Tobacco Documents Online

(CORPORATE LETTERHEAD) ----2 / June~ 1983 Federal Trade Commission Sixth & Pennsylvania Avenue, N'.W. Washington, D.C. 20580 ATTN: Judith P. Wilkenfeld, Esq. Bureau of Consumer Protection Request for Comment of Possible Testing Modifications- Barclay.Cigarettes Ladies and Gentlemen: Reference is made to the captioned Request, as set forth in "the Federal Register of April 13, 1983 (48FR15953). There is set forth below Lorillard's comments regarding the testing of cigarettes with the Barclay filter d~esign, and relative to their general testing methodology. The comments are set forth in the order in which the questions are posited by the Commission. Are Kool Ultra and Kool Ultra 100's assessed accurately by the current FTC Method? (2) If not, how should these products be assessed? Although. we have no information on these specific brands and the accuracy of their assessment by the current FTC Method., we believe the filter construction, to be identical with the Barclay Filter, and, therefore, our comments are based upon test conducted on the Barclay Cigarette. We, therefore, believe that they are not assessed accurately by the Method in that the smoker inadvertently and without his knowledge causes the air dilution during puffing to be less than that when the cigarette is smoked by the FTC Method. In our September i, 1981 response to the Commission on the Barclay matter, we suggested that these products be assessed using the holder that has been proposed by Philip Morris. This holder blocks the air dilution channels located on the outer periphery of the cigarette construction but does not alter the results obtained from other cigarette constructions. We continue to believe that this is the most practical and realistic method of assessing filter constructions where the air filtration system will be blocked inadvertently by the lips.

Federal Trade Commission 8 June, 1983 Page 2 The Commission. additionally seeks comments on the following. (A) The MK II "Filtrona" Holder. .We do. not believe that th,is holder represents as good a solution to the evaluation of the Barclay-type filter as that of the (B) modified version of the Can%bridge holder currently used on the machine, containing a ring of foam rubber so as to abut the mouth end of the cigarette and block the exit channels of filter construction where air dilution is blocked by the lips. The Commission seeks further comment on: (C), a cigarette holder designed so that one or more of the ventilation channels of the Barclay filter are blocked. We feel that this is impractical with respect to potential filter designs of the future and would lead. to a proliferation of devices to try to compensate for different future filter designs. We think it impractical to try to simulate the precise reduction in filtration that occurs when humans smoke a filter of this design. The Commission also seeks comments on the following specific questions. (~) Which of the proposed modifications, or what other modification, would yield the most appropriate test results for all cigarettes, given the Commission's finding in this matter and the consultants' estimates of Barclay's tar delivery? ANSWER: We believe that the modified version of the Cambridge Holder currently used: on the machine containing a ring of foam rubber so as to abut the mouth end of cigarette filter types which have exit channels or holes at the outer periphery of the mouth end of the cigarette is the best method for testing of all cigarettes. (2) How quickly and easily, and at what cost, could the Commission implement each of the proposed modifications, or any other proposed modifications? ANSWER: We believe that the suggested modification could be implemented for a relatively nominal cost, namely that of holders, and that it could be implemented on a relatively short time schedule,~ by the FTC conducting a parallel test on the current and proposed holder types. (3) Regarding. proposal (C), which would more appropriately rank Barclay cigarettes ~ for example, a holder blocking two channels or one blocking three channels?

Federal Trade Commission 8 June, 1983 Page 3 ANSWER: We have answered this question above with the comment that we th~nk ~t impractical to try to adopt holders to try to match the air dilution thought to occur in humans for this one filter type. This may encourage devices with differing number of air channels. (4) Does the current FTC Method accurately assess the relative "tar", nicotine, and carbon monoxide of Kool Ultra and Kool U,Itra 100's each of which utilizes the Actron filter utilized in Barclay? If not, how should these products be assessed~? ANSWER: Again, we have answered~ this previously and suggest that these products should be evaluated in. the same holder as that used. for Barclay. (6) Would there be unintended consequences from. modifying the cigarette testing method and/or machine? What effect might modification have upon possible innovation, in the cigarette design.? ANSWER: We are unaware of any unintended consequences from mod~ifying the cigarette testing method as proposed. We further believe that the suggested modification would discourage cigarette filter designs where air dilution systems can be blocked or defeated inadvertently by the smoker. we have no comments with respect to questions (5) and (7). We trust the foregoing will be of assistance. Any requests for additional information should be directed to the undersigned. Very truly yours, LORILLARD, A DIVISION' OF LOEW'S THEATRES, INC. AJS:sjh bcc: By¸ Arthur J. Stevens Senior Vice President-General Counsel Mr. C.H. Judge Dr. A.W. Spears Mr. J.R. Ave Mr. F. Schultz Mr. T.H. Mau Mr. J.R. Cherry Mr. R.S. Goldbrenner Mrs. E. Dubbs