42 U.S.C. § 3131

Establishment of economic development partnerships

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general

In providing assistance under this subchapter, the Secretary shall cooperate with States and other entities to ensure that, consistent with national objectives, Federal programs are compatible with and further the objectives of State, regional, and local economic development plans and comprehensive economic development strategies.

(b) Technical assistanceThe Secretary may provide such technical assistance to States, political subdivisions of States, sub-State regional organizations (including organizations that cross State boundaries), multi-State regional organizations, and nonprofit organizations as the Secretary determines is appropriate to—(1) alleviate economic distress;(2) encourage and support public-private partnerships for the formation and improvement of economic development strategies that sustain and promote economic development across the United States; and(3) promote investment in infrastructure and technological capacity to keep pace with the changing global economy.(c) Intergovernmental review

The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to ensure that appropriate State and local government agencies have been given a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on proposed projects under this subchapter that the Secretary determines may have a significant direct impact on the economy of the area.

(d) Cooperation agreements(1) In general

The Secretary may enter into a cooperation agreement with any 2 or more States, or an organization of any 2 or more States, in support of effective economic development.

(2) Participation

Each cooperation agreement shall provide for suitable participation by other governmental and nongovernmental entities that are representative of significant interests in and perspectives on economic development in an area.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title I, § 101, as added Pub. L. 105–393, title I, § 102(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3600; amended Pub. L. 108–373, title I, § 103, Oct. 27, 2004, 118 Stat. 1759.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 3131, Pub. L. 89–136, title I, § 101, Aug. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 552; Pub. L. 91–123, title III, § 301(1), Nov. 25, 1969, 83 Stat. 219; Pub. L. 92–65, title I, § 102, Aug. 5, 1971, 85 Stat. 166; Pub. L. 94–487, title I, § 103, Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2331, authorized direct and supplementary grants, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, § 102(a).

Amendments

2004—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–373, § 103(1), substituted “multi-State regional organizations, and nonprofit organizations” for “and multi-State regional organizations” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 108–373, § 103(2), struck out “adjoining” before “States” in two places.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Feb. 11, 1999, see section 105 of Pub. L. 105–393, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1971–2020 · leading case: White v. Massachusetts Council of Constr. Employers, Inc., 460 U.S. 204 (1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

White v. Massachusetts Council of Constr. Employers, Inc., 460 U.S. 204 (1983). · cites it 2× “EDAG's are administered by the Department of Commerce in accordance with the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, 42 U. S. C. § 3131 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp.”

Mims v. Yarborough, 343 F. Supp. 1146 (D.S.C. 1971). · cites it 5× “42 U.S.C. § 3131 . 2. FHA loan. 7 U.S.C. § 1926 .”

Inst. for Tech. Dev. v. Brown, 63 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 1995). “42 U.S.C. § 3131 (a) (1977). Mississippi sought federal funds to create a nonprofit organization — the Mississippi Institute for Technology Development (“ITD”) — to establish university-affiliated research centers throughout the state to conduct and to transfer scientific…”

Env't Tech. Council v. Sierra Club, 98 F.3d 774 (4th Cir. 1996). “, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3131 , 5318. Furthermore, the regulations implementing Congress’s directives contained similar mandates, affirmatively permitting the type of parochial favoritism contained in the Mayor’s executive order.”

Atl. Terminal Urban Renewal Area Coalition v. New York City Dep't of Env't Prot., 705 F. Supp. 988 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). “The provision of the Public Works and Economic Development Act pursuant to which the grant was awarded, 42 U.S.C. § 3131 (a), authorizes grants for projects that tend to improve the opportunities for expansion of industrial or commercial plants and facilities, create employment…”

Coalport, Inc. v. Baldridge, 771 F.2d 174 (6th Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “Because we find that the EDA failed to recognize the requirement of the enabling statute that the project “fulfill a pressing need of the area,” 42 U.S.C. § 3131 (a)(1)(B), and because the agency’s findings fail to demonstrate any good faith recognition of the limitations…”

United States v. United Excel Corp. (W.D. Okla. 2020). “The action was filed pursuant to the Miller Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3131 , et seq. In response to plaintiff’s complaint, defendant, United Excel Corporation, moved the court for an order to stay the lawsuit and compel the parties to submit their dispute to binding arbitration.”

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.