This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

5993

Vol. 65, No. 26

Tuesday, February 8, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service

7 CFR Part 3418

RIN 0524–AA23

Stakeholder Input Requirements for

Recipients of Agricultural Research,

Education, and Extension Formula

Funds

AGENCY: Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension

Service (CSREES) adds new regulations

for the purpose of implementing section

102(c) of the Agricultural Research,

Extension, and Education Reform Act of

1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7612(c))

which requires 1862 land-grant

institutions, 1890 land-grant

institutions, and 1994 land-grant

institutions that receive agricultural

research, extension, or education

formula funds to establish a process for

stakeholder input on the uses of such

funds. Failure to comply with these

stakeholder input requirements may

result in the withholding of a recipient

institution’s formula funds and

redistribution of its share of formula

funds to other eligible institutions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Sally Rockey; Deputy Administrator,

Competitive Research Grants and

Awards Management; Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension

Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture;

Mail Stop 2240; 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250–

2240; at 202–401–1761, or via electronic

mail at srockey@reeusda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

The Cooperative State Research,

Education, and Extension Service

(CSREES) adds this rule to implement

section 102(c) of the Agricultural

Research, Extension, and Education

Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C.

7612(c)) which requires 1862, 1890, and

1994 institutions (specific land-grant

colleges and universities as defined by

section 2 of AREERA (7 U.S.C. 7601))

receiving agricultural research,

extension, or education formula funds

from CSREES to establish a process for

receiving input from persons who

conduct or use agricultural research,

extension, or education on the uses of

such funds. For purposes of this rule,

these persons are referred to as

stakeholders. Section 102(c)(2) of

AREERA required the Secretary of

Agriculture to promulgate regulations

specifying what those land-grant

institutions had to do to meet this

stakeholder input requirement, and

what consequences would befall any

institution that did not meet such a

requirement.

Section 102(c) on its face only applies

to land-grant colleges and universities

established pursuant to the First Morrill

Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 301, et seq.)

(1862 institutions), the Second Morrill

Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 321, et seq.)

(1890 institutions), and the Equity in

Educational Land-Grant Status Act of

1994, as amended (7 U.S.C. 301 note)

(1994 institutions). CSREES has

determined that the formula funds

specified in section 102(c) are:

Agricultural research funds provided to

the 1862 institutions and agricultural

experiment stations under the Hatch Act

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

seq.); extension funds provided to 1862

institutions under sections 3(b) and 3(c)

of the Smith-Lever Act, as amended (7

U.S.C. 343(b) and (c)), and section

208(c) of the District of Columbia Public

Postsecondary Education

Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 93–471, as

amended; agricultural research and

extension funds provided to 1890

institutions under sections 1444 and

1445, respectively, of the National

Agricultural Research, Extension, and

Teaching Policy Act of 1977

(NARETPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 3221

and 3222); education formula funds

provided to 1994 institutions under

section 534(a) of the Equity in

Educational Land-Grant Status Act of

1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note); research funds

provided for forestry schools under the

McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 582a, et seq.); and

animal health and disease research

funds provided to veterinary schools

and agricultural experiment stations

under section 1433 of NARETPA, as

amended (7 U.S.C. 3195).

The 1862, 1890, and 1994 institutions

are not the sole institutions eligible to

receive formula funds under all of these

Acts. There is one agricultural

experiment station that is not a college

or university, and twelve forestry or

veterinary schools that are not landgrant institutions. However, given that

the number of such institutions is de

minimus, and the impracticality of

trying to segregate stakeholder

comments with respect to these few

institutions, CSREES has determined to

apply this rule to any recipient of the

aforementioned formula funds.

The rule does not require recipient

institutions to adopt any particular

format for soliciting stakeholder input.

It only requires that recipient

institutions report annually to CSREES

(1) the actions taken to encourage

stakeholder input; (2) a brief statement

of the process used by a recipient

institution to identify individuals or

groups as stakeholders and to collect

input from them; and (3) a statement of

how collected input was considered.

Failure to comply with the

requirements of this rule may result in

the withholding of a recipient

institution’s formula funds and

redistribution of its share of formula

funds to other eligible institutions, as

authorized by law.

Public Comments and Changes to the

Final Rule

Summary of Statutory Changes

CSREES has added the definition of

seek stakeholder input to the Final Rule.

This definition has already been

included in the Final Guidelines for

State Plans of Work for the Agricultural

Research and Extension Formula Funds

that was published in the Federal

Register on July 1, 1999, 62 FR 35910–

35919.

CSREES revised § 3418.4, Reporting

Requirement, by adding a third

reporting requirement as follows: ‘‘(3) a

statement of how collected input was

considered.’’ The third and final

revision was to change the title of

5994 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 3418.5, from ‘‘Failure to Report’’ to

‘‘Failure to Comply and Report.’’

CSREES also will be conducting an

evaluation of how the stakeholder input

requirements in section 102(c) of

AREERA are being implemented by both

CSREES and the affected colleges and

universities after a 2-year

implementation period. Part of this

evaluation will be to determine whether

this Final Rule will need to be revised.

Background

CSREES developed the proposed rule

for stakeholder input requirements in

consultation with the State partners at

the 1862 and 1890 land-grant

institutions. Since the enactment of

AREERA on June 23, 1998, CSREES has

engaged in these consultations under an

exemption to the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (7 U.S.C. 3124a(e)), with

members of the Federal and State

partnership, not only on this rule, but

on other aspects of implementation of

AREERA requirements including the

Guidelines for State Plans of Work for

Agricultural Research and Extension

Formula Funds. This consultation

process was consistent with the

consultation process required by

Executive Order 13132, Federalism,

issued by the President on August 4,

1999 (64 FR 43255).

The proposed rule for stakeholder

input requirements was published in

the Federal Register on April 14, 1999,

64 FR 18534–18536, with a 30-day

comment period. The proposed rule did

not require recipient institutions to

adopt any particular format for

soliciting stakeholder input. It only

required that recipient institutions

report annually to CSREES (1) the

actions taken to encourage stakeholder

input; and (2) a brief statement of the

process used by the recipient institution

to identify individuals or groups as

stakeholders and to collect input from

them.

In the preamble to the proposed rule,

CSREES encouraged interested parties

to review the Proposed Guidelines for

State Plans of Work which were

published in the Federal Register for a

30-day comment period on April 19,

1999, 64 FR 19242–19248. The

Proposed Guidelines for State Plans of

Work explained in greater detail the

stakeholder input requirements,

especially how they relate to the

development of the 5-Year Plans of

Work. These 5-Year Plans of Work

include the reporting requirement on

the stakeholder input process for the

1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions

and these plans apply to the agricultural

research and extension formula funds

received under the Hatch Act of 1887,

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

Act, and under sections 1444 and 1445

of NARETPA. These Proposed

Guidelines for State Plans of Work did

not apply to the agricultural education

formula funds received by the 1994

land-grant institutions or to the research

or extension formula funds received by

colleges and universities under section

3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act, the

McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962 for

cooperative forestry research, and

section 1433 of NARETPA for animal

health and disease research.

The 1862 and 1890 land-grant

institutions will fulfill their annual

reporting requirement on the

stakeholder input process via the

Annual Report of Accomplishments and

Results as outlined in the Final

Guidelines for State Plans of Work. The

reports on the stakeholder input process

for the 1994 land-grant institutions will

be required as part of their Tribal

College Education Equity Grant

proposals and their stakeholder input

processes will be reviewed at the time

these grant proposals are evaluated. The

recipients of the Smith-Lever Act

(section 3(d)) formula funds, McIntireStennis Cooperative Forestry Research

funds, and the Animal Health and

Disease Research funds will be required

to submit an annual report on their

stakeholder input processes prior to the

distribution of formula funds each fiscal

year. This report will be reviewed by the

appropriate program official to

determine whether the stakeholder

input requirements have been met.

Impact of Comments on the Related

Final Guidelines for State Plans of Work

on This Rule

Two comments were received on the

Proposed Guidelines for State Plans of

Work published in the Federal Register

on April 19, 1999, 64 FR 19242–19248,

regarding the stakeholder input process.

