[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66014-66033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30625]




[[Page 66013]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Agriculture





_______________________________________________________________________



Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service



_______________________________________________________________________



7 CFR Part 3406



1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program; Administrative 
Provisions; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 66014]]


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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acc6cbc5c0c1c3dec9ecdec9c9d9dfc8cd82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d171a141110120f183d0f1818080e191c531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jeffrey L. Gilmore at 202-720-1973 
(voice), 202-720-2030 (fax) or via electronic mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#167c717f7a7b796473566473736365727738717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ec868b858081839e89ac9e8989999f888dc28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as 
amended (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the collection of information 
requirements contained in this proposed rule have been reviewed and 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and given the OMB 
Document Nos. 0524-0022, 0524-0024, 0524-0030, and 0524-0033. The 
public reporting burden for the information collections contained in 
these regulations (Forms CSRS-662, CSRS-663, CSRS-708, CSRS-710, CSRS-
711, CSRS-712, CSRS-713, and CSRS-1234 as well as the Proposal Summary 
and Proposal Narrative) is estimated to be 39\1/2\ hours per response, 
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this 
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Department of 
Agriculture, Clearance Analyst, OIRM, Ag Box 7630, Washington, D.C. 
20250-7630, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork 
Reduction Project, Washington, D.C. 20503.

Classification

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order No. 
12866, and it has been determined that it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' rule because it will not have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more or adversely and materially affect 
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities. This rule will not create any serious 
inconsistencies or otherwise interfere with actions taken or planned by 
another agency. It will not materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof, and does not raise novel legal or 
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or principles set forth in Executive Order No. 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Administrator, CSREES, certifies that this proposed rule will 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 
as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96-534, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Executive Order No. 12612

    This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications 
under Executive Order No. 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.

Executive Order No. 12778

    This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order No. 
12778, Civil Justice Reform, and the required certification has been 
made to OMB. All State and local laws and regulations that are in 
conflict with this rule are preempted. No retroactive effect is to be 
given to this rule. This rule does not require administrative 
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

Regulatory Analysis

    Not required for this proposed rulemaking.

Environmental Impact Statement

    As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (CSREES's implementing regulations 
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.)), environmental data for the proposed project are to be provided 
to CSREES in order for a determination to be made as to the need of any 
further action.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.216, 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants 
Program. For the reasons set forth in the Final Rule related Notice to 
7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V, 57 FR 15278, April 27, 1992, this program 
is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372 which requires 
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

Background and Purpose

    Historically, the Department has had a close relationship with the 
1890 colleges and universities, including Tuskegee University. Through 
its role as administrator of the Second Morrill Act, the Department has 
borne the responsibility for helping these institutions develop to 
their fullest potential in order to meet the needs of students and the 
needs of the Nation.
    Accordingly, the Secretary recognized, on April 18, 1990, the 
findings made by Congress in section 301(a) of Public Law 99-498, 
October 17, 1986 (20 U.S.C. 1060), that the States and the Federal 
government have discriminated in the allocation of land and financial 
resources to support these institutions under the Morrill Act of 1862 
and its progeny. In the above-referenced findings, Congress 
acknowledged, and the Secretary recognized, that these institutions 
were discriminated against in the award of Federal grants and 
contracts, and in the distribution of Federal resources generally which 
were intended to benefit institutions of higher education. The 
Secretary found that the capacity of the 1890 colleges and 
universities, including Tuskegee University, to develop programs to 
assist the Nation and the Department in producing food and agricultural 
science professionals 

[[Page 66015]]
has suffered as a direct result of this discrimination.
    The Secretary concluded that a capacity building grants program set 
aside for the 1890 land-grant colleges and universities, including 
Tuskegee University, was an appropriate remedial step to redress past 
inequities found by Congress to have occurred regarding these 
institutions. Subsequent to the Secretary's establishment of the 
program, Congress began making annual appropriations specifically for 
an 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program.
    This document proposes to establish Part 3406 of Title 7, Subtitle 
B, Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Federal Regulations, for the purpose of 
administering the 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program. 
Under the authority of section 1472(c) of the National Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 
U.S.C. 3318), and pursuant to annual appropriations made available 
specifically by Congress for an 1890 Institution Capacity Building 
Grants Program (see, e.g., Pub. L. No. 103-330), the Secretary conducts 
this institutional capacity building grants program.
    This proposed rule establishes and codifies the administrative 
procedures to be followed annually in the solicitation of grant 
proposals, the evaluation of such proposals, and the award of grants 
under this program. The 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants 
Program is competitive in nature and is intended to stimulate the 
development of high quality teaching and research programs at these 
institutions to build their capacities as full partners in the mission 
of the Department to provide more, and better-trained, professionals 
for careers in the food and agricultural sciences.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3406

    Grant programs--agriculture. Agriculture Higher Education Programs, 
1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program.
    It is therefore proposed to amend Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter 
XXXIV, of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding Part 3406 to read 
as follows:

PART 3406--INSTITUTION CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS PROGRAM

Subpart A--General Information

Sec.
3406.1 Applicability of regulations.
3406.2 Definitions.
3406.3 Institutional eligibility.

Subpart B--Program Description

3406.4 Purpose of the program.
3406.5 Matching funds.
3406.6 USDA agency cooperator requirement.
3406.7 General scope of program.
3406.8 Joint project proposals.
3406.9 Complementary project proposals.
3406.10 Use of funds for facilities.

Subpart C--Preparation of a Teaching Proposal

3406.11 Scope of a teaching proposal.
3406.12 Program application materials--teaching.
3406.13 Content of a teaching proposal.

Subpart D--Review and Evaluation of a Teaching Proposal

3406.14 Proposal review--teaching.
3406.15 Evaluation criteria for teaching proposals.

Subpart E--Preparation of a Research Proposal

3406.16 Scope of a research proposal.
3406.17 Program application materials--research.
3406.18 Content of a research proposal.

Subpart F--Review and Evaluation of a Research Proposal

3406.19 Proposal review--research.
3406.20 Evaluation criteria for research proposals.

Subpart G--Submission of a Teaching or Research Proposal

3406.21 Intent to submit a proposal.
3406.22 When and where to submit a proposal.

Subpart H--Supplementary Information

3406.23 Access to peer review information.
3406.24 Grant awards.
3406.25 Use of funds; changes.
3406.26 Monitoring progress of funded projects.
3406.27 Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply.
3406.28 Confidential aspects of proposals and awards.
3406.29 Evaluation of program.

    Authority: Sec. 1470, National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3316).

Subpart A--General Information


Sec. 3406.1  Applicability of regulations.

    (a) The regulations of this part apply only to capacity building 
grants awarded to the 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee 
University under the provisions of section 1472(c) of the National 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as 
amended (7 U.S.C. 3318(c)) to further the research, extension, and 
teaching programs in the food and agricultural sciences. This statute 
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, who has delegated the 
authority to the Administrator of the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), to enter into grants, or 
cooperative agreements, for periods not to exceed five years, with 
State agricultural experiment stations, State cooperative extension 
services, all colleges and universities, other research or education 
institutions and organizations, Federal and private agencies and 
organizations, individuals, and any other contractor or recipient, 
either foreign or domestic, to further research, extension, or teaching 
programs in the food and agricultural sciences of the Department of 
Agriculture. Only 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University 
are eligible for this grants program.
    (b) To the extent that funds are available, each year CSREES will 
publish a Federal Register notice announcing the program and soliciting 
grant applications.
    (c)(1) Based on the amount of funds appropriated in any fiscal 
year, CSREES will determine and cite in the program announcement:
    (i) The program area(s) to be supported (teaching, research, or 
both)
    (ii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or available 
to, teaching projects and research projects;
    (iii) The targeted need area(s) in teaching and in research to be 
supported;
    (iv) The degree level(s) to be supported;
    (v) The maximum project period a proposal may request;
    (vi) The maximum amount of funds that may be requested by an 
institution under a regular, complementary, or joint project proposal; 
and
    (vii) The maximum total funds that may be awarded to an institution 
under the program in a given fiscal year, including how funds awarded 
for complementary and for joint projects will be counted toward the 
institutional maximum
    (2) The program announcement will also specify the deadline date 
for proposal submission, the number of copies of each proposal that 
must be submitted, the address to which a proposal must be submitted, 
and whether or not Form CSRS-711, ``Intent to Submit a Proposal,'' is 
requested.
    (d)(1) If it is deemed by CSREES that, for a given fiscal year, 
additional determinations are necessary, each, as relevant, will be 
stated in the program announcement. Such determinations may include:
    (i) Limits on the subject matter/emphasis areas to be supported;
    (ii) The maximum number of proposals that may be submitted on 
behalf of the same school, college, or 

[[Page 66016]]
equivalent administrative unit within an institution;
    (iii) The maximum total number of proposals that may be submitted 
by an institution;
    (iv) The maximum number of proposals that may be submitted by an 
individual in any one targeted need area;
    (v) The minimum project period a proposal may request;
    (vi) The minimum amount of funds that may be requested by an 
institution under a regular, complementary, or joint project proposal;
    (vii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or 
available to, regular, complementary, and joint project proposals;
    (viii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or 
available to, projects in each announced targeted need area;
    (ix) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or available 
to, each subject matter/emphasis area;
    (x) The maximum number of grants that may be awarded to an 
institution under the program in a given fiscal year, including how 
grants awarded for complementary and joint projects will be counted 
toward the institutional maximum; and
    (xi) Limits on the use of grant funds for travel or to purchase 
equipment, if any.
    (2) The program announcement also will contain any other 
limitations deemed necessary by CSREES for proper conduct of the 
program in the applicable year.
    (e) The regulations of this part prescribe that this is a 
competitive program; it is possible that an institution may not receive 
any grant awards in a particular year.
    (f) The regulations of this part do not apply to grants for other 
purposes awarded by the Department of Agriculture under section 1472 of 
the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act 
of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3318) or any other authority.


Sec. 3406.2  Definitions.

    As used in this part:
    Authorized departmental officer means the Secretary or any employee 
of the Department who has the authority to issue or modify grant 
instruments on behalf of the Secretary.
    Authorized organizational representative means the president of the 
1890 Institution or the official, designated by the president of the 
institution, who has the authority to commit the resources of the 
institution.
    Budget period means the interval of time (usually 12 months) into 
which the project period is divided for budgetary and reporting 
purposes.
    Cash contributions means the applicant's cash outlay, including the 
outlay of money contributed to the applicant by non-Federal third 
parties.
    Citizen or national of the United States means:
    (1) a citizen or native resident of a State; or,
    (2) a person defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1101(a)(22), who, though not a citizen of the United States, 
owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
    College or University means an educational institution in any State 
which:
    (1) Admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of 
graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the 
recognized equivalent of such a certificate;
    (2) Is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of 
education beyond secondary education;
    (3) Provides an educational program for which a baccalaureate 
degree or any other higher degree is awarded;
    (4) Is a public or other nonprofit institution; and
    (5) Is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or 
association.
    Complementary project proposal means a proposal for a project which 
involves coordination with one or more other projects for which funding 
was awarded under this program in a previous fiscal year, or for which 
funding is requested under this program in the current fiscal year.
    Cost-sharing or Matching means that portion of project costs not 
borne by the Federal Government, including the value of in-kind 
contributions.
    Department or USDA means the United States Department of 
Agriculture.
    1890 Institution or 1890 land-grant institution or 1890 colleges 
and universities means one of those institutions eligible to receive 
funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 417-419, as amended; 7 
U.S.C. 321-326 and 328) that are the intended recipients of funds under 
programs established in Subtitle G of the National Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 
U.S.C. 3221 et seq.), including Tuskegee University.
    Eligible participant means, for purposes of Sec. 3406.11(b), 
Faculty Preparation and Enhancement for Teaching, and Sec. 3406.11(f), 
Student Recruitment and Retention, an individual who:
    (1) Is a citizen or national of the United States, as defined in 
this section; or
    (2) Is a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau. Where 
eligibility is claimed under paragraph (2) of the definition of 
``Citizen or national of the United States'' in this section, 
documentary evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service as 
to such eligibility must be made available to CSREES upon request.
    Food and agricultural sciences means basic, applied, and 
developmental research, extension, and teaching activities in the food, 
agricultural, renewable natural resources, forestry, and physical and 
social sciences, in the broadest sense of these terms, including but 
not limited to, activities concerned with the production, processing, 
marketing, distribution, conservation, consumption, research, and 
development of food and agriculturally related products and services, 
and inclusive of programs in agriculture, natural resources, 
aquaculture, forestry, veterinary medicine, home economics, rural 
development, and closely allied disciplines.
    Grantee means the 1890 Institution designated in the grant award 
document as the responsible legal entity to which a grant is awarded.
    Joint project proposal means a proposal for a project, which will 
involve the applicant 1890 Institution and two or more other colleges, 
universities, community colleges, junior colleges, or other 
institutions, each of which will assume a major role in the conduct of 
the proposed project, and for which the applicant institution will 
transfer at least one-half of the awarded funds to the other 
institutions participating in the project. Only the applicant 
institution must meet the definition of ``1890 Institution'' as 
specified in this section; the other institutions participating in a 
joint project proposal are not required to meet the definition of 
``1890 Institution'' as specified in this section, nor required to meet 
the definition of ``college'' or ``university'' as specified in this 
section.
    Peer review panel means a group of experts or consultants, 
qualified by training and experience in particular fields of science, 
education, or technology to give expert advice on the merit of grant 
applications in such fields, who evaluate eligible proposals submitted 
to this program in their personal area(s) of expertise.
    Principal investigator/project director means the single individual 
designated by the grantee in the grant application 

[[Page 66017]]
and approved by the Secretary who is responsible for the direction and 
management of the project.
    Prior approval means written approval evidencing prior consent by 
an authorized departmental officer as defined in this section.
    Project means the particular teaching or research activity within 
the scope of one or more of the targeted areas supported by a grant 
awarded under this program.
    Project period means the period, as stated in the award document 
and modifications thereto, if any, during which Federal sponsorship 
begins and ends.
    Research means any systematic inquiry directed toward new or fuller 
knowledge and understanding of the subject studied.
    Research capacity means the quality and depth of an institution's 
research infrastructure as evidenced by its: faculty expertise in the 
natural or social sciences, scientific and technical resources, 
research environment, library resources, and organizational structures 
and reward systems for attracting and retaining first-rate research 
faculty or students at the graduate and post-doctorate levels.
    Research project grant means a grant in support of a project that 
addresses one or more of the targeted need areas or specific subject 
matter/emphasis areas identified in the annual program announcement 
related to strengthening research programs including, but not limited 
to, such initiatives as: studies and experimentation in food and 
agricultural sciences, centralized research support systems, technology 
delivery systems, and other creative projects designed to provide 
needed enhancement of the Nation's food and agricultural research 
system.
    Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other officer 
or employee of the Department of Agriculture to whom the authority 
involved may be delegated.
    State means any one of the fifty States, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, 
the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the District of Columbia.
    Teaching means formal classroom instruction, laboratory 
instruction, and practicum experience in the food and agricultural 
sciences and matters related thereto (such as faculty development, 
student recruitment and services, curriculum development, instructional 
materials and equipment, and innovative teaching methodologies) 
conducted by colleges and universities offering baccalaureate or higher 
degrees.
    Teaching capacity means the quality and depth of an institution's 
academic programs infrastructure as evidenced by its: curriculum, 
teaching faculty, instructional delivery systems, student experiential 
learning opportunities, scientific instrumentation for teaching, 
library resources, academic standing and racial, ethnic, or gender 
diversity of its faculty and student body as well as faculty and 
student recruitment and retention programs provided by a college or 
university in order to achieve maximum results in the development of 
scientific and professional expertise for the Nation's food and 
agricultural system.
    Teaching project grant means a grant in support of a project that 
addresses one or more of the targeted need areas or specific subject 
matter/emphasis areas identified in the annual program announcement 
related to strengthening teaching programs including, but not limited 
to, such initiatives as: curricula design and materials development, 
faculty preparation and enhancement for teaching, instruction delivery 
systems, scientific instrumentation for teaching, student experiential 
learning, and student recruitment and retention.
    Third party in-kind contributions means non-cash contributions of 
property or services provided by non-Federal third parties, including 
real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable property, 
directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to a funded project 
or program.
    USDA agency cooperator means any agency or office of the Department 
which has reviewed and endorsed an applicant's request for support, and 
indicates a willingness to make available non-monetary resources or 
technical assistance throughout the life of a project to ensure the 
accomplishment of the objectives of a grant awarded under this program.


Sec. 3406.3  Institutional eligibility.

    Proposals may be submitted by any of the 16 historically black 1890 
land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University. The 1890 land-grant 
institutions are: Alabama A&M University; University of Arkansas--Pine 
Bluff; Delaware State University; Florida A&M University; Fort Valley 
State College; Kentucky State University; Southern University and A&M 
College; University of Maryland--Eastern Shore; Alcorn State 
University; Lincoln University; North Carolina A&T State University; 
Langston University; South Carolina State University; Tennessee State 
University; Prairie View A&M University; and Virginia State University.

Subpart B--Program Description


Sec. 3406.4  Purpose of the program.

    (a) The Department of Agriculture and the Nation depend upon sound 
programs in the food and agricultural sciences at the Nation's colleges 
and universities to produce well trained professionals for careers in 
the food and agricultural sciences. The capacity of institutions to 
offer suitable programs in the food and agricultural sciences to meet 
the Nation's need for a well trained work force in the food and 
agricultural sciences is a proper concern for the Department.
    (b) Historically, the Department has had a close relationship with 
the 1890 colleges and universities, including Tuskegee University. 
Through its role as administrator of the Second Morrill Act, the 
Department has borne the responsibility for helping these institutions 
develop to their fullest potential in order to meet the needs of 
students and the needs of the Nation.
    (c) The institutional capacity building grants program is intended 
to stimulate development of quality education and research programs at 
these institutions in order that they may better assist the Department, 
on behalf of the Nation, in its mission of providing a professional 
work force in the food and agricultural sciences.
    (d) This program is designed specifically to build the 
institutional teaching and research capacities of the 1890 land-grant 
institutions through cooperative programs with Federal and non-Federal 
entities. The program is competitive among the 1890 Institutions and 
encourages matching funds on the part of the States, private 
organizations, and other non-Federal entities to encourage expanded 
linkages with 1890 Institutions as performers of research and 
education, and as developers of scientific and professional talent for 
the United States food and agricultural system. In addition, through 
this program, CSREES will strive to increase the overall pool of 
qualified job applicants from underrepresented groups in order to make 
significant progress toward achieving the objectives of work force 
diversity within the Federal Government, particularly the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.


Sec. 3406.5  Matching support.

    The Department strongly encourages and may require non-Federal 
matching support for this program. In the annual program solicitation, 
CSREES will announce any incentives that may be 

[[Page 66018]]
offered to applicants for committing their own institutional resources 
or securing third party contributions in support of capacity building 
projects. CSREES may also announce any required fixed dollar amount or 
percentage of institutional cost sharing, if applicable.


Sec. 3406.6  USDA agency cooperator requirement.

    (a) Each application must provide documentation that at least one 
USDA agency or office has agreed to cooperate with the applicant 
institution on the proposed project. The documentation should describe 
the expected benefits of the partnership venture for the USDA agency 
and for the 1890 Institution, and describe the partnership effort 
between USDA and the 1890 Institution in regard to the proposed 
project. Such USDA agency cooperation may include, but is not limited 
to, assisting the applicant institution with proposal development, 
identifying possible sources of matching funds, securing resources, 
implementing funded projects, providing technical assistance and 
expertise throughout the life of the project, participating in project 
evaluation, and disseminating project results.
    (b) The designated CSREES agency contact can provide suggestions to 
institutions seeking to secure a USDA agency cooperator on a particular 
proposal.
    (c) USDA 1890 Liaison Officers, and other USDA employees serving on 
the campuses of the 1890 colleges and universities, may assist with 
proposal development and project execution to satisfy the cooperator 
requirement, in whole or in part, but may not serve as project 
directors or principal investigators.
    (d) Any USDA office responsible for administering a competitive or 
formula grants program specifically targeted to 1890 Institutions may 
not be a cooperator for this program.


Sec. 3406.7  General scope of program.

    This program supports both teaching project grants and research 
project grants. Such grants are intended to strengthen the teaching and 
research capabilities of applicant institutions. Each 1890 Institution 
may submit one or more grant applications for either category of grants 
(as allowed by the annual program notice). However, each application 
must be limited to either a teaching project grant proposal or a 
research project grant proposal.


Sec. 3406.8  Joint project proposals.

    Applicants are encouraged to submit joint project proposals as 
defined in Sec. 3406.2, which address regional or national problems and 
which will result overall in strengthening the 1890 university system. 
The goals of such joint initiatives should include maximizing the use 
of limited resources by generating a critical mass of expertise and 
activity focused on a targeted need area(s), increasing cost-
effectiveness through achieving economies of scale, strengthening the 
scope and quality of a project's impact, and promoting coalition 
building likely to transcend the project's lifetime and lead to future 
ventures.


Sec. 3406.9  Complementary project proposals.

    Institutions may submit complementary project proposals as defined 
in Sec. 3406.2. Such complementary project proposals may be submitted 
by the same or by different eligible institutions.


Sec. 3406.10  Use of funds for facilities.

    Under the 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program, the 
use of grant funds to plan, acquire, or construct a building or 
facility is not allowed. With prior approval, in accordance with the 
cost principles set forth in OMB Circular No. A-21, some grant funds 
may be used for minor alterations, renovations, or repairs deemed 
necessary to retrofit existing teaching or research spaces in order to 
carry out a funded project. However, requests to use grant funds for 
such purposes must demonstrate that the alterations, renovations, or 
repairs are incidental to the major purpose for which a grant is made.

Subpart C--Preparation of a Teaching Proposal


Sec. 3406.11  Scope of a teaching proposal.

    The teaching component of the program will support the targeted 
need area(s) related to strengthening teaching programs as specified in 
the annual program announcement. Proposals may focus on any subject 
matter area(s) in the food and agricultural sciences unless limited by 
determinations as specified in the annual program announcement. A 
proposal may address a single targeted need area or multiple targeted 
need areas, and may be focused on a single subject matter area or 
multiple subject matter areas, in any combination (e.g., curriculum 
development in horticulture; curriculum development, faculty 
enhancement, and student experiential learning in animal science; 
faculty enhancement in food science and agribusiness management; or 
instruction delivery systems and student experiential learning in plant 
science, horticulture, and entomology). Applicants are also encouraged 
to include a library enhancement component related to the teaching 
project in their proposals. A proposal may be directed toward the 
undergraduate or graduate level of study as specified in the annual 
program announcement. Targeted need areas for teaching programs will 
consist of one or more of the following:
    (a) Curricula design and materials development. (1) The purpose of 
this need area is to promote new and improved curricula and materials 
to increase the quality of, and continuously renew, the Nation's 
academic programs in the food and agricultural sciences. The overall 
objective is to stimulate the development and facilitate the use of 
exemplary education models and materials that incorporate the most 
recent advances in subject matter, research on teaching and learning 
theory, and instructional technology. Proposals may emphasize: the 
development of courses of study, degree programs, and instructional 
materials; the use of new approaches to the study of traditional 
subjects; or the introduction of new subjects, or new applications of 
knowledge, pertaining to the food and agricultural sciences.
    (2) Examples include, but are not limited to, curricula and 
materials that promote:
    (i) Raising the level of scholastic achievement of the Nation's 
graduates in the food and agricultural sciences.
    (ii) Addressing the special needs of particular groups of students, 
such as minorities, gifted and talented, or those with educational 
backgrounds that warrant enrichment.
    (iii) Using alternative instructional strategies or methodologies, 
including computer-assisted instruction or simulation modeling, media 
programs that reach large audiences efficiently and effectively, 
activities that provide hands-on learning experiences, and educational 
programs that extend learning beyond the classroom.
    (iv) Using sound pedagogy, particularly with regard to recent 
research on how to motivate students to learn, retain, apply, and 
transfer knowledge, skills, and competencies.
    (v) Building student competencies to integrate and synthesize 
knowledge from several disciplines.
    (b) Faculty preparation and enhancement for teaching. (1) The 
purpose of this need area is to advance faculty development in the 
areas of teaching competency, subject matter expertise, or student 
recruitment and 

