[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26150-26174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09961]



[[Page 26149]]

Vol. 80

Wednesday,

No. 87

May 6, 2015

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





 Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 86





Boating Infrastructure Grant Program; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 87 / Wednesday, May 6, 2015 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 26150]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising 
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 responses from the 
public during the 60-day comment period with recommendations for 
changes, support for certain parts of the proposed rule, and requests 
for more time to review the proposed rule. We published a second 
proposed rule in the Federal Register on April 25, 2014, with a 90-day 
comment period. The final rule simplifies and clarifies some sections, 
responds to comments on both proposed rules, and considers other 
approaches to carrying out this grant program.

DATES: The final rule is effective on June 5, 2015.

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: 

Executive Summary

    The Sportfishing and Boating Safety Act of 1998 established the 
Boating Infrastructure Grant Program (BIG). The Fish and Wildlife 
Service carries out the program through regulations published at 50 CFR 
part 86. The regulations establish a process for States, the District 
of Columbia, Commonwealths, and territories (States) to receive grants 
by proposing projects to construct and maintain facilities for 
transient recreational vessels at least 26 feet long. There are two 
subprograms in BIG. BIG Tier 1--State competes on the State level for 
eligible projects, and BIG Tier 2--National competes on a national 
level for eligible projects. Examples of eligible costs are floating 
docks, piers, navigational aids, boat slips, limited dredging, and 
restrooms.
    BIG receives its funding from 2 percent of the annual appropriation 
from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund. The Trust Fund 
receives revenue from: (a) Taxes on sport fishing equipment, electric 
outboard motors, and sonar devices; (b) taxes on special motorboat 
fuels and gasoline attributable to motorboats and nonbusiness use of 
small power equipment; and (c) import duties on fishing tackle, yachts, 
and pleasure craft. In FY 2015, the Service awarded over $14.3 million 
to States for eligible projects.
    This BIG final rule is the first comprehensive update since 2001. 
In developing this rule, we considered the recommendations of the 2005 
review of BIG published by the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership 
Council, a Service Federal Advisory Committee. We actively worked with 
the Council and our other partners, such as the States Organization for 
Boating Access, BoatUS, States, and the boating public.

Background

    This final rule revises title 50, part 86 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), which is ``Boating Infrastructure Grant (BIG) 
Program.'' The primary users of these regulations are agencies in the 
50 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. We use State or States in this 
document to refer to any or all of these jurisdictions.
    These regulations tell States how they may apply for and use funds 
from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund that are 
dedicated by law to BIG (Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act, 16 
U.S.C. 777c, g, and g-1).
    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at https://www.cfda.gov 
describes BIG under 15.622. BIG offers grants in two subprograms, BIG 
Tier 1--State and BIG Tier 2--National, to construct, renovate, and 
maintain boating infrastructure facilities for transient recreational 
vessels at least 26 feet long.
    We published a proposed rule for BIG in the Federal Register on 
March 28, 2012 (77 FR 18767), with a 60-day comment period ending May 
29, 2012. 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. We responded to comments and 
published a second proposed rule in the Federal Register on April 25, 
2014 (79 FR 23210), with a 90-day comment period ending July 24, 2014.
    We received 13 responses to the proposed rule published at 79 FR 
23210. Some of the comments we received support our changes or 
approaches and others recommend further changes or considerations. A 
few comments requested more information or explanation.
    We address these comments in the following section.

Response to Public Comments

    We arrange the public comments by sections of the proposed rule. We 
do not duplicate a response we give in one section in another section. 
We do not present comments exactly as stated unless we enclose text 
within quotation marks. In many instances, we combine several similar 
comments and show as a single comment. We state in the response to each 
comment any action taken and explain our response. Some public comments 
led us to reexamine sections or approaches beyond the specific public 
comment. Based on this reexamination, we make changes to improve 
clarity, consistency, organization, or comprehensiveness.
    We make some changes for clarification and uniformity that we do 
not specifically discuss. We do not explain minor changes that do not 
significantly affect content. We discuss any substantive changes that 
resulted from this reexamination in our responses to the comments. We 
use the word grantee in our responses to refer to a State that receives 
a BIG award. It may also apply to a subgrantee with which a State 
agency has a formal agreement to construct, operate, or maintain a BIG-
funded facility.
    The regulations at 2 CFR part 200, Uniform Administrative 
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal 
Awards (78 FR 78590, December 26, 2013), became effective for Federal 
grants on December 26, 2014. Many citations within this regulation have 
been updated to reflect the current authority. The term grant period is 
replaced with the term period of performance at 2 CFR 200.77 and we 
reflect that change in both the Response to Public Comments and the 
body of the rule.
    We use the term proposed rule to refer to the proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register at 79 FR 23210, April 25, 2014.
    We include all sections of the proposed rule and indicate if we 
received no comments.

Subpart A--General

Section 86.1 What does this part do?
    In this section, we introduce the terms BIG Standard and BIG Select 
to identify the subprograms in BIG. We consider

[[Page 26151]]

the terms Tier 1 and Tier 2 in the current rule as bureaucratic and 
nondescriptive of the BIG subprograms, so we proposed different names. 
We received many comments and some suggestions for alternative 
subprogram names. Most commenters stated that since the program has 
been active for so long, a major change would be confusing to those 
routinely interacting with the program. Some States noted that they 
have developed materials that use the current subprogram names and they 
would have to recreate those materials if we were to implement new 
subprogram names. To compromise between the commenters' desire to keep 
the familiar Tier designations and our desire to make the names more 
explanatory, we accept a combination of suggested subprogram naming and 
designate the subprograms as BIG Tier 1--State and BIG Tier 2--
National. Adding the terms State and National reflects the level at 
which grants are competed. Continued use of Tier 1 and Tier 2 supports 
familiarity and allows for States to use printed materials on hand, 
changing to add the new subprogram naming as is practical and 
convenient for them.
Section 86.2 What is the purpose of BIG?
    We received one comment supporting our statement of the purpose of 
BIG. The commenter said that ``the proposed rules are consistent with 
that mission'' and he commends the Service for continuing to focus on 
such facilities.
Section 86.3 What terms do I need to know?
    We received one comment supporting our clarification of day dock 
use.
General
    Comment 1: Clarify that the grant for a BIG-funded facility 
includes both Federal funds plus matching funds.
    Response 1: We make no change based on this comment. The definition 
of grant includes this information.
    Comment 2: Recommend adding definitions for grantee and subgrantee 
to help applicants understand their role in the overall rule.
    Response 2: We make no change based on this comment. Section 86.1 
distinguishes between a grantee and a subgrantee.
    Comment 3: Add the term subgrantee and include a description of the 
wide range of potential subgrantees to include educational 
institutions.
    Response 3: We make no change to definitions based on this comment 
and refer to Response 2. We do add institutions of higher education to 
the list of potential subgrantees at Sec.  86.17(b).
    Comment 4: Add award to the terms and define it as different from a 
grant.
    Response 4: We make no change based on this comment. We make minor 
changes to the definition of grant to better reflect the definition at 
2 CFR 200.51. The term Federal award at 2 CFR 200.38 refers to several 
types of financial assistance. To define award may cause confusion.
Capital Improvement
    Comment 5: Clarify what you mean by repairing. Does capital 
improvement include routine operation and maintenance?
    Response 5: We make no change based on this comment. The word 
repairing is a common term and is clear in that it means to restore an 
existing structure to serve an intended purpose. Capital improvement 
does not include operation or maintenance in that a capital improvement 
must increase the structure's useful life by 10 years or cost at least 
$25,000.
    Comment 6: What is the basis for using $25,000 as a cap in the 
definition of capital improvement?
    Response 6: We make no change based on this comment. There is not a 
$25,000 cap in the definition of capital improvement. Rather, it is a 
minimum threshold based on the amount in 49 CFR part 24 above which a 
grantee must get an appraisal before acquiring real property in a WSFR-
administered program. In the coming years, we will change other 
regulations to reflect this value.
Contractor/Concessioner
    Comment 7: We received several comments stating that the term 
contractor was unclear and used inconsistently with the typical 
understanding of the term.
    Response 7: We agree and change the term to concessioner. We 
expanded on the definition to clarify intent.
Facility
    Comment 8: Recommend changing the word boaters to eligible users.
    Response 8: We make no change based on this comment. The definition 
of BIG-funded facility is specific to eligible users, but the 
definition of facility is broader and applies to all boaters.
    Comment 9: Clarify that a facility can be owned by one entity, but 
leased long-term to another to operate and manage.
    Response 9: We make no change based on this comment. We discuss 
that an entity other than the owner may operate a facility in the 
definition of concessioner and at Sec.  86.17.
Grants.gov
    We received one comment asking us to clarify to subgrantees that 
States must apply for BIG funds through http://www.grants.gov. Upon 
further consideration, we add the definition of grants.gov at Sec.  
86.3 to improve clarity in the rule.
Maintenance
    We received several comments supporting our definition of 
maintenance and making maintenance an allowable action for BIG Tier 1--
State grants.
    Comment 10: Suggest you give clarification for janitorial 
activities in the definition of maintenance.
    Response 10: We make no change to the definition, but clarify at 
Sec.  86.16 actions we identify as janitorial.
    Comment 11: The examples in the definition of maintenance numbered 
(1) Lubricating components of BIG-funded equipment and (3) Painting, 
pressure washing, and repointing masonry seem to be janitorial in 
nature and not maintenance.
    Response 11: We make no change based on this comment. The examples 
given at (1) and (3) are maintenance actions that are done on an 
occasional or cyclical basis to help maintain the equipment and 
structures that are part of the BIG-funded facility.
    To clarify our approach, maintenance is focused on preserving the 
equipment and structures for use into the future. Operations are done 
on a daily or weekly cycle (more often than cyclical maintenance) and 
are actions that support the availability of the equipment and 
structures for current public use.
Navigable Waters
    Comment 12: Clarify in the definition if the waterway is supposed 
to connect to another waterway to give cruising linkage, or if the 
intent is to open the waterways definition to include large water 
bodies that do not give linkage to another waterway.
    Response 12: We clarify the definition to mean passage of eligible 
vessels within the water body. To be navigable water for the purposes 
of BIG, we do not require the water body to have a navigable passage to 
another water body. However, the water body must be large enough to 
support eligible vessel travel within the water body.
Operation
    Comment 13: What does service labor mean?
    Response 13: We change the term to service worker. This means 
anyone whose job duties are to offer services to

[[Page 26152]]

the public. Some examples of service workers are dock hands, rest room/
shower attendants, and travel assistants.
Personal Property
    Comment 14: Suggest you give examples of personal property that 
would be eligible as match as described at Sec.  86.32(b). Are there 
any limits to the types of personal property that would be eligible as 
match? Allowing personal property as match seems to be in conflict with 
Sec.  86.32(c)(2) that states match must be an eligible activity or 
cost, but personal property is not listed as an eligible action at 
Sec.  86.11.
    Response 14: We make no change based on this comment. We do not 
give a list of examples of personal property in the definition because 
the possibilities are so extensive, it may be perceived as limiting. 
Personal property must meet the criteria for match at Sec.  86.32 and 
must support the BIG-funded project and the eligible actions or costs 
of the BIG-funded project. Personal property is basically anything that 
is not real property, and as real property has very limited eligibility 
in BIG, the majority of actions and costs for a BIG-funded project will 
involve personal property. Personal property in a BIG-funded project 
may include equipment, building materials, supplies, and many other 
items.
Project Cost
    Comment 15: Recommend rewording to state, ``the Federal Share 
awarded through the BIG Grant and all Match given that the award is 
contingent upon combining the two items to complete the Project.''
    Response 15: We make no change based on this comment. The 
definition we give is clear and consistent with the definition at other 
regulations.
Program Income
    Comment 16: Does the reference to period of performance include 
useful life?
    Response 16: No. A period of performance begins with the grant 
start date and ends with the grant end date. All costs for work 
performed are incurred during the period of performance. The period of 
useful life extends past the period of performance. We make no change 
based on this comment.
Real Property
    Comment 17: In the examples of real property, suggest removing the 
term fixed dock and replacing it with permanent dock.
    Response 17: We make no change based on this comment. The word 
fixed supports that the dock is physically and firmly attached to land.
Transient
    We received a comment supporting that in the proposed rule we 
clarify day dock usage.
    Comment 18: Recommend that the definition of ``transient'' be 
increased to 30 days to allow increased flexibility for long-distance 
travelers.
    Response 18: We received comments in prior reviews asking us to 
consider increasing the time allowed in the definition of transient. We 
reconsidered all comments on the subject and change the definition of 
transient to include a stay up to 15 days. This will allow for eligible 
boaters to arrange for a 2-week stay, which is a more typical visit 
than 10 days, and gives one-day flexibility for arrival and departure.
    Comment 19: Clarify if an eligible vessel staying at a large water 
body that is not navigably connected to another water body must be 
removed from the water at the end of the transient period.
    Response 19: We make no change based on this comment. Transient 
defines the period a recreational vessel at least 26 feet long may stay 
at any single BIG-funded facility to be an eligible vessel. We make no 
additional restrictions.
Useful Life
    Comment 20: Recommend replacing routine care with operation in this 
definition.
    Response 20: We make no change based on this comment. Routine care 
is broader and includes operation, best management practices, enforcing 
marina rules and regulations, and other actions that together add to 
the care of BIG-funded items.

Subpart B--Program Eligibility

Section 86.10 Who may apply for a BIG grant?
    Comment 21: The same commenter suggested at several sections of 
this rule that we change our grant process to allow individual public 
and private facility owners to circumvent the State and directly apply 
for BIG grants. He suggests that States may continue to be advisors, 
but there is a large burden on States when named as the applicant for 
all BIG projects. The response below applies to all related comments.
    Response 21: We make no change based on this comment. Limiting BIG 
awards to States is based on the statute that established the program 
(see Pub. L. 105-178, sec. 7404(a) and (d), June 9, 1998).
Section 86.11 What actions are eligible for funding?
    We received several comments that support eligible actions in the 
proposed rule and one that specifically supports using BIG funding for 
monitoring BIG projects.
    Comment 22: We received a comment supporting our proposed language 
that boat wash stations are ineligible for funding and another 
requesting we reconsider allowing boat wash stations as eligible under 
BIG. One commenter supports boat wash stations as an eligible action, 
stating that they are used in saltwater environments to prepare the 
bottom surfaces of transient vessels for boat repairs and to improve 
performance.
    Response 22: We make no change and do not include boat wash 
stations as eligible because:
     Boat wash stations require that boats be removed from the 
water to accomplish the desired results. This is potentially an 
auxiliary service to transient boaters on rare occasions, but not a 
primary benefit for transient vessels.
     We do not include other equipment to repair and maintain 
vessels as eligible for BIG funding.
    States may seek to fund boat wash stations under the Dingell-
Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Recreational Boating Access subprogram 
as described at 50 CFR part 80.
    Comment 23: Add recording fees as an eligible action as this will 
be required when we record the Notice of Federal Participation as 
described at Sec.  86.18.
    Response 23: We agree and make the change.
    Comment 24: Consider adding at Sec.  86.11(a)(2)(i) cultural to 
formally include those studies as eligible.
    Response 24: We agree and make the change.
    Comment 25: Recommend adding at Sec.  86.11(a)(5)(vi), a reference 
that directs readers to the definition of marketing.
    Response 25: We make no change based on this comment. The rule has 
a definition of public communication and adding a reference to 
marketing in this paragraph may be confusing.
    Comment 26: In reference to Sec.  86.11(a)(6) [(a)(7) in the final 
rule], can actions such as coordinating and monitoring be used as match 
for a BIG Tier 2--National grant or is it allowed only under BIG Tier 
1--State grants?
    Response 26: We make no change based on this comment. These actions 
may be offered as match when approved as project costs for an 
individual BIG Tier 2--National grant project and

[[Page 26153]]

completed during the period of performance. These actions may be 
associated with implementing a Statewide BIG program and may be offered 
as match under BIG Tier 1--State.
    Comment 27: What is the process for requesting and receiving prior 
approval for preaward costs? How far in advance can preaward costs be 
approved?
    Response 27: We make no change based on this comment. We will 
consider approving preaward costs only if an applicant negotiates with 
us in anticipation of the BIG award where such costs are necessary for 
efficient and timely performance of the scope of work. Such costs are 
allowable only to the extent that they would have been allowable if 
incurred during the BIG period of performance and only with our written 
approval. The applicant assumes all risk and we will not reimburse the 
preaward costs if it does not receive a BIG grant. An applicant should 
discuss possible preaward costs with us as early in the process as 
possible.
Section 86.12 What types of construction and services does boating 
infrastructure include?
    Comment 28: Recommend adding dredging.
    Response 28: We make no change based on this comment. Dredging is 
an action and not infrastructure.
    Comment 29: Recommend adding floating restrooms as possible 
infrastructure.
    Response 29: Floating restrooms are already included at Sec.  
86.12(e). We make a minor clarifying change.
    Comment 30: Why do you include access to communication and 
provisions in the definition of harbor of safe refuge?
    Response 30: We make no change based on this comment. Our research 
indicates that a harbor of safe refuge includes these amenities that 
support vessels during an emergency.
    Comment 31: Suggest at Sec.  86.12(e) you refer to Sec.  86.11(c) 
and encourage Clean Vessel Act funding.
    Response 31: We make no change based on this comment. This section 
describes what is included in boating infrastructure. We would confuse 
readers to include funding information here.
Section 86.13 What operational and design features must a facility have 
where a BIG-funded facility is located?
    We received a comment that supports the change in the proposed rule 
that no longer requires operators to inform boaters of the location of 
other pumpouts. We also received a comment supporting flexibility in 
water access.
    Comment 32: Clarify how security and safety is a required 
operational and design feature, but law enforcement is not an eligible 
action.
    Response 32: We make no change based on this comment. Law 
enforcement is inconsistent with the authorizing legislation (Pub. L. 
105-178, June 9, 1998) and is not an eligible action. The type of 
security and safety that a BIG-funded facility must offer is consistent 
with the mission of BIG in that it offers reasonable accommodations 
that give eligible users basic protection. Examples are: Lighting, 
gates, and communication.
    Comment 33: Move items at Sec.  86.43(n) to this section as it 
applies to operation and design and not what to include in a grant 
application.
    Response 33: We agree and move much of the information at Sec.  
86.43(n) to Sec.  86.13(b)(1) through (4).
    Comment 34: The reference to depth requirements is confusing. 
Recommend having docking or mooring sites with water access at least 6 
feet deep at mean low tide in tidal waters or a minimum of 6 feet in 
nontidal waters.
    Response 34: We make no change based on this comment. We are asking 
applicants to consider the water conditions at the proposed site of the 
BIG-funded facility and any reasons for potential depth fluctuation 
that could affect access by eligible vessels. We do not wish to limit 
this consideration to tidal or nontidal influences, but to consider 
natural influences and those created by human activity.
Section 86.14 How can I receive BIG funds for facility maintenance?
    We received a comment supporting the flexibility for States to use 
BIG Tier 1--State funding for maintenance. We received a comment asking 
us to clarify how to extend useful life when BIG funds are used for 
maintenance at a facility that has received a BIG grant in the past. We 
clarify that a grantee must extend the useful life of the capital 
improvements affected by the maintenance, as appropriate.
Section 86.15 How can dredging qualify as an eligible action?
    We received a comment supporting our approach for dredging and 
dredging-related actions in BIG.
    Comment 35: Suggest that the amount of the total BIG grant the 
Service will allow for dredging be increased from 10 percent to 20 
percent.
    Response 35: In the proposed rule we allowed using BIG funds for 
dredging if costs for dredging-related actions do not exceed 10 percent 
of total BIG project costs or $200,000, whichever is less. After 
further consideration, we remove the 10 percent limit and will allow 
dredging costs up to $200,000 for both BIG Tier 1--State and BIG Tier 
2--National grants.
    Comment 36: Change the term basin to area used by eligible users.
    Response 36: We make no change based on this comment. The 
regulations limit the amount of BIG funds available for dredging and 
eliminate the need for allocating funds to only eligible users.
    Comment 37: Recommend changing Sec.  86.15(b)(1) from lowest tide 
to mean low water.
    Response 37: We remove the term at Sec.  86.15(b)(1) and substitute 
a reference to Sec.  86.13(a)(6) for the language that the commenter 
finds confusing.
    Comment 38: Recommend deleting the requirement at Sec.  86.15(d) as 
it is unnecessary and will likely require a new form.
    Response 38: We make no change based on this comment. We include 
this paragraph in response to concerns from prior and current comment 
periods for a method or directive to ensure that grantees maintain a 
dredged area. A new form will not be necessary. When a State signs the 
Standard Form 424B or 424D it certifies that it will follow all 
regulations.
    Comment 39: Recommend adding language at Sec.  86.15(d) to allow 
flexibility for responding to unusual circumstances that affect water 
level.
    Response 39: We add ``under typical conditions'' to indicate that 
we will consider flexibility under extraordinary factors that affect 
water level.
    Comment 40: Is dredging eligible only at a facility that has 
received BIG funds in the past?
    Response 40: No. Dredging is an eligible action. As with all other 
eligible actions, there is no requirement to have received a prior 
grant. We make no change based on this comment.
Section 86.16 What actions are ineligible for BIG funding?
    We received comments that agree with the concepts in this section, 
specifically that we list land as an ineligible cost.
    Comment 41: Clarify the difference between:
     The ineligible action at Sec.  86.16(a)(8)(ii) General 
marina or agency newsletters or Web sites promoting the marina or 
agency; and
     The eligible action at Sec.  86.11(a)(5)(iv) Marina 
newsletter articles, marina or agency Web pages, and other 
communications you produce

