Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 245/Wednesday, December 22 ...

71854 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

1 58 FR 37554. The standard became effective July12, 1994.

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETYCOMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1212

Safety Standard for Multi-PurposeLighters

AGENCY: Consumer Product SafetyCommission.ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission issuesperformance requirements for the childresistance of multi-purpose lighters.These requirements addressunreasonable risks of injury and deathassociated with multi-purpose lightersthat can be operated by children underage 5. Multi-purpose lighters are hand-held flame-producing products thatoperate on fuel and have an ignitionmechanism. They typically are used tolight devices such as charcoal and gasgrills and fireplaces. Devices intendedprimarily for igniting smoking materialsare excluded; many such products arealready subject to a child-resistancestandard at 16 CFR Part 1210.DATES: The rule will become effectiveDecember 22, 2000 and apply to multi-purpose lighters manufactured in theUnited States or imported on or afterthat date.ADDRESSES: Copies of documentsrelevant to this rulemaking can beobtained from the Commission’s Officeof the Secretary, Consumer ProductSafety Commission, Washington DC20207–0001, Telephone (301) 504–0800,fax (301) 504–504–0127, [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Michael Bogumill, Office ofCompliance, Consumer Product SafetyCommission, Washington, D.C. 20207;telephone (301) 504–0477, ext. 1368; e-mail [email protected] INFORMATION:

A. Background1. The product. Multi-purpose lighters

are defined in § 1212.2(a)(1) of the ruleissued below as follows:

(a)(1) Multi-purpose lighter, (alsoknown as grill lighter, fireplace lighter,utility lighter, micro-torch, or gas match,etc.) means: A hand-held, flame-producing product that operates on fuel,incorporates an ignition mechanism,and is used by consumers to ignite itemssuch as candles, fuel for fireplaces,charcoal or gas-fired grills, camp fires,camp stoves, lanterns, fuel-firedappliances or devices, or pilot lights, orfor uses such as soldering or brazing.Some multi-purpose lighters have afeature that allows for hands-freeoperation.

(2) The following products are notmulti-purpose lighters:

(i) Devices intended primarily forigniting cigarettes, cigars, and pipes,whether or not such devices are subjectto the requirements of the SafetyStandard for Cigarette Lighters (16 CFR1210).

(ii) Devices containing more than 10oz. of fuel.

(iii) Matches.Most multi-purpose lighters have an

extended nozzle from which the flameis emitted. The nozzle is typically fourto eight inches in length, but can belonger or shorter. Some multi-purposelighters include a burner that operates ata higher flame temperature than othermulti-purpose lighters. These lightersare sometimes referred to as micro-torches. Most micro-torches do not haveextended nozzles, but have relativelylong, thin, and steady flames that can bedirected to their targets. Some micro-torches may have a control that allowsthe lighter to remain lit after the userlets go of the lighter. This, inconjunction with a stable base or stand,allows hands-free operation of thelighter during operations such assoldering.

Most multi-purpose lighters usebutane fuel. The more expensive multi-purpose lighters are refillable. Many ofthe less expensive Asian imports arealso refillable.

Multi-purpose lighters are operated byapplying pressure to a trigger, button, orsliding mechanism. This action releasesthe fuel and activates a spark at the endof the nozzle that ignites the fuel.Because the fuel must travel from thereservoir, usually located in the handle,to the end of the nozzle, the spark issometimes activated before the fuelreaches the end of the nozzle. When thishappens, the fuel will not be ignited.Users of multi-purpose lighterssometimes have to make more than oneignition attempt before successfullyproducing a flame. Some higher-pricedmulti-purpose lighters overcome thisproblem by using a battery that causesa spark to be continuously generated.This is less of a problem with micro-torch lighters because they do not havea long nozzle.

Most multi-purpose lighters now soldinclude some type of on/off switch.Usually, this is a two-position slider-type switch that must be in the ‘‘on,’’ orunlocked, position before the lighter canbe activated.

2. Procedural background. On July 12,1993, the Commission published aconsumer product safety standard thatrequires disposable and noveltycigarette lighters to have a child-resistant mechanism that makes the

lighters difficult for children under 5years old to operate.1 16 CFR 1210. Thecigarette lighter standard excludeslighters that are primarily intended forigniting materials other than cigarettes,cigars, and pipes.

In February 1996, Judy L. Carrpetitioned the Commission to ‘‘initiateRulemaking Proceedings to amend 16CFR 1210 Safety Standard for CigaretteLighters to include the Scripto TokaiAim ’n FlameTM disposable butane‘multi-purpose’ lighter within the scopeof that standard and its child resistantperformance requirements.’’

On May 7, 1996, the Commissionpublished a Federal Register noticesoliciting comments on topics related toissues raised by the petition. 61 FR20503. After considering the commentsreceived in response to that notice andthe other available information, theCommission granted the petition.

On January 16, 1997, the Commissioncommenced a rulemaking proceeding bypublishing an advance notice ofproposed rulemaking (ANPR) in theFederal Register: 62 FR 2327. TheANPR solicited comments on the risksof injury and death associated withmulti-purpose lighters, the regulatoryalternatives, and the economic impactsof the regulatory alternatives. TheCommission also invited interestedpersons to submit an existing standard,or a statement of intent to modify ordevelop a voluntary standard, to addressthe identified risks.

On January 8, 1998, the Commissionpublished a Federal Register noticeextending the period for issuing a noticeof proposed rulemaking until September30, 1998. 63 FR 1077. This extensionwas required so the staff could completethe technical work necessary for aCommission decision on whether toissue a proposed rule.

On September 30, 1998, theCommission published a notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPR) thatproposed a safety standard to addressthe risk of death and injury associatedwith multi-purpose lighters that couldbe operated by children under age 5. 63FR 52397. This notice extended theperiod for issuing a final rule orwithdrawing the NPR until June 30,1999.

Also on September 30, 1998, theCommission published a FederalRegister notice proposing a rule findingthat it is in the public interest to issuea standard, or take other regulatoryaction on multi-purpose lighters, underthe Consumer Product Safety Act(CPSA). Elsewhere in today’s issue of

VerDate 15-DEC-99 13:06 Dec 21, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\A22DE0.032 pfrm02 PsN: 22DER2

71855Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 245 / Wednesday, December 22, 1999 / Rules and Regulations

the Federal Register, the Commissionissues a final rule, under Section 30(d)of the CPSA, making this determination.

On October 29, 1998, the staff sent acopy of the proposed safety standard,with a cover letter outlining theCommission’s action, to small importersand manufacturers that could be subjectto the standard. The letter invitedinterested parties to submit commentsduring the comment period.

On January 20, 1999, the Commissionmet so interested parties could presentoral comments. Mr. Don Cooke,Attorney at Law; Dr. Carol Pollack-Nelson, President, Independent SafetyConsulting; and Mr. David Baker,General Counsel of the LighterAssociation, Inc. presented oralcomments at that meeting.

On August 4, 1999, the Commissionpublished a Federal Register noticeproposing that the child-panel tests beconducted with the lighter on/off switchin the ‘‘on,’’ or unlocked, position,instead of in the ‘‘off,’’ or locked,position as originally proposed. 64 FR42302. This change in the test procedurewould protect children in situationswhere the users of the lighters do notreturn the switch to the ‘‘off’’ positionafter use. The comment period closedon October 18, 1999. The noticeprovided an opportunity for oralcomments on the proposed change to bepresented on September 15, 1999. TheCommission received one writtencomment and no requests forpresentation of oral comments. Thenotice also extended the time for issuinga final rule or withdrawing the NPRuntil December 31, 1999.

B. Incident DataOverall, the Commission’s staff has

identified a total of 340 fires occurringfrom January 1, 1988, through October15, 1999, that were reportedly started bychildren playing with multi-purposelighters. These fires caused 65 deathsand 138 injuries. For the incidentswhere the age of the fire starter wasknown, children under age 5 ignited 237of these fires, which resulted in 45deaths and 103 injuries. Twenty-eight ofthe 45 fatalities were children youngerthan age 5.

In addition to the fatalities, these firesresulted in severe injuries. Among thefires caused by children younger thanage 5, four surviving children receivedburns over 70% or more of their bodies.These burns will require extensive long-term treatment.

The high proportion of fatalities thatwere children younger than age 5, andthe severity of the injuries, illustrate thehazard associated with children playingwith multi-purpose lighters. Because the

data are incidents reported to CPSCrather than national estimates, the fullextent of the problem may be greater.

Many of the children found the multi-purpose lighters in easily accessiblelocations, such as on kitchen countersor furniture tops. Others, however,obtained the lighters from moreinaccessible locations, such as highshelves or cabinets, where parents triedto hide them.

C. Description of the Final Standard

1. Scope and Definition

Multi-purpose lighters subject to thestandard are also known as grill lighters,fireplace lighters, utility lighters, micro-torches, or gas matches. The rule’sdefinition of multi-purpose lighters isgiven in Section A of this notice. Bothrefillable and non-refillable lighters arecovered, regardless of their cost.

2. Requirements

Most of the provisions of the standardare essentially the same as the SafetyStandard for Cigarette Lighters,including a required child resistance of85%. The child resistance of a multi-purpose lighter would be determined bytests using panels of children. To avoidharming the children in the test panels,the lighters used for the tests aremodified so they will not produce aflame when operated. Rather, thelighters are modified (if necessary) toproduce a signal that can be seen orheard when the lighter is operated in amanner that would produce a flame ina production lighter. The child-resistantmechanism would be required to:operate safely when used in a normaland convenient manner, comply withthe rule’s requirements for thereasonably expected life of the lighter,and not be easily deactivated orprevented from complying with therule’s requirements.

The child-resistant mechanisms inmulti-purpose lighters must resetautomatically, either (1) after eachoperation of the lighter or (2) aftermultiple operations but when or beforethe user lets go of the lighter. Thisdiffers from the Safety Standard forCigarette Lighters, which requires thechild-resistant mechanism to reset aftereach operation. Some multi-purposelighters, however, allow the lighter toremain lit after it is released by the user.This can allow hands-free operationduring operations such as soldering. Toaddress the child-resistance issue withrespect to lighters that have this hands-free feature, the rule contains tworequirements that are not in the cigarettelighter standard.

The first additional requirement(§ 1212.3(b)(2)) will help prevent thedangerous situation where a child whooperates the child-resistant mechanismand lights the lighter could create aflame that would not go out when thelighter is released, even if it is dropped.The rule specifies that, after the lighteris lit, an additional manual operationmust be performed to activate anyfeature that allows the lighter to burnwithout being held by the user.

The second additional requirement isthat a lighter that remains lit after it isreleased need not return automaticallyto the child-resistant condition when itis released. It must automatically reset,however, when or before the user lets goof the lighter after turning off the flame.

3. Recordkeeping and ReportingRequirements

The final standard has recordkeepingand reporting requirements that willallow the staff to ensure that lighterscomply. The standard also requiresmanufacturers and importers to providea certificate of compliance to anydistributor or retailer to whom thelighters are delivered.

4. Anti-Stockpiling Provisions

The final rule contains anti-stockpiling provisions to prohibitexcessive production or importation ofnoncomplying lighters during the 12-month period between the final rule’spublication and its effective date. Theprovision limits the production orimportation of noncomplying productsto 120% of the amount produced orimported in the 1-year period before thepublication of the rule. To help assurecompliance, manufacturers or importersmust provide supporting information toCPSC to establish the number of lightersmade or imported during the baseperiod. They must also report shipmentsof non-child-resistant lighters to CPSCwithin 10 days after the end of eachcalendar month during the anti-stockpiling period.

5. Effective Date

The final rule will become effective[insert date that is 12 months afterpublication] (12 months after it ispublished), and will apply to all multi-purpose lighters manufactured in, orimported into, the United States on orafter that date. Based on its experiencewith the Safety Standard for CigaretteLighters, the Commission concludesthat this will provide firms withsufficient time to design child-resistantmulti-purpose lighters and bring themto market. The Commission is aware ofone such lighter already on the market,



and additional lighters are in the finalstages of development and testing.

D. Statutory Authority for ThisProceeding

Three of the statutes administered bythe Commission have at least somerelevance to the risk posed by non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.These are the Consumer Product SafetyAct (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2051–2084; thePoison Prevention Packaging Act(PPPA), 15 U.S.C. 1471–1476; and theFederal Hazardous Substances Act(FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261–1278. TheCommission has decided to use theauthority of the CPSA to issue thestandard for the child resistance ofmulti-purpose lighters. A fullexplanation of the Commission’sreasons for that decision is published inthis issue of the Federal Register in anotice, under Section 30(d) of the CPSA,that issues a rule determining that it isin the public interest to regulate thisrisk under the CPSA, rather than theFHSA or the PPPA. 15 U.S.C. 2079(d).

E. Discussion of Comments on theProposed Standard

The Commission received 23 writtencomments on the proposed standard.Three individuals presented oralcomments to the Commission onJanuary 20, 1999. Copies of allcomments and a transcript of theJanuary 20, 1999, public hearing areavailable from the Office of theSecretary. The major issues raised in thecomments and the Commission’sresponses are discussed in this section.

Overall Description of CommentsThe American Academy of Pediatrics

wrote in support of the Commission’saction to require multi-purpose lightersto be child-resistant, stating that inaddition to the quantitative benefits, therule will reduce the pain and heartachethat result from the death and injurycaused by children playing with multi-purpose lighters.

The Executive Director of the NationalFire Protection Association Center forHigh-Risk Outreach wrote in support ofCPSC’s efforts to reduce the number ofdeaths and injuries associated withchildren playing with fires. She statedthat preschool age children are at morethan twice the risk of fire death than thepopulation at large. She alsocommented on the August 4, 1999,Federal Register notice that proposed achange to the test protocol.

Douglas Lant, Chairman of the BritishStandards Institute TechnicalCommittee on Matches and Lighters,wrote in support of the Commission’saction. He stated that the European

Standards Organization (CEN) wasconsidering improvements to theLighter Standard for Europe, includingrequirements for child-resistance.

The Chairman of the Coalition forConsumer Health & Safety wrote to urgethe Commission to publish a final ruleon multi-purpose lighters. Thisorganization is a partnership ofconsumer, health, and insurer groupsworking to educate the public and toidentify and promote policy solutions toa broad range of health and safetythreats.

The Lighter Association, Inc. (LighterAssociation), and several member firms,BIC Corporation (BIC), The ColibriGroup, Scripto-Tokai Corporation(Scripto), Zippo ManufacturingCompany (Zippo), and Swedish Match,wrote in general support of child-resistance for multi-purpose lighters butrequested that the Commission addresscertain concerns about the definitionand requirements for multi-purposelighters (discussed below).

Several small firms, Donel, Inc.(Donel), SNC Group, and ZelcoIndustries, Inc. (Zelco), commented thata standard for multi-purpose lighterswould have adverse impacts on smallbusinesses because of the expense ofdeveloping and certifying a child-resistant design and because somemanufacturers have already applied for,or obtained, broad patents that limit thenumber of design options. These firmsasked the Commission for relief, eitherin the form of funding to offset theirdevelopment and testing expenses or inthe form of an extension of the effectivedate of the rule.

Blazer Corporation, a company thatspecializes in the distribution of micro-torches, wrote that it agrees in principlethat lighters likely to be handled bychildren should be child-resistant. Italso expressed concern that thedefinition of multi-purpose lighterswould include micro-torches used byprofessionals.

Vinson & Elkins, the law firm thatfiled the original petition on behalf ofJudy L. Carr, and four other law firms,Joseph P. Moschetta and Associates,McDermott and Hansen, Don Cooke,and Sugarman and Sugarman, P.C.,provided information on incidentsinvolving multi-purpose lighters. Mr.Cooke appeared before the Commissionat the January 20, 1999, meeting topresent information about a fire startedby a two-year-old boy with a multi-purpose lighter that resulted in thedeath of the child and his mother.Another 4-year-old child was severelyinjured in the fire.

Independent Safety Consultingpresented comments about children’s

fire knowledge and attraction to fire andlighters, parental perceptions regardingthe hazard and storage of lighters,parental supervision, and theappropriateness of a warning label as ahazard avoidance strategy.

Ms. Lorraine Daly and Ms. EveMallett, both consumers, questioned theneed for child resistance for products inhomes without small children.

Milford Consulting Associates, atesting agency with experience testingchild-resistant packaging, cigarettelighters, and multi-purpose lighters,requested certain changes to theprocedures for evaluating the child-resistance of multi-purpose lighters.

Particular issues that the commentsraised are discussed below.

1. Issue: Effectiveness of the CigaretteLighter Standard

Scripto stated that there areinsufficient data to conclude that theCigarette Lighter Standard has proveneffective in reducing the number ofchild-play fire losses associated withlighters.

Response: National fire loss estimatesshow a reduction in the number ofestimated residential structure firescaused by children playing with alltypes of lighters. This reduction isoccurring in spite of the fact that theseestimates include fires started withmulti-purpose lighters (which are notsubject to a standard) and fires startedby children 5 years old and older (whoare older than the children addressed bychild-resistant features). The estimatednumber of lighter child-play firesdecreased from 10,600 in 1994, the yearthe cigarette lighter standard took effect,to 7,200 in 1996. During the sameperiod, estimated deaths decreased from230 to 130 and estimated injuriesdecreased from 1,560 to 1,090 (Ault, K.,Singh, H., & Smith, L., ‘‘1996Residential Fire Loss Estimates,’’ 10/15/98). Comparing 1996 to 1994, there wasa greater percentage reduction in child-play lighter fires (32%) than thereduction in residential structure firesoverall (5%). The Commission believesthis reduction indicates that child-resistant cigarette lighters are preventingchild-play fires. Because there was alsoa reduction in child-play fires startedwith matches, other factors, such as firesafety education or generalimprovements in fire safety (e.g., use ofsmoke detectors), are also likely to havecontributed to the decrease. However,the reduction for child-play lighter fires(32%) is greater than the reduction forchild-play match fires (21%). TheCommission believes that the availableinformation supports the conclusionthat the Safety Standard for Cigarette



Lighters is effective in reducing child-play fires started by children under age5 with lighters. The Commissionexpects child-play lighter fires tocontinue to decline.

Even if these data were not available,the Commission would be justified inissuing the standard. The Commissionhas estimated the effectiveness of thestandard based on test results withchildren, as it did in issuing thecigarette lighter standard. As discussedin Section H of this notice, the rule isexpected to reduce the number of child-play fires associated with multi-purposelighters by at least 75%.

2. Issue: Relative Risk of InjurySwedish Match commented that the

Commission provided no data to showrelative risk rates between matches andnon-child-resistant multi-purposelighters. Zelco commented that thenumber of fires resulting from matchesis surely higher than those from multi-purpose lighters, yet matches arespecifically excluded from the rule.Scripto recommended that the CPSCvigorously pursue regulatory action onmatches. It stated that the societalbenefits of regulating matches would farexceed those of regulating multi-purpose lighters.

Response: Comparisons betweenchild-play fires with matches and withmulti-purpose lighters are not valid,because they largely involve children ofdifferent age groups. A study of 551juvenile fire setters conducted inPortland, Oregon, found that use ofmatches by children younger than age 5was rare, but was relatively commonamong children of ages 6 to 11 (Porth,1999). This is consistent with thedifferences in motor development forthe two age groups. Using a matchrequires two-hand coordination, acombination of force and precision, andthe control to maintain a flame longenough to light something. These factorsmake it a challenging task for a 3- or 4-year-old child, but much less so forolder children. In short, regulatingmatches would have little impact onchild-play fires involving childrenunder 5. Further, the overlap in theabilities of elementary school childrenand adults makes it impractical tomodify the design of matches so theycannot be used by older children.

In contrast, based on CPSC incidentdata for the period January 1, 1988,through October 15, 1999, about 70percent of the fires started with multi-purpose lighters were started bychildren under 5. These fires could beeffectively reduced by a requirementthat multi-purpose lighters be child-resistant. In baseline testing with

children 42 to 51 months of age, thechild-resistance of current multi-purpose lighters ranged from 4 to 41percent. The standard would increasethe level of child-resistance to aminimum of 85 percent. The feasibilityof making lighters child-resistant, yetacceptable to adults, has beendemonstrated by the experience withthe Safety Standard for CigaretteLighters.

In any event, the fact that theCommission might investigate orregulate other products, which presenttheir own feasibility and cost-benefitissues, does not counsel against actionon multi-purpose lighters.

3. Issue: Definition of Multi-PurposeLighters

a. Exclude high-end multi-purposelighters. Zelco commented that thescope should be narrowed to excludehigher-end multi-purpose lighters.

Response: The Safety Standard forCigarette Lighters excluded luxurylighters (customs or ex-factory valuegreater than $2.00) because they differedfrom disposable cigarette lighters incertain characteristics affecting risk. Thestaff stated that because of their cost,consumers would be less likely to leaveluxury cigarette lighters in householdlocations accessible to young children.

Unlike luxury cigarette lighters, themore expensive multi-purpose lightersare as likely to be involved in child-playfires as the less expensive modelsbecause they are stored and used in thesame manner. In fact, some of the moreexpensive multi-purpose lighters arerelatively large and may be moredifficult to store out of the reach ofchildren. At least one expensive multi-purpose lighter is appropriate fordisplay near the fireplace.

In addition, luxury cigarette lightersoften have unusual ignition mechanismsthat may be difficult for young childrento operate. In the case of multi-purposelighters, most ignition mechanisms aresimilar and easy for young children tooperate. Multi-purpose lighters areactivated by applying pressure to atrigger or button, which initiates fuelflow and causes a spark. Baseline testingindicates that one expensive lighter is aseasy for children to operate as lessexpensive models.

Therefore, the Commission concludesthat excluding the more expensivelighters would reduce the benefits of arule for multi-purpose lighters.

b. Exclude micro-torch lighters. Boththe Lighter Association and SwedishMatch question the inclusion of micro-torch lighters within the scope of therule because they do not considermicro-torches to be comparable to the

grill-type or ‘‘utility’’ multi-purposelighters. The commenters argued thatmicro-torches are more suited for use inactivities such as soldering, welding,heat shrinking, and household repairs.

The Lighter Association, SwedishMatch, and The Colibri Group suggestedthat the term ‘‘micro-torch’’ be deletedin order to prevent lighters primarilyintended for igniting smoking materialsfrom being incorrectly identified asmulti-purpose lighters.

Blazer Corporation, a company thatspecializes in the distribution of micro-torches, expressed concerns that thebroad definition of multi-purposelighter in the proposed rule may beinterpreted to apply to micro-torchproducts used by professionaltradesmen or in industrial settings.

Response: The Commission considersmicro-torches comparable to other typesof multi-purpose lighters. As stated inthe proposal, ‘‘micro-torches’’ aremarketed for multiple purposes thatoverlap those of ‘‘grill’’ or ‘‘utility’’lighters (e.g., lighting fireplaces, campfires, barbecues, camp stoves, etc.). Alltypes of multi-purpose lighters arelikely to be used and stored in the homein locations accessible to youngchildren. For example, there is anincident where a child under the age of5 started a fire with a micro-torch. Itappears the child found the lighter neara gas furnace where it was used to lightthe pilot light.

The Commission clarified thedefinition of multi-purpose lighters tospecifically exclude devices intendedprimarily for igniting smoking materials,whether or not they are subject to therequirements of the Safety Standard forCigarette Lighters.

Regarding Blazer Corporation’sconcern about the application of a safetystandard for micro-torch lighters toproducts used by professionaltradesmen or in industrial settings,products intended and sold only forprofessional or industrial use would notbe subject to a rule promulgated underthe CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). If,however, a particular micro-torch modelwas advertised in general-circulationmedia (e.g., consumer magazines,catalogs, newspapers, televisionprograms, consumer-oriented Internetweb sites, etc.), or was sold in hardwareor other stores open to the generalpublic, it would be considered aconsumer product subject to thestandard. Therefore, if Blazer’s productsare available to consumers, they willneed to comply with the rule.

c. Define multi-purpose lighters on thebasis of length. The Lighter Associationrecommended alternative language thatwould define multi-purpose lighters as



‘‘a hand-held, flame producing device,* * * four inches or greater in lengthwhen in the fully extended position* * *’’ It maintained that the obviousdistinguishing characteristic of a grilllighter is the length of the product,which is designed to ‘‘reach over fire orinto inaccessible places.’’ Zippo alsosupported a dimensional limitation.

Response: The Commission did notuse length to define multi-purposelighters. There are micro-torch designsthat are less than 4 inches long. Thehotter, directional flame of a micro-torch compensates to an extent for itsshorter nozzle, making it useful formany of the same purposes as ‘‘grill’’lighters. CPSC staff members foundmicro-torches convenient to use forlighting a gas grill, a gas stove burner,candles, and a water heater pilot light.Other types of multi-purpose lighterscould also be designed to be under 4inches in length and still be functionallyequivalent to longer lighters.

d. Specify the type of fuel used bymulti-purpose lighters. The LighterAssociation and Zippo supportedincluding only those lighters that use agaseous fuel. Both indicated that it isnot technologically or commerciallyfeasible to create a utility lighter thatuses liquid fuel. The Lighter Associationstates that they believe no liquid-fuelutility lighters are produced anywherein the world and question theCommission’s authority to regulateproducts that do not exist.

Response: As proposed, a multi-purpose lighter was defined as a ‘‘flame-producing product that operates onfuel.’’ There is no reference to anyspecific type of fuel, liquid or otherwise.The Commission concludes that anylighter that is used by consumers toignite items such as candles, fuel forfireplaces, charcoal or gas-fired grills,and the like should be required to bechild-resistant, regardless of the type offuel, since these lighters would allpresent the same risk.

e. Change the words ‘‘self-igniting’’ to‘‘manually operated.’’ The LighterAssociation recommended changing‘‘self-igniting’’ in the definition of multi-purpose lighter to ‘‘manually operatedignition mechanism’’ since the term‘‘self-igniting’’ is not accurate becausesome action is required to ignite alighter.

Response: The Commission agreesthat the term ‘‘self-igniting’’ isimprecise. Therefore, the Commissionrevised the definition of multi-purposelighters in the final rule to read ‘‘Ahand-held, flame-producing productthat operates on fuel [and] incorporatesan ignition mechanism. * * *’’

f. Delete the exclusion for lighterswith more than 10 ounces of fuel. TheLighter Association, BIC, and Scriptoobjected to the exclusion of multi-purpose lighters that contain more than10 ounces of fuel. They question thebasis for this exclusion and expressconcern that an arbitrary cut-off invitesthe introduction of products that willfall outside of the scope of the rule. TheLighter Association and BIC state thatthere should be no limit on the amountof fuel because there are lighterattachments sold without any fuel orfuel reservoir that work with anyquantity of fuel. In support of thisargument, they provided a lighterattachment, with an ignitionmechanism, that accommodates a 14.1ounce propane cylinder.

Response: The final rule continues toexclude lighters that contain more than10 ounces of fuel. As the LighterAssociation recognized in its comments,this provision’s purpose is todistinguish multi-purpose lighters fromlarge propane torches, which are alsoused for soldering and brazing. Mostmulti-purpose lighters contain less than2 ounces of fuel. A lighter with a fuelcapacity of more than 10 ounces wouldbe quite large—on the order of 3 inchesin diameter by 7 inches high. Such alighter would not be convenient for thetypical uses of the lighters within thescope of the final rule. Therefore, suchlighters would not likely be stored inthe same locations as the smallerlighters that have been involved inchild-play fires, and thus may notpresent the same risks.

A lighter mechanism designed toaccommodate a fuel cylinder with acapacity of 10 ounces or less wouldclearly be subject to the requirements ofthe final rule. The mechanism cannotfunction as a multi-purpose lighterwithout a fuel source being attached.This is true whether the attachment issold with or without a fuel cylinder. Forexample, there are currently micro-torchmulti-purpose lighters that utilizedisposable butane cigarette lighters asthe fuel source. Some of these micro-torches are sold with the cigarettelighter and some are sold without thecigarette lighter. Both products wouldbe subject to the requirements for child-resistance.

4. Issue: The Proposal to RequireMultiple Operation Capability is Design-Restrictive

The Lighter Association, BIC, Scripto,Zippo, Swedish Match, and SNC Groupstrongly opposed the requirement that amulti-purpose lighter must allowmultiple operations of the ignitionmechanism (§ 1212.3 (b)). They

characterize this provision as a designrequirement that would reducecompetition by narrowing the scope ofcomplying designs and would result inwasteful patent disputes. The LighterAssociation and SNC Group indicatethat, as proposed, this requirementessentially mandates a design that iscurrently marketed by a singlecompany. BIC reported that they havepatent applications pending in theUnited States and in countries aroundthe world for a multi-purpose lighterthat allows for multiple operations ofthe ignition mechanism. BICcommented that finalizing therequirement as proposed would invitemultiple patent infringement suits andseverely hinder the design andimplementation of creative child-resistant mechanisms. Scripto provideda test method for evaluating the lightingreliability of a lighter. The LighterAssociation proposed alternativelanguage that they believe would notlimit design options.

Response: The Commissionacknowledges that the multiple-operation requirement is designrestrictive. For example, designs forchild-resistant lighters that did notincrease the risk of flashback hazardbecause they had a high degree oflighting efficiency and would light onthe first try, but did not allow formultiple operations of the ignitionmechanism, would not have beenallowed.

The Commission proposed therequirement for multiple operations inresponse to a concern raised by Scriptoand the Lighter Association that addinga child-resistant feature that resets aftereach operation of the ignitionmechanism would create the potentialfor flashback in situations such asigniting a gas grill. Flashback in thiscontext is the sudden ignition of excessfuel that has accumulated while the useris trying to light the device to be usedto ignite the fuel. This is largely due tothe inherent unreliability of some multi-purpose lighters to ignite with eachoperation of the ignition mechanism.With designs that allow multipleoperation attempts before the child-resistant mechanism resets, the lightingefficiency of a child-resistant multi-purpose lighter should be essentially thesame as that of the non-child-resistantlighters currently in use. Scripto’ssuggested lighting efficiency test wasrejected because of insufficient data toshow that the test represented theconditions under which consumerswould use the lighters.

The central issues concerning this riskof flashback are:



1. Would a child-resistant mechanismthat resets after each operation, and thusmust be manipulated again beforeanother ignition attempt can be made,delay successful ignition of a gasappliance to the extent that a flashbackwould result when the lighter finallyignites?

2. And if so, would the flashback havethe potential to produce a serious burninjury?

The Directorate for LaboratorySciences (lab), Division of Engineering(LSE), conducted a number of testsusing gas-fired grills. The testing wasconducted to determine the duration of‘‘delayed ignition’’ that could bepermitted without resulting in a‘‘flashback’’ that could cause a seriousburn injury.

Preliminary tests were conductedwith three sizes of grills. The lab foundthat the smallest grill presented theworst-case condition. When theaccumulated propane gas was ignited inthe shallow well of the smallest grill,the resulting flashback reached thehighest level above the cooking surfaceof the three grills tested. The lab usedcheesecloth sleeves to determinewhether clothing would ignite as aresult of the flashback. The lab foundthat allowing the propane gas toaccumulate for 20 seconds could resultin a flashback that would ignite thecheesecloth sleeve. The sleeve did notignite with a 15-second accumulation ofgas.

The lab conducted 15 additional testsusing the smallest grill. The gas wasturned on and allowed to accumulatefor 15 seconds before ignition. The testswere conducted with the cheeseclothsleeves touching the cooking surface ofthe grill directly above the ignitionpoint. The cheesecloth sleeves did notignite. Videotapes of the testing showedthat the duration of the flashback eventsranged from 0.6 to 1.1 seconds.

The Directorate for Health Sciencesused the laboratory test results andinformation from the publishedliterature on flash fires to evaluate thepotential for serious burn injury. HealthSciences concluded that exposure to avery short duration flashback frompropane fuel is unlikely to cause seriousinjury (i.e., second-or third-degreeburns). Furthermore, the Division ofHuman Factors concluded that theactual exposure to the flashback wouldbe even shorter than the measuredduration because of the user’s normalreflex to withdraw from the flashback. Ashorter period of exposure wouldfurther reduce the potential for injury.

The Directorate for EngineeringSciences, Division of MechanicalEngineering (ESME), tested six brands of

non-child-resistant multi-purposelighters to determine the number oftimes a consumer might need to operatethe ignition mechanism to produce aflame. In 50 of 53 trials, a flame wasobtained in 5 or fewer attempts and, in47 of 53 trials, in 3 or fewer attempts.The number of attempts averaged lessthan 3 for all brands of lighters.

The Division of Human Factorsconducted a study to determine if usersare capable of operating child-resistantlighters that reset after each operation atleast 5 times within 15 seconds.Disposable child-resistant cigarettelighters were used for this studybecause, at that time, the staff was notaware of any multi-purpose lighterswith child-resistant mechanisms thatreset after each operation attempt. Forthe 7 lighters tested, the minimumnumber of operations achieved in 15seconds ranged from 4 to 8. Themaximum ranged from 14 to 24operations. In most of the trials (195/209), the subjects operated the lighters6 or more times.

The Directorate for Epidemiology,Division of Hazard Analysis, reviewedthe incident data on flashback incidentsassociated with igniting gas appliancessuch as ranges, grills, water heaters, etc.The NEISS data from 1996–1998indicated that, of the estimated 1,500victims treated each year for burninjuries related to flashback, themajority were treated and released.About 8% of the injuries requiredhospitalization. Malfunction of theproducts being ignited, fuel leaks, anduser error appeared to be contributingfactors in incidents that resulted inserious injury. Although delays inignition apparently caused severalincidents, the available data provide noevidence that delay caused by difficultyin operating multi-purpose lightersresults in flashback that causes seriousinjury.

The staff found that a flashbackresulting from a 15-secondaccumulation of propane gas is unlikelyto ignite clothing or cause a serious burninjury. The tests showed that a flamecan be produced with most non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters in 5 orfewer operations. Cigarette lighters withchild-resistant features that reset afterevery operation were operated at least 6times within 15 seconds in most of thetrials. Therefore, the staff concludedthat a child-resistant mechanism thatresets after each operation of a multi-purpose lighter would not prevent auser from successfully producing aflame and igniting a gas appliancebefore a hazardous flashback conditioncould occur.

The staff found insufficient evidenceto conclude that current multi-purposelighters pose a risk of injury due toflashback, or that the addition of achild-resistant mechanism that resetsafter each operation would pose such arisk.

Even without the results of these tests,however, the Commission would bejustified in eliminating the requirementfor multiple-operation capability fromthe rule. First, the commenters who firstraised the issue of flashback providedno persuasive data to support theirconcern. Second, the injury data fromflashback incidents do not reveal anyinjuries due to small delays such asmight result from child-resistantmechanisms. (The only exception to thiswas one incident where the person puthis face over a grill to see why it did notlight and kept operating the (non-child-resistant) lighter.)

Third, market pressures likely will actto reduce the risk of flashback. The onlychild-resistant multi-purpose lighternow on the market is capable ofmultiple operations without operatingthe child-resistant feature each time.This lighter is easy to use and is madeby BIC, a large manufacturer with anextensive distribution network. Thislighter is likely to bring a competitivepressure for other manufacturers tomake their child-resistant multi-purposelighters easy to use. Thus, any risk offlashback would be reduced. Inaddition, repeat sales of a lighter modelthat is hard to light would suffer. TheCommission concludes that theproportion of multi-purpose lighterswith inefficient ignition mechanismsthat will be marketed, if any, will besmall. Of this small percentage, somepersons would be cautious, or followthe instructions of some appliancemanufacturers, and light the flamebefore turning on the gas; these personswould not be at risk of flashback. TheCommission notes that of the non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters thatstaff tested, one manufacturer had twomodels that were significantly lessefficient in lighting than most of theother models. While this rule containsno lighting efficiency test, should anychild-resistant multi-purpose lighter’spoor lighting performance result in aflashback problem, the Office ofCompliance would consider appropriateaction.

Therefore, the Commission is unableto support a requirement in the finalrule that multi-purpose lighters mustallow multiple operation attemptsbefore the child-resistant mechanismresets. The Commission revised therequirement for multi-purpose lightersin the final rule to allow a child-



resistant feature to reset after one ormore operations of the ignitionmechanism.

For the reasons given above, therequirements for multi-purpose lightersin § 1212.3 of the final rule read asfollows:

(a) A multi-purpose lighter subject tothis part 1212 shall be resistant tosuccessful operation by at least 85% ofthe child-test panel when tested in themanner prescribed by § 1212.4.

(b) The child-resistant mechanism ofa multi-purpose lighter subject to thisPart 1212 must:

(1) Operate safely when used in anormal and convenient manner,

(2) Comply with this § 1212.3 for thereasonably expected life of the lighter,

(3) Not be easy to deactivate orprevent from complying with this§ 1212.3.

(4) Except as provided insubparagraph (b)(5) of this section,automatically reset when or before theuser lets go of the lighter.

(5) The child-resistant mechanism ofa multi-purpose lighter subject to thisPart 1212 that allows hands-freeoperation must:

(i) Require operation of an additionalfeature (e.g., lock, switch, etc.) after aflame is achieved before hands-freeoperation can occur;

(ii) Have a manual mechanism forturning off the flame when the hands-free function is used; and either

(iii) Automatically reset when orbefore the user lets go of the lighterwhen the hands-free function is notused; or

(iv) Automatically reset when orbefore the user lets go of the lighter afterturning off the flame when the hands-free feature is used.

5. Discussion of ‘‘easily deactivated’’

The Lighter Association, BIC, andScripto objected to language in thediscussion of comments on the ANPR inthe preamble of the proposal that statesthat the Commission considers an‘‘easily deactivated’’ child-resistantmechanism to be one that can be easilydisabled with a common householdtool. The Lighter Association stated thatthis is a very significant issue becauseno lighter is designed to this standardand that such a requirement wouldmean that a lighter must be tamper-proof. BIC stated that this interpretationis unreasonable and unworkable.Scripto commented that no standard canprevent a consumer’s intentionaldestruction or alteration of a product’ssafety features, and that a ‘‘tamper-proof’’ requirement is unreasonable andimpractical. Scripto suggestedestablishment of performance criteria to

determine what would constitute‘‘easily deactivated.’’

Response: Disabling or removing thechild-resistant mechanism was acommon problem in the first 2 or 3years after the effective date of theSafety Standard for Cigarette Lighters. Inpart, this was due to general consumerresistance to something new and lessconvenient. In addition, some of theearly child-resistant cigarette lighterdesigns were difficult to operate.Effective enforcement of the standard,including pursuit of firms whopurposely disabled child-resistantmechanisms on cigarette lighters offeredfor sale, and design changes bymanufacturers to make mechanismseasier for consumers to use, appear tohave reduced this problem for cigarettelighters.

The Commission expects thatmanufacturers will use their experiencewith cigarette lighters to design child-resistant mechanisms for multi-purposelighters that will be easy for consumersto operate. In addition, many consumershave had experience with child-resistant mechanisms on other types oflighters.

The Commission is expressing noposition at this time on any criterion forwhen a lighter is easily deactivated. Ifthe staff identifies either a cigarettelighter or a multi-purpose lighter modelwith a child-resistant mechanism that itbelieves can be easily deactivated, theOffice of Compliance would considerappropriate action.

6. Issue: Impact of a Rule on SmallCompanies

Donel, a small U.S. manufacturer ofmore expensive multi-purpose lighters,wrote that the cost and time to redesignand certify a lighter will make it verydifficult for it to continue in themarketplace. It requested an additional2-year grace period to comply with theregulations. The purpose of its requestwas its understanding that other firmswere actively pursuing patentapplications for child-resistanttechnology and that it needed to seewhat these patents covered beforebeginning to work on its owntechnology. They stated that, once thepending patents are issued, it would beable to proceed with redesigning orlicensing to comply with therequirements.

SNC Group, a small U.S. firm,commented that patents filed by somecompanies may restrict competition,create hardship on small companies,and ultimately raise the cost toconsumers. SNC Group suggested anumber of possible ways to reduce theburden of a rule on small firms,

including CPSC-mandated designstandards in which no one manufactureror importer has intellectual propertyrights, free legal counsel and testing forsmall businesses with proprietarydesigns, and providing loans to smallbusinesses to lessen the financialhardship associated with legal adviceand retooling.

Response:Effective date. The costs of developing

and testing lighters that would meet therule’s requirements may have asignificant impact on some small firmsthat have proprietary or exclusive rightsto a non-child-resistant multi-purposelighter design. The rule provides aneffective date of 12 months from thedate of publication in the FederalRegister, as to products manufacturedin, or imported into, the United Stateson or after that date. However, anadditional 2-year grace period for smallfirms is not appropriate.

In order to issue a rule with aneffective date of more than 180 days orless than 30 days, the Commission hasto find that the longer or shorter date isin the public interest. 15 U.S.C.2058(g)(1). The 12-month effective datelessens the economic burden of the rule,especially on small firms, whileproviding protection to consumers in areasonably expeditious manner.

Based on experience with theCigarette Lighter Safety Standard, theCommission estimates that it will takean average of 12 months to develop, test,retool for production, performproduction tests, and manufacture andship the product. The results of theconformance testing must be reported toCPSC at least 30 days in advance of theimportation or distribution of thelighters. In addition, the time requiredfor importing complying lighters intothe United States will be a significantconsideration for many firms.

Some manufacturers, especially thosethat have been following thisrulemaking proceeding, may havealready begun developing child-resistant models. Manufacturers whohave had experience with developingchild-resistant cigarette lighters may beable to take advantage of that experienceand be able to manufacture and marketchild-resistant lighters sooner than 12months. In fact, at least one model isalready on the market and we are awareof other manufacturers that are workingon child-resistant designs.

Manufacturers who have notfollowed, or only very recently startedfollowing, this rulemaking proceedingmay not have begun any developmentwork. Additionally, manufacturers thatdo not also produce cigarette lighters,such as some micro-torch



manufacturers, do not have priorexperience developing child-resistantdesigns. These manufacturers may beadversely affected by an effective dateshorter than 12 months.

Based on the Commission’sexperience with the Safety Standard forCigarette Lighters, firms will continue tofile new patents for child-resistantdesigns. New firms will enter themarket, and others will continueworking on technology for new orimproved child-resistant designs. Thecommenters did not explain why theywould not face similar issues on thedelayed effective date as they will faceon the proposed effective date.

Existing or pending patents may makeentry into the market more difficult.However, any negative impact regardingpatent infringement issues will beminimized because the standard is aperformance standard rather than adesign standard. Revising therequirements in the final rule to allowthe child-resistant mechanism to reseteither after one or more operationsshould also reduce some patentinfringement concerns by allowing awider variety of designs to comply withthe standard.

A 12-month effective date does notmean that no benefits will occur until 1year after the publication of the finalrule. Indeed, one manufacturer alreadyhas a child-resistant multi-purposelighter on the market. Othermanufacturers can be expected tointroduce their own models as they aredeveloped. Therefore, CPSC expects thatthe number of child-resistant multi-purpose lighters on the market willincrease prior to the effective date of therule. For the reasons, stated above, theCommission concludes that a 12-montheffective date is in the public interest.

Other actions. The Consumer ProductSafety Act requires that consumerproduct safety standards be expressed interms of performance requirements.This may prevent the Commission frommandating a single design. Also,mandating a single design would stiflethe creativity of individualmanufacturers and preclude futuredesign improvements. The Commissiondoes not have the authority or thefunding to provide loans or subsidies forlegal counsel, retooling, or testing.

As noted above, the rule willadversely affect some small businesses.Nevertheless, these impacts are justifiedby the overwhelming fire-preventionbenefits expected from the rule.

7. Costs of Testing and CertifyingZelco commented that the

Commission has failed to makeallowances for small business. Zelco

stated that the cost of testing andcertification is exorbitant and anunnecessary burden on smallcompanies. Zelco requested that thetesting requirements be reduced or thatthe Commission subsidize the costs forsmall businesses. Donel commented thatthere are enormous costs involved inredesigning and certifying a child-resistant lighter.

Response: The Commission didconsider the impact of testing andcertifying on small businesses. ThePreliminary Regulatory Analysis in theproposal estimated the average cost oftesting at about $25,000 per model.However, testing and certification arenecessary to ensure that all multi-purpose lighters on the market arechild-resistant.

8. Issue: Supervision

Zelco commented that lighters areadult products and that, if children weresupervised and taught to respect them,there would be no need for theseregulations. Scripto stated that child-resistant mechanisms are not asubstitute for proper adult supervision.Scripto stated that, in their experience,most instances of serious injuryassociated with child-play firesinvolved gross parental neglect.

Independent Safety Consultingcommented that incidents involvingmulti-purpose lighters demonstrate thenormal and expected range of parentalbehavior when it comes to supervision;accidents happen even when childrenare appropriately supervised. TheAmerican Academy of Pediatricscommented that adult supervision cannever be perfect.

Response: Proper adult supervision isvery important. Teaching children to‘‘respect’’ adult items, and otherwiseavoid hazards, is a necessary componentof child rearing. It is, however, anunreliable strategy for injury prevention.Three-and 4-year-old children are fullycapable of verbalizing rules repeated tothem by adult caretakers. This is simplemimicry to a large extent, and does notimply either that children have a fullunderstanding of the potentialconsequences of their behavior, or thatthey have developed sufficient controlof their impulses to obey the rules with100-percent consistency.

Congress addressed the general issueof adult responsibility in its passage ofthe Poison Prevention Packaging Act.The Report of the Senate Committee onCommerce (1970) stated that negligenceis not the principal cause of poisoningincidents, and that there are too manypotential hazards to expect that childrenwill be adequately protected from all of

them solely through adult intervention.S. Rep. No. 91–845 at 3 (1972).

The fire incident reports show thatchildren generally were underreasonable levels of supervision at thetime they started the fires. While child-resistant mechanisms do not substitutefor parental supervision, they canprovide a valuable measure of safety.

9. Issue: LabelingZelco commented that labeling

requirements would be sufficient. TheAmerican Academy of Pediatrics statedthat product labeling is very important,but that it will not be as effective asmaking the lighters child-resistant.Independent Safety Consultingcommented that a label is not likely tosignificantly reduce these fires and thatwarning labels cannot affect behaviornearly as well as can a technical designchange.

Response: The Commission does notbelieve that warning labels alone caneffectively address the risks associatedwith multi-purpose lighters. Labeling ofmulti-purpose lighters (including ‘‘Keepout of reach of children’’) has alwaysbeen required under the FHSA, and thishas clearly been insufficient to preventchild-play fires. Since most caregiversare fully aware of the dangers of youngchildren playing with lighters, and sinceincident information shows thatchildren access these lighters in spite ofattempts to store them out of reach, theCommission concludes that additionalor different warning statements wouldnot reduce the incidence of child-playfires with multi-purpose lighters.

10. Issue: EducationZelco stated that the aim of these

regulations could be accomplished justas easily through education. Scriptocommented that the Commission mustconsider the need for concomitanteducation efforts. Swedish Matchrecommended that the Commissionfund a strong education program to‘‘address consumer behavior in leavingtheir lighters and their young childrenunattended.’’

The American Academy of Pediatricscommented that consumer education isvery important but that it will not be aseffective as making the lighters child-resistant. Independent Safety Consultingstates that an education campaign is notlikely to significantly reduce these fires.Child-resistant mechanisms should becoupled with information and educationso that parents can be aware of thelimitations of a child-resistant feature.

The Lighter Association providedinformation about education programsthey developed with the Learn Not toBurn Foundation and the National Fire



Protection Association. The programswarn preschoolers and adults of the riskof lighters and matches. The LighterAssociation also submitted an articlefrom the January/February 1999National Fire Protection Association(NFPA) Journal reporting that thePortland, Oregon, program showed a 36-percent decline in juvenile fire-settingas a result of use of the Youth EducationProgram.

BIC submitted a copy of their ‘‘playsafe! be safe!’’ safety program, whichwas developed in 1994 in cooperationwith Fireproof Children of Pittsford,New York. This program teaches youngchildren the basics of fire preventionand shows them how to respond tospecific situations in case of fire. Theprogram is being utilized in hundreds ofpre-school classrooms in the U.S. andCanada.

Response: The Commission does notbelieve that education alone caneffectively address the risks associatedwith multi-purpose lighters. As aninjury prevention strategy, education isless effective than productmodifications, which do not rely onbehavior changes. Education serves toprovide the public with accurateinformation. For example, it may beappropriate to advise consumers thatchild-resistant does not mean child-proof, and that child-resistantmechanisms are intended to preventlighter use by most children under 5.

The incident data, however, showlittle need for an education program to‘‘address consumer behavior in leavingtheir lighters and their young childrenunattended.’’ The data show that, ingeneral, children were not‘‘unattended,’’ and that in many cases,lighters were placed where they couldbe thought to be ‘‘out of reach’’ but werenevertheless reached.

The effectiveness of the YouthEducation Program is unsubstantiatedbecause there are importantconfounding factors that preclude avalid inference of a direct cause-effectrelationship between the program andany statistically significant change infires set by juveniles. Furthermore, it isnot clear that the Youth EducationProgram addressed the age grouptargeted by a standard for childresistance.

The Safety Standard for CigaretteLighters was issued in 1993 and becameeffective in 1994. It is possible that theuse of child-resistant cigarette lighterscontributed to the drop in theproportion of fires attributable tojuveniles over the 4-year period (1993/1994 to 1996/1997) cited in the NFPAJournal article (if, as noted above,children under 5 are included in the agegroup studied).

Given the lack of consistent evidenceof their effectiveness, the Commissionconcludes that education programs arean inadequate substitute for the astandard that requires multi-purposelighters to be child resistant.

11. Issue: Provisions of Test Protocola. Position of on/off switch. BIC

contended that multi-purpose lighterswith on/off switches should be testedwith the switch in the unlockedposition, rather than in the lockedposition, as proposed. BIC stated thatmany consumers would leave the lighterin the unlocked position. Further, BICpointed out that a manufacturer coulddesign a lighter with an on/off switchthat is very difficult for a child tounlock, and with a very simple child-resistance mechanism which, in itself,would not meet the 85% child-resistance requirement.

Response: The Commission agreeswith BIC’s recommended modificationto the test protocol because on/offswitches are not adequate to serve aspart of the child-resistance mechanism.First, as the Commission’s baselinetesting demonstrated, most children inthe panel age group (42 to 51 monthsold) can operate the switches, which aresimilar to those used on many types oftoys. Second, when practical, safetydevices should function automatically.When in the locked position, the switchmay help delay or deter someproportion of children. This protection,however, is not reliable. To provide thisprotection, intended users must returnthe switch to the locked position everytime the lighter is used. For a variety ofreasons, even careful adults may fail todo so. Thus, as BIC points out, testresults for lighters tested with theswitch in the locked position may notreflect the true child-resistance of theproduct as actually used by consumers.

Therefore, on August 4, 1999, theCommission published a notice in theFederal Register to propose that the testprotocol should require that lighterswith on/off switches that do notautomatically reset to the lockedposition be tested with the switch in theon, or unlocked, position. TheCommission also provided anopportunity for interested parties topresent oral comments on this issue onSeptember 15, 1999. The ExecutiveDirector of the National Fire ProtectionAssociation Center for High-RiskOutreach commented that conductingthe protocol test with the lighter on/offswitch in the unlocked position wouldadd an important element of realism tothe test.

Accordingly, the Commission revisedthe test procedure at § 1212.4(f)(1) in thefinal rule to provide:

Note: For multi-purpose lighters with an‘‘on/off’’ switch that does not automaticallyreset to the locked position, the surrogatelighter shall be given to the child with theswitch in the ‘‘on,’’ or unlocked, position.

b. Participation of children inmultiple tests. Milford ConsultingAssociates endorses the provision thatallows the same children to test child-resistant packaging, cigarette lighters,and multi-purpose lighters, so long asthe children participate in each test ona different day. It stated that the crosslearning from test to test would benegligible, but that the children’sfamiliarity with the test setting wouldbe facilitated by multiple tests, makingthe test less intimidating to the children.

Response: The Commission agreesthat the cross learning from one type oftest to another would be negligible. Thetest procedure in § 1212.4(a)(7) of boththe proposal and the final rule allowschildren to participate in tests ofdifferent products, provided that thetests are conducted on different days.

c. Tester quotas and lighter quotas.Milford Consulting Associates requestedsome changes to the requirements forthe number of children who are testedby each tester and in the number of testsconducted with each surrogate lighter.They requested that when two centrallocation test sites are used and a testeror a surrogate lighter drops out, theremaining tests be allocated equally tothe remaining testers at that one testsite.

Response: Currently, the testprocedure has very specificrequirements for the number of childrenwho can be tested by each tester and thenumber of times each surrogate lightercan be used in testing. The reason forthese requirements is to minimize theimpact of any one tester or any onelighter on the final test results. Based onthe staff’s experience with the standardfor cigarette lighters, tester variabilitycan influence the test results. Inaddition, surrogate lighters may vary inoperation forces. Because exceeding theproposed quotas could introduce testbias, the Commission did not make anychanges.

d. Participation. Milford ConsultingAssociates requested that children whorefuse to attempt to operate thesurrogate multi-purpose lighterthroughout the entire test period shouldbe counted in the test results, providedthey are not disruptive. They stated thatin a real-life situation some childrenwould refuse to touch a lighter evenwhile a companion is doing so.

Response: The Commission believesthat refusing children should continueto be eliminated from the test resultsbecause it provides a more appropriate

VerDate 15-DEC-99 16:50 Dec 21, 1999 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22DER2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: 22DER2


test for the lighter. A child’s refusal ina test may be related to thecircumstances of the test and does notnecessarily mean that the child wouldnot attempt to operate a lighter in thehome. The Commission believes that the85% acceptance criterion should bebased on the number of children whoattempt to operate the lighter and areunable to do so. This is the procedureused in the Safety Standard for CigaretteLighters.

e. Orientation of lighter duringdemonstration. BIC Corporation andMilford Consulting Associates requesteda change in § 1212.4(f)(3) of the testprotocol. In the proposed rule, duringthe demonstration of lighter operation tothe children, the tester was instructed tohold the surrogate multi-purpose lighterin a vertical position in one hand withthe child-resistant feature exposed. BICpointed out that the normal operatingposition of multi-purpose lighters formany purposes is horizontal.

Response: The Commission agreesthat this requirement should be changedbecause some multi-purpose lighters areoperated in a vertical position and someare operated in a horizontal position.The final rule eliminates reference toany specific orientation. Instead, therule provides that the tester should holdthe lighter in a comfortable operatingposition in one hand so both childrencan see the operation of the child-resistant mechanism and the ignitionmechanism during each demonstration.The purpose of this provision is toassure that the children are able toclearly see the operation of the lighter.As long as the children can see theoperation, there is no need to hold thelighter in any particular position.

12. Issue: Anti-Stockpiling ReportingScripto recommends a change to the

anti-stockpiling provision. This changewould require information used toestablish the number of lighters made orimported during the year followingpublication of the final rule to be filedwith CPSC at the end of each calendarmonth instead of within 10 days ofshipment, as proposed. Scripto statesthat this would reduce the reportingrequirements and provide theCommission with better visibility andcontrol of these shipments.

Response: Because industry membersreported abuses of the similar anti-stockpiling requirement in the SafetyStandard for Cigarette Lighters, theCommission proposed a reportingrequirement for this rule. TheCommission agrees with Scripto’srecommendation, in the interest ofreducing the paperwork burden onmanufacturers and the staff without

compromising the ability of theCommission to effectively enforce theanti-stockpiling provision. The finalrule requires reporting within 10 days ofthe end of each calendar month, forlighters shipped within that month,instead of within 10 days of lightershipment.

13. Issue: In-Bond ShipmentsScripto reported problems it has

experienced with seizures by customsand delays at foreign ports of shipmentsof non-child-resistant lighters that areimported into the U.S. in bond forexport to other nations. It requestedCPSC to review this transit-and-exportprocess in order to reduce unnecessarydelays and paperwork in the future.

Response: Scripto refers to the processof moving noncomplying cigarettelighters manufactured in Mexicothrough the United States, in bond, forexport to foreign countries that do notrequire the lighters to be child-resistant.This process is a program of the U.S.Customs Service. If contacted inadvance of such shipments, the Office ofCompliance is able to work withmanufacturers and importers tofacilitate the smooth movement of in-bond shipments.

14. Issue: Households Without YoungChildren

Ms. Lorraine Daly, a consumer, wrotethat there is a very large percentage ofolder citizens in the country who don’thave children in their homes andtherefore don’t need the protection ofchild-resistance on medicines orlighters. Similarly, Ms. Eve Mallettwrote, ‘‘We can’t child proof the worldat the expense of childless or olderpeople.’’

Response: Available data indicate thatboth lighter child-play fires andaccidental ingestions of medicines haveoccurred in the homes of olderconsumers. These incidents commonlyoccur while grandparents are baby-sitting or during family visits. ThePoison Prevention Packaging Act hasprovisions that allow for availability ofnon-child-resistant packaging formedicines otherwise required to be inchild-resistant packaging. Theseprovisions allow handicapped orarthritic consumers to have ready accessto their medicines. However, there is nocomparable need for a consumer to havea non-child-resistant multi-purposelighter.

In addition, unlike multi-purposelighters, the particular design of child-resistant packaging for medicines isselected by the manufacturer or thepharmacist, not the consumer. Likechild-resistant cigarette lighters, there

will be a number of different multi-purpose lighter designs to choose from.The Commission believes that olderconsumers who can operate a currentmulti-purpose lighter will find a child-resistant multi-purpose lighter that theyare able to operate with little or nodifficulty.

Therefore, there is no need to foregothe lifesaving benefits of the rule toaccommodate the special needs ofelderly or handicapped persons.

F. Environmental ConsiderationsPursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act and CPSC’sprocedures, the Commission consideredthe potential environmental effects ofthe rule. Under CPSC’s regulations, thisrule falls within a category of actionsthat normally have little or no potentialfor affecting the human environment,and for which neither an environmentalimpact assessment nor anenvironmental impact statement isrequired. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1).

Less than 1% of the non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters that aresold in this country are manufactureddomestically. The rule is not expectedto significantly alter the amount ofmaterials, energy, or waste generatedduring production of the lighters. Norshould the rule cause manufacturers toshift production to other countries orlocations. Molds and other tools used bymanufacturers in the production ofmulti-purpose lighters or theircomponents are periodically replaced.Potentially, the rule may cause somemanufacturers to replace the molds andother tools earlier than they would haveotherwise.

The rule does not require any recallof non-child-resistant lightersmanufactured or imported before theeffective date; therefore, there are nodisposal issues with regard to suchlighters. The rule is not expected toaffect the manner in which multi-purpose lighters are packaged for sale,or to affect the amount of butane orother fuel used in the operation of thelighters.

The Commission concludes, from theavailable information, that the rule willnot significantly affect raw materialusage, air or water quality,manufacturing processes, or disposalpractices in a way that will significantlyimpact the environment.

G. Statutory FindingsThe CPSA also requires the

Commission to make the followingfindings before it promulgates a rule:

(A) That the rule (including itseffective date) is reasonably necessary toeliminate or reduce an unreasonable



risk of injury associated with suchproduct;

(B) That the promulgation of the ruleis in the public interest;

(C) That the benefits expected fromthe rule bear a reasonable relationshipto its costs; and

(D) That the rule imposes the leastburdensome requirement that preventsor adequately reduces the risk of injuryfor which the rule is being promulgated.15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3).

The Commission has made therequired findings, which are publishedas Appendix A to the final rule.

H. Regulatory Analysis

Before issuing a final rule, the CPSArequires the Commission to considerand make appropriate findings forinclusion in the rule with respect to:

(A) The degree and nature of the riskof injury the rule is designed toeliminate or reduce;

(B) The approximate number ofconsumer products, or types or classesthereof, subject to such rule;

(C) The need of the public for theconsumer products subject to such rule,and the probable effect of such rule,upon the utility, cost, or availability ofsuch products to meet such need; and

(D) Any means of achieving theobjective of the order while minimizingadverse effects on competition ordisruption or dislocation ofmanufacturing and other commercialpractices consistent with the publichealth and safety. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(1).These findings are also published in theappendix to the final rule.

Based on these findings, theCommission must, if it issues a finalrule, publish a final regulatory analysiswith the rule, containing:

(A) A description of the potentialbenefits and the potential costs of therule, including costs and benefits thatcannot be quantified in monetary terms,and the identification of those likely toreceive the benefits and bear the costs;

(B) A description of any alternativesto the final rule which were consideredby the Commission, together with asummary description of their potentialbenefits and costs and a briefexplanation of the reasons why thesealternatives were not chosen; and

(C) A summary of any significantissues raised by the commentssubmitted during the public commentperiod in response to the preliminaryregulatory analysis, and a summary ofthe assessment by the Commission ofsuch issues. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(2).

The Commission’s final regulatoryanalysis of the rule on multi-purposelighters is published below.

Final Regulatory Analysis

Requirements of the Rule

The rule addresses the risk of deathand injury caused by children under theage of 5 playing with multi-purposelighters, including micro-torches.Manufacturers or importers of productsmeeting the definition of ‘‘multi-purpose lighters’’ will have to certifythat their products comply with the ruleand provide evidence of a reasonabletesting program, as required by 15U.S.C. 2063, to support the certification.The rule specifies minimumrequirements and features of therequired testing program.

The test protocol is intended todetermine the percentage of children ina specified age range that could beexpected to be able to operate thelighter. It requires surrogates that willnot produce a flame be used in the testsin place of production lighters. Up totwo panels of 100 children are used totest the surrogates. If a child succeeds inoperating a surrogate, a visual or audiblesignal is produced. If at least 85% of thechildren in the test panels are unable tooperate the surrogates, the productionlighters comply with the child-resistance requirements.

The rule also establishes certainminimum recordkeeping and reportingobligations for manufacturers,importers, and distributors. Theeffective date of the rule is December 22,2000. All multi-purpose lightersmanufactured in the U.S. or importedon or after this date will have to complywith the requirements of the rule.

Product and Market Information

The Product

The product subject to this rule,multi-purpose lighters, is described inSection A of this notice.

Sales, Retail Prices and Useful ProductLife

Multi-purpose lighters, includingmicro-torches, were introduced around1985. Sales of multi-purpose lightersincreased rapidly after theirintroduction. Scripto-Tokai, the firmthat introduced multi-purpose lighters,reports that it sold one million units thefirst year. Industry sources estimate thatsales of multi-purpose lighters wereabout 20 million units in 1998 and willbe approximately 21 million units in1999. Industry sources are divided overtheir expectations for future sales. Someexpect sales to continue to increase atthe rate of 5 to 10% annually over thenext several years. Others believe thatthe market for multi-purpose lighters isbecoming satiated and that sales are

likely to increase at a slower pace thanin the past.

Retail prices of multi-purpose lightershave declined over the last couple ofyears. Currently, retail prices for multi-purpose lighters start at less than $2.50,and most sell for less than $6.00.However, some high-end multi-purposelighters retail for $20 to $40 or more.Micro-torches have been observedretailing for as little as $12, but theymore frequently retail for around $20 tomore than $100. Micro-torches andother high-end multi-purpose lighterscombined probably have less than 5% ofthe market for multi-purpose lighters.

The useful life of a multi-purposelighter depends on how often and forwhat purpose it is used. If a typicalmulti-purpose lighter contains enoughfuel for an average of 1,000 lights, amulti-purpose lighter that is usedseveral times a day would be expectedto last less than 1 year. On the otherhand, a lighter that is used less thanonce a day, or only seasonally, couldlast longer.

The fuel supply is not the only thingthat limits the useful life of a multi-purpose lighter. A multi-purpose lightercan break or wear out, the piezo crystalscan become dirty or misaligned, the fuellines can become clogged, and the O-rings may fail and allow fuel to leak outof the lighter. Since most multi-purposelighters are relatively inexpensive, somemay simply be misplaced by consumers.

According to industry sources, morethan 18 million lighters were sold in1997. At the same time, a study basedon a panel of 20,000 householdsindicated that fewer than 8 million U.S.households purchased multi-purposelighters between October 1996 andOctober 1997. This suggests that mostmulti-purpose lighters have a useful lifeof less than one year, and/or that a largeproportion of households that havemulti-purpose lighters use more thanone lighter over the course of a year.

The useful life of the more expensivemodels and micro-torches can be longer.These lighters are refillable and retailfor $20 to more than $100. Although theunit sales of the more expensive lightersaccount for only a small portion of theannual sales of multi-purpose lighters,the number in use at any given time,because of their longer expected life, islikely to be somewhat higher than theirshare of the annual sales.

Based on the assumption that theaverage useful life of multi-purposelighters is approximately one year orless, the Commission estimates that thenumber of multi-purpose lighters usedduring a given year is roughly equal tothe estimated annual sales. Thus, in theperiod 1995 through 1998, the number



of multi-purpose lighters in use in agiven year was probably in the range of16 million to 20 million.

ManufacturersCPSC has identified about 40 firms

that manufacture, import, or privatelylabel multi-purpose lighters. There arelikely other firms, especially smallimporters or private labelers, that havenot been identified. The number offirms participating in the market hasincreased as sales have increased.

Four manufacturers are members ofthe Lighter Association Inc., a tradeassociation representing manufacturersof cigarette lighters. In 1997, the LighterAssociation estimated that its membershad more than 90% of the market formulti-purpose lighters in the UnitedStates. However, the market share of theLighter Association members appears tobe declining as competition from Asianand other imports is increasing.

The manufacturer with the largestmarket share is Scripto-TokaiCorporation. Although Scripto once hadover 90% of the market, industrysources indicate that its share has fallen,and probably is now in the range of 80to 90%. Most of the remaining 10 to20% are manufactured by companiessuch as BIC, Swedish Match, Ronson,and various Asian manufacturers.

BIC Corporation manufactures itsmulti-purpose lighter in South Carolina.Only one other manufacturer, Donel, amanufacturer of high-end lighters, isknown to produce multi-purposelighters domestically. Scripto-Tokaiimports its lighters from Mexico.Flamagas (Clipper brand) lighters areproduced in Spain. Most other lightersare manufactured in Asia.

There are a handful of small U.S.-based companies that have proprietarydesigns for multi-purpose lighters.These companies generally work withAsia-based manufacturers tomanufacture their products. However,the U.S.-based companies have oftenborne the research and developmentcosts. Other small U.S.-based companiesare known to import and privately labelmulti-purpose lighters for which theydo not hold proprietary designs.

Substitutes for Multi-Purpose LightersThere are a number of products that

can be used for the same purposes asmulti-purpose lighters. The most likelyand versatile substitute is probablyordinary box or book matches.Compared with about 8 millionhouseholds purchasing multi-purposelighters in 1997, a 1991 study for theCPSC indicated that more than 60million households had matches (eitherbook or box matches). Cigarette lighters

can also be used for many of thepurposes for which multi-purposelighters are used. The retail prices of thesubstitutes are reasonably close to theretail prices of multi-purpose lighters.However, since sales of multi-purposelighters have climbed rapidly fromapproximately 1 million units in 1985 to20 million in 1998, we can infer thatsome consumers perceive that theyreceive greater utility from multi-purpose lighters than they would fromthe substitutes in some applications.

There are also reasonable substitutesfor micro-torches when they are used inapplications such as soldering. Theclosest substitutes would likely bebutane or propane torches that do nothave internal ignition mechanisms.These are functionally nearly identicalto micro-torches when used for torchapplications, except that they must beignited with a match or other externallighter. Electric soldering irons can alsobe used for many of the sameapplications. The cost to consumers ofthese substitutes may be reasonablysimilar to the cost of micro-torches.

Potential Benefits of the Rule

Societal Costs of Child-Play Fires

The rule is intended to reduce firesresulting from children under the age of5 playing with multi-purpose lighters.The benefits to society of the rule willbe the expected reduction in the societalcosts of the deaths, injuries, andproperty damage associated with thesefires.

The Commission is aware of 196 firesfrom 1995 through 1998 started bychildren under age 5 playing withmulti-purpose lighters. These incidentsresulted in 35 deaths, 81 injuries, andsubstantial property damage. Thesocietal costs of these fires are discussedbelow. The analysis is limited to this 4-year period because the data availablefor other years are less complete.

Deaths: If we assume a cost of $5million for each fatality, an estimate thatis consistent with the existing literature,a point estimate of the societal costs ofthe known fatalities between 1995 and1998 is $175 million.

Injuries: Many of the 81 non-fatalinjuries were severe. At least 43involved burn injuries. Fire burns areamong the most costly of injuries interms of the cost of medical treatmentand the pain and suffering of the victim.A CPSC study estimated that: theaverage cost of a hospitalized fire burninjury was $898,000; the average cost ofa burn injury where the victim wastreated and released was estimated to be$15,000; and the average cost of a burninjury treated elsewhere was $2,000.

These costs include medical andtransportation costs, lost productivity,and pain and suffering. Of the 43 burninjuries, at least 15 were hospitalizedand 12 were treated and released. Theremaining 16 burn victims were eithertreated at the scene or the treatmentthey received is unknown. Based on theaverage societal costs from these typesof injuries, the total cost of the burninjuries known to have occurred duringthis period is estimated to be at least$13.7 million (15 × $898,000 + 12 ×$15,000 + 16 × $2,000).

At least 20 of the 81 injuries involvedsmoke inhalation. The CPSC studyreferenced above estimated that theaverage societal cost of a smokeinhalation injury was about $130,000 ifthe victim was hospitalized, and$13,000 if the victim was treated andreleased. If the victim was treated at thescene or received other treatment, theaverage societal cost was estimated to be$2,000. At least one of the smokeinhalation victims was hospitalized, and12 were treated and released. If weassume that the remaining 7 victimswere treated at the scene, the totalsocietal costs associated with the smokeinhalation cases are estimated to beabout $0.3 million (1 × $130,000 + 12 ×$13,000 + 7 × $2,000).

The remaining 18 victims either hadother types of injuries, such as brokenbones or lacerations, or the type ofinjury was not reported. The treatmentof these 18 victims was either unknownor not reported. Based on the abovereferenced CPSC study, the averagesocietal costs of other non-hospitalizedinjuries is estimated to be $13,000.Therefore, the total societal costs of the16 victims who had injuries other thanburns or smoke inhalation can beestimated at $.2 million (18 × $13,000).

Based on the above discussions, theCommission estimates that the totalsocietal costs of the injuries associatedwith children playing with multi-purpose lighters that we know to haveoccurred during the 1995 through 1998period to be $13.4 million. This is aconservative estimate, as it includesonly the incidents of which the CPSC isaware.

Property Damage: The total propertydamages from the 196 child-play firesknown to have occurred from 1995through 1998 exceeded $5 million. Thisnumber is conservative because it onlyincludes the fires known to CPSC. And,of those known fires, it only includesfires where a property damage estimatewas reported to CPSC.

Total Societal Costs: Summarizing allof the above costs (deaths, injuries, andproperty damage), the total estimatedsocietal costs of the known incidents for



2 The estimated minimum improvement in childresistance due to the rule for any given non-child-resistant lighter is calculated by dividing thepercentage improvement in child resistance (the85% minimum requirement of the rule minus thebaseline child resistance of the non-child-resistantlighter) by the percentage of children that canoperate the non-child-resistant lighter (100% minusthe baseline %). For example, the least child-resistant lighter in the baseline testing (4% childresistance) would show an estimated 84%improvement in child resistance, and the samepercent reduction in child-play fires [(85 ¥ 4)/(100¥ 4) = 81/96 = 84%]. The most child-resistantlighter in the baseline testing would show a 75%improvement [(85 ¥ 41)/(100 ¥ 41) = 44/59 =75%].

3 Calculated by multiplying the estimated $48.6million in societal costs by 0.75 (the expectedreduction in such fires).

the 4-year period 1995 through 1998 isabout $194.2 million, or $48.6 millionannually. This comes to about $2.43 peryear for each multi-purpose lighter inuse. It is important to note that thesecost estimates are based only on theincidents reported to CPSC, not onnational fire loss estimates. There arelikely to be other incidents of whichCPSC is not aware.

Expected Reduction in Societal CostsThe rule is not expected to eliminate

all fire incidents involving childrenunder the age of 5. Some children inthat age range will be able to operatemulti-purpose lighters that meet therequirements of the rule. Indeed, amulti-purpose lighter will meet therequirements of the rule even if up to15% of the subjects in the test panel canoperate the lighter.

On the other hand, some childrenunder the age of 5 cannot operate thenon-child-resistant multi-purposelighters currently on the market. CPSCbaseline testing indicates that,depending on the model, 4 to 41% oftest subjects cannot operate non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.Therefore, the rule for multi-purposelighters is expected to reduce thenumber of children under the age of 5that can operate multi-purpose lightersby 75 to 84%.2

Additionally, the overall effectivenessof the standard may be higher than the75 to 84% estimated above for tworeasons. First, manufacturers mayachieve an average level of child-resistance greater than 85% to ensurethat their design will always achieve atleast the minimum level of childresistance required by the rule. Theexperience with cigarette lighters, forexample, indicates that mostmanufacturers achieve 90% or higherchild resistance.

Second, CPSC probably over-estimated the baseline child-resistanceof the non-child-resistant multi-purposelighters in use. This is because CPSCtested lighters with on/off switches inthe off, or locked, position. If the lighter

had been tested with the switch in theon, or unlocked, position, as required bythe final rule, the baseline child-resistance would have been much lowerthan the 41% estimated above. Weexpect that some multi-purpose lighterswill at times be stored with the switchin the unlocked position.

Using the lower end of the range ofthe estimated effectiveness of the rule,during the 1995 through 1998 timeframe, societal costs of child-play firesinvolving multi-purpose lighters wouldhave been reduced by about $36.5million annually had all multi-purposelighters been child-resistant.3 Assumingthat an average of 20 million multi-purpose lighters were used each year,the gross benefit per lighter would havebeen about $1.82. If there were child-play fires involving multi-purposelighters during this period of whichCPSC is not aware, or if a substantialnumber of consumers store multi-purpose lighters unlocked, theestimated benefits would have beenhigher.

Potential Costs of the Rule

Manufacturing costs. Manufacturerswill incur costs to modify their productsto comply with the rule. In general,costs that would be incurred by themanufacturers in developing,producing, and selling new complyinglighters include the following:

• Research and development towardfinding the most promising approachesto improving child resistance, includingbuilding prototypes and surrogatelighters for preliminary child-paneltesting;

• Retooling and other productionequipment changes required to producechild-resistant multi-purpose lighters,beyond normal periodic changes madeto the plant and equipment;

• Labor and material costs of theadditional assembly steps, or of themodification of assembly steps, in themanufacturing process;

• The additional labeling,recordkeeping, certification, testing, andreporting that will be required for eachmodel.

• Various administrative costs ofcompliance, such as legal support andexecutive time spent at related meetingsand activities; and

• Lost revenue if the child-resistantfeatures adversely affect sales.

Industry sources have not providedfirm estimates of these costs. However,the Lighter Association stated that itsmembers believed the costs would

average between $0.25 and $0.75 perlighter. One major manufacturer, BIC,has introduced a child-resistant multi-purpose lighter. Because BIC did notpreviously manufacture a non-child-resistant lighter, a spokesman wasunable to estimate the incremental costof developing and manufacturing child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.

Research and Development Costs.One manufacturer speculated that thecosts of developing, testing, andretooling for production of multi-purpose lighters might be $1 million permanufacturer, if it is possible to adaptthe same technology used to makecigarette lighters child-resistant.However, the manufacturer stated that,if it were not possible to adapt thecigarette lighter technology, the costscould be as high as $5 million permanufacturer. Two other manufacturersprovided lower estimates of the costs.They expected to spend $100,000 to $1million. However, they stressed thatthese were guesses and that unforeseenproblems, such as problems stemmingfrom patents owned by others, couldincrease the costs. After evaluating thisconflicting information from somemanufacturers, it seems likely that theaverage investment in research,development, and retooling would be nomore than $2 million.

If, as discussed above, there are 20manufacturers of multi-purpose lightersand research and development costs areas high as $2 million per manufacturer,then the total industry-wide research,development, and retooling costs will beabout $40 million. If these costs areamortized over 10 years and salesincrease at an annual rate of 1% from abase of 21 million units in 1999, thenthe research, development and retoolingcosts will average about $0.23/unit. Fora manufacturer with a large marketshare (i.e., selling several million unitsannually) the cost per unit for research,development and retooling may besignificantly lower than this. On theother hand, for manufacturers with asmall market share, such as themanufacturers of high-end lighters andmicro-torch lighters, the per-unitdevelopment costs could besubstantially greater, because these costswould be amortized over a significantlylower production volume. However, theinformation available is insufficient toprovide a reliable estimate of the costper unit for the higher-end and micro-torch-type lighters.

Material and Labor Costs. In additionto the research, development, andretooling costs, material and labor costsare likely to increase. For example,additional labor will be required to addthe child-resistant mechanism to the



lighter during assembly. Additionalmaterials may also be needed toproduce the child-resistant mechanism.While CPSC was unable to get reliableestimates, some industry sourcesindicated that these costs would be low,probably less than $0.25 per unit.

Multi-purpose lighters will also berequired to have a label that identifiesthe manufacturer and the approximatedate of manufacture. However, virtuallyall products are already labeled in someway. Since the requirement in the ruleallows substantial flexibility to themanufacturer for things such as color,size, and location, this requirement isnot expected to increase the costssignificantly.

Certification and Testing Costs.Certification and testing costs includethe costs of producing the surrogatesneeded in the testing, conducting thechild-panel tests, and issuing andmaintaining records for each model.These costs could average $25,000 permodel. However, the cost for anyindividual firm may be different. Thecost for conducting child-panel tests forone model could be substantially lowerif only one panel is required. The costcould be higher if the manufacturermust use a second panel or redesign amodel that failed the initial test. Thecost of designing surrogates could rangefrom virtually nothing (if the productionlighter has an audible signal, such as aclick, that occurs when it has beenoperated successfully) to severalthousand dollars (if surrogates must bedesigned and built).

These costs are incurred only once,and would therefore, be amortized overthe entire production of the model.Based upon the estimates describedabove, the amortized certification andtesting costs are expected to average lessthan one cent per unit. However, formodels with small market shares, thecost per unit for certification and testingmay be higher.

Administrative Costs. There may besome additional and ongoingadministrative expenses associated withcompliance and related activities. Whilethese expenses are difficult to quantify,they are expected to be slight and havelittle impact on the unit costs.

Multi-purpose lighters are sold incountries other than the United States.Some manufacturers may developlighters that meet the requirements ofthe rule for distribution in the UnitedStates, but may continue to distributethe current, non-child-resistant modelsin other countries. Thus, somemanufacturers may incur theincremental costs associated withproducing multiple lines of similarproducts. These costs could include

extra administrative costs required tomaintain different lines and theincremental costs of producing differentlines of similar products, such as usingdifferent molds or different assemblysteps. These costs would be mitigated ifother countries adopted similarstandards.

Total Manufacturing Costs. The rulewill likely increase the total cost ofmanufacturing multi-purpose lighters byabout $0.48 per unit. This estimate is inthe $0.25 to $0.75 per unit rangeprovided by the Lighter Association inresponse to the ANPR. The low end ofthe range provided by the LighterAssociation may be more accurate if theadditional material and labor costs aresignificantly less than estimated above.

The increased cost of manufacturingmulti-purpose lighters will, for the mostpart, ultimately be borne by consumers.Generally, the increased cost ofproduction will be passed on to theconsumer in the form of higher prices.Assuming a 100% markup over theincremental cost to manufacturers(estimated at $0.48/unit) the rule may beexpected to increase the retail price ofmulti-purpose lighters by $0.96 per unit.However, some manufacturers may beunable to pass all of the incrementalcosts directly to the consumers. Thismay be especially true in the case of theup-front research and developmentcosts. In these cases, the costs may beindirectly borne by consumers in suchforms as generally higher prices on therange of products produced by themanufacturer. The retail prices for high-end and micro-torch multi-purposelighters will probably increase by morethan $0.96 per unit, since their costs perunit are greater. However, since thehigh-end and micro-torch lighterscomprise such a small portion of themarket, this should not significantlyaffect the average cost of producingmulti-purpose lighters.

Net Benefits

As previously discussed, the rule isexpected to produce a gross societalbenefit of $1.82 per lighter and toincrease the cost to consumers by about$0.96 per unit. Therefore, the expectednet benefit of the rule is $0.86 per multi-purpose lighter sold ($1.82—$0.96).Since annual sales of multi-purposelighters exceed 20 million units, the ruleshould result in net societal benefits ofat least $17.2 million annually ($0.86 ×20 million = $17.2 million). Asdiscussed previously, the actual netbenefits may differ from the estimates ifsome of the assumptions used incomputing the estimates proveinaccurate.

Other Impacts of the RuleStockpiling. The rule contains anti-

stockpiling provisions, authorized bysection 9(g)(2) of the CPSA, to prohibitexcessive production or importation ofnoncomplying lighters during the 12-month period between the publicationdate and the effective date of the rule.The provision would limit theproduction or importation ofnoncomplying products to 120% of theamount produced or imported in themost recent calendar year before theissuance of the final rule.

While the anti-stockpiling provisionshould have little impact on the marketas a whole, it may adversely impact anysmall importers or manufacturers thatwere just entering the market. Suchfirms may have had low sales volume intheir first year or two of operation, andthus their base volume would be low. Inthe absence of the anti-stockpilingprovisions, they may have been able toincrease their sales volume by a greaterproportion than would be allowedunder the anti-stockpiling provision.There is no limit on the number ofchild-resistant multi-purpose lightersthat may be imported, manufactured, orsold during this period.

Effects on Competition andInternational Trade

The rule is not likely to have asignificant adverse impact oncompetition. Scripto-Tokai Corporationintroduced multi-purpose lighters in1985 and for many years maintained amarket share of 90% or more. AlthoughScripto-Tokai is still the dominantmanufacturer, its market share hasdropped in the face of increasedcompetition from other manufacturersand importers. BIC has alreadyintroduced a multi-purpose lighter thatmeets the requirements of the rule.Moreover, the Commission is aware ofseveral other manufacturers, includingsome small firms that are activelydeveloping child-resistant multi-purpose lighters. These multi-purposelighters are expected to be on the marketby the time the rule becomes effective.

Impact on Small BusinessCPSC has identified about 40

manufacturers, importers, and privatelabelers of multi-purpose lighters.Although the dominant firms are notsmall, a significant number of theremaining firms are considered to besmall businesses according to guidelinesestablished by the Small BusinessAdministration (SBA). The rule mayhave a significant impact on some of thesmall firms.

The small businesses that are mostlikely to be impacted by the rule are



those that market multi-purpose lightersto which they have proprietary orexclusive rights. These firms will likelyhave to bear the up-front costs ofdeveloping the child-resistant features,as well as the retooling and certificationcosts. As noted, these costs couldexceed $100,000 even if few problemsare encountered. If problems areencountered (e.g., designs that infringeupon patents held by others or initialdesigns that fail the certification tests)the costs could exceed $2 million.

Of the small firms known to theCommission, seven have proprietary orexclusive rights to particular multi-purpose lighter models. Some of thesefirms are actively developing child-resistant models, and one is alreadymarketing a multi-purpose lighter that itbelieves to be child-resistant (althoughit has not been tested). Thus the addedburden is not insurmountable by smallfirms. However, some small firms maydecide that the added costs are too greatand cease marketing their proprietarydesigns. Other small businesses thatcurrently market multi-purpose lightersand micro-torches do not haveproprietary or exclusive rights to anymulti-purpose lighter model. Thesecompanies either import or privatelylabel lighters produced by other firms.In these cases, the manufacturer or firmthat actually owns the design will likelybear most of the research, development,retooling, and certification costs. Sincethese manufacturers often supplyproduct to more than one importer orprivate labeler, the costs are likelyspread over a higher productionvolume. Moreover, multi-purposelighters usually account for only a smallpercentage of many of the importers’and private labelers’ sales. Therefore,even if a small importer or privatelabeler stopped importing ordistributing multi-purpose lighters, it isnot likely to suffer a significant adverseeffect if multi-purpose lightersaccounted for a small percentage of itstotal sales.

Although there will be adverse effectson some small businesses, these effectsare justified by the greater safetybenefits expected from the rule.

Impact on Utility to the ConsumerThe rule may reduce the utility that

consumers receive from multi-purposelighters if child-resistant multi-purposelighters are more difficult to operatethan are non-child-resistant models.This could result in some consumersswitching to substitute products, suchas cigarette lighters or matches.However, as was the case with child-resistant cigarette lighters,manufacturers are likely to develop

child-resistant multi-purpose lightersthat are at most only slightly moredifficult for adults to operate than arenon-child-resistant lighters. Therefore,the number of consumers who stopusing multi-purpose lighters because ofthe child-resistant mechanisms isexpected to be small. Moreover, even ifsome consumers do switch to otherproducts, the risk of fire is not expectedto increase significantly. Most cigarettelighters must already meet the samechild-resistance standard that multi-purpose lighters will have to meet.Although consumers that switch tomatches (as opposed to using child-resistant cigarette or multi-purposelighters) may increase the risk of child-play fires from matches somewhat,matches are inherently more child-resistant than non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters. Thus, even if someconsumers did switch to using matches,the risk of child-play fires would stilllikely be less than if they continued touse non-child-resistant multi-purposelighters.

Some manufacturers of micro-torchesmay respond to the rule by no longeroffering micro-torches that have internalignition mechanisms. The consumerwould, therefore, have to use anexternal ignition source to light thetorch. Although this option coulddecrease manufacturing costs, it couldreduce the convenience and utility ofthe micro-torches. Consumers will haveto provide external ignition sources,such as matches, to ignite the torches.It will also take more time to ignite sucha torch, since both hands will berequired and the worker or consumerwill have to put down what they wereworking with to pick up the ignitionsource.

Alternatives Considered to the RuleThe Commission considered several

possible alternatives to the rule. Thesealternatives included (1) not taking anyaction and relying on voluntary efforts,(2) issuing labeling requirements insteadof performance requirements, and (3)narrowing the scope of the rule. TheCommission also considered differenteffective dates and some alternativesaimed at reducing the burden on certainsmall businesses.

No Action/Rely on Voluntary Efforts.The Commission considered the impactof taking no action to reduce theoccurrence of fires started by childrenplaying with multi-purpose lighters. Ifno mandatory rule is issued, somemanufacturers may still introduce child-resistant multi-purpose lighters. Whilethese manufacturers can emphasize thesafety of their product, they would be ata competitive price disadvantage

compared to manufacturers whocontinued to sell non-child-resistantlighters. This would result in a lowerlevel of benefits than would be obtainedwith the rule.

Although the portion of the marketthat would be captured bymanufacturers of child-resistant lightersis not known, it is reasonable to assumeit would be substantially less than100%. Thus, the benefits to society oftaking no action or relying on voluntaryefforts would be lower than they wouldbe under a mandatory rule.

Currently, there is no voluntarystandard for child-resistant multi-purpose lighters, and no apparentindustry interest in adopting one. TheCommission potentially could workwith appropriate standards-settingorganizations to try to develop such astandard, but it is not clear that anacceptable voluntary standard could bedeveloped with sufficient speed, or thatconformance would be adequate.

Labeling RequirementsThe Commission considered the

impact of not issuing a performancestandard, but to instead requireadditional warning labels on multi-purpose lighters. However, the FHSAalready requires multi-purpose lightersto be labeled ‘‘Keep out of reach ofchildren.’’ The effectiveness ofadditional labeling would be low.

Narrowing the ScopeThe Commission considered the

impact of exempting the more expensivemulti-purpose lighters from the rule.This would have been analogous to theexemption in the cigarette lighterstandard for the more expensive non-novelty cigarette lighters. In that case,however, there was little evidence ofinvolvement of those expensive lightersin child-play fires.

There are 3 firms that are known tomarket high-end multi-purpose lighters;all 3 of these firms have fewer than 100employees and are considered to besmall businesses. (One firm claims thatits multi-purpose lighter has featuresthat should make it child-resistant.) Ofthe 6 firms that are known to distributemicro-torches, 3 have fewer than 100employees and are considered to besmall businesses.

For the reasons given in the responseto comments on the proposal, Section Eof this notice, the Commission believesthat the more expensive multi-purposelighters are as likely to be involved inchild-play fires as are the less expensivemodels and should not be excluded.

The Commission also considered theimpact of excluding micro-torches fromthe rule. As noted, the Commission



4 The Regulatory Flexibility Act provides that anagency is not required to prepare a regulatoryflexibility analysis if the head of the agency certifiesthat the rule will not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of small entities. 5U.S.C. 605.

received several comments from thelighter industry, in response to the NPR,encouraging the Commission to excludemicro-torches. For the reasons given inthe response to comments in Section Eof this notice, the Commission believesthat micro-torches will be stored aroundthe home in the same way that multi-purpose lighters are. Therefore, theywill be accessible to small children andshould not be excluded from thestandard.

The Commission is aware of oneincident involving a fire started by achild under the age of 5 with a micro-torch-type lighter. The lighter was beingused to light the pilot light of a gasfurnace, a use more characteristic ofmulti-purpose lighters than of torches.However, micro-torch lighters representonly a small portion of the multi-purpose lighters in use. Micro-torchesprobably account for significantly lessthan 5% of sales of multi-purposelighters. Therefore, the lack of otherincidents involving micro-torches maybe related to the low number of theseproducts in use.

Alternatives To Reduce the Burden onSmall Businesses

The Commission considered severalexemptions or special provisions toreduce the regulatory burden on certainsmall businesses. These provisionswould have applied only to businessesthat met the SBA definition of a smallbusiness and were not owned by or asubsidiary of a larger company, unlessthe combined employment would stillmeet the SBA criteria.

Alternative Effective Date. TheCommission considered establishing aneffective date of more than the proposed12 months after the date of publicationof the final rule in the Federal Register,for some small manufacturers. Theintent of such an extension would be toreduce the burden of the rule on smallfirms by giving them extra time todevelop child-resistant lighters andbring them to market. However, for thereasons given in Section E of this notice,the Commission decided that aneffective date exceeding 1 year from therule’s publication was not in the publicinterest.

Exemption from testing. TheCommission considered exemptingsome small businesses from therequirement to conduct the child-panelcertification tests, if the firm had areasonable basis to believe that themulti-purpose lighter would pass thetests if they were conducted. However,the Commission concluded thatconducting these tests is necessary toensure that the lighter is child-resistant.The actual child-panel tests are a small

part of the entire cost of designing andbringing a child-resistant lighter tomarket. Although the average cost ofthis testing per model may be about$25,000, the costs may vary amongfirms. On the low end, the costs may beas low as $10,000 if surrogates do nothave to be designed, only one panel ofchildren is required, and the companycan conduct much of the testinginternally. On the other hand, the costscould exceed $40,000 if the companyhas to design surrogates, use more thanone child-panel for the tests or has toredesign the lighter because it fails thetest. If a manufacturer is confident thatits design is child-resistant, it shouldalso be confident that the cost of thecertification testing will be on the lowside of the estimated range of costs.Furthermore, the testing is a one-timecost. Once a design passes thequalification test, it does not have to betested again for child-resistance.

If certain small firms were exemptedfrom the testing, and one of their modelswas later found not to be child-resistant,the cost to the manufacturer of a recallcould exceed the cost of the testing.Moreover, if an exemption from testingwere granted and a lighter model werein fact not child-resistant, it could leadto hundreds of thousands, or evenmillions, of non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters being introduced intocommerce. Just one additional child-play fire incident associated with sucha lighter could result in societal coststhat greatly exceed the cost of thecertification testing. Therefore, theCommission does not believe that it isin the public interest to exempt smallfirms from the testing requirements ofthe rule.

I. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

When an agency undertakes arulemaking proceeding, the RegulatoryFlexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 etseq., generally requires the agency toprepare initial and final regulatoryflexibility analyses describing theimpact of the rule on small businessesand other small entities. The purpose ofthe RFA, as stated in § 2(b) (5 U.S.C. 602note), is to require agencies, consistentwith their objectives, to fit therequirements of regulations to the scaleof the businesses, organizations, andgovernmental jurisdictions subject tothe regulations.4 The Commission’sinitial regulatory flexibility analysis

(IRFA) was published with the proposedrule.

The final regulatory flexibilityanalysis (FRFA) is to contain:

(1) A succinct statement of the needfor, and objectives of, the rule;

(2) A summary of the significantissues raised by public comments inresponse to the initial regulatoryflexibility analysis, a summary of theassessment of the agency of such issues,and a statement of any changes made inthe proposed rule as a result of suchcomments;

(3) A description of, and an estimateof the number of, the small entities towhich the rule will apply or anexplanation of why no such estimate isavailable;

(4) A description of the projectedreporting, recordkeeping, and othercompliance requirements of the rule,including an estimate of the classes ofsmall entities that will be subject to therequirement and a description of thetype of professional skills necessary forpreparation of the report or record; and

(5) A description of the steps theagency has taken to minimize thesignificant economic impact on smallentities consistent with the statedobjectives of applicable statutes,including a statement of the factual,policy, and legal reasons for selectingthe alternative adopted in the final ruleand why each one of the othersignificant alternatives to the ruleconsidered by the agency which affectthe impact on small entities wasrejected.

The Need for and Objectives of the Rule

The rule addresses the risk of deathand injury from residential fires startedby young children under the age of 5playing with multi-purpose lighters.Since 1988, the Commission hasidentified 237 fires that were started bychildren under age 5 who were playingwith multi-purpose lighters. These firesresulted in a total of 45 deaths and 103injuries. Because these are only theincidents known to the CPSC, the actualnumbers may be higher. The societalcost of these fires is about $48.6 millionannually. Requiring that multi-purposelighters be child-resistant, as defined inthe rule, will significantly reduce thenumber of fires started by childrenunder the age of 5.

Firms Subject to the Rule

The rule covers manufacturers,importers, private labelers, distributors,and retailers of multi-purpose lighters,including micro-torches, intended forsale to consumers. All firms thatmanufacture or import multi-purposelighters will have to certify that their



multi-purpose lighters are child-resistant. These firms will also besubject to the reporting andrecordkeeping requirements in the rule.

The number of firms thatmanufacture, import, or privately labelthese lighters is increasing. While about40 firms have been identified, there maybe other companies that have not beenidentified. Except for two manufacturers(one large and one small), all firms arebelieved to be importers rather thandomestic manufacturers. Several of theimporters are subsidiaries of larger firmsor foreign manufacturers. Although thedominant firms are not small, as manyas 20 of the remaining firms may beconsidered to be small businessesaccording to the SBA.

The small businesses that are mostlikely to be substantially impacted bythe rule are those that have proprietaryor exclusive rights to specific multi-purpose lighter models. These firms willlikely have to bear the up-front costs ofdeveloping the child-resistant features,retooling, and certification. These costscould exceed $100,000, even if fewproblems are encountered. The costscould be as high as $2 million ifproblems are encountered, such asdesigns that infringe upon patents heldby others or initial designs that fail thecertification tests.

Of the small firms known to theCommission, seven are believed to haveproprietary or exclusive rights toparticular multi-purpose lighter models.Some of these firms are actively workingon developing child-resistant models.One is already marketing a multi-purpose lighter that it believes to bechild-resistant, although it has not beencertified in accordance with therequirements of the rule. Thus, althoughthe rule will impose costs on smallfirms, this burden is notinsurmountable, and some small firmswith proprietary designs should be ableto compete successfully after the rulegoes into effect. However, some firmsmay decide that the added costs are toogreat and cease marketing theirproprietary non-child-resistant designs.

Many of the small businesses thatmarket multi-purpose lighters andmicro-torches do not have proprietary orexclusive rights to any multi-purposelighter model. These companies eitherimport or privately label lightersproduced by other firms. The impact onthese companies is not likely to besignificant. The manufacturers or firmsthat actually own the designs will likelybear most of the research, development,retooling, and certification costs. Sincethese manufacturers often supplyproduct to more than one importer orprivate labeler, the costs are likely to be

spread over a higher productionvolume. Furthermore, even if a smallimporter or private labeler stoppedimporting or distributing multi-purposelighters, it is not likely to suffer asignificant adverse effect if multi-purpose lighters account for a smallpercentage of its total sales, as isthought to be the case with many of theimporters.

Some small importers may experiencesome disruption in their supply ofmulti-purpose lighters if some of theforeign suppliers opt not to developchild-resistant multi-purpose lighters.However, the 12-month period betweenthe publication of the final rule and itseffective date should allow time formost importers to take action to ensurethat they have a source for child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.

Issues Raised by the Public Commentson the IRFA

Several issues were raised in thepublic comments on issues relating tothe IRFA. These issues include: theproposed requirement for multipleoperations, money for legal counsel andtesting, that CPSC should mandate aspecific design, that the effective dateshould be longer, that the cost ofcertification testing is excessive, andalternatives to be considered to theproposed rule. The Commission’sresponses to these comments are givenin Section E of this notice.

Reporting and RecordkeepingRequirements

All manufacturers and importers ofmulti-purpose lighters will be requiredto keep certain records regarding thecertification testing and production(quality control) testing of their multi-purpose lighters. The preparation of therecords should not require any skillsthat would not typically be possessed byor available to a manufacturer orimporter. For example, the productiontesting is very similar to the qualitycontrol testing that most manufacturersundertake routinely. There are alsoindependent quality control andengineering laboratories and otherprofessional consultants with whichfirms can contract for these services.

In order to perform the certificationtests, the manufacturers will have tosupply at least 6 empty surrogates. Mostmanufacturers will probably be able touse empty production lighters for thesurrogates (if the lighter makes anaudible ‘‘click’’ when the ignitionmechanism is operated properly). Othermanufacturers may have to developsurrogates for use in the certificationtests that produce an audible or visualsignal when the ignition mechanism is

successfully operated. This may involvetechnical knowledge of miniatureelectronics that some small firms maynot have in-house. However, there areindependent engineering firms with thisexpertise with which small firms maycontract.

Conducting the certification tests andpreparing the supporting documentationdoes not require any special technicalskill or extensive training.Manufacturers could conduct theconformance tests with in-housepersonnel, but it is likely that many willemploy private consulting or testingservices. The records of the testingwould likely be compiled by the firmconducting the testing and maintainedby the manufacturer or importer.Manufacturers or importers would keepcopies of other reports or certificationrecords.

The rule also allows importers to relyon testing by or for a foreignmanufacturer to support the rule’scertification and reporting requirements,provided that the records (1) are inEnglish, (2) are complete, (3) can beprovided to the Commission within areasonable time, if requested, and (4)provide reasonable assurance the multi-purpose lighters are child-resistant. Thisprovision may reduce the testing burdenon some small importers (indeed, onany importer), to the extentmanufacturers supply lighters to morethan one importer.

At least 30 days before it first importsor distributes a multi-purpose lightermodel, the manufacturer or importermust provide written notice to theCPSC. Among other things, this report isto include basic identifying informationas to the manufacturer or importer, adescription of the lighter model and itschild-resistance features, a descriptionand summary of the certification testing,and the location where the otherrequired records will be kept. Themanufacturer or importer must alsosupply the CPSC with a prototype orproduction unit of the lighter model.

The reporting requirements of the ruleare necessary for the CPSC to monitorcompliance. The Commission is notaware of any method by which thereporting burden on small businessescould be reduced while stillaccomplishing the purpose of the rule.The estimated reporting burden,however, is low—less than 100 hoursper model in the initial production year(including the certification testing) andsignificantly less than this insubsequent years.

Assuming that approximately 20manufacturers, with 1 to 2 models each,introduce child-resistant multi-purposelighters during the first year after the



publication of the final rule, the totalpaperwork and reporting burden for allmanufacturers will be 2,000 to 4,000hours. In subsequent years, the totalpaperwork and reporting burdensshould be significantly less. Forexample, if three new models areintroduced annually, the total burdenwill be approximately 300 hours.

Other Alternatives Considered

The Commission considered fourbasic alternatives to certain elements ofthe rule. Specifically, the Commissionconsidered (1) narrowing the scope toexclude high-end and/or micro-torchmulti-purpose lighters, (2) requiringonly additional labeling, (3) taking noaction and relying on voluntary efforts,and (4) alternative effective dates. Thesealternatives were rejected for thereasons given in the Commission’sRegulatory Analysis in Section H of thisnotice.

Summary and Conclusions

The rule will affect all manufacturersand importers of multi-purpose lighters,including a number of manufacturersand importers that are small businesses.The small firms that import ormanufacture multi-purpose lighters willbe impacted by the rule’s performance,certification, recordkeeping, andreporting requirements. The higher costsof manufacturing child-resistant lightersthat their suppliers incur will likely bepassed on to these firms as well. Someof the firms may have temporarydisruptions in their supply of multi-purpose lighters because of the rule.However, it is unlikely that any of theseeffects would be significant.

In addition to the small importers,there are a few small firms thatmanufacture their own multi-purposelighters or have their own proprietarydesigns manufactured for them. Therule may have a more significant impacton these firms since they will likely bearmost of the cost of developing andcertifying the child-resistantmechanisms for their multi-purposelighters.

The Commission considered somealternatives to the rule that might havereduced the burden on smallmanufacturers. However, thesealternatives were rejected since the levelof safety that would be achieved waslower under these alternatives thanunder the rule. These alternativesincluded taking no action, requiringadditional labeling only, exempting thehigh-end multi-purpose lighters fromthe scope of the rule, and extending theeffective date.

J. Effects on the Elderly andHandicapped

Section 9(e) of the CPSA requires that,in promulgating a consumer productsafety rule, ‘‘the Commission shall alsoconsider and take into account thespecial needs of elderly andhandicapped persons to determine theextent to which such persons may beadversely affected by such rule.’’ 15U.S.C. 2058(e). The followingdiscussion examines the potential effectof the rule on elderly and handicappedpersons.

The rule is unlikely to have asignificant impact on the elderly orhandicapped who can operate non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.The lighter industry now has severalyears experience in the design of child-resistant mechanisms for cigarettelighters, and it is reasonable to expectthat this experience will be applied tochild-resistant devices for multi-purpose lighters. Early designs forcigarette lighters were somewhatcumbersome and often inconvenient touse, leading to customer complaints andto intentional defeat of some types ofchild-resistant mechanisms by somepersons. Since the Safety Standard forCigarette Lighters became effective,child-resistant mechanisms haveevolved. Although some types are lessthan ideal, others are transparent, ornearly so, to the user.

Current multi-purpose lighterstypically are operated by a trigger(operated with the forefinger) or abutton (operated with the thumb), andare easy to use with one hand. Child-resistant versions of these lighters willprobably require some additional actionor force, and thus may be at leastsomewhat more complex or lessconvenient to operate than non-child-resistant lighters. However, because easeof use is critical to consumeracceptance, it is likely that multi-purpose lighters will continue to beoperable with one hand, and that thechild-resistant devices will not beoverly difficult to use.

The staff reviewed three child-resistant multi-purpose lighter designs.The child-resistant device on eachproduct is a latch that blocks theoperating mechanism. Two have trigger-style operating mechanisms. These havedevices built into the top side of thehandle, in line with the expectedplacement of the user’s thumb. Onetrigger-style lighter requires that theuser apply a force of 1.25 kg or 2.75 kg(depending on placement) with thethumb to unlatch the operatingmechanism. This requires bothknowledge of how the device works and

a level of strength below the average fora tested sample of subjects aged 60 to 89years of age for a similar task (Imrhan,1989). The other requires the user tofirst slide a button backward (toward thepalm) approximately 1⁄8 inch beforepulling the trigger. The latter requiresonly knowledge, because the action ofsliding the button backwards is counterto the normal motion when holding andoperating the lighter, but requires onlynominal force and dexterity.

The third lighter has a slide-buttonoperating mechanism positioned on thetop of the handle. It requires that asecond slide latch on the reverse side ofthe handle be pushed sideways beforethe lighter can be operated. Althoughsimple in principle, this third lighterdoes not fit the user’s hand, andrequires coordination to operate.Provided clear instructions are includedon the packaging, the first two typesshould be usable by handicapped andelderly persons who can operate currentnon-child-resistant lighters. The third islikely to be difficult for users in general.Competitive forces should ensure thatelderly and handicapped consumerswill find one or more products they areable to use.

K. Paperwork Reduction ActAs explained above, the standard and

the certification provisions will requiremanufacturers and importers of multi-purpose lighters to test surrogate andproduction lighters, maintain records,and report data to the Commissionrelating to the multi-purpose lightersthat they produce or import. For thisreason, the rule published belowcontains ‘‘collection of informationrequirements,’’ as that term is used inthe Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.3501–3520. Therefore, the proposed rulewas submitted to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) inaccordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) andimplementing regulations codified at 5CFR 1320.11.

Based on estimates made in thecourse of developing the cigarettelighter standard and on informationobtained from industry sources, theCommission estimates that complyingwith the testing, recordkeeping, andreporting requirements of the rule willrequire approximately 100 hours permodel for the first year, andsubstantially less in subsequent years.The time required for testing is expectedto average about 80 hours per model.The time required for recordkeeping andreporting is expected to be about 10hours for each model per year. Theexact number of manufacturers andimporters is not known. However, thenumber of manufacturers and importers



appears to be increasing. Currently, theCommission believes that there may beas many as 40 different models of multi-purpose lighters on the market. With afew exceptions, most manufacturers andimporters have only one model.Therefore, the total amount of time thatwill be required for complying with thetesting, recordkeeping, and reportingrequirements of the rule isapproximately 4,000 hours in its initialyear or so, and substantially less in lateryears.

L. Executive Orders

This rule has been evaluated inaccordance with Executive Order No.13,132, and the rule has no substantialfederalism implications.

Executive Order No. 12,988 requiresagencies to state the preemptive effect,if any, to be given to the regulation. Thepreemptive effect of this rule isestablished by 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), whichstates:

(a) Whenever a consumer product safetystandard under the CPSA applies to a risk ofinjury associated with a consumer product,no State or political subdivision of a Stateshall have any authority either to establish orcontinue in effect any provision of a safetystandard or regulation which prescribed anyrequirements as to the performance,composition, contents, design, finish,construction, packaging, or labeling of suchproducts which are designed to deal with thesame risk of injury associated with suchconsumer product, unless such requirementsare identical to the requirements of theFederal standard.

Subsection (b) of 15 U.S.C. 2075provides a circumstance under whichsubsection (a) does not prevent theFederal Government or the governmentof any State or political subdivision ofa State from establishing or continuingin effect a safety standard applicable toa consumer product for its own[governmental] use, and which is notidentical to the consumer product safetystandard applicable to the productunder the CPSA. This occurs if theFederal, State, or political subdivisionrequirement provides a higher degree ofprotection from such risk of injury thanthe consumer product safety standard.

Subsection (c) of 15 U.S.C. 2075authorizes a State or a politicalsubdivision of a State to request anexemption from the preemptive effect ofa consumer product safety standard.The Commission may grant such arequest, by rule, where the standard orregulation of the State or politicalsubdivision (1) provides a significantlyhigher degree of protection from suchrisk of injury than does the consumerproduct safety standard and (2) does notunduly burden interstate commerce.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1212

Consumer protection, Fire prevention,Hazardous materials, Infants andchildren, Labeling, Packaging andcontainers, Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.

For the reasons set out in thepreamble, the Commission amends Title16, Chapter II, Subchapter B, of theCode of Federal Regulations as set forthbelow.

1. A new Part 1212 is added to readas follows:

PART 1212—Safety Standard for Multi-Purpose Lighters

Subpart A—Requirements for Child-Resistance

Sec.1212.1 Scope and application.1212.2 Definitions.1212.3 Requirements for multi-purpose

lighters.1212.4 Test protocol.1212.5 Findings.

Subpart B—Certification Requirements

Sec.1212.11 General.1212.12 Certificate of compliance.1212.13 Certification tests.1212.14 Qualification testing.1212.15 Specifications.1212.16 Production testing.1212.17 Recordkeeping and reporting.1212.18 Refusal of importation.

Subpart C— Stockpiling

Sec.1212.20 Stockpiling.Appendix A to Part 1212—Findings Under

the Consumer Product Safety Act

Subpart A—Requirements for Child-Resistance

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058, 2079(d).

§ 1212.1 Scope, application, and effectivedate.

This part 1212, a consumer productsafety standard, prescribes requirementsfor multi-purpose lighters. Theserequirements are intended to make themulti-purpose lighters subject to thestandard’s provisions resistant tosuccessful operation by childrenyounger than 5 years of age. Thisstandard applies to all multi-purposelighters, as defined in § 1212.2, that aremanufactured in the United States, orimported, on or after December 22,2000.

§ 1212.2 Definitions.As used in this part 1212:(a)(1) Multi-purpose lighter, (also

known as grill lighter, fireplace lighter,utility lighter, micro-torch, or gas match,etc.) means: A hand-held, flame-producing product that operates on fuel,

incorporates an ignition mechanism,and is used by consumers to ignite itemssuch as candles, fuel for fireplaces,charcoal or gas-fired grills, camp fires,camp stoves, lanterns, fuel-firedappliances or devices, or pilot lights, orfor uses such as soldering or brazing.Some multi-purpose lighters have afeature that allows for hands-freeoperation.

(2) The following products are notmulti-purpose lighters:

(i) Devices intended primarily forigniting cigarettes, cigars, and pipes,whether or not such devices are subjectto the requirements of the SafetyStandard for Cigarette Lighters (16 CFRpart 1210).

(ii) Devices containing more than 10oz. of fuel.

(iii) Matches.(b) Successful operation means one

signal of any duration from a surrogatemulti-purpose lighter within either ofthe two 5-minute test periods specifiedin § 1212.4(f).

(c)(1) Surrogate multi-purpose lightermeans a device that

(i) Approximates the appearance, size,shape, and weight of, and is identical inall other factors that affect childresistance (including operation and theforce(s) required for operation), withinreasonable manufacturing tolerances, to,a multi-purpose lighter intended for useby consumers,

(ii) Has no fuel,(iii) Does not produce a flame, and(iv) produces an audible, or audible

and visual, signal that will be clearlydiscernible when the surrogate multi-purpose lighter is activated in eachmanner that would produce a flame ina fueled production multi-purposelighter.

(2) This definition does not require amulti-purpose lighter to be modifiedwith electronics or the like to producea signal. Manufacturers may use a multi-purpose lighter without fuel as asurrogate multi-purpose lighter if adistinct audible signal, such as a‘‘click,’’ can be heard clearly when themechanism is operated in each mannerthat would produce a flame in aproduction lighter and if a flame cannotbe produced in a production multi-purpose lighter without the signal. Butsee § 1212.4(f)(1).

(d) Child-resistant mechanism meansthe mechanism of a multi-purposelighter that makes the lighter resistsuccessful operation by young children,as specified in § 1212.3.

(e) Model means one or more multi-purpose lighters from the samemanufacturer or importer that do notdiffer in design or other characteristicsin any manner that may affect child



resistance. Lighter characteristics thatmay affect child resistance include, butare not limited to, size, shape, casematerial, and ignition mechanism(including child-resistant features).

§ 1212.3 Requirements for multi-purposelighters.

(a) A multi-purpose lighter subject tothis part 1212 shall be resistant tosuccessful operation by at least 85% ofthe child-test panel when tested in themanner prescribed by § 1212.4.

(b) The child-resistant mechanism ofa multi-purpose lighter subject to thispart 1212 must:

(1) Operate safely when used in anormal and convenient manner,

(2) Comply with this § 1212.3 for thereasonably expected life of the lighter,

(3) Not be easy to deactivate orprevent from complying with this§ 1212.3.

(4) Except as provided in paragraph(b)(5) of this section, automatically resetwhen or before the user lets go of thelighter.

(5) The child-resistant mechanism ofa multi-purpose lighter subject to thispart 1212 that allows hands-freeoperation must:

(i) Require operation of an additionalfeature (e.g., lock, switch, etc.) after aflame is achieved before hands-freeoperation can occur;

(ii) Have a manual mechanism forturning off the flame when the hands-free function is used; and either

(iii) Automatically reset when orbefore the user lets go of the lighterwhen the hands-free function is notused; or

(iv) Automatically reset when orbefore the user lets go of the lighter afterturning off the flame when the hands-free feature is used.

§ 1212.4 Test protocol.(a) Child test panel. (1) The test to

determine if a multi-purpose lighter isresistant to successful operation bychildren uses a panel of children to testa surrogate multi-purpose lighterrepresenting the production multi-purpose lighter. Written informedconsent shall be obtained from a parentor legal guardian of a child before thechild participates in the test.

(2) The test shall be conducted usingat least one, but no more than two, 100-child test panels in accordance with theprovisions of § 1212.4(f).

(3) The children for the test panelshall live within the United States.

(4) The age and sex distribution ofeach 100-child panel shall be:

(i) 30 ± 2 children (20 ± 1 males; 10± 1 females) 42 through 44 months old;

(ii) 40 ± 2 children (26 ± 1 males; 14± 1 females) 45 through 48 months old;

(iii) 30 ± 2 children (20 ± 1 males; 10± 1 females) 49 through 51 months old.

Note to paragraph (a)(4): To calculate achild’s age in months: Subtract the child’sbirth date from the test date. The followingcalculation shows how to determine the ageof the child at the time of the test. Both datesare expressed numerically as Month-Day-Year.

Example: Test Date (e.g., 8/3/94) minusBirth Date—(e.g., 6/23/90). Subtract thenumber for the year of birth from the numberfor the year of the test (i.e., 94 minus 90 =4). Multiply the difference in years by 12months (i.e., 4 years × 12 months = 48months). Subtract the number for the monthof the birth date from the number of themonth of the test date (i.e., 8 minus 6 = 2months). Add the difference in monthsobtained above to the number of monthsrepresented by the difference in yearsdescribed above (48 months + 2 months = 50months). If the difference in days is greaterthan 15 (e.g., 16, 17 . . .), add 1 month. Ifthe difference in days is less than ¥15 (e.g.,¥16, ¥17), subtract 1 month (e.g., 50months¥1 month = 49 months). If thedifference in days is between ¥15 and 15(e.g., ¥15, ¥14, . . . 14, 15), do not add orsubtract a month.

(5) No child with a permanent ortemporary illness, injury, or handicapthat would interfere with the child’sability to operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall participate.

(6) Two children at a time shallparticipate in testing of surrogate multi-purpose lighters. Extra children whoseresults will not be counted in the testmay be used if necessary to provide therequired partner for test subjects, if theextra children are within the requiredage range and a parent or guardian ofeach such child has signed a consentform.

(7) No child shall participate in morethan one test panel or test more thanone surrogate multi-purpose lighter. Nochild shall participate in both surrogatemulti-purpose lighter testing and eithersurrogate cigarette lighter testing orchild-resistant package testing on thesame day.

(b) Test sites, environment, and adulttesters. (1) Surrogate multi-purposelighters shall be tested within theUnited States at 5 or more test sitesthroughout the geographical area foreach 100-child panel if the sites are thecustomary nursery schools or day carecenters of the participating children. Nomore than 20 children shall be tested ateach site. In the alternative, surrogatemulti-purpose lighters may be testedwithin the United States at one or morecentral locations, provided theparticipating children are drawn from avariety of geographical locations.

(2) Testing of surrogate multi-purposelighters shall be conducted in a roomthat is familiar to the children on the

test panel (for example, a room thechildren frequent at their customarynursery school or day care center). If thetesting is conducted in a room thatinitially is unfamiliar to the children(for example, a room at a centrallocation), the tester shall allow at least5 minutes for the children to becomeaccustomed to the new environmentbefore starting the test. The area inwhich the testing is conducted shall bewell-lighted and isolated fromdistractions. The children shall beallowed freedom of movement to workwith their surrogate multi-purposelighters, as long as the tester can watchboth children at the same time. Twochildren at a time shall participate intesting of surrogate multi-purposelighters. The children shall be seatedside by side in chairs approximately 6inches apart, across a table from thetester. The table shall be normal tableheight for the children, so that they cansit up at the table with their legsunderneath and so that their arms willbe at a comfortable height when on topof the table. The children’s chairs shallbe ‘‘child size.’’

(3) Each tester shall be at least 18years old. Five or 6 adult testers shallbe used for each 100-child test panel.Each tester shall test an approximatelyequal number of children from the 100-child test panel (20 ± 2 children each for5 testers and 17 ± 2 children each for 6testers).

Note: When a test is initiated with fivetesters and one tester drops out, a sixth testermay be added to complete the testing. Whena test is initiated with six testers and onetester drops out, the test shall be completedusing the five remaining testers. When atester drops out, the requirement for eachtester to test an approximately equal numberof children does not apply to that tester.When testing is initiated with five testers, notester shall test more than 19 children untilit is certain that the test can be completedwith five testers.

(c) Surrogate multi-purpose lighters.(1) Six surrogate multi-purpose lightersshall be used for each 100-child panel.The six multi-purpose lighters shallrepresent the range of forces required foroperation of multi-purpose lightersintended for use. All of these surrogatemulti-purpose lighters shall have thesame visual appearance, includingcolor. The surrogate multi-purposelighters shall be labeled with sequentialnumbers beginning with the numberone. The same six surrogate multi-purpose lighters shall be used for theentire 100-child panel. The surrogatemulti-purpose lighters may be used inmore than one 100-child panel test. Thesurrogate multi-purpose lighters shallnot be damaged or jarred during storageor transportation. The surrogate multi-



purpose lighters shall not be exposed toextreme heat or cold. The surrogatemulti-purpose lighters shall be tested atroom temperature. No surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be left unattended.

(2) Each surrogate multi-purposelighter shall be tested by anapproximately equal number of childrenin a 100-child test panel (17 ± 2children). Note: If a surrogate multi-purpose lighter is permanentlydamaged, testing shall continue with theremaining multi-purpose lighters. Whena multi-purpose lighter is dropped out,the requirement that each multi-purposelighter be tested by an approximatelyequal number of children does notapply to that lighter.

(3) Before each 100-child panel istested, each surrogate multi-purposelighter shall be examined to verify thatit approximates the appearance, size,shape, and weight of a productionmulti-purpose lighter intended for use.

(4) Before and after each 100-childpanel is tested, force measurementsshall be taken on all operatingcomponents that could affect childresistance to verify that they are withinreasonable operating tolerances for thecorresponding production multi-purpose lighter.

(5) Before and after testing surrogatemulti-purpose lighters with each child,each surrogate multi-purpose lightershall be operated outside the presenceof any child participating in the test toverify that it produces a signal. If thesurrogate multi-purpose lighter will notproduce a signal before the test, it shallbe repaired before it is used in testing.If the surrogate multi-purpose lighterdoes not produce a signal when it isoperated after the test, the results for thepreceding test with that multi-purposelighter shall be eliminated. Anexplanation shall be recorded on thedata collection record. The multi-purpose lighter shall be repaired andtested with another eligible child (asone of a pair of children) to completethe test panel.

(d) Encouragement. (1) Prior to thetest, the tester shall talk to the childrenin a normal and friendly tone to makethem feel at ease and to gain theirconfidence.

(2) The tester shall tell the childrenthat he or she needs their help for aspecial job. The children shall not bepromised a reward of any kind forparticipating, and shall not be told thatthe test is a game or contest or that itis fun.

(3) The tester shall not discourage achild from attempting to operate thesurrogate multi-purpose lighter at anytime (either verbally or with bodylanguage such as facial expressions),

unless a child is in danger of hurtinghimself or another child. The testershall not discuss the dangers of multi-purpose lighters or matches with thechildren to be tested prior to the end ofthe 10-minute test.

(4) Whenever a child has stoppedattempting to operate the surrogatemulti-purpose lighter for a period ofapproximately one minute, the testershall encourage the child to try bysaying ‘‘keep trying for just a littlelonger.’’

(5) Whenever a child says that his orher parent, grandparent, guardian, etc.,said never to touch lighters, say ‘‘that’sright—never touch a real lighter—butyour [parent, etc.] said it was OK for youto try to make a noise with this speciallighter because it can’t hurt you.’’

(6) The children in a pair being testedmay encourage each other to operate thesurrogate multi-purpose lighter and maytell or show each other how to operateit. (This interaction is not considered tobe disruption as described in paragraph(e)(2) of this section.) However, neitherchild shall be allowed to touch oroperate the other child’s multi-purposelighter. If one child takes the otherchild’s surrogate multi-purpose lighter,that surrogate lighter shall beimmediately returned to the properchild. 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 teststarts, select another eligible child forparticipation in that pair.

(2) If a child disrupts the participationof another child for more than 1 minuteduring the test, the test shall be stoppedand both children eliminated from theresults. An explanation shall berecorded on the data collection record.These two children should be replacedwith other eligible children to completethe test panel.

(3) If a child is not disruptive butrefuses to attempt to operate thesurrogate multi-purpose lighterthroughout the entire test period, thatchild shall be eliminated from the testresults and an explanation shall berecorded on the data collection record.The child shall be replaced with anothereligible child (as one of a pair ofchildren) to complete the test panel.

(f) Test procedure. (1) To begin thetest, the tester shall say ‘‘I have a speciallighter that will not make a flame. Itmakes a noise like this.’’ Except wheredoing so would block the child’s viewof a visual signal, the adult tester shallplace a 81⁄2 by 11 inch sheet ofcardboard or other rigid opaque materialupright on the table in front of the

surrogate multi-purpose lighter, so thatthe surrogate multi-purpose lightercannot be seen by the child, and shalloperate the surrogate multi-purposelighter once to produce its signal. Thetester shall say ‘‘Your parents said it isOK for you to try to make that noisewith your lighter.’’ The tester shall placea surrogate multi-purpose lighter ineach child’s hand and say ‘‘now you tryto make a noise with your lighter. Keeptrying until I tell you to stop.’’

Note: For multi-purpose lighters with an‘‘off/on’’ switch, the surrogate lighter shall begiven to the child with the switch in the‘‘on,’’ or unlocked, position.

(2) The adult tester shall observe thechildren for 5 minutes to determine ifeither or both of the children cansuccessfully operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter by producing one signalof any duration. If a child achieves aspark without defeating the child-resistant feature, say ‘‘that’s a spark—itwon’t hurt you—try to make a noisewith your lighter.’’ If any childsuccessfully operates the surrogatemulti-purpose lighter during this first 5-minute period, the lighter shall be takenfrom that child and the child shall notbe asked to try to operate the lighteragain. The tester shall ask the successfulchild to remain until the other child isfinished.

(3) If either or both of the children areunable to successfully operate thesurrogate multi-purpose lighter duringthe 5-minute period specified in§ 1212.4(f) (3), the adult tester shalldemonstrate the operation of thesurrogate multi-purpose lighter. Toconduct the demonstration, secure thechildren’s full attention by saying‘‘Okay, give me your lighter(s) now.’’Take the surrogate multi-purposelighters and place them on the table infront of you out of the children’s reach.Then say, ‘‘I’ll show you how to makethe noise with your lighters. First I’llshow you with (child’s name) lighterand then I’ll show you with (child’sname) lighter.’’ Pick up the first child’ssurrogate multi-purpose lighter. Holdthe lighter approximately 2 feet in frontof the children at their eye level. Holdthe surrogate multi-purpose lighter in acomfortable operating position in onehand so both children can see theoperation of the child-resistantmechanism and the ignition mechanismduring each demonstration. Say ‘‘nowwatch the lighter.’’ Look at each child toverify that they are both looking at thelighter. Operate the multi-purposelighter one time in a normal manneraccording to the manufacturer’sinstructions. Do not exaggerateoperating movements. Do not verbally



describe the lighter’s operation. Placethe first child’s lighter back on the tablein front of you and pick up the secondchild’s lighter. Say, ‘‘Okay, now watchthis lighter.’’ Repeat the demonstrationas described above using the secondchild’s multi-purpose lighter.

Note to paragraph (f)(3): Thedemonstration is conducted with each child’slighter, even if one child has successfullyoperated the lighter. Testers shall conductthe demonstration in a uniform manner,including the words spoken to the children,the way the multi-purpose lighter is held andoperated, and how the tester’s hand and bodyis oriented to the children. All testers mustbe able to operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighters using only appropriateoperating movements in accordance with themanufacturer’s instructions. If any of theserequirements are not met during thedemonstration for any pair of children, theresults for that pair of children shall beeliminated from the test. Another pair ofeligible children shall be used to completethe test panel.

(4) Each child who fails tosuccessfully operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter in the first 5 minutes isthen given another 5 minutes in whichto attempt to complete the successfuloperation of the surrogate multi-purposelighter. After the demonstrations, givethe same surrogate multi-purpose lighterback to each child who did notsuccessfully operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter in the first 5 minutes byplacing the multi-purpose lighter in thechild’s hand. Say ‘‘Okay, now you try tomake the noise with your lighter(s)—keep trying until I tell you to stop.’’ Ifany child successfully operates thesurrogate multi-purpose lighter duringthis period, the surrogate multi-purposelighter shall be taken from that childand the child shall not be asked to tryto operate the lighter again. If the otherchild has not yet successfully operatedthe surrogate multi-purpose lighter, thetester shall ask the successful child toremain until the other child is finished.

Note: Multi-purpose lighters with an on/offswitch shall have the switch returned to theposition the child left it at the end of the first5-minute test period before returning thelighter to the child.

(5) At the end of the second 5-minutetest period, take the surrogate multi-purpose lighter from any child who hasnot successfully operated it.

(6) After the test is over, ask thechildren to stand next to you. Look atthe children’s faces and say: ‘‘These arespecial lighters that don’t make fire.Real lighters can burn you. Will youboth promise me that if you find a reallighter you won’t touch it and thatyou’ll tell a grownup right away?’’ Waitfor an affirmative response from each

child; then thank the children forhelping.

(7) Escort the children out of the roomused for testing.

(8) After a child has participated inthe testing of a surrogate multi-purposelighter, and on the same day, providewritten notice of that fact to the child’sparent or guardian. This notificationmay be in the form of a letter providedto the school to be given to a parent orguardian of each child. The notificationshall state that the child participated,shall ask the parent or guardian to warnthe child not to play with lighters ormatches, and shall remind the parent orguardian to keep all lighters andmatches, whether child-resistant or not,out of the reach of children. Forchildren who operated the surrogatemulti-purpose lighter, the notificationshall state that the child was able tooperate the child-resistant multi-purpose lighter. For children who donot defeat the child-resistant feature, thenotification shall state that, although thechild did not defeat the child-resistantfeature, the child may be able to do soin the future.

(g) Data collection and recording.Except for recording the times requiredfor the children to activate the signal,recording of data should be avoidedwhile the children are trying to operatethe multi-purpose lighters, so that thetester’s full attention is on the childrenduring the test period. If actual testingis videotaped, the camera shall bestationary and shall be operatedremotely in order to avoid distractingthe children. Any photographs shall betaken after actual testing and shallsimulate actual test procedure(s) (forexample, the demonstration). Thefollowing data shall be collected andrecorded for each child in the 100-childtest 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 thesurrogate signal in the first 5-minute testperiod.

(9) The elapsed time at which thechild achieved any operation of thesurrogate signal in the second 5-minutetest period.

(10) For a single pair of children fromeach 100-child test panel, photograph(s)

or video tape to show how the multi-purpose lighter was held in the tester’shand, and the orientation of the tester’sbody and hand to the children, duringthe demonstration.

(h) Evaluation of test results andacceptance criterion. To determinewhether a surrogate multi-purposelighter resists operation by at least 85%of the children, sequential panels of 100children each, up to a maximum of 2panels, shall be tested as prescribedbelow.

(1) If no more than 10 children in thefirst 100-child test panel successfullyoperated the surrogate multi-purposelighter, the multi-purpose lighterrepresented by the surrogate multi-purpose lighter shall be considered to beresistant to successful operation by atleast 85% of the child test panel, and nofurther testing is conducted. If 11through 18 children in the first 100-child test panel successfully operate thesurrogate multi-purpose lighter, the testresults are inconclusive, and thesurrogate multi-purpose lighter shall betested with a second 100-child testpanel in accordance with this § 1212.4.If 19 or more of the children in the first100-child test panel successfullyoperated the surrogate multi-purposelighter, the lighter represented by thesurrogate shall be considered notresistant to successful operation by atleast 85% of the child test panel, and nofurther testing is conducted. (2)(i) Ifadditional testing of the surrogate multi-purpose lighter is required by paragraph(h)(1) of this section, conduct the testspecified by this § 1212.4 using a second100-child test panel and record theresults. If a total of no more than 30 ofthe children in the combined first andsecond 100-child test panelssuccessfully operated the surrogatemulti-purpose lighter, the multi-purposelighter represented by the surrogatemulti-purpose lighter shall beconsidered resistant to successfuloperation by at least 85% of the childtest panel, and no further testing isperformed. If a total of 31 or morechildren in the combined first andsecond 100-child test panelssuccessfully operate the surrogate multi-purpose lighter, the multi-purposelighter represented by the surrogateshall be considered not resistant tosuccessful operation by 85% of thechild test panel, and no further testingis conducted.

(ii) Thus, for the first panel of 100children, the surrogate passes if thereare 0–10 successful operations by thechildren; the surrogate fails if there are19 or greater successful operations; andtesting is continued if there are 11–18successes. If testing is continued with a



second panel of children, the surrogatepasses if the combined total of thesuccessful operations of the two panelsis 30 or less, and it fails if there are 31or more.

§ 1212.5 Findings.(a) Before issuing a final rule, the

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA),15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(1), requires theCommission to consider and makeappropriate findings for inclusion in therule with respect to:

(1) The degree and nature of the riskof injury the rule is designed toeliminate or reduce;

(2) The approximate number ofconsumer products, or types or classesthereof, subject to such rule;

(3) The need of the public for theconsumer products subject to such rule,and the probable effect of such rule,upon the utility, cost, or availability ofsuch products to meet such need; and

(4) Any means of achieving theobjective of the order while minimizingadverse effects on competition ordisruption or dislocation ofmanufacturing and other commercialpractices consistent with the publichealth and safety

(b) The CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3),also requires the Commission to makethe following findings before itpromulgates a rule, and to include suchfindings in the rule:

(1) That the rule (including itseffective date) is reasonably necessary toeliminate or reduce an unreasonablerisk of injury associated with suchproduct;

(2) That the promulgation of the ruleis in the public interest;

(3) That the benefits expected fromthe rule bear a reasonable relationshipto its costs; and

(4) That the rule imposes the leastburdensome requirement that preventsor adequately reduces the risk of injuryfor which the rule is being promulgated.

(c) The required findings are includedas Appendix A to this part 1212.

Subpart B—Certification Requirements

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2063, 2065(b),2066(g), 2076(e), 2079(d).

§ 1212.11 General.Section 14(a) of the Consumer

Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C.2063(a), requires every manufacturer,private labeler, or importer of a productthat is subject to a consumer productsafety standard and that is distributed incommerce to issue a certificate that suchproduct conforms to the applicablestandard and to base that certificateupon a test of each item or upon a

reasonable testing program. The purposeof this subpart B of part 1212 is toestablish requirements thatmanufacturers, importers, and privatelabelers must follow to certify that theirproducts comply with the SafetyStandard for Multi-purpose lighters.This Subpart B describes the minimumfeatures of a reasonable testing programand includes requirements for labeling,recordkeeping, and reporting pursuantto sections 14, 16(b), 17(g), and 27(e) ofthe CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063, 2065(b),2066(g), and 2076(e).

§ 1212.12 Certificate of compliance.

(a) General requirements. (1)Manufacturers (including importers).Manufacturers of any multi-purposelighter subject to the standard mustissue the certificate of compliancerequired by section 14(a) of the CPSA,15 U.S.C. 2063(a), and this subpart B,based on a reasonable testing program ora test of each product, as required by§§ 1212.13, 1212.14, and 1212.16.Manufacturers must also label eachmulti-purpose lighter subject to thestandard as required by paragraph (c) ofthis section and keep the records andmake the reports required by §§ 1212.15and 1212.17. For purposes of thisrequirement, an importer of multi-purpose lighters shall be considered the‘‘manufacturer.’’

(2) Private labelers. Because privatelabelers necessarily obtain theirproducts from a manufacturer orimporter that is already required toissue the certificate, private labelers arenot required to issue a certificate.However, private labelers must ensurethat the multi-purpose lighters arelabeled in accordance with paragraph(c) of this section and that anycertificate of compliance that issupplied with each shipping unit ofmulti-purpose lighters in accordancewith paragraph (b) of this section issupplied to any distributor or retailerwho receives the product from theprivate labeler.

(3) Testing on behalf of importers. (i)If the required testing has beenperformed by or for a foreignmanufacturer of a product, an importermay rely on such tests to support thecertificate of compliance, provided that:

(A) The importer is a resident of theUnited States or has a resident agent inthe United States and

(B) The records are in English and therecords and the surrogate multi-purposelighters tested are kept in the UnitedStates and can be provided to theCommission within 48 hours(§ 1212.17(a)) or, in the case ofproduction records, can be provided to

the Commission within 7 calendar daysin accordance with § 1212.17(a)(3).

(ii) The importer is responsible forensuring that:

(A) The foreign manufacturer’srecords show that all testing used tosupport the certificate of compliancehas been performed properly(§§ 1212.14–1212.16),

(B) The records provide a reasonableassurance that all multi-purpose lightersimported comply with the standard(§ 1212.13(b)(1)),

(C) The records exist in English(§ 1212.17(a)),

(D) The importer knows where therequired records and multi-purposelighters are located and that recordsrequired to be located in the UnitedStates are located there,

(E) Arrangements have been made sothat any records required to be kept inthe United States will be provided to theCommission within 48 hours of arequest and any records not kept in theUnited States will be provided to theCommission within 7 calendar days(§ 1212.17(a)), and

(F) The information required by§ 1212.17(b) to be provided to theCommission’s Office of Compliance hasbeen provided.

(b) Certificate of compliance. Acertificate of compliance mustaccompany each shipping unit of theproduct (for example, a case), orotherwise be furnished to anydistributor or retailer to whom theproduct is sold or delivered by themanufacturer, private labeler, orimporter. The certificate shall state:

(1) That the product ‘‘complies withthe Consumer Product Safety Standardfor Multi-purpose lighters (16 CFR part1212)’’,

(2) The name and address of themanufacturer or importer issuing thecertificate or of the private labeler, and

(3) The date(s) of manufacture and, ifdifferent from the address in paragraph(b)(2) of this section, the address of theplace of manufacture.

(c) Labeling. The manufacturer orimporter must label each multi-purposelighter with the following information,which may be in code.

(1) An identification of the period oftime, not to exceed 31 days, duringwhich the multi-purpose lighter wasmanufactured.

(2) An identification of themanufacturer of the multi-purposelighter, unless the multi-purpose lighterbears a private label. If the multi-purpose lighter bears a private label, itshall bear a code mark or other labelthat will permit the seller of the multi-purpose lighter to identify the



manufacturer to the purchaser uponrequest.

§ 1212.13 Certification tests.(a) General. As explained in § 1212.11

of this subpart, certificates ofcompliance required by section 14(a) ofthe CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a), must bebased on a reasonable testing program.

(b) Reasonable testing programs.(1) Requirements. (i) A reasonable

testing program for multi-purposelighters is one that demonstrates with ahigh degree of assurance that all multi-purpose lighters manufactured for saleor distributed in commerce will meetthe requirements of the standard,including the requirements of § 1212.3.Manufacturers and importers shalldetermine the types and frequency oftesting for their own reasonable testingprograms. A reasonable testing programshould be sufficiently stringent that itwill detect any variations in productionor performance during the productioninterval that would cause any multi-purpose lighters to fail to meet therequirements of the standard.

(ii) All reasonable testing programsshall include: (A) Qualification tests,which must be performed on surrogatesof each model of multi-purpose lighterproduced, or to be produced, todemonstrate that the product is capableof passing the tests prescribed by thestandard (see § 1212.14) and

(B) Production tests, which must beperformed during appropriateproduction intervals as long as theproduct is being manufactured (see§ 1212.16).

(iii) Corrective action and/oradditional testing must be performedwhenever certification tests of samplesof the product give results that do notprovide a high degree of assurance thatall multi-purpose lighters manufacturedduring the applicable productioninterval will pass the tests of thestandard.

(2) Testing by third parties. At theoption of the manufacturer or importer,some or all of the testing of each multi-purpose lighter or multi-purpose lightersurrogate may be performed by acommercial testing laboratory or otherthird party. However, the manufactureror importer must ensure that allcertification testing has been properlyperformed with passing results and thatall records of such tests are maintainedin accordance with § 1212.17 of thissubpart.

§ 1212.14 Qualification testing.(a) Testing. Before any manufacturer

or importer of multi-purpose lightersdistributes multi-purpose lighters incommerce in the United States,

surrogate multi-purpose lighters of eachmodel shall be tested in accordancewith § 1212.4 to ensure that all suchmulti-purpose lighters comply with thestandard. However, if a manufacturerhas tested one model of multi-purposelighter, and then wishes to distributeanother model of multi-purpose lighterthat differs from the first model only bydifferences that would not have anadverse effect on child resistance, thesecond model need not be tested inaccordance with § 1212.4.

(b) Product modifications. If anychanges are made to a product afterinitial qualification testing that couldadversely affect the ability of theproduct to meet the requirements of thestandard, additional qualification testsmust be made on surrogates for thechanged product before the changedmulti-purpose lighters are distributed incommerce.

(c) Requalification. If a manufactureror importer chooses to requalify a multi-purpose lighter design after it has beenin production, this may be done byfollowing the testing procedures at§ 1212.4.

§ 1212.15 Specifications.(a) Requirement. Before any multi-

purpose lighters that are subject to thestandard are distributed in commerce,the manufacturer or importer shallensure that the surrogate multi-purposelighters used for qualification testingunder § 1212.14 are described in awritten product specification. (Section1212.4(c) requires that six surrogatemulti-purpose lighters be used fortesting each 100-child panel.)

(b) Contents of specification. Theproduct specification shall include thefollowing information:

(1) A complete description of themulti-purpose lighter, including size,shape, weight, fuel, fuel capacity,ignition mechanism, and child-resistantfeatures.

(2) A detailed description of alldimensions, force requirements, or otherfeatures that could affect the child-resistance of the multi-purpose lighter,including the manufacturer’s tolerancesfor each such dimension or forcerequirement.

(3) Any further information,including, but not limited to, modelnames or numbers, necessary toadequately describe the multi-purposelighters and any child-resistant features.

§ 1212.16 Production testing.(a) General. Manufacturers and

importers shall test samples of multi-purpose lighters subject to the standardas they are manufactured, todemonstrate that the multi-purpose

lighters meet the specifications,required under § 1212.15, of thesurrogate that has been shown byqualification testing to meet therequirements of the standard.

(b) Types and frequency of testing.Manufacturers, private labelers, andimporters shall determine the types oftests for production testing. Eachproduction test shall be conducted at aproduction interval short enough toprovide a high degree of assurance that,if the samples selected for testing passthe production tests, all other multi-purpose lighters produced during theinterval will meet the standard.

(c) Test failure. (1) Sale of multi-purpose lighters. If any test yieldsresults which indicate that any multi-purpose lighters manufactured duringthe production interval may not meetthe standard, production anddistribution in commerce of multi-purpose lighters that may not complywith the standard must cease until it isdetermined that the lighters meet thestandard or until corrective action istaken. (It may be necessary to modifythe multi-purpose lighters or performadditional tests to ensure that onlycomplying multi-purpose lighters aredistributed in commerce. Multi-purposelighters from other production intervalshaving test results showing that multi-purpose lighters from that intervalcomply with the standard could beproduced and distributed unless therewas some reason to believe that theymight not comply with the standard.)

(2) Corrective actions. When anyproduction test fails to provide a highdegree of assurance that all multi-purpose lighters comply with thestandard, corrective action must betaken. Corrective action may includechanges in the manufacturing process,the assembly process, the equipmentused to manufacture the product, or theproduct’s materials or design. Thecorrective action must provide a highdegree of assurance that all multi-purpose lighters produced after thecorrective action will comply with thestandard. If the corrective actionchanges the product from the surrogateused for qualification testing in amanner that could adversely affect itschild-resistance, the multi-purposelighter must undergo new qualificationtests in accordance with § 1212.14.

§ 1212.17 Recordkeeping and reporting.(a) Every manufacturer and importer

of lighters subject to the standard shallmaintain the following records inEnglish on paper, microfiche, or similarmedia and make such records availableto any designated officer or employee ofthe Commission in accordance with



section 16(b) of the Consumer ProductSafety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2065(b). Suchrecords must also be kept in the UnitedStates and provided to the Commissionwithin 48 hours of receipt of a requestfrom any employee of the Commission,except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) ofthis section. Legible copies of originalrecords may be used to comply withthese requirements.

(1) Records of qualification testing,including a description of the tests,photograph(s) or a video tape for asingle pair of children from each 100-child test panel to show how the lighterwas held in the tester’s hand, and theorientation of the tester’s body and handto the children, during thedemonstration, the dates of the tests, thedata required by § 1212.4(d), the actualsurrogate lighters tested, and the resultsof the tests, including video taperecords, if any. These records shall bekept for a period of 3 years after theproduction of the particular model towhich such tests relate has ceased. Ifrequalification tests are undertaken inaccordance with § 1212.14(c), theoriginal qualification test results may bediscarded 3 years after therequalification testing, and therequalification test results andsurrogates, and the other informationrequired in this subsection forqualifications tests, shall be kept in lieuthereof.

(2) Records of procedures used forproduction testing required by thissubpart B, including a description of thetypes of tests conducted (in sufficientdetail that they may be replicated), theproduction interval selected, thesampling scheme, and the pass/rejectcriterion. These records shall be kept fora period of 3 years after production ofthe lighter has ceased.

(3) Records of production testing,including the test results, the date andlocation of testing, and records ofcorrective actions taken, which in turnincludes the specific actions taken toimprove the design or manufacture or tocorrect any noncomplying lighter, thedate the actions were taken, the testresult or failure that triggered theactions, and the additional actions takento ensure that the corrective action hadthe intended effect. These records shallbe kept for a period of 3 years followingthe date of testing. Records ofproduction testing results may be kepton paper, microfiche, computer tape, orother retrievable media. Where recordsare kept on computer tape or otherretrievable media, however, the recordsshall be made available to theCommission on paper copies uponrequest. A manufacturer or importer ofa lighter that is not manufactured in the

United States may maintain theproduction records required by thisparagraph (a)(3) outside the UnitedStates, but shall make such recordsavailable to the Commission in theUnited States within 1 week of a requestfrom a Commission employee for accessto those records under section 16(b) ofthe CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2065(b).

(4) Records of specifications requiredunder § 1212.15 shall be kept for 3 yearsafter production of each lighter modelhas ceased.

(b) Reporting. At least 30 days beforeit first imports or distributes incommerce any model of lighter subjectto the standard, every manufacturer andimporter must provide a written reportto the Office of Compliance, ConsumerProduct Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Room 610, Bethesda,Maryland 20814–4408. Such reportshall include:

(1) The name, address, and principalplace of business of the manufacturer orimporter,

(2) a detailed description of the lightermodel and the child-resistant feature(s)used in that model,

(3) a description of the qualificationtesting, including a description of thesurrogate lighters tested (including adescription of the point in the operationat which the surrogate will signaloperation—e.g., the distance by which atrigger must be moved), thespecification of the surrogate lighterrequired by § 1212.15, a summary of theresults of all such tests, the dates thetests were performed, the location(s) ofsuch tests, and the identity of theorganization that conducted the tests,

(4) an identification of the place orplaces that the lighters were or will bemanufactured,

(5) the location(s) where the recordsrequired to be maintained by paragraph(a) of this section are kept, and

(6) a prototype or production unit ofthat lighter model.

(c) Confidentiality. Persons whobelieve that any information required tobe submitted or made available to theCommission is trade secret or otherwiseconfidential shall request that theinformation be considered exempt fromdisclosure by the Commission, inaccordance with 16 CFR 1015.18.Requests for confidentiality of recordsprovided to the Commission will behandled in accordance with section6(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.2055(a)(2), the Freedom of InformationAct as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552, and theCommission’s regulations under thatact, 16 CFR part 1015.

§ 1212.18 Refusal of Importation

(a) For noncompliance with reportingand recordkeeping requirements. TheCommission has determined thatcompliance with the recordkeeping andreporting requirements of this subpart isnecessary to ensure that lighters complywith this part 1212. Therefore, pursuantto section 17(g) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.2066(g), the Commission may refuse topermit importation of any lighters withrespect to which the manufacturer orimporter has not complied with therecordkeeping and reportingrequirements of this subpart. Since therecords are required to demonstrate thatproduction lighters comply with thespecifications for the surrogate, theCommission may refuse importation oflighters if production lighters do notcomply with the specifications requiredby this subpart, or if any otherrecordkeeping or reporting requirementin this part is violated.

(b) For noncompliance with thisstandard or for lack of a certificationcertificate. As provided in section 17(a)of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2066(a), productssubject to this standard shall be refusedadmission into the customs territory ofthe United States if, among otherreasons, the product either fails tocomply with this standard or is notaccompanied by the certificate requiredby this standard.

Subpart C—Stockpiling

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2), 2065(b),2079(d)

§ 1212.20 Stockpiling.

(a) Definition. ‘‘Stockpiling’’ means tomanufacture or import a product that issubject to a consumer product safetyrule between the date of issuance of therule and its effective date at a rate whichis significantly greater than the rate atwhich such product was produced orimported during a base period.

(b) Base period. For purposes of thisrule, ‘‘base period’’ means the 1-yearperiod ending December 21, 1999.

(c) Prohibited act. Manufacturers andimporters of multi-purpose lighters shallnot manufacture or import such lightersthat do not comply with therequirements of this part betweenDecember 22, 1999 and December 22,2000, at a rate that is greater than therate of production or importation duringthe base period plus 20 per cent of thatrate.

(d) Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements. All firms and personswho make or import multi-purposelighters, after the date of publication ofthis rule, that do not meet therequirements of this standard, shall



supply the Commission’s Office ofCompliance with:

(1) Supporting information toestablish the number of multi-purposelighters made or imported during thebase period. This information shall besubmitted by January 21, 2000.

(2) Supporting information toestablish the number of lighters made orimported during the year followingpublication of the final rule. Thisinformation shall be submitted within10 days of the end of each calendarmonth, for lighters shipped within thatmonth.

(3) Supporting information shall besufficient to identify the manufactureror importer, the party to which thelighters were sold, the destination of thelighters, and shall include copies ofrelevant invoices and importationdocuments.

Appendix A to Part 1212—FindingsUnder the Consumer Product Safety Act

Section 9(f) of the Consumer ProductSafety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058(f)) requires theCommission to make findings concerning thefollowing topics and to include the findingsin the rule. Because the findings are requiredto be published in the rule, they reflect theinformation that was available to theConsumer Product Safety Commission(‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) when thestandard was issued on December 22, 1999.

A. The degree and nature of the risk ofinjury the rule is designed to eliminate orreduce. The standard is designed to reducethe risk of death and injury from accidentalfires started by children playing with multi-purpose lighters. The Commission hasidentified 196 fires that occurred from 1995through 1998 that were started by childrenunder age 5 playing with multi-purposelighters. These fires resulted in a total of 35deaths and 81 injuries. Fire-related injuriesinclude thermal burns—many of highseverity—as well as anoxia and other, lessserious injuries. The societal costs of thesefires is estimated to include $175 million indeaths, $13.7 million in injuries, and over $5million in property damage. Because thesedata are from known fires rather thannational estimates, the extent of the totalproblem may be greater. Fires started bychildren under age 5 are those which thestandard would most effectively reduce.

B. The approximate number of consumerproducts, or types or classes thereof, subjectto the rule. The standard covers certainflame-producing devices, commonly knownas multi-purpose lighters, that are defined in§ 1212.2(a) of 16 CFR Part 1212. Thisdefinition includes products that are referredto as micro-torches. Multi-purpose lightersmay use any fuel and may be refillable ornonrefillable. Approximately 21 millionmulti-purpose lighters are expected to besold to consumers in the U.S. during 1999.Multi-purpose lighters manufactured in theUnited States, or imported, on or afterDecember 22, 2000 will be required to meetchild-resistance requirements. The following

products are not multi-purpose lighters:devices intended primarily for ignitingcigarettes, cigars, and pipes, whether or notsuch devices are subject to the requirementsof the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters(16 CFR part 1210); devices that contain morethan 10 oz. of fuel; and matches.

C. The need of the public for the consumerproducts subject to the rule, and the probableeffect of the rule on the utility, cost, oravailability of such products to meet suchneed. Consumers use multi-purpose lightersprimarily to ignite items such as candles, fuelfor fireplaces, charcoal or gas-fired grills,camp fires, camp stoves, lanterns, or fuel-fired appliances or devices or their pilotlights.

1. There will be several types of costsassociated with the rule. Manufacturerswould have to devote some resources to thedevelopment or modification of technologyto produce child-resistant multi-purposelighters. Before being marketed, the lightersmust be tested and certified to the newstandard. It is also possible thatmanufacturing child-resistant lighters mayrequire more labor or material than non-child-resistant lighters.

2. Manufacturers will have to modify theirexisting multi-purpose lighters to complywith the rule. In general, costs thatmanufacturers would incur in developing,producing, and selling new complyinglighters include the following:

• Research and development towardfinding the most promising approaches toimproving child resistance, includingbuilding prototypes and surrogate lighters forpreliminary child panel testing;

• Retooling and other productionequipment changes required to produce morechild-resistant multi-purpose lighters,beyond normal periodic changes made to theplant and equipment;

• Labor and material costs of theadditional assembly steps, or modification ofassembly steps, in the manufacturingprocess;

• The additional labeling, recordkeeping,certification, testing, and reporting that willbe required for each new model;

• Various administrative costs ofcompliance, such as legal support andexecutive time spent at related meetings andactivities; and

• Lost revenue if sales are adverselyaffected.

3. Industry sources have not been able toprovide firm estimates of these costs. Onemajor manufacturer has introduced a child-resistant multi-purpose lighter. However,because that company did not previouslymanufacture a non-child-resistant lighter, itwas unable to estimate the incremental costof developing and manufacturing child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.

4. Assuming that there are 20manufacturers and that each invests anaverage of $2 million to develop and marketcomplying lighters, the total industry cost forresearch development, retooling, andcompliance testing would be approximately$40 million. If amortized over a period of 10years, and assuming a modest 1% salesgrowth each year, the average of these costswould be about $0.23 per unit. 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 costscould be lower than the estimated $0.23 perunit, even at the high end of the estimates.On the other hand, for manufacturers with asmall market share, the per-unit developmentcosts would be greater. Some manufacturerswith small market shares may even drop outof the market (at least temporarily) or delayentering the market.

5. In addition to the research,development, retooling, and testing costs,material and labor costs are likely to increase.For example, additional labor will berequired to add the child-resistantmechanism to the lighter during assembly.Additional materials may also be needed toproduce the child-resistant mechanism.While CPSC was unable to obtain reliableestimates, some industry sources indicatedthat they believed that these costs would berelatively low, probably less than $0.25 perunit.

6. Multi-purpose lighters will also berequired to have a label that identifies themanufacturer and the approximate date ofmanufacture. However, virtually all productsare already labeled in some way. Since therequirement in the rule allows substantialflexibility to the manufacturer in terms ofthings such as color, size, and location, thisrequirement is not expected to increase thecosts significantly.

7. Certification and testing costs includecosts of producing surrogate lighters;conducting child panel tests; and issuing andmaintaining records for each model. Thelargest component of these costs is believedto be building surrogates and conductingchild panel tests, which, based on CPSCexperience, may cost about $25,000 perlighter model. Administrative expensesassociated with the compliance and relatedactivities are difficult to quantify, since manysuch activities associated with the rulewould probably be carried out anyway andthe marginal impact of the recommendedrule is probably slight.

8. Multi-purpose lighters are sold incountries other than the United States. Somemanufacturers may develop lighters thatmeet the requirements of the rule fordistribution in the United States, butcontinue to distribute the current, non-child-resistant models in other countries. Thus,some manufacturers may incur theincremental costs associated with producingmultiple lines of similar products. Thesecosts could include extra administrative costsrequired to maintain different lines and theincremental costs of producing different linesof similar products, such as using differentmolds or different assembly steps. Thesecosts would, however, be mitigated if similaror identical standards were adopted by othercountries. In total, the rule will likelyincrease the cost of manufacturing multi-purpose lighters by about $0.48 per unit.

9. At the present time, one manufacturerhas about 80–90% of the market for multi-purpose lighters. The other manufacturers,importers, and private labelers divide up theremaining 10–20% of the market. Thus, thereis already a very high degree of concentrationin the market. Even so, at least two



manufacturers have already entered themarket with models that are believed to meetthe requirements of the rule and at least oneother firm is believed to be activelydeveloping a child-resistant lighter.Therefore, the rule is not expected to haveany significant impact on competition.Moreover, other firms are expected to enterthe market for multi-purpose lighters, andthereby increase competition, as the marketexpands. Firms that market child-resistantmulti-purpose lighters before the standard’seffective date may gain an initial competitiveadvantage. However, any differential impactis likely to be slight and short-lived. Othermanufacturers can be expected to have child-resistant multi-purpose lighters developedand ready to market before or soon after therule goes into effect.

D. Impact on consumers. Aside fromincreased safety, the rule is likely to affectconsumers in two ways. First, the increasedcost for producing the child-resistant modelswill likely result in higher retail prices formulti-purpose lighters. Second, the utilityderived from child-resistant lighters may bedecreased if complying lighters are less easyto operate.

1. Assuming a 100% markup over theincremental cost to manufacturers (estimatedat $0.48/unit), the rule may be expected toincrease the retail price of multi-purposelighters by $0.96 per unit. The per-unit priceincrease for micro-torches and other high-endmulti-purpose lighters may be higher due tothe smaller numbers of such lightersproduced.

2. The utility that consumers receive frommulti-purpose lighters may be reduced if therule makes the lighters more difficult tooperate. This could result in some consumersswitching to substitute products, such asmatches. However, as with child-resistantcigarette lighters, the increased difficulty ofoperating child-resistant multi-purposelighters is expected to be slight. Moreover,even if some consumers do switch to otherproducts, the risk of fire is not expected toincrease significantly. Most cigarette lighters(one possible substitute) must already meetthe same child-resistant standard as thoseapplicable to multi-purpose lighters.Although consumers that switch to matchesmay increase the risk of child-play firessomewhat, matches seem to be inherentlymore child resistant than are non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters. Previously,the CPSC determined that non-child-resistantcigarette lighters were 1.4 times as likely asmatches to be involved in child-play firesand 3.9 times as likely to be involved in achild-play death. Thus, even if someconsumers did switch to using matches, therisk of child-play fires would still likely beless than if they continued to use non-child-resistant multi-purpose lighters.

3. The total societal costs of fires known tohave been started during 1995 through 1998by children under age 5 playing with multi-purpose lighters was approximately $194.2million, or $48.6 million per year. This isprobably an underestimate, since it onlyincludes the cases of which CPSC is aware.During the same period, an estimated 20million multi-purpose lighters were availablefor use each year. The societal costs of the

fires started by young children attempting tooperate multi-purpose lighters is, therefore,about $2.43 per lighter ($48.6 million ÷ 20million lighters) per year. The rule isexpected to reduce this cost by 75 to 84%.Therefore, the expected societal benefit of therule in terms of reduced fires, deaths,injuries, and property damage is expected tobe at least $1.82 per complying lighter sold.

4. As discussed above, the rule mayincrease the cost of manufacturing multi-purpose lighters by $0.48 and may increasethe retail prices by as much as $0.96.Therefore, assuming that sales of multi-purpose lighters remain the same, the netbenefit (benefits minus costs) of the rule toconsumers is expected to be at least $0.86 perunit ($1.82—$0.96). Based on annual sales ofapproximately 20 million units per year, therule would result in an annual net benefit toconsumers at least $17.2 million (20 million× $0.86) annually.

5. The actual level of benefits observedcould be higher if some multi-purposelighters are stored with the on/off switch inthe ‘‘on’’ position. If a significant number ofconsumers commonly store multi-purposelighters with the switch on, the effective levelof child resistance of multi-purpose lighterscurrently in use may be lower than indicatedby CPSC’s baseline testing. This wouldincrease the effectiveness of the rule and thevalue of the net benefits.

E. Any means of achieving the objective ofthe order while minimizing adverse effects oncompetition or disruption or dislocation ofmanufacturing and other commercialpractices consistent with the public healthand safety. 1. The performance requirementsof this part 1212 are based on theCommission’s Safety Standard for CigaretteLighters, 16 CFR part 1210. In developingthat standard, the Commission consideredthe potential effects on competition andbusiness practices of various aspects of thestandard, and incorporated some burden-reducing elements into the standard.

2. One possible alternative to thismandatory standard would be for theCommission to rely on voluntaryconformance to the requirements of thestandard to provide safety to consumers. Theexpected level of conformance to a voluntarystandard is uncertain, however. Althoughsome of the largest firms may market somechild-resistant multi-purpose lighters thatconform to these requirements, most firms(possibly including some of the largest)probably would not. Even under generousassumptions about the level of voluntaryconformance, net benefits to consumerswould be substantially lower under thisalternative than under the standard. Thus,the Commission finds that reliance onvoluntary conformance to the provisions ofthis part 1212 would not adequately reducethe unreasonable risk associated with multi-purpose lighters.

F. The rule (including its effective date) isreasonably necessary to eliminate or reducean unreasonable risk of injury. TheCommission’s hazard data and regulatoryanalysis demonstrate that multi-purposelighters covered by the standard pose anunreasonable risk of death and injury toconsumers. The Commission considered a

number of alternatives to address this risk,and believes that the standard strikes themost reasonable balance between riskreduction benefits and potential costs.Further, the amount of time before thestandard becomes effective (one year afterpublication of the final rule) will providemanufacturers and importers of mostproducts adequate time to design, produce,and market safer multi-purpose lighters.Thus, the Commission finds that the standardand its effective date are reasonablynecessary to reduce the risk of fire-relateddeath and injury associated with youngchildren playing with multi-purpose lighters.

G. The benefits expected from the rule beara reasonable relationship to its costs. Thestandard will substantially reduce thenumber of fire-related deaths, injuries, andproperty damage associated with youngchildren playing with multi-purpose lighters.The cost of these accidents, which isestimated to be greater than $48.6 millionannually, will also be greatly reduced. Therule is expected to reduce this societal costby 75–84%, or by greater than $36.5 million.The estimated annual costs to the public areexpected to be less than $20 million.Therefore, substantial net benefits will accrueto consumers. Thus, the Commission findsthat a reasonable relationship exists betweenthe expected benefits and the expected costsof the standard.

H. The rule imposes the least burdensomerequirement which prevents or adequatelyreduces the risk of injury for which the ruleis being promulgated. 1. The Commissionincorporated a number of features from thecigarette lighter standard, 16 CFR part 1210,in order to minimize the potential burden ofthe rule on industry and consumers. TheCommission also considered alternativesinvolving different performance and testrequirements and different definitionsdetermining the scope of coverage amongproducts. Alternatives that would be moreburdensome to industry would have highercosts to consumers. Less burdensomealternatives would have lowered the risk-reduction benefits to consumers. Noalternative has been identified that wouldresult in a higher level of net benefits toconsumers.

2. A less stringent acceptance criterion of80% (rather than the standard’s 85%) mightslightly reduce costs to industry andconsumers. The safety benefits of thisalternative, however, would likely bereduced disproportionately to the potentialreduction in costs. A higher (90%)acceptance criterion was also considered.This higher performance level may not becommercially or technically feasible formany firms, however. The Commissionbelieves that this more stringent alternativewould have substantial adverse effects onmanufacturing and competition, and wouldincrease costs disproportionate to benefits.The Commission believes that therequirement that complying multi-purposelighters not be operable by at least 85% ofchildren in prescribed tests strikes areasonable balance between improved safetyfor a substantial majority of young childrenand other potential fire victims and thepotential for adverse competitive effects andmanufacturing disruption.



3. The standard becomes effective 12months after it is issued December 22, 2000.The Commission also considered an effectivedate of 6 months after the date of issuanceof the final rule. Although most multi-purpose lighters sold in the U.S. couldprobably be made child-resistant within 6months, the supply of some imported multi-purpose lighters would be disrupted. The 12-month period in the standard wouldminimize this potential effect, and wouldallow more time for firms to design, produce,and import complying multi-purposelighters. The Commission estimates that therewould be no significant adverse impact onthe overall supply of multi-purpose lightersfor the U.S. market. A longer effective datewas deemed unsuitable because it wouldunduly delay the lifesaving benefits of thestandard and would penalize firms that havealready begun to develop child-resistantmulti-purpose lighters.

I. The promulgation of the rule is in thepublic interest. As required by the CPSA andthe Regulatory Flexibility Act, theCommission considered the potentialbenefits and costs of the standard and variousalternatives. The standard providessubstantial net benefits to society. Althoughcertain alternatives to the final rule wereestimated to also have net benefits toconsumers, they would decrease the level ofsafety. Therefore, the Commission finds thatthe standard is in the public interest.

Dated: December 13, 1999.Sadye E. Dunn,Secretary, Consumer Product SafetyCommission.

List of Relevant Documents

(Note: This list of relevant documents willnot be printed in the Code of FederalRegulations.

1. Letter from J. Carr, to Honorable AnnBrown, Chairman, U.S. Consumer ProductSafety Commission, petitioning theCommission to initiate rulemakingproceedings to amend the Safety Standard forCigarette Lighters to include the Scripto Aim’n Flame disposable butane ‘‘multi-purposelighter.’’ (Received by CPSC February 15,1996)

2. Letter from T. Stevenson, DeputySecretary and Freedom of InformationOfficer, Office of the Secretary, CPSC, to J.Carr, February 23, 1996.

3. Federal Register Notice, (RequestingComment on Petition) ‘‘Petition CP 96–1Requesting a Child-Resistance Standard forMulti-Purpose Lighters,’’ May 7, 1996.

4. Petition Comment CC 96–3–1, F. Hon,President, Calico Brands, Inc, May 30, 1996.

5. Petition Comment CC 96–3–2, B.Radnofsky, Esq., and C. Guthrie, Vinson &Elkins, L.L.P., June 12, 1996.

6. Petition Comment CC 96–3–3, M.Reynolds, Group Vice President, ColibriCorporation, June 17, 1996.

7. Petition Comment CC 96–3–4, J.Geremia, Ph.D., June 17, 1996.

8. Petition Comment CC 96–3–5, D.Denton, July 2, 1996.

9. Petition Comment CC 96–3–6, M. Forys,Senior Vice President, Administration,Scripto-Tokai Corporation, July 3, 1996.

10. Petition Comment CC 96–3–7, D. Baker,General Counsel, Lighter Association, Inc.,July 5, 1996.

11. Petition Comment CC 96–3–8, D.Carson, Esq., Carson, Carson, & Carson, July5, 1996.

12. Petition Comment CC 96–3–9, M.McLoughlin, Customer Relations Manager,Pinkerton Group Inc. (A Swedish MatchCompany), July 8, 1996.

13. Briefing Package, ‘‘Multi-PurposeLighter Petition,’’ November 26, 1996.

14. ‘‘Petition to initiate rulemakingproceeding to amend 16 CFR 1210 SafetyStandard for Cigarette Lighters to include theScripto Aim ’n Flame[] disposable butane‘multi-purpose’ lighter within the scope ofthe Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters’’(CP 96–1), February 1996 (Tab A of 11/26/96Briefing Package).

15. Federal Register Notice, Petition CP96–1 Requesting a Child-Resistance Standardfor Multi-Purpose Lighters, May 7, 1996. (TabB of 11/26/96 Briefing Package).

16. Smith., L., ‘‘Fire Incidents InvolvingMulti-Purpose Lighters,’’ CPSC, Division ofHazard Analysis, November 12, 1996 (Tab Cof 11/26/96 Briefing Package).

17. Karels, T., ‘‘Economic Consideration ofthe Petition on Multipurpose Lighters,’’CPSC, Directorate for Economic Analysis,November 25, 1996 (Tab D of 11/26/96Briefing Package).

18. Meiers, C., ‘‘Attractiveness and Appealof Multi-Purpose Lighters to Children(Petition CP 96–1),’’ CPSC, Division ofHuman Factors, September 19, 1996 (Tab Eof 11/26/96 Briefing Package).

19. Smith., L., ‘‘Response to PublicComments, Multi-Purpose Lighter Petition-CP 96–1,’’ CPSC, Division of HazardAnalysis, November 12, 1996. (Tab F of 11/26/96 Briefing Package).

20. Perry, E., ‘‘Response to Comments onMulti-Purpose Lighters,’’ CPSC, Directoratefor Engineering Sciences, September 6, 1996(Tab G of 11/26/96 Briefing Package).

21. Meiers, C., ‘‘Response to PublicComments on Requiring Multi-PurposeLighters to be Child-Resistant (Petition CP96–1), CPSC, Division of Human Factors,September 16, 1996 (Tab H of 11/26/96Briefing Package).

22. Poth, R., ‘‘Comments In Response toPetition CP 96–1 For Child-Resistant Multi-Purpose Lighters, CPSC, Office ofCompliance, September 18, 1996 (Tab I of 11/26/96 Briefing Package).

23. Federal Register Notice, ‘‘Multi-Purpose Lighters; Advance Notice ofProposed Rulemaking; Request for Commentsand Information,’’ 62 Fed. Reg. 2327 (January16, 1997).

24. Federal Register Notice, ‘‘Multi-Purpose Lighters; Extension of Period forIssuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,’’63 Fed. Reg. 1077 (January 8, 1998).

25. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–1, G. Phelps,President, International Association of ArsonInvestigators, Inc., August 26, 1996.

26. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–2, B.Radnofsky, Esq. and C. Guthrie, Vinson &Elkins, LLP, October 17, 1996.

27. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–2a, B.Radnofsky, Esq. and C. Guthrie, Vinson &Elkins, LLP, January 6, 1997.

28. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–2b, B.Radnofsky, Esq. and C. Guthrie, Vinson &Elkins, LLP, March 11, 1997.

29. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–3, C. Craig,March 4, 1997.

30. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–4, M. Forys,Senior Vice President, Administration,Scripto-Tokai Corporation, March 13, 1997.

31. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–5, M.McLoughlin, Customer Relations Manager,Swedish Match (Cricket), March 14, 1997.

32. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–6, D. Baker,General Counsel, The Lighter Association,Inc., March 17, 1997.

33. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–7, R.McLeod, MSN, RN, CS, CPNP, President,National Association of Pediatric NurseAssociates & Practitioners, Inc., March 17,1997.

34. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–8, C.Guthrie, Vinson & Elkins, January 7, 1998.

35. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–9, D. BruceKehoe, Esq., Wilson Kehoe & Winingham,March 4, 1998.

36. ANPR Comment CH 97–1–10, M.Collmer, Esq., McDowell Collmer, L.L.P.,March 17, 1997.

37. Briefing Package, ‘‘Proposed Standardfor Multi-Purpose Lighters,’’ CPSC, July 15,1998.

38. Draft Federal Register Notice, ‘‘UtilityLighters; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,’’(Tab A of 7/15/98 Briefing Package).

39. Franklin, R., ‘‘Preliminary RegulatoryAnalysis of Multi-Purpose Lighters,’’ CPSC,Directorate for Economic Analysis, July 14,1998 (Tab B of 7/15/98 Briefing Package).

40. Letter from T. Kelleher, Senior VicePresident-Administration, General Counseland Secretary, BIC, to B. Jacobson, CPSC,‘‘BIC SureStartTM Utility Lighter,’’ May 8,1998 (Tab C of 7/15/98 Briefing Package).

41. Smith, L., ‘‘Fire Incidents InvolvingMulti-Purpose Lighters,’’ CPSC, Division ofHazard Analysis, July 9, 1998 (Tab D of7/15/98 Briefing Package).

42. Franklin, R., ‘‘Initial RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis of Multi-PurposeLighters,’’ CPSC, Directorate for EconomicAnalysis, July 14, 1998 (Tab E of7/15/98 Briefing Package).

43. Jacobson, B., ‘‘Advance notice ofproposed rulemaking,’’ CPSC, Division ofHealth Sciences, July 2, 1998 (Tab F of 7/15/98 Briefing Package).

44. Sushinsky, G., ‘‘Gas Grill IgnitionTests,’’ CPSC, Directorate for LaboratorySciences, June 29, 1998 (Tab G of 7/15/98Briefing Package).

45. Meiers, C., ‘‘Response to publicComments on Advance Notice of ProposedRulemaking (ANPR) Requiring Multi-PurposeLighters to be Child-Resistant,’’ CPSC,Division of Human Factors, April 28, 1998(Tab H of 7/15/98 Briefing Package).

46. Franklin, R., ‘‘Response to CommentsConcerning Economic Issues Raised byComments to the ANPR on Multi-PurposeLighters, ‘‘CPSC, Directorate for EconomicAnalysis, July 14, 1998 (Tab I of 7/15/98Briefing Package).

47. Bogumill, M., ‘‘Response to Commentson Multi-Purpose Lighter ANPR,’’ CPSC,Office of Compliance, June 5, 1998, (Tab J of7/15/98 Briefing Package).

48. Briefing Package, ‘‘SupplementalInformation—Proposed Standard for Multi-



Purpose Lighters,’’ CPSC, September 10,1998.

49. Smith, L., ‘‘Fire Incidents InvolvingMulti-Purpose Lighters,’’ CPSC, Division ofHazard Analysis, August 20, 1999 (Tab A of9/10/98 Briefing Package).

50. Perry, E., and C. Paul, ‘‘Feasibility ofMaking Multi-Purpose Lighters Child-Resistant,’’ CPSC, Division of MechanicalEngineering, August 19, 1998 (Tab B of9/10/98 Briefing Package).

51. Meiers, C., ‘‘Micro-torches,’’ CPSC,Division of Human Factors, August 6, 1998(Tab C of 9/10/98 Briefing Package).

52. Franklin, R., ‘‘Multi-Purpose Lighters:Preliminary Regulatory Analysis,’’ CPSC,Directorate for Economic Analysis, August21, 1998 (Tab D of 9/10/98 Briefing Package).

53. Franklin, R. ‘‘Proposed Rule on Multi-Purpose Lighters: Initial RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis,’’ CPSC, Directorate forEconomic Analysis, August 21, 1998 (Tab Eof 9/10/98 Briefing Package).

54. Perry, E., and C. Paul, ‘‘Flash-BackPrevention,’’ CPSC, Division of MechanicalEngineering, August 26, 1998 (Tab F of9/10/98 Briefing Package).

55. Draft Federal Register Notice, ‘‘Multi-Purpose Lighters; Notice of ProposedRulemaking,’’ (Tab G of 9/10/98 BriefingPackage).

56. Draft Federal Register Notice, ‘‘Rule toRegulate Under the Consumer Product SafetyAct Risks of Injury Associated with Multi-Purpose Lighters That Can Be Operated byChildren,’’ (Tab H of 9/10/98 BriefingPackage).

57. Federal Register Notice, ‘‘Rule toRegulate Under the Consumer Product SafetyAct Risks of Injury Associated with Multi-Purpose Lighters That Can Be Operated byChildren’’ 63 Fed. Reg. 52394 (September 30,1998).

58. Federal Register Notice, ‘‘Multi-Purpose Lighters; Notice of ProposedRulemaking,’’ 63 Fed. Reg. 52397 (September30, 1998).

59. NPR Comment CC 99–1–1, C. Horn,Esq., Joseph P. Moschetta and Associates,October 8, 1998.

60. NPR Comment CC 99–1–2, N. Zeller,Chairman, Zelco Industries, Inc., October 9,1998.

61. NPR Comment CC 99–1–2a, N. Zeller,Chairman, Zelco Industries, Inc., October 12,1998.

62. NPR Comment CC 99–1–3, T. Moran,President, SNC Group, L.L.C., November 11,1998.

63. NPR Comment CC 99–1–4, D. Cooke,Esq., November 18, 1998.

64. NPR Comment CC 99–1–5, M.McLoughlin, Customer Relation Manager,Swedish Match (Cricket), November 30,1998.

65. NPR Comment CC 99–1–6, M. Forys,Senior Vice President, Administration,Scripto-Tokai Corporation, December 4,1998.

66. NPR Comment CC 99–1–7, M. Schuler,President and CEO, Zippo ManufacturingCo., December 11, 1998.

67. NPR Comment CC 99–1–8, G. Cavallo,Ph.D., Managing Director, Milford ConsultingAssociates, December 14, 1998.

68. NPR Comment CC 99–1–9, J. Alpert,MD, FAAP, President, American Academy ofPediatrics, December 14, 1998.

69. NPR Comment CC 99–1–10, D. Baker,General Counsel, Lighter Association, Inc.,December 14, 1998.

70. NPR Comment CC 99–1–11, T.Kelleher, Senior Vice President-Administration, General Counsel & Secretary,BIC Corporation, December 17, 1998.

71. NPR Comment CC 99–1–12, M.LeBlanc, Esq., Sugarman and Sugarman, P.C.,August 19, 1998.

72. NPR Comment CC 99–1–13, D. Lant,Chairman, BSI Technical Committee—Matches & Lighters, November 10, 1998.

73. NPR Comment CC 99–1–14, S. Brobeck,Chairman, The Coalition For ConsumerHealth & Safety, January 20, 1999.

74. NPR Comment CC 99–1–15, R.Ducharme, Quality Control Manager, TheColibri Group, January 20, 1999.

75. NPR Comment CC 99–1–16, R.Stephenson, President, DONEL, Inc.

76. NPR Comment CC 99–1–17, L. Daly,February 26, 1999.

77. NPR Comment CC 99–1–18, P. Simon,President, Blazer Corporation, July 2, 1999.

78. NPR Comment CC 99–1–19, B.Radnofsky, Esq., and C. Guthrie, D.C., J.D.,September 20, 1999.

79. NPR Comment CC 99–1–19a, B.Radnofsky, Esq., and C. Guthrie, LegalAssistant, March 19, 1999.

80. NPR Comment CC 99–1–20, E. Mallett,June 1, 1999.

81. NPR Comment CC 99–1–21, Gamache,Executive Director, National Fire ProtectionAssociation Center for High-Risk Outreach,October 18, 1999.

82. NPR Comment CC 99–1–22, W.Hansen, Esq., McDermott and Hansen,August 16, 1999.

83. Federal Register Notice, ‘‘Multi-Purpose Lighters; Notice of Opportunity forOral Presentation of Comments,’’ 63 Fed.Reg. 69030 (December 15, 1998).

84. Summary of oral comments, D. Baker,General Counsel, Lighter Association, Inc.,‘‘Multi-Purpose Lighter Rulemaking,’’January 7, 1999.

85. Summary of oral comments, C. Pollack-Nelson, Ph.D., Independent SafetyConsulting, ‘‘NPR for Multi-PurposeLighters,’’ January 11, 1999

86. Summary of oral comments, D. Cooke,Esq., ‘‘January 20, 1999 hearing on MultiPurpose Lighters,’’ January 11, 1999.

87. Summary of oral comments, D. Baker,General Counsel, Lighter Association, Inc.,‘‘Supplemental Comments of LighterAssociation, Inc.,’’ February 12, 1999.

88. Transcript, ‘‘Hearing on Multi-PurposeLighters,’’ January 20, 1999.

89. Letter from M. Forys, Senior VicePresident, Administration and CorporateSecretary, Scripto, to B. Jacobson, CPSC,‘‘Aim ’n Flame Consumer Claims PotentiallyInvolving ’BackFlash,’ ’’ March 29, 1999.

90. Federal Register Notice, ‘‘Multi-Purpose Lighters; Request for AdditionalComment,’’ (Proposal to conduct the child-panel tests with the on/off switch in the on,or unlocked, position.) 64 Fed. Reg. 42302(August 4, 1999).

91. Briefing Package, ‘‘Final Standard forMulti-Purpose Lighters,’’ CPSC, November19, 1999.

92. Smith, L., ‘‘Fire Incidents InvolvingMulti-Purpose Lighters,’’ CPSC, Directoratefor Epidemiology, November 3, 1999 (Tab Aof 11/19/99 Briefing Package).

93. Sedney, C., ‘‘Response to Comments onNotice of Proposed Rulemaking for Multi-Purpose Lighters,’’ CPSC, Division of HumanFactors, November 18, 1999 (Tab B of11/19/99 Briefing Package).

94. Bogumill, M., ‘‘Response to Commentson NPR for Multi-Purpose Lighters,’’ CPSC,Office of Compliance, November 4, 1999 (TabC of 11/19/99 Briefing Package).

95. Sedney, C., ‘‘Child-Resistant LighterMechanisms and the Risk of FlashbackInjuries,’’ CPSC, Division of Human Factors,October 29, 1999 (Tab D of 11/19/99 BriefingPackage).

96. Rowe, W., ‘‘Flashback associated withgas grills,’’ CPSC, Division of Engineering,August 22, 1999 (Tab E of 11/19/99 BriefingPackage).

97. Nakamura, S., Ph.D., ‘‘Severity of burnsresulting from flash fire,’’ CPSC, Division ofHealth Sciences, August 11, 1999 (Tab F of11/19/99 Briefing Package).

98. Perry, F, and C. Paul, ‘‘Multi-PurposeLighter Ignition Tests,’’ CPSC, Division ofMechanical Engineering, July 7, 1999 (Tab Gof 11/19/99 Briefing Package).

99. Smith, L., ‘‘Burn Hazard Associatedwith Lighting Gas-Fueled Products,’’ CPSC,Division of Hazard Analysis, June 17, 1999(Tab H of 11/19/99 Briefing Package).

100. Franklin, R., ‘‘Response to EconomicIssues Raised in Public Comments,’’ CPSC,Directorate for Economic Analysis, November3, 1999 (Tab I of 11/19/99 Briefing Package).

101. Franklin, R., ‘‘Final RegulatoryAnalysis and Final Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis,’’ CPSC, Directorate for EconomicAnalysis, November 18, 1999 (Tab J of11/19/99 Briefing Package).

102. Sedney, C., ‘‘Effect of the ProposedRule on Elderly and Handicapped Persons,’’CPSC, Division of Human Factors, October29, 1999 (Tab K of 11/19/99 BriefingPackage).

103. Draft Federal Register Notice, ‘‘Ruleto Regulate Under the Consumer ProductSafety Act Risks of Injury Associated withMulti-Purpose Lighters That Can Be Operatedby Children,’’ (Tab L of 11/19/99 BriefingPackage).

104. Draft Federal Register Notice, ‘‘SafetyStandard for Multi-Purpose Lighters,’’ (Tab Mof 11/19/99 Briefing Package). 3[FR Doc. 99–32677 Filed 12–21–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P


Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 245/Wednesday, December 22 ...

Documents

Transcript of Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 245/Wednesday, December 22 ...