[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5993-5998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2822]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 5993]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
7 CFR Part 3418
RIN 0524-AA23
Stakeholder Input Requirements for Recipients of Agricultural
Research, Education, and Extension Formula Funds
AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES) adds new regulations for the purpose of implementing
section 102(c) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7612(c)) which requires 1862
land-grant institutions, 1890 land-grant institutions, and 1994 land-
grant institutions that receive agricultural research, extension, or
education formula funds to establish a process for stakeholder input on
the uses of such funds. Failure to comply with these stakeholder input
requirements may result in the withholding of a recipient institution's
formula funds and redistribution of its share of formula funds to other
eligible institutions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Sally Rockey; Deputy
Administrator, Competitive Research Grants and Awards Management;
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Mail Stop 2240; 1400 Independence Avenue,
SW; Washington, DC 20250-2240; at 202-401-1761, or via electronic mail
at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Purpose
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES) adds this rule to implement section 102(c) of the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7
U.S.C. 7612(c)) which requires 1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions
(specific land-grant colleges and universities as defined by section 2
of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7601)) receiving agricultural research, extension,
or education formula funds from CSREES to establish a process for
receiving input from persons who conduct or use agricultural research,
extension, or education on the uses of such funds. For purposes of this
rule, these persons are referred to as stakeholders. Section 102(c)(2)
of AREERA required the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate
regulations specifying what those land-grant institutions had to do to
meet this stakeholder input requirement, and what consequences would
befall any institution that did not meet such a requirement.
Section 102(c) on its face only applies to land-grant colleges and
universities established pursuant to the First Morrill Act, as amended
(7 U.S.C. 301, et seq.) (1862 institutions), the Second Morrill Act, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 321, et seq.) (1890 institutions), and the Equity in
Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994, as amended (7 U.S.C. 301
note) (1994 institutions). CSREES has determined that the formula funds
specified in section 102(c) are: Agricultural research funds provided
to the 1862 institutions and agricultural experiment stations under the
Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a, et seq.); extension funds
provided to 1862 institutions under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the
Smith-Lever Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 343(b) and (c)), and section
208(c) of the District of Columbia Public Postsecondary Education
Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 93-471, as amended; agricultural research
and extension funds provided to 1890 institutions under sections 1444
and 1445, respectively, of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA), as amended (7
U.S.C. 3221 and 3222); education formula funds provided to 1994
institutions under section 534(a) of the Equity in Educational Land-
Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note); research funds provided
for forestry schools under the McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 582a, et seq.); and animal health and disease research funds
provided to veterinary schools and agricultural experiment stations
under section 1433 of NARETPA, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3195).
The 1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions are not the sole institutions
eligible to receive formula funds under all of these Acts. There is one
agricultural experiment station that is not a college or university,
and twelve forestry or veterinary schools that are not land-grant
institutions. However, given that the number of such institutions is de
minimus, and the impracticality of trying to segregate stakeholder
comments with respect to these few institutions, CSREES has determined
to apply this rule to any recipient of the aforementioned formula
funds.
The rule does not require recipient institutions to adopt any
particular format for soliciting stakeholder input. It only requires
that recipient institutions report annually to CSREES (1) the actions
taken to encourage stakeholder input; (2) a brief statement of the
process used by a recipient institution to identify individuals or
groups as stakeholders and to collect input from them; and (3) a
statement of how collected input was considered.
Failure to comply with the requirements of this rule may result in
the withholding of a recipient institution's formula funds and
redistribution of its share of formula funds to other eligible
institutions, as authorized by law.
Public Comments and Changes to the Final Rule
Summary of Statutory Changes
CSREES has added the definition of seek stakeholder input to the
Final Rule. This definition has already been included in the Final
Guidelines for State Plans of Work for the Agricultural Research and
Extension Formula Funds that was published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1999, 62 FR 35910-35919.
CSREES revised Sec. 3418.4, Reporting Requirement, by adding a
third reporting requirement as follows: ``(3) a statement of how
collected input was considered.'' The third and final revision was to
change the title of
[[Page 5994]]
Sec. 3418.5, from ``Failure to Report'' to ``Failure to Comply and
Report.''
CSREES also will be conducting an evaluation of how the stakeholder
input requirements in section 102(c) of AREERA are being implemented by
both CSREES and the affected colleges and universities after a 2-year
implementation period. Part of this evaluation will be to determine
whether this Final Rule will need to be revised.
Background
CSREES developed the proposed rule for stakeholder input
requirements in consultation with the State partners at the 1862 and
1890 land-grant institutions. Since the enactment of AREERA on June 23,
1998, CSREES has engaged in these consultations under an exemption to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (7 U.S.C. 3124a(e)), with members of
the Federal and State partnership, not only on this rule, but on other
aspects of implementation of AREERA requirements including the
Guidelines for State Plans of Work for Agricultural Research and
Extension Formula Funds. This consultation process was consistent with
the consultation process required by Executive Order 13132, Federalism,
issued by the President on August 4, 1999 (64 FR 43255).
The proposed rule for stakeholder input requirements was published
in the Federal Register on April 14, 1999, 64 FR 18534-18536, with a
30-day comment period. The proposed rule did not require recipient
institutions to adopt any particular format for soliciting stakeholder
input. It only required that recipient institutions report annually to
CSREES (1) the actions taken to encourage stakeholder input; and (2) a
brief statement of the process used by the recipient institution to
identify individuals or groups as stakeholders and to collect input
from them.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, CSREES encouraged interested
parties to review the Proposed Guidelines for State Plans of Work which
were published in the Federal Register for a 30-day comment period on
April 19, 1999, 64 FR 19242-19248. The Proposed Guidelines for State
Plans of Work explained in greater detail the stakeholder input
requirements, especially how they relate to the development of the 5-
Year Plans of Work. These 5-Year Plans of Work include the reporting
requirement on the stakeholder input process for the 1862 and 1890
land-grant institutions and these plans apply to the agricultural
research and extension formula funds received under the Hatch Act of
1887, sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the Smith-Lever Act, and under sections
1444 and 1445 of NARETPA. These Proposed Guidelines for State Plans of
Work did not apply to the agricultural education formula funds received
by the 1994 land-grant institutions or to the research or extension
formula funds received by colleges and universities under section 3(d)
of the Smith-Lever Act, the McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962 for
cooperative forestry research, and section 1433 of NARETPA for animal
health and disease research.
The 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions will fulfill their annual
reporting requirement on the stakeholder input process via the Annual
Report of Accomplishments and Results as outlined in the Final
Guidelines for State Plans of Work. The reports on the stakeholder
input process for the 1994 land-grant institutions will be required as
part of their Tribal College Education Equity Grant proposals and their
stakeholder input processes will be reviewed at the time these grant
proposals are evaluated. The recipients of the Smith-Lever Act (section
3(d)) formula funds, McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research
funds, and the Animal Health and Disease Research funds will be
required to submit an annual report on their stakeholder input
processes prior to the distribution of formula funds each fiscal year.
This report will be reviewed by the appropriate program official to
determine whether the stakeholder input requirements have been met.
Impact of Comments on the Related Final Guidelines for State Plans of
Work on This Rule
Two comments were received on the Proposed Guidelines for State
Plans of Work published in the Federal Register on April 19, 1999, 64
FR 19242-19248, regarding the stakeholder input process. 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 notice of the Proposed
Guidelines defined seek stakeholder input as ``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.'' This 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 that treats all with dignity and respect.''
CSREES 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 did
encourage States to implement a stakeholder input process satisfying
the above definition posed by the commenter, CSREES recognized in
consultation with the State partners that each State or Tribe has
unique characteristics and should implement a stakeholder input process
that best suits the needs of their State or Tribe. CSREES had
determined to use this modified definition of seek stakeholder input as
the lowest acceptable threshold of stakeholder input process because
CSREES wants to maintain an environment in which land-grant
institutions may quickly modify their stakeholder input processes to
respond effectively to existing and emerging critical agricultural
issues. Also, CSREES did not want to place undue administrative burdens
upon the land-grant institutions in meeting the stakeholder input
requirements that potentially may interfere with the conduct and
delivery of research and extension programs. This determination by
CSREES is consistent with the policies set forth in Executive Order
13132, Federalism.
