IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 106 

Expressing the sense of Congress in support of a single national fuel economy 

standard. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2009 

Mr. BRIGHT (for himself and Mr. TERRY) submitted the following concurrent 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress in support of a single 

national fuel economy standard. 

Whereas Congress mandated a new, higher single national 

fuel economy standard as part the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which was enacted into 

law on December 19, 2007; 

Whereas EISA will raise the fuel economy of passenger cars 

and light trucks by at least 40 percent and will decrease 

the carbon dioxide tailpipe emissions of passenger cars 

and light trucks by at least 30 percent by 2020; 

Whereas the single national fuel economy standard promulgated, pursuant to the EISA, will provide the regulatory 

stability and certainty that is required to produce the fuel 

efficient cars of tomorrow; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 106 IH 

Whereas the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 explicitly states that ‘‘a State or a political subdivision of 

a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation related to fuel economy standards’’; 

Whereas the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has 

promulgated a regulation implementing a 2002 California 

law (AB 1493) that would have the direct effect of regulating fuel economy; 

Whereas if a waiver of preemption under the Clean Air Act 

is granted to CARB by the Environmental Protection 

Agency for its regulation implementing AB 1493, California, 13 other States, and the District of Columbia that 

have adopted the CARB regulation will seek to enforce 

it; 

Whereas CARB petitioned the Environmental Protection 

Agency on January 21, 2009, seeking, among other 

things, retroactive enforcement of its regulation, which 

would include the regulation of vehicles already sold; 

Whereas the granting of such a waiver would result in a 

patchwork of State fuel economy regulatory regimes in 

the States and District of Columbia (except Pennsylvania) that have adopted CARB’s regulation, as each 

automaker must separately conform the fleet each automaker delivers for sale in that State to each State’s rule; 

Whereas CARB’s regulation conflicts with the restructured 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program because CARB adopted a ‘‘flat’’ standard of regulation, an 

approach Congress rejected in favor of an ‘‘attributebased’’ standard under EISA; 

Whereas Congress rejected the ‘‘flat standard’’ method of 

regulation CARB adopted because of its negative impact 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HCON 106 IH 

on passenger safety, it limits consumer choice, and its inherent bias against full-line manufacturers; 

Whereas the attribute-based system of regulation Congress 

mandated in EISA will, by design, always save more fuel 

and reduce more greenhouse gases than a comparable 

flat standard; 

Whereas the National Academy of Sciences stated in a 2002 

study on fuel economy that ‘‘if an increase in fuel economy is effected by a system that encourages either 

downweighting or the production and sale of more small 

cars, some additional traffic fatalities would be expected.’’; 

Whereas CARB’s method of regulation encourages 

downweighting and the production and sale of more small 

cars in ‘‘California’’ States, thereby negatively impacting 

passenger safety; 

Whereas CARB did not consider job loss, consumer choice, 

consumer affordability, passenger safety, or the health of 

the United States auto industry outside of California 

when promulgating its regulation; 

Whereas the design of CARB’s regulation will distort the retail auto market by forcing automakers to deliver for sale 

certain vehicles in the States which have adopted its regulation, irrespective of whether consumer demand exists 

for such vehicles; 

Whereas CARB’s regulation will create a ‘‘cross border sales 

loophole’’ and a ‘‘SUV loophole’’ that will conflict with 

the goals of EISA and distort the auto market; 

Whereas CARB’s regulation will exempt over a dozen global 

automakers from regulation, which will further distort 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
4 

•HCON 106 IH 

the retail auto market and reduce the competitiveness of 

the automakers that are subject to CARB’s regulation; 

Whereas CARB’s regulation potentially exempts vehicles sold 

by Chinese and Indian automakers from its regulation, 

which will give a regulatory advantage to Chinese and Indian automakers at the expense of the automakers that 

are subject to CARB’s regulation; 

Whereas domestic and international automakers are experiencing the worst economic downturn in a generation; 

Whereas it makes no economic sense to burden consumers, 

dealers, and automakers, in the midst of a recession with 

a State-based fuel economy regime that is redundant to 

the goals of CAFE, but contrary to its structure; 

Whereas CARB’s regulation will affect 34 percent of the Nation’s fleet, yet the cost to consumers nationally in 2009 

is unknown, as well as the passenger safety impact, environmental impact, and cost to automakers; and 

Whereas it is the responsibility of Congress, and not of a 

State agency, to set national energy and environmental 

policy: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that— 

3 (1) a single national fuel economy standard is 

4 necessary to achieve the national policy goals of re5 ducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emis6 sions while not further exacerbating unemployment; 

7 and 

8 (2) the California Air Resources Board’s regu9 lation to implement AB 1493 undermines and conVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:08 Apr 24, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HC106.IH HC106

jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
5 

•HCON 106 IH 

1 flicts with the national policy established by Con2 gress in the Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 

3 and its subsequent amendments. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS