Boating Infrastructure Grant Program, 23209-23231 [2014-08998]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 80 (Friday, April 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23209-23231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08998]



[[Page 23209]]

Vol. 79

Friday,

No. 80

April 25, 2014

Part V





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





 Fish and Wildlife Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 86





 Boating Infrastructure Grant Program; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 80 / Friday, April 25, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 23210]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 86

[Docket No. FWS-R9-WSR-2011-0083; FVWF941009000007B-XXX-FF09W11000]
RIN 1018-AW64


Boating Infrastructure Grant Program

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose 
changes in the regulations governing the administration of the national 
Boating Infrastructure Grant Program (BIG). We published a proposed 
rule in the Federal Register on March 28, 2012. We received 22 
responses from the public during the 60-day comment period that ended 
May 29, 2012. Fifteen of the responses contained comments applicable to 
the proposed rule, and 11 asked for more time to review the proposed 
rule. Some comments expressed full support, and others suggested 
changes. We amend the proposed rule based on these comments and our 
further review and consideration of the proposed rule. The amended 
proposed rule gives the public a 90-day comment period.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before July 
24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number FWS-R9-
WSR-2011-0083, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. 
FWS-R9-WSR-2011-0083; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Division of 
Policy and Directives Management; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-
PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 
Division of Policy and Directives Management; 4501 North Fairfax Drive, 
Room 2042 PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept email or faxes. All submissions received must 
include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information 
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. We will post all comments received 
without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting comments 
and other information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public 
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa E. Van Alstyne, Wildlife and 
Sport Fish Restoration Program, Division of Policy and Programs, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 703-358-1942.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    We published a proposed rule for the Boating Infrastructure Grant 
Program on March 28, 2012 (77 FR 18767). We received 22 responses from 
the public. Fifteen included comments applicable to the proposed rule, 
and 11 included requests for more time to review the proposed rule and 
asked us to extend or reopen the comment period. We decided to respond 
to applicable comments and offer a second comment period. We respond by 
clarifying certain sections, leaving sections unchanged where we 
received support, and making changes based on our further review.
    In the proposed rule published on March 12, 2012, we suggested new 
names for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 subprograms to reflect their role in 
BIG. Several commenters stated they did not agree with the name changes 
from ``Tier 1'' to ``BIG-Basic'' and from ``Tier 2'' to ``BIG-
Competitive.'' Their concern was that the term ``Basic'' misrepresents 
the intent of the program and compared to ``Competitive,'' the public 
could misunderstand it as being a noncompetitive program, when Tier 1 
programs may be highly competitive on a State level. We received no 
other recommendations for new terms to replace the tiered system, but 
in this amended proposed rule, we propose using ``BIG Standard'' and 
``BIG Select.'' These names relate to the level and action taken 
nationally for each grant program. We award BIG Standard grants to 
States for up to a standard amount that we announce each year for 
eligible projects. We award BIG Select grants based on a national 
selection process. We use the terms ``BIG Standard'' and ``BIG Select'' 
in this amended proposed rule and ask for comments on their use.
    We amend sections of the amended proposed rule by:
    (1) Removing Sec.  86.44.
    (2) Renumbering Sec. Sec.  86.45 through 86.47 as Sec. Sec.  86.44 
through 86.46.
    (3) Adding a new Sec.  86.60 and redesignating Sec.  86.60 in the 
proposed rule as Sec.  86.61 in the amended proposed rule.

Response to Public Comments

    We arrange the public comments by sections of the proposed rule. 
Some comments relate to topics that apply to more than one section of 
the proposed rule. We discuss some of these as they apply to the entire 
proposed rule or address them in only one applicable section. We will 
not duplicate a response we give in one section in another section, but 
will add information if needed to clarify. We do not present comments 
exactly as stated unless we enclose text with quotes. Some comments 
represent recommendations or opinions from several commenters with 
similar ideas or positions. We state in the response to each comment 
any action taken and explain our response. Some public comments led us 
to reexamine sections beyond those that the public commented on 
specifically. Based on this reexamination, we amend the proposed rule 
to improve clarity, consistency, organization, or comprehensiveness. We 
change the proposed rule for clarifications and uniformity that we do 
not discuss. We do not explain minor changes made that do not 
significantly affect the amended proposed rule. We discuss any 
substantive changes that resulted from this reexamination in our 
responses to the comments.
    We use the terms ``current'' or ``current rule'' to refer to 50 CFR 
part 86 or any section or paragraph of 50 CFR part 86 that became 
effective after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register at 
66 FR 5282, January 18, 2001. We use the terms ``proposed'' or 
``proposed rule'' to refer to the proposed rule published in the 
Federal Register at 77 FR 18767, March 28, 2012. We use the term 
``amended'' or ``amended proposed rule'' to refer to this proposed 
rule, amended from the proposed rule published on March 28, 2012.
    We received some comments that asked questions relating to general 
grant management and some that ask for more guidance, but not at the 
level of this rulemaking. We do not discuss these questions in our 
comment review unless we amend the proposed rule based on the comment 
or it is relevant to changes we make. We will consider the concerns 
raised and respond through another form of communication, training, or 
information-sharing Web sites. We share grant information on our 
Financial Assistance Wiki at https://fawiki.fws.gov.
    We include all sections of the amended proposed rule and indicate 
if we received no comments.

[[Page 23211]]

Subpart A--General

Section 86.1 What does this part do?
    Comment 1: Several comments state concern that calling Tier 1 
``Basic'' and Tier 2 ``Competitive'' is misleading, suggesting that 
grantees may use Tier 1 funds only for basic boating needs and that the 
selection process is not competitive.
    Response 1: We agree with their comments. As discussed in the 
background for this amended proposed rule, the names of the subprograms 
must not be misleading or suggest limitations that do not apply to the 
type of projects funded under either subprogram. We must be clear that 
both subprograms are competitive. States develop their process for 
project review and selection for both subprograms and forward Tier 2 
applications for a national ranking. We amend this section to describe 
Tier 1 as ``BIG Standard'' and Tier 2 as ``BIG Select.'' States 
determine BIG Standard grants at the State level and may apply for a 
grant for one or multiple projects for an amount up to the maximum 
stated in the annual Request for Applications (RFA). We score and rank 
BIG Select grants through the national competitive process. We welcome 
comments on these terms.
Section 86.2 What is the purpose of BIG?
    Comment 2: You should not identify producing information and 
educational materials as a purpose of BIG.
    Response 2: Producing and distributing information about BIG is in 
the current rule at 50 CFR 86.11 describing what the national BIG 
Program does. It is an eligible action, but the Sportfishing and 
Boating Safety Act of 1998 (Act) does not identify it as a purpose. We 
amend the proposed rule to remove it from Sec.  86.2(b), but it will 
remain an eligible action at Sec.  86.11.
Section 86.3 What terms do I need to know?
Capital Improvement
    Comment 3: Recommend that the definition for capital improvement 
have a threshold of $10,000 to be consistent with 50 CFR part 80.
    Response 3: We do not make the requested change. In an upcoming 
rulemaking action, we will propose to amend the definition in 50 CFR 80 
to agree with the $25,000 threshold.
    Comment 4: From this definition, it is not clear if a grant is a 
single capital improvement or if a single grant can include multiple 
capital improvements. Need to clarify to apply to useful life.
    Response 4: We do not change the definition based on this comment. 
We make clarifications in Sec.  86.75 for how to apply the definition 
of capital improvement to grants and useful life.
    Comment 5: Consider the total cost of the project instead of the 
cost of each structure when determining useful life.
    Response 5: We do not change the definition for capital 
improvement. How to apply the definition as it relates to useful life 
is in Sec.  86.75. We amend Sec.  86.75 to propose an option to have 
one useful life for a grant based on the value of each capital 
improvement.
Construction
    Comment 6: Remove the word ``acquiring'' in the definition of 
construction.
    Response 6: We amend the term as suggested. Although acquiring land 
is part of construction in general terms, it is an ineligible action in 
BIG.
Eligible Vessel
    Comment 7: You expanded the definition and removed the word 
`motorized.' This will allow solo outrigger canoes and dragon boats to 
be eligible vessels. Allowing non-motorized boats also conflicts with 
Sec.  86.13 because these boats do not need a pumpout or 6 feet of 
water depth. Recommend adding `motorized' to the definition and 
amending the definition to allow sailboats 26 feet or longer with no 
motors.
    Response 7: We do not change the proposed definition as requested 
in this comment. We amend the term to clarify the vessels not included.
    Outrigger canoes and dragon boats are specialty vessels that do not 
typically travel long distances from one place to another, have no 
deck, and are not designed for people to live or spend any length of 
time on board for common recreational purposes. We do not consider them 
the type of transient vessel that we should include as an eligible 
vessel.
    The word `motorized' is not in 16 U.S.C. 777g-1. When we included 
the word in the current rule, it had the unintended consequence of 
excluding nonmotorized, live aboard, recreational sailboats used 
throughout the country to travel from place to place. The term as 
presented in the amended proposed rule clarifies the intent of the 
program.
Maintenance
    Comment 8: Clarify the term ``maintenance.''
    Response 8: We replace the word `routine' with `operational' to 
clarify the definition. We add a clarifying sentence and examples of 
maintenance actions that are eligible. See also Sec.  86.14 for other 
changes that relate to maintenance.
Real Property
    Comment 9: Add the word ``permanent'' to breakwaters in the 
definition of real property.
    Response 9: We amend the term as suggested.
    Comment 10: Remove ``fixed'' in front of ``docks'' from definition.
    Response 10: We do not make this change. Removable docks are 
personal property and not real property.
Transient
    Comment 11: Modify the definition so it is clear that day-use 
facilities are acceptable.
    Response 11: We amend the definition to clarify that either day use 
or staying up to 10 days is acceptable.
Terms Added or Amended
    To clarify the proposed rule, we add definitions for 
``Contractor,'' ``Marketing,'' ``Personal property,'' ``Program 
income,'' ``Project cost,'' and ``Public communication.'' We amend the 
definitions for ``Match'' and ``Operation'' and add examples for 
operation.

Subpart B--Program Eligibility

Section 86.10 Who may apply for a BIG grant?
    No comments.
Section 86.11 What activities are eligible for funding?
    We received several comments supporting the proposed changes in 
this section. We acknowledge the support, in addition to comments 
requesting changes. We replace proposed Sec.  86.11(b) to address 
preaward costs. We add Sec.  86.11(c) to address funding pumpouts 
through the Clean Vessel Act program (CVA). We move the proposed Sec.  
86.11(b) to the end of this section at Sec.  86.11(d).
    We received several comments asking us to clarify actions as they 
relate to marketing, public relations, and information and education. 
In addition to adding terms at Sec.  86.3, we amend this section to 
move Sec.  86.11(a)(6) to (5) and add examples of information and 
education. We move Sec.  86.11(a)(7) to (6) and include the use of BIG 
funds for monitoring BIG project performance and accomplishments.
    We received some comments that supported including as eligible 
actions services that support clean boating and good environmental 
practices at facilities. Other commenters suggested that they support 
the concept, but not as an eligible action under BIG. Some thought this 
section was too open and

[[Page 23212]]

could lend too much flexibility to the use of BIG funds. Others thought 
it might be difficult to manage the possible project options that could 
result.
    After much consideration we remove Sec.  86.11(a)(5) in the amended 
proposed rule. We discuss these positive practices later in the amended 
proposed rule, but only as they apply to BIG-funded facility 
construction and physical amenities. We believe the changes allow the 
program to move forward with positive actions in the framework of 
acceptable, eligible projects.
    Comment 12: Add the current Sec.  86.20(e) on preliminary costs to 
the proposed Sec.  86.11(a)(2).
    Response 12: We do not change Sec.  86.11(a)(2). We capture all of 
the eligible actions from the current rule at Sec.  86.20(e) in the 
proposed rule at Sec.  86.11(a)(2). We amend the proposed rule to 
include a new Sec.  86.11(b) to clarify preaward costs.
    Comment 13: Change the proposed rule at Sec.  86.11(a)(3) to read, 
``one-time dredging of . . .''
    Response 13: We do not make this change. We propose to limit the 
amount of funds the applicant can request for dredging actions, but not 
limit how often it can ask for funding to dredge the same basin. The 
proposed rule limits dredging to 10 percent of the BIG-funded facility 
costs. A BIG-funded project that includes dredging must use at least 90 
percent of the grant for other eligible costs. This requirement places 
the burden on the grantee to show that the majority of its BIG-funded 
actions are not dredge related. If a BIG-funded facility succeeds in 
securing other BIG funds in the future to dredge in the same basin, it 
shows that the project is acceptable to reviewers and competed well 
with the dredge project included. We expect dredging to have a small 
funding impact on the program, and we propose not to include 
unnecessary restrictions.
    Comment 14: Grantees should fund pumpouts exclusively through CVA 
and it should not be an eligible action under BIG.
    Response 14: The primary purpose of BIG is to build and maintain a 
facility for eligible vessels. By definition, eligible vessels are 
transient recreational vessels at least 26 feet long. The vast majority 
of eligible vessels will have a marine sanitation device that eligible 
users will want to empty when they use a BIG-funded facility. We are 
consistent with the current rule by requiring a pumpout as an eligible 
action for all BIG-funded facilities, unless another is available 
within 2 miles or the exceptions apply that we describe in Sec.  
86.43(n)(1).
    Not all States participate in CVA. States that do participate in 
CVA may not be able to fund a pumpout at the BIG project location with 
CVA money due to grant unavailability or for administrative reasons. 
Pumpouts will remain an eligible action in BIG, but to emphasize the 
preference to use CVA when available, we add Sec.  86.11(c). This 
paragraph allows States to limit the use of BIG funds for pumpouts and 
direct BIG subgrantees in their State to CVA or other funding sources. 
We encourage subgrantee applicants to work with their States to secure 
CVA funding before including the action as a cost in a BIG application. 
If an applicant includes a pumpout as part of its BIG-funded project, 
we expect the applicant to explain its efforts to secure CVA funding 
and state why it is not available. As CVA does not require allocating 
costs among recreational users the same way as BIG does, most 
applicants will find they receive more funds for their pumpout facility 
from a CVA grant than from a BIG grant. We expect that requests for 
funding a pumpout through BIG will be limited to projects in a State 
that does not participate in CVA, does not have CVA funds available, or 
has legal or administrative restrictions.
    Comment 15: We received a few comments suggesting that using BIG 
funds to support clean boating and good environmental practices as 
stated in Sec.  86.11(a)(5) could deplete BIG funds for actions not 
directly benefitting the purpose of BIG. Another comment suggested we 
say, ``include interpretive signs regarding clean boating and good 
environmental practices at eligible facilities.'' One commenter was 
concerned that grantees would use BIG funds directly for Clean Marina 
programs in States. Another comment supported services that support 
clean boating and good environmental practices because these practices 
support Service goals, but stated that we should define the eligible 
services.
    Response 15: We discuss in the narrative introducing comments for 
Sec.  86.11 that we remove Sec.  86.11(a)(5) from the amended proposed 
rule. We do not amend the proposed rule to include interpretive signs 
because signs that tell boaters how to use the facility are already 
eligible costs. We do not intend to fund Clean Marina actions directly 
through BIG, but some actions eligible under BIG may support clean 
boating and environmentally sound practices. We discuss services and 
practices throughout the amended proposed rule as they apply to the 
purpose of BIG.
    Comment 16: Production of information and educational materials 
should be limited to BIG Basic grants for widespread promotion of BIG 
and not focused on one facility.
    Response 16: We do not make this change. Other comments support the 
ability of marinas to use BIG funds to advertise their project, and we 
agree.
    Comment 17: Add design and construction of boat wash stations as 
eligible under BIG.
    Response 17: We do not make this change and do not support this 
activity as an eligible cost under BIG. The primary purpose of boat 
wash stations is to remove aquatic invasive species and other 
transportable elements from a boat that a person trailers to another 
location. Trailered boats are not eligible vessels, so this is not an 
eligible cost. Boat wash stations are eligible actions for States under 
the Sport Fish Restoration program.
    Comment 18: Allowing other activities to be eligible with Service 
approval is too vague, and the process is not clear.
    Response 18: We move this language from Sec.  86.11(b) to (d) and 
add that we will describe any other approved actions eligible for 
funding in the annual RFA. We do not expect these actions to happen 
often. This paragraph gives the Service the ability to add or expand 
eligible BIG actions that will benefit applicants and the public while 
informing applicants so that all may include the added action if they 
choose.
Section 86.12 What construction and services does boating 
infrastructure include?
    Comment 19: Pumpouts should not be included as boating 
infrastructure, and grantees should fund them through CVA.
    Response 19: We discuss the need for installing pumpouts in 
Response 14. For these reasons, we support pumpouts as boating 
infrastructure. We do not make the requested change.
    Comment 20: ``Oil recycling, bilge-water cleaning, absorbent fuel 
collars, and other services and structures that support clean and safe 
boating'' should not be part of boating infrastructure.
    Response 20: We amend Sec.  86.12(e) to include ``equipment and 
structures for collecting, disposing, or recycling liquid or solid 
waste from eligible vessels.'' This change eliminates disposable items 
as eligible, places emphasis on equipment and structures, and focuses 
on the needs of eligible vessels.

