms will also be
subject to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements in the rule.
The number of firms that manufacture, import, or privately label
these lighters is increasing. While about 40 firms have been
identified, there may be other companies that have not been identified.
Except for two manufacturers (one large and one small), all firms are
believed to be importers rather than domestic manufacturers. Several of
the importers are subsidiaries of larger firms or foreign
manufacturers. Although the dominant firms are not small, as many as 20
of the remaining firms may be considered to be small businesses
according to the SBA.
The small businesses that are most likely to be substantially
impacted by the rule are those that have proprietary or exclusive
rights to specific multi-purpose lighter models. These firms will
likely have to bear the up-front costs of developing the child-
resistant features, retooling, and certification. These costs could
exceed $100,000, even if few problems are encountered. The costs could
be as high as $2 million if problems are encountered, such as designs
that infringe upon patents held by others or initial designs that fail
the certification tests.
Of the small firms known to the Commission, seven are believed to
have proprietary or exclusive rights to particular multi-purpose
lighter models. Some of these firms are actively working on developing
child-resistant models. One is already marketing a multi-purpose
lighter that it believes to be child-resistant, although it has not
been certified in accordance with the requirements of the rule. Thus,
although the rule will impose costs on small firms, this burden is not
insurmountable, and some small firms with proprietary designs should be
able to compete successfully after the rule goes into effect. However,
some firms may decide that the added costs are too great and cease
marketing their proprietary non-child-resistant designs.
Many of the small businesses that market multi-purpose lighters and
micro-torches do not have proprietary or exclusive rights to any multi-
purpose lighter model. These companies either import or privately label
lighters produced by other firms. The impact on these companies is not
likely to be significant. The manufacturers or firms that actually own
the designs will likely bear most of the research, development,
retooling, and certification costs. Since these manufacturers often
supply product to more than one importer or private labeler, the costs
are likely to be spread over a higher production volume. Furthermore,
even if a small importer or private labeler stopped importing or
distributing multi-purpose lighters, it is not likely to suffer a
significant adverse effect if multi-purpose lighters account for a
small percentage of its total sales, as is thought to be the case with
many of the importers.
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.
Issues Raised by the Public Comments on the IRFA
Several issues were raised in the public comments on issues
relating to the IRFA. These issues include: the proposed requirement
for multiple operations, money for legal counsel and testing, that CPSC
should mandate a specific design, that the effective date should be
longer, that the cost of certification testing is excessive, and
alternatives to be considered to the proposed rule. The Commission's
responses to these comments are given in Section E of this notice.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
All manufacturers and importers of multi-purpose lighters will be
required to keep certain records regarding the certification testing
and production (quality control) testing of their multi-purpose
lighters. The preparation of the records should not require any skills
that would not typically be possessed by or available to a manufacturer
or importer. For example, the production testing is very similar to the
quality control testing that most manufacturers undertake routinely.
There are also independent quality control and engineering laboratories
and other professional consultants with which firms can contract for
these services.
In order to perform the certification tests, the manufacturers will
have to supply at least 6 empty surrogates. Most manufacturers will
probably be able to use empty production lighters for the surrogates
(if the lighter makes an audible ``click'' when the ignition mechanism
is operated properly). Other manufacturers may have to develop
surrogates for use in the certification tests that produce an audible
or visual signal when the ignition mechanism is successfully operated.
This may involve technical knowledge of miniature electronics that some
small firms may not have in-house. However, there are independent
engineering firms with this expertise with which small firms may
contract.
Conducting the certification tests and preparing the supporting
documentation does not require any special technical skill or extensive
training. Manufacturers could conduct the conformance tests with in-
house personnel, but it is likely that many will employ private
consulting or testing services. The records of the testing would likely
be compiled by the firm conducting the testing and maintained by the
manufacturer or importer. Manufacturers or importers would keep copies
of other reports or certification records.
The rule also allows importers to rely on testing by or for a
foreign manufacturer to support the rule's certification and reporting
requirements, provided that the records (1) are in English, (2) are
complete, (3) can be provided to the Commission within a reasonable
time, 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 (indeed, on any importer), to
the extent manufacturers supply lighters to more than one importer.
