ÿþ<html> <head> <title>Safety Standard for Multi-Purpose Lighters; Final Rule </title> </head> <body> <pre> [Federal Register: December 22, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 245)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 71853-71882] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22de99-23] [[Page 71853]] _______________________________________________________________________ Part II Consumer Product <strong>Safety</strong> Commission _______________________________________________________________________ 16 CFR Parts 1145 and 1212 <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Multi</strong>-<strong>Purpose</strong> <strong>Lighters</strong>; <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Rule</strong> <strong>Rule</strong> to Regulate Under the Consumer Product <strong>Safety</strong> Act Risks of Injury Associated With <strong>Multi</strong>-<strong>Purpose</strong> <strong>Lighters</strong> That Can Be Operated by Children; <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Rule</strong> [[Page 71854]] CONSUMER PRODUCT <strong>SAFETY</strong> COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 1212 <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Multi</strong>-<strong>Purpose</strong> <strong>Lighters</strong> AGENCY: Consumer Product <strong>Safety</strong> Commission. ACTION: <strong>Final</strong> <strong>rule</strong>. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Commission issues performance requirements <strong>for</strong> the child resistance of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. These requirements address unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> that can be operated by children under age 5. <strong>Multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> are hand-held flame-producing products that operate on fuel and have an ignition mechanism. They typically are used to light devices such as charcoal and gas grills and fireplaces. Devices intended primarily <strong>for</strong> igniting smoking materials are excluded; many such products are already subject to a child-resistance <strong>standard</strong> at 16 CFR Part 1210. DATES: The <strong>rule</strong> will become effective December 22, 2000 and apply to <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> manufactured in the United States or imported on or after that date. ADDRESSES: Copies of documents relevant to this rulemaking can be obtained from the Commission's Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product <strong>Safety</strong> Commission, Washington DC 20207-0001, Telephone (301) 504-0800, fax (301) 504-504-0127, e-mail cpsc__os@cpsc.gov. <strong>FOR</strong> FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Bogumill, Office of Compliance, Consumer Product <strong>Safety</strong> Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207; telephone (301) 504-0477, ext. 1368; e-mail mbogumill@cpsc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background 1. The product. <strong>Multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> are defined in Sec. 1212.2(a)(1) of the <strong>rule</strong> issued below as follows: (a)(1) <strong>Multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter, (also known as grill lighter, fireplace lighter, utility lighter, micro-torch, or gas match, etc.) means: A hand-held, flame-producing product that operates on fuel, incorporates an ignition mechanism, and is used by consumers to ignite items such as candles, fuel <strong>for</strong> fireplaces, charcoal or gas-fired grills, camp fires, camp stoves, lanterns, fuel-fired appliances or devices, or pilot lights, or <strong>for</strong> uses such as soldering or brazing. Some <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> have a feature that allows <strong>for</strong> hands-free operation. (2) The following products are not <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>: (i) Devices intended primarily <strong>for</strong> igniting cigarettes, cigars, and pipes, whether or not such devices are subject to the requirements of the <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> Cigarette <strong>Lighters</strong> (16 CFR 1210). (ii) Devices containing more than 10 oz. of fuel. (iii) Matches. Most <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> have an extended nozzle from which the flame is emitted. The nozzle is typically four to eight inches in length, but can be longer or shorter. Some <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> include a burner that operates at a higher flame temperature than other <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. These <strong>lighters</strong> are sometimes referred to as micro-torches. Most micro-torches do not have extended nozzles, but have relatively long, thin, and steady flames that can be directed to their targets. Some micro-torches may have a control that allows the lighter to remain lit after the user lets go of the lighter. This, in conjunction with a stable base or stand, allows hands-free operation of the lighter during operations such as soldering. Most <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> use butane fuel. The more expensive <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> are refillable. Many of the less expensive Asian imports are also refillable. <strong>Multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> are operated by applying pressure to a trigger, button, or sliding mechanism. This action releases the fuel and activates a spark at the end of the nozzle that ignites the fuel. Because the fuel must travel from the reservoir, usually located in the handle, to the end of the nozzle, the spark is sometimes activated before the fuel reaches the end of the nozzle. When this happens, the fuel will not be ignited. Users of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> sometimes have to make more than one ignition attempt before successfully producing a flame. Some higher-priced <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> overcome this problem by using a battery that causes a spark to be continuously generated. This is less of a problem with micro-torch <strong>lighters</strong> because they do not have a long nozzle. Most <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> now sold include some type of on/off switch. Usually, this is a two-position slider-type switch that must be in the ``on,'' or unlocked, position before the lighter can be activated. 2. Procedural background. On July 12, 1993, the Commission published a consumer product <strong>safety</strong> <strong>standard</strong> that requires disposable and novelty cigarette <strong>lighters</strong> to have a child-resistant mechanism that makes the <strong>lighters</strong> difficult <strong>for</strong> children under 5 years old to operate.&lt;SUP&gt;1&lt;/SUP&gt; 16 CFR 1210. The cigarette lighter <strong>standard</strong> excludes <strong>lighters</strong> that are primarily intended <strong>for</strong> igniting materials other than cigarettes, cigars, and pipes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 58 FR 37554. The <strong>standard</strong> became effective July 12, 1994. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In February 1996, Judy L. Carr petitioned the Commission to ``initiate Rulemaking Proceedings to amend 16 CFR 1210 <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> Cigarette <strong>Lighters</strong> to include the Scripto&lt;SUP&gt;&lt;/SUP&gt; Tokai Aim 'n Flame&lt;SUP&gt;TM&lt;/SUP&gt; disposable butane `<strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong>' lighter within the scope of that <strong>standard</strong> and its child resistant performance requirements.'' On May 7, 1996, the Commission published a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on topics related to issues raised by the petition. 61 FR 20503. After considering the comments received in response to that notice and the other available information, the Commission granted the petition. On January 16, 1997, the Commission commenced a rulemaking proceeding by publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register: 62 FR 2327. The ANPR solicited comments on the risks of injury and death associated with <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>, the regulatory alternatives, and the economic impacts of the regulatory alternatives. The Commission also invited interested persons to submit an existing <strong>standard</strong>, or a statement of intent to modify or develop a voluntary <strong>standard</strong>, to address the identified risks. On January 8, 1998, the Commission published a Federal Register notice extending the period <strong>for</strong> issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking until September 30, 1998. 63 FR 1077. This extension was required so the staff could complete the technical work necessary <strong>for</strong> a Commission decision on whether to issue a proposed <strong>rule</strong>. On September 30, 1998, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) that proposed a <strong>safety</strong> <strong>standard</strong> to address the risk of death and injury associated with <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> that could be operated by children under age 5. 63 FR 52397. This notice extended the period <strong>for</strong> issuing a <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong> or withdrawing the NPR until June 30, 1999. Also on September 30, 1998, the Commission published a Federal Register notice proposing a <strong>rule</strong> finding that it is in the public interest to issue a <strong>standard</strong>, or take other regulatory action on <strong>multi</strong>- <strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>, under the Consumer Product <strong>Safety</strong> Act (CPSA). Elsewhere in today's issue of [[Page 71855]] the Federal Register, the Commission issues a <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong>, under Section 30(d) of the CPSA, making this determination. On October 29, 1998, the staff sent a copy of the proposed <strong>safety</strong> <strong>standard</strong>, with a cover letter outlining the Commission's action, to small importers and manufacturers that could be subject to the <strong>standard</strong>. The letter invited interested parties to submit comments during the comment period. On January 20, 1999, the Commission met so interested parties could present oral comments. Mr. Don Cooke, Attorney at Law; Dr. Carol Pollack-Nelson, President, Independent <strong>Safety</strong> Consulting; and Mr. David Baker, General Counsel of the Lighter Association, Inc. presented oral comments at that meeting. On August 4, 1999, the Commission published a Federal Register notice proposing that the child-panel tests be conducted with the lighter on/off switch in the ``on,'' or unlocked, position, instead of in the ``off,'' or locked, position as originally proposed. 64 FR 42302. This change in the test procedure would protect children in situations where the users of the <strong>lighters</strong> do not return the switch to the ``off'' position after use. The comment period closed on October 18, 1999. The notice provided an opportunity <strong>for</strong> oral comments on the proposed change to be presented on September 15, 1999. The Commission received one written comment and no requests <strong>for</strong> presentation of oral comments. The notice also extended the time <strong>for</strong> issuing a <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong> or withdrawing the NPR until December 31, 1999. B. Incident Data Overall, the Commission's staff has identified a total of 340 fires occurring from January 1, 1988, through October 15, 1999, that were reportedly started by children playing with <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. These fires caused 65 deaths and 138 injuries. <strong>For</strong> the incidents where the age of the fire starter was known, children under age 5 ignited 237 of these fires, which resulted in 45 deaths and 103 injuries. Twenty- eight of the 45 fatalities were children younger than age 5. In addition to the fatalities, these fires resulted in severe injuries. Among the fires caused by children younger than age 5, four surviving children received burns over 70% or more of their bodies. These burns will require extensive long-term treatment. The high proportion of fatalities that were children younger than age 5, and the severity of the injuries, illustrate the hazard associated with children playing with <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. Because the data are incidents reported to CPSC rather than national estimates, the full extent of the problem may be greater. Many of the children found the <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> in easily accessible locations, such as on kitchen counters or furniture tops. Others, however, obtained the <strong>lighters</strong> from more inaccessible locations, such as high shelves or cabinets, where parents tried to hide them. C. Description of the <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> 1. Scope and Definition <strong>Multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> subject to the <strong>standard</strong> are also known as grill <strong>lighters</strong>, fireplace <strong>lighters</strong>, utility <strong>lighters</strong>, micro-torches, or gas matches. The <strong>rule</strong>'s definition of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> is given in Section A of this notice. Both refillable and non-refillable <strong>lighters</strong> are covered, regardless of their cost. 2. Requirements Most of the provisions of the <strong>standard</strong> are essentially the same as the <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> Cigarette <strong>Lighters</strong>, including a required child resistance of 85%. The child resistance of a <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter would be determined by tests using panels of children. To avoid harming the children in the test panels, the <strong>lighters</strong> used <strong>for</strong> the tests are modified so they will not produce a flame when operated. Rather, the <strong>lighters</strong> are modified (if necessary) to produce a signal that can be seen or heard when the lighter is operated in a manner that would produce a flame in a production lighter. The child-resistant mechanism would be required to: operate safely when used in a normal and convenient manner, comply with the <strong>rule</strong>'s requirements <strong>for</strong> the reasonably expected life of the lighter, and not be easily deactivated or prevented from complying with the <strong>rule</strong>'s requirements. The child-resistant mechanisms in <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> must reset automatically, either (1) after each operation of the lighter or (2) after multiple operations but when or before the user lets go of the lighter. This differs from the <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> Cigarette <strong>Lighters</strong>, which requires the child-resistant mechanism to reset after each operation. Some <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>, however, allow the lighter to remain lit after it is released by the user. This can allow hands-free operation during operations such as soldering. To address the child- resistance issue with respect to <strong>lighters</strong> that have this hands-free feature, the <strong>rule</strong> contains two requirements that are not in the cigarette lighter <strong>standard</strong>. The first additional requirement (Sec. 1212.3(b)(2)) will help prevent the dangerous situation where a child who operates the child- resistant mechanism and lights the lighter could create a flame that would not go out when the lighter is released, even if it is dropped. The <strong>rule</strong> specifies that, after the lighter is lit, an additional manual operation must be performed to activate any feature that allows the lighter to burn without being held by the user. The second additional requirement is that a lighter that remains lit after it is released need not return automatically to the child- resistant condition when it is released. It must automatically reset, however, when or before the user lets go of the lighter after turning off the flame. 3. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements The <strong>final</strong> <strong>standard</strong> has recordkeeping and reporting requirements that will allow the staff to ensure that <strong>lighters</strong> comply. The <strong>standard</strong> also requires manufacturers and importers to provide a certificate of compliance to any distributor or retailer to whom the <strong>lighters</strong> are delivered. 4. Anti-Stockpiling Provisions The <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong> contains anti-stockpiling provisions to prohibit excessive production or importation of noncomplying <strong>lighters</strong> during the 12-month period between the <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong>'s publication and its effective date. The provision limits the production or importation of noncomplying products to 120% of the amount produced or imported in the 1-year period before the publication of the <strong>rule</strong>. To help assure compliance, manufacturers or importers must provide supporting information to CPSC to establish the number of <strong>lighters</strong> made or imported during the base period. They must also report shipments of non-child-resistant <strong>lighters</strong> to CPSC within 10 days after the end of each calendar month during the anti-stockpiling period. 5. Effective Date The <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong> will become effective [insert date that is 12 months after publication] (12 months after it is published), and will apply to all <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after that date. Based on its experience with the <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> Cigarette <strong>Lighters</strong>, the Commission concludes that this will provide firms with sufficient time to design child-resistant <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> and bring them to market. The Commission is aware of one such lighter already on the market, [[Page 71856]] and additional <strong>lighters</strong> are in the <strong>final</strong> stages of development and testing. D. Statutory Authority <strong>for</strong> This Proceeding Three of the statutes administered by the Commission have at least some relevance to the risk posed by non-child-resistant <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. These are the Consumer Product <strong>Safety</strong> Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084; the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA), 15 U.S.C. 1471- 1476; and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), 15 U.S.C. 1261- 1278. The Commission has decided to use the authority of the CPSA to issue the <strong>standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> the child resistance of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. A full explanation of the Commission's reasons <strong>for</strong> that decision is published in this issue of the Federal Register in a notice, under Section 30(d) of the CPSA, that issues a <strong>rule</strong> determining that it is in the public interest to regulate this risk under the CPSA, rather than the FHSA or the PPPA. 15 U.S.C. 2079(d). E. Discussion of Comments on the Proposed <strong>Standard</strong> The Commission received 23 written comments on the proposed <strong>standard</strong>. Three individuals presented oral comments to the Commission on January 20, 1999. Copies of all comments and a transcript of the January 20, 1999, public hearing are available from the Office of the Secretary. The major issues raised in the comments and the Commission's responses are discussed in this section. Overall Description of Comments The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote in support of the Commission's action to require <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> to be child- resistant, stating that in addition to the quantitative benefits, the <strong>rule</strong> will reduce the pain and heartache that result from the death and injury caused by children playing with <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. The Executive Director of the National Fire Protection Association Center <strong>for</strong> High-Risk Outreach wrote in support of CPSC's efforts to reduce the number of deaths and injuries associated with children playing with fires. She stated that preschool age children are at more than twice the risk of fire death than the population at large. She also commented on the August 4, 1999, Federal Register notice that proposed a change to the test protocol. Douglas Lant, Chairman of the British Standards Institute Technical Committee on Matches and <strong>Lighters</strong>, wrote in support of the Commission's action. He stated that the European Standards Organization (CEN) was considering improvements to the Lighter <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> Europe, including requirements <strong>for</strong> child-resistance. The Chairman of the Coalition <strong>for</strong> Consumer Health &amp; <strong>Safety</strong> wrote to urge the Commission to publish a <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong> on <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. This organization is a partnership of consumer, health, and insurer groups working to educate the public and to identify and promote policy solutions to a broad range of health and <strong>safety</strong> threats. The Lighter Association, Inc. (Lighter Association), and several member firms, BIC Corporation (BIC), The Colibri Group, Scripto-Tokai Corporation (Scripto), Zippo Manufacturing Company (Zippo), and Swedish Match, wrote in general support of child-resistance <strong>for</strong> <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> but requested that the Commission address certain concerns about the definition and requirements <strong>for</strong> <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> (discussed below). Several small firms, Donel, Inc. (Donel), SNC Group, and Zelco Industries, Inc. (Zelco), commented that a <strong>standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> would have adverse impacts on small businesses because of the expense of developing and certifying a child-resistant design and because some manufacturers have already applied <strong>for</strong>, or obtained, broad patents that limit the number of design options. These firms asked the Commission <strong>for</strong> relief, either in the form of funding to offset their development and testing expenses or in the form of an extension of the effective date of the <strong>rule</strong>. Blazer Corporation, a company that specializes in the distribution of micro-torches, wrote