30-Day Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Notices
Property Number: 18201340046
Status: Underutilized
Comments: 1,546 sq. ft., storage; 40+yrs.-old;
secured area; escort required to access
property; contact AF for more info.
Utah
Building 11; Hill AFB
5923 C Ave.
Layton UT 84056
Landholding Agency: Air Force
Property Number: 18201340047
Status: Excess
Comments: off-site removal only; 18,898 sq.
ft.; office/maint. shop; 72+ yrs.-old;
deteriorated; asbestos; secured area;
contact Air Force for more info.
LAND
Alabama
(Former) Huntsville
International Airport (HSV) Outer Market
1390 Browns Ferry Road
Madison AL 35758
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54201340008
Status: Excess
GSA Number: 4–U–AL–0787AA
Comments: 0.6 acres; outer marker; property
can be accessed from Browns Ferry Road;
contact GSA for more information.
Suitable/Unavailable Properties
Building
Oregon
Crescent Lehman Building, FS
Crescent Admin Site
Crescent OR
Landholding Agency: Agriculture
Property Number: 15201330017
Status: Excess
Comments: 518 sf. Conference room 81 yrs.old; poor conditions; existing federal need
Crescent Storage (Pumphouse)
Crescent Admin. Site
Crescent OR
Landholding Agency: Agriculture
Property Number: 15201330026
Status: Excess
Comments: 323 sf.; 46 yrs.-old; good
condition; existing Federal need.

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Unsuitable Properties
Building
Florida
MWR Rental Accommodation
Naval Air Station
Key West FL 33040
Landholding Agency: Navy
Property Number: 77201340011
Status: Unutilized
Comments: Public access denied and no
alternative method to gain access without
compromising national security.
Reasons: Secured Area
RV Park Office
Naval Air Station
Key West FL 33040
Landholding Agency: Navy
Property Number: 77201340012
Status: Unutilized

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Dec 23, 2013

Jkt 232001

Comments: Public access denied & no
alternative method to gain access w/out
compromising national security.
Reasons: Secured Area
Illinois
39 Shabbona-Material Dev. Lab
Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Batavia IL 60510
Landholding Agency: Energy
Property Number: 41201340008
Status: Excess
Comments: Public access denied & no
alternative method to gain access w/out
compromising national security
Reasons: Secured Area
North Carolina
Building 21452
Ft. Bragg
Ft. Bragg NC 28310
Landholding Agency: Army
Property Number: 21201340039
Status: Underutilized
Comments: Public access denied and no
alternative method to gain access without
compromising national security.
Reasons: Secured Area
Wisconsin
Coast Guard Cutter Mobile Bay
26 Neenah Avenue
Sturgeon Bay WI
Landholding Agency: Coast Guard
Property Number: 88201340005
Status: Excess
Comments: Active military facility; public
access denied & no alternative method to
gain access w/out compromising national
security
Reasons: Secured Area
[FR Doc. 2013–30637 Filed 12–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–WSR–2013–N292];
[FVWF941009000007B–XXX–FF09W10000;
FVWF51100900000–XXX–FF09W10000]

Information Collection Request Sent to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for Approval; Application and
Performance Reporting for Wildlife and
Sport Fish Restoration 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 OMB for
review and approval. We summarize the
ICR below and describe the nature of the
collection and the estimated burden and
cost. We may not conduct or sponsor

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

77699

and a person is not required to respond
to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
DATES: You must submit comments on
or before January 23, 2014.
ADDRESSES: 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_
[email protected] (email).
Please provide a copy of your comments
to the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS 2042–PDM, 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA
22203 (mail), or [email protected]
(email). Please include ‘‘1018–TRACS’’
in the subject line of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To
request additional information about
this ICR, contact Hope Grey at hope_
[email protected] (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:
OMB Control Number: 1018–XXXX.
Title: Application and Performance
Reporting for Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Grants and Cooperative
Agreements.
Service Form Number: None.
Type of Request: Request for a new
OMB control number.
Description of Respondents: Primarily
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; and federallyrecognized tribal governments. For
certain grant programs, institutions of
higher education and nongovernmental
organizations.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain a benefit.
Frequency of Collection: We require
applications annually for new grants or
as needed for multi-year grants. We
require amendments on occasion when
key elements of a project change. We
require quarterly and final performance
reports in the National Outreach and
Communication Program and annual
and final performance reports in the
other programs. We may require more
frequent reports under the conditions
stated at 43 CFR 12.52 and 43 CFR
12.914.

