15 U.S.C. § 2003

Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, § 7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379; Pub. L. 103–429, § 11(b), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4391

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1980–1990 · leading case: Ctr. for Auto Saf. v. Thomas, 847 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Ctr. for Auto Saf. v. Thomas, 847 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1988). · cites it 5× “” 15 U.S.C. § 2003 (d)(1). By inserting the comparability requirement, Congress meant to insure that auto manufacturers be credited only with real fuel economy gains, not illusory gains generated by changes in test procedures.”
Ctr. for Auto Saf. v. Thomas, 806 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “” 15 U.S.C. § 2003 (d)(1). The motivation for the comparability requirement was a concern that measured improvements in fuel economy represent real gains, and not merely differences in laboratory testing procedures.”
Ctr. for Auto Saf. v. Claybrook, 627 F.2d 346 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “See 15 U.S.C.A. § 2003 (a)(1) (1979). . The Senate initially passed a bill permitting exemptions only for low-volume manufacturers whose “automobiles are sold predominantly for commercial use.”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Nat'l High. Traffic Saf. Admin., 898 F.2d 165 (D.C. Cir. 1990). “And, the statute contains explicit deadlines for purposes other than amending the CAFE standards. See, e.”
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.