Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

(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:

[blocks in formation]

(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

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

§ 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:

Maine

25,129,900

Maryland.

93,133,300

Massachusetts

99,051,100

Michigan

138,494,500

Minnesota

62,668,900

[blocks in formation]

Mississippi

32,388,900

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

§ 35.912 Delegation to State agencies.

EPA's policy is to maximize the use of staff capabilities of State agencies. Therefore, in the implementation of the construction grant program, optimum use will be made of available State and Federal resources. This will eliminate unnecessary duplicative reviews of documents required in the processing of construction grant awards. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator may enter into a written agreement, where appropriate, with a State agency to authorize the State agency's certification of the technical or administrative adequacy of specifically required documents. The agreement may provide for the review and certification of elements of: (a) Facilities plans (step 1), (b) plans and speci

fications (step 2), (c) operation and maintenance manuals, and (d) such other elements as the Regional Administrator determines may be appropriately delegated as the program permits and State competence allows. The agreement will define requirements which the State will be expected to fulfill as part of its general responsibilities for the conduct of an effective preaward applicant assistance program; compensation for this program is the responsibility of the State. The agreement will also define specific duties regarding the review of identified documents prerequisite to the receipt of grant awards. A certification agreement must provide that an applicant or grantee may request review by the Regional Administrator of an adverse recommendation by a State agency. Delegation activities are compensable by EPA only under section 106 of the Act or Subpart F of this part.

§ 35.915 State priority system and project priorty list.

Construction grants will be awarded from allotments according to the State priority list, based on the approved State priority system. The State priority system and list must be designed to achieve optimum water quality management consistent with the goals and requirements of the Act.

(a) State priority system. The State priority system describes the methodology used to rate and rank projects that are considered eligible for assistance. It also sets forth the administrative, management, and public participation procedures required to develop and revise the State project priority list. In developing its annual priority list, the State must consider the construction grant needs and priorities set forth in certified and approved State and areawide water quality management (WQM) plans. The State shall hold a public hearing before submission of the priority system (or revision thereto). Before the hearing, a fact sheet describing the proposed system (including rating and ranking criteria) shall be distributed to the public. A summary of State responses to public comment and to any public hearing

testimony shall be prepared and included in the priority system submission. The Regional Administrator shall review and approve the State priority system for procedural completeness, insuring that it is designed to obtain compliance with the enforceable requirements of the Act as defined in § 35.905. The Regional Administrator may exempt grants for training facilities under section 109(b)(1) of the Act and § 35.930-1(b) from these requirements.

(1) Project rating criteria. (i) The State priority system shall be based on the following criteria:

(A) The severity of the pollution problem;

(B) The existing population affected;

(C) The need for preservation of high quality waters; and

(D) At the State's option, the specific category of need that is addressed.

(ii) The State will have sole authority to determine the priority for each category of need. These categories comprise mutually exclusive classes of facilities and include:

(A) Category I-Secondary treatment;

(B) Category II-More stringent treatment;

(C) Category IIIA-Infiltration/ inflow correction;

(D) Category IIIB-Sewer system replacement or major rehabilitation;

(E) Category IVA-New collectors and appurtenances;

(F) Category IVB-New interceptors and appurtenances; and

(G) Category V-Correction of combined sewer overflows.

(iii) Step 2, step 3 and step 2+3 projects utilizing processes and techniques meeting the innovative and alternative guidelines in Appendix E of this part may receive higher priority. Also 100 percent grants for projects that modify or replace malfunctioning treatment works constructed with an 85 percent grant may receive a higher priority.

(iv) Other criteria, consistent with these, may be considered (including the special needs of small and rural communities). The State shall not consider: The project area's development needs not related to pollution abate

ment; the geographical region within the State; or future population growth projections.

(2) Criteria assessment. The State shall have authority to determine the relative influence of the rating criteria used for assigning project priority. The criteria must be clearly delineated in the approved State priority system and applied consistently to all projects. A project on the priority list shall generally retain its priority rating until an award is made.

(b) State needs inventory. The State shall maintain a listing, including costs by category, of all needed treatment works. The most recent needs inventory, prepared in accordance with section 516(b)(1)(B) of the Act, should be used for this purpose. This State listing should be the same as the needs inventory and fulfills similar requirements in the State WQM planning process. The State project priority list shall be consistent with the needs inventory.

(c) State project priority list. The State shall prepare and submit annually a ranked priority listing of projects for which Federal assistance is expected during the 5-year planning period starting at the beginning of the next fiscal year. The list's fundable portion shall include those projects planned for award during the first year of the 5-year period (hereinafter called the funding year). The fundable portion shall not exceed the total funds expected to be available during the year less all applicable reserves provided in § 35.915-1 (a) through (d). The list's planning portion shall include all projects outside the fundable portion that may, under anticipated allotment levels, receive funding during the 5-year period. The Administrator shall provide annual guidance to the States outlining the funding assumptions and other criteria useful in developing the 5-year priority list.

(1) Project priority list development. The development of the project priority list shall be consistent with the rating criteria established in the approved priority system, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. In ranking projects, States must also consider the treatment works and step sequence; the al

« PreviousContinue »