Skip to Content


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

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble


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


Notice and request for comments.

Start Printed Page 46472


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.


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.


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:

Start Further Info


Jason Hitchcock, (202) 720-4343.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental 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.

Start Signature

Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of August, 2005.

Merle D. Pierson,

Deputy Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.

End Signature End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 05-15768 Filed 8-9-05; 8:45 am]