[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 68 (Friday, April 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18822-18835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8641]
[[Page 18821]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program--Pest Management: Request for Proposals and Request for Input;
Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 68 / Friday, April 7, 2000 /
Notices
[[Page 18822]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program--Pest Management: Request for Proposals and Request for Input
AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.
ACTION: Notice of Request for Proposals and Request for Input.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service (CSREES) announces the availability of grant funds and requests
proposals for the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management for fiscal year (FY) 2000
to support integrated, multifunctional agricultural research,
extension, and education activities that address pest management
priorities in United States agriculture, particularly those priorities
addressing anticipated regulatory losses of key pest management tools
resulting from the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) of 1996. The Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management will have four program
components: Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR); FQPA Risk
Avoidance and Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems (RAMP); Methyl
Bromide Transitions (MBT); and Pest Management Centers. The amount
available for support of this program in FY 2000 is approximately
$11,000,000.
This notice sets out the objectives for these projects, the
eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, the application
procedures, and the set of instructions needed to apply for a Pest
Management grant under this authority.
By this notice, CSREES additionally solicits stakeholder input from
any interested party regarding the FY 2000 Integrated Research,
Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management
for use in the development of any future requests for proposals for
this program.
DATES: Proposals must be transmitted by June 6, 2000, as indicated by
the postmark or date on courier bill of lading. Proposals transmitted
after this date will not be considered for funding. Comments regarding
this request for proposals are requested within six months from the
issuance of this notice. Comments received after that date will be
considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals
submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is:
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program--Pest Management; c/o Proposal Services Unit; 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.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the
following address: Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management; Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of
Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington,
D.C. 20250-2245.
Written user comments should be submitted by first-class mail to:
Policy and Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; USDA-
CSREES; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C.
20250-2299; or via e-mail to: RFP-OEP@reeusda.gov. In your comments,
please include the name of the program and the fiscal year of the RFP
to which you are responding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Applicants and other interested
parties are encouraged to contact the following individuals: CAR: Dr.
Rick Meyer; National Program Leader; Plant and Animal Systems Unit;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S.
Department of Agriculture; STOP 2210; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.;
Washington, D.C. 20250-2210; Telephone: (202) 401-4891; Fax: (202) 401-
4888; e-mail address: hmeyer@reeusda.gov.; RAMP: Dr. Steve Yaninek;
National Program Leader; Plant and Animal Systems Unit; Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of
Agriculture; STOP 2210; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington,
D.C.; Telephone: (202) 401-6702; Fax: 202-401-4888; e-mail address:
syaninek@reeusda.gov.; MBT: Dr. Robin Huettel; National Program Leader;
Plant and Animal Systems Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2210; 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C.; Telephone: (202) 401-5804;
Fax: (202) 401-4888; e-mail address: rhuettel@reeusda.gov; Pest
Management Centers: Dr. Dennis Kopp; National Program Leader; Plant and
Animal Systems Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2210; 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C.; Telephone: (202) 401-6437;
Fax: (202) 401-4888; e-mail address: dkopp@reeusda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Stakeholder Input
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Part I--General Information
A. Legislative Authority and Background
B. Purpose, Priorities, and Fund Availability
C. Definitions
D. Eligibility
E. Matching Requirements
F. Funding Restrictions
G. Types of Grant Instruments
H. Funding Mechanisms
Part II--Program Description
A. Project Types
B. Program Area Description
C. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements
Part III--Preparation of a Proposal
A. Program Application Materials
B. Content of Proposals
C. Submission of Proposals
D. Acknowledgment of Proposals
Part IV--Review Process
A. General
B. Evaluation Factors
C. Conflicts-of-Interest and Confidentiality
Part V--Additional Information
A. Access to Review Information
B. Grant Awards
C. Use of Funds; Changes
D. Applicable Federal Statues and Regulations
E. Confidential Aspects of Proposals and Awards
F. Regulatory Information
Stakeholder Input
CSREES is soliciting comments regarding this solicitation of
applications from any interested party. These comments will be
considered in the development of any future RFP for the program. Such
comments will be forwarded to the Secretary or his designee for use in
meeting the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C.
7613(c)(2)). This section requires the Secretary to solicit and
consider input on a current RFP from persons who conduct or use
agricultural research, education and extension for use in formulating
future RFPs for competitive programs. Comments should be submitted as
provided for in the ADDRESSES and DATES portions of this Notice.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under 10.303, Integrated Research, Education, and
Extension Competitive Grants Program.
[[Page 18823]]
Part I--General Information
A. Legislative Authority and Background
Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7626) authorized the Secretary of
Agriculture to establish a research, education, and extension
competitive grants program to provide funding for integrated,
multifunctional agricultural research, extension, and education
activities. Subject to the availability of appropriations to carry out
this program, the Secretary may award grants to colleges and
universities (as defined by 1404 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA) (7 U.S.C. 3103))
on a competitive basis for integrated research, education, and
extension projects. Grants are to be awarded to address priorities in
United States agriculture that involve integrated research, education,
and extension activities as determined by the Secretary in consultation
with the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and
Economics Advisory Board.
On November 19, 1999, the Secretary published in the Federal
Register [64 FR 63560] a notice that the administration of this grant
program had been delegated to the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). This notice also solicited
public comment from persons who use or conduct research, extension, or
education regarding the priorities to be addressed by this new program.
In addition, this notice announced a public meeting to obtain comments
to use in developing the proposed rule and requests for proposals for
this new grant program. The public meeting was held on December 6,
1999. All the comments and the official transcript of the meeting have
been made available for review on the CSREES web page (http://
www.reeusda.gov/integrated/). This RFP was developed in consultation
with the Advisory Board. In addition, the comments and testimonies from
the December 6, 1999, public meeting were considered in the formulation
of this RFP.
The entire program is funded in FY 2000 at $37,637,702 (after
deduction for administrative expenses) for the following integrated
activities: Water Quality ($12,374,115), Food Safety ($14,277,277), and
the Pest Management Component that includes: Pesticide Impact
Assessment ($4,322,310), Crops at Risk from Food Quality and Protection
Act (FQPA) Implementation ($952,000), FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for
Major Food Crop Systems ($3,808,000), and Methyl Bromide Transitions
($1,904,000). There will be three RFP's for this program. The Water
Quality and Food Safety Programs will each have a separate RFP, while
the latter four programs will be announced as one RFP. This notice
announces and describes the Pest Management component of the Program.
CSREES will administer the Integrated Research, Education, and
Extension Competitive Grants Program by determining priorities in
United States agriculture through Agency stakeholder input processes
and in consultation with the National Agricultural Research, Extension,
Education, and Economics Advisory Board. Each RFP for the different
program areas (i.e., Water Quality, Food Safety, etc.) will be
developed each fiscal year based on these established priorities and
the resulting determined approaches to solving these critical
agricultural issues. Although this overall grant program seeks to solve
critical agricultural issues through an integration of research,
education, and extension activities, a component of a RFP, depending on
the priority being addressed and/or the stage at which the priority is
being addressed, may request proposals that are research, education, or
extension only, or a combination thereof. However, the overall
overarching approach to solving the critical agricultural issue,
priority, or problem will be through an integration of research,
education, and extension activities within each individual program
area.
B. Purpose, Priorities, and Fund Availability
The components of the Integrated Competitive Grants Program--Pest
Management are Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation program (CAR);
FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems (RAMP);
Methyl Bromide Transitions Program (MBTP); and Pesticide Impact
Assessment Program (hereafter referred to as ``Pest Management
Centers''). These four components will address anticipated regulatory
losses of key pest management tools resulting from the implementation
of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) (see http://
www.epa.gov/oppfead1/fqpa/index.html), other regulatory actions, or
other agreements (e.g., Clean Air Act, as amended 1990).
The four components of the Integrated Research, Education, and
Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management will support a
wide range of complementary research, education, and extension
activities. Together, these four components support activities to
assess the use and efficacy of available pest management tools, develop
and demonstrate the efficacy of reduced-risk pesticides and other pest
management alternatives, and identify possible transition and
mitigation strategies that serve as viable pest management options for
crops and agro-ecosystems at risk due to anticipated regulatory
actions.
