Sec. 3. Updating of guidance
816 words·~4 min read·
/bill/113/hr/3862/ih/section-3A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
In this section, the following definitions apply: The term Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The term affordability means, with respect to payment of a utility bill, a measure of whether an individual customer or household can pay the bill without undue hardship or unreasonable sacrifice in the essential lifestyle or spending patterns of the individual or household, as determined by the Administrator. The term financial capability means the financial capability of a community to make investments necessary to make water quality-related improvements, taking into consideration the criteria described in subsection (b)(2)(A).
The term guidance means the guidance published by the Administrator entitled Combined Sewer Overflows—Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development and dated February 1997, as applicable to combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall update the guidance to ensure that the evaluations by the Administrator of financial capability assessment and schedule development meet the criteria described in paragraph (2).
The criteria described in this paragraph are that, under the updated guidance— in assessing the financial capability of a community— greater emphasis should be placed on local economic conditions; for regional systems, consideration should be given to the economic conditions of political jurisdictions and significant demographic groups within each region; prescriptive formulas for use in calculating financial capability and thresholds for expenditure should not be considered to be the only indicator of the financial capability of a community; site-specific local conditions should be taken into consideration in analyzing financial capability; a single measure of financial capability or affordability (such as median household income) should be viewed in the context of other economic measures, rather than as a threshold to be achieved; and consideration should be given to the economic outlook of a community, including the potential impact of program requirements over time, in the development of implementation schedules; and the assessment should take into consideration other essential community investments relating to water quality improvements; with respect to the timing of implementation of water quality-related improvements— environmental improvement implementation schedules should be structured to mitigate the potential adverse impact on distressed populations resulting from the costs of the improvements; implementation schedules should reflect local community financial conditions and economic impacts; implementation schedules should allow permittees up to 30 years to implement water quality-related improvements in appropriate cases in which the cost of implementing the improvements places a high financial burden on the permittee; and existing implementation schedules should be modified in appropriate cases taking into consideration the criteria set forth in this subparagraph; with respect to implementation— a determination of local financial capability may be achieved through an evaluation of an array of factors the relative importance of which may vary across regions and localities; and an appropriate methodology should give consideration to such various factors as are appropriate to recognize the prevailing and projected economic concerns in a community; and the residential indicator should be revised to include— a consideration of costs imposed upon ratepayers for essential utilities; increased consideration and quantification of local community-imposed costs in regional systems; a mechanism to assess impacts on communities with disparate economic conditions throughout the entire service area of a utility; a consideration of the industrial and population trends of a community; recognition that— the median household income of a service area reflects a numerical median rather than the distribution of incomes within the service area; and more representative methods of determining affordability, such as shelter costs, essential utility payments, State affordability criteria, and State and local tax efforts, should be considered; a consideration of low-income ratepayer percentages; and impacts relating to program delivery, such as water quality infrastructure market saturation and program management.
The updated guidance should indicate that, in a case in which a previously approved long-term control plan or associated enforceable agreement does not prohibit modification of the plan or terms of the agreement (including financial capability considerations), and all parties are in agreement that a change is needed or that the plan or agreement does not prohibit reopening to address changes in the economic or financial status of the community since the effective date of the plan or agreement, reconsideration and modification of financial capability determinations and implementation schedules based on the criteria described in paragraph
(2)is appropriate. The Administrator shall apply the updated guidance, including the criteria described in paragraph (2), to each determination and analysis of affordability, financial capability, or widespread and substantial economic impact related to implementation of a program under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ). Upon completion of the updating of guidance under subsection (b), the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register and submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives the updated guidance.
Connectionstraces to 1
Traces to 1 document
Citation graph
cites case law
Sec. 3
Updating of guidance
Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources