[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52397-52424]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26169]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1212
Multi-Purpose Lighters; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission has reason to believe that unreasonable risks
of injury and death are associated with multi-purpose lighters that can
be operated by children under age 5. Multi-purpose lighters are hand-
held, self-igniting, flame-producing products that operate on fuel and
typically are used to light devices such as charcoal and gas grills and
fireplaces. Devices intended primarily for igniting smoking materials
are excluded; such products are already subject to a child-resistance
standard at 16 CFR part 1210.
The Commission is aware of 178 fires from January 1988 through
August 6, 1998, that were started by children under age 5 using multi-
purpose lighters. These fires resulted in 29 deaths and 71 injuries.
This notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') proposes a rule
mandating performance standards for the child resistance of multi-
purpose lighters. The Commission solicits written comments from
interested persons on the proposed rule.
DATES: Written comments and submissions in response to this notice must
be received by the Commission by December 14, 1998.
Comments on elements of the proposal that, if issued, would
constitute collection of information requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act may be filed with the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') and with the Commission. Comments will be received by OMB
until November 30, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments to CPSC should be mailed, preferably in five
copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Washington, DC 20207-0001, or delivered to the Office of
the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-
West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland; telephone (301) 504-0800. Comments
may also be filed by telefacsimile to (301) 504-0127 or by email to
[email protected]. Comments should be captioned ``NPR for Multi-purpose
lighters.''
Comments to OMB should be directed to the Desk Officer for the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503. The Commission asks
commenters to provide copies of such comments to the Commission's
Office of the Secretary, with a caption or cover letter identifying the
materials as comments submitted to OMB on the proposed collection of
information requirements for multi-purpose lighters.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Jacobson, Project Manager,
Directorate for Epidemiology and Health Sciences, Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-0477, ext.
1206; email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
1. The product. Multi-purpose lighters are defined in
Sec. 1212.2(a)(1) of the rule proposed below as follows:
(a)(1) Multi-purpose lighter, also known as grill lighter,
fireplace lighter, utility lighter, micro-torch, or gas match, means: A
hand-held, self-igniting, flame-producing product that operates on fuel
and is used by consumers to ignite items such as candles, fuel for
fireplaces, charcoal or gas-fired grills, camp fires, camp stoves,
lanterns, fuel-fired appliances or devices, or pilot lights, or for
uses such as soldering or brazing.
(2) Exclusions. The following products are not multi-purpose
lighters:
(i) Devices intended primarily for igniting smoking materials that
are within the definition of ``lighter'' in the Safety Standard for
Cigarette Lighters (16 CFR 1210.2(c)).
(ii) Devices that contain more than 10 oz. of fuel.
(iii) Matches.
Multi-purpose lighters often have a nozzle long enough to reach
hard-to-light places. Further, the long nozzle allows safer ignition of
products, such as gas grills, where the fuel may flare up when ignited.
On certain lighters, the nozzle is flexible. Multi-purpose lighters
also include lighters with shorter nozzles. Some of this group include
a burner that operates at a higher flame temperature than other multi-
purpose lighters. These lighters are sometimes referred to as micro-
torches.
Multi-purpose lighters are activated by applying pressure to a
trigger or button mechanism, which initiates fuel flow and causes a
spark. Most multi- purpose lighters now sold include some type of on/
off switch. Usually, this is a two-position slider-type switch that
must be in the ``on,'' or unlocked, position before the lighter can be
activated.
Some multi-purpose lighters (micro-torches) may have a control that
allows the lighter to remain lit after the user lets go of the lighter.
This, in conjunction with a stable base or stand, allows hands-free
operation of the lighter during operations such as soldering.
The on/off switch currently provided on multi-purpose lighters
would not comply with the requirements for child resistance in the
cigarette lighter standard, since the on/off switch is easy for young
children to operate and does not reset to the ``off'' position
automatically after each operation of the ignition mechanism of the
lighter. 16 CFR 1210.3(b)(1).
2. Procedural background. On July 12, 1993, the Commission
published a consumer product safety standard that requires disposable
and novelty cigarette lighters to have a child-resistant mechanism that
makes the lighters difficult for children under 5 years old to
operate.1 16 CFR Part 1210. The cigarette lighter standard
excludes lighters that are primarily intended for igniting materials
other than cigarettes, cigars, and pipes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 58 FR 37554. The standard became effective July 12, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 1996, Judy L. Carr petitioned the Commission to
``initiate Rulemaking Proceedings to amend 16 CFR Part 1210 Safety
Standard for Cigarette Lighters to include the Scripto'' Tokai Aim'n
FlameTM disposable butane `multi-purpose' lighter within the
scope of that standard and its child resistant performance
requirements.''
On May 7, 1996, the Commission published a Federal Register notice
soliciting comments on topics related to issues raised by the petition.
61 FR 20503. The Commission received nine comments in response to that
notice. After considering these comments and the other available
information, the Commission voted to grant the petition and commence a
rulemaking proceeding that could result in a mandatory standard for the
child resistance of multi-purpose lighters.
The rulemaking was commenced by publication in the Federal Register
of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (``ANPR''). 62 FR 2327
(January 16, 1997). In a notice published January 8,
[[Page 52398]]
1998, the Commission extended the time for publishing a notice of
proposed rulemaking until September 30, 1998. 63 FR 1077.
Nine comments were received in response to the ANPR. The Commission
responds to these comments, and to three comments received earlier, in
Section H of this notice. After considering these comments, the results
of baseline testing of currently-marketed multi-purpose lighters for
child resistance, and other available information, the Commission voted
to propose the mandatory standard for multi-purpose lighters set forth
below.
B. Incident Data
The CPSC's staff identified a total of 249 fires reportedly started
by children playing with multi-purpose lighters from January 1988 to
the present. These fires resulted in a total of 45 deaths and 97
injuries. For the incidents where age of the fire starter was known,
children under age 5 ignited 178 fires (76%). These 178 fires resulted
in 29 deaths and 71 injuries. See Table 1. Children age 5 and older
ignited 57 fires that resulted in 16 deaths and 19 injuries. An
additional 14 fires, which resulted in 7 injuries, were described as
being caused by children, but their ages were not given.
Table 1.--Fires, Deaths, and Injuries Caused by Children Under Age 5
Playing with Multi-purpose Lighters, by Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Fires Deaths Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1988...................................... 3 ........ ........
1989...................................... 1 ........ 2
1990...................................... 2 ........ 1
1991...................................... 2 ........ ........
1992...................................... 4 1 1
1993...................................... 7 3 4
1994...................................... 7 ........ 1
1995...................................... 17 6 8
1996...................................... 55 8 32
1997...................................... 47 4 8
1998*..................................... 33 7 14
-----------------------------
Total................................. 178 29 71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Reports received through August 6, 1998.
Source: Consumer complaints, newspaper clippings, hospital emergency
room-treated injuries, fire department reports, and investigation
reports.
Twenty-four of the 29 fatalities were children. See Table 2. Twenty
were under age 5; four were between the ages of 5 and 14. Fourteen of
the children who died had started the fire. Seven of the children who
died were siblings of the fire starter. Four of the five adults who
died were mothers of the children who started the fires. The four
remaining fatalities were other relatives, friends, and a child in a
home child-care setting.
Table 2.--Fatalities That Occurred in Multi-Purpose Lighter Fires Caused
by a Child Under Age 5, by Age and Relationship to the Child Who Ignited
the Fire, 1/1/88--8/6/98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ages(years) of fatalities
Relationship to Fire Starter -------------------------------
Total <5 5-14 15+
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................... 29 20 4 5
Self.................................... 14 14 ...... ......
Sibling................................. 7 5 2 ......
Mother.................................. 4 ...... ...... 4
Other................................... 4 1 2 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Reports received through August 6, 1998.
Source: Consumer complaints, newspaper clippings, hospital emergency
room-treated injuries, fire department reports, and investigation
reports.
Seventeen of the 71 people who were injured required
hospitalization. Several were treated for extensive second- and third-
degree burns requiring long-term treatment. In addition to the
fatalities and injuries, most fires resulted in property damage.
Thirty-five of the 178 reports cited property damage of $50,000 or
more.
One hundred forty-six of the 178 children starting the fires were
either 3 or 4 years old (about 82 percent). Three children were under
age 2, indicating that even some very young children are capable of
operating multi-purpose lighters. See Table 3.
Table 3.--Age Distribution of Children Under Age 5 Who Ignited a Fire While Playing with a Multi-Purpose
Lighter, 1/1/88-8/6/98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age of child (years) Total < 2 2 3 4 < 5*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of children.......... 178 3 24 81 65 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Children were under age 5, but the exact year of age was not reported.
Source: Consumer complaints, newspaper clippings, hospital emergency room-treated injuries, fire department
reports, and investigation reports.
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.
Reports of these fires were received from many sources, including
the petitioner, ANPR commenters, fire departments, consumers,
newspapers, and the CPSC's National Electronic Injury Surveillance
System (``NEISS''). The number of fires reported each year increased
sharply beginning in 1995. Part of the increase is believed to be due
to CPSC's increased efforts to obtain more information on fires caused
by children playing with cigarette lighters, to monitor the
effectiveness of the 1994 standard. Because these data are actual
incidents rather than national estimates, the extent of the total
problem may be greater.
National Fire Incident Reporting System (``NFIRS'') data, upon
which national fire loss estimates are based, do not specify the age of
the child who started the fire or the type of lighter involved. The
staff is currently conducting a study to evaluate the effectiveness of
the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters. Data collection, based on
reports from participating fire departments, began in November 1997 and
will continue through the fall of 1998. The results of the Cigarette
Lighter Evaluation Study will provide information about the age of the
child who started the fire and the lighter type, i.e., cigarette or
utility.
The 1998 NFIRS data covering the study period are not expected to
be available until 2000, due to the time lag involved in local
jurisdictions forwarding data to the U.S. Fire Administration. At that
time, the Commission will be able to apply the results of the Cigarette
Lighter Evaluation Study to the NFIRS-based data in order to provide
national estimates of incidents involving multi-purpose lighters.
In the 178 incidents started by children under 5, the brand name of
the lighter involved was reported in 86
[[Page 52399]]
incidents. Of these, 77 (90 percent) involved one manufacturer, which
has about a 90 percent share of the market. There were five other
brands identified in the remaining six incidents.
The high proportion of deaths of children under age 5, and the
severity of the injuries, illustrate the hazard associated with
children playing with multi-purpose lighters. Nationally, 39 percent of
the estimated 780 children under age 5 who died in home fires annually
between 1991 and 1995 were in fires started by a child playing, usually
with lighters or matches. The data reported by the staff indicate that
children playing with multi-purpose lighters have become a part of this
problem.
C. Baseline Testing
To establish the level of child resistance of multi-purpose
lighters that are currently on the market, CPSC contractors conducted
``baseline'' testing of surrogates of 5 different models of multi-
purpose lighters, using the test protocol for cigarette lighters (at 16
CFR 1210.4). As far as child-resistance performance is concerned, the
cigarette lighter protocol is essentially identical to the protocol
proposed below for multi-purpose lighters. Three of the multi-purpose
lighters tested have triggers, one has a pushbutton, and one has a
squeeze handle. All of the lighters, except the model with the squeeze
handle, have an on/off switch that must be in the ``on,'' or unlocked,
position to operate the lighter.
The lighters tested were not designed to be child resistant. The
Commission used the results of the baseline testing to calculate the
potential benefits of mandatory requirements for multi-purpose
lighters, as discussed in the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis at
Section G of this notice.
The test protocol that was used for the baseline testing requires
panels of 100-200 children to determine the child resistance of
lighters. The test is conducted with pairs of children using surrogate
lighters. A surrogate lighter has no fuel, and produces a signal
instead of a flame when the lighter is operated. Staff engineers
designed and built the battery-operated surrogate lighters used for the
baseline testing. After the lighters were equipped with surrogate
systems, the engineering staff verified that the operation forces were
the same as the forces in the actual production lighters.
To begin the test, the tester demonstrates the signal that the
lighter makes and asks the children to try to make the signal with
their lighters. The children are given 5 minutes to try to operate the
lighter. If one, or both, of the children are unsuccessful in the first
5 minutes, the tester demonstrates the lighters' operation using each
child's lighter. This visual demonstration, with no additional
description of how the lighter operates, is followed by another 5-
minute test period.
The cigarette lighter test protocol allows unfueled production
lighters with distinct operating sounds to be tested without special
surrogate lighter systems. However, for all but one test, the staff
used surrogate lighters to provide assurance, beyond the sound of the
trigger click, that the children had successfully operated the
lighters. One of the lighter models was tested both with and without a
surrogate system to determine if the results would be comparable.
In five of the seven tests, the testers gave the lighters to the
children with the switch ``off'' at the beginning of the test. Children
who successfully operated these lighters turned the switch ``on'' and
pulled the trigger. After the demonstration, the testers returned the
lighters to the children with the switch in the same position the
children left them at the end of the first 5-minute test period. In the
sixth test, Model D was retested with the lighters' switch in the
``on'' position. Almost 90 percent of the children were able to operate
the lighters is this test. In the seventh test, the lighters did not
have an on/off switch. Over 95 percent of the children were able to
operate this lighter.
Table 4 summarizes the results of the baseline testing. For a frame
of reference, the standard for cigarette lighters requires a minimum
child resistance of 85 percent. The child resistance of the lighters
tested with the on/off switch in the ``off'' position ranged from 24 to
41 per cent. Therefore, none of the lighters met the requirements of
the cigarette lighter standard.
Table 4.--Baseline Test Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child
Lighter Successful resistance
operations (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEST 1 Model A--Trigger without surrogate
system....................................... 63/100 37
TEST 2 Model A--Trigger....................... 66/100 34
TEST 3 Model B--Pushbutton.................... 63/100 37
TEST 4 Model C--Trigger....................... 76/100 24
TEST 5 Model D--Trigger....................... 59/100 41
TEST 6 Model D--Trigger switch unlocked
(``on'')..................................... 88/100 12
TEST 7 Model E--Squeeze Handle(no on/off
switch)...................................... 96/100 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The Proposed Standard
Scope. As noted previously, the products subject to the draft
proposed standard are multi-purpose lighters, also referred to as grill
lighters, fireplace lighters, utility lighters, micro-torches, or gas
matches. These are hand-held, flame-producing devices that operate on
fuel and are used by consumers to ignite candles, fuel for fireplaces,
charcoal or gas-fired grills, campfires, camp stoves, lanterns, or
fuel-fired appliances. The definition of multi-purpose lighters
excludes matches, lighters intended primarily for igniting smoking
materials, and devices with more than 10 oz. of fuel.
Requirements. Most of the provisions of the proposed standard are
essentially the same as the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters,
including a required child resistance of 85 percent. The test protocol
for evaluating the child resistance of lighters is also the same,
although there are some wording changes for clarification of original
intent.
In contrast to the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters, the
proposed rule covers all refillable and nonrefillable multi-purpose
lighters regardless of their cost. The baseline testing showed that 63
out of 100 children were able to operate a seemingly unwieldy $40.00
lighter with a very long handle and an 18-inch flexible nozzle.
Some industry members expressed concern that the additional time
required to activate a child-resistant mechanism could increase the
risk of flash-back from accumulated gas where the lighter did not light
on the first attempt. As discussed in more detail later in this notice,
the Commission does not know how the potential for flash-back would be
affected by child-resistant mechanisms and solicits information on this
issue. To minimize or eliminate any additional risk, however, the
proposed rule specifies that a multi-purpose lighter must allow
multiple operations of the ignition mechanism (with fuel flow) without
[[Page 52400]]
further operation of the child-resistant mechanism, unless the lighter
requires only one motion to both (i) overcome the child-resistant
mechanism and (ii) ignite the fuel. The Commission could reconsider
this requirement if additional information indicates that any
additional risk of flashback is not significant, that allowing multiple
activations after operation of the child-resistant mechanism would
cause an additional risk of child-play fires, or that the cost of this
requirement is excessive.
Some multi-purpose lighters allow the lighter to remain lit after
it is released by the user. This can allow hands-free operation during
operations such as soldering. The Commission is interested in
information from the public and affected industry on the need for a
hands-free feature and on any additional risk of child-play fires that
such a feature might bring to child-resistant lighters. The proposed
rule allows a lighter to remain lit after being released by the user
under certain circumstances.
To address the child-resistance issue with respect to lighters that
have this hands-free feature, the Commission is proposing two
requirements that are not in the cigarette lighter standard. The first
new 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 proposed rule specifies
that, after the lighter is lit, an additional manual operation must be
performed to activate the feature that allows the lighter to burn
without being held by the user. Under normal operation, this feature
will prevent multi-purpose lighters from being ignited when the hands-
free feature is engaged.
The second new 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. This allows hands-free operation but requires that, by the time
the lighter is released, either without or after hands-free operation,
the child-resistant mechanism will have reset automatically.
The draft standard has recordkeeping and reporting requirements
that will allow the Commission to ensure that lighters comply. The
draft standard also requires manufacturers and importers to provide a
certificate of compliance to any distributor or retailer to whom the
lighters are delivered. Anti-stockpiling provisions are designed to
prevent the importation or manufacture of excessive numbers of
noncomplying lighters between publication of the final rule and the
effective date. The definition of base period for the anti-stockpiling
provisions has been changed to ``the most recent calendar year'' rather
than ``any 1-year period during the 5-year period'' prior to
publication of the final rule. This change from the Safety Standard for
Cigarette Lighters was recommended by the Technical Task Group of ASTM
F1502. The U.S. Customs Service keeps its records by calendar year, and
it is more practical for the Commission to obtain data on imports for
the most recent year. The Technical Task Group also suggested that
importers be required to provide the Commission with documentation of
importation numbers for both the baseline period and the anti-
stockpiling period. These requirements will assist the Commission in
enforcing the anti-stockpiling provisions.
E. 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 proposed 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 proposes 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).
The procedure prescribed by the CPSA is as follows. The Commission
first must issue an ANPR as provided in section 9(a) of the CPSA. 15
U.S.C. 2058(a). This was done by publishing the Federal Register notice
of January 16, 1997. If the Commission decides to continue rulemaking
proceeding after considering responses to the ANPR, the Commission must
then publish the text of the proposed rule, along with a preliminary
regulatory analysis, in accordance with section 9(c) of the CPSA. 15
U.S.C. 2058(c). This Federal Register notice constitutes the notice of
proposed rulemaking. If the Commission then wishes to issue a final
rule, it must publish the text of the final rule and a final regulatory
analysis that includes the elements stated in section 9(f)(2) of the
CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(2). And before issuing a final regulation, the
Commission must make certain statutory findings concerning voluntary
standards, the relationship of the costs and benefits of the rule, and
the burden imposed by the regulation. CPSC section 9(f)(3), 15 U.S.C.
2058(f)(3). Preliminary findings are contained in this proposed rule.
Comments should be mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office
of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC
20207-0001, or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda,
Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504-0800. Comments may also be filed by
telefacsimile to (301) 504-0127 or by email to [email protected].
Comments should be captioned ``NPR for Multi-purpose lighters.'' All
comments and submissions should be received no later than December 14,
1998.
F. Market Information
The Product. Most multi-purpose lighters are sold at retail for
$2.50 to $8 each. Other multi-purpose lighters have additional
features, such as refillable fuel chambers, flexible extended nozzles,
and spark mechanisms powered by replaceable batteries. These lighters
can retail for about $20 or more. The type of multi-purpose lighter
known as ``micro-torches'' also have applications in soldering,
hobbies, and crafts.
Manufacturers. Although the precise number is unknown, industry
sources estimate that there may be as many as 20 manufacturers of
multi-purpose lighters and as many more importers and private labelers.
Some manufacturers supply more than one importer or private labeler.
The number of firms participating in the market is expected to increase
as sales increase. Three manufacturers are members of the Lighter
Association, a trade association representing manufacturers of
cigarette lighters. The Lighter Association estimates that its members
have more than 95 percent of the market for multi-purpose lighters in
the United States. The manufacturer with the largest market share is
Scripto-Tokai Corporation. Industry sources indicate that Scripto-Tokai
may have 90 percent of the market. Other major manufacturers include
Swedish Match (Cricket'' brand), BIC, and Flamagas.
Retail prices for multi-purpose lighters generally start at less
than $2.50, and most retail for less than
[[Page 52401]]
$8.00. However, some high-end multi-purpose lighters retail for $20 to
$40 or more. These are generally refillable lighters with battery
powered ignition systems that ensure a more reliable ignition. Micro-
torches have been observed retailing for as little as $12, but they
more frequently retail for from about $20 to more than $100. The high-
end and micro-torch lighters combined may have less than three percent
of the market for multi-purpose lighters.
BIC Corporation recently introduced a multi-purpose lighter that is
believed to meet the requirements of the proposed rule. BIC expected
that its multi-purpose lighter would sell for between $3.99 and $4.99,
but its observed retail prices have been as low as $3.49 and as high as
$5.49.
BIC Corporation manufactures its multi-purpose lighter at a
facility in South Carolina. Only one other manufacturer, Donel, is
known to produce multi-purpose lighters domestically. Scripto-Tokai
imports its lighters from Mexico. Flamagas (Clipper brand) lighters are
produced in Spain. Most other lighters are manufactured in Asian
countries, such as the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, and China.
Another manufacturer is marketing a multi-purpose lighter for about
$25 that has features designed to be child resistant, but this lighter
has not been tested according to the protocol in the Safety Standard
for Cigarette Lighters, 16 CFR part 1210.
Sales and useful product life. The most common type of multi-
purpose lighters was introduced by Scripto-Tokai in 1985. According to
Scripto-Tokai, it sold one million units the first year. Micro-torches,
representing a small portion of the annual unit sales of multi-purpose
lighters, were also introduced around 1985. Sales of multi-purpose
lighters have been increasing rapidly since their introduction. An
estimated 16 million units were sold in 1995, and an estimated 20
million units are expected to be sold in 1998. Industry sources expect
sales to increase at the rate of 5 to 10 percent annually over the next
several years. More than 100 million multi-purpose lighters have been
sold since 1985.
The useful life of a multi-purpose lighter depends on the frequency
and purpose for which it is used. If a typical multi-purpose lighter
contains enough fuel for an average of 1,000 lights\2\, a multi-purpose
lighter that is used several times a day would last less than one year.
On the other hand, a lighter that is used less than once a day, or only
seasonally, could be expected to be used much longer. While about 20
million lighters were reportedly sold in 1997, a study based on a panel
of 20,000 households indicated that fewer than 8 million U.S.
households purchased multi-purpose lighters between October 1996 and
October 1997.\3\ This suggests that most multi-purpose lighters have a
useful life of less than one year, and/or that a large proportion of
households that have multi-purpose lighters use more than one lighter
over the course of a year. The useful life of the more expensive
models, however, can be substantially longer, since they are refillable
and not designed to be disposable. Therefore, these lighters can be
expected to have useful lives of several years. Thus, although the unit
sales of these products account for a very small portion of the annual
sales of multi-purpose lighters, they can be expected to account for a
larger portion of the products in consumers' hands because they do not
have to be replaced as often.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ What constitutes an ``average'' light is less certain than
with cigarette lighters, where the average time to light a cigarette
is fairly predictable. While using a multi-purpose lighter to light
a candle may require little time (and fuel), lighting a gas grill
may require more time. The multi-purpose lighter would have to be
lit and the gas turned on, and then the gas would have to build up
to an ignitable level.
\3\ Information Resources Inc. study. Results provided by BIC
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitutes for multi-purpose lighters. Several products are
reasonable substitutes for multi-purpose lighters. The most common
substitute is probably the match. Compared with about 8 million
households purchasing multi-purpose lighters in 1997, a 1991 study for
the CPSC indicated that more than 60 million households had either book
or box matches. Cigarette lighters are also common substitutes for
multi-purpose lighters.
Assuming that the typical multi-purpose lighter has enough fuel for
1,000 lights, the consumer cost per light is between 0.25 cents (i.e.,
one-fourth of one cent) and 0.8 cents.\4\ The consumer cost per light
for kitchen matches is estimated to be less than 0.3 cents. Other types
of matches, such as book matches, cost less per light. The cost per
light of cigarette lighters is about 0.1 cents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ If the retail price of a multi-purpose lighter is $2.50,
then $2.50/1,000 lights is $0.0025/light. If the retail price of a
multi-purpose lighter is $8.00, then $8.00/1,000 lights is $0.008/
light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are also reasonable substitutes for micro-torches when they
are used in applications such as soldering. The closest substitutes
would likely be non-self-igniting micro-torches. These are functionally
identical to self-igniting micro-torches, except that they must be
ignited with a match or other external lighter. Electric soldering
irons can also be used for many of the same applications. The cost to
consumers of these substitutes may be similar to the cost of micro-
torches when used in some applications.
G. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
Potential benefits of the proposed rule. The proposed rule is
intended to reduce fires resulting from young children playing with, or
otherwise attempting to operate, multi-purpose lighters. The benefits
to society of the proposed rule are the expected reduction in fires and
in the deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with these
fires. While the proposed rule is intended to address such fires caused
by children under the age of 5 years, there may also be some reduction
in the number of fires started by children over the age of 5 years.
The Commission is aware of 119 fires from 1995 through 1997 that
were started by children under age 5 years playing with, or otherwise
attempting to operate, multi-purpose lighters. These incidents, which
are summarized in Table 5 below, resulted in 18 deaths, 48 injuries,
and substantial property damage. Assuming a cost of $5 million for each
fatality, an estimate that is consistent with the existing literature,
a point estimate of the societal costs of the known fatalities between
1995 and 1997 is approximately $90 million. Of the 48 nonfatal
injuries, 12 involved victims that were hospitalized with burns, some
severe. An earlier CPSC study estimated that the average cost of a
hospitalized fire burn was $898,000; the average cost of a
nonhospitalized burn injury was estimated to be $15,000.\5\ These
estimates include medical treatment, lost income, and pain and
suffering. Using these estimates, the total cost of known injuries from
Table 5 is approximately $11.3 million [(12 x $898,000) + (34 x
$15,000)]. The property damage associated with cigarette lighter fires
from child play was estimated to be an average of $15,000 per incident.
Assuming the incidents with multi-purpose lighters are similar to those
resulting from cigarette lighters, the total property damage associated
with the incidents in Table 5 is estimated to be at least $1.8 million
($15,000 x 117 fires).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ray, Dale R. and William W. Zamula, Societal Costs of
Cigarette Fires. U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, August,
1993.
[[Page 52402]]
Table 5.--Fire Losses Resulting From Children Under 5 Operating Multi-
Purpose Lighters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 1995 1996 1997 Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fires................................... 17 55 47 119
Deaths.................................. 6 8 4 18
Injuries................................ 8 32 8 48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total societal cost of the known incidents for the three years,
including the costs associated with deaths, injuries, and property
damage, is about $103 million. This averages about $34.4 million per
year. It is important to note that these cost estimates are based only
on the incidents reported to CPSC, not on aggregate fire loss
estimates. There likely are other incidents of which CPSC is not aware.
If so, the $34.4 million figure understates the average annual societal
cost of child-play multi-purpose lighter fires that occurred between
1995 and 1997.
The proposed rule is not expected to eliminate all fire incidents
involving children under the age of 5. Some children will probably be
able to operate multi-purpose lighters that meet the requirements of
the rule. Indeed, a multi-purpose lighter will meet the requirements of
the proposed rule if no more than 15 percent of the subjects in the
test panel can operate the lighter (or the surrogate used in place of
the lighter).
On the other hand, some children under the age of 5 cannot operate
the ``non-child-resistant'' multi-purpose lighters currently on the
market. CPSC baseline testing indicates that, depending on the model, 4
to 41 percent of test subjects cannot operate non-child-resistant
multi-purpose lighters. Therefore, all other things being equal, the
proposed rule for multi-purpose lighters is expected to reduce the
number of children under the age of 5 that can operate multi-purpose
lighters by 75 to 84 percent, depending on the model.\6\ Assuming that
this reduces the number of fires started with multi-purpose lighters by
children under the age of 5 by the same percentage, the societal costs
of the fires will be reduced. For example, for the period 1995 through
1997, societal costs would have been reduced by at least $25.7 million
to $28.8 million annually had all multi-purpose lighters been child
resistant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For lighters that already have a high baseline child
resistance (e.g., could not be operated by 41 percent of the test
subjects, the improvement will be 75 percent [(0.85-0.41)/
(1.0-.41)=0.75]. For lighters that do not have a high degree of
baseline child resistance (e.g., could not be operated by only 4
percent of the test subjects, the improvement will be 84 percent
[(.85-.04)/(1-.04)=.84].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expected benefits of the proposed rule will be even higher if
manufacturers achieve a child-resistance level greater than 85 percent.
The experience with cigarette lighters indicates that most
manufacturers achieve 90 percent or higher child resistance. If
manufacturers of multi-purpose lighters achieve the same level of child
resistance, the estimated societal benefits of the proposed rule could
be 6 to 11 percent higher than set forth above.
Potential costs of the proposed rule. There would be several types
of costs associated with the proposed rule. Manufacturers would have to
devote some resources to develop or modify technology to produce child-
resistant multi-purpose lighters. Before being marketed, the lighters
must be tested and certified to the new standard. Manufacturing child-
resistant lighters may require more labor or material than non-child-
resistant lighters. Finally, the utility that consumers derive from
lighters may be diminished if the new lighters are more difficult to
operate.
Manufacturing costs. Manufacturers will have to modify their
existing multi-purpose lighters to comply with the proposed rule. In
general, costs that manufacturers would incur in developing, producing,
and selling new complying lighters include the following:
Research and development toward finding the most promising
approaches to improving child resistance, including building prototypes
and surrogate lighters for preliminary child panel testing;
Retooling and other production equipment changes required
to produce more child-resistant multi-purpose lighters, beyond normal
periodic changes made to the plant and equipment;
Labor and material costs of the additional assembly steps,
or modification of assembly steps, in the manufacturing process;
The additional labeling, recordkeeping, certification,
testing, and reporting that will be required for each new model;
Various administrative costs of compliance, such as legal
support and executive time spent at related meetings and activities;
and
Lost revenue if sales are adversely affected.
Industry sources have not been able to provide firm estimates of
these costs. One major manufacturer, BIC, has introduced a child-
resistant multi-purpose lighter. However, because BIC did not
manufacture a non-child-resistant lighter, it was unable to estimate
the incremental cost of developing and manufacturing child-resistant
multi-purpose lighters.
A representative of another manufacturer speculated that the costs
of developing, testing, and retooling for production of multi-purpose
lighters might be $1 million, if it is possible to adapt the same
technology used to make cigarette lighters child resistant. However, if
it were not possible to adapt the cigarette lighter technology, the
commenter said that costs could be as much as $5 million. Another
manufacturer expected these costs to be significantly less than $1
million.
Although it is conceivable that some manufacturers will spend as
much as $5 million to develop and retool to produce child-resistant
multi-purpose lighters, especially if they have to make several
attempts before they come up with acceptable designs, the investment in
research and development by most manufacturers will likely be closer to
$1 million.7 If, however, it is assumed that there are 15
manufacturers and that each invests an average of $2 million to develop
and market complying lighters, the total industry cost for research,
development, retooling, and compliance testing would be approximately
$30 million. If amortized over a period of 10 years, and assuming a
modest 3 percent sales growth each year, the average of these costs
would be about $0.13 per unit.8 For a manufacturer with a
large market share (i.e., selling several million units or more a
year), the cost per unit for the development could be lower than the
estimated $0.13 per unit, even at the high end of the estimates. On the
other hand, for manufacturers with a small market share, the per-unit
development costs would be greater. Some manufacturers with small
market shares may even drop out of the market (at least temporarily) or
delay entering the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This estimate is similar to the estimate used in evaluating
the cigarette lighter standard.
\8\ If 20 million lighters are sold in the first year
(approximately the current annual sales volume) and sales increase
at the rate of 3 percent a year (industry sources indicate that they
have been growing at 5 to 10 percent annually), then over a 10-year
period approximately 230 million lighters would be sold. $30
million/230 million = $0.13/unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs per unit to develop and retool to produce child-resistant
designs may be higher for micro-torches, since these costs would be
amortized over a significantly lower production volume. The number of
micro-torches sold annually is not known. One industry source estimated
that sales of micro-
[[Page 52403]]
torches are at least in the ``tens of thousands.'' Another stated that
industry sales were in ``thousands rather than millions.''
Another factor that may increase the development costs for micro-
torches over the costs for other multi-purpose lighters is the fact
that some micro-torches can be set to allow ``hands-free'' operation.
Therefore, some manufacturers may have to develop modifications in
child-resistance technologies to work with this feature. Alternatively,
manufacturers could eliminate the self-igniting features from micro-
torches intended for hands-free operation, thus removing the micro-
torch from the definition of multi-purpose lighter. Although this
option would not likely impose a substantial cost on manufacturers, it
could reduce the convenience and utility of multi-purpose lighters for
some users.
In addition to the research, development, retooling, and testing
costs, material and labor costs are likely to increase. For example,
additional labor will be required to add the child-resistant mechanism
to the lighter during assembly. Additional materials may also be needed
to produce the child-resistant mechanism. While the CPSC staff was
unable to obtain reliable estimates, some industry sources indicated
that they believed that these costs would be relatively low, probably
less than $0.25 per unit.
Multi-purpose lighters will also be required to have a label that
identifies the manufacturer and the approximate date of manufacture.
However, virtually all products are already labeled in some way. Since
the requirement in the proposed rule allows substantial flexibility to
the manufacturer in terms of things such as color, size, and location,
this requirement is not expected to increase the costs significantly.
Certification and testing costs include costs of producing
surrogate lighters, conducting child panel tests, and issuing and
maintaining records for each model. The largest component of these
costs is believed to be conducting child-panel tests, which, based on
CPSC experience, may cost about $25,000 per lighter model.
Administrative expenses associated with the compliance and related
activities are difficult to quantify, since many such activities
associated with the proposed rule would probably be carried out anyway
and the marginal impact of the recommended rule is probably slight.
Overall, certification, testing, and administrative costs are expected
to cost less than $450,000 annually, industry wide.9 On
average, these costs are expected to add about $0.02 per unit to the
per-unit cost of producing multi-purpose lighters ($450,000 for 20
million units).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Assuming 15 manufacturers with 1 multi-purpose lighter model
each and an average of $30,000 for certification, testing, and
administrative costs per lighter, the total costs would be $450,000.
Although the estimate assumes that these costs are incurred
annually, in fact, these costs are likely to be lower in subsequent
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In total, the proposed rule will likely increase the cost of
manufacturing multi-purpose lighters by about $0.40 per
unit.10 The proposed rule will likely increase the cost of
manufacturing micro-torch lighters by a greater amount than for other
multi-purpose lighters. However the available information is
insufficient to provide a reliable estimate of the increase in cost for
micro-torch lighters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This estimate is based on the following estimates: $0.13/
unit for research, development and retooling; $.25/unit for labor
and materials; and $.02/unit for certification, testing and
administrative costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule contains anti-stockpiling provisions, authorized
by section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2)), to prohibit
excessive production or importation of noncomplying lighters during the
12-month period between the final rule's publication date and its
effective date. The provision limits the production or importation of
noncomplying products to 120 percent of the amount produced or imported
in the most recent calendar year before the publication date of the
rule. Although the anti-stockpiling provision may, in the short term,
prevent some companies from increasing their sales volume as quickly as
they could otherwise, the Commission believes the provision should have
little impact on the market as a whole.
Effects on competition and international trade. At the present
time, one manufacturer has about 90 percent of the market for multi-
purpose lighters. The other manufacturers, importers, and private
labelers divide up the remaining 10 percent of the market, with none of
the other manufacturers thought to have more than 2 or 3 percent of the
market. Thus, there is already a very high degree of concentration in
the market. Even so, one manufacturer has already entered the market
with a model that is believed to meet the requirements of the proposed
rule, another manufacturer has a model that they claim is child
resistant, and at least one other firm is believed to be actively
developing a child-resistant lighter. Moreover, other firms are
expected to enter the market for multi-purpose lighters, and thereby
increase competition, as the market expands. Therefore, the proposed
rule is not expected to have any adverse impact on competition.
With the exception of BIC, which manufactures its multi-purpose
lighters in South Carolina, and one smaller manufacturer, most multi-
purpose lighters are imported. To the extent that BIC has developed a
child-resistant multi-purpose lighter before other manufacturers have,
it may enjoy at least a short-term competitive benefit from the
proposed rule, particularly to the extent its competitors are not yet
in a position to manufacture child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.
However, other manufacturers are expected to have child-resistant
multi-purpose lighters ready to market on or before the rule's
effective date.
Impact on small business. The Commission gives special
consideration to the potential impact of its rules on small businesses.
There are more than 30 manufacturers, importers, or private labelers of
multi-purpose lighters. The number of firms participating in the market
is increasing as the market grows. Although the dominant firms are not
small, about half of the other firms may be considered to be small
businesses. The cost of developing a product that complies with the
proposed rule could cause some of the small importers or private
labelers to stop offering multi-purpose lighters, at least temporarily.
However, many of the smaller importers and private labelers are not
believed to manufacture the lighters themselves, but instead import or
distribute the lighters for manufacturers based, for the most part, in
other countries. It is the manufacturers that will likely bear most of
the costs for development of the child-resistant models. Moreover,
multi-purpose lighters probably account for only a small percentage of
many of the smaller importers' and private labelers' sales. Therefore,
even if a small importer or private labeler stopped importing or
distributing its own line of multi-purpose lighters, it is not likely
to suffer a significant adverse effect if multi-purpose lighters
accounted for a small percentage of its total sales. Some small firms
that manufacture or import their own proprietary multi-purpose lighters
may be more severely impacted. There are at least two small firms that
market high-end and micro-torch multi-purpose lighters that market
their proprietary designs.
The Commission examined the information available on 30 firms that
were identified as being manufacturers, importers, or private labelers
of multi-purpose lighters. Of these, 16 have
[[Page 52404]]
fewer than 100 employees and, thus, are considered to be small
businesses according to guidelines established by the Small Business
Administration. Of the 16 small businesses, one is known to manufacture
its own lighters, and 12 are believed to be importers. Insufficient
information was available to make these determinations on the other
three firms.
Impact on consumers. Aside from increased safety, the proposed rule
is likely to affect consumers in two ways. First, the increased cost
for producing the child-resistant models will likely result in higher
retail prices for multi-purpose lighters. Second, the utility derived
from child-resistant lighters may be decreased if complying lighters
are more difficult to operate.