By integrating these four separate program components into a single
competitive grants program, CSREES has responded to stakeholder
suggestions that the Agency develop a coordinated program to address
pest management challenges that face the Nation in the short- and long-
terms. Projects supported by the four components of the Integrated
Activities Pest Management Competitive Grants Program provide a
coordinated response to FQPA needs and issues. CSREES also expects that
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program--Pest Management projects will be integral components of other
CSREES pest management programs such as the Pest Management
Alternatives Program (PMAP), the Regional Integrated Pest Management
Grants Program (RIPM), the Pesticide Applicator Training program (PAT),
the Minor Crops Program (IR-4), and to pest management activities
funded under the regional Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education program (SARE) and the National Research Initiative (NRI).
There is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular proposal or
to make a specific number of awards. Approximately $11 million will be
available to fund proposals in FY 2000 distributed among the program
components as follows: CAR--$952,000, RAMP--$3,808,000, MBT--$1,904,000
and Pest Management Centers--$4,322,310.
C. Definitions
For the purpose of awarding grants under this program, the
following definitions are applicable:
(1) Administrator means the Administrator of the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and any other
officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved my
be delegated.
(2) Authorized departmental officer means the Secretary or any
employee of the Department who has the authority to issue or modify
grant instruments on behalf of the Secretary.
(3) Authorized organizational representative means the president or
[[Page 18824]]
chief executive officer of the applicant organization or the official,
designated by the president or chief executive officer of the applicant
organization, who has the authority to commit the resources of the
organization.
(4) Budget period means the interval of time (usually 12 months)
into which the project period is divided for budgetary and reporting
purposes.
(5) Cash contributions means the applicant's cash outlay, including
the outlay of money contributed to the applicant by non-Federal third
parties.
(6) Department or USDA means the United States Department of
Agriculture.
(7) Education activity means formal classroom instruction,
laboratory instruction, and practicum experience in the food and
agricultural sciences and other related matters such as faculty
development, student recruitment and services, curriculum development,
instructional materials and equipment, and innovative teaching
methodologies.
(8) Extension activity means an act or process that delivers
science-based knowledge and informal educational programs to people,
enabling them to make practical decisions.
(9) Grant means the award by the Secretary of funds to an eligible
organization or individual to assist in meeting the costs of
conducting, for the benefit of the public, an identified project which
is intended and designed to accomplish the purpose of the program as
identified in these guidelines.
(10) Grantee means an organization designated in the grant award
document as the responsible legal entity to which a grant is awarded.
(11) Integrated means to bring the three components of the
agricultural knowledge system (research, education, and extension)
together around a problem area or activity.
(12) Matching means that portion of allowable project costs not
borne by the Federal Government, including the value of in-kind
contributions.
(13) Peer review means an evaluation of a proposed project for
scientific or technical quality and relevance performed by experts with
the scientific knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed
work or to give expert advice on the merits of a proposal.
(14) Principal investigator/Project director means the single
individual designated by the grantee in the grant application and
approved by the Secretary who is responsible for the direction and
management of the project.
(15) Prior approval means written approval evidencing prior consent
by an authorized departmental officer as defined in (2) above.
(16) Project means the particular activity within the scope of the
program supported by a grant award.
(17) Project period means the period, as stated in the award
document and modifications thereto, if any, during which Federal
sponsorship begins and ends.
(18) Research activity means a scientific investigation or inquiry
that results in the generation of knowledge.
(19) Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other
officer or employee of the Department to whom the authority involved
may be delegated.
(20) Third party in-kind contributions means non-cash contributions
of property or services provided by non-Federal third parties,
including real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable
property, directly benefitting and specifically identifiable to a
funded project or program.
(21) Total integrated, multifunctional research, education, and
extension approach means that the combination of grants (although the
individual grants may involve only research, education, or extension
activities or a combination thereof) awarded under the fiscal year's
program components will work together to address the priorities in
United States agriculture as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture
in consultation with the Advisory Board, that involve integrated
research, extension, and education activities.
D. Eligibility
Proposals may be submitted by colleges and universities as defined
in section 1404 of the National Agricultural research, Extension, and
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA). The terms ``college'' and
``university'' mean an educational institution in any State which (1)
admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of
graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the
recognized equivalent of such a certificate, (2) is legally authorized
within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary
education, (3) provides an educational program for which a bachelor's
degree or any other higher degree is awarded, (4) is a public or other
nonprofit institution, and (5) is accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting agency or association. Although an applicant may be
eligible based on its status as one of these entities, there are
factors which may exclude an applicant from receiving Federal financial
and nonfinancial assistance and benefits under this program (e.g.,
debarment or suspension of an individual involved or a determination
that an applicant is not responsible based on submitted organizational
management information). Eligible applicants may subcontract to
organizations not eligible under these requirements.
Please note that a research foundation maintained by a college
or university is not eligible to receive an award under this
program.
E. Matching Requirements
1. General Requirement
If a grant provides a particular benefit to a specific agricultural
commodity, the grant recipient is required to provide funds or in-kind
support to match the amount of the grant funds provided. See section
10. c. on ``Matching Funds'' under Part III, B, ``Content of
Proposals'' for more details.
2. Waiver
CSREES may waive the matching funds requirement specified in the
above paragraph for a grant if CSREES determines that (a) the results
of the project, while of particular benefit to a specific agricultural
commodity, are likely to be applicable to agricultural commodities
generally; or (b) the project involves a minor commodity, the project
deals with scientifically important research, and the grant recipient
is unable to satisfy the matching funds requirement.
F. Funding Restrictions
CSREES has determined that grant funds awarded under this authority
may not be used for the renovation or refurbishment of research,
education, or extension space; the purchase or installation of fixed
equipment in such space; or the planning, repair, rehabilitation,
acquisition, or construction of buildings or facilities.
G. Types of Grant Instruments
In FY 2000 all projects will be awarded using a ``New Grant''
instrument. In future years, projects under the Integrated Research,
Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program authority can be
awarded using one of the grant instruments described below:
(1) New grant. This is a grant instrument by which the Department
agrees to support a specified level of effort for a project that
generally has not been supported previously under this program. This
type of grant is approved on the basis of peer review recommendations.
[[Page 18825]]
(2) Renewal grant. This is a grant instrument by which the
Department agrees to provide additional funding for a project period
beyond that approved in an original or amended award, provided that the
cumulative period does not exceed the statutory limitation. When a
renewal application is submitted, it should include a summary of
progress to date from the previous granting period. A renewal grant
shall be based upon new application, de novo peer review and staff
evaluation, new recommendation and approval, and a new award
instrument.
(3) Supplemental grant. This is an instrument by which the
department agrees to provide small amounts of additional funding under
a new or renewal grant as specified above and may involve a short-term
(usually six months or less) extension of the project period beyond
that approved in an original or amended award, but in no case may the
cumulative period for the project exceed the statutory limitation. A
supplement is awarded only if required to assure adequate completion of
the original scope of work and if there is sufficient justification to
warrant such action. A request of this nature normally will not require
additional peer review.
H. Funding Mechanisms
The two mechanisms by which new, renewal, and supplemental grants
shall be awarded are as follows:
(1) Standard grant. This is a funding mechanism whereby the
Department agrees to support a specified level of effort for a
predetermined time period without the announced intention of providing
additional support at a future date.
(2) Continuation grant. This is a funding mechanism whereby the
Department agrees to support a specified level of effort for a
predetermined period of time with a statement of intention to provide
additional support at a future date, provided that performance has been
satisfactory, appropriations are available for this purpose, and
continued support will be in the best interests of the Federal
government and the public. This kind of mechanism normally will be
awarded for an initial one-year period, and any subsequent continuation
project grants will be awarded in one-year increments. The award of a
continuation project grant to fund an initial or succeeding budget
period does not constitute an obligation to fund any subsequent budget
period. Unless prescribed otherwise by CSREES, a grantee must submit a
separate application for continued support for each subsequent fiscal
year. Requests for such continued support must be submitted in
duplicate at least three months prior to the expiration date of the
budget period currently being funded. Decisions regarding continued
support and the actual funding levels of such support in future years
usually will be made administratively after consideration of such
factors as the grantee's progress and management practices and the
availability of funds. Since initial peer reviews are based upon the
full term and scope of the original application, additional evaluations
of this type generally are not required prior to successive years'
support. However, in unusual cases (e.g., when the nature of the
project or key personnel change or when the amount of future support
requested substantially exceeds the grant application originally
reviewed and approved), additional reviews may be required prior to
approving continued funding.
