Opinion ID: 172239
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: HUD's interpretation of its regulations

Text: The UKB argues that HUD acted arbitrarily and capriciously. First, the UKB contends that HUD's interpretation of its regulations to include a jurisdictional requirement in the funding formula contradicts the clear language of NAHASDA and HUD's regulations. I disagree. Because Chevron is applicable and I would defer to HUD's permissible interpretation of NAHASDA, I also would give substantial deference to HUD's interpretation of its own regulations. See Leavitt, 509 F.3d at 1272 ([W]e must give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations.) (quotation omitted). The UKB contends that the plain language of NAHASDA and its implementing regulations do not require the designation of a formula area and the exercise of jurisdiction over a geographic area.... Aplt. Br. at 15 (emphasis omitted). Because I would conclude that NAHASDA is ambiguous on this issue, I would confine my present review to HUD's regulations. Under 24 C.F.R. § 1000.310, [t]he IHBG formula consists of two components: (a) Formula Current Assisted Housing Stock (FCAS); and (b) Need. Both parties agree that only the need component is presently at issue. The need component consists of seven criteria addressing households in need. 24 C.F.R. § 1000.324. Absent from these criteria is a fixed boundary within which one could determine the number of households that satisfy the need criteria. I consider HUD's reference to the formula area definition found in 24 C.F.R. § 1000.302 to be appropriate, and likely necessary, to calculate the number of relevant households. I would defer to HUD's interpretation of its regulations to read formula area in 24 C.F.R. § 1000.302 as the area relevant for the formula tabulations.