← Back to FR Documents
Final Rule

Indirect Food Additives: Adhesives and Components of Coatings; Paper and Paperboard Components; Polymers; Adjuvants, Production Aids, and Sanitizers

Final rule; response to objection; confirmation of effective date.

📖 Research Context From Federal Register API

Summary:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is responding to the objection that we received from the Environmental Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Environmental Protection Network, Environmental Working Group, and Healthy Babies Bright Futures on the final rule that amended the food additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of 25 plasticizers that the petition identified as ortho-phthalates because these food additive uses have been permanently abandoned. After reviewing the objection, FDA has concluded that the objection does not provide a basis for modifying FDA's final rule amending the food additive regulations.

Key Dates
Citation: 89 FR 86239
The effective date of May 20, 2022, for the final rule published on May 20, 2022 (87 FR 31080), is confirmed.
Public Participation
0 comments 7 supporting docs
View on Regulations.gov →

In Plain English

What is this Federal Register notice?

This is a final rule published in the Federal Register by Health and Human Services Department, Food and Drug Administration. Final rules have completed the public comment process and establish legally binding requirements.

Is this rule final?

Yes. This rule has been finalized. It has completed the notice-and-comment process required under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Who does this apply to?

Final rule; response to objection; confirmation of effective date.

When does it take effect?

This document has been effective since May 20, 2022.

Document Details

Document Number2024-25122
FR Citation89 FR 86239
TypeFinal Rule
PublishedOct 30, 2024
Effective DateMay 20, 2022
RIN-
Docket IDDocket No. FDA-2018-F-3757
Pages86239–86241 (3 pages)
Text FetchedYes

Linked CFR Parts

PartNameAgency
21 CFR 178 Indirect Food Additives: Adjuvants, Prod... -
21 CFR 177 Indirect Food Additives: Polymers... -
21 CFR 175 Indirect Food Additives: Adhesives and C... -
21 CFR 176 Indirect Food Additives: Paper and Paper... -

Paired Documents

TypeProposedFinalMethodConf
No paired documents

External Links

⏳ Requirements Extraction Pending

This document's regulatory requirements haven't been extracted yet. Extraction happens automatically during background processing (typically within a few hours of document ingestion).

Federal Register documents are immutable—once extracted, requirements are stored permanently and never need re-processing.

Full Document Text (2,060 words · ~11 min read)

Text Preserved
<RULE> DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES <SUBAGY>Food and Drug Administration</SUBAGY> <CFR>21 CFR Parts 175, 176, 177, and 178</CFR> <DEPDOC>[Docket No. FDA-2018-F-3757]</DEPDOC> <SUBJECT>Indirect Food Additives: Adhesives and Components of Coatings; Paper and Paperboard Components; Polymers; Adjuvants, Production Aids, and Sanitizers</SUBJECT> <HD SOURCE="HED">AGENCY:</HD> Food and Drug Administration, HHS. <HD SOURCE="HED">ACTION:</HD> Final rule; response to objection; confirmation of effective date. <SUM> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUMMARY:</HD> The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is responding to the objection that we received from the Environmental Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Environmental Protection Network, Environmental Working Group, and Healthy Babies Bright Futures on the final rule that amended the food additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of 25 plasticizers that the petition identified as <E T="03">ortho</E> -phthalates because these food additive uses have been permanently abandoned. After reviewing the objection, FDA has concluded that the objection does not provide a basis for modifying FDA's final rule amending the food additive regulations. </SUM> <EFFDATE> <HD SOURCE="HED">DATES:</HD> The effective date of May 20, 2022, for the final rule published on May 20, 2022 (87 FR 31080), is confirmed. </EFFDATE> <HD SOURCE="HED">ADDRESSES:</HD> For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to <E T="03">https://www.regulations.gov</E> and insert the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this final rule into the “Search” box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500. <FURINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</HD> Stephen DiFranco, Office of Food Chemical Safety, Dietary Supplements, and Innovation (HFS-275), Human Foods Program, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-2710; or Lauren Kleinman, Human Foods Program, Office of Policy, Regulations and Information (HFS-024), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2378. </FURINF> <SUPLINF> <HD SOURCE="HED">SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:</HD> <HD SOURCE="HD1">I. Background</HD> In the <E T="04">Federal Register</E> of November 14, 2018 (83 FR 56750), we announced that we filed a food additive petition (FAP 8B4820) (Petition) submitted by The Flexible Vinyl Alliance (FVA or Petitioner), c/o Keller and Heckman, LLP, 1001 G St. NW, Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001. The Petition requested that we amend our food additive regulations in parts 175, 176, 177, and 178 (21 CFR parts 175, 176, 177, and 178) to no longer provide for the use of 26 plasticizer substances that the Petition identified as <E T="03">ortho</E> -phthalates. (FAP 8B4820 submitted by FVA claimed that the food additive uses of di(2-ethylhexyl) hexahydrophthalate and diphenylguanidine phthalate are abandoned. We note that these substances are not chemically classified as <E T="03">ortho</E> -phthalates and that characterization as such is incorrect.) The Petition requested that we revoke the approvals on the basis that the food additive uses have been permanently abandoned. One of the 26 plasticizers identified in the Petition was diallyl phthalate (Chemical Abstract Services number (CAS Reg No.) 131-17-9). The filing document indicated that this substance may be used as a food additive under §§ 175.105, 176.180, 176.300, and 177.1210 (21 CFR 175.105, 176.180, 176.300, and 177.1210) (see 83 FR 56750). However, upon further review, we determined that the use of diallyl phthalate is only authorized for use in these regulations as a monomer to produce polymers and not as a plasticizer. FVA made no claims in their Petition that the use of polymers produced with diallyl phthalate for food contact applications have been abandoned. Thus, after FDA followed up with the Petitioner, diallyl phthalate was no longer subject to this Petition (87 FR 31080). In the <E T="04">Federal Register</E> of May 20, 2022 (87 FR 31080), FDA issued a final rule amending the food additive regulations in parts 175, 176, 177, and 178 to no longer provide for the use of 25 plasticizers in various food contact applications (final rule). We gave interested persons until June 21, 2022, to file objections and requests for a hearing on the final rule. <HD SOURCE="HD1">II. Objection and Comments</HD> Section 409(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(f)(1)) provides that, within 30 days after publication of an order relating to a food additive regulation, any person adversely affected by such order may file objections, specifying with particularity, the provisions of the order deemed objectionable, stating reasonable grounds therefor and requesting a public hearing upon such objections. Under 21 CFR 171.110, objections and requests for a hearing relating to food additive regulations are governed by 21 CFR part 12. Under §  12.22(a) (21 CFR 12.22(a)), each objection must: (1) be submitted on or before the 30th day after the date of publication of the final rule; (2) be separately numbered; (3) specify with particularity the provision of the regulation or proposed order objected to; (4) specifically state each objection on which a hearing is requested; failure to request a hearing on an objection constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection; and (5) include a detailed description and analysis of the factual information to be presented in support of the objection if a hearing is requested; failure to include a description and analysis for an objection constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Following the publication of the final rule in which we granted the Petition asserting abandonment of the 25 plasticizers in various food contact uses, we received a submission from the Environmental Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Environmental Protection Network, Environmental Working Group, and Healthy Babies Bright Futures (Objectors) containing one objection and two comments (see submission from Tom Neltner, Senior Director for Safer Chemicals, Environmental Defense Fund, et al., submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, dated June 19, 2022 (Submission) (Ref. 1). The Submission does not contain a request for a hearing. <HD SOURCE="HD1">III. Analysis of Objections and Comments</HD> The Submission contains one numbered objection and two numbered comments. We address each objection and comment below. <HD SOURCE="HD2">A. Objection 1</HD> The Submission states that “The agency [improperly] denied FVA's request to remove approval of diallyl phthalate because it was used as a monomer to produce polymers and not as a plasticizer” (Ref. 1 at page 1). The Submission states that the FVA survey that FVA submitted to provide evidence of abandonment asked survey recipients about food contact applications for the listed substances, not about use of the listed substances as plasticizers. According to this objection, FVA “clearly considered diallyl phthalate as abandoned,” and therefore FDA should have removed diallyl phthalate from its food additive regulations on the basis that its use has been abandoned. The Submission also states the Objectors are not requesting a hearing on this Objection. Therefore, the Objectors have waived any right to a hearing on their Objection (see §  12.22(a)(4)). The only remaining question under §  12.24(a) is whether the Objection establishes that the final rule should be modified or revoked with respect to diallyl phthalate. As described below, we conclude that the Objectors have not established a basis for modifying or revoking the final rule. As FDA stated in the <E T="04">Federal Register</E> document announcing the final rule, after following up with the Petitioner, diallyl phthalate was no longer subject to the Petition. In an email correspondence dated July 20, 2018, between FDA and FVA's agent, FVA confirmed that diallyl phthalate is not within the scope of the abandonment request (see also 87 FR 31080 at 31080 through 31081; Ref. 2). Thus, diallyl phthalate was removed from the Petition. Because diallyl phthalate was removed from the scope of the Petition, when FDA issued the final rule granting the Petition, the final rule did not cover diallyl phthalate. Thus, the final rule did not impact the regulatory authorizations for diallyl phthalate. Accordingly, FDA's actions regarding diallyl phthalate were reasonable, and there is no need for FDA to modify or revoke the final rule in response to Objection 1. <HD SOURCE="HD2">B. Comment 1</HD> The Submission asserts that FDA should remove the existing prior sanctioned uses of diethyl phthalate (CAS Reg. No. 84-66-2), diisooctyl phthalate (CAS Reg. No. 27554-26-3), ethylphthalyl ethyl glycolate (CAS Reg No. 84-72-0), and butylphthalyl butyl glycolate (CAS Reg. No. 85-70-1) as a plasticizer at § 181.27 (Ref. 1 at page 3). The Submission states that the survey that FVA used to support the request to remove food additive approvals for these substances did not differentiate between food additive and prior-sanctioned uses of these substances, and so therefore the prior-sanctioned uses should also be considered abandoned. The comment states that based on this evidence, FDA should have either removed the prior-sanction approvals as part of the final rule “or initiated rulemaking to do so.” Prior-sanctioned uses are beyond the scope of food additive petitions, which apply only to substances that meet the definition of “food additive” in section 201(s) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s)). Consequently, prior-sanctioned uses are not the subject of the final rule (87 FR 3108 ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Preview showing 10k of 14k characters. Full document text is stored and available for version comparison. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
This text is preserved for citation and comparison. View the official version for the authoritative text.