C.F.R. » Title 24 » PART 58—ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR ENTITIES ASSUMING HUD ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES › Subpart H—Release of Funds for Particular Projects

24 C.F.R. § 58.73

Objections to release of funds

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

HUD (or the State) will not approve the ROF for any project before 15 calendar days have elapsed from the time of receipt of the RROF and the certification or from the time specified in the notice published pursuant to § 58.70, whichever is later. Any person or agency may object to a recipient's RROF and the related certification. However, the objections must meet the conditions and procedures set forth in subpart H of this part. HUD (or the State) can refuse the RROF and certification on any grounds set forth in § 58.75. All decisions by HUD (or the State) regarding the RROF and the certification shall be final.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1988–1998 · leading case: Cornell Village Tower Condominium v. Department of Housing & Urban Development
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cornell Village Tower Condominium v. Department of Housing & Urban Development (1990) ilnd · cites it 2× “24 C.F.R. § 58.73 (1989). Unless the grant requester specifies a longer period in its published notice of intent to request a release of funds, however, HUD will only entertain objections that are received within fifteen days of the date that the RROF is received.”
Society Hill Towers Owners' Ass'n v. Rendell (1998) paed “See, 24 C.F.R. §§ 58.73 (objections to release of funds), .”
Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area Coalition v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection (1988) nysd “” 24 C.F. R. § 58.73 (1988). In November 1985, the City of New York initiated the UDAG process by submitting an application for funds to aid in the Project’s construction.”
Atura Coalition v. Nyc Dept. of Env. Prot. (1988) nysd “" 24 C.F. R. § 58.73 (1988). In November 1985, the City of New York initiated the UDAG process by submitting an application for funds to aid in the Project's construction.”
SOCIETY HILL TOWERS OWNERS'ASS'N v. Rendell (1998) paed “See, 24 C.F.R. §§ 58.73 (objections to release of funds), .”
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.