11488 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service

Request for Proposals (RFP): Initiative

for Future Agriculture and Food

Systems, FY 2001

AGENCY: Cooperative State Research,

Education and Extension Service,

Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of Request for Proposals

and Request for Input.

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension

Service (CSREES) announces the

availability of grant funds and requests

proposals for the Initiative for Future

Agriculture and Food Systems Program

(IFAFS) for fiscal year (FY) 2001 to

support competitively awarded

research, extension and education

grants addressing key issues of national

and regional importance to agriculture,

forestry, and related topics. The amount

available for support of this program in

FY 2001 is approximately $113,400,000.

This notice sets out the objectives for

these projects, the eligibility criteria for

projects and applicants, the application

procedures, and the set of instructions

needed to apply for an IFAFS grant

under this authority.

By this notice, CSREES additionally

solicits stakeholder input from any

interested party regarding the FY 2001

IFAFS for use in development of any

future requests for proposals for this

program.

DATES: For the FY 2001 competition, a

Letter of Intent is requested and is due

by March 23, 2001. Project proposals

and proposals for Multidisciplinary

Graduate Education Traineeship Grants

(MGET) must be received by COB April

23, 2001. Proposals received after this

date will not be considered for funding.

Critical or Emerging Issues proposals

must be received by COB on June 1,

2001. Comments regarding this Request

for Proposals are invited for six months

from the issuance of this notice.

Comments received after that date will

be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Applicants may e-mail the

Letter of Intent to Dr. Rodney Foil at

rfoil@reeusda.gov or send the letter by

mail to IFAFS; Mail Stop 2213;

Cooperative State Research, Education

and Extension Service; U.S. Department

of Agriculture; 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250–

2213; or fax the Letter to IFAFS at (202)

690–3858. The address for handdelivered proposals or proposals

submitted using an express mail or

overnight courier service is: Initiative

for Future Agriculture and Food

Systems; c/o Proposal Services Unit;

Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service; U.S. Department

of Agriculture; Room 1307, Waterfront

Centre; 800 9th Street, S.W.;

Washington, D.C. 20024.

Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal

Service must be sent to the following

address: Initiative for Future Agriculture

and Food Systems; c/o Proposal

Services Unit; Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension

Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture;

STOP 2245; 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250–

2245.

Written user comments should be

submitted by mail to: Policy and

Program Liaison Staff; Office of

Extramural Programs; Cooperative State

Research, Education and Extension

Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture;

STOP 2299; 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250–

2299; or via e-mail to: RFP–

OEP@reeusda.gov. In your comments,

please include the name of the program

and the fiscal year of the request for

proposals (RFP) to which you are

responding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Applicants and other interested parties

are encouraged to contact the Program

Director listed in the program areas

found in the Program Area Description

section below, or Dr. Rodney Foil,

Director IFAFS, Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension

Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture;

STOP 2242; 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20250–

2242; telephone: (202) 720–4423; e-mail:

rfoil@reeusda.gov; or Dr. Sally Rockey,

Deputy Administrator, CRGAM,

Cooperative State Research, Education

and Extension Service; U.S. Department

of Agriculture; STOP 2240; 1400

Independence Avenue, S.W.;

Washington D.C. 20250–2240;

telephone: (202) 401–1761 e-mail:

srockey@reeusda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Stakeholder Input

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Part I—General Information

A. Legislative Authority and Background

B. Purpose, Priorities and Fund

Availability

C. Definitions

D. Eligibility

E. Matching Requirements

F. Types of Proposals

G. Restrictions on Use of Funds

Part II—Program Description

A. Types of Projects to be Supported

1. Project Grants

2. Bridge Grants

3. Critical or Emerging Issues Grants

4. Multidisciplinary Graduate Education

Traineeship (MGET) Grants

B. Program Description

1. Agricultural Genomics

2. Agricultural Biotechnology

3. Food Safety and Human Nutrition

4. New Uses for Agricultural Products

5. Natural Resource Management

6. Farm Efficiency and Profitability

7. Critical or Emerging Issues Grants

8. Multidisciplinary Graduate Education

Traineeship (MGET)

Part III—Preparation of a Proposal

A. Program Application Materials

B. Content of Proposals and Letter of Intent

1. Letter of Intent

2. Project Proposals

3. Critical or Emerging Issues Proposals

4. MGET Proposals

C. Submission of Proposals

1. When to Submit

2. What to Submit

3. Where to Submit

D. Acknowledgment of Proposals

Part IV—Review Process

A. General

B. Evaluation Factors

1. Project Grants

2. Bridge Grants

3. Critical or Emerging Issues Grants

4. MGET Grants

C. Conflicts-of-Interest and Confidentiality

Part V—Additional Information

A. Access To Review Information

B. Grant Awards

C. Funding Mechanisms

D. Use of Funds; Changes

E. Applicable Federal Statutes and

Regulations

Stakeholder Input

CSREES is requesting comments

regarding this RFP from any interested

party. These comments will be

considered in the development of any

future RFP for the program. Such

comments will be forwarded to the

Secretary or his designee for use in

meeting the requirements of section

103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research,

Extension, and Education Reform Act of

1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2). This section

requires the Secretary to solicit and

consider input on a current RFP from

persons who conduct or use agricultural

research, education and extension for

use in formulating future RFPs for

competitive programs. Comments

should be submitted as provided for in

the ‘‘Addresses’’ and ‘‘Dates’’ portions

of this Notice.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

This program is listed in the Catalog

of Federal Domestic Assistance under

10.302, Initiative for Future Agriculture

and Food Systems.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11489

Part I—General Information

A. Legislative Authority and

Background

Section 401 of the Agricultural

Research, Extension, and Education

Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C.

7621) established in the Treasury of the

United States an IFAFS account and

authorized the Secretary of Agriculture

to establish a research, extension, and

education competitive grants program to

address critical emerging U.S.

agricultural issues related to (1) future

food production, (2) environmental

quality and natural resource

management, or (3) farm income. Grants

are to be awarded that shall address

priority mission areas related to (a)

Agricultural genome, (b) Food safety,

food technology and human nutrition,

(c) New and alternative uses and

production of agricultural commodities

and products, (d) Agricultural

biotechnology, (e) Natural resource

management, including precision

agriculture, and (f) Farm efficiency and

profitability, including the viability and

competitiveness of small- and mediumsized dairy, livestock, crop, and other

commodity operations. Priority is to be

given to projects that are multistate,

multi-institutional, or multidisciplinary

or projects that integrate agricultural

research, extension and education.

Subject to the availability of funds to

carry out this program, the Secretary

may award grants to a college or

university or a research foundation

maintained by a college or university.

This represents a change from the FY

2000 solicitation. Section 724 of Public

Law No. 106–389, as amended by

section 101(3) of H.R. 566 which was

enacted by section 1(a)(4) of Public Law

No. 106–554, removed Federal research

agencies, national laboratories, and

private research organizations from

eligibility for IFAFS awards.

Grants also may be awarded to ensure

that faculty of small and mid-sized

academic institutions that have not

previously been successful in obtaining

competitive grants under subsection (b)

of the Competitive, Special, and

Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C.

450i(b)) (i.e. the CSREES National

Research Initiative Competitive Grants

Program) receive a portion of the IFAFS

grants. Grants are to be awarded to

address priorities in United States

agriculture that involve research,

extension, and education activities as

determined by the Secretary in

consultation with the National

Agricultural Research, Extension,

Education, and Economics Advisory

Board; and stakeholders through a

public meeting held in July of 1998.

B. Purpose, Priorities and Fund

Availability

The purpose of the IFAFS is to

support research, education and

extension grants that address critical

emerging U.S. agricultural issues related

to (1) future food production, (2)

environmental quality and natural

resource management, or (3) farm

income.

In awarding IFAFS grants, priority

will be given to projects that are

multistate, multi-institutional, or

multidisciplinary or projects that

integrate agricultural research,

extension and education. Integrated

projects hold the greatest potential to

produce and transfer knowledge directly

to end users, while providing for

educational opportunities to assure

agricultural expertise in future

generations. The IFAFS also holds great

opportunity to bring the agricultural

knowledge system to bear on issues

impacting small and mid-sized

producers and land managers, thus

enabling improvements in quality of life

and community. In support of the

agency’s goal to enhance the

competitiveness of U.S. agriculture,

consideration will also be given to

projects (with U.S. institutions as the

lead) that incorporate an international

dimension with demonstrable domestic

benefits.

IFAFS is distinct from other CSREES

programs because of its priority on

integration of research, extension, and

education; its consideration of the

concerns of small and mid-sized

operations; its emphasis of agricultural

production issues; and its goal to

support relatively large projects that

provide more intensive support to the

research, extension, and education

system.

There is no commitment by USDA to

fund any particular proposal or to make

a specific number of awards.

Approximately $113,400,000 is

available in FY 2001 for programs

within the IFAFS for the following

priority areas: Agriculture Genome and

Agricultural Biotechnology

($32,800,000); Food Safety, Food

Technology, and Human Nutrition

($21,900,000); New and Alternative

Uses and Production of Agricultural

Commodities and Products

($10,000,000); Natural Resource

Management, including Precision

Agriculture ($29,000,000); and Farm

Efficiency and Profitability, Including

the Viability and Competitiveness of

Small and Medium-sized Dairy,

Livestock, Crop, and Other Commodity

Operations ($19,000,000). Funds

available for each priority area are

targets. The number and quality of

applications, as well as the need to

reach programmatic goals, may

necessitate the movement of funds

between priority areas. CSREES is not

committed to funding any specific

amount or make any specific number of

MGET awards, however, funds in the

amount of $2.2 million will be made

available from the aforementioned

priority areas to support MGET

proposals should they be meritorious.

Funds will be made available to small

or mid-sized academic institutions that

have not been previously successful in

obtaining competitive grants under the

National Research Initiative Competitive

Grants Research Program.

Two additional requests for proposals

will be available in FY 2001. These are

new collaborative programs between

CSREES/IFAFS and other Federal

Agencies. These include the USDA/NSF

Microbial Genome Sequencing Project

(total joint funding of approximately $9

million) and the USDA/NASA

Application of Geospatial and Precision

Technology Project (total joint funding

of $9.5 million).

The program areas described herein

were developed within the context of

the authorized purposes of both USDA

research, extension, and education (7

U.S.C. 3101) and IFAFS (7 U.S.C. 401),

within the framework of the CSREES

Strategic Plan (Available at

www.usda.gov/ocfo/strat/ree.pdf), and

based on stakeholder input.

C. Definitions

For the purpose of awarding grants

under this program, the following

definitions are applicable:

(1) Administrator means the

Administrator of the Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension

Service (CSREES) and any other officer

or employee of the Department to whom

the authority involved may be

delegated.

(2) Assistantship means institutional

support of graduate students for their

providing or carrying out teaching or

research services.

(3) 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.

(4) Authorized organizational

representative means the president or

chief executive officer of the applicant

organization or the official, designated

by the president or chief executive

officer of the applicant organization,

who has the authority to commit the

resources of the organization.

(5) Budget period means the interval

of time (usually 12 months) into which

11490 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

the project period is divided for

budgetary and reporting purposes.

(6) Cash contributions means the

applicant’s cash outlay, including the

outlay of money contributed to the

applicant by non-Federal third parties.

(7) Department or USDA means the

United States Department of

Agriculture.

(8) Education activity means an act or

process that imparts knowledge or skills

through formal or informal schooling.

(9) Extension activity means an act or

process that delivers research-based

knowledge and educational programs to

people, enabling them to make practical

decisions.

(10) Graduate education means

recruitment, enrollment, instruction,

mentoring, retention, and graduation of

students seeking master’s or doctoral

degrees; providing resources for thesis

research in fields related to the research

problems in the project; and support of

graduate students through

assistantships, fellowships or

traineeships.

(11) Grant means the award by the

Secretary of funds to an eligible

organization or individual to assist in

meeting the costs of conducting, for the

benefit of the public, an identified

project which is intended and designed

to accomplish the purpose of the

program as identified in these

guidelines.

(12) Grantee means the organization

designated in the grant award document

as the responsible legal entity to which

a grant is awarded.

(13) Integrated means to bring

together the three components of the

agricultural knowledge system

(research, education and extension)

together around a problem area or

activity.

(14) Internship means student

participation in an experiential learning

activity.

(15) Matching means that portion of

allowable project costs not borne by the

Federal Government, including the

value of in-kind contributions.

(16) Peer review is an evaluation of a

proposed project for scientific or

technical quality and relevance

performed by experts with the scientific

knowledge and technical skills to

conduct the proposed work or to give

expert advice on the merits of a

proposal.

(17) Principal Investigator/Project

director (PI/PD) means the single

individual designated by the grantee in

the grant application and approved by

the Secretary who is responsible for the

direction and management of the

project.

(18) Prior approval means written

approval evidencing prior consent by an

authorized departmental officer as

defined in (2) above.

(19) Project means the particular

activity within the scope of the program

supported by a grant award.

(20) Project period means the period,

as stated in the award document and

modifications thereto, if any, during

which Federal sponsorship begins and

ends.

(21) Research activity means a

scientific investigation or inquiry that

results in the generation of knowledge.

(22) Secretary means the Secretary of

Agriculture and any other officer or

employee of the Department to whom

the authority involved may be

delegated.

(23) Small- and Mid-Sized Institutions

means academic institutions having an

enrollment of 15,000 or fewer (including

part-time students), and that are no

higher than the 50th percentile of

academic institutions funded by the

National Research Initiative Competitive

Grants Program in the past three years

and are not within the top 100 Federally

funded institutions (see Appendix A.)

(24) Third party in-kind contributions

means non-cash contributions of

property or services provided by nonFederal third parties, including real

property, equipment, supplies and other

expendable property, directly

benefitting and specifically identifiable

to a funded project or program.

(25) Traineeship means a student

centered educational program that

addresses knowledge needs, personal

and professional skills development,

career experiences and global

awareness; student is supported like a

scholarship or fellowship.

D. Eligibility

Proposals may be submitted by a

college or university or a research

foundation maintained by a college or

university.

Eligible applicants may subcontract to

organizations not eligible under these

requirements. For Multidisciplinary

Graduate Education Traineeship

(MGET) proposals, eligible colleges or

universities are those with accredited

graduate degree programs in the food

and agricultural sciences.

E. Matching Requirements

If a grant provides for applied

research that is commodity specific and

not of national scope, the grant recipient

is required to provide funds or in-kind

support to match the amount of Federal

grant funds provided.

F. Types of Proposals

In FY 2001, it is anticipated that

projects will be submitted as New or

Resubmitted Proposals as described

below:

1. New proposal. This is a project

proposal that has not been previously

submitted to the IFAFS Program. All

new proposals will be reviewed

competitively using the selection

process and evaluation criteria

described in Part IV—Selection Process

and Evaluation Criteria.

2. Resubmitted proposal. This is a

proposal that had been previously

submitted to the IFAFS but not funded.

The resubmitted proposal should clearly

indicate the changes that have been

made in the project proposal. Further, a

clear statement acknowledging

comments from the previous reviewers,

indicating revisions, rebuttals, etc., can

positively influence the review of the

proposal. Therefore, for resubmitted

proposals, the investigator(s) must

respond to the previous panel summary

on no more than one page, titled

Response to Previous Review, which is

to be placed directly after the Project

Summary as described in Part III—

Preparation of a Proposal. Resubmitted

proposals will be reviewed

competitively using the selection

process and evaluation criteria

described in Part IV—Selection Process

and Evaluation Criteria.

G. Restrictions on Use of Funds

1. Funds for Buildings and Facilities

IFAFS funds may not be used for the

renovation or refurbishment of research

spaces; the purchase or installation of

fixed equipment in such spaces; or the

planning, repair, rehabilitation,

acquisition, or construction of buildings

or facilities.

2. Funds for Human Cloning

In accordance with the President’s

Memorandum of March 4, 1997,

regarding the use of Federal funds for

the cloning of human beings (33 Weekly

Comp. Pres. Doc. 278), IFAFS funds

shall not be used to support, fund, or

undertake any cloning activity that

could lead to the creation of a new

human being with genetic material

identical to that of another human

being, including research related

directly thereto. The prohibition on use

of grant funds to ‘‘support’’ human

cloning activity includes using, or

making available for use, grant-funded

equipment for use in connection with

human cloning. This ban does not

restrict research into the cloning of

plants, animals, or individual human

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11491

cells that cannot develop into a new

human being.

Part II—Program Description

A. Types of Projects To Be Supported

1. Project grants. Project grants can be

proposed that range in size to a total

grant size of up to five million dollars

over four years. The amount requested

must be commensurate with the

activities proposed; support for very

large requests of funds will be highly

competitive.

Project grants may involve any

combinations of institutions and states

but may: involve multiple states and/or

institutions that conduct research;

synthesize previous, ongoing and future

research; develop curricula and build

educational and research capacity; and

transfer information to producers, end

users, and the public. The type and

number of participating institutions

should be appropriate to the project

proposed, and should include all

participants necessary for successful

completion of the project. All IFAFS

project grants will be expected to

address research, extension and

education in a focused project area or

through larger endeavors that coalesce

around project areas that cannot be

addressed through the funding of

individual efforts. It is the intent of

CSREES to promote collaboration, open

communication, exchange of

information and resources, and

integration of activities among

individuals, institutions, states or

regions. Larger projects that include

many institutions, states or efforts,

should minimize isolation and overcompetitiveness, reduce duplication of

efforts, and provide an accessible source

of expert information, technology, and

education upon which the public can

draw. More focused projects are

expected to generate new knowledge

and/or apply existing knowledge

quickly through outreach and

dissemination to specific issues in

agriculture where immediate results

may be visible.

Dependent on the merits of proposals

received, CSREES will ensure that a

portion of project grants will be

awarded to proposals in which the lead

institution (recipient of the Federal

funds) is a small- or mid-sized

institution (as defined in Part I., C.

Definitions). Other institutions or

organizations involved in small- and

mid-sized institution eligible projects

need not meet the criteria described in

the definition of a small- and mid-sized

institution.

A designated lead institution of each

project will administer funds and be

responsible for overall management of

activities. Larger grant proposals of

more than $1 million, or those that are

comprised of multifaceted participation

by a number of institutions must

include how the administration of the

grant will be achieved and monitored

since proper management of a complex

project will influence overall success of

the project. Plans for how each project

will be maintained and monitored for

progress during and beyond the

duration of the grant should also be

included in the proposal.

2. Bridge Grants. Applicants may not

directly apply for Bridge grants. Bridge

grants only are awarded to small- and

mid-sized academic institutions after a

review of a submitted Project Grant

proposal places the application below

the funding cutoff.

Small- and Mid-Sized Institution

means academic institutions having an

enrollment of 15,000 or fewer (including

part-time students), ranked no higher

than the 50th percentile of academic

institutions funded by the National

Research Initiative Competitive Grants

Program in the past three years, and are

not within the top 100 Federally funded

institutions (see Appendix A). Bridge

grants are designed to assist small- and

mid-sized academic institutions to

sustain and enhance important

collaborations and activities that might

lead to future program success or

success in obtaining IFAFS and/or other

grants. Institutions eligible for Bridge

grants will be considered for a one-time

infusion of up to $100,000 if a

submitted Project Grant proposal is

considered meritorious but ranks below

the funding cutoff during the peer

review process. Proposals that meet

these criteria will be forwarded from

each program area review panel to the

IFAFS administration to be considered

for funding from a limited pool of funds

set aside for Bridge Grants.

3. Critical or Emerging Issues Grants.

IFAFS is offering the opportunity to

consider applications based upon

critical issues that transcend the specific

elements of the individual IFAFS

program areas as well as those issues

that are of emerging significance.

Critical or Emerging Issues grants can be

proposed that range in size to a total of

$5 million over four years. The amount

requested must be commensurate with

the activities proposed. Support for very

large requests of funds will be highly

competitive. See Program Area 16.0

under the ‘‘Program Description’’ for

more information regarding the Critical

or Emerging Issues Program Area.

4. Multidisciplinary Graduate

Education Traineeship (MGET) Grants.

MGET grants will support innovative,

research-based, graduate education and

training activities in critical, emerging

areas of agricultural sciences. They must

be organized upon a cohesive

multidisciplinary theme and involve a

diverse group of faculty members and

other investigators with appropriate

expertise in research, education and

extension. Depending upon the

availability of funds, each grant may

receive up to $2,200,000 for a four-year

project period which is divided into

student support in the amount up to

$500,000 per year and into start-up costs

up to an additional $200,000 in the first

year for appropriate equipment and

special purpose materials. Graduate

student stipend allowance is $18,000

per year accompanied by a cost-ofeducation allowance (tuition and

normal fees) of $10,500 per year per

student. All graduate and other stipend

recipients must be citizens or

permanent residents of the U.S. See

Program Area 17.0 for more information.

B. Program Description

Agricultural Genomics

The IFAFS seeks to sponsor integrated

research, education and extension

programs in plant, animal and microbe

genomics and the development of

bioinformatic tools and educational

resources with specific applications to

agricultural challenges.

A more complete understanding of

the entire complement of genes in

agriculturally relevant plants, animals

and microbes is imperative. More

knowledge in this area will have a major

impact on the ability of the United

States to produce nutritious and safe

food, while preserving the environment

and sustaining the economic stability of

the agricultural enterprise. Greater

efforts aimed at identifying, mapping

and understanding the function and

control of genes responsible for traits in

agriculturally important species of

plants, animals and microbes are

needed. These efforts will lead to the

development of new genetic

technologies for improvements in yield,

pest and pathogen resistance, and the

composition, quality, and safety of U.S.

agricultural products in the global

context.

New bioinformatic and computational

biology tools are needed to analyze,

interpret and utilize the vast amounts of

data that will be generated by genomic

research in agriculturally important

species. CSREES expects that

bioinformatics will be an integral

component of any project funded under

this Agricultural Genomics program.

CSREES is also interested in funding

integrated projects primarily dedicated

11492 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

to the research and development of

bioinformatics tools and education

programs, hence a separate sub-area in

bioinformatics. Prospective applicants

who are primarily interested in working

on a particular plant, animal or

microbial system should address their

projects to the relevant section. Those

primarily interested in developing

bioinformatics tools, software, and

training programs should address their

proposal to the sub-area on

Bioinformatics.

• All agricultural genomics grant

recipients are expected to present their

project plan at the International Plant,

Animal, and Microbial Genome

meetings in January in San Diego, CA.

Additional information will be made

available if an award is made.

• Investigators are expected to

explain clearly how the ownership of

information and research materials and

their public release will be handled.

Rapid and unrestricted sharing of

genomic sequence data is essential for

advancing research on agriculturally

important species. Early release of

unfinished sequence has already proven

useful in accelerating the pace of

experimental discovery in nonagricultural fields, such as human

health, energy production and

bioremediation. At the same time,

CSREES recognizes that it also is

necessary to allow investigators time to

verify the accuracy of their data and to

accomplish the goals proposed in their

application, which often includes the

assembly and annotation of the

sequence data.

• In addition to the general data

release procedures above, applications

for support of genome sequencing

projects must include a detailed

description of the data release plan.

Timely release is strongly encouraged in

recognition of the benefits to the broader

research community. Release should be

accompanied by appropriate

information on the reliability of the data

(e.g., level of coverage and extent of

assembly, extent of contamination with

vector and other sequences, statistical

measures of accuracy). At a minimum,

it is anticipated that sequence data will

be released within one month after 3X

coverage of the genome (or chromosome

for eukaryotic organisms) is achieved.

The released data should be provided as

assemblies of equal to, or greater than,

one kilobase contigs. Subsequent

releases of assembled sequences should

be provided at least on a monthly basis.

• In the view of some, raw genomic

sequences, in the absence of additional

demonstrated biological information,

lack demonstrated utility and therefore

are inappropriate for patent filing.

Patent applications on large blocks of

primary genomic sequence could stifle

future research and the development of

future inventions of useful products.

However, according to the Bayh-Dole

Act, the grantees have the right to elect

to retain title to subject inventions and

are free to choose to apply for patents

should additional biological

experiments reveal convincing evidence

of utility. CSREES grantees are

reminded that the grantee institution is

required to disclose each subject

invention to CSREES within two

months after the inventor discloses it in

writing to grantee institution personnel

responsible for patent matters. Where

appropriate, a plan for apportionment of

rights to intellectual property with

international partners should be

provided.

10.1 Plant Genome. (For clarification

on this sub-area, contact the Program

Directors, Ed Kaleikau and Liang-Shiou

Lin, at (202) 401–5042, e-mail:

llin@reeusda.gov.)

Research in plant genomics has

advanced rapidly in the past few years.

The entire genome of Arabidopsis has

been sequenced and is being annotated,

and the rice genome will be sequenced

and annotated in the near future.

Knowledge of these sequences will

provide basic information on the genes

in a flowering plant species. While

genomic tools and resources are

currently available for plant research,

they will need to be improved and

expanded. Additionally, genomic

resources will need to be developed for

other agriculturally important plant

species. Furthermore, if genomic

information is to be applied to plant

improvement, more research is needed

to determine the function of gene

sequences.

The IFAFS Plant Genome Program

sub-area will support integrated projects

of research, education and extension

that advance our knowledge of the

structure, organization and function of

agriculturally important plant genomes.

Some examples of education and

extension components pertinent to this

sub-area include training of graduate

and undergraduate students,

postdoctoral associates, and/or

colleagues (through classes, seminars,

workshops, sabbaticals) in the use of

genomic resources or outreach to the

community through informational

seminars and classes on the benefits and

methods of genomic research. Wherever

appropriate, investigators are

encouraged to develop national and

international collaborations with

research groups already working on the

species of interest to maximize the use

of structural and functional genomic

resources. Collaborations with private

industry that have made a significant

investment in the species are also

encouraged to avoid unnecessary

duplication of effort.

Proposals must address at least one of

the two specific topic areas below:

(1) Development or improvement of

genomic tools and resources for plant

species important to agriculture or

forestry. (a) High throughput genomic

approaches to understand genome

structure and organization of

horticultural (including fruit and

vegetable crop species and ornamental

plants relevant to U.S. agriculture) and

forest plants will be given high priority,

particularly those plants that have not

been the focus of major study. Proposals

that apply marker assisted selection/

breeding of horticultural and forest

plants are also encouraged. (b) Proposals

that extend or complement ongoing

research on complex cereal crop

genomes already under study will also

be considered; potential research areas

include innovative approaches to

sequence gene-rich regions, synteny of

cereal genomes with rice application of

marker assisted selection in public

breeding programs, and the

development of publicly accessible

transformation technology.

(2) Functional analysis of the rice

genome. The U.S. is a participant in the

international project to sequence the

genome of rice. To build on the

sequencing effort now underway, this

program area will support (a) functional

genomic studies in rice that seek to

uncover the function of cereal crop

genes by relating a mutant phenotype

with sequence information. Examples of

approaches include gene tagging,

proteomics, microarrays, and

development of knockout lines and

ESTs. (b) projects for production of

strains and sequences of rice that will be

made available to the international

research community, and for

development of a public database to

consolidate information on mutagenized

populations and phenotypic

information about mutants

characterized.

10.2 Animal Genome. (For

clarification on this sub-area, contact

the Program Directors, Ed Kaleikau at

(202) 401–6030, e-mail:

ekaleikau@reeusda.gov; and Richard

Frahm, at (202) 401–4895, e-mail:

rfrahm@reeusda.gov.)

Proposals are solicited that address

one or more of the following areas in

animal genomics: (a) Develop high

density comparative gene maps, which

include human and mouse, across

agricultural animal species (Cattle,

sheep, swine, horse, poultry species and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11493

aquaculture species); (b) generate

ordered and arrayed BAC libraries for

those species where such reagents are

not presently available (Arrangements

must be included in the proposal to

distribute these to other U.S.

investigators on a cost-recovery basis);

(c) develop novel marker (single

nucleotide polymorphysims/

microarrays) for high through-put

genotyping systems using agricultural

animal populations to identify

quantitative trait loci (QTL) or to apply

marker assisted selection; (d) develop

computational applications to facilitate

comparative gene mapping; and (e)

develop education programs on new

developments in agricultural animal

genome research for outreach to

producers.

10.3 Microbial Genome. (For FY

2001, Microbial Genomics will be

offered through a separate solicitation

for a joint USDA/NSF Microbial

Genomics Sequencing Project. See the

CSREES website, www.reeusda.gov,

under ‘‘funding opportunities’’ for

additional information concerning this

program.)

10.4 Bioinformatics. (For

clarification of this topic area, contact

the Program Directors, Ed Kaleikau and

Gail Mclean, at (202) 401–6060, e-mail:

gmclean@reeusda.gov.)

The vast amounts of data being

generated by genomic research only will

be of use to plant, animal and microbial

improvement and protection if

technologies are developed to utilize

genomic sequence, gene maps and gene

function information. In addition, new

cadres of scientists must be trained in

the use of these technologies. Because of

the interdisciplinary nature of genomic

science, bioinformatic research provides

an ideal opportunity for a range of

scientists, including engineers,

computer scientists, chemists, and

biologists, to work together in a

collaborative environment.

Bioinformatic tools and personnel will

play a vital role in applying genomic

data to the improvement of animal,

plant and microbial species of

agricultural importance. This program

sub-area seeks to support proposals to

develop or improve bioinformatic tools

and to develop training programs in

bioinformatics. Projects may involve

experts in computer science, software

engineering, genomics, genetics, plant,

animal, or microbial improvement, or

related sciences as well as individuals

with an interest in the development of

education and training programs in

bioinformatics and computational

biology.

Proposals must address at least one of

two specific topic areas:

(1) Development or improvement of

bioinformatic tools and resources. There

is an acute need to manage and interpret

genomic data efficiently and effectively.

The current absence of standardization

for data management and storage has led

to an increasing number of databases

that do not communicate well among

themselves. If this trend continues, the

progress promised by genomics will be

slowed not only for agriculture, but for

all fields involved in genomics. As

agricultural databases are developed, it

is imperative that they exhibit good

interconnectivity with new and existing

sources of data. To meet this challenge,

software programs for bioinformatics

must be developed and/or refined;

further, other broadly-defined tools are

needed to provide the support to handle

and interpret the massive amounts of

genomic data being generated. Research

projects in this area should develop

bioinformatics tools with application to

agricultural systems. Examples of

research areas include: (a) Development

or improvement of database

management techniques and software;

(b) development or improvement of

computational tools for analysis of

genomic sequence data; and (c)

generation of resource web pages for

specific classes of proteins, genes or

metabolic pathways.

(2) Development of bioinformatic

education programs or courses. Training

programs should address the current

gap in the availability of professionals

trained in plant, animal, and microbe

bioinformatics. The interaction of

biologists and computational scientists

must be evident in the proposal.

Approaches to training may include, but

are not limited to: (a) Development of

courses at the undergraduate and

graduate level in bioinformatics/

computational biology; (b) creation of

programs which include summer

institutes, short courses, sabbaticals or

training centers designed to educate and

train faculty and or graduate students in

bioinformatics; (c) development of

secondary education science teaching

modules to introduce young students to

the bioinformatic/computational

biological sciences.

Agricultural Biotechnology

This program area will support

research, education, and extension that

addresses risks and benefits associated

with the use of biotechnology in

agriculture. Biotechnology is believed to

have great potential for supplying the

world’s food and fiber needs in a

sustainable manner. However, the

development of agricultural

biotechnology products has resulted in

expressions of concern by producers,

consumers, media, interest groups, and

other stakeholders about possible

health, environmental, social, and

economic effects. This program area

seeks to address those concerns and

assist citizens in making informed

decisions about the use of this

technology in agriculture. Higher

priority will be given to proposals that

integrate research, education, and

extension activities.

The application of biotechnology to

agriculture has the potential to provide

a number of public benefits. It is

expected to increase productivity while

reducing the negative environmental

effects of traditional production

methods by reducing the need for

antibiotics, fertilizers, herbicides,

hormones, and pesticides. The

technology also has the potential to

facilitate the development of new food

products with improved nutritional

benefits, flavor, and shelf-stability, as

well as new non-food products,

including lubricants, oils and plastics.

Successful application of this

technology to food and agriculture is

possible only with the approval and

acceptance of consumers,

environmentalists and other

stakeholders. Research, education, and

extension focused on identifying and

assessing present and predicted benefits

and identifying, assessing, and reducing

present and predicted risks associated

with agricultural biotechnology will aid

in addressing the needs and concerns of

various stakeholder groups.

Proposals should be submitted to one

of the following three areas: Section

11.1 focusing on the impact of

agricultural biotechnology on human

and animal health; Section 11.2

focusing on social and economic aspects

associated with the development and

use of biotechnology; or Section 11.3

focusing on the management of

potential environmental effects

associated with agricultural

biotechnology. Proposals that seek to

integrate both the biological aspects

(Sections 11.1 and 11.3) and social

aspects (Section 11.2), should be

submitted to the section that best

describes the majority emphasis of the

proposed project.

Where practicable, graduate training

opportunities are encouraged in

proposals submitted to this program

area. Also, international partnerships

are permitted so long as the partnership

clearly benefits the understanding of

U.S. agricultural biotechnology

questions and concerns.

11.1 Effects of Agricultural

Biotechnology on Human and Animal

Health. (For clarification of this program

area, contact the Program Directors,

11494 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

Daniel Jones at (202) 401–6854; email:

ddjones@reeusda.gov; or Deborah

Sheely at (202) 401–1924, e-mail:

dsheely@reeusda.gov.)

Research, extension, and education

activities regarding the effects of

genetically modified (GM) organisms

and GM food on human and animal

health, include but are not limited to: (a)

Approaches for anticipating, detecting,

and managing allergenicity in food

products derived through

biotechnology; (b) the role of GM

products in the development of

antibiotic resistance; (c) secondary

metabolite formation and how this may

affect food and feed; (d) changes in

bioavailability of essential nutrients; (e)

development of new and enhanced

testing and evaluation methods of

biologically modified products that

ensure human and animal safety; (f)

development of experiential learning

opportunities for students, academics,

and agricultural professionals to study

the effects of GM food and feed on

humans and animals; (g) development

of outreach programs to explain the

risks and benefits of GM food and feed

on human and animal health. Where

practicable, graduate training

opportunities are encouraged in

proposals submitted to this program

area.

This program area is seeking projects

to evaluate or assess the effects of

transgenic organisms or food on human

and animal health. It will not consider

proposals to develop transgenic

products of any kind, including those

designed to improve human or animal

health.

Proposals involving genetically

modified functional foods should be

directed to section 12.2 (Nutritional

Impact of Functional Foods).

11.2 Social and Economic Aspects

of Biotechnology. (For clarification of

this program area, contact Program

Directors, John Michael at (202) 720–

8744, jmichael@reeusda.gov; or David

Holder at (202) 720–3605,

dholder@reeusda.gov.)

This section solicits proposals for

research, education and extension

activities that deal with the human

dimensions associated with agricultural

biotechnology. It is concerned with

positive and negative economic and

social impacts on stakeholders—

producers, processors, input

manufacturers, consumers,

environmentalists, governmental

agencies and others; impacts on

economic and social institutions,

communities, and society; reactions to

biotechnology; and people’s beliefs and

attitudes about biotechnology and the

responses of stakeholders, institutions,

and communities. ‘‘Social and

economic’’ is broadly defined to also

include psychological, cultural, ethical,

and political aspects of biotechnology.

Comparative approaches are invited,

including comparisons across

geography, culture, history, and

technologies. Other approaches are also

invited.

The expected outcomes of the

program include: (a) objective and

complete assessments of perceived and

actual benefits and risks associated with

agricultural biotechnology; (b) greater

stakeholder involvement (civic

engagement) in decisions regarding

agricultural biotechnology; (c) more

informed decisions by public and

private decision makers about the

development and use of biotechnology;

and (d) greater clarity regarding the role

of research and educational institutions

in helping stakeholders weigh the risks

and benefits of alternative approaches

and technologies in agriculture.

The following topic areas and their

contents are provided as examples and

are not intended to be all inclusive:

(a) Business issues—Economic and

other impacts of biotechnology on

individual firms or groups of firms;

firm-level decisions about selling or

buying biotechnology products and

processes, such as a farmer/farm family

decision to plant herbicide-tolerant

soybeans; changes in business practices

and alliances.

(b) Agriculture and Food System

Issues—Impact of biotechnology on the

organization, structure and behavior of

participants in the agricultural industry

from input manufacturers to retailers;

changes in economic institutions and

government policies; capacity of the

food system to segregate genetically

modified commodities/products for

specific markets; competitiveness of

U.S. agriculture in world markets; and

impacts of establishing various

standards, oversight arrangements and

alternative regulations and policies.

(c) Market/Consumer Issues—Needs,

desires, and concerns of consumers in

domestic and international markets;

understanding consumer decisions

about the use of biotechnology products,

including the influence of culture,

product labeling, advertising, scientific

information, and recent news events;

methods most effective for increasing

understanding and improving public

and private decision making ability.

(d) Societal Issues—Needs of various

publics to gain meaningful information

and be involved in decision making

processes surrounding the development

and use of biotechnology; the role of

civic engagement; perceived and actual

risks and benefits to consumers and

other stakeholder groups or society in

general; policy alternatives and analysis;

property rights; environmental

protection; conflict emergence and

resolution; role of ethics.

(e) Institutional Issues—(Economic

and social institutions include such

things as markets, universities, and the

policy-making bodies). Impact of

biotechnology on markets; role of public

research, education and extension;

mechanisms for funding research and

disseminating results; role of local,

state, federal and international

governments.

11.3 Ecological Risk Management of

Agricultural Biotechnology. (For

clarification of this program area,

contact the Program Directors, Deborah

Sheely at (202) 401–1924, e-mail:

dsheely@reeusda.gov; or Daniel Jones at

(202) 401–6854; email:

ddjones@reeusda.gov.)

Research, extension, and education

activities regarding the management of

risks associated with the release of

transgenic organisms into the

environment. These include, but are not

limited to: (a) Techniques to minimize

or eliminate potential negative impacts

of transgenic products on non-target

species, agricultural systems and the

environment; (b) management systems

to slow the evolution of resistance to

transgenic protection against pests and

diseases; (c) techniques or methods to

prevent the movement of transgenes

from transgenic organisms to others; or

to prevent their expression in new or

unintended organisms; (d) management

systems to control the impact of

transgenic plants, especially insect

resistant or herbicide tolerant plants, on

biodiversity of agro-ecosystems; (e)

experiential learning opportunities for

students, academics, and agricultural

professionals to manage environmental

risks associated with agricultural

biotechnology; and (f) outreach

programs to develop and share

techniques or methods to manage

ecological risks.

Where practicable, graduate training

opportunities are encouraged in

proposals submitted to this program

area.

This program solicits projects

designed to manage or reduce ecological

risks associated with the release of

transgenic organisms into the

environment. Projects to assess risks of

transgenic organisms (i.e. identification

of an ecological hazard, and

determining its probability and impact)

will not be considered for funding by

this program. Research addressing risk

assessment should be directed to

USDA’s Biotechnology Risk Assessment

Research Grants Program (http://

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11495

www.reeusda.gov/crgam/biotechrisk/

biotech.htm).

Food Safety and Human Nutrition

This program area concentrates

resources on two critical areas in food

technology and nutrition: Factors

affecting food and nutrition behavior of

consumers and the nutritional impact of

functional and designer foods. Future

food production will be impacted by

consumer food choices, and the health

and happiness of Americans is

dependent upon diets appropriate to

individual lifestyles and physical

condition. Understanding consumer

behavior and how to increase the

beneficial components in food will help

inform future food production. A key

anticipated benefit of this initiative will

be to strengthen the existing links

among research, teaching, and

extension/outreach activities related to

nutrition and food technology.

Descriptions of the two program

subareas are below.

12.1 Consumer Food Choices. (For

clarification of this sub-area, contact the

Program Directors, Susan Welsh at (202)

720–5544; email: swelsh@reeusda.gov;

or Etta Saltos, at (202) 401–5178; e-mail:

esaltos@reeusda.gov.)

The most fundamental knowledge gap

in nutrition research is in understanding

why people choose what they choose to

eat and how to effectively intervene to

improve diets. Although USDA, together

with the Department of Health and

Human Services, has formulated Federal

nutrition policy in the form of the

Dietary Guidelines for Americans for 20

years, we know that many consumers

are not following this guidance.

According to the Department’s 1996

Healthy Eating Index, a measure of how

Americans’ diets fare in meeting the

recommendations of the Dietary

Guidelines, only 12 percent of

Americans have diets that can be

classified as ‘‘good;’’ 71 percent have

diets that are considered to ‘‘need

improvement’’ and 17 percent are

classified as having ‘‘poor’’ diets.

Additionally, the prevalence of obesity

in the United States increased from 12

percent in 1991 to 18 percent in 1998.

In the past decade, the number of U.S.

children who are overweight has more

than doubled and the incidence of type

2 diabetes in adolescents, once rare, is

increasing.

USDA researchers have found that in

children the risk of becoming obese

increases as family income decreases.

The consistent and visible interest of

Americans in weight loss diets indicate

both an interest in and the difficulties

in maintaining desirable weight.

Community-based research on food

systems has demonstrated limited food

choices in low-income communities as

insufficient resources limit grocery

retail establishments in economically

deprived areas. Food intake of lowincome individuals is dramatically

affected by the availability of food,

especially fruits and vegetables. Food

stamp recipients sometimes have

difficulty stretching food dollars

through the month, creating an

atmosphere of food insecurity late in the

month, affecting food choices.

Food choice behavior is influenced by

a variety of factors ranging from

available income to physiologic need to

societal standards and community

resources. Knowledge of how these

factors interact to affect food choices is

limited. Nutrition experts agree that for

nutrition interventions to be successful,

they should be behaviorally-based, but

the gaps in knowledge of consumer

dietary behavior limits development of

such interventions. When behaviorallybased nutrition interventions have been

implemented, evaluation of the

outcomes of such interventions has been

limited, primarily due to lack of funds.

Research on the strengths and

weaknesses of an intervention in

relation to its objectives is essential to

improving the intervention and in

facilitating its application to other

situations.

The goal of this program is to fund

projects that improve our understanding

of factors that affect food and nutrition

behavior in consumers, and apply this

understanding in the development and

evaluation of model nutrition

intervention programs that are

behaviorally-based. This program

invites innovative projects on consumer

food and nutrition behavior, including:

(a) Research on factors influencing

dietary behaviors of at-risk populations,

including children and adolescents (at

home, in school, and in child care

settings), ethnic minorities, low-income

individuals, overweight individuals,

and older adults; (b) research on

behavioral factors that may contribute to

the development of obesity; (c)

exploration and analysis of the impact

of community resources on food

choices, including the effect of insecure

food systems in low-income

communities and prevalence of obesity,

unhealthy food choices, and related

food behaviors; (d) innovative studies,

including longitudinal and non-selfreport methods of assessing dietary

behavior; (e) multidisciplinary studies

to examine current theory-based models

of behavior change; (f) development and

evaluation of diet regimens and

intervention(s) at either the individual

or community level; (g) development

and evaluation of social marketing

approaches to target nutrition and

health messages to lead to behavior

changes; and (h) development of

innovative cross-training programs in

nutrition and the social sciences.

12.2 Nutritional Impact of

Functional Foods. (For clarification of

this sub-area, please contact the

Program Directors, Ram Rao at (202)

401–6010; e-mail: rrao@reeusda.gov or

Melvin Mathias at (202) 720–4124; email: mmathias@reeusda.gov.)

Functional foods are fresh or

processed foods containing significant

levels of biologically active components

that might provide health benefits or

desirable physiological effects beyond

basic nutrition. The national and

international market for functional

foods is growing rapidly as consumers

are increasingly interested in including

functional foods in their diets.

Considerable scientific information

demonstrates that some food

components have the potential health

benefits. Additional research is

necessary to substantiate the claims of

health benefits of the food components

and functional foods. Advances in food

technology through both traditional

processing methodologies, and genetic

engineering of foods, have provided the

consumer with ever increasing food

choices that claim to offer increased

health benefits due to selection in favor

of certain components.

The goal of this program is to foster

integrated research, education and

outreach activities to design and

improve functional foods from

agriculturally important materials.

Collaborative international activities,

which may lead to the discovery,

development, and use of new functional

foods with clear prospects as U.S.

agricultural products will be

considered. Activities that fully

integrate and encompass the design of

commercially feasible functional foods,

characterization of bioactive

components, measurement of health

benefits, and consumer outreach

programs will be given priority.

Integration should include a holistic

approach to developing functional

foods, including an analysis of impact

on the food system and on health.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to

seek industry collaboration.

Examples of potential integrated

research, extension and education

activities include, but are not limited to:

(a) Creation of foods that have increased

amounts of the beneficial components

found in fruits, vegetables, grains and

animal products; (b) interactive

(synergistic or antagonistic) effects of

the bioactive components as consumed

11496 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

in the food; (c) improved processes to

enhance stability and bioavailability of

bioactive components; (d) the design of

functional foods with acceptable

sensory attributes; (e) the development

of methods to monitor the effectiveness

of functional foods on improving health

and preventing diseases; (f) analysis to

support the issuance of regulatory

guidelines to ensure the safety and

efficacy of functional food products; and

(g) provide information usable by and

readily available to health professionals

and consumers.

Proposals dealing with genetically

modified foods that do not fit under the

definition of functional foods described

in this section or which deal with risk

management of biotechnology derived

foods should be directed to Program

Area 11.1 (Effects of Agricultural

Biotechnology on Human and Animal

Health) or 11.2 (Social and Economic

Aspects of Agricultural Biotechnology);

proposals dealing with consumer

choices of functional foods for health

should be directed to Program Area 12.1

(Consumer Food Behavior).

New Uses For Agricultural Products

(Program Area 13.0)

(For clarification of this program area,

contact the Program Director, Carmela

Bailey, at (202) 401–6443; e-mail:

cbailey@reeusda.gov.)

The goal of this program area is to

provide for research, education and

extension activities that enhance the

competitive value, find new uses for, or

establish entirely new non-food

agricultural and forestry products,

primarily biomass fuel sources and

biobased industrial products that can

replace petroleum-based fuels and

products. This program area addresses

the Biomass Research and Development

Act of 2000, which calls for expanded

public investment in research and

development of economically

competitive, environmentally sound

bioenergy and biobased products, and to

advance their availability and

widespread use. Further, these efforts

address the issues of resource depletion

and environmental degradation, while

building new markets for agriculture.

A comprehensive, system-based

approach is required to accomplish the

goals of this program area, which

encompasses: (a) The development of

crop varieties or agricultural wastes for

biomass fuel uses and for biobased

industrial products; (b) processing

biomass; (c) product development; (d)

test, evaluation and certification for

commercial use; (e) demonstration of

final product(s); (f) consideration of

environmental impacts of material

selection in early stages of product

development; (g) life cycle cost

evaluation of final product(s); and (h)

establishing marketing networks.

Accordingly, integration of these

activities to the maximum extent

practicable, are strongly encouraged. A

system-based approach is expected to

accelerate research and development

and to result in measurable outcomes,

i.e. increased production and use of

biofuels and biobased products. This

initiative strongly encourages research,

education, and extension activities that

explicitly recognize, account for, and

enhance the interaction among growers,

processors, manufacturers, markets and

the community. To increase profitability

to the farm and rural business sectors,

applicants are encouraged to develop

proposals which include post-harvest

processing and manufacturing activities

that add value at the local level. In

considering environmental impacts of

material choices, applicants should refer

to EPA’s Guidance on Environmentally

Preferable Purchasing (www.epa.gov/

oppt/epp/guidancepage.htm).

In addition, to facilitate technology

transfer and marketing of biobased

products, the product demonstration

phase should be of sufficient size to

generate data for a life cycle cost

evaluation. The evaluation should

clearly articulate the scope or boundary

and the product alternative(s) for which

the comparison is being made. A full

life cycle assessment, though desirable,

is beyond the scope of this RFP, both in

terms of time and available funds.

However, applicants are encouraged to

demonstrate how they have integrated a

life cycle perspective in their proposed

product development.

The education component is expected

to be an integral part of the proposal and

should include graduate training at

either the Master’s degree level or the

doctoral degree level. The number of

research assistants should match the

size and scope of the proposal. Graduate

training programs that include

curriculum development and/or

internships at relevant private

companies or national laboratories, or

other innovative educational models are

strongly encouraged.

Proposers are also encouraged to

incorporate collaborative international

activities which may lead to the

discovery of new or alternative uses, or

which improve the prospects for those

uses through enhanced production or

commercialization, thus improving the

prospects for U.S. farmers in the global

market.

Natural Resource Management

(Including Precision Agriculture)

Successful management of natural

resources in an agricultural landscape

should address environmental integrity,

quality of life, and economic viability.

The purpose of this program area is to

address how best to integrate the needs

of production agriculture, the

environment, and society, such that an

acceptable sustainable system results.

This area will focus on key

environmental problems that are best

addressed using a holistic systems

approach in the below stated program

areas. Priority will be given to proposals

that explicitly address the interaction

among production, the environment,

and the well-being of producers and the

general public. Preference will also be

given to multi-state, multi-institutional,

and multi-disciplinary projects. The

emerging agricultural and natural

resource issues to be addressed include:

System-wide management of natural

resources, particulary involving small

and mid-sized tracts of privately owned

land within a defined geographic area

(watershed or eco-region);

encroachment and subsequent

environmental impact of invasive native

and non-native species (all taxa);

conservation of biodiversity; animal

waste management; and development

and evaluation of precision technologies

for efficient and sustainable production

and harvesting of agricultural and

natural resources.

14.1 Alternative Natural Resource

Management Practices for Private

Lands. (For further information

concerning this program sub-area,

contact the Program Director, Larry

Biles, at (202) 401–4926; e-mail:

lbiles@reeusda.gov.)

As the world’s population increases,

the demands for delivery of natural

resource goods and services will also

increase. In addition, there is an

increasing demand for diversity in the

commodities being produced and an

increased recognition that such

production changes must be

accomplished without adversely

impacting our capacity to ensure the

delivery of goods, services, and a

healthy environment to future

generations.

This program will support integrated

projects which address methods to

maintain environmental integrity,

quality of life, and economic viability.

The focus of this program is on

alternative natural resource

management for private lands with

emphasis on the development and

understanding of integrated natural

resources management systems for

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11497

forest, range, wildlife and aquatic

resources that improve our capacity to

support natural resources. Proposals

should present a scientific framework

that qualitatively and quantitatively

links production practices, societal

preferences, demographics, and

economic needs to the impacts on

natural resources. Preference will be

given to proposals that demonstrate the

active participation of the user

community that is expected to benefit.

Proposals should include a plan for

coordination among scientists, state and

federal agencies, commodity

organizations, environmental groups,

and producers to deal with the

integrated ecological, technological,

economic, social and environmental

issues in a specified geographic region.

This sub-area of the initiative is

intended to provide the research,

extension and education information

needed to support the management

needs of the small and mid-sized

aquatic, range, wildlife, and forest

systems owners and managers. Projects

should address management practices

and technologies that will increase the

opportunities for the small to mid-sized

manager to operate profitable

enterprises that respond to the demands

for: (a) Alternative natural resources

production, (b) sustainable forestry

certification, (c) agroforestry, (d)

invasive species management across

multiple ownerships, (e) wildlife

control and management, (f) nutrient

management, (g) maintaining or

enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem

integrity, including restoration of

species and ecosystems, (h) coping with

the demands imposed by environmental

and regulatory requirements within the

increasingly mixed distribution of

urban, rural, and wildlands

management systems, and (i) training

programs to enhance success and

adoption of regionally-appropriate

practices.

Proposals submitted to this sub-area

will enhance our capacity to integrate

regionally appropriate data and

information to increase long-term, sitespecific, and whole system efficiencies

and profitability while both minimizing

unintended impacts on natural

resources and enhancing environmental

integrity. Proposals are encouraged that

use a whole systems approach

(economic, environmental, social and

community development) to evaluate

the practices most conducive to

sustaining small and mid-sized land

management systems in the U.S.

Partnerships with existing regional and/

or long-term projects (including those

associated with public lands) also are

strongly encouraged.

Proposals should contain a clear plan

for technology transfer and adoption.

Proposals should clearly describe the

type (size and distribution) of the

system being evaluated and should

include provisions that demonstrate an

interdisciplinary problem-solving

approach to maintain natural resources

sustainability and profitability.

Proposals focusing on the financial

security and quality of life of small to

mid-sized family-owned pastures

should be submitted to Program Area

15.0 (Farm Efficiency and Profitability).

14.2 Non-native Invasive Species.

(For clarification of this program area,

contact the Program Director, Tom

Bewick, at (202) 401–3356; e-mail:

tbewick@reeusda.gov.)

The spread of non-native invasive

species is one of the greatest threats to

the long-term health of agricultural

environments. The invasion of plant,

animal and microbial pests is a global

issue and it is of critical importance to

the nation’s land and water resources.

United States agriculture is both losing

income and incurring expenses to

address this issue.

This program will focus on newly

emerging non-native invasive species

that threaten, or are already impacting

agricultural, forest and rangeland

resources and their associated

waterways. In this program, non-native

invasive species are defined as species

(animal, plant and microbial) that are

not indigenous to a particular ecosystem and that have not become

naturalized there. Priority will be given

to proposals that: (1) Strongly justify

their proposed work in terms of impact

on U.S. agriculture, and (2) contain a

substantial extension and/or public

education component in addition to

research.

Proposals will be considered that

address five key areas: (1) Prevention of

introductions (including pathway

analysis), (2) prevention of spread of

newly established invasive species (3)

early detection of and rapid response to

invasion, (4) monitoring of control

efforts, and (5) quantification of impact

of the invasive species (e.g. economic

and/or ecological). The emphasis of this

program will be to fund proposals that

contain objectives that create a

measurable outcome that can be realized

within a relatively short period of time.

Proposals should clearly indicate the

nature of the impact expected to result

should the proposal be funded. In

addition, proposals should present a

rationale for how the results of the work

will be integrated into an overall

management plan.

14.3 Animal Manure Management.

(For clarification of this program area,

contact the Program Director, Richard

Hegg, at (202) 401–6550; e-mail:

rhegg@reeusda.gov.)

There is a great need to prevent the

degradation of air, soil, and water

resources by food animal production

systems and to protect the ecological

integrity of forest, rangeland, crop,

aquatic, estuarine, and marine systems.

Proper management of manure resulting

from various production systems is one

of the most critical issues facing the

food animal industry. Animal feeding

operations vary by region, species, size,

and management requirements, so that

each operation is site-specific and must

be managed accordingly. Physical,

chemical and/or biological treatment

techniques may be used to reduce the

pollution potential of animal manure.

Regulation of animal feeding operations

at the local, state and federal level is

undergoing rapid change. An overall

goal of this program is to improve

American agriculture, environmentally

and economically.

Proposals for this section will support

integrated research, education and

extension on regional or multi-state

systems that will ultimately reduce

adverse environmental and human

health impacts of animal manure.

Proposals will be considered that

develop and evaluate manure

management practices, and treatment

systems for the protection of natural

resources. Proposals which employ a

watershed, landscape-scale approach

are encouraged and could include the

transport and fate of nutrients and/or

pathogens from animal manure through

air, water and soil. The incorporation of

comprehensive nutrient management

planning in educational programs is

encouraged, as is the development of

partnerships with already established

waste management centers.

This sub-program will accept

proposals which address the following

topical areas: (a) Determination of the

effects of animal manure nutrient

content and quality, and extension of

this knowledge to producers or

companies who may in turn modify

their feed; (b) resolving community and

regulatory concerns about siting, land

application, health and economic

issues; (c) determination and prediction

of odor, gas and particulate matter

impacts on the atmosphere and society,

and development of management

strategies to alleviate such impacts; (d)

understanding and predicting source,

delivery and fate of pathogens,

antibiotics and/or endocrine disruptors

(hormones) in the environment and

their potential effects of the

environment; and (e) development and

implementation of alternative waste

11498 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

treatment technologies and alternative

animal production systems.

Proposals should indicate which of

the following animal groups will be

addressed: swine, dairy, beef, poultry or

aquaculture. If appropriate, the proposal

should address the economic aspects of

the described process, methodology,

practice, etc. as it affects agriculture and

the environment.

Proposals focusing on producing and

marketing value-added products from

manure should be submitted to IFAFS

Program Area 13.0 New Uses for

Agricultural Products. Proposals that are

predominantly water quality or food

safety should be submitted to The

Integrated Research, Education and

Extension Grant Program. This program

description can be found at

www.reeusda.gov/1700/funding/

11l99–406.htm.

14.4 Application of Geospatial and

Precision Technologies. (For FY 2001,

the Application of Geospatial and

Precision Technologies will be offered

through a separate solicitation for a joint

USDA/NASA Application of Geospatial

and Precision Technologies Program.

See the CSREES website,

www.reeusda.gov, under ‘‘funding

opportunities’’ for additional

information concerning this program.)

Farm Efficiency and Profitability

(Program Area 15.0)

(For clarification of this program area,

contact the Program Director, Don West,

at (202) 720–5633; e-mail:

dwest@reeusda.gov; Mark Bailey, at

(202) 401–1898; e-mail:

mbailey@reeusda.gov; or Denis

Ebodaghe, at (202) 401–4385; e-mail:

debodaghe@reeusda.gov.)

Dramatic changes in the global

agricultural environment and in

domestic farm programs have created

new challenges for U.S. farmers as they

strive to maintain the efficiency and

profitability of their operations and the

financial viability of their families and

communities. This program emphasizes

the use of existing data and emerging

information to synthesize and deliver

knowledge that improves profitability

for families operating small and

medium-sized farms. Proposals that

address the concerns of family-owned

farms with limited financial resources

will be given priority. Proposals should

indicate how target audiences will

benefit from the proposed programs/

projects. Proposals ideally will address

issues using a system-wide approach.

For instance, a new crop diversification

management scheme should consider

potential markets, impact on total farm

income and availability of inputs, and

risk management tools for the new

production plan.

All proposals submitted to this

program area will undergo a peer review

in which the efficiency and profitability

of small and medium-sized farms is the

most important criterion. New

partnerships and new administrative

mechanisms that involve universities,

industry, profit/non-profit organizations

and/or community colleges are also

important criteria. Consideration will be

given to system approaches useful in

meeting the production, marketing,

capital and human resource needs

associated with dairy, livestock, crop

and other commodity operations. This

priority area recognizes linkages with

natural resources and environmental

issues, and the importance of

strengthening the financial viability of

farm operations, families, and

communities. Such proposals should

provide information on the connections

between the sustainability of small and

medium-sized farms and the viability of

their communities.

Projects that utilize a systems

approach and are national or regional in

scope are encouraged as are those that

incorporate research, extension, and

educational functions. Proposals that

incorporate farmer input in problem

identification and have high scientific

merit in project design, methodology

and analytical procedures will be given

priority. Appropriate innovative

methodologies are encouraged,

including those that make use of

electronic technology in delivery of

extension and formal education

programs. Applicants with a strong

track record of working with owners

and managers of small and mediumsized farms are encouraged to apply.

Applicants are encouraged to submit

research, extension, or education

proposals that address one or more of

the following areas:

(a) Development of management (e.g.,

pest, crop, animal, nutrient, economic)

systems that improve efficiency and

profitability, including the reduction of

capital and input costs or the

diversification of crop and livestock

enterprises;

(b) development of effective

marketing programs, including the use

of farmers’ markets, communitysupported agriculture, marketing to

restaurants and schools, cooperative

approaches to use of inputs and

marketing, organic production and

marketing, Internet marketing, global

markets, and agrotourism;

(c) development of farm-based valueadded processing and new high-return

production and marketing niches;; and

(d) development of programs/projects

that improve access to knowledge and

decision-making tools (e.g. production

decision tools, formal and informal

education in entrepreneurship, business

planning and marketing for new or

modified enterprises, and farm and

family financial planning and

management) that allow producers to

increase options for farm efficiency and

profitability in regional and local

economies, including planning and

building community support; and (e)

development of programs/projects that

improve access to and management of

financial resources, including physical

and production capital, financial

services, innovative investment capital

strategies, human capital (including

availability and effective management of

labor), and infrastructure and social

capital (community resources and

institutions). Projects addressing

management of risks faced by farmers

and ranchers should be directed to the

Risk Management Education Program of

CSREES.

Critical or Emerging Issues Grants

(Program Area 16.0)

(For clarification of this program area,

contact the Program Director, Rodney

Foil, at (202) 720–7441; e-mail:

rfoil@reeusda.gov.) Proposals submitted

to this program area (16.0) may not be

submitted to any other program area.

IFAFS is offering the opportunity to

consider applications based upon

critical issues that transcend the specific

elements of the individual IFAFS

program areas as well as those issues

that are of emerging significance.

A number of critical issue areas do

not fit clearly within the specified

IFAFS program areas announced in this

solicitation. Other urgent or unforeseen

agricultural problems and opportunities

may present themselves after the IFAFS

deadline. To permit these two issues

areas to be addressed, CSREES is

allowing the submission of Critical or

Emerging Issues proposals up to six

weeks after the IFAFS deadline date.

Proposals should relate generally to an

area of interest in the IFAFS program

but be a critical need that clearly falls

outside the boundaries of the existing

program areas or be an emerging issue

that has recently arisen.

Proposals designated as Critical or

Emerging Issues will be judged by a

much higher standard of relevance to

critical and/or immediate issues than

will those projects that address the

elements of the program directly.

Critical or Emerging Issues grants

should make the case for their merit

with strong evidence of the uniqueness

or urgency of the issue and of the work

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11499

proposed, and explain why the proposal

could not have fit and been submitted

to an existing IFAFS program area at the

original deadline. The Critical or

Emerging Issues grants will be subject to

panel review in the subject area

concerned, and in addition will undergo

a second evaluation in which

meritorious Critical or Emerging Issues

proposals from all subject panels are

considered. It is unlikely that many of

these proposals will be funded, and

those who submit under this category

bear the burden of proof as to the

uniqueness and urgency of the need.

Applicants are cautioned to not use

the Critical or Emerging proposal

category as a way to circumvent the

IFAFS deadline date.

Multidisciplinary Graduate Education

Traineeship (MGET) Program for Food

and Agricultural Sciences (Program

Area 17.0 )

(For clarification on this sub-area,

please contact the Program Director,

Howard Sandberg, at (202) 720–2193, email: hsandberg@reeusda.gov.)

The purpose of the MGET program is

to meet the challenges of educating

scientists, engineers, and educators with

graduate level multidisciplinary

backgrounds and the technical,

professional, and personal skills needed

for the career demands of future

agriculture. The program is intended to

catalyze a cultural change in graduate

education, for students, faculty, and

universities, by establishing new,

innovative models for graduate

education and training in a fertile

environment for collaborative research,

education, and extension that

transcends traditional disciplinary

boundaries in agriculture. It is also

intended to facilitate greater diversity in

student participation and preparation

and to contribute to the development of

a diverse, globally-aware, agricultural

research, education, and extension

workforce.

Proposals submitted to the MGET

program must be innovative, researchbased, graduate education and training

activities in priority mission areas of

agriculture. At least two academic

departments must be represented in

each grant application. Submissions

from multiple institutions are also

encouraged. Proposals must be

organized upon a multidisciplinary

theme and involve a diverse group of

faculty members and other investigators

with appropriate expertise in research,

education and extension. The

multidisciplinary theme provides a

framework for integrative, collaborative

efforts across departments and

institutions. Students should gain

various strengths while maintaining

competence in a major field by focusing

on problem-oriented rather than

discipline-oriented education and

research. The MGET project should offer

experience relevant to both academic

and nonacademic careers by linking

graduate education and research,

through internships and mentoring,

with research and extension in industry,

national laboratory, or other settings.

The globalization of graduate education

and career opportunities places

importance on an international

perspective in graduate education, such

as through internships abroad or other

experiences appropriate to the

agricultural education and research

areas. The graduate experience should

also equip students to understand and

integrate scientific, technical, business,

social, and ethical issues to confront the

challenging agricultural problems of the

future. The coherent multidisciplinary

theme may draw upon investigators

from two or more academic departments

within a single institution or from more

than one institution. Because the

primary emphasis of the MGET program

is on innovative approaches to

education and training of graduate

students, proposals must make clear

what is different from existing programs

at the institution. Participation of

individuals at the undergraduate,

graduate and postdoctoral levels may be

included if such participation clearly

strengthens the graduate traineeship

program. Please bear in mind that all

stipend recipients must be citizens or

permanent residents of the U.S.

MGET projects are expected to

incorporate the following features:

• A comprehensive multidisciplinary

theme, appropriate for graduate-level

education, to serve as the foundation for

traineeship activities;

• Integration of the coherent

multidisciplinary theme with

innovative graduate education and

training mechanisms, curricula, and

other educational opportunities that

foster strong interactions among

participating students and faculty;

• An environment that exposes

students to a broad base of state-of-theart technologies and methodologies in

agriculture;

• Provision for developing

professional and personal elements such

as communication, teamwork, and

leadership;

• Integrated instruction in ethics and

the responsible development of science

policy and the conduct of research,

education, and extension;

• Opportunities for career

development, such as may be provided

by internships in international,

industrial, national laboratory, or other

settings;

• Fostering of a global perspective for

students;

• Formal administrative plan and

organizational structure that ensures

effective management of the requested

resources to achieve the goals of the

MGET project;

• Institutional strategy and

operational plan for student

recruitment, mentoring, and retention

efforts aimed at members of groups

under-represented in science and

engineering (i.e., women, racial and

ethnic minorities, and persons with

disabilities) to ensure preparation of a

diverse science and engineering

workforce; and

• Well-defined strategy and

methodology for internal, external, and

independent assessment of project

performance.

The Principal Investigator/Project

Director (PI/PD) shall be the director of

the MGET project, and is expected to be

an essential participant in its education,

research, and extension activities. The

PI will have overall responsibility for

administration of the award,

management of the project, and for

interactions with CSREES. The PI and

the home institution are expected to

develop an administrative structure for

the MGET project that enables faculty

members, students, and others involved

to interact effectively in furthering the

project’s goals.

Part III—Preparation of a Proposal

A. Program Application Materials

Program application materials are

available at the CSREES website

(www.reeusda.gov/IFAFS). If you do not

have access to the CSREES web page or

have trouble downloading material, you

may contact the Proposal Services Unit,

Office of Extramural Programs, USDA/

CSREES at (202) 401–5048. When

calling the Proposal Services Unit,

please indicate that you are requesting

forms for IFAFS. These materials may

also be requested via Internet by

sending a message with your name,

mailing address (not e-mail) and phone

number to psb@reeusda.gov. State that

you want a copy of the Program

Description and application materials

(orange book) for the Fiscal Year 2001

Initiative on Future Agriculture and

Food Systems (IFAFS).

B. Content of Proposals and Letter of

Intent

1. Letter of Intent

Applicants are strongly encouraged to

submit a Letter of Intent before

submitting a full proposal. Indicate the

11500 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

IFAFS program area to which you plan

to apply. In addition, this letter should

contain these three parts: (1) a

descriptive title of the proposed project;

(2) names and roles of principle

investigator(s)/project director(s) and

other key personnel along with their

institutions; and (3) a brief statement of

approaches and objectives (500 words or

less). This information will be used by

CSREES staff in planning the review

process. Because Letters of Intent will

not be distributed for peer review, there

will be no feedback from CSREES staff

regarding the content of these letters.

See Deadline Dates section of this RFP

for specific mailing instructions. Failing

to submit a Letter of Intent will not

preclude applicants from submitting full

proposals, however a Letter of Intent is

nonetheless encouraged.

2. Project Proposals

a. General. The proposal should

follow these guidelines, enabling

reviewers to more easily evaluate the

merits of each proposal in a systematic,

consistent fashion:

(1) The proposal should be prepared

on only one side of the page using

standard size (81⁄2’’ x 11’’) white paper,

one inch margins, typed or word

processed using no type smaller than 12

point font, and single or double spaced.

Use an easily readable font face (e.g.,

Geneva, Helvetica, Times Roman).

(2) Each page of the proposal,

including the Project Summary, budget

pages, required forms, and any

appendices, should be numbered

sequentially.

(3) The proposal should be stapled in

the upper left-hand corner. Do not bind.

An original and 14 copies (15 total)

must be submitted in one package, along

with 10 copies of the ‘‘Project

Summary’’ as a separate attachment.

(4) If applicable, proposals should

include original illustrations

(photographs, color prints, etc.) in all

copies of the proposal to prevent loss of

meaning through poor quality

reproduction.

Small or mid-sized institutions: An

academic institution is eligible as smallor mid-sized if the institution is under

15,000 in total enrollment (including

part-time students) and is not listed in

Appendix A(Most Successful

Universities and Colleges for Receiving

Federal and/or National Research

Initiative Funds).

b. Cover Page.

Each copy of each grant proposal

must contain an ‘‘Application for

Funding’’, Form CSREES–661. One copy

of the application, preferably the

original, must contain the pen-and-ink

signature(s) of the proposing principal

investigator(s)/project director(s)(PI/PD)

and the authorized organizational

representative who possesses the

necessary authority to commit the

organization’s time and other relevant

resources to the project. Any proposed

PI/PD or co-PI/PD whose signature does

not appear on Form CSREES–661 will

not be listed on any resulting grant

award. Complete both signature blocks

located at the bottom of the

‘‘Application for Funding’’ form.

Form CSREES–661 serves as a source

document for the CSREES grant

database; it is therefore important that it

be completed accurately. The following

items are highlighted as having a high

potential for errors or

misinterpretations:

(1) Title of Project (Block 6). The title

of the project must be brief (80-character

maximum), yet represent the major

thrust of the effort being proposed.

Project titles are read by a variety of

nonscientific people; therefore, highly

technical words or phraseology should

be avoided where possible. In addition,

introductory phrases such as

‘‘investigation of,’’ ‘‘research on,’’

‘‘education for,’’ or ‘‘outreach that’’

should not be used.

(2) Program to Which You Are

Applying (Block 7). ‘‘IFAFS’’.

(3) Program Area and Number (Block

8). The name of the program

component, e.g. Plant Genome, 10.1 or

Behavior of Food Choice, 12.1. should

be inserted in this block.

(4) Type of Award Request (Block 13).

Check the block for ‘‘new’’,

‘‘resubmission’’ or ‘‘renewal.’’

(5) Principal Investigator(s)/Project

Director(s) (PI/PD) (Block 15). The

designation of excessive numbers of coPI/PDs creates problems during final

review and award processing. Listing

multiple co-PI/PDs, beyond those

required for genuine collaboration, is

therefore discouraged. 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.

(6) Type of Performing Organization

(Block 18). A check should be placed in

the box beside the type of organization

which actually will carry out the effort.

For example, if the proposal is being

submitted by an 1862 Land-Grant

institution but the work will be

performed in a department, laboratory,

or other organizational unit of an

agricultural experiment station, box

‘‘03’’ should be checked. If portions of

the effort are to be performed in several

departments, check the box that applies

to the individual listed as PI/PD #1 in

Block 15.a.

(7) Other Possible Sponsors (Block

22). List the names or acronyms of all

other public or private sponsors

including other agencies within USDA

and other programs funded by CSREES

to whom your application has been or

might be sent. In the event you decide

to send your application to another

organization or agency at a later date,

you must inform the identified CSREES

Program Director as soon as practicable.

Submitting your proposal to other

potential sponsors will not prejudice its

review by CSREES; however, duplicate

support for the same project will not be

provided. Complete the ‘‘Application

for Funding,’’ Form CSREES–661, in its

entirety.

(8) One copy of the ‘‘Application for

Funding’’ form must contain the

signatures (in ink) of the PI/PDs and

authorized organizational representative

for the applicant organization.

c. Table of Contents. For consistency

and ease in locating information, each

proposal must contain a detailed Table

of Contents just after the cover page.

