[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2267-2268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-629]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

National Institute of Food and Agriculture


Notice of Intent To Extend a Currently Approved Information 
Collection

AGENCY: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

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 National Institute of Food and Agriculture 
(NIFA) intention to request approval for an extension of the currently 
approved information collection for the NIFA proposal review process.

DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by March 19, 
2012, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date 
will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning this notice and requests for 
copies of the information collection may be submitted by any of the 
following methods: Email: [email protected]; Fax: 202-720-0857; 
Mail: Office of Information Technology (OIT), NIFA, USDA, STOP 2216, 
1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-2216.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gidel Mendez, eGovernment Program 
Leader; Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title: NIFA Proposal Review Process.
    OMB Number: 0524-0041.
    Expiration Date of Current Approval: 05/31/2012.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information 
collection for three years.
    Abstract: The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is 
responsible for performing a review of proposals submitted to NIFA

[[Page 2268]]

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 NIFA are of high quality, and are consistent with the 
goals and requirements of the funding program.
    Proposals submitted to NIFA 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 electronically submitted (ad-hoc) reviews in the Peer 
Review System.
    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected from the 
evaluations is used to support NIFA grant programs. NIFA uses the 
results of the proposal evaluation to determine whether a proposal 
should be declined or recommended for award. When NIFA 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 NIFA in 
the future. If the reviewer is new they are prompted to complete the 
questionnaire. This information has been invaluable in the NIFA 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 been officially designated to 
participate in the review process. While each panelist certifies at the 
time of preparing a review they do not have a conflict-of-interest with 
a particular application and will maintain its confidentiality in the 
Peer Review System, a certification of their intent at the time of the 
panel review proceedings is collected 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 panelist affirms they understand the conflict-
of-interest guidelines and will not be involved in the review of the 
application(s) where a conflict exists. The panelist also affirms 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: NIFA estimates that anywhere from one hour to 
twenty hours may be required to review a proposal. It is estimated that 
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. NIFA estimates it receives 4,600 competitive 
applications each year. The total annual burden on reviewers is 92,000 
hours. NIFA estimates that the potential reviewer questionnaire takes 
an estimated 10 minutes to complete. The database consists of 
approximately 50,000 reviewers. The total annual burden of 
questionnaire is 8,330 hours. NIFA estimates that the potential 
Conflict-of-Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form takes an 
estimated 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 the component 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's 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 9th day of January 2012.
Catherine E. Woteki,
Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
[FR Doc. 2012-629 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P