Banned Hazardous Substances: Aerosol Duster Products Containing More Than 18 mg in Any Combination of HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a, 61363-61381 [2024-16716]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Regulation Z also covers expedited
delivery fees as finance charges because
such a fee is a ‘‘condition’’ of an
extension of credit. As noted above,
when an earned wage product provider
offers a slower and faster loan, and the
faster loan requires payment of an
expedited delivery fee, the expedited
delivery fee is a ‘‘condition’’ of the
extension of that type of credit.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
c. ‘‘Tips’’ and Similarly Labeled
Payments
In connection with the extension of
earned wage credit, some providers
solicit consumers for what they
variously describe as ‘‘tips,’’
‘‘gratuities,’’ ‘‘donations,’’ ‘‘voluntary
contributions,’’ or the like. The CFPB is
aware of a wide range of practices used
by credit providers to solicit these kinds
of payments from consumers, including:
default ‘‘tip’’ amounts that the consumer
must remove each time to avoid being
charged; suggesting particular ‘‘tip’’
amounts or percentages; suggesting or
stating that ‘‘tips’’ serve to ensure the
future supply of credit to the individual
or other users; and including multiple
prompts to ‘‘tip’’ throughout the process
of receiving credit.
Whatever the exact practice used,
when such ‘‘tip’’ payments are solicited
and then paid in connection with the
extension of credit, there is a clear and
close connection between the ‘‘tip’’ and
the associated extension of credit. In
such circumstances, consumers pay the
‘‘tip’’ for the credit extended, and the
credit is the direct and proximate cause
of the ‘‘tip.’’ 44 That substantial
connection between payment and
associated extension of credit means
that the payment is ‘‘incident to . . . the
extension of credit.’’ 45 Indeed, as a
practical matter, tips are a central source
of revenue for the earned wage product
providers that solicit them. For such
providers, public data shows that
consumers made ‘‘tip’’ payments in
connection with about 73 percent of all
such credit extensions, with such
payments representing roughly the same
share of consumer-side revenue for
these providers.46
in the regulation (or statute) to disagree with the
Board’s considered 1996 position on payment for
voluntary services. As the Board discerned, it does
not matter that it is possible to obtain credit without
the relevant service if the service is a feature of the
loan affecting the total price paid for the credit.
44 Such payments are not tips or gratuities in any
traditional sense. Consumers generally pay tips to
individual workers in the service industry, not to
firms (whether partnered with the employer or
otherwise) for lending them money. Providers
should exercise care in ensuring that the language
they use here is not deceptive.
45 See supra note 35.
46 See Cal. Dep’t of Fin. Prot. & Innovation, supra
note 30, at 1, 7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
As explained above, a payment may
be ‘‘imposed directly or indirectly by
the creditor’’ and hence may be part of
the finance charge even if the credit can
be obtained without making the
payment.47 Under certain
circumstances, ‘‘tips’’ and similarly
styled consumer payments may be
‘‘imposed directly or indirectly by the
creditor’’ such that they are part of the
finance charge. A provider using its
authority—real or implied—to exact a
‘‘tip’’ from a consumer in connection
with an earned wage transaction has
‘‘imposed’’ the resulting consumer
payment.48 Relevant considerations
when determining whether a ‘‘tip’’ or
similar payment is imposed by the
creditor as part of the finance charge
include but are not limited to: soliciting
a ‘‘tip’’ before or at the time of a credit
extension (rather than some significant
time after it); labeling the solicited
payment with a term (such as ‘‘tip’’) that
carries an expectation that the consumer
will make such a payment in the normal
course; setting default ‘‘tip’’ amounts or
otherwise making it practically more
difficult for the consumer to avoid
leaving a ‘‘tip’’; suggesting ‘‘tip’’
amounts or percentages to the
consumer; repeatedly soliciting ‘‘tips,’’
even in the course of a single
transaction; and stating or otherwise
implying, directly or indirectly,
truthfully or otherwise, that ‘‘tipping’’
may impact subsequent access to or use
of the product.49
III. Regulatory Matters
This is a proposed interpretive rule
issued under the CFPB’s authority to
interpret TILA and Regulation Z,
including under section 1022(b)(1) of
the Consumer Financial Protection Act
of 2010, which authorizes guidance as
may be necessary or appropriate to
enable the CFPB to administer and carry
out the purposes and objectives of
47 As explained above, payments that are not
required as a condition of the credit but are
nonetheless incident to it can be ‘‘imposed directly
or indirectly by the creditor.’’ Including only
‘‘conditions of’’ the extension of credit in the
finance charge would improperly read ‘‘incident to’’
out of Regulation Z’s definition of finance charge,
and a creditor can ‘‘impose’’ a cost on a consumer
even if the cost is not required for the extension of
credit.
48 A consumer’s reasonable understanding that a
provider expects a ‘‘tip’’ in connection with a
transaction is evidence that the provider exacts it
as if by authority. This kind of reasonable
understanding does not depend on whether
‘‘tipping’’ impacts the supply of credit to the
consumer now or in the future.
49 The presence or absence of one or all of these
considerations may not be determinative. The
importance and relevance of these and other
considerations will vary in the context of a
particular product and how it is offered or provided
to consumers.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61363
Federal consumer financial laws.50
While not required under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
the CFPB is soliciting comments on the
proposal and may make revisions when
it issues a final interpretive rule as
appropriate in light of feedback
received.
By operation of TILA section 130(f),
no provision of TILA sections 130,
108(b), 108(c), 108(e), or section 112
imposing any liability would apply to
any act done or omitted in good faith in
conformity with the final interpretive
rule, notwithstanding that after such act
or omission has occurred, the final
interpretive rule is amended, rescinded,
or determined by judicial or other
authority to be invalid for any reason.51
The CFPB has determined that this
proposed interpretive rule, if finalized,
would not impose any new or revise any
existing recordkeeping, reporting, or
disclosure requirements on covered
entities or members of the public that
would be collections of information
requiring approval by the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act.52
Rohit Chopra,
Director, Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2024–16827 Filed 7–30–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–AM–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1500
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2021–0015]
Banned Hazardous Substances:
Aerosol Duster Products Containing
More Than 18 mg in Any Combination
of HFC–152a and/or HFC–134a
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (Commission or
CPSC) is proposing to declare that any
aerosol duster products that contain
more than 18 mg in any combination of
HFC–152a and/or HFC–134a are banned
hazardous substances under the Federal
Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). For
the ten-year period from 2012 to 2021,
CPSC is aware of more than 1,000
deaths, and estimates 21,700 treated
injuries involving the inhalation of
aerosol duster products. The proposed
SUMMARY:
50 12
U.S.C. 5512(b)(1).
U.S.C. 1640(f).
52 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521.
51 15
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
61364
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
rule addresses deaths and injuries
associated with the propellants HFC–
152a and HFC–134a used in aerosol
duster products. The Commission is
providing an opportunity for interested
parties to submit written comments on
this notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR).
Written comments must be
received by September 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Written Comments:
Comments related to the Paperwork
Reduction Act aspects of the proposed
rule should be directed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX:
202–395–6974, or emailed to oira_
submission@omb.eop.gov.
Other written comments in response
to the proposed rule, identified by
Docket No. CPSC–2021–0015 may be
submitted by any of the following
methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit
electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
CPSC typically does not accept
comments submitted by email, except as
described below. CPSC encourages you
to submit electronic comments by using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
described above.
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier/Written
Submissions: Submit comments by
mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of
the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301)
504–7479. If you wish to submit
confidential business information, trade
secret information, or other sensitive or
protected information that you do not
want to be available to the public, you
may submit such comments by mail,
hand delivery, courier, or you may
email them to: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number. CPSC may post all comments
without change, including any personal
identifiers, contact information, or other
personal information provided to:
www.regulations.gov. Do not submit
through this website: confidential
business information, trade secret
information, or other sensitive or
protected information that you do not
want to be available to the public. If you
wish to submit such information, please
submit it according to the instructions
for mail/hand delivery/courier/written
submissions.
Docket for NPR: For access to the
docket to read background documents
or comments received, go to:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
www.regulations.gov, insert the docket
number CPSC–2021–0015 into the
‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Kelleher, Directorate for Health
Sciences, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, National Product Testing
and Evaluation Center, 5 Research
Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone:
240–429–4894; mkelleher@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this
NPR, the Commission proposes to
declare any aerosol duster canisters
containing more than 18 mg of the
hazardous chemicals HFC–152a and/or
HFC–134a to be banned hazardous
substances under the FHSA. From 2012
to 2021, inhalation of these products
resulted in 1,039 known deaths and an
estimated 21,700 emergency department
(ED) treated injuries in the United
States. Although aerosol duster products
that do not contain these hazardous
substances would likely be more
expensive, over 30 years the proposed
rule is projected to yield net benefits of
nearly $2 billion, with more than 16
dollars of benefit for every dollar of cost.
Furthermore, aerosol duster products
will remain available and affordable
alternatives such as electric dusters are
also available.
I. Background
On April 2, 2021, Families United
Against Inhalant Abuse (FUAIA)
submitted a petition requesting that the
Commission initiate rulemaking to
adopt a mandatory safety standard to
address the hazards associated with
aerosol duster products used for
cleaning electronics and other items
containing the chemical 1,1difluorethane, or any derivative thereof.
The petition requested CPSC conduct
rulemaking to address the numerous
deaths and injuries associated with
inhalant abuse of aerosol duster
products. Specifically, the petition
requested a performance standard
requiring that manufacturers add an
aversive agent (bitterant other than
denatonium benzoate) to all duster
aerosol products at a level of 30–40
ppm, and it requested a required
warning stating: ‘‘DANGER: DEATH—
This product can kill you if you breath
[sic] it.’’ 1
On June 29, 2021, the Commission
published in the Federal Register a
1 The petition is available at https://
www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws--Standards/
Rulemaking/Petitions. The petitioner also requested
that CPSC require retailers to limit multiple duster
can purchases during a one-month time period; the
Commission, however, explained that it does not
have rulemaking authority over such personal
purchasing decisions. 86 FR 34171, n.1 (June 29,
2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
request for comments on the petition. 86
FR 34171. On July 20, 2022, staff
submitted a briefing package to the
Commission regarding the petition.2 On
July 26, 2022, the Commission voted to
defer action on the petition to allow
staff to conduct further research.3 On
July 26, 2023, staff submitted an
updated briefing package to the
Commission regarding the petition.4
The Commission granted the petition on
August 1, 2023, directing staff to initiate
rulemaking to address the inhalation
hazard associated with aerosol duster
products.5
II. Statutory Authority
This rulemaking is conducted under
the provisions of the FHSA and the
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).
15 U.S.C. 1261–1278; 15 U.S.C. 2058.
The rulemaking proposal involves two
elements. First, pursuant to sections
2(f)(1)(A), 2(q)(1)(B), and 3 of the FHSA,
the Commission is proposing to ban any
aerosol duster product containing more
than 18 mg of either of two
hydrofluorocarbon propellants—1,1difluoroethane (HFC–152a, CAS # 75–
37–6) and 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane
(HFC–134a, CAS # 811–97–2)—or of a
combination of these propellants. 15
U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(A), (q)(1)(B), 1262
(proposed 16 CFR 1500.17(a)(14)).
Second, to prevent circumvention of the
proposed ban, pursuant to section
9(g)(2) of the CPSA, the Commission is
proposing a stockpiling prohibition that
would prohibit a manufacturer from
stockpiling banned aerosol duster
products containing above the specified
amount of HFC–152a and/or HFC–134a
that are subject to the proposed ban. 15
U.S.C. 2058(g)(2).
More specifically, the Commission is
proposing to declare that any aerosol
duster canister containing more than 18
mg of HFC–152a and/or HFC–134a to be
a ‘‘hazardous substance’’ and a ‘‘banned
hazardous substance’’ within the
meaning of sections 2(f)(1)(A) and
2 www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-RequestingRulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard_
0.pdf?VersionId=GNEl7pYZUBOxf1BLSC0f4.
X6TlA8gT4f.
3 www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-PetitionRequesting-Rulemaking-to-Establish-SafetyStandard-for-Aerosol-Dusters-Products-Petition-CP21-1.pdf?VersionId=uD1mraIGCZcjBd9xiyZsan
VRbngVzUvP.
4 www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-RequestingRulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard-forAerosol-Duster-Products-Petition-CP-21-1.
pdf?VersionId=.NohA6DG6WsXh_tsjhGuA7R
uqMCOvxSW.
5 www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCAPetition
RequestingRulemakingtoEstablishSafety
StandardforAerosolDusterProductsPetitionCP21_
1.pdf?VersionId=nQcgEM4wvCJE97zmhwYC
dAkwuluYerIt.
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(q)(1)(B) of the FHSA.6 15 U.S.C.
1261(f)(1)(A), (q)(1)(B). Section
2(q)(1)(B) of the FHSA defines a
‘‘banned hazardous substance’’ to
include any hazardous substance
intended, or packaged in a form
suitable, for household use which,
notwithstanding the precautionary
labeling required by the FHSA, presents
such a hazard that keeping the
substance out of interstate commerce is
the only adequate means to protect the
public health and safety. 15 U.S.C.
1261(q)(1)(B).
A proceeding to classify a hazardous
substance as a ‘‘banned hazardous
substance’’ under section 2(q)(1)(B) of
the FHSA is governed by the
requirements set forth in section 3 of the
FHSA. See 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(2) and
1262. The proposed rule begins the
rulemaking process in accordance with
the requirements of sections 3(a) and (h)
of the FHSA. See 15 U.S.C. 1262(a) and
(h). Pursuant to section 3(a), the
Commission is proposing to declare any
aerosol duster canister containing more
than 18 mg in any combination of HFC–
152a and/or HFC–134a to be a
hazardous substance. In order to declare
that a hazardous substance is banned,
section 3(h) of the FHSA requires the
Commission to publish in the Federal
Register the text of a proposed rule,
including any alternatives together with
a preliminary regulatory analysis
containing: (1) a preliminary description
of the potential benefits and costs of the
proposed rule; (2) a discussion of the
reasons why any standard or portion of
a standard submitted to the Commission
was not published as the proposed rule;
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
6 The Commission voted 5–0 to publish this
proposed rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
(3) a preliminary determination
regarding why the voluntary standards
process would not, within a reasonable
time, result in the development of a
voluntary standard that would eliminate
or adequately reduce the risk of injury
identified in the rule; and (4) a
description of any reasonable
alternatives to the proposed rule,
together with a summary description of
the potential benefits and costs, and a
brief explanation of why such
alternatives should not be published as
the proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 1262(h).
Before issuing a final rule banning
any hazardous substance, the
Commission must publish the text of the
final rule and a final regulatory analysis
that includes: (1) a description of the
potential benefits and costs of the rule
(including costs and benefits that cannot
be quantified in monetary terms, and
identification of those likely to receive
the benefits and bear the costs); (2) a
description of alternatives considered
by the Commission (including a
description of their potential benefits
and costs and an explanation of why the
alternatives were not chosen); and (3) a
summary of significant issues raised by
comments on the preliminary regulatory
analysis and a summary of the
assessment by the Commission of such
issues. 15 U.S.C. 1262(i)(1). The
Commission must also make findings
that: (1) any relevant voluntary standard
is unlikely to adequately reduce the risk
of injury or substantial compliance with
the voluntary standard is unlikely; (2)
the expected benefits of the regulation
bear a reasonable relationship to
expected costs; and (3) the regulation
imposes the least burdensome
requirement that would adequately
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61365
reduce the risk of injury. 15 U.S.C.
1262(i)(2).
III. The Product
A. Description of the Product
Aerosol duster products use a trigger
or similar means to release a
propellant 7 (typically a
hydrofluorocarbon) through an orifice or
attachment such as a nozzle or straw for
the purpose of blowing and removing
dust and debris from hard-to-reach
places. Although sometimes referred to
as ‘‘canned air,’’ aerosol duster products
actually contain essentially 100 percent
propellent,8 which is typically a
chemical such as a hydrofluorocarbon
that can be compressed into a liquid for
storage. Each such aerosol duster
canister typically contains about 3 to 20
ounces (85 g to 567 g) of compressed
liquid in equilibrium with a small
amount of evaporated gas or vapor of
that same chemical. The gas or vapor,
consisting of nearly pure propellant
chemical, is expelled when the trigger
or similar means is activated, which
causes more of the liquid to evaporate
into gas or vapor within the canister in
order to return to equilibrium. This
allows multiple uses per canister. Figure
1 below, from US Patent, US–9234123–
B2 9 illustrates an example of an aerosol
duster product showing the propellent
liquid and vapor existing in
equilibrium.
7 Aerosol propellant is a liquid which exists in
equilibrium also as a gas, or compressed gas that is
used to expel aerosol content from a pressurized
container.
8 Various aerosol duster products include trace
amounts of denatonium benzoate, or other
bitterants in order to discourage inhalant abuse.
9 https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/
13848372.
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
61366
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Can is 80 volume-% filled with liquid.
Also: '411 is tilted 28° from vertical.
Mitani Valve
Cirectional Cot
(" Magic Marker")
Valve,tem
Valve body
Figure 1: Illustration of the Contents of an Aerosol Duster Product.
computer keyboard cleaners, canned air
or compressed air dusters, aerosol cans
or spray, and electronics air cleaners,
among other names. (See Figure 2 below
for examples of 10 oz aerosol duster
products).
Figure 2: Aerosol Duster Product Examples.
Aerosol duster products typically use
one or more of three propellants: 1,1-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
difluorethane (HFC–152a, CAS #75–37–
6), 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC–134a,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CAS #811–97–2), and/or trans-1,3,3,3tetrafluoropropene (HFO–1234ze, CAS
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
EP31JY24.629
online. For example, online retailers sell
individual canisters for about $8–10 per
canister, and some retailers offer a
discount when the product is purchased
in bulk. Aerosol duster products are
often referred to as electronics dusters,
EP31JY24.628
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Aerosol duster products are sold
under a variety of brand names and are
available in various brick and mortar
stores and online retail locations. They
are relatively inexpensive to purchase
and easy to obtain either in stores or
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
#29118–24–9). HFC–152a and HFC–
134a are known to be hazardous as
explained in this Notice. According to
Euromonitor, approximately 87 percent
of aerosol duster products available for
sale in the U.S. use the propellant HFC–
152a and 11 percent use HFC–134a.
HFO–1234ze is a new propellant. The
abuse potential for HFO–1234ze is
unknown due to its relatively low use
in consumer applications. Similarly,
other effects on humans have not been
reported. Further discussion about
HFO–1234ze can be found in Tab B of
the July 2023 staff petition briefing
package.10
In order to determine the amount of
propellant released from a single use of
an aerosol duster product, laboratory
sciences staff conducted testing of
various aerosol duster products,11 and
based on that testing, determined that a
trigger pull from a single aerosol duster
canister lasting 5 seconds 12 releases
7.53 grams of propellant, when not
using the straw provided with the
product. This information regarding the
5 second time per trigger pull helped
staff better understand how much
propellant inhalant abusers are able to
inhale with a single trigger pull of an
aerosol duster product.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
B. Scope of Products Subject to the NPR
Aerosol duster products are generally
intended to be used for cleaning and
blowing off dust from electronics as
well as other household items. This
NPR would apply only to aerosol duster
products that contain the propellants
HFC–152a or HFC–134a. Aerosol duster
products using HFO–1234ze (or other
substances) as a propellant are outside
the scope of this NPR. Other examples
of aerosol products that are outside the
scope of this NPR include products that
use HFC–152a or HFC–134a as
propellants in freeze sprays used to cool
circuit boards, automotive refrigerants,
and medical freeze sprays used to cool
tissue specimens as well as aerosol
products that use HFC–152a or HFC–
10 www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-RequestingRulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard-forAerosol-Duster-Products-Petition-CP-211.pdf?VersionId=.NohA6DG6WsXh_
tsjhGuA7RuqMCOvxSW.
11 www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-RequestingRulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard-forAerosol-Duster-Products-Petition-CP-211.pdf?VersionId=.NohA6DG6WsXh_
tsjhGuA7RuqMCOvxSW, July 26, 2023, Table 9,
Page 27.
12 A trigger pull lasting 5 seconds was chosen
based on online video research which found users
inhaling aerosol dusters without any straw
attachment for that length of time: https://youtu.be/
FjlazUNE2-8?si=WsA4nfSbLX_jJ2SR&t=40. This
reference video shows that the euphoric/high
effects appear to occur with a single trigger pull of
five seconds.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
134a as propellants but include
substantial additional components (such
as air fresheners, paints, lubrication oils,
body sprays, and silicone lubricant
sprays for food pans).
C. Alternatives to Aerosol Duster
Products With HFC–152a and HFC–134a
Alternatives to aerosol duster
products are currently being sold for the
same purpose as aerosol duster
products. For example, alternatives
include compressed air dusters which
use corded or cordless electric pumps,
or hand pumps that compress air and
blow and/or vacuum it through a nozzle
to remove dirt and debris. According to
data collected in 2023, the average price
of an electric duster is approximately
$56, similar to the price of seven
disposable aerosol duster canisters.13
Staff tested battery operated USB
rechargeable duster devices. The goal
was to compare air speeds, measured in
meters/second (m/s), generated by the
battery powered devices to the speeds
generated by an aerosol duster product.
Three battery powered devices and two
name-brand aerosol dusters were chosen
for the comparison. Staff concluded that
battery powered air duster devices
generate comparable air speeds to the
propellant speeds of aerosol duster
products. See Tab D of the July 26, 2023,
staff briefing package for more details on
electronic dusters.14 Carbon dioxide
(CO2) cartridge dusters that use
disposable CO2 cartridges to blow CO2
through a nozzle to remove dirt and
debris are available as well. Consumers
can also use vacuum cleaners to remove
dust. Thus, a number of alternative
products exist that provide similar
utility to that provided by aerosol duster
products.
IV. Description of the Hazard
Aerosol duster products can cause
significant toxicity or death if used as
inhalants (Williams, 2007). Inhalants are
volatile substances that produce
chemical vapors that can be inhaled to
induce psychoactive, or mind-altering,
effects.15 The inhalants in aerosol duster
products are legally sold for purposes
other than use as inhalants, are widely
available, and are inexpensive. Inhalant
abusers include males and females
ranging in age from teenagers to adults
in their 60s. Approximately 10 to 50
13 Aerosol Duster Supporting Database, August
2023. (https://www.cpsc.gov/content/AerosolDuster-Supporting-Database).
14 www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-RequestingRulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard-forAerosol-Duster-Products-Petition-CP-211.pdf?VersionId=.NohA6DG6WsXh_
tsjhGuA7RuqMCOvxSW.
15 See nida.nih.gov/publications/researchreports/inhalants/what-are-inhalants.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61367
percent of cases of inhalant abuse may
lead to abuse or dependance, depending
on the characteristics of the population
studied (Perron et al., 2021).