Consumers ultimately will bear the increased cost of manufacturing
multi-purpose lighters. Assuming a typical 100 percent markup over the
incremental cost to manufacturers (estimated at $0.40/unit), the
proposed rule may be expected to increase the retail price of multi-
purpose lighters by $0.80 per unit. However, some manufacturers may be
unable to pass all of the incremental costs directly to consumers. In
these cases, the costs may be indirectly borne by consumers in the form
of generally higher prices on the range of other products produced by
the manufacturer or in the form of reduced earnings on investments in
the company. The retail prices for micro-torch and high-end multi-
purpose lighters will probably increase by a greater amount since the
manufacturing costs per unit are greater for these lighters.
The utility that consumers receive from multi-purpose lighters may
be reduced if the rule makes the lighters more difficult to operate.
This could result in some consumers switching to substitute products,
such as cigarette lighters or matches. However, as with child-resistant
cigarette lighters, the manufacturers should be able to develop
lighters that are only slightly, if any, more difficult for adults to
operate. Therefore, the number of consumers who stop using multi-
purpose lighters because of the child-resistant mechanisms is expected
to be small.
Moreover, even if some consumers do switch to other products, the
risk of fire is not expected to increase significantly. Most cigarette
lighters (one possible substitute) must already meet the same child-
resistant standard being proposed for multi-purpose lighters. Although
consumers that switch to matches may increase the risk of child-play
fires somewhat, matches seem to be inherently more child resistant than
non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters. Previously, the CPSC
determined that non-child-resistant cigarette lighters were 1.4 times
as likely as matches to be involved in child-play fires and 3.9 times
as likely to be involved in a child-play death.11 Thus, even
if some consumers did switch to using matches, the risk of child-play
fires would still likely be less than if they continued to use non-
child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Smith, Linda E., Charles L. Smith, and Dale R. Ray,
Lighters and Matches: An Assessment of Risks Associated with
Household Ownership and Use,'' U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Washington, DC (June 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some manufacturers of micro-torches may respond to a rule requiring
all multi-purpose lighters to be child-resistant by no longer offering
micro-torches that are self-igniting. Products that are not self-
igniting do not present the same risk of child-play fires and are not
included within the definition of multi-purpose lighter. In this case,
the consumer would have to use an external ignition source to light the
torch. Although this option may not increase manufacturing costs, it
could reduce the convenience and utility of the multi-purpose lighters.
Consumers will have to provide external ignition sources, such as
matches or other multi-purpose lighters, to ignite the torches.
Estimated net benefits of the proposed rule. As previously stated,
the total societal costs of fires known to have been started during
1995 through 1997 by young children playing with, or otherwise
attempting to operate, multi-purpose lighters was approximately $103
million, or approximately $34.4 million per year. This is probably an
underestimate, since it only includes the cases of which CPSC is aware.
During the same period, there were an average of an estimated 19.4
million multi-purpose lighters, including micro-torches, were available
for use each year.12 The societal costs of the fires started
by young children with multi-purpose lighters are, therefore, about
$1.77 per lighter ($34.4 million 19.4 million lighters). The
proposed rule is expected to reduce this cost by 75 to 84 percent.
Therefore, the expected societal benefit of the proposed rule in terms
of reduced fires, deaths, injuries, and property damage is expected to
be $1.33 to $1.49 per complying lighter sold. Based on the number of
multi-purpose lighters now in use (over 20 million), the total societal
costs of these fires exceed $35 million annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The average number of multi-purpose lighters, excluding
micro-torches, that were in use was 18 million. This estimate was
based on estimated annual sales and an estimated useful life of 1
year. The number of micro-torches available for use was estimated to
be about 1.4 million. This estimate is based on less certain data
and may be subject to change as more information becomes available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The computation of the net benefits of the proposed rule depends on
the expected number of years that a multi-purpose lighter is available
for use. The Commission estimates that the useful life of most multi-
purpose lighters, excluding micro-torches, is about one year.
Therefore, since the proposed rule may increase the cost of
manufacturing multi-purpose lighters by $0.40 and may increase the
retail prices by as much as $0.80, the net benefit to society of the
proposed rule is expected to be at least $0.53 per unit ($1.33 -
$0.80). If 20 million units are sold per year, the proposed rule would
result in an annual net benefit to consumers would be about $10.6
million (20 million x $0.53) each year.
Some multi-purpose lighters have useful lives of greater than one
year. Therefore, the gross benefit of the proposed rule per lighter of
this type is computed by summing the expected annual net benefit
(estimated as $1.33 per unit above) over the expected life of the
lighter. For example, if a multi-purpose lighter, such as a micro-
torch, had an expected useful life of 10 years, the gross benefit would
be $11.14 per lighter, assuming a discount rate of 4 percent. As stated
earlier, the costs/unit for manufacturing these micro-torch type multi-
purpose lighters is likely to be higher. Assuming a markup at retail of
100 percent over manufacturing costs and a 10-year product life, if the
cost per unit to manufacture child-resistant micro-torches is less than
$5.57/unit, net social benefits would result. However, if the expected
useful life of a micro-torch was only 5 years, the gross benefit would
be $6.14/unit. This would suggest positive net benefits if the per-unit
manufacturing costs are less than $3.12 per unit.
The preceding benefit estimates may tend to be low because they are
based on the test results for the model of multi-purpose lighter with
the highest level of baseline child resistance (41 per cent) for the
tests conducted with the switch in the ``off,'' or locked, position.
The choice of this test for baseline purposes would tend to lower the
benefit estimate in two ways. The child resistance of the other three
models tested with the switch in the locked position ranged from 24
percent to 37 percent. Thus, the effective child resistance of
currently used multi-purpose lighters likely is somewhat lower than the
baseline figure used for the benefit estimates. In addition,
essentially all of the children on the test panel were able to operate
the model with no on/off switch (96 percent) and
[[Page 52405]]
the model with the switch in the unlocked position (88 percent). This
means that, to the extent that adults do not return the switch to the
locked position after use, the effective child resistance of multi-
purpose lighters in use would be less than that obtained from a test of
a lighter in the ``off'' position. Thus, a child-resistant mechanism
could provide a greater benefit than estimated above.
Alternatives to the proposed rule. There are possible alternatives
to the proposed rule. These alternatives include not taking any action
and relying on voluntary efforts, having only labeling requirements,
narrowing the scope of the rule and establishing a different effective
date. These alternatives are discussed below.
1. No action and rely on voluntary efforts. One alternative is to
take no action to reduce the occurrence of fires started by children
playing with multi-purpose lighters. If no mandatory rule were issued,
some manufacturers might still introduce child-resistant multi-purpose
lighters. While these manufacturers can emphasize the safety of their
product, they could be at a competitive price disadvantage compared to
manufacturers who continue to sell non-child-resistant lighters.
Although the portion of the market that would be captured by
manufacturers of child-resistant lighters is not known, it is
reasonable to assume it would be substantially less than 100 percent,
especially since many of the products are imported. Perhaps only two or
three firms would offer such products. For example, if child-resistant
lighters captured 20 percent of the market under this alternative, the
annual benefits would be approximately 20 percent of the benefits of a
mandatory rule.
Currently, there is no voluntary standard for child-resistant
multi-purpose lighters. The Commission could work with appropriate
standards-setting organizations to develop such a standard. However,
for the reasons stated above, conformance with such a standard is
likely to be low.
2. Labeling requirements. The Commission could choose not to issue
a performance standard, but instead opt to rely on additional warning
labels on multi-purpose lighters. However, the FHSA already requires
multi-purpose lighters to be labeled ``Keep out of reach of children.''
The effectiveness of additional labeling would likely be low.
3. Narrowing the scope. The Commission considered exempting the
more expensive lighters (e.g., those retailing for more than $20) from
the proposed rule. This would have been similar to the exemption in the
cigarette lighter standard for lighters with a customs value or ex-
factory value greater than $2.00. This was intended to exempt certain
luxury cigarette lighters for which there was little evidence of
involvement in child-play fires. However, the CPSC does not have
evidence that the more expensive multi-purpose lighters are less likely
to be involved in child-play fires than the less expensive models.
There is no evidence that the more expensive multi-purpose lighters are
stored or used differently around the home than are the more common and
less expensive lighters. Furthermore, baseline testing indicates that
some of the expensive lighters are at least as easy for children to
operate as less expensive models. Therefore, there is insufficient
evidence to conclude that exempting the more expensive multi-purpose
lighters from the proposed rule would significantly reduce the costs
without significantly reducing the benefits.
The Commission also considered narrowing the scope of the rule by
excluding from its coverage products known as micro-torches. The
Commission decided against this because micro-torches serve the same
function as other types of multi-purpose lighters--to provide consumers
with a useful tool for accomplishing a variety of household and
recreational tasks requiring a flame--and present the same risk of
operation by children. Although some micro-torches have a shorter
nozzle or operate at a higher temperature than do other multi-purpose
lighters, the similarity of the products in function and risk outweighs
any differences and warrants inclusion of micro-torches within the
definition of multi-purpose lighter.
Multi-purpose lighters and micro-torches share the same features;
they are hand-held, lightweight, compact, self-igniting (e.g., by
pressing a trigger or button), easy to carry, and convenient to store.
Further, the packaging and catalog descriptions for micro-torches
promote them for lighting grills, fireplaces, camp fires, camp stoves,
and lanterns. In one fire incident, a micro-torch had been used by a
consumer to light a furnace pilot light. These are the same types of
tasks for which other multi-purpose lighters are promoted and used.
Children also will be attracted to micro-torches in the same ways
that they are attracted to other multi-purpose lighters. At age two,
children begin true role play and symbolic play, and make use of less
realistic objects as props for pretend play.13 The
Commission's Human Factors staff believes that micro-torches are likely
to appeal to and be attractive to children because of their shapes,
which, for some pocket-type micro-torches, resemble toy ``ray guns'' or
hose nozzles that children often play with in the summer. Upon seeing
them operated, some children will want to play with the micro-torches
because of a natural curiosity about fire and because they desire to
imitate adults in their make-believe play. For children, micro-torches
and other types of multi-purpose lighters are the same product
perceptually and cognitively, with the same attraction and the same
potential hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Goodson, B.D. & Bronson, M.B. (1985). Guidelines for
Relating Children's Ages to Toy Characteristics (Contract No. CPSC-
85-1089). Prepared for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also can be expected that children will have access to micro-
torches, as well as other multi-purpose lighters. Like other multi-
purpose lighters, micro-torches are often used and stored in and around
the home, making them accessible to children. The Commission is aware
of one case in which a three-year-old boy ignited bedding materials
with a micro-torch that had been used for lighting a furnace pilot
light. Even if some micro-torches are stored in home tool boxes, tackle
boxes, workbenches, or other places where tools are located, the
Commission's incident information shows that children obtain multi-
purpose lighters from such locations.
Furthermore, micro-torch lighters represent only a small portion of
the multi-purpose lighters in use. Micro-torches probably account for
less than five percent of the multi-purpose lighters in use and perhaps
one percent of unit sales of multi-purpose lighters. Therefore, the
fact that the Commission is aware of only one incident involving a
micro-torch lighter may be related to the low number of these products
in use and not because these products are used more safely around the
house. Although the per-unit costs to make torch-type lighters child
resistant may be higher than for other multi-purpose lighters, the
benefits may also be higher, since torch-type lighters have a longer
useful life, which would result in exposure to children over a longer
period of time for each lighter.
In sum, micro-torches and other multi-purpose lighters share
sufficient similarity of function and risk to be considered as a single
product for the purposes of the proposed rule.
4. Alternate effective date. The proposed rule incorporates an
effective date of 12 months from the date of
[[Page 52406]]
publication in the Federal Register. However, the Commission could
consider shorter or longer effective dates. The 12-month effective date
lessens the economic burden of the rule while providing protection to
consumers as soon as reasonably possible.
While developing the Cigarette Lighter Safety Standard, the
Commission estimated that it would take an average of 12 months to
develop, test, retool for production, perform production tests, and
manufacture and ship the product.14 Some manufacturers,
especially those that have been following the Commission's activities
on cigarette lighters and multi-purpose lighters may have already begun
work on child-resistant models or can take advantage of their
experience with the cigarette lighter standard and be able to
manufacture and market child-resistant lighters sooner than 12 months.
In fact, at least one model is already on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ CPSC Memorandum dated February 8, 1991, from Dale R. Ray
(ECPA) to Barbara Jacobson (HS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, manufacturers who have not until very recently
started following the Commission's activity with regard to this
rulemaking procedure may not have begun any development work.
Manufacturers of multi-purpose lighters that do not also manufacture
cigarette lighters, such some micro-torch manufacturers, do not have
the experience manufacturing child-resistant cigarette lighters. These
manufacturers may be adversely affected by an effective date shorter
than 12 months.
A 12-month effective date does not mean that no benefits will occur
until 1 year after the publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
Indeed, one manufacturer already has a child-resistant multi-purpose
lighter on the market. Other manufacturers can be expected to introduce
their own models as they get them developed. Therefore, the Commission
expects that the number of child-resistant multi-purpose lighters on
the market to begin increasing prior to the effective date of the rule.
Conclusion. The proposed rule would have substantial net benefits
to consumers. The rule should approach its maximum effectiveness within
a couple of years after its effective date, since multi-purpose
lighters typically have useful lives of about one year or less. At that
time, as a result of the proposed rule, the number of fires started by
young children playing with, or otherwise attempting to operate, multi-
purpose lighters should be at least 75 percent lower than what would be
expected in the absence of a rule.
There is at least one model of multi-purpose lighter on the market
now that probably complies with the proposed rule. It is expected that
other manufacturers should be able to produce complying multi-purpose
lighters before a final rule goes into effect. Therefore, the
Commission does not anticipate that the rule will cause any disruption
in the supply of multi-purpose lighters.
Some manufacturers, especially those with a small share of the
market, may decide not to make the needed investment to develop child-
resistant multi-purpose lighters. However, since the market for multi-
purpose lighters is growing, other firms can be expected to enter the
market as the market expands. Therefore, since a permanent reduction in
the number of firms affected by the rule is not expected, any adverse
impact on competition in the market would be small and temporary. Any
adverse impacts would be mitigated even further if the standard in the
proposed rule were adopted internationally.
A number of alternatives to the rule exist, including options
regarding various aspects of the proposed rule itself. While some of
the options may reduce total costs, none of the alternatives would
increase the overall level of safety to consumers.
H. Comments on the ANPR
The public comment period on the ANPR closed on March 17, 1997. The
Commission received nine written comments, including two received after
the comment period closed. Three additional written comments that were
received before the ANPR was published, but not addressed previously,
are also discussed in this notice. Copies of all written comments are
available from the Commission's Office of the Secretary.
The President of the Ohio Chapter of the International Association
of Arson Investigators Inc., and the President of the National
Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates and Practitioners, Inc.,
wrote in support of Commission action to require multi-purpose lighters
to be child resistant.
Conrad Guthrie of Vinson & Elkins, the petitioner's attorneys,
submitted information on four additional incidents, involving three
deaths. Mark W. Collmer, of McDowell Collmer, L.L.P., submitted
information about another incident involving a death.
D. Bruce Kehoe of Wilson, Kehoe & Winingham submitted information
about an incident involving a child who is permanently disabled due to
severe burns. This law firm also submitted information on 60 incidents
reported to them in response to their advertisement requesting
information on multi-purpose lighter incidents in the December 1997
issue of Fire and Arson Magazine. For a number of these incidents, the
submitted information did not state that a multi-purpose lighter was
used. In 22 of the 60 incidents, the child who started the fire was
reported to have used a multi-purpose lighter and to be under age 5.
Carrie Craig wrote a letter describing her experience when her home
burned down after her 3-year-old daughter ignited a couch with a multi-
purpose lighter obtained from the fireplace mantle.
Scripto-Tokai Corporation (Scripto) and Swedish Match North America
Inc., (Cricket), importers of multi-purpose lighters,
submitted comments regarding incidents. Scripto stated that during the
past 12 years it has distributed approximately 100 million multi-
purpose lighters and has received only about two dozen reports of
children allegedly operating a multi-purpose lighter. Scripto commented
that most of the incidents did not involve any claim of personal
injury. Cricket reported it has sold several million multi-
purpose lighters since 1992 and never had a single report of any child-
play incident.
Scripto, Cricket, and the Lighter Association, Inc.,
requested that any requirement for child resistance be developed as a
separate standard from the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters.
A summary of other issues raised by the commenters, and the
Commission's responses, are provided below.
Issue: Risk of Injury
The President of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse
Associates & Practitioners, Inc., ``agrees that multi-purpose lighters
which can be operated by children under the age of 5 pose an
unreasonably dangerous risk to children and their families.''
The Lighter Association, Inc., questions the validity of the
Commission's incident data on multi-purpose lighters and whether the
incidents resulting in deaths involved a fire started by children under
the age of 5.
Scripto states that the data reported in the ANPR (53 fires over
106 months) equates to one child-play fire incident every two months
that may have involved a multi-purpose lighter. ``Based upon available
data, Scripto does not believe that multi-purpose lighters, as a class
of products, present an unreasonable risk of serious injury or
[[Page 52407]]
death to consumers under the definitions provided by either the
Consumer Product Safety Act or the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.''
Scripto states that it is unclear why the Commission has selected
multi-purpose lighters for possible regulation as opposed to arguably
more hazardous fire producing consumer products such as matches,
stoves, candles, and heaters, as evidenced in the Commission's report,
``1994 Residential Fire Loss Estimates.'' Scripto states that ``there
would be a far greater societal benefit in regulating matches than
multi-purpose lighters.''
Response
The staff reported 178 fire incidents that were started by children
under age 5. The staff did not include incidents in this tabulation
where there was a question about the age of the child who started the
fire or where there was a question about whether a multi-purpose
lighter was involved.
There are no data currently available to compare the per-unit risk
associated with multi-purpose lighters with any other flame source. As
expected, there are many more child-play incidents involving matches,
because of the larger number of these products in use. The per-unit
risk for other products may or may not be greater than the per-unit
risk for multi-purpose lighters. However, this does not preclude
Commission action on multi-purpose lighters if the risk of injury and
death can be addressed at a reasonable cost.
Issue: Effectiveness of the Cigarette Lighter Standard
The Lighter Association, Inc., states that several of the larger
distributors of disposable cigarette lighters began selling child-
resistant lighters before the July 12, 1994, effective date of the
Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters. The Association cites an
increase in the estimated number of child-play deaths from lighters,
from 170 in 1993 to 230 in 1994, as evidence that the Cigarette Lighter
Standard has not been effective.
Scripto states that there are no available data to conclude that
incorporating child-resistant mechanisms into multi-purpose lighters
will reduce the incidence of child-play fires. ``Until the Commission
has analyzed the accident data for 1995 and 1996, there is no empirical
basis to conclude that the Cigarette Lighter Safety Standard has been
effective in reducing the number of child play fire incidents.''
Cricket also comments that the Commission should defer
a decision about extending the standard to multi-purpose lighters until
it is determined whether the cigarette lighter standard has had an
impact on the incidence of child-play fires.
Response
Fire loss estimates are now available for 1995. These data were not
previously available to the commenters. There were an estimated 8,200
residential structure fires caused by children (regardless of age)
playing with all types of lighters in 1995, resulting in 180 deaths and
1,220 injuries. Fire and injury estimates are lower for 1995 than for
any of the four preceding years. Comparing 1995 to 1994, when the
Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters went into effect, there was a
greater percentage reduction in child-play lighter fires than the
reduction in residential structure fires overall. This reduction could
be the first indication that child-resistant cigarette lighters help
prevent child-play fires. However, there was also a reduction in child-
play fires started with matches in 1995, indicating that other factors,
such as general fire prevention efforts, could also be involved.
However, the reduction for child-play lighter fires (23 percent) was
greater than the reduction for child-play match fires (6 percent).
The Commission's experience with the Poison Prevention Packaging
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1471-1476, provides ample evidence that requiring a
product to be child resistant effectively reduces the risk of injury.
An article published in the June 5, 1996, Journal of the American
Medical Association, ``The Safety Effects of Child-Resistant Packaging
for Oral Prescription Drugs,'' demonstrates that child-resistant
packaging has reduced childhood poisonings from oral prescription drugs
for children under age 5 by about 45 percent since 1974, the year these
drugs became subject to the packaging requirements. The Commission
believes the child-resistant concept used under the PPPA is applicable
to requiring child-resistant features on cigarette and multi-purpose
lighters.
More accurate information about the effectiveness of the cigarette
lighter standard will be available when the Commission completes a
lighter study in the year 2000. The results of this special study will
identify the specific types of lighters involved in child-play fires
(e.g., cigarette lighter or multi-purpose lighter) and will also
identify the proportion of fires started by children under 5 years old
(the group of children most afforded protection by child resistance).
Despite the current lack of specific information on the
effectiveness of the cigarette lighter standard, the Commission
concludes that it should proceed with the development of a standard for
multi-purpose lighters. The Commission has no reason to conclude that
the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters is not reasonably effective
in reducing child-play fires started by children under age 5 with
lighters. When the cigarette lighter standard was issued, the
Commission estimated that it would eventually prevent about 70 percent
of child-play fire deaths with cigarette lighters. Since an even higher
percentage reduction is expected from a standard for multi-purpose
lighters, the Commission cannot justify risking possibly dozens of
lives while waiting for enough time to pass to complete a detailed
study of the effectiveness of the cigarette lighter standard.
Issue: False Sense of Security
The Lighter Association, Inc., and Scripto question whether the
1994 fire incident data, showing an increase in child-play fires
involving cigarette lighters, indicate that smokers are becoming more
careless in storing child-resistant lighters away from children because
they assume ``child resistant'' means ``child-proof.'' The Lighter
Association, Inc., states that some distributors began selling child-
resistant lighters as early as mid-1992, in advance of the July 1994
effective date. Therefore, it contends, one would not expect the number
of child-play deaths to increase 35 percent (from 170 in 1993 to 230 in
1994.)
Response
The Commission is unaware of any evidence that the number of child-
play deaths associated with cigarette lighters increased in 1994 as a
result of smokers becoming more careless in storing child-resistant
lighters away from children. The 1994 fire loss estimates are too near
the July 1994 effective date of the Safety Standard for Cigarette
Lighters to provide a measure of its effectiveness. The 1995
Residential Fire Loss Estimates are now available. Fire and injury
losses associated with lighters are lower for 1995 than for any of the
4 preceding years. In 1995, the number of child-play deaths associated
with cigarette lighters is down to 180 from the 230 estimated for 1994.
Issue: Attractiveness
The President of the Ohio Chapter of the International Association
of Arson Investigators Inc., and the President of the National
Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & Practitioners, Inc.,
expressed concern that the attractiveness of the design (gun or toy
[[Page 52408]]
shape) and colorful packaging of multi-purpose lighters would attract
children to play with them.
Response
Multi-purpose lighters do have physical characteristics similar to
a gun (barrel, trigger, and in some cases, trigger guard). Most are
also functionally similar to a gun since they are activated by pulling
a trigger mechanism. It seems likely that children might play with
these lighters by ``shooting'' them as they would a toy gun. There are
references to a ``gun'' or ``toy-like shape'' in a number of the
reports of fires associated with multi-purpose lighters. It seems
likely that, for some children, the combination of the ``toy-like''
shape of multi-purpose lighters and the size of the flame could enhance
the attractiveness of these lighters as play objects compared with
ordinary cigarette lighters or matches. Even without a toy-like appeal,
knowledge that the lighter can produce a flame would motivate many
children to play with it. This is one reason the Commission is
proposing this new rule.
The Commission is not aware of any incidents in which the packaging
was influential in attracting children to the lighters.
Issue: Supervision
Scripto comments ``that unsupervised young children are vulnerable
to an array of environmental and household hazards * * *.
Unfortunately, a common element among the most serious injuries to
young children is a lack of proper adult supervision.''
Response
The Commission agrees that proper adult supervision is very
important. However, after reviewing the fire incident reports, the
Commission has concluded that the children were under reasonable levels
of supervision at the time they started the fires. Fires were started
while parents or guardians were present in the house.
Furthermore, children of the ages of those involved in the
incidents are old enough to engage in play activities in rooms other
than where their parents or guardians are present. In fact, child
development experts state that at 3 and 4 years of age, children can be
given some freedom from direct adult supervision. Thus, it is not
realistic to expect parents to directly observe children of these ages
during each moment of the day.
Issue: Voluntary Standards, Education, and Labeling as Alternative
Means To Address the Hazard
The Lighter Association, Inc., refers to section 7 of the Consumer
Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056), which states that the Commission
can issue performance and/or labeling standards in addressing potential
risks. The Association states the ANPR ignores voluntary standards,
education, and labeling, in favor of a position that product design is
the most effective approach to address a hazard.
Cricket suggests that the Commission consider
addressing identified problems with ``enhanced public awareness and
education programs.''
Scripto states, ``Whether or not the Commission elects to mandate a
child resistancy standard for multi-purpose lighters, it must not lose
sight of the goal of educating children and parents on fire safety.''
Scripto comments, ``Clear, effective warnings and labels must be
provided with fire sources to adequately inform consumers of the
applicable hazards * * *. Such efforts must receive immediate top
priority.''
Response
The Commission does not agree that the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking ignores education, labeling, and voluntary standards as
possible means to address the risk of injury associated with multi-
purpose lighters. The ANPR specifically invited interested persons to
submit an existing standard, or a statement of intent to modify or
develop a voluntary standard, to address the risks of injury and death
associated with multi-purpose lighters. The ANPR also solicited
comments on other possible means to effectively address the hazard.
At an April 16, 1998, meeting of ASTM Subcommittee F15.02, Safety
Standards for Cigarette Lighters, the members voted to support the
Commission action to develop a mandatory standard for multi-purpose
lighters. Manufacturers whose multi-purpose lighters comprise a major
share of the market are members of this subcommittee. The members also
voted to form a technical task group for the purpose of providing input
to the Commission on the provisions of the draft standard. Based on
these actions, the CPSC does not expect a voluntary standard to be
developed.
The Commission does not believe that warning labels or education
alone can effectively address the risks associated with multi-purpose
lighters. Multi-purpose lighters have always been subject to labeling
requirements under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The required
statements include: ``Keep out of the reach of children.'' The
incidents indicate that many consumers were aware of the danger of
lighters and took precautions to keep them out of the reach of their
children.
When attempting to keep objects out of reach, caregivers often find
a storage place that is up high. However, children learn to conquer
height at an early age. At 2 years of age, a child can climb a play
gym; at 2\1/2\ years of age, a child is quite skillful in climbing. By
the time a child is 4 to 5 years of age, the motor abilities have
evolved to the point where a child has the coordination and balance of
an adult. The motor abilities of children in these age ranges make it
very difficult to find a storage place that provides both convenient
access for users and safety for young children.
Since most caregivers are fully aware of the dangers of young
children playing with lighters, and since children access them in spite
of attempts to store them out of reach, the Commission concludes that
additional or different warning statements would not reduce the
incidence of fires. The Commission preliminarily concludes that a
child, resistant feature on multi-purpose lighters would be the most
effective approach of addressing the hazard.
Issue: Scope
Cricket urges the Commission to determine whether the
child-play problem is related to ``issues with a particular product''
rather than to all multi-purpose lighters.
Response
Although the large majority of the reported fire incidents involved
one manufacturer, there were also five other brands identified. In
addition, the results of the baseline testing of five different models
of multi-purpose lighters demonstrate that the majority (59 to 96
percent) of the children on the test panels were able to operate them.
This is a range of child resistance of 4 to 41 percent, in contrast to
the minimum requirement of 85 percent in the standard proposed below.
The baseline results indicate that when the on/off switch is left
unlocked, as is expected to be the case in many households, most of the
children in the test panel could operate the lighters.
Issue: Requirements for Multi-purpose lighters May Create New
Hazards
Scripto states that there is a concern that requiring the child-
resistant mechanism to reset itself automatically
[[Page 52409]]
after each operation of the ignition mechanism, as required in the
cigarette lighter standard, ``could create new and serious hazards for
the product's users.'' Scripto states, ``It is not uncommon for piezo
ignition devices to require more than one attempt to ignite.
Environmental factors such as wind, low temperature, altitude or
moisture can also affect the consumer's ability to properly ignite the
piezo lighter.'' Scripto states that, because a child-resistant
mechanism would further delay ignition, the potential for ``flashback
explosions or fires'' is increased in applications such as igniting a
gas grill.
Cricket states that multi-purpose lighter ``mechanisms
do not light 100% of the time, particularly when used in outdoor
conditions.'' They strongly believe that the Commission should analyze
the potential for a small fire or explosion as a result of the delays
associated with a child-resistant mechanism before proceeding to
institute a standard.
The Lighter Association, Inc., comments that ``Flashback fire is a
very real issue * * *. If the new regulation reduces risks to children,
but increases risks to adults (the ones who are supposed to be using
the product!), then the regulation should be rejected.''
Response
The Commission acknowledges that piezo devices, such as multi-
purpose lighters, often require more than one attempt to ignite. This
is due, in large part, to the fact that the fuel may not reach the end
of the lighter nozzle at the same time the spark is generated.
Therefore, the consumer may need to pull the trigger more than once in
order to create multiple sparks.
However, the Commission does not agree that child-resistant multi-
purpose lighters will create hazardous use conditions. Based on testing
using gas barbecue grills, the Commission's Division of Engineering
concluded that the risk of flame-up or small explosion for some grills
is minimal for short periods of delayed ignition, such as 5-10 seconds.
The consumer can avoid this risk altogether by igniting the lighter
before turning on the gas.
To further minimize the possibility of creating a hazardous use
condition, the draft standard requires that multi-purpose lighters
allow multiple operation attempts before letting go of the lighter
causes the child-resistant feature to reset. One manufacturer is
currently marketing a child-resistant multi-purpose lighter with such a
design. This manufacturer has tested the lighter according to the
protocol in the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters to establish
that it is child resistant.
The Commission is aware of other manufacturers that are working on
child-resistant designs that function similarly. With such designs, the
lighting efficiency of a child-resistant multi-purpose lighter should
be essentially the same as that of the non-child-resistant multi-
purpose lighters currently in use.
The Commission is also aware of some multi-purpose lighters that
have a feature that can be used to lock the fuel supply open. This
allows hands-free operation of the lighter during soldering or similar
activities; some consumers find this a useful feature. However, it
might be difficult for this type of lighter to comply with a
requirement that the child-resistant feature reset when the user puts
the lighter down. To retain the potential for hands-free operation, the
Commission is specifying that, for lighters that remain lit after being
released, the lighter must return automatically to a child-resistant
state by the time the user lets go of the lighter after turning off the
flame. This scenario is not expected to increase the risk of fires
started by children, since the lighter's user would likely turn the
lighter off when leaving it for any period of time that would allow
access by children.
The Commission is also proposing a requirement to help prevent the
dangerous situation where a child who operated the child-resistant
mechanism and lit the lighter could create a flame that would not go
out when the lighter is released, even if it is dropped. The proposed
rule specifies that, after the lighter is lit, an additional manual
operation must be performed to activate the feature that allows the
lighter to burn without being held by the user.
Issue: Consumer Resistance to Child-Resistant Features
Scripto challenges the Commission's position in the ANPR that
consumer resistance to a child-resistant feature on multi-purpose
lighters will not negate the feature's effectiveness. Scripto states
that ``many consumers would resist the introduction of child-resistant
multi-purpose lighters. Scripto's experience with the tremendous
negative reactions to its child-resistant cigarette lighters form a
solid basis for this assertion * * *. Consideration must be given to
those populations that may be exposed to potentially greater fire
hazards if they were physically unable to successfully operate a child
resistant multi-purpose lighter. Such individuals may switch to such
less safe 'non-CR' alternatives as long stem matches or a rolled up
newspaper * * *.''
The Lighter Association, Inc. states that ``contrary to the (CPSC)
staff's representations, complaints regarding lighters that comply with
the rule continue to come in from every region of the country * * *
Industry receives thousands of complaints every year. Products are
being invented every month to override child-resistant lighters.''
Response
Although there were numerous complaints about the safety standard
when child-resistant cigarette lighter models first became available in
large numbers and non-child-resistant lighters became scarce, the
number of complaints from consumers to the Commission has dwindled to
almost nothing in 1998. Many of the initial complaints had to do with
the difficulty of operating the child-resistant mechanism on the
lighter models that were generally available in the marketplace in 1994
and early 1995. These early models usually had a lever or push-in tab
to permit the gas release lever to function when the flint wheel was
rotated to generate a flame. Later models of child-resistant lighters
employ child-resistant features that are integrated into the lighter so
that adults can operate the lighters much like they did the non-child-
resistant pre-standard roll-and-press lighters.
The proposed rule requires that multi-purpose lighters must not be
capable of having its child-resistant mechanism easily deactivated. The
Commission interprets this as requiring that the child-resistant
mechanism cannot easily be disabled with a common household tool, such
as a knife or pliers, and still remain operable.
In the 4 years since the lighter standard became effective, the
Commission became aware of two devices that were designed and promoted
for defeating the child-resistant mechanisms on certain brands of
disposable child-resistant lighter models. CPSC contacted both of those
firms to discourage them from selling these devices. If the Commission
obtains information indicating that such devices pose a substantial
risk of injury to the public, the Commission could seek corrective
actions pursuant to Section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064.
Furthermore, actions could be brought against persons who disable the
child-resistant mechanisms on lighters intended for resale.
The Commission would also expect some consumers to write about
their dissatisfaction with child-resistant
[[Page 52410]]
features on multi-purpose lighters. However, the Commission believes
that the level of consumer resistance would not prevent the expected
reduction of child-play fires started with multi-purpose lighters.
Furthermore, the Commission believes that manufacturers can design
child-resistant multi-purpose lighters that offer minimal inconvenience
to consumers.
Issue: Enforcement
The Lighter Association, Inc., comments, ``The record is full of
examples of problems with enforcement of the current child resistancy
rule * * * Importers are devising new ways every week to evade the
rule. Indeed, Compliance has recently advised industry that it is now
reviewing non-child-resistant lighters from Europe and Asia being
rerouted to the U.S. for sale. Substantial premiums are paid for non-
child-resistant lighters.''
The Lighter Association, Inc., states that the Commission's
enforcement program is inadequate because of the cost of testing to
assure compliance. ``If the Commission cannot enforce the existing
regulation, it is absurd to extend it to another product line.
Ultimately, non-complying imports will take over this product line as
well.''
Scripto states that it has ``been disappointed by the Commission's
historical failure to evenly enforce the labeling requirements of the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act on other multi-purpose lighter
distributors.'' Additionally, Scripto expresses disappointment that the
Commission has not taken action against the ``Quick Fix,'' a device
being sold to disable the child-resistant mechanism on cigarette
lighters. It suggests that the cigarette lighter standard be amended to
prohibit the intentional disarming of lighter safety devices. It also
recommends that the Commission take a more proactive enforcement stance
to prevent further violations of the Cigarette Lighter Standard.
``Before moving forward to implement new regulations, the Commission
must be prepared to ensure consumers, distributors and manufacturers
that any such regulation will be fully enforced, without loopholes and
without exception.''
Cricket comments that it has ``seen ample anecdotal
evidence that disreputable importers have violated, and are continuing
to flout, both the stockpiling and substantive requirements of the
child-resistancy standard'' in spite of information about apparent
violations provided to the Commission staff by importers and the
Lighter Association.
Cricket urges the Commission to work for international
acceptance of lighter standards to address the enforcement evasion
issue.
Response
While CPSC is aware that some unscrupulous importers and
distributors of lighters have taken actions to circumvent the intent
and purposes of the standard, their overall numbers have been small,
and hardly constitute a large number of schemes to ``evade the rule,''
as alleged in this comment. CPSC and Customs have taken vigorous action
against importers and distributors who do not comply with the standard,
seizing and refusing entry to millions of noncomplying lighters since
July 1994, working with importers to recall millions of lighters that
made it into the marketplace before their noncompliance with the
standard was discovered, and filing legal actions against firms that
purposely distributed and sold lighters that had the child-resistant
feature intentionally removed or disabled prior to sale to the public.
Finally, CPSC and Customs have seized several small shipments that
originated in Europe of popular name brand non-child-resistant
disposable cigarette lighters manufactured for the European market that
were sent to United States importers as premium items with other
products intended for sale in the United States. These lighters
invariably were decorated with product logos (e.g., liquor or beer
brands, or other consumer product logos). They were included in the
shipment by the European exporter as advertising items, not products
intended to be sold separately from the main goods in the shipment.
Evidence in these cases suggests that in almost every instance, the
inclusion of the non-child-resistant lighters in the shipment was done
due to ignorance of the standard on the part of the exporter in Europe,
not on an intentional attempt to thwart the safety standard. Based on
this experience with the cigarette lighter standard, the Commission
concludes that the compliance with a multi-purpose lighter standard
will be sufficient to produce the benefits discussed above.
Issue: Requirements
Scripto comments, ``The cigarette lighter experience has seen the
approval of some mechanisms which are so easy to operate that safety
objectives are compromised * * *. Any device which lends child
resistancy to a product must be more inconvenient to use or it will not
be effective * * *. Therefore, definitions must recognize and clarify
this fundamental trade-off between safety and convenience.''
Response
The Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters requires manufacturers
to conduct testing to assure that their lighters comply with all of the
requirements. The manufacturers are also required to report the results
of this testing to CPSC's Office of Compliance and to certify to their
distributors or retailers that the lighters comply. If there is any
reason to believe that the lighters are not child resistant, the Office
of Compliance requests further substantiation from the manufacturer.
Additionally, a program is in place at CPSC to conduct enforcement
testing of cigarette lighters where warranted.
In regard to Scripto's recommendation that definitions be developed
to preclude child-resistant mechanisms that are too easy to operate,
the Commission points out that, just like the cigarette lighter
standard, the proposed standard for multi-purpose lighters is drafted
as a performance standard rather than a design standard. Any multi-
purpose lighter, however designed, that meets the requirements in the
proposed rule would be considered child resistant:
Issue: Market Impact
Swedish Match stated:
The market for the multi-purpose lighters is totally different
from the one analyzed by the CPSC in connection with the cigarette
lighter standard. As there are fewer competitors, we strongly urge
the CPSC to study closely the likely competitive impact of the
imposition of a child resistancy requirement on the multi-purpose
lighter industry * * *. Any company would have to consider whether
it could absorb successfully the added research, development, and
production costs that surely would be associated with the standard
and still remain competitive in the market * * *. Many firms
(especially those with a marginal position in the market place)
likely will react to the standard by exiting the market, thereby
resulting in less competition and higher prices to be borne by the
consuming public.
Response
The market for multi-purpose lighters is obviously smaller than the
market for cigarette lighters, in terms of both the number of units
sold annually and the number of manufacturers. It is conceivable that
some firms may react to the standard by exiting the market. However,
the CPSC does not agree that this will likely have a significant
adverse impact on competition.
Currently, the market for multi-purpose lighters already is highly
concentrated, with one manufacturer having approximately a 90 percent
[[Page 52411]]
market share. However, CPSC expects that the degree of competition in
the market may increase. One major cigarette lighter manufacturer
recently entered the market for multi-purpose lighters with a model
that is child resistant. Additionally, the market for multi-purpose
lighters is growing at a rate of 5 to 10 percent annually, according to
industry sources. As the market expands, more manufacturers may enter
and thereby increase the level of competition. Furthermore, multi-
purpose lighters face competition from other flame sources, including
matches and cigarette lighters. These products are less expensive than
multi-purpose lighters and, therefore, limit the amount that
manufacturers can increase prices for multi-purpose lighters without
significant sales loss, even if there are few manufacturers in the
market. Finally, CPSC expects that only manufacturers with a minor
presence in the market might exit. The loss of these firms would not
substantially reduce the level of competition in this already highly-
concentrated industry.
Issue: International Application
Swedish Match commented that one way to attempt to address the
concern about the evasion of a standard by foreign manufacturers is
``the adoption, internationally of any standard that is applied in the
United States.''
Response
The CPSC agrees that international adoption of the standard would
reduce the likelihood that some manufacturers or importers would
attempt to evade the requirements of the rule. However, CPSC does not
have the authority to regulate products intended solely for use in
other countries.
Issue: Lulling Effect
The Lighter Association and Scripto-Tokai stated that ``child
resistant'' is often incorrectly construed by the general public as
``childproof.'' They argue that this can create a false sense of
security and sometimes results in parents taking less care to protect
children from the product.
Response
The CPSC agrees that parents sometimes mistake child resistant as
meaning childproof. However, the evidence suggests that the impact is
less significant than some claim. For example, studies of poisoning
deaths of children have shown that child-resistant packages have been
effective in reducing poisonings in young children. Therefore, on
balance, even if some parents do become less vigilant, the overall
impact of the rule is expected to be positive.
Issue: Estimates of Incidents
The Lighter Association states that the Commission improperly used
a peak year or years of injuries and fatalities for its cost-benefit
analysis, rather than an average over a more reasonable period.
Response
In the preliminary regulatory analysis included in this notice, the
Commission based its estimates on the incidents of which CPSC is aware
that occurred from 1995 through 1997. These are the best data
available. CPSC did not have a special project or study that attempted
to collect data before 1995, and, therefore, data before that time are
incomplete. Furthermore, our analysis of the data from 1995 through
1997 may understate the number of fires involving multi-purpose
lighters because they consist strictly of cases of which the CPSC is
aware. There are likely other cases of which the Commission is not
aware. Finally, preliminary data suggest that the 1998 experience will
be similar to the period 1995 to 1997. Already in 1998, the CPSC knows
of 33 fires that resulted in 7 deaths and 14 injuries. The actual
number is probably higher.
Issue: Costs of Modifying Lighters
The Lighter Association and Scripto-Tokai commented that the
Commission underestimates the costs of modifying multi-purpose lighters
and ignored the Lighter Association-provided data that it would cost
$.25 to $.75 per unit to modify multi-purpose lighters.
Response
These commenters are referring to a preliminary examination of the
economic issues made by the Commission that was based on very limited
data. The regulatory analysis included with this notice is based on
more recent data, including the Lighter Association's estimates of
costs.
Comments provided by the Lighter Association, and conversations
between the CPSC's staff and several manufacturers, suggest that the
upper end of the industry's cost estimates were based on the assumption
that the proposed rule would contain provisions which it does not
(e.g., requiring a minimum level of reliability in achieving ignition
on each attempt). Therefore, the Commission believes that the low and
middle ranges of the cost estimates provided by the Lighter Association
are more reasonable. The cost estimate included in the preliminary
regulatory analysis was $0.40 per unit. This is roughly in the mid-
range of these estimates. Even if retail markups added another $0.40/
unit to the retail price, the proposed rule would result in net
benefits of $0.53 per multi-purpose lighter sold.
Issue: Costs of Development
The Lighter Association and Scripto-Tokai argued that it should be
understood that the technology for cigarette lighters cannot simply be
added to a multi-purpose lighter. Rather, the multi-purpose lighter
must be completely redesigned, resulting in research and development
costs, investment in new equipment or retooling of existing equipment,
testing of the product, and further review of the product. These
commenters contend that the Commission's assumption that one simply
takes an existing child-resistant feature and adds it to a multi-
purpose lighter is simplistic and inaccurate.
Response
CPSC is aware that manufacturers will incur costs to develop and
test new designs for child-resistant multi-purpose lighters, as well as
to retool their plants for production. The CPSC accounted for these
costs in its preliminary regulatory analysis, which is based on the
information currently available (much of it provided by industry). CPSC
does not assume that any particular child-resistant design can be
adapted from a cigarette lighter to a multi-purpose lighter without
further development, if at all. CPSC welcomes additional information on
these costs from manufacturers or other parties with such knowledge,
and will include the most recent cost information in any future
analysis of this issue.
Issue: Need for Regulation of Matches
Scripto-Tokai stated that the 750 injuries and 140 deaths
attributable to children playing with matches in 1994 represents a
societal cost in the billions of dollars, as opposed to $10.2 million
for children playing with multi-purpose lighters. The commenter
concludes that there would be a far greater benefit in regulating
matches than multi-purpose lighters.
Response
The CPSC is concerned about the societal costs of fires
attributable to children playing with matches. However, in taking
action to address a problem, it is necessary to take into account the
feasibility of a solution and its costs, as well as its benefits. The
manner in which multi-purpose lighters are operated can be changed in
ways that will substantially reduce the
[[Page 52412]]
number of incidents resulting from children playing with multi-purpose
lighters. Such changes will increase societal benefits more than they
will increase societal costs. According to the preliminary regulatory
analysis, the proposed rule is expected to result in substantial net
benefits to consumers. The fact that the Commission might investigate
or regulate other products, which present their own feasibility and
cost-benefit issues, does not counsel against action on multi-purpose
lighters.
I. Preliminary Environmental Assessment
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and in accordance
with CPSC's procedures, the Commission considered the potential
environmental effects of the proposed rule. Less than 1 percent of the
approximately 20 million non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters
that are sold in this country each year are manufactured domestically.
One large manufacturer has begun to produce multi-purpose lighters
domestically, but these lighters are already child resistant.
The proposed rule is not expected to significantly alter the amount
of materials, energy, or waste generated during production of the
lighters. Nor is the proposed rule expected to cause manufacturers to
shift production to other countries or locations. Molds and other tools
used by manufacturers in the production of multi-purpose lighters or
their components are periodically replaced. The proposed rule may cause
some manufacturers to replace the molds and other tools earlier than
they would have otherwise. However, the proposed effective date of 1
year from the publication date of a final rule should allow
manufacturers time to plan and minimize any impact.
Pursuant to section 9(g)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1), the
proposed rule does not apply to non-child-resistant lighters
manufactured before the rule's effective date. Therefore, no non-child-
resistant lighters in use or in U.S. commerce on the effective date
will need to be recalled or disposed of. Accordingly, there are not
disposal issues with regard to such lighters. Further, the proposed
rule is not expected to affect the manner in which multi-purpose
lighters are packaged for sale or the amount of butane or other fuel
used in the operation of the lighters.
From the available information, the Commission concludes that the
proposed rule would not significantly affect raw material use, air or
water quality, manufacturing processes or disposal practices in such a
way as to cause any significant impact on the environment.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
As explained above, the standard and certification provisions will
require manufacturers and importers of multi-purpose lighters to
perform testing, maintain records, and report data to the Commission
relating to the multi-purpose lighters that they produce or import. For
this reason, the rule published below contains ``collection of
information requirements,'' as that term is used in the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Therefore, the proposed rule has
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') in
accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and implementing regulations codified
at 5 CFR 1320.11.
Based on estimates made in the course of developing the cigarette
lighter standard and on information obtained from industry sources, the
Commission estimates that complying with the testing, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements of the proposed rule will require
approximately 100 hours per model annually. The time required for
testing is expected to average about 80 hours per model per year. The
time required for recordkeeping and reporting is expected to be about
10 hours for each model per year. The exact number of manufacturers and
importers is not known. However, the number of manufacturers and
importers appears to be increasing. Currently, the Commission believes
that there may be as many as 40 different models of multi-purpose
lighters on the market. With a few exceptions, most manufacturers and
importers have only one model. Therefore, the total amount of time that
will be required for complying with the testing, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements of the proposed rule is approximately 4,000
hours annually.
OMB may comment to CPSC between 30 and 60 days after the
publication of the proposal. Therefore, although OMB will accept
comments until November 30, 1998, a comment will be assured of having
its maximum effect if it is filed by October 30, 1998.
Comments to OMB should be directed to the Desk Officer for the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503; telephone (202)395-7340.
The Commission encourages commenters to provide copies of such comments
to the Commission's Office of the Secretary, with a caption or cover
letter identifying the materials as comments submitted to OMB on the
proposed collection of information requirements for multi-purpose
lighters.
K. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
When an agency undertakes a rulemaking proceeding, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires the
agency to prepare initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses
describing the impact of the rule on small businesses and other small
entities. The purpose of the RFA, as stated in section 2(b) (5 U.S.C.
602 note), is to require agencies, consistent with their objectives, to
fit the requirements of regulations to the scale of the businesses,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the
regulations.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Regulatory Flexibility Act provides than an agency is
not required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis if the
head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. 5 U.S.C. 605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 603 of the RFA calls for the Commission to prepare and make
available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
describing the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and
identifying impact-reducing alternatives. The initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is to contain:
(1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities subject to the requirements
and the type of professional skills necessary for the preparation of
reports or records; and
(5) An identification, to the extent possible, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
In addition, the initial regulatory flexibility analysis must
describe any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would
accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and that
would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on
small entities. RFA-suggested alternatives for discussion include:
different compliance or reporting requirements for small entities;
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
[[Page 52413]]
reporting requirements for small entities; the use of performance
rather than design standards; and partial or total exemptions from
coverage for small entities.
The Commission routinely considers the potential effects on
competition and small businesses as part of the agency's overall
evaluation of potential economic effects of rulemaking actions. A
summary of these effects is included in the preliminary regulatory
analysis required for the proposed rule under section 9(c) of the CPSA.
Since some number of the affected firms are considered to be small
companies, the Commission gives particular consideration to the
potential economic effects of the proposed rule on such firms, and is
issuing this initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the proposed
rule.
Reasons for Agency Action
The Commission's proposed rule on multi-purpose lighters addresses
the risk of death and injury from accidental residential fires started
by young children playing with these lighters. Detailed data concerning
these fires is presented in Section B of this notice.
The Commission is required to consider whether appropriate
voluntary standards could adequately address the problem rather than
imposing a mandatory rule. However, no voluntary standard was submitted
to the Commission for its consideration in response to the ANPR, and
the Commission is not aware of any voluntary standard that addresses
the problem. Therefore, deferring to a voluntary standard does not
represent an adequate alternative to the proposed mandatory rule.
Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule
The history of this rulemaking proceeding is set forth in Section A
of this notice. The legal basis for this action is described in Section
E of this notice, which discusses the Commission's statutory
authorities. Other than the definition of the covered product, the
provisions of the proposed rule are essentially the same as the Safety
Standard for Cigarette Lighters, 16 CFR Part 1210.
The purpose of the proposed rule is to reduce the risk of
accidental child-play multi-purpose lighter fires. It is expected that
making multi-purpose lighters child-resistant will substantially reduce
the incidence and cost to society of these fires. The rule is being
proposed under the authority of the CPSA. Section 9(c) of the CPSA
requires the agency to consider economic effects of the proposed rule
on industry and consumers, and to consider alternatives that might
reduce the burden of the rule generally.
Requirements of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule contains performance requirements that would
require all lighters that meet the definition of a multi-purpose
lighter to be child-resistant. It also describes the test protocol to
be used in establishing and verifying compliance. The protocol
prescribes tests in which panels of young children attempt to operate
modified or non-fuel-containing multi-purpose lighters. Manufacturers
and importers would be required to label individual lighters, certify
that their products comply with the rule, provide evidence of a
reasonable testing program to support such certification, maintain
testing and production records, and provide reports and product samples
to the Commission.
Most manufacturers would build modified or surrogate lighters to
perform the test protocol. Complying lighter designs would be those for
which the test lighters or surrogates were successfully operable by
fewer than 15 percent of children tested. All multi-purpose lighters
manufactured or imported 12 months after the date of publication of a
final rule in the Federal Register would have to comply. In addition,
proposed anti-stockpiling provisions would limit the production or
importation of noncomplying lighters between the publication date and
the effective date of a final rule.
Firms Subject to the Proposed Rule and Possible Impacts
The proposed rule covers manufacturers and importers of multi-
purpose lighters intended for sale to consumers. The number of firms
that manufacture or import these lighters is increasing. While at least
30 firms have been identified, there probably are other companies that
manufacture or import multi-purpose lighters in the U.S. that have not
been identified. With the exception of one large manufacturer and
perhaps one other smaller manufacturer, all firms are believed to be
importers rather than domestic manufacturers. Several of the firms are
affiliates or subsidiaries of larger firms or foreign manufacturers.
The Commission examined the information available on 30 firms that
were identified as being manufacturers, importers, or private labelers
of multi-purpose lighters. Of these, 16 are believed to have fewer than
100 employees and are, therefore, considered to be small businesses
according to size standards established by the Small Business
Administration. 13 CFR 121.601. Of these 16 small businesses, 12 are
believed to be importers that also sell products other than multi-
purpose lighters. One of these firms may manufacture its own multi-
purpose lighters. At least two importers have lighters that are
produced exclusively for them by foreign manufacturers. The information
available was not sufficient to make such determinations on the
remaining 3 small businesses. One small firm claims that its multi-
purpose lighter has child-resistant features. However, it has not
tested its product according to the requirements of the proposed rule.
Most of the small importers and private labelers distribute
lighters produced by foreign manufacturers. It is likely that the
manufacturers will bear most of the costs for development and testing
of the child-resistant models and amortize these costs over several
years of production. These costs, as well as increases in the costs of
production attributable to the child-resistant mechanism, are expected
to be passed through importers and private labelers to the consuming
public.
Some small importers may experience some disruption in their supply
of multi-purpose lighters if some of the foreign suppliers opt not to
develop child-resistant multi-purpose lighters. However, the 12-month
period between the publication of the final rule and its effective date
should allow time for most importers to take action to ensure that they
have a source for child-resistant multi-purpose lighters. Many of the
smaller importers of multi-purpose lighters appear to be primarily
engaged in manufacturing or importing other products, such as
housewares, kitchen and barbecue utensils, hardware products, cigarette
lighters, and other tobacco accessories. Multi-purpose lighters
probably account for only a small percentage of these importers' sales.
Therefore, even if a small importer stopped distributing multi-purpose
lighters, it probably would not suffer a significant adverse effect if
sales of multi-purpose lighters accounted for only a small percentage
of the firm's total sales.
Since the rule contains performance requirements, rather than
requiring a specific technology, it allows flexibility to firms in
designing child-resistant mechanisms. This should reduce the burden of
compliance on many firms, both large and small. However, some small
firms that manufacture their own multi-purpose lighters may not have
the technical or financial resources to develop lighters that would
meet the
[[Page 52414]]
proposed rule. It is also possible that some small manufacturers will
determine that the cost of developing a product that complies with the
proposed rule is too high relative to their market share or output
level. This could lead some small manufacturers to leave the market.
However, the number of small firms that actually manufacture their own
multi-purpose lighters is believed to be low. As noted above, the
Commission is aware of only one small firm that may manufacture its own
lighters and two small firms that have their proprietary designs of
lighters that are manufactured for them overseas.
Small manufacturers and importers would be subject to all of the
performance, testing, certification, and reporting provisions of the
proposed rule. Although some small manufacturers and importers may not
possess the necessary skills to conduct the required testing, there are
independent quality control and engineering laboratories, and other
private consultants, that could perform the required testing with which
these firms could contract. Records of the testing would probably be
compiled by the testing laboratory and maintained by the manufacturer
personnel. Copies of the reports and certification records would
probably be maintained by the importers or their legal counsels.
The proposed rule allows importers to rely on testing that has been
performed by or for a foreign manufacturer to support the certification
and reporting requirements of the proposed rule, provided that the
records: (1) Are in English, (2) are complete, (3) can be provided to
the Commission within a reasonable time period, if requested, and (4)
provide reasonable assurance the multi-purpose lighters are child
resistant. This provision may reduce the testing burden on some small
importers, since some manufacturers may supply product to more than one
importer.
The reporting requirements of the proposed rule are necessary for
the CPSC to monitor compliance. The Commission is not aware of any
method by which the reporting burden on small businesses could be
reduced while still accomplishing the purpose of the proposed rule. The
estimated reporting burden, however, is low, probably less than 100
hours per model per year.
Other Federal Rules
No Federal rules are known to exist that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule. Although the Cigarette Lighter Safety
Standard is similar to the proposed rule, multi-purpose lighters are
not subject to that rule, because multi-purpose lighters are not
intended primarily for lighting tobacco products.
Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
The Commission considered four basic alternatives to certain
elements of the proposed rule. Specifically, the CPSC considered (1)
narrowing the scope to exclude micro-torches and the more expensive
multi-purpose lighters, (2) requiring only additional labeling, (3)
taking no action and relying on voluntary efforts, and (4) changing the
effective date.
Narrowing the Scope
The CPSC considered excluding from coverage of the proposed rule
the more expensive multi-purpose lighters, some of which retail for
more than $20, as opposed to the less than $8 for which most multi-
purpose lighters retail. This would have been similar to the exemption
in the cigarette lighter standard for lighters with a customs value or
ex-factory value greater than $2.00. The CPSC also considered excluding
micro-torches from coverage.
Industry sources believe that the market share of the more
expensive multi-purpose lighters, including micro-torches, is low,
probably accounting for less than three percent of the unit sales.
There are three firms that are known to market high-end multi-purpose
lighters. All of these firms have fewer than 100 employees and are
considered to be small businesses. (One firm claims that its multi-
purpose lighter has features that should make it child-resistant.) Of
the six firms that are known to distribute micro-torches, three have
fewer than 100 employees and are considered to be small businesses.
While excluding the more expensive multi-purpose lighters from the
scope of the proposed rule might reduce the impact of the rule on some
small businesses, the CPSC does not have evidence that these multi-
purpose lighters are less likely to be involved in child-play fires
than the less expensive models. Baseline testing indicates that some of
the more expensive models are at least as easy to operate as some less
expensive models. And, there is no evidence that the more expensive
multi-purpose lighters are stored or used differently around the home
than are the less expensive lighters. Therefore, the Commission
determined that the more expensive multi-purpose lighters and micro-
torches should be required to meet the same child-resistance standard
that the less expensive ones must meet.
Labeling Requirements
Although a labeling-only requirement would significantly reduce the
burden of the proposed rule on all firms, large and small, the
Commission did not believe that any additional labeling would have a
significant impact on the incidence of child-play fires. Furthermore,
all multi-purpose lighter labels are already labeled ``Keep out of
reach of children.'' Therefore, a labeling-only rule was not considered
to be a preferable alternative to the proposed rule.
Taking No Action or Relying on a Voluntary Standard
Because there currently is no voluntary standard for child-
resistance for multi-purpose lighters and none is being developed,
relying on a voluntary standard is not an alternative for the
Commission. Additionally, it seems unlikely that many firms would
voluntarily market child-resistant multi-purpose lighters in the
absence of a mandatory standard. If the non-child-resistant multi-
purpose lighters cost less than the child-resistant lighters, the
manufacturers of child-resistant lighters would be at a cost
disadvantage in the marketplace, resulting in a limited market share
for the child-resistant lighters. Consequently, reliance on voluntary
efforts would not adequately address the hazard associated with multi-
purpose lighters.
Summary and Conclusions
The proposed rule for multi-purpose lighters will affect all
manufacturers and importers of such lighters in the U.S. Perhaps half
or more of these firms would be considered to be small businesses. Most
of the small firms are believed to be importers of lighters
manufactured by foreign suppliers. These importers will be impacted by
the proposed rule's certification, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. The higher costs of manufacturing child-resistant
lighters incurred by their suppliers will likely be passed onto to
these firms as well. Some of the firms may also have temporary
disruptions in their supply of multi-purpose lighters. However, it is
uncertain whether any of these effects would be ``significant.''
In addition to the small importers, there may be a few small firms
that manufacture their own multi-purpose lighters or have their own
proprietary designs manufactured for them. The proposed rule may have a
significant impact on these firms if the firms do not have the
technical expertise or resources to develop child-resistant mechanisms
for their multi-purpose lighters.
Some alternatives to the proposed rule were considered that might
have reduced the burden on small
[[Page 52415]]
manufacturers. However, these alternatives were rejected, since the
number of injuries would be larger. These alternatives included taking
no action, requiring additional labeling only, exempting micro-torches
or the more expensive multi-purpose lighters from the scope of the
proposed rule, and different effective dates.
L. Executive Orders
This proposed rule has been evaluated in accordance with Executive
Order No. 12,612, and the rule raises no substantial federalism
concerns.
Executive Order No. 12,988 requires agencies to state the
preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation. The
preemptive effect of this rule is established by 15 U.S.C. 2075(a),
which states:
(a) Whenever a consumer product safety standard under the CPSA
applies to a risk of injury associated with a consumer product, no
State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority
either to establish or continue in effect any provision of a safety
standard or regulation which prescribed any requirements as to the
performance, composition, contents, design, finish, construction,
packaging, or labeling of such products which are designed to deal
with the same risk of injury associated with such consumer product,
unless such requirements are identical to the requirements of the
Federal standard.
Subsection (b) of 15 U.S.C. 2075 provides a circumstance under
which subsection (a) does not prevent the Federal Government or the
government of any State or political subdivision of a State from
establishing or continuing in effect a safety standard applicable to a
consumer product for its own (governmental) use, and which is not
identical to the consumer product safety standard applicable to the
product under the CPSA. This occurs if the Federal, State, or political
subdivision requirement provides a higher degree of protection from
such risk of injury than the consumer product safety standard.
Subsection (c) of 15 U.S.C. 2075 authorizes a State or a political
subdivision of a State to request an exemption from the preemptive
effect of a consumer product safety standard. The Commission may grant
such a request, by rule, where the State or political subdivision
standard or regulation (1) provides a significantly higher degree of
protection from such risk of injury than does the consumer product
safety standard and (2) does not unduly burden interstate commerce.
M. Extension of Time To Issue Final Rule
Section 9(d)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(1), provides that a
final consumer product safety rule must be published within 60 days of
publication of the proposed rule unless the Commission extends the 60-
day period for good cause and publishes its reasons for the extension
in the Federal Register.
Executive Order No. 12662, which implements the United States-
Canada Free-Trade Implementation Act, provides that publication of
standards-related measures shall ordinarily be at least 75 days before
the comment due date. Accordingly, the Commission provided a comment
period of 75 days for this proposal.
After the comment period ends, the CPSC's staff will need to
prepare draft responses to the comments, along with a draft regulatory
analysis and either a draft regulatory flexibility analysis or a draft
finding of no substantial impact on a significant number of small
entities. Then the staff will prepare a briefing package for the
Commission. The Commission is likely to then be briefed, and will later
vote on whether to issue a final rule. The Commission expects that this
additional work will take about 9 months. Accordingly, the Commission
extends the time by which it must either issue a final rule or withdraw
the NPR until June 30, 1999. If necessary, this date may be further
extended.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1212
Consumer protection, Fire prevention, Hazardous materials, Infants
and children, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Multi-purpose lighters.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend Title 16, Chapter II, Subchapter B, of the Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below.
1. A new part 1212 is added to read as follows:
PART 1212--SAFETY STANDARD FOR MULTI-PURPOSE LIGHTERS
Subpart A--Requirements for Child-Resistance
Sec.
1212.1 Scope and application.
1212.2 Definitions.
1212.3 Requirements for multi-purpose lighters.
1212.4 Test protocol.
1212.5 Findings.
Subpart B--Certification Requirements
1212.11 General.
1212.12 Certificate of compliance.
1212.13 Certification tests.
1212.14 Qualification testing.
1212.15 Specifications.
1212.16 Production testing.
1212.17 Recordkeeping and reporting.
1212.18 Refusal of importation.
Subpart C-- Stockpiling
1212.20 Stockpiling.
Subpart A--Requirements for Child-Resistance
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058, 2079(d).
Sec. 1212.1 Scope and application.
This part 1212, a consumer product safety standard, prescribes
requirements for multi-purpose lighters. These requirements are
intended to make the multi-purpose lighters subject to the standard's
provisions resistant to successful operation by children younger than 5
years of age. This standard applies to all multi-purpose lighters, as
defined in Sec. 1212.2, that are manufactured or imported after the
date that is 12 months after publication of a final rule in the Federal
Register.
Sec. 1212.2 Definitions.
As used in this part 1212:
(a)(1) Multi-purpose lighter, (also known as grill lighter,
fireplace lighter, utility lighter, micro-torch, or gas match) means: A
hand-held, self-igniting, flame-producing product that operates on fuel
and is used by consumers to ignite items such as candles, fuel for
fireplaces, charcoal or gas-fired grills, camp fires, camp stoves,
lanterns, fuel-fired appliances or devices, or pilot lights, or for
uses such as soldering or brazing.
(2) The following products are not multi-purpose lighters:
(i) Devices intended primarily for igniting smoking materials that
are within the definition of ``lighter'' in the safety standard for
cigarette lighters (16 CFR 1210.2(c)).
(ii) Devices containing more than 10 oz. of fuel.
(iii) Matches.
(b) Successful operation means one signal of any duration from a
surrogate multi-purpose lighter within either of the two 5-minute test
periods specified in Sec. 1212.4(f).
(c) ``Surrogate multi-purpose lighter'' means a device that
approximates the appearance, size, shape, and weight of, and is
identical in all other factors that affect child resistance (including
operation and the force(s) required for operation), within reasonable
manufacturing tolerances, to, a multi-purpose lighter intended for use
by consumers, has no fuel, does not produce a flame, and produces an
audible, or audible and visual, signal that will be clearly discernible
when the surrogate multi-purpose lighter is activated in each manner
that would produce a flame in a fueled production multi-purpose
lighter. (This definition does not require a multi-purpose lighter
[[Page 52416]]
to be modified with electronics or the like to produce a signal.
Manufacturers may use a multi-purpose lighter without fuel as a
surrogate multi-purpose lighter if a distinct audible signal, such as a
``click,'' can be heard clearly when the mechanism is operated in each
manner that would produce a flame in a production lighter and if a
flame cannot be produced in a production multi-purpose lighter without
the signal. But see Sec. 1212.4(f)(1).)
(d) Child-resistant mechanism means the mechanism of a multi-
purpose lighter that makes the lighter resist successful operation by
young children, as specified in Sec. 1212.3.
(e) Model means one or more multi-purpose lighters from the same
manufacturer or importer that do not differ in design or other
characteristics in any manner that may affect child resistance. Lighter
characteristics that may affect child resistance include, but are not
limited to, size, shape, case material, and ignition mechanism
(including child-resistant features).
Sec. 1212.3 Requirements for multi-purpose lighters.
(a) A multi-purpose lighter subject to this part 1212 shall be
resistant to successful operation by at least 85 percent of the child-
test panel when tested in the manner prescribed by Sec. 1212.4.
(b) A multi-purpose lighter must:
(1) allow multiple operations of the ignition mechanism (with fuel
flow) without further operation of the child-resistant mechanism,
unless the lighter requires only one motion to both:
(i) Overcome the child-resistant mechanism and
(ii) Ignite the fuel,
(2) Not allow the lighter to remain lit after the user has let go
unless an additional manual operation is performed after the lighter is
lit,
(3) Return automatically to the child-resistant condition either:
(i) When or before the user lets go of the lighter or
(ii) For multi-purpose lighters that remain lit after the users
have let go, when or before the user lets go of the lighter after
turning off the flame,
(4) Operate safely when used in a normal and convenient manner,
(5) Comply with this Sec. 1212.3 for the reasonably expected life
of the lighter, and
(6) Not be capable of having its child-resistant mechanism easily
deactivated or prevented from complying with this Sec. 1212.3.
Sec. 1212.4 Test protocol.
(a) Child test panel. (1) The test to determine if a multi-purpose
lighter is resistant to successful operation by children uses a panel
of children to test a surrogate multi-purpose lighter representing the
production multi-purpose lighter. Written informed consent shall be
obtained from a parent or legal guardian of a child before the child
participates in the test.
(2) The test shall be conducted using at least one, but no more
than two, 100-child test panels in accordance with the provisions of
Sec. 1212.4(f).
(3) The children for the test panel shall live within the United
States.
(4) The age and sex distribution of each 100-child panel shall be:
(i) 30 2 children (20 1 males; 10
1 females) 42 through 44 months old;
(ii) 40 2 children (26 1 males; 14
1 females) 45 through 48 months old;
(iii) 30 2 children (20 1 males; 10
1 females) 49 through 51 months old.
Note: To calculate a child's age in months: Subtract the child's
birth date from the test date. The following calculation shows how
to determine the age of the child at the time of the test. Both
dates are expressed numerically as Month-Day-Year.
Example: Test Date (e.g., 8/3/94) minus Birth Date--(e.g., 6/23/
90). Subtract the number for the year of birth from the number for
the year of the test (i.e., 94 minus 90 = 4). Multiply the
difference in years by 12 months (i.e., 4 years x 12 months = 48
months). Subtract the number for the month of the birth date from
the number of the month of the test date (i.e., 8 minus 6 = 2
months). Add the difference in months obtained above to the number
of months represented by the difference in years described above (48
months + 2 months = 50 months). If the difference in days is greater
than 15 (e.g., 16, 17 * * * ), add 1 month. If the difference in
days is less than -15 (e.g., -16, -17), subtract 1 month (e.g., 50
months - 1 month = 49 months). If the difference in days is between
-15 and 15 (e.g., -15, -14, * * * 14, 15), do not add or subtract a
month.
(5) No child with a permanent or temporary illness, injury, or
handicap that would interfere with the child's ability to operate the
surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be selected for participation.
(6) Two children at a time shall participate in testing of
surrogate multi-purpose lighters. Extra children whose results will not
be counted in the test may be used if necessary to provide the required
partner for test subjects, if the extra children are within the
required age range and a parent or guardian of each such child has
signed a consent form.
(7) No child shall participate in more than one test panel or test
more than one surrogate multi-purpose lighter. No child shall
participate in both surrogate multi-purpose lighter testing and either
surrogate cigarette lighter testing or child-resistant package testing
on the same day.
(b) Test sites, environment, and adult testers. (1) Surrogate
multi-purpose lighters shall be tested within the United States at 5 or
more test sites throughout the geographical area for each 100-child
panel if the sites are the customary nursery schools or day care
centers of the participating children. No more than 20 children shall
be tested at each site. In the alternative, surrogate multi-purpose
lighters may be tested within the United States at one or more central
locations, provided the participating children are drawn from a variety
of geographical locations.
(2) Testing of surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall be conducted
in a room that is familiar to the children on the test panel (for
example, a room the children frequent at their customary nursery school
or day care center). If the testing is conducted in a room that
initially is unfamiliar to the children (for example, a room at a
central location), the tester shall allow at least 5 minutes for the
children to become accustomed to the new environment before starting
the test. The area in which the testing is conducted shall be well-
lighted and isolated from distractions. The children shall be allowed
freedom of movement to work with their surrogate multi-purpose
lighters, as long as the tester can watch both children at the same
time. Two children at a time shall participate in testing of surrogate
multi-purpose lighters. The children shall be seated side by side in
chairs approximately 6 inches apart, across a table from the tester.
The table shall be normal table height for the children, so that they
can sit up at the table with their legs underneath and so that their
arms will be at a comfortable height when on top of the table. The
children's chairs shall be ``child size.''
(3) Each tester shall be at least 18 years old. Five or 6 adult
testers shall be used for each 100-child test panel. Each tester shall
test an approximately equal number of children from the 100-child test
panel (20 2 children each for 5 testers and 17
2 children each for 6 testers).
Note: When a test is initiated with five testers and one tester
drops out, a sixth tester may be added to complete the testing. When
a test is initiated with six testers and one tester drops out, the
test shall be completed using the five remaining testers. When a
tester drops out, the requirement for each tester to test an
approximately equal number of children does not apply to that
tester. When testing is initiated with five testers, no tester shall
test more than 19 children until
[[Page 52417]]
it is certain that the test can be completed with five testers.
(c) Surrogate multi-purpose lighters. (1) Six surrogate multi-
purpose lighters shall be used for each 100-child panel. The six multi-
purpose lighters shall represent the range of forces required for
operation of multi-purpose lighters intended for use. All of these
surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall have the same visual appearance,
including color. The surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall be labeled
with sequential numbers beginning with the number one. The same six
surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall be used for the entire 100-child
panel. The surrogate multi-purpose lighters may be used in more than
one 100-child panel test. The surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall
not be damaged or jarred during storage or transportation. The
surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall not be exposed to extreme heat
or cold. The surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall be tested at room
temperature. No surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be left
unattended.
(2) Each surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be tested by an
approximately equal number of children in a 100-child test panel (17
2 children).
Note: If a surrogate multi-purpose lighter is permanently
damaged, testing shall continue with the remaining multi-purpose
lighters. When a multi-purpose lighter is dropped out, the
requirement that each multi-purpose lighter be tested by an
approximately equal number of children does not apply to that
lighter.
(3) Before each 100-child panel is tested, each surrogate multi-
purpose lighter shall be examined to verify that it approximates the
appearance, size, shape, and weight of a production multi-purpose
lighter intended for use.
(4) Before and after each 100-child panel is tested, force
measurements shall be taken on all operating components that could
affect child resistance to verify that they are within reasonable
operating tolerances for the corresponding production multi-purpose
lighter.
(5) Before and after testing surrogate multi-purpose lighters with
each child, each surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be operated
outside the presence of any child participating in the test to verify
that the surrogate multi-purpose lighters produce a signal. If the
surrogate multi-purpose lighter will not produce a signal before the
test, it shall be repaired before it is used in testing. If the
surrogate multi-purpose lighter does not produce a signal when it is
operated after the test, the results for the preceding test with that
multi-purpose lighter shall be eliminated. An explanation shall be
recorded on the data collection record. The multi-purpose lighter shall
be repaired and tested with another eligible child (as one of a pair of
children) to complete the test panel.
(d) Encouragement. (1) Prior to the test, the tester shall talk to
the children in a normal and friendly tone to make them feel at ease
and to gain their confidence.
(2) The tester shall tell the children that he or she needs their
help for a special job. The children shall not be promised a reward of
any kind for participating, and shall not be told that the test is a
game or contest or that it is fun.
(3) The tester shall not discourage a child from attempting to
operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter at any time (either
verbally or with body language such as facial expressions), unless a
child is in danger of hurting himself or another child. The tester
shall not discuss the dangers of multi-purpose lighters or matches with
the children to be tested prior to the end of the 10-minute test.
(4) Whenever a child has stopped attempting to operate the
surrogate multi-purpose lighter for a period of approximately one
minute, the tester shall encourage the child to try by saying ``keep
trying for just a little longer.''
(5) Whenever a child says that his or her parent, grandparent,
guardian, etc., said never to touch lighters, say ``that's right--never
touch a real lighter--but your [parent, etc.] said it was OK for you to
try to make a noise with this special lighter because it can't hurt
you.''
(6) The children in a pair being tested may encourage each other to
operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter and may tell or show each
other how to operate it. (This interaction is not considered to be
disruption as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.) However,
neither child shall be allowed to touch or operate the other child's
multi-purpose lighter. If one child takes the other child's surrogate
multi-purpose lighter, that surrogate lighter shall be immediately
returned to the proper child. If this occurs, the tester shall say
``No. He(she) has to try to do it himself(herself).''
(e) Children who refuse to participate. (1) If a child becomes
upset or afraid, and cannot be reassured before the test starts, select
another eligible child for participation in that pair.
(2) If a child disrupts the participation of another child for more
than 1 minute during the test, the test shall be stopped and both
children eliminated from the results. An explanation shall be recorded
on the data collection record. These two children should be replaced
with other eligible children to complete the test panel.
(3) If a child is not disruptive but refuses to attempt to operate
the surrogate multi-purpose lighter throughout the entire test period,
that child shall be eliminated from the test results and an explanation
shall be recorded on the data collection record. The child shall be
replaced with another eligible child (as one of a pair of children) to
complete the test panel.
(f) Test procedure. (1) To begin the test, the tester shall say ``I
have a special multi-purpose lighter that will not make a flame. It
makes a noise like this.'' Except where doing so would block the
child's view of a visual signal, the adult tester shall place a 8\1/2\
by 11 inch sheet of cardboard or other rigid opaque material upright on
the table in front of the surrogate multi purpose lighter, so that the
surrogate multi-purpose lighter cannot be seen by the child, and shall
operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter once to produce its signal.
The tester shall say ``Your parents said it is OK for you to try to
make that noise with your lighter.'' The tester shall place a surrogate
multi-purpose lighter in each child's hand and say ``now you try to
make a noise with your lighter. Keep trying until I tell you to stop.''
Note: For multi-purpose lighters with an ``off/on'' switch, the
surrogate lighter shall be given to the child with the switch in the
``off,'' or locked, position.
(2) The adult tester shall observe the children for 5 minutes to
determine if either or both of the children can successfully operate
the surrogate multi-purpose lighter by producing one signal of any
duration. If a child achieves a spark without defeating the child-
resistant feature, say ``that's a spark--it won't hurt you--try to make
a noise with your lighter.'' If any child successfully operates the
surrogate multi-purpose lighter during this first 5-minute period, the
lighter shall be taken from that child and the child shall not be asked
to try to operate the lighter again. The tester shall ask the
successful child to remain until the other child is finished.
(3) If either or both of the children are unable to successfully
operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter during the 5-minute period
specified in Sec. 1212.4(f)(3), the adult tester shall demonstrate the
operation of the surrogate multi-purpose lighter. To conduct the
demonstration, secure the children's full attention by saying ``Okay,
give me your lighter(s) now.''
[[Page 52418]]
Take the surrogate multi-purpose lighters and place them on the table
in front of you out of the children's reach. Then say, ``I'll show you
how to make the noise with your lighters. First I'll show you with
(child's name) lighter and then I'll show you with (child's name)
lighter.'' Pick up the first child's surrogate multi-purpose lighter.
Hold the lighter approximately 2 feet in front of the children at their
eye level. Hold the surrogate multi-purpose lighter in a vertical
position in one hand with the child-resistant feature exposed (not
covered by fingers, thumb, etc.). Orient the child-resistant mechanism
on the multi-purpose lighter toward the children. (This may require a
change in your orientation to the children such as sitting sideways in
the chair to allow a normal hand position for holding the multi-purpose
lighter while assuring that both children have a clear view of the
mechanism. You may also need to reposition your chair so your hand is
centered between the children.) Say ``now watch the lighter.'' Look at
each child to verify that they are looking at the lighter. Operate the
multi-purpose lighter one time in a normal manner according to the
manufacturer's instructions. Do not exaggerate operating movements. Do
not verbally describe the lighter's operation. Place the first child's
lighter back on the table in front of you and pick up the second
child's lighter. Say, ``Okay, now watch this lighter.'' Repeat the
demonstration as described above using the second child's multi-purpose
lighter. Notes: The demonstration is conducted with each child's
lighter, even if one child has successfully operated the lighter.
Testers shall be trained to conduct the demonstration in a uniform
manner, including the words spoken to the children, the way the multi-
purpose lighter is held and operated, and how the tester's hand and
body is oriented to the children. All testers must be able to operate
the surrogate multi-purpose lighters using only appropriate operating
movements in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If any of
these requirements are not met during the demonstration for any pair of
children, the results for that pair of children shall be eliminated
from the test. Another pair of eligible children shall be used to
complete the test panel.
(4) Each child who fails to successfully operate the surrogate
multi-purpose lighter in the first 5 minutes is then given another 5
minutes in which to attempt to complete the successful operation of the
surrogate multi-purpose lighter. After the demonstrations, give the
same surrogate multi-purpose lighter back to each child who did not
successfully operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter in the first 5
minutes by placing the multi-purpose lighter in the child's hand. Say
``Okay, now you try to make the noise with your lighter(s)--keep trying
until I tell you to stop.'' If any child successfully operates the
surrogate multi-purpose lighter during this period, the surrogate
multi-purpose lighter shall be taken from that child and the child
shall not be asked to try to operate the lighter again. If the other
child has not yet successfully operated the surrogate multi-purpose
lighter, the tester shall ask the successful child to remain until the
other child is finished.
Note: Multi-purpose lighters having an on/off switch shall have
the switch returned to the position the child left it at the first
5-minute test period before returning the lighter to the child.
(5) At the end of the second 5-minute test period, take the
surrogate multi-purpose lighter from any child who has not successfully
operated it.
(6) After the test is over, ask the children to stand next to you.
Look at the children's faces and say: ``These are special lighters that
don't make fire. Real lighters can burn you. Will you both promise me
that if you find a real lighter you won't touch it and that you'll tell
a grownup right away?'' Wait for an affirmative response from each
child; then thank the children for helping.
(7) Escort the children out of the room used for testing.
(8) After a child has participated in the testing of a surrogate
multi-purpose lighter, and on the same day, provide written notice of
that fact to the child's parent or guardian. This notification may be
in the form of a letter provided to the school to be given to a parent
or guardian of each child. The notification shall state that the child
participated, shall ask the parent or guardian to warn the child not to
play with matches or lighters, and shall remind the parent or guardian
to keep all lighters and matches, whether child-resistant or not, out
of the reach of children. For children who operated the surrogate
multi-purpose lighter, the notification shall state that the child was
able to operate the child-resistant multi-purpose lighter. For children
who do not defeat the child-resistant feature, the notification shall
state that, although the child did not defeat the child-resistant
feature, the child may be able to do so in the future.
(g) Data collection and recording. Except for recording the times
required for the children to activate the signal, recording of data
should be avoided while the children are trying to operate the multi-
purpose lighters, so that the tester's full attention is on the
children during the test period. If actual testing is videotaped, the
camera shall be stationary and shall be operated remotely in order to
avoid distracting the children. Any photographs shall be taken after
actual testing and shall simulate actual test procedure(s) (for
example, the demonstration). The following data shall be collected and
recorded for each child in the 100-child test panel:
(1) Sex (male or female).
(2) Date of birth (month, day, year).
(3) Age (in months, to the nearest month).
(4) The number of the multi-purpose lighter tested by that child.
(5) Date of participation in the test (month, day, year).
(6) Location where the test was given (city, state, and the name of
the site).
(7) The name of the tester who conducted the test.
(8) The elapsed time at which the child achieved any operation of
the surrogate signal in the first 5-minute test period.
(9) The elapsed time at which the child achieved any operation of
the surrogate signal in the second 5-minute test period.
(10) For a single pair of children from each 100-child test panel,
photograph(s) or video tape to show how the multi-purpose lighter was
held in the tester's hand, and the orientation of the tester's body and
hand to the children, during the demonstration.
(h) Evaluation of test results and acceptance criterion. To
determine whether a surrogate multi-purpose lighter resists operation
by at least 85 percent of the children, sequential panels of 100
children each, up to a maximum of 2 panels, shall be tested as
prescribed below.
(1) If no more than 10 children in the first 100-child test panel
successfully operated the surrogate multi-purpose lighter, the multi-
purpose lighter represented by the surrogate multi-purpose lighter
shall be considered to be resistant to successful operation by at least
85 percent of the child test panel, and no further testing is
conducted. If 11 through 18 children in the first 100-child test panel
successfully operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter, the test
results are inconclusive, and the surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall
be tested with a second 100-child test panel in accordance with this
Sec. 1212.4. If 19 or more of the children in the first 100-child test
panel successfully operated the surrogate multi-purpose lighter, the
lighter represented by the
[[Page 52419]]
surrogate shall be considered not resistant to successful operation by
at least 85 percent of the child test panel, and no further testing is
conducted.
(2) If additional testing of the surrogate multi-purpose lighter is
required by paragraph (h)(1) of this section, conduct the test
specified by this Sec. 1212.4 using a second 100-child test panel and
record the results. If a total of no more than 30 of the children in
the combined first and second 100-child test panels successfully
operated the surrogate multi-purpose lighter, the multi-purpose lighter
represented by the surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be considered
resistant to successful operation by at least 85 percent of the child
test panel, and no further testing is performed. If a total of 31 or
more children in the combined first and second 100-child test panels
successfully operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter, the multi-
purpose lighter represented by the surrogate shall be considered not
resistant to successful operation by 85 percent of the child test
panel, and no further testing is conducted. Thus, for the first panel
of 100 children, the surrogate passes if there are 0-10 successful
operations by the children; the surrogate fails if there are 19 or
greater successful operations; and testing is continued if there are
11-18 successes. If testing is continued with a second panel of
children, the surrogate passes if the combined total of the successful
operations of the two panels is 30 or less, and it fails if there are
31 or more.
Sec. 1212.5 Findings.
Section 9(f) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058(f))
requires the Commission to make findings concerning the following
topics and to include the findings in the rule.
(a) The degree and nature of the risk of injury the rule is
designed to eliminate or reduce. The standard is designed to reduce the
risk of death and injury from accidental fires started by children
playing with multi-purpose lighters. The CPSC's staff has identified
178 fires that occurred between January 1988 and August 6, 1998, that
were started by children under age 5 playing with multi-purpose
lighters. These fires resulted in a total of 29 deaths and 71 injuries.
Fire-related injuries include thermal burns--many of high severity--as
well as anoxia and other, less serious injuries. The annual cost of
these fires, which averaged about $34.4 million per year during 1996-
1997, are now estimated to exceed $35 million annually. This is based
on increases in the sales and use of multi-purpose lighters in recent
years. Because these data are from known fires rather than national
estimates, the extent of the total problem may be greater. Fires
started by children under age 5 are those which the standard would most
effectively reduce.
(b) The approximate number of consumer products, or types or
classes thereof, subject to the rule. The standard covers certain
flame-producing devices, commonly known as multi-purpose lighters, that
are defined in Sec. 1212.2(a) of this part 1212. This definition
includes products that are referred to as micro-torches. Multi-purpose
lighters may use any fuel and may be refillable or nonrefillable. Over
20 million multi-purpose lighters are expected to be sold to consumers
in the U.S. during 1998. Multi-purpose lighters manufactured after
[insert date that is 1 year after publication of a final rule] will be
required to meet child-resistance requirements.
(c) The need of the public for the consumer products subject to the
rule, and the probable effect of the rule on the utility, cost, or
availability of such products to meet such need. Consumers use multi-
purpose lighters primarily to ignite items such as candles, fuel for
fireplaces, charcoal or gas-fired grills, camp fires, camp stoves,
lanterns, or fuel-fired appliances or devices or their pilot lights.
The following products are not multi-purpose lighters: devices,
intended primarily for igniting smoking materials, that are within the
definition of ``lighter'' in the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters
(16 CFR 1210.2(c)); devices that contain more than 10 oz. of fuel; and
matches. The standard's requirements should ensure that most children
under 52 months of age cannot operate the lighters.
(1) There will be several types of costs associated with the rule.
Manufacturers would have to devote some resources to the development or
modification of technology to produce child-resistant multi-purpose
lighters. Before being marketed, the lighters must be tested and
certified to the new standard. It is also possible that manufacturing
child-resistant lighters may require more labor or material than non-
child-resistant lighters.
(2) Manufacturers will have to modify their existing multi-purpose
lighters to comply with the rule. In general, costs that manufacturers
would incur in developing, producing, and selling new complying
lighters include the following:
(i) Research and development toward finding the most promising
approaches to improving child resistance, including building prototypes
and surrogate lighters for preliminary child panel testing;
(ii) Retooling and other production equipment changes required to
produce more child-resistant multi-purpose lighters, beyond normal
periodic changes made to the plant and equipment;
(iii) Labor and material costs of the additional assembly steps, or
modification of assembly steps, in the manufacturing process;
(iv) The additional labeling, recordkeeping, certification,
testing, and reporting that will be required for each new model;
(v) Various administrative costs of compliance, such as legal
support and executive time spent at related meetings and activities;
and
(vi) Lost revenue if sales are adversely affected.
(3) Industry sources have not been able to provide firm estimates
of these costs. One major manufacturer has introduced a child-resistant
multi-purpose lighter. However, because that company did not previously
manufacture a non-child-resistant lighter, it was unable to estimate
the incremental cost of developing and manufacturing child-resistant
multi-purpose lighters.
(4) Assuming that there are 15 manufacturers and that each invests
an average of $2 million to develop and market complying lighters, the
total industry cost for research development, retooling, and compliance
testing would be approximately $30 million. If amortized over a period
of 10 years, and assuming a modest 3 percent sales growth each year,
the average of these costs would be about $0.13 per unit.1
For a manufacturer with a large market share (i.e., selling several
million units or more a year) the cost per unit of the development
costs could be lower than the estimated $0.13 per unit, even at the
high end of the estimates. On the other hand, for manufacturers with a
small market share, the per-unit development costs would be greater.
Some manufacturers with small market shares may even drop out of the
market (at least temporarily) or delay entering the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If 20 million lighters are sold in the first year
(approximately the current annual sales volume) and sales increase
at the rate of 3 percent a year (industry sources indicate that they
have been growing at 5 to 10 percent annually), then over a 10-year
period approximately 230 million lighters would be sold. $30
million/230 million = $0.13/unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) In addition to the research, development, retooling, and
testing costs, material and labor costs are likely to increase. For
example, additional
[[Page 52420]]
labor will be required to add the child-resistant mechanism to the
lighter during assembly. Additional materials may also be needed to
produce the child-resistant mechanism. While CPSC was unable to obtain
reliable estimates, some industry sources indicated that they believed
that these costs would be relatively low, probably less than $0.25 per
unit.
(6) Multi-purpose lighters will also be required to have a label
that identifies the manufacturer and the approximate date of
manufacture. However, virtually all products are already labeled in
some way. Since the requirement in the rule allows substantial
flexibility to the manufacturer in terms of things such as color, size,
and location, this requirement is not expected to increase the costs
significantly.
(7) Certification and testing costs include costs of producing
surrogate lighters; conducting child panel tests; and issuing and
maintaining records for each model. The largest component of these
costs is believed to be building surrogates and conducting child panel
tests, which, based on CPSC experience, may cost about $25,000 per
lighter model. Administrative expenses associated with the compliance
and related activities are difficult to quantify, since many such
activities associated with the rule would probably be carried out
anyway and the marginal impact of the recommended rule is probably
slight. Overall, certification, testing, and administrative costs are
expected to add about $0.02 per unit to the cost of producing multi-
purpose lighters. Because of lower sales volume, the per-unit cost for
micro-torches is expected to be higher.
(8) Multi-purpose lighters are sold in countries other than the
United States. Some manufacturers may develop lighters that meet the
requirements of the rule for distribution in the United States, but
continue to distribute the current, non-child-resistant models in other
countries. Thus, some manufacturers may incur the incremental costs
associated with producing multiple lines of similar products. These
costs could include extra administrative costs required to maintain
different lines and the incremental costs of producing different lines
of similar products, such as using different molds or different
assembly steps. These costs would, however, be mitigated if similar or
identical standards were adopted by other countries.
(9) In total, the rule will likely increase the cost of
manufacturing multi-purpose lighters by about $0.40 per unit. The
proposed rule will likely increase the per-unit cost of manufacturing
micro-torches and other high-end multi-purpose lighters by a greater
amount. However the available information is insufficient to make a
reliable estimate of this cost.
(10) At the present time, one manufacturer has about 90 percent of
the market for multi-purpose lighters. The other manufacturers,
importers, and private labelers divide up the remaining 10 percent of
the market. Thus, there is already a very high degree of concentration
in the market. Even so, at least two manufacturers have already entered
the market with models that are believed to meet the requirements of
the rule and at least one other firm is believed to be actively
developing a child-resistant lighter. Therefore, the rule is not
expected to have any significant impact on competition. Moreover, other
firms are expected to enter the market for multi-purpose lighters, and
thereby increase competition, as the market expands. Firms that market
child-resistant multi-purpose lighters before the standard's effective
date may gain an initial competitive advantage. However, any
differential impact is likely to be slight and short-lived. Other
manufacturers can be expected to have child-resistant multi-purpose
lighters developed and ready to market before or soon after the rule
goes into effect.
(11) Impact on consumers. Aside from increased safety, the rule is
likely to affect consumers in two ways. First, the increased cost for
producing the child-resistant models will likely result in higher
retail prices for multi-purpose lighters. Second, the utility derived
from child-resistant lighters may be decreased if complying lighters
are less easy to operate.
(12) Assuming a 100 percent markup over the incremental cost to
manufacturers (estimated at $0.40/unit), the rule may be expected to
increase the retail price of multi-purpose lighters by $0.80 per unit.
The per-unit price increase for micro-torches and other high-end multi-
purpose lighters may be higher due to the smaller numbers of such
lighters produced.
(13) The utility that consumers receive from multi-purpose lighters
may be reduced if the rule makes the lighters more difficult to
operate. This could result in some consumers switching to substitute
products, such as matches. However, as with child-resistant cigarette
lighters, the increased difficulty of operating child-resistant multi-
purpose lighters is expected to be slight. Moreover, even if some
consumers do switch to other products, the risk of fire is not expected
to increase significantly. Most cigarette lighters (one possible
substitute) must already meet the same child-resistant standard as
those applicable to multi-purpose lighters. Although consumers that
switch to matches may increase the risk of child-play fires somewhat,
matches seem to be inherently more child resistant than are non-child-
resistant multi-purpose lighters. Previously, the CPSC determined that
non-child-resistant cigarette lighters were 1.4 times as likely as
matches to be involved in child-play fires and 3.9 times as likely to
be involved in a child-play death. 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.
(14) As previously stated, the total societal costs of fires known
to have been started during 1995 through 1997 by children under age 5
playing with multi-purpose lighters was approximately $103 million, or
$34.4 million per year. This is probably an underestimate, since it
only includes the cases of which CPSC is aware. During the same period,
an estimated 19.4 million multi-purpose lighters were available for use
each year. The societal costs of the fires started by young children
attempting to operate multi-purpose lighters is, therefore, about $1.77
per lighter ($34.4 million 19.4 million lighters). The rule is
expected to reduce this cost by 75 to 84 percent. Therefore, the
expected societal benefit of the rule in terms of reduced fires,
deaths, injuries, and property damage is expected to be $1.33 to $1.49
per complying lighter sold.
(15) As discussed above, the rule may increase the cost of
manufacturing multi-purpose lighters by $0.40 and may increase the
retail prices by as much as $0.80. Therefore, assuming that sales of
multi-purpose lighters remain the same, the net benefit (benefits minus
costs) of the rule to consumers is expected to be at least $0.53 per
unit ($1.33 - $0.80). Based on 1998 sales of approximately 20 million
units per year, the rule would result in an annual net benefit to
consumers as high as $10.6 million (20 million x $0.53) annually. If
sales of multi-purpose lighters continue to increase at current rates
(5 to 10 percent annually), the annual net benefit will also increase
by a similar percentage.
(16) Some multi-purpose lighters, especially the micro-torch type,
have useful lives of greater than one year. Therefore, the gross
benefit of the proposed rule per lighter of this type is computed by
summing the expected annual net benefit (estimated above as
[[Page 52421]]
$1.33 per unit) over the expected life of the lighter. For example, if
a multi-purpose lighter, such as a micro-torch, had an expected useful
life of 10 years the gross benefit would be $11.14 per lighter,
assuming a discount rate of 4 percent. As stated earlier, the costs/
unit for manufacturing these micro-torch type multi-purpose lighters is
likely to be higher. Assuming a markup at retail of 100 percent over
manufacturing costs and a 10-year product life, if the cost per unit to
manufacture child-resistant micro-torches is less than $5.57/unit, net
social benefits would result. However, if the expected useful life of a
micro-torch was only 5 years, the gross benefit would be $6.14/unit.
This would suggest positive net benefits if the per unit manufacturing
costs are less than $3.12 per unit.
(17) The actual level of benefits observed could be higher if some
multi-purpose lighters are stored with the on/off switch in the ``on''
position. If a significant number of consumers commonly store multi-
purpose lighters with the switch on, the effective level of child
resistance of multi-purpose lighters currently in use may be lower than
indicated by CPSC's baseline testing. This would increase the
effectiveness of the rule and the value of the net benefits.
(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. The performance requirements of this part
1212 are based on the Commission's Safety Standard for Cigarette
Lighters, 16 CFR part 1210. In developing that standard, the Commission
considered the potential effects on competition and business practices
of various aspects of the standard, and incorporated some burden-
reducing elements into the standard. One possible alternative to this
mandatory standard would be for the Commission to rely on voluntary
conformance to the requirements of the standard to provide safety to
consumers. The expected level of conformance to a voluntary standard is
uncertain, however. Although some of the largest firms may market some
child-resistant multi-purpose lighters that conform to these
requirements, most firms (possibly including some of the largest)
probably would not. Even under generous assumptions about the level of
voluntary conformance, net benefits to consumers would be substantially
lower under this alternative than under the standard. Thus, the
Commission finds that reliance on voluntary conformance to the
provisions of this part 1212 would not adequately reduce the
unreasonable risk associated with multi-purpose lighters.
(e) The rule (including its effective date) is reasonably necessary
to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk. The Commission's hazard
data and regulatory analysis demonstrate that multi-purpose lighters
covered by the standard pose an unreasonable risk of death and injury
to consumers. The Commission considered a number of alternatives to
address this risk, and believes that the standard strikes the most
reasonable balance between risk reduction benefits and potential costs.
Further, the amount of time before the standard becomes effective (one
year after publication of the final rule) will provide manufacturers
and importers of most products adequate time to design, produce, and
market safer multi-purpose lighters. Thus, the Commission finds that
the standard and its effective date are reasonably necessary to reduce
the risk of fire-related death and injury associated with young
children playing with multi-purpose lighters.
(f) The benefits expected from the rule bear a reasonable
relationship to its costs. The standard will substantially reduce the
number of fire-related deaths, injuries, and property damage associated
with young children playing with multi-purpose lighters. The cost of
these accidents, which is estimated to be greater than $35 million
annually, will also be greatly reduced. The rule is expected to reduce
this societal cost by 75-84 percent, or by greater than $26 million.
The estimated annual costs to the public are expected to be less than
this amount. Therefore, substantial net benefits will accrue to
consumers. Thus, the Commission finds that a reasonable relationship
exists between potential benefits and potential costs of the standard.
(g) The rule imposes the least burdensome requirement which
prevents or adequately reduces the risk of injury for which the rule is
being promulgated. The Commission incorporated a number of features
from the cigarette lighter standard, 16 CFR part 1210, in order to
minimize the potential burden of the rule on industry and consumers.
The Commission also considered alternatives involving different
performance and test requirements and different definitions determining
the scope of coverage among products. The other alternatives considered
generally would be more burdensome to industry and would have higher
costs to consumers. Some less burdensome alternatives would have
lowered the risk-reduction benefits to consumers; none has been
identified that would result in a higher level of safety. A less
stringent acceptance criterion of 80 percent (rather than the
standard's 85 percent) might slightly reduce costs to industry and
consumers. The safety benefits of this alternative, however, would
likely be reduced disproportionately to the potential reduction in
costs. A higher (90 percent) acceptance criterion was also considered.
This higher performance level may not be commercially or technically
feasible for many firms, however. The Commission believes that this
more stringent alternative would have substantial adverse effects on
manufacturing and competition, and would increase costs
disproportionate to benefits. The Commission believes that the
requirement that complying multi-purpose lighters not be operable by at
least 85 percent of children in prescribed tests strikes a reasonable
balance between improved safety for a substantial majority of young
children and other potential fire victims and the potential for adverse
competitive effects and manufacturing disruption. The standard will
become effective 12 months from its date of publication in the Federal
Register. The Commission also considered an effective date of 6 months
after the date of issuance of the final rule. While most multi-purpose
lighters sold in the U.S. could probably be made child-resistant within
6 months, the supply of some imported multi-purpose lighters would be
disrupted. The 12-month period in the standard would minimize this
potential effect, and would allow more time for firms to design,
produce, and import complying multi-purpose lighters. The Commission
estimates that there would be no significant adverse impact on the
overall supply of multi-purpose lighters for the U.S. market.
(h) The promulgation of the rule is in the public interest. As
required by the CPSA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission
considered the potential benefits and costs of the standard and various
alternatives. While certain alternatives to the final rule are
estimated to have net benefits to consumers, they would decrease the
level of safety. Thus, the Commission finds that the standard is in the
public interest.
Subpart B--Certification Requirements
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2063, 2065(b), 2066(g), 2076(e), 2079(d).
Sec. 1212.11 General.
Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C.
[[Page 52422]]
2063(a), requires every manufacturer, private labeler, or importer of a
product that is subject to a consumer product safety standard and that
is distributed in commerce to issue a certificate that such product
conforms to the applicable standard and to base that certificate upon a
test of each item or upon a reasonable testing program. The purpose of
this subpart B of part 1212 is to establish requirements that
manufacturers, importers, and private labelers must follow to certify
that their products comply with the Safety Standard for Multi-purpose
lighters. This Subpart B describes the minimum features of a reasonable
testing program and includes requirements for labeling, recordkeeping,
and reporting pursuant to sections 14, 16(b), 17(g), and 27(e) of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063, 2065(b), 2066(g), and 2076(e).
Sec. 1212.12 Certificate of compliance.
(a) General requirements.--(1) Manufacturers (including importers).
Manufacturers of any multi-purpose lighter subject to the standard must
issue the certificate of compliance required by section 14(a) of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a), and this subpart B, based on a reasonable
testing program or a test of each product, as required by
Secs. 1212.13, 1212.14, and 1212.16. Manufacturers must also label each
multi-purpose lighter subject to the standard as required by paragraph
(c) of this section and keep the records and make the reports required
by Secs. 1212.15 and 1212.17. For purposes of this requirement, an
importer of multi-purpose lighters shall be considered the
``manufacturer.''
(2) Private labelers. Because private labelers necessarily obtain
their products from a manufacturer or importer that is already required
to issue the certificate, private labelers are not required to issue a
certificate. However, private labelers must ensure that the multi-
purpose lighters are labeled in accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section and that any certificate of compliance that is supplied with
each shipping unit of multi-purpose lighters in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section is supplied to any distributor or
retailer who receives the product from the private labeler.
(3) Testing on behalf of importers. If the required testing has
been performed by or for a foreign manufacturer of a product, an
importer may rely on such tests to support the certificate of
compliance, provided that the importer is a resident of the United
States or has a resident agent in the United States and the records are
in English and the records and the surrogate multi-purpose lighters
tested are kept in the United States and can be provided to the
Commission within 48 hours (Sec. 1212.17(a)) or, in the case of
production records, can be provided to the Commission within 7 calendar
days in accordance with Sec. 1212.17(a)(3). The importer is responsible
for ensuring that
(i) The foreign manufacturer's records show that all testing used
to support the certificate of compliance has been performed properly
(Secs. 1212.14-1212.16),
(ii) The records provide a reasonable assurance that all multi-
purpose lighters imported comply with the standard
(Sec. 1212.13(b)(1)),
(iii) The records exist in English (Sec. 1212.17(a)),
(iv) The importer knows where the required records and multi-
purpose lighters are located and that records required to be located in
the United States are located there,
(v) Arrangements have been made so that any records required to be
kept in the United States will be provided to the Commission within 48
hours of a request and any records not kept in the United States will
be provided to the Commission within 7 calendar days (Sec. 1212.17(a)),
and
(vi) The information required by Sec. 1212.17(b) to be provided to
the Commission's Office of Compliance has been provided.
(b) Certificate of compliance. A certificate of compliance must
accompany each shipping unit of the product (for example, a case), or
otherwise be furnished to any distributor or retailer to whom the
product is sold or delivered by the manufacturer, private labeler, or
importer. The certificate shall state:
(1) That the product ``complies with the Consumer Product Safety
Standard for Multi-purpose lighters (16 CFR part 1212)'',
(2) The name and address of the manufacturer or importer issuing
the certificate or of the private labeler, and
(3) The date(s) of manufacture and, if different from the address
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the address of the place of
manufacture.
(c) Labeling. The manufacturer or importer must label each multi-
purpose lighter with the following information, which may be in code.
(1) An identification of the period of time, not to exceed 31 days,
during which the multi-purpose lighter was manufactured.
(2) An identification of the manufacturer of the multi-purpose
lighter, unless the multi-purpose lighter bears a private label. If the
multi-purpose lighter bears a private label, it shall bear a code mark
or other label that will permit the seller of the multi-purpose lighter
to identify the manufacturer to the purchaser upon request.
Sec. 1212.13 Certification tests.
(a) General. As explained in Sec. 1212.11 certificates of
compliance required by section 14(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a),
must be based on a reasonable testing program.
(b) Reasonable testing programs.--(1) Requirements. (i) A
reasonable testing program for multi-purpose lighters is one that
demonstrates with a high degree of assurance that all multi-purpose
lighters manufactured for sale or distributed in commerce will meet the
requirements of the standard, including the requirements of
Sec. 1212.3. Manufacturers and importers shall determine the types and
frequency of testing for their own reasonable testing programs. A
reasonable testing program should be sufficiently stringent that it
will detect any variations in production or performance during the
production interval that would cause any multi-purpose lighters to fail
to meet the requirements of the standard.
(ii) All reasonable testing programs shall include:
(A) Qualification tests, which must be performed on surrogates of
each model of multi-purpose lighter produced, or to be produced, to
demonstrate that the product is capable of passing the tests prescribed
by the standard (see Sec. 1212.14) and
(B) Production tests, which must be performed during appropriate
production intervals as long as the product is being manufactured (see
Sec. 1212.16).
(iii) Corrective action and/or additional testing must be performed
whenever certification tests of samples of the product give results
that do not provide a high degree of assurance that all multi-purpose
lighters manufactured during the applicable production interval will
pass the tests of the standard.
(2) Testing by third parties. At the option of the manufacturer or
importer, some or all of the testing of each multi-purpose lighter or
multi-purpose lighter surrogate may be performed by a commercial
testing laboratory or other third party. However, the manufacturer or
importer must ensure that all certification testing has been properly
performed with passing results and that all records of such tests are
maintained in accordance with Sec. 1212.17.
[[Page 52423]]
Sec. 1212.14 Qualification testing.
(a) Testing. Before any manufacturer or importer of multi-purpose
lighters distributes multi-purpose lighters in commerce in the United
States, surrogate multi-purpose lighters of each model shall be tested
in accordance with Sec. 1212.4, to ensure that all such multi-purpose
lighters comply with the standard. However, if a manufacturer has
tested one model of multi-purpose lighter, and then wishes to
distribute another model of multi-purpose lighter that differs from the
first model only by differences that would not have an adverse effect
on child resistance, the second model need not be tested in accordance
with Sec. 1212.4.
(b) Product modifications. If any changes are made to a product
after initial qualification testing that could adversely affect the
ability of the product to meet the requirements of the standard,
additional qualification tests must be made on surrogates for the
changed product before the changed multi-purpose lighters are
distributed in commerce.
(c) Requalification. If a manufacturer or importer chooses to
requalify a multi-purpose lighter design after it has been in
production, this may be done by following the testing procedures at
Sec. 1212.4.
Sec. 1212.15 Specifications.
(a) Requirement. Before any multi-purpose lighters that are subject
to the standard are distributed in commerce, the manufacturer or
importer shall ensure that the surrogate multi-purpose lighters used
for qualification testing under Sec. 1212.14 are described in a written
product specification. (Section 1212.4(c) requires that six surrogate
multi-purpose lighters be used for testing each 100-child panel.)
(b) Contents of specification. The product specification shall
include the following information:
(1) A complete description of the multi-purpose lighter, including
size, shape, weight, fuel, fuel capacity, ignition mechanism, and
child-resistant features.
(2) A detailed description of all dimensions, force requirements,
or other features that could affect the child-resistance of the multi-
purpose lighter, including the manufacturer's tolerances for each such
dimension or force requirement.
(3) Any further information, including, but not limited to, model
names or numbers, necessary to adequately describe the multi-purpose
lighters and any child-resistant features.
Sec. 1212.16 Production testing.
(a) General. Manufacturers and importers shall test samples of
multi-purpose lighters subject to the standard as they are
manufactured, to demonstrate that the multi-purpose lighters meet the
specifications, required under Sec. 1212.15, of the surrogate that has
been shown by qualification testing to meet the requirements of the
standard.
(b) Types and frequency of testing. Manufacturers, private
labelers, and importers shall determine the types of tests for
production testing. Each production test shall be conducted at a
production interval short enough to provide a high degree of assurance
that, if the samples selected for testing pass the production tests,
all other multi-purpose lighters produced during the interval will meet
the standard.
(c) Test failure.--(1) Sale of multi-purpose lighters. If any test
yields results which indicate that any multi-purpose lighters
manufactured during the production interval may not meet the standard,
production and distribution in commerce of multi-purpose lighters that
may not comply with the standard must cease until it is determined that
the lighters meet the standard or until corrective action is taken. (It
may be necessary to modify the multi-purpose lighters or perform
additional tests to ensure that only complying multi-purpose lighters
are distributed in commerce. Multi-purpose lighters from other
production intervals having test results showing that multi-purpose
lighters from that interval comply with the standard could be produced
and distributed unless there was some reason to believe that they might
not comply with the standard.)
(2) Corrective actions. When any production test fails to provide a
high degree of assurance that all multi-purpose lighters comply with
the standard, corrective action must be taken. Corrective action may
include changes in the manufacturing process, the assembly process, the
equipment used to manufacture the product, or the product's materials
or design. The corrective action must provide a high degree of
assurance that all multi-purpose lighters produced after the corrective
action will comply with the standard. If the corrective action changes
the product from the surrogate used for qualification testing in a
manner that could adversely affect its child-resistance, the multi-
purpose lighter must undergo new qualification tests in accordance with
Sec. 1212.14.
Sec. 1212.17 Recordkeeping and reporting.
(a) Every manufacturer and importer of lighters subject to the
standard shall maintain the following records in English on paper,
microfiche, or similar media and make such records available to any
designated officer or employee of the Commission in accordance with
section 16(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2065(b).
Such records must also be kept in the United States and provided to the
Commission within 48 hours of receipt of a request from any employee of
the Commission, except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
Legible copies of original records may be used to comply with these
requirements.
(1) Records of qualification testing, including a description of
the tests, photograph(s) or a video tape for a single pair of children
from each 100-child test panel to show how the lighter was held in the
tester's hand, and the orientation of the tester's body and hand to the
children, during the demonstration, the dates of the tests, the data
required by Sec. 1212.4(d), the actual surrogate lighters tested, and
the results of the tests, including video tape records, if any. These
records shall be kept for a period of 3 years after the production of
the particular model to which such tests relate has ceased. If
requalification tests are undertaken in accordance with Sec. 1212.14(c)
above, the original qualification test results may be discarded 3 years
after the requalification testing, and the requalification test results
and surrogates, and the other information required in this subsection
for qualifications tests, shall be kept in lieu thereof.
(2) Records of procedures used for production testing required by
this subpart B, including a description of the types of tests conducted
(in sufficient detail that they may be replicated), the production
interval selected, the sampling scheme, and the pass/reject criterion.
These records shall be kept for a period of 3 years after production of
the lighter has ceased.
(3) Records of production testing, including the test results, the
date and location of testing, and records of corrective actions taken,
which in turn includes the specific actions taken to improve the design
or manufacture or to correct any noncomplying lighter, the date the
actions were taken, the test result or failure that triggered the
actions, and the additional actions taken to ensure that the corrective
action had the intended effect. These records shall be kept for a
period of 3 years following the date of testing. Records of production
testing results may be kept
[[Page 52424]]
on paper, microfiche, computer tape, or other retrievable media. Where
records are kept on computer tape or other retrievable media, however,
the records shall be made available to the Commission on paper copies
upon request. A manufacturer or importer of a lighter that is not
manufactured in the United States may maintain the production records
required by this paragraph (a)(3) outside the United States, but shall
make such records available to the Commission in the United States
within 1 week of a request from a Commission employee for access to
those records under section 16(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2065(b).
(4) Records of specifications required under Sec. 1212.15 shall be
kept for 3 years after production of each lighter model has ceased.
(b) Reporting. At least 30 days before it first imports or
distributes in commerce any model of lighter subject to the standard,
every manufacturer and importer must provide a written report to the
Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-
West Highway, Room 610, Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4408. Such report
shall include:
(1) The name, address, and principal place of business of the
manufacturer or importer,
(2) A detailed description of the lighter model and the child-
resistant feature(s) used in that model,
(3) A description of the qualification testing, including a
description of the surrogate lighters tested (including a description
of the point in the operation at which the surrogate will signal
operation--e.g., the distance by which a trigger must be moved), the
specification of the surrogate lighter required by Sec. 1212.15, a
summary of the results of all such tests, the dates the tests were
performed, the location(s) of such tests, and the identity of the
organization that conducted the tests,
(4) An identification of the place or places that the lighters were
or will be manufactured,
(5) The location(s) where the records required to be maintained by
paragraph (a) of this section are kept, and
(6) A prototype or production unit of that lighter model.
(c) Confidentiality. Persons who believe that any information
required to be submitted or made available to the Commission is trade
secret or otherwise confidential shall request that the information be
considered exempt from disclosure by the Commission, in accordance with
16 CFR 1015.18. Requests for confidentiality of records provided to the
Commission will be handled in accordance with section 6(a)(2) of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2055(a)(2), the Freedom of Information Act as amended,
5 U.S.C. 552, and the Commission's regulations under that act, 16 CFR
part 1015.
Sec. 1212.18 Refusal of Importation.
(a) For noncompliance with reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. The Commission has determined that compliance with the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this subpart is necessary
to ensure that lighters comply with this part 1212. Therefore, pursuant
to section 17(g) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2066(g), the Commission may
refuse to permit importation of any lighters with respect to which the
manufacturer or importer has not complied with the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements of this subpart. Since the records are required
to demonstrate that production lighters comply with the specifications
for the surrogate, the Commission may refuse importation of lighters if
production lighters do not comply with the specifications required by
this subpart, or if any other recordkeeping or reporting requirement in
this part is violated.
(b) For noncompliance with this standard or for lack of a
certification certificate. As provided in section 17(a) of the CPSA, 15
U.S.C. 2066(a), products subject to this standard shall be refused
admission into the customs territory of the United States if, among
other reasons, the product either fails to comply with this standard or
is not accompanied by the certificate required by this standard.
Subpart C--Stockpiling
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2), 2065(b), 2079(d).
Sec. 1212.20 Stockpiling.
(a) Definition. Stockpiling means to manufacture or import a
product that is subject to a consumer product safety rule between the
date of issuance of the rule and its effective date at a rate which is
significantly greater than the rate at which such product was produced
or imported during a base period.
(b) Base period. For purposes of this rule, ``base period'' means
the most recent calendar year prior to [insert date of publication of a
final rule in the Federal Register].
(c) Prohibited act. Manufacturers and importers of multi-purpose
lighters shall not manufacture or import such lighters that do not
comply with the requirements of this part between the date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register and the date that
is 365 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register, at a rate that is greater than the rate of production or
importation during the base period plus 20 per cent of that rate.
(d) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. All firms and persons
who make or import multi-purpose lighters, after the date of
publication of this rule, that do not meet the requirements of this
standard, shall supply the Commission's Office of Compliance with:
(1) Supporting information to establish the number of multi-purpose
lighters made or imported during the base period. This information
shall be submitted within 30 days of publication of any final rule.
(2) Supporting information to establish the number of lighters made
or imported during the year following publication of the final rule.
This information shall be submitted within 10 days after the lighters
are shipped.
(3) Supporting information shall be sufficient to identify the
manufacturer or importer, the party to which the lighters were sold,
the destination of the lighters, and shall include copies of relevant
invoices and importation documents.
Dated: September 25, 1998.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-26169 Filed 9-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P