6 U.S.C. § 470

Disclosures regarding homeland security grants

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 6 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) DefinitionsIn this section:(1) Homeland security grantThe term “homeland security grant” means any grant made or administered by the Department, including—(A) the State Homeland Security Grant Program;(B) the Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Program;(C) the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program;(D) the Citizen Corps; and(E) the Metropolitan Medical Response System.(2) Local government

The term “local government” has the meaning given the term in section 101 of this title.

(b) Required disclosures

Each State or local government that receives a homeland security grant shall, not later than 12 months after the later of October 13, 2006, and the date of receipt of such grant, and every 12 months thereafter until all funds provided under such grant are expended, submit a report to the Secretary that contains a list of all expenditures made by such State or local government using funds from such grant.

(Pub. L. 109–347, title VII, § 702, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1943.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section was enacted as part of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, also known as the SAFE Port Act, and not as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which comprises this chapter.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesDefinitions

For definitions of “Department” and “Secretary” as used in this section, see section 901 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1985–2016 · leading case: Laubenstein v. Bode Tower, L.L.C., 2016 OK 118 (Okla. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Laubenstein v. Bode Tower, L.L.C., 2016 OK 118 (Okla. 2016). “National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)(I6 U.S.C. § 470, et seq.); 36 C.F.R. § 800.”

Weinberg v. Barry, 634 F. Supp. 86 (D.D.C. 1986). “In 1968, the District of Columbia became the third “sponsor” of the Joint Committee, in order for the District to “qualify for participation in the federal historic preservation program instituted under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 [ 6 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.…”

Weinberg v. Barry, 604 F. Supp. 390 (D.D.C. 1985). “olumbia, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission on Fine Arts entered into “an executive agreement authorizing the Joint Committee to act as the State Review Board of the District of Columbia in order for the District to ‘qualify for participation in the…”

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.