U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 85— AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES › Part Part D— Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas › Subpart subpart 6— savings provisions

42 U.S.C. § 7515

General savings clause

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

Each regulation, standard, rule, notice, order and guidance promulgated or issued by the Administrator under this chapter, as in effect before November 15, 1990, shall remain in effect according to its terms, except to the extent otherwise provided under this chapter, inconsistent with any provision of this chapter, or revised by the Administrator. No control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1991–2015 · leading case: Disimone v. Browner, 121 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Disimone v. Browner, 121 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “The argument made to the Delaney panel was that 42 U.S.C. § 7515 , the Savings Clause enacted as part of the 1990 Amendments, did not apply to the requirements mandated by Delaney .”
New York v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “” See 42 U.S.C. § 7515 . (We assume arguendo that section 193 applies to changes in the regulatory definition of “modification” for NSR purposes.”
Comm. for a Better Arvin v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 786 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2015). “EPA acknowledges that the Plans rely in part on waiver measures but argues that because of EPA’s longstanding policy of not requiring waiver measures to be specifically included in California SIPs and because of Congress’s alleged ratification of that practice under the…”
Citizens for a Better Env't v. Wilson, 775 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Cal. 1991). “5 , The other savings clause, found at 42 U.S.C. § 7515 , provides in part that ”[n]o control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order .”
Coalition Against Columbus Ctr. v. City of New York, 967 F.2d 764 (2d Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C.A. § 7515 (West Supp.1992). 3 While not defined in the 1990 amendments, the phrase “control requirement” bears a close resemblance to the phrase “emission standard or limitation” contained in the citizen suit provision, 42 U.”
Bayview Hunters Point Cmty. Advocates v. Metro. Transp. Comm'n, 366 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2004). “In sum, the regular statutory procedures for altering SIPs are not only the most effective manner in which to proceed, but the one mandated by Congress.”
Sierra Club v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002). “See 42 U.S.C. § 7515 . Therefore, we conclude that Congress intended to preserve the EPA’s interpretation of the CAA regarding the RACM requirement.”
Coalition for Clean Air v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 971 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1992). “42 U.S.C. § 7515 . The only possibly relevant language is the single sentence that speaks of a “control requirement” “required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement or plan in effect before November 15, 1990.”
Am. Lung Ass'n v. Kean, 856 F. Supp. 903 (D.N.J. 1994). “42 U.S.C. § 7515 . Accordingly, the CAAA does not, in any way, eliminate the State defendants’ obligations under the SIP and this court’s Scheduling Order.”
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.