Staff has identified two toxic
substances, HFC–152a and HFC–134a,
that are commonly used as propellants
in aerosol duster products and are
widely used for inhalant abuse. Inhalant
abusers use propellants to get ‘‘high’’
(Koehler and Henninger, 2014). These
propellants can be sniffed, snorted or
sprayed,16 huffed,17 or bagged 18 as
inhalants to obtain a rapid euphoric
effect (DEA, 2020). The euphoric effect
only lasts a few minutes, requiring the
repeat use of an aerosol duster product
every few minutes to maintain the
euphoria. These propellants can damage
the heart when abused, making an
individual more susceptible to a heart
attack or arrhythmia 19 after an
individual inhales the propellant. The
abuse potential of the propellants HFC–
152a and HFC–134a are further
discussed below.
A. Inhalants Used in Aerosol Duster
Products
1. HFC–152a (1,1-difluorethane)
HFC–152a is widely used as a
propellant in the aerosol duster product
market.20 HFC–152a works through
specific brain receptors 21 such as
glutamate/N-methyl-D-aspartate
(NMDA),22 gamma-aminobutyric acid
(GABA),23 and dopamine 24 to elicit
euphoria (Duncan and Lawrence, 2013).
Aerosol duster products, especially
those containing HFC–152a, are the
‘‘drug of choice’’ for many who use
inhalants because they are easy to
obtain, inexpensive, and contain 100
percent HFC–152a without any
additional components such as paint or
air freshener in the propellant (Beauvais
and Oetting, 1987). After inhalation of
16 Inhaling or spraying refers to inhaling the
substance into the nose or mouth directly from the
container.
17 Huffing refers to placing a bag saturated with
a substance over the mouth and using the nose or
mouth to inhale the concentrated fumes.
18 Bagging refers to concentrating an aerosol in a
bag before inhaling.
19 A heart arrhythmia is an irregular heartbeat
caused by electrical problems in the heart.
20 According to Euromonitor, approximately 87
percent of aerosol duster products available for sale
in the U.S. use the propellant HFC–152a and 11
percent use HFC–134a.
21 Proteins that serve as a sensor for a particulate
type of molecules.
22 The NMDA receptors are a class of receptors
that respond to the neurotransmitter N-methyl-Daspartate.
23 The GABA receptors are a class of receptors
that respond to the neurotransmitter gammaaminobutyric acid.
24 Dopamine is a brain neurotransmitter.
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
61368
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
such a lipophilic 25 propellant, the
substance is rapidly absorbed into the
pulmonary vasculature, going directly
into the lungs and easily crossing the
blood-brain barrier into the brain to
exert its euphoric effects. The onset of
HFC–152a intoxication is rapid, and the
intoxication effects are brief and doserelated, ranging from euphoria,
decreased inhibition, motor excitation,
and light-headedness (Koehler and
Henninger, 2014).
Toxicity in humans can occur after an
acute or chronic exposure to HFC–152a
(Poisindex, 2021). Severe HFC–152a
toxicity can cause a depressed mental
state, respiratory depression, pulmonary
edema, hepatic injury, and death
(Poisindex, 2021). Death can occur due
to sudden sniffing death syndrome
(SSDS), which was first described in
1970 (Bass, 1970; George et al., 2021).
Individuals inhale fluorinated
hydrocarbons to become ‘‘high’’ and, if
physical exertion or stress occurs, the
inhaler may collapse and die. (Smeeton
and Clark, 1985; Kamm, 1975; Dingle
and Williams, 2019; Poisindex, 2021).
Predicting the toxicity of inhaling a
certain number of aerosol duster
canisters is difficult because there is no
clear dose-response evident in the
medical literature. Death from abusing
aerosol duster products is not dose
dependent.26 The medical literature
indicates the use of only one canister
has resulted in death (Xiong et al.,
2004), while in another case inhaling
multiple canisters over several years did
not cause death (Peicher and Maalofouf,
2017). However, abrupt cessation of
HFC–152a abuse can induce
withdrawal 27 with tremors, excessive
sweating, nausea, vomiting, depression,
anxiety, irritability, psychosis, and
hallucinations (Custer et al., 2020).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2. HFC–134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane)
HFC–134a is another substance used
as a propellant in aerosol duster
products. HFC–134a is a member of the
anesthetic drug class 28 (Shah et al.,
2015). HFC–152a and HFC–134a have
different binding mechanisms.29 It is
unclear whether the same addictive
properties of HFC–152a translate to
HFC–134a, but data from CPSC’s
Consumer Product Safety Risk
Management System (CPSRMS)
discussed below, show that multiple
25 Lipophilic means the tendency to combine
with fats.
26 If the effect is changing with the dose of the
drug it is described as dose dependent.
27 Psychotic symptoms associated with drug
cessation.
28 Substance that induces insensitivity to pain.
29 Binding of a substance to a receptor molecule
changes its shape or activity to transmit a signal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
individuals have died after inhaling
HFC–134a. Two other papers from
medical literature demonstrate that
acute exposure of HFC–134a from
inhalation can be harmful (Romero et
al., 2022; Burke et al., 2020). Several
papers have indicated that inhalation
with acute exposure to HFC–134a in
humans has resulted in reactive airway
dysfunction syndrome,30 (Doshsti et al.,
2016), severe hypotension, loss of
consciousness, shock (Vinegar, 1997),
cardiac sensitization, neurotoxicity
(National Research Council, 2002), and
death (Burke et al et al., 2020).
B. Description of the Hazard Pattern
To examine the hazard pattern for
inhalation abuse of aerosol duster
products, staff conducted 23 in-depth
investigations (IDIs) with family
members of individuals who died from
inhaling aerosol duster products during
2020 and 2021. These IDIs were all
related to HFC–152a abuse and included
nine females and 14 males, between the
ages of 15 to 61 years-old.
The review of the IDIs indicated the
number of canisters found at the scene,
the victim’s history of abuse, and the
scene of the incident. In five IDIs 31 only
one empty canister was identified,
though in some of these IDIs multiple
full cans were found at the scene, and
the victim had a history of aerosol
duster abuse. In twelve incidents,32 the
IDIs reported that more than one
completely or partially empty canister
was found at the victim’s death scene.
In several IDIs,33 twenty or more
canisters of aerosol duster product were
found with the victim at the death
scene. The majority of the victims died
at home, while some were found
deceased in motels or in parked
vehicles.
Based upon staff’s review of 23 IDIs
and available medical literature, the
hazard pattern for inhalation deaths
from HFC–152a aerosol duster products
includes both males and females; covers
a wide age range; indicates that death
can occur from inhalation of a single
30 Breathing symptoms similar to asthma but with
an uncertain cause.
31 IDI numbers 230406HCC1189,
230815HCC1044, 230822HCC1098,
230906HCC1211, 231005HCC3036.
32 IDI numbers 23071HCC3850, 230329HCC1057,
230707HCC1701, 230720HCC1777,
230725HCC1827, 230808HCC3987,
230822HCC1099, 230906HCC1208,
230906HCC1209, 230929HCC1377,
230329HCC1048, 230711HCC1721.
33 IDI numbers 230711HCC3850,
230329HCC1057, 230707HCC1701,
230711HCC1721, 230720HCC1777,
230725HCC1827, 230808HCC3987,
230822HCC1099, 230906HCC1208,
230906HCC1209, 230929HCC1377,
230929HCC1048.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
canister or multiple canisters; and
shows that most victims died at home,
but deaths also occurred in motels and
parked vehicles. As stated above, the
hazard pattern for HFC–134a is believed
to be similar to the hazard pattern for
HFC–152a because both propellants are
inhalational anesthetics with similar
toxicities at high doses.
C. Incident Data
1. Deaths
This section presents information on
fatal incidents reported to CPSC that
involved inhalation abuse (commonly
known as sniffing, spraying or huffing,
but referred to here as inhaling or
inhalation) of aerosol duster products.
The most recent search of the CPSC
databases for incidents involving
inhalation abuse of aerosol duster
products was conducted in February
2024.
CPSC databases (CPSRMS and the
National Electronic Injury Surveillance
System (NEISS)) do not contain a
specific product code for aerosol duster
products. Accordingly, the product
codes searched in CPSRMS at that time
were 1133 (Aerosol containers), 921
(Chemicals not elsewhere classified),
and 954 (General-purpose household
cleaners). Aerosol duster products are
included as a sub-category of product
code 954 but may occasionally be sorted
into product codes 1133 and 921.
Aerosol duster products were identified
in CPSRMS incident narratives or
product descriptions as dusters, aerosol
dusters, computer/keyboard/electronics
dusters or cleaners, canned/compressed
air, or by specific brand names,
including misspelled variants of the
above keywords. This review excluded
aerosol duster incidents that were
exclusively associated with common
non-inhalation hazards from aerosol
duster products, such as explosions,
fires, chemical burns, or respiratory
injuries related to the product’s
intended use.
CPSC’s CPSRMS database contains
reports for 1,039 unique fatal incidents
involving inhalation hazards from
aerosol duster products that occurred
between January 1, 2012, and December
31, 2021. Data collection is ongoing in
CPSRMS and reporting is considered
incomplete for more recent years (2022–
2024). The number of deaths associated
with aerosol duster products reflected in
CPSRMS and classified as involving
aerosol duster inhalation is almost
certainly an underestimate of the actual
number of aerosol duster inhalation
deaths.
Almost all of the 1,039 deaths were
reported from death certificates and
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Medical Examiners and Coroners Alert
Project (MECAP) reports. Among these
1,039 deaths, 775 (75%) were attributed
to HFC–152a toxicity, and three were
attributed to HFC–134a toxicity. In the
remaining incident reports, the specific
aerosol duster propellant is not
explicitly identified. For several of the
deaths that occurred in 2020 and 2021,
staff conducted IDIs to learn more about
the details surrounding the fatal
incident (i.e., victim’s history of using
aerosol duster products). This death
count only includes incidents where the
product involved was explicitly
identified as an aerosol duster product.
Deaths from HFC–152a toxicity where
the specific product was not
identifiable, and deaths resulting from
the inhalation of unspecified aerosols,
are not included in the figures given
above. Although HFC–152a is
commonly used as a propellant in
aerosol duster products, the compound
is also used in other aerosol products,
such as pesticides and air fresheners.
Between 2012–2021, there were an
additional 1,031 deaths reported in
CPSRMS resulting from HFC–152a
toxicity from an unspecified aerosol
product. The age, gender, and race/
ethnicity distributions of these deaths
are similar to those for the aerosol
duster product inhalation deaths
discussed in this section. Additionally,
between 2012–2021, there were at least
63 deaths found in CPSRMS that
mentioned inhalation of aerosol
products, without giving sufficient
information to determine if the product
was an aerosol duster product. Because
the scope of the data analyses here only
includes incidents explicitly
mentioning an aerosol duster product,
these deaths are not included among the
1,039 fatal incidents in the analyses
discussed above.
CPSC is aware of at least seven deaths
resulting from HFC–134a toxicity
between 2012 and 2021. In three of
these deaths, the product involved was
identified as an aerosol duster product,
and these three deaths are included in
the above aerosol duster products
fatality count. The remaining four
deaths either did not specify the type of
product involved, or they involved an
unspecified aerosol product. CPSC has
also received reports of deaths involving
HFC–134a toxicity that occurred
between 2006 and 2010, including some
that specifically identified an aerosol
duster product being involved.
Table 1 below provides an overview
of the distribution of aerosol duster
inhalation deaths found in CPSRMS,
which, as noted, almost certainly
understates the actual number of deaths
reported to CPSC from these products.
Data in CPSRMS are anecdotal in nature
and do not necessarily represent all
incidents that have actually occurred.
61369
Furthermore, death certificates tend to
have a greater lag time between the
incident/death date and the date the
death was reported to CPSC. Therefore,
the counts below are subject to increase,
especially for the more recent years.
TABLE 1—AEROSOL DUSTER
INHALATION DEATHS BY YEAR
[2012–2021]
Year
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Total deaths
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
54
104
90
124
130
127
124
114
89
83
Total ...............................
1,039
Source: CPSRMS.
Percentages may not add to 100% due to
rounding.
Table 2 below provides an overview
of the distributions of aerosol duster
product inhalation deaths by age group
and gender. Among the identified
deaths, almost 70 percent were male,
and 94 percent were between the ages
of 18 and 54, with ages ranging between
13 and 70 years old.
TABLE 2—DISTRIBUTION OF AEROSOL DUSTER INHALATION VICTIMS BY AGE GROUP AND GENDER
[2012–2021]
Age group (years)
Male
Female
Total
0–17 * ...........................................................................................................................................
18–34 ...........................................................................................................................................
35–54 ...........................................................................................................................................
55 or older ...................................................................................................................................
Unspecified ..................................................................................................................................
4
296
376
40
1
8
159
143
12
0
12 (1%)
455 (44%)
519 (50%)
52 (5%)
1 (<1%)
Total ......................................................................................................................................
717 (69%)
322 (31%)
1,039
Source: CPSRMS.
Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Race information was reported in 881
(85%) of the 1,039 deaths. Table 3
provides an overview of the distribution
of aerosol duster inhalation deaths by
race where the data were available. Over
92 percent of the victims were white.
TABLE 3—DISTRIBUTION OF AEROSOL DUSTER INHALATION DEATHS BY RACE
[2012–2021]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Race
Total
Percent
White ........................................................................................................................................................................
Black/African-American ............................................................................................................................................
American Indian/Alaska Native ................................................................................................................................
Other * ......................................................................................................................................................................
814
24
17
26
92
3
2
3
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
881
100
Source: CPSRMS.
* Includes Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and Other race categories.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
61370
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Ethnicity data for aerosol duster
inhalation deaths between 2012 and
2021 are also incomplete. The ethnicity
is known for 769 (74%) of the 1,039
deaths. Among the 769 deaths with
known ethnicity, 56 (7%) were
identified as Hispanic, while 713 (93%)
were identified as non-Hispanic.
Table 4 below provides an overview
of the distribution of aerosol duster
inhalation deaths found in CPSRMS by
the incident location of the death.
Location information was specified for
891 (88%) of the 1,039 deaths. Most of
the deaths (78%) occurred in a housing
unit, apartment, or condominium.
TABLE 4—DISTRIBUTION OF AEROSOL DUSTER INHALATION DEATHS
by Incident Location [2012–2021]
Location
Total
Percent
Home/Apartment/Condominium * .............................................................................................................................
Other Public Property/Office ....................................................................................................................................
Street/Highway .........................................................................................................................................................
Place of Recreation or Sports .................................................................................................................................
Other ** .....................................................................................................................................................................
711
128
8
5
63
78
14
1
1
7
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
915
100
Source: CPSRMS.
Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
* Includes mobile and manufactured homes.
** Includes a school, industrial location or any other location.
Table 5 and Figure 3 provide an
overview of the distribution of aerosol
duster product inhalation deaths in
CPSRMS by U.S. state. The states with
the most reported aerosol duster
inhalation deaths are Florida (83), Texas
(67), California (67), Georgia (58) and
North Carolina (47). Over 30 percent of
all aerosol duster inhalation deaths
reported to CPSC occurred in these five
states.
TABLE 5—NUMBER OF REPORTED FATAL DUSTER INCIDENTS BY STATE
[2012–2021]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
State
Deaths
State
Deaths
Florida ...........................................................................
California .......................................................................
Texas ............................................................................
Georgia .........................................................................
North Carolina ..............................................................
Illinois ............................................................................
New Mexico ..................................................................
Oregon ..........................................................................
Minnesota .....................................................................
Colorado .......................................................................
Missouri ........................................................................
Michigan .......................................................................
Ohio ..............................................................................
Arkansas .......................................................................
Pennsylvania ................................................................
Tennessee ....................................................................
Virginia ..........................................................................
Indiana ..........................................................................
New York ......................................................................
Iowa ..............................................................................
Washington ...................................................................
Wisconsin .....................................................................
Louisiana ......................................................................
South Carolina ..............................................................
Alabama ........................................................................
83
67
67
58
47
46
40
37
36
35
33
30
30
29
28
28
28
27
25
21
20
20
18
17
13
Arizona ..........................................................................
Nebraska ......................................................................
Maryland .......................................................................
Montana ........................................................................
Massachusetts ..............................................................
South Dakota ................................................................
Nevada .........................................................................
Oklahoma .....................................................................
Kansas ..........................................................................
Delaware .......................................................................
Mississippi ....................................................................
North Dakota ................................................................
Wyoming .......................................................................
Alaska ...........................................................................
New Jersey ...................................................................
Idaho .............................................................................
Maine ............................................................................
New Hampshire ............................................................
Connecticut ...................................................................
Hawaii ...........................................................................
Rhode Island ................................................................
Vermont ........................................................................
Utah ..............................................................................
West Virginia ................................................................
D.C. ...............................................................................
11
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
*0
*0
Kentucky .......................................................................
13
Total .......................................................................
1,039
Source: CPSRMS.
* CPSC did not receive any reports related to deaths due to aerosol duster inhalation from West Virginia or the District of Columbia that occurred between 2012 and 2021.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
61371
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
#of Deaths
'>
CJ 0'9 11 1!);.19 11 20-29 ■ 30-39 ■ 4049 ■ so+
'\•.......,_
Source: CPSRMS.
CPSC did not receive any reports related to deaths due to aerosol duster inhalation
from West Virginia or the District of Columbia that occurred between 2012 and 2021.
Figure 3: Number of Reported Fatal Duster Incidents by State
(2012-2021)
2. Injury Estimates
This section presents information on
emergency department treated injuries
resulting from inhalation abuse of
aerosol duster products. The estimates
are derived from injury cases that were
recorded in CPSC’s NEISS database,34
and the injuries were treated during the
10-year period between January 1, 2012,
and December 31, 2021. Between 2012–
2021, it is estimated that there were
21,700 ED-treated injuries in the United
States resulting from inhalation of
aerosol duster products. This estimate is
based on a sample of 491 NEISSreported injury cases, three of which
were deaths. These three deaths are
included among the 1,039 deaths from
CPSRMS that are discussed above.
Injury incident cases were included in
the sample only if the product being
used could reasonably be classified as
an aerosol duster product. While
CPSRMS incidents typically report
product identifying characteristics (i.e.,
manufacturer, brand, model, retailer,
product description), NEISS injury
narratives rarely provide such detailed
information on the products involved.
Thus, NEISS data are likely an
underestimate of the true number of EDtreated injuries, as more generic product
classifications (i.e., cleaning product,
household cleaner, etc.) may be used to
describe aerosol duster products. An
additional 2,500 estimated ED-treated
injuries resulted from ‘‘huffing’’
unspecified products, or inhalation of
products described as ‘‘aerosol cans,’’
‘‘aerosol cleaners,’’ or simply
‘‘aerosols,’’ but these injuries are
excluded from this analysis because of
the non-specificity of the product
description and the lack of information
on the propellant being inhaled. Other
types of injuries not involving aerosol
duster inhalation, such as respiratory
injuries from the product being sprayed,
are not included in the above estimates.
Table 6 below presents yearly
estimates of ED-treated injuries in the
United States from inhaling aerosol
duster products. Between 2012–2021,
there is no evidence of a statistically
significant linear trend in ED-treated
injuries due to aerosol duster inhalation
(p-value >0.05).
TABLE 6—NEISS ESTIMATES FOR AEROSOL DUSTER INHALATION INJURIES BY YEAR
[2012–2021]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
34 More information about the NEISS sample and
estimate calculation can be found here: Explanation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
**
2,000
1,500
2,500
3,000
Of NEISS Estimates Obtained Through The CPSC
website | CPSC.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Sample size
23
46
35
45
66
CV
.28
.22
.28
.26
.28
EP31JY24.630
Estimate 35
Year
61372
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—NEISS ESTIMATES FOR AEROSOL DUSTER INHALATION INJURIES BY YEAR—Continued
[2012–2021]
Estimate 35
Year
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Sample size
CV
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
2,700
2,100
2,000
**
2,000
67
53
50
56
50
.22
.21
.30
.38
.27
2012–2021 ............................................................................................................................
21,700
491
.18
Source: NEISS.
Estimates rounded to nearest 100; estimates that failed to meet NEISS publication criteria are presented as **.
Rows may not add to total due to rounding.
Table 7 below depicts a breakdown of
the disposition of the injured patients.
A large majority (70%) of the estimated
injuries were categorized as ‘‘treated
and released’’ or ‘‘examined and
released without treatment,’’ while
around 20 percent involved more
serious injuries requiring
hospitalization or additional
observation.
TABLE 7—NEISS ESTIMATES FOR AEROSOL DUSTER INHALATION INJURIES BY DISPOSITION
Disposition
Estimate
Sample size
Treated and released, or Examined and released without treatment .....................................................................
Treated and admitted for hospitalization, or Held for observation ..........................................................................
Left without being seen, or Left without treatment ..................................................................................................
Death * .....................................................................................................................................................................
15,200 (70%)
4,400 (20%)
1,900 (9%)
** (<1%)
341
103
44
3
All Severities .....................................................................................................................................................
21,700
491
Source: NEISS.* Fatal injury cases in NEISS are also included in CPSRMS data and are thus included in the overall death count.
Estimates rounded to nearest 100; estimates that failed to meet NEISS publication criteria are presented as **.
Rows may not add to total due to rounding.
Table 8 below depicts an overview of
the injuries based on age and gender.
Around two-thirds of the estimated
injuries occurred in males, and around
91 percent of estimated injuries
occurred in patients between ages 18
and 54.
TABLE 8—NEISS ESTIMATES FOR AEROSOL DUSTER INHALATION INJURIES BY AGE & GENDER
Age group
(years)
Male
Female
Total
0–17 ...........................................................................................................................................
18–34 .........................................................................................................................................
35–54 .........................................................................................................................................
55 or older .................................................................................................................................
**
6,800
6,200
**
**
3,300
3,400
**
1,500 (7%)
10,100 (47%)
9,600 (44%)
** (2%)
Total ....................................................................................................................................
14,300 (65%)
7,500 (35%)
21,700 (100%)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Source: NEISS.
Estimates rounded to nearest 100; estimates that failed to meet NEISS publication criteria are presented as **.
Estimates and percents may not add to the total due to rounding.
Race and ethnicity data are largely
incomplete for aerosol duster product
inhalation injury cases between 2012–
2021. Race is unknown for around 37
percent of the 21,700 ED-treated injuries
during the 10-year period. Among the
13,700 injuries where race is known,
white individuals constituted around 83
percent of injuries; Black individuals
constituted 6 percent of injuries; and
other races constituted the remaining 11
percent. Ethnicity data was added to the
NEISS database starting in mid-2018. As
such, ethnicity is unknown for the
majority (79%) of injuries reported
during the period reviewed. Among the
4,500 injuries with known ethnicity,
Hispanic individuals constituted 37
percent of injuries, while non-Hispanic
individuals constituted the remaining
63 percent.
Approximately 5,700 of the estimated
21,700 ED-treated injuries (26%)
occurred at home. Another 6,300
estimated injuries (29%) took place on
public property, and 2,200 estimated
injuries (10%) took place on a street or
highway, at a school, or at a place of
recreation. The location for the
remaining 7,600 estimated injuries
(35%) was either unknown or not
recorded.
