[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19972-19976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09649]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0249; FRL-9976-60]


Konjac Glucomannan; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement 
of a tolerance for residues of konjac glucomannan (CAS Reg. No. 37220-
17-0) when used as an inert ingredient on growing crops only at a 
concentration not to exceed 1% by weight in a pesticide formulation. 
Technology Services Group, on behalf of, Attune Agriculture, LLC, 
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the 
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to 
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of konjac 
glucomannan resulting from use in accordance with the terms of this 
exemption.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 7, 2018. Objections and 
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 6, 2018, and 
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR 
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0249, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory 
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency 
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public 
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP 
Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and 
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division 
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone 
number: (703) 305-7090; email address: RDFRNotices@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an 
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. 
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System 
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. 
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR 
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a 
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a 
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided 
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify 
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0249 in the subject line on the first 
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must 
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before 
July 6, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and 
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the 
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of 
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential 
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without 
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing 
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0249, by one of 
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand 
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the 
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional 
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more 
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of September 15, 2017 (82 FR 43352) (FRL-
9965-43), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
11048) by Technology Services Group, on behalf of, Attune Agriculture, 
LLC, 10552 Philadelphia Road, White Marsh, MD 21162. The petition 
requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption 
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of konjac glucomannan 
(also referred to as konjac mannan) (CAS Reg. No. 37220-17-0)

[[Page 19973]]

when used as an inert ingredient (thickener) in pesticide formulations 
applied to growing crops only at a maximum use level of 1.0%. That 
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Technology 
Services Group, on behalf of, Attune Agriculture, LLC, the petitioner, 
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment 
was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response is discussed in 
Unit V.C.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active 
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not 
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a 
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and 
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty 
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as 
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing 
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; 
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply 
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. 
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a 
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert 
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an 
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a 
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that 
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines 
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm 
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, 
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for 
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through 
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include 
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to 
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the 
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure 
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to 
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical 
residue . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only 
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from 
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably 
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human 
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to 
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the 
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert 
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures 
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA 
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure 
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from 
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the 
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors 
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available 
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this 
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a 
determination on aggregate exposure for konjac glucomannan including 
exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's 
assessment of exposures and risks associated with konjac glucomannan 
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their 
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of 
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered 
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities 
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and 
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature 
of the adverse effects caused by konjac glucomannan as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this 
unit.
    Konjac glucomannan is a non-digestible polysaccharide with a large 
molecular weight (i.e., 200,000-2,000,000 daltons). A substance of this 
size would be unlikely to penetrate intact human skin or 
gastrointestinal tract. Because of its large molecular weight and the 
body's inability to digest it, it is unlikely that the body will absorb 
konjac glucomannan. This is supported by the studies below.
    Often in the literature, konjac flour and konjac glucomannan are 
used interchangeably. The European Commission defines konjac flour as 
the unpurified raw product from the root of the perennial plant 
Amorphophallus konjac, and konjac glucomannan refers to the product 
that has been washed and extracted using water-containing ethanol. The 
majority of the studies refer to the use of konjac flour as the test 
substance. EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to rely on those 
studies since the two substances are essentially the same in molecular 
weight and origin thus expected to present the same toxicological 
profile.
    Konjac glucomannan exhibits low levels of acute toxicity. Acute 
studies in rats and mice show oral LD50s of >2,800 mg/kg to 
>5,000 mg/kg. The dermal LD50 in rabbits is >2,000 mg/kg. 
Konjac glucomannan was not shown to be a skin irritant or dermal 
sensitizer and shows minimal eye irritation.
    Asthmatic responses in humans (e.g., Konjac asthma or konnyaku 
asthma) exposed to airborne powders produced during commercial 
manufacture of konjac flour from konjac tubers has been reported. It 
has been associated with the inhalation of dust produced during the 
production of konjac flour to make konnyaku, a traditional jelly-like 
Asian food prepared from glucomannan. An inhalation exposure study with 
guinea pigs demonstrated that respiratory hypersensitivity to food 
grade konjac flour can be induced following repeated inhalation 
exposures. According to a more recent study, however, the antigen in 
konjac flour responsible for respiratory sensitization is actually a 
protein and not glucomannan.
    Several repeat-dose toxicity studies conducted on Sprague-Dawley 
rats are available for konjac flour: A four-week dietary study, a 
twelve-week feeding study, an 18-month dietary study, and an 8-week 
oral study with pregnant cats. Two carcinogenicity studies are also 
available.
    A four-week dietary exposure study was conducted with Sprague-
Dawley rats. Groups of four male rats were fed either 5% cellulose 
(control), 10% cellulose, 10% pectin or 10% konjac (~5,000 mg/kg/day) 
for 28 days. Compared to the control group, consumption of 10% konjac 
in the diet decreased the digestion and absorption of protein in the 
large intestine which resulted in a decrease in body weight gain. 
Because of the high dosing it is not certain if the effect seen is the 
result of excessive dosing or from the toxicity of chemical.
    In a twelve-week feeding study, groups of 12/sex, five week old 
Sprague-Dawley rats received the basal diet (a 1% cholesterol) or 
konjac meal

[[Page 19974]]

supplementation at 2.5, 5.0 or 10% of the diet (~1,250, 2,500, or 5,000 
mg/kg/day). Changes were seen on gross examination of the liver. The 
full study report was not available but according to the Food and 
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Joint 
Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) report, the author suggests 
the reason for this is that konjac flour binds with bile acids and 
depresses reabsorption in the intestines which consequently reduces the 
accumulation of lipids in the liver. All treated groups had reduced 
total cholesterol in comparison with the high-cholesterol control 
group. Body-weight gain was slightly but statistically significantly 
lower in males fed 10% refined konjac meal than in the other groups 
during the first eight weeks. Food intake was also reduced in this 
group. Therefore, the NOAEL is 5% of the diet (~2,500 mg/kg/day) with a 
LOAEL of 10% (~5,000 mg/kg/day) based on decreased body weight gain in 
males.
    An 18-month dietary study assessed groups of 15 Sprague-Dawley rats 
fed a basal diet or a diet with 1.0% konjac flour (~500 mg/kg/day). 
There was no difference in body weight gain, absolute or relative organ 
weights or femur weights and no evidence of treatment-related 
pathological changes or effects on calcium and phosphorus metabolism. 
Treated male rats had significantly lower serum cholesterol levels at 9 
and 18 months and lower triglycerides at 3 and 9 weeks but not 12 
months. In female rats, the only difference from the control was a 
lower triglyceride level at 18 months. The liver of treated rats had 
smaller more lightly stained nuclei and reduced bile duct proliferation 
in the portal area. Certain cells (not specified) of treated rats 
displayed fewer signs of senescence compared to controls. There was no 
evidence that 1% konjac flour in the diet (~500 mg/kg/day) was toxic to 
rats.
    Two groups of 15 adult pregnant British short-hair cats were fed 
diets containing either 2% carob gum or 2% konjac flour (0.98 to 3.08 
mg/kg/day prior to parturition) for eight weeks. There were no 
significant changes in body weight between controls and treated 
animals. Biochemical and hematological parameters were reported to be 
within normal ranges throughout the study. Mean birth weight of kittens 
born to control cats was statistically significantly lower (p >0.01) 
than kittens born to konjac fed cats; however, the standard deviation 
was within the range of controls and therefore, these effects are not 
considered adverse. All cats in the study completed lactation and 
reared successfully.
    There is no evidence that konjac glucomannan suppresses or 
otherwise harms immune function in mammalian systems. No signs of 
neurotoxicity were reported in the studies of acute or repeat-dose oral 
exposure to konjac glucomannan.
    Genotoxicity tests of konjac flour include an Ames test, a mouse 
lymphoma assay, and an in vivo mouse micronucleus test. All 
genotoxicity assays were negative. Konjac was not mutagenic in the Ames 
test and did not induce mutations in cultured mouse lymphoma cells or 
cause clastogenicity in the in vivo micronucleus study in the presence 
or absence of S-9 activation.
    Konjac glucomannan is not expected to be carcinogenic. In addition 
to showing negative results in genotoxicity and mutagenicity tests, a 
20-week and a 1-year feeding study were conducted and no evidenced of 
carcinogenicity was observed. In fact, the incidence of colon tumors in 
1,2-dimethylhydrazine DMH treated animals was significantly reduced 
with konjac glocomannan consumption. Similarly, spontaneous liver 
tumors in C3H/He mice were inhibited by maintaining the mice on a diet 
containing 10% glucomannan.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    No toxicological endpoint of concern has been identified for konjac 
glucomannan. Based on the available information as discussed in Unit 
IV.A., it is concluded that there is no end point of concern identified 
and therefore, quantitative risk assessment is not warranted.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary 
exposure to konjac glucomannan, EPA considered exposure under the 
proposed exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed 
dietary exposures from konjac glucomannan in food as follows:
    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to konjac glucomannan 
may occur following ingestion of foods with residues from treated 
crops. Additional dietary exposure may result from the use of konjac 
glucomannan as a food additive; it has been used as a thickener, 
texture stabilizer, emulsifier, and gelling agent in foods and 
beverages, as well as agriculture and animal feed. However, a 
quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted since a 
toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Since a hazard endpoint of 
concern was not identified for the acute and chronic dietary 
assessment, a quantitative dietary exposure risk assessment for 
drinking water was not conducted, although exposures may be expected 
from use on food crops.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is 
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary 
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming 
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). 
Although currently, there are no uses for konjac glucomannan in 
products that might result in residential exposure, it is possible that 
some may be requested in the future. Additional non-dietary exposure 
may occur from use of konjac glucomannan in pharmaceutical products and 
cosmetics. Based on the discussion above, a quantitative residential 
exposure assessment for konjac glucomannan was not conducted.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of 
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when 
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the 
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative 
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances 
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found konjac glucomannan to share a common mechanism of 
toxicity with any other substances, and konjac glucomannan does not 
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For 
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 
konjac glucomannan does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with 
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine 
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the 
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to retain an additional tenfold 
margin of safety in the case of threshold effects to ensure that there 
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and 
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. As 
noted in Unit IV.B., there is no indication of threshold effects being 
caused by konjac glucomannan. Therefore, this requirement does not

[[Page 19975]]

apply to the present analysis. Moreover, due to the lack of any 
toxicological endpoints of concern, EPA is conducting a qualitative 
assessment of konjac glucomannan, which does not use safety factors for 
assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing 
risk to infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Taking into consideration all available information on konjac 
glucomannan, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty 
that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate 
exposure to konjac glucomannan. Therefore, EPA concludes that the 
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance as requested by the 
petitioner--for residues of konjac glucomannan on growing crops when 
used as an inert ingredient (thickener), in pesticide formulations at a 
concentration not to exceed 1.0% by weight of the pesticide formulation 
is safe under FFDCA section 408.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since 
the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of 
konjac glucomannan in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing 
limitations on the amount of konjac glucomannan that may be used in 
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops. These limitations will 
be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 
136 et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for use on 
growing crops for sale or distribution that exceeds 1% by weight of 
konjac glucomannan.

B. Response to Comments

    One comment was received in response to the Notice of Filing. The 
comment was received from a private citizen who opposed the 
authorization to sell any pesticide that leaves a residue on food. The 
Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that no residue of 
pesticides should be allowed. However, under the existing legal 
framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) EPA is authorized to establish pesticide 
tolerances or exemptions where persons seeking such tolerances or 
exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety 
standard imposed by the statute. EPA has evaluated all the available 
data and concluded that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from 
the limited use of konjac glucomannan as inert ingredients in pesticide 
formulations. The commenter has not provided any information supporting 
a conclusion that this exemption would not be safe.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is 
established under 40 CFR 180.920 for konjac glucomannan (CAS Reg. No. 
37220-17-0) when used as an inert ingredient (thickener) in pesticide 
formulations applied to growing crops only at a concentration not to 
exceed 1.0% by weight of the pesticide formulation.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a 
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition 
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review 
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive 
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing 
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3, 
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject 
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under 
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis 
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this 
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the 
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food 
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this 
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and 
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions 
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that 
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government 
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has 
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this 
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded 
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would 
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant 
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required 
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 12, 2018.
Donna Davis,
Acting Division Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide 
Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.920, add alphabetically the inert ingredient ``Konjac 
glucomannan (CAS Reg. No. 37220-17-0)'' to the table to read as 
follows:

[[Page 19976]]

Sec.  180.920   Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the 
requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Konjac glucomannan (CAS Reg. No.  Not to exceed 1.0%  Thickener.
 37220-17-0).                      by weight in
                                   pesticide
                                   formulation.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-09649 Filed 5-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P