Revised Allotment Formulas for State and Interstate Monies Appropriated Under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 84 (Monday, May 3, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23734-23739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-10631]

[[Page 23733]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

_______________________________________________________________________

40 CFR Part 35

Revised Allotment Formulas for State and Interstate Monies Appropriated
Under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 1999 / Rules and
Regulations

[[Page 23734]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR PART 35

[FRL-6332-1]

Revised Allotment Formulas for State and Interstate Monies
Appropriated Under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This regulation revises the formulas for allotting funds
appropriated under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to States
and to interstate agencies for administering water quality programs.
Section 106 of the CWA authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to provide grants to States and interstate agencies, and Indian
Tribes qualified under CWA Section 518(e), to assist them in
administering programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination
of pollution.
The allotment formula for the tribal portion of the Section 106
Grant Program was revised in 1997 and is not affected by this action.
The CWA directs EPA to allocate Section 106 funds ``on the basis of
the extent of the pollution problem in the respective States.'' The
Section 106 allotment formulas were previously based on data more than
25 years old, including population data from the 1960s and data on
pollution sources from the early 1970s. Reports of current water
quality conditions around the country, provided by States under CWA
Section 305(b), indicate that the location and nature of the sources of
water pollution have changed significantly since the early 1970s.
Utilizing the more recent data, EPA revised the CWA Section 106 State
and interstate allotment formulas to better comply with the statutory
directive to allocate funds to States and interstate agencies based on
the ``extent of the pollution problem.'' Notice of revised State and
interstate agency allotment formulas for Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 was
published in the Federal Register (63 FR 59870 (1998)).
Based on public comments received on the FY 1999 formulas, EPA has
revised the CWA Section 106 State allotment formula to incorporate a
perpetual ``hold harmless'' provision, which ensures that all States
will receive an allotment at least equal to their FY 2000 allotment
level for FY 2001 and beyond unless the appropriation for States under
the Section 106 Grant Program decreases from its FY 2000 level.
These revised Section 106 State and interstate allotment formulas
will be effective for Fiscal Year 2000 and beyond.

DATES: This rule is effective May 3, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Crow, Office of Wastewater
Management (4201), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460;
Telephone: (202) 260-6742; Facsimile: (202) 260-1156; E-mail:
crow.carol@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Insular Areas,
and interstate agencies eligible to receive grants under Section 106 of
the Clean Water Act are regulated by this rule.

Background

Section 106(a) provides general authority for grants to States,
interstate agencies, and Indian Tribes qualified under CWA Section
518(e), to assist them in administering programs for the prevention,
reduction, and elimination of water pollution. Section 106(b) of the
CWA requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to make allotments from sums appropriated by Congress in each
fiscal year ``on the basis of the extent of the pollution problem in
the respective States.''
The Section 106 allotment formulas were previously based on data
that is now more than 25 years old, including population data from the
1960s and inventory data for large cattle feedlots, industrial and
municipal point sources, and power plants dating from the early 1970s.
Reports of current water quality conditions around the country,
provided by States to EPA under CWA Section 305(b), indicate that the
location and nature of the sources of water pollution have changed
significantly since the early 1970s.
For the FY 1999 formula revision process, EPA organized a work
group consisting of geographically-balanced representation from the
Agency, seven States, and an interstate agency to review the former
formula and to consider other approaches. The State representatives
were recommended by the Environmental Council of States (ECOS), the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators (ASIWPCA) and the Ground Water Protection Council
(GWPC). The representatives selected by these organizations were
encouraged to share information and gather opinions from other States
in their region and in their associations. The work group evaluated a
wide range of alternative approaches and ultimately developed and
recommended revised State and interstate allocation formulas for use in
determining Section 106 State and interstate allotments for FY 1999.
Utilizing the more recent data, EPA revised the allotment formulas
for FY 1999 to ensure the allotment of funds to States and interstate
agencies based on the ``extent of the pollution problem in the
respective States.'' Notice of revised allotment formulas for States
and interstate agencies for Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 was published in the
November 5, 1998, Federal Register (63 FR 59870).
Based on a significant increase in the appropriation for the
Section 106 Grant Program in FY 1999, the revised formula specifically
provided that no State's FY 1999 allotment would be less than its FY
1998 allotment. For FY 1999, the funding increase also provided
additional resources to most States. In subsequent years, under the FY
1999 formula, States would not lose more than 5 percent of their
Section 106 allotment in any one year, or more than a total of 20
percent from their FY 1998 Section 106 allotment.
The funding set-aside for interstate agencies was returned to its
historical (FY 1976) high level of 2.6 percent of the total State
monies appropriated for States under the Section 106 Grant Program.
EPA published the revised FY 1999 formulas in the November 5, 1998,
Federal Register Notice and requested public comments be submitted no
later than January 4, 1999. In response to public comments, EPA
reconvened an expanded Section 106 Formula work group comprised of EPA
and State representatives to develop final Section 106 allotment
formulas for FY 2000 and beyond. To ensure that States from each EPA
Region were provided with an opportunity to participate directly in the
development of the final revised allotment formulas, the membership of
the original Section 106 Formula work group was expanded to include
four additional State representatives. Work group representatives were
encouraged to share information and gather opinions from other States
in their regions and in their associations.
In response to specific concerns raised in the comments, EPA
recommended incorporation of a perpetual ``hold harmless'' provision in
the final Section 106 State allotment formula. After extensive
discussion, the work group members unanimously agreed to implement a
perpetual ``hold harmless'' provision in the final State