that it agrees in principle that <strong>lighters</strong> likely to be handled by children should be child-resistant. It also expressed concern that the definition of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> would include micro-torches used by professionals. Vinson &amp; Elkins, the law firm that filed the original petition on behalf of Judy L. Carr, and four other law firms, Joseph P. Moschetta and Associates, McDermott and Hansen, Don Cooke, and Sugarman and Sugarman, P.C., provided information on incidents involving <strong>multi</strong>- <strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. Mr. Cooke appeared before the Commission at the January 20, 1999, meeting to present information about a fire started by a two-year-old boy with a <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter that resulted in the death of the child and his mother. Another 4-year-old child was severely injured in the fire. Independent <strong>Safety</strong> Consulting presented comments about children's fire knowledge and attraction to fire and <strong>lighters</strong>, parental perceptions regarding the hazard and storage of <strong>lighters</strong>, parental supervision, and the appropriateness of a warning label as a hazard avoidance strategy. Ms. Lorraine Daly and Ms. Eve Mallett, both consumers, questioned the need <strong>for</strong> child resistance <strong>for</strong> products in homes without small children. Milford Consulting Associates, a testing agency with experience testing child-resistant packaging, cigarette <strong>lighters</strong>, and <strong>multi</strong>- <strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>, requested certain changes to the procedures <strong>for</strong> evaluating the child-resistance of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. Particular issues that the comments raised are discussed below. 1. Issue: Effectiveness of the Cigarette Lighter <strong>Standard</strong> Scripto stated that there are insufficient data to conclude that the Cigarette Lighter <strong>Standard</strong> has proven effective in reducing the number of child-play fire losses associated with <strong>lighters</strong>. Response: National fire loss estimates show a reduction in the number of estimated residential structure fires caused by children playing with all types of <strong>lighters</strong>. This reduction is occurring in spite of the fact that these estimates include fires started with <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> (which are not subject to a <strong>standard</strong>) and fires started by children 5 years old and older (who are older than the children addressed by child-resistant features). The estimated number of lighter child-play fires decreased from 10,600 in 1994, the year the cigarette lighter <strong>standard</strong> took effect, to 7,200 in 1996. During the same period, estimated deaths decreased from 230 to 130 and estimated injuries decreased from 1,560 to 1,090 (Ault, K., Singh, H., &amp; Smith, L., ``1996 Residential Fire Loss Estimates,'' 10/15/98). Comparing 1996 to 1994, there was a greater percentage reduction in child-play lighter fires (32%) than the reduction in residential structure fires overall (5%). The Commission believes this reduction indicates that child- resistant cigarette <strong>lighters</strong> are preventing child-play fires. Because there was also a reduction in child-play fires started with matches, other factors, such as fire <strong>safety</strong> education or general improvements in fire <strong>safety</strong> (e.g., use of smoke detectors), are also likely to have contributed to the decrease. However, the reduction <strong>for</strong> child-play lighter fires (32%) is greater than the reduction <strong>for</strong> child-play match fires (21%). The Commission believes that the available information supports the conclusion that the <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> Cigarette [[Page 71857]] <strong>Lighters</strong> is effective in reducing child-play fires started by children under age 5 with <strong>lighters</strong>. The Commission expects child-play lighter fires to continue to decline. Even if these data were not available, the Commission would be justified in issuing the <strong>standard</strong>. The Commission has estimated the effectiveness of the <strong>standard</strong> based on test results with children, as it did in issuing the cigarette lighter <strong>standard</strong>. As discussed in Section H of this notice, the <strong>rule</strong> is expected to reduce the number of child-play fires associated with <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> by at least 75%. 2. Issue: Relative Risk of Injury Swedish Match commented that the Commission provided no data to show relative risk rates between matches and non-child-resistant <strong>multi</strong>- <strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. Zelco commented that the number of fires resulting from matches is surely higher than those from <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>, yet matches are specifically excluded from the <strong>rule</strong>. Scripto recommended that the CPSC vigorously pursue regulatory action on matches. It stated that the societal benefits of regulating matches would far exceed those of regulating <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. Response: Comparisons between child-play fires with matches and with <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> are not valid, because they largely involve children of different age groups. A study of 551 juvenile fire setters conducted in Portland, Oregon, found that use of matches by children younger than age 5 was rare, but was relatively common among children of ages 6 to 11 (Porth, 1999). This is consistent with the differences in motor development <strong>for</strong> the two age groups. Using a match requires two-hand coordination, a combination of force and precision, and the control to maintain a flame long enough to light something. These factors make it a challenging task <strong>for</strong> a 3- or 4-year-old child, but much less so <strong>for</strong> older children. In short, regulating matches would have little impact on child-play fires involving children under 5. Further, the overlap in the abilities of elementary school children and adults makes it impractical to modify the design of matches so they cannot be used by older children. In contrast, based on CPSC incident data <strong>for</strong> the period January 1, 1988, through October 15, 1999, about 70 percent of the fires started with <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> were started by children under 5. These fires could be effectively reduced by a requirement that <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> be child-resistant. In baseline testing with children 42 to 51 months of age, the child-resistance of current <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> ranged from 4 to 41 percent. The <strong>standard</strong> would increase the level of child-resistance to a minimum of 85 percent. The feasibility of making <strong>lighters</strong> child-resistant, yet acceptable to adults, has been demonstrated by the experience with the <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> Cigarette <strong>Lighters</strong>. In any event, the fact that the Commission might investigate or regulate other products, which present their own feasibility and cost- benefit issues, does not counsel against action on <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. 