Thursday
March 20, 1997
Part X
Environmental
Protection Agency
Rural Communities Hardship Grants
Program Implementation Guidelines;
Notice
/.
13521
-------
13522
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday. March 20. 1997 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
IFRL-5711-S1
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^tephanle®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)1. Applicants
must contact their State's Single Point of
Contact (SPOC) for intergovernmental
reviewas 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 Stzite Revolving Fund
Coordinator no later than 60 days after
receipt of am application and other
required material for review. In
accordance with 40 C.F.R. 29.8(c) a 60
day review Js mandatory for projects
subject to the Act.
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(l)(A)i asadded
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 Suites, 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), v/hich 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:
fT)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 npt 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 referreST
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 oft the State's CW
SRF Intended Use Plan (ItJP). These
projects will also undergo an
environmental review, under State
Environmental Review Procedures
(SERF) 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
SERF. 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, stibpart 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 GFR part 31 and Federal cross-
cutting 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 7 Thursday. March 20, 1997 / Notices
"metropolitan area" as that term is
denned 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 na tionwide. 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 ILIPs 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.lhe 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 SRFIUP, 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
delta 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 the'n 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 countyjhat 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 (TUP)- 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 Commupities
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
vrastewater 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
•wastewator 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 cany out this paragraph
$50,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years
1996 through 2000.
FromH. 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 zero-
interest 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 IsJ
Office of Water/Office of Research and
Development Human Resources
Staff
David R. Alexander, Director Isl
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
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 fedelegation
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
Attachment C—Cross-Cutting Federal
Authorities Applicable as of June 1996
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 Environmental
Assistance Grants Account and Any >
Successor Accounts. "
(Note: This list is subject to change. For
further information about the applicability of
specific requirements, please contact the
appropriate Regional Office of EPA;)
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. ' ,
* The Omnibus Consul Idated Rescissions and
Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134).
Archeological and Historic Preservation
Act of 1974, PL 93-291
Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7506(c)
Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16 USC
3501,etseq;
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,etseq.
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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 54 / Thursday. March 20. 1997
Attachment D—Fiscal Year 1996
Allotment of Hardship Grant
Assistance
State
Households w/
o access allo-
cation
@$37.5M
(75% of $50
M)
Income based
allocation
@$12.5M
(25% of $50
M)
State alloca-
tion @$50M
$1,107,300 $348,500
ALABAMA -" 132,500 61,600
ALASKA - 316,200 128,300
ARIZONA ' 670,300 362,000
ARKANSAS .'. '• • ' 1,232,500 194,700
CALIFORNIA ' 310,000 168,400
COLORADO 443 400 4,200
CONNECTICUT • ! 33 20Q 22,700
DELAWARE : ' 0 0
DIST. OF COLUMBIA • •• • 1,303,300 207,400
FLORIDA • '"" l'514,800 378,300
GEORGIA • 57,400 52,000
HAWAII ' 230,600 138,100
IDAHO ~ • : 784,300 532,900
ILLINOIS - 1,052,400 345,700
INDIANA • "; " ', 325,600 511,500
IOWA — •' : '. ' 266,000 385,400
KANSAS .'. • • " ' \ 051 300 313,100
KENTUCKY „ ' - 770,900 296.900
LOUISIANA _ • ' 569 800 74,000
MAINE ••• : 513,100 44,900
MARYLAND ~ •••• " "'"". 651600 10,600
MASSACHUSETTS „ ' 1 879 100 401,600
MICHIGAN 746200 504,900
MINNESOTA - : 758 500 286,500
MISSISSIPPI ' * 914400 547,500
MISSOURI „ • ' 214 000 127,200
MONTANA 156,200 316,200
NEBRASKA ""' 67 600 27,100
NEVADA • ' v ' 425,500 . • 22,800
NEW HAMPSHIRE . 3gg 700 ., 9 200
NEW JERSEY • " 258'6po j 31 ;100
NEW MEXICO _ " 1 894 800 257,200
NEWYORK.. • « 2326,300 365,800
NORTH CAROLINA .... - ' 101 800- 182)800
NORTH DAKOTA • • " "" 1 462'50o 522,900
OHIO • —"• ' 568,100 421,500
OKLAHOMA .— • 50g 300 174,500
OREGON „.. ' 2166,900 610,900
PENNSYLVANIA „ : • 104'200 Q
RHODE ISLAND 954000 210,900
SOUTH CAROLINA ; • " 111 'sOO 210,800
SOUTH DAKOTA : • ' 1 246 600 309,400
TENNESSEE— : • ' 2050,500 892,100
TEXAS „.., 104 200 186,500
UTAH 290500 42,500
VERMONT • • ' 1 220 700 155,600
VIRGINIA ~ : 774 700 161,800
WASHINGTON 657'400 260,200
WEST VIRGINIA ' " 1 034500 321i3oo
WISCONSIN ' gs^ 54,600
WYOMING 33 600 11,200
AMERICA SAMOA ' ' 24^300 8,100
GUAM- •— ' "" 15600 5,200
N. MARIANAS ' 487300 162,400
PUERTO RICO " : 0 0
TT OF PALAU .'.-., •••••• • : ••"'""" '"' . 19500 6,500
VIRGIN ISLANDS ..~ v " '—
37,500,000 12,500,000
TOTAL -'•
$1,455,800
194,100
i 444,500
1.032,300
1.427,200
478,400
452,600
155,900 .
0
1,510,700
1,893,100
109,400
368,700
1,317,200
1.398,100
837,100
651,400
1,364,400
1,067,800
643,800
558,000
662,200
2,280,700
1,251,100
1,045,000
1,461,900
341,200
472,400
94,700
448,300
415,900
389,700
2,152.000
2,692,100
284,600
1,985,400
989,600
681,300
2,777,800
104,200
1,164,900
322,300
1,556,000
2,942,600
290,700
333,000
1,376,300
936,500
917,600
1,355,800
140,000
44,800
32,400
20,800
649,700
0
26,000
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 t;he 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.
IFR Doc. 97-7070 Filed 3-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
------- |