The above commenter made three additional comments. First, the
commenter noted that while the definition for under-served is
referenced once in the review criteria, the definition of under-
represented did not appear in the Proposed Guidelines. As the commenter
had thought, this was an oversight and had been included in the review
criteria. Second, this commenter thought CSREES should address under-
served and under-represented in the target audiences section under
``Program Descriptions.'' Third, the commenter urged CSREES to broaden
the definition of under-represented to specifically include ``small
farm owners and operators.'' CSREES revised the Guidelines to
incorporate these last two suggestions.
The Final Guidelines for State Plans of Work were published prior
to this Final Rule on stakeholder input requirements due to the urgency
of the plans of work being received, reviewed, and approved prior to
October 1, 1999,
[[Page 5995]]
to prevent any disruption in the delivery of research and extension
programs. However, 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions are required
to comply with any additional requirements as set forth in this Final
Rule.
Comments on the Proposed Stakeholder Input Requirements Rule
Eighty-nine comments were received. Eighty-four were received from
individuals and stakeholder groups; four from deans or directors at the
1862 land-grant institutions; and one from the USDA Office of Inspector
General (OIG).
A. Individuals and Stakeholder Groups
Sixty of the 84 comments received from individuals and stakeholder
groups wrote that the proposed rule in the April 14, 1999, Federal
Register did not provide adequate guidance as to what constitutes a
reasonable and adequate stakeholder input process. These commenters
felt that by not establishing minimal criteria for a satisfactory and
adequate stakeholder input process, the proposed rule did not address
the Congressional concern for increased accountability within the land-
grant system. CSREES has included in this Final Rule the definition of
seek stakeholder input which requires that a stakeholder input process
be fair, open, and accessible. This definition was originally included
in the Proposed Guidelines for State Plans of Work and had been
developed in consultation with the 1862 and 1890 land-grant community.
Failure to include the definition in the Proposed Rule for stakeholder
input requirements was an oversight on the part of CSREES.
Sixty-two commenters felt that while it is not USDA's role to
dictate the particular style or format for stakeholder input process,
it is vitally important for USDA to ensure that every stakeholder
process meet certain minimal public accountability standards.
Generally, all of these commenters felt that these public
accountability standards should include:
Fairness: Basic fairness requires equal access to the process by
all citizens and taxpayers.
Transparency: All aspects of the stakeholder process should be in
the open and on public record.
Accountability: Those who take the time and effort to provide input
and recommendations should be given the courtesy of reviewing the
written record of any meeting they participated in for accuracy as well
as some type of timely reporting as to how the stakeholder input was
utilized, and if specific recommendations were rejected, the reasons
why.
Balanced Representation: Each institution should be required to
demonstrate a good faith effort to solicit input from, and active
engagement with, traditionally under-served and under-represented
constituencies (e.g., the full range of farmers and ranchers).
Comprehensive and Meaningful Role: Stakeholder input should be
sought on a variety of different levels, including but not limited to:
Advice on priority setting and program development;
Input on both immediate needs and long-term goals;
Participation in relevancy and portfolio reviews;
Guidance on monitoring, evaluation, and oversight systems
employed to track performance and results; and
Counsel on emerging technologies and recommendations for
public education and discussion about the mission and directions of the
institution.
The Rule applies not only to the 1862 land-grant institutions, but
to the 1890 and 1994 land-grant institutions as well as to colleges and
universities that are not land-grant institutions, but receive
agricultural research, education, and extension formula funds. The 1994
land-grant institutions just started to receive formula funds from
CSREES in fiscal year 1996, and the amount of funding per institution
is very limited. For the non-land-grant institutions, funding is for a
very specific purpose. In addition, there are other new AREERA
requirements for the land-grant institutions in addition to section
102(c), such as the submission and approval of plans of work prior to
the distribution of formula funds on October 1, 1999, and the
establishment of either a merit review process or a scientific peer
review process prior to October 1, 1999. Therefore, CSREES has
determined at this time to require at the minimum a stakeholder input
process that is fair, open, and accessible.
Representation was a particular concern to 34 commenters as
summarized by one of the commenters: ``I believe that the original
intent of Congress when this Act was passed was to ensure that land-
grant institutions are acknowledging their accountability to a larger
public and simply not to the traditional land-grant stakeholders. * * *
Rather than giving up on stakeholder processes, I believe the land-
grants must be encouraged to embrace multiple approaches and to
specifically seek out the views of those who are seldom heard in the
land-grants such as the full range of farmers and ranchers.* * *''
As mentioned previously, minimal public accountability standards
now include a fair, open, and accessible process. Although this Final
Rule may not impose all of the public accountability standards desired
by the commenters, this will be a new major requirement for many
institutions; and it is anticipated that to meet this requirement,
institutions will provide more opportunities for stakeholder input. As
evident through some of the 5-year Plans of Work received, institutions
are establishing processes that are more inclusive, more accessible,
and reach beyond their traditional audiences. The concept of balanced
representation also is incorporated in the Final Guidelines for State
Plans of Work for the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions through
plan of work reporting requirements and evaluation criteria that
address giving attention to under-served and under-represented
audiences.
Nine commenters felt that the land-grant institutions tended to
serve the needs of agribusiness over the needs of the public good, and
seven commenters criticized USDA for only requiring an annual report
from the land-grant institutions. Eighteen commenters charged CSREES,
by publishing the proposed rule, with ``business as usual'' at the
land-grant institutions or supporting the ``status quo,'' and thought
that very little would change at the land-grant institutions. Two
commenters felt that USDA was being pressured by the land-grant
institutions to adopt the proposed rule.
CSREES does not agree that the land-grant institutions tend to
serve the needs of agribusiness over the needs of the public but rather
focus on meeting the needs of the public at large through the delivery
of a wide range of agricultural research, education, and extension
programs. In addition, many of the land-grant institutions have
modified their stakeholder input processes to extend beyond the
traditional advisory groups. Although it may appear that CSREES is only
requiring an annual report on the stakeholder input process, CSREES has
evaluated the 5-Year Plans of Work (FY 2000-FY 2004) and will continue
to evaluate plans of work by reviewing the stakeholder input process
and determining whether the input gathered during the process has been
considered in developing the plan of work. By reviewing the plans of
work in this context, CSREES is not conducting ``business as usual''
with the land-grant institutions.
[[Page 5996]]
Four comments were received that suggested this was an opportunity
for USDA ``to submit a new proposed rule for comment which will offer
substantive, `broad parameters and guidelines' for stakeholder input as
called for by the legislative language and history * * *. The `broad
parameters and guidelines' which CSREES is required to propose should
take the form of general performance goal-statements for land-grant
institutions' stakeholder input processes. Institutions, in turn, must
be required to report their methods, plans and progress in meeting
these performance goals.''
By including the minimal standards of fairness, openness, and
accessibility for stakeholder input processes, CSREES is establishing
broad criteria to which performance goals can be established and
outcomes and impacts measured. By requiring institutions to report on
how the stakeholder input was considered, CSREES is ensuring that
agricultural research and extension programs conducted are indeed a
priority and are relevant to the critical agricultural issues in the
States.
Seven commenters viewed the implementation of the stakeholder input
requirement as an opportunity for the land-grant system to reinvigorate
itself and to improve citizen estimation of them. One commenter stated:
``A stakeholder input process that is inclusive, fair, comprehensive,
and open should be viewed as an opportunity for the land-grant
institution to demonstrate its relevance to the people of the State who
support it * * *.''
CSREES does see the implementation of section 102(c) of AREERA for
stakeholder input requirements as an opportunity for the land-grant
system to make the public more aware of the existence and availability
of agricultural research, education, and extension programs; reach new
audiences; and deliver agricultural research, education, and extension
programs more efficiently and effectively through multistate,
multidisciplinary, and multi-institutional activities as well as
integrated research and extension activities.
Ten commenters noted the range of stakeholder input processes in
the States. They cited examples of processes that were successful as
well as those they thought required improvement. Since CSREES is aware
of the wide range of stakeholder input processes at the affected
institutions, CSREES thought it prudent to establish minimal standards
through the definition of seek stakeholder input for all affected
institutions, including the 1994 land-grant institutions and colleges
and universities that are not land-grant institutions. And since the
State Plans of Work for the 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions
encompass a significant portion of the Federal formula funds dedicated
to agricultural research and extension (approximately $500 million) and
support a broad range of agricultural research, education, and
extension programs, the Final Guidelines for State Plans of Work
require that efforts be made to address traditionally under-served and
under-represented audiences.
Three commenters suggested that there be a full array of methods to
solicit stakeholder input including small groups, large groups with
formal testimony, conventional and electronic contacts, posters at
public institutions, and public service announcements on radio and
television. CSREES expects that a broad range of methods will be used
to solicit input from stakeholders as the definition of seek
stakeholder input includes ``accessible,'' but does not feel it is
necessary to dictate any specific method to be used.
Two commenters referred to earlier drafts of the proposed rule as
follows: ``Earlier draft versions of the proposed rule, while far from
adequate, at least made reference to the necessity of an open and fair
process, encouraging participation of diverse individuals and groups,
and demonstrating that stakeholder input was actually considered * *
*.'' CSREES assumes that these commenters were referring to the
references in the Proposed Guidelines for State Plans of Work which
included the definitions of seek stakeholder input, under-represented,
and under-served as well as the evaluation criteria addressing the
involvement of stakeholders in the planning process and the attention
given to under-served and under-represented populations. Hence, CSREES
has added the definition of seek stakeholder input to the Final Rule.
Four comments were received suggesting that the annual reporting
requirement be changed to reporting on the actions taken and plans to
meet the five public accountability standards identified above by
sixty-two commenters as well as an assessment of the progress made
towards fulfilling each of these public accountability standards. Two
of the commenters suggested that the existing language in Sec. 3418.4
be amended to refer not only to processes to ``collect'' input but also
to utilize it, or in the words of the statute ``solicit and consider
input and recommendations.'' CSREES has adopted the commenter's
suggestion by adding the third reporting requirement under Sec. 3418.4,
Reporting Requirement, as follows: ``(3) a statement of how collected
input was considered.''
Two comments were received that suggested that the title of
Sec. 3418.5, Failure to Report, be revised to include language about
failure to comply. CSREES has revised the title of the section as
suggested by the commenter to ``Failure to Comply and Report.''
Forty-four commenters felt that CSREES needed to either amend the
proposed rule or rewrite the rule and hold another public comment
period based on the above comments. CSREES has made three revisions to
the Proposed Rule based on the comments received. Based on both the
content and the number of comments received, CSREES will be conducting
an evaluation of implementation of section 102(c) of AREERA by CSREES
and the affected institutions after a 2-year implementation period.
This should provide sufficient time for the affected institutions to
implement a stakeholder input process based on the Final Rule.
B. Land-Grant Institutions
As mentioned previously, four comments were received from deans or
directors at the 1862 land-grant institutions. Two of these commenters
felt that the proposed rule as published in the Federal Register was
adequate. However, one of these commenters thought that meeting the
public accountability standards should be strongly encouraged rather
than specifically spelled out in the rules. The other commenter was
pleased that the proposed rule provided flexibility and noted: ``States
are unique in the organizations, structures and processes available in
their area. Given the diversity among States it is important to provide
flexibility so that each State can optimize stakeholder input in their
State.'' As stated previously, CSREES agrees that all stakeholder input
processes should be fair, open, and accessible.
One of the commenters stated that there should be maximum
transparency and accountability while keeping the administrative costs
to a minimum. The commenter continued by stating that AREERA reporting
requirements diverted significant resources from the delivery of
programs to administrative functions and that any additional
requirements would place an unreasonable burden on the agricultural
experiment stations. These comments were considered in establishing the
minimum criteria for stakeholder input processes. Another commenter was
[[Page 5997]]
concerned that while the requirements for stakeholder participation can
be accommodated by the land-grant institution, they are concerned about
situations in which an individual or stakeholder group may proclaim
stakeholder ``rights'' and proclaim that ``no opportunity'' was given
to provide input. CSREES feels that stakeholders should be given
reasonable opportunity to provide input and that issues such as this
one may be addressed during the evaluation of the entire process.
One commenter noted that the clientele of the land-grant system is
highly diverse with multiple and broad ranging needs and that it is
recognized that resources will simply not be adequate to address all
identified needs. Although CSREES agrees with this statement, CSREES
feels that this is the primary reason for implementing and maintaining
an adequate stakeholder input process. If resources were unlimited,
there would be no need for priority setting processes which include
soliciting and considering stakeholder input.
Another commenter wanted to know why the stakeholder input process
only applied to the agricultural research and extension Federal formula
funds and not all the funds supporting agricultural research and
extension. Section 102(c) of AREERA only applies to agricultural
research, education, and extension formula funds from CSREES.
C. USDA Office of Inspector General
The comment from the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG)
concentrated on three issues: Performance indicators identified in
section 102(d) of AREERA, lack of criteria, and the recommendation that
CSREES review the descriptions of the stakeholder input processes to
assess the institutions' compliance.
The OIG commented ``that the performance indicators prescribed by
Congress as the `management principles' of the priority setting process
must be ensured by targeting stakeholders who can achieve this goal and
setting priorities for research, education, or extension activities
that meet these performance criteria.'' The OIG continued by stating
that they found no reference in the Proposed Rule to the performance
indicators listed in section 102(d) of AREERA and that they consider
the indicators to be critical controls over the outcome of the
recipients' solicitation process.
Section 102(d)of AREERA states that the Secretary shall ensure that
federally supported and conducted agricultural research, extension, and
education activities are accomplished in a manner that (1) integrates
agricultural research, extension, and education functions to better
link research to technology transfer and information dissemination
activities; (2) encourages regional and multistate programs to address
relevant issues of common concern and to better leverage scarce
resources; and (3) achieves agricultural research, extension, and
education objectives through multi-institutional and multifunctional
approaches and by conducting research at facilities and institutions
best suited to serve those objectives. CSREES accomplished this task in
the establishment of the Final Guidelines for State Plans of Work for
Agricultural Research and Extension Formula Funds with evaluation
criteria addressing these ``management principles'' and the development
of requests for proposals which includes evaluation criteria for
competitive research, education, and extension grant programs. Section
102(d) is the responsibility of CSREES and is evident in how CSREES
establishes evaluation criteria and how they administer both the
formula and competitive grant programs. It would defeat the whole
purpose of the stakeholder input process if section 102(d) of AREERA
was applied to the stakeholders themselves.
As mentioned previously, CSREES plans to conduct an evaluation of
implementation of section 102(c) of AREERA by CSREES and the affected
institutions after a 2-year implementation period to determine both the
adequacy of the stakeholder input processes in priority setting and the
effectiveness of this Final Rule. Through the inclusion of the
definition for seek stakeholder input in the Final Rule, CSREES has
adopted the minimum standards or criteria for a stakeholder input
process as being fair, open, and accessible.
Estimated Burden Hours on the Information Collection
The estimated burden hours per response for the information
collection associated with the Final Rule was revised from the original
estimate of 9.19 hours to 57.32 hours per response. This estimate was
revised after the Office of Management and Budget questioned whether
9.19 hours were sufficient to report not only on the stakeholder input
process but on the actual consideration of input and recommendations
from stakeholders concerning the use of formula funds.
The estimate for the original burden hours was calculated at 9.19
hours and based mainly on preparing an annual report describing actions
taken to seek stakeholder input that encourages their participation and
a brief statement of the process used by the recipient institutions to
identify individuals and groups who are stakeholders and to collect
input from them. The increase to 57.32 hours per response, or an
additional 48.13 hours per response, is attributed to the requirement
under Sec. 3418.4 relating to how the collected input was considered.
It is estimated that it will take 24.5 hours to review the stakeholder
input gathered, 23.63 hours to determine whether the priorities for
agricultural research, extension, and education activities conducted by
the institution need to be adjusted, and 9.19 hours to write and edit
the annual report.
Classification
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866 and has
been determined to be non-significant as it will not create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action planned by another
agency; will not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
the recipients thereof; and will not raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
principles set forth in this executive order. This rule also will not
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department 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. No. 96-534 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this
proposed rule.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The programs affected by this rule are listed in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.203, Payments to Agricultural
Experiment Stations Under the Hatch Act, No. 10.205, Payments to 1890
Land-Grant Colleges and Tuskegee University, No. 10.202, Cooperative
Forestry Research, No. 10.207, Animal Health and Disease Research, No.
10.500, Cooperative Extension Service, and No. 10.221, Tribal Colleges
Education Equity Grants.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the provisions of the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as
[[Page 5998]]
amended (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the collection of information
requirements contained in this Final Rule have been reviewed and
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and given OMB
Document No. 0524-0035. 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 this rule is estimated at 57.32 hours per response. This
includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Please 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 20250-7603, 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.
Report to Congress
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801(a), CSREES submitted a report on this
final rule to both houses of Congress and the Comptroller General prior
to publication.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR part 3418
Agricultural education, Agricultural extension, Agricultural
research, Colleges and universities.
For reasons stated in the preamble, chapter XXXIV of Title 7 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended by adding Part 3418 to read as
follows:
PART 3418--STAKEHOLDER INPUT REQUIREMENTS FOR RECIPIENTS OF
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION FORMULA FUNDS
Sec.
3418.1 Definitions.
3418.2 Scope and purpose.
3418.3 Applicability.
3418.4 Reporting requirement.
3418.5 Failure to comply and report.
3418.6 Prohibition.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 7612(c)(2).
Sec. 3418.1 Definitions.
As used in this part:
1862 institution means a college or university eligible to receive
funds under the Act of July 2, 1862 (7 U.S.C. 301, et seq.).
1890 institution means a college or university eligible to receive
funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321, et seq.),
including Tuskegee University.
1994 institution means an institution as defined in section 532 of
the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301
note).
Formula funds means agricultural research funds provided to 1862
institutions and agricultural experiment stations under the Hatch Act
of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a, et seq.); extension funds provided to 1862
institutions under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the Smith-Lever Act (7
U.S.C. 343(b) and (c)) and section 208(c) of the District of Columbia
Public Postsecondary Education Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 93-471;
agricultural extension and research funds provided to 1890 institutions
under sections 1444 and 1445 of the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA)(7 U.S.C. 3221 and
3222); education formula funds provided to 1994 institutions under
section 534(a) of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of
1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note); research funds provided to forestry schools
under the McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a, et seq.); and
animal health and disease research funds provided to veterinary schools
and agricultural experiment stations under section 1433 of NARETPA (7
U.S.C. 3195).
Recipient institution means any 1862 institution, 1890 institution,
1994 institution, or any other institution that receives formula funds
from the Department of Agriculture.
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 means any person who has the opportunity to use or
conduct agricultural research, extension, or education activities of
recipient institutions.
Sec. 3418.2 Scope and Purpose.
Section 102(c) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7612(c)) requires land-grant
institutions, as a condition of receipt of formula funds, to solicit
and consider input and recommendations from stakeholders concerning the
use of formula funds. This regulation implements this requirement
consistently for all recipient institutions that receive formula funds.
Sec. 3418.3 Applicability.
To obtain formula funds after September 30, 1999, each recipient
institution shall establish and implement a process for obtaining
stakeholder input on the uses of formula funds in accordance with this
part.
Sec. 3418.4 Reporting requirement.
Each recipient institution shall report to the Department of
Agriculture by October 1 of each fiscal year, the following information
related to stakeholder input and recommendations:
(a) Actions taken to seek stakeholder input that encourages their
participation;
(b) A brief statement of the process used by the recipient
institution to identify individuals and groups who are stakeholders and
to collect input from them; and
(c) A statement of how collected input was considered.
Sec. 3418.5 Failure to comply and report.
Formula funds may be withheld and redistributed if a recipient
institution fails to either comply with Sec. 3418.3 or report under
Sec. 3418.4.
Sec. 3418.6 Prohibition.
A recipient institution shall not require input from stakeholders
as a condition of receiving the benefits of, or participating in, the
agricultural research, education, or extension programs of the
recipient institution.
Done at Washington, DC, this 31st day of January, 2000.
I. Miley Gonzalez,
Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
[FR Doc. 00-2822 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P