The Congressional Budget Office released its cost estimate for the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act of 2025. As automakers still claim that adding electromagnetic shielding to preserve AM reception would come at a crippling cost, the CBO disagrees for the third time.
The Act, now filed as S.315, would mandate AM radio access in all passenger vehicles sold, imported, or manufactured in the U.S. The legislation, aimed at preserving AM radio’s role in emergency communications, would require the Department of Transportation to implement the rule within one year of enactment and review its impact every five years. The mandate would expire after ten years.
The bill also directs the Government Accountability Office to study AM radio’s role in the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System and report its findings within 18 months.
The CBO estimates that implementing S.315 would cost the Department of Transportation and GAO about $1 million over five years, with spending subject to available appropriations. The legislation would also allow DOT to impose civil penalties on noncompliant manufacturers, but the CBO projects that such revenues would not exceed $500,000 over a decade due to limited violations.
The AM Act would primarily impact electric vehicle manufacturers, many of whom have already removed or announced plans to phase out AM radio. The bill would require automakers to restore AM functionality at no cost if requested by vehicle owners before the rule takes effect. The CBO projects that updating 2 to 2.5 million EVs per year would lead to minor increases in production costs but remain well below federal cost thresholds for private-sector mandates.
The full estimate was reviewed by CBO Deputy Director of Budget Analysis H. Samuel Papenfuss and prepared by Willow Latham-Proença and Brandon Lever under the direction of CBO Director Phillip Swagel. Previous matching estimates were conducted in 2023 and 2024.
Meanwhile, the bill has reached 50 co-sponsors in the Senate while awaiting a vote with the addition of Sens. John Boozman (R-AR), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV). The House version of the bill must be approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee before it is eligible to be voted on.
We should not be forcing automakers to include something on their vehicles. That is not free enterprise.
This wouldn’t even be an issue, if there was still consumer demand for AM. AM radio broadcasters unfortunately have brought this upon themselves, by turning AM Radio for the most part into a wasteland of Christian infomercials (Salem) and extreme right wing syndicated talk shows.
Perhaps the answer is a Federal tax on AM radio advertising. AM operators would pass this tax along to advertisers of course.
But some of the revenues from this tax, could be directed to the automakers, to cover their costs for needing to include AM in their vehicles.
Huh? Federal tax on advertising??? The reason AM is in the state its in is because of the lack of advertising. Making it more expensive with a tax would kill AM even more.
We don’t have free enterprise in this country. The whole idea of tariffs is counter to free enterprise. Farmers getting subsidies is counter to free enterprise. Musk getting government tax breaks for making EVs is counter to free enterprise.
The purpose of the AM law is simply to allow the DHS access to the public airwaves for emergency notification using a system paid for by broadcasters. Nothing more.
So you’re ok with forcing car manufacturers to take a product that they or 90% of the public doesn’t want?
And your other points about tax breaks for others is irrelevant. None of those instances force a party to accept something they don’t want.
And your statement about a lack of AM advertising is the fault of AM broadcasters not having compelling content!!
Car manufacturers should not be forced to do something because of the ineptness of AM station operators.
Ask people if they love seat belts. If they had a choice, most wouldn’t use them. This isn’t about use. People aren’t being required to use AM radio. It’s about having access.
“Car manufacturers should not be forced to do something because of the ineptness of AM station operators.”
AM operators shouldn’t be forced to stay on the air to provide mandated EAS service either. Eliminate the rules that require AM stations with translators to stay on the air. Most would gladly shut of the AM. Radio owners are mandated to do lots of things that aren’t popular with the public.
They are public airwaves. The station “owners” are granted licenses. But they are public airwaves.
If AM owners don’t like the rules, they can turn in their license anytime they want. Considering the absolutely horrible job that most AM operators now do, that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
“They are public airwaves.”
The public airwaves with no receivers (especially in cars) are useless. If they don’t have receivers, they can’t hear the emergency information the government provides. If they don’t have receivers, the licenses are useless. The radio companies know this. That’s why they’re transitioning their listeners to their streaming platforms.
The congress knows this. That’s why they have this bill. And they’re going to vote for it regardless of what you think.
It will be interest to see how this turns out, as the biggest auto manufacturer who is leaving AM radios out of their vehicles is Tesla by far. And as he seems to be the president’s best buddy right now, I see a potential conflict should this bill make it to the president’s desk.
That said, I also believe that the claims that the required EMI shielding is too costly are baloney, as Hyundai seemed to manage it just fine in the Ioniq 6 that I currently drive, and GM managed it in my previous vehicle, which was the primarily electric (but technically a hybrid) Chevy Volt. If Hyundai and GM can manage it, there’s no reason why Tesla can’t.