2022年汽车行业面临的主要法律问题

目录

• 未雨绸缪：2022年应对原材料短缺、劳动力问题及运费上涨与运输延误的策略 
• 跨国汽车企业必备合规更新
• 美国国家公路交通安全管理局与机动车安全——2022年进展
• 2022年反垄断展望——拜登政府下的重大变革
• 近岸外包趋势及选择墨西哥时的重要考量
• 2022年汽车行业雇主面临的关键雇佣问题
• 原始设备制造商扩大供应商对常规保修索赔的责任
• 可能的转机：有针对性的收购
• 面对2022年立法停滞，为自动驾驶车辆法规与执法做好准备
• 电动汽车展望：市场、并购、供应链与监管趋势
• 推动可持续发展：汽车制造商将目光投向电动汽车之外
• 遏制网络安全威胁：降低网络安全风险的实用策略

未雨绸缪：2022年应对原材料短缺、劳动力问题及运费上涨与运输延误的策略 

一、引言

2022年，汽车供应商不仅面临着2021年困扰整个行业的诸多问题，还需应对一系列全新挑战。遗憾的是，如同疫情前生活的许多方面一样，汽车行业多年来享有的全球供应链相对稳定状态，短期内恐难恢复。供应商必须保持敏捷，适应这些新旧交织的挑战。

本文重点阐述了供应商未来需关注的若干关键领域，包括在定价、仓储/库存管理及运费管控方面寻求更大的灵活性与风险分担机制。除其他策略外，供应商应考虑更新诸多传统运营与合同实践，以在充满不确定性的环境中提升业务弹性。尽管行业格局变化带来挑战，同时也孕育着增长机遇。适应能力最强的供应商，将成为未来最具发展潜力的企业。

II. 2022年伊始的汽车供应链现状

对众多汽车供应商而言，2021年是短缺、成本攀升及其他前所未有的供应链挑战交织的一年。2020年的封锁措施迅速引发多种原材料和零部件短缺，因供应难以满足激增的需求。尽管全球半导体短缺问题最受关注，但许多供应商在获取钢铁、树脂和泡沫等其他材料时同样面临困难。 遵循供需规律，这些短缺迅速转化为供应商成本的急剧攀升——大幅涨价超出了供应商报价的预期，且在多数情况下未被明确纳入供应合同条款。

除材料采购困难外，汽车供应商还面临着重大的运营和物流障碍。供应商在获取充足劳动力以维持工厂满负荷运转方面遭遇并持续面临困难。供应商还不得不应对诸多物流挑战，包括港口延误、苏伊士运河堵塞、集装箱短缺、卡车司机稀缺以及运输成本激增等问题。 亚洲至美国的集装箱运输成本飙升，较一年前涨幅超过500%。^¹供应商同时面临劳动力成本激增。在多重严峻挑战的压力下，汽车供应链再度掀起新一轮不可抗力声明与商业不可行通知的浪潮。  与2020年汽车行业集体停产的情况不同，此类声明往往引发重大争议——各方就成本责任展开激烈争执，同时竭力维持运营。

加剧这些困难的是，许多供应商在管理供应链时，还因原始设备制造商客户的行为而面临更多复杂情况。面对短缺，许多原始设备制造商采取的应对措施是将订单量提升至远超原始EDI预测的不切实际水平，导致供应商不得不猜测最终所需的"真实"数量。原始设备制造商还对半导体（及其他投入品）短缺作出反应，采取了不可预测的滚动式停产措施。 许多供应商曾经历这样的困境：为满足特定批量订单需求，他们投入大量资源（包括可能加快发货速度），却在最后关头遭遇OEM客户取消或缩减订单。这些问题往往导致供应商囤积大量库存和材料，却无法获得客户付款来维持现金流，进而无法支付其下级供应商的费用。 停产进一步加剧了持续的劳动力问题。供应商被迫让员工休无薪假时，无法确定生产重启后会有多少员工回归岗位。

遗憾的是，2022年对汽车供应商而言预计将是又一个艰难之年。尽管存在逐步改善的迹象，但许多分析师预测，半导体短缺及其他供应链中断问题至少将持续至2023年^。2此类中断和短缺可能继续推高成本。此外，新冠病毒奥密克戎变异株（及潜在其他变异株）的全面影响尚不明确。 尽管美国似乎无意重启封锁措施，但其他许多国家仍可能实施封锁。特别是中国始终严格执行"清零"策略，近期已在多个城市重新实施封锁。若中国或其他重要制造业基地出现更广泛的疫情爆发，汽车行业恐将面临进一步重大中断的风险。

三、应对全球供应链变化局势的策略

过去两年间，众多汽车供应商始终处于某种危机管理模式，静待行业回归"常态"。然而如今已日益明晰（即便此前尚未完全显现）：疫情前的行业状态短期内难以复现。在可预见的未来，新冠疫情将以不同形式持续存在。 过去十年间全球普遍存在的低通胀时代似乎已然终结。基于这些因素及其他多重原因，企业很可能面临全球供应链更加动荡不安的时期。那么企业如何才能摆脱危机管理模式，调整经营策略以在新环境中生存乃至发展？本文提出供应商应从合同签订到运营实施阶段重点考虑的三项关键策略。

1. 重点关注触发价格救济的定价条款与参数。多年来，汽车行业的标准模式是签订长期固定价格合同（或在某些情况下要求供应商提供年度降价）。此类合同往往将供应商锁定在不确定的"零件寿命期"或"项目周期"内，使其在漫长的服务期内长期受制于整车厂客户的决策。除特定原材料密集型零部件合同外，允许供应商申请涨价的条款实属罕见。 经历过原材料价格反复暴涨暴跌的供应商与OEM厂商都意识到，此类零部件的长期固定价格合同往往难以维系，因此开始采用指数化或其他灵活定价机制。在当前通胀与价格剧烈波动的环境下，供应商（及OEM厂商）正重新审视传统零部件合同结构。 长期固定价格甚至递减价格的合同可能不再适用。正如过去对原材料密集型部件的做法，供应商应着力（而明智的OEM厂商将配合）在合同中引入更高的定价灵活性以应对成本波动，具体可通过设定指数化机制、定期重新谈判与市场测试机会，或其他创新方式实现。

2. 仓储与库存银行。数十年来，汽车行业的传统模式一直是精益、准时制（JIT）库存管理，供应商和整车制造商都只维持最低限度的库存。这是一种极其高效的模式——只要一切运转顺畅且准时。 然而过去两年间，疫情与供应链危机已将系统真相彻底暴露：当所有冗余被彻底削减后，便再无缓冲余地。供应商与整车厂如今必须权衡精益库存的潜在收益，与当前远不如两年前稳定可预测的供应链所带来的风险。 许多企业因加急运输、加班费、停工损失等支出蒙受巨额成本，这些损失远超维持精益库存所实现的节约与效率。因此，整车制造商和供应商正积极寻求风险对冲方案。 除考虑回流生产和缩短供应链（这些主要是长期策略，短期缓解作用有限）外，许多企业正重新审视库存模式，着手建立仓储体系和扩大库存储备，以此抵御短缺和中断风险。虽然这种方法可能行之有效，但也会带来额外成本。 供应商在实施此类策略时（无论主动或应客户要求），必须审慎评估成本分摊与核算机制，确保相关费用得到合理分配与核算。
3. 货运风险转移。 过去两年间，对众多供应商而言，货运 成本的重要性已远超以往——这既源于对加急运输需求的激增，也因普通运输成本（及延误）的急剧攀升。传统上，整车制造商将大部分运输成本（包括加急运输费用——即便在不可抗力及商业不可行情况下）以及从次级供应商处运输零部件的成本，均视为供应商应承担的责任。 然而，众多供应商正质疑这种模式并积极抗争。大量供应商因运输成本激增陷入困境，尤其依赖亚洲采购零部件的企业。正如前文关于定价与成本的讨论，供应商应寻求与客户分担部分成本压力及风险的途径。 许多供应商还面临频繁（某些时期近乎持续）使用加急运输以弥补供应链延误的困境。正如多数供应商所知，加急运输成本可能迅速飙升至惊人水平，甚至可能吞噬供应商全年乃至更长时间的项目利润空间。 近年来，供应商与整车制造商将加急运输成本视为零和博弈：整车制造商要求供应商全额承担加急订单费用，而供应商往往抗拒支付（即便合同或法律另有规定）。 鉴于供应链挑战短期内难以缓解，企业应探索新型合作模式：当加急运输成本源于双方均无法控制的因素时，供应商与OEM厂商应共同分担部分风险。