One of the commenters supported the

decision of CSREES to provide the

maximum flexibility to institutions in

the way they report their stakeholder

input in their plans of work. The other

commenter focused on the definition of

seek stakeholder input. The notice of

the Proposed Guidelines defined seek

stakeholder input as ‘‘means an open

and fair process which allows

opportunities for individuals, groups,

and organizations a voice in a process

that treats all with dignity and respect.’’

This commenter urged CSREES to adopt

a new definition, building upon the

concepts of ‘‘open and fair,’’ ‘‘equality

of service,’’ and ‘‘ease of access’’ in the

Final Guidelines, as follows: ‘‘Seek

stakeholder input means an open, fair,

transparent, accessible, inclusive,

accountable, and comprehensive

process which provides opportunities

for diverse individuals, groups, and

organizations, especially the

traditionally under-served and underrepresented, to have a voice in a process

that treats all with dignity and respect.’’

CSREES modified the definition of

seek stakeholder input to ‘‘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.’’ However,

although CSREES did encourage States

to implement a stakeholder input

process satisfying the above definition

posed by the commenter, CSREES

recognized in consultation with the

State partners that each State or Tribe

has unique characteristics and should

implement a stakeholder input process

that best suits the needs of their State or

Tribe. CSREES had determined to use

this modified definition of seek

stakeholder input as the lowest

acceptable threshold of stakeholder

input process because CSREES wants to

maintain an environment in which

land-grant institutions may quickly

modify their stakeholder input

processes to respond effectively to

existing and emerging critical

agricultural issues. Also, CSREES did

not want to place undue administrative

burdens upon the land-grant institutions

in meeting the stakeholder input

requirements that potentially may

interfere with the conduct and delivery

of research and extension programs.

This determination by CSREES is

consistent with the policies set forth in

Executive Order 13132, Federalism.

The above commenter made three

additional comments. First, the

commenter noted that while the

definition for under-served is referenced

once in the review criteria, the

definition of under-represented did not

appear in the Proposed Guidelines. As

the commenter had thought, this was an

oversight and had been included in the

review criteria. Second, this commenter

thought CSREES should address underserved and under-represented in the

target audiences section under ‘‘Program

Descriptions.’’ Third, the commenter

urged CSREES to broaden the definition

of under-represented to specifically

include ‘‘small farm owners and

operators.’’ CSREES revised the

Guidelines to incorporate these last two

suggestions.

The Final Guidelines for State Plans

of Work were published prior to this

Final Rule on stakeholder input

requirements due to the urgency of the

plans of work being received, reviewed,

and approved prior to October 1, 1999,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5995

to prevent any disruption in the

delivery of research and extension

programs. However, 1862 and 1890

land-grant institutions are required to

comply with any additional

requirements as set forth in this Final

Rule.

Comments on the Proposed Stakeholder

Input Requirements Rule

Eighty-nine comments were received.

Eighty-four were received from

individuals and stakeholder groups;

four from deans or directors at the 1862

land-grant institutions; and one from the

USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG).

A. Individuals and Stakeholder Groups

Sixty of the 84 comments received

from individuals and stakeholder

groups wrote that the proposed rule in

the April 14, 1999, Federal Register did

not provide adequate guidance as to

what constitutes a reasonable and

adequate stakeholder input process.

These commenters felt that by not

establishing minimal criteria for a

satisfactory and adequate stakeholder

input process, the proposed rule did not

address the Congressional concern for

increased accountability within the

land-grant system. CSREES has

included in this Final Rule the

definition of seek stakeholder input

which requires that a stakeholder input

process be fair, open, and accessible.

This definition was originally included

in the Proposed Guidelines for State

Plans of Work and had been developed

in consultation with the 1862 and 1890

land-grant community. Failure to

include the definition in the Proposed

Rule for stakeholder input requirements

was an oversight on the part of CSREES.

Sixty-two commenters felt that while

it is not USDA’s role to dictate the

particular style or format for stakeholder

input process, it is vitally important for

USDA to ensure that every stakeholder

process meet certain minimal public

accountability standards. Generally, all

of these commenters felt that these

public accountability standards should

include:

Fairness: Basic fairness requires equal

access to the process by all citizens and

taxpayers.

