33482 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Notices

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Notices 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 § 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
33484 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Notices

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Notices 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
33486 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Notices

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 rulerelated 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

PRIORITY LIST OF PESTICIDES—

Continued

[Pesticides that will be first to undergo review

of tolerances by EPA, as required by the

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996]

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

PRIORITY LIST OF PESTICIDES—

Continued

[Pesticides that will be first to undergo review

of tolerances by EPA, as required by the

Food Quality Protection Act of 1996]

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 / Notices 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