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 promul-
gated, pursuant to the EISA, will provide the regulatory 
stability and certainty that is required to produce the fuel 
efficient cars of tomorrow; 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
02:08 Apr 24, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HC106.IH
HC106
jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
•HCON 106 IH 
Whereas the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 ex-
plicitly states that ‘‘a State or a political subdivision of 
a State may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation re-
lated 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 regu-
lating 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, Cali-
fornia, 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 Pennsyl-
vania) that have adopted CARB’s regulation, as each 
automaker must separately conform the fleet each auto-
maker 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 be-
cause CARB adopted a ‘‘flat’’ standard of regulation, an 
approach Congress rejected in favor of an ‘‘attribute- 
based’’ standard under EISA; 
Whereas Congress rejected the ‘‘flat standard’’ method of 
regulation CARB adopted because of its negative impact 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
02:08 Apr 24, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HC106.IH
HC106
jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
•HCON 106 IH 
on passenger safety, it limits consumer choice, and its in-
herent 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 econ-
omy is effected by a system that encourages either 
downweighting or the production and sale of more small 
cars, some additional traffic fatalities would be ex-
pected.’’; 
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 re-
tail auto market by forcing automakers to deliver for sale 
certain vehicles in the States which have adopted its reg-
ulation, 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 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
02:08 Apr 24, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HC106.IH
HC106
jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
•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 In-
dian automakers at the expense of the automakers that 
are subject to CARB’s regulation; 
Whereas domestic and international automakers are experi-
encing 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 Na-
tion’s fleet, yet the cost to consumers nationally in 2009 
is unknown, as well as the passenger safety impact, envi-
ronmental 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 
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that— 
(1) a single national fuel economy standard is 
necessary to achieve the national policy goals of re-
ducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emis-
sions while not further exacerbating unemployment; 
and 
(2) the California Air Resources Board’s regu-
lation to implement AB 1493 undermines and con-
VerDate 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
•HCON 106 IH 
flicts with the national policy established by Con-
gress in the Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 
and its subsequent amendments. 
Æ 
VerDate Nov 24 2008 
02:08 Apr 24, 2009
Jkt 079200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HC106.IH
HC106
jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS