U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 85— AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES › Part Part A— Air Quality and Emission Limitations

42 U.S.C. § 6101

FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a) The Congress finds that—“(1) there is a lack of air quality monitoring data for fine particle levels, measured as PM2.5, in the United States and the States should receive full funding for the monitoring efforts;“(2) such data would provide a basis for designating areas as attainment or nonattainment for any PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards pursuant to the standards promulgated in July 1997;“(3) the President of the United States directed the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this title as the ‘Administrator’) in a memorandum dated July 16, 1997, to complete the next periodic review of the particulate matter national ambient air quality standards by July 2002 in order to determine ‘whether to revise or maintain the standards’;“(4) the Administrator has stated that 3 years of air quality monitoring data for fine particle levels, measured as PM2.5 and performed in accordance with any applicable Federal reference methods, is appropriate for designating areas as attainment or nonattainment pursuant to the July 1997 promulgated standards; and“(5) the Administrator has acknowledged that in drawing boundaries for attainment and nonattainment areas for the July 1997 ozone national air quality standards, Governors would benefit from considering implementation guidance from EPA on drawing area boundaries.“(b) The purposes of this title are—“(1) to ensure that 3 years of air quality monitoring data regarding fine particle levels are gathered for use in the determination of area attainment or nonattainment designations respecting any PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards;“(2) to ensure that the Governors have adequate time to consider implementation guidance from EPA on drawing area boundaries prior to submitting area designations respecting the July 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standards;“(3) to ensure that the schedule for implementation of the July 1997 revisions of the ambient air quality standards for particulate matter and the schedule for the Environmental Protection Agency’s visibility regulations related to regional haze are consistent with the timetable for implementation of such particulate matter standards as set forth in the President’s Implementation Memorandum dated July 16, 1997.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 110 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Action All. of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia v. Margaret Heckler, 789 F.2d 931 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Action All. of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia v. Margaret Heckler, 789 F.2d 931 (D.C. Cir. 1986). · cites it 4× “GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: This case presents a challenge to the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ implementation of the Age Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq. (1982) (ADA or Act).”
Maxwell Kadel v. N.C. State Health Plan, 12 F.4th 422 (4th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C. §§ 6101–6107. 9 The district court recognized this distinction, emphasizing that the residual clause “applies to ‘the provisions of any other Federal statute’ which, like Section 1557, tie nondiscrimination to federal funding.”
John Doe v. Cvs Pharmacy, Inc., 982 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2020). “), on the basis of age pursuant to the ADA ( 42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), and on the basis of disability pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ( 29 U.”
Carver v. State, 87 A.D.3d 25 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “PRWORA further provided that the following provisions of law shall apply to any program or activity which receives such funds: (1) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 ( 42 USC § 6101 et seq.); (2) section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ( 29 USC § 794 ); (3) the Americans…”
Curto v. Smith, 248 F. Supp. 2d 132 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). · cites it 3× “§§ 1681-1688 , and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6101 . 1. Defendant Mills Defendant Mills, the sole remaining State Defendant, moves to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint on various grounds, including Eleventh Amendment immunity and lack of personal…”
Andrea Schmitt v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 965 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2020). “§ 1681 , and the Age Discrimination Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 6101 . Congress occasionally drafts statutes by referencing the substantive provisions of earlier-enacted laws.”
Garrett v. Univ. of Alabama at Birmingham Bd. of Trs., 344 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003). “], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [ 42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.”
Levy v. Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 789 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2015). “], the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [ 42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.”
Angela Molina v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 710 F. App'x 837 (11th Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “§ 2000d and the Age Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6101 (count 3); and the need for judicial review of her failed loan modification under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution (count 4).”
Morales v. New York, 22 F. Supp. 3d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “§§ 12181 and 12203; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.”
Palacios v. Medstar Health, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 3d 87 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender; the Age Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq. ; and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.”
Becker v. Washington State Univ., 266 P.3d 893 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “60 RCW, the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD); age discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6101 , the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (ADA), and RCW 28B.”
Show all 110 citing cases →
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.