Fuel Efficiency Truth in Advertising Act of 2005 - Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revise certain Federal vehicle fuel economy test procedures to take into consideration higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates, variations in temperature, use of air conditioning, shorter city test cycle lengths, and the use of other fuel depleting features.
[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1103 Introduced in House (IH)]
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1103
To require accurate fuel economy testing procedures.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 3, 2005
Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut (for herself, Mr. Holt, Mr. Ehlers, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. Olver, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Foley, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Engel,
Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Markey, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mr. Shays, Mr. Castle, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Grijalva, Mr. Case, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Lantos, Ms.
DeGette, Mr. Moran of Virginia, and Mr. Van Hollen) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To require accurate fuel economy testing procedures.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Fuel Efficiency Truth in Advertising
Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Current method inaccurate.--The Environmental
Protection Agency's current method for estimating fuel economy
is flawed and does not take into account the changes in driving
conditions that have taken place over the past 30 years. As a
result, the Environmental Protection Agency's tests
overestimate fuel economy by up to 30 percent, and
Environmental Protection Agency window sticker information
overestimates fuel economy by 10 percent or more.
(2) Underestimating highway speeds.--The Environmental
Protection Agency highway cycle assumes an average speed of 48
mph and a top speed of 60 mph. Many State highway speed limits
are set at or above 65 mph. Government data indicates that fuel
economy can drop by 17 percent for modern vehicles that drive
at 70 mph instead of 55 mph. Even at 65 mph, fuel economy can
drop by nearly 10 percent compared to driving at 55 mph.
(3) Assuming very gentle acceleration and braking.--The
maximum acceleration rate in the Environmental Protection
Agency test cycles is 3.3 mph per second, about the same as
going from zero to 60 mph in about 18 seconds. The average new
car or truck can accelerate nearly twice as fast. While most
consumers don't use all the power in their vehicle, the
Environmental Protection Agency data shows that people
accelerate as fast as 15 mph per second, nearly 5 times the
Environmental Protection Agency tests. In 1996 the
Environmental Protection Agency established a new driving cycle
(US06) that includes tougher acceleration and deceleration and
higher speeds, but this cycle is not used for fuel economy
purposes.
(4) Neglecting the wide range of outdoor temperatures
experienced in the real world.--The Environmental Protection
Agency tests are performed between 68 and 86 degrees
Fahrenheit. Most States frequently experience weather
conditions outside this range and fuel economy can be
significantly affected as a result.
(5) Failing to reflect the use of air conditioning.--Fuel
economy tests are run with the air conditioning off, while over
99 percent of all cars and trucks come with air conditioning.
In 1996 the Environmental Protection Agency established a new
driving cycle (SC03) that included air conditioning, but this
cycle is not used for fuel economy purposes.
(6) Overestimating trip lengths.--The Environmental
Protection Act city test cycle is 7.5 miles long. The
Environmental Protection Agency's own data indicate that
average trip lengths may be only 5 miles long, with typical
trips as short as 2.5 miles. Shorter trips often mean lower
fuel economy because the engine does not have time to warm up
and operate efficiently.
(7) Fuel consumption.--Fuels used for engine certification
tests are artificial in that they are highly refined, and not
equivalent to the fuel consumed during the life of a vehicle.
Use of reference diesel and gasoline fuels while desirable from
the standpoint of engineering design, optimization, and test
repeatability, understate emissions and overstate fuel economy
experienced by a vehicle in actual use. Current technology that
improves commercially available fuel at or near the point of
use is excluded from consideration by engine manufacturers as
original or optional equipment due to lack of need to represent
engine performance on anything other than reference fuels.
While allowing use of reference fuels for certification
purposes, the Environmental Protection Agency should consider
requiring manufacturers to post fuel economy realized on
commercially available fuel.
SEC. 3. UPDATE TESTING PROCEDURES.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall
update or revise test procedures, Subpart B-Fuel Economy Regulations
for 1978 and Later Model Year Automobiles-Test Procedures 600.209-85 &
600.209-95, of the Code of Federal Regulations, CFR Part 600 (1995)
Fuel Economy Regulations for 1977 and Later Model Year Automobiles to
take into consideration higher speed limits, faster acceleration rates,
variations in temperature, use of air conditioning, shorter city test
cycle lengths and the use of other fuel depleting features.
<all>
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Llama 3.2 · runs locally in your browser
Ask anything about this bill. The AI reads the full text to answer.
Enter to send · Shift+Enter for new line