[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