Special Research Grants ProgramPest Management Alternatives Research: Special Program Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues for Fiscal Year 1999; Request for Proposals

SUMMARY: Proposals are invited for competitive grant awards under the

Special Research Grants Program titled ``Pest Management Alternatives

Program: Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues for Fiscal Year

1999.'' This program addresses anticipated changes in pest management

on food, feed, livestock, and ornamental commodities resulting from

implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

The goals of this program are to: (1) Develop and demonstrate

alternatives and possible mitigation strategies to ensure that crop

producers have reliable methods of managing pests; and (2) Develop crop

profiles that summarize production practices, pesticide use/usage data,

and available pest management alternatives for pesticides considered a

high priority for tolerance reassessment under FQPA.

By this notice, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service (CSREES) additionally solicits stakeholder input from

any interested party regarding the FY 1999 solicitation of applications

for use in the development of the next request for proposals for this

program.

DATES: Proposals are due June 1, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments regarding stakeholder input should be

submitted by first-class mail to: Policy and Program Liaison Staff;

Office of Extramural Programs; Competitive Research Grants and Awards

Management; USDA-CSREES; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.;

Washington, D.C. 20250-2299; or via e-mail to: [email protected]. In

your comments, please include the name of the program and the fiscal

year request for proposals to which you are responding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Yaninek, Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of

Agriculture; Mail Stop 2220; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington,

D.C. 20250-2220. Telephone: (202) 401-6702; fax number: (202) 401-6869;

e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Authority and Eligibility

Applicant Peer Review Requirements

Available Funding

Applicable Regulations

Program Description

Proposal Format

Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act

CSREES Proposal Evaluation

Confidentiality

How to Obtain Application Materials

Proposal Submission

Stakeholder Input

Additional Information

Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix III

Authority and Eligibility

This program is administered by CSREES, United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA). The authority is contained in section (c)(1)(A) of

the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act, in section

2 of Pub. L. No. 89-106, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)(1)(A)). Under

this authority, subject to the availability of funds, the Secretary may

make grants, for periods not to exceed three years, to State

agricultural experiment stations, all colleges and universities, other

research institutions and organizations, Federal agencies, private

organizations or corporations, and individuals for the purpose of

conducting research to facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in

areas of the food and agricultural sciences of importance to the United

States.

Proposals from scientists affiliated with non-United States

organizations are not eligible for funding nor are scientists who are

directly or indirectly engaged in the development of pest management

tactics for profit; however, their collaboration with funded projects

is encouraged.

The Pest Management Alternatives Program was established to support

the development and implementation of pest management alternatives when

regulatory action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or

voluntary cancellation by the registrant results in the unavailability

of certain agricultural pesticides or pesticide uses. These activities

pertain to pesticides identified for possible regulatory action under

section 210 of the FQPA, Pub. L. No. 104-170, which amends the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The program has been

developed pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between

USDA and EPA signed August 15, 1994, and amended April 18, 1996, which

establishes a coordinated framework for these two agencies to support

programs that make alternative pest management materials available to

agricultural producers. In this MOU, USDA and EPA agreed to cooperate

in conducting the research, technology transfer, and registration

activities necessary to address pest management alternatives needed in

agriculture. Because of the importance of FQPA, USDA created the Office

of Pest Management Policy (OPMP) in 1997 to coordinate FQPA activities

within the Department. OPMP found significant gaps in the information

available on pesticide use/usage and requested help in developing crop

profiles. This program responded in 1998 by linking up with the

National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) to

help develop urgently needed crop profiles while continuing the

development of critical mitigation strategies. This effort continues in

1999, but will be phased out in the future as the urgency declines and

NAPIAP assumes primary responsibility for the profiles.

Applicant Peer Review Requirements

Subsection (c)(5) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities

Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 450i(c)), as amended by section 212

of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of

1998 (``1998 Act''), Pub. L. No. 105-185, requires applicants to

conduct a scientific peer review of a proposed research project in

accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary prior to the

Secretary making a grant award under this authority. Regulations

implementing this requirement currently are the subject of a proposed

rule making (64 FR 14347, March 24, 1999). The statute requires

promulgation of a final rule prior to award of a grant under this

program. The proposed rule would impose the following requirements for

scientific peer review by applicants of proposed research projects:

1. Credible and independent. Review arranged by the grantee must

provide for a credible and independent assessment of the proposed

project. A credible review is one that provides an appraisal of

technical quality and relevance sufficient for an organizational

representative to make an informed judgment as to whether the proposal

is appropriate for submission for Federal support. To provide for an

independent review, such review may include USDA

[[Page 15269]]

employees, but should not be conducted solely by USDA employees.

2. Notice of completion and retention of records. A notice of

completion of the review shall be conveyed in writing to CSREES either

as part of the submitted proposal or prior to the issuance of an award,

at the option of CSREES. The written notice constitutes certification

by the applicant that a review in compliance with these regulations has

occurred. Applicants are not required to submit results of the review

to CSREES; however, proper documentation of the review process and

results should be retained by the applicant.

3. Renewal and supplemental grants. Review by the grantee is not

automatically required for renewal or supplemental grants as defined in

7 CFR 3400.6. A subsequent grant award will require a new review if,

according to CSREES, either the funded project has changed

significantly, other scientific discoveries have affected the project,

or the need for the project has changed. Note that a new review is

necessary when applying for another standard or continuation grant

after expiration of the grant term.

4. Scientific Peer Review. Scientific peer review is an evaluation

of a proposed project for technical quality and relevance to regional

or national goals performed by experts with the scientific knowledge

and technical skills to conduct the proposed research work. Peer

reviewers may be selected from an applicant organization or from

outside the organization, but shall not include principal or co-

principal investigators, collaborators or others involved in the

preparation of the application under review.

Because of the nature of the rule making process, these

requirements are subject to change based upon the comments received.

Applicants whose proposals are recommended for funding must comply with

the review requirements as promulgated in the final rule as a condition

precedent to receiving an award under this RFP.

Available Funding

The amount available for support of this program in fiscal year

(FY) 1999 is approximately $1,500,000. It is anticipated that EPA will

also provide support to the program. Section 711 of the Agriculture,

Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999, section 101(a) of Pub. L. No.

105-277, prohibits CSREES from paying indirect costs on competitively

awarded research grants that exceed 14 percent of total Federal funds

provided for each award under this program.

Applicable Regulations

This program is subject to the administrative provisions for the

Special Research Grants Program found in 7 CFR Part 3400, which set

forth procedures to be followed when submitting grant proposals, rules

governing the evaluation of proposals, the processes regarding the

awarding of grants, and regulations relating to the post-award

administration of such grants. However, where there are differences

between this RFP and the administrative provisions, this RFP shall take

precedence to the extent that the administrative provisions authorize

such deviations. Other Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant

proposals considered for review or to grants awarded under this

program. These include, but are not limited to:

7 CFR Part 3019--USDA Uniform Administrative Requirements for

Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education,

Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations; and 7 CFR Part 3052--

Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.

Program Description

This competitive grants program supports efforts to modify existing

pest management approaches or develop new methods that address needs

created by the implementation of FQPA. The program also addresses the

need for collection of information for regulatory decision making and

for prioritization of research and education needs. This information

includes crop profiles, pesticide use and usage on commodities

(including livestock and ornamentals), potential alternatives for

pesticides on EPA's priority list (see Appendix I), integrated pest

management programs, pesticide resistance management strategies, and

potential mitigation strategies for reducing dietary risk.

In FY 1999, CSREES will provide funding for projects that: (1)

Identify and develop replacement or mitigation technologies for

pesticides included on EPA's priority list (Appendix I) and/or (2)

Develop crop profiles summarizing practices for specific commodities

(including livestock and ornamentals) (see Appendix II). Proposals may

develop replacement or mitigation technologies (Objective 1), develop

crop profiles (Objective 2), or develop both replacement or mitigation

technologies and crop profiles. Applicants that address only

replacement or mitigation technologies are not restricted to the crops

listed in Appendix II, but must document that a crop profile has been

or is being developed, or provide compelling evidence otherwise as to

the importance of their proposed research.

Proposals will show evidence that producers, commodity groups, and

other affected user groups are involved in project design and will be

supportive of the project if funded. Public-private partnerships and

matching resources from non-Federal sources, including producer or

commodity groups, are encouraged. Proposals should show potential for

commercialization (including product registration if necessary) of any

new technologies that are developed. Applicants are strongly encouraged

to collaborate with staff involved in university Pesticide Impact

Assessment Programs (PIAP) and Integrated Pest Management programs to

develop crop profiles. The two objectives are described below.

I. Replacement or Mitigation Technologies

The focus should be on modification of existing approaches or

introduction of new methods, especially biologically based methods,

that can be rapidly brought to bear on pest management challenges

resulting from implementation of FQPA. Durability and practicality of

the proposed pest management option(s) or mitigation procedure(s), and

compatibility with integrated pest management systems, are critical.

Both technological and economic feasibility should be considered. Pest

management alternatives or risk mitigation options identified should

address various risk concerns including dietary, occupational and non-

occupational exposure, ground and surface water, and other ecological

risks. Applicants must document that a crop profile has been or is

being developed for the crop targeted in the proposal, or provide

compelling evidence otherwise as to the importance of their proposed

research.

II. Crop Profiles

Profiles are needed for commodities (see Appendix II) that depend

heavily on pesticides included on EPA's priority list (see Appendix I).

Profiles should document the importance of priority pesticides to pest

management on the commodities addressed by the proposal. Profiles

should describe the production process and provide data on pesticide

use (how, why, what, when and where pesticides are used) and usage (how

much is used, e.g., percentage crop treated) patterns, pest management

practices used by growers, and pest management practices ready for

implementation but not yet widely used. Profiles should also indicate

whether pesticides on the priority list

[[Page 15270]]

(Appendix I) are important to integrated pest management programs or to

strategies to manage resistance to other pesticides, and whether there

are any potential labeled or unlabeled alternatives (chemical or

nonchemical) to replace priority list pesticides on a specific

commodity. Alternatives can include other pesticides, biological

controls, pest resistant varieties, or cultural practices. In addition,

practices or procedures that have the potential to mitigate dietary

risk from priority list pesticides should be described. Crop profiles

should follow the format presented in Appendix III. Potentially

affected growers or commodity groups must be involved in the

development of crop profiles. While priority will be given to proposals

addressing one or more commodities (see Appendix II) that depend

heavily on pesticides included on EPA's priority list (see Appendix I),

proposals addressing commodities not included in the list will be

considered. Consult the website listed at the end of either Appendix II

& III for a current list of crop profiles that are either completed or

in progress to avoid duplicate efforts. Profiles must be completed

within twelve months after receipt of funding.

Note: The development of replacements for methyl bromide is

being supported by other agencies (e.g. see the USDA/ARS website:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/cgi-bin/ffp.pl/is/np/mba/oct96/

epa.htm?methyl bromide alternatives grants#first__hit'') and will

not be supported by the Pest Management Alternatives Program.

Proposal Format

Each project description shall be complete in itself. The

administrative provisions governing the Special Research Grants

Program, 7 CFR Part 3400, set forth instructions for the preparation of

grant proposals. The following requirements deviate from those

contained in section 3400.4(c). The following provisions of this

solicitation shall apply. Proposals should adhere to the format

requirements for the specific objective addressed by the proposal

format below. Items three through six should be no more than 12 pages

in length, numbered, and single-spaced with text on one side of the

page using a 12 point (10 cpi) type font size and one-inch margins.

(1) Application for Funding (Form CSREES-661). All proposals must

contain an Application for Funding (Form CSREES-661), which must be

signed by the proposed principal investigator(s) and by the cognizant

Authorized Organizational Representative who possesses the necessary

authority to commit the applicant's time and other relevant resources.

Principal investigators who do not sign the proposal cover sheet will

not be listed on the grant document in the event an award is made. The

title of the proposal must be brief (80-character maximum), yet

represent the major emphasis of the project. Because this title will be

used to provide information to those who may not be familiar with the

proposed project, highly technical words or phraseology should be

avoided where possible. In addition, phrases such as ``investigation

of'' or ``research on'' should not be used.

(2) Table of Contents. For ease in locating information, each

proposal must contain a detailed table of contents just after the

proposal cover page. The Table of Contents should include page numbers

for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately

following the Table of Contents.

(3) Executive Summary. Describe the project in terms that can be

understood by a diverse audience of university personnel, producers,

various public and private groups, budget staff, and the general

public. This should be on a separate page, no more than one page in

length and have the following format: Name(s) of principal

investigator(s) and institutional affiliation, project title, key

words, and project summary.

(4) Problem Statement. Identify the pest management problem

addressed, its significance, and options for solution. Identify the

commodity(ies) (from the commodity list for crop profiles, Appendix II)

and the pesticides (from the priority list, Appendix I) that will be

addressed by the proposed project. Proposals can address commodities

not listed in Appendix II as long as priority pesticides are used in

the production system. Describe the production area addressed

(including acreage), frequency and severity of losses to pests

controlled with priority pesticides (Appendix I), and the potential

applicability to other production regions (if the proposal addresses

Objective 1). For crop profiles, provide sources of data and other

information on pesticide use, usage patterns, and pest management

practices. As appropriate, proposals should address issues as they

relate to current integrated pest management and crop production

practices, technologic and economic feasibility of potential new

practices, and their potential durability.

(5) Objectives. Provide clear, concise, complete, and logically

arranged statements of the specific aims of the proposed effort.

(6) Research, Education, and Technology Transfer Plan. This section

is only needed if the proposed project includes development of

replacement or mitigation technologies (Objective 1). Proposals should

provide a detailed plan for the research, education, and technology

transfer required to implement the alternative solution in the field,

and should identify milestones.

(7) Literature Cited. A concise list of key references cited in the

proposal should be included in this section.

(8) User Involvement. Describe role of producers, commodity groups,

and other end-users in identifying the need for the work being

proposed, and their anticipated involvement in the project if funded.

Competitive proposals will demonstrate involvement of affected user

groups in project design, implementation, and funding.

(9) Facilities and Equipment. All facilities and major items of

equipment that are available for use or assignment to the proposed

research project during the requested period of support should be

described. In addition, items of nonexpendable equipment necessary to

conduct and successfully complete the proposed project should be listed

with the amount and justification for each item.

(10) Collaborative Arrangements. If the nature of the proposed

project requires collaboration or subcontractual arrangements with

other research scientists, corporations, organizations, agencies, or

entities, the applicant must identify the collaborator(s) and provide a

full explanation of the nature of the collaboration. Funding

contributions by collaborators that will be used to accomplish the

stated objectives should be identified. Evidence (i.e., letters of

intent) should be provided to assure peer reviewers that the

collaborators involved have agreed to render this service. In addition,

the proposal must indicate whether or not such a collaborative

arrangement(s) has the potential for conflict(s) of interest.

(11) Personnel Support. To assist peer reviewers in assessing the

competence and experience of the proposed project staff, key personnel

who will be involved in the proposed project must be clearly

identified. For each principal investigator involved, and for all

senior associates and other professional personnel who are expected to

work on the project, whether or not funds are sought for their support,

the following should be included:

(i) An estimate of the time commitments necessary.

(ii) Curriculum vitae. The curriculum vitae should be limited to a

presentation

[[Page 15271]]

of academic and research credentials, or commodity production knowledge

or experience with that commodity (e.g., educational, employment and

professional history, and honors and awards). Unless pertinent to the

project, to personal status, or to the status of the organization,

meetings attended, seminars given, or personal data such as birth date,

marital status, or community activities should not be included. Each

vitae shall be no more than two pages in length, excluding the

publication lists.

(iii) Publication list(s). A chronological list of all publications

in refereed journals during the past four years, including those in

press, must be provided for each professional project member for whom a

curriculum vitae is provided. Authors should be listed in the same

order as they appear on each paper cited, along with the title and

complete reference as these items usually appear in journals.

(12) Budget. A detailed budget is required for each year of

requested support. In addition, a summary budget is required detailing

requested support for the overall project period. A copy of the form

which must be used for this purpose (Form CSREES-55), along with

instructions for completion, is included in the Application Kit and may

be reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be requested under any

of the categories listed, provided that the item or service for which

support is requested may be identified as necessary for successful

conduct of the proposed project, is allowable under applicable Federal

cost principles, and is not prohibited under any applicable Federal

statute. However, the recovery of indirect costs under this program may

not exceed the lesser of the grantee institution's official negotiated

indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 14 percent of total Federal

funds awarded. This limitation also applies to the recovery of indirect

costs by any sub-awardee or subcontractor, and should be reflected in

the sub-recipient budget.

Note: For projects awarded under the authority of Sec.

2(c)(1)(A) of Pub. L. No. 89-106, no funds will be awarded for the

renovation or refurbishment of research spaces; the purchase or

installation of fixed equipment in such spaces; or for the planning,

repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of a building

or facility.

(13) Research Involving Special Considerations. If it is

anticipated that the research project will involve recombinant DNA or

RNA research, experimental vertebrate animals, or human subjects, an

Assurance Statement, Form CSREES-662, must be completed and included in

the proposal. Please note that grant funds will not be released until

CSREES receives and approves documentation indicating approval by the

appropriate institutional committee(s) regarding DNA or RNA research,

animal care, or the protection of human subjects, as applicable.

(14) Current and Pending Support. All proposals must contain Form

CSREES-663 listing this proposal and any other current public or

private research support (including in-house support) to which key

personnel identified in the proposal have committed portions of their

time, whether or not salary support for the person(s) involved is

included in the budget. Analogous information must be provided for any

pending proposals that are being considered by, or that will be

submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors, including

other USDA programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of identical or

similar proposals to other possible sponsors will not prejudice

proposal review or evaluation by the Administrator of CSREES for this

purpose. However, a proposal that duplicates or overlaps substantially

with a proposal already reviewed and funded (or that will be funded) by

another organization or agency will not be funded under this program.

(15) Additions to Project Description. The Administrator of CSREES,

the members of peer review groups, and the relevant program staff

expect each project description to be complete given the page limit

established in this section (Proposal Format). However, if the

inclusion of additional information is necessary to ensure the

equitable evaluation of the proposal (e.g., photographs that do not

reproduce well, reprints, and other pertinent materials that are deemed

to be unsuitable for inclusion in the text of the proposal), then 20

copies of the materials should be submitted. Each set of such materials

must be identified with the name of the submitting organization, and

the name(s) of the principal investigator(s). Information may not be

appended to a proposal to circumvent page limitations prescribed for

the project description. Extraneous materials will not be used during

the peer review process.

Note: Specific organizational management information relating to

an applicant shall be submitted on a one-time basis prior to the

award of a grant for this program if such information has not been

provided previously under this or another program for which the

sponsoring agency is responsible. If necessary, USDA will contact an

applicant to request organizational management information once a

proposal has been recommended for funding.

Compliance With the National Environmental Policy Act

As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (CSREES's implementation of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C.

4321 et seq.)), the environmental data or documentation for any

proposed project is to be provided to CSREES in order to assist CSREES

in carrying out its responsibilities under NEPA. In some cases,

however, the preparation of environmental data or documentation may not

be required. Certain categories of actions are excluded from the

requirements of NEPA. The USDA and CSREES exclusions are listed in 7

CFR 1b.3 and 7 CFR 3407.6, respectively.

In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is

needed with respect to NEPA (e.g., preparation of an environmental

assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS)), pertinent

information regarding the possible environmental impacts of a proposed

project is necessary; therefore, the National Environmental Policy Act

Exclusions Form (Form CSREES-1234) provided in the Application Kit must

be included in the proposal indicating whether the applicant is of the

opinion that the project falls within one or more of the categorical

exclusions. Form CSREES-1234 should follow Form CSREES-661, Application

for Funding, in the proposal.

Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions,

CSREES may determine that an EA or an EIS is necessary for an activity,

if substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or if other

extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present that may cause

such activity to have a significant environmental effect.

CSREES Proposal Evaluation

Priority will be given to proposals that address one or more of the

commodities listed in Appendix II; however, proposals addressing

commodities not included in this list will be considered. Proposals

will be evaluated for relevancy (Criterion 1, 25 points) by

representatives from USDA, EPA, appropriate farm and commodity

organizations, and consumer groups. Methodology and scientific rigor

(Criteria 2-6, 75 points) will be evaluated by a panel with appropriate

expertise. Panel members will include representatives with appropriate

science backgrounds from land-grant universities (including IPM, IR-4,

and NAPIAP), USDA, EPA, and other organizations as needed. Funding

determinations will come from a rank-ordered list of projects based on

the

[[Page 15272]]

combined relevancy and scientific merit scores.

