Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-Formula Federal Assistance Programs-Specific Administrative Provisions for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, 35319-35324 [2011-15105]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Subparts F and thereafter apply to
specific NIFA programs.
NIFA is, to the extent practical, using
the following subpart template for each
program authority: (1) Applicability of
regulations, (2) purpose, (3) definitions
(those in addition to or different from
§ 3430.2), (4) eligibility, (5) project types
and priorities, (6) funding restrictions
(including indirect costs), and (7)
matching requirements. Subparts F and
thereafter contain the above seven
components in this order. Additional
sections may be added for a specific
program if there are additional
requirements or a need for additional
rules for the program (e.g., additional
reporting requirements). Through this
rulemaking, NIFA is adding subpart K
for the administrative provisions that
are specific to the Federal assistance
awards made under the BRDI authority.
II. Administrative Requirements for the
Rulemaking
Executive Order 12866
This action has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866, and therefore, has not
been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. This final rule
will not create a serious inconsistency
or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; nor
will it materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs; nor will it have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; nor will it adversely
affect the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or Tribal
governments or communities in a
material way. Furthermore, it does not
raise a novel legal or policy issue arising
out of legal mandates, the President’s
priorities or principles set forth in the
Executive Order.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
This final rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5
U.S.C. 601–612. The Department
concluded that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The rule does not involve regulatory
and informational requirements
regarding businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:58 Jun 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
35319
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The Department certifies that this
final rule has been assessed in
accordance with the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. (PRA). The Department
concludes that this final rule does not
impose any new information
requirements; however, the burden
estimates will increase for existing
approved information collections
associated with this rule due to
additional applicants. These estimates
will be provided to OMB. In addition to
the SF–424 form families (i.e., Research
and Related and Mandatory), SF–425
Federal Financial Report, Financial
Status Reports; NIFA has three currently
approved OMB information collections
associated with this rulemaking: OMB
Information Collection No. 0524–0042,
NIFA Current Research Information
System (CRIS); No. 0524–0041, NIFA
Application Review Process; and No.
0524–0026, Assurance of Compliance
with the Department of Agriculture
Regulations Assuring Civil Rights
Compliance and Organizational
Information.
between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes.’’
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
This final regulation applies to the
Federal assistance program
administered by NIFA under the Catalog
for Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
No.10.312, Biomass Research and
Development Initiative.
Signed at Washington, DC, on June 10,
2011.
Ralph Otto,
Deputy Director, Food and Community
Resources, National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
and Executive Order 13132
The Department has reviewed this
final rule in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order No.
13132 and the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq., and has found no potential or
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. As there is no
Federal mandate contained herein that
could result in increased expenditures
by State, local, or Tribal governments, or
by the private sector, the Department
has not prepared a budgetary impact
statement.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
The Department has reviewed this
final rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13175, and has determined that it
does not have ‘‘Tribal implications.’’
The final rule does not ‘‘have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Clarity of This Regulation
Executive Order 12866 and the
President’s Memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all
rules in plain language. The Department
invites comments on how to make this
final rule easier to understand.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Agricultural research,
Education, Extension, Federal
assistance.
PART 3430—COMPETITIVE AND
NONCOMPETITIVE NON–FORMULA
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS—
GENERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATIVE
PROVSIONS
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 7 CFR part 3430 which was
published at 75 FR 33497 on June 14,
2010, is adopted as a final rule without
change.
[FR Doc. 2011–15104 Filed 6–16–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
National Institute of Food and
Agriculture
7 CFR Part 3430
RIN 0524–AA59
Competitive and Noncompetitive NonFormula Federal Assistance
Programs—Specific Administrative
Provisions for the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Development Program
National Institute of Food and
Agriculture, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The National Institute of Food
and Agriculture (NIFA) is adopting as a
final rule, with changes, an interim rule
(published at 74 FR 45968 on September
4, 2009) containing a set of specific
administrative requirements for the
Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Development Program (BFRDP) to
supplement the Competitive and
Noncompetitive Non-Formula Federal
Assistance Programs—General Award
Administrative Provisions for this
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
35320
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
program. The BFRDP is authorized
under section 7405 of the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002, as
amended by section 7410 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
June 17, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Siva Sureshwaran, National Program
Leader, Institute of Food Production and
Sustainability; National Institute of
Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, STOP 2240, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–2240; Voice:
202–2720–7536; Fax: 202–401–6070;
E-mail: ssureshwaran@nifa.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Background and Summary
Authority
Section 7405 of the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA),
Public Law 107–171 (7 U.S.C. 3319f), as
amended by section 7410 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(FCEA), Public Law 110–246, authorizes
the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary)
to provide training, education, outreach,
and technical assistance to beginning
farmers or ranchers. The authority to
carry out this program has been
delegated to the National Institute of
Food and Agriculture (NIFA) through
the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics.
In carrying out the program, the
Secretary is authorized to make
competitive grants under section
7405(c) of FSRIA to support new and
established local and regional training,
education, outreach, and technical
assistance initiatives that address the
needs of beginning farmers and
ranchers. The Secretary may award a
BFRDP grant to a collaborative State,
Tribal, local, or regionally-based
network or partnership of public or
private entities, which may include: A
State cooperative extension service; a
Federal, State, or Tribal agency; a
community-based and nongovernmental
organization; a college or university
(including an institution awarding an
associate’s degree) or foundation
maintained by a college or university; or
any other appropriate partner, as
determined by the Secretary. BFRDP
grants shall be awarded to address
needs of beginning farmers and ranchers
in the following areas: Mentoring,
apprenticeships, and internships;
resources and referrals; assisting
beginning farmers or ranchers in
acquiring land from retiring farmers and
ranchers; innovative farm and ranch
transfer strategies; entrepreneurship and
business training; model land leasing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:58 Jun 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
contracts; financial management
training; whole farm planning;
conservation assistance; risk
management education; diversification
and marketing strategies; curriculum
development; understanding the impact
of concentration and globalization; basic
livestock and crop farming practices; the
acquisition and management of
agricultural credit; environmental
compliance; information processing;
and other similar subject areas of use to
beginning farmers or ranchers. Pursuant
to FSRIA section 7405(c)(3), these grants
shall not have a term of more than 3
years and shall not be in an amount
greater than $250,000 per year; however,
eligible recipients may receive
consecutive grants. These awards also
are prohibited by statute from
supporting planning, repair,
rehabilitation, acquisition, or
construction of a building or facility. In
addition, not less than 25 percent of
these BFRDP grant funds for a fiscal
year must be used to support programs
and services that address the needs of
limited resource beginning farmers or
ranchers; socially disadvantaged
beginning farmers or ranchers; and farm
workers (including immigrant farm
workers) desiring to become farmers or
ranchers. All BFRDP grant applicants
are required to provide funds or in-kind
support in an amount that is at least
equal to 25 percent of the Federal funds
awarded. In making BFRDP grants,
priority will be given to partnerships
and collaborations that are led by or
include nongovernmental and
community-based organizations with
expertise in new agricultural producer
training and outreach. Geographical
diversity will be ensured to the
maximum extent practicable.
FSRIA section 7405(d) also requires
the Secretary to establish beginning
farmer and rancher education teams to
develop curricula and conduct
educational programs and workshops
for beginning farmers or ranchers in
diverse geographical areas of the United
States. The Secretary is required, in
promoting the development of curricula
and to the maximum extent practicable,
to include modules tailored to specific
audiences of beginning farmers or
ranchers, based on crop or regional
diversity. The Secretary is required to
cooperate, to the maximum extent
practicable, with (1) State cooperative
extension services; (2) Federal and State
agencies; (3) community-based and
nongovernmental organizations; (4)
colleges and universities (including an
institution awarding an associate’s
degree) or foundations maintained by a
college or university; and other
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
appropriate partners, as determined by
the Secretary.
FSRIA section 7405(e) requires the
Secretary to establish an online
clearinghouse that makes available to
beginning farmers or ranchers education
curricula and training materials and
programs, which may include online
courses for direct use by beginning
farmers or ranchers.
For fiscal year (FY) 2009, $18 million
was made available for the BFRDP,
including administrative costs. For FY
2010, $19 million was made available
for the BFRDP, including administrative
costs. For FY 2011, it is anticipated that
$19 million will be made available for
the BFRDP, including administrative
costs.
Comments on Interim Rule and
Development of Final Rule for
Subpart J
On September 4, 2009, NIFA
published an interim rule [74 FR 45968]
to provide administrative provisions
that are specific to the BFRDP, as
subpart J to 7 CFR part 3430. In the
interim rule, NIFA invited comments
which were due to the agency by
November 3, 2009. We received
comments from two professional
organizations: Association of Southern
Region Extension Directors (ASRED)
and National Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition (NSAC).
ASRED provided two comments: one
on eligibility and the second on the
addition of two program types under
7 CFR 3430.604, Project types and
priorities. Regarding eligibility, ASRED
disagreed with 7 CFR 3430.608(b),
Review criteria—Partnership and
collaboration, which states: ‘‘In making
awards under this subpart, NIFA shall
give priority to partnerships and
collaborations that are led by or include
nongovernmental and community-based
organizations with expertise in new
agricultural producer training and
outreach.’’ ASRED commented that it
does not support placing priority for
awards on non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and communitybased organizations (CBOs). ASRED
continued their comment as follows:
‘‘NGOs/CBOs certainly can contribute to
this program as partner, and in some
cases, as lead entities, but we question
the idea that, by purpose, structure or
outcome, NGOs/CBOs offer any inherent
advantage as lead entities.’’ ASRED
requests that the Cooperative Extension
Systems be recognized as equally
capable lead agencies given the mission
of the Cooperative Extension System, as
USDA’s outreach arm, in partnership
with the land-grant institutions and
local governments, to provide informal
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
education throughout 3,000 counties
and parishes across the United States.
ASRED’s comment includes a
discussion of the efficient and effective
use of the national extension system and
the research being conducted at the
land-grant institutions. NIFA is not
revising 7 CFR 3430.608(b) as the
authorizing program legislation, at 7
U.S.C. 3319f(c)(7), specifically provides
that for Standard BFRDP Project grants
priority be given to partnerships and
collaborations that are led by or include
nongovernmental and community-based
organizations with expertise in new
agricultural producer training and
outreach and, as a matter of agency
discretion, NIFA is applying the
statutory priority requirement to the
other two components of the BFRDP as
well.
ASRED’s other comment
recommended that ‘‘tax management,
including record keeping and tax form
preparation’’ and ‘‘basic agricultural
law’’ be added to the list of BFRDP
project focus areas in 7 CFR 3430.604(a),
Project types and priorities—Standard
BFRDP projects. NIFA agrees with this
comment and is revising the regulation
to include those subject areas as
additional program types under 7 CFR
3430.604(a).
NSAC provided a number of
comments on the following sections:
7 CFR 3430.602, Definitions; 7 CFR
3430.605(b), Funding restrictions—
Indirect costs; 7 CFR 3430.606(a),
Matching requirements—Requirement; 7
CFR 3430.608(a), Review criteria—
Evaluation criteria; 7 CFR 3430.608(b),
Review criteria—Partnership and
collaboration; 7 CFR 3430.609(a), Other
considerations—Set aside; 7 CFR
3430.609(c), Other considerations—
Duration of awards; and 3430.609(d),
Other considerations—Amount of
grants. NSAC also provided a
recommendation on adopting a regional
structure for BFRDP.
7 CFR 3430.602—Definitions
NSAC recommended that NIFA use
its statutory discretionary authority to
add other criteria to the definition of a
‘‘beginning farmer or rancher’’ to
include the ‘‘two-fold criteria of the
Farm Service Agency (FSA) definition
from section 343(11)(D) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act pertaining to material
and substantial participation and dayto-day labor and management.’’ NSAC
stated that adding these additional
criteria will ensure that the program is
meeting the needs of the audience for
which the program was established.
NIFA has not revised the definition of
‘‘beginning farmer or rancher’’ because
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:58 Jun 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
NIFA has chosen to use only criteria
identified by Congress in the
authorizing legislation.
7 CFR 3430.605(b)—Funding
Restrictions—Indirect Costs
NSAC urged NIFA to make BFRDP
awards as cooperative agreements and
thereby, limit the indirect costs to no
more than 10 percent or ‘‘in some
fashion put a reasonable and modest cap
on indirect costs.’’ NSAC feels that this
would allow funds to support as many
projects and beginning farmers and
ranchers as possible. NSAC points to the
success of the Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education (SARE)
Program which has been successful for
over two decades ‘‘despite allowing zero
indirect costs.’’
NIFA is not revising this section as it
cannot use cooperative agreements as a
way to limit indirect costs for the
standard BFRDP projects. Pursuant to
FSRIA § 7405(c)(1) (7 U.S.C.
3319f(c)(1)), and as reflected in 7 CFR
3430.604(a), awards for standard BFRDP
projects are required to be made as
grants. As with other agricultural
research, education, and extension
grants, BFRDP grants are subject to the
22 percent cap on indirect costs
pursuant to NARETPA § 1462(a)
(7 U.S.C. 3310(a)).
