(a) Causes. If the RA determines that the State has not complied with requirements under title VI, the RA will notify the State of such noncompliance and prescribe the necessary corrective action. Failure to satisfy the terms of the capitalization grant agreement, including unmet conditions or assurances or invalid certifications, is grounds for a finding of noncompliance. In addition, if the State does not manage the SRF in a financially sound manner (e.g. allows consistent and substantial failures of loan repayments), the RA may take corrective action as provided under this section.
(b) RA's course of action. In making a determination of noncompliance with the capitalization grant agreement and devising the corrective action, the RA will identify the nature and cause of the problems. The State's corrective action must remedy the specific instance of noncompliance and adjust program management to avoid noncompliance in the future.
(c) Consequences for failure to take corrective action. If within 60 days of receipt of the noncompliance notice, a State fails to take the necessary actions to obtain the results required by the RA, or to provide an acceptable plan to achieve the results required, the RA shall withhold payments to the SRF until the State has taken acceptable actions. If the State fails to take the necessary corrective action deemed adequate by the RA within twelve months of receipt of the original notice, any withheld payments shall be deobligated and reallotted to other States.
(d) Releasing payments. Once the State has taken the corrective action deemed necessary and adequate by the RA, the withheld payments will be released and scheduled payments will recommence.
Sec. Appendix A to Subpart K of Part 35--Criteria for evaluating a
State's proposed NEPA-Like process
The following criteria will be used by the RA to evaluate a proposed SERP.
(A) Legal foundation. Adequate documentation of the legal authority, including legislation, regulations or executive orders and/or Attorney General certification that authority exists.
(B) Interdisciplinary approach. The availability of expertise either in-house or otherwise accessible to the State Agency.
(C) Decision documentation. A description of a documentation process adequate to explain the basis for decisions to the public.
(D) Public notice and participation. A description of the process, including routes of publication (e.g., local newspapers and project mailing list), and use of established State legal notification systems for notices of intent, and criteria for determining whether a public hearing is required. The adequacy of a rationale where the comment period differs from that under NEPA and is inconsistent with other State review periods.
(E) Consider alternatives. The extent to which the SERP will adequately consider:
(1) Designation of a study area comparable to the final system;
(2) A range of feasible alternatives, including the no action alternative;
(3) Direct and indirect impacts;
(4) Present and future conditions;
(5) Land use and other social parameters including recreation and open-space considerations;
(6) Consistency with population projections used to develop State implementation plans under the Clean Air Act;
(7) Cumulative impacts including anticipated community growth (residential, commercial, institutional and industrial) within the project study area; and
(8) Other anticipated public works projects including coordination with such projects.