[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15268-15274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7687]
[[Page 15267]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Agriculture
_______________________________________________________________________
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
_______________________________________________________________________
Special Research Grants Program--Pest Management Alternatives Research:
Special Program Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues for
Fiscal Year 1999; Request for Proposals; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 1999 /
Notices
[[Page 15268]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Special Research Grants Program--Pest Management Alternatives
Research: Special Program Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues
for Fiscal Year 1999; Request for Proposals
AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice of availability of grant funds, request for proposals
and request for input.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Proposals are invited for competitive grant awards under the
Special Research Grants Program titled ``Pest Management Alternatives
Program: Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues for Fiscal Year
1999.'' This program addresses anticipated changes in pest management
on food, feed, livestock, and ornamental commodities resulting from
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
The goals of this program are to: (1) Develop and demonstrate
alternatives and possible mitigation strategies to ensure that crop
producers have reliable methods of managing pests; and (2) Develop crop
profiles that summarize production practices, pesticide use/usage data,
and available pest management alternatives for pesticides considered a
high priority for tolerance reassessment under FQPA.
By this notice, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES) additionally solicits stakeholder input from
any interested party regarding the FY 1999 solicitation of applications
for use in the development of the next request for proposals for this
program.
DATES: Proposals are due June 1, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Written comments regarding stakeholder input should be
submitted by first-class mail to: Policy and Program Liaison Staff;
Office of Extramural Programs; Competitive Research Grants and Awards
Management; USDA-CSREES; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.;
Washington, D.C. 20250-2299; or via e-mail to: [email protected]. In
your comments, please include the name of the program and the fiscal
year request for proposals to which you are responding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Yaninek, Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of
Agriculture; Mail Stop 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington,
D.C. 20250-2220. Telephone: (202) 401-6702; fax number: (202) 401-6869;
e-mail address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Authority and Eligibility
Applicant Peer Review Requirements
Available Funding
Applicable Regulations
Program Description
Proposal Format
Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
CSREES Proposal Evaluation
Confidentiality
How to Obtain Application Materials
Proposal Submission
Stakeholder Input
Additional Information
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Authority and Eligibility
This program is administered by CSREES, United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). The authority is contained in section (c)(1)(A) of
the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act, in section
2 of Pub. L. No. 89-106, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)(1)(A)). Under
this authority, subject to the availability of funds, the Secretary may
make grants, for periods not to exceed three years, to State
agricultural experiment stations, all colleges and universities, other
research institutions and organizations, Federal agencies, private
organizations or corporations, and individuals for the purpose of
conducting research to facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in
areas of the food and agricultural sciences of importance to the United
States.
Proposals from scientists affiliated with non-United States
organizations are not eligible for funding nor are scientists who are
directly or indirectly engaged in the development of pest management
tactics for profit; however, their collaboration with funded projects
is encouraged.
The Pest Management Alternatives Program was established to support
the development and implementation of pest management alternatives when
regulatory action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or
voluntary cancellation by the registrant results in the unavailability
of certain agricultural pesticides or pesticide uses. These activities
pertain to pesticides identified for possible regulatory action under
section 210 of the FQPA, Pub. L. No. 104-170, which amends the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The program has been
developed pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
USDA and EPA signed August 15, 1994, and amended April 18, 1996, which
establishes a coordinated framework for these two agencies to support
programs that make alternative pest management materials available to
agricultural producers. In this MOU, USDA and EPA agreed to cooperate
in conducting the research, technology transfer, and registration
activities necessary to address pest management alternatives needed in
agriculture. Because of the importance of FQPA, USDA created the Office
of Pest Management Policy (OPMP) in 1997 to coordinate FQPA activities
within the Department. OPMP found significant gaps in the information
available on pesticide use/usage and requested help in developing crop
profiles. This program responded in 1998 by linking up with the
National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) to
help develop urgently needed crop profiles while continuing the
development of critical mitigation strategies. This effort continues in
1999, but will be phased out in the future as the urgency declines and
NAPIAP assumes primary responsibility for the profiles.