Part II--Program Description
A. Project Types
Approximately, $952,000 is available for CAR projects in FY 2000.
Proposals should be between two to four years in duration with a budget
of not more than $200,000 per year.
Approximately $3,808,000 is available for RAMP projects in FY 2000.
Proposals can be up to five years in duration with a maximum budget of
$500,000 per year.
Approximately $1,904,000 is available for MBT proposals. It is
anticipated that 12-15 grants of up to two years in duration will be
awarded in this program component.
Approximately $4,322,000 is available for Pest Management Center
proposals. Pest Management Centers will be supported for a 3-year
period at levels reflective of the activities proposed.
Grants awarded under the Program Area Description of MBT (as
described in this RFP) will be issued as ``New Grant'' instruments and
will be awarded as ``Standard Grants.'' Grants awarded under the
Program Area Descriptions of CAR, RAMP, and Pest Management Center (as
described in this RFP) will be issued as ``New Grant'' instruments and
may be awarded as ``Continuation Grants.''
B. Program Area Description
The Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive
Grants Program--Pest Management supports efforts to modify existing
pest management approaches or develop new methods that address needs
created by the implementation of regulatory actions. Projects supported
under this authority must show evidence of research, education, and
extension integration at the program or institutional level.
Alternative pest control chemistries and practices resulting from
FQPA tolerance reassessment and reregistration should be considered
when preparing proposals for this program. These priorities are
determined through a critical evaluation of pest management needs for a
commodity and the effect of regulatory changes on current pest
management practices. These priorities were published in a November 18,
1999, Federal Register notice titled ``Pesticide Reregistration
Performance Measures and Goals'' [64 FR 63036-63045]. This notice is
available on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) web site at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAFR-CONTENTS/1999/November/Day-18/
contents.htm/. This notice provides the schedule for completion of
regulatory review for high priority chemicals. The overall priorities
for FQPA review are also available on the EPA web site at http://
www.eps.gov/oppfead1/fqpa/toleran.htm/.
Activities funded by the Integrated Research, Education, and
Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management will address work
needed to facilitate grower knowledge and adoption of pesticides that
are newly registered or are candidates for registration. Recently-
registered chemical pesticides are identified in annual reports on the
web site of the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs at http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides. Pesticides that are candidates for registration in FY 2000
are named in the interim work plan of the EPA Registration Division.
The interim work plan is available on the web at http://www.epa.gov/
opprd001/workplan. Twenty-five new chemicals are included in the work
plan in addition to many new uses for 64 already-registered chemicals.
The work plan provides the trade name, crops, and company for each
chemical and identifies those chemicals that qualified for the EPA
reduced-risk status. Biopesticides that are recently registered and
those under consideration for registration are identified on the web
site at www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/. Updates to EPA pesticide
priority review and reregistration lists are available at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides. EPA also issues an electronic newsletter that
will announce updates. Sign-up information for the electronic
newsletter is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides.
[[Page 18826]]
The phase out of methyl bromide is required under Title IV of the
Clean Air Act (as amended in 1990) because of its ozone-depleting
potential. In October 1998, the Clean Air Act was amended to change the
phase out date to 2005, in harmonization with the date agreed to in the
Montreal Protocol. More information on the phase out of methyl bromide
is available on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/
harmoniz.html.
Proposals are solicited for the following program areas:
1. Crops at Risk From FQPA Implementation (CAR) (Program Area 112.1)
(Maximum award: $200,000 per year for two to four years).
The Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR) program is an
intermediate-term (two to four years) research, education, and
extension competitive grants program with at-risk crops or cropping
systems as the focal point. Several crops and cropping systems face
potentially severe economic impacts as a result of the possible
restrictions or elimination of certain pesticides resulting from
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 and
other regulatory actions. In the short-term, small-acreage fruit and
vegetable crops are most vulnerable. However, many more crops,
including large-acreage grain, forage and fiber crops, will be impacted
during the pesticide review process. Development of new multiple-tactic
pest management strategies designed to assist producers during the
transition is the goal of this program component.
Specific Objectives: a. Evaluate new approaches to pest management
techniques and technology (rates, timing,pre-harvest intervals,
application methods and equipment, post-harvest treatment etc.) That
could reduce or eliminate pesticide residues of concern or the effects
of these residues.
b. Develop new pest management tactics based on alternative
technologies, including products of genetic engineering, biological
organisms, biological pesticides, new chemical pesticides, and cultural
practices; and
c. Demonstrate and describe how new tactics can be economically and
practically integrated into pest management programs for individual
crops.
Updates to EPA pesticide priority review and registration lists are
available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides. EPA also issues an
electronic newsletter that will announce updates. Sign-up information
for the electronic newsletter is available at http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides.
Proposals that address priorities established by stakeholders
representing an entire crop production region, consider crosscutting
challenges, and show evidence of multi-state or within-state
cooperation regarding research, education, and extension will be given
preference.
2. FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems
Program (RAMP) (Program Area 112.2)
(Maximum award: $500,000 per year for up to five years).
The FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems
Program (RAMP) is a long-term (up to five years) research, education,
and extension competitive grants program to develop reduced risk pest
management strategies for agro-ecosystems. Global markets for food and
grain products demand high quality at competitive prices. Growers are
faced with meeting market demands and ever-increasing production costs
coupled with decreasing or unstable commodity prices. Added to these
constraints are concerns posed by implementation of regulatory actions
over the next decade. Many of the pest management tools growers have
depended on in the past may be restricted or eliminated. Growers face
uncertainty regarding which pest management tactics will continue to be
available and how to make use of new technologies, such as
bioengineered crop innovations and precision agriculture in their
production systems. There is a critical need to devise pest management
systems that consider all aspects of crop production .
Projects supported by RAMP will have a food, fiber and grain
production system focus and can include consideration of food safety,
occupational safety, water quality and other environmental concerns.
The program will address the major acreage cropping systems including,
but not limited to, corn, soybean, wheat, cotton and rice, as well as,
the fruits and vegetables most important in the human diet, especially
the diets of infants and children. Emphasis will be placed on
development and implementation of new and innovative pest management
systems designed to maintain crop productivity and profitability while
addressing environmental quality and human health concerns. The goal of
this long-term effort is to eliminate or minimize pesticide residues of
concern on foods, in drinking water , and in the environment. This
program also supports projects to reduce occupational risk for
producers and their employees. These will be long-term projects and
will evolve from in-depth discussions of pest management needs and
priorities involving stakeholders. Projects are intended to enhanced
stability and sustainability of agricultural production systems and
will be multi-state or regional in scale, typically involve multiple
cropping systems that define an agroecosystem. A major goal of this
effort will be the development of pest management systems that are
based on an advanced understanding of cropping system biology and
ecology.
Specific Objectives: a. Develop methods of pest management that
reduce or eliminate the risk from pesticide residues; and b. Develop
and implement information intensive approaches to pest management based
on a more complete understanding of crop and pest biology, their
interactions and mutual impacts, and factors impacting the stability of
pest management systems in major cropping systems.
Proposals that strive to maintain crop economic viability based on
a diverse bio-based pest management system are encouraged. Proposals
should address priorities established by stakeholders representing an
entire cropping system and consider crosscutting challenges, and must
show evidence for multi-state and multi-disciplinary cooperation
regarding research, education, and extension. Proposals should catalog
and review the pest management tactics currently being used in the
targeted cropping system, then define opportunities for new pest
management approaches as part of the proposal. All proposals should
include an outreach component to promote the exchange of pest
management information among researchers, extension agents, producers,
and commodity groups as it relates to the project. Outreach efforts can
make use of publications, website development, field days, workshops or
other relevant planning and outreach activities. Successful proposals
will provide milestones and independently verifiable indicators that
can be used to measure progress and impact across a range of
ecological, agronomic and economic criteria. Budgetary provisions
should be made to support formal stakeholder reviews after the second
field season and at the end of the project.
3. Methyl Bromide Transitions Program (MBT) (Progam Area 112.3)
(No Maximum award and up to two years; however, it is anticipated
that 12-15 grants will be funded).
[[Page 18827]]
The Methyl Bromide Transitions Program (MBT) supports the discovery
and implementation of practical pest management alternatives for
commodities affected by the phase-out of methyl bromide. Projects
supported by MBT will focus on short- to intermediate-term solutions
for all commodities at risk using presently available or newly
developed pest management technologies and practices. Since
alternatives to methyl bromide that have thus far been developed
require different pest management strategies than those used for methyl
bromide alone, projects supported by MBT will emphasize the development
and implementation of integrated management approaches. This includes
increased research, education and extension activities on all
commodities at risk, including field trials and other demonstration
projects that enhance the adoption of pest management alternatives for
all commodities. It also will support the technology transfer of
results to growers through education and outreach programs.
Specific Objectives: a. Conduct integrated research, education, and
extension activities for pest management alternatives on strawberry,
tomato, other vegetables, fruits and nuts;
b. Conduct integrated research, education, and extension activities
for pest management alternatives for nurseries, including the floral
industry and forest nurseries (e.g., general nursery production,
production for pest and pathogen-free rootstocks);
c. Develop extension activities to implement pest management
alternatives, including field trials and other demonstration projects
that enhance the adoption of alternative management practices; and
d. Increase transfer of results to growers through education and
outreach programs that promote the implementation of pest management
alternatives.
Proposals that address priorities established by stakeholders,
consider crosscutting challenges, and show evidence of multi-state or
within-state cooperation involving research, education, and extension
will be given preference.
4. Pest Management Centers (Program Area 112.4)
(No maximum award; however, budget requests should be at levels
reflective of the complexity and intensity of agriculture within the
region for a duration up to three years).
USDA has placed a high priority on the establishment of Pest
Management Centers as a means of strengthening its connection with
production agriculture, research and extension programs, and
agricultural stakeholders throughout the United States. USDA and EPA
have recognized the need for a pest management information network that
can quickly respond to information needs of the public and private
sectors. When fully implemented, Pest Management Centers will help USDA
and its partner institutions identify, prioritize and coordinate a
national pest management research, extension, and education program
implemented on a regional basis.
Pest Management Centers will be the focal point for team building
efforts, communication networks, and stakeholder participation within a
given region. Pest Management Centers will promote open communication,
exchange of information and resources, collaboration, and integration
of activities among individuals, institutions, states, and regions into
coordinated efforts around common themes that span institutional or
geographical boundaries. Pest Management Centers also will bring
together and help focus the institutional and individual expertise
needed to successfully address a range of pest management issues
confronting farmers and other pest managers (e.g., regulatory
restrictions, development of pest resistance, invasive species, and
biotechnology). When fully implemented, Pest Management Centers will
maximize the availability of dispersed expertise, reduce duplication of
effort, enhance interdisciplinary and multiorganizational efforts, and
provide regional expert information, technology, and education upon
which production agriculture, government agencies, and agricultural
stakeholders can draw.
The process to develop the Pest Management Centers will begin in FY
2000 with the formation of four geographically-based regional Pest
Management Centers with one in each of the north central, northeastern,
southern, and western regions of the United States. The four regional
Pest Management Centers funded in FY 2000 by this RFP will be
instrumental in creating a regional process that will evolve into
Agroecological Pest Management Centers in FY 2003, based upon
agroecologically defined crop production regions.
Pest Impact Assessment Program funds will be used to implement and
support the regional Pest Management Centers. The regional Pest
Management Centers will fulfill a real and immediate need in
establishing a national 2-way pest management communication network
which includes USDA and other government agencies, scientists at
colleges and universities, and stakeholders focusing on pest management
issues. These activities, among other things, will ensure broad based
stakeholder participation in initiating a 3-year process to facilitate
the planning and development of future Agroecological Pest Management
Centers.
Successful applicants for FY 2000 regional Pest Management Centers
should present a plan that will demonstrate their capacity to form and
fund collaborative information networks that cross traditional
institutional, disciplinary, and geographic boundaries to address the
region's pest management priorities. The four successful proposals
funded in FY 2000 will be expected to conduct the following activities:
a. Establish a team of pest managers, producers and commodity
groups, and other stakeholders that represent the diversity of
capabilities, institutions, and pest management issues found in the
region.
b. Establish a regionally-based pest management information and
communication network linking USDA and other Federal agencies with
agricultural researchers and stakeholders throughout the region. Among
the responsibilities of the network will be to (1) collect, synthesize,
and disseminate information on pest management practices; (2)
coordinate crop profile development and develop pest management
strategy plans for important commodities in the region; and (3)
coordinate science reviews of documents related to crop production,
pest management, regulatory, health, and environmental risk issues.
c. Facilitate an interactive process designed to identify
appropriate boundaries for agroecological pest management areas in the
United States. Once determined, agroecological areas will serve to
demarcate the Agroecological Pest Management Centers needed to address
regional and National priorities. These Agroecological Pest Management
Centers will be geographically defined by an appropriate set of
criteria, such as agroecological or crop production regions, that
reflect principal agricultural production zones in the country and
address the broad spectrum of pest management needs within each region.
The function of the regional Pest Management Centers will be
redistributed in FY 2003 to the newly defined Agroecological Pest
Management Centers that will be established in an open and fair
competitive process during FY 2003.
[[Page 18828]]
The planning for the FY 2003 Pest Management Centers should be an
integral part of the proposal for the FY 2000 regional Pest Management
Centers. Thus applicants should include plans for:
a. Bringing together pest management professionals and stakeholders
to establish the pest management information network and to identify
and prioritize agroecological pest management needs. Agroecological
Pest Management Centers will serve as regional hubs responsible for
ensuring efficient access to pest management expertise and data
available through colleges and universities.
b. Defining functional agroecologoically based pest management
regions within the four geographic regions of the country to facilitate
the evolution of regional Pest Management Centers into Agroecological
Pest Management Centers.
c. Participating as a regional representative on a national
steering committee established by CSREES to harmonize regional pest
management needs into a proposed comprehensive national network
compatible and complimentary agroecologically based Pest Management
Centers.
Proposed budgets could include funding for a regional Pest
Management Center director and support staff, and to support the
information network. Regional Pest Management Centers will be supported
for a 3-year period. Annual funding beyond the first year will be
dependent upon demonstration of the regional Pest Management Center's
accomplishments and the continued availability of Federal funds.
C. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements
The grantee must prepare an annual report that details all
significant activities towards achieving the goals and objectives of
the project. The narrative should be succinct and be no longer than
five pages, using 12-point, single-spaced type. The report also should
include a listing of any students who worked on the project (report
graduate degrees awarded and undergraduates trained, as applicable). A
budget summary should be attached to this report, which will provide an
overview of all monies spent during the reporting period.
Part III--Preparation of a Proposal
A. Program Application Materials
Program application materials are available at the Integrated
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program website
(http://www.reeusda.gov/integrated/). If you do not have access to our
web page or have trouble downloading material, you may contact the
Proposal Services Unit, Office of Extramural Programs, USDA/CSREES at
(202) 401-5048. When calling the Proposal Services Unit, please
indicate that you are requesting forms for the Integrated Research,
Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management.
These materials may also be requested via Internet by sending a message
with your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and phone number to
psb@reeusda.gov. State that you want a copy of the Program Description
and application materials (orange book) for the Fiscal Year 2000
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program--Pest Management.
B. Content of Proposals
1. General
The proposal should follow these guidelines, enabling reviewers to
more easily evaluate the merits of each proposal in a systematic,
consistent fashion:
(a) The proposal should be prepared on only one side of the page
using standard size (8\1/2\" x 11") white paper, one inch margins,
typed or word processed using no type smaller than 12 point font, and
single or double spaced. Use an easily readable font face (e.g.,
Geneva, Helvetica, Times Roman).
(b) Each page of the proposal, including the Project Summary,
budget pages, required forms, and any appendices, should be numbered
sequentially.
(c) The proposal should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner.
Do not bind. An original and 14 copies (15 total) must be submitted in
one package, along with 10 copies of the ``Project Summary'' as a
separate attachment.
(d) If applicable, proposals should include original illustrations
(photographs, color prints, etc.) in all copies of the proposal to
prevent loss of meaning through poor quality reproduction.
2. Cover Page (Form CSREES-661)
Each copy of each grant proposal must contain an ``Application for
Funding'', Form CSREES-661. One copy of the application, preferably the
original, must contain the pen-and-ink signature(s) of the proposing
principal investigator(s)/project director(s) (PI/PD) and the
authorized organizational representative who possesses the necessary
authority to commit the organization's time and other relevant
resources to the project. Any proposed PI/PD or co-PI/PD whose
signature does not appear on Form CSREES-661 will not be listed on any
resulting grant award. Complete both signature blocks located at the
bottom of the ``Application for Funding'' form.
Form CSREES-661 serves as a source document for the CSREES grant
database; it is therefore important that it be completed accurately.
The following items are highlighted as having a high potential for
errors or misinterpretations:
(a) Title of Project (Block 6). The title of the project must be
brief (80-character maximum), yet represent the major thrust of the
effort being proposed. Project titles are read by a variety of
nonscientific people; therefore, highly technical words or phraseology
should be avoided where possible. In addition, introductory phrases
such as ``investigation of'' or ``research on'' ``education for'' or
``outreach that'' should not be used.
(b) Program to Which You Are Applying (Block 7). ``Integrated
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest
Management.''
(c) Program Area and Number (Block 8). The name of the program
component, e.g., CAR, 112.1 or RAMP, 112.2 should be inserted in this
block.
(d) Type of Award Request (Block 13). Check the block for ``new.''
(e) Principal Investigator(s)/Project Director(s) (PI/PD) (Block
15). The designation of excessive numbers of co-PI/PD's creates
problems during final review and award processing. Listing multiple co-
PI/PD's, beyond those required for genuine collaboration, is therefore
discouraged. Note that providing a Social Security Number is voluntary,
but is an integral part of the CSREES information system and will
assist in the processing of the proposal.
(f) Type of Performing Organization (Block 18). A check should be
placed in the box beside the type of organization which actually will
carry out the effort. For example, if the proposal is being submitted
by an 1862 Land-Grant Institution but the work will be performed in a
department, laboratory, or other organizational unit of an agricultural
experiment station, box ``03'' should be checked. If portions of the
effort are to be performed in several departments, check the box that
applies to the individual listed as PI/PD #1 in Block 15.a.
(g) Other Possible Sponsors (Block 22). List the names or acronyms
of all other public or private sponsors including other agencies within
USDA and other programs funded by CSREES
[[Page 18829]]
to whom your application has been or might be sent. In the event you
decide to send your application to another organization or agency at a
later date, you must inform the identified CSREES Program Director as
soon as practicable. Submitting your proposal to other potential
sponsors will not prejudice its review by CSREES; however, duplicate
support for the same project will not be provided. Complete the
``Application for Funding,'' Form CSREES-661, in its entirety.
(h) One copy of the ``Application for Funding'' form must contain
the signatures (in ink) of the PI/PD's and authorized organizational
representative for the applicant organization.
3. Table of Contents
For consistency and ease in locating information, each proposal
must contain a detailed Table of Contents just after the cover page.
The Table of Contents should contain page numbers for each component of
the proposal. Page numbers should begin with the first page of the
Project Description.
4. Project Summary
The proposal must contain a Project Summary of 250 words or less on
a separate page which should be placed immediately after the Table of
Contents and should not be numbered. The names and affiliated
organizations of all PI/PD's and co-PI/PD's should be listed on this
form as well as the title of the project, in addition to the title of
the project. The summary should be a self-contained, specific
description of the activity to be undertaken and should focus on:
overall project goal(s) and supporting objectives; plans to accomplish
project goal(s); and relevance of the project to the Integrated
Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management. The importance of a
concise, informative Project Summary cannot be overemphasized.
5. Project Description
For CAR, RAMP, and MBT proposals, the project description may not
exceed 15 single- or double-spaced pages. Project descriptions for Pest
Management Centers may not exceed 20 single- or double-spaced pages.
The Project Description should include the following components.
a. Introduction and Rationale: Include a clear statement of the
problems to be addressed and goals expected to be accomplished.
Describe the supporting objectives; questions; research, education and/
or extension components to be included; and/or partners that will be
used to accomplish the goal(s) set. In addition, this section should
include in-depth information on the following, when applicable:
1. Estimates of the magnitude of the issues and their relevance to
stakeholders and to ongoing State-Federal food and agricultural
research, education and extension programs.
2. Role of stakeholders in problem identification, planning,
implementation and evaluation as appropriate.
3. Reasons for having the work performed by the proposing
institution.
4. For CAR, RAMP, and MBTP proposals only: A detailed plan for the
research, education, and technology transfer that will be used to
implement the pest management alternative solution in the field, and
should identify milestones and independently verifiable indicators.
b. Objectives: Clear, concise, complete, and logically arranged
statement(s) of the specific aims of the proposed effort must be
included in all proposals. Pest Management Center proposals should
indicate which information needs will be given first priority, and
identify major Center deliverables, such as crop profiles, reports,
databases, and Web sites.
c. Procedures: For CAR, RAMP, and MBTP Proposals: The procedures or
methodology to be applied to the proposed effort should be explicitly
stated. This section should include but not necessarily be limited to:
1. A description of the proposed investigations and/or experiments
in the sequence in which it is planned to carry them out;
2. Techniques to be employed, including their feasibility;
3. Kinds of results expected;
4. Means by which data will be analyzed or interpreted;
5. Pitfalls that might be encountered; and
6. Limitations to proposed procedures.
For Pest Management Center Proposals: The proposal should provide
details regarding the procedures and processes that will be used to
manage the Pest Management Center. Proposals should include, but not
necessarily be limited to, the following aspects of Center management:
1. Identify the Center Director and other key personnel who will
comprise the Center's staff;
2. Describe how the Pest Management Center will be managed,
including how and by who work priorities will be established (e.g.,
steering and stakeholder advisory committees), how partner institutions
and stakeholders will participate in Center management, how information
collected by the Center will be aggregated and disseminated, and how
Center activities will be coordinated with the activities of the other
three regional Centers;
3. Describe the open and competitive process that will be used to
identify the institutions and individuals that will form the
information network in the region (Centers should build upon existing
regional coordination efforts to the extent possible or should indicate
why existing efforts are not relevant. The proposal should also
describe how coordination with the National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS), the Economic Research Service (ERS), EPA, the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and other government agencies will
be ensured;
4. Provide an action plan, including milestones, for the
establishment of the Pest Management Center, the regional information
network, the participatory process to identify agro-ecosystems centers;
and
5. Describe the process that will be used to hold an
``independent'' evaluation of the Center on an annual basis (Members of
the review team should reflect the Center's ``community of interest'',
including member institutions, Center clients, and stakeholder groups.
The results of the annual review will be used by CSREES to determine
whether continued funding of the Center is justified.).
d. Cooperation and Institutional Units Involved: Cooperative and
multi-state applications are encouraged. Identify each institutional
unit contributing to the project. Identify each institution in a
multiple-institution proposal and designate the lead institution. When
appropriate, the project should be coordinated with the efforts of
other State and/or national programs. Clearly define the roles and
responsibilities of each institutional unit of the project team, if
applicable.
e. Literature Review: A summary of pertinent publications with
emphasis on their relationship to the effort being proposed should be
provided and should include all important and recent publications from
other institutions, as well as those from the applicant institution.
The citations themselves should be accurate, complete, and written in
an acceptable journal format.
6. Appendices to Project Description
Appendices to the Project Description are allowed if they are
directly germane to the proposed project and are limited to a total of
two of the following: reprints (papers that have been published in peer
reviewed journals) and preprints (manuscripts in press for a peer
reviewed journal; these must be
[[Page 18830]]
accompanied by a letter of acceptance from the publishing journal).
