Page images
PDF
EPUB

State

Percent

age

State

For fiscal year

1978

For each of

the fiscal years 1979, 1980, 1981

New Jersey New Mexico... New York North Carolina .......... North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma........... Oregon ........... Pennsylvania...... Rhode Island ......... South Carolina......... South Dakota....... Tennessee ........ Texas.......... Utah .......... Vermont..... Virginia Washington....... West Virginia.. Wisconsin........... Wyoming ......... Guam ............. Puerto Rico......... Virgin Islands .......... American Samoa........ Trust Territory of Pacific

[ocr errors]

Missouri
Montana.....
Nebraska.........
Nevada ...........
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico ......
New York..
North Carolina...........
North Dakota ...
Ohio.
Oklahoma .........
Oregon ..............
Pennsylvania ..........
Rhode Island...........
South Carolina ........
South Dakota
Tennessee...........
Texas .........
Utah...........
Vermont .....
Virginia .......
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin ....
Wyoming ..........
Guam ...................
Puerto Rico .........
Virgin Islands
American Samoa ...........
Trust Territory of the Pacif-

ic Islands .........

112,306,500 15,624,000 24,772,500 18,621,000 39.645,000 160.717.500

17,185,500 477,940,500 89,136.000

13,981,500 290,947,500 41,755,500 58,383,000 196,272,000 23,634,000 52,947,000 16.798.500 69,687,000 196,353,000 20,056,500 17,302,500 88,209,000 79,596,000 80,563,500 87,763,500 13,513,500

3,348,000 52.803,000

1,701,000 2,772,000

124.785,000 17,360.000 27,525,000 20,690,000 44,050,000 178,575,000

19,095,000 531,045,000 99,040,000

15,535,000 323,275,000

46,395,000 64,870,000 218,080,000

26,260,000 58,830,000 18,665,000 77,430,000 218,170,000 22,285,000 19,225.000 98,010,000 88,440,000 89,515,000 97,515,000 15,015,000

3.720,000 58,670,000 1,890,000 3,080.000

[blocks in formation]

7.650,000

(b) Based on paragraph (a), and table 4 of the committee print, the following authorizations are allotted among the States subject to the limitations of paragraph (c) of this section:

6,885,000 4,500,000,000

Total ..........................

5,000,000,000

[blocks in formation]

Alabama...
Alaska.
Arizona........
Arkansas.......
California.........
Colorado .........
Connecticut ..........
Delaware..........
District of Columbia....
Florida ...........
Georgia ......
Hawaii
Idaho...
Illinois .............
Indiana....
lowa...............
Kansas.........
Kentucky.
Louisiana ....
Maine .........
Maryland.....
Massachusetts...
Michigan
Minnesota..
Mississippi ........

$57,789,000 19,057,500 34,906,500 33,808,500 357,804,000 41,341,500 49,824,000 17,982,000 14,368,500 172,647,000 87,381,000 35,676,000 22,284,000 233,743,500 124,551,000 58,288,500 39,613,500 65,781,000 56,812,500 33,727,500 124,996,500 132,939.000 185,877,000 84,109,500 43,470.000

$64,210,000 21,175.000 38,785,000 37,565,000 397,560,000 45,935,000 55,360,000 19,980,000 15,965,000 191,830,000 97,090,000 39,640,000 24,760,000 259,715,000 138,390,000 64,765,000 44,015.000 73,090,000 63,125,000

37,475,000 138,885,000 147,710,000 206,530,000 93,455,000 48,300,000

(c) The authorizations in paragraph (b) of this section depend on appropriation. Therefore, the Regional Administrator may not obligate any portion of any authorization for a fiscal year until a law is enacted appropriating part or all of the sums authorized for that fiscal year. If sums appropriated are less than the sums authorized for a fiscal year, EPA will apply the percentages in paragraph (a) of this section to distribute all appropriated sums among the States, and promptly will notify each State of its share. The Regional Administrator may not obligate more than the State's share of appropriated sums.

(d) If supplementary funds are appropriated in any fiscal year under section 205(e) of the Act to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, no State shall receive less than one-half of 1 percent of the total allotment among all States for that fiscal year, except that in the case of Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Trust Territories not more than (c) The $4.2 billion are allotted as follows:

State

thirty-three one-hundredths of 1 percent of the total allotment shall be al lotted to all four of those jurisdictions. If for any fiscal year the amount appropriated to carry out this paragraph is less than the full amount needed, the following States will share in any funds appropriated for the purposes of this paragraph in the following percentages, drawn from the note to table 3 of committee print numbered 95-30 of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives:

Allotments from funds appropriated under Pub. L.