35 According to the NEISS publication criteria, an
estimate can only be presented if it is 1,200 or
greater, is derived from a sample size of at least 20
injury cases and has a coefficient of variation (CV)
no greater than 33 percent. As such, estimates that
do not meet all three of the above criteria are not
presented in any table. CV is calculated by dividing
an estimate’s standard deviation by the estimate
itself.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Approximately 18,700 of the
estimated 21,700 ED-treated injuries
(86%) were diagnosed primarily as
poisonings, while the remaining 3,000
estimated injuries were diagnosed
mostly as burns (chemical, thermal or
unspecified), anoxia, contusions/
abrasions, lacerations, or internal organ
injuries. Approximately 18,900 of the
estimated 21,700 ED-treated injuries
(87%) were considered ‘‘whole body’’
injuries (i.e., no specific individual
body part injured as a result of
inhalation). Another 1,700 estimated
injuries (8%) were classified as head,
face, or mouth injuries, while the
remaining 5 percent of injuries were
mostly classified as hand, lower arm, or
upper trunk injuries.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
D. Availability of Incident Data
Upon publication of the NPR in the
Federal Register, CPSC will make
available for review and comment, to
the extent allowed by law, the CPSRMS
and NEISS incident reports relied upon
and discussed in the NPR, along with
the associated IDIs. The data can be
obtained by submitting a request to:
https://forms.office.com/g/
NK9WAGMhAi. You will then receive a
website link to access the data at the
email address you provided. If you do
not receive a link within 72 hours,
please contact: cscorpio@cpsc.gov.
V. Absence of Relevant Voluntary
Standard
Two existing voluntary standards,
ASTM D3061–97, Standard Guide for
Three-Piece Steel and Tinplate StraightWall and Necked-In Aerosol Cans, and
DIN EN 15008:2017, Aerosol
Containers—Aluminum Containers—
Dimensions of One-Piece Cans with 25.4
mm Aperture, apply to aerosol duster
products. Both standards provide a list
of currently manufactured aerosol
canister sizes as well as industry
voluntary dimensional guidelines, but
neither standard addresses the hazard of
intentional inhalant abuse.
On February 27, 2023, ASTM
Committee F15 hosted an exploratory
meeting discussing potential solutions
that would prevent intentional
inhalation and abuse of aerosol duster
products such as including bitterants,
warning labels, and use of alternative
propellants and alternative
technologies. On March 4, 2024, ASTM
Committee F15 hosted a second
exploratory meeting to discuss
developing a possible future voluntary
standard and forming a task group for
the prevention of intentional inhalation
and abuse of aerosol duster products. To
date no such task group has been
formed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
VI. Justification for the Proposed Ban
The FHSA defines a hazardous
substance to include a substance that is
‘‘toxic.’’ 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(A)(i). A
substance is toxic if it ‘‘has the capacity
to produce personal injury or illness to
man through ingestion, inhalation, or
absorption through any body surface.’’
15 U.S.C. 1261(g). As discussed in
section IV, staff has identified HFC–
152a and HFC–134a as two toxic
hydrofluorocarbons used as propellants
in aerosol duster products. Both
hydrofluorocarbons are intentionally
inhaled by individuals to experience a
euphoric high, resulting in numerous
deaths and injuries. Severe HFC–152a
toxicity can cause a depressed mental
state, respiratory depression, pulmonary
edema, hepatic injury, and death
(Poisindex, 2021). Symptoms of acute
HFC–134a toxicity include severe
hypotension, loss of consciousness,
shock (Vinegar, 1997), cardiac
sensitization, neurotoxicity (National
Research Council, 2002), and death
(Burke et al., 2020).
Staff researched published medical
literature for papers regarding the
toxicity of HFC–152a and HFC–134a.
While medical literature demonstrates
toxicity of the two substances, staff was
unable to identify any relevant human
data regarding HFC–152a and HFC–134a
that would allow for the calculation of
a non-toxic human dose. However, that
research did provide staff with data to
be able to calculate a no observed
adverse effect level 36 (NOAEL) in
animals for HFC–152a. In toxicology, it
is customary to convert animal data to
human data in the absence of human
data. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), for example, uses
this approach to determine the safe dose
of a drug when studying it for the first
time in human clinical trials. Based on
the generally accepted approach used by
FDA, staff converted the NOAEL found
in the medical literature to calculate a
human equivalent dose (HED) using
appropriate scaling factors.37 Staff used
the resulting HED it developed to
determine the safe level for the
proposed ban after applying a safety
NOAEL is the highest dose level that does
not produce a significant increase in adverse effects
in comparison to the control group. The NOAEL is
a generally accepted benchmark for safety when
derived from appropriate animal studies.
37 Scaling factors account for differences in size
between animals and humans. See FDA, 2005,
Guidance for Industry Estimating the Maximum
Safe Starting Dose in Initial Clinical Trials for
Therapeutics in Adult Healthy Volunteers (FDA
Guidance), available at: www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/search-fda-guidance-documents/
estimating-maximum-safe-starting-dose-initialclinical-trials-therapeutics-adult-healthyvolunteers.
PO 00000
36 A
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61373
factor of 10.38 Below is a description of
the staff approach used in developing
the level for the proposed ban on HFC–
152a and HFC–134a.
A study was conducted on groups of
three rats to mimic the exposure of
humans while inhaling HFC–152a
(Avella et al., 2010). The rats were
exposed to 30 seconds (s) of 20 L/min
HFC–152a in an inhalation chamber.
During that exposure, all the rats
showed signs of intoxication manifested
by sedation which began at about 20 s
and rapidly progressed to more
profound intoxication. At the end of the
exposure periods the rats were prostrate
and could not get up. The rats remained
visibly intoxicated until about four
minutes post exposure. Recovery was
rapid, and at about eight minutes post
exposure, the rats showed no signs of
obvious intoxication. Staff calculated a
non-toxic human dose of 0.476 mg/kg
using the information in the Avella et
al., 2010 paper and applying an
additional safety factor of 10 for a total
safety factor of 100 (see footnote 38 for
explanation regarding safety factors).
The resulting calculation for a non-toxic
human dose is equivalent to 18 mg for
38 kg human (5th percentile weight for
13-year-old female).39
Although there are no relevant human
inhalation toxicology studies available
regarding HFC–134a, the injury and
death evidence and properties of HFC–
134a discussed above demonstrate a
similar hazard to that presented by
HFC–152a. HFC–134a has somewhat
lower inhalational toxicity in rats
compared to HFC–152a (Rusch, 2018).
Therefore, the non-toxic dose calculated
for HFC–152a will be also protective for
HFC–134a.
Based on the assessment that
individuals who inhale aerosol duster
products inhale a single spray at a time,
but may use multiple sprays within a
single period of use, and applying the
conversion process described above,
staff concluded that a single canister of
aerosol duster product should be
limited to 18 mg or less of HFC–152a
and/or HFC–134a to render it non-toxic
to humans. Although 18 mg of HFC–
38 A safety factor allows for variability in
extrapolating from animal toxicity studies in
humans resulting from: (1) different sensitivity of
drugs to animals and humans; (2) differing receptor
affinity to drugs between animals and humans; (3)
unexpected toxicities; and (4) interspecies
differences between the metabolism and time
course effect of drugs between animals and humans.
Ten is a default value for a safety factor. An
additional safety factor of 10 could be used to
protect sensitive populations.
39 This dose will be at least as protective for older
females and males of the same age and older due
to their higher weight. Anthropometric reference
data for children and adults: United States, 2015–
2018; https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/100478.
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
61374
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
152a or HFC–134a is too small an
amount to effectively be used as a
propellant in an aerosol duster product,
because this amount of propellant is not
harmful, the Commission is proposing
to allow trace amounts of 18 mg or less
of HFC–152a and/or HFC–134a in
aerosol duster products to allow for low
level contamination that may occur
during the manufacturing process. For
example, if a manufacturer made a
propellant change from the manufacture
of an unregulated product to a regulated
aerosol duster product, leftover
contaminant levels remaining in hose
lines used to fill aerosol duster products
during manufacturing would not result
in violative products as long as there is
18 mg or less per canister of the banned
propellants. Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily finds that any aerosol
duster product containing more than 18
mg in any combination of HFC–152a
and/or HFC–134a is toxic, and thus, is
a hazardous substance under the FHSA.
Under the FHSA, the Commission
may classify a hazardous substance that
is packaged in a form suitable for use in
the household as a ‘‘banned hazardous
substance’’ if the Commission finds that
‘‘notwithstanding such cautionary
labeling as is or may be required under
this chapter for that substance, the
degree or nature of the hazard involved
in the presence or use of such substance
in households is such that the objective
of the protection of the public health
and safety can be adequately served
only by keeping such substance, when
so intended or packaged, out of the
channels of interstate commerce.’’ 15
U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(B). The Commission
preliminary makes such a finding for
HFC–152a and HFC–134a used in
aerosol duster products.
Aerosol duster products are sold to
consumers for use in their homes, and
almost all aerosol duster products
currently on the market display
cautionary labeling including at a
minimum a signal word (POISON,
DANGER, WARNING, CAUTION) and
statement(s) of principal hazard(s) such
as FLAMMABLE and VAPOR
HARMFUL as required by the FHSA
and 16 CFR 1500.121. Aerosol duster
products on the market also contain
statements to inform consumers of
intentional misuse, inhalation abuse,
and the potential consequences of either
activity. Tab C in the July 20, 2022, staff
briefing package contains an in-depth
analysis regarding the labeling of
aerosol duster products.40
40 www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-RequestingRulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard_
0.pdf?VersionId=GNEl7pYZUBOxf
1BLSC0f4.X6TlA8gT4f.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
Although current aerosol duster
products on the market contain both
FHSA-required labeling, as well as
statements identifying the potential
hazard of aerosol duster abuse and
misuse, these labels have not prevented
the more than 1,000 deaths described in
section IV of the preamble. The
Commission therefore preliminary finds
that labeling of aerosol duster products
does not effectively address the
inhalation hazard presented by aerosol
duster products. Because large numbers
of deaths and injuries continue to occur
despite the cautionary labeling on
aerosol duster products, the
Commission is proposing to ban the use
of toxic propellants HFC–152a and
HFC–134a in any aerosol duster canister
in amounts above 18 mg.
VII. Description of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would amend 16
CFR part 1500 to add a new provision
under 16 CFR 1500.17 declaring any
canister of aerosol duster product
containing more than 18 mg in any
combination of HFC–152a and/or HFC–
134a to be a banned hazardous
substance under the FHSA. The
provisions of the proposed ban are
described below.
A. Proposed § 1500.17(a)(14)(i)—Ban on
Aerosol Duster Products Containing
More Than 18 mg in Any Combination
of HFC–152a and/or HFC–134a
The proposed rule would add a new
paragraph, § 1500.17(a)(14)(i) to 16 CFR
1500.17, that would declare any canister
of aerosol duster product containing
more than 18 mg in any combination of
1,1-difluoroethane (HFC–152a, CAS
#75–37–6) and/or 1,1,1,2tetrafluoroethane (HFC–134a, CAS
#811–97–2) to be a banned hazardous
substance under section 2(q)(1) of the
FHSA. Section VI of the preamble
provides the technical justification for
the proposed ban. Proposed
§ 1500.17(a)(14)(i) also defines ‘‘aerosol
duster product’’ to mean a product that
uses a pressurized canister filled with
gas or liquified gas to create a stream of
gas propellant that can be used to
dislodge or remove dust and debris.
B. Proposed § 1500.17(a)(14)(ii)—
Prohibited Stockpiling
Pursuant to section 9(g)(2) of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2),
§ 1500.17(a)(14)(ii) of the proposed rule
would prohibit a manufacturer from
‘‘stockpiling’’ or substantially increasing
the manufacture or importation of
noncompliant aerosol duster products
between the date of publication of the
final rule and the effective date. Section
9(g)(2) defines stockpiling to mean
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
manufacturing or importing a product
between the date of promulgation of a
rule, regulation, standard, or ban and its
effective date at a rate which is
significantly greater than the rate at
which such product was produced or
imported during a base period ending
before the date of promulgation of the
rule standard, or ban. The proposed
stockpiling provision for hazardous
aerosol dusters, which is explained
more fully in Tab A of the staff NPR
briefing package 41, would prohibit the
manufacture or importation of
noncompliant aerosol duster products
in any one-month period between the
date of publication of the final rule and
the effective date of the final rule at a
rate greater than 105 percent of the rate
at which they were manufactured or
imported during the base period for the
manufacturer or importer. The base
period for aerosol duster products is
defined in the proposed rule as the
average monthly manufacture or import
volume for the last 13 months
immediately preceding the month of the
publication of the final rule.
C. Proposed § 1500.17(a)(14)(iii)—
Findings
Proposed § 1500.17(a)(14)(iii)
describes the Commission’s preliminary
findings required under sections 2(q)(1)
and 3(h) of the FHSA, including
requirements regarding voluntary
standards, relationship of benefits to
costs, and the least burdensome
requirement.
VIII. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
Pursuant to section 3(h) of the FHSA,
publication of a proposed rule must
include a preliminary regulatory
analysis containing:
• a preliminary description of the
potential benefits and potential costs of
the proposed rule, including any
benefits or costs that cannot be
quantified in monetary terms, and an
identification of those likely to receive
the benefits and bear the costs;
• a discussion of why a relevant
voluntary safety standard would not
eliminate or adequately reduce the risk
of injury addressed by the proposed
rule;
• a discussion of the reasons for the
Commission’s preliminary
determination of why the voluntary
standards process would not within a
reasonable time result in the
development of a voluntary standard
that would eliminate or adequately
41 https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Briefing-PackageDraft-Proposed-Rule-Aerosol-DusterProducts.pdf?VersionId=m8a.WZmo3DJv
X0U3qR.EbOr4yQU9yeps.
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
reduce the risk of injury identified in
the rule; and
• a description of any reasonable
alternatives to the proposed rule,
together with a summary description of
their potential costs and benefits and
why such alternatives should not be
published as a proposed rule.
15 U.S.C. 1262(h).
Below is a summary of the
preliminary regulatory analysis for the
proposed rule. See Tab A of the staff
NPR briefing package 42 for the complete
preliminary regulatory analysis.
A. Market Information
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1. The Product
Aerosol duster products, also known
as canned air, are pressurized canisters
filled with liquified gas propellant.
They utilize the force of compressed
gas, released through a nozzle or straw
attachment, to create a direct stream of
gas that dislodges and blows away
debris. Many aerosol duster products
are labeled for ‘‘electronics dusting,’’ or
more generically, as a ‘‘multi-purpose
duster.’’ These products are marketed
for dusting laptops, keyboards,
computers, TVs, phones, printers,
electronic toys, gaming devices, and
other common household products
including sewing machines, clocks,
watches, musical instruments, and for
auto detailing.
Other alternative products that would
not be subject to the proposed ban exist
for consumers to use for similar dusting
purposes, including aerosol duster
products using the propellant HFO–
1234ze, compressed air dusters which
use corded or cordless electric pumps,
or even hand pumps, to compress air
and blow it through a nozzle, CO2
cartridge dusters which use disposable
CO2 cartridges to blow CO2 through a
nozzle, as well as vacuum cleaners.
While prices for aerosol duster
products vary widely, the average price
for a canister of aerosol duster is $8.00
according to a Maia Research market
report 43 and $10.19 according to the
Aerosol Duster Market Report available
on the CPSC website.44 Aerosol duster
products that use HFC–152a as a
propellant are most common due to this
propellant being less expensive than the
less common alternative propellants
HFC–134a or HFO–1234ze (trans1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene). HFC–134a
42 https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Briefing-PackageDraft-Proposed-Rule-Aerosol-DusterProducts.pdf?VersionId=m8a.WZmo3D
JvX0U3qR.EbOr4yQU9yeps.
43 Maia Research (January 2024). United States
Air Duster Industry Market Research Report. 2025
price estimate, deflated to 2023 dollars using CPI.
44 www.cpsc.gov/content/Aerosol-Duster-StudyFinal-Report.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
is non-flammable but is considered a
potential greenhouse gas. HFO–1234ze
was introduced as an environmentally
friendly alternative to HFC–134a, with
low global warming potential. (See the
staff’s preliminary regulatory analysis in
Tab A of the staff NPR briefing package
for a more complete discussion of
aerosol duster products and a complete
list of references.)
2. Market Trends for Aerosol Duster
Products
Firms that sell aerosol duster products
typically engage in either contract
manufacturing or are private labelers.
Typically, a company that engages in
contract manufacturing has another
company produce their product for
them but remain involved in all
components of manufacturing by
providing specifications. When a
company engages in contract
manufacturing, the firm owns the end
products for which they have contracted
out production. Similarly, private
labelers have their production
manufactured by a third party; however,
the product is owned by that third party
and can be sold to other companies, as
well. Typically, a private labeler owns
a brand name and buys products from
the third party to sell it under their
established brand. While slightly
different in structure, both of these
arrangements (contract manufacturing
and private labeling) allow firms that
produce aerosol duster products to
benefit from flexibility in their
production processes, and typically
avoid large, fixed manufacturing costs to
produce their products.
3. Future Market Size for Aerosol Duster
Products
Staff forecast aerosol duster products
sales for a 30-year study period (2026–
2055) using data from a market research
report by MAIA Research. In this
forecast, staff estimates the number of
units of aerosol duster products sold in
2026 will be 18.31 million, absent the
regulation of the product described in
the proposed rule. In the scenario
without the proposed rule, staff
estimates the number of units sold in
2055 will be 35.81 million. This
estimate is based on a continuation of
historical sales growth for the product,
which could be affected by a number of
unknown factors such as reduced use of
computer keyboards or revised
environmental regulations.
B. Preliminary Description of Potential
Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Rule
Staff conducted a benefits analysis of
the proposed rule. The benefits analysis
accounted for mitigated deaths and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61375
injuries from the proposed rule, which
staff monetized using the value of
statistical life (VSL) for deaths and the
Injury Cost Model (ICM) for injuries. As
discussed above, this is likely an
undercount of benefits, because staff’s
count of deaths was limited to cases
where the product was explicitly
identified as an aerosol duster product.
Over a 30-year study period, staff
estimated the total annualized net
benefits (benefits less costs) from the
proposed rule, discounted at 2 percent,
to be $1.93 billion due to reduced
fatalities and injuries from inhalation.
Stated differently, every dollar of cost
from the proposed rule is estimated to
produce $16.59 of benefits.
The proposed rule would impose
three main costs: (1) markup losses to
manufacturers/importers of aerosol
duster products; (2) increased prices
paid by consumers; and (3) deadweight
losses or market impacts caused by the
increased price associated with
compliance with the regulation and the
subsequent decline in demand. As
detailed in Tab A of the staff NPR
briefing package, staff estimates that
these costs total $123.73 million over
the 30-year study period, discounted at
2 percent.
When the estimated benefits of $2.05
billion are compared to the estimated
costs of $123.73 million, the estimated
benefits of the rule are far greater than
the estimated costs. Staff calculates net
benefits (benefits less costs) to be $1.93
billion on an annualized basis, after
discounting at 2 percent. However, staff
notes that one of the unquantified costs
of the proposed rule is the assumed
creation of a black market for
noncompliant aerosol duster products.
Due to the euphoric high experienced
with HFC–152a and HFC–134a,
consumers who use aerosol duster
products as inhalants may still want to
purchase noncompliant canisters. This
inelastic demand and significant
reduction in supply of noncompliant
canisters due to the proposed rule
would create an incentive for
individuals to supply those individuals
with noncompliant canisters, such as
those that are illegally imported from
other countries. The creation of a black
market can create significant negative
externalities such as increased illicit
activity, increased crime and
subsequently increased spending on law
enforcement, and greater health and
safety risks to consumers. Staff cannot
estimate the magnitude of these
externalities with any certainty. In
addition, this analysis does not consider
individuals who may stop inhaling
aerosol duster products after the rule
goes into effect but start using other
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
61376
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
intoxicants in its place. If staff were able
to forecast and quantify this effect, the
impact could reduce the estimated
benefits from the proposed rule.
However, given the net estimated
benefits of $1.93 billion per year in
staff’s analysis, the benefits of the
proposed rule would likely still
outweigh the costs even if these
externalities occur.
To investigate the impact of using
alternative values for some of the key
inputs and assumptions of the analysis,
staff conducted a sensitivity analysis to
compare with the main preliminary
regulatory analysis. In the main
preliminary regulatory analysis, staff
assumes a large number of individuals
would continue to use most aerosol
duster products obtained on the black
market as inhalants due to the euphoric
high experienced with HFC–152a and
HFC–134a.
In the sensitivity analysis, staff
considered an alternative scenario. The
sensitivity analysis assumes that the
prohibition of HFC–152a and HFC–134a
in aerosol duster products results in a
greater reduction in inhalant abuse.
Staff estimated that, currently, 7.88
percent of aerosol duster products are
potentially used by consumers as
inhalants. After the regulation goes into
effect, staff estimated that there would
be an overall reduction in products used
as inhalants, but the share of products
used as inhalants increases to about 30
percent. In the sensitivity analysis, staff
assumes that the share of products used
as inhalants is unchanged at 7.88
percent. This change in input inherently
assumes that the proposed rule would
be more effective at changing the
behavior of consumers who use aerosol
duster products as inhalants.
This change in assumption increases
benefits without affecting the costs. In
this scenario, net benefits increase to
$2.94 billion when annualized at 2
percent, which boosts the benefit-cost
ratio from $16.59 of benefits for every $1
of cost shown in the main preliminary
regulatory analysis, to $24.78 of benefit
for every $1 of cost show in the
sensitivity analysis.
C. Evaluation of Voluntary Standards
Based on the current state of the
voluntary standard’s process for aerosol
duster products discussed in section V
of the preamble, the Commission
determines that no current U.S.
voluntary standard exists to address the
inhalation hazard posed by aerosol
duster products. Further, there is no
indication that any voluntary standards
organization has a clear plan to address
the inhalant hazard in a new or existing
voluntary standard. Therefore, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
Commission preliminarily determines at
this time that the voluntary standard’s
process will not within a reasonable
time result in the development of a
voluntary standard that would eliminate
or adequately reduce the risk of injury
identified in the proposed rule. No
standard or portion of a standard has
been submitted to the Commission
under sections 3(f)(5) and (6) of the
FHSA.
D. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
The Commission considered four
alternatives to the proposed rule: (1)
performance requirements; (2) aversive
agents (bitterants); (3) labeling; and (4)
take no regulatory action and rely upon
the voluntary standard’s process. The
Commission finds that none of these
alternatives would adequately address
the inhalation hazard associated with
aerosol duster products.
1. Performance Requirements
Rather than banning hazardous
aerosol duster products under the
FHSA, the Commission could in
principle mandate a performance
requirement under sections 7 and 9 of
the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058, aimed
at making aerosol duster products using
the propellants HFC–152a and HFC–
134a less likely to be used for
inhalation. This alternative assumes that
an effective performance standard for
preventing aerosol duster abuse could
be developed. To date, however,
suppliers have been unable to develop
a performance standard that would
effectively prevent the inhalation abuse
of aerosol duster products while still
allowing for use of the product as
intended. Staff is unaware of any
existing voluntary standard to address
the inhalation hazard. In March 2024,
ASTM considered establishing a task
group to develop a standard, but no task
group was formed. Incident data
indicates that victims of injury and
death are primarily adults who purchase
aerosol duster products with the
intended goal of intentionally inhaling
the product. Even assuming a
performance requirement could be
developed, while such a requirement
may be effective in preventing young
children from releasing the contents of
aerosol duster products by adding childsafe features, it would not be effective
in preventing adults from abusing and
inhaling aerosol duster products, and
notably the overwhelming number of
injuries and deaths occur among adults.
