Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 31973 

the collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Title: Local Food for Schools 

Cooperative Agreement Program (LFS). 

OMB Control Number: 0581–0334. 

Summary of Collection: The 

Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 

U.S.C. 1621 et. seq.), as amended, 

directs and authorizes USDA to 

administer Federal cooperative 

agreements programs. AMS cooperative 

agreement programs are administered 

according to the OMB Guidance for 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

under the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards 

(2 CFR part 200) (85 FR 49506; 

December 13, 2020). The information 

collection requirements in this 

emergency request are needed for AMS 

to administer a new noncompetitive 

cooperative agreement program, in 

accordance with section 5(c) of the 

Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 

Act (15 U.S.C. 714c(c)), for the purchase 

of local foods for distribution to schools. 

Need and Use of The Information: 

The information collected is used only 

by authorized representatives of USDA, 

AMS, Commodity Procurement Program 

to certify that cooperative agreement 

participants are complying with 

applicable program regulations, and the 

data collected is the minimum 

information necessary to effectively 

carry out the program requirements. 

Description of Respondents: State, 

Local, and Tribal Governments. 

Number of Respondents: 50. 

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: 

Annually. 

Total Burden Hours: 3,154. 

Levi S. Harrell, 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11298 Filed 5–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture 

Notice of Intent To Extend and Revise 

Currently Approved Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations this notice 

announces the National Institute of 

Food and Agriculture’s (NIFA) intention 

to extend and revise a previously 

approved information collection, 

entitled NIFA Proposal Review Process. 

This information collection replaces an 

existing information collection, also 

entitled NIFA Proposal Review Process. 

DATES: Written comments on this notice 

must be received by July 25, 2022 to be 

assured of consideration. Comments 

received after that date will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Instructions: All comments received 

will be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Martin, 202–445–5388, 

Robert.martin3@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title of Collection: NIFA Proposal 

Review Process. 

OMB Control Number: 0524–0041. 

Expiration Date of Current Approval: 

8/31/2022. 

Type of Request: Notice of intent to 

extend and revise a currently approved 

information collection. The burden for 

this collection remains unchanged. 

NIFA is requesting a three-year 

extension for the current collection 

entitled ‘‘NIFA Proposal Review 

Process.’’ NIFA is also proposing to 

update the collection so that the 

previously approved Reviewer 

Questionnaire, as well as the Conflict of 

Interest and Confidentiality Certification 

Form are both available on NIFA’s Peer 

Review System (PRS) web-based portal. 

Additionally, NIFA is proposing some 

minor updates to the wording of 

questions in the Reviewer Questionnaire 

in order to ensure that peer review 

panels have the required scientific and 

technical expertise, comprised of 

research, education, extension, and 

other subject matter experts as 

appropriate, while remaining inclusive, 

representative, and diverse. 

Furthermore, the data collected through 

this questionnaire will ensure that NIFA 

is compliant in its Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) practices. 

Abstract: The National Institute of 

Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is 

responsible for performing a review of 

proposals submitted to NIFA 

competitive award programs in 

accordance with section 103(a) of the 

Agricultural Research, Extension, and 

Education Reform Act of 1998, 7 U.S.C. 

7613(a). Reviews are undertaken to 

ensure that projects supported by NIFA 

are of high quality, and are consistent 

with the goals and requirements of the 

funding program. 

Proposals submitted to NIFA undergo 

a programmatic evaluation to determine 

worthiness of Federal support. The 

evaluations consist of a peer panel 

review and may also entail an 

assessment by Federal employees and 

electronically submitted (ad-hoc) 

reviews in the Peer Review System. 

The information collected from the 

evaluations is used to support NIFA 

grant programs. NIFA uses the results of 

the proposal evaluation to determine 

whether a proposal should be declined 

or recommended for award. When NIFA 

has rendered a decision, copies of 

reviews, excluding the names of the 

reviewers, and summaries of review 

panel deliberations, if any, are provided 

to the submitting Project Director. 

Given the highly technical nature of 

many of these proposals, the quality of 

the peer review greatly depends on the 

appropriate matching of the subject 

matter of the proposal with the 

scientific and technical expertise of the 

potential reviewer. In order to obtain 

this information, an electronic 

questionnaire is used to collect 

information about potential panel and 

ad-hoc reviewers. If the reviewer is 

already in the NIFA database, the 

questionnaire asks potential reviewers 

to update their basic biographical 

information including address, contact 

information, professional expertise, and 

their availability to review for NIFA in 

the future. If the reviewer is new, they 

are prompted to complete the 

questionnaire. This information has 

been invaluable in the NIFA review 

process, which has been recognized by 

the grantee and grantor community for 

its quality. 

The applications and associated 

materials made available to reviewers, 

as well as the discussions that take 

place during panel review meetings are 

strictly confidential and are not to be 

disclosed to or discussed with anyone 

who has not been officially designated 

to participate in the review process. 

While each panelist certifies at the time 

of preparing a review they do not have 

a conflict-of-interest with a particular 

application and will maintain its 

confidentiality in the Peer Review 

System, a certification of their intent at 

the time of the panel review 

proceedings is collected to emphasize 

and reinforce confidentiality not only of 

applications and reviews but also panel 

discussions. On the Conflict-of-Interest 

and Confidentiality Certification Form, 

the panelist affirms they understand the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
31974 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 102 / Thursday, May 26, 2022 / Notices 

conflict-of-interest guidelines and will 

not be involved in the review of the 

application(s) where a conflict exists. 

The panelist also affirms their intent to 

maintain the confidentiality of the panel 

process and not disclose to another 

individual any information related to 

the peer review or use any information 

for personal benefit. 

Estimate of Burden: NIFA estimates 

that anywhere from one hour to twenty 

hours may be required to review a 

proposal. It is estimated that 

approximately five hours are required to 

review an average proposal. Each 

proposal receives an average of four 

reviews, accounting for an annual 

burden of 20 hours. NIFA estimates it 

receives 4,600 competitive applications 

each year. The total annual burden on 

reviewers is 92,000 hours. NIFA 

estimates that the potential reviewer 

questionnaire takes an estimated 10 

minutes to complete. The database 

consists of approximately 50,000 

reviewers. The total annual burden of 

questionnaire is 8,330 hours. NIFA 

estimates that the potential Conflict-ofInterest and Confidentiality Certification 

Form takes an estimated 10 minutes to 

complete. The agency has 

approximately 1,000 panelists each 

year. The total annual burden of the 

certification form is 167 hours. The total 

annual burden of the component of the 

entire review process is 100,497 hours. 

Comments: Comments are invited on: 

(a) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the Agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

to OMB for approval. All comments will 

become a matter of public record. 

Obtaining a Copy of the Information 

Collection: A copy of the information 

collection and related instructions may 

be obtained free of charge by contacting 

Robert Martin as directed above. 

Done at Washington, DC, this day of May 

13, 2022. 

Dionne Toombs, 

Acting Director, National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11281 Filed 5–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 

[Docket No. NRCS–2020–0009] 

Final Guidance for Identification of 

Nonindustrial Private Forest Land 

(NIPF) 

AGENCY: Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On December 17, 2020, NRCS 

published a notice of proposed guidance 

for NIPF identification and provided a 

30-day public comment period for 

input. NRCS received 139 comments 

from different members of the public, 

including Indian Tribes, State agencies, 

non-governmental organizations, and 

individuals. Several of these comments 

provided coordinated input from many 

organizations, including one letter that 

provided input from over 60 

organizations. This document responds 

to comments received during the public 

comment period, which closed on 

January 19, 2021, and, for the reasons 

stated in this document, identifies that 

NRCS will not adopt the guidance it 

proposed in its December 2020 notice. 

APPLICABLE DATE: May 26, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martha Joseph, telephone: (814) 203– 

5562; email: martha.joseph@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NRCS is one of the USDA agencies 

that identifies NIPF for program 

enrollment. In particular, NRCS 

identifies NIPF for enrollment in the 

Agricultural Conservation Easement 

Program (ACEP), the Conservation 

Stewardship Program (CSP), the 

Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP), and the Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program 

(RCPP). 

Identification for NIPF enrollment 

under these NRCS programs is based on 

section 1201(a)(18) of the Food Security 

Act of 1985 (the 1985 Farm Bill) (16 

U.S.C. 3801), which defines NIPF as 

rural land, as determined by the 

Secretary, that: 

• Has existing tree cover or is suitable 

for growing trees; and 

• Is owned by any nonindustrial 

private individual, group, association, 

corporation, Indian Tribe, or other 

private legal entity that has definitive 

decision-making authority over the 

land. 

Since the NIPF definition was first 

established several decades ago, changes 

have occurred in the forestry industry. 

In particular, foresters would identify 

the ‘‘industrial’’ status of a parcel of 

land by whether or not a company was 

vertically integrated (for example, the 

landowner owned both forestland and 

primary wood processing facilities). 

However, the ability to distinguish 

whether a particular parcel of land is 

industrial or nonindustrial became 

complicated when companies started to 

divest either their land or mills at the 

turn of the 21st century and timber 

investment management organizations 

(TIMOs) and real estate investment 

trusts (REITs) reflected an increasing 

amount of industrial forest land 

ownership. 

To address these changes in the 

forestry industry, NRCS described in its 

December 2020 notice, proposed 

guidance that would be used to identify 

NIPF as defined by the 1985 Farm Bill 

and NRCS program regulations. NRCS 

was not re-defining NIPF but was 

providing guidelines for helping its staff 

identify the various components of the 

statutory definition. Referencing criteria 

used by other conservation agencies (the 

USDA Forest Service and Farm Service 

Agency), NRCS proposed to clarify how 

to identify a nonindustrial private 

landowner if they: 

(1)(i) Own fewer than 45,000 acres of 

forest land in the United States; and 

(ii) Do not own or operate an 

industrial mill for the primary 

processing of raw wood products as 

determined by NRCS in consultation 

with the State Technical Committee; or 

(2) Meet criteria established for a 

nonindustrial private landowner by 

NRCS in a State in consultation with the 

State Technical Committee. 

NRCS received a total of 91 letters or 

emails containing 139 comments. The 

comments were from forestry or 

agricultural stakeholders, conservation 

organizations, individuals, Tribal 

entities, other organizations, and 

governmental agencies. One of the 

letters was signed by over 60 

organizations. NRCS review of the 

comments revealed a clear stakeholder 

preference that NRCS continue to use 

the existing programmatic framework 

until Congress can address how the 

changes in the forestry industry should 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES