Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 4101 

Signed at Washington, DC, on January 18, 

2006. 

A. Ellen Terpstra, 

Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service 

and Vice President, Commodity Credit 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 06–679 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–10–M 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service Final 

Revised Guidelines for State Plans of 

Work for the Agricultural Research and 

Extension Formula Funds 

AGENCY: Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final notice. 

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State 

Research, Education, and Extension 

Service (CSREES) is implementing the 

revisions to the Guidelines for State 

Plans of Work for the Agricultural 

Research and Extension Formula Funds 

[64 FR 19242–19248]. These guidelines 

prescribe the procedures to be followed 

by the eligible institutions receiving 

Federal agricultural research and 

extension formula funds under the 

Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 

361a et seq.); sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of 

the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, as 

amended (7 U.S.C. 343 (b)(1) and (c)); 

and sections 1444 and 1445 of the 

National Agricultural Research, 

Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 

1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3221 and 

3222). The recipients of these funds are 

commonly referred to as the 1862 landgrant institutions and 1890 land-grant 

institutions, including Tuskegee 

University and West Virginia State 

University. CSREES also is revising and 

reinstating a previously approved 

information collection (OMB No. 0524–

0036) associated with these Guidelines. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Bart Hewitt; Program Analyst, Planning 

and Accountability, Office of the 

Administrator; CSREES–USDA; 

Washington, DC 20250; at 202–720–

5623, 202–720–7714 (fax) or via 

electronic mail at 

bhewitt@csrees.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CSREES 

published a notice and request for 

comment on the Proposed Revised 

Guidelines for State Plans of Work for 

the Agricultural Research and Extension 

Formula Funds in the Federal Register 

on June 7, 2005 (70 FR 33055–33062). 

Public Comments and Guideline 

Changes in Response 

In the Notice of the Proposed 

Guidelines, CSREES invited comments 

on the Proposed Guidelines as well as 

comments 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 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of collection of information on 

those who are to respond, including the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collections techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

CSREES received 22 sets of 

comments. 

Burden 

Comment: Half of the commentors 

(11) stated that the number of burden 

hours required is underestimated. One 

commentor stated that the number of 

burden hours required is overestimated. 

And one commentor stated that the 

number of burden hours appeared to be 

reasonable estimates. The other nine 

commentors had no comment on burden 

hours required. 

CSREES Response: CSREES fully 

expected that half of the commentors 

would indicate that the number of 

burden hours was underestimated. 

CSREES contacted nine states for a 

burden survey based on the proposed 

guidelines. Seven States responded. We 

asked these states to complete the 

survey giving the estimated number of 

hours it will take to complete each 

portion of the Plan of Work (POW) and 

Annual Report, above and beyond the 

number of hours it would normally take 

to plan and report for their own State’s 

purposes. The number represented in 

the guidelines is based on the median of 

the results of this survey, and based on 

a per institutional response. Thus, half 

of the responses are at or below this 

figure and half of the responses are at or 

above this figure. Also, since this 

number is based on each individual 

institutional response, it must be 

understood that a combined research 

institution and extension institution 

cooperating on a POW is considered to 

be two responses and is, thus, expected 

to be double this published figure since 

it represents two institutional responses. 

It also is significant to note that none of 

the states surveyed which were below 

this median estimate commented that 

the burden hours were underestimated. 

Comment: One commentor stated that 

quantifying inputs would be overly 

burdensome. 

CSREES Response: While quantifying 

inputs does put some burden on the 

States, it is necessary to report to 

Congress and the Office of Management 

and Budget what impacts are generated 

by what dollars. To reduce the burden 

on the states, CSREES will only ask for 

the types of funds used, and the 

estimated number of Full-Time 

Equivalents (FTEs) in the initial POW. 

Actual numbers on these will be asked 

in the Annual Report. 

Hatch Act Funding 

Comment: One commentor felt that 

there is no need for the Hatch Act 

anymore and that the budget should be 

cut. Moreover, this commentor stated 

that all research should be funded by 

agribusiness. 

CSREES Response: CSREES 

appreciates and accepts all comments. 

However, this comment is beyond the 

scope of these Guidelines. 

Due Date 

Comment: Three commentors noted 

that the period covered in the 

Guidelines appears incorrect. The 

Guidelines state October 1, 2007, 

through September 30, 2011. 

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees. 

The period should read October 1, 2006, 

through September 30, 2011. This is 

corrected in the final Guidelines. 

Comment: Nine commentors state that 

the April 1, 2006, deadline for 

submitting the POW will be difficult to 

meet. One commentor suggests that 

having the Annual Report and POW 

submitted 60 days apart from each other 

would be less burdensome. 

CSREES Response: CSREES needs to 

have 90 days to review and approve the 

POWs before funds can be released for 

the first quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2007. 

CSREES agrees to move the initial due 

date for the FY 2007–2011 POW to June 

1, 2006. However, if any State 

institution does not submit their Plan by 

June 1, 2006, CSREES cannot guarantee 

prompt release of the first quarter funds 

for FY 2007 on October 1, 2006, since 

it can only do so with an approved 

POW. The due dates for the subsequent 

Annual Report of Accomplishments and 

the Annual Plan of Work Update will 

remain April 1 each year. 

Elements of the Planned Programs 

Section 

Comment: Two commentors suggest 

that while the Program Logic Model is 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
4102 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 

commonly used by many State 

Cooperative Extension Services, it is not 

a proven model or shown to be an 

effective tool for research. They suggest 

it is a flawed assumption that research 

and extension programs can use the 

same model. 

CSREES Response: CSREES disagrees. 

Although it may be a relatively new 

concept for State Agricultural 

Experiment Stations (SAESs), many 

Federal research and development 

agencies and many private research and 

development organizations have shown 

the Program Logic Model to be an 

effective tool and are touting its use. 

Comment: Another commentor is 

concerned that while the general flow of 

inputs-activities-outputs-outcomes can 

be used to describe any process, 

including research, one must be careful 

to articulate what is appropriate and 

acceptable for each of these categories in 

the model, particularly outputs and 

outcomes. 

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees. 

CSREES conducted a series of regional 

sessions on Evaluation Training for the 

POW in October and November 2005, to 

augment the electronic versions of 

training materials that have been 

released and will be released. CSREES 

wants the 1862 and 1890 land-grant 

institutions to be clear on what is 

acceptable in the POW and subsequent 

Annual Reports of Accomplishments 

and Results. 

Comment: Another commentor states 

that the Logic Model lends itself 

effectively to Extension Programs, while 

Knowledge Areas appear to be more 

applicable to research activities. 

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees in 

part. CSREES also feels that an 

integration by using both methods will 

give richness to the planning and 

accountability process in both research 

and extension. 

Comment: One commentor 

questioned the value of including 

assumptions in the POW. It only adds 

to reporting burden that will be useless 

for any accountability benefits. 

CSREES Response: CSREES disagrees. 

Assumptions are key to the Logic 

Model. They are the beliefs we have 

about the program and the people 

involved; the way we think the program 

will work; and the underlying beliefs in 

how it will work. These are validated 

with research and experience. 

Assumptions underlie and influence the 

program decisions we make. 

Assumptions are principles, beliefs, 

ideas about, the problem or situation, 

the resources and staff, the way the 

program will operate, what the program 

expects to achieve, the knowledge base, 

the external and internal environment, 

and the participants and how they learn, 

their behavior, motivations, etc. 

Comment: Twelve commentors stated 

that there was a lack of information 

about the Knowledge Area Classification 

(KAC) codes to judge them. 

CSREES Response: CSREES has now 

published the KAC manual. For the 

Knowledge Areas, the research 

community will quickly notice that a 

vast majority of the codes are really no 

different than that of the Research 

Problem Areas (RPAs) that have been 

used for years in the Current Research 

Information System (CRIS). CSREES has 

augmented the KAC manual with some 

additional codes to encompass 

Extension and Higher Education, and 

also the language in the manual has 

been revised so Extension and Higher 

Education can find and use them for 

their programs. The KAC manual can be 

found at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/ 

business/reporting/planrept/ 

plansofwork.html. 

Comment: One commentor requested 

that the Knowledge Areas not be 

changed once they have been 

implemented. Changes create extra work 

and less continuity in the information 

collected. 

CSREES Response: CSREES intends to 

use the KACs to classify all the work 

performed by CSREES and its Partners 

to include Research, Extension, and 

Higher Education. The KAC manual is, 

however, designed to be a dynamic 

document that can be revised and 

augmented over time as need arises for 

new classification codes or to retire 

outdated or unused codes. 

Comment: Two commentors strongly 

support the use of the Logic Model to 

develop plans and evaluation reports for 

both extension and research. 

CSREES Response: CSREES 

appreciates all comments both positive 

and negative. 

Comment: One commentor questions 

the use of the word ‘‘may’’ in section 

II.B.5 of the Guidelines that describe 

inputs as it relates to reporting on 

dollars other than Formula Funds. They 

feel the word ‘‘may’’ indicates that the 

inclusion of data is optional. Another 

commentor suggests that CSREES has no 

oversight authority in requesting this 

data and that it should be optional. Yet 

another commentor suggests that 

requesting states to quantify other funds 

is overly burdensome and that a 

compromise might be to simply describe 

the source/nature of other funds that 

will be expended to address critical 

issues. Moreover, two commentors 

stated a need for clarity on the funds to 

be reported on in the POW. 

CSREES Response: To alleviate 

confusion, CSREES will change the 

word ‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall’’ to be consistent 

with the wording in the legislation. The 

Agricultural Research, Extension, and 

Education Reform Act of 1998 

(AREERA) legislation uses the word 

‘‘shall’’ when it refers to a requirement. 

Thus, the wording in this section is 

being changed to read, ‘‘AREERA 

requires that this component shall not 

only include the amount of Federal 

agricultural research and/or extension 

formula funds allocated to this planned 

program, but also the manner in which 

funds, other than formula funds, will be 

expended to address the critical issues 

being targeted by this planned 

program.’’ This is in keeping with 

Section 202 (for Smith-Lever and 

Hatch), and Section 225 (for 1890 

Research and Extension funds) of 

AREERA. These sections state that 

‘‘Each Plan of Work for a State * * * 

shall contain descriptions of the 

following: The manner in which 

research and extension, including 

research and extension activities funded 

other than through formula funds, will 

cooperate to address the critical issues 

in the State, including the activities to 

be carried out separately, the activities 

to be carried out sequentially, and the 

activities to be carried out jointly.’’ For 

the purpose of this 5-year POW, only 

those programs that use Federal 

Formula Funds and its accompanying 

matching funds need be reported. Thus, 

in the POW, CSREES will only ask 

whether or not Formula Funds are being 

used in a State-defined program and 

whether or not funds other than 

Formula Funds are being used. CSREES 

will not ask for the amount that is 

expected to be used in the POW, but 

will ask for this data in subsequent 

Annual Reports against the POW. 

However, CSREES will require the 

number of FTE positions participating 

in the planned programs identified in 

the 5-Year POW. In addition, a recurring 

comment made by State land-grant 

partners was that in formulating the 

POW requirements, CSREES needs to 

consider how much is leveraged with 

the Federal formula dollars. 

Comment: Two commentors want a 

clarification of the definition of the 

word ‘‘Activities’’ as it relates to the 

Logic Model. 

CSREES Response: CSREES has 

attempted to clarify the definition of the 

word ‘‘Activities’’ in the definition 

section of these guidelines. CSREES will 

amend the definition to include the 

following: ‘‘Activities are what a 

program does with its inputs, the 

services it provides to fulfill its mission. 

They include the research processes, 

workshops, services, conferences, 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 4103 

community surveys, facilitation, inhome counseling, etc.’’

Comment: Two commentors 

suggested that CSREES change the name 

of ‘‘community and resource 

development’’ to just ‘‘community 

development’’ in the definition of 

‘‘Agricultural issues.’’

CSREES Response: CSREES has 

changed the wording in this definition 

to broaden it by including both 

‘‘community development’’ and 

‘‘resource development.’’

Comment: Two commentors 

suggested that CSREES change the 

phrase ‘‘social issues such as youth 

development, etc.’’ to ‘‘youth 

development, strengthening families 

(parenting, communication, financial 

management), and related topics’’ in the 

definition of ‘‘Agricultural issues.’’

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees 

and has changed the wording to reflect 

this. 

Comment: Four commentors have 

suggested that CSREES needs to clarify 

the definition of outcome and output 

indicators to reflect that of the Program 

Logic Model. One commentor asked, 

‘‘What is the difference between 

outcomes and outcome indicators?’’

Another commentor asks if the word 

‘‘indicators’’ is relevant to the Program 

Logic Model. 

CSREES Response: CSREES believes 

the word ‘‘indicators’’ is very relevant to 

the Program Logic Model, because 

indicators are the measures of program 

success that are derived from the goals 

set in the Program Logic Model. 

Indicators are the evidence or 

information that represent the 

phenomenon of interest that has been 

explained in the Program Logic Model. 

Indicators answer the evaluation 

questions derived from the Program 

Logic Model, and define the data that 

will need to be collected, analyzed, and 

reported. 

For example, a Program Logic Model 

may recognize a national problem, such 

as the need for nutrition education to 

help combat the nationwide epidemic of 

obesity, and lay out the planned course 

of action to deliver activities, such as 

courses for certain target groups, that 

will result in planned results, such as 

increases in knowledge, changes in 

attitudes, and changes in behavior, that 

we know from experience and health 

literature will lead to lower weight. This 

example also illustrates the difference 

between output and outcome indicators. 

Output indicators measure the activities 

that comprise the process of the 

program, such as counting the number 

of courses provided and the number of 

participants, while outcome indicators 

measure the results of those activities, 

such as changes in nutrition knowledge 

measured by a test, changes in attitudes, 

and changes in behavior. Some 

evaluation studies also collect physical 

outcome data, such as measuring 

calories consumed each day, changes in 

weight, etc. 

Using the word ‘‘outcomes’’ in the 

Program Logic Model refers to the 

planned conceptual goal for the cluster 

of output activities to which it is linked, 

while ‘‘outcome indicator’’ refers to the 

selected measure of progress toward that 

goal. However, in common usage, 

people often may use ‘‘outcomes’’ as 

shorthand for the measure. 

Comment: Three commentors have 

suggested that CSREES change the 

wording from ‘‘identification of national 

problem,’’ to ‘‘identification of state 

problem’’ in the definition of Program 

Logic Model. Moreover, one commentor 

points out that there is conflicting 

language in the Guidelines which 

implies the POW must address only 

national priorities. 

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees in 

part and has changed the wording in 

this definition to provide greater clarity 

in that the POW should address both 

state and national priorities. National 

issues are usually best addressed at the 

state level by the States affected. 

Collectively, state and national 

priorities are cohesive and solutions are 

mutually beneficial. 

Comment: Two commentors stated 

that it would be helpful if CSREES 

would give some indication of the scale 

of ‘‘programs’’ that is expected for state 

programs. In addition, the commentor 

requested brief examples. 

CSREES Response: The purpose of 

letting the States define their own 

program unit, or unit of work, is to 

allow greater flexibility in how States 

plan and report. CSREES does not want 

to dictate the programs around which 

States do their planning. However, 

CSREES has published its Strategic Plan 

on its Web site at http:// 

www.csrees.usda.gov/about/offices/ 

pdfs/strat_plan_04_09.pdf, and a list of 

eleven National Emphasis Areas that 

CSREES uses for its own planning. This 

list is published on the CSREES Web 

site at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/ 

emphasis_area.html. 

Comment: Two commentors stated 

that it appears that the POW system will 

request specific measures of program 

accomplishment. In practice, these 

measures may not be uniform for all 

projects across the entire Nation, and 

CSREES will ask for the number of 

persons adopting a technology of 

practice, dollars saved or generated, etc. 

The commentor proposes that the POW 

and Annual Report serve as a broad 

Federal umbrella, under which the 

States are allowed to use measures of 

evaluation deemed appropriate by each 

State. Moreover, two commentors stated 

CSREES needs to list the standard 

performance measures for outputs. 

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees. It 

was never the intention of the POW to 

craft many nation-wide standard 

measures for outputs and outcomes. In 

fact, there are only three standard 

‘‘output’’ measures for the FY 2007–

2011 POW. Thus far, there are no 

standard ‘‘outcome’’ measures put forth 

by CSREES for the FY 2007–2011 POW, 

but we will continue to work with 

national task forces to develop some 

over time. The standard output 

measures for extension are number of 

direct and indirect contacts, and 

extension education methods for 

extension. The only standard output 

measure for research in the POW is 

number of patents. In the Annual 

Report, we will ask what those patents 

are. The other output measures and all 

outcome measures are left to the 

discretion of the institution to craft as 

they deem appropriate for their 

programs. More detail on the standard 

performance measures are published in 

the training presentation modules for 

the POW on the CSREES Web site at 

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/ 

reporting/planrept/plansofwork.html. 

Comment: One commentor suggested 

that there is redundancy in asking for 

information under situation and 

priorities sections and in the Multistate 

Extension and Integrated Research and 

Extension activities sections, and the 

stakeholder input process sections. 

CSREES Response: CSREES has 

revised the situation and priorities 

section to clarify what is needed and to 

reduce redundancy of these sections. 

Comment: One commentor suggest 

that it will be difficult to estimate 

indirect and direct contacts during the 

first year of the POW given that they 

have not counted these in this manner 

previously, but it sees value in this 

information as it reaches many clientele 

by both indirect and direct means. Staff 

will feel better about being able to count 

all their contacts as some have felt 

unsettled at being told to count only 

direct contacts in the past. Their 

numbers for both may be more accurate 

as a result. 

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees 

that this may be difficult for some states 

that have not counted these in the past. 

Also, we understand that, for the POW, 

that these will be estimates. However, in 

the first Annual Report due on April 1, 

2008, CSREES feels institutions will be 

able to count the actual contacts for the 

first fiscal year. The Plan numbers are 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
4104 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 

milestones to strive for, while the real 

output measures in the Annual Report 

are what we typically will use for 

determining success. 

Multistate Extension and Integrated 

Research and Extension 

Comment: One commentor states that 

for Smith-Lever Multistate Extension, 

the formal documentation discussed to 

provide evidence appears to be a new 

requirement for the POW. The 

requirement of formal written 

agreements will be a distraction to 

faculty-to-faculty multistate activities 

and will require considerable time to 

develop the agreements. Most 

agreements are non-formal. Another 

commentor agrees, but goes further to 

state that e-mail communications can be 

viewed as primary evidence that a 

multistate relationship exists and that 

this requirement is creating a 

bureaucracy and hours spent in 

preparing reports without any benefit to 

the stakeholder. If faculty members are 

told they must have this agreement 

signed prior to initiating a multi-state 

effort, all regional programming will 

come to a halt. 

CSREES Response: This requirement 

was in the original POW Guidelines 

published on July 1, 1999. The 

requirement for formal written 

agreements, letters of memorandum, etc. 

has been deleted. However, it is 

expected that these activities meet the 

criteria and definition of multistate 

extension as stated in the Guidelines. 

CSREES expects that, with the 

elimination of the requirement for 

formal written agreements or letters of 

memorandum, institutions will be better 

able to meet their target percentages. In 

fact, CSREES expects that some 

institutions (i.e., those with low target 

percentages) may be better able to 

achieve higher target percentages, closer 

to 25 percent, with the elimination of 

the need for formal written agreements 

in order to provide evidence of 

multistate extension activities. 

Comment: One commentor feels we 

should strike the statement that ‘‘these 

programs must be reported consistently 

across the units of an institution as well 

as with the 5-Year POW of the 

cooperating State(s) or State 

institutions’’ in both the Multistate 

Extension and Integrated Research and 

Extension sections to be consistent with 

the Administrative Guidance on our 

CSREES Web site. 

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees 

and will clarify this statement in both 

sections to be consistent with the 

Administrative Guidance on both 

sections. 

Comment: One commentor states that 

the guidance continues to ignore what is 

meant by ‘‘at least equal to the lesser of 

25 percent or twice the * * *’’ in 

reference to which funds are being 

addressed for Multistate Extension and 

Integrated Research and Extension 

programs. This should be interpreted 

that States report on the value of 25 

percent of Federal formula dollars 

regardless of the source of those dollars, 

whether Federal formula dollars or state 

matching dollars. If this means only 25 

percent of Federal formula dollars this 

is a concern. To limit reporting to only 

Federal dollar funded positions is 

difficult as the Federal dollars have 

fallen so far behind in keeping up with 

the operating costs and many States are 

not hiring new employees on Federal 

dollars. Clarity on this point is needed. 

CSREES Response: The requirements 

of AREERA are very clear in that they 

do refer only to the Federal formula 

funds: ‘‘Of the Federal formula funds 

that are paid to each State for fiscal year 

2000 and each subsequent fiscal year 

under subsections (b) and (c), the State 

shall expend for the fiscal year for 

multistate activities a percentage that is 

at least equal to the lesser of (i) 25 

percent; or (ii) twice the percentage for 

the State determined under 

subparagraph A.’’ CSREES realizes the 

difficulty for some States to meet these 

requirements with Federal formula 

funds and does understand that many 

times these multistate extension and 

integrated activities are being supported 

with other sources of funding (e.g., State 

funds). However, the statutory 

requirement applies to the Federal 

formula funds only. 

Comment: One commentor inquired 

about whether States would have the 

opportunity to establish new target 

percentages for Multistate Extension 

Activities and Integrated Research and 

Extension Activities. 

CSREES Response: Yes, States will 

have the opportunity to and in some 

cases, may be required to establish new 

target percentages for Multistate 

Extension Activities and Integrated 

Research and Extension Activities. A 

revised Administrative Guidance for 

Multistate Extension Activities and 

Integrated Research and Extension 

Activities is currently being drafted. 

Merit Review 

Comment: One commentor needs a 

clarification on ‘‘program goals’’ in the 

Merit Review definition. The 

commentor questioned: ‘‘Whose 

Program Goals? Are these to be State 

goals or Federal goals?’’ This statement 

can be interpreted to be state goals. 

CSREES Response: CSREES will 

clarify this statement to say ‘‘Merit 

review means an evaluation whereby 

the quality and relevance to state 

program goals are assessed.’’ This refers 

to the merit review of state programs. 

Stakeholder Input 

Comment: One commentor feels the 

template approach to the sections on 

stakeholder input and merit review 

processes is too constraining. Such 

disaggregation trivializes the integrated 

approaches they have established and 

brings all programs to a lowest common 

denominator of description, regardless 

of quality of the processes involved. In 

contrast, the open narrative format of 

the current plan allowed fair 

descriptions of such processes and 

permitted qualitative differentiation. 

CSREES Response: As CSREES was 

designing the new POW, it specifically 

received many positive responses to the 

way it was handling these two sections 

of the Plan. CSREES feels it is 

alleviating limitations by incorporating 

into the software both checkboxes and 

text boxes to allow for the flexibility to 

further explain the important 

institutional strategies and processes. 

CSREES is, however, forcing 

conciseness and brevity in its narrative 

sections as requested by institutions 

receiving funds and mandates by 

Federal laws and regulations. 

General 

Comment: One commentor suggests 

that the following language seems 

contradictory. The section on Schedule 

states that ‘‘Five-Year Plans of Work 

accepted by CSREES will remain in 

effect for five years and will be publicly 

available in a CSREES database.’’ Earlier 

language indicates that the Annual 

Update to the 5-Year POW will add an 

additional year to the continuous 5-Year 

POW. The commentor asks whether the 

approval of the Annual Update also 

extends the POW another year. 

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees 

that this seems contradictory and it has 

changed the language in the section on 

‘‘Schedule’’ to clarify the meaning. The 

intention is that an approval of the 

Annual Update also does extend the 

POW for another year. But, this update, 

in effect, is a ‘‘new’’ 5-Year POW that is 

effective for the ‘‘new’’ 5-year period. 

Comment: One commentor stated that 

for CSREES to require future 5-Year 

POWs is redundant since the States are 

required to provide annual updates to 

the plans, adding an additional year 

each time. Another commentor stated 

that this point needs to be clarified. 

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees in 

part. CSREES will strike the last 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 4105 

sentence of the paragraph and clarify 

this statement. However, technically 

CSREES is still requiring future 5-Year 

POWs since each year the update is a 

new 5-Year Plan. For example, the 

update due by April 1, 2007, will be the 

FY 2008–2012 5-Year POW, even 

though an additional year is being 

added to the previous FY 2007–2011 5- 

Year POW. Moreover, CSREES will 

allow data to be revised, if needed, for 

any future year in the Plan, not just the 

added year. 

Comment: Three commentors believe 

that the core of the POW (the planned 

programs) for the SAESs is already in 

the CRIS database, and the Hatch 

projects in each State’s Program of 

Research should be accepted de facto as 

the research planned programs sections 

for the POW. 

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees in 

part. Although much information is in 

CRIS, it is primarily a reporting 

mechanism, and is mostly retrospective, 

and does not sufficiently make use of 

the planning standard, the Program 

Logic Model, which is in use by many 

Federal research and development 

agencies. The Program Logic Model is 

key to the development of the POW. 

CSREES understands the frustration of 

redundancy and is working toward 

eliminating duplication via the ‘‘One 

Solution’’ initiative. The ‘‘One 

Solution’’ initiative is exploring ways to 

meld the information contained in CRIS 

and the POW to eliminate or reduce this 

duplication of effort. The FY 2007–2011 

POW is part of Phase 1 of the ‘‘One 

Solution’’ initiative, and future phases, 

which include the FY 2007 Annual 

Report (which is not due until April 1, 

2008), will address this issue fully. 

Comment: One commentor feels 

CSREES should precede the first 

sentence in the paragraph with the 

phrase ‘‘For extension***’’ when 

describing education and outreach 

programs that are pertinent to the 

critical agricultural issues identified in 

the ‘‘Statement of Issue.’’

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees 

and has changed the language to reflect 

this. 

Comment: One commentor wants 

CSREES to clarify the definition and 

consistently apply the meaning of 

‘‘planned program,’’ which is crucial to 

both State and Federal partners. The 

commentor believes the proposed 

guidelines are ambiguous. 

CSREES Response: CSREES has 

purposely given the States ample 

discretion and flexibility to interpret 

their own state-defined program units or 

units of work and does not want to 

impose a standard program unit that 

will not fit all circumstances. 

Comment: One commentor wants 

CSREES to clarify the definition of 

‘‘Under-served’’ and ‘‘Underrepresented.’’ One commentor stated 

that they conduct 10–15 civil rights 

reviews on an annual basis and have 

never seen these definitions. Both 

phrases seem to be addressing the same 

concept and yet, after several readings, 

it is still unclear to the commentor what 

is meant. 

CSREES Response: CSREES agrees 

that both phrases seem to be addressing 

the same concept, but also feels the 

current definitions are clear. Underserved are those whose ‘‘needs’’ have 

not been fully addressed in the past; 

whereas, under-represented are those 

who may not have participated fully in 

programs. The populations for each 

state that fit these definitions may differ 

from state to state and within different 

areas of a single state. 

Comment: One commentor states that 

the failure of the proposed guidelines to 

integrate or coordinate with SmithLever Act section 3(d) programs and 

Civil Rights reporting calls to question 

the validity of the ‘‘One Solution’’

approach. Another commentor states 

that CSREES needs to eliminate 

duplicative effort in reporting impact 

and accounting for Federal formula 

funding received by organizations, and 

that reporting into the CSREES Science 

and Education Impact database is 

another example of duplicative work. 

CSREES Response: CSREES has begun 

the process to coordinate with the 

Smith-Lever Act section 3(d) programs. 

However, reporting under the ‘‘One 

Solution’’ is taking place in several 

phases over several years. The POW is 

only part of Phase 1 of the ‘‘One 

Solution’’ initiative. The Annual Report 

of Accomplishments for the Formula 

funded programs covered by AREERA 

are part of a future phase of the ‘‘One 

Solution’’ that also will integrate many 

other programs, including Smith-Lever 

Act section 3(d) funded programs, and 

projects reporting to reduce redundancy 

in reporting. 

Comment: One commentor states that 

the web-entry system should come with 

a support plan. Also, the new system 

should be functional in offline use since 

they cannot do all the data entry in one 

sitting and must be able to save between 

entries and drafts. If this must be done 

online, then it must have a ‘‘save as we 

go’’ feature. Also there should be no 

limitations on characters and symbols 

that can be uploaded when cutting and 

pasting from word processing 

documents. 

CSREES Response: The web-entry 

system will be supported by the 

Information Systems and Technology 

Management unit of CSREES. The new 

system will not be functional offline, 

but it will have a ‘‘save as you go’’

feature to allow for multiple editing 

until submitted in final by the Director 

or Administrator of the institution. 

There will, however, be some special 

character limitations due to software 

constraints. 

Comment: The Connecticut 

Agricultural Experiment Station in New 

Haven states that they are not a landgrant institution, but receive Hatch Act 

funds, thus the sentence which begins 

with ‘‘Responders will be the 57 landgrant institutions and the 18 1890 landgrant institutions* * *’’ excludes them. 

CSREES Response: CSREES will 

clarify this statement to include the 

Connecticut Agricultural Experiment 

Station in New Haven and the Geneva 

Agricultural Experiment Station in New 

York. 

Comment: One commentor 

encourages CSREES to provide a 

training session, one in the East and one 

in the West, using computer-based 

simulation to train each institution’s 

lead 5-Year POW planner. There also 

should be an online help desk available 

for the software. 

CSREES Response: CSREES held four 

regional Evaluation Training for the 

POW sessions in October and November 

2005. Information on these training 

sessions can be found on the CSREES 

AREERA Plan of Work Web page at 

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/business/ 

reporting/planrept/plansofwork.html. 

There also will be web-based training 

materials available for the software. The 

POW software itself will contain help 

screens for each section of the POW and 

there will be a help desk available for 

both software and content. 

Comment: One commentor states that 

data related to external factors may only 

be able to be documented in a 

qualitative form and inquires if the 

‘‘One Solution’’ will have the capacity 

to capture such data. 

CSREES Response: The POW software 

will make use of checkboxes with an 

‘‘other’’ choice with a text field as well 

as a text box to capture the qualitative 

nature of this item. 

Comment: One commentor states that 

a clear declaration must be made by 

CSREES that states how input, output, 

and outcome data are to be used. Is the 

data base to enhance planning and 

scientific peer-review as articulated in 

AREERA or is it also intended to link 

dollar inputs with specific outputs/ 

outcomes, both within the state and 

across regional and multi-state efforts? 

Another commentor inquires how 

linking impact to dollars will be shared 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
4106 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 

with legislators and other resource 

allocators. 

CSREES Response: CSREES Plans to 

use the input, output, and outcome data 

to enhance planning, and also to link 

dollar inputs with Knowledge Areas for 

use in assessing CSREES-funded 

programs in the portfolio review process 

for budget purposes. We also will link 

outputs and outcomes to the Knowledge 

Areas for use in the portfolio review 

process. 

Comment: One commentor 

discourages the tracking or 

documentation of multi-county 

programming work. The time invested 

would be very cumbersome and distract 

from the many successes already 

occurring. Another commentor states 

that to require or even encourage multicounty cooperation violates the 

sovereignty of the county government 

and the local stakeholders to fund what 

they perceive as a priority and oversteps 

the bounds of the Federal Government. 

CSREES Response: CSREES must 

uphold the mandates of AREERA as 

written into the law. The AREERA 

legislation states that for Smith-Lever 

Act formula funds and the 1890 

Extension formula funds that ‘‘[e]ach 

extension Plan of Work for a State * * * 

shall contain description of the 

following:’’ ‘‘(5) The education and 

outreach programs already underway to 

convey available research results that 

are pertinent to a critical agricultural 

issue, including efforts to encourage 

multicounty cooperation in the 

dissemination of research results.’’

CSREES has no intention of tracking 

multi-county programming work in the 

POW. However, as stated above, 

AREERA requires that States document 

efforts to encourage multi-county 

cooperation in the dissemination of 

research information. This can be 

discussed briefly in the Plan Overview 

text and/or the Stakeholder Input 

section of the Plan. 

Comment: Eight commentors stated a 

need for more information on the 

concept of a rolling 5-year POW and the 

required Annual Update to the POW, 

and how this differs from an update 

being submitted when formula funds 

change by more than 10 percent in one 

year or by 20 percent or more 

cumulatively during the 5-year period. 

CSREES Response: The POW does 

become a rolling 5-Year Plan. Each 

April, the just-completed-and-reportedon year drops off and is updated by 

adding the next fifth year. Also, annual 

updates will allow for amending any 

and all future years of the plan already 

entered. CSREES has attempted to add 

clarity in these guidelines and has 

published more thorough training 

presentation modules on the CSREES 

Web site at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/ 

business/reporting/planrept/ 

plansofwork.html. Since an update is 

submitted each year, CSREES will drop 

the reference to needing an update 

when baseline formula funds change by 

more than 10 percent in one year or by 

20 percent or more cumulatively during 

the 5-year period, but note that annual 

updates will allow for amending any 

and all future years of the plan already 

entered. 

Comment: CSREES needs to improve 

its search capabilities to search for 

impacts by Congressional district. 

CSREES Response: While this is 

beyond the scope of the POW 

Guidelines, CSREES is striving to 

improve on the way we search and find 

impacts through the ‘‘One Solution’’

initiative which will incorporate data 

entry systems with the Research, 

Education, and Economics Information 

System (REEIS). This system has been 

designed to serve all with an interest in 

research, education and extension 

efforts performed or financially 

supported by USDA. The ultimate 

objective of the system is to enable users 

to measure the impact and effectiveness 

of research, extension and education 

programs. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

regulations (5 CFR part 1320) that 

implement the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements imposed by 

the implementation of these guidelines 

will be submitted to OMB as a revision 

of Information Collection No. 0524–

0036, Reporting Requirements for State 

Plans of Work for Agricultural Research 

and Extension Formula Funds. These 

requirements will not become effective 

prior to OMB approval. The eligible 

institutions will be notified upon this 

approval. 

Background and Purpose 

The Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service 

(CSREES) is implementing the following 

revised Guidelines for State Plans of 

Work for the Agricultural Research and 

Extension Formula Funds which 

implement the plan-of-work reporting 

requirements enacted in the 

Agricultural Research, Extension, and 

Education Reform Act of 1998 

(AREERA), Public Law 105–185. 

These guidelines incorporate some of 

the recommendations from the USDA 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit 

Report No. 13001–3–Te, CSREES 

Implementation of the Agricultural 

Research, Extension, and Education 

Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA), which 

was published on August 16, 2004. In 

an earlier Federal Register notice [69 FR 

6244–6248], CSREES amended the 

Guidelines to the State Plans of Work to 

allow for the submission of an interim 

FY 2005–2006 Plan of Work (POW) in 

order for CSREES to consider the audit 

recommendations as well as develop a 

viable electronic option for compliance 

with the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act (GPEA). This notice 

implements this electronic option 

through a web-based data entry system 

which will reduce the reporting burden 

to the institutions while providing more 

accountability over agricultural research 

and extension formula funds. 

