[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 126 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35910-35919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16774]



[[Page 35909]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VII





Department of Agriculture





_______________________________________________________________________



Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service



_______________________________________________________________________



Guidelines for State Plans of Work for the Agricultural Research and 
Extension Formula Funds; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 1999 / 
Notices  

[[Page 35910]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service


Guidelines for State Plans of Work for the Agricultural Research 
and Extension Formula Funds

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

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service (CSREES) is implementing the Guidelines for State Plans of Work 
for the Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds. These 
guidelines prescribe the procedures to be followed by the eligible 
institutions receiving Federal agricultural research and extension 
formula funds under the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a et 
seq.); sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as 
amended (7 U.S.C. 343 (b)(1) & (c)); and sections 1444 and 1445 of the 
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3221 and 3222). The recipients of these 
funds are commonly referred to as the 1862 land-grant institutions and 
1890 land-grant institutions, including Tuskegee University. This 
action also establishes the research and extension protocols used to 
evaluate the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and 
multidisciplinary research and extension activities, and joint research 
and extension activities, in addressing critical agricultural issues 
identified in the submitted plans of work.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George Cooper; Deputy 
Administrator, Partnerships; Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Washington, D.C. 
20250; at 202-720-5285 or 202-720-5369, 202-720-4924 (fax) or via 
electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CSREES published a notice and request for 
comment on the Guidelines for State Plans of Work for the Agricultural 
Research and Extension Formula Funds in the Federal Register on April 
19, 1999 (64 FR 19242-19248).

Background and Purpose

    The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
(CSREES) is implementing the following Guidelines for State Plans of 
Work for the Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds in order 
to meet the plan of work reporting requirements enacted in the 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 
(AREERA), Public Law 105-185. The AREERA amendments added new and 
consistent plan of work requirements for agricultural research and 
extension formula funds provided under the Hatch Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 
361a et seq.), the Smith-lever Act (7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), and sections 
1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA) (U.S.C. 3221 and 3222). The 
specific plan of work reporting requirements are outlined in the 
``Preface and Authority'' section of the Guidelines.
    These guidelines were developed by CSREES in consultation with the 
State partners at the 1862 land-grant institutions and the 1890 land-
grant institutions, including Tuskegee University. Since the enactment 
of AREERA on June 23, 1998, the Agency has engaged in these 
consultations, under an exemption to the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(7 U.S.C. 3124a(e)), with members of both the Federal and State 
partnership focusing on different aspects of the plan of work and 
requirements for the agricultural research and extension formula funds 
(i.e., stakeholder input, multistate and integrated activities), and 
has received input and comments from the 1862 and 1890 land-grant 
community to ensure that the Guidelines, while meeting the legal 
requirements of the legislation, address the issues and concerns of the 
recipients. The Proposed Guidelines were published in the Federal 
Register as a notice with a 30-day comment period on April 19, 1999, 
and these Final Guidelines reflect consideration by CSREES of the 
comments received.
    The amendments to the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts plan of work 
requirements made by section 202 of AREERA require the Secretary of 
Agriculture to develop protocols to evaluate the success of multistate, 
multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary research and extension 
activities, and joint research and extension activities, in addressing 
the critical agricultural issues identified in the plans of work. As 
part of the previous notice and request for comment, CSREES sought 
comment on these evaluation protocols, including four evaluation 
criteria. Comments received were considered in the final version of 
section II.C.3., ``Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated Research and 
Extension Activities.'' CSREES will be using the Annual Reports of 
Accomplishments and Results to evaluate the success of multistate, 
multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary activities, and joint 
research and extension activities, in addressing critical agricultural 
issues identified in the 5-Year Plans of Work. CSREES will be using the 
following evaluation criteria: (1) Did the planned program address the 
critical issues of strategic importance, including those identified by 
the stakeholders? (2) Did the planned program address the needs of 
under-served and under-represented populations of the State(s)? (3) Did 
the planned program describe the expected outcomes and impacts? and (4) 
Did the planned program result in improved program effectiveness and/or 
efficiency? This section also stipulates that these protocols be 
developed by CSREES in shared consultation with the National 
Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory 
Board. CSREES has developed these protocols in consultation with this 
Advisory Board.
    The due date for submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work for the 
period covering October 1, 1999, through September 30, 2004, is July 
15, 1999.

Public Comments and Guideline Changes in Response

    In the Notice of the Proposed Guidelines, CSREES invited comments 
on the Proposed Guidelines as well as comments on the protocols to 
evaluate success of the multistate, multi-institutional, and 
multidisciplinary research and extension activities, in addressing 
critical agricultural issues identified in the plans of work. Fourteen 
comments were received. Eleven were from deans, directors, or 
administrators of research and extension programs at the 1862 land-
grant institutions and three were from organizations representing 
stakeholder groups and agricultural producers.

Positive Comments

    Ten of the 14 comments focused on some of the positive aspects of 
the Proposed Guidelines such as flexibility, accountability, 
appreciation for engaging the State partner institutions in the 
development of the plan of work guidelines as well as the opportunity 
to comment on the Proposed Guidelines, meeting the intent of Congress 
and AREERA, focus of the plan of work process on outcomes and impacts, 
and efforts to integrate research and extension activities. Thirteen of 
the comments addressed issues requiring clarification resulting in 
minor revisions to the Proposed Guidelines. Some areas of concern 
included the evaluation of the success of multistate, multi-
institutional, and multidisciplinary

[[Page 35911]]

research and extension activities, and joint research and extension 
activities, implementation of sections 105 and 204 of AREERA for 
multistate extension activities and integrated research and extension 
activities, definitions of ``activities'' and programs,'' the 
stakeholder input process, and the merit review and scientific peer 
review processes.
    Seven out of 14 commenters appreciated the flexibility that both 
the plan of work process and the Proposed Guidelines provide as State 
programs have major differences due to geographic uniqueness and 
location specificity. Emphasizing the benefits of such flexibility, one 
commenter wrote: ``The flexibility will result in the strengths of the 
State, regional, and national programs being contained in the annual 
reports and will manifest the strength of the Federal/State partnership 
in meeting the needs of consumers and producers.''
    Seven of the commenters expressed appreciation for either the 
opportunity CSREES afforded the partnership institutions to engage in 
the discussions about the process and approach to implementing the 
provisions of AREERA or the opportunity to comment on the Proposed 
Guidelines. Other positive comments noted that the Proposed Guidelines 
focused on accountability through reporting on outcomes and impacts, 
met the intent of Congress and AREERA, and made efforts to further 
integrate research and extension activities.

