[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14788-14801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-6200]



[[Page 14787]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V





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. 66, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 13, 2001 / 
Notices  

[[Page 14788]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 
USDA.

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) 2001 
to support integrated, multifunctional agricultural research, 
extension, and education activities that address complex pest 
management priorities in United States agriculture, which can most 
properly be addressed by multifunctional and multidisciplinary projects 
incorporating research, extension, and education activities. The 
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants 
Program--Pest Management currently has five program components: Crops 
at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR); FQPA Risk Avoidance and 
Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems (RAMP); Methyl Bromide 
Transitions (MBT); Organic Transition (ORG); and Pest Management 
Centers. The amount available for support of this program in FY 2001 is 
approximately $13,242,634 of which a portion will be used to fund the 
second year of continuation grants for the Pest Management Centers that 
were awarded in FY 2000 for three years (FY 2000-FY 2002). As a result, 
approximately $8,929,112 will be made available to fund new grant 
proposals in FY 2001.
    This notice sets out the objectives for Pest Management 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 2001 Integrated Research, 
Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management 
for use in the development of any future requests for proposals (RFP's) 
for this program.

DATES: Proposals must be received by close of business (COB) on May 14, 
2001 (5:00 p.m. EST). Proposals received after this date will not be 
considered for funding. Comments regarding this RFP 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 1307, Waterfront Centre; 800 9th Street, SW.; 
Washington, DC 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, 
SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2245.
    Written user comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy and 
Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; USDA-CSREES; STOP 
2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 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 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; 
Washington, DC 20250-2220; Telephone: (202) 401-4891; Fax: (202) 401-
4888; e-mail address: [email protected]; RAMP: Dr. Michael Fitzner; 
National Program Leader; Plant and Animal Systems Unit; Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of 
Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 
20250-2220; Telephone: (202) 401-4939; Fax: 202-401-4888; e-mail 
address: [email protected]; MBT: Dr. Thomas Bewick; National Program 
Leader; Plant and Animal Systems Unit; Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 
2220; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2220; 
Telephone: (202) 401-3356; Fax: (202) 401-4888; e-mail address: 
[email protected]; and ORG: Dr. Anne Bertinuson; Program Specialist; 
Plant and Animal Systems Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, 
and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2220; 1400 
Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2220; Telephone: (202) 
401-6825; Fax: (202) 401-5179; 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. Types of Proposals
    F. Matching Requirements
    G. Funding Restrictions
Part II--Program Description
    A. Project Types
    B. Program Area Description
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 Criteria
    C. Conflicts-of-Interest and Confidentiality
Part V--Grant Awards
    A. General
    B. Funding Mechanisms
    C. Organizational Management Information
    D. Grant Award Document and Notice of Grant Award
Part VI--Additional Information
    A. Access to Review Information
    B. Use of Funds; Changes
    C. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements
    D. Applicable Federal Statutes and Regulations
    E. Confidential Aspects of Proposals and Awards
    F. Regulatory Information

Stakeholder Input

    CSREES is soliciting comments regarding this RFP from any 
interested party. These comments will be considered in the development 
of any future RFP for the program. Such comments will be used to meet 
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,

[[Page 14789]]

education and extension for use in formulating future RFP's for 
competitive programs. Comments should be submitted as provided for in 
the ADDRESSES and DATES portions of this Notice.
    The FY 2000 RFP for Integrated Research, Education, and Extension 
Competitive Grants Program--Pest Management which was published in the 
Federal Register on April 7, 2000 [65 FR 18822--18835] solicited 
comments on the RFP from any interested party to be used in the 
development of future RFP's. One comment was received and considered in 
the development of the FY 2001 RFP.

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.

