[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2327-2334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1110]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1210
Multi-Purpose Lighters; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;
Request for Comments and Information
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission has reason to believe that unreasonable risks
of injury and death may be associated with multi-purpose lighters that
can be operated by children under age 5. Multi-purpose lighters are
butane-fueled lighters with an extended nozzle from which the flame is
emitted. These lighters typically are used to light devices such as
charcoal and gas grills and fireplaces. The Commission is aware of 53
fires from January 1988 through October 1996 that were started by
children under age 5 using multi-purpose lighters. These fires resulted
in 10 deaths and 24 injuries. This advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (``ANPR'') initiates a rulemaking proceeding under the
authority of the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA''). One result of
the proceeding could be the promulgation of a rule mandating
performance standards for the child-resistance of the operating
mechanism of multi-purpose lighters.
The Commission solicits written comments from interested persons
concerning the risks of injury and death associated with multi-purpose
lighters, the regulatory alternatives discussed in this notice, other
possible means to address these risks, and the economic impacts of the
various regulatory alternatives. The Commission also invites interested
persons to submit an existing standard, or a statement of intent to
modify or develop a voluntary standard, to address the risks of injury
and death described in this notice.
DATES: Written comments and submissions in response to this notice must
be received by the Commission by March 17, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed, preferably in five copies, to the
Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Washington, D.C. 20207-0001, or delivered to the Office of the
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West
Highway, Bethesda, Maryland; telephone (301) 504-0800. Comments should
be captioned ``ANPR for Multi-Purpose Lighters.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Jacobson, Directorate for
Epidemiology and Health Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone (301) 504-0477, ext. 1206.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Multi-purpose lighters are butane-filled lighters with an extended
nozzle, typically 4 to 8 inches long, from which the flame is emitted.
The long nozzle allows the user to reach hard-to-light places and also
keeps the user's hand away from the flames. Multi-purpose lighters are
usually nonrefillable. The lighters are activated by applying pressure
to a trigger or button mechanism, which initiates fuel flow and causes
a piezo-electric spark. They are most commonly used to light charcoal
or gas grills and fireplaces. The lighters also are used to light
campfires, camp stoves, LP gas ranges in recreational vehicles, and
pilot lights in household gas appliances. Most multi-purpose lighters
now sold include some type of on/off switch. Usually, this is a two-
position slider-type switch that
[[Page 2328]]
must be in the ON position before the lighter can be activated.
On July 12, 1993, the Commission published a consumer product
safety standard that requires disposable and novelty cigarette lighters
to have a child-resistant mechanism that makes the lighters difficult
for children under 5 years old to operate.1 16 CFR 1210. The
standard excludes lighters that are primarily intended for igniting
materials other than cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. Based on the
information currently available to the Commission, multi-purpose
lighters are not primarily intended for igniting tobacco, and thus are
not subject to the cigarette lighter standard. This conclusion could
change if additional information shows use or distribution patterns
demonstrating an intent for ignition of tobacco products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 58 FR 37554. The standard became effective July 12, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the development of the cigarette lighter standard, the
Commission was not aware of any data indicating that multi-purpose
lighters presented an unreasonable risk of injury. The on/off switch
currently provided on multi-purpose lighters would not comply with the
requirements for child-resistance in the cigarette lighter standard,
since it is easy for young children to operate and does not reset to
the OFF position automatically after each operation of the ignition
mechanism of the lighter. 16 CFR 1210.3(b)(1).
In February 1996, Judy L. Carr petitioned the Commission to
``initiate Rulemaking Proceedings to amend 16 CFR 1210 Safety Standard
for Cigarette Lighters to include the Scripto Tokai Aim 'n
FlameTM disposable butane `multi-purpose' lighter within the scope
of that standard and its child resistant performance requirements.''
The petitioner provided information about eight incidents associated
with the Aim 'n FlameTM lighter. One of the incidents involved the
petitioner's child. Information about the other incidents was obtained
through discovery in the petitioner's litigation with the product's
manufacturer.
The petitioner's 4-year-old daughter was burned over 60 percent of
her body when a 6-year-old boy triggered the lighter and ignited her
clothing. The petitioner stated that the 6-year-old child was at a 3-
to 4-year-old developmental level due to Downs Syndrome. The other
seven incidents, all involving the Scripto Tokai Aim 'n
FlameTM lighter, occurred over the 6-year period from 1988 through
1993. In all, the eight incidents resulted in property damage, burn
injuries to three children and one adult, and one death. In an incident
where a 4-year-old child died, the fire was started by his 5-year-old
brother.
The petitioner alleged that the Aim 'n Flame'sTM ``gun-like
shape and trigger with trigger guard makes it more attractive than a
cigarette lighter as a play object.'' The petitioner highlighted
information in four of the incidents provided with the petition that
referenced the ``gun-like'' nature of the lighter. The petitioner also
alleged that repeated operation of the trigger will cause the on/off
switch to move from the OFF position to the ON position and that the
on/off switch is easier to disengage than to engage.
On May 7, 1996 (61 FR 20503), the Commission published a Federal
Register document soliciting comments on topics related to issues
raised by the petition. The Commission received a total of nine
comments, including four from lighter importers and one from the
Lighter Association, Inc.
B. Incident Data
The Commission's staff searched all relevant CPSC data bases since
1985, when multi-purpose lighters first entered the market, to identify
fires started with these lighters by children under 5 years old. These
data sources included consumer complaints, newspaper clippings, death
certificates, hospital emergency-room-treated injuries, and
investigation reports. All incidents involving fires started by
children under five that were submitted by the petitioner or by persons
commenting on the May 7, 1996, Federal Register document are included
in the analysis.
The Commission knows of 53 reported incidents involving fires
started with multi-purpose lighters by children under age 5 from
January 1988 through October 1996. These fires resulted in 10 deaths
and 24 injuries. Although many of the reports did not indicate the
amount of property damage, 12 reports cited property damage that
exceeded $50,000. Two additional incidents involved fires started by
older children (ages 5 and 6) with Downs Syndrome, a condition that
affects mental development. These children, while over 5 years old,
might have been protected by a child-resistant lighter.
Children under age 5 typically are incapable of extinguishing a
fire, which puts them and their families at special risk of injury.
Almost all of the 10 fatalities were the children who started the
fires. At least 3 of the 24 injured persons required hospitalization
for treatment. One 15-month-old infant was hospitalized for second and
third degree burns over 80 percent of his body, after his 3-year-old
brother ignited the playpen in which the infant was sleeping.
Among the 49 fires where the sex of the fire starter was known, 5
were girls and 44 were boys. Many of the children found the multi-
purpose lighters in easily accessible locations, such as on kitchen
counters or furniture tops. Others, however, obtained the lighters from
more inaccessible locations, such as high shelves or cabinets, where
parents tried to hide them. Three investigation reports indicated that
the children involved (ages 3 and 4) demonstrated that they could
operate the on/off switch.
Five or fewer fires from young children using multi-purpose
lighters were reported each year from 1988 through 1994. In 1995,
however, 11 fires from this cause were reported; these resulted in 3
injuries and 2 deaths. During 1996, through October, 22 such fires have
resulted in 15 injuries and 4 deaths. And, there are likely additional
fires, deaths, and injuries from this cause, since some multi-purpose
lighter fires are reported only as ``lighter'' fires. In seven
incidents, the involvement of a multi-purpose lighter was known only
because there was a follow-up investigation.
The apparent increase in the number of fires may be related, in
part, to the increase in sales of multi-purpose lighters. As discussed
below, there were 1 million of these lighters sold in 1985. Since then
sales have risen steadily. Total industry sales for 1995 were estimated
at 16 million lighters.
Given the relatively limited number of known incidents, it is not
possible to make a national estimate of the total number of fires and
casualties at this time.
C. Market Information
The Product
The consumer type of multi-purpose lighter is sold at retail for
$2.50 to $8 each, with an average retail price of about $4. Another
type of multi-purpose lighter has additional features, such as
refillable fuel chambers, flexible extended nozzles, and piezo-electric
spark mechanisms powered by replaceable batteries. These lighters
retail for about $40 and are most likely to be used in commercial
applications, such as during installation or repair of gas appliances.
This lighter may not be a consumer product that would be subject to a
mandatory standard.
Manufacturers
The largest marketer of multi-purpose lighters is Scripto
Tokai, which
[[Page 2329]]
imports its lighters from Mexico. The Pinkerton Group Inc.
(Cricket Lighters) imports its lighters from the Philippines.
Both of these firms are members of the Lighter Association, Inc., a
trade association located in Washington, D.C. About a dozen other firms
market multi-purpose lighters under private labels. All of these
privately labeled-lighters are produced by two Chinese manufacturers.
Sales
Multi-purpose lighters were introduced to the U.S. market in 1985,
and about 1 million units were sold in the first year. Since 1985,
sales have risen steadily. Scripto Tokai estimated total
industry sales of 16 million units for 1995. Scripto Tokai
and the Lighter Association, Inc., estimated total industry sales in
excess of 100 million units since their introduction. These industry
sources expect sales of multi-purpose lighters to continue to increase,
at the rate of 5-10 percent annually, for the foreseeable future. For
1996, sales are projected at 17 to 18 million.
Lighters In Use
The service life of multi-purpose lighters depends on how they are
used. Lighters used seasonally for fireplaces or for camping may have
useful lives of two years or more. If used in everyday applications,
the useful life would be similar to that of disposable butane
lighters--i.e., less than one year. Based on an average useful life of
one to two years and a linear estimation of sales growth from 1985
forward, there were an estimated 23-36 million multi-purpose lighters
available for use at the end of 1995.
Product Substitutes
Readily available substitutes for multi-purpose lighters include
matches and disposable butane lighters. The closest substitutes are
probably long-stem matches, sometimes called fireplace matches.
However, fireplace matches are substantially more costly per light than
multi-purpose lighters. These matches commonly retail for about $5 for
a box of 50, or 10 cents per light ($5/50 lights). This compares to an
average retail price of $4 for a multi-purpose lighter, or 0.4 cents
per light ($4/1000 lights). Although disposable butane lighters cost
less per light than multi-purpose lighters, at 0.1 cents per light ($1/
1000 lights), they do not have features that allow the user to reach
hard-to-light places or keep the user's hand away from the flames.
Preliminary Economic Considerations Regarding a Child-Resistant
Mechanism
The Commission knows of 11 fires, 3 injuries, and 2 deaths from
fires started during 1995 associated with children under age 5 using
multi-purpose lighters. These incidents had an estimated societal cost
of about $10.3 million. If there were fires from this cause that are
not known to the Commission, the actual societal cost, and the cost per
lighter, of these fires would be higher.
It is unlikely that a child-resistant feature would eliminate all
fires started by young children with multi-purpose lighters. In
practice, some children would likely be able to operate even lighters
that have a child-resistant mechanism.