7. Key Personnel
All senior personnel who are expected to be involved in the effort
must be clearly identified. For each person, the following should be
included:
a. The roles and responsibilities of each PI/PD and/or collaborator
should be clearly described;
b. An estimate of the time commitment involved for each PI/PD and/
or collaborator; and
c. Vitae of each PI/PD, senior associate, and other professional
personnel. This section should include vitae of all key persons who are
expected to work on the project, whether or not CSREES funds are sought
for their support. The vitae should be limited to two (2) pages each in
length, excluding publications listings. A chronological list of all
publications in refereed journals during the past four (4) years,
including those in press, must be provided for each project member for
which a curriculum vitae is provided. Also list only those non-refereed
technical publications that have relevance to the proposed project. All
authors should be listed in the same order as they appear on each paper
cited, along with the title and complete reference as these usually
appear in journals.
8. Conflict-of-Interest List
A Conflict-of-Interest List must be provided for all individuals
involved in the project (identified as key personnel). Each list should
be on a separate page and include alphabetically the full names of the
individuals in the following categories: (a) All collaborators on
projects within the past four years, including current and planned
collaborations; (b) all co-authors on publications within the past four
years, including pending publications and submissions; (c) all persons
in your field with whom you have had a consulting or financial
arrangement within the past four years, who stand to gain by seeing the
project funded; and (d) all thesis or postdoctoral advisees/advisors
within the past four years (some may wish to call these life-time
conflicts). This form is necessary to assist program staff in excluding
from proposal review those individuals who have conflicts-of-interest
with the personnel in the grant proposal. The Program Director must be
informed of any additional conflicts-of-interest that arise after the
proposal is submitted.
9. Collaborative and/or Subcontractual Arrangements
If it will be necessary to enter into formal consulting or
collaborative arrangements with others, such arrangements should be
fully explained and justified. In addition, evidence should be provided
that the collaborators involved have agreed to render these services.
If the need for consultant services is anticipated, the proposal
narrative should provide a justification for the use of such services,
a statement of work to be performed, and a resume or curriculum vita
for each consultant. For purposes of proposal development, informal
day-to-day contacts between key project personnel and outside experts
are not considered to be collaborative arrangements and thus do not
need to be detailed.
All anticipated subcontractual arrangements also should be
explained and justified in this section. A proposed statement of work
and a budget for each arrangement involving the transfer of substantive
programmatic work or the providing of financial assistance to a third
party must be provided. Agreements between departments or other units
of your own institution and minor arrangements with entities outside of
your institution (e.g., requests for outside laboratory analyses) are
excluded from this requirement.
If you expect to enter into subcontractual arrangements, please
note that the provisions contained in 7 CFR Part 3019, USDA Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grant and Other Agreements with
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit
Organizations, and the general provisions contained in 7 CFR Part
3015.205, USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, flow down to
subrecipients. In addition, required clauses from Sections 40-48
(``Procurement Standards'') and Appendix A (``Contract Provisions'') to
7 CFR Part 3019 should be included in final contractual documents, and
it is necessary for the subawardee to make a certification relating to
debarment/suspension.
10. Budget (Form CSREES-55)
a. Budget Form. Prepare the budget, Form CSREES-55, in accordance
with instructions provided. A budget form is required for each year of
requested support. In addition, a cumulative budget is required
detailing the requested total support for the overall project period.
The budget form may be reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be
requested under any of the categories listed on the form, provided that
the item or service for which support is requested is allowable under
the authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles,
and these program guidelines, and can be justified as necessary for the
successful conduct of the proposed project. Applicants must also
include a Budget Narrative to justify their budgets (see section b
below.)
The following guidelines should be used in developing your proposal
budget(s):
1. Salaries and Wages. Salaries and wages are allowable charges and
may be requested for personnel who will be working on the project in
proportion to the time such personnel will devote to the project. If
salary funds are requested, the number of Senior and Other Personnel
and the number of CSREES-Funded Work Months must be shown in the spaces
provided. Grant funds may not be used to augment the total salary or
rate of salary of project personnel or to reimburse them for time in
addition to a regular full-time salary covering the same general period
of employment. Salary funds requested must be consistent with the
normal policies of the institution.
2. Fringe Benefits. Funds may be requested for fringe benefit costs
if the usual accounting practices of your organization provide that
organizational contributions to employee benefits (social security,
retirement, etc.) be treated as direct costs. Fringe benefit costs may
be included only for those personnel whose salaries are charged as a
direct cost to the project.
3. Nonexpendable Equipment. Nonexpendable equipment means tangible
nonexpendable personal property including exempt property charged
directly to the award having a useful life of more than one year and an
acquisition cost of $5,000 (or lower depending on institutional policy)
or more per unit. As such, items of necessary instrumentation or other
nonexpendable equipment should be listed individually by description
and estimated cost in the Budget Narrative. This applies to revised
budgets as well, as the equipment item(s) and amount(s) may change.
4. Materials and Supplies. The types of expendable materials and
supplies which are required to carry out the project should be
indicated in general terms with estimated costs in the Budget
Narrative.
5. Travel. The type and extent of travel and its relationship to
project objectives should be described briefly and justified. If
foreign travel is proposed, the country to be visited, the
[[Page 18831]]
specific purpose of the travel, a brief itinerary, inclusive dates of
travel, and estimated cost must be provided for each trip. Airfare
allowances normally will not exceed round-trip jet economy air
accommodations. U.S. flag carriers must be used when available. See 7
CFR Part 3015.205(b)(4) for further guidance.
6. Publication Costs/Page Charges. Include anticipated costs
associated with publications in a journal (preparing and publishing
results including page charges, necessary illustrations, and the cost
of a reasonable number of coverless reprints) and audio-visual
materials that will be produced. Photocopying and printing brochure,
etc., should be shown in Section I., ``All Other Direct Costs'' of Form
CSREES-55.
7. Computer (ADPE) Costs. Reimbursement for the costs of using
specialized facilities (such as a university- or department-controlled
computer mainframe or data processing center) may be requested if such
services are required for completion of the work.
8. All Other Direct Costs. Anticipated direct project charges not
included in other budget categories must be itemized with estimated
costs and justified in the Budget Narrative. This also applies to
revised budgets, as the item(s) and dollar amount(s) may change.
Examples may include space rental at remote locations, subcontractual
costs, and charges for consulting services, telephone, facsimile,
shipping costs, and fees necessary for laboratory analyses. You are
encouraged to consult the ``Instructions for Completing Form CSREES-55,
Budget,'' of the Application Kit for detailed guidance relating to this
budget category. Form AD-1048 must be completed by each subcontractor
or consultant and retained by the grantee. Pest Management Centers
proposals should indicate that sub-contractual arrangements are
anticipated, but should not identify specific institutions. Successful
Pest Management Center applicants will be expected to conduct an open
and competitive process to identify institutional members of its
regionally-based information network, after which subcontractual
arrangements can be made between the Center's host institution and
member institutions.
9. Indirect Costs. Section 1462 of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310)
limits indirect costs for this program to 19 percent of total Federal
funds provided under each award. Therefore the recovery of indirect
costs under this program may not exceed the lesser of the institution's
official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 19 percent
of total Federal funds awarded. If no rate has been negotiated, a
reasonable dollar amount (equivalent to less than 19 percent of total
Federal funds requested) in lieu of indirect costs may be requested,
subject to approval by USDA.
b. Budget Narrative. All budget categories, excluding Indirect
Costs, for which support is requested, must be individually listed
(with costs) and justified on a separate sheet of paper and placed
immediately behind the Budget Form. Explanations of matching funds or
lack there of on commodity-specific projects also are to be included in
this section.
c. Matching Funds. If an applicant concludes that matching funds
are not required as specified under Part I (e), a justification should
be included in the Budget Narrative. CSREES will consider this
justification when ascertaining final matching requirements or in
determining if required matching can be waived. CSREES retains the
right to make final determinations regarding matching requirements.