四、困境供应商的应对策略与增长机遇

虽然许多供应商必然会开辟新的发展道路，但另一些供应商将面临客户提出的支持要求，包括提价、加快应收账款回收，甚至要求签订退出协议并寻找新的供应来源。这对众多供应商而言可能带来额外成本，但同时也为那些寻求业务增长的其他供应商创造了潜在的收购机会。

1. 对财务或运营陷入困境的供应商提供支持。 在许多情况下，供应商试图将增加的成本转嫁给客户，而终端客户OEM厂商往往不愿承担这些额外成本。当客户向次级供应商提供财务或其他支持时，以下条款有助于保护双方权益，确保零部件能够持续在供应链中流通：
   1. 供应商承诺继续为客户生产零件；
   2. 如适用，贷款方承诺继续向供应商提供贷款，以确保其持续运营并为客户生产零部件；
   3. 客户承诺继续付款、限制其抵销权及/或建立新的付款条款；
   4. 建立里程碑以评估供应商的绩效；
   5. 识别并确认工具的所有权；
   6. 在适用情况下，应保障客户有权进入供应商的设施；
   7. 包含条款以确保协议在破产申请情况下具有“抗偏好性”。
2. 收购机遇。随着 部分汽车供应商面临财务或运营困境，投资者（包括某些汽车供应商）正积极寻求以低于疫情前的估值收购具有发展潜力的企业——这些企业可能正面临短期财务与运营挑战。尽管此类交易看似难觅，但精明的投资者若考虑通过庭外途径收购陷入困境的企业，将获得显著优势。 欲了解引导投资者达成成功交易的基本考量因素，请参阅第30页文章《潜在转机：精准收购——供应链财务与运营困境孕育增长机遇》。

¹ https://www.reuters.com/business/china-us-container-shipping-rates-sail-past-20000-record-2021-08-05/

²https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/fuel-for-thought-auto-demand-levels-remain-depressed-on-chip-famine.html

返回目录

跨国汽车企业必备合规更新

白宫近期举措及司法部官员（包括总统本人）的讲话，均强调拜登政府高度重视国际法规的执行力度，例如《反海外腐败法》（FCPA）、出口管制以及美国财政部监督的经济制裁。尽管在特朗普政府时期这些国际法规已创下罚款纪录，但数十亿美元的处罚金额主要集中于少数几起高调执法行动。 但所有迹象表明，新政府将更广泛、更深入地执行国际法规，所有在海外运营、采购或销售的跨国汽车公司都应注意，必须加强这些领域的合规措施。

2021年6月，拜登总统在一次演讲中打响了反腐战役的第一枪。总统将反腐败斗争定位为美国的核心国家安全利益，并指示其团队制定总统战略以支持这项举措^。1通过明确将腐败与美国国家安全利益挂钩，总统将反腐斗争的理由和重要性从为守法企业创造公平竞争环境，提升至国家安全要务的高度。

根据该指令，白宫于12月发布了题为《美国反腐败战略》的后续报告。²该战略聚焦于五大支柱：

• 现代化、协调和资源化美国政府打击腐败的努力；
• 遏制非法金融活动；
• 追究腐败行为者的责任；
• 维护和加强多边反腐败机制；以及
• 加强外交接触，并利用外国援助资源推进政策目标。

政府已着手落实这些目标。 在《全球调查评论》纽约会议的主旨演讲中，司法部首席副部长约翰·卡林列举了政府如何采取行动并增加资源打击腐败的具体实例。³联邦调查局将首次设立专门服务于司法部刑事欺诈科的特别小组，重点调查《反海外腐败法》违规行为、商品与证券欺诈、加密货币及金融机构欺诈以及医疗保健欺诈。 卡林副部长进一步表示，政府将扩大运用"大数据"技术识别和起诉案件的现有实践。

对跨国公司及出口美国原产商品的企业而言，卡林助理部长还强调政府将重点加强经济制裁和出口管制执法力度。他特别指出，司法部已扩大对出口管制违规行为的认定范围，现将知识产权转让与" 人类知识"均纳入监管范畴。 这种对受控技术数据的扩展性定义，标志着构成"推定出口"违规的技术信息范围正发生微妙而重大的变化。鉴于制裁与出口管制同属保护国家安全和美国技术的手段，卡林助理部长演讲体现了拜登总统将国际法规执行与美国国家安全利益挂钩的政策方针。

基于此，2021年10月28日，副司法部长丽莎·摩纳哥在美国律师协会白领犯罪会议上发表了主题演讲。^⁴在演讲中，摩纳哥副部长着重强调了跨国汽车企业最关切的四个核心要点。

跨国汽车企业面临的关键问题

• 司法部转向对企业整个刑事、民事及监管历史的整体审查。 副司法部长摩纳哥的演讲指出，司法部在审查企业违规与合规历史时已出现政策转向，强调司法部在作出指控、处罚及其他决定时将考量所有既往不当行为（而非仅限于"类似"过往不当行为）。 这一变化对跨国汽车企业具有特殊意义，因为它为考虑多法域指控打开了大门，甚至可能包括其他国家的指控。对于在海外高风险环境（如中国、巴西或墨西哥）运营，或经常涉及多法域事务（如出口管制和经济制裁领域）的汽车企业而言，此项政策转变尤为重要。
• 司法部持续强调明确具体人员参与的重要性。代理司法部长莫纳科同时强调，企业在识别任何执法行动中涉及的人员时，必须做到明确且详尽。 具体而言，莫纳哥副部长强调企业在配合政府调查时，必须如实披露所有涉案人员信息，无论其参与程度深浅。他还指出司法部正恢复既往指导原则：企业若想获得任何合作减刑，必须全面提供涉案人员的所有非保密信息，无论其涉案程度如何。
• 司法部不会对设立企业监督机制持偏见态度。副部长摩纳哥解释称，近年来曾有指导意见表明企业监督机制应属例外而非常规。她声明司法部已撤销该指导意见，并明确表示司法部有权在认为必要时要求设立独立的企业监督机制。
• 美国司法部要求企业主动审查合规计划，以监控并纠正不当行为。莫纳科助理司法部长演讲中最具价值的部分，或许是她关于合规政策的指导意见，以及这些政策为何成为起诉及其他执法决策的关键考量因素。 尽管司法部多项新政策（或重新实施的政策）侧重于企业或个人的既往不当行为，合规计划既是预防和遏制不当行为的根本手段，也是向执法机构表明企业始终高度重视国际法规合规性的重要途径。 对于在多大陆高风险环境中运营的汽车企业而言，当前对强化合规的全新强调，正是促使企业开展新风险评估并审视现有合规措施有效性的契机。

美国司法部关于合规计划重要性的指导意见，对在海外运营、采购或销售的汽车企业尤为关键。 对于这些企业而言，重新评估其出口管制、经济制裁及出口合规政策，以及相关内部控制措施（如美国财政部外国资产控制办公室（OFAC）筛查协议和出口管制技术控制计划），是合规资源的明智投入。企业应针对每项措施评估现有合规计划，确认其合规手段与内部控制是否与风险状况相匹配。评估时尤其需考量计划是否充分覆盖企业风险模型中的以下关键要素：

