Special Research Grants Program

SUMMARY: This proposed rule will amend the Special Research Grants

Program Administrative Regulations to replace references to section 2

of the Act of August 4, 1965, with references to the Competitive,

Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (CSFRGA), to apply to

competitive and noncompetitive grants, to include extension and

educational activities under the regulation, to shorten the maximum

potential grant award period, to require grantees to arrange for

scientific peer review of their proposed research activities and merit

review of their proposed extension and education activities prior to

award, in accordance with subsection (c)(5) of CSFRGA, as amended by

section 212 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education

Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)(5)), and to require an annual

report of the results of the research, extension, or education activity

and the merit of the results.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 23, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments concerning this proposed rule to Dr.

Sally Rockey, Deputy Administrator, Competitive Research Grants and

Awards Management, USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and

Extension Service, Mail Stop 2240, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-2240; telephone, (202) 401-1761; e-mail,

[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Sally Rockey, Deputy

Administrator, at the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 23, 1998, President Clinton signed

into law the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act

of 1998 (AREERA) (Pub. L. No. 105-185). CSFRGA (formerly section 2 of

the Act of August 4, 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-106, as retitled by Section

401(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act Amendments

of 1991 (FACT Act Amendments), Pub. L. No. 102-237), as amended by

section 212(2) of AREERA, states in subsection (c)(5) that the

Secretary shall make a grant under this authority for a research

activity only if the activity has undergone scientific peer review

arranged by the grantee in accordance with regulations promulgated by

the Secretary. Likewise, subsection (c)(5) of CSFRGA, as amended by

section 212(2) of AREERA, states that the Secretary shall make a grant

under this authority for an extension or education activity only if the

activity has undergone merit review arranged by the grantee in

accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary. This proposed

rule is intended to comply with the Secretary's duty to promulgate such

regulations.

The proposed rule expands the scope of these regulations to apply

to all subsection (c) awards, including both competitive and

noncompetitive awards made under this authority. The proposed rule also

revises these regulations to address extension and education activities

in addition to research activities. CSREES determined that expanding

the scope of the existing regulations was preferable compared to the

alternative of having two sets of administrative regulations to govern

the same program. Having only one set of administrative regulations

will result in less confusion of interested parties. Making these

regulations applicable to all subsection (c) awards, including

competitive and noncompetitive grants, is necessary because the

statutory review requirements apply to all grants made under this

authority. The proposed rule clearly delineates in revised Sec. 3400.1

which provisions will apply respectively to competitive and

noncompetitive awards. Subparts A and B, other than Sec. 3400.1, will

continue to apply only to grants awarded under subsection (c)(1)(A).

Subpart C, implementing the review requirements, will apply to all

grants awarded under subsection (c), including both competitive and

noncompetitive awards.

Subpart C of the proposed rule requires that applicants have

research proposals undergo peer review and extension and education

proposals undergo merit review. The program authority emphasizes the

regional or national nature of the funded projects. Consistent with

that emphasis, the review must assess the technical quality and

relevance of the proposed work to regional or national goals. The

proposed regulations also require that any review be credible and

independent. By specifying only basic parameters and not detailed

procedures for review, CSREES aims to provide applicants with maximum

flexibility in determining the timing and use of resources committed

for such review. CSREES, however, has reserved the right in the

proposed regulations to specify the timing of submission of the notice

of completion of review. The agency does not anticipate the need to set

the timing of this notice, but intends only to preserve this option

should CSREES determine that implementation of this regulation required

such action. Flexibility within the review requirements allows

applicants to tailor the nature and character of the review more

appropriately to the size, scope, and duration of the proposed project.

CSREES considers such latitude necessary because of the broad range of

research, education, and extension projects supported under this

authority.

CSREES is proposing a broad definition of ``scientific peer

review.'' For purposes of this grant program, CSREES is implementing

``peer'' to mean ``experts with the scientific knowledge and technical

skills to conduct the proposed research work.'' Again, this provision

aims to allow applicants flexibility in determining who performs the

review while simultaneously imposing the minimum standards that CSREES

believes are necessary to ensure the ability of such persons to review

the technical components of a proposed activity. CSREES also lists

certain persons, such as collaborators, who should not perform the

review because of a direct conflict-of-interest. CSREES includes

similar requirements for merit reviewers based on the same rationale.

Applicants must provide notice acting as certification prior to an

award by CSREES that the review has been completed. Having applicants

submit only a notice of compliance, and not the actual review

documentation or results, aims to minimize the administrative burden on

the applicants. The proposed regulations, however, do require that the

applicant retain the review documentation and, consistent with agency

assistance regulations, such documentation may be subject to agency

inspection.

CSREES has elected not to require peer or merit review for each

renewal or extension of a proposed project either through a renewal

grant, continuation grant, or supplemental grant except under limited

circumstances. These circumstances are: (1) if the funded activity has

changed significantly from the original proposal; (2) if other

scientific discoveries have affected the project; and (3) if the need

for the activity has changed. CSREES will make the final determinations

as to whether any of these three situations exists. Under any of these

three circumstances, a new review will be required before

[[Page 14349]]

CSREES will make a subsequent grant award. Because any grant awarded

under this program statutorily cannot extend beyond three years, a new

review automatically is required every three years before CSREES can

make a new grant award.

Subpart D of the proposed rule requires that recipients submit

annual reports describing the results of the research, extension, or

education activity. The agency currently requires that recipients

submit annual and final performance reports as part of the terms and

conditions of each award. The agency believes that subpart D meets the

reporting requirements contained in section 212 of AREERA.

This proposed rule also makes technical amendments to Part 3400 to

change references to the Act of August 4, 1965, to the Competitive,

Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act as retitled by Section

401(a) of the FACT Act Amendments. The proposed rule also changes the

maximum potential award period for Special Grants from five (5) years

to three (3) years to conform with the amendments in section 212 of

AREERA.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order No.

12866, and it has been determined that it is not a ``significant

regulatory action'' rule because it will not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more or adversely and materially affect

a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities. This proposed rule will not create any

serious inconsistencies or otherwise interfere with any actions taken

or planned by another agency. It will not materially alter the

budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs

and does not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or principles set forth in

Executive Order No. 12866. In addition, the Department certifies that

the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of

small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L.

96-354 (5 U.S.C. 601-612).

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order No.

12988, Civil Justice Reform. No retroactive effect is to be given to

this proposed rule. This proposed rule does not require administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit in court.

This proposed rule does not significantly affect the environment.

Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required under the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321

et seq.).

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as

amended, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR Part 1320, the collection of information

requirements for research activities contained in this rule have been

approved under OMB Document Nos. 0524-0022 and 0524-0033. When

appropriations are made available for extension and education

activities under this program, CSREES will fully comply with the

Paperwork Reduction Act and submit a revision to the collection of

information requirements to include these activities. Comments from

potential applicants on this proposed collection of information may be

submitted to CSREES-USDA; Office of Extramural Programs; Policy and

Program Liaison Staff; Mail Stop 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.;

Washington, D.C. 20250-2299 by May 24, 1999, or to the Desk Officer for

Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20502. Reference should be made

to the volume, page, and date of this Federal Register publication.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3400

Grants programs--agriculture, Grants administration.

For the reasons set forth above, CSREES proposes to amend Part 3400

of Chapter XXXIV of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations as

follows:

PART 3400--SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS PROGRAM

1. The authority citation for Part 3400 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450i(c).

2. Revise Sec. 3400.1 to read as follows:

Sec. 3400.1 Applicability of regulations

(a) The regulations of this part apply to special research grants

awarded under the authority of subsection (c) of the Competitive,

Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act, as amended (7 U.S.C.

450i(c)), to facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of

the food and agricultural sciences of importance to the United States.

Subparts A and B, excepting this section, apply only to special

research grants awarded under subsection (c)(1)(A) of the Act. Subpart

C, Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees, and Subpart D, Annual

Reports, applies to all grants awarded under subsection (c) of the Act.

(b) Each year the Administrator of CSREES shall determine and

announce through publication of a Notice in such publications as the

Federal Register, professional trade journals, agency or program

handbooks, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, or any other

appropriate means, research program areas for which proposals will be

solicited competitively, to the extent that funds are available.

