[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39330-39349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19028]



[[Page 39329]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Agriculture





_______________________________________________________________________



Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service



_______________________________________________________________________



7 CFR Part 3406



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 140 / Tuesday, July 22, 1997 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 39330]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

7 CFR Part 3406

RIN 0524-AA03


1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program; Administrative 
Provisions

AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service (CSREES) adds a new part 3406 to Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter 
XXXIV of the Code of Federal Regulations, for the purpose of 
administering the 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program 
conducted under the authority of section 1417(b)(4) of the National 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as 
amended (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)) and pursuant to annual appropriations made 
available specifically for an 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants 
Program. This action establishes and codifies the administrative 
procedures to be followed annually in the solicitation of competitive 
proposals, the evaluation of such proposals, and the award of grants 
under this program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 21, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jeffrey L. Gilmore at 202-720-1973 
(voice), 202-720-2030 (fax) or via electronic mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CSREES published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) on the administrative provisions for the 1890 
Institution Capacity Building Grants Program in the Federal Register on 
December 20, 1995 (60 FR 66014-66033).

Public Comments and Statutory Changes

    In the NPRM, CSREES invited comments on the proposed regulations 
for consideration in the formulation of a final rule. One comment was 
received proposing that the Code of Federal Regulations be changed to 
include, as eligible institutions, two-year community colleges that 
offer agricultural education.
    Institutional eligibility for grants is limited by statute and is 
outside the scope of this regulation to address. The 1890 Institution 
Capacity Building Grants Program operates under the authority of 
section 1417(b)(4) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (NARETPA) (7 U.S.C. 
3152(b)) and pursuant to annual appropriations made available 
specifically for an 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program. 
See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 104-180, 110 Stat. 1574. These statutes limit 
the institutions eligible to receive grants. Community colleges and 
other two-year institutions are not eligible for grants under this 
program. Section 1417(b) of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)) authorizes the 
Secretary of Agriculture to make competitive grants to land-grant and 
other ``colleges and universities having a demonstrable capacity to 
carry out the teaching of food and agricultural sciences.'' The terms 
``college'' and ``university'' are defined in section 1404(4) of 
NARETPA (7 U.S.C. 3103(4)(C)) as educational institutions that provide 
``an educational program for which a bachelor's degree or any other 
higher degree is awarded.'' The annual appropriations acts provide 
funds specifically for 1890 capacity building grants. Institutions 
eligible to receive grants are the 16 historically black 1890 land-
grant institutions and Tuskegee University.
    Pursuant to section 805(a) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement 
and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR Act) (Pub. L. 104-127, April 4, 1996), 
authority for this program was changed from section 1472(c) to section 
1417(b)(4) of NARETPA. Section 3406.1 (a) of the proposed rule has been 
revised accordingly in this final rule. Section 805(b) of the FAIR Act 
amended section 1417(c) of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. 3152(c)) by adding a new 
paragraph (3), which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make 
competitive grants under section 1417 to a research foundation 
maintained by an eligible college or university. The definition of 
``1890 institution'' in Sec. 3406.2 in the proposed rule has been 
revised to reflect this change. Section 3406.3 also was revised to 
include research foundations as eligible under this program.
    Minor changes have been made to the provisions for grant extensions 
in Sec. 3406.25(c). These changes reflect existing law and allow 
flexibility in defining terms for extensions in each agreement. Thus, 
CSREES does not think further comment is required.
    The reference in Sec. 3406.24(a) to 7 CFR part 3015 has been 
changed to reflect the currently applicable USDA assistance regulations 
at 7 CFR part 3019. References to ``CSRS'' forms have been changed to 
``CSREES'' forms.
    There are no other substantive differences between the NPRM and 
this final rule.

Background and Purpose

    Historically, the Department has had a close relationship with the 
1890 colleges and universities, including Tuskegee University. Through 
its role as administrator of the Second Morrill Act, Act of August 30, 
1890, as amended (7 U.S.C. 321, et seq.) the Department has borne the 
responsibility for helping these institutions develop to their fullest 
potential in order to meet the needs of students and the needs of the 
Nation.
    This document establishes part 3406 of title 7, subtitle B, chapter 
XXXIV of the Code of Federal Regulations, for the purpose of 
administering the 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program. 
Under the authority of section 1417(b)(4) of the National Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 
U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)), and pursuant to annual appropriations made 
available specifically by Congress for an 1890 Institution Capacity 
Building Grants Program (see, e.g., Pub. L. 104-180, 110 Stat. 1574), 
the Secretary conducts this institutional capacity building grants 
program.
    This rule establishes and codifies the administrative procedures to 
be followed annually in the solicitation of grant proposals, the 
evaluation of such proposals, and the award of grants under this 
program. The 1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program is 
competitive in nature and is intended to stimulate the development of 
high quality teaching and research programs at these institutions to 
build their capacities as full partners in the mission of the 
Department to provide more, and better-trained, professionals for 
careers in the food and agricultural sciences.

Classification

Executive Order No. 12866

    This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office 
of Management and Budget. It has been determined that this rule is not 
a ``significant regulatory action'' rule because it will not have an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely and 
materially affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities. This rule will not create any 
serious inconsistencies or otherwise interfere

[[Page 39331]]

with actions taken or planned by another agency. It will not materially 
alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof, and does 
not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, 
the President's priorities, or principles set forth in Executive Order 
No. 12866.

Paperwork Reduction

    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 final rule have been reviewed and 
approved by OMB and given the OMB Document Nos. 0524-0022, 0524-0024, 
0524-0030, and 0524-0033. The public reporting burden for the 
information collections contained in these regulations (Forms CSREES-
662, CSREES-663, CSREES-708, CSREES-710, CSREES-711, CSREES-712, 
CSREES-713, and CSREES-1234 as well as the Proposal Summary, Proposal 
Narrative, and Budget Narrative) is estimated to be 39\1/2\ hours per 
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments 
regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection 
of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the 
Department of Agriculture, Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief 
Information Officer, Stop 7602, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, DC 20250-7602, and to the Office of Management and Budget, 
Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, DC 20503. This rule has no 
additional impact on any existing data collection burden.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Administrator, CSREES, certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined 
in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-534, as amended (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.). Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required for this final rule.

Executive Order No. 12612

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

Environmental Impact Statement

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

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

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

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3406

    Grant programs--agriculture, Agriculture Higher Education Programs, 
1890 Institution Capacity Building Grants Program.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 7, subtitle B, 
chapter XXXIV, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended by adding 
part 3406 to read as follows:

PART 3406--1890 INSTITUTION CAPACITY BUILDING GRANTS PROGRAM

Subpart A--General Information

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

Subpart B--Program Description

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

Subpart C--Preparation of a Teaching Proposal

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

Subpart D--Review and Evaluation of a Teaching Proposal

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

Subpart E--Preparation of a Research Proposal

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

Subpart F--Review and Evaluation of a Research Proposal

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

Subpart G--Submission of a Teaching or Research Proposal

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

Subpart H--Supplementary Information

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

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

Subpart A--General Information


Sec. 3406.1  Applicability of regulations.

    (a) The regulations of this part apply only to capacity building 
grants awarded to the 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee 
University under the provisions of section 1417(b)(4) of the National 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as 
amended (NARETPA) (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) and pursuant to annual 
appropriations made available specifically for an 1890 capacity 
building program. Section 1417(b)(4) authorizes the Secretary of 
Agriculture, who has delegated the authority to the Administrator of 
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
(CSREES), to make competitive grants to land-grant colleges and 
universities, to colleges and universities having significant minority 
enrollments and a demonstrable capacity to carry out the teaching of 
food and agricultural sciences, and to other colleges and universities 
having a demonstrable capacity to carry out the teaching of food and 
agricultural sciences, for a period not to exceed 5 years, to design 
and implement food and agricultural programs to build teaching and 
research capacity at colleges and universities having significant 
minority enrollments. Based on and subject to the express provisions of 
the annual appropriations act, only 1890 land-grant institutions and 
Tuskegee University are eligible for this grants program.
    (b) To the extent that funds are available, each year CSREES will 
publish a Federal Register notice

[[Page 39332]]

announcing the program and soliciting grant applications.
    (c)(1) Based on the amount of funds appropriated in any fiscal 
year, CSREES will determine and cite in the program announcement:
    (i) The program area(s) to be supported (teaching, research, or 
both);
    (ii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or available 
to, teaching projects and research projects;
    (iii) The targeted need area(s) in teaching and in research to be 
supported;
    (iv) The degree level(s) to be supported;
    (v) The maximum project period a proposal may request;
    (vi) The maximum amount of funds that may be requested by an 
institution under a regular, complementary, or joint project proposal; 
and
    (vii) The maximum total funds that may be awarded to an institution 
under the program in a given fiscal year, including how funds awarded 
for complementary and for joint projects will be counted toward the 
institutional maximum.
    (2) The program announcement will also specify the deadline date 
for proposal submission, the number of copies of each proposal that 
must be submitted, the address to which a proposal must be submitted, 
and whether or not Form CSREES-711, ``Intent to Submit a Proposal,'' is 
requested.
    (d)(1) If it is deemed by CSREES that, for a given fiscal year, 
additional determinations are necessary, each, as relevant, will be 
stated in the program announcement. Such determinations may include:
    (i) Limits on the subject matter/emphasis areas to be supported;
    (ii) The maximum number of proposals that may be submitted on 
behalf of the same school, college, or equivalent administrative unit 
within an institution;
    (iii) The maximum total number of proposals that may be submitted 
by an institution;
    (iv) The maximum number of proposals that may be submitted by an 
individual in any one targeted need area;
    (v) The minimum project period a proposal may request;
    (vi) The minimum amount of funds that may be requested by an 
institution under a regular, complementary, or joint project proposal;
    (vii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or 
available to, regular, complementary, and joint project proposals;
    (viii) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or 
available to, projects in each announced targeted need area;
    (ix) The proportion of the appropriation reserved for, or available 
to, each subject matter/emphasis area;
    (x) The maximum number of grants that may be awarded to an 
institution under the program in a given fiscal year, including how 
grants awarded for complementary and joint projects will be counted 
toward the institutional maximum; and
    (xi) Limits on the use of grant funds for travel or to purchase 
equipment, if any.
    (2) The program announcement also will contain any other 
limitations deemed necessary by CSREES for proper conduct of the 
program in the applicable year.
    (e) The regulations of this part prescribe that this is a 
competitive program; it is possible that an institution may not receive 
any grant awards in a particular year.
    (f) The regulations of this part do not apply to grants for other 
purposes awarded by the Department of Agriculture under section 1417 of 
the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act 
of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3152) or any other authority.


