[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33482-33487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16153]
[[Page 33481]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of
Agriculture
_______________________________________________________________________
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
_______________________________________________________________________
Pest Management Alternatives Program: Addressing Food Quality
Protection Act Issues (FY 1998); Grant Funds Availability and Proposal
Requests; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 / Thursday, June 18, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 33482]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1998; 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 titled ``Pest Management Alternatives
Program: Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues for Fiscal Year
1998.'' This program addresses anticipated changes in pest management
on food, feed, livestock, and ornamental commodities resulting from
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), Pub.
L. No. 104-170.
The goals of this program are to: (1) Develop commodity profiles
that summarize production practices, pesticide use/usage data, and
available pest management alternatives for pesticides considered a high
priority for tolerance reassessment under FQPA; and (2) Develop and
demonstrate alternatives and possible mitigation strategies to ensure
that producers have reliable methods of managing pests.
DATES: Proposals are due July 20, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Proposals sent by First Class mail must be sent to the
following address: Special Research Grants--Pest Management
Alternatives; c/o Proposal Services Unit; 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: Special Research
Grants--Pest Management Alternatives; c/o Proposal Services Unit;
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) 401-6156;
e-mail address: mfitzner@reeusda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Authority and Eligibility
Available Funding and Eligibility
Applicable Regulations
Program Description
Proposal Format
Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
Proposal Evaluation
Confidentiality
How to Obtain Application Materials
Proposal Submission
Additional Information
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Authority and Eligibility
This program is administered by the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). The authority is contained in section 2(c)(1)(A) of
the Act of August 4, 1965, Pub. L. No. 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 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or
voluntary cancellation by the registrant results in the unavailability
of certain agricultural pesticides or pesticide uses. The 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, Pub. L. No.
101-624. These activities pertain to pesticides identified for possible
regulatory action under section 210 of the Food Quality Protection Act
of 1996, which amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act. The program has been developed pursuant to the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between USDA and 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
cooperate in conducting 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. Any proposal meeting the criteria under this request for
proposals will be considered for funding provided the eligibility
requirements are met.
Available Funding and Eligibility
The amount available for support of this program in fiscal year
(FY) 1998 is approximately $1,500,000. It is anticipated that EPA will
provide $124,000 in support of Objective 1. Section 712 of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-86,
prohibits CSREES from paying indirect costs on competitively awarded
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 directs that, in the case of any equipment or product that may be
authorized to be purchased with funds under this program, entities
receiving such grant 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, 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
[[Page 33483]]
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 3052--Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-
Profit Organizations.
Program Description
This competitive grants program supports efforts to modify existing
pest management approaches or develop new methods that address needs
created by the implementation of FQPA. The program also addresses the
need for collection of information for regulatory decision making and
for prioritization of research and education needs. This information
includes pesticide use and usage on commodities (including livestock
and ornamentals), potential alternatives for pesticides on EPA's
priority list (see Appendix I), integrated pest management programs,
pesticide resistance management strategies, and potential mitigation
strategies for reducing dietary risk.
In FY 1998, CSREES will provide funding for projects that: (1)
Develop pest management profiles summarizing practices for specific
commodities or commodity groups (including livestock and ornamentals),
and (2) Identify and develop replacement or mitigation technologies for
pesticides included on EPA's priority list (Appendix I). Proposals must
either develop Commodity and Pest Management Profiles (Objective 1) or
develop both Commodity and Pest Management Profiles (Objective 1) and
replacement or mitigation technologies (Objective 2). Applicants are
encouraged to collaborate with staff involved in university pesticide
impact assessment programs and integrated pest management programs to
develop Commodity and Pest Management Profiles. The two objectives are
described below.
I. Commodity and Pest Management Profiles
Profiles are needed for commodities that depend heavily on
pesticides included on EPA's priority list (see Appendix I and Appendix
II). Profiles should document the importance of priority pesticides to
pest management on the commodities addressed by the proposal. Profiles
should describe the production process and provide data on pesticide
use (how, why, what, when and where pesticides are used) and usage (how
much is used, e.g., percentage crop treated) patterns, pest management
practices used by growers, and pest management practices ready for
implementation but not yet widely used. Profiles should also indicate
whether pesticides on the priority list (Appendix I) are important to
integrated pest management programs or to strategies to manage
resistance to other pesticides, and whether there are any potential
labeled or unlabeled alternatives (chemical or nonchemical) to replace
priority list pesticides on a specific commodity or commodity group.
Alternatives can include other pesticides, biological controls, pest
resistant varieties, or cultural practices. In addition, practices or
procedures that have the potential to mitigate dietary risk from
priority list pesticides should be described. Pest management profiles
should follow the format presented in Appendix III. The sources for
information used in preparing pest management profiles should be
provided in the ``References'' section. Potentially affected growers or
commodity groups must be involved in the development of commodity and
pest management profiles. Profiles must be completed within six months
after receipt of funding. Priority will be given to proposals
addressing one or more commodities that depend heavily on pesticides
included on EPA's priority list (see Appendix I and Appendix II);
however, proposals addressing commodities not included in the list will
be considered.
II. Replacement or Mitigation Technologies
Funding is available to support projects to develop and demonstrate
pest management alternatives or risk mitigation strategies for one or
more of the priority pesticides (Appendix I) for which there are few or
no effective alternatives on any given commodity. The focus should be
on modification of existing approaches or introduction of new methods,
especially biologically 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, are critical. Both technological and economic
feasibility should be considered. Pest management alternatives or risk
mitigation options identified should address various risk concerns
including dietary, occupational and non-occupational exposure, ground
and surface water, and other ecological risks.
Note: The development of replacements for methyl bromide is
being supported by other funding agencies and will not be supported
by the Pest Management Alternatives Program.
Proposals will show evidence that producers, commodity groups, and
other affected user groups are involved in project design and will be
supportive of the project if funded. Public-private partnerships and
matching resources from non-Federal sources, including producer or
commodity groups, are encouraged. Proposals should show potential for
commercialization (including product registration if necessary) of any
new technologies that are developed.
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
should adhere to the format requirements for the specific objective
addressed by the proposal format below. Items three through six should
be no more than 12 pages in length, numbered, and single-spaced with
text on one side of the page using a 12 point (10 cpi) type font size
and one-inch margins.
(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 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
[[Page 33484]]
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. Identify the
commodities (from the commodity list, Appendix II) and the pesticides
(from the priority list, Appendix I) that will be addressed by the
proposed project. Proposals can address commodities not listed in
Appendix II as long as priority pesticides are used in the production
system. Describe the production area addressed (including acreage),
frequency and severity of losses to pests controlled with priority
pesticides (Appendix I), and the potential applicability to other
production regions (if the proposal addresses Objective 2). Provide
sources of data and other information on pesticide use, usage patterns,
and pest management practices. As appropriate, proposals should address
issues as they relate to current integrated pest management and crop
production practices, technologic and economic feasibility of potential
new practices, and their potential durability.
(5) Objectives. Provide clear, concise, complete, and logically
arranged statements of the specific aims of the proposed effort.
(6) Research, Education, and Technology Transfer Plan. This section
is only needed if the proposed project includes development of
replacement or mitigation technologies (Objective 2). Proposals 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. Describe role of producers, commodity groups,
and other end-users in identifying the need for the work being
proposed, and their anticipated involvement in the project if funded.
Competitive proposals will demonstrate involvement of affected user
groups in project design, implementation, and 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 complete 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, or commodity
production knowledge or experience with that commodity (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 refereed journals during the past four 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 Sec.
2(c)(1)(A) of Pub. L. No. 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
[[Page 33485]]
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 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.
Note: Specific organizational 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
Priority will be given to proposals that address one or more of the
commodities listed in Appendix II; however, proposals addressing
commodities not included in this list will be considered. Proposals
will be evaluated for relevancy (Criterion 1, 25 points) by
representatives from USDA, EPA, appropriate farm and commodity
organizations, and consumer groups. Methodology and scientific rigor
(Criteria 2-6, 75 points) will be evaluated by panel with appropriate
IPM and pesticide expertise. Panel members will include representatives
with appropriate science backgrounds from land-grant universities
(including IPM, IR-4, and the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program), USDA, EPA, and other organizations as appropriate.
Funding determinations will be made by the Administrator of CSREES, in
consultation with the Administrator of EPA or her designee, based on
technical merit and targeted need areas.
Proposals that will only develop Crop and Pest Management Profiles
(Objective 1) will be evaluated as a separate group, and will not be
scored on potential to reduce reliance (Criterion 4).
The following criteria will be used in evaluating proposals:
1. Relevance to Program Objectives (25 points)
2. Importance of the Problem (Problem Statement) (15 points)
3. Appropriateness of Methods in Meeting Objectives (20 points)
4. Potential to Reduce Reliance (20 points)
5. Level of User Involvement (10 points)
6. Appropriateness of the Budget (10 points)
Confidentiality
CSREES receives grant proposals in confidence and will protect the
confidentiality of their contents to the maximum extent permitted by
law. Information contained in unfunded proposals will remain the
property of the applicant. However, CSREES will retain one copy of all
proposals received for a one year period; 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.''
