SUPPLEMENT
NO. 1
^^2 AUGUST 1976
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program
References
Regulations -Guidance -Procedures
CLEA
MCD-02.1
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D C 20460
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
NOTICE TO ALL HOLDERS OF THE USEPA
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM MANUAL OF REFERENCES (MCD-02)
In July 1976, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
instituted a revised system for issuing policy and instructions relating
to the Construction Grants Program for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Works. It is therefore necessary to make certain minor revisions to the
material currently in the Manual of References (MCD-02) in order to
assure compatibility with the new system.
Attached you will find replacement pages and policy directives
issued after the Manual of References was published. More particularly,
included are 1) a revised introduction for Section II of the Manual of
References which briefly summarized the new system 2) a revised Table of
Contents for Section I of the Manual of References which, you will note,
lists the revised designations for policy issuances; 3) replacement
pages for the front pages of existing issuances; and 4) policy directives
issued subsequent to the publication of the Manual of References.
For a more complete understanding of the revised issuance system,
please read PRMs 76-1 and 76-2 which are enclosed.
Please insert, under Section II of your Manual of References (MCD-02),
in the appropriate places, the new material enclosed and remove from
your Manual of References the pages which were replaced.
MCD 02.1
-------
MANUAL OF REFERENCES
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program*
II. PROGRAM DIRECTIVES
To assure national uniformity in program implementation and to provide
policy direction in integrating the various complex requirements of the
Federal water pollution control program, EPA headquarters periodically
issues policy and operational guidance documents to the Regional Offices
and others involved in the grants program. Prior to July, 1976, such
documents were issued as Program Guidance Memoranda (PG's) and dealt with
policy matters, operating guidance, as well as requests for specific in-
formation or reports.
Commencing in July, 1976, a new system of guidance issuances was
instituted. The system was designed to establish a clear differentiation
between policy and operational issuances. The new system was also developed,
in part, to complement the Construction Grants Handbook of Procedures
(February, 1976) by allowing certain guidance issuances to be readily
integrated into that Handbook.
Briefly, there are three types of guidance issuances under the new
system:
1. Program Requirements Memoranda (PRM's), which convey basic
program policy to which adherance is mandatory for those to whom
it is directed.
2. Transmittal Memoranda (TM's), which dictate specific changes to
the Grants Handbook. Two types will be issued:
a. Those which establish policy or give procedural guidance
by means of simply directing changes in the Construction
Grants Handbook of Procedures.
b. Those which direct changes in the Handbook growing out of
the issuance of PRM's. (NOTE: TM's of this nature, since
they essentially duplicate the information contained in
PRMs, will not be incorporated in this Manual.)
3. Program Operation Memoranda (POM's), which are used solely to
request information, inform of ceilings and/or quotas, etc., and
are generally "housekeeping" in nature and are not appropriate
for inclusion in this Manual.
Each of the three types of memorandums will be annually (fiscal year)
and sequentially numbered. The first two PRMs, issued in July, 1976, were
designated PRM 76-1 and PRM 76-2.
*Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500).
-------
PC's (issuances under the old system) which are still applicable to
the program have been retained in this Manual. The identifying designations
(i.e.; PG-3) have been altered to conform with the new system. All PG's
thus affected bear the new designation PRM 75 (serially numbered) and retain,
as well, the old PG designation for purposes of future reference. (See
the Table of Contents for this Section.)
All holders of this Manual of References will receive copies of per-
tinent PRM's and TM's.
-------
MANUAL OF REFERENCES
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program
II. PROGRAM DIRECTIVES
Table of Contents
Memoranda Former
Designation
PRM 75-1 Use of Revenue Sharing Funds for Waste PG-3
Treatment Projects
PRM 75-2 Experience Clauses for Equipment Suppliers PG-14
PRM 75-3 Waste Stabilization PG-16
PRM 75-4 Standardized Construction Contract PG-17A
PRM 75-5 Non-Restrictive Specifications PG-19A
PRM 75-6 Adequacy of Treatment Certification PG-20
PRM 75-7 Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation PG-24
PRM 75-8 Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 — PG-25
Public Law 92-234
PRM 75-9 Supplement to PG No. 25; Flood Disaster PG-25A
Protection Act of 1973 (PL 93-234)
PRM 75-10 User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery PG-28
System (ICR Portion Only. U/C Portion
Superseded by PG-37)
PRM 75-11 Approval of Reimbursement Projects Not PG-30
Previously Serviced by EPA
PRM 75-12 Obligation, Recovery and Reallotment of PG-31
Contract Authority Funds
PRM 75-13 Management of Construction Grants Funds PG-32
PRM 75-14 Grant Funds and Project Segmenting PG-33
PRM 75-15 Class Deviation — Use of Force Account PG-34
Work on Construction Grant Projects
PRM 75-16 Title II Regulations, Section 35.915(i) PG-35
Reserve for Step 1 and Step 2 Projects
PRM 75-17 Construction of Pretreatment or Treatment PG-36
Facilities for Municipal Utilities
-------
Former
Memoranda Designation
PRM 75-18 Eligibility of Wastewater Treatment PG-36A
Facilities at Municipally Owned Water
Treatment Works for Construction Grants
PRM 75-19 User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery PG-37
System
PRM 75-20 User Charge System PG-38
PRM 75-21 Overruns, Reserves and Priority Lists PG-41
PRM 75-22 Policy Re Retention Payments PG-43
PRM 75-23 Escalation Clauses in Construction Grant PG-44
Projects
PRM 75-24 Large City Problem in--State Priority List PG-46
PRM 75-25 Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs PG-49
for Land Treatment Processes Under Title II
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as Amended
PRM 75-26 Consideration of Secondary Environmental PG-50
Effects in the Construction Grants Process
PRM 75-27 Field Surveys to Identify Cultural Resources PG-52
PRM 75-28 Flood Insurance Requirements Effective 7/1/75 PG-54
PRM 75-29 EPA Procedures in Initiating Debarment Actions PG-56
Against Grantee Contractors
PRM 75-30 Cost Control PG-57
PRM 75-31 Facilitating EIS Preparation with Joint PG-58
EIS/Assessments (Piggybacking)
PRM 75-32 Compliance with Title VI in the Construction PG-59
Grants Program
PRM 75-33 Discount Rate PG-60
PRM 75-34 Grants for Treatment and Control of Combined PG-61
Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Discharges
PRM 75-35 Allowable Costs for Construction of Treatment PG-62
Works that Jointly Serve Municipalities and
Federal Facilities
-------
Memoranda
Former
Designation
PRM 75-36
PRM 75-37
PRM 75-38
PRM 75-39
PRM 75-40
PRM 76-1
PRM 76-2
Value Engineering in the EPA Construction PG-63
Grants Program
User Charge System: Plan and Schedule PG-65
Relationship Between 201 Facility Planning PG-66
and Water Quality Management (WQM) Planning
Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs for PG-67
the Ultimate Disposal of Residues from
Wastewater Treatment Processes
Priority List Supplement to FY 1977 PG-68
Construction Grants Guidance
Construction Grants Program Issuances
Cancellation of Certain Program Guidance
Memoranda (PGM)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
JUL 26 737$
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
Subject: Construction Grants Program Issuances prm No. 76-1
PURPOSE: The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth requirements
for policy issuances pertaining to the conduct of the construction
grants program and to explain the relationships among the various
publications.
DISCUSSION: Over the years, policy documents (PGMs, CGs) have been
issued in response to a particular problem arising in conjunction with
the conduct of the construction grant program. When grant regulations,
or existing PGMs and CGs pertaining to that problem, were lacking in
specificity or nonexistent, a new PGM was issued. Although the PGM
system served adequately as a means for providing basic communication
between Headquarter's program managers and Regional Offices, it was
marked by two major shortcomings.
1. The primary means for insuring that newly issued policy
conformed to the program as a whole was to relate it to the Title II
regulations or to previous issuances on the same subject. However,
it was difficult to assess the impact of the new policy on the total
program because a single document integrating total program policy
did not exist. This problem has been addressed with the issuance of
the Handbook of Procedures, which sets forth, in operational terms,
construction grant program policy as of February 1976.
2. PGMs were used to provide many kinds of directives pertaining
to the construction grants program. In general, their contents can be
categorized into three groups:
From: John T. Rhett, National Program
for Construction Grants (WH546)
Manager
To:
Regional Administrators (I thru X)
ATTN: Water Division Directors
-------
a. Policy - new or variation of existing.
b. Procedures for administering policy.
c. Reporting, or establishing ceiling/quotas, or directing
document processing {e.g., reimbursement).
Since PGMs contained such a varied mix of directions, their
relative importance to the recipient was often not clear.
The program issuance system described in this memorandum is
designed to address the above shortcomings.
IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE:
1. Memorandums:
Under the revised system there will be three types of
memorandums.
a. Construction Grants Program Requirements Memoranda (PRMs)
PRMs will be used to convey program policy, the specific
provisions of which will not be available in existing regulations or
in other EPA policy documents. The title "Program Requirements Memoranda"
will be reserved solely for the purpose of transmitting construction
grant program policy. PRMs will be signed by the National Program
Manager and adherence to their provisions will be binding on those to
whom it is directed.
b. Transmittal Memoranda (TMs)
TMs will be used to transmit changes to the Handbook of
Procedures. Each TM will contain instructions regarding its purpose
and implementation and for inserting accompanying Handbook replacement
pages.
Two types of TMs will be issued.
A TM will be issued when the policy or procedure to be
promulgated can be effectively transmitted by merely altering a section
or sections of the Handbook.
A TM will also be issued when the policy or procedure to be
disseminated cannot or should not {because of its substance or detail)
be readily or fully integrated into the Handbook and, therfore, must
be issued as a separate PRM. Following the issuance of the PRM, the
substance of that PRM will be integrated into the Handbook (by reference
and changes) and the revised pages will be distributed with a covering
TM.
2
-------
c. Construction Grants Program Operation Memoranda (POMs)
POMs will be used as directives which will set forth periodic
reporting requirements, ceilings or quotas, or will relate to other
program actions and, will lose their applicability within limited time
frames; or, will be primarily "housekeeping" in nature.
PRMs, TMs and POMs will be issued in standard formats (see
attached) and will have number identifications with annual and serial
parts - e.g., 77-3 (the third issuance in FY-1977).
2. Other Program Publications:
As with memoranda, the form, format and title of publications
prepared by the Municipal Construction Division to provide in-depth
assistance to the Region, States and grantees on the technical and
administrative aspects of the program, have varied in accordance with
their sponsors and writers.
Generally these publications were prepared primarily for one of
the following purposes:
a. to generally inform on a program matter.
b. to provide instructions on how to perform a function or
fulfill a program requirement.
c. to set forth detailed program requirements to which
conformance is expected.
So that intended readers will be better able to understand the purpose
and use of such publications, specific terms will be used in the titles
to distinguish one type from another.
Accordingly, for items "a" and "b" above, the term "Construction
Grant Program Information" will be used; for "c" "Construction Grant
Program Requirements".
A list of previous publications, categorized as 11 information"
or "requirements", is attached.
3. How The System Mill Work:
Central to the system will be the Handbook of Procedures. Using
the Handbook as a base document, it is now possible to relate a
proposed policy or procedural issuance to a total program standard
rather than to a particular functional standard. Since the need to
promulgate new policy or require new procedures would arise because
of the absence of such in the Handbook, future issuances will require
updating the Handbook.
3
-------
As indicated above, policy arid procedural requirements, which
can be effectively disseminated by altering the Handbook, will be
issued via the TMs. In addition, when a new PRM is issued, the
essence of the proposed policy will be integrated into the Handbook,
and citations, referring the reader to the PRM, will be inserted where
appropriate. Handbook pages containing the changes and citations
will be transmitted by TM shortly after the issuance of the PRM.
Regional Offices will be issued, in a timely manner, a small
supply of TMs for internal use and distribution to the States.
Quarterly, or more frequently when the need arises, Handbook
replacement pages will be reproduced and distributed through
the GSA Denver Office, to all identified holders of the
Handbook. Similarly, copies of PRMs and appropriate laws,
regulations and guidance documents will be reproduced and distributed,
through Denver, to holders of the Manual of References ("blue book").
Prior to issuing PRMs, TMs and POMs, existing PGMs, which are
found to be outdated, superseded or made useless with the publication
of the Handbook, will be cancelled. Those remaining will be reissued
as Program Requirements Memoranda so that their purpose will be clear
and the PRM series will be made whole.
The Handbook would not be complete if it only addressed
program policy originating within the Municipal Construction Division.
Therefore, it will be necessary to insure that out-of-Division
directives affecting the program are fully reviewed by the Division
before they are disseminated. To accomplish this, copies of all policy
issuances impacting the construction grants program shall be sent, in
draft form, to the National Program Manager. Upon receipt, the draft
will undergo internal reviews to determine a program position (concur,
reject, modify).
If that proposed directive relates solely to the construction grants
program, upon concurrence, it will be issued jointly by the National
Program Manager and the originating office. If it is primarily a policy
issuance, a PRM Number will be assigned and, concurrently, the Handbook
will be altered as previously described.
If the directive relates to other programs as well as construction
grants, the National Program Manager will communicate his position
to the originating office. Upon issuance by that office, a PRM may be
prepared and the Handbook altered to reflect the substance of the
issuance.
As in the past, policy documents originating in the Municipal
Construction Division will unlergo outside reviews before they are
issued. As appropriate, views will be obtained from the Office of
General Counsel, the Office of Resources Management, etc., from TAG
and public interest groups, and from the Regions.
4
-------
In carrying out the above, it is important to bear in mind that
the usefulness of the Handbook does not lie in its completeness --
but rather in its simplicity and conciseness. The Handbook is not
intended as a compendium of all policy related to the Construction
Grants program. Rather, its purpose is to convey basic operational
policy. Therefore, in screening proposed policy for inclusion in
the Handbook, it will be as important to ensure that its pages are not
overly encumbered as it will be to insure that important policy, in
operational terms, is not overlooked.
To summarize the essence of the new issuance system, the
attached chart is provided.
5
-------
Construction Grants Program Issuances
Purpose
Standing Policy, Adherence to
which is Mandatory in Conducting
the Construction Grants Program
Title
"Construction Grants Program
Requirements Memorandum"
"Construction Grants Program
Requirements Publication"
"Construction Grants Handbook
of Procedures"
"Transmittal Memorandum"
Directives Limited to the Operation "Construction Grants Program
of the Construction Grants Program Operating Memorandum"!
at Regional Office
Information and Guidance
"Construction Grants Program
Operating Memorandum"!
"Construction Grants Program
Information Publication"
^Dual purpose.
-------
J*"08**,
« i
3SZ)
? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C 20460
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
PRM #76-
SUBJECT:
FROM: National Program Manager for Construction Grants
TO: Regional Administrators
ATTN: Water Division Directors
PURPOSE: (Indicate, in succinct terms, the specific purpose of the
memorandum)
DISCUSSION: (Background of how problem arose, how handled, relevance of
existing policy, why new issuance needed, short and long
range objectives to be met by PRM)
POLICY: (Statement of new or revised policy)
IMPLEMENTATION: (As appropriate, indicate criteria for eligibility;
procedures or interpretations to be followed. State
action Regions (States) to take including how
and when. As applicable, indicate under what
circumstances exceptions to be made, etc.)
REFERENCES: (Laws, Regulations, other PRM's, other EPA policy documents)
-------
TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM:
TM No. 76-
SUBJECT:
FROM: National Program Manager for Construction Grants
TO: Regional Administrators
ATTN: Water Program Directors
PURPOSE:
DISCUSSION:
HANDBOOK REVISIONS:
FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
-------
united states environmental protection agency
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROGRAM OPERATIONS MEMORANDUM
POM #76-
SUBJECT:
FROM: National Program Manager for Construction Grants
TO: Regional Administrators
ATTN: Water Division Director
PURPOSE: (Indicate, in succinct terms, the specific purpose of
the memorandum)
DISCUSSION: (Background or general explanation of need for issuance
including short and long range objectives to be met)
IMPLEMENTATION: (Specify action to be taken including how and when)
REFERENCES: (As applicable)
-------
CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM PUBLICATIONS
"Construction Grants Program Requirements Publications"
"Handbook of Procedures - Construction Grants Program for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works", February 1976, (MCD-03)
"Alternative Waste Management Techniques for Best Practicable
Waste Treatment", EPA-430/9-75-013, October 1975 (MCD-13)
"Federal Guidelines, Industrial Cost Recovery Systems",
February 1976 (MCD-45)
"Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan" (NOTE: This is
contained in publication (MCD-02) Revised, May 1975, (MCD-46)
"Sewer System Evaluation", Guidance, March 1974
"Design, Operation and Maintenance of Waste Water Treatment
Facilities", Guidelines, September 1970
"Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System
and Component Reliability", Supplement to Design Guidelines, 1974
"Wastewater Treatment Ponds", Supplement to Design Guidelines,
March 1974
"Protection of Shellfish Waters", July 1974
"Construction Grants Program Information Publications"
"Manual of References (Regulations, Guidance, Procedures) -
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants
Program", August 1975, (MCD-02)
"How to Obtain Federal Grants to Build Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works", Approximate Pub. Date - June 1976, (MCD-04)
Technical Bulletin: "Evaluation of Land Application Systems",
EPA/9-75-001, March 1975 (MCD-07)
"Model Facility Plan for a Small Community Supplement to:
Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan", September 1975, (MCD-08)
-------
Technical Report: "Costs of Wastewater Treatment by Land
Application", EPA-430/9-75-003, June 1975, (MCD-10)
Technical Report: "A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective
Wastewater Treatment", EPA-430/9-75-002, July 1975, (MCD-11)
Technical Report: "Wastewater Sludge Utilization", EPA-430/9-75-015,
September 1975, (MCD-12)
Technical Report, "Review of Land Spreading of Liquid Municipal
Sewage Sludge", EPA-670/2-75-001 , (MCD-15)
Technical Report, "Land Application of Wastewater in Australia",
May 1976, EPA-430/9-75-017, (MCD-16)
Technical Report, "Cost Effective Comparison of Land Application
and Advanced Wastewater Treatment", EPA-430/9-75-016, (MCD-17)
"Procedural Handbook for Value Engineering", December 1975,
EPA-430/975-020, (MCD-18)
Technical Report, "Handbook for Sewer System Evaluation &
Rehabilitation, Technical Report", December 1975, EPA-430/9-75-021,
(MCD-19)
Technical Report, "Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Works", EPA-430/9-76-003, January 1976,
(MCD-20)
"Disinfection of Wastewater Task Force Report", July 1975,
(MCD-21)
Technical Report, "An Analysis of Construction Cost Experience
for Wastewater Plants", EPA-430/9-76-002, February 1976, (MCD-22)
"Construction Inspection Guide, Three Volumes", July 1976, (MCD-23)
"Model Plan of Study, Supplement To: Guidance for Preparing a
Facility Plan", EPA-430/9-76-004, March 1976, (MCD-24)
"Feasibility of Overland Flow for Treatment of Raw Domestic
Wastewater", EPA-660/2-74-087, December 1974, (MCD-25)
2
-------
"Audit Guide for Construction Grant Program", February 1976,
(MCD-26)
"The Federal Wastewater Treatment Facilities Construction Grant
Process from A(bilene) to Z(anesville)" (MCD-47)
"Building for Clean Water" (MCD-48)
Supplements to Guidelines: Design, Operation and Maintenance of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities - October 15, 1971
- Storage & Handling Facilities for Chemicals Utilized in
Wastewater Treatment
- Use of Mercury in Wastewater Treatment Plant Equipment
- Use of New & Advanced Wastewater Treatment Technology
"Pretreatment of Pollutants Introduced into Publicly Owned
Treatment Works", Guidelines, October 1973
3
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
JUL 2C 1-0
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
PRM #76-2
SUBJECT: Cancellation of Certain Program Guidance
Memoranda (PGM)
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations (WH-546) /
TO: Regional Administrators (I thru X)
ATTN: Water Division Directors
PURPOSE: The purpose of this memorandum is to formally cancel
certain PGMs, the policies of which have been, with the passage of
time, superseded, outdated, or included in the Construction Grants
Handbook of Procedures thus obviating their need.
The PGM's which are cancelled are listed in the last paragraph
of this memorandum. A listing of those remaining in effect, along with
their new designations, is attached.
DISCUSSION: As noted in PRM 76-1, this office has embarked on
a program designed to unify and consistently maintain Construction Grant
Program policy. The program, which is gradually being implemented,
will consolidate current policy, insure continuity in the issuance
of new policy and provide for the orderly removal of policy documents
which have been superseded or otherwise rendered inapplicable. The
first step in this program was the issuance of the Construction Grants
Program Reference Manual. The second, and most important step, was
the development and issuance of the Construction Grant Handbook of
Procedures -- the cornerstone upon which future program policy will
be built. The third was PRM 76-1 which established the overall system
for communicating construction grant program policy and information
to the Regions.
This memorandum is a fourth step.
As you will note, some of the cancelled PGM's are referenced in
the Handbook. This office will shortly issue the first Transmittal
M>
-------
Memorandum (TM), as provided for in the Handbook, which will reflect
these cancellations as well as the essence of PGMs issued subsequent
to the printing of the Handbook.
IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE: The following Program Guidance Memoranda
are hereby cancelled:
1. PG-1, Grants for the Construction of Wastewater Treatment
Works (5-16-73)
2. PG-2, Outline: Municipal Permit Activity of NPDES: Status
and Objectives
3. PG-4, Great Lakes Area Treatment Works Projects (6-22-73)
4. PG-5, Grants for the Construction of Wastewater Treatment
Works (5-31-73)
5. PG-6, Acceleration of Permit Program (6-25-73)
6. PG-7, EPA Strategy for an Operation and Maintenance
Program for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities (6-27-73)
7. PG-8, Utilization of Contract Grant Authority Under Title II
of PL 92-500 to Increase Grants Awarded Under Section 8 of the
Former Federal Water Pollution Control Act (7-17-73)
8. PG-9, Revised Policies and Procedures for Grants (7-20-73)
9. PG-10, Class Deviation from Regulation 40 CFR 35.925-8
10. PG-11 , Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Extended
Administrative Processing Period (6-12-73)
11. PG-12, Obligation Goals for Wastewater Treatment Works
Construction Grants (6-11-73)
12. PG-13, Supplemental Funding, Grant Percentage, Section 202A
(6-11-73)
13. PG-15, Flood Hazard Evaluation Guidelines (9-11-73)
14. PG-17, Standardized Construction Contract Documents (5-17-73)
(Superseded by PG-17A, 4-15-75)
15. PG-18, Reimbursement (10-30-73)
16. PG-19, Non-Restrictive Specifications (11-2-73) (Superseded
by PG-19A, 8-8-75)
17. PG-21, Delegation of Construction Grant Responsibilities to
the States - Regional Commitments (11-27-73)
2
-------
18. P6-22, Reimbursement (12-21-73)
19. PG-23, Construction Grants Obligations Goals and Outlay
Allowances (1-9-74)
20. PG-26, Sewer System Evaluation (3-15-74)
21. PG-27 and 27-A, Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology (3-26-74)
and (4-10-75). (Superseded by publication, MCD-13, Alternative Waste
Management Techniques for Best Practicable Waste Treatment - October, 1975)
22. PG-29, Construction Grants Obligation Goals and Outlay
Allowances (4-8-74)
23. PG's 39, 39A, 39B, 39C, and 39D; Construction Grants Program
Management System (7-31-74 through 1-5-76) (Memoranda requesting
specific submissions whose purpose has been served).
24. PG's 40, 40A, 40B, 40C, and 40D; Obligations and Payments for
Construction Grant Reimbursement Projects (9-24-74 through 2-28-75)
25. PG-42, Engineering Services for Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
Revision of Fee Structures (10-23-74) (Superseded by the 12-17-75
Procurement Regulations): 35.936, .973, .938, .939, .965, and
Appendices C & D).
26. PG-45, Use of Value Engineering in the EPA Construction
Grant Program (12-11-74) (Superseded by PG-63)
27. PG-47, Relationship Between 201 and 208 Planning (3-11-74)
(Superseded by PG-66)
28. PG-48, Construction Grants Obligation Quotas (4-23-75)
29. PG-51, Questionnaire for Review of Facility Plans (6-25-75) (The
Facility Plan review procedures in the Handbook obviates the need
for this PG)
30. PG-53, Interim Guidance - Consulting Engineering Agreements - Title
II Construction Grants Program (7-8-75) (Publication of the 12-17-75
Procurement Regulations (35.936, .937, .938, .965, and Appendices
C & D) replaces this PG)
31. PG-55, WWT Construction Grant Cost Projections (5-5-75) (The
Handbook contains material which obviates the need for this PG)
32. PG-64, Allowability/Eligibility of Miscellaneous Costs,
(2-5-76) (The information in this PG was included in the
Handbook).
3
-------
Below is a list of Program Guidance Memorandums which will remain in
effect. So that their status vis-a-vis the new Construction Grants Program
Issuance System may be better understood, they are also being assigned
Program Requirements Memorandum (PRM) designations. Each PGM which is
carried forward into the new system as a PRM will bear the prefix number 75.
Former New
Designation Designation
PG-3 Use of Revenue Sharing Funds for Waste PRM No. 75-1
Treatment Projects
PG-14 Experience Clauses for Equipment Suppliers PRM No. 75-2
PG-16 Waste Stabilization PRM No. 75-3
PG-17A Standardized Construction Contract PRM No. 75-4
PG-19A Non-Restrictive Specifications PRM No. 75-5
PG-20 Adequacy of Treatment Certification PRM No. 75-6
PG-24 Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation PRM No. 75-7
PG-25 Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973-- PRM No. 75-8
Public Law 93-234
PG-25A Supplement to PG No. 25; Flood Disaster PRM No. 75-9
Protection Act of 1973 (PL 93-234)
PG-28 User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery PRM No. 75-10
System (ICR portion only. U/C portion
superseded by PG-37)
PG-30 Approval of Reimbursement Projects Not PRM No. 75-11
Previously Serviced by EPA
PG-31 Obligation, Recovery and Reallotment of PRM No. 75-12
Contract Authority Funds
PG-32 Management of Construction Grants Funds PRM No. 75-13
PG-33 Grant Funds and Project Segmenting PRM No. 75-14
PG-34 Class Deviation—Use of Force Account PRM No. 75-15
Work on Construction Grant Projects
PG-35 Title II Regulations, Section 35.915(i) PRM No. 75-16
Reserve for Step 1 and Step 2 Projects
PG-36 Construction of Pretreatment or Treatment PRM No. 75-17
Facilities for Municipal Utilities
-------
Former New
Designation Designation
PG-36A Eligibility of Wastewater Treatment PRM No. 75-18
Facilities at Municipally Owned Water
Treatment Works for Construction Grants
PG-37 User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery PRM No. 75-19
System
PG-38 User Charge System PRM No. 75-20
PG-41 Overruns, Reserves and Priority Lists PRM No. 75-21
PG-43 Policy Re Retention Payments PRM No. 75-22
PG-44 Escalation Clauses in Construction PRM No. 75-23
Grant Projects
PG-46 Large City Problem in State Priority PRM No. 75-24
List
PG-49 Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs PRM No. 75-25
for Land Treatment Processes Under
Title II of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as Amended
PG-50 Consideration of Secondary Environmental PRM No. 75-26
Effects in the Construction Grants
Process
PG-52 Field Surveys to Identify Cultural Resources PRM No. 75-27
Affected by EPA Construction Grants Projects
PG-54 Flood Insurance Requirements Effective PRM No. 75-28
7/1/75
PG-56 EPA Procedures in Initiating Debarment PRM No. 75-29
Actions Against Grantee Contractors
PG-57 Cost Control PRM No. 75-30
PG-58 Facilitating EIS Preparation with Joint PRM No. 75-31
EIS/Assessments (Piggybacking)
PG-59 Compliance with Title VI in the Construe- PRM No. 75-32
tion Grants Program
PG-60 Discount Rate PRM No. 75-33
PG-61 Grants for Treatment and Control of- PRM No. 75-34
Combined Sewer Overflows and Stormwater
Discharges
-------
Former
Designation
New
Designation
PG-62 Allowable Costs for Construction of PRM No. 75-35
Treatment Works that Jointly Serve
Municipalities and Federal Facilities
PG-63 Value Engineering in the EPA Construction PRM No. 75-36
Grants Program
PG-65 User Charge System: Plan and Schedule PRM No. 75-37
PG-66 Relationship Between 201 Facility PRM No. 75-38
Planning and Water Quality Management
(WQM) Planning
PG-67 Eligibility of Land Acquisition Costs PRM No. 75-39
for the Ultimate Disposal of Residues
from Wastewater Treatment Processes
PG-68 Priority List Supplement to FY 1977 PRM No. 75-40
Construction Grants Guidance
-------
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-1
Program Guidance Memorandum
PG-3
^t0Sr^
/ £5 \
fjggj ^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
PRC**-
June 25, 1973
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM AND GENERAL COUNSEL
SUBJECT: Use of Revenue Sharing Funds
for Waste Treatment Projects
FROM: Assistant General Counsel Grants
TO: Director, Grants Administration Division
Director, Municipal Waste Water Systems Division
Questions have arisen concerning the extent to which revenue sharing
funds obtained by co'iimunities or states under th6 State and Local Fiscal
Assistance Act of 1972 (PL 92-512) may be utilized for projects funded by
EPA.
Generally, revenue sharing funds may not be used as matching funds
under EPA grants, as is made clear in regulations issued on April 10, 1973
by the Department of Treasury (31 CFR Part 51, published at 38 F.R. 9132):
§ 51.30 Matching funds.
"(a) In general. --Entitlement funds may not be used,
directly or indirectly, as a contribution in order to
obtain any Federal funds under any Federal program.
The indirect use of entitlement funds to match Federal
funds is defined to mean the allocation of entitlement
funds to a nonmatching expenditure and thereby releasing
or displacing local funds which are used for the purpose
of matching Federal funds. This prohibition on use of
entitlement funds as matching funds applies to Federal
programs where Federal funds are required to be matched
by non-Federal funds and to Federal programs which allow
matching from either Federal or non-Federal funds."
However, revenue sharing funds may be used to "supplement" Federal Grant
funds, as further set forth in §51.30(g) of the Treasury regulations:
-------
2
"(g) Use of entitlement funds to supplement Federal
grant funds. The prohibition on use of entitlement
funds contained in paragraph (a) of this section does
not prevent the use of entitlement funds to supple-
ment other Federal grant funds. For example, if
expenditures for a project exceed the amount available
from non-Federal funds plus matched Federal funds, the
recipient government may use entitlement funds to de-
fray the excess costs:
Provided, however, That the entitlement funds are not
used to match other Federal funds: And Provided further,
That in the case of a unit of local government, the use
of entitlement funds to supplement Federal grants is
restricted to the category of expenditures as set forth
in § 51.31."
Accordingly, since "environmental protection (including sewage disposal,
sanitation, and pollution abatement)" is an explicitly authorized expendi-
ture in §51.31 of the Treasury regulations, cost overruns or sewer line or
land acquisition costs not included within the scope of an EPA grant as
allowable costs may be funded through any revenue sharing funds available to
the EPA grantee.
In a memorandum to the Director, Grants Administration Division, dated
August 21, 1972 concerning the use of other federal grant funds to meet EPA
matching requirements. Mr. Settle of this office set forth the general rule
that
"Funds granted by other Federal agencies for
projects may not, absent explicit statutory
authorization, be used to meet EPA statutory
grant 'matching' reguirements for those same
projects."
His memorandum discusses a number of other Federal statutes which do permit
at least limited use of Federal funds for matching purposes. Federal revenue
sharing funds available under PL 92-512 fall within the "general rule" and
cannot be used to match EPA grant funds.
Enforcement of this prohibition upon the use of Federal revenue sharing
funds is a function of the Department of Treasury, which should be notified
of any apparant violation.
Joseph M. Zorc
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
subject- Experience Clauses for Equipment Suppliers
date July 11, 1973
from Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director BAai
Municipal Waste Water Systems Division
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-2
OlaiMil Program Guidance Memorandum
PG-14
TO.
All Regional Administrators
Attn: Air and Water Programs Divisions
We have recently received a letter from a firm that cites
restrictive experience clauses in several projects (copy attached).
The specific instances cited are being looked into by the Regions
concerned.
Restrictive experience clauses in bid specifications are not
allowable because they prevent the entrance of new firms and
innovations into he bidding process. They also are contrary to
the spirit, if not the letter, of the law, especially Section 204(a)(6)
of the FWPCA Amendments of 1972, and Section 35.935-1 of the Title II
regulations.
In view of these factors, it needs to be re-emphasized that
the policy on restrictive experience clauses still applies as
expressed in CG Memorandum No. 71-8, dated March 15, 1971, entitled
"Experience Clauses for Equipment Suppliers." That memorandum
discourages the general use of experience clauses, but where they
are used, the specifications must indicate that equipment that does
not meet the specified experience period can be considered if the
equipment supplier or manufacturer is willing to provide a bond or
cash deposit which will guarantee replacement in the event of failure.
Since State review of plans and specifications should include
attention to any experience clauses, we request that you inform each
State agency in your Region of the non-allowance of restrictive
experience clauses.
Attachment
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
2 £5 T*
use;
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ WASHINGTON DC 20460
-V
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-3
PROGRAM GUIDANCE NO. PG-16
DATE: 9/11/73
TO: All Regional Administrators
Attention: Director, Air & Water Programs Division
FROM: Harold P. Cahill, Jr
Director, Municipal Warcer SyS&r
SUBJECT: Waste Stabilization Ponds
Introduction:
The information on secondary treatment (40 CFR 133) has focused
attention on the limitations of some wastewater treatment processes
which, in the past, were defined as "secondary". In particular,
there have been reports that many waste stabilization ponds may not
meet the secondary treatment requirements. The purpose of this
memorandum is to establish policies relating to waste stabilization
ponds.
Pol icy:
Waste stabilization ponds must achieve effluent limitation
requirements. As a minimum, they must meet effluent limitations based
on the secondary treatment performance requirements contained in 40
CFR Part 133, or be upgraded to meet such requirements.
Applicability:
This memorandum is applicable to municipal wastewater stabilization
ponds where the design is based on photosynthetic oxygenation.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APR 1 5 1975
subject: Standardized Construction Contract Documents date: cM)
Program Guidance Memorandum No. PG-17A vl ls
Harold P. Cahlll, Jr., Director aJ ^
Municipal Construction Divisi,^ £R0GRflM REQUIRHENTS memorandum PRM 75-4
to: All Regional Administrators pr0?^"1 Guidance Memorandum
ATTN: Construction Grants Personnel Hb-I/A
FROM:
The attached revised standardized construction contract documents
have been prepared by the Interagency Committee Coordination of Sewer
and Water Programs. The documents are the product of a working group
composed of representatives of professional organizations, trade associations,
and the Federal agencies involved in the grant programs for sewer and
waste facilities.
Although the use of the documents by grantees is not mandatory, in
the interest of simplifying procedures, grantees should be urged to use
the standardized construction contract documents to the extent that they
are compatible with local and State laws. The importance of these forms
should also be conveyed to the State to gain their support for their
regular use.
While the forms serve well as basic contract documents, they do not
address all informational requirements prerequisite to EPA grant offers.
Applicants therefore, will have to be apprised of the need to furnish
additional supporting documents such as wage determinations, evidence
of competitive bidding, etc., as necessary.
EPA Form 1320.6 (R*v. 6.72)
-------
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
For
CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERALLY ASSISTED WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1. Advertisement for Bids
2. Information for Bidders
3. Bid
l\. Bid Bond
5. Agreement
10
11. General Conditions
3ayment Bond
Performance Bond
Notice of Award
Notice to Proceed
Change Order
PREFACE
These Contract Documents are acceptable for use by borrowers and grantees
in Federally assisted projects funded by the below listed Federal agencies.
Local or state legislation may prohibit the use of some sections. The
substitution or revision of individual sections, therefore, may be deemed
appropriate.
Jointly prepared and endorsed by:
Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce
Environmental Protection Agency
Farmers Home Administration, Department of Agriculture
Department of Housing and Urban Development
American Consulting Engineers Council
American Public Works Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
Associated General Contractors of America
National Society of Professional Engineers
National Utility Contractors Association
Copies of these Documents may be obtained from the following associations:
Associated General Contractors of America
1957 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Tele: 202/393-2040
National Society of Professional Engineers
2029 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
Tele: 202/331-7020
American Consulting Engineers Council
1155 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Tele: 202/296-1780
American Public Works Association
1313 East 60th Street
Chicago, Illinois
Tele: 312/947-2542
-------
I.NC. I \KI.K will make \ I si Is In I lie site .mil delci mine il
Ihc WORK is proceeding in .it ( 01 il.ini e with the ( 0\-
1 RAC I l)OCUMh\ IS
17 1 I lie (,0\ I KA(, I (JR u ill In1 held sli n 11\ hi I he i n-
nTiI ul Ihe CON I RAC I UOCl JMh \ IS in i egai <1 In i.ic
<111,1111\ of m,ilen,tls uiii kmanship and exei ulion i<[ the
WORK Ins|ict lions ma\ lie made rik cilures ur consttui lion salelx
17 4 I hu KNCINhHK shall prompllv make ile:< isinns
relative to interpretation ol ihc CONIRACI DOCIJ-
M h.\ I S
ZH I .AND AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY
JH I Prior lo issuance ol NOIICI, IO PROCI.I.I) ihc
UVVNKR sh.ill obtain ,i 11 I,mil and i ighls-ol-w ,i\ nri es-
sar\ for carr\ing mil .mil foi Ihc iom|ilcluiii ol llir
WORK lo be peilormed piiisuanl lo the CONIRACI
UOCl JMbN I S unless otherwise miiln.ilK agiecd
1H 1 I he (UVVNKR shall provide lo the (,(J\ I RA( I OR
inhumation which delineates anil dcsiiibcs llie lands
owned and rights-ol-wa\ a< i|un ed
2 ft The CON I RAC I OR shall pi in ide a I his own ex-
pense and without liahtliU lo the OWXI.R aiu adcli-
11 or.11 I. in (I and .in ess thereto thai I lie ( ON I R \C I OR
ma\ desiic|orlemporai\ t nnsti m 11mi taiililns m loi
stor age of materials
i') GUAHAN1Y
!') I 'I lie CON.1 I KA(, I OR shall guai .intee all niatei ia!s
and equipment linnished and WORK perloiined loi a
peiiod ol one (I) \e.ir Irom ihc dale nl SIIKSI \\ I I \l
COM I11 h I ION I he CON I R AC I O R u arra n I s a ml gi i.i i -
antces lor a period ot one (Ij \eai liom the d.ite ol
SUBS I AN I I Al COMI'I h I IO.\ ol the s\slem lli.it the
compleled svslem is 11 ee liom all delci Is due lo
faulty materials or workmanship and the CONTRAC-
TOR shall promptly make such corrections as may be
iieiessai\ In icason of such deteils iniludiiiu the ic-
p.nrs ol an\ damage to olliei pails nl the s\stcni i c-
sultmg I rum sui It delei Is 1 lie OU \ I R will gi\ <" nolu e
ol ohsei \ I'd delei Is w il h leaso liable pi oin pi ncss In the
e\ en I thai the CONMRACIOR shim III I ail to make si it li
repairs .ulpislinenls or other WORK that ina\ he made
netessai\ In sin h defei Is the OWNt.R max do so and
(harge the CONIRACIOR llie lost Iheieln ihc iiiicd
The Performance BOND shall remain in full force and
effect through the guarantee period
jo AnnirnA now
¦id I All i laims disputes and ulhei matters in question
arising out til or relating to the CON 1 RAC'l LJOCU-
MHNIS or the breach tlieieol exiepl loi claims which
have been waived b\ the making and aci eptani e ol
final pa\menl as piuvidetl In Section ZD shall lie ile-
i ideil In arbitration in accordance with llie Construc-
tion Indusliv Arlnti.ition Rules ol the American Aihi-
tiatmn Assoi lalion lhis agreement lo arbitiate sh.ill he
spec ilii alk cnlori cable under Ihc prevailing arlulra-
lion law llie award rendered In llie arhilralois shall
lie final and purulent ma\ be entered upon it in an\
court having |unsdii lion theieol
ill 1 Notu e ol the demand loi arbitiation shall lie
tiled in w rill ng w ilh tile ol hei pai I \ lo I he ( O\ I R AC I
DOGIJMJ.N I S anil with I he Amerii an Ai hi I ration Asso-
ciation and a copy shall be filed with the ENGINEER
Demand for arbitration shall in no event be made on
any claim dispute or other mailer in question which
would be baireci In the appluable stalule ol limit.i-
lions
,111 ,t I he CON I RAC. I OR will c au \ on the WORK ami
maintain the pi ogress sihedule (lining an\ ai lull .it ion
pioi codings unless olheiuise imilualh agieeil in
wiHing
II lAXh.S
.il I I lie < ON I RAC I OR will p.n all sales tonsiimer
use and olhei similar taxes iei|inred In the lau ol Ihc
place whei e the WORK is pel loi meet
Document No 11
General Condinons Page 9 ol 9
-------
^i0ST^
£ £5 *
? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V ^ WASHINGTON DC 20460
tPBO< November 8, 1973
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-6
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
NO. PG-20
TO: All Regional Administrator
Attn: Director, Air and Water Programs Division
FROM: Harold P. Cahill, Jr. 7^"/^
Director, Municipal Waste'Water by
SUBJECT: Adequacy of Treatment Certification
All EDA and HUD assisted projects must conform to the minimum
treatment requirements required for EPA construction grant projects.
On EDA and HUD projects that are presently served by primary treatment
only, adequacy of treatment certification may be issued provided that
the municipality obtains a NPDES Municipal permit, or an identification
of permit discharge conditions, in accordance with Section 402 of the
Act. The permit must contain a firm schedule for meeting the treatment
requirements of Section 301(b)(1)(B) and (C).
This supersedes Program Memoranda No. 72-7 and No. 72-9.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
August 8, 1975
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-5
Program Guidance Memorandum
PG-19A
Subject: Non-Restrictive Specifications
From: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations (WH-446)
To: All Regional Administrators
ATTN: Director, Air and Water Programs Division
Section 204(a)(6) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92500) states that "no
specification for bids in connection with such works shall
be written in such a manner as to contain proprietary,
exclusionary, or discriminatory requirements other than
those based upon performance, unless such requirements are
necessary to test or demonstrate a specific thing or to
provide for necessary interchangeability of parts and
equipment, or at least two brand names of comparable quality
or utility are listed and are followed by the words "or
equal." 40 CFR 35.938 augments the Act by defining EPA
policy as encouraging free and open competition.
This wording in the Act requiring two instead of one
name brand will tend to increase the A/E's use of descriptive
detail in the body of the specification and restrict his use
of brand names to those areas where cost effectiveness can
be shown to require it.
The primary purpose of using brand names in a specification
is to enable the contractor to narrow his search for the
equipment described in the body of the specification. Where
there has been no attempt by the specification writer to
describe an item in detail in the body of the specifications
he is obligated to include with the brand name, the model
number and other specifics to properly identify the desired
product, provided that two such brand names (and descriptions)
are included with the term "or equal" appended.
The term "or equal" has replaced the more conventional
"or approved equal" in the statute. This charge has been
made to eliminate the connotation previously accepted that
-------
"or approved equal" products had to be "approved" prior to
the bidding. The word "equal" has always presupposed a
value judgment which has meaning only when stated by a
qualified individual. Since the A/E has established by
careful analysis the relative equality of two products, it
is clear that he will be the most qualified to determine by
the same means that a third product is equal to them.
Therefore the determination of the acceptability of a third
product will only be made by the A/E. In order that all
bidders have the same opportunity, the A/E must include in
the body of the specifications the criteria he will use in
evaluating the proposed "equal" product.
