24 C.F.R. § 1000.340

What if an Indian tribe is allocated less funding under the IHBG Formula than it received in Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 for operating subsidy and modernization?

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

(a) If an Indian tribe is allocated less funding under the modernization allocation of the formula pursuant to § 1000.316(b)(2) than the calculation of the number of Low Rent, Mutual Help, and Turnkey III FCAS units multiplied by the national per-unit amount of allocation for FY 1996 modernization multiplied by an adjustment factor for inflation, the Indian tribe's modernization allocation is calculated under § 1000.316(b)(1). The remaining grants are adjusted to keep the allocation within available appropriations.

(b) If an Indian tribe is allocated less funding under the formula than an IHA received on its behalf in FY 1996 for operating subsidy and modernization, its grant is increased to the amount received in FY 1996 for operating subsidy and modernization. The remaining grants are adjusted to keep the allocation within available appropriations.

[72 FR 20026, Apr. 20, 2007]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2013–2013 · leading case: Fort Belknap Hous. Dep't v. Off. of Pub. & Indian Hous., 726 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fort Belknap Hous. Dep't v. Off. of Pub. & Indian Hous., 726 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “Fort Belknap filed an administrative appeal of HUD’s decision addressed to HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs and argued that: (1) HUD’s reductions exceeded the maximum reduction permitted by 24 C.F.R. § 1000.340 (b), 9 and (2) HUD’s action was not…”

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.