企业评估合规计划的关键考量因素

• 贵公司的相关合规计划是否涵盖了所有可能使组织面临违规风险的情形？该计划是否基于切合实际的风险评估，且该评估既及时更新又符合公司当前状况及现行业务与监管风险特征？
• 贵公司的出口管制、经济制裁及《反海外腐败法》合规计划是否涵盖所有在海外运营、采购或销售的业务环节？
• 贵公司的出口管制、经济制裁及《反海外腐败法》合规计划是否充分反映了企业海外业务的性质？这包括直接运营业务，以及可能产生第三方责任的业务，例如通过代理商、顾问或分销商进行的销售活动。
• 每个合规计划是否包含充分的内部控制措施以强化合规程序？例如涉及礼品、餐饮、娱乐及差旅的内部控制（《反海外腐败法》/反腐败）， 对特别指定或被封锁人员的筛查（OFAC/经济制裁）、暂停、扣留及放行程序（OFAC/经济制裁与出口管制），以及实物安保/证件管理与技术控制计划（适用于涉及出口管制货物或技术数据的企业）？
• 相关合规措施是否与同行业及公司在运营所在国采用的道德准则和合规政策具有可比性？
• 贵公司是否已进行出口管制分类审查，以确定是否正确识别了所有受管制货物和技术数据？
• 贵公司是否已准确识别所有合规相关方，并确认他们已接受针对其工作相关的高风险国际法规及合规措施的定制化培训？培训及合规材料是否可供获取，并已翻译成当地语言？
• 贵公司是否为员工提供了充足的资源、途径和支持，使其能够在无需担心报复的情况下举报可疑或不当行为？如果是，这些措施在美国和海外是否都已落实？
• 贵公司是否定期测试其合规流程和程序，以确保这些流程和程序在运营层面得到正确执行，并能根据公司的实际业务实践有效应对风险？

若贵机构过去三年未曾开展国际监管风险评估或审查合规措施，拜登政府近期发布的公告与举措恰是及时提醒——这些合规举措早已刻不容缓。 鉴于跨国汽车企业常在中国、墨西哥等高风险国家开展业务或采购，汽车公司尤其需要重新审视合规措施，确保既能满足监管机构的期望，又能充分保护企业利益——这要求企业严格遵守规范国际行为与出口的复杂法规。

¹ 参见 《关于将反腐败确立为美国核心国家安全利益的备忘录 》（2021年6月3日） （可访问：https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/03/memorandum-on-establishing-the-fight-against-corruption-as-a-core-united-states-national-security-interest/）。

²参见《美国反腐败战略 》（2021年12月6日）（可访问：https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/06/fact-sheet-u-s-strategy-on-countering-corruption/。）

3 参见约翰·卡林关于加强司法部企业 执法力度的演讲（2021年10月5日发表）（可访问：https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/news-and-features/in-house/2020/article/john-carlin-stepping-doj-corporate-enforcement）。

⁴参见副 司法部长丽莎·O·摩纳哥在美国律师协会第36届全国白领犯罪研讨会上的主旨演讲（2021年10月28日）（可访问：https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-o-monaco-gives-keynote-address-abas-36th-national-institute。）

返回目录

美国国家公路交通安全管理局与机动车安全——2022年进展

美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA或该机构）作为国家车辆安全的主要监管机构，在拜登政府执法理念与优先事项于过去一年日趋明晰的背景下，预计将在2022年展现更积极的监管姿态。 该机构通过定期与制造商自愿会晤，既能深入了解新兴技术，又能在启动正式调查前预先识别制造商产品可能存在的现场问题。除更广泛地行使执法权外，NHTSA还积极运用信息收集工具来确定监管重点。 值得注意的是，该机构在当前（2021年秋季）美国交通部《统一监管议程》中列出了完整的法规制定计划。而近期通过的《基础设施投资与就业法案》（2021年基础设施法案）中包含的多项立法要求，将使这一全面监管议程进一步扩展。

美国国家公路交通安全管理局在拜登政府时期采取的执法方式。

过去一年间，美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）在运用信息收集权限及非正式信息请求方面采取了更为积极的措施，以识别和评估与车辆安全相关的问题。这种更积极的举措体现在该机构的多项行动中，包括扩大常设一般指令的使用范围、与制造商举行非正式会议，以及向同行制造商和供应商发出信息请求以支持正在进行的调查。

2015年，作为安全气囊充气装置调查的一部分，美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）发布了常设总令以监测现场事件。2021年，NHTSA通过常设总令（SGO）2021-01将常设总令的适用范围扩展至涉及自动驾驶系统（ADS）和二级高级驾驶辅助系统（ADAS）的现场事件监测。 与以往常设通用指令相同，SGO 2021-01要求制造商持续提交现场事故的详细信息。但不同之处在于，NHTSA此次并非在现有调查基础上启动该指令，且将指令范围扩展至车辆运营商（非制造商）。 此外，报告要求特别强调需详细记录涉及"弱势道路使用者"的碰撞事故，该群体包括行人、轮椅使用者、自行车骑行者、摩托车骑行者，以及非机动车辆（如全地形车、拖拉机等）的驾驶员或乘员。

该指令已下达给100多家制造商和运营商，要求他们在收到涉及自动驾驶系统（ADS）或二级高级驾驶辅助系统（ADAS）车辆的特定事故通知时提交报告，这些事故必须发生在美国公共道路上。 美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）进一步要求，若某实体当月未向该机构报告任何事故，则需提交"零事故报告"。为彰显拜登政府对这一强硬措施的支持，该机构依据《文书工作减少法》，向隶属于管理和预算办公室的信息与监管事务办公室申请并获得了"紧急"许可，以实施此项信息收集工作。

该机构还持续要求与汽车制造商及部分一级供应商举行定期非正式会议。在这些会议中，美国国家公路交通安全管理局缺陷调查办公室的工作人员会讨论车辆所有者问卷——即直接提交至该机构的投诉——以及制造商安全部门正在审查的问题。

另一趋势是美国国家公路交通安全管理局在正式缺陷调查中日益频繁地采用向同行制造商和供应商征询信息的手段，尤其是在涉及新兴技术的调查中。

近年来，美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）已将其用于审核制造商提交召回相关文件的诸多工具实现自动化。该机构持续运用这些自动化审核系统，核查召回文件的完整性，并在发现信息缺失或逾期未提交时向制造商发出警示。目前该机构已开始在其召回确认函中加入警示条款，提示可能存在的缺失信息。

在民事处罚方面，美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）于2021年与某汽车制造商协商达成重大处罚协议，并对多家注册进口商实施了处罚。 2021年8月，该机构宣布已与比亚乔达成和解协议，针对其涉嫌延迟召回、季度召回报告及未按《联邦法规》第49卷第579.5条提交制造商通告的行为，共计处以75万美元罚款。此类违规行为反映出NHTSA正加强对制造商所有申报材料时效性的审查力度。

该机构还对五家注册进口商因进口和认证违规行为处以处罚。 其中三家注册进口商因违反灰色市场车辆进口相关法规，其注册资格被暂停。另一家注册进口商同意支付50万美元民事罚款，注册资格暂停125天。美国国家公路交通安全管理局暂缓执行30万美元罚款；若该进口商再次违规，剩余罚款将立即生效并吊销其注册资格。 第五家注册进口商签署同意令，接受3万美元民事罚款及150天注册暂停处罚。NHTSA将其中2万美元罚款暂缓执行一年，若该进口商在此期间不再违规，将予以免除。

美国国家公路交通安全管理局已制定完整的2022年法规制定计划。

正如预期，拜登政府对环境问题的重视促使美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）启动修订企业平均燃油经济性标准的程序。此外，NHTSA在2021年底正式通过了全面废除《安全经济型燃油效率车辆规则第一部分：国家统一计划》的提案——该提案于2019年9月27日发布，其中NHTSA对法规文本进行了编纂，并就燃油经济性标准相关州及地方法律的优先适用问题作出补充声明。此次废除标志着NHTSA在2021年政策行动的终结。 全国统一计划"的提案。该提案于2019年9月27日发布，其中NHTSA不仅规范了监管文本，还就燃油经济性标准相关州及地方法律的优先适用权作出补充声明。此次废除标志着与前任政府的重大政策分歧。

2021年12月29日，美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）发布最终规则，确立了FMVSS 227《客车翻滚结构完整性》安全标准。该新规适用于"长途客车"及总质量额定值（GVWR）超过26,000磅的客车。 该最终规则履行了2012年《^21世纪进步推进法案》（MAP-21）的国会授权。这项迟来的最终规则可能表明，该机构将优先完成MAP-21法案及2015年《修复美国地面运输法案》（FAST法案）要求的其他法规制定工作。

该机构还公开宣布了一项雄心勃勃的法规制定计划。2021年秋季发布的《美国交通部统一监管议程》列出了国家公路交通安全管理局即将出台的法规清单，包括：

• 拟议规则制定预先通知（ANPRM），旨在征求公众对现代化《联邦机动车安全标准》第108条（车灯、反光装置及相关设备）的意见，以促进新型设计和新兴技术的发展。
• 一项拟议规则制定通知（ANPRM），旨在就修订《联邦机动车安全标准》第111条（FMVSS 111）中的后方视野标准征求公众意见，该修订旨在允许用摄像头替代后视镜。
• 拟议规则制定通知（NPRM），旨在修订记录保留要求以符合2015年《快速法案》的规定。
• 拟议规则制定通知书旨在修订第577部分《缺陷与违规通知》，允许除挂号信通知外采用电子通知方式，此举符合《21世纪美国交通法案》(MAP-21)的规定。
• 一项征求公众意见的拟议规则制定通知，旨在要求强制安装自动紧急制动系统（AEB）。
• 一项拟议规则制定通知，旨在升级摩托车头盔要求。
• 一项拟议规则制定通知（NPRM），旨在将FMVSS 305标准中关于电解液泄漏的要求扩展至总额定载重（GVWR）为10,000磅及以上的车辆。
• 关于升级拖车和半挂车后部防撞装置要求的最终规则。
• 一项最终规则，旨在解决可能需要制定的碰撞安全性法规，以促进未配备驾驶员控制装置的新型车辆设计获得认证。

尽管其中若干事项此前曾被推迟，但这份新近公布的监管议程中多数目标日期仍定于2022年。值得注意的是，近期通过的《2021年基础设施投资与就业法案》（基础设施法案）体现了国会加速完成长期延误的规则制定的意图，这些意图仍持续体现在该机构的监管议程中。

《2021年基础设施投资与就业法案》包含旨在保障机动车安全的条款。

2021年11月15日，拜登总统签署《基础设施法案》使其正式生效。该法案多项条款要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）制定新规，体现了国会希望主动影响NHTSA执法与监管重点的意图。 最重要的是，《基础设施法案》通过公路信托基金为该机构提供了新资金——该基金目前资助着NHTSA的部分活动。法案还为各州提供补助资金，用于现代化其数据收集系统，以实现碰撞数据向NHTSA的完全电子传输，并指示NHTSA升级其系统以支持各州现代化数据收集系统的努力。 通过这些拨款收集的数据构成NHTSA的致命事故报告系统和事故调查抽样系统。作为拨款的一部分，国会要求NHTSA修订其收集的事故数据要素，以区分"个人代步工具（如电动滑板车和自行车）与事故中其他车辆"，并收集"与弱势道路使用者安全相关的"数据要素。 《基础设施法案》第24108(a)、(c)条。对弱势道路使用者的关注呼应了NHTSA在《2021-01号常设总令》中的要求——该令要求制造商报告涉及自动驾驶技术与弱势道路使用者的事故。同样，《基础设施法案》额外拨款用于扩展NHTSA的碰撞调查抽样系统，以收集"所有碰撞类型"的数据，并增设现场调查规程。

除提供用于确定公共道路致命事故数量的数据外，数据字段还要求报告实体提供与所报告碰撞事故相关的特定属性信息，例如安全气囊是否弹出。制造商应密切关注这一现代化进程，因为该机构过去十年间持续开发了更多数据分析工具。 这些工具作为关系型数据库的组成部分，将美国国家公路交通安全管理局接收的各类数据流（如车辆识别码解码信息、早期预警报告、信息请求及常规指令响应、召回数据等）进行整合。该机构计划运用分析技术识别并评估可能被忽略的缺陷趋势。此外，《基础设施法案》的部分条款或将推动更多此类数据向公众开放。

2021年《基础设施法案》还包含以下针对美国国家公路交通安全管理局的具体指令：

• § 24111摩托车咨询委员会要求美国交通部设立摩托车咨询委员会，以评估摩托车安全、防护设施与道路设计，并研究智能交通系统的潜在实施方案。
• § 24202《召回完成报告》将《联邦法规汇编》第49卷第573.7条规定的季度召回完成报告周期，从连续六个季度延长至连续八个季度，并要求制造商提交年度报告，内容涵盖"自最后一份季度报告所涉季度完成之日起开始的三年期内各年度"。
• § 24204《座椅靠背安全标准》要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）在两年内发布拟议规则制定的预先通知，以更新《联邦机动车安全标准》第207条（座椅系统）。
• § 24205，自动熄火系统，要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）在两年内颁布最终法规，规定配备无钥匙点火系统的特定车辆必须安装自动熄火装置，以防止一氧化碳中毒。
• § 24208《碰撞预防技术》要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局颁布碰撞预防安全标准，规定所有乘用车必须配备前方碰撞预警、自动紧急制动（AEB）、车道偏离预警及车道保持辅助系统。国会未对这些要求设定具体截止期限。
• § 24209条《减少驾驶员分心》要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）就驾驶员监测系统的安装与使用开展研究并向国会提交报告，以期"最大限度减少或消除"驾驶员分心、驾驶员注意力脱离、驾驶员"自动化自满"以及可预见的ADAS技术滥用问题。 国会并未强制要求NHTSA必须制定法规。若NHTSA根据报告认定法规制定"对保障安全确有必要"，则须在向国会提交报告后两年内颁布相关法规。
• § 24210《规则制定报告》要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）须在180天内向国会提交多项规则制定报告，涵盖先前立法（包括《MAP-21法案》和《FAST法案》）要求的规则制定事项，以及《基础设施法案》要求的任何规则制定工作。
• § 24212《前照灯》要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）在两年内完成自适应驾驶光束规则的最终制定。
• § 24213《新车评估计划》要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）须在一年内完成该机构2015年拟议规则制定通知（NPRM）的最终定稿，该通知旨在为消费者提供多项碰撞预防技术的相关信息。
• § 24214,引擎盖与保险杠标准，要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局就引擎盖与保险杠标准的潜在更新发布征求公众意见的通知，该更新需考虑：(1) 先进碰撞避免技术；(2) 可"减少行人、骑行者及其他弱势道路使用者伤亡数量"的技术；(3) 与联合国欧洲经济委员会第24号法规（UNECE R24）的潜在协调性。 （UNECE R24）的协调可能性。
• § 24216《早期预警报告（EWR）》修订了早期预警报告要求，规定制造商应遵守任何早期预警报告要求，不受民事诉讼中限制信息披露的任何命令约束。
• § 24217《改进车辆安全数据库》要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）提升公众获取该机构所获公开信息的便利性。 国会特别指示NHTSA确保该机构以"及时"且"可通过数据库按交通部长[授权NHTSA]认定符合公共利益的任何要素进行检索"的方式，公开与该机构创建或获取的信息相关的非保密文件及材料。
• § 24220《先进酒驾防控技术》要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）在两年内颁布最终法规，强制要求新乘用车配备"先进酒驾及受药物影响驾驶防控技术"。
• § 24222《儿童安全》要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）在两年内颁布最终法规，规定所有总重额定值（GVWR）低于10,000磅的车辆在熄火后必须配备后排座椅提醒装置。

