40 C.F.R. § 7.115

Postaward compliance

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

(a) Periodic review. The OCR may periodically conduct compliance reviews of any recipient's programs or activities receiving EPA assistance, including the request of data and information, and may conduct on-site reviews when it has reason to believe that discrimination may be occurring in such programs or activities.

(b) Notice of review. After selecting a recipient for review or initiating a complaint investigation in accordance with § 7.120, the OCR will inform the recipient of:

(1) The nature of and schedule for review, or investigation; and

(2) Its opportunity, before the determination in paragraph (d) of this section is made, to make a written submission responding to, rebutting, or denying the allegations raised in the review or complaint.

(c) Postreview notice. (1) Within 180 calendar days from the start of the compliance review or complaint investigation, the OCR will notify the recipient in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, of:

(i) Preliminary findings;

(ii) Recommendations, if any, for achieving voluntary compliance; and

(iii) Recipient's right to engage in voluntary compliance negotiations where appropriate.

(2) The OCR will notify the Award Official and the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights of the preliminary findings of noncompliance.

(d) Formal determination of noncompliance. After receiving the notice of the preliminary finding of noncompliance in paragraph (c) of this section, the recipient may:

(1) Agree to the OCR's recommendations, or

(2) Submit a written response sufficient to demonstrate that the preliminary findings are incorrect, or that compliance may be achieved through steps other than those recommended by OCR.

If the recipient does not take one of these actions within fifty (50) calendar days after receiving this preliminary notice, the OCR shall, within fourteen (14) calendar days, send a formal written determination of noncompliance to the recipient and copies to the Award Official and Assistant Attorney General.

(e) Voluntary compliance time limits. The recipient will have ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the formal determination of noncompliance in which to come into voluntary compliance. If the recipient fails to meet this deadline, the OCR must start proceedings under paragraph (b) of § 7.130.

(f) Form of voluntary compliance agreements. All agreements to come into voluntary compliance must:

(1) Be in writing;

(2) Set forth the specific steps the recipient has agreed to take, and

(3) Be signed by the Director, OCR or his/her designee and an official with authority to legally bind the recipient.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2022 · leading case: Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 581 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 581 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 7.115 (c)(1). Shortly after Rosemere filed its complaint, the City opened an inquiry into Rosemere that eventually culminated in the revocation of Rosemere’s status as a formal neighborhood association.”

Padres Hacia Una Vida Mejor v. Jackson, 922 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (E.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs allege that EPA has violated, and continues to violate, 40 C.F.R. § 7.115 (c)(1) 1 (hereinafter § 7.”

Maria Garcia v. Gina McCarthy, 649 F. App'x 589 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs’ allegation that the settlement agreement fails to secure “compliance” with Title VI as required by 40 C.F.R. § 7.115 is also without merit. Having failed to define what substantive “compliance” with Title VI requires, Congress chose not to cabin EPA’s otherwise…”

Rosemere v. Epa (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R. § 7.115 (c)(1). Shortly after Rosemere filed its complaint, the City opened an inquiry into Rosemere that eventually culminated in the revocation of Rosemere’s status as a formal neighborhood association.”

The Women's Student Union v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (N.D. Cal. 2022). “h 2018 Manual” pursuant to a “provision 21 requiring dismissal of complaints by individuals who have filed previously”); Californians for 22 Renewable Energy, 2018 WL 1586211 , at *8 (“The gravamen of Plaintiffs' claims is that the EPA 23 failed to issue mandatory preliminary…”

— 40 C.F.R. § 7.115(c)(1) — 1 case

Maria Garcia v. Gina McCarthy, 649 F. App'x 589 (9th Cir. 2016). “Plaintiffs’ allegation that the settlement agreement fails to secure “compliance” with Title VI as required by 40 C.F.R. § 7.115 is also without merit. Having failed to define what substantive “compliance” with Title VI requires, Congress chose not to cabin EPA’s otherwise…”

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.