The Table of Contents should contain

page numbers for each component of the

proposal. Page numbers should begin

with the first page of the Project

Description.

d. Project Summary. The proposal

must contain a Project Summary of 250

words or less on a separate page which

should be placed immediately after the

Table of Contents and should not be

numbered. The names and institutions

of all PI/PDs and co-PI/PDs should be

listed on this form, in addition to the

title of the project. The summary should

be a self-contained, specific description

of the activity to be undertaken and

should focus on: overall project goal(s)

and supporting objectives; plans to

accomplish the project goal(s); and

relevance of the project to IFAFS goals

and to U.S. agriculture. The importance

of a concise, informative Project

Summary cannot be overemphasized. If

the lead institution is eligible as a small

and mid-size institution (Project Grant

or Bridge Grant) as defined in Part I.,

Section C.(23), of this document include

a separate sentence on the Project

Summary page indicating that the

institution is ‘‘eligible for small-and

mid-sized and Bridge Grant

consideration.’’ For special provisions

for MGET proposals, see Part III.,B.4.a.

e. Response to Previous Review. This

requirement only applies to

Resubmitted Proposals as described

under Part I.F.3, Types of Proposals.

Resubmitted proposals are proposals

that had previously been submitted to

IFAFS but not funded. For these

proposals, the principle investigator(s)/

project director(s) must respond to the

previous panel summary on no more

than one page, titled Response to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11501

Previous Review, which is to be placed

directly after the Project Summary. If

desired, additional comments and

responses to the previous panel

summary may be included in the text of

the Project Description, subject to the

page limitation.

f. Project Description. The written text

may not exceed 20 single-or double

spaced pages of written text including

figures and tables, but excluding

citations.

Each proposal’s Project Description

should contain the following:

(1) Introduction—A clear statement of

the long-term goal(s) and supporting

objectives of the proposed activities

should be included. Summarize the

body of knowledge or other past

activities which substantiates the need

for the proposed project. Describe

ongoing or recently completed

significant activities related to the

proposed project including the work of

key project personnel. Preliminary data/

information pertinent to the proposed

project should be included;

(2) Relevance and significance—The

objectives’ specific relationship to the

goals of the IFAFS and to the particular

program area should be stated. Include

a description of the significance of the

activity and its value in improving

agriculture through research, education

and extension. Clearly describe the

potential impact of the project. (For

Critical or Emerging Issues proposals,

see Part III.,B.3.)

(3) Approach—The activities

proposed or problems being addressed

must be clearly stated and the

approaches being applied clearly

described. The following should be

included: (a) A description of the

activities proposed; (b) methods to be

used in carrying out the project,

including the feasibility of the methods;

(c) expected outcomes; (d) means by

which results will be analyzed,

assessed, or interpreted; and (e) how

results or products will be used.

(4) Time Table—Provide an expected

time line for completing the project in

the requested duration.

(5) Collaborative Arrangements—

Identify collaborations and provide a

full explanation of the nature of the

collaborations.

(6) Management Plan—It is expected

that larger more complex projects

(usually greater than $1 million) will

require more extensive and complicated

coordination and collaboration than is

typically proposed for more focused

projects. Therefore, explain how the

project will be managed to ensure

efficient administration of the grant and

how activities will be integrated most

effectively. Place this description after

the Project Description.

(7) Evaluation and Monitoring of

Project—Provide a plan for assessing

and evaluating the accomplishments of

the stated proposal objectives during the

project and describe ways to determine

the effectiveness of the end results

during and upon termination of the

project. In addition to the evaluation

and monitoring of accomplishments

associated with the project, evaluation

and monitoring of the administration of

the project must also be included if the

project is complex and requires

administrative oversight and extensive

management. This description should

include how funds and resources will

be allocated so that collaborative

participation of all parties throughout

the duration of the project is ensured.

(For special provisions regarding MGET

proposals, see Part III., B.4.6.)

g. References in Project Description.

All references cited should be complete,

including titles and all co-authors, and

should conform to an accepted journal

format.

h. Appendices to Project Description.

Appendices to the Project Description

are allowed if they are directly germane

to the proposed project and are limited

to a total of two of the following:

reprints (papers that have been

published in peer reviewed journals)

and preprints (manuscripts in press for

a peer reviewed journal; these must be

accompanied by a letter of acceptance

from the publishing journal).

i. Key Personnel. All senior personnel

who are expected to be involved in the

effort should be clearly identified. For

each person the following should be

included:

(1) The roles and responsibilities of

each PI/PD should be described;

(2) An estimate of time commitment

for each PI/PD; and

(3) Vitae of each PI/PD, senior

associate and other professional

personnel. This section should include

vitae of all key persons who are

expected to work on the project,

whether or not CSREES funds are

sought for their support. The vitae

should be limited to two (2) pages in

length, excluding publication lists. A

chronological list of all publications in

refereed journals during the past four (4)

years, including those in press, must be

provided for each project member for

which a curriculum vitae is provided.

Also list those non-refereed technical

publications which have relevance to

the proposed project. All authors should

be listed in the same order as they

appear on each paper cited, along with

the title and complete reference as these

usually appear in journals.

j. Conflict-of-Interest List. A Conflictof-Interest List must be provided for all

individuals involved in the project

(identified as key personnel). Each list

should be on a separate page and

include alphabetically the full names of

the individuals in the following

categories: (a) All collaborators on

projects within the past four years,

including current and planned

collaborations; (b) all co-authors on

publications within the past four years,

including pending publications and

submissions; (c) all persons in your field

with whom you have had a consulting

or financial arrangement within the past

four years who stand to gain by seeing

the project funded; and (d) all thesis or

postdoctoral advisees/advisors within

the past four years (some may wish to

call these life-time conflicts). This form

is necessary to assist program staff in

excluding from proposal review those

individuals who have conflicts-ofinterest with the personnel in the grant

proposal. The Program Director, under

the specific area or sub-area, must be

informed of any additional conflicts-ofinterest that arise after the proposal is

submitted.

k. Collaborative and/or

Subcontractual Arrangements. If it will

be necessary to enter into formal

consulting or collaborative

arrangements with others, such

arrangements should be fully explained

and justified. If the need for consultant

services is anticipated, the proposal

budget narrative should provide a

justification for the use of such services,

a statement of work to be performed, a

resume or curriculum vitae for each

consultant, and rate of pay for each

consultant. For purposes of proposal

development, informal day-to-day

contacts between key project personnel

and outside experts are not considered

to be collaborative arrangements and

thus do not need to be detailed.

All anticipated subcontractual

arrangements also should be explained

and justified in this section. A proposed

statement of work and a budget for each

arrangement involving the transfer of

substantive programmatic work or the

providing of financial assistance to a

third party must be provided.

Agreements between departments or

other units of your own institution and

minor arrangements with entities

outside of your institution (e.g., requests

for outside laboratory analyses) are

excluded from this requirement.

If you expect to enter into

subcontractual arrangements, please

note that the provisions contained in 7

CFR Part 3019, USDA Uniform

Administrative Requirements for Grant

and Other Agreements with Institutions

11502 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

of Higher Education, Hospitals, and

Other Non-Profit Organizations, and the

general provisions contained in 7 CFR

3015.205, USDA Uniform Federal

Assistance Regulations, flow down to

subrecipients. In addition, required

clauses from Sections 40–48

(‘‘Procurement Standards’’) and

Appendix A (‘‘Contract Provisions’’) of

7 CFR 3019 should be included in final

contractual documents, and it is

necessary for the subawardee to make a

certification relating to debarment/

suspension.

1. Budget. (1) Budget Form—Prepare

the budget, Form CSREES–55, in

accordance with instructions provided.

Budgets of up to $5 million may be

requested. Budgets should be

commensurate with activities proposed.

A budget form is required for each year

of requested support. In addition, a

cumulative budget is required detailing

the requested total support for the

overall project period. The budget form

may be reproduced as needed by

applicants. 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, and these program

guidelines, and can be justified as

necessary for the successful conduct of

the proposed project. Applicants must

also include a Budget Narrative to

justify their budgets (see paragraph (2)

below.) For special provisions for MGET

proposals, see Part III.B.4.c.

The following guidelines should be

used in developing your proposal

budget(s):

(A) Salaries and Wages. Salaries and

wages are allowable charges and may be

requested for personnel who will be

working on the project in proportion to

the time such personnel will devote to

the project. If salary funds are requested,

the number of Senior and Other

Personnel and the number of CSREESFunded Work Months must be shown in

the spaces provided. Grant funds may

not be used to augment the total salary

or rate of salary of project personnel or

to reimburse them for time in addition

to a regular full-time salary covering the

same general period of employment.

Salary funds requested must be

consistent with the normal policies of

the institution.

(B) Fringe Benefits. Funds may be

requested for fringe benefit costs if the

usual accounting practices of your

organization provide that organizational

contributions to employee benefits

(social security, retirement, etc.) be

treated as direct costs. Fringe benefit

costs may be included only for those

personnel whose salaries are charged as

a direct cost to the project.

(C) Nonexpendable Equipment.

Nonexpendable equipment means

tangible nonexpendable personal

property including exempt property

charged directly to the award having a

useful life of more than one year and an

acquisition cost of $5,000 (or lower,

depending on institutional policy) or

more per unit. As such, items of

necessary instrumentation or other

nonexpendable equipment should be

listed individually by description and

estimated cost in the Budget Narrative.

This applies to revised budgets as well,

as the equipment item(s) and amount(s)

may change.

(D) Materials and Supplies. The types

of expendable materials and supplies

which are required to carry out the

project should be indicated in general

terms with estimated costs in the Budget

Narrative.

(E) Travel. The type and extent of

travel and its relationship to project

objectives should be described briefly

and justified. If foreign travel is

proposed, the country to be visited, the

specific purpose of the travel, a brief

itinerary, inclusive dates of travel, and

estimated cost must be provided for

each trip. Airfare allowances normally

will not exceed round-trip jet economy

air accommodations. U.S. flag carriers

must be used when available. See 7 CFR

Part 3015.205(b)(4) for further guidance.

(F) Publication Costs/Page Charges.

Include anticipated costs associated

with publications in a journal

(preparing and publishing results

including page charges, necessary

illustrations, and the cost of a

reasonable number of coverless reprints)

and audio-visual materials that will be

produced. Photocopying and printing

brochure, etc., should be shown in

Section I., ‘‘All Other Direct Costs’’ of

Form CSREES–55.

(G) Computer (ADPE) Costs.

Reimbursement for the costs of using

specialized facilities (such as a

university-or department-controlled

computer mainframe or data processing

center) may be requested if such

services are required for completion of

the work.

(H) All Other Direct Costs.

Anticipated direct project charges not

included in other budget categories

must be itemized with estimated costs

and justified in the Budget Narrative.

This also applies to revised budgets, as

the item(s) and dollar amount(s) may

change. Examples may include space

rental at remote locations,

subcontractual costs, and charges for

consulting services, telephone,

facsimile, shipping costs, and fees

necessary for laboratory analyses. You

are encouraged to consult the

‘‘Instructions for Completing Form

CSREES–55, Budget,’’ of the

Application Kit for detailed guidance

relating to this budget category. Form

AD–1048 must be completed by each

subcontractor or consultant and retained

by the grantee.

(I) Indirect Costs—Section 1462 of the

National Agricultural Research,

Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of

1977 (7 U.S.C. 3310) limits indirect

costs for this program to 19 percent of

total Federal funds provided under each

award. Therefore, the recovery of

indirect costs under this program may

not exceed the lesser of the institution’s

official negotiated indirect cost rate or

the equivalent of 19 percent of total

Federal funds awarded. If no rate has

been negotiated, a reasonable dollar

amount (equivalent to less than 19

percent of total Federal funds requested)

in lieu of indirect costs may be

requested, subject to approval by USDA.

m. Budget Narrative. All budget

categories, with the exception of

Indirect Costs for which support is

requested, must be individually listed

(with costs) and justified on a separate

sheet of paper and placed immediately

behind the Budget Form. Explanations

of matching funds or lack thereof on

commodity-specific projects also are to

be included in this section.

n. Matching Funds. If an applicant

concludes that matching funds are not

required as specified in Part I. E, a

justification should be included in the

Budget Narrative. CSREES will consider

this justification when ascertaining final

matching requirements. CSREES retains

the right to make final determinations

regarding matching requirements.

For those grants requiring matching

funds as specified in Part I. E., proposals

should include written verification of

commitments of matching support

(including both cash and in-kind

contributions) from third parties.

Written verification means:

(1) For any third party cash

contributions, a separate pledge

agreement for each donation, signed by

the authorized organizational

representatives of the donor

organization and the applicant

organization, which must include: (a)

the name, address, and telephone

number of the donor; (b) the name of the

applicant organization; (c) the title of

the project for which the donation is

made; (d) the dollar amount of the cash

donation; and (e) a statement that the

donor will pay the cash contribution

during the grant period; and

(2) For any third party in-kind

contributions, a separate pledge

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11503

agreement for each contribution, signed

by the authorized organizational

representatives of the donor

organization and the applicant

organization, which must include: (a)

the name, address, and telephone

number of the donor; (b) the name of the

applicant organization; (c) the title of

the project for which the donation is

made; (d) a good faith estimate of the

current fair market value of the third

party in-kind contribution; and (e) a

statement that the donor will make the

contribution during the grant period.

The sources and amount of all

matching support from outside the

applicant institution should be

summarized on a separate page and

placed in the proposal immediately

following the Budget Narrative. All

pledge agreements must be placed in the

proposal immediately following the

summary of matching support.

The value of applicant contributions

to the project shall be established in

accordance with applicable cost

principles. Applicants should refer to

OMB Circulars A–21, Cost Principles for

Educational Institutions, A–87, Cost

Principles for State, Local, and Tribal

Governments, A–122, Cost Principles

for Non-Profit Organizations, and forprofit organizations, the cost principles

in the Federal Acquisition Regulation at

48 CFR 31.2 (see 7 CFR 3015.194).

o. Current and Pending Support. All

proposals must contain Form CSREES–

663 listing other current public or

private support (including in-house

support) to which key personnel

identified in the proposal have

committed portions of their time,

whether or not salary support for

person(s) involved is included in the

budget. Analogous information must be

provided for any pending proposals that

are being considered by, or that will be

submitted in the near future to, other

possible sponsors, including other

USDA Programs or agencies. Concurrent

submission of identical or similar

proposals to the possible sponsors will

not prejudice proposal review or

evaluation by the CSREES for this

purpose. However, a proposal that

duplicates or overlaps substantially

with a proposal already reviewed and

funded (or to be funded) by another

organization or agency will not be

funded under this program. Note that

the project being proposed should be

included in the pending section of the

form.

p. Assurance Statement(s), (Form

CSREES–662). A number of situations

encountered in the conduct of projects

require special assurances, supporting

documentation, etc., before funding can

be approved for the project. In addition

to any other situation that may exist

with regard to a particular project, it is

expected that some applications

submitted in response to these

guidelines will involve the following:

(1). Recombinant DNA or RNA

Research.