Applicant Peer Review Requirements
Subsection (c)(5) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities
Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 450i(c)), as amended by section 212
of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (``1998 Act''), Pub. L. No. 105-185, requires applicants to
conduct a scientific peer review of a proposed research project in
accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary prior to the
Secretary making a grant award under this authority. Regulations
implementing this requirement currently are the subject of a proposed
rule making (64 FR 14347, March 24, 1999). The statute requires
promulgation of a final rule prior to award of a grant under this
program. The proposed rule would impose the following requirements for
scientific peer review by applicants of proposed research projects:
1. Credible and independent. Review arranged by the grantee must
provide for a credible and independent assessment of the proposed
project. A credible review is one that provides an appraisal of
technical quality and relevance sufficient for an organizational
representative to make an informed judgment as to whether the proposal
is appropriate for submission for Federal support. To provide for an
independent review, such review may include USDA
[[Page 15269]]
employees, but should not be conducted solely by USDA employees.
2. Notice of completion and retention of records. A notice of
completion of the review shall be conveyed in writing to CSREES either
as part of the submitted proposal or prior to the issuance of an award,
at the option of CSREES. The written notice constitutes certification
by the applicant that a review in compliance with these regulations has
occurred. Applicants are not required to submit results of the review
to CSREES; however, proper documentation of the review process and
results should be retained by the applicant.
3. Renewal and supplemental grants. Review by the grantee is not
automatically required for renewal or supplemental grants as defined in
7 CFR 3400.6. A subsequent grant award will require a new review if,
according to CSREES, either the funded project has changed
significantly, other scientific discoveries have affected the project,
or the need for the project has changed. Note that a new review is
necessary when applying for another standard or continuation grant
after expiration of the grant term.
4. Scientific Peer Review. Scientific peer review is an evaluation
of a proposed project for technical quality and relevance to regional
or national goals performed by experts with the scientific knowledge
and technical skills to conduct the proposed research work. Peer
reviewers may be selected from an applicant organization or from
outside the organization, but shall not include principal or co-
principal investigators, collaborators or others involved in the
preparation of the application under review.
Because of the nature of the rule making process, these
requirements are subject to change based upon the comments received.
Applicants whose proposals are recommended for funding must comply with
the review requirements as promulgated in the final rule as a condition
precedent to receiving an award under this RFP.
Available Funding
The amount available for support of this program in fiscal year
(FY) 1999 is approximately $1,500,000. It is anticipated that EPA will
also provide support to the program. Section 711 of the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, section 101(a) of Pub. L. No.
105-277, prohibits CSREES from paying indirect costs on competitively
awarded research grants that exceed 14 percent of total Federal funds
provided for each award under this program.
Applicable Regulations
This program is subject to the administrative provisions for the
Special Research Grants Program found in 7 CFR Part 3400, which set
forth procedures to be followed when submitting grant proposals, rules
governing the evaluation of proposals, the processes regarding the
awarding of grants, and regulations relating to the post-award
administration of such grants. However, where there are differences
between this RFP and the administrative provisions, this RFP shall take
precedence to the extent that the administrative provisions authorize
such deviations. Other Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant
proposals considered for review or to grants awarded under this
program. These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR Part 3019--USDA Uniform Administrative Requirements for
Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education,
Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations; and 7 CFR Part 3052--
Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.
Program Description
This competitive grants program supports efforts to modify existing
pest management approaches or develop new methods that address needs
created by the implementation of FQPA. The program also addresses the
need for collection of information for regulatory decision making and
for prioritization of research and education needs. This information
includes crop profiles, pesticide use and usage on commodities
(including livestock and ornamentals), potential alternatives for
pesticides on EPA's priority list (see Appendix I), integrated pest
management programs, pesticide resistance management strategies, and
potential mitigation strategies for reducing dietary risk.
In FY 1999, CSREES will provide funding for projects that: (1)
Identify and develop replacement or mitigation technologies for
pesticides included on EPA's priority list (Appendix I) and/or (2)
Develop crop profiles summarizing practices for specific commodities
(including livestock and ornamentals) (see Appendix II). Proposals may
develop replacement or mitigation technologies (Objective 1), develop
crop profiles (Objective 2), or develop both replacement or mitigation
technologies and crop profiles. Applicants that address only
replacement or mitigation technologies are not restricted to the crops
listed in Appendix II, but must document that a crop profile has been
or is being developed, or provide compelling evidence otherwise as to
the importance of their proposed research.
Proposals will show evidence that producers, commodity groups, and
other affected user groups are involved in project design and will be
supportive of the project if funded. Public-private partnerships and
matching resources from non-Federal sources, including producer or
commodity groups, are encouraged. Proposals should show potential for
commercialization (including product registration if necessary) of any
new technologies that are developed. Applicants are strongly encouraged
to collaborate with staff involved in university Pesticide Impact
Assessment Programs (PIAP) and Integrated Pest Management programs to
develop crop profiles. The two objectives are described below.
I. Replacement or Mitigation Technologies
The focus should be on modification of existing approaches or
introduction of new methods, especially biologically based methods,
that can be rapidly brought to bear on pest management challenges
resulting from implementation of FQPA. Durability and practicality of
the proposed pest management option(s) or mitigation procedure(s), and
compatibility with integrated pest management systems, are critical.
Both technological and economic feasibility should be considered. Pest
management alternatives or risk mitigation options identified should
address various risk concerns including dietary, occupational and non-
occupational exposure, ground and surface water, and other ecological
risks. Applicants must document that a crop profile has been or is
being developed for the crop targeted in the proposal, or provide
compelling evidence otherwise as to the importance of their proposed
research.
II. Crop Profiles
Profiles are needed for commodities (see Appendix II) that depend
heavily on pesticides included on EPA's priority list (see Appendix I).
Profiles should document the importance of priority pesticides to pest
management on the commodities addressed by the proposal. Profiles
should describe the production process and provide data on pesticide
use (how, why, what, when and where pesticides are used) and usage (how
much is used, e.g., percentage crop treated) patterns, pest management
practices used by growers, and pest management practices ready for
implementation but not yet widely used. Profiles should also indicate
whether pesticides on the priority list
[[Page 15270]]
(Appendix I) are important to integrated pest management programs or to
strategies to manage resistance to other pesticides, and whether there
are any potential labeled or unlabeled alternatives (chemical or
nonchemical) to replace priority list pesticides on a specific
commodity. Alternatives can include other pesticides, biological
controls, pest resistant varieties, or cultural practices. In addition,
practices or procedures that have the potential to mitigate dietary
risk from priority list pesticides should be described. Crop profiles
should follow the format presented in Appendix III. Potentially
affected growers or commodity groups must be involved in the
development of crop profiles. While priority will be given to proposals
addressing one or more commodities (see Appendix II) that depend
heavily on pesticides included on EPA's priority list (see Appendix I),
proposals addressing commodities not included in the list will be
considered. Consult the website listed at the end of either Appendix II
& III for a current list of crop profiles that are either completed or
in progress to avoid duplicate efforts. Profiles must be completed
within twelve months after receipt of funding.
Note: The development of replacements for methyl bromide is
being supported by other agencies (e.g. see the USDA/ARS website:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/cgi-bin/ffp.pl/is/np/mba/oct96/
epa.htm?methyl bromide alternatives grants#first__hit'') and will
not be supported by the Pest Management Alternatives Program.
Proposal Format
Each project description shall be complete in itself. The
administrative provisions governing the Special Research Grants
Program, 7 CFR Part 3400, set forth instructions for the preparation of
grant proposals. The following requirements deviate from those
contained in section 3400.4(c). The following provisions of this
solicitation shall apply. Proposals should adhere to the format
requirements for the specific objective addressed by the proposal
format below. Items three through six should be no more than 12 pages
in length, numbered, and single-spaced with text on one side of the
page using a 12 point (10 cpi) type font size and one-inch margins.
(1) Application for Funding (Form CSREES-661). All proposals must
contain an Application for Funding (Form CSREES-661), which must be
signed by the proposed principal investigator(s) and by the cognizant
Authorized Organizational Representative who possesses the necessary
authority to commit the applicant's time and other relevant resources.
Principal investigators who do not sign the proposal cover sheet will
not be listed on the grant document in the event an award is made. The
title of the proposal must be brief (80-character maximum), yet
represent the major emphasis of the project. Because this title will be
used to provide information to those who may not be familiar with the
proposed project, highly technical words or phraseology should be
avoided where possible. In addition, phrases such as ``investigation
of'' or ``research on'' should not be used.
