HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaageh0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE -
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
RESOURCES AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
B-166506 MAY 2 9 1973 c
The Honorable Robert W. Fri
Acting Administrator 6350
Environmental Protection Agency -
Dear Mr. Fri:
The General Accounting Office has reviewed the ai-r-_po]iutjon control
program grants awarded by the Environmental Protection_Agen¢y,,(-EP AYto
the-,S.tte of.-Was-hvngton.
Our review was conducted at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C.;
EPA Region X in Seattle, Washington; and the State air pollution control
agency in Olympia, Washington. We interviewed EPA and State officials
and examined pertinent legislation, regulations, records, and files re-
lating to the review and approval of air pollution control program grant
applications and the expenditure of Federal and non-Federal funds. In
addition, we examined records of expenditures of air pollution control
program grants awarded to Alaska, Idaho, and Oregon.
During fiscal years 1970-72, EPA awarded three grants totaling
$1,140,000 to Washington to support its air pollution control program.
In its grant applications for those fiscal years Washington estimated
that it would spend about $2.2 million of State funds for its air pollu-
tion control program. Subsequent to the award of each grant, the State
spent between 51 and 56 percent of the State funds estimated for the pro-
gram in its grant applications. EPA did not reduce the Federal grant
amounts; nor did it question the State on the reasons for spending sub-
stantially less State funds, until we brought this matter to the atten-
tion of EPA regional officials in November 1972.
We believe that when a grantee spends considerably less than esti-
mated in its grant application, either the costs of the program were
grossly overestimated or the scope of the program was substantially cur-
tailed. In such a case, we believe that EPA should inquire into the
reasons for the underexpenditures and, when warranted by the circumstances,
reduce the Federal grant in order to maintain an equitable sharing of the
costs of the air pollution control program between the Federal Government
and the grantee.
EPA procedures, however, do not require such inquiries as long as
certain minimum Federal requirements are met. EPA procedures state that:](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaageh0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)