[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
jgilmore@reeusda.gov.
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