Evaluation Protocols and Criteria

    Six commenters discussed the research and extension protocols for 
evaluating the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and 
multidisciplinary research and extension activities, in addressing the 
critical agricultural issues identified in the plans of work. CSREES 
proposed using the Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results to 
evaluate the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and 
multidisciplinary activities, and joint research and extension 
activities, in addressing critical agricultural issues in the 5-Year 
Plans of Work. CSREES proposed using the following evaluation criteria: 
(1) Did the planned program address the critical issues of strategic 
importance, including those identified by the stakeholders? (2) Did the 
planned program address the needs of under-served populations of the 
State(s)? (3) Did the planned program prescribe the expected outcomes 
and impacts? and (4) Did the planned program result in improved 
effectiveness and /or efficiency? Three of the evaluation commenters 
said that they looked forward to the public comment process on these 
evaluation protocols. However, they offered no comments on the process. 
The Proposed Guidelines that were published in the Federal Register on 
April 19, 1999, included the proposed evaluation protocols for these 
activities as well as the proposed evaluation criteria. Therefore, 
there will be no need for a future comment process as CSREES has 
already received comments on these proposed evaluation protocols.
    The fourth commenter questioned the evaluation criteria for 
measuring the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and 
multidisciplinary research and extension activities, and joint research 
and extension activities, particularly evaluation criteria nos. 2 and 
4. The commenter noted that no. 2 asks if the needs of the under-served 
populations were addressed by the planned program and that this 
question was not asked during the planning process (development of the 
5-Year Plan of Work). The commenter suggested that this be included in 
the planning process.
    In response, CSREES has revised the section on targeted audiences 
under ``Planned Programs'' to: ``The targeted audiences identifies the 
set of stakeholders, customers, and/or consumers for which the program 
is intended. The 5-Year Plan of Work should address the institution's 
commitment to facilitating equality of service and ease of access to 
all research and extension programs and services and to meeting the 
needs of under-served and under-represented individuals, groups, and/or 
organizations.''
    The commenter also questioned evaluation criterion no. 4 which asks 
whether the planned program resulted in improved program effectiveness 
and/or efficiency. The commenter wanted to know how improvement in 
efficiency was to be measured, when the planning process focuses on 
effectiveness--impacts and outcomes.
    CSREES has revised the section on internal and external linkages to 
clarify this issue under ``Planned Programs'' to: The internal and 
external linkages include activities identified as integrated, 
multidisciplinary, multi-institutional, and/or multistate. This 
component may also address any efforts made to identify and collaborate 
with other colleges and universities that have a unique capacity to 
address the identified agricultural issues within the State and the 
extent of current and emerging efforts (including regional efforts) to 
work with those institutions. Within this planning component, 
discussion should be made regarding any efficiencies achieved through 
these external and internal linkages both in the use of resources and 
in the ability to solve critical agricultural issues.''
    The fifth commenter commended CSREES for specifically seeking 
comment on the development of protocols to evaluate the success in 
meeting the new directives concerning multistate, multi-institutional, 
and multidisciplinary'' and integration.'' This commenter along with 
the sixth commenter on these evaluation protocols urged CSREES to 
include a strong stakeholder review and input process as an integral 
part of the review process for the 5-Year Plans of Work, for the Annual 
Reports of Accomplishments and Results, and for measuring the success 
of multistate, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary research and 
extension activities and joint research and extension activities.
    CSREES at this time does not plan to have stakeholders involved at 
the Federal level in the review of the 5-Year Plans of Work, the review 
of the Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results, or the evaluation 
of the multistate, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary research 
and extension activities, and joint research and extension activities, 
in addressing critical agricultural issues identified in the 5-Year 
Plans of Work. CSREES feels that the stakeholder input processes at the 
1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions in the States will be the most 
effective protocol for stakeholders to provide input on these reviews 
and evaluations. See proposed stakeholder input rule, 64 FR 18534, 
April 14, 1999. However, CSREES does plan to make available through the 
CSREES homepage all the approved 5-Year Plans of Work and Annual 
Reports of Accomplishments and Results so that stakeholders may be 
provided an opportunity to review these documents in order to 
participate more fully in the stakeholder input processes in the 
States.
    The sixth commenter felt that the Annual Report of Accomplishments 
and Results would not be an adequate vehicle for the evaluation of 
multistate and integrated research and extension activities. CSREES 
plans to use these reports, the 5-Year Plans of Work, and the four 
evaluation criteria stated in these Guidelines as the evaluation 
protocols and has consulted with the National Agricultural Research, 
Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board in both development

[[Page 35912]]

and adoption of these evaluation protocols. CSREES, however, plans to 
continue to dialogue with the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions on 
both the programmatic and administrative aspects of these activities as 
AREERA has placed significant emphasis on these types of activities.

Stakeholder Input Process

    Two commenters discussed the stakeholder input process as it 
relates to the plan of work reporting requirements. Section 102(c) of 
AREERA requires the 1862 land-grant institutions, 1890 land-grant 
institutions, and 1994 land-grant institutions receiving agricultural 
research, education, and extension formula funds from CSREES to 
establish a process for stakeholder input on the uses of such funds. As 
mentioned in the Federal Register notice for the Proposed Guidelines on 
April 19, 1999, CSREES is in the process of promulgating separately 
regulations to implement these stakeholder input requirements. See 
proposed stakeholder input rule, 64 FR 18534, April 14, 1999. CSREES 
anticipates the final rule being published by July 31, 1999.
    One of the commenters supported the decision of CSREES to provide 
the maximum flexibility to institutions in the way they report their 
stakeholder input in their plans of work. The other commenter focused 
on the definition of seek stakeholder input. The previous notice for 
these Guidelines defined seek stakeholder input ``means an open and 
fair process which allows opportunities for individuals, groups, and 
organizations a voice in a process that treats all with dignity and 
respect.'' The commenter urged CSREES to adopt a new definition, 
building upon the concepts of ``open and fair,'' ``equality of 
service,'' and ``ease of access'' in the Final Guidelines, as follows: 
``Seek stakeholder input means an open, fair, transparent, accessible, 
inclusive, accountable, and comprehensive process which provides 
opportunities for diverse individuals, groups, and organizations, 
especially the traditionally under-served and under-represented, to 
have a voice in a process and one that treats all with dignity and 
respect.''
    CSREES has modified the definition of seek stakeholder input to 
``Seek stakeholder input means an open, fair, and accessible process by 
which individuals, groups, and organizations may have a voice and one 
that treats all with dignity and respect.'' However, although CSREES 
does encourage States to implement a stakeholder input process 
satisfying the above definition posed by the commenter, CSREES has 
recognized in consultation with the State partners that each State has 
unique characteristics and should implement a stakeholder input process 
that best suits the needs of their State. CSREES has determined to use 
this modified definition of seek stakeholder input as the lowest 
acceptable threshold of stakeholder input process because CSREES wishes 
to maintain an environment in which States may quickly modify their 
stakeholder input processes to respond effectively to existing and 
emerging critical agricultural issues. Also, CSREES does not wish to 
place undue administrative burdens upon the States in meeting the 
stakeholder input requirement that potentially may interfere with the 
conduct and delivery of research and extension programs.
    The above commenter made three additional comments about 
stakeholders. First, the commenter noted that while the definition for 
under-served is referenced once in the review criteria (C.2.), the 
definition for under-represented did not appear in the Proposed 
Guidelines. As the commenter had thought, this was an oversight and has 
been included in the review criteria. Second, this commenter thought we 
should address under-served and under-represented stakeholders in 
target audiences (B.1.c.5) under ``Program Descriptions.'' As mentioned 
previously, we have revised this section to include these stakeholders. 
Third, the commenter urged CSREES to broaden the definition of under-
represented to specifically include ``small farm owners and 
operators.'' CSREES has revised the definition as suggested.

Research and Extension Cooperation

    Five comments were received requesting clarification of the phrase, 
``The manner in which research and extension, including research and 
extension activities funded other than through formula funds, will 
cooperate to address the critical issues in the State, including the 
activities to be carried out separately, sequentially, or jointly'' 
under ``I. Preface and Authority.'' This is a specific requirement of 
the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts and NARETPA as amended by sections 202 
and 225 of AREERA. At a minimum, States should be reporting under 
``Program Descriptions'' on those research and extension activities, 
supported with Federal formula funds (allocated by CSREES and 
identified as formula funds for the purposes of this 5-Year Plan of 
Work) and the associated required matching funds. States are required 
to discuss other funds only under planning component #,7 allocated 
resources, when a research and/or extension program, supported by 
either Federal formula funds (allocated by CSREES and identified as 
formula funds for purposes of this 5-Year Plan of Work) or the 
associated required matching funds, is also receiving funds from other 
sources. All that is required is a brief statement about the funding 
sources and how these funds contribute to the conduct and delivery of 
the research and/or extension program(s).

Programs, Projects, and Activities

    Three comments were received on the use of the terms: ``programs,'' 
``projects,'' and ``activities.'' All three commenters requested that 
the casual use of the terms ``programs'' in the Proposed Guidelines 
should be reconciled with section 103(d)(1) of AREERA which refers to 
``activities,'' not ``programs'' for peer review. To these commenters, 
this issue was critical as their institutions would want to peer review 
``projects'', not collections of ``projects'' (``programs''). 
``Projects'' historically has been recognized by the agricultural 
experiment station community in planning and assigning responsibility 
to agricultural experiment station staff and ``programs'' has been 
recognized by the cooperative extension services in their planning and 
assigning responsibility to extension staff. CSREES has determined that 
an ``activity'' is either a ``project,'' ``program,'' or a combination 
thereof; and that for the sake of plan of work reporting purposes, 
``planned programs'' are collections of these research and extension 
activities, or research projects and extension programs. Accordingly, a 
definition of ``activities'' and ``planned programs'' has been added to 
the Final Guidelines.

Due Date

    Two commenters thought that the due date of July 15, 1999, for the 
5-Year Plan of Work is unreasonable considering the workload being 
imposed. The requirements of the 5-Year Plan of Work as described in 
the Proposed Guidelines very closely resemble the requirements imposed 
by the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts as amended by sections 202 and 225 of 
AREERA for State Plans of Work and reflect the collaborative efforts of 
CSREES and the State partners in developing the proposed guidelines 
since the enactment of AREERA on June 23, 1998. CSREES needs to receive 
the 5-Year Plans of Work by July 15, 1999, in order to review and 
approve these 5-Year Plans of Work prior to October 1, 1999, in order 
to guarantee the timely release of first quarter FY 2000 formula funds.

[[Page 35913]]

Multistate and Integrated Activity Baselines

    Five comments were received expressing concern about the 
implementation of the Hatch and Smith-Lever Act amendments, section 105 
and 204 of AREERA, particularly the establishment of the FY 1997 
baselines for multistate extension activities and integrated research 
and extension activities. CSREES has established a workgroup comprised 
of representatives from the fiscal and plan of work reporting staffs at 
the land-grant institutions, staff from the Office of Extramural 
Programs, and plan of work staff from the Partnerships Unit. These 
workgroup participants will be meeting 6/30-7/1/99 in Washington, D.C. 
to make recommendations for the guidelines on the implementation of 
sections 105 and 204 of AREERA. This group will be focusing on three 
areas: (1) How to ``account'' for multistate extension activities and 
integrated research and extension activities, (2) how to establish FY 
1997 baselines for multistate extension activities and integrated 
research and extension activities, and (3) establishment of criteria 
for a reduction in the minimum percentage required to be expended for 
multistate extension activities and integrated research and extension 
activities. One of the goals of this workgroup will be developing 
guidelines that place the least amount of administrative and fiscal 
reporting burden on the States while meeting the intent of the AREERA 
legislation.
    As mentioned in the notice of the Proposed Guidelines, CSREES will 
be issuing separate guidance on the implementation of these two 
sections of AREERA. CSREES anticipates issuing this guidance by July 
31, 1999.
    One commenter thought that the evidence (formal agreements, letters 
of memorandums, contracts or other instruments) required for 
documentation of multistate extension activities as indicated under 
section II.B.4.b, ``Smith-Lever Multistate Extension,'' was an onerous 
task that added no value to the work being done and created a negative 
value to the paperwork now being required. The commenter also felt that 
this onerous paperwork would motivate States to initiate minimal 
multistate efforts, rather than to increase them. CSREES can appreciate 
the amount of paperwork generated by section 105 of AREERA. However, 
this requirement only applies to the minimum percentage of Federal 
formula funds that must be expended on multitate activities. Multistate 
activities reported under the 5-Year Plan of Work component 
4 of the 5-Year Plan of Work for ``Smith-Lever 
Multistate Extension'' should be only those activities used to meet the 
requirements imposed by section 105 of AREERA. Additional multistate 
activities may be identified in overall program descriptions under 
planning component #4, internal and external linkages. In contrast to 
the commenter's view that this requirement may discourage multistate 
extension activities, CSREES feels that this requirement may actually 
stimulate multistate activities in States and regions and in programs 
where they have not existed previously.
    Another commenter was unclear whether regional and/or national 
efforts which maximize the resources in developing program curriculum 
and publications are recognized in the stated criteria for multistate 
activities and whether national networks (technology based) with States 
contributing human resources should be recognized as multistate program 
efforts. Assuming that participation in the above activities meets the 
criteria set forth in the Final Guidelines (that the State staff 
contribute towards the impacts of the program, collaborate towards the 
objectives, and are involved in the outcomes), the above activities, 
including technology-based networks, could be identified as multistate 
activities for the purposes of meeting the requirements of the Smith-
Lever Act amendment in section 105 of AREERA.
    One commenter requested, as part of his overall comments, a waiver 
from the Hatch and Smith-Lever Act requirements in section 204 of 
AREERA that require that States expend the lesser of 25 percent or 
twice the percentage of funds expended in FY 1997 on integrated 
research and extension activities. As mentioned previously, CSREES will 
be issuing separate guidance on the administrative and fiscal 
implementation of section 204 for integrated research and extension 
activities.
    Three comments were received requesting clarification on section 
204 and its applicability to the matching funds. Section 204 only 
applies to the Federal funds allocated. Section II.B.5, ``Integrated 
Research and Extension Activities,'' has been revised to clarify this 
point.