(c) The regulations of this part do not apply to research,

extension or education grants awarded by the Department of Agriculture

under any other authority.

3. Revise Sec. 3400.7(c) by inserting in lieu of the words ``five

(5) years'' the words ``three (3) years'' so that the paragraph is

revised to read as follows:

Sec. 3400.7 Use of funds; changes.

(c) Changes in project period. The project period determined

pursuant to Sec. 3400.5(b) may be extended by the Administrator without

additional financial support for such additional period(s) as the

Administrator determines may be necessary to complete, or fulfill the

purposes of an approved project. Any extension, when combined with the

originally approved or amended project period shall not exceed three

(3) years (the limitation established by statute) and shall be further

conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing

by the Department, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and

conditions of a grant award.

* * * * *

4. Subpart C of Part 3400 is added to read as follows:

Subpart C--Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees

3400.20 Grantee review prior to award.

3400.21 Scientific peer review for research activities.

3400.22 Merit review for education and extension activities.

Subpart C--Peer and Merit Review Arranged by Grantees

Sec. 3400.20 Grantee review prior to award.

(a) Review requirement. Prior to the award of a standard or

continuation grant by CSREES, any proposed project shall have undergone

a review arranged by the grantee as specified in this subpart. For

research projects, such review must be a scientific peer review

conducted in accordance with Sec. 3400.21. For education and extension

projects, such review must be a merit review conducted in accordance

with Sec. 3400.22.

(b) Credible and independent. Review arranged by the grantee must

provide for

[[Page 14350]]

a credible and independent assessment of the proposed project. A

credible review is one that provides an appraisal of technical quality

and relevance sufficient for an organizational representative to make

an informed judgment as to whether the proposal is appropriate for

submission for Federal support. To provide for an independent review,

such review may include USDA employees, but should not be conducted

solely by USDA employees.

(c) Notice of completion and retention of records. A notice of

completion of review shall be conveyed in writing to CSREES either as

part of the submitted proposal or prior to the issuance of an award, at

the option of CSREES. The written notice constitutes certification by

the applicant that a review in compliance with these regulations has

occurred. Applicants are not required to submit results of the review

to CSREES; however, proper documentation of the review process and

results should be retained by the applicant.

(d) Renewal and supplemental grants. Review by the grantee is not

automatically required for renewal or supplemental grants as defined in

Sec. 3400.6. A subsequent grant award will require a new review if,

according to CSREES, either the funded project has changed

significantly, other scientific discoveries have affected the project,

or the need for the project has changed. Note that a new review is

necessary when applying for another standard or continuation grant

after expiration of the grant term.

Sec. 3400.21 Scientific peer review for research activities.

Scientific peer review is an evaluation of a proposed project for

technical quality and relevance to regional or national goals performed

by experts with the scientific knowledge and technical skills to

conduct the proposed research work. Peer reviewers may be selected from

an applicant organization or from outside the organization, but shall

not include principal or co-principal investigators, collaborators or

others involved in the preparation of the application under review.

Sec. 3400.22 Merit review for education and extension activities.

Merit review is an evaluation of a proposed project or elements of

a proposed program whereby the technical quality and relevance to

regional or national goals are assessed. The merit review shall be

performed by peers and other individuals with expertise appropriate to

evaluate the proposed project. Merit reviewers may not include

principals, collaborators or others involved in the preparation of the

application under review.

5. Subpart D of Part 3400 is added to read as follows:

Subpart D--Annual Reports

Sec. 3400.23 Annual reports.

(a) Reporting requirement. Annually, within 30 days of the

anniversary date of each award, the recipient shall submit a report

describing the results of the research, extension, or education

activity and the merit of the results.

(b) Report type and content. Unless otherwise stipulated, grant

recipients will have met the reporting requirement under this subpart

by complying with the reporting requirements as set forth in the terms

and conditions of the grant at the time of award.

Done at Washington, D.C., on this 19th day of March, 1999.

I. Miley Gonzalez,

Under Secretary, Research, Education and Economics.

[FR Doc. 99-7256 Filed 3-23-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-22-P