II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 836 

To require accurate fuel economy testing procedures. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2005 

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL

To require accurate fuel economy testing procedures.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fuel Economy Truth 

5 in Labeling Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) CURRENT METHOD INACCURATE.—The En9 vironmental Protection Agency’s current method for 

10 estimating fuel economy is flawed and does not take 

11 into account the changes in driving conditions that 

12 have taken place over the past 30 years. As a result, 
2

•S 836 IS

1 the Environmental Protection Agency’s tests over2 estimate fuel economy by up to 30 percent, and En3 vironmental Protection Agency window sticker infor4 mation overestimates fuel economy by 10 percent or 

5 more. 

6 (2) UNDERESTIMATING HIGHWAY SPEEDS.—

7 The Environmental Protection Agency highway cycle 

8 assumes an average speed of 48 miles per hour (re9 ferred to in this section as ‘‘mph’’) and a top speed 

10 of 60 mph. Many State highway speed limits are set 

11 at or above 65 mph. Government data indicates that 

12 fuel economy can drop by 17 percent for modern ve13 hicles that drive at 70 mph instead of 55 mph. Even 

14 at 65 mph, fuel economy can drop by nearly 10 per15 cent compared to driving at 55 mph. 

16 (3) ASSUMING VERY GENTLE ACCELERATION

17 AND BRAKING.—The maximum acceleration rate in 

18 the Environmental Protection Agency test cycles is 

19 3.3 mph per second, about the same as going from 

20 zero to 60 mph in about 18 seconds. The average 

21 new car or truck can accelerate nearly twice as fast. 

22 While most consumers don’t use all the power in 

23 their vehicle, the Environmental Protection Agency 

24 data shows that people accelerate as fast as 15 mph 

25 per second, nearly 5 times the Environmental Pro-
3

•S 836 IS

1 tection Agency tests. In 1996 the Environmental 

2 Protection Agency established a new driving cycle 

3 (US06) that includes tougher acceleration and decel4 eration and higher speeds, but this cycle is not used 

5 for fuel economy purposes. 

6 (4) NEGLECTING THE WIDE RANGE OF OUT7 DOOR TEMPERATURES EXPERIENCED IN THE REAL

8 WORLD.—The Environmental Protection Agency 

9 tests are performed between 68 and 86 degrees 

10 Fahrenheit. Most States frequently experience 

11 weather conditions outside this range and fuel econ12 omy can be significantly affected as a result. 

13 (5) FAILING TO REFLECT THE USE OF AIR

14 CONDITIONING.—Fuel economy tests are run with 

15 the air conditioning off, while over 99 percent of all 

16 cars and trucks come with air conditioning. In 1996 

17 the Environmental Protection Agency established a 

18 new driving cycle (SC03) that included air condi19 tioning, but this cycle is not used for fuel economy 

20 purposes. 

21 (6) OVERESTIMATING TRIP LENGTHS.—The 

22 Environmental Protection Act city test cycle is 7.5 

23 miles long. The Environmental Protection Agency’s 

24 own data indicate that average trip lengths may be 

25 only 5 miles long, with typical trips as short as 2.5 
4

•S 836 IS

1 miles. Shorter trips often mean lower fuel economy 

2 because the engine does not have time to warm up 

3 and operate efficiently. 

4 (7) FUEL CONSUMPTION.—Fuels used for en5 gine certification tests are artificial in that they are 

6 highly refined, and not equivalent to the fuel con7 sumed during the life of a vehicle. Use of reference 

8 diesel and gasoline fuels while desirable from the 

9 standpoint of engineering design, optimization, and 

10 test repeatability, understate emissions and overstate 

11 fuel economy experienced by a vehicle in actual use. 

12 Current technology that improves commercially 

13 available fuel at or near the point of use is excluded 

14 from consideration by engine manufacturers as origi15 nal or optional equipment due to lack of need to rep16 resent engine performance on anything other than 

17 reference fuels. While allowing use of reference fuels 

18 for certification purposes, the Environmental Protec19 tion Agency should consider requiring manufacturers 

20 to post fuel economy realized on commercially avail21 able fuel. 

22 SEC. 3. UPDATED FUEL ECONOMY TESTING PROCEDURES. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the Envi24 ronmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Ad25 ministrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
5

•S 836 IS

1 ministration, shall revise the test procedures set forth in 

2 sections 600.209–85 and 600.209–95 of the Agency’s reg3 ulations (40 C.F.R. 600.209–85 and 600.209–95) to take 

4 into consideration current factors that may affect vehicle 

5 fuel economy, including— 

6 (1) higher speed limits; 

7 (2) faster acceleration rates; 

8 (3) variations in temperature; 

9 (4) the use of air conditioning; 

10 (5) shorter city test cycle lengths; and 

11 (6) the use of other fuel depleting features. 

12 (b) RULEMAKING DEADLINES.— 

13 (1) INITIAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

14 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 

15 the Environmental Protection Agency shall initiate a 

16 rulemaking procedure to revise the test procedures 

17 described in subsection (a). 

18 (2) FINAL RULE.—Not later than 18 months 

19 after initiating a rulemaking procedure under para20 graph (1), the Administrator shall promulgate a 

21 final rule containing the revised test procedures.

Æ