FR 2024-27095

Overview

The document is a proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service aiming to update regulations associated with financial assistance programs under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. The proposal seeks to align existing regulations with recent legislative changes and respond to public feedback from previous rulemaking actions, with a focus on improving clarity and ensuring consistency nationwide.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the document's central issues is its use of complex legal language and numerous cross-references to federal statutes and former regulations. Sections detailing eligible and ineligible activities (§§ 80.50 to 80.55) are particularly dense, potentially challenging the comprehension of readers unfamiliar with legal or bureaucratic jargon.

The intricacy surrounding cost-sharing exceptions and specifics for certain territories, like insular areas (§ 80.83), and the Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety program (§ 80.63) seems to complicate rather than clarify these processes. Readers could benefit from these sections being further simplified.

The document extensively discusses eligible activities under the 90/10/5 rule and associated cost-sharing technicalities (§§ 80.60 to 80.62) with detailed specifications that may be perceived as cumbersome. Similarly, the procedures involving barter transactions (§§ 80.97 and 80.98) may struggle to reach clarity due to their connection to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements.

Public Impact

Broadly, this update might improve the administrative efficiency of wildlife and sport fish restoration programs, potentially benefiting everyday conservation efforts. With a more aligned and up-to-date regulatory framework, the public may see better-managed resources and more effective use of federal funds committed to conservation.

However, the complexity of the proposal may alienate the general public, potentially reducing engagement or understanding of significant changes that affect local conservation efforts. Moreover, the focus on communication and marketing activities might lead to perceptions of misallocated priorities if funds intended for conservation are seen as disproportionately directed toward administrative overhead or publicity campaigns.

Stakeholder Impacts

For state agencies and associated organizations, these updates present both potential benefits and burdens. The positive impact includes a clearer framework to operate within, which could enhance project funding and execution consistency, whereas the proposed changes might require adjustments in compliance practices, resulting in a need for additional training or restructuring of operations.

Territorial and district stakeholders like Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands could see increased support, as cost-sharing requirements are proposed to be waived. However, the intricacies in extracting allowable costs under these updated rules may introduce new administrative challenges.

Third parties, including private sector entities involved in public target range projects, may encounter clearer procedures and extended opportunities under the 90/10/5 rule. Yet, they might also experience uncertainty surrounding public access requirements, leaving some interpretation on compliance.

Lastly, the proposed focus on public relations activities underscores the necessity for stakeholders to manage these aspects carefully to ensure transparent and aligned objectives with core conservation goals.

This commentary aims to provide a balanced perspective on the implications of the proposed regulation updates, highlighting key areas of complexity and potential opportunity. Such considerations will be crucial for stakeholders to navigate effectively and collaborate in achieving the intended benefits of these regulatory revisions.

The document outlines proposed updates to federal regulations concerning financial assistance programs authorized under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act.

Financial Allocations and Spending

The document discusses the allocation of over $1.6 billion annually for wildlife and sport fish restoration programs. These funds are distributed under specific legislative acts to aid state, territorial, and district-level wildlife agencies in various conservation and restoration projects. The proposed updates aim to reflect recent legislative changes, ensuring that funding aligns with the Office of Management and Budget's rules for federal financial assistance.

The regulations specify the minimum gross revenue required for certifying licenses, with requirements such as receiving at least $2 annually for individual hunting or fishing licenses and $4 for combination licenses. This ensures that license revenues meet a baseline level before they can be certified for apportionment purposes.

The document also mentions the cost of capital improvements, which need to be at least $25,000 to qualify as a capital expenditure. Such details indicate a focus on significant infrastructure and habitat improvements.

Financial Implications of Rule Provisions

One issue highlighted in the document is the potential complexity and clarity of language concerning financial allocations. For example, the intricate descriptions of eligible activities under the 90/10/5 rule—which allows states to apply a 90% Federal/10% non-Federal cost share with a 5-year funding period—might be seen as overly detailed or cumbersome, impacting understanding and efficient application by the agencies involved.

Moreover, the proposed rules discuss the use of Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety program funds, stating that at least $1 must be allocated to combine with the Traditional Wildlife Restoration program funds for 90/10/5 activities. This requirement emphasizes flexibility and strategic use of funds across various program needs.

Additionally, exceptions to cost-sharing requirements, specifically for insular areas where no cost share is mandated, introduce complexities that could be simplified for better comprehension and implementation. The proposal to waive cost-sharing for certain territories aligns with goals to ease financial burdens on these regions.

Public Communications and Marketing Expenses

The document authorizes spending on public communications and marketing activities to improve outreach and support program objectives. While these are allowable under the proposed rules, they must be carefully managed to prevent wasteful spending. Public relations and marketing expenses are subject to prior approval, ensuring that they directly support award objectives and do not solely benefit the agency's image.

Conclusion

The proposed regulations illustrate a comprehensive approach to managing and allocating federal funds to various wildlife and sport fish restoration projects. The document incorporates detailed financial guidelines intended to optimize the impact of allocated funds. However, it also raises considerations about the complexity and clarity of certain financial and administrative processes, which may benefit from further simplification to enhance understanding and implementation.