[[Page 23213]]

Section 86.13 What design features must a BIG-funded facility have ?
    We acknowledge comments in support of parts of this section. We 
delete Sec.  86.13(c). We amend Sec.  86.13(b) and direct you to Sec.  
86.43(n) for more information on pumpout waivers. We add at Sec.  
86.13(c) in the amended proposed rule that we will consider water 
access less than 6 feet deep if the State can demonstrate it will serve 
the typical eligible users at that location. We add Sec.  86.13(d) to 
clarify that all design features do not have to be part of the proposed 
BIG-funded project, but can be an existing part of the marina, a 
feature added in a prior BIG grant, or a feature funded through other 
sources.
    Comment 21: Change Sec.  86.13(b) and (c) of the proposed rule on 
waivers and signs to remove the responsibility of the marina owner from 
telling boaters where the nearest pumpout is and posting signs.
    Response 21: We amend Sec. Sec.  86.13 and 86.43 as discussed above 
to clarify the process to request a waiver from the pumpout 
requirements in the grant application. We remove the requirement for 
posting signs, allowing you to inform boaters using other communication 
methods.
    Comment 22: Change this section to recommend pumpouts instead of 
requiring them.
    Response 22: We discuss our support of pumpouts in Responses 14 and 
19. For these reasons, we support pumpouts as a required design 
feature, with the exceptions we allow at Sec.  86.43(n)(1).
    Comment 23: This section contains both operational and design 
features. Recommend you distinguish them.
    Response 23: We agree and change the section to show both types of 
features.
Section 86.14 How can I receive BIG funds for maintenance?
    We received several comments that support grantees being 
responsible for maintenance of the BIG-funded facility for its useful 
life. The Act lists maintenance as one of the purposes of BIG, so we 
must allow maintenance and balance it with need and responsibility. We 
amend the proposed rule to emphasize ``facility'' maintenance, allow 
maintenance only during the grant period, and describe the need for 
grantees to apply user fees to maintenance after the grant period. We 
leave the flexibility for States to decide maintenance needs and 
priorities in BIG Standard grants. Based on one comment, we reviewed 
the proposed rule to clarify the use of the term `maintenance' and make 
it consistent throughout the amended proposed rule. This section has 
significant changes in the amended proposed rule.
    Comment 24: You should not allow maintenance as an eligible expense 
under BIG.
    Response 24: As discussed above, the Act clearly states facility 
maintenance is an eligible purpose under BIG.
    Comment 25: You must prohibit grantees and subgrantees from asking 
for BIG funding in the future when they charge user fees. Further, when 
a grantee or subgrantee accepts grant funds they agree to maintain the 
project for the useful life.
    Response 25: We amend the language to clarify that only maintenance 
done during the grant period is eligible for BIG funding. Applicants 
must clearly show maintenance is necessary and reasonable for the BIG-
funded project. We add a new Sec.  86.14(a)(2) to emphasize that 
grantees and subgrantees may apply fees toward maintenance. We add in 
the new Sec.  86.14(b)(2) that if a grantee uses BIG funds for 
maintenance at a facility that has received BIG funds in the past, the 
useful life must be extended. This continues the responsibility of the 
operator and gives extended benefits to the public. We also add Sec.  
86.14(b)(3) to allow a State to limit or exclude funding maintenance to 
subgrantees in its State. The amended Sec.  86.14(c) allows maintenance 
for BIG Select projects only during the grant period and only if the 
maintenance directly supports the project.
    We cannot guarantee future BIG funding to grantees and subgrantees, 
so they must commit to using other funding sources for maintaining a 
BIG-funded facility for its useful life.
    Comment 26: Maintenance seems to be restricted to structures and 
equipment, which is more restrictive than the current rule.
    Response 26: The current rule defines maintain as activities that 
``allow the facility to continue to function, such as repairing docks. 
These activities exclude routine janitorial activities.'' We clarify 
the term ``maintenance'' in this amended proposed rule, but we do not 
make it more restrictive.
Section 86.15 How can dredging qualify as an eligible action?
    We received comments supporting the approach to limit funds for 
dredging. We also received comments asking us to limit dredging 
projects to the existing channel and designated slips, allow one-time-
only dredging, and remove dredging as an eligible activity. As stated 
in Response 13, we propose to allow dredging under the restrictions 
discussed and not add any other restrictions or limitations. We add a 
general explanation of dredging in the amended proposed rule to clarify 
that dredging in this part includes all actions related to dredging. 
The limits on using BIG funds for dredging include all these actions.
    Comment 27: How does an applicant certify it has resources to 
maintain the dredge project?
    Response 27: We do not change this section based on this comment. 
We require a grantee or subgrantee to maintain a dredge project for its 
useful life, as we would for any other actions that are part of the 
project and have a useful life. When reviewing an application, we will 
consider the information the applicant presents to support its ability 
to maintain the dredge project. By signing the application, an 
applicant certifies to all BIG requirements.
Section 86.16 What actions are ineligible for BIG funding?
    We received several comments supporting as ineligible actions: 
retail businesses, parking lots, roads, administering or managing the 
facility, and purchasing or operating boats to transport boaters. Based 
on comments and our review we added Sec.  86.16(a)(10) to include as 
ineligible: supplies and other expendable personal property not 
directly related to the project objectives.
    Comment 28: You should reword this section to clarify which actions 
you consider marketing.
    Response 28: We amend this section to add examples of marketing 
activities.
Section 86.17 Who must own the site of a BIG-funded facility?
    Based on comments received for this section, we define the term 
``contractor'' at Sec.  86.3.
    Comment 29: What does an applicant do to show a contractual 
arrangement for operation of a site?
    Response 29: We do not change this section based on this question. 
If the applicant does not own the site where a BIG-funded project is 
proposed, the applicant will work with us to document an acceptable 
arrangement to ensure that the site will be available for the useful 
life of the BIG-funded facility.
    Comment 30: Requiring the Service to approve general management 
activities seems cumbersome.
    Response 30: We do not intend to review all business management 
activities, but if the applicant is not the operator, we must assess 
the operator's ability to manage a BIG-funded facility before we award 
a grant in this competitive program.

[[Page 23214]]

Section 86.18 How can I ensure that BIG-funded projects continue to 
serve their intended purpose for their useful life?
    We received several comments supporting the obligation to record a 
Federal interest. We amend this section to include flexibility to allow 
the Regions to consider options for low-value or low-risk improvements 
and for States to pass along the requirement to subgrantees. Some 
commenters asked us about the process for carrying out this section. We 
will publish procedural guidance and examples at https://fawiki.fws.gov.
Section 86.19 What if a project would benefit both eligible and 
ineligible users?
    We amend this section to make allocating costs simpler. We 
emphasize that you must allocate costs if part of the BIG-funded 
facility or a discrete element will benefit both eligible and 
ineligible users. Under the current rule, we may reject applications 
before scoring if the applicant does not allocate costs correctly. We 
amend the proposed rule to allow us to work with applicants to clarify 
how you allocate costs before the Director approves awards. We also 
propose an exception to allocating costs where there are secondary uses 
or purposes that would benefit all users that do not exclude eligible 
users from the primary purpose. We give examples on how to allocate 
costs. We invite comments that tell us if these changes improve the 
approach to allocating costs.
    Comment 31: How is it possible to assign 100 percent of project 
costs to the BIG grant when there is a match requirement?
    Response 31: We add a definition to proposed Sec.  86.3 for the 
term ``project cost'' to clarify that we mean the Federal share and all 
non-Federal funds given as match or added to the Federal grant to 
complete the project.
    Comment 32: Staff is not always available at BIG facilities to 
monitor, so how do we enforce facility use?
    Response 32: This section addresses only costs associated with the 
project and not the actual use. We emphasize that you need to describe 
the project in your application considering design and anticipated use 
and how you will allocate costs based on your analysis.
    Comment 33: What is a ``discrete element?''
    Response 33: We add a description for what we consider a ``discrete 
element.''
    Comment 34: It is difficult to post signs in mixed-use areas and 
enforce them.
    Response 34: We amend this paragraph to include only the need to 
inform ineligible boaters of areas or actions that are fully restricted 
or limited. For example, if you design slips for only eligible users 
and you assign 100 percent of costs to BIG funding, you must inform the 
public that these slips are limited to eligible users. If you design a 
tie-up area for exclusive use by eligible boats during certain periods, 
but all others may use during ``off periods,'' you must include details 
in your application and explain how you allocate costs. When the 
project is complete, you must inform all users. If you propose an 
action where you expect mixed use, you must describe it in your 
application, allocate costs accordingly, and you do not need to post 
any signs.
    Comment 35: Changes over time may lead to an unexpected use of a 
BIG-funded facility. States cannot predict and may not be aware of the 
changes when they occur.
    Response 35: The State is ultimately responsible for the grant. 
Section 86.18(e) explains that the grantee must have a contract with 
subgrantees that includes minimum requirements. The contract must 
prohibit the subgrantee from altering the ownership, purpose, or use of 
the BIG-funded facility without approval. The State may include other 
requirements to protect its interest in the grant project. If the State 
becomes aware of changes, it must contact us to find out how to address 
them.

Subpart C--Federal Funds and Match

Section 86.30 What is the source of BIG funds?
    No comments.
Section 86.31 How does the Service know how much money will be 
available for BIG grants each year?
    No comments.
Section 86.32 What are the match requirements?
    We received support for making land or an interest in land 
ineligible.
    Comment 36: We disagree with excluding the value of structures 
completed before the beginning of the funding period.
    Response 36: We amend this section to allow the value of a 
structure completed before the beginning of the funding period if the 
Service approves it as a preaward cost. We considered how we might 
allow the value of existing buildings that you may want to repurpose as 
part of the BIG-funded facility, but we do not change this section in 
this regard. We were unable to find a method that we could fairly and 
simply apply to the situation because of the many variables, such as 
the entire building not being used for the project, the building 
benefitting both eligible and ineligible users, and the repurposing 
being part of other projects. We welcome suggestions on approaches for 
using the value of existing structures as part of the BIG-funded 
project.
Section 86.33 What information must I provide on match commitments, and 
where do I provide it?
    We clarify this section and remove the requirement for a letter 
signed by a third party's authorized representative when they intend to 
provide match. This is consistent with the changes at Sec.  86.43 that 
remove the requirement for letters of commitment in an application. 
This requirement complicates the grant process because third party 
information often changes between the time of the grant application and 
project completion.
Section 86.34 What if a partner is not willing or able to follow 
through on a match commitment?
    We received comments asking us to remove or simplify this section. 
We amend this section to remove some of the notices you must give us 
and emphasize that States are ultimately responsible for all actions 
and funding commitments in the grant. We still require States to tell 
us how it will compensate for loss of match if a partner does not 
follow through on its commitment.

Subpart D--Application for a Grant

    We make changes to this subpart in the amended proposed rule by 
deleting Sec.  86.44 and incorporating the information into Sec.  
86.43. The ``other documents and information'' discussed in Sec.  86.44 
are now included in the project statement.
Section 86.40 What are the differences between BIG Basic grants and BIG 
Competitive grants?
    We received support in setting a minimum award for BIG Basic (now 
BIG Standard) grants that may increase as funds allow, but will not 
decrease. We received support for the $1.5 million limit for BIG 
Competitive (now BIG Select) grants, but also concern that the limit 
may not be reasonable in future years. We amend this section to say we 
``may'' limit BIG Select to a maximum of $1.5 million, but we will post 
the maximum award in the annual RFA. This allows the Service to respond 
to current need.
    Comment 37: We want the Service to allow States to apply for 
multiple BIG

[[Page 23215]]

Standard projects using separate applications as long as they do not 
exceed the maximum funding limit.
    Response 37: We agree and amend this section to allow the Service 
Regions to decide how the State should apply for BIG Standard grants as 
long as they do not exceed the maximum annual award.
    Comment 38: Verify that States can ask for an amount that is less 
than the BIG Standard annual funding limit.
    Response 38: We do not change this section based on this comment. 
The proposed rule says States may request any amount ``up to'' the 
annual funding limit. We will emphasize this in the annual RFA.
Section 86.41 How do I apply for a grant?
    We amend this section to require States to send applications 
through https://www.grants.gov.
    Comment 39: Emphasize that subgrantees must apply to the State and 
not directly to the Service.
    Response 39: We amend Sec.  86.41(a) to tell subgrantees they must 
send an application to the State following State rules.
Section 86.42 What do I have to include in an application?
    A comment asked us to remove information related to postaward 
actions. We do not make the change requested in this comment because 
this section addresses the application process.
Section 86.43 What information must I put in the project statement?
    As discussed in the introductory paragraph to this subpart, we 
incorporate information from Sec.  86.44 in the proposed rule into 
Sec.  86.43 in the amended proposed rule. We separate `purpose' and 
`objectives' to emphasize the differences between them, changing from 
paragraph (b) to paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraphs (c) through (f) of 
this section are now (d) through (g). Paragraphs (g) through (i) are 
now (i) through (k). We delete paragraph (j), Multipurpose projects and 
equitable cost for BIG-funded facilities, and add the information to 
paragraph (i), Budget narrative. We amend Sec.  86.43(i) to emphasize 
the need for good cost estimates in your budget narrative. We delete 
paragraph (m), Grantee's contact, and add paragraph (h), Project 
officer. Paragraphs (k) through (l) are now (l) through (m). We add 
paragraphs (n), General, and (o), Ranking criteria. Our responses to 
comments reference the proposed rule unless we specify otherwise.
    We received several comments regarding grant management issues such 
as State control of the project, relationships to other grants, 
preaward costs, and timeline. We will address these items through 
training and grant management venues. We change the amended proposed 
rule as described in the introductory paragraph to this subpart.
    Comment 40: In Sec.  86.43(d)(2) delete ``known contractor'' or 
explain what a contractor is.
    Response 40: We keep the phrase ``known contractor'' because a 
State or subgrantee may assign a major role to a contractor. If you 
know who your contractor will be when you submit your application, you 
must include this information. We added the definition of a contractor 
at Sec.  86.3 to clarify.
    Comment 41: Amend Sec.  86.43(e) to make useful life information 
optional. It is unreasonable to expect a design at the time they apply.
    Response 41: We do not make the requested change. If the 
application includes a capital improvement, the applicant should be 
able to estimate the useful life. We give further guidance at 
Sec. Sec.  86.74 and 86.75.
    Comment 42: In Sec.  86.43(i) remove the word ``must'' as some 
operators do not charge a fee.
    Response 42: We do not change this section. The proposed rule 
requires that a BIG-funded project charge fees similar to those charged 
at other facilities in the area with the same services. If all of the 
comparable facilities in the area offer services without charge, then 
the BIG-funded facility may also offer services without charge. We 
amend Sec.  86.90 to clarify. If an operator charges a fee, it must be 
in line with that charged by other local facilities.
Section 86.44 What other documents and information must I include in a 
grant application?
    We remove this entire section in the amended proposed rule as 
described above. We remove the information found in Sec.  86.44(a)(3) 
of the proposed rule and no longer require letters of commitment from 
partners. We received comments asking where to ask for a waiver from 
the requirement to have a pumpout. We describe in Sec.  86.43(n) of the 
amended proposed rule how to ask for a waiver in the application.
Section 86.45 What if my BIG project needs more than the awarded 
Federal share and required match to complete?
    This is Sec.  86.44 in the amended proposed rule.
    We received comments that support this section asking for discrete, 
stand-alone projects and supporting a fair, competitive process. Based 
on comments received and our review we: (1) Move Sec.  86.45(a)(3) in 
the proposed rule to Sec.  86.44(a)(2) in the amended proposed rule and 
Sec.  86.45(a)(2) in the proposed rule to Sec.  86.44(a)(3) in the 
amended proposed rule;
    (2) Add Sec.  86.44(b) to the amended proposed rule to address 
actions if you do not have enough funds and cannot complete a project; 
and
    (3) Move Sec.  86.45(b) and (c) in the proposed rule to Sec.  
86.44(c) and (d), respectively, in the amended proposed rule with no 
further changes.
    Comment 43: We recommend that all grant applications include a cost 
analysis and if a BIG Select project does not have enough funds to 
complete the project, the Service make it a priority and automatically 
award that project a grant from BIG Standard.
    Response 43: Both BIG Standard and BIG Select are competitive 
programs, BIG Standard at the State level and BIG Select at the 
national level. Allowing BIG Select projects automatically to receive 
BIG Standard grant funds to complete a project would make the grants 
noncompetitive, reduce State control of BIG Standard grants, and allow 
applicants to be careless with cost estimates. We do not make this 
change.
Section 86.46 If the Service does not select my grant application for 
funding, can I apply for the same project the following year?
    This section is now Sec.  86.45 in the amended proposed rule.
    We received one comment supporting the clarity on unsuccessful 
applications.
Section 86.47 What changes can I make in a grant application after I 
submit it?
    This section is now Sec.  86.46 in the amended proposed rule.
    We amend this section to allow the Service and the applicant to 
discuss the approach in the application for how to allocate costs 
between eligible and ineligible benefits during the period between when 
they apply and when the Service awards the grant. Currently, if the 
grantee does not allocate costs properly, we consider the application 
ineligible and we do not score it. This practice results in rejecting 
potentially good projects based solely on improperly allocating costs. 
This change allows us to score the application and gives the applicant 
the chance to adjust costs prior to the Director approving awards.

[[Page 23216]]

Subpart E--Project Selection

Section 86.50 Who ranks BIG Competitive applications?
    No comments.
Section 86.51 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate BIG 
Competitive applications?
    We received many comments and recommendations for the scoring 
criteria, and we respond by making significant changes from the 
proposed rule. We more accurately describe what the ranking criteria 
relate to by changing headings to paragraph (a) ``Need, Access, and 
Cost Efficiency,'' paragraph (b) is ``Match and Partnerships,'' and 
paragraph (c) ``Innovation.''
    We switch criteria at Sec.  86.51(a)(2) and (a)(3), but do not 
change the language. We move criteria at Sec.  86.51(b)(2) to (b)(1) 
and clearly state that the criterion at paragraph (b)(1) is to consider 
match greater than the minimum required. We amend Sec.  86.51(b)(2) to 
address in-kind contributions at any level.
    We amend Sec.  86.51(c)(1) to address innovations that improve 
eligible user access. We amend Sec.  86.51(c)(2) to address innovations 
that improve the overall BIG-funded project. We add Sec.  86.51(c)(3) 
to include a criterion for a marina that demonstrates a high level of 
commitment to environmental compliance, sustainability, and stewardship 
through a recognized program. We offer this provision because the 
actions these marinas have taken to receive this recognition indicates 
they exceed required compliance and show they are applying innovation 
and forward thinking to operating the facility where the BIG-funded 
project is located. This action demonstrates commitment to maintaining 
the high quality of the facility where the BIG-funded project is 
located, which will help to attract boaters, keep boaters, and extend 
the useful life of the BIG-funded project.
    We reduce the points for each criterion and now have a maximum 
total of 36 points instead of 100. We may award up to 20 points (56 
percent) for ``Need, Access, and Cost Efficiency,'' 10 points (28 
percent) for ``Match and Partnerships,'' and 6 points (16 percent) for 
``Innovation.''
    The criteria for Innovation clearly discuss the physical 
components, technology, and techniques used to improve access, 
improvements to the BIG-funded project that will extend useful life, 
and actions taken to improve operations beyond basic regulatory 
requirements. Many of the considerations for ``Innovation'' directly 
relate to construction actions or improving useful life of the 
facility.
Section 86.52 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
on the need for more or improved boating infrastructure?
    We received no comments. We add a new paragraph at Sec.  86.52(c) 
in the amended proposed rule that considers access created for eligible 
vessels by reducing wave action, increasing depth, or other physical 
improvements. We move Sec.  86.52(c) and (d) to Sec.  86.52(d) and (e), 
respectively.
Section 86.53 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
on boater access to significant destinations and services that support 
transient boater travel?
    This section was moved to Sec.  86.54 in the amended proposed rule 
to reflect the changes at Sec.  86.51. We amend Sec.  86.53(a)(3) to 
change from the word ``credibility'' to ``reliability.'' We received 
one comment that fully supports this section and another that wants it 
removed because of perceived difficulty in assessing all the variables. 
We add paragraph (b) to tell you that you must describe the benefits in 
the project statement under Need. We add paragraph (c) to say that we 
will consider all benefits to eligible users described in the project 
statement and add paragraph (d) to give an example on how we may apply 
this criterion. The current method assesses cost benefits based on the 
number of slips. We change the requirement to assess cost benefits as 
they relate to the needs described in the project statement.
Section 86.54 What does the Service consider on benefits to eligible 
users that justify the cost of the project?
    This section was moved to Sec.  86.53 in the amended proposed rule 
to reflect the changes at Sec.  86.51.
    Comment 44: When you evaluate a project based on access to 
significant destinations and services that support transient boater 
travel, the process favors projects close to developed areas. Many 
areas of interest may be isolated and in quiet, rustic areas. We feel 
this system penalizes those projects.
    Response 44: When we consider significant destinations, it means an 
area where eligible users would want to travel. You must describe the 
need for access to the remote, rustic area in the project statement. 
You must include information that addresses Sec.  86.54 (a)-(c). You 
should also include supporting information and demonstrate to reviewers 
how the project destination will successfully attract eligible users. 
It is possible for these projects to receive points for this criterion.
Section 86.55 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
for partnerships?
    We changed this section in the amended proposed rule to ``What does 
the Service consider as a partner for the purposes of these ranking 
criteria?''
Section 86.56 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
that includes greater than the minimum match?
    We add a section to the amended proposed rule to separate match and 
have a criterion for greater than minimum match and a criterion for in-
kind match. The new section in the amended proposed rule is Sec.  86.57 
``What does the Service consider when evaluating in-kind contributions 
that a partner brings to a project?'' We present amendments, comments, 
and responses for Sec. Sec.  86.55 through 57 together because they all 
discuss the criteria related to partners and the subject matter 
overlaps.
    We reorganize the sections in the amended proposed rule to reflect 
the changes in the criteria at Sec.  86.51(b) that address one 
criterion for greater than minimum match and a second criterion for in-
kind match. We simplify Sec.  86.55 for what qualifies as a partner 
under this amended proposed rule by removing the requirement for at 
least 1 percent match, a letter of commitment, and other requirements 
that place extra emphasis on the number of partners or the specific 
contributions of a specific partner. We expand Sec.  86.56 to allow 
that the greater than minimum match may come from any grantee, single 
partner, or combination of grantee and partners. We include a table 
that designates the points we will award for increased match. We add 
Sec.  86.57 to the amended proposed rule to give direction on in-kind 
contributions that a partner brings.
    Some comments questioned the need to consider partners for each 
application because BIG as a program offers the opportunity for Federal 
and State agencies to form partnerships with private subgrantees. The 
Act states that, ``in awarding grants,'' we give priority to projects 
that include public/private partnerships, so we must consider the 
partnerships in each application. Public/private partnerships leverage 
Federal and other public funds with private funds to increase support 
for the project. We must include review of private partnerships for all 
applications and will give greater consideration for projects that 
include a private contribution.

[[Page 23217]]

    We also received comments that convey the difficulties in 
sustaining partnerships in a project that may take several years to 
begin construction and several more to complete. Often, a partner 
cannot fulfill the commitment. We will still award higher points for 
match above the minimum, but will consider the total cash match and not 
count each contributor. This system will allow small communities to 
receive smaller donations or commitments and apply them as one amount 
toward match. It will benefit the grantee and subgrantees to foster 
lasting partnerships to meet the excess match. The same logic applies 
to in-kind match, that it allows project involvement to foster many 
smaller relationships and receive credit for those contributions. We 
award fewer total points for in-kind contributions.
    Comment 45: Clarify what is a duty of an agency. Other agencies may 
contribute work they are doing only because of the BIG-funded project, 
and the State cannot complete the project without the other agency's 
action.
    Response 45: We reword this section to clarify. We make a clear 
distinction between a mandatory duty and a voluntary action. If an 
agency has an obligation to act, it is not a partner. It is fulfilling 
its duty as an agency. Another agency is a partner if it offers a 
voluntary action to benefit the project. For example, if another agency 
offers the use of its equipment, labor, or other action within the 
scope of work for the BIG-funded project, it is a partner and we will 
consider its contribution as in-kind. A voluntary action may support 
the BIG-funded project, but is not part of the scope of BIG-funded 
work, for example, a parks department that builds a recreational area 
near the BIG-funded facility that offers entertainment to eligible 
users. It may contribute to the amenities at the project, but we will 
not consider it a partner for the in-kind criterion.
Section 86.57 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
for improving or maintaining the quality of the local environment?
Section 86.58 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
for environmental sustainability?
    We change Sec. Sec.  86.57 and 86.58 in the proposed rule to 
Sec. Sec.  86.58 and 86.59 in the amended proposed rule. We add a new 
section after Sec.  86.59 in the amended proposed rule as Sec.  86.60 
``What does the Service consider when evaluating a project for 
demonstrating a commitment to environmental compliance, sustainability, 
and stewardship?'' We add this section to reflect the amended criteria 
in Sec.  86.51(c), and, in Sec. Sec.  86.58 through 86.60, we discuss 
how we will consider them. We do this because the majority of comments 
we received ask us to rethink our approach.
    Most commenters said they did not want a criterion that includes 
improving the local habitat. We focus the criterion at Sec.  86.58 in 
the amended proposed rule on innovation that directly relates to the 
BIG-funded project and eligible-user access. We clarify that we will 
not consider improvements to access that are mandated by law, but only 
voluntary actions that the grantee or subgrantee does beyond the 
minimum requirements.
    We amend the criterion at Sec.  86.59 in the amended proposed rule 
in response to comments stating it may be difficult to measure global 
impact or sustainability at the application phase. Although several 
comments suggested we remove this criterion, we are resolute that we 
should consider and reward this type of innovation. We considered all 
comments, and we amend the proposed rule to capture the positive 
aspects of innovation, while narrowing the focus to actions that 
directly relate to BIG-eligible construction.
    We relate the criterion to physical components, technology, or 
techniques that are new or repurposed in a unique way. We give examples 
of the type of effects that the innovation should address, such as 
extending the useful life, reducing maintenance, reducing operating 
costs, reducing negative impacts during construction, or reducing the 
carbon footprint of the BIG-funded project. The applicant should be 
able to address these items in their application. This change relates 
the innovation directly back to infrastructure, but encourages 
applicants to be forward thinking while planning and executing the 
project.
    We add the criterion at Sec.  86.60 in the amended proposed rule to 
allow us to award one point to facilities where a BIG-funded project is 
proposed that demonstrates it has received official recognition by an 
organization for its efforts to operate the facility using a high 
standard of excellence. The awarding organization may be a Federal, 
State, or local agency, a private or nonprofit organization with focus 
or expertise in marina operations, or other entity known for working 
with marinas or boating facilities and supporting innovation, 
environmental stewardship, sustainability, and best management 
practices. The recognition the marina receives must be part of an 
established program with set standards of excellence. The applicant 
must include proof they have received this recognition.
Section 86.59 What happens after the Director approves projects for 
funding?
    No comments. We renumber this section as Sec.  86.61 to reflect the 
changes earlier in this subpart.

Subpart F--Grant Administration

Section 86.70 What standards must I follow when constructing a BIG-
funded facility?
    We received comments that requiring a licensed engineer or 
architect would be a burden for small marinas, excessive for small 
projects, and add unnecessary costs to the BIG-funded project. We 
agree, and, in response, we amend this section to remove the 
requirement for all projects to meet this standard. We will leave it up 
to our Regional Offices to ask you to have an expert review your 
project if the cost is greater than $100,000 and there are concerns.
Section 86.71 How much time do I have to complete the work funded by a 
BIG grant?
    We received comments that suggest 3 years might not be enough time 
to complete a BIG-funded project and would create a system of continual 
extension requests. We amend this section to emphasize that we have 3 
Federal fiscal years from the beginning of the Federal fiscal award 
year to obligate funds. For example, for Federal fiscal year 2014, 
which starts on October 1, 2013, we have until September 30, 2016, to 
obligate the funding. Grantees may coordinate with us during this 
period to work on preconstruction planning and compliance. Once the 
Service and the grantee agree on a start date, we will obligate the 
funds in our electronic financial system. Grantees will have 3 years 
from the start date to complete the BIG-funded project. We do not 
change this section based on this clarification.
Section 86.72 What if I cannot complete the project during the grant 
period?
    We received a comment supporting the clear deadlines and reasonable 
approach.
    Comment 46: Due to the extra work needed to amend a grant, we 
recommend you change this section from having two 1-year extensions to 
one 2-year extension.
    Response 46: We agree with the concept and amend this section to 
allow us to grant a first extension for up to 2 years. We may grant a 
shorter extension

[[Page 23218]]

if it is in the best interest of the project or program. We keep the 
option for a second extension and keep the criteria, but do not give a 
set time. This approach also allows flexibility for the needs and 
benefits of the project and the program. We amend the section to 
require approval from the Regional Director and the Service's Assistant 
Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration only for extensions 
beyond 5 years of the start date. In practice, if a grantee is asking 
for an extension beyond 5 years, it is possible that more than 8 years 
have passed from the date of the award. Extending grant funds for a 
project that you do not complete 8 years after we award a grant 
requires a higher level review.
    Comment 47: This section conflicts with Sec.  86.47 ``What changes 
can I make in a grant application?'' since modifications could affect 
the score.
    Response 47: This section does not conflict with Sec.  86.47 
because Sec.  86.47 refers to changes in an application, not changes in 
an awarded grant. Time extensions have no impact on the score. We do 
not make any changes based on this comment.
Section 86.73 What if I need more funds to finish a project?
    We received several comments supporting this section. We make some 
edits to text based on suggestions we received. We amend this section 
to reflect changes we make to subpart H of the proposed rule.
Section 86.74 How long must I operate and maintain a BIG-funded 
facility, and who is responsible for the cost of facility operation and 
maintenance?
    We received several comments supporting this section. We received 
one comment suggesting that because of State-by-State insurance issues 
we should remove the suggestion for States to insure a BIG-funded 
project. We remove that suggestion in this section with the 
understanding that States know it is an option. We maintain the option 
in Sec.  86.18(f) for States to require subgrantees to have insurance.
Section 86.75 How do I determine the useful life of a project?
    We received several suggestions for changing the language in this 
section; some we accept, and others we do not. We also amend this 
section based on our consideration and changes to other sections. We 
will reject your application if you do not propose a useful life in 
your application. We will allow the grantee to negotiate the proposed 
useful life with us after we receive the application, but before we 
approve the grant. We do this so that an application is not rejected 
based solely on a proposed useful life that we do not agree with at the 
time we are reviewing applications for awards. However, if you are 
using an increased useful life to justify more points following the 
criterion in Sec.  86.51(c), you must give adequate information in your 
application to support your request for consideration under the 
criterion. If we find before we approve your grant that you are not 
able to demonstrate a reasonably expected increased benefit to earn the 
extra points, we will remove those points from the scoring and adjust 
awards accordingly. We allow a BIG-funded project to have several 
useful-life components or to have a single useful life based on the 
longest useful life of any structure or system in the grant.
Section 86.76 How should I credit the BIG program?
    Comment 48: You should add a paragraph to give States the option of 
having alternative language approved due to local ordinances and 
restrictions.
    Response 48: We agree and amend this section to allow approval of 
alternative language.
Section 86.77 How can I use the logo for the BIG program?
    No comments. We amend this section to add a new paragraph (c) 
stating that businesses that contribute to or receive from the Trust 
Fund may display the logo in conjunction with products or projects.
Section 86.78 How must I treat program income?
    We received a comment that the table was too complicated. We remove 
the table and amend this section to clarify that it only applies if you 
expect to earn program income during the grant period. We simplify 
Sec.  86.78(d) to recommend that States work with us to reduce 
unintended program income, but leave the method up to our Regional 
Offices.
Section 86.79 How must I treat program income earned after the grant 
period?
    No comments.

Subpart G--Facility Operations and Maintenance

Section 86.90 How much must an operator of a BIG-funded facility charge 
for using the facility?
    Comment 49: The proposed rule states that an operator ``must'' 
charge a reasonable fee based on the prevailing rate in the area. It 
does not allow an operator to offer free services.
    Response 49: We agree and add a new Sec.  86.90(b) to the amended 
proposed rule to allow BIG-funded operators to offer services free of 
charge if that is prevailing practice for the area.
    Comment 50: The regulations should not involve themselves in the 
business practices of the marina owner and should not require this 
information.
    Response 50: We reiterate our comments found in the preamble of the 
proposed rule that grantees must not use the benefit of the Federal 
grant to compete unfairly with similar businesses in the area of the 
BIG-funded project. We amend the proposed rule by adding Sec.  86.90(c) 
to allow for a legally imposed fee structure. We move Sec.  86.90(b) to 
(d) and amend it to require you to state the fees and the basis for the 
fees in your grant application. We remove the statement that awarding a 
grant includes approval of proposed fees, as everything in the 
application becomes part of the grant award and this is unnecessary 
information.
    Comment 51: There is no place in the proposed rule that tells a 
grantee what to include in a grant application for fees.
    Response 51: We describe what supports this requirement in the new 
Sec.  86.90(d). You must present the basis for your conclusion in any 
format that shows the fees comply with the prevailing rate.
Section 86.91 May an operator of a BIG-funded facility increase or 
decrease user fees during the useful life of the BIG-funded project?
    Comment 52: The State should authorize any change in user fees.
    Response 52: We amend Sec.  86.91 to designate the sole paragraph 
in the proposed rule as paragraph (a) in the amended proposed rule. We 
remove the requirement that we approve a change in user fees, but we 
allow States to be more involved if they choose. We add Sec.  86.91(b) 
to address how a State or the Service must respond if it discovers an 
operator of a BIG-funded facility is charging an unreasonable fee. We 
will not monitor changes in user fees. This paragraph states that the 
State and the Service must allow an operator to make reasonable 
business decisions when changing user fees.
Section 86.92 May an operator of a BIG-funded facility limit public 
access?
    We amend the question in the amended proposed rule to address 
allowing access rather than limiting access. We received comments that 
led us to amend this section to add a new Sec.  86.92(a) to clarify the 
definition of

[[Page 23219]]

``public access.'' Public access means access by eligible users for 
eligible actions or other actions that either support or do not 
interfere with the purposes of the BIG-funded project. We add this 
definition to emphasize that ``public access'' does not mean that an 
operator of a BIG-funded facility should ignore the purpose of the BIG-
funded project and allow access that interferes with that purpose. We 
remove the sentence in Sec.  86.92(a) that allowed applicants to 
describe other limits to access in their application. We amend Sec.  
86.92(b) to state that an operator must allow public access to the BIG-
funded facility. We amend Sec.  86.92(c) to state that an operator must 
allow reasonable public access to other parts of the facility that 
would normally be open to the public. An operator of a BIG-funded 
facility must not limit access to only a certain segment of the 
eligible public, such as members only, or discriminate against an 
eligible user in a way that interferes with his or her civil rights. We 
move Sec.  86.92(b) to (d). We replace the language at Sec.  86.92(c) 
for the reasons in Response 53. We move Sec.  86.92(d) and (e) to Sec.  
86.92 (e) and (f), respectively.
    Comment 53: Section 86.92(c) says that the public must have access 
to the shore and related facility features such as fuel stations and 
restrooms. The public does not have direct access to the shore if the 
BIG-funded project is for mooring buoys. The regulations should have an 
exception for this requirement.
    Response 53: We understand the language in the proposed rule may be 
misinterpreted to require an operator of a BIG-funded facility to 
provide transportation to and from BIG-funded projects or components 
that are located away from the shore. We amend the proposed rule to 
state that an operator must allow reasonable public access that would 
normally be open to the public. This change states that eligible users 
must have normal access, but that the operator does not have to create 
access where it does not exist.
Section 86.93 May I prohibit overnight use by eligible vessels at a 
BIG-funded facility?
    Comment 54: At the end of the sentence, add ``or if authorized by 
the State agency.''
    Response 54: We disagree. We indicate that you must state in your 
application if you intend your BIG-funded facility to be for day use 
only, as it is part of the scope of the project. We do not want a 
grantee or subgrantee changing any part of the scope without going 
through the revision process, so we do not allow the State to approve a 
change in scope. We amend this section to require a grantee to follow 
subpart H for changes in scope.
Section 86.94 Do I have to include informational signs for eligible 
users at BIG-funded facilities?
    Based on comments received, consideration of new technologies, and 
changes to this amended proposed rule, we amend this section to expand 
the technology and methods used to inform boaters so grantees may use 
signs or any other form of reasonable communication. This change allows 
grantees to inform boaters through their smart phone, internet, or any 
other communication technology commonly available. Because of these 
changes, we also amend the section title. We remove the requirement to 
post fees. We remove the need to post restrictions for shared-use areas 
that have had costs allocated as described at Sec.  86.19. We emphasize 
that an operator must inform the public of BIG-funded benefits that are 
solely for the use of eligible users. For example, you may estimate the 
breakdown of users of a BIG-funded fuel dock to be 70 percent 
ineligible users and 30 percent eligible users. If you allocate costs 
in the application, then you are not required to notify any users of 
any restrictions. However, if you build 10 BIG-funded slips for 
eligible users and they are located next to 20 slips that are available 
for anyone to use, you must use signs or other methods to inform the 
public that the 10 slips are only for eligible vessels.

Subpart H--Revisions and Appeals

Section 86.100 Can I change the information in an application after I 
receive a grant?
    We amend Sec.  86.100(d) to state that the Regional Office should 
follow its own procedures for review and approval of changes to a BIG 
Standard grant. We add Sec.  86.100(e) to state that the Regional 
Office must receive approval from the Division of Wildlife and Sport 
Fish Restoration Headquarters Office for any changes to a BIG Select 
grant that involves cost, project benefits, or another factor that 
could affect the score.
    Comment 55: This section includes BIG Standard grants, but talks 
about national scoring, which does not apply to BIG Standard.
    Response 55: We agree and amend the section to separate rules that 
apply to both BIG Standard and BIG Select and those that apply only to 
BIG Select.
Section 86.101 How do I ask for a revision of a grant?
    No comments.
Section 86.102 Can I appeal a decision?
    No comments.
Section 86.103 Can the Director authorize an exception to this part?
    No comments.

Subpart I--Information Collection

Section 86.110 What are the information-collection requirements of this 
part?
    We add Sec.  86.110(a)(3) and (4) on Standard Forms 424 A, 424 C, 
SF-LLL, and SF-LLLA.

Public Comments

    You may submit your comments and materials on this proposed rule by 
one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept comments 
sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES. Finally, 
we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or 
mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in 
DATES.
    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 us in your comment to withhold your personal information from 
public view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Required Determinations

    We do not change. Refer to our proposed rule, Boating 
Infrastructure Grant Program, (77 FR 18767, March 28, 2012), for 
Required Determinations.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 86

    Administrative practice and procedure, Boats and boating safety, 
Fishing, Grants administration, Grant programs, Harbors, Intermodal 
transportation, Marine resources, Natural resources, Navigation 
(water), Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Rivers, Signs and symbols, Vessels, Water resources, 
Waterways.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, subchapter F, 
by revising part 86 to read as follows:

[[Page 23220]]

PART 86--BOATING INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT PROGRAM

Subpart A--General
Sec.
86.1 What does this part do?
86.2 What is the purpose of BIG?
86.3 What terms do I need to know?
Subpart B--Program Eligibility
86.10 Who may apply for a BIG grant?
86.11 What actions are eligible for funding?
86.12 What types of construction and services does boating 
infrastructure include?
86.13 What operational and design features must a facility have 
where a BIG-funded facility is located?
86.14 How can I receive BIG funds for facility maintenance?
86.15 How can dredging qualify as an eligible action?
86.16 What actions are ineligible for BIG funding?
86.17 Who must own the site of a BIG-funded facility?
86.18 How can I ensure that a BIG-funded facility continues to serve 
its intended purpose for its useful life?
86.19 What if a BIG-funded facility would benefit both eligible and 
ineligible users?
Subpart C--Federal Funds and Match
86.30 What is the source of BIG funds?
86.31 How does the Service know how much money will be available for 
BIG grants each year?
86.32 What are the match requirements?
86.33 What information must I give on match commitments, and where 
do I give it?
86.34 What if a partner is not willing or able to follow through on 
a match commitment?
Subpart D--Application for a Grant
86.40 What are the differences between BIG Standard grants and BIG 
Select grants?
86.41 How do I apply for a grant?
86.42 What do I have to include in a grant application?
86.43 What information must I put in the project statement?
86.44 What if I need more than the maximum Federal share and 
required match to complete my BIG-funded project?
86.45 If the Service does not select my grant application for 
funding, can I apply for the same project the following year?
86.46 What changes can I make in a grant application after I submit 
it?
Subpart E--Project Selection
86.50 Who ranks BIG Select grant applications?
86.51 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate BIG Select 
applications?
86.52 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project on 
the need for more or improved boating infrastructure?
86.53 What factors does the Service consider for benefits to 
eligible users that justify the cost?
86.54 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project on 
boater access to significant destinations and services that support 
transient boater travel?
86.55 What does the Service consider as a partner for the purposes 
of these ranking criteria?
86.56 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project that 
includes more than the minimum match?
86.57 What does the Service consider when evaluating in-kind 
contributions that a partner brings to a project?
86.58 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project for a 
physical component, technology, or technique that will improve 
eligible user access?
86.59 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project for 
innovative physical components, technology, or techniques that 
improve the BIG project?
86.60 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project for 
demonstrating a commitment to environmental compliance, 
sustainability, and stewardship?
86.61 What happens after the Director approves projects for funding?
Subpart F--Grant Administration
86.70 What standards must I follow when constructing a BIG-funded 
facility?
86.71 How much time do I have to complete the work funded by a BIG 
grant?
86.72 What if I cannot complete the project during the grant period?
86.73 What if I need more funds to finish a project?
86.74 How long must I operate and maintain a BIG-funded facility, 
and who is responsible for the cost of facility operation and 
maintenance?
86.75 How do I determine the useful life of a BIG-funded facility?
86.76 How should I credit the BIG program?
86.77 How can I use the logo for the BIG program?
86.78 How must I treat program income?
86.79 How must I treat income earned after the grant period?
Subpart G--Facility Operations and Maintenance
86.90 How much must an operator of a BIG-funded facility charge for 
using the facility?
86.91 May an operator of a BIG-funded facility increase or decrease 
user fees during its useful life?
86.92 Must an operator of a BIG-funded facility allow public access?
86.93 May I prohibit overnight use by eligible vessels at a BIG-
funded facility?
86.94 Must I give information to eligible users and the public about 
BIG-funded facilities?
Subpart H--Revisions and Appeals
86.100 Can I change the information in a grant application after I 
receive a grant?
86.101 How do I ask for a revision of a grant?
86.102 Can I appeal a decision?
86.103 Can the Director authorize an exception to this part?
Subpart I--Information Collection
86.110 What are the information-collection requirements of this 
part?

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 777c, g, and g-1.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  86.1  What does this part do?

    (a) This part tells States how they may apply for and receive 
grants from the Boating Infrastructure Grant program (BIG) Standard and 
Select subprograms. Section Sec.  86.40 describes the differences 
between these two subprograms.
    (b) The terms you, your, and I refer to a State agency that applies 
for or receives a BIG grant. You may also apply to a subgrantee with 
which a State agency has a formal agreement to construct, operate, or 
maintain a BIG-funded facility.
    (c) The terms we, us, and our refer to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service.


Sec.  86.2  What is the purpose of BIG?

    The purpose of BIG is to construct, renovate, and maintain boating 
infrastructure facilities for transient recreational vessels at least 
26 feet long.


