[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53303-53309]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11se06-2]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 1290
[Docket No. FV06-1290-1 FR]
RIN 0581-AC59
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule provides regulations to implement the Specialty Crop
Block Grant Program (SCBGP) to enhance the competitiveness of specialty
crops. This action establishes the eligibility and application
requirements, the review and approval process, and grant administration
procedures for the SCBGP.
The SCBGP is authorized under Section 101 of the Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note).
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trista Etzig, Fruit and Vegetable
Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0243,
Washington, DC 20250-0243; Telephone: (202) 690-4942; Fax: (202) 690-
0102; or e-mail: trista.etzig@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866 by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
Public Law 104-4
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State and local governments and
the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) generally must prepare a written statement,
including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with
``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State and local
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). When such a statement
is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires
federal agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule (2 U.S.C. 1535).
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State and local governments or
the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Therefore,
this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.169, Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.
Executive Order 12372
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and
local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V
published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
Executive Order 13132
It has been determined that this rule does not have sufficient
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment. The provisions contained in this rule would not have a
substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The AMS certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities as defined in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-534, as amended (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
This rule only will impact State departments of agriculture that apply
for grant funds. States include the fifty States, the District of
Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The States are not small
entities under the Act.
Authority for a Specialty Crop Block Grant Program
This program is intended to accomplish the goals of increasing
fruit, vegetable, and nut consumption and improving the competitiveness
of United States specialty crop producers. The SCBGP is authorized
under section 101 of the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7
U.S.C. 1621 note). Section 101 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to
make grants to States for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to
be used by State departments of agriculture solely to enhance the
competitiveness of specialty crops.
Background
The Fruit and Vegetable Program will periodically announce that
applications may be submitted for participation in a ``Specialty Crop
Block Grant Program'' (SCBGP), which will be administered by personnel
of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).
Periodically, funding may be appropriated to the Secretary of
Agriculture to provide specialty crop block grants. To the extent that
funds are available, each year the AMS will publish a Federal Register
notice announcing the program and soliciting grant applications.
Subject to the appropriation of funds, each State that submits an
application that is reviewed and approved by AMS is to receive at least
$100,000 to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. In
addition, each State will receive an amount that represents the
proportion of the value of specialty crop production in the state in
relation
[[Page 53304]]
to the national value of specialty crop production using the latest
available complete specialty crop production data set in all states
whose applications are accepted. All 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are eligible to
participate.
``Specialty crops'' for the purpose of this rule, means fruits and
vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops (including
floriculture).
SCBGP applications will be accepted from any State department of
agriculture, including the agency, commission, or department of a State
government responsible for agriculture within the State.
Section 1290.6 prescribes the application procedure that includes a
State plan to indicate how grant funds will be utilized to enhance the
competitiveness of specialty crops using measurable expected outcomes.
Applications can be submitted for projects up to 3 calendar years in
length. Applicants wishing to serve multi-state projects must submit
the project in their State plan indicating which State is taking the
coordinating role and the percent of the budget covered by each State.
Section 1290.8 prescribes that under the SCBGP program, the AMS
will enter into agreements with those State departments of agriculture
or other entities that are responsible for agriculture within a State
whose applications have been approved. The State department of
agriculture will assure that the State will comply with the
requirements of the State plan. The State department of agriculture
will also assure that funds shall supplement the expenditure of State
funds in support of specialty crops grown in that State, rather than
replace State funds.
The AMS will provide the entire funding to the approved applicants
by a one-time combined electronic transfer. SCBGP participants must
deposit funds in federally insured, interest-bearing accounts and remit
to AMS interest earned in accordance with 7 CFR 3015 and 3016.
Section 1290.9 prescribes the reporting and oversight requirements.
If the grant period is more than one year, State departments of
agriculture are required to submit an annual performance report(s) and
a final performance report evaluating their project(s)using the
measurable outcomes presented in the State plan, as well as a final
financial report. If the grant period is less than a year, State
departments of agriculture are required to submit a final performance
report and a final financial report.
Section 1290.10 prescribes the audit requirements of the State. The
State is accountable for conducting annual financial audits of the
expenditures of all SCBGP funds. Not later than 30 days after
completion of the audit, the State shall submit a copy of the audit
results with an executive summary to AMS.
Notice of this action was published in the Federal Register on
April 20, 2006. Interested persons were invited to submit written
comments until May 22, 2006. During the comment period, eighty-two
comments were received from members of Congress, producers of specialty
crops, marketers of specialty crops, trade organizations, and
interested consumers. Three comments were received after the comment
period, but they did not introduce any new issues AMS has considered
each comment timely submitted, and they are discussed below.
Summary of Comments Received
Purpose and Scope
Two commenters stated that the rule is not consistent in defining
the program's purpose to ``enhance the competitiveness of specialty
crops.'' The commenters went on to say that the rule also states the
program's purpose as ``increasing fruit, vegetable and nut consumption
and improving the competitiveness of specialty crops.'' The Act
includes a provision on Findings and Purpose (Sec. 2) and a provision
concerning the Availability and Purpose of Grants (Sec. 101(a)). The
statements appeared in the supplementary information and Paperwork
Reduction Act sections of the proposed rule and are within the meaning
of these sections of the Act. Accordingly, no changes have been made as
a result of these comments.
One commenter wanted clarification that funding is only to support
specialty crops grown in the U.S. Another commenter asked if funds
could be spent on projects in foreign markets to enhance the
competitiveness of U.S. specialty crops. A purpose of the Act is to
improve the competitiveness of United States specialty crop producers.
Accordingly, this program only supports specialty crops grown in the
United States. Furthermore, the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program
funding may support U.S. grown specialty crops in both domestic and
foreign markets.
Eight commenters requested reference to 7 CFR Part 3016 in Section
1290.1 be removed because it restricts grant funds from being used for
advertising, public relations, selling, and marketing. Part 3016 refers
to OMB Circular A-87 which provides that advertising and public
relations costs are allowable when they are undertaken for ``purposes
necessary to meet the requirements of the Federal award'' (i.e. if the
purpose of the grant is to promote a specialty crop, then it is
allowable to use grant funds for advertising the specialty crop).
Accordingly, no change is made as a result of these comments.
Definitions
USDA received 10 comments on the definition of ``specialty crops''.
The commenters recommended the following be included in the specialty
crop definition: Low growing dense perennial turfgrass sod, processed
fruit and vegetable products, Christmas trees, potatoes, dry beans,
sugar beets, grapes for wine, vegetable seeds, maple syrup, apple
cider, certified organic crops, flax, dry peas, exotic fruits and
vegetables grown in Hawaii such as coffee, cacoa, seed crops, algae and
seaweed, kava, ginger root, vanilla, lavender, honey, and sugar cane.
While in some instances including examples in a definition may improve
clarity, we believe that additions beyond the language reflected in the
Act would be counter productive given the numerous commodities that
come within the definition of specialty crops. USDA will work with
State departments of agriculture in providing further assistance with
this definition.
Fourteen comments were received requesting that a definition for
``enhancing the competitiveness'' of specialty crops be included in the
regulations. AMS believes that these comments have merit and a
definition has been included in the regulations for clarity at Sec.
1290.2(c). Examples of enhancing the competitiveness of specialty crops
include, but are not limited to: Research, promotion, marketing,
nutrition, trade enhancement, food safety, food security, plant health
programs, education, ``buy local'' programs, increased consumption,
increased innovation, improved efficiency and reduced costs of
distribution systems, environmental concerns and conservation, product
development, and developing cooperatives.
Nine comments were received concerning how to incorporate outcome
measures in a State plan. In order to provide additional clarity
concerning this matter, examples of outcome measures may include per
capita consumption, consumer awareness as a percent of target market
reached, market penetration based on sales by geographic region, dollar
value of exports, or Web site hits. Furthermore, for clarity, the final
rule at Sec. 1290.6(b)(7) has been modified to state that expected
[[Page 53305]]
measurable outcomes may be long term that exceed the grant period and
that timeframes should be included in the State plan when long term
outcome measures will be achieved.
Eligible Grant Projects
Seventy-one comments were received from processors and wineries to
remove the last sentence of Sec. 1290.4(b) which provides that
``priority will be given to fresh specialty crop projects.'' These
comments have merit. The Act does not restrict the term specialty crops
to only fresh commodities and, as such, both fresh and processed
specialty crop producers would benefit from the block grants provided
for in this program. Accordingly, this sentence has been removed from
Sec. 1290.4(b) in the final rule.
USDA received four comments on the timeframe of eligible grant
projects. One commenter requested projects longer than three years
should be allowed without the requirement to obtain approval from USDA.
Two commenters recommended project deadlines be set by the State. One
commenter pointed out that the authorizing statute does not specify a
time constraint of three years. Based upon experience with other grant
programs, we consider three years as appropriate and reasonable.
Furthermore, USDA intends to track projects through performance reports
during the grant period. The grant period is established by the longest
approved project in the State plan, so if a project goes beyond the
grant period, AMS must be notified. Secondly, the final rule in Sec.
1290.4(b) has been clarified to state, for cause, an extension of the
grant period not to exceed three years may be granted by AMS on a case
by case basis with a written request from the State.
Another commenter recommended USDA give extra time for evaluation
of projects in addition to three years. State departments of
agriculture have appropriate time for project evaluation. Reporting
requirements are based on the grant period established by the longest
project submitted and approved in the State plan which can not exceed
three years. Some projects may be completed prior to the annual or
final reporting period. Therefore, State departments of agriculture
will have at least 90 days, if not more, to evaluate their projects and
submit performance reports to USDA. This commenter also requested that
a definition for project activities should be added to the regulations.
We disagree. Each State department of agriculture has discretion to
select projects to include in their State plan and, as such, providing
examples of project activities in the regulations could suggest
limitation and a narrowing of the range of project activities.
Restrictions and Limitations on Grant Funds
Two comments were received concerning the language in Sec.
1290.5(c) ``grant funds shall supplement the expenditure of State funds
in support of specialty crops grown in that State, rather than replace
State funds.'' One commenter stated ``it is unrealistic for programs
not to cross between state funding and federal funding.'' Another
commenter wanted clarification if the language prevents a State from
creating a new state program that would support specialty crops. This
language in Sec. 1290.5(c) of the rule reflects the statutory language
that appears in Sec. 101(d)(3) of the Act which provides that a grant
application should contain an assurance that grant funds received under
this section shall supplement the expenditure of State funds in support
of specialty crops grown in that State, rather than replace State
funds. Under section Sec. 1290.5(c) of the rule, grant funds can
supplement existing programs or create new programs, but not replace
state funds. Accordingly, no changes are made as a result of these
comments.
Electronic Transfer of Funds
Three comments were received on the electronic transfer of funds.
One commenter recommended direct payments be made to a third party.
Another commenter recommended USDA award funding on a fixed-based or
deliverable-based basis and another commenter explained one State has a
policy that state funds are spent on projects and then the State seeks
a one time reimbursement of federal dollars at the end of the projects.
Since the grant agreements are made with the State department of
agriculture, it is appropriate that the funds will be transferred to
the State department of agriculture after the grant agreement is
signed. The State department of agriculture can then disperse the funds
based upon their approved State plans.
Completed Application
Comments from seventeen organizations were received on the
application process. Seven commenters recommended USDA notify the State
departments of agriculture on the exact amount of funds they are to
receive prior to submitting State plans. USDA intends to notify the
State departments of agriculture of the exact amount of grant funds
they may receive in the Notice for Applications, which will be
published in the Federal Register soon after publication of this final
rule.
In addition, three comments were received recommending USDA explain
how funds will be distributed if one or more States do not file an
application or if an application is denied. One commenter recommended
funds not distributed be rolled over and made available the following
fiscal year to that respective State who did not apply the previous
year and another commenter recommended that funds not distributed be
allocated pro rata to all other States. The commenter went on further
to request that USDA provide for an appeal process by a State
department of agriculture should USDA deny a State plan. With regard to
rolling over funds to the following fiscal year, States who do not
apply for or do not request all available funding during the specified
grant application period will forfeit all or that portion of available
funding not requested for that application year. Finally, Sec. 101(f)
of the Act provides that the Secretary of Agriculture may accept or
reject applications for a grant. Accordingly, no change is made in the
regulations concerning additional processes. However, we are clarifying
Sec. 1290.7 concerning review of applications to include language
concerning not only accepting applications, but also rejecting them as
well. Nonetheless, USDA will work closely with State departments of
agriculture to assist applicants in meeting deadlines.
Ten commenters recommended that the application process be adjusted
because State departments of agriculture need time to work with grant
partners and decide on projects. In addition, 10 comments were received
recommending USDA allow State departments of agriculture flexibility to
establish granting processes, collaborate with subgrantees, and select
projects based on the unique needs and priorities of that State. Under
the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, State departments of
agriculture must submit their State plans within one year after the
publication of the Notice for Applications. This one year period is
reasonable and provides State departments of agriculture a sufficient
amount of time to establish granting processes, collaborate with
subgrantees, decide on projects, and develop and submit their State
plan to USDA. Accordingly, no changes to the regulations are made as a
result of these comments.
Another commenter recommended post-approval adjustments to allow
States to participate in multi-state projects. State departments of
[[Page 53306]]
agriculture will have one year to work with other State departments of
agriculture to coordinate multi-state projects prior to submitting
State plans. Again, a one year period is appropriate and will provide a
reasonable amount of time for participation in multi-state projects.
Therefore, no change to the regulations is made as a result of this
comment.
Another commenter requested clarification on the number of State
plans that need to be submitted to USDA. A State department of
agriculture must submit one plan to USDA that includes all projects and
submit annual performance reports and a final report that summarizes
progress on all projects in the State plan. This comment has merit and
has been clarified in the final rule in Sec. 1290.6(b) and Sec.
1290.9.
One commenter asked for guidance on what is an acceptable
percentage for project administrative costs. Based upon experience with
other grant programs, we consider administrative costs not exceeding 10
percent of any proposed budget as appropriate and reasonable. If
administrative costs exceed 10 percent, a State department of
agriculture should include a justification in their State plan. This
comment has merit and Sec. 1290.6(b)(4) has been clarified
accordingly. One commenter asked if a State department of agriculture
may charge the paperwork burden costs and audit costs to administrative
expenses. These are acceptable administrative expenses. While these
costs may be considered acceptable, USDA will work with States
concerning acceptable costs on a case-by-case basis.
Five commenters wanted clarification that an application would be
reviewed and approved by USDA before the grant funds are dispersed.
These comments have merit and this has been clarified at Sec. 1290.8
in the final rule.
Review of Grant Applications
Eight comments were received on the grant application review
process stating USDA should not need to approve each project and the
State department of agriculture should have flexibility in selecting
projects. Each State department of agriculture has discretion to select
projects to include in their State plan, while final review and
approval of the State plan resides with USDA.
Grant Agreements
One commenter suggested language be added to the rule to indicate
``it shall be allowable to include fee-based or deliverable-based
projects as part of an approvable grant agreement with the State
department of agriculture.'' A State department of agriculture is
responsible for selecting the type of projects that enhance the
competitiveness of specialty crops to include in their State plan
subject to USDA review and approval. We believe that it is preferable
to retain a measure of flexibility in the regulations. Including such
language in the regulations is not necessary. Accordingly, no change to
the regulations is made as a result of this comment.
Reporting and Oversight Requirements
One commenter wanted language added to the rule to indicate the
allowance for subgrantees, and whether subgrantees would be subject to
the same reporting requirements and financial audit requirements of the
applicant as stated previously. The State department of agriculture is
responsible for selecting the type of projects that enhance the
competitiveness of specialty crops and whether to include subgrantees
or not. Retaining a measure of flexibility in the regulations is
preferable. As such, the recommended language is not necessary in the
regulations. Whether subgrantees are included or not in a project is a
matter for a State department of agriculture to decide. The State
department of agriculture remains accountable for the project
reporting.
Audit Requirements
Four comments were received regarding the requirement to follow
Government Auditing Standards as being costly. Two commenters
recommended the Single Audit Act should oversee the audit requirement.
Two commenters asked for clarification on who would perform the audit,
how the audit requirement affected subgrantees, and if the audit was
fiscal or performance based. Section 101 (h) of the Specialty Crops
Competitiveness Act provides that the State shall conduct an audit of
the expenditures of grant funds by the State. The Act further provides
that not later than 30 days after the completion of the audit, the
State shall submit a copy of the audit to the USDA. Accordingly, the
State and not the subgrantee is accountable for audit requirements.
Furthermore, under this program, an audit is required to be conducted.
