Rule2022-09655
Hydrolyzed Vegetable Proteins From Soy; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 5, 2022
Effective
May 5, 2022
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy when used as an inert ingredient (pH adjusting agent, surfactant, or adhesive) in pesticide products applied to growing crops pre-harvest, limited to 25% in the pesticide formulation. SciReg, Inc. on behalf of Italpollina USA, Inc. 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 hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy when used in accordance with this exemption.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 87 (Thursday, May 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26687-26691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09655]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0204; FRL-9556-01-OCSPP]
Hydrolyzed Vegetable Proteins From Soy; 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 hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy
when used as an inert ingredient (pH adjusting agent, surfactant, or
adhesive) in pesticide products applied to growing crops pre-harvest,
limited to 25% in the pesticide formulation. SciReg, Inc. on behalf of
Italpollina USA, Inc. 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 hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy when used in
accordance with this exemption.
DATES: This regulation is effective May 5, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 5, 2022, 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-2018-0204, is
[[Page 26688]]
available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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.
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is open to visitors by
appointment only. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services
and access, visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-1030; email address:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86d4c2c0d4c8e9f2efe5e3f5c6e3f6e7a8e1e9f0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8fddcbc9ddc1e0fbe6eceafccfeaffeea1e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a>.
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:
<bullet> Crop production (NAICS code 111).
<bullet> Animal production (NAICS code 112).
<bullet> Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
<bullet> 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 Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
<a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40">https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40</a>.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2018-0204 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 5, 2022. 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-2018-0204, by one of
the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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.
<bullet> Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
<bullet> Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html</a>.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
II. Petition for Exemption
In the Federal Register of April 19, 2019 (84 FR 16430) (FRL-9991-
14), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11079) by
SciReg, Inc. (12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192) on behalf of
Italpollina USA, Inc. (name changed to Hello Nature USA, Inc.) (1100
South Tower, 225 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30303). The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.920 be amended by establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins when used as an inert ingredient (pH adjusting
agent, surfactant, or adhesive) in pesticide products applied to
growing crops pre-harvest under 40 CFR 180.920. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by SciReg, Inc. on behalf
of Italpollina USA, Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0204, <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
There were no relevant comments received in response to the notice of
filing. The petitioner subsequently requested a limitation of not more
than 25% hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy in pesticide
formulations for use under 40 CFR 180.920.
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(c)(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
[[Page 26689]]
demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide
chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose
no harm 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 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 hydrolyzed vegetable proteins
from soy including exposure resulting from the exemption established by
this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy 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 hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy
as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> in the document titled ``Hydrolyzed
Vegetable Proteins from Soy; Human Health Risk Assessment and
Ecological Effects Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in
Pesticide Formulations'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0204.
Hydrolyzed vegetable proteins (also referred to as vegetable
hydrolysates) are produced through hydrolysis of proteins derived from
plants such as soybeans, peas, corn, alfalfa, potatoes or chickpeas.
This process breaks the protein down to small peptides, reduces the
molecular weight of the original protein and reduces the antigenicity
and allergenicity of the protein. It is expected that systemic toxicity
is similar for all hydrolyzed vegetable proteins regardless the
vegetable source. Since toxicity data on hydrolyzed vegetable proteins
from soy are limited, toxicity data on hydrolyzed vegetable proteins
from various sources are used to bridge data gaps. Acute and repeated
dose toxicity studies summarized were conducted with a variety of
hydrolyzed vegetables including soybean, potatoes, lupine, avocado,
casein and hemp seed meal.
Acute toxicity studies conducted with vegetable hydrolysates from
various vegetables are limited. The acute oral toxicity is low in rats
treated with soy protein hydrolysates (also known as hydrolyzed
vegetable protein from soy). The lethal dose, LD<INF>50</INF> is >5,000
milligrams per kilogram bodyweight (mg/kg). Vegetable hydrolysates from
soy and lupine proteins do not cause skin irritation in rabbits. In
vitro studies with human skin show no irritation with vegetable
hydrolysates from potatoes. No eye irritation is observed in rabbits
treated with vegetable hydrolysates from soy, nor in in vitro studies
with human cornea treated with vegetable hydrolysates from potatoes.
Slight eye irritation is observed in rabbits treated with vegetable
hydrolysates from lupine. Vegetable hydrolysates from avocado and
lupine proteins are not dermal sensitizers in the mouse local lymph
node assay (LLNA) or the guinea pig maximization test, respectively.
An 8-week oral toxicity study in rats treated with hydrolysates
from hemp seed meal show no adverse effects up to 1,000 milligrams/
kilogram/day (mg/kg/day), the limit dose. Also, no toxicity is seen in
rats treated with approximately 20,000 mg/kg/day of hydrolysates from
Lupinus albus and L. luteus for 112 days via the diet.
No developmental, reproduction or carcinogen toxicity studies are
available for review. However, as stated above, no toxicity is seen in
repeated dose studies with hydrolysates of vegetable proteins in rats
up to 20,000 mg/kg/day. No evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity
is seen in the available studies.
Mutagenicity studies are available with hydrolyzed vegetable
protein from potato, lupine and pea proteins. Ames tests conducted with
these hydrolyzed vegetable proteins were negative. Therefore,
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins are not expected to be mutagenic.
