44 C.F.R. § 80.1

Purpose and scope

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

This part provides guidance on the administration of FEMA mitigation assistance for projects to acquire property for open space purposes under all FEMA hazard mitigation assistance programs. It provides information on the eligibility and procedures for implementing projects for acquisition and relocation of at-risk properties from the hazard area to maintain the property for open space purposes. This part applies to property acquisition for open space project awards made under any FEMA hazard mitigation assistance program. This part supplements general program requirements of the funding grant program and must be read in conjunction with the relevant program regulations and guidance available at http://www.fema.gov.This part, with the exception of § 80.19 Land use and oversight, applies to projects for which the funding program application period opens or for which funding is made available pursuant to a major disaster declared on or after December 3, 2007. Prior to that date, applicable program regulations and guidance in effect for the funding program (available at http://www.fema.gov) shall apply. Section 80.19 Land use and oversight apply as of December 3, 2007 to all FEMA funded acquisitions for the purpose of open space.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1983–1996 · leading case: Cohen v. Federal Insurance Administration

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cohen v. Federal Insurance Administration (1983) nyed · cites it 2× “44 C.F.R. § 80.1 (2) defines adjuster as: “any person engaged in the business of adjusting loss claims arising under property insurance policies issued by an insurance company.”

Brinker v. Guiffrida (1985) paed “See 44 C.F.R. § 80.1 to 83.26 (1984). As previously noted, the regulations set forth the form and contents of the Residential Crime Insurance Policy that must be used.”

Nyasco Sports, Inc. v. Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency (1983) nysd “” The federal defendant’s motion to dismiss is based on Nyasco’s alleged failure to comply with two “restrictions and limitations” set forth in the regulations of the Federal Insurance Administrator at 44 C.F.R. §§ 80.1 , et seg. 4 A. The federal defendant’s first contention is…”

Sherman v. Federal Emergency Management Agency (1996) mdd “Regulations may be found at 44 C.F.R. § 80.1 et seq. . In view of my resolution of the record-keeping issue, I need not address FEMA's contention that Sherman misrepresented the nature of his store.”

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.