95-392

Alabama..
Alaska ......
Arizona .....
Arkansas .........
California........
Colorado .........
Connecticut..
Delaware.
District of Columbia....
Florida .......
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho .......
lilinois ......
Indiana

[blocks in formation]

lowa.

Alaska.
Delaware ........
District of Columbia .......
Idaho..........
Montana ..........
Nevada
New Mexico......
North Dakota .........
South Dakota.........
Utah ........................
Vermont.........
Wyoming

5.4449 7.1459 12.8612

.3416 10.8755 6.1352 8.4057 13.4733 9.0178 3.8648 8.2206 14.2135

[blocks in formation]

$53,189,100 20,709,000 32,128,000 31,117,400 329,323,400 38,050.800 45,858, 100 20.709,000 20,709,000 158,904,600 80,425,600 32,836,300 20,709,000 215,137,900 114,637,000 53,648,800 36,460,300 60,545,000 52,290,300 31,042,900 115,047,000 122,357,300 171,081,500 77,414,600 40,009,900 103,367,100 20.709,000 22,800,700 20,709,000 36,489,300 147,924,700

20,709,000 439,897,200 82,040,900 20.709.000 267,788,600 38,431,900 53,735,800 180,649,100 21,752,800 48,732,500 20,709,000 64,140,000 180,723,600 20,709,000 20.709,000 81,187,700 73,260,300 74,150,800 80,777.700 20,709,000 2,551,400 3,081,500

570,300 48,600,000 5,766,700 1,565,600

Kansas ....
Kentucky....
Louisiana..........
Maine
Maryland.
Massachusetts
Michigan.
Minnesota
Mississippi ..
Missouri...........
Montana.......
Nebraska.
Nevada.
New Hampshire ..
New Jersey .........
New Mexico.
New York............
North Carolina...........
North Dakota
Ohio.
Oklahoma
Oregon ...........
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island ............
South Carolina ........
South Dakota
Tennessee..........
Texas ......
Utah.............
Vermont .....
Virginia
Washington.........
West Virginia
Wisconsin ...........
Wyoming ......
American Samoa ..........
Guam......
Northern Mariana Islands ..........
Puerto Rico
Trust Territory of Pacific.
Virgin Islands

8 35.910-9 Allotment of Fiscal Year 1978

appropriation. (a) Pub. L. 95-240 appropriated $4.5 billion. These allotments are available until expended but must be obligated by September 30, 1979. After that date unobligated balances will be reallotted under Section 205(b) of the Act (see $ 35.910-2(b)).

(b) These sums were allotted to the States as shown in $ 35.910-8(b). [43 FR 56200, Nov. 30, 1978)

8 35.910-10 Allotment of Fiscal Year 1979

appropriation. (a) Title II of Pub. L. 95-392 appropriated $4.2 billion. These allotments are available until expended but must be obligated by September 30, 1980. After that date, unobligated balances will be reallotted under Section 205(b) of the Act (see 35.910-2(b)).

(b) The allotments were computed by applying the percentages in $ 35.910-8(a) and (b) to the funds appropriated for FY 1979 and rounding to the nearest hundred dollars.

[blocks in formation]

NOTE: For a class deviation document af. fecting $ 35.910-10, see 45 FR 81567, Dec. 11, 1980.

State

Allotments from funds appropriated under Pub. L.

95-372

& 35.910-11 Allotment of Fiscal Year 1980

appropriation. (a) Title II of Pub. L. 96-103 appropriated $3.4 billion. These allotments are available until expended but must be obligated by September 30, 1981. After that date, unobligated balances will be reallotted under Section 205(b) of the Act (see $ 35.910-2(b)).

(b) The allotments were computed by applying the percentages in $ 35.910-8 (a) and (d) to the funds appropriated for FY 1980 and rounding to the nearest hundred dollars.

(c) The $3.4 billion are alloted as follows:

Tennessee.. Texas ........ Utah.......... Vermont ..... Virginia ...... Washington........ West Virginia ............. Wisconsin .......... Wyoming... American Samoa Guam.......... Puerto Rico ...... Trust Terr....... Virgin Islands. Northern Marianas.....