Sec.  86.3  What terms do I need to know?

    For the purposes of this part, we define these terms:
    BIG-funded facility means only the part of a facility that we fund 
through a BIG grant.
    Boating infrastructure means all of the structures, equipment, 
accessories, and services that are necessary or desirable for a 
facility to accommodate eligible vessels. See Sec.  86.12 for examples 
of boating infrastructure.
    Capital improvement means:
    (1) A new structure that costs at least $25,000 to build; or
    (2) Altering, renovating, or repairing an existing structure if it 
increases the structure's useful life by 10 years or if it costs at 
least $25,000.
    Construction means the act of building or significantly altering, 
renovating, or repairing a structure. Clearing and reshaping land and 
demolishing structures are types or phases of construction. Examples of 
structures are buildings, docks, piers, breakwaters, and slips.
    Contractor means an entity with which a State has a written 
agreement to operate or manage a BIG-funded facility. You pay a 
contractor to perform specific duties according to a written agreement. 
Contractors are not grant recipients.
    Director means:
    (1) The person whom the Secretary of the Interior:
    (i) Appointed as the chief executive official of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service; and

[[Page 23221]]

    (ii) Delegated authority to administer BIG nationally; or
    (2) A deputy or another person who exercises the Director's 
Servicewide authority.
    Eligible user means an operator or passenger of an eligible vessel.
    Eligible vessel means a transient recreational vessel at least 26 
feet long. The term includes vessels that are owned, loaned, rented, or 
chartered. The term does not include:
    (1) Commercial vessels;
    (2) Vessels that dock or operate permanently from the BIG-funded 
facility; or (3) Vessels that receive payment to routinely transport 
passengers on a prescribed route, such as cruise ships, dive boats, and 
ferries.
    Facility means the structures, equipment, and operations that:
    (1) Provide services to boaters at one location; and
    (2) Are under the control of a single operator or business 
identified in the grant application.
    Grant means an award of money, the principal purpose of which is to 
transfer funds from a Federal agency to a grantee to support or 
stimulate an authorized public purpose and includes the matching cash 
and any matching in-kind contributions.
    Maintenance means keeping structures or equipment in a condition to 
serve the intended purpose. It includes cyclical or occasional actions 
done to keep facilities fully functional. It does not include 
operational actions such as janitorial work. Examples of maintenance 
actions are:
    (1) Lubricating mechanical components of BIG-funded equipment;
    (2) Replacing minor components of a BIG-funded improvement, such as 
bolts, boards, and individual structural components; and
    (3) Painting, pressure washing, and repointing masonry.
    Marketing means an activity that promotes a business to interested 
customers for the financial benefit of the facility. It may include a 
plan for sales techniques and strategies, business communication, and 
business development. A business uses marketing to find, satisfy, and 
keep a customer.
    Match means the value of any cash or in-kind contributions required 
or volunteered to complete the BIG-funded facility that are not borne 
by the Federal Government, unless a Federal statute authorizes such 
match.
    Navigable waters means waters that are deep and wide enough for the 
passage of eligible vessels.
    Operation means actions that allow a BIG-funded facility or parts 
of a BIG-funded facility to perform their function on a daily or 
frequent basis. Examples of operation are janitorial work, service 
labor, facility administration, utilities, rent, taxes, and insurance. 
Personal property means anything tangible or intangible that is not 
real property.
    Program income means gross income received by the grantee or 
subgrantee directly generated by a grant-supported activity, or earned 
only as a result of the grant during the grant period.
    Project means one or more related actions that are eligible for BIG 
funding, achieve specific goals and objectives of BIG, and in the case 
of construction, occur at only one facility.
    Project cost means the Federal share awarded through the BIG grant 
and all non-Federal funds given as the match or added to the Federal 
and matching shares to complete the BIG-funded project.
    Public communication means communicating with the public or news 
media about specific actions or accomplishments directly associated 
with the BIG-funded project. The purpose is to inform the public about 
the BIG program or projects that receive BIG funding.
    Real property means one, several, or all interests, benefits, and 
rights inherent in owning a parcel of land. A parcel includes anything 
physically and firmly attached to it by a natural or human action. 
Examples of real property in this rule include fee and leasehold 
interests, easements, fixed docks, piers, permanent breakwaters, 
buildings, utilities, and fences.
    Regional Office means the main administrative office of one of the 
Service's geographic Regions in which a BIG-funded project is located. 
Each Regional Office has a:
    (1) Regional Director appointed by the Director to be the chief 
executive official of the Region and authorized to administer Service 
activities in the Region, except for those handled directly by the 
Service's Headquarters Office; and
    (2) Division of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) or its 
equivalent that administers BIG grants.
    Renovate means to rehabilitate all or part of a facility to restore 
it to its intended purpose or to expand its purpose to allow use by 
eligible vessels or eligible users.
    Scope of a project means the purpose, objectives, approach, and 
results or benefits expected, including the useful life of any capital 
improvement.
    Service means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    State means any State of the United States, the Commonwealths of 
Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, the District of Columbia, 
and the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American 
Samoa.
    Transient means travel to a single facility for day use or up to 10 
days.
    Useful life means the period during which a BIG-funded capital 
improvement is capable of fulfilling its intended purpose with adequate 
routine care and maintenance. See Sec. Sec.  86.74 and 86.75.

Subpart B--Program Eligibility


Sec.  86.10  Who may apply for a BIG grant?

    One agency in each eligible State may apply for a BIG grant if 
authorized to do so by:
    (a) A statute or regulation of the eligible jurisdiction;
    (b) The Governor of the State, Commonwealth, or territory; or
    (c) The Mayor of the District of Columbia.


Sec.  86.11  What actions are eligible for funding?

    (a) The following actions are eligible for BIG funding if they are 
for eligible users or eligible vessels:
    (1) Construct, renovate, or maintain publicly or privately owned 
boating infrastructure (see Sec.  86.12) following the requirements at 
Sec.  86.13.
    (2) Conduct actions necessary to construct boating infrastructure, 
such as:
    (i) Engineering, economic, environmental, or feasibility studies or 
assessments; and
    (ii) Planning, permitting, and contracting.
    (3) Dredging a channel, boat basin, or other boat passage following 
the requirements at Sec.  86.15.
    (4) Install navigational aids to give transient vessels safe 
passage between a facility and navigable channels or open water.
    (5) Produce information and education materials specific to BIG or 
a BIG-funded project and that credit BIG as a source of funding when 
appropriate. Examples of eligible actions include:
    (i) Locating BIG-funded facilities on charts and cruising guides;
    (ii) Creating Statewide or regional brochures telling boaters about 
BIG and directing them to BIG-funded facilities;
    (iii) Advertising a BIG-funded facility in print or electronic 
media with the emphasis on BIG, the BIG-funded facility, or services 
for eligible users, and not on marketing the marina as a whole;
    (iv) Marina newsletter articles, marina or agency Web pages, and 
other

[[Page 23222]]

communications you produce that are directly related to the BIG-funded 
project;
    (v) Giving boaters information and resources to help them find and 
use the BIG-funded facility; and
    (vi) Public communication.
    (6) Use BIG Standard grant awards to administer BIG Standard and 
BIG Select grants, or grant programs, Statewide. This includes 
coordinating and monitoring to ensure BIG-funded facilities are well-
constructed, meet project objectives, and serve the intended purpose 
for their useful life; and to manage BIG grant performance or 
accomplishments.
    (b) An applicant may ask for approval for preaward costs for 
eligible actions. Your Regional Office must approve preaward costs. You 
incur preaward costs at your own risk, as we will only reimburse you if 
you receive a grant.
    (c) A State may require a pumpout be funded through the Clean 
Vessel Act Grant Program (CVA), Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
number 15.616. We urge applicants to seek funding for installing 
pumpout facilities through CVA before including the cost as part of a 
BIG grant application.
    (d) Other actions may qualify for BIG funding, subject to our 
approval, if they achieve the purposes of BIG. We will describe actions 
we approve and how they are eligible for BIG funding in the annual 
Request for Applications (RFA).


Sec.  86.12  What types of construction and services does boating 
infrastructure include?

    Boating infrastructure may include:
    (a) Boat slips, piers, mooring buoys, floating docks, dinghy docks, 
day docks, and other structures for boats to tie-up and gain access to 
the shore or services.
    (b) Fuel stations, restrooms, showers, utilities, and other 
amenities for transient-boater convenience.
    (c) Lighting, communications, buoys, beacons, signals, markers, 
signs, and other means to support safe boating and provide information 
to aid boaters.
    (d) Breakwaters, sea walls, and other physical improvements to 
allow an area to offer a harbor of safe refuge. A harbor of safe refuge 
is an area that gives eligible vessels protection from storms. To be a 
harbor of safe refuge, the facility must offer a place to secure 
eligible vessels and provide access to provisions and communication for 
eligible users.
    (e) Equipment and structures for collecting, disposing, or 
recycling liquid or solid waste from eligible vessels.


Sec.  86.13  What operational and design features must a facility have 
where a BIG-funded facility is located?

    (a) At project completion, a facility where a BIG-funded facility 
is located must:
    (1) Be open to eligible users and operated and maintained for its 
intended purpose for its useful life;
    (2) Clearly designate eligible uses and inform the public of 
restrictions;
    (3) Offer security, safety, and service for eligible users and 
vessels;
    (4) Be accessible by eligible vessels on navigable waters;
    (5) Allow public access as described at Sec.  86.92;
    (6) Have docking or mooring sites with water access at least 6 feet 
deep at the lowest tide or fluctuation, unless following paragraph (c) 
of this section; and
    (7) Have an operational pumpout station if:
    (i) Eligible vessels stay overnight; and
    (ii) Available pumpout service is not located within 2 nautical 
miles; or
    (iii) State or local laws require one on site.
    (b) We will waive the pumpout requirement if you demonstrate in the 
grant application the inability to install a pumpout, following the 
requirements at Sec.  86.43(n).
    (c) We will allow water access at a depth less than 6 feet if the 
State can demonstrate the BIG-funded facility will accommodate eligible 
users for the intended BIG purpose at that location.
    (d) Any of these design features may already be part of the 
facility, or be funded through another source, and need not be included 
as part of the BIG project.


Sec.  86.14  How can I receive BIG funds for facility maintenance?

    (a) For BIG Standard and BIG Select grants:
    (1) You may request BIG funds for facility maintenance only if the 
maintenance action does not extend past the grant period.
    (2) You may apply user fees collected at the BIG-funded facility 
after the grant period to maintain the facility.
    (b) For BIG Standard grants:
    (1) You may request BIG funds for one-time or as-needed maintenance 
costs at any BIG-eligible facility as long as the costs are discrete 
and follow paragraph (a) of this section.
    (2) If you use BIG funds for maintenance at a facility that has 
received a BIG grant in the past, you must extend the useful life of 
each capital improvement accordingly.
    (3) States may limit or exclude BIG-maintenance funding they make 
available to subgrantees.
    (c) For BIG Select grants, you may request BIG funds for 
maintenance directly related to the BIG project and that benefit 
eligible users. You are responsible for all maintenance costs after the 
grant period except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.


Sec.  86.15  How can dredging qualify as an eligible action?

    (a) Dredging in this part includes the physical action of removing 
sediment from the basin and any associated actions, such as 
engineering, permitting, dredge material management, and other actions 
or costs that occur because of the dredging. Dredging can qualify as an 
eligible action under the grant only if the costs for the dredging-
related actions do not exceed 10 percent of total BIG project costs, or 
$200,000, whichever is less.
    (b) When you complete the project, the BIG-funded dredged area 
must:
    (1) Have navigable water at least 6 feet deep at lowest tide or 
fluctuation;
    (2) Allow safe, accessible navigation by eligible vessels to, from, 
and within the BIG-funded facility; and
    (3) Allow eligible vessels to dock safely and securely at transient 
slips.
    (c) You must show in the grant application that:
    (1) Dredging is needed to fulfill the purpose and objectives of the 
proposed project; and
    (2) You have allocated the dredging costs between the expected use 
by eligible vessels and ineligible vessels.
    (d) You must certify in the grant application that you have enough 
resources to maintain the dredged area at the approved width and depth 
for the useful life of the BIG-funded facility.


Sec.  86.16  What actions are ineligible for BIG funding?

    (a) These actions or costs are ineligible for BIG funding:
    (1) Law enforcement.
    (2) Direct administration and operation of the facility, such as 
salaries, utilities, and routine janitorial duties.
    (3) Developing a State plan to construct, renovate, or maintain 
boating infrastructure.
    (4) Acquiring land or any interest in land.
    (5) Constructing, renovating, or maintaining roads or parking lots.
    (6) Constructing, renovating, or maintaining boating infrastructure 
facilities for:
    (i) Shops, stores, food service, other retail businesses, or 
lodging;
    (ii) Facility administration or management, such as a 
harbormaster's or dockmaster's office; or

[[Page 23223]]

    (iii) Transportation, storage, or services for boats on dry land, 
such as dry docks, haul-outs, and boat maintenance and repair shops.
    (7) Purchasing or operating service boats to transport boaters to 
and from mooring areas.
    (8) Marketing. Examples of ineligible marketing actions include:
    (i) Giveaway items promoting the business or agency;
    (ii) General marina or agency newsletters or Web sites promoting 
the marina or agency;
    (iii) Exhibits at trade shows promoting anything other than the 
BIG-funded facility; and
    (iv) Outreach efforts directed at the marina as a business or the 
agency as a whole and not focused on BIG or the BIG-funded facility.
    (9) Constructing, renovating, or maintaining boating infrastructure 
that does not:
    (i) Include design features as described at Sec.  86.13;
    (ii) Serve eligible vessels or users; and
    (iii) Allow public access as described at Sec.  86.92.
    (10) Purchase of supplies and other expendable personal property 
not directly related to achieving the project objectives.
    (b) Other activities may be ineligible for BIG funding if they are 
inconsistent with the:
    (1) Purpose of BIG; or
    (2) Applicable Cost Principles at 2 CFR Parts 225 or 230.


Sec.  86.17  Who must own the site of a BIG-funded facility?

    (a) You or another entity approved by us must own or have a legal 
right to operate the site of a BIG-funded facility. If you are not the 
owner, you must be able to show, before we approve your grant, that 
your contractual arrangements with the owner of the site will ensure 
that the owner will use the BIG-funded facility for its authorized 
purpose for its useful life.
    (b) Subgrantees or contractors may be a local or tribal government, 
a nonprofit organization, or a commercial enterprise.
    (c) Subgrantees that are commercial enterprises are subject to:
    (1) 43 CFR Part 12, subpart F for grant administrative 
requirements; and
    (2) Any future regulations that supplement or replace that subpart.


Sec.  86.18  How can I ensure that a BIG-funded facility continues to 
serve its intended purpose for its useful life?

    (a) When you design and build your BIG-funded facility, you must 
consider the features, location, materials, and technology in reference 
to the geological, geographic, and climatic factors that may have an 
impact on its useful life.
    (b) You must record the Federal interest in real property that 
includes a BIG-funded capital improvement according to the assurances 
required in the grant application and guidance from the Regional WSFR 
Office.
    (c) If we direct you to do so, you must require that subgrantees 
record the Federal interest in real property that includes a BIG-funded 
capital improvement.
    (d) If we do not direct you to act as required by paragraph (c) of 
this section, States may require subgrantees to record the Federal 
interest in real property that includes a BIG-funded capital 
improvement.
    (e) You must include in your contract with subgrantees that they 
must not alter the ownership, purpose, or use of the BIG-funded 
facility as described in the project statement without approval from 
you and the WSFR Regional Office.
    (f) You may impose other requirements on subgrantees, as allowed by 
law, to reduce State liability for the BIG-funded facility. Examples 
are insurance, deed restrictions, and a security interest agreement, 
which uses subgrantee assets to secure performance under the grant.