To assess the immunologic response against hydrolyzed vegetable
proteins from soy, dogs were sensitized to non-hydrolyzed soy protein
over a 90-day period then were exposed to either non-hydrolyzed or
hydrolyzed soy intradermally (30 days after sensitization) and orally
(8 months after sensitization). Dogs intradermally exposed to
hydrolyzed soy protein experienced an inflammatory response that was
half the response detected after injection of non-hydrolyzed soy
protein. Dogs orally exposed to hydrolyzed soy protein up to 17.75
grams over the course of 150 minutes did not experience clinical signs
or reactions.
While hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy are not toxic, there
is a potential for allergenicity from soy proteins. The concern is low
for the potential for allergenicity from hydrolyzed vegetable proteins
from soy due to dietary exposure because the hydrolysis process breaks
down the protein structure to reduce allergenicity to hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins from soy. Enzymatic hydrolysis of soybean proteins
is a common process used by industry to improve functional properties
and has been used to reduce allergenicity in making hypoallergenic
soybean products. Soybean products are well known products that have
been used as food for a very long time. The methods for elimination of
allergenicity are always the same: Denaturation by heat or pH change
and hydrolysis by any means that degrade the protein structures. In the
current petition, the proprietary method used to hydrolyze soybean
proteins is such that no allergenic protein is expected to remain
intact in the finished product. Although, the hydrolysis process is
partial, any non-hydrolyzed soy proteins, which are those presenting a
residual risk of allergenicity, are removed by centrifugation from the
solution.
To further demonstrate that the enzymatic hydrolysis of soy
proteins is effective in reducing antigenicity and allergenicity, a Soy
ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) was conducted with hydrolyzed
soy proteins extracted from soybean oil cake. The Soy ELISA test is a
highly sensitive detection system used to detect soy residues in
foodstuffs and has a level of quantification of 1.7 mg/kg soy. Through
the detection of reactive robust indicator proteins called soy trypsin
inhibitors, soy content and allergenic potential can be evaluated in
test samples. The concentration of soy trypsin inhibitor proteins is
directly proportional to the concentration of soy
[[Page 26690]]
in a test sample. No soy trypsin inhibitors were found in any samples
of vegetable hydrolysates from soy, indicating a negative result for
the presence of residual soy allergenic proteins in hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins from soy within the LOQ of the ELISA assay. Although
the LOQ for the ELISA test is 1.7 mg/kg of soy, the soy protein
hydrolysates contain only hydrolyzed protein, which has been shown to
have low allergenic potential as explained above. Therefore, there is
low concern for allergenicity from soy protein hydrolysates at levels
below the LOQ.
Moreover, residues of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy used
in pesticide formulations in accordance with the tolerance exemption
established in this action will be exposed to the effects of weather
and microbial degradation before the treated crop enters the food
chain. Therefore, based on the hydrolysis process, the negative ELISA
assay and the expected effects of weather and microbial degradation,
the concern is low for the potential allergenicity of hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins from soy.
B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern
The available toxicity studies indicate that vegetable hydrolysates
from soy have very low overall toxicity. Since no toxicity is observed
in the available studies, an endpoint of concern for risk assessment
purposes was not identified. Therefore, a qualitative risk assessment
was conducted for acute and chronic dietary exposures and short- and
intermediate-term incidental oral, dermal and inhalation exposures.
C. Exposure Assessment
1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy, EPA considered
exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance and from existing uses. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy in food as follows.
Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to hydrolyzed vegetable
proteins from soy may occur following ingestion of foods with residues
from their use in accordance with this exemption. Dietary exposure may
also occur after ingestion of food residues from their use in
fertilizer products, dietary treatment for specific health conditions
and use as a food additive (plant protein products) according to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under 21 CFR 170.3(n)(33).
However, a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted
since a toxicological endpoint for risk assessment was not identified.
2. 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).
Hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy may be used in pesticide
products and non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the
home (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
cosmetics and personal care products). A quantitative residential
exposure assessment was not conducted since a toxicological endpoint
for risk assessment was not identified.
3. 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.''
Based on the lack of toxicity in the available data, hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins from soy and its metabolites are not expected to
share a common mechanism of toxicity with other chemicals; therefore,
section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) does not apply.
D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA concludes that
a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children.
Based on the lack of threshold effects, EPA has not identified any
toxicological endpoints of concern and is conducting a qualitative
assessment of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy. The qualitative
assessment does not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no
additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and
children. Based on an assessment of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from
soy, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of
concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children.
E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety
Taking into consideration all available information on hydrolyzed
vegetable proteins from soy, EPA has determined that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy residues. Therefore, the
establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under
40 CFR 180.920 for residues of hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy
when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops pre-harvest limited to 25% in the final formulation, is
safe under FFDCA section 408.
V. Other Considerations
Analytical Enforcement Methodology
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy in or on any food commodities.
EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of hydrolyzed vegetable
proteins from soy that may be used in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops pre-harvest. This limitation 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 such pesticide formulation that exceeds 25% of
hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy.
VI. Conclusions
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.920 for hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from
soy when used as an inert ingredient (pH adjusting agent, surfactant,
or adhesive) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops pre-
harvest limited to 25% in the formulation.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action establishes a tolerance exemption 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
[[Page 26691]]
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). 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 tolerance
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 29, 2022.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:
PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD
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, amend table 1 to 180.920, by adding in
alphabetical order ``Hydrolyzed vegetable proteins from soy'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 180.920 Inert ingredients used pre-harvest; exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance.
* * * * *
Table 1 to 180.920
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inert ingredients Limits Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Hydrolyzed vegetable proteins Not to exceed 25% pH adjusting
from soy. of pesticide agent,
formulation. surfactant,
adhesive.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2022-09655 Filed 5-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 5, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.