[[Page 26154]]

that are directly related to the BIG-funded project.
    Response 41: We make no change based on this comment. The 
difference is that the eligible action at Sec.  86.11(a)(5)(iv) is 
specific to and directly supports the BIG-funded project. The 
ineligible action at Sec.  86.16(a)(8)(ii) is general in nature and 
focused primarily on the marina or agency apart from the BIG project or 
program. If a marina or agency includes specific BIG-funded project or 
BIG program information in any general agency communications, it may 
allocate the information and education costs accordingly.
    Comment 42: Suggest you revise Sec.  86.16(a)(5) to clarify that 
roads and parking lots and possibly other land surface improvements may 
be funded with BIG if there is damage to the surface as a result of 
completing the BIG project.
    Response 42: We clarify at Sec.  86.11(a)(1) that repairing or 
restoring roads, parking lots, walkways, and other surface areas 
damaged as a direct result of BIG-funded construction is an eligible 
action. This must be limited only to the surface that receives the 
damage and a reasonable surrounding distance needed to insure the 
public can safely travel on the surface.
    Comment 43: Remove the word facilities at Sec.  86.16(a)(6) as it 
may create confusion when interpreting definitions at Sec.  86.3.
    Response 43: We agree and make the change.
    Comment 44: Clarify the differences between maintenance and 
janitorial duties at Sec. Sec.  86.3 and 86.16.
    Response 44: We make no change at Sec.  86.3 based on this comment. 
We clarify Sec.  86.16(a)(2) by giving examples of possible janitorial 
duties.
Section 86.17 Who must own the site of a BIG-funded facility?
    Comment 45: What documentation would a grantee need from a 
subgrantee that does not own the site of a BIG-funded facility to show 
it follows Sec.  86.17(a)?
    Response 45: We make no change based on this comment. We state in 
Sec.  86.17(a) that any entity that does not own the site of a BIG-
funded project must have a contractual arrangement showing that it, or 
the owner, will operate the BIG-funded facility for the useful life. 
The contractual arrangement must convey grant responsibilities to a 
subgrantee or operator and it must be acceptable to the State. The 
documentation will become part of the application when we award the 
grant. If the owner signs the grant, there is no need for additional 
documentation.
    Comment 46: Clarify that State agencies other than the agency 
receiving the grant may be subgrantees.
    Response 46: We agree and change the section to clarify this.
    Comment 47: May Federal agencies, corporations, companies, and 
partnerships qualify as subgrantees?
    Response 47: We make no change based on this comment. Corporations, 
companies, and partnerships that we will accept as subgrantees are 
either commercial enterprises or nonprofit organizations and are 
already listed as eligible subgrantees. A Federal agency may 
participate as a landowner that has a contractual relationship with a 
State subgrantee or through a reimbursable agreement. However, a 
Federal agency cannot be a subgrantee.
    Comment 48: Remove the requirement that subgrantees that are 
commercial enterprises are subject to future regulations.
    Response 48: We agree and removed Sec.  86.17(c)(2) because we are 
uncertain how future regulations will be applied. We retain information 
at Sec.  86.17(c)(1) as Sec.  86.17(c) to remind grantees and 
subgrantees that businesses have other Federal requirements they must 
follow.
Section 86.18 How can I ensure that a BIG-funded facility continues to 
serve its intended purpose for its useful life?
    We received comments that support this section.
    Comment 49: What does the word ``record'' mean at Sec.  86.18(b)?
    Response 49: We make no change based on this comment. Recording 
means entering into a book of public records the written instruments 
affecting the grant interest in the real property it is located on. 
Recording with reference to the deed notifies all interested parties of 
the grantee's continuing responsibility to manage the BIG-funded 
facility for the purposes of the grant.
    Comment 50: When would we know if a Notice of Federal Participation 
is required?
    Response 50: We make no change based on this comment. A grantee 
must record a Notice of Federal Participation for all projects 
according to guidance from your Regional Office. We may, in 
consultation with a State, conclude that the project is too small to 
justify the cost of recording. If we approve that approach, the grantee 
is not required to record the interest for that project. Even if we 
tell the grantee we do not require them to record the interest, a State 
may choose to record it, or require its subgrantee to record it.
    Comment 51: You should not require recording of the Federal 
interest after applications are received. Adding these requirements 
later can jeopardize partner relationships.
    Response 51: We make no change based on this comment. We clarify 
this section based on other comments. It is the State's responsibility 
to direct potential subgrantees to these regulations or otherwise alert 
them to this and other potential obligations, compliance requirements, 
and future responsibilities.
Section 86.19 What if a BIG-funded facility would benefit both eligible 
and ineligible users?
    We received comments supporting the changes that allow us to work 
with a grantee to correctly allocate costs after the application is 
received, but before we consider the application for award. We remove 
Sec.  86.19(b) as it restates information in the opening paragraph. We 
renumber Sec. Sec.  86.19(c) through (h) as Sec. Sec.  86.19(b) through 
(g).
    Comment 52: Remove assigning ``100 percent'' of the project costs 
as it is confusing.
    Response 52: We define ``project cost'' at Sec.  86.3 as the 
combination of the Federal share and the matching share. However, in 
the interest of clarity we rephrase to state ``all eligible project 
costs'' instead of ``100 percent.''
    Comment 53: Change Sec.  86.19(c) [now Sec.  86.19(b)] so that 
applicants must properly allocate funds before the due date. The 
breakdown on allocated costs must be shown at the time of the 
application and not when the Director announces the award. Applications 
for BIG Tier 2--National grants cannot be reviewed and ranked without 
appropriate information.
    Response 53: We make changes to clarify this paragraph. We expect 
that applicants will read both the regulations and the Notice of 
Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and make good faith efforts to appropriately 
allocate funds in their applications. However, we do not wish to reject 
an application simply for an error or misinterpretation in allocating 
funds. We include this paragraph so that we have the flexibility to 
work with the applicant before the award to resolve any problems. 
Paragraph (a) of this section clearly states that we expect an 
applicant to show and explain in the application the breakdown of costs 
and reasoning behind the cost allocation. We change paragraph (c) to 
clarify that after the application due date, we may work with 
applicants to resolve any issues. However, we must approve how an 
applicant allocates funds before we will

[[Page 26155]]

consider the application for a possible award.
    Comment 54: Recommend you refer to Sec.  86.43(i) at Sec.  
86.19(a)(2) of this section to link the two sections.
    Response 54: We agree and insert the reference.
    Comment 55: The example at Sec.  86.19(d)(1) [now Sec.  
86.19(c)(1)] should have costs allocated between eligible and 
ineligible uses. Marinas may intentionally design or relocate uses to 
take advantage of BIG funding and also get a secondary benefit.
    Response 55: We make no change based on this comment. An 
application must clearly state the primary purpose of the project and 
justify the approach. If BIG-eligible projects have a secondary use 
that does not interfere with the primary purpose, there is no loss to 
the program objectives.
    Comment 56: The exception at Sec.  86.19(d)(3) [now Sec.  
86.19(c)(3)] could be problematic. For example, a gangway with an 
estimated cost of $4,500 does not have to allocate funds between 
eligible and ineligible uses. What happens if the gangway goes to bid 
and comes in costing $10,000? The first expectation was that the BIG 
grant would cover 100 percent of the costs; in the second, the BIG 
grant covers only 90 percent of the costs, leaving $1,000 for the 
applicant to give as additional match. On top of that, would the 
$10,000 have to be allocated between eligible and ineligible uses after 
the fact?
    Response 56: We make no change based on this comment. We include 
this section to reduce the burden of allocating costs for components of 
the BIG-funded project that have relatively little value. Section 
86.19(d)(3) [now Sec.  86.19(c)(3)] states that each year we will post 
the minimal value in the annual NOFO based on the formula as applied to 
the maximum award we offer that year. If the maximum award (Federal 
plus match) is $2 million, applying the formula will allow States to 
forego allocating costs for a component with a value of $5,000 or less.
    In the scenario given in the comment, the total estimate for the 
gangway is $4,500, which means the grantee will receive $3,375 in BIG 
funding and give $1,125 in non-Federal match. After the grant is 
awarded, if the actual cost of an item is $5,500 more than originally 
projected, the grantee must pay the extra cost from a non-Federal 
source. If an applicant does not allocate costs for an item because the 
estimated value is below the threshold and later finds the actual cost 
exceeds that value, it must contact the Regional Office. The Regional 
Office will inform the applicant or grantee if it must assume 
additional costs to compensate for ineligible use. Regardless of 
whether an applicant chooses the option at Sec.  86.19(c)(3), if the 
cost of a component is more than twice the original estimate, the 
grantee will incur additional, unexpected costs.
    It is always an option for the applicant to choose to allocate 
costs for all components of the grant, regardless of the value. We 
offer the option at Sec.  86.19(c)(3) as an alternative, but applicants 
do not have to use it.

Subpart C--Federal Funds and Match

    We received a comment supporting all amendments and additions to 
this subpart.
Section 86.30 What is the source of BIG funds?
    No comments received.
Section 86.31 How does the Service know how much money will be 
available for BIG grants each year?
    No comments received.
Section 86.32 What are the match requirements?
    Comment 57: Recommend you change the word ``State'' at Sec.  
86.32(a) to ``you'' to reflect the convention stated at Sec.  86.1(b).
    Response 57: We agree and make the change.
Section 86.33 What information must I give on match commitments, and 
where do I give it?
    We received comments supporting the changes and specifically for 
removing the requirement for all match providers to produce a letter of 
commitment.
Section 86.34 What if a partner is not willing or able to follow 
through on a match commitment?
    We received a comment supporting this section.

Subpart D--Application for a Grant

Section 86.40 What are the differences between BIG Standard (now BIG 
Tier 1--State) and BIG Select (now BIG Tier 2--National) grants?
    Comment 58: We received several comments supporting the flexibility 
to increase annual BIG Tier 1--State funding. We also received comments 
that stated their support is contingent on adequate funds for BIG Tier 
2--National projects.
    Response 58: We agree that flexibility for larger funding amounts 
through Tier 1--State grants will allow States to plan smaller projects 
that could not successfully compete for Tier 2--National funds, but are 
beneficial to eligible users. We revised this section to assure States 
they will receive funding for requests up to $200,000 annually. We also 
add that we may increase the annual award a State may request if there 
are enough funds available and it is advantageous to the program. This 
will allow us to be flexible in awarding funding during the award 
period and potentially during the funding year, if we determine it is 
in the best interest of BIG.
    Comment 59: Recommend that flexibility for awarding BIG Tier 1--
State be considered only if BIG Tier 2--National applications do not 
exceed available funds in a given fiscal year. The BIG Tier 1--State 
NOFO should be posted after BIG Tier 2--National applications are 
received and after consulting with stakeholders.
    Response 59: We make no change based on this comment. We adjust 
this section as discussed in Response 58, but the availability of BIG 
Tier 1--State funds will not depend on how much remains after the BIG 
Tier 2--National selections are made. We want to assure States they 
will have adequate BIG funding to maintain a viable program and to plan 
for needed actions. However, we will retain the flexibility to limit 
initial BIG Tier 1--State awards to $200,000 and have the flexibility 
to consider adding requested BIG funds above this threshold later 
during the funding year if additional funds are available.
    Comment 60: If you are considering more than a 20 percent increase 
in the minimum funding for BIG Tier 1--State, you should first seek 
stakeholder input.
    Response 60: We make no change based on this comment. However, we 
will consider consulting with our partners on possible approaches for 
implementing future annual changes.
Section 86.41 How do I apply for a grant?
    Comment 61: You should inform subgrantees in the regulations that 
the State will send in their applications through http://www.grants.gov.
    Response 61: We add the definition of grants.gov at Sec.  86.3 and 
state that we require States to use http://www.grants.gov to apply for 
BIG grants.
    Comment 62: Clarify at Sec.  86.41(b) that the term ``certify'' 
means to sign.
    Response 62: We make no change based on this comment. Certifying by 
an authorized State representative may be done electronically or by 
other means in the future. We will inform applicants of acceptable ways 
to certify in the annual NOFO.

[[Page 26156]]

    Comment 63: Clarify that the agency eligible to apply for a BIG 
grant must be the one designated by the Governor and not a specific 
State agency.
    Response 63: We make no change based on this comment. It is clear 
at Sec.  86.10 that only one agency in each State may apply for BIG and 
the officials who may designate that agency in your State.
    Comment 64: Switch Sec.  86.41(b) and (c) to reflect that the form 
must be certified before submitting the grant application.
    Response 64: We agree and make the recommended change.
Section 86.42 What do I have to include in a grant application?
    Comment 65: Remove ``budget information'' from the list of items 
required in a grant application as it is already required at Sec.  
86.43 under project statement.
    Response 65: We agree and removed budget information from the list 
of required items. We also clarify by adding a reference to Sec.  86.43 
in this paragraph.
    Comment 66: Delete paragraph (c) as it refers to what is needed 
after the award. Recommend adding this to Sec.  86.61.
    Response 66: We agree and clarify this section to reflect what an 
applicant must include at the time of application. We refer to Sec.  
86.61 for additional requirements that will become part of the 
application after we approve the project.
Section 86.43 What information must I put in the project statement?
    Comment 67: This section is burdensome for applicants, some with 
minimal grant experience, and requires unnecessary information. 
Recommend clarifying or changing to indicate additional information 
would be required once the project is selected for funding.
    Response 67: We make no change based on this comment. The commenter 
did not state what parts of this section are burdensome. The State is 
the applicant and should work with potential subgrantees to develop the 
project statement. The information required in the project statement is 
standard for most grant programs. It is also necessary to determine 
allowability of costs and to rank applications in a competitive grant 
program.
    Comment 68: The requirement to add names and qualifications of 
known contractors is burdensome at the application stage.
    Response 68: We change the term contractor to concessioner at Sec.  
86.43(e)(2). We ask an applicant to give information in an application 
on known or anticipated concessioners or subgrantees. If an applicant 
has not identified concessioners or subgrantees in the application, it 
must inform us of this and be ready to respond to our requests for this 
additional information following Sec.  86.42(c).
    Comment 69: Combine this section with the criteria at Sec. Sec.  
86.51 through 86.60 to simplify preparing and reviewing applications.
    Response 69: We make no change based on this comment. The project 
statement is required for both BIG Tier 1--State and BIG Tier 2--
National applications. The criteria at Sec. Sec.  86.51 through 86.60 
are applied only to BIG Tier 2--National applications. It would be 
confusing to those applying for a BIG Tier 1--State grant to include 
criteria with the project statement. We will consider giving 
nonregulatory assistance to BIG Tier 2--National applicants to help 
them include criteria in their project statements.
    Comment 70: This section appears to be solely for the purpose of 
aligning with WSFR's project reporting system, Wildlife Tracking and 
Reporting Actions for the Conservation of Species (TRACS). Clarify the 
content and reduce redundancy.
    Response 70: We make no change based on this comment. A project 
statement (called a program narrative statement) was required by Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-102 and is supported by 2 
CFR part 200, Sec.  200.210 and appendix I to part 200. We give further 
details in this rule to help applicants give us the information we need 
to make informed decisions for funding. We use many terms that 
correlate to the TRACS performance reporting system to reduce confusion 
when completing those reports.
    Comment 71: One commenter suggested alternative language for this 
section.
    Response 71: We do not make any suggested change that applies only 
to BIG Tier 2--National, or that is a minimal change that does not 
significantly improve the final rule. We appreciate the examples and 
additional information the commenter presents and will consider them 
for future nonregulatory guidance. We did not use the word 
``engineering'' in discussing the approach because we do not want to 
confuse applicants into thinking it is a requirement to employ an 
engineer. We used some of the suggestions to reformat the paragraph at 
Sec.  86.43(i) and to clarify or further explain at paragraphs (b), 
(c), (e), (g)(3), (i), and (j).
    Comment 72: Combine purpose and objective.
    Response 72: We make no change based on this comment. Purpose and 
objective are two separate and distinct parts of a project statement. 
The purpose refers to the reason for the project and will include verbs 
such as create, improve, and increase. Objectives are brief guidelines 
that will help a grantee achieve project goals by stating more 
specifically the intended outputs, such as: The number of slips for 
transient boaters, the linear feet of new dock space, the time needed 
to complete that goal, and any information that describes that the goal 
is attainable and relevant.
    Comment 73: You should give examples of measurable and verifiable 
objectives.
    Response 73: We make no change based on this comment. We will 
consider offering further guidance outside of regulation.
    Comment 74: It may be difficult for applicants to state a useful 
life for a capital improvement at the application stage.
    Response 74: We make changes to clarify approach and expectations. 
At Sec.  86.43(f), we change ``state'' to ``estimate'' and add a 
sentence that a grantee will finalize useful life during the approval 
process. This change informs an applicant that it must include 
information on useful life in the application, but it will be reviewed 
and may be changed, if necessary, when it receives an award. We also 
make clarifying changes at Sec.  86.75, which is Sec.  86.74 in this 
final rule.
    An applicant may seek guidance from technical literature and from 
vendors, engineers, and others knowledgeable individuals to estimate 
the useful life of each capital improvement. We will reject an 
application that does not have the required estimates for useful life. 
Once a project is approved for an award, the Service may confer with 
the grantee on the estimate given in the application. A grantee must 
finalize the useful life before the award.
    If an applicant is seeking points for the criterion at Sec.  
86.51(c)(2) as described at Sec.  86.59(b)(2), it must give adequate 
information in the application to support the request for consideration 
under the criterion. If we find before we approve the grant that an 
applicant cannot show a reasonably expected increased benefit to earn 
the extra point(s), we will subtract the point(s) related to that 
criterion from the total score for that project and adjust awards 
accordingly.
    Comment 75: No minimum useful life is identified. The current rule 
states

[[Page 26157]]

useful life is 20 years. Does this mean applicants can decide another 
period for useful life?
    Response 75: We explained in the preamble of the proposed rule 
published at 77 FR 18767 on March 28, 2012, that we propose to 
eliminate the 20-year requirement and replace it with a useful life 
requirement based on capital improvements. The useful life 
determination described at Sec. Sec.  86.73 and 86.74 will help 
grantees to better understand their responsibilities.
Section 86.44 What if I need more than the maximum Federal share and 
required match to complete my BIG-funded project?
    We revise this section in response to a comment that asked us to 
reference this section at Sec.  86.73. Upon further consideration, we 
concluded the two sections contain almost identical content, so we 
combine all the information at Sec.  86.44.
    Comment 76: Add an option to this section that will allow grantees 
to reduce the scope of their project if they find that actual costs 
greatly exceed projected costs.
    Response 76: We make no change based on this comment. In BIG Tier 
2-National project review and ranking, the scope is a major factor that 
influences the amount of points that a project receives. If the scope 
were reduced, it could impact the score and ranked order. It is 
important that applicants are thorough when preparing their application 
and consider all factors that could influence costs during the period 
of performance.
Section 86.45 If the Service does not select my grant application for 
funding, can I apply for the same project the following year?
    No comments received.
Section 86.46 What changes can I make in a grant application after I 
submit it?
    Comment 77: Clarify and give examples for changes after the due 
date as found at paragraph (b). If part of an application is found to 
be ineligible, will you allow applicants to change the scope, budget, 
etc., and continue the review and ranking?
    Response 77: We clarify and reformat paragraph (b) to state that if 
an applicant proposes using BIG funds for an action that we identify as 
ineligible, we will decide on a case-by-case basis whether we will 
consider the rest of the application for funding. We do not give 
examples in the regulation as there are many possible scenarios and to 
give any examples may make the regulation more confusing. We may seek 
advice from the applicant or members of the advisory panel, but we will 
make the final decision. If we decide to accept the application with 
the ineligible costs removed, we will ask the applicant to change the 
application accordingly.
    Comment 78: Delete paragraph (f) on accepting reduced funding as 
this does not foster the competitive aspect of the program unless 
offered to all non-funded applicants.
    Response 78: We make changes in this paragraph to clarify this 
issue. We review and rank all competitive grant applications according 
to the BIG criteria, arrange them in ranked order, and award available 
funds to projects, starting with those ranked the highest. The amount 
of available funds and the amount of funding requests never match. 
Paragraph (f) describes the approach we may use when funding is still 
available, but the next ranked project cannot be funded at the level 
requested. We may approach the applicant for the next highest ranked 
project to offer the remaining funds. If the applicant declines, we may 
continue the process to maximize BIG Tier 2--National funding.

Subpart E--Project Selection

    We received a comment supporting all amendments and additions to 
this subpart.
Section 86.50 Who ranks BIG Tier 2--National grant applications?
    No comments received.
Section 86.51 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate BIG Tier 
2--National applications?
    Comment 79: Suggest a project achieve a score of at least 65 
percent of the total available in order to be considered for funding. A 
project that receives below this score is clearly not competitive and 
should not be considered, even if there is funding available.
    Response 79: We agree with the approach to set a minimum standard 
for funding BIG Tier 2--National applications as an incentive for 
developing more competitive projects. As we did not discuss this in the 
proposed rule, we change this section to allow us to set a scoring 
standard in the NOFO. We will use feedback from States, advisors, and 
others to assess if we wish to set a minimum total score standard. We 
may announce in the NOFO a minimum total score of 23, which is 65 
percent of the maximum total score available in criterion at paragraphs 
(a) and (b).
    Comment 80: Consider awarding points for projects in federally 
designated disaster areas so we can leverage BIG funds to aid in the 
recovery.
    Response 80: We make no change based on this comment. We score 
competitive applications based on need as described at Sec.  86.52. We 
will consider all factors in an application that address the need for 
the project, including those factors as they may relate to disaster 
response and rebuilding.
    Comment 81: We received two comments recommending we adjust the 
points in the ranking criteria to create a possible total of 100. One 
of these comments includes removing Sec.  86.51(c)(2) and (c)(3). One 
commenter included a table that showed these changes and added 
designations from Sec.  86.43 that correspond to the criteria.
    Response 81: We do not accept the suggestions for revising scoring 
and removing two paragraphs at Sec.  86.51(c). Many comments we 
received in response to the proposed rule published at 77 FR 18767, 
March 28, 2012, stated they want a point range for scoring each 
criterion, but that a wide range is not effective. In response, we 
reduced the point range for scoring in the proposed rule published 
April 25, 2014. We received comments supporting Sec. Sec.  86.51(c)(2) 
and (c)(3) and we will retain those sections.
    The criterion at Sec.  86.51(c)(2) is important because it 
encourages applicants to consider the future, plan for projects that 
extend the availability of the BIG-funded facility, and improve 
services to eligible users. This criterion also addresses the desire 
for grantees to build projects using design and processes that improve 
resiliency to the effects of climate change. Many States asked us to 
include the criterion at Sec.  86.51(c)(3) to recognize the value of 
those operators who voluntarily participate in Clean Marina and other 
similar programs. We agree and recognize the benefit to eligible users.
    We agree that information to help applicants relate criteria to the 
project statement is desirable, but not through this regulation. We 
will work with our partners to develop and distribute further guidance 
to help applicants.
    Comment 82: The criterion at Sec.  86.51(a)(2) does not address 
justification for the cost of the project. Instead, it focuses on 
comparing costs with benefits as a means of comparing one application 
to another. Recommend changing the question to be more about how costs 
compare to benefits rather than if the costs are justified by the 
benefits.

[[Page 26158]]

    Response 82: We do not make a change at Sec.  86.51(a)(2), but we 
agree that the explanation for this criterion at Sec.  86.53 could be 
interpreted that we would compare an application to others in the same 
grant cycle. We change Sec.  86.53 to state we will consider the costs 
as they relate to the benefits for individual projects and not as 
projects compare to each other in the same grant cycle. We also add 
guidance at paragraph Sec.  86.53(d) recommending that an applicant 
inform us if project costs are inflated due to: (a) Specialized 
materials to increase the useful life, (b) the cost of transporting 
materials to a remote location, (c) unusual costs associated with 
producing benefits at a certain site or in a certain geographic area, 
or (d) the cost of providing environmentally friendly facilities.
    Comment 83: Recommend replacing in-kind with substantial because 
in-kind is just another type of match and it should not matter what 
type of match it is.
    Response 83: We make no change based on this comment. We received 
many comments on this subject while preparing for this rulemaking. We 
responded to recommendations to allow us to consider the nonmonetary 
contributions of partners as well as the monetary contributions. The 
purpose of the criterion at Sec.  86.51(b)(2) is to allow for 
partnerships in smaller communities to rank well even if they do not 
result in large financial contributions. The word substantial is 
subjective and could result in negating the spirit of giving credit for 
smaller contributors.
Section 86.52 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
on the need for more or improved boating infrastructure?
    When evaluating a project on the need for more or improved boating 
infrastructure facilities as described at Sec.  86.52(c), we will 
consider creating accessibility for eligible vessels by increasing 
water depth. We received a comment supporting this factor.
Section 86.53 What factors does the Service consider for benefits to 
eligible users that justify the cost?
    We make changes to this section based on comments received under 
Sec.  86.51. See Response 82.
    Comment 84: Construction costs can vary widely across the country 
for reasons such as meeting hurricane standards, installing bubbler 
systems where ice is a factor, and adding transportation costs for 
remote locations. Recommend applicants be told to explain why higher 
costs may be justified.
    Response 84: We agree and make changes as discussed in Response 82.
    Comment 85: Recommend adding consideration for costs associated 
with making the project a harbor of safe refuge.
    Response 85: We agree and add paragraph (e) to tell applicants to 
include this information.
Section 86.54 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
on boater access to significant destinations and services that support 
transient boater travel?
    We received a comment supporting the focus on both attractions and 
boater services in the ranking criterion at Sec.  86.51(a)(3).
    Comment 86: Recommend including proximity to a harbor of safe 
refuge under this criterion.
    Response 86: We agree and add at paragraph (c) that we will 
consider safety as well as services.
Section 86.55 What does the Service consider as a partner for the 
purposes of these ranking criteria?
    No comments received.
Section 86.56 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
that includes more than the minimum match?
    Comment 87: Recommend deleting the word cash at paragraph (a) 
because it precludes additional points for in-kind contributions.
    Response 87: We make no change based on this comment. In-kind 
contributions are discussed at Sec.  86.57.
    Comment 88: We received two comments recommending a different 
standard for awarding points based on percentage of additional cash 
match. Both recommendations were based on increasing the total points 
at Sec.  86.51 that may be considered for this criterion for a maximum 
of 25 points.
    Response 88: We did not accept the recommended changes at this 
section as we did not accept the related recommended changes in Comment 
81. However, upon further review we change the percent ranges to 
encourage applicants to offer more match to their project.
Section 86.57 What does the Service consider when evaluating 
contributions that a partner brings to a project?
    No comments received.
Section 86.58 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
for a physical component, technology, or technique that will improve 
eligible user access?
    No comments received.
Section 86.59 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
for innovative physical components, technology, or techniques that 
improve the BIG project?
    Comment 89: We consider Sec.  86.59(b)(4) and (5) to be unneeded 
and a potential obstacle to participation. These two requirements are 
typically considered during project design and would be enforced during 
the permitting process.
    Response 89: We make no change based on this comment. This section 
is not a requirement, and there is no reason for it to be an obstacle 
to participation. This section allows us to consider additional points 
for innovative physical components, technology, or techniques that 
improve the BIG project. The items at Sec.  86.59(b)(4) and (5) are 
examples of how an applicant could qualify for these additional points 
by exceeding the compliance requirements. If an applicant is required 
to use a physical component, technology, or technique to comply with 
local, State, or Federal regulations, then we do not consider 
additional points under this criterion. This section is for applicants 
who voluntarily choose an innovative approach that increases the 
resilience of project components or otherwise improves the project.
Section 86.60 What does the Service consider when evaluating a project 
for demonstrating a commitment to environmental compliance, 
sustainability, and stewardship?
    We received a comment that supports the additional point we offer 
for marinas that have received official recognition for their voluntary 
commitment to exceeding required standards.
Section 86.61 What happens after the Director approves projects for 
funding?
    No comments received. We delete Sec.  86.42(c) and refer to this 
section.

Subpart F--Grant Administration

Section 86.70 What standards must I follow when constructing a BIG-
funded facility?
    No comments received.
Section 86.71 How much time do I have to complete the work funded by a 
BIG grant?
    We received several comments supporting the length of the period of 
performance and the amendment to allow a first extension for up to 2 
years. The commenters state that the length of the period of 
performance is important to ensure project completion.

[[Page 26159]]

    Comment 90: Clarify that we could have almost 6 years to complete a 
project if we combine the 3-year period of performance with the 3-year 
period of obligation.
    Response 90: There is potential that combining the obligation 
period with the period of performance could result in 6 years from the 
beginning of the fiscal year the project is awarded to the end of the 
period of performance. However, this may not always be true. A grantee 
may coordinate with us after we award a grant to set a start date for 
the period of performance within the obligation period. We add that we 
will work with a grantee to set a start date within the 3-year period 
of obligation.
Section 86.72 What if I cannot complete the project during the period 
of performance?
    No comments received.
Section 86.73 What if I need more funds to finish a project?
    Comment 91: Recommend adding a reference in this section to Sec.  
86.44 as the two sections are related.
    Response 91: We agree, and upon further review we consider most of 
Sec.  86.73 and Sec.  86.44 to be redundant. We revise Sec.  86.44 to 
include additional information from Sec.  86.73 and delete the content 
of Sec.  86.73. We renumber Sec. Sec.  86.74 through 86.79 as 
Sec. Sec.  86.73 through 86.78.
Section 86.74 [now Sec.  86.73] How long must I operate and maintain a 
BIG-funded facility, and who is responsible for the cost of facility 
operation and maintenance?
    Comment 92: Recommend the owner of the BIG-funded facility be 
responsible for continued operation and maintenance and not the State.
    Response 92: We make no change based on this comment. A State may 
enter into a contractual agreement with the facility owner, subgrantee, 
or other type of operator that designates them as the responsible party 
for continued operation and maintenance. However, should they not 
fulfill their obligations, the State as grantee is ultimately 
responsible.
Section 86.75 [now Sec.  86.74] How do I determine the useful life of a 
BIG-funded facility?
    Comment 93: We received two comments recommending this section be 
simplified to avoid confusion.
    Response 93: We considered these comments and clarify this section 
by presenting it as a step-by-step process. We emphasize that the 
initial application must include a useful life estimate, but the 
estimate may be based on information from resources that are typically 
available when developing a grant application. We also clearly allow a 
State to choose only one of the methods for finalizing useful life in 
the grant and use that method exclusively for BIG in that State.
    Comment 94: Recommend changing the language so that it is clear how 
to apply the process. It is unclear how components relate to the larger 
systems and what would happen if a smaller component is no longer 
useful, but necessary for continued use of a larger one. For example, 
if a gangway costs less than $25,000 and it falls into disrepair, can 
the operator remove and not replace it, even if it is necessary to 
access the dock system?
    Response 94: We changed this section to clarify at Sec.  
86.74(a)(1)(iv) and (v) that each smaller component must be associated 
with a capital improvement. If it supports more than one, the smaller 
component must be associated with the capital improvement with the 
longest expected useful life.
Section 86.76 [now Sec.  86.75] How should I credit BIG?
    No comments received.
Section 86.77 [now Sec.  86.76] How can I use the logo for BIG?
    No comments received.
Section 86.78 [now Sec.  86.77] How must I treat program income?
    We received a comment supporting our approach to clarifying program 
income.
    Comment 95: Recommend you add that we should tell you if project 
construction is completed before the end of the period of performance 
to reduce the impact of income earned.
    Response 95: We agree and add paragraph (e) to recommend grantees 
tell us when project construction is completed.
Section 86.79 [now Sec.  86.78] How must I treat income earned after 
the period of performance?
    No comments received.

Subpart G--Facility Operations and Maintenance

Section 86.90 How much must an operator of a BIG-funded facility charge 
for using the facility?
    We received several comments supporting the change to allow marinas 
to offer services for free if that is the prevailing rate.
    Comment 96: What if a town or city council mandates a high fee just 
to raise revenue? It seems unfair to make boaters pay the higher fee.
    Response 96: We agree and added language at Sec.  86.90(c) that we 
will accept a State or locally imposed fee schedule if it is reasonable 
and does not impose an undue burden on eligible users.
    Comment 97: Clarify that when determining prevailing rates that 
similar facilities are being compared. It would not be fair to compare 
the rates from a private, member-only marina to a public or private 
marina open to the public. Another example of differing types of 
facilities would be a public dock connected to a city center compared 
to a public dock connected to an island.
    Response 97: We state at Sec.  86.90(a) that the facilities we 
consider when determining prevailing rates must offer similar services 
or amenities. We respond to this comment by adding that they are to be 
similarly situated as well.
Section 86.91 May an operator of a BIG-funded facility increase or 
decrease user fees during its useful life?
    No comments received.
Section 86.92 Must an operator of a BIG-funded facility allow public 
access?
    Comment 98: Change the word ``operator'' to ``contractor'' to match 
the definitions.
    Response 98: We make no change to this section based on this 
comment. We clarify by adding the term ``operator'' at Sec.  86.3.
Section 86.93 May I prohibit overnight use by eligible vessels at a 
BIG-funded facility?
    Comment 99: Clarify if we can change to a day-use only facility 
after the project is completed, but before it reaches the end of its 
useful life. Would we use the guidance at Subpart H to do this?
    Response 99: If a grantee wishes to convert a Tier 1-State or a 
Tier 2-National project from an overnight to a day-use facility, it 
must contact the Regional Office for guidance. A subgrantee must 
contact their State, which will in turn contact the Regional Office. 
The change in usage will alter the scope of the project, and deviation 
from the original project scope may constitute a breach of a grant 
agreement. Grantees must receive our approval before making any changes 
in the scope of a project at any time during its useful life. [See 2 
CFR 200.201(b)(5) and 200.308(b)]

[[Page 26160]]

Section 86.94 Must I give information to eligible users and the public 
about BIG-funded facilities?
    We received several comments supporting the change to allow using 
signs and other forms of emerging communication to inform eligible 
users about the facility and eligible uses.

Subpart H--Revisions and Appeals

Section 86.100 Can I change the information in a grant application 
after I receive a grant?
    No comments received.
Section 86.101 How do I ask for revision of a grant?
    No comments received.
Section 86.102 Can I appeal a decision?
    No comments received.
Section 86.103 Can the Director authorize an exception to this part?
    No comments received.

Subpart I--Information Collection

Section 86.110 What are the information collection requirements of this 
part?
    No comments received.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has 
determined that this rule is not significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent 
with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency to consider the 
impact of final rules on small entities, i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions. If there is a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the agency must perform a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. This is not 
required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) amended 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to state the 
factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    We have examined this final rule's potential effects on small 
entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We have 
determined that the changes in the final rule do not have a significant 
impact and do not require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis because the 
changes:
    a. Give information to State fish and wildlife agencies that allows 
them to apply for and administer grants more easily, more efficiently, 
and with greater flexibility. Only State fish and wildlife agencies may 
receive BIG grants.
    b. Address changes in law and regulation. This helps grant 
applicants and recipients by making the regulation consistent with 
current standards.
    c. Reword and reorganize the regulation to make it easier to 
understand.
    d. Allow small entities to voluntarily become subgrantees of 
agencies and any impact on these subgrantees would be beneficial.
    The Service has determined that the changes primarily affect State 
governments and any small entities affected by the changes voluntarily 
enter into mutually beneficial relationships with a State agency. They 
are primarily concessioners and subgrantees and the impact on these 
small entities will be very limited and beneficial in all cases.
    Consequently, we certify that because this final rule will not have 
a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
    In addition, this final rule is not a major rule under SBREFA (5 
U.S.C. 804(2)) and will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because it does not:
    a. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
    b. Cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers; 
individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or 
geographic regions.
    c. Have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 
establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of 
their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and 
the private sector. The Act requires each Federal agency, to the extent 
permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects of a 
final rule with Federal mandates that may result in the expenditure by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in 
any 1 year. We have determined the following under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act:
    a. As discussed in the determination for the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, this final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    b. The regulation does not require a small government agency plan 
or any other requirement for expending local funds.
    c. The programs governed by the current regulations and enhanced by 
the changes potentially assist small governments financially when they 
occasionally and voluntarily participate as subgrantees of an eligible 
agency.
    d. The final rule clarifies and improves upon the current 
regulations allowing State, local, and tribal governments and the 
private sector to receive the benefits of grant funding in a more 
flexible, efficient, and effective manner.
    e. Any costs incurred by a State, local, or tribal government or 
the private sector are voluntary. There are no mandated costs 
associated with the final rule.
    f. The benefits of grant funding outweigh the costs. The Federal 
Government provides up to 75 percent of the total project costs in each 
requested grant to the 50 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 
the District of Columbia. The Federal Government will also waive the 
first $200,000 of match for each grant to the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands and the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, and American Samoa. Of the 50 States and 6 other jurisdictions 
that voluntarily are eligible to apply for grants in these programs

[[Page 26161]]

each year, 95 percent have participated. This is clear evidence that 
the benefits of this grant funding outweigh the costs.
    g. This final rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 
million or greater in any year, i.e., it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Takings

    This final rule will not have significant takings implications 
under E.O. 12630 because it will not have a provision for taking 
private property. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not 
required.

Federalism

    This final rule will not have sufficient Federalism effects to 
warrant preparing a federalism summary impact statement under E.O. 
13132. It would not interfere with the States' ability to manage 
themselves or their funds. We work closely with the States 
administering these programs. They helped us identify those sections of 
the current regulations needing further consideration and new issues 
that prompted us to develop a regulatory response. In drafting the 
final rule, we received comments from the Sport Fishing and Boating 
Partnership Council, a nongovernmental committee established under the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act; the States Organization for Boating 
Access; the Joint Federal/State Task Force on Federal Assistance 
Policy; and individual States.

Civil Justice Reform

    The Office of the Solicitor has determined under E.O. 12988 that 
the rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the 
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The final rule 
will help grantees because it:
    a. Updates the regulations to reflect changes in policy and 
practice and recommendations received during the past 14 years;
    b. Makes the regulations easier to use and understand by improving 
the organization and using plain language;
    c. Modifies the final rule to amend 50 CFR part 86 published in the 
Federal Register at 66 FR 5282 on January 18, 2001, based on subsequent 
experience; and
    d. Adopts recommendations on new issues received from State fish 
and wildlife agencies and the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership 
Council since we published the current rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain new information collection 
requirements that require approval under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.). OMB has reviewed and approved the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
application and reporting requirements associated with the Boating 
Infrastructure Grant Program and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0109, 
which expires September 30, 2015. We may not conduct or sponsor and you 
are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this rule under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and part 516 of the Departmental Manual. 
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact 
statement/assessment is not required due to the categorical exclusion 
for administrative changes given at 516 DM 8.5A(3).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    We have evaluated potential effects on federally recognized Indian 
tribes under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2. We have 
determined that there are no potential effects. This final rule will 
not interfere with the tribes' ability to manage themselves or their 
funds.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

    E.O. 13211 addresses regulations that significantly affect energy 
supply, distribution, and use, and requires agencies to prepare 
Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This 
rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and does 
not affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this 
action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy 
Effects is required.

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.

Regulation Promulgation

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

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 Tier 1--State grants and 
BIG Tier 2--National 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 Tier 2--National grant applications?

[[Page 26162]]

86.51 What criteria does the Service use to evaluate BIG Tier 2--
National 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 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 period of 
performance?
86.73 How long must I operate and maintain a BIG-funded facility, 
and who is responsible for the cost of facility operation and 
maintenance?
86.74 How do I determine the useful life of a BIG-funded facility?
86.75 How should I credit BIG?
86.76 How can I use the logo for BIG?
86.77 How must I treat program income?
86.78 How must I treat income earned after the period of 
performance?
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) Tier 1-State 
and Tier 2-National subprograms. Section 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.
    Concessioner means an entity with which a State has a written 
agreement to operate or manage a BIG-funded facility. The agreement 
with a concessioner may or may not involve a financial exchange. A 
concessioner is not a contractor or vendor. You pay a contractor or 
vendor to perform specific duties or supply specific materials 
according to a written contract. Concessioners, vendors, and 
contractors are not grant recipients.
    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.
    Director means:
    (1) The Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service whom the 
Secretary of the Interior has delegated authority to administer BIG 
nationally; or
    (2) A deputy or another person whom the Director has delegated 
authority over BIG.
    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 facility 
where a BIG-funded project is located; 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 approved award of money, the principal purpose of 
which is to transfer funds from a Federal awarding agency to the non-
Federal entity (grantee) to carry out an authorized public purpose and 
includes the matching cash and any matching in-kind contributions. The 
legal instrument used is a grant agreement.
    Grants.gov is a centralized location for States and other entities 
to find and apply for Federal funding. It is located at http://www.grants.gov. We require States to use grants.gov, or any system that 
replaces it, to apply for BIG grants.
    Maintenance means keeping structures or equipment in a condition to 
serve the intended purpose. It includes cyclical or occasional actions 
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

[[Page 26163]]

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. Match must follow the criteria at 2 CFR 200.306(b).
    Navigable waters means waters that are deep and wide enough for the 
passage of eligible vessels within the water body.
    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 
workers, facility administration, utilities, rent, taxes, and 
insurance.
    Operator means an individual or entity that is responsible for 
operating a BIG-funded facility. An operator may be a grantee, a 
subgrantee, a concessioner, or another individual or entity that the 
grantee has an arrangement with to operate the BIG-funded facility.
    Personal property means anything tangible or intangible that is not 
real property.
    Program income means gross income earned by the grantee or 
subgrantee that is directly generated by a grant-supported activity, or 
earned as a result of the grant, during the period of performance.
    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 total allowable costs incurred under BIG and 
includes Federal funds 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 achievements directly associated with 
BIG. The purpose is to inform the public about BIG-funded projects or 
the BIG program.
    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 administered 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 staying 
at a single facility for up to 15 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.  86.73 and 86.74.

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. This may include limited repair or restoration of roads, 
parking lots, walkways, and other surface areas damaged as a direct 
result of BIG-funded construction.
    (2) Conduct actions necessary to construct boating infrastructure, 
such as:
    (i) Engineering, economic, environmental, historic, cultural, 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 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) Record the Federal interest in the real property.
    (7) Use BIG Tier 1--State grant awards to administer BIG Tier 1--
State and BIG Tier 2--National 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) You may ask your Regional Office to approve preaward costs for 
eligible actions. You incur preaward costs at your own risk, as we will 
only reimburse you for preaward costs we approved if you receive a 
grant.
    (c) Applicants may seek funding for installing pumpout facilities 
through the Clean Vessel Act Grant Program (CVA) instead of including 
the cost as part of a BIG grant application. A State may require a 
pumpout be funded through CVA, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
number 15.616.
    (d) Other actions may qualify for BIG funding, subject to our 
approval, if they

[[Page 26164]]

achieve the purposes of BIG. We will describe actions we approve and 
how they are eligible for BIG funding in the full text of the annual 
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).


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 give 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 offer access to provisions and communication for 
eligible users.
    (e) Equipment and structures for collecting, disposing of, or 
recycling liquid or solid waste from eligible vessels or for eligible 
users.


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 the facility qualifies 
under 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 show in the grant 
application the inability to install a pumpout.
    (1) We will review your request and will grant the waiver if you 
present circumstances that show:
    (i) 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;
    (ii) State or local law does not allow septic-waste disposal 
facilities at the location;
    (iii) You are 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
    (iv) You have 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.
    (2) When we waive the pumpout requirement, the BIG-funded facility 
must inform boaters:
    (i) They are required to properly treat or dispose of septic waste; 
and
    (ii) Where they can find information that will direct them to 
nearby pumpout stations.
    (3) If we deny your request, we will follow the process described 
in the annual NOFO.
    (4) If you seek an allowance based on this paragraph, you must 
include supporting information in the grant application as described at 
Sec.  86.43(n)(1).
    (c) We will allow water access at a depth less than 6 feet if you 
can show that the BIG-funded facility will serve its intended purpose 
for typical eligible users that visit 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 Tier 1--State and BIG Tier 2--National grants:
    (1) You may request BIG funds for facility maintenance only if you 
will complete the maintenance action during the period of performance.
    (2) You may apply user fees collected at the BIG-funded facility 
after the period of performance to the maintenance of the facility.
    (b) For BIG Tier 1--State 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 affected capital improvement accordingly.
    (3) States may limit or exclude BIG maintenance funding they make 
available to subgrantees.
    (c) For BIG Tier 2--National grants, you may request BIG funds for 
maintenance if it directly benefits eligible users and is directly 
related to the BIG project. You are responsible for all maintenance 
costs after the period of performance except as provided at 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 $200,000.
    (b) When you complete the project, the BIG-funded dredged area 
must:
    (1) Have navigable water depth to accommodate eligible vessels as 
described at Sec.  86.13(a)(6);
    (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 certify by signing 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, under typical 
conditions.


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 janitorial duties. Janitorial duties may 
include:
    (i) Routine cleaning;
    (ii) Trash and litter collection and removal; and
    (iii) Restocking paper products.
    (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,

[[Page 26165]]

except limited action as described at Sec.  86.11(a)(1).
    (6) Constructing, renovating, or maintaining boating infrastructure 
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
    (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 part 200, subpart F.


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 concessioners may be a local or tribal 
government, a nonprofit organization, a commercial enterprise, an 
institution of higher education, or a State agency other than the 
agency receiving the grant.
    (c) Subgrantees that are commercial enterprises are subject to 2 
CFR part 200, subparts A through D, for grant administrative 
requirements.


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, you may require subgrantees to record the Federal 
interest in real property that includes a BIG-funded capital 
improvement.
    (e) You must state in your subaward that subgrantees must not alter 
the ownership, purpose, or use of the BIG-funded facility as described 
in the project statement without the approval of 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 may assign any share of the costs to the BIG grant only if the 
BIG-funded facility or a discrete element of the BIG-funded facility 
benefits only eligible users. If a cost does not exclusively benefit 
eligible users, you must allocate costs accordingly. 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 major components;
    (2) The breakdown of costs, as described at Sec.  86.43(i), 
including the basis or method you use to allocate costs between 
eligible and ineligible users; and
    (3) Your reasoning in determining how to allocate costs, based on 
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section and any other guidance in 
the annual NOFO.
    (b) After you submit the application, if we do not agree with your 
cost allocation using paragraph (a) of this section, we will contact 
you. We may ask you to clarify your information. If we do not agree 
that the allocation is equitable, we may negotiate an equitable 
allocation. We must be able to agree that you are appropriately 
allocating costs between eligible and ineligible users based on the 
expected use before we consider your application for award.
    (c) 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 of how we will apply this rule are:
    (1) The primary purpose is to benefit eligible users directly, with 
the secondary benefit for both eligible and ineligible 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 NOFO. For example, 
if the total maximum Federal award and required match for a BIG Tier 
2--National project is $2 million, you do not have to allocate costs 
between user groups for any

[[Page 26166]]

discrete project element, component, or action with a value of $5,000 
or less.
    (d) 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, dredging, navigational aids, or other multiuse or 
multipurpose action.
    (e) 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.
    (f) You must clearly inform boaters when access by ineligible users 
is limited or restricted following the guidance at Sec.  86.94.
    (g) 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 
NOFO.

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 based on 
the revenue projected for the Trust Fund. We include this estimate when 
we issue a NOFO at http://www.grants.gov.
    (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 you 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. 1469a).
    (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 period of 
performance.
    (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 2 CFR 200.29 and 200.306, and any other 
applicable sections of 2 CFR part 200. This includes any regulations or 
policies that replace or supplement 2 CFR part 200.
    (d) Match must not include:
    (1) An interest in land or water;
    (2) The value of any structure completed before the beginning of 
the period of performance, 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 http://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 
deliver 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.  86.44 and 
86.100.

Subpart D--Application for a Grant


Sec.  86.40  What are the differences between BIG Tier 1--State grants 
and BIG Tier 2--National grants?

[[Page 26167]]



     Comparison of BIG Tier 1--State and BIG Tier 2--National Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         BIG Tier 2--
                                   BIG Tier 1--State       National
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) What actions are eligible     Those listed at     Those listed at
 for funding?                      Sec.   86.11.       Sec.   86.11
                                                       except Sec.
                                                       86.11(a)(7).
(b) What is the amount of         Each year we make   We may limit
 Federal funds I can receive in    at least $200,000   funding to a
 one BIG grant?                    available to each   maximum award of
                                   State. We may       $1.5 million. We
                                   increase the        may increase the
                                   award that States   maximum funding
                                   may request         you may request
                                   annually to an      if enough funds
                                   amount above        are available and
                                   $200,000 if         it is
                                   enough funds are    advantageous to
                                   available and it    the program
                                   is advantageous     mission. We
                                   to the program      announce each
                                   mission. We         year in the
                                   announce each       annual NOFO
                                   year in the         posted at http://
                                   annual NOFO         www.grants.gov
                                   posted at http://   the recommended
                                   www.grants.gov      maximum Federal
                                   the maximum         funds you may
                                   Federal funds you   request.
                                   may request.
(c) How many grant applications   Each State can      No limit.
 can I submit each year?           only request up
                                   to the annual
                                   funding limit
                                   each year. You
                                   can 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 choose   We fund a single    We score each
 grant applications for funding?   grant or multiple   grant application
                                   grants per State    according to
                                   up to the maximum   ranking criteria
                                   annual funding      at Sec.   86.51.
                                   amount for that     We recommend
                                   year.               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 apply 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) The director of your State agency (see Sec.  86.10) or an 
authorized representative must certify all standard forms submitted in 
the grant application process in the format that we designate.
    (c) States must submit a grant application through http://www.grants.gov. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 
number for BIG is 15.622.
    (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 identified at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc/ 
before sending it through http://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, a BIG project statement as described at Sec.  86.43, 
documents, maps, images, and other information asked for in the annual 
NOFO at http://www.grants.gov, CFDA 15.622, in the format we ask for.
    (b) You must include supporting documentation explaining how the 
proposed work complies with applicable laws and regulations. You must 
also state the permits, evaluations, and reviews you need to complete 
the project. After we approve your project, you will follow guidance at 
Sec.  86.61 to complete requirements that will become part of your 
application.
    (c) After we review your application, any responses to our requests 
to give more information or to clarify information become part of the 
application.
    (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 demonstrate 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. Base the purpose on the need as 
described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Objectives. Identify specific, measurable, attainable, 
relevant, and time-bound (SMART) outputs related 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) Achieve the need described at paragraph (a) of this section; 
and
    (ii) Benefit eligible users.
    (e) Approach. (1) Describe the methods to be used to achieve the 
objectives. Show that you will use sound design and proper procedures. 
Include enough information on the status of needed permits, land use 
approvals, and other compliance requirements for us to make a 
preliminary assessment.
    (2) Give the name, contact information, qualifications, and role of 
each known concessioner or subgrantee.
    (3) Explain how you will exercise control to ensure the BIG-funded 
facility continues to achieve its authorized

[[Page 26168]]

purpose during the useful life of the BIG-funded project.
    (f) Useful life. Estimate the useful life in years of each capital 
improvement for the proposed project. Explain how you estimated the 
useful life of each capital improvement. You must reference a generally 
accepted method used to determine useful life of a capital improvement. 
You will finalize useful life during the approval process. See 
Sec. Sec.  86.73 and 86.74.
    (g) Geographic location. (1) State the location using Global 
Positioning System (GPS) coordinates in the format we ask for in the 
annual NOFO.
    (2) State the local jurisdiction (county, city, town, 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) Maps or images that show proximity to significant 
destinations, services that support eligible users, terrain 
considerations, access, or other information applicable to your 
project.
    (iv) Any other map that supports the information in the project 
statement.
    (h) Project officer. If the Federal Aid Coordinator for the State 
agency will be the project officer, enter the term State Federal Aid 
Coordinator under this heading. If the State Federal Aid Coordinator 
will not be the project officer, give the name, title, work address, 
work email, and work telephone number of the contact person. The 
project officer identified should have a detailed knowledge of the 
project. State 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 result in 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 should discuss 
factors that would influence project costs as described at Sec.  
86.53(d). Costs must be necessary and reasonable to achieve the project 
objectives.
    (1) 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.
    (2) State sources of cash and in-kind values you include in the 
project budget.
    (3) 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. Identify the cash and 
in-kind contributions that you, a partner, or other entity contribute 
to the project and describe how the contributions directly and 
substantively benefits completion of the project. 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.  86.77 and 86.78 for an explanation of how you 
may use program income. If you decide that your project is likely to 
generate program income during the period of performance, 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 in the annual NOFO.
    (2) Include any other description or document we ask for in the 
annual NOFO or that you need to support your proposed project.
    (o) Ranking criteria. In BIG Tier 2--National applications, you 
must respond to each of the questions found in the ranking criteria at 
Sec.  86.51. We also publish the questions for these criteria in the 
annual NOFO at http://www.grants.gov.
    (1) In addressing the ranking criteria, refer to the information at 
Sec. Sec.  86.52 through 86.60 and any added information we ask for in 
the annual NOFO.
    (2) You may give information relevant to the ranking criteria as 
part of the project statement. If you take this approach, you must 
reference the criterion and give supporting information to reflect the 
guidance at Sec. Sec.  86.52 through 86.60.


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 non-Federal 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 anticipated 
completion of another; or
    (3) Combine your BIG Tier 1--State and BIG Tier 2--National funding 
to complete a project at a single location.
    (b) If you are awarded a grant and find you cannot complete a BIG 
project with the Federal funds and required match, you may:
    (1) Find other sources of non-Federal funds to complete the 
project.
    (2) Consider if BIG Tier 1--State funds are available to help 
complete the project. This is not a guaranteed option.
    (3) Ask for approval to revise the grant by following the 
requirements at subpart H of this part.
    (c) For BIG Tier 2--National 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.
    (e) If you do not complete your project, we may take one or more of 
the remedies for noncompliance found at 2 CFR 200.338, and any other 
regulations that apply.


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

    Yes. 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 or change 
information up to the date and time that the applications are due.
    (b) After the application due date and before we announce selected 
projects, you can add or change information in your application only if 
it does not affect the scope of the project, would not affect the score 
of the application,

[[Page 26169]]

and is not a correction (see paragraph (c) of this section).
    (1) During this period we may ask you to change the useful life 
following the requirements at Sec.  86.74 or allocation of costs 
between users of the BIG project following the requirements at Sec.  
86.19.
    (2) If your application proposes using BIG funds for an action we 
identify as ineligible, we will decide on a case-by-case basis whether 
we will allow you to change your application to remove identified 
ineligible costs and if we will consider your application for funding.
    (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) 
of this section in the time allotted, we may decide not to consider 
your application for funding.
    (f) If your application is competitive, but 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 accept the reduced funding 
amount. We will decide on a case-by-case basis if we will consider 
changes to the scope of your project based on the reduced funding. Any 
changes to the scope of a project must not result in reducing the 
number of points enough to lower your project's ranking position. If 
you choose to accept the reduced amount, you must amend your 
application to reflect all changes, including the difference in Federal 
and non-Federal funding.

Subpart E--Project Selection


Sec.  86.50  Who ranks BIG Tier 2--National grant applications?

    We assemble a panel of our professional staff to review, rank, and 
recommend grant applications for 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 Tier 
2--National applications?

    Our panel of professional staff and any invited participants 
evaluate BIG Tier 2--National 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 NOFO on http://www.grants.gov. This may 
include the minimum total points that your application must receive in 
order to qualify for award.

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

[[Page 26170]]

describing them in the project statement and explaining how they relate 
to Need at Sec.  86.43(a).
    (c) We will consider the cost relevant to all benefits to eligible 
users that are adequately supported in the application. We may consider 
the availability of preexisting structures and amenities, but only in 
the context of the need identified at Sec.  86.43(a).
    (d) Describe in your application any factors that would influence 
project costs, such as:
    (1) The need for specialized materials to meet local codes, address 
weather or terrain, or extend useful life;
    (2) Increased transportation costs due to location; or
    (3) Other factors that may increase costs, but whose actions 
support needed benefits.
    (e) Describe any costs that are associated with providing a harbor 
of safe refuge.


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 on boater 
access at Sec.  86.51(a)(3), 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 and safety 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 criteria:
    (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 or an in-
kind contribution, or to take a voluntary action during the period of 
performance.
    (c) In-kind contributions or actions must be necessary and 
contribute directly and substantively to the completion of the project. 
You must explain in the grant application how they are necessary and 
contribute to completing 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 how much cash the applicant and partners 
commit above the required minimum match of 25 percent 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26-30...................................................               1
31-35...................................................               2
36-40...................................................               3
41-45...................................................               4
46-50...................................................               5
51-80...................................................               6
81 or higher............................................               7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) We must waive the first $200,000 in match for the entities 
described at Sec.  86.32(a). We will determine the required match by 
subtracting the waived amount from the required 25 percent match and 
award points using the table at paragraph (c) of this section.


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

    (a) We consider these factors for partner contributions in 
evaluating a proposed project under the criterion at Sec.  86.51(b)(2):
    (1) The significance of the contribution to the success of the 
project;
    (2) How the contribution supports the actions proposed in the 
project statement;
    (3) How the partner demonstrates its commitment to the 
contribution; and
    (4) The ability of the partner to fulfill its commitment.
    (b) We may consider the combined contributions of several partners, 
according to the factors at paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) To receive consideration for this criterion, you must show in 
your application how a partner, or group of partners, significantly 
supports the project by addressing the factors in paragraph (a) of this 
section.
    (d) You may describe partner contributions in the project 
statement.
    (e) Under this criterion, partner contributions 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 if 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) Reduce the carbon footprint of the BIG-funded facility. Carbon 
footprint means the impact of the total set of greenhouse gas 
emissions;
    (5) Are used during construction specifically to reduce negative 
environmental impacts, beyond compliance requirements; or
    (6) Improve facility resilience.


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

[[Page 26171]]

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 
continues 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 by the due date 
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 that will cost more than $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 will work with you to set a start date within the 3-year 
period of obligation. We assign a period of performance that is no 
longer than 3 years from the grant start date.
    (c) You must complete your project within the period of performance 
unless you ask for and receive a grant extension.


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

    (a) If you cannot complete the project during the 3-year period of 
performance, you may ask us for an extension. Your request must be in 
writing, and we must receive it before the end of the original period 
of performance.
    (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:
    (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 the 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  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 86.74.
    (b) Catastrophic events may shorten the 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 at Sec.  86.14(b).


Sec.  86.74  How do I determine the useful life of a BIG-funded 
facility?

    You must determine the useful life of your BIG-funded project using 
the following:
    (a) You must give an informed estimate of the useful life of the 
BIG-funded project in your grant application, including the information 
in Steps 1, 2, and 3, in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, 
as applicable.
    (1) Step 1. Identify all capital improvements that are proposed in 
your project. We may reject your application if you do not include an 
estimate for useful life.
    (i) Use the definition of capital improvement at Sec.  86.3.
    (ii) The capital improvement must be a structure or system that 
serves an identified purpose.
    (iii) Consider the function of the components in your application 
and group those with a similar purpose together as structures or 
systems.
    (iv) All auxiliary components of your project (those that are not 
directly part of the structure or system) must be identified as 
necessary for the continued use of an identified capital improvement. 
For example, a gangway is not part of the dock system, but is necessary 
for access to and from the dock system, so it could be included in the 
useful life of the dock system.
    (v) Attach an auxiliary component as identified at paragraph 
(a)(1)(iv) of this section to only one capital improvement. If it 
supports more than one, choose the one with the longest useful life.
    (vi) Examples of structures or systems that could potentially make 
up a single capital improvement are a: Rest room/shower building; dock 
system; breakwater; seawall; basin, as altered by dredging; or fuel 
station.
    (2) Step 2. Estimate the useful life of each capital improvement 
identified in Step 1 in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (i) State how you determine the useful life estimate.
    (ii) Identify factors that may influence the useful life of the 
identified capital improvement, such as: Marine environment, wave 
action, weather conditions, and heavy usage.
    (iii) Examples of sources to obtain estimates for useful life 
information when developing your application are: Vendors, engineers, 
contractors, or others with expertise or experience with a capital 
improvement.
    (3) Step 3. If you are asking us to consider additional points for 
a physical

[[Page 26172]]

component, technology, or technique under the criterion at Sec.  
86.51(c) that will increase the useful life, you must describe in your 
application:
    (i) The capital improvement or component that you will apply the 
criterion at Sec.  86.51(c) to;
    (ii) The expected increase in useful life;
    (iii) The sources of information that support your determination of 
an extended useful life; and
    (iv) A description of how you expect the useful life will be 
increased.
    (b) After you submit your application, but before we award your 
grant, you must:
    (1) Confirm the useful life for each capital improvement using a 
generally accepted method.
    (2) Provide any additional documents or information, if we request 
it.
    (3) Consult and obtain agreement for your final useful life 
determinations at the State or Regional level, or both.
    (4) Revise your application, as needed, to include the final useful 
life determination(s).
    (c) If we find before we award the grant that you are unable to 
support your determination of an extended useful life at Sec.  
86.51(c), we will reduce your score and adjust the ranking of 
applications accordingly.
    (d) You must finalize useful life in your grant by one of the 
following methods:
    (i) State several useful-life expectations, one for each individual 
capital improvement you identified at paragraph (a)(1) of this section; 
or
    (ii) State a single useful life for the whole project, based on the 
longest useful life of the capital improvements you identified at 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (e) States may decide to use only one of the methods described at 
paragraph (d) of this section for all BIG-funded projects in their 
State.


Sec.  86.75  How should I credit BIG?

    (a) You must use the Sport Fish Restoration logo to show the source 
of BIG funding:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06MY15.000

    (b) Examples of language you may use to credit BIG 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.  86.76  How can I use the logo for BIG?

    (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 achievements; 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 at Sec.  86.30 may display the logo in conjunction 
with its associated products or projects.
    (d) The Assistant Director or Regional Director may authorize other 
persons, organizations, agencies, or governments not identified in this 
section to use the logo for purposes related to BIG 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 
BIG.
    (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.  86.77  How must I treat program income?

    (a) You must follow the applicable program income requirements at 2 
CFR 200.80 and 200.307 if you earn program income during the period of 
performance.
    (b) We authorize the following options in the regulations cited at 
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 at 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 at paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) For BIG Tier 1-State 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.
    (e) If your project is completed before the end of the period of 
performance, we recommend you notify us and ask for advice on how to 
adjust the period of performance to manage potential program income.


Sec.  86.78  How must I treat income earned after the period of 
performance?

    You are not accountable to us for income earned by you or a 
subgrantee after the period of performance 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 similarly situated

[[Page 26173]]

and 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 if it is 
reasonable and does not impose an undue burden on eligible users.
    (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 at 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.

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 Tier 1--State and BIG Tier 2--National awards, the 
revision:
    (i) Would not significantly decrease the benefits of the project; 
and
    (ii) Would not increase Federal funds.
    (2) For BIG Tier 2--National awards, the revision:
    (i) Involves process, materials, logistics, or other items that 
have no significant effect on the factors used to decide the score; and
    (ii) Keeps 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 Tier 1--State grant.
    (e) The Regional WSFR Office must receive approval from the WSFR 
Headquarters Office for any changes to a BIG Tier 2--National 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 http://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 according to 2 
CFR 200.341.
    (a) You must send the appeal to the Director within 30 calendar 
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 of the Interior within 30 calendar days 
of the date that the Director mailed the decision. An appeal to the 
Secretary must follow procedures at 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

[[Page 26174]]

law if it does not conflict with other laws or regulations or the 
policies of the Department of the Interior or the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB).

Subpart I--Information Collection


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

    OMB has reviewed and approved the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
information collection requirements (project narratives, reports, and 
amendments) in this part and assigned OMB Control No. 1018-0109. We may 
not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. You may send comments on any aspect of the information 
collection requirements to the Service Information Collection Clearance 
Officer at the address provided at 50 CFR 2.1(b).

    Dated: April 21, 2015.
Michael Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2015-09961 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P