24 C.F.R. § 570.910

Corrective and remedial actions

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

(a) General. Consistent with the procedures described in § 570.900(b), the Secretary may take one or more of the actions described in paragraph (b) of this section. Such actions shall be designed to prevent a continuation of the performance deficiency; mitigate, to the extent possible, the adverse effects or consequences of the deficiency; and prevent a recurrence of the deficiency.

(b) Actions authorized. The following lists the actions that HUD may take in response to a deficiency identified during the review of a recipient's performance:

(1) Issue a letter of warning advising the recipient of the deficiency and putting the recipient on notice that additional action will be taken if the deficiency is not corrected or is repeated;

(2) Recommend, or request the recipient to submit, proposals for corrective actions, including the correction or removal of the causes of the deficiency, through such actions as:

(i) Preparing and following a schedule of actions for carrying out the affected CDBG activities, consisting of schedules, timetables and milestones necessary to implement the affected CDBG activities;

(ii) Establishing and following a management plan which assigns responsibilities for carrying out the actions identified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section;

(iii) For entitlement and Insular Areas recipients, canceling or revising affected activities that are no longer feasible to implement due to the deficiency and re-programming funds from such affected activities to other eligible activities (pursuant to the citizen participation requirements in 24 CFR part 91); or

(iv) Other actions which will serve to prevent a continuation of the deficiency, mitigate (to the extent possible) the adverse effects or consequences of the deficiency, and prevent a recurrence of the deficiency;

(3) Advise the recipient that a certification will no longer be acceptable and that additional assurances will be required;

(4) Advise the recipient to suspend disbursement of funds for the deficient activity;

(5) Advise the recipient to reimburse its program account or letter of credit in any amounts improperly expended and reprogram the use of the funds in accordance with applicable requirements;

(6) Change the method of payment to the recipient from a letter of credit basis to a reimbursement basis;

(7) In the case of claims payable to HUD or the U.S. Treasury, institute collection procedures pursuant to subpart B of 24 CFR part 17; and

(8) In the case of an entitlement or Insular Areas recipient, condition the use of funds from a succeeding fiscal year's allocation upon appropriate corrective action by the recipient. The failure of the recipient to undertake the actions specified in the condition may result in a reduction, pursuant to § 570.911, of the entitlement or Insular Areas recipient's annual grant by up to the amount conditionally granted.

[53 FR 34466, Sept. 6, 1988, as amended at 60 FR 1917, Jan. 5, 1995; 72 FR 12537, Mar. 15, 2007]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Farmer v. City of Houston
United States Ex Rel. Farmer v. City of Houston (2008) ca5 · cites it 2× “See 24 C.F.R. § 570.910 (b)(5). [2] In 2001, when Farmer first applied to the EHRP, the repair cost limits were $15,000.”
Latinos Unidos De Chelsea en Accion (Lucha) v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1986) ca1 · cites it 3× “24 C.F.R. § 570.910 (b) (April 1979). Under the UDAG program, nondiscrimination provisions are built into the eligibility requirements.”
Municipality of Mayaguez v. Corporacion Para El Desarrollo Del Oeste, Inc. (2013) ca1 “§ 5311 ; 24 C.F.R. § 570.910 . Exercising this authority, HUD demanded that Mayagüez repay approximately $4 million in misused CDBG funds and barred the city from receiving further HUD development grants.”
N. A. A. C. P., Boston Chapter v. Patricia Harris, Latinos Unidos De Chelsea en Accion, Inc. v. Patricia Harris, Etc. (1979) ca1 “8 See also 24 C.F.R. § 570.910 . The court apparently determined, however, that UDAG funds could not be so conditioned under the same statutory provisions.”
Desilva v. Donovan (2015) dcd · cites it 3× “” 24 C.F.R. § 570.910 (a). However, a closer review of these regulations reveals that the mitigating actions they authorize involve corrective actions by HUD against the grantee — here, the District of Columbia.”
Broaden v. Harris (1978) pawd · cites it 2× “24 C.F.R. § 570.910 (b)(2) and (3) provide: (b) Actions authorized.”
Huntington Branch, National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Town of Huntington (1987) nyed “Failure to comply with this requirement may be cause for this Office to consider any and all actions available under the provisions of 24 C.F.R. 570.910 through 570.911. Huntington was approved for CDBG funds for the program year beginning July 16, 1982 in the amount of…”
Desilva v. Donovan (2016) dcd · cites it 3× “2013) and that HUD would be able to redress their injuries through mitigating actions authorized under 24 C.F.R. § 570.910 (a), (b). Compare Pis.”
Dortch, Figures, & Sons, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama (2019) alsd “24 C.F.R. § 570.910 (b) (April 1979). *** …in considering both the legislative history and the statutory enforcement scheme as a whole, see Cort, 422 U.”
United States v. SLSCO, LP (2024) nyed “” 24 C.F.R. § 570.910 (b). The Supreme Court has made clear, however, that the FCA is not “a vehicle for punishing garden-variety breaches of contract or regulatory violations.”
City of Norwood, Ohio v. Patricia Harris, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1982) ca6 · cites it 2× “The Secretary’s decision to reduce the amount of the plaintiff’s conditional award for the 1978 program year to zero under 24 C.F.R. §§ 570.910 (b), .911(b), is not one of the actions presently enumerated in 24 C.”
United States v. City of Houston (2008) ca5 “See 24 C.F.R. § 570.910 (b)(5). 2 No. 06-20740 inspectors examined her property and, based on their estimates of what it would cost to complete the necessary repairs, determined that she did not qualify,2 so no work was performed on her house.”
— 24 C.F.R. § 570.910(b) — 2 cases
Desilva v. Donovan (2015) dcd “” 24 C.F.R. § 570.910 (a). However, a closer review of these regulations reveals that the mitigating actions they authorize involve corrective actions by HUD against the grantee — here, the District of Columbia.”
Broaden v. Harris (1978) pawd “24 C.F.R. § 570.910 (b)(2) and (3) provide: (b) Actions authorized.”
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.