[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46471-46472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15768]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
Notice of Intent To Extend a Currently Approved Information Collection

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

[[Page 46472]]

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, 
this notice announces the intent of the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) to request approval for an 
extension of the currently approved information collection for the 
CSREES proposal review process.

DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by October 11, 
2005, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date 
will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, by any of the following methods: 
Mail: CSREES, USDA, STOP 2216, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20250-2216; Hand Delivery/Courier: 800 9th Street, SW., 
Waterfront Centre, Room 4217, Washington, DC 20024; Fax: 202-720-0857; 
or e-mail: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Hitchcock, (202) 720-4343.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: CSREES Proposal Review Process.
    OMB Number: 0524-0041.
    Expiration Date of Current Approval: 06/30/2006.
    Type of Request: Intent to seek approval for the revision of a 
currently approved information collection for three years.
    Abstract: CSREES is responsible for performing a review of 
proposals submitted to CSREES competitive award programs in accordance 
with section 103(a) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1998, 7 U.S.C. 7613(a). Reviews are undertaken 
to ensure that projects supported by CSREES are of high quality and are 
consistent with the goals and requirements of the funding program.
    Proposals submitted to CSREES undergo a programmatic evaluation to 
determine worthiness of Federal support. The evaluations consist of a 
peer panel review and may also entail an assessment by Federal 
employees and mail-in (ad-hoc) reviews.
    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected from the 
evaluations is used to support CSREES grant programs. CSREES uses the 
results of each proposal evaluation to determine whether a proposal 
should be declined or recommended for award. When CSREES has rendered a 
decision, copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers and 
summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the 
submitting Project Director.
    Given the highly technical nature of many of these proposals, the 
quality of the peer review greatly depends on the appropriate matching 
of the subject matter of the proposal with the technical expertise of 
the potential reviewer. In order to obtain this information, an 
electronic questionnaire is used to collect information about potential 
panel and ad-hoc reviewers. If the reviewer is already in our database, 
the questionnaire asks potential reviewers to update their basic 
biographical information including address, contact information, 
professional expertise, and their availability to review for CSREES in 
the future. New reviewers are prompted to complete the questionnaire. 
This information has been invaluable in the CSREES review process, 
which has been recognized by the grantee and grantor community for its 
quality.
    The applications and associated materials made available to 
reviewers, as well as the discussions that take place during panel 
review meetings are strictly confidential and are not to be disclosed 
to or discussed with anyone who has not officially been designated to 
participate in the review process. While each panelist certifies when 
preparing a review that they do not have a conflict of interest with a 
particular application and will maintain its confidentiality in the 
Peer Review System, CSREES collects a certification of the panelist 
intent at the time of the panel review proceedings to emphasize and 
reinforce confidentiality not only of applications and reviews but also 
panel discussions. On the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality 
Certification Form, the panelists affirm they understand the conflict 
of interest guidelines and will not be involved in the review of the 
application(s) where a conflict exists. Panelists also affirm their 
intent to maintain the confidentiality of the panel process and not 
disclose to another individual any information related to the peer 
review or use any information for personal benefit.
    Estimate of Burden: CSREES estimates that anywhere from one hour to 
twenty hours may be required to review a proposal. Approximately five 
hours are required to review an average proposal. Each proposal 
receives an average of four reviews, accounting for an annual burden of 
20 hours per proposal. CSREES estimates it receives 4,600 proposals 
each year. The total annual burden in reviewing proposals is 92,000 
hours. CSREES estimates that the potential reviewer questionnaire takes 
10 minutes to complete. The database consists of approximately 50,000 
reviewers. The total annual burden on reviewers completing the 
questionnaire is 8,330 hours. CSREES estimates that the potential 
Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form takes 10 
minutes to complete. The agency has approximately 1,000 panelists each 
year. The total annual burden of the certification form is 167 hours. 
The total annual burden of these components of the entire review 
process is 100,497 hours.
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the 
request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of 
public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of August, 2005.
Merle D. Pierson,
Deputy Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
[FR Doc. 05-15768 Filed 8-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P