1. Anticipate regulatory activity: The new administration has suggested it will take action on vehicle emissions, GHG, EV tax credits, and ADAS and ADS technologies, creating opportunities to engage with agencies in rulemaking and voluntary programs.

2. Apply new precedents: The recent Supreme Court cases changing administrative law should be analyzed for new positions when interacting with federal agencies during administrative hearings, investigations, and litigation. 

3. Adapt compliance frameworks: Strengthen governance to address potential changes in emissions standards, safety protocols, and reporting requirements.

The shifting power balance in Washington was top of mind for survey respondents, with 65% identifying agency authority limitations as a top concern for 2025. This transformation, driven by several Supreme Court cases, including the 2024 Loper Bright decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine, creates new opportunities to challenge administrative agencies that overstep bounds and reshapes how automotive companies must approach compliance.

The primary issue for NHTSA is whether and how to regulate new autonomous technologies. Already, 42% of respondents flagged NHTSA’s increased scrutiny of ADAS and ADS performance as a pressing issue, with expanded reporting requirements under the Standing General Order and stricter enforcement raising the stakes for manufacturers. One question is whether NHTSA should go forward with a voluntary effort like the proposed AV STEP program or regulate ADS-equipped vehicles directly. Meanwhile, 52% of respondents identified the new administration’s plan to roll back Biden’s CAFE standards and GHG regulations as a top concern. The back-and-forth on fuel economy and emissions standards challenges the ability of automotive companies to manage their long-term business plans. We also anticipate that EV tax credits and granting California a Clean Air Action section 209(b) waiver for GHG emissions will be contentious topics in 2025.

Other developments underscore this trend of heightened scrutiny across the industry. NHTSA’s increased oversight of recall remedies (29%) reflects its consumer protection priorities, particularly its challenge to manufacturers relying on software fixes for hardware issues. Enforcement actions reflecting stricter expectations for timely and complete reporting (18%) underscore the need for robust compliance frameworks to avoid enforcement actions. Lastly, NHTSA’s efforts to reach a Final Decision regarding reports of ARC air bag inflator ruptures, while not particularly noteworthy in our survey (10%), could set a significant precedent. 

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions regarding the role and authority of administrative agencies, including the demise of Chevron, marks a turning point for how federal agencies like NHTSA and the EPA wield their authority. Courts are deferring less and are carefully reviewing whether agencies’ actions are consistent with the boundaries set by the Administrative Procedures Act and their enabling statutes. These rulings hand automotive industry companies new tools to contest overreach while raising the stakes for regulatory compliance.

This shift immediately impacts emissions standards, safety regulations, and crash reporting requirements. Agencies may respond by issuing clearer, more rigid rules to withstand judicial scrutiny, while companies may face an uptick in litigation aimed at clarifying gray areas.