For the educational enhancement
team projects and online clearinghouse
authorized by FSRIA §§ 7405(d) and (e),
respectively, 7 CFR 3430.604(b)
provides that awards for those
components of the BFRDP may be made
as either grants or cooperative
agreements. Per 7 CFR 3430.2, NIFA
defines a grant as ‘‘the award by the
Authorized Departmental Officer of
funds to an eligible grantee to assist in
meeting the costs of conducting for the
benefit of the public, an identified
project which is intended and designed
to accomplish the purpose of the
program as identified in the program
solicitation or RFA’’ and a cooperative
agreement as ‘‘the award by the
Authorized Departmental Officer of
funds to an eligible awardee to assist in
meeting the costs of conducting for the
benefit of the public, an identified
project which is intended and designed
to accomplish the purpose of the
program as identified in the program
solicitation or RFA, and where
substantial involvement is expected
between NIFA and the awardee when
carrying out the activity contemplated
in the agreement.’’ The award types for
those projects will depend on whether
substantial involvement is expected.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
35321
7 CFR 3430.606(a)—Matching
Requirements—Requirement
NSAC urged NIFA ‘‘to clarify in the
final rule that for the portion of any
match that is cash, it does not require
that the cash be in hand, provided the
applicant provides sufficient
information demonstrating that the
funding will be available before the time
it is needed for expenditure in the
project.’’ NSAC commented further that
‘‘requiring that cash be in hand at the
time a BFRDP application is submitted
is a substantial barrier for smaller
community-based and non-profit
organizations.’’ NIFA is not revising this
section as the standards for meeting the
matching requirements are found in the
USDA uniform assistance regulations (7
CFR parts 3016 and 3019) and in the
applicable RFAs.
7 CFR 3430.608(a)—Review Criteria—
Evaluation Criteria
NSAC had comments on four of the
six evaluation criteria under this
section. They had no comments on
criterion (2), technical merit, and
criterion (3), achievability. Under
criterion (1), relevancy, NSAC felt that
language should be added ‘‘to the rule
that clarifies that ‘relevancy’ includes
due consideration of at least three major
factors: (1) Creating the maximum
number of enduring beginning farmer
and rancher opportunities, (2) ensuring
that the enduring opportunities being
created are economically viable,
environmentally-sound, and help create
an enhanced quality of life for the farm
family and the community, (3) creating
farming opportunities that do not
diminish farming opportunities for
others.’’ NIFA does not concur with this
recommendation. NIFA concludes that
relevancy addresses critical barriers
faced by beginning farmers and
ranchers.
Under criterion (4), the expertise and
track record of one or more of the
applicants, NSAC urged NIFA to
‘‘clarify in the rule that expertise be
based on demonstrable and quantifiable
factors such as the number of training,
assistance, or education activities
previously carried out, participants or
graduates of the program and success
rates, and the number of years a
program or activity has been offered.’’
NIFA concurred with the
recommendation. The recommendation
of NSAC was included in the FY 2011
RFA.
Under criterion (5), the adequacy of
plans for the participatory evaluation
process, outcome-based reporting, and
the communication of findings and
results beyond the immediate target
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
35322
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
audience, NSAC comments that NIFA
should help the grantees understand the
criterion by providing in the definitions
section examples of participatory
evaluation, outcome-based reporting,
and public communication. NSAC
suggests that ‘‘outcome-based reporting
be defined as outcomes and impacts
rather than activities and inputs’’ and
that ‘‘communicating findings include
the expectation that grantees
demonstrate how their communications
plans reach beyond the immediate
clientele to the larger arena of public
stakeholders.’’ NIFA concurs with the
recommendation regarding ‘‘outcomebased reporting’’ and has included the
following definition under 7 CFR
3430.602: ‘‘Outcome-based reporting
means reporting that includes an
outcome statement with performance
targets, necessary milestones,
beneficiary engagement, key
individuals, and verification.’’
Under criterion (6), other appropriate
factors, as determined by the Secretary,
NSAC states that proposals should be
‘‘ranked higher if they show the degree
and frequency of direct face-to-face
work and interaction with actual
constituencies served.’’ NIFA concurs
with the recommendation. The
recommendation of NSAC was included
in the FY 2011 RFA.
7 CFR 3430.608(b)—Review Criteria—
Partnership and Collaboration
To ensure that a real, demonstrable
partnership exists, NSAC urges NIFA to
require for projects in which the lead
grantee is an eligible entity that is not
a NGO or CBO, that the NGO or CBO not
receive less than 25 percent collectively
of the BFRDP funding awarded. NSAC
believes that such a provision will
‘‘prevent partnership proposals from
becoming partnership in name only.’’
NIFA concurs with the
recommendation. The recommendation
of NSAC has been included in the FY
2011 RFA.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
7 CFR 3430.609(a)—Other
Considerations—Set Aside
NSAC recommended that NIFA
include a recommendation from the
Conference Report accompanying the
FCEA which encourages the Secretary to
‘‘include immigrant beginning farmers
and ranchers in the funding set-aside for
socially disadvantaged and limited
resource farmers and ranchers.’’ NSAC
urged NIFA to include this group in this
section. NIFA concurs and has revised
7 CFR 3430.609(a) accordingly to
include immigrant farm workers
planning to become beginning farmers
and ranchers.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:58 Jun 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
NSAC had a second comment on this
section. NSAC urged NIFA to require
groups applying under the 25 percent
set aside for limited resource beginning
farmers and ranchers, socially
disadvantaged beginning farmers and
ranchers, and farm workers desiring to
become farmers or ranchers, to
demonstrate that at least 50.1 percent of
the population served by the project be
members of one or more of those three
groups. NSAC urged NIFA to make this
requirement part of the rule. NIFA does
not concur with the recommendation
from NSAC. NIFA has decided that the
target audience need not be a specific
group but can be open to all beginning
farmers and ranchers so long as the
program addresses the needs of one or
more of those three groups.
7 CFR 3430.609(c)—Other
Considerations—Duration
NSAC urged NIFA to apply the 3-year
limit to the educational enhancement
team project awards in addition to the
standard BFRDP project awards. NIFA
concurs with this recommendation and
has revised 7 CFR 3430.609(c)
accordingly to limit the term of the
educational enhancement team project
awards to three years.
7 CFR 3430.609(d)—Other
Considerations—Amount of Grants
NSAC stated that the BRDFP
legislative language clearly limits grants
to no more than $250,000 per year and
urged NIFA to clarify this in the final
rule. In the interim rule, CSREES/NIFA
decided to provide the maximum
flexibility to the extent of the law for the
awards made under the BFRDP
authority in not subjecting the
educational enhancement team projects
to this limitation. However, based on
the above comment, NIFA has revised 7
CFR 3430.609(d) to limit the
educational enhancement team project
awards to no more than $250,000 per
year.
