Who is affected and how:

• State governments: Directly affected; States that have enacted or enforce bans on hydraulic fracturing would be barred from receiving grants under the referenced EISA program. This creates a financial incentive for States to avoid or repeal bans.

• Federal grant administrators: Must implement eligibility checks and potentially develop procedures to determine whether a State’s law or enforcement constitutes a qualifying ban per the cited regulatory definition.

• Local governments and communities: Indirectly affected; communities in States with fracking bans could lose benefits tied to the federal grants (program services, infrastructure, or other funded activities). Conversely, communities in States without bans may retain access to grant-funded programs.

• Businesses and the oil & gas industry: Likely to benefit in States that avoid bans, since the provision reduces the financial consequences associated with allowing hydraulic fracturing; companies in States with bans could see reduced investment tied to loss of certain federal grant-supported programs.

• Environmental and public-health stakeholders: Likely to be negatively affected in States that would otherwise adopt bans, because the provision reduces the federal grant incentive to restrict or prohibit fracking; this may heighten policy conflicts between environmental protection and economic/resource development priorities.

• Legal and administrative consequences: The requirement to determine what counts as a ban may prompt disputes and administrative burden for federal agencies and States, including potential litigation about the scope of the federal definition and the interaction with state sovereignty over resource and land-use policy.