3. Issue: Definition of <strong>Multi</strong>-<strong>Purpose</strong> <strong>Lighters</strong> a. Exclude high-end <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. Zelco commented that the scope should be narrowed to exclude higher-end <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. Response: The <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> Cigarette <strong>Lighters</strong> excluded luxury <strong>lighters</strong> (customs or ex-factory value greater than $2.00) because they differed from disposable cigarette <strong>lighters</strong> in certain characteristics affecting risk. The staff stated that because of their cost, consumers would be less likely to leave luxury cigarette <strong>lighters</strong> in household locations accessible to young children. Unlike luxury cigarette <strong>lighters</strong>, the more expensive <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> are as likely to be involved in child-play fires as the less expensive models because they are stored and used in the same manner. In fact, some of the more expensive <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> are relatively large and may be more difficult to store out of the reach of children. At least one expensive <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter is appropriate <strong>for</strong> display near the fireplace. In addition, luxury cigarette <strong>lighters</strong> often have unusual ignition mechanisms that may be difficult <strong>for</strong> young children to operate. In the case of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>, most ignition mechanisms are similar and easy <strong>for</strong> young children to operate. <strong>Multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> are activated by applying pressure to a trigger or button, which initiates fuel flow and causes a spark. Baseline testing indicates that one expensive lighter is as easy <strong>for</strong> children to operate as less expensive models. Therefore, the Commission concludes that excluding the more expensive <strong>lighters</strong> would reduce the benefits of a <strong>rule</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>multi</strong>- <strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. b. Exclude micro-torch <strong>lighters</strong>. Both the Lighter Association and Swedish Match question the inclusion of micro-torch <strong>lighters</strong> within the scope of the <strong>rule</strong> because they do not consider micro-torches to be comparable to the grill-type or ``utility'' <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. The commenters argued that micro-torches are more suited <strong>for</strong> use in activities such as soldering, welding, heat shrinking, and household repairs. The Lighter Association, Swedish Match, and The Colibri Group suggested that the term ``micro-torch'' be deleted in order to prevent <strong>lighters</strong> primarily intended <strong>for</strong> igniting smoking materials from being incorrectly identified as <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. Blazer Corporation, a company that specializes in the distribution of micro-torches, expressed concerns that the broad definition of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter in the proposed <strong>rule</strong> may be interpreted to apply to micro-torch products used by professional tradesmen or in industrial settings. Response: The Commission considers micro-torches comparable to other types of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. As stated in the proposal, ``micro-torches'' are marketed <strong>for</strong> multiple purposes that overlap those of ``grill'' or ``utility'' <strong>lighters</strong> (e.g., lighting fireplaces, camp fires, barbecues, camp stoves, etc.). All types of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> are likely to be used and stored in the home in locations accessible to young children. <strong>For</strong> example, there is an incident where a child under the age of 5 started a fire with a micro-torch. It appears the child found the lighter near a gas furnace where it was used to light the pilot light. The Commission clarified the definition of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> to specifically exclude devices intended primarily <strong>for</strong> igniting smoking materials, whether or not they are subject to the requirements of the <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> Cigarette <strong>Lighters</strong>. Regarding Blazer Corporation's concern about the application of a <strong>safety</strong> <strong>standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> micro-torch <strong>lighters</strong> to products used by professional tradesmen or in industrial settings, products intended and sold only <strong>for</strong> professional or industrial use would not be subject to a <strong>rule</strong> promulgated under the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1). If, however, a particular micro-torch model was advertised in general-circulation media (e.g., consumer magazines, catalogs, newspapers, television programs, consumer-oriented Internet web sites, etc.), or was sold in hardware or other stores open to the general public, it would be considered a consumer product subject to the <strong>standard</strong>. Therefore, if Blazer's products are available to consumers, they will need to comply with the <strong>rule</strong>. c. Define <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> on the basis of length. The Lighter Association recommended alternative language that would define <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> as [[Page 71858]] ``a hand-held, flame producing device, * * * four inches or greater in length when in the fully extended position * * *'' It maintained that the obvious distinguishing characteristic of a grill lighter is the length of the product, which is designed to ``reach over fire or into inaccessible places.'' Zippo also supported a dimensional limitation. Response: The Commission did not use length to define <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. There are micro-torch designs that are less than 4 inches long. The hotter, directional flame of a micro-torch compensates to an extent <strong>for</strong> its shorter nozzle, making it useful <strong>for</strong> many of the same purposes as ``grill'' <strong>lighters</strong>. CPSC staff members found micro-torches convenient to use <strong>for</strong> lighting a gas grill, a gas stove burner, candles, and a water heater pilot light. Other types of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> could also be designed to be under 4 inches in length and still be functionally equivalent to longer <strong>lighters</strong>. d. Specify the type of fuel used by <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>. The Lighter Association and Zippo supported including only those <strong>lighters</strong> that use a gaseous fuel. Both indicated that it is not technologically or commercially feasible to create a utility lighter that uses liquid fuel. The Lighter Association states that they believe no liquid-fuel utility <strong>lighters</strong> are produced anywhere in the world and question the Commission's authority to regulate products that do not exist. Response: As proposed, a <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter was defined as a ``flame-producing product that operates on fuel.'' There is no reference to any specific type of fuel, liquid or otherwise. The Commission concludes that any lighter that is used by consumers to ignite items such as candles, fuel <strong>for</strong> fireplaces, charcoal or gas- fired grills, and the like should be required to be child-resistant, regardless of the type of fuel, since these <strong>lighters</strong> would all present the same risk. e. Change the words ``self-igniting'' to ``manually operated.'' The Lighter Association recommended changing ``self-igniting'' in the definition of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter to ``manually operated ignition mechanism'' since the term ``self-igniting'' is not accurate because some action is required to ignite a lighter. Response: The Commission agrees that the term ``self-igniting'' is imprecise. Therefore, the Commission revised the definition of <strong>multi</strong>- <strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> in the <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong> to read ``A hand-held, flame- producing product that operates on fuel [and] incorporates an ignition mechanism. * * *'' f. Delete the exclusion <strong>for</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> with more than 10 ounces of fuel. The Lighter Association, BIC, and Scripto objected to the exclusion of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> that contain more than 10 ounces of fuel. They question the basis <strong>for</strong> this exclusion and express concern that an arbitrary cut-off invites the introduction of products that will fall outside of the scope of the <strong>rule</strong>. The Lighter Association and BIC state that there should be no limit on the amount of fuel because there are lighter attachments sold without any fuel or fuel reservoir that work with any quantity of fuel. In support of this argument, they provided a lighter attachment, with an ignition mechanism, that accommodates a 14.1 ounce propane cylinder. Response: The <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong> continues to exclude <strong>lighters</strong> that contain more than 10 ounces of fuel. As the Lighter Association recognized in its comments, this provision's <strong>purpose</strong> is to distinguish <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> from large propane torches, which are also used <strong>for</strong> soldering and brazing. Most <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> contain less than 2 ounces of fuel. A lighter with a fuel capacity of more than 10 ounces would be quite large--on the order of 3 inches in diameter by 7 inches high. Such a lighter would not be convenient <strong>for</strong> the typical uses of the <strong>lighters</strong> within the scope of the <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong>. Therefore, such <strong>lighters</strong> would not likely be stored in the same locations as the smaller <strong>lighters</strong> that have been involved in child-play fires, and thus may not present the same risks. A lighter mechanism designed to accommodate a fuel cylinder with a capacity of 10 ounces or less would clearly be subject to the requirements of the <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong>. The mechanism cannot function as a <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter without a fuel source being attached. This is true whether the attachment is sold with or without a fuel cylinder. <strong>For</strong> example, there are currently micro-torch <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> that utilize disposable butane cigarette <strong>lighters</strong> as the fuel source. Some of these micro-torches are sold with the cigarette lighter and some are sold without the cigarette lighter. Both products would be subject to the requirements <strong>for</strong> child-resistance. 4. Issue: The Proposal to Require Multiple Operation Capability is Design-Restrictive The Lighter Association, BIC, Scripto, Zippo, Swedish Match, and SNC Group strongly opposed the requirement that a <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter must allow multiple operations of the ignition mechanism (Sec. 1212.3 (b)). They characterize this provision as a design requirement that would reduce competition by narrowing the scope of complying designs and would result in wasteful patent disputes. The Lighter Association and SNC Group indicate that, as proposed, this requirement essentially mandates a design that is currently marketed by a single company. BIC reported that they have patent applications pending in the United States and in countries around the world <strong>for</strong> a <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter that allows <strong>for</strong> multiple operations of the ignition mechanism. BIC commented that finalizing the requirement as proposed would invite multiple patent infringement suits and severely hinder the design and implementation of creative child-resistant mechanisms. Scripto provided a test method <strong>for</strong> evaluating the lighting reliability of a lighter. The Lighter Association proposed alternative language that they believe would not limit design options. Response: The Commission acknowledges that the multiple-operation requirement is design restrictive. <strong>For</strong> example, designs <strong>for</strong> child- resistant <strong>lighters</strong> that did not increase the risk of flashback hazard because they had a high degree of lighting efficiency and would light on the first try, but did not allow <strong>for</strong> multiple operations of the ignition mechanism, would not have been allowed. The Commission proposed the requirement <strong>for</strong> multiple operations in response to a concern raised by Scripto and the Lighter Association that adding a child-resistant feature that resets after each operation of the ignition mechanism would create the potential <strong>for</strong> flashback in situations such as igniting a gas grill. Flashback in this context is the sudden ignition of excess fuel that has accumulated while the user is trying to light the device to be used to ignite the fuel. This is largely due to the inherent unreliability of some <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> to ignite with each operation of the ignition mechanism. With designs that allow multiple operation attempts before the child- resistant mechanism resets, the lighting efficiency of a child- resistant <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter should be essentially the same as that of the non-child-resistant <strong>lighters</strong> currently in use. Scripto's suggested lighting efficiency test was rejected because of insufficient data to show that the test represented the conditions under which consumers would use the <strong>lighters</strong>. The central issues concerning this risk of flashback are: [[Page 71859]] 1. Would a child-resistant mechanism that resets after each operation, and thus must be manipulated again before another ignition attempt can be made, delay successful ignition of a gas appliance to the extent that a flashback would result when the lighter finally ignites? 