51.922,900 146,300,100 16,764,500 16,764,500 65,723,400 59,305,900 60,026,800 65,391,400 16.764,500 2,065,400 2,494,500 39,342,800 4,667,200 1,267,400

462,700

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Alabama.. Alaska ....... Arizona ......... Arkansas........... California........ Colorado ........... Connecticut .......... Delaware......... District of Columbia.... Florida Georgia ....... Hawaii Idaho... Illinois ... Indiana ... lowa............. Kansas .......... Kentucky. Louisiana.... Maine Maryland ........... Massachusetts .... Michigan Minnesota Mississippi .... Missouri. Montana........... Nebraska ......... Nevada.. New Hampshire .... New Jersey ........ New Mexico .......... New York.......... North Carolina...... North Dakota. Ohio............. Oklahoma ......... Oregon................ Pennsylvania ... Rhode Island. South Carolina. South Dakota ......

$43,057,800 16.764,500 26,008,400 25,190,300 266,595,100 30,803,000 37,123,200 16,764,500 16,764,500 128,637,000 65,106,400 26,581,700 16,764,500 174,159,300 92,801,300 43,430,000 29,515,500 49,012,600 42,330,300 25,129,900 93,133,300 99,051,100 138,494,500 62,668,900 32,388,900 83,678,100 16.764,500 18,457,700 16,764,500 29,539,000 119,748,500

16,764,500 356, 107.300 66,414,100

16,764,500 216,781,200 31,111,500 43,500,400 146,239,700 17,609,400 39,450,100 16,764,500

8 35.910–12 Reallotment of deobligated

funds of fiscal year 1978. (a) Of the 4.5 billion appropriated by Pub. L. 95-240 for fiscal year 1978, $23,902,130 remained unobligated as of September 30, 1979 and thereby became subject to reallotment.

(b) The reallotment was computed by applying the percentages in $ 35.910-8(a), adjusted to account for the absence of Ohio and readjusted to comply with the requirements of $ 35.910(d) establishing a minimum allotment of .5 percent.

(c) These funds are added to the fiscal year 1980 allotments and will remain available through September 30, 1981 (see $$ 35.910-2(b) and 35.9108).

(d) The $23,902,130 is allotted as follows:

[blocks in formation]

State

Amount fications (step 2), (c) operation and

maintenance manuals, and (d) such Kansas...

222,494 other elements as the Regional AdKentucky.....

369,430

ministrator determines may be approLouisiana ..........

319,073 Maine

189,428

priately delegated as the program perMaryland.

701,974 mits and State competence allows. The Massachusetts......

746,591

agreement will define requirements Michigan

1,043,875

which the State will be expected to Minnesota........

472,360 Mississippi .......

244,147 fulfill as part of its general responsiMissouri ...........

630,710

bilities for the conduct of an effective Montana ............

118,190
139,138

preaward applicant assistance proNebraska..... Nevada

118,190 gram; compensation for this program New Hampshire

222,653

is the responsibility of the State. The New Jersey

902,590

agreement will also define specific New Mexico

118,190 New York

2,684,060 duties regarding the review of identiNorth Carolina .......

500,590 fied documents prerequisite to the reNorth Dakota

118,190

ceipt of grant awards. A certification Oklahoma..........

234,496 Oregon.............

327,888 agreement must provide that an appliPennsylvania.

1,102,234 cant or grantee may request review by Rhode Island

132,719

the Regional Administrator of an adSouth Carolina

297,352 South Dakota......

118,190

verse recommendation by a State Tennessee ..........

391,354 agency. Delegation activities are comTexas.

1,102,708

pensable by EPA only under section Utah .........

118,190 Vermont..

118,190 106 of the Act or Subpart F of this Virginia

495,392

part. Washington ........

447,046 West Virginia........

452,493

$ 35.915 State priority system and project Wisconsin ...........

492,883 Wyoming.........

118,190 priorty list. Guam .........

18,805 Puerto Rico .........

Construction grants will be awarded

296,561 Virgin Islands ...........

9,561 from allotments according to the State American Samoa......

15,573

priority list, based on the approved Tr. Terr. of Pac. Islds

35,192 N. Mariana Islds .......

3,480

State priority system. The State prior

ity system and list must be designed to Total ...

