13522 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Notices

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5711–8]

Guidelines for Implementing the

Hardship Grants Program for Rural

Communities

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the

Hardship Grants Program for Rural

Communities.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency is publishing the final

Guidelines for Implementing the

Hardship Grants Program for Rural

Communities, including the funding

allotment. (Catalogue of Domestic

Federal Assistance #66.470)

ADDRESSES: Write to Stephanie vonFeck

(4204), Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington,

DC 20460, or via Internet at

vonfeck.stephanie@epamail.epa.gov for

copies of the final Guidelines.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephanie vonFeck (4204),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460,

(202)260–2268.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These

Guidelines implement a $50 million

grant program contained in the

Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and

Appropriations Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104–

134). The Agency will make grants to

States, which in turn can provide

assistance to improve wastewater

treatment services in poor, rural

communities with populations of 3,000

or fewer where such services are

currently inadequate. The Hardship

Grants Program for Rural Communities

will be coordinated with the Clean

Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)

program and in accordance with the

SRF program regulations at 40 CFR part

35, subpart K and existing Agency grant

regulations and procedures, including

40 CFR part 31.

The Hardship Grants Program for

Rural Communities may be subject to

your State’s intergovernmental review

process under Executive Order 12372,

and/or the consultation requirements of

Section 204, Demonstration Cities and

Metropolitan Development Act of 1966,

42 U.S.C. 3334 (the Act). Applicants

must contact their State’s Single Point of

Contact (SPOC) for intergovernmental

review as early as possible to find out

whether Hardship grant applications

(CFDA #66.470) are subject to the State’s

Executive Order 12372 review process

and, if so, what material must be

submitted to the SPOC for review. If the

application is for a community within a

‘‘metropolitan area’’ as that term is

defined at 42 U.S.C. 3338(4), then the

requirements of the Act are applicable.

You must notify area-wide metropolitan

or regional planning agencies and or

general government units authorized to

govern planning for the locale of your

project of your intended application.

SPOCs and other reviewers should send

their comments concerning Hardship

Grant applications to the appropriate

Regional State Revolving Fund

Coordinator no later than 60 days after

receipt of an application and other

required material for review. In

accordance with 40 C.F.R. 29.8(c) a 60

day review is mandatory for projects

subject to the Act.

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this

document and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives and the

Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office prior to publication

of this document in today’s Federal

Register. This document is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Dated: March 17, 1997.

Dana Minerva,

Acting Assistant Administrator.

Appendix—Hardship Grants Program

for Rural Communities

Background

On May 16, 1995, the House passed

the Clean Water Amendments of 1995

(H.R. 961), a bill to reauthorize the

Clean Water Act. Section 102(d) of this

bill authorizes $50 million for each of

Fiscal Years 1996 through 2000 for

grants to States, which the States in turn

can use to provide assistance for the

wastewater needs of poor, rural

communities. Although no further

action was taken on H.R. 961, the

Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and

Appropriations Act of 1996 (Pub. L.

104–134), which the President signed

into law on April 26, 1996, provided

$50 million for these grants in FY 1996,

stating that they are to be used in

accordance with section 102(d) of H.R.

961. This sum is to be taken from the

$1.3485 billion reserved for

capitalization grants to State Revolving

Funds (SRF) under title VI of the Clean

Water Act.

Section 102(d) of the House Clean

Water Act reauthorization bill (H.R. 961)

reads, in pertinent part:

(T)he Administrator may make grants to

States to provide assistance for planning,

design, and construction of publicly owned

treatment works and alternative wastewater

treatment systems to provide wastewater

services to rural communities of 3,000 or less

that are not currently served by any sewage

collection or wastewater treatment system

and are severely economically

disadvantaged, as determined by the

Administrator.

The relevant clause in the ‘‘State and

Tribal Assistance Grants’’ language of

the Omnibus Appropriations Act reads:

Provided Further, That of the funds made

available under this heading for

capitalization grants for State Revolving

Funds under title VI of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act, as amended,

$50,000,000 shall be for wastewater

treatment in impoverished communities

pursuant to section 102(d) of H.R. 961 as

approved by the United States House of

Representatives on May 16, 1995 . . .

Although the legislative history to

H.R. 961 does offer some instruction on

how to define a ‘‘severely economically

disadvantaged’’ community, additional

documented direction from Congress

about this new program is scant

(Attachment A contains excerpts from

both the legislative history to section

102 and the Omnibus Appropriations

Act provision). In the absence of

detailed guidance from Congress, the

Agency plans to administer this

program in concert with existing

programs and procedures to the

maximum extent possible.

Basic Principles for Administering

Rural Community Hardship Grants

EPA Regions will be responsible for

awarding grants to the States, pursuant

to a delegation of authority signed by

the Administrator (Attachment B).

States will make grant awards to

individual communities or projects or

will provide technical assistance to

qualifying communities. The award of

grants or the provision of technical

assistance by a State to benefit

qualifying communities will be referred

to in these guidelines as hardship

assistance. The definition of technical

assistance is provided under the

heading ‘‘Eligible Projects’’.

Except as described in the following

section, the Agency will administer the

rural community hardship grants in

conjunction with the Clean Water State

Revolving Fund program (CW SRF),

because the CW SRF capitalization grant

appropriation is the source for these

funds and because the program provides

an established funding mechanism in

each State. By combining CW SRF loans

and grants, more qualifying

communities will benefit from the

limited funding that is available. The

communities would also continue to

have a stake in their projects, and

thereby an incentive to keep project

costs low.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Notices 13523

In addition to the CW SRF

capitalization grant, States will be

awarded a separate grant consisting of

funds which can be awarded as

hardship assistance to qualifying

communities. These funds are in

addition to the CW SRF capitalization

grant awarded to the State.

Communities that apply for CW SRF

loans and that qualify according to the

criteria established in these guidelines

and any additional State guidelines

would then be able to receive hardship

assistance in an amount that would

make that CW SRF loan affordable.

The loan amount must account for at

least 15 percent of the CW SRF-eligible

cost of the project before the Agency

will consider it an SRF project.

Otherwise, the project will be governed

by the guidelines described under the

following heading below: ‘‘Projects

receiving less than 15 percent in SRF

funding or hardship assistance only’’.

All communities seeking hardship

assistance must apply for an SRF loan.

The State will then determine the

appropriate mix of hardship grant and

SRF loan funds.

Administering this program in

conjunction with the CW SRF program

has a number of other advantages. The

approach will encourage communities

to move forward with needed project

construction, rather than wait to receive

grant funding for the entire cost of those

projects. Projects in communities that

receive hardship assistance will receive

public review and approval because

they will be listed on the State’s CW

SRF Intended Use Plan (IUP). These

projects will also undergo an

environmental review, under State

Environmental Review Procedures

(SERP) established for the CW SRF

program, and will comply with other

SRF requirements which are more

streamlined than the requirements that

apply to projects funded with direct

Federal grants. For example, compliance

with cross-cutting Federal

environmental authorities can be

accomplished in conjunction with the

SERP. A listing of cross-cutting Federal

authorities currently applicable in the

CW SRF program is attached

(Attachment C).

EPA’s general grant regulations at 40

CFR part 31 and other Agency

regulations that apply to grant recipients

(e.g., 40 CFR part 32, debarment,

suspension, and drug-free workplace

requirements), will apply to the State as

the grant recipient, in the same manner

as they apply to the State as the

recipient of CW SRF capitalization

grants. Because projects receiving

hardship assistance will be projects

listed on the State’s CW SRF IUP and

will also be receiving SRF loans, the

States must follow the Agency’s SRF

regulations at 40 CFR part 35, subpart K,

with respect to the recipients of that

assistance. The CW SRF regulations

prescribe rules for drawing cash and for

the specific types of assistance CW SRF

can provide. The rules for drawing cash

for hardship assistance are described

under the heading ‘‘Allocation of grant

funds’’ below.

In addition to hardship assistance for

rural communities described in these

guidelines, there are a number of other

Federal programs that provide loan and

grant assistance for the wastewater

needs of rural communities. The water

and wastewater loan and grant program

administered by USDA’s Rural Utility

Service and the Department of Housing

and Urban Development’s Community

Development Block Grants are just two

examples. Often, these other Federal

programs can provide assistance for

costs that would be ineligible under the

statutory provisions being implemented

in these guidelines (e.g., indoor

plumbing may be funded by CDBG

funds in limited circumstances). The

Agency expects that State officials will

take these other programs’ benefits into

account in devising the most effective

assistance package for a rural

community.

Projects Receiving Less Than 15 Percent

in SRF Funding or Hardship Assistance

Only

If a qualifying community cannot

afford a loan for at least 15 percent of

a project’s CW SRF-eligible cost, the

State may elect to provide less than a 15

percent CW SRF loan or hardship

assistance alone. In these cases,

provisions in the general grant

regulations at 40 CFR part 31 and other

rules that apply to subrecipients of

grants, but not to SRF loan recipients

(e.g., 40 CFR part 32; debarment,

suspension, and drug-free workplace

requirements), will apply to the

recipient of the hardship assistance. In

addition to the general grant regulations,

which prescribe rules on financial

management, procurement and record

keeping practices of subgrantees,

projects receiving hardship assistance

alone or less than 15 percent SRF

funding must comply with Federal

cross-cutting authorities and with

Agency regulations implementing the

National Environmental Policy Act at 40

CFR part 6. The State will be

responsible for ensuring that

communities receiving hardship

assistance alone or less than 15 percent

SRF funding are aware of requirements

imposed upon them by Federal statute

and regulation. As part of the Hardship

Grant agreement, the State and EPA will

negotiate their respective roles for

ensuring that these projects comply

with 40 CFR part 31 and Federal crosscutting authorities.

Grants to States

The Agency will make hardship rural

community program grants to the States

separately from CW SRF capitalization

grants. Before receiving a grant and no

later than one year from the date of

publication of funding allotment in the

Federal Register, the Governor of the

State must submit a Notice of Intent to

use the grant for the purposes of the

program. If the Governor elects not to

submit a Notice, grant funds available to

that State will then be allocated among

those States that have furnished a

Notice. Grant funds will be available for

obligation to the State for two years

from the date of publication of funding

allotment in the Federal Register. Funds

not obligated during that period will be

reallotted and awarded to States that

have received an obligation of all such

funds during that period. All reallotted

funds will be available for obligation

within two years of the date of

reallotment.

The State must specify which

department of government will receive

and administer the grant funds. The

department or agency that receives the

hardship assistance grant does not need

to be the same department that

administers the State Revolving Fund.

However, close coordination between

these programs is necessary to meet the

requirements of these guidelines. If an

agency other than that which

administers the State Revolving Fund

will administer the Hardship Grant

program, a memorandum of

understanding (MOU) or similar

agreements between the agencies will be

required in the Hardship Grant

application to EPA. MOUs should

clearly delineate the division of

management responsibilities among

agencies.

The Hardship Grants Program for

Rural Communities may be subject to

your State’s intergovernmental review

process under Executive Order 12372,

and/or the consultation requirements of

Section 204, Demonstration Cities and

Metropolitan Development Act of 1966,

42 U.S.C. 3334 (the Act). Applicants

must contact their State’s Single Point of

Contact (SPOC) for intergovernmental

review as early as possible to find out

whether Hardship grant applications

(CFDA #66.470) are subject to the State’s

Executive Order 12372 review process

and, if so, what material must be

submitted to the SPOC for review. If the

application is for a community within a
13524 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Notices

‘‘metropolitan area’’ as that term is

defined at 42 U.S.C. 3338(4), then the

requirements of the Act are applicable.

You must notify area-wide metropolitan

or regional planning agencies and/or

general government units authorized to

govern planning for the locale of your

project of your intended application.

SPOCs and other reviewers should send

their comments concerning Hardship

Grant applications to the appropriate

Regional State Revolving Fund

Coordinator no later than 60 days after

receipt of an application and other

required material for review. In

accordance with 40 CFR 29.8(c) a 60 day

review is mandatory for projects subject

to the Act.

The costs of administering the

program shall not be deducted from the

hardship assistance grant.

Administration funds must not be from

any fees or other charges imposed on

the communities likely to be served by

the grant. Administering the program

does not include the costs of providing

technical assistance to benefit qualifying

communities.

Allocation of Grant Funds

The $50 million dollars appropriated

by the Consolidated Omnibus

Appropriations and Rescissions Act of

Fiscal Year 1996 (P.L. 104–134) for

hardship grants are allotted among the

50 States, Puerto Rico, and the

territories as of the date of this Federal

Register notice. Attachment D provides

the funding allotment. The District of

Columbia and the former trust territory

of Palau will not receive hardship grant

funds. The District of Columbia has no

qualifying communities. Palau no longer

receives new Federal assistance for

infrastructure needs (Pub. L. 99–239;

Compact of Free Association Act).

Comments from both Congress and

States indicate that the CW SRF formula

would not sufficiently target the

hardship funds to areas of the country

with the most potential need. Two

program requirements are included in

the formula for allocation. Lack of

access to centralized wastewater

collection and treatment systems and

per capita income are the indicators of

hardship need that will help target the

funds to areas of the country with the

greatest need. The first of these factors

is weighted 75 percent and the second

25 percent. More weight is given to

households without access to

wastewater treatment systems because it

represents a stronger indicator of

environmental problems.

National data regarding these

indicators was obtained from the 1990

Census of Housing and the 1990 Census

of Population published by the U.S.

Bureau of the Census. The 1990 Census

provides the most up-to-date data for

rural areas nationwide. The Bureau of

the Census provides a data threshold for

rural populations of 2,500 or fewer. This

population threshold is the closest

available from the Bureau of the Census

to the 3,000 person population limit of

the hardship grants program. Because

communities must be rural, both

indicators of need used in the allotment

formula are narrowed to rural

populations within States. For instance,

data for households without access to

centralized wastewater treatment in

each State relates only to households in

rural areas of 2,500 or fewer people that

do not have access to centralized

treatment. Per capita income data in

each State is related to rural areas of

2,500 or fewer people where the per

capita income is not greater than 80%

of national per capita income. Due to

lack of consistent household and

income data for the Territories, the

Territories are allotted funds based on

their CW SRF allotment formula. More

details on the allotment methodology

are available in Attachment E.

The Territory of Guam, Territory of

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of

the Northern Mariana Islands, and the

Virgin Islands do not operate CW SRF

programs and instead receive their SRF

allotments for use as construction grants

under title II of the Clean Water Act

(Pub. L. 101–144, as amended by Pub.

L. 101–302). These jurisdictions may

receive hardship assistance for the

entire cost of a project benefiting a

qualifying community or to supplement

a construction grant that is made for a

project benefiting a qualifying

community.

Indian Tribes are not treated as States

under the hardship grant program.

Instead, Tribes receive one-half of one

percent of the CW SRF appropriation for

use as construction grants (Clean Water

Act section 518(c), 33 U.S.C. 1377(c)).

Nonetheless, data for Indian Tribe

communities that qualify under the

criteria described in these guidelines are

included in the Census data used to

develop the State allocation formula.

Indian Tribes may receive hardship

assistance from the State, either for the

entire cost of a project, to supplement a

construction grant, or to supplement a

CW SRF loan. States are encouraged to

provide due consideration to all

qualified applicants, including Indian

Tribes, when developing their IUPs and

apportioning hardship assistance among

qualifying communities.

