Give the U.S. Government a Piece of Your Mind About Fuel Economy Rules

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky
give the u s government a piece of your mind about fuel economy rules

While the Trump administration continues gearing itself up to loosen fuel standards for automakers, much to the chagrin of environmentalists and other countries, the agencies that set those benchmarks want to pick your brain a little before making a final decision. You’ve got an opportunity to be part of the process — the painfully boring, yet incredibly important, process.

On Thursday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation opened a public comment period on the reconsideration of the standards for greenhouse gas emissions for light vehicles built for the 2022-2025 model years. Additionally, the EPA wants comments on the appropriateness of the existing 2021 standards. The agencies are inviting the public to submit any relevant (i.e. factual) data and information that can inform a final decision of the standards.

“We are moving forward with an open and robust review of emissions standards, consistent with the timeframe provided in our regulations,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. “We encourage the public to submit the best-available and most up-to-date information, so that we can get back on track with what the regulation actually requires of the Agency. Finally, we are working with DOT to ensure that our standards are ultimately aligned.”

While it is going to be difficult to resist the urge to use this as an invitation to complain generally, the agencies are specifically looking for the following: consumer behavior, feedback on modeling approaches, and assessing advanced fuel technologies.

Against the rollback on mpg standards? Explain how a spike in fuel prices might negatively impact an economy with inefficient vehicles. Claim it might make domestic vehicles less competitive or the cost to automakers won’t be as big as they claim. Back it up with facts.

All in favor of the rollback? Explain how less regulation would be a financial boon to automakers and that general consumer trends are leaning toward larger, less-efficient, models anyway. Back it up with facts.

I’m going to make it as easy as possible for you, because the initial bureaucratic nonsense you have to endure just to express you opinion on the matter is fairly potent. A comprehensive rundown on how to submit a formal comment and any accompanying media is available on the EPA’s website, while allows you to submit a digital response instantaneously on any of the current issues open for comment.

Just remember that, regardless of how you submit your comments, you must include the applicable docket number identified in the heading in your statement or you might have well not have sent one. The public comment period is open for 45 days. Meanwhile, the EPA review is due by April 1st, and could alter the 50.8 mpg corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) goals enacted in the last days of the Obama administration.

Join the conversation
2 of 84 comments
  • 285exp 285exp on Aug 14, 2017

    If people were serious about reducing gasoline consumption and encouraging electric cars and mass transit, they'd be demanding that we start jacking up the fuel taxes so we'd eventually be in the $5-6 per gallon range that our betters in Europe enjoy. We wouldn't have to force the automakers to make cars we don't want, we'd be demanding them. But people aren't really serious, so they won't.

  • PandaBear PandaBear on Aug 14, 2017

    I don't care what other people drives, I'm driving hybrid from now on and don't see a reason why I should get a V8 anything, or big SUV, or retro styled big Detroit iron. I do care how much PM, NOX, and CO coming out of other people's tailpipe, and I totally think EPA should ban rolling coal and revoke the registrations of vehicles with such modifications.

  • Jeanbaptiste Any variant of “pizza” flavored combos. I only eat these on car trips and they are just my special gut wrenching treat.
  • Nrd515 Usually for me it's been Arby's for pretty much forever, except when the one near my house dosed me with food poisoning twice in about a year. Both times were horrible, but the second time was just so terrible it's up near the top of my medical horror stories, and I have a few of those. Obviously, I never went to that one again. I'm still pissed at Arby's for dropping Potato Cakes, and Culver's is truly better anyway. It will be Arby's fish for my "cheat day", when I eat what I want. No tartar sauce and no lettuce on mine, please. And if I get a fish and a French Dip & Swiss? Keep the Swiss, and the dip, too salty. Just the meat and the bread for me, thanks. The odds are about 25% that they will screw one or both of them up and I will have to drive through again to get replacement sandwiches. Culver's seems to get my order right many times in a row, but if I hurry and don't check my order, that's when it's screwed up and garbage to me. My best friend lives on Starbucks coffee. I don't understand coffee's appeal at all. Both my sister and I hate anything it's in. It's like green peppers, they ruin everything they touch. About the only things I hate more than coffee are most condiments, ranked from most hated to..who cares..[list=1][*]Tartar sauce. Just thinking about it makes me smell it in my head. A nod to Ranch here too. Disgusting. [/*][*]Mayo. JEEEEZUS! WTF?[/*][*]Ketchup. Sweet puke tasting sludge. On my fries? Salt. [/*][*]Mustard. Yikes. Brown, yellow, whatever, it's just awful.[/*][*]Pickles. Just ruin it from the pickle juice. No. [/*][*]Horsey, Secret, whatever sauce. Gross. [/*][*]American Cheese. American Sleeze. Any cheese, I don't want it.[/*][*]Shredded lettuce. I don't hate it, but it's warm and what's the point?[/*][*]Raw onion. Totally OK, but not something I really want. Grilled onions is a whole nother thing, I WANT those on a burger.[/*][*]Any of that "juice" that Subway and other sandwich places want to put on. NO, HELL NO! Actually, move this up to #5. [/*][/list=1]
  • SPPPP It seems like a really nice car that's just still trying to find its customer.
  • MRF 95 T-Bird I owned an 87 Thunderbird aka the second generation aero bird. It was a fine driving comfortable and very reliable car. Quite underrated compared to the GM G-body mid sized coupes since unlike them they had rack and pinion steering and struts on all four wheels plus fuel injection which GM was a bit late to the game on their mid and full sized cars. When I sold it I considered a Mark VII LSC which like many had its trouble prone air suspension deleted and replaced with coils and struts. Instead I went for a MN-12 Thunderbird.
  • SCE to AUX Somebody got the bill of material mixed up and never caught it.Maybe the stud was for a different version (like the 4xe) which might use a different fuel tank.