Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 42 U.S.C. § 4822. The statute’s language does not unambiguously create new rights enforceable by Section 8 tenants under § 1983. Rather than expressly creating such rights, the LBPPPA grants administrative authority to the executive branch and mandates that the Secretary of HUD include certain requirements relating to the provision of information to purchasers and tenants, periodic risk assessments, inspections, reductions, and abatement of lead-based paint hazards. Id. at § 4822(1)(A)-(G). The Act requires HUD to implement certain “procedures” for public housing agencies to follow. This language falls well short of unambiguously conferring individual rights on tenants who would benefit from the Secretary’s procedures. See Roseberry v. United States, 736 F.Supp. 408, 410 (D.N.H.1990) (<HOLDING>). Further, the administrative regulations in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the lbpppa did not create an implied private cause of action and recognizing that the act is in essence a legislative directive to the secretary of housing and urban development hud to establish and implement procedures addressing such hazards and that the lbpppa is purely an administrative authoritygranting statute (B) recognizing the cause of action (C) holding that the rehabilitation act does not create a private right of action against the secretary of education acting in his role as an administrator (D) recognizing implied private action under the collection agency act (E) holding that the rehabilitation act does not create a private right of action against the secretary of transportation where the apa provides an adequate remedy
Output (English): holding that the rehabilitation act does not create a private right of action against the secretary of education acting in his role as an administrator