Additional Consideration—Regional
Program Delivery
NSAC urged NIFA to ‘‘convene a
short-duration stakeholder process to
determine whether it would be
advantageous to adopt a regional
structure for BFRDP.’’ NSAC felt that a
lot could be gained from a regional
approach (i.e., ‘‘getting the program
close to the ground as possible;’’
program would better reflect regional
differences and priorities; the structure
would allow for more expertise,
ownership, and buy-in; and would
allow for a more efficient use of
resources). NIFA’s response to NSAC is
that there was not much support for
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
regional program delivery at the first
stakeholder meeting. If this program is
reauthorized in the next Farm Bill,
NIFA would consider revisiting the
recommendation. There are a collection
of projects that potentially could be
strengthened through a regional
structure at a later time.
Organization of 7 CFR Part 3430
A primary function of NIFA is the
fair, effective, and efficient
administration of Federal assistance
programs implementing agricultural
research, education, and extension
programs. As noted above, NIFA has
been delegated the authority to
administer this program and will be
issuing Federal assistance awards for
funding made available for this
program; and thus, awards made under
this authority will be subject to the
Agency’s assistance regulations at 7 CFR
part 3430, Competitive and
Noncompetitive Non-formula Federal
Assistance Programs—General Award
Administrative Provisions. The
Agency’s development and publication
of these regulations for its non-formula
Federal assistance programs serve to
enhance its accountability and to
standardize procedures across the
Federal assistance programs it
administers while providing
transparency to the public. NIFA
published 7 CFR part 3430 with
subparts A through F as an interim rule
on August 1, 2008 [73 FR 44897–44909],
and as a final rule on September 4, 2009
[74 FR 45736–45752]. These regulations
apply to all Federal assistance programs
administered by NIFA except for the
formula grant programs identified in 7
CFR 3430.1(f), the Small Business
Innovation Research programs with
implementing regulations at 7 CFR part
3403 and the Veterinary Medicine Loan
Repayment Program (VMLRP),
authorized under section 1415A of the
National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (NARETPA) with implementing
regulations at 7 CFR part 3431.
NIFA organized the regulation as
follows: Subparts A through E provide
administrative provisions for all
competitive and noncompetitive nonformula Federal assistance awards.
Subparts F and thereafter apply to
specific NIFA programs.
NIFA is, to the extent practical, using
the following subpart template for each
program authority: (1) Applicability of
regulations, (2) purpose, (3) definitions
(those in addition to or different from
§ 3430.2), (4) eligibility, (5) project types
and priorities, (6) funding restrictions,
and (7) matching requirements.
Subparts F and thereafter contain the
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
above seven components in this order.
Additional sections may be added for a
specific program if there are additional
requirements or a need for additional
rules for the program (e.g., additional
reporting requirements).
Through this rulemaking, NIFA is
adding subpart J for the administrative
provisions that are specific to the
BFRDP.
II. Administrative Requirements for the
Final Rulemaking
Executive Order 12866
This action has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive
Order 12866, and therefore, has not
been formally reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. This final rule
will not create a serious inconsistency
or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; nor
will it materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs; nor will it have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; nor will it adversely
affect the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local or Tribal
governments or communities in a
material way. Furthermore, it does not
raise a novel legal or policy issue arising
out of legal mandates, the President’s
priorities or principles set forth in the
Executive Order.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
This final rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5
U.S.C. 601–612. The Department
concluded that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The rule does not involve regulatory
and informational requirements
regarding businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The Department certifies that this
final rule has been assessed in
accordance with the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. (PRA). The Department
concludes that this final rule does not
impose any new information
requirements; however, the burden
estimates will increase for existing
approved information collections
associated with this rule due to
additional applicants.
These estimates have been provided
to OMB. In addition to the SF–424 form
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:58 Jun 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
35323
families (i.e., Research and Related and
Mandatory), and SF–425, Federal
Financial Reports; NIFA has three
currently approved OMB information
collections associated with this
rulemaking: OMB Information
Collection No. 0524–0042, NIFA
Current Research Information System
(CRIS); No. 0524–0041, NIFA
Application Review Process; and No.
0524–0026, Organizational Information.
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 7 CFR part 3430 which was
published at 74 FR 45968 on September
4, 2009, is adopted as a final rule with
the following changes:
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
This final regulation applies to the
Federal assistance program
administered by NIFA under the Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
No. 10.311, Beginning Farmer and
Rancher Development Program.
■
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
and Executive Order 13132
The Department has reviewed this
final rule in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order No.
13132 and the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq., and has found no potential or
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. As there is no
Federal mandate contained herein that
could result in increased expenditures
by State, local, or Tribal governments, or
by the private sector, the Department
has not prepared a budgetary impact
statement.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
The Department has reviewed this
final rule in accordance with Executive
Order 13175, and has determined that it
does not have ‘‘Tribal implications’’.
The final rule does not ‘‘have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes’’.
Clarity of This Regulation
Executive Order 12866 and the
President’s Memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all
rules in plain language. The Department
invites comments on how to make this
final rule easier to understand.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Agricultural research,
Education, Extension, Federal
assistance.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
PART 3430—COMPETITIVE AND
NONCOMPETITIVE NON-FORMULA
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS—
GENERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATIVE
PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 3430
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 3316; Pub. L. 106–107
(31 U.S.C. 6101 note).
2. Amend § 3430.602 by adding a
definition of ‘‘Outcome-based
reporting’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 3430.602
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Outcome-based reporting means
reporting that includes an outcome
statement with performance targets,
necessary milestones, beneficiary
engagement, key individuals, and
verification.
■ 3. Amend § 3430.604 as follows:
■ a. Revise paragraph (a)(19); and
■ b. Add new paragraphs (a)(20) and
(a)(21), to read as follows:
§ 3430.604
Project types and priorities.
(a) * * *
(19) Tax management, including
record keeping and tax form
preparation.
(20) Basic agricultural law.
(21) Other similar subject areas of use
to beginning farmers or ranchers.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 3430.609 by revising
paragraphs (a)(3), (c), and (d), to read as
follows:
§ 3430.609
Other considerations.
(a) * * *
(3) Farm workers (including
immigrant farm workers) desiring to
become farmers or ranchers.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Duration of awards. The term of a
grant for a standard BFRDP project and
an award for an educational
enhancement team project under this
subpart shall not exceed 3 years.
Awards for all other projects under this
subpart shall not exceed 5 years. Nocost extensions of time beyond the
maximum award terms will not be
considered or granted.
(d) Amount of grants. A grant for a
standard BFRDP project and an award
for an educational enhancement team
project under this subpart shall not be
in an amount that is more than $250,000
for each year.
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
35324
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
Signed at Washington, DC, on June 10,
2011.
Ralph Otto,
Deputy Director, Food and Community
Resources, National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2011–15105 Filed 6–16–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. NM458; Special Conditions No.
25–431–SC]
Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787
Series Airplanes; Seats With Inflatable
Lapbelts
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
These special conditions are
issued for the Boeing Model 787 series
airplane. These airplanes will have a
novel or unusual design feature(s)
associated with seats with inflatable
lapbelts. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this
design feature. These special conditions
contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers
necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.
DATES: The effective date of these
special conditions is June 13, 2011. We
must receive your comments by July 18,
2011.
ADDRESSES: You must mail two copies
of your comments to: Federal Aviation
Administration, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Attn: Rules Docket (ANM–
113), Docket No. NM458, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356. You may deliver two
copies to the Transport Airplane
Directorate at the above address. You
must mark your comments: Docket No.
NM458. You can inspect comments in
the Rules Docket weekdays, except
Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and
4 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff
Gardlin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport
Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2136;
facsimile (425) 227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA
has determined that notice of, and
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:58 Jun 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
opportunity for prior public comment
on, these special conditions, are
impracticable because these procedures
would significantly delay issuance of
the design approval and thus delivery of
the affected aircraft. In addition, the
substance of these special conditions
has been subject to the public comment
process in several prior instances with
no substantive comments received. The
FAA therefore finds that good cause
exists for making these special
conditions effective upon issuance.
Comments Invited
We invite interested people to take
part in this rulemaking by sending
written comments, data, or views. The
most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the special
conditions, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. We ask that you send
us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all
comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel
about these special conditions. You can
inspect the docket before and after the
comment closing date. If you wish to
review the docket in person, go to the
address in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
We will consider all comments we
receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special
conditions based on the comments we
receive.
If you want us to acknowledge receipt
of your comments on these special
conditions, include with your
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which you have written the
docket number. We will stamp the date
on the postcard and mail it back to you.
Background
On March 28, 2003, Boeing
Commercial Airplanes applied for an
FAA type certificate for its new Model
787 series airplane (hereafter referred to
as ‘‘787’’). Boeing later applied for, and
was granted, an extension of time for the
type certificate, which changed the
effective application date to October 1,
2006. The 787 will be an all-new, twinengine jet transport airplane with a twoaisle cabin. The maximum takeoff
weight will be 476,000 pounds, with a
maximum passenger count of 381.
These airplanes will have a novel or
unusual design feature associated with
seats with inflatable lapbelts. The
inflatable lapbelt is designed to limit
occupant forward excursion in the event
of an accident. This will reduce the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
potential for head injury, thereby
reducing the Head Injury Criteria (HIC)
measurement. The inflatable lapbelt
behaves similarly to an automotive
airbag, but in this case the airbag is
integrated into the lapbelt, and inflates
away from the seated occupant. While
airbags are now standard in the
automotive industry, the use of an
inflatable lapbelt is novel for
commercial aviation.
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) 25.785 requires that occupants
be protected from head injury by either
the elimination of any injurious object
within the striking radius of the head,
or by padding. Traditionally, this has
required a set back of 35 inches from
any bulkhead or other rigid interior
feature or, where not practical, specified
types of padding. The relative
effectiveness of these means of injury
protection was not quantified. With the
adoption of Amendment 25–64 to part
25, specifically § 25.562, a new standard
that quantifies required head injury
protection was created.
Section 25.562 specifies that each seat
type design approved for crew or
passenger occupancy during takeoff and
landing must successfully complete
dynamic tests or be shown to be
compliant by rational analysis based on
dynamic tests of a similar type seat. In
particular, the regulations require that
persons not suffer serious head injury
under the conditions specified in the
tests, and that protection must be
provided or the seat be designed so that
the head impact does not exceed a HIC
of 1000 units. While the test conditions
described for HIC are detailed and
specific, it is the intent of the
requirement that an adequate level of
head injury protection be provided for
passengers in a severe crash.
Because §§ 25.562 and 25.785 and
associated guidance do not adequately
address seats with inflatable lapbelts,
the FAA recognizes that appropriate
pass/fail criteria need to be developed
that do fully address the safety concerns
specific to occupants of these seats.
The inflatable lapbelt has two
potential advantages over other means
of head impact protection. First, it can
provide significantly greater protection
than would be expected with energyabsorbing pads, and second, it can
provide essentially equivalent
protection for occupants of all stature.
These are significant advantages from a
safety standpoint, since such devices
will likely provide a level of safety that
exceeds the minimum standards of the
Federal aviation regulations.
Conversely, inflatable lapbelts in
general are active systems and must be
relied upon to activate properly when
E:\FR\FM\17JNR1.SGM
17JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35319-35324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15105]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
7 CFR Part 3430
RIN 0524-AA59
Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-Formula Federal Assistance
Programs--Specific Administrative Provisions for the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Development Program
AGENCY: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is
adopting as a final rule, with changes, an interim rule (published at
74 FR 45968 on September 4, 2009) containing a set of specific
administrative requirements for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Development Program (BFRDP) to supplement the Competitive and
Noncompetitive Non-Formula Federal Assistance Programs--General Award
Administrative Provisions for this
[[Page 35320]]
program. The BFRDP is authorized under section 7405 of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, as amended by section 7410
of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
DATES: This final rule is effective on June 17, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Siva Sureshwaran, National Program
Leader, Institute of Food Production and Sustainability; National
Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP
2240, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2240; Voice:
202-2720-7536; Fax: 202-401-6070; E-mail: ssureshwaran@nifa.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Summary
Authority
Section 7405 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
(FSRIA), Public Law 107-171 (7 U.S.C. 3319f), as amended by section
7410 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA), Public
Law 110-246, authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) to
provide training, education, outreach, and technical assistance to
beginning farmers or ranchers. The authority to carry out this program
has been delegated to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA) through the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics.
