The document discusses a legislative bill titled the "Fishery Improvement to Streamline Untimely Regulatory Hurdles post Emergency Situation Act" or the "FISHES Act." This bill requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to make timely decisions on spend plans related to fishery resource disaster funding. It amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by establishing clear guidelines and timelines for the submission, review, and approval of these plans.

General Summary of the Bill

The FISHES Act is designed to address and streamline the bureaucratic processes surrounding financial allocations in the event of fishery resource disasters. By amending existing legislation, the Act sets out to ensure that funding earmarked for addressing such disasters is efficiently managed and distributed. The bill emphasizes clear timelines: entities seeking allocations must submit a detailed spend plan within 120 days of fund availability notification. In turn, the Secretary of the relevant department has a 10-day deadline to review the completeness of the submission. Upon approval, funds are to be distributed to grantees within 90 days.

Summary of Significant Issues

One central issue is the bill's title. Its length and complexity may obscure its purpose, potentially causing confusion among the general public. Furthermore, the acronym “FISHES Act” might not effectively convey the nuances of the legislation.

Another issue is the feasibility of the specified timelines. While timeframes can facilitate efficiency, it remains to be seen whether the involved parties, including regulatory bodies and applicants, can realistically adhere to such stringent deadlines.

Additionally, the bill's language regarding the concurrent review by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is somewhat unclear. Although the review should not delay fund distribution, the exact influence of this role in the process needs better definition to avoid bureaucratic bottlenecks.

The document also raises concerns about the lack of clarity in key terms like “affirmative fishery resource disaster determination” and “incomplete spend plan.” These definitions are crucial for consistent application and to avoid misinterpretation.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

Broadly speaking, the bill could enhance the efficiency with which fishery-related aid is disbursed following disasters. By minimizing delays in fund allocation, communities reliant on fishing could receive much-needed support quicker, aiding recovery efforts and potentially preserving jobs and local economies.

For specific stakeholders, such as fishery organizations and disaster management agencies, the clear procedures and timelines provided in the bill might simplify the application process. However, they might also face increased pressure to organize and submit the necessary documentation within the given window. This could be challenging for smaller organizations with limited capacity.

On the other hand, government agencies might experience both positive and negative impacts. The bill imposes deadlines that could prompt these agencies to improve their operational efficiency. However, the vague role and concurrent review by the Office of Management and Budget might lead to internal challenges if roles and responsibilities are not clearly delineated.

Overall, while the FISHES Act aims to streamline fishery disaster response funding, its success will likely depend on how well it balances the need for timely action with the realities of bureaucratic and organizational capacities.