[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 680-685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-78]
[[Page 679]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Agriculture
_______________________________________________________________________
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
_______________________________________________________________________
1890 Institution Teaching and Research Capacity Building Grants Program
for Fiscal Year 1999; Request for Proposals; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 1999 /
Notices
[[Page 680]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 1890
Institution Teaching and Research Capacity Building Grants Program for
Fiscal Year 1999; Request for Proposals
AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice of request for proposals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 1999.
Proposals are hereby requested from eligible institutions as identified
herein for competitive consideration of capacity building grant awards.
DATES: Proposals must be received by close of business on March 16,
1999. Proposals received after the closing date will not be considered
for funding.
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:
rhood@reeusda.gov. Dr. McKinley Mayes, 1890 College Program
Coordinator, CSREES, USDA is also available to assist you. He can be
reached at (202) 720-3511; or via the Internet: mmayes@reeusda.gov.
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, Pub. L. 105-185 (AREERA). Written comments should be submitted by
first-class mail to: Office of Extramural Programs; Competitive
Research Grants and Awards Management; 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 solicitation of applications to which you are responding.
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
A. Administrative Provisions
B. Authority
C. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
D. Institutional Eligibility
E. Purpose of the Program
F. Available Funds and Award Limitations
G. Limitation on Indirect Costs
H. Program Areas
I. Targeted Areas
J. Degree Levels Supported
K. Proposal Submission Limitations
L. Maximum Grant Size
M. Project Duration
N. Funding Limitations per Institution
O. Funding Limitation per Individual
P. Funding Limitation per Targeted Need Area
Q. Matching Funds
R. Evaluation Criteria
S. How to Obtain Application Materials
T. What to Submit
U. Where and when to Submit
V. Acknowledgment of Proposals
A. Administrative Provisions
This program is subject to the provisions found at 7 CFR part 3406,
62 FR 39330, July 22, 1997, as provided herein. 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.
B. Authority
The authority for this program is contained in 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)). In accordance
with this statutory authority, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) through the Higher Education Programs (HEP) of CSREES will award
competitive grants of 18 to 36 months duration, subject to the
availability of funds. These grants will be made to the historically
black 1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University to
strengthen their programs in the food and agricultural sciences in the
targeted need areas as described herein.
C. 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.
D. Institutional Eligibility
Proposals may be submitted by any of the sixteen 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 University; Kentucky State University; Southern University
and A&M College; University of Maryland-Eastern Shore; Alcorn State
University; Lincoln University (MO); 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.
E. Purpose of the Program
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 into 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. In addition,
through this program, USDA will strive to increase the overall pool of
qualified applicants for the Department to make significant progress
toward achievement of the Department's goal of increasing participation
of under represented groups in Departmental programs.
[[Page 681]]
F. Available Funds and Award Limitations
For FY 1999, $9.2 million has been appropriated for this program.
CSREES anticipates that approximately $8.6 million will be available
for project grants for this program in FY 1999. 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 scientific and merit review and the recommendations
of peer review panels; 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.
G. Limitation on Indirect Costs
For teaching 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)
For research project grants--CSREES is prohibited from paying
indirect costs exceeding 14 per centum of the total Federal funds
provided under each award. (Section 711 of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriation Act, 1999, enacted in Division A, section 101(a) of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999, Pub. L. 105-277.)
H. Program Areas
In FY 1999, the Capacity Building Grants Program will support both
teaching and research projects.
I. Targeted Areas
The targeted need areas to be supported by capacity building grants
in FY 1999 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 1999, eligible institutions may propose projects in any
discipline(s) of the food and agricultural sciences as defined in
section 1404(8) of NARETPA as amended by section 221(a) of AREERA (7
U.S.C. 3103(8)). There are no limits on the specific subject matter/
emphasis areas to be supported.
J. Degree Levels Supported
In FY 1999, 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.
K. Proposal Submission Limitations
In FY 1999, there is no limit on the number of proposals an
eligible institution may submit. However, there are funding limitations
in FY 1999 that will affect the number of awards eligible institutions
and individuals 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.
L. Maximum Grant Size
In FY 1999, the following limitations apply: A teaching proposal
may request a grant for up to $200,000. A research proposal may request
a grant for up to $300,000. Note: These maximums are for the total
duration of the project, not per year.
