89–010 

Calendar No. 355 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–172 

SEWAGE OVERFLOW COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT 

APRIL 20, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 937] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred a bill (S. 937) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to ensure that sewage treatment plants monitor for and report discharges of raw sewage, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill 

do pass. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION

The purpose of S. 937, the Sewage Overflow Community Rightto-Know Act, is to provide a uniform, national standard for monitoring, reporting, and public notification of municipal combined 

sewer overflows (CSO) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSO). The bill 

would require each publicly owned treatment works, that hold an 

issued, renewed, or modified Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

(Clean Water Act) permit, to institute a methodology, technology, 

or management program for monitoring sewer overflows to alert 

the operator of the treatment works of a sewer overflow in a timely 

manner. S. 937 would also require, in the case of a sewer overflow 

that has the potential to affect human health, that the owner or 

operator of a treatment facility notify the public of the overflow as 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
2 

soon as practicable and to compile yearly reports on sewer overflows. 

GENERAL SATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

The bill would require communities to provide the public and 

public health officials with information regarding sewer overflows. 

In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that up to 75,000 SSO events occur each year in the United 

States, releasing up to 10 billion gallons of untreated wastewater. 

This bill would require monitoring, reporting, and notification 

standards regarding sewage overflow events, and would authorize 

funding for such activities. 

Currently, there is no uniform, national standard for notification 

of combined and sanitary sewer overflows. Current Federal notification efforts include: • Under section 1414 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, public 

water systems are required to notify the persons served by the system of any failure to comply with applicable Federal or state drinking water standards, the existence of any drinking water variance 

to safe drinking water standards, and the presence of any ‘‘unregulated contaminants’’ that pose a public health threat. The Act also 

requires public water systems to provide written notice and annual 

reports to Federal and State agencies, as well as to the public. • Section 406 of the Clean Water Act authorizes funding for 

state and local governments to implement monitoring and notification programs for some coastal waters. Under this provision, the 

Federal government provides grants to states to run such programs. • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is involved in tracking disease outbreaks. The CDC’s National Center 

for Infectious Diseases uses water quality sampling and reports of 

waterborne disease outbreaks to supply information on these 

events. 

Alerting local offcials and the public to discharges of pollutants 

from CSOs and SSOs could help prevent human illness from waterborne diseases and pathogens. By providing the public and public 

health officials with this information, appropriate action can be 

taken to protect public health. 

Wastewater infrastructure in the United States is aging and in 

need of important but expensive repairs. These repairs will require 

significant investment to prevent the occurrence of sewer overflows. 

In EPA’s most recent Clean Watershed Needs Survey, the agency 

estimated the future capital needs to address existing CSOs at 

$54.8 billion. In a 2004 Report to Congress on the Impacts and 

Control of CSOs and SSOs, EPA also estimated that it would require an additional $88.5 billion in capital improvements through 

2020 to reduce the frequency of SSOs. 

In April 1994, EPA issued the Combined Sewer Overflow Control 

Policy (59 Fed. Reg. 18688), which established a national framework for control of CSOs through the Clean Water Act’s permitting 

program. This policy requires owners and operators of combined 

sewer systems to implement minimum technology-based controls 

that can reduce the prevalence and impacts of CSOs without significant engineering studies or major construction. These controls 

include a requirement for the public disclosure of CSOs. In 2001, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
3 

as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106– 

554), Congress amended the Clean Water Act to require that permits for combined sewer systems conform to the Combined Sewer 

Overflow Control Policy. 

Under existing EPA rules (40 CFR 122.41(1)(6)), NPDES permits 

should establish a process for requiring a permittee to report any 

noncompliance with the permit that may endanger human health 

or the environment. However, these regulations do not specifically 

require public notification of SSOs. 

In 2001, the EPA issued a draft SSO rule that would have implemented a formal program for reporting, public notification, and recordkeeping for sanitary sewer systems and SSOs. However, EPA’s 

draft SSO rule was never finalized, and was later withdrawn. No 

additional proposals for public notification of SSOs have been 

issued. 

The monitoring, notification, and reporting requirements of the 

Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act are not intended 

to preclude or deny any right of a State, municipality, or individual 

publicly owned treatment works from implementing monitoring, 

notification, or reporting requirements that are more stringent or 

comprehensive than those contained in S. 937 or the regulations 

promulgated by the EPA to implement this Act. Accordingly, 

States, municipalities, and individual publicly owned treatment 

works may adopt or enforce any regulation, requirement, or permit 

condition with respect to monitoring, notification, and reporting 

that is more stringent than a regulation, requirement, or permit 

condition issued under the Sewage Overflow Community Right-toKnow Act. 

In addition, the additional monitoring, notification, and reporting 

requirements under S. 937 do not explicitly or implicitly authorize 

SSOs or municipal CSOs outside of the existing statutory requirements of the Clean Water Act. 

Finally, the Committee intends that the amendments to the 

Clean Water Act made by the Sewage Overflow Community Rightto-Know Act will continue to allow for the utilization of the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy (under Sec. 402(q) of the 

Clean Water Act) to the extent that the monitoring, notification, 

and reporting requirements contained in the minimum controls and 

long term control plan of an individual publicly owned treatment 

works are not inconsistent with the monitoring, notification, and 

reporting requirements of S. 937. To the extent that an individual 

publicly owned treatment works’ minimum controls or long-term 

control plan either does not include monitoring, notification, or reporting requirements, or such monitoring, notification, or reporting 

requirements are inconsistent with the requirements of S. 937, the 

monitoring, notification, or reporting requirements contained in S. 

937, and the implementing regulations promulgated by the EPA 

shall apply. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section designates the title of the bill as the ‘‘Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
4 

Section. 2. Definitions 

This section amends section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362) to include a definition for the term 

‘‘treatment works’’. 

Section 3. Monitoring, reporting, and public notification of sewer 

overflows 

This section amends section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act by adding a new subsection (s) to provide a uniform, 

national standard for monitoring, reporting, and public notification 

of combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. 

Subsection (s)(1) defines the terms ‘‘Sanitary Sewer Overflow’’, 

‘‘Sewer Overflow’’ and ‘‘Single-Family Residence’’. 

The definition of SSO applies only to the requirements of this 

legislation and does not apply to the entire Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act. Further, nothing in this legislation affects the extent 

to which Sanitary or Combined Sewer Overflows are prohibited 

under the Clean Water Act. Sanitary Sewer Overflows that reach 

waters of the U.S. or that violate individual permit conditions continue to be prohibited. 

Subsection (s)(2) provides general notice and reporting requirements for owners or operators of publicly owned treatment works 

regarding sewer overflow events. After 180 days following promulgation of regulations under this Act, any issued, renewed or modified permits would require that owners or operators of publicly 

owned treatment works: institute monitoring technology to quickly 

identify sewer overflow; notify the public of a sewer overflow with 

the potential to affect human health within 24 hours; immediately 

notify public health authorities and other affected entities of a 

sewer overflow that may imminently and substantially endanger 

human health; report sewer overflows to the Administrator or the 

State on its discharge monitoring report, including overflow details, 

steps to prevent recurrence and steps to mitigate the impact of the 

overflow; and annually report the total number of sewer overflows, 

including details on the volume of wastewater released, duration, 

location, response, and actions taken to mitigate the impacts and 

avoid further future overflows. 

Subsection (s)(3) provides exceptions from notification requirements for single-family residences and from the reporting requirements for the release of wastewater related to preventative maintenance. 

Subsection (s)(4) requires States to provide annual reports to 

EPA summarizing overflows. 

Subsection (s)(5) directs the Administrator, within one year, to finalize and issue regulations to implement this subsection, including regulations to establish criteria to guide assessment of whether 

an overflow imminently and substantially endangers human health 

and to define the terms ‘‘feasible’’ and ‘‘timely’’. 

Subsection (s)(6) authorizes the Administrator to approve alternative overflow monitoring and reporting programs if the State has 

in place a legally enforceable notification program that is substantially equivalent to the requirements of this subsection. If a State 

submits evidence of a notification program 30 days or earlier than 

the date on which the Administrator issues regulations, the requirements under such paragraphs do not apply until the AdminisVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:52 Apr 22, 2010 Jkt 089010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR172.XXX SR172

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
5 

trator completes review of the notification program. The Administrator is authorized to withdraw authorization of a State’s program 

if after conducting a public hearing, the Administrator determines 

that a State is not administering and enforcing a notification program that is substantially equivalent to the requirements described 

in paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C) of this subsection. 

