PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S494-497)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 7, 2002
Fuel Economy and Security Act of 2002 - Directs the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to prescribe average fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles and light trucks manufactured in 2007 and thereafter in order to achieve a combined average fuel economy standard for model year 2016 of 36 miles per gallon.Deletes a provision allowing credits for exceeding such standards to be applied in any of the three model years before the model year in which the credits are earned. Allows any such credits to be transferred to a registry established under this Act. Allows a manufacturer to apply greenhouse gas credits toward any model year after 2006, with a limitation.Eliminates the: (1) requirement for separate calculations of average fuel economy for vehicles manufactured domestically and non-domestically; and (2) credit for dual-fueled (gasoline and alternative) vehicles.Provides a high-occupancy vehicle exception if the vehicle is a hybrid or uses only an alternative fuel.Directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a national voluntary registry system for industry greenhouse gas trading under which emission reductions are assigned unique identifiers.Directs the Secretary to prescribe a motor vehicle safety standard for rollover crashworthiness that includes: (1) dynamic roof crush standards; (2) improved seat structure and safety belt design; (3) side impact head protection airbags; and (4) roof injury protection measures.Requires the Secretary to establish test criteria for use by manufacturers in determining damage susceptibility, crashworthiness, and the overall safety of vehicles for drivers and passengers. Requires such information to be included within safety label requirements under the Automobile Information Disclosure Act with respect to vehicles manufactured after September 30, 2005.
People & committees
Sen. McCain, John [R-AZ] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S494-497)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S494)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1923 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1923 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1923 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1923 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.