2. And if so, would the flashback have the potential to produce a serious burn injury? The Directorate <strong>for</strong> Laboratory Sciences (lab), Division of Engineering (LSE), conducted a number of tests using gas-fired grills. The testing was conducted to determine the duration of ``delayed ignition'' that could be permitted without resulting in a ``flashback'' that could cause a serious burn injury. Preliminary tests were conducted with three sizes of grills. The lab found that the smallest grill presented the worst-case condition. When the accumulated propane gas was ignited in the shallow well of the smallest grill, the resulting flashback reached the highest level above the cooking surface of the three grills tested. The lab used cheesecloth sleeves to determine whether clothing would ignite as a result of the flashback. The lab found that allowing the propane gas to accumulate <strong>for</strong> 20 seconds could result in a flashback that would ignite the cheesecloth sleeve. The sleeve did not ignite with a 15-second accumulation of gas. The lab conducted 15 additional tests using the smallest grill. The gas was turned on and allowed to accumulate <strong>for</strong> 15 seconds before ignition. The tests were conducted with the cheesecloth sleeves touching the cooking surface of the grill directly above the ignition point. The cheesecloth sleeves did not ignite. Videotapes of the testing showed that the duration of the flashback events ranged from 0.6 to 1.1 seconds. The Directorate <strong>for</strong> Health Sciences used the laboratory test results and information from the published literature on flash fires to evaluate the potential <strong>for</strong> serious burn injury. Health Sciences concluded that exposure to a very short duration flashback from propane fuel is unlikely to cause serious injury (i.e., second-or third-degree burns). Furthermore, the Division of Human Factors concluded that the actual exposure to the flashback would be even shorter than the measured duration because of the user's normal reflex to withdraw from the flashback. A shorter period of exposure would further reduce the potential <strong>for</strong> injury. The Directorate <strong>for</strong> Engineering Sciences, Division of Mechanical Engineering (ESME), tested six brands of non-child-resistant <strong>multi</strong>- <strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> to determine the number of times a consumer might need to operate the ignition mechanism to produce a flame. In 50 of 53 trials, a flame was obtained in 5 or fewer attempts and, in 47 of 53 trials, in 3 or fewer attempts. The number of attempts averaged less than 3 <strong>for</strong> all brands of <strong>lighters</strong>. The Division of Human Factors conducted a study to determine if users are capable of operating child-resistant <strong>lighters</strong> that reset after each operation at least 5 times within 15 seconds. Disposable child-resistant cigarette <strong>lighters</strong> were used <strong>for</strong> this study because, at that time, the staff was not aware of any <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> with child-resistant mechanisms that reset after each operation attempt. <strong>For</strong> the 7 <strong>lighters</strong> tested, the minimum number of operations achieved in 15 seconds ranged from 4 to 8. The maximum ranged from 14 to 24 operations. In most of the trials (195/209), the subjects operated the <strong>lighters</strong> 6 or more times. The Directorate <strong>for</strong> Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis, reviewed the incident data on flashback incidents associated with igniting gas appliances such as ranges, grills, water heaters, etc. The NEISS data from 1996-1998 indicated that, of the estimated 1,500 victims treated each year <strong>for</strong> burn injuries related to flashback, the majority were treated and released. About 8% of the injuries required hospitalization. Malfunction of the products being ignited, fuel leaks, and user error appeared to be contributing factors in incidents that resulted in serious injury. Although delays in ignition apparently caused several incidents, the available data provide no evidence that delay caused by difficulty in operating <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> results in flashback that causes serious injury. The staff found that a flashback resulting from a 15-second accumulation of propane gas is unlikely to ignite clothing or cause a serious burn injury. The tests showed that a flame can be produced with most non-child-resistant <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> in 5 or fewer operations. Cigarette <strong>lighters</strong> with child-resistant features that reset after every operation were operated at least 6 times within 15 seconds in most of the trials. Therefore, the staff concluded that a child- resistant mechanism that resets after each operation of a <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter would not prevent a user from successfully producing a flame and igniting a gas appliance before a hazardous flashback condition could occur. The staff found insufficient evidence to conclude that current <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> pose a risk of injury due to flashback, or that the addition of a child-resistant mechanism that resets after each operation would pose such a risk. Even without the results of these tests, however, the Commission would be justified in eliminating the requirement <strong>for</strong> multiple- operation capability from the <strong>rule</strong>. First, the commenters who first raised the issue of flashback provided no persuasive data to support their concern. Second, the injury data from flashback incidents do not reveal any injuries due to small delays such as might result from child-resistant mechanisms. (The only exception to this was one incident where the person put his face over a grill to see why it did not light and kept operating the (non-child-resistant) lighter.) Third, market pressures likely will act to reduce the risk of flashback. The only child-resistant <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter now on the market is capable of multiple operations without operating the child- resistant feature each time. This lighter is easy to use and is made by BIC, a large manufacturer with an extensive distribution network. This lighter is likely to bring a competitive pressure <strong>for</strong> other manufacturers to make their child-resistant <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> easy to use. Thus, any risk of flashback would be reduced. In addition, repeat sales of a lighter model that is hard to light would suffer. The Commission concludes that the proportion of <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> with inefficient ignition mechanisms that will be marketed, if any, will be small. Of this small percentage, some persons would be cautious, or follow the instructions of some appliance manufacturers, and light the flame before turning on the gas; these persons would not be at risk of flashback. The Commission notes that of the non-child-resistant <strong>multi</strong>- <strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> that staff tested, one manufacturer had two models that were significantly less efficient in lighting than most of the other models. While this <strong>rule</strong> contains no lighting efficiency test, should any child-resistant <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter's poor lighting performance result in a flashback problem, the Office of Compliance would consider appropriate action. Therefore, the Commission is unable to support a requirement in the <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong> that <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> must allow multiple operation attempts before the child-resistant mechanism resets. The Commission revised the requirement <strong>for</strong> <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> in the <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong> to allow a child- [[Page 71860]] resistant feature to reset after one or more operations of the ignition mechanism. <strong>For</strong> the reasons given above, the requirements <strong>for</strong> <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> in Sec. 1212.3 of the <strong>final</strong> <strong>rule</strong> read as follows: (a) A <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter subject to this part 1212 shall be resistant