23,902,130

achieve optimum water quality man

agement consistent with the goals and (45 FR 83497, Dec. 19, 1980. Correctly desig

requirements of the Act. nated at 46 FR 9947, Jan. 30, 1981)

(a) State priority system. The State

priority system describes the method8 35.912 Delegation to State agencies. ology used to rate and rank projects EPA's policy is to maximize the use

that are considered eligible for assistof staff capabilities of State agencies.

ance. It also sets forth the administraTherefore, in the implementation of

tive, management, and public particithe construction grant program, opti- pation procedures required to develop mum use will be made of available and revise the State project priority State and Federal resources. This will list. In developing its annual priority eliminate unnecessary duplicative re list, the State must consider the conviews of documents required in the struction grant needs and priorities set processing of construction grant forth in certified and approved State awards. Accordingly, the Regional Ad- and areawide water quality manageministrator may enter into a written ment (WQM) plans. The State shall agreement, where appropriate, with a hold a public hearing before submisState agency to authorize the State sion of the priority system (or revision agency's certification of the technical thereto). Before the hearing, a fact or administrative adequacy of specifi- sheet describing the proposed system cally required documents. The agree- (including rating and ranking criteria) ment may provide for the review and shall be distributed to the public. A certification of elements of: (a) Facili. summary of State responses to public ties plans (step 1), (b) plans and speci- comment and to any public hearing

testimony shall be prepared and in- ment; the geographical region within cluded in the priority system submis- the State; or future population growth sion. The Regional Administrator projections. shall review and approve the State pri. (2) Criteria assessment. The State ority system for procedural complete shall have authority to determine the ness, insuring that it is designed to relative influence of the rating criteria obtain compliance with the enforce- used for assigning project priority. able requirements of the Act as de The criteria must be clearly delineated fined in § 35.905. The Regional Admin in the approved State priority system istrator may exempt grants for train and applied consistently to all projing facilities under section 109(b)(1) of ects. A project on the priority list shall the Act and $35.930-1(b) from these generally retain its priority rating requirements.

until an award is made. (1) Project rating criteria. (i) The (b) State needs inventory. The State State priority system shall be based on shall maintain a listing, including the following criteria:

costs by category, of all needed treat(A) The severity of the pollution ment works. The most recent needs inproblem;

ventory, prepared in accordance with (B) The existing population affect section 516(b)(1)(B) of the Act, should ed;

be used for this purpose. This State (C) The need for preservation of listing should be the same as the needs high quality waters; and

inventory and fulfills similar require(D) At the State's option, the specif- ments in the State WQM planning ic category of need that is addressed. process. The State project priority list

(ii) The State will have sole authori. shall be consistent with the needs inty to determine the priority for each ventory. category of need. These categories (c) State project priority list. The comprise mutually exclusive classes of State shall prepare and submit annufacilities and include:

ally a ranked priority listing of proj(A) Category 1-Secondary treat- ects for which Federal assistance is exment;

pected during the 5-year planning (B) Category II–More stringent period starting at the beginning of the treatment;

next fiscal year. The list's fundable (C) Category IIIA–Infiltration/ portion shall include those projects inflow correction;

planned for award during the first (D) Category IIIB-Sewer system re year of the 5-year period (hereinafter placement or major rehabilitation; called the funding year). The fundable

(E) Category IVA-New collectors portion shall not exceed the total and appurtenances;

funds expected to be available during (F) Category IVB-New interceptors the year less all applicable reserves and appurtenances; and

provided in $ 35.915-1 (a) through (d). (G) Category V-Correction of com- The list's planning portion shall inbined sewer overflows.

clude all projects outside the fundable (iii) Step 2, step 3 and step 2+3 proj. portion that may, under anticipated ects utilizing processes and techniques allotment levels, receive funding meeting the innovative and alternative during the 5-year period. The Adminguidelines in Appendix E of this part istrator shall provide annual guidance may receive higher priority. Also 100 to the States outlining the funding aspercent grants for projects that sumptions and other criteria useful in modify or replace malfunctioning developing the 5-year priority list. treatment works constructed with an (1) Project priority list development. 85 percent grant may receive a higher The development of the project priorpriority.

ity list shall be consistent with the (iv) Other criteria, consistent with rating criteria established in the apthese, may be considered (including proved priority system, in accordance the special needs of small and rural with the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of communities). The State shall not con this section. In ranking projects, sider: The project area's development States must also consider the treatneeds not related to pollution abate- ment works and step sequence; the al

« PreviousContinue »