E:\FR\FM\24DEN1.SGM

24DEN1

77700

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Notices

Number of
respondents

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Activity

Number of
responses

Completion
time per response
(in hours)

Total annual
burden hours

Application (Mandatory program)—collect and enter information ...................
Amendment—collect and enter information ....................................................
Performance Reports—collect and enter additional information .....................

56
150
200

625
1,500
3,500

4
.5
2

2,500
750
7,000

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

406

5,625

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

10,250

Abstract: The Wildlife and Sport Fish
Restoration Program (WSFR), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, administers
financial assistance programs (see 77 FR
47864, August 10, 2012). You can find
a description of most programs in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) or on our Web site at http://
wsfrprograms.fws.gov.
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 may
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 and according to
schedules and rules in 43 CFR 12. The
Office of Management and Budget has
approved our collection of information
for applications and performance
reports for these programs and assigned
OMB Control Numbers 1018–0109 and
1018–0147.
In past years, grantees sent paper or
emailed applications and performance
reports to the Service. The process to
send applications to the Service has
moved to the electronic system at http://
www.grants.gov for competitive
programs and some mandatory
programs. When processing
performance reports, we received the
paper reports, reviewed the reports and
extracted information, and then entered
data into the Federal Assistance
Information Management System
(FAIMS). FAIMS was decommissioned
on October 1, 2012, and has been
replaced with a new electronic system
for data collection (Wildlife Tracking
and Reporting Actions for the
Conservation of Species (Wildlife
TRACS)). Wildlife TRACS allows us to
take advantage of newer technology and
give grantees direct access to enter
application data that can be used to
submit through http://www.grants.gov
and report performance

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Dec 23, 2013

Jkt 232001

accomplishments. We have trained
State, tribal, commonwealth, territory,
and District of Columbia personnel to
use the new system, and will provide
technical and administrative support as
needed. Allowing applicants and
grantees to enter information directly
into Wildlife TRACS will provide more
accurate reporting and allow us to
process grants more efficiently. We will
continue to enter information in
Wildlife TRACS for some grantees or
programs based on needs, resource
limitations, and program size and
requirements.
While replacing FAIMS with Wildlife
TRACS and updating our process to a
more efficient and effective electronic
method, we have the opportunity to
make improvements that will create
more consistent and robust reporting
that will better help guide the future of
conservation. We plan to collect
additional information not covered by
our current OMB approvals. We will use
Wildlife TRACS to collect information
approved under our existing OMB
control numbers as well as the new
information we are asking approval to
collect. Data input will be completed by
applicants and grantees. We have
requested that OMB assign a new
control number to cover these actions.
For mandatory grant program
applications and amendments, we plan
to collect:
• Geospatial entry of project location.
• Project status (active, completed,
etc.).
• Project leader contact information.
• Partner information.
• Objectives, including output
measures and desired future values.
• Plan information (for projects
connected to plans).
For all WSFR grant program projects
and reports, we plan to collect:
• The information above, as
applicable to the approved grant.
• Public description.
• Action status (active, completed,
etc.).
• Summary trend information, as
applicable.
• Estimated costs, by action. (nonauditable).
• Effectiveness measures (initially for
State Wildlife Grants).

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

For real property acquisition projects,
we plan to collect information related
to:
• Transactions, such as dates, method
of transfer, who will own or hold the
real property, 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 (yes or no).
• Partners.
The table above shows only the time
that will be required to obtain and enter
the new information when we
implement Wildlife TRACS. We expect
that this time will decrease as grantees
become familiar with the system. We
also expect to reduce the burden
currently approved under OMB Control
Numbers 1018–0109 and 1018–0147 for
reports, amendments, and grants that
remain virtually the same from year to
year. When grantees directly enter
reporting information into Wildlife
TRACS, they will not be required to
submit written reports.
Comments: On August 10, 2012, we
published in the Federal Register (77
FR 47864) a notice of our intent to
request that OMB approve this
information collection. In that notice,
we solicited comments for 60 days,
ending on October 9, 2012. In addition
to asking for comments on the
additional information we plan to
collect, we also asked for comments on
the new electronic method and process
for collection of all information. We
received comments from nine States and
one member of the general public.
State Comments
Comment: Three respondents were
supportive of the electronic collection
system, Wildlife TRACS, and its ability
to demonstrate program
accomplishments, as long as the data
collection requirements are kept at the
level of current approval by OMB.
Response: The current OMB approval
for WSFR grant programs gives
performance information, but is not
standardized and specific enough to
create an effective national grant
accomplishment database. Through the

E:\FR\FM\24DEN1.SGM

24DEN1

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Notices
electronic collection States and other
grantees will be prompted to give
information from drop-down options in
data fields, will be led through the steps
of data entry, and will be giving
standardized information that will
produce robust reports to demonstrate
program accomplishments.
Comment: Two respondents
commented that information beyond
that necessary to demonstrate program
accomplishments should not be
required.
Response: We agree with this
comment. We continue to work with
several groups of Federal and State staff
at various levels of involvement as we
identify information needed and plan
for future needs. We have received
many suggestions and have been
responsive to comments to limit data
collection to that needed to responsibly
assess grant accomplishments and
respond to information requests from a
variety of audiences. We are also using
electronic models and tools within the
electronic database that make it more
user-friendly, more intuitive, and easier
to enter data.
Comment: One respondent was not
supportive of the collection of
additional information and argued that
we have not demonstrated evidence of
inadequacy of the existing performance
reporting requirements.
Response: As of October 2012, the
existing reporting system (FAIMS) was
decommissioned, so we must use a new
method of collecting information. We
are obligated by Federal guidance, such
as the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act and other directives, to
use electronic systems. We will do this
through Wildlife TRACS, the system
designed to replace FAIMS. We have
listened to Congress, Federal and State
staff, other grantees, and stakeholders to
assess needs. We have considered the
needs that FAIMS was unable to fulfill,
information routinely needed, and how
performance reporting helps plan for
conservation into the future, and have
developed Wildlife TRACS to address
all of these needs. Most of the
information requested in Wildlife
TRACS is not new information and is
covered by our approved OMB control
numbers, but we organize the
information so it is more consistent and
easier to report. We limit additional
information to that needed to improve
the ability to report program
accomplishments and to help assure
continued grant program funding.
Comment: Two respondents
commented that effectiveness measures
for State Wildlife Grants (SWG) should
be recommended, not mandatory.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Dec 23, 2013

Jkt 232001

Response: The Office of Management
and Budget has repeatedly called for
Federal agencies to document outcomes,
not just outputs, of their work and the
work they fund. Unlike other WSFR
grant programs, SWG is subject to the
annual appropriations process,
increasing the need to be able to
adequately demonstrate outcomes. The
Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, in their report ‘‘Measuring the
Effectiveness of Wildlife Grants, April
2011,’’ demonstrates the need for States
to provide more meaningful results and
establishes effectiveness measures as a
means to support State conservation
work. If the expectation to complete the
effectiveness measures allowed grantees
to choose if they would respond or not,
it would jeopardize the completeness of
the national effectiveness measures data
set. We will address effectiveness
measures by guiding SWG grantees in
our electronic system through a list of
questions and responses designed to
make the collection of information flow
easier for the user. The amount of effort
to complete this information is minimal
compared to the benefits of the
information available to
decisionmakers.
Comment: One respondent
commented that Statewide projects do
not fit the Wildlife TRACS model well.
Response: Statewide projects will fit
well into the electronic mapping used in
Wildlife TRACS. The mapping tool is
designed to allow users to select
projects at a State level, or any level
above or below that. Some geospatial
advantages of the system may not be
fully utilized at the State-scale level, but
accomplishments can be captured easily
and rolled up accurately in regional and
national reports.
Comment: Six respondents
commented that burden hours were
underestimated.
Response: When determining the
burden hours for the additional
information and also accounting for
applicants and grantees entering data
into an electronic system directly, we
compared Wildlife TRACS to a similar
database, Habitat Information Tracking
System (HabITS). HabITS has a similar
approach to collecting data and has
been in use long enough to know how
long data entry takes from novice users,
as well as experienced users. We used
information from HabITS users as a
baseline while considering other factors,
such as the fact that we are only
estimating burden for additional
information and not for total
information. Collection of information
already covered by OMB Control
Numbers 1018–0109 and 1018–0147 is
not included in this request. We also

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

77701

consider that work savings will be
accomplished under certain
circumstances, such as projects that
remain the same from year to year
which will be extended annually
through a simple process.
Comment: Six respondents stated that
it was difficult to comment effectively
on burden hours because Wildlife
TRACS was not yet completed and
available for use. As a result, potential
impacts on State staff were unknown.
Response: We agree that without
Wildlife TRACS being completed and
available to use, we are not able to fully
understand the burden of the system.
However, the information from HabITS
users gives us a good estimate of
burden. The previous performance
reporting system, FAIMS, is
decommissioned, and we must move
forward with Wildlife TRACS in order
to have a system in place.
Comment: Three respondents stated
that it was difficult to comment on the
estimates of burden hours due to the
limited State agency access to Wildlife
TRACS.
Response: We agree that when we
issued the 60-day notice there were only
a few States that had access to Wildlife
TRACS. We could only give limited
access during the development process
because of technology constraints. We
expanded to a cloud-computing
environment in October 2012, and,
effective January 2013, we expanded the
number of States with access to the
Wildlife TRACS training environment.
No State will be asked to enter
information into Wildlife TRACS until
their staffs receive training.
Comment: One respondent stated that
the burden hour estimates did not
consider the time it takes to develop
project proposals.
Response: The burden hours
estimated are only for the new
information we will ask respondents to
provide. The burden hours incurred to
develop a project are already captured
in the current approval under OMB
Control Numbers 1018–0109 and 1018–
0147.
Comment: One respondent
commented that four additional hours to
complete a grant application and two
additional hours to complete a
performance report is significant and
will reduce staff productivity.
Response: We expect these estimated
burden hours to decrease as grantees
become familiar with the process and
use of electronic systems for reporting
all information. We are continuing to
review the electronic system as we train
Federal and State staffs and will
continue to implement suggested
methods to streamline and simplify

E:\FR\FM\24DEN1.SGM

24DEN1

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

77702

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Notices

functions. Using an electronic system
will replace written performance reports
and produce documents and reports that
can be used for other tasks, such as
submitting grant applications on http://
www.grants.gov, further reducing
overall workload.
Comment: Two respondents
commented that the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected
will be enhanced through the use of
Wildlife TRACS.
Response: We agree.
Comment: One respondent
commented that Wildlife TRACS does
not serve as a grant management system
and that States must go to two systems,
one for financial reporting and one for
performance reporting.
Response: The Department of the
Interior retired FAIMS and transferred
the financial reporting functions to the
Federal Business Management System
(FBMS). We were granted permission to
temporarily keep FAIMS open for
performance reporting, but it is now
closed permanently. We cannot bring all
of the information in FBMS over to
Wildlife TRACS, but there are some
fields that will be populated by FBMS
with daily updates. Wildlife TRACS is
not designed to be a grant management
system, but we expect the
improvements will assist grant
managers and give consistent reporting
information. We will continue to make
improvements as we gain knowledge
and improved technology.
Comment: Two respondents stated
they do not see any value added by
Wildlife TRACS for grants management.
Response: We disagree. There will be
a transition period for learning the
system, but, over the long term, State
grantees should see the benefits of
streamlined grants processes, improved
performance information, and the
benefits of newer technology. We will
continue to accept comments for ways
to improve the electronic systems and
be responsive to suggestions for
improvement.
Comment: One respondent stated that
we did not provide details on the
additional information required for land
acquisition projects and their usage.
Response: We agree. WSFR and State
grant managers that work with lands
have developed a list of anticipated
information and it is included in general
terms. Many States have told us that
they prefer to enter the information for
accuracy and the extra information
asked for real property actions is easily
available. We will help States to enter
complete information.
Comment: One respondent
commented that a trend line was not