Transparency: All aspects of the

stakeholder process should be in the

open and on public record.

Accountability: Those who take the

time and effort to provide input and

recommendations should be given the

courtesy of reviewing the written record

of any meeting they participated in for

accuracy as well as some type of timely

reporting as to how the stakeholder

input was utilized, and if specific

recommendations were rejected, the

reasons why.

Balanced Representation: Each

institution should be required to

demonstrate a good faith effort to solicit

input from, and active engagement with,

traditionally under-served and underrepresented constituencies (e.g., the full

range of farmers and ranchers).

Comprehensive and Meaningful Role:

Stakeholder input should be sought on

a variety of different levels, including

but not limited to:

• Advice on priority setting and

program development;

• Input on both immediate needs and

long-term goals;

• Participation in relevancy and

portfolio reviews;

• Guidance on monitoring,

evaluation, and oversight systems

employed to track performance and

results; and

• Counsel on emerging technologies

and recommendations for public

education and discussion about the

mission and directions of the

institution.

The Rule applies not only to the 1862

land-grant institutions, but to the 1890

and 1994 land-grant institutions as well

as to colleges and universities that are

not land-grant institutions, but receive

agricultural research, education, and

extension formula funds. The 1994

land-grant institutions just started to

receive formula funds from CSREES in

fiscal year 1996, and the amount of

funding per institution is very limited.

For the non-land-grant institutions,

funding is for a very specific purpose.

In addition, there are other new

AREERA requirements for the landgrant institutions in addition to section

102(c), such as the submission and

approval of plans of work prior to the

distribution of formula funds on

October 1, 1999, and the establishment

of either a merit review process or a

scientific peer review process prior to

October 1, 1999. Therefore, CSREES has

determined at this time to require at the

minimum a stakeholder input process

that is fair, open, and accessible.

Representation was a particular

concern to 34 commenters as

summarized by one of the commenters:

‘‘I believe that the original intent of

Congress when this Act was passed was

to ensure that land-grant institutions are

acknowledging their accountability to a

larger public and simply not to the

traditional land-grant stakeholders.

* * * Rather than giving up on

stakeholder processes, I believe the

land-grants must be encouraged to

embrace multiple approaches and to

specifically seek out the views of those

who are seldom heard in the land-grants

such as the full range of farmers and

ranchers.* * *’’

As mentioned previously, minimal

public accountability standards now

include a fair, open, and accessible

process. Although this Final Rule may

not impose all of the public

accountability standards desired by the

commenters, this will be a new major

requirement for many institutions; and

it is anticipated that to meet this

requirement, institutions will provide

more opportunities for stakeholder

input. As evident through some of the

5-year Plans of Work received,

institutions are establishing processes

that are more inclusive, more accessible,

and reach beyond their traditional

audiences. The concept of balanced

representation also is incorporated in

the Final Guidelines for State Plans of

Work for the 1862 and 1890 land-grant

institutions through plan of work

reporting requirements and evaluation

criteria that address giving attention to

under-served and under-represented

audiences.

Nine commenters felt that the landgrant institutions tended to serve the

needs of agribusiness over the needs of

the public good, and seven commenters

criticized USDA for only requiring an

annual report from the land-grant

institutions. Eighteen commenters

charged CSREES, by publishing the

proposed rule, with ‘‘business as usual’’

at the land-grant institutions or

supporting the ‘‘status quo,’’ and

thought that very little would change at

the land-grant institutions. Two

commenters felt that USDA was being

pressured by the land-grant institutions

to adopt the proposed rule.

CSREES does not agree that the landgrant institutions tend to serve the

needs of agribusiness over the needs of

the public but rather focus on meeting

the needs of the public at large through

the delivery of a wide range of

agricultural research, education, and

extension programs. In addition, many

of the land-grant institutions have

modified their stakeholder input

processes to extend beyond the

traditional advisory groups. Although it

may appear that CSREES is only

requiring an annual report on the

stakeholder input process, CSREES has

evaluated the 5-Year Plans of Work (FY

2000–FY 2004) and will continue to

evaluate plans of work by reviewing the

stakeholder input process and

determining whether the input gathered

during the process has been considered

in developing the plan of work. By

reviewing the plans of work in this

context, CSREES is not conducting

‘‘business as usual’’ with the land-grant

institutions.

