[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4556-4560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1911]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 19 / Friday, January 28, 2000 / 
Notices  

[[Page 4556]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 1890 
Institution Teaching and Research Capacity Building Grants Program for 
Fiscal Year 2000; Request for Proposals and Request for Input

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

ACTION:  Notice of request for proposals and request for input.

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

SUMMARY:  The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service (CSREES) is announcing the 1890 Institution Teaching and 
Research Capacity Building Grants Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. 
Proposals are hereby requested from eligible institutions as identified 
herein for competitive consideration of Capacity Building Grant awards. 
CSREES also is soliciting comments regarding this request for proposals 
from any interested party. These comments will be considered in the 
development of the next request for proposals for this program. Such 
comments will be forwarded to the Secretary or his designee for use in 
meeting the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural 
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.

DATES:  Proposals must be received on or before March 13, 2000. 
Proposals received after the closing date will not be considered for 
funding.
    User comments are requested within six months from the issuance of 
the request for proposals. Comments received after that date will be 
considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES:  Hand-delivered proposals (brought in person by the 
applicant or through a courier service) must be received on or before 
March 13, 2000, at the following address: 1890 Institution Capacity 
Building Grants Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Office of 
Extramural Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 303, Aerospace 
Center; 901 D Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20024. The telephone 
number is (202) 401-5048. Proposals transmitted via a facsimile (fax) 
machine will not be accepted.
    Proposals submitted through the U.S. mail must be received on or 
before March 13, 2000. Proposals submitted through the U.S. mail should 
be sent to the following address: 1890 Institution Capacity Building 
Grants Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Office of Extramural 
Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; 
U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, 
S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2245. Form CSREES-711, ``Intent to Submit 
a Proposal,'' is not requested nor required for the 1890 Institution 
Capacity Building Grants Program.
    Written user comments should be submitted by first-class mail to: 
Policy and Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; USDA-
CSREES; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, D.C. 
20250-2299; or via e-mail to: [email protected]. In your comments, 
please include the name of the program and the fiscal year of the 
request for proposals to which you are responding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Richard M. Hood, Higher Education 
Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 2251, 1400 Independence Avenue, 
S.W.; Washington, D.C. 20250-2251; Telephone: (202) 720-2186; E-mail: 
[email protected]. Dr. McKinley Mayes, 1890 College Program 
Coordinator, CSREES, USDA is also available to assist you. He may be 
reached at (202) 720-3511; or via the Internet: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

A. Administrative Provisions and Legislative Authority
B. Program Description
C. Evaluation Criteria
D. How To Obtain Application Materials
E. What To Submit
F. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
G. Stakeholder Input

A. Administrative Provisions and Legislature Authority

    This program is subject to the provisions found at 7 CFR part 3406. 
These provisions set forth procedures to be followed when submitting 
grant proposals, rules governing the evaluation of proposals and the 
awarding of grants, and regulations relating to the post-award 
administration of grant projects.
    This program is authorized by 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)).

B. Program Description

    Proposals may be submitted by any of the sixteen historically black 
1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University. The eligible 1890 
Land-Grant Institutions are identified in the Program Announcement in 
the FY 2000 Application Kit. An institution eligible to receive an 
award under this program includes a research foundation maintained by 
an 1890 Land-Grant Institution or Tuskegee University. Grants will be 
made to the historically black 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and 
Tuskegee University to strengthen their teaching and research programs 
in the food and agricultural sciences. The purpose of this grant 
program is to build the institutional capacities of the eligible 
colleges and universities through cooperative initiatives with Federal 
and non-Federal entities.
    This program addresses the need to (1) attract more students from 
under represented groups in the food and agricultural sciences, (2) 
expand the linkages among the 1890 Institutions and with other colleges 
and universities, and (3) strengthen the teaching and research capacity 
of the 1890 Institutions to more firmly establish them as full partners 
in the food and agricultural science and education system.
    For FY 2000, $9.2 million was appropriated for this program. CSREES 
anticipates that approximately $8.6 million will be available for 
project grants for this program in FY 2000. Of this amount, 
approximately $4.35 million will be used to support teaching projects, 
and $4.25 million will be used to support research projects. Awards 
will be based upon merit review and the recommendations of peer review 
panels;

[[Page 4557]]