Sec.  86.19  What if a BIG-funded facility would benefit both eligible 
and ineligible users?

    You must not assign any share of the costs to the BIG grant if the 
BIG-funded facility or a discrete element of the BIG-funded facility 
does not benefit eligible users. A discrete element has a distinct 
purpose, such as a fuel station, pumpout facility, breakwater, or dock 
system.
    (a) You must clearly show and explain in the project statement:
    (1) The anticipated benefits of each project, discrete elements, 
and applicable components;
    (2) The breakdown of costs, including the basis or method you use 
to allocate costs between eligible and ineligible users; and
    (3) Your reasoning in determining when to allocate costs, based on 
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section and any other guidance given 
in the annual RFA.
    (b) You may assign 100 percent of the project costs to the BIG 
grant if the project and each discrete element of the project benefit 
only eligible users.
    (c) If a proposed project or a discrete element of a project would 
benefit both eligible and ineligible users, before the Director 
announces your award, you must allocate costs between eligible and 
ineligible users based on the expected use.
    (d) If a proposed BIG-funded facility, or a discrete element, minor 
component, or single action of the BIG-funded project, gives a 
secondary or minimal benefit to all users, we will not require you to 
allocate costs between eligible and ineligible users for that benefit. 
Examples for how we will apply this rule are the following:
    (1) The primary purpose is directly for the benefit of eligible 
users, with a secondary benefit for all users. You must clearly state 
the exclusive benefit to eligible users in your application. The 
secondary benefit cannot exclude eligible users from the primary 
purpose. For example, if you construct a dock system for exclusive use 
by eligible vessels and a secondary benefit of the dock system is 
protection of the marina from wave action, you would not have to 
allocate costs for the secondary benefit. However, the secondary 
benefit cannot be docking for ineligible vessels because it would 
exclude eligible users from the primary purpose.
    (2) The secondary benefit to ineligible users is not the primary 
purpose, is minimal, and you do not add special features to accommodate 
ineligible users. For example, you do not have to allocate costs 
between user groups for a gangway from the transient dock, designed 
exclusively for eligible users, even though it is accessible to the 
general public. However, if you construct the gangway to accommodate 
the expected ineligible users, then you must allocate costs between 
user groups.
    (3) The expected benefits to both eligible and ineligible users 
have minimal value. If the component has a value of .0025 percent or 
less than the maximum available Federal award plus required match, you 
do not have to allocate costs for that component. We will post the 
amount of the minimal value each year in the annual RFA. For example, 
if the total maximum Federal award and required match for a BIG Select 
project is $2 million, you do not have to allocate costs between user 
groups for any discrete project element, component, or action with a 
value of $5,000 or less.
    (e) Examples of actions for which you must allocate costs between 
user groups are the following, unless paragraph (b) of this section 
applies:
    (1) You propose a 200-foot dock for eligible user tie-up spaces 
that you attach to the shore at a boat launch. It will attract 
ineligible use as a tie-up for boaters as they enter and exit the 
water. You must allocate costs between the expected eligible and 
ineligible use.
    (2) You propose a breakwater, fuel station, pumpout station, 
restroom,

[[Page 23224]]

dredging, navigational aids, or other multiuse or multipurpose action.
    (f) Examples of actions for which you do not need to allocate costs 
between user groups are:
    (1) You propose to construct, renovate, or maintain docks 
specifically for eligible vessels.
    (2) You propose to produce information and educational materials 
specific to BIG.
    (g) You must clearly inform boaters when access by ineligible users 
is limited or restricted following the guidance at Sec.  86.94.
    (h) We may ask you to clarify or change how you allocate costs in 
your grant application if they do not meet our standards. We may reject 
costs or applications that do not allocate costs between eligible and 
ineligible users according to the requirements of this section and the 
RFA.

Subpart C--Federal Funds and Match


Sec.  86.30  What is the source of BIG funds?

    (a) BIG receives Federal funding as a percentage of the annual 
revenues to the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund (Trust 
Fund) [26 U.S.C. 4161(a), 4162, 9503(c), and 9504].
    (b) The Trust Fund receives revenue from sources including:
    (1) Excise taxes paid by manufacturers on sportfishing equipment 
and electric outboard motors;
    (2) Fuel taxes attributable to motorboats and nonbusiness use of 
small-engine power equipment; and
    (3) Import duties on fishing tackle, yachts, and pleasure craft.


Sec.  86.31  How does the Service know how much money will be available 
for BIG grants each year?

    (a) We estimate funds available for BIG grants each year when we 
issue a RFA at https://www.grants.gov. We base this estimate on the 
revenue projected for the Trust Fund.
    (b) We calculate the actual amount of funds available for BIG 
grants based on tax collections, any funds carried over from previous 
fiscal years, and available unobligated BIG funds.


Sec.  86.32  What are the match requirements?

    (a) The Act requires that the State or another non-Federal partner 
must pay at least 25 percent of eligible and allowable BIG-funded 
facility costs. We must waive the first $200,000 of the required match 
for each grant to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and 
the territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 
(48 U.S.C. 1469(a)).
    (b) Match may be cash contributed during the funding period or in-
kind contributions of personal property, structures, and services 
including volunteer labor, contributed during the grant period.
    (c) Match must be:
    (1) Necessary and reasonable to achieve project objectives;
    (2) An eligible activity or cost;
    (3) From a non-Federal source, unless you show that a Federal 
statute authorizes the specific Federal source for use as match; and
    (4) Consistent with the applicable sections of:
    (i) Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements 
at 43 CFR 12.64 and 12.923;
    (ii) Applicable Cost Principles at 2 CFR Parts 220, 225, or 230; 
and
    (iii) Any regulations or policies that may replace or supplement 
requirements at paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (d) Match must not include:
    (1) An interest in land or water;
    (2) The value of any structure completed before the beginning of 
the funding period, unless the Service approves the activity as a 
preaward cost;
    (3) Costs or in-kind contributions that have been or will be 
counted as satisfying the cost-sharing or match requirement of another 
Federal grant, a Federal cooperative agreement, or a Federal contract, 
unless authorized by Federal statute; or
    (4) Any funds received from another Federal source, unless 
authorized by Federal statute.


Sec.  86.33  What information must I give on match commitments, and 
where do I give it?

    (a) You must give information on the amount and the source of match 
for your proposed BIG-funded facility on the standard grant application 
form at https://www.grants.gov.
    (b) You must also give information on the match commitment by the 
State, a subgrantee, or other third party in the project statement 
under ``Match and Other Contributions.''
    (c) In giving the information required at paragraph (b) of this 
section, you must:
    (1) State the amount of matching cash;
    (2) Describe any matching in-kind contributions;
    (3) State the estimated value of any in-kind contributions; and
    (4) Explain the basis of the estimated value.


Sec.  86.34  What if a partner is not willing or able to follow through 
on a match commitment?

    (a) You are responsible for all activity and funding commitments in 
the grant application. If you discover that a partner is not willing or 
able to meet a grant commitment, you must notify us that you will 
either:
    (1) Replace the original partner with another partner who will 
provide the action or the funds to fulfill the commitment as stated in 
the grant application; or
    (2) Give either cash or an in-kind contribution(s) that at least 
equals the value and achieves the same objective as the partner's 
original commitment of cash or in-kind contribution.
    (b) If a partner is not willing or able to meet a match commitment 
and you do not have enough money to complete the BIG-funded facility as 
proposed, you must follow the requirements at Sec. Sec.  86.73 and 
86.100.

Subpart D--Application for a Grant


Sec.  86.40  What are the differences between BIG Standard grants and 
BIG Select grants?

              Comparison of BIG Standard and Select Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     BIG Standard          BIG Select
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) What actions are eligible   Those listed at Sec.    Those listed at
 for funding?.                   86.11..                 Sec.   86.11
                                                         except
                                                        Sec.
                                                         86.11(a)(6).
(b) What is the amount of       Each year we make at    We may limit
 Federal funds I can receive     least $100,000          funding to a
 in one BIG grant?.              available to each       maximum award
                                 State. States may       of $1.5
                                 request any amount up   million. We
                                 to the annual funding   will publish a
                                 limit. We decide        recommended
                                 annual funding limits   maximum grant
                                 based on the total      request in the
                                 funds available for     annual RFA.
                                 BIG. We announce each
                                 year in https://www.grants.gov the
                                 amount of Federal
                                 funds you can
                                 receive..

[[Page 23225]]

 
(c) How many grant              Each State may only     No limit.
 applications can I submit       request up to the
 each year?.                     annual funding limit
                                 each year. You may do
                                 this by sending in
                                 one grant application
                                 with one project or
                                 multiple projects.
                                 The Regional WSFR
                                 Office may ask a
                                 State with multiple
                                 projects to prepare a
                                 separate grant
                                 request for each
                                 project, as long as
                                 the total of all
                                 projects does not
                                 exceed the annual
                                 funding limit..
(d) How does the Service        We fund a single grant  We score each
 choose grant applications for   or multiple grants      grant
 funding?.                       per State up to the     application
                                 maximum annual amount   according to
                                 available..             ranking
                                                         criteria at
                                                         Sec.   86.51.
                                                         We recommend
                                                         applications,
                                                         based on scores
                                                         and available
                                                         funding, to the
                                                         Director. The
                                                         Director
                                                         selects the
                                                         applications
                                                         for award.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  86.41  How do I apply for a grant?

    (a) If you want to be a subgrantee, you must send an application to 
the State agency that manages BIG following the rules given by your 
State. We award BIG funds only to States.
    (b) States must submit a grant application through https://www.grants.gov, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 15.622.
    (c) The director of your State agency or an authorized 
representative must certify all standard forms submitted in the grant 
application process in the format designated by the Service.
    (d) If your State supports Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental 
Review of Federal Programs, you must send copies of all standard forms 
and supporting information to the State Clearinghouse or Single Point 
of Contact before sending it to https://www.grants.gov.


Sec.  86.42  What do I have to include in a grant application?

    (a) When you submit a BIG grant application, you must include 
standard forms, budget information, a BIG project statement, documents, 
maps, images, and other information asked for in the annual RFA at 
https://www.grants.gov, CFDA 15.622, in the format we ask for.
    (b) After we review your application, any responses to our requests 
to give more information or to clarify information become part of the 
application.
    (c) After we award your grant, you must include supporting 
documentation explaining how the proposed work complies with applicable 
laws and regulations and tell us the permits, evaluations, and reviews 
you will need to obtain in order to complete the project.
    (d) Misrepresentations of the information you give in an 
application may be a reason for us to:
    (1) Reject your application; or
    (2) Terminate your grant and require repayment of Federal funds 
awarded.


Sec.  86.43  What information must I put in the project statement?

    You must put the following information in the project statement:
    (a) Need. Explain why the project is necessary and how it fulfills 
the purpose of BIG. To support the need for the project you must:
    (1) For construction projects, describe existing facilities 
available for eligible vessels near the proposed project. Support your 
description by including images that show existing structures and 
facilities, the proposed BIG-funded facility, and relevant details, 
such as the number of transient slips and the amenities for eligible 
users.
    (2) Describe how the proposed project fills a need or offers a 
benefit not offered by the existing facilities identified at paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section.
    (3) Give information to support the number of transient boats 
expected to use the area of the proposed project and show that the 
existing facilities identified at paragraph (a)(1) of this section are 
not enough to support them.
    (b) Purpose. State the desired outcome of the project in general or 
abstract terms, but in such a way that we can review the information 
and apply it to the competitive review.
    (c) Objectives. Identify specific, measurable, attainable, 
relevant, and time-bound outputs that will contribute to the need you 
are addressing.
    (d) Results or benefits expected.
    (1) Describe each capital improvement, service, or other product 
that will result from the project, and its purpose.
    (2) Describe how the structures, services, or other products will:
    (i) Satisfy the need described at paragraph (a) of this section; 
and
    (ii) Benefit eligible users.
    (e) Approach. (1) Describe the methods used to achieve the 
objectives. Show that you will use sound design and proper procedures. 
Include enough information for us to make a preliminary assessment of 
compliance needs.
    (2) Give the name, contact information, qualifications, and role of 
each known contractor or subgrantee.
    (3) Explain how you will exercise control to ensure the BIG-funded 
facility continues to fulfill its authorized purpose during the useful 
life of the BIG-funded project.
    (f) Useful life. State the useful life in years of each capital 
improvement for the proposed project. Explain how you determined the 
useful life of each capital improvement. You must reference a generally 
accepted method used to determine useful life of a capital improvement. 
See Sec. Sec.  86.74 and 86.75.
    (g) Geographic location. (1) State the location using Global 
Positioning System (GPS) coordinates in the format we ask for in the 
annual RFA.
    (2) State the local jurisdiction (county, town, city, or 
equivalent), street address, and water body associated with the 
project.
    (3) Include maps in your application, such as:
    (i) A small State map that shows the general location of the 
project;
    (ii) A local map that shows the facility location and the nearest 
community, public road, and navigable water body; and
    (iii) Any other map that supports the information in the project 
statement.
    (h) Project officer. Applicant enters only the term Federal Aid 
Coordinator under this heading if the Federal Aid Coordinator for a 
State fish and wildlife agency will be the project officer. If the 
Federal Aid Coordinator will not be the project officer, applicant 
provides the name, title, work address, work email, and work telephone 
number of the person who will be the contact person. The project 
officer should have a detailed knowledge of the project.