5996 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Four comments were received that

suggested this was an opportunity for

USDA ‘‘to submit a new proposed rule

for comment which will offer

substantive, ‘broad parameters and

guidelines’ for stakeholder input as

called for by the legislative language

and history * * *. The ‘broad

parameters and guidelines’ which

CSREES is required to propose should

take the form of general performance

goal-statements for land-grant

institutions’ stakeholder input

processes. Institutions, in turn, must be

required to report their methods, plans

and progress in meeting these

performance goals.’’

By including the minimal standards

of fairness, openness, and accessibility

for stakeholder input processes, CSREES

is establishing broad criteria to which

performance goals can be established

and outcomes and impacts measured.

By requiring institutions to report on

how the stakeholder input was

considered, CSREES is ensuring that

agricultural research and extension

programs conducted are indeed a

priority and are relevant to the critical

agricultural issues in the States.

Seven commenters viewed the

implementation of the stakeholder input

requirement as an opportunity for the

land-grant system to reinvigorate itself

and to improve citizen estimation of

them. One commenter stated: ‘‘A

stakeholder input process that is

inclusive, fair, comprehensive, and

open should be viewed as an

opportunity for the land-grant

institution to demonstrate its relevance

to the people of the State who support

it * * *.’’

CSREES does see the implementation

of section 102(c) of AREERA for

stakeholder input requirements as an

opportunity for the land-grant system to

make the public more aware of the

existence and availability of agricultural

research, education, and extension

programs; reach new audiences; and

deliver agricultural research, education,

and extension programs more efficiently

and effectively through multistate,

multidisciplinary, and multiinstitutional activities as well as

integrated research and extension

activities.

Ten commenters noted the range of

stakeholder input processes in the

States. They cited examples of processes

that were successful as well as those

they thought required improvement.

Since CSREES is aware of the wide

range of stakeholder input processes at

the affected institutions, CSREES

thought it prudent to establish minimal

standards through the definition of seek

stakeholder input for all affected

institutions, including the 1994 landgrant institutions and colleges and

universities that are not land-grant

institutions. And since the State Plans

of Work for the 1862 and 1890 landgrant institutions encompass a

significant portion of the Federal

formula funds dedicated to agricultural

research and extension (approximately

$500 million) and support a broad range

of agricultural research, education, and

extension programs, the Final

Guidelines for State Plans of Work

require that efforts be made to address

traditionally under-served and underrepresented audiences.

Three commenters suggested that

there be a full array of methods to solicit

stakeholder input including small

groups, large groups with formal

testimony, conventional and electronic

contacts, posters at public institutions,

and public service announcements on

radio and television. CSREES expects

that a broad range of methods will be

used to solicit input from stakeholders

as the definition of seek stakeholder

input includes ‘‘accessible,’’ but does

not feel it is necessary to dictate any

specific method to be used.

Two commenters referred to earlier

drafts of the proposed rule as follows:

‘‘Earlier draft versions of the proposed

rule, while far from adequate, at least

made reference to the necessity of an

open and fair process, encouraging

participation of diverse individuals and

groups, and demonstrating that

stakeholder input was actually

considered * * *.’’ CSREES assumes

that these commenters were referring to

the references in the Proposed

Guidelines for State Plans of Work

which included the definitions of seek

stakeholder input, under-represented,

and under-served as well as the

evaluation criteria addressing the

involvement of stakeholders in the

planning process and the attention

given to under-served and underrepresented populations. Hence,

CSREES has added the definition of

seek stakeholder input to the Final Rule.

Four comments were received

suggesting that the annual reporting

requirement be changed to reporting on

the actions taken and plans to meet the

five public accountability standards

identified above by sixty-two

commenters as well as an assessment of

the progress made towards fulfilling

each of these public accountability

standards. Two of the commenters

suggested that the existing language in

§ 3418.4 be amended to refer not only to

processes to ‘‘collect’’ input but also to

utilize it, or in the words of the statute

‘‘solicit and consider input and

recommendations.’’ CSREES has

adopted the commenter’s suggestion by

adding the third reporting requirement

under § 3418.4, Reporting Requirement,

as follows: ‘‘(3) a statement of how

collected input was considered.’’

Two comments were received that

suggested that the title of § 3418.5,

Failure to Report, be revised to include

language about failure to comply.

CSREES has revised the title of the

section as suggested by the commenter

to ‘‘Failure to Comply and Report.’’

Forty-four commenters felt that

CSREES needed to either amend the

proposed rule or rewrite the rule and

hold another public comment period

based on the above comments. CSREES

has made three revisions to the

Proposed Rule based on the comments

received. Based on both the content and

the number of comments received,

CSREES will be conducting an

evaluation of implementation of section

102(c) of AREERA by CSREES and the

affected institutions after a 2-year

implementation period. This should

provide sufficient time for the affected

institutions to implement a stakeholder

input process based on the Final Rule.

B. Land-Grant Institutions

As mentioned previously, four

comments were received from deans or

directors at the 1862 land-grant

institutions. Two of these commenters

felt that the proposed rule as published

in the Federal Register was adequate.

However, one of these commenters

thought that meeting the public

accountability standards should be

strongly encouraged rather than

specifically spelled out in the rules. The

other commenter was pleased that the

proposed rule provided flexibility and

noted: ‘‘States are unique in the

organizations, structures and processes

available in their area. Given the

diversity among States it is important to

provide flexibility so that each State can

optimize stakeholder input in their

State.’’ As stated previously, CSREES

agrees that all stakeholder input

processes should be fair, open, and

accessible.

One of the commenters stated that

there should be maximum transparency

and accountability while keeping the

administrative costs to a minimum. The

commenter continued by stating that

AREERA reporting requirements

diverted significant resources from the

delivery of programs to administrative

functions and that any additional

requirements would place an

unreasonable burden on the agricultural

experiment stations. These comments

were considered in establishing the

minimum criteria for stakeholder input

processes. Another commenter was

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5997

concerned that while the requirements

for stakeholder participation can be

accommodated by the land-grant

institution, they are concerned about

situations in which an individual or

stakeholder group may proclaim

stakeholder ‘‘rights’’ and proclaim that

‘‘no opportunity’’ was given to provide

input. CSREES feels that stakeholders

should be given reasonable opportunity

to provide input and that issues such as

this one may be addressed during the

evaluation of the entire process.

One commenter noted that the

clientele of the land-grant system is

highly diverse with multiple and broad

ranging needs and that it is recognized

that resources will simply not be

adequate to address all identified needs.

Although CSREES agrees with this

statement, CSREES feels that this is the

primary reason for implementing and

maintaining an adequate stakeholder

input process. If resources were

unlimited, there would be no need for

priority setting processes which include

soliciting and considering stakeholder

input.

Another commenter wanted to know

why the stakeholder input process only

applied to the agricultural research and

extension Federal formula funds and

not all the funds supporting agricultural

research and extension. Section 102(c)

of AREERA only applies to agricultural

research, education, and extension

formula funds from CSREES.

C. USDA Office of Inspector General

The comment from the USDA Office

of Inspector General (OIG) concentrated

on three issues: Performance indicators

identified in section 102(d) of AREERA,

lack of criteria, and the recommendation

that CSREES review the descriptions of

the stakeholder input processes to

assess the institutions’ compliance.

The OIG commented ‘‘that the

performance indicators prescribed by

Congress as the ‘management principles’

of the priority setting process must be

ensured by targeting stakeholders who

can achieve this goal and setting

priorities for research, education, or

extension activities that meet these

performance criteria.’’ The OIG

continued by stating that they found no

reference in the Proposed Rule to the

performance indicators listed in section

102(d) of AREERA and that they

consider the indicators to be critical

controls over the outcome of the

recipients’ solicitation process.

Section 102(d)of AREERA states that

the Secretary shall ensure that federally

supported and conducted agricultural

research, extension, and education

activities are accomplished in a manner

that (1) integrates agricultural research,

extension, and education functions to

better link research to technology

transfer and information dissemination

activities; (2) encourages regional and

multistate programs to address relevant

issues of common concern and to better

leverage scarce resources; and (3)

achieves agricultural research,

extension, and education objectives

through multi-institutional and

multifunctional approaches and by

conducting research at facilities and

institutions best suited to serve those

objectives. CSREES accomplished this

task in the establishment of the Final

Guidelines for State Plans of Work for

Agricultural Research and Extension

Formula Funds with evaluation criteria

addressing these ‘‘management

principles’’ and the development of

requests for proposals which includes

evaluation criteria for competitive

research, education, and extension grant

programs. Section 102(d) is the

responsibility of CSREES and is evident

in how CSREES establishes evaluation

criteria and how they administer both

the formula and competitive grant

programs. It would defeat the whole

purpose of the stakeholder input

process if section 102(d) of AREERA

was applied to the stakeholders

themselves.

As mentioned previously, CSREES

plans to conduct an evaluation of

implementation of section 102(c) of

AREERA by CSREES and the affected

institutions after a 2-year

implementation period to determine

both the adequacy of the stakeholder

input processes in priority setting and

the effectiveness of this Final Rule.

Through the inclusion of the definition

for seek stakeholder input in the Final

Rule, CSREES has adopted the

minimum standards or criteria for a

stakeholder input process as being fair,

open, and accessible.

Estimated Burden Hours on the

Information Collection

The estimated burden hours per

response for the information collection

associated with the Final Rule was

revised from the original estimate of

9.19 hours to 57.32 hours per response.

This estimate was revised after the

Office of Management and Budget

questioned whether 9.19 hours were

sufficient to report not only on the

stakeholder input process but on the

actual consideration of input and

recommendations from stakeholders

concerning the use of formula funds.

The estimate for the original burden

hours was calculated at 9.19 hours and

based mainly on preparing an annual

report describing actions taken to seek

stakeholder input that encourages their

participation and a brief statement of

the process used by the recipient

institutions to identify individuals and

groups who are stakeholders and to

collect input from them. The increase to

57.32 hours per response, or an

additional 48.13 hours per response, is

attributed to the requirement under

§ 3418.4 relating to how the collected

input was considered. It is estimated

that it will take 24.5 hours to review the

stakeholder input gathered, 23.63 hours

to determine whether the priorities for

agricultural research, extension, and

education activities conducted by the

institution need to be adjusted, and 9.19

hours to write and edit the annual

report.

Classification

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866 and has been

determined to be non-significant as it

will not create a serious inconsistency

or otherwise interfere with an action

planned by another agency; will not

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan

programs, or the rights and obligations

of the recipients thereof; and will not

raise novel legal or policy issues arising

out of legal mandates, the President’s

priorities, or principles set forth in this

executive order. This rule also will not

have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more or adversely

affect in a material way the economy, a

sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department certifies that this rule

will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities as

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, Pub. L. No. 96–534 (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Accordingly, a regulatory

flexibility analysis is not required for

this proposed rule.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The programs affected by this rule are

listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance under No. 10.203, Payments

to Agricultural Experiment Stations

Under the Hatch Act, No. 10.205,

Payments to 1890 Land-Grant Colleges

and Tuskegee University, No. 10.202,

Cooperative Forestry Research, No.

10.207, Animal Health and Disease

Research, No. 10.500, Cooperative

Extension Service, and No. 10.221,

Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the provisions of the

paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as

5998 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

amended (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the

collection of information requirements

contained in this Final Rule have been

reviewed and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and

given OMB Document No. 0524–0035.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, no person is required to respond

to a collection of information unless it

displays a valid OMB control number.

