Page images
PDF
EPUB

State

Percent

age

State

For fiscal year

1978

For each of

the fiscal years 1979, 1980, 1981

[blocks in formation]

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

State

For fiscal year

1978

For each of

the fiscal years 1979, 1980, 1981

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 allotted 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

[blocks in formation]

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

$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 4,200,000,000

$ 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.

Total.

[43 FR 56201, Nov. 30, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 37595, June 27, 1979; 44 FR 39339, July 5, 1979)

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:

[blocks in formation]

30,

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 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:

State

Allotments from funds appropriated under Pub. L.

95-372

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

State

Amount

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

$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

[blocks in formation]

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
West Virginia.
Wisconsin
Wyoming.
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
American Samoa
Tr. Terr. of Pac. Islds
N. Mariana Islds

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

118,190 118,190 495,392 447,046 452,493 492,883 118,190

18,805 296,561

9,561 15,573 35,192 3,480

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.

[blocks in formation]

8 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

$ 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 method ology 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 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 proj. ing 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 I-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 »