Proposals that will only develop Crop Profiles (Objective 2) will

be evaluated as a separate group, and will not be scored on potential

to reduce reliance (Criterion 4).

The following criteria will be used in evaluating proposals:

1. Relevance to Program Objectives (25 points). Factors that will

be considered include: number of crops and pesticides addressed

(particularly those listed in Appendices I and II), user involvement in

planning and implementation, potential for rapid integration (within 2-

3 years) into production practices, and demonstration of consideration

of existing IPM programs.

2. Importance of the Problem (Problem Statement) (15 points).

3. Appropriateness of Methods in Meeting Objectives (20 points).

4. Potential to Reduce Reliance (20 points).

5. Level of User Involvement (10 points).

6. Appropriateness of the Budget (10 points).

Confidentiality

CSREES receives grant proposals in confidence and will protect the

confidentiality of their contents to the maximum extent permitted by

law. Information contained in unfunded proposals will remain the

property of the applicant. However, CSREES will retain one copy of all

proposals received for a one year period; extra copies will be

destroyed.

When a proposal results in a grant, it becomes a part of the public

record, available to the public upon specific request under the Freedom

of Information Act (FOIA). Information that the Secretary of

Agriculture determines to be of a privileged nature will be held in

confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information

that the applicant wishes to have considered as privileged should be

clearly marked by the applicant with the term ``confidential

proprietary information.''

How To Obtain Application Materials

Copies of this solicitation, the administrative provisions for the

Program (7 CFR Part 3400), and the Application Kit, which contains

required forms, certifications, and instructions for preparing and

submitting applications for funding, may be obtained by contacting:

Proposal Services Unit; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative

State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Mail Stop 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington,

DC 20250-2245; telephone: (202) 401-5048. When contacting the Proposal

Services Unit, please indicate that you are requesting forms for the

Special Research Grants Program--Pest Management Alternatives Research:

Special Program Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues.

Application materials may also be requested via Internet by sending

a message with your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and telephone

number to [email protected] that states that you wish to receive a copy

of the application materials for the FY 1999 Special Research Grants

Program--Pest Management Alternatives Research: Special Program

Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues. The materials will then

be mailed to you (not e-mailed) as quickly as possible.

Proposal Submission

What To Submit

An original and 20 copies of a proposal must be submitted. Each

copy must be stapled securely in the upper left-hand corner (DO NOT

BIND). All copies of the proposal must be submitted in one package.

Where and When To Submit

Proposals must be postmarked by June 1, 1999. Proposals submitted

by First Class mail must be sent to the following address: Special

Research Grants--Pest Management Alternatives; c/o Proposal Services

Unit; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mail

Stop 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-2245;

telephone: (202) 401-5048.

Proposals to be delivered by Express mail, courier service, or by

hand must be sent to the following address: Special Research Grants--

Pest Management Alternatives; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Office of

Extramural Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 303; 901 D

Street, SW; Washington, DC 20024; telephone: (202) 401-5048.

Stakeholder Input

CSREES is soliciting comments regarding this solicitation of

applications from any interested party. These comments will be

considered in the development of the next request for proposals for the

program. Such comments will be forwarded to the Secretary or his

designee for use in meeting the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of

the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998

(Pub. L. 105-185). This section requires the Secretary to solicit and

consider input on a current request for proposals from persons who

conduct or use agricultural research, education, or extension for use

in formulating the next request for proposals for an agricultural

research program funded on a competitive basis.

In your comments, please include the name of the program and the

fiscal year solicitation of applications to which you are responding.

Comments are requested within six months from the issuance of the

solicitation of applications. Comments received after that date will be

considered to the extent practicable.

Additional Information

For reasons set forth in the final rule-related Notice to 7 CFR

Part 3015, Subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is

excluded from the scope of Executive Order No. 12372 which requires

intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Under

the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

chapter 35), the collection of information requirements contained in

this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No. 0524-0022.

