[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33308-33313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15912]
[[Page 33307]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Agriculture
_______________________________________________________________________
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
_______________________________________________________________________
Special Research Grants Program--Pest Management Alternatives Research:
Special Program Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues for
Fiscal Year 1997; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 117 / Wednesday, June 18, 1997 /
Notices
[[Page 33308]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Special Research Grants Program--Pest Management Alternatives
Research: Special Program Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues
for Fiscal Year 1997; Request for Proposals
AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice of availability of grant funds and request for proposals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Proposals are invited for competitive grant awards under the
Special Research Grants Program--Pest Management Alternatives Research:
Special Program addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues for
fiscal year (FY) 1997. This program addresses anticipated changes in
pest management on food and feed crops resulting from pesticide review
under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), Public Law 104-
170. The goal of the program is to develop or identify alternatives for
critical needs to insure that crop food producers have reliable methods
of managing pest problems. The program has been developed pursuant to
the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
signed August 15, 1994, and amended April 18, 1996, which establishes a
coordinated framework for these two agencies to support programs that
make alternative pest management materials available to agricultural
producers when regulatory action by EPA or voluntary cancellation by
the registrant results in the unavailability of certain agricultural
pesticides or pesticide uses. In this MOU, USDA and EPA agreed to: (1)
Cooperate in supporting the development and implementation of
agricultural pest management approaches that are conducted in the most
environmentally-sound manner possible, with sufficient pest management
alternatives to reduce risks to human health and the environment, to
reduce the incidence of pest resistance to pesticides and to ensure
economical agricultural production; and (2) cooperate in establishing a
process to conduct the research, technology transfer and registration
activities necessary to ensure adequate pest management alternatives
are available to meet important agricultural needs for situations in
which regulatory action would result in pest management problems.
The emphasis of this program is to develop mitigation strategies
and/or pest management alternatives based on use and usage data for
pesticides that are considered a high priority for tolerance review and
reassessment under FQPA.
DATES: Project grant applications must be received on or before August
4, 1997. Proposals received after August 4, 1997 will not be considered
for funding.
ADDRESSES: Proposals sent by First Class mail must be sent to the
following address: Proposal Services Unit, Grants Management Branch;
Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2245. Telephone:
(202) 401-5048.
Proposals that are delivered by Express mail, courier service, or
by hand must be sent to the following address: Proposal Services Unit,
Grants Management Branch; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of
Agriculture; Room 303, Aerospace Center; 901 D Street, S.W.;
Washington, D.C. 20024. Telephone: (202) 401-5048.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Fitzner, Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of
Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington,
D.C. 20250-2220. Telephone: (202) 401-4939; fax number: (202) 401-4888;
e-mail address: mfitzner@reeusda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority
This program is administered by the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), USDA. The authority is
contained in section 2(c)(1)(A) of the Act of August 4, 1965, Public
Law 89-106, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)(1)(A)). Under this authority,
subject to the availability of funds, the Secretary may make grants,
for periods not to exceed five years, to State agricultural experiment
stations, all colleges and universities, other research institutions
and organizations, Federal agencies, private organizations or
corporations, and individuals for the purpose of conducting research to
facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the food and
agricultural sciences of importance to the United States.
Proposals from scientists affiliated with non-United States
organizations are not eligible for funding nor are scientists who are
directly or indirectly engaged in the registration of pesticides for
profit; however, their collaboration with funded projects is
encouraged.
The Pest Management Alternatives Program was established to support
the development and implementation of pest management alternatives when
regulatory action by EPA or voluntary cancellation by the registrant
results in the unavailability of certain agricultural pesticides or
pesticide uses. On January 6, 1997, the program solicited proposals
addressing a specific list of pest-crop combinations, and funds have
been obligated for proposals recommended for funding by a review panel.
The special program described in this second request for proposals will
address specific needs anticipated to result from implementation of the
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Approximately, $400,000 from the
Pest Management Alternatives Program with additional funding from EPA
is being made available for this request for proposals. Any proposal
meeting the criteria under this RFP will be considered for funding
provided the eligibility requirements are met.
Available Funding
The amount available for support of this program in FY 1997 is
approximately $700,000. Proposals should be for no more than a two-year
period. However, proposals that focus on or the portion of the proposal
that focuses on the generation of use and usage data (see ``Use and
Usage Data Acquisition'' section below) must be completed within one
year.
Section 712 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, Public
Law 104-180, prohibits CSREES from paying indirect costs on research
grants that exceed 14 percent of total Federal funds provided for each
award under this program. In addition, section 716(b) of that Act
provides that, in the case of any equipment or product that may be
authorized to be purchased with funds appropriated under that Act,
entities receiving such funds are encouraged to use such funds to
purchase only American-made equipment or products.
Applicable Regulations
This program is subject to the administrative provisions for the
Special Research Grants Program found in 7 CFR Part 3400 (56 FR 58147,
November 15, 1991), which set forth procedures to be followed when
submitting grant proposals, rules governing the evaluation of
proposals,
[[Page 33309]]
the processes regarding the awarding of grants, and regulations
relating to the post-award administration of such grants. Other Federal
statutes and regulations apply to grant proposals considered for review
or to grants awarded under this program. These include, but are not
limited to:
7 CFR Part 3019--USDA Uniform Administrative Requirements for
Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals,
and Other Non-Profit Organizations; and
7 CFR Part 3051--Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and
Other Nonprofit Institutions.
Program Description
This competitive grants program addresses the need for reliable
pesticide use and usage data, and modification of existing approaches
or introduction of new methods that can be rapidly brought to bear on
pest management challenges. This program was created to meet the policy
goals set forth in sections 1439 and 1484 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act of 1990, Public Law 101-624. These
activities pertain to pesticides identified for possible regulatory
action under section 210 of FQPA, that amends the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
CSREES is seeking proposals that address implementation of FQPA
through two categories of activity: (1) The acquisition of use and
usage data and (2) the identification or development of replacement or
mitigation technologies. Proposals to conduct one or both of the
following two categories of activity will be accepted.
I. Use and Usage Data Acquisition: Data generation and analyses
establishing the scope of potential alternative pest management needs
for a large number of crops, especially minor crops, which currently
rely on pesticides identified in Appendix I. Data on the actual amount
of use and specific use patterns of identified pesticides are desired
as are the analyses that will help determine and refine the scope of
future research needed to develop mitigation or alternative management
strategies. These data and analyses should lead to an improved
understanding of how identified pesticides are used on various crops,
the role of each pesticide and its particular use pattern for pest
management, potential alternative management strategies and associated
constraints, and options for mitigating dietary risk through altering
use patterns while maintaining the benefits of the pesticide (however,
residue analyses will not be supported with these funds). Emphasis
should be placed on the ability to capture data needed by decision-
makers in a form that facilitates data entry and that allows
manipulation for data analysis and report generation. Proposals for an
information management system will be considered. Proposals under this
category must complete and provide a final report within one year.
Successful applicants will be provided with information to submit use
and usage data electronically.
II. Replacement or Mitigation Technologies
Identification and demonstration of pest management alternatives or
mitigation procedures for one or more pesticides identified in Appendix
I for which there are no effective alternatives. The focus should be on
modification of existing approaches or introduction of new methods,
especially ecologically-based methods, that can be rapidly brought to
bear on pest management challenges resulting from implementation of
FQPA. Durability and practicality of the proposed pest management
option(s) or mitigation procedure(s), and compatibility with integrated
pest management systems is critical. Both technological and economic
feasibility should be considered. Pest management alternatives or risk
mitigation options identified should address various EPA risk concerns
for pesticides being reviewed under FQPA (e.g., dietary or worker
exposure, groundwater or ecological risk). Replacements for methyl
bromide are not addressed by this request for proposals.
Proposals must show evidence of significant involvement of
producers or other pesticide user groups in project design and
implementation, including data acquisition and analysis, and the
identification of potential solutions. Producers as used herein refers
to farmers or users. Public-private partnerships and matching resources
from non-Federal sources, including producer or commodity groups, are
encouraged. Proposals should describe how state and federal
registrations of new pest management options will be obtained when they
are required prior to use of new methods.
Proposal Format
Members of review committees and the staff expect each project
description to be complete in itself. The administrative provisions
governing the Special Research Grants Program, 7 CFR Part 3400, set
forth instructions for the preparation of grant proposals. The
following requirements deviate from those contained in Sec. 3400.4(c).
The following provisions of this solicitation shall apply. Proposals
submitted to the program should address the format requirements
described below.
The pages should be numbered. The text must be prepared on only one
side of the page, single-spaced, using no type less than 12 point (10
cpi) font size with one-inch margins. Items (3) through (6) should
total no more than 12 pages.
(1) Application for Funding (Form CSREES-661). All proposals must
contain an Application for Funding, Form CSREES-661, which must be
signed by the proposed principal investigator(s) and endorsed by the
cognizant Authorized Organizational Representative who possesses the
necessary authority to commit the applicant's time and other relevant
resources. Principal investigators who do not sign the proposal cover
sheet will not be listed on the grant document in the event an award is
made. The title of the proposal must be brief (80-character maximum),
yet represent the major emphasis of the project. Because this title
will be used to provide information to those who may not be familiar
with the proposed project, highly technical words or phraseology should
be avoided where possible. In addition, phrases such as ``investigation
of'' or ``research on'' should not be used.
(2) Table of Contents. For ease in locating information, each
proposal must contain a detailed table of contents just after the
proposal cover page. The Table of Contents should include page numbers
for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately
following the Table of Contents.
(3) Executive Summary. Describe the project in terms that can be
understood by a diverse audience of university personnel, producers,
various public and private groups, budget staff, and the general
public. This should be on a separate page, no more than one page in
length and have the following format: Name(s) of principal
investigator(s) and institutional affiliation, project title, key words
and project summary.
(4) Problem Statement. Identify the pest management problem
addressed, its significance and options for solution. Define the scope
of the proposed project in terms of the number of pesticide products
and commodities to be evaluated. Describe the production area addressed
by the proposed solution and the potential applicability to other
production regions. This includes the documentation of uses and use
patterns, evaluation of significant reduction of risk to human health
or the
[[Page 33310]]
environment; viable alternatives; and potential losses that will occur
without the alternative(s) or mitigation procedures being developed
under this proposal.
(5) Rationale and Significance. Provide explicit documentation on
the basis and rationale for the proposed project, including pesticide
use, timing of application, rates of application, pest pressure and
other use parameters that are documented in various crop production
regions (See Appendix II). Environmental issues, human safety, or
resistance management concerns should be addressed, as appropriate, if
they are expected to be impacted by cancellation or revision of
tolerances under FQPA. Compatibility with current integrated pest
management (IPM) and crop production practices, technologic and
economic feasibility and potential durability should be addressed.
(6) Research, Education and Technology Transfer Plan. Each proposal
should provide a detailed plan for the research, education and
technology transfer required to implement the alternative solution in
the field, and should identify milestones.
(7) User Involvement. Provide documentation on producer or other
pesticide user involvement in identification of the proposed solution
and involvement in implementing the proposed solution. Involvement of
producers or other pesticide users either through funding, proposal
development, or project performance, is mandatory for funding.
(8) Facilities and Equipment. All facilities and major items of
equipment that are available for use or assignment to the proposed
research project during the requested period of support should be
described. In addition, items of nonexpendable equipment necessary to
conduct and successfully conclude the proposed project should be listed
with the amount and justification for each item.
(9) Collaborative Arrangements. If the nature of the proposed
project requires collaboration or subcontractual arrangements with
other research scientists, corporations, organizations, agencies, or
entities, the applicant must identify the collaborator(s) and provide a
full explanation of the nature of the collaboration. Funding
contributions by collaborators that will be used to accomplish the
stated objectives should be identified. Evidence (i.e., letters of
intent) should be provided to assure peer reviewers that the
collaborators involved have agreed to render this service. In addition,
the proposal must indicate whether or not such a collaborative
arrangement(s) has the potential for conflict(s) of interest.
(10) Personnel Support. To assist peer reviewers in assessing the
competence and experience of the proposed project staff, key personnel
who will be involved in the proposed project must be clearly
identified. For each principal investigator involved, and for all
senior associates and other professional personnel who are expected to
work on the project, whether or not funds are sought for their support,
the following should be included:
(i) An estimate of the time commitments necessary;
(ii) Curriculum vitae. The curriculum vitae should be limited to a
presentation of academic and research credentials, e.g., educational,
employment and professional history, and honors and awards. Unless
pertinent to the project, to personal status, or to the status of the
organization, meetings attended, seminars given, or personal data such
as birth date, marital status, or community activities should not be
included. Each vitae shall be no more than two pages in length,
excluding the publication lists; and
(iii) Publication List(s). A chronological list of all publications
in referred journals during the past five years, including those in
press, must be provided for each professional project member for whom a
curriculum vitae is provided. Authors should be listed in the same
order as they appear on each paper cited, along with the title and
complete reference as these items usually appear in journals.