however, up to ten percent of the funds allocated for teaching and up 
to ten percent of the funds allocated for research may be used to 
support projects in either area based upon administrative decision by 
CSREES.
    Regular, complementary, or joint projects may be for 18-36 months 
duration. Awards may be up to $200,000 for a teaching grant and up to 
$300,000 for a research grant. These maximums are for the total 
duration of the project, not per year. Matching is strongly encouraged, 
but not required. However, the amount of matching funds will be used as 
the primary criterion to break any ties in cases when proposals are 
equally rated in merit as a result of the peer review process.
    The targeted need areas to be supported by capacity building grants 
in FY 2000 are:
    For teaching project grants--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.
    For research project grants--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.
    In FY 2000, eligible institutions may propose projects in any 
discipline(s) of the food and agricultural sciences as defined in 
section 1404 of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. 3103). There are no limits on the 
specific subject matter/emphasis areas to be supported.
    In FY 2000, proposals may be directed to the undergraduate or 
graduate level of study leading to a baccalaureate or higher degree in 
the food and agricultural sciences.
    In FY 2000, there is no limit on the number of proposals an 
eligible institution may submit. However, funding limitations in FY 
2000 will affect the number of awards eligible institutions may 
receive. Therefore, institutions are encouraged to establish on-campus 
quality control panels to ensure that only high quality proposals 
having the greatest potential for improving academic and research 
programs are submitted for consideration. Eligible institutions may 
submit grant applications for either category of grants (teaching or 
research); however, each application must be limited to either a 
teaching project grant proposal or a research project grant proposal.
    In FY 2000, the following two limitations will apply to the 
institutional maximum: (1) No institution may receive more than four 
grants, and (2) no institution may receive more than 10 percent 
(approximately $860,000) of the total funds available for grant awards.
    For a Joint Project Proposal (submitted by an eligible institution 
and involving two or more other colleges or universities assuming major 
roles in the conduct of the project), only that portion of the award to 
be retained by the grantee will be counted against the grantee's 
institutional maximum. Those funds to be transferred to the other 
colleges and universities participating in the joint project will not 
be applied toward the maximum funds allowed the grantee institution. 
However, if any of the other colleges and universities participating in 
the joint project are 1890 Institutions or Tuskegee University, the 
amount transferred from the grantee institution to such institutions 
will be counted toward their institutional maximums. For Complementary 
Project Proposals, only those funds to be retained by the grantee 
institution will be counted against the grantee's institutional 
maximum.
    In FY 2000, the maximum number of new awards listing the same 
individual as Project Director or Principal Investigator is two grants. 
This restriction does not apply to joint projects.
    In FY 2000, the maximum number of new awards listing the same 
individual as Project Director or Principal Investigator in any one 
targeted need area that focuses on a single subject matter area or 
discipline is one grant. This restriction does not apply to proposals 
that address multiple targeted need areas and/or multiple subject 
matter areas.
    For both teaching and research project grants--CSREES is prohibited 
from paying indirect costs exceeding 19 per centum of the total Federal 
funds provided under each award (7 U.S.C. 3310). An alternative method 
to calculate this limit is to multiply total direct costs by 23.456 
percent.
    The award of any grants under the provisions of this program is 
subject to the availability of appropriations.

C. Evaluation Criteria

    NARETPA requires that certain priorities be given for teaching 
enhancement projects in awarding grants under section 1417(b). CSREES 
considers all applications received in response to this solicitation as 
teaching enhancement project applications. To implement these 
priorities for proposals submitted for the fiscal year (FY) 2000 
competition, the evaluation criteria used to evaluate proposals, as 
stated in the Administrative Provisions (7 CFR 3406.15), have been 
modified to include new criteria or extra points for proposals 
demonstrating enhanced coordination among eligible institutions and 
focusing on innovative, multidisciplinary education programs, material, 
or curricula. The following evaluation criteria and weights will be 
used to evaluate proposals submitted for funding to the FY 2000 
competition:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weight
       Evaluation criteria for teaching proposals            (points)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Potential for advancing the quality of education:
    This criterion is used to assess the likelihood that  ..............
     the project will have a substantial impact upon and
     advance the quality of food and agricultural
     sciences higher education by strengthening
     institutional capacities through promoting
     education reform to meet clearly delineated needs.
    (1) Impact--Does the project address a targeted need              15
     area(s)? Is the problem or opportunity clearly
     documented? Does the project address a significant
     State, regional, multistate, national, or
     international problem or opportunity? Will the
     benefits to be derived from the project transcend
     the applicant institution and/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) Innovative and multidisciplinary focus--Does the              15
     project focus on innovative, multidisciplinary
     education programs, material, or curricula? Is the
     project based on a non-traditional approach toward
     solving a higher education problem in the food and
     agricultural sciences? Is the project relevant to
     multiple fields in the food and agricultural
     sciences? Will the project expand partnership
     ventures among disciplines at a university?........
    (3) Products and results--Are the expected products               10
     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 or diversity of the
     Nation's food and agricultural scientific and
     professional expertise base?.......................