Sec. 3406.2  Definitions.

    As used in this part:
    Authorized departmental officer means the Secretary or any employee 
of the Department who has the authority to issue or modify grant 
instruments on behalf of the Secretary.
    Authorized organizational representative means the president of the 
1890 Institution or the official, designated by the president of the 
institution, who has the authority to commit the resources of the 
institution.
    Budget period means the interval of time (usually 12 months) into 
which the project period is divided for budgetary and reporting 
purposes.
    Cash contributions means the applicant's cash outlay, including the 
outlay of money contributed to the applicant by non-Federal third 
parties.
    Citizen or national of the United States means:
    (1) A citizen or native resident of a State; or,
    (2) a person defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1101(a)(22), who, though not a citizen of the United States, 
owes permanent allegiance to the United States.
    College or University means an educational institution in any State 
which:
    (1) Admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of 
graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the 
recognized equivalent of such a certificate;
    (2) Is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of 
education beyond secondary education;
    (3) Provides an educational program for which a baccalaureate 
degree or any other higher degree is awarded;
    (4) Is a public or other nonprofit institution; and
    (5) Is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or 
association.
    Complementary project proposal means a proposal for a project which 
involves coordination with one or more other projects for which funding 
was awarded under this program in a previous fiscal year, or for which 
funding is requested under this program in the current fiscal year.
    Cost-sharing or Matching means that portion of project costs not 
borne by the Federal Government, including the value of in-kind 
contributions.
    Department or USDA means the United States Department of 
Agriculture.
    1890 Institution or 1890 land-grant institution or 1890 colleges 
and universities means one of those institutions eligible to receive 
funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 417-419, as amended; 7 
U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), or a research foundation maintained by such 
institution, that are the intended recipients of funds under programs 
established in Subtitle G of the National Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3221 
et seq.), including Tuskegee University.
    Eligible participant means, for purposes of Sec. 3406.11(b), 
Faculty Preparation and Enhancement for Teaching, and Sec. 3406.11(f), 
Student Recruitment and Retention, an individual who:
    (1) Is a citizen or national of the United States, as defined in 
this section; or
    (2) Is a citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Republic of Palau. Where 
eligibility is claimed under paragraph (2) of the definition of 
``citizen or national of the United States'' as specified in this 
section, documentary evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service as to such eligibility must be made available to CSREES upon 
request.
    Food and agricultural sciences means basic, applied, and 
developmental research, extension, and teaching

[[Page 39333]]

activities in the food, agricultural, renewable natural resources, 
forestry, and physical and social sciences, in the broadest sense of 
these terms, including but not limited to, activities concerned with 
the production, processing, marketing, distribution, conservation, 
consumption, research, and development of food and agriculturally 
related products and services, and inclusive of programs in 
agriculture, natural resources, aquaculture, forestry, veterinary 
medicine, home economics, rural development, and closely allied 
disciplines.
    Grantee means the 1890 Institution designated in the grant award 
document as the responsible legal entity to which a grant is awarded.
    Joint project proposal means a proposal for a project, which will 
involve the applicant 1890 Institution and two or more other colleges, 
universities, community colleges, junior colleges, or other 
institutions, each of which will assume a major role in the conduct of 
the proposed project, and for which the applicant institution will 
transfer at least one-half of the awarded funds to the other 
institutions participating in the project. Only the applicant 
institution must meet the definition of ``1890 Institution'' as 
specified in this section; the other institutions participating in a 
joint project proposal are not required to meet the definition of 
``1890 Institution'' as specified in this section, nor required to meet 
the definition of ``college'' or ``university'' as specified in this 
section.
    Peer review panel means a group of experts or consultants, 
qualified by training and experience in particular fields of science, 
education, or technology to give expert advice on the merit of grant 
applications in such fields, who evaluate eligible proposals submitted 
to this program in their personal area(s) of expertise.
    Principal investigator/project director means the single individual 
designated by the grantee in the grant application and approved by the 
Secretary who is responsible for the direction and management of the 
project.
    Prior approval means written approval evidencing prior consent by 
an ``authorized departmental officer'' as defined in this section.
    Project means the particular teaching or research activity within 
the scope of one or more of the targeted areas supported by a grant 
awarded under this program.
    Project period means the period, as stated in the award document 
and modifications thereto, if any, during which Federal sponsorship 
begins and ends.
    Research means any systematic inquiry directed toward new or fuller 
knowledge and understanding of the subject studied.
    Research capacity means the quality and depth of an institution's 
research infrastructure as evidenced by its: faculty expertise in the 
natural or social sciences, scientific and technical resources, 
research environment, library resources, and organizational structures 
and reward systems for attracting and retaining first-rate research 
faculty or students at the graduate and post-doctorate levels.
    Research project grant means a grant in support of a project that 
addresses one or more of the targeted need areas or specific subject 
matter/emphasis areas identified in the annual program announcement 
related to strengthening research programs including, but not limited 
to, such initiatives as: Studies and experimentation in food and 
agricultural sciences, centralized research support systems, technology 
delivery systems, and other creative projects designed to provide 
needed enhancement of the Nation's food and agricultural research 
system.
    Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture and any other officer 
or employee of the Department of Agriculture to whom the authority 
involved may be delegated.
    State means any one of the fifty States, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, 
the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the District of Columbia.
    Teaching means formal classroom instruction, laboratory 
instruction, and practicum experience in the food and agricultural 
sciences and matters related thereto (such as faculty development, 
student recruitment and services, curriculum development, instructional 
materials and equipment, and innovative teaching methodologies) 
conducted by colleges and universities offering baccalaureate or higher 
degrees.
    Teaching capacity means the quality and depth of an institution's 
academic programs infrastructure as evidenced by its: Curriculum, 
teaching faculty, instructional delivery systems, student experiential 
learning opportunities, scientific instrumentation for teaching, 
library resources, academic standing and racial, ethnic, or gender 
diversity of its faculty and student body as well as faculty and 
student recruitment and retention programs provided by a college or 
university in order to achieve maximum results in the development of 
scientific and professional expertise for the Nation's food and 
agricultural system.
    Teaching project grant means a grant in support of a project that 
addresses one or more of the targeted need areas or specific subject 
matter/emphasis areas identified in the annual program announcement 
related to strengthening teaching programs including, but not limited 
to, such initiatives as: Curricula design and materials development, 
faculty preparation and enhancement for teaching, instruction delivery 
systems, scientific instrumentation for teaching, student experiential 
learning, and student recruitment and retention.
    Third party in-kind contributions means non-cash contributions of 
property or services provided by non-Federal third parties, including 
real property, equipment, supplies and other expendable property, 
directly benefiting and specifically identifiable to a funded project 
or program.
    USDA agency cooperator means any agency or office of the Department 
which has reviewed and endorsed an applicant's request for support, and 
indicates a willingness to make available non-monetary resources or 
technical assistance throughout the life of a project to ensure the 
accomplishment of the objectives of a grant awarded under this program.


Sec. 3406.3  Institutional eligibility.

    Proposals may be submitted by any of the 16 historically black 1890 
land-grant institutions and Tuskegee University. The 1890 land-grant 
institutions are: Alabama A&M University; University of Arkansas--Pine 
Bluff; Delaware State University; Florida A&M University; Fort Valley 
State College; Kentucky State University; Southern University and A&M 
College; University of Maryland--Eastern Shore; Alcorn State 
University; Lincoln University; North Carolina A&T State University; 
Langston University; South Carolina State University; Tennessee State 
University; Prairie View A&M University; and Virginia State University. 
An institution eligible to receive an award under this program includes 
a research foundation maintained by an 1890 land-grant institution or 
Tuskegee University.

Subpart B--Program Description


Sec. 3406.4  Purpose of the program.

    (a) The Department of Agriculture and the Nation depend upon sound 
programs in the food and agricultural sciences at the Nation's colleges 
and universities to produce well trained professionals for careers in 
the food and agricultural sciences. The capacity of institutions to 
offer suitable programs in

[[Page 39334]]

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


Sec. 3406.5  Matching support.

    The Department strongly encourages and may require non-Federal 
matching support for this program. In the annual program solicitation, 
CSREES will announce any incentives that may be offered to applicants 
for committing their own institutional resources or securing third 
party contributions in support of capacity building projects. CSREES 
may also announce any required fixed dollar amount or percentage of 
institutional cost sharing, if applicable.


