Matsui, Other House Members Question Current Need for AM Vehicle Mandate

The House Commerce Committee’s appetite for advancing the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act (HR-3413/S-1669) proposal to mandate automakers include AM radio technology in future vehicles remains in doubt after multiple Communications Subcommittee members from both parties voiced skepticism during a Tuesday hearing, despite near-unanimous concern about potential public safety implications. House Communications ranking member Doris Matsui, D-Calif., told us she’s among those questioning the need for legislation in the short term to prevent AM radio’s removal from future vehicles. Chairman Bob Latta, R-Ohio, said in an interview he remains undecided on HR-3413/S-1669 (see 2305260034) after the hearing.

Alliance for Automotive Innovation Vice President-Safety Policy Scott Schmidt repeatedly told lawmakers he believes the type of mandate HR-3413/S-1669 proposes is a “blunt instrument.” AIA is “generally not in favor of a mandate in this area” because it could require keeping the same radio receiver technology in cars “in perpetuity,” he said during an exchange with Rep. Annie Kuster, D-N.H. “Even if you have vehicles that now have this technology, you’re mandating them forever.”

Woof Boom Radio President Jerry Chapman, speaking on behalf of NAB, and New Jersey State Police Homeland Security Branch Commander Lt. Col. Christopher DeMaise strongly endorsed the legislation, as expected (see 2306050075). Broadcasters have “evolved” their capabilities as part of FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System and want to continue to innovate, but “we can’t stop and … say that we’re no longer going to access a significant portion of the population," which omission of receiver technology in EVs would do, Chapman told Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif.: “We don’t have a ready fix” at this point.

“I’d like to see what the other manufacturers are going to do in the next few weeks or the next few months” in response to Capitol Hill pressure for them to keep AM radio capability in future vehicles, Latta told us. His letter with more than 100 other lawmakers seeking information from automakers about their plans (see 2305150063) resulted in Ford reversing course on AM radio in May. “It doesn’t sound like it takes much to install it or enable it,” he said.

Latta cited Schmidt’s testimony that Ford was able to quickly commit to bringing the technology back because it had only disabled AM radio capability on its 2024 model electric vehicles but hadn’t removed the hardware because it was still working on a “longer lead time modification” for future models. House Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., questioned during the hearing why Ford was able to resurrect AM radio "with the flip of a switch, while other car manufacturers have not.”

“It’s important that the companies have an opportunity to hear from consumers and folks in emergency management” because AM radio “plays an extremely vital role” given its role in IPAWS, Latta told us. He noted a concern he raised during the hearing about “how little notice has been given to consumers about the removal of AM radios in vehicles. Some companies claim to have announced the phaseout of AM radio, but we’ve also heard reports of consumers that are not aware that their new car does not have” the technology “until they’ve left the auto lot.” One “dealership in my district even told me that they had no idea about the change,” he said during the hearing.

Skepticism

“I don’t think we’re in a place where we want to do mandates” on AM radio, despite outcry about their decision to phase it out in future vehicles, Matsui told us. “We are already alerting everybody that this is a serious matter” and “it’s too early to figure out how” to craft a proposal without hurting future innovation. “I think the car industry was really surprised at the reaction” from Capitol Hill and the public about their plans, she said: “I don’t think they realized there was this feeling about AM. The fact is that in today’s world, with all the disasters we’ve been having, everybody wants the alerts when they need it.”

Kuster and Rep. Anna Eshoo of California were among other Democrats who expressed skepticism about whether Congress should act on HR-3413/S-1669 right now. “While I recognize the importance of AM radio, I also support the innovation and development of new technologies,” Kuster said: “Electric vehicles are the future of our nation’s transportation system,” so “we must be careful not to stifle widespread deployment.” The “backlash” against automakers “shows there is still really robust consumer demand” for AM radio and Ford’s U-turn shows they’re “responsive to demand,” Eshoo said: She argues Congress needs to consider whether “additional mandates” on automakers are “truly needed” since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration “has yet to implement” more than “a dozen” other car safety regulations already in statute.

Several Communications Republicans also questioned whether they need to move on HR-3413/S-1669. “Top-down mandates are not … the way to approach this issue,” said Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan. “But it is important that we properly identify what AM radio means for our constituents and the impact that its removal from vehicles would have. I think the fact that AM is free is something that would cause all of us to sit up and take notice.” Rep. John Curtis of Utah is “a little conflicted with the concept of the federal government mandating” how to ensure AM radio “is vibrant and viable for many years into the future.” If manufacturers of 8-track tapes “had lobbied for a mandate” in the past for automakers to keep equipment to play that technology in vehicles, “I don’t think” such a statute would mean American “would still be listening to 8-track tapes,” he said.

Rodgers and ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., were among lawmakers who appeared more open to acting to protect AM radio availability in vehicles but didn’t outright endorse HR-3413/S-1669. AM radio broadcast stations are the backbone of EAS “infrastructure” and are “still able to travel 100 miles or more to deliver public safety communications,” Pallone said. Rep. Diana Harshbarger, R-Tenn., believes taking AM radio out of vehicles is "a bad decision" and proposed Congress consider ending an automaker's EV tax credits if they discontinue the technology.

“We cannot be satisfied by reliance on emergency content delivered through internet or satellite services that require a subscription or data plan,” Pallone said. “The government makes our country’s electromagnetic airwaves available at no charge to broadcasters, who then carry these important alerts and messages to the public at no cost. We must ensure this vital information is free to consumers.” Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., was among others who questioned whether automakers would try to make AM radio capability a subscription-based service. The U.S. is also “not currently adequately prepared to reach all Americans in the event of a disaster without the assistance of AM radio services,” she said.

Reps. Jake LaTurner, R-Kan., and Mark Alford, R-Mo., meanwhile, led filing a resolution Monday that expresses the House’s support for “the continued inclusion of AM radios in automobiles” but stops short of mandating the technology. The measure would “send a strong message that AM radio is far from obsolete,” LaTurner said. “It is our duty to protect this resource at all costs,” Alford said: “This resolution is a vital first step in doing just that.”