1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program; Administrative Provisions

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension

Service (CSREES) proposes to add a new part 3406 to Title 7, Subtitle

B, Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Federal Regulations, for the purpose of

administering the 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program

conducted under the authority of section 1472(c) of the National

Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 3318) and pursuant to annual appropriations made

available specifically for an 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants

Program. This action establishes and codifies the administrative

procedures to be followed annually in the solicitation of competitive

proposals, the evaluation of such proposals, and the award of grants

under this program.

DATES: Written comments are invited from interested individuals and

organizations. Comments must be received on or before January 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Dr. Jeffrey L. Gilmore, Grant

Programs Manager, Office of Higher Education Programs, Cooperative

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

Agriculture, Ag Box 2251, Washington, D.C. 20250-2251. Comments may

also be sent via electronic mail to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jeffrey L. Gilmore at 202-720-1973

(voice), 202-720-2030 (fax) or via electronic mail at

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as

amended (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the collection of information

requirements contained in this proposed rule have been reviewed and

approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and given the OMB

Document Nos. 0524-0022, 0524-0024, 0524-0030, and 0524-0033. The

public reporting burden for the information collections contained in

these regulations (Forms CSRS-662, CSRS-663, CSRS-708, CSRS-710, CSRS-

711, CSRS-712, CSRS-713, and CSRS-1234 as well as the Proposal Summary

and Proposal Narrative) is estimated to be 39\1/2\ hours per response,

including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this

burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,

including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Department of

Agriculture, Clearance Analyst, OIRM, Ag Box 7630, Washington, D.C.

20250-7630, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork

Reduction Project, Washington, D.C. 20503.

Classification

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order No.

12866, and it has been determined that it is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' rule because it will not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more or adversely and materially affect

a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities. This rule will not create any serious

inconsistencies or otherwise interfere with actions taken or planned by

another agency. It will not materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof, and does not raise novel legal or

policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's

priorities, or principles set forth in Executive Order No. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Administrator, CSREES, certifies that this proposed rule will

not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96-534, as

amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Executive Order No. 12612

This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications

under Executive Order No. 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order No. 12778

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order No.

12778, Civil Justice Reform, and the required certification has been

made to OMB. All State and local laws and regulations that are in

conflict with this rule are preempted. No retroactive effect is to be

given to this rule. This rule does not require administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

Regulatory Analysis

Not required for this proposed rulemaking.

Environmental Impact Statement

As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (CSREES's implementing regulations

of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq.)), environmental data for the proposed project are to be provided

to CSREES in order for a determination to be made as to the need of any

further action.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance under No. 10.216, 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants

Program. For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule related Notice to

7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V, 57 FR 15278, April 27, 1992, this program

is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372 which requires

intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Background and Purpose

Historically, the Department has had a close relationship with the

1890 colleges and universities, including Tuskegee University. Through

its role as administrator of the Second Morrill Act, the Department has

borne the responsibility for helping these institutions develop to

their fullest potential in order to meet the needs of students and the

needs of the Nation.

Accordingly, the Secretary recognized, on April 18, 1990, the

findings made by Congress in section 301(a) of Public Law 99-498,

October 17, 1986 (20 U.S.C. 1060), that the States and the Federal

government have discriminated in the allocation of land and financial

resources to support these institutions under the Morrill Act of 1862

and its progeny. In the above-referenced findings, Congress

acknowledged, and the Secretary recognized, that these institutions

were discriminated against in the award of Federal grants and

contracts, and in the distribution of Federal resources generally which

were intended to benefit institutions of higher education. The

Secretary found that the capacity of the 1890 colleges and

universities, including Tuskegee University, to develop programs to

assist the Nation and the Department in producing food and agricultural

science professionals

[[Page 66015]]

has suffered as a direct result of this discrimination.

The Secretary concluded that a capacity building grants program set

aside for the 1890 land-grant colleges and universities, including

Tuskegee University, was an appropriate remedial step to redress past

inequities found by Congress to have occurred regarding these

institutions. Subsequent to the Secretary's establishment of the

program, Congress began making annual appropriations specifically for

an 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program.

This document proposes to establish Part 3406 of Title 7, Subtitle

B, Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Federal Regulations, for the purpose of

administering the 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program.

Under the authority of section 1472(c) of the National Agricultural

Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7

U.S.C. 3318), and pursuant to annual appropriations made available

specifically by Congress for an 1890 Institution Capacity Building

Grants Program (see, e.g., Pub. L. No. 103-330), the Secretary conducts

this institutional capacity building grants program.

This proposed rule establishes and codifies the administrative

procedures to be followed annually in the solicitation of grant

proposals, the evaluation of such proposals, and the award of grants

under this program. The 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants

Program is competitive in nature and is intended to stimulate the

development of high quality teaching and research programs at these

institutions to build their capacities as full partners in the mission

of the Department to provide more, and better-trained, professionals

for careers in the food and agricultural sciences.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3406

Grant programs--agriculture. Agriculture Higher Education Programs,

1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program.

It is therefore proposed to amend Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter

XXXIV, of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding Part 3406 to read

as follows:

PART 3406--INSTITUTION CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS PROGRAM

Subpart A--General Information

Sec.

3406.1 Applicability of regulations.

3406.2 Definitions.

3406.3 Institutional eligibility.

Subpart B--Program Description

3406.4 Purpose of the program.

3406.5 Matching funds.

3406.6 USDA agency cooperator requirement.

3406.7 General scope of program.

3406.8 Joint project proposals.

3406.9 Complementary project proposals.

3406.10 Use of funds for facilities.

Subpart C--Preparation of a Teaching Proposal

3406.11 Scope of a teaching proposal.

3406.12 Program application materials--teaching.

3406.13 Content of a teaching proposal.

Subpart D--Review and Evaluation of a Teaching Proposal

3406.14 Proposal review--teaching.

3406.15 Evaluation criteria for teaching proposals.

Subpart E--Preparation of a Research Proposal

3406.16 Scope of a research proposal.

3406.17 Program application materials--research.

3406.18 Content of a research proposal.

Subpart F--Review and Evaluation of a Research Proposal

3406.19 Proposal review--research.

3406.20 Evaluation criteria for research proposals.

Subpart G--Submission of a Teaching or Research Proposal

3406.21 Intent to submit a proposal.

3406.22 When and where to submit a proposal.

Subpart H--Supplementary Information

3406.23 Access to peer review information.

3406.24 Grant awards.

3406.25 Use of funds; changes.

3406.26 Monitoring progress of funded projects.

3406.27 Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply.

3406.28 Confidential aspects of proposals and awards.

3406.29 Evaluation of program.

Authority: Sec. 1470, National Agricultural Research, Extension,

and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3316).

Subpart A--General Information

Sec. 3406.1 Applicability of regulations.

(a) The regulations of this part apply only to capacity building

grants awarded to the 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee

University under the provisions of section 1472(c) of the National

Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 3318(c)) to further the research, extension, and

teaching programs in the food and agricultural sciences. This statute

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, who has delegated the

authority to the Administrator of the Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), to enter into grants, or

cooperative agreements, for periods not to exceed five years, with

State agricultural experiment stations, State cooperative extension

services, all colleges and universities, other research or education

institutions and organizations, Federal and private agencies and

organizations, individuals, and any other contractor or recipient,

either foreign or domestic, to further research, extension, or teaching

programs in the food and agricultural sciences of the Department of

Agriculture. Only 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University

are eligible for this grants program.

(b) To the extent that funds are available, each year CSREES will

publish a Federal Register notice announcing the program and soliciting

grant applications.

(c)(1) Based on the amount of funds appropriated in any fiscal

year, CSREES will determine and cite in the program announcement:

(i) The program area(s) to be supported (teaching, research, or

both)

(ii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or available

to, teaching projects and research projects;

(iii) The targeted need area(s) in teaching and in research to be

supported;

(iv) The degree level(s) to be supported;

(v) The maximum project period a proposal may request;

(vi) The maximum amount of funds that may be requested by an

institution under a regular, complementary, or joint project proposal;

and

(vii) The maximum total funds that may be awarded to an institution

under the program in a given fiscal year, including how funds awarded

for complementary and for joint projects will be counted toward the

institutional maximum

(2) The program announcement will also specify the deadline date

for proposal submission, the number of copies of each proposal that

must be submitted, the address to which a proposal must be submitted,

and whether or not Form CSRS-711, ``Intent to Submit a Proposal,'' is

requested.

(d)(1) If it is deemed by CSREES that, for a given fiscal year,

additional determinations are necessary, each, as relevant, will be

stated in the program announcement. Such determinations may include:

(i) Limits on the subject matter/emphasis areas to be supported;

(ii) The maximum number of proposals that may be submitted on

behalf of the same school, college, or

[[Page 66016]]

equivalent administrative unit within an institution;

(iii) The maximum total number of proposals that may be submitted

by an institution;

(iv) The maximum number of proposals that may be submitted by an

individual in any one targeted need area;

(v) The minimum project period a proposal may request;

(vi) The minimum amount of funds that may be requested by an

institution under a regular, complementary, or joint project proposal;

(vii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or

available to, regular, complementary, and joint project proposals;

(viii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or

available to, projects in each announced targeted need area;

(ix) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or available

to, each subject matter/emphasis area;

(x) The maximum number of grants that may be awarded to an

institution under the program in a given fiscal year, including how

grants awarded for complementary and joint projects will be counted

toward the institutional maximum; and

(xi) Limits on the use of grant funds for travel or to purchase

equipment, if any.

(2) The program announcement also will contain any other

limitations deemed necessary by CSREES for proper conduct of the

program in the applicable year.

(e) The regulations of this part prescribe that this is a

competitive program; it is possible that an institution may not receive

any grant awards in a particular year.

(f) The regulations of this part do not apply to grants for other

purposes awarded by the Department of Agriculture under section 1472 of

the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act

of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3318) or any other authority.

Sec. 3406.2 Definitions.

As used in this part:

Authorized departmental officer means the Secretary or any employee

of the Department who has the authority to issue or modify grant

instruments on behalf of the Secretary.

Authorized organizational representative means the president of the

1890 Institution or the official, designated by the president of the

institution, who has the authority to commit the resources of the

institution.

Budget period means the interval of time (usually 12 months) into

which the project period is divided for budgetary and reporting

purposes.

Cash contributions means the applicant's cash outlay, including the

outlay of money contributed to the applicant by non-Federal third

parties.

Citizen or national of the United States means:

(1) a citizen or native resident of a State; or,

(2) a person defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8

U.S.C. 1101(a)(22), who, though not a citizen of the United States,

owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

College or University means 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 baccalaureate

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.

Complementary project proposal means a proposal for a project which

involves coordination with one or more other projects for which funding

was awarded under this program in a previous fiscal year, or for which

funding is requested under this program in the current fiscal year.

Cost-sharing or Matching means that portion of project costs not

borne by the Federal Government, including the value of in-kind

contributions.

Department or USDA means the United States Department of

Agriculture.

1890 Institution or 1890 land-grant institution or 1890 colleges

and universities means one of those institutions eligible to receive

funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 417-419, as amended; 7

U.S.C. 321-326 and 328) that are the intended recipients of funds under

programs established in Subtitle G of the National Agricultural

Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7

U.S.C. 3221 et seq.), including Tuskegee University.

Eligible participant means, for purposes of Sec. 3406.11(b),

Faculty Preparation and Enhancement for Teaching, and Sec. 3406.11(f),

Student Recruitment and Retention, an individual who:

(1) Is a citizen or national of the United States, as defined in

this section; or

(2) Is a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, the

Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau. Where

eligibility is claimed under paragraph (2) of the definition of

``Citizen or national of the United States'' in this section,

documentary evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service as

to such eligibility must be made available to CSREES upon request.

Food and agricultural sciences means basic, applied, and

developmental research, extension, and teaching activities in the food,

agricultural, renewable natural resources, forestry, and physical and

social sciences, in the broadest sense of these terms, including but

not limited to, activities concerned with the production, processing,

marketing, distribution, conservation, consumption, research, and

development of food and agriculturally related products and services,

and inclusive of programs in agriculture, natural resources,

aquaculture, forestry, veterinary medicine, home economics, rural

development, and closely allied disciplines.

Grantee means the 1890 Institution designated in the grant award

document as the responsible legal entity to which a grant is awarded.

Joint project proposal means a proposal for a project, which will

involve the applicant 1890 Institution and two or more other colleges,

universities, community colleges, junior colleges, or other

institutions, each of which will assume a major role in the conduct of

the proposed project, and for which the applicant institution will

transfer at least one-half of the awarded funds to the other

institutions participating in the project. Only the applicant

institution must meet the definition of ``1890 Institution'' as

specified in this section; the other institutions participating in a

joint project proposal are not required to meet the definition of

``1890 Institution'' as specified in this section, nor required to meet

the definition of ``college'' or ``university'' as specified in this

section.

Peer review panel means a group of experts or consultants,

qualified by training and experience in particular fields of science,

education, or technology to give expert advice on the merit of grant

applications in such fields, who evaluate eligible proposals submitted

to this program in their personal area(s) of expertise.

Principal investigator/project director means the single individual

designated by the grantee in the grant application

[[Page 66017]]

and approved by the Secretary who is responsible for the direction and

management of the project.

Prior approval means written approval evidencing prior consent by

an authorized departmental officer as defined in this section.

Project means the particular teaching or research activity within

the scope of one or more of the targeted areas supported by a grant

awarded under this program.

Project period means the period, as stated in the award document

and modifications thereto, if any, during which Federal sponsorship

begins and ends.

Research means any systematic inquiry directed toward new or fuller

knowledge and understanding of the subject studied.

Research capacity means the quality and depth of an institution's

research infrastructure as evidenced by its: faculty expertise in the

natural or social sciences, scientific and technical resources,

research environment, library resources, and organizational structures

and reward systems for attracting and retaining first-rate research

faculty or students at the graduate and post-doctorate levels.

Research project grant means a grant in support of a project that

addresses one or more of the targeted need areas or specific subject

matter/emphasis areas identified in the annual program announcement

related to strengthening research programs including, but not limited

to, such initiatives as: studies and experimentation in food and

agricultural sciences, centralized research support systems, technology

delivery systems, and other creative projects designed to provide

needed enhancement of the Nation's food and agricultural research

system.

Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other officer

or employee of the Department of Agriculture to whom the authority

involved may be delegated.

State means any one of the fifty States, the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas,

the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the District of Columbia.

Teaching means formal classroom instruction, laboratory

instruction, and practicum experience in the food and agricultural

sciences and matters related thereto (such as faculty development,

student recruitment and services, curriculum development, instructional

materials and equipment, and innovative teaching methodologies)

conducted by colleges and universities offering baccalaureate or higher

degrees.

Teaching capacity means the quality and depth of an institution's

academic programs infrastructure as evidenced by its: curriculum,

teaching faculty, instructional delivery systems, student experiential

learning opportunities, scientific instrumentation for teaching,

library resources, academic standing and racial, ethnic, or gender

diversity of its faculty and student body as well as faculty and

student recruitment and retention programs provided by a college or

university in order to achieve maximum results in the development of

scientific and professional expertise for the Nation's food and

agricultural system.

Teaching project grant means a grant in support of a project that

addresses one or more of the targeted need areas or specific subject

matter/emphasis areas identified in the annual program announcement

related to strengthening teaching programs including, but not limited

to, such initiatives as: curricula design and materials development,

faculty preparation and enhancement for teaching, instruction delivery

systems, scientific instrumentation for teaching, student experiential

learning, and student recruitment and retention.

Third party in-kind contributions means non-cash contributions of

property or services provided by non-Federal third parties, including

real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable property,

directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to a funded project

or program.

USDA agency cooperator means any agency or office of the Department

which has reviewed and endorsed an applicant's request for support, and

indicates a willingness to make available non-monetary resources or

technical assistance throughout the life of a project to ensure the

accomplishment of the objectives of a grant awarded under this program.

Sec. 3406.3 Institutional eligibility.

Proposals may be submitted by any of the 16 historically black 1890

land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University. The 1890 land-grant

institutions are: Alabama A&M University; University of Arkansas--Pine

Bluff; Delaware State University; Florida A&M University; Fort Valley

State College; Kentucky State University; Southern University and A&M

College; University of Maryland--Eastern Shore; Alcorn State

University; Lincoln University; North Carolina A&T State University;

Langston University; South Carolina State University; Tennessee State

University; Prairie View A&M University; and Virginia State University.

Subpart B--Program Description

Sec. 3406.4 Purpose of the program.

(a) The Department of Agriculture and the Nation depend upon sound

programs in the food and agricultural sciences at the Nation's colleges

and universities to produce well trained professionals for careers in

the food and agricultural sciences. The capacity of institutions to

offer suitable programs in the food and agricultural sciences to meet

the Nation's need for a well trained work force in the food and

agricultural sciences is a proper concern for the Department.

(b) Historically, the Department has had a close relationship with

the 1890 colleges and universities, including Tuskegee University.

Through its role as administrator of the Second Morrill Act, the

Department has borne the responsibility for helping these institutions

develop to their fullest potential in order to meet the needs of

students and the needs of the Nation.

(c) The institutional capacity building grants program is intended

to stimulate development of quality education and research programs at

these institutions in order that they may better assist the Department,

on behalf of the Nation, in its mission of providing a professional

work force in the food and agricultural sciences.

(d) This program is designed specifically to build the

institutional teaching and research capacities of the 1890 land-grant

institutions through cooperative programs with Federal and non-Federal

entities. The program is competitive among the 1890 Institutions and

encourages matching funds on the part of the States, private

organizations, and other non-Federal entities to encourage expanded

linkages with 1890 Institutions as performers of research and

education, and as developers of scientific and professional talent for

the United States food and agricultural system. In addition, through

this program, CSREES will strive to increase the overall pool of

qualified job applicants from underrepresented groups in order to make

significant progress toward achieving the objectives of work force

diversity within the Federal Government, particularly the U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

Sec. 3406.5 Matching support.

The Department strongly encourages and may require non-Federal

matching support for this program. In the annual program solicitation,

CSREES will announce any incentives that may be

[[Page 66018]]

offered to applicants for committing their own institutional resources

or securing third party contributions in support of capacity building

projects. CSREES may also announce any required fixed dollar amount or

percentage of institutional cost sharing, if applicable.

Sec. 3406.6 USDA agency cooperator requirement.

(a) Each application must provide documentation that at least one

USDA agency or office has agreed to cooperate with the applicant

institution on the proposed project. The documentation should describe

the expected benefits of the partnership venture for the USDA agency

and for the 1890 Institution, and describe the partnership effort

between USDA and the 1890 Institution in regard to the proposed

project. Such USDA agency cooperation may include, but is not limited

to, assisting the applicant institution with proposal development,

identifying possible sources of matching funds, securing resources,

implementing funded projects, providing technical assistance and

expertise throughout the life of the project, participating in project

evaluation, and disseminating project results.

(b) The designated CSREES agency contact can provide suggestions to

institutions seeking to secure a USDA agency cooperator on a particular

proposal.

(c) USDA 1890 Liaison Officers, and other USDA employees serving on

the campuses of the 1890 colleges and universities, may assist with

proposal development and project execution to satisfy the cooperator

requirement, in whole or in part, but may not serve as project

directors or principal investigators.

(d) Any USDA office responsible for administering a competitive or

formula grants program specifically targeted to 1890 Institutions may

not be a cooperator for this program.

Sec. 3406.7 General scope of program.

This program supports both teaching project grants and research

project grants. Such grants are intended to strengthen the teaching and

research capabilities of applicant institutions. Each 1890 Institution

may submit one or more grant applications for either category of grants

(as allowed by the annual program notice). However, each application

must be limited to either a teaching project grant proposal or a

research project grant proposal.

Sec. 3406.8 Joint project proposals.

Applicants are encouraged to submit joint project proposals as

defined in Sec. 3406.2, which address regional or national problems and

which will result overall in strengthening the 1890 university system.

The goals of such joint initiatives should include maximizing the use

of limited resources by generating a critical mass of expertise and

activity focused on a targeted need area(s), increasing cost-

effectiveness through achieving economies of scale, strengthening the

scope and quality of a project's impact, and promoting coalition

building likely to transcend the project's lifetime and lead to future

ventures.

Sec. 3406.9 Complementary project proposals.

Institutions may submit complementary project proposals as defined

in Sec. 3406.2. Such complementary project proposals may be submitted

by the same or by different eligible institutions.

Sec. 3406.10 Use of funds for facilities.

Under the 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program, the

use of grant funds to plan, acquire, or construct a building or

facility is not allowed. With prior approval, in accordance with the

cost principles set forth in OMB Circular No. A-21, some grant funds

may be used for minor alterations, renovations, or repairs deemed

necessary to retrofit existing teaching or research spaces in order to

carry out a funded project. However, requests to use grant funds for

such purposes must demonstrate that the alterations, renovations, or

repairs are incidental to the major purpose for which a grant is made.

Subpart C--Preparation of a Teaching Proposal

Sec. 3406.11 Scope of a teaching proposal.

The teaching component of the program will support the targeted

need area(s) related to strengthening teaching programs as specified in

the annual program announcement. Proposals may focus on any subject

matter area(s) in the food and agricultural sciences unless limited by

determinations as specified in the annual program announcement. A

proposal may address a single targeted need area or multiple targeted

need areas, and may be focused on a single subject matter area or

multiple subject matter areas, in any combination (e.g., curriculum

development in horticulture; curriculum development, faculty

enhancement, and student experiential learning in animal science;

faculty enhancement in food science and agribusiness management; or

instruction delivery systems and student experiential learning in plant

science, horticulture, and entomology). Applicants are also encouraged

to include a library enhancement component related to the teaching

project in their proposals. A proposal may be directed toward the

undergraduate or graduate level of study as specified in the annual

program announcement. Targeted need areas for teaching programs will

consist of one or more of the following:

(a) Curricula design and materials development. (1) The purpose of

this need area is to promote new and improved curricula and materials

to increase the quality of, and continuously renew, the Nation's

academic programs in the food and agricultural sciences. The overall

objective is to stimulate the development and facilitate the use of

exemplary education models and materials that incorporate the most

recent advances in subject matter, research on teaching and learning

theory, and instructional technology. Proposals may emphasize: the

development of courses of study, degree programs, and instructional

materials; the use of new approaches to the study of traditional

subjects; or the introduction of new subjects, or new applications of

knowledge, pertaining to the food and agricultural sciences.

(2) Examples include, but are not limited to, curricula and

materials that promote:

(i) Raising the level of scholastic achievement of the Nation's

graduates in the food and agricultural sciences.

(ii) Addressing the special needs of particular groups of students,

such as minorities, gifted and talented, or those with educational

backgrounds that warrant enrichment.

(iii) Using alternative instructional strategies or methodologies,

including computer-assisted instruction or simulation modeling, media

programs that reach large audiences efficiently and effectively,

activities that provide hands-on learning experiences, and educational

programs that extend learning beyond the classroom.

(iv) Using sound pedagogy, particularly with regard to recent

research on how to motivate students to learn, retain, apply, and

transfer knowledge, skills, and competencies.

(v) Building student competencies to integrate and synthesize

knowledge from several disciplines.

(b) Faculty preparation and enhancement for teaching. (1) The

purpose of this need area is to advance faculty development in the

areas of teaching competency, subject matter expertise, or student

recruitment and

[[Page 66019]]

advising skills. Teachers are central to education. They serve as

models, motivators, and mentors--the catalysts of the learning process.

Moreover, teachers are agents for developing, replicating, and

exchanging effective teaching materials and methods. For these reasons,

education can be strengthened only when teachers are adequately

prepared, highly motivated, and appropriately recognized and rewarded.

(2) Each faculty recipient of support for developmental activities

under Sec. 3406.11(b) must be an ``eligible participant'' as defined in

Sec. 3406.2 of this part.

(3) Examples of developmental activities include, but are not

limited to, those which enable teaching faculty to:

(i) Gain experience with recent developments or innovative

technology relevant to their teaching responsibilities.

(ii) Work under the guidance and direction of experts who have

substantial expertise in an area related to the developmental goals of

the project.

(iii) Work with scientists or professionals in government,

industry, or other colleges or universities to learn new applications

in a field.

(iv) Obtain personal experience working with new ideas and

techniques.

(v) Expand competence with new methods of information delivery,

such as computer-assisted or televised instruction.

(c) Instruction delivery systems. (1) The purpose of this need area

is to encourage the use of alternative methods of delivering

instruction to enhance the quality, effectiveness, and cost efficiency

of teaching programs. The importance of this initiative is evidenced by

advances in educational research which have substantiated the theory

that differences in the learning styles of students often require

alternative instructional methodologies. Also, the rising costs of

higher education strongly suggest that colleges and universities

undertake more efforts of a collaborative nature in order to deliver

instruction which maximizes program quality and reduces unnecessary

duplication. At the same time, advancements in knowledge and technology

continue to introduce new subject matter areas which warrant

consideration and implementation of innovative instruction techniques,

methodologies, and delivery systems.

(2) Examples include, but are not limited to:

(i) Use of computers.

(ii) Teleconferencing.

(iii) Networking via satellite communications.

(iv) Regionalization of academic programs.

(v) Mobile classrooms and laboratories.

(vi) Individualized learning centers.

(viii) Symposia, forums, regional or national workshops, etc.

(d) Scientific instrumentation for teaching. (1) The purpose of

this need area is to provide students in science-oriented courses the

necessary experience with suitable, up-to-date equipment in order to

involve them in work central to scientific understanding and progress.

This program initiative will support the acquisition of instructional

laboratory and classroom equipment to assure the achievement and

maintenance of outstanding food and agricultural sciences higher

education programs. A proposal may request support for acquiring new,

state-of-the-art instructional scientific equipment, upgrading existing

equipment, or replacing non-functional or clearly obsolete equipment.

(2) Examples include, but are not limited to:

(i) Rental or purchase of modern instruments to improve student

learning experiences in courses, laboratories, and field work.

(ii) Development of new ways of using instrumentation to extend

instructional capabilities.

(iii) Establishment of equipment-sharing capability via consortia

or centers that develop innovative opportunities, such as mobile

laboratories or satellite access to industry or government

laboratories.

(e) Student experiential learning. (1) The purpose of this need

area is to further the development of student scientific and

professional competencies through experiential learning programs which

provide students with opportunities to solve complex problems in the

context of real-world situations. Effective experiential learning is

essential in preparing future graduates to advance knowledge and

technology, enhance quality of life, conserve resources, and revitalize

the Nation's economic competitiveness. Such experiential learning

opportunities are most effective when they serve to advance decision-

making and communication skills as well as technological expertise.

(2) Examples include, but are not limited to, projects which:

(i) Provide opportunities for students to participate in research

projects, either as a part of an ongoing research project or in a

project designed especially for this program.

(ii) Provide opportunities for students to complete

apprenticeships, internships, or similar participatory learning

experiences.

(iii) Expand and enrich courses which are of a practicum nature.

(iv) Provide career mentoring experiences that link students with

outstanding professionals.

(f) Student recruitment and retention. (1) The purpose of this need

area is to strengthen student recruitment and retention programs in

order to promote the future strength of the Nation's scientific and

professional work force. The Nation's economic competitiveness and

quality of life rest upon the availability of a cadre of outstanding

research scientists, university faculty, and other professionals in the

food and agricultural sciences. A substantial need exists to supplement

efforts to attract increased numbers of academically outstanding

students to prepare for careers as food and agricultural scientists and

professionals. It is particularly important to augment the racial,

ethnic, and gender diversity of the student body in order to promote a

robust exchange of ideas and a more effective use of the full breadth

of the Nation's intellectual resources.

(2) Each student recipient of monetary support for education costs

or developmental purposes under Sec. 3406.11(f) must be enrolled at an

eligible institution and meet the requirement of an ``eligible

participant'' as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of this part.

(3) Examples include, but are not limited to:

(i) Special outreach programs for elementary and secondary students

as well as parents, counselors, and the general public to broaden

awareness of the extensive nature and diversity of career opportunities

for graduates in the food and agricultural sciences.

(ii) Special activities and materials to establish more effective

linkages with high school science classes.

(iii) Unique or innovative student recruitment activities,

materials, and personnel.

(iv) Special retention programs to assure student progression

through and completion of an educational program.

(v) Development and dissemination of stimulating career information

materials.

(vi) Use of regional or national media to promote food and

agricultural sciences higher education.

(vii) Providing financial incentives to enable and encourage

students to pursue and complete an undergraduate or graduate degree in

an area of the food and agricultural sciences.

[[Page 66020]]

Sec. 3406.12 Program application materials--teaching.

Program application materials in an application package will be

made available to eligible institutions upon request. These materials

include the program announcement, the administrative provisions for the

program, and the forms needed to prepare and submit teaching grant

applications under the program.

Sec. 3406.13 Content of a teaching proposal.

(a) Proposal cover page. (1) Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education

Proposal Cover Page,'' must be completed in its entirety. Note that

providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral

part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing

of the proposal.

(2) One copy of the Form CSRS-712 must contain the pen-and-ink

signatures of the project director(s) and authorized organizational

representative for the applicant institution.

(3) The title of the teaching project shown on the ``Higher

Education Proposal Cover Page'' must be brief (80-character maximum)

yet represent the major thrust of the project. This information will be

used by the Department to provide information to the Congress and other

interested parties,

(4) In block 7. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``1890 Institution Capacity

Building Grants Program.''

(5) In block 8.a. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``Teaching.'' In block

8.b. identify the code for the targeted need area(s) as found on the

reverse of the form. If a proposal focuses on multiple targeted need

areas, enter each code associated with the project. In block 8.c.

identify the major area(s) of emphasis as found on the reverse of the

form. If a proposal focuses on multiple areas of emphasis, enter each

code associated with the project; however, limit the selection to three

areas. This information will be used by program staff for the proper

assignment of proposals to reviewers.

(6) In block 9. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a

complementary project proposal or a joint project proposal as defined

in Sec. 3406.2 of this part. If it is not a complementary project

proposal or a joint project proposal, identify it as a regular project

proposal.

(7) In block 13. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a

new, first-time submission or if the proposal is a resubmission of a

proposal that has been submitted to, but not funded under, the 1890

Institution Capacity Building Grants Program in a previous competition.

(b) 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 being immediately

following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation.

(c) USDA agency cooperator. To be considered for funding, each

proposal must include documentation of cooperation with at least one

USDA agency of office. If multiple agencies are involved as

cooperators, documentation must be included from each agency. When

documenting cooperative arrangements, the following guidelines should

be used.

(1) A summary of the cooperative arrangements must immediately

follow the Table of Contents. This summary should:

(i) Bear the signatures of the Agency Head (or his/her designated

authorized representative) and the university project director;

(ii) Indicate the agency's willingness to commit support for the

project;

(iii) Identify the person(s) at the USDA agency who will serve as

the liaison or technical contact for the project;

(iv) Describe the degree and nature of the USDA agency's

involvement in the proposed project, as outlined in Sec. 3406.6(a) of

this part, including its role in:

(A) Identifying the need for the project;

(B) Developing a conceptual approach;

(C) Assisting with project design;

(D) Identifying and securing needed agency or other resources

(e.g., personnel, grants/contracts; in-kind support, etc.);

(E) Developing the project budget;

(F) Promoting partnerships with other institutions to carry out the

project;

(G) Helping the institution launch and manage the project;

(H) Providing technical assistance and expertise;

(I) Providing consultation through site visits, E-mail, conference

calls, and faxes;

(J) Participating in project evaluation and dissemination of final

project results; and

(K) Seeking other innovative ways to ensure the success of the

project and advance the needs of the institution or the agency; and

(v) Describe the expected benefits of the partnership venture for

the USDA agency and for the 1890 Institution.

(2) A detailed discussion of these partnership arrangements should

be provided in the narrative portion of the proposal, as outlined in

paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.

(3) Additional documentation, including letters of support or

cooperation, may be provided in the Appendix.

(d) Project summary. (1) A Project Summary should immediately

follow the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation section.

The information provided in the Project Summary will be used by the

program staff for a variety of purposes, including the proper

assignment of proposals to reviewers and providing information to

reviewers prior to the peer panel meeting. The name of the institution,

the targeted need area(s), and the title of the proposal must be

identified exactly as shown on the ``Higher Education Proposal Cover

Page.''

(2) If the proposal is a complementary project proposal, as defined

in Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other

complementary project(s) by citing the name of the submitting

institution, the title of the project, the project director, and the

grant number (if funded in a previous year) exactly as shown on the

cover page of the complementary project so that appropriate

consideration can be given to the interrelatedness of the proposals in

the evaluation process.

(3) If the proposal is a joint project proposal, as defined in

Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other

participating institutions and the key faculty member or other

individual responsible for coordinating the project at each

institution.

(4) The Project Summary should be a concise description of the

proposed activity suitable for publication by the Department to inform

the general public about awards under the program. The text must not

exceed one page, single-spaced. The Project Summary should be a self-

contained description of the activity which would result if the

proposal is funded by USDA. It should include: The objectives of the

project; a synopsis of the plan of operation; a statement of how the

project will enhance the teaching capacity of the institution; a

description of how the project will strengthen higher education in the

food and agricultural sciences in the United States; a description of

the partnership efforts between, and the expected benefits for, the

USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890 Institution; and the plans for

disseminating project results. The Project Summary should be written so

that a technically literate reader can evaluate the use of Federal

funds in support of the project.

[[Page 66021]]

(e) Resubmission of a proposal. (1) Resubmission of previously

unfunded proposals. (i) If a proposal has been submitted previously,

but was not funded, such should be indicated in block 13. on Form CSRS-

712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and the following

information should be included in the proposal:

(A) The fiscal year(s) in which the proposal was submitted

previously;

(B) A summary of the peer reviewers' comments; and

(C) How these comments have been addressed in the current proposal,

including the page numbers in the current proposal where the reviewers'

comments have been addressed. (ii) This information may be provided as

a section of the proposal following the Project Summary and preceding

the proposal narrative or it may be placed in the Appendix (see

paragraph (j) of this section). In either case, the location of this

information should be indicated in the Table of Contents, and the fact

that the proposal is a resubmitted proposal should be stated in the

proposal narrative. Further, when possible, the information should be

presented in tabular format. Applicants who choose to resubmit

proposals that were previously submitted, but not funded, should note

that resubmitted proposals must compete equally with newly submitted

proposals. Submitting a proposal that has been revised based on a

previous peer review panel's critique of the proposal does not

guarantee the success of the resubmitted proposal.

(2) Resubmission of previously funded proposals. Recognizing that

capacity building is a long-term ongoing process, the 1890 Institution

Capacity Building Grants Program is interested in funding subsequent

phases of previously funded projects in order to build institutional

capacity, and institutions are encouraged to build on a theme over

several grant awards. However, proposals that are sequential

continuations or new stages of previously funded Capacity Building

Grants must compete with first-time proposals. Therefore, project

directors should thoroughly demonstrate how the project proposed in the

current application expands substantially upon a previously funded

project (i.e., demonstrate how the new project will advance the former

project to the next level of attainment or will achieve expanded

goals). The proposal must also show the degree to which the new phase

promotes innovativeness and creativity beyond the scope of the

previously funded project. Please note that the 1890 Institution

Capacity Building Grants Program is not designed to support activities

that are essentially repetitive in nature over multiple grant awards.

Project directors who have had their projects funded previously are

discouraged from resubmitting relatively identical proposals for

further funding.

(f) Narrative of a teaching proposal. The narrative portion of the

proposal is limited to 20 pages in length. The one-page Project Summary

is not included in the 20-page limitation. The narrative must be typed

on one side of the page only, using a font no smaller than 12 point,

and double-spaced. All margins must be at least one inch. All pages

following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation must be

paginated. It should be noted that reviewers will not be required to

read beyond 20 pages of the narrative to evaluate the proposal. The

narrative should contain the following sections:

(1) Potential for advancing the quality of education.

(i) Impact.

(A) Identify the targeted need area(s).

(B) Clearly state the specific instructional problem or opportunity

to be addressed.

(C) Describe how and by whom the focus and scope of the project

were determined. Summarize the body of knowledge which substantiates

the need for the proposed project.

(D) Describe ongoing or recently completed significant activities

related to the proposed project for which previous funding was received

under this program.

(E) Discuss how the project will be of value at the State,

regional, national, or international level(s).

(F) Discuss how the benefits to be derived from the project will

transcend the proposing institution or the grant period. Also discuss

the probabilities of its adaptation by other institutions. For example,

can the project serve as a model for others?

(ii) Continuation plans. Discuss the likelihood of, or plans for,

continuation or expansion of the project beyond USDA support. For

example, does the institution's long-range budget or academic plan

provide for the realistic continuation or expansion of the initiative

undertaken by this project after the end of the grant period, are plans

for eventual self-support built into the project, are plans being made

to institutionalize the program if it meets with success, and are there

indications of other continuing non-Federal support?

(iii) Innovation. Describe the degree to which the proposal

reflects an innovative or non-traditional approach to solving a higher

education problem or strengthening the quality of higher education in

the food and agricultural sciences.

(iv) Products and results. Explain the kinds of results and

products expected and their impact on strengthening food and

agricultural sciences higher education in the United States, including

attracting academically outstanding students and increasing the ethnic,

racial, and gender diversity of the Nation's food and agricultural

scientific and professional expertise base.

(2) Overall approach and cooperative linkages.

(i) Proposed approach.

(A) Objectives. Cite and discuss the specific objectives to be

accomplished under the project.

(B) Plan of operation.

(1) Describe procedures for accomplishing the objectives of the

project.

(2) Describe plans for management of the project to enhance its

proper and efficient administration.

(3) Describe the way in which resources and personnel will be used

to conduct the project.

(C) Timetable. Provide a timetable for conducting the project.

Identify all important project milestones and dates as they relate to

project start-up, execution, dissemination, evaluation, and close-out.

(ii) Evaluation plans.

(A) Provide a plan for evaluating the accomplishment of stated

objectives during the conduct of the project. Indicate the criteria,

and corresponding weight of each, to be used in the evaluation process,

describe any data to be collected and analyzed, and explain the

methodology that will be used to determine the extent to which the

needs underlying the project are met.

(B) Provide a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the end

results upon conclusion of the project. Include the same kinds of

information requested in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.

(iii) Dissemination plans. Discuss plans to disseminate project

results and products. Identify target audiences and explain methods of

communication.

(iv) Partnerships and collaborative efforts.

(A) Explain how the project will maximize partnership ventures and

collaborative efforts to strengthen food and agricultural sciences

higher education (e.g., involvement of faculty in related disciplines

at the same institution, joint projects with other colleges or

universities, or cooperative activities with business or industry).

Also explain how it will stimulate

[[Page 66022]]

academia, the States, or the private sector to join with the Federal

partner in enhancing food and agricultural sciences higher education.

(B) Provide evidence, via letters from the parties involved, that

arrangements necessary for collaborative partnerships or joint

initiatives have been discussed and realistically can be expected to

come to fruition, or actually have been finalized contingent on an

award under this program. Letters must be signed by an official who has

the authority to commit the resources of the organization. Such letters

should be referenced in the plan of operation, but the actual letters

should be included in the Appendix section of the proposal. Any

potential conflict(s) of interest that might result from the proposed

collaborative arrangements must be discussed in detail. Proposals which

indicate joint projects with other institutions must state which

proposer is to receive any resulting grant award, since only one

submitting institution can be the recipient of a project grant under

one proposal.

(C) Explain how the project will create a new or enhance an

existing partnership between the USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890

Institution(s). This section should expand upon the summary information

provided in the documentation of USDA agency cooperation section, as

outlined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. This is particularly

important because the focal point of attention in the peer review

process is the proposal narrative. Therefore, a comprehensive

discussion of the partnership effort between USDA and the 1890

Institution should be provided.

(3) Institutional capacity building.

(i) Institutional enhancement. Explain how the proposed project

will strengthen the teaching capacity as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of this

part, of the applicant institution and, if applicable, any other

institutions assuming a major role in the conduct of the project. For

example, describe how the proposed project is intended to strengthen

the institution's academic infrastructure by expanding the current

faculty's expertise base, advancing the scholarly quality of the

institution's academic programs, enriching the racial, ethnic, or

gender diversity of the student body, helping the institution establish

itself as a center of excellence in particular field of education,

helping the institution maintain or acquire state-of-the-art scientific

instrumentation or library collections for teaching, or enabling the

institution to provide more meaningful student experiential learning

opportunities.

(ii) Institutional commitment.

(A) Discuss the institution's commitment to the project and its

successful completion. Provide, as relevant, appropriate documentation

in the Appendix. Substantiate that the institution attributes a high

priority to the project.

(B) Discuss how the project will contribute to the achievement of

the institution's long-term (five- to ten-year goals and how the

project will help satisfy the institution's high-priority objectives.

Show how this project is linked to and supported by the institution's

strategic plan.

(C) Discuss the commitment of institutional resources to the

project. Show that the institutional resources to be made available to

the project will be adequate, when combined with the support requested

from USDA, to carry out the activities of the project and represent a

sound commitment by the institution. Discuss institutional facilities,

equipment, computer services, and other appropriate resources available

to the project.

(g) Key personnel. A Form CSRS-708, ``Summary Vita-Teaching

Proposal,'' should be included for each key person associated with the

project.

(h) Budget and cost-effectiveness. (1) Budget form.

(i) Prepare Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget,'' in

accordance with instructions provided with the form. Proposals may

request support for a period to be identified in each year's program

announcement. A budget form is required for each year of requested

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

requested total support for the overall project period. Form CSRS-713

may be reproduced as needed by proposers. Funds may be requested under

any of the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or

service for which support is requested is allowable under the

authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles, the

administrative provisions in this part, and can be justified as

necessary for successful conduct of the proposed project.

(ii) The approved negotiated instruction rate or the maximum rate

allowed by law should be used when computing indirect costs. If a

reduced rate of indirect costs is voluntarily requested from USDA, the

remaining allowable indirect costs may be used as matching funds.

(2) Matching funds. When documenting matching contributions, use

the following guidelines:

When preparing the column of Form CSRS-713 entitled ``Applicant

Contributions To Matching Funds,'' only those costs to be contributed

by the applicant for the purposes of matching should be shown. The

total amount of this column should be indicated in item M.

(ii) In item N of Form CSRS-713, show a total dollar amount for

Cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties; also

show a total dollar amount (based on current fair market value) for

Non-cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties.

(iii) To qualify for any incentive benefits stemming from matching

support or to satisfy any cost sharing requirements, proposals must

include written verification of any actual commitments of matching

support (including both cash and non-cash contributions) from third

parties. Written verification means--

(A) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge

agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational

representatives of the donor organization (or by the donor if the gift

is from an individual) and the applicant institution,which must

include:

(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor;

(2) The name of the applicant institution;

(3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;

(4) The dollar amount of the cash donation; and

(5) A statement that the donor will pay the cash contribution

during the grant period; and

(B) For any third party non-cash contributions, a separate pledge

agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized

organizational representatives of the donor organization (or by the

donor if the gift is from an individual) and the applicant institution,

which must include:

(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor;

(2) The name of the applicant institution;

(3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;

(4) A good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the

non-cash contribution; and

(5) A statement that the donor will make the contribution during

the grant period.

(iv) All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal

immediately following Form CSRS-713. The sources and amounts of all

matching support from outside the applicant institution should be

summarized in the Budget Narrative section of the proposal.

[[Page 66023]]

(v) Applicants should refer to OMB Circulars A-110, ``Uniform

Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions

of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-profit Organizations,''

and A-21, ``Cost Principles for Educational Institutions,'' for further

guidance and other requirements relating to matching and allowable

costs.

(3) Chart on shared budget for joint project proposal.

(i) For a joint project proposal, a plan must be provided

indicating how funds will be distributed to the participating

institutions. The budget section of a joint project proposal should

include a chart indicating:

(A) The names of the participating institutions;

(B) The amount of funds to be disbursed to those institutions; and

(C) The way in which such funds will be used in accordance with

items A through L of Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget.''

(ii) If a proposal is not for a joint project, such a chart is not

required.

(4) Budget narrative.

(i) Discuss how the budget specifically supports the proposed

project activities. Explain how each budget item (such as salaries and

wages for professional and technical staff, student stipends/

scholarships, travel, equipment, etc.) is essential to achieving

project objectives.

(ii) Justify that the total budget, including funds requested from

USDA and any matching support provided, will be adequate to carry out

the activities of the project. Provide a summary of sources and amounts

of all third party matching support.

(iii) Justify the project's cost-effectiveness. Show how the

project maximizes the use of limited resources, optimizes educational

value for the dollar, achieves economies of scale, or leverages

additional funds. For example, discuss how the project has the

potential to generate a critical mass of expertise and activity focused

on a targeted need area or promote coalition building that could lead

to future ventures.

(iv) Includes the percentage of time key personnel will work on the

project, both during the academic year and summer. When salaries of

university project personnel will be paid by a combination of USDA and

institutional funds, the total compensation must not exceed the faculty

member's regular annual compensation. In addition, the total commitment

of time devoted to the project, when combined with time for teaching

and research duties, other sponsored agreements, and other employment

obligations to the institution, must not exceed 100 percent of the

normal workload for which the employee is compensated, in accordance

with established university policies and applicable Federal cost

principles.

(v) If the proposal addresses more than one targeted need area

(e.g., student experiential learning and instruction delivery systems),

estimate the proportion of the funds requested from USDA that will

support each respective targeted need area.

(i) Current and pending support. Each applicant must complete Form

CSRS-663, ``Current and Pending Support,'' identifying any other

current public- or private-sponsored projects, in addition to the

proposed project, to which key personnel listed in the proposal under

consideration have committed portions of their time, whether or not

salary support for the person(s) involved is included in the budgets of

the various projects. This information should also be provided for any

pending proposals which are currently being considered by, or which

will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors,

including other USDA programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of

identical or similar projects to other possible sponsors will not

prejudice the review or evaluation of a project under this program.

(j) Appendix. Each project narrative is expected to be complete in

itself and to meet the 20-page limitation. Inclusion of material in an

Appendix should not be used to circumvent the 20-page limitation of a

proposal narrative. However, in those instances where inclusion of

supplemental information is necessary to guarantee the peer review

panel's complete understanding of a proposal or to illustrate the

integrity of the design or a main thesis of the proposal, such

information may be included in an Appendix. Examples of supplemental

material are photographs, journal reprints, brochures and other

pertinent materials which are deemed to be illustrative of major points

in the narrative but unsuitable for inclusion in the proposal narrative

itself. Information on previously submitted proposals may also be

presented in the Appendix (refer to paragraph (e) of this section).

When possible, information in the Appendix should be presented in

tabular format. A complete set of the Appendix material must be

attached to each copy of the grant application submitted. The Appendix

must be identified with the title of the project as it appears on Form

CSRS-712 of the proposal and the name(s) of the project director(s).

The Appendix must be referenced in the proposal narrative.

Subpart D--Review and Evaluation of a Teaching Proposal

Sec. 3406.14 Proposal review--teaching.

The proposal evaluation process includes both internal staff review

and merit evaluation by peer review panels comprised of scientists,

educators, business representatives, and Government officials who are

highly qualified to render expert advice in the areas supported. Peer

review panels will be selected and structured to provide optimum

expertise and objective judgment in the evaluation of proposals.

Sec. 3406.15 Evaluation criteria for teaching proposals.

The maximum score a teaching proposal can receive is 150 points.

Unless otherwise stated in the annual solicitation published in the

Federal Register, the peer review panel will consider the following

criteria and weights to evaluate proposals submitted:

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

Weight

Evaluation Criterion (points)

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

(a) Potential for advancing the quality of education:

This criterion is used to assess the likelihood that the

project will have a substantial impact upon and advance

the quality of food and agricultural sciences higher

education by strengthening institutional capacities

through promoting education reform to meet clearly

delineated needs.

(1) Impact--Does the project address a targeted need

area(s)? Is the problem or opportunity clearly

documented? Does the project address a State,

regional, national, or international problem or

opportunity? Will the benefits to be derived from

the project transcend the applicant institution or

the grant period? Is it probable that other

institutions will adapt this project for their own

use? Can the project serve as a model for others?.. 15

[[Page 66024]]

(2) Continuation plans--Are there plans for

continuation or expansion of the project beyond

USDA support with the use of institutional funds?

Are there indications of external, non-Federal

support? Are there realistic plans for making the

project self-supporting?........................... 10

(3) Innovation--Are significant aspects of the

project based on an innovative or a non-traditional

approach toward solving a higher education problem

or strengthening the quality of higher education in

the food and agricultural sciences? If successful,

is the project likely to lead to education reform?. 10

(4) Products and results--Are the expected products

and results of the project clearly defined and

likely to be of high quality? Will project results

be of an unusual or unique nature? Will the project

contribute to a better understanding of or an

improvement in the quality, distribution, or

effectiveness of the Nation's food and agricultural

scientific and professional expertise base, such as

increasing the participation of women and

minorities?........................................ 15

(b) Overall approach and cooperative linkages:

This criterion relates to the soundness of the proposed

approach and the quality of the partnerships likely to

evolve as a result of the project.

(1) Proposed approach--Do the objectives and plan of

operation appear to be sound and appropriate

relative to the targeted need area(s) and the

impact anticipated? Are the procedures

managerially, educationally, and scientifically

sound? Is the overall plan integrated with or does

it expand upon other major efforts to improve the

quality of food and agricultural sciences higher

education? Does the timetable appear to be readily

achievable?........................................ 15

(2) Evaluation--Are the evaluation plans adequate

and reasonable? Do they allow for continuous or

frequent feedback during the life of the project?

Are the individuals involved in project evaluation

skilled in evaluation strategies and procedures?

Can they provide an objective evaluation? Do

evaluation plans facilitate the measurement of

project progress and outcomes?..................... 5

(3) Dissemination--Does the proposed project include

clearly outlined and realistic mechanisms that will

lead to widespread dissemination of project

results, including national electronic

communication systems, publications, presentations

at professional conferences, or use by faculty

development or research/teaching skills workshops?. 5

(4) Partnerships and collaborative efforts--Does the

project have significant potential for advancing

cooperative ventures between the applicant

institution and a USDA agency? Does the project

workplan include an effective role for the

cooperating USDA agency(s)? Will the project expand

partnership ventures among disciplines at a

university, between colleges and universities, or

with the private sector? Will the project lead to

long-term relationships or cooperative partnerships

that are likely to enhance program quality or

supplement resources available to food and

agricultural sciences higher education?............ 15

(c) Institutional capacity building:

This criterion relates to the degree to which the

project will strengthen the teaching capacity of the

applicant institution. In the case of a joint project

proposal, it relates to the degree to which the project

will strengthen the teaching capacity of the applicant

institution and that of any other institution assuming

a major role in the conduct of the project.

(1) Institutional enhancement--Will the project help

the institution to: expand the current faculty's

expertise base; attract, hire, and retain

outstanding teaching faculty; advance and

strengthen the scholarly quality of the

institution's academic programs; enrich the racial,

ethnic, or gender diversity of the faculty and

student body; recruit students with higher grade

point averages, higher standardized test scores,

and those who are more committed to graduation;

become a center of excellence in a particular field

of education and bring it greater academic

recognition; attract outside resources for academic

programs; maintain or acquire state-of-the-art

scientific instrumentation or library collections

for teaching; or provide more meaningful student

experiential learning opportunities?............... 15

(2) Institutional commitment--Is there evidence to

substantiate that the institution attributes a high-

priority to the project, that the project is linked

to the achievement of the institution's long-term

goals, that it will help satisfy the institution's

high-priority objectives, or that the project is

supported by the institution's strategic plans?

Will the project have reasonable access to needed

resources such as instructional instrumentation,

facilities, computer services, library and other

instruction support resources?..................... 15

(d) Personnel Resources:

This criterion relates to the number and qualifications

of the key persons who will carry out the project. Are

designated project personnel qualified to carry out a

successful project? Are there sufficient numbers of

personnel associated with the project to achieve the

stated objectives and the anticipated outcomes?

(e) Budget and cost-effectiveness:

This criterion relates to the extent to which the total

budget adequately supports the project and is cost-

effective.

(1) Budget--Is the budget request justifiable? Are

costs reasonable and necessary? Will the total

budget be adequate to carry out project activities?

Are the source(s) and amount(s) of non-Federal

matching support clearly identified and

appropriately documented? For a joint project

proposal, is the shared budget explained clearly

and in sufficient detail?.......................... 10

(2) Cost-effectiveness--Is the proposed project cost-

effective? Does it demonstrate a creative use of

limited resources, maximize educational value per

dollar of USDA support, achieve economies of scale,

leverage additional funds or have the potential to

do so, focus expertise and activity on a targeted

need area, or promote coalition building for

current or future ventures?........................ 5

(f) Overall quality of proposal:

This criterion relates to the degree to which the

proposal complies with the application guidelines and

is of high quality. Is the proposal enhanced by its

adherence to instructions (table of contents,

organization, pagination, margin and font size, the 20-

page limitation, appendices, etc.); accuracy of forms;

clarity of budget narrative; well prepared vitae for

all key personnel associated with the project; and

presentation (are ideas effectively presented, clearly

articulated, and thoroughly explained, etc.)?.......... 5

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

[[Page 66025]]

Subpart E--Preparation of a Research Proposal

Sec. 3406.16 Scope of a research proposal.

The research component of the program will support projects that

address high-priority research initiatives in areas such as those

illustrated in this section where there is a present or anticipated

need for increased knowledge or capabilities or in which it is feasible

for applicants to develop programs recognized for their excellence.

Applicants are also encouraged to include in their proposals a library

enhancement component related to the initiative(s) for which they have

prepared their proposals.

(a) Studies and experimentation in food and agricultural sciences.

(1) The purpose of this initiative is to advance the body of

knowledge in those basic and applied natural and social sciences that

comprise the food and agricultural sciences.

(2) Examples include, but are not limited to:

(i) Conduct plant or animal breeding programs to develop better

crops, forests, or livestock (e.g., more disease resistant, more

productive, yielding higher quality products).

(ii) Conceive, design, and evaluate new bioprocessing techniques

for eliminating undesirable constituents from or adding desirable ones

to food products.

(iii) Propose and evaluate ways to enhance utilization of the

capabilities and resources of food and agricultural institutions to

promote rural development (e.g., exploitation of new technologies by

small rural businesses).

(iv) Identify control factors influencing consumer demand for

agricultural products.

(v) Analyze social, economic, and physiological aspects of

nutrition, housing, and life-style choices, and of community strategies

for meeting the changing needs of different population groups.

(vi) Other high-priority areas such as human nutrition, sustainable

agriculture, biotechnology, agribusiness management and marketing, and

aquaculture.

(b) Centralized research support systems.

(1) The purpose of this initiative is to establish centralized

support systems to meet national needs or serve regions or clientele

that cannot otherwise afford or have ready access to the support in

question, or to provide such support more economically thereby freeing

up resources for other research uses.

(2) Examples include, but are not limited to:

(i) Storage, maintenance, characterization, evaluation and

enhancement of germplasm for use by animal and plant breeders,

including those using the techniques of biotechnology.

(ii) Computerized data banks of important scientific information

(e.g., epidemiological, demographic, nutrition, weather, economic, crop

yields, etc.).

(iii) Expert service centers for sophisticated and highly

specialized methodologies (e.g., evaluation of organoleptic and

nutritional quality of foods, toxicology, taxonomic identifications,

consumer preferences, demographics, etc.).

(c) Technology delivery systems.

(1) The purpose of this initiative is to promote innovations and

improvements in the delivery of benefits of food and agricultural

sciences to producers and consumers, particularly those who are

currently disproportionately low in receipt of such benefits.

(2) Examples include, but are not limited to:

(i) Computer-based decision support systems to assist small-scale

farmers to take advantage of relevant technologies, programs, policies,

etc.

(ii) Efficacious delivery systems for nutrition information or for

resource management assistance for low-income families and individuals.

(d) Other creative proposals. The purpose of this initiative is to

encourage other creative proposals, outside the areas previously

outlined, that are designed to provide needed enhancement of the

Nation's food and agricultural research system.

Sec. 3406.17 Program application materials--research.

Program application materials in an application package will be

made available to eligible institutions upon request. These materials

include the program announcement, the administrative provisions for the

program, and the forms needed to prepare and submit research grant

applications under the program.

Sec. 3406.18 Content of a research proposal.

(a) Proposal cover page. (1) Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education

Proposal Cover Page,'' must be completed in its entirety. Note that

providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral

part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing

of the proposal.

(2) One copy of Form CSRS-712 must contain the pen-and-ink

signatures of the principal investigator(s) and Authorized

Organizational Representative for the applicant institution.

(3) The title of the research project shown on the ``Higher

Education Proposal Cover Page'' must be brief (80-character maximum)

yet represent the major thrust of the project. This information will be

used by the Department to provide information to the Congress and other

interested parties.

(4) In block 7. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``Capacity Building Grants

Program.''

(5) In block 8.a. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``Research.'' In block

8.b. identify the code of the targeted need area(s) as found on the

reverse of the form. If a proposal focuses on multiple targeted need

areas, enter each code associated with the project. In block 8.c.

identify the major area(s) of emphasis as found on the reverse of the

form. If a proposal focuses on multiple areas of emphasis, enter each

code associated with the project; however, please limit your selection

to three areas. This information will be used by the program staff for

the proper assignment of proposals to reviewers.

(6) In block 9. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a

complementary project proposal or joint project proposal as defined in

Sec. 3406.2. If it is not a complementary project proposal or a joint

project proposal, identify it as a regular proposal.

(7) In block 13. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a

new, first-time submission or if the proposal is a resubmission of a

proposal that has been submitted to, but not funded under the 1890

Institution Capacity Building Grants Program in a previous competition.

(b) Table of contents. For ease of 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 summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation.

(c) USDA agency cooperator. To be considered for funding, each

proposal must include documentation of cooperation with at least one

USDA agency or office. If multiple agencies are involved as

cooperators, documentation must be included from each agency. When

documenting cooperative arrangements, the following guidelines should

be used:

(1) A summary of the cooperative arrangements must immediately

follow the Table of Contents. This summary should:

[[Page 66026]]

(i) Bear the signatures of the Agency Head (or his/her designated

authorized representative) and the university project director;

(ii) Indicate the agency's willingness to commit support for the

project;

(iii) Identify the person(s) at the USDA agency who will serve as

the liaison or technical contact for the project;

(iv) Describe the degree and nature of the USDA agency's

involvement in the proposed project, as outlined in Sec. 3406.6(a) of

this part, including its role in:

(A) Identifying the need for the project;

(B) Developing a conceptual approach;

(C) Assisting with project design;

(D) Identifying and securing needed agency or other resources

(e.g., personnel, grants/contracts; in-kind support, etc.);

(E) Developing the project budget;

(F) Promoting partnerships with other institutions to carry out the

project;

(G) Helping the institution launch and manage the project;

(H) Providing technical assistance and expertise;

(I) Providing consultation through site visits, E-mail, conference

calls, and faxes;

(J) Participating in project evaluation and dissemination of final

project results; and

(K) Seeking other innovative ways to ensure the success of the

project and advance the needs of the institution or the agency; and

(v) Describe the expected benefits of the partnership venture for

the USDA agency and for the 1890 Institution.

(2) A detailed discussion of these partnership arrangements should

be provided in the narrative portion of the proposal, as outlined in

paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.

(3) Additional documentation, including letters of support or

cooperation, may be provided in the Appendix.

(d) Project summary. (1) A Project Summary should immediately

follow the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation. The

information provided in the Project Summary will be used by the program

staff for a variety of purposes, including the proper assignment of

proposals to reviewers and providing information to reviews prior to

the peer panel meeting. The name of the institution, the targeted need

area(s), and the title of the proposal must be identified exactly as

shown on the ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page.''

(2) If the proposal is a complementary project proposal, as defined

in Sec. 3406.2 of this part, clearly state this fact and identify the

other complementary project(s) by citing the name of the submitting

institution, the title of the project, the principal investigator, and

the grant number (if funded in a previous year) exactly as shown on the

cover page of the complementary project so that appropriate

consideration can be given to the interrelatedness of the proposals in

the evaluation process.

(3) If the proposal is a joint project proposal, as defined in

Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other

participating institutions and the key person responsible for

coordinating the project at each institution.

(4) The Project Summary should be a concise description of the

proposed activity suitable for publication by the Department to inform

the general public about awards under the program. The text should not

exceed one page, single-spaced. The Project Summary should be a self-

contained description of the activity which would result if the

proposal is funded by USDA. It should include: the objective of the

project, a synopsis of the plan of operation, a statement of how the

project will enhance the research capacity of the institution, a

description of how the project will enhance research in the food and

agricultural sciences, and a description of the partnership efforts

between, and the expected benefits for, the USDA agency cooperator(s)

and the 1890 Institution and the plans for disseminating project

results. The Project Summary should be written so that a technically

literate reader can evaluate the use of Federal funds in support of the

project.

(e) Resubmission of a proposal. (1) Resubmission of previously

unfunded proposals. (i) If the proposal has been submitted previously,

but was not funded, such should be indicated in block 13. On Form CSRS-

712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and the following

information should be included in the proposal.

(A) The fiscal year(s) in which the proposal was submitted

previously;

(B) A summary of the peer reviewers' comments; and

(C) How these comments have been addressed in the current proposal,

including the page numbers in the current proposal where the reviewers'

comments have been addressed.

(ii) This information may be provided as a section of the proposal

following the Project Summary and preceding the proposal narrative or

it may be placed in the appendix (see paragraph (j) of this section).

In either case, the location of this information should be indicated in

the Table of Contents, and the fact that the proposal is a resubmitted

proposal should be stated in the proposal narrative. Further, when

possible, the information should be presented in a tabular format.

Applicants who choose to resubmit proposals that were previously

submitted, but not funded, should note that resubmitted proposals must

compete equally with newly submitted proposals. Submitting a proposal

that has been revised based on a previous peer review panel's critique

of the proposal does not guarantee the success of the resubmitted

proposal.

(2) Resubmission of previously funded proposals. Recognizing that

capacity building is a long-term ongoing process, the 1890 Institution

Capacity Building Grants Program is interested in funding subsequent

phases of previously funded projects in order to build institutional

capacity, and institutions are encouraged to build on a theme over

several grant awards. However, proposals that are sequential

continuations or new stages of previously funded Capacity Building

Grants must compete with first-time proposals. Therefore, project

directors should thoroughly demonstrate how the project proposed in the

current application expands substantially upon a previously funded

project (i.e., demonstrate how the new project will advance the former

project to the next level of attainment or will achieve expanded

goals). The proposal must also show the degree to which the new phase

promotes innovativeness and creativity beyond the scope of the

previously funded project. Please note that the 1890 Institution

Capacity Building Grants Program is not designed to support activities

that are essentially repetitive in nature over multiple grant awards.

Principal investigators who have had their projects funded previously

are discouraged from resubmitting relatively identical proposals for

future funding.

(f) Narrative of a research proposal. The narrative portion of the

proposal is limited to 20 pages in length. The one-page Project Summary

is not included in the 20-page limitation. The narrative must be typed

on one side of the page only, using a font no smaller than 12 point,

and double-spaced. All margins must be at least one inch. All pages

following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation must be

paginated. It should be noted that reviewers will not be required to

read beyond 20 pages of the narrative to evaluate the proposal. The

narrative should contain the following sections:

(1) Significance of the problem.

(i) Impact.

[[Page 66027]]

(A) Identification of the problem or opportunity. Clearly identify

the specific problem or opportunity to be addressed and present any

research questions or hypotheses to be examined.

(B) Rationale. Provide a rationale for the proposed approach to the

problem or opportunity and indicate the part that the proposed project

will play in advancing food and agricultural research and knowledge.

Discuss how the project will be of value and importance at the State,

regional, national, or international level(s). Also discuss how the

benefits to be derived from the project will transcend the proposing

institution or the grant period.

(C) Literature review. Include a comprehensive summary of the

pertinent scientific literature. Citations may be footnoted to a

bibliography in the Appendix. Citations should be accurate, complete,

and adhere to an acceptable journal format. Explain how such knowledge

(or previous findings) is related to the proposed project.

(D) Current research and related activities. Describe the relevancy

of the proposed project to current research or significant research

support activities at the proposing institution and any other

institution participating in the project, including research which may

be as yet unpublished.

(ii) Continuation plans. Discuss the likelihood or plans for

continuation or expansion of the project beyond USDA support. Discuss,

as applicable, how the institution's long-range budget, and

administrative and academic plans, provide for the realistic

continuation or expansion of the line of research or research support

activity undertaken by this project after the end of the grant period.

For example, are there plans for securing non-Federal support for the

project? Is there any potential for income from patents, technology

transfer or university-business enterprises resulting from the project?

Also discuss the probabilities of the proposed activity or line of

inquiry being pursued by researchers at other institutions.

(iii) Innovation. Describe the degree to which the proposal

reflects an innovative or non-traditional approach to a food and

agricultural research initiative.

(iv) Products and results. Explain the kinds of products and

results expected and their impact on strengthening food and

agricultural sciences higher education in the United States, including

attracting academically outstanding students or increasing the ethnic,

racial, and gender diversity of the Nation's food and agricultural

scientific and professional expertise base.

(2) Overall approach and cooperative linkages.

(i) Approach.

(A) Objectives. Cite and discuss the specific objectives to be

accomplished under the project.

(B) Plan of operation. The procedures or methodologies to be

applied to the proposed project should be explicitly stated. This

section should include, but not necessarily be limited to a description

of:

(1) The proposed investigations, experiments, or research support

enhancements in the sequence in which they will be carried out.

(2) Procedures and techniques to be employed, including their

feasibility.

(3) Means by which data will be collected and analyzed.

(4) Pitfalls that might be encountered.

(5) Limitations to proposed procedures

(C) Timetable. Provide a timetable for execution of the project.

Identify all important research milestones and dates as they relate to

project start-up, execution, dissemination, evaluation, and close-out.

(ii) Evaluation plans.

(A) Provide a plan for evaluating the accomplishment of stated

objectives during the conduct of the project. Indicate the criteria,

and corresponding weight of each, to be used in the evaluation process,

describe any performance data to be collected and analyzed, and explain

the methodologies that will be used to determine the extent to which

the needs underlying the project are being met.

(B) Provide a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the end

results upon conclusion of the project. Include the same kinds of

information requested in Sec. 3406.13(f)(2)(ii)(A).

(iii) Dissemination plans. Provide plans for disseminating project

results and products including the possibilities for publications.

Identify target audiences and explain methods of communication.

(iv) Partnerships and collaborative efforts.

(A) Explain how the project will maximize partnership ventures and

collaborative efforts to strengthen food and agricultural sciences

higher education (e.g., involvement of faculty in related disciplines

at the same institution, joint projects with other colleges or

universities, or cooperative activities with business or industry).

Also explain how it will stimulate academia, the States, or the private

sector to join with the Federal partner in enhancing food and

agricultural science higher education.

(B) Provide evidence, via letters from the parties involved, that

arrangements necessary for collaborative partnerships or joint

initiatives have been discussed and realistically can be expected to

come to fruition, or actually have been finalized contingent on an

award under this program. Letters must be signed by an official who has

the authority to commit the resources of the organization. Such letters

should be referenced in the plan of operation, but the actual letters

should be included in the Appendix section of the proposal. Any

potential conflict(s) of interest that might result from the proposed

collaborative arrangements must be discussed in detail. Proposals which

indicate joint projects with other institutions must state which

proposer is to receive any resulting grant award, since only one

submitting institution can be the recipient of a project grant under

one proposal.

(C) Explain how the project will create a new or enhance an

existing partnership between the USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890

Institution(s). This section should expand upon the summary information

provided in the documentation of USDA agency cooperation section, as

outlined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. This is particularly

important because the focal point of attention in the peer review

process is the proposal narrative. Therefore, a comprehensive

discussion of the partnership effort between USDA and the 1890

Institution should be provided.

(3) Institutional capacity building.

(i) Institutional enhancement. Explain how the proposed project

will strengthen the research capacity, as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of

this part, of the applicant institution and, if applicable, any other

institutions assuming a major role in the conduct of the project. For

example, describe how the proposed project is intended to strengthen

the institution's research infrastructure by advancing the expertise of

the current faculty in the natural or social sciences; providing a

better research environment, state-of-the-art equipment, or supplies;

enhancing library collections; or enabling the institution to provide

efficacious organizational structures and reward systems to attract and

retain first-rate research faculty and students--particularly those

from underrepresented groups.

(ii) Institutional commitment.

(A) Discuss the institution's commitment to the project and its

successful completion. Provide, as relevant, appropriate documentation

in the Appendix. Substantiate that the

[[Page 66028]]

institution attributes a high priority to the project.

(B) Discuss how the project will contribute to the achievement of

the institution's long-term (five- to ten-year) goals and how the

project will help satisfy the institution's high-priority objectives.

Show how this project is linked to and supposed by the institution's

strategic plan.

(C) Discuss the commitment of institutional resources to the

project. Show that the institutional resources to be made available to

the project will be adequate, when combined with the support requested

from USDA, to carry out the activities of the project and represent a

sound commitment by the institution. Discuss institutional facilities,

equipment, computer services, and other appropriate resources available

to the project.

(g) Key personnel. A From CSRS-710, ``Summary Vita--Research

Proposal,'' should be included for each key person associated with the

project.

(h) budget and cost-effectiveness.

(1) Budget form.

(i) Prepare Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget,'' in

accordance with instructions provided with the form. Proposals may

request support for a period to be identified in each year's program

announcement. A budget form is required for each year of requested

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

requested total support for the overall project period. Form CSRS-713

may be reproduced as needed by proposers. Funds may be requested under

any of the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or

service for which support is requested is allowable under the

authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles, these

administrative provisions, and can be justified as necessary for

successful conduct of the proposed project.

(ii) The approved negotiated research rate or the maximum rate

allowed by law should be used when computing indirect costs. If a

reduced rate of indirect costs is voluntarily requested from USDA, the

remaining allowable indirect costs may be used as matching funds. In

the event that a proposal reflects an incorrect indirect cost rate and

is recommended for funding, the correct rate will be applied to the

approved budget in the grant award.

(2) Matching funds. When documenting matching contributions, use

the following guidelines:

(i) When preparing the column of Form CSRS-713 entitled ``Applicant

Contributions To Matching Funds,'' only those costs to be contributed

by the applicant for the purposes of matching should be shown. The

total amount of this column should be indicated in item M.

(ii) In item N of Form CSRS-713, show a total dollar amount for

Cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties; also

show a total dollar amount (based on current fair market value) for

Non-cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties.

(iii) To qualify for an incentive benefits stemming from matching

support or to satisfy any cost sharing requirements, proposals must

include written verification of any actual commitments of matching

support (including both cash and non-cash contributions) from third

parties. Written verification means--

(A) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge

agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational

representatives of the donor organization (or by the donor if the gift

is from an individual) and the applicant institution, which must

include:

(1) The name, address and telephone number of the donor;

(2) The name of the applicant institution;

(3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;

(4) The dollar amount of the cash donation; and

(5) A statement that the donor will pay the cash contribution

during the grant period; and

(B) For any third party non-cash contributions, a separate pledge

agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized

organizational representatives of the donor organization (or by the

donor if the gift is from an individual) and the applicant institution,

which must include:

(1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor;

(2) The name of the applicant institution;

(3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;

(4) A good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the

non-cash contribution; and

(5) A statement that the donor will make the contribution during

the grant period.

(iv) All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal

immediately following Form CSRS-713. The sources and amounts of all

matching support from outside the applicant institution should be

summarized in the Budget Narrative section of the proposal.

(v) Applicants should refer to OMB Circulars A-110, ``Uniform

Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions

of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-profit Organizations,''

and A-21, ``Cost Principles for Educational Institutions,'' for further

guidance and other requirements relating to matching and allowable

costs.

(3) Chart on shared budget for joint project proposal.

(i) For a joint project proposal, a plan must be provided

indicating how funds will be distributed to the participating

institutions. The budget section of a joint project proposal should

include a chart indicating:

(A) The names of the participating institutions;

(B) The amount of funds to be disbursed to those institutions; and

(C) The way in which such funds will be used in accordance with

items A through L of Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget.''

(ii) If a proposal is not for a joint project, such a chart is not

required.

(4) Budget narrative.

(i) Discuss how the budget specifically supports the proposed

project activities. Explain how each budget item (such as salaries and

wages for professional and technical staff, student workers, travel,

equipment, etc.) is essential to achieving project objectives.

(ii) Justify that the total budget, including funds requested from

USDA and any matching support provided, will be adequate to carry out

the activities of the project. Provide a summary of sources and amounts

of all third party matching support.

(iii) Justify the project's cost-effectiveness. Show how the

project maximizes the use of limited resources, optimizes research

value for the dollar, achieves economies of scale, or leverages

additional funds. For example, discuss how the project has the

potential to generate a critical mass of expertise and activity focused

on a high-priority research initiatives(s) or promote coalition

building that could lead to future ventures.

(iv) Include the percentage of time key personnel will work on the

project, both during the academic year and summer. When salaries of

university project personnel will be paid by a combination of USDA and

institutional funds, the total compensation must not exceed the faculty

member's regular annual compensation. In addition, the total commitment

of time devoted to the project, when combined with time for teaching

and research duties, other sponsored agreements, and other employment

obligations to the institution, must not exceed 100 percent of the

normal workload for which the

[[Page 66029]]

employee is compensated, in accordance with established university

policies and applicable Federal cost principles.

(v) If the proposal addresses more than one targeted need area,

estimate the proportion of the funds requested from USDA that will

support each respective targeted need area.

(i) Current and pending support. Each applicant must complete Form

CSRS-663, ``Current and Pending Support,'' identifying any other

current public- or private-sponsored projects, in addition to the

proposed project, to which key personnel listed in the proposal under

consideration have committed portions of their time, whether or not

salary support for the person(s) involved is included in the budgets of

the various projects. This information should also be provided for any

pending proposals which are currently being considered by, or which

will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors,

including other USDA programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of

identical or similar projects to other possible sponsors will not

prejudice the review or evaluation of a project under this program.

(j) Appendix. Each project narrative is expected to be complete in

itself and to meet the 20-page limitation. Inclusion of material in the

Appendix should not be used to circumvent the 20-page limitation of the

proposal narrative. However, in those instances where inclusion of

supplemental information is necessary to guarantee the peer review

panel's complete understanding of a proposal or to illustrate the

integrity of the design or a main thesis of the proposal, such

information may be included in the Appendix. Examples of supplemental

material are photographs, journal reprints, brochures and other

pertinent materials which are deemed to be illustrative of major points

in the narrative but unsuitable for inclusion in the proposal narrative

itself. Information or previously submitted proposals may also be

presented in the Appendix (refer to paragraph (e) of this section).

When possible, information in the Appendix should be presented in

tabular format. A complete set of the Appendix material must be

attached to each copy of the grant application submitted. The Appendix

must be identified with the title of the project as it appears on Form

CSRS-712 of the proposal and the name(s) of the principal

investigator(s). The Appendix must be referenced in the proposal

narrative.

(k) Special considerations. A number of situations encountered in

the conduct of research require special information or supporting

documentation before funding can be approved for the project. If such

situations are anticipated, proposals must so indicate via completion

of Form CSRS-662, ``Assurance Statement(s).'' It is expected that some

applications submitted in response to these guidelines will involve the

following:

(1) Recombinant DNA research. All key personnel identified in the

proposal and all endorsing officials of the proposing organization are

required to comply with the guidelines established by the National

Institutes of Health entitled ``Guidelines for Research Involving

Recombinant DNA Molecules,'' as revised. All applicants proposing to

use recombinant DNA techniques must so indicate by checking the

appropriate box on Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover

Page,'' and by completing the applicable section of Form CSRS-662. In

the event a project involving recombinant DNA or RNA molecules results

in a grant award, the Institutional Biosafety Committee of the

proposing institution must approve the research plan before CSREES will

release grant funds.

(2) Protection of human subjects. Responsibility for safeguarding

the rights and welfare of human subjects used in any grant project

supported with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing

organization. Guidance on this is contained in the Department of

Agriculture regulations under 7 CFR part 1c. All applicants who propose

to use human subjects for experimental purposes must indicate their

intention by checking the appropriate block on Form CSRS-712, ``Higher

Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and by completing the appropriate

portion of Form CSRS-662. In the event a project involving human

subjects results in a grant award, the Institutional Review Board of

the proposing institution must approve the research plan before CSREES

will release grant funds.

(3) Laboratory animal care. Responsibility for the humane care and

treatment of laboratory animals used in any grant project supported

with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing organization.

All key project personnel and all endorsing officials of the proposing

organization are required to comply with the Animal Welfare Act of

1966, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), and the regulations

promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture in 9 CFR parts

1, 2, 3, and 4 pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of

laboratory animals. All applicants proposing a project which involves

the use of laboratory animals must indicate their intention by checking

the appropriate block on Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education Proposal

Cover Page,'' and by completing the appropriate portion of Form CSRS-

662. In the event a project involving the use of living vertebrate

animals results in a grant award, the Institutional Animal Care and Use

Committee of the proposing institution must approve the research plan

before CSREES will release grant funds.

(l) Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

As outlined in 7 CFR part 3407 (CSREES's implementing regulations of

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969), environmental data for

the proposed project is to be provided to CSREES in order for a

determination to be made as to the need for any further action such as

preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact

statement (EIS).

(1) NEPA determination statement. In order for a determination to

be made, pertinent information regarding environmental activities is

necessary; therefore, Form CSRS-1234, ``National Environmental Policy

Act Exclusions Form,'' along with supporting documentation, must be

included in the proposal indicating whether or not the project falls

under USDA categorical exclusions as defined in 7 CFR 1b.3 (and

restated at 7 CFR 3407.6(a)(1)) or CSREES categorical exclusions

defined at 7 CFR 3407.6(a)(2) (i) and (ii). The information should be

identified in the Table of Contents as ``NEPA Determination Statement''

and Form CSRS-1234 and the supporting documentation should be placed at

the back of the proposal.

(2) Exceptions to categorical exclusions. An EA or EIS shall be

prepared for an activity which is normally within the purview of

categorical exclusion where it is determined by CSREES that substantial

controversy on environmental grounds exists or that other extraordinary

conditions or circumstances are present which may cause such activity

to have a significant environmental effect.

Subpart F--Review and Evaluation of a Research Proposal

Sec. 3406.19 Proposal review--research.

The proposal evaluation process includes both internal staff review

and merit evaluation by peer review panels comprised of scientists,

educators, business representatives, and Government officials who are

highly qualified to render expert advice in the areas supported. Peer

review panels will be selected and structured to provide

[[Page 66030]]

optimum expertise and objective judgment in the evaluation of

proposals.

Sec. 3406.20 Evaluation criteria for research proposals.

The maximum score a research proposal can receive is 150 points.

Unless otherwise stated in the annual solicitation published in the

Federal Register, the peer review panel will consider the following

criteria and weights to evaluate proposals submitted.

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

Weight

Evaluation Criterion (points)

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

(a) Significance of the problem:

This criterion is used to assess the likelihood that the

project will advance or have a substantial impact upon

the body of knowledge constituting the natural and

social sciences undergirding the argicultural, natural

resources, and food systems.

(1) Impact--Is the problem or opportunity to be

addressed by the proposed project clearly

identified, outlined, and delineated? Are research

questions or hypotheses precisely stated? Is the

project likely to further advance food and

agricultural research and knowledge? Does the

project have potential for augmenting the food and

agricultural scientific knowledge base? Does the

project address a State, regional, national, or

international problem(s)? Will the benefits to be

derived from the project transcend the applicant

institution or the grant period?................... 15

(2) Continuation plans--Are there plans for

continuation or expansion of the project beyond

USDA support? Are there plans for continuing this

line of research or research support activity with

the use of institutional funds after the end of the

grant? Are there indications of external, non-

Federal support? Are there realistic plans for

making the project self-supporting? What is the

potential for royalty or patent income, technology

transfer or university-business enterprises? What

are the probabilities of the proposed activity or

line of inquiry being pursued by researchers at

other institutions?................................ 10

(3) Innovation--Are significant aspects of the

project based on an innovative or a non-traditional

approach? Does the project reflect creative

thinking? To what degree does the venture reflect a

unique approach that is new to the applicant

institution or new to the entire field of study?... 10

(4) Products and results--Are the expected products

and results of the project clearly outlined and

likely to be of high quality? Will project results

be of an unusual or unique nature? Will the project

contribute to a better understanding of or an

improvement in the quality, distribution, or

effectiveness of the Nation's food and agricultural

scientific and professional expertise base, such as

increasing the participation of women and

minorities?........................................ 15

(b) Overall approach and cooperative linkages:

This criterion relates to the soundness of the proposed

approach and the quality of the partnerships likely to

evolve as a result of the project.

(1) Proposed approach--Do the objectives and plan of

operation appear to be sound and appropriate

relative to the proposed initiative(s) and the

impact anticipated? Is the proposed sequence of

work appropriate? Does the proposed approach

reflect sound knowledge of current theory and

practice and awareness of previous or ongoing

related research? If the proposed project is a

continuation of a current line of study or

currently funded project, does the proposal include

sufficient preliminary data from the previous

research or research support activity? Does the

proposed project flow logically from the findings

of the previous stage of study? Are the procedures

scientifically and managerially sound? Are

potential pitfalls and limitations clearly

identified? Are contingency plans delineated? Does

the timetable appear to be readily achievable?..... 15

(2) Evaluation--Are the evaluation plans adequate

and reasonable? Do they allow for continuous or

frequent feedback during the life of the project?

