30-day FR notice

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Notices

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

accessory parking spaces to be located
in a parking lot on the roof of a building.
• Zoning text amendment to modify
ZR Section 78–42 to permit a reduction
of parking requirements for affordable
housing units in LSRDs in Community
District 6 in the Borough of the Bronx.
• Zoning text amendment consistent
with the City’s proposed Mandatory
Inclusionary Housing text amendment.
• Coastal zone consistency
determination.
• Site plan approval by the Mayor
and City Council pursuant to SCA
requirements for the proposed school on
Parcel 10.
The Proposed Project may also seek
funding from HPD, the New York City
Housing Development Corporation
(HDC), New York State Homes and
Community Renewal (HCR), and other
State agencies for affordable housing
construction. In addition, the Proposed
Project would require approval by HUD
of the reassignment of project-based
rental assistance contracts, and may also
seek HOME funds or other federal
funding originating from HUD.
The Proposed Project is intended to
improve the quality of life for current
Lambert Houses residents while
increasing the number of affordable
housing units in the Project Area. The
Project Area is underdeveloped, with
less floor area than even the current
zoning districts allow, and less density
than much of the surrounding
neighborhood. The existing buildings
were constructed between 1970 and
1973 and have antiquated and
inefficient building systems.
Furthermore, the configuration and
circulation plan of the buildings, with
multiple entrances and egresses,
compromise building security by
making control of access difficult. The
retail space currently on the site is
inefficient, with storefronts set back far
from the street wall, poor frontage, and
inadequate storage space for merchants.
The proposed new LSRD and
associated special permits and
authorizations, including waivers of
height and setback requirements, are
being requested in order to allow for the
redistribution of floor area across the
entire project area, creating a site plan,
building layout and design superior to
what would be allowed as-of-right
under the current LSRD.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
will be analyzed in the EIS. Typically,
the Alternatives section in an EIS
examines development options that
would tend to reduce project-related
impacts. The full range of alternatives
will be defined when the full extent of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Sep 29, 2015

Jkt 235001

the Proposed Project’s impacts is
identified, but at this time, it is
anticipated that they will include the
following:
Alternative 1—No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative assumes
that the existing uses in the Project Area
would remain.
Alternative 2—All Residential Scenario
on Parcel 10 (No School) Alternative
This alternative would analyze an
additional 55 residential units on Parcel
10 (no school would be proposed).
Alternative 3—No Unmitigated Adverse
Impacts Alternative
If significant adverse impacts are
identified in the EIS, this alternative
would describe the modifications to the
project that would be needed to avoid
any such impacts.
Other possible alternatives may be
developed in consultation with the
project sponsor, DCP, and HPD during
the EIS preparation process and may be
suggested by the public during the
scoping of the EIS.
B. Need for the EIS
The proposed project may constitute
an action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment and
an EIS will be prepared on this project
in accordance with CEQR and NEPA.
Responses to this notice will be used to:
(1) Determine significant environmental
issues, (2) identify data that the EIS
should address, and (3) identify
agencies and other parties that will
participate in the EIS process and the
basis for their involvement.
C. Scoping
A public EIS scoping meeting will be
held at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday,
October 21, 2015 at the Daly
Community Room located at 921 E.
180th Street, Bronx, New York 10460.
The EIS scoping meeting, which will
also satisfy the scoping meeting
requirement for SEQR/CEQR, will
provide an opportunity for the public to
learn more about the project and
provide input to the environmental
process. At the meeting, an overview of
the project will be presented and
members of the public will be invited to
comment on the proposed project and
the scope of work for the environmental
analyses in the EIS. Written comments
and testimony concerning the scope of
the EIS will be accepted by HPD at this
meeting and will also be accepted until
the close of business on November 2,
2015. In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7
affected Federal, State, and local
agencies, any affected Native American

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58759

tribe, and other interested parties will
be sent a scoping notice. To satisfy the
requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.8, the
scoping hearing will be preceded by a
public notice published in the New
York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB)
and the New York City Record at least
30 days prior to the hearing date.
D. Probable Environmental Effects
The following subject areas will be
analyzed in the combined EIS for
probable environmental impacts: Land
Use, Zoning, and Public Policy;
Socioeconomic Conditions; Community
Facilities and Services; Open Space;
Shadows; Historic Resources; Urban
Design/Visual Resources; Natural
Resources; Hazardous Materials; Water
and Sewer Infrastructure; Solid Waste
and Sanitation Services; Energy;
Transportation (including traffic,
parking, pedestrian conditions, and
transit); Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; Noise; Neighborhood
Character; Construction Impacts; Public
Health; and Environmental Justice.
Questions may be directed to the
individual named in this notice under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Dated: September 21, 2015.
Harriet Tregoning,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Community Planning and Development.
[FR Doc. 2015–24850 Filed 9–29–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–WSFR–2015–N190;
FVWF941009000007B–XXX–FF09W11000;
FVWF51100900000–XXX–FF09W11000]

Information Collection Request Sent to
the Office of Management and Budget
for Approval; Wildlife and Sport Fish
Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:

We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) have sent an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval. We summarize the
ICR below and describe the nature of the
collection and the estimated burden and
cost. This information collection is
scheduled to expire on September 30,
2015. We may not conduct or sponsor
and a person is not required to respond

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM

30SEN1

58760

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Notices

to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. However, under OMB
regulations, we may continue to
conduct or sponsor this information
collection while it is pending at OMB.
You must submit comments on
or before October 30, 2015.