尽管国会多项指令要求美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）颁布或最终确定现有拟议规则，但新增的两份季度报告和三份年度报告（涵盖召回完成率）以及电子召回系统（EWR）法定条款的修订要求已正式生效，无需NHTSA进一步制定规则。

美国国家公路交通安全管理局（NHTSA）强有力的执法计划和广泛的监管议程，必将在2022年给汽车行业带来挑战。为降低执法风险，制造商必须确保其内部安全评估和报告程序保持最新状态，并确保关键人员经过适当培训，能够识别并上报潜在安全缺陷及其他需报告事件。这些程序还应包含确认所有文件及时完整提交的流程，并确保报告的修订或更新能及时提交。 制造商还应建立监管动态监测机制，并在适当时通过提交意见书及/或与行业协会协作参与规则制定流程，确保该机构的法规制定 充分反映所有利益相关方的意见。

返回目录

2022年反垄断展望——拜登政府下的重大变革

拜登政府正积极推进反垄断执法。本文指出若干值得关注的问题。

2021年7月9日，拜登总统签署了题为《促进美国经济竞争》的行政命令。该命令虽面向多个联邦机构和部门，但特别要求司法部反垄断司（DOJ）和联邦贸易委员会（FTC）两大联邦反垄断机构"积极"执行反垄断法。 尽管美国反垄断执法历来以延续性而非突变性为特征，但当前机构政策方向的转变可能影响众多企业和行业，其中包括汽车产业。这些转变对汽车产业的演进尤为关键——当前正投入巨额资金开发制造电动汽车及相关电池技术。

2022年并购相关动态

在转型中的行业中，并购活动往往十分活跃。既有企业通过开发创新产品、建立新供应链（或对供应商进行垂直收购），以及投资或收购技术，来提升自身竞争力，以应对既有竞争对手及新进入者（通常由风险投资支持）的挑战。

反垄断机构将如何看待汽车行业的并购活动——该行业既是制造业也是技术产业——可能受到拜登政府下提出的（或已实施的）诸多反垄断政策调整的影响。这些议题包括：

• 《横向与纵向合并指南》可能的修订： 拜登总统关于促进竞争的行政命令要求联邦贸易委员会（FTC）和司法部（DOJ）"审查横向与纵向合并指南，并考虑是否修订这些指南"。随后FTC/DOJ于2021年7月9日发布的新闻稿指出，"现行指南值得深入审视，以确定其是否过于宽松"。关于监管机构可能如何修订这些指南，各界猜测纷至沓来。 评论人士提出的多项建议包括：设定市场份额上限、取消赫芬达尔-赫希曼指数（HHI）作为市场集中度衡量标准，以及采用"公共福利"标准（取代沿用已久的"消费者福利"标准）作为识别反竞争性并购的反垄断指引。 部分倡导者主张"公共福利"标准应涵盖劳工权益、环境问题、种族影响及财富不平等等广泛议题。 据报道，联邦贸易委员会在并购审查中要求提供工会化、股权、特许经营以及环境、社会和治理等议题的信息，这些内容看似与传统反垄断考量及《克莱顿法案》第7条规定的"实质性削弱竞争"并购审查标准无关。

  合并审查中可认知问题的此类扩展，可能大幅改变监管机构合并执法行动的可预测性。此类修订若得以实施——甚至仅由反垄断机构以"执法裁量权"形式非正式应用——都可能标志着合并执法的转变，进而影响战略规划、商业信心及企业估值。

• 联邦贸易委员会撤销《垂直合并指南》：2021年9月，联邦贸易委员会单方面投票决定撤销其对《垂直合并指南》的批准，该指南由联邦贸易委员会与司法部于2020年6月联合通过。（截至目前，司法部尚未撤销对该指南的批准。） 因此，该机构执法指南对企业及反垄断律师的实用性存疑，至少在等待FTC审查的交易中如此。
• 联邦贸易委员会对《哈特-斯科特-罗迪诺反垄断改进法案》规则的"非正式解释"正接受审查。数十年来，联邦贸易委员会并购前申报办公室（PNO）持续为反垄断律师群体提供非正式指导，协助解读并执行1976年《哈特-斯科特-罗迪诺反垄断改进法案》（HSR）及其配套法规中的并购申报规则。 然而在2021年8月26日的博客文章中，FTC竞争局表示担忧这些"非正式解释可能无法反映现代市场现实或委员会的政策立场"。尽管HSR非正式指导仍可获取，但该文章指出FTC"正着手审查大量非正式解释记录，以确定最佳前进路径"。
• 联邦贸易委员会（FTC）"警告信"：FTC于2021年8月宣布，可能向其调查中的交易各方发送信函，声明尽管《哈特-斯科特-罗迪诺反托拉斯修正案》（HSR）规定的等待期即将届满，但FTC调查仍在进行中，若各方选择完成交易，则"需自行承担风险"。 此类警告函在FTC后续对已完成交易提出质疑时的法律效力尚未经实践检验。但至少，此类函件可能延迟交易交割，并将交易审查时限延长至《反垄断法》规定的法定等待期之外，从而为交易增添不确定性。
• 关于"技术"收购的反垄断担忧：拜登总统关于促进竞争的行政命令指出，"主导性科技企业"通过"杀手式收购"——包括收购"新兴竞争对手"——"破坏竞争并削弱创新"。 尽管主要针对"科技巨头"平台的技术收购行为，但此类担忧同样适用于其他行业。随着汽车产业向新型动力与传动系统转型，汽车行业的技术收购活动可能面临更严格的监管审查。

2022年新增进展

拜登政府时期实施的变革不仅限于并购领域，还包括以下方面：

• 反垄断对"劳动力市场"的关注：汽车行业属于劳动密集型产业，拜登政府已明确表示"劳动力市场"是反垄断监管的重点关注领域。联邦贸易委员会（FTC）与司法部（DOJ）近期举办多场研讨会，探讨影响劳动力市场竞争及工人福利的相关议题。 讨论议题包括：劳动力买方垄断；劳动协议中限制性条款的使用（含竞业禁止与保密协议）；竞争雇主间的信息共享与基准化活动；反垄断法与"零工经济"中集体谈判实践的关系。 员工竞业禁止条款是研讨会重点关注领域。司法部（甚至在拜登政府上台前）就曾针对签订员工"不挖角"协议的企业采取行动，有时甚至以刑事反垄断违法为由进行追究。汽车行业企业需密切关注拜登政府劳工政策动向，包括可能运用反垄断法推动政策变革的举措。
• 反垄断机构关注供应链中断问题：汽车行业供应链结构复杂。 2021年11月29日，美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）投票决定开展一项研究，以评估过去一年供应链中断是否及如何影响了市场竞争。该研究将着力解答两个制造商可能关注的核心问题：（一）中断现象的成因；（二）这些中断是否导致了特定的"瓶颈、短缺、反竞争行为或推高消费者价格"。 根据FTC公告，将向美国九家大型零售商、批发商及消费品供应商发出详细信息调取令。不过FTC完全可能扩大调查范围，纳入供应链中的制造商或其他行业企业。
• 联邦贸易委员会反垄断调查授权：2021年7月和9月，联邦贸易委员会通过约15项决议，授权其在广泛的反垄断议题上实施强制调查程序，涵盖拟议及已完成的并购、涉嫌垄断行为以及涉嫌滥用知识产权等领域。 根据这些决议，单个联邦贸易委员会专员即可授权该机构律师发出强制程序文件（如民事调查要求和传票）。此前，此类授权几乎仅适用于消费者保护调查，而非反垄断调查。

