U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 53— TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— ASBESTOS HAZARD EMERGENCY RESPONSE

15 U.S.C. § 2641

Congressional findings and purpose

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:(1) The Environmental Protection Agency’s rule on local educational agency inspection for, and notification of, the presence of friable asbestos-containing material in school buildings includes neither standards for the proper identification of asbestos-containing material and appropriate response actions with respect to friable asbestos-containing material, nor a requirement that response actions with respect to friable asbestos-containing material be carried out in a safe and complete manner once actions are found to be necessary. As a result of the lack of regulatory guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency, some schools have not undertaken response action while many others have undertaken expensive projects without knowing if their action is necessary, adequate, or safe. Thus, the danger of exposure to asbestos continues to exist in schools, and some exposure actually may have increased due to the lack of Federal standards and improper response action.(2) There is no uniform program for accrediting persons involved in asbestos identification and abatement, nor are local educational agencies required to use accredited contractors for asbestos work.(3) The guidance provided by the Environmental Protection Agency in its “Guidance for Controlling Asbestos-Containing Material in Buildings” is insufficient in detail to ensure adequate responses. Such guidance is intended to be used only until the regulations required by this subchapter become effective.(4) Because there are no Federal standards whatsoever regulating daily exposure to asbestos in other public and commercial buildings, persons in addition to those comprising the Nation’s school population may be exposed daily to asbestos.(b) PurposeThe purpose of this subchapter is—(1) to provide for the establishment of Federal regulations which require inspection for asbestos-containing material and implementation of appropriate response actions with respect to asbestos-containing material in the Nation’s schools in a safe and complete manner;(2) to mandate safe and complete periodic reinspection of school buildings following response actions, where appropriate; and(3) to require the Administrator to conduct a study to find out the extent of the danger to human health posed by asbestos in public and commercial buildings and the means to respond to any such danger.(Pub. L. 94–469, title II, § 201, as added Pub. L. 99–519, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2970.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc, 416 P.3d 824 (Ariz. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc, 416 P.3d 824 (Ariz. 2018). “§§ 4011 -4022 (1984) ; 15 U.S.C. §§ 2641 -2656 (1986) ; 15 U.S.C.”
O'Brien v. Bellevue Pub. Schs., 289 Neb. 637 (Neb. 2014). · cites it 2× “The three statutes cited to by O’Brien were from the following acts: (1) the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986, 15 U.S.C. § 2641 et seq. (2012); (2) the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act of 1984, 20 U.”
Pub. Citizen v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n & the United States of Am., Nuclear Util. Mgmt. & Resources Council, Intervenor, 901 F.2d 147 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “The first place is 15 U.S.C. § 2641 (a)(1), the “findings and purpose” section of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).”
Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Marcelino Franco, 417 S.W.3d 443 (Tex. 2013). “Franco claimed that the ISD violated the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2641 et seq., by failing to respond to his asbestos reports.”
Rivera-Velazquez v. Regan, 102 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024). “; the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2641 et seq.; and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 197 v. W.R. Grace & Co., 752 F. Supp. 286 (D. Minnesota 1990). “; Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2641 , et seq.; Asbestos Abatement Act, Minn.”
Prezant Assocs., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 165 P.3d 12 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “763 was adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency as a part of AHERA, 15 U.S.C. § 2641 . The Department also assessed Prezant an $1,800 penalty.”
May v. Ac & S, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 934 (E.D. Mo. 1993). “Abatement action was not governmentally required due to wide-spread belief that there was no safe level of exposure *943 until 1986 when Congress passed the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA), 15 U.S.C. § 2641 et seq. (1987). Thus, despite the abundance of asbestos…”
Bolt v. Arapahoe Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. Six, 898 P.2d 525 (Colo. 1995). · cites it 2× “1993) (ADA), and the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2641 to 2655 (1988 & Supp.1993) (AHERA), was in violation of Amendment 1.”
Env't Encapsulating Corp. v. City of New York, 855 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “Cf 15 U.S.C. § 2641 (a)(4) (Supp. IV 1986) (noting lack of federal standards regulating public exposure to asbestos).”
Prof'l Serv. Indus., Inc. v. Kimbrell, 758 F. Supp. 676 (D. Kan. 1991). “With the passage in 1986 of “AHERA,” Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2641 et seq., Hall-Kimbrell contracted with numerous school districts to inspect and develop management plans for controlling and removing asbestos in their school buildings.”
State, Dept. of Envir. v. Scm Glidco Org., 606 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). “15 U.S.C.A. § 2641 (b) (West.Supp. 1992).”
Show all 31 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.