(2) Table of Contents. For ease in locating information, each
proposal must contain a detailed table of contents just after the
proposal cover page. The Table of Contents should include page numbers
for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately
following the Table of Contents.
(3) Executive Summary. Describe the project in terms that can be
understood by a diverse audience of university personnel, producers,
various public and private groups, budget staff, and the general
public. This should be on a separate page, no more than one page in
length and have the following format: Name(s) of principal
investigator(s) and institutional affiliation, project title, key
words, and project summary.
(4) Problem Statement. Identify the pest management problem
addressed, its significance, and options for solution. Identify the
commodity(ies) (from the commodity list for crop profiles, Appendix II)
and the pesticides (from the priority list, Appendix I) that will be
addressed by the proposed project. Proposals can address commodities
not listed in Appendix II as long as priority pesticides are used in
the production system. Describe the production area addressed
(including acreage), frequency and severity of losses to pests
controlled with priority pesticides (Appendix I), and the potential
applicability to other production regions (if the proposal addresses
Objective 1). For crop profiles, provide sources of data and other
information on pesticide use, usage patterns, and pest management
practices. As appropriate, proposals should address issues as they
relate to current integrated pest management and crop production
practices, technologic and economic feasibility of potential new
practices, and their potential durability.
(5) Objectives. Provide clear, concise, complete, and logically
arranged statements of the specific aims of the proposed effort.
(6) Research, Education, and Technology Transfer Plan. This section
is only needed if the proposed project includes development of
replacement or mitigation technologies (Objective 1). Proposals should
provide a detailed plan for the research, education, and technology
transfer required to implement the alternative solution in the field,
and should identify milestones.
(7) Literature Cited. A concise list of key references cited in the
proposal should be included in this section.
(8) User Involvement. Describe role of producers, commodity groups,
and other end-users in identifying the need for the work being
proposed, and their anticipated involvement in the project if funded.
Competitive proposals will demonstrate involvement of affected user
groups in project design, implementation, and funding.
(9) Facilities and Equipment. All facilities and major items of
equipment that are available for use or assignment to the proposed
research project during the requested period of support should be
described. In addition, items of nonexpendable equipment necessary to
conduct and successfully complete the proposed project should be listed
with the amount and justification for each item.
(10) Collaborative Arrangements. If the nature of the proposed
project requires collaboration or subcontractual arrangements with
other research scientists, corporations, organizations, agencies, or
entities, the applicant must identify the collaborator(s) and provide a
full explanation of the nature of the collaboration. Funding
contributions by collaborators that will be used to accomplish the
stated objectives should be identified. Evidence (i.e., letters of
intent) should be provided to assure peer reviewers that the
collaborators involved have agreed to render this service. In addition,
the proposal must indicate whether or not such a collaborative
arrangement(s) has the potential for conflict(s) of interest.
(11) Personnel Support. To assist peer reviewers in assessing the
competence and experience of the proposed project staff, key personnel
who will be involved in the proposed project must be clearly
identified. For each principal investigator involved, and for all
senior associates and other professional personnel who are expected to
work on the project, whether or not funds are sought for their support,
the following should be included:
(i) An estimate of the time commitments necessary.
(ii) Curriculum vitae. The curriculum vitae should be limited to a
presentation
[[Page 15271]]
of academic and research credentials, or commodity production knowledge
or experience with that commodity (e.g., educational, employment and
professional history, and honors and awards). Unless pertinent to the
project, to personal status, or to the status of the organization,
meetings attended, seminars given, or personal data such as birth date,
marital status, or community activities should not be included. Each
vitae shall be no more than two pages in length, excluding the
publication lists.
(iii) Publication list(s). A chronological list of all publications
in refereed journals during the past four years, including those in
press, must be provided for each professional project member for whom a
curriculum vitae is provided. Authors should be listed in the same
order as they appear on each paper cited, along with the title and
complete reference as these items usually appear in journals.