Sec. 3406.6  USDA agency cooperator requirement.

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


Sec. 3406.7  General scope of program.

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


Sec. 3406.8  Joint project proposals.

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


Sec. 3406.9  Complementary project proposals.

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


Sec. 3406.10  Use of funds for facilities.

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

Subpart C--Preparation of a Teaching Proposal


Sec. 3406.11  Scope of a teaching proposal.

    The teaching component of the program will support the targeted 
need area(s) related to strengthening teaching programs as specified in 
the annual program announcement. Proposals may focus on any subject 
matter area(s) in the food and agricultural sciences unless limited by 
determinations as specified in the annual program announcement. A 
proposal may address a single targeted need area or multiple targeted 
need areas, and may be focused on a single subject matter area or 
multiple subject matter areas, in any combination (e.g., curriculum 
development in horticulture; curriculum development, faculty 
enhancement, and student experiential learning in animal science; 
faculty enhancement in food science and agribusiness management; or 
instruction delivery systems and student experiential learning in plant 
science, horticulture, and entomology). Applicants are also encouraged 
to include a library enhancement component related to the teaching 
project in their proposals. A proposal may be directed toward the 
undergraduate or graduate level of study as specified in the annual 
program announcement. Targeted need areas for teaching programs will 
consist of one or more of the following:

[[Page 39335]]

    (a) Curricula design and materials development. (1) The purpose of 
this need area is to promote new and improved curricula and materials 
to increase the quality of, and continuously renew, the Nation's 
academic programs in the food and agricultural sciences. The overall 
objective is to stimulate the development and facilitate the use of 
exemplary education models and materials that incorporate the most 
recent advances in subject matter, research on teaching and learning 
theory, and instructional technology. Proposals may emphasize: The 
development of courses of study, degree programs, and instructional 
materials; the use of new approaches to the study of traditional 
subjects; or the introduction of new subjects, or new applications of 
knowledge, pertaining to the food and agricultural sciences.
    (2) Examples include, but are not limited to, curricula and 
materials that promote:
    (i) Raising the level of scholastic achievement of the Nation's 
graduates in the food and agricultural sciences.
    (ii) Addressing the special needs of particular groups of students, 
such as minorities, gifted and talented, or those with educational 
backgrounds that warrant enrichment.
    (iii) Using alternative instructional strategies or methodologies, 
including computer-assisted instruction or simulation modeling, media 
programs that reach large audiences efficiently and effectively, 
activities that provide hands-on learning experiences, and educational 
programs that extend learning beyond the classroom.
    (iv) Using sound pedagogy, particularly with regard to recent 
research on how to motivate students to learn, retain, apply, and 
transfer knowledge, skills, and competencies.
    (v) Building student competencies to integrate and synthesize 
knowledge from several disciplines.
    (b) Faculty preparation and enhancement for teaching. (1) The 
purpose of this need area is to advance faculty development in the 
areas of teaching competency, subject matter expertise, or student 
recruitment and advising skills. Teachers are central to education. 
They serve as models, motivators, and mentors--the catalysts of the 
learning process. Moreover, teachers are agents for developing, 
replicating, and exchanging effective teaching materials and methods. 
For these reasons, education can be strengthened only when teachers are 
adequately prepared, highly motivated, and appropriately recognized and 
rewarded.
    (2) Each faculty recipient of support for developmental activities 
under Sec. 3406.11(b) must be an ``eligible participant'' as defined in 
Sec. 3406.2 of this part.
    (3) Examples of developmental activities include, but are not 
limited to, those which enable teaching faculty to:
    (i) Gain experience with recent developments or innovative 
technology relevant to their teaching responsibilities.
    (ii) Work under the guidance and direction of experts who have 
substantial expertise in an area related to the developmental goals of 
the project.
    (iii) Work with scientists or professionals in government, 
industry, or other colleges or universities to learn new applications 
in a field.
    (iv) Obtain personal experience working with new ideas and 
techniques.
    (v) Expand competence with new methods of information delivery, 
such as computer-assisted or televised instruction.
    (c) Instruction delivery systems. (1) The purpose of this need area 
is to encourage the use of alternative methods of delivering 
instruction to enhance the quality, effectiveness, and cost efficiency 
of teaching programs. The importance of this initiative is evidenced by 
advances in educational research which have substantiated the theory 
that differences in the learning styles of students often require 
alternative instructional methodologies. Also, the rising costs of 
higher education strongly suggest that colleges and universities 
undertake more efforts of a collaborative nature in order to deliver 
instruction which maximizes program quality and reduces unnecessary 
duplication. At the same time, advancements in knowledge and technology 
continue to introduce new subject matter areas which warrant 
consideration and implementation of innovative instruction techniques, 
methodologies, and delivery systems.
    (2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Use of computers.
    (ii) Teleconferencing.
    (iii) Networking via satellite communications.
    (iv) Regionalization of academic programs.
    (v) Mobile classrooms and laboratories.
    (vi) Individualized learning centers.
    (vii) Symposia, forums, regional or national workshops, etc.
    (d) Scientific Instrumentation for teaching. (1) The purpose of 
this need area is to provide students in science-oriented courses the 
necessary experience with suitable, up-to-date equipment in order to 
involve them in work central to scientific understanding and progress. 
This program initiative will support the acquisition of instructional 
laboratory and classroom equipment to assure the achievement and 
maintenance of outstanding food and agricultural sciences higher 
education programs. A proposal may request support for acquiring new, 
state-of-the-art instructional scientific equipment, upgrading existing 
equipment, or replacing non-functional or clearly obsolete equipment.
    (2) Examples include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Rental or purchase of modern instruments to improve student 
learning experiences in courses, laboratories, and field work.
    (ii) Development of new ways of using instrumentation to extend 
instructional capabilities.
    (iii) Establishment of equipment-sharing capability via consortia 
or centers that develop innovative opportunities, such as mobile 
laboratories or satellite access to industry or government 
laboratories.
    (e) Student experiential learning. (1) The purpose of this need 
area is to further the development of student scientific and 
professional competencies through experiential learning programs which 
provide students with opportunities to solve complex problems in the 
context of real-world situations. Effective experiential learning is 
essential in preparing future graduates to advance knowledge and 
technology, enhance quality of life, conserve resources, and revitalize 
the Nation's economic competitiveness. Such experiential learning 
opportunities are most effective when they serve to advance decision-
making and communication skills as well as technological expertise.
    (2) Examples include, but are not limited to, projects which:
    (i) Provide opportunities for students to participate in research 
projects, either as a part of an ongoing research project or in a 
project designed especially for this program.
    (ii) Provide opportunities for students to complete 
apprenticeships, internships, or similar participatory learning 
experiences.
    (iii) Expand and enrich courses which are of a practicum nature.
    (iv) Provide career mentoring experiences that link students with 
outstanding professionals.
    (f) Student recruitment and retention. (1) The purpose of this need 
area is to strengthen student recruitment and retention programs in 
order to promote

[[Page 39336]]

the future strength of the Nation's scientific and professional work 
force. The Nation's economic competitiveness and quality of life rest 
upon the availability of a cadre of outstanding research scientists, 
university faculty, and other professionals in the food and 
agricultural sciences. A substantial need exists to supplement efforts 
to attract increased numbers of academically outstanding students to 
prepare for careers as food and agricultural scientists and 
professionals. It is particularly important to augment the racial, 
ethnic, and gender diversity of the student body in order to promote a 
robust exchange of ideas and a more effective use of the full breadth 
of the Nation's intellectual resources.
    (2) Each student recipient of monetary support for education costs 
or developmental purposes under Sec. 3406.11(f) must be enrolled at an 
eligible institution and meet the requirement of an ``eligible 
participant'' as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of this part.
    (3) Examples include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Special outreach programs for elementary and secondary students 
as well as parents, counselors, and the general public to broaden 
awareness of the extensive nature and diversity of career opportunities 
for graduates in the food and agricultural sciences.
    (ii) Special activities and materials to establish more effective 
linkages with high school science classes.
    (iii) Unique or innovative student recruitment activities, 
materials, and personnel.
    (iv) Special retention programs to assure student progression 
through and completion of an educational program.
    (v) Development and dissemination of stimulating career information 
materials.
    (vi) Use of regional or national media to promote food and 
agricultural sciences higher education.
    (vii) Providing financial incentives to enable and encourage 
students to pursue and complete an undergraduate or graduate degree in 
an area of the food and agricultural sciences.


Sec. 3406.12  Program application materials--teaching.

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


Sec. 3406.13  Content of a teaching proposal.

    (a) Proposal cover page. (1) Form CSREES-712, ``Higher Education 
Proposal Cover Page,'' must be completed in its entirety. Note that 
providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral 
part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing 
of the proposal.
    (2) One copy of the Form CSREES-712 must contain the pen-and-ink 
signatures of the project director(s) and authorized organizational 
representative for the applicant institution.
    (3) The title of the teaching project shown on the ``Higher 
Education Proposal Cover Page'' must be brief (80-character maximum) 
yet represent the major thrust of the project. This information will be 
used by the Department to provide information to the Congress and other 
interested parties.
    (4) In block 7. of Form CSREES-712, enter ``1890 Institution 
Capacity Building Grants Program.''
    (5) In block 8.a. of Form CSREES-712, enter ``Teaching.'' In block 
8.b. identify the code for the targeted need area(s) as found on the 
reverse of the form. If a proposal focuses on multiple targeted need 
areas, enter each code associated with the project. In block 8.c. 
identify the major area(s) of emphasis as found on the reverse of the 
form. If a proposal focuses on multiple areas of emphasis, enter each 
code associated with the project; however, limit the selection to three 
areas. This information will be used by program staff for the proper 
assignment of proposals to reviewers.
    (6) In block 9. of Form CSREES-712, indicate if the proposal is a 
complementary project proposal or a joint project proposal as defined 
in Sec. 3406.2 of this part. If it is not a complementary project 
proposal or a joint project proposal, identify it as a regular project 
proposal.
    (7) In block 13. of Form CSREES-712, indicate if the proposal is a 
new, first-time submission or if the proposal is a resubmission of a 
proposal that has been submitted to, but not funded under, the 1890 
Institution Capacity Building Grants Program in a previous competition.
    (b) Table of contents. For ease in locating information, each 
proposal must contain a detailed table of contents just after the 
Proposal Cover Page. The Table of Contents should include page numbers 
for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately 
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation.
    (c) USDA agency cooperator. To be considered for funding, each 
proposal must include documentation of cooperation with at least one 
USDA agency or office. If multiple agencies are involved as 
cooperators, documentation must be included from each agency. When 
documenting cooperative arrangements, the following guidelines should 
be used:
    (1) A summary of the cooperative arrangements must immediately 
follow the Table of Contents. This summary should:
    (i) Bear the signatures of the Agency Head (or his/her designated 
authorized representative) and the university project director;
    (ii) Indicate the agency's willingness to commit support for the 
project;
    (iii) Identify the person(s) at the USDA agency who will serve as 
the liaison or technical contact for the project;
    (iv) Describe the degree and nature of the USDA agency's 
involvement in the proposed project, as outlined in Sec. 3406.6(a) of 
this part, including its role in:
    (A) Identifying the need for the project;
    (B) Developing a conceptual approach;
    (C) Assisting with project design;
    (D) Identifying and securing needed agency or other resources 
(e.g., personnel, grants/contracts; in-kind support, etc.);
    (E) Developing the project budget;
    (F) Promoting partnerships with other institutions to carry out the 
project;
    (G) Helping the institution launch and manage the project;
    (H) Providing technical assistance and expertise;
    (I) Providing consultation through site visits, E-mail, conference 
calls, and faxes;
    (J) Participating in project evaluation and dissemination of final 
project results; and
    (K) Seeking other innovative ways to ensure the success of the 
project and advance the needs of the institution or the agency; and
    (v) Describe the expected benefits of the partnership venture for 
the USDA agency and for the 1890 Institution.
    (2) A detailed discussion of these partnership arrangements should 
be provided in the narrative portion of the proposal, as outlined in 
paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(C) of this section.
    (3) Additional documentation, including letters of support or 
cooperation, may be provided in the Appendix.
    (d) Project summary. (1) A Project Summary should immediately 
follow the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation section. 
The

[[Page 39337]]

information provided in the Project Summary will be used by the program 
staff for a variety of purposes, including the proper assignment of 
proposals to reviewers and providing information to reviewers prior to 
the peer panel meeting. The name of the institution, the targeted need 
area(s), and the title of the proposal must be identified exactly as 
shown on the ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page.''
    (2) If the proposal is a complementary project proposal, as defined 
in Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other 
complementary project(s) by citing the name of the submitting 
institution, the title of the project, the project director, and the 
grant number (if funded in a previous year) exactly as shown on the 
cover page of the complementary project so that appropriate 
consideration can be given to the interrelatedness of the proposals in 
the evaluation process.
    (3) If the proposal is a joint project proposal, as defined in 
Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other 
participating institutions and the key faculty member or other 
individual responsible for coordinating the project at each 
institution.
    (4) The Project Summary should be a concise description of the 
proposed activity suitable for publication by the Department to inform 
the general public about awards under the program. The text must not 
exceed one page, single-spaced. The Project Summary should be a self-
contained description of the activity which would result if the 
proposal is funded by USDA. It should include: The objectives of the 
project; a synopsis of the plan of operation; a statement of how the 
project will enhance the teaching capacity of the institution; a 
description of how the project will strengthen higher education in the 
food and agricultural sciences in the United States; a description of 
the partnership efforts between, and the expected benefits for, the 
USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890 Institution; and the plans for 
disseminating project results. The Project Summary should be written so 
that a technically literate reader can evaluate the use of Federal 
funds in support of the project.
    (e) Resubmission of a proposal.--(1) Resubmission of previously 
unfunded proposals. (i) If a proposal has been submitted previously, 
but was not funded, such should be indicated in block 13. on Form 
CSREES-712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and the following 
information should be included in the proposal:
    (A) The fiscal year(s) in which the proposal was submitted 
previously;
    (B) A summary of the peer reviewers' comments; and
    (C) How these comments have been addressed in the current proposal, 
including the page numbers in the current proposal where the peer 
reviewers' comments have been addressed.
    (ii) This information may be provided as a section of the proposal 
following the Project Summary and preceding the proposal narrative or 
it may be placed in the Appendix (see paragraph (j) of this section). 
In either case, the location of this information should be indicated in 
the Table of Contents, and the fact that the proposal is a resubmitted 
proposal should be stated in the proposal narrative. Further, when 
possible, the information should be presented in tabular format. 
Applicants who choose to resubmit proposals that were previously 
submitted, but not funded, should note that resubmitted proposals must 
compete equally with newly submitted proposals. Submitting a proposal 
that has been revised based on a previous peer review panel's critique 
of the proposal does not guarantee the success of the resubmitted 
proposal.
    (2) Resubmission of previously funded proposals. Recognizing that 
capacity building is a long-term ongoing process, the 1890 Institution 
Capacity Building Grants Program is interested in funding subsequent 
phases of previously funded projects in order to build institutional 
capacity, and institutions are encouraged to build on a theme over 
several grant awards. However, proposals that are sequential 
continuations or new stages of previously funded Capacity Building 
Grants must compete with first-time proposals. Therefore, project 
directors should thoroughly demonstrate how the project proposed in the 
current application expands substantially upon a previously funded 
project (i.e., demonstrate how the new project will advance the former 
project to the next level of attainment or will achieve expanded 
goals). The proposal must also show the degree to which the new phase 
promotes innovativeness and creativity beyond the scope of the 
previously funded project. Please note that the 1890 Institution 
Capacity Building Grants Program is not designed to support activities 
that are essentially repetitive in nature over multiple grant awards. 
Project directors who have had their projects funded previously are 
discouraged from resubmitting relatively identical proposals for 
further funding.
    (f) Narrative of a teaching proposal. The narrative portion of the 
proposal is limited to 20 pages in length. The one-page Project Summary 
is not included in the 20-page limitation. The narrative must be typed 
on one side of the page only, using a font no smaller than 12 point, 
and double-spaced. All margins must be at least one inch. All pages 
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation must be 
paginated. It should be noted that peer reviewers will not be required 
to read beyond 20 pages of the narrative to evaluate the proposal. The 
narrative should contain the following sections:
    (1) Potential for advancing the quality of education.--(i) Impact.
    (A) Identify the targeted need area(s).
    (B) Clearly state the specific instructional problem or opportunity 
to be addressed.
    (C) Describe how and by whom the focus and scope of the project 
were determined. Summarize the body of knowledge which substantiates 
the need for the proposed project.
    (D) Describe ongoing or recently completed significant activities 
related to the proposed project for which previous funding was received 
under this program.
    (E) Discuss how the project will be of value at the State, 
regional, national, or international level(s).
    (F) Discuss how the benefits to be derived from the project will 
transcend the proposing institution or the grant period. Also discuss 
the probabilities of its adaptation by other institutions. For example, 
can the project serve as a model for others?
    (ii) Continuation plans. Discuss the likelihood of, or plans for, 
continuation or expansion of the project beyond USDA support. For 
example, does the institution's long-range budget or academic plan 
provide for the realistic continuation or expansion of the initiative 
undertaken by this project after the end of the grant period, are plans 
for eventual self-support built into the project, are plans being made 
to institutionalize the program if it meets with success, and are there 
indications of other continuing non-Federal support?
    (iii) Innovation. Describe the degree to which the proposal 
reflects an innovative or non-traditional approach to solving a higher 
education problem or strengthening the quality of higher education in 
the food and agricultural sciences.
    (iv) Products and results. Explain the kinds of results and 
products expected and their impact on strengthening food and 
agricultural sciences higher education in the United States, including 
attracting academically outstanding students and increasing the

