[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 68 (Friday, April 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18822-18835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: [email protected]. 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: [email protected].; 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: 
[email protected].; 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: [email protected]; 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: [email protected].

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 
[email protected]. 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