Thus, it would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to develop a performance
standard that would be effective in
addressing inhalant abuse of aerosol
duster products. Therefore, the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Commission finds this alternative
would not address the unreasonable risk
of injury associated with aerosol duster
products.
2. Aversive Agents (Bitterants)
As FUAIA recommended in its 2021
rulemaking petition, the Commission
could adopt a CPSA performance
standard to require aversive agents
(bitterants) to be used in aerosol duster
products. At the petition stage, staff
evaluated the use of aversive agents
such as bitterants in aerosol duster
products and concluded that adding
bitterants would not be effective at
addressing the inhalant hazard posed by
aerosol duster products. Tab B in the
July 20, 2022 staff briefing package
contains an in-depth analysis regarding
the use of bitterants in aerosol duster
products.45 Additionally, many aerosol
duster products currently on the market
contain bitterants,46 which appears not
to have led to a decline in deaths and
injuries associated with inhalant abuse
of aerosol duster products. Therefore,
the Commission finds this alternative
would not adequately address the
unreasonable risk of injury associated
with aerosol duster products.
3. Labeling
The Commission could require
warning and other labels on aerosol
duster products. However, most aerosol
duster products currently on the market
are labeled regarding the inhalation
hazard, which appears to have had little
impact on deaths and injuries associated
with inhalant abuse of aerosol duster
products. Additionally, at the petition
stage, staff concluded that labeling of
aerosol duster products is unlikely to be
effective at addressing the inhalation
hazard posed by aerosol duster
products. In fact, labeling could have
the perverse consequence of causing
people inclined to abuse inhalants to
seek out products with the enhanced
warning on the label, thereby facilitating
the problem that the label was intended
to avoid. Therefore, the Commission
finds this alternative would not
adequately address the unreasonable
risk of injury associated with aerosol
duster products.
45 www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-RequestingRulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard_0.pdf?
VersionId=GNEl7pYZUBOxf1BLSC0f4.X6TlA8gT4f.
46 According to the Aerosol Duster Study
completed by Euromonitor International in July
2023, approximately 70 percent of all aerosol duster
sales are of bitterant-containing products. (https://
www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Aerosol-Duster-Study2023-Redacted.pdf?VersionId=idRW1RnIfr_
5Jkc9sA9mkss8kTyUmZDD).
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
4. Take No Regulatory Action and Rely
Upon the Voluntary Standard’s Process
The Commission could take no
regulatory action and rely upon the
voluntary standard’s process to address
the inhalation hazard posed by aerosol
duster products. Currently, however, no
U.S. voluntary standard exists or is
under consideration to address the
inhalation hazard posed by aerosol
duster products. Therefore, as discussed
in section V of this preamble, the
Commission finds this alternative
would not adequately address the
unreasonable risk of injury associated
with aerosol duster products.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
IX. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
Whenever an agency publishes an
NPR, section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612,
requires the agency to prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA),
unless the head of the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The IRFA, or
a summary of it, must be published in
the Federal Register with the proposed
rule. Under section 603(b) of the RFA,
each IRFA must address:
(1) a description of why action by the
agency is being considered;
(2) a succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule;
(3) a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed
rule will apply;
(4) a description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will
be subject to the requirement and the
type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(5) an identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant Federal rules
which may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule.
The IRFA must also describe any
significant alternatives to the proposed
rule that would accomplish the stated
objectives and that minimize any
significant economic impact on small
entities.
A. Reason for Agency Action
The intent of the proposed
rulemaking is to reduce deaths and
injuries associated with inhalant abuse
of aerosol duster products. The
Commission is considering the action
because of the numerous deaths and
injuries associated with the use of
aerosol duster products.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the
Rule
The Commission proposes this rule to
reduce death and injury associated with
inhalant abuse from aerosol duster
products. This standard is promulgated
under the authority of the FHSA. To
declare a substance a banned hazardous
substance under section 2(q)(1) of the
FHSA the Commission must follow the
procedural requirements set forth in
section 3(f)–(i) of the FHSA. See 15
U.S.C. 1261(q)(2) and 1262(f)–(i).
C. Small Entities To Which the Rule Will
Apply
The proposed rule would apply to all
manufacturers and importers of aerosol
duster products. According to estimates
by Euromonitor International
(Euromonitor), the household consumer
market for aerosol duster products was
$99.7 million in 2022, and
approximately 87 percent of aerosol
duster products examined use the
propellant HFC–152a and 11 percent
use HFC–134a. The remainder use a
mixture of these two propellants or an
alternative propellant.
According to information collected by
staff, in 2024 there were an estimated 31
firms that supply the domestic market
for aerosol duster products. Among
these firms, 26 are manufacturers and
five are importers/wholesalers.
Approximately 90 percent of suppliers
(28 suppliers) are located domestically
in the United States.
D. Compliance, Reporting, and RecordKeeping Requirements of Proposed Rule
In accordance with section 14 of the
CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063, manufacturers
would have to issue a General
Certificate of Conformity (GCC) for each
aerosol duster product model, certifying
that the model complies with the
proposed ban. Each GCC must also be
based on a test of each product or a
reasonable testing program and
provided to all distributors or retailers
of the product. The manufacturer would
have to comply with 16 CFR part 1110
concerning the content of the GCC,
retention of the associated records, and
any other applicable requirements.
E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rule
CPSC currently has no regulations
regarding the use of HFC–152a and/or
HFC–134a in aerosol duster products or
any other consumer product. However,
the U.S. EPA regulates, or is in the
process of regulating, the use of HFC–
152a and HFC–134a as
hydrofluorocarbons for various uses,
including for use in motor vehicle air
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61377
conditioning, as refrigerants for use in
self-chilling cans for household
refrigeration, transport refrigeration,
vending machines, cold storage
warehouses and retail food refrigeration
(40 CFR part 82), and as per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
which are broadly used in food, water,
and increasingly consumer products, as
exposure to some types of PFAS
substances are linked to serious health
effects. None of EPA’s regulations
regulating HFC–152a and HFC–134a
address the inhalation hazard the
proposed rule is intended to address,
and thus do not overlap or conflict with
the proposed rule.
F. Potential Impact on Small Entities
1. Impact on Small Manufacturers
For the majority of firms in this
market, aerosol duster products are
ancillary to their manufacturing of
products such as degreasers, lubricants
and other aerosol products that would
not be regulated under the proposed
rule. Staff identified 31 firms that would
be impacted by the proposed rule.
Twenty-six of these firms are
manufacturers of aerosol duster
products and five are wholesales/
importers. Among the 26 manufacturers
of aerosol duster products, 20 would be
considered small firms according to
Small Business Administration (SBA)
thresholds.47 The SBA size standard
threshold for NAICS code 325998, All
Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product
and Preparation Manufacturing, is
having fewer than 650 employees in
order to be considered small.
Staff identified four small domestic
manufacturers of aerosol duster
products where the potential impact of
the proposed regulation could be
significant. These firms enjoy strong
brand recognition, and their products
are widely used aerosol duster products
for electronics. For these firms, their
aerosol duster products comprise a large
share of their total product offerings.
Staff assessed the impact to these small
manufacturers to be significant (i.e.,
greater than one percent of annual
revenue) as the proposed rule is
expected to increase the price of a
canister of aerosol duster product more
than threefold, and subsequently cause
a steep decline in demand.48
47 Small Business Administration, Table of Size
Standards (https://www.sba.gov/document/supporttable-size-standards).
48 The proposed rule is expected to cause firms
to shift to more expensive propellants, and
therefore is expected to increase the price of a
canister of aerosol duster product. For a more
complete discussion of the expected price increase
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
Continued
31JYP1
61378
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
2. Impact on Small Importers
Staff identified five wholesalers/
importers of aerosol duster products.
The SBA size standard threshold for
NAICS code 424690, Other Chemical
and Allied Products Merchant
Wholesalers, is having fewer than 175
employees in order to be considered
small. According to SBA size standards,
two of these firms would be considered
small and three would be considered
large. Staff assessed the impact to these
small importers and wholesalers to be
significant (i.e., greater than one percent
of annual revenue) as the proposed rule
is expected to increase the price of a
canister of aerosol duster product more
than threefold, and subsequently cause
a steep decline in demand.
3. Conclusion
Given the significant impact that the
proposed rule would have on the market
overall, staff assessed that there would
be a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities from the
proposed rule.
G. Alternatives for Reducing the
Adverse Impact on Small Businesses
Section VIII.D Preliminary Regulatory
Analysis of this preamble provides a
discussion of four alternatives to the
proposed rule that were considered and
why those alternatives were rejected.
While the alternatives could reduce the
burden on small entities, none of the
alternatives are consistent with
achieving the rule’s objective of
improving consumer safety by
protecting consumers from the inhalant
risks posed by aerosol duster products.
The Commission is not proposing these
alternatives because they would not
effectively reduce the number of injuries
and fatalities associated with aerosol
duster products as discussed in section
VIII of the preamble.
The Commission welcomes public
comments on this IRFA. Small
businesses that believe they would be
affected by the proposed rule are
encouraged to submit comments. The
comments should be specific and
describe the potential impact,
magnitude, and alternatives that could
reduce the impact of the proposed rule
on small businesses.
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains
information collection requirements that
are subject to public comment and
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). 44 U.S.C.
3501–3521. We describe the provisions
in this section of the document with an
estimate of the annual reporting burden.
Our estimate includes the time for
gathering certificate data and creating
General Certificates of Conformity
(GCCs), the keeping and maintaining of
records associated with the GCCs, and
the disclosure of GCCs to distributors
and retailers.
CPSC particularly invites comments
on: (1) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the CPSC’s functions,
including whether the information
would have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of CPSC’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) the accuracy of CPSC’s estimate of
the share of canisters used as inhalants;
(4) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; (5) ways to reduce the burden
of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of
information technology; and (6)
estimated burden hours associated with
label modification, including any
alternative estimates.
Title: Ban on Specified Aerosol Duster
Products.
Description: The proposed rule would
ban any canister of an aerosol duster
product containing more than 18 mg in
any combination of HFC–152a and/or
HFC–134a.
Description of Respondents: Persons
who manufacture or import aerosol
duster products. Staff estimates the
burden of this collection of information
as follows in Table 9.
TABLE 9—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN
Number of
respondents
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Burden type
Frequency
of responses
Total
annual
responses
Minutes
per response
Total
burden
hours
GCC Creation ............................................................................
Recordkeeping ...........................................................................
Third Party Disclosure ...............................................................
30
30
30
5
5
500
150
150
15,000
20
2
5
50
5
1,250
Total ....................................................................................
........................
..........................
15,300
........................
1,305
Section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA, 15
U.S.C. 2063(a)(1), would require
manufacturers to certify that their
products conform to the proposed rule
and issue a GCC. There are 31 known
corporate entities supplying aerosol
duster products to the U.S. market
(consisting of 26 manufacturers and 5
wholesalers/importers), and we assume
the majority of these entities would
respond annually, though this may be
an overestimate.
On average, each entity may respond
5 times per year for collection
requirements related to compliant
aerosol duster products in the market.
Each manufacturer or importer that
responds may create 5 certificates
annually for a total of 150 responses (30
responses × 5 responses per respondent
= 150 annual responses). The estimated
time required to create a GCC is about
twenty minutes. Therefore, the
estimated burden associated with
issuance of GCCs is 50 hours (150
responses × 20 minutes per response =
50 hours).
We estimate for the purpose of this
burden analysis that records supporting
GCC creation, including testing records,
would be maintained for a 5-year
period. Staff estimates another 150
record-keeping responses, each one of
which requires two minutes per year in
routine recordkeeping. This adds up to
5 hours (150 records × 2 min per record
= 300 minutes or 5 hours).
Section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA also
requires that GCCs be disclosed to third
party retailers and distributors. We
estimate that each respondent will
submit 5 GCCs to 100 retailers or
distributors annually. Therefore,
respondents are estimated to disclose
15,000 GCCs to third party retailers and
and subsequent projected decline in demand, see
the full economics memorandum in Tab A.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
distributors annually (30 responses ×
500 disclosures per year = 15,000
responses). Staff estimates each one of
which requires 5 minutes per year. This
adds up to 1,205 hours (15,000
responses × 5 minutes per response =
75,000 minutes or 1,250 hours).
Based on this analysis, the proposed
ban for aerosol duster products would
impose a total paperwork burden to
industry of 1,305 hours (50 hours for
GCC creation + 5 hours for
recordkeeping + 1,250 hours for thirdparty disclosure). To estimate the cost to
industry staff uses total compensation
data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) on hourly compensation
paid to private industry workers in
goods-producing industries of $44.75.49
At an hourly wage rate of $44.75, the
estimated cost of the collection is
$58,399 annually (1,305 hours × $44.75
= $58,398.75). There are no operating,
maintenance, or capital costs associated
with the collection.
Existing aerosol duster product
manufactures would incur these costs in
the first year following the proposed
rule’s effective date. In subsequent
years, costs could be less, depending on
the number of new GCCs issued for
aerosol duster products. As required
under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)),
CPSC has submitted the information
collection requirements of this proposed
rule to the OMB for review. Interested
persons are requested to submit
comments regarding information
collection by September 30, 2024, to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB as described under the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
XI. Effective Date
The FHSA does not specify any
requirements regarding the setting of an
effective date for a rule promulgated
pursuant to that authority. The
Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
generally requires that the effective date
of a rule be at least 30 days after
publication of a final rule. 5 U.S.C.
553(d).
The Commission preliminarily
proposes an effective date of 30 days
after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. Pursuant to section
19(a)(2)(D) of the CPSA, once the rule is
effective, it would be unlawful to ‘‘sell,
offer for sale, manufacture for sale,
distribute in commerce, or import into
the United States’’ any aerosol duster
product containing 18 mg in any
49 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation,’’ December
2023, Table 4, total compensation for private
industry working in goods-producing industries:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_
03132024.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
combination of HFC–152a and/or HFC–
134a. 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(2)(D). Therefore,
it would be unlawful to sell any
remaining inventory of aerosol duster
products containing more than 18 mg of
HFC–152a or HFC–134a as of the
effective date.
While there are potential
vulnerabilities regarding shortages and
revenue loss, these potential
vulnerabilities are greatly outweighed
by the reduction in benefits that would
result from delaying the effective date
past 30 days. Staff estimates the
incremental loss in benefits from a 60day effective date—30 additional days
from the recommended 30-day effective
date—to be $45.71 million in net
benefits, using a 2 percent discount rate.
This loss is the result of 246 additional
injuries and 3 additional deaths from
delaying the rule for an additional 30
days. Under a 180-day effective date—
150 additional days from the
recommended 30-day effective date—
staff estimates a loss of $228.57 million
in net benefits. This estimated further
loss is the result of 1,229 additional
injuries and 17 additional deaths from
delaying the rule for 150 days.
Staff also considered manufacturers’
expected actions required to become
compliant with the proposed ban in
recommending the 30-day effective date.
Manufacturers of aerosol duster
products would switch to an alternative
propellant. Switching to an alternative
propellant is a near drop-in
replacement, having only minimal
changes required to formulations and
equipment. As such, while the new
propellant itself will be more expensive,
the one-time costs of switching
propellants will be negligible. The
manufacturing process which includes
filling, sealing, and crimping the aerosol
duster products remains unchanged
from current manufacturing practices. It
would also require manufacturers to
change the labels on their canister to list
the alternative propellant, which staff
assesses can be accomplished in 30
days. Therefore, the cost of any
retooling in the manufacturing process
would be minimal. In addition,
consumer aerosol duster products that
would not be impacted by the proposed
rule are already in use, and available for
sale. Alternatively, instead of switching
to a new propellant in an aerosol duster
product, as discussed in section III.C of
this preamble, there are manufacturers
and importers that currently supply
battery powered USB rechargeable
duster products to the market, which
provide similar utility to consumers as
an aerosol duster product. For these
reasons, the Commission proposes a 30day effective date. The Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61379
invites comments regarding the amount
of time needed to come into compliance
with a final rule.
XII. Certification
Section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA requires
that products subject to a consumer
product safety rule under the CPSA, or
to a similar rule, ban, standard or
regulation under any other act enforced
by the Commission, must be certified
with a GCC as complying with all
applicable CPSC-enforced requirements.
15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1). A final rule
establishing a ban under the FHSA
would subject aerosol duster products to
this requirement. Aerosol duster
products would need a certification
stating that they do not contain more
than 18 mg in any combination of HFC–
152a and/or HFC–134a.
XIII. Environmental Considerations
Generally, the Commission’s
regulations are considered to have little
or no potential for affecting the human
environment, and environmental
assessments and impact statements are
not usually required. See 16 CFR
1021.5(a). The proposed rule is not
expected to have an adverse impact on
the environment and is considered to
fall within the ‘‘categorical exclusion’’
for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. 16 CFR
1021.5(c). In fact, because HFO–1234ze
was introduced as an environmentally
friendly alternative to HFC–134a,
substitution of HFO–1234ze for HFO–
134a in aerosol duster products as a
result of the proposed rule could have
beneficial environmental effects.
XIV. Preemption
Executive Order (E.O.) 12988, Civil
Justice Reform (Feb. 5, 1996), directs
agencies to specify the preemptive effect
of a rule in the regulation. 61 FR 4729
(Feb. 7, 1996). The proposed ban on any
aerosol duster canister containing more
than 18 mg in any combination of HFC–
152a and/or HFC–134a is being
promulgated under the authority of the
FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261–1278. The FHSA
provides that, generally, if the
Commission issues a banning rule under
section 2(q) of the FHSA to protect
against a risk of illness or injury
associated with a hazardous substance,
‘‘no State or political subdivision of a
State may establish or continue in effect
a requirement applicable to such
substance and designed to protect
against the same risk of illness or injury
unless such requirement is identical to
the requirement established under such
regulations.’’ 15 U.S.C. 1261 Note. Upon
application to the Commission, a State
or local standard may be excepted from
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
61380
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
this preemptive effect if the State or
local standard: (1) provides a higher
degree of protection from the risk of
injury or illness than the FHSA standard
and (2) does not unduly burden
interstate commerce. In addition, the
Federal government, or a State or local
government, may establish and continue
in effect a non-identical requirement
that provides a higher degree of
protection than the FHSA requirement
for the hazardous substance for the
Federal, State or local government’s
own use. 15 U.S.C. 1261 note. Thus,
with the exceptions noted above for
standards that provide higher levels of
protection, the proposed rule banning
any aerosol duster canister containing
more than 18 mg in any combination of
HFC–152a and/or HFC–134a would
preempt non-identical state or local
requirements applicable to such aerosol
duster products designed to protect
against the same risk of injury.
XV. Request for Comments
We invite all interested persons to
submit comments on all aspects of the
proposed rule. The Commission
specifically seeks comment on the
following topics:
• Alternative propellants
manufacturers would likely use in
aerosol duster products and the
intoxicating effects and safety
implications of inhaling these
alternative propellants;
• Any test methods that can be used
to test for compliance of HFC–152a and
HFC–134a at the proposed level of 18
mg per single aerosol duster canister;
• Information or data on future
market trends, including projected sales,
size of the market, growth of firms in the
market, forthcoming innovation, or any
other information that would inform
CPSC of the expected future for the
aerosol duster market with or without
the proposed rule; and
• The ability of firms to complete
these actions to produce compliant
products within the proposed effective
date.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
XVI. References
Avella J, Kunaparaju N, Kumar S, Lehrer M,
Zito W, Barletta M (2010). Uptake and
distribution of the abused inhalant 1,1difluoroethane in the rat. J. Anal.
Toxicol. 34:381–388.
Beauvais F & Oetting ER (1987). Toward a
clear definition of inhalant abuse. Int J
Addict. Aug;22(8):779–84.
Bass M (1970). Sudden Sniffing Death. JAMA
212:2075–2079.
Burke J, Haigney M, Farasat M, Mehler P,
Krantz M (2020). Huffing and Twist:
Fatal Torsade de Pointes Associated with
Tetrafluoroethane Inhalation. Authorea.
July 01, 2020. DOI: Huffing and Twist:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
Fatal Torsade de Pointes Associated with
Tetrafluoroethane Inhalation.
CDC (2021). Anthropometric reference data
for children and adults: United States,
2015–2018.
Custer A, Corse A, Vazirani S (2020)
Difluoroethane inhalant abuse, skeletal
fluorosis, and withdrawal. Fed Pract.
37(6):288–289.
DEA (2020). Drug Fact Sheet. Inhalants.
Dingle HE & Williams SR (2019). Multi-organ
system injury from inhalant abuse.
Prehospital Emergency Care, 23:4, 580–
583.
Doshi V, Kham N, Kulkarni S, Kapitan K,
Henkle J, White P (1997). HFC–134a
(1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) inhalation
induced reactive airways dysfunction
syndrome. Am. J. Ther. 23(3):e969–71.
Duncan JR & Lawrence AJ (2013).
Conventional concepts and new
perspectives for understanding the
addictive properties of inhalants. J.
Pharmacol. Sci 122: 237–243.
FDA (2005). Guidance for Industry
Estimating the Maximum Safe Starting
Dose in Initial Clinical Trials for
Therapeutics in Adult Healthy
Volunteers. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services Food and Drug
Administration Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER).
George N, Chin B, Neeki AS, Dong F, Neeki
MN (2021). Acute Inhalant-Induced
Atrial Fibrillation With Severe
Hypocalcemia: A Case Report and
Review of the Pathophysiology. Cureus;
13(11):e19897.
Kamm RC (1975). Fatal arrhythmia following
deodorant inhalation: Case report
Forensic Sci., Feb; 5(1):91–3.
Koehler MM & Henninger CA (2014).
Orofacial and digital frostbite caused by
inhalant abuse. Cutis; 93 (5):256–260.
Micromedex Solutions, Poisindex search 2/1/
2021.
National Research Council (US)
Subcommittee on Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels. Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels for Select Airborne
Chemicals: Volume 2. Washington (DC)
National Academies Press (US); 2002.
3,1,1,1,2-Tetraflouorethane (HFC–134a):
Acute Exposure Guideline Levels.
Peicher K & Maalofouf NM (2017). Skeletal
fluorosis due to fluorocarbon inhalation
from an air dust cleaner. Calcif. Tissue.
Int. 101(5):545–548.
Perron BE, Haroney JM, Hayes D.E., Sokol RL
and Kolton SA (2021). Potentially
serious consequences for the use of
Bittrex as a deterrent for the intentional
inhalation of computer duster sprays.
Forensic Toxicology. 39:286–290.
Romero J, Abboud R, Elkattawy S, Romero A,
Elkattawy O, Samak AAA, Shamoon R.