For those grants requiring matching funds as specified under Part I
(e), proposals should include written verification of commitments of
matching support (including both cash and in-kind contributions) from
third parties. Written verification means:
(a) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge
agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational
representatives of the donor organization and the applicant
organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant organization; (3)
the title of the project for which the donation is made; (4) the dollar
amount of the cash donation; and (5) a statement that the donor will
pay the cash contribution during the grant period; and
(b) For any third party in-kind contributions, a separate pledge
agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized
organizational representatives of the donor organization and the
applicant organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and
telephone number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant
organization; (3) the title of the project for which the donation is
made; (4) a good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the
third party in-kind contribution; and (5) a statement that the donor
will make the contribution during the grant period.
The sources and amount of all matching support from outside the
applicant institution should be summarized on a separate page and
placed in the proposal immediately following the Budget Narrative. All
pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal immediately following
the summary of matching support.
The value of applicant contributions to the project shall be
established in accordance with applicable cost principles. Applicants
should refer to OMB Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational
Institutions, for further guidance and other requirements relating to
matching and allowable costs.
11. Current and Pending Support (Form CSREES-663)
All proposals must contain Form CSREES-663 listing other current
public or private 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 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 the possible sponsors will not prejudice proposal review
or evaluation by the CSREES for this purpose. However, a proposal that
duplicates or overlaps substantially with a proposal already reviewed
and funded (or to be funded) by another organization or agency will not
be funded under this program. Note that the project being proposed
should be included in the pending section of the form.
12. Assurance Statement(s), (Form CSREES-662)
A number of situations encountered in the conduct of projects
require special assurances, supporting documentation, etc., before
funding can be approved for the project. In addition to any other
situation that may exist with regard to a particular project, it is
expected that some applications submitted in response to these
guidelines will involve the following:
a. Recombinant DNA or RNA Research. As stated in 7 CFR Part
3015.205 (b)(3), all key personnel identified in the proposal and all
endorsing officials of the proposing organization are required to
comply with the guidelines established by the National Institutes of
Health entitled,
[[Page 18832]]
``Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules,'' as
revised. If your project proposes to use recombinant DNA or RNA
techniques, you must so indicate by checking the ``yes'' box in Block
19 of Form CSREES-661 (the Cover Page) and by completing Section A of
Form CSREES-662. For applicable proposals recommended for funding,
Institutional Biosafety Committee approval is required before CSREES
funds will be released.
b. Animal Care. Responsibility for the humane care and treatment of
live vertebrate animals used in any grant project supported with funds
provided by CSREES rests with the performing organization. Where a
project involves the use of living vertebrate animals for experimental
purposes, all key project personnel identified in a proposal and all
endorsing officials of the proposing organization are required to
comply with the applicable provisions of the Animal Welfare Act of
1966, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) and the regulations
promulgated thereunder by the Secretary in 9 CFR Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4
pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of these animals. If
your project will involve these animals, you should check ``yes'' in
block 20 of Form CSREES-661 and complete Section B of Form CSREES-662.
In the event a project involving the use of live vertebrate animals
results in a grant award, funds will be released only after the
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee has approved the project.
c. Protection of Human Subjects. Responsibility for safeguarding
the rights and welfare of human subjects used in any grant project
supported with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing
organization. Guidance on this issue is contained in the National
Research Act, Pub. L. No. 93-348, as amended, and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Department under 7 CFR Part 1c. If you
propose to use human subjects for experimental purposes in your
project, you should check the ``yes'' box in Block 21 of Form CSREES-
661 and complete Section C of Form CSREES-662. In the event a project
involving human subjects results in a grant award, funds will be
released only after the appropriate Institutional Review Board has
approved the project.
13. Certifications
Note that by signing Form CSREES-661 the applicant is providing the
certifications required by 7 CFR Part 3017, as amended, regarding
Debarment and Suspension and Drug Free Workplace, and 7 CFR Part 3018,
regarding Lobbying. The certification forms are included in the
application package for informational purposes only. These forms should
not be submitted with the proposal since by signing form CSREES-661
your organization is providing the required certifications. If the
project will involve a subcontractor or consultant, the subcontractor/
consultant should submit a form AD-1048 to the grantee organization for
retention in their records. This form should not be submitted to USDA.
14. Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Form
CSREES-1234)
As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service regulations implementing NEPA), the
environmental data for any proposed project is to be provided to CSREES
so that CSREES may determine whether any further action is needed. In
some cases, however, the preparation of environmental data may not be
required. Certain categories of actions are excluded from the
requirements of NEPA.
In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is
needed with respect to NEPA, pertinent information regarding the
possible environmental impacts of a particular project is necessary;
therefore, Form CSREES-1234, ``NEPA Exclusions Form,'' must be included
in the proposal indicating whether the applicant is of the opinion that
the project falls within a categorical exclusion and the reasons
therefore. If it is the applicant's opinion that the proposed project
falls within the categorical exclusions, the specific exclusion must be
identified. Form CSREES-1234 and supporting documentation should be
included as the last page of this proposal.
Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions,
CSREES may determine that an Environmental Assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for an activity, if
substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or if other
extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present which may cause
such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
C. Submission of Proposals
1. When To Submit (Deadline Date)
Proposals must be transmitted by June 6, 2000, as indicated by
postmark or date of courier bill of lading. Proposals transmitted after
this date will not be considered for funding.
2. What To Submit
An original and 14 copies must be submitted. In addition submit 10
copies of the proposal's Project Summary. All copies of the proposals
and the Project Summaries must be submitted in one package.
3. Where To Submit
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed proposals
via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by the
USDA. The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted
using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Integrated
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program -Pest
Managment; c/o Proposal Services Unit; 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.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the
following address: Integrated Research, Education, and Extension
Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management; c/o Proposal Services
Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue,
S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2245.
D. Acknowledgment of Proposals
The receipt of all proposals will be acknowledged by e-mail.
Therefore, applicants strongly are encouraged to provide e-mail
addresses, where designated, on the Form CSREES-661. If the applicant's
email address is not indicated, CSREES will acknowledge receipt of
proposal by letter.
Once the proposal has been assigned an identification number,
please cite that number on all future correspondence. If the applicant
does not receive an acknowledgment within 60 days of the submission
deadline, please contact the Program Director.
Part IV--Review Process
A. General
Each proposal will be evaluated using a 3-part process. First, each
proposal will be screened to ensure that it meets the administrative
requirements as set forth in this request for proposals-tier review
process. Second, a panel will consider the relevance of the proposal to
program objectives. Third, a technical peer panel will consider the
technical merits of the proposal. The relevancy panel will be comprised
of representatives from USDA and other federal agencies, farm and
commodity
[[Page 18833]]
organizations, environmental and consumer groups, experts from colleges
and universities, and others as needed. The technical peer panel will
include representatives with appropriate scientific backgrounds from
colleges and universities, USDA, EPA, and organizations with research,
education, and extension expertise as needed. Funding determinations
will come from a rank-ordered list of projects based on the combined
relevancy and scientific peer panel scores. CSREES has found the above
review process most appropriate for evaluating pest management grant
proposals as proven through the administration of the Pest Management
Alternatives Research Program as authorized under the Competitive,
Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act.
Overall, peer review panel members will be selected based upon
their training and experience in relevant scientific, education or
extension fields taking into account the following factors: (a) The
level of formal scientific, technical education, and extension
experience of the individual, as well as the extent to which an
individual is engaged in relevant research, education and/or extension
activities; (b) the need to include as peer reviewers experts from
various areas of specialization within relevant scientific, education,
and extension fields; (c) the need to include as reviewers other
experts (producers, range or forest managers/operators, consumers,
etc.) who can assess relevance of the proposals to targeted audiences
and to program needs; (d) the need to include as peer reviewers experts
from a variety of organizational types (e.g., colleges, universities,
industry, state and Federal agencies, private profit and non-profit
organizations), and geographic locations; (e) the need to maintain a
balanced composition of peer review groups with regard to minority and
female representation and an equitable age distribution; and (f) the
need to include members that can judge the effective usefulness to
producers and the general public of each proposal.
B. Evaluation Criteria
Priority will be given for integrated, multifunctional research,
education, and extension projects.
