25 Pa. Code § 103.6 - Priority rating factors
Current through Register Vol. 51, No. 40, October 2, 2021
The following state regulations pages link to this page.
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
§ 103.6.Priority rating factors.
(a) Priority among eligible projects for the purpose of creating the project priority list shall be established according to the accumulation of points for each of the following rating factors weighted as shown:
(1) Water Pollution Control—80%
(2) Stream Segment Priority—10%
(3) Population Affected—10%
(b) A project’s total priority points shall be the sum of the points assigned in each of the individual rating factors.
The provisions of this § 103.6 amended under The Clean Streams Law (35 P. S. § § 691.1—691.1001); section 16(2) of the Land and Water Conservation and Reclamation Act (32 P. S. § 5116(2)); and section 1920-A of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P. S. § 510-20).
The provisions of this § 103.6 adopted September 2, 1971, effective September 3, 1971, 1 Pa.B. 1804; amended April 29, 1977, effective May 16, 1977, 7 Pa.B. 1171; amended December 21, 1979, effective December 22, 1979, 9 Pa.B. 4158; amended January 2, 1998, effective January 3, 1998, 28 Pa.B. 18. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (233557) to (233558).
The Environmental Hearing Board has jurisdiction to review actions of the Department of Environmental Resources in implementing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC § 1251 et seq), but it could not exercise jurisdiction in a case where appellant failed to make out a colorable claim for review and the question involving the determination of priority points awarded by the Department was not disputed by the most credible showing of invalidity since only one of numerous parties affected by the priority list was before the Board. Latrobe Municipal Authority v. Commonwealth, 75 Pa. D. & C.2d 284 (1975).
Requiring a municipal authority to clean up its acid-mine-drainage polluted stream under state law and consequently giving such stream a lower priority in the distribution of federal funds under DER regulations is not so inconsistent or unreasonable as to give rise to a colorable claim of invalidity of the regulations that would give the courts jurisdiction to review the DER’s actions in awarding a low priority. Latrobe Municipal Authority v. Commonwealth, 75 Pa. D. & C.2d 284 (1975).
This section cited in 25 Pa. Code § 103.11 (relating to small municipality projects).