Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors]

8 35.910-8 Allotments for fiscal years

1978–1981. (a) Unless later legislation requires otherwise, for each of the fiscal years 1978–1981, all funds appropriated under authorizations in section 207 of the Act will be distributed among the States based on the

the following percentages drawn from table 3 of Committee print numbered 95-30 of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives:

(b) Based on paragraph (a) of this section, 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:

[graphic]

State

Percent

age

State

For fiscal year

1978

For each of

the fiscal years 1979, 1980, 1981

PO

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

1.2842
.4235
.7757
.7513
7.9512

.9187
1.1072
.3996
.3193
3.8366
1.9418
.7928
.4952
5.1943
2.7678
1.2953

.8803 1.4618 1.2625

.7495 2.7777 2.9542 4.1306 1.8691

.9660 2.4957 .3472 .5505 .4138 .8810 3.5715

.3819 10.6209 1.9808

.3107
6.4655

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

$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
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

$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 48,300,000 124,785,000 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

.......

Nevada .......

New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

For each of Public Works and Transportation of For fiscal year

the fiscal State

the House of Representatives:
1978

years 1979,
1980, 1981

Percent

State Oregon 58,383,000 64,870,000

age Pennsylvania 196,272,000 218,080,000 Alaska

5.4449 Rhode Island 23,634,000 26,260,000 Delaware

7.1459 South Carolina 52,947,000 58,830,000 District of Columbia

12.8612 South Dakota 16,798,500 18,665,000 Idaho

.3416 Tennessee 69,687,000 77,430,000 Montana

10.8755 Texas 196,353,000 218,170,000 Nevada

6.1352 Utah 20,056,500 22,285,000 New Mexico

8.4057 Vermont 17,302,500 19,225,000 North Dakota

13.4733 Virginia 88,209,000 98,010,000 South Dakota

9.0178 Washington 79,596,000 88,440,000 Utah

3.8648 West Virginia 80,563,500 89,515,000 Vermont

8.2206 Wisconsin 87,763,500 97,515,000

14.2135 Wyoming 13,513,500

Wyoming

15,015,000 Guam 3,348,000 3,720,000 Total

100.0000 Puerto Rico

52,803,000 58,670,000 Virgin Islands

1,701,000 1,890,000 American Samoa

2,772,000 3,080,000

$ 35.910-9 Allotment of Fiscal Year Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands 6,885,000 7,650,000

1978 appropriation.

(a) Public Law 95–240 appropriated Total 4,500,000,000 5,000,000,000

$4.5 billion. These allotments are avail(c) The authorizations in paragraph

able until expended but must be obli(b) of this section depend on appropria

gated by September 30, 1979. After that tion. Therefore, the Regional Adminis

date unobligated balances will be realtrator may not obligate any portion of

lotted under section 205(b) of the Act any authorization for a fiscal year

(see $35.910–2(b)). until a law is enacted appropriating

(b) These sums were allotted to the part or all of the sums authorized for

States as shown in $35.910-8(b). that fiscal year. If sums appropriated

(43 FR 56200, Nov. 30, 1978] are less than the sums authorized for a fiscal year, EPA will apply the percent- $ 35.910-10 Allotment of Fiscal Year ages in paragraph (a) of this section to 1979 appropriation. distribute all appropriated sums among (a) Title II of Public Law 95-392 apthe States, and promptly will notify 'propriated $4.2

propriated $4.2 billion. These alloteach State of its share. The Regional

ments are available until expended but Administrator may not obligate more

must be obligated by September 30, than the State's share of appropriated

1980. After that date, unobligated balsums.

ances will be reallotted under section (d) If supplementary funds are appro

205(b) of the Act (see $35.910–2(b)). priated in any fiscal year under section

(b) The allotments were computed by 205(e) of the Act to carry out the pur

applying the percentages in $35.910–8(a) poses of this paragraph, no State shall

and (b) to the funds appropriated for receive less than one-half of 1 percent

FY 1979 and rounding to the nearest of the total allotment among all States

hundred dollars. for that fiscal year, except that in the

(c) The $4.2 billion are allotted as folcase of of Guam, the Virgin Islands,

lows: American Samoa, and the Trust Territories not more than thirty-three one

Allotments

from funds aphundredths of 1 percent of the total al

State

propriated lotment shall be allotted to all four of

under Pub. L.

95-392 those jurisdictions. If for any fiscal

. year the amount appropriated to carry Alabama

$53,189,100 out this paragraph is less than the full Alaska

20,709,000 Arizona

32,128,000 amount needed, the following States

Arkansas

31,117,400 will share in any funds appropriated for Califomia

329,323,400 the purposes of this paragraph in the Colorado

38,050,800 Connecticut

45,858,100 following percentages, drawn from the

Delaware

20,709,000 note to table 3 of committee print

District of Columbia

20,709,000 numbered 95-30 of the Committee on Florida

158,904,600

[graphic]
[graphic]

State

Allotments from funds ap

propriated under Pub. L

95392

FY 1980 and rounding to the nearest hundred dollars.

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

[blocks in formation]

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
lowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri ....
Montana
Nebraska

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

Nevada .......

lowa .....

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

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

[ocr errors]

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
Puerto Rico
Trust Terr
Virgin Islands
Northern Marianas

$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 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]
[ocr errors]

8 35.910-11 Allotment of Fiscal Year

1980 appropriation. (a) Title II of Public Law 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

[blocks in formation]
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed]

§ 35.910–12 Reallotment of deobligated

funds of fiscal year 1978. (a) of the 4.5 billion appropriated by Public Law 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(a) 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 35.910-8).

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

[ocr errors]

(45 FR 83497, Dec. 19, 1980. Correctly designated at 46 FR 9947, Jan. 30, 1981)

State

Amount

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
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington

$324,543
118,190
196,050

189,880 2,009,389

232,191 279,813 118,190 118.190 969,582 490,736 200,367

125,148 1,312,681

699,465 327,345 222,494 369,430 319,073 189,428 701,974

746,591 1,043,875

472,360 244,147 630,710 118,190 139,138 118,190 222,653 902,590

118,190 2,684,060

500,590 118,190 234,496

327,888 1,102,234

132,719 297,352 118,190 391,354 1,102,708

118,190 118,190 495,392 447,046

$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 specifications (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 comprise mutually exclusive classes of project priorty list.

facilities and include: Construction grants will be awarded

(A) Category I-Secondary treatfrom allotments according to the State

ment; priority list, based on the approved

(B) Category II-More stringent State priority system. The State prior

treatment; ity system and list must be designed to (C) Category IIIA—Infiltration/inflow achieve optimum water quality man

correction; agement consistent with the goals and (D) Category IIIB-Sewer system rerequirements of the Act.

placement or major rehabilitation; (a) State priority system. The State (E) Category IVA--New collectors priority system describes the meth- and appurtenances; odology used to rate and rank projects (F) Category IVB-New interceptors that are considered eligible for assist- and appurtenances; and ance. It also sets forth the administra

(G) Category V—Correction of comtive, management, and public partici- bined sewer overflows. pation procedures required to develop

(iii) Step 2, step 3 and step 2+3 and revise the State project priority

projects utilizing processes and techlist. In developing its annual priority

niques meeting the innovative and allist, the State must consider the con

ternative guidelines in appendix E of struction grant needs and priorities set

this part may receive higher priority. forth in certified and approved State

Also 100 percent grants for projects and areawide water quality manage

that modify or replace malfunctioning ment (WQM) plans. The State shall

treatment works constructed with an hold a public hearing before submission

85 percent grant may receive a higher of the priority system (or revision

priority. thereto). Before the hearing, a fact

(iv) Other criteria, consistent with sheet describing the proposed system

these, may be considered (including the (including rating and ranking criteria)

special needs of small and rural comshall be distributed to the public. A

munities). The State shall not consummary of State responses to public

sider: The project area's development comment and to any public hearing

needs not related to pollution abatetestimony 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 shall

projections. review and approve the State priority

(2) Criteria assessment. The State shall system for procedural completeness,

have authority to determine the relinsuring that it is designed to obtain

ative influence of the rating criteria compliance with the enforceable re

used for assigning project priority. The quirements of the Act as defined in

criteria must be clearly delineated in $35.905. The Regional Administrator

the approved State priority system and may exempt grants for training facili

applied consistently to all projects. A ties under section 109(b)(1) of the Act

project on the priority list shall genand $35.930_1(b) from these require

erally retain its priority rating until ments.

an award is made. (1) Project rating criteria. (i) The State

(b) State needs inventory. The State priority system shall be based on the

shall maintain a listing, including 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 affected;

section 516(b)(1)(B) of the Act, should (C) The need for preservation of high be used for this purpose. This State quality waters; and

listing should be the same as the needs (D) At the State's option, the specific inventory and fulfills similar requirecategory of need that is addressed.

ments in the State WQM planning (ii) The State will have sole author- process. The State project priority list ity to determine the priority for each shall be consistent with the needs incategory of need. These categories ventory.

« PreviousContinue »