Specifications which include two brand names of comparable
quality or utility, followed by the words "or equal" meet
the requirement of the statute. Exceptions to this require-
ment must be accompanied by a written "professional judgment
finding" by the consulting engineer, that a restrictive
specification is required to:
1. Test or demonstrate a specific process or
piece of equipment, or
2. Provide necessary interchangeability of parts
and equipment
3. Show total cost-effective performance of the
equipment for the life of the plant.
Cost effective performance of the equipment includes not
only initial expenditures but also operation and maintenance
costs and all other costs incurred in selecting a piece of
equipment. While not all inclusive, some of the items to be
considered in the cost-effective analysis include guarantee
life, start-up assistance, delivery time and redesign costs
when the considered item will not fit the original design.
In the situation where an A/E believes that only one
product will meet his requirements, he may utilize the
provisions of 3 above by selecting the nearest competitive
product and performing a cost effective analysis on the two.
He may include the exclusionary item in the project speci-
fications after having shown the cost effectiveness of the
desired product.
2
-------
Every Step II grant submittal of final plans and
specifications shall be accompanied by one copy of each
professional judgment finding and cost-effective analysis,
supporting a proprietory specification, performed by the A/E
during the preparation of the plans and specifications and a
certificate from the grantee stating that the accompanying
professional judgment findings and/or the cost effective
analyses have been reviewed and approved.
The practice of inserting a general provision in the
specifications to cover the lack of inclusion of the specific
"two name brands or equal" clause in the specifications
should be discontinued.
Based upon queries from the Regional Offices, there
appear to be two other cases which need clarification. The
resolution of these can best be handled by the use of hypo-
thetical situations.
Case I The specifications call for A or B or equal.
The bids come in showing either A or B but with A
costing more than B. The grantee wishes to install A,
saying it is superior.
From EPA's point of view the fact that A and B
were listed in the specifications as equal makes them equal
and the grantee must accept the low bid.
If the grantee goes ahead and installs A, EPA will
participate in none of the cost of purchasing and installing
A.
Case II The specifications call for A or B or equal.
The bids come in with neither A nor B but showing
the use of C. The grantee believes C is not equal to A or B
and wishes to use A which will cost more. C meets all other
requirements of the specifications. The only question is as
to whether it is equal to A and B.
EPA will accept a cost-effective analysis proving
A to be superior to C as disqualifying C and will share in
the total cost of installing A. Case II type cost-effective
analyses will be included in the package with the request
for approval to award the construction contract and will be
accompanied by a grantee certificate stating that the analyses
have been reviewed and approved.
3
-------
If no cost-effective analysis proving the superiority
of A is prepared and the grantee still wishes to install A
and pay the difference between A and C, EPA will not participate
in the cost. The grantee must bear the entire cost of
purchasing and installing A.
With regard to materials, such as pipe, it is not
mandatory that two or more different types of material be
specified; however, maximum competitive bidding is encouraged
commensurate with sound engineering practice and requirements.
Title II Regulations 35.935-26 states, "with regard to
materials, if a single material is specified, the grantee
must be prepared to substantiate the basis for the selection
of the materials." It is preferable to use performance
specifications for materials based upon accepted nationally-
known standards such as AWWA, USAS, ASTM, AASHO and Federal
Specifications and Standards.
Utilization of the above guidance should resolve most
problems, reducing proportionately the number of paragraph
35.939 appeals.
This Program Guidance Memorandum, PG-19A, Non-Restrictive
Specifications, supersedes PG-19, dated November 2, 1973 and
PM 73-1, dated February 21, 1973. It should be noted that
the draft memo, dated July 3, 1973, entitled: "Non-Restrictive
Specifications Section 204(a)(6) FWPCA Amendments of 1972"
which was circulated for comment has no official standing
whatsoever.
4
-------
^t0!x
I JggJ ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^ WASHINGTON. D C 20460
February 7, 1974
OFFICE OF AIR
AND WATER PROGRAM^
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-7
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
NO. PG-24
TO: All Regional Administrators
FROM: Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director
Municipal Construction Division ¦ /]
SUBJECT: Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation
Title II Regulations in final form were signed by the Administrator
on February 4, 1974, and will be effective immediately upon publication
in the Federal Register. The following basic changes were made to
Section 35.927 to provide more flexibility to the Regional Administrators
in program implementation and to provide for a period of transition.
A detailed infiltration/inflow analysis will not be required where it
can reasonably be shown that the treatment works is not subject to exessive
infiltration/inflow or will be component part of any system that is to be
rehabilitated. Provision has been made for certification by the State
agency that excessive infiltration/inflow does or does not exist.
The Regional Administrator will determine that excessive infiltration/
inflow does not exist on the basis of State certification, if he finds that
the State had adequately established the basis for its certification through
submission of only the minimum information necessary to enable a judgment to
be made. This could include a preliminary review by the applicant or State
of, for example, such parameters as per capita design flow, ratio of flow
to design flow, flow records or estimates, and/or hydrological, geographical,
and geological conditions.
Step 3 Grants
(1) When the State certification is not submitted as above, the
Regional Administrator should make his determination on the basis of an
infiltration/inflow analysis.
-------
2
(2) In the event it is determined that the treatment works
would be regarded in the absence of a program of correction as
subject to excessive or possible excessive infiltration/inflow, a
grant may be awarded provided that the treatment works for which
grant application is made will not be changed by any subsequent
rehabilitation program or will be a component part of any
rehabilitated system as specified in section 35.927-5 provided
that the grantee agrees to complete the sewer system evaluation
and any resulting rehabilitation on an implementation schedule
the State adopts subject to approval by the Regional Administrator
which shall be inserted as a special condition in the Grant Agreement.
(3) For projects wherein in the opinion of the Regional
Administrator excessive infiltration does not exist, the Step 3
Grant may be made based on State certification without requiring
the sewer evaluation.
Attached are samples of acceptable certification forms for
non-excessive, and excessive or possible excessive infiltration/inflow.
Step 2 Grants
For Step 2 projects where the preliminary engineering report
includes all elements of the facilities plan except the sewer system
evaluation, a grant may be awaroed if the Regional Administrator
determines on the basis of the State certification or the infiltration/
inflow analysis that excessive infiltration/inflow does not exist.
Step 2 Grants can also be made where the analysis indicates that
excessive infiltration/inflow exists but the treatment works capacity
would not be changed by any subsequent rehabilitation program, with
the same grant condition as outlined above for Step 3 Grants.
Step 1 Grants
For Step 1, projects, a complete sewer system evaluation consisting
of the infiltration/inflow analysis and, if required, the sewer system
evaluation survey in accordance with section 35.927 is an essential
element of c^e facilities plan except for projects certified by the
State and determined by the Regional Administrator as not subject to
excessive infiltration/inflow.
These changes are to be implemented immediately in review of grant
applicants for Step 1, 2, and 3 Grants. Applicants that have initiated
evaluations based on previous drafts of guidelines should be encouraged
-to complete the studies, but the scope of these evaluations may be ad-
justed in accordance with the revised section 35.927.
-------
3
The course of action to be followed in correction of excessive
infiltration/inflow may take into account, in addition to flow and
related data, other considerations such as cost-effectiveness, the
cost of substantial treatment works construction delay, the effects
of plant bypassing and overloading, public health emergencies, and
relevant social and environmental factors.
-------
i \
| UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
J? WASHINGTON DC 20460
¦<< PRC(if
March 1, 1974
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-8
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
NO. PG-25
SUBJECT: Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
(Public Law 93-234}
FROM: Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director Jl
Municipal Construction Division (AW-436)-^7 ' //)
Alexander J. Greene, Director
Grants Administration Division (PM-216) siguu-
TO: Regional Administrators
A new public law requiring flood insurance for any project
involving acquisition or construction which receives Federal
financial assistance was enacted on December 30, 1973. It is
called the "flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973." This Act
amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
Both Acts provide for low cost flood insurance for projects
1n flood prone areas through the means of a subsidy and require,
as a condition precedent, the enactment by local jurisdictions of
land use and control measures to guide the use of flood plains.
The new Act is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and takes effect on March 4, 1974, as to
the need for flood insurance before grant assistance may be awarded.
The 1973 Act affects the EPA grant programs as follows:
(1) No grant assistance may be approved after March 4, 1974,
for any project involving construction 1n a designated flood hazard
area in which the Federal flood insurance is available unless the
proJect (or those portions lying 1n such hazard area) is covered
by flood Insurance for Its entire useful life 1n an amount at
least equal to Its eligible development or project cost or to the
maximum limit of coverage made available, whichever 1s less. The
present maximum limit for non-res1dent1al structures 1s $200,000 on
the structure and $200,000 on contents. (The community, however, is
-------
^,os">#
¦'< woitL
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460 \J 4
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-9
Program Guidance Memorandum
PG-25A
Subject: Supplement to PG No. 25; flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973 (PL 93-234)
From:
To:
Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Dirertor, Municipa
Construction Division (WH-447)
Regional Administrators
ATTN: Air and Water Program Directors
On July 17, 1974, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
published guidelines for Federal agencies regarding the mandatory
purchase of flood insurance. The HUD guidelines provide that if the
total value of all insurable improvements or property is less than
$10,000, flood insurance need not be required.
The grant conditions contained in PG No. 25, Subject: Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (PL 93-234), pertaining to the
flood insurance purchase requirement have accordingly been revised.
The revised applicable condition below must be included in each
grant award made, until the publication of the final general grant
regulations in the Federal Register.
If any grantees with insurable improvements and property of less
than $10,000 have been made subject to the earlier conditions, you
may amend those grant agreements to substitute the applicable
condition below.
CONSTRUCTION GRANT CONDITION (Step 3)
The grantee agrees to acquire and maintain any flood
insurance made available to it under the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended. The insurance shall
be in an amount at least equal to the total eligible
project costs excluding cost of land and uninsurable
improvements, or to the maximum limit of coverage made
available under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968,
as amended, whichever is less, for the entire useful life
of the project.
-------
2
This condition shall not be applicable if, on the date of
execution of the grant agreement by both parties flood
insurance was not available pursuant to the Flood Insurance
Act of 1968, as amei-ed, for property in the project location.
This condition shall not be applicable if the project location
is outside the boundaries of a special flood hazard area
delineated on a Fl~od Hazard Boundary Map or Flood Insurance
Rate Map which h^i L ii issued by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration.
This condition shall not be applicable if the total value of
improvements insurable under the National Flood Insurance Act
is less than $10,000.
Although the above conditions will be routinely added to e\«.-ry
Step 3 award, the Department of Housing and ban Development has
interpreted the statute as providing insurance only for grant
projects involving a new or reconstructed structure, i.e., a surface
structure with four walls, a roof and a floor and the contents of a
structure, but not to include any sewer lines or sub-surface structures.
Two copies of either the Flood Hazard Boundary Map or the Flood
Insurance Rate Map, which are referred to in the grant conditions, will
be forwarded to you in the near future by the Federal Insurance Admin-
istration, HUD, Washington, D. C. As the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
become available, they will replace the Flood Hazard Boundary Maps and
will be sent to you automatically.
Utilization of this condition is not required for Step 1 or Step 2
grant awards.
-------
sv
USB.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
%, ^ WASHINGTON. D C 20460
Ai'k 5 1S74
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WATER PROGRAMS
FROM:
SUBJECT
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-10
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
NO. PG-28
All Regional Administrators
Attn: Director, Air and Water Programs Division
Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director
Municipal Construction Divisio;
axyux r wQ
User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery System
jcent legal opinions from the General Counsel's Office iryf^ease
EPA's atHqinistrative latitude in approving user charge and industrial
cost recovery systems. It represents a major change in policy regarding
the use of InLyalorem taxes for collecting operation and^taintenance
costs and the methods for allocating and collecting ir^tfstrial cost
recovery.
The legal opinions permit the following suMflemental criteria
for user charges and in&ijstrial cost re covery,*€ys terns.
User Charges
Operation and maintenance c^ts may be collected by means of
an ad valorem tax system proved that the system results in user
classes paying their propo£#fonJte share of such costs.
The use of ad valo^m taxes caiN^e permitted as a source of
funds for operation and maintenance coHs only 1n those cases
where such a methqjrhas been used historrfcally. Where there is
a history of the/use of ad valorem taxation\for collection of
operation and^ffaintenance costs, and it is prbfterly demonstrated
that itwouWT be administratively difficult, mona costly, and
disruptiy^to change that system, and that the goffVof proportionality
among wrer classes can be achieved by means of an aaN(alorem tax
systenf, such a system may be used. Conversely, where Tt is
readable and practicable to abandon an ad valorem tax fttstem
fa adopt a user charge system, it should be done.
-------
3
The costs of waste treatment services to be in
proporti(^^o~4*«5tewater characteristics.
8. The costs of wTsfe^re^tfqerfiTservices to be collected by
means of a uniform charge..-to'?each us?t"c>*-
9. _/\ny--SCircharges to be levied on user classesrtr^bjsij^about
^j^japortTonality between such classes.
Industrial Cost Recovery
1. Industrial cost recovery charges may be allocated on a
systemwide basis provided that the treatment works project for
which the grant is made is substantially interconnected with a
goal to be completely interconnected physically with all other
portions of the system. The degree to which a grantee's treatment
works constitute a "system" is open for determination by the
Regional Administrator. The grant for a treatment works
project should be considered allocable to all industries served
by the grantee only if the grantee's treatment works are
physically interconnected, or substantially interconnected
with a goal to have, when completed, an interconnected system.
2. Grantees may elect to compute industrial cost recovery
annually for all projects completed within the accounting period.
As a minimum, however, enabling legislation should be enacted by
the grantee setting up the industrial cost recovery system,
providing for collection of the charges, providing for segregation
of the funds collected, and otherwise complying with EPA regulations
pertaining thereto (40 CFR Part 35.928).
Immediate advantage should be taken of these criteria on projects
where you have encountered problems in the areas covered by this memorandum.
Earlier Headquarters guidance on user charges and industrial cost recovery
will be modified to reflect the criteria contained herein.
-------
2
/
t
\ The ad valorem tax system must result in the distribution
of\peration and maintenance costs for treatment works jfithin
the grantee's jurisdiction to each user class in proportion to
the contribution to the total wastewater loading of tfie treatment
works i\such user class. Factors such as strength;/volume
and delivery flow rate characteristics should be Qflnsidered
and included where appropriate as the basis for determining
if there is\roportionality between user classed However,
operation ana^maintenance costs which can be logically charged
to property maj>^be distributed in proportion^ property value.
An example of suth a cost is that required /or treatment of
infiltration and flow. Additionally, o^ier operation and
maintenance costs such as those for serving public property,
metering and billingWoperating tests, amd certain administrative
services may be distributed equally t<^each user.
A surcharge may be\evied on a^l/ser class from which ad
valorem tax revenue alone ys insuf/icient to create proportionality
between user classes. ^
L
V
hty Jgtw
Gross disproportionality l^tween individual users in a user
class would evidence an error/irTWclassification. However, a
grantee should not be requij^d tovlemonstrate proportionality
between individual users a user X1 ass.
In order to
a grantee should
demonstrate
be required
system
proporti^ality between user classes
to submit"^ta on:
each usctk class based on waste-
by
ad valorem taxes collec
1. The use of^the
water characteristics.
2. The ampdnt of
class. /
3. Ther local requirements for commitment of
valorem ta/es collected to pay for waste treatment
from each user
portion of ad
rvices.
4./The method of determining the use of the system by each
user orass for costs allocable to wastewater characterises.
Justification for the method of user classification
6. The costs of waste treatment' services to be allocated
iroportion to property value (if any).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
subject: Approval of Reimbursement Projects Not
Previously Serviced by EPA
DATE: 1 7 1974
FROM:
John T. Rhett **** ^
Deputy Assistant Administrato/for Water Operations (AW-446)
/ PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM
TO:
Regional Administrators
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-11
Program Guidance Memorandum
ATTN: Air and Water Program Directors PG-30
This 1s 1n response to a need for more specific guidelines required
to properly review and process applications for reimbursement under
Section 206 which were not previously serviced by EPA. The Office of
General Counsel has provided us with an opinion regarding the legal
issues involved and the mandatory requirements which applicants must
meet. It is attached for your information and should be reviewed before
undertaking action on the "woodwork" projects.
So that the review can be conducted using itemized specific require
ments, we are supplementing the legal opinion with a checklist of
applicable provisions. These provisions represent minimum compliance
requirements to be met by the previously unservlced projects prior to
approval for award.
Initially 1t is necessary that certain actions on each of the
projects be fulfilled by the State. They are as follows:
1. Provide a copy of the State Permit, or provide
certification that the project was designed and
built in accordance with regulations and
requirements of the State Agency.
2. Certify that the facility, upon completion, was
operated consistent with State requirements. (If
the facility is not currently being operated, an
explanation of the mitigating circumstances must
be provided.)
3. Provide a statement to the effect that the project
was constructed for benefit of public at large.
The statement must address the public benefits
derived by project construction; the relation of
the ultimate cost of constructing and maintaining
the works to the public interest; and the public
necessity of the treatment works.
EPA fen* 11204 (Ibv. 4.72)
-------
2
Upon receipt of the above, the remainder of the review will be
based on information submitted by the applicant. Since it is likely
that all of the needed items of data will not be on hand with the
applicant's original application, it will be necessary to request
them in writing. In that letter, it is important to remind the
applicant of the fact that eligibility for reimbursement is limited
solely to treatment works as defined in Section 8 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act prior to the October 18, 1972 Amendments thereto,
i.e., sewage treatment plants including additions, modifications,
alterations, etc., and appurtenant intercepting and outfall sewers,
force mains and pump stations. Collection sewers, etc., are not
eligible for reimbursement grant consideration.
In addition to the fact that the municipality's application must
have been on file in the regional office by January 31, 1974, with the
elements of data required in the published regulations, the following
items are also needed to determine its eligibility.
1. Certification that standard procurement procedures
were followed—with all contracts awarded to the
lowest responsive bidder(s); and that proof of
advertising, bid tabs, etc., will be available
upon audit. Certification that all costs applied
for have been paid and that evidence of such
payment will be available upon audit.
2. Certification that the contractors paid the same
general level of wages to their employees as was
paid to those similarly situated at the time.
3. A resolution from the applicant's governing body
authorizing a representative, by name and title,
to execute and file all documents regarding the
project.
4. Evidence that the project was approved by the
appropriate planning agency. (Applicable to
projects applying for the 10% planning bonus.)
5. A true copy of each executed contract document.
6. One copy each of the approved final construction
estimate and bills submitted to the municipality
for engineering services rendered. Requests for
grant assistance for legal costs, bond costs,
administrative costs, etc., should be discouraged.
-------
3
united states environmental protection agency
H&S- WASHINGTON' D C 20460
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-1
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
NO. PG-31
1vision
TO : All Regional Administrators
Attn: Director, Air and Water Progra
FROM : Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Oi
Municipal Constructi6n Divis
SUBJECT: Obligation, Recovery and Reallotment of Contract Authority Funds
Allocated FY-73 funds, which are unobligated as of close of business
on June 30, 1974, will be withdrawn on July 1 , 1974, and irrmediately
real lotted to those States which used their full allotment. Reallotment
will be on the basis of the ratio used in making the last allocation --
viz., the percentages used in formulating the FY-75 State allotments.
The above reallotment procedure applies equally to FY-73 funds which
were obligated prior to July 1, 1974, withdrawn, and remain unobligated
as of close of business June 30, 1974. As you know, present procedures
imposed on EPA for real lotting recovered funds (from FY-73 and prior year
allotments) necessitate approximately six to eight weeks "turn around"
time. Although the Office of Resources Management is currently attempting
to get relief from this delaying procedure, it is Important to recognize
that, when considering the deobllgation of FY-73 funds, FY-73 recovered
funds "caught" 1n the reallotment procedure, if not obligated by 6/30/74,
will be real lotted as noted in the paragraph above.
All FY-73 funds reallotted after June 30, 1974, will retain their
FY-73 identification and will be available for reobllgation in the same
manner as obligations made from FY-74 allotments. However, reallotted
funds should be obligated on the first grant offer or offers made following
reallotment. As a general rule, in obligating construction grant funds,
Regions are expected to use the oldest year's allotments first. However,
where regulations or policy dictate otherwise, or where conditions warrant
a departure from this rule, the exercise of prudent Regional judgment is
expected.
-------
FY-74 funds, after the close of business on 6-30-74, will be withdrawn
and reallotted. This annual withdrawal and reallotment is an accounting
procedure implemented for the purpose of improving fiscal controls. Upon
reallotment, the only change will be that of the allowance and account
numbers. The status and amount of each State's FY-74 account will remain
the same. Revised Regional/State FY-74 allowance and account numbers, to
be used beginning July 1, 1974, will be issued by the Office of Resources
Management in advance of that date so that the obligation of available
FY-74 funds can continue uninterrupted. Until 6-30-74, recovered FY-74
funds, unlike FY-73 and prior year allotments, can be inmediately reobligated.
However, beginning July 1, 1974, recovered FY-74 funds must be reallotted
before they can be reobligated.
FY-75 funds recovered prior to July 1, 1974, are not subject to
reallotment on 6-30-74 and, upon recovery, can be Immediately reobligated.
In connection with FY-75 allotments, all projects, initially funded
with FY-75 funds -- regardless of the date of award -- must comply with
BPWWT requirements. Projects initially funded after 6-30-74 with FY-74
or FY-73 funds are not subject to BPWWT requirements.
-------
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-13
Program Guidance Memorandum
PG-32
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
SUBJECT: Management of Construction Grants Funds
FROM: Alvin L. Aim
Assistant Administrator for Planning and Management
DATE:
APR 1 » W4
Roger Strelow
Acting Assistant'Administrator for Air and Water Programs
TO: Regional Administrators
The purpose of this memorandum is to announce a revision of Agency
policy to permit the discretionary use of Title II contract authority for
funding grant increases for cost overruns on Section 8 projects, except
those projects that are eligible for funding under Section 206 of
PL 92-500. This memorandum and the attached documents supersede the following:
- memorandum on Management of Construction Grant Funds from
Messrs. Aim and Sansom to Regional Administrators, dated
December 7, 1973,
- Office of Resources Management, Policy and Procedure Memorandum
#9, dated December 7, 1973, and
- where applicable, opinions of the Office of General Counsel
dated November 16, 1972, March 23, 1973, and July 17, 1973.
Revised Legal Opinion
Attachment I is the revised legal opinion which indicates that we
now find that Section 4(c) of PL 92-500 provides the discretionary authority
to use Title II contract authority to fund grant increases for cost over-
runs on Section 8 projects not eligible under Section 206. This opinion
reverses earlier opinions which found that Title II contract authority
could not be used for Section 8 projects and which determined Agency
policy as delineated in the December 7, 1973 memoranda cited above.
Revised Policy
Pursuant to this revised legal opinion, we have revised and are
hereby issuing Office of Resources Management Policy and Procedures
Memorandum #9A (Attachment II).
-------
- 2 -
Discussion of Revised Policy
Since our policy issuance of December 7. 1973, we have been advised
by the regions that, in many States, there currently are, or are likely
to be, insufficient unobligated 1972 and prior-yea.- funds (includ-'ig
potential recoveries of such funds) to cover all Section 8 project cost
overruns. This has resulted in our not being able to provide grant increases
to certain projects where bids substantially exceed the estimated costs. In
some cases, communities have felt forced to give up their Section 8 grants
and reapply under Title II. Also, the regions have reached, or will reach,
the point where eligible grant increases for change orders during construc-
tion cannot be approved within available 1972 and prior-year funds. The use
of Title II contract authority to supplement available 1972 and prior-year
funds, as provided in this policy revision, will provide a means to solve
these problems.
We wish to emphasize that the intent of this revised policy is that
Title II contract authority is available to supplement available 1972 and
prior-year funds for cost overruns. Available 1972 and prior-year funds
must be used first and before Title II contract authority can be used for
Section 8 cost overruns. Also, and equally important, we are continuing
our previous policy (see December 7, 1973 memoranda) of maximizing the
availability of 1972 and prior-year funds through the recovery of funds
where possible, particularly from projects that are not under construction
without good justification within two years after the grant award. In short,
our policy is to use Title II contract authority only when and where 1972 and
prior-year funds are not available or cannot be made available through recov-
eries. When Title II contract authority is used, it should be taken from
the five percent reserve for overruns required under 40 CFR-35.915(g).
Our policy prohibits the use of 1972 and prior-year funds for Title II
projects. It also prohibits, on grounds of equity, the use of either Title II
contract authority or 1972 and prior-year funds for grant increases for changes
1n project scope. Such changes in scope should be handled as separate projects-
applied ^for, funded and processed under Title II.
Funding of Section 206 Projects
The legal opinion and our policy prohibits the use of either Title II
contract authority or 1972 and prior-year funds for the reimbursement of
projects eligible under Section 206 of PL 92-500 since it is clear that
Congress intended that such reimbursements should be exclusively funded
with monies authorized under and appropriated for Section 206.
-------
im)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
May 10, 1974
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-14
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
NO. PG-33
TO All Regional Administrators
Attn: Director, A1r and Water Programs Division
SUBJECT: Grant Funds and Project Segment nn
FROM Harold P. Cahlll, Jr., Direct
Municipal Construction D1v1s1
The passage of P. L. 93-243 enables a construction grant to be
awarded to a segment of a project without regard to operabllity.
Regulations Implementing this legislation have been Included 1n
Title II Regulations, paragraphs 35.930-4 and 35.935-1. The
legislation and regulations provide an alternate course of action
1n those circumstances where the construction of an extremely
large project would result 1n program scheduling difficulty for
the State 1n the management of Its total grant program. The
provisions should enable a State's program to move ahead when
Its priority 11st 1s being blocked by certain project or projects.
Segmenting prudently administered should prove beneficial to
the management of State programs. However, in undertaking the
segmenting of a project 1t 1s Important that both the State and
municipality recognize that such a step must be taken within the
framework of the law and regulations of which it is a part.
It 1s essential to Insure that (a) all grants are awarded at
the 75% level. Under no circumstances can a grant be awarded
for less than 75% of the eligible cost of the project; (b) the
project must be comprised of a discrete and meaningful contract
or sub-contract; and (c) the awarding of a grant to a segmented
project 1n no way binds the Federal Government to funding the
remaining segment or segments comprising the total project.
Moreover, when an applicant undertakes a segment of a project
and receives a grant award for that segment, he is committed to
the completion of both an operable treatment works and the
complete sewage treatment system of which the segment is a part.
-------
2
Therefore, each construction grant (Step 3 grant) awarded for a
segmented project must contain a statement embodying the above and
that which is specifically provided for in paragraphs 35.930-4 and
35.935-1 of the Title II Regulations.
The following statement therefore shall be included as a part
of any Step 3 construction grant for a segmented project.
"The grant awarded is for 75% of a segment of a total project.
In accepting this award, the grantee agrees to complete the
construction of the operable treatment works (see 35.905-15)
and complete waste treatment system of which the project is
a part (see 35.930-4) and, the grantee further understands and
agrees that the Federal Government is not committed to participate
in the funding of the remaining part or parts of the operable
portion of the system or of the complete system (see 35.935-1 )."
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
subject: Class Deviation—Use of Force Account Work date-. ^ay 7, 1974
on Construction Grant Projects PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-15
Q0d , PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
FROM: Alexander J. Greene, Director s 8 PG-34
Grants Administration Division (PM-216)
to. Regional Administrators
The construction grant regulations (40 CFR 35.935-2(a) pub-
lished February 11, 1974) permit the use of force account only for
Step 1 or Step 2 infiltration/inflow work for which the Regional
Administrator has given prior written approval and segments of
Step 3 work, the cost of which is estimated to be less than
$25,000. Many grantees possess the capability to perform other
phases of work generally connected with construction grant projects.
A deviation from the provisions of 40 CFR 35.935-2(a) relating
to the use of force account on construction projects is approved.
The effect of this deviation is to allow the use of force account
for any Step 1, 2 or 3 work for which the Regional Administrator has
given prior written approval based on the grantee's demonstration
that (1) he possesses the necessary competence required to accomplish
such work and (2) the work can be accomplished more economically by
the use of the force account method.
This section will be modified accordingly when the Title II
regulations are amended.
/x/ Concur - No comment
/x7 Concur - No comment
/ / Concur with comment
(See attached)
f7 Concur with comment
(See attached)
/ / Non-concur
(See attached)
/ / Non-concur
(See attached)
eigne i
Charles Elkins
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Materials
signer
Alvin L. Aim
Assistant Administrator
for Planning and Management
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
subject: Approval of Class Deviation - Use of Force Account date- April 30, 1974
Work on Construction Grant Projects--BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
FROM-
Alexander J. Greene sl8Ilc-
Director, Grants Administration Division (PM-216)
TO.
Alvin L. Aim
Assistant Administrator for Planning and Management (PM-208)
James L. Agee
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materials (HM-556)
Section 35.935-2(a) of the construction grants regulations
published on February 11, 1974, restricts the use of force account
to Step 1 or Step 2 infiltration/inflow work for which the Regional
Administrator has given prior written approval and segments of
Step 3 work, the cost of which is estimated to be under $25,000.
Two Regional Administrators and the Director, Municipal Construction
Division, have requested deviation from this provision indicating
that many grantees do maintain well trained personnel on a normal
work staff basis who are capable of performing phases of work
generally connected with construction projects. Requiring these
grantees to award separate contracts for such work would prove
more costly and inconvenient to them and could actually cause some
project delays.
The requested class deviation would allow any Step 1, 2, or 3
work to be accomplished by force account by a grantee who has
demonstrated to the Regional Administrator's satisfaction that he
possesses the necessary competence required to accomplish such
work and that by utilizing the force account method, the work could
be accomplished more economically than by other methods.
We recommend your concurrence in this deviation.
Attachment
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
subject: Request for Deviation to Subsection 40 CFR, date- April 1, 1974
35.935-2(a) Title II Construction Grants
Regulations
FROM
TO.
Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director —¦> /} */) A
Municipal Construction Division (AW-447) ¦' /A
Alexander 0. Greene, Chief
Grants Administration Division (PM-216)
In accordance with 40 CFR, Section 30.1001, a deviation from
subsection 35.935-2(a) of the Construction Grants Regulations is
being requested. This subsection relates to the use of force account
work for Step 1 and certain parts of Step 2 projects. Most of Step 2
and all of Step 3, construction applicants are not permitted use of
force account procedures.
It is our opinion that this requirement reflects an undue and
unwarranted penalty on certain applicants. Many applicants maintain
well trained personnel on a normal work staff basis that would be
capable of carrying out phases of work generally connected with our
construction projects. It is therefore, more costly and inconvenient
for them to have to place this work under separate contracts. The
requirement could actually cause certain projects to be delayed.
We believe the Regional Administrator can make a most adequate
assessment of an applicant's competence to carry out force account
work in total or any part thereof. On this basis we recommend that
a class deviation be allowed to subsection 35.935-2(a) to allow any
Regional Administrator to permit force account work to be completed
by any grantee for any project, or segment of any step work, provided
the grantee demonstrates to the Regional Administrator's satisfaction
that such procedure will result in a savings to the project and thus
to the Federal share.
Two Regional attachments containing this request are enclosed
for your additional information.
Attachments (2)
EPA Form 1320.6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
^ A \
km UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460 ^ ^ ^74
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-16
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
PG-35
SUBJECT: Title II Regulations, Section 35.915(i)-
Reserve for Step 1 and Step 2 Projects,
FROM: Harold P. Cahill, Jr.
Director, MunicipaJ^£grf^^'4'tfi5nvD1 vision (M-447)
Mark Pisano
Director, Wa
TO: Regional Administrators
ATTN: Air and Water Programs
1V1sio
This memorandum addresses the purpose of the subject regulations
which permit a State to retain up to 10 percent of its yearly construc-
tion allotment as a reserve for grant assistance for Step 1 and Step 2
projects whose selection for funding is to be determined by the State
subsequent to approval of its project list.
This action is intended to provide, where needed, a contingency fund
for meeting unexpected situations that may develop subsequent to the time
a State's priority list has been established. For example, court enforce-
ment orders or urgent disaster situations may dictate that projects, not
within the priority lists funding cut off, be initiated more rapidly than
planned. Also, Step 1 projects may be completed earlier than anticipated
and an (up to) 10 percent reserve could be available to fund follow-on
Step 2 projects that might otherwise be delayed.
Determining which step or steps of a project will be funded by the
State with each fiscal years' allotment is an important element of the
State's grants management program. A smooth flow of projects in the
construction "pipeline" requires that considerable attention be given to
step funding during the development of a priority 11st. Clearly, however,
not all project needs can be forseen at the outset. Accordingly, in
addition to permitting the amending of priority lists to accommodate
commonly expected changes, the regulations enable a State to set aside a
portion of its allotment in anticipation of having to readily initiate
less predictable, urgently needed projects. This reserve must be In-
corporated in the State's priority list at the time approvals are sought.
-------
2
It should be noted that the State has the option to maintain a
reserve for Step 1 and Step 2 projects for the full allowable period
(up to eighteen months after the date of allotment) or to discontinue
it at any time.
This section of the regulations was added to give States the flex-
ibility required to more effectively manage their overall construction
grant program. Interpretations need to be made commensurate with this
purpose.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
PROGRAM REQU1
PROGRAM
PG-36
June 5, 1974
UIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-17
W GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Construction of Pretreatment or Treatment Facilities
for Municipal UtHlt
xjction Division
FROM: Harold P. Cahlll, J
Director, Municipal CT^truction Division
TO: Regional Administrators
ATTN: A1r and Water Program Directors
Questions have been raised regarding the continuation of our practice
of awarding grants for sludge handling, pretreatment, and/or overall
treatment facilities constructed at municipal water treatment plants-
separate from the basic municipal waste water treatment system. This
practice, approvable under PL 84-660 (as amended), 1s Inconsistent with
the provisions of PL 92-500.
Pretreatment (and treatment) facilities, constructed solely to meet
single, special purpose situations, viz., to control pollutants which cannot
be handled within the overall municipal system, are not the kind of projects
Intended for grant assistance under the construction grants program. Such
facilities are to be viewed as an Integral part of the utility's design and
function and their cost, as a capital cost of utility construction.
Accordingly, a separate waste water treatment facility, constructed at a
municipal utility site, for the sole purpose of treating or pretreatlng
pollutants emlnatlng from that utility, 1s not to be considered eligible for
grant assistance; see 40 CFR 35.925-15.
Therefore, effective July 1, 1974, grants for all such separate
facilities cannot be approved. Previously approved grants for projects of
this nature are not affected by this decision, nor are Step 3 grants awarded
through June 30, 1974.
-------
gy
%. WASHINGTON. D C 20460
^ pro**-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HINGTON. D C
July 9, 1974
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-19
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
NO. PG-37
TO: All Regional Administrators
Attn: Director, Air and Water Programs Division
FROM: Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director
Municipal Construction Division
SUBJECT: Cancelling PG-28
User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery System
Enclosed is a copy of the decision (File B-166506-7/2/74) of the
Comptroller General of the United States informing that the use of ad
valorem taxes for a user charge system for wastewater treatment works
does not satisfy statutory requirements of Public Law 92-500. In
accordance with the Comptroller General's decision, no project can be
approved if the grantee proposes to utilize ad valorem tax funds to
satisfy user charge requirements of the Act.
Effective July 4, 1974, those paragraphs pertaining to "user charges"
in Program Guidance Memorandum No. PG-28 "User Charges and Industrial
Cost Recovery System" are cancelled. The section on "industrial cost
recovery" is still applicable and will be included in a new program
memorandum to be issued in the near future.
Grants applications in your office, which propose using ad valorem
taxes for the user charge system, are to be held in abeyance. Advice
pertaining to steps to be taken on these projects as well as those on
which grant offers have already been made will be issued shortly.
Enclosure
-------
DECISION
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
Washington, D.C. 20548
FILE: B-166506 DATE: July 2, 1974
MATTER OF: Use of ad valorem tax to satisfy statutory requirement
for a user charge system for water treatment works.
DIGEST: Statutory requirement that grantees under Public
Law 92-500 will adopt system of charges assuring that
each recipient of waste treatment services shall pay
its proportionate share of treatment works' operation
and maintenance costs is not met by use of ad valorem
tax since potentially large number of users--i.e., tax
exempt properties-- will not pay for any services; ad
valorem tax does not achieve sufficient degree of
proportionality according to use and hence does not
reward conservation of water; and Congress intended
adoption of user charge and not tax to raise needed
revenues.
We have been requested to render a decision as to the propriety
of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authorizing grant
recipients to meet the user charge requirements of section 204(b)(1)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) as amended by
Public Law 92-500, 33 U.S.C. (supp. II) 1284(b)(1), through the use
of an ad valorem tax system. In connection with the matter, we
have considered the views of EPA and other concerned parties.
Subsection 204(b)(1) of the FWPCA provides that EPA's Adminis-
trator should not approve any grant for any treatment work after
March 1, 1973, "unless he shall first have determined that the
applicant (A) has adopted or will adopt a system of charges to
assure that each recipient of waste treatment services within the
applicant's jurisdiction, as determined by the Administrator, will
fay its proportionate share of the costs of operation and maintenance
including replacement) of any waste treatment services provided by
the applicant; ***." Subsection (2) provides that the Administrator
shall issue guidelines applicable to payment of waste treatment
costs by industrial and nonindustrial recipients of waste treatment
services which - -
"shall establish (A) classes of users of such services,
including categories of industrial users; (B) criteria
against which to determine the adequacy of charges imposed
-1-
-------
B-166506
industrial operations and others that do not discharge into a public
sewage system. Of major importance also is the fact that the ad
valorem tax does not in any way reward conservation of water and this
was clearly an important factor in the congressional adoption of the
user charge. In addition, as a practical matter, it is difficult to
see how EPA could establish guidelines imposing varying surcharges in
order to achieve any real degree of proportionality.
We recognize that alternatives to use of the ad valorem method
may fall short of achieving absolute proportionality. Nonetheless,
such other methods would appear to provide a degree of proportion-
ality with respect to each recipient of sewer services which seem-
ingly cannot be reached by ad valorem taxes. As imprecise a measure
as such alternatives might be, they would be more consonant with the
intent of Congress that every user should pay its fair share of
operation and maintenance costs according to its use of the sewage
treatment works and the underlying congressional feeling that the
operation and maintenance of these works should be financed on a
user, and not a tax, basis. Moreover, the alternative would not
penalize those who do not use the sewage system.
Accordingly, while the matter is quite complex and not entirely
free from doubt, it is our view that the section 204(b)(1) require-
ment that each recipient of sewer services will pay its proportion-
ate share of the treatment works' operation and maintenance expenses
may not be met through the implementation of an ad valorem tax
system. We understand from an article in the Environmental Reporter
that EPA's Deputy Administrator has advised several Members of
Congress that if this Office were to question the use of an ad
valorem user charge system, EPA would seek legislative authority
therefor. We agree that if EPA believes that an ad valorem system
would be appropriate in certain circumstances, it should seek to
obtain statutory authority therefor.
Elner B. Staats
Comptroller General
of the United States
-8-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
subject: User Charge Systems
DATE: July 16, 1974
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-20
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
PG-38
FROM:
TO:
James L. Agee siB&ea
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Materials
All Regional Administrators
By Program Guidance Memorandum No. 37 dated July 9, 1974, you were
advised of the recent Comptroller General of the United States opinion
informing that the use of the ad valorem tax base for the development
of the user charge system for publicly owned waste water treatment
works did not satisfy statutory requirements of P. L. 92-500 and
that advice would be issued with respect to steps to be taken on
those projects for which grant obligations had already been made
wherein the applicant intended to use the ad valorem tax base in
the development of a user charge system as well as those grant
applications pending or in process falling in the same category.
The following steps are to be taken on the above projects:
1. Grant applications in process in your office and those
subsequently received which propose using the ad valorem tax base
for the development of the user charge system shall be returned to
the applicant with the notation that they are in nonconformance with
the statutory requirements of P. L. 92-500 as established by the
decision (File B-166506-7/2/74) of the Comptroller General of the
United States.
2. Existing grants falling in the category in question shall be
amended by supplemental conditions stipulating that the ad valorem
tax base shall not be used in the development of the user charge
system applicable to the project. The grantee should be advised
that acceptance of the supplemental condition to the grant must be
executed within 30 days of receipt or action will be initiated to
withdraw the Federal assistance to the project in the form of the
existing grant.
It may be anticipated that in certain cases the grantee may
initiate legal action to preclude withdrawal or deobligation of
existing grants. It is requested that you keep this office
advised as to anticipated courses of action that may be proposed
by the communities affected as they become known.
Concurrent with the above and in addition thereto, the
Administrator will initiate steps to obtain legislative relief.
EPA Form 1320.6 (Rav. 6-72)
-------
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-21
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
OCT i r, 1974
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Overruns, Reserves and Priority Lists
As a result of rapidly escalating "construction" costs, projects in
some States are experiencing overruns, the totals of which are exceeding
the amounts set aside in the States' reserves. Questions have been raised
regarding the States options when this situation occurs.
Provision for a reserve (for overruns) was incorporated into the
regulations because it was generally agreed that projects under construction
or about to undergo construction, should not be delayed for funding reasons.
EPA would be in an indefensible position if, after diligently processing a
project through its many stages of review and approval, at the point of
construction initiation or during construction, it did not provide sufficient
funds to complete the project. Therefore, from a management viewpoint, once
a project is approved for a grant offer, its priority for funding is of the
highest order.
Accordingly, and again, every effort must be made prior to the award
of a grant offer to establish the most current estimated eligible project
cost. When overruns do occur, and sufficient funds are lacking in the reserve
to approve the required grant increases, the State may:
1. Use funds from the succeeding year's allotment or,
2. If the succeeding years allotment has not been allocated,
defer projects on the lowest end of the fundable portion
of the priority list to the succeeding year in sufficient
numbers to free up funds for the overruns and/or
3. Negotiate with the grantees experiencing excessive bid costs
the possible segmenting of their projects to permit the
initiation of more projects within the funding range of the
priority list.
Should the State pursue option "2" above, the deferred projects would
automatically be placed at the head of the succeeding year's priority list.
FROM: Haloid K Cahill, Jr., Director
Municipal Construction Division (WH-447
TO: Regional Administrators
ATTN: Air and Water Program Directors
Options "1" and "2" may be accomplished by means of a written agreement
between the Regional Administrator and the State.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
NOV 1 3
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM 75-22
Program Guidance Memorandum
PG- 43
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Policy Re Retention of Payments
From:
To:
Harold P. Cahill, Directtf
Municipal Construction DTvfti'on (WH-447)
Regional Administrators
It is EPA policy to optimize the amount and timing of payment
for work performed under Step 3 construction grants and to minimize
retention of amounts otherwise due; see 40 CFR §§30.602-1 and 35.945.
Due to the strained capital and cash-flow positions of contractors,
material suppliers, and equipment manufacturers in the wastewater
treatment construction industry contractors are borrowing funds at
high interest rates due to slow payment for work performed and
subsequently pass this interest cost along in their bids. EPA must
take all possible appropriate actions to maintain liquidity and
optimum cash flow in the industry insofar as EPA grant payments are
concerned, and more importantly, to protect the Government from
these "pass-through" costs the contractors are adding to their bids.
(1) To facilitate this policy, bid and contract documents for
Step 3 construction work must make provision for timely periodic pay-
ments, and for limiting retainage to the following:
(a) retention of up to 10% of the payment claimed
until construction is 50% complete;
(b) after construction is 50% complete, reduction of
the retainage to 5% of the payment claimed,
provided that the contractor is maki lg satisfactory
progress and there is no specific cause for greater
withholding;
-------
2
(c) when the project is substantially complete (operational
or beneficial occupancy), the retained amount shall be
further reduced below 5% to only that amount necessary
to assure completion;
(d) the grantee will accept a cash bond or irrevocable
letter of credit if offered in lieu of cash
retainage under (b), and will accept a cash bond or irrevocable
letter of credit if offered in lieu of cash retainage under (c).
(2) (a) The foregoing policy shall be implemented with respect
to all Step 3 projects for which plans and specifications
are approved after November 30, 1974. Appropriate
provision to assure compliance with this policy must be
included in the bid documents (see para. 8, below) for
such projects initially or by addendum prior to the bid
submission date, and as a special condition (see para. 7,
below) in the grant agreement or in a grant amendment.
(b) For all previous active projects, the foregoing policy
shall be implemented by EPA (through grant amendment -
see para. 7, below) and the grantee (through contract
amendment - see para. 8 below) upon written request to
the grantee by the contractor.
(3) This payment retention policy will not alter any right of
the grantee under its contract or the right of this agency pursuant to
regulation or the grant agreement to withhold larger amounts where
there is specific necessity and right to do so. The maximum amount of
EPA retention (10% of the grant amount - see 40 CFR §30.602-1) shall be
utilized only in exceptional cases; retention should always be limited
only to that amount necessary to assure compliance with a specific
provision of EPA regulations or the grant agreement - except where non-
payment of greater amounts is specifically provided for in EPA regulations,
for example, to obtain compliance with 40 CFR §§35.935-12(c), 35.935-13(a),
or 35.935-15.
(4) Payment of the Federal share should be made to grantees only
for amounts which the grantee is currently obligated to pay. For example,
where a grantee is entitled to retain 5% of the amount of a voucher,
payment should be made by EPA only for the Federal share of the vouchered
amount less the amount of the retainage. The retained amount should be
injluded on a later voucher from the grantee at the time that the grantee
becomes obligated to actually pay the retained amount.
(5) The grantee must make payment to its contractor promptly after
receipt of the Federal payment. In casv-s where the grantee unjustifiably
withholds payment to the contractor of Federal sums paid to the grantee,
the grantee must account for and credit to the Federal Government all
interest earned during the period of unjustifiable retention, in accordance
with 40 CFR §30.603.
-------
3
(6) The foregoing policy will not apply to the extent that it may
be prohibited by any specific requirement of State or local laws or
ordinances.
(7) The following clause shall be inserted as a special condition
in all Step 3 grants awarded after November 30, 1974, and by grant
amendment in all previously awarded Step 3 grants covered by the provisions
of either subparagraph (a) or (b) of paragraph (2) above:
"Prompt Payment. The grantee agrees to make payment to its
contractor promptly after receipt of Federal sums due under
this grant and to retain only such amounts as may be justified
by specific circumstances and provisions of this grant or the
cons true t ion cont rac t.
"Retained amounts shall be limited, except where greater
retention is necessary under specific circumstances specifically
provided for in the construction contract, to the following
schedule:
(a) retention of up to 10% of payments claimed until
construction is 50% complete;
(b) after construction is 50% complete, reduction of the
total retainage to 5% of payments claimed, provided
that the contractor is making satisfactory progress
and there is no specific cause for greater withholding;
(c) when the project is substantially complete (operational
or beneficial occupancy), the retained amount shall be
further reduced below 5% to only that amount necessary
to assure completion of the contract work.
(d) a cash bond or irrevocable letter of credit may be
accepted in lieu of all or part of the cash retainage
under (b) or (c), above.
"The grantee agrees to report to the Project Officer and promptly
credit to the Federal share due under this grant the full amount
of any interest earned, or, if no such interest is earned, an
imputed amount of interest at the prevailing rate, upon Federal
sums paid to the grantee, if payment to the contractor is unjusti-
fiably delayed by the grantee, its employees or representatives.
"The grantee agrees to include appropriate provision in each
Step 3 construction contract to implement this prompt payment
requirement."
-------
4
(8) In implementation of this policy affected grantees must include
in each Step 3 construction contract, or must amend each such affected
construction contract to include, Article 19 entitled "Payments to Contractor"
at pages 16 and 17 of the model contract documents sent to you with PG-17,
dated May 17, 1973, or a substantially equivalent provision.
(9) In implementation of this policy, EPA personnel must make
every effort to insure that grantees' payment requests are paid as
promptly as possible, generally well before the 20-day deadline established
in 40 CFR §35.945(b). The Project Officer should receive and review each
request for payment, but approval of the requested payment should be rou-
tinely approved without detailed review of the payment request unless the
Project Officer has specific cause to delay or limit payment. Payment will
not be delayed beyond the 20th day after receipt of the request for payment,
unless substantial error or fraud is detected. Any retention of amounts
requested shall be in conformence with the policy and procedures set forth
in applicable regulations, the grant agreement, or this memorandum. The
Project Officer is responsible, however, for periodically reviewing in
detail prior requests for payment and making appropriate adjustments on
the next payment request, pursuant to 40 CFR §35.945(c), but this review
should not be made in conjunction with a particular request for payment if
the effect of such review at that time will be to delay the payment.
(10) Grantees should be encouraged to make payment requests on a
monthly, rather than quarterly, basis, to the maximum practical extent.
Please advise this office of any suggestions for improvement or
difficulties encountered in the implementation of this memorandum. The
key aspects of this memorandum will be incorporated in the construction
grant regulations at a later date.
-------
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-23
Program Guidance Memorandum
PG-44
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
subject: Escalation Clauses in Construction Grant Projects
DATE: Dec. 9, 1974
algaea
from- John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations (WH-446)
TO:
Regional Administrators
On several occasions, the Agency has received requests to
authorize so-called escalation clauses in construction contracts
for wastewater treatment facilities to be awarded by grantees
under the provisions of PL 92-500.
Because of the open-ended funding situation created, the
probability of the creation of additionally inflated prices,
the added real costs of administering the indexing provisions
that would be required, and the absence of any real proof of total
program cost savings, Federal Agencies have resisted the inclusion
of escalation clauses in construction contracts.
Accordingly, grantees will continue to be advised that the
Environmental Protection Agency will not provide grant assistance to
construction projects for which the grantee proposes to utilize
escalation clauses.
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rov. 6-72)
-------
s~-° »'<*
ag.
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC 20460 ....
JftN
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-24
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
PG NO. 46
Large City Problem 1n State Priority Lists
Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director JA
Municipal Construction Division (r
Regional Administrators
Attn: Water Division Directors
Forwarded for Information 1s the General Counsel legal opinion, dated
December 13, 1974, which discusses the relationships between population and
other factors in the composition of a priority list, especially 1n regard
to large metropolitan areas.
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A
WASHINGTON. O.C 20460
ICE OF (
VGENERAL
DEC 1 3 1974
ENFORCEMEI
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Large City Problem in State Priority L1s*«
From: Alan G. K1rk II /
Assistant Administrator for L
Enforcement and General Counsel (EG-329)
To:
James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for
Water and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
A question has been raised as to what control EPA has to prevent
large cities, such as Omaha or Honolulu, from using all or almost all
available construction grant funds allocable to a State.
Section 204(a) of the FWPCA requires that the AAnlnistrator
determine, before awarding any grant for any project, that the project
has been "certified by the appropriate State water pollution control
agency as entitled to priority over such other works 1n the State 1n
accordance with any applicable State plan under section 303(e) of this
Act." (Section 303(e) relates to a State's obligation with regard to
continuing planning).
EPA has promulgated regulations concerning criteria for the
preparation by States of its priority lists. These criteria are found
at 40 C.F.R. $35,915. Subparagraph (c)(1) of that section states that
the State "shall consider the severity of pollution problems, the popula-
tion affected, the need for preservation of high quality waters, and
national priorities..." It 1s our view that the A
-------
3
Interim 208 Outputs
Headquarters Is Issuing a separate policy statement to
require Interim outputs during the 208 planning process. These Interim
208 outputs would Include definition of planning and service areas and
treatment levels to guide facilities planning.
After Interim outputs are developed and approved by the state and
EPA for a 208 planning area, the relationship between 201 and 208 planning
1n that area will be the same as that described under the section on
"coordination and funding" above except that:
1. New facilities planning will be consistent with the approved
Interim outputs of the 208 plan.
2. The scope and funding of new 201 planning should not extend to
developing a justification for the interim outputs. This justifi-
cation already will be available from the 208 planning process.
Approved 208 Plan
The following will be the policy after the areawide plan has been
completed and approved, and the agency or agencies identified to construct,
operate and maintain the municipal wastewater treatment facilities required
by the plan:
1. All facilities plans underway at the time of approval will be
completed by the agency which received the Step 1 grant. The planning
effort will continue as before approval unless the analysis in the
approved 208 plan clearly justifies a change in required treatment
levels or alternative approach on the basis of lower costs or major
changes in environmental Impacts.
2. The scope and funding of new facilities planning starts will be
sufficient to supplement the data and analysis in the 208 plan to the
extent necessary to provide a complete facilities plan as required by
Section 35.917 of the Title II regulations.
3. New grants for 201 plans will be made to the management agencies
designated in the approved 208 plan. New facilities planning will be
consistent with the approved 208 plan.
-------
yt08r%
3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
%WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PROGRAM REQUIREMENT MEMORANDUM PRM 75-26
mi, . 1ft,r Program Guidance Memorandum
JUN c 1975 PG_50
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Purpose
Consideration of Secondary Environmental Effects 1n
the Construction jfirafrTE^ Process
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
Russell E. Tra
Administrator (A-l
Regional Adminlstrato
Regions I - X
This policy statement provides guidance on consideration of secondary
environmental effects during review of plans to construct publicly-owned
treatment works with Federal grants under Title II of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended.
Background
Municipalities are required when planning for construction of
publicly-owned treatment works to evaluate the environmental impacts of
the construction and subsequent operation of the treatment works and
prepare an environmental assessment. The Agency reviews the environmental
assessment along with the rest of the facility plan and ultimately either
issues a negative declaration or, if the project is anticipated to have
significant adverse primary or secondary environmental effects or to be
highly controversial, prepares an environmental impact statement.
Primary effects are those directly related to construction and
operation of the project. Secondary effects of a project are (1)
indirect or induced changes in population and economic growth and
land use, and (2) other environmental effects resulting from these
changes in land use, population, and economic growth. Secondary effects
can be of great importance to the environment but normally are much more
difficult to predict in advance than primary effects.
This guidance is aimed at assuring that secondary effects of a
project are analyzed and taken into account during the grants
process in comparable manner throughout the ten regions.
Evaluation of Secondary Effects
The policy of the Agency is that environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements shall analyze secondary as well as pri-
mary environmental effects, and shall indicate whether such effects may
-------
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-27
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Program Guidance Memo H 52
(INTERIM POLICY)
subject Field Surveys to Identify Cultural Resources date. JUL. 2 $75
Affected by EPA Construction Grants Projects
from- John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations (WH-446)
Sheldon Meyers, Director cy ^
Office of Federal Activities (A-104) d—'
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I - X
PURPOSE
This memorandum sets forth Agency policy to guide decisions in the
EPA Title II construction grants program on field surveys for the purpose
of identifying historical, architectural, archaeological and cultural
resources (hereafter referred to as "cultural resources") in accordance
with the "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Proper-
ties" (36 C.F.R. Part 800.4(a)) issued by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation.
BACKGROUND
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and
Executive Order 11593 impose responsibilities on Federal agencies to
consider the effects of Federal, Federally assisted, and Federally
licensed undertakings on properties included or eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on such
undertakings. The Advisory Council has issued "Procedures for the
Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 C.F.R. Part BOO) to
guide agencies in meeting their responsibilities under the Act and the
Executive Order.
Several Regions have raised questions about EPA's specific responsi-
bilities for historic preservation within the Grants program. The cen-
tral issue is as follows: What are EPA's responsibilities for conducting
field surveys to identify cultural resources under the procedures of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (30 C.F.R. Part 800.4(a))?
POLICY
Responsibility to Conduct Field Surveys in Areas of Primary Effects Only
EPA has the responsibility to conduct field surveys to identify cul-
tural resources that may be affected by wastewater treatment grant projects
only in the primary impact areas of the grant projects. Primary impact areas
are those where ground will be disturbed for the project, such as the plant
site, pumping station sites, access roads, and rights of way for interceptors.
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
2
Areas in which the wastewater treatment facilities will have direct visual,
odor, or aerosol effects may also be primary impact areas if they are likely
to contain cultural properties of a type which are susceptible to such im-
pacts and if the proposed project has been designed so as to be exposed to
view or will emit odors or aerosols.
Use Standard of Probability
In areas where there are likely to be orimary effects on cultural
resources, EPA must identify all properties listed in the National
Register of Historic Places by consulting the latest issue of the
National Register, including monthly supplements. The current compi-
lation is found in the Federal Register of February 4, 1975 (Federal
Register, Vol. 40, No. 24, pp. 5248 - 5345); supplements are pub-
lished in the Federal Register, usually on the first Tuesday of each
month.
EPA must also identify all properties eligible for listing in the
National Register within the primary impact area. To do this, EPA
shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to
determine the extent and adequacy of existinq information.
If existing information is insufficient to identify affected
properties that may be eligible for the National Register, EPA shall
conduct or fund cultural resources surveys at a level adequate to do
so. EPA's responsibility to conduct or fund such surveys on primary
impact areas shall be limited by the following standard: The extent
of survey activities should be based on the degree of probability with
which cultural resources can be expected to be found.
Intensive surveys should be conducted only when a sufficient amount
of information exists to indicate that there is a reasonably high prob-
ability of discovering important cultural resources. In areas where
such information does not exist, some or all of the following usually will
suffice to determine whether an intensive survey is justified: a
documentary search of reference materials on the cultural resources of
the area, a walk-over reconnaissance survey for archaeological properties,
and a "windshield" or photographic survey of historic and architectural
properties.
When necessary, intensive surveys may include ground testing for
archaeological resources, or the preparation of a comprehensive map
locating historical and architectural resources. The information obtained
from any identification activities conducted shall provide the basis for
determinations of eligibility for listing in the National Register in
accordance with Part 800.4(a) of the Advisory Council procedures.
-------
3
Determine Eligibility of Survey Costs Case-by-Case
The decisions as to what are reasonable survey activities and costs
should be made on a case-by-case basis applying the standard of
probability described above. Reasonable costs for surveys and other
identification activities are to be considered grant eligible. Early
assessment of survey needs should be undertaken to avoid project delays.
Many survey decisions will require some degree of historical or archaeo-
logical expertise in order to weigh the probabilities of discovering
particular properties. Regional personnel may find it advantageous to
retain the services of a historian or an archaeologist if they anticipate
numerous problems in this area.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
c,'; July 1, 1975
Flood Insurance Requirements Effective
Alvln L. Aim
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-28
Program Guidance Memorandum
•kom: Assistant Administrator for Planning and Management (PM-208)
Regional Administrators
10:
JULO 1975
Enclosed you will find an advance copy of a revised Information
sheet relating to flood insurance purchase requirements for our granc
programs. The legal requirements are also found in the final general
grant regulations published on May 8 (40 CFR 30.405-10).
Effective July 1, 1975 (or one year after a community's notifi-
cation of identification as a'flood-prone conmunity, whichever is
later), EPA is prohibited by law from making any grant for acquisition
or construction purposes in a flood hazard area unless the community
in which the project is located is participating in the flood
insurance program and flood insurance is purchased by the grantee.
The 11st of communities to which this prohibition applies on
July 1 , 1975, has" just been published by HUD in the Federal Register
(40 FR 26740-26756). I am enclosing a copy of this list for your
information and use. The list will be regularly updated by notice in
the Federal Register as other communities pass the one year mark.
EPA Regional Offices" have been receiving copies of HUD's monthly
listings of areas eligible for the purchase of flood insurance and
areas which have had special flood hazard areas identified but which
are not participating in the program. Regional offices have also
been receiving copies of the maps issued by HUD delineating the flood
hazard areas. Procedures should be immediately instituted to ensure
that no grants are made in violation of the statutory requirement.
If not already done, an individual should be designated in your
office to be familiar with the flood insurance requirements and to
handle questions which may arise from time to time from your own
staff, as well as from grant applicants and grantees. Questions
which you may wish to direct to headquarters on this subject should
be addressed to the Director, Grants Administration Division (PM-216),
202-755-0860.
Enclosures
EPA Form 1320-6 (Re. 6-72)
-------
The final EPA general grant regulations published on the
Federal Register on May 8, 1974, include the requirements for the
pcrrchase of flood Insurance as a condition of EPA assistance (40 CFR
0.405-10.)
EPA Grantee Requirements
1. Wastewater treatment construction grants.
The grantee or the construction contractor, as appropriate, must
acquire flood insurance made available to it under the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, beginning with the period of construction
and maintain such insurance for the entire useful life of the project if
the total value of insurable improvements is $10,000 or more. The
amount of insurance required is the total project cost, excluding
facilities which are uninsurable under the National Flood Insurance
Program and excluding the cost of the land, or the maximum limit
of coverage made available to the grantee under the National Flood
Insurance Act, whichever is less. The required Insurance premium
for the period of construction is an allowable project cost.
2. Other grant programs.
The grantee must acquire and maintain any flood insurance made
available to it under the National Flood Insurance Act of l¥68, as
amended, if the approved project includes (a) any incidental construction-type
activity, or (b) any acquisition of real or nonexpendable personal property,
ind the total cost of such activities and acquisitions is $10,000 or more,
he amount of insurance required, is the total cost of any insurable,
nonexpend.jb 1 u personal or real property acquired, improved, or
constructed, excluding the cost of land, as a direct cost under the grant,
or the maximum limit of coverage made available to the grantee under
the National Flood Insurance Act, as amended, whichever is less, for
the entire useful life of the property. The required insurance premium
for the period of project support Is an allowable project cost.
If El'A provides financial assistance for nonexpendable personal property
to a grantee that the Agency has previously assisted with respect to real
estate at the same facility in the same location, EPA must require flood
insurance on the previously-assisted building as well as on the personal
property. The amount of flood insurance required on the building should
be based upon its current value, however, and not on the amount of assistance
previously provided.
Sources of insurance policies, maps, and program information
1. Insurance policies under the National Flood Insurance Program
can be obialncd from any licensed property insurance agent or broker
serving tin* eligible community, or from the National Flood Insurers
Association (NFTA) servicing company for the State. A current listing
of servicing companies Is enclosed.
draft
-------
2. Flood Hazard Boundary Maps are the first map3 prepared in the
iderrt-ification process. These indicate the locations of identified
special flood hazard areas and are always maintained on file within each
eligible (participating) community in a repository designated by the mayor
or chief executive officer, usually the building inspector's office or
the city clerk's office. The address of such repository is published
at 24 CFR 1914 and is amended regularly in the Federal Register.
The Flood Insurance Rate Maps are issued later following a detailed study
of the flood hazard area. These maps delineate degrees of flood hazard
and Include more precise area identification.
3. Maps, literature, and policy application forms and manuals
are available for distribution from any NFIA servicing company. The servicing
companies are also equipped to answer.questions on eligibility of communities,
scope of coverage, and maximum amounts of insurance available with respect
to particular types of buildings.
4. Questions that cannot be answered by individual agents or brokers
or by the appropriate servicing company may be referred to the National
Flood Insurers Association, 1755 Jefferson Davis Highway, Alexandria, Va.,
22202, telephone 703-920-2070; to the flood insurance representative at the
nearest HUD regional office (list enclosed); or to the Federal Insurance
Administration, HUD, Washington, D.C. 20410, 202-755-5581, or toll free
800-424-8872 (8873).
5. Communities may obtain assistance from the appropriate State
Coordinating Agency in adopting the required flood plain management
regulations and qualifying for the program. A list of the State'Coordinating
Agencies is also attached.
6. Copies of statutes, program regulations, and community eligibility
application forms may be obtained from HUD regional offices or directly
from the Federal Insurance Administration in Washington, p. C.
DRAFT
July 1, 1975
(supersedes information sheet dated
August 8, 1974)
Additional copies of this information sheet may be obtained from the
Grants Information Branch.
-------
Department of Housing And Urban Development
REGIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE SPECIALISTS
REGION I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room UO$A
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
Telephone: (617) 223-2616 or 2709
(For Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)
REGION II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Telephone: (212) 261+-U756 or 8021
(For New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico)
REGION III
Curtis Building
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Telephone: (215) 597-9591
(For Delaware, District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania* Virginia,
West Virginia)
REGION IV
1371 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone: (UOU) 526-2391
(For Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee)
REGION V
300 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: (312) 353-0757
(For Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin)
REGION VI
New Federal Building
1100 Commerce Street
Dallas, Texas 75202
Telephone: (21U) 7U9-7U12
(For Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)
REGION VII
Federal Office Building
911 Walnut Street
Kansas City, Missouri 61*106
Telephone: (816) 37U-2161
(For Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska)
REGION VIII
Federal Building
1961 Stout Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 837-231*7
(For Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming)
REGION IX
U50 Golden-Gate Avenue
P. 0. Box 36003
San Francisco, California 9U102
Telephone: pending
(For Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada)
REGION X
Room 3068 Arcade Plaza Building
1321 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: (206) 1*1*2-1026
(For Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington)
-------
ALABAMA
Alabama Development Office
ffi.ce "bf State Planning
ate Office Building
1 Dexter Avenue
.•lontgomery, Alabama 3610U
ALASKA
Department of Community and
Regional Affairs
Division of Community Planning
Pouch B
Juneau, Alaska 99811
ARIZONA
Arizona State Land Department
162U W. Adams,. Room U00
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
ARKANSAS
Division of Soil and Water
ReBourceB
State Department of Commerce
1920 Vest Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
CALIFORNIA
¦Department of Water Resources
st Office Box 388
jcramento, California 95802
COLORADO
Colorado Water Conservation Board
Room 102
18U5 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
CONNECTICUT
Department of Environmental
Protection
Division of Water and Related
Resources
Room 207, State Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
DELAWARE
Division of Soil and Water
Conservation
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
Tatnall Building, Capitol
Dover, Delaware 19901
FLORIDA
Department of Community Affairs
2571 Executive Center Circle East
Howard. Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
GEORGIA
Department of Natural Resources
Office of Planning and Research
270 Washington Street, S. W. Rm. 707
Atlanta, Georgia 3033U
HAWAII
Division of Water and Land
Development
Department of Land and Natural
Resources
P. 0. Box 373
Honolulu, Hawaii 96809
IDAHO
Department of Water Administration
State House - Annex 2
Boise, Idaho 83707
ILLINOIS
Governor's Task Force on Flood
Control
300 North State St.
P. 0. 3ox hlS, Rm. 1010
Chicago, Illinois 60610
INDIANA
Division of Water
Department of Natural Resources
608 State Office Building
Indianapolis, Indiana I+620I4
IOWA
Iowa Natural Resources Couhoil
James W. Grimes Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
KANSAS
Division of Water Resources
State Department of Agriculture
State Office Building
Topeka, Kansas 66612
KENTUCKY
Division of Water
Kentucky Department of Natural
Resources
Capitol Plaza Office Tower
Frankfort, Kentucky U0601
-------
- 2 -
looisiava
Std*ce ]V»par1.mont of Public Works
0. Box Uil55
apitol Station
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 7080U
MAINE
Office of Civil Qnergency
Preparedness
State House
Augusta, Maine 01+330
MARYLAND
Department of Natural Resources
Water Resources Division
State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 211*01
MASSACHUSETTS
Division of Water Resources
Water Resources Commission
State Office Building
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
MICHIGAN
vater Resources Commission
reau of Water Management
cevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, Michigan 1*8926
MINNESOTA
Division of Waters, Soils and
Minerals
Department of Natural Resources
Centennial Office Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
MISSISSIPPI
Mississippi Research and Develop-
ment Center
P. 0. Drawer 2U70
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
MISSOURI
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Program and Policy
Development
State of Missouri
308 East High Street
Jefferson, Missouri 65101
MONTANA
Montana Dept. of Natural Resources
and Conservation
Water Resources Division
32 South Ewing Street
Helena, Montana 59601
NEBRASKA
Nebraska Natural Resources
Commission
Terminal Building, 7th Floor
Lincoln, Nebraska 66508
NEVADA
Division of Water Resources
Department of Conservation
and Natural Rescruraea
Nye Building
Carson City, Nevada 09701
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Office of Comprehensive Planning
Division of Community Planning
State House Annex
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
NEW JERSEY
Bureau of Water Control
Department of Environmental
Protection
P. 0. Box 1390
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
NEW MEXICO
State Engineer's Offioe
Bataan Memorial Building
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
NEW YORK
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Division of Resources Management
Services
Bureau of Water Management
Albany, New York 12201
NORTH CAROLINA
Division of Community Assistance
Department of Natural &
Economic Resources
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
-------
- 3 -
NORTH DAKOTA
State Wator Commission
State Office Building
'00 E. Boulevard
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
OHIO
Ohio Dept. or Natural Resources
Flood Inoiix:mce Coor. Building
Fountain Square
Columbus, Ohio U322U
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
22l»l Northwest Fortieth Street
Oklahoma City., Oklahoma 73H2
OREGON
Executive Department
State of Oregon
Salem, Oregon 97310
PENNSYLVANIA
Department of Community Affairs
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
TTERTO RICO
uerto Rico Planning Board
1570 Ponce de Leon Avenue
Stop 22
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00908
RHODE ISLAND
R. I. Statewide Planning Program
26$ Melrose Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02907
SOUTH CAROLINA
South Carolina Water Resources
Commission
P. 0. Box 1*515
Columbia, South Carolina 292UO
SOUTH DAKOTA
State Planning Bureau
Offico of Executive Management
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
TENNESSEE
Tennessee State Planning Office
660 Capitol Hill Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
TEXAS
Texas Water Development Board
P. 0. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
UTAH
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
State Capitol Building, Rm. 1*35
Salt Lake City, Utah 8J4IIU
VERMONT
Management & Engineering Division
Water Resources Department
State Office Building
Montpellier, Vermont 05602
VIRGINIA
Bureau of Water Control
Management
State Water Control Board
PoBt Office Box 1111*3
Richmond, Virginia 23230
WASHINGTON
Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington 98501
WEST VIRGINIA
Office of Federal-State Relations
Division of Planning & Development
Capitol Building, Bm. 150
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
WISCONSIN
Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 1+50
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
WYOMING
Wyoming Disaster and Civil
Defense Agency
P. 0. Box 1709
Cheyenne, Wyoming 02001
-------
National Flood Insurance Program
List of Servicing Company Offioes
March 1, 1975
ALABAMA DELAWARE
The Hartford Insurance Group General Accident P & L Assurance
Hartford Building Corp. Ltd.
100 Edgewood Avenue 1|1)| Walnut Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30301 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Phone: (I4OU) 521-2059 Phono» (215) 238-5000
ALASKA
Industrial Indemnity Co. of Alaska
P. 0. Box 307
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Phone: (907) 279-9U1+1
ARIZONA
Aetna Technical Services Inc.
Suite 901
3003 North Central Avenue
phoenix, Arizona 85012
Phone: (602) 26U-2621
ARKANSAS
The Travelers Indemnity Company
700 South University
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
P. 0. Box 51
Phone: (501) 66U-5085
CALIFOHNIA-NQRTHERN
Fireman's Fund American Insurance
Companies
P. 0. Box 3136
San Francisco, California 9U119
Phone: (Ul5) U21-1676
CALIFORNIA-SOUTHERN
Fireman's Fund American Insurance
Companies
P. 0. Box 2323
Los Angell>o, California 90051
Phone: (213) 381-31U1
C0L0RAD0
CNA Insurance
1660 Linooln-Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 266-0561
CONNECTICUT
Aetna Insurance Company
P. 0. Box 1779
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Phone: (203) 523-U861
FLORIDA
The Travelers Indemnity Cqmpany
1516 East Colonial Drive
Orlando, Florida 32803
Phone: (305) 896-2001
GEORGIA
The Hartford Insurance Group
Hartford Building
100 Edgewood Avenue
Atlanta, Georgia 30301
Phone: (1+OU) 521-2059
HAWAII
First Insurance Co. of Hawaii, Ltd.
P. 0. Box 2866
Honolulu, Hawaii 96803
Phone: (808) 5U8-5H
IDAHO
Aid Insurance Company
Snake River Division
18U5 Federal Way
Boise, Idaho 83701
Phone1 (208) 3U3-U931
ILLINOIS
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
Illinois Regional Offioe
2309 E. Oakland Avenue
Bloomington, Illinois 61701
Phone1 (309) 557-7211
INDIANA
United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance C
130 East Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana I4.620I4.
Phone: (317) 263-7200
IOWA
Employers Mutual Casualty Company
P. 0. Box 88U
Des Moines, Iowa 5030U
Phone: (515) 280-2511
-------
- 2 -
.KANSAS
'oyal-Globe Insurance Companies
J.1P.S Grand Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 6U1U1
Phone: (016) 8U2-6116
KENTUCKY
CNA Insurance
580 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, Ohio U5202
Phone: (513) 621-7107
LOUISIANA
Aetna Technical Services, Inc.
P. 0. Box 61003
New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
Phone: (50U) 821-1511
MAINE
Commercial Union Insurance Company
c/o Campbell, Payson & Noyes
27 Pearl St., Box 527 Pearl St. Station
Portland, Maine 0U116
Phone: (207) 77U-1U31
MARYLAND
S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company
0. Box 1138
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
Phone: (301) 539-0380
MASSACHUSETTS-EASTERN
Commercial Union Insurance Company
1 Beacon Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Phone: (617) 725-6128
MASSACHUSETTS-WESTERN
Aetna Insurance Company
P.O. Box 1^79
Hartford, Connecticut 06101
MICHIGAN
Insurance Company of North America
Room 300-Buhl Building
Griavoid & Congress Streets
Detroit, Michigan 1*8226
Phone: (313) 963-UllU
MINNESOTA-EASTERN
The St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
Company
P. 0. Box 3U70
St. Paul, Minnesota 55165
Phone: (612) 222-7751
MINNESOTA-WESTERN
The St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
Company
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55U31
Phone: (612) 835-2600
MISSISSIPPI
The Travelers Indemnity Company
5360 Interstate 55 North
P.- 0. Box 2361
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Phone: (60l) 956-5600
MISSOURI-EASTERN
MFA Insurance Companies
1817 West Broadway
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Rione: (3IU) UU5-8I4J4I
MISSOURI-WESTERN
Royal-Globe Insurance Companies
1125 Grand Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 61+11(1
Phone: (816) 81*2-6116
MONTANA
The Home Insurance Company
8 Third Street N.-P.O. Box 1031
Great Falls, Montana 59Ud
Phone: (1+06) 761-8110
NEBRASKA
Royal-Globe Insurance Companies
1125 Grand Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 61+11+1
Phone: (816) 81+2-6116
NEVADA
The Hartford Insurance Group
P. 0. Box 500
Reno, Nevada 89501+
Phone: (702) 329-1061
-------
- 3 -
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Commercial Union Insurance Company
1 Beacon Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Phone: (617) 725-6128
NEW JERSEY
Great American Insurance Company
5 Dakota Drive
Lake Success, New York 1101+0
Phone: (201) 221+-1+200
NEW MEXICO
CNA Insurance
1660 Lincoln -St., Suit^e 1800
Denver, Colorado 00203
Phone: ('3O3) 266-0061
NEW YORK
Great American Insurance Company
5 Dakota Drive
Lake Success, New York 1101+0
Phone: ($16) 775-6900
NORTH CAROLINA
Kemper Insurance
229 Greenwood Cliff
narlotte, North Carolina 28201*
Phone: (701+) 372-7150
NORTH DAKOTA
The St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
Company
25U Hamm Building
1+08 St. Peter Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Phone: (612) 227-9581
OHIO-NORTHERN
Commercial Union Insurance Company
1300 East 9th St.
Cleveland, Ohio Willi*
Phone: (216) 522-1060
OHIO-SOUTHERN
CNA Insurance
580 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 1+5202
Phone: (513) 621-7107
OKLAHOMA
Republic-Vanguard Insurance Group
P. 0. Box 3000
Dallas, Texas 75221
Phone: (211+) 528-0301
OREGON
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company
1+600 25th Avenue, N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97303
Phone: (503) 393-0101
PENNSYLVANIA
General Accident F 4 L Asauranoe
Corp., Ltd.
1+11+ Walnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Phone: (215) 238-5512
PUERTO RICO
I.S.O. of Puerto Rico
Penthouse 7th Ochoa Bldg.
7th floor, P.O. Box 1333
San Juan, Puerto Rloo 00902
Phone: (809) 723-0000
RHODE ISLAND
American Universal Insurance Co.
11+1+ Wayland Avenue
Providence, Rhode Island 02901+
Phone: (1+01) 351-1+600
SOUTH CAROLINA
Maryland Casualty Company
P. 0. Box 11615
Charlotte, North Carolina 28209
Phone: (701+) 525-8330
SOUTH DAKOTA
The St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
251+ Hamm Building
1+08 St. Peter Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Phone: (612) 227-9581
TENNESSEE
CNA Insurance
110-21st Avenue South
Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Phone» (615) 327-0061
-------
- u -
TEXAS
The Home Insurance Company
2100 Travis Street
Houston, Texas 77002
Phone: (713) 225-0931
UTAH
CNA Insurance
1660 Lincoln St., Suite 1800
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 266-0561
VERMONT
Commercial Union Insurance Company
1 Beacon Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Phone: (617) 725-6128
VTRCIN1A
Insurance Company of North America
5225 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20015
Phone: (202) 2hh-2QOO
WASHINGTON
Fireman's Fund American Insurance
Companies
1000 Plaza 600 Building
6th & Stewart
Seattle, Washington 98IOI
Phone: (206) 587-3200
WEST VIRGINIA
U. S. Fidelity
-------
J,*740
NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Federal Insurance Administration
| Doc tree No N—175—3751
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
Flood-Prone Areas of Communices Sueject
to July 1, 1975; Prohibition of Federal
and Federally Related Assistance
The purpose of this notice is to provide
a list of communities that contain areas
o 1 special flood hazard potentially sub-
ject to the provisions of section 202 of
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 (Pub. L. 93-234) on July 1,1975, and
to provide a convenient reference for in-
terested persons, communities, federal
agencies and instrumentalities, and
otfiers involved in assuring compliance
^nth that section.
Section 202 provides that effective
July 1, 1975, federal agencies and feder-
ally supervised, approved, insured, or reg-
ulated lending institutions are prohibited
from providing financial assistance or
making loam for acquisition or construc-
tion purposes in areas which (a) have
been designated by the Secretary of
Bousing and Urban Development as
Special Flood Hazard Areas for at least
one year; and (b) are in communities
which are not participating in the Na-
tional Flood Insurance Progiam (42
US.C. 4001-4128).
Each of the communities listed below
received notice of its designation as
flood-prone pnor to July 1, 1974, and
legal notice was furnished of such desig-
nation by publication under Part 1915 of
Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regula-
tions in the Federal Register. These
communities have failed to provide the
Federal Insurance Administrator with
sufficient technical or scientific data to
rebut their designation as flood prone
Thus, the sanctions of section 202 apply
until the community participates in the
program.
In order to continue federal or feder-
ally related assistance or lending In its
Special Flood Hazard Area, a community
must apply for and be made eligible for
participation in the program in accord-
ance with 24 CFR Parts 1909 to 1920.
Communities may receive assistance in
applying for participation by contacting
the Federal Insurance Administration,
451 Seventh St., SW„ Washington. D.C.
20410, (202) 755-5581, or its toll-free
numbers 800-424-8872 or 800-424-8873.
Communities on this list may be made
eligible to participate In the program
after the date of publication of this list.
Such eligibility will be published periodi-
cally in the Federal Register under 24
CFR 1914.4 List of eligible communities.
At that .joint the sanctions of section
202 will no longer apply to such com-
munities.
The list is as follows:
States
Alabama
Altoo-.a, tows
Ciua:?)
.UXV.'O, city of
County)
(Etowah
(Ztowna
Date of
Identification
May 17. 107*
Dec. 28. 1973
Alabama—Continued
Date 0/
Identification
Autaugaville, town of (Au-
ta i$a County) June 7. 1974
Brighton, town of (Jefferson
Council May 10, 1974
Colllasville town of (De Kalb
County) May 17, 1074
Cordova, city of (Wilier
Countv) Ma> 31, 1974
Cottonwood, town of (Hous-
ton County) May 17, 1974
Demopolls, city of (Mareugo
Countv) June 7, 1974
East Brewtcn. town of (Es-
cambia County) Nov 23. 1973
Flomatlon, town of (Escam-
bia County) Do
Fulton dale, city of (Jefferson
County) May 24, 1974
Gadsden, city of (Etowah
County) March 8. 1974
Gantt. town of (Covington
County) June 7, 1974
Irondale. town of (Jefferson
Countv) Do.
Lipscomb, town of (Jefferson
County) - - June 14, 1974
Mount Vernon, town of (Mo-
bile County) ~ Dec 17. 1973
Odenvllle. town of (St Clair
County) - May 24, 1974
Piedmont, city of (Calhoun
County) June 7, 1974
Rogland. town of (St Clair
County) May 24, 1974
Southslde, town of (Eto77ah
County) Dec 7, 1973
Valley Head, town of (Do
Kalb County) . May 3, 1974
Wadley. city of (Randolph
County) May 17, 1974
Weaver, city of (Calhoun
County) Nov. 30, 1973
Total 23
Alaska
Dillingham, city of (Bristol
Bay Borough) May 31, 1974
Haines, city of (Haines Bor-
ough) Do.
Honnah, city ot Lynn Canal-
Icy Straits Borough) June 7, 1974
Ketchikan, city ot (Gateway
Boiou^h) - - May 24, 1974
Soldotna. city of (Kenal Pen-
insula Borough) June 14, 1974
Total 5
Arizona
Avondale. city of (Maricopa
County) Feb 15, 1974
Benson, town of (Cochise
County) Jan. 18, 1974
El Mirage, town of (Maricopa
County) .. . - .. Feb 13, 1974
Florence, town of (Pinal
County) May 3, 1974
Goodyear, town of (Maricopa
County) Mar. 15, 1974
Kearny, town of (Pinal
County) . Nov. 30, 1973
Mammoth, town of (Pinal
County) Dec. 7, 1973
Parker, town of (Yuma
County) .. . May 17, 1974
Show Low, city of (Navajo
County) June 7, 1974
Taylor, town of (Navajo
County) May 17, 197*
Wlntdeman, town of (Gila
County) 1 Jan. 23. 1974
Yuma. city of (Vau
County) ¦¦ Apr. 12, 1974
Total — 12
Arkansas
Date 0/
Identification
Altheuner, city of (Jelfferson
County) May 10, 1974
B?.ld Knob, city of (White
County) Mar 8. 1974
Beebe. city of (White
County) Do.
Benton, city of (Saline
County) Nov 1G. :973
Calico Rock, city of (Izard
County) . Mar 22, 1974
Carthage, city of (Dallas
County) Mar 8, 1974
CiarksUlIe. city of (Johnson
County) Xor 30, 197J
Cottar. city of (Barter
County) June 14, 1974
ParmJngton, city of (Wash-
ington County) Apr. 12, 1974
Flipoin, city of (Marlon
County) June 7, 1974
Foreman, city of (Little
R.ver County) M-*r 1. 1974
Hope, city of (S^mpstead
County) Jan. 23, 1974
Hughes, city of (St. Francis
County) ........ Oct 12, 1973
Humphrey, city of (Arkansas
and Jefferson Counties). May 3, 1974
Imboden, town of (Lawrence
County) Do.
Joiner. city of (Mlsolssiopl
Countj) '.I. May 17, 1974
Keissa, city of (Mississippi
County) Do
Kensett, city of (White _
County) Oct. 13, 1973
Mansfield, city of (Scott and
Sebastian Counties) Mar. 15, 1074
McC'ory. city of (Wi-v-nr-.f
County) .I Mar. 29, 1974
McRae, city of (White
County) .. Mar- 8- *"4
Montrose, town of (Ashley .. „ _
County) May 3, 1974
Mountalnburg, town of
(Crawford County)
Newark, city of (Independ-
enre County) 197*
Oil Trough, city of (Inde- „„
pendence County) Mar. —, 1974
Parfcdale, city of (Ashley
Rlson. city of (Cleveland Mar 201 1974
County) 8 1974
RusseUvllle, city of (Pope ' '
County) Jul 8 ig70
Stamps, town of (Lafayette
County) Jan. 23, 1971
Wabbaseka, city of (Jefferson
County) May 10, 1974
Waldo, city of (Columbia
County) Apr. 5, 1974
Wynne, city of (Cross
County) Mar. 22, 1974
Yellvllle, city of (Marion
County) Nov. 30, 1973
Total 33
California
Alameda, city of (Alameda
County) May 24, 1974
Alturas, city of (Modoc
County) May 31, 1974
Beaumont, city of (Riverside
County) Apr. 6, 1974
Bishop, city of (Inyo
County) June 7, 1974
Calexlco. city of (Imperial
County) Feb 1, 1974
Calipatria. city of (Imperial
County) _—_ Apr. 12,1974
Capltcla, city of (Santa Cruz
County) May ZT. "074
Carlsbad, dty of (3an D'ego
County) May 3!. 1974
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOU 40, NO. 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE
25, 1975
-------
California—Continued
Date of
Identification
CjacheUa City of (Riverside
Co.u.-.( May 17, 1974
Cup*"'-"3 c,i7 °" (Santa
C'a-i County) Feb 15,1974
CHJ> C;~. c'ty of (San Mateo
CcKinty) Feb 22, 1974
D.-'jno city of (Kern
Conn:t) May 24, 1974
Desert Hot Springs, city of
(Ruerside County) Do
Divon, city of (Solano
Cou-t; ) Mar 15, 3 974
EI Cen\-o, city of (Imperial
County) Feb 1, 1974
Emeryville, city of (Alameda
County) Apr 12, 1974,
and Dec 13.
1973
Etna. c'.ty of (Slsklyoo
Coi'iity) Feb 22, 1974
Exeter, city of (Tulare
County) Mar 8, 1974
Gait, city of (Sacramento
County) May 17, 1974
Gonzales, city of (Monterey
County) May 24, 1974
Grass Valley, city of (Nevada
County) May 17. 1974
Gndlev, city of (Butte
Couaiy) May 24, 1974
Guadalupe, city of (Santa
Barbara County) May 17, 1974
Half Moon Bay, city of (San
Mateo County) Mar 1,1974
Holtvilie, city of (Imperial
County) Apr 5, 1974
Hughson, city of (Stanislaus
County) May 24, 1974
Huron, city of (Fresno
County) May 17. 1974
Indlo. city of (Riverside
County) May 31, 1974
lone, city of (Amador
County) May 24, 1974
La Palma, city of (Orange
County) „ June 14, 1974
Maricopa, city of (Kern
County) Do
Mendota, city of (Fresno
County) Mar 29, 1974
Monte Sereno. city of (Santa
Cl3ra County) May 24. 1974
Morgan Hill, city of (Santa
Clara County) May 31, 1974
Nat) a, city of (Napa
County) Mar 22, 1974
Oceaoslde, city of (San Diego
County) May 10, 1974
Orange Cove, city of (Fresno
County) May 10. 1974
Pinole, city of (Contra Costa
County) May 24, 1974
Flacervllle. city of (El Do-
rado County) June 7, 1974
Rancho Mirage, city of (Riv-
erside County) June 14, 1974
Rio Dell, city of (Humboldt
County) May 24, 1974
Rlverbank, city of (Stanis-
laus County) May 10, 1974
Ban Bruno, city of (San
Mateo County) June 7, 1974
San Clemente. city of (Or-
ange County) June 14, 1974
San Jacinto, city or (River-
side County) Sept 28. 1973
San Joaquin, city of (Fresno
County) May 10. 1974
San Juan Bautlsta. city of
(San Benito County) Feb 8, 1974
San Juan Caplscrauo, city of
(Orange County) May 10, 1974
Santa Cruz, city of (Santa
Cruz Count7) March 3. 1974
S.-J-V5 VV.Iey. c'ty of (,>»«ta
Cruz County) "Jay 31, 1974
NOTICES
California—Continued
Date of
Identification
Selma. city of (Fresno
County) May 24. 1971
SoQora, city of (Tuolumne
County) May 31. 1974
St Helena, city of (Napa
County) Do
S-sanvllle city of (La3sen
County i Feb 1, 1974
VLSta, city of (San Diego
County) June 14, 1974
Wasco, city of (Kern Coun-
ty) May 17, 1974
Westmorland, city of (Im-
perial County) May 24, 1974
Wllllts. city of (Mendocino
County) Feb 8, 1974
Total 58
Colorado
Breckenridge. town of (Sum-
mit County) May 24. 1974
Buena Vista, town of (Chaf-
fee County) May 3. 1974
Craig, city of (Moffat
County) Do
Dove Creek, town of (Dolores
County) May 24, 1974
Florence, city of (Fremont
County) May 17, 1974
Grand Junction, city of
(Mesa County) Feb 1. 1974
June 28, 1974
Hugo, town of (Lincoln
County) May 31. 1B7-*
La Fayette, city of (Boulder
County) May 24, 1974
La Jara, town of (Conejos
County) May 17, 1974
Leadville, city of (Lake
County) Do
Loveland, city of (Larimer
County) Mar 1, 1974
Mancos. town of Monte-
zuma County) Do
Manzanola. town of (Otero
County) May 17, 19*4
MUllken, to of (Weld
County) May 24, 1974
Nucla. town of (Montrose
County) May 17, 1974
OtLs, town of (Washington
County) May 24, 1974
Ouray, city of (Ouray Do
County)
Rifle, city of (Garfield June 15. 1P73
County)
San Luis, town of (CostUla May 24 1971
County)
Sterling, city of (Logan Jan 23. 1974
County)
Tampa, city of (Croutt
County) May 24, 1974
Total 21
Connecticut
Becon Falls, town of (New
Haven County) May 3, 1974
Bethel, town of (Fairfield
County) Apr 6, 1974
Bolton, town of (Tolland
County) June 7, 1974
Colchester, city of (New Lon-
don County) Do
Roxbury, town of (Lltchfleld
County) Do
Southlngton, town of (Hart-
ford County) May 10, 1974
Sterling, town of (Windham
County) May 31, 1974
Thomaston, town of (Lltch-
fie'd County) Do
Thompson town of (Wind-
ham County) May 17. 1974
Voluntown. town of (Mew
London County) JTayJl,l9~l
Connecticut—Continued
Date of
Identification
Wasnlngton Depot, town o"
(Litchfield County) March 3. 1974
WUllamantlc. city of (Wind-
ham County) May 10, 1974
Windham, town of (Wind-
ham County) Apr 12, 1974
Wlnsted. city of (LitchSeld
Countv) May 17, 1974
Wolcott town of (New Ha\en
Countv) May 3. 1974
Total 16
Delaware
Dover. city of (Kent
County) May 31, 1974
Greenwood, town of (Sussex
County) May 24. 1974
Total 2
Florida
Bonlfay. city of (Holmes
County) Nov 16. 1973
Branford. tonn of (Su~aa-
nee Countv) Jan. 9, 1974
Bnny Breezes, town of (Pwn
Beach County) Jan. 23, 1674
Carabelle, city of (FrauXlln
County) Jan. 23. 1974
Fells mere, city of (Indian
River County) Jan 16, 1974
La-ieland. city of (Polfc
County) Mar 1, 1971
Madison, city of (Madron
Cojnty) May 24. 1974
Mangonla Park, town of
(Palm Beach County) Jan 16. 1974
Orchid, town of (Indian
River County) Jan 23. 1874
Pembroke Park, town of
(Broward County* May 31, 1974
QuLncv city of (Gadcdeii
County) Mar 1, 1971
Sebastian, town of (Indian
River County) Feb 8 1974
Wauchula, city of (Sumter
County) Nov 23, 1373
Webster, to«vn of (Sumter
Countv) Do
White Springs town of
(Hamilton Countv) Jan 16, 1974
Wildwood. town of (Sumter
County) Jan 23. 1974
Yankee town, town of iLery
Countv) Aug 20. 1971
ZephyrhlJLs, city of (Pasco
Countvi Feb 1, 1971
Zolfo Springs, town of (Har-
dee County) Jan 16. 1974
Total 19
Georgia
Adalrsvllle, town of (Bartow
County) June 14, 1974
Brooklet town of (Bulloch
County) Apr 5. 1974
Clayton, town of (Rabun
County) May 24, 1974
Crawford, city of (Ogle-
thorpe County) June 7, 1974
Cumming, city of (Forsyth
County) June 14, 1974
Cusjetv city of (Chattahoo-
chee County) Apr 12. 1674
Duluth, city of (Gwinnett
County) Way 24. 1974
Franklin, town of (Heard
Countv) May 10. 1974
Hawklnsvllle. city of (Pu-
laski County) May 3,1074
Homervllle, city of (Clinch
County) June 7. 1974
Jackson, city of (Butts
County) May 17. 1974
Joncsboro, city of (Clayton
County) May 24, 1974
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1975
-------
23742
Georgia—Continued
Dctc of
Identification
Kear.K-iT, to a a of (Cobb
Co -n~v) Jirne 14, 1374
L : - .ci. city of (Long
Cc j::v) Do
McCa 5.-'_Je, city of (rrannin
Co'u.T'-i Mar 22, 1074
Mounj Vernon. city of
(Mm-comery County) May 31, 1374
Mou: .a n View, city of
(Claton County) May 10, 1074
city ot (Pulton &
Co—era Counties) June 14, 1974
Pe.noro.ie, clt7 of (Bryan
County) May 10. 1074
Porterdale, town of (Newton
County) Apr 12. 1974
Poulnn, city of (Worth
County) May 17, 1974
Riceboro, city of (Liberty
County) May 10, 1974
Stone Mountain, city of (Do
Xtvlb County May 13, 1974
UnadiLla, town of (Dooly
County) June 14, 1974
Vemonourg, town of (Chat-
ham County) July 27, 1973
Waverly Hall, town of (Har-
ris County) June 14, 1974
Woodbine, city of (Camden
County) Do
Young Harrts, town ot
(To-ms County) Do.
Total 28
Idaho
American Falls, city of (Pow-
er County) May 24, 1974
Burley, city of (Cassia
County) Do
Coeur D'Alene, city of (Koo-
tenai County) Mar 29, 1974
Council, city of (Adams
County) May 3, 1974
Garden City, city of (Ada
County) .* Dec 17, 1973
Harrison, city of (Kootenai
County) Mar 22, 1974
Malad City, city of (Oneida
County) May 24, 1974
Nezperce, city of (Lewis
Covnty; Nov. 23, 1973
Pa-ma, city of (Canyon
County) _ - May 17, 1974
Total. - 9
Illinois
Abingdon, city of (Knox
County) June 7, 1974
Altamont. city of (Effingham
County) Mar 22, 1974
Anna, city of (Union
County) Mar 29, 1974
Armlnjrton, village of (Taze-
well County) Mar 22, 1974
Arthur, village of (Moultrie
County) May 3, 1974
Atwood, village of (Piatt
County) Nov. 23, 1973
Banner, village of (Fulton
County) Dec 28. 1973
Bath, village of (Mason
County) Dec 17, 1973
Be-nent, village of (Piatt
County) June 14, 1974
Bluffs, village of (Scott
County) - June 7, 1974
Bonnie, village of (Jenerson
County) ^ Feb 15, 1974
Brees>e. city of (Clinton
County) - June 7, 1974
Eridsev'.e-v, village of (Cook
County) —- Mar 22, 1974
Ercokport, clt7 of (Mssaac
Coiuitv) June 7, 197-1
NOTICES
/Hi not>—Continued
Date o/
Ideniificatum
BrouEcaton, village of (Ham-
ilton County) Mar 1, 1974
Bunnell, city of (McDoti-
oi'gh County) June 7, 1974
Biun, village of i Williamson
County; Mar 29, 1974
Byron, city of (Ogle
Comty) May 10, 1974
Calumet Park, village of
(Cook County) Mar 29, 1974
Camargo, village of (Douglas
County) April 5, 1974
Carbon Hills, village of
(Crundy County) Mar 8, 1974
CirlinvlLe, city of (Ma-
coupin County) June 14, 1974
Carlyle. city of (Clinton
County) Dec 7, 1973
Carrollton, city of (Greene
County) June 7, 1974
Carterville, city of (William-
son County) Feb 15, 1974
Cave-In-Rock, village of
(Hardin County) Jan 23, 1974
Central City, village of
(Marlon County) Feb 15, 1974
Centralia, city of (Clinton
and Marlon Counties) May 3, 1974
Chandlervllle, village of
(Cass County) Nov 23, 1973
Channohon, village of (Will
County) Mar 29, 1974
Chatman, village of (Sanga-
mon County) Nov IS, 1973
Clay City, village of (Clay
County) Mar 22, 1974
Clinton, city of (De Witt
County) May 24, 1974
Columbia, city of (Monroe
County) May 17, 1974
Creve Couer, village of
(Tazewell County) Feb 22, 1974
Cullom, village of (Living-
ston County) Do
Dallas City, city of (Hancock
County) Mar 22, 1974
De Soto, village of (Jackjon
County) April 5, 1974
DL'moor, village of (Cook
County) Do
Dongola. village of (Union
County) -— Mar 8, 1974
Durand, village of (Wlnne-
bigo County) April 5. 1974
Ed'vardsvllle. city of (Madi-
son County) Do.
Effingham. city of (Effing-
ham County) Mar 22. 1974
Eileen, village of (Grundy
County) Mar 8, 1974
Eldorado, city of (Saline
County) Feb 22, 1974
Eldred, village of (Greene
County) Dec 17. 1973
Ellzabethtown, village ot
(Hardin County) Jan 16, 1974
Elllsvllle, village of (Fulton
County) Mar 22, 1974
Equality, village of (Gallatin
County) Do
Evansvllle, village of (Ran-
dolph County) Mar 1, 1974
Fayettevllle, village of (St.
Clair County) Feb 22, 1974
Florence, village of (Pike
County) Dec 17, 1973
Fooslnnd, village of (Cham-
paign County) Mar 29,1974
Forreston, village of (Ogle
County) June 7, 1974
Forrest, village of (Living-
ston County) Mar. 1, 1974
Freebure. village of (St.
CUlr County) liar 22/1971
Illinois—Continued
Date of
Identification
Fulton, city of (Whiteside
Countv) May 31. 1974
Fu'ts, Tillage of (Monroe
Cou n t7) Dec 17. 1973
Gilatia, village of (Saline
County) Mar 1, 1974
Galva, city of (Henry
County) June 14. 1974
Genoa, city of (De Kalb
County) Mar. 1. 1974
Georgetown, city of (Vermil-
ion County) May 17, 1974
German town. vlllngo of
(Clinton County) Mar 29. 1974
Gibson City, city of (Ford
County) Do.
Gillespie, city of (Macoupin
County) June 7, 1971
Gilman. city of (Iroquou
County) June 7, 1974
Go.concla. city of (Pope
Cour.:y) Jan. 23, 1974
Goden village of (Adams
County) June 7. 1974
Green Rock, village of
(Henry County) Jan. 16, 1974
Greenfield, city of (Oreen
County) Feb 22, 1974
Greenview, village of (Me-
nard County) Nov 23, 3973
Greenville, city of (Eond
County) June 14, 1974
Hammond, village of (Piatt
County) Do
Hampshire, village of (Kane
County) May 3, 1974
Hanover, village of (Jo
County) April 5, 1974
Havana, city of (Mason
County) Do.
Hevworth. village of (Mc-
Lean County) June 14, 1974
HUlsbcro, city of (Mont-
gomery Co-untv) May 17, 1074
Hillside, village of (Cook
County) May 3, 1974
Hinckley, village of (Dekalb
County) Max 1. 1974
Hopedale, village of (Taze-
well Count;-) Apr 5, 1974
Hurst, village of (William-
son County) Mar 15. 1974
Jerseyville. city of (Jersey
County) June 7, 1974
Joppa, village of (Massac
County) Nov 23, 1973
Kingston Mines, village of
(Peoria County) Dec 28, 1973
Kirk wood, village of (War-
ren County) May 24, 1974
Knorvllle, city of (Knox
County) Juno 7. 1974
Lacon, city ot (Marshall
County) Nov 30, 1973
Lake Bluff, village of (Lake
County) Feb 1. 1974
Lawrenceville. city of (Law-
rence County) Mar 8, 1974
Leaf River, village of (Ogle
County) Nov 23. 1973
Lebanon, city of (St Clair
County) Nov. 16, 1973
Livingston, village of (Madi-
son County) Mar. 22, 1974
Lo&ml. village of (Sangamon
County) - Mar. 29, 1974
Malta, village of (Dekalb
County) June 7, 1974
Mnniinq village of (Bureau
County) -—- Mar. 8, 1974
Marquette Heights, city of
(Tazewell County) Do.
Martinsville, city of (Clark
County) — Nov. 23 1973
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1975
-------
lll-nois—Continued
Date of
Identification
v.ifis tillage of (White
C„ ¦ .t;.) Jan. 9, 1974
Mj '\ood village of (Cook
C->"-itv) F®15 '¦ WM
M.-Lcainboro, city of (Ham-
n:o-i County) Mar 22, 1974
retail3. city of (Massac
Cju.i:j) Mar. 8, 1974
Mon"n.cj. City of (Kankakee
Co Jan 9, 1974
Vount L^rmel. city of (Wa-
oish County) Mar 15, 1974
::o'ieanui. village of Shelby
Cou i;.) Juno 7, 1974
Mudu,, village of (Saline
County) Mar 22, 1974
N'asmille. city of (Washing-
ton County) May 17, 1974
Nebo village of (Pike
County) Dec 28.1973
New Athens, village of (St.
Clair County) Max 22,1974
New S^d:n, village of (Clin-
ton County) May 24, 1974
New Haven, village of (Gal-
latin County) Jan 16, 1974
Newton, city of (Jasper
County) Dec 17, 1973
Niantlc, village of (Macon
Count}) Mar 1,1974
Nozomis, city of (Montgom-
erv County) Mar 29,1974
North Pekln, village of
(Tazewe»l County) Mar 8.1974
Oaku-ood, village of (Vermil-
lion County) Max 29.1974
Oglesby, city of (LaSalle
County) May 24. 1974
Old Shawnee town, village of
(Gallatin County) Dec 17,1973
Olney, city of (Richland
County) Feb 22, 1974
Omaha, \lllage of (Gallatin
County) May 10, 1974
Oneida," city of (Knox
County) June 7, 1974
Palestine, town of (Crawford
County) Nov 23, 1973
Paris, city of (Edgar
County) May 3. 1974
Park City, village of (Lake
County) Mar 1, 1974
Park Ridge. clt7 of (Cook
County) Feb 22,1974
and
Nov. 22, 1973
Paw Pnw, village of (Lee
County) June 14. 1974
Pawnee, village of (Sanga-
mon County) May 17, 1974
Pearl City, village of (Ste-
phenson County) May 3. 1974
Pearl, village of (Pike
County) Dec 28, 1974
Pecantonlca, village of (Win-
nebago County) Apr 5,1974
Pekln, city of (Tazewell
County) __ Apr 12,1974
Petersburg, city of (Menard
County) Dec 7, 1973
Phoenix, village of (Cook
County) Apr 12,1974
PlncUneyvllle, city of (Perry
County) Mar 22,1974
PlttsQeld. city of (Pike
County) June 7,1974
Pleasant Plains, village of
(Sangamon County) Mar. 22, 1974
Po'o, city of (Ogle County) May 17,1974
Por.'ocsuc. village of (Han-
cock County) Jan. 16. 1974
Poto-nic. village of (Vermil-
l'cn Ccunt7) Mar 22,1974
P* Hr-cI Milan* of (Pu'aakl
Cj'II--,7) Ma7 17. 1974
Kan-:.n. village of (Vermil-
lion County) Do.
NOTICES
Illinois—Con tlnued
Date of
Identification
Rantoul, village of (Cham-
paign County) Apr 12. 1974
Rldgway, village of (Gallatin
County) Teb 22. 1974
Rldott, village of (Stephen-
bon County) Dec 17,1973
River-ton, village of (Sanga-
mon County) Nov 16,1973
Rlverwoods, Ullage of (Lake
County) Mar 1.1974
Robinson, city of (Crawford
Count7) May 31, 1974
Romeovllle. village of (Will
County) Mar 29, 1974
Rosevllle, village of (Warren
Count?) May 17, 1974
Roslclare, city of (Hardin
County) Dec 17, 1973
Round Lake Park, village of
(Lake County) Mar 29, 1974
Rushvllle. city of (Schuyler
County) Mar 1. 1974
Sheridan, village of (La
Salle County) Apr 12,1974
Sidney, village of (Cham-
paign County) Jan 16,1974
Sllvls, city of (Rock Island
County) May 31, 1974
Smlthton village of (St
Clair County) Mar 29,1974
South Barrlngton, village of
(Cook County) Mar 22,1974
South Chicago Heights, vil-
lage of (Cook County) Apr. 12.1S74
South Jacksonville, city of
(Morgan County) Mar 29,1974
Sparland, village of (Max-
shall County) Nov 23,1973
Springfield, city of (Sanga-
mon County) Juno 7, 1974
Staunton, city of (Macoupin
County) May 17, 1974
Stlc^ney, village of (Cock
County) Mar 29, 1974
St Franclsvllle. village of
(Lawrence County) Do.
St Joseph, village of (Cham-
paign County) Nov 23, 1973
Sugar Grove, village of
(Kane County) Mar 3,1974
Summerfield. village of (St.
Clair County) May 3, 1974
Sumner, city of (Lawrence
Count?) Mar 1, 1974
S7camore, clt? of (De Kolb
Count?) Apr 5, 1974
Tallula, village of (Menard
County) Mar 29, 1974
Tamms, village of (Alexander
County) May 10, 1974
Teutopolls, village of (Effing-
ham County).. Feb 22,1974
Thayer, village of (Sanga-
mon County) Mar 22. 1974
Toluca, city of (Marshall
County) Apr. 6. 1974
Toulon, city of (Stark
County) May 31, 1974
Tuscola, city of (Douglas
County) Nov. 30, 1973
Valley City, village of (Pike
County) Dec 17, 1973
Verona, village of (Grundy
County) May 3, 1974
Victoria, village of (Knox
County) Juno 7, 1974
Virginia, city of (Cass
County) Apr. 6, 1974
Wadsworth, village of (Lake
County) Mar 1, 1974
Wataga, village of (Knox
County) June 7. 1974
Wwt Chlcisro, city of (Du
pTge ro\,r.t7) Apr 12 ID74
West Dundee, vlll ige of
(Kane County) Apr 6, 1974
2l>743
Illinois—Con tlnued
Dite of
Identification
Wheeler, village of (Jasper
Coiiat-v) Fo<3 o'_», 1974
White Kail, city of (Greene
County) A:3- 1974
Wlnslo-.. village of (Ste-
phenson County) 13. 1374
Wlr.ttirap Harbor, village of
(Lake County) 1 a l.Ti
Yates City, ullage of (Knox
County) jvlne 14> 1974
Total 189
Indiana
Albion, town or (Noble
County) June 7, 1974
Alton, town of (Crawford
County) Jan 23, 1974
Andrews, town of (Hunting-
ton County) June 7, 1974
Arcadia, town of (.Hamilton
County) ^ 1974
Attica, city of i Fountain
County) Dec 7. 1973
Austin, city of (Scott
County) Hot. 23. 1973
Battle Ground, city of (Tip-
pecanoe County) May 24, 1974
Blcknell. town of (Knox
County) V37 1". 1374
Bloomneld. town of (Greene
Countv) Not 23, 1973
EoonvLlls. city of (Warrick
County) Dec 2d, 1373
Bremen, town at (Marshall
County) Nov 23, 1373
Bristol, town of (Elkhart
County) Do.
Brooklyn, town of (ilorgan
County) Dec 7, 1S73
Erown County, unincorpo-
rated area Apr 13, 1973
Brownsourg. town of (Eend-
rlckr County) Nov '23. l'J73
Brojcs'.own, town of (Jack-
son County) Do
Burllr.glon, town of 1 Carroll
County) Do
Camden, town of (Carroll
Coun'y) Do.
Cayuga, town of (Vermillion
County) May 31, 1974
Cedar Grove, town of
(Franklin County) Dec. 7, 1973
Cedar Lise, town of (Lasa
County) Dec. 23. 1973
Chandler, town of (Warrick
County) Jan. 9, 1974
Char'.estown, city of (Clark
County) Apr. 12.1974
Churubusco. town of (Whit-
ley County) May 31, 1974
Columbia City, city of
(Whitley County) Dec. 17, 1973
Converse, town of (Miami
County) May 17, 1974
Covington, city of (Fountain.
County) Jan. 9,1974-
Decker. town of (Knox
County) Feb 1, 1974
Delphi, city of (Carroil
County) Nov 23, 1973
Denver, town of (Miami
County) Feb 1. 1974
Eaton, town of (Delaware
County) Nov 23, 1973
Edward3port, town of (Knox
County) Do
English, town of (Crawford
County) ApT 12. 1974
Falrmount, town of (Grant
County) May 24. 1974
Fountain City, clt7 of
(Wavne County) May 10. 1974
rreac*i Lick, town of
(Orange County) Feb. 1. 1974
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl. 40, NO. 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1975
-------
2(3744
I.idiara—Continued
Date of
Identification
Nov 23, 1073
Do
Do
Do.
Feb 1, 1974
May 31, 1974
June 7, 1974
Dec 7, 1973
Dec 17, 1973
May 24, 1974
Nov. 30, 1973
May 31. 1974
May 24, 1974
Do.
Nov 30,1973
May 3, 1974
Feb 1, 1974
Jan 23,1974
Nov 23, 1973
Nov 30, 1973
Feb 1. 1974
Dec 7, 1973
Nov 30, 1973
Jan IS, 1974
Feb 1, 1974
May 31. 1974
Nov 30.1973
May 10, 1974
May 31.1974
Do
Do.
Dec 17, 1973
Nov 23, 1973
Feb 1, 1974
Do
Do
May 31.1974
Nov. 30. 1973
Feb 1,1974
D«c 7, 1973
Dec 28,1973
Feb IS,1974
Nov. 30, 1973
NOTICES
I ndiana—Con tlnued
Date of
Identification
Dec 7, 1973
Deo. 17, 1973
Nov 23, 1973
Dec 21. 1973
Feb 13, 1974
Dec 17, 1973
Feb 1. 1974
Do
Do
Dec 7. 1973
Feb 1. 1974
Do
Dec 28. 1973
May 31.1974
Feb 1, 1974
Dec 17. 1973
Dec 7, 1973
June 7, 1974
Nov 23. 1973
May 17, 1974
May 24. 1974
May 31, 1974
Dec 28, 1973
Feb 1.1974
Apr 12. 1974
Dec 17, 1973
May 3.1974
Dec 17, 1973
June 14,1974
Nov 23,1973
109
Jon 23, 1974
May 3,1974
Feb. 1,1974
May 3. 1974
Jan.9,1974
Dec. 17.1973
Mar. 23,1974
May 24,1974
Jan. 23. 1974
Jan.0,1974
Do.
/one—Continued
Date of
Identification
May 10. J 974
Mjy 31, 1974
May 24, 1074
May 17, 1074
Dec 17, 1973
May 10. 1974
Mav 3, 1974
Mar 22, 1974
May 17. 1974
Do
June 14. 1974
Dec 28.1973
Mar, 8, 1974
June 7. 1974
J>ec 28, 1973
Jan 18, 1974
Do
Mar. 8. 1974
Mar 1. 1974
Jan 23,1974
Mar 8, 1974
May 17.1974
May 10. 1974
Mar 22. 1974
Jan. 23.1974
Feb 1, 1974
Deo. 38,1973
Mar. 39. 1974
May 17,1974
Mar. 15,1974
May 10, 1974
May 24. 1974
May 31, 1974
Do.
May 3, 1974
Mar. 29,1974
Jan. 18.1974
Mar. 32, 1974
liar. 1, 1974
Jan. 8, X&TO
51
Gosoort, town of (Owen
Cjunty)
Gre«".£eld, city of (Hancock
County)
Hartford City, city of
(Blackford County)
Hazleton, town of (Qlbson
County)
HUlsboro, town of (Fountain
County)
Hur.tertown. town of (Allen
and De Kalb Counties)
fluntlngton. city of (Hunt-
ingdon County)
Jonesboro, town of (Grant
County)
Judson, town of (Parke
County)
Kentland. town of (Newton
County)
Knlghtstown, town of
(Henry County)
Lacrosse, town of (Laporte
County)
Ladoga, town of (Mont-
gomery County)
LagTo. town of (Wabash
County)
Leavenworth, town of (Craw-
ford County)
Lebanon, city of (Boone
County)
Marengo, town of (Crawford
County) __
Mecca, town of (Parke
County)
Medora, town of (Jackson
County)
Milltonn, town of (Crawford
and Harrison County;))
Monterey, town of (Pulaski
County)
Montpeller, town of (Black-
ford County)
New Palestine, town of (Han-
cock County)
New Whiteland. town of
(Johnson County)
Newberry, town of (Greene
County)
Newport, town of (Vermil-
lion County)
North Vernon, city of (Jen-
nings County)
Oakland City, city of (Gib-
son County)
Ogden Dunes, town of (Por-
ter County)
Orland, town of (Steuben
County)
Orleans, town of (Orange
County)
Osceola, town of (St. Joseph
County)
Paoll, town of (Orange
County)
Paragon, town of (Morgan
County)
Pennvllle, town of (Wayne
County)
Plalnfield, town of (Hen-
dricks County) .
Remington, town of (Jasper
County)
Rldgevtlle, town of (Ran-
dolph County)
Rllcy, town of (Vigo
County)
Ream, town of (Wabash
C"r.t7) —
Uwn of (Hur-tlng-
toc County)
Porhester, city of (Fulton
County)
Rojfdjie, town of (Parke
County)
Rushville, city of (Rush
County)
Schneider, town of (Lake
County)
Seller30urg, town of (Clark
County)
South Whitley, town of
(Whitley County)
Spencervllle, town of (Dekalb
County)
Spencer, city of (Owen
County)
Spring Lake Par*, town of
(Hancock County)
Sprlngport, town of (Henry
County)
Sttnesvllle. town o( (Monroe
County)
St Joe. town of (De Kalb
County)
Sulphur Springs, town of
(Henry County)
Tennyson, town of (War-
rick County)
Tipton, city of (Tipton
County)
Troy, town of (Perry Coun-
ty)
Universal, town of (Vermil-
lion County)
Veedersburg. town of (Foun-
tain County)
Vera Cruz, town of (Wells
County)
Wabash, city of (Wabash
County)
Walkerton. town of (St
Joseph County)
Walton, town of (Cass
County)
Waveland, town of (Mont-
gomery County)
Waynetown town of (Mont-
gomery County)
West Baden Springs, town of
(Orange County)
We3tfield. town of (Hamilton
County)
Whltestown, town of (Boone
County)
Wllllamsport, town of (War-
ren County)
Winona Lake, town of (Kos-
ciusko County)
Wlnslow, town of (Pike
County) ...........
Wolcott, town of (White
County)
Worthington, town of
(Greene County)
Total
Iowa
Anthon, town of (Woodbury
County)
Atlantlo, city of (Cass
County)
Bedford, town of (Taylor
County)
Belmond, city of (Wright
County)
Bonaparte, city of (Van
Buren County)
Cascade, city of (Dubuque
County)
CentervlUe. city of (Appa-
noose County)
Clear Lake, city of (Cerro
Gordo County)
Cu'ra-t city or (J?3per
tou 107) -
Columbus Junction, city of
(Louisa County)
Danbury, city of (Woodbury
County)
Donnellson, town of (Lee
County)
Dow City, town of (Crawford
County)
Dumont, town of (Butler
County)
Dunlap, town of (Harrison
County)
Eldoa, town of (Wapello
County)
Extra, town of (Audubon
County)
Fredericksburg, town of
(Chickasaw County)
Granger, town of (Dallas
County)
Greene, town of (Butler
County)
Guthrie Center, city of
(Guthrie County)
Hamburg, city of (Fremont
County)
Hills City, city of (Johnson
County)
Hudson, town of (Black
Hawk County)
Indlanola. city of (Wat-ran
County)
Janesvllle, town of (Black
Hawk and Bremer Coun-
ties)
Lansing, town of (Allamakee
County)
Le Mars, city of (Plymouth
County)
Malvern, town of (Mills
County)
Marlon, city of (Linn
County)
Montrose, town of (Lee
County)
Mount Vernon, city of (Linn
County)
New Albln, town of (Allama-
kee County)
Oxford, town of (Johnson
County)
Raymond, town of (Black
Hawk County)
Rlverdale, town of (Sc6tt
County)
Rockford, town of (Floyd and
Howard Counties)
Sac City, city of (Sac
County)
Sergeant Bluff, town of
(Woodbury County)
Sibley, city of (Osceola
County)
Slgourney. city of (Keokuk
County)
Sioux Rapids, town of
(Buena Vista County)
Sloan, town of (Woodbury
County)
Spirit Lake, city of (Dickin-
son County
Story City, city of (Story
County)
Sumner, city of (Bremer
County)
Tipton, city of (Cedar
County)
Wapello, city of (Louisa
County)
Waukon. city of (Allamakee
County)
West Branch, city of
Oounty)
Wh*t Cheer, city of (Xeokulc
County)
Total
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNi
25, 1975
-------
Kansas
Date of
Identification
, uui. city of (Wabaunsee
co«i-.ty> Mar 8' 1974
* ntn. city of (Norton
cour-ty) Mar 1. 1974
city of (CI art
countr) May 1*7,1974
ill' City of (Butler
County) Feb 1.1974
3i-,flio". city of (Leaven-
north County) Apr 12.1974
Baxter Springs, city of (Cher-
okee County) May 24, 1974
Bel.eiellle, city of (Repub-
lic Cojnty) Feb 15,1974
Beloit. city of (Mitchell
Co'nty) Dec 7. 1973
Burrton, city of (Harvey
County) Mar 15, 1974
Cuaey. city of (Montgomery
County) Feb 15, 1974
Carboudala, city of (Osage
County) May 24, 1974
Centralla, city of (Nemaha
County) Do
Clyde. city of (Cloud
County) May 31, 1974
Columbus, city of (Cherokee
County) Mar 1. 1974
Deerfleld. city of (Kearny
County) Dec 28, 1973
Edgcrton, city of (Johnson
County) Mar 8. 1974
Elkhart, city of (Morton
County) May 24. 1974
Elllnwood. city of (Barton
Co'inty) Mar 15, 1974
Ellsworth, city of (Ellsworth
County) Dec 28, 1973
Eureka city of (Green-wood
County) Apr 12. 1974
Frankfort, city of (Marshall
County) Jan 23. 1974
Fredonla. city of (Wilson
County) Jan 23. 1973
Gardner, city of (Johnson May 3. 1974
County)
Garrett, city of (Anderson Feb 8, 1974
County)
Graudvlew Plaza, city of Feb 1, 1974
(Gerry County)
Hlawatna, city of (Brown Aug 9, 1974
Countv )
Hoi ton, city of (Jackson Feb 8, 1974
Count/)
Jetmoie. city of (Hodgeman Feb 22. 1974
County)
Johnson City, city of (Stan- Mar 1, 1974
too County)
La Cygne, city of (Linn May 24, 1974
County)
Lecompton, city of (Douglas Mar 15, 1974
County)
Leroy, city of (Coffey Jan. 23. 1974
Countv)
Lincoln, city of (Lincoln Dec 28, 1973
County)
Loulsburg, city of (Miami, Mar 8, 1974
County)
Lyndon, city of (Osage Mar 1. 1974
County)
Marquette, city of (McPher- Do
son County)
McLouth. city of (Jefferson Dec 17. 1973
County)
Mlnneola, city of (Clark Mar 22, 1974
County)
Mollr.e, city of (EDt Feb 8, 1974
Cjurty)
Mound Cltv, city of (Linn Feb 22. 1974
Cnu*>ty)
Nortouvllle, city of (Jefferson Mar 1, 1974
County)
Norton, clt7 of (Norton Do.
Cc .",/)
Ogden, city of (PUey Feb 15, 1974
County)
NOTICES
Kansas—Continued
Date of
Identification
Osatje City, city of (Osage June 7, 1974
County)
Osborne, city of (Osborne Mar 1, 1974
County)
Oskaloosa, city of (Jefferson Mar 15, 1974
County)
Ottawa, city of (Pwuiin May 24, 1974
County)
Pomona, city of (Franklin Jan- ®' 197-4
County) _ . _
Riley, city of (Riley F '
County) _ b
Roeland Park, city of (John-
son County) ^ 3i 1974
Rossvllle, city of (Shawnee
County) Jan 9, 1974
Russell, city of (Russell
County) Feb a, 1974
Nov 8. 1973
Syracuse, city of (Hamilton Tan 9r 1974
Troy, city of (DoAphan
County) Peb 25, 1974
Waverly, city of (Coffey
County) do.
Wellsvllle. city of (Franklin
County) Do.
Westmoreland, city of (Pot-
tawatomie County) Mar 8, 1974
Total 57
Kentucky
Albany, city of (Clinton
County) May 10, 1974
Allen, town of (Floyd
County) Jan 23, 1974
Arlington, town of (Carlisle
County) May 17, 1974
Bardatown, city of (Nelson
County) May 31, 1974
Bardwell, town of (Carlisle
County) May 17. 1971
BlDomfleld, city of (Nelson
County) May 10, 1974
Booneville, city of (Owsley
County) Feb 1, 1974
Bradfordsvllle, city of (Mar-
lon County) May 10, 1974
Brodhead. city of (Rock
Castle County) May 17, 1974
Burgin, city of (Mercer
County) May 10, 1974
Burkesville. city of (Cumber-
land County) Feb 15, 1974
Calhoun, town of (McLean
County) Feb 1, 1974
California, village of (Camp-
bell County) Mar 15. 1974
Calvert City, town of (Mar-
shall County) Feb 1. 1974—
CampbellsvUle. city of (Tay-
lor County) May 24, 1974
Campton, city of (Wolff
County) May 17. 1974
Catlettsburg town of (Boyd
County) May 3, 1974
Central City, city of (Muh-
lenberg County) Feb 1, 1974
Clay City, city of (Powell
County) Do.
Clay. city of (Webster
County) Do.
Clinton, town of (Hickman
County) May 17, 1974
Corbln. city of (Whitley
County) June 14, 1974
Danville, city of (Boyle
County) May 31.1974
Dawson Springs, city of
(Hopkins County) Feb 1,1974
Faln'unth, city of (Pandle-
ton County) May 24, 1974
F'.errlT jsbur^ town ot
1. '—'u; county) June 7, 1974
Florencp, town of (Boone
County) Feb 1, 1974
26745
Kentucky—Continued
Date of
Identification
Port "Thomas, dry of (Camp-
bell County) 23. 1974
fin *
Oct. 18. 1974
Georgetown, city of (Scott
County) May 24, 1974
Ghent, town of (Carroll
County) J aft. 16. 1974
Glencoe, city of (GaUatla
County) _ Feb 1, 1974
Grajaon, city of (Carter
County) Do
Greendburg, c!t7 of (Green
County) Do.
Greenup, town ot (Greenup
County) Jan. 23, 1974
Guthrie, town of (Todd
County June 7, 1974
Hardin, city of (Marshall
County) June 14, 1974
Hard.n, town of (Marshall
County) May 10, 1974
Harrotisburg, city of (Mer-
cer County) Do
Hlndman, city ot (Knott
County) May 31, 1974
Hodgenville, town of (Larue
County) May 17, 1874
Hyden, city of (Lealio
County) May 34. 1374
Jackson, city of (Breathitt
County) M37 17,1374
Jamestowp, city of (Russell
County) May 10, 1974
Jenkins, city of (Letcher
County) June 7, 1974
Lebanon Junction, city of
(Bullitt County) Mar. 15, 1974
Leitch2.e!d, town of (Grayson
Countr) May 10.1974
Llvermore, town of (UcLeaa
County) Feb. 1S71
Manchester, ci-.y of (Clay
County) Do
Martin, town of (Floyd
County) May 24. 1974
Mlllsrsburg, city of (Bourbon
County) Ma} 10, 1974
Mor.ticello. town of (V- ayne
County) Ma; £4. 1974
Morganfield, to*n of (Cnlon
County) May 17, 1374
Morsontown, town of (But-
ler County) Feb 1, 1274
Mortons Gap. to.vn of (Hop-
kins County) May 17. 1974
Mount Sterling, city of
(Montgomery County) May 10, 1974
Neon, town of (Letcher
County) Jan. 23, 1974
New Haven, city of (Nelson
County) Do.
Nortonvllle, town of (Hop-
kins County) May 17, 1S74
Olive Hill, city of (Carter
County) Feb. 1. 1974
Petersburg, town of (Boone
County) Jan. 23. 1974
Princeton, town of (Caldwell
County) Mav3l, 1974
Providence, city of (Weoster
County) Peb 1. 1974
Raceland, town of (Greenup
County) Feb 8, 1974
Rochester, town of (Butler
County) Feb. 1. 1974
Roekport. town of (Ohio
County) Do
Russell, town of (Greenup
County) - - Feb 3, 1974
Salversvlile. town of (Magof-
fin County) Veb. 22, 1D74
Sanders, town of (Cirroli
C->unt7) Jan 23. 1D74
Scbree, c.ty of (Webster
County) May 17, 1571
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE
25, 1975
-------
2G7-13
Kentucky—Continued
Date of
Identification
S-iepherdaviUe, city of (Bul-
T'ct County) May 24, 1374
Sm (bland, town of (Living-
ston County) Feb 1, 1974
So'ith Shore. town of
(Greenup County) Do.
Sparta, city of (Gallatin
County) Do
Stanton, city of (Powell
County) May 24, 1974
Taylorsvllle, town of (Spen-
cer County) Feb 1, 1974
TJnljntown, town of (Union
County) May 17, 1974
Vanceburg, town of (Lewis
County) . Feb. 1, 1974
Vloco, city of (Perry
County) .. May 10, 1974
Vine Orove, city of (Hardin
County) May 17,1974
Vlsalla. city of (Kenton
County) Jan. 23, 1974
Warsaw, city of (Gallatin
County) „ Feb. 1, 1974
Wheat Croft, town of (Web-
ster County) Feb. 15,1974
Winston Park, town of (Web-
ster County) Jan 23, 1974
Woodbury, town of (Butler
County) - Feb 1, 1974
Worthvllle, town of (Carroll
County) .. Jan 23, 1974
Total 86
Louisiana
Ablta Springs, town of (St
Tammany Parl3h) - May 17,1974
Albany, Village of (Living-
ston Parish) Apr. 12, 1974
Baslle, town of (Evangeline
Parish) May 24, 1974
Bastrop, city of (Morehouse
Parish) Mar. IB, 1974
Benton, town of (Bossier
Parish) June 14, 1974
Bovce, town of (Rapides
Parish) Apr. 6, 1974
Brouiaard, town of (Lafay-
ette Parish) Apr. 12. 1974
Clarence, village of (Natchi-
toches Parish) Mar 1, 1974
Coushatta, town of (Red
River Parish) Apr. 12, 1074
Denham Springs, city of
(Livingston Parish) Mar. 15,1974
Doyllne, village of (Webster
Parish) Apr. 5, 1974
Duson, town of (Lafayette
Parish) - Do-
Grand Coteau, town of (St.
Landry Parish) Dec. 7, 1973
Independence, town of
(Tangipahoa Parish) May 17, 1974
Kinder, town of (Allen
Parish) Apr. 6, 1974
Le Compte, town of (Rapides
Parish) May 17,1974
Mermentau, town of (Acadia
Parish) Nov. 23, 1974
Morse, town of (Acadia
Pariah) Nov. 23, 1973
Pearl River, town of (St.
Tammany Parish) ..... May 24, 1974
Provencal, Tillage of (Natchi-
toches Parish) Do.
Ringgold, town of (Bienville
Parish) May 3, 1974
Rcbellne. village of (Natchi-
toches Parish) Apr. 12, 1073
Roseland, town of (Tangipa-
hoa Farlsh) Oct. 20, 1973
S'r!l7 Is! ind. Village of
(Catahoula I*ar!3h) Dec. 28, 1973
Bterltagton, town of (Oua-
chita Parish) Dec. 17, 1973
NOTICES
Louisiana—Continued
Date of
Jdeit-flcction
Vllle Platte, town of (Evan-
geline Parish) May 17, 1974
Wlnnfleld, town of (Winn
Parish) Nov 16, 1973
Total 27
Maine
Ashland, town of (Aroostook
County) June 14, 1974
Buxton, town of (York
County) Apr 5, 1574
Dexter, town of (Penobscot
County) Mar 15, 1974
Glenburn, town of (Penob-
scot County) Mar 1, 1974
Hollls, town of (York
County) May 31, 1974
Llmlngton, town of (York
County) Do
Lisbon, town of (Androscog-
gin County) Feb 15, 1974
Mlnot, town of (Androscog-
gin County) Feb. 1, 1974
Phillips, town of (Franklin
County) June 14, 1974
Poland, town of (Androscog-
gin County) Feb 22,1974
Richmond, town of (Saga-
dohoc County) May 31, 1974
Sabattus. town of (Andros-
coggin County) Do
Scarborough, town of (Cum-
berland County) May 17, 1974
South Portlandr city of
(Cumberland County) Feb 22, 1974
Strong, town of (Franklin
County) June 14, 1974
Van Buren, town of (Aroos-
took County) Do.
Total 16
Maryland
Wllllamsport, town of
(Washington County) Feb 15, 1974
Total - - 1
Massachusetts
Amesbury, town of (Essex
County) June 14. 1975
Athol, town of (Worcester
County) Mar 8, 1974
Barre, town of (Worcester
County) May 17, 1974
Brewster, town of (Barn-
stable County) Mar 15, 1974
Brookfleld. town of (Worces-
ter County) May 3, 1974
Buckland, town of (Frank-
lin County) May 31, 1974
Chatham, town of (Barn-
stable County) Do.
East Brookfleld, town of
(Worcester County) June 7, 1974
Edgortown. town of (Dukes
County) May 31, 1974
Everett, city of (Middlesex
County) June 7, 1974
Fltchburg, city of (Worcester
County) Apr. 5, 1974
Gill, town of (Franklin
County) Mar. 15, 1974
Grafton, town of (Worcester
County) Apr 5, 1974
Holland, town of (Hampden
County) June 7, 1974
Leonmlnster, town of
(Worcester County) Mar 22, 1974
Monterey, town of (Berk-
shire County) Mar 15, 1974
Orange, town of (Franklin
County) ................ May 31, 1974
Hoy a.3 v> a. to an of (Worces-
ter County) May 17, 1971
Sunderland, town of (Frank-
lin County) Mar. 8, 1974
Massachusetts—Continued
Dcte of
Identification
Warren, town of (Worceste-
County) May 17, 1074
Westbo rough. town ot
(Worcester County) Mar 8, 1074
Wllbraham. town of (Hamp-
den County) May 17, 1974
Total — 22
Michigan
Alraont. village of (Lapeer
County) May 10. 1074
Ash. township of (Monroe
County) June 14, 1974
Bedford, township of (Mon-
roe County) Feb 15,1974
De Witt, city of (Clinton
County) Mar. 8, 1974
Flat Rock, city of (Wayne
County) May 17, 1974
Frankenmuth, city of (Sagi-
naw County) Jan 23, 1974
Grand Ledge, city of (Eaton
County) May 17, 1974
Hastings, city of (Barry
County) Apr. 12, 1974
Leslie, city of (Ingham
County) June 14, 197'
Manchester. village or
(Washtenaw County) Feb 22,1974
Memphis, village of (St.
Clair County) May 17, 1974
Milan, township of (Monroe
County) May 24. 1974
Olivet, city of (Eaton
County) May 17, 1974
Parchment, city of (Kalama-
zoo County) May 10. 1974
Petersburg, town of (Monroe
County) Feb 15. 1974
Plainwell. city of (Allegan
County) May 17. 1974
Plymouth, city of (Wayne
County) Do
Ratslnvllle. township of
(Monroe County) Feb 15, 1974
Rlvervlew, City of (Wayne
County) May 3. 1974
Saugatuck. village of (Al-
legan County) June 7. 1974
South Rock wood, village of
(Monroe County) Feb 1, 1974
Traverse City, city of (Grand
Traverse County) May 24, 1974
Watervllet, city of (Berrien
County) May 31, 1974
Williams ton, city of (Ingham
County) May 3, 1974
Total 24
Minnesota
Arlington, city of (Sibley
County) May 17, 1074
Aurora, city of (St. Louis
County) Apr. 5, 1974
Avon, city of (Steams
County) Mar 29, 1974
Brown ton. city of (McLeod
County) May 3. 1974
Choklo, city of (Stevens
County) Do.