Education and Outreach Programs

    One commenter questioned the requirement under ``Planned Programs'' 
for a description of the education and outreach programs (section 
II.B.1.c.8) that are already underway to convey the research results 
and efforts to encourage multicounty cooperation in dissemination of 
research results. The commenter questioned the rationale of this 
requirement when calling for a forward looking plan and that the 
requirements were busy work that add zero value to the plan of work 
process.'' Describing the ``education and outreach programs already 
underway to convey available research results that are pertinent to a 
critical agricultural issue, including the efforts to encourage 
multicounty cooperation in the dissemination of research results' is a 
requirement for the plans of work under section 202(a)(1) of AREERA 
which amended section 4 of the Smith-Lever Act and under section 
225(a)(1) of AREERA which amended section 1444(d) of NAREPTA. As noted 
in the Proposed Guidelines this planning component applies only to 
those 5-Year Plans of Work incorporating extension activities of the 
1862 and/or 1890 land-grant institutions.

Annual Update

    Three comments were received on the Annual Update to the 5-Year 
Plan of Work. All three commenters requested that CSREES consider a 
``roll-forward'' time frame for a plan of work that has substantive 
change reflected in the annual update. In other words, the 5-year clock 
would start over from the date of the updated 5-Year Plan of Work. 
Commenters suggested this for two primary reasons: (1) Reduce the 5-
year rush at the Federal level to review the 5-Year Plans of Work and 
(2) Potentially provide additional incentive at the State level to keep 
a refined plan in place as planned programs evolve to address emerging 
critical agricultural issues.
    Although CSREES is appreciative of the concern from the State 
partners about the ``rush'' to review these 5-Year Plans of Work, 
CSREES is committed to a timely and meaningful review process. This was 
demonstrated when CSREES sent an email message to the State partners 
entitled ``SPECIAL MESSAGE RE: POW'' on May 12, 1999, regarding the 
criteria for review of the 5-Year Plans of Work, the evaluation 
protocols for these plans, and the anticipated timetable. CSREES has 
determined to keep the existing fixed 5-Year time frame for the plan of 
work process in place. By keeping all the 5-Year Plans of Work on the 
same 5-year cycle, both the evaluation of the Annual Reports of 
Accomplishments and Results against the current 5-Year Plans of Work 
and the Federal reporting requirements, including annual budget 
justifications and Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) reporting, 
will be accomplished more effectively and more

[[Page 35914]]

efficiently. In addition, these 5-Year Plans of Work will have been 
prepared based on the existing five national goals established in 
CSREES Strategic Plans and linked to the five national goals within the 
Research, Education, and Economics (REE) Mission Areas of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.

Merit and Peer Review

    Four comments were received about the merit review and peer review 
processes. One commenter noted that the merit review process must be 
established prior to October 1, 1999, and requested clarification 
whether the plan of work itself needed to be merit reviewed. Section 
103(e) of AREERA requires that effective October 1, 1999, to be 
eligible to obtain agricultural research or extension funds for an 
activity, each 1862 and 1890 institution shall: (1) Establish a process 
for the merit review of the activity; and (2) Review the activity in 
accordance with the process. Only the research projects supported with 
Hatch Multistate Research Funds are subject to a scientific peer review 
which will also satisfy the merit review requirement. CSREES has 
intended that the merit review process and/or scientific peer view 
process be in place by October 1, 1999, as required by the legislation, 
and that a description of the process(es) be provided in the 5-Year 
Plan of Work. Since the Final Guidelines requires reporting on planned 
programs which are collections of research activities or projects and/
or extension activities or programs, the plan of work does not have to 
be merit reviewed, but the individual research projects or activities 
and/or the extension programs or activities have to be merit reviewed 
according to the established process at the land-grant institution. And 
in the case of Hatch Multistate Research projects, a scientific peer 
review is required in lieu of a merit review.
    Two of the commenters also were concerned that by having these 
merit reviews and scientific peer reviews conducted by the 
institutions, the research projects or activities and/or extension 
programs or activities will be subject to a review process twice. 
Although it may appear that research and extension activities are being 
reviewed twice, the merit review and/or scientific peer review of 
research and extension activities conducted at the institutions and the 
review of the 5-Year Plans of Work are evaluated against different 
criteria and for different purposes. The merit review and/or scientific 
peer review process(es) are established by the land-grant institutions 
within the general framework of these Guidelines and the 5-Year Plan of 
Work is an evaluation of the planned programs (which are collections of 
research and/or extension activities) against the criteria set forth in 
section II.C.2., ``Review Criteria.''
    The fourth commenter on the program review processes expressed 
concern that their existing merit review and scientific review 
processes for both research and extension activities may result in 
Annual Updates to the 5-Year Plan of Work each year as they perform 
their reviews each year. Since the Final Guidelines require reporting 
on planned programs which are collections of research and/or extension 
activities, the results of annual merit reviews and scientific peer 
reviews may not result in substantive changes in the 5-Year Plans of 
Work that would require the submission of an Annual Update to the 5-
Year Plan of Work.

Separate Extension and Research Administrative Structures

    One commenter noted that their cooperative extension service and 
their agricultural experiment station are under separate administrative 
structures and that it may be difficult to have consistent reporting on 
joint research and extension efforts. They expressed concern that they 
may be penalized for not being completely aligned in their reporting 
when they submit two separate reports. These Final Guidelines provide 
as much flexibility as possible in the submission of the 5-Year Plans 
of Work, Annual Updates to the 5-Year Plans of Work, and Annual Reports 
of Results and Accomplishments in order to accommodate the needs of 
each State and its land-grant institutions.

Withholding of Funds

    One commenter noted that the Proposed Guidelines lacked a procedure 
to ``withhold formula funds'' if the goals and objectives have not been 
met. CSREES has had established procedures for ``witholding formula 
funds'' when certain programmatic, administrative, and fiscal 
requirements are not met by the land-grant institutions. The land-grant 
institutions are notified and given ample opportunity to satisfy these 
requirements prior to the next quarterly allocation of funds. These 
procedures have worked well in the past; while the procedures help to 
ensure that requirements are met, the conduct and delivery of research 
and extension programs are neither interrupted nor jeopardized. As 
stated in section II.C.1, ``Schedule,'' adherence to the Plan of Work 
schedule by the recipient institution is critical to assuring the 
timely allocation of funds by CSREES.

Annual Reports of Accomplishments and Results

    One commenter thought that the submission date for the Annual 
Reports of Accomplishments and Results should be March or April, 
instead of December 31. CSREES can appreciate institutions' desire for 
more time to synthesize information from the previous calendar year's 
research and extension activities and therefore submit a more 
meaningful report; however, CSREES uses these reports in preparation of 
CSREES budget documents as well as for questions posed by congressional 
committees during the annual budget process. Consequently, CSREES has 
not changed the due dates for the Annual Reports of Accomplishments and 
Results.
    Another commenter suggested that some form of web-based reporting 
mechanism be used in the Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results 
for reporting on multistate extension activities and integrated 
research and extension activities in order to simplify the process. As 
the system progresses through this 5-Year Plan of Work cycle, CSREES 
will consider this suggestion before the first Annual Reports of 
Accomplishments and Results are due.

Continuing Dialogue

    The last and final comment concerned the importance of continuing 
the dialogue between the Federal and State Partners to ensure 
flexibility in both the Plan of Work and the reporting against the Plan 
of Work. CSREES intends to invite the State partners back within the 
next year to engage in discussions regarding the submission of the 5-
Year Plan of Work as well as the review process conducted by CSREES.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    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 these Final Guidelines have been reviewed and 
approved by OMB and given OMB Document No. 0524-0036. Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to a 
collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control 
number.
    The public reporting burden for this collection of information 
contained in these guidelines is estimated at 1349.44 hours per 
response for the 5-Year Plan of Work; 134.94 hours per response for the 
Annual Update to the 5-Year Plan of Work; and 1,366.67 hours per 
response for the Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results. This 
includes the time for reviewing

[[Page 35915]]

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 7603, 
1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-7630, and to the 
Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 
Washington, DC 20503. These guidelines have no additional impact on any 
existing data collection burden.
    Pursuant to the plan of work requirements enacted in the 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service hereby is 
implementing the Guidelines for State Plans of Work for Agricultural 
Research and Extension Formula Funds as follows:

Guidelines for State Plans of Work for Agricultural Research and 
Extension Formula Funds

Table of Contents

I. Preface and Authority
II. Submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work
    A. General
    1. Planning Option
    2. Period Covered
    3. Projected Resources
    4. Submission and Due Date
    5. Certification
    6. Definitions
    B. Components of the 5-Year Plan of Work
    1. Planned Programs
    a. National Goals
    b. Format
    c. Program Descriptions
    2. Stakeholder Input Process
    3. Program Review Process
    a. Merit Review
    b. Scientific Peer Review
    c. Reporting Requirement
    4. Multistate Research and Extension Activities
    a. Hatch Multistate Research
    b. Smith-Lever Multistate Extension
    c. Reporting Requirement
    5. Integrated Research and Extension Activities
    C. Five Year Plan of Work Evaluation by CSREES
    1. Schedule
    2. Review Criteria
    3. Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated Research and 
Extension Activities
III. Annual Update of the 5-Year Plan of Work
    A. Applicability
    B. Reporting Requirement
IV. Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results
    A. Reporting Requirement
    B. Format

I. Preface and Authority

    Sections 202 and 225 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA), Public Law 105-185, enacted 
amendments requiring all States and 1890 institutions receiving formula 
funds authorized under the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a 
et seq.), the Smith-Lever Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), and 
sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA), as amended (7 
U.S.C. 3221 and 3222), to prepare and submit to the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) a plan of work for 
the use of those funds.
    While the requirement for the Hatch Act and Smith-Lever Act funds 
applies to the States, CSREES assumes that in most cases the function 
will be performed by the 1862 land-grant institution in the States. The 
only ``eligible institutions'' to receive formula funding under 
sections 1444 and 1445 of NARETPA are the 1890 land-grant institutions 
and Tuskegee University. Therefore, these guidelines refer throughout 
to ``institutions'' to include both the 1862 and 1890 land-grant 
institutions, including Tuskegee University.
    Further, these guidelines require a plan of work that covers both 
research and extension. Although the District of Columbia receives 
extension funds under the District of Columbia Postsecondary Education 
Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 93-471, as opposed to the Smith-Lever Act, 
CSREES has determined that it should be subject to the plan of work 
requirements imposed under these guidelines except where expressly 
excluded.
    All the requirements of AREERA with regard to agricultural research 
and extension formula funds were considered and were incorporated in 
these plan of work guidelines including descriptions of the following: 
(1) The critical short-term, intermediate, and long-term agricultural 
issues in the State and the current and planned research and extension 
programs and projects targeted to address the issues; (2) the process 
established to consult with stakeholders regarding the identification 
of critical agricultural issues in the State and the development of 
research and extension projects and programs targeted to address the 
issues; (3) the efforts made to identify and collaborate with other 
colleges and universities that have a unique capacity to address the 
identified agricultural issues in the State and the extent of current 
and emerging efforts (including regional and multistate efforts) to 
work with those other institutions; (4) the manner in which research 
and extension, including research and extension activities funded other 
than through formula funds, will cooperate to address the critical 
issues in the State, including the activities to be carried out 
separately, sequentially, or jointly; and (5) For extension, the 
education and outreach programs already underway to convey available 
research results that are pertinent to a critical agricultural issue, 
including efforts to encourage multicounty cooperation in the 
dissemination of research information.
    These guidelines also take into consideration the requirement in 
section 102(c) of AREERA for the 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant 
institutions receiving agricultural research, extension, and education 
formula funds to establish a process for receiving stakeholder input on 
the uses of such funds. This stakeholder input requirement, as it 
applies to research and extension at 1862 and 1890 land-grant 
institutions, has been incorporated as part of the plan of work 
process.
    The requirement of section 103(e) of AREERA also is addressed in 
these plan of work guidelines. This section requires that the 1862, 
1890, and 1994 land-grant institutions establish a merit review 
process, prior to October 1, 1999, in order to obtain agricultural 
research, extension, and education funds. For purposes of these 
guidelines applicable to formula funds, a merit review process must be 
established for extension programs funded under sections 3(b)(1) and 
(c) of the Smith-Lever Act and under section 1444 of NARETPA, and for 
research programs funded under sections 3(c)(1) and (2) of the Hatch 
Act (commonly referred to as Hatch Regular Formula Funds) and under 
section 1445 of NARETPA. Section 104 of AREERA amended the Hatch Act of 
1887 also to stipulate that a scientific peer review process (that also 
would satisfy the requirements of a merit review process under section 
103(e)) be established for research programs funded under section 
3(c)(3) of the Hatch Act (commonly referred to as Hatch Multistate 
Research Funds). As previously stated, these program review processes 
must be established prior to October 1, 1999, in order for the 
institutions to obtain agricultural research and extension formula 
funds. Consequently, a description of the merit review and scientific 
peer review process has been included as a requirement in the 
submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work.

[[Page 35916]]

    These plan of work guidelines also require reporting on the 
multistate and integrated research and extension programs. Section 104 
of AREERA amended the Hatch Act of 1887 to redesignate the Hatch 
regional research funds as the Hatch Multistate Research Fund, 
specifying that these funds be used for cooperative research employing 
multidisciplinary approaches in which a State agricultural experiment 
station, working with another state agricultural experiment station, 
the Agricultural Research Service, or a college or university, 
cooperates to solve the problems that concern more than one State. 
Section 105 of AREERA amended the Smith-Lever Act to require that each 
institution receiving extension formula funds under sections 3(b) and 
(c) of the Smith-Lever Act expend for multistate activities in FY 2000 
and thereafter a percentage that is at least equal to the lesser of 25 
percent or twice the percentage of funds expended by the institution 
for multistate activities in FY 1997. Section 204 of AREERA amended 
both the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts to require that each institution 
receiving agricultural research and extension formula funds under the 
Hatch Act and sections 3(b) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act expend for 
integrated research and extension activities in FY 2000 and thereafter 
a percentage that is at least equal to the lesser of 25 percent or 
twice the percentage of funds expended by the institution for 
integrated research and extension activities in FY 1997. These sections 
also require that the institutions include in the plan of work a 
description of the manner in which they will meet these multistate and 
integrated requirements.
    These applicable percentages apply to the Federal agricultural 
research and extension formula funds only. Federal formula funds that 
are used by the institution for a fiscal year for integrated activities 
may also be counted to satisfy the multistate activities requirement.
    The multistate and integrated research and extension requirements 
do not apply to formula funds received by American Samoa, Guam, 
Micronesia, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 
Since the Smith-Lever Act is not directly applicable, the multistate 
and integrated extension requirements do not apply to extension funds 
received by the District of Columbia, except to the extent it 
voluntarily complies.
    The amendments made by sections 105 and 204 of AREERA also provide 
that the Secretary of Agriculture may reduce the minimum percentage 
required to be expended by the institution for multistate and 
integrated activities in the case of hardship, infeasibility, or other 
similar circumstance beyond the control of the institution. CSREES will 
issue separate guidance on the establishment of the FY 1997 baseline 
percentages for multistate activities and integrated activities and on 
requests for reduction in the required minimum percentage.
    Also included in these guidelines are instructions on how to report 
on the annual accomplishments and results of the planned programs 
contained in the 5-Year Plan of Work, information on the evaluation of 
accomplishments and results, and information on when and how to update 
the 5-Year Plan of Work if necessary.

II. Submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work

A. General

1. Planning Option
    This document provides guidance for preparing the plan of work with 
preservation of institutional autonomy and programmatic flexibility 
within the Federal-State Partnership. The plan of work is a 5-year 
prospective plan that covers the period of fiscal year 2000 through 
2004, with the option to submit annual updates to the 5-Year Plan of 
Work. The 5-Year Plans of Work may be prepared for an institution's 
individual functions (i.e., research or extension activities), for an 
individual institution (including the planning of research and 
extension activities), or for state-wide activities (a 5-year research 
and/or extension plan of work for all the eligible institutions in a 
State). Each 5-Year Plan of Work must reflect the content of the 
program(s) funded by Federal agricultural research and extension 
formula funds and the required matching funds. This 5-Year Plan of Work 
must describe not only how the program(s) address critical short-term, 
intermediate, and long-term agricultural issues in a State, but how it 
relates to and is part of the broad national goals.
2. Period Covered
    The 5-Year Plan of Work should cover the period from October 1, 
1999, through September 30, 2004.
3. Projected Resources
    The resources that are allocated for various planned programs in 
the 5-Year Plan of Work, in terms of human and fiscal measures, should 
be included and projected over the next five years. The baseline for 
the institution's or State's initial plan (for five years) should be 
the Federal agricultural research and extension formula funds for FY 
1999 and the required matching funds. During the course of the 5-Year 
Plan of Work, if the baseline for the formula funds at the FY 1999 
level changes by more than 10 percent in one year or by 20 percent or 
more cumulatively during the 5-year period, a revised 5-Year Plan of 
Work should be submitted as an annual update the following fiscal year.
4. Submission and Due Date
    The 5-Year Plan of Work must be submitted by July 15, 1999, to the 
Partnerships Unit of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is preferred that 
these 5-Year Plans of Work be submitted electronically to 
[email protected] in either WordPerfect file format, Microsoft Word 
file format, or ASCII file format. If this submission method is not 
available, an original and two copies of the 5-Year Plan of Work should 
be submitted to: Partnerships/POW; Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Stop 
2214; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC. 20250-2214.
5. Certification
    The 5-Year Plan of Work must be signed by the 1862 Extension 
Director, 1862 Research Director, 1890 Extension Administrator, and/or 
1890 Research Director, depending on the planning option chosen.
6. Definitions
    For the purpose of implementing the Guidelines for State Plans of 
Work for Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds, the 
following definitions are applicable:
    Activities means either research projects or extension programs.
    Formula funds for the purposes of the plan of work guidelines means 
funding provided by formula to 1862 land-grant institutions under 
section 3 of the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a) and 
sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
343(b)(1) and (c)) and to the 1890 land-grant institutions under 
sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3221 
and 3222).
    Formula funds for the purposes of stakeholder input means the 
funding by formula to the 1862 land-grant institutions and 1890 land-
grant institutions covered by these plan of work guidelines as well as 
the formula funds provided under the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative 
Forestry Research Program (16 U.S.C. 582, et seq.), the

[[Page 35917]]

Animal Health and Disease Research Program (7 U.S.C. 3195), and the 
education payments made to the 1994 land-grant institutions under 
section 534(a) of Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 301 note).
    Integrated or joint activities means jointly planned, funded, and 
interwoven activities between research and extension to solve problems. 
This includes the generation of knowledge and the transfer of 
information and technology.
    Merit review means an evaluation whereby the quality and relevance 
to program goals are assessed.
    Multi-institutional means two or more institutions within the same 
or different States or territories that will collaborate in the 
planning and implementation of programs.
    Multistate means collaborative efforts that reflect the programs of 
institutions located in at least two or more States or territories.
    Multi-disciplinary means efforts that represent research, 
education, and/or extension programs in which principal investigators 
or other collaborators from two or more disciplines or fields of 
specialization work together to accomplish specified objectives.
    Outcome indicator means an assessment of the results of a program 
activity compared to its intended purpose.
    Output indicator means a tabulation, calculation, or recording of 
activity of effort expressed in quantitative or qualitative manner 
which measures the products or services produced by the planned 
program.
    Planned programs means collections of research projects or 
activities and/or extension programs or activities.
    Program review means either a merit review or a scientific peer 
review.
    Scientific peer review means an evaluation performed by experts 
with scientific knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed 
work whereby the technical quality and relevance to program goals are 
assessed.
    Seek stakeholder input means an open, fair, and accessible process 
by which individuals, groups, and organizations may have a voice, and 
one that treats all with dignity and respect.
    Stakeholder is any person who has the opportunity to use or conduct 
agricultural research, extension, and education activities in the 
State.
    Under-served means individuals, groups, and/or organizations whose 
needs have not been addressed in past programs.
    Under-represented means individuals, groups, and/or organizations 
especially those who may not have participated fully including, but not 
limited to, women, racial and ethnic minorities, persons with 
disabilities, limited resource clients, and small farm owners and 
operators.