[[Page 23735]]

formula. This provision will (1) ensure that all States will be
eligible to receive an allotment at least equal to their FY 2000
allotment for FY 2001 and beyond, provided that the appropriation for
States under the Section 106 Grant Program does not decline from its FY
2000 level; and (2) all States will be eligible to receive a portion of
any increase in the appropriation for States under the Section 106
Grant Program. For FY 2000, each of the 21 entities ¹ that
did not receive an increase in its allotment from FY 1998 to FY 1999
(i.e., the entity received the same allotment in FY 1999 that it
received in FY 1998) will receive at least its FY 1999 allotment plus
an allowance for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Each of the 35 entities ² that received a funding increase
from FY 1998 to FY 1999 will receive its FY 1999 allotment minus a pro
rata share of the funds necessary to ensure the inflation allowance for
the aforementioned 21 entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 17 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands
\2\ 33 States, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once the work group members reached agreement on the implementation
of the ``hold harmless'' provision, accordingly they agreed to maintain
the components, data sources, and weights used in the FY 1999 formula
as published in the November 5, 1998, Federal Register in the final
Section 106 allotment formulas for FY 2000 and beyond.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by SBREFA, EPA generally is required to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis describing the impact of the regulatory action on
small entities as part of rulemaking. However, under Section 605(b) of
the RFA, if EPA certifies that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA is not
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. Pursuant to
Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604(b), the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule imposes no new requirements on small entities, nor does
it adversely impact them. It updates existing funding allotment
formulas for States and interstate agencies to ensure that the
allotments of CWA Section 106 funds to States and interstate agencies
are based on the ``extent of the pollution problem in the respective
States.'' Based on the incorporation of a perpetual ``hold harmless''
provision in the State allotment formula, all States will receive an
allotment at least equal to their FY 2000 allotment level for FY 2001
and beyond, unless the appropriation for States under the Section 106
Grant Program decreases from its FY 2000 level. The set-aside funding
for interstate agencies was restored to its historical high of 2.6
percent of the total funds appropriated for States under the Section
106 Grant Program.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. The UMRA excludes from the definition of ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' duties that arise from conditions of
federal assistance. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under Section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory provisions
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as those
are defined at 2 U.S.C. 658(11) (i.e. governments of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with
populations of less than 50,000). The Section 106 allotment formula for
the tribal portion of the Section 106 Grant Program is not affected by
this rule. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
Section 203 of UMRA.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Under Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), EPA is required to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impracticable.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards are not used, the Act requires EPA to provide Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an explanation of
the reasons for not using such standards. This action does not involve
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), as amended, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. information collection requirements contained in rules must be
approved by OMB before they are effective. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. This
rule does not contain any collection of information requirements. Since
this action imposes no information collection, reporting or record-
keeping requirements, this rule is not subject to the PRA.

Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)]
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' the Agency must determine whether
the regulatory action is ``significant'' and is therefore subject to
OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or

[[Page 23736]]

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject ot OMB review.''

Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that is: (1) determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under Section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. EPA has determined that the
proposed rule is not a covered regulatory action because it is not
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and it
does not establish an environmental standard to mitigate health or
safety risks. As a result, this rule is not subject to the requirements
of the Executive Order 13045.

Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by
statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal
government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or
EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting,
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the OMB a description
of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of
affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their
concerns, any written communications from the governments, and a
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process
permitting elected officials and other representatives of State, local
and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the
development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded
mandates.'' This rule does not create a mandate on State, local or
tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on
these entities. The rule merely establishes formulas for the allotment
of Federal funds to States and interstate agencies. Accordingly, the
requirements of Section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this rule.

Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian tribal governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section
of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies
on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
This rule does not affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments, because Tribes are covered under 40 CFR Part 35, 35.265,
which remains in effect as published. Accordingly, the requirements of
Section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
Section 804(2). This rule will be effective May 3, 1999.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 35

Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Evaluation of performance, Grant programs--environmental protection,
Work plan requirements.

Dated: April 20, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

EPA amends 40 CFR part 35 as follows:

PART 35--STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE

1. The authority citation for part 35, subpart A continues to read
as follows:

Authority: Secs. 105 and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7405 and 7601(a)); Secs. 106, 205(g), 205(j), 208, 319,
501(a) and 518 of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1256,
1285(g), 1285(j), 1288, 1361(a) and 1377); secs. 1443, 1450, and
1451 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-2, 300j-9 and
300j-11); secs. 202(a) and 3011 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42
U.S.C. 6912(a), 6931, 6947, and 6949); and secs. 4, 23, and 25(a) of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended
(7 U.S.C. 136(b), 136(u) and 136w(a)).

2. Subpart A is amended by adding Sec. 35.251 and Sec. 35.252 to
read as follows:

Sec. 35.251 Definitions.

As used herein, the following words and terms shall have the
meaning set forth below:
(a) The term allotment means the sum reserved for each State or
interstate agency from funds appropriated by the Congress. The
allotment is determined by formula based on the extent of the water
pollution problem in the respective States. It represents the maximum
amount of money potentially available to the State or interstate agency
for its program grant.
(b) The term program grant means the amount of federal assistance
awarded to a State or interstate agency under Section 106 of the Clean
Water Act to assist in administering programs for the prevention,
reduction and elimination of water pollution.

[[Page 23737]]

(c) The term State means a State, the District of Columbia (DC),
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (PR), the U.S. Virgin Islands (VI),
Guam (GU), American Samoa (AS), and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI).
(d) The term interstate agency means an agency that meets the
requirements of Section 502(2) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and which
is determined to be eligible for receipt of a grant under CWA Section
106 and these regulations by the Administrator.
(e) The term component refers to one of the six factors selected
for use in the Section 106 State allotment formula. Each component of
the formula was selected based on its potential contribution to the
extent of water pollution problems within the respective States and to
the workload of State water pollution control programs.
(f) The term element refers to one of the constituent factors used
to provide greater specificity to a component in the Section 106 State
allotment formula. Certain components are composed of two or more
``elements.'' For example, the nonpoint source component of the Section
106 State allotment formula is composed of an agricultural element, a
logging element, and an abandoned mine element.
(g) The term sub-element refers to one of the constituent factors
used to provide greater specificity to an element in the Section 106
State allotment formula. Certain elements are composed of two or more
``sub-elements.'' For example, the abandoned mine element of the
nonpoint source component is composed of a soft-rock mining sub-element
and a hard-rock mining sub-element.
(h) The term funding floor refers to the minimum amount of funding
that a State will be allotted in any fiscal year.
(i) The term maximum level of funding refers to the ceiling on the
amount of funding that a State can be allotted in any fiscal year.

Sec. 35.252 State and interstate allotments.

(a) Allotments. Each fiscal year funds appropriated for States
under Section 106 will be allotted to States and interstate agencies on
the basis of the extent of the pollution problems in the respective
States. A portion of the funds available to States under the Section
106 Grant Program will be set-aside for allotment to eligible
interstate agencies. For FY 2000 and subsequent years, the interstate
set-aside will be set at the level of 2.6 percent of the total funds
appropriated for States under the Section 106 Grant Program.
(b) State allotment formula. The Section 106 State allotment
formula establishes an allotment ratio for each State based on six
components selected to reflect the extent of the water pollution
problem in the respective States. A funding floor is established for
each State with provisions for periodic adjustments for inflation. The
formula also provides for a maximum funding level that a State can
receive in any fiscal year (150% of its previous fiscal year
allotment).
(1) Components and component weights. (i) Components. The six
components used in the Section 106 State allotment formula are: Surface
Water Area; Ground Water Use; Water Quality Impairment; Point Sources;
Nonpoint Sources; and Population of Urbanized Area. The components for
the formula are presented in Table 1 of this section, with their
associated elements, sub-elements, and supporting data sources.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 23738]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY99.000

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 23739]]

(ii) Component weights. To account for the fact that not all of the
selected formula components contribute equally to the extent of the
pollution problem within the States, each formula component is weighted
individually. Final component weights will be phased-in by FY 2004,
according to the schedule presented in Table 2 of this section:

Table 2.--Component Weights in the Section 106 State Allotment Formula
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2004+
Component (percent) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water Area.............................................. 13 13 12
Ground Water Use................................................ 11 12 12
Water Quality Impairment........................................ 13 25 35
Point Sources................................................... 25 17 13
Nonpoint Sources................................................ 18 15 13
Population of Urbanized Area.................................... 20 18 15
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 100 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Funding floor. A funding floor is established for each State.
Each State's funding floor will be at least equal to its FY 2000
allotment in all future years unless the appropriation for States under
the Section 106 Grant Program decreases from its FY 2000 level.
(3) Funding decrease. If the appropriation for the State Section
106 Grant Program decreases in future years, the funding floor will be
disregarded and all States allotments will be reduced by an equal
percentage.
(4) Inflation adjustment. Funding floors for each State will be
adjusted for inflation when the appropriation for the State Section 106
Grant Program increases from the preceding fiscal year. These
adjustments will be made on the basis of the cumulative change in the
Consumer Price Index (CPI), published by the U.S. Department of Labor,
since the most recent year in which State Section 106 funding last
increased. Inflation adjustments to State funding floors will be capped
at the lesser of the percentage change in appropriated funds or the
cumulative percentage change in the inflation rate.
(5) Cap on annual funding increases. The maximum allotment to any
State will be 150 percent of that State's allotment for the previous
fiscal year.
(6) Cap on component ratio. A component ratio is equal to each
State's share of the national total of a single component. The cap on
each of the six State formula components ratios is 10 percent. If a
State's calculated component ratio for a particular component exceeds
the 10 percent cap, the State will instead be assigned 10 percent for
that component. The component ratios for all other States will be
adjusted accordingly.
(7) Update cycle. The data used in the State formula will be
periodically updated. The first update will impact allotments for FY
2001, and will consist of updating the data used to support the Water
Quality Impairment component of the State formula. These data will be
updated using the most currently available CWA Section 305(b) reports.
After this initial update, the data used to support all six components
of the Section 106 State allotment formula will be updated in FY 2003
(for use in the determination of FY 2004 allotments). Thereafter, all
data will be updated every five years (i.e., in FY 2008 for FY 2009
allotments, in FY 2013 for FY 2014 allotments, etc.) Note there will be
an annual adjustment to the funding floor for all States, based on the
appropriation for the Section 106 Grant Program and changes in the CPI.
(c) Interstate allotment formula. EPA will set-aside 2.6 percent of
funds appropriated for States under the Section 106 Grant Program for
interstate agencies. The Section 106 interstate allotment formula
consists of two parts: a base allotment; and a variable allotment.
(1) Base allotment. Each eligible interstate agency is provided
with $125,000 as a base allotment to help fund coordination activities
amongst its member States. However, no more than 50 percent of the
total available interstate set-aside may be allocated as part of the
base allotment. If, given the 50 percent limitation placed on the base
allotment the amount of interstate set-aside funds is insufficient to
provide each interstate agency with $125,000, then each interstate
agency will receive a base allotment equal to 50 percent of the total
interstate set-aside divided by the total number of eligible interstate
agencies.
(2) Variable allotment. The variable allotment provides for funds
to be distributed to interstate agencies on the basis of ``the extent
of the pollution problems in the respective States.'' Funds not
allotted under the base allotment will be allotted to eligible
interstate agencies based on each interstate agency's share of their
member States' Section 106 formula allotment ratios. Updates of the
data for the six components of the Section 106 State allocation formula
will automatically result in corresponding updates to the variable
allotment portion of the interstate allotments. The allotment ratios
for those States involved in compacts with more than one interstate
agency will be allocated amongst such interstate agencies based on the
percentage of each State's territory that is situated within the
drainage basin or watershed area covered by each compact.

[FR Doc. 99-10631 Filed 4-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Revised Allotment Formulas for State and Interstate Monies Appropriated Under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act

Federal Register Citation

Suggested Web Citation