Pursuant to the Plan of Work 

requirements enacted in the 

Agricultural Research, Extension, and 

Education Reform Act of 1998, the 

Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service hereby revises 

the Guidelines for State Plans of Work 

for Agricultural Research and Extension 

Formula Funds as follows: 

Guidelines for State Plans of Work for 

Agricultural Research and Extension 

Formula Funds 

Table of Contents 

I. Preface and Authority 

II. Submission of the 5-Year Plan of Work 

A. General 

1. Planning Option 

2. Period Covered 

3. Projected Resources 

4. Submission and Due Date 

5. Definitions 

B. Components of the 5-Year Plan of Work 

1. Planned Programs 

a. Format 

b. Program Logic Model 

c. Program Descriptions 

2. Stakeholder Input Process 

3. Program Review Process 

a. Merit Review 

b. Scientific Peer Review 

c. Reporting Requirement 

4. Multistate Research and Extension 

Activities 

a. Hatch Multistate Research 

b. Smith-Lever Multistate Extension 

c. Reporting Requirement 

5. Integrated Research and Extension 

Activities 

C. Five Year Plan of Work Evaluation by 

CSREES 

1. Schedule 

2. Review Criteria 

3. Evaluation of Multistate and Integrated 

Research and Extension Activities 

III. Annual Update of the 5-Year Plan of 

Work 

A. Applicability 

B. Reporting Requirement 

IV. Annual Report of Accomplishments and 

Results 

A. Reporting Requirement 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 4107 

B. Format 

I. Preface and Authority 

Sections 202 and 225 of the 

Agricultural Research, Extension, and 

Education Reform Act of 1998 

(AREERA), Public Law 105–185, 

enacted amendments requiring all States 

and 1890 institutions receiving formula 

funds authorized under the Hatch Act of 

1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a et 

seq.), the Smith-Lever Act, as amended 

(7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), and sections 1444 

and 1445 of the National Agricultural 

Research, Extension, and Teaching 

Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA), as 

amended (7 U.S.C. 3221 and 3222), to 

prepare and submit to the Cooperative 

State Research, Education, and 

Extension Service (CSREES) a Plan of 

Work for the use of those funds. 

While the requirement for the Hatch 

Act and Smith-Lever Act funds applies 

to the States, CSREES assumes that in 

most cases the function will be 

performed by the 1862 land-grant 

institution in the States. The only 

‘‘eligible institutions’’ to receive formula 

funding under sections 1444 and 1445 

of NARETPA are the 1890 land-grant 

institutions and Tuskegee University 

and West Virginia State University. 

Therefore, these guidelines refer 

throughout to ‘‘institutions’’ to include 

both the 1862 and 1890 land-grant 

institutions, including Tuskegee 

University and West Virginia State 

University. 

Further, these guidelines require a 

POW that covers both research and 

extension. Although the District of 

Columbia receives extension funds 

under the District of Columbia 

Postsecondary Education 

Reorganization Act, Public Law 93–471, 

as opposed to the Smith-Lever Act, 

CSREES has determined that it should 

be subject to the POW requirements 

imposed under these guidelines except 

where expressly excluded. 

All the requirements of AREERA with 

regard to agricultural research and 

extension formula funds were 

considered and were incorporated in 

these POW guidelines including 

descriptions of the following: (1) The 

critical short-term, intermediate, and 

long-term agricultural issues in the State 

and the current and planned research 

and extension programs and projects 

targeted to address the issues; (2) the 

process established to consult with 

stakeholders regarding the identification 

of critical agricultural issues in the State 

and the development of research and 

extension projects and programs 

targeted to address the issues; (3) the 

efforts made to identify and collaborate 

with other colleges and universities that 

have a unique capacity to address the 

identified agricultural issues in the State 

and the extent of current and emerging 

efforts (including regional and 

multistate efforts) to work with those 

other institutions; (4) the manner in 

which research and extension, 

including research and extension 

activities funded other than through 

formula funds, will cooperate to address 

the critical issues in the State, including 

the activities to be carried out 

separately, sequentially, or jointly; and 

(5) For extension, the education and 

outreach programs already underway to 

convey available research results that 

are pertinent to a critical agricultural 

issue, including efforts to encourage 

multicounty cooperation in the 

dissemination of research information. 

These guidelines also take into 

consideration the requirement in section 

102(c) of AREERA for the 1862, 1890, 

and 1994 land-grant institutions 

receiving agricultural research, 

extension, and education formula funds 

to establish a process for receiving 

stakeholder input on the uses of such 

funds. This stakeholder input 

requirement, as it applies to research 

and extension at 1862 and 1890 landgrant institutions, has been incorporated 

as part of the POW process. 

The requirement of section 103(e) of 

AREERA also is addressed in these 

POW guidelines. This section requires 

that the 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant 

institutions establish a merit review 

process, prior to October 1, 1999, in 

order to obtain agricultural research, 

extension, and education funds. These 

were established by all institutions in 

the FY 2000–2004 5-Year POW. For 

purposes of these guidelines applicable 

to formula funds, a description of the 

merit review process must be restated, 

and if applicable, the merit review 

process must be re-established for 

extension programs funded under 

sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the SmithLever Act and under section 1444 of 

NARETPA, and for research programs 

funded under sections 3(c)(1) and (2) of 

the Hatch Act (commonly referred to as 

Hatch Regular Formula Funds) and 

under section 1445 of NARETPA. 

Section 104 of AREERA amended the 

Hatch Act of 1887 also to stipulate that 

a scientific peer review process (that 

also would satisfy the requirements of a 

merit review process under section 

103(e)) be established for research 

programs funded under section 3(c)(3) 

of the Hatch Act (commonly referred to 

as Hatch Multistate Research Funds). As 

previously stated, a description of these 

program review processes must be 

restated, and if applicable, these review 

processes must be re-established in 

order for the institutions to obtain 

agricultural research and extension 

formula funds. Consequently, a 

description of the merit review and 

scientific peer review process has been 

included as a requirement in the 

submission of the 5-Year POW. 

These POW guidelines also require 

reporting on the multistate and 

integrated research and extension 

programs. Section 104 of AREERA 

amended the Hatch Act of 1887 to 

redesignate the Hatch regional research 

funds as the Hatch Multistate Research 

Fund, specifying that these funds be 

used for cooperative research employing 

multidisciplinary approaches in which 

a State agricultural experiment station 

(SAES), working with another SAES, the 

Agricultural Research Service, or a 

college or university, cooperates to solve 

the problems that concern more than 

one State. Section 105 of AREERA 

amended the Smith-Lever Act to require 

that each institution receiving extension 

formula funds under sections 3(b) and 

(c) of the Smith-Lever Act expend for 

multistate activities in FY 2000 and 

thereafter a percentage that is at least 

equal to the lesser of 25 percent or twice 

the percentage of funds expended by the 

institution for multistate activities in FY 

1997. Section 204 of AREERA amended 

both the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts to 

require that each institution receiving 

agricultural research and extension 

formula funds under the Hatch Act and 

sections 3(b) and (c) of the Smith-Lever 

Act expend for integrated research and 

extension activities in FY 2000 and 

thereafter a percentage that is at least 

equal to the lesser of 25 percent or twice 

the percentage of funds expended by the 

institution for integrated research and 

extension activities in FY 1997. These 

sections also required that the 

institutions include in the POW a 

description of the manner in which they 

will meet these multistate and 

integrated requirements. These were 

included as part of the FY 2000–2004 5- 

Year POW. 

These applicable percentages apply to 

the Federal agricultural research and 

extension formula funds only. Federal 

formula funds that are used by the 

institution for a fiscal year for integrated 

activities also may be counted to satisfy 

the multistate extension activities 

requirement. 

The multistate and integrated research 

and extension requirements do not 

apply to formula funds received by 

American Samoa, Guam, Micronesia, 

Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands. Since the Smith-Lever 

Act is not directly applicable, the 

multistate extension and integrated 

requirements do not apply to extension 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
4108 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 

funds received by the District of 

Columbia, except to the extent it 

voluntarily complies. 

The amendments made by sections 

105 and 204 of AREERA also provide 

that the Secretary of Agriculture may 

reduce the minimum percentage 

required to be expended by the 

institution for multistate and integrated 

activities in the case of hardship, 

infeasibility, or other similar 

circumstance beyond the control of the 

institution. In April 2000, CSREES 

issued separate guidance on the 

establishment of the FY 1997 baseline 

percentages for multistate extension 

activities and integrated research and 

extension activities, on requests for 

reduction in the required minimum 

percentage, and on reporting 

requirements. The Administrative 

Guidance for Multistate Extension 

Activities and Integrated Research and 

Extension Activities provides guidance 

on the establishment of target 

percentages for multistate extension 

activities and integrated research and 

extension activities as well as associated 

reporting requirements and waiver 

criteria and procedures. 

Also included in these guidelines are 

instructions on how to report on the 

annual accomplishments and results of 

the planned programs contained in the 

5-Year POW, information on the 

evaluation of accomplishments and 

results, and information on when and 

how to update the 5-Year POW if 

necessary. 

II. Submission of the 5-Year Plan of 

Work 

A. General 

1. Planning Option 

This document provides guidance for 

preparing the POW with preservation of 

institutional autonomy and 

programmatic flexibility within the 

Federal-State Partnership. The POW is a 

5-year prospective plan that covers the 

initial period of FY 2007 through FY 

2011, with the submission of annual 

updates to the 5-Year POW to add an 

additional year to the plan each year. 

The 5-Year POWs may be prepared for 

an institution’s individual functions 

(i.e., research or extension activities), for 

an individual institution (including the 

planning of research and extension 

activities), or for state-wide activities 

(i.e., a 5-year research and/or extension 

POW for all the eligible institutions in 

a State). Each 5-Year POW must reflect 

the content of the program(s) funded by 

Federal agricultural research and 

extension formula funds and the 

required matching funds. This 5-Year 

POW must describe how the program(s) 

address critical short-term, 

intermediate, and long-term agricultural 

issues in a State. 

2. Period Covered 

The initial 5-Year POW should cover 

the period from October 1, 2006, 

through September 30, 2011. 

3. Projected Resources 

The resources that are allocated for 

various planned programs in the 5-Year 

POW, in terms of full-time equivalents 

(FTEs), should be included and 

projected over the next five years. The 

baseline for the institution’s or State’s 

plan (for five years) should be the 

Federal agricultural research and 

extension formula funds for FY 2005 

(and used for all five years) and the 

appropriate matching requirement for 

each fiscal year. 

4. Submission and Due Date 

The initial FY 2007–2011 5-Year POW 

must be submitted by June 1, 2006, to 

the Planning and Accountability Unit, 

Office of the Administrator, of the 

Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service (CSREES); U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. These will 

be submitted electronically via a webbased data input system for the POW 

and Annual Report of Accomplishments 

and Results provided by CSREES. The 

web address for submissions will be 

provided by CSREES when the software 

goes on-line. 

5. Definitions 

For the purpose of implementing the 

Guidelines for State Plans of Work for 

Agricultural Research and Extension 

Formula Funds, the following 

definitions are applicable: 

Activities means either research 

projects or extension programs. In the 

logic model, activities are what a 

program does with its inputs, the 

services it provides to fulfill its mission. 

They include the research processes, 

workshops, services, conferences, 

community surveys, facilitation, inhome counseling, etc. 

Agricultural issues means all issues 

for which research and extension are 

involved, including, but not exclusive 

of, agriculture, natural resources, 

nutrition, community development, 

resource development, and youth 

development, strengthening families 

(parenting, communication, financial 

management), and related topics. 

Formula funds for the purposes of the 

Plan of Work guidelines means funding 

provided by formula to 1862 land-grant 

institutions under section 3 of the Hatch 

Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a) 

and sections 3(b)(1) and (c) of the 

Smith-Lever Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 

343(b)(1) and (c)) and to the 1890 landgrant institutions under sections 1444 

and 1445 of the National Agricultural 

Research, Extension, and Teaching 

Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 3221 and 3222). 

Formula funds for the purposes of 

stakeholder input means the funding by 

formula to the 1862 land-grant 

institutions and 1890 land-grant 

institutions covered by these Plan of 

Work guidelines as well as the formula 

funds provided under the McIntireStennis Cooperative Forestry Research 

Program (16 U.S.C. 582, et seq.), the 

Animal Health and Disease Research 

Program (7 U.S.C. 3195), and the 

education payments made to the 1994 

land-grant institutions under section 

534(a) of Public Law 103–382 (7 U.S.C. 

301 note). 

Integrated or joint activities means 

jointly planned, funded, and interwoven 

activities between research and 

extension to solve problems. This 

includes the generation of knowledge 

and the transfer of information and 

technology. 

Merit review means an evaluation 

whereby the quality and relevance to 

the State program goals are assessed. 

Multi-institutional means two or more 

institutions within the same or different 

States or territories that will collaborate 

in the planning and implementation of 

programs. 

Multistate means collaborative efforts 

that reflect the programs of institutions 

located in at least two or more States or 

territories. 

Multi-disciplinary means efforts that 

represent research, education, and/or 

extension programs in which principal 

investigators or other collaborators from 

two or more disciplines or fields of 

specialization work together to 

accomplish specified objectives. 

Outcome indicator means an 

assessment of the results of a program 

activity compared to its intended 

purpose. The outcome indicator 

measures the success of the outcome. It 

is the evidence or information that 

represents the phenomenon that is being 

measured. They define the data that will 

be collected and evaluated. 

Output indicator means a tabulation, 

calculation, or recording of activity of 

effort expressed in quantitative or 

qualitative manner which measures the 

products or services produced by the 

planned program. The output indicator 

measures the success of the output. It is 

the evidence or information that 

represents the phenomenon being 

measured. They define the data that will 

be collected and evaluated. 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 4109 

Planned programs means collections 

of research projects or activities and/or 

extension programs or activities. States 

and State institutions define their own 

program unit or unit of work. 

Program Logic Model means the 

conceptual tool for planning and 

evaluation which displays the sequence 

of actions that describe what the 

science-based program is and will do—

how investments link to results. 

Included in this depiction of the 

program action are six core components: 

1. Identification of the state and/or 

national problem, need, or situation that 

needs to be addressed by the program: 

The conceptual model will delineate the 

steps that are planned, based on past 

science and best theory, to achieve 

outcomes that will best solve the 

identified state and national problems 

and meet the identified needs. 

2. Assumptions: The beliefs we have 

about the program, the people involved, 

and the context and the way we think 

the program will work. These sciencebased assumptions are based on past 

evaluation science findings regarding 

the effects and functioning of the 

program or similar programs, program 

theory, stakeholder input, etc. 

3. External Factors: The environment 

in which the program exists includes a 

variety of external factors that interact 

with and influence the program action. 

Evaluation plans for the program should 

account for these factors, which are 

alternative explanations for the 

outcomes of the program other than the 

program itself. Strong causal 

conclusions about the efficacy of the 

program must eliminate these 

environmental factors as viable 

explanations for the observed outcomes 

of the program. 

4. Inputs: Resources, contributions, 

and investments that are provided for 

the program. This includes Federal, 

state, and local spending, private 

donations, volunteer time, etc. 

5. Outputs: Activities, services, 

events, and products that are intended 

to lead to the program’s outcomes in 

solving national problems by the causal 

chain of events depicted in the logic 

model. These activities and products are 

posited to reach the people who are 

targeted as participants or the audience 

or beneficiaries of the program. 

Activities are what a program does with 

its inputs, the services it provides to 

fulfill its mission. They include the 

research processes, workshops, services, 

conferences, community surveys, 

facilitation, in-home counseling, etc. 

6. Outcomes: Planned results or 

changes for individuals, groups, 

communities, organizations, 

communities, or systems. These include 

short-term, medium-term, and long-term 

outcomes in the theorized chain of 

causal events that will lead to the 

planned solution of the identified 

national problems or meet national 

needs. These can be viewed as the 

public’s return on its investment (i.e., 

the value-added to society in the 

benefits it reaps from the program). 

Program review means either a merit 

review or a scientific peer review. 

Scientific peer review means an 

evaluation performed by experts with 

scientific knowledge and technical 

skills to conduct the proposed work 

whereby the technical quality and 

relevance to program goals are assessed. 

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 is any person who has 

the opportunity to use or conduct 

agricultural research, extension, and 

education activities in the State. 

Under-served means individuals, 

groups, and/or organizations whose 

needs have not been fully addressed in 

past programs. 

Under-represented means individuals, 

groups, and/or organizations especially 

those who may not have participated 

fully including, but not limited to, 

women, racial and ethnic minorities, 

persons with disabilities, limited 

resource clients, and small farm owners 

and operators. 

B. Components of the 5-Year Plan of 

Work 

1. Planned Programs 

Beginning with the FY 2007–2011 5- 

Year POW the Planned Programs will no 

longer be arranged around the five 

National Goals established for the FY 

2000–2004 5-Year POW, nor will they 

be identified by the previously 

established Key Themes. Planned 

programs will be centered around State 

identified planned program areas and 

CSREES newly established Knowledge 

Areas (KAs). 

a. Format. As mentioned under the 

Planning Options section, an institution 

or State may opt to submit independent 

plans for the various units (e.g., 1862 

research) or an integrated plan which 

includes all units in the institution or 

State. 

b. Program Logic Model. Regardless of 

the option chosen, the 5-Year POW 

should be reported in the appropriate 

format, each of which identifies planned 

programs that the State decides upon. 

Each Planned Program chosen by the 

State will be formatted around the 

Program Logic Model in this web-based 

POW data entry system. This is a 

nationally recognized method and used 

extensively by planning and evaluation 

specialists to display the sequence of 

actions that describe what the program 

is and will do and how investments link 

to results. It is commonly used by many 

State Cooperative Extension Services. 

c. Program Descriptions. Program 

descriptions presented for a planned 

program will be formatted around the 

Program Logic Model and include the 

following data entry screens: 

1. Name of Program. The State 

designated title for a State Research 

and/or Extension Program. This is in 

contrast to a project title. A research 

program may consist of several research 

projects. Examples of Programs may 

include, but not exclusive of: 4–H and 

Youth, Pest Management, Animal 

Genomics, Natural Resources, 

Economics and Commerce, etc. 

2. Classification of Program. Up to ten 

different classification codes and their 

respective percentage of effort may be 

used to classify the KAs covered in each 

State program. 

3. Situation and Priorities. This 

component should discuss the critical 

agricultural issues within the State that 

were identified and being targeted by 

this planned program. This component 

may also reference the stakeholder input 

which identified the critical agricultural 

issue in the State and the need for the 

targeted research and/or extension 

program. The situation is the foundation 

for logic model development. The 

problem or issue that the program is to 

address sits within a setting or situation. 

It is a complex of socio-political, 

environmental, and economic 

conditions. The situation statement 

should discuss (a) the problem/issue; (b) 

why this is a problem or issue; (c) for 

whom (individual, household, group, 

community, society in general) the 

problem or issue exists; who has a stake 

in the problem; (d) what is known about 

the problem/issue/people that are 

involved; and (e) on what research, 

experience this is based upon (research 

base). 

From the situation comes priority 

setting. Once the situation and problem 

are fully analyzed, priorities must be set 

to ensure that the most important issues 

are addressed. Several factors should 

influence your determination of focus: 

Your mission, values, resources, 

expertise, experience, history, what you 

know about the situation, and what 

others are doing in relation to the 

problem. Priorities lead to the 

identification of desired outcomes. 

4. Expected Duration of the Program. 

A data check box will be provided to 

ask States to express the program 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
4110 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 

duration as short-term (one year or less), 

intermediate (one to five years), or longterm (over five years). 

5. Inputs. The resources, 

contributions, investments that go into 

the program. The web-based software 

will include the estimated FTEs and the 

type of funds used to support the 

activity or planned program (i.e., type of 

Federal funds, State matching, etc.). 

AREERA requires reporting not only on 

the Federal agricultural research and/or 

extension formula funds and matching 

funds allocated to this planned program, 

but also the manner in which funds, 

other than formula funds, will be 

expended to address the critical issues 

being targeted by this planned program. 

6. Outputs. The activities, services, 

events and products that reach people 

who participate or who are targeted. 

These outputs are intended to lead to 

specific outcomes. The web-based data 

entry system will include standard 

performance measures such as number 

of persons targeted (direct and indirect 

contacts), number and type of patents 

awarded, as well as allow for stategenerated target performance measures. 

7. Outcomes. The direct results, 

benefits, or changes for individuals, 

groups, communities, organizations, or 

systems. Examples include changes in 

knowledge, skill development, changes 

in behavior, capacities or decisionmaking, policy development. Outcomes 

can be short-term, medium-term, or 

longer-term achievements. Short-term 

outcomes refer to change in learning. 

Medium-term outcomes refer to change 

in action. Long-term outcomes refer to 

change in conditions. Outcomes may be 

positive, negative, neutral, intended, or 

unintended. Impact in this model refers 

to the ultimate consequence or effects of 

the program (i.e. increased economic 

security, improved air quality, etc.). In 

this model, impact is synonymous with 

the long-term outcome of your goal. It is 

at the farthest right on the logic model 

graphic. Impact refers to the ultimate, 

longer-term changes in social, 

economic, civic, or environmental 

conditions. In common usage impact 

and outcomes are often used 

interchangeably. 

The web-based software will include 

standard performance measures such as 

number of persons adopting a 

technology or practice, dollars saved or 

generated, as well as allow for stategenerated target performance measures. 

8. Assumptions. The beliefs we have 

about the program, the people involved, 

and the context and the way we think 

the program will work. The web-based 

data entry system will require a short 

discussion on the assumptions that 

underlie and influence the program 

decisions made. Assumptions are 

principles, beliefs, ideas about the 

problem or situation, the resources and 

staff, the way the program will operate, 

what the program expects to achieve, 

the knowledge base, the external 

environment, the internal environment, 

the participants and how they learn, 

their behavior, motivations, etc. 

9. External Factors. The environment 

in which the program exists includes a 

variety of external factors that interact 

with and influence the program action. 

External factors include the cultural 

milieu, the climate, economic structure, 

housing patterns, demographic patterns, 

political environment, background and 

experiences of program participants, 

media influence, changing policies and 

priorities. These external factors may 

have a major influence on the 

achievement of outcomes. They may 

affect a variety of things including 

program implementation, participants 

and recipients, and the speed and 

degree to which change affects staffing 

patterns and resources available. A 

program is affected by and affects these 

external factors. 

2. Stakeholder Input Process 

Section 102(c) of AREERA requires 

the 1862 land-grant institutions, 1890 

land-grant institutions, and 1994 landgrant institutions receiving agricultural 

research, extension, and education 

formula funds from CSREES to establish 

a process for stakeholder input on the 

uses of such funds. CSREES has 

promulgated separately regulations to 

implement this stakeholder input 

requirement. This was published on 

February 8, 2000 in the Federal Register 

(7 CFR Part 3418). 

As a component of the 5-Year POW, 

each institution must report on the: (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 and 

actions taken to seek stakeholder input 

that encourages their participation. This 

report will be required annually and 

may be submitted with the Annual 

Report of Accomplishments and 

Results. This component will satisfy the 

reporting requirements imposed by the 

separately promulgated regulations on 

stakeholder input. 

In the web-based software, CSREES 

will provide check lists with the 

commonly reported actions taken to 

seek stakeholder input, as well as a 

narrative text box to capture the process 

that is used to identify stakeholders and 

collect input from them and how the 

input was considered. This allows for 

additional information in each section 

in the form of a brief narrative if needed. 

3. Program Review Process 

a. Merit Review. Effective October 1, 

1999, each 1862 land-grant institution 

and 1890 land-grant institution must 

have established a process for merit 

review in order to obtain agricultural 

research or extension formula funds. 

This was established in the FY 2000–

2004 5-Year POW by all institutions. 

b. Scientific Peer Review. A scientific 

peer review is required for all research 

funded under the Hatch Act of 1887, 

including Multistate Research Fund. For 

such research, this scientific peer 

review will satisfy the merit review 

requirement specified above. 

c. Reporting Requirement. As a 

component of the 5-Year POW, each 

institution depending on the type of 

program review required will provide a 

description of the merit review process 

or scientific peer review process 

established at their institution. This 

description should include the process 

used in the selection of reviewers with 

expertise relevant to the effort and 

appropriate scientific and technical 

standards. In the web-based software, 

CSREES will provide a check list with 

the commonly reported types of 

reviews, as well as a narrative text box 

to allow for additional information in 

the form of a brief narrative if needed. 

4. Multistate Research and Extension 

Activities 

a. Hatch Multistate Research. 

Effective October 1, 1998, the Hatch 

Multistate Research Fund replaced the 

Hatch Regional Research Program. The 

Hatch Multistate Research Fund must be 

used for research employing 

multidisciplinary approaches to solve 

research problems that concern more 

than one State. For such research, 

SAESs must partner with another SAES, 

the Agricultural Research Service, or 

another college or university. 

b. Smith-Lever Multistate Extension. 

Effective October 1, 1999, the 

cooperative extension programs at the 

1862 land-grant institutions must have 

expended two times their FY 1997 

baseline percentage or 25 percent, 

whichever is less, of their formula funds 

provided under sections 3(b)(1) and (c) 

of the Smith-Lever Act for activities in 

which two or more State extension 

services cooperate to solve problems 

that concern more than one State. The 

Administrative Guidance for Multistate 

Extension Activities and Integrated 

Research and Extension Activities 

provides guidance on the establishment 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 4111 

of target percentages, criteria and 

procedures for waiver requests, and 

reporting requirements. These 

requirements only apply to the 

cooperative extension services (CESs) at 

the 1862 land-grant institutions in the 

50 States. Institutions, through the webbased reporting system, must describe 

all multistate extension activities for 

which the institution will be reporting 

expenditures to satisfy their multistate 

extension requirement under AREERA 

section 105. Institutions do not have to 

have formal written agreements of 

letters of memorandum to support a 

qualified multistate extension activity 

for the purposes of AREERA section 

105. The requirements of this section 

apply only to the Federal funds. 

c. Reporting Requirements. The 5- 

Year POW should include a description 

of the Multistate Research, where 

applicable, and Multistate Extension 

programs as specified above. These 

descriptions should be reported in the 

Planned Programs section of the 5-Year 

POW. A table will be provided by the 

web-based software for reporting 

planned expenditures (i.e., the amount 

of Federal formula funds) each year on 

these activities. This table will only 

apply to the CESs at the 1862 land-grant 

institutions in the 50 States. In addition, 

this item is the first of two plan-of-work 

reporting requirements that require a 

dollar amount to be identified in the 

Plan. 

5. Integrated Research and Extension 

Activities 

a. Effective October 1, 1999, two times 

the FY 1997 baseline percentage or 25 

percent, whichever is less, of all funds 

provided under section 3 of the Hatch 

Act and under section 3(b)(1) and (c) of 

the Smith-Lever Act must have been 

spent on activities that integrate 

cooperative research and extension. 