Are the individuals involved in project evaluation

skilled in evaluation strategies and procedures?

Can they provide an objective evaluation? Do

evaluation plans facilitate the measurement of

project progress and outcomes...................... 5

(3) Dissemination--Does the proposed project include

clearly outlined and realistic mechanisms that will

lead to widespread dissemination of project

results, including national electronic

communication systems, publications and

presentations at professional society meetings?.... 5

(4) Partnerships and collaborative efforts--Does the

project have significant potential for advancing

cooperative ventures between the applicant

institution and a USDA agency? Does the project

workplan include an effective role for the

cooperating USDA agencie(s)? Will the project

encourage and facilitate better working

relationships in the university science community,

as well as between universities and the public or

private sector? Does the project encourage

appropriate multidisciplinary collaboration? Will

the project lead to long-term relationships or

cooperative partnerships that are likely to enhance

research quality or supplement available resources? 15

(c) Institutional capacity building:

This criterion relates to the degree to which the

project will strengthen the research capacity of the

applicant institution. In the case of a joint project

proposal, it relates to the degree to which the project

will strengthen the research capacity of the applicant

institution and that of any other institution assuming

a major role in the conduct of the project.

(1) Institutional enhancement--Will the project help

the institution to advance the expertise of current

faculty in the natural or social sciences; provide

a better research environment, state-of-the-art

equipment, or supplies; enhance library collections

related to the area of research; or enable the

institution to provide efficacious organizational

structures and reward systems to attract, hire and

retain first-rate research faculty and students--

particularly those from underrepresented groups.... 15

(2) Institutional commitment--Is there evidence to

substantiate that the institution attributes a high-

priority to the project, that the project is linked

to the achievement of the institution's long-term

goals, that it will help satisfy the institution's

high-priority objectives, or that the project is

supported by the institution's strategic plans?

Will the project have reasonable access to needed

resources such as scientific instrumentation,

facilities, computer services, library and other

research support resources?........................ 15

(d) Personnel Resources:

This criterion relates to the number and qualifications

of the key persons who will carry out the project. Are

designated project personnel qualified to carry out a

successful project? Are there sufficient numbers of

personnel associated with the project to achieve the

stated objectives and the anticipated outcomes? Will

the project help develop the expertise of young

scientists at the doctoral or post-doctorate level?.... 10

(e) Budget and cost-effectiveness:

[[Page 66031]]

This criterion relates to the extent to which the total

budget adequately supports the project and is cost-

effective.

(1) Budget--Is the budget request justifiable? Are

costs reasonable and necessary? Will the total

budget be adequate to carry out project activities?

Are the source(s) and amount(s) of non-Federal

matching support clearly identified and

appropriately documented? For a joint project

proposal, is the shared budget explained clearly

and in sufficient detail?.......................... 10

(2) Cost-effectiveness--Is the proposed project cost-

effective? Does it demonstrate a creative use of

limited resources, maximize research value per

dollar of USDA support, achieve economies of scale,

leverage additional funds or have the potential to

do so, focus expertise and activity on a high-

priority research initiative(s), or promote

coalition building for current or future ventures?. 5

(f) Overall quality of proposal:

This criterion relates to the degree to which the

proposal complies with the application guidelines and

is of high quality. Is the proposal enhanced by its

adherence to instructions (table of contents,

organization, pagination, margin and font size, the 20-

page limitation, appendices, etc.); accuracy of forms;

clarity of budget narrative; well prepared vitae for

all key personnel associated with the project; and

presentation (are ideas effectively presented, clearly

articulated, thoroughly explained, etc.)?.............. 5

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

Subpart G--Submission of a Teaching or Research Proposal

Sec. 3406.21 Intent to submit a proposal.

To assist CSREES in preparing for the review of proposals,

institutions planning to submit proposals may be requested to complete

Form CSRS-711, ``Intent to Submit a Proposal,'' provided in the

application package. CSREES will determine each year if Intent to

Submit a Proposal forms will be requested and provide such information

in the program announcement. If Intent to Submit a Proposal forms are

required, one form should be completed and returned for each proposal

an institution anticipates submitting. Submitting this form does not

commit an institution to any course of action, nor does failure to send

this form prohibit an institution from submitting a proposal.

Sec. 3406.22 When and where to submit a proposal.

The program announcement will provide the deadline date for

submitting a proposal, the number of copies of each proposal that must

be submitted, and the address to which proposals must be submitted.

Subpart H--Supplementary Information

Sec. 3406.23 Access to peer review information.

After final decisions have been announced, CSREES will, upon

request, inform the project director of the reasons for its decision on

a proposal. Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the

identity of the reviewers, will be made available to respective project

directors upon specific request.

Sec. 3406.24 Grant awards.

(a) General. Within the limit of funds available for such propose,

the authorized departmental officer shall make project grants to those

responsible, eligible applicants whose proposals are judged most

meritorious in the announced targeted need areas under the evaluation

criteria and procedures set forth in this part. The beginning of the

project period shall be no later than September 30 of the Federal

fiscal year in which the project is approved for support. All funds

granted under this part shall be expended solely for the purpose for

which the funds are granted in accordance with the approved application

and budget, the regulations of this part, the terms and conditions of

the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the Department's

Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations (7 CFR part 3015).

(b) Organization management information. Specific management

information relating to a proposing institution shall be submitted on a

one-time basis prior to the award of a project grant identified under

this part if such information has not been provided previously under

this or another program for which the sponsoring agency is responsible.

Copies of forms used to fulfill this requirement will be sent to the

proposing institution by the sponsoring agency as part of the pre-award

process.

(c) Notice of grant award. The grant award document shall include

at a minimum the following:

(1) Legal name and address of performing organization.

(2) Title of project.

(3) Name(s) and address(es) of principal investigator(s)/project

director(s).

(4) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department.

(5) Project period, which specifies how long the Department intend

to support the effort without requiring reapplication for funds.

(6) Total amount of Federal financial assistance approved during

the project period.

(7) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded.

(8) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds

to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award.

(9) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by the

Department to carry out its granting activities or to accomplish the

purpose of this particular project grant.

(d) Obligation of the Federal Government. Neither the approval of

any application nor the award of any project grant shall legally commit

or obligate CSREES or the United States to provide further support of a

project or any portion thereof.

Sec. 3406.25 Use of funds; changes.

(a) Delegation of fiscal responsibility. The grantee may not in

whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution,

or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant

funds.

(b) Change in project plans. (1) The permissible changes by the

grantee, project director(s), or other key project personnel in the

approved project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology,

techniques, or other aspects of the project to expedite achievement of

the project's approved goals. If the grantee or the project director(s)

are uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the

question must be referred to the Department for a final determination.

(2) Changes in approved goals, or objectives, shall be requested by

the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental

officer prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for

such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the approved

project.

(3) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or

reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the

grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer

prior to effecting such changes.

[[Page 66032]]

(4) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic

work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether

or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee

and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer prior to

effecting such transfers.

(c) Changes in project period. The project period may be extended

by the authorized departmental officer without additional financial

support for such additional period(s) as the authorized departmental

officer determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes

of an approved project. However, due to statutory restriction, no grant

may be extended beyond five years from the original start date of the

grant. Grant extensions shall be conditioned upon prior request by the

grantee and approval in writing by the authorized departmental officer.

(d) Changes in approved budget. Changes in an approved budget must

be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized

departmental officer prior to instituting such changes if the revision

will:

(1) Involved transfers of amounts budgeted for indirect costs to

absorb an increase in direct costs;

(2) Involve transfers of amounts budgeted for direct costs to

accommodate changes in indirect cost rates negotiated during a budget

period and not approved when a grant was awarded; or

(3) Involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior

approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles,

Departmental regulations, or in the grant award.

Sec. 3406.26 Monitoring progress of funded projects.

(a) During the tenure of a grant, project directors must attend at

least one national project directors meeting, if offered, in

Washington, D.C. or any other announced location. The purpose of the

meeting will be to discuss project and grant management, opportunities

for collaborative efforts, future directions for education reform,

research project management, advancing a field of science, and

opportunities to enhance dissemination of exemplary end products/

results.

(b) An Annual Performance Report must be submitted to the USDA

program contact person within 90 days after the completion of the first

year of the project and annually thereafter during the life of the

grant. Generally, the Annual Performance Reports should include a

summary of the overall progress toward project objectives, current

problems or unusual developments, the next year's planned activities,

and any other information that is pertinent to the ongoing project or

which may be specified in the terms and conditions of the award. These

reports are in addition to the annual Current Research Information

System (CRIS) reports required for all research grants under the

award's ``Special Terms and Conditions.''

(c) A Final Performance Report must be submitted to the USDA

program contact person within 90 days after the expiration date of the

project. The expiration date is specified in the award documents and

modifications thereto, if any. Generally, the Final Performance Report

should be a summary of the completed project, including: a review of

project objectives and accomplishments; a description of any products

and outcomes resulting from the project; activities undertaken to

disseminate products and outcomes; partnerships and collaborative

ventures that resulted from the project; future initiatives that are

planned as a result of the project; the impact of the project on the

project director(s), the institution, and the food and agricultural

sciences higher education system; and data on project personnel and

beneficiaries. The Final Performance Report should be accompanied by

samples or copies of any products or publications resulting from or

developed by the project. The Final Performance Report must also

contain any other information which may be specified in the terms and

conditions of the award.

Sec. 3406.27 Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply.

Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant

proposals considered for review and to project grants awarded under

this part. These include but are not limited to:

7 CFR part 1, subpart A--USDA implementation of Freedom of

Information Act.

7 CFR part 3--USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129

regarding debt collection.

7 CFR part 15, subpart A--USDA implementation of Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

7 CFR part 3015--USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations,

implementing OMB directives (i.e., Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122) and

incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (the Federal Grant and

Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Public Law 95-224), as well as

general policy requirements applicable to recipients of Departmental

financial assistance.

7 CFR part 3017--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension

(Nonprocurement); Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace

(Grants), implementing Executive Order 12549 on debarment and

suspension and the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701).

7 CFR part 3018--Restrictions on Lobbying, prohibiting the use of

appropriated funds to influence Congress or a Federal agency in

connection with the making of any Federal grant and other Federal

contracting and financial transactions.

7 CFR part 3019--USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform

Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions

of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.

7 CFR part 3051--Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and

other Nonprofit Institutions.

29 U.S.C. 794, section 504--Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 7 CFR

part 15b (USDA implementation of statute), prohibiting discrimination

based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.

35 U.S.C. 200 et seq.--Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of

rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and

domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally

assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR

part 401).

Sec. 3406.28 Confidential aspects of proposals and awards.

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

of the Agency's transactions, available to the public upon specific

request. Information that the Secretary 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 as such and sent in a

separate statement, two copies of which should accompany the proposal.

The original copy of a proposal that does not result in a grant will be

retained by the Agency for a period of one year. Other copies will be

destroyed. Such a proposal will be released only with the consent of

the applicant or to the extent required by law. A proposal may be

withdrawn at any time prior to the final action thereon.

Sec. 3406.29 Evaluation of program.

Grantees should be aware that CSREES may, as a part of its own

program evaluation activities, carry out

[[Page 66033]]

in-depth evaluations of assisted activities. Thus, grantees should be

prepared to cooperate with CSREES personnel, or persons retained by

CSREES, evaluating the institutional context and the impact of any

supported project. Grantees may be asked to provide general information

on any students and faculty supported, in whole or in part, by a grant

awarded under this program; information that may be requested includes,

but is not limited to, standardized academic achievement test scores,

grade point average, academic standing, career patterns, age, race/

ethnicity, gender, citizenship, and disability.

Done at Washington, D.C., this 11th day of December 1995.

Colien Hefferan,

Acting Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service.

[FR Doc. 95-30625 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-22-M