At least 30 days before it first imports or distributes a multi-
purpose lighter model, the manufacturer or importer must provide
written notice to the CPSC. Among other things, this report is to
include basic identifying information as to the manufacturer or
importer, a description of the lighter model and its child-resistance
features, a description and summary of the certification testing, and
the location where the other required records will be kept. The
manufacturer or importer must also supply the CPSC with a prototype or
production unit of the lighter model.
The reporting requirements of the 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 rule. The estimated reporting
burden, however, is low--less than 100 hours per model in the initial
production year (including the certification testing) and significantly
less than this in subsequent years.
Assuming that approximately 20 manufacturers, with 1 to 2 models
each, introduce child-resistant multi-purpose lighters during the first
year after the
[[Page 71871]]
publication of the final rule, the total paperwork and reporting burden
for all manufacturers will be 2,000 to 4,000 hours. In subsequent
years, the total paperwork and reporting burdens should be
significantly less. For example, if three new models are introduced
annually, the total burden will be approximately 300 hours.
Other Alternatives Considered
The Commission considered four basic alternatives to certain
elements of the rule. Specifically, the Commission considered (1)
narrowing the scope to exclude high-end and/or micro-torch multi-
purpose lighters, (2) requiring only additional labeling, (3) taking no
action and relying on voluntary efforts, and (4) alternative effective
dates. These alternatives were rejected for the reasons given in the
Commission's Regulatory Analysis in Section H of this notice.
Summary and Conclusions
The rule will affect all manufacturers and importers of multi-
purpose lighters, including a number of manufacturers and importers
that are small businesses. The small firms that import or manufacture
multi-purpose lighters will be impacted by the rule's performance,
certification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The higher
costs of manufacturing child-resistant lighters that their suppliers
incur will likely be passed on to these firms as well. Some of the
firms may have temporary disruptions in their supply of multi-purpose
lighters because of the rule. However, it is unlikely that any of these
effects would be significant.
In addition to the small importers, there are a few small firms
that manufacture their own multi-purpose lighters or have their own
proprietary designs manufactured for them. The rule may have a more
significant impact on these firms since they will likely bear most of
the cost of developing and certifying the child-resistant mechanisms
for their multi-purpose lighters.
The Commission considered some alternatives to the rule that might
have reduced the burden on small manufacturers. However, these
alternatives were rejected since the level of safety that would be
achieved was lower under these alternatives than under the rule. These
alternatives included taking no action, requiring additional labeling
only, exempting the high-end multi-purpose lighters from the scope of
the rule, and extending the effective date.
J. Effects on the Elderly and Handicapped
Section 9(e) of the CPSA requires that, in promulgating a consumer
product safety rule, ``the Commission shall also consider and take into
account the special needs of elderly and handicapped persons to
determine the extent to which such persons may be adversely affected by
such rule.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(e). The following discussion examines the
potential effect of the rule on elderly and handicapped persons.
The rule is unlikely to have a significant impact on the elderly or
handicapped who can operate non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.
The lighter industry now has several years experience in the design of
child-resistant mechanisms for cigarette lighters, and it is reasonable
to expect that this experience will be applied to child-resistant
devices for multi-purpose lighters. Early designs for cigarette
lighters were somewhat cumbersome and often inconvenient to use,
leading to customer complaints and to intentional defeat of some types
of child-resistant mechanisms by some persons. Since the Safety
Standard for Cigarette Lighters became effective, child-resistant
mechanisms have evolved. Although some types are less than ideal,
others are transparent, or nearly so, to the user.
Current multi-purpose lighters typically are operated by a trigger
(operated with the forefinger) or a button (operated with the thumb),
and are easy to use with one hand. Child-resistant versions of these
lighters will probably require some additional action or force, and
thus may be at least somewhat more complex or less convenient to
operate than non-child-resistant lighters. However, because ease of use
is critical to consumer acceptance, it is likely that multi-purpose
lighters will continue to be operable with one hand, and that the
child-resistant devices will not be overly difficult to use.
The staff reviewed three child-resistant multi-purpose lighter
designs. The child-resistant device on each product is a latch that
blocks the operating mechanism. Two have trigger-style operating
mechanisms. These have devices built into the top side of the handle,
in line with the expected placement of the user's thumb. One trigger-
style lighter requires that the user apply a force of 1.25 kg or 2.75
kg (depending on placement) with the thumb to unlatch the operating
mechanism. This requires both knowledge of how the device works and a
level of strength below the average for a tested sample of subjects
aged 60 to 89 years of age for a similar task (Imrhan, 1989). The other
requires the user to first slide a button backward (toward the palm)
approximately \1/8\ inch before pulling the trigger. The latter
requires only knowledge, because the action of sliding the button
backwards is counter to the normal motion when holding and operating
the lighter, but requires only nominal force and dexterity.
The third lighter has a slide-button operating mechanism positioned
on the top of the handle. It requires that a second slide latch on the
reverse side of the handle be pushed sideways before the lighter can be
operated. Although simple in principle, this third lighter does not fit
the user's hand, and requires coordination to operate. Provided clear
instructions are included on the packaging, the first two types should
be usable by handicapped and elderly persons who can operate current
non-child-resistant lighters. The third is likely to be difficult for
users in general. Competitive forces should ensure that elderly and
handicapped consumers will find one or more products they are able to
use.
K. Paperwork Reduction Act
As explained above, the standard and the certification provisions
will require manufacturers and importers of multi-purpose lighters to
test surrogate and production lighters, 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 was 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 rule will require approximately 100
hours per model for the first year, and substantially less in
subsequent years. The time required for testing is expected to average
about 80 hours per model. 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
[[Page 71872]]
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 rule is approximately 4,000 hours in its initial
year or so, and substantially less in later years.
L. Executive Orders
This rule has been evaluated in accordance with Executive Order No.
13,132, and the rule has no substantial federalism implications.
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 standard or regulation of the State
or political subdivision (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.
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.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission amends
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
Sec.
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
Sec.
1212.20 Stockpiling.
Appendix A to Part 1212--Findings Under the Consumer Product Safety
Act
Subpart A--Requirements for Child-Resistance
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058, 2079(d).
Sec. 1212.1 Scope, application, and effective date.
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 in the United States, or
imported, on or after December 22, 2000.
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, etc.)
means: A hand-held, flame-producing product that operates on fuel,
incorporates an ignition mechanism, 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.
Some multi-purpose lighters have a feature that allows for hands-free
operation.
(2) The following products are not multi-purpose lighters:
(i) Devices intended primarily for igniting cigarettes, cigars, and
pipes, whether or not such devices are subject to the requirements of
the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters (16 CFR part 1210).
(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)(1) Surrogate multi-purpose lighter means a device that
(i) 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,
(ii) Has no fuel,
(iii) Does not produce a flame, and
(iv) 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.
(2) This definition does not require a multi-purpose lighter 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
[[Page 71873]]
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% of the child-test
panel when tested in the manner prescribed by Sec. 1212.4.
(b) The child-resistant mechanism of a multi-purpose lighter
subject to this part 1212 must:
(1) Operate safely when used in a normal and convenient manner,
(2) Comply with this Sec. 1212.3 for the reasonably expected life
of the lighter,
(3) Not be easy to deactivate or prevent from complying with this
Sec. 1212.3.
(4) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section,
automatically reset when or before the user lets go of the lighter.
(5) The child-resistant mechanism of a multi-purpose lighter
subject to this part 1212 that allows hands-free operation must:
(i) Require operation of an additional feature (e.g., lock, switch,
etc.) after a flame is achieved before hands-free operation can occur;
(ii) Have a manual mechanism for turning off the flame when the
hands-free function is used; and either
(iii) Automatically reset when or before the user lets go of the
lighter when the hands-free function is not used; or
(iv) Automatically reset when or before the user lets go of the
lighter after turning off the flame when the hands-free feature is
used.
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 paragraph (a)(4): 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 participate.
(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 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-
[[Page 71874]]
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 it produces 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 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
``on,'' or unlocked, 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.'' 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 comfortable operating position in one hand so both
children can see the operation of the child-resistant mechanism and the
ignition mechanism during each demonstration. Say ``now watch the
lighter.'' Look at each child to verify that they are both 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
[[Page 71875]]
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.
Note to paragraph (f)(3): The demonstration is conducted with
each child's lighter, even if one child has successfully operated
the lighter. Testers shall 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 with an on/off switch shall have
the switch returned to the position the child left it at the end of
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
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.