[[Page 66019]]
advising skills. Teachers are central to education. They serve as 
models, motivators, and mentors--the catalysts of the learning process. 
Moreover, teachers are agents for developing, replicating, and 
exchanging effective teaching materials and methods. For these reasons, 
education can be strengthened only when teachers are adequately 
prepared, highly motivated, and appropriately recognized and rewarded.
    (2) Each faculty recipient of support for developmental activities 
under Sec. 3406.11(b) must be an ``eligible participant'' as defined in 
Sec. 3406.2 of this part.
    (3) Examples of developmental activities include, but are not 
limited to, those which enable teaching faculty to:
    (i) Gain experience with recent developments or innovative 
technology relevant to their teaching responsibilities.
    (ii) Work under the guidance and direction of experts who have 
substantial expertise in an area related to the developmental goals of 
the project.
    (iii) Work with scientists or professionals in government, 
industry, or other colleges or universities to learn new applications 
in a field.
    (iv) Obtain personal experience working with new ideas and 
techniques.
    (v) Expand competence with new methods of information delivery, 
such as computer-assisted or televised instruction.
    (c) Instruction delivery systems. (1) The purpose of this need area 
is to encourage the use of alternative methods of delivering 
instruction to enhance the quality, effectiveness, and cost efficiency 
of teaching programs. The importance of this initiative is evidenced by 
advances in educational research which have substantiated the theory 
that differences in the learning styles of students often require 
alternative instructional methodologies. Also, the rising costs of 
higher education strongly suggest that colleges and universities 
undertake more efforts of a collaborative nature in order to deliver 
instruction which maximizes program quality and reduces unnecessary 
duplication. At the same time, advancements in knowledge and technology 
continue to introduce new subject matter areas which warrant 
consideration and implementation of innovative instruction techniques, 
methodologies, and delivery systems.
    (2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Use of computers.
    (ii) Teleconferencing.
    (iii) Networking via satellite communications.
    (iv) Regionalization of academic programs.
    (v) Mobile classrooms and laboratories.
    (vi) Individualized learning centers.
    (viii) Symposia, forums, regional or national workshops, etc.
    (d) Scientific instrumentation for teaching. (1) The purpose of 
this need area is to provide students in science-oriented courses the 
necessary experience with suitable, up-to-date equipment in order to 
involve them in work central to scientific understanding and progress. 
This program initiative will support the acquisition of instructional 
laboratory and classroom equipment to assure the achievement and 
maintenance of outstanding food and agricultural sciences higher 
education programs. A proposal may request support for acquiring new, 
state-of-the-art instructional scientific equipment, upgrading existing 
equipment, or replacing non-functional or clearly obsolete equipment.
    (2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Rental or purchase of modern instruments to improve student 
learning experiences in courses, laboratories, and field work.
    (ii) Development of new ways of using instrumentation to extend 
instructional capabilities.
    (iii) Establishment of equipment-sharing capability via consortia 
or centers that develop innovative opportunities, such as mobile 
laboratories or satellite access to industry or government 
laboratories.
    (e) Student experiential learning. (1) The purpose of this need 
area is to further the development of student scientific and 
professional competencies through experiential learning programs which 
provide students with opportunities to solve complex problems in the 
context of real-world situations. Effective experiential learning is 
essential in preparing future graduates to advance knowledge and 
technology, enhance quality of life, conserve resources, and revitalize 
the Nation's economic competitiveness. Such experiential learning 
opportunities are most effective when they serve to advance decision-
making and communication skills as well as technological expertise.
    (2) Examples include, but are not limited to, projects which:
    (i) Provide opportunities for students to participate in research 
projects, either as a part of an ongoing research project or in a 
project designed especially for this program.
    (ii) Provide opportunities for students to complete 
apprenticeships, internships, or similar participatory learning 
experiences.
    (iii) Expand and enrich courses which are of a practicum nature.
    (iv) Provide career mentoring experiences that link students with 
outstanding professionals.
    (f) Student recruitment and retention. (1) The purpose of this need 
area is to strengthen student recruitment and retention programs in 
order to promote the future strength of the Nation's scientific and 
professional work force. The Nation's economic competitiveness and 
quality of life rest upon the availability of a cadre of outstanding 
research scientists, university faculty, and other professionals in the 
food and agricultural sciences. A substantial need exists to supplement 
efforts to attract increased numbers of academically outstanding 
students to prepare for careers as food and agricultural scientists and 
professionals. It is particularly important to augment the racial, 
ethnic, and gender diversity of the student body in order to promote a 
robust exchange of ideas and a more effective use of the full breadth 
of the Nation's intellectual resources.
    (2) Each student recipient of monetary support for education costs 
or developmental purposes under Sec. 3406.11(f) must be enrolled at an 
eligible institution and meet the requirement of an ``eligible 
participant'' as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of this part.
    (3) Examples include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Special outreach programs for elementary and secondary students 
as well as parents, counselors, and the general public to broaden 
awareness of the extensive nature and diversity of career opportunities 
for graduates in the food and agricultural sciences.
    (ii) Special activities and materials to establish more effective 
linkages with high school science classes.
    (iii) Unique or innovative student recruitment activities, 
materials, and personnel.
    (iv) Special retention programs to assure student progression 
through and completion of an educational program.
    (v) Development and dissemination of stimulating career information 
materials.
    (vi) Use of regional or national media to promote food and 
agricultural sciences higher education.
    (vii) Providing financial incentives to enable and encourage 
students to pursue and complete an undergraduate or graduate degree in 
an area of the food and agricultural sciences.

[[Page 66020]]



Sec. 3406.12  Program application materials--teaching.

    Program application materials in an application package will be 
made available to eligible institutions upon request. These materials 
include the program announcement, the administrative provisions for the 
program, and the forms needed to prepare and submit teaching grant 
applications under the program.


Sec. 3406.13  Content of a teaching proposal.

    (a) Proposal cover page. (1) Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education 
Proposal Cover Page,'' must be completed in its entirety. Note that 
providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral 
part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing 
of the proposal.
    (2) One copy of the Form CSRS-712 must contain the pen-and-ink 
signatures of the project director(s) and authorized organizational 
representative for the applicant institution.
    (3) The title of the teaching project shown on the ``Higher 
Education Proposal Cover Page'' must be brief (80-character maximum) 
yet represent the major thrust of the project. This information will be 
used by the Department to provide information to the Congress and other 
interested parties,
    (4) In block 7. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``1890 Institution Capacity 
Building Grants Program.''
    (5) In block 8.a. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``Teaching.'' In block 
8.b. identify the code for the targeted need area(s) as found on the 
reverse of the form. If a proposal focuses on multiple targeted need 
areas, enter each code associated with the project. In block 8.c. 
identify the major area(s) of emphasis as found on the reverse of the 
form. If a proposal focuses on multiple areas of emphasis, enter each 
code associated with the project; however, limit the selection to three 
areas. This information will be used by program staff for the proper 
assignment of proposals to reviewers.
    (6) In block 9. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a 
complementary project proposal or a joint project proposal as defined 
in Sec. 3406.2 of this part. If it is not a complementary project 
proposal or a joint project proposal, identify it as a regular project 
proposal.
    (7) In block 13. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a 
new, first-time submission or if the proposal is a resubmission of a 
proposal that has been submitted to, but not funded under, the 1890 
Institution Capacity Building Grants Program in a previous competition.
    (b) Table of contents. For ease in locating information, each 
proposal must contain a detailed table of contents just after the 
Proposal Cover Page. The Table of Contents should include page numbers 
for each component of the proposal. Pagination should being immediately 
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation.
    (c) USDA agency cooperator. To be considered for funding, each 
proposal must include documentation of cooperation with at least one 
USDA agency of office. If multiple agencies are involved as 
cooperators, documentation must be included from each agency. When 
documenting cooperative arrangements, the following guidelines should 
be used.
    (1) A summary of the cooperative arrangements must immediately 
follow the Table of Contents. This summary should:
    (i) Bear the signatures of the Agency Head (or his/her designated 
authorized representative) and the university project director;
    (ii) Indicate the agency's willingness to commit support for the 
project;
    (iii) Identify the person(s) at the USDA agency who will serve as 
the liaison or technical contact for the project;
    (iv) Describe the degree and nature of the USDA agency's 
involvement in the proposed project, as outlined in Sec. 3406.6(a) of 
this part, including its role in:
    (A) Identifying the need for the project;
    (B) Developing a conceptual approach;
    (C) Assisting with project design;
    (D) Identifying and securing needed agency or other resources 
(e.g., personnel, grants/contracts; in-kind support, etc.);
    (E) Developing the project budget;
    (F) Promoting partnerships with other institutions to carry out the 
project;
    (G) Helping the institution launch and manage the project;
    (H) Providing technical assistance and expertise;
    (I) Providing consultation through site visits, E-mail, conference 
calls, and faxes;
    (J) Participating in project evaluation and dissemination of final 
project results; and
    (K) Seeking other innovative ways to ensure the success of the 
project and advance the needs of the institution or the agency; and
    (v) Describe the expected benefits of the partnership venture for 
the USDA agency and for the 1890 Institution.
    (2) A detailed discussion of these partnership arrangements should 
be provided in the narrative portion of the proposal, as outlined in 
paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
    (3) Additional documentation, including letters of support or 
cooperation, may be provided in the Appendix.
    (d) Project summary. (1) A Project Summary should immediately 
follow the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation section. 
The information provided in the Project Summary will be used by the 
program staff for a variety of purposes, including the proper 
assignment of proposals to reviewers and providing information to 
reviewers prior to the peer panel meeting. The name of the institution, 
the targeted need area(s), and the title of the proposal must be 
identified exactly as shown on the ``Higher Education Proposal Cover 
Page.''
    (2) If the proposal is a complementary project proposal, as defined 
in Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other 
complementary project(s) by citing the name of the submitting 
institution, the title of the project, the project director, and the 
grant number (if funded in a previous year) exactly as shown on the 
cover page of the complementary project so that appropriate 
consideration can be given to the interrelatedness of the proposals in 
the evaluation process.
    (3) If the proposal is a joint project proposal, as defined in 
Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other 
participating institutions and the key faculty member or other 
individual responsible for coordinating the project at each 
institution.
    (4) The Project Summary should be a concise description of the 
proposed activity suitable for publication by the Department to inform 
the general public about awards under the program. The text must not 
exceed one page, single-spaced. The Project Summary should be a self-
contained description of the activity which would result if the 
proposal is funded by USDA. It should include: The objectives of the 
project; a synopsis of the plan of operation; a statement of how the 
project will enhance the teaching capacity of the institution; a 
description of how the project will strengthen higher education in the 
food and agricultural sciences in the United States; a description of 
the partnership efforts between, and the expected benefits for, the 
USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890 Institution; and the plans for 
disseminating project results. The Project Summary should be written so 
that a technically literate reader can evaluate the use of Federal 
funds in support of the project.

[[Page 66021]]

    (e) Resubmission of a proposal. (1) Resubmission of previously 
unfunded proposals. (i) If a proposal has been submitted previously, 
but was not funded, such should be indicated in block 13. on Form CSRS-
712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and the following 
information should be included in the proposal:
    (A) The fiscal year(s) in which the proposal was submitted 
previously;
    (B) A summary of the peer reviewers' comments; and
    (C) How these comments have been addressed in the current proposal, 
including the page numbers in the current proposal where the reviewers' 
comments have been addressed. (ii) This information may be provided as 
a section of the proposal following the Project Summary and preceding 
the proposal narrative or it may be placed in the Appendix (see 
paragraph (j) of this section). In either case, the location of this 
information should be indicated in the Table of Contents, and the fact 
that the proposal is a resubmitted proposal should be stated in the 
proposal narrative. Further, when possible, the information should be 
presented in tabular format. Applicants who choose to resubmit 
proposals that were previously submitted, but not funded, should note 
that resubmitted proposals must compete equally with newly submitted 
proposals. Submitting a proposal that has been revised based on a 
previous peer review panel's critique of the proposal does not 
guarantee the success of the resubmitted proposal.
    (2) Resubmission of previously funded proposals. Recognizing that 
capacity building is a long-term ongoing process, the 1890 Institution 
Capacity Building Grants Program is interested in funding subsequent 
phases of previously funded projects in order to build institutional 
capacity, and institutions are encouraged to build on a theme over 
several grant awards. However, proposals that are sequential 
continuations or new stages of previously funded Capacity Building 
Grants must compete with first-time proposals. Therefore, project 
directors should thoroughly demonstrate how the project proposed in the 
current application expands substantially upon a previously funded 
project (i.e., demonstrate how the new project will advance the former 
project to the next level of attainment or will achieve expanded 
goals). The proposal must also show the degree to which the new phase 
promotes innovativeness and creativity beyond the scope of the 
previously funded project. Please note that the 1890 Institution 
Capacity Building Grants Program is not designed to support activities 
that are essentially repetitive in nature over multiple grant awards. 
Project directors who have had their projects funded previously are 
discouraged from resubmitting relatively identical proposals for 
further funding.
    (f) Narrative of a teaching proposal. The narrative portion of the 
proposal is limited to 20 pages in length. The one-page Project Summary 
is not included in the 20-page limitation. The narrative must be typed 
on one side of the page only, using a font no smaller than 12 point, 
and double-spaced. All margins must be at least one inch. All pages 
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation must be 
paginated. It should be noted that reviewers will not be required to 
read beyond 20 pages of the narrative to evaluate the proposal. The 
narrative should contain the following sections:
    (1) Potential for advancing the quality of education.
    (i) Impact.
    (A) Identify the targeted need area(s).
    (B) Clearly state the specific instructional problem or opportunity 
to be addressed.
    (C) Describe how and by whom the focus and scope of the project 
were determined. Summarize the body of knowledge which substantiates 
the need for the proposed project.
    (D) Describe ongoing or recently completed significant activities 
related to the proposed project for which previous funding was received 
under this program.
    (E) Discuss how the project will be of value at the State, 
regional, national, or international level(s).
    (F) Discuss how the benefits to be derived from the project will 
transcend the proposing institution or the grant period. Also discuss 
the probabilities of its adaptation by other institutions. For example, 
can the project serve as a model for others?
    (ii) Continuation plans. Discuss the likelihood of, or plans for, 
continuation or expansion of the project beyond USDA support. For 
example, does the institution's long-range budget or academic plan 
provide for the realistic continuation or expansion of the initiative 
undertaken by this project after the end of the grant period, are plans 
for eventual self-support built into the project, are plans being made 
to institutionalize the program if it meets with success, and are there 
indications of other continuing non-Federal support?
    (iii) Innovation. Describe the degree to which the proposal 
reflects an innovative or non-traditional approach to solving a higher 
education problem or strengthening the quality of higher education in 
the food and agricultural sciences.
    (iv) Products and results. Explain the kinds of results and 
products expected and their impact on strengthening food and 
agricultural sciences higher education in the United States, including 
attracting academically outstanding students and increasing the ethnic, 
racial, and gender diversity of the Nation's food and agricultural 
scientific and professional expertise base.
    (2) Overall approach and cooperative linkages.
    (i) Proposed approach.
    (A) Objectives. Cite and discuss the specific objectives to be 
accomplished under the project.
    (B) Plan of operation.
    (1) Describe procedures for accomplishing the objectives of the 
project.
    (2) Describe plans for management of the project to enhance its 
proper and efficient administration.
    (3) Describe the way in which resources and personnel will be used 
to conduct the project.
    (C) Timetable. Provide a timetable for conducting the project. 
Identify all important project milestones and dates as they relate to 
project start-up, execution, dissemination, evaluation, and close-out.
    (ii) Evaluation plans.
    (A) Provide a plan for evaluating the accomplishment of stated 
objectives during the conduct of the project. Indicate the criteria, 
and corresponding weight of each, to be used in the evaluation process, 
describe any data to be collected and analyzed, and explain the 
methodology that will be used to determine the extent to which the 
needs underlying the project are met.
    (B) Provide a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the end 
results upon conclusion of the project. Include the same kinds of 
information requested in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (iii) Dissemination plans. Discuss plans to disseminate project 
results and products. Identify target audiences and explain methods of 
communication.
    (iv) Partnerships and collaborative efforts.
    (A) Explain how the project will maximize partnership ventures and 
collaborative efforts to strengthen food and agricultural sciences 
higher education (e.g., involvement of faculty in related disciplines 
at the same institution, joint projects with other colleges or 
universities, or cooperative activities with business or industry). 
Also explain how it will stimulate 

[[Page 66022]]
academia, the States, or the private sector to join with the Federal 
partner in enhancing food and agricultural sciences higher education.
    (B) Provide evidence, via letters from the parties involved, that 
arrangements necessary for collaborative partnerships or joint 
initiatives have been discussed and realistically can be expected to 
come to fruition, or actually have been finalized contingent on an 
award under this program. Letters must be signed by an official who has 
the authority to commit the resources of the organization. Such letters 
should be referenced in the plan of operation, but the actual letters 
should be included in the Appendix section of the proposal. Any 
potential conflict(s) of interest that might result from the proposed 
collaborative arrangements must be discussed in detail. Proposals which 
indicate joint projects with other institutions must state which 
proposer is to receive any resulting grant award, since only one 
submitting institution can be the recipient of a project grant under 
one proposal.
    (C) Explain how the project will create a new or enhance an 
existing partnership between the USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890 
Institution(s). This section should expand upon the summary information 
provided in the documentation of USDA agency cooperation section, as 
outlined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. This is particularly 
important because the focal point of attention in the peer review 
process is the proposal narrative. Therefore, a comprehensive 
discussion of the partnership effort between USDA and the 1890 
Institution should be provided.
    (3) Institutional capacity building.
    (i) Institutional enhancement. Explain how the proposed project 
will strengthen the teaching capacity as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of this 
part, of the applicant institution and, if applicable, any other 
institutions assuming a major role in the conduct of the project. For 
example, describe how the proposed project is intended to strengthen 
the institution's academic infrastructure by expanding the current 
faculty's expertise base, advancing the scholarly quality of the 
institution's academic programs, enriching the racial, ethnic, or 
gender diversity of the student body, helping the institution establish 
itself as a center of excellence in particular field of education, 
helping the institution maintain or acquire state-of-the-art scientific 
instrumentation or library collections for teaching, or enabling the 
institution to provide more meaningful student experiential learning 
opportunities.
    (ii) Institutional commitment.
    (A) Discuss the institution's commitment to the project and its 
successful completion. Provide, as relevant, appropriate documentation 
in the Appendix. Substantiate that the institution attributes a high 
priority to the project.
    (B) Discuss how the project will contribute to the achievement of 
the institution's long-term (five- to ten-year goals and how the 
project will help satisfy the institution's high-priority objectives. 
Show how this project is linked to and supported by the institution's 
strategic plan.
    (C) Discuss the commitment of institutional resources to the 
project. Show that the institutional resources to be made available to 
the project will be adequate, when combined with the support requested 
from USDA, to carry out the activities of the project and represent a 
sound commitment by the institution. Discuss institutional facilities, 
equipment, computer services, and other appropriate resources available 
to the project.
    (g) Key personnel. A Form CSRS-708, ``Summary Vita-Teaching 
Proposal,'' should be included for each key person associated with the 
project.
    (h) Budget and cost-effectiveness. (1) Budget form.
    (i) Prepare Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget,'' in 
accordance with instructions provided with the form. Proposals may 
request support for a period to be identified in each year's program 
announcement. A budget form is required for each year of requested 
support. In addition, a summary budget is required detailing the 
requested total support for the overall project period. Form CSRS-713 
may be reproduced as needed by proposers. Funds may be requested under 
any of the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or 
service for which support is requested is allowable under the 
authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles, the 
administrative provisions in this part, and can be justified as 
necessary for successful conduct of the proposed project.
    (ii) The approved negotiated instruction rate or the maximum rate 
allowed by law should be used when computing indirect costs. If a 
reduced rate of indirect costs is voluntarily requested from USDA, the 
remaining allowable indirect costs may be used as matching funds.
    (2) Matching funds. When documenting matching contributions, use 
the following guidelines:
    When preparing the column of Form CSRS-713 entitled ``Applicant 
Contributions To Matching Funds,'' only those costs to be contributed 
by the applicant for the purposes of matching should be shown. The 
total amount of this column should be indicated in item M.
    (ii) In item N of Form CSRS-713, show a total dollar amount for 
Cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties; also 
show a total dollar amount (based on current fair market value) for 
Non-cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties.
    (iii) To qualify for any incentive benefits stemming from matching 
support or to satisfy any cost sharing requirements, proposals must 
include written verification of any actual commitments of matching 
support (including both cash and non-cash contributions) from third 
parties. Written verification means--
    (A) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge 
agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational 
representatives of the donor organization (or by the donor if the gift 
is from an individual) and the applicant institution,which must 
include:
    (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor;
    (2) The name of the applicant institution;
    (3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;
    (4) The dollar amount of the cash donation; and
    (5) A statement that the donor will pay the cash contribution 
during the grant period; and
    (B) For any third party non-cash contributions, a separate pledge 
agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized 
organizational representatives of the donor organization (or by the 
donor if the gift is from an individual) and the applicant institution, 
which must include:
    (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor;
    (2) The name of the applicant institution;
    (3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;
    (4) A good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the 
non-cash contribution; and
    (5) A statement that the donor will make the contribution during 
the grant period.
    (iv) All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal 
immediately following Form CSRS-713. The sources and amounts of all 
matching support from outside the applicant institution should be 
summarized in the Budget Narrative section of the proposal.

[[Page 66023]]

    (v) Applicants should refer to OMB Circulars A-110, ``Uniform 
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions 
of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-profit Organizations,'' 
and A-21, ``Cost Principles for Educational Institutions,'' for further 
guidance and other requirements relating to matching and allowable 
costs.
    (3) Chart on shared budget for joint project proposal.
    (i) For a joint project proposal, a plan must be provided 
indicating how funds will be distributed to the participating 
institutions. The budget section of a joint project proposal should 
include a chart indicating:
    (A) The names of the participating institutions;
    (B) The amount of funds to be disbursed to those institutions; and
    (C) The way in which such funds will be used in accordance with 
items A through L of Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget.''
    (ii) If a proposal is not for a joint project, such a chart is not 
required.
    (4) Budget narrative.
    (i) Discuss how the budget specifically supports the proposed 
project activities. Explain how each budget item (such as salaries and 
wages for professional and technical staff, student stipends/
scholarships, travel, equipment, etc.) is essential to achieving 
project objectives.
    (ii) Justify that the total budget, including funds requested from 
USDA and any matching support provided, will be adequate to carry out 
the activities of the project. Provide a summary of sources and amounts 
of all third party matching support.
    (iii) Justify the project's cost-effectiveness. Show how the 
project maximizes the use of limited resources, optimizes educational 
value for the dollar, achieves economies of scale, or leverages 
additional funds. For example, discuss how the project has the 
potential to generate a critical mass of expertise and activity focused 
on a targeted need area or promote coalition building that could lead 
to future ventures.
    (iv) Includes the percentage of time key personnel will work on the 
project, both during the academic year and summer. When salaries of 
university project personnel will be paid by a combination of USDA and 
institutional funds, the total compensation must not exceed the faculty 
member's regular annual compensation. In addition, the total commitment 
of time devoted to the project, when combined with time for teaching 
and research duties, other sponsored agreements, and other employment 
obligations to the institution, must not exceed 100 percent of the 
normal workload for which the employee is compensated, in accordance 
with established university policies and applicable Federal cost 
principles.
    (v) If the proposal addresses more than one targeted need area 
(e.g., student experiential learning and instruction delivery systems), 
estimate the proportion of the funds requested from USDA that will 
support each respective targeted need area.
    (i) Current and pending support. Each applicant must complete Form 
CSRS-663, ``Current and Pending Support,'' identifying any other 
current public- or private-sponsored projects, in addition to the 
proposed project, to which key personnel listed in the proposal under 
consideration have committed portions of their time, whether or not 
salary support for the person(s) involved is included in the budgets of 
the various projects. This information should also be provided for any 
pending proposals which are currently being considered by, or which 
will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors, 
including other USDA programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of 
identical or similar projects to other possible sponsors will not 
prejudice the review or evaluation of a project under this program.
    (j) Appendix. Each project narrative is expected to be complete in 
itself and to meet the 20-page limitation. Inclusion of material in an 
Appendix should not be used to circumvent the 20-page limitation of a 
proposal narrative. However, in those instances where inclusion of 
supplemental information is necessary to guarantee the peer review 
panel's complete understanding of a proposal or to illustrate the 
integrity of the design or a main thesis of the proposal, such 
information may be included in an Appendix. Examples of supplemental 
material are photographs, journal reprints, brochures and other 
pertinent materials which are deemed to be illustrative of major points 
in the narrative but unsuitable for inclusion in the proposal narrative 
itself. Information on previously submitted proposals may also be 
presented in the Appendix (refer to paragraph (e) of this section). 
When possible, information in the Appendix should be presented in 
tabular format. A complete set of the Appendix material must be 
attached to each copy of the grant application submitted. The Appendix 
must be identified with the title of the project as it appears on Form 
CSRS-712 of the proposal and the name(s) of the project director(s). 
The Appendix must be referenced in the proposal narrative.

Subpart D--Review and Evaluation of a Teaching Proposal


Sec. 3406.14  Proposal review--teaching.

    The proposal evaluation process includes both internal staff review 
and merit evaluation by peer review panels comprised of scientists, 
educators, business representatives, and Government officials who are 
highly qualified to render expert advice in the areas supported. Peer 
review panels will be selected and structured to provide optimum 
expertise and objective judgment in the evaluation of proposals.


Sec. 3406.15  Evaluation criteria for teaching proposals.

    The maximum score a teaching proposal can receive is 150 points. 
Unless otherwise stated in the annual solicitation published in the 
Federal Register, the peer review panel will consider the following 
criteria and weights to evaluate proposals submitted:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Weight  
                    Evaluation Criterion                       (points) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Potential for advancing the quality of education:                   
    This criterion is used to assess the likelihood that the            
     project will have a substantial impact upon and advance            
     the quality of food and agricultural sciences higher               
     education by strengthening institutional capacities                
     through promoting education reform to meet clearly                 
     delineated needs.                                                  
        (1) Impact--Does the project address a targeted need            
         area(s)? Is the problem or opportunity clearly                 
         documented? Does the project address a State,                  
         regional, national, or international problem or                
         opportunity? Will the benefits to be derived from              
         the project transcend the applicant institution or             
         the grant period? Is it probable that other                    
         institutions will adapt this project for their own             
         use? Can the project serve as a model for others?..          15

[[Page 66024]]
                                                                        
        (2) Continuation plans--Are there plans for                     
         continuation or expansion of the project beyond                
         USDA support with the use of institutional funds?              
         Are there indications of external, non-Federal                 
         support? Are there realistic plans for making the              
         project self-supporting?...........................          10
        (3) Innovation--Are significant aspects of the                  
         project based on an innovative or a non-traditional            
         approach toward solving a higher education problem             
         or strengthening the quality of higher education in            
         the food and agricultural sciences? If successful,             
         is the project likely to lead to education reform?.          10
        (4) Products and results--Are the expected products             
         and results of the project clearly defined and                 
         likely to be of high quality? Will project results             
         be of an unusual or unique nature? Will the project            
         contribute to a better understanding of or an                  
         improvement in the quality, distribution, or                   
         effectiveness of the Nation's food and agricultural            
         scientific and professional expertise base, such as            
         increasing the participation of women and                      
         minorities?........................................          15
(b) Overall approach and cooperative linkages:                          
    This criterion relates to the soundness of the proposed             
     approach and the quality of the partnerships likely to             
     evolve as a result of the project.                                 
        (1) Proposed approach--Do the objectives and plan of            
         operation appear to be sound and appropriate                   
         relative to the targeted need area(s) and the                  
         impact anticipated? Are the procedures                         
         managerially, educationally, and scientifically                
         sound? Is the overall plan integrated with or does             
         it expand upon other major efforts to improve the              
         quality of food and agricultural sciences higher               
         education? Does the timetable appear to be readily             
         achievable?........................................          15
        (2) Evaluation--Are the evaluation plans adequate               
         and reasonable? Do they allow for continuous or                
         frequent feedback during the life of the project?              
         Are the individuals involved in project evaluation             
         skilled in evaluation strategies and procedures?               
         Can they provide an objective evaluation? Do                   
         evaluation plans facilitate the measurement of                 
         project progress and outcomes?.....................           5
        (3) Dissemination--Does the proposed project include            
         clearly outlined and realistic mechanisms that will            
         lead to widespread dissemination of project                    
         results, including national electronic                         
         communication systems, publications, presentations             
         at professional conferences, or use by faculty                 
         development or research/teaching skills workshops?.           5
        (4) Partnerships and collaborative efforts--Does the            
         project have significant potential for advancing               
         cooperative ventures between the applicant                     
         institution and a USDA agency? Does the project                
         workplan include an effective role for the                     
         cooperating USDA agency(s)? Will the project expand            
         partnership ventures among disciplines at a                    
         university, between colleges and universities, or              
         with the private sector? Will the project lead to              
         long-term relationships or cooperative partnerships            
         that are likely to enhance program quality or                  
         supplement resources available to food and                     
         agricultural sciences higher education?............          15
(c) Institutional capacity building:                                    
    This criterion relates to the degree to which the                   
     project will strengthen the teaching capacity of the               
     applicant institution. In the case of a joint project              
     proposal, it relates to the degree to which the project            
     will strengthen the teaching capacity of the applicant             
     institution and that of any other institution assuming             
     a major role in the conduct of the project.                        
        (1) Institutional enhancement--Will the project help            
         the institution to: expand the current faculty's               
         expertise base; attract, hire, and retain                      
         outstanding teaching faculty; advance and                      
         strengthen the scholarly quality of the                        
         institution's academic programs; enrich the racial,            
         ethnic, or gender diversity of the faculty and                 
         student body; recruit students with higher grade               
         point averages, higher standardized test scores,               
         and those who are more committed to graduation;                
         become a center of excellence in a particular field            
         of education and bring it greater academic                     
         recognition; attract outside resources for academic            
         programs; maintain or acquire state-of-the-art                 
         scientific instrumentation or library collections              
         for teaching; or provide more meaningful student               
         experiential learning opportunities?...............          15
        (2) Institutional commitment--Is there evidence to              
         substantiate that the institution attributes a high-           
         priority to the project, that the project is linked            
         to the achievement of the institution's long-term              
         goals, that it will help satisfy the institution's             
         high-priority objectives, or that the project is               
         supported by the institution's strategic plans?                
         Will the project have reasonable access to needed              
         resources such as instructional instrumentation,               
         facilities, computer services, library and other               
         instruction support resources?.....................          15
(d) Personnel Resources:                                                
    This criterion relates to the number and qualifications             
     of the key persons who will carry out the project. Are             
     designated project personnel qualified to carry out a              
     successful project? Are there sufficient numbers of                
     personnel associated with the project to achieve the               
     stated objectives and the anticipated outcomes?                    
(e) Budget and cost-effectiveness:                                      
    This criterion relates to the extent to which the total             
     budget adequately supports the project and is cost-                
     effective.                                                         
        (1) Budget--Is the budget request justifiable? Are              
         costs reasonable and necessary? Will the total                 
         budget be adequate to carry out project activities?            
         Are the source(s) and amount(s) of non-Federal                 
         matching support clearly identified and                        
         appropriately documented? For a joint project                  
         proposal, is the shared budget explained clearly               
         and in sufficient detail?..........................          10
        (2) Cost-effectiveness--Is the proposed project cost-           
         effective? Does it demonstrate a creative use of               
         limited resources, maximize educational value per              
         dollar of USDA support, achieve economies of scale,            
         leverage additional funds or have the potential to             
         do so, focus expertise and activity on a targeted              
         need area, or promote coalition building for                   
         current or future ventures?........................           5
(f) Overall quality of proposal:                                        
    This criterion relates to the degree to which the                   
     proposal complies with the application guidelines and              
     is of high quality. Is the proposal enhanced by its                
     adherence to instructions (table of contents,                      
     organization, pagination, margin and font size, the 20-            
     page limitation, appendices, etc.); accuracy of forms;             
     clarity of budget narrative; well prepared vitae for               
     all key personnel associated with the project; and                 
     presentation (are ideas effectively presented, clearly             
     articulated, and thoroughly explained, etc.)?..........           5
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                              
[[Page 66025]]


Subpart E--Preparation of a Research Proposal


Sec. 3406.16  Scope of a research proposal.

    The research component of the program will support projects that 
address high-priority research initiatives in areas such as those 
illustrated in this section where there is a present or anticipated 
need for increased knowledge or capabilities or in which it is feasible 
for applicants to develop programs recognized for their excellence. 
Applicants are also encouraged to include in their proposals a library 
enhancement component related to the initiative(s) for which they have 
prepared their proposals.
    (a) Studies and experimentation in food and agricultural sciences.
    (1) The purpose of this initiative is to advance the body of 
knowledge in those basic and applied natural and social sciences that 
comprise the food and agricultural sciences.
    (2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Conduct plant or animal breeding programs to develop better 
crops, forests, or livestock (e.g., more disease resistant, more 
productive, yielding higher quality products).
    (ii) Conceive, design, and evaluate new bioprocessing techniques 
for eliminating undesirable constituents from or adding desirable ones 
to food products.
    (iii) Propose and evaluate ways to enhance utilization of the 
capabilities and resources of food and agricultural institutions to 
promote rural development (e.g., exploitation of new technologies by 
small rural businesses).
    (iv) Identify control factors influencing consumer demand for 
agricultural products.
    (v) Analyze social, economic, and physiological aspects of 
nutrition, housing, and life-style choices, and of community strategies 
for meeting the changing needs of different population groups.
    (vi) Other high-priority areas such as human nutrition, sustainable 
agriculture, biotechnology, agribusiness management and marketing, and 
aquaculture.
    (b) Centralized research support systems.
    (1) The purpose of this initiative is to establish centralized 
support systems to meet national needs or serve regions or clientele 
that cannot otherwise afford or have ready access to the support in 
question, or to provide such support more economically thereby freeing 
up resources for other research uses.
    (2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Storage, maintenance, characterization, evaluation and 
enhancement of germplasm for use by animal and plant breeders, 
including those using the techniques of biotechnology.
    (ii) Computerized data banks of important scientific information 
(e.g., epidemiological, demographic, nutrition, weather, economic, crop 
yields, etc.).
    (iii) Expert service centers for sophisticated and highly 
specialized methodologies (e.g., evaluation of organoleptic and 
nutritional quality of foods, toxicology, taxonomic identifications, 
consumer preferences, demographics, etc.).
    (c) Technology delivery systems.
    (1) The purpose of this initiative is to promote innovations and 
improvements in the delivery of benefits of food and agricultural 
sciences to producers and consumers, particularly those who are 
currently disproportionately low in receipt of such benefits.
    (2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Computer-based decision support systems to assist small-scale 
farmers to take advantage of relevant technologies, programs, policies, 
etc.
    (ii) Efficacious delivery systems for nutrition information or for 
resource management assistance for low-income families and individuals.
    (d) Other creative proposals. The purpose of this initiative is to 
encourage other creative proposals, outside the areas previously 
outlined, that are designed to provide needed enhancement of the 
Nation's food and agricultural research system.


Sec. 3406.17  Program application materials--research.

    Program application materials in an application package will be 
made available to eligible institutions upon request. These materials 
include the program announcement, the administrative provisions for the 
program, and the forms needed to prepare and submit research grant 
applications under the program.


Sec. 3406.18  Content of a research proposal.

    (a) Proposal cover page. (1) Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education 
Proposal Cover Page,'' must be completed in its entirety. Note that 
providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral 
part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing 
of the proposal.
    (2) One copy of Form CSRS-712 must contain the pen-and-ink 
signatures of the principal investigator(s) and Authorized 
Organizational Representative for the applicant institution.
    (3) The title of the research project shown on the ``Higher 
Education Proposal Cover Page'' must be brief (80-character maximum) 
yet represent the major thrust of the project. This information will be 
used by the Department to provide information to the Congress and other 
interested parties.
    (4) In block 7. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``Capacity Building Grants 
Program.''
    (5) In block 8.a. of Form CSRS-712, enter ``Research.'' In block 
8.b. identify the code of the targeted need area(s) as found on the 
reverse of the form. If a proposal focuses on multiple targeted need 
areas, enter each code associated with the project. In block 8.c. 
identify the major area(s) of emphasis as found on the reverse of the 
form. If a proposal focuses on multiple areas of emphasis, enter each 
code associated with the project; however, please limit your selection 
to three areas. This information will be used by the program staff for 
the proper assignment of proposals to reviewers.
    (6) In block 9. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a 
complementary project proposal or joint project proposal as defined in 
Sec. 3406.2. If it is not a complementary project proposal or a joint 
project proposal, identify it as a regular proposal.
    (7) In block 13. of Form CSRS-712, indicate if the proposal is a 
new, first-time submission or if the proposal is a resubmission of a 
proposal that has been submitted to, but not funded under the 1890 
Institution Capacity Building Grants Program in a previous competition.
    (b) Table of contents. For ease of locating information, each 
proposal must contain a detailed table of contents just after the 
Proposal Cover Page. The Table of Contents should include page numbers 
for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately 
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation.
    (c) USDA agency cooperator. To be considered for funding, each 
proposal must include documentation of cooperation with at least one 
USDA agency or office. If multiple agencies are involved as 
cooperators, documentation must be included from each agency. When 
documenting cooperative arrangements, the following guidelines should 
be used:
    (1) A summary of the cooperative arrangements must immediately 
follow the Table of Contents. This summary should:

[[Page 66026]]

    (i) Bear the signatures of the Agency Head (or his/her designated 
authorized representative) and the university project director;
    (ii) Indicate the agency's willingness to commit support for the 
project;
    (iii) Identify the person(s) at the USDA agency who will serve as 
the liaison or technical contact for the project;
    (iv) Describe the degree and nature of the USDA agency's 
involvement in the proposed project, as outlined in Sec. 3406.6(a) of 
this part, including its role in:
    (A) Identifying the need for the project;
    (B) Developing a conceptual approach;
    (C) Assisting with project design;
    (D) Identifying and securing needed agency or other resources 
(e.g., personnel, grants/contracts; in-kind support, etc.);
    (E) Developing the project budget;
    (F) Promoting partnerships with other institutions to carry out the 
project;
    (G) Helping the institution launch and manage the project;
    (H) Providing technical assistance and expertise;
    (I) Providing consultation through site visits, E-mail, conference 
calls, and faxes;
    (J) Participating in project evaluation and dissemination of final 
project results; and
    (K) Seeking other innovative ways to ensure the success of the 
project and advance the needs of the institution or the agency; and
    (v) Describe the expected benefits of the partnership venture for 
the USDA agency and for the 1890 Institution.
    (2) A detailed discussion of these partnership arrangements should 
be provided in the narrative portion of the proposal, as outlined in 
paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(B) of this section.
    (3) Additional documentation, including letters of support or 
cooperation, may be provided in the Appendix.
    (d) Project summary. (1) A Project Summary should immediately 
follow the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation. The 
information provided in the Project Summary will be used by the program 
staff for a variety of purposes, including the proper assignment of 
proposals to reviewers and providing information to reviews prior to 
the peer panel meeting. The name of the institution, the targeted need 
area(s), and the title of the proposal must be identified exactly as 
shown on the ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page.''
    (2) If the proposal is a complementary project proposal, as defined 
in Sec. 3406.2 of this part, clearly state this fact and identify the 
other complementary project(s) by citing the name of the submitting 
institution, the title of the project, the principal investigator, and 
the grant number (if funded in a previous year) exactly as shown on the 
cover page of the complementary project so that appropriate 
consideration can be given to the interrelatedness of the proposals in 
the evaluation process.
    (3) If the proposal is a joint project proposal, as defined in 
Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other 
participating institutions and the key person responsible for 
coordinating the project at each institution.
    (4) The Project Summary should be a concise description of the 
proposed activity suitable for publication by the Department to inform 
the general public about awards under the program. The text should not 
exceed one page, single-spaced. The Project Summary should be a self-
contained description of the activity which would result if the 
proposal is funded by USDA. It should include: the objective of the 
project, a synopsis of the plan of operation, a statement of how the 
project will enhance the research capacity of the institution, a 
description of how the project will enhance research in the food and 
agricultural sciences, and a description of the partnership efforts 
between, and the expected benefits for, the USDA agency cooperator(s) 
and the 1890 Institution and the plans for disseminating project 
results. The Project Summary should be written so that a technically 
literate reader can evaluate the use of Federal funds in support of the 
project.
    (e) Resubmission of a proposal. (1) Resubmission of previously 
unfunded proposals. (i) If the proposal has been submitted previously, 
but was not funded, such should be indicated in block 13. On Form CSRS-
712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and the following 
information should be included in the proposal.
    (A) The fiscal year(s) in which the proposal was submitted 
previously;
    (B) A summary of the peer reviewers' comments; and
    (C) How these comments have been addressed in the current proposal, 
including the page numbers in the current proposal where the reviewers' 
comments have been addressed.
    (ii) This information may be provided as a section of the proposal 
following the Project Summary and preceding the proposal narrative or 
it may be placed in the appendix (see paragraph (j) of this section). 
In either case, the location of this information should be indicated in 
the Table of Contents, and the fact that the proposal is a resubmitted 
proposal should be stated in the proposal narrative. Further, when 
possible, the information should be presented in a tabular format. 
Applicants who choose to resubmit proposals that were previously 
submitted, but not funded, should note that resubmitted proposals must 
compete equally with newly submitted proposals. Submitting a proposal 
that has been revised based on a previous peer review panel's critique 
of the proposal does not guarantee the success of the resubmitted 
proposal.
    (2) Resubmission of previously funded proposals. Recognizing that 
capacity building is a long-term ongoing process, the 1890 Institution 
Capacity Building Grants Program is interested in funding subsequent 
phases of previously funded projects in order to build institutional 
capacity, and institutions are encouraged to build on a theme over 
several grant awards. However, proposals that are sequential 
continuations or new stages of previously funded Capacity Building 
Grants must compete with first-time proposals. Therefore, project 
directors should thoroughly demonstrate how the project proposed in the 
current application expands substantially upon a previously funded 
project (i.e., demonstrate how the new project will advance the former 
project to the next level of attainment or will achieve expanded 
goals). The proposal must also show the degree to which the new phase 
promotes innovativeness and creativity beyond the scope of the 
previously funded project. Please note that the 1890 Institution 
Capacity Building Grants Program is not designed to support activities 
that are essentially repetitive in nature over multiple grant awards. 
Principal investigators who have had their projects funded previously 
are discouraged from resubmitting relatively identical proposals for 
future funding.
    (f) Narrative of a research proposal. The narrative portion of the 
proposal is limited to 20 pages in length. The one-page Project Summary 
is not included in the 20-page limitation. The narrative must be typed 
on one side of the page only, using a font no smaller than 12 point, 
and double-spaced. All margins must be at least one inch. All pages 
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation must be 
paginated. It should be noted that reviewers will not be required to 
read beyond 20 pages of the narrative to evaluate the proposal. The 
narrative should contain the following sections:
    (1) Significance of the problem.
    (i) Impact.
    
[[Page 66027]]

    (A) Identification of the problem or opportunity. Clearly identify 
the specific problem or opportunity to be addressed and present any 
research questions or hypotheses to be examined.
    (B) Rationale. Provide a rationale for the proposed approach to the 
problem or opportunity and indicate the part that the proposed project 
will play in advancing food and agricultural research and knowledge. 
Discuss how the project will be of value and importance at the State, 
regional, national, or international level(s). Also discuss how the 
benefits to be derived from the project will transcend the proposing 
institution or the grant period.
    (C) Literature review. Include a comprehensive summary of the 
pertinent scientific literature. Citations may be footnoted to a 
bibliography in the Appendix. Citations should be accurate, complete, 
and adhere to an acceptable journal format. Explain how such knowledge 
(or previous findings) is related to the proposed project.
    (D) Current research and related activities. Describe the relevancy 
of the proposed project to current research or significant research 
support activities at the proposing institution and any other 
institution participating in the project, including research which may 
be as yet unpublished.
    (ii) Continuation plans. Discuss the likelihood or plans for 
continuation or expansion of the project beyond USDA support. Discuss, 
as applicable, how the institution's long-range budget, and 
administrative and academic plans, provide for the realistic 
continuation or expansion of the line of research or research support 
activity undertaken by this project after the end of the grant period. 
For example, are there plans for securing non-Federal support for the 
project? Is there any potential for income from patents, technology 
transfer or university-business enterprises resulting from the project? 
Also discuss the probabilities of the proposed activity or line of 
inquiry being pursued by researchers at other institutions.
    (iii) Innovation. Describe the degree to which the proposal 
reflects an innovative or non-traditional approach to a food and 
agricultural research initiative.
    (iv) Products and results. Explain the kinds of products and 
results expected and their impact on strengthening food and 
agricultural sciences higher education in the United States, including 
attracting academically outstanding students or increasing the ethnic, 
racial, and gender diversity of the Nation's food and agricultural 
scientific and professional expertise base.
    (2) Overall approach and cooperative linkages.
    (i) Approach.
    (A) Objectives. Cite and discuss the specific objectives to be 
accomplished under the project.
    (B) Plan of operation. The procedures or methodologies to be 
applied to the proposed project should be explicitly stated. This 
section should include, but not necessarily be limited to a description 
of:
    (1) The proposed investigations, experiments, or research support 
enhancements in the sequence in which they will be carried out.
    (2) Procedures and techniques to be employed, including their 
feasibility.
    (3) Means by which data will be collected and analyzed.
    (4) Pitfalls that might be encountered.
    (5) Limitations to proposed procedures
    (C) Timetable. Provide a timetable for execution of the project. 
Identify all important research milestones and dates as they relate to 
project start-up, execution, dissemination, evaluation, and close-out.
    (ii) Evaluation plans.
    (A) Provide a plan for evaluating the accomplishment of stated 
objectives during the conduct of the project. Indicate the criteria, 
and corresponding weight of each, to be used in the evaluation process, 
describe any performance data to be collected and analyzed, and explain 
the methodologies that will be used to determine the extent to which 
the needs underlying the project are being met.
    (B) Provide a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the end 
results upon conclusion of the project. Include the same kinds of 
information requested in Sec. 3406.13(f)(2)(ii)(A).
    (iii) Dissemination plans. Provide plans for disseminating project 
results and products including the possibilities for publications. 
Identify target audiences and explain methods of communication.
    (iv) Partnerships and collaborative efforts.
    (A) Explain how the project will maximize partnership ventures and 
collaborative efforts to strengthen food and agricultural sciences 
higher education (e.g., involvement of faculty in related disciplines 
at the same institution, joint projects with other colleges or 
universities, or cooperative activities with business or industry). 
Also explain how it will stimulate academia, the States, or the private 
sector to join with the Federal partner in enhancing food and 
agricultural science higher education.
    (B) Provide evidence, via letters from the parties involved, that 
arrangements necessary for collaborative partnerships or joint 
initiatives have been discussed and realistically can be expected to 
come to fruition, or actually have been finalized contingent on an 
award under this program. Letters must be signed by an official who has 
the authority to commit the resources of the organization. Such letters 
should be referenced in the plan of operation, but the actual letters 
should be included in the Appendix section of the proposal. Any 
potential conflict(s) of interest that might result from the proposed 
collaborative arrangements must be discussed in detail. Proposals which 
indicate joint projects with other institutions must state which 
proposer is to receive any resulting grant award, since only one 
submitting institution can be the recipient of a project grant under 
one proposal.
    (C) Explain how the project will create a new or enhance an 
existing partnership between the USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890 
Institution(s). This section should expand upon the summary information 
provided in the documentation of USDA agency cooperation section, as 
outlined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. This is particularly 
important because the focal point of attention in the peer review 
process is the proposal narrative. Therefore, a comprehensive 
discussion of the partnership effort between USDA and the 1890 
Institution should be provided.
    (3) Institutional capacity building.
    (i) Institutional enhancement. Explain how the proposed project 
will strengthen the research capacity, as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of 
this part, of the applicant institution and, if applicable, any other 
institutions assuming a major role in the conduct of the project. For 
example, describe how the proposed project is intended to strengthen 
the institution's research infrastructure by advancing the expertise of 
the current faculty in the natural or social sciences; providing a 
better research environment, state-of-the-art equipment, or supplies; 
enhancing library collections; or enabling the institution to provide 
efficacious organizational structures and reward systems to attract and 
retain first-rate research faculty and students--particularly those 
from underrepresented groups.
    (ii) Institutional commitment.
    (A) Discuss the institution's commitment to the project and its 
successful completion. Provide, as relevant, appropriate documentation 
in the Appendix. Substantiate that the 

[[Page 66028]]
institution attributes a high priority to the project.
    (B) Discuss how the project will contribute to the achievement of 
the institution's long-term (five- to ten-year) goals and how the 
project will help satisfy the institution's high-priority objectives. 
Show how this project is linked to and supposed by the institution's 
strategic plan.
    (C) Discuss the commitment of institutional resources to the 
project. Show that the institutional resources to be made available to 
the project will be adequate, when combined with the support requested 
from USDA, to carry out the activities of the project and represent a 
sound commitment by the institution. Discuss institutional facilities, 
equipment, computer services, and other appropriate resources available 
to the project.
    (g) Key personnel. A From CSRS-710, ``Summary Vita--Research 
Proposal,'' should be included for each key person associated with the 
project.
    (h) budget and cost-effectiveness.
    (1) Budget form.
    (i) Prepare Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget,'' in 
accordance with instructions provided with the form. Proposals may 
request support for a period to be identified in each year's program 
announcement. A budget form is required for each year of requested 
support. In addition, a summary budget is required detailing the 
requested total support for the overall project period. Form CSRS-713 
may be reproduced as needed by proposers. Funds may be requested under 
any of the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or 
service for which support is requested is allowable under the 
authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles, these 
administrative provisions, and can be justified as necessary for 
successful conduct of the proposed project.
    (ii) The approved negotiated research rate or the maximum rate 
allowed by law should be used when computing indirect costs. If a 
reduced rate of indirect costs is voluntarily requested from USDA, the 
remaining allowable indirect costs may be used as matching funds. In 
the event that a proposal reflects an incorrect indirect cost rate and 
is recommended for funding, the correct rate will be applied to the 
approved budget in the grant award.
    (2) Matching funds. When documenting matching contributions, use 
the following guidelines:
    (i) When preparing the column of Form CSRS-713 entitled ``Applicant 
Contributions To Matching Funds,'' only those costs to be contributed 
by the applicant for the purposes of matching should be shown. The 
total amount of this column should be indicated in item M.
    (ii) In item N of Form CSRS-713, show a total dollar amount for 
Cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties; also 
show a total dollar amount (based on current fair market value) for 
Non-cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties.
    (iii) To qualify for an incentive benefits stemming from matching 
support or to satisfy any cost sharing requirements, proposals must 
include written verification of any actual commitments of matching 
support (including both cash and non-cash contributions) from third 
parties. Written verification means--
    (A) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge 
agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational 
representatives of the donor organization (or by the donor if the gift 
is from an individual) and the applicant institution, which must 
include:
    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the donor;
    (2) The name of the applicant institution;
    (3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;
    (4) The dollar amount of the cash donation; and
    (5) A statement that the donor will pay the cash contribution 
during the grant period; and
    (B) For any third party non-cash contributions, a separate pledge 
agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized 
organizational representatives of the donor organization (or by the 
donor if the gift is from an individual) and the applicant institution, 
which must include:
    (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor;
    (2) The name of the applicant institution;
    (3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;
    (4) A good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the 
non-cash contribution; and
    (5) A statement that the donor will make the contribution during 
the grant period.
    (iv) All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal 
immediately following Form CSRS-713. The sources and amounts of all 
matching support from outside the applicant institution should be 
summarized in the Budget Narrative section of the proposal.
    (v) Applicants should refer to OMB Circulars A-110, ``Uniform 
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions 
of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-profit Organizations,'' 
and A-21, ``Cost Principles for Educational Institutions,'' for further 
guidance and other requirements relating to matching and allowable 
costs.
    (3) Chart on shared budget for joint project proposal.
    (i) For a joint project proposal, a plan must be provided 
indicating how funds will be distributed to the participating 
institutions. The budget section of a joint project proposal should 
include a chart indicating:
    (A) The names of the participating institutions;
    (B) The amount of funds to be disbursed to those institutions; and
    (C) The way in which such funds will be used in accordance with 
items A through L of Form CSRS-713, ``Higher Education Budget.''
    (ii) If a proposal is not for a joint project, such a chart is not 
required.
    (4) Budget narrative.
    (i) Discuss how the budget specifically supports the proposed 
project activities. Explain how each budget item (such as salaries and 
wages for professional and technical staff, student workers, travel, 
equipment, etc.) is essential to achieving project objectives.
    (ii) Justify that the total budget, including funds requested from 
USDA and any matching support provided, will be adequate to carry out 
the activities of the project. Provide a summary of sources and amounts 
of all third party matching support.
    (iii) Justify the project's cost-effectiveness. Show how the 
project maximizes the use of limited resources, optimizes research 
value for the dollar, achieves economies of scale, or leverages 
additional funds. For example, discuss how the project has the 
potential to generate a critical mass of expertise and activity focused 
on a high-priority research initiatives(s) or promote coalition 
building that could lead to future ventures.
    (iv) Include the percentage of time key personnel will work on the 
project, both during the academic year and summer. When salaries of 
university project personnel will be paid by a combination of USDA and 
institutional funds, the total compensation must not exceed the faculty 
member's regular annual compensation. In addition, the total commitment 
of time devoted to the project, when combined with time for teaching 
and research duties, other sponsored agreements, and other employment 
obligations to the institution, must not exceed 100 percent of the 
normal workload for which the 

[[Page 66029]]
employee is compensated, in accordance with established university 
policies and applicable Federal cost principles.
    (v) If the proposal addresses more than one targeted need area, 
estimate the proportion of the funds requested from USDA that will 
support each respective targeted need area.
    (i) Current and pending support. Each applicant must complete Form 
CSRS-663, ``Current and Pending Support,'' identifying any other 
current public- or private-sponsored projects, in addition to the 
proposed project, to which key personnel listed in the proposal under 
consideration have committed portions of their time, whether or not 
salary support for the person(s) involved is included in the budgets of 
the various projects. This information should also be provided for any 
pending proposals which are currently being considered by, or which 
will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors, 
including other USDA programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of 
identical or similar projects to other possible sponsors will not 
prejudice the review or evaluation of a project under this program.
    (j) Appendix. Each project narrative is expected to be complete in 
itself and to meet the 20-page limitation. Inclusion of material in the 
Appendix should not be used to circumvent the 20-page limitation of the 
proposal narrative. However, in those instances where inclusion of 
supplemental information is necessary to guarantee the peer review 
panel's complete understanding of a proposal or to illustrate the 
integrity of the design or a main thesis of the proposal, such 
information may be included in the Appendix. Examples of supplemental 
material are photographs, journal reprints, brochures and other 
pertinent materials which are deemed to be illustrative of major points 
in the narrative but unsuitable for inclusion in the proposal narrative 
itself. Information or previously submitted proposals may also be 
presented in the Appendix (refer to paragraph (e) of this section). 
When possible, information in the Appendix should be presented in 
tabular format. A complete set of the Appendix material must be 
attached to each copy of the grant application submitted. The Appendix 
must be identified with the title of the project as it appears on Form 
CSRS-712 of the proposal and the name(s) of the principal 
investigator(s). The Appendix must be referenced in the proposal 
narrative.
    (k) Special considerations. A number of situations encountered in 
the conduct of research require special information or supporting 
documentation before funding can be approved for the project. If such 
situations are anticipated, proposals must so indicate via completion 
of Form CSRS-662, ``Assurance Statement(s).'' It is expected that some 
applications submitted in response to these guidelines will involve the 
following:
    (1) Recombinant DNA research. All key personnel identified in the 
proposal and all endorsing officials of the proposing organization are 
required to comply with the guidelines established by the National 
Institutes of Health entitled ``Guidelines for Research Involving 
Recombinant DNA Molecules,'' as revised. All applicants proposing to 
use recombinant DNA techniques must so indicate by checking the 
appropriate box on Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover 
Page,'' and by completing the applicable section of Form CSRS-662. In 
the event a project involving recombinant DNA or RNA molecules results 
in a grant award, the Institutional Biosafety Committee of the 
proposing institution must approve the research plan before CSREES will 
release grant funds.
    (2) Protection of human subjects. Responsibility for safeguarding 
the rights and welfare of human subjects used in any grant project 
supported with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing 
organization. Guidance on this is contained in the Department of 
Agriculture regulations under 7 CFR part 1c. All applicants who propose 
to use human subjects for experimental purposes must indicate their 
intention by checking the appropriate block on Form CSRS-712, ``Higher 
Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and by completing the appropriate 
portion of Form CSRS-662. In the event a project involving human 
subjects results in a grant award, the Institutional Review Board of 
the proposing institution must approve the research plan before CSREES 
will release grant funds.
    (3) Laboratory animal care. Responsibility for the humane care and 
treatment of laboratory animals used in any grant project supported 
with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing organization. 
All key project personnel and all endorsing officials of the proposing 
organization are required to comply with the Animal Welfare Act of 
1966, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), and the regulations 
promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture in 9 CFR parts 
1, 2, 3, and 4 pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of 
laboratory animals. All applicants proposing a project which involves 
the use of laboratory animals must indicate their intention by checking 
the appropriate block on Form CSRS-712, ``Higher Education Proposal 
Cover Page,'' and by completing the appropriate portion of Form CSRS-
662. In the event a project involving the use of living vertebrate 
animals results in a grant award, the Institutional Animal Care and Use 
Committee of the proposing institution must approve the research plan 
before CSREES will release grant funds.
    (l) Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 
As outlined in 7 CFR part 3407 (CSREES's implementing regulations of 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969), environmental data for 
the proposed project is to be provided to CSREES in order for a 
determination to be made as to the need for any further action such as 
preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact 
statement (EIS).
    (1) NEPA determination statement. In order for a determination to 
be made, pertinent information regarding environmental activities is 
necessary; therefore, Form CSRS-1234, ``National Environmental Policy 
Act Exclusions Form,'' along with supporting documentation, must be 
included in the proposal indicating whether or not the project falls 
under USDA categorical exclusions as defined in 7 CFR 1b.3 (and 
restated at 7 CFR 3407.6(a)(1)) or CSREES categorical exclusions 
defined at 7 CFR 3407.6(a)(2) (i) and (ii). The information should be 
identified in the Table of Contents as ``NEPA Determination Statement'' 
and Form CSRS-1234 and the supporting documentation should be placed at 
the back of the proposal.
    (2) Exceptions to categorical exclusions. An EA or EIS shall be 
prepared for an activity which is normally within the purview of 
categorical exclusion where it is determined by CSREES that substantial 
controversy on environmental grounds exists or that other extraordinary 
conditions or circumstances are present which may cause such activity 
to have a significant environmental effect.

Subpart F--Review and Evaluation of a Research Proposal


Sec.  3406.19   Proposal review--research.

    The proposal evaluation process includes both internal staff review 
and merit evaluation by peer review panels comprised of scientists, 
educators, business representatives, and Government officials who are 
highly qualified to render expert advice in the areas supported. Peer 
review panels will be selected and structured to provide 

[[Page 66030]]
optimum expertise and objective judgment in the evaluation of 
proposals.


Sec.  3406.20  Evaluation criteria for research proposals.

    The maximum score a research proposal can receive is 150 points. 
Unless otherwise stated in the annual solicitation published in the 
Federal Register, the peer review panel will consider the following 
criteria and weights to evaluate proposals submitted.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Weight 
                    Evaluation Criterion                       (points) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Significance of the problem:                                        
    This criterion is used to assess the likelihood that the            
     project will advance or have a substantial impact upon             
     the body of knowledge constituting the natural and                 
     social sciences undergirding the argicultural, natural             
     resources, and food systems.                                       
        (1) Impact--Is the problem or opportunity to be                 
         addressed by the proposed project clearly                      
         identified, outlined, and delineated? Are research             
         questions or hypotheses precisely stated? Is the               
         project likely to further advance food and                     
         agricultural research and knowledge? Does the                  
         project have potential for augmenting the food and             
         agricultural scientific knowledge base? Does the               
         project address a State, regional, national, or                
         international problem(s)? Will the benefits to be              
         derived from the project transcend the applicant               
         institution or the grant period?...................          15
        (2) Continuation plans--Are there plans for                     
         continuation or expansion of the project beyond                
         USDA support? Are there plans for continuing this              
         line of research or research support activity with             
         the use of institutional funds after the end of the            
         grant? Are there indications of external, non-                 
         Federal support? Are there realistic plans for                 
         making the project self-supporting? What is the                
         potential for royalty or patent income, technology             
         transfer or university-business enterprises? What              
         are the probabilities of the proposed activity or              
         line of inquiry being pursued by researchers at                
         other institutions?................................          10
        (3) Innovation--Are significant aspects of the                  
         project based on an innovative or a non-traditional            
         approach? Does the project reflect creative                    
         thinking? To what degree does the venture reflect a            
         unique approach that is new to the applicant                   
         institution or new to the entire field of study?...          10
        (4) Products and results--Are the expected products             
         and results of the project clearly outlined and                
         likely to be of high quality? Will project results             
         be of an unusual or unique nature? Will the project            
         contribute to a better understanding of or an                  
         improvement in the quality, distribution, or                   
         effectiveness of the Nation's food and agricultural            
         scientific and professional expertise base, such as            
         increasing the participation of women and                      
         minorities?........................................          15
(b) Overall approach and cooperative linkages:                          
    This criterion relates to the soundness of the proposed             
     approach and the quality of the partnerships likely to             
     evolve as a result of the project.                                 
        (1) Proposed approach--Do the objectives and plan of            
         operation appear to be sound and appropriate                   
         relative to the proposed initiative(s) and the                 
         impact anticipated? Is the proposed sequence of                
         work appropriate? Does the proposed approach                   
         reflect sound knowledge of current theory and                  
         practice and awareness of previous or ongoing                  
         related research? If the proposed project is a                 
         continuation of a current line of study or                     
         currently funded project, does the proposal include            
         sufficient preliminary data from the previous                  
         research or research support activity? Does the                
         proposed project flow logically from the findings              
         of the previous stage of study? Are the procedures             
         scientifically and managerially sound? Are                     
         potential pitfalls and limitations clearly                     
         identified? Are contingency plans delineated? Does             
         the timetable appear to be readily achievable?.....          15
        (2) Evaluation--Are the evaluation plans adequate               
         and reasonable? Do they allow for continuous or                
         frequent feedback during the life of the project?              
         Are the individuals involved in project evaluation             
         skilled in evaluation strategies and procedures?               
         Can they provide an objective evaluation? Do                   
         evaluation plans facilitate the measurement of                 
         project progress and outcomes......................           5
        (3) Dissemination--Does the proposed project include            
         clearly outlined and realistic mechanisms that will            
         lead to widespread dissemination of project                    
         results, including national electronic                         
         communication systems, publications and                        
         presentations at professional society meetings?....           5
        (4) Partnerships and collaborative efforts--Does the            
         project have significant potential for advancing               
         cooperative ventures between the applicant                     
         institution and a USDA agency? Does the project                
         workplan include an effective role for the                     
         cooperating USDA agencie(s)? Will the project                  
         encourage and facilitate better working                        
         relationships in the university science community,             
         as well as between universities and the public or              
         private sector? Does the project encourage                     
         appropriate multidisciplinary collaboration? Will              
         the project lead to long-term relationships or                 
         cooperative partnerships that are likely to enhance            
         research quality or supplement available resources?          15
(c) Institutional capacity building:                                    
    This criterion relates to the degree to which the                   
     project will strengthen the research capacity of the               
     applicant institution. In the case of a joint project              
     proposal, it relates to the degree to which the project            
     will strengthen the research capacity of the applicant             
     institution and that of any other institution assuming             
     a major role in the conduct of the project.                        
        (1) Institutional enhancement--Will the project help            
         the institution to advance the expertise of current            
         faculty in the natural or social sciences; provide             
         a better research environment, state-of-the-art                
         equipment, or supplies; enhance library collections            
         related to the area of research; or enable the                 
         institution to provide efficacious organizational              
         structures and reward systems to attract, hire and             
         retain first-rate research faculty and students--              
         particularly those from underrepresented groups....          15
        (2) Institutional commitment--Is there evidence to              
         substantiate that the institution attributes a high-           
         priority to the project, that the project is linked            
         to the achievement of the institution's long-term              
         goals, that it will help satisfy the institution's             
         high-priority objectives, or that the project is               
         supported by the institution's strategic plans?                
         Will the project have reasonable access to needed              
         resources such as scientific instrumentation,                  
         facilities, computer services, library and other               
         research support resources?........................          15
(d) Personnel Resources:                                                
    This criterion relates to the number and qualifications             
     of the key persons who will carry out the project. Are             
     designated project personnel qualified to carry out a              
     successful project? Are there sufficient numbers of                
     personnel associated with the project to achieve the               
     stated objectives and the anticipated outcomes? Will               
     the project help develop the expertise of young                    
     scientists at the doctoral or post-doctorate level?....          10
(e) Budget and cost-effectiveness:                                      

[[Page 66031]]
                                                                        
    This criterion relates to the extent to which the total             
     budget adequately supports the project and is cost-                
     effective.                                                         
        (1) Budget--Is the budget request justifiable? Are              
         costs reasonable and necessary? Will the total                 
         budget be adequate to carry out project activities?            
         Are the source(s) and amount(s) of non-Federal                 
         matching support clearly identified and                        
         appropriately documented? For a joint project                  
         proposal, is the shared budget explained clearly               
         and in sufficient detail?..........................          10
        (2) Cost-effectiveness--Is the proposed project cost-           
         effective? Does it demonstrate a creative use of               
         limited resources, maximize research value per                 
         dollar of USDA support, achieve economies of scale,            
         leverage additional funds or have the potential to             
         do so, focus expertise and activity on a high-                 
         priority research initiative(s), or promote                    
         coalition building for current or future ventures?.           5
(f) Overall quality of proposal:                                        
    This criterion relates to the degree to which the                   
     proposal complies with the application guidelines and              
     is of high quality. Is the proposal enhanced by its                
     adherence to instructions (table of contents,                      
     organization, pagination, margin and font size, the 20-            
     page limitation, appendices, etc.); accuracy of forms;             
     clarity of budget narrative; well prepared vitae for               
     all key personnel associated with the project; and                 
     presentation (are ideas effectively presented, clearly             
     articulated, thoroughly explained, etc.)?..............           5
------------------------------------------------------------------------



Subpart G--Submission of a Teaching or Research Proposal


Sec. 3406.21  Intent to submit a proposal.

    To assist CSREES in preparing for the review of proposals, 
institutions planning to submit proposals may be requested to complete 
Form CSRS-711, ``Intent to Submit a Proposal,'' provided in the 
application package. CSREES will determine each year if Intent to 
Submit a Proposal forms will be requested and provide such information 
in the program announcement. If Intent to Submit a Proposal forms are 
required, one form should be completed and returned for each proposal 
an institution anticipates submitting. Submitting this form does not 
commit an institution to any course of action, nor does failure to send 
this form prohibit an institution from submitting a proposal.


Sec. 3406.22  When and where to submit a proposal.

    The program announcement will provide the deadline date for 
submitting a proposal, the number of copies of each proposal that must 
be submitted, and the address to which proposals must be submitted.

Subpart H--Supplementary Information


Sec. 3406.23  Access to peer review information.

    After final decisions have been announced, CSREES will, upon 
request, inform the project director of the reasons for its decision on 
a proposal. Verbatim copies of summary reviews, not including the 
identity of the reviewers, will be made available to respective project 
directors upon specific request.


Sec. 3406.24  Grant awards.

    (a) General. Within the limit of funds available for such propose, 
the authorized departmental officer shall make project grants to those 
responsible, eligible applicants whose proposals are judged most 
meritorious in the announced targeted need areas under the evaluation 
criteria and procedures set forth in this part. The beginning of the 
project period shall be no later than September 30 of the Federal 
fiscal year in which the project is approved for support. All funds 
granted under this part shall be expended solely for the purpose for 
which the funds are granted in accordance with the approved application 
and budget, the regulations of this part, the terms and conditions of 
the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the Department's 
Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations (7 CFR part 3015).
    (b) Organization management information. Specific management 
information relating to a proposing institution shall be submitted on a 
one-time basis prior to the award of a project grant identified under 
this part if such information has not been provided previously under 
this or another program for which the sponsoring agency is responsible. 
Copies of forms used to fulfill this requirement will be sent to the 
proposing institution by the sponsoring agency as part of the pre-award 
process.
    (c) Notice of grant award. The grant award document shall include 
at a minimum the following:
    (1) Legal name and address of performing organization.
    (2) Title of project.
    (3) Name(s) and address(es) of principal investigator(s)/project 
director(s).
    (4) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department.
    (5) Project period, which specifies how long the Department intend 
to support the effort without requiring reapplication for funds.
    (6) Total amount of Federal financial assistance approved during 
the project period.
    (7) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded.
    (8) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds 
to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award.
    (9) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by the 
Department to carry out its granting activities or to accomplish the 
purpose of this particular project grant.
    (d) Obligation of the Federal Government. Neither the approval of 
any application nor the award of any project grant shall legally commit 
or obligate CSREES or the United States to provide further support of a 
project or any portion thereof.


Sec. 3406.25  Use of funds; changes.

    (a) Delegation of fiscal responsibility. The grantee may not in 
whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution, 
or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant 
funds.
    (b) Change in project plans. (1) The permissible changes by the 
grantee, project director(s), or other key project personnel in the 
approved project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology, 
techniques, or other aspects of the project to expedite achievement of 
the project's approved goals. If the grantee or the project director(s) 
are uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the 
question must be referred to the Department for a final determination.
    (2) Changes in approved goals, or objectives, shall be requested by 
the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental 
officer prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for 
such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the approved 
project.
    (3) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or 
reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the 
grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer 
prior to effecting such changes. 

[[Page 66032]]

    (4) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic 
work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether 
or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee 
and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer prior to 
effecting such transfers.
    (c) Changes in project period. The project period may be extended 
by the authorized departmental officer without additional financial 
support for such additional period(s) as the authorized departmental 
officer determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes 
of an approved project. However, due to statutory restriction, no grant 
may be extended beyond five years from the original start date of the 
grant. Grant extensions shall be conditioned upon prior request by the 
grantee and approval in writing by the authorized departmental officer.
    (d) Changes in approved budget. Changes in an approved budget must 
be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized 
departmental officer prior to instituting such changes if the revision 
will:
    (1) Involved transfers of amounts budgeted for indirect costs to 
absorb an increase in direct costs;
    (2) Involve transfers of amounts budgeted for direct costs to 
accommodate changes in indirect cost rates negotiated during a budget 
period and not approved when a grant was awarded; or
    (3) Involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior 
approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles, 
Departmental regulations, or in the grant award.


Sec. 3406.26  Monitoring progress of funded projects.

    (a) During the tenure of a grant, project directors must attend at 
least one national project directors meeting, if offered, in 
Washington, D.C. or any other announced location. The purpose of the 
meeting will be to discuss project and grant management, opportunities 
for collaborative efforts, future directions for education reform, 
research project management, advancing a field of science, and 
opportunities to enhance dissemination of exemplary end products/
results.
    (b) An Annual Performance Report must be submitted to the USDA 
program contact person within 90 days after the completion of the first 
year of the project and annually thereafter during the life of the 
grant. Generally, the Annual Performance Reports should include a 
summary of the overall progress toward project objectives, current 
problems or unusual developments, the next year's planned activities, 
and any other information that is pertinent to the ongoing project or 
which may be specified in the terms and conditions of the award. These 
reports are in addition to the annual Current Research Information 
System (CRIS) reports required for all research grants under the 
award's ``Special Terms and Conditions.''
    (c) A Final Performance Report must be submitted to the USDA 
program contact person within 90 days after the expiration date of the 
project. The expiration date is specified in the award documents and 
modifications thereto, if any. Generally, the Final Performance Report 
should be a summary of the completed project, including: a review of 
project objectives and accomplishments; a description of any products 
and outcomes resulting from the project; activities undertaken to 
disseminate products and outcomes; partnerships and collaborative 
ventures that resulted from the project; future initiatives that are 
planned as a result of the project; the impact of the project on the 
project director(s), the institution, and the food and agricultural 
sciences higher education system; and data on project personnel and 
beneficiaries. The Final Performance Report should be accompanied by 
samples or copies of any products or publications resulting from or 
developed by the project. The Final Performance Report must also 
contain any other information which may be specified in the terms and 
conditions of the award.


Sec. 3406.27  Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply.

    Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant 
proposals considered for review and to project grants awarded under 
this part. These include but are not limited to:
    7 CFR part 1, subpart A--USDA implementation of Freedom of 
Information Act.
    7 CFR part 3--USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129 
regarding debt collection.
    7 CFR part 15, subpart A--USDA implementation of Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
    7 CFR part 3015--USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, 
implementing OMB directives (i.e., Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122) and 
incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (the Federal Grant and 
Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Public Law 95-224), as well as 
general policy requirements applicable to recipients of Departmental 
financial assistance.
    7 CFR part 3017--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension 
(Nonprocurement); Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace 
(Grants), implementing Executive Order 12549 on debarment and 
suspension and the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701).
    7 CFR part 3018--Restrictions on Lobbying, prohibiting the use of 
appropriated funds to influence Congress or a Federal agency in 
connection with the making of any Federal grant and other Federal 
contracting and financial transactions.
    7 CFR part 3019--USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform 
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions 
of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
    7 CFR part 3051--Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and 
other Nonprofit Institutions.
    29 U.S.C. 794, section 504--Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 7 CFR 
part 15b (USDA implementation of statute), prohibiting discrimination 
based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.
    35 U.S.C. 200 et seq.--Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of 
rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and 
domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally 
assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR 
part 401).


Sec. 3406.28  Confidential aspects of proposals and awards.

    When a proposal results in a grant, it becomes a part of the record 
of the Agency's transactions, available to the public upon specific 
request. Information that the Secretary determines to be of a 
privileged nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by 
law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to have 
considered as privileged should be clearly marked as such and sent in a 
separate statement, two copies of which should accompany the proposal. 
The original copy of a proposal that does not result in a grant will be 
retained by the Agency for a period of one year. Other copies will be 
destroyed. Such a proposal will be released only with the consent of 
the applicant or to the extent required by law. A proposal may be 
withdrawn at any time prior to the final action thereon.


Sec. 3406.29  Evaluation of program.

    Grantees should be aware that CSREES may, as a part of its own 
program evaluation activities, carry out 

[[Page 66033]]
in-depth evaluations of assisted activities. Thus, grantees should be 
prepared to cooperate with CSREES personnel, or persons retained by 
CSREES, evaluating the institutional context and the impact of any 
supported project. Grantees may be asked to provide general information 
on any students and faculty supported, in whole or in part, by a grant 
awarded under this program; information that may be requested includes, 
but is not limited to, standardized academic achievement test scores, 
grade point average, academic standing, career patterns, age, race/
ethnicity, gender, citizenship, and disability.

    Done at Washington, D.C., this 11th day of December 1995.
Colien Hefferan,
Acting Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30625 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>