随着联邦贸易委员会对反垄断调查的全面监督权被撤销，根据菲利普斯和威尔逊两位委员在2021年9月14日发表的反对声明，此举可能导致"问责机制削弱，为失误、越权、成本超支乃至政治动机的决策留出更多空间"。 尽管FTC启动反垄断调查的门槛降低是否及如何影响汽车行业参与者尚不明确，但这一变化值得关注。鉴于FTC和司法部均有权审查并质疑已完成的交易——包括已申报并获得HSR许可的交易——此类决议可能导致对已完成交易的调查数量增加。

卡特尔行为带来的持续风险

上述发展主要由拜登政府推动，但卡特尔行为这一反垄断风险却超越了政府更迭与党派之争。我们不能忘记司法部对汽车零部件供应商的长期调查——这是反垄断司有史以来规模最大的刑事调查之一，最终对约48家公司提起指控，并处以近30亿美元的刑事罚款。据悉，集体诉讼及其他私人原告索赔的和解金额超过10亿美元。

尽管司法部反垄断司长期以来在卡特尔案件中同时追究企业和个人的刑事责任，但拜登政府的副司法部长丽莎·摩纳哥于2021年10月宣布，司法部将加强在白领犯罪起诉中对个人的指控力度。 您或许还记得2015年由时任副司法部长莎莉·耶茨发布的著名《耶茨备忘录》，该文件宣布将加大对个人的起诉力度。2021年10月的公告似乎重申并强化了这一起诉个人的重点方向。

汽车行业参与者对拜登政府启动的上述合并与非合并执法政策调整可能难以掌控。 然而，有效的反垄断合规计划能通过发现和遏制卡特尔行为带来切实回报。尽管司法部历史上在决定起诉和量刑建议时不考虑合规计划因素，但该部门于2019年7月宣布了这两项政策的调整。这些变化提升了实施有效反垄断合规计划的法律 效益。

返回目录

近岸外包趋势及选择墨西哥时的重要考量

近岸外包指将特定业务运营转移至“邻近”国家而非更远地区的做法。本文将阐述近岸外包的发展趋势，并探讨企业选择墨西哥作为外包目的地时的重要考量因素。

近岸外包的优势

对于寻求将部分业务近岸外包的企业而言，墨西哥拥有诸多显著优势。作为近岸制造的理想基地，墨西哥在运输、物流和劳动力等领域具备独特优势——这些正是众多汽车制造商在其他生产基地面临痛点的环节。墨西哥产商品享全球最大市场的优惠关税待遇，其贸易便利化计划多年来持续惠及制造企业。

无论是出于长期战略规划的推动，还是从新冠疫情中汲取的教训，供应链正受到前所未有的关注，众多企业正着手重塑其供应链体系与运营布局。 全球供应链正遵循以下原则进行转型：(i) 弹性供应链（安全、冗余、多元化）成为新标准；(ii) 优先预先认证替代供应商，而非陷入价格战；(iii) 供应商适应性将取代精益库存成为核心考量；(iv) 加强采购需求与供应商^履约能力的透明度及预防性压力^测试¹。

近岸外包的挑战

尽管供应链问题日益受到关注，制造商也面临着运营难题，但企业可能仍对彻底改造现有供应链布局犹豫不决，或未意识到采取适度近岸外包策略的长期效益。 改变供应基础极其复杂。供应链建立在经济效率之上，许多重要投入源于遥远地区，且企业往往受制于长期合同。然而，价格上涨、供应链短缺、劳工问题和运费攀升等多重压力正不断累积，促使汽车企业重新评估现有供应基础和运营模式的可行性。

考虑向墨西哥进行近岸外包的企业，将立即面临选择最合适贸易便利化方案的挑战，以实现上述原则。

尽管通常选择马基拉加工厂，但该计划实际上是^现有方案中最复杂、负担最重且风险最高的。除加工贸易计划（现为制造业、加工业和出口服务行业计划IMMEX）外，还有若干复杂程度各异的贸易便利化计划，包括：行业促进计划（PROSEC）、第八条许可、出口商进口关税退税（退税）、原产地检验（清关登记）以及综合企业认证计划 （认证企业登记）。

尽管每家公司都应审慎评估其计划在墨西哥开展的制造业务的合适模式，但在进行此类评估时，以下事项应始终作为首要考量：(i) 对供应链（更短）和运营（更近）的更大控制权，(ii) 进口关税，(iii) 总体税收，(iv) 增值税，(v) 反倾销税，以及 (vi) 强制性技术标准。

1. 更短距离、更紧密的产品投入与操作

缩短供应链可降低风险。此外，地理位置更接近的运营环节能确保更便捷的访问和监督。通过缩短运输距离、减少延误和物流问题等可能性，不仅能降低潜在问题数量，还能使制造商在出现复杂情况时更快作出反应。

2. 进口关税

临时进口货物进入墨西哥需缴纳进口关税，前提是最终产品出口至相关自由贸易协定国家，其中尤以北美自由贸易协定（USMCA）、欧盟及欧洲自由贸易^联盟（^EFTA）成员国的市场吸引力最为显著。

存在一种方式可获得退税，退税金额为进口原材料关税与最终产品关税中的较低者。

3. 总体税收

企业或投资者在向墨西哥进行近岸外包时，可受益于墨西哥与60多个国家签署的重要避免双重征税协定网络。只要正确运用这些协定，就能在利润汇回和降低墨西哥整体税务风险方面获得优势。墨西哥现行企业所得税率为30%，相较于其他国家可能显得较高。 （注：企业收益不征收地方或州所得税。）然而，持有IMMEX制造设施的企业可受益于避税港税收规则，从而实现节税效果——因该规则通常意味着墨西哥工厂需缴纳的加工费降低，而该费用在多数情况下是墨西哥业务的主要（若非唯一）收入来源。

确定墨西哥业务的法人结构至关重要。例如：(i) 有限责任公司若满足若干要求，可在美国享受税收优惠；(ii) 股份有限公司从法律角度为股东提供更大的灵活性；(iii) 分支机构的弊端在于母公司需直接承担其全部债务责任。

4. 增值税（VAT）

临时进口至墨西哥进行加工的货物需缴纳增值税，但符合资格的企业若获得增值税认证，可享受与该税款数额完全相同的财政抵免。此外，提交保证金或信用证亦可免除此项税费。

5. 反倾销税⁴

临时进口至墨西哥的商品仅在最终裁定明确将其纳入反倾销税范围时，方需缴纳反倾销税。建议务必查阅墨西哥《官方公报》。

6. 强制性技术^标准5

截至2020年底，用于生产过程的投入品进口，或进口后不会以原有形态面向公众销售的产品进口，均可凭"豁免函"在无需提供墨西哥官方标准（ NOM）合规证明的情况下入境。 自今日起，进口商必须遵守所有相关NOM标准：进口前通过经正式认证的合规评估完成认证；或进口后利用与授权核验机构的既有合同义务，在四十（40）天内完成合规流程。

尽管几乎所有出口导向型制造业都会使用至少一项上述贸易便利化计划，但仍需对每项计划进行审慎分析，以确保其适用于具体业务操作。在评估过程中，各计划与我们简述的各项要素之间的互动关系始终应发挥关键作用。

在权衡所有利弊之后，以下几点难以忽视：(一) 墨西哥享有进入USMCA区域的确定性准入；(二) 墨西哥是该区域内成本最低的选择；(三) 其交付周期和物流优势是全球其他国家难以匹敌的；(四) USMCA在贸易救济措施和美国国家安全措施方面给予墨西哥出口产品优惠待遇。