(11) Budget. A detailed budget is required for each year of
requested support. In addition, a summary budget is required detailing
requested support for the overall project period. A copy of the form
which must be used for this purpose, Form CSREES-55, along with
instructions for completion, is included in the Application Kit and may
be reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be requested under any
of the categories listed, provided that the item or service for which
support is requested may be identified as necessary for successful
conduct of the proposed project, is allowable under applicable Federal
cost principles, and is not prohibited under any applicable Federal
statute. However, the recovery of indirect costs under this program may
not exceed the lesser of the grantee institution's official negotiated
indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 14 percent of total Federal
funds awarded. This limitation also applies to the recovery of indirect
costs by any subawardee or subcontractor, and should be reflected in
the subrecipient budget.
Note: For projects awarded under the authority of Section
2(c)(1)(A) of Public Law 89-106, no funds will be awarded for the
renovation or refurbishment of research spaces; the purchase or
installation of fixed equipment in such spaces; or for the planning,
repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of a building
or facility.
(12) Research Involving Special Considerations. If it is
anticipated that the research project will involve recombinant DNA or
RNA research, experimental vertebrate animals, or human subjects, an
Assurance Statement, Form CSREES-662, must be completed and included in
the proposal. Please note that grant funds will not be released until
CSREES receives and approves documentation indicating approval by the
appropriate institutional committee(s) regarding DNA or RNA research,
animal care, or the protection of human subjects, as applicable.
(13) Current and Pending Support. All proposals must contain Form
CSREES-663 listing this proposal and any other current public or
private research support (including in-house support) to which key
personnel identified in the proposal have committed portions of their
time, whether or not salary support for the person(s) involved is
included in the budget. Analogous information must be provided for any
pending proposals that are being considered by, or that will be
submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors, including
other USDA programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of identical or
similar proposals to other possible sponsors will not prejudice
proposal review or evaluation by the Administrator of CSREES for this
purpose. However, a proposal that duplicates or overlaps substantially
with a proposal already reviewed and funded (or that will be funded) by
another organization or agency will not be funded under this program.
(14) Additions to Project Description. The Administrator of CSREES,
the members of peer review groups, and the relevant program staff
expect each project description to be complete while meeting the page
limit established in this section (Proposal Format). However, if the
inclusion of additional information is necessary to ensure the
equitable evaluation of the proposal (e.g., photographs that do not
reproduce well, reprints, and other pertinent materials that are deemed
to be unsuitable for inclusion in the text of the proposal), then 14
copies of the materials should be submitted. Each set of such materials
must be identified with the name of the submitting organization, and
the name(s) of the
[[Page 33311]]
principal investigator(s). Information may not be appended to a
proposal to circumvent page limitations prescribed for the project
description. Extraneous materials will not be used during the peer
review process.
(15) Organizational Management Information. Specific management
information relating to an applicant shall be submitted on a one-time
basis prior to the award of a grant for this program if such
information has not been provided previously under this or another
program for which the sponsoring agency is responsible. If necessary,
USDA will contact an applicant to request organizational management
information once a proposal has been recommended for funding.
Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act
As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (CSREES's implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.)), the environmental data or documentation for any
proposed project is to be provided to CSREES in order to assist CSREES
in carrying out its responsibilities under NEPA. In some cases,
however, the preparation of environmental data or documentation may not
be required. Certain categories of actions are excluded from the
requirements of NEPA. The USDA and CSREES exclusions are listed in 7
CFR 1b.3 and 7 CFR 3407.6, respectively.
In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is
needed with respect to NEPA (e.g., preparation of an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS)), pertinent
information regarding the possible environmental impacts of a proposed
project is necessary; therefore, the National Environmental Policy Act
Exclusions Form (Form CSREES-1234) provided in the Application Kit must
be included in the proposal indicating whether the applicant is of the
opinion that the project falls within one or more of the categorical
exclusions. Form CSREES-1234 should follow Form CSREES-661, Application
for Funding, in the proposal.
Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions,
CSREES may determine that an EA or an EIS is necessary for an activity,
if substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or if other
extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present that may cause
such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
Proposal Evaluation
Proposals will be evaluated by the Administrator of CSREES assisted
by a peer panel with IPM expertise and ad hoc reviewers.
Representatives from affected user groups, IR-4, the National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP), and EPA will
serve as ad hoc reviewers. Proposals will be evaluated with the
following criteria:
1. Relationship to implementation of FQPA--10 points.
An evaluation of how well the proposal relates to issues of
implementation of FQPA and how it may be used by producers and various
public and private groups in changing management systems in response to
FQPA. The proposal should have practical usefulness in implementing
FQPA and should result in a better understanding of the importance of
the identified pesticide(s) to each commodity.