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Dec 23, 2013

Jkt 232001

practical for survey projects that focus
on general distribution of species.
Response: We agree. This information
is intended for ongoing survey projects
with objectives used to track measures
used to estimate the annual status of
species or habitats. The outputs of
survey projects will be uploaded as
attachments.
Comment: One respondent stated that
they currently estimate costs for projects
and not actions and expressed concern
about how the change will be
accomplished in their State.
Response: We will ask for costs only
at the broadest action level. There are 13
Action categories that are designed to
match typical WSFR grant actions; for
example, education or technical
guidance. The costs to be entered are
estimated and are not auditable. They
are entered to help grant managers link
expected costs to their projects to help
in planning, project review, and
performance reporting. This information
may be useful in the future to
demonstrate approximate funds
leveraged from other sources to
accomplish conservation work.
Comment: One respondent
recommended that WSFR staff work
with States through at least one
complete grant cycle in implementing
Wildlife TRACS.
Response: We agree. WSFR has
completed most of the Service and State
training. Further training will continue
via e–training venues. The trained
Service staff will assist States as needed.
No State will be expected to enter
information into Wildlife TRACS until
their staff has received training. WSFR
staff will be engaged with State staff to
assist in the transition for, at minimum,
a full year.
Comment: Two respondents stated
that performance reports need to be
written prior to Wildlife TRACS data
entry and this duplicates effort.
Response: We will not require
grantees to submit written reports.
Instead, States will directly enter
performance reporting information into
Wildlife TRACS.
Comment: Three respondents stated
that detailed project proposals need to
be written prior to Wildlife TRACS data
entry and this duplicates effort.
Response: This has been addressed in
the current structure of Wildlife TRACS.
There are fields available in the system
that will accommodate all of the
required elements of a project statement
as per 50 CFR 80.82 and as required in
other grant programs. Once entered into
Wildlife TRACS, a document may be
downloaded and saved that serves as a
project narrative and used in http://
www.grants.gov or other application

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

processes. A separate project proposal
does not need to be written for the
WSFR grant approval process.
Comment: Four respondents
commented that using Wildlife TRACS
for grant applications duplicates
information submitted through http://
www.grants.gov.
Response: Wildlife TRACS is
designed to collect information at the
project and action levels, so most grant
level information submitted through
http://www.grants.gov is not applicable
unless the grant only consists of a single
project. If the grant only consists of a
single project, the only duplicate
information is a few fields on the SF–
424 (Application for Financial
Assistance). Wildlife TRACS is designed
to allow users to enter information into
electronic fields and produce
documents that the applicant may use
when they submit applications through
http://www.grants.gov, reducing user
efforts.
Comment: Two respondents
commented that increased reporting
requirements will result in increased
staff workload.
Response: We agree there will be an
initial increase in staff workload as State
staff learn the new system and enter
new information. This is one reason
why we will help enter information for
the first year. After a 1-year grant cycle
for continuing grants, information
already entered can simply be updated
with much less effort. Performance
reporting though Wildlife TRACS will
eliminate the need to prepare traditional
written performance reports. Electronic
workflow will reduce delays and allow
for more efficient project approval and
reporting.
Comment: Two respondents stated
that no additional resources are going to
be provided to States to enter
information into Wildlife TRACS.
Response: State administrative costs
are eligible for funding under both the
Wildlife Restoration (WR) and Sport
Fish Restoration (SFR) grant programs.
Receipts in the trust funds for both
programs increased over 2012, resulting
in an increase in funding for both WR
and SFR for fiscal year 2013. This makes
additional funds available if a State
chooses to use them to provide
additional resources to implement
Wildlife TRACS. Training, technical
assistance, and Service staff assistance
are also being given to States as
resources to help in using the electronic
system for performance reporting.
Comment: Two respondents
commented that Wildlife TRACS
geospatial data entry will require adding
staff with this expertise.

E:\FR\FM\24DEN1.SGM

24DEN1

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Notices
Response: Entering geospatial
information into Wildlife TRACS will
not require any specialized Geographic
Information System (GIS) expertise.
Comment: One respondent
commented that we must make
additional efforts to minimize State
burdens when implementing Wildlife
TRACS.
Response: We are reviewing the
fields, mechanisms, and benefits of
Wildlife TRACS to examine ways,
within reason, to minimize State
burdens for Wildlife TRACS data entry
and use.
Comment: One respondent
recommended that WSFR staff should
enter all data into Wildlife TRACS, with
States performing quality assurance and
control.
Response: State staffs have first-hand
knowledge of the projects and can enter
better data. It would be more than a
duplication of effort for the States to
give the information to WSFR, have
WSFR enter the information, then have
State staff go back into the system and
verify, clarify, and continue to revise
incorrect information. Ultimately, State
staffs need to be engaged in electronic
data entry so that the quality of
information is improved over that
entered into FAIMS and so the
performance information they are
reporting is efficient and accurate.
Comment: Three respondents
recommended that Wildlife TRACS
should only be used for
accomplishment reporting, and not for
applying for grants.
Response: States will only enter data
related to applying for a grant for
mandatory (formula) grants. States will
not be required to enter information into
Wildlife TRACS for competitive grants
until after a grant is awarded. If WSFR
staff were responsible for entering
project proposal information into
Wildlife TRACS, they would be making
decisions on the work, structure of the
work as projects, and actions that they
cannot make as these are State
decisions. If WSFR were to add
information that is not the way a State
wants it structured, it would cause a
greater burden on both parties. It would
also make it hard for States to enter
accomplishments, if grants were not
structured by WSFR staff in a way that
States would want them. WSFR has
responded to concerns by designing
Wildlife TRACS to create documents
that can be used by States as
attachments to an http://www.grants.gov
application, reducing workload on the
States.
Comment: One respondent
commented that proposed project
information entered into Wildlife

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Dec 23, 2013

Jkt 232001

TRACS by States would be subject to
revision during the grant approval
process. This would mean more work in
going back and forth to reach a final
version.
Response: If changes are needed
during the grant approval process, it
will create some type of workload
regardless of what system is used. This
is part of grants management. Changes
made using an electronic system should
be less of a burden and easier to manage
with electronic workflow tools than
changes made through other methods.
Making the changes during the grant
approval process reduces the workload
during the accomplishment reporting
period.
Comment: One respondent
commented that it would be inefficient
for ‘‘placeholder’’ geospatial data to be
entered into Wildlife TRACS before
work is completed and exact locations
are known.
Response: Geospatial information is
central to the accurate reporting of
conservation information and that is
why it is incorporated into the structure
of Wildlife TRACS. The electronic
system requires that at least a basic map
be entered as the first data entry step in
order to set a general location for the
work and the map will be altered later,
as needed, for the specific project or
action location. There will be tools
given on the electronic system that will
help users easily adjust the mapped
areas as more information is received
and projects and actions are better
defined. We will give guidance on the
easiest ways to use the electronic
mapping tools that any typical user can
understand.
Comment: One respondent noted that
Wildlife TRACS deployment lags
FAIMS decommissioning by 3 months.
Response: It was longer than 3
months, but was unavoidable due to
development delays. However, this is
not relevant to this information
collection request.
Comment: One respondent
commented that revising project
information in Wildlife TRACS will be
burdensome because of the many times
some projects are amended.
Response: States need to submit
appropriate paperwork each time they
substantially amend projects according
to existing grants processes. This will be
done through the electronic system,
with very little change in workload.
Comment: One respondent asked
exactly how Wildlife TRACS will allow
more efficient grant processing.
Response: When starting the grant
process, all required elements of the
project statement can be entered into
Wildlife TRACS instead of a two-step

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

77703

process of submitting a file or paper
copy of a narrative that would have to
be entered later. Some information
entered will be available as a report that
can be attached to an http://
www.grants.gov application. WSFR is
exploring additions to this feature.
Entering accomplishment information
into the electronic system will fulfill
performance reporting requirements, so
written reports will no longer be
needed. WSFR is exploring other
efficiencies.
Comment: States have not been
properly trained nor had enough time to
use the electronic system prior to
publishing the notice asking for
comments.
Response: We agree the timing was
unfortunate, but it was needed to get the
process started for OMB approval for
information collection. The States are
now more familiar and this notice
serves as a second chance for the public
to comment.
Comment: The additional information
requested is really only for State
Wildlife Grants.
Response: The additional information
we wish to collect is for all programs in
WSFR except where described as an
exception.
Comment: Additional information
beyond what is already approved and
the additional listed in the 60-day
notice will be collected through the
electronic system, Wildlife TRACS.
Response: It may appear that extra
information is being collected beyond
our current information collection
approvals and that listed in the 60-day
notice, but that is because the method
of collection is different. For example,
we would expect to see project purpose,
need, and objectives in a written project
statement, but this information will now
be captured by entering information into
prescribed data fields instead of in a
paper narrative. Some of the fields in
the electronic system replace hard-copy
work flow processes, but the
information is the same. We have
thoroughly reviewed the existing
application and performance reporting
and identified the additional
information we will ask for that is
outside of the approval we have through
OMB Control Numbers 1018–0109 and
1018–0147.
Comment: Additional pieces of
information such as: project location,
contact information, real property
information, workflow, and habitat
information, are not needed to report to
Congress.
Response: Project location and habitat
information are often important for
requests we receive from Congress and
others. Some of the information we will

