[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