Integration may occur within the State 

or between units within two or more 

States. The Administrative Guidance for 

Multistate Extension Activities and 

Integrated Research and Extension 

Activities provided guidance for the 

establishment of target percentages, 

criteria and procedures for waiver 

requests, and associated reporting 

requirements. This requirement only 

applies to the 1862 land-grant 

institutions in the 50 States and the 

state agricultural experiment stations in 

Connecticut and New York. Institutions, 

through the web-based reporting system, 

must describe all the integrated research 

and extension activities for which the 

institutions will be reporting 

expenditures to satisfy their integrated 

requirements under AREERA section 

204. Federal formula funds used by a 

State for integrated activities may also 

be counted to satisfy the multistate 

extension activity requirements. The 

requirements of this section apply only 

to the Federal funds. 

b. Reporting Requirements. The 5- 

Year POW should include a description 

of the Integrated Research and 

Extension programs as specified above. 

These descriptions should be reported 

in the Planned Programs section of the 

5-Year POW. A table will be provided 

by the web-based software for reporting 

planned expenditures (i.e., the amount 

of Federal formula funds) each year for 

these activities. This table will only 

apply to the 1862 land-grant institutions 

and the SAESs in Connecticut and New 

York. In addition, this is the second of 

two plan-of-work reporting 

requirements that requires a dollar 

amount to be identified in the Plan. 

C. Five-Year Plan of Work Evaluation by 

CSREES 

1. Schedule 

CSREES will evaluate all 5-Year 

POWs. The 5-Year POWs will either be 

accepted by CSREES without change or 

returned to the institution, with clear 

and detailed recommendations for its 

modification. The submitting 

institution(s) will be notified by 

CSREES of its determination within 90 

days (i.e., review to be completed in 60 

days; communications to the 

institutions allowing a 30-day response) 

of receipt of the document. Adherence 

to the POW schedule by the recipient 

institution is critical to assuring the 

timely distribution of funds by CSREES. 

Five-Year POWs accepted by CSREES 

will be publicly available in a CSREES 

database. 

2. Review Criteria 

CSREES will evaluate the 5-Year 

POWs to determine if they address 

agricultural issues of critical importance 

to the State; identify the alignment and 

realignment of programs to address 

those critical issues; identify the 

involvement of stakeholders in the 

planning process; give attention to 

under-served and under-represented 

populations; indicate the level of 

Federal formula funds in proportion to 

all other funds (i.e., in terms of FTEs) at 

the Director or Administrator level; 

provide evidence of multistate, multiinstitutional, and multidisciplinary and 

integrated activities; and identify the 

expected outcomes and impacts from 

the 5-Year POW. 

3. Evaluation of Multistate and 

Integrated Research and Extension 

Activities 

CSREES will be using the Annual 

Reports of Accomplishments and 

Results to evaluate the success of 

multistate, multi-institutional, and 

multidisciplinary activities and joint 

research and extension activities, in 

addressing critical agricultural issues 

identified in the 5-Year POWs. CSREES 

will be using the following evaluation 

criteria: (1) Did the planned program 

address the critical issues of strategic 

importance, including those identified 

by the stakeholders? (2) Did the planned 

program address the needs of underserved and under-represented 

populations of the State(s)? (3) Did the 

planned program describe the expected 

outcomes and impacts? and (4) Did the 

planned program result in improved 

program effectiveness and/or efficiency? 

III. Annual Update of the 5-Year Plan 

of Work 

A. Applicability 

An annual update to the 5-Year POW 

is required to add an additional year to 

the Plan. It also will allow for updating 

all future years’ data in the updated 

Plan. The updated Plan will form a 

‘‘new’’ 5-Year POW that is effective in 

the ‘‘new’’ 5-year period. 

B. Reporting Requirement 

The Annual Update to the 5-Year 

POW should be submitted on April 1 

prior to the beginning of the next POW 

fiscal year (which begins on October 1 

of each year). The first Update is due on 

April 1, 2007, for the five year period 

starting with FY 2008 which begins 

October 1, 2007. 

IV. Annual Report of Accomplishments 

and Results 

A. Reporting Requirement 

The 5-Year POW for a reporting unit, 

institution, or State should form the 

basis for annually reporting its 

accomplishments and results. This 

report will be due on or before April 1 

each year with the first report being due 

on April 1, 2008, for FY 2007. This 

report should be submitted using the 

same web-based data entry system used 

for the submission of the 5-Year POW. 

The web-based data entry system will 

mirror and include data entered by the 

institution in the 5-Year POW. However, 

institutions will be required to provide 

some fiscal data in the Annual Report. 

B. Format 

This annual report should include the 

relevant information related to each 

component of the program of the 5-Year 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
4112 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Notices 

POW. Accomplishments and results 

reporting should involve two parts. 

First, institutions should submit an 

annual set of impact statements linked 

to sources of funding. Strict attention to 

just the preceding year is not expected 

in all situations. Some impact 

statements may need to cover ten or 

more years of activity. Focus should be 

given to the benefits received by 

targeted end-users. Second, institutions 

should submit annual results statements 

based on the indicators of the outputs 

and outcomes for the activities 

undertaken the preceding year in the 

Program Logic Model for each program. 

These should be identified as shortterm, intermediate, or long-term critical 

issues in the 5-Year POW. Attention 

should be given to highlighting 

multistate, multi-institutional, and 

multidisciplinary and integrated 

activities, as appropriate to the 5-Year 

POW. 

Done at Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

January, 2006. 

Colien Hefferan, 

Administrator, Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–680 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting 

of the Vermont Advisory Committee 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 

the provisions of the rules and 

regulations of the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights that a conference call of the 

Vermont state advisory committee will 

convene at 11 a.m. and adjourn at 12 

p.m. on February 6, 2006. The purpose 

of the conference call is to plan future 

committee activities. 

This conference call is available to the 

public through the following call-in 

number: 1–800–597–0720, access code: 

47113153. Any interested member of the 

public may call this number and listen 

to the meeting. Callers can expect to 

incur charges for calls not initiated 

using the supplied call-in number or 

over wireless lines, and the Commission 

will not refund any incurred charges. 

Callers will incur no charge for calls 

using the call-in number over land-line 

connections. Persons with hearing 

impairments may also follow the 

proceedings by first calling the Federal 

Relay Service at 1–800–977–8339 and 

providing the Service with the 

conference call number and access code. 

To ensure that the Commission 

secures an appropriate number of lines 

for the public, persons are asked to 

register by contacting Barbara de La 

Viez of the Eastern Regional Office at 

202–376–8125, by 4 p.m. on Thursday, 

February 2, 2006. 

The meeting will be conducted 

pursuant to the provisions of the rules 

and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, January 19, 2006. 

Ivy L. Davis, 

Acting Chief Regional Programs Coordination 

Unit. 

[FR Doc. E6–882 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Order No. 1433] 

Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; 

Revlon Consumer Products 

Corporation (Cosmetic and Personal 

Care Products) Oxford, NC 

Pursuant to its authority under the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Act, of June 18, 

1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), 

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the 

Board) adopts the following Order: 

Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act 

provides for ‘‘* * * the establishment 

* * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 

entry of the United States, to expedite 

and encourage foreign commerce, and 

for other purposes,’’ and authorizes the 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to 

qualified corporations the privilege of 

establishing foreign-trade zones in or 

adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry; 

Whereas, the Board’s regulations (15 

CFR part 400) provide for the 

establishment of special-purpose 

subzones when existing zone facilities 

cannot serve the specific use involved, 

and when the activity results in a 

significant public benefit and is in the 

public interest; 

Whereas, the Triangle J Council of 

Governments, grantee of Foreign-Trade 

Zone 93, has made application to the 

Board for authority to establish a 

special-purpose subzone at the cosmetic 

and personal care products 

manufacturing and warehousing facility 

of Revlon Consumer Products 

Corporation, located in Oxford, North 

Carolina (FTZ Docket 35–2005, filed 7/ 

26/05); 

Whereas, notice inviting public 

comment was given in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 44558–44559, 8/3/05); 

and, 

Whereas, the Board adopts the 

findings and recommendations of the 

examiner’s report, and finds that the 

requirements of the FTZ Act and the 

Board’s regulations are satisfied, and 

that approval of the application is in the 

public interest; 

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby 

grants authority for subzone status for 

activity related to consumer and 

personal care products manufacturing at 

the facility of Revlon Consumer 

Products Corporation, located in 

Oxford, North Carolina (Subzone 93G), 

as described in the application and 

Federal Register notice, and subject to 

the FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, 

including section 400.28. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of 

January 2006. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Policy 

and Negotiations, Alternate Chairman, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

[FR Doc. 06–674 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–PS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–846] 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

Twelfth New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 28, 2005, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

new shipper review of the antidumping 

duty order on brake rotors from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See 

Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of the Twelfth New Shipper Review, 70 

FR 56634 (September 28, 2005) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. 

We made one change to the dumping 

margin calculations for the final results. 

See Analysis for the Final Results of 

Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China: Dixion Brake System 

(Longkou) Ltd., dated January 18, 2006, 

(‘‘Dixion Final Analysis Memo’’); see 

also Analysis for the Final Results of 

Brake Rotors from the People’s Republic 

of China: Laizhou Wally Automobile 

Co., Ltd., dated January 18, 2006, 

(‘‘Wally Final Analysis Memo’’) 

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 25, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Bankhead (for Respondent 

Dixion) or Kit Rudd (for Respondent 

Wally) AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES