FR 2020-29010

The document issued by the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, a part of the USDA, serves as an important correction notice to a previous Federal Register announcement concerning the Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) Program. This correction notice clarifies the inaccuracies in the initial publication, specifically addressing the misreporting of the available funds and a significant omission regarding the submission methods of applications.

General Summary

Originally, the December 21, 2020, notice reported incorrect funding amounts for the VAPG program and omitted the option for applicants to submit their applications via electronic mail. This correction details that approximately $33 million is now confirmed to be available for the program. Additionally, it highlights that applications can be submitted either in paper form or electronically, either by email or through the Grants.gov website. The updated notice provides specific deadlines for submission and advises applicants to ensure that applications are received by the appropriate Rural Development State Office by the designated due dates.

Issues and Concerns

There are several notable concerns associated with this correction notice. Firstly, while the notice corrects the available funding to $33 million, it does not explain why this specific amount is available, which might raise questions about the allocation of funds. This lack of context could leave applicants curious about the factors influencing this financial figure.

The notice also mentions the possibility of submitting applications in different formats, but it does not clarify whether these methods are prioritized differently or if one option is more feasible than the other. Such ambiguity may bewilder applicants trying to choose the optimal submission method to guarantee consideration.

Moreover, while the notice emphasizes the necessity of registering on the Grants.gov website for electronic submissions, it does not provide detailed instructions or offer a direct link to assist, which could be a hurdle for first-time or novice applicants unfamiliar with the online system.

Finally, the instructions for submitting applications to the appropriate State Office assume that applicants are aware of which office pertains to their project. This could be problematic for applicants that are unsure about the correct office and need further guidance or support.

Impact on the Public

Broadly, this correction enhances the transparency and accessibility of the VAPG program by providing clear information about the available funding and submission procedures. Offering multiple submission methods can be advantageous, reducing barriers created by the need for physical mailing, especially in remote areas.

Impact on Stakeholders

For potential grant applicants, particularly small and rural producers, the accurate figure of available funding may bring renewed enthusiasm and planning certainty. However, the persistent ambiguity over submission procedures and State Office designation could hinder efficient application processes and possibly lead to disqualification due to misunderstandings or misdirection.

Rural Development State Offices may also see a varied impact, as confusion over submission protocols could increase inquiries and requests for assistance, potentially straining resources.

The corrected notice makes strides in rectifying initial inconsistencies but leaves room for enhancement in providing comprehensive guidance and clarity to stakeholders. A more thorough breakdown of processes and the rationale behind funding decisions could greatly benefit all parties involved.

In the correction notice regarding the Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) Program, the financial allocation is specifically adjusted to indicate that approximately $33 million is currently available for the program. This correction addresses an earlier error in a prior Federal Register document, which incorrectly listed the available funds. The designation of financial resources is crucial as it determines the scope and reach of the program’s support to producers who add value to their products.

The mention of the $33 million allocation is relevant to applicants who need to understand the financial scope within which the VAPG operates. However, the document does not provide any context or justification for why this particular amount has been set. This lack of explanation could lead to uncertainties among applicants or stakeholders about whether the amount is sufficient to meet the needs of all potential grantees. Providing details about the calculation or considerations that led to this budget could enhance transparency and understanding among those interested.

Another aspect where the financial reference ties into the issues arises from the methods allowed for submitting applications. The document states that applications may be submitted either in paper form or via electronic mail. Yet, it does not clarify whether one method of submission might receive processing priority over the other. Since the financial aspect often includes deadlines and prioritization for the allocation of limited resources, knowing if the submission method impacts the timing or treatment of applications could be significant for grant seekers aiming to benefit from the $33 million fund.

Furthermore, while the document mentions that electronic applications are accepted through Grants.gov, it briefly touches on the necessity for applicants to register online but lacks detailed guidance on how to navigate this process efficiently. Given that new or inexperienced applicants may want to access the $33 million allocation, offering more comprehensive instructions could prevent difficulties or delays in accessing these funds.

Finally, the document's instructions for submitting applications to the appropriate Rural Development State Office are linked to how these financial resources are distributed geographically. Ensuring that applicants correctly identify the office best suited to their project location is crucial for the equitable distribution of the $33 million allocation. More assistance or clear guidance in this process may help prevent misdirection of funds and ensure that projects across various states have appropriate access to the grant's financial resources.