66014 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service

7 CFR Part 3406

1890 Institution Capacity Building

Grants Program; Administrative

Provisions

AGENCY: Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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 jgilmore@reeusda.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Jeffrey L. Gilmore at 202–720–1973

(voice), 202–720–2030 (fax) or via

electronic mail at jgilmore@reeusda.gov.

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

391⁄2 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 abovereferenced 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 bettertrained, 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

§ 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
66016 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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.

§ 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 § 3406.11(b), Faculty

Preparation and Enhancement for

Teaching, and § 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 postdoctorate 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 nonFederal 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.

§ 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

§ 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.

§ 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
66018 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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.

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 3406.8 Joint project proposals.

Applicants are encouraged to submit

joint project proposals as defined in

§ 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.

§ 3406.9 Complementary project

proposals.

Institutions may submit

complementary project proposals as

defined in § 3406.2. Such

complementary project proposals may

be submitted by the same or by different

eligible institutions.

§ 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

§ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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

§ 3406.11(b) must be an ‘‘eligible

participant’’ as defined in § 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 scienceoriented 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, stateof-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 equipmentsharing 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

§ 3406.11(f) must be enrolled at an

eligible institution and meet the

requirement of an ‘‘eligible participant’’

as defined in § 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.
66020 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 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, firsttime 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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, singlespaced. 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 onepage 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
66022 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 § 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 noncash 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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 costeffectiveness. 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

§ 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.

§ 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:

Evaluation Criterion Weight

(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
66024 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Evaluation Criterion Weight

(points)

(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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66025

Subpart E—Preparation of a Research

Proposal

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 § 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, firsttime 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:
66026 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(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

§ 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 § 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 § 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, singlespaced. 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 onepage 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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

§ 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 § 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
66028 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 noncash 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 costeffectiveness. 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 highpriority 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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

§ 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
66030 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

optimum expertise and objective

judgment in the evaluation of proposals.

§ 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.

Evaluation Criterion Weight

(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 selfsupporting? 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:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 66031

Evaluation Criterion Weight

(points)

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

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 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.

§ 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 onetime 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 preaward 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.

§ 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.
66032 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(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.

§ 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.

§ 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).

§ 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.

§ 3406.29 Evaluation of program.

Grantees should be aware that

CSREES may, as a part of its own

program evaluation activities, carry out
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Proposed Rules 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