We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On June 22, 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
upheld the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
removal of the opt-out provision for work that disturbs lead-based
paint in pre-1978 housing.
The opt-out provision would have allowed those homeowners who
certified that there were no children younger than six or pregnant
women residing in the home to "opt out" of the
EPA's Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP Rule). The
opt-out provision was in the original RRP Rule promulgated by EPA
in 2008, but was removed in 2010 as part of a settlement between
EPA and several environmental and health advocacy groups.
The National Association of Home Builders and other trade
associations petitioned the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
for review of EPA's change of heart. The court ruled
against petitioners, holding that it was not arbitrary and
capricious for EPA to change its mind and that the court had no
jurisdiction to review EPA's failure to convene a small
business advocacy review.
The court noted that two events, in addition to settling with
environmental and other groups, explained the EPA's
decision: the inauguration of a new President and the appointment
of a new EPA administrator. According to the court, and quoting
then-Justice Rehnquist, "[a] change in administration ... is a
perfectly reasonable basis for an executive agency's
reappraisal of the costs and benefits of its programs and
regulations."
So the story is not over. Not only is there an upcoming
Presidential election, but legislation introduced in the US House
and Senate earlier this year would, among other things, reinstate
the opt-out provision. But in the meantime, EPA is enforcing the
RRP Rule and announced earlier this year its first known
enforcement actions against three violators.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
After years of court decisions, it is clear to real estate attorneys that "as is" real estate contracts are not "as is" when it comes to environmental conditions.
Contractors generally expect that if something goes wrong after construction is complete and multiple parties are sued, they are only responsible for the damages they may have caused.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a defendant architect’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the economic loss doctrine applies only to bar tort claims between parties to a contract.
Your Fair Housing Defense Blog Editor has written about the seven protected classes contained in our federal Fair Housing Act many times: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status and disability.