Clinton, city of (Big Stone
County) May 17, 1973
Cohasset, city of (Itasca
County) May 31, 1974
Corcoran, city of (Hennepin
'County) ..... June 7. 1974
Cosmos, city of (Meeker
County) May 17,1974
Eagan, city of (Dakota
County) Nov. 30,1973
Eden Prairie, city of (Henne-
pin County) Mar. 1,1974
Elgin, city of (Wabasha
County) May 17,1974
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE
25, 1975
-------
Minnesota—Continued
Date of
Identification
Ellsworth. city or (Nobles
County) May 3.1974
Elmore, city of (Faribault
County) May 14,1974
Eveleth. city of (St. Louis
County) June 7,1974
Eyoti. city of (Olmsted
County) Apr. 12. 1974
Fairfax, city of (Renville
Co-nty) Mar 29. 1974
Fairmont, city of (Martin
County) June 7,1974
Farmington, village of (Da-
kota County) May 24.1974
Freeport. city of (Stearns
County) May 3,1974
Glen'vood. city of (Pope
County) Mar. 29.1974
Glyndon, city of (Clay
County) May 17, 1974
Ooodfcue, city of (Goodhue
County) May 24,1974
Gracevllle. city of (Big Stone
Count/) . May 17, 1974
Greenwood, city of (Henne-
pin County) May 31,1974
Hennlng, city of (Otter Tall
County) -- May 3, 1974
Heron Lake, city of (Jackson
County) May 24.1974
Hills, city of (Rock County) . Apr. 12. 1974
Holdlngford. city of (Stearns
County) May 17. 1974
International Falls, city of
(Koochiching County) June 7,1974
Isanti. city of (Isanti
County) Jan. 9, 1974
Ivanhoe. city of (Lincoln
County) Mar. 29, 1974
Jasper, city of (Pipestone
and Rock Counties) Do.
Keewatln. city of (Itasca
County) May 3.1974
Eenyon, city of (Goodhue
County) May 24. 1974
Kiester. city of (Faribault
County) May 10.1974
LltchSeld. city of (Meeker
County) Apr 12, 1974
Madella, city of (Watonwan
County) Do
Madison, city of (Lac Qui
Parle County) Do.
Maple Plain, city of (Henne-
pin County) May 3,1974
Marble, city of (Itasca
County) May 17,1974
Mayer. city of (Carver
County) Nov 23,1973
Medford, city of (Steele
County) Apr 12, 1974
Menahga, city of (Wadena
County) Do
Mendota Heights, city of
(Dakota County) Nov. 23. 1973
Mendota, city of (Dakota
County) Feb 8, 1974
Minnesota Lake, city of
(Faribault County) May 17,1974
Morrlstown, city of (Rice
County) _ Mar. 29. 1974
Mounds View, clt7 of (Ram-
sey County) May 3,1974
Mountain Iron, village of (St.
Louis County) May 24,1974
New London, city of (Kandi-
yohi Comity) Apr. 8. 1974
New Richland, city or (Wa-
seca County) Apr. 12, 1974
Nlcol'.?' city of (Nicollet
Comt-t) Apr. 5. 1974
No'-h 1- inch. clt7 of (Chic-
ago County) May 10. 1974
Oak Park Heights, city of
(Washington County) Mar 22,1974
NOTICES
Minnesota—Continued
Date of
Identification
Odessa, city of (Big Stone
County) Nov 23,1973
Ravenna, city of (Dakota
County) . Feb 23,1974
Richmond, city of (Stearns
County) Mar 29, 1974
Rosemont, city of (Dakota
County) June 7,1974
Rush City, city of (Chisago
County) May 10, 1974
Sacred Heart, city of (Ren-
ville County) May 3, 1974
Sanborn, city of (Redwood
County) May 10, 1974
Scanlon, city of (Carlton
County) Nov. 2, 1973
Sebeka. city of (Wadena
County) Apr 12, 1974
Spring Lake Park, city of
(Anoka County) May 10, 1974
Spring Park, city of (Henne-
pin County) June 7, 1974
St. Bonlfaclus, city of (Hen-
nepin County) Do.
Taylor Falls, city of (Chis-
ago County) May 24. 1974
Tyler, city of (Lincoln
County) May 3, 1974
Wanamlngo. city of (Good-
hue County) May 10, 1974
Watklns, city of (Meeker
County) Apr 12, 1974
Welcome, city of (Martin
County) May 10,1974
Wlnthrop, city of (Sibley
County) May 17, 1974
Total - - 73
Mississippi
Crowder, town of (Quitman
and Panola Counties) June 7,1974
Marlon, town of (Lauderdale
County) Jan 16, 1974
Ripley, city of (Tippah
County) June 7, 1974
Shubuta. town of (Clarke
County) Do
Valden, town of (Carroll
County) Do
Waynesboro, town of (Wayne
County) Jan 23, 1974
Total 6
Missouri
Anderson, city of (McDonald
County) May 17, 1974
Anniston. town of (Missis-
sippi County) May 3.1974
Arcadia, town of (Iron
County) Dec 28, 1973
Archie, town of (Cass
County) June 7, 1974
Ava, city of (Douglas Coun-
ty) — May 17, 1974
Ball win, city of (St. Louis
County) June 7, 1974
Bland, city of (Gasconade
County) May 17, 1974
Bloomfleld, city Otf (Stoddard
County) . -— Dec. 28, 1973
Bolivar, city of (Polk Coun-
ty) - Mar. 15, 1974
Breckenrldge Hills, city of
(St. Louis County) Deo 7, 1973
Brookfleld, city at (Linn
County) Feb. 1, 1974
Brunswick, town of (Charl-
ton County) Mar. 29, 1974
Buckner, town of (Jackson
County) Dec 28. 1973
CaUornla, city of (Monlteaa
County) Apr. 5, 1974
Cameron, city of (Clinton
and Dekalb Counties) May 17, 1974
26747
Missouri—Continued
Date of
Identification
Campbell, city of (Dunklin
County) Mar. 29, 1974
Carl Junction, city of (Jas-
per County) Feb. 8, 1974
Carrollton. city of (Carroll
County) Jan. 9, 1974
Cartervllle, town of (Jasper
County) Dec. 28, 1973
Carthage, city of (Jasper
County) Mar 15. 1974
Center, town of (Ralls Coun-
ty) July 28, 1973
Clinton, city of (Henry
County) Apr 12, 1974
Conway, town of (Laclede
County) May 10. 1974
Crane, city of (Stone Coun-
ty) June 7, 1974
Doniphan, city of (Ripley
County) Mar. 1, 1974
Duenweg. city of (Jasper
County) "ay 8. 1974
Eldorado Springs, city of
(Cedar County) Dec, 28, 1973
Elvlns, city of (St. Franco 18
County) _ Dec. 17, 1973
Fairfax, town of (Atchinson
County) May 10. 1974
Flak, City of (Butler Coun-
ty) MAr. 29, 1974
Fulton, city of (Callaway
County) May 17, 1974
Gainesville, town of (Oxsark
County) Dec. 28, 1973
Garden City, town of (Cass
County) Mar. 29. 1674
Glenatre, village of (Clay
County) Jim* 14, 1974
Granby, city of (Newton
County) ._ Apr. 12, 1974
Hardin, city of (Ray Coun-
ty) June 7, 1974
Harrlsonvllle, city of (Cass
County) Mar. IB, 1974
Hillsdale, village of (St. Loui?
County) Apr. 3. 1974
~Imo, city of (Scott Coun-
ty) May 3. 1974
Klnlocb. city or (St
County) Jan. 9, 1974
Laddonla, city of (Audrain
County) May 24, 1974
Lamar, town of (Barton
County) Dec. 28, 1973
LUbourn, city of (New Ma-
drid County) May 17, 1974
Lincoln, town of (Benton
County) May 31. 1974
Lutesvllle, city of (Bollinger
County) May 10, 1974
Manchester, city of (St. Louis
County) Dec. 17. 1973
Marble Hill, city of (Bollin-
ger County) May 10. 1974
Marcellne, city of (Linn
County) Mar. 29. 1974
Marlonvllle, city of (Law-
rence County) May 17. 1974
Marlborough, village of (St.
Louis County) May 31. 1974
Marston. city of (New Ma-
drid County) May 24, 1974
Mary Ridge, village of (St.
Louis county) Apr. 5. 1974
Milan, city of (Sullivan
County) Mar. 1, 1974
Naylor. city of (Ripley
County) .... — Do.
Noel, town of (McDonald
County) May 34, 1974
N.-rV>orne. city of (Carroll
County) Apr 5,1974
Owensvtlle, city of (Gaaooa-
ade County).. May 10. 1974
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE
25, 1975
-------
Missouri—Continued
Date of
Identification
O-ark, city of (Christian
County) — — Dec. 28, 1973
P.virayra, city ol (Marion
County) - - - Mar 6, 1974
Pimvtlle. town of (Platte
Ccunty) Jan. 16, 1974
Parma, town of (New Madrid
County) liar. 29, 1974
PerryvUle, city of (Perry
County) Mar. 8, 1974
Poplar Bluff, city of (Butler
County) Do.
Puxico, town of (Stoddard
County) Do.
Scott City, city of (Scott
County) Apr. 12, 1974
Slater. city of (Saline
County) May 10, 1974
S*.an berry. city of (Gentry
County) . , May 17, 1974
St. Clair, town of (Franklin
County) Apr. 12, 1974
Town. & Country, city of (St.
Louis County) Dec. 28, 1973
Trenton, City of (Grnndy
County) - Feb. IS, 1974
Vaa Buren, town of (Carter
County) Jan. 23, 1974
Vandalla, city of (Audrain
County) . May 17, 1974
Versailles, city of (Morgan
County) Apr. 5, 1974
Vlnlta Park, city of (St.
Louis County Do.
Warrensburg, oity of (John-
son County) Dec. 17,1973
Warsaw, city of (Benton
County) Mar. 29, 1974
Windsor, city of (Henry
County) ... Apr. 5, 1974
Total 77
Montana
Baker, city of (Fallon
County) Mar. 16, 1974
Big Sandy, town of (Chou-
teau County). Mar 29, 1974
Choteau, city of (Teton
County) Mar 22, 1974
Darby, town of (Ravalli
County) Jan. 9, 1974
town of (Madison
County) Mar. 15, 1974
Forsyth, city of (Rosebud
County) _—.— ¦
Fort Benton, city of (Cbou- Mar. 8, 1974
teau County) May 10, 1974
Glasgow, city of (Valley
County) Jan 9, 1974
Hot Springs, town of (Sand-
ers County) June 7, 1974
Kalispell, city of (Flathead
' County) Feb 16, 1974
Llbby, city of (Lincoln
County) May 31,1974
Nashua, town of (Valley
County) - Apr 6, 1974
Plains, town of (Sanders
County) ... Mar. 22,1974
Red Lodge, City of (Carbon
County) May 24, 1974
Three Forks, town of (Galla-
Twtn Bridges, town of (Madl- Mar 29,1974
son County)
tin County) . Do.
son County)
Wblt« Sulphur Springs, city
of (Meaner County) May 24,1974
Whlteflah, dty of (Flathead
County} May 31,1974
Total - 18
NOTICES
Nebraska
Date o/
Identification
Auburn, city of (Nemaha
County) Dec 17, 1973
Bennington. village of
(Douglas County) Feb 1,1973
Blue Springs, city of (Gage
County) Jan. 9, 1974
Brule, village of (Keith
County) May 24, 1974
Cairo, town of (Hall County) Do.
Clay Center, dty of (Clay
County) Mar 22. 1974
Culberton, village of (Hitch-
cock County) May 10,1974
Edgar, city of (Clay County) Apr. 12,1974
Him Creek, village of (Buf-
falo County) May 31, 1974
Ewlng, village of (Holt
County) May 3.1974
Fullerton, city of (Nonce
County) June 7, 1974
Gibbon, city of (Buffalo
County) May 31,1974
Harvard, city of (Clay
County) Mar. 22,1974
Hay Springs, city of (Sheri-
dan County) Do.
Nlckerson, town of (Dodge
County) Jan 23, 1974
Oakdale, village of (Antelope
County) Dec 28,1973
Ord. town of (Valley
County) Apr 5,1974
Osceola, city of (Polk
County) Mar. 22,1974
Overton, village of (Dawson
County) . June 14, 1974
O'Neill, city of (Holt
County) - Jan. 23, 1974
Pa*ton, Village of (Keith
County) May 24,1974
Ponca. riry of (Dixon
County) Apr 12,1S74
Ralston, city of (Douglas
County) Jan. 23, 1974
Rushvllle, city of (Sheridan
County) May 3,1974
Shelton. village of (Buffalo
County) Mar 22,1974
Stromsburg. city of (Polk
County) June 7, 1974
Sutton, city of (Clay
County) Do.
Terrtown. village of (Scotta
Bluff County) Dec 17,1973
Wisner, town of (Cuming
County) Dec. 7, 1973
Total 39
Nevada
Oallente. dty of (Lincoln
County) Mar. 29, 1974
Carson City, city of (Carson
City County) May 24.1974
Sparks, city of (Washoe
County) ... - Feb 8,1974
Total 3
New Hampshire
Aliens town, town of (Merri-
wnrv County)........... Apr. 5,1974
Bath, town of (Grafton
County) ..... Mar. 1, 1974
Bedford. Town of (Hills-
borough County) Mar. 29.1974
Bennington, town of (Hills-
borough County) — Mar. 8,1974
Boecawen, town of (Merri-
mack County)-.. - Mar. 15,1974
Camp ton, town of (Grafton
County) Apr. 5,1974
Charltstown. town of (Sulll-
vsn Ctnty) May 31, 1974
New Hampshire—Continued
Date of
Identifcatu
Chichester, town of (Merri-
mack County) Apr. 5, 1974
DerrLag, town of (Hillsbor-
ough County) Mar 15.197
Epsom, town of (Merrimack
County) Do
Francestown, town of (Hills-
borough County) June 14, 197
Franklin, city of (Merrimack
County) Mar. 8, 1974
GUsum. town of (Cheshire
County) May 31,197-
Gorham. town of (Coos
County) Mar. 1,1974
Haverhill, town of (Grafton
County) Mar. 8, 1974
Hennicker, town of (Merri-
mack County) Mar. 15,197
Holderness, town of (Graf-
ton County) Mar. 22. 197
Hudson, Town of (Hillsbor-
ough County) Mar 8, 1974
Litchfield, town of (Hills-
borough County) Mar. 15, 197
Littleton, town of (Grafton
County) May 31. 197
Meredith, town of (Belknap
County) June 14,191
New Castle, town of (Rock-
Ingham County) May 31,197'
New Hampton, town of (Bel-
knap County) Mar. 8, 1974
North field, town of (Merri-
mack County) Mar 22, 197*
Northumberland, town of
(Coos County) Feb 22, 1974
Pembroke, town of (Merri-
mack County) May 3. 1974
Plttsfleld, town ot Merri-
mack County) Mar 15.1974
Plymouth, town of (Grafton
County) Ma: •!, 1974
Ruznney, town of (Orafton
County) Mar 15, 1974
Til ton. town of (Belknap
County) Mar. 22. 197
Unity, town of (Sullivan
County) May 31, 1974
Total 31
New Jersey
Audubon, borough of (Cam-
den County) Mar. 29, 197-1
Bayonne, city of (Hudson
County) — May 17, 1974
Bogota, borough of (Bergen
County) May 31. 1974
Bradley Beach, borough of
(Monmouth County) Dec. 28, 1973
Butler, borough of (Morris
County) Feb. 1. 1974
Colts Neck, township of
(Monmouth County) Apr 12. 1974
Falrvlew. borough of (Ber-
gen County) Feb. 1. 1974
Franklin, borough of (Sus-
sex County) May 17, 197'
Hamburg, borough of (Sus-
sex County) June 14, 197
Hampton. borough of
(Hunterdon County) June 7, 1974
Hasbrouck Heights, borough
of (Bergen County) Nov. 30, 197:
Klnnelon. borough of (Mor-
ris .County) July 13, 197'
Little Ferry, borongh of
(Bergen County) Dec. 28, 197:
Maple Shade, township of
(Burlington County) Mar. 15, 197
Marrlstown, town af (Morris
County) Feb 1, 197'
FEDEMt REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 123—'WEDNESDAY, JUNE
23, 1975
-------
New Jersey—Continued
Date of
Identification
forth Arlington, borough of
(Bergen Count?) Mar. 29, 1974
0»&17n. borough of (Camden
County) - Feb 22, 1974
Ogdeasfrurg. borough or
Sussex County) May 17, 1974
Plenum, borough of
Gloucester County) Mar 15, 1974
prospect Park, borough of
(Passaic County) May 3. 1974
Bed Bank, borough of (Mon-
mouth County) Mar. 8, 1974
Roseland. borough of (Essex
County) - June 29, 1973
Rutherford, borough of (Ber-
gen County) Apr 12, 1974
Seaside Heights, borough of
(Ocean County) Mar. 22, 1974
Shrewsbury, borough or
(Monmouth County) June 7, 1974
Susex, borough of (Sussex
County) June 14, 1974
Upper Freehold, township of
(Monmouth County) Mar. 22, 1974
West New York, town of
(Hudson County) May 31. 1974
Westvllle, borough of
(Gloucester County) Mar 8,1974
Wlnfleld, township of
(Union. County) Do
Woodcllff Lake, borough of
(Bergen County) Feb 22, 1974
Total 31
New Mexico
Cimarron, Tillage of (Colfax
Cou-ity) May 17, 1974
Hagemum, town of (Chaves
County) May 31. 1974
Silver City, town of (Grant
County) June 14, 1974
Taos, town of (Taos County). May 17, 1974
Total — 4
New York
Adams, town of (Jefferson
County) - May 31, 1974
Alabama, town of (Genesee
County) May 3, 1974
Albion, village of (Orleans
County) May 24, 1974
Alexandria, town of (Jeffer-
son County) May 31. 1974
Antwerp, village of (Jeffer-
son County) Do
Arcade, village of (Wyoming
County) Do
Baldwin, town of (Chemung
County) Do.
Ballston Spa, village of
(Saratoga County) Do.
Barker, town of (Broome
County) Feb 15. 1974
Batavii, town of (Genesee
County) May 3, 1974
Baxter Estates, village of
(Nassau County) June 14, 1974
Bolivar, village of (Allegany
County) May 17, 1974
Boonvllle. village of (Oneida
County) May 31, 1974
Boston, town of (Brie
County) Apr. 12, 1974
Brant. town of (Erie
County) June 14. 1974
Brldgewater, Tillage of
(Oneida County) - May 17, 1974
Brockport, Tiling* ot (Mon-
roe County) May 31, 1974
Cambria, town of (Niagara
County) Apr. 12, 1974
Canaseraga, Tillage of (Alle-
gany County) May 10, 1974
Csnaatota, v HI age of (Uadl-
hoi Count7) Mar. 29. 1974
NOTICES
New Mexico—Continued
Date of
Identification
Candor, village or (Tioga
County) May 31. 1974
Castleton on the Hudson,
village of (Rensselaer
County) Mar 1, 1974
Celoron. village or (Chau-
tauqua County) Feb 15. 1974
Central Square, village of
(Oswego County) May 17, 1974
Champion, town of (Jeffer-
son County) May 31, 1974
Champlaln. village of (Clin-
ton County) Do.
Chaumont, village of (Jeffer-
son County) May 17, 1974
Chenango, town of (Broome
County) Mar 8, 1974
Cherry Creek, village or
(Chautauqua County) May 10, 1974
Clnclnnatus, town of (Cort-
land County) Apr 5, 1974
Claytton, town of (Jefferson
County) June 14, 1974
Clayvllle, village ot (Oneida
County) May 24, 1974
Cleveland, village ot (Oswego
County) May 31. 1974
Clyde, village of (Wayne
County) . Do.
Cold Spring, village of (Put-
nam County) Mar 8, 1974
Columbia, town of (Herki-
mer County) . Mar 29, 1974
Constantla, town of (Oswego
County) Apr 5, 1974
Croghan, village of (Lewis
County) May 31, 1974
Danube, town of (Herkimer
County) Apr 5, 1974
De Ruyter, village of (Modi-
son County) May 24, 1974
Dickinson, town of (Broome
County) Mar 8, 1974
Dobb3 Perry, village of
(Westchester County) May 17, 1974
Earlvllle, village of (Madison
County) May 31, 1974
East Syracuse, village of
(Onondaga County) Apr 12,1974
Eaton, town of (Madison
County) May 3. 1974
Elmsford, village of (West-
chester Countv) Apr 12. 1974
Evans M1113. village of (Jef-
ferson County) May 17, 1974
Fairfield, town of (Herkimer
County) Mar 29. 1974
Falconer, village of (Chau-
tauqua County) Feb 22, 1974
Fllmore, village of (Allegany
County) Feb 1,1974
Florida, village of Orange
County) Mar 22, 1974
Fonda, village of (Montgom-
ery County) Mar. 1, 1974
Fort Ann. village or (Wash-
ington County) Apr 13, 1974
Fort Johnson, village of
(Montgomery County) Mar. 15, 1974
Frankllnvllle, village ot
(Cattaraugus County) May 31, 1974
Franklin, village or (Dela-
ware County) Do.
Freedom, town ot (Cattarau-
gus County) Do.
Freevllle, village or (Tomp-
kln County) Do.
Gal way. town ot (Saratoga
County) June 14, 1974
Qlen Park, village or (Jeffer-
son County) Mar 29, 1974
Gouverneur. village of (St.
Lawrence County) May 24, 1974
Granby, town of (Oswego
County) Mays, 1971
Ml 43
New Mexico—Continued
Date of
identification
Greene, village of (Chenango
County) Apr 12. 1974
Qroton. village of (Tompkins
County) ... Do
Hamilton, town of (Madison
County) May 31 ".374
-Harrlman. village of (Orange
County) Mar 8, 1374
Haverstraw. village of (Hock-
land County) Apr 12,1974
Hobart. village of (Delaware
County) May 24. 1974
Holland, town or (Erie
County) June \i. 1974
Hudson Falls, village or
(Washington County) May 31, 1974
Ischua, town ot (Cattaraugus
County) Do.
Keeseville. Tillage ot (Essex-
County) Do.
Kensington, Tillage of (Nas-
sau County) June 14.1974
Lebanon, town of (Madison
County) May 31, 1974
Lenox, town of (Madison
County) May 10, 1974
Leon, town of (Cattaraugus
County) __ May 31.1974
Limestone. Tillage or (Cata-
raugua County) May 17, 1974
Lincoln, town of (Madison
County) Apr 13, 1974
Lisle, town of (Broome
County) Feb 15, 1974
Litchfield, town of (Herki-
mer County) Mar 15,1974
Little Falls, town of (Herki-
mer County) Apr 5, 1974
Little Valley, village ot (Ca-
taraugus County) May 31.1974
Livingston, town of (Colum-
bia County).. May 24 1974
Lorraine, town of (Jefferson
County) May 10, 1974
Lyons, village ot (Wayne
County) "... May C, 1374
Manhelm. town of (Herkimer
County) Mar 8. 1974
Mansfleld, town of (Catarau-
gus County) May 31, 1974
MarUla, town of (Erie
County) May 17. 1974
Mechanicvllle city of (Sara-
toga County) Apr 5, 1074
Medina, village of (Orleans
County) May 34, 1974
Middleourg, village of (Scho-
harie County) May 31. 1974
Milton, town of (Saratoga
County) J una 14, 1974
Mlnlslnk, town of (Orange
County) Apr 12, 1974
Mohawk, town of (Montgom-
ery County) Feo 15,1974
Montezuma, town of (Cayuga
County) Miyll, 1974
Montgomery, town of
(Orange County) Mar 22. 1974
Moravia, town of (Cayuga
County) June 14, 1974
Moravia, Tillage ot (Cayuga
County) Mayl 1074
Morrlstown. Tillage of (St.
Lawrence County) May 31.1974
Morrlsvllle, village of (Madi-
son County) Mar 6. 1974
Mount Hope, town, of (Orang*
County) May 24, 1974
Mantlcoke, town or (Broome
County) Apr. 12. 1974
Napoll, town or (Cataraugua
County) . June 14, 1974
Nassau, village of (Rensselaer
County) — — Mar 22.1074
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1975
-------
26750
Jlexe yfczico—Continued
Date of
Identification
Nelllston. village of (Mont-
gomery Count?) Feb 15, 1971
Naw Berljj, village of (Che-
nango County] May 31, 1971
Kew Lt\>anoo, towa of (Ca-
luniLi County) Apr 12,1374
New Scotland, township of
(Albany County) May 10, 1074
Newstead. town of (Erie
County) Apr 13, 3974
NLcHcl3, village' ol (Tioga
County) June 7.1974
North Syracuse, village of
(Onondaga County) Do.
0]i78, town of ( CTUter
County) m Do-
OrcbJxd Part, village of (Erie
County] Do.
Oswego, town of (Oswego
County) May 31, 1974
Otlsco, town of (Onondaga
County) Do.
Otto, town of < Cat&iaugua
County) Do.
Owasco, town of tCayuga
County) Do.
Palatini Bridge, vlllago of
(Montgomery County) Feb. 15,1974
PeekflklU. city of (VYea tches-
ter County) May 31, 1974
Pelbum, village of (Westell es-
trr County) May 17,1974
Perrysburg, town of (Cattar-
augus County) May 17, 1074
Perry, village of (Wyoming
County) May 24, 1&74
Poiand, village of (Herkimer
County) Mar. 3,1974
Port Byron, village of (Cay-
uga County) J,Tj,y 3_ ^74
Putnam Valley, towa of
(Putnam County) Mar. 29.1974
Richmond v 111 e, village of
(Schoharie County) May 31, 1974
Rosendale. town of (Ulster
County) Do.
Round Lake, village of (Sar-
atoga County) Do
P.ouaes Point, village of
(CUnton County) June 14, 1974
Rutland, town of (Jefferson
Countyj June 7, 1974
Saddle Bock, village of
(Nassau County) June 14, 1974
Salem, village of (Washing-
ton County) Apr. 12, 1874
Salisbury, town of (Herk-
imer County) June 7, 1974
Sandy Creek, town of (Os-
wego County) May 24, 1974
Sc bag btl coke, village of
(Rensselaer County) May 31, 1974
Scholiarle, village of (Scho-
harie County) Do.
Schuylervllle. village of
(Saratoga County) Alar 29. 1974
Scottsvllle, village of (Mon-
roe County) Ilor 8 1074
Sempronlus. town of (Cay-
uga County) May 31, 1974
Bennett, town of (Cayuga
County) June 14, 1974
Sherburne, village of (Chen-
ango County) May 31. 1974
Sidney, town of (Delaware
County) Apr. 12, 1974
Sidney, village of (Delaware
County) Feb fi, 1974
SlnclairvUle. village of
(Chautauqua County) May 10, 1974
SoatiSurg. village of (P-ccX-
lnnd coi-.nsv) iT-ir 22, 1974
s«...:e. vii'a** cf
(Cattaraugus County) Kay 31,1974
So'itU Glens Falls, village of
(Saratoga County) Apr 12, 1974
Nonces
yew "ferico—Continued
Date o}
Identification
Sou til Nyack. village of
(Rockland County) Jlar 15. 1974
Sprlagvllle. village of (Erie
County) Way 17, 1974
Stuaford. village of (Dela-
ware County) Do.
Summerhlll, town cf (Cay-
uga County) May 31, 1974
Tannersrllle. village of
(Greene County) June 7, 1974
Theresa village of (Jefferson
County) May 10, 1974
Throop, town ol (Cayuga
County) Apr. 13, 1974
Torrey. town of (Yates
County) May 31, 1974
Triangle, town of (Broome
County) Apr 5, 1974
Truxton, town of (Cortland
County) Do
Tuckaboe, village of (West-
chester County) May 10, 1974
Turin, town of (Lewis
County) June 7, 1914
Upper Nyack. village of
(Rockland County) Mar IS, 1974
Victory, village of (Saratoga Apr. S, 1974
County)
Wales. town of (Erie May 10, 1974
County)
Waterloo, village of (Seneca May 31, 1&74
County)
Watertown. city of {Jefferson Apr. 5, 1974
County)
Watertown. town of (Jeffer- Do.
eon County)
West Cartilage, village of May 10, 1974
(Jefferson County)
Whitney Point, village of Feb 22, 1974
(Broome County)
Wilton, town of (Saratoga June 14, 1974
County)
Wyoming, village of (Wyom- May 17, 1974
Ing County)
Total 169
Worth Carolina
Andrews, city of (Cierokee
County)
Bladenboro, town of (Bladen
County)
Burnsvllle, city of (Yancey
County)
Carrboro, village of (Orange
County) Feb 22, 1974
Chadboum. town of (Col uln-
bus County)
China Grove, town of
(Rowan County) Jan. 9. 1974
Columbia, town cl (Tyrell
County) Feb. 8, 1874
Conetoe, town of (Edge-
combe County)
Dlllaboro. city of (Jackson
County)
Elizabeth town, tern of
(Bladen County) Dec. 28, 1973
En field, town of (Hall/ax
County) Nov 30. 1973
FrankllnvUIt, town of (Ran-
dolph County) Feb 22, 1S74
Gatesvllle, town ol (Gates
County)
JonesvlUe, town of (Yadkin
County) Mar. 1, 1974
Knlgh Wale, town, of (Wake
County)
Lake W&ccamaw, town of
(Columbus County)
Lanslne. town of (Ashe
Co'icty)
Llti^ni-snrs
-------
Ohio—Continued
Date of
J dent if.catian
Feb 8. 1974
Do.
Apr 5,1974
Apr. 12,1974
Apr. 5. 1974
May 31. 1974
Feb 8,1974
Mar 32, 1974
Feb IS, 1974
June 7,1974
May 31,1974
June 7,1974
Apr 5, 1974
May 31, 1974
May 10, 1974
May 17,1974
Mar 29, 1974
May 17,1974
MOT 15, 1974
Jon 9, 1974
June 7, 1974
Feb.1,1974
June 14,1974
Feb 1. 1974
June 7, 1974
May 3,1974
Feb 8,1974
May 31, 1974
May tfl, 1974
Jan 23, 1974
June 7, 1974
Feb 1, 1974
Do.
Mar 29. 1974
May 10 1974
May 17. 1974
Mar IS. 1974
Feb 1,1974
Jan IS. 1974
Do
Apr 5 1074
J.\.r 20. .371
Mnr 15,1074
NOTICES
Ohio—Continued
Date of
Identification
Apr. 5.1974
Mar 1, 1974
Mar 29. 1974
May 31. 1974
June 7, 1974
Apr 12, 1974
April 6, 1974
Mar. 15. 1974
Apr 15. 1974
Apr. 12. 1974
Jan. 23. 1374
Mar 15. 1974
May 17, 1974
Feb. 8. 1974
Nov 16, 1973
Mar 1, 1974
Do.
Feb 1, 1974
Apr. 12, 1974
Feb 15, 1974
May 3, 1974
May 17. 1974
Do
May 3, 1974
Feb 1. 1974
May 31. 1974
May 17, 1974
Do
Do
May 3, 1974
Mar 1. 1974
Jan 9. 1974
May 3, 1974
Feb 8, 1974
May 17, 1974
ilpr 5, 1974
May 3, 1974
Feb 1, 1974
Apr 12. 1974
Do
liar 15, 1974
May 31. 1374
May 10. 1974
26751
Oh to—continued
Date oj
Identification
May 31. 1914
May 17, 1974
Apr 5. 1974
Do
Mar 20. 1974
May 10. 1974
May 3. 1974
Feb 8.1974
Do.
Do.
Do.
Max 1% 1974
May 17. 1974
So.
May 10, 1374
Feb. 1.1974
June 14.1S74
Apr 12.1974
Mar. 1, 1974
June 7. I9T4
Nop 1. 1973
May 17, 1974
Moy 31. 137k
Ma* 1, 1971
Feb. 8. 1974
June 7, 1974
May 31, 1974
May 10. 1974
Apr 5. 1974
May IT, 1974
Apr 5, 1974
Ffeb. 8, 1974
Mar 15. 1974
Do.
May 17. 1974
Feb 1. 1974
Mar 15.1974
Do
June 7 1974
Mar 13 . ^ i
Mh" 1 1974
Bedford. city of (Cuyahoga
County)
Be'lalre. city ol (Belmont
County)
Berlin Heights, village o I
(ET'.e County)
BetcsvMIe village of (Seneca
County)
B'.anchester. village of (Clin-
ton County)
Botklr-s. village ol (Shelby
County)
Brecksvllle, city of (Cuya-
hoga County)
BrooUyn. city of (Cuyahoga
County)
Deoctson, village of (Tus-
gomery County)
Brian, city of (Williams
County)
Cadiz, village of (Harrison
County)
Caldwell, village of (Noble
County)
Caledonia, Tillage of (Marlon
County)
Cambridge, city of (Guern-
sey County)
Camden, village of (Preble
County)
Canfleld. village of (Mahon-
ing County)
Cistalla. village of (Erie
County)
Centerburg, village at (Knox
County)
Chagrin Falls, village of
(Cuyahoga County)
Chardon. village of (Geauga
County)
Cheviot, city of (Hamilton
County)
Chrlstlansburg, village of
(Champaign County)
Coal Grove, village of (Law-
rence County)
Coaltcc. village of (Jackson
County) »
CoU» liter, village of (Mer-
c?r County)
Columbiana, village of (Co-
lumolana County)
Columbus Grove, village of
(Putnam County)
Convoy, village of (Van Wert
County)
Corning, village of (Perry
Oounty)
Coshocton, city of (Coshoc-
ton County)
Covington, village of (Miami
County)
Cre*ton. village of (Wayne
County)
Crooksvllle. village of (Perry
County)
Cuyahoga Heights, village of
(Cuyahoga County)
Cygnet, village of (Wood
County)
De'pbos. city of (Allen
County)
I>unison, village of (Tus-
carawas County) _
Donne'.svllle. village of
(Clark County)
East Liverpool, city of (Co-
lumb.ana County)
Eist Palestine, cl'y of (Co-
lurrbtana Counts)
East 3Dar:a village of (Stark
C'v in'.v)
r* '' vl .•£-> o: lAilon
jitj)
Emolre. village or (Jeffenon
Ccuntj)
Euclid, city of (Cuyahoga
County)
Evendale, village of (Hamil-
ton County)
Falrlawn. city of (Summit
County)
Fort Jennings, village of
(Putnam County)
Port Recovery., village of
(Mercer County)
Frankfort, village of (Rosa
County)
Frederlckatown, village of
(Knox County)
Gallon, city of (Crawford
County)
Garfield Heights, city of
(Cuyahoga County).*
Garretsvllle, village of (Port-
age County)
Glrard. city of (Trumbull
County)
Gloria Glens Park. Village of
(Medina County)
Glouster, village ot (Athens
County)
Grand River, village of (Lake
County)
Green Camp, village ot
^Marlon County) „
Green Springs, village of
(Sandus&y County)
Greenfield, village of (High-
land County)
Hamden, village of (Vinton
County)
Hambler, Village of (Henry
County)
Harrison, village of (Hamil-
ton County)
Hebron, village of (Licking
Couat>)
Hlc'tsvllle, village of (Defi-
ance County)
Hillsboro, city of (Highland
County)
Ho'gate, village of (Henry
County)
Independence, city of
(Cuyahoga County)
Jackson Center, village of
(Shelby County)
Jacksonville, village of
(Athens County)
Jackson, city of (Jackson
County)
Jeffersonvllle, village of
(Fayette County)
Jeromesvllle. village of (Ash-
land County)
Kallda, village of (Putnam
County)
Kenton, city of (Hardin
County)
Hlllbuck. village of (Holmes
County)
Lake more, village of (Sum-
mit County)
Lancaster. City of (Fair-
field County)
Leesburg, village of (High-
land County)
Leetoma, village of (Colum-
biana Countv)
Lincoln Heights, village of
(Hamilton County)
Lisbon, v'llnge of (Colum-
biana County)
Lockland, city of (Colum-
biana County)
Loill. village of (Medina
Co^riy)
L> »n v-'tv of 'ITor"!"g
Cc.m-.-)
London. City of (Madison
Loudonvtlle, village of (Ash-
land County)
Louisville, city of (Stork
County)
Lowell Tine. Tillage of
(Mahoning County)
Lucas, village of (Hlchland
County)
Lynchburg, village of (High-
land County)
Madison, Village ol (Lake
County)
Magnolia, village o1 (Carroll
County)
Mantua, village of (Portage
County)
Maple Heights, City of
(Cuyahoga County)
Marlemont, vUJageof (Wash-
ington County)
Maumee, city of (Locaa
County)
McComb. village of (Hancock
County)
McConnelavUle, Tillage of
(Morgan County)
McDonald, village of (Trum-
bull County) ....
McGufiey, village of (Hardin
County)
Mechanlcsburg. village of
(Champaign County)
Mendon, village of (Mercer
County)
Milan, village of (Erie
County)
Mil bury, village of (Wood
Coucty)
MlllvUle, village of (Butlzr
County)
MonroevUle, village of
(Huron County)
Monroe, village of (Butler
County)
Montpeller. village of (Wil-
liams County)
Moraine. VUlogf of (Mont-
gomery County)
Moreland Hills, village of
(Cuyahoga County)
Mount Healthy. city ot
(Hamilton Courty)
Napoleon, city of (Henry
County)
Nelsonvllle. village of
(Athens County) —
New Holland, village of
(Pickaway County)
New Lexington, village ot
(Perry County)
New Matamoras, village of
(Washington County)
New Miami, village at (But-
ler County) —
New Philadelphia, city of
(Tuscarawas County)
Newb-urgh Heights, village of
(Cuyahoga County)
Newcoroerstown, village of
(Tuscarawas County)
Newton, village of (Hamilton
County)
North Bend, village of
(Hamilton County)
North FalrHeld, village of
(Huron County)
North Rldgevllle. ctty of
(Lornln County*
Ko'ton, cltj of (Summit
Couu —)
Oak Harbor village of (Ot-
tawa County)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE
25, 1975
-------
26732
Ohio—Continued
Date of
Identification
Oakwood Village, village of
(Cuyahoga Co'inty) May 17, 1974
O.ifTvood. village of (Pauld-
ir.i County) Do.
Obe'z. village of (Franklin
County) Feb 15, 1974
Ontario, village of (Richland
County) Apr 5. 1974
Ottawa Hills, village of
(Lucas County) Nov B, 1973
Pa ae village of (Paulding
County) May 3, 1974
Peninsula, village or (Sum-
mit County) Mar 22. 1974
Perryfburg, city or (Wood
County) Do
Piketon. village ot (Pike
County) Nor 28, 1974
Pioneer, village oI (Wllllam3
County) May 31. 1974
Plymoutn, village or (Huron
County) May 3. 1974
Pomeroy, village or (Meigs
County) Feb 15. 1974
Racine, village or (Meigs
County) Mar 22. 1974
Beading, city or (Hamilton
County) Feb 8, 1974
Richmond Heights, city or
(Cuyahoga County) Mar 22, 1974
Rich wood, village or (Union
County) May 17, 1974
Riverside, village or (Mont-
gomery County) Feb 15, 1974
Rock Creek, village ot (Ash-
tabula County) Apr 5, 1974
Rockford, village ot (Mercer
County) Apr 12, 1974
Rogers, village of (Colum-
biana County) Mar 22, 1974
Rosevlile, city of (Muskin-
gum County) Feb 15, 1974
Ro&iford. city of (Wood
County) Mar 1. 1974
Rus^ells Point, village ot
(Logan County) Apr 5, 1974
Salem, city ot (Columbiana
County) May 3, 1974
Seven Hills. city or (Cayu-
hoga County) Mar 22, 1974
Seven Mile, village ot (Butler
County) June 14, 1974
Seville, village of (Medina
County) Mar 15, 1974
Shawnee Hills, village of
(Delaware County) Feb B, 1974
Shelby, city of (Richland
County) Nov. 9, 1974
Shreve. village of (Wayne
County) Mar 29. 1974
Smlthvllle. village of (Wayne
County) Apr 5, 1974
Solon, city of (Cuyahoga
County) Do
St Paris, village or (Cham-
paign County) June 7. 1974
Sugar Creek, village of (Tus-
carawas County) May 31, 1974
Syracuse, village or (Meigs
County) Apr 5. 1974
Terrace Park, village of
(Hamilton County) Feb 8, 1974
Toronto, city ot (Jefferson
County) Jan 16. 1974
Tuscarawas, village of (Tus-
oarawaa County) Apr. 5, 1974
Upper Sandusky, city ot (Wy-
andot County) Jan 9, 1974
Valley View, vlilage or (Cuya-
hoga County) Jan. 23, 1974
Van Buren, vlilage of (Han-
cock County) Mar 22, 1974
Van J tit j, ilty of (It'ont^em-
er/ County) June 7, 197-4
NOTICES
Ohio—Continued
Date of
Identification
Versailles, village of (Darko
County) Apr 5, 1074
Wadsworth, city of (Medina
County) Mar 1, 1974
Waite HU1, village of (Lake
County) Dec 17, 1973
Wakeman, village of (Huron
County) Nov 9, 1973
Warrensvtlle Heights, city of
(Cuyahoga County) Mar 15, 1974
Washingtonvllle, village or
(Columbiana and Mahon-
ing Counties) Nov 9, 1973
Wauseon, village of (Fulton
County) June 7, 1974
Wellington, village of (Lo-
rain County) Jan 9, 1974
Wellston, city ot < Jackson
County) Feb 15, 1974
West Lake, city of (Cuyahoga
County) Apr 12, 1974
V. hitehouse, village of (Lucas
County) Mar 29. 1974
Wllllamsourg. village of
(Clermont County 1 Do.