The criteria used to evaluate proposals submitted to the Integrated
Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest
Management will vary depending on which of the four program components
you are requesting funding from. The two sets of evaluation criteria
are listed below.
1. Evaluation Criteria for CAR, RAMP, and MBT Proposals
Proposals for CAR, RAMP, and MBT funding will be evaluated based on
the criteria described below. The relevancy panel will assign up to 30
points based on Criterion a, and the technical panel will assign up to
70 points based on Criteria b-f. The criteria are listed below.
a. Relevance to Program Objectives (30 points): Factors that will
be considered include the importance of the crop/pest combination
(particularly agronomic and economic considerations; e.g., magnitude of
the pest problem if a widely used pesticide is no longer available),
number of crops and pesticides addressed, user involvement in planning
and implementation, potential for rapid integration into production
practices, and demonstration of consideration of existing pest
management programs.
b. Importance of the Problem (10 points): particularly ecological
and agronomic considerations.
c. Technical Quality of the Approach (15 points): include the
feasibility of attaining objectives; and the adequacy of professional
training and experience, facilities and equipment.
d. Potential to Reduce Reliance on Pesticides (15 points).
e. Level of End-User Involvement (20 points): Examples are grower
or commodity group involvement in planning or conducting research
trials and demonstrations.
f. Appropriateness of the Budget (10 points).
2. Evaluation Criteria for Pest Management Center Proposals
Proposals for Pest Management Center funding will be evaluated
based on the criteria described below. The relevancy panel will assign
up to 30 points based on Criterion a, and the technical panel will
assign up to 70 points based on Criteria b-e. The criteria are listed
below.
a. Relevance to Program Objectives (30 points).
b. Appropriateness of Process to Establish Information Network (20
points): The process to establish the information network should ensure
that all eligible colleges and universities have an opportunity to be
become a member of the regional Center's information network.
c. Capacity to Attain Program Objectives (20 points): Factors that
will be considered include the ability to provide leadership to form a
broad-based regional information network; the strength of the action
plan for development of Pest Management Centers organized around crop
production regions (agro-ecosystems); the ability to foster research,
extension and education collaborations, interdisciplinary teams, and
inter-institutional partnerships; the adequacy, professional training
and experience of Center staff; and the level of institutional support
for Center including facilities and equipment.
d. Level of End-User Involvement (20 points): Factors that will be
considered include evidence that stakeholders were consulted during
proposal preparation and will participate in operation of the Center,
and the ability to establish partnerships with stakeholders to
accomplish Center objectives.
e. Appropriateness of the Budget (10 points): The budget should be
reflective of the complexity and intensity of agriculture within the
region.
C. Conflicts-of-Interest and Confidentiality
During the peer evaluation process, extreme care will be taken to
prevent any actual or perceived conflicts-of-interest that may impact
review or evaluation. For the purpose of determining conflicts-of-
interest, the academic and administrative autonomy of an institution
shall be determined by reference to the January 1998 issue of the
Codebook for Compatible Statistical Reporting of Federal Support to
Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions, prepared by Quantum
Research Corporation for the National Science Foundation.
Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as
proposal content and peer evaluations, will be kept confidential,
except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted
by law. In addition, the identities of peer reviewers will remain
confidential throughout the entire review process. Therefore, the names
of the reviewers will not be released to applicants. At the end of the
fiscal year, names of panelists will be made available in such a way
that the panelists cannot be identified with the review of any
particular proposal.
Part V--Additional Information
A. Access To Review Information
Copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of reviewers,
will be sent to the applicant PI/PD after the review process has been
completed.
B. Grant Awards
(1) General
Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding
official of
[[Page 18834]]
CSREES shall make grants to those responsible, eligible applicants
whose proposals are judged most meritorious under the procedures set
forth in this RFP. The date specified by the awarding official of
CSREES as the effective date of the grant shall be no later than
September 30 of the Federal fiscal year in which the project is
approved for support and funds are appropriated for such purpose,
unless otherwise permitted by law. It should be noted that the project
need not be initiated on the grant effective date, but as soon
thereafter as practical so that project goals may be attained within
the funded project period. All funds granted by CSREES under this RFP
shall be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are
granted in accordance with the approved application and budget, the
regulations, the terms and conditions of the award, the applicable
Federal cost principles, and the Department's assistance regulations
(parts 3015 and 3019 of 7 CFR).
(2) Organizational Management Information
Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be
submitted on a one-time basis as part of the responsibility
determination prior to the award of a grant identified under this RFP,
if such information has not been provided previously under this or
another CSREES program. CSREES will provide copies of forms recommended
for use in fulfilling these requirements as part of the preaward
process.
(3) Grant Award Document and Notice of Grant Award
The grant award document shall include at a minimum the following:
(a) Legal name and address of performing organization or
institution to whom the Administrator has awarded a grant under the
terms of this request for proposals;
(b) Title of project;
(c) Name(s) and address(es) of PI/PD's chosen to direct and control
approved activities;
(d) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department;
(e) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Department
intends to support the project without requiring recompetition for
funds;
(f) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by
the Administrator during the project period;
(g) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded;
(h) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds
to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award; and
(i) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by CSREES to
carry out its respective granting activities or to accomplish the
purpose of a particular grant.
The notice of grant award, in the form of a letter, will be
prepared and will provide pertinent instructions or information to the
grantee that is not included in the grant award document.
C. Use of Funds; Changes
(1) Delegation of Fiscal Responsibility
Unless the terms and conditions of the grant state otherwise, the
grantee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another
person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or
expenditure of grant funds.
(2) Changes in Project Plans
(a) The permissible changes by the grantee, PI/PD(s), or other key
project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to
changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to
expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee
and/or the PI/PD(s) are uncertain as to whether a change complies with
this provision, the question must be referred to the CSREES Authorized
Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination.
(b) Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by
the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such
changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which
are outside the scope of the original approved project.
(c) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or
reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the
grantee and approved in writing by the awarding official of CSREES
prior to effecting such changes.
(d) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic
work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether
or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee
and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such transfers,
unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the grant.
(e) Changes in Project Period: The project period may be extended
by CSREES without additional financial support, for such additional
period(s) as the ADO determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill
the purposes of an approved project, but in no case shall the total
project period exceed five years. Any extension of time shall be
conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing
by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of
a grant.
(f) Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must
be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to
instituting such changes if the revision will involve transfers or
expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the
applicable Federal cost principles, Departmental regulations, or in the
grant award.
D. Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations
Several Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant proposals
considered for review and to project grants awarded under this program.
These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR Part 1.1--USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information
Act.
7 CFR Part 3--USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129
regarding debt collection.
7 CFR Part 15, subpart A--USDA implementation of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
7 CFR Part 3015--USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations,
implementing OMB directives (i.e., Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122) and
incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-224), as well as
general policy requirements applicable to recipients of Departmental
financial assistance.
7 CFR Part 3017--USDA implementation of Governmentwide Debarment
and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for
Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).
7 CFR Part 3018--USDA implementation of Restrictions on Lobbying.
Imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification
related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants,
cooperative agreements, and loans.
7 CFR Part 3019--USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements With
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit
Organizations.
7 CFR Part 3052--USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-133,
Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-profit Organizations.
[[Page 18835]]
7 CFR Part 3407--CSREES procedures to implement the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR
Part 15B (USDA implementation of statute)--prohibiting discrimination
based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.
35 U.S.C. 200 et seq.--Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of
rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and
domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally
assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR
Part 401).
E. Confidential Aspects of Proposals and Awards
When a proposal results in a grant, it becomes a part of the record
of CSREES transactions, available to the public upon specific request.
Information that the Secretary determines to be of a confidential,
privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the
extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant
wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary
should be clearly marked within the proposal. The original copy of a
proposal that does not result in a grant will be retained by the Agency
for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Such a
proposal will be released only with the consent of the applicant or to
the extent required by law. A proposal may be withdrawn at any time
prior to the final action thereon.
F. Regulatory Information
For the 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 the Executive Order 12372 which requires
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended (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., this 4th day of April 2000.
Charles W. Laughlin,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-8641 Filed 4-4-00; 2:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P