M. Project Duration
A regular, complementary, or joint project proposal may request
funding for a period of 18 to 36 months duration.
N. Funding Limitations per Institution
In FY 1999, 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 of the
total funds available for grant awards (approximately $860,000).
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.
O. Funding Limitation per Individual
In FY 1999, the maximum number of new awards that an individual
(Project Director or Principal Investigator) may receive is two grants.
This restriction does not apply to joint projects.
P. Funding Limitation per Targeted Need Area
In FY 1999, the maximum number of new awards that an individual may
receive in a given fiscal year, 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.
Q. Matching Funds
The Department strongly encourages non-Federal matching support for
the program. For FY 1999, the following incentive is offered to
applicants for committing their own institutional resources or securing
third-party contributions in support of capacity building projects:
Tie Breaker--The amount of institutional and third-party cash and
non-cash matching support for each proposed project, will be used as
the primary criterion to break any ties (cases where proposals are
equally rated in merit) resulting from the proposal review process
conducted by the peer review panels. A grant awarded on this basis will
contain language requiring such matching commitments as a condition of
the grant.
Please Note: Proposals must include written verification from
the donor(s) of any actual commitments of matching support
(including both cash and non-cash contributions) derived from the
university community, business and industry, professional societies,
the States, or other non-Federal sources.
[[Page 682]]
The cash contributions towards matching from the institution should
be identified in the column ``Applicant Contributions to Matching
Funds'' of the Higher Education Budget, Form CSREES-713. The cash
contributions of the institution and third parties as well as non-cash
contributions should be identified on Line N., as appropriate, of Form
CSREES-713.
R. Evaluation Criteria
Section 223(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-185 (AREERA), amended
section 1417 of NARETPA to require that certain priorities be given in
awarding grants for teaching enhancement projects under section 1417(b)
of NARETPA. Since this program is authorized under section 1417(b),
CSREES considers all applications received in response to this
solicitation as teaching enhancement project applications. To implement
the AREERA priorities for proposals submitted for the fiscal year (FY)
1999 competition, the evaluation criteria used to evaluate proposals,
as provided in the Administrative Provisions for this program (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 1999 competition:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation Criteria for Teaching Proposals
(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 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-- 15 points
Does the 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 10 points
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 or diversity
of the Nation's food and agricultural
scientific and professional expertise
base?
(4) Continuation plans--Are there plans for 10 points
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 15 points
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 plans 5 points
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) Collaborative efforts--Does the project 10 points
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)?
(5) Coordination and partnerships--Does the 5 points
project 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 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?
[[Page 683]]
(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?
(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.)?
Evaluation Criteria for Research Proposals
(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 opportunity 15 points
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
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?
(2) Innovative and multidisciplinary focus-- 15 points
Is the 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 10 points
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 or diversity
of the Nation's food and agricultural
scientific and professional expertise
base?
(4) Continuation plans--Are there plans for 10 points
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 15 points
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 plans 5 points
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) Collaborative efforts--Does the project 10 points
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)?
[[Page 684]]
(5) Coordination and partnerships--Does the 5 points
project 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 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 under-represented groups?
(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: 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? 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: 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, thoroughly explained,
etc.)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. How To Obtain Application Materials
Copies of this solicitation and 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 1999 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 psb@reeusda.gov that states that you wish to receive a copy
of the application materials for the FY 1999 1890 Institution Capacity
Building Grants Program. The materials will then be mailed to you (not
e-mailed) as quickly as possible.
T. 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, single-
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. 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).
U. Where and When To Submit
Hand-delivered proposals (brought in person by the applicant or
through a courier service) must be received on or before March 16,
1999, 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. 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 16, 1999. 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. The telephone number is (202) 401-
5048.
For FY 1999, Form CSREES-711, ``Intent to Submit a Proposal,'' is
not requested nor required for the 1890 Institution Capacity Building
Grants Program.
[[Page 685]]
V. Acknowledgment of Proposals
The receipt of all proposals will be acknowledged in writing and
this acknowledgment will contain a proposal identification number. Once
your proposal has been assigned a proposal number, please cite that
number in future correspondence.
Done at Washington, D.C., this 29th day of December 1998.
Colien Hefferan,
Acting Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service.
[FR Doc. 99-78 Filed 1-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
