[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 30654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13011]
[[Page 30654]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 July 28,
2015, 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: rmartin.usda.gov; 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: Robert Martin, eGovernment Program
Leader; Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: NIFA Proposal Review Process.
OMB Number: 0524-0041.
Expiration Date of Current Approval: 05/31/2015
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
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. The information collected from reviewers 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 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 19th day of May, 2015.
Catherine E. Woteki,
Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
[FR Doc. 2015-13011 Filed 5-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P