24 C.F.R. § 58.75

Permissible bases for objections

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

HUD (or the State), will consider objections claiming a responsible entity's noncompliance with this part based only on any of the following grounds:

(a) The certification was not in fact executed by the responsible entity's Certifying Officer.

(b) The responsible entity has failed to make one of the two findings pursuant to § 58.40 or to make the written determination required by § 58.35, § 58.47 or § 58.53 for the project, as applicable.

(c) The responsible entity has omitted one or more of the steps set forth at subpart E of this part for the preparation, publication and completion of an EA.

(d) The responsible entity has omitted one or more of the steps set forth at subparts F and G of this part for the conduct, preparation, publication and completion of an EIS.

(e) The recipient or other participants in the development process have committed funds, incurred costs or undertaken activities not authorized by this part before release of funds and approval of the environmental certification by HUD (or the state).

(f) Another Federal agency acting pursuant to 40 CFR part 1504 has submitted a written finding that the project is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of environmental quality.

[61 FR 19122, Apr. 30, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 56130, Sept. 29, 2003]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1988–2000 · leading case: Cornell Vill. Tower Condo. v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 750 F. Supp. 909 (N.D. Ill. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cornell Vill. Tower Condo. v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 750 F. Supp. 909 (N.D. Ill. 1990). “Included among these permissible bases are complaints that “the recipient has omitted one or more of the steps set forth at Subparts F and G for the preparation and completion of an EA.”

Atl. Terminal Urban Renewal Area Coalition v. New York City Dep't of Env't Prot., 709 F. Supp. 502 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). “Moreover, in addition to a possible opportunity to raise these objections with HUD prior to its action on the request for release of funds, 24 C.F.R. § 58.75 (c) and (d), the plaintiffs may seek “redress [from the grant applicant] in relation to environmental reviews covered by…”

Castenson v. City of Harcourt, 86 F. Supp. 2d 866 (N.D. Iowa 2000). · cites it 2× “76 , by first directing their objections to the release of funds to HUD or the IDED; and seeking a remedy — return of the CDBG funds— that is not permitted under 24 C.F.R. § 58.75 . Next, the defendants contend that the Castensons have not alleged any action “under color of…”

Soc'y Hill Towers Owners' Ass'n v. Rendell, 20 F. Supp. 2d 855 (E.D. Pa. 1998). “See 24 C.F.R. § 58.75 . HUD regulations, rather than the statute, govern the procedure for post preliminary approval of project amendments and revisions.”

Atl. Terminal Urban Renewal Area Coalition v. New York City Dep't of Env't Prot., 697 F. Supp. 666 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “Interested parties may object to the RROF within 15 days of its submission to HUD on the grounds specified in 24 C.F.R. § 58.75 (1988), which permits challenges primarily to the recipient’s procedural rather than substantive omissions or shortcomings.”

Atura Coalition v. Nyc Dept. of Env. Prot., 697 F. Supp. 666 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “Interested parties may object to the RROF within 15 days of its submission to HUD on the grounds specified in 24 C.F.R. § 58.75 (1988), which permits challenges primarily to the recipient's procedural rather than substantive omissions or shortcomings.”

Soc'y Hill Towers Owners'ass'n v. Rendell, 20 F. Supp. 2d 855 (E.D. Pa. 1998). “See 24 C.F.R. § 58.75 . HUD regulations, rather than the statute, govern the procedure for post preliminary approval of project amendments and revisions.”

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.