When the grant is awarded to the

State, the Agency will make funds

available for cash draws through the

Automated Clearinghouse (ACH)

process established in each State for

EPA grants. The State may then draw

cash through the ACH for the expenses

involved in providing technical

assistance and to reimburse

communities as construction proceeds.

Within one year of the end of the

period of availability, the State must

enter into commitments to provide

hardship assistance to benefit qualifying

communities in an amount equaling 105

percent of the amount of the grant.

State Match

In order to increase the amount of

funds available for the purpose of this

program, each State will provide a 5

percent match for the grant. The source

of the match must be identified on or

before the date the Federal award of the

grant is made, with actual cash being

required at the time of cash draw from

the ACH. Matching funds must not be

from any fees or other charges imposed

on the communities likely to be served

by the grant. The State cannot use SRF

assets to acquire the match.

Funding from other Federal assistance

programs may be used for matching

funds if specifically allowed by the laws

and procedures of those programs.

Funding from the Environmental

Protection Agency may not be used as

match for this program.

Obligations of the States as a Grantee

The State must comply with the

Agency’s general grant regulations at 40

CFR part 31 to the extent that they

involve matters that are not addressed

by these guidelines for administering

the particular requirements of section

102(d) of H.R. 961 and the Omnibus

Appropriations Act. The part 31

regulations contain requirements on

applying for the grants, maintaining

finances in accordance with State rules,

and auditing the grants.

Other matters related to the State’s

operation of the program should be

negotiated between the State and the

Regional office, and should be specified

in the State’s CW SRF Operating

Agreement (OA) or in the hardship grant

agreement itself. The State must also

furnish a statement signed by the State’s

Attorney General certifying that the

State has the legal authority to receive

and administer the grant in accordance

with these guidelines and that the State

can legally bind itself to the terms of the

grant agreement. This Attorney

General’s certification can be done in

conjunction with the Attorney General’s

certification required for CW SRF

capitalization grants under 40 CFR

35.3110(d)(2).

All projects that the State intends to

provide hardship assistance must
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Notices 13525

appear in the CW SRF IUP, including

individual projects and the provision of

technical assistance. The State agency

that is receiving the grant should

consult State community development

or rural assistance departments for

assistance in identifying qualifying

communities. Progress on hardship

assistance projects must be described in

the State’s CW SRF Annual Report. A

database being developed for the

hardship grants program in conjunction

with the SRF Information Management

System States are required to provide

data to EPA Regional offices for

inclusion in the information system.

Qualifying Communities

In consultation with the Regional

office, the State may provide hardship

assistance, including technical

assistance, to benefit any community of

more than a single household but no

more than 3,000 inhabitants that is

identified by the State as a rural

community, is not a remote area within

the corporate boundaries of a larger city,

and satisfies the criteria described

below. In cases where the entire State is

divided into incorporated areas, the

State should propose, as part of its

application for Regional approval, a

method for delineating rural

communities.

In the legislative history to the Clean

Water Amendments of 1995, national

per capita income and unemployment

rates are the criteria recommended by

the sponsors of section 102(d) for

determining whether a community is

‘‘severely economically disadvantaged’’

(House debate, remarks of Mr. Shuster,

Cong. Rec. H5008, May 16, 1995).

Consequently, a community may qualify

for hardship assistance if, on the date

the community applies for assistance:

• The community lacks centralized

wastewater treatment or collection

systems or needs improvements to

onsite wastewater treatment systems

and the State determines that assistance

will improve public health or reduce an

environmental risk; and

• Per capita annual income of

residents served by the project does not

exceed 80 percent of national, per capita

income, based on data available as

indicated in the following paragraphs;

and

• On the date the community applies

for assistance, the local unemployment

rate exceeds by one percentage point or

more the most recently reported,

average yearly national unemployment

rate.

Due to the shortage of up-to-date

income and unemployment information

for hardship communities, States will

have the flexibility to determine the

source of the data and the methodology

used to compare communities to these

standards. This information should be

included in the State’s hardship grant

application and is subject to Regional

approval.

Per Capita Income Data

There are two sources of national per

capita income data—the Bureau of the

Census and the Bureau of Economic

Analysis (BEA). The most recent,

comprehensive nationwide survey of

per capita income was provided by the

Bureau of the Census in 1990. This

income data is periodically updated.

The Bureau of the Census measures per

capita income by cash equivalents. In

1994, the updated national per capita

income reported by the Bureau of the

Census was $16,555, 80 percent of

which is $13,244.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis

also measures per capita income.

However, their measure includes cash

income as well as other income, such as

benefits, food stamps, etc. BEA’s 1994

national per capita income was

$21,696,80 percent of which is $17,357.

Local level data is also available to

varying degrees from the Bureau of the

Census and the Bureau of Economic

Analysis. The 1990 Census has the most

recent comprehensive local level data

available. In 1994 the Bureau of the

Census updated per capita income data

for the nation, States, and metropolitan

statistical areas. BEA updates their per

capita income yearly to the county level.

The latest county level BEA data is for

1994. States and communities may also

choose to generate local level data by

performing a survey of the community.