DATES:

Send your comments and
suggestions on this information
collection to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior at OMB–
OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or OIRA_
Submission@omb.eop.gov (email).
Please provide a copy of your comments
to the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–

ADDRESSES:

3803 (mail), or hope_grey@fws.gov
(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0109’’ in
the subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Hope Grey at hope_
grey@fws.gov (email) or 703–358–2482
(telephone). You may review the ICR
online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow
the instructions to review Department of
the Interior collections under review by
OMB.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Collection Request
OMB Control Number: 1018–0109.
Title: Wildlife and Sport Fish Grants
and Cooperative Agreements, 50 CFR
parts 80, 81, 84, 85, and 86.
Service Form Number: None.
Number of
respondents

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Activity

Type of Request: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents: States;
the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and
the Northern Mariana Islands; the
District of Columbia; the territories of
Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, and
American Samoa; federally recognized
tribal governments; institutions of
higher education; and nongovernmental
organizations.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: Annually for
applications for new grants; on occasion
for amendments; and annually and at
the end of the project for performance
reports. We may require more frequent
reports under the conditions stated at 2
CFR 200.205 and 2 CFR 200.207.
Number of
responses

Completion
time per
response

Total annual
burden hours

Initial Application (project narrative) ................................................................
Revision of Award Terms (Amendment) .........................................................
Performance Reports .......................................................................................

200
150
200

2,500
1,500
3,500

37
3
8

92,500
4,500
28,000

Totals ........................................................................................................

550

7,500

........................

125,000

Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden
Cost: None.
Abstract: The Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program (WSFR), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, administers
financial assistance programs in whole
or in part (see 80 FR 31061, June 1,
2015). We award most financial
assistance as grants, but cooperative
agreements are possible if the Federal
Government will be substantially
involved in carrying out the project.
You can find a description of most
programs in the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance. Some financial
assistance programs are directly funded
through WSFR, others are funded
through non-WSFR Federal programs
and WSFR administers various aspects
of the financial assistance. When WSFR
administers a grant in part or in whole,
it follows the same processes for
information collection to ensure the
recipient complies with Federal laws,
regulations, and policies applicable to
financial assistance.
Authorities and implementing
regulations establish the purposes of the
grant programs and the types of projects
to be funded. Some list eligibility
criteria as well as activities ineligible for
funding. The authorities and
implementing regulations for the
competitive programs establish
preferences or ranking factors for the
selection of projects to be funded. These
legal requirements make it essential for

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Sep 29, 2015

Jkt 235001

an awarding agency to have certain
information so that it funds only eligible
projects, and, in the case of competitive
programs, to select those projects that
will result in the greatest return on the
Federal investment.
Some grants are mandatory and
receive funds according to a formula set
by law or policy. Other grants are
discretionary, and we award them based
on a competitive process. Mandatory
grant recipients must give us specific,
detailed project information during the
application process so that we can
ensure that projects are eligible for the
mandatory funding, are substantial in
character and design, and comply with
all applicable Federal laws. All grantees
must submit financial and performance
reports that contain information
necessary for us to track costs and
accomplishments.
In February 2014, OMB approved our
request to use a new electronic system
(Wildlife Tracking and Reporting
Actions for the Conservation of Species
(Wildlife TRACS)) to collect application
and performance reporting information
on our grant programs. OMB assigned
OMB Control No. 1018–0156, which
expires February 28, 2017. Wildlife
TRACS allows us to take advantage of
newer technology and gives applicants
direct access to enter project
information that can be used to submit
an application through http://
www.grants.gov (Grants.gov). Grantees

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

can also report performance
accomplishments in Wildlife TRACS.
We are including the use of Wildlife
TRACS and the collection of additional
information in this revision to OMB
Control No. 1018–0109. If OMB
approves this revision, we will
discontinue OMB Control No. 1018–
0156.
We may require all States to directly
enter project information and
performance reporting into Wildlife
TRACS by October 1, 2016. We continue
to offer training and support to States on
entering information into the new
system. When States fully engage in
directly entering all application and
project performance reporting into
Wildlife TRACS, we expect there will be
a reduction in the burden to report the
information. States will become more
adept with experience, and efficiencies
of the electronic system will be realized
starting in the second full year of use.
A majority of WSFR-administered
projects are continuations of similar
actions and/or at the same locations.
Wildlife TRACS is designed to ease the
administrative burden of applying for
and reporting on grants for projects that
fall into these parameters. The table
above reflects the burden reduction that
we expect over the next 3 years. Not all
grantees will directly enter information
into Wildlife TRACS. We will enter
information when we determine that it
is not efficient or in the best interest of

E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM

30SEN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Notices
the program to have grantees enter
information.
To apply for financial assistance
funds, you must submit an application
that describes in substantial detail
project locations, benefits, funding, and
other characteristics. Materials to assist
applicants in formulating project
proposals are available on Grants.gov.
We use the application to determine:
• Eligibility.
• Scale of resource values or relative
worth of the project.
• If associated costs are reasonable
and allowable.
• Potential effect of the project on
environmental and cultural resources.
• How well the proposed project will
meet the purposes of the program’s
establishing legislation.
• If the proposed project is
substantial in character and design.
• For competitive programs, how the
proposed project addresses ranking
criteria.
Persons or entities receiving grants
must submit periodic performance
reports that contain information
necessary for us to track costs and
accomplishments. Information for
amendments to grants will be collected
as needed.
We will collect the following
information under OMB Control No.
1018–0109:
Applications.
• Summary and project narratives
that describe the proposed project;
• Need for assistance;
• Approach;
• Timelines;
• Budget information including a
budget narrative;
• Geospatial entry of project location;
• Project status (active, completed,
etc.);
• Project leader contact information;
• Partner information;
• Objectives, including output
measures and desired future values;
• Public description;
• Action status (active, completed,
etc.);
• Summary trend information, as
applicable;
• Estimated costs, by action. (nonauditable);
• Effectiveness measures (initially for
State Wildlife Grants);
• Plan information (for projects
connected to plans);
• Information related to outcomes;
and
• Addressing ranking factors, as
required by competitive grant programs.
For research and demonstration
assistance requests:
• A biographical sketch of the
program director with the following

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Sep 29, 2015

Jkt 235001

information: Name, address, telephone
number, background, and other
qualifying experience for the project;
and
• The name, training, and background
for other key personnel engaged in the
project.
For real property acquisition projects:
• Maps, images, and other data that
reflect project location and benefits;
• Transactions, such as dates, method
of transfer, title holder, and seller;
• Identifiers, such as State and
Federal Record ID, parcel number, and
property name;
• Values such as appraised value,
purchase price and other cost
information, and acres or acre feet;
• Encumbrances;
• Partners;
• Copies of any options, purchase
agreements, mineral assessment reports,
and draft conservation easements; and
• Information needed for legal
compliance; and copies of documents
that demonstrate the grantee complied
with 49 CFR 24, 2 CFR 200, program
regulations, and other mandatory legal
requirements.
Amendments. Most grantees must
explain and justify requests for
amendments to terms of the grant. We
use this information to determine the
eligibility and allowability of activities
and to comply with the requirements of
2 CFR 200.
Performance Reports. All grantees
must submit performance reports in the
format requested by the Service. We use
this information to ensure that the
grantee is accomplishing the work on
schedule and to identify any problems
that the grantee may be experiencing in
accomplishing that work. Grantees
submit annual reports; however,
reporting periods may be adjusted
according to regulations at 2 CFR
200.328. Reports may include:
• A comparison of actual
accomplishments with the goals and
objectives established for the period, the
findings of the investigator, or both.
• Reasons why established goals were
not met, if appropriate.
• Other pertinent information
including, when appropriate, (1)
analysis and explanation of cost
overruns or high unit costs and (2) for
land acquisition projects, a copy of the
deed or other conveyance document and
a copy of the Notice of Federal
Participation.
Comments Received and Our Responses
On June 1, 2015, we published in the
Federal Register (80 FR 31061) a notice
of our intent to request that OMB renew
approval for this information collection.
In that notice, we solicited comments

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58761

for 60 days, ending on July 31, 2015. We
received comments from eight States
and one individual.
Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility.
Comment: Two respondents agreed
that the collection of information is
necessary and has always been a
requirement of WSFR. However, they
expressed concerns with the format,
saying that using Wildlife TRACS is
forcing States to change their
established procedures.
Response: We agree that States have
always had the responsibility to develop
and submit performance reports for
projects/grants. Prior to Wildlife
TRACS, States submitted written reports
to the Service. Service staff then
interpreted and entered the information
into the electronic system (Federal Aid
Information Management System
(FAIMS)). The Department of the
Interior decommissioned FAIMS on
October 1, 2012. We are required by law
to collect performance information.
Wildlife TRACS gives us the
opportunity to allow States to more
accurately report information by
entering it directly. We agree that both
Federal and State procedures for
information sharing/data entry are
changing following the
decommissioning of FAIMS and the
introduction of Wildlife TRACS. We are
working closely with States to improve
information collection and data entry so
that the adjustment to using Wildlife
TRACS will lead to more efficient and
effective reporting. We are open to
suggestions for further improvements.
Comment: One commenter stated that
rather than thinking of Wildlife TRACS
as an ‘‘increase in the amount of data’’
that grantees will be required to submit,
using Wildlife TRACS should be
thought of as a ‘‘change in the format’’
that the data is submitted. States are
already providing the information, just
in a different format. This new format
will not constitute a significant increase
in the time or resources required to
either create or report on a project.
Response: We agree and thank the
respondent for recognizing that using
Wildlife TRACS is changing the format
for collecting information to a more
efficient and effective electronic system.
Comment: Two respondents stated
that the Wildlife TRACS structure does
not provide a clear benefit to either
States or Regional FWS Offices.
Response: We disagree. The Wildlife
TRACS structure is intuitive and helps
users enter information in a logical
progression. The fields provided assist
users to consider all needed

E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM

30SEN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

58762

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Notices

information, allowing the Service to
more efficiently review and approve
projects. Once States become familiar
with the Wildlife TRACS format, it will
allow users to better design Wildlife
TRACS-ready projects and provide the
Service with adequate information to
make decisions. As more projects are
entered into Wildlife TRACS, States and
the Service will be able to run more
robust reports that will help identify
trends, determine best processes,
quantify results, and inform future
actions. As additional system
improvements are made, more reporting
and data analyses tools will be available
to provide benefit to the Service and
users.
Comment: One respondent stated that
Wildlife TRACS is forcing States to alter
the format of existing grants and
performance reporting to fit the Wildlife
TRACS format, rather than a format that
States feel works best for their particular
projects.
Response: We agree that Wildlife
TRACS is a different format for data
collection, but disagree that the change
in format affects the ability of States to
design and implement projects. Wildlife
TRACS does not represent a change in
program requirements or substantiality
in character or design. We will not
require users to retroactively enter
information into Wildlife TRACS.
Wildlife TRACS data entry will only be
required going forward. We have
imported information on past projects
from FAIMS into Wildlife TRACS as
legacy data.
Comment: One respondent objected to
using the tools in Wildlife TRACS, such
as targeted fields and drop down menus,
and connecting them back to SMART
(Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant, Time-bound) objectives that
have significant limitations and
questionable utility for reporting.
Response: We disagree. The interface
and tools in Wildlife TRACS are
designed to logically guide the user and
allow less complicated and varied data
entry. The selections provided in drop
down menus have been vetted through
Federal/State teams and it is believed
that they cover all possible choices for
the information needed. Often, a single
metric may be characterized through
many variations in language.
Standardizing certain entries by limiting
selections allows us to generate reports
that include all projects that have
similar components without having to
search for all the variations in language.
Using SMART objectives is integral to
project management and helps users
focus on the desired outputs. Wildlife
TRACS is designed to give users the
flexibility to use the SMART objective