(12) Budget. A detailed budget is required for each year of
requested support. In addition, a summary budget is required detailing
requested support for the overall project period. A copy of the form
which must be used for this purpose (Form CSREES-55), along with
instructions for completion, is included in the Application Kit and may
be reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be requested under any
of the categories listed, provided that the item or service for which
support is requested may be identified as necessary for successful
conduct of the proposed project, is allowable under applicable Federal
cost principles, and is not prohibited under any applicable Federal
statute. However, the recovery of indirect costs under this program may
not exceed the lesser of the grantee institution's official negotiated
indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 14 percent of total Federal
funds awarded. This limitation also applies to the recovery of indirect
costs by any sub-awardee or subcontractor, and should be reflected in
the sub-recipient budget.
Note: For projects awarded under the authority of Sec.
2(c)(1)(A) of Pub. L. No. 89-106, no funds will be awarded for the
renovation or refurbishment of research spaces; the purchase or
installation of fixed equipment in such spaces; or for the planning,
repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of a building
or facility.
(13) Research Involving Special Considerations. If it is
anticipated that the research project will involve recombinant DNA or
RNA research, experimental vertebrate animals, or human subjects, an
Assurance Statement, Form CSREES-662, must be completed and included in
the proposal. Please note that grant funds will not be released until
CSREES receives and approves documentation indicating approval by the
appropriate institutional committee(s) regarding DNA or RNA research,
animal care, or the protection of human subjects, as applicable.
(14) Current and Pending Support. All proposals must contain Form
CSREES-663 listing this proposal and any other current public or
private research support (including in-house support) to which key
personnel identified in the proposal have committed portions of their
time, whether or not salary support for the person(s) involved is
included in the budget. Analogous information must be provided for any
pending proposals that are being considered by, or that will be
submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors, including
other USDA programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of identical or
similar proposals to other possible sponsors will not prejudice
proposal review or evaluation by the Administrator of CSREES for this
purpose. However, a proposal that duplicates or overlaps substantially
with a proposal already reviewed and funded (or that will be funded) by
another organization or agency will not be funded under this program.
(15) Additions to Project Description. The Administrator of CSREES,
the members of peer review groups, and the relevant program staff
expect each project description to be complete given the page limit
established in this section (Proposal Format). However, if the
inclusion of additional information is necessary to ensure the
equitable evaluation of the proposal (e.g., photographs that do not
reproduce well, reprints, and other pertinent materials that are deemed
to be unsuitable for inclusion in the text of the proposal), then 20
copies of the materials should be submitted. Each set of such materials
must be identified with the name of the submitting organization, and
the name(s) of the principal investigator(s). Information may not be
appended to a proposal to circumvent page limitations prescribed for
the project description. Extraneous materials will not be used during
the peer review process.
Note: Specific organizational management information relating to
an applicant shall be submitted on a one-time basis prior to the
award of a grant for this program if such information has not been
provided previously under this or another program for which the
sponsoring agency is responsible. If necessary, USDA will contact an
applicant to request organizational management information once a
proposal has been recommended for funding.
Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act
As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (CSREES's implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.)), the environmental data or documentation for any
proposed project is to be provided to CSREES in order to assist CSREES
in carrying out its responsibilities under NEPA. In some cases,
however, the preparation of environmental data or documentation may not
be required. Certain categories of actions are excluded from the
requirements of NEPA. The USDA and CSREES exclusions are listed in 7
CFR 1b.3 and 7 CFR 3407.6, respectively.
In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is
needed with respect to NEPA (e.g., preparation of an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS)), pertinent
information regarding the possible environmental impacts of a proposed
project is necessary; therefore, the National Environmental Policy Act
Exclusions Form (Form CSREES-1234) provided in the Application Kit must
be included in the proposal indicating whether the applicant is of the
opinion that the project falls within one or more of the categorical
exclusions. Form CSREES-1234 should follow Form CSREES-661, Application
for Funding, in the proposal.
Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions,
CSREES may determine that an EA or an EIS is necessary for an activity,
if substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or if other
extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present that may cause
such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
CSREES Proposal Evaluation
Priority will be given to proposals that address one or more of the
commodities listed in Appendix II; however, proposals addressing
commodities not included in this list will be considered. Proposals
will be evaluated for relevancy (Criterion 1, 25 points) by
representatives from USDA, EPA, appropriate farm and commodity
organizations, and consumer groups. Methodology and scientific rigor
(Criteria 2-6, 75 points) will be evaluated by a panel with appropriate
expertise. Panel members will include representatives with appropriate
science backgrounds from land-grant universities (including IPM, IR-4,
and NAPIAP), USDA, EPA, and other organizations as needed. Funding
determinations will come from a rank-ordered list of projects based on
the
[[Page 15272]]
combined relevancy and scientific merit scores.
Proposals that will only develop Crop Profiles (Objective 2) will
be evaluated as a separate group, and will not be scored on potential
to reduce reliance (Criterion 4).
The following criteria will be used in evaluating proposals:
1. Relevance to Program Objectives (25 points). Factors that will
be considered include: number of crops and pesticides addressed
(particularly those listed in Appendices I and II), user involvement in
planning and implementation, potential for rapid integration (within 2-
3 years) into production practices, and demonstration of consideration
of existing IPM programs.
2. Importance of the Problem (Problem Statement) (15 points).
3. Appropriateness of Methods in Meeting Objectives (20 points).
4. Potential to Reduce Reliance (20 points).
5. Level of User Involvement (10 points).
6. Appropriateness of the Budget (10 points).
Confidentiality
CSREES receives grant proposals in confidence and will protect the
confidentiality of their contents to the maximum extent permitted by
law. Information contained in unfunded proposals will remain the
property of the applicant. However, CSREES will retain one copy of all
proposals received for a one year period; extra copies will be
destroyed.
When a proposal results in a grant, it becomes a part of the public
record, available to the public upon specific request under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA). Information that the Secretary of
Agriculture determines to be of a privileged nature will be held in
confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information
that the applicant wishes to have considered as privileged should be
clearly marked by the applicant with the term ``confidential
proprietary information.''
How To Obtain Application Materials
Copies of this solicitation, the administrative provisions for the
Program (7 CFR Part 3400), and the Application Kit, which contains
required forms, certifications, and instructions for preparing and
submitting applications for funding, may be obtained by contacting:
Proposal Services Unit; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Mail Stop 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington,
DC 20250-2245; telephone: (202) 401-5048. When contacting the Proposal
Services Unit, please indicate that you are requesting forms for the
Special Research Grants Program--Pest Management Alternatives Research:
Special Program Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues.
Application materials may also be requested via Internet by sending
a message with your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and telephone
number to [email protected] that states that you wish to receive a copy
of the application materials for the FY 1999 Special Research Grants
Program--Pest Management Alternatives Research: Special Program
Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues. The materials will then
be mailed to you (not e-mailed) as quickly as possible.
Proposal Submission
What To Submit
An original and 20 copies of a proposal must be submitted. Each
copy must be stapled securely in the upper left-hand corner (DO NOT
BIND). All copies of the proposal must be submitted in one package.
Where and When To Submit
Proposals must be postmarked by June 1, 1999. Proposals submitted
by First Class mail must be sent to the following address: Special
Research Grants--Pest Management Alternatives; c/o Proposal Services
Unit; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mail
Stop 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-2245;
telephone: (202) 401-5048.
Proposals to be delivered by Express mail, courier service, or by
hand must be sent to the following address: Special Research Grants--
Pest Management Alternatives; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Office of
Extramural Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 303; 901 D
Street, SW; Washington, DC 20024; telephone: (202) 401-5048.
Stakeholder Input
CSREES is soliciting comments regarding this solicitation of
applications from any interested party. These comments will be
considered in the development of the next request for proposals 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
(Pub. L. 105-185). This section requires the Secretary to solicit and
consider input on a current request for proposals from persons who
conduct or use agricultural research, education, or extension for use
in formulating the next request for proposals for an agricultural
research program funded on a competitive basis.
In your comments, please include the name of the program and the
fiscal year solicitation of applications to which you are responding.
Comments are requested within six months from the issuance of the
solicitation of applications. Comments received after that date will be
considered to the extent practicable.
Additional Information
For reasons set forth in the final rule-related Notice to 7 CFR
Part 3015, Subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is
excluded from the scope of Executive Order No. 12372 which requires
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35), the collection of information requirements contained in
this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No. 0524-0022.