2. Appropriateness of the Budget--5 points.
An evaluation of appropriate and detailed budget request and
collaborative funding to accomplish the proposed project; collaborative
arrangements must be clearly documented.
3. Problem Statement, Background and Rationale--15 points.
Includes the documentation of uses and use patterns, evaluation of
significant reduction of risk to human health or the environment;
evaluation of existing alternatives; and documentation of significant
potential losses likely to occur without the alternative(s) or
mitigation procedures being developed under this proposal.
4. Methodology--20 points.
Evaluation of a detailed plan for data acquisition and analysis
(Category I) or research (Category II). For Category II, a summary of
past research or extension activities that demonstrate the
practicability of the proposed alternative(s), including evaluation of
whether the proposed solutions could rapidly be brought to bear on
critical problems and whether registration considerations are addressed
where they are required implementation of alternatives.
5. Education and Technology Transfer--20 points. A plan on how
results will be shared and utilized by key producer groups,
governmental and non-governmental agencies, etc.
6. User Involvement--15 points. Evaluation includes user
involvement in the identification of uses, use patterns and risk
mitigation procedures; potential approaches to solutions and the
opportunity for public/private partnerships and matching resources from
producer or commodity groups.
7. Integration of Ecologically-Based Solutions--15 points. Includes
the evaluation of ecologically-based alternatives as partially or fully
effective solutions to the pest management problems being addressed and
an analysis of the durability and the technologic and economic
feasibility of the proposed alternatives. This criterion only applies
to proposals, or sections of proposals, that will identify or develop
replacement or mitigation technologies (category II).
Note: Proposals to document use and usage patterns and proposed
solutions should not exceed one year.
CSREES receives grant proposals in confidence and will protect the
confidentiality of their contents to the maximum extent permitted by
law. Information contained in unsuccessful proposals will remain the
property of the applicant. However, CSREES will retain for one year one
file copy of all proposals received; extra copies will be destroyed.
When a proposal results in a grant, it becomes a part of the public
record, available to the public upon specific request under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA). Information that the Secretary of
Agriculture determines to be of a privileged nature will be held in
confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information
that the applicant wishes to have considered as privileged should be
clearly marked by the applicant with the term ``confidential
proprietary information.''
Programmatic Contact
For additional information on the program, please contact: Dr.
Michael Fitzner; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2220; Telephone: (202) 401-4939; Fax
Number: (202) 401-4888; E-mail address: mfitzner@reeusda.gov.
How To Obtain Application Materials
Copies of this solicitation, the administrative provisions for the
Program (7 CFR Part 3400), and the Application Kit, which contains
required forms, certifications, and instructions for preparing and
submitting applications for funding, may be obtained by contacting:
Proposal Services Unit, Grants Management Branch; Office of Extramural
Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education,
[[Page 33312]]
and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2245; Telephone: (202)
401-5048. When contacting the Proposal Services Unit, please indicate
that you are requesting forms for the Special Research Grants Program--
Pest Management Alternatives Research: Special Program Addressing Food
Quality Protection Act Issues.
Application materials may also be requested via Internet by sending
a message with your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and telephone
number to psb@reeusda.gov that states that you wish to receive a copy
of the application materials for the FY 1997 Special Research Grants
Program, Pest Management Alternatives Research: Special Program
Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues. The materials will then
be mailed to you (not e-mailed) as quickly as possible.
Proposal Submission
What To Submit
An original and 14 copies of a proposal must be submitted. Each
copy of each proposal must be stapled securely in the upper left-hand
corner (Do Not Bind). All copies of the proposal must be submitted in
one package.
Where and When To Submit
Proposals must be received on or before August 4, 1997. Proposals
sent by First Class mail must be sent to the following address:
Proposal Services Unit, Grants Management Branch, Office of Extramural
Programs, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 2245, 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20250-2245, Telephone: (202) 401-5048.
Proposals that are delivered by Express mail, a courier service, or
by hand must be submitted to the following address (note that the zip
code differs from that shown above): Proposal Services Unit, Grants
Management Branch; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of
Agriculture; Room 303, Aerospace Center; 901 D Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20024; Telephone: (202) 401-5048.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For reasons set forth in the final rule-
related Notice to 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24,
1983), this program is excluded from the scope of Executive Order No.
12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and
local officials. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Action
of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3504(h)), the collection of information requirements
contained in this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No.
0524-0022.
Done at Washington, DC, on this 12th day of June, 1997.
B.H. Robinson,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service.
Appendix I--Pesticides Addressed by the 1997 Special Research Grants
Program, Pest Management Alternatives Research: Special Program
Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues
F = fungicide I = insecticide H = herbicide AM = antimicrobial N =
nematicide
Organophosphates
Acephate--I
Azinphos-methyl--I
Bensulide--H
Chlorethoxyfos--I
Chlorpyrifos--I
Chlorpyrifos methyl--I
Coumaphos--I
DEF--Defoliant
Diazinon--I
Dichlorvos -I
Dicrotophos--I
Dimethoate--I
Disulfoton--I
Ethion--I
Ethoprop -I, N
Ethyl parathion--I
Fenamiphos--I, N
Fenitrothion--I
Fenthion--I
Fonofos -I
Fosamine ammonium--plant growth regulator
Isofenphos--I
Malathion -I
Methamidophos--I
Methidathion--I
Methyl parathion--I
Naled--I
Oxydemeton methyl--I
Phorate--I
Phosmet--I
Phostebupirim--I
Pirimiphos methyl -I
Profenofos--I
Propetamphos--I
Sulfotepp--I
Sulprofos--I
Temephos--I
Terbufos--I
Tetrachlorvinphos--I
Trichlorfon--I
Carbamates
2EEEBC--F
Aldicarb--I, N
Asulam--H
Bendiocarb--I
Benomyl--F
Carbaryl--I
Carbendazim--F
Carbofuran--I, N
Chlorpropham--H
Desmidipham--H
Fenoxycarb--I
Formetanate HC--I
Methiocarb--I
Methomyl--I
Oxamyl--I, N
Phenmedipham--H
Propamocarb hydrochloride--F
Propoxur--I
Thiodicarb--I
Thiophanate methyl--F
Troysan KK--AM, F
Potential Carcinogens (B1's and B2's)
Acetochlor--H
Aciflourfen sodium--H
Alachlor--H
Amitrol--H
Cacodylic acid--H
Captan--F
Chlorothalonil--F
Creosote--wood preservative
Cyproconazole--F
Daminozide (Alar)--growth retardant
ETO--fumigant, sterilant
Fenoxycarb--IGR
Folpet--F
Formaldehyde--fumigant, germicide
Heptachlor--I
Iprodione--F
Lactofen--H
Lindane--I
Mancozeb--F
Maneb--F
Metam sodium--F, I, H, N, soil fumigant
Metiram--F
MGK repellent--repellent, synergist
Orthophenylphenol--AM, F, virucide
Oxythioquinox--I
Pentachlorophenol--F
Pronamide--H
Propargite--I
Propoxur--I
Propylene oxide--AM, I, F
Telone--N, soil fumigant
Terrazole--F
Thiodicarb--I
TPTH--F
Vinclozolin--F
[[Page 33313]]
Appendix II.--Information Needed/Useful for Use and Usage Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential (lawn
Assessment Dietary Occupational and structural Environmental--Water Environmental--Non-
treatments) target
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Usage/Use Data................... % crop treated max. Acres treated....... Use directions from Acres treated, Acres treated,
application info. acres treated: product labels concentration, concentration,
(rate, # commercial v. (frequently use formulation, application formulation,
applications, private applicators directions and information (rate, application information
timing). (if info limitations are timing, frequency, (rate, timing,
Typical application available), unclear or method). frequency, method).
info (when concentration, unspecified).
available). formulation, Quantities used
personal protective (information
equipment (PPE), frequently not
restricted entry available or not
interval (REI), reliable).
max. application
information (rate,
timing, frequency,
methods).
Information Useful in Evaluation Information about Typical application Total amount used Geographical use Geographical use
of Risk Reduction from Risk typical use -- methods, rates, amounts, finished information (by region, information, typical
Mitigation Measures. number of timing, duration of spray applied, % state, county), soil use information,
application, rates, application, season sites treated, vulnerability date methods of application,
timing, % crop when applied, use methods of (depth to water table, alternative pesticides
treated, regional by private v. application, soil characteristics), and pest control
use information, commercial formulations/ efficacy of reduced methods, efficacy of
alternative applicators, packaging, efficacy rates. reduced rates, season
pesticides and pest typical application of reduced rates. when applied.
control methods, equipment--closed
actual residue cabs, etc.,
levels, efficacy of efficacy of reduced
reduced rates. rates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 97-15912 Filed 6-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