———————————————————-

¹ 参见Foley& Lardner律师事务所《全球供应链中断与未来战略调查报告》（2020年9月）。

²"maquila"与"IMMEX"这两个术语常被认为对应两种不同的计划，实则二者相同——maquila是原始名称，后被IMMEX正式取代。所有原始的maquila许可证（其中部分仍在使用）均已自动转换为IMMEX许可证。

³ 欧洲自由贸易联盟成员国包括瑞士、挪威、列支敦士登和冰岛。

⁴反倾销税是在调查认定特定不公平贸易进口产品对相关国内产业造成损害后，按国家逐一确定的。

/a>⁵NOM是墨西哥针对各类商品、产品及服务制定的官方强制性标准与法规名称，这些标准与法规可能影响或构成对消费者人身安全与健康、工作场所劳动者福祉、食品安全 、环境及其他合法政策目标的风险。

返回目录

2022年汽车行业雇主面临的关键雇佣问题

2022年汽车行业的劳资关系领域开局颇具看点。随着新冠疫情持续蔓延，雇主们仍需应对不断变化且复杂的局面，包括远程办公延续、劳动力短缺以及疫情防控措施相关的合理便利请求等挑战。然而，疫情相关事务并非今年汽车行业雇主面临的唯一关键问题。 2021年美国国家劳资关系委员会（NLRB）及其总法律顾问的变动，意味着工会与非工会雇主在传统劳资领域也将面临挑战。本节将阐述当前各类疫苗接种令的实施现状，并分析NLRB判例中可能引发的若干预期变化——这些变化很可能对汽车行业雇主产生持续影响。

一、新冠疫情、新冠疫情、新冠疫情——即便疫情看似趋缓，就业相关挑战依然存在

a. 远程员工队伍问题

在疫情起伏的浪潮中，有一项与疫情相关的变化似乎将长期存在：越来越多的员工开始远程办公。尽管部分企业正鼓励员工返岗，但也有企业放宽了远程办公政策，同时面临全职或部分远程办公带来的挑战。  雇主需谨慎考量此转变的法律影响。若雇主在未曾开展业务的州拥有远程员工，可能涉及税务及其他法律问题。  通常情况下，雇员工作所在地的法律将管辖其雇佣关系。当雇员在新州或新地区工作时，雇主需及时了解并遵守当地法律法规——这些规定可能与企业其他运营地点存在差异。当地是否设有病假法规？报销费用有何要求？审慎考量地方雇佣法规可避免代价高昂的失误。

b. 劳动力短缺之痛——招聘与留任的困境

许多雇主目前正面临严重的劳动力短缺问题，这不仅影响了招聘，也影响了员工留任。为吸引求职者并鼓励员工留任，众多雇主已提高了薪酬及其他激励措施。  签约奖金、出勤奖金及其他经济激励措施可成为有效的人才招募与留任手段。实施过程中，雇主需充分了解各类工资与工时要求，以规避未付工资或其他索赔风险。雇主应审慎考量所实施的激励措施是否应计入加班费计算的常规工资率。同时，雇主须确保此类激励措施的实施保持一致且公平。

c. 新冠防疫措施下的住宿要求

自疫情爆发以来，雇主们不得不应对各种与新冠防疫措施相关的合理安排请求，无论是关于口罩或疫苗强制令，还是休假问题。  首先，雇主需知悉根据《美国残疾人法案》（ADA），新冠症状可能构成残疾认定。若员工因新冠相关症状申请超出公司政策常规范围的休假，雇主应咨询法律顾问，逐案评估该症状是否构成需启动互动协商程序的残疾情形。

即使员工新冠检测结果呈阴性，雇主仍可能收到因残疾或宗教信仰导致员工无法遵守防疫规程而提出的合理便利请求。若企业实施口罩政策或疫苗接种政策，多数 雇主对此类问题已有所了解。在此类情况下，雇主应 启动互动协商程序，以确定能否在不造成企业过重负担的前提下提供合理便利。

二、国家劳资关系委员会标准与优先事项的调整

未来一年，汽车行业雇主面临的重大问题不仅限于新冠疫情相关事项。我们已目睹特朗普时期劳工委员会进行的若干政策调整。因此，美国国家劳资关系委员会（NLRB）标准与工作重点的变动，将在2022年持续影响工会与非工会雇主。

2021年7月22日，美国国家劳资关系委员会总法律顾问詹妮弗·阿布鲁佐发布其任内首份备忘录，确立了她四年任期内的议程与工作重点。 此外，随着多项任期届满及民主党提名人选提交审议，该委员会本身也已从共和党多数派转变为由主席劳伦·麦克法伦领导的民主党多数派。不出所料，这份备忘录与委员会的民主党多数格局标志着工作重点从特朗普时期的NLRB转向更倾向工会和雇员的立场。预计NLRB的标准和工作重点将出现以下潜在变化：

a. 对员工手册的更严格审查

美国国家劳资关系委员会（NLRB）很可能加强对员工手册条款的审查力度，这些条款可能被解释为限制《国家劳资关系法》（NLRA）第7条所保护的活动。在特朗普时期的委员会领导下，NLRB曾采纳了 波音测试 测试标准。该测试通过权衡政策限制性与雇主实施政策的正当理由，对表面中立的手册政策进行评估。相较于此前依据 路德会遗产 案确立的标准更为灵活且有利于雇主。该标准禁止任何手册政策——包括未明确禁止受保护活动的条款——只要员工能"合理解释"该规则限制了受保护活动。 当时委员会认为此类规则对受保护活动具有威慑效应，故认定其违反《全国劳资关系法》。总法律顾问在2021年8月12日的备忘录中特别援引波音案作为"涉及委员会理论转变"的判例，该判例颠覆了此前"在工人权利与工会雇主义务间取得恰当平衡"的先例。 这表明总法律顾问（很可能连同委员会）正准备回归更倾向员工的"路德会遗产"判例。鉴于此变化趋势，雇主应审查员工手册中可能存在争议的政策条款，并做好准备——若委员会发布推翻"波音标准"的裁决，需立即修改相关政策。

b. 韦恩加滕 权利可能得到更广泛的适用

正如工会雇主所知，韦恩加滕权利是指受工会代表的雇员在可能导致纪律处分调查性面谈时，有权要求工会代表在场。根据委员会现行判例，韦恩加滕权利仅存在于工会环境中。具体而言，2017年委员会曾拒绝将该权利延伸至一名非工会雇员——该雇员虽在纪律面谈中要求同事在场，但因未受工会代表而未获支持。 多年来，委员会曾数次调整立场，涉及非工会雇员是否享有要求调查访谈中代表在场的权利。2000年委员会曾认定非工会雇员确有此项权利，但2004年又改变了立场。 总法律顾问备忘录将现行委员会先例（即不向非工会雇员授予该权利）列为需重新审视的"领域或举措"。雇主应密切关注委员会在此领域的政策变动，确保人力资源部门员工及其他负责此类谈话的人员及时掌握最新规定，明确非工会雇员在提出请求时是否享有代表权。

c. 为组织工会目的进入雇主财产

非工会雇主还应注意委员会判例可能发生变化的另一个领域，涉及工会组织者进入并使用雇主财产的行为。根据现行法律规定，依据 托宾表演艺术中心案，雇主有权禁止非当班承包商进入其非公共区域，即使对方试图开展受《劳动关系法》第7条保护的活动——除非承包商同时满足：(1)在该场所定期且专职工作；(2)雇主未能证明承包商拥有一个或多个合理且不构成非法侵入的替代沟通渠道。 换言之，若承包商并非在该场所定期或专职工作，且/或拥有无需使用该场所的替代沟通途径，雇主可禁止其在非工作时间进入场所进行工会组织活动。根据 UPMC 案（现行委员会判例）确立的标准，雇主有权拒绝工会进入其物业内的公共区域。

在新董事会领导下，法律现状很可能回归到 纽约纽约酒店赌场标准 标准，该标准规定雇主不得限制非工作时间的员工在非工作区域分发支持工会的宣传材料。同样，UPMC标准很可能被推翻，转而采用之前的 桑达斯基购物中心 标准，即若雇主允许其他商业、民事及慈善活动使用其物业内的公共空间，则不得限制工会在此开展组织活动。建议企业在面临工会组织活动时，密切关注现行委员会判例及相关政策变化，以避免被指控实施不公平劳动行为及可能面临的集体谈判令执行。

d. 扩大对保护协同活动的解释

雇主还应预期，在新任委员会及总法律顾问领导下，《劳动关系法》第7条"受保护的集体活动"将获得更广泛的解释。这可能包括扩大员工使用雇主通讯系统开展受保护活动的权利。总法律顾问备忘录特别指出，在员工使用公司邮箱系统（或其他公司通讯系统如Discord、Slack或Groupme）进行受保护的工作场所沟通时，应给予其权利特殊关注。 该备忘录指出，现行委员会判例涉及"委员会理论转变"（相较于先前 紫色通讯案 标准——该标准要求雇主必须允许员工使用公司电子邮件系统进行受保护活动，转向现行的 里约全套房酒店赌场案，该标准推翻了紫色通信案，允许 雇主限制此类员工邮件通信 ）。总法律顾问备忘录还指出，当前委员会先例中缩小受保护活动范围的条款需要重新审视。具体而言，备忘录援引现行委员会先例：代表实习生行事的员工不构成受保护活动，因其行为不符合"互助与保护"原则。 这表明总法律顾问及委员会将寻求扩大"互助与保护"的定义，进而扩展受保护集体行动的范畴。结合此类及相关案例，雇主应预期受保护集体行动的认定标准将回归扩张性解释，这将限制雇主针对此类行动的干预措施——即便这些措施在现行法律下本属禁止行为。

这些只是美国国家劳资关系委员会（NLRB）改变先例的部分案例，其影响可能同时波及工会化与非工会化雇主。鉴于疫苗强制接种政策相关的法律环境瞬息万变，汽车行业雇主应及时关注NLRB的新裁决（并留意总法律顾问的执法重点），以避免在2022年及未来面临劳资纠纷相关责任。

正如这些案例所揭示的，由于法律环境频繁变化，汽车行业雇主在2022年面临着独特的挑战。雇主应密切关注这些领域及其他领域法律现状的最新动态。

返回目录

原始设备制造商扩大供应商对常规保修索赔的责任

在当今充满不确定性的时代，供应链上的企业正竭力寻找重拾竞争优势、规避风险的途径。原始设备制造商（OEM）与其供应商签订的大多数合同中，已包含对买方有利的条款，这些条款通过引用方式纳入了OEM的标准采购条款与条件。 这些条款包含广泛的保修规定，要求零部件必须满足所有规格要求、无瑕疵、符合所有法律法规、具备可销售性且适用于预期用途。此类条款旨在保障OEM在出现保修问题、保修活动或召回事件时，若能证明供应商未履行广泛保修条款中的任一要求，即可向供应商追偿损失。

为提升利润，整车制造商正通过要求供应商承担部分"常规保修费用"来积极转嫁成本。所谓常规保修，指任何未达到保修活动或召回标准的经销商维修服务。 为追偿普通保修费用，OEM厂商无需证明供应商零件存在缺陷或未达明示保修标准。其政策可能仅规定一套评估普通保修费用的计算公式，即可向供应商体系追索费用，且无需考虑责任归属。

尽管许多原始设备制造商（OEM）多年来一直实施常规保修政策，但如今他们正通过供应商手册或独立的常规保修合同，向供应商体系明确表示将严格执行这些政策。供应商应做好准备分析相关费用，就政策限制条款或适用细则进行协商，并避免相关风险——因为这些成本可能迅速累积。 此外，供应商在为新业务报价时，需将项目周期内可能产生的常规总成本纳入考量。

什么是普通保修协议？

“普通保修”一词用于描述客户提出的标准一次性保修索赔，此类索赔未达到需要启动保修活动或召回的程度。通常，普通保修协议载于原始设备制造商（OEM）的供应商手册或独立的普通保修合同中，涵盖所有零件/项目，并规定了普通保修索赔相关成本的预先划分比例。 根据协议条款及双方议价能力差异，可能采取两种方式：一是按固定比例分摊涉及所售部件（通过经销商代码或描述识别）的普通保修索赔；二是抽样分析故障部件以确定供应商责任比例，再将该比例推算至所有故障部件及未来可能发生的故障。

在保修活动和召回事件中，若原始设备制造商（OEM）试图向供应商追索费用，必须能将缺陷与供应商的违约行为建立关联；该缺陷需与供应商的保修义务存在因果关系。而标准普通保修协议条款并不要求如此。普通保修协议不涉及"原因"或"过失"概念，其规定的义务实质上等同于严格责任。 普通保修索赔相关的付款通常无需详细调查或确定根本原因即可支付。

供应商应关注哪些关键变化？

过去，尽管许多原始设备制造商（OEM）制定了允许将常规保修成本转嫁给供应商的政策，但OEM通常仍承担这些损失的主要财务责任。 在新冠疫情冲击及全球供应链中断的背景下，寻求改善现金流的OEM厂商正以更系统、更强硬的方式将常规保修成本转嫁给供应商。OEM厂商要求供应商分担甚至全额承担常规保修费用，同时强制供应商免费提供替换零件，并将加急运输及经销商货运成本转嫁给供应商。

Issues with Ordinary Warranty Charges

There are numerous issues surrounding ordinary warranty charges. The most obvious issue is that there is no requirement that the warranty issue be definitively tied to the supplier’s part defect or breach. Under many ordinary warranty agreements where a “strict liability” standard is implicated, for the supplier to foot the bill it can be enough for a dealer simply to log a code implicating the supplier’s part or for a very small sample of parts to show failures without necessarily establishing the cause of those failures (usually analyzed solely by the OEM). Having to bear these ordinary warranty charges certainly will drive up costs for suppliers and drive down profitability.

Suppliers preparing to navigate ordinary warranty agreements and charges should consider the following:

• First, as mentioned above, there may be no root cause analysis undertaken before ordinary warranty charges are passed on to suppliers. This means that the OEM may seek to hold the supplier responsible for the warranty claim even if there is no clear tie to any breach by the supplier or defect in the supplier’s part, and sometimes even if it is not confirmed that the issue is with the part that the supplier provided to the OEM.
• Second, ordinary warranty agreements do not often include provisions that prohibit the OEM from recovering charges against more than one supplier. Presumably, if an ordinary warranty claim implicates multiple parts or an assembly, then the OEM could attempt to recover costs against each supplier involved, leading to potential double-recovery for the same warranty charge. The supplier should be able to access data ensuring that assembly-level failures are properly allocated or that there is some analysis applied to ascertain the responsible supplier.
• Third, if there is a sampling of failed parts or a cursory analysis undertaken by the OEM as part of its ordinary warranty process, then the supplier should ask to be involved and/or conduct its own analysis of a sample of failed parts. It would be best to negotiate this requirement into the ordinary warranty agreement.
• Fourth, warranty codes used by dealers may have accuracy issues. Often, one code is used to cover multiple warranty issues, making it difficult to differentiate the cause of the problem without a full-blown root cause investigation. Dealers also often rely upon “NTF” or “No Trouble Found” codes, meaning that the customer’s issue could not be replicated or duplicated. Despite this, the supplier still is expected to incur the costs of the ordinary warranty charge unless there is an