(2022). Troponemia secondary to air
duster inhalant abuse. EJCRIM:9:
doi:10.12890/2022_003556.
Rusch GM (2018). The development of
environmentally acceptable
fluorocarbons. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 48:8,
615–665.
Seto T (2023). General anesthetic binding
mode via hydration with weak affinity
and molecular discrimination: General
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
anesthetic dissolution in interfacial
water of the common binding site of
GABAA receptor. Biophysics and
Physicobiology. Jan 25;20(2): e200005:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC10941959/.
Shah SB, Hariharan, Bhargava AK (2015).
Anaesthetic in the garb of a propellant.
Indian Journal Anaesth. 59(4)258–260.
Shin TJ, Kim P–J, Choi B (2022). How general
anesthetics work: from the perspective of
reorganized connections within the
brain. Korean J. Anesthesiol.; 75(2):124–
138.
Smeeton WM & Clark MS (1985). Sudden
death resulting from inhalation of fire
extinguishers containing
bromochlorodifluoromethane. Med. Sci.
Law. 25:258–262.
Vinegar (1997). US Air Force Armstrong
Laboratory: Human Inhalation of Halon
1301, HFC–134a and HFC–227ea for
collection of Pharmacokinetic Data (AL/
OE–TR–1997–0116).
Williams JF, Storck M and the Committee on
Substance Abuse and Committee on
Native American Child Health (2007).
Inhalant abuse. American Academy of
Pediatrics. 119(5):1009–1017.
Xiong Z, Avella J, Wetli CV (2004). Sudden
death caused by 1,1, difluoroethane
inhalation. J. Forensic Sci. 49 (3):627–9.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1500
Consumer protection, Hazardous
materials, Hazardous substances,
Imports, Infants and children, Labeling,
Law enforcement, and Reporting and
recordkeeping.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend 16 CFR part 1500 to read as
follows:
PART 1500—HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES AND ARTICLES:
ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS
1. The authority for part 1500
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1261–1278.
2. In § 1500.17, add paragraph (a)(14)
to read as follows:
■
§ 1500.17
Banned hazardous substances.
(a) * * *
(14)(i) Aerosol Duster Products
Containing more than 18 mg in any
combination of HFC–152a and/or HFC–
134a. Any canister of an aerosol duster
product containing more than 18 mg in
any combination of 1,1-difluoroethane
(HFC–152a, CAS #75–37–6) and/or
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC–134a,
CAS #811–97–2). The term aerosol
duster product means a product that
uses a pressurized canister filled with
gas or liquified gas to create a stream of
gas propellant that can be used to
dislodge or remove dust and debris.
(ii) Prohibited Stockpiling—
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(A) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers
and importers of aerosol duster products
shall not manufacture or import aerosol
duster products that do not comply with
paragraph (a)(1)(i) in any one-month
period between [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL
RULE] at a rate greater than 105 percent
of the rate at which they manufactured
or imported aerosol duster products
during the base period for the
manufacturer or importer.
(B) Base period. The base period for
aerosol duster products is the average
monthly manufacture or import volume
for any month within the last 13 months
immediately preceding the month of
publication of the final rule.
(iii) Findings—
(A) General. To issue a rule under
section 2(q)(1) of the FHSA, 15 U.S.C.
1261(q)(1), classifying a substance or
article as a banned hazardous substance,
the Commission must make certain
findings and include them in the
regulation. These findings are discussed
in paragraphs (a)(14)(iii)(B) through (D)
of this section.
(B) Voluntary standard. No voluntary
standard currently exists to address the
potential for death and injury posed by
inhalant abuse of aerosol duster
products containing HFC–152a or HFC–
134a. The Commission finds that there
is no evidence that a voluntary standard
will be adopted and implemented
within a reasonable period of time that
would eliminate or adequately reduce
the risk of injury regarding the potential
for death and injury posed by the
intentional inhalant abuse of aerosol
duster products.
(C) Relationship of benefits to costs.
The Commission estimates that the ban
will be effective in reducing the
potential for injury and death from
compliant aerosol duster products.
When benefits are compared to costs,
the estimated benefits of the rule are
greater than the estimated costs. Net
benefits (benefits less costs) are
estimated to be $1.93 billion on an
annualized basis. Staff performed a 30year prospective cost analysis (2026–
2055) on all cost categories and
estimated the total annualized cost from
the proposed rule to be $123.73 million.
Staff estimated the total annualized
benefits from the proposed to be $2.05
billion, discounted at 2 percent.
(D) Least burdensome requirement.
The Commission considered the
following alternatives: require a
performance requirement for aerosol
duster products preventing inhalation of
their propellant; require aversive agents
(bitterants); require warning labels; and
take no action and rely on a voluntary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Jul 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
standard. The Commission finds none of
the alternatives considered would
adequately reduce the risk of death or
injury. Therefore, the Commission finds
that a ban on any aerosol duster product
containing more than 18 mg in any
combination of 1,1-difluoroethane
(HFC–152a, CAS #75–37–6) and/or
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC–134a,
CAS #811–97–2) is the least
burdensome requirement that would
prevent or adequately reduce the risk of
death or injury.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024–16716 Filed 7–30–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2022–0221]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Rancocas Creek, Burlington County,
NJ
Coast Guard, DHS.
Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard proposes to
modify the operating schedule that
governs the US Route 543 (RiversideDelanco) Bridge across Rancocas Creek,
mile 1.3, at Burlington County, NJ. The
proposed rule allows the drawbridge to
change its operating schedule to reduce
the number of bridge openings during
off-peak hours. We invite your
comments on this proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
August 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2022–0221 using Federal Decision
Making Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments. This notice of proposed
rulemaking with its plain-language, 100word-or-less proposed rule summary
will be available in this same docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this
supplemental proposed rule, call or
email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Fifth Coast Guard
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
61381
District Chief Bridge Branch (dpb);
telephone 571–607–8298, email
Hal.R.Pitts@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
On May 23, 2022, we published a Test
Deviation entitled Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Rancocas Creek,
Burlington County, NJ, in the Federal
Register (87 FR 31182). Having received
no comments from the Test Deviation,
we published an NPRM on April 24,
2023, in the Federal Register (88 FR
24739). We received no comments on
the proposed rule.
The US Route 543 (Riverside-Delanco)
Bridge across Rancocas Creek, mile 1.3,
at Burlington County, NJ, and has a
vertical clearance of 4 feet above mean
high water in the closed-to-navigation
position. The bridge currently operates
under 33 CFR 117.745(b).
The Rancocas Creek is used
predominately by recreational vessels
and pleasure crafts. The bridge is
currently required to open on signal
from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. from April 1
through October 31 and with 24-hour
advance notice from November 1
through March 31. The bridge is
allowed to remain closed to navigation
at all other times.
The three-year, monthly average
number of bridge openings from 7 a.m.
to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 7
a.m. to 1 p.m., Saturday and Sunday,
and from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m., daily, as
drawn from the data contained in the
bridge tender logs, is presented below.
April to October
(2018, 2019 and 2020)
Monday–Friday, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m ..
Saturday & Sunday, 7 a.m. to 1
p.m ............................................
Daily, 8 p.m. to 11 p.m .................
Average
monthly
openings
4
2
7
III. Discussion of Comments and
Change
As mentioned above, we received no
comments from either the Test
Deviation or the NPRM, however we
noticed that we had not properly
conveyed the new operating schedule of
the bridge during the months from April
E:\FR\FM\31JYP1.SGM
31JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61363-61381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-16716]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1500
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2021-0015]
Banned Hazardous Substances: Aerosol Duster Products Containing
More Than 18 mg in Any Combination of HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or
CPSC) is proposing to declare that any aerosol duster products that
contain more than 18 mg in any combination of HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a
are banned hazardous substances under the Federal Hazardous Substances
Act (FHSA). For the ten-year period from 2012 to 2021, CPSC is aware of
more than 1,000 deaths, and estimates 21,700 treated injuries involving
the inhalation of aerosol duster products. The proposed
[[Page 61364]]
rule addresses deaths and injuries associated with the propellants HFC-
152a and HFC-134a used in aerosol duster products. The Commission is
providing an opportunity for interested parties to submit written
comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR).
DATES: Written comments must be received by September 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Written Comments:
Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the
proposed rule should be directed to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or
emailed to [email protected].
Other written comments in response to the proposed rule, identified
by Docket No. CPSC-2021-0015 may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments. CPSC typically does not accept comments submitted
by email, except as described below. CPSC encourages you to submit
electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
described above.
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier/Written Submissions: Submit comments by
mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone: (301) 504-7479. If you wish to submit confidential business
information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected
information that you do not want to be available to the public, you may
submit such comments by mail, hand delivery, courier, or you may email
them to: [email protected].
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. CPSC may post all comments without change, including any
personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal
information provided to: www.regulations.gov. Do not submit through
this website: confidential business information, trade secret
information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do
not want to be available to the public. If you wish to submit such
information, please submit it according to the instructions for mail/
hand delivery/courier/written submissions.
Docket for NPR: For access to the docket to read background
documents or comments received, go to: www.regulations.gov, insert the
docket number CPSC-2021-0015 into the ``Search'' box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Kelleher, Directorate for Health
Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Product Testing
and Evaluation Center, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850;
telephone: 240-429-4894; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this NPR, the Commission proposes to
declare any aerosol duster canisters containing more than 18 mg of the
hazardous chemicals HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a to be banned hazardous
substances under the FHSA. From 2012 to 2021, inhalation of these
products resulted in 1,039 known deaths and an estimated 21,700
emergency department (ED) treated injuries in the United States.
Although aerosol duster products that do not contain these hazardous
substances would likely be more expensive, over 30 years the proposed
rule is projected to yield net benefits of nearly $2 billion, with more
than 16 dollars of benefit for every dollar of cost. Furthermore,
aerosol duster products will remain available and affordable
alternatives such as electric dusters are also available.
I. Background
On April 2, 2021, Families United Against Inhalant Abuse (FUAIA)
submitted a petition requesting that the Commission initiate rulemaking
to adopt a mandatory safety standard to address the hazards associated
with aerosol duster products used for cleaning electronics and other
items containing the chemical 1,1-difluorethane, or any derivative
thereof. The petition requested CPSC conduct rulemaking to address the
numerous deaths and injuries associated with inhalant abuse of aerosol
duster products. Specifically, the petition requested a performance
standard requiring that manufacturers add an aversive agent (bitterant
other than denatonium benzoate) to all duster aerosol products at a
level of 30-40 ppm, and it requested a required warning stating:
``DANGER: DEATH--This product can kill you if you breath [sic] it.''
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The petition is available at https://www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws--Standards/Rulemaking/Petitions. The petitioner
also requested that CPSC require retailers to limit multiple duster
can purchases during a one-month time period; the Commission,
however, explained that it does not have rulemaking authority over
such personal purchasing decisions. 86 FR 34171, n.1 (June 29,
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2021, the Commission published in the Federal Register
a request for comments on the petition. 86 FR 34171. On July 20, 2022,
staff submitted a briefing package to the Commission regarding the
petition.\2\ On July 26, 2022, the Commission voted to defer action on
the petition to allow staff to conduct further research.\3\ On July 26,
2023, staff submitted an updated briefing package to the Commission
regarding the petition.\4\ The Commission granted the petition on
August 1, 2023, directing staff to initiate rulemaking to address the
inhalation hazard associated with aerosol duster products.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-Requesting-Rulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard_0.pdf?VersionId=GNEl7pYZUBOxf1BLSC0f4.X6TlA8gT4f.
\3\ www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-Petition-Requesting-Rulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard-for-Aerosol-Dusters-Products-Petition-CP-21-1.pdf?VersionId=uD1mraIGCZcjBd9xiyZsanVRbngVzUvP.
\4\ www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-Requesting-Rulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard-for-Aerosol-Duster-Products-Petition-CP-21-1.pdf?VersionId=.NohA6DG6WsXh_tsjhGuA7RuqMCOvxSW.
\5\ www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCAPetitionRequestingRulemakingtoEstablishSafetyStandardforAerosolDusterProductsPetitionCP21_1.pdf?VersionId=nQcgEM4wvCJE97zmhwYCdAkwuluYerIt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Statutory Authority
This rulemaking is conducted under the provisions of the FHSA and
the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278; 15 U.S.C.
2058. The rulemaking proposal involves two elements. First, pursuant to
sections 2(f)(1)(A), 2(q)(1)(B), and 3 of the FHSA, the Commission is
proposing to ban any aerosol duster product containing more than 18 mg
of either of two hydrofluorocarbon propellants--1,1-difluoroethane
(HFC-152a, CAS # 75-37-6) and 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a, CAS
# 811-97-2)--or of a combination of these propellants. 15 U.S.C.
1261(f)(1)(A), (q)(1)(B), 1262 (proposed 16 CFR 1500.17(a)(14)).
Second, to prevent circumvention of the proposed ban, pursuant to
section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA, the Commission is proposing a stockpiling
prohibition that would prohibit a manufacturer from stockpiling banned
aerosol duster products containing above the specified amount of HFC-
152a and/or HFC-134a that are subject to the proposed ban. 15 U.S.C.
2058(g)(2).
More specifically, the Commission is proposing to declare that any
aerosol duster canister containing more than 18 mg of HFC-152a and/or
HFC-134a to be a ``hazardous substance'' and a ``banned hazardous
substance'' within the meaning of sections 2(f)(1)(A) and
[[Page 61365]]
(q)(1)(B) of the FHSA.\6\ 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(A), (q)(1)(B). Section
2(q)(1)(B) of the FHSA defines a ``banned hazardous substance'' to
include any hazardous substance intended, or packaged in a form
suitable, for household use which, notwithstanding the precautionary
labeling required by the FHSA, presents such a hazard that keeping the
substance out of interstate commerce is the only adequate means to
protect the public health and safety. 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Commission voted 5-0 to publish this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A proceeding to classify a hazardous substance as a ``banned
hazardous substance'' under section 2(q)(1)(B) of the FHSA is governed
by the requirements set forth in section 3 of the FHSA. See 15 U.S.C.
1261(q)(2) and 1262. The proposed rule begins the rulemaking process in
accordance with the requirements of sections 3(a) and (h) of the FHSA.
See 15 U.S.C. 1262(a) and (h). Pursuant to section 3(a), the Commission
is proposing to declare any aerosol duster canister containing more
than 18 mg in any combination of HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a to be a
hazardous substance. In order to declare that a hazardous substance is
banned, section 3(h) of the FHSA requires the Commission to publish in
the Federal Register the text of a proposed rule, including any
alternatives together with a preliminary regulatory analysis
containing: (1) a preliminary description of the potential benefits and
costs of the proposed rule; (2) a discussion of the reasons why any
standard or portion of a standard submitted to the Commission was not
published as the proposed rule; (3) a preliminary determination
regarding why the voluntary standards process would not, within a
reasonable time, result in the development of a voluntary standard that
would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury identified in
the rule; and (4) a description of any reasonable alternatives to the
proposed rule, together with a summary description of the potential
benefits and costs, and a brief explanation of why such alternatives
should not be published as the proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 1262(h).
Before issuing a final rule banning any hazardous substance, the
Commission must publish the text of the final rule and a final
regulatory analysis that includes: (1) a description of the potential
benefits and costs of the rule (including costs and benefits that
cannot be quantified in monetary terms, and identification of those
likely to receive the benefits and bear the costs); (2) a description
of alternatives considered by the Commission (including a description
of their potential benefits and costs and an explanation of why the
alternatives were not chosen); and (3) a summary of significant issues
raised by comments on the preliminary regulatory analysis and a summary
of the assessment by the Commission of such issues. 15 U.S.C.
1262(i)(1). The Commission must also make findings that: (1) any
relevant voluntary standard is unlikely to adequately reduce the risk
of injury or substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is
unlikely; (2) the expected benefits of the regulation bear a reasonable
relationship to expected costs; and (3) the regulation imposes the
least burdensome requirement that would adequately reduce the risk of
injury. 15 U.S.C. 1262(i)(2).
III. The Product
A. Description of the Product
Aerosol duster products use a trigger or similar means to release a
propellant \7\ (typically a hydrofluorocarbon) through an orifice or
attachment such as a nozzle or straw for the purpose of blowing and
removing dust and debris from hard-to-reach places. Although sometimes
referred to as ``canned air,'' aerosol duster products actually contain
essentially 100 percent propellent,\8\ which is typically a chemical
such as a hydrofluorocarbon that can be compressed into a liquid for
storage. Each such aerosol duster canister typically contains about 3
to 20 ounces (85 g to 567 g) of compressed liquid in equilibrium with a
small amount of evaporated gas or vapor of that same chemical. The gas
or vapor, consisting of nearly pure propellant chemical, is expelled
when the trigger or similar means is activated, which causes more of
the liquid to evaporate into gas or vapor within the canister in order
to return to equilibrium. This allows multiple uses per canister.
Figure 1 below, from US Patent, US-9234123-B2 \9\ illustrates an
example of an aerosol duster product showing the propellent liquid and
vapor existing in equilibrium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Aerosol propellant is a liquid which exists in equilibrium
also as a gas, or compressed gas that is used to expel aerosol
content from a pressurized container.
\8\ Various aerosol duster products include trace amounts of
denatonium benzoate, or other bitterants in order to discourage
inhalant abuse.
\9\ https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/13848372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61366]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31JY24.628
Aerosol duster products are sold under a variety of brand names and
are available in various brick and mortar stores and online retail
locations. They are relatively inexpensive to purchase and easy to
obtain either in stores or online. For example, online retailers sell
individual canisters for about $8-10 per canister, and some retailers
offer a discount when the product is purchased in bulk. Aerosol duster
products are often referred to as electronics dusters, computer
keyboard cleaners, canned air or compressed air dusters, aerosol cans
or spray, and electronics air cleaners, among other names. (See Figure
2 below for examples of 10 oz aerosol duster products).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31JY24.629
Aerosol duster products typically use one or more of three
propellants: 1,1-difluorethane (HFC-152a, CAS #75-37-6), 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a, CAS #811-97-2), and/or trans-1,3,3,3-
tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234ze, CAS
[[Page 61367]]
#29118-24-9). HFC-152a and HFC-134a are known to be hazardous as
explained in this Notice. According to Euromonitor, approximately 87
percent of aerosol duster products available for sale in the U.S. use
the propellant HFC-152a and 11 percent use HFC-134a. HFO-1234ze is a
new propellant. The abuse potential for HFO-1234ze is unknown due to
its relatively low use in consumer applications. Similarly, other
effects on humans have not been reported. Further discussion about HFO-
1234ze can be found in Tab B of the July 2023 staff petition briefing
package.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-Requesting-Rulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard-for-Aerosol-Duster-Products-Petition-CP-21-1.pdf?VersionId=.NohA6DG6WsXh_tsjhGuA7RuqMCOvxSW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to determine the amount of propellant released from a
single use of an aerosol duster product, laboratory sciences staff
conducted testing of various aerosol duster products,\11\ and based on
that testing, determined that a trigger pull from a single aerosol
duster canister lasting 5 seconds \12\ releases 7.53 grams of
propellant, when not using the straw provided with the product. This
information regarding the 5 second time per trigger pull helped staff
better understand how much propellant inhalant abusers are able to
inhale with a single trigger pull of an aerosol duster product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-Requesting-Rulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard-for-Aerosol-Duster-Products-Petition-CP-21-1.pdf?VersionId=.NohA6DG6WsXh_tsjhGuA7RuqMCOvxSW, July 26, 2023,
Table 9, Page 27.
\12\ A trigger pull lasting 5 seconds was chosen based on online
video research which found users inhaling aerosol dusters without
any straw attachment for that length of time: https://youtu.be/FjlazUNE2-8?si=WsA4nfSbLX_jJ2SR&t=40. This reference video shows
that the euphoric/high effects appear to occur with a single trigger
pull of five seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Scope of Products Subject to the NPR
Aerosol duster products are generally intended to be used for
cleaning and blowing off dust from electronics as well as other
household items. This NPR would apply only to aerosol duster products
that contain the propellants HFC-152a or HFC-134a. Aerosol duster
products using HFO-1234ze (or other substances) as a propellant are
outside the scope of this NPR. Other examples of aerosol products that
are outside the scope of this NPR include products that use HFC-152a or
HFC-134a as propellants in freeze sprays used to cool circuit boards,
automotive refrigerants, and medical freeze sprays used to cool tissue
specimens as well as aerosol products that use HFC-152a or HFC-134a as
propellants but include substantial additional components (such as air
fresheners, paints, lubrication oils, body sprays, and silicone
lubricant sprays for food pans).
C. Alternatives to Aerosol Duster Products With HFC-152a and HFC-134a
Alternatives to aerosol duster products are currently being sold
for the same purpose as aerosol duster products. For example,
alternatives include compressed air dusters which use corded or
cordless electric pumps, or hand pumps that compress air and blow and/
or vacuum it through a nozzle to remove dirt and debris. According to
data collected in 2023, the average price of an electric duster is
approximately $56, similar to the price of seven disposable aerosol
duster canisters.\13\ Staff tested battery operated USB rechargeable
duster devices. The goal was to compare air speeds, measured in meters/
second (m/s), generated by the battery powered devices to the speeds
generated by an aerosol duster product. Three battery powered devices
and two name-brand aerosol dusters were chosen for the comparison.
Staff concluded that battery powered air duster devices generate
comparable air speeds to the propellant speeds of aerosol duster
products. See Tab D of the July 26, 2023, staff briefing package for
more details on electronic dusters.\14\ Carbon dioxide (CO2)
cartridge dusters that use disposable CO2 cartridges to blow
CO2 through a nozzle to remove dirt and debris are available
as well. Consumers can also use vacuum cleaners to remove dust. Thus, a
number of alternative products exist that provide similar utility to
that provided by aerosol duster products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Aerosol Duster Supporting Database, August 2023. (https://www.cpsc.gov/content/Aerosol-Duster-Supporting-Database).
\14\ www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-Requesting-Rulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard-for-Aerosol-Duster-Products-Petition-CP-21-1.pdf?VersionId=.NohA6DG6WsXh_tsjhGuA7RuqMCOvxSW.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Description of the Hazard
Aerosol duster products can cause significant toxicity or death if
used as inhalants (Williams, 2007). Inhalants are volatile substances
that produce chemical vapors that can be inhaled to induce
psychoactive, or mind-altering, effects.\15\ The inhalants in aerosol
duster products are legally sold for purposes other than use as
inhalants, are widely available, and are inexpensive. Inhalant abusers
include males and females ranging in age from teenagers to adults in
their 60s. Approximately 10 to 50 percent of cases of inhalant abuse
may lead to abuse or dependance, depending on the characteristics of
the population studied (Perron et al., 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/inhalants/what-are-inhalants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff has identified two toxic substances, HFC-152a and HFC-134a,
that are commonly used as propellants in aerosol duster products and
are widely used for inhalant abuse. Inhalant abusers use propellants to
get ``high'' (Koehler and Henninger, 2014). These propellants can be
sniffed, snorted or sprayed,\16\ huffed,\17\ or bagged \18\ as
inhalants to obtain a rapid euphoric effect (DEA, 2020). The euphoric
effect only lasts a few minutes, requiring the repeat use of an aerosol
duster product every few minutes to maintain the euphoria. These
propellants can damage the heart when abused, making an individual more
susceptible to a heart attack or arrhythmia \19\ after an individual
inhales the propellant. The abuse potential of the propellants HFC-152a
and HFC-134a are further discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Inhaling or spraying refers to inhaling the substance into
the nose or mouth directly from the container.