Windham, vlilage ot (Portage
County) Mar 15, 1974
Wlntersvllle, village or (Jef-
rerson County) May 31, 1974
Woodlawn, village ot (Ham-
ilton County) Feb 1, 1974
Woodsfleld. village of (Mon-
roe County) June 7. 1974
Woodvllle, village of (San-
dusky County) Mar 15, 1974
Total 203
Oklahoma
Anadarko. city ot (Caddo
County) Feb 15, 1974
Barnsaale, city or (Osage
County) Dec 17. 1973
Blnger, town or (Caddo
County) June 7, 1974
Boley. town ot (Okfuskee
County) Apr 12. 1974
Boa well, town of (Choctaw
County) .. Mar 15, 1974
Carnegie, town of (Caddo
County) Dec 7, 1973
Chelsea, city -of (Rogers
County) Dec 28, 1973
Crescent, city ot (Logan
County) May 10, 1974
Dewey, city of (Washington
County) May 31, 1974
Fairfax, town of (Osage
County) Dec 28, 1973
Fort Supply, town ot (Wood-
ward County) May 24, 1974
Guthrie, city of (Logan
County) Dec 28. 1973
Ha6kell. town of (Muskogee
County) Apr 12, 1974 "
Healdton, city of (Carter
County) Dec 28, 1973
Henryetta, city of (Okmulgee
County) Jan 23, 1974
Hobart, city of (Kiowa
County) Dec 7, 1973
Hominy, city or (Osage
County) Dec 28, 1973
Hulbert, town of (Cherokee
Count7) Apr 12. 1974
Idabel, city of (McCurtaln
County) Jan 23, 1974
Inola, city of (Rogers
County) May 10, 1974
Donawa, city of (Seminole
County) Apr 5, 1974
Krebs, city of (Pittsburg
County) Dec 23, 1973
Lots '.Vol^, town of (Mlowa
Couaty) May 3. 1071
Ok tafioma—Continued
Dite of
Identification
Mad-ill, city of (Marshall
County) Nov 23, 1973
Marlow. city of (Stephens
County) Dec 28, 1973
Newcastle, town of (McLain
County) June 7. 1974
Pryor. city of (Mayes
County) Feb 1. 1974
Koff, city of (Pontotoc
Mar 22, 1974
Selling, city ot (Dewey
County) May 24, 1974
Shattuck, town of (Ellis
County) Do
Thomas, city or (Custer
County) Apr 5, 1974
Tishomingo, city of (John-
ston County) Jan. IS, 1974
Tonkawa. city of (Kay
County) Nov 23,1973
Vlaa, town ot (Sequoyah
County) .1 May 3. 1974
Weleetka. city ot (Okfuskee
County) June 14.1974
Total 35
Oregon
Aumsvllle, city of (Carlon
County) May 10, 1974
Brokings, city of (Curry
County) May 31, 1974
Canby. city of (Clackamas
County) Nov 16,1973
Chlloquin. town of (Klamath
County) Nov 30,1974
Drain, city of (Douglas
County) Apr 5, 1974
Falls City, city ot (Polk
County) May 10, 1971
Huntington, city ot (Be&er
County) Nov 30, 1D73
Powers. city of (Coos
County) Nov 23, 1973
Rainier, city ot (Columbia
County) May 24, 1974
Riddle, city ot (Douglas
County) June 7. 1974
Sisters, city of (Deschutes
County) Dec 7, 1973
Turner, city of (Marlon
County) Jan 18. 1974
Weston, city ot (Umatilla
County) May 17,1974
Yamhill, city of (Yamhill
County) Nov 30.1973
Yoncalla, city of (Douglas
County) Apr 5, 1974
Total 15
Pennsylvania
Alburtls, borough of (Lehigh
County) Jan 16, 1974
Aleppo, township of (Alle-
gheny County) May 10. 1974
Auburn, borough of (Schuyl-
kill County) Jan 23, 1974
Austin, borough of (Potter
County) May 17, 1974
Avalon, borough of (Alle-
gheny County) Feb 1,1974
Avonmore, borough of (West-
moreland County) J- Do.
Bally, borough ot (Berks
County) June 7,1974
Beaver, borough of (Beaver
County) Mar 15, 1974
Bell Acres, borough ot (Alle-
gheny County) — June 7,1974
Bellevue. borough of (Alle-
gheny County) Dec. 28,1973
Ben Avon, borough of (Alle-
gheny County) Do
Uecne' toanship of (Arm-
strong Count7) .May 31,1974
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1975
-------
Pennsylvania—Continued
Date of
Identification
Jan. IS. 1974
Doc. 28.1973
May 19. 1974
Jan 23,1974
June 7.1974
Feb.1,1974
Jan. 16,1974
May 3.1974
Dec 28, 1973
Mar 29. 1974
Feb 1.1974
Apr. 5.1974
Do.
Jan 9. 1974
May 31, 1974
Feb.22,1974
Apr 12,1974
Do.
May 17.1974
Apr. 12,1974
June 7,1974
Dec 28,1973
Apr. 12,1974
Apr 5.1974
Jan. 16. 1974
May 10.1974
Jan. 9, 1974
Feb 22, 1974
Apr. 6.1974
Dec 7,1973
Feb. 1,1974
Apr 6.1974
Jan 23,1974
Jan.16.1974
May 17.1974
Feb.1,1974
May 31,1974
Do.
Do.
Feb 1,1974
Co
NOTICES
Pennajrlronto—Continued
Date of
Identification
Spring, township of (Craw-
ford County) May 31,1974
Sugar Grove, borough of
(Warren County) Do.
Sug&rcreex. borough of (Ve-
nango County) Apr 12,1974
SunLmerbllJ, borough of
(Cambria County) Dec 28,1973
Tatamy, borough of (North-
ampton County) Apr 12,1974
Thompsontown, borough of
(Juniata County) Do
Topton, borough of (Berks
County) May 31, 1974
Troy, borough of (Bradford
County) May 10, 1974
Turtle Creek, borough of
(Allegheny County) Feb 1, 1974
Upper Nazareth township of
(Northampton County) Dec, 27, 1971
Venango, township of (Craw-
ford County) - May 31. 1974
Versailles, borough of (Al-
legheny County) Jan. 9. 1974
Waterford. borough of (Erie
County) May 10, 1974
Wayne, Township of (Craw-
ford County) May 31, 1974
Weetover, borough of (Clear-
field County) Mar 8, 1974
Womelsdorf, borough of
(Berks County) May 24, 1974
Wyaluslng, borough of
(Bradford County) Feb 1, 1974
York Haven, borough of
(York County) Jan. 23, 1974
Total 72
Rhode Island
Hof>klnton, town of (Wash-
ington County) May 31, 1974
Richmond, town of (Wash-
ington County) Do.
Total 2
South. Carolina
Abbeville, city of (Abbeville
County) May 31, 1974
Andrews, town of (George-
town County) May 24, 1974
Belton. town of (Anderson
County) Do.
Blackvllle, town of (Barn-
well County) - June 7, 1974
BluSton, town of (Beaufort
County) May 17, 1974
Bowman, town of (Orange-
burg County) May 31, 1974
Branchville. town of
(Orangeburg County) Juno 7, 1974
Clover, town of (York
County) May 24, 1974
Dillon, town of (Dillon
County) May 17, 1974
Eastover, town of (Richland
County) May .31, 1974
Edgefield, town of (Edgefield
County) May 24* 1974
Fairfax, town of (Allendale
County) May 31. 1974
HarleyvUle, town oi (Dor-
chester County) May 24, 1974
Hemingway, town of (Wil-
liamsburg County) — June 7, 1974
Holly Hll), town of (Orange-
burg County) Do.
Irmo, town of (Lexington
County) May 17, 1974
Iva, town of (Anderson
County) May 31, 1974
Jackson, town of (Aiken
Countv> May 17, 1974
Lake View to-*n of Dillon
Countv) May Zi. 1974
26753
South Caroltnar—Continued
Date of
Identification
Lane, town of (Williamsburg
County) May 17. 1974
McCormick. city of (McOor-
mlck County) June 7, 1974
Moncks Corner, town of
(Berkeley County) May 24. 1974
Olanta. town of (Florence
County) May 24, 1974
PampUoo, town of (Florence
County) May 10. 1974
Rldgevllle, town of (Dor-
chester County) May 31. 1974
Scranton, town of (Floreno©
County) May 24. 1974
Sellers, town of (Marlon
County) June 7. 1974
Seneca, town of (Oconee
County) June 14, 1974
South Congaree. town of
(Lexington County) May 17. 1974
Tlmmonsvllle. town of (Flor-
ence County) May 24, 1974
Warrenvllle, town of (Aiken
County) June 14. 1974
WUllamston, town of (An-
derson County) May 31, 1974
Total 32
South Dakota
Colome, city of (Tripp
County) May 10, 1974
Planklnton, city of (Aurora
County) June 7. 1974
Total 2
Tennessee
Bell Buckle, town of (Bed-
ford County) June 14. 1974
Bristol, city of (Sullivan
County) Mar. 8, 1974
Calhoun, city of (McMlnn
County) Do
Chapel Hill, town of (Mar-
shall County) June 14, 1974
Charleston, dty of (Bradley
County) Feb. 1, 1974
Dayton, city of (Rhea
County) Mar. 1, 1974
Dunlap. city of (Sequatchie
County) May 24, 1974
Dyer, town of (Gibson
County) May 31, 1974
Englewood, city of (McMlnn
County) May 17, 1974
Estill Springs, city of (Frank-
lin County) Feb 1, 1974
Graysvllle, city of (Rhea
County) Mar 8, 1974
Iron City, city of (Lawrence
County) June 14, 1974
Kimball, town of (Marlon.
County) Do.
Kingston, city of (Roane
County) Mar 8, 1974
Lewlsburg. city of (Marshall
County) - Mar 1, 1974
Lynnvllle. city of (Giles
County) June 14, 1974
Milan, town of (Gibson
County) May 24, 1974
Richard City, city of (Marlon
County) - -—-- Feb. 1, 1974
Ridge top, city of (Robertson
County) June 7, 1974
Rogersville, city of (Hawkins
County) - Feb. IB. 1974
Rutherford, town of Gibson
County) June 7, 1974
Saltlllo. town of (Hardin
CountvV —----- .... June 14 1974
Sneecl^Ule city ot (Hancock
County) Feb 1, 197 +
^ffl.mtown. borough of
*°Carton County;
\.ru>«n. borough of
* n^ffcs County
—_ meek. township of
^L-acaster County)
, ict^town. borough of
TwjJilaeton County)
rtr. ral City, borough of
¦ Somerset County)
f.,,borough of (Alle-
">.eay County)
CU.-i">n. city of (Allegheny
County)
Comport, borough of (Clear-
field County)
jjjeson. borough of (Fay-
rtte County)
r..t pniaburgh. borough of
(Allegheny County)
gut Rochester, borough of
(Beaver County)
T»ndergrift, borough of
(Westmoreland County).
Economy, borough of (Bea-
ver County)
Elzabeth, borough of (Alle-
gheny County)
Pwrfelld, township of (Craw-
ford County)
r-neite City, borough of
(Payette County)
Oarrett. borough ot (Som-
erset County)
Orimplan. borough of
(Clearfield County)
Houtzdale, borough of
(Clearfield County)
Irvona. borough of (Clear-
field County)
Lansford, borough of (Car-
bon County)
Liberty, borough of (Alle-
gheny County)
Llgonler, borough of (Wash-
ington County)
M'lford, borough of (Pike
County)
Mlllerstown, borough of
(Perry County)
UUlhelm borough of (Centre
County)
Nazareth. borough of
(Korinamptoa County)
New Berlin, borough of (Un-
ion County)
North Buffalo, township of
(Armstrong County)
Oakdale, borough of (Alle-
gheny County)
Patton, borough of (Cambria
County)
Polk, borough of (Venango
County)
Bousevllle, borough, of (Ve-
nango County)
Sandy Lake, borough of
(Mercer County)
Bhenango, township of
(Mercer County)
SMpplng Port, borough ol
(Beaver County)
Bmlthton, borough of (West-
moreland County)
South Coatesvllle, borough
(').
Bouth Fork, borough of
(Cambria County)
Southwest Greensburg, bor-
ough of (Westmoreland
County)
8prsni'er borough of (Cam-
bria C'Tjicy) -
FEDeRAt REGISTER, VOL 40, NO. 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE
15, T 975
-------
26754
Tennessee—Continued
Identification
Dite of
SOTier-,iHe, town of (Payette
C unity) May 17, 197-4
Sprtng Hill, city of (Maury
"County) Do
Surgoiiisvlile, city of (Haw-
Kins County) Do
Tellico Pialrk,, city of (Mon-
roe County) Mar 8, 1974
Tracy City, city of (Grundy
County) May 10, 1974
Trsuton, town of (Gibson
County) May 3, 1974
Wartrace, town of (Bedford
County) Juno 14, 1974
Whitwell. city of (Marion
County) Feb 15, 1974
Total 31
Texas
Alamo, city of (Hidalgo
County) Jan 23, 1974
Albany, city of (Shackelford
County). May 3, 1974
Anton, city of (Hockley
County) Mar 29. 1974
Balch Springs, city of (Dal-
las County) Mar 8, 1974
Bandera, city of (Bandera
County) Apr 12. 1974
Blanco, city of (Blanco
County) May 3. 1974
Slue Mound, city of (Tar-
rant County) Dec 17,1973
Booker, city of (Ochiltree
and Lipscomb Counties).. May 24, 1974
Bowie, city of (Montague
County) May 3. 1974
Boyd, city of (Wise
County) Dec 28, 1973
Briar Oaks, city of (Johnson
County) Mar 29, 1974
Bronte. town of (Coke
County) Do
Cactus, city of (Moore
County) June 14, 1974
Canton, city of (Van Zandt
County) May 10, 1974
Canutlllo. city of (El Paso
County) Jan 9. 1074
Carrlzo Sprlng3, cLty of
(Dimmit County) May 3, 1974
Center. City of (Shelby
County) ' Mar 1, 1974
Cisco, city of (Eastland
County) May 3, 1974
Clnrksvtlle, city of (Red River
County) Feb 15, 1974
Cockrell Kill, city of (Dallas
County) De
-------
VtaJt,—Continued
Date of
Identification
May 24. 1974
June 7, 1974
Dec 28, 1973
June 7, 1974
1
May 31, 1974
Feb 15, 1974
May 31, 1974
Do
Apr 5, 1974
May 17, 1974
May 31, 1974
June 14. 1974
May 3. 1974
May 31, 1974
Do
Do
Apr 12, 1974
Feb 1, 1974
Mar 22, 1974
May 31, 1974
Mar 18, 1974
J7
Mar 0, 1974
Mot 22. 1974
June 14, 1974
May 31. 1971
Do.
May 17, 1974
e
Jan 9, 1974
June 7, 1974
May 31, 1974
Dec 28, 1973
Apr 5, 1974
June 7, 1974
May 31, 1974
June 7, 1974
Mav 2* 1574
May lVTi
Jan 23, 1974
NOTICES
Washington—Continued
Date of
Identification
June 7, 1974
May 34, 1974
June 14, 1974
May 24. 1974
15
May 31. 1974
June 7, 1974
Mar 1. 1974
Feb 8, 1974
Feb 1, 1974
Mar 8, 1974
May 31, 1974
Feb 1, 1974
Apr 5. 1975
May 24, 1974
Do
Feb 8, 1974
Feb. 1, 1974
May 31, 1974
Do
16
Nov 30, 1973
May 31, 1974
May 10, 1974
Do
May 17, 1974
Dec 17, 1973
June 7, 1974
Jan 9, 1974
Do
May 17, 1974
Dec 17, 1973
Do.
Nov 30, 1973
Jan 9, 1974
Dec 17, 1973
Dec. 28, 1973
May 3, 1974
Dec 28 1973
>.ri? Tl. :97±
June 7. 1974
2675o
WlscoTUtn—Continued
Date of
Identification
May 17. 1974
Deo. 28, 1973
May 24, 1974
Dee. 17. 1973
June 7. 1974
Dec. 17. 1973
Not. 30, 1873
Ma? 31, 1974
May 24, 1974
Nor. 30, 1973
May 31, 1974
May 24. 1974
May 17, 1074
Nov. 30, 1973
April 12, 1974
Jan 16. 1974
May 10, 1974
Nov 30, 1973
May 17, 1974
Nov 30, 1973
Dec 28. 1973
Nov. 30, 1973
June 7, 1974
Jan 9, 1974
Jan 23, 1974
Dec. 28, 1913
Feb 8. 1974
May 17, 1974
Dec. 28, 1973
May 24, 1974
May 17, 1974
Do
Do.
May 10, 1974
Mar 8, 1974
Dec 28, 1973
Dec 17, 1973
Do.
Nov 30, 1973
Dec 28, 1973
Dec. 17, 1973
May 31, 1974
i 'iioton, city "f (Emery
r.ur.cy) —-
C- .ujou'.f, otty of (Emery
-A Bountiful, city of
< LW is County)
:rd. city of (Box Elder
C.niucv)
Total
Vermont
3«.-Ushlre, town of (Franklin
County)
Berlin, town of (Washington
County)
Ci saau. town cf (Lamoille
County)
Cluendon, town of (Ruth-
land County)
Er.osbu.-g Falls, village of
(FnJKltn County)
Fairfax, tojra of (Fr anil In
County)
Hlghgate. town of (Franklin
County)
Jericho town of (Chittenden
County)
Milton. village of (Chitten-
den County)
Mj'etown. town of (Wash-
ington County)
Nortlvfleld. town of (Wash-
ington County)
Readsboro, town of (Ben-
nington County)
Sheldon, town of (Franklin
County)
Sunderland, town of (Ben-
nington County)
Swanton, village of (Frauk-
Un County)
Turnbrldge. town of (Orange
County)
V'lillston, town of (Chitten-
den County)
Total -
Virgin: a
Duffleld. town of (Scott
County)
Dungxonon, town of (Scott
County)
Jontsvllle, town of (Lee
Coun ty)
Mount Jackson, town of
(Shenandoah County)
TtoykJna. town of (South-
hampton County)
St Charles, town of (Lee
County)
Total
Washington
Denton City, town of (Ben-
ton County)
Bingen, town of (Klickitat
County)
Carnation, town of (King
County)
Col ll'e. city of (Stevens
C >unty)
Deer Park, city of (Spokane
County)
Ei.-na. town of (Grays Harbor
County)
Ephr:\ta. city of (Grant
County)
Medical Lake, town of (Spo-
kane County)
Palojse, city of (Whitman
County) .
P---. A-ij'i'e-!, li-r(Clallam
County)
Prosser, town of (Benton
County)
Beoubllc. town of {Ferry
County)
Rosalia, town of (Whitman
County)
Sbeltcn. city of (Mason
County)
St John, town of (Whitman
County)
Total
West Virginia
Anawolt, town of (McDowell
County)
Beckley. city of (Raleigh
County)
Belle, town of (Kanawha
County)
Bethany, town of (Brooie
County)
Buffalo, town of (Putnam
County)
Cedar Drove, town of (Kana-
wha County)
Franklin, town of (Pendleton
County)"
Kambleton, town of (Tucker
County)
Hurricane, village of (Put-
nam County)
Montgomery, city of (Fayette
and Kanawha Counties)
Pine Grove, town of (Wetzel
County)
Trldelphla, town' of (Ohio
County)
Valley Grove, town of (Ohio
County)
War, town of (McDoiell
County)
West Hamlin, town of (Lin-
coln County)
Total
Wisconsin
Arcadia, city of (Trempea-
leau County)
Athens, village of (Marathon
County) '
Augusta, village cf (Eau
Claire County)
Baldwin, village of (St Croix
County)
Barneveld, village of (Iowa
County)
Barron, city of (Barron
County)
Belgium, village of (Ozaukee
County)
Bell Center, village of (Craw-
ford County)
Belleville, village of (Dane
and Green Counties)
Belmont, village of (Lafay-
ette County)
Black Earth, village of (Dane
County)
Boscobel, city of (Grant
County)
Bowler village of (Shawano
County)
Broivntown, village of (Green
County)
Cambridge, village of (Dane
County)
Cameron, village of (Barron
County)
Cascade, village of (Sheboy-
gan County).
Ch«iseburg. village of (Ver-
non County)
Cu nbei'nad, cltv of (3m—on
Co ai/) "...
DeUHela. city of (Waukesha
County)
Doylestown, village at (Co-
lumbia County).—
Eagle River, city of (VUas
County)
East Troy, village of (Wal-
worth County)
Edgerton. city of (Rock
County)
Elroy, city of (Juneau Coun-
ty)
Endea?or, village of (Mar-
quette County)
Ex trick, village of (Trempea-
leau County)
Falrchlld. village of (Eau
Claire County)
Fall Creek, village of (Eau
CI aire County)
Forestvllle, village of (Door
County)
Fortvllle. village of (Rook
County)
Pox Lake, city of (Dodge
County)
Francis Creek, village of
(Manitowoc County)
Golesvllle, city of (Trempea-
leau County)
GUlett, city of (Oconto
County)
Gratiot, village of (Lafayette
County)
Hammond, village of (St.
Croix County)
Hartland, village of (Wauke-
sha County)
Holeman. vtllage of (La
Crosse County)
Horlcon, city of (Dodge
County)
Howaid, village of (Brown
County)
Hustlsford, village of (Dodge
County)
Iola, village of (Waupaca
County)
Johnson Creek, village of
(Jefferson County)
Kekoskee. village of (Dodge
Countv)
Kewaskum. village of (Wash-
ington County)
Kiel, city o" {Mstnltowoc
County)
Ijake Hills, city of (Jefferson
County)
Lannon, village of (Wauke-
sha County)
Lena, village of (Oconto
County)
Livingston, village of (Grant
County)
Lone Rock, village of (Rich-
land County)
Lowell, village of (Dodge
County)
Luxemburg, village of (Ke-
waunee County)
Madison, city of (Dane
County)
Marquette, village of (Green
Lake County)
Marshall, village of (Done
County) 1
Mauston. city of (Juneau
County)
Mayvllle. city of (Dodge
County)
Mazomalne, village of (Dane
County)
Melrose village of (Jackson
County)
Ilerrllian, village of (Jack-
son County)
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 40, NO 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE
25, 1975
-------
26758
NOTICES
tv.teoTijin—Continued
Date of
Identification
llerton. x lili&e oi (Waukesha
Conntv* Dec. 28, 1973
Mlnernl Point. ctt7 o{ (Iowa
County) May 31, 1974
Ms Co-va" \ lllage of (Pond
Du i.JC County) June 7, 1974
Keceduh Milage of (Juneau
County V Jan. 9. 1974
NeUoaitlle Milage of (Port-
age Conner) Jan. 23, 1974
New Liscoj city of (Juneau
C3U3T) Dec. 17, 1973
Onjla-i-a. city of (La Crosse
Com"") Dec 28, 1973
Ontario. ¦ ¦Ji.-'ge of (Vernon
Couti'.y) Jan. 9, 1974
Orlorl.i.le. tillage of (Rock
Couatyi May 24. 1974
Osaeso. village of (Trem-
pealeau County) May 3, 1974
ParkeevUle, village of (Co-
lumbia County) Dec. 28, 1373
Park Ridge, village of (Port-
age County) Do
Poplar, village of (Douglas
County) Do
Port Washington, town of
(Ozaukee County) May 31, 1974
Potosl, Milage of (Grant
County) Dec 28, 1973
Poynette, 'village of (Colum-
b'.i County) May 3. 1974
rralrte Du Sac, village of
(Sauk County) Dec 7, 1973
Prairie Farm, village of (Bar-
ron County) Do.
Proimre. village of (Price
Counu) Dec 28, 1973
Ptjk-cco". city of (Green
Lato County) Do
\ulage of (Brown
County) May 24. 1974
Ite-.l.rr u'-Ke, village of (Wau-
County) May 17. .1974
R.U Lii.-.t. village of (Taylor
Cou i. ) May 24. 1974
¦TU.e I. i':e, city of (Barron
Cou i:~) Dec 7_ 1973
Ro-A.d^e village of (Dane
Cci-J'v) . DO.
ShM. „b irtr city of (Lafayette
Count'/) May 17, 1974
Solon Springs, village of
(Dous .us County) June 7. 1974
South v, ayne. village of (La-
fayette County) Dec 7. 1973
Spring Green, village of
(Sauk County) Do.
Spring Valley. vlUage of
(Pierre County) June 14. 1974
Star Prairie, village of (St.
CroU County) Dec 28, 1973
Sturt«7ent, village of (Ra-
cine County) May 24, 19T4
St. CrcLx Palls, city of (Polk
County) Do.
St y-i -cis city of (Milwau-
kee County) June 7. 1974
Sullivan Milage of (Jefferson
Coun.y) Apr 12. 1974
Taylor village of (Jackson
County) Dec 7, 1973
Theresa, village of (Dodge
County) Do.
Waterloo, city of (Jefferson
County) Dec. 28. 1973
Wausiukee. village of (Mar-
Inetto County) May 24. 1974
Wautoma. city of (Waushara
County) 17. 1074
T.Vs; 3 \raboo. village of
Total — 113
Wyoming
Dubois, town of (Fremont
County) Jan 23, 1974
Jackson, town of (Teton
County) May 10, 1974
Kemmerer, town of (Lincoln
County) Mar 29, 1974
Laramie, city of (Albany
County) Apr. 5, 1974
Rlverton, city of (Fremont
County) Mar 29, 1974
Saratoga, town of (Carron
County) June 14, 1974
Torrlngton, town of (Goshen
County) Mar 15. 1974
Wheatland, town of (Platte
County) - Apr. 12, 1974
Total 8
National total 1.979
(National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (title
XIH of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1968) effective Jan 28, 1969 f33 FR
17604. Nov 28. 1968). as amended. 42 U S C
4001-4128, and Secretary's delegation of au-
thority to Federal Insurance Administrator,
34 FR 2680, Feb 27, 1969) as amended 39
FR 2787. Jan 24, 1974
Dated June 17,1975.
J Robert Hunter,
Actmg Federal Insurance
Administrator.
[FR Doc 75-16504 Filed 6-24-75,8 45 am)
Office of Interstate Land Sales Registration
[Docket No. N-75-380J
EDELWEISS MOUNTAIN DEVELOPER
Hearing
In the matter of Edelweiss Mountain
Developer, Black Forest Development,
Inc., OILSR No 0-3200-41-2, Docket No.
ED—75—8
Pursuant to 15 USC. 1706(b'> and 24
CFR 1720.155(b) notice is hereby given
that:
1. Black Forest Development. Inc, De-
veloper of Edelweiss Mountain Subdivi-
sion, its officers and agents, hereinafter
referred to as "Respondent," being sub-
ject to the provisions of the Interstate
Land Sales Full Disclosure Act CPub. L.
90-443) (15 U S.C. 1701 et seq.). received
r. Notice of Suspension dated May 19.
1975 which was sent to the developer
pursuant to 15 UJS C. 1706(b) and 24
rrii 1720 45va) informing tne developer
'r.d.1 amended a! Record
submitted April 28,1975. for Blac c Forest
Development, Inc , Edelweiss Mountain
Subdivision, located in Pennmston
County, South Dakota, was not effective
pursuant to the Act, and the lejula.ions
contained in 24 CFR Part 1710.
2 The Respondent filed an ar^-ver
dated Jane 10. 1975. m answer u> tfcj
allegations, of the notice ot suspco>i3u
dated May 13,1975.
3 In said Answer the Respond-r.t re-
quested a hearing on the a'Je-?j.tio notice Is hereby given
that:
1. Hawaii Kona Kal. Ihc, Jonl John-
ston, President, its officers rjid agents,
hereinafter referred to as "Responder.1, "
being subiect to the provisions of toe In-
terstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act
(Pub. L. 90-448) (15 USC. 1701 etseq.),
received a Notice of Proceedings and Op-
portunity for I-Iearing Issued May 15.
1975, which was sent to the developer
pursuant to 15 USC 170o<"d>, 24 CFR
1710 45(b)(1) and 1720 Its informing
the developer of information obtained by
the Office of Interstate Land Sales Regis-
tration alleging that the Statement of
Record and Property Report for Kula Eal
View Estates, located in Hawaii County.
Hawaii, contain untrue statement of ma-
terial fact or omit to state material facts
required to be stated therein a.i necessary
to make the statements therein not mis-
lead, r.s.
2 The Respondent filed an answer re
ceived June 6, 1975, in response to the
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOl 40, NO 123—WEDNESDAY, JUNE
25, 1975
-------
CTT:
Flood Insurance Requirements Effective
July 1 , 1975
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO.
Alvin L. Aim Program Guidance Memorandum PPcSY}
i kom. Assistant Administrator for Planning and Management (PM-208)/-W -f—r
Regional Administrators •JULO V
10: .
Enclosed you will find an advance copy of a revised information
sheet relating to flood insurance purchase requirements for our gran\;
programs. The legal requirements are also found in the final general
grant regulations published on May 8 (40 CFR 30.405-10).
Effective July 1, 1975 (or one year after a community's notifi-
cation of identification as a'flood-prone community, whichever is
later), EPA 1s prohibited by law from making any grant for acquisition
or construction purposes In a flood hazard area unless the community
in which the project 1s located is participating in the flood
insurance program and flood insurance 1s purchased by the grantee.
""" ThelT?tsspf communities to which this prohibitloiwppl iis uii—
July 1 , 1975, Vas'just been published by HUD in the^fcgderal Reqlstejy
f-K
-------
,-0 os'"v
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^'pno^ WASHINGTON DC 20460 August 5, 1975
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-29
Program Guidance Memorandum PG-56
SUBJECT: EPA Procedures in Initiating Debarment Actions
Against Grantee Contractors
FROM: Alvin L. Aim, Assistant Administrator
for Pianmnn apfi Management (PM-208) / /
James \~^geef*fkssistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
TO: All Regional Administrators
EPA may initiate debarment proceedings against a grantee
contractor for:
1. Wage rate violations under the provisions of the Davis
Bacon-Act. This Act provides for the use of minimum wage
rates determined by the Department of Labor.
2. Equal Employment Opportunity violations. These provisions,
set forth in Executive Order 11246, deal with racial, religious,
etc., discrimination, as detailed in 40 CFR 8.8 through 8.14.
3. Contract Work, Hours and Safety Standards Act violations.
This Act contains overtime provisions.
4. Copeland Act violations. This Act contains anti-kickback
provisions. Debarment resulting from violations of the
Copeland Act can proceed only after such violations have
been established through adjudicatory proceedings.
Upon finding evidence or being notified of significant
violations, the Regional Contract Compliance Officer, working
in concert with the Regional Counsel, prepares a memorandum citing
the particulars of the case including all pertinent evidence. This
memorandum, along with recommendations, is then forwarded, under
the signature of the Regional Administrator, to the Grants
Administration Division, OPM.
-------
-2-
The submission is reviewed by both the Compliance Staff and
the Office of General Counsel. If, as a result of these reviews,
it appears that sufficient justification for debarment exists,
the Compliance Staff will notify the Department of Labor of its
intent to file for debarment and, concurrently, request an informal
reading on the merits of the case. If the Department of Labor
indicates that the case has merit, EPA will formally submit
charges to the Department and request the initiation of disbarment
proceedings.
Department of Labor procedures include an intensive review
of the evidence and formal hearings. If debarment is ordered,
appeal hearings may be held. General notification of debarment
is effected by the General Accounting Office which publishes
quarterly, and updates monthly, lists of companies and persons
debarred.
-------
ATS O
" UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
rP
WASHINGTON DC 20460
St? 6 1975
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-30
Program Guidance Memorandum PG-57
SUBJECT: Cost Control
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations (WH-446) /
TO: All Regional Administrators
Attn: Director, Water Programs Division
I. Purpose:
This program guidance memorandum provides information on cost
control measures to ensure project reviews include full consideration of
cost-effectiveness in design.
II. Background:
Under Section 212(2)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, the grant applicant must demonstrate that the pro-
posed treatment works is the most cost-effective to meet the goals of
the Act. The intent of the Act is to make sure that grant funds are
properly managed throughout the project.
This requirement of the Act is implemented in Section 35.917(d) and
Appendix A of the construction grant regulations. The grant applicant
is required to evaluate alternatives and select the most cost-effective
(including full consideration of non-quantifiable environmental and
social factors). Cost-effectiveness procedures are an integral part of
the Step I facility planning process and the Step II preparation of
plans and specifications.
III. Value Engineering:
To extend the cost-effectiveness effort to all components of
the project, as intended by the Act, an interim value engineering (VE)
program was introduced in December 1974. The VE methodology is designed
to focus on function and value and has been demonstrated to be effective
in controlling cost and thereby assuring quality and value design.
However, because the present VE program is based on voluntary participa-
tion, it can be expected that many projects will not be subjected to
such cost review. This means significant resources could be spent with
very little benefit as a result of undetected "gold plating." Waste in
-------
this nature may seem small in relation to the total project cost, but in
terms of the entire construction grant program, it could amount to
millions of dollars. In view of this, it is essential that the Regional
office review procedure be sensitive to the need for cost-effective
design.
IV. Types of high costs to be alert for in construction grant projects:
a. Major unrealistic costs may first appear in the facility plan-
ning process. In this case the total cost for the project appears un-
reasonable and inappropriate for the project scope. For example, a 4
million gallon per day treatment plant, treating primarily domestic
sewage to meet secondary treatment at a cost of $20 million would merit
further investigation. Similarly, a 20 million gallon per day plant
designed to use the extended aeration process should be looked at very
closely to be sure all cost-effective alternatives have been considered.
By good cost review of the facility plan the project manager can forestall
needless expenditure of Step II effort on designs which are not cost-
effective and save time in the Step II review process.
b. "Gold plating" costs may appear in the Step II design and are
much more difficult to detect. These costs can occur as the Step II
design proceeds and include design details which require expensive con-
struction techniques, specification of high cost items which are not
cost-effective, and inefficient plant layout, buildings, or hydraulics.
Identifying gold plating in a project design requires an experienced re-
viewer with knowledge of plant design and cost-effective design alterna-
tives. In looking for gold plating in a Step II design, the following
points are to be considered.
(1) Plant aesthetics and appearance (landscaping, building
finishes) are important features in many locations. While recognizing
this importance of aesthetics, it is also necessary that the design
solutions to solve aesthetic problems also be cost-effective.
(2) The cost review should concentrate on high cost areas
of the project. Extensive cost review effort on minor items with no
significant cost impact is a misdirection of effort.
2
-------
V. Techniques for identifying potential unnecessary high costs:
a. Cost curves. When used carefully, cost curves can be an effective
tool for identifying high cost projects and high cost areas within a
project.
b. Value Engineerinq(VE). Value engineering techniques such as
cost to worth ratio and functional cost models are a good method to
isolate areas with potential for cost control. If the project has
already been subject to VE review (see Program Guidance Memorandum 45)
then it is likely that gold plating has been removed.
c. Cost models. Cost models have been developed in various VE
workshops for individual projects. An example is attached. In the
model, two separate costs are provided for each component or system
within a project. The higher cost represents estimated design cost and
the lower one the worth. Worth is defined as the lowest initial cost to
perform the required function. Ideally, the ratios of these two costs
should approach 1.0, but in practice it is rarely less than 2.0. When
the ratio exceeds about 3.5, excessive cost is probably present. This
procedure allows quick determination of possible gold plating areas in
the project. Detailed review will confirm whether this is actually the
case.
VI. Action to take when potential excessive cost or gold plating
is present:
a. Preventive measures. Gold plating can be eliminated when
the project is subject to VE review. To ensure that project completion
is not delayed, the applicant should be encouraged to incorporate VE at
an early stage of the Step II design. This will simplify and speed-up
the final review process. Thorough review of the facility plan will
also speed-up the Step II review by identifying and eliminating major
excess cost items.
b. Value engineering. Although not as efficient when performed on
the completed Step II design, VE can identify gold plating and develop
more cost-effective alternatives. In-house (EPA) VE studies can be
performed or the grant applicant can be requested to accomplish VE on
the design as a condition of further grants.
3
-------
c. Specific requests to the grant applicant. When there are
clearly identified excessive costs with significant impact the grant
applicant can be requested to develop alternatives or show specific
portions of the project are cost-effective. In order to avoid delay
this should be initiated either by telephone or by a meeting. It may be
found that there is a simple explanation for what appears to be excessive
cost. In many cases a conditional grant can be used, subject to reduction
of the excessive costs.
Attachment
4
-------
COST MODEL FOR WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
l
SITE WORK
OPERATIONAL
SUPPORT
"1
SO 015
<
|
1
SO 06
l_
0 07
J
J 009
NORMAL
-1
CONTROLS
'1
i 0 015
•'1
1
0 0 J
1
i
«0? J
L 2°LJ
ABNORMAL
1
maintenance
' T
N/A
)
-1
001
1
1
ZIS«j
._0£3_J
OTHER
0 03
r-
PRELIMINARY/
PRIMARY
"1
|
SO 05
1 —°°2 J
SCREENING
~\
0 005
J
i 00,J
GRIT
"T
0 02
1
1
^. Q Q 1
SETTLING TANK
H
0025
i
0 03*
0 05 J
'CCENO
Coal >n OoIIom P«f Col loo Pat Doy
4.3 MCO Copociry
Cost 1,00
Rural Location
'Modification of •sitting plont
MODEL PLANT
$ 0 SO
i
[ACTUAL J0_93j
PROCESS
S 0 355
£
T
}
1
_S0 4£|
SECONDARY
SO 10
SETTLING TANK
°2?-J
1
003
J
AERATION
PROCESS
006
J
J
-2J'J
EQUIPMENT
0 0S
TANKS
0 0?
OTHER
0 01
0 06 |
0£3 J
___
additional
SO 105
i
1
I 22Z
SUSP SOLIDS
REMOVAL
-n
1
009
I
—
I yju
J
BOO REMOVAL
N/A
*
J
1 /^N/AJ
—
NUTRIENT
REMOVAL
-1
N/A
1
;
DISINFECTION
-T
0015
1
1
L_
\
OTHER i
1
N/A |
I N/A,
INTERFACE
$0 U
WASTE
—i TRANSPORT
0.09
PUMPING
006
I
PIPING
0 03
ELECTRICAL
DISTRIBUTION
M
other
0 01
T
I
I
0 30 J
"1
J
J
_o_2i j
I
0 07 J
.isu
n
¦ i
SLUDGE
>0 03
_0 04J
PROCESSING
ooj
0 05
1
fl
a j
TRANSPORT n
" J
001
—H
.-fi.QU
DISPOSAL
¦i
,1
L
N/A
OTHER
N/A
-------
-
\m)
4* PQO<*V
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-3
Program Guidance Memorandum PG-58
SU3JECT: Facilitating EIS Preparation with
Joint EIS/Assessments (Piggybacking)
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
1975
Sheldon Meyers, Director G's - J /' *"7 >
Office of Federal Activities C / > L& c 1-.7 ^
John T. Rhett __ ^7 / yO/ //
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Jr
Water Program Operations ^
TO:
Regional Administrators
Purpose
At the EIS Preparation Conference in April 1975,
many regional participants expressed interest in the
joint ElS/environmental assessment (piggybacking) procedure
developed by Region IX to facilitate the preparation of
EIS's. This memorandum is to provide guidance for con-
sistent implementation of this procedure, whenever it is
used in any region, according to the requirements of 40 CFR 6.
Description of Joint ElS/assessments
The procedure is the preparation of a combined EIS
and environmental assessment. The procedure is initiated
by a regional office early in the planning process. When
the state priority lists are completed, a Regional
Administrator should decide which projects require EIS's
by applying the NEPA criteria to plans of study and other
project information requested or received from the grantee
or state. Once the decision to prepare an EIS has been
made, the regional office enters into an agreement with
the grantee to prepare a joint ElS/environmental assessment,
using the grantee's consultant to perform the environmental
analyses. While the grantee may retain the same consultant
for .:iS preparation and facility planning, the use of
separate consultants is recommended to ensure compliance
with 40 CFR 35 . 939-2 , the code of conduct under EPA' s
procurement regulations for construction grants which
reouires the grantee to "avoid personal or organizational
conflicts of interest or noncompetitive procurement practices
which restrict or eliminate competion or otherwise restrain
trade."
-------
After the agreement is signed and the Step 1 grant
awarded, the EPA project manager or project team works
closely with the grantee and interested public groups to prepare
the joint EIS/asse:ssment, carefully documenting participa-
tion with the grantee to show EPA's compliance with NEPA
requirements. This documentation can be in the form of
reports on EPA meetings with the grantee during scheduled
review cycles of the EIS text, written approval of the
grantee's submitted environmental data or other correspondence
prepared during the EIS preparation. All documentation
should be available for public scrutiny in a project file.
Using the procedure, the grantee's environmental assess-
ment and EPA's draft EIS are the same document and can be
completed within the 12 months during which the facilities
plan is prepared. Region IX perceives as one of the major
objectives of facilities planning the integration of environmental
considerations at the earliest stage of facilities planning,
even when the procedure is used and the consultant preparing
the facilities plan does not prepare the environmental
assessment. Once a decision has been made to prepare a
joint ElS/assessment in Region IX, the regional office
actively manages all parties responsible for developing
and evaluating solutions to a water quality problem: EPA,
the grantee, the state agencies and the two consultants.
Representatives from each of these groups attend meetings
to share information throughout preparation of the facilities
plan and ElS/assessment under-the supervision of EPA. EPA's
primary participatory roles are identifying the issues;
maintaining effective communications among the groups
performing the economic, environmental and engineering
studies; reviewing submissions from the grantee's consultants
and making final decisions regarding the EIS's content and
approach. The EIS would not duplicate engineering details
in the facilities plan. Conversely, the facilities plan should
reference, instead of duplicate, the environmental analyses
in the EIS. Region IX publishes the facilities plan and the
EIS as separate documents, but both are discussed at consecutive
or joint public hearings held by the grantee and EPA.
While the procedure can reduce the time between Step 1
grant award and Step 2 grant award, it can only be used
effectively when the NEPA decision is made before or early
during Step 1 planning. A regional office must take an
active role in getting data on which to base the NEPA
decision, rather than waiting until facilities plans and
grant applications are submitted.
-------
If the Regional Administrator makes an initial
decision early during Step 1 planning not to prepare an EIS
on a project, then a project manager or project team from
the regional office can work informally with the grantee
to prepare a thorough environmental assessment as part of
the facilities plan, using one or more consultants as
necessary to ensure an interdisciplinary approach to facilities
planning. In these cases, the regional office may not have to
commit the same level of resources to Step 1 grant activities;
however, working with the grantee and interested public
groups to produce the environmental assessment will
facilitate preparation of EPA's environmental appraisal
and negative declaration.
Compliance with NEPA Regulations
The NEPA regulations for preparing EIS1s on nonregulatory
programs (40 FR 16814) describe a procedure for conducting
an environmental review of a project, using available data;
making a decision to prepare an EIS or a negative declaration,
and encouraging public participation in the decision-making
process (§6.104). While the regulation states that the
environmental assessment is used to decide if an EIS is
needed and to prepare one if necessary, it also states
that the environmental assessment is not the only document
which can be used for the environmental review (§6.202).
In fact, the criteria for determining when to prepare an
EIS (§6.200 and §6.510) must be applied to a proposed EPA action,
regardless of the sources of data on the action. Therefore,
even thoUgh-the grantee's environmental assessment should be
the most complete single source of data on and analysis of
environmental effects of a project, the regulations do not
preclude conducting an environmental review and making the
NEPA decision before the assessment is prepared.
Organizational Requirements
Each region will have to adapt the program to its
internal organization. After talking with several regions,
three organizational patterns emerged which can serve as
examples of how the procedure can be implemented.
In Region IX, EIS preparation, facilities planning
and grants evaluation/management are in the Water Programs
Division. This division has two branches; one is responsible
for Step 1 grants and the other for Step 2 and Step 3
grants. Branch sections are organized geographically.
-------
One project evaluator or area engineer from the Step 1
branch manages a total project, including EIS preparation,
within the geographical area to which he is assigned;
he may request technical assistance from personnel in
other divisions with specific expertise, such as air
quality analysis. The project evaluator also coordinates
work schedules and data exchanges between the consultant
preparing the facilities plan and the consultant preparing
the EIS.
In other regions, facilities planning, construction grants
management and EIS preparation may be separate or may be
combined in a variety of ways within divisions. In these
cases, there is the problem of possible breakdowns in
communications among the branches and with the contractors,
causing delays in a project. However, internal communications
can be maintained through joint preapplication conferences
with potential grantees, joint evaluation of project data,
joint reviews of the contractors' submissions and internal
planning meetings.
Region VIII has adopted a team approach to project
management which can facilitate preparing joint ElS/assessments
with two contractors. The region is divided into geographical
areas; projects in each area are managed by a team consisting
of one staff member from each of the four Water Program Office
divisions: the grants office, the control technology branch,
the planning branch and the environmental evaluation branch.
The grants engineer is the overall team leader and can call
on other divisions for assistance on a project-by-project
basis. If an EIS is being prepared on a project, the team
member from the environmental evaluation branch takes the
management lead for that project.
Advantages of Joint ElS/assessments
Region IX has used the procedure in several states,
both with and without state NEPA legislation, and has
shortened the time between Step 1 grant award and Step 2
grant award by three to nine months (the time required to
prepare an EIS without the procedure). In addition to time
savings, the procedure offers other advantages. It allows
a more effective use of regional personnel and contract
resources because the grantee's consultant has more staff
with environmental expertise available to prepare the
document; the draft EIS serves more effectively as a decision-
making tool, exerting more influence on the selection of
alternatives considered in the facilities plan than would
be possible had the EIS been prepared later.
