Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)

Citation: Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)
Parent Document: Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2017-12-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7328080/open-cmtys-alliance-v-carson/ ↗

Full Text

569 chars

The Rule, which requires PHAs administering the HCV program in select metropolitan areas to use, as of January 1, 2018, SAFMRs, unquestionably is a substantive regulation delay of which ordinarily would require notice and comment. HUD, however, did not delay the Rule's implementation through notice and comment. Thus, HUD's action was lawful only if another source of authority empowered HUD to delay the Rule's implementation without notice or comment. HUD asserts that 24 C.F.R. § 888.113(c) conferred such authority. HUD is wrong. a) Section 888.113(c)(4)'s Meaning

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text