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; 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. 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 1998 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 20 copies of a proposal must be submitted. Each
copy
[[Page 33486]]
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 by July 20, 1998. Proposals sent by
First Class mail must be sent to the following address: Special
Research Grants--Pest Management Alternatives, c/o Proposal Services
Unit, 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, a courier service, or
by hand must be submitted to the following address (note that the zip
code differs from that shown above): Special Research Grants--Pest
Management Alternatives; c/o Proposal Services Unit; 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.
Additional 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 1995 (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35), the collection of information requirements contained in
this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No. 0524-0022.
Done at Washington, D.C., on this 11th day of June, 1998.
Colien Hefferan,
Acting Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service.
Priority List of Pesticides
[Pesticides that will be first to undergo review of tolerances by EPA,
as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAbbreviations: AM = antimicrobial; I = insecticide; F = fungicide; IGR
= insect growth regulator; H = herbicide; N = nematicide.
Appendix II
USDA and EPA have determined that production of the following
commodities may depend heavily on the pesticides included on the
priority list (Appendix I). The possible regulatory impacts of FQPA for
these commodities are not known. To answer questions that may arise
during FQPA implementation, Pest Management Profiles are critical for
these commodities. Priority will be given to proposals that address one
or more of the commodities on this list.
alfalfa (seed, forage)
artichoke
asparagus
avocado
barley
beans (dry, lima, snap)
beets
blackberry
blueberry
broccoli
brussels sprouts
canola
carrot
cauliflower
celery
citrus
clover seed
cole crops
collards
cranberry
cucumber
date
eggplant
endive
fig
filberts
garlic
green onions
[[Page 33487]]
greens
hops
kale
kiwi
lettuce
livestock
mango
melons
mint
okra
onion
ornamentals (nursery, greenhouse)
parsley
peach
peanut
pear
peas (dry, green, processed)
peppers (bell, sweet, hot)
pineapple
pistachio
potato
pumpkin
radish
spinach
squash
stonefruit
sugarbeet
sweet potato
tomato
turnip
watermelon
Appendix III
FQPA instructs USDA and EPA to obtain use and usage data for
major and minor crops. Commodity and Pest Management Profiles will
help USDA and EPA better understand the impacts of FQPA
implementation on individual commodities by providing an overview of
the production system. The crop profiles should include typical use
information (not simply what pesticide labels state) and should be
presented in the following format:
[insert name of commodity(ies) and state(s)/region covered by profile
here]
Production Facts: State/region ranking in the national
production of the commodity; state/region contribution to total U.S.
production of the commodity (percent); state/region yearly
production numbers for the last 3 to 5 years (total acres grown;
total acres harvested) and cash value; production costs on a yearly
basis; portion of commodity for fresh market v. that for processing.
Production Regions: Define the production regions for the
commodity within your state/region.
Cultural Practices: Describe the cultural practices used for
producing this commodity within your state (e.g., soil types,
irrigation practices, land preparation, planting times, thinning
practices, etc.). Highlight intrastate or regional differences if
they exist.
Pest Management
For All Pests: Identify the pests needing to be managed
(diseases, insects, nematodes, vertebrates, weeds, etc.), frequency
of occurrence (yearly, sporadic, weather related), the damage they
do, percentage of acres infested with the pest (for each growing
season or crop cycle), pest life cycles, critical timing of control
measures, yield losses attributed to each pest. Note any regional
differences that may occur within the state or region covered by
this profile.
Chemical Controls: For each pest discussed above identify the
active ingredients from Appendix I that are used to control that
pest; include chemical name, trade name, formulations, percent crop
treated, type of application (aerial, ground, chemigation, banded,
broadcast, in-furrow, etc.), typical application rates, timing (pre-
plant, foliar, 5-leaf stage, etc.), typical number of applications
per growing season or crop cycle, typical pre-harvest interval.
Identify importance to IPM or resistance management programs.
Discuss efficacy issues for each active ingredient.
Chemical and Nonchemical Alternatives: Discuss availability and
efficacy issues associated with alternatives for pest/pesticide
combinations discussed above. Chemical alternatives that also are
priority pesticides (Appendix I) should be identified as such.
Include a description of possible IPM strategies that could reduce
reliance on priority pesticides identified in Appendix I.
Cultural Control Practices: Identify and discuss any cultural
practices (e.g., planting dates, resistant varieties, row spacing)
used to manage pests.
Biological Controls: Discuss any biological control programs
that are relevant for the pest/commodity; include pheromone use if
applicable.
Other issues: Discuss any export issues (international or
interstate) or food processor restrictions that may limit the use of
a given active ingredient, or any other relevant issues involving
pesticide use on this commodity.
Key Contacts: Identify commodity experts within the state or
production region by specialty.
Cite References: Identify sources of pesticide use and usage
data, pest management practices, etc.
[FR Doc. 98-16153 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