[[Page 39338]]

ethnic, racial, and gender diversity of the Nation's food and 
agricultural scientific and professional expertise base.
    (2) Overall approach and cooperative linkages--(i) Proposed 
approach--(A) Objectives. Cite and discuss the specific objectives to 
be accomplished under the project.
    (B) Plan of operation. (1) Describe procedures for accomplishing 
the objectives of the project.
    (2) Describe plans for management of the project to enhance its 
proper and efficient administration.
    (3) Describe the way in which resources and personnel will be used 
to conduct the project.
    (C) Timetable. Provide a timetable for conducting the project. 
Identify all important project milestones and dates as they relate to 
project start-up, execution, dissemination, evaluation, and close-out.
    (ii) Evaluation plans. (A) Provide a plan for evaluating the 
accomplishment of stated objectives during the conduct of the project. 
Indicate the criteria, and corresponding weight of each, to be used in 
the evaluation process, describe any data to be collected and analyzed, 
and explain the methodology that will be used to determine the extent 
to which the needs underlying the project are met.
    (B) Provide a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the end 
results upon conclusion of the project. Include the same kinds of 
information requested in paragraph (f) (2)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (iii) Dissemination plans. Discuss plans to disseminate project 
results and products. Identify target audiences and explain methods of 
communication.
    (iv) Partnerships and collaborative efforts. (A) Explain how the 
project will maximize partnership ventures and collaborative efforts to 
strengthen food and agricultural sciences higher education (e.g., 
involvement of faculty in related disciplines at the same institution, 
joint projects with other colleges or universities, or cooperative 
activities with business or industry). Also explain how it will 
stimulate academia, the States, or the private sector to join with the 
Federal partner in enhancing food and agricultural sciences higher 
education.
    (B) Provide evidence, via letters from the parties involved, that 
arrangements necessary for collaborative partnerships or joint 
initiatives have been discussed and realistically can be expected to 
come to fruition, or actually have been finalized contingent on an 
award under this program. Letters must be signed by an official who has 
the authority to commit the resources of the organization. Such letters 
should be referenced in the plan of operation, but the actual letters 
should be included in the Appendix section of the proposal. Any 
potential conflict(s) of interest that might result from the proposed 
collaborative arrangements must be discussed in detail. Proposals which 
indicate joint projects with other institutions must state which 
proposer is to receive any resulting grant award, since only one 
submitting institution can be the recipient of a project grant under 
one proposal.
    (C) Explain how the project will create a new or enhance an 
existing partnership between the USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890 
Institution(s). This section should expand upon the summary information 
provided in the documentation of USDA agency cooperation section, as 
outlined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. This is particularly 
important because the focal point of attention in the peer review 
process is the proposal narrative. Therefore, a comprehensive 
discussion of the partnership effort between USDA and the 1890 
Institution should be provided.
    (3) Institutional capacity building--(i) Institutional enhancement. 
Explain how the proposed project will strengthen the teaching capacity, 
as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of this part, of the applicant institution 
and, if applicable, any other institutions assuming a major role in the 
conduct of the project. For example, describe how the proposed project 
is intended to strengthen the institution's academic infrastructure by 
expanding the current faculty's expertise base, advancing the scholarly 
quality of the institution's academic programs, enriching the racial, 
ethnic, or gender diversity of the student body, helping the 
institution establish itself as a center of excellence in a particular 
field of education, helping the institution maintain or acquire state-
of-the-art scientific instrumentation or library collections for 
teaching, or enabling the institution to provide more meaningful 
student experiential learning opportunities.
    (ii) Institutional commitment. (A) Discuss the institution's 
commitment to the project and its successful completion. Provide, as 
relevant, appropriate documentation in the Appendix. Substantiate that 
the institution attributes a high priority to the project.
    (B) Discuss how the project will contribute to the achievement of 
the institution's long-term (five- to ten-year) goals and how the 
project will help satisfy the institution's high-priority objectives. 
Show how this project is linked to and supported by the institution's 
strategic plan.
    (C) Discuss the commitment of institutional resources to the 
project. Show that the institutional resources to be made available to 
the project will be adequate, when combined with the support requested 
from USDA, to carry out the activities of the project and represent a 
sound commitment by the institution. Discuss institutional facilities, 
equipment, computer services, and other appropriate resources available 
to the project.
    (g) Key personnel. A Form CSREES-708, ``Summary Vita--Teaching 
Proposal,'' should be included for each key person associated with the 
project.
    (h) Budget and cost-effectiveness.--(1) Budget form. (i) Prepare 
Form CSREES-713, ``Higher Education Budget,'' in accordance with 
instructions provided with the form. Proposals may request support for 
a period to be identified in each year's program announcement. A budget 
form is required for each year of requested support. In addition, a 
summary budget is required detailing the requested total support for 
the overall project period. Form CSREES-713 may be reproduced as needed 
by proposers. Funds may be requested under any of the categories listed 
on the form, provided that the item or service for which support is 
requested is allowable under the authorizing legislation, the 
applicable Federal cost principles, the administrative provisions in 
this part, and can be justified as necessary for the successful conduct 
of the proposed project.
    (ii) The approved negotiated instruction rate or the maximum rate 
allowed by law should be used when computing indirect costs. If a 
reduced rate of indirect costs is voluntarily requested from USDA, the 
remaining allowable indirect costs may be used as matching funds.
    (2) Matching funds. When documenting matching contributions, use 
the following guidelines:
    (i) When preparing the column entitled ``Applicant Contributions To 
Matching Funds'' of Form CSREES-713, only those costs to be contributed 
by the applicant for the purposes of matching should be shown. The 
total amount of this column should be indicated in item M.
    (ii) In item N of Form CSREES-713, show a total dollar amount for 
Cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties; also 
show a total dollar amount (based on current fair market value) for 
Non-cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties.

[[Page 39339]]

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

Subpart D--Review and Evaluation of a Teaching Proposal


Sec. 3406.14  Proposal review--teaching.

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

[[Page 39340]]

be selected and structured to provide optimum expertise and objective 
judgment in the evaluation of proposals.


Sec. 3406.15  Evaluation criteria for teaching proposals.

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

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

[[Page 39341]]

                                                                        
(f) Overall quality of proposal: This criterion  5 points.              
 relates to the degree to which the proposal                            
 complies with the application guidelines and                           
 is of high quality. Is the proposal enhanced                           
 by its adherence to instructions (table of                             
 contents, organization, pagination, margin and                         
 font size, the 20-page limitation, appendices,                         
 etc.); accuracy of forms; clarity of budget                            
 narrative; well prepared vitae for all key                             
 personnel associated with the project; and                             
 presentation (are ideas effectively presented,                         
 clearly articulated, and thoroughly explained,                         
 etc.)?                                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart E--Preparation of a Research Proposal


Sec. 3406.16  Scope of a research proposal.

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


Sec. 3406.17  Program application materials--research.

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


Sec. 3406.18  Content of a research proposal.

    (a) Proposal cover page. (1) Form CSREES-712, ``Higher Education 
Proposal Cover Page,'' must be completed in its entirety. Note that 
providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral 
part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing 
of the proposal.
    (2) One copy of Form CSREES-712 must contain the pen-and-ink 
signatures of the principal investigator(s) and Authorized 
Organizational Representative for the applicant institution.
    (3) The title of the research project shown on the ``Higher 
Education Proposal Cover Page'' must be brief (80-character maximum) 
yet represent the major thrust of the project. This information will be 
used by the Department to provide information to the Congress and other 
interested parties.
    (4) In block 7. of Form CSREES-712, enter ``Capacity Building 
Grants Program.''
    (5) In block 8.a. of Form CSREES-712, enter ``Research.'' In block 
8.b. identify the code of the targeted need area(s) as found on the 
reverse of the form. If a proposal focuses on multiple targeted need 
areas, enter each code associated with the project. In block 8.c. 
identify the major area(s) of emphasis as found on the reverse of the 
form. If a proposal focuses on multiple areas of emphasis, enter each 
code associated with the project; however, please limit your selection 
to three areas. This information will be used by the program staff for 
the proper assignment of proposals to reviewers.
    (6) In block 9. of Form CSREES-712, indicate if the proposal is a 
complementary project proposal or joint project proposal as defined in 
Sec. 3406.2 of this part. If it is not a complementary project proposal 
or a joint project proposal, identify it as a regular proposal.
    (7) In block 13. of Form CSREES-712, indicate if the proposal is a 
new, first-time submission or if the proposal is a resubmission of a 
proposal that has been

[[Page 39342]]

submitted to, but not funded under the 1890 Institution Capacity 
Building Grants Program in a previous competition.
    (b) Table of contents. For ease of locating information, each 
proposal must contain a detailed table of contents just after the 
Proposal Cover Page. The Table of Contents should include page numbers 
for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately 
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation.
    (c) USDA agency cooperator. To be considered for funding, each 
proposal must include documentation of cooperation with at least one 
USDA agency or office. If multiple agencies are involved as 
cooperators, documentation must be included from each agency. When 
documenting cooperative arrangements, the following guidelines should 
be used:
    (1) A summary of the cooperative arrangements must immediately 
follow the Table of Contents. This summary should:
    (i) Bear the signatures of the Agency Head (or his/her designated 
authorized representative) and the university project director;
    (ii) Indicate the agency's willingness to commit support for the 
project;
    (iii) Identify the person(s) at the USDA agency who will serve as 
the liaison or technical contact for the project;
    (iv) Describe the degree and nature of the USDA agency's 
involvement in the proposed project, as outlined in Sec. 3406.6(a) of 
this part, including its role in:
    (A) Identifying the need for the project;
    (B) Developing a conceptual approach;
    (C) Assisting with project design;
    (D) Identifying and securing needed agency or other resources 
(e.g., personnel, grants/contracts; in-kind support, etc.);
    (E) Developing the project budget;
    (F) Promoting partnerships with other institutions to carry out the 
project;
    (G) Helping the institution launch and manage the project;
    (H) Providing technical assistance and expertise;
    (I) Providing consultation through site visits, E-mail, conference 
calls, and faxes;
    (J) Participating in project evaluation and dissemination of final 
project results; and
    (K) Seeking other innovative ways to ensure the success of the 
project and advance the needs of the institution or the agency; and
    (v) Describe the expected benefits of the partnership venture for 
the USDA agency and for the 1890 Institution.
    (2) A detailed discussion of these partnership arrangements should 
be provided in the narrative portion of the proposal, as outlined in 
paragraph (f)(2)(iv)(C) of this section.
    (3) Additional documentation, including letters of support or 
cooperation, may be provided in the Appendix.
    (d) Project summary. (1) A Project Summary should immediately 
follow the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation. The 
information provided in the Project Summary will be used by the program 
staff for a variety of purposes, including the proper assignment of 
proposals to peer reviewers and providing information to peer reviewers 
prior to the peer panel meeting. The name of the institution, the 
targeted need area(s), and the title of the proposal must be identified 
exactly as shown on the ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page.''
    (2) If the proposal is a complementary project proposal, as defined 
in Sec. 3406.2 of this part, clearly state this fact and identify the 
other complementary project(s) by citing the name of the submitting 
institution, the title of the project, the principal investigator, and 
the grant number (if funded in a previous year) exactly as shown on the 
cover page of the complementary project so that appropriate 
consideration can be given to the interrelatedness of the proposals in 
the evaluation process.
    (3) If the proposal is a joint project proposal, as defined in 
Sec. 3406.2 of this part, indicate such and identify the other 
participating institutions and the key person responsible for 
coordinating the project at each institution.
    (4) The Project Summary should be a concise description of the 
proposed activity suitable for publication by the Department to inform 
the general public about awards under the program. The text should not 
exceed one page, single-spaced. The Project Summary should be a self-
contained description of the activity which would result if the 
proposal is funded by USDA. It should include: The objective of the 
project, a synopsis of the plan of operation, a statement of how the 
project will enhance the research capacity of the institution, a 
description of how the project will enhance research in the food and 
agricultural sciences, and a description of the partnership efforts 
between, and the expected benefits for, the USDA agency cooperator(s) 
and the 1890 Institution and the plans for disseminating project 
results. The Project Summary should be written so that a technically 
literate reader can evaluate the use of Federal funds in support of the 
project.
    (e) Resubmission of a proposal.--(1) Resubmission of previously 
unfunded proposals. (i) If the proposal has been submitted previously, 
but was not funded, such should be indicated in block 13. on Form 
CSREES-712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and the following 
information should be included in the proposal:
    (A) The fiscal year(s) in which the proposal was submitted 
previously;
    (B) A summary of the peer reviewers' comments; and
    (C) How these comments have been addressed in the current proposal, 
including the page numbers in the current proposal where the peer 
reviewers' comments have been addressed.
    (ii) This information may be provided as a section of the proposal 
following the Project Summary and preceding the proposal narrative or 
it may be placed in the Appendix (see paragraph (j) of this section). 
In either case, the location of this information should be indicated in 
the Table of Contents, and the fact that the proposal is a resubmitted 
proposal should be stated in the proposal narrative. Further, when 
possible, the information should be presented in a tabular format. 
Applicants who choose to resubmit proposals that were previously 
submitted, but not funded, should note that resubmitted proposals must 
compete equally with newly submitted proposals. Submitting a proposal 
that has been revised based on a previous peer review panel's critique 
of the proposal does not guarantee the success of the resubmitted 
proposal.
    (2) Resubmission of previously funded proposals. Recognizing that 
capacity building is a long-term ongoing process, the 1890 Institution 
Capacity Building Grants Program is interested in funding subsequent 
phases of previously funded projects in order to build institutional 
capacity, and institutions are encouraged to build on a theme over 
several grant awards. However, proposals that are sequential 
continuations or new stages of previously funded Capacity Building 
Grants must compete with first-time proposals. Therefore, principal 
investigators should thoroughly demonstrate how the project proposed in 
the current application expands substantially upon a previously funded 
project (i.e., demonstrate how the new project will advance the former 
project to the next level of attainment or will achieve expanded 
goals). The proposal must also show the degree to which the

[[Page 39343]]

new phase promotes innovativeness and creativity beyond the scope of 
the previously funded project. Please note that the 1890 Institution 
Capacity Building Grants Program is not designed to support activities 
that are essentially repetitive in nature over multiple grant awards. 
Principal investigators who have had their projects funded previously 
are discouraged from resubmitting relatively identical proposals for 
future funding.
    (f) Narrative of a research proposal. The narrative portion of the 
proposal is limited to 20 pages in length. The one-page Project Summary 
is not included in the 20-page limitation. The narrative must be typed 
on one side of the page only, using a font no smaller than 12 point, 
and double-spaced. All margins must be at least one inch. All pages 
following the summary documentation of USDA agency cooperation must be 
paginated. It should be noted that peer reviewers will not be required 
to read beyond 20 pages of the narrative to evaluate the proposal. The 
narrative should contain the following sections:
    (1) Significance of the problem.--(i) Impact. (A) Identification of 
the problem or opportunity. Clearly identify the specific problem or 
opportunity to be addressed and present any research questions or 
hypotheses to be examined.
    (B) Rationale. Provide a rationale for the proposed approach to the 
problem or opportunity and indicate the part that the proposed project 
will play in advancing food and agricultural research and knowledge. 
Discuss how the project will be of value and importance at the State, 
regional, national, or international level(s). Also discuss how the 
benefits to be derived from the project will transcend the proposing 
institution or the grant period.
    (C) Literature review. Include a comprehensive summary of the 
pertinent scientific literature. Citations may be footnoted to a 
bibliography in the Appendix. Citations should be accurate, complete, 
and adhere to an acceptable journal format. Explain how such knowledge 
(or previous findings) is related to the proposed project.
    (D) Current research and related activities. Describe the relevancy 
of the proposed project to current research or significant research 
support activities at the proposing institution and any other 
institution participating in the project, including research which may 
be as yet unpublished.
    (ii) Continuation plans. Discuss the likelihood or plans for 
continuation or expansion of the project beyond USDA support. Discuss, 
as applicable, how the institution's long-range budget, and 
administrative and academic plans, provide for the realistic 
continuation or expansion of the line of research or research support 
activity undertaken by this project after the end of the grant period. 
For example, are there plans for securing non-Federal support for the 
project? Is there any potential for income from patents, technology 
transfer or university-business enterprises resulting from the project? 
Also discuss the probabilities of the proposed activity or line of 
inquiry being pursued by researchers at other institutions.
    (iii) Innovation. Describe the degree to which the proposal 
reflects an innovative or non-traditional approach to a food and 
agricultural research initiative.
    (iv) Products and results. Explain the kinds of products and 
results expected and their impact on strengthening food and 
agricultural sciences higher education in the United States, including 
attracting academically outstanding students or increasing the ethnic, 
racial, and gender diversity of the Nation's food and agricultural 
scientific and professional expertise base.
    (2) Overall approach and cooperative linkages.--(i) Approach.--(A) 
Objectives. Cite and discuss the specific objectives to be accomplished 
under the project.
    (B) Plan of operation. The procedures or methodologies to be 
applied to the proposed project should be explicitly stated. This 
section should include, but not necessarily be limited to a description 
of:
    (1) The proposed investigations, experiments, or research support 
enhancements in the sequence in which they will be carried out.
    (2) Procedures and techniques to be employed, including their 
feasibility.
    (3) Means by which data will be collected and analyzed.
    (4) Pitfalls that might be encountered.
    (5) Limitations to proposed procedures.
    (C) Timetable. Provide a timetable for execution of the project. 
Identify all important research milestones and dates as they relate to 
project start-up, execution, dissemination, evaluation, and close-out.
    (ii) Evaluation plans. (A) Provide a plan for evaluating the 
accomplishment of stated objectives during the conduct of the project. 
Indicate the criteria, and corresponding weight of each, to be used in 
the evaluation process, describe any performance data to be collected 
and analyzed, and explain the methodologies that will be used to 
determine the extent to which the needs underlying the project are 
being met.
    (B) Provide a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the end 
results upon conclusion of the project. Include the same kinds of 
information requested in paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.
    (iii) Dissemination plans. Provide plans for disseminating project 
results and products including the possibilities for publications. 
Identify target audiences and explain methods of communication.
    (iv) Partnerships and collaborative efforts. (A) Explain how the 
project will maximize partnership ventures and collaborative efforts to 
strengthen food and agricultural sciences higher education (e.g., 
involvement of faculty in related disciplines at the same institution, 
joint projects with other colleges or universities, or cooperative 
activities with business or industry). Also explain how it will 
stimulate academia, the States, or the private sector to join with the 
Federal partner in enhancing food and agricultural sciences higher 
education.
    (B) Provide evidence, via letters from the parties involved, that 
arrangements necessary for collaborative partnerships or joint 
initiatives have been discussed and realistically can be expected to 
come to fruition, or actually have been finalized contingent on an 
award under this program. Letters must be signed by an official who has 
the authority to commit the resources of the organization. Such letters 
should be referenced in the plan of operation, but the actual letters 
should be included in the Appendix section of the proposal. Any 
potential conflict(s) of interest that might result from the proposed 
collaborative arrangements must be discussed in detail. Proposals which 
indicate joint projects with other institutions must state which 
proposer is to receive any resulting grant award, since only one 
submitting institution can be the recipient of a project grant under 
one proposal.
    (C) Explain how the project will create a new or enhance an 
existing partnership between the USDA agency cooperator(s) and the 1890 
Institution(s). This section should expand upon the summary information 
provided in the documentation of USDA agency cooperation section, as 
outlined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. This is particularly 
important because the focal point of attention in the peer review 
process is the proposal narrative. Therefore, a comprehensive 
discussion of the partnership effort between USDA and the 1890 
Institution should be provided.