Subsection (s)(7) provides that after 30 days following the 

issuance of regulations, the requirements of subparagraphs (2)(B) 

and (2)(C) of this subsection shall apply to the owner or operator 

of a publicly owned treatment works and be subject to enforcement 

under section 309. The requirements of (2)(B) and (2)(C) shall supersede any less stringent notification requirements and will continue to apply until such date as a permit is issued, renewed, or 

modified under this section. 

Section 4. Eligibility for assistance 

This section amends sections 601(a) and 603(c) of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act to authorize funding from the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund to be utilized for carrying out monitoring requirements of this Act. 

Section 5. Effect of the Act 

This section provides that nothing in this Act shall limit the ability of any State to implement or enforce a more stringent monitoring or notification standard, nor does it authorize any sewer 

overflow or diminish any other compliance obligation. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On April 30, 2009, Senator Lautenberg introduced S. 937, which 

is cosponsored by Senators Whitehouse, Menendez, Boxer, 

Klobuchar, and Merkley. On June 18, 2009, the Committee on Environment and Public Works held a business meeting to consider 

the bill, and ordered S. 690 to be reported favorably without 

amendment. 

Representative Bishop [D–NY] introduced companion legislation 

on January 28, 2009, H.R. 753, which has 24 cosponsors. This legislation was incorporated into H.R. 1262, the Water Quality Investment Act of 2009, which passed the House of Representatives on 

March 12, 2009 by a vote of 317–101. In the 110th Congress, similar legislation was passed by voice vote in the House of Representatives on June 23, 2009, and reported favorably by the Committee 

on September 24, 2008. 

HEARINGS

In the 110th Congress, the Subcommittee on Transportation 

Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality held a hearing 

entitled ‘‘Meeting America’s Wastewater Infrastructure Needs in 

the 21st Century’’ on September 19, 2007, and a hearing entitled 

‘‘Protecting Water Quality at America’s Beaches’’ on June 27, 2007, 

at which sewage overflow issues were discussed. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
6 

ROLLCALL VOTES

The Committee on Environment and Public Works ordered S. 

937 to be favorably reported by voice vote on June 18, 2009. No 

rollcall votes were taken. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the committee, bases on CBO’s estimate discussed in detail below, that S. 937 would require certain Publicly 

Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) to comply with additional requirements. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4), the Committee finds that this legislation does 

not impose private sector mandates as those terms are defined in 

UMRA. The Congressional Budget Office concurs, finding ‘‘This bill 

contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.’’ 

In addition, the Committee notes that according to CBO, S. 2191 

would impose intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA. 

The mandates would require certain POTWs to comply with additional requirements. CBO estimates that these mandates would exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($69 million in 2009, adjusted annually for inflation). 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

JUNE 25, 2009. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 937, the Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Susanne S. Mehlman 

(for federal costs), and Ryan Miller (for the state and local impact). 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

S. 937—Sewage Overflow Community Right-to-Know Act 

S. 937 would require owners and operators of publicly owned 

sewage treatment plants to notify federal and state agencies and 

the public in a timely manner of any sewer overflows. Under this 

legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be 

required to develop regulations establishing guidelines for the notifications. The legislation also would expand the types of activities 

that are eligible to receive funds from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. 

Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would cost about $1 million in 2010 and 

less than $500,000 in subsequent years, subject to the availability 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
7 

of appropriations. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending 

or receipts. 

S. 937 would require treatment plants to comply with a number 

of new requirements. Those requirements are not conditions of federal assistance, and consequently, they would be intergovernmental 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). Specifically, the bill would require water treatment plants 

to: • Institute and utilize a monitoring program for sewer overflows, including combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer 

overflows; • Notify the public of a sewer overflow within 24 hours; • Notify public health authorities and other affected entities, 

such as public water systems, if there is an imminent and substantial risk to human health due to a sewer overflow; • Provide a report of an overflow to the state or to the Administrator of EPA; • Report each sewer overflow on the discharge monitoring 

report to EPA or the treatment plant’s state. This report must 

include the magnitude, cause, and mitigation efforts for the 

specific overflows; and • Submit an annual report to EPA or the state on the number of overflows in a calendar year, including the details of 

magnitude, duration, location, potentially affected receiving 

waters, and mitigation efforts. 

Without knowing the nature of the regulations that EPA would 

issue as a result of this bill, CBO cannot make a precise estimate 

of the costs of complying with the mandates. Based on information 

from affected entities, however, we estimate that such costs would 

likely exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($69 million in 

2009, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill’s new requirements 

would involve additional personnel costs and could necessitate new 

infrastructure and engineering expertise. According to EPA and the 

National Association of Clean Water Agencies, over 16,000 treatment plants operate in the United States, and each of those entities could be affected by the requirements in S. 937. Infrastructure 

improvements, if required by the regulations, could be particularly 

expensive. Given the large number of affected entities, even a small 

increase in additional costs (less than $4,500 per entity annually) 

would result in costs that exceed the threshold for intergovernmental mandates in at least one of the next five years. The bill also 

would expand the types of activities eligible to receive funds from 

the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to include the monitoring 

requirements discussed above. 

This bill contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susanne S. 

Mehlman (for federal costs) and Ryan Miller (for the state and local 

impact). This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
(8) 

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR INHOFE 

Sanitary Sewer Overflows, or SSOs, are a real concern throughout the United States. I agree that S. 937, the ‘‘Sewage Overflow 

Community Right-to-Know Act,’’ is well-intentioned in its aim to inform the public when there’s a potential health risk from raw sewage contaminating public spaces. However, communities continue 

to struggle with many other federal mandates but lack the financial resources to make necessary improvements to their facilities. 

That is why I oppose this bill. 

Congress must recognize that by increasing federal mandates 

without appropriate funding, communities and their residents will 

become increasingly vulnerable to lawsuits and extensive rate 

hikes that will not result in substantially improved water quality. 

I firmly believe that communities want their facilities to function 

properly but they must have the financial and technical wherewithal to ensure they do so. The populations most vulnerable to 

new federal regulations tend to be lower-income residents in rural 

communities. Unfortunately, this bill does not properly address this 

disparity. 

This legislation requires the Administrator to define the terms 

‘‘feasible’’ and ‘‘timely’’ without Congressional direction. The term 

‘‘feasible’’ should explicitly reflect individual needs and constraints 

of a local community, including the local tax base’s ability to provide finance, the access to adequate technical assistance, other federal financial requirements on the particular community (i.e., 

drinking water regulations), and access to federal and state funding for compliance. Unless these issues are contemplated by the 

Administrator, the term ‘‘feasible’’ will not adequately address the 

hardship on rural and disadvantaged communities as a result of 

unfunded mandates. 

Rather than apply a new federal mandate, Congress should instead reauthorize and increase appropriations for the Clean Water 

State Revolving Loan Fund. Moreover, the State Revolving Loan 

Funds should be used strictly for capital improvements and not for 

operations and maintenance, including operations and maintenance 

of a monitoring and reporting program. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
9 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 

of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as reported 

are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing 

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman: 

* * * * * * * 

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 101. (a) The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain 

the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, 

consistent with the provisions of this Act— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 402. (a)(1) Except as provided in sections 318 and 404 of 

this Act, the Administrator may, after opportunity for public hearing, issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section 301(a), upon condition 

that such discharge will meet either (A) all applicable requirements 

under sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403 of this Act, or (B) 

prior to the taking of necessary implementing actions relating to all 

such requirements, such conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. 

(2) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(r) DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF RECREATIONAL VESSELS.—No permit shall be required under this Act 

by the Administrator (or a State, in the case of a permit program 

approved under subsection (b)) for the discharge of any graywater, 

bilge water, cooling water, weather deck runoff, oil water separator 

effluent, or effluent from properly functioning marine engines, or 

any other discharge that is incidental to the normal operation of 

a vessel, if the discharge is from a recreational vessel. 

(s) SEWER OVERFLOW MONITORING, REPORTING, AND NOTIFICATIONS.— 

(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

(A) SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘sanitary sewer overflow’’ 

means an overflow, spill, release, or diversion of wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. 

(ii) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘sanitary sewer overflow’’ 

includes— 

(I) overflows or releases of wastewater that reach 

waters of the United States; 

(II) overflows or releases of wastewater in the 

United States that do not reach waters of the 

United States; and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
10 

(III) wastewater backups into buildings that are 

caused by blockages or flow conditions in a sanitary sewer other than a building lateral. 

(iii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘sanitary sewer overflow’’ does not include— 

(I) municipal combined sewer overflows or other 

discharges from the combined portion of a municipal combined storm and sanitary sewer system; or 

(II) wastewater backups into buildings caused by 

a blockage or other malfunction of a building lateral that is privately owned. 

(B) SEWER OVERFLOW.—The term ‘‘sewer overflow’’ means 

a sanitary sewer overflow or a municipal combined sewer 

overflow. 

(C) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘single-family residence’’ 

means an individual dwelling unit. 

(ii) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘single-family residence’’ 

includes— 

(I) an apartment; 

(II) a condominium; 

(III) a house; and 

(IV) a dormitory. 

(iii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘single-family residence’’ 

does not include the common areas of a multidwelling 

structure. 

(2) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.—After the last day of the 180- 

day period beginning on the date on which regulations are promulgated under paragraph (5), a permit issued, renewed, or 

modified under this section by the Administrator or the State, 

as the case may be, for a publicly owned treatment works shall 

require, at a minimum, beginning on the date of the issuance, 

modification, or renewal, that the owner or operator of the 

treatment works— 

(A) institute and utilize a feasible methodology, technology, or management program for monitoring sewer overflows to alert the owner or operator to the occurrence of a 

sewer overflow in a timely manner; 

(B) in the case of a sewer overflow that has the potential 

to affect human health, notify the public of the overflow as 

soon as practicable but not later than 24 hours after the 

time the owner or operator knows of the overflow; 

(C) in the case of a sewer overflow that may imminently 

and substantially endanger human health, notify public 

health authorities and other affected entities, such as public water systems, of the overflow immediately after the 

owner or operator knows of the overflow; 

(D) report each sewer overflow on the discharge monitoring report of the owner or operator to the Administrator 

or the State, as the case may be, by describing— 

(i) the magnitude, duration, and suspected cause of 

the overflow; 

(ii) the steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, 

or prevent recurrence of the overflow; and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
11 

(iii) the steps taken or planned to mitigate the impact 

of the overflow; and 

(E) annually report to the Administrator or the State, as 

the case may be, the total number of sewer overflows in a 

calendar year, including— 

(i) the details of how much wastewater was released per incident; 

(ii) the duration of each sewer overflow; 

(iii) the location of the overflow and any potentially affected receiving waters; 

(iv) the responses taken to clean up the overflow; 

and 

(v) the actions taken to mitigate impacts and 

avoid further sewer overflows at the site. 

(3) EXCEPTIONS.— (A) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.—The notification requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) 

shall not apply to a sewer overflow that is a wastewater 

backup into a single-family residence. 

(B) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—The reporting requirements of subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (2) shall 

not apply to a sewer overflow that is a release of wastewater that occurs in the course of maintenance of the treatment works, is managed consistently with the treatment 

works’ best management practices, and is intended to prevent sewer overflows. 

(4) REPORT TO EPA.—Each State shall provide to the Administrator annually a summary of sewer overflows that occurred 

in the State. 

(5) RULEMAKING BY EPA.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator, after providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, shall promulgate regulations to implement this subsection, including 

regulations— 

(A) to establish a set of criteria to guide the owner or operator of a publicly owned treatment works in— 

(i) assessing whether a sewer overflow may imminently and substantially endanger human health; and 

(ii) developing communication measures that are sufficient to give notice under subparagraphs (B) and 

(C) of paragraph (2); and 

(B) to define the terms ‘‘feasible’’ and ‘‘timely’’ as those 

terms apply to paragraph (2)(A), including site specific conditions. 

(6) APPROVAL OF STATE NOTIFICATION PROGRAMS.— 

(A) REQUESTS FOR APPROVAL.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—After the date of promulgation of 

regulations under paragraph (5), a State may submit 

to the Administrator evidence that the State has in 

place a legally enforceable notification program that is 

substantially equivalent to the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2). 

(ii) PROGRAM REVIEW AND AUTHORIZATION.—If the 

evidence submitted by a State under clause (i) shows 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
12 

the notification program of the State to be substantially 

equivalent to the requirements of subparagraphs (B) 

and (C) of paragraph (2), the Administrator shall authorize the State to carry out that program instead of 

those requirements. 

(iii) FACTORS FOR DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL

EQUIVALENCY.—In carrying out a review of a State notification program under clause (ii), the Administrator 

shall take into account— 

(I) the scope of sewer overflows for which notification is required; 

(II) the length of time during which notification 

must be made; 

(III) the scope of persons that must be notified of 

sewer overflows; 

(IV) the scope of enforcement activities ensuring 

that notifications of sewer overflows are made; and 

(V) such other factors as the Administrator considers to be appropriate. 

(B) REVIEW PERIOD.—If a State submits evidence with respect to a notification program under subparagraph (A)(i) 

on or before the last day of the 30-day period beginning on 

the date of promulgation of regulations under paragraph 

(5), the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not begin to apply to a publicly owned treatment works located in the State until the date on which the 

Administrator completes a review of the notification program under subparagraph (A)(ii). 

(C) WITHDRAWAL OF AUTHORIZATION.—If the Administrator, after conducting a public hearing, determines that a 

State is not administering and enforcing a State notification program authorized under subparagraph (A)(ii) in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph, the Administrator shall so notify the State and, if appropriate corrective action is not taken within a reasonable time, not to 

exceed 90 days, the Administrator shall withdraw authorization of such program and enforce the requirements of 

subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) with respect to 

the State. 

(7) SPECIAL RULES CONCERNING APPLICATION OF NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.—After the last day of the 30-day period 

beginning on the date of promulgation of regulations under 

paragraph (5), the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) 

of paragraph (2) shall— 

(A) apply to the owner or operator of a publicly owned 

treatment works and be subject to enforcement under section 309; and 

(B) supersede any notification requirements contained in 

a permit issued under this section for the treatment works 

to the extent that the notification requirements are less 

stringent than the notification requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2), until such date as a 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS
13 

permit is issued, renewed, or modified under this section 

for the treatment works in accordance with paragraph (2). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 502. Except as otherwise specifically provided, when used in 

this Act: 

(1) The term ‘‘State water pollution control agency’’ means 

the State agency designated by the Governor having responsibility for enforcing State laws relating to the abatement of pollution. 

(2) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(26) TREATMENT WORKS.—The term ‘‘treatment works’’ has 

the meaning given the term in section 212. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VI—STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 

REVOLVING FUNDS 

SEC. 601. GRANTS TO STATES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF REVOLVING 

FUNDS. 

(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—Subject to the provisions of this title, 

the Administrator shall make capitalization grants to each State 

for the purpose of establishing a water pollution control revolving 

fund for providing assistance (1) for construction of treatment 

works (as defined in section 212 of this Act) which are publicly 

owned, (2) for implementing a management program under section 

319,øand ¿ (3) for developing and implementing a conservation and 

management plan under section 320, and (4) for the implementation of requirements to monitor for sewer overflows under section 

402. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.—The amounts of funds 

available to each State water pollution control revolving fund shall 

be used only for providing financial assistance (1) to any municipality, intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency for construction 

of publicly owned treatment works (as defined in section 212 of this 

Act), (2) for the implementation of a management program established under section 319 of this Act, and (3) for development øand¿ 

implementation of a conservation and management plan under section 320 of this Act, and (4) for the implementation of requirements 

to monitor for sewer overflows under section 402. The fund shall be 

established, maintained, and credited with repayments, and the 

fund balance shall be available in perpetuity for providing such financial assistance. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with REPORTS