The public reporting burden for this

collection of information contained in

this rule is estimated at 57.32 hours per

response. This includes the time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection

of information. Please send comments

regarding this burden estimate or any

other aspect of this collection of

information, including suggestions for

reducing this burden, to the Department

of Agriculture, Clearance Officer, Office

of the Chief Information Officer, Stop

7603, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20250–7603, and to the

Office of Management and Budget,

Paperwork Reduction Project,

Washington, DC 20503. This rule has no

additional impact on any existing data

collection burden.

Report to Congress

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801(a),

CSREES submitted a report on this final

rule to both houses of Congress and the

Comptroller General prior to

publication.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR part 3418

Agricultural education, Agricultural

extension, Agricultural research,

Colleges and universities.

For reasons stated in the preamble,

chapter XXXIV of Title 7 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended by

adding Part 3418 to read as follows:

PART 3418—STAKEHOLDER INPUT

REQUIREMENTS FOR RECIPIENTS OF

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,

EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION

FORMULA FUNDS

Sec.

3418.1 Definitions.

3418.2 Scope and purpose.

3418.3 Applicability.

3418.4 Reporting requirement.

3418.5 Failure to comply and report.

3418.6 Prohibition.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C.

7612(c)(2).

§ 3418.1 Definitions.

As used in this part:

1862 institution means a college or

university eligible to receive funds

under the Act of July 2, 1862 (7 U.S.C.

301, et seq.).

1890 institution means a college or

university eligible to receive funds

under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7

U.S.C. 321, et seq.), including Tuskegee

University.

1994 institution means an institution

as defined in section 532 of the Equity

in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of

1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note).

Formula funds means agricultural

research funds provided to 1862

institutions and agricultural experiment

stations under the Hatch Act of 1887 (7

U.S.C. 361a, et seq.); extension funds

provided to 1862 institutions under

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

Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b) and (c)) and section

208(c) of the District of Columbia Public

Postsecondary Education

Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 93–471;

agricultural extension and research

funds provided to 1890 institutions

under sections 1444 and 1445 of the

National Agricultural Research,

Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of

1977 (NARETPA)(7 U.S.C. 3221 and

3222); education formula funds

provided to 1994 institutions under

section 534(a) of the Equity in

Educational Land-Grant Status Act of

1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note); research funds

provided to forestry schools under the

McIntire-Stennis Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C.

582a, et seq.); and animal health and

disease research funds provided to

veterinary schools and agricultural

experiment stations under section 1433

of NARETPA (7 U.S.C. 3195).

Recipient institution means any 1862

institution, 1890 institution, 1994

institution, or any other institution that

receives formula funds from the

Department of Agriculture.

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 means any person who

has the opportunity to use or conduct

agricultural research, extension, or

education activities of recipient

institutions.

§ 3418.2 Scope and Purpose.

Section 102(c) of the Agricultural

Research, Extension, and Education

Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7612(c))

requires land-grant institutions, as a

condition of receipt of formula funds, to

solicit and consider input and

recommendations from stakeholders

concerning the use of formula funds.

This regulation implements this

requirement consistently for all

recipient institutions that receive

formula funds.

§ 3418.3 Applicability.

To obtain formula funds after

September 30, 1999, each recipient

institution shall establish and

implement a process for obtaining

stakeholder input on the uses of formula

funds in accordance with this part.

§ 3418.4 Reporting requirement.

Each recipient institution shall report

to the Department of Agriculture by

October 1 of each fiscal year, the

following information related to

stakeholder input and

recommendations:

(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.

§ 3418.5 Failure to comply and report.

Formula funds may be withheld and

redistributed if a recipient institution

fails to either comply with § 3418.3 or

report under § 3418.4.

§ 3418.6 Prohibition.

A recipient institution shall not

require input from stakeholders as a

condition of receiving the benefits of, or

participating in, the agricultural

research, education, or extension

programs of the recipient institution.

Done at Washington, DC, this 31st day of

January, 2000.

I. Miley Gonzalez,

Under Secretary, Research, Education, and

Economics.

[FR Doc. 00–2822 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 77

[Docket No. 99–063–2]

Tuberculosis in Cattle and Bison; State

Designations; California,

Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as

final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final

rule, without change, an interim rule

that amended the tuberculosis

regulations concerning the interstate