C.F.R. » Title 24 » PART 58—ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ENTITIES ASSUMING HUD ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES › Subpart B—General Policy: Responsibilities of Responsible Entities

24 C.F.R. § 58.11

Legal capacity and performance

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

(a) A responsible entity which believes that it does not have the legal capacity to carry out the environmental responsibilities required by this part must contact the appropriate local HUD Office or the State for further instructions. Determinations of legal capacity will be made on a case-by-case basis.

(b) If a public housing, special project, HOPWA, Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, or Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity recipient that is not a responsible entity objects to the non-recipient responsible entity conducting the environmental review on the basis of performance, timing, or compatibility of objectives, HUD will review the facts to determine who will perform the environmental review.

(c) At any time, HUD may reject the use of a responsible entity to conduct the environmental review in a particular case on the basis of performance, timing or compatibility of objectives, or in accordance with § 58.77(d)(1).

(d) If a responsible entity, other than a recipient, objects to performing an environmental review, or if HUD determines that the responsible entity should not perform the environmental review, HUD may designate another responsible entity to conduct the review in accordance with this part or may itself conduct the environmental review in accordance with the provisions of 24 CFR part 50.

[61 FR 19122, Apr. 30, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 56129, Sept. 29, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1980–1984 · leading case: Herbert Earl Brandon & Iva Marie Brandon v. Samuel R. Pierce, Sec'y of Hous. & Urban Dev., & the City of Stilwell, Oklahoma, 725 F.2d 555 (10th Cir. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Herbert Earl Brandon & Iva Marie Brandon v. Samuel R. Pierce, Sec'y of Hous. & Urban Dev., & the City of Stilwell, Oklahoma, 725 F.2d 555 (10th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “” In thus arguing, however, the Brandons fail to specify any elements that are lacking from the requirements set forth in 24 C.F.R. § 58.11 (1979). 4 The district court thoroughly analyzed the record and the regulations in detail and found that all required items either were…”
Colony Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Harris, 482 F. Supp. 296 (W.D. Pa. 1980). “24 CFR § 58.11 . However, the Congressional scheme does not totally relieve federal officials and agencies of accountability for their decisions.”
Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. City of New York, 528 F. Supp. 1245 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). “24 C.F.R. § 58.11 (1980). However, implicit in the designation of an “approving body” is a “governing body” empowered to make final decisions.”
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.