The Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act of 2025 has two concrete effects: it declares the EPA’s April 18, 2024 final rule “Multi‑Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light‑Duty and Medium‑Duty Vehicles” (89 Fed. Reg. 27842) void, and it amends Clean Air Act section 202(a)(2) to add a prohibition on any vehicle emissions regulation that (A) mandates the use of a specific technology or (B) “result[s] in limited availability of new motor vehicles based on the type of new motor vehicle engine.” The bill also requires the EPA Administrator to revise regulations to conform with that new prohibition within 24 months of enactment.
The measure shifts the legal constraints under which EPA writes tailpipe standards. By blocking technology‑specific mandates and imposing an availability‑based ceiling on regulatory design, the bill limits EPA’s choice of instruments to meet statutory air quality goals.
That changes the regulatory calculus for automakers, dealers, states with strict vehicle standards, and environmental regulators — creating near‑term legal and compliance uncertainty while reshaping long‑term options for emissions reductions and vehicle fleet composition.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill nullifies a specific EPA final rule (89 Fed. Reg. 27842) and inserts a new subparagraph into Clean Air Act §202(a)(2) that forbids EPA regulations from mandating particular technologies or from causing limited availability of new vehicles based on engine type. It also orders EPA to amend existing regulations within 24 months to comply.
Who It Affects
The changes directly affect the Environmental Protection Agency, vehicle manufacturers and their product-planning teams, franchised dealers who stock and sell new vehicles, and states that set or seek waivers for their own tailpipe standards (notably California). Indirectly, suppliers, fuel providers, and public‑health stakeholders are affected by altered emissions trajectories.
Why It Matters
The bill constrains how EPA can achieve emissions targets, effectively privileging technology‑neutral standards over technology‑specific mandates and protecting market availability for internal combustion engine vehicles. That rearranges incentives across the auto sector and removes a recent federal regulatory pathway for accelerating electrification or other technology transitions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill performs three legal moves in one short package. First, it strips legal effect from the EPA’s 2024 final rule on multi‑pollutant standards for model years 2027 and later, meaning that federal regulatory requirements that came from that rule would no longer bind manufacturers once the statute takes effect.
Second, it rewrites part of the Clean Air Act's driver‑safety provision for new motor vehicles by adding a clear prohibition: EPA regulations may not require a particular technology nor may they be written so as to make certain engine types effectively unavailable as new vehicle options. Third, it imposes a concrete timetable — 24 months — for EPA to bring existing regulations into compliance with that new prohibition.
Operationally, the amendment does not prescribe specific alternative standards; it changes the constraints on how EPA can design standards. Agency rulewriters will still be able to set emissions performance targets, but they must avoid regulatory language or program designs that would be read as forcing a specific technology (for example, a requirement that every new car be battery electric) or that would be shown to cause scarcity of vehicles with certain engine types.
The bill’s text explicitly reaches regulations prescribed after January 1, 2021 and regulations proposed after enactment, which broadens the scope of covered agency actions beyond just future rulemakings.Practically, manufacturers and dealers will confront immediate uncertainty about the regulatory baseline they use for product planning and compliance projections. EPA must decide how to reformulate standards so they are expressed in performance or fleet‑wide terms that do not cross the new lines, while still meeting statutory obligations to protect public health and meet air‑quality goals.
The 24‑month deadline compresses that task, potentially producing interim regulatory gaps or litigation over whether revised standards in fact comply with the new statutory limits.Finally, while the bill operates at the federal statutory level, its effects will spill into state regulatory choices and into litigation. States that pursue stricter standards or a zero‑emission pathway for light‑duty vehicles will face a changed federal backdrop, and courts will be asked to reconcile the amended §202 language with the rest of the Clean Air Act when disputes arise.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill expressly nullifies the EPA final rule titled “Multi‑Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light‑Duty and Medium‑Duty Vehicles” (89 Fed. Reg. 27842, April 18, 2024).
It amends Clean Air Act §202(a)(2) by adding a subparagraph that forbids EPA regulations from (i) mandating any specific technology and (ii) resulting in limited availability of new motor vehicles based on engine type.
The statutory amendment covers regulations prescribed after January 1, 2021 and any regulations proposed after the bill’s enactment, expanding the change beyond only future rulemakings.
The bill gives the EPA Administrator 24 months from enactment to promulgate revisions necessary to conform existing regulations to the newly added prohibitions.
The new textual constraints preserve EPA’s ability to set performance targets but require agency standards to avoid language or mechanisms that would be interpreted as technology mandates or that demonstrably limit availability of vehicles by engine type.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
A single line: the Act is cited as the “Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act of 2025.” This is purely nominal, but frames the bill’s policy intent around consumer choice and vehicle availability rather than emissions outcomes.
Repeal of the EPA multi‑pollutant rule
This section declares the specified April 18, 2024 EPA final rule (89 Fed. Reg. 27842) to have “no force or effect.” That language accomplishes statutory nullification of a named federal rule rather than ordering the agency to undertake a new rulemaking process to rescind it; in practice, the result is that regulated parties cannot rely on that federal rule as operative law after enactment.
Amendment to Clean Air Act §202(a)(2): ban on technology mandates and availability limits
The bill inserts a new subparagraph B into §202(a)(2) that does two things. First, it prohibits any EPA regulation under §202 from mandating a particular technology. Second, it prohibits regulations that would “result in limited availability of new motor vehicles based on the type of new motor vehicle engine.” Notably, the amendment explicitly reaches regulations prescribed after January 1, 2021 and those proposed after enactment, signaling congressional intent to capture recent and pending agency actions as well as future ones. The practical effect is to constrain the palette of policy instruments EPA may use when writing tailpipe standards.
Mandated regulatory revisions and 24‑month deadline
This subsection requires the EPA Administrator to promulgate whatever revisions are necessary to make current regulations conform with the new §202(a)(2)(B) within 24 months. That creates a firm timetable for agency action and exposes EPA to judicial review if it fails to meet the deadline or if its revisions are challenged as non‑conforming. The provision does not specify procedural details for the revisions (for example, whether expedited notice‑and‑comment is required), leaving that to standard administrative practice and potential litigation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Franchised vehicle dealers and independent retailers — The bill protects dealers’ ability to stock and sell a mix of engine types by preventing a federal regulation from narrowing new‑vehicle availability by engine type, preserving sales options and inventory decisions at the dealership level.
- Automakers that continue to produce internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles — Manufacturers planning significant ICE production face reduced regulatory pressure to accelerate full electrification via federal technology‑specific requirements, potentially lowering near‑term compliance costs and smoothing product‑planning uncertainty.
- Suppliers and fossil‑fuel industry participants — Parts suppliers for ICE vehicles and fuel suppliers gain time as federal rules can no longer force rapid displacement of those engine types through technology mandates, stabilizing demand for certain supply chains.
Who Bears the Cost
- Environmental and public‑health stakeholders — By constraining EPA’s choice of regulatory instruments, the bill could slow the deployment of the most direct policy levers for rapid emissions reductions, increasing the risk of higher emissions relative to stricter technology‑specific approaches.
- Environmental Protection Agency — The agency must rewrite regulations under a compressed 24‑month deadline and lose regulatory tools some experts consider necessary for meeting ambitious air‑quality targets, complicating rule design and defense in court.
- States pursuing aggressive vehicle standards (e.g., California) — Although the bill does not directly repeal state authority, it changes the federal regulatory baseline and raises the prospect of preemption conflicts or practical constraints on states’ ability to secure equivalent outcomes by influencing manufacturer availability.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between preserving consumer and dealer choice in vehicle availability — preventing regulations that effectively force particular powertrains — and giving EPA the regulatory flexibility to design standards that achieve rapid emissions reductions and protect public health. Tightening statutory limits on agency tools protects market access for certain engine types but can undermine the agency’s ability to pursue technology‑specific strategies that may be the most direct route to aggressive emissions cuts.
The bill raises several hard implementation questions that are left unresolved in the text. First, the phrase “mandate the use of any specific technology” is broad but undefined.
EPA and courts will have to decide where the line falls between permissible performance‑based standards that have predictable technology consequences and impermissible rules that constitute a technology mandate. For example, a fleet‑average zero‑emission target could be characterized as a de facto technology mandate depending on how courts interpret the statutory bar.
Second, “result in limited availability of new motor vehicles based on the type of new motor vehicle engine” requires a metric. Does limited availability mean fewer models, lower dealer inventory, geographic gaps, or an absence of particular engine types at any price point?
Proving causation — that a federal regulation caused limited availability rather than market forces or manufacturer strategy — will be fact‑intensive and likely litigated. The bill’s retroactive sweep (covering regulations prescribed after Jan 1, 2021) creates additional ambiguity for actions that agencies or regulated parties already relied upon in planning.
Finally, the 24‑month deadline forces EPA into a compressed rule‑writing cycle, increasing the likelihood of litigation over procedural adequacy and substantive compliance. The provision does not address interaction with other federal statutes or state programs (including waiver pathways under the Clean Air Act), which means legal conflicts are probable and the actual emissions consequences will depend heavily on judicial resolution and agency interpretive choices.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.