Several factors determine the range of benefits that would result
from including a child-resistant feature on multi-purpose lighters. One
important factor is the reduction that could be achieved in the ability
of young children to start fires by playing with these lighters. This
reduction would be based on the expected improvement in the child-
resistance of multi-purpose lighters caused by the child-resistant
feature. By applying the same methodology the Commission used to
estimate the incident reduction for child-resistant cigarette lighters,
the Commission preliminarily estimates that requiring a child-resistant
feature on multi-purpose lighters would reduce these fire incidents by
between 73 and 82 percent.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An initial estimate of the extent to which non-child-
resistant multi-purpose lighters may resist operation by young
children can be calculated from tests that were performed with
children using non-child-resistant disposable cigarette lighters.
That testing showed that 55 percent of children were able to operate
non-child-resistant ``roll and press'' cigarette lighters
(``baseline'' child-resistance of 45 percent), and 84 percent were
able to operate non-child-resistant ``push-button'' (including
peizo-electric) cigarette lighters (baseline child-resistance of 16
percent). Similar tests have not been performed for multi-purpose
lighters, but the Commission assumes for present purposes that the
results would be within the range of those derived for cigarette
lighters.
The minimum percent reduction in fires and resulting deaths and
injuries would occur if all lighters just barely passed at the
specified pass/fail criteria, which for cigarette lighters is 85
percent. The minimum percent reduction thus is calculated as
follows: % reduction = [(% pass/fail criteria)-(% baseline CR)] x
100 (100-% baseline CR) Therefore, the estimated injury
reduction for push-button lighters would be 82 percent
[(85-16)(100)/(100-16)]. The estimated injury reduction for roll-
and-press lighters would be 73 percent [(85-45)(100)/(100-45)]. In
reality, the child-resistance performance of many lighters may be
substantially better than the pass/fail criteria. Therefore, the
actual injury and death reductions may be significantly greater than
estimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another important factor in calculating the benefits per lighter
from a child-resistant requirement for multi-purpose lighters is the
useful life of such lighters. If multi-purpose lighters have a 1-year
useful life, then there were 23 million such lighters in use in 1995.
And, each of these 23 million lighters had an expected accident cost of
about $0.45 ($10.3 million in societal costs 23 million
lighters). If child-resistant multi-purpose lighters are 73 percent
effective in reducing incidents, the benefits will be about $0.33 per
lighter ($0.45 in accident costs x .73). If the lighters are 82
percent effective in reducing incidents, the benefits will be about
$0.37 per lighter ($0.45 in accident costs x .82).
If these lighters have a 2-year useful life, then there were 36
million multi-purpose lighters in use. And, each lighter had an
expected accident cost of about $0.57 ($10.3 million 36
million, for each of 2 years). Under this useful life assumption, the
benefits will be about $0.42 per lighter that is 73 percent effective
in reducing incidents ($0.57 in accident costs x .73), and about
$0.47 per lighter that is 82 percent effective ($0.57 in accident costs
x .82).
Industry sources estimate that a safety device that would comply
with the requirements of the cigarette lighter standard could add $0.20
to $0.40 to the retail price of a multi-purpose lighter. This
relatively high cost is attributed to the difficulty in designing a
safety feature that would provide enough fuel to allow ignition at the
end of the nozzle.
Thus, the preliminary estimate of the potential benefits, using
1995 data, are $0.33 to $0.47 per lighter, compared to the estimated
costs, noted above, of $0.20 to $0.40 per lighter.
Incomplete data for 1996 show 22 fires, 15 injuries, and 4 deaths,
for a societal cost of $20.5 million, with sales that are projected at
17 to 18 million multi-purpose lighters. Therefore, the range of
potentially achievable benefits per lighter based on the reported cases
for 1996 through October--using the same methodology as above,
including the .73 to .82 range of injury reduction--would be $0.65 to
$0.93. Additionally, it is likely that national estimates of fires and
casualties would be still greater than the number of incidents known
for both 1995 and 1996. And, the lighters' child-resistance may
substantially exceed the standard's minimum requirement in many cases.
Thus, the potential benefits are likely to be higher than estimated.
The costs per lighter of adding child-resistance to all multi-
purpose lighters produced in 1996, however, would be the same as for
1995. The total cost for providing the feature in 1996 would be
[[Page 2330]]
only 5 to 10 percent greater than in 1995, reflecting the increase in
the number of lighters produced. Thus, using 1996 data, benefits would
likely far exceed costs.
D. Issues Raised by the Petitioner
1. Issue: Manufacturer's Information. The petitioner stated that
Scripto Tokai Corporation possessed critical fire and injury
data concerning multi-purpose lighters that would have been useful to
the Commission during development of the Safety Standard for Cigarette
Lighters.
Response: Based on summary information submitted by the petitioner,
Scripto Tokai was aware of four fires started by young
children with Aim 'n Flame TM lighters prior to publication of the
Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters on July 12, 1993. Two of these
fires resulted in burn injuries, and two resulted in property damage.
None of the incidents involved a death. The fact that Scripto
Tokai did not communicate information on these incidents to
the Commission at that time did not affect the Commission's decision to
grant Ms. Carr's petition for multi-purpose lighters.
2. Issue: ``Gun-Like'' Shape. The petitioner stated that the Aim 'n
Flame's TM `` `gun-like' shape and trigger with trigger guard
makes it more attractive than a cigarette lighter as a play object.''
The petitioner highlights information in four of the incidents provided
with the petition that reference the ``gun-like'' nature of the
lighter.
