Opinion ID: 458689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: statutory framework: the federal water pollution control act grant provisions

Text: 7 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Amendments or FWPCA) (codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. Secs. 1251 et seq. ) were enacted by the 92d Congress as a comprehensive revision of the nation's clean water laws, which had proven inadequate in the fight against water pollution. 2 The FWPCA states as the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985. 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a)(1). The heart of the Amendments gives to the Administrator of the EPA the authority to promulgate limits, known as effluent standards, on the discharge of pollutants into the nation's navigable waters. 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a)(1). To assist states and municipalities in their task of eliminating the discharge of sewage, Congress authorized federal assistance for the design, planning, and building of sewage treatment plants, providing up to 75 percent of the cost of construction. 3 8 Distribution of the funds for sewage treatment plants proceeds by means of a system intended to encourage the states to take responsibility for managing the disposal of sewage. Funds are allocated to the states by a statutory formula estimated to represent the ratio of the costs of construction in each state to that in all the states combined. In 1981, Congress set the total for all the states and territories approximately at 1 and awarded Pennsylvania an allocation of 0.040377.33 U.S.C. Sec. 1285. Each state is responsible for making an inventory of its sewage treatment needs and for ranking its needs in order of priority; both the system by which the state determines priority and the priority list itself are subject to review by EPA. 33 U.S.C. Secs. 1288, 1296, 1313; 40 C.F.R. Sec. 35.915 (1981); id. Sec. 35.2015 (1982). 9 Under the Amendments, applicants for sewage treatment funds were required to submit proposals for three separate grants in sequence. The first grant, Step I, was for planning, the detailed study of local sewerage needs and consideration of various alternatives. The Step II grant was for design, the preparation of blueprints and construction specifications. Step III funds were for actual construction. See 40 C.F.R. Sec. 35.903 (1975). 4 The three-step process was further complicated by the fact that funds were often not distributed in lump sums but were disbursed in segments or phases. A step grant might be phased over a number of years. A local government or authority might therefore be planning one part of its plan under the Step I grant at the same time that it was designing another part under Step II. 10 EPA regulations provide that a state can take over much of EPA's task of evaluating grant applications if EPA determines that the state agency is capable of managing the program. Moreover, federal funding is available to assist state agencies in administrative matters. Delegation agreements signed by EPA and the state specify which of EPA's duties the state will undertake. To the extent that it is authorized under its delegation agreement, if a state, upon review of a grant application, finds that the applicant meets the relevant requirements of federal and state law, then it certifies the grant application to EPA, which then completes the review. See 40 C.F.R. Secs. 35.1000, 35.1005, 35.1030-2 (1981). The tasks that are delegated to the state agency may vary from state to state, depending on EPA's evaluation of the state's ability to manage the program. 11 The states can be delegated two tasks that are crucial to this dispute. They can undertake the determination that an applicant has, as required by law, the legal, institutional, managerial, and financial capability to insure adequate construction, operation, and maintenance of the treatment works. See id. Sec. 35.925-5 (1981). A state can also be delegated the evaluation of an applicant's proposed user charges, referring to the cost to sewer customers of the initial hook-up to the system and of sewer rental thereafter. See id. Sec. 35.935-13. 12 Some tasks, however, cannot be delegated to the states. EPA must itself review the applications to determine if they conform to the standards of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 4321 et seq. As part of that review, the Regional Administrator must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if one is necessary. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 35.1030 (1981). EPA also remains responsible for evaluating the applicants' compliance with federal civil rights laws. Id. 13 Having created a framework under which the states take over many of EPA's duties, Congress also created a statutory requirement that EPA complete the task of evaluating an application promptly. In order to expedite the consideration of grant applications and to eliminate duplication of effort by EPA and the States, 5 Congress has directed the Administrator to approve or disapprove certified grant applications within forty-five days of receipt from the state. See 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1299. The forty-five day requirement of Sec. 1299, however, operates only when a state has been delegated sufficient authority to administer the construction grant program. Neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history states specifically what constitutes sufficient authority. As interpretation of 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1299 is of critical importance in this case, we rescribe it in full as follows: 14 Whenever the Governor of a State which has been delegated sufficient authority to administer the construction grant program under this subchapter in that State certifies to the Administrator that a grant applicant meets applicable requirements of Federal and State law for assistance under this subchapter, the Administrator shall approve or disapprove such applications within 45 days of receipt of such application. If the Administrator does not approve or disapprove such application within 45 days of receipt, the application shall be deemed approved. If the Administrator disapproves such application the Administrator shall state in writing the reasons for such disapproval. Any grant approved or disapproved under this section shall be subject to amounts provided in appropriation Acts. 15 The foregoing summary provides the background for our description of how Northern York's Step III application proceeded through this complex of statutes and regulations, and of the point at which EPA decided that the application could go no further.