[[Page 23226]]

Applicant states whether the project officer has the authority to sign 
requests for prior approval, project reports, and other communications 
committing the grantee to a course of action.
    (i) Budget narrative. Provide costs and other information 
sufficient to show that the project will have benefits that justify the 
costs. You must use reasonably available resources to develop accurate 
cost estimates for your project to insure the successful completion of 
your BIG-funded facility. You must state how you will allocate costs 
between eligible and ineligible users following the requirements at 
Sec.  86.19 and explain the method used to allocate costs equitably 
between anticipated benefits for eligible and ineligible users. State 
sources of cash and in-kind values you include in the project budget. 
Describe any item that has cost limits or requires our approval and 
estimate its cost or value. Examples are dredging and preaward costs.
    (j) Match and other partner contributions. See Sec. Sec.  86.32 and 
86.33 for required information.
    (k) Fees and program income, if applicable. (1) See Sec.  86.90 for 
the information that you must include on the estimated fees that an 
operator will charge during the useful life of the BIG-funded facility.
    (2) See Sec. Sec.  86.78 and 86.79 for an explanation of how you 
may use program income. If you decide that your project is likely to 
generate program income during the grant period, you must:
    (i) Estimate the amount of program income that the project is 
likely to generate; and
    (ii) Indicate how you will apply program income to Federal and non-
Federal outlays.
    (l) Relationship with other grants. Describe the relationship 
between the BIG-funded facility and other relevant work funded by 
Federal and non-Federal grants that is planned, expected, or in 
progress.
    (m) Timeline. Describe significant milestones in completing the 
project and any accomplishments to date.
    (n) General. (1) If you seek a waiver based on Sec.  86.13(b), you 
must include the request and supporting information in the grant 
application following the instructions given in the annual RFA.
    (i) We will review your request and will grant the waiver if you 
present circumstances that show:
    (A) A hardship due to lack of utilities or other difficult 
obstacles, such as a BIG-funded facility on an island with no power or 
a remote location where the equipment cannot be serviced or maintained 
regularly;
    (B) State or local law does not allow septic-waste disposal 
facilities at the location;
    (C) The State is in the process of applying for a CVA grant for the 
same award year as the BIG grant to install a pumpout station as part 
of the BIG-funded facility; or
    (D) The State has received a CVA grant and will install a pumpout 
station as part of the BIG-funded facility on or before the time the 
BIG-funded facility is completed.
    (ii) When we waive the pumpout requirement, the BIG-funded facility 
must inform boaters:
    (A) They are required to properly treat or dispose of septic waste; 
and
    (B) Where they can find information that will direct them to other 
nearby pumpout stations.
    (iii) If we deny your request, we will follow the process described 
in the annual RFA.
    (2) If you seek an allowance based on Sec.  86.13(c), you must 
include supporting information in the grant application.
    (3) Include any other description or documents we ask for in the 
annual RFA or that you need to support your proposed project.
    (o) Ranking Criteria. In BIG Select applications, you must respond 
to each of the questions found in the ranking criteria at Sec.  86.51. 
We publish the questions for these criteria in the annual RFA. In 
answering each question, you must include the information at Sec. Sec.  
86.52 through 86.60 and any added information we ask for in the annual 
RFA.


Sec.  86.44  What if I need more than the maximum Federal share and 
required match to complete my BIG-funded project?

    (a) If you plan a BIG project that you cannot complete with the 
recommended maximum Federal award and the required match, you may:
    (1) Find other sources of funds to complete the project;
    (2) Divide your larger project into smaller, distinct, stand-alone 
projects and apply for more than one BIG grant, either in the same year 
or in different years. One project cannot depend on the completion of 
another; or
    (3) Combine BIG Standard and BIG Select funding to complete a 
project at a single location.
    (b) If you cannot complete a BIG project with the amount of the 
Federal award received and the required match, you may:
    (1) Find other sources of funds to complete the project; or
    (2) Consider if BIG Standard funds are available to help complete 
the project. This is not a guaranteed option.
    (c) For BIG Select grants, we review and rank each application 
individually, and each must compete with other applications for the 
same award year.
    (d) If you receive a BIG grant for one of your applications, we do 
not give preference to other applications you submit.


Sec.  86.45  If the Service does not select my grant application for 
funding, can I apply for the same project the following year?

    If we do not select your BIG grant application for funding, you can 
apply for the same project the following year or in later years.


Sec.  86.46  What changes can I make in a grant application after I 
submit it?

    (a) After you submit your grant application, you can add 
information or change up to the date and time that the applications are 
due.
    (b) After the due date of the applications and before we announce 
successful applicants, you can add information or change your 
application only if it does not affect the scope of the project and 
would not affect the score of the application. If part of an 
application contains actions that we cannot fund with a BIG grant, we 
will decide on a case-by-case basis whether we will consider the rest 
of the application for funding. During this period we may ask you to 
change the useful life following the requirements at Sec.  86.75 or 
allocating costs between users of the BIG project following the 
requirements at Sec.  86.19.
    (c) You must inform us of any incorrect information in an 
application as soon as you discover it, either before or after 
receiving an award.
    (d) We may ask you at any point in the application process to:
    (1) Clarify, correct, explain, or supplement data and information 
in the application;
    (2) Justify the eligibility of a proposed action; or
    (3) Justify the allowability of proposed costs or in-kind 
contributions.
    (e) If you do not respond fully to our questions at paragraph (d) 
in this section in the time allotted, we will not consider your 
application for funding.
    (f) If funding is limited and we cannot fully fund your project, we 
may tell you the amount of available funds and ask you if you wish to 
adjust your application to reduce the amount of funding requested.

Subpart E--Project Selection


Sec.  86.50  Who ranks BIG Select grant applications?

    We assemble a panel of our professional staff to review, rank, and 
recommend grant applications for

[[Page 23227]]

funding to the Director. This panel may include representatives of our 
Regional Offices, with Headquarters staff overseeing the review, 
ranking, and recommendation process. Following the requirements of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the Director may 
invite nongovernmental organizations and other non-Federal entities to 
take part in an advisory panel to make recommendations to the Director.


Sec.  86.51  What criteria does the Service use to evaluate BIG Select 
applications?

    Our panel of professional staff and any invited participants 
evaluate BIG Select applications using the ranking criteria in the 
following table and assign points within the range for each criterion. 
We may give added information to guide applicants regarding these 
criteria in the annual RFA on https://www.grants.gov.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ranking criteria                          Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Need, Access, and Cost       20 total possible points.
 Efficiency.
(1) Will the proposed boating    0-10.
 infrastructure meet a need for
 more or improved facilities?.
(2) Will eligible users receive  0-7.
 benefits from the proposed
 boating infrastructure that
 justify the cost of the
 project?.
(3) Will the proposed boating    0-3.
 infrastructure accommodate
 boater access to significant
 destinations and services that
 support transient boater
 travel?.
(b) Match and Partnerships.....  10 total possible points.
(1) Will the proposed project    0-7.
 include private, local, or
 State funds greater than the
 required minimum match?.
(2) Will the proposed project    0-3.
 include in-kind contributions
 by private or public partners
 that contribute to the project
 objectives?.
(c) Innovation.................  6 total possible points.
(1) Will the proposed project    0-3.
 include physical components,
 technology, or techniques that
 improve eligible-user access?.
(2) Will the proposed project    0-2.
 include innovative physical
 components, technology, or
 techniques that improve the
 BIG-funded project?.
(3) Has the facility where the   0-1.
 project is located
 demonstrated commitment to
 environmental compliance,
 sustainability, and
 stewardship and been
 officially recognized by an
 agency or organization?.
(d) Total possible points......  36.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  86.52  What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
on the need for more or improved boating infrastructure?

    In evaluating a proposed project under the criterion at Sec.  
86.51(a)(1) on the need for more or improved boating infrastructure 
facilities, we consider whether the project will:
    (a) Construct new boating infrastructure in an area that lacks 
these facilities, but where eligible vessels now travel or would travel 
if the project were completed;
    (b) Renovate a facility to:
    (1) Improve its physical condition;
    (2) Follow local building codes;
    (3) Improve generally accepted safety standards; or
    (4) Adapt it to a new purpose for which there is a demonstrated 
need;
    (c) Create accessibility for eligible vessels by reducing wave 
action, increasing depth, or making other physical improvements;
    (d) Expand an existing marina or mooring site that is unable to 
accommodate current or projected demand by eligible vessels; or
    (e) Make other improvements to accommodate a demonstrated eligible 
need.


Sec.  86.53  What factors does the Service consider for benefits to 
eligible users that justify the cost?

    (a) We consider these factors in evaluating a proposed project 
under the criterion at Sec.  86.51(a)(2) on benefits for eligible users 
that justify the cost of the project:
    (1) Total cost of the project;
    (2) Total benefits available to eligible users upon completion of 
the project; and
    (3) Reliability of the data and information used to decide benefits 
relative to costs.
    (b) You must support the benefits available to eligible users by 
clearly listing and discussing in the project statement how they relate 
to Need (see Sec.  86.43(a)).
    (c) We will consider the cost relevant to all benefits to eligible 
users supported in the application. We may consider the availability of 
preexisting structures and amenities, but will balance this factor with 
considering the overall need for the project.
    (d) For example, two projects each cost $2 million. One is for new 
construction at a location with no prior eligible user access. The 
project statement describes the needs the BIG-funded project will 
fulfill as:
    (1) Added access where none exists,
    (2) Added services where none exists, and
    (3) New access to a popular boating resource or attraction. The 
second proposed project is at an existing location, and the project 
statement describes the need for more slips due to a seasonal event 
that attracts more boaters than the marina can accommodate. The first 
project gives more benefits than the second project for the same amount 
of money, so for this criterion the first project will receive more 
points than the second project.


Sec.  86.54  What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
on boater access to significant destinations and services that support 
transient boater travel?

    In evaluating a proposed project under the criterion at Sec.  
86.51(a)(3) on boater access, we consider:
    (a) The degree of access that the BIG-funded facility will give;
    (b) The activity, event, or landmark that makes the BIG-funded 
facility a destination, how well known the attraction is, how long it 
is available, and how likely it is to attract boaters to the facility; 
and
    (c) The availability of services near the BIG-funded facility, how 
easily boaters can access them, and how well they serve the needs of 
eligible users.


Sec.  86.55  What does the Service consider as a partner for the 
purposes of these ranking criteria?

    (a) The following may qualify as partners for purposes of the 
ranking criterion:
    (1) A non-Federal entity, including a subgrantee.
    (2) A Federal agency other than the Service.
    (b) The partner must commit to a financial contribution, an in-kind 
contribution, or to take a voluntary action during the grant period.
    (c) In-kind contributions or actions must contribute directly and 
substantively to the completion of the

[[Page 23228]]

project. You must explain in the grant application how it is necessary 
to complete the project.
    (d) A governmental entity may be a partner unless its contribution 
to completing the project is a mandatory duty of the agency, such as 
reviewing a permit application. A voluntary action by a government 
agency or employee is a partnership.


Sec.  86.56  What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
that includes more than the minimum match?

    (a) When we evaluate a project under the criterion for match at 
Sec.  86.51(b)(1), we consider cash above the required 25 percent match 
that would reduce the percent Federal share of project costs.
    (b) The contribution may be from a State, a single source, or any 
combination of sources.
    (c) We will award points as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Percent cash match                         Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26-29..........................................................        1
30-39..........................................................        2
40-49..........................................................        3
50-59..........................................................        4
60-69..........................................................        5
70-79..........................................................        6
80 or higher...................................................        7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  86.57  What does the Service consider when evaluating in-kind 
contributions that a partner brings to a project?

    (a) We consider the non-cash, in-kind contribution that a partner 
brings to the project and the significance of each action to the 
objectives and success of the project in evaluating a project under the 
criterion at Sec.  86.51(b)(2).
    (b) To qualify, a partner's contribution must be necessary to 
accomplish the project objectives. The grant application must state 
specifically how the partner's contribution helps construct, renovate, 
or maintain the project or otherwise contributes to the success of the 
project.
    (c) In-kind contributions from partners need not exceed the 25 
percent required match.


Sec.  86.58  What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
for a physical component, technology, or technique that will improve 
eligible user access?

    (a) In evaluating a proposed project under the criterion at Sec.  
85.51(c)(1), we consider whether the project will increase the 
availability of the BIG-funded facility for eligible users or improve 
eligible boater access to the facility by:
    (1) Using a new technology or technique; or
    (2) Applying a new use of an existing technology or technique.
    (b) We will not award points for following access standards set by 
law.
    (c) We will consider when you choose to complete the project using 
an optional or advanced technology or technique that will improve 
access, or if you go beyond the minimum requirements.
    (d) To receive consideration for this criterion, you must describe 
in the grant application the current standard and how you will exceed 
the standard.


Sec.  86.59  What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
for innovative physical components, technology, or techniques that 
improve the BIG project?

    (a) In evaluating a proposed project under the criterion at Sec.  
86.51(c)(2), we consider if the project will include physical 
components, technology, or techniques that are:
    (1) Newly available; or
    (2) Repurposed in a unique way.
    (b) Examples of the type of innovations we will consider are 
components, technology, or techniques that:
    (1) Extend the useful life of the BIG-funded project;
    (2) Are designed to allow the operator to save costs, decrease 
maintenance, or improve operation;
    (3) Are designed to improve BIG-eligible services or amenities;
    (4) During construction, are used specifically to reduce negative 
environmental impacts; or
    (5) Reduce the carbon footprint of the BIG-funded facility.


Sec.  86.60  What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
for demonstrating a commitment to environmental compliance, 
sustainability, and stewardship?

    (a) In evaluating a project under the criterion at Sec.  
86.51(c)(3), we consider if the application documents that the facility 
where the BIG-funded project is located has received official 
recognition for its voluntary commitment to environmental compliance, 
sustainability, and stewardship by exceeding regulatory requirements.
    (b) The official recognition must be part of a voluntary, 
established program administered by a Federal or State agency, local 
governmental agency, Sea Grant or equivalent entity, or a State or 
Regional marina organization.
    (c) The established program must require the facility to use 
management and operational techniques and practices that will ensure it 
will continue to meet the high standards of the program and must 
contain a component that requires periodic review.
    (d) The facility must have met the criteria required by the 
established program and received official recognition at the time of 
the application.


Sec.  86.61  What happens after the Director approves projects for 
funding?

    (a) After the Director approves projects for funding, we notify 
successful applicants of the:
    (1) Amount of the grant;
    (2) Documents or clarifications required, including those required 
for compliance with applicable laws and regulations;
    (3) Approvals needed and format for processing approvals; and
    (4) Time constraints.
    (b) After we receive the required forms and documents, we approve 
the project and the terms of the grant and obligate the grant in the 
Federal financial management system.
    (c) BIG funds are available for Federal obligation for 3 Federal 
fiscal years, starting October 1 of the fiscal year that funds become 
available for award. We do not make a Federal obligation until you meet 
the grant requirements. Funds not obligated within 3 fiscal years are 
no longer available.

Subpart F--Grant Administration


Sec.  86.70  What standards must I follow when constructing a BIG-
funded facility?

    (a) You must design and build a BIG-funded facility so that each 
structure meets Federal, State, and local standards.
    (b) A Region or a State may require you to have plans reviewed by a 
subject-matter expert if there are questions as to the safety, 
structural stability, durability, or other construction concerns for 
projects in excess of $100,000.


Sec.  86.71  How much time do I have to complete the work funded by a 
BIG grant?

    (a) We must obligate a grant within 3 Federal fiscal years of the 
beginning of the Federal fiscal award year.
    (b) We assign a grant period that is no longer than 3 years from 
the grant start date. (c) You must complete your project within the 
grant period unless you ask for and receive a grant extension.


Sec.  86.72  What if I cannot complete the project during the grant 
period?

    (a) If you cannot complete the project during the 3-year grant 
period, you may ask us for an extension. Your request must be in 
writing, and we must receive it before the end of the original grant 
period.
    (b) An extension is considered a revision of a grant and must 
follow guidance at Sec.  86.101.
    (c) We will approve an extension up to 2 years if your request:

[[Page 23229]]

    (1) Describes in detail the work you have completed and the work 
that you plan to complete during the extension;
    (2) Explains the reasons for delay;
    (3) Includes a report on the status of the project budget; and
    (4) Includes assurance that you have met or will meet all other 
terms and conditions of the grant.
    (d) If you cannot complete the project during the extension period, 
you may ask us for a second extension. Your request must be in writing, 
and we must receive it before the end of the first extension. Your 
request for a second extension must include all of the information 
required at paragraph (b) of this section and, it must show that:
    (1) The extension is justified;
    (2) The delay in completion is not due to inaction, poor planning, 
or mismanagement; and
    (3) You will achieve the project objectives by the end of the 
second extension.
    (e) We require that your Regional Director and the Service's 
Assistant Director for the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program 
approve requests to extend a project beyond 5 years of the grant start 
date.


