Steinhorst Assocs. v. Preston

572 F.Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 2008) (owner asserted APA rulemaking challenge to validity of HUD regulation (24 C.F.R. § 401.100(b)) stating that projects must be reviewed for exception treatment or restructuring eligibility at each renewal, not just initially; loan was locally bond-financed and could not be prepaid at initial renewal, and possibly triggered penalty for later prepayment; ruling on owner’s summary judgment motion, court invalidated HUD’s regulation that was not published for notice and comment, holding that rule was legislative, not interpretive, and that prior public notice and comment was required by APA; court remanded issue of renewing the owner’s HAP contract to HUD).