Appendix I

Pesticides--Priority List of Pesticides: pesticides that will be

first to undergo review of tolerances by EPA, as required the Food

Quality Protection Act of 1996.

Abbreviations: AM = antimicrobial, I = insecticide, F =

fungicide, IGR = insect growth regulator, H = herbicide, N =

nematicide.

Organophosphates

Acephate--I

Azinphos-methyl--I

Bensulide--H

Chlorethoxyfos--I

Chlorpyrifos--I

Chlorpyrifos methyl--I

Coumaphos--I

DEF--Defoliant

Diazinon--I

Dichlorvos -I

Dicrotophos--I

Dimethoate--I

Disulfoton--I

Ethion--I

Ethoprop -I, N

Ethyl parathion--I

Fenamiphos--I, N

Fenitrothion--I

Fenthion--I

Fonofos -I

Isofenphos--I

Malathion -I

Methamidophos--I

Methidathion--I

Methyl parathion--I

Naled--I

Oxydemeton methyl--I

[[Page 15273]]

Phorate--I

Phosmet--I

Phostebupirim--I

Pirimiphos methyl -I

Profenofos--I

Propetamphos--I

Sulfotepp--I

Sulprofos--I

Temephos--I

Terbufos--I

Tetrachlorvinphos--I

Trichlorfon--I

Carbamates:

2EEEBC--F

Aldicarb--I, N

Asulam--H

Bendiocarb--I

Benomyl--F

Carbaryl--I

Carbendazim--F

Carbofuran--I, N

Chlorpropham--H

Desmidipham--H

Fenoxycarb--I

Formetanate HC--I

Methiocarb--I

Methomyl--I

Oxamyl--I, N

Phenmedipham--H

Propamocarb hydrochloride--F

Propoxur--I

Thiodicarb--I

Thiophanate methyl--F

Troysan KK--AM, F

Potential Carcinogens (B1's and B2's)

Acetochlor--H

Aciflourfen sodium--H

Alachlor--H

Amitrol--H

Cacodylic acid--H

Captan--F

Chlorothalonil--F

Creosote--wood preservative

Cyproconazole--F

Daminozide (Alar)--growth retardant

ETO--fumigant, sterilant

Fenoxycarb--IGR

Folpet--F

Formaldehyde--fumigant, germicide

Heptachlor--I

Iprodione--F

Lactofen--H

Lindane--I

Mancozeb--F

Maneb--F

Metam sodium--F, I, H, N, soil fumigant

Metiram--F

MGK repellent--repellent, synergist

Orthophenylphenol--AM, F, virucide

Oxythioquinox--I

Pentachlorophenol--F

Pronamide--H

Propargite--I

Propoxur--I

Propylene oxide--AM, I, F

Telone--N, soil fumigant

Terrazole--F

Thiodicarb--I

TPTH--F

Vinclozolin--F

Appendix II

Commodities--USDA and EPA have determined that production of the

following commodities may depend heavily on the pesticides included

on the priority list (Appendix I). The possible regulatory impacts

of FQPA for these commodities are not known. To answer questions

that may arise during FQPA implementation, crop profiles are

critical for these commodities. Priority will be given to proposals

that address one or more of the commodities on this list.

alfalfa (seed, forage)

artichoke

asparagus

avocado

barley

beans (dry, lima, snap)

beets

blackberry

blueberry

broccoli

brussels sprouts

canola

carrot

cauliflower

celery

citrus

clover seed

cole crops

collards

cranberry

cucumber

date

eggplant

endive

fig

filberts

garlic

green onions

greens

hazelnuts

hops

kale

kiwi

lettuce

livestock

mango

melons

mint

okra

onion

ornamentals (nursery, greenhouse)

parsley

peach

peanut

pear

peas (dry, green, processed)

peppers (bell, sweet, hot)

pineapple

pistachio

potato

pumpkin

radish

spinach

squash

stonefruit

sugarbeet

sweet potato

tomato

turnip

watermelon

Note: Applicants should refer to the National Agricultural

Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) website at: http://

ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap for the latest update of completed and

planned crop profiles.

Appendix III

Crop Profiles--FQPA instructs USDA and EPA to obtain pesticide

use and usage data on major and minor crops. Of particular

importance at this time are use and usage data for the organo-

phosphates, carbamates, and possible carcinogens (B1's and B2's).

These classes of pesticides have been identified as top priority at

EPA for the tolerance reassessment process. These same pesticides

are also vital to the production of many of our crops. Because some

of these uses may be canceled it is important to identify where we

stand now, where we need to be in the future, and what research

efforts are needed to get us there as far as pest management

practices are concerned. In order to better understand where future

research efforts should lead it is necessary first to identify areas

of critical need (i.e. those crops or situations where few if any

alternative control measures are available to producers). To help

USDA and EPA obtain this information ``Crop Profiles'' are being

requested. It is the intent that ``profiles'' provide the complete

production story for a commodity, including current pest management

practices, and look at current research activities directed at

finding replacement strategies for the pesticides of concern.

Crop profiles should include typical pesticide use information

(not simply what appears on pesticide labels) and for consistency

and ease of use should be presented in the following format:

Crop Profile for Commodity in State

Production Facts

State's ranking in national production of the

commodity.

States contribution to total US production of that

commodity (percent).

Yearly production numbers (total acres grown; total

acres harvested; cash value).

Production costs on a yearly basis.

Identify percent of crop destined for: fresh market,

processing, feed, etc.

Production Regions

Define the production regions for the commodity within

your state.

Cultural Practices

Describe the cultural practices used for producing this

commodity within your state (e.g. Soil types, irrigation practices,

land preparation, planting times, thinning practices, etc.).

Highlight intrastate or regional differences if they

exist.

Insect/Mite Control

Identify and discuss the insect/mite pests on this

commodity, include: frequency of occurrence (yearly, sporadic,

weather related), the damage they do, percentage of acres infested

with the pest (for each growing season or crop cycle), critical

timing of control measures, yield losses attributed to each pest.

Note any regional differences that may occur within

your state.

Chemical Controls

For each pest discussed above identify the active

ingredients that are used to manage

[[Page 15274]]

that pest, include: chemical name, trade name, formulations, percent

crop treated, type of application (aerial, ground, chemigation,

banded, broadcast, in-furrow etc.), typical application rates,

timing (pre-plant, foliar, 5-leaf stage, etc.), typical number of

applications per growing season or crop cycle, typical pre-harvest

interval, typical reentry intervals, etc.

Identify any use of the chemical in IPM programs.

Identify any use of the chemical in resistance

management programs.

Discuss efficacy issues for each active ingredient.

Alternatives

Discuss availability and efficacy issues associated

with the alternatives for the pest/pesticide combinations discussed

above.

Cultural Control Practices

Identify and discuss any cultural practices (e.g.

planting dates, resistant varieties, row spacing) used to manage the

pests.

Biological Controls

Discuss any biological control programs that are

relevant for the pest/commodity, include pheromone use if

applicable.

Post Harvest Control Practices

Discuss post harvest management practices that are

relevant for the pest/commodity; include preharvest and/or post

harvest practices that are used for post harvest pest management.

Other issues

Discuss any export or food processor restrictions that

may limit the use of a given active ingredient or management

practice.

Describe on-going research activities that address a

possible replacement strategy for the chemical under discussion. If

possible discuss time-frame for implementation.

Discuss any other relevant issues involving pest

management practices used on this commodity.

Weed Control

Follow same format as for insects/mites.

Disease Control

Follow same format as for insects/mites.

Nematode Control

Follow same format as for insects/mites.

Key Contacts

Identify commodity experts within your state.

Cite References

Provide the sources for information used in preparing

crop profiles.

The Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (PIAP) State Liaison

Representative (SLR) will review the draft crop profiles before the

final reports are submitted.

Send to: Wilfred Burr (202/720-8647 or [email protected]), USDA

Office of Pest Management Policy, Rm 0110 South Ag. Bldg., 1400

Independence Ave., Washington, DC 20250-0315.

Note: Applicants should refer to the National Agricultural

Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP) website at: http://

ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmppiap for examples and the latest update of

completed and planned crop profiles.

Done at Washington, DC, on this 19th day of March, 1999.

Colien Hefferan,

Acting Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service.

[FR Doc. 99-7687 Filed 3-29-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-22-P