B. Components of the 5-Year Plan of Work

1. Planned Programs
    a. National Goals. The 5-Year Plan of Work should be based on the 
five national goals established in the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) Agency Strategic Plans and 
linked to the five national goals within the Research, Education, and 
Economics (REE) Mission Area of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 
These national goals were adopted by the National Agricultural 
Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board. These 
goals were developed from stakeholder input in conjunction with 
existing Federal-State Partnerships. The body of the 5-Year Plan of 
Work narrative should focus on these goals and outcomes.
    Currently the national goals are:
    Goal 1: An agricultural system that is highly competitive in the 
global economy. Through research and education, empower the 
agricultural system with knowledge that will improve competitiveness in 
domestic production, processing, and marketing.
    Goal 2: A safe and secure food and fiber system. To ensure an 
adequate food and fiber supply and food safety through improved science 
based detection, surveillance, prevention, and education.
    Goal 3: A healthy, well-nourished population. Through research and 
education on nutrition and development of more nutritious foods, enable 
people to make health promoting choices.
    Goal 4: Greater harmony between agriculture and the environment. 
Enhance the quality of the environment through better understanding of 
and building on agriculture's and forestry's complex links with soil, 
water, air, and biotic resources.
    Goal 5: Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for 
Americans. Empower people and communities, through research-based 
information and education, to address economic and social challenges 
facing our youth, families, and communities.
    b. Format. As mentioned under the Planning Options section, an 
institution or State may opt to submit independent plans for the 
various units (e.g. 1862 research) or an integrated plan which includes 
all units in the institution or State.
    Regardless of the option chosen, the 5-Year Plan of Work should be 
reported in the appropriate matrix format, each cell of which 
identifies planned programs that fall under one of the national program 
goals. If an integrated 5-Year Plan of Work is submitted, the various 
units within the entity for which the 5-Year Plan of Work has been 
developed (i.e., 1862 research, 1890 research, 1862 extension, 1890 
extension) would appear on the vertical axis. Individual cells within 
the matrix would be used to summarize the State programs.
    The following example illustrates the desired matrix.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Goal 1                  Goal 2                  Goal 3                 Goal 4                 Goal 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1862 Research
1862 Extension
1890 Research
1890 Extension
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Program Descriptions. Program descriptions presented in a 
narrative form or in each cell of the matrix for a planned program will 
be related to one of the five national goals and should reflect the 
following planning components:
    1. The statement of issue to be addressed. This component should 
discuss the critical agricultural issue within the State that was 
identified and being targeted by this planned program. This component 
may also reference the stakeholder input which identified the critical 
agricultural issue in the State and the need for the targeted research 
and/or extension program.
    2. The performance goal(s) is a target level of performance. The 
output indicators should reflect the tabulation, calculation, or 
recording of activity or effort expressed in quantitative or 
qualitative manner which measures the

[[Page 35918]]

products or services produced by the program. The outcome indicators 
should assess the results of a program activity compared to its 
intended goal.
    3. The key program component(s) identify the major efforts included 
in the work to be conducted.
    4. The internal and external linkages include activities identified 
as integrated, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional, and/or 
multistate. This component may also address any efforts made to 
identify and collaborate with other colleges and universities that have 
a unique capacity to address the identified agricultural issues within 
the State and the extent of current and emerging efforts (including 
regional efforts) to work with those institutions. Within this planning 
component, discussion should be made regarding the efficiencies 
achieved through these internal and external linkages both in the use 
of resources and/or in the ability to solve critical agricultural 
issues.
    5. The target audiences identifies the set of stakeholders, 
customers, and/or consumers for which the program is intended. The 5-
Year Plans of Work should address the institution's commitment to 
facilitating equality of service and ease of access to all research and 
extension programs and services and to meeting the needs of under-
served and under-represented individuals, groups, and/or organizations.
    6. The program duration should be expressed as short-term, 
intermediate (one to five years), or long-term (over five years).
    7. The allocated resources (human and fiscal measures) must be 
described for each planned program. This component may not only include 
the amount of Federal agricultural research and/or extension formula 
funds and matching funds allocated to this planned program, but also 
the manner in which funds, other than formula funds, will be expended 
to address the critical issues being targeted by this planned program.
    8. Education and outreach programs must be described that are 
already underway to convey the research results that are pertinent to 
the critical agricultural issue identified in the ``Statement of 
Issue.'' Efforts to encourage multicounty cooperation in dissemination 
of research results should also be identified. This planning component 
applies only to those 5-Year Plans of Work incorporating extension 
activities of the 1862 and/or 1890 land-grant institutions.
2. Stakeholder Input Process
    Section 102(c) of AREERA requires the 1862 land-grant institutions, 
1890 land-grant institutions, and 1994 land-grant institutions 
receiving agricultural research, extension, and education formula funds 
from CSREES to establish a process for stakeholder input on the uses of 
such funds. CSREES is in the process of promulgating separately in the 
Federal Register regulations to implement this stakeholder input 
requirement.
    As a component of the 5-Year Plan of Work, each institution must 
report on the actions taken to seek stakeholder input that encourages 
their participation and a brief statement of the process used by the 
institution to identify stakeholders and to collect input from them. 
This report will be required annually and may be submitted with the 
Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results. This component will 
satisfy the reporting requirements imposed by the separately 
promulgated regulations on stakeholder input. However, the above 
procedures are contingent upon the outcome of the Final Rule on 
Stakeholder Input Requirements for Recipients of Agricultural Research, 
Education, and Extension Formula Funds.
3. Program Review Process
    a. Merit Review. Effective October 1, 1999, each 1862 land-grant 
institution and 1890 land-grant institution must establish a process 
for merit review in order to obtain agricultural research or extension 
formula funds.
    b. Scientific Peer Review. A scientific peer review is required for 
all research funded under the Hatch Act of 1887 Multistate Research 
Fund. For such research, this scientific peer review will satisfy the 
merit review requirement specified above.
    c. Reporting Requirement. As a component of the 5-year Plan of 
Work, each institution depending on the type of program review required 
will provide a description of the merit review process or scientific 
peer review process established at their institution. This description 
should include the process used in the selection of reviewers with 
expertise relevant to the effort and appropriate scientific and 
technical standards.
4. Multistate Research and Extension Activities
    a. Hatch Multistate Research. Effective October 1, 1998, the Hatch 
Multistate Research Fund replaced the Hatch Regional Research Program. 
The Hatch Multistate Research Fund must be used for research employing 
multidisciplinary approaches to solve research problems that concern 
more than one State. For such research, State agricultural experiment 
stations must partner with another experiment station, the Agricultural 
Research Service, or another college or university.
    b. Smith-Lever Multistate Extension. Effective October 1, 1999, the 
cooperative extension programs at the 1862 land-grant institutions must 
expend up to 25 percent of their formula funds provided under sections 
3(b)(1) and (c) of the Smith-Lever Act for activities in which two or 
more State extension services cooperate to solve problems that concern 
more than one State. As required by law, CSREES will work with each 
1862 land-grant institution to identify the amount each institution 
expended for multistate extension activities for fiscal year (FY) 1997. 
For FY 2000 and thereafter, cooperative extension programs must commit 
two times their FY 1997 baseline percentage or 25 percent, whichever is 
less, for multistate activities. Institutions should describe the 
contributions of extension staff and programs toward impacts rather 
than to describe the programs. Each participating State or territory 
must be a collaborator towards objectives and involved in the outcomes. 
Evidence of the proposed collaboration must be provided in the 5-Year 
Plan of Work submitted by each State. This planning is documented 
through formal agreements, letters of memorandums, contracts, or other 
instruments that provide primary evidence that a multistate 
relationship exists.
    c. Reporting Requirements. The 5-Year Plan of Work should include a 
description of the Multistate Research, where applicable, and 
Multistate Extension programs as specified above and these programs 
must be reported consistently across the units of an institution as 
well as with the 5-Year Plan of Work of the cooperating State(s) or 
State institutions.
5. Integrated Research and Extension Activities
    Effective October 1, 1999, up to 25 percent of all funds provided 
under section 3 of the Hatch Act and under section 3(b)(1) and (c) of 
the Smith-Lever Act must be spent on activities that integrate 
cooperative research and extension. As required by law, CSREES will 
work with each 1862 land-grant institution to establish the 
institution's baseline for integrated research and extension activities 
for FY 1997. For FY 2000 and thereafter, 1862 land-grant institutions 
must commit twice the FY