Sec.  86.73  What if I need more funds to finish a project?

    (a) If you need more money to finish a BIG Select project, you 
must:
    (1) Complete the project with funds from non-Federal sources; or
    (2) Ask for approval to revise the grant by following the 
requirements in subpart H of this part.
    (b) If you need more money to finish a BIG Standard project, you 
may:
    (1) Complete the project with funds from non-Federal sources;
    (2) Complete the project with funds from another annual BIG 
Standard grant; or
    (3) Ask for approval to revise the grant by following the 
requirements in subpart H of this part.
    (c) If you do not complete your project, we follow guidance for 
noncompliance found in 43 CFR 12.83 and 12.962, and any other 
regulations that may apply.


Sec.  86.74  How long must I operate and maintain a BIG-funded 
facility, and who is responsible for the cost of facility operation and 
maintenance?

    (a) You must operate and maintain a BIG-funded facility for its 
authorized purpose for its useful life. See Sec. Sec.  86.3, 86.43(f), 
and 86.75.
    (b) Catastrophic events may shorten the identified useful life of a 
BIG-funded facility. If it is not feasible or is cost-prohibitive to 
repair or replace the BIG-funded facility, you may ask to revise the 
grant to reduce the useful-life obligation.
    (c) You are responsible for the costs of the operation and 
maintenance of the BIG-funded facility for its useful life, except as 
allowed in Sec.  86.14(b).


Sec.  86.75  How do I determine the useful life of a BIG-funded 
facility?

    Before we approve your grant, you must propose and show the useful 
life of the BIG-funded facility.
    (a) You must determine the useful life of a BIG-funded facility by:
    (1) Identifying each capital improvement for your project. The 
capital improvement must be a structure or system that meets the 
definition at Sec.  86.3 and serves an identified purpose, such as: A 
building; dock system; breakwater; seawall; basin, as altered by 
dredging; fuel station; or pumpout system.
    (2) Showing the expected useful life and how you determined the 
useful life for each capital improvement.
    (3) Using a generally accepted method to determine the useful life 
of a capital improvement.
    (4) Determining useful life based on the functional purpose of the 
capital improvement. For example, if a dock system has a concrete base 
that will last at least 50 years, but you expect the overall useful 
life of the dock system to be 20 years, use 20 years.
    (b) A BIG-funded facility may have several useful-life components. 
For example, a single grant may include a fuel dock system with a 
useful life of 15 years and a breakwater with a useful life of 50 
years.
    (c) You may include all components of a BIG-funded facility into a 
single useful life if you use the process in paragraph (a) of this 
section and determine the useful life for the total project based on 
the longest useful life of any structure or system in the grant.
    (d) We may reject your grant application if you do not adequately 
justify the useful life of each capital improvement.
    (e) If you propose a physical component, technology, or technique 
under the criterion in Sec.  86.51(c) that will increase the useful 
life, you must describe in your application:
    (1) The expected increase in useful life; and
    (2) The sources of information that support your determination of 
an extended useful life.
    (f) If we find before we award the grant that you are unable to 
support your determination of an extended useful life, we will reduce 
your score and adjust the ranking of applications accordingly.
    (g) We may consult with you and any subgrantees on the proposed 
useful life of any capital improvement in the BIG project at any time 
between receiving your application and our approval of the grant. Any 
changes you make to useful life after we receive your application you 
must include in the project statement.


Sec.  86.76  How should I credit the BIG program?

    (a) You must use the Sport Fish Restoration logo to show the source 
of BIG funding:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AP14.029

    (b) Examples of language you may use to credit the BIG program are:
    (1) A Sport Fish Restoration--Boating Infrastructure Grant funded 
this facility thanks to your purchase of fishing equipment and 
motorboat fuel.
    (2) A Sport Fish Restoration--Boating Infrastructure Grant is 
funding this construction thanks to your purchase of fishing equipment 
and motorboat fuel.
    (3) A Sport Fish Restoration--Boating Infrastructure Grant funded 
this pamphlet thanks to your purchase of fishing equipment and 
motorboat fuel.
    (c) States may ask for approval of alternative language to follow 
ordinances and restrictions for posting information where the project 
is located.


Sec.  86.77  How can I use the logo for the BIG program?

    (a) You must use the Sport Fish Restoration logo on:
    (1) BIG-funded facilities;
    (2) Printed or Web-based material or other visual representations 
of BIG projects or accomplishments; and
    (3) BIG-funded or BIG-related educational and informational 
material.
    (b) You must require a subgrantee to display the logo in the places 
and on materials described at paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Businesses that contribute to or receive from the Trust Fund 
that we describe in Sec.  86.30 may display the logo in conjunction 
with its associated products or projects.
    (d) The Director or Regional Director may authorize other persons, 
organizations, agencies, or governments that are not grant recipients 
to use the

[[Page 23230]]

logo for purposes related to the BIG program by entering into a written 
agreement with the user. The user must state how it intends to use the 
logo, to what it will attach the logo, and the relationship to the BIG 
program.
    (e) The Service and the Department of the Interior make no 
representation or endorsement whatsoever by the display of the logo as 
to the quality, utility, suitability, or safety of any product, 
service, or project associated with the logo.
    (f) The user of the logo must indemnify and defend the United 
States and hold it harmless from any claims, suits, losses, and damages 
from:
    (1) Any allegedly unauthorized use of any patent, process, idea, 
method, or device by the user in connection with its use of the logo, 
or any other alleged action of the user; and
    (2) Any claims, suits, losses, and damages arising from alleged 
defects in the articles or services associated with the logo.
    (g) No one may use any part of the logo in any other manner unless 
the Service's Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish 
Restoration or Regional Director authorizes it. Unauthorized use of the 
logo is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 701 and subjects the violator to 
possible fines and imprisonment.


Sec.  86.78  How must I treat program income?

    (a) You must follow the applicable program income requirements at 
43 CFR 12.65 or 12.924 if you earn program income during the grant 
period.
    (b) We authorize the following options in the regulations cited in 
paragraph (a) of this section:
    (1) You may deduct the costs of generating program income from the 
gross income if you did not charge these costs to the grant. An example 
of costs that may qualify for deduction is maintenance of the BIG-
funded facility that generated the program income.
    (2) Use the addition alternative for program income only if:
    (i) You describe the source and amount of program income in the 
project statement according to Sec.  86.43(k)(2); and
    (ii) We approve your proposed use of the program income, which must 
be for one or more of the actions eligible for funding in Sec.  86.11.
    (3) Use the deduction alternative for program income that does not 
qualify under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (c) We do not authorize the cost-sharing or matching alternative in 
the regulations cited in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) For BIG Standard grants with multiple projects that you may 
complete at different times, we recommend that States seek our advice 
on how to apply for and manage grants to reduce unintended program 
income.


Sec.  86.79  How must I treat income earned after the grant period?

    You are not accountable to us for income earned by you or a 
subgrantee after the grant period as a result of the grant except as 
required at Sec. Sec.  86.90 and 86.91.

Subpart G--Facility Operations and Maintenance


Sec.  86.90  How much must an operator of a BIG-funded facility charge 
for using the facility?

    (a) An operator of a BIG-funded facility must charge reasonable 
fees for using the facility based on prevailing rates at other publicly 
and privately owned local facilities offering a similar service or 
amenity.
    (b) If other publicly and privately owned local facilities offer 
BIG-funded services or amenities free of charge, then a fee is not 
required.
    (c) If the BIG-funded facility has a State or locally imposed fee 
structure, we will accept the mandated fee structure.
    (d) You must state proposed fees and the basis for the fees in your 
grant application. The information you give may be in any format that 
clearly shows how you arrived at an equitable amount.


Sec.  86.91  May an operator of a BIG-funded facility increase or 
decrease user fees during its useful life?

    (a) An operator of a BIG-funded facility may increase or decrease 
user fees during its useful life without our prior approval if they are 
consistent with prevailing market rates. The grantee may impose 
separate restrictions on an operator or subgrantee.
    (b) If the grantee or we discover that fees charged by the operator 
of a BIG-funded facility do not follow Sec.  86.90 and the facility 
unfairly competes with other marinas or makes excessive profits, the 
grantee must notify the operator in writing. The operator must respond 
to the notice in writing, and either justify or correct the fee 
schedule. If the operator justifies the fee schedule, the grantee and 
we must allow reasonable business decisions and only call for a change 
in the fee schedule if the operator is unable to show that the increase 
or decrease is reasonable.


Sec.  86.92  Must an operator of a BIG-funded facility allow public 
access?

    (a) Public access in this part means access by eligible users, for 
eligible activities, or by other users for other activities that either 
support the purpose of the BIG-funded project or do not interfere with 
the purpose of the BIG-funded project. An operator of a BIG-funded 
facility must not allow activities that interfere with the purpose of 
the project.
    (b) An operator of a BIG-funded facility must allow public access 
to any part of the BIG-funded facility during its useful life, except 
as described at paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
    (c) An operator of a BIG-funded facility must allow reasonable 
public access to other parts of the facility that would normally be 
open to the public and must not limit access in any way that 
discriminates against any member of the public.
    (d) The site of a BIG-funded facility must be:
    (1) Accessible to the public; and
    (2) Open for reasonable periods.
    (e) An operator may temporarily limit public access to all or part 
of the BIG-funded facility due to an emergency, repairs, construction, 
or as a safety precaution.
    (f) An operator may limit public access when seasonally closed for 
business.


Sec.  86.93  May I prohibit overnight use by eligible vessels at a BIG-
funded facility?

    You may prohibit overnight use at a BIG-funded facility if you 
state in the approved grant application that the facility is only for 
day use. If after we award the grant you wish to change to day use 
only, you must follow the requirements in subpart H of this part.


Sec.  86.94  Must I give information to eligible users and the public 
about BIG-funded facilities?

    (a) You must give clear information using signs or other methods at 
BIG-funded facilities that:
    (1) Direct eligible users to the BIG-funded facility;
    (2) Include restrictions and operating periods or direct boaters 
where to find the information; and
    (3) Restrict ineligible use at any part of the BIG-funded facility 
designated only for eligible use.
    (i) You do not need to notify facility users of any restrictions 
for shared-use areas and amenities that you have already decided have 
predictable mixed use and you have allocated following Sec.  86.19.
    (ii) You must notify facility users of benefits that you decide are 
only for eligible users, such as boat slips and moorage.
    (b) You may use new technology and methods of communication to 
inform boaters.

[[Page 23231]]

Subpart H--Revisions and Appeals


Sec.  86.100  Can I change the information in a grant application after 
I receive a grant?

    (a) To change information in a grant application after you receive 
a grant, you must propose a revision of the grant and we must approve 
it.
    (b) We may approve a revision if:
    (1) For BIG Standard and BIG Select awards, the revision:
    (i) Would not significantly decrease the benefits of the project; 
and
    (ii) Would not increase Federal funds.
    (2) For BIG Select awards, the revision:
    (i) Involves process, materials, logistics, or other items that 
have no significant effect on the factors used to decide score; and
    (ii) Maintains an equal or greater percentage of the non-Federal 
matching share of the total BIG project costs.
    (c) We may approve a decrease in the Federal funds requested in the 
application subject to paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) The Regional WSFR Office must follow its own procedures for 
review and approval of any changes to a BIG Standard grant.
    (e) The Regional WSFR Office must receive approval from the WSFR 
Headquarters Office for any changes to a BIG Select grant that involves 
cost or affects project benefits.


Sec.  86.101  How do I ask for a revision of a grant?

    (a) You must ask for a revision of a grant by sending us the 
following documents:
    (1) The standard form used to apply for Federal assistance, which 
is available at https://www.grants.gov.You must use this form to update 
or ask for a change in the information that you included in the 
approved grant application. The authorized representative of your 
agency must certify this form.
    (2) A statement attached to the standard form at paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section that explains:
    (i) The proposed changes and how the revision would affect the 
information that you submitted with the original grant application; and
    (ii) Why the revision is necessary.
    (b) You must send any revision of the scope to your State 
Clearinghouse or Single Point of Contact if your State supports this 
process under Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of 
Federal Programs.


Sec.  86.102  Can I appeal a decision?

    You can appeal the Director's, Assistant Director's, or Regional 
Director's decision on any matter subject to this part.
    (a) You must send the appeal to the Director within 30 days of the 
date that the Director, Assistant Director, or Regional Director mails 
or otherwise informs you of a decision.
    (b) You may appeal the Director's decision under paragraph (a) of 
this section to the Secretary within 30 days of the date that the 
Director mailed the decision. An appeal to the Secretary must follow 
procedures in 43 CFR part 4, subpart G, ``Special Rules Applicable to 
other Appeals and Hearings''.


Sec.  86.103  Can the Director authorize an exception to this part?

    The Director can authorize an exception to any requirement of this 
part that is not explicitly required by law if it does not conflict 
with other laws or regulations or the policies of the Department of the 
Interior or the OMB.

Subpart I--Information Collection


Sec.  86.110  What are the information-collection requirements of this 
part?

    (a) This part requires each applicant in the BIG program to:
    (1) Give us information on Standard Form 424, Application for 
Federal Assistance (OMB control number 4040-0004).
    (2) Certify on Standard Form 424 B, Assurances for Nonconstruction 
Programs, or Standard Form 424 D, Assurances for Construction Programs, 
or both if applicable, (OMB control numbers 4040-0007 and 4040-0009) 
that it:
    (i) Has the authority to apply for the grant;
    (ii) Has the ability to complete the project; and
    (iii) Will follow the laws, regulations, and policies applicable to 
construction projects, nonconstruction projects, or both.
    (3) Submitting on Standard Form 424 A, Budget Information for Non-
Construction Programs, or Standard Form 424 C, Budget Information for 
Construction Programs, or both if applicable, (OMB control numbers 
4040-0006 and 4040-0008) costs associated with the project and the 
categories for the costs.
    (4) Submitting on Standard Form SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying 
Activities and Standard Form SF-LLLA Disclosure of Lobbying Activities 
Continuation Sheet, as appropriate, to disclose lobbying activities 
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1352.
    (5) Complete a project statement that describes the need, 
objectives, results and benefits expected, approach, location, cost 
explanation, and other information that shows that the project is 
eligible under the authorizing legislation and meets the requirements 
of the Federal Cost Principles and the laws, regulations, and policies 
applicable to the grant program (OMB control number 1018-0109).
    (b) This part requires each grantee in the BIG program to:
    (1) Update information given to the Service in an earlier approved 
application (OMB control number 1018-0109).
    (2) Report on a Standard Form 425, Federal Financial Report, on the 
status of Federal grant funds and any program income earned (OMB 
control number 0348-0061).
    (3) Report on progress in completing the grant-funded project (OMB 
control number 1018-0109).
    (4) Follow any future requirements for reporting financial and 
performance actions of a grant using added forms or formats for 
inputting information.
    (c) The authorizations for information collection under this part 
are in OMB Circular A-102, ``Grants and Cooperative Agreements with 
State and Local Governments,'' and in 43 CFR part 12, subpart C, 
``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative 
Agreements to State and Local Governments.''
    (d) Send comments on the information collection requirements to: 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Information Collection Clearance 
Officer, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203.

    Dated: April 3, 2014.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2014-08998 Filed 4-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P