Response. The Commission's human factors experts believe that, for
some children, the combination of the ``toy-like'' shape of multi-
purpose lighters and the size of the flame could enhance the
attractiveness of these lighters over ordinary cigarette lighters or
matches.
The appeal and attractiveness of the Aim `n FlameTM and other
multi-purpose lighters to children is based, in part, on the lighters'
toy-like appearance. Available incident data indicate some children
were first attracted to the product because of its shape. In one
incident, a 3-year-old boy saw the lighter on a basement workbench and
thought it was a toy gun. His mother reported the child called it a
``trigger gun.'
In addition to the shape, the flame of multi-purpose lighters is
also an attractive feature to children. Children's curiosity about fire
is a normal stage in their development. Fire appeals to young children
because it is bright, warm, and exciting. In the case of multi-purpose
lighters, the flame produced is larger than those of ordinary cigarette
lighters. This may heighten the multi-purpose lighter's appeal to
children.
Thus, all multi-purpose lighters produce a flame that appeals to
children. Furthermore, multi-purpose lighters other than the particular
model addressed by the petitioner have been involved in fire incidents.
Accordingly, this rulemaking applies to all multi-purpose lighters.
3. Comment: On/off switch. The petitioner stated that Scripto
Tokai has not notified the Commission under Section 15(b) of
the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA'') that the Aim `n FlameTM
contains a defect that could create a substantial product hazard. The
petitioner alleged that repeated operation of the trigger will cause
the on/off switch to move from the OFF position to the ON position and
that the on/off switch is easier to disengage than to engage.
Response: The issue of whether the Aim `n FlameTM contains a
defect because of these aspects of the on/off switch will be considered
as a separate matter by the Commission's Office of Compliance.
E. Comments Received in Response to the May 7, 1996, Federal
Register Document
The Commission received nine comments in response to the May 7,
1996, Federal Register document. Commenters included: lighter importers
Scripto Tokai, Pinkerton Group Inc. (Cricket ),
Colibri Corporation, and Calico Brands, Inc.; the Lighter Association,
Inc.; Vinson & Elkins, the petitioner's attorneys; Ms. Diane L. Denton,
the petitioner for the cigarette lighter standard; Mr. Davis S. Carson,
an attorney; and Dr. John O. Geremia, a lighter expert. Copies of the
comments are available upon request from the Office of the Secretary.
Scripto Tokai and Cricket , both members of
the Lighter Association, Inc., currently import multi-purpose lighters.
Mr. Carson, Ms. Denton, and Calico Brands, Inc., wrote in support of
including multi-purpose lighters in the current standard. The
Commission's responses to the particular comments are given below.
1. Comment: Incidents Limited to One Product. The Pinkerton Group,
Inc., commented that the incidents appear to be limited to one
particular product on the market and questioned whether a rulemaking
proceeding for all multi-purpose lighters was warranted.
Response: One manufacturer, who represents approximately 90 percent
of U.S. sales, accounted for 20 of the 25 fires in which the product
was identified. The other 5 fires were associated with other
manufacturers' lighters, establishing that the incidents are not
limited to one product alone.
2. Comment: Risk Associated with Multi-Purpose Lighters. Scripto
Tokai and the Lighter Association, Inc., commented that
there are very few fire incidents involving multi-purpose lighters
relative to the number of units sold, and that these lighters present
an extremely low risk compared to other open flame products.
Response: At this time, fire data involving multi-purpose lighters
are obtained from sources that cannot be used to calculate a national
estimate of the fire hazard or the per-unit risk associated with multi-
purpose lighters. Even if the per-unit risk was identical for lighters,
matches, and multi-purpose lighters, however, there would be many times
more fires with matches and lighters, solely because of the larger
number of these products in use. Yet, it appears that there may be a
reasonable cost-effective standard for multi-purpose lighters that can
reduce the risk from these products.
The relative risks of open-flame devices are discussed in the
response to the next comment.
3. Comment: Consumers Will Switch to More Dangerous Matches.
Scripto Tokai states:
some consumers are switching to less safe means of lighting tobacco
products, such as matches. * * * [T]he number of fires started by
children using matches has not declined and in fact may have even
increased since the adoption of 16 CFR, Part 1210 [the Safety
Standard for Cigarette Lighters]. * * * More fires are started each
year by children playing with matches than with any other source.
The Lighter Association, Inc. states, ``[t]he difficulty in using
child-resistant multi-purpose lighters may cause some users to move to
long stem matches.''
Response: Current data do not support the claim that more fires are
started each year by children with matches than with any other source.
In both 1993 and 1994, about the same number of child-play fires
involved matches and lighters. In 1994, the most recent year for which
fire data are available, matches were involved in an estimated 9,100
child-play fires, compared to 10,600 for lighters.
Because matches are not child-resistant, there is no reason to
expect the number of child-play match fires to be declining. And, the
Commission is not aware of any data that indicate that child-play fires
have increased. As discussed in more detail below, the available data
(through 1994) do not allow a determination of whether the number of
child-play match fires has increased since the effective date of the
[[Page 2331]]
Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters--July 14, 1994.
The commenters did not provide any supporting evidence that
consumers are switching from child-resistant lighters to matches.
Additionally, non-child-resistant cigarette lighters present a greater
risk than matches. A CPSC study conducted in the late 1980's used the
number of lighters in accessible locations and the number of boxes or
books of matches in such locations as a measure of exposure to the
products. The study found that, using this measure of exposure,
lighters were 1.4 times as likely as matches to be involved in a child-
play fire, 3.3 times as likely to be involved in a child-play death,
and 3.9 times as likely to be involved in a child-play injury.
The Commission is finding that recently introduced child-resistant
lighters are easier for adults to use than some of those sold when the
rule first took effect. Based on this experience, the Commission
believes that child-resistant mechanisms for multi-purpose lighters can
be designed that are easy for most consumers to use. In addition,
matches are a less convenient and more expensive source of flame.
Accordingly, it is unlikely that many consumers would move from child-
resistant multi-purpose lighters to long-stem matches.
4. Comment: Requiring Multi-Purpose Lighters To Be Child-Resistant
May Create Other Hazards. Scripto Tokai and the Lighter
Association, Inc., commented that the automatic reset mechanism
required for child-resistant cigarette lighters could be unsafe for
multi-purpose lighters. The piezo-electric technology used in most
multi-purpose lighters is not completely reliable in producing a flame
each time it is activated. These commenters contend that the need to
operate the child-resistant mechanism after each actuation could
further delay ignition and increase the potential for mini-explosion or
flashback fire from accumulated pressurized gas.
Response: The failure of piezo-electric mechanisms to light after
each activation creates a potential for ``mini explosion'' or
``flashback fire'' under certain conditions. The probability and
severity of this type of reaction depends on a number of variables,
including whether the user turns the gas appliance on before obtaining
a flame from the lighter (which seems unnecessary in any event), the
length of time the gas flows, and the air circulation in the area where
the gas is to be ignited. The addition of a properly designed child-
resistant feature should not add significantly to the delay already
inherent in the device. If the Commission decides to develop a rule to
require multi-purpose lighters to be child-resistant, this issue will
be carefully evaluated.
5. Comment: Easy Operability of Multi-Purpose Lighters by Children.
Diane Denton, who in April 1985 petitioned for the current standard on
cigarette lighters, stated that multi-purpose lighters are easier to
operate than small, more common lighters.
Response: While there are no comparison data on the ease of
operability between these types of lighters, available incident reports
show how easy it is for young children to operate multi-purpose
lighters, most of which have a piezo-electric mechanism. After one
fire, a mother found that both of her children, ages 2 and 4, could
operate the lighter with little difficulty. In another incident, fire
investigators asked a 3-year-old to demonstrate how he used the
lighter. The child switched the ON/OFF switch to ON and pulled the
trigger with one hand. The father said the ON/OFF switch was similar to
that on some of his son's toys and the trigger pull action was similar
to that of toy guns.
Also, among various types of non-child-resistant lighters tested
during the development of the cigarette lighter standard, the piezo-
electric mechanism was the easiest to operate. Forty-six out of 50 (92
percent) of the children on a test panel were able to operate the
lighter. Multi-purpose lighters can easily be operated by children with
one hand, while two hands are required for children to operate most
disposable non-child-resistant lighters.
6. Comment: Accessibility of Multi-Purpose Lighters to Children.
Scripto Tokai claims that multi-purpose lighters are less
accessible to children than disposable lighters and therefore, do not
present a similar risk. According to Scripto Tokai, multi-
purpose lighters ``are typically stored away in the same manner as
tools or implements'' and ``are not carried in a pants or shirt pocket,
or in a purse.'' In addition, Scripto Tokai claims that
multi-purpose lighters cost more than disposable lighters, and thus are
``less likely to be left laying around.''
Response: In the available reports of fire incidents, children
found the multi-purpose lighters in a variety of locations, some easily
accessible and others less accessible. Multi-purpose lighters are
sometimes stored in accessible locations convenient to their use. For
example, a 2-year-old boy was burned with a multi-purpose lighter that
he took off a hook near a fireplace in his grandmother's home.
Storing multi-purpose lighters in the same manner as tools does not
necessarily make them inaccessible to children. In one incident, a 3-
year-old boy took a multi-purpose lighter out of a relative's tool box
and hid it in his toy box. Two weeks later he started a fire with the
lighter in the family's living room. Children started fires with
lighters that they retrieved from kitchen cabinets, the top of
microwave ovens, a 6-foot-high cabinet, a garage shelf, a bathroom
medicine chest, a bookcase, a bedroom dresser, a basement workbench,
and the top of a water heater in a utility closet.
In addition, these devices are not necessarily ``less likely to be
left laying around'' based on cost, as they are fairly inexpensive. In
fact, in some of the incidents, the lighters were obtained free as part
of a cigarette promotion. Further, since these lighters are not
commonly carried in a pocket or purse, they are likely to be in their
normal storage locations, some of which, as noted above, are accessible
to children.
7. Comment: ``False Sense of Security.'' The Lighter Association,
Inc., commented that ``there is always the possibility that parents and
caretakers will be more careless with child-resistant lighters,
erroneously thinking them child-proof.'' Similarly, Scripto
Tokai stated that child-resistant lighters ``are viewed frequently as
`childproof' leading parents to a false sense of security.''
Response: It is not likely that the issue of a ``false sense of
security'' will prevent the expected reduction of child-play fires
started with multi-purpose lighters. As detailed above, multi-purpose
lighters are currently stored in accessible locations convenient to
their use. Even when they are stored out of reach, in locations
considered inaccessible, children seek them out.
The same argument about a ``false sense of security'' could be
applied to child-resistant packaging used for drugs and household
chemicals. However, an article published in the June 5, 1996, Journal
of the American Medical Association, ``The Safety Effects of Child-
Resistant Packaging for Oral Prescription Drugs,'' demonstrates that
child-resistant packaging has reduced childhood poisoning from oral
prescription drugs for children under age 5 by about 45 percent since
1974, the year oral prescription drugs became subject to the child-
resistant packaging requirements.
8. Comment: Education and Supervision. Scripto Tokai
commented that education and supervision are the ``first line of
defense'' in lighter-related fires. They stated that parents must be
``repeatedly reminded to keep fire sources out of the
[[Page 2332]]
reach of children, and never leave small children unsupervised.''
Scripto Tokai further said warnings and labels must be used
``to adequately inform consumers of applicable hazards.'' They claim
that the Commission has ignored educational efforts and has narrowly
focused on product design.
Colibri Corporation recommended that the Commission review
educational materials on multi-purpose lighters.
Calico Brands, Inc., stated that they always place a label on their
lighters and lighter packaging warning parents ``to keep lighters out
of the reach of children.'' However, they also acknowledge that they
are aware the warning is not ``foolproof'' and that child-resistance is
also necessary ``to further protect the safety of our children.''
The Lighter Association, Inc., stated that ``ultimately the issue
of fire safety is an issue of parental supervision.'' The Association
recommended that the Commission consider whether this issue could be
dealt with through educational efforts.
Response: Educational efforts, warning labels, and supervision are
important. But, they are not the sole solution to the problem of child-
play fires started with multi-purpose lighters. If a product can be
designed at reasonable cost to address a hazard, that is the most
effective approach.
Available information indicates that even when consumers were aware
of the danger of these lighters and took precautions to keep them out
of reach, children still managed to access the lighters. In some
instances, it appeared that the lighter was normally stored in a
relatively inaccessible space, but was not returned there after its
latest use. This is a foreseeable scenario, since people can be
expected to be forgetful.
Many children under age 5 are old enough to engage in play
activities without being in the same room as a parent or guardian. At
the time of the known incidents, the children were under reasonable
levels of adult supervision. Fires were started while parents or
guardians were in the house. One mother was downstairs fixing lunch at
the time of the incident. In other cases, children started fires while
a parent was showering or sleeping. These are also foreseeable
scenarios, since people cannot be expected to stay in the same room as
their children every moment of the day.
9. Comment: Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters. A number of
comments were received about how the Safety Standard for Cigarette
Lighters might relate to a rulemaking proceeding for multi-purpose
lighters. These comments are discussed below.
a. Effectiveness of the current cigarette lighter standard. The
Lighter Association, Inc., states that it is not aware of any data
available for 1994 or 1995 to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
current standard.
Response: The most recent year for which complete fire data are
available is 1994. However, since the current standard became effective
July 12, 1994--as to lighters manufactured in or imported into the
United States on or after that date--non-child-resistant lighters
remained in the channels of distribution throughout 1994 and 1995. The
full effect of the cigarette lighter standard will not be achieved
until the non-child-resistant cigarette lighters made before July 12,
1994, are no longer in use. It will not be possible to fully evaluate
the standard's effectiveness until the previously produced non-child-
resistant lighters are used up and fire data for a period after then
are available.
However, based on tests of non-child-resistant and child-resistant
cigarette lighters, the Commission estimates the cigarette lighter
standard will eliminate 80 to 105 (53 to 70 percent) of the 150 deaths
each year resulting from young children playing with cigarette
lighters. The rationale for the cigarette lighter standard appears to
also support a child-resistant requirement for multi-purpose lighters.
The Commission believes it would not be in the public interest to delay
an examination of the need for a standard for multi-purpose lighters
until the effectiveness of the cigarette lighter standard can be fully
evaluated. Such a delay would allow the deaths and injuries associated
with child-play with this product to continue unabated.
b. Consumer resistance to the current standard. The Lighter
Association, Inc., commented that there is strong adverse consumer
reaction to cigarette lighters that comply with the current child-
resistance standard. Since the standard went into effect on July 12,
1994, member companies have received tens of thousands of letters
complaining about how difficult it is to operate the new child-
resistant lighters.
Scripto Tokai commented that child-resistant lighters
generated daily letters and phone calls from puzzled and upset
consumers expressing their frustration and resistance to the
inconvenience. According to the commenter, senior citizens and people
with disabilities, such as arthritis, found the new lighters difficult
to operate. Consumers without children complained there is no choice.
Some consumers even found ways to disarm the lighters' child-resistant
mechanisms.
Response: When the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters went into
effect, some consumers wrote to CPSC expressing dissatisfaction and
some manufacturers reported receiving complaints from consumers. This
is similar to the initial reaction to the requirement for child-
resistant packaging of prescription drugs under the Poison Prevention
Packaging Act in the early 1970's. It appears that consumer
dissatisfaction with child-resistant cigarette lighters has lessened
substantially, since the Commission now rarely receives complaint
letters.
Additionally, child-resistant mechanisms have been evolving during
the period the standard has been in effect. Originally, most of the
lighters used some type of lock that could be disabled by moving a
lever so that the lighter could then be actuated. These designs were
sometimes cumbersome and, for some people, may have required the use of
two hands. While some of these lighters are still on the market, the
trend now is toward more subtle movements to overcome the child-
resistant mechanism, such as pressure on the flint wheel or pressing a
button to disable the lock. The Commission expects consumer resistance
to be minimized by these new lighters, which are easy for adults to
operate but are still highly child resistant.
c. Products designed to defeat the child-resistant features of
cigarette lighters. The Lighter Association, Inc., Scripto
Tokai, and Colibri Corporation discussed products that have been
marketed that are designed to override the child-resistant features of
cigarette lighters. The Association provided a copy of a patent for
such a product issued to two inventors in Cottonwood, Arizona.
Scripto Tokai stated that CPSC failed to take action against
a particular device that is marketed for overriding the child-resistant
features of cigarette lighters.
Response: Although the marketing of tools designed to override the
child-resistant features of disposable lighters does not violate any
Commission regulation, the Commission has requested the manufacturer of
the device referred to by Scripto Tokai to discontinue its
marketing of the device. Increased consumer satisfaction with child-
resistant lighters as the designs become easier to operate should
drastically reduce if not eliminate the market for such products.
d. CPSC enforcement of the cigarette lighter standard. Without
giving details, the Lighter Association, Inc., and
[[Page 2333]]
Scripto Tokai alleged that there were a number of violations
of the stockpiling rule in the current cigarette lighter
standard.3 They believe that Chinese importers as a group brought
in over 100 million non-child-resistant lighters above the permissible
stockpiling limit. These commenters further claim that there are stores
still stocking (and restocking) non-child-resistant lighters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2),
authorizes the Commission to issue rules prohibiting the stockpiling
of products that are subject to a consumer product safety rule.
Stockpiling means the manufacturing or importing of a product
between the date of promulgation of a consumer product safety rule
and its effective date at a specified rate that is significantly
greater than the rate at which such product was produced or imported
during a specified base period before the promulgation of the
consumer product safety rule. A stockpiling rule was issued as part
of the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters. 16 CFR Part 1210,
Subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lighter Association, Inc., stated that some distributors
apparently are buying child-resistant lighters, opening the master
cartons, disengaging the child-resistant features, repacking the
lighters, and selling the cartons at a substantial premium. Association
members believe that some importers are fraudulently bringing in non-
child-resistant lighters as child-resistant lighters using
``contrived'' testing or other ruses.
The Lighter Association, Inc., and Scripto Tokai request
tightening of the stockpiling requirements and stringent enforcement of
any new rule relating to multi-purpose lighters.
Response: The Commission has aggressively enforced the requirements
of both the safety standard and the anti-stockpiling provisions. In
cooperating with the U.S. Customs Service, the Commission has prevented
the importation of millions of non-child-resistant lighters. The
Commission will continue to vigorously enforce the standards and to
investigate any specific reports of possible noncompliance brought to
its attention.
e. Comment: Recommendations for requirements for multi-purpose
lighters. Scripto Tokai stated that the lessons learned from
the disposable cigarette lighter experience must be applied to any
effort to regulate new products. This company makes the following
recommendations if such a standard is undertaken:
The standard should include all multi-purpose lighters,
whether disposable or refillable, long or short, expensive or
inexpensive, or novelty or otherwise.
Acceptable child-resistant mechanisms should be clearly
defined.
All importers should be required to submit base period and
monthly reports to CPSC on importation of both child-resistant and non-
child-resistant lighters, including specific manufacturing source
information.
Actions should be taken to insure that importers do not
circumvent the stockpiling rules, including working closely with the
United States Customs Service and through diplomatic channels.
Enforcement measures should be applied evenly.
Dr. Geremia questioned the validity of allowing the industry to
conduct its own certification tests.4 He suggested that testing be
conducted by CPSC or an independent organization not paid directly by
the importers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the explanation of certification in the discussion of
the CPSA in Section G of this document, ``Statutory Authority.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Geremia also recommends that lighters identify the
manufacturer's name and address and have a date code.
Response: The Commission does strive to evenly enforce all of its
regulations, and routinely works with the U.S. Customs Service as well
as other government agencies.
The Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters requires manufacturers
to certify compliance through a reasonable testing program which
includes (1) qualification tests on surrogates (non-flame-producing
versions) of each model of lighter produced, (2) development of a
specification of the characteristics of the surrogates found to meet
the child-resistance requirements, and (3) tests performed of lighters
from production to demonstrate that they continue to meet the original
specifications.
The Commission expects companies to be able to demonstrate that
they have a reasonable testing program that evaluates whether their
lighters are in compliance. It does not appear that the Commission has
express authority to require that certification tests be performed by
non-industry testers, particularly absent evidence that industry
testing is inadequate. However, the Commission may conduct its own
tests and take action against any product that does not comply. The
Commission conducts tests using an independent testing organization
where appropriate.
Other suggestions specific to an amendment involving multi-purpose
lighters will be considered if the Commission proceeds to develop a
proposed rule for multi-purpose lighters.
f. Designs for child-resistant features for multi-purpose lighters.
Dr. Geremia commented that the following child-resistant designs should
be considered:
(i) A trigger guard similar to those used on firearms, except it
would remain attached to the unit in some way.
(ii) A design which requires the burner nozzle and handle to be
pushed toward each other and then twisted in order for gas to flow.
(iii) A false trigger in the present location, with the real
trigger hidden at the base of the handle.
Response: Suggestions specific to child-resistant designs for
multi-purpose lighters will be considered if the Commission decides to
develop a proposed rule for multi-purpose lighters. It should be noted,
however, that the Safety Standard for Cigarette Lighters does not
specify product designs. Any design that meets the performance
requirements of the testing protocol is acceptable. This allows
industry greater flexibility and provides for market-driven solutions.
F. Existing Standards
Multi-purpose lighters are subject to the labeling requirements of
section 2(p) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (``FHSA''), 15
U.S.C. 1261 (p), because they contain a hazardous substance that is
intended or packaged in a form suitable for use in the household. The
required statements include: ``DANGER--EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE'' ``CONTENTS
UNDER PRESSURE'' ``Keep out of the reach of children.''
The only other existing mandatory standard that the Commission is
aware of that may be relevant to this proceeding is the Safety Standard
for Cigarette Lighters, which does not apply to lighters not primarily
intended for lighting tobacco products. 16 CFR 1210.
G. Statutory Authority for This Proceeding
Three of the statutes administered by the Commission have at least
some apparent relevance to the risk posed by non-child-resistant multi-
purpose lighters. These are the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA''),
15 U.S.C. 2051-2084; the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (``PPPA''), 15
U.S.C. 1471-1476; and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (``FHSA''),
15 U.S.C. 1261-1278. In issuing its standard for cigarette lighters,
the Commission decided to use the authority of the CPSA. A full
explanation of the Commission's reasons for that decision was published
in the Federal Register on July 12, 1993. 58 FR 37554. See also 58 FR
37557 (July 12, 1993). For the reasons stated in those notices, the
Commission expects that any rule regarding the child-resistance of
multi-
[[Page 2334]]
purpose lighters also would be issued under the CPSA.
Before adopting a CPSA standard, the Commission first must issue an
ANPR as provided in section 9(a) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2058(a). If the
Commission decides to continue the rulemaking proceeding after
considering responses to the ANPR, the Commission must then publish the
text of the proposed rule, along with a preliminary regulatory
analysis, in accordance with section 9(c) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C.
2058(c). If the Commission then wishes to issue a final rule, it must
publish the text of the final rule and a final regulatory analysis that
includes the elements stated in section 9(f)(2) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C.
2058(f)(2). And before issuing a final regulation, the Commission must
make certain statutory findings concerning voluntary standards, the
relationship of the costs and benefits of the rule, and the burden
imposed by the regulation. CPSC, section 9(f)(3), 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3).
H. Regulatory Alternatives Under Consideration
The Commission is considering alternatives to reduce the number of
injuries and deaths associated with multi-purpose lighters. In addition
to possible performance standards similar to those adopted for
cigarette lighters, the potential for labeling requirements and
information and education campaigns to reduce the risk will be
considered. It is also possible that a voluntary standard could be
developed that would adequately reduce the risk of child-play fires
associated with this product. These alternatives are discussed below.
1. Performance Standard
The Commission will consider issuing a mandatory performance
standard for multi-purpose lighters similar to that for cigarette
lighters.
2. Labeling
Labeling to warn of the risk of child-play fires from multi-purpose
lighters could be required, either instead of or in addition to a
mandatory performance standard.
3. Voluntary Standards
The Commission is not aware of any voluntary standards in effect
that apply to the risk of children starting fires that is associated
with this product. However, if such standards are developed and
implemented, the Commission would take this into account in deciding
whether a mandatory standard is necessary.
I. Solicitation of Information and Comments
This ANPR is the first step of a proceeding which could result in a
mandatory performance or labeling standard for multi-purpose lighters
to address the risk that young children will use these lighters to
start fires. All interested persons are invited to submit to the
Commission their comments on any aspect of the alternatives discussed
above. In particular, CPSC solicits the following additional
information:
1. The types and numbers of multi-purpose lighters produced
annually for sale in the U.S. from 1985 to the present;
2. The names and addresses of manufacturers and distributors of the
product;
3. The number of persons injured or killed in fires started by
children under the age of 5 years using multi-purpose lighters;
4. The circumstances under which these injuries and deaths occur,
including the ages of the children who started the fires, the ages of
the victims, the locations from which the children obtained the
lighters, and physical descriptions of the products involved (including
identification of the manufacturers and models, if available);
5. An explanation of designs that could be adapted to multi-purpose
lighters to increase their child-resistance;
6. Characteristics of the product that could or should not be used
to define which products might be subject to the requested rule;
7. Other information on the potential costs and benefits of the
requested rule;
8. Steps that have been taken by industry or others to reduce the
risk of injuries from the product;
9. The likelihood and nature of any significant economic impact on
small entities;
10. The extent to which consumers turn on the gas flow to
appliances before lighting a lighter or match to ignite the appliance;
11. The likely effects on fire incidents and on the multi-purpose
lighter market of possible design changes to multi-purpose lighters;
12. The results of any tests on the child-resistance of multi-
purpose lighters, whether or not the lighter has features intended to
increase child-resistance;
13. The reasons why multi-purpose lighters sometimes require
repeated actuations in order to light, and ways the performance of the
lighters could be improved in this regard;
14. Designs of child-resistant lighters that would allow repeated
actuations of the lighter without substantially delaying ignition
compared to non-child-resistant lighters; and
15. The costs and benefits of mandating a labeling requirement.
Also, in accordance with section 9(a) of the CPSA, the Commission
solicits:
1. Written comments with respect to the risk of injury identified
by the Commission, the regulatory alternatives being considered, and
other possible alternatives for addressing the risk.
2. Any existing standard or portion of a standard which could be
issued as a proposed regulation.
3. A statement of intention to modify or develop a voluntary
standard to address the risk of injury discussed in this notice, along
with a description of a plan (including a schedule) to do so.
Comments should be mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office
of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C.
20207-0001, or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda,
Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504-0800. All comments and submissions
should be received no later than March 17, 1997.
Dated: January 13, 1997.
Sayde E. Dunn,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-1110 Filed 1-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