Appendix I
Pesticides--Priority List of Pesticides: pesticides that will be
first to undergo review of tolerances by EPA, as required the Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996.
Abbreviations: AM = antimicrobial, I = insecticide, F =
fungicide, IGR = insect growth regulator, H = herbicide, N =
nematicide.
Organophosphates
Acephate--I
Azinphos-methyl--I
Bensulide--H
Chlorethoxyfos--I
Chlorpyrifos--I
Chlorpyrifos methyl--I
Coumaphos--I
DEF--Defoliant
Diazinon--I
Dichlorvos -I
Dicrotophos--I
Dimethoate--I
Disulfoton--I
Ethion--I
Ethoprop -I, N
Ethyl parathion--I
Fenamiphos--I, N
Fenitrothion--I
Fenthion--I
Fonofos -I
Isofenphos--I
Malathion -I
Methamidophos--I
Methidathion--I
Methyl parathion--I
Naled--I
Oxydemeton methyl--I
[[Page 15273]]
Phorate--I
Phosmet--I
Phostebupirim--I
Pirimiphos methyl -I
Profenofos--I
Propetamphos--I
Sulfotepp--I
Sulprofos--I
Temephos--I
Terbufos--I
Tetrachlorvinphos--I
Trichlorfon--I
Carbamates:
2EEEBC--F
Aldicarb--I, N
Asulam--H
Bendiocarb--I
Benomyl--F
Carbaryl--I
Carbendazim--F
Carbofuran--I, N
Chlorpropham--H
Desmidipham--H
Fenoxycarb--I
Formetanate HC--I
Methiocarb--I
Methomyl--I
Oxamyl--I, N
Phenmedipham--H
Propamocarb hydrochloride--F
Propoxur--I
Thiodicarb--I
Thiophanate methyl--F
Troysan KK--AM, F
Potential Carcinogens (B1's and B2's)
Acetochlor--H
Aciflourfen sodium--H
Alachlor--H
Amitrol--H
Cacodylic acid--H
Captan--F
Chlorothalonil--F
Creosote--wood preservative
Cyproconazole--F
Daminozide (Alar)--growth retardant
ETO--fumigant, sterilant
Fenoxycarb--IGR
Folpet--F
Formaldehyde--fumigant, germicide
Heptachlor--I
Iprodione--F
Lactofen--H
Lindane--I
Mancozeb--F
Maneb--F
Metam sodium--F, I, H, N, soil fumigant
Metiram--F
MGK repellent--repellent, synergist
Orthophenylphenol--AM, F, virucide
Oxythioquinox--I
Pentachlorophenol--F
Pronamide--H
Propargite--I
Propoxur--I
Propylene oxide--AM, I, F
Telone--N, soil fumigant
Terrazole--F
Thiodicarb--I
TPTH--F
Vinclozolin--F
Appendix II
Commodities--USDA and EPA have determined that production of the
following commodities may depend heavily on the pesticides included
on the priority list (Appendix I). The possible regulatory impacts
of FQPA for these commodities are not known. To answer questions
that may arise during FQPA implementation, crop profiles are
critical for these commodities. Priority will be given to proposals
that address one or more of the commodities on this list.
alfalfa (seed, forage)
artichoke
asparagus
avocado
barley
beans (dry, lima, snap)
beets
blackberry
blueberry
broccoli
brussels sprouts
canola
carrot
cauliflower
celery
citrus
clover seed
cole crops
collards
cranberry
cucumber
date
eggplant
endive
fig
filberts
garlic
green onions
greens
hazelnuts
hops
kale
kiwi
lettuce
livestock
mango
melons
mint
okra
onion
ornamentals (nursery, greenhouse)
parsley
peach
peanut
pear
peas (dry, green, processed)
peppers (bell, sweet, hot)
pineapple
pistachio
potato
pumpkin
radish
spinach
squash
stonefruit
sugarbeet
sweet potato
tomato
turnip
watermelon
Note: Applicants should refer to the National Agricultural
Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) website at: http://
ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap for the latest update of completed and
planned crop profiles.
Appendix III
Crop Profiles--FQPA instructs USDA and EPA to obtain pesticide
use and usage data on major and minor crops. Of particular
importance at this time are use and usage data for the organo-
phosphates, carbamates, and possible carcinogens (B1's and B2's).
These classes of pesticides have been identified as top priority at
EPA for the tolerance reassessment process. These same pesticides
are also vital to the production of many of our crops. Because some
of these uses may be canceled it is important to identify where we
stand now, where we need to be in the future, and what research
efforts are needed to get us there as far as pest management
practices are concerned. In order to better understand where future
research efforts should lead it is necessary first to identify areas
of critical need (i.e. those crops or situations where few if any
alternative control measures are available to producers). To help
USDA and EPA obtain this information ``Crop Profiles'' are being
requested. It is the intent that ``profiles'' provide the complete
production story for a commodity, including current pest management
practices, and look at current research activities directed at
finding replacement strategies for the pesticides of concern.
Crop profiles should include typical pesticide use information
(not simply what appears on pesticide labels) and for consistency
and ease of use should be presented in the following format:
Crop Profile for Commodity in State
Production Facts
State's ranking in national production of the
commodity.
States contribution to total US production of that
commodity (percent).
Yearly production numbers (total acres grown; total
acres harvested; cash value).
Production costs on a yearly basis.
Identify percent of crop destined for: fresh market,
processing, feed, etc.
Production Regions
Define the production regions for the commodity within
your state.
Cultural Practices
Describe the cultural practices used for producing this
commodity within your state (e.g. Soil types, irrigation practices,
land preparation, planting times, thinning practices, etc.).
Highlight intrastate or regional differences if they
exist.
Insect/Mite Control
Identify and discuss the insect/mite pests on this
commodity, include: frequency of occurrence (yearly, sporadic,
weather related), the damage they do, percentage of acres infested
with the pest (for each growing season or crop cycle), critical
timing of control measures, yield losses attributed to each pest.
Note any regional differences that may occur within
your state.
Chemical Controls
For each pest discussed above identify the active
ingredients that are used to manage
[[Page 15274]]
that pest, include: chemical name, trade name, formulations, percent
crop treated, type of application (aerial, ground, chemigation,
banded, broadcast, in-furrow etc.), typical application rates,
timing (pre-plant, foliar, 5-leaf stage, etc.), typical number of
applications per growing season or crop cycle, typical pre-harvest
interval, typical reentry intervals, etc.
Identify any use of the chemical in IPM programs.
Identify any use of the chemical in resistance
management programs.
Discuss efficacy issues for each active ingredient.
Alternatives
Discuss availability and efficacy issues associated
with the alternatives for the pest/pesticide combinations discussed
above.
Cultural Control Practices
Identify and discuss any cultural practices (e.g.
planting dates, resistant varieties, row spacing) used to manage the
pests.
Biological Controls
Discuss any biological control programs that are
relevant for the pest/commodity, include pheromone use if
applicable.
Post Harvest Control Practices
Discuss post harvest management practices that are
relevant for the pest/commodity; include preharvest and/or post
harvest practices that are used for post harvest pest management.
Other issues
Discuss any export or food processor restrictions that
may limit the use of a given active ingredient or management
practice.
Describe on-going research activities that address a
possible replacement strategy for the chemical under discussion. If
possible discuss time-frame for implementation.
Discuss any other relevant issues involving pest
management practices used on this commodity.
Weed Control
Follow same format as for insects/mites.
Disease Control
Follow same format as for insects/mites.
Nematode Control
Follow same format as for insects/mites.
Key Contacts
Identify commodity experts within your state.
Cite References
Provide the sources for information used in preparing
crop profiles.
The Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (PIAP) State Liaison
Representative (SLR) will review the draft crop profiles before the
final reports are submitted.
Send to: Wilfred Burr (202/720-8647 or [email protected]), USDA
Office of Pest Management Policy, Rm 0110 South Ag. Bldg., 1400
Independence Ave., Washington, DC 20250-0315.
Note: Applicants should refer to the National Agricultural
Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) website at: http://
ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap for examples and the latest update of
completed and planned crop profiles.
Done at Washington, DC, on this 19th day of March, 1999.
Colien Hefferan,
Acting Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service.
[FR Doc. 99-7687 Filed 3-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P