-------
Examples of Piggybacked EIS's Prepared by Region IX
Aliso Water Management Agency (draft)
Serra (Orange County) Ocean Outfall (draft)
City of Sacramento Wastewater Treatment Plant (final)
Appendices
Appendices A through D include samples prepared by
Region IX of a letter proposing a joint ElS/assessment procedure
to a grantee, a memorandum of understanding between EPA and a
grantee outlining conditions and procedures for preparing a
joint ElS/assessment, an EIS issue paper prepared by the regional
office for the grantee, and a legal memorandum on the procedure
from the Office of General Counsel.
The pertinent requirements of Program Guidance Memorandum 53,
"Interim Guidance - Consulting Engineering Agreements -
Title II Construction Grants Program," July 8, 1975, should
be incorporated into any memoranda of understanding between
EPA and grantees when the procedure is used. In addition, the
requirements of 40 CFR 35.939-2 (Code or Standards of Conduct),
in the proposed regulation for minimum standards for procurement
under EPA grants (40 FR 20296) should be used as interim guidance
for approving the grantee1s consultants under the procedure.
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE LETTER
-------
^[^2 ; UNI I L U S I A I LS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
¦'«, ,,1°' WASHINGTON DC 20460
OrriCE OP THE.
ADMINISTRATOR
(Grantee Iiame and Address)
Re: Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Project (Number)
Dear (Grantee):
As you know, it is the intent of EPA to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the subject project
in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA). There are two alternative approaches to
achieving this objective. The first is for EPA to initiate
preparation of the EIS after completion by your agency
of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which would
normally be required under Federal and State regulations.*
The second and preferable approach is for our agencies to
participate in a cooperative effort to produce a "joint
EIS" which would satisfy both Federal and State regulations
and eliminate the need for the separate preparation of
an EIR by your agency.*
We believe the joint EIS alternative is preferable
since it would allow thorough examination of environmental
impacts and integration of environmental factors into the
facilities planning and decision making process. The
]oint EIS would be prepared by a consultant under contract
to your agency with the understanding that EPA would be
involved in all phases of preparation and all work would
be pubjcct to EPA review and approval. Turther, the
joir.t EIS would be considered part of the Step 1 facilities
planning process and, therefore, eligible for State and
Federal funding (12-1/2 percent and 75 percent, respectively).*
"Sentence must be modified for grantees in states
other than California.
-------
- 2 -
We believe two consultants are necessary for the
joint EIS/EIR* procedure; one to represent the Federal
interest in EIS concerns and one to represent your
interest in the facilities planning responsibilities.
Therefore, if our agencies are to delect the joint EIS
alternative, it will be necessary for your agency to
retain a consultant for EIS preparation who is separate
from and not subcontracted to the consultant preparing the
facilities plan and construction designs. Selection of this
consultant should be based on (a) identified expertise
in areas of environmental concern (water quality,
oceanography, groundwater resources, biology, land use,
air quality, archaeology, etc.), (b) proven ability to
perforin EIR/EIS type analyses,* (c) ability to produce
thorough, readable and informative documents, and (d)
good working knowledge of CEQA/NEPA regulations* and
applicable local ordinances. Your agency may choose to
advertise and accept proposals for this EIS work. EPA
will review and approve the proposed contract with the
EIS consultant prior to its execution. It would of
course, be necessary for the facilities planning consultant
and EIS consultant to coordinate their efforts and exchange
information throughout the planning process. We would
see no conflict in having the facilities planning consultant
perform the technical study and provide the EIS consultant
with the information required to assess the environmental
impacts of the alternatives.
If you choose not to use the joint EIR/EIS* procedure,
we will retain our own EIS consultant to prepare a separate
document. This consultant would begin preparing the EIS after
the draft EIR is completed by your agency.* If the joint EIR/
EIS* alternative is acceptable to your agency, we request
*Phrase must be modified for grantees in states other
than California.
-------
- 3 -
your signature on the attached memorandum of understanding
acknowledging the conditions of and procedures to be followed
in the EIS preparation. If you have any further questions,
please contact (appropriate staff person) .
Sincerely,
Attachment
{Appropriate EPA Official)
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND
(Name of Grantee)
(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE GRANTEE)
FOR
JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARATION
I. INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE
It has been determined that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) must be prepared prior to the award of a
construction grant for the Grantee's wastewater treatment
project. The EIS must comply with all provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), all
subsequent regulations implementing these laws, and any
applicable local requirements.
It is the purpose of this memorandum to establish
an understanding between the Grantee and EPA regarding
the conditions and procedures to be followed in prepara-
tion of the EIS through a joint Grantee/EPA effort.
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. EPA will be the lead agency in the joint effort to
prepare an EIS and will be ultimately responsible
for assuring compliance with the requirements of NEPA.
2. The Grantee will provide the supportive expertise,
manpower and technical capabilities required for EIS
preparation. The Grantee will be responsible for
assuring compliance with CEQA and applicable local
requirements.
3. The Grantee will retain a consultant for EIS
preparation who is separate from and not sub-
contracted to the consultant preparing the
facilities plan and construction designs.
"^Paragraphs must be modified for grantees in states
ot.H'C than California.
-------
-2-
a. Selection of the EIS consultant should be based on:
1. Identified expertise in the areas of
environmental concern (water quality,'
oceanography, groundwater resources,
biology, land use, air quality,
archaeology, etc.),
2. proven ability to perform environmental
impact analyses,
3. ability to produce thorough, readable
and informative documents, and
4. evidence of a good working knowledge of
NEPA, CEQA, the corresponding regulations *
and applicable local ordinances.
b. The Grantee will comply with applicable
Federal, State, and local regulations
regarding subagreement contracting.
c. EPA will review and approve the Grantee's
selected consultant and their proposed contract
prior to execution. The Grantee shall include
the following language in all consultant
contracts: "This contract is funded in
part by a grant from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This contract is subject
to regulations contained in 40 CFR 35,
Subchapter B. Neither the United States nor
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
a party to this contract."
4. Both the Grantee and EPA shall:
a. Actively participate in all substantial phases
of EIS preparation.
b. Designate a representative to review and approve
all EIS work as it is completed.
c. Have their respective representatives attend
regular meetings with Federal, State, regional
and local agencies for the purpose of increasing
communication and receiving comments.
*Paragraph must be modified for grantees in states
other than California.
-------
- 3 -
d. Ensure coordination of efforts and exchange of
information between the facilities planning
consultant and the EIS consultant.
e. Establish a mutually agreed upon time schedule
for completion of the EIS.
5. In all instances involving questions as to the content
or relevance of any material (including all data,
analyses, and conclusions) in the draft or final EIS,
EPA will make the final determination on the inclusion or
deletion of that material.
6. All necessary costs incurred by the Grantee for
the EIS preparation and compliance with NEPA/CEQA
will be eligible for Federal/State grant participation
upon approval of the work by EPA. Before payment is made
to the consultant, the Grantee should confirm with EPA
that the work will be approved and therefore be eligible
for grant participation.
IV. PROCEDURES
1. Initially EPA will provide the Grantee with an
"issue paper" describing the paramount concerns to
be addressed in the EIS.** This issue paper will be
used by the Grantee as a supplement to the EPA
regulations inplementing the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. Issues thus identified
will be modified only in the event that signifi-
cant policy changes occur which affect EIS scope
or as a result of the public participation process.
EPA will also provide to the Grantee an outline
defining the organization and content of the docu-
ment . ***
2. The Grantee will have primary responsibility for
writing all chapters of the EIS and for establishing
*Paragraphs must be modified for grantees in states
other than California.
**See Appendix C.
***See Manual for Preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements.
-------
- 4 -
a schedule for completion of those chapters which is
consistent with the overall time schedule mentioned
above.
3. The Grantee will ensure the coordination of the EIS
and facilities plan time schedules.
4. Within the established time schedule, the Grantee
will provide EPA with no less than two opportunities
to review, comment, and make editorial changes on
each draft chapter. EPA will provide these comirents
in a timely manner. The Grantee shall incorporate
these comments and editorial changes into the
draft chapters to the satisfaction of EPA. Final
drafts will be submitted to EPA for review and
approval.
5. Generally, joint meetings between the Grantee, EPA
and the EIS consultant will be held to coordinate
EIS preparation. It is anticipated that the
facilities planning consultant may attend certain
of these meetings. Additionally, EPA staff may at
times work directly with the EIS consultant without
the participation of the Grantee. When significant
meetings or conversations between EPA and the
consultant occur, written documentation will be
provided to the Grantee.
6. At key points during preparation of the draft EIS
(especially during the early stages), the Grantee
will be responsible for organizing and conducting
public workshops considered necessary to foster public
familiarity with and input to the facilities planning/
EIS process. The Grantee will prepare the "background
and issues document" to be used as the basis for any
workshop. This document will also be subject to
EPA review and approval. The Grantee will prepare
a summary of each public workshop which will include
a list of the significant concerns identified during
the workshop.
7. The Grantee will be responsible for all typing,
graphics, layout, printing and distribution of the
draft and Final EIS.
-------
8. EPA will provide the Grantee with the distribution
list for EIS mailing.
9. Upon completion of the draft EIS, EPA will be
responsible for organizing and conducting the
public hearings required by 40 CFR Part 6. EPA
will also be the recipient of all comments during
the draft EIS review and comment period. This
period (45-60 days) will be initiated when the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) publishes
the "draft EIS receipt" in the Federal Register.
10. At the close of the draft EIS review and comment
period, EPA will identify the issJues and comments
submitted which will require response in the final
EIS. EPA will direct these comments to the grantee
and the appropriate parties for preparation of the
responses.
11. Upon completion of the responses to the comments
on the draft EIS, EPA will provide these responses
to the Grantee and the EIS consultant for inclusion
into the final EIS. The EIS cons-ultant will modify
the text of the draft EIS as directed by EPA.
12. Upon EPA approval of the final EIS the Grantee will
distribute the document according to the distribution
list provided and/or revised by EPA.
TERMINATION
1. Either party to this Memorandum of Understanding
may terminate this agreement after 30 days prior
notice to the other party. During the intervening
30 days both parties agree to actively attempt to
resolve any outstanding disputes or disagreements.
2. In the event of termination of the agreement, EPA
will initiate preparation of the Federal EIS upon
completion of an Environmental Impact Report by
the Grantee and environmental consultant.
*Paragraphs must be modified for grantees in states
other than California.
-------
- 6 -
For the Environmental Protection
Date:
Signed:
Name
For the (grantee)
Date:
Signed:
Agency
(Appropriate EPA Official)
Title
Name
Title
-------
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE ISSUE PAPER
-------
MPWPCA EIS ISSUES
The EiPA has declared its intent, to pre;)nrc an E1S
on the KPl/PCA facilities plan because: 1) the study area
includes valuaole biological, recreational, cultural and
assthetic resources, 2) certain environmental problems
rw.ve become evident wnicn threaten the area's resources,
3} alternatives to be examined in tne facilities plan may
significant impacts on the area's environment (ooth.
adverse and oeneficial), 4) previous water quality con-
trol plans have identified questions uaich nust ce re-
solved before specific facilities or staging of facilities
c.m oe justifiaoly proposed, and 5) the public and govern-
r. _ntal controversy which has in the past surrounded
'..¦ascewater projects in this area is likely to continue.
Tne major issues to be thoroughly addressed m the
EIS the following:
1) ti-^te Effluent Disposition. Altnough all viable
alternatives will be analyzed, focus '..ill Pe or.:
a) F.eclanation/Rsuse: Past planning has indicated
that tnere is significant potential for agricul-
tural reuse of effluent in the Castrovillc area.
How and when sucn reuse could be irpler.enteci,
the potential of tne Castroville Irrigation Pro-
ject to utilize treated wastewater, and tn;
feasibility of other reclamation options sucn
as groundwater recnarge must be analyzed m
detail.
Discharge to the Salinas River: The appropriate
level of treatment required for this option and
tne impacts whicn year round or winter discharge
to the river would have on water quality, wild-
life and beneficial uses of tne river and Say
nust be determined.
c) Discharge to cer.: :al Monterey Day: T.i- c.'.rc.: :
oceanographic j ;udv will provide c;'i; to
assessment of tne impacts of t.iis aitemace .
Issues related to this alternative nave oeer.
discussed previously.
-------
1) Proicct Pnasing. Tne project may involve phased
construction. Thus, alternative phasing will be
annlyzed on the basis of environmentdl impacts, costs,
flexibility and ease of implementation. It will not
be assumed that the first phase will include an out-
fall to the Bay. Given reclamation/reuse as an ulti-
mate goal, phasing will be closely examined for posi-
tive or negative impact on the attainment of that
goal.
3) Secondary Impacts. Tne EIS will contain a compre-
hensive discussion of the probaole secondary impacts
related to the growtn accomodated by the project.
Included will be impacts on land use, transportation,
water supply, energy supply, air quality, sociax ser-
vices and the aesthetics of the area. Consistency
of the project with other planning (land use, air
quality maintenance, etc.) will do examined. Tne
EIS will propose measures to mitigate secondary im-
pacts where possible.
Additionally, the EIS will include an analysis of
t.ie existing and future dynamics of gro ;th in t/ie
area to determine tne degree to which tne project,
would stimulate future growth.
These and other issues are incorporated into tr,pro-
posed EIS outline which is attached. Tne detailed approach
for each topic will be defined in future meetings ami cor-
respondence between MPWPC.-., EPA, SV/RC3 and EI3 con^u.tant.
Since a thorough analysis of all ^Lsues is needed, i - is
imperative that the consultant have the range of expertise
required to achieve this end.
Existing data and previous studies may oe incorporated
-i ';o t.~.e EIS if tne consultant car. document its adequacy
..v. accuracy to EPA's satisfaction. Such data and studies
1] oe updated wnerever possible.
Lastly, public involvement in the facilicies pic nmng
T'-'iai is a goal of the EIS. MPWPCA, EPA, and the LiS
" inhering consultants will coordinate efforts to
. '• olve and inform tne public.
-------
APPENDIX D
LEGAL MEMORANDUM FROM OFFICE
OF GENERAL COUNSEL
-------
22-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
t0c^ WASHINGTON. D C 20460
MAY 1T) 1975
OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: "Piggybacking" Approach to Streamlining Compliance
with NEPA in Construction Grants
FROM: G. William Frick'/^/t^
Deputy General Counsel (EG-330) J
TO: Sheldon Meyers
Director, Office of Federal Activities (A-104)
We have received from your office a request for our views on the
proposed "piggybacking" process for NEPA review of construction grant
projects. This process has been used on a limited basis in Regions II
and IX and is now proposed for wider use in those and other regions.
Description of the process
Generally, each State's construction grant project priority list
contains projects which EPA regional personnel are able to identify
as being highly likely prospects for review in an environmental impact
statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332 et seq.). Such an identification derives from formal or informal
use of EIS preparation criteria set forth in 40 CFR, Part 6, against
the background of the particular knowledge which people in each region
have concerning the controversial nature or peculiar problems of given
projects. Normally, work under a Step 1 construction grant for each
such project would include development by the grantee and his consult-
ant of an environmental assessment which, when delivered to EPA for
review with the facilities plan, would result in a decision to prepare
an EIS or a negative declaration. "Piggybacking," however, would result
in immediate initiation of EIS preparation, generally by a separate EIS
consultant, upon award of the Step 1 grant for each project determined
in advance to be highly likely to result in a decision to prepare an
EIS. The obvious advantage of the approach is that the period of time
in which the assessment would normally be prepared—as much as a year
or more—would be eliminated. The facilities planning contractor would
not prepare an assessment under the Step 1 grant. For those projects
which did not proceed immediately to an EIS using the "piggyback"
approach, the grantee would follow the regular procedure of prepara-
tion and submission to EPA of an environmental assessment. EPA personnel
would then determine, based on the criteria in 40 CFR, Part 6, whether
or not to prepare an EIS, in the same manner as is presently the case.
-------
2
Federal participation in EIS preparation
Under existing practices, an environmental assessment is prepared
by the grantee (and its consultant) with varying levels of Federal
involvement. To an extent not well defined by the courts, some degree
of Federal participation in the assessment process is critical to ju-
dicial approval of a negative declaration; EPA has successfully defended
actions attacking the lack of an EIS in part by producing evidence of
substantial Federal participation in the assessment preparation pro-
cess. 1/ Concerning preparation of the EIS itself, EPA has no history
of litigation on the issue of delegation of EIS preparation responsi-
bility to grantees or their contractors; indeed, virtually all EIS's
so far completed have been prepared by EPA itself, or by its contractors.
Obviously, delegation to a non-Federal level of substantial responsi-
bility for preparation of the preliminary decision document—the environ-
mental assessment—is of less moment than similar delegation of respon-
sibility for the final decision document (the EIS). Numerous Federal
agencies other than EPA have been involved in litigation on this issue.
The result has been a conflict in decisions, with the majority view
permitting some delegation of EIS preparation responsibility. 2/ In no
case, however, has a court suggested that a Federal agency may so com-
pletely abdicate its responsibilities for EIS preparation under NEPA
as to become a "rubber stamp" for documents prepared by or for grantee
agencies. The Federal agency is required to exercise active participa-
tion in the EIS preparation and review process. The following discuss-
ion from Life of the Land v. Brinegar 3/ is instructive (the case involved
an attack on an EIS prepared by a consultant for a State airport agency
under a grant from the Federal Aviation Agency):
"Appellees [the Federal defendants below] concede that under
NEPA, the applicable federal agency must bear the responsibility
for the ultimate work product designed to satisfy the require-
V North Amherst Residents for Positive Action v. Tram, USDC, W.D.N.Y.,
C.A. 74-289, Auqust 7, 1974; Edward M. Herbert v. USEPA, USDC, N.D. Ohio,
C 74-135, November 15, 1974.
2J Cases upholding delegation: Sierra Club v. Lynn, 502 F2d 43 (5th
Cir., 1974); Movement Against Destruction v. Volpe, 500 F2d 29 (4th Cir.,
1974); Iowa Citizens for Environmental Quality v. Volpe, 487 F2d 849 (8th
Cir., 1973); Life of the Land v. Brinegar, 485 F2d 460 (9th Cir., 1973)
cert den 414 U.S. 1052 (1973); Finish Allatoona's Interstate Right v. Brinegar,
484 F2d 638 (5th Cir., 1973); Citizens Environmental Council v. Volpe, 484
F2d 870 (10th Cir., 1973 cert den U.S. , 94 S. Ct. 1935 (1974); Nat'l
Forest Preservation Group v. Volpe, 352 F Supp 123 (D. Mont., 1972).
Cases holding against delegation: Conservation Society of Vermont v.
Sect'y of Transportation, 508 F2d 927 (2d Cir., 1974); Greene County Planning
Board v. FPC, 455 F2d 412 (2d Cir., 1972) cert den 409 U.S. 841 (1972).
3/ 485 F2d 460 (9th Cir., 1973) cert den 414 U.S. 1052 (1973).
-------
3
ment of section 102(2)(C). We find no departure from this
requirement here. The record indicates that [FAA] officials
actively participated in all phases of the EIS preparation
process. The chief of the Airport Division of the ... Agency's
Pacific Region testified that he assisted with the preparation
from its early stages onward. He stated that, as part of the
preparation, regular meetings with other federal officials,
State of Hawaii officials, as well as the [consultant's]
representatives, were held. Further, an employee of [the
consultant] testified as to the active involvement of the [FAA]
in the EIS preparation process. [He] concluded that the EIS
'was more or less a joint -effort by [the consultant], the State
and the F.A.A.'
"The record further reveals that federal officials in Washington,
upon receipt of the EIS, continued active examination thereof.
"We agree with the district court's conclusion that 'the evidence
shows that F.A.A. officials did in fact work together with state
officials and a private contractor and gave it close attention.'"
485 F2d 460, 467.
In Iowa Citizens for Environmental Quality v. Volpe, 4/ the U. S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (serving 8 midwestern states) appeared to
approve a slightly more passive role for the Federal Highway Administra-
tion, citing Life of the Land v. Brineqar, supra:
"The district court, upon the basis of substantial evidence,
specifically found that the FHWA recommended changes in the
initial statement and provided additional information to be
added to the final statement. Review, modification and adop-
tion by the FHWA of the statement as its own occurred in this
case. Such extensive participation by the responsible federal
agency would clearly distinguish this case from [contra decisions].
In our present case, the federal agency did not 'abdicate a signi-
ficant part of its responsibility' to the state highway commission
by 'rubber stamping' or adopting an unaltered or incompletely
reviewed environmental impact statement." 487 F2d 849, 954.
A much more conservative position has been taken in the Second
Circuit, where the court in Conservation Society of Vermont v. Secretary
of Transportation 5/ has recently reiterated earlier precedent in that
4/ 487 F2d 849 (8th Cir., 1973
5/ 508 F2d 927 (2d Cir., 1974).
-------
4
circuit to the effect that nothing short of "genuine" federal partici-
pation is sufficient, although the Federal agency may "solicit and
integrate information from state agencies." 6/ One basis for this
position was as follows:
"A state agency is established to pursue defined state goals.
In attempting to secure federal approval of a project, 'self-
serving assumptions' may ineluctably color a state agency's
presentation of the environmental data or influence its final
recommendation. Transposing the federal duty to prepare the
EIS to a state agency is thus unlikely to result in as dis-
passionate an appraisal of environmental considerations as the
federal agency itself could produce." 508 F2d 927, 931.
The Conservation Society case, as you know, has prompted several
proposed amendments to both NEPA and the Federal Aid Highway Act designed
to mitigate the anti-delegation impact of the case. FHWA has sought
certiorari to the Second Circuit, and the U. S. Supreme Court may yet
resolve the delegation issue.
The Second Circuit decision directly involves only highway projects,
and is applicable only to those in the States of Vermont, Connecticut
and New York. Given contra decisions in five other circuits, we believe
"piggybacking" may be implemented outside the Second Circuit without
substantial risk of loss in litigation, assuming that (a) Federal
personnel will be actively involved on an ongoing basis in review of,
and appropriate assistance in, preparation of each "piggyback" EIS, in
accordance with the discussion in Life of the Land v. Brinegar, above;
and (b) that "piggybacking" will not result in elimination or prepara-
tion of EIS * s following the regular preparation and review of assess-
ments pursuant to 40 CFR, Part 6. In Regions I and II, for the three
states directly subject to the Second Circuit decision, it is clear
that greater caution and a more active Federal role in "piggybacking,"
and EIS development and review generally, is required in order to lessen
the risk of successful attack on-EIS's prepared there.
Use of separate consultant for "piggyback" EIS preparation
While not required as a matter of law, use of a separate consultant
for EIS preparation would appear to partially defuse the Second Circuit's
concern for "dispassionate appraisal," and thus mitigate—though not
eliminate—the need for Federal involvement in development of each EIS.
Indeed, we encourage the use of a second consultant wherever appropriate,
and we understand that you propose to encourage this. Although the need
for a second consultant may not be as strongly felt outside Regions I and
II, in terms of a response to specific legal precedent, the procedure
6/ Id., p. 932-33.
-------
5
would probably provide an extra safeguard of impartiality in the EIS
preparation process which could be favorable to the Government's
defense in the event suit is filed. Use of the second consultant
may arguably offset the decreased Federal profile in the EIS develop-
ment process which derives from "piggybacking."
As your office noted (with our concurrence) concerning use of
contractors for EIS preparation in the NPDES New Source Permit Program,
the court in Life of the Land v. Brinegar, supra, specifically approved
of EIS preparation by a consultant contractor of the grantee agency.*
This was so even though the particular consultant involved had a
"follow-on" financial interest in construction of the project. 485 F2d
460, 467 (Whether this position would be consistently adopted in other
courts is open to conjecture). That case provides some legal precedent
for use of a single consultant to prepare both the Step 1 facilities
plan and the EIS under a construction grant; nonetheless, the better
approach is to use a second, separate consultant for EIS preparation. 7/
The grantee's contractual relationship with the EIS contractor is
a highly effective means of assuring adequate use of the grantee's
particular and localized knowledge of the project, and of implementing
the grantee's own derivative responsibilities under NEPA. At the same
time, EPA legally must maintain a federal presence in the EIS prepara-
tion process consistent with the discussion above, and therefore must
require that the grantee assure EPA's access to all ElS-related activ-
ities of the contractor and the grantee. To avoid later confusion
concerning the roles of the respective parties, we have suggested that
you require each grantee to include substantially the following language
in each "piggyback" contract:
"This contract is funded in part with funds made available under
a grant from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. This
contract is subject to regulations contained in 40 CFR, Sub-
chapter B and particularly §35.937-9. Neither the United
States nor the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is a party
to this contract."
Relationship to 40 CFR, Part 6
We suspect that "piggybacking" may involve incidents of technical
noncompliance with regulations set forth in 40 CFR, Part 6. EPA must
be particularly sensitive to such violations, given the decisions of
the Comptroller General of the U. S. m Decisions No. B-181015, dated
1J We note that the hiring by the grantee of a separate consultant
to conduct EIS preparation independently of the grantee's consultant
responsible for the balance of Step 1 or Step 2 work appears quite
similar to the process suggested for "Value Engineering" suggested in
Mr. Cahill's Program Guidance Memorandum No. 45, dated December 11, 1974,
and is equally well justified.
*See attached memorandum from OFA dated May 15, 1975.
-------
6
December 23, 1974. In response to a complaint of violation of certain
provisions of 40 CFR, Part 6 on a construction grant project in Region
III, he found that'"... there is no indication on the record that EPA
complied with its regulations implementing [NEPA] ... we recommend that
action be taken to insure future compliance with the regulations." We
believe that "piggybacking" is a lawful implementation of NEPA if pro-
perly administered, and that it appears to adequately reflect the spirit
of our regulations. Because of the recent decision of the Comptroller
General, however, we suggest that the "Piggyback" package distributed
to the regions note that the procedure is being implemented on a trial
basis, and that if successful, it will be incorporated in regulations.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Legality of EIS Preparation by a Third
'JECT: Party Contractor Under the NPDES New Source
Permit Program
DATE: Wr J 5 ,97s
FROM: AH
TO:
Mr. John White
Deputy Regional Administrator
Region IV, Atlanta
In response to your recent inquiry regarding the Louisville
Gas and Electric Company's new source permit, we feel that third
party contractors may be used in EIS preparation under the new
source program under certain conditions. First, the contractor
must not stand to gain financially if the permit was issued and,
second, EPA must provide guidance, participate in the EIS prepa-
ration process and independently evaluate the EIS prior to its
approval and adoption.
Except for one case, the court decisions on EIS delegation
to applicants do not involve preparation by contractors. However,
the opinions of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have stood for
one over-riding principle, i.e., the Federal agency has sufficient
flexibility in the NEPA process to solicit and integrate information
gathered by applicants for Federal aid as long as the Federal
agency independently evaluates the data and prepares the statement.
This view was first enunciated by the second circuit in Greene
County Planning Board v EPC, 455 F2d 412 [2nd-Cir., 1972] and has
been incorporated into section 1500.7(c) of the CEQ guidelines.
This approach has been followed by several circuits involving the
delegation of EIS preparation activities by the U.S. Department
of Transportation. The 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th Circuits have
carefully scrutinized the degree of Federal involvement in the
EIS process and have only approved delegation of EIS preparation
activities where DOT had extensively reviewed and analyzed the
data gathered by the applicant. Most recently, the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals in Conservation Society v Secretary of Transportation,
7 ERC 1236 [2nd Cir., Dec. 11, 1974] disapproved an EIS written
by the Vermont Highway Department with insufficient Federal
involvement
EPA Form 1320-6 (R»v. 6-72)
-------
The one opinion involving EIS preparation by a third party
contractor, Life of the Land v Brinegar 485 F2d 460 [9th Cir.,
1973] upheld such delegation despite the apparent danger of a
self-serving EIS. A consultant to the Hawaii Department of
Transportation had prepared much of the EIS on a proposed FAA
grant for runway construction. Even though the consulting firm
stood to gain substantially from further additional contracts if
the runway were approved, the court "found nothing in NEPA or the
case law which precludes a firm with a financial interest in the
project from assisting with EIS preparation." The court further
found the EIS preparation to be "more or less a joint effort with
significant Federal agency participation."
This case apparently differs from the rationale of the other
circuits in that the contractor's financial interest in the
project's completion clearly created the possibility of a self-
serving EIS. Thus, the majority of circuits if confronted with a
similar factual situation would probably require contractors who
do not have a later financial stake in a project as well as
independent Federal guidance and evaluation in the process in
order to achieve the goal stated in previous opinions, i.e., an
unbiased, objective decision by the Federal agency.
EPA's use of contractors for EIS preparation under the NPDES
program would have to ensure objectivity through careful Federal
supervision in order to comply with the majority view. A proposed
addition to the proposed NEPA regulation for new source NPDES
permits would presumably ensure this objectivity:
"If the NS/EQ [New Source/Environmental Questionaire] reveals
that the preparation of an environmental impact statement is
required, which necessitates the development of data and infor-
mation which will result in substantial expense to the United
States, the [responsible official] may require reports, data and
other information for the EIS to be compiled by a third party
under contract with the applicant and furnished directly to the
[responsible official]. In such cases, the [responsible official]
shall approve the selection of this third party contractor after
consulting with interested Federal, State, and local agencies,
public interest groups, and members of the general public, as he
deems appropriate to assure objectivity in this selection. The
[responsible official] shall specify the type of information to
be developed and shall maintain control of the project throughout
the gathering and presentation of this information." [Proposed
to be inserted as subsection (d) of section 6.908 "Procedures for
Environmental Review.]
-------
-3-
Before you commence action concerning the Louisville Gas and
Electric Company's new source NPDES permit, you must ensure that
the spirit of the proposed addition has been carried out to be in
accord with NEPA. The third party contractor would have to be
selected objectively and should not have any future financial
interest in the project. EPA would have to exercise strict
control over his activities to ensure that the data developed and
alternatives considered are independently evaluated. This approach
would comply with the intent of NEPA, as interpreted by the
majority sf courts, i.e., . . . to ensure an objective Federal
evaluation of a proposed action.
Please be advised that the Office of General Counsel has
concurred in this response.
Sheldon Meyers
Director
Office of Federal Activities
-------
yt09x
* £1 \
i5SB * UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ ^ WASHINGTON. D C 20460
FEB i 11976
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-32
Program Guidance Memorandum PG-59
SUBJECT: Compliance with Title VI In the Construction Grants Program
FROM: Alvln L. Aim, Assistant Administrator jCj jCJ
for Planning and Management (PM-208) f 'ft
Andrew W. Breldenbach, Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Mater1aU^^-556.)v. ^ ^
/
TO: Regional Administrators I - X
ATTN: Water Division Directors
Background
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires Federal agencies
to assure that no person shall, on the ground of race, color, or national
origin, be excluded from participation In, be denied the benefits of, or
be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance.
Recently questions have arisen as to the application of Title VI to
the EPA construction grants program. Several regional offices have
asked what additional responsibility is placed on the Agency by Title VI
with respect to sewage collection systems for minority areas not presently
sewered.
The EPA regulation, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs,
40 CFR Part 7, July 5, 1973, sets forth basic Agency policies and pro-
cedures for complying with Title VI in all affected EPA programs. This
guidance memorandum states additional Agency policy as to Title VI
compliance by the construction grants program.
Policy
The Regional Administrator shall take positive steps to assure that
the benefits of the construction grants program are not denied any group
or person because of considerations of race, color or national origin.
-------
2
Special attention should be paid to two areas of the grants process, the
development of priority lists and hearings on facility plans, to deter-
mine whether action is necessary to prevent Title VI violations. The
following steps should be taken:
I. Review of Priority System
The Regional Administrator shall review each state project
priority system and each annual project priority list to discover
whether priority lists are being developed which regularly rank
projects serving predominantly minority populations lower than
comparable projects serving non-minority populations. EPA water
quality strategy priorities presently place collection system
projects fourth. However, our current policy allows States to
raise collection system projects to a higher priority when such
projects are necessary to remedy particular pollution problems,
Including when such a change is necessary to correct a pollution
problem combined with an existing racially discriminatory situation
so that Title VI requirements are met. States must follow EPA
priorities in structuring their priority systems and in developing
their annual project lists. When the failure of a State to follow
EPA policies in structuring Its priority 11st results In a racially
discriminatory situation, the Regional Administrator must take
appropriate action to bring Identified problem priority systems
into accord with EPA priority system criteria and Title VI require-
ments.
II. Public Hearing on Priority List
The Title VI requirements should be discussed at the public
hearing required prior to approval of the annual project priority
list and comments solicited as to potential Title VI violations.
Specifically, Information should be requested as to minority areas
which desire to be served by grants projects listed on the priority
list and which evidence a willingness to accept the financial
obligations which accrue to treatment facility users but feel they
will be denied the benefits because the projects do not provide for
collection lines to serve those areas. The Regional Administrator
shall carefully evaluate the need for collection systems for those
minority areas so identified at the public hearing. When he deter-
mines that the funding of collection systems to the minority areas
1s necessary to meet the requirements of Title VI and is in con-
formance with EPA priority criteria and the approved state priority
system, he shall withhold approval of the state priority list until
1t can be modified to comply with Title VI.
-------
3
III. Public Hearings on Facility Plans
The Title VI requirements should also be discussed at public
hearings held prior to approval of each facility plan and other
grants projects where a reasonable possibility exists such re-
quirements may be contravened. The Regional Administrator shall
determine by such hearings whether any minority areas exist which
desire to be served by the project and which evidence a willingness
to accept the financial obligations which accrue to treatment
facility users but which will not be served because the project
will not provide collection lines to those areas.
The Regional Administrator, 1f he determines such minority
areas exist, shall evaluate and compare the following considera-
tions 1n determining what action to take on a facility plan or
other grants project;
1. the need for collection lines for the minority area from a
pollution control or public health standpoint,
2. the ranking such a collection line project would receive
on the state project priority list, applying existing Federal
and state priority criteria,
3. existing or past patterns of discrimination which would
tend to deny the benefits of the project to minority areas in
the grantee community,
4. the extent to which minority residents will be denied the
benefits of the proposed project on the basis of race, color
or national origin should the proposed project be constructed,
5. the cost and engineering feasibility of constructing
collection lines 1n the unsewered minority areas,
6. the cost-effectiveness of adding a collection line element
to the proposed project.
IV. Possible Actions to be Taken
The Regional Administrator shall take into account both the
requirements of P.L. 92-500 and of Title VI in making a final
decision on the project. Appropriate actions, based on the above
considerations, may Include;
1. withhold approval of the proposed project until the grantee
takes steps to sewer the minority area,
2. approval of a modified project which will provide service
to minority areas,
3. approval of the project as originally proposed.
-------
^t05">,
\ JggJ ' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-33
Program Guidance Memorandum PG-60
11 AUG 1975
SUBJECT: Discount Rate
FROM: Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director
Municipal Construction Division (WH-547) ~\
TO: Regional Water Division Directors
Enclosed is a copy of the notice of the new discount rate of 6 1/8
percent as published by the Water Resources Council The new rate is to
be used in all new facility planning starts. Cost-effective analyses
performed for the first time on projects are to be based on the present
Water Resources Council rate of 6 1/8 percent.
We have arranged to distribute the enclosed information to con-
sulting engineers through the "Construction Grants Newsletter" and
through the newsletter of the Consulting Engineers Council. Please
distribute copies of this information to the States for use in their
programs.
Enclosure
-------
US Wacet Res 11 rcss Council, 2)20 L Street, N W , Washington, D C 20037
Ju'y 2 5, 197 5
\"'C i \1clrrer D. Fairchild
I'LiV ' J.:nc3 Karston
\ i B. Davcy
ARXY | J. V.. Morris
FPU j George C-. Adkius
H'jIW Paul S. Cromwe 11
DOT William R. Riedel
com
EPA
HUD
Pm-iald R. linker
Albert J. Erickson
Truman Coins
AWRBIAC
John C. W^ite
CEO
Robert Soythe
DU'uC
ThoTiss F. Schi*eigert
CL3C
Frederick 0. Romso
JUST
Walter J Kicchel
MR3C
John W. Neuberger
NERBC
R. Frank Grc»g
0MB
Ti'.cp.irs Is". Berry
ORBC
Trcd n. Morr
FNRBC
L»onel J. Lane
PSIAC
Webster Otis
SE3IAC
Clair P. Guess
SRBC
Tnu.nas C. H. Webster
1VA
1'Jwcrcl H. Lepc-re
UMRBC
Gccrge W. Griebenov
Subject: Discount Rate and Water Supply Act of 1958 Interest Rate
The interest rate to be used by Federal agencies in the formulation
and evaluation of plans for water and related land resources is 6 1/8
percent for the period July 1, 1975 through and including June 30,
1976. Attached for your use and information is the notice of change
in the discount rate sent to the "Federal Register" July Z4, 1975.
The interest rate determined in accordance with the provisions of
Section 301 (b) of the Water Supply Act of 1958 is 5. 116 percent,
which if adjusted to the nearest 1/8 of 1 percent is 5 1/8 percent.
Warren D. Fairchild
Director '
Attachment
-------
unite a States
Water Resources Council
Principles and Standards for Planning
Water and Related Land Resources
Change in Discount Rate
Notice is hereby given that the interest rate to be used by Federal
agencies in the formulation and evaluation of plans for water and
related land resources is 6 1/8 percent for the period July 1, 1975,
through and including June 30, 1976.
The rate has been computed in accordance with Chapter IV, D. ,
"The Discount Rate" in the "Standards for Planning Water and
Related Land Resources" of the Water Resources Council, as amended
(39 FR 29242), and is to be used by all Federal agencies in plan
formulation and evaluation of water and related land resources
projects for the purpose of discounting future benefits and computing
costs, or otherwise converting benefits and costs to a common time
basis.
The Department of the Treasury on July 17, 1975, informed the Water
Resources Council pursuant to Chapter IV, D. , (b) that the interest
rate would be seven percent based upon the formula set forth in
Chapter IV, D. , (a): 11 * * * the average yield during the preceding Fiscal
Year on interest-btaring marketable securities of the United States
-------
which, at lh" time (.he compute: \ \ on Is m.ide, have icrnis of 15 \cars
or more remaining lo maluiil/ : *!¦ -i\ " However, Chapter iV, f> , (a)
further provides " * ^ [tjhat in no event shall the rate be raised or
lowered more than one-quarcer of one percent for a.ny year. " Since
the rate in Fiscal Year 1975 wa< 0 7/8 percent (39 FR 29242), the
rate for F;scal Yea] 1976 is 6 1/8 percent.
Warrcn D. Fair child
Director
-------
ytosx
i £S '*
| SS|7Z 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C 20460
"OED V6flp5
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-34
Program Guidance Memorandum PG-61
SUBJECT: Grants for Treatment and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows
and Stormwater Discharges
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations (WH-546)
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I - X
This memorandum summarizes the Agency's policy on the use of con-
struction grants for treatment and control of combined sewer overflows
and stormwater discharges during wet-weather conditions. The purpose is
to assure that projects are funded only when careful planning has demon-
strated they are cost-effective.
1. Combined Sewer Overflows
A. Background
The costs and benefits of control of various portions of pollution
due to combined sewer overflows and by-passes vary greatly with the
characteristics of the sewer and treatment system, the duration, inten-
sity, frequency and areal extent of precipitation, the type and extent
of development in the service area, and the characteristics, uses and
water quality standards of the receiving waters. Decisions on grants
for control of combined sewer overflows, therefore, must be made on a
case-by-case basis after detailed planning at the local level.
Where detailed planning has been completed, treatment or control of
pollution from wet-weather overflows and bypasses may be given priority
for construction grant funds only after provision has been made for sec-
ondary treatment of dry-weather flows in the area. The detailed planning
requirements and criteria for project approval follow.
B. Planning Requirements
Construction grants may be approved for control of pollution from
combined sewer overflows only if planning for the project has thoroughly
analyzed for the 20 year planning period:
-------
2
1. Alternative control techniques which might be utilized to
attain various levels of pollution control (related to alternative
beneficial uses, if appropriate), including at least initial con-
sideration of all the alternatives described in the section on
combined sewer and stormwater control in "Alternative Waste Manage-
ment Techniques and Best Practicable Waste Treatment" (Section C
of Chapter III of the information proposed for comment in March 1974).
2. The costs of achieving the various levels of pollution control
by each of the techniques appearing to be the most feasible and
cost-effective after the preliminary analysis.
3. The benefits to the receiving waters of a range of levels of
pollution control during wet-weather conditions. This analysis
will normally be conducted as part of State water quality manage-
ment planning, 208 areawide management planning, or other State,
regional or local planning effort.
4. The costs and benefits of addition of advanced waste treatment
processes to dry-weather flows in the area.
C. Criteria for Project Approval
The final alternative selected shall meet the following criteria:
1. The analysis required above has demonstrated that the level of
pollution control provided will be necessary to protect a beneficial
use of the receiving water even after technology based standards
required by Section 301 of P.L. 92-500 are achieved by industrial
point sources and at least secondary treatment is achieved for dry-
weather municipal flows in the area.
2. Provision has already been made for funding of secondary treat-
ment of dry-weather flows in the area.
3. The pollution control technique proposed for combined sewer
overflow is a more cost-effective means of protecting the beneficial
use of the receiving waters than other combined sewer pollution
control techniques and the addition of treatment higher than sec-
ondary treatment for dry-weather municipal flows in the area.
4. The marginal costs are not substantial compared to marginal
benefits.
Marginal costs and benefits for each alternative may be displayed
graphically to assist with determining a project's acceptability under
this criterion. Dollar costs should be compared with quantified pollu-
tion reduction and water quality improvements. A descriptive narrative
should also be included analyzing monetary, social and environmental
costs compared to benefits, particularly the significance of the bene-
ficial uses to be protected by the project.
-------
3
II. Stormwater Discharges
Approaches for reducing pollution from separate stormwater dis-
charges are now in the early stages of development and evaluation. We
anticipate, however, that in many cases the benefits obtained by con-
struction of treatment works for this purpose will be small compared
with the costs, and other techniques of control and prevention will be
more cost-effective. The policy of the Agency is, therefore, that
construction grants shall not be used for construction of treatment
works to control pollution from separate discharges of stormwater except
under unusual conditions where the project clearly has been demonstrated
to meet the planning requirements and criteria described above for
combined sewer overflows.
III. Multi-purpose Projects
Projects with multiple purposes, such as flood control and recrea-
tion in addition to pollution control, may be eligible for an amount not
to exceed the cost of the most cost-effective single purpose pollution
abatement system. Normally the Separable Costs-Remaining Benefits
(SCRB) method should be used to allocate costs between pollution control
and other purposes, although in unusual cases another method may be
appropriate. For such cost allocation, the cost of the least cost
pollution abatement alternative may be used as a substitute measure of
the benefits for that purpose. The method is described in "Proposed
Practices for Economic Analysis of River Basin Projects," GPO, Washington,
D. C., 1958, and "Efficiency in Government through Systems Analysis," by
Roland N. McKean, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.
Enlargement of or otherwise adding to combined sewer conveyance
systems is one means of reducing or eliminating flooding caused by wet-
weather conditions. These additions may be designed so as to produce
some benefits in terms of reduced discharge of pollutants to surrounding
waterways. The pollution control benefits of such flood control measures,
however, are likely to be small compared with the costs, and the measures
therefore would normally be ineligible for funding under the construction
grants program.
All multi-purpose projects where less than 100% of the costs are
eligible for construction grants under this policy shall contain a
special grant condition precluding EPA funding of non-pollution control
elements. This condition should, as a minimum, contain a provision
similar to the following:
"The grantee explicitly acknowledges and agrees that costs
are allowable only to the extent they are incurred for the
water pollution control elements of this project."
Additional special conditions should be included as appropriate to
assure that the grantee clearly understands which elements of the proj-
ect are eligible for construction grants under Public Law 92-500.
-------
itOSK,.
NT1
15S22- ' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460 0£C b/S
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-35
Program Guidance Memorandum PG-62
SUBJECT: Allowable Costs for Construction of Treatment Works that
Jointly Serve Municipalities and Federal Facilities
FROM: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator^? o
for Water Program Operations (WH-546) [
TO: Regional Administrators
ATTN: Water Program Division Directors*
I. PURPOSE
A number of questions have arisen on FWPCA grant funding of the
construction of municipal treatment works that would jointly serve
Federal facilities and municipalities. This memorandum provides guid-
ance on determination of allowable costs of such treatment works and
options for payment of the Federal facility portion of construction
costs.
II. ALLOWABLE COSTS
Whenever a planned treatment works will jointly serve a munici-
pality and a Federal facility, that portion of construction cost allo-
cable to the Federal facility will not be allowable for 75 percent
construction grant funding, subject to the following exceptions:
1. Facility planning (Step 1) costs.
2. Cost of Step 2 work 1f a Step 2 grant has been certiTled
by the State for funding to EPA prior to the date of
this guidance.
3. Design and construction costs allocable to a Federal facility
producing less than 250,000 gallons per day or 5 percent of the
total design flow of waste treatment works, whichever 1s less.
That portion of the construction costs allocable to the Federal
facility shall be based on all factors which significantly influence the
cost of the treatment works. Factors such as strength, volume, and
delivery flow rate characteristics will be considered and Included to insure
a proportional allocation of costs to the Federal facility.
-------
2
As a minimum, the portion of construction cost allocable to the Federal
facility should be based on the ratio of its total hydraulic requirements,
including allowances for future needs, to the total design flow of the treat-
ment works. The portion (percentage) allocable to the Federal facility must
be agreed upon by the municipality and Federal agency, and approved by EPA
prior to award of a Step 2 or Step 3 grant, whichever is applicable, for the
works or any portion thereof.
As an example, in a $10,000,000 actual construction project for which
the Federal facility share has been agreed upon as 20 percent of the total
project cost, the allowable cost and construction grant funding would be as
follows:
Total joint project cost $10,000,000
Federal facility share 2,000,000 (20%)
Maximum allowable cost $ 8,000,000
Grant 0.75 (75%)
EPA grant funding $ 6,000,000
III. OPTIONAL PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR FEDERAL FACILITY COST SHARE
The EPA grantee may negotiate a payment schedule for the Federal
facility share with the concerned Federal agency. If payments are not
possible on a timely basis, a possible option is for the grantee to finance,
through bonds or a bank loan, the Federal facility cost share over an
agreed upon number of years and accept periodic payments of principal
and interest. Payments would be provided for in 10-year renewable utility
contracts which are authorized by the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act. Other payment options may be possible, depending upon the
local situation.
IV. COST SHARING ASSURANCES
The EPA grantee should provide assurances satisfactory to EPA as part
of the Step 2 grant application (or Step 3 if the Step 2 grant was awarded
prior to the effective date of this guidance) that:
1. the Federal facility cost share has been determined as required
herein,
2. the Federal facility cost share has been deducted from the grant
eligible costs, and
3. funds comprising the local plus Federal facility cost shares
will be provided as needed to meet design and construction
payment schedules.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
subject: DOD Participation in Regional Wastewater
Treatment Projects
from-. Harold P. Cahill, Directop
Municipal Construction Di
to: Regional Water Division Directors
Regional Water Branch Chiefs
V-
n'CWH-547)
2 o n
Note that the attached memorandum on DOD Participation in Regional
Wastewater Treatment Projects should be filed with Program Guidance
Memorandum No. 62.
Enclosure
EPA 1320-6 (Re*. 6-72)
-------
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20301
28 JAN 1976
HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT
MEMORANDUM FOR Deputy for Environmental Affairs, OASA(CW)
Special Assistant to ASN(I&cL)
Special Assistant for Environmental Quality,
SAF/ILE
SUBJECT: DoD Participation in Regional Wastewater Treatment
Projects
In my letter of 23 December 1975, I enclosed a letter from the
Office of Management and Budget which forwarded policy guidance
on the manner in which the financing for the DoD portion of capital
costs of joint projects would be computed and furnished. Essentially,
the policy disallows the capital costs attributable to the DoD share
when computing the amount of EPA construction grant funding to be
provided. This means that the DoD share of joint facilities will be
appropriated through normal processes, just as if the installation
had gone it alone.
The enclosed letter from EPA indicates that«there is guidance to the
field that should be modified to reflect the recent OMB decision
•mentioned above. I am confident that we can resolve many of the
present impasses by indicating to regional and municipal representatives
our willingness to participate when economically feasible, while
pointing out the appropriations time lag and the attendant statutory
limitations on the contracting process. Their appreciation of these
problems should help all parties to arrive at isutually agreeable
solutions.
While I recognize that, in some cases, our share of capital costs has
escalated for various reasons to levels far above the estimated cost of
constructing DoD treatment facilities, future decisions to participate
in joint facilities must be based on sound economic assessments gained
through continual participation in the planning processes.
-------
I am responding to EPA to assure them that our policies will be
revised to rectify the previous misunderstandings, and that the DoD
intends to pay for its share of capital costs of joint facilities. I will
also ask them to initiate appropriate revisions to 40 CFR 35 to
clarify those portions of subpart E that have led to much of our
difficulties.
A copy of your implementing guidance should be furnished to this
office.
ueorge Manentnai
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Quality)
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-36
Program Guidance Memorandum PG 63
Value Engineering in the EPA Construction Grants Program.
All Regional Administrators
Attn: Director, Water Program Division
I. Purpose
The purpose of this program guidance memorandum is to:
1. Provide interim policy on the use of value engineering
(VE) in the EPA construction grant program;
2. Provide the schedule of a mandatory VE program.
3. Update the information on the EPA/VE program contained
in PGM No. 45 (December 11, 1974). This program guidance memo-
randum supersedes PGM No. 45.
II. Pol icy
1. Value Engineering analysis proposed by a grant applicant
is grant eligible when written approval is issued by the Regional
Administrator prior to the VE analysis.
2. The grant eligibility of the VE fee is limited to the
actual VE analysis of the project. The applicant may Incorporate
training as part of the proposed VE workshop. However, the
intention must be so stated in the proposal, and all costs asso-
ciated with such training must be computed separately. For
example, the cost for a VE instructor, additional time and room
space, etc., must be itemized and separately identified for
training. These additional costs for training are not grant
eligible.
3. The additional engineering fee for any significant
redesign to implement an accepted VE recommendation is grant
eligible when approved by the Regional Administrator prior to the
redesign.
1-20-76
1 KOM
John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations (WH-546)
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 6-72)
-------
III. VE - Definition
VE is a specialized technique for controlling cost. The
technique is based on a systematic and creative approach which
incorporates the following key characteristics.
1. VE analysis is performed by a multidisciplinary team of
design professionals guided by a VE coordinator;
2. the VE team evaluates cost and function relationships;
3. the VE team identifies and focuses on high cost areas;
4. the VE technique includes a creative session to ensure
generation of alternatives;
5. cost savings are accomplished without sacrificing quality
or reliability of the project;
6. the VE team makes recommendations to the original designer
and owner.
IV. Background
To ensure that the Nation's resources are wisely used, PL
92-500 and the EPA Construction Grant Regulations emphasize the
cost-effectiveness approach. However, the existing cost-effectivenesf
program focuses primarily on the Step 1 grant process. It is
essential that cost control be extended whenever it 1s appropriate
and practical to do so.
In 1974, a voluntary VE program was introduced for application
in the Step II grant process. As a result, EPA construction
grant projects have been subjected to VE analysis under actual
grant conditions. Results from these VE projects indicate:
1. VE is effective for cost control in water pollution
control projects;
2. cost savings have been substantial in all cases completed
to date;
3. project delays can be prevented when the VE program is
properly managed;
4. quality and reliability of the project are maintained;
5. VE is beneficial to project designers in terms of more
efficient and better design techniques.
2
-------
In view of the results of the voluntary program, the use of
VE should be encouraged and extended to include as many projects
as practicable.
V. Procedure
A. Content of the VE proposal
For those projects where a VE analysis will be performed,
the applicant must submit for approval through the State to the
Regional Administrator, a VE analysis proposal as part of the
Step II grant application, or as an add-on where the Step II
grant has already been awarded. This proposal should Include the
following Information.
1. Scope of the VE analysis - Normally, the VE analysis
should be applicable to all components and systems, including
treatment process selection. The only exception is that the
legal or regulatory requirements (such as permit discharge
limitations) are not to be modified by the VE process. If the
applicant wishes to limit the scope, he must so state and provide
justification in the proposal.
2. VE team - The applicant should provide brief information
on the professional background and experience (with emphasis on
VE) of each team member and team coordinator (see section VI).
3. Level of VE effort - Depending on the size and complexity
of the project, the VE effort may vary from one team and one
review session to multiple teams and/or multiple review sessions
in order to adequately review the project. The applicant should
propose the appropriate VE effort to meet the need. For example,
a large plant with advanced treatment processes may justify the
need for two or more VE teams. Similarly, two separate studies
may be proposed. The first study would be held when the design
stage (Step II) is approximately 20 percent - 30 percent complete
to review the treatment process, project design life, plant
layout, structural design, hydraulic capacity, etc. The second
workshop would be held when the electrical and mechanical systems
design is ready to focus on these items. For projects such as a
pumping station, interceptors, etc., a small team will normally
be adequate.
4. VE fee - The applicant should submit a detailed fee
schedule for conducting the VE analysis. The fee schedule should
list the man-hour requirements for the recommended level of
effort. Manhour unit costs and overhead costs should also be
given.
3
-------
5. Timing - Proper management is the key to preventing pro-
ject delays. The applicant should carefully schedule the VE
analysis so that the VE and the progress design can proceed
concurrently. A detailed VE schedule in relation to project
design and review should be included in the proposal.
B. VE Surrcnary Reports
1. Preliminary VE report - Upon completion of the VE analysis,
a report must be submitted to provide the following information:
- Scope of VE analysis
- Basic VE methodology employed including results for
each phase (information, functional analysis, cost
model, creativity, analysis of alternatives, and
development).
- Summary of VE recommendations
- Estimated cost savings for each recommended alternative
2. Final VE report - A report describing final implementation
of the VE recommendations must be submitted. The report is to
include:
- Accepted recommendations
- Cost and schedule for implementing the accepted recommenda-
tions
- Rejected recommendations and reasons for the rejection
- Net savings for both capital costs and total costs over
the planning period
C. EPA Review and Approval
1. VE proposal - In order to prevent any delay, particularly
where the VE proposal is a part of Step II grant application, the
applicant should make every effort to ensure that adequate infor-
mation is included in the proposal. When appropriate, the Regional
Administrator may condition the grant so that design work can
proceed.
4
-------
2. Implementation of VE recommendations - Upon completion
of the VE analysis, recommendations will be submitted by the VE
team to the applicant. Normally, the applicant and the project
designer will determine how the recommendations can be implemented.
Results of such decisions will be submitted to the State and EPA
for review. When it is determined that rejection of a VE recom-
mendation is unfounded, the Regional Administrator may, on the
basis of cost-effectiveness, request further explanation or
reconsideration of the rejected VE recommendation.
VI. VE Team and Qualifications
1. Team Coordinator - In addition to demonstrated technical
and managerial capability, the team coordinator must have suc-
cessfully completed a 40 hour VE workshop conducted by an appropriate
organization such as the General Services Administration, the
American Institute of Architects, the American Consulting Engineers
Council, or an accredited university. In addition to the academic
training requirement, some actual VE experience on a construction
project will be required. Ideally, two actual VE experiences on
a construction project should be a minimum requirement for the VE
coordinator. However, such a stringent requirement will not be
realistic at this time because VE is still new to most sanitary
engineering firms and therefore there may not be sufficient
qualified VE coordinators available to meet our needs. In view of
this, the Regional Administrator can prior to December 31, 1976,
approve the VE coordinator's qualifications based on the academic
training requirement only.
2. VE team members - They may or may not have VE back-
ground, however, they must be experienced design professionals in
their own field. Size and composition of the team varies depending
on the type of project to be studied. For a treatment plant, the
team may consist of an electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer,
a civil/structural engineer, a sanitary engineer and a cost
estimator.
3. In-house VE capability - Some large design firms have
developed an in-house VE capability. A proposal to use this
capability is acceptable, provided the designer certifies that
the team members have not actually been involved in any part of
the proposed project design except for VE analysis.
5
-------
VII. VE Workshops and VE Project Review Sessions
1. Project review workshop - Normally, a project review
conducted according to the basic VE job plan (information, func-
tional analysis, creativity, evaluation and development) will
require approximately 40 hours of team effort. Additionally,
pre-workshop preparation and post-workshop followup may take two
to four weeks total, depending on project size.
2. Training and actual project review workshop combined -
If the applicant wishes to incorporate training in the project
workshop, the intent must be stated in the initial proposal and
additional costs associated with training must be properly identi-
fied and computed separately. Costs for training are not grant
eligible. Normally, combined training and review workshops will
require more than 40 hours and adequate time must be allocated to
project review.
VIII. Mandatory VE Program
In view of the magnitude of the EPA construction grant
program, and to ensure that more projects will receive the bene-
fits of VE review, a mandatory VE program based on the following
schedule is being developed.
1. After July 1, 1976, a VE proposal will be required in
all Step II grant applications with a total estimated project
construction cost of $10 million or greater.
2. For those projects where VE would not be mandatory, VE
participation is voluntary and is encouraged.
3. The mandatory VE analysis is applicable to Step II
grants only (i.e., preparation of plans and specifications).
IX. VE Handbook and References
A Value Engineering Handbook has been prepared and will be
made available to Regional Offices for distribution. The Handbook
contains information pertaining primarily to how to make a VE
proposal for an EPA project. The Handbook does not contain
detailed instructions on how to accomplish a VE study. The
following references contain that type of Information:
Dell'Isola, A.J. Value Engineering in the Construction Industry.
1st Edition. New York. Construction Publishing Co. 1973.
6
-------
GSA. Design for Value.
GSA. Value Engineering Handbook. PBS P8000.1
GSA. Value Engineering Workbook.
Gage, William L. Value Analysis. New York - McGraw-Hill. 1967.
Martin Company. Value Engineering Program. Book II - Cost Analysis.
Self-Study Program. 1963.
Martin Company. Value Engineering Program. Book III - Functional
Evaluation. Self-Study Program. 1965.
Martin Company. Value Engineering Program. Book IV - Creativity
in Value Engineering. Self-Study Program. 1965.
7
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C 20460
MAR 1 7 1976
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-37
Program Guidance Memorandum
PG-65
Subject: User Charge System: Plan and Schedule
From: John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Program Operations (WH-546)
To:
Regional Administrators
ATTN: Water Division Directors
The purpose of this memorandum is to stress the importance of
implementing the regulation which requires the grantee to submit, with
his Step 2 application, a plan and schedule for the implementation of
his user charge system in sufficient detail to enable the Regional
Office to monitor developmental progress and to enforce schedule
compliance.
Title II regulations (40 CFR 35.925-11), require the Regional
Administrator to determine, at the time of grant approval, that the
grantee has developed "...an approvable plan and schedule of implementation..."
for a system of user charges. However, a recent GAO study found this
requirement to be inconsistently applied. In some cases, implementation
schedules submitted by grantees were very brief, and consequently, the
Region lacked criteria needed to adequately monitor the grantee's progress.
Accordingly, the Comptroller General's report recommended that "...the
Agency require the submission of plans and schedules of implementation
from the grantees at the time of grant approval in sufficient detail to
provide the Agency with enforceable schedules."
Following receipt of this report, a copy of the Comptroller General's
letter was sent to the Regional Offices to alert them to the problem.
In addition, the section of the Construction Grant Handbook on User Charge
Systems was modified to include the following:
"In the Step 2 application, the applicant must have developed
an approvable plan and schedule for the implementation of a user
charge system. During the Step 3 grant activity, the applicant
must show evidence of carrying out the implementation plan in
accordance with that schedule."
In brief, Regions are not to wait until the 50% payment point to
insure that "...the grantee has submitted adequate evidence of timely
-------
development of its system(s) of user charges." (§35.935-13). The
implementation schedule in the Step 2 application should provide for
the timely submission of specific documents--such as resolutions
of system adoption from the grantee and communities in the project
service area, partially or fully drafted user charge systems, sewer
use ordinances, etc.—as concrete evidence of implementation progress.
Also, steps should be taken in each Region to remind grantees of
a possible "Hold" on payments at the 50% construction point before that
point is reached. For example, the grantee's file could be checked when
a request for a 30% to 40% payment is submitted to determine if "...evidence
of timely development..." has been received. If not, a letter reminding
the grantee of the requirement should be included with that 30%-40%
payment so to obviate the need for delay at the 50% level.
-------
i £5 *
| ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V WASHINGTON DC 20460
•V pqo^
l-LO » 1976
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM PRM NO. 75-38
Program Guidance Memorandum PG-66
OF'I II I Ol WA It l< ANI l
HA/ A HOODS M M l m Al S
SUBJECT: Relationship Between 201 Facility Planning and
Water Quality Management (WQM)
FROM: Andrew W. Breidenbach, Assistant
for Water and Hazardous Material
TO:
Regional Administrators
Regions I - X
PROGRAM GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM
Construction Grants No. 66
Water Quality Management SAM-1
PURPOSE
This policy statement describes the relationships between 201
facility planning and W3M planning under Section 208 and the minimum
facility planning requirements which an initial WQM plan must meet
for EPA approval of the WQM plan.
The purpose is to assure that facility plans can be completed and
processed expeditiously through EPA approval during those periods when
an initial WQM plan is either being prepared, approved, or implemented.
A second purpose is to have initial WQM plans prepared that satisfy,
at a minimum, certain requirements with respect to facility planning.
As WQM planning requirements overlap with the 201 planning requirements,
this policy seeks to minimize duplication and conflict between the two
planning efforts.
This policy statement supersedes the memo on the same subject
signed March 11, 1975, by James L. Agee (issued as construction grants
program guidance memo number 47 and planning guidance memo AM-1). Any
other policy or guidance statements contrary to this policy are also
superseded. This policy statement applies to all agencies (State and
local) responsible for either 201 or WQM planning.
BACKGROUND
201 Facility Planning
Facility planning consists of the plans and studies prerequisite
to the award of grant assistance for detailed design and construction
of publicly-owned treatment works. In the absence of a completed and
-------
- 2 -
approved WQM plan or approved interim outputs produced by the WQM
planning process, the facility plan must contain the following
elements:
1. Description of the planning area.
2. Selection of service areas.
3. Selection of overall treatment systems, including location,
capacity and configuration of all facilities, treatment
levels, and preliminary identification of type of treatment
and method of disposal of residual wastes.
4. Analysis supporting the selections in 2 and 3 based on
identification, evaluation and cost-effective comparison
of alternatives.
5. Preliminary designs and studies related to the selected
wastewater treatment systems, including sewer evaluation
surveys, surface and subsurface investigations of sites
for proposed facilities, preliminary designs and detailed
cost-effectiveness assessment, and other requirements set
forth in Section 35.917-1 of the Title II regulations.
WDM Planning under Section 208
WQM planning sets forth a comprehensive management program for
collection and treatment of wastes and controlling pollution from all
point and non-point sources. Control measures for abating pollution
from these sources utilize a combination of traditional structural
measures together with land-use or land management practices and regu-
latory programs. These measures are implemented by a management agency
or agencies designated in the plan. An initial WQM plan is developed
over a prescribed planning period and, thereafter, updated and approved
annually.
POLICY: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 201 FACILITY PLANNING AND WQM PLANNING
I. THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN 201 AND WQM PLANNING IN THE SAME
GEOGRAPHIC AREA DURING THE PERIOD BEFORE FINAL EPA APPROVAL OF
A WQM PLAN ARE AS FOLLOWS:
A. 201 Planning
All 201 plans underway and on current or subsequent approved
priority lists should proceed expeditiously through to completion,
State certification and approval by EPA. The scope of 201 planning
approved before the final W3M work plan is approved by EPA should
be at a level necessary to complete all required elements of the
facility plan. The scope of 201 planning approved after the final
WQM work plan is approved by EPA should be at a level necessary to
-------
- 3 -
supplement work assigned to and within the capability of the respon-
sible WQM planning agency to accomplish expeditiously so that a
complete facility plan can be provided with minimal delay.
The WQM planning agency's review of ongoing facility plans
will generally be handled in accordance with procedures for the
A-95 review process.
B. Minimum Requirements for Facility Planning by WQM
Planning Agencies
During the initial planning period, WQM planning agencies
must produce the interim outputs specified in Program Guidance
Memorandum AM-2; generally, for designated areawide agencies,
these interim outputs will be completed within 9 months of the
date upon which the planning process becomes operational as
selected by the Regional Administrator. States conducting the
planning in non-designated areas may elect to place a lower
priority on facilities planning outputs, and, with the approval
of the Regional Administrator, may provide alternative schedules
to satisfy this interim output requirement.
For those municipal facilities within the WQM planning area
expected to receive a construction grant award during the five
years following initial WQM plan approval, the initial WQM plan
will include the facility planning information listed below. In
most cases, 201-funded facilities planning is either ongoing or
scheduled in the near term to support facilities construction over
the next several years. Thus, WQM planning agencies are expected
during this period to utilize and incorporate (not duplicate) the
201-funded planning information, supplementing the 201-funded or
programmed activities whenever deemed necessary by the Regional
Administrator.
Minimum requirements for facility planning to be summarized in
initial WQM plans for any facilities expected to receive a construc-
tion grant award during the five years following initial WQM plan
approval:
1. Selection of service areas
2. Preliminary estimate of municipal wastewater flows to be
generated during a 20 year planning period based on economic
and population projections for the WQM planning area.
3. Preliminary identification and comparison of the cost of
alternative treatment systems needed to handle projected
municipal wastewater flows, and to meet the requirements of
BPWTT or any more stringent discharge limitation necessitated
under the Act. Cost estimates may be based on streamlined
cost-estimating systems such as those prepared by Bechtel,
Black and Veatch, and ICARUS.
-------
- 4 -
4. Preliminary comparison of the cost of alternative general
configurations for needed wastewater collection at the
trunk line level.
5. Overall summary of environmental impacts of alternative
treatment and wastewater collection configurations.
6. Preliminary determinations, based on the above analysis,
of which municipal treatment systems and conveyance
configurations are likely to be most cost-effective.
7. Estimate of the land area required and possible financial
arrangements which could be utilized to construct these
facilities.
The terms "preliminary", "summary" and "estimate" in this
description ate used to emphasize that the WQM plan will satisfy
these requirements by brief, general analysis and conclusions which
are much shorter and less detailed than those in a facility plan.
As such, these conclusions may be modified as a result of 201-funded
facility planning conducted in accordance with policies and procedures
described in Section II (see p. 5).
WQM planning agencies are also required to meet statutory require-
ments which are normally not considered a part of the facility planning
process but which, after approval of the WQM plan, will affect facility
planning. Such requirements include establishment of priorities and
time schedules for completion of treatment works, estimation of municipal
waste treatment system needs, identification of agencies necessary to
construct, operate and maintain treatment works,, and establishment of a
regulatory program that can affect facilities in the area (example -
stormwater or pretreatment controls).
C. Detailed Facility Planning in WQM planning Work Plans
New WQM planning work plans shall not be approved by the
Regional Administrator when they provide for detailed facility
planning beyond the minimum requirements in section B, above.
This detailed facility planning shall be handled by existing and
subsequent 201 facility planning grants.
Existing approved work plans for FY 74 and 75 designated 208
areawide agencies which provide for facility planning beyond the
minimum requirements should be amended to eliminate such detailed
planning, except where designated WQM planning agencies have already
contracted to conduct detailed facility planning and the contractor
has started the work and is too far along for the contract to be
revised or terminated as determined by the Regional Administrator.
If work plans are revised to eliminate detailed facility planning,
Section 201 planning grants should be quickly provided in these areas
in accordance with paragraph A above.
-------
- 5 -
D. Inter iin 208 Outputs
After interim outputs (AM-2) are approved by the State and
EPA for a WQM planning area, the relationship between 201 and WQM
planning in that area will be the same as described above except
that planning under any 201 grant*awarded after the approval of
the interim outputs must be consistent with these interim WQM
outputs. The scope and funding of new 201 planning should not
extend to developing a justification for the interim outputs,
as this will have been produced by the WDM planning process.
E. Coordination Between Concurrent 201 and WQM Planning
All WQM planning must be coordinated with facility planning
and other construction grant activity so that the final WQM plan
will facilitate needed construction in the area. Each State,
working with the Regional office must assure that effective coor-
dination between concurrent 201 and WQM planning does occur, and
that relationships between the two planning efforts are consistent
with this policy statement. The procedures for securing agreement
on relationships and responsibilities between concurrent 201 and
WQM planning efforts are at the discretion of the State. Conflicts
in approaches between concurrent 201 and WQM planning should be
resolved between the 201 and WQM planning agencies and concerned
State and local officials.
F. Transition to New WQM Requirements Affecting Facility
Planning
Any WQM plan which proposes a significant change in either
management or approach affecting construction grant a.ards must
allow adequate time and establish detailed procedures for transi-
tion to the new approach or management once the WQM plan is approved
by EPA.
II. THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIES THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN 201 AND WQM
PLANNING AFTER THE WQM PLAN HAS BEEN COMPLETED, AND THE MANAGEMENT
AGENCY OR AGENCIES IDENTIFIED BY THE PIAN ARE APPROVED BY THE STATE
AND EPA.
A. Facility Plans Underway
All facility plans underway at the time of approval will be
completed by the agency which received the Step 1 grant. Hie
planning effort will continue expeditiously through to State
certification and EPA approval unless the approved WQM plan
clearly justifies a change in required treatment levels or alter-
native approach on the basis of substantially lower costs or major
changes in projected environmental impacts.
-------
- 6 -
B. New Facility Plans: Role of Designated Management
Aqencv(s)
New grants for 201 plans will be made to the management
agency(s) designated in the approved W2M plan. New facility
planning will be consistent with the approved WQM plan.
The scope and funding of new facility planning starts
should be sufficient to supplement the data and analysis in
the WQM plan to the extent necessary to provide a complete
facility plan as required by Section 35.917 of the Title II
regulations.
Where future 201 planning results in recommended projects
not in general conformance with the recommendations of an
approved WQM plan, review of the proposed change must be made
by the designated agency responsible for operating the continuing
WQM planning process. If the proposed change is accepted by the
WQM planning agency, the WQM plan is to be revised. (Revisions
will then proceed through the normal State certification and EPA
approval process.) If the proposed change is unacceptable, the
approved WQM plan is controlling.
Review of WDM Plans
Regional municipal construction grants personnel should review
sections of the work plans for WDM planning and draft WQM plans
focusing on facility planning elements to assure coordination between
WQM planning and the municipal facilities grant program consistent
with this guidance. State construction grants personnel should be
encouraged to do the same.
-------
-2-
The achievement of sound program management in the construction
grants program is the top Agency Water priority in FY 1977. Attain-
ment of high quality and up-to-date project priority lists, available
for Regional analyses from an automated information system, will go
a long way toward achieving that important objective.
Questions on this process should be directed to either Michael
Quigley, Chief, Program Planning and Evaluation Branch (426-8990) or
Paul Wagner, Chief, Grants Information Branch (755-2513).
Attachment
-------
PROJECT PRIORITY LIST PRE-PROCESSING
AND KEYPUNCH GUIDANCE
PRE-PROCESSING INSTRUCTIONS
1. Check the forms to insure conformance with the format shown on
the enclosed SAMPLE priority list form. Each line of the list
must be a separate step (Step 1 on one line, Step 2 on another
line, etc.).
2. Write and encircle the following GICS transaction numbers at the
top of each column of each page, as shown on the SAMPLE form:
GICS Transaction
No. Encircled on Column Name
Form on Form GICS Data Element Name
12 Applicant Legal Name Applicant Name (refer to
51 Street page 133 of GICS User's
14 City Manual for standard
52 Zip conventions)
15 County
59 Priority Number State Project Priority
List Number
60 NPDES Number EPA Facility Identification
Number
01 Grant Ident. Number Grant Identification Number
87 - Type of Project Project Step Code
A5 Target Date Application Target Date
20 Project Description Project Description
19 Estimated EPA Assistance Grant Amount Requested of EPA
3. These instructions assume the FY 76 Priority List was deleted
before the entry of this proposed FY 77 List. (Note: Be sure
you list the FY 76 Priority List for a State using a job similar
to the one found on page 104 of the GICS Manual before you delete
any of the FY 76 records.
-------
KEYPUNCH INSTRUCTIONS
Each row on the document will be the source of several keypunched
cards. Each of these cards will have the same general format. The
blocks of information to be keypunched are marked by encircled numbers
(a transaction number). There will be several cards punched from each
row on the form. If no information is given for a particular transaction,
punch a card with that transaction number and no information.
The keypunch row on the format consists of fixed and variable
fields. Columns 1/19 are the same on each of the cards.
The format is: RR.GGGGGG.N^Q.O.A.EE,D. . .D
WHERE:
Col 1/2 RR Your region number is typed on every card.
Col 3 , A comma constant typed on every card.
Col 4/9 GGGGGG A six-digit number that is typed on every
card. The first two digits (numeric only)
are found in the upper left portion of the
form (STATE ) and remain the same for
the entire form. The next four digits are
found in the fifth column ©; type the
first four digits of the number found in
column ©•
Col 10 A comma constant typed on every card.
Col 11 N or C A letter N for New, or C for Continuation
(subsequent related project) typed on every
card. Reference the last two digits found
in column if '01', type N; other than
'01', type C unless'011 has previously
appeared on a Priority List and then with-
drawn .
Col 12 , A comma constant typed on every card.
Col 13/14 99 A two-digit number (Sequence Number) typed
on every card. This number is found in
column(pT). Use the last two digits of
Grant Ident. Number found in column ©.
Col 15 , A comma constant typed on every card.
Col 16 0 A number zero (Amendment Number) is typed
on every card.
-------
-3-
Col 17
Col 18
Col 19
Col 20/21
EE
Col 22
Col 23
D. . .D
A comma constant typed on every card.
A letter A constant typed on every card.
A comma constant typed on every card.
A two-digit transaction number that changes
on each card. This transaction number is
encircled at the top of each column of
information to be keypunched.
A comma constant typed on every card.
This is the general information to be
keypunched from each block in a column.
There are several transactions to be typed from each row on the form in
positions 23/80:
NAME
Applicant Data
TRANSACTION
12, 51,
14, 52
and 15
NPDES Number (EPA
Facility Identification
Number)
Grant Identification
Number
60
01
Type of Project
(Project Step Code)
87
INSTRUCTION
This data will generally be the
address of a city or town.
EXAMPLE: City of Milwaukee--
type as Milwaukee,
City of
05,170388,N,01,0,A,12, Milwaukee,
City of
Keypunch this number as shown
on the form.
EXAMPLE: 05,170388,N,01,0,A,60,
IL0021380
Keypunch nine numerical digits.
Do not keypunch dashes.
EXAMPLE: 0388-01 would be
punched as 170388010
in positions 23/31.
The 17 would be found in the
upper left of the form after
State. A zero is always punched
in position 31 for this transaction
05,170388,N,01,0,A,01,170388010
Keypunch one numerical digit.
EXAMPLE: 1 would be punched as
1 in position 23.
05,170388,N,01,0,A,87,1
-------
-4-
Application Target Date A5 EXAMPLE: 7705 keypunch as
770531 in positions
762/767
05,170388,N,01,0,A,AS,770531
Project Description 20
Keypunch the alpha numeric digits
in positions 23 to 72. Truncate
descriptions at position 72, if
necessary.
Estimated EPA 19
Assistance
(Grant Amount Requested
of EPA)
Keypunch the numerical digits
only, starting in position 23.
Do not keypunch commas. Do
not enter cent amounts if any
are shown on the form.
EXAMPLE: 05,170388, N,01,0,A,19,
900100
Grant Type 04
Keypunch the letter N or C in
position 23. This transaction
is typed for each set of trans-
actions on the form--one for
each line on the form. Reference
the last two digits found in
column(oi) - if '01', type N; if
other than'01', type C unless
'01' has previously appeared on
a Priority List and then with-
drawn. The letter punched here
will always be the same as the
letter punched in position 11.
EXAMPLE: 05,170388,N,01,0,A,04,N
Priority Number 59
(Priority List Number)
Keypunch the handwritten numbers
to the left of the Applicant Name
block. This is a four digit field.
The number should be entered as a
three digit number with leading
zeroes in the first three positions
of the field (positions 23/25).
Zero fill the fourth digit (position
26).
EXAMPLE: 1 would be punched as' 0010
10 would be punched as 0100
100 would be punched as 1000
05,170388,N,01,0,A,59,0100
-------
-5-
Action Step
Action Date
Priority FY
Other Required
Transactions
23 Keypunch a PF for those projects
on the fundable portion of the
proposed list. Keypunch a PN
on those projects on the extended
portion of the proposed list.
After the list is approved the PF
is changed to XF.
24 Keypunch the received date of
the proposed list. If desired
when the list is approved change
this date to the list approval
date.
57 Keypunch 77 the year of this
proposed list.
02 Remember to type these required
04 transactions as explained on page
05 22 of the GICS Manual. They are
06 required by the system to create
13 a record.
17
-------
ATTACHMENT 2 (a)
state fx H&-
CONSTRUCTlON GRANTS PIlOJECT LIST
(List Individual Projects* In I'rloMty Rank Order)
@>
PRIORITY
Ranking
PRIORITY—^
POINTS
(T|)
(sb 2/
yrs\ APPLICANT LEGAL NAME-'
U-S< STREET AOORESS
(SiL CITY. ZIP CODE
ffs) COUNTY
©
NPOES
NUMBER
GRANT
IDENT.
Number
Facility
Need &
Sequence
\n)
TYI'E
Of
Project
Titep
nc . y
(j2i>
APPLICATION
TARGET
DATE
(Yr. & Mo.)
©
PROJECT DESCRIPTION^
(Facility Need Scope)
OS)
ESTIMATED
EPA
Assistance (S)
Each Step and/or segment of a Step constitutes a spoarate project an* 1s to be 1 sted Individually. (Legal size copies of this format will be supplied
(SEE ATTACHMENT 2 (b) FOR EXPLANATION 0^ COLUMNS WITH FOOTNOTES.) separac
-------
Priority List Procedures
Introduction: The procedures that follow outline an interim step-by-
step process for evaluating State priority list submissions within the
time constraints established in the FY 1977 Construction Grants Program
Guidance. They require entry of the new priority list into GICS prior
to its approval to facilitate detailed manual and computer analysis of
the list as soon after initial receipt as possible. The analyses are
for program management purposes only and do not set out the steps necessary
to comply with regulatory requirements regarding priority criteria,
public participation, and state program planning.
If followed, the procedures will ensure that the priority lists are
properly entered into GICS, are systematically evaluated, and are updated
as necessary through the GICS process. Sections include a checklist for
preprocessing of the priority list to ensure that all basic requirements
are included (Part I B), a computer data entry process for the tentative
priority list (Part I C and Attachment I), a series of suggested output
reports to facilitate Regional analysis and evaluation of the priority
list (Part I D), and a feedback document and process to the State to
facilitate priority list improvement (Part I E). The computer programs
required to enter the priority list into GICS and generate the suggested
output reports will be available for Regional use by June 1.
It is suggested that each Region assign one individual to coordinate
the priority list review and analysis. Contact between headquarters and
the Regions should be through this individual.
The Program Planning and Evaluation Branch of the Municipal Construction
Division will be monitoring the progress of the priority list approval
-------
procedures and will assist Regional Offices as necessary. Please note
that these procedures are applicable to this year only. Long term
procedures will be developed and promulgated during the next year.
Contact Michael Quigley at 426-8990 if there are questions on this
process.
I. Priority List Review Procedure—May through August.
A. Time Constraints In Guidance.
1. May 1, 1976—Initial submission due to Regional Office
2. July 15, 1976—Final priority list due to Regional Office.
3. August 15, 1976--EPA approval of priority list.
B. Pre-processing review of list—Manual review after initial
receipt of list. (Visual checks, elementary analysis prior to computer
entry).
1. List in required format (per guidance)?
2. Projects listed in priority order by Step - one Step per line?
3. Are all data elements included? Are they correctly displayed?
a. Applicant name
b. Project number (including sequence number)
c. Project step
d. Project description
e. Amount requested
f. Priority ranking
g. Application target date
h. NPDES number
i. Priority points (optional)
j. Applicant address (optional)
-------
4. Does list clearly distinguish between fundable project list
and extended list? The fundable list includes enough
projects to fully utilize available funding and is subject
to the public participation requirements. The extended list
includes, at a minimum, all subsequent steps of previously
funded or active projects. (See guidance for detailed definition.)
5. Are all projects, including those on the existing list, on
the proposed new list? The suggested procedure would be
to compare the current list (from 6ICS or hard copy)
against the proposed list by grant number. All projects
should be listed out on separate sheets that (a) are on
current list but not on proposed list, (b) are on both
lists but with changes in some elements and (c) are on
proposed list but not on current list. Any project
omissions on new list should be checked. (The new list
must include all projects on the priority list.)
6. Regarding fundable list:
a. Are reserves clearly and explicitly identified? Are
they within the regulatory requirements? Are they
reasonable?
b. Are projects with target dates within next six months
identified by month? Are all other project target dates
identified by the last month of the quarter?
7. Regarding extended project list:
a. Are extended list projects in priority order and displayed of)
one line per step?
b. Does list appear to run through FY 1979?
-------
c. Is there any general indication that the State did not
comply with the multiyear criteria outlined in the guidance?
8. The Region should evaluate the severity of priority list deficiencies
based on the visual checks outlined above and any others that the
Region deems necessary. Any serious omissions -- e.g.
incorrect grant nos,, missing data elements, no extended
priority list -- and/or variations from the guidance should be
corrected through contact with the State before proceeding to
the next step. In no case should pre-processing deficiencies be
uncorrected past June 1 in order to adhere to schedule constraints
in the guidance.
C. Computer data entry (This section will be coordinated by
the Grants Administration Division at Headquarters.)
1. List, in priority sequence, from current GICS file all
projects on the currently approved list. This list should
be used to manually compare the currently approved list
with the proposed FY 1977 list to ensure no projects are
inadvertently deleted. In addition, the list provides
a record of remaining approved FY 1976 projects at the point
the old list is overlayed in the file. (See analysis D.l
for suggested output report.)
2. Prepare priority list format for direct data entry (See
attached "Project Priority List Pre-processing & Keypunch
Guidance" developed by the Grants Administration Division).
3. Delete al1 priority list projects from current GICS file
i.e. no "X", "EX", "WX" projects should be left on file.)
-------
4. Enter interim priority list (extended and fundable portions)
into GICS file utilizing routine update run.
(Note (a): From this Step until the priority list is approved
on August 15, there will be n£ approved priority list
in GICS. The interim list will be coded "PF" and "PE"
(for fundable and extended list, respectively) and be
labelled the FY 1977 list. Any projects funded between
May 1 and August 15 that are on the interim priority
list should be replaced by the new application or award
data.
D. Analysis of proposed State Priority List—Computer Testing
For each analysis below, an application program has been written
and will be provided to each Region by the Headquarters Municipal
Construction Division. A format of the five programs will be
provided to each Regional priority list coordinator as soon as
they are available.
1. Priority List Report. (Format: All proposed priority list
projects in priority ranking sequence. Duplicates the priority
list format included in FY 1977 guidance.) This list is the
basic working document to manually verify that the list agrees
with State submission; to highlight data element omissions;
to check for incorrect or incomplete data items; and other
audit checks on the data entry run.
2. Priority List Output Commitment Report. (Format: All proposed
priority list projects in sequence by application target date,
step, and grant number. Number and dollar value of Step 1,
2, 3 for all projects summed for every target date.) This list
-------
will display the application receipt schedule through the
extended list dates. It can be used as the basis for creating
and verifying the construction grants output commitments for
number and dollar value of awards. Note: A worksheet to
aid the Region in projecting target award dates from application
dates and inserting the designated reserves into the quarterly
totals will be provided with the output formats.
3. Step 1, 2, 3 Project Detail Report. (Format: All proposed
priority list projects, applications, and funded Step 1 and
2 projects grouped together by grant number. Data elements
include action step, project step, award or application date,
projected completion date, percent complete, and amount.)
This list will display the funded and planned project
mix for every grant and flag the following error conditions
as applicable:
a. Target certification dates for priority list projects
that preceed or follow by more than six months the
projected completion dates of prior steps of the same
grant.
b. Target certification dates for priority list projects
that are less than six months or more than eighteen
months from the application or award date of preceedmg
step of same grant.
c. Grants that are not planned to Step 3 stage.
d. Priority list projects that do not have a previously awarded
or planned earlier step.
-------
4. Step 1, 2, 3 Project Summary Report. (Format: A summary
report of project mix, indicating number of "new" or
"continuation" projects on priority list, unplanned "continuation"
awards from (already funded) existing grants, etc. Displayed
by number and dollar totals by year of planned award and by
age of grants not planned to Step 3). This summary report will
give an overall indication of the mix of projects on the priority
list compared to the active project mix in data base. Unless
priority criteria have changed, it should be assumed that grants
awarded earlier have priority over new grants.
5. PNS/GICS Linkup Report. (Format: All large grants by step
from latest program management submission data base compared
to GICS information for same grant. Data elements include
grant amount and action step displayed by quarter through
FY 1978.) This report is intended to facilitate Regional
management of large grants over $10 million eligible cost.
The report will check for completeness of proposed priority
list regarding known large projects, for new grants on
priority list not in GICS, and for differences in award dates
and amounts. Note: This report is currently being utilized
in headquarters and is available to the Regions.
6. The results of the analysis above should indicate whether
serious problems exist in the content of the priority list
submission. The Region should prepare summary questions for review
with the State Offices (See Part E below).
-------
Feedback to State--Prior to Regional Approval of Initial List
1. An output listing of the State proposed priority list
will be generated on multipart paper. All problems and
questions on a project-by-project basis that resulted from
the computer analysis should be noted on this report. The format
of this report will be supplied by the Headquarters Municipal
Construction Division.
2. A copy of the output report with written comments should be
returned to State indicating major concerns and asking for
clarification of all discrepancies. Allow approximately
two week turnaround for response on initial cycle.
3. State should enter necessary changes directly on the report
and return to Region. Region should maintain close contact
with State either through telephone or personal visits.
4. All changes accepted by the Region should be coded and
entered into normal GICS update cycle. All deletions
and additions of data elements or projects should be inserted
in this way. If the magnitude of the change requires
massive revision of the proposed priority list in GICS, it
may be necessary to repeat Section C on initial data entry.
5. Region should repeat review process (i.e. repeat Section B
& D) as appropriate.
6. Repeat above procedures until list is correct.
Approve priority 1ist--August 15.
1. The final listing after all corrections have been made should
be the approvable list. The list should be transmitted to
Regional Administrator for approval. (The fundable list is
subject to formal approval; the extended list should receive
-------
2. Once approved, the action steo on each priority list fundable
project must be changed from "PF" to "XF". This change will
denote approval in the 6ICS system.
3. The approved list in GICS is the official list and should
be promulgated through the GICS system.
4. A copy of the list, with RA approval noted, should be kept on
file in the Regional Office for ready reference at all times.
11. Quarterly Priority List Update Procedure--Oct. 31, Jan. 31, April 30.
A. Send copy of Priority List printout to State on September 30,
December 31, and March 30.
B. State makes changes as necessary and returns list.
C. Region performs analysis outlined in Part I, as appropriate.
D. Region approves changes, enters into GICS, and promulgates
new list (by Oct. 31, Jan. 31, and April 30).
III. More Frequent State Update
A State Office, at its discretion, can submit new priority list
information at any time between the quarterly updates. The Region
should use the procedures outlined in Part I, as appropriate, to
evaluate and enter changes. If required, a monthly, rather than
quarterly, update procedure may be established. Changes made
between monthly or quarterly updates may be entered into GICS
immediately or batched for periodic update runs. The latest
priority list printout will be used as work sheet between update
runs.
S Government Printing Office 1 9 7 8- 777-066/1 1 1 5 Region 8
------- |