Income survey tools are used for the

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development’s Community

Development Block Grant program that

can be modified for use in this program.

Options for comparing local data to

national data include, but are not

limited to:

• Comparing a community’s 1990

Census data to national data from the

1990 Census;

• Adjusting 1990 Census data for a

community to a more recent year, using

State multipliers, so that it is

comparable to the latest national Census

data;

• Surveying a community to gather

up-to-date local data for comparison to

either Census or BEA data as

appropriate; or

• Using county BEA data to qualify

the county as a whole for the income

requirement. Small communities within

that county that meet the other criteria

of size, rural, lack of access to

wastewater systems, and unemployment

would then qualify for funding.

Unemployment Data

Unemployment data is available from

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The

unemployment rates are updated

monthly for the national, State, and

county level. Average yearly

unemployment is computed by adding

the last 12 monthly unemployment rates

and dividing by 12 for both the national

and county level. States are free to use

county BLS data to qualify the county

as a whole for the unemployment

requirement. Small communities within

that county that meet the other criteria

of size, rural, lack of access to

wastewater systems, and per capita

income would then qualify for funding.

States and communities may also

choose to generate community level

unemployment data by performing a

survey of the community.

Eligible Projects

A State can provide assistance from

the grant for the planning, design and

construction of publicly owned

treatment works and alternative

wastewater systems. Publicly owned

treatment works and alternative

treatment systems include those defined

in section 212 of the Clean Water Act

which are commonly funded under the

CW SRF program and with construction

grants under Title II of the Act. States

should consider how projects receiving

hardship assistance will best meet the

objectives of their watershed plans or

the Intended Use Plan, where watershed

plans are not available, when selecting

projects for funding. Recipients of

hardship assistance should consider the

cost-effectiveness of alternative means

for addressing its wastewater treatment

needs.

The sponsors of H.R. 961 viewed the

assistance options under section 102(d)

broadly, stating in the Committee Report

that they include ‘‘training, technical

assistance and educational programs

relating to the operation and

maintenance of such sanitation

services.’’ (H. Rept. 104–112, p. 101).

The decision on the level of funding to

provide for planning, design and

construction versus training, technical

assistance and education programs is at

the State’s discretion. However, onsite

technical assistance may only be

provided to qualified communities and

the primary purpose of technical

seminars and other training must be to

train qualified communities.
13526 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Notices

Obtaining Hardship Rural Community

Assistance

Before the State may offer hardship

assistance, it must ensure that projects

in qualifying communities appear in the

CW SRF Intended Use Plan (IUP). The

State should explain in its IUP the level

of SRF loan and hardship grant

assistance that may be available for

these communities. Hardship grants

should be available only to the extent

that an SRF loan is not affordable. In the

State’s CW SRF Annual Report (section

606(d) of the Clean Water Act), which

contains information relating to the

goals, objectives, and accomplishments

set out in its IUP, the State must also

report on the progress of its hardship

grant assistance efforts.

Qualifying communities should apply

for hardship assistance when applying

for CW SRF loans under procedures

established for the State’s CW SRF

program. The State and the community

can then decide on the appropriate mix

of SRF loan funds and hardship

assistance. If a community cannot afford

a 15% SRF loan, it may receive more

than an 85% grant or hardship

assistance only and proceed under the

general grant regulations at 40 CFR part

31, as described previously.

Attachment A—Hardship Grants for

Rural Communities

From the Omnibus Consolidated

Rescissions and Appropriations Act of

1996 (Pub. L. 104–134):

State and Tribal Assistance Grants

For environmental programs and

infrastructure assistance . . . Provided

Further, that of the funds made available

under this heading for capitalization grants to

State Revolving Funds under title VI of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as

amended, $50,000,000 shall be for

wastewater treatment in impoverished

communities pursuant to section 102(d) of

H.R. 961 as approved by the United States

House of Representatives on May 16,

1995 . . .

From H. Rept. 104–384 (Conference

Report to accompany H.R. 3019, which

would be enacted as the Omnibus

Consolidated Rescissions and

Appropriations Act of 1996):

From within the amount appropriated for

wastewater capitalization grants, $50,000,000

is to be made available for wastewater grants

to impoverished communities pursuant to

section 102(d) of H.R. 961 as approved by the

House of Representatives on May 16, 1995.

The Conferees expect the Agency to closely

monitor state compliance with this provision

to assure that funds are obligated

appropriately and in a timely manner.

Unused funds allocated for this purpose are

to be made available for other wastewater

capitalization grants.

From section 102(d) of H.R. 961, the

Clean Water Amendments of 1995,

adding subsection (5) to section 104(q)

of the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act:

(5) Small Impoverished Communities—

(A) Grants.—The Administrator may make

grants to States to provide assistance for

planning, design, and construction of

publicly owned treatment works and

alternative wastewater treatment systems to

provide wastewater services to rural

communities of 3,000 or less that are not

currently served by any sewage collection or

wastewater treatment system and are severely

economically disadvantaged, as determined

by the Administrator.

(B) Authorization.—There is authorized to

be appropriated to carry out this paragraph

$50,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years

1996 through 2000.

From H. Rept. 104–112, to accompany

H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments

of 1995:

Wastewater Treatment in Impoverished

Communities. Section 102(d) authorizes $50

million per year for fiscal years 1996 through

2000 for EPA to award grants to States for

funding the planning, design and

construction of POTWs in small,

impoverished communities of 3,000 people

or less that lack sewage treatment systems

and are severely economically

disadvantaged.

In communities with these circumstances,

the committee believes the award of federal

grant monies is justified for the protection of

human health and the environment, and as

further insurance for the government’s

investment, grant monies may be used for

training, technical assistance and education

programs relating to the operations and

maintenance of such sanitation services.

Despite enactment of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act of 1972 and the

expenditure of billions in federal funds for

the construction of POTWs (sic), thousands

of small communities still are not served by

central wastewater treatment facilities today.

Many small impoverished communities lack

the resources even to repay low or zerointerest loans under the current SRF

structure. Without financial assistance,

untreated human sewage will continue to

flow from pipes and seep from poorly

functioning septic systems and privies,

posing human health and environmental

risks.

The Committee anticipates working closely

with the Administrator to develop

appropriate criteria regarding ‘‘severely

economically disadvantaged.’’

From House debate on H.R. 961

(Congr. Rec. H5008, 104th Congress, 1st

session); Remarks of Mr Shuster,

Chairman, Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee:

Administration of the funding provisions

need additional clarification. Section 102(d)

of H. R. 961 authorizes the Administrator of

EPA to make grants to the States for

planning, design, and construction of

publicly owned treatment works in rural

communities of 3,000 people or less which

are severely economically disadvantaged.

The committee report states the committee’s

intention to work closely with the

Administrator to develop appropriate criteria

regarding severely economically

disadvantaged. I wish to clarify that the

committee considers eligible communities as

those having a per capita income of no more

than 80 percent of the national average and

an unemployment rate of 1 percent or more

above the national average.

Attachment B—Memorandum

SUBJECT: Proposed Delegation of

Authority to Approve Grants and

Cooperative Agreements for Water

Infrastructure Projects for Fiscal

Year 1996 and Subsequent Years to

the State and Tribal Assistance

Grants Account and any Successor

Accounts—DECISION

MEMORANDUM

FROM:

Robert Thorlakson, Director /s/

Office of Water/Office of Research and

Development Human Resources

Staff

David R. Alexander, Director /s/

Organization and Management

Consulting Services

TO: The Administrator

THRU: AX

Issue: The Office of Water (OW)

proposes delegating to Regional

Administrators (RAs) the authority to

approve grants and cooperative

agreements for water infrastructure

projects and grants to States for

providing assistance to ‘‘severely

economically disadvantaged rural

communities’’ from funds appropriated

in Fiscal Year 1996 and subsequent

years to the State and Tribal Assistance

Grants Account and any successor

accounts.

Background

The Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriations

Act for VA, HUD, and Independent

Agencies (P.L. 103–327) authorized the

award of grants for 50 water

infrastructure projects identified in the

Conference Report (H.R. Report No. 715,

103d Congress, 2d Sess. at 39–43

(1994)). The authority to award these

grants was delegated to Regional

Administrators by Delegation No. 1–92,

1200 TN 373, dated 10/31/94). All funds

available for the 50 projects under this

appropriation have been awarded.

The EPA section of the Omnibus

Consolidated Rescissions and

Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104–

134) authorizes $306.5 million in grant

funding for 22 water infrastructure

projects including some for which funds

have been provided by P.L. 103–327 and

for which additional grants have been

awarded from funds provided by
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Notices 13527

*The Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and

Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104–134).

Continuing Resolutions (CRs) enacted

prior to the enactment of P.L. 103–134.

Close coordination with State and local

agencies requires award and

administration of these grants and

cooperative agreements at the regional

level.

Analysis and Review

A new delegation is needed to allow

Regional Administrators to award the

remaining funds authorized by P.L.

104–134 for Congressionally-designated

water infrastructure projects and grants

to States for providing assistance to

‘‘severely economically disadvantaged

rural communities’’ because these grants

will be subject to different terms and

conditions—for example those

concerning local cost-share

arrangements—than those awarded with

funds provided by P.L. 103–327 and the

FY 1996 CRs. Further, the FY 1996

Appropriations Act (P.L. 104–134) is the

only statutory authority to award grants

to many of the projects, so delegations

already issued for other statutes (such as

the Clean Water Act) are insufficient to

allow Regional Administrators to award

the grants. The new delegation of

authority has been written so it will

cover grants for similar water

infrastructure projects authorized by

future appropriations to the State and

Tribal Assistance Grants Account or

successor accounts.

The delegation proposal was

distributed under the Directives

Clearance Record review process to 15

offices. Three offices and three regions

submitted comments. The Office of

Grants and Debarment (OGD) and

Region 8 submitted comments relating

to the appropriate level for redelegation

authority. The OGD also proposed

adding an additional reference and

deleting another reference. The Office of

General Counsel had editorial

comments and reviewed language

changes proposed by other reviewers.

Region 2 comments suggested that this

delegation provide authority to award

grants to States for providing assistance

to ‘‘severely economically

disadvantaged rural communities.’’ No

issue resolution was requested by any

office or regions and editorial comments

submitted were incorporated into the

final delegation.

Recommendation

This delegation is needed

immediately to respond to the

numerous requests from grantee

agencies who have already developed

applications. We recommend that you

approve the proposed delegation by

signing below.

Approved: Carol M. Browner.

Dated: June 21, 1996.

Attachment

Delegation of Authority—Grants and

Cooperative Agreements for Water

Infrastructure Projects from Funds

Appropriated for FY 1996 and

Subsequent Years to the State and Tribal

Assistance Grants Account and Any

Successor Accounts.

Delegations Manual

[1200 TN 425]

June 21, 1996.

General, Administrative, and

Miscellaneous

1–102. Grants and cooperative

agreements for water infrastructure

projects from funds appropriated for

fiscal year 1996* and subsequent years

to the State and Tribal Assistance Grants

Account and any successor accounts.

1. Authority: To approve grants and

cooperative agreements for water

infrastructure projects and grants to

States for providing assistance to

‘‘severely economically disadvantaged

rural communities’’ from funds

appropriated for Fiscal Year 1996* and

subsequent years to the State and Tribal

Assistance Grants Account and any

successor accounts and to perform other

activities necessary for the effective

administration of those grants and

cooperative agreements.

2. To Whom Delegated: Regional

Administrators.

3. Redelegation Authority: This

authority may be redelegated to the

Division Director or equivalent level

and may not be redelegated further.

4. Limitations: a. This delegation

applies only to those grants and

cooperative agreements for which there

is no authority other than the statute

making appropriations to the State and

Tribal Assistance Grants Account and

any successor accounts in Fiscal Year

1996* and subsequent years.

b. Awards are subject to guidance

issued by Office of Wastewater

Management and Office of Comptroller.

5. Additional References: a. Authority

to execute (sign) these financial

assistance agreements is delegated to the

Regional Administrators under

Delegation 1–14, ‘‘Assistance

Agreements’’;

b. 40 CFR Part 31,

c. 40 CFR Part 40 for Demonstration

grants,

d. 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart K, and

e. EPA Assistance Administration

Manual.

Attachment C—Cross-Cutting Federal

Authorities Applicable as of June 1996

(Note: This list is subject to change. For

further information about the applicability of

specific requirements, please contact the

appropriate Regional Office of EPA.)

Environmental

Archeological and Historic Preservation

Act of 1974, PL 93–291

Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7506(c)

Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16 USC

3501, et seq.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,

PL 92–583, as amended

Endangered Species Act, 16 USC 1531,

et seq.

Executive Order 11593, Protection and

Enhancement of the Cultural

Environment

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain

Management

Executive Order 11990, Protection of

Wetlands

Farmland Protection Policy Act, 7 USC

4201, et seq.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, PL

85–624, as amended

National Historic Preservation Act of

1966, PL 89–665, as amended

Safe Drinking Water Act, section

1424(e), PL 920523, as amended

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, PL 90–542,

as amended

Economic

Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan

Development Act of 1966, PL 89–

754, as amended

Section 306 of the Clean Air Act and

Section 508 of the Clean Water Act,

including

Executive Order 11738,

Administration of the Clean Air Act

and the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act with Respect to Federal

Contracts, Grants, or Loans

Social

Age Discrimination Act, PL 94–135

Civil Rights Act of 1964, PL 88–352

Section 13 of PL 92–500; Prohibition

against sex discrimination under the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Executive Order 11246, Equal

Employment Opportunity

Executive Orders 11625 and 12138,

Women’s and Minority Business

Enterprise

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, PL 93–112

(including Executive Orders 11914

and 11250)

Miscellaneous

Uniform Relocation and Real Property

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, PL

91–646

Executive Order 12549, Debarment and

Suspension
13528 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Notices

Attachment D—Fiscal Year 1996

Allotment of Hardship Grant

Assistance

State

Households w/

o access allocation

@$37.5M

(75% of $50

M)

Income based

allocation

@$12.5M

(25% of $50

M)

State allocation @$50M

ALABAMA ..................................................................................................................................... $1,107,300 $348,500 $1,455,800

ALASKA ........................................................................................................................................ 132,500 61,600 194,100

ARIZONA ...................................................................................................................................... 316,200 128,300 444,500

ARKANSAS .................................................................................................................................. 670,300 362,000 1,032,300

CALIFORNIA ................................................................................................................................ 1,232,500 194,700 1,427,200

COLORADO ................................................................................................................................. 310,000 168,400 478,400

CONNECTICUT ........................................................................................................................... 448,400 4,200 452,600

DELAWARE ................................................................................................................................. 133,200 22,700 155,900

DIST. OF COLUMBIA .................................................................................................................. 0 0 0

FLORIDA ...................................................................................................................................... 1,303,300 207,400 1,510,700

GEORGIA ..................................................................................................................................... 1,514,800 378,300 1,893,100

HAWAII ......................................................................................................................................... 57,400 52,000 109,400

IDAHO .......................................................................................................................................... 230,600 138,100 368,700

ILLINOIS ....................................................................................................................................... 784,300 532,900 1,317,200

INDIANA ....................................................................................................................................... 1,052,400 345,700 1,398,100

IOWA ............................................................................................................................................ 325,600 511,500 837,100

KANSAS ....................................................................................................................................... 266,000 385,400 651,400

KENTUCKY .................................................................................................................................. 1,051,300 313,100 1,364,400

LOUISIANA .................................................................................................................................. 770,900 296,900 1,067,800

MAINE .......................................................................................................................................... 569,800 74,000 643,800

MARYLAND .................................................................................................................................. 513,100 44,900 558,000

MASSACHUSETTS ...................................................................................................................... 651,600 10,600 662,200

MICHIGAN .................................................................................................................................... 1,879,100 401,600 2,280,700

MINNESOTA ................................................................................................................................ 746,200 504,900 1,251,100

MISSISSIPPI ................................................................................................................................ 758,500 286,500 1,045,000

MISSOURI .................................................................................................................................... 914,400 547,500 1,461,900

MONTANA .................................................................................................................................... 214,000 127,200 341,200

NEBRASKA .................................................................................................................................. 156,200 316,200 472,400

NEVADA ....................................................................................................................................... 67,600 27,100 94,700

NEW HAMPSHIRE ....................................................................................................................... 425,500 22,800 448,300

NEW JERSEY .............................................................................................................................. 396,700 19,200 415,900

NEW MEXICO .............................................................................................................................. 258,600 131,100 389,700

NEW YORK .................................................................................................................................. 1,894,800 257,200 2,152,000

NORTH CAROLINA ..................................................................................................................... 2,326,300 365,800 2,692,100

NORTH DAKOTA ......................................................................................................................... 101,800 182,800 284,600

OHIO ............................................................................................................................................ 1,462,500 522,900 1,985,400

OKLAHOMA ................................................................................................................................. 568,100 421,500 989,600

OREGON ...................................................................................................................................... 506,800 174,500 681,300

PENNSYLVANIA .......................................................................................................................... 2,166,900 610,900 2,777,800

RHODE ISLAND .......................................................................................................................... 104,200 0 104,200

SOUTH CAROLINA ..................................................................................................................... 954,000 210,900 1,164,900

SOUTH DAKOTA ......................................................................................................................... 111,500 210,800 322,300

TENNESSEE ................................................................................................................................ 1,246,600 309,400 1,556,000

TEXAS .......................................................................................................................................... 2,050,500 892,100 2,942,600

UTAH ............................................................................................................................................ 104,200 186,500 290,700

VERMONT .................................................................................................................................... 290,500 42,500 333,000

VIRGINIA ...................................................................................................................................... 1,220,700 155,600 1,376,300

WASHINGTON ............................................................................................................................. 774,700 161,800 936,500

WEST VIRGINIA .......................................................................................................................... 657,400 260,200 917,600

WISCONSIN ................................................................................................................................. 1,034,500 321,300 1,355,800

WYOMING .................................................................................................................................... 85,400 54,600 140,000

AMERICA SAMOA ....................................................................................................................... 33,600 11,200 44,800

GUAM ........................................................................................................................................... 24,300 8,100 32,400

N. MARIANAS .............................................................................................................................. 15,600 5,200 20,800

PUERTO RICO ............................................................................................................................ 487,300 162,400 649,700

TT OF PALAU .............................................................................................................................. 0 0 0

VIRGIN ISLANDS ......................................................................................................................... 19,500 6,500 26,000

TOTAL ................................................................................................................................... 37,500,000 12,500,000 50,000,000
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday, March 20, 1997 / Notices 13529

Attachment E—Allotment Methodology

for the Hardship Grants Program

The 1990 Census of Housing provides

information on the structural

characteristics of homes, including the

type of sewage disposal. Specifically,

Table 13 of the Census of Housing

provides the number of housing units in

rural areas that are served by public

sewers, septic tanks and cesspools, and

other means. The State allotment for the

households portion of the funding is

computed by taking the total number of

rural households served by septic tanks

and cesspools and other means

(excluding sewered households and

farms) within each State divided by the

national number of rural households

served by septic tanks and cesspools

and other means. This percentage is

multiplied by $37,500,000, which is 75

percent of $50,000,000 appropriated for

the program, to provide the dollar

amount for the households without

access portion of the allotment for each

State. Some administrative adjustments

were then made to the final States’’

allocation to accommodate the use of

CW SRF allotment percentages for the

Territories.

The 1990 Census of Population

provides per capita income (PCI) data. A

computer file was generated by the

Bureau of the Census to provide the

number of communities in each State

that have rural populations of 2,500 or

less and had a per capita income less

than 80 percent of the National per

capita income. The per capita allotment

percentage was computed by dividing

the number of people in each State in

communities less than 2,500 that meet

the 80 percent PCI criteria by the

national population in communities of

less than 2,500 that meet the 80 percent

PCI criteria. This percentage is

multiplied by $12,500,000, which is 25

percent of $50,000,000, to provide the

dollar amount for the income portion of

the allotment for each State. As with the

household formula, CW SRF

percentages were used for the

Territories and administrative

adjustments were made to the final

States’’ allocation.

The funding level from both parts of

the formula are added together to

provide the total funding allotment for

each State.

[FR Doc. 97–7070 Filed 3–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P