[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 https://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.
    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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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 
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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: https://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.
    <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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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, https://www.regulations.gov. 
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 http://www.regulations.gov 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>