[[Page 35919]]

1997 baseline percentage or 25 percent, whichever is less, for 
integrated activities. Integration may occur within the State or 
between units within two or more States. Integrated programming must be 
reported in the 5-Year Plan of Work and be reported consistently across 
the units of the institutions as well as with the 5-Year Plan of Work 
submitted by cooperating State(s). Federal formula funds used by a 
State for integrated activities may also be counted to satisfy the 
multistate research and the multistate extension activity requirements. 
The requirements of this section apply only to the Federal funds.

C. 5-Year Plan of Work Evaluation by CSREES

1. Schedule
    All 5-Year Plans of Work will be evaluated by CSREES. The 5-Year 
Plans of Work will either be accepted by CSREES without change or 
returned to the institution, with clear and detailed recommendations 
for its modification. The submitting institution(s) will be notified by 
CSREES of its determination within 90 days (review to be completed in 
60 days, communications to the institutions allowing a 30-day response) 
of receipt of the document. Adherence to the Plan of Work schedule by 
the recipient institution is critical to assuring the timely allocation 
of funds by CSREES. Five Year Plans of Work accepted by CSREES will 
remain in effect for five years and will be publicly available in a 
CSREES database. CSREES will notify all institutions of a need for a 
new 5-year plan of work two years prior to the plan's expiration on 
September 30.
2. Review Criteria
    CSREES will evaluate the 5-Year Plans of Work to determine if they 
address agricultural issues of critical importance to the State; 
identify the alignment and realignment of programs to address those 
critical issues; identify the involvement of stakeholders in the 
planning process; give attention to under-served and under-represented 
populations; indicate the level of Federal formula funds in proportion 
to all other funds at the director or administrator level; provide 
evidence of multistate, multi-institutional, and multidisciplinary and 
integrated activities; and identify the expected outcomes and impacts 
from the proposed 5-Year Plan of Work.
3. Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated Research and Extension 
Activities
    CSREES will be using the Annual Reports of Accomplishments and 
Results to evaluate the success of multistate, multi-institutional, and 
multidisciplinary activities and joint research and extension 
activities, in addressing critical agricultural issues identified in 
the 5-Year Plans of Work. CSREES will be using the following evaluation 
criteria: (1) Did the planned program address the critical issues of 
strategic importance, including those identified by the stakeholders? 
(2) Did the planned program address the needs of under-served and 
under-represented populations of the State(s)? (3) Did the planned 
program describe the expected outcomes and impacts? and (4) Did the 
planned program result in improved program effectiveness and/or 
efficiency?

III. Annual Update of the 5-Year Plan of Work

A. Applicability

    An annual update to the 5-Year Plan of Work is optional and is only 
required if: (1) There is a substantive change in planned programs; (2) 
if the change in Federal agricultural research and extension formula 
funding is 10 percent or greater in one year from the FY 1999 base 
year; or (3) if the cumulative change during the five year period is 20 
percent or greater than the FY 1999 base year.

B. Reporting Requirement

    If a revised 5-Year Plan of Work is required, or if the 
institution(s) chooses to submit an optional update to the 5-Year Plan 
of Work, it should be submitted at the beginning of the next plan of 
work cycle (July 1) to either the same electronic mail address or 
regular mail address as listed for the submission of the 5-Year Plan of 
Work.

IV. Annual Report of Accomplishments and Results

1. Reporting Requirement
    The 5-Year Plan of Work for a reporting unit, institution, or State 
should form the basis for annually reporting its accomplishments and 
results. This report will be due on or before December 31 each year 
with the first report being due on December 31, 2000, for FY 2000. This 
report should be submitted to either the same electronic mail address 
or regular mail address as listed for the submission of the 5-Year Plan 
of Work.
2. Format
    This annual report should include the relevant information related 
to each component of the program in the matrix cells of the 5-Year Plan 
of Work. Accomplishments and results reporting should involve two 
parts. First, institutions should submit an annual set of impact 
statements linked to sources of funding. Strict attention to just the 
preceding year is not expected in all situations. Some impact 
statements may need to cover ten or more years of activity. Focus 
should be given to the benefits received by targeted end-users. Second, 
institutions should submit annual results statements based on the 
indicators of the outputs and outcomes for the activities undertaken 
the preceding year. These should be identified as short-term, 
intermediate, or long-term critical issues in the 5-Year Plan of Work. 
Attention should be given to highlighting multistate, multi-
institutional, and multidisciplinary and integrated activities, as 
appropriate to the 5-Year Plan of Work.

    Done at Washington, D.C., this 25 day of 1999.
I. Miley Gonzalez,
Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
[FR Doc. 99-16774 Filed 6-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P