E:\FR\FM\24DEN1.SGM

24DEN1

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES

77704

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 247 / Tuesday, December 24, 2013 / Notices

collect will not be reported to Congress
specifically as that information, but may
be rolled-up to build the level of
reporting that we need not only for
Congress, but also for industry, the
public, and other partners. Other
information we will collect is required
by policy or regulation and was
collected differently prior to this, but is
not new information. Some pieces of
information are part of the system
management process and are not
expected to be used for that type of
report.
Comment: The States should be given
training, technical support, a system for
collecting ongoing comments and
suggestions, and definitions to help
guide the consistency of entries.
Response: We have been conducting
training during 2013. We have
developed Best Management Practices
guidance, e–learning, examples of
projects from various types of grants,
instructions for how to enter the data,
and other learning and use tools. We
will post information on a Wiki that will
allow users to search for specific
information and easily find guidance.
We will give technical assistance and
answer questions through a Help Desk
that will be supported indefinitely.
Comment: There is concern that too
much money will be spent on
administration leaving less money for
on-the-ground projects.
Response: We expect there will be an
increase in administrative burden for
the first year or so using the electronic
system. The electronic system will be
used regardless of whether we add more
information or not, as it is part of the
application and reporting requirements
for States to give the Service certain
information in order to voluntarily
receive grant funds. Especially with the
increase in funds given to States in 2013
for Sport Fish Restoration and Wildlife
Restoration, and the expected trend for
continued increase in at least Wildlife
Restoration funding to States, we expect
no significant reduction in funding that
can be used for direct conservation
projects. Ultimately, however, it is a
State decision on how they divide their
WSFR funding between projects and
administration.
Comment: The Service should be
responsible for all historical data entry.
Response: We will bring as much
historical information over from FAIMS
as possible using the current
technology. We will not expect users to
enter information from past years.
Comment: Instead of having to draw
a point or polygon on a map, we need
an option of entering GPS coordinates.
Response: Users will have the option
to enter mapping information several

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:36 Dec 23, 2013

Jkt 232001

different ways, including using GPS
coordinates. We have trained users on
how to make the desired changes.
Comment: The Service should divide
the training up so that one class talks
about how to do part of the data entry
and another class something else.
Response: We enlisted our
professional WSFR trainers to organize
and present initial training. They will
continue to build tools and add
components as needed for additional
training as requested or as needed.
Comment: States should not have to
send in interim reports when a final
report is due shortly after.
Response: The reporting frequency
and process is required by 43 CFR 12
and is not part of the additional burden.
Comment: Some projects affect over
200 species. How can we efficiently
enter all of that information into the
electronic system?
Response: Entering species
information is not required. A
recommended best practice is to
identify species that are directly
benefitted by a specific action. Users
will have the option to build
customized groups of species that can
then be applied to many different
actions. We will continue to improve
the process of working with species
information to minimize the workload.
Comment: Although it is a good idea
for States to enter more information for
the public to see, it will mean an extra
workload and cost more money.
Response: Any additions that States
make to the electronic system beyond
those we request are a decision of the
State.
General Public Comment

Frm 00062

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Dated: December 19, 2013.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–30623 Filed 12–23–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. Geological Survey
[GX14LR000F60100]

Comment: The commenter stated that
members of the public should have the
opportunity to review and approve
projects in their State, and should have
a say on how the State uses the funds.
Response: Members of the public will
be able to access grant information as a
report in Wildlife TRACS. The
commenter did not address the
information collection, and we did not
make any changes to our requirements
as a result of this comment.
We have consulted with States,
organizations, other agencies, and other
Federal staff when preparing the burden
information, when determining the
information we need for reporting
actions, and when developing and
implementing the new electronic
system. We have formed several teams
over the last 2 years during the
development of the electronic system
and have organized several more teams
to assist in managing the system and

PO 00000

responding to States and others into the
future.
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 in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that it will be done.

Agency Information Collection
Activities: Request for Comments
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of an extension of a
currently approved information
collection (1028–0070).
AGENCY:

We (the U.S. Geological
Survey) will ask the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
approve the information collection (IC)
described below. This collection
consists of one form, ‘9–4117–MA,
Consolidated Consumers’ Report’. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA) of 1995, and as part of our
continuing efforts to reduce paperwork
and respondent burden, we invite the
general public and other Federal
agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on this IC. This collection is
scheduled to expire on April 30, 2014.

SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\24DEN1.SGM

24DEN1