Whether the Single Audit Act applies or not to an eligible grantee,
audit results must be provided to AMS for the SCBGP grant expenditures.
Government Auditing Standards are applicable as provided for under the
Act as well as revised OMB Circular A-133, ``Audits of States, Local
Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.''
General
One commenter asked for a cost benefit analysis on the SCBGP. The
SCBGP is authorized by statute to enhance the competitiveness of
specialty crops. We have conducted the required analyses for the
rulemaking, which appear as part of this document. The commenter also
recommended records be kept for seven years. We disagree. State
departments of agriculture will be required to retain records
pertaining to the SCBGP for 3 years after completion of the grant
period or until final resolution of any audit findings or litigation
claims relating to the SCBGP. This is a part of normal business
practice and consistent with USDA regulations (7 CFR parts 3015 and
3016).
Finally, we have added for clarity a paragraph (f) to Sec. 1290.9
concerning the three year record retention period.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the AMS had previously submitted this information
collection to OMB and obtained approval of this information collection
under OMB number 0581-0236.
The information collection requirements in this request are applied
only to those State departments of agriculture who voluntarily
participate in the SCBGP. The information collected is needed for the
implementation of the SCBGP, to determine a State department of
agriculture's eligibility in the program, and to certify that grant
participants are complying with applicable program regulations. Data
collected is the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out
the requirements of the program, and to fulfill the intent of Section
101 of the Competitiveness Act of 2004.
State departments of agriculture who wish to participate in the
SCBGP will have to submit standard form SF-424, ``Application for
Federal Assistance'', approved under OMB4040-0004. After
receipt of the SF-424, the State department of agriculture will have to
submit SF-424B, ``Assurances-Non-Construction Programs'', approved
under OMB0348-0040 as part of the grant agreement to the AMS.
The State department of agriculture will then submit to the AMS 90 days
after the expiration date of the grant period SF269 ``Financial Status
Report (Long Form)'', if the project had program income, approved under
OMB0348-
[[Page 53307]]
0039, or SF269A ``Financial Status Report (Short Form)'', approved
under OMB0348-0038.
Completed applications must also include a State plan to show how
grant funds will be utilized to enhance the competitiveness of
specialty crops.
After approval of a grant application, State departments of
agriculture will have to enter into a grant agreement with AMS by
reading and signing the grant agreement.
The grant period is not to exceed three calendar years, therefore
State departments of agriculture will have to submit to AMS annual
performance reports within 90 days after the first year of the grant
agreement and within 90 days after the second year of the grant
agreement.
If a project goes beyond the grant period, not to exceed three
years, a State department of agriculture will have to submit a letter
to AMS requesting a grant period extension.
A State department of agriculture will have to submit a final
performance report to AMS within 90 days following the expiration date
of the grant period.
No later than 60 days after expiration of the grant period, a State
will be required to conduct an audit of SCBGP grant funds. An audit
report will be required to be submitted to AMS no later than 30 days
after completion of the audit.
The SCBGP is expected to accomplish the goal of enhancing the
competitiveness of specialty crops.
This program would not be maintained by any other agency,
therefore, the requested information will not be available from any
other existing records.
AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general
to provide the public the option of submitting information or
transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. The
SF forms and State plan can be filled out electronically and printed
out for submission or filled out electronically and submitted as an
attachment through Grants.gov. The annual performance reports, final
performance report, and the audit report/executive summary can be
submitted electronically. The grant agreement requires an original
signature and can be submitted by mail.
Finally, State departments of agriculture will be required to
retain records pertaining to the SCBGP for 3 years after completion of
the grant period or until final resolution of any audit findings or
litigation claims relating to the SCBGP. This is a part of normal
business practice and consistent with USDA regulations (7 CFR Parts
3015 and 3016).
The estimated one-time cost for all State departments of
agriculture in completing the information collection is $9,980. This
total cost was calculated by multiplying the estimated 499 total burden
hours by $20 per hour (a sum deemed reasonable, shall the respondents
be compensated for this time).
Comments were invited on the information collection in the April
20, 2006, notice of proposed rulemaking. The deadline for comments
ended on June 19, 2006. Five comments were received stating the time
estimated to prepare applications and reports is understated because
many hours of planning would have to occur before a State department of
agriculture could prepare an application that might include multiple
projects and subgrantees. AMS recognized that there would be planning
involved in the preparation of the information collection and included
this time into the average burden hours per response. AMS believes that
the burden hours stated in the rule are accurate because the burden
hours are based on the average time it takes the 52 State departments
of agriculture to complete the information collection requirements.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1290
Specialty crop block grants, Agriculture, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Title 7, Chapter XI of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
0
1. A new part 1290 is added to read as follows:
PART 1290--SPECIALTY CROP BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
Sec.
1290.1 Purpose and scope.
1290.2 Definitions.
1290.3 Eligible grant applicants.
1290.4 Eligible grant project.
1290.5 Restrictions and limitations on grant funds.
1290.6 Completed application.
1290.7 Review of grant applications.
1290.8 Grant agreements.
1290.9 Reporting and oversight requirements.
1290.10 Audit requirements.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621 note.
Sec. 1290.1 Purpose and scope.
Pursuant to the authority conferred by Section 101 of the Specialty
Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note) AMS will make
grants to States to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein and other
applicable federal statutes and regulations including, but not limited
to, 7 CFR Part 3016.
Sec. 1290.2 Definitions.
(a) AMS means the Agricultural Marketing Service of the U. S.
Department of Agriculture.
(b) Application means application for Specialty Crop Block Grant
Program.
(c) ``Enhancing the competitiveness'' of specialty crops includes,
but is not limited to: Research, promotion, marketing, nutrition, trade
enhancement, food safety, food security, plant health programs,
education, ``buy local'' programs, increased consumption, increased
innovation, improved efficiency and reduced costs of distribution
systems, environmental concerns and conservation, product development,
and developing cooperatives.
(d) Grant period means the period of time from when the grant
agreement is signed until the completion of all SCBGP projects
submitted in the State plan.
(e) Grantee means the government to which a grant is awarded and
which is accountable for the use of the funds provided. The grantee is
the entire legal entity even if only a particular component of the
entity is designated in the grant agreement.
(f) Outcome measure means an event or condition that is external to
the project and that is of direct importance to the intended
beneficiaries and/or the public.
(g) Project means all proposed activities to be funded by the
SCBGP.
(h) Specialty crop means fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, dried
fruits, and nursery crops (including floriculture).
(i) State means the fifty States, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
(j) State department of agriculture means the agency, commission,
or department of a State government responsible for agriculture within
the State.
(k) Subgrantee means the government or other legal entity to which
a subgrant is awarded and which is accountable to the grantee for the
use of funds provided.
Sec. 1290.3 Eligible grant applicants.
Eligible grant applicants are State departments of agriculture from
the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
[[Page 53308]]
Sec. 1290.4 Eligible grant project.
(a) To be eligible for a grant, the project(s) must enhance the
competitiveness of specialty crops.
(b) To be eligible for a grant, the project(s) must be completed 3
calendar years after the grant agreement prescribed in Sec. 1290.8 is
signed. The grant period is established by the longest approved project
submitted in the State plan. However, for cause, an extension of the
grant period not to exceed three years may be granted by AMS on a case
by case basis with a written request from the State.
Sec. 1290.5 Restrictions and limitations on grant funds.
(a) Grant funds may not be used to fund political activities in
accordance with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508 and
7324-7326).
(b) All travel expenses associated with SCBGP projects must follow
Federal Travel Regulations (41 CFR Chapters 300 through 304) unless
State travel requirements are in place.
(c) Grant funds shall supplement the expenditure of State funds in
support of specialty crops grown in that State, rather than replace
State funds.
Sec. 1290.6 Completed application.
Completed applications shall be clear and succinct and shall
include the following documentation satisfactory to AMS.
(a) Completed applications must include an SF-424 ``Application for
Federal Assistance''.
(b) Completed applications must also include one State plan to show
how grant funds will be utilized to enhance the competitiveness of
specialty crops. The state plan shall include the following:
(1) Cover page. Include the lead agency for administering the plan
and an abstract of 200 words or less for each proposed project.
(2) Project purpose. Clearly state the specific issue, problem,
interest, or need to be addressed. Explain why each project is
important and timely.
(3) Potential impact. Discuss the number of people or operations
affected, the intended beneficiaries of each project, and/or potential
economic impact if such data are available and relevant to the
project(s).
(4) Financial feasibility. For each project, provide budget
estimates for the total project cost. Indicate what percentage of the
budget covers administrative costs. Administrative costs should not
exceed 10 percent of any proposed budget. Provide a justification if
administrative costs are higher than 10 percent.
(5) Expected measurable outcomes. Describe at least two discrete,
quantifiable, and measurable outcomes that directly and meaningfully
support each project's purpose. The outcome measures must define an
event or condition that is external to the project and that is of
direct importance to the intended beneficiaries and/or the public.
(6) Goal(s). Describe the overall goal(s) in one or two sentences
for each project.
(7) Work plan. Explain briefly how each goal and measurable outcome
will be accomplished for each project. Be clear about who will do the
work. Include appropriate time lines. Expected measurable outcomes may
be long term that exceed the grant period. If so, provide a timeframe
when long term outcome measure will be achieved.
(8) Project oversight. Describe the oversight practices that
provide sufficient knowledge of grant activities to ensure proper and
efficient administration.
(9) Project commitment. Describe how all grant partners commit to
and work toward the goals and outcome measures of the proposed
project(s).
(10) Multi-state projects. If the project is a multi-state project,
describe how the States are going to collaborate effectively with
related projects. Each State participating in the project should submit
the project in their State plan indicating which State is taking the
coordinating role and the percent of the budget covered by each State.
Sec. 1290.7 Review of grant applications.
Applications will be reviewed and approved or rejected as
appropriate for conformance with the provisions in Sec. 1290.6. AMS
may request the applicant provide for additional information or
clarification.
Sec. 1290.8 Grant agreements.
(a) After review and approval of a grant application, AMS will
enter into a grant agreement with the State department of agriculture.
(b) AMS grant agreements will include at a minimum the following:
(1) The projects in the approved State plan.
(2) Total amount of Federal financial assistance that will be
advanced.
(3) Terms and conditions pursuant to which AMS will fund the
project(s).
Sec. 1290.9 Reporting and oversight requirements.
(a) An annual performance report will be required of all State
departments of agriculture 90 days after the end of the first year of
the date of the signed grant agreement and each year until the
expiration date of the grant period. If the grant period is one year or
less, then only a final performance report (see paragragh (b) of this
section) is required. The annual performance report shall include the
following:
(1) Briefly summarize activities performed, targets, and/or
performance goals achieved during the reporting period for each
project.
(2) Note unexpected delays or impediments as well as favorable or
unusual developments for each project.
(3) Outline work to be performed during the next reporting period
for each project.
(4) Comment on the level of grant funds expended to date for each
project.
(b) A final performance report will be required by the State
department of agriculture within 90 days following the expiration date
of the grant period. The final progress report shall include the
following:
(1) An outline of the issue, problem, interest, or need for each
project.
(2) How the issue or problem was approached via the project(s).
(3) How the goals of each project were achieved.
(4) Results, conclusions, and lessons learned for each project.
(5) How progress has been made to achieve long term outcome
measures for each project.
(6) Additional information available (e.g. publications, Web
sites).
(7) Contact person for each project with telephone number and e-
mail address.
(c) A final SF-269A ``Financial Status Report (Short Form)'' (SF-
269 ``Financial Status Report (Long Form)'' if the project(s) had
program income) is required within 90 days following the expiration
date of the grant period.
(d) AMS will monitor States, as it determines necessary, to assure
that projects are completed in accordance with the approved State plan.
If AMS, after reasonable notice to a State, finds that there has been a
failure by the State to comply substantially with any provision or
requirement of the State plan, AMS may disqualify, for one or more
years, the State from receipt of future grants under the SCBGP.
(e) States shall diligently monitor performance to ensure that time
schedules are being met, project work within designated time periods is
being accomplished, and other performance measures are being achieved.
(f) State departments of agriculture shall retain records
pertaining to the SCBGP for 3 years after completion of the grant
period or until final resolution of any audit findings or litigation
claims relating to the SCBGP.
[[Page 53309]]
Sec. 1290.10 Audit requirements.
The State is accountable for conducting a financial audit of the
expenditures of all SCBGP funds. The State shall submit to AMS not
later than 30 days after completion of the audit, a copy of the audit
results.
Dated: September 6, 2006.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 06-7580 Filed 9-6-06; 4:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P