[[Page 39344]]

    (3) Institutional capacity building.--(i) Institutional 
enhancement. Explain how the proposed project will strengthen the 
research capacity, as defined in Sec. 3406.2 of this part, of the 
applicant institution and, if applicable, any other institutions 
assuming a major role in the conduct of the project. For example, 
describe how the proposed project is intended to strengthen the 
institution's research infrastructure by advancing the expertise of the 
current faculty in the natural or social sciences; providing a better 
research environment, state-of-the-art equipment, or supplies; 
enhancing library collections; or enabling the institution to provide 
efficacious organizational structures and reward systems to attract and 
retain first-rate research faculty and students--particularly those 
from underrepresented groups.
    (ii) Institutional commitment. (A) Discuss the institution's 
commitment to the project and its successful completion. Provide, as 
relevant, appropriate documentation in the Appendix. Substantiate that 
the institution attributes a high priority to the project.
    (B) Discuss how the project will contribute to the achievement of 
the institution's long-term (five- to ten-year) goals and how the 
project will help satisfy the institution's high-priority objectives. 
Show how this project is linked to and supported by the institution's 
strategic plan.
    (C) Discuss the commitment of institutional resources to the 
project. Show that the institutional resources to be made available to 
the project will be adequate, when combined with the support requested 
from USDA, to carry out the activities of the project and represent a 
sound commitment by the institution. Discuss institutional facilities, 
equipment, computer services, and other appropriate resources available 
to the project.
    (g) Key personnel. A Form CSREES-710, ``Summary Vita--Research 
Proposal,'' should be included for each key person associated with the 
project.
    (h) Budget and cost-effectiveness.--(1) Budget form. (i) Prepare 
Form CSREES-713, ``Higher Education Budget,'' in accordance with 
instructions provided with the form. Proposals may request support for 
a period to be identified in each year's program announcement. A budget 
form is required for each year of requested support. In addition, a 
summary budget is required detailing the requested total support for 
the overall project period. Form CSREES-713 may be reproduced as needed 
by proposers. Funds may be requested under any of the categories listed 
on the form, provided that the item or service for which support is 
requested is allowable under the authorizing legislation, the 
applicable Federal cost principles, the administrative provisions in 
this part, and can be justified as necessary for the successful conduct 
of the proposed project.
    (ii) The approved negotiated research rate or the maximum rate 
allowed by law should be used when computing indirect costs. If a 
reduced rate of indirect costs is voluntarily requested from USDA, the 
remaining allowable indirect costs may be used as matching funds. In 
the event that a proposal reflects an incorrect indirect cost rate and 
is recommended for funding, the correct rate will be applied to the 
approved budget in the grant award.
    (2) Matching funds. When documenting matching contributions, use 
the following guidelines:
    (i) When preparing the column entitled ``Applicant Contributions To 
Matching Funds'' of Form CSREES-713, only those costs to be contributed 
by the applicant for the purposes of matching should be shown. The 
total amount of this column should be indicated in item M.
    (ii) In item N of Form CSREES-713, show a total dollar amount for 
Cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties; also 
show a total dollar amount (based on current fair market value) for 
Non-cash Contributions from both the applicant and any third parties.
    (iii) To qualify for any incentive benefits stemming from matching 
support or to satisfy any cost sharing requirements, proposals must 
include written verification of any actual commitments of matching 
support (including both cash and non-cash contributions) from third 
parties. Written verification means--
    (A) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge 
agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational 
representative(s) of the donor organization (or by the donor if the 
gift is from an individual) and the applicant institution, which must 
include:
    (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor;
    (2) The name of the applicant institution;
    (3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;
    (4) The dollar amount of the cash donation; and
    (5) A statement that the donor will pay the cash contribution 
during the grant period; and
    (B) For any third party non-cash contributions, a separate pledge 
agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized 
organizational representative(s) of the donor organization (or by the 
donor if the gift is from an individual) and the applicant institution, 
which must include:
    (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor;
    (2) The name of the applicant institution;
    (3) The title of the project for which the donation is made;
    (4) A good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the 
non-cash contribution; and
    (5) A statement that the donor will make the contribution during 
the grant period.
    (iv) All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal 
immediately following Form CSREES-713. The sources and amounts of all 
matching support from outside the applicant institution should be 
summarized in the Budget Narrative section of the proposal.
    (v) Applicants should refer to OMB Circulars A-110, ``Uniform 
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions 
of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-profit Organizations,'' 
and A-21, ``Cost Principles for Educational Institutions,'' for further 
guidance and other requirements relating to matching and allowable 
costs.
    (3) Chart on shared budget for joint project proposal. (i) For a 
joint project proposal, a plan must be provided indicating how funds 
will be distributed to the participating institutions. The budget 
section of a joint project proposal should include a chart indicating:
    (A) The names of the participating institutions;
    (B) the amount of funds to be disbursed to those institutions; and
    (C) the way in which such funds will be used in accordance with 
items A through L of Form CSREES-713, ``Higher Education Budget.''
    (ii) If a proposal is not for a joint project, such a chart is not 
required.
    (4) Budget narrative. (i) Discuss how the budget specifically 
supports the proposed project activities. Explain how each budget item 
(such as salaries and wages for professional and technical staff, 
student workers, travel, equipment, etc.) is essential to achieving 
project objectives.
    (ii) Justify that the total budget, including funds requested from 
USDA and any matching support provided, will be adequate to carry out 
the activities of the project. Provide a summary of sources and amounts 
of all third party matching support.

[[Page 39345]]

    (iii) Justify the project's cost-effectiveness. Show how the 
project maximizes the use of limited resources, optimizes research 
value for the dollar, achieves economies of scale, or leverages 
additional funds. For example, discuss how the project has the 
potential to generate a critical mass of expertise and activity focused 
on a high-priority research initiative(s) or promote coalition building 
that could lead to future ventures.
    (iv) Include the percentage of time key personnel will work on the 
project, both during the academic year and summer. When salaries of 
university project personnel will be paid by a combination of USDA and 
institutional funds, the total compensation must not exceed the faculty 
member's regular annual compensation. In addition, the total commitment 
of time devoted to the project, when combined with time for teaching 
and research duties, other sponsored agreements, and other employment 
obligations to the institution, must not exceed 100 percent of the 
normal workload for which the employee is compensated, in accordance 
with established university policies and applicable Federal cost 
principles.
    (v) If the proposal addresses more than one targeted need area, 
estimate the proportion of the funds requested from USDA that will 
support each respective targeted need area.
    (i) Current and pending support. Each applicant must complete Form 
CSREES-663, ``Current and Pending Support,'' identifying any other 
current public- or private-sponsored projects, in addition to the 
proposed project, to which key personnel listed in the proposal under 
consideration have committed portions of their time, whether or not 
salary support for the person(s) involved is included in the budgets of 
the various projects. This information should also be provided for any 
pending proposals which are currently being considered by, or which 
will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors, 
including other USDA programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of 
identical or similar projects to other possible sponsors will not 
prejudice the review or evaluation of a project under this program.
    (j) Appendix. Each project narrative is expected to be complete in 
itself and to meet the 20-page limitation. Inclusion of material in the 
Appendix should not be used to circumvent the 20-page limitation of the 
proposal narrative. However, in those instances where inclusion of 
supplemental information is necessary to guarantee the peer review 
panel's complete understanding of a proposal or to illustrate the 
integrity of the design or a main thesis of the proposal, such 
information may be included in the Appendix. Examples of supplemental 
material are photographs, journal reprints, brochures and other 
pertinent materials which are deemed to be illustrative of major points 
in the narrative but unsuitable for inclusion in the proposal narrative 
itself. Information on previously submitted proposals may also be 
presented in the Appendix (refer to paragraph (e) of this section). 
When possible, information in the Appendix should be presented in 
tabular format. A complete set of the Appendix material must be 
attached to each copy of the grant application submitted. The Appendix 
must be identified with the title of the project as it appears on Form 
CSREES-712 of the proposal and the name(s) of the principal 
investigator(s). The Appendix must be referenced in the proposal 
narrative.
    (k) Special considerations. A number of situations encountered in 
the conduct of research require special information or supporting 
documentation before funding can be approved for the project. If such 
situations are anticipated, proposals must so indicate via completion 
of Form CSREES-662, ``Assurance Statement(s).'' It is expected that 
some applications submitted in response to these guidelines will 
involve the following:
    (1) Recombinant DNA research. All key personnel identified in the 
proposal and all endorsing officials of the proposing organization are 
required to comply with the guidelines established by the National 
Institutes of Health entitled ``Guidelines for Research Involving 
Recombinant DNA Molecules,'' as revised. All applicants proposing to 
use recombinant DNA techniques must so indicate by checking the 
appropriate box on Form CSREES-712, ``Higher Education Proposal Cover 
Page,'' and by completing the applicable section of Form CSREES-662. In 
the event a project involving recombinant DNA or RNA molecules results 
in a grant award, the Institutional Biosafety Committee of the 
proposing institution must approve the research plan before CSREES will 
release grant funds.
    (2) Protection of human subjects. Responsibility for safeguarding 
the rights and welfare of human subjects used in any grant project 
supported with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing 
organization. Guidance on this is contained in Department of 
Agriculture regulations under 7 CFR part 1c. All applicants who propose 
to use human subjects for experimental purposes must indicate their 
intention by checking the appropriate block on Form CSREES-712, 
``Higher Education Proposal Cover Page,'' and by completing the 
appropriate portion of Form CSREES-662. In the event a project 
involving human subjects results in a grant award, the Institutional 
Review Board of the proposing institution must approve the research 
plan before CSREES will release grant funds.
    (3) Laboratory animal care. Responsibility for the humane care and 
treatment of laboratory animals used in any grant project supported 
with funds provided by CSREES rests with the performing organization. 
All key project personnel and all endorsing officials of the proposing 
organization are required to comply with the Animal Welfare Act of 
1966, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), and the regulations 
promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture in 9 CFR parts 
1, 2, 3, and 4 pertaining to the care, handling, and treatment of 
laboratory animals. All applicants proposing a project which involves 
the use of laboratory animals must indicate their intention by checking 
the appropriate block on Form CSREES-712, ``Higher Education Proposal 
Cover Page,'' and by completing the appropriate portion of Form CSREES-
662. In the event a project involving the use of living vertebrate 
animals results in a grant award, the Institutional Animal Care and Use 
Committee of the proposing institution must approve the research plan 
before CSREES will release grant funds.
    (l) Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 
As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (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.
    (1) NEPA determination. 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 therefor. If it is the 
applicant's opinion that the proposed project falls within the

[[Page 39346]]

categorical exclusions, the specific exclusion must be identified. Form 
CSREES-1234 and any supporting documentation should be placed at the 
end of the proposal and identified in the Table of Contents.
    (2) Exceptions to categorical exclusions. 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 cause such activity to have a significant 
environmental effect.

Subpart F--Review and Evaluation of a Research Proposal


Sec. 3406.19  Proposal review--research.

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


Sec. 3406.20  Evaluation criteria for research proposals.

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

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

[[Page 39347]]

                                                                        
        (2) Institutional commitment--Is there   15 points.             
         evidence to substantiate that the                              
         institution attributes a high-priority                         
         to the project, that the project is                            
         linked to the achievement of the                               
         institution's long-term goals, that it                         
         will help satisfy the institution's                            
         high-priority objectives, or that the                          
         project is supported by the                                    
         institution's strategic plans? Will                            
         the project have reasonable access to                          
         needed resources such as scientific                            
         instrumentation, facilities, computer                          
         services, library and other research                           
         support resources?                                             
(d) Personnel Resources........................  10 Points              
    This criterion relates to the number and                            
     qualifications of the key persons who will                         
     carry out the project. Are designated                              
     project personnel qualified to carry out a                         
     successful project? Are there sufficient                           
     numbers of personnel associated with the                           
     project to achieve the stated objectives                           
     and the anticipated outcomes? Will the                             
     project help develop the expertise of                              
     young scientists at the doctoral or post-                          
     doctorate level?                                                   
(e) Budget and cost-effectiveness:                                      
    This criterion relates to the extent to                             
     which the total budget adequately supports                         
     the project and is cost-effective.                                 
        (1) Budget--Is the budget request        10 points.             
         justifiable? Are costs reasonable and                          
         necessary? Will the total budget be                            
         adequate to carry out project                                  
         activities? Are the source(s) and                              
         amount(s) of non-Federal matching                              
         support clearly identified and                                 
         appropriately documented? For a joint                          
         project proposal, is the shared budget                         
         explained clearly and in sufficient                            
         detail?                                                        
        (2) Cost-effectiveness--Is the proposed  5 points.              
         project cost-effective? Does it                                
         demonstrate a creative use of limited                          
         resources, maximize research value per                         
         dollar of USDA support, achieve                                
         economies of scale, leverage                                   
         additional funds or have the potential                         
         to do so, focus expertise and activity                         
         on a high-priority research                                    
         initiative(s), or promote coalition                            
         building for current or future                                 
         ventures?                                                      
(f) Overall quality of proposal................  5 points               
    This criterion relates to the degree to                             
     which the proposal complies with the                               
     application guidelines and is of high                              
     quality. Is the proposal enhanced by its                           
     adherence to instructions (table of                                
     contents, organization, pagination, margin                         
     and font size, the 20-page limitation,                             
     appendices, etc.); accuracy of forms;                              
     clarity of budget narrative; well prepared                         
     vitae for all key personnel associated                             
     with the project; and presentation (are                            
     ideas effectively presented, clearly                               
     articulated, thoroughly explained, etc.)?                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart G--Submission of a Teaching or Research Proposal


Sec. 3406.21  Intent to submit a proposal.

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


Sec. 3406.22  When and where to submit a proposal.

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

Subpart H--Supplementary Information


Sec. 3406.23  Access to peer review information.

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


Sec. 3406.24  Grant awards.

    (a) General. Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, 
the authorized departmental officer shall make project grants to those 
responsible, eligible applicants whose proposals are judged most 
meritorious in the announced targeted need areas under the evaluation 
criteria and procedures set forth in this part. The beginning of the 
project period shall be no later than September 30 of the Federal 
fiscal year in which the project is approved for support. All funds 
granted under this part shall be expended solely for the purpose for 
which the funds are granted in accordance with the approved application 
and budget, the regulations of this part, the terms and conditions of 
the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the Department's 
Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with 
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit 
Organizations (7 CFR part 3019).
    (b) Organizational management information. Specific management 
information relating to a proposing institution shall be submitted on a 
one-time basis prior to the award of a project grant identified under 
this part if such information has not been provided previously under 
this or another program for which the sponsoring agency is responsible. 
Copies of forms used to fulfill this requirement will be sent to the 
proposing institution by the sponsoring agency as part of the pre-award 
process.
    (c) Notice of grant award. The grant award document shall include 
at a minimum the following:
    (1) Legal name and address of performing organization.
    (2) Title of project.
    (3) Name(s) and address(es) of principal investigator(s)/project 
director(s).
    (4) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department.
    (5) Project period, which specifies how long the Department intends 
to support the effort without requiring reapplication for funds.
    (6) Total amount of Federal financial assistance approved during 
the project period.
    (7) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded.
    (8) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds 
to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award.
    (9) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by the 
Department to carry out its granting activities or to accomplish the 
purpose of this particular project grant.
    (d) Obligation of the Federal Government. Neither the approval of 
any application nor the award of any project grant shall legally commit 
or obligate CSREES or the United States to provide further support of a 
project or any portion thereof.

[[Page 39348]]

Sec. 3406.25  Use of funds; changes.

    (a) Delegation of fiscal responsibility. The grantee may not in 
whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution, 
or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant 
funds.
    (b) Change in project plans. (1) The permissible changes by the 
grantee, principal investigator(s)/project director(s), or other key 
project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to 
changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to 
expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee or 
the principal investigator(s)/project director(s) are uncertain as to 
whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be 
referred to the Department for a final determination.
    (2) Changes in approved goals, or objectives, shall be requested by 
the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental 
officer prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for 
such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the approved 
project.
    (3) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or 
reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the 
grantee and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer 
prior to effecting such changes.
    (4) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic 
work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether 
or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee 
and approved in writing by the authorized departmental officer prior to 
effecting such transfers.
    (c) Changes in project period. The project period may be extended 
by the authorized departmental officer without additional financial 
support for such additional period(s) as the authorized departmental 
officer determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes 
of an approved project. However, due to statutory restriction, no grant 
may be extended beyond five years from the original start date of the 
grant. Grant extensions shall be conditioned upon prior request by the 
grantee and approval in writing by the authorized departmental officer, 
unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of a grant.
    (d) Changes in approved budget. Changes in an approved budget must 
be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the authorized 
departmental officer prior to instituting such changes if the revision 
will:
    (1) Involve transfers of amounts budgeted for indirect costs to 
absorb an increase in direct costs;
    (2) Involve transfers of amounts budgeted for direct costs to 
accommodate changes in indirect cost rates negotiated during a budget 
period and not approved when a grant was awarded; or
    (3) Involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior 
approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles, 
Departmental regulations, or in the grant award.


Sec. 3406.26  Monitoring progress of funded projects.

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


Sec. 3406.27  Other Federal statutes and regulations that apply.

    Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant 
proposals considered for review and to project grants awarded under 
this part. These include but are not limited to:

    7 CFR Part 1, Subpart A--USDA implementation of Freedom of 
Information Act.
    7 CFR Part 3--USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129 
regarding debt collection.
    7 CFR Part 15, Subpart A--USDA implementation of Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
    7 CFR Part 3015--USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, 
implementing OMB directives (i.e., Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122) and 
incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (the Federal Grant 
and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-224), as well as 
general policy requirements applicable to recipients of Departmental 
financial assistance.
    7 CFR Part 3017--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension 
(Nonprocurement); Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free 
Workplace (Grants), implementing Executive Order 12549 on debarment 
and suspension and the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 
701).
    7 CFR Part 3018--Restrictions on Lobbying, prohibiting the use 
of appropriated funds to influence Congress or a Federal agency in 
connection with the making of any Federal grant and other Federal 
contracting and financial transactions.
    7 CFR Part 3019--USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, 
Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With 
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit 
Organizations.
    7 CFR Part 3051--Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and 
other Nonprofit Institutions.
    29 U.S.C. 794, section 504--Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 7 
CFR Part 15b (USDA implementation of statute), prohibiting 
discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally 
assisted programs.
    35 U.S.C. 200 et seq.--Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of 
rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and 
domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in 
Federally assisted

[[Page 39349]]

programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR part 
401).


Sec. 3406.28  Confidential aspects of proposals and awards.

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


Sec. 3406.29  Evaluation of program.

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

    Done at Washington, D.C., this 10th day of July 1997.
B.H. Robinson,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-19028 Filed 7-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P