40 C.F.R. § 35.3030

Right of review of State decision

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any construction grant application or grantee who has been adversely affected by a State's action or omission may request Regional review of such action or omission, but must first submit a petition for review to the State agency that made the initial decision. The State agency will make a final decision in accordance with procedures set forth in the delegation agreement. The State must provide, in writing, normally within 45 days of the date it receives the petition, the basis for its decision regarding the disputed action or omission. The final State decision must be labeled as such and, if adverse to the applicant or grantee, must include notice of the right to request Regional review of the State decision under this section. A State's failure to address the disputed action or omission in a timely fashion, or in writing, will not preclude Regional review.

(b) Requests for Regional review must include:

(1) A copy of any written State decision.

(2) A statement of the amount in dispute,

(3) A description of the issues involved, and

(4) A concise statement of the objections to the State decision.

The request must be filed by registered mail, return receipt requested, within thirty days of the date of the State decision or within a reasonable time if the State fails to respond in writing to the request for review.

(c) The Region shall determine whether the State's review is comparable to a dispute decision official's (DDO) review pursuant to 2 CFR part 1500, subpart E. If the State's review is comparable, Regional review of the State's decision will be conducted by the Regional Administrator. If the State's review is not comparable, the DDO will review the State's decision and issue a written decision. Review of either a Regional Administrator or DDO decision may be requested pursuant to 2 CFR part 1500, subpart E.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2040-0095) [50 FR 45896, Nov. 4, 1985, as amended at 79 FR 76057, Dec. 19, 2014]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1986–1991 · leading case: United States v. State of Michigan, 781 F. Supp. 492 (E.D. Mich. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. State of Michigan, 781 F. Supp. 492 (E.D. Mich. 1991). “Detroit has followed the EPA-prescribed appeal process set forth in 40 CFR § 35.3030 , which provides that “[t]he state agency will make a final decision,” and that “[a] state’s failure to address the disputed action or omission in a timely fashion, or in writing, will not…”

City of Mount Clemens v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 917 F.2d 908 (6th Cir. 1990). “In addition, MDNR’s delegation agreement with EPA did not expressly provide for an adjudicatory proceeding to resolve project certification reversals.”

Ne. Ohio Reg'l Sewer Dist. v. Tyler, 517 N.E.2d 972 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “This petition was made pursuant to Section IV(E)(33) of the PPS, which provided: “In accordance with 40 CFR 35.3030 (August 19, 1983) any construction grant applicant or grantee who feels they [sic] have been adversely affected by a State’s action or omission may request a…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.