U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 63A— RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION

42 U.S.C. § 4851

Findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
The Congress finds that—(1) low-level lead poisoning is widespread among American children, afflicting as many as 3,000,000 children under age 6, with minority and low-income communities disproportionately affected;(2) at low levels, lead poisoning in children causes intelligence quotient deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention span, hyperactivity, and behavior problems;(3) pre-1980 American housing stock contains more than 3,000,000 tons of lead in the form of lead-based paint, with the vast majority of homes built before 1950 containing substantial amounts of lead-based paint;(4) the ingestion of household dust containing lead from deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint is the most common cause of lead poisoning in children;(5) the health and development of children living in as many as 3,800,000 American homes is endangered by chipping or peeling lead paint, or excessive amounts of lead-contaminated dust in their homes;(6) the danger posed by lead-based paint hazards can be reduced by abating lead-based paint or by taking interim measures to prevent paint deterioration and limit children’s exposure to lead dust and chips;(7) despite the enactment of laws in the early 1970’s requiring the Federal Government to eliminate as far as practicable lead-based paint hazards in federally owned, assisted, and insured housing, the Federal response to this national crisis remains severely limited; and(8) the Federal Government must take a leadership role in building the infrastructure—including an informed public, State and local delivery systems, certified inspectors, contractors, and laboratories, trained workers, and available financing and insurance—necessary to ensure that the national goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing can be achieved as expeditiously as possible.(Pub. L. 102–550, title X, § 1002, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3897.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 102–550, title X, § 1001, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3897, provided that: “This title [enacting this chapter and sections 2681 to 2692 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade, amending sections 1437f, 1437aaa–1, 1437aaa–2, 1471, 4822, 5305, 12705, 12742, 12872, 12873, 12892, and 12893 of this title, sections 1703, 1709, and 1715l of Title 12, Banks and Banking, sections 2606, 2610, 2612, 2615, 2616, 2618, and 2619 of Title 15, and section 671 of Title 29, Labor, and enacting provisions set out as a note under section 2601 of Title 15] may be cited as the ‘Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2021 · leading case: A Cmty. Voice v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 878 F.3d 779 (9th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
A Cmty. Voice v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 878 F.3d 779 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “” 42 U.S.C. § 4851 (8). However, “as any student of the legislative process soon learns, it is one thing for Congress to announce a grand goal, and quite another for it to mandate full implementation of that goal.”
German v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 885 F. Supp. 537 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). · cites it 3× “” 42 U.S.C. § 4851 ; See Rosen Aff. ¶ 24 (citing Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSRD)) of the Public Health Service’s report: The Nature and Extent of Lead Poisoning in Children in the United States: A Report to Congress (1988) (the “ATSRD Report”).”
Ayres v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 551 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 7× “PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 10, 2004, pro se Plaintiff Angela Ayres d/b/a S & A Development Group filed a Complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging breach of contract, material errors in a lead-based paint disclosure addendum, and violations of The…”
Roberts v. Hamer, 655 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff Christina Roberts, proceeding solely as the next Mend of her two minor children, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her children’s claims against defendants Christopher and Joan Hamer for violations of the disclosure requirements contained in the Residential…”
Hamilton v. Miller, 15 N.E.3d 1199 (NY 2014). · cites it 3× “Hamilton cross-moved for a protective order under CPLR 3103 and for the court to take judicial notice under CPLR 4511 of a federal statute codifying Congress’s findings justifying the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 ( 42 USC § 4851 ). Supreme Court…”
Fayette Cnty. Hous. Auth. v. Hous. & Redevelopment Ins. Exch., 771 A.2d 11 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “1994); 42 U.S.C. § 4851 (4). Furthermore, the Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, 42 U.”
Lititz Mut. Ins. v. Steely, 746 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). · cites it 4× “1994); 42 U.S.C. § 4851 (4). Exposure to lead from lead-contaminated paint/dust that would result in adverse human health effects is labeled a "hazard" in the Residential Lead Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992.”
Price v. Hickory Point Bank & Trust, 841 N.E.2d 1084 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 2× “) Plaintiffs based their claim, in part, on defendants’ alleged violation of the Decatur Municipal Code and certain federal regulations that implement provisions of the federal Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 ( 42 U.S.C. § 4851 (2000)). In December 2004…”
Brown v. Maple3, LLC, 88 A.D.3d 224 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 3× “Among the primary issues we consider on this appeal is whether a lessee’s adult daughter and infant grandchild have standing to assert a cause of action under the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 ( 42 USC § 4851 et seq. [hereinafter the RLPHRA]) for…”
Erwin v. Roe, 928 N.E.2d 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “" 42 U.S.C. §§ 4851a(1) & (7). In light of these needs, Congress provided disclosure requirements for lessors or sellers of certain property.”
Lititz Mut. Ins. v. Steely, 785 A.2d 975 (Pa. 2001). “See 42 U.S.C. § 4851 (a). Common to all of these descriptions is the implication that the process by which lead-based paint becomes available for human ingestion/inhalation does not, in the usual case, occur quickly.”
Pagan v. Rafter, 107 A.D.3d 1505 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). “Following joinder of issue and discovery, plaintiff moved, inter alia, for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and for an order taking judicial notice of certain legislative findings, including the congressional findings set forth in 42 USC § 4851 , and statutes…”
Show all 62 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.