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 RFP's for this new grant 
program. The public meeting was held on December 6, 1999.
    All the comments and the official transcript of the meeting were 
made available for review on the CSREES web page. The comments and 
testimonies from the December 6, 1999, public meeting were considered 
in the formulation of the FY 2000 RFP and FY 2001 RFP. Both RFP's were 
developed in consultation with the Advisory Board.
    The Organic Transition Program is added to the FY 2001 RFP due to 
the appropriation of Section 406 funds for this purpose in FY 2001. 
This program was not directly addressed in the original Federal 
Register Notice or at the December 6, 1999, public meeting. However, 
priorities of organic producers are identified through ongoing 
interactions with institutions such as the Organic Farming Research 
Foundation (OFRF), the Rodale Institute, and the Organic Crop 
Improvement Association, and individual producers. The biennial OFRF 
National Organic Farmers Survey, which receives input from the Economic 
Research Service and the National Agricultural Statistics Service, also 
serves as a reference.
    The entire Integrated Research, Education, and Extension 
Competitive Grants Program is funded in FY 2001 at $39,838,535 (after 
deduction for administrative expenses) for the following integrated 
activities: Water Quality ($12,348,773), Food Safety ($14,247,128), and 
the Pest Management component which includes Pesticide Impact 
Assessment ($4,313,522), Crops at Risk from Food Quality and Protection 
Act (FQPA) Implementation ($1,424,858), FQPA Risk Mitigation Program 
for Major Food Crop Systems ($4,654,537), Methyl Bromide Transitions 
($2,374,764), and Organic Transition ($474,953). There will be four 
RFP's for this program. The Food Safety Programs will have one RFP and 
the Water Quality program will have two RFP's, while the latter five 
programs will be announced as one RFP for Pest Management. 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 (e.g., Water Quality and Food Safety) will be developed 
each fiscal year based on these established priorities and the 
resulting 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 to be funded in FY 2001 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); Organic Transitions Program (ORG); and Pesticide Impact 
Assessment Program (hereafter referred to as ``Pest Management 
Centers''). Please note that proposals for the Pest Management Centers 
component will not be solicited this year in that four centers were 
established in FY 2000 and are ongoing through FY 2002.
    The five 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 five 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.
    Priority will be given for integrated, multifunctional research, 
education, and extension projects (i.e., those that contain research, 
education, and extension components).
    This integrated grants program creates opportunities for fruitful 
new collaborations between individuals and institutions which can 
address problems in new ways and/or improve communication with under-
served or hard-to-reach audiences. In order to

[[Page 14790]]

fully realize these potential benefits, CSREES strongly encourages 
applicants to develop proposals that include:
    (1) Integrated activities that include collaboration with small- or 
mid-sized, accredited colleges and universities;
    (2) Integrated activities that include collaboration with 
historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving 
institutions, tribal colleges, and/or other institutions that serve 
high-risk, under-served, or hard-to-reach audiences; or
    (3) International partnerships, linkages, and exchanges that 
contribute to addressing U.S. national pest management issues.
    By integrating these five 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 five 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 five 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. CSREES also 
expects that Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive 
Grants Program--Pest Management projects will complement 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 $13 million will be 
available to fund proposals in FY 2001 distributed among the program 
components as follows: CAR--$1,424,858, RAMP--$4,654,537, MBT--
$2,374,764, ORG--$474,953, and Pest Management Centers--$4,313,522. 
However, applications are only being solicited under this RFP (FY 2001) 
for CAR, RAMP, MBT, and ORG. No applications are being solicited this 
year for the Pest Management Centers as those were awarded in FY 2000 
as continuation grants for a period of three years (i.e., FYs 2000, 
2001 and 2002).

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 is 
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, 
director, or chief executive officer or other designated official 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 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, 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 is 
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

[[Page 14791]]

``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. 
Proposals received from research foundations will not be considered for 
funding.

E. Types of Proposals

    In FY 2001, projects under the Integrated Research, Education, and 
Extension Competitive Grants Program authority may be submitted as one 
of the two types of proposals described below:
    (1) New proposal. This is a project proposal that has not been 
previously submitted to the Integrated Research, Education, and 
Extension Competitive Grants Program. All new proposals will be 
reviewed competitively using the selection process and evaluation 
criteria described in Part IV--Review Process.
    (2) Resubmitted proposal. This is a proposal that had previously 
been submitted to the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension 
Competitive Grants Program but not funded. The resubmitted proposal 
should clearly indicate the changes that have been made in the project 
proposal.
    Further, a clear statement acknowledging comments from the previous 
reviewers, indicating revisions, rebuttals, etc., can positively 
influence the review of the proposal. Therefore, for resubmitted 
proposals, the investigator(s) must respond to the previous panel 
summary on no more than one page, titled ``RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS 
REVIEW,'' which is to be placed directly after the Project Summary as 
described in Part III--Preparation of a Proposal. Resubmitted proposals 
will be reviewed competitively using the selection process and 
evaluation criteria described in Part IV--Review Process.