to successful operation by at least 85% of the child-test panel when tested in the manner prescribed by Sec. 1212.4. (b) The child-resistant mechanism of a <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter subject to this Part 1212 must: (1) Operate safely when used in a normal and convenient manner, (2) Comply with this Sec. 1212.3 <strong>for</strong> the reasonably expected life of the lighter, (3) Not be easy to deactivate or prevent from complying with this Sec. 1212.3. (4) Except as provided in subparagraph (b)(5) of this section, automatically reset when or before the user lets go of the lighter. (5) The child-resistant mechanism of a <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter subject to this Part 1212 that allows hands-free operation must: (i) Require operation of an additional feature (e.g., lock, switch, etc.) after a flame is achieved before hands-free operation can occur; (ii) Have a manual mechanism <strong>for</strong> turning off the flame when the hands-free function is used; and either (iii) Automatically reset when or before the user lets go of the lighter when the hands-free function is not used; or (iv) Automatically reset when or before the user lets go of the lighter after turning off the flame when the hands-free feature is used. 5. Discussion of ``easily deactivated'' The Lighter Association, BIC, and Scripto objected to language in the discussion of comments on the ANPR in the preamble of the proposal that states that the Commission considers an ``easily deactivated'' child-resistant mechanism to be one that can be easily disabled with a common household tool. The Lighter Association stated that this is a very significant issue because no lighter is designed to this <strong>standard</strong> and that such a requirement would mean that a lighter must be tamper- proof. BIC stated that this interpretation is unreasonable and unworkable. Scripto commented that no <strong>standard</strong> can prevent a consumer's intentional destruction or alteration of a product's <strong>safety</strong> features, and that a ``tamper-proof'' requirement is unreasonable and impractical. Scripto suggested establishment of performance criteria to determine what would constitute ``easily deactivated.'' Response: Disabling or removing the child-resistant mechanism was a common problem in the first 2 or 3 years after the effective date of the <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong> <strong>for</strong> Cigarette <strong>Lighters</strong>. In part, this was due to general consumer resistance to something new and less convenient. In addition, some of the early child-resistant cigarette lighter designs were difficult to operate. Effective enforcement of the <strong>standard</strong>, including pursuit of firms who purposely disabled child-resistant mechanisms on cigarette <strong>lighters</strong> offered <strong>for</strong> sale, and design changes by manufacturers to make mechanisms easier <strong>for</strong> consumers to use, appear to have reduced this problem <strong>for</strong> cigarette <strong>lighters</strong>. The Commission expects that manufacturers will use their experience with cigarette <strong>lighters</strong> to design child-resistant mechanisms <strong>for</strong> <strong>multi</strong>- <strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong> that will be easy <strong>for</strong> consumers to operate. In addition, many consumers have had experience with child-resistant mechanisms on other types of <strong>lighters</strong>. The Commission is expressing no position at this time on any criterion <strong>for</strong> when a lighter is easily deactivated. If the staff identifies either a cigarette lighter or a <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter model with a child-resistant mechanism that it believes can be easily deactivated, the Office of Compliance would consider appropriate action. 6. Issue: Impact of a <strong>Rule</strong> on Small Companies Donel, a small U.S. manufacturer of more expensive <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> <strong>lighters</strong>, wrote that the cost and time to redesign and certify a lighter will make it very difficult <strong>for</strong> it to continue in the marketplace. It requested an additional 2-year grace period to comply with the regulations. The <strong>purpose</strong> of its request was its understanding that other firms were actively pursuing patent applications <strong>for</strong> child- resistant technology and that it needed to see what these patents covered before beginning to work on its own technology. They stated that, once the pending patents are issued, it would be able to proceed with redesigning or licensing to comply with the requirements. SNC Group, a small U.S. firm, commented that patents filed by some companies may restrict competition, create hardship on small companies, and ultimately raise the cost to consumers. SNC Group suggested a number of possible ways to reduce the burden of a <strong>rule</strong> on small firms, including CPSC-mandated design standards in which no one manufacturer or importer has intellectual property rights, free legal counsel and testing <strong>for</strong> small businesses with proprietary designs, and providing loans to small businesses to lessen the financial hardship associated with legal advice and retooling. Response: Effective date. The costs of developing and testing <strong>lighters</strong> that would meet the <strong>rule</strong>'s requirements may have a significant impact on some small firms that have proprietary or exclusive rights to a non- child-resistant <strong>multi</strong>-<strong>purpose</strong> lighter design. The <strong>rule</strong> provides an effective date of 12 months from the date of publication in the Federal Register, as to products manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after that date. However, an additional 2-year grace period <strong>for</strong> small firms is not appropriate. In order to issue a <strong>rule</strong> with an effective date of more than 180 days or less than 30 days, the Commission has to find that the longer or shorter date is in the public interest. 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). The 12-month effective date lessens the economic burden of the <strong>rule</strong>, especially on small firms, while providing protection to consumers in a reasonably expeditious manner. Based on experience with the Cigarette Lighter <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Standard</strong>, the Commission estimates that it will take an average of 12 months to develop, test, retool <strong>for</strong> production, perform production tests, and manufacture and ship the product. The results of the conformance testing must be reported to CPSC at least 30 days in advance of the importation or distribution of the <strong>lighters</strong>. In addition, the time required <strong>for</strong> importing complying <strong>lighters</strong> into the United States will be a significant consideration <strong>for</strong> many firms. Some manufacturers, especially those that have been following this rulemaking proceeding, may have already begun developing child- resistant models. Manufacturers who have had experience with developing child-resistant cigarette <strong>lighters</strong> may be able to take advantage of that experience and be able to manufacture and market child-resistant <strong>lighters</strong> sooner than 12 months. In fact, at least one model is already on the market and we are aware of other manufacturers that are working on child-resistant designs. Manufacturers who have not followed, or only very recently started follow