[[Page 4558]]

 
    (4) Continuation plans--Are there plans for                       10
     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?...........................
(b) Overall approach and cooperative linkages:
    This criterion relates to the soundness of the
     proposed approach and the quality of the
     partnerships likely to evolve as a result of the
     project.
    (1) Proposed approach--Do the objectives and plan of              15
     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 plans adequate                  5
     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 project include               5
     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) Collaborative efforts--Does the project have                  10
     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)?.
    (5) Coordination and partnerships--Does the project                5
     demonstrate enhanced coordination between the
     applicant institution and other colleges and
     universities with food and agricultural science
     programs eligible to receive grants under this
     program? Will the project lead to long-term
     relationships or cooperative partnerships,
     including those with the private sector, 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 project help              15
     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 evidence to                15
     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 to                10
     the number and qualifications of the key persons
     who will carry out the project. Are designated
     project personnel qualified to carry out a
     successful project? Are there sufficient numbers of
     personnel associated with the project to achieve
     the stated objectives and the anticipated outcomes?
(e) Budget and cost-effectiveness:
    This criterion relates to the extent to which the
     total budget adequately supports the project and is
     cost-effective.
    (1) Budget--Is the budget request justifiable? Are                10
     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 project cost-              5
     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?........................
(f) Overall quality of proposal: This criterion relates                5
 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.)?...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weight
       Evaluation criteria for research proposals            (points)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) 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 opportunity to be                   15
     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 significant State, regional,
     multistate, national, or international problem(s)?
     Will the benefits to be derived from the project
     transcend the applicant institution and/or the
     grant period?......................................

[[Page 4559]]

 
    (2) Innovative and multidisciplinary focus--Is the                15
     project based on 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? Does the project focus
     on innovative, multidisciplinary education
     programs, material, or curricula? Is the project
     relevant to multiple fields in the food and
     agricultural sciences? Will the project expand
     partnership ventures among disciples at a
     university?........................................
    (3) Products and results--Are the expected products               10
     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 or diversity of the
     Nation's food and agricultural scientific and
     professional expertise base?.......................
    (4) Continuation plans--Are there plans for                       10
     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?................................
(b) Overall approach and cooperative linkages:
    This criterion relates to the soundness of the
     proposed approach and the quality of the
     partnerships likely to evolve as a result of the
     project.
    (1) Proposed approach--Do the objectives and plan of              15
     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 plans adequate                  5
     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 project include               5
     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) Collaborative efforts--Does the project have                  10
     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)?.
    (5) Coordination and partnerships--Does the project                5
     demonstrate enhanced coordination between the
     applicant institution and other colleges and
     universities with food and agricultural science
     programs eligible to receive grants under this
     program? Will the project lead to long-term
     relationships or cooperative partnerships,
     including those with the private sector, 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 project help              15
     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 under-represented groups?..
    (2) Institutional commitment--Is there evidence to                15
     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:
    This criterion relates to the number and                          10
     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 justifiable? Are                10
     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 project cost-              5
     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: This criterion relates                5
 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.)?......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4560]]

D. How To Obtain Application Materials

    An Application Kit containing program application materials will be 
made available to eligible institutions upon request. These materials 
include the Administrative Provisions, forms, instructions, and other 
relevant information needed to prepare and submit grant applications. 
Copies of the Application Kit may be requested from the Proposal 
Services Unit, Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of 
Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.; Washington, 
D.C. 20250-2245. The telephone number is (202) 401-5048. When 
contacting the Proposal Services Unit, please indicate that you are 
requesting forms for the FY 2000 1890 Institution Capacity Building 
Grants Program.
    Application materials may also be requested via Internet by sending 
a message with your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and telephone 
number to [email protected] that states that you wish to receive a copy 
of the application materials for the FY 2000 1890 Institution Capacity 
Building Grants Program. The materials will then be mailed to you (not 
e-mailed) as quickly as possible.

E. What To Submit

    An original and seven (7) copies of a proposal must be submitted. 
Proposals should contain all requested information when submitted. Each 
proposal should be typed on 8\1/2\'' x 11'' white paper, double spaced, 
and on one side of the page only. Please note that the text of the 
proposal should be prepared using no type smaller than 12 point font 
size and one-inch margins. Do not use reduced type or increase the 
density of the lines. Applicants are cautioned to comply with the 20-
page limitation for the Narrative section of a teaching or research 
proposal. Reviewers will not be required to read beyond the 20-page 
limit for the Proposal Narrative section in evaluating a proposal. All 
copies of the proposal must be submitted in one package. Each copy of 
the proposal must be stapled securely in the upper left-hand corner (DO 
NOT BIND).

F. 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.

G. Stakeholder Input

    CSREES is soliciting comments regarding this solicitation of 
applications from any interested party. These comments will be 
considered in the development of the next request for proposals for the 
program. Such comments will be forwarded to the Secretary or his 
designee for use in meeting the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of 
the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 
(7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2)). Written comments should be submitted by first-
class mail to: Policy and Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural 
Programs; Competitive Research Grants and Awards Management; USDA-
CSREES; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-
2299, or via e-mail to: [email protected]. (This e-mail address is 
intended only for receiving stakeholder input comments regarding this 
RFP, and not for requesting information or forms.)
    In your comments, please include the name of the program and the 
fiscal year solicitation of applications to which you are responding. 
Submission of comments are requested within six months from the 
issuance of the solicitation of applications. Comments received after 
that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    Done at Washington, DC, this 20th day of January 2000.
Charles W. Laughlin,
Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service.
[FR Doc. 00-1911 Filed 1-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P