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

42 U.S.C. § 4851a

Purposes

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
The purposes of this chapter are—(1) to develop a national strategy to build the infrastructure necessary to eliminate lead-based paint hazards in all housing as expeditiously as possible;(2) to reorient the national approach to the presence of lead-based paint in housing to implement, on a priority basis, a broad program to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards in the Nation’s housing stock;(3) to encourage effective action to prevent childhood lead poisoning by establishing a workable framework for lead-based paint hazard evaluation and reduction and by ending the current confusion over reasonable standards of care;(4) to ensure that the existence of lead-based paint hazards is taken into account in the development of Government housing policies and in the sale, rental, and renovation of homes and apartments;(5) to mobilize national resources expeditiously, through a partnership among all levels of government and the private sector, to develop the most promising, cost-effective methods for evaluating and reducing lead-based paint hazards;(6) to reduce the threat of childhood lead poisoning in housing owned, assisted, or transferred by the Federal Government; and(7) to educate the public concerning the hazards and sources of lead-based paint poisoning and steps to reduce and eliminate such hazards.(Pub. L. 102–550, title X, § 1003, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3897.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this Act”, meaning title X of Pub. L. 102–550, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3897, known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4851 of this title and Tables.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · 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 5× “” 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(1), (3). EPA was instructed to “identify” whatever might constitute a “lead-based paint hazard,” that Congress defined as a “condition that causes exposure to lead .”
Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Env't Prot. Agency, 682 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “” 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(l). The Act amended another statute, the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.”
Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(l). To implement this goal Congress, inter alia, provided grants to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards in privately owned low-income housing and set forth requirements to ensure that federally owned housing is free from lead-based paint hazards.”
United States of Am., United States Army Corps of Engineers, Movant-Appellant v. City of Detroit, 329 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2003). “20120a(1), or "eliminate," 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(l), risks deemed wholly intolerable.”
Erwin v. Roe, 928 N.E.2d 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “In light of these needs, Congress provided disclosure requirements for lessors or sellers of certain property.”
Vidiksis v. Env't Prot. Agency, 612 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2010). “42 U.S.C. § 4851a(4), (7). Vidiksis also challenges the EPA’s authority to promulgate § 745.”
Brown v. Maple3, LLC, 88 A.D.3d 224 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “to “eliminate lead-based paint hazards in all housing as expeditiously as possible,” “encourage effective action to prevent childhood lead poisoning by establishing a workable framework for lead-based paint hazard evaluation and reduction,” and “educate the public concerning the…”
LB III v. Hous. Auth. of Louisville, 345 F. Supp. 2d 725 (W.D. Ky. 2004). “42 U.S.C. § 4851a(6) (one of stated purposes of RLPHRA is to “reduce the threat of childhood lead poisoning in housing owned, assisted, or transferred by the Federal Government”).”
Santiago Ex Rel. Muniz v. Hernandez, 53 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D.N.Y 1999). “” 42 U.S.C. §§ 4851a(1). Thus, the HCDA and RLPHRA were intended to benefit, the general public, rather than a special class of persons.”
McCormick v. Kissel, 458 F. Supp. 2d 944 (S.D. Ind. 2006). “” 42 U.S.C. §§ 4851a(l) & (7). In light of these needs, Congress provided disclosure requirements for lessors or sellers of certain property.”
League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (D. Alaska 2019). “§ 4851a(1), (3) ) (holding that in EPA's carrying out of Congress's mandate to reduce lead-based paint hazards, "Congress did not want EPA to set initial standards and then walk away, but to engage in an ongoing process, accounting for new information, and to modify initial…”
Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 121 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “" 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(1) (emphasis added); see Jane Schukoske, The Evolving Paradigm of Laws on Lead-Based Paint: From 23 Code Violation to Environmental Hazard, 45 S.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(1) — 6 cases
A Cmty. Voice v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 878 F.3d 779 (9th Cir. 2017). “” 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(1), (3). EPA was instructed to “identify” whatever might constitute a “lead-based paint hazard,” that Congress defined as a “condition that causes exposure to lead .”
Erwin v. Roe, 928 N.E.2d 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “In light of these needs, Congress provided disclosure requirements for lessors or sellers of certain property.”
Santiago Ex Rel. Muniz v. Hernandez, 53 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D.N.Y 1999). “” 42 U.S.C. §§ 4851a(1). Thus, the HCDA and RLPHRA were intended to benefit, the general public, rather than a special class of persons.”
League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (D. Alaska 2019). “§ 4851a(1), (3) ) (holding that in EPA's carrying out of Congress's mandate to reduce lead-based paint hazards, "Congress did not want EPA to set initial standards and then walk away, but to engage in an ongoing process, accounting for new information, and to modify initial…”
Davis Ex Rel. Davis v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 121 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 1997). “" 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(1) (emphasis added); see Jane Schukoske, The Evolving Paradigm of Laws on Lead-Based Paint: From 23 Code Violation to Environmental Hazard, 45 S.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(2) — 1 case
A Cmty. Voice v. Usepa, 997 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2021).
— 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(4) — 1 case
Vidiksis v. Env't Prot. Agency, 612 F.3d 1150 (11th Cir. 2010). “42 U.S.C. § 4851a(4), (7). Vidiksis also challenges the EPA’s authority to promulgate § 745.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(6) — 1 case
LB III v. Hous. Auth. of Louisville, 345 F. Supp. 2d 725 (W.D. Ky. 2004). “42 U.S.C. § 4851a(6) (one of stated purposes of RLPHRA is to “reduce the threat of childhood lead poisoning in housing owned, assisted, or transferred by the Federal Government”).”
— 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(l) — 7 cases
A Cmty. Voice v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 878 F.3d 779 (9th Cir. 2017). “” 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(1), (3). EPA was instructed to “identify” whatever might constitute a “lead-based paint hazard,” that Congress defined as a “condition that causes exposure to lead .”
Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Env't Prot. Agency, 682 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “” 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(l). The Act amended another statute, the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.”
Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2000). “” 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(l). To implement this goal Congress, inter alia, provided grants to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards in privately owned low-income housing and set forth requirements to ensure that federally owned housing is free from lead-based paint hazards.”
United States of Am., United States Army Corps of Engineers, Movant-Appellant v. City of Detroit, 329 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2003). “20120a(1), or "eliminate," 42 U.S.C. § 4851a(l), risks deemed wholly intolerable.”
McCormick v. Kissel, 458 F. Supp. 2d 944 (S.D. Ind. 2006). “” 42 U.S.C. §§ 4851a(l) & (7). In light of these needs, Congress provided disclosure requirements for lessors or sellers of certain property.”
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.