Notice of Intent To Seek OMB Approval To Collect Information, Forms Pertaining to the Peer Review of ARS Research Projects, 30861-30862 [06-5004]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2006 / Notices
percent, by count, of the tomatoes in
any container may vary more than 1⁄2
inch in diameter.’’ The damage section
will be revised to include that all
references to area, aggregate area, length,
or aggregate length definitions are based
on a 21⁄2 inch in diameter tomato. The
damage by catfaces scoring guide will be
changed to 1⁄2 inch aggregate area based
on a tomato 21⁄2 inches in diameter. The
serious damage section will also be
revised to include references to area,
aggregate area, length, or aggregate are
based on a 21⁄2 inch in diameter tomato.
The serious damage by catfaces scoring
guide will be changed to 1 inch
aggregate area based on a tomato 21⁄2
inches in diameter.
Based upon input from industry, AMS
is proposing to add a scoring guide for
damage and serious damage by skin
checks. Damage will be defined as,
‘‘when the appearance of the tomato is
affected to a greater extent than that of
a tomato 21⁄2 inches in diameter having
skin checks which has an aggregate area
equivalent to that of a circle threeeighths inch in diameter.’’ Serious
damage will be defined as, ‘‘when the
appearance of the tomato is affected to
a greater extent than that of a tomato 21⁄2
inches in diameter having skin checks
which has an aggregate area equivalent
to that of a circle five-eighths inch in
diameter.’’ In addition, AMS is also
proposing to add moldy stems as a
damage defect in the requirements for a
U.S. No. 1.
Finally, AMS is proposing to
eliminate the ‘‘Unclassified’’ category.
This section is being removed in all
standards when they are revised. The
category is not a grade and only serves
to show that no grade has been applied
to the lot.
The official grade of a lot of
greenhouse tomatoes covered by these
standards is determined by the
procedures set forth in the Regulations
Governing Inspection, Certification, and
Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables
and Other Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61).
This notice provides a 60-day
comment period for interested parties to
comment on the proposed changes to
the standard.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.
Dated: May 25, 2006.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E6–8375 Filed 5–30–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:52 May 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Research Service
Notice of Intent To Seek OMB Approval
To Collect Information, Forms
Pertaining to the Peer Review of ARS
Research Projects
Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), USDA.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The proposed information
collection requirement described below
will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB
implementing regulations. The
Department is soliciting public
comments on the subject proposal.
DATES: Written comments on this notice
must be received by July 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments
concerning this notice to: Michael S.
Strauss, Peer Review Program
Coordinator, Office of Scientific Quality
Review; Agricultural Research Agency,
USDA; 5601 Sunnyside Avenue,
Beltsville, Maryland 20705; Phone: 301–
504–3283; Fax: 301–504–1251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael S. Strauss, 301–504–3282.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office
of Scientific Quality Review will seek
approval from OMB to update six
existing forms that will allow the ARS
to efficiently manage data associated
with the peer review of agricultural
research. All forms are transferred and
received in an electronic storage format
that does not include on-line access.
Abstract: The Office of Scientific
Quality Review was established in
September of 1999 as a result of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act 1998 (‘‘The Act’’)
(Pub. L. 105–185). The Act included
mandates to perform scientific peer
reviews of all research activities
conducted by the USDA. The Office
manages the ARS peer review system by
centrally planning peer panel reviews
for ARS research projects on a five-year
cycle.
Each set of reviews is assigned a
chairperson to govern the review
process. The majority of the peer
reviewers are non-ARS scientists. Peer
review panels are convened to provide
in-depth discussion and review of the
research project plans. Each panel
reviewer receives information on
between 1 and 20 ARS research projects.
On average, 220 research projects are
reviewed annually by an estimated 100
reviewers; whereby approximately 200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30861
are reviewed by panel and
approximately 20 are reviewed through
an ad hoc process. The organization and
management of this peer review system,
particularly panel reviews, is highly
dependent on the use of forms.
The Office of Scientific Quality
Review will seek OMB approval of the
following forms:
1. Confidentiality Agreement Form—
USDA uses this form to document that
a selected reviewer is responsible for
keeping confidential any information
learned during the subject peer review
process. The Confidentiality Agreement
is signed prior to the reviewer’s
involvement in the peer review process.
This form requires an original signature.
2. Panelist Information Form—USDA
uses this form to gather up-to-date
background information about the
reviewer. Reviewers often include
sensitive information on this form. This
form requires an original signature.
3. Peer Review of an ARS Research
Project Form (Peer Review Form)—
USDA uses this form to guide the
reviewer’s comments on the subject
project. The form contains the reviewing
criteria and space for the reviewer’s
narrative comments and evaluation.
4. Recommendations for ARS
Research Project Form—
(Recommendations Form, formerly
known as ‘‘Critique Form’’). USDA uses
this form to guide the panel’s evaluation
and critique of the review process. The
form contains recommendations for the
subject research project.
5. Panel Expense Report Form
(Expense Report)—USDA uses this form
to document a panel reviewer’s expense
incurred traveling to and attending a
peer review meeting. The Expense
Report includes lodging, meals, and
transportation expenses. When
completed, the form contains sensitive
information.
Panel Invoice Form (Invoice)—USDA
uses this form to document the transfer
of an honorarium to a peer reviewer.
Reviewers receive honoraria as
compensation for serving as peer review
panelists. This form requires an original
signature.
(1) USDA’s collection of information
on the Confidentiality Agreement Form
is needed to document that a selected
reviewer is responsible for keeping
confidential any information learned
during the subject peer review process.
The Confidentiality Agreement would
be signed prior to the reviewer’s
involvement in the peer review process.
(2) USDA’s collection of information
on the Panelist Information Form is
needed to gather up-to-date background
information about the reviewer. It
contains sensitive information.
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
30862
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 31, 2006 / Notices
(3) USDA’s collection of information
on the Peer Review Form is needed to
guide the reviewer’s comments on the
subject project. It contains the reviewing
criteria and space to insert comments.
(4) USDA’s collection of information
on the Recommendations Form is
needed to guide the panel’s critique of
the review process. It contains
recommendations for the subject
research project.
(5) USDA’s collection of information
on the Expense Report Form is needed
to document a panel reviewer’s
expenses incurred by attending a peer
review meeting. The Expense Report
includes lodging, meals, and
transportation expenses. It includes
sensitive information.
(6) USDA’s collection of information
on the Invoice is needed to document
the transfer of a stipend to the peer
reviewer. The stipend is given to
reviewers as appreciation for their time
spent on the panel review process.
Estimate of Burden: The burden
associated with this approval process is
the minimum required to achieve
program objectives. The information
collection frequency is the minimum
consistent with program objectives. The
following estimates of time required to
complete the forms are based on OSQR’s
experience in working with reviewers
and accepting their input into our
procedures.
1. Confidentiality Agreement Form:
This form takes 10–15 minutes to
complete. It only requires a signature
and date, but the reviewer must read the
terms of the agreement.
2. Panelist Informational Form: This
form takes 20–30 minutes to complete.
It resembles a typical request for
personal information; many reviewers
provide the same data as grant reviewers
in other peer review programs.
3. Peer Review of an ARS Research
Project Form (Peer Review Form) This
form takes 4–6 hours to complete.
Because this is a review, the page length
significantly varies. Reviewers are free
to write as much as they wish.
4. Recommendations for ARS
Research Project Form
(Recommendations Form, formerly
known as ‘‘Critique Form’’).
This form takes 1 hour to complete.
Because this is a review, the page length
significantly varies. Reviewers are free
to write as much as they wish.
5. Panel Expense Report Form
(Expense Report) This form takes 10–15
minutes to complete.
6. Panel Invoice Form (Invoice): This
form takes 5–10 minutes to complete.
This form has the reviewer’s personal
info pre-filled and the reviewer only
verifies it’s accuracy and signs.
Respondents and Estimated Number
of Respondents: Scientific experts,
currently working in the same
discipline as the research projects under
review, are selected to review research
projects. These experts are notable peers
within and external to the ARS.
Annually, about 100 peer reviewers
complete these forms. Ad hoc reviewers
are not, typically, paid a stipend, and do
not travel to meet with other reviewers;
and thus they do not complete Expense
Report and Invoice Forms. On occasion,
ad hoc reviewers may participate in a
Web-based panel and be paid a nominal
honorarium, thus necessitating
completion of and Invoice Form. Ad hoc
reviewers, retained for special
situations, will make up about a 25
percent of all the reviewers retained
annually.
Frequency of Response:
Number of
respondents
Form
Confidentiality Agreement ...........................................................
Peer Review Forms (Required for all reviewers and they have
1–4 review assignments on average).
Expense Report, Invoice, & Panelist Information Forms ...........
Recommendations Form (Required on panel reviews, whereby
comments from the peer review form are combined into one
file).
100
100
75
75
Annual frequency
1 per respondent.
∼4 per respondent (Total of 400).
1 per respondent for each form (Total of 225).
∼2.5 per respondent (Total of 200).
ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN ON RESPONDENTS
Number
completed
annually
Form
(time required to complete)
Confidentiality Agreement (12 min.) ...........................................
Peer Review Forms (∼5 hrs.) ......................................................
Panelist Information Forms (25 min.) .........................................
Recommendations Form (1 hr.) ..................................................
Invoice (7 min.) ...........................................................................
Expense Report (12 min.) ...........................................................
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Comments: The Notice is soliciting
comments from members of the public
and affected agencies concerning the
proposed collection of information to:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the proper
performance of ARS functions,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the
accuracy of the estimated burden from
proposed collection of information; (3)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:52 May 30, 2006
Jkt 208001
100
400
225
200
225
225
Total burden
1200 min.
2000 hrs.
5625 min.
200 hrs.
1575 min.
2700 min.
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including the use of
appropriate automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. All responses
to this notice will be summarized and
included in the request for OMB
approval. All comments will become a
matter of public record.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: April 24, 2006.
Antoinette Betschart,
Associate Administrator for Operations and
Management, Agricultural Research Service,
USDA.
[FR Doc. 06–5004 Filed 5–26–06; 11:38 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–03–P
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30861-30862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5004]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Research Service
Notice of Intent To Seek OMB Approval To Collect Information,
Forms Pertaining to the Peer Review of ARS Research Projects
AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service (ARS), USDA.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described
below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and OMB
implementing regulations. The Department is soliciting public comments
on the subject proposal.
DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by July 31,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Michael S.
Strauss, Peer Review Program Coordinator, Office of Scientific Quality
Review; Agricultural Research Agency, USDA; 5601 Sunnyside Avenue,
Beltsville, Maryland 20705; Phone: 301-504-3283; Fax: 301-504-1251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael S. Strauss, 301-504-3282.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Scientific Quality Review will
seek approval from OMB to update six existing forms that will allow the
ARS to efficiently manage data associated with the peer review of
agricultural research. All forms are transferred and received in an
electronic storage format that does not include on-line access.
Abstract: The Office of Scientific Quality Review was established
in September of 1999 as a result of the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act 1998 (``The Act'') (Pub. L. 105-
185). The Act included mandates to perform scientific peer reviews of
all research activities conducted by the USDA. The Office manages the
ARS peer review system by centrally planning peer panel reviews for ARS
research projects on a five-year cycle.
Each set of reviews is assigned a chairperson to govern the review
process. The majority of the peer reviewers are non-ARS scientists.
Peer review panels are convened to provide in-depth discussion and
review of the research project plans. Each panel reviewer receives
information on between 1 and 20 ARS research projects.
On average, 220 research projects are reviewed annually by an
estimated 100 reviewers; whereby approximately 200 are reviewed by
panel and approximately 20 are reviewed through an ad hoc process. The
organization and management of this peer review system, particularly
panel reviews, is highly dependent on the use of forms.
The Office of Scientific Quality Review will seek OMB approval of
the following forms:
1. Confidentiality Agreement Form--USDA uses this form to document
that a selected reviewer is responsible for keeping confidential any
information learned during the subject peer review process. The
Confidentiality Agreement is signed prior to the reviewer's involvement
in the peer review process. This form requires an original signature.
2. Panelist Information Form--USDA uses this form to gather up-to-
date background information about the reviewer. Reviewers often include
sensitive information on this form. This form requires an original
signature.
3. Peer Review of an ARS Research Project Form (Peer Review Form)--
USDA uses this form to guide the reviewer's comments on the subject
project. The form contains the reviewing criteria and space for the
reviewer's narrative comments and evaluation.
4. Recommendations for ARS Research Project Form--(Recommendations
Form, formerly known as ``Critique Form''). USDA uses this form to
guide the panel's evaluation and critique of the review process. The
form contains recommendations for the subject research project.
5. Panel Expense Report Form (Expense Report)--USDA uses this form
to document a panel reviewer's expense incurred traveling to and
attending a peer review meeting. The Expense Report includes lodging,
meals, and transportation expenses. When completed, the form contains
sensitive information.
Panel Invoice Form (Invoice)--USDA uses this form to document the
transfer of an honorarium to a peer reviewer. Reviewers receive
honoraria as compensation for serving as peer review panelists. This
form requires an original signature.
(1) USDA's collection of information on the Confidentiality
Agreement Form is needed to document that a selected reviewer is
responsible for keeping confidential any information learned during the
subject peer review process. The Confidentiality Agreement would be
signed prior to the reviewer's involvement in the peer review process.
(2) USDA's collection of information on the Panelist Information
Form is needed to gather up-to-date background information about the
reviewer. It contains sensitive information.
[[Page 30862]]
(3) USDA's collection of information on the Peer Review Form is
needed to guide the reviewer's comments on the subject project. It
contains the reviewing criteria and space to insert comments.
(4) USDA's collection of information on the Recommendations Form is
needed to guide the panel's critique of the review process. It contains
recommendations for the subject research project.
(5) USDA's collection of information on the Expense Report Form is
needed to document a panel reviewer's expenses incurred by attending a
peer review meeting. The Expense Report includes lodging, meals, and
transportation expenses. It includes sensitive information.
(6) USDA's collection of information on the Invoice is needed to
document the transfer of a stipend to the peer reviewer. The stipend is
given to reviewers as appreciation for their time spent on the panel
review process.
Estimate of Burden: The burden associated with this approval
process is the minimum required to achieve program objectives. The
information collection frequency is the minimum consistent with program
objectives. The following estimates of time required to complete the
forms are based on OSQR's experience in working with reviewers and
accepting their input into our procedures.
1. Confidentiality Agreement Form: This form takes 10-15 minutes to
complete. It only requires a signature and date, but the reviewer must
read the terms of the agreement.
2. Panelist Informational Form: This form takes 20-30 minutes to
complete. It resembles a typical request for personal information; many
reviewers provide the same data as grant reviewers in other peer review
programs.
3. Peer Review of an ARS Research Project Form (Peer Review Form)
This form takes 4-6 hours to complete. Because this is a review, the
page length significantly varies. Reviewers are free to write as much
as they wish.
4. Recommendations for ARS Research Project Form (Recommendations
Form, formerly known as ``Critique Form'').
This form takes 1 hour to complete. Because this is a review, the
page length significantly varies. Reviewers are free to write as much
as they wish.
5. Panel Expense Report Form (Expense Report) This form takes 10-15
minutes to complete.
6. Panel Invoice Form (Invoice): This form takes 5-10 minutes to
complete. This form has the reviewer's personal info pre-filled and the
reviewer only verifies it's accuracy and signs.
Respondents and Estimated Number of Respondents: Scientific
experts, currently working in the same discipline as the research
projects under review, are selected to review research projects. These
experts are notable peers within and external to the ARS. Annually,
about 100 peer reviewers complete these forms. Ad hoc reviewers are
not, typically, paid a stipend, and do not travel to meet with other
reviewers; and thus they do not complete Expense Report and Invoice
Forms. On occasion, ad hoc reviewers may participate in a Web-based
panel and be paid a nominal honorarium, thus necessitating completion
of and Invoice Form. Ad hoc reviewers, retained for special situations,
will make up about a 25 percent of all the reviewers retained annually.
Frequency of Response:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Form respondents Annual frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Agreement...... 100 1 per respondent.
Peer Review Forms (Required for 100 ~4 per respondent
all reviewers and they have 1- (Total of 400).
4 review assignments on
average).
Expense Report, Invoice, & 75 1 per respondent for
Panelist Information Forms. each form (Total of
225).
Recommendations Form (Required 75 ~2.5 per respondent
on panel reviews, whereby (Total of 200).
comments from the peer review
form are combined into one
file).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
Form (time required to completed Total burden
complete) annually
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Agreement (12 100 1200 min.
min.).
Peer Review Forms (~5 hrs.).... 400 2000 hrs.
Panelist Information Forms (25 225 5625 min.
min.).
Recommendations Form (1 hr.)... 200 200 hrs.
Invoice (7 min.)............... 225 1575 min.
Expense Report (12 min.)....... 225 2700 min.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35.
Comments: The Notice is soliciting comments from members of the
public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of
information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the proper performance of ARS functions, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the
accuracy of the estimated burden from proposed collection of
information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including the
use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included
in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of
public record.
Dated: April 24, 2006.
Antoinette Betschart,
Associate Administrator for Operations and Management, Agricultural
Research Service, USDA.
[FR Doc. 06-5004 Filed 5-26-06; 11:38 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