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Sep 29, 2015

Jkt 235001

fields or to create SMART objectives in
narrative format.
Comment: One respondent stated that
Wildlife TRACS is explained as a way
of collecting and reporting useful
information for all grant-funded actions.
However, the type and purposes of
grants is so varied, with such wideranging objectives, that Wildlife TRACS
information can only be captured and
reported effectively at a very high level.
Response: We agree that a large
variety of projects will be reported in
Wildlife TRACS, but we disagree with
the respondent’s statement that suggests
reporting won’t be relevant. Reporting is
required down to the ‘‘Action level’’ for
most projects. This allows us to produce
reports that address both high-level and
detailed perspectives, depending on
need. Wildlife TRACS offers both
standardized and customizable
approaches for describing objectives in
an effort to encapsulate the varied grant
types and purposes.
Comment: Two respondents stated
that the grants submission and reporting
process, which has been successful for
many years, provides the Service with
the necessary information to approve
grants. Wildlife TRACS is not a system
that can readily be used to develop, edit,
and write a proposal. It is simply a
repository of the information, so there is
duplication of workload from Wildlife
TRACS data entry.
Response: We disagree. Paper
submissions often lacked required
information and led to additional
workload for both Federal and State
grant managers. Wildlife TRACS is
designed to guide users to address all
pertinent project information. We offer
training for project leaders that will
assist them in using Wildlife TRACS to
help build projects. Although Wildlife
TRACS is not a grant application
system, users can produce reports from
Wildlife TRACS that they can then use
when submitting grant applications
through Grants.gov. Future
enhancements to Wildlife TRACS may
include the ability to transmit a
proposal to Grants.gov for approval.
Wildlife TRACS does not create a
duplication of effort as we do not
require that the information entered into
Wildlife TRACS also be submitted on
paper.
Comment: Two respondents
expressed that the Service should retain
the responsibility to enter data into
Wildlife TRACS. One stated that the
information collected has no practical
utility for State programs, which will be
charged with managing data input.
Their opinion is that Wildlife TRACS is
strictly a Service project that is geared
for the benefit of the Service. The States

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

are well-served for State purposes by the
present grant reporting system, which
allows States to submit usable products
as evidence of grant/project completion.
The easing of burdens is only realized
by Service staff, not by States. The other
respondent stated the transfer of
workload will greatly increase
administrative costs for States.
Response: We disagree. The
information collection will give States
the ability to accurately reflect project
objectives and accomplishments, as well
as providing information that will help
States to better assess conservation
needs and accomplishments. Wildlife
TRACS will allow users to directly enter
information, reducing errors from
misinterpretation by Service staff tasked
with translating and transmitting
information from paper to an electronic
system. Wildlife TRACS will also help
States address increased grant-recipient
responsibilities and provide for better
reporting of State accomplishments. The
reporting mechanisms in Wildlife
TRACS will help States provide
evidence of project/agency successes to
their elected representatives and the
public. Planning and reporting on
projects are already being done, so it is
a matter of adjusting resources to
accommodate Wildlife TRACS. We
believe that any increase in
administrative costs to States will be
temporary and may be addressed
through grant funding.
Comment: One respondent supported
using an electronic system to collect
application and performance reporting
information to demonstrate program
performance to interested stakeholders
and the general public. They also
appreciate the efforts of the Service to
minimize the burden, including the
October 1, 2016, date for State data
entry.
Response: We agree and thank the
respondent for the support.
Accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information.
Comment: One respondent stated that
many grants are ongoing and have been
in effect for more than 50 years. The
need to alter the structure of these
grants is overly burdensome.
Response: We believe the respondent
is referring to ongoing projects and not
ongoing grants. Grants have a period of
performance that is much less than 50
years. Based on this clarification, we
agree that using Wildlife TRACS is a
change in the method of reporting
information that will require States to
initially enter baseline information for
ongoing projects. However, once the
baseline information is entered, Wildlife
TRACS will allow efficiencies for

E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM

30SEN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Notices
ongoing similar projects. Users will be
able to assign new grants to existing
projects or to copy projects forward
through simple steps that will reduce
burden.
Comment: Three respondents
commented on their concerns about
performance reports. These concerns
addressed:
(1) The performance report that was
previously one paragraph in length must
now be reported through multiple tabs
within Wildlife TRACS to produce a
lengthy report;
(2) The ability to copy forward a
project will not produce the burden
reduction the Service suggests;
(3) The reports contain redundant
information; and
(4) Performance reports change from
year to year, so significant time must
still be spent to update pertinent
information.
Response: We disagree for the
following reasons:
(1) Data entry fields in Wildlife
TRACS are designed to guide the user
to make choices that will build the
project information, increasing accuracy
and efficiency. This does not affect the
length of reports;
(2) Once the baseline information for
an ongoing project is entered, Wildlife
TRACS allows the information to be
copied forward. This improves
efficiency in that the user will not be
required to repeat entering all
information for continued projects or
new, similar projects. Once a project is
copied forward, adjustments can be
made in selected fields to reflect desired
changes from the existing, copied
project. We remind users that the
Wildlife TRACS function to copy
projects forward is an option for users
as an efficiency, but doing so is not a
requirement. States may choose which
method of input is most efficient and
effective for their needs;
(3) Reports are created from
information in the fields, so if there is
redundant information it is because that
is what the user entered; and
(4) Users will not be required to pull
out reports and make changes; the
adjustments will be made through
logical changes in applicable fields. In
addition, when a project is copied
forward, it becomes a new project with
new performance reporting. There is no
requirement under the current reporting
system to revise performance
information on a completed project
based on other projects, nor will it be a
requirement when using Wildlife
TRACS.
Comment: One respondent stated that
the Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Sep 29, 2015

Jkt 235001

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
at 2 CFR part 200 were designed to
streamline the grant application process,
but they feel the requirements for
Wildlife TRACS go above and beyond
this, placing an undue burden on States
and representing steps backwards.
Response: We disagree. The focus of
2 CFR part 200 is to streamline guidance
that was previously published as several
regulations, into one regulation at 2 CFR
part 200. This regulatory update is part
of an overall effort to more effectively
focus Federal resources on improving
performance and outcomes while
ensuring the financial integrity of
taxpayer dollars in partnership with
non-Federal stakeholders. The guidance
at 2 CFR part 200 provides a
Governmentwide framework for grants
management that will be complemented
by additional efforts to strengthen
program outcomes through innovative
and effective use of grant-making
models, performance metrics, and
evaluation. Wildlife TRACS is the tool
that WSFR is using to fulfill this
directive.
Comment: Three respondents cited
several concerns regarding the role of
Wildlife TRACS when States apply for
grants and when the Service awards
grants. Their concerns include:
(1) States must complete Wildlife
TRACS data entry before a grant can be
approved. The addition of Wildlife
TRACS to the grant approval process is
excessive and not necessary for the
review and approval of grant
applications;
(2) Using Wildlife TRACS for grant
approval may put a State agency at risk
of reverting apportionments;
(3) The requirement to enter data into
Wildlife TRACS prior to a grant award
results in a duplication of effort, having
to submit the grant proposal twice; and
(4) Wildlife TRACS was proposed as
a reporting tool and never was supposed
to affect the application process.
Response: We disagree for the
following reasons:
(1) Wildlife TRACS is not used to
approve grants, but rather to approve
projects. Grantees are not required to
enter data for projects funded with one
of WSFR’s competitive grant programs
until after we award a grant. Grantees
are required to enter project information
and receive approval prior to project
start for projects funded under one of
WSFR’s mandatory grant programs.
However, the Service does not award
mandatory grants based on Wildlife
TRACS data entry. Mandatory grants are
apportioned according to a formula set
by law. Entering information for
mandatory grant projects allows Service
staff the opportunity to review projects

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58763

to assure they meet program
requirements and are substantial in
character and design. This process
reduces risk and helps States avoid
unallowable, unnecessary, or
undesirable expenditures;
(2) It is the responsibility of the State
to avoid reverting funds. The time
required to approve a grant is not
related to Wildlife TRACS, but to the
availability of WSFR staff to review the
proposal, and the completeness of the
State’s submittal. When States fully
engage in Wildlife TRACS, they can use
the workflow tool to help save time and
more efficiently commit funds;
(3) As stated above, Wildlife TRACS
is not a grant-approval tool, so there is
no duplication of effort. However,
Wildlife TRACS gives users an option to
enter information into Wildlife TRACS
that can then produce a report that may
be used to supplement/support a grant
application; and
(4) Wildlife TRACS is a reporting tool.
In order to report on project
performance, we must know what the
project is and be able to compare
achievements against the proposal.
Wildlife TRACS allows users to enter
project information so that the Service
can easily see objectives and compare
them to achievements.
Comment: One respondent stated the
requirement to use Wildlife TRACS for
project approval may be problematic
and asks that the Service retain some
flexibility to accommodate urgent and/
or unusual situations.
Response: The project approval
process for mandatory grants requires
States to enter information into Wildlife
TRACS and route appropriately through
the workflow. We must maintain
consistent procedures to avoid
confusion and assure appropriate
project approval. However, having
Wildlife TRACS protocols in place does
not eliminate the ability of States to
coordinate with the Service when
special needs or circumstances arise.
Comment: Three respondents
suggested that Wildlife TRACS be
linked to Grants.gov, reducing a
duplication of effort and increased
workload for applicants. One suggestion
was that the Service use Grants.gov
instead of Wildlife TRACS to collect
project data.
Response: We agree that Wildlife
TRACS is not currently tied to
Grants.gov, but remind the respondents
that Wildlife TRACS is not a grant
application system. Grants.gov provides
a central portal for applicants to find
and apply for Federal financial
assistance. We do understand that often
a single grant may fully fund a project
and we continue to develop options that

E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM

30SEN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

58764

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Notices

users may choose to employ to ease the
burden of the application process
through Grants.gov. In the future, we
plan to implement a protocol where
Wildlife TRACS will use web services
published by Grants.gov to reduce any
potential duplication of effort. WSFR
anticipates that Wildlife TRACS will
offer this capability by December 2017.
Comment: Two respondents stated
that State agencies often submit
multiple grant applications and have a
rigorous State review process that
includes coordination among multiple
employees. A heavy workload to enter
information into Wildlife TRACS could
fall onto one employee because of the
complicated process, or will require
States to reassign staff or hire Wildlife
TRACS-specific personnel.
Response: We disagree, as Wildlife
TRACS is not a system that the Service
uses to approve grants, but rather assists
in efficient project approval. We agree
that States will have a transition period
while learning Wildlife TRACS, but we
disagree that having several project
leads is more burdensome using
Wildlife TRACS than when using the
current, paper-based process. A grant or
a project that requires coordination
among multiple layers of project leaders
and approvers must be managed
regardless of whether Wildlife TRACS is
used or not. The State processes for
reviewing and approving grant
applications and project proposals is a
State function, determined by the State
and not driven by Wildlife TRACS.
However, Wildlife TRACS may be
customized so that when a State has
large grants with multiple actions and
several project leads, they can manage
workflow among those multiple users.
Wildlife TRACS offers a workflow
option that can assist States to route
information among multiple staff and
receive project approvals much faster
than would happen if paper copies were
circulated. It is ultimately up to States
to determine the best approach for
managing reporting on all projects,
including those that are larger and more
complicated. We encourage States to
explore ways that Wildlife TRACS can
assist them to improve efficiencies
during the State preparation, review,
and approval phases. The Service is
open to suggestions for how Wildlife
TRACS might allow further efficiencies
for States to use when coordinating
projects among multiple employees.
Comment: Three respondents stated
concerns that the level of cost
accounting in Wildlife TRACS will
create a need to alter their internal
controls and accounting systems.
Wildlife TRACS defines a new focus
called the action level and requires

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Sep 29, 2015

Jkt 235001

associated accounting. Historically, this
level of reporting has not been required
for WSFR grants and creates an undue
burden.
Response: We disagree that Wildlife
TRACS is forcing States to change
internal controls and accounting
systems. States must maintain internal
controls within their agencies and they
should be designed to respond to a
variety of altering situations. Wildlife
TRACS workflow tools may be used to
complement internal processes. Wildlife
TRACS is not an accounting system;
however, the regulations at 2 CFR part
200.301 require ‘‘recipients to provide
cost information to demonstrate cost
effective practices’’ as part of their
performance measurement. To reduce
burden, it may be desirable for States to
work with the Service and determine
how Wildlife TRACS can best interface
with existing State electronic systems.
Although it may be advisable to
determine how State systems and using
Wildlife TRACS can better work
together, Wildlife TRACS does not
require States to change any of their
existing systems or internal controls.
The level of reporting is not a new
standard, but is a level that should have
been reported all along. By separating
projects into discrete actions, States and
WSFR can each evaluate project success
more efficiently.
Comment: Three respondents objected
to including effectiveness measures in
Wildlife TRACS beyond the State
Wildlife Grant program. One cited that
performance reporting (2 CFR
200.328(b)(2)) does not require
effectiveness measures. Also stated was
that measuring effectiveness on 1-year
grants is not always possible. Reporting
effectiveness creates an undue burden
on States.
Response: We disagree. Performance
measurement at 2 CFR 200.301 directs
that ‘‘the recipient’s performance should
be measured in a way that will help the
Federal awarding agency and other nonFederal entities to improve program
outcomes, share lessons learned, and
spread the adoption of promising
practices.’’ The language at 2 CFR
328(b)(2) does not include the term
‘‘effectiveness measures,’’ but does state
at paragraph (i), ‘‘Where performance
trend data and analysis would be
informative to the Federal awarding
agency program, the Federal awarding
agency should include this as a
performance reporting requirement.’’
Our approach is to demonstrate program
needs and accomplishments in a
meaningful way by moving to strategies
that will gather appropriate information
that can be used to adequately inform

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

the Service, States, elected officials,
interest organizations, and the public.
Comment: One respondent stated that
using Wildlife TRACS is taking staff
time away from satisfying grants. Given
the time constraints on current staff, we
are concerned we may have to hire new
staff just to address Wildlife TRACS.
Response: We agree that States will
have a transition period when moving
from processing paper documents to
embracing an electronic format.
However, Wildlife TRACS is not
creating additional project
requirements, but rather is a platform to
allow users to respond to current
requirements. Wildlife TRACS is
designed to assist by allowing States to
create an electronic workflow that suits
their current structure and at the same
time, will improve efficiency and
document access.
Comment: Two respondents
commented on the accuracy of the
estimated burden. One respondent
stated that they do not have sufficient
information on what type of projects,
whether new entries, and what iteration
of Wildlife TRACS was used. They
stated their opinion that Wildlife
TRACS becomes increasingly complex
and time-consuming. Since full grant
documents must still be submitted,
there is no doubt that time invested in
Wildlife TRACS data entry will be in
addition to grant applications and no
savings will be realized by States. The
other respondent stated that the
estimate of burden is too low. Wildlife
TRACS has the potential to reduce
burden in the future, but the current
burden should be increased by 50
percent.
Response: We make no changes in our
burden estimates based on these
comments. We are estimating the
burden that will be realized over the
next 3 years. We expect the burden to
be slightly higher when States first
transition to using Wildlife TRACS.
However, once States fully engage in
Wildlife TRACS we expect the burden
to significantly decrease. We agree that
our burden estimates are less
comprehensive due to the relatively
limited number of States that have fully
engaged in Wildlife TRACS. We based
burden estimates on information we
received from States that responded to
our questions, feedback from Service
staff, and our planned improvements to
Wildlife TRACS. Improvements under
development in Wildlife TRACS will
make the system more user-friendly and
streamlined, while targeting ways to
minimize burden. Also, we are
developing tools that States may choose
to use when applying for grants that will
reduce overall workload. The Service

E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM

30SEN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Notices
welcomes input and suggestions for
continual ways to improve Wildlife
TRACS efficiency.
Comment: One respondent stated that
Wildlife TRACS continues to undergo
changes and this makes it impossible to
accurately estimate burden.
Response: We agree that change is a
natural component of modern web
application development and
maintenance, particularly in response to
the rapid pace of technology and
security advancements. We have made
changes to the user experience in
Wildlife TRACS, based primarily on
recommendations from States and other
partners for ways to improve Wildlife
TRACS and reduce burden. We will
continue to work with our partners to
identify improvements and efficiencies
in data collection. Once States are fully
engaged in Wildlife TRACS data entry,
we will have a greater response base for
estimating burden.
Comment: One respondent stated that
Wildlife TRACS does not effectively
accommodate Comprehensive
Management System (CMS) reporting
and that the CMS enhancement will not
be completed by October 1, 2016.
Requiring CMS States to enter data into
the incomplete Wildlife TRACS system
by October 1, 2016, will be an undue
burden on CMS States. This deadline
should be extended for CMS States until
Wildlife TRACS is ready to accept CMS
data and the Service gives sufficient
time for CMS States to adjust internal
processes and train staff.
Response: We agree that Wildlife
TRACS does not fully accommodate
CMS reporting at this time. However, a
process has been vetted by a Federal/
State team that will allow CMS States to
begin to use Wildlife TRACS to capture
accomplishment data until the
application can be modified to more
easily accommodate the CMS structure.
The Service will require CMS States to
enter reporting information into
Wildlife TRACS, consistent with nonCMS States, and will adequately train
staff in using the approach identified.
Comment: One respondent supports
Wildlife TRACS by stating that States
have no good mechanism for reporting
project outcomes. An effort led by the
Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies developed effectiveness
measures for State Wildlife Grants,
which are being incorporated into
Wildlife TRACS. Although entering
more data will constitute an additional
reporting burden, this information will
allow us to provide Congress and the
public with a much better
understanding of our accomplishments.
We feel the expanded reporting

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Sep 29, 2015

Jkt 235001

opportunities will outweigh the
additional data entry burden.
Response: We agree that it is
important to incorporate reporting
information into Wildlife TRACS that
will fulfill legal requirements, our
responsibility to the public, and our
desire to inform the course of
conservation for the future. We continue
to consider approaches that will give the
greatest return for the least burden. We
thank this respondent for understanding
our combined responsibilities and the
importance of measuring the
effectiveness of our grant programs.
Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected.
Comment: One respondent suggested
that geospatial information should only
be entered as a component of
accomplishments and not required as
part of the application process.
Response: We make no changes based
on this comment. We remind
respondents that Wildlife TRACS is not
an application system. However, the
project statement in a grant application
requires location information, so
describing the location of a project
when applying is not a new
requirement. Wildlife TRACS is a
geospatial-based system and entering
location information is the first step in
data entry. We have learned that project
location is integral to conservation
efforts and expect that reports resulting
from Wildlife TRACS and overlapped
with other geospatial systems will
greatly improve overall conservation.
Wildlife TRACS allows for States to
initially enter general geospatial
information and to improve the
information as the project evolves and
completes, so perfecting geospatial
information comes in the
accomplishment phase, as suggested by
the respondent.
Comment: Two respondents suggested
that geospatial information should only
be collected at the project level and not
at the action level.
Response: We agree that there may be
projects for which it will be sufficient to
report geospatial information on a
project level, but others will require
more detail. There will also be projects
for which the location at the project
level and the action level are exactly the
same. The project scope is a factor when
determining the required level of
reporting. Wildlife TRACS enables users
to choose the precision of their
geospatial data as appropriate for the
project scope. The Service has also been
working with States to define needs of
various programs and the level of detail
desired to produce the reports that will
best support each program.

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

58765

Comment: One respondent
recommended several considerations for
upgrading the system, including:
Improving the mapping tool and GIS
detail, adding fields that allow States to
enter all parts of the project statement,
resolving some problems that have been
encountered with converting data
entries to pdf reports, addressing the
need for new/flexible standard
indicators, and providing fields for
additional information related to real
property purchases.
Response: We thank the respondent
for these thoughtful comments for
improvements to Wildlife TRACS and
will take all of these recommendations
under consideration.
Comment: One respondent submitted
comments asking for increased reporting
opportunities that will allow a more
complicated and robust inquiry. The
respondent gave the following examples
of queries not currently supported:
Identify all projects within a State on
behalf of an individual species or group
of species; projects within specific
ecoregions or Congressional districts;
and collective impacts of related
projects over time. The comments
recognize Wildlife TRACS’ ability to
offer opportunities for addressing these
reporting needs and even though it may
require additional effort at the
beginning, the value of the reporting
options outweighs the data entry
burden.
Response: We agree that robust
reporting capabilities are vital to our
mission and Wildlife TRACS reporting
will allow users to generate this type of
report. We expect Wildlife TRACS to be
fully functional for robust reporting by
December 2016.
Comment: One respondent suggested
that the Service should provide a
reporting module that State and Federal
staff can use to determine if project
detail is sufficient to meet reporting
needs. When a report module is
provided, we will be able to evaluate the
situation and better create best
management practices for data entry.
Response: We agree that the ability to
produce reports from data entered into
Wildlife TRACS will help users identify
how to improve data entry. New
enhancements to the workflow manager
will allow users to more easily view
validation and workflow status
information. We expect Wildlife TRACS
to include these enhancements for
workflow management by November
2015. We look forward to working with
States to refine best practices for data
entry.
Comment: Two respondents suggested
that estimated costs by actions should
not be collected. Financial reporting

E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM

30SEN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

58766

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 189 / Wednesday, September 30, 2015 / Notices

should be consistent with the Financial
and Business Management System
(FBMS) and not extend past the
subaccount level.
Response: We disagree and recognize
that a major benefit of action-level costs
is to assist both the Service and States
in assessing cost effectiveness of
projects. There will be an interface with
FBMS that gives users some information
to assist with cost analysis, but the cost
information in Wildlife TRACS is not
auditable. The estimated costs States
enter into Wildlife TRACS is for a
different purpose than the cost
information in FBMS.
Ways to minimize the burden of
collection of information on
respondents.
Comment: One respondent stated that
while it is preferred to minimize the
reporting burden, we also want to
ensure that the information we provide
is sufficient to meet our responsibilities
to the Service, elected officials, and the
public. When a reporting module has
been developed for Wildlife TRACS, we
will be in a better position to evaluate
reporting burden. At that time, we will
work with the Service to find
efficiencies that could minimize burden.
Response: We appreciate the
commitment to robust reporting and
will continue to work with States and
other partners to identify efficiencies
and to minimize burden.
Comment: Two respondents
recommended we develop data
communication between Wildlife
TRACS and Grants.gov to reduce the
burden to States for duplicate work.
Response: We addressed Wildlife
TRACS and applications above. When
addressing ways to minimize burden,
we agree that communication/interfaces
with other electronic systems can help
to improve efficiencies and reduce
burden. Grants.gov is a grant application
system and Wildlife TRACS is a project
tracking and reporting system, so there
will not always be a direct correlation
from Wildlife TRACS to Grants.gov.
However, for those projects that fall into
the category of being funded through
one grant, we will work to offer more
options that may improve processing
and reduce burden. We currently
interface with several other electronic
systems that serve to improve the user
experience and lessen burden, such as
FBMS and databases for identifying
species, and we will continue to
consider other opportunities. We
welcome continued suggestions.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that Wildlife TRACS should either be
upgraded to a full grant-management
system, or the Service should retain full
responsibility for entering data using

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:27 Sep 29, 2015

Jkt 235001

State grant applications as the source for
obtaining grant data.
Response: We make no change based
on this comment. The Department of the
Interior made the decision to transition
from the various grant and other fiscal
management systems being used by
programs in the Department to a single
fiscal management system, FBMS. Our
former system, Federal Aid Information
Management System (FAIMS), was
decommissioned in October 2012.
FAIMS was replaced for financial
reporting by the Financial and Business
Management System (FBMS), which
encompasses all financial and business
administrative functions, not only
grants programs. FBMS does not address
project/grant performance reporting, is
not grant-centric, and the system is not
accessible to grantees. Wildlife TRACS
is focused on filling the gap for
performance reporting. There is no
change in the responsibility for the
grantee to report on project
performance. Wildlife TRACS allows
States to more accurately report by
entering information directly.
Comment: One respondent suggested
that we should not implement Wildlife
TRACS until it is in its final form,
ensuring a stable model, reducing the
need for retraining, and reducing the
need for State staff to adapt to shifting
models and expectations.
Response: We make no changes based
on this comment. The adjustments to
Wildlife TRACS are to improve the user
experience, efficiency of data collection,
and response to information
requirements. Many of the
improvements are a result of
recommendations from States that have
engaged in Wildlife TRACS. None of the
data entered into Wildlife TRACS will
be lost as improvements are made.
Continued training opportunities are
available for users at: https://
TRACS.fws.gov/learning.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the Service should continue to enter
data into Wildlife TRACS, resulting in
no impact on States to implement this
approach.
Response: We disagree. We refer to
responses above for further details. We
will continue to assist States during the
transition to address the backlog of
projects that need to be entered into
Wildlife TRACS. We will also work
with States after October 1, 2016, to
assess needs and offer options.
Comment: One respondent asked us
to continue to honor the Federal
requirements that grant recipients must
only report for those activities that have
occurred during the period of
performance. Any additional
requirements would be especially

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 9990

burdensome and draw resources away
from the programs needed to manage
the resources.
Response: We agree and will only
require reporting on projects during the
period of performance. We may ask
States to voluntarily assist with
information beyond the period of
performance, but it is expected that
much of the information shared will be
from work that States are already
accomplishing for their internal needs.
We hope to continue to work in
partnership with States and other
interested organizations to create vital
and robust outcome information that
will engage and inspire the public;
inform our elected officials; and help
Federal, State, and local agencies work
together for continued conservation
successes.
Comment: The commenter objected to
the use of taxpayer dollars for these
financial assistance programs.
Response: We note the commenter’s
objection to funding these grant
programs. The commenter did not
address the information collection
requirements, and we did not make any
changes to our requirements based on
this comment.
Request for Public Comments
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask OMB or us to withhold your
personal identifying information from
public review, we cannot guarantee that
it will be done.
Dated: September 24, 2015.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and
Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–24682 Filed 9–29–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM

30SEN1