fy 2015 mbt final to post.pdf

Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program – Methyl Bromide Transition

FY 2015 Request for Applications (RFA)

APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 4, 2015

ELIGIBILITY: See Part III, A. of RFA

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE

INTEGRATED RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION COMPETITIVE

GRANTS PROGRAM – METHYL BROMIDE TRANSITION

INITIAL ANNOUNCEMENT

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE: This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.303.

DATES: Applications must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 4, 2015.

Applications received after this deadline will normally not be considered for funding (see Part IV, C. of this RFA). Comments regarding this request for applications (RFA) are requested within 6 months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

STAKEHOLDER INPUT: The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) seeks your comments about this RFA. We will consider the comments when we develop the next RFA for the program, if applicable, and we’ll use them 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)).

Submit written stakeholder comments to: Policy@nifa.usda.gov. (This e-mail address is intended only for receiving comments regarding this RFA and not requesting information or forms.) In your comments, please state that you are responding to the Methyl Bromide Transition

RFA.

NIFA offered outreach webinars on its center of excellence implementation February 26th and March 12th, 2015. A recording can be accessed on the NIFA website.

In the coming months, NIFA will be holding additional webinars to collect stakeholder input about our center of excellence implementation strategy. Details and access information will be posted on the NIFA website. Comments and suggestions relative to centers of excellence should be sent to Policy@nifa.usda.gov by September 30th, 2015.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: NIFA requests applications for the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program - Methyl Bromide Transition (MBT) for fiscal year (FY) 2015 to support the discovery and implementation of practical pest management alternatives for commodities and uses affected by the methyl bromide phase-out. This program focuses on integrated projects that use a systems approach to deliver short- to medium-term solutions and economic analyses for all commodities impacted by the loss of methyl bromide. In FY 2015 applications are sought for the following project types:

1. Integrated Projects

2. Extension-Only Projects

3. State of the Commodity Projects mailto:Policy@nifa.usda.gov http://www.nifa.usda.gov/ http://www.nifa.usda.gov/ mailto:Policy@nifa.usda.gov

The amount available for support of this program in FY 2015 is approximately $2 million.

This notice identifies the objectives for MBT projects, the eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, and the application forms and associated instructions needed to apply for a MBT grant.

Table of Contents

PART I—FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Legislative Authority and Background B. Purpose and Priorities C. Program Area Description

PART II—AWARD INFORMATION

A. Available Funding B. Types of Applications C. Project Types D. Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research

PART III—ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants B. Cost Sharing or Matching C. Centers of Excellence

PART IV—APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

A. Electronic Application Package B. Content and Form of Application Submission C. Submission Dates and Times D. Funding Restrictions E. Other Submission Requirements

PART V—APPLICATION REVIEW REQUIREMENTS

A. General B. Evaluation Criteria C. Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality D. Organizational Management Information E. Application Disposition

PART VI—AWARD ADMINISTRATION

A. General B. Award Notice C. Administrative and National Policy Requirements D. Expected Program Outputs and Reporting Requirements

PART VII—AGENCY CONTACT

PART VIII—OTHER INFORMATION

A. Access to Review Information B. Use of Funds; Changes C. Confidential Aspects of Applications and Awards D. Regulatory Information E. Definitions

PART I—FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION

A. Legislative Authority and Background

Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7626), as reauthorized by Section 7306 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA) (Pub. L. 110-246) and by Section 7302 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (H.R. 2642; Pub. L. 113-79), authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a competitive grants program that provides 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 section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA) (7 U.S.C. 3103)), as amended, on a competitive basis for projects that address priorities in United States agriculture and 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 (NAREEEAB).

Section 7206 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended section 406(b) of AREERA to add the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions as eligible to apply for grants under this authority. Section 7129 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA) (Pub. L.

110-246) amended section 406(b) of AREERA adding Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (HSACU) as eligible entities for competitive funds awarded under this authority (see Part III, A. for more information).

B. Purpose and Priorities

This RFA solicits applications for the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants Program, Methyl Bromide Transition (MBT). Methyl bromide is an odorless, colorless gas that is used as an agricultural soil and structural fumigant to control a wide variety of pests. Methyl bromide depletes the stratospheric ozone layer and is classified as a Class I ozone-depleting substance. In accordance with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Clean Air Act (www.epa.gov/air/caa), the United States government agreed to reduce methyl bromide production and net imports incrementally from the 1991 baseline until the complete phase-out in 2005. Since 2005, the only allowable exemptions are critical use exemptions (CUE), quarantine and pre-shipment exemptions (QPS).

The primary goal of the MBT program is to support the discovery and implementation of practical pest management alternatives to methyl bromide. The MBT program seeks to solve pest problems in key agricultural production and post-harvest management systems, processing facilities, and transport systems for which methyl bromide has been withdrawn or withdrawal is imminent. Proposals must integrate research and extension activities, or be extension only, and be designed to provide transitional alternatives which address immediate needs that have resulted from the loss of availability of methyl bromide. The pressure to completely phase-out methyl bromide has created an urgent need for new economical and effective pest control tactics to control soil-borne and postharvest pests, and pests that must be controlled by the processing and http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/reporting/planrept/pdf/areeraact.pdf http://www.epa.gov/air/caa shipping industries to meet regulatory standards. A description of the economic analysis of costs and efficacy of implementing the new replacement technology must be included in the proposal.

Applications submitted to the MBT program should consider the integrated pest management (IPM) concepts of prevention, avoidance, monitoring, and suppression of pest populations. The projects funded will cover a broad range of new methodologies, technologies, systems (including non-fumigation production systems), and strategies for controlling economically important pests for which methyl bromide has been the only effective pest control option. Applications should only address systems solutions or strategic (multi-tactic) approaches, rather than focus on any single tactic for replacement of methyl bromide. Non-fumigant management options should be considered and evaluated where possible. Promising alternatives to methyl bromide must be evaluated under commercial conditions for multiple years to ensure that positive results are not due, in part, to low pest pressure following many years of methyl bromide fumigation or variable environmental conditions. Performance of alternatives must be consistent over several production cycles and be technically and economically feasible when scaled-up from research-scale plots to commercial scale. Projects should focus on enhancing grower/industrial user knowledge and adoption of appropriate methyl bromide replacement strategies through extension outreach and demonstrations relevant to real-world systems. All proposals must include a description of methods to undertake an economic analysis of the efficacy and affordability of the replacement strategy.

The MBT program aligns with the USDA’s Strategic Plan (www.usda.gov/documents/usda-strategic-plan-fy-2014-2018.pdf) Goal 3 – Help America Promote Agricultural Production and Biotechnology Exports as America Works to Increase Food Security and with the USDA, Research, Education, and Economics (REE) Action Plan (www.ree.usda.gov/ree/news/USDA_REE_Action_Plan_03-2014.pdf) Goal 1 – Local and Global Food Supply and Security, Subgoals 1A Crop and Animal. The MBT program also directly supports the NIFA Strategic Plan for FY 2014-2018, (http://nifa.usda.gov/about/pdfs/strat_plan_2014.pdf ) Science Goal 1 – Catalyze exemplary and relevant research, education and extension programs, sub-goal 1.1 Advance our Nation’s ability to achieve global food security and fight hunger.

C. Program Area Description

Program Code – 112.C Requested Project Type – The MBT program supports three project types:

• Integrated projects focus on research and extension to encourage implementation of methyl bromide alternatives.

• Extension-Only projects increase levels of adoption of pest management strategies by producers and growers.

• State of the Commodity projects provide in-depth scientific and economic system review of how commodities have been impacted by the loss of methyl bromide. These projects should address the economic and pest management outcomes resulting from the transition from methyl bromide for a given commodity or process (from those among the Critical Uses between 2006 and 2015). Projects should be integrated.

http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda-strategic-plan-fy-2014-2018.pdf http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda-strategic-plan-fy-2014-2018.pdf http://www.ree.usda.gov/ree/news/USDA_REE_Action_Plan_03-2014.pdf http://nifa.usda.gov/about/pdfs/strat_plan_2014.pdf

Proposed Budget Requests

• Integrated projects must not exceed $500,000 total (including indirect costs) for a project period of up to three years.

• Extension-Only projects must not exceed $250,000 total (including indirect costs) for a project period of up to three years.

• State of the Commodity project grants must not exceed $250,000 total (including indirect costs) for a project period of up to three years.

• Requests exceeding the budgetary guidelines will not be reviewed.

Program Area Priority In FY 2015, the MBT program seeks applications for projects to ensure that economically viable and environmentally sound alternatives to methyl bromide are in place and available as soon as possible for commodities that have been impacted by the phase-out of methyl bromide.

Applications will be accepted to find alternatives for commodities that have current Quarantine and Pre-shipment (QPS) Exemptions. All applications must include an economic analysis of the alternative methodology.

NIFA will consider projects supporting the transition to an alternative type of cropping/storage/processing system that avoids the need for disinfestation with methyl bromide (e.g., transition to a covered system using soilless culture) if the alternative has the potential to serve as a viable short to medium-term solution for operations that are currently dependent on methyl bromide or have been impacted by the phase-out of methyl bromide.

NIFA encourages applicants with projects that address pest management issues in commodities not affected by the phase-out of methyl bromide or research-only based proposals to apply to the Applied Research and Development Program Area of the Crop Protection and Pest Management program (www.nifa.usda.gov/fo/cropprotectionandpestmanagement.cfm).

Applicants must address at least one or more of the following priorities:

• How can non-fumigant management options be developed and/or improved as part of a systems-based integrated pest management strategy?

• What integrated strategies could be used to improve soil health, resulting in improved pest management in crops impacted by the loss of methyl bromide in the pre-harvest environment?

o Examples include altering the microbial community of the soil to favor beneficial microorganisms that could inhibit pests and pathogens; soil amendments to reduce pests;

and use of cover crops and rotations to reduce pest populations.

• What strategies could be used in a systems-based integrated pest management approach to improve pest management in the post-harvest environments impacted by the loss of methyl bromide?

• How can current methyl bromide alternatives be improved or combined to improve pest management and the economic viability of the producers?

http://www.nifa.usda.gov/fo/cropprotectionandpestmanagement.cfm

• In all cases, the application must describe the methods to evaluate the cost/benefit of making the transition to adoption of the new strategy, providing a clear economic analysis of all aspects of implementation of the new strategies.

Integrated Projects

If you are submitting an application for an integrated grant (see Part II, Section C. for more information) research and extension goals must be incorporated into the proposed project and (as a general rule) no more than two thirds of the project’s budget should be devoted to either function. Extension programs, such as field demonstrations, grower trials, workshops, and distributed information, should result in commercial awareness, understanding and adoption of new technology and alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation. Economic analysis of the proposed new strategy must be an integral part of the project.

Extension-Only Projects

Extension-only projects should facilitate implementation of practices to optimally manage pests in the absence of methyl bromide, leading to measurable behavior changes in the identified audience or stakeholder group. Projects may be proposed to develop extension materials and information delivery systems for outreach efforts, conduct field-scale or on-farm demonstrations, or deliver IPM extension outreach and training. The existence of a research base relevant to the extension effort should be documented. Analysis of target population risk perception and economic constraints to adoption are critical to all extension-only projects.

Requirements for Integrated and Extension-Only projects:

• Scalability. Research on alternatives must be at the commercial or field-scale over multiple season/cycles. Large scale trials will be a key component of successful proposals, as they may identify variability, technical problems, and pest relationships to marketable yields that are not evident in small plot trials.

• Economic Analysis. Integrated and Extension-only projects must include an economic analysis with direct comparison of cost effectiveness of proposed alternatives in the absence of methyl bromide to no treatment. Additionally, an analysis of overall transition cost to a new technology, from acquisition of materials and knowledge to efficacy metrics, is required.

o Analyses of profit margins should include information on the cost calculation, the cost/amount of the new technology and the value of the labor used, and any equipment needed for the application.

o Changes in revenues should also be identified (e.g., changes in the commodity price or more importantly, changes in quantity of the available commodity for marketing).

o Appropriate expertise to conduct economic analysis should be included as part of the team submitting the application.

State of the Commodity Projects

NIFA requests proposals for state of the commodity projects evaluating current pest management challenges and the economics of pest management for commodities/processes that have lost the ability to use methyl bromide. For the listing of commodities and industries that were registered for methyl bromide use, please see www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html. State of the commodity proposals should document current conditions, successful coverage or gaps in pest management, yield changes and cost of management changes (positive, negative, or neutral) resulting from the phase out of methyl bromide for any specific commodity or industry. The successful grants of this type must be as inclusive as necessary to address the overall situation in the United States or regionally.

Requirements for State of the Commodity projects:

• A publically-accessible report must be created within a year of the project end date and presented, for example, at the annual International Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach Conference.

• Proposals should describe how commodity stakeholders will be recruited into the study, the methods of data collection and analysis, and where the data will be presented and published.

Requirements for all projects:

• Justification. Applicants must provide a justification statement in the Project Narrative (see

Part IV, Section B. for more information) to explain the issues and economic losses faced by their commodity since the phase-out of methyl bromide, and how their work could result in economically feasible methyl bromide alternatives.

• Extension. Extension personnel should be clearly identified. Formal extension programs to expedite adoption of proposed alternatives must be clearly delineated in the proposal and funding for these activities must be clearly outlined in the Budget Narrative.

• Timeline. Timelines for completion of the major objectives in the application must be explicitly described for the entire project period, ranging from one to three years from the start date. Experiments are expected to be replicated in at least two separate trials and results are to be extended to the relevant user community as part of the program within the program time period.

• Logic model. All applicants are required to: (1) submit a project-specific logic model chart as part of each application and (2) show how the proposed work will be represented in the programmatic logic model provided in Figure 1. The logic model should detail the inputs, outputs (activities and participants), outcomes, situation, assumptions, and external factors of the proposed project. This information should be formatted into a logic model chart. See Program Area Descriptions (Part I, Section C.) and Application and Submission Information (Part IV, Section B, item 3b, field 8) for specific requirements for the inclusion of the logic model within the application. More information and resources related to the logic model planning process are provided at:

www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/integrated/integrated_logic_model.html and www.ipm.gov/LogicModels/index.cfm.

Please note: The logic model for the MBT program (Figure 1) incorporates stakeholder input, anticipated outcomes, and appropriate elements. NIFA will use the logic model to guide the development of future funding priorities and to document the impact of investments made by the MBT program.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/cueinfo.html http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/integrated/integrated_logic_model.html http://www.ipm.gov/LogicModels/index.cfm

Figure 1. Methyl Bromide Transition Logic Model Situation: Re-emerging diseases, insects, weeds and other pests continue to negatively impact U.S. agricultural commodities and industries impacted by the phase-out of methyl bromide. System-based methyl bromide alternatives that involve science-based IPM knowledge are needed to address the pest management needs in these communities.

Inputs Outputs Outcomes -- Impact Participants Activities and

Products Short Medium Long

Annual appropriations

USDA

coordination

USDA intra-agency coordination

U.S. government interagency coordination

Program Directors

Support Staff

Panel Managers

Review Panel members

Stakeholder and partner comments

Stakeholders

Producers and processors

Commodity groups

General public

Colleges and universities

Cooperative extension

University scientists and extension specialists

State agencies

Federal agencies

USDA-NIFA

Respond to authorization and appropriation

Publish RFA

Recruit panel managers and peer review panelists

Conduct peer review panel meetings

Award funds to meritorious applications

Promote the development of alternatives to methyl bromide

Communicate positive outcome to key stakeholders

Collect and communicate impact data

State of the commodity reports

Gap analysis reveals research needs

New options for management of commodity pests developed

Existing knowledge adapted to commodity systems

Current knowledge is applied to a strategic plan to eliminate methyl bromide between commodity producer and processors and researchers

Best management practices available for Extension to communicate to stakeholders

New knowledge applied to an evolving strategic plan

New alternatives to methyl bromide, both chemical and nonchemical, increasing in usage

Best management practices for pest management adopted

New technologies and innovations for producers and processors being implemented

Economic feasibility and effective methyl bromide alternatives in use

Pests are controlled economically without the use of methyl bromide, complying with the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act

No further Critical Use Nominations (CUNs)/Critical Use Exemptions (CUE) are needed

Increased production due to reduced pest losses

Reduced environmental risks from environmentally damaging pest control methods

Continued production of safe, affordable, and high-quality commodities

U.S. production practices adopt appropriate alternatives to methyl bromide, assuring U.S.

producers a competitive place in the global marketplace

Assumptions

External Factors Proposals will address commodities and industries negatively impacted by the phase-out of methyl bromide.

Multidisciplinary teams include economic analysis of the tested alternative.

Integrated projects provide best management practices to producers and processors.

Congressional funding/appropriations.

EPA Pesticide Registration.

Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act.

MBTOC decisions.

• Project Director Meeting. For all funded projects, at least one member of the project team will be required to attend the annual International Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach Conference (MBAO) (www.mbao.org) starting with the second year of funding, or another relevant conference, if applicable. For the purposes of budget development, applicants are required to request funds to support participation in at least one MBAO conference or an approved alternative. The request for these funds should be clearly indicated in the budget and budget narrative sections of the application.

The MBT program encourages projects that develop content and programs suitable for delivery through the Cooperative Extension System’s eXtension Initiative. You may use funds to contribute to existing Communities of Practice (CoP) or to form a new CoP focused on methyl bromide alternatives extension and outreach activities. Projects must align with the eXtension vision, mission, and values. You must have a letter of acknowledgement from eXtension.

Letters of support are also encouraged from the relevant CoPs. For detailed guidance on how to partner with eXtension, go to http://create.extension.org/node/2057.

http://www.mbao.org/ http://create.extension.org/node/2057

PART II—AWARD INFORMATION

A. Available Funding

The amount available for support of this program in FY 2015 is approximately $2 million. The funds will be awarded through grants. There is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular application or to make a specific number of awards.

Awards issued as a result of this RFA will have designated the Automated Standard Applications for Payment System (ASAP), operated by the Department of Treasury’s Financial Management Service, as the payment system for funds. For more information see http://fms.treas.gov/index1.html.

B. Types of Applications

In FY 2015, you may only submit an application to the MBT Program as one of the following two types of requests:

(1) New application. This is a project application that has not been previously submitted to the MBT Program. We will review all new applications competitively using the selection process and evaluation criteria described in Part V, Application Review Requirements.

(2) Resubmitted application. This is an application that had previously been submitted to the

MBT Program but not funded. Project Directors (PDs) must respond to the previous review panel summary (see Response to Previous Review, Part IV, B. 3. b.). Resubmitted applications must be received by the relevant due dates, will be evaluated in competition with other pending applications in the appropriate area to which they are assigned, and will be reviewed according to the same evaluation criteria as new applications.

C. Project Types

Three project types are being solicited in this RFA: Integrated, Extension-Only, and State of the Commodity. Applicants may submit a proposal for each type; however, when applicants submit three applications they must be completely independent of one another and execution of the project should not rely on funding from another application. Applicants should not submit duplicate applications to this program and the Crop Protection and Pest Management Program (http://nifa.usda.gov/funding-opportunity/crop-protection-and-pest-management).

All grants must include specifics about how economic analyses will be conducted and how the project will be relevant to the needs of the commodities that are/have transitioned from methyl bromide.

http://fms.treas.gov/index1.html http://nifa.usda.gov/funding-opportunity/crop-protection-and-pest-management

D. Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research

The responsible and ethical conduct of research (RCR) is critical for excellence, as well as public trust, in science and engineering. Consequently, we consider education in RCR essential to the preparation of future scientists. In accordance with sections 2, 3, and 8 of 2 CFR Part 422, institutions that conduct USDA-funded extramural research must foster an atmosphere conducive to research integrity, bear primary responsibility for prevention and detection of research misconduct, and maintain and effectively communicate and train their staff regarding policies and procedures. In the event an application to NIFA results in an award, the Authorized Representative (AR) assures, through acceptance of the award that the institution will comply with the above requirements. Per award terms and conditions, grant recipients shall, upon request, make available to NIFA the policies, procedures, and documentation to support the conduct of the training.

Note that the training referred to herein shall be either on-campus or off-campus training. The general content of the ethics training will, at a minimum, emphasize three key areas of research ethics: authorship and plagiarism, data and research integration, and reporting misconduct. Each institution will be responsible for developing its own training system, as schools will need flexibility to develop training tailored to their specific student needs. Grantees should consider the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) program for RCR (https://www.citiprogram.org/rcrpage.asp). Typically this RCR education addresses the topics of: Data Acquisition and Management - collection, accuracy, security, access; Authorship and Publication; Peer Review; Mentor/Trainee Responsibilities; Collaboration; Conflict of Interest;

Research Misconduct; Human Subject Research; and Use of Animals in Research.

https://www.citiprogram.org/rcrpage.asp

PART III—ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

A. Eligible Applicants

Applications may only be submitted by colleges and universities (as defined in section 1404 of NARETPA) (7 U.S.C. 3103) to the MBT Competitive Grants Program. Section 1404 of NARETPA was amended by section 7101 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA) to define Hispanic-serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities (HSACUs) (see Part III, B. and Part VIII, E. for more information), and to include research foundations maintained by eligible colleges or universities. Section 406(b) of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7626), was amended by section 7206 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to add the 1994 Land-Grant Institutions as eligible to apply for grants under this authority.

For the purposes of this program, the terms “college” and “university” mean an educational institution in any state which (1) admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate; (2) is legally authorized within such state to provide a program of education beyond secondary education; (3) provides an educational program for which a bachelor’s degree or any other higher degree is awarded; (4) is a public or other nonprofit institution; and (5) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association. Applications also may be submitted by 1994 Land-Grant Institutions (defined in 7 CFR 3430 and referred to in Part VIII, E.), HSACUs, and research foundations maintained by eligible colleges or universities.

The 2014 Farm Bill required NIFA to establish an ongoing process allowing public colleges and universities that offer 4-year or advanced degrees in the food and agricultural sciences to apply for designation as Non Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture (NLGCA) institutions. HSACUs are given the opportunity to opt out of their status to be considered for designation as a NLGCA;

however, this decision will be binding on them until September 30, 2018.

Pursuant to section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7626) which authorized the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grant Program, all four year HSIs are eligible to apply for Integrated Projects as identified in this RFA. Two year HSIs may be eligible to apply only if the institution has been certified as a HSACU for the fiscal year in which funding is being provided.

Approximately by January 2014, a list of the institutions certified and therefore eligible to apply as HSACUs for grants under FY 2015 RFAs, including this RFA, will be made available at www.nifa.usda.gov/nea/education/in_focus/hispanic_if_hispanic_HSACU.html. Institutions appearing on this list are granted HSACU certification by the Secretary for the period starting October 1, 2014, and ending September 30, 2015. Certifications are valid for FY 2015 only.

Additional questions on HSACU eligibility can be addressed to Ms. Lisa DePaolo, Policy Specialist, by email at ldepaolo@nifa.usda.gov or phone at (202) 401-5061.

http://www.nifa.usda.gov/nea/education/in_focus/hispanic_if_hispanic_HSACU.html mailto:ldepaolo@nifa.usda.gov

Award recipients may subcontract to organizations not eligible to apply provided such organizations are necessary for the conduct of the project. Failure to meet an eligibility criterion by the time of application deadline may result in the application being excluded from consideration or, even though an application may be reviewed, will preclude NIFA from making an award.

B. Cost Sharing or Matching

In accordance with section 1492 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3371), as added by section 7128 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79), for grants awarded after October 1, 2014, the recipient of an award from the MBT program must provide funds, in-kind contributions, or a combination of both, from sources other than funds provided through such grant in an amount that is at least equal to the amount awarded by NIFA. The matching funds requirement does not apply to grants awarded:

1. To a research agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); or

2. To an entity eligible to receive funds under a capacity and infrastructure program (as defined in section 251(f)(1)(C) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, 7 U.S.C. 6971(f)(1)(C)), including a partner (see Part VIII, E. Definitions for definition of partnership) of such an entity.

Entities eligible to receive funds under a capacity and infrastructure program and exempt from the matching funds requirement include:

a. 1862 Land-grant Institutions, including State Agricultural Experiment Stations receiving funding under the Hatch Act of 1887;

b. 1890 Land-grant Institutions;

c. 1994 Land-grant Institutions;

d. Recipients of Continuing Animal Health and Disease, Food Security, and Stewardship

Research, Education, and Extension Program Funds — Capacity and Infrastructure Program (CIP);

e. Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities (HSACU);

f. Insular Area Schools Eligible to Receive Funds from the Distance Education/Resident

Instruction Grant Programs;

g. Recipients of McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program Funds;

h. Non-Land Grant Colleges of Agriculture (NLGCA) – (for exemption from the new matching requirement, these applications must include NLGCA certification. Instructions for requesting certifications are available at: http://www.nifa.usda.gov/form/form.html, and for attaching the certification to the application in Part IV, B. 3. d. of this RFA.

i. Recipients of funds under a program established under section 1417(b) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)), including: (1) 1890 Institution Teaching, Research, and Extension Capacity Building Grants Program; (2) Higher Education Challenge Grants Program; (3) Higher Education http://www.nifa.usda.gov/form/form.html

Multicultural Scholars Program; and (4) Food and Agricultural Sciences National Needs Graduate and Postgraduate Fellowship Grants Program

j. Individual public or private, nonprofit Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian- Serving Institutions of higher education (see 20 U.S.C. 1059d).

A proposal submitted in response to this RFA may indicate that the work will be completed by multiple entities as a collaborative partnership. All partners must have a substantial involvement in the project throughout the life of the project. If a partnership among multiple entities is proposed, the proposal must clearly identify the following:

1) A narrative of each entity’s clearly established role in the project;

2) How each entity involved as a partner on the project will contribute to execution of project objectives, determination of experimental design, development of the project work plan and time table, and submission of collaborative, timely reports; and

3) A comprehensive project budget that reflects each entity’s financial or third party in-kind contribution (see section 2 of 7 CFR 3430 or section 96 of 2 CFR part 200) to the total project budget costs.

If a proposal indicates that the work on the project will be completed by multiple entities as partners, and at least one entity is exempt from the matching requirement under #2 above, the entire project will be exempt from the matching requirement regardless of whether all entities involved are otherwise exempt. Any partner entity can serve as the lead entity on the project.

All partners must be significantly involved in the project.

After proposals have been recommended for award, NIFA will determine if the submitted proposal and proposed division of work reflects substantial involvement of all entities involved.

If a proposal is recommended for award to a lead entity not otherwise exempt from the matching requirement and the proposal does not reflect substantial involvement of at least one partner that is exempt under #2 above, then the matching requirement will apply. Exemption from the matching requirement for an entity not otherwise exempt is limited to the project for which it is a partner.

Waiver of Match - NIFA may waive the matching funds requirement for a recipient for one year with respect to a competitive grant that involves research or extension activities that are consistent with the priorities established by the National Agricultural Research, Education, Extension and Economics Advisory Board (NAREEEAB) for the year involved. To determine whether proposed activities are consistent with the priorities of the NAREEEAB, please refer to the 2014 Research, Education and Economics Action Plan. Instructions for requesting a waiver are included in Part IV, B. of this RFA.

C. Centers of Excellence

Pursuant to Section 7214 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79), beginning in Fiscal Year 2015, for applicable competitive research and extension programs, NIFA will be recognizing and providing priority in the receipt of funding to applications from “centers of excellence” that have been established for purposes of carrying out research, extension, and education activities relating to the food and agricultural sciences. In July of 2014, NIFA held listening sessions and accepted written comments from stakeholders to inform NIFA’s implementation of the centers of excellence provision. Information from the webinars and a summary of the input gathered are available on NIFA’s website at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/about/offices/legis/cntr_ex_webinar_documents.html

A center of excellence is composed of 1 or more of the following entities that provide financial or in-kind support to the center of excellence. Therefore, an eligible applicant who wishes to be considered as a center of excellence must be one of the following entities that provides financial or in-kind support to the center being proposed, as described in the grant application.

(A) State agricultural experiment stations;

(B) colleges and universities;

(C) university research foundations;

(D) other research institutions and organizations;

(E) Federal agencies;

(F) national laboratories;

(G) private organizations, foundations, or corporations;

(H) individuals; or

(I) any group consisting of 2 or more of the entities described in (A) through (H).

Only standard and priority grant applicants may be considered for COE designation. See Part IV, C. of this RFA for additional requirements that eligible applicants must meet to be considered a center of excellence.

http://www.nifa.usda.gov/about/offices/legis/cntr_ex_webinar_documents.html

PART IV—APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION

A. Electronic Application Package

Only electronic applications may be submitted via Grants.gov to NIFA in response to this RFA.

We urge you to submit early to the Grants.gov system. For an overview of the Grants.gov application process see http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/grant-application-process.html.

New Users of Grants.gov

Prior to preparing an application, we recommend that the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) first contact an Authorized Representative (AR, also referred to as Authorized Organizational Representative or AOR) to determine if the organization is prepared to submit electronic applications through Grants.gov. If not (e.g., the institution/organization is new to the electronic grant application process through Grants.gov), then the one-time registration process must be completed PRIOR to submitting an application. It can take as long as 2 weeks to complete the registration process so it is critical to begin as soon as possible. In such situations, the AR should go to “Register” in the top right corner of the Grants.gov web page (or go to http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html) for information on registering the institution/organization with Grants.gov. Part II., Section 1. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide contains detailed information regarding the registration process. Refer to item

2. below to locate the “NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide”.

Steps to Obtain Application Package Materials

To receive application materials:

1. You must download and install a version of Adobe Reader compatible with Grants.gov to access, complete, and submit applications. For basic system requirements and download instructions, see http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support/technical-support/software/adobe-reader-compatibility.html. Grants.gov has a test package that will help you determine whether your current version of Adobe Reader is compatible.

2. To obtain the application package from Grants.gov, go to http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html. Under Step 1 click on “Download a Grant Application Package,” and enter the funding opportunity number

Funding Opportunity Number: USDA-NIFA-ICGP-004997 in the appropriate box and click “Download Package.” From the search results, click “Download” to access the application package.

Contained within the application package is the “NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.”

This guide contains an introduction and general Grants.gov instructions, information about how to use a Grant Application Package in Grants.gov, and instructions on how to complete the application forms.

http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/grant-application-process.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/grant-application-process.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support/technical-support/software/adobe-reader-compatibility.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support/technical-support/software/adobe-reader-compatibility.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html

If you require assistance to access the application package (e.g., downloading or navigating Adobe forms) or submitting the application, refer to resources available on the Grants.gov website (http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/applicant-resources.html). Grants.gov assistance is also available at:

Grants.gov customer support 800-518-4726 Toll-Free or 606-545-5035

Business Hours: 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Closed on federal holidays.

Email: support@grants.gov

Grants.gov iPortal (see https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants):

Top 10 requested help topics (FAQs), Searchable knowledge base, self-service ticketing and ticket status, and live web chat (available 7 a.m. - 9 p.m. ET). Get help now!

Have the following information available when contacting Grants.gov:

• Funding Opportunity Number (FON)

• Name of agency you are applying to

• Specific area of concern

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

You should prepare electronic applications following Parts V and VI of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide. This guide is part of the corresponding application package (see Section A.

of this Part). The following is additional information needed to prepare an application in response to this RFA. If there is discrepancy between the two documents, the information contained in this RFA is overriding.

Note the attachment requirements (e.g., PDF) in Part III Section 3. of the guide. ANY PROPOSALS THAT ARE NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS (e.g., content format, PDF file format, file name restrictions, and no password protected files) WILL BE AT RISK OF BEING EXCLUDED FROM NIFA REVIEW. Grants.gov does not check for NIFA required attachments or that attachments are in PDF format; see Part III Section 6.1 of the guide for how to check the manifest of submitted files. Partial applications will be excluded from NIFA review. We will accept subsequent submissions of an application until close of business on the closing date in the RFA (see Part V, Section 2.1 of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide for further information).

For any questions related to the preparation of an application, review the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide and the applicable RFA. If assistance is still needed for preparing application forms content, contact:

• Email: electronic@nifa.usda.gov

• Phone: 202-401-5048

• Business hours: Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. – 5 p.m. ET, excluding federal holidays.

1. SF 424 R&R Cover Sheet http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/applicant-resources.html http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/applicant-resources.html http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/snow-dismissal-procedures/federal-holidays mailto:support@grants.gov https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants mailto:electronic@nifa.usda.gov

Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, Section 2. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.

a. Field 12. Proposed Project – For the start date of the project, please select 09/01/2015.

2. SF 424 R&R Project/Performance Site Location(s) Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, Section 3. of the NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide.

3. R&R Other Project Information Form Information related to the questions on this form is dealt with in detail in Part V, Section 4. of the

a. Field 7. Project Summary/Abstract. The project summary must list the names and institutions of the PD and co-PDs. In the first line of the summary, state the type of project you are submitting; for example, “This is an Integrated project” or “This is an Extension-Only project” or “This is a State of the Commodity project.” The summary should include the relevance of the project to the goals of the MBT program. See Part V., Section 4.7 of NIFA Grants.gov Application Guide for further instructions and a link to a suggested template.

b. Field 8. Project Narrative.

NOTE: The Project Narrative shall not exceed a total of 18 single-spaced pages, and up to 5 additional pages for figures and tables with font size no smaller than 12 point. All pages, including those with figures and tables, should be numbered sequentially. We have established this maximum (23 pages) to ensure fair and equitable competition. A logic model chart should be attached as an appendix and will not count toward the 18 page limit. Font sizes in the logic model chart can be smaller than 12 point. Applications exceeding the applicable page limitation will be at risk of being excluded from review. The Project Narrative must include all of the following:

1) Response to Previous Review (if applicable): This requirement only applies to Resubmitted Applications as described in Part II, Section B. PDs must respond to the previous review panel summary on no more than one page, titled “Response to Previous Review”. This will not be counted against the page limit of the project narrative. Please provide the proposal number of the previous submission.

2) Project Narrative

a) Introduction:

1. Must state the project type (Integrated, Extension-Only, State of the Commodity).

2. Include a clear statement of the long-term goal(s) and supporting objectives of the proposed project.

3. Summarize the body of knowledge or past activities that substantiate the need for the proposed project including information about or reference to the specific critical issue pest management strategy or similar document with identifiable stakeholder input.

4. Describe ongoing or recently completed activities significant to the proposed project including the work of key project personnel. Include preliminary data/information pertinent to the proposed project.

5. All works cited should be referenced (see Bibliography & References Cited in section c. below).

b) Rationale and Significance:

1. Concisely present the rationale behind the proposed project.

2. Include the economic and yield losses faced by the commodity or industry due to the loss of methyl bromide.

3. Present a clear, concise set of project objectives including cost/benefit analysis of new approaches. For Extension projects: what is the value of adopting the new technology? Any novel ideas or contributions that the proposed project offers should also be discussed in this section.

c) Approach: The activities proposed or problems being addressed must be clearly stated and the approaches applied must be clearly described. Specifically, this section must include:

1. A description of the activities proposed and the sequence in which the activities are to be performed.

2. Methods to be used in carrying out the proposed project, including the feasibility of the methods.

3. Expected outcomes. Applicants must provide milestones and verifiable indicators to measure impact across a broad range of criteria (e.g., a timeline for grower adoption of techniques that lead to production, economic, and environmental benefits).

4. Means by which results will be analyzed, assessed, or interpreted. Applicants must describe plans to evaluate the outreach component, including means by which data will be analyzed and interpreted, and details of plans to communicate results to stakeholders and the public.

5. Pitfalls that may be encountered.

6. Limitations to proposed procedures.

7. Description of stakeholder involvement in identification of project priorities, their implementation and adoption.

d) Project Timeline: Provide a timeline for attainment of objectives and for production of…