\17\ Huffing refers to placing a bag saturated with a substance
over the mouth and using the nose or mouth to inhale the
concentrated fumes.
\18\ Bagging refers to concentrating an aerosol in a bag before
inhaling.
\19\ A heart arrhythmia is an irregular heartbeat caused by
electrical problems in the heart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Inhalants Used in Aerosol Duster Products
1. HFC-152a (1,1-difluorethane)
HFC-152a is widely used as a propellant in the aerosol duster
product market.\20\ HFC-152a works through specific brain receptors
\21\ such as glutamate/N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA),\22\ gamma-
aminobutyric acid (GABA),\23\ and dopamine \24\ to elicit euphoria
(Duncan and Lawrence, 2013). Aerosol duster products, especially those
containing HFC-152a, are the ``drug of choice'' for many who use
inhalants because they are easy to obtain, inexpensive, and contain 100
percent HFC-152a without any additional components such as paint or air
freshener in the propellant (Beauvais and Oetting, 1987). After
inhalation of
[[Page 61368]]
such a lipophilic \25\ propellant, the substance is rapidly absorbed
into the pulmonary vasculature, going directly into the lungs and
easily crossing the blood-brain barrier into the brain to exert its
euphoric effects. The onset of HFC-152a intoxication is rapid, and the
intoxication effects are brief and dose-related, ranging from euphoria,
decreased inhibition, motor excitation, and light-headedness (Koehler
and Henninger, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ According to Euromonitor, approximately 87 percent of
aerosol duster products available for sale in the U.S. use the
propellant HFC-152a and 11 percent use HFC-134a.
\21\ Proteins that serve as a sensor for a particulate type of
molecules.
\22\ The NMDA receptors are a class of receptors that respond to
the neurotransmitter N-methyl-D-aspartate.
\23\ The GABA receptors are a class of receptors that respond to
the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid.
\24\ Dopamine is a brain neurotransmitter.
\25\ Lipophilic means the tendency to combine with fats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxicity in humans can occur after an acute or chronic exposure to
HFC-152a (Poisindex, 2021). Severe HFC-152a toxicity can cause a
depressed mental state, respiratory depression, pulmonary edema,
hepatic injury, and death (Poisindex, 2021). Death can occur due to
sudden sniffing death syndrome (SSDS), which was first described in
1970 (Bass, 1970; George et al., 2021). Individuals inhale fluorinated
hydrocarbons to become ``high'' and, if physical exertion or stress
occurs, the inhaler may collapse and die. (Smeeton and Clark, 1985;
Kamm, 1975; Dingle and Williams, 2019; Poisindex, 2021). Predicting the
toxicity of inhaling a certain number of aerosol duster canisters is
difficult because there is no clear dose-response evident in the
medical literature. Death from abusing aerosol duster products is not
dose dependent.\26\ The medical literature indicates the use of only
one canister has resulted in death (Xiong et al., 2004), while in
another case inhaling multiple canisters over several years did not
cause death (Peicher and Maalofouf, 2017). However, abrupt cessation of
HFC-152a abuse can induce withdrawal \27\ with tremors, excessive
sweating, nausea, vomiting, depression, anxiety, irritability,
psychosis, and hallucinations (Custer et al., 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ If the effect is changing with the dose of the drug it is
described as dose dependent.
\27\ Psychotic symptoms associated with drug cessation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane)
HFC-134a is another substance used as a propellant in aerosol
duster products. HFC-134a is a member of the anesthetic drug class \28\
(Shah et al., 2015). HFC-152a and HFC-134a have different binding
mechanisms.\29\ It is unclear whether the same addictive properties of
HFC-152a translate to HFC-134a, but data from CPSC's Consumer Product
Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS) discussed below, show that
multiple individuals have died after inhaling HFC-134a. Two other
papers from medical literature demonstrate that acute exposure of HFC-
134a from inhalation can be harmful (Romero et al., 2022; Burke et al.,
2020). Several papers have indicated that inhalation with acute
exposure to HFC-134a in humans has resulted in reactive airway
dysfunction syndrome,\30\ (Doshsti et al., 2016), severe hypotension,
loss of consciousness, shock (Vinegar, 1997), cardiac sensitization,
neurotoxicity (National Research Council, 2002), and death (Burke et al
et al., 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Substance that induces insensitivity to pain.
\29\ Binding of a substance to a receptor molecule changes its
shape or activity to transmit a signal.
\30\ Breathing symptoms similar to asthma but with an uncertain
cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Description of the Hazard Pattern
To examine the hazard pattern for inhalation abuse of aerosol
duster products, staff conducted 23 in-depth investigations (IDIs) with
family members of individuals who died from inhaling aerosol duster
products during 2020 and 2021. These IDIs were all related to HFC-152a
abuse and included nine females and 14 males, between the ages of 15 to
61 years-old.
The review of the IDIs indicated the number of canisters found at
the scene, the victim's history of abuse, and the scene of the
incident. In five IDIs \31\ only one empty canister was identified,
though in some of these IDIs multiple full cans were found at the
scene, and the victim had a history of aerosol duster abuse. In twelve
incidents,\32\ the IDIs reported that more than one completely or
partially empty canister was found at the victim's death scene. In
several IDIs,\33\ twenty or more canisters of aerosol duster product
were found with the victim at the death scene. The majority of the
victims died at home, while some were found deceased in motels or in
parked vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ IDI numbers 230406HCC1189, 230815HCC1044, 230822HCC1098,
230906HCC1211, 231005HCC3036.
\32\ IDI numbers 23071HCC3850, 230329HCC1057, 230707HCC1701,
230720HCC1777, 230725HCC1827, 230808HCC3987, 230822HCC1099,
230906HCC1208, 230906HCC1209, 230929HCC1377, 230329HCC1048,
230711HCC1721.
\33\ IDI numbers 230711HCC3850, 230329HCC1057, 230707HCC1701,
230711HCC1721, 230720HCC1777, 230725HCC1827, 230808HCC3987,
230822HCC1099, 230906HCC1208, 230906HCC1209, 230929HCC1377,
230929HCC1048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon staff's review of 23 IDIs and available medical
literature, the hazard pattern for inhalation deaths from HFC-152a
aerosol duster products includes both males and females; covers a wide
age range; indicates that death can occur from inhalation of a single
canister or multiple canisters; and shows that most victims died at
home, but deaths also occurred in motels and parked vehicles. As stated
above, the hazard pattern for HFC-134a is believed to be similar to the
hazard pattern for HFC-152a because both propellants are inhalational
anesthetics with similar toxicities at high doses.
C. Incident Data
1. Deaths
This section presents information on fatal incidents reported to
CPSC that involved inhalation abuse (commonly known as sniffing,
spraying or huffing, but referred to here as inhaling or inhalation) of
aerosol duster products. The most recent search of the CPSC databases
for incidents involving inhalation abuse of aerosol duster products was
conducted in February 2024.
CPSC databases (CPSRMS and the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System (NEISS)) do not contain a specific product code for
aerosol duster products. Accordingly, the product codes searched in
CPSRMS at that time were 1133 (Aerosol containers), 921 (Chemicals not
elsewhere classified), and 954 (General-purpose household cleaners).
Aerosol duster products are included as a sub-category of product code
954 but may occasionally be sorted into product codes 1133 and 921.
Aerosol duster products were identified in CPSRMS incident narratives
or product descriptions as dusters, aerosol dusters, computer/keyboard/
electronics dusters or cleaners, canned/compressed air, or by specific
brand names, including misspelled variants of the above keywords. This
review excluded aerosol duster incidents that were exclusively
associated with common non-inhalation hazards from aerosol duster
products, such as explosions, fires, chemical burns, or respiratory
injuries related to the product's intended use.
CPSC's CPSRMS database contains reports for 1,039 unique fatal
incidents involving inhalation hazards from aerosol duster products
that occurred between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2021. Data
collection is ongoing in CPSRMS and reporting is considered incomplete
for more recent years (2022-2024). The number of deaths associated with
aerosol duster products reflected in CPSRMS and classified as involving
aerosol duster inhalation is almost certainly an underestimate of the
actual number of aerosol duster inhalation deaths.
Almost all of the 1,039 deaths were reported from death
certificates and
[[Page 61369]]
Medical Examiners and Coroners Alert Project (MECAP) reports. Among
these 1,039 deaths, 775 (75%) were attributed to HFC-152a toxicity, and
three were attributed to HFC-134a toxicity. In the remaining incident
reports, the specific aerosol duster propellant is not explicitly
identified. For several of the deaths that occurred in 2020 and 2021,
staff conducted IDIs to learn more about the details surrounding the
fatal incident (i.e., victim's history of using aerosol duster
products). This death count only includes incidents where the product
involved was explicitly identified as an aerosol duster product.
Deaths from HFC-152a toxicity where the specific product was not
identifiable, and deaths resulting from the inhalation of unspecified
aerosols, are not included in the figures given above. Although HFC-
152a is commonly used as a propellant in aerosol duster products, the
compound is also used in other aerosol products, such as pesticides and
air fresheners. Between 2012-2021, there were an additional 1,031
deaths reported in CPSRMS resulting from HFC-152a toxicity from an
unspecified aerosol product. The age, gender, and race/ethnicity
distributions of these deaths are similar to those for the aerosol
duster product inhalation deaths discussed in this section.
Additionally, between 2012-2021, there were at least 63 deaths found in
CPSRMS that mentioned inhalation of aerosol products, without giving
sufficient information to determine if the product was an aerosol
duster product. Because the scope of the data analyses here only
includes incidents explicitly mentioning an aerosol duster product,
these deaths are not included among the 1,039 fatal incidents in the
analyses discussed above.
CPSC is aware of at least seven deaths resulting from HFC-134a
toxicity between 2012 and 2021. In three of these deaths, the product
involved was identified as an aerosol duster product, and these three
deaths are included in the above aerosol duster products fatality
count. The remaining four deaths either did not specify the type of
product involved, or they involved an unspecified aerosol product. CPSC
has also received reports of deaths involving HFC-134a toxicity that
occurred between 2006 and 2010, including some that specifically
identified an aerosol duster product being involved.
Table 1 below provides an overview of the distribution of aerosol
duster inhalation deaths found in CPSRMS, which, as noted, almost
certainly understates the actual number of deaths reported to CPSC from
these products. Data in CPSRMS are anecdotal in nature and do not
necessarily represent all incidents that have actually occurred.
Furthermore, death certificates tend to have a greater lag time between
the incident/death date and the date the death was reported to CPSC.
Therefore, the counts below are subject to increase, especially for the
more recent years.
Table 1--Aerosol Duster Inhalation Deaths by Year
[2012-2021]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Total deaths
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.................................................... 54
2013.................................................... 104
2014.................................................... 90
2015.................................................... 124
2016.................................................... 130
2017.................................................... 127
2018.................................................... 124
2019.................................................... 114
2020.................................................... 89
2021.................................................... 83
---------------
Total............................................... 1,039
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSRMS.
Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Table 2 below provides an overview of the distributions of aerosol
duster product inhalation deaths by age group and gender. Among the
identified deaths, almost 70 percent were male, and 94 percent were
between the ages of 18 and 54, with ages ranging between 13 and 70
years old.
Table 2--Distribution of Aerosol Duster Inhalation Victims by Age Group and Gender
[2012-2021]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age group (years) Male Female Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-17 *.......................................................... 4 8 12 (1%)
18-34........................................................... 296 159 455 (44%)
35-54........................................................... 376 143 519 (50%)
55 or older..................................................... 40 12 52 (5%)
Unspecified..................................................... 1 0 1 (<1%)
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 717 (69%) 322 (31%) 1,039
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSRMS.
Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Race information was reported in 881 (85%) of the 1,039 deaths.
Table 3 provides an overview of the distribution of aerosol duster
inhalation deaths by race where the data were available. Over 92
percent of the victims were white.
Table 3--Distribution of Aerosol Duster Inhalation Deaths by Race
[2012-2021]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race Total Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White................................... 814 92
Black/African-American.................. 24 3
American Indian/Alaska Native........... 17 2
Other *................................. 26 3
-------------------------------
Total............................... 881 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSRMS.
* Includes Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and Other race
categories.
[[Page 61370]]
Ethnicity data for aerosol duster inhalation deaths between 2012
and 2021 are also incomplete. The ethnicity is known for 769 (74%) of
the 1,039 deaths. Among the 769 deaths with known ethnicity, 56 (7%)
were identified as Hispanic, while 713 (93%) were identified as non-
Hispanic.
Table 4 below provides an overview of the distribution of aerosol
duster inhalation deaths found in CPSRMS by the incident location of
the death. Location information was specified for 891 (88%) of the
1,039 deaths. Most of the deaths (78%) occurred in a housing unit,
apartment, or condominium.
Table 4--Distribution of Aerosol Duster Inhalation Deaths
by Incident Location [2012-2021]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Total Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home/Apartment/Condominium *............ 711 78
Other Public Property/Office............ 128 14
Street/Highway.......................... 8 1
Place of Recreation or Sports........... 5 1
Other **................................ 63 7
-------------------------------
Total............................... 915 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSRMS.
Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
* Includes mobile and manufactured homes.
** Includes a school, industrial location or any other location.
Table 5 and Figure 3 provide an overview of the distribution of
aerosol duster product inhalation deaths in CPSRMS by U.S. state. The
states with the most reported aerosol duster inhalation deaths are
Florida (83), Texas (67), California (67), Georgia (58) and North
Carolina (47). Over 30 percent of all aerosol duster inhalation deaths
reported to CPSC occurred in these five states.
Table 5--Number of Reported Fatal Duster Incidents by State
[2012-2021]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Deaths State Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida....................................... 83 Arizona......................... 11
California.................................... 67 Nebraska........................ 11
Texas......................................... 67 Maryland........................ 10
Georgia....................................... 58 Montana......................... 10
North Carolina................................ 47 Massachusetts................... 9
Illinois...................................... 46 South Dakota.................... 9
New Mexico.................................... 40 Nevada.......................... 8
Oregon........................................ 37 Oklahoma........................ 8
Minnesota..................................... 36 Kansas.......................... 7
Colorado...................................... 35 Delaware........................ 6
Missouri...................................... 33 Mississippi..................... 6
Michigan...................................... 30 North Dakota.................... 6
Ohio.......................................... 30 Wyoming......................... 6
Arkansas...................................... 29 Alaska.......................... 5
Pennsylvania.................................. 28 New Jersey...................... 5
Tennessee..................................... 28 Idaho........................... 4
Virginia...................................... 28 Maine........................... 4
Indiana....................................... 27 New Hampshire................... 4
New York...................................... 25 Connecticut..................... 3
Iowa.......................................... 21 Hawaii.......................... 3
Washington.................................... 20 Rhode Island.................... 3
Wisconsin..................................... 20 Vermont......................... 3
Louisiana..................................... 18 Utah............................ 2
South Carolina................................ 17 West Virginia................... * 0
Alabama....................................... 13 D.C............................. * 0
---------------
Kentucky...................................... 13 Total........................ 1,039
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSRMS.
* CPSC did not receive any reports related to deaths due to aerosol duster inhalation from West Virginia or the
District of Columbia that occurred between 2012 and 2021.
[[Page 61371]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31JY24.630
2. Injury Estimates
This section presents information on emergency department treated
injuries resulting from inhalation abuse of aerosol duster products.
The estimates are derived from injury cases that were recorded in
CPSC's NEISS database,\34\ and the injuries were treated during the 10-
year period between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2021. Between
2012-2021, it is estimated that there were 21,700 ED-treated injuries
in the United States resulting from inhalation of aerosol duster
products. This estimate is based on a sample of 491 NEISS-reported
injury cases, three of which were deaths. These three deaths are
included among the 1,039 deaths from CPSRMS that are discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ More information about the NEISS sample and estimate
calculation can be found here: Explanation Of NEISS Estimates
Obtained Through The CPSC website [verbar] CPSC.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury incident cases were included in the sample only if the
product being used could reasonably be classified as an aerosol duster
product. While CPSRMS incidents typically report product identifying
characteristics (i.e., manufacturer, brand, model, retailer, product
description), NEISS injury narratives rarely provide such detailed
information on the products involved. Thus, NEISS data are likely an
underestimate of the true number of ED-treated injuries, as more
generic product classifications (i.e., cleaning product, household
cleaner, etc.) may be used to describe aerosol duster products. An
additional 2,500 estimated ED-treated injuries resulted from
``huffing'' unspecified products, or inhalation of products described
as ``aerosol cans,'' ``aerosol cleaners,'' or simply ``aerosols,'' but
these injuries are excluded from this analysis because of the non-
specificity of the product description and the lack of information on
the propellant being inhaled. Other types of injuries not involving
aerosol duster inhalation, such as respiratory injuries from the
product being sprayed, are not included in the above estimates.
Table 6 below presents yearly estimates of ED-treated injuries in
the United States from inhaling aerosol duster products. Between 2012-
2021, there is no evidence of a statistically significant linear trend
in ED-treated injuries due to aerosol duster inhalation (p-value
>0.05).
Table 6--NEISS Estimates for Aerosol Duster Inhalation Injuries by Year
[2012-2021]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Estimate \35\ Sample size CV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012............................................................ ** 23 .28
2013............................................................ 2,000 46 .22
2014............................................................ 1,500 35 .28
2015............................................................ 2,500 45 .26
2016............................................................ 3,000 66 .28
[[Page 61372]]
2017............................................................ 2,700 67 .22
2018............................................................ 2,100 53 .21
2019............................................................ 2,000 50 .30
2020............................................................ ** 56 .38
2021............................................................ 2,000 50 .27
-----------------------------------------------
2012-2021................................................... 21,700 491 .18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NEISS.
Estimates rounded to nearest 100; estimates that failed to meet NEISS publication criteria are presented as **.
Rows may not add to total due to rounding.
Table 7 below depicts a breakdown of the disposition of the injured
patients. A large majority (70%) of the estimated injuries were
categorized as ``treated and released'' or ``examined and released
without treatment,'' while around 20 percent involved more serious
injuries requiring hospitalization or additional observation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ According to the NEISS publication criteria, an estimate
can only be presented if it is 1,200 or greater, is derived from a
sample size of at least 20 injury cases and has a coefficient of
variation (CV) no greater than 33 percent. As such, estimates that
do not meet all three of the above criteria are not presented in any
table. CV is calculated by dividing an estimate's standard deviation
by the estimate itself.
Table 7--NEISS Estimates for Aerosol Duster Inhalation Injuries by
Disposition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition Estimate Sample size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treated and released, or Examined and 15,200 (70%) 341
released without treatment.............
Treated and admitted for 4,400 (20%) 103
hospitalization, or Held for
observation............................
Left without being seen, or Left without 1,900 (9%) 44
treatment..............................
Death *................................. ** (<1%) 3
-------------------------------
All Severities...................... 21,700 491
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NEISS.* Fatal injury cases in NEISS are also included in CPSRMS
data and are thus included in the overall death count.
Estimates rounded to nearest 100; estimates that failed to meet NEISS
publication criteria are presented as **.
Rows may not add to total due to rounding.
Table 8 below depicts an overview of the injuries based on age and
gender. Around two-thirds of the estimated injuries occurred in males,
and around 91 percent of estimated injuries occurred in patients
between ages 18 and 54.
Table 8--NEISS Estimates for Aerosol Duster Inhalation Injuries by Age & Gender
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age group (years) Male Female Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-17........................................................... ** ** 1,500 (7%)
18-34.......................................................... 6,800 3,300 10,100 (47%)
35-54.......................................................... 6,200 3,400 9,600 (44%)
55 or older.................................................... ** ** ** (2%)
------------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 14,300 (65%) 7,500 (35%) 21,700 (100%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NEISS.
Estimates rounded to nearest 100; estimates that failed to meet NEISS publication criteria are presented as **.
Estimates and percents may not add to the total due to rounding.
Race and ethnicity data are largely incomplete for aerosol duster
product inhalation injury cases between 2012-2021. Race is unknown for
around 37 percent of the 21,700 ED-treated injuries during the 10-year
period. Among the 13,700 injuries where race is known, white
individuals constituted around 83 percent of injuries; Black
individuals constituted 6 percent of injuries; and other races
constituted the remaining 11 percent. Ethnicity data was added to the
NEISS database starting in mid-2018. As such, ethnicity is unknown for
the majority (79%) of injuries reported during the period reviewed.
Among the 4,500 injuries with known ethnicity, Hispanic individuals
constituted 37 percent of injuries, while non-Hispanic individuals
constituted the remaining 63 percent.
Approximately 5,700 of the estimated 21,700 ED-treated injuries
(26%) occurred at home. Another 6,300 estimated injuries (29%) took
place on public property, and 2,200 estimated injuries (10%) took place
on a street or highway, at a school, or at a place of recreation. The
location for the remaining 7,600 estimated injuries (35%) was either
unknown or not recorded.
[[Page 61373]]
Approximately 18,700 of the estimated 21,700 ED-treated injuries
(86%) were diagnosed primarily as poisonings, while the remaining 3,000
estimated injuries were diagnosed mostly as burns (chemical, thermal or
unspecified), anoxia, contusions/abrasions, lacerations, or internal
organ injuries. Approximately 18,900 of the estimated 21,700 ED-treated
injuries (87%) were considered ``whole body'' injuries (i.e., no
specific individual body part injured as a result of inhalation).
Another 1,700 estimated injuries (8%) were classified as head, face, or
mouth injuries, while the remaining 5 percent of injuries were mostly
classified as hand, lower arm, or upper trunk injuries.
D. Availability of Incident Data
Upon publication of the NPR in the Federal Register, CPSC will make
available for review and comment, to the extent allowed by law, the
CPSRMS and NEISS incident reports relied upon and discussed in the NPR,
along with the associated IDIs. The data can be obtained by submitting
a request to: https://forms.office.com/g/NK9WAGMhAi. You will then
receive a website link to access the data at the email address you
provided. If you do not receive a link within 72 hours, please contact:
[email protected].
V. Absence of Relevant Voluntary Standard
Two existing voluntary standards, ASTM D3061-97, Standard Guide for
Three-Piece Steel and Tinplate Straight-Wall and Necked-In Aerosol
Cans, and DIN EN 15008:2017, Aerosol Containers--Aluminum Containers--
Dimensions of One-Piece Cans with 25.4 mm Aperture, apply to aerosol
duster products. Both standards provide a list of currently
manufactured aerosol canister sizes as well as industry voluntary
dimensional guidelines, but neither standard addresses the hazard of
intentional inhalant abuse.
On February 27, 2023, ASTM Committee F15 hosted an exploratory
meeting discussing potential solutions that would prevent intentional
inhalation and abuse of aerosol duster products such as including
bitterants, warning labels, and use of alternative propellants and
alternative technologies. On March 4, 2024, ASTM Committee F15 hosted a
second exploratory meeting to discuss developing a possible future
voluntary standard and forming a task group for the prevention of
intentional inhalation and abuse of aerosol duster products. To date no
such task group has been formed.
VI. Justification for the Proposed Ban
The FHSA defines a hazardous substance to include a substance that
is ``toxic.'' 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(A)(i). A substance is toxic if it
``has the capacity to produce personal injury or illness to man through
ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through any body surface.'' 15
U.S.C. 1261(g). As discussed in section IV, staff has identified HFC-
152a and HFC-134a as two toxic hydrofluorocarbons used as propellants
in aerosol duster products. Both hydrofluorocarbons are intentionally
inhaled by individuals to experience a euphoric high, resulting in
numerous deaths and injuries. Severe HFC-152a toxicity can cause a
depressed mental state, respiratory depression, pulmonary edema,
hepatic injury, and death (Poisindex, 2021). Symptoms of acute HFC-134a
toxicity include severe hypotension, loss of consciousness, shock
(Vinegar, 1997), cardiac sensitization, neurotoxicity (National
Research Council, 2002), and death (Burke et al., 2020).
Staff researched published medical literature for papers regarding
the toxicity of HFC-152a and HFC-134a. While medical literature
demonstrates toxicity of the two substances, staff was unable to
identify any relevant human data regarding HFC-152a and HFC-134a that
would allow for the calculation of a non-toxic human dose. However,
that research did provide staff with data to be able to calculate a no
observed adverse effect level \36\ (NOAEL) in animals for HFC-152a. In
toxicology, it is customary to convert animal data to human data in the
absence of human data. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for
example, uses this approach to determine the safe dose of a drug when
studying it for the first time in human clinical trials. Based on the
generally accepted approach used by FDA, staff converted the NOAEL
found in the medical literature to calculate a human equivalent dose
(HED) using appropriate scaling factors.\37\ Staff used the resulting
HED it developed to determine the safe level for the proposed ban after
applying a safety factor of 10.\38\ Below is a description of the staff
approach used in developing the level for the proposed ban on HFC-152a
and HFC-134a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ A NOAEL is the highest dose level that does not produce a
significant increase in adverse effects in comparison to the control
group. The NOAEL is a generally accepted benchmark for safety when
derived from appropriate animal studies.
\37\ Scaling factors account for differences in size between
animals and humans. See FDA, 2005, Guidance for Industry Estimating
the Maximum Safe Starting Dose in Initial Clinical Trials for
Therapeutics in Adult Healthy Volunteers (FDA Guidance), available
at: www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/estimating-maximum-safe-starting-dose-initial-clinical-trials-therapeutics-adult-healthy-volunteers.
\38\ A safety factor allows for variability in extrapolating
from animal toxicity studies in humans resulting from: (1) different
sensitivity of drugs to animals and humans; (2) differing receptor
affinity to drugs between animals and humans; (3) unexpected
toxicities; and (4) interspecies differences between the metabolism
and time course effect of drugs between animals and humans. Ten is a
default value for a safety factor. An additional safety factor of 10
could be used to protect sensitive populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study was conducted on groups of three rats to mimic the exposure
of humans while inhaling HFC-152a (Avella et al., 2010). The rats were
exposed to 30 seconds (s) of 20 L/min HFC-152a in an inhalation
chamber. During that exposure, all the rats showed signs of
intoxication manifested by sedation which began at about 20 s and
rapidly progressed to more profound intoxication. At the end of the
exposure periods the rats were prostrate and could not get up. The rats
remained visibly intoxicated until about four minutes post exposure.
Recovery was rapid, and at about eight minutes post exposure, the rats
showed no signs of obvious intoxication. Staff calculated a non-toxic
human dose of 0.476 mg/kg using the information in the Avella et al.,
2010 paper and applying an additional safety factor of 10 for a total
safety factor of 100 (see footnote 38 for explanation regarding safety
factors). The resulting calculation for a non-toxic human dose is
equivalent to 18 mg for 38 kg human (5th percentile weight for 13-year-
old female).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ This dose will be at least as protective for older females
and males of the same age and older due to their higher weight.
Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: United
States, 2015-2018; https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/100478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there are no relevant human inhalation toxicology studies
available regarding HFC-134a, the injury and death evidence and
properties of HFC-134a discussed above demonstrate a similar hazard to
that presented by HFC-152a. HFC-134a has somewhat lower inhalational
toxicity in rats compared to HFC-152a (Rusch, 2018). Therefore, the
non-toxic dose calculated for HFC-152a will be also protective for HFC-
134a.
Based on the assessment that individuals who inhale aerosol duster
products inhale a single spray at a time, but may use multiple sprays
within a single period of use, and applying the conversion process
described above, staff concluded that a single canister of aerosol
duster product should be limited to 18 mg or less of HFC-152a and/or
HFC-134a to render it non-toxic to humans. Although 18 mg of HFC-
[[Page 61374]]
152a or HFC-134a is too small an amount to effectively be used as a
propellant in an aerosol duster product, because this amount of
propellant is not harmful, the Commission is proposing to allow trace
amounts of 18 mg or less of HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a in aerosol duster
products to allow for low level contamination that may occur during the
manufacturing process. For example, if a manufacturer made a propellant
change from the manufacture of an unregulated product to a regulated
aerosol duster product, leftover contaminant levels remaining in hose
lines used to fill aerosol duster products during manufacturing would
not result in violative products as long as there is 18 mg or less per
canister of the banned propellants. Therefore, the Commission
preliminarily finds that any aerosol duster product containing more
than 18 mg in any combination of HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a is toxic, and
thus, is a hazardous substance under the FHSA.
Under the FHSA, the Commission may classify a hazardous substance
that is packaged in a form suitable for use in the household as a
``banned hazardous substance'' if the Commission finds that
``notwithstanding such cautionary labeling as is or may be required
under this chapter for that substance, the degree or nature of the
hazard involved in the presence or use of such substance in households
is such that the objective of the protection of the public health and
safety can be adequately served only by keeping such substance, when so
intended or packaged, out of the channels of interstate commerce.'' 15
U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(B). The Commission preliminary makes such a finding
for HFC-152a and HFC-134a used in aerosol duster products.
Aerosol duster products are sold to consumers for use in their
homes, and almost all aerosol duster products currently on the market
display cautionary labeling including at a minimum a signal word
(POISON, DANGER, WARNING, CAUTION) and statement(s) of principal
hazard(s) such as FLAMMABLE and VAPOR HARMFUL as required by the FHSA
and 16 CFR 1500.121. Aerosol duster products on the market also contain
statements to inform consumers of intentional misuse, inhalation abuse,
and the potential consequences of either activity. Tab C in the July
20, 2022, staff briefing package contains an in-depth analysis
regarding the labeling of aerosol duster products.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-Requesting-Rulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard_0.pdf?VersionId=GNEl7pYZUBOxf1BLSC0f4.X6TlA8gT4f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although current aerosol duster products on the market contain both
FHSA-required labeling, as well as statements identifying the potential
hazard of aerosol duster abuse and misuse, these labels have not
prevented the more than 1,000 deaths described in section IV of the
preamble. The Commission therefore preliminary finds that labeling of
aerosol duster products does not effectively address the inhalation
hazard presented by aerosol duster products. Because large numbers of
deaths and injuries continue to occur despite the cautionary labeling
on aerosol duster products, the Commission is proposing to ban the use
of toxic propellants HFC-152a and HFC-134a in any aerosol duster
canister in amounts above 18 mg.
VII. Description of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would amend 16 CFR part 1500 to add a new
provision under 16 CFR 1500.17 declaring any canister of aerosol duster
product containing more than 18 mg in any combination of HFC-152a and/
or HFC-134a to be a banned hazardous substance under the FHSA. The
provisions of the proposed ban are described below.
A. Proposed Sec. 1500.17(a)(14)(i)--Ban on Aerosol Duster Products
Containing More Than 18 mg in Any Combination of HFC-152a and/or HFC-
134a
The proposed rule would add a new paragraph, Sec.
1500.17(a)(14)(i) to 16 CFR 1500.17, that would declare any canister of
aerosol duster product containing more than 18 mg in any combination of
1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a, CAS #75-37-6) and/or 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a, CAS #811-97-2) to be a banned hazardous
substance under section 2(q)(1) of the FHSA. Section VI of the preamble
provides the technical justification for the proposed ban. Proposed
Sec. 1500.17(a)(14)(i) also defines ``aerosol duster product'' to mean
a product that uses a pressurized canister filled with gas or liquified
gas to create a stream of gas propellant that can be used to dislodge
or remove dust and debris.
B. Proposed Sec. 1500.17(a)(14)(ii)--Prohibited Stockpiling
Pursuant to section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2),
Sec. 1500.17(a)(14)(ii) of the proposed rule would prohibit a
manufacturer from ``stockpiling'' or substantially increasing the
manufacture or importation of noncompliant aerosol duster products
between the date of publication of the final rule and the effective
date. Section 9(g)(2) defines stockpiling to mean manufacturing or
importing a product between the date of promulgation of a rule,
regulation, standard, or ban and its effective date at a rate which is
significantly greater than the rate at which such product was produced
or imported during a base period ending before the date of promulgation
of the rule standard, or ban. The proposed stockpiling provision for
hazardous aerosol dusters, which is explained more fully in Tab A of
the staff NPR briefing package \41\, would prohibit the manufacture or
importation of noncompliant aerosol duster products in any one-month
period between the date of publication of the final rule and the
effective date of the final rule at a rate greater than 105 percent of
the rate at which they were manufactured or imported during the base
period for the manufacturer or importer. The base period for aerosol
duster products is defined in the proposed rule as the average monthly
manufacture or import volume for the last 13 months immediately
preceding the month of the publication of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Briefing-Package-Draft-Proposed-Rule-Aerosol-Duster-Products.pdf?VersionId=m8a.WZmo3DJvX0U3qR.EbOr4yQU9yeps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Proposed Sec. 1500.17(a)(14)(iii)--Findings
Proposed Sec. 1500.17(a)(14)(iii) describes the Commission's
preliminary findings required under sections 2(q)(1) and 3(h) of the
FHSA, including requirements regarding voluntary standards,
relationship of benefits to costs, and the least burdensome
requirement.
VIII. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
Pursuant to section 3(h) of the FHSA, publication of a proposed
rule must include a preliminary regulatory analysis containing:
a preliminary description of the potential benefits and
potential costs of the proposed rule, including any benefits or costs
that cannot be quantified in monetary terms, and an identification of
those likely to receive the benefits and bear the costs;
a discussion of why a relevant voluntary safety standard
would not eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury addressed
by the proposed rule;
a discussion of the reasons for the Commission's
preliminary determination of why the voluntary standards process would
not within a reasonable time result in the development of a voluntary
standard that would eliminate or adequately
[[Page 61375]]
reduce the risk of injury identified in the rule; and
a description of any reasonable alternatives to the
proposed rule, together with a summary description of their potential
costs and benefits and why such alternatives should not be published as
a proposed rule.
15 U.S.C. 1262(h).
Below is a summary of the preliminary regulatory analysis for the
proposed rule. See Tab A of the staff NPR briefing package \42\ for the
complete preliminary regulatory analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Briefing-Package-Draft-Proposed-Rule-Aerosol-Duster-Products.pdf?VersionId=m8a.WZmo3DJvX0U3qR.EbOr4yQU9yeps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Market Information
1. The Product
Aerosol duster products, also known as canned air, are pressurized
canisters filled with liquified gas propellant. They utilize the force
of compressed gas, released through a nozzle or straw attachment, to
create a direct stream of gas that dislodges and blows away debris.
Many aerosol duster products are labeled for ``electronics dusting,''
or more generically, as a ``multi-purpose duster.'' These products are
marketed for dusting laptops, keyboards, computers, TVs, phones,
printers, electronic toys, gaming devices, and other common household
products including sewing machines, clocks, watches, musical
instruments, and for auto detailing.
Other alternative products that would not be subject to the
proposed ban exist for consumers to use for similar dusting purposes,
including aerosol duster products using the propellant HFO-1234ze,
compressed air dusters which use corded or cordless electric pumps, or
even hand pumps, to compress air and blow it through a nozzle,
CO2 cartridge dusters which use disposable CO2
cartridges to blow CO2 through a nozzle, as well as vacuum
cleaners.
While prices for aerosol duster products vary widely, the average
price for a canister of aerosol duster is $8.00 according to a Maia
Research market report \43\ and $10.19 according to the Aerosol Duster
Market Report available on the CPSC website.\44\ Aerosol duster
products that use HFC-152a as a propellant are most common due to this
propellant being less expensive than the less common alternative
propellants HFC-134a or HFO-1234ze (trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene).
HFC-134a is non-flammable but is considered a potential greenhouse gas.
HFO-1234ze was introduced as an environmentally friendly alternative to
HFC-134a, with low global warming potential. (See the staff's
preliminary regulatory analysis in Tab A of the staff NPR briefing
package for a more complete discussion of aerosol duster products and a
complete list of references.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Maia Research (January 2024). United States Air Duster
Industry Market Research Report. 2025 price estimate, deflated to
2023 dollars using CPI.
\44\ www.cpsc.gov/content/Aerosol-Duster-Study-Final-Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Market Trends for Aerosol Duster Products
Firms that sell aerosol duster products typically engage in either
contract manufacturing or are private labelers. Typically, a company
that engages in contract manufacturing has another company produce
their product for them but remain involved in all components of
manufacturing by providing specifications. When a company engages in
contract manufacturing, the firm owns the end products for which they
have contracted out production. Similarly, private labelers have their
production manufactured by a third party; however, the product is owned
by that third party and can be sold to other companies, as well.
Typically, a private labeler owns a brand name and buys products from
the third party to sell it under their established brand. While
slightly different in structure, both of these arrangements (contract
manufacturing and private labeling) allow firms that produce aerosol
duster products to benefit from flexibility in their production
processes, and typically avoid large, fixed manufacturing costs to
produce their products.
3. Future Market Size for Aerosol Duster Products
Staff forecast aerosol duster products sales for a 30-year study
period (2026-2055) using data from a market research report by MAIA
Research. In this forecast, staff estimates the number of units of
aerosol duster products sold in 2026 will be 18.31 million, absent the
regulation of the product described in the proposed rule. In the
scenario without the proposed rule, staff estimates the number of units
sold in 2055 will be 35.81 million. This estimate is based on a
continuation of historical sales growth for the product, which could be
affected by a number of unknown factors such as reduced use of computer
keyboards or revised environmental regulations.
B. Preliminary Description of Potential Benefits and Costs of the
Proposed Rule
Staff conducted a benefits analysis of the proposed rule. The
benefits analysis accounted for mitigated deaths and injuries from the
proposed rule, which staff monetized using the value of statistical
life (VSL) for deaths and the Injury Cost Model (ICM) for injuries. As
discussed above, this is likely an undercount of benefits, because
staff's count of deaths was limited to cases where the product was
explicitly identified as an aerosol duster product. Over a 30-year
study period, staff estimated the total annualized net benefits
(benefits less costs) from the proposed rule, discounted at 2 percent,
to be $1.93 billion due to reduced fatalities and injuries from
inhalation. Stated differently, every dollar of cost from the proposed
rule is estimated to produce $16.59 of benefits.
The proposed rule would impose three main costs: (1) markup losses
to manufacturers/importers of aerosol duster products; (2) increased
prices paid by consumers; and (3) deadweight losses or market impacts
caused by the increased price associated with compliance with the
regulation and the subsequent decline in demand. As detailed in Tab A
of the staff NPR briefing package, staff estimates that these costs
total $123.73 million over the 30-year study period, discounted at 2
percent.
When the estimated benefits of $2.05 billion are compared to the
estimated costs of $123.73 million, the estimated benefits of the rule
are far greater than the estimated costs. Staff calculates net benefits
(benefits less costs) to be $1.93 billion on an annualized basis, after
discounting at 2 percent. However, staff notes that one of the
unquantified costs of the proposed rule is the assumed creation of a
black market for noncompliant aerosol duster products. Due to the
euphoric high experienced with HFC-152a and HFC-134a, consumers who use
aerosol duster products as inhalants may still want to purchase
noncompliant canisters. This inelastic demand and significant reduction
in supply of noncompliant canisters due to the proposed rule would
create an incentive for individuals to supply those individuals with
noncompliant canisters, such as those that are illegally imported from
other countries. The creation of a black market can create significant
negative externalities such as increased illicit activity, increased
crime and subsequently increased spending on law enforcement, and
greater health and safety risks to consumers. Staff cannot estimate the
magnitude of these externalities with any certainty. In addition, this
analysis does not consider individuals who may stop inhaling aerosol
duster products after the rule goes into effect but start using other
[[Page 61376]]
intoxicants in its place. If staff were able to forecast and quantify
this effect, the impact could reduce the estimated benefits from the
proposed rule. However, given the net estimated benefits of $1.93
billion per year in staff's analysis, the benefits of the proposed rule
would likely still outweigh the costs even if these externalities
occur.
To investigate the impact of using alternative values for some of
the key inputs and assumptions of the analysis, staff conducted a
sensitivity analysis to compare with the main preliminary regulatory
analysis. In the main preliminary regulatory analysis, staff assumes a
large number of individuals would continue to use most aerosol duster
products obtained on the black market as inhalants due to the euphoric
high experienced with HFC-152a and HFC-134a.
In the sensitivity analysis, staff considered an alternative
scenario. The sensitivity analysis assumes that the prohibition of HFC-
152a and HFC-134a in aerosol duster products results in a greater
reduction in inhalant abuse. Staff estimated that, currently, 7.88
percent of aerosol duster products are potentially used by consumers as
inhalants. After the regulation goes into effect, staff estimated that
there would be an overall reduction in products used as inhalants, but
the share of products used as inhalants increases to about 30 percent.
In the sensitivity analysis, staff assumes that the share of products
used as inhalants is unchanged at 7.88 percent. This change in input
inherently assumes that the proposed rule would be more effective at
changing the behavior of consumers who use aerosol duster products as
inhalants.
This change in assumption increases benefits without affecting the
costs. In this scenario, net benefits increase to $2.94 billion when
annualized at 2 percent, which boosts the benefit-cost ratio from
$16.59 of benefits for every $1 of cost shown in the main preliminary
regulatory analysis, to $24.78 of benefit for every $1 of cost show in
the sensitivity analysis.
C. Evaluation of Voluntary Standards
Based on the current state of the voluntary standard's process for
aerosol duster products discussed in section V of the preamble, the
Commission determines that no current U.S. voluntary standard exists to
address the inhalation hazard posed by aerosol duster products.
Further, there is no indication that any voluntary standards
organization has a clear plan to address the inhalant hazard in a new
or existing voluntary standard. Therefore, the Commission preliminarily
determines at this time that the voluntary standard's process will not
within a reasonable time result in the development of a voluntary
standard that would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury
identified in the proposed rule. No standard or portion of a standard
has been submitted to the Commission under sections 3(f)(5) and (6) of
the FHSA.
D. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
The Commission considered four alternatives to the proposed rule:
(1) performance requirements; (2) aversive agents (bitterants); (3)
labeling; and (4) take no regulatory action and rely upon the voluntary
standard's process. The Commission finds that none of these
alternatives would adequately address the inhalation hazard associated
with aerosol duster products.
1. Performance Requirements
Rather than banning hazardous aerosol duster products under the
FHSA, the Commission could in principle mandate a performance
requirement under sections 7 and 9 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058,
aimed at making aerosol duster products using the propellants HFC-152a
and HFC-134a less likely to be used for inhalation. This alternative
assumes that an effective performance standard for preventing aerosol
duster abuse could be developed. To date, however, suppliers have been
unable to develop a performance standard that would effectively prevent
the inhalation abuse of aerosol duster products while still allowing
for use of the product as intended. Staff is unaware of any existing
voluntary standard to address the inhalation hazard. In March 2024,
ASTM considered establishing a task group to develop a standard, but no
task group was formed. Incident data indicates that victims of injury
and death are primarily adults who purchase aerosol duster products
with the intended goal of intentionally inhaling the product. Even
assuming a performance requirement could be developed, while such a
requirement may be effective in preventing young children from
releasing the contents of aerosol duster products by adding child-safe
features, it would not be effective in preventing adults from abusing
and inhaling aerosol duster products, and notably the overwhelming
number of injuries and deaths occur among adults. Thus, it would be
very difficult, if not impossible, to develop a performance standard
that would be effective in addressing inhalant abuse of aerosol duster
products. Therefore, the Commission finds this alternative would not
address the unreasonable risk of injury associated with aerosol duster
products.
2. Aversive Agents (Bitterants)
As FUAIA recommended in its 2021 rulemaking petition, the
Commission could adopt a CPSA performance standard to require aversive
agents (bitterants) to be used in aerosol duster products. At the
petition stage, staff evaluated the use of aversive agents such as
bitterants in aerosol duster products and concluded that adding
bitterants would not be effective at addressing the inhalant hazard
posed by aerosol duster products. Tab B in the July 20, 2022 staff
briefing package contains an in-depth analysis regarding the use of
bitterants in aerosol duster products.\45\ Additionally, many aerosol
duster products currently on the market contain bitterants,\46\ which
appears not to have led to a decline in deaths and injuries associated
with inhalant abuse of aerosol duster products. Therefore, the
Commission finds this alternative would not adequately address the
unreasonable risk of injury associated with aerosol duster products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Petition-Requesting-Rulemaking-to-Establish-Safety-Standard_0.pdf?VersionId=GNEl7pYZUBOxf1BLSC0f4.X6TlA8gT4f.
\46\ According to the Aerosol Duster Study completed by
Euromonitor International in July 2023, approximately 70 percent of
all aerosol duster sales are of bitterant-containing products.
(https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Aerosol-Duster-Study-2023-Redacted.pdf?VersionId=idRW1RnIfr_5Jkc9sA9mkss8kTyUmZDD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Labeling
The Commission could require warning and other labels on aerosol
duster products. However, most aerosol duster products currently on the
market are labeled regarding the inhalation hazard, which appears to
have had little impact on deaths and injuries associated with inhalant
abuse of aerosol duster products. Additionally, at the petition stage,
staff concluded that labeling of aerosol duster products is unlikely to
be effective at addressing the inhalation hazard posed by aerosol
duster products. In fact, labeling could have the perverse consequence
of causing people inclined to abuse inhalants to seek out products with
the enhanced warning on the label, thereby facilitating the problem
that the label was intended to avoid. Therefore, the Commission finds
this alternative would not adequately address the unreasonable risk of
injury associated with aerosol duster products.
[[Page 61377]]
4. Take No Regulatory Action and Rely Upon the Voluntary Standard's
Process
The Commission could take no regulatory action and rely upon the
voluntary standard's process to address the inhalation hazard posed by
aerosol duster products. Currently, however, no U.S. voluntary standard
exists or is under consideration to address the inhalation hazard posed
by aerosol duster products. Therefore, as discussed in section V of
this preamble, the Commission finds this alternative would not
adequately address the unreasonable risk of injury associated with
aerosol duster products.
IX. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Whenever an agency publishes an NPR, section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires the agency to prepare
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), unless the head of
the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The IRFA, or a
summary of it, must be published in the Federal Register with the
proposed rule. Under section 603(b) of the RFA, each IRFA must address:
(1) a description of why action by the agency is being considered;
(2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
(3) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(5) an identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
The IRFA must also describe any significant alternatives to the
proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives and that
minimize any significant economic impact on small entities.
A. Reason for Agency Action
The intent of the proposed rulemaking is to reduce deaths and
injuries associated with inhalant abuse of aerosol duster products. The
Commission is considering the action because of the numerous deaths and
injuries associated with the use of aerosol duster products.
B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Rule
The Commission proposes this rule to reduce death and injury
associated with inhalant abuse from aerosol duster products. This
standard is promulgated under the authority of the FHSA. To declare a
substance a banned hazardous substance under section 2(q)(1) of the
FHSA the Commission must follow the procedural requirements set forth
in section 3(f)-(i) of the FHSA. See 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(2) and 1262(f)-
(i).
C. Small Entities To Which the Rule Will Apply
The proposed rule would apply to all manufacturers and importers of
aerosol duster products. According to estimates by Euromonitor
International (Euromonitor), the household consumer market for aerosol
duster products was $99.7 million in 2022, and approximately 87 percent
of aerosol duster products examined use the propellant HFC-152a and 11
percent use HFC-134a. The remainder use a mixture of these two
propellants or an alternative propellant.
According to information collected by staff, in 2024 there were an
estimated 31 firms that supply the domestic market for aerosol duster
products. Among these firms, 26 are manufacturers and five are
importers/wholesalers. Approximately 90 percent of suppliers (28
suppliers) are located domestically in the United States.
D. Compliance, Reporting, and Record-Keeping Requirements of Proposed
Rule
In accordance with section 14 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063,
manufacturers would have to issue a General Certificate of Conformity
(GCC) for each aerosol duster product model, certifying that the model
complies with the proposed ban. Each GCC must also be based on a test
of each product or a reasonable testing program and provided to all
distributors or retailers of the product. The manufacturer would have
to comply with 16 CFR part 1110 concerning the content of the GCC,
retention of the associated records, and any other applicable
requirements.
E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
CPSC currently has no regulations regarding the use of HFC-152a
and/or HFC-134a in aerosol duster products or any other consumer
product. However, the U.S. EPA regulates, or is in the process of
regulating, the use of HFC-152a and HFC-134a as hydrofluorocarbons for
various uses, including for use in motor vehicle air conditioning, as
refrigerants for use in self-chilling cans for household refrigeration,
transport refrigeration, vending machines, cold storage warehouses and
retail food refrigeration (40 CFR part 82), and as per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) which are broadly used in food,
water, and increasingly consumer products, as exposure to some types of
PFAS substances are linked to serious health effects. None of EPA's
regulations regulating HFC-152a and HFC-134a address the inhalation
hazard the proposed rule is intended to address, and thus do not
overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.
F. Potential Impact on Small Entities
1. Impact on Small Manufacturers
For the majority of firms in this market, aerosol duster products
are ancillary to their manufacturing of products such as degreasers,
lubricants and other aerosol products that would not be regulated under
the proposed rule. Staff identified 31 firms that would be impacted by
the proposed rule. Twenty-six of these firms are manufacturers of
aerosol duster products and five are wholesales/importers. Among the 26
manufacturers of aerosol duster products, 20 would be considered small
firms according to Small Business Administration (SBA) thresholds.\47\
The SBA size standard threshold for NAICS code 325998, All Other
Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing, is having
fewer than 650 employees in order to be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Small Business Administration, Table of Size Standards
(https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff identified four small domestic manufacturers of aerosol
duster products where the potential impact of the proposed regulation
could be significant. These firms enjoy strong brand recognition, and
their products are widely used aerosol duster products for electronics.
For these firms, their aerosol duster products comprise a large share
of their total product offerings. Staff assessed the impact to these
small manufacturers to be significant (i.e., greater than one percent
of annual revenue) as the proposed rule is expected to increase the
price of a canister of aerosol duster product more than threefold, and
subsequently cause a steep decline in demand.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The proposed rule is expected to cause firms to shift to
more expensive propellants, and therefore is expected to increase
the price of a canister of aerosol duster product. For a more
complete discussion of the expected price increase and subsequent
projected decline in demand, see the full economics memorandum in
Tab A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 61378]]
2. Impact on Small Importers
Staff identified five wholesalers/importers of aerosol duster
products. The SBA size standard threshold for NAICS code 424690, Other
Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers, is having fewer than
175 employees in order to be considered small. According to SBA size
standards, two of these firms would be considered small and three would
be considered large. Staff assessed the impact to these small importers
and wholesalers to be significant (i.e., greater than one percent of
annual revenue) as the proposed rule is expected to increase the price
of a canister of aerosol duster product more than threefold, and
subsequently cause a steep decline in demand.
3. Conclusion
Given the significant impact that the proposed rule would have on
the market overall, staff assessed that there would be a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities from the proposed
rule.
G. Alternatives for Reducing the Adverse Impact on Small Businesses
Section VIII.D Preliminary Regulatory Analysis of this preamble
provides a discussion of four alternatives to the proposed rule that
were considered and why those alternatives were rejected. While the
alternatives could reduce the burden on small entities, none of the
alternatives are consistent with achieving the rule's objective of
improving consumer safety by protecting consumers from the inhalant
risks posed by aerosol duster products. The Commission is not proposing
these alternatives because they would not effectively reduce the number
of injuries and fatalities associated with aerosol duster products as
discussed in section VIII of the preamble.
The Commission welcomes public comments on this IRFA. Small
businesses that believe they would be affected by the proposed rule are
encouraged to submit comments. The comments should be specific and
describe the potential impact, magnitude, and alternatives that could
reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses.
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA). 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. We describe the provisions in this section
of the document with an estimate of the annual reporting burden. Our
estimate includes the time for gathering certificate data and creating
General Certificates of Conformity (GCCs), the keeping and maintaining
of records associated with the GCCs, and the disclosure of GCCs to
distributors and retailers.
CPSC particularly invites comments on: (1) whether the collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the CPSC's
functions, including whether the information would have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of CPSC's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) the accuracy of CPSC's estimate
of the share of canisters used as inhalants; (4) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (5)
ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology; and (6)
estimated burden hours associated with label modification, including
any alternative estimates.
Title: Ban on Specified Aerosol Duster Products.
Description: The proposed rule would ban any canister of an aerosol
duster product containing more than 18 mg in any combination of HFC-
152a and/or HFC-134a.
Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import
aerosol duster products. Staff estimates the burden of this collection
of information as follows in Table 9.
Table 9--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
Burden type Number of Frequency of annual Minutes per burden
respondents responses responses response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC Creation......................... 30 5 150 20 50
Recordkeeping........................ 30 5 150 2 5
Third Party Disclosure............... 30 500 15,000 5 1,250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ .............. ............... 15,300 .............. 1,305
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1), would require
manufacturers to certify that their products conform to the proposed
rule and issue a GCC. There are 31 known corporate entities supplying
aerosol duster products to the U.S. market (consisting of 26
manufacturers and 5 wholesalers/importers), and we assume the majority
of these entities would respond annually, though this may be an
overestimate.
On average, each entity may respond 5 times per year for collection
requirements related to compliant aerosol duster products in the
market. Each manufacturer or importer that responds may create 5
certificates annually for a total of 150 responses (30 responses x 5
responses per respondent = 150 annual responses). The estimated time
required to create a GCC is about twenty minutes. Therefore, the
estimated burden associated with issuance of GCCs is 50 hours (150
responses x 20 minutes per response = 50 hours).
We estimate for the purpose of this burden analysis that records
supporting GCC creation, including testing records, would be maintained
for a 5-year period. Staff estimates another 150 record-keeping
responses, each one of which requires two minutes per year in routine
recordkeeping. This adds up to 5 hours (150 records x 2 min per record
= 300 minutes or 5 hours).
Section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA also requires that GCCs be disclosed
to third party retailers and distributors. We estimate that each
respondent will submit 5 GCCs to 100 retailers or distributors
annually. Therefore, respondents are estimated to disclose 15,000 GCCs
to third party retailers and
[[Page 61379]]
distributors annually (30 responses x 500 disclosures per year = 15,000
responses). Staff estimates each one of which requires 5 minutes per
year. This adds up to 1,205 hours (15,000 responses x 5 minutes per
response = 75,000 minutes or 1,250 hours).
Based on this analysis, the proposed ban for aerosol duster
products would impose a total paperwork burden to industry of 1,305
hours (50 hours for GCC creation + 5 hours for recordkeeping + 1,250
hours for third-party disclosure). To estimate the cost to industry
staff uses total compensation data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) on hourly compensation paid to private industry
workers in goods-producing industries of $44.75.\49\ At an hourly wage
rate of $44.75, the estimated cost of the collection is $58,399
annually (1,305 hours x $44.75 = $58,398.75). There are no operating,
maintenance, or capital costs associated with the collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation,'' December 2023, Table 4, total compensation
for private industry working in goods-producing industries: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03132024.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing aerosol duster product manufactures would incur these
costs in the first year following the proposed rule's effective date.
In subsequent years, costs could be less, depending on the number of
new GCCs issued for aerosol duster products. As required under the PRA
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), CPSC has submitted the information collection
requirements of this proposed rule to the OMB for review. Interested
persons are requested to submit comments regarding information
collection by September 30, 2024, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB as described under the ADDRESSES section of
this notice.
XI. Effective Date
The FHSA does not specify any requirements regarding the setting of
an effective date for a rule promulgated pursuant to that authority.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the
effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of a
final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
The Commission preliminarily proposes an effective date of 30 days
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Pursuant
to section 19(a)(2)(D) of the CPSA, once the rule is effective, it
would be unlawful to ``sell, offer for sale, manufacture for sale,
distribute in commerce, or import into the United States'' any aerosol
duster product containing 18 mg in any combination of HFC-152a and/or
HFC-134a. 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(2)(D). Therefore, it would be unlawful to
sell any remaining inventory of aerosol duster products containing more
than 18 mg of HFC-152a or HFC-134a as of the effective date.
While there are potential vulnerabilities regarding shortages and
revenue loss, these potential vulnerabilities are greatly outweighed by
the reduction in benefits that would result from delaying the effective
date past 30 days. Staff estimates the incremental loss in benefits
from a 60-day effective date--30 additional days from the recommended
30-day effective date--to be $45.71 million in net benefits, using a 2
percent discount rate. This loss is the result of 246 additional
injuries and 3 additional deaths from delaying the rule for an
additional 30 days. Under a 180-day effective date--150 additional days
from the recommended 30-day effective date--staff estimates a loss of
$228.57 million in net benefits. This estimated further loss is the
result of 1,229 additional injuries and 17 additional deaths from
delaying the rule for 150 days.
Staff also considered manufacturers' expected actions required to
become compliant with the proposed ban in recommending the 30-day
effective date. Manufacturers of aerosol duster products would switch
to an alternative propellant. Switching to an alternative propellant is
a near drop-in replacement, having only minimal changes required to
formulations and equipment. As such, while the new propellant itself
will be more expensive, the one-time costs of switching propellants
will be negligible. The manufacturing process which includes filling,
sealing, and crimping the aerosol duster products remains unchanged
from current manufacturing practices. It would also require
manufacturers to change the labels on their canister to list the
alternative propellant, which staff assesses can be accomplished in 30
days. Therefore, the cost of any retooling in the manufacturing process
would be minimal. In addition, consumer aerosol duster products that
would not be impacted by the proposed rule are already in use, and
available for sale. Alternatively, instead of switching to a new
propellant in an aerosol duster product, as discussed in section III.C
of this preamble, there are manufacturers and importers that currently
supply battery powered USB rechargeable duster products to the market,
which provide similar utility to consumers as an aerosol duster
product. For these reasons, the Commission proposes a 30-day effective
date. The Commission invites comments regarding the amount of time
needed to come into compliance with a final rule.
XII. Certification
Section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a
consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban,
standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission,
must be certified with a GCC as complying with all applicable CPSC-
enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1). A final rule establishing
a ban under the FHSA would subject aerosol duster products to this
requirement. Aerosol duster products would need a certification stating
that they do not contain more than 18 mg in any combination of HFC-152a
and/or HFC-134a.
XIII. Environmental Considerations
Generally, the Commission's regulations are considered to have
little or no potential for affecting the human environment, and
environmental assessments and impact statements are not usually
required. See 16 CFR 1021.5(a). The proposed rule is not expected to
have an adverse impact on the environment and is considered to fall
within the ``categorical exclusion'' for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. 16 CFR 1021.5(c). In fact, because HFO-1234ze
was introduced as an environmentally friendly alternative to HFC-134a,
substitution of HFO-1234ze for HFO-134a in aerosol duster products as a
result of the proposed rule could have beneficial environmental
effects.
XIV. Preemption
Executive Order (E.O.) 12988, Civil Justice Reform (Feb. 5, 1996),
directs agencies to specify the preemptive effect of a rule in the
regulation. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). The proposed ban on any aerosol
duster canister containing more than 18 mg in any combination of HFC-
152a and/or HFC-134a is being promulgated under the authority of the
FHSA. 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278. The FHSA provides that, generally, if the
Commission issues a banning rule under section 2(q) of the FHSA to
protect against a risk of illness or injury associated with a hazardous
substance, ``no State or political subdivision of a State may establish
or continue in effect a requirement applicable to such substance and
designed to protect against the same risk of illness or injury unless
such requirement is identical to the requirement established under such
regulations.'' 15 U.S.C. 1261 Note. Upon application to the Commission,
a State or local standard may be excepted from
[[Page 61380]]
this preemptive effect if the State or local standard: (1) provides a
higher degree of protection from the risk of injury or illness than the
FHSA standard and (2) does not unduly burden interstate commerce. In
addition, the Federal government, or a State or local government, may
establish and continue in effect a non-identical requirement that
provides a higher degree of protection than the FHSA requirement for
the hazardous substance for the Federal, State or local government's
own use. 15 U.S.C. 1261 note. Thus, with the exceptions noted above for
standards that provide higher levels of protection, the proposed rule
banning any aerosol duster canister containing more than 18 mg in any
combination of HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a would preempt non-identical
state or local requirements applicable to such aerosol duster products
designed to protect against the same risk of injury.
XV. Request for Comments
We invite all interested persons to submit comments on all aspects
of the proposed rule. The Commission specifically seeks comment on the
following topics:
Alternative propellants manufacturers would likely use in
aerosol duster products and the intoxicating effects and safety
implications of inhaling these alternative propellants;
Any test methods that can be used to test for compliance
of HFC-152a and HFC-134a at the proposed level of 18 mg per single
aerosol duster canister;
Information or data on future market trends, including
projected sales, size of the market, growth of firms in the market,
forthcoming innovation, or any other information that would inform CPSC
of the expected future for the aerosol duster market with or without
the proposed rule; and
The ability of firms to complete these actions to produce
compliant products within the proposed effective date.
XVI. References
Avella J, Kunaparaju N, Kumar S, Lehrer M, Zito W, Barletta M
(2010). Uptake and distribution of the abused inhalant 1,1-
difluoroethane in the rat. J. Anal. Toxicol. 34:381-388.
Beauvais F & Oetting ER (1987). Toward a clear definition of
inhalant abuse. Int J Addict. Aug;22(8):779-84.
Bass M (1970). Sudden Sniffing Death. JAMA 212:2075-2079.
Burke J, Haigney M, Farasat M, Mehler P, Krantz M (2020). Huffing
and Twist: Fatal Torsade de Pointes Associated with
Tetrafluoroethane Inhalation. Authorea. July 01, 2020. DOI: Huffing
and Twist: Fatal Torsade de Pointes Associated with
Tetrafluoroethane Inhalation.
CDC (2021). Anthropometric reference data for children and adults:
United States, 2015-2018.
Custer A, Corse A, Vazirani S (2020) Difluoroethane inhalant abuse,
skeletal fluorosis, and withdrawal. Fed Pract. 37(6):288-289.
DEA (2020). Drug Fact Sheet. Inhalants.
Dingle HE & Williams SR (2019). Multi-organ system injury from
inhalant abuse. Prehospital Emergency Care, 23:4, 580-583.
Doshi V, Kham N, Kulkarni S, Kapitan K, Henkle J, White P (1997).
HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) inhalation induced reactive
airways dysfunction syndrome. Am. J. Ther. 23(3):e969-71.
Duncan JR & Lawrence AJ (2013). Conventional concepts and new
perspectives for understanding the addictive properties of
inhalants. J. Pharmacol. Sci 122: 237-243.
FDA (2005). Guidance for Industry Estimating the Maximum Safe
Starting Dose in Initial Clinical Trials for Therapeutics in Adult
Healthy Volunteers. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER).
George N, Chin B, Neeki AS, Dong F, Neeki MN (2021). Acute Inhalant-
Induced Atrial Fibrillation With Severe Hypocalcemia: A Case Report
and Review of the Pathophysiology. Cureus; 13(11):e19897.
Kamm RC (1975). Fatal arrhythmia following deodorant inhalation:
Case report Forensic Sci., Feb; 5(1):91-3.
Koehler MM & Henninger CA (2014). Orofacial and digital frostbite
caused by inhalant abuse. Cutis; 93 (5):256-260.
Micromedex Solutions, Poisindex search 2/1/2021.
National Research Council (US) Subcommittee on Acute Exposure
Guideline Levels. Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Select
Airborne Chemicals: Volume 2. Washington (DC)
National Academies Press (US); 2002. 3,1,1,1,2-Tetraflouorethane
(HFC-134a): Acute Exposure Guideline Levels.
Peicher K & Maalofouf NM (2017). Skeletal fluorosis due to
fluorocarbon inhalation from an air dust cleaner. Calcif. Tissue.
Int. 101(5):545-548.
Perron BE, Haroney JM, Hayes D.E., Sokol RL and Kolton SA (2021).
Potentially serious consequences for the use of Bittrex as a
deterrent for the intentional inhalation of computer duster sprays.
Forensic Toxicology. 39:286-290.
Romero J, Abboud R, Elkattawy S, Romero A, Elkattawy O, Samak AAA,
Shamoon R. (2022). Troponemia secondary to air duster inhalant
abuse. EJCRIM:9: doi:10.12890/2022_003556.
Rusch GM (2018). The development of environmentally acceptable
fluorocarbons. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 48:8, 615-665.
Seto T (2023). General anesthetic binding mode via hydration with
weak affinity and molecular discrimination: General anesthetic
dissolution in interfacial water of the common binding site of
GABAA receptor. Biophysics and Physicobiology. Jan
25;20(2): e200005: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10941959/.
Shah SB, Hariharan, Bhargava AK (2015). Anaesthetic in the garb of a
propellant. Indian Journal Anaesth. 59(4)258-260.
Shin TJ, Kim P-J, Choi B (2022). How general anesthetics work: from
the perspective of reorganized connections within the brain. Korean
J. Anesthesiol.; 75(2):124-138.
Smeeton WM & Clark MS (1985). Sudden death resulting from inhalation
of fire extinguishers containing bromochlorodifluoromethane. Med.
Sci. Law. 25:258-262.
Vinegar (1997). US Air Force Armstrong Laboratory: Human Inhalation
of Halon 1301, HFC-134a and HFC-227ea for collection of
Pharmacokinetic Data (AL/OE-TR-1997-0116).
Williams JF, Storck M and the Committee on Substance Abuse and
Committee on Native American Child Health (2007). Inhalant abuse.
American Academy of Pediatrics. 119(5):1009-1017.
Xiong Z, Avella J, Wetli CV (2004). Sudden death caused by 1,1,
difluoroethane inhalation. J. Forensic Sci. 49 (3):627-9.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1500
Consumer protection, Hazardous materials, Hazardous substances,
Imports, Infants and children, Labeling, Law enforcement, and Reporting
and recordkeeping.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend 16 CFR part 1500 to read as follows:
PART 1500--HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND ARTICLES: ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS
0
1. The authority for part 1500 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1261-1278.
0
2. In Sec. 1500.17, add paragraph (a)(14) to read as follows:
Sec. 1500.17 Banned hazardous substances.
(a) * * *
(14)(i) Aerosol Duster Products Containing more than 18 mg in any
combination of HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a. Any canister of an aerosol
duster product containing more than 18 mg in any combination of 1,1-
difluoroethane (HFC-152a, CAS #75-37-6) and/or 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a, CAS #811-97-2). The term aerosol duster
product means a product that uses a pressurized canister filled with
gas or liquified gas to create a stream of gas propellant that can be
used to dislodge or remove dust and debris.
(ii) Prohibited Stockpiling--
[[Page 61381]]
(A) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and importers of aerosol duster
products shall not manufacture or import aerosol duster products that
do not comply with paragraph (a)(1)(i) in any one-month period between
[DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL
RULE] at a rate greater than 105 percent of the rate at which they
manufactured or imported aerosol duster products during the base period
for the manufacturer or importer.
(B) Base period. The base period for aerosol duster products is the
average monthly manufacture or import volume for any month within the
last 13 months immediately preceding the month of publication of the
final rule.
(iii) Findings--
(A) General. To issue a rule under section 2(q)(1) of the FHSA, 15
U.S.C. 1261(q)(1), classifying a substance or article as a banned
hazardous substance, the Commission must make certain findings and
include them in the regulation. These findings are discussed in
paragraphs (a)(14)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section.
(B) Voluntary standard. No voluntary standard currently exists to
address the potential for death and injury posed by inhalant abuse of
aerosol duster products containing HFC-152a or HFC-134a. The Commission
finds that there is no evidence that a voluntary standard will be
adopted and implemented within a reasonable period of time that would
eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury regarding the
potential for death and injury posed by the intentional inhalant abuse
of aerosol duster products.
(C) Relationship of benefits to costs. The Commission estimates
that the ban will be effective in reducing the potential for injury and
death from compliant aerosol duster products. When benefits are
compared to costs, the estimated benefits of the rule are greater than
the estimated costs. Net benefits (benefits less costs) are estimated
to be $1.93 billion on an annualized basis. Staff performed a 30-year
prospective cost analysis (2026-2055) on all cost categories and
estimated the total annualized cost from the proposed rule to be
$123.73 million. Staff estimated the total annualized benefits from the
proposed to be $2.05 billion, discounted at 2 percent.
(D) Least burdensome requirement. The Commission considered the
following alternatives: require a performance requirement for aerosol
duster products preventing inhalation of their propellant; require
aversive agents (bitterants); require warning labels; and take no
action and rely on a voluntary standard. The Commission finds none of
the alternatives considered would adequately reduce the risk of death
or injury. Therefore, the Commission finds that a ban on any aerosol
duster product containing more than 18 mg in any combination of 1,1-
difluoroethane (HFC-152a, CAS #75-37-6) and/or 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a, CAS #811-97-2) is the least burdensome
requirement that would prevent or adequately reduce the risk of death
or injury.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-16716 Filed 7-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P