The Obama Administration will reportedly delay the release of the U.S.' most ambitious fuel economy proposal ever.

Word is the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency won't be able to string together a Corporate Average Fuel Economy draft for Model Year 2017-25 for public comment by the end of this week, as was initially intended. Instead, sources close to the matter claim the proposal won't be rolled out until November, or possibly even later. But even with the expected delay, the administration should remain on track to meet its deadline of issuing final guidelines by July of 2012.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and EPA are jointly writing the regulations based on the July agreement, which tentatively calls for automakers to hit a CAFE target of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

Sources claim regulators are moving slower than anticipated on details of the official proposal to ensure it covers issues likely to be voiced during the public comment period.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 20 Comments
      Michael Silva
      • 3 Years Ago
      Do those of you that are upset with the holding off of the 62 mph understand how much that type of vehicle would cost the average family? Have you seen how much cars have increased in cost due to all of the other government regulations and standards put on them? The problem is that the majority of the nation has to drive to work to live in affordable housing, etc...and if they put more money into improve/expanding road ways so we are driving at maximum fuel economy and not wasting time in stop and go traffic, there would be your solution. Also, if you believe the "global warming" con out there, need to go back 100 years and read the NY Times article that claimed the same thing. Also, there was more carbon 100 years ago then there is today. Also, I promise, if you eliminate carbon, what do you thing all those trees and plants will use to grow? They absorb the carbon and use carbon to grow, amazing how the world was created/designed. Peace
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Michael Silva
        [blocked]
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      Alex
      • 3 Years Ago
      why doesn't the government stop telling the automakers what kind of cars they have to make, and let them make cars that we actually want to buy... seriously, this kind of crap is what made the big 3 such a mess in the first place... close down detroit, move to a right to work state and make cars that don't suck.
        Polak
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Alex
        so your sons sons have some resources left to use, to live.....
      Mazdaspeed6
      • 3 Years Ago
      Rather than coming up with these silly CAFE standards why don't they increase the gas guzzler tax. That would keep a lot of unnecessary SUVs/pick ups off the road and save the most fuel. The funny thing about CAFE is that just as long as your corporate average fuel economy is good, your best selling models can be gas guzzlers (i'm looking at you Big 3).
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 3 Years Ago
      Check this site out: http://dirtyenergymoney.org/ oil companies are throwing more money into influencing our government than ever. Last congress recieved 24.5 million dollars. God only knows how much that number is up to. By declawing new fuel economy standards, they are being assured that we will continue to be excellent customers. If you're not pissed off.... you're not paying attention..
      Myself
      • 3 Years Ago
      I guess there was a meeting in the lobby....
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
        Alex
        • 3 Years Ago
        people like you are what make me wish i could smack people through their monitors.
      Dillon Trent
      • 3 Years Ago
      http://www,blitzperformancechips.com +35HP * +5MPG * Tuner Chips* Easy install* Visit us for more info, and to place your order. Shipping is FREE limited time only. Tuner Chips available for most vehicles. $24.99
        Bscar
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Dillon Trent
        those "tuner chips" usually turn out to be 5 cent resistors, not actual computer chips
      citidriver
      • 3 Years Ago
      CAFE is not silly, we have better cars as a result. What is silly is the target mpg for cars. "Light truck" category vehicles, which include SUVs don't have to be as efficient, therefore, manufactures build and make more profit when there is less engineering needed. How many variations and sizes of SUV are there, a lot. Anymore wagons in showrooms? compact pickups? Detroit is basically selling what it will make more money at, so its not the government making big heavy vehicles, it's the manufacturers getting a break to sell them. What has to change is the vehicle categories. Trucks are vehicles that carry cargo, not passengers, so SUVs should be classified as cars, not trucks. If all "cars" including minivans and SUVs had to meet the same bumper height, headlight height, and emissions standards, then you can go ahead and make a more reasonable CAFE target that can easily be met.
      Bassracerx
      • 3 Years Ago
      I think that at least for now we are starting to reach diminishing returns on efficiency with the technology available. Sure maybe it could be a little more efficient but is it worth the extra costs? These standards and regulations are pushing the costs of efficiency on to the consumer wich defeats the purpose of striving for efficiency in the first place. Let's keep the standards where they are at long enough for the production costs to come down for this new wave of efficient engines.
    • Load More Comments