In carrying out the program, the Secretary is authorized to make
competitive grants under section 7405(c) of FSRIA to support new and
established local and regional training, education, outreach, and
technical assistance initiatives that address the needs of beginning
farmers and ranchers. The Secretary may award a BFRDP grant to a
collaborative State, Tribal, local, or regionally-based network or
partnership of public or private entities, which may include: A State
cooperative extension service; a Federal, State, or Tribal agency; a
community-based and nongovernmental organization; a college or
university (including an institution awarding an associate's degree) or
foundation maintained by a college or university; or any other
appropriate partner, as determined by the Secretary. BFRDP grants shall
be awarded to address needs of beginning farmers and ranchers in the
following areas: Mentoring, apprenticeships, and internships; resources
and referrals; assisting beginning farmers or ranchers in acquiring
land from retiring farmers and ranchers; innovative farm and ranch
transfer strategies; entrepreneurship and business training; model land
leasing contracts; financial management training; whole farm planning;
conservation assistance; risk management education; diversification and
marketing strategies; curriculum development; understanding the impact
of concentration and globalization; basic livestock and crop farming
practices; the acquisition and management of agricultural credit;
environmental compliance; information processing; and other similar
subject areas of use to beginning farmers or ranchers. Pursuant to
FSRIA section 7405(c)(3), these grants shall not have a term of more
than 3 years and shall not be in an amount greater than $250,000 per
year; however, eligible recipients may receive consecutive grants.
These awards also are prohibited by statute from supporting planning,
repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of a building or
facility. In addition, not less than 25 percent of these BFRDP grant
funds for a fiscal year must be used to support programs and services
that address the needs of limited resource beginning farmers or
ranchers; socially disadvantaged beginning farmers or ranchers; and
farm workers (including immigrant farm workers) desiring to become
farmers or ranchers. All BFRDP grant applicants are required to provide
funds or in-kind support in an amount that is at least equal to 25
percent of the Federal funds awarded. In making BFRDP grants, priority
will be given to partnerships and collaborations that are led by or
include nongovernmental and community-based organizations with
expertise in new agricultural producer training and outreach.
Geographical diversity will be ensured to the maximum extent
practicable.
FSRIA section 7405(d) also requires the Secretary to establish
beginning farmer and rancher education teams to develop curricula and
conduct educational programs and workshops for beginning farmers or
ranchers in diverse geographical areas of the United States. The
Secretary is required, in promoting the development of curricula and to
the maximum extent practicable, to include modules tailored to specific
audiences of beginning farmers or ranchers, based on crop or regional
diversity. The Secretary is required to cooperate, to the maximum
extent practicable, with (1) State cooperative extension services; (2)
Federal and State agencies; (3) community-based and nongovernmental
organizations; (4) colleges and universities (including an institution
awarding an associate's degree) or foundations maintained by a college
or university; and other appropriate partners, as determined by the
Secretary.
FSRIA section 7405(e) requires the Secretary to establish an online
clearinghouse that makes available to beginning farmers or ranchers
education curricula and training materials and programs, which may
include online courses for direct use by beginning farmers or ranchers.
For fiscal year (FY) 2009, $18 million was made available for the
BFRDP, including administrative costs. For FY 2010, $19 million was
made available for the BFRDP, including administrative costs. For FY
2011, it is anticipated that $19 million will be made available for the
BFRDP, including administrative costs.
Comments on Interim Rule and Development of Final Rule for Subpart J
On September 4, 2009, NIFA published an interim rule [74 FR 45968]
to provide administrative provisions that are specific to the BFRDP, as
subpart J to 7 CFR part 3430. In the interim rule, NIFA invited
comments which were due to the agency by November 3, 2009. We received
comments from two professional organizations: Association of Southern
Region Extension Directors (ASRED) and National Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition (NSAC).
ASRED provided two comments: one on eligibility and the second on
the addition of two program types under 7 CFR 3430.604, Project types
and priorities. Regarding eligibility, ASRED disagreed with 7 CFR
3430.608(b), Review criteria--Partnership and collaboration, which
states: ``In making awards under this subpart, NIFA shall give priority
to partnerships and collaborations that are led by or include
nongovernmental and community-based organizations with expertise in new
agricultural producer training and outreach.'' ASRED commented that it
does not support placing priority for awards on non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs). ASRED
continued their comment as follows: ``NGOs/CBOs certainly can
contribute to this program as partner, and in some cases, as lead
entities, but we question the idea that, by purpose, structure or
outcome, NGOs/CBOs offer any inherent advantage as lead entities.''
ASRED requests that the Cooperative Extension Systems be recognized as
equally capable lead agencies given the mission of the Cooperative
Extension System, as USDA's outreach arm, in partnership with the land-
grant institutions and local governments, to provide informal
[[Page 35321]]
education throughout 3,000 counties and parishes across the United
States. ASRED's comment includes a discussion of the efficient and
effective use of the national extension system and the research being
conducted at the land-grant institutions. NIFA is not revising 7 CFR
3430.608(b) as the authorizing program legislation, at 7 U.S.C.
3319f(c)(7), specifically provides that for Standard BFRDP Project
grants priority be given to partnerships and collaborations that are
led by or include nongovernmental and community-based organizations
with expertise in new agricultural producer training and outreach and,
as a matter of agency discretion, NIFA is applying the statutory
priority requirement to the other two components of the BFRDP as well.
ASRED's other comment recommended that ``tax management, including
record keeping and tax form preparation'' and ``basic agricultural
law'' be added to the list of BFRDP project focus areas in 7 CFR
3430.604(a), Project types and priorities--Standard BFRDP projects.
NIFA agrees with this comment and is revising the regulation to include
those subject areas as additional program types under 7 CFR
3430.604(a).
NSAC provided a number of comments on the following sections: 7 CFR
3430.602, Definitions; 7 CFR 3430.605(b), Funding restrictions--
Indirect costs; 7 CFR 3430.606(a), Matching requirements--Requirement;
7 CFR 3430.608(a), Review criteria--Evaluation criteria; 7 CFR
3430.608(b), Review criteria--Partnership and collaboration; 7 CFR
3430.609(a), Other considerations--Set aside; 7 CFR 3430.609(c), Other
considerations--Duration of awards; and 3430.609(d), Other
considerations--Amount of grants. NSAC also provided a recommendation
on adopting a regional structure for BFRDP.
7 CFR 3430.602--Definitions
NSAC recommended that NIFA use its statutory discretionary
authority to add other criteria to the definition of a ``beginning
farmer or rancher'' to include the ``two-fold criteria of the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) definition from section 343(11)(D) of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act pertaining to material and
substantial participation and day-to-day labor and management.'' NSAC
stated that adding these additional criteria will ensure that the
program is meeting the needs of the audience for which the program was
established. NIFA has not revised the definition of ``beginning farmer
or rancher'' because NIFA has chosen to use only criteria identified by
Congress in the authorizing legislation.
7 CFR 3430.605(b)--Funding Restrictions--Indirect Costs
NSAC urged NIFA to make BFRDP awards as cooperative agreements and
thereby, limit the indirect costs to no more than 10 percent or ``in
some fashion put a reasonable and modest cap on indirect costs.'' NSAC
feels that this would allow funds to support as many projects and
beginning farmers and ranchers as possible. NSAC points to the success
of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program
which has been successful for over two decades ``despite allowing zero
indirect costs.''
NIFA is not revising this section as it cannot use cooperative
agreements as a way to limit indirect costs for the standard BFRDP
projects. Pursuant to FSRIA Sec. 7405(c)(1) (7 U.S.C. 3319f(c)(1)),
and as reflected in 7 CFR 3430.604(a), awards for standard BFRDP
projects are required to be made as grants. As with other agricultural
research, education, and extension grants, BFRDP grants are subject to
the 22 percent cap on indirect costs pursuant to NARETPA Sec. 1462(a)
(7 U.S.C. 3310(a)).
For the educational enhancement team projects and online
clearinghouse authorized by FSRIA Sec. Sec. 7405(d) and (e),
respectively, 7 CFR 3430.604(b) provides that awards for those
components of the BFRDP may be made as either grants or cooperative
agreements. Per 7 CFR 3430.2, NIFA defines a grant as ``the award by
the Authorized Departmental Officer of funds to an eligible grantee to
assist in meeting the costs of conducting for the benefit of the
public, an identified project which is intended and designed to
accomplish the purpose of the program as identified in the program
solicitation or RFA'' and a cooperative agreement as ``the award by the
Authorized Departmental Officer of funds to an eligible awardee to
assist in meeting the costs of conducting for the benefit of the
public, an identified project which is intended and designed to
accomplish the purpose of the program as identified in the program
solicitation or RFA, and where substantial involvement is expected
between NIFA and the awardee when carrying out the activity
contemplated in the agreement.'' The award types for those projects
will depend on whether substantial involvement is expected.
7 CFR 3430.606(a)--Matching Requirements--Requirement
NSAC urged NIFA ``to clarify in the final rule that for the portion
of any match that is cash, it does not require that the cash be in
hand, provided the applicant provides sufficient information
demonstrating that the funding will be available before the time it is
needed for expenditure in the project.'' NSAC commented further that
``requiring that cash be in hand at the time a BFRDP application is
submitted is a substantial barrier for smaller community-based and non-
profit organizations.'' NIFA is not revising this section as the
standards for meeting the matching requirements are found in the USDA
uniform assistance regulations (7 CFR parts 3016 and 3019) and in the
applicable RFAs.
7 CFR 3430.608(a)--Review Criteria--Evaluation Criteria
NSAC had comments on four of the six evaluation criteria under this
section. They had no comments on criterion (2), technical merit, and
criterion (3), achievability. Under criterion (1), relevancy, NSAC felt
that language should be added ``to the rule that clarifies that
`relevancy' includes due consideration of at least three major factors:
(1) Creating the maximum number of enduring beginning farmer and
rancher opportunities, (2) ensuring that the enduring opportunities
being created are economically viable, environmentally-sound, and help
create an enhanced quality of life for the farm family and the
community, (3) creating farming opportunities that do not diminish
farming opportunities for others.'' NIFA does not concur with this
recommendation. NIFA concludes that relevancy addresses critical
barriers faced by beginning farmers and ranchers.
Under criterion (4), the expertise and track record of one or more
of the applicants, NSAC urged NIFA to ``clarify in the rule that
expertise be based on demonstrable and quantifiable factors such as the
number of training, assistance, or education activities previously
carried out, participants or graduates of the program and success
rates, and the number of years a program or activity has been
offered.'' NIFA concurred with the recommendation. The recommendation
of NSAC was included in the FY 2011 RFA.
Under criterion (5), the adequacy of plans for the participatory
evaluation process, outcome-based reporting, and the communication of
findings and results beyond the immediate target
[[Page 35322]]
audience, NSAC comments that NIFA should help the grantees understand
the criterion by providing in the definitions section examples of
participatory evaluation, outcome-based reporting, and public
communication. NSAC suggests that ``outcome-based reporting be defined
as outcomes and impacts rather than activities and inputs'' and that
``communicating findings include the expectation that grantees
demonstrate how their communications plans reach beyond the immediate
clientele to the larger arena of public stakeholders.'' NIFA concurs
with the recommendation regarding ``outcome-based reporting'' and has
included the following definition under 7 CFR 3430.602: ``Outcome-based
reporting means reporting that includes an outcome statement with
performance targets, necessary milestones, beneficiary engagement, key
individuals, and verification.''
Under criterion (6), other appropriate factors, as determined by
the Secretary, NSAC states that proposals should be ``ranked higher if
they show the degree and frequency of direct face-to-face work and
interaction with actual constituencies served.'' NIFA concurs with the
recommendation. The recommendation of NSAC was included in the FY 2011
RFA.
7 CFR 3430.608(b)--Review Criteria--Partnership and Collaboration
To ensure that a real, demonstrable partnership exists, NSAC urges
NIFA to require for projects in which the lead grantee is an eligible
entity that is not a NGO or CBO, that the NGO or CBO not receive less
than 25 percent collectively of the BFRDP funding awarded. NSAC
believes that such a provision will ``prevent partnership proposals
from becoming partnership in name only.'' NIFA concurs with the
recommendation. The recommendation of NSAC has been included in the FY
2011 RFA.
7 CFR 3430.609(a)--Other Considerations--Set Aside
NSAC recommended that NIFA include a recommendation from the
Conference Report accompanying the FCEA which encourages the Secretary
to ``include immigrant beginning farmers and ranchers in the funding
set-aside for socially disadvantaged and limited resource farmers and
ranchers.'' NSAC urged NIFA to include this group in this section. NIFA
concurs and has revised 7 CFR 3430.609(a) accordingly to include
immigrant farm workers planning to become beginning farmers and
ranchers.
NSAC had a second comment on this section. NSAC urged NIFA to
require groups applying under the 25 percent set aside for limited
resource beginning farmers and ranchers, socially disadvantaged
beginning farmers and ranchers, and farm workers desiring to become
farmers or ranchers, to demonstrate that at least 50.1 percent of the
population served by the project be members of one or more of those
three groups. NSAC urged NIFA to make this requirement part of the
rule. NIFA does not concur with the recommendation from NSAC. NIFA has
decided that the target audience need not be a specific group but can
be open to all beginning farmers and ranchers so long as the program
addresses the needs of one or more of those three groups.
7 CFR 3430.609(c)--Other Considerations--Duration
NSAC urged NIFA to apply the 3-year limit to the educational
enhancement team project awards in addition to the standard BFRDP
project awards. NIFA concurs with this recommendation and has revised 7
CFR 3430.609(c) accordingly to limit the term of the educational
enhancement team project awards to three years.
7 CFR 3430.609(d)--Other Considerations--Amount of Grants
NSAC stated that the BRDFP legislative language clearly limits
grants to no more than $250,000 per year and urged NIFA to clarify this
in the final rule. In the interim rule, CSREES/NIFA decided to provide
the maximum flexibility to the extent of the law for the awards made
under the BFRDP authority in not subjecting the educational enhancement
team projects to this limitation. However, based on the above comment,
NIFA has revised 7 CFR 3430.609(d) to limit the educational enhancement
team project awards to no more than $250,000 per year.
Additional Consideration--Regional Program Delivery
NSAC urged NIFA to ``convene a short-duration stakeholder process
to determine whether it would be advantageous to adopt a regional
structure for BFRDP.'' NSAC felt that a lot could be gained from a
regional approach (i.e., ``getting the program close to the ground as
possible;'' program would better reflect regional differences and
priorities; the structure would allow for more expertise, ownership,
and buy-in; and would allow for a more efficient use of resources).
NIFA's response to NSAC is that there was not much support for regional
program delivery at the first stakeholder meeting. If this program is
reauthorized in the next Farm Bill, NIFA would consider revisiting the
recommendation. There are a collection of projects that potentially
could be strengthened through a regional structure at a later time.
Organization of 7 CFR Part 3430
A primary function of NIFA is the fair, effective, and efficient
administration of Federal assistance programs implementing agricultural
research, education, and extension programs. As noted above, NIFA has
been delegated the authority to administer this program and will be
issuing Federal assistance awards for funding made available for this
program; and thus, awards made under this authority will be subject to
the Agency's assistance regulations at 7 CFR part 3430, Competitive and
Noncompetitive Non-formula Federal Assistance Programs--General Award
Administrative Provisions. The Agency's development and publication of
these regulations for its non-formula Federal assistance programs serve
to enhance its accountability and to standardize procedures across the
Federal assistance programs it administers while providing transparency
to the public. NIFA published 7 CFR part 3430 with subparts A through F
as an interim rule on August 1, 2008 [73 FR 44897-44909], and as a
final rule on September 4, 2009 [74 FR 45736-45752]. These regulations
apply to all Federal assistance programs administered by NIFA except
for the formula grant programs identified in 7 CFR 3430.1(f), the Small
Business Innovation Research programs with implementing regulations at
7 CFR part 3403 and the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program
(VMLRP), authorized under section 1415A of the National Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (NARETPA) with
implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 3431.
NIFA organized the regulation as follows: Subparts A through E
provide administrative provisions for all competitive and
noncompetitive non-formula Federal assistance awards. Subparts F and
thereafter apply to specific NIFA programs.
NIFA is, to the extent practical, using the following subpart
template for each program authority: (1) Applicability of regulations,
(2) purpose, (3) definitions (those in addition to or different from
Sec. 3430.2), (4) eligibility, (5) project types and priorities, (6)
funding restrictions, and (7) matching requirements. Subparts F and
thereafter contain the
[[Page 35323]]
above seven components in this order. Additional sections may be added
for a specific program if there are additional requirements or a need
for additional rules for the program (e.g., additional reporting
requirements).
Through this rulemaking, NIFA is adding subpart J for the
administrative provisions that are specific to the BFRDP.
II. Administrative Requirements for the Final Rulemaking
Executive Order 12866
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of Executive Order 12866, and therefore, has not been formally reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget. This final rule will not create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; nor will it materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs; nor will
it have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; nor
will it adversely affect the economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities in a
material way. Furthermore, it does not raise a novel legal or policy
issue arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities or
principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The Department
concluded that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The rule does not involve
regulatory and informational requirements regarding businesses,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The Department certifies that this final rule has been assessed in
accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (PRA). The Department concludes that this final
rule does not impose any new information requirements; however, the
burden estimates will increase for existing approved information
collections associated with this rule due to additional applicants.
These estimates have been provided to OMB. In addition to the SF-
424 form families (i.e., Research and Related and Mandatory), and SF-
425, Federal Financial Reports; NIFA has three currently approved OMB
information collections associated with this rulemaking: OMB
Information Collection No. 0524-0042, NIFA Current Research Information
System (CRIS); No. 0524-0041, NIFA Application Review Process; and No.
0524-0026, Organizational Information.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
This final regulation applies to the Federal assistance program
administered by NIFA under the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) No. 10.311, Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and Executive Order 13132
The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order No. 13132 and the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and has found no potential
or substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
As there is no Federal mandate contained herein that could result in
increased expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, or by
the private sector, the Department has not prepared a budgetary impact
statement.
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with
Executive Order 13175, and has determined that it does not have
``Tribal implications''. The final rule does not ``have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes''.
Clarity of This Regulation
Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1,
1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. The
Department invites comments on how to make this final rule easier to
understand.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 3430
Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural research,
Education, Extension, Federal assistance.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR part 3430 which was
published at 74 FR 45968 on September 4, 2009, is adopted as a final
rule with the following changes:
PART 3430--COMPETITIVE AND NONCOMPETITIVE NON-FORMULA FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS--GENERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 3430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 3316; Pub. L. 106-107 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).
0
2. Amend Sec. 3430.602 by adding a definition of ``Outcome-based
reporting'' to read as follows:
Sec. 3430.602 Definitions.
* * * * *
Outcome-based reporting means reporting that includes an outcome
statement with performance targets, necessary milestones, beneficiary
engagement, key individuals, and verification.
0
3. Amend Sec. 3430.604 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a)(19); and
0
b. Add new paragraphs (a)(20) and (a)(21), to read as follows:
Sec. 3430.604 Project types and priorities.
(a) * * *
(19) Tax management, including record keeping and tax form
preparation.
(20) Basic agricultural law.
(21) Other similar subject areas of use to beginning farmers or
ranchers.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 3430.609 by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (c), and (d), to
read as follows:
Sec. 3430.609 Other considerations.
(a) * * *
(3) Farm workers (including immigrant farm workers) desiring to
become farmers or ranchers.
* * * * *
(c) Duration of awards. The term of a grant for a standard BFRDP
project and an award for an educational enhancement team project under
this subpart shall not exceed 3 years. Awards for all other projects
under this subpart shall not exceed 5 years. No-cost extensions of time
beyond the maximum award terms will not be considered or granted.
(d) Amount of grants. A grant for a standard BFRDP project and an
award for an educational enhancement team project under this subpart
shall not be in an amount that is more than $250,000 for each year.
[[Page 35324]]
Signed at Washington, DC, on June 10, 2011.
Ralph Otto,
Deputy Director, Food and Community Resources, National Institute of
Food and Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2011-15105 Filed 6-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-22-P