As stated in 7 CFR 3015.205 (b)(3), 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. If your project

proposes to use recombinant DNA or

RNA techniques, you must so indicate

by checking the ‘yes’ box in Block 19 of

Form CSREES–661 (the Cover Page) and

by completing Section A of Form

CSREES–662. For applicable proposals

recommended for funding, Institutional

Biosafety Committee approval is

required before CSREES funds will be

released.

(2). Animal Care. Responsibility for

the humane care and treatment of live

vertebrate animals used in any grant

project supported with funds provided

by CSREES rests with the performing

organization. Where a project involves

the use of living vertebrate animals for

experimental purposes, all key project

personnel identified in a proposal and

all endorsing officials of the proposing

organization are required to comply

with the applicable provisions of the

Animal Welfare Act of 1966, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) and the

regulations promulgated thereunder by

the Secretary in 9 CFR Parts 1, 2, 3, and

4 pertaining to the care, handling, and

treatment of these animals. If your

project will involve these animals, you

should check ‘yes’ on block 20 of

CSREES–661 and complete Section B of

Form CSREES–662. In the event a

project involving the use of live

vertebrate animals results in a grant

award, funds will be released only after

the Institutional Animal Care and Use

Committee has approved the project.

(3) 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 issue is contained in

the National Research Act, Pub. L No.

93–348, as amended, and implementing

regulations promulgated by the

Department under 7 CFR Part 1c. If you

propose to use human subjects for

experimental purposes in your project,

you should check the ‘yes’ box in Block

21 of Form CSREES–661 and complete

Section C of Form CSREES–662. In the

event a project involving human

subjects results in a grant award, funds

will be released only after the

appropriate Institutional Review Board

has approved the project.

q. Certifications. Note that by signing

Form CSREES–661 the applicant is

providing certifications required by 7

CFR Part 3017, as amended, regarding

Debarment and Suspension and Drug

Free Workplace, and 7 CFR Part 3018,

regarding Lobbying. The certification

forms are included in the application

package for informational purposes

only. These forms should not be

submitted with the proposal since by

signing form CSREES–661 your

organization is providing the required

certifications. If the project will involve

a subcontractor or consultant, the

subcontractor/consultant should submit

a form AD–1048 to the grantee

organization for retention in their

records. This form should not be

submitted to USDA.

r. Compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Form

CSREES–1234. As outlined in 7 CFR

Part 3407 (the Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension

Service regulations implementing

NEPA), the environmental data for any

proposed project is to be provided to

CSREES so that CSREES may determine

whether any further action is needed. In

some cases, however, the preparation of

environmental data may not be

required. Certain categories of actions

are excluded from the requirements of

NEPA.

In order for CSREES to determine

whether any further action is needed

with respect to NEPA, pertinent

information regarding the possible

environmental impacts of a particular

project is necessary; therefore, Form

CSREES–1234, ‘‘NEPA Exclusions

Form,’’ must be included in the

proposal indicating whether the

applicant is of the opinion that the

project falls within a categorical

exclusion and the reasons therefore. If it

is the applicant’s opinion that the

proposed project falls within the

categorical exclusions, the specific

exclusion must be identified. Form

CSREES–1234 and supporting

documentation should be included as

the last page of this proposal.

Even though a project may fall within

the categorical exclusions, CSREES may

determine that an Environmental

Assessment or an Environmental Impact

Statement is necessary for an activity, if

substantial controversy on

environmental grounds exists or if other

extraordinary conditions or

circumstances are present which may

11504 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

cause such activity to have a significant

environmental effect.

3. Critical or Emerging Issues Proposals

Proposals submitted to the Critical or

Emerging Issues Program Area 16.0

should contain all of the components

listed above for a Project grant

application. In addition the ‘‘Relevance

and Significance’’ section of the

proposal should include a statement

explaining, with strong evidence, the

uniqueness or urgency of the issue and

of the work proposed, and an

explanation why the proposal could not

have fit and been submitted to an

existing IFAFS program area at the

original deadline.

4. MGET Proposals

Proposals submitted to the MGET

Program Area 17.0 should contain all of

the components listed above for a

Project Grant application with the

following exceptions:

a. Project Summary—On the Project

Summary Page provide a brief

description of the traineeship program,

including the multidisciplinary

education features, objectives, and

related theme.

b. Project Description—The project

description section should contain the

following items:

(1) List of Participants—Include

departmental and institutional

affiliation of all faculty members and

senior level personnel expected to

mentor students or otherwise play an

important role in the project;

(2) Vision, Goals, and Thematic

Basis—Discuss the vision, goals, and

anticipated impact of the proposed

MGET project. Describe the thematic

basis and unifying aspects of the

multidisciplinary research, education,

and extension activities to be offered.

Discuss what is currently missing from

graduate education and training or what

could be done more effectively, and

how the proposed project will address

these issues. How will this project meet

national needs for placement of the

graduates in the workforce? Benefits to

be realized from opportunities for crossdisciplinary cooperation in education,

research, and extension should be

emphasized. What is new and

innovative?

(3) Education and Training—Describe

the multidisciplinary education and

training activities central to the

proposed MGET project. Novel aspects

should be emphasized to help reviewers

judge potential impacts of proposed

activities. Indicate how the proposed

educational, research, and extension

experiences will be integrated into an

effective graduate traineeship program.

Needs for interdisciplinary courses must

be justified. If planned student training

includes international, industrial or

other internships, potential mentors

should be identified. Describe

provisions for developing professional

and personal elements such as

communication, teamwork, leadership,

international perspective, and

instruction in ethics, policy, and

responsible conduct of science,

education and extension. Elaborate on

the role of diversity, and on the

expected time for completing the

degree. The role of undergraduate,

graduate, and postdoctoral components,

when proposed, must be described with

sufficient detail to clarify the benefit to

the graduate traineeship program and to

justify support.

(4) Major Research Efforts—Describe

the major research efforts that are

intended to serve as the foundation of

the MGET project. At most, five (5)

research areas may be described. This

restriction is to limit the size of the

proposal, not the number of

participating faculty members or the

scope of the project. In describing

research areas, emphasize the cuttingedge aspects as well as how the research

areas integrate to form the coherent

thematic basis for the multidisciplinary

project. Each research area must specify

faculty members and principal

participants and be written in sufficient

detail to enable assessment of scientific

merit and impact. Be clear about what

is different from existing programs.

Needs for special materials, shared

instruments, or travel must be justified

in the context of the research areas for

which they are required.

(5) Recruitment and Retention—

Describe plans for recruitment,

mentoring, and retention of trainees,

including provisions for members of

groups under-represented in the food

and agricultural sciences. Identify the

graduate program(s) in which the MGET

graduate students may enroll.

(6) Organization and Management—

Describe plans and procedures for

organization and management of the

proposed activity. The plan should be

specific and clear, and include a formal

mechanism that assures fair and

effective allocation of group resources.

Procedures for selecting students and

others who will receive stipends or

share in group funds must be described,

as should methods for allocating use of

shared equipment to be acquired with

MGET funds. Relationships to other

faculty and equipment at the institution,

and elsewhere if relevant, should be

described as should the relationship to

existing grants that provide funds for

related training and educational

activities.

(7) Performance Assessment—

Describe a performance plan and

methodology that relates the goals of the

project to indicators and specific

measurements for assessing progress

toward goal achievement. This should

involve evaluators external to the

project, who can render an objective

evaluation and whose expertise spans

the education, research, and extension

objectives of the project.

(8) Recruitment and Retention

History—Explain your capacity to host

an MGET site, and past performance

and ability to attract well-qualified

students, including those from underrepresented groups. Provide the

following information regarding

recruitment and retention of students in

the participating departments/programs:

(a) Total applicants, (b) total applicants

accepted, (c) total applicants enrolled,

(d) total students currently enrolled in

the program indicating part-time and

full-time status, (e) total number of

masters and doctorates awarded, (f)

average time to degree, (g) other relevant

measures of student success. Provide

separate data for women, underrepresented minorities, and persons

with disabilities for each of the above

categories. A tabular format should be

used with separate tables for each

participating department/program.

(9) Recent Training Experience—

Provide information about any recent

experience with other traineeship

programs, including a discussion of

outcomes. If the MGET program builds

on a recent traineeship experience,

discuss what would be the new valueadded aspects of the project.

(10) Collaborators—To identify

potential conflicts of interest in the

review process, provide a consolidated

alphabetical list of current and past

collaborators during the last four (4)

years, and their current institutional

affiliation, for all personnel in List of

Participants. This list must also include

former graduate students and

postdoctoral fellows who have been

associated with the faculty participants

over the last four years.

(11) Existing Facilities and

Equipment—Include a brief description

of available facilities, including major

instruments required. If requested

equipment or materials duplicate

existing items, explain the need for the

additional equipment.

c. Budget—Provide a budget for each

year of support requested, not to exceed

$500,000 each year for up to four years,

exclusive of first-year equipment funds

discussed below. The major portion of

awarded funds must be used for

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11505

graduate student stipends, training and

educational activities, and for related

expenditures, such as student travel,

publication costs, and recruitment.

Travel funds should be budgeted in

each year for the PI/PD and for an

additional person to attend annual

meetings in Washington, D.C. No funds

for faculty research or extension or

faculty salaries may be requested, with

the exception that up to one month per

year of salary support for the PI/PD for

management purposes may be

requested. Support for short-term

visitors and funding of a limited amount

of administrative support may be

requested. The contribution to the

graduate stipend is up to $18,000 per

year per student, accompanied with a

cost-of-education allowance of up to

$10,500 per year per student (tuition

and normal fees). List funds requested

for graduate students’ stipends in A.2.c,

cost-of-education allowances in I, and

travel in F of the budget form.

Undergraduate stipends and

postdoctoral stipends may be

determined by the institution. If

applicable, they should be listed

separately on lines A.2.d and A.2.a of

the budget form, respectively. All

stipend recipients must be citizens or

permanent residents of the U.S. Funds

for the purchase of shared, specialpurpose equipment may be requested.

Personnel and shop costs may be

requested for developing and

constructing special instruments, and

for purchasing computer software or

other special purpose materials. The

total funds requested for equipment,

software, and special purpose materials

may not exceed $200,000; if awarded,

these funds will be provided in the first

year of the grant. Limited funds

intended to partially defray the costs of

research and extension by students may

also be requested. Funds for facility

renovation or for equipment installation

or maintenance are not allowed. For

multi-institution projects, the lead

institution shall submit the proposal,

with other participating institutions

included under subcontracts.

C. Submission of Proposals

1. When To submit (Deadline Date)

‘‘Letters of Intent’’ must be received

by March 23, 2001. Proposals must be

received by COB (5:00 p.m. EST) on

April 23, 2001. Proposals received after

this date will not be considered for

funding.

2. What To Submit

For full proposals, an original and 14

copies must be submitted. In addition

submit 10 copies of the proposal’s

Project Summary. All copies of the

proposals and the Project Summaries

must be submitted in one package.

3. Where To Submit

Applicants should e-mail the ‘‘Letter

of Intent’’ to Dr. Rodney Foil at

rfoil@reeusda.gov or send the letter by

mail to IFAFS; Mail Stop 2213;

Cooperative State Research, Education,

and Extension Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture; 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW.; Washington, D.C. 20250–

2213; or fax the letter to IFAFS at (202)

690–3858.

Applicants are strongly encouraged to

submit completed proposals via

overnight mail or delivery service to

ensure timely receipt by the USDA. The

address for hand-delivered proposals or

proposals submitted using an express

mail or overnight courier service is:

Initiative for Future Agriculture and

Food Systems, c/o Proposal Services

Unit, Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture; Room 1307,

Waterfront Centre, 800 9th Street, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20024, (202) 401–

5048.

Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal

Service must be sent to the following

address: Initiative for Future Agriculture

and Food Systems, c/o Proposal

Services Unit, Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

STOP 2245, 1400 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–

2245.

D. Acknowledgment of Proposals

The receipt of proposals will be

acknowledged by e-mail. Therefore,

applicants are encouraged to provide email addresses, where designated, on

the Form CSREES–661. If the

applicant’s e-mail address is not

indicated, CSREES will acknowledge

receipt of the proposal by letter.

Once the proposal has been assigned

an identification number, please cite

that number on all future

correspondence. If the applicant does

not receive an acknowledgment within

60 days of the submission deadline,

please contact the Program Director.

Part IV—Review Process

A. General

All proposals will be reviewed

together by a panel in the pertinent

program area. Prior to technical

examination, a preliminary review will

be made for responsiveness to the

program area. Proposals that do not fall

within the guidelines as stated in the

Program Area Description will be

eliminated from program competition

and will be returned to the applicant.

Individual written comments and indepth discussions will be provided by a

peer review panel prior to

recommending applications for funding.

Peer review panel members will be

selected based upon their training and

experience in relevant scientific,

extension, or education fields taking

into account the following factors: (a)

The level of formal scientific, technical

education, and extension experience of

the individual, as well as the extent to

which an individual is engaged in

relevant research, education or

extension activities; (b) the need to

include as peer reviewers experts from

various areas of specialization within

relevant scientific, education, and

extension fields; (c) the need to include

as reviewers other experts (producers,

range or forest managers/operators,

consumers, etc.) who can assess

relevance of the proposals to targeted

audiences and to program needs; (d) the

need to include as peer reviewers

experts from a variety of organizational

types (e.g., colleges, universities,

industry, state and Federal agencies,

private profit and non-profit

organizations), and geographic

locations; (e) the need to maintain a

balanced composition of peer review

groups with regard to minority and

female representation and an equitable

age distribution; and (f) the need to

include members that can judge the

effective usefulness to producers and

the general public of each proposal.

B. Evaluation Factors

1. Project Grants

Priority will be given to projects that

integrate agricultural research,

education and extension and projects

that have included the appropriate team

to achieve the goals of the project,

notably teams that are multistate, multi

institutional or multidisciplinary.

The following evaluation factors

apply to all proposals.

a. Relevance. All proposals will be

judged as to their relevance to critical

emerging agricultural issues related to

future food production; environmental

quality, and natural resource

management; or farm income. Further

factors include:

(1) Documentation that the research,

extension and education activities are

directed towards current or likely future

problems or problems identified in this

document;

(2) Evident linkage of research,

extension and education functions.

11506 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

(3) Evidence of involvement of

stakeholders and/or communities of

interest.

b. Merit. All proposals will be judged

on their scientific, extension, or

education merit including:

(1) Novelty, innovation, uniqueness,

and originality;

(2) Conceptual adequacy of the

research, extension and education

components;

(3) Clarity and delineation of

objectives;

(4) Adequacy of the description of the

undertaking and suitability and

feasibility of methodology;

(5) Demonstration of feasibility;

(6) Probability of success of the

project;

c. Quality. All proposals will be

judged on their quality including:

(1) Selection of most appropriate and

qualified individuals to address the

problem;

(2) Training and demonstrated

awareness of previous and alternative

approaches to the problem identified in

the proposal, and performance record or

potential for future accomplishments;

(3) Time allocated for systematic

attainment of objectives;

(4) Institutional experience and

competence in subject area;

(5) Adequacy of available or

obtainable support personnel, facilities,

and instrumentation;

(6) Adequacy of plans for reporting,

assessing and monitoring of results of

the project over its duration.

(7) The planned administration of the

project and its maintenance,

partnerships, collaborative efforts,

evaluation and monitoring efforts, and

the planned dissemination of

information over the duration of the

project.

2. Bridge Grants

Bridge grants will be judged using the

same evaluation factors as Project

Grants. In addition the following factor

will be applied once a project has been

identified for BRIDGE grant

consideration:

All proposals under consideration for

Bridge grant support will be judged as

to the potential that further funding will

sustain and enhance important

collaborations and activities that might

lead to future program success or

success in obtaining IFAFS and/or other

grants.

3. Critical or Emerging Issues Grants

Critical or Emerging Issues grants will

be judged using the same evaluation

factors as Project Grants. In addition the

following factor will be applied:

All proposals will be evaluated as to

the uniqueness or urgency of the issue

and of the work proposed and whether

support of the project will likely

provide results that are applied to an

issue that otherwise would not have

been funded through typical IFAFS

support.

4. Multidisciplinary Graduate Education

Traineeship (MGET) Grants

MGET proposals will be judged using

the following criteria:

a. How well the proposal addressed

recognized needs for highly trained

personnel in the research, education

and extension programs supporting the

food and agricultural system of the U.S.;

b. Whether attention has been given to

opportunities for removal of cultural

and technical barriers preventing

appropriate growth and development of

new disciplines with emerging

technologies;

c. How well the proposal integrates

disciplines across physical, biological

and social sciences to meet integrated

agricultural and food science needs as

well as meeting needs for supplying

future extension personnel and

practitioners;

d. The intellectual merit,

qualifications of the proposed

leadership team and the sufficiency of

the proposed resources;

e. How well the proposing

institution(s) provide abundant

opportunities for individuals to

concurrently assume responsibilities as

researchers, educators, extensionists,

and students where all can engage in

joint efforts that infuse education with

the excitement of discovery and enrich

research and extension through the

diversity of learning perspectives;

f. How well the proposal integrates

diversity into programs, projects, and

activities by broadening opportunities

and enabling the participation of all

citizens—women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons

with disabilities—which is essential to

the health and vitality of the food and

agricultural sciences. CSREES is

committed to this principle of diversity

and deems it central to the programs,

projects, and activities it considers and

supports;

g. Successful proposals should

include provisions for developing

personal and professional competencies

in communications, teamwork,

leadership, and ethics with

opportunities for internships and other

career development opportunities

should be provided for as appropriate,

and an emphasis on the global

dimensions of the subject area as an

integral part of the program.

C. Conflicts-of-Interest and

Confidentiality

During the peer evaluation process,

extreme care will be taken to prevent

any actual or perceived conflicts-ofinterest that may impact review or

evaluation. For the purpose of

determining conflicts-of-interest, the

academic and administrative autonomy

of an institution shall be determined by

reference to the January 1998 issue of

the Codebook for Compatible Statistical

Reporting of Federal Support to

Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit

Institutions, prepared by Quantum

Research Corporation for the National

Science Foundation.

Names of submitting institutions and

individuals, as well as proposal content

and peer evaluations, will be kept

confidential, except to those involved in

the review process, to the extent

permitted by law. In addition, the

identities of peer reviewers will remain

confidential throughout the entire

review process. Therefore, the names of

reviewers will not be released to

applicants. At the end of the fiscal year,

names of panelists will be made

available in such a way that the

panelists cannot be identified with the

review of any particular proposal.

Part V—Additional Information

A. Access To Review Information

Copies of summary reviews, not

including the identity of reviewers, will

be sent to the applicant PI/PD after the

review process has been completed.

B. Grant Awards

1. General

Within the limit of funds available for

such purpose, the awarding official of

CSREES shall make grants to those

responsible, eligible applicants whose

proposals are judged most meritorious

under the procedures set forth in this

RFP. The date specified by the

Administrator as the effective date of

the grant shall be no later than

September 30. It should be noted that

the project need not be initiated on the

grant effective date, but as soon

thereafter as practical so that project

goals may be attained within the funded

project period. All funds granted by

CSREES under this RFP shall be

expended solely for the purpose for

which the funds are granted in

accordance with the approved

application and budget, the regulations,

the terms and conditions of the award,

the applicable Federal cost principles,

and the Department’s assistance

regulations (parts 3015, 3016, and 3019

of 7 CFR).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11507

2. Organizational Management

Information

Specific management information

relating to an applicant shall be

submitted on a one-time basis as part of

the responsibility determination prior to

the award of a grant identified under

this RFP, if such information has not

been provided previously under this or

another CSREES program. CSREES will

provide copies of forms recommended

for use in fulfilling these requirements

as part of the preaward process.

3. Grant Award Document and Notice of

Grant Award

The grant award document shall

include at a minimum the following:

(a) Legal name and address of

performing organization or institution to

whom the Administrator has awarded a

grant under the terms of this request for

proposals;

(b) Title of project;

(c) Name(s) and address(es) of

principal investigator(s) chosen to direct

and control approved activities;

(d) Identifying grant number assigned

by the Department;

(e) Project period, specifying the

amount of time the Department intends

to support the project without requiring

recompetition for funds;

(f) Total amount of Departmental

financial assistance approved by the

Administrator during the project period;

(g) Legal authority(ies) under which

the grant is awarded;

(h) Approved budget plan for

categorizing allocable project funds to

accomplish the stated purpose of the

grant award; and

(i) Other information or provisions

deemed necessary by CSREES to carry

out its respective granting activities or

to accomplish the purpose of a

particular grant.

The notice of grant award, in the form

of a letter, will be prepared and will

provide pertinent instructions or

information to the grantee that is not

included in the grant award document.

C. Funding Mechanisms

The two mechanisms by which grants

may be awarded are as follows:

1. Standard grant. This is a funding

mechanism whereby the Department

agrees to support a specified level of

effort for a predetermined time period

without the announced intention of

providing additional support at a future

date.

2. Continuation grant. This is a

funding mechanism whereby the

Department agrees to support a

specified level of effort for a

predetermined period of time with a

statement of intention to provide

additional support at a future date,

provided that performance has been

satisfactory, appropriations are available

for this purpose, and continued support

will be in the best interests of the

Federal government and the public.

This kind of mechanism normally will

be awarded for an initial one-year

period, and any subsequent

continuation project grants will be

awarded in one-year increments. The

award of a continuation project grant to

fund an initial or succeeding budget

period does not constitute an obligation

to fund any subsequent budget period.

Unless prescribed otherwise by

CSREES, a grantee must submit a

separate application for continued

support for each subsequent fiscal year.

Requests for such continued support

must be submitted in duplicate at least

three months prior to the expiration

date of the budget period currently

being funded. Decisions regarding

continued support and the actual

funding levels of such support in future

years usually will be made

administratively after consideration of

such factors as the grantee’s progress

and management practices and the

availability of funds. Since initial peer

reviews are based upon the full term

and scope of the original application,

additional evaluations of this type

generally are not required prior to

successive years’ support. However, in

unusual cases (e.g., when the nature of

the project or key personnel change or

when the amount of future support

requested substantially exceeds the

grant application originally reviewed

and approved), additional reviews may

be required prior to approving

continued funding.

D. Use of Funds; Changes

1. Delegation of Fiscal Responsibility

Unless the terms and conditions of

the grant state otherwise, 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.

2. Changes in Project Plans

a. The permissible changes by the

grantee, PI/PD(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 and/or the PI/PD(s)

are uncertain as to whether a change

complies with this provision, the

question must be referred to the CSREES

Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO)

for a final determination.

b. Changes in approved goals or

objectives shall be requested by the

grantee and approved in writing by the

CSREES ADO prior to effecting such

changes. In no event shall requests for

such changes be approved which are

outside the scope of the original

approved project.

c. 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

awarding official of CSREES prior to

effecting such changes.

d. 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 ADO prior to effecting

such transfers, unless prescribed

otherwise in the terms and conditions of

the grant.

e. Changes in Project Period: The

project period may be extended by

CSREES without additional financial

support, for such additional period(s) as

the ADO determines may be necessary

to complete or fulfill the purposes of an

approved project. Any extension of time

shall be conditioned upon prior request

by the grantee and approval in writing

by the ADO, unless prescribed

otherwise in the terms and conditions of

a grant, but in no case shall a grant

period of performance exceed 5 years.

f. Changes in Approved Budget:

Changes in an approved budget must be

requested by the grantee and approved

in writing by the ADO prior to

instituting such changes if the revision

will 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.

E. Applicable Federal Statutes and

Regulations

Several other Federal statutes and

regulations apply to grant proposals

considered for review and to project

grants awarded under this program.

These include, but are not limited to:

7 CFR Part 1.1—USDA

implementation of the 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,

11508 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices

1Based on data from the table Federal obligations

for science and engineering research and

development to the 100 universities and colleges

receiving the largest amounts, ranked by total

amount received: in fiscal year 1997 of Federal

Science and Engineering Support to Universities,

Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions (National

Science Foundation, accessible through the Internet

at www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf99331/).

* Annotated institutions are not in the list for the

most successful Federally funded, but were among

the top 50th percentile of those funded by the

National Research Initiative (Competitive, Special,

and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b))

over the past three years (1997–1999).

implementing OMB directives (i.e.,

Circular Nos. A–21 and A–122) and

incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C.

6301–6308 (formerly the Federal Grant

and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977,

Public Law No. 95–224), as well as

general policy requirements applicable

to recipients of Departmental financial

assistance.

7 CFR Part 3016—Uniform

Administrative Requirements for Grants

and Cooperative Agreements to State

and Local Governments.

7 CFR Part 3017—USDA

implementation of Governmentwide

Debarment and Suspension

(Nonprocurement) and

Governmentwide Requirements for

Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).

7 CFR Part 3018—USDA

implementation of Restrictions on

Lobbying. Imposes prohibitions and

requirements for disclosure and

certification related to lobbying on

recipients of Federal contracts, grants,

cooperative agreements, and loans.

7 CFR Part 3019—USDA

implementation of OMB Circular A–

110, Uniform Administrative

Requirements for Grants and Other

Agreements With Institutions of Higher

Education, Hospitals, and Other

Nonprofit Organizations.

7 CFR Part 3052—USDA

implementation of OMB Circular No. A–

133, Audits of States, Local

Governments, and Non-profit

Organizations.

7 CFR Part 3407—CSREES procedures

to implement the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended.

29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504,

Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR

Part 15d (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).

F. Confidential Aspects of Proposals

and Awards

When a proposal results in a grant, it

becomes a part of the record of CSREES

transactions, available to the public

upon specific request. Information that

the Secretary determines to be of a

confidential, privileged, or proprietary

nature will be held in confidence to the

extent permitted by law. Therefore, any

information that the applicant wishes to

have considered as confidential,

privileged, or proprietary should be

clearly marked within the proposal. The

original copy of a proposal that does not

result in a grant will be retained by the

CSREES 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.

G. Regulatory Information

For the reasons set forth in the final

Rule-related Notice to 7 CFR part 3015,

subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983),

this program is excluded from the scope

of the Executive Order 12372 which

requires intergovernmental consultation

with State and local officials. Under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, as amended (44 U.S.C.

chapter 35), the collection of

information requirements contained in

this Notice have been approved under

OMB Document No. 0524–0022.

Done at Washington, D.C., this 16th day of

February 2001.

Colien Hefferan,

Administrator, Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service.

Appendix A—Most Successful

Universities and Colleges for Receiving

Federal and/or National Research

Initiative Funds 1

Baylor College of Medicine

Boston University

Brown University

California Institute of Technology

Carnegie-Mellon University

Case Western Reserve University

Colorado State University

Columbia University

Cornell University

CUNY Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Dartmouth College

Duke University

Emory University

Florida State University

Georgetown University

Georgia Institute of Technology

Harvard University

Indiana University

Iowa State University of Science and

Technology

Johns Hopkins University

*Kansas State University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Medical College of Wisconsin

Michigan State University

New York University

North Carolina State University

Northwestern University

Ohio State University

Oregon Health Sciences University

Oregon State University

Pennsylvania State University

Princeton University

Purdue University

Rockefeller University

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Scripps Research Institute

Stanford University

State University of New York at Stony

Brook

State University of New York at Buffalo

Texas A&M University, College Park

Thomas Jefferson University

Tufts University

Tulane University

University of Alabama Birmingham

University of Arizona

University of California Berkeley

University of California Davis

University of California Irvine

University of California Los Angeles

*University of California Riverside

University of California San Francisco

University of California Santa Barbara

University of Chicago

University of Cincinnati

University of Colorado

University of Florida

University of Georgia

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

University of Illinois Chicago

University of Iowa

University of Kansas

University of Maryland Baltimore Prof Sch

University of Maryland College Park

University of Massachusetts Amherst

University of Massachusetts Medical

School Worcester

University of Medicine and Dentistry of

New Jersey

University of Miami

University of Michigan Ann Arbor

University of Minnesota Twin Cities

University of Missouri Columbia

*University of Nebraska—Lincoln

University of New Mexico

University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

University of Pennsylvania

University of Pittsburgh

University of Rochester

University of South Carolina

University of Southern California

University of Texas at Austin

University of Texas Health Science Center

Houston

University of Texas Health Sci. Center San

Antonio

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer

Center

University of Texas Medical Branch

Galveston

University of Texas SW Medical Center

Dallas

University of Utah

University of Virginia

University of Washington

University of Wisconsin Madison

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 37 / Friday, February 23, 2001 / Notices 11509

*Utah State University

Vanderbilt University

Virginia Commonwealth University

Wake Forest University

Washington University

*Washington State University

Wayne State University

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

Yale University

Yeshiva University, New York

[FR Doc. 01–4465 Filed 2–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P