F. 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 
12.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.

G. 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.

Part II--Program Description

A. Project Types

    Approximately $1,424,858 is available for CAR projects in FY 2001. 
Proposals should be between two to four years in duration with a budget 
of not more than $200,000 per year.
    Approximately $4,654,537 is available for RAMP projects in FY 2001. 
Proposals can be up to five years in duration with a maximum budget of 
$500,000 per year.
    Approximately $2,374,764 is available for MBT projects in FY 2001. 
It is anticipated that 12-15 grants of up to two years in duration will 
be awarded in this program component.
    Approximately $474,953 is available for ORG projects in FY 2001. It 
is anticipated that three to five grants of up to four years in 
duration will be awarded in this program component.
    Approximately $4,313,522 is available for Pest Management Center 
projects funded in FY 2000. Since these Pest Management Centers were 
funded as continuation grants for FY 2001 and FY 2002, no new 
applications are being solicited in FY 2001 for Pest Management Centers 
projects.
    Grants awarded under the Program Area Descriptions of CAR, RAMP, 
MBT and ORG (as described in this RFP) will be issued as ``New Grant'' 
instruments and usually will be awarded as ``Standard Grants.''

B. Program Area Description

    In FY 2001, proposals are being solicited in four program areas for 
the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants 
Program--Pest Management: Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR); 
FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems (RAMP); 
Methyl Bromide Transitions (MBT); and Organic Transition (ORG). Each 
component has a specific focus, and it is essential that applicants 
read the program area description carefully when preparing proposals.
    Two program areas, Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR) and 
FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems (RAMP), 
address needs created by the implementation of the Food Quality 
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. The following background information 
applies to both of these programs.
    The Office of Pesticide Management of the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) maintains a web site (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides) which 
is a clearinghouse for information on pesticide tolerance assessment 
and reregistration under FQPA, as well as information on registered 
pesticides, including biopesticides. EPA also issues an electronic 
newsletter that will announce updates to pesticide registration status. 
Information on subscribing to this electronic newsletter is also 
available at the above web site. In preparing proposals for CAR and 
RAMP, applicants should use information from EPA to identify at-risk 
pesticides that may affect pest management practices for their 
commodity of interest. Applicants should also identify recently 
registered pesticides or those under new registration review.
    Proposals are solicited for the following program areas:

[[Page 14792]]

(1) Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation (CAR) (Program Area 112.A)
    (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 (e.g., rates, timing, pre-harvest intervals, application 
methods and equipment, and post-harvest treatment) 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.
    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.
    All proposals should include an extension/outreach component to 
promote the exchange of pest management information among researchers, 
extension agents, producers, and commodity groups as it relates to the 
project.
(2) FQPA Risk Avoidance and Mitigation for Major Food Crop Systems 
Program (RAMP) (Program Area 112.B)
    (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 or cropping systems. 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 incorporate 
new technologies into their production systems (e.g., bio-based pest 
management alternatives, bioengineered crop innovations, and precision 
agriculture). 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, or grain 
production system focus and may include consideration of food safety, 
occupational safety, water quality and other environmental concerns. 
The RAMP program area 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 approach 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 the production system's pest 
management needs and priorities identified by stakeholders. Projects 
are intended to enhance stability and sustainability of agricultural 
production systems and will be multi-state or regional in scale. 
Typically they will involve multiple cropping systems that define an 
agro-ecosystem. A major goal of this effort will be the development of 
pest management systems that further the advanced understanding of 
cropping system biology and ecology.

Specific Objectives

    (a) Develop methods of pest management that reduce or eliminate 
risks associated with 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 of multi-state and multi-disciplinary cooperation 
involving 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. All proposals should include an extension/
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 a formal stakeholder review after the second 
field season and at the end of the project.
(3) Methyl Bromide Transitions Program (MBT) (Progam Area 112.C)
    (No maximum award and up to two years; however, it is anticipated 
that 12-15 grants will be funded).
    The phase-out of methyl bromide is required under Title IV of the 
Clean Air Act (as amended in 1990) based on its projected 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

[[Page 14793]]

agreed to in the Montreal Protocol. Further information on the phase-
out of methyl bromide is available on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/harmoniz.html.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, involving field trials and other demonstration 
projects that enhance the adoption of pest management alternatives for 
affected commodities.

Specific Objectives

    (a) Develop integrated research, education, and extension 
approaches as methyl bromide alternatives on strawberry, tomato, other 
vegetables, fruits and nuts;
    (b) Develop integrated research, education, and extension 
approaches as methyl bromide alternatives for floral, forestry and 
general nursery production to assure pest- and pathogen-free 
rootstocks; and
    (c) Develop extension activities to implement pest management 
alternatives, including field trials and other demonstration projects 
that enhance producer adoption of alternative management practices that 
increase the transfer of results to growers.
    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) Organic Transition (ORG) (Program Area 112.E)
    (No maximum award and up to four years; however, it is anticipated 
that three to five grants will be funded).
    Organic farming became one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. 
agriculture during the 1990's. Farmers cite many reasons for adopting 
organic practices, including economic (i.e., to lower input costs, to 
capture high value markets), environmental (i.e., to conserve 
nonrenewable resources, to be an environmental steward) and health 
(i.e., to reduce exposure of themselves and their families to 
agrochemicals). Converting to organic production is not as simple as 
eliminating chemical inputs. Organic farming is not simply the 
avoidance of conventional chemical inputs, nor is it the substitution 
of natural inputs for synthetic ones. Organic farmers implement a wide 
range of strategies to develop biological diversity and maintain and 
replenish soil fertility.
    Making the transition to organic production generally requires 
farmers to absorb a great deal of new information, and to experiment 
with combinations of techniques to meet their needs. As documented in a 
1997 report from the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF), 
``Searching for the O-Word: An Analysis of the USDA Current Research 
Information System (CRIS) for Pertinence to Organic Farming'' (http://www.ofrf.org/policy/oword1.html), very little systems research has been 
done on organic farming in the United States. Research on agricultural 
production components such as biocontrol and cropping systems has been 
of limited value to organic farmers, since the components are generally 
not developed and tested in an organic agro-ecosystem, and research 
results and recommendations thus can not be applied directly to organic 
farms.
    The purpose of this program is to assist farmers in successfully 
adopting organic practices by supporting systems research on organic 
farming combined with outreach and education programs to transfer 
technologies to farmers in the near term. It is anticipated that the 
types of research to be supported will be very applied. Field work for 
this program must be done in an organic agro-ecosystem. Applicants are 
reminded that since some practices and inputs are unallowable in 
certified organic production, they should ensure that their planned 
work is compatible with organic production. The USDA National Organic 
Program (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/) is a good source of organic 
production information. Because farmer involvement is critical to the 
success of this program, and to the dissemination of research findings, 
priority will be given to proposals which include farmers as partners 
in planning, implementing, and evaluating project activities.
    Priorities for funding in FY 2001 were developed by considering the 
priorities of complementary programs, such as SARE and the Initiative 
for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, and identified stakeholder 
needs in the context of the limited funds available for this program in 
this fiscal year. OFRF conducts a biennial survey of research needs of 
organic farmers. A summary of the most recent survey is available 
online at: http://www.ofrf.org/survey/1997.html. As in two previous 
surveys, both certified and transitioning organic farmers reported that 
weed control is their number one need.

Specific Objective

    The specific objectives of the ORG Program is to support projects 
that perform systems research on ecologically-based weed management 
combined with outreach and education programs to share information and 
methods with farmers in the near term.
    Ecologically-based approaches to weed management include, but are 
not limited to, cultural effects (i.e., crop rotation and soil 
fertility) on weed pressure and species mix, timing and type of 
tillage, flaming or burning, controlling weeds that reproduce 
vegetatively, use of allelopathic covercrops and green manure crops, 
biocontrol insects or microorganisms, residue management, managing weed 
seed banks, and use of livestock to control weeds.
    Successful organic agriculture incorporates a mix of strategies in 
general production management. In terms of weed management, organic 
producers are not seeking a ``magic bullet'' targeted to a specific 
weed pest. They need integrated strategies that address overall weed 
management in a manner appropriate for their production system. The 
problems and solutions for range, field crops, row crops or orchards 
may not be the same, even given the presence of the same weed(s) in 
different production systems.
    In describing proposed work for this program, applicants should 
clearly state the type of production system for which their management 
strategies are appropriate. They should demonstrate the need for the 
proposed work, both in terms of stakeholder needs, and the magnitude of 
the problem. The magnitude of the problem should be related to current 
numbers of producers and acres affected, as well as potential for 
increased production in the area of study which may result from 
developing and demonstrating ecologically-based pest management 
strategies.
    An outcome-oriented plan for disseminating information derived from 
the proposed work should be an integral part of the project. This 
information may include analysis of results of field

[[Page 14794]]

research, farmers' evaluations of the weed management strategies 
developed, or increased understanding of how to perform successful on-
farm research. The intent of this outreach effort should be to educate 
the audience(s) and have them modify their practices accordingly, and 
thus a plan for evaluating the outreach component must be included.
    Priority for funding will be given to proposals that have the 
potential for significant impact, based on: (a) The magnitude of the 
problem they address, and (b) inclusion of plans for outreach and 
education likely to lead to improved knowledge and skills among 
targeted populations.
    The focus of this program is on a systems approach to organic 
agriculture. Proposals focusing solely on the biology of weedy and 
invasive plants will not be accepted for this program. Applicants 
should consider submitting proposals to the National Research 
Initiative (http://www.reeusda.gov/nri), which has several program 
areas related to the physiology, ecology, and genetics of weedy and 
invasive plants.

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 FY 2001 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 2001 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,'' ``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.A or RAMP, 112.B) should be inserted in this 
block.
    (d) Type of Award Request (Block 13). Check the block for ``new'' 
or ``resubmission.''
    (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 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 original signatures 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

[[Page 14795]]

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, 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. Response to Previous Review
    This requirement only applies to ``Resubmitted Proposals'' as 
described under Part I, E, ``Types of Proposals.'' For these proposals, 
the investigator(s) must respond to the previous panel summary on no 
more than one page, titled ``RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS REVIEW,'' which is to 
be placed directly after the Project Summary. If desired, additional 
comments and responses to the previous panel summary may be included in 
the text of the Project Description, subject to the page limitation.
6. Project Description
    PLEASE NOTE: The Project Description shall not exceed 15 pages of 
written text and may not exceed a total of 20 pages including figures 
and tables. This maximum has been established to ensure fair and 
equitable competition. The Project Description must include all of the 
following:
    a. Introduction: A clear statement of the long-term goal(s) and 
supporting objectives of the proposed activities should be included. 
Summarize the body of knowledge or other past activities which 
substantiate the need for the proposed project. Describe ongoing or 
recently completed significant activities related to the proposed 
project including the work of key project personnel. Preliminary data/
information pertinent to the proposed project should be included. 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 the stakeholders in problem identification, planning, 
and implementation and evaluation as appropriate.
    (3) Reasons for having the work performed at the proposing 
institution.
    b. Objectives: Clear, concise, complete, and logically arranged 
statement(s) of specific aims of the proposed effort must be included 
in all proposals.
    c. Methods: 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 stakeholder involvement in problem 
identification, planning, implementation and evaluation;
    (2) A description of the proposed project activities in the 
sequence in which it is planned to carry them out;
    (3) Techniques to be employed, including their feasibility and 
rationale for their use in this project;
    (4) Kinds of results expected;
    (5) Means by which extension and education activities will be 
evaluated;
    (6) Means by which data will be analyzed or interpreted;
    (7) Details of plans to communicate results to stakeholders and the 
public;
    (8) Pitfalls that might be encountered; and
    (9) Limitations to proposed procedures.
    d. Cooperation and Institutional Units Involved: Cooperative, 
multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary applications are encouraged. 
Identify each institutional unit contributing to the project and 
designate the lead institution or institutional unit. 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 partner of the project team.
    e. Facilities and Equipment: All facilities which are available for 
use or assignment to the project during the requested period of support 
should be reported and described briefly. All items of major equipment 
or instrumentation available for use or assignment to the proposed 
project should be itemized. In addition, items of nonexpendable 
equipment needed to conduct and bring the project to a successful 
conclusion should be listed, including dollar amounts and, if funds are 
requested for their acquisition, justified.
    g. Project Timetable: The proposal should outline all important 
phases as a function of time, year by year, for the entire project, 
including periods beyond the grant funding period.
7. References
    All references cited should be complete, including titles and all 
co-authors, and should conform to an accepted journal format.
8. 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 accompanied by a letter of acceptance 
from the publishing journal).
9. Key Personnel
    The following should be included, as applicable:
    (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, including current and pending projects; 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 professional 
project member for whom a curriculum vitae is provided. Also list only 
those non-refereed 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.
10. Conflict-of-Interest List
    A Conflict-of-Interest List must be provided for all individuals 
involved in the project (i.e., each individual submitting a vitae in 
response to item 9.(c) of this part). 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

[[Page 14796]]

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.
11. 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, a resume or curriculum vita for 
each consultant, and rate of pay 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.
12. 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 (e.g., social 
security and retirement) 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 travel 
is proposed, the destination, the 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.
    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

[[Page 14797]]

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. Another method of 
calculating the maximum allowable is 23.456 percent of the total direct 
costs. If no rate has been negotiated, a reasonable dollar amount 
(equivalent to or 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) in the same order as the budget 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, F, ``Matching 
Requirements,'' 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, F, 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.
13. 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 
personnel (i.e., individuals submitting a vitae in response to 9.(c) of 
this part) 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.
14. Assurance Statement(s), (Form CSREES-662)
    A number of situations encountered in the conduct of projects 
require special assurances, supporting documeation, 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, ``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.

[[Page 14798]]

15. 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.
16. Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Form 
CSREES-1234)
    As outlined in 7 CFR part 3407 (i.e., 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 received by COB on May 14, 2001 (5:00 p.m. EST). 
Proposals received 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 
Management; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 
1307, Waterfront Centre; 800 9th Street, SW.; Washington, DC 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, 
SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2245.

D. Acknowledgment of Proposals

    The receipt of all proposals will be acknowledged by e-mail. 
Therefore, applicants are strongly 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 in a 2-part process. First, each 
proposal will be screened to ensure that it meets the administrative 
requirements as set forth in this request for proposals. Second, 
proposals that meet these requirements will be technically evaluated by 
a peer review panel.
    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 (e.g., 
producers, range or forest managers/operators, and consumers) 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

    Technical merit, relevance to program goals and potential impact 
will be evaluated for each proposal. Proposals must show evidence of 
strength in all of these areas to be rated highly for funding. Specific 
criteria for these proposal attributes are listed below.
    (1) Technical merit of all aspects of the proposal, including 
research, education and extension components. 
    (a) Conceptual adequacy of overall approach;
    (b) Extent to which proposed work addresses identified stakeholder 
needs;
    (c) Conceptual adequacy of hypothesis or hypotheses on which plan 
is based;
    (d) Suitability and feasibility of the methodology for conducting 
the work;
    (e) Time allocated for attainment of objectives;
    (f) Qualifications of project personnel;
    (g) Institutional experience and competence in the identified area 
of work;
    (h) Adequacy of available support personnel, equipment, and 
facilities;
    (i) Extent to which proposed work integrates research, education 
and extension; and

[[Page 14799]]

    (j) Suitability and feasibility of the methodology for evaluating 
extension and education activities.
    (2) Relevancy to Program Goals and Potential Impact.
    (a) Relationship of project objectives to national issues and 
objectives;
    (b) Regional or national magnitude of problem addressed;
    (c) Evidence of partnerships with other disciplines and 
institutions;
    (d) Extent to which end users are involved in problem 
identification, planning, implementation and evaluation;
    (e) Probability of success of the project; and
    (f) Extent to which potential impact can be documented.
    Priority will be given for integrated, multifunctional research, 
education, and extension projects.

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 2000 Higher Education 
Directory, published by Higher Education Publications, Inc., 6400 
Arlington Boulevard, Suite 648, Falls Church, Virginia 22042. Phone: 
(703) 532-2305.
    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--Grant Awards

A. General

    Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding 
official of 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).

B. Funding Mechanisms

    The two mechanisms by which grants may 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.

C. 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.

D. Grant Award Document and Notice of Grant Award

    The grant award document shall include at a minimum the following:
    (1) 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;
    (2) Title of project;
    (3) Name(s) and address(es) of PI/PD's chosen to direct and control 
approved activities;
    (4) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department;
    (5) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Department 
intends to support the project without requiring recompetition for 
funds;
    (6) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by 
the Administrator during the project period;
    (7) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded;
    (8) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds 
to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award; and
    (9) 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.

Part VI--Additional Information

A. Access To Review Information

    Copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of reviewers, 
will

[[Page 14800]]

be sent to the applicant PI/PD after the review process has been 
completed.

B. 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.

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 (i.e., 
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.

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., OMB 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. 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.
    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).

[[Page 14801]]

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 pbrmitted 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, DC, this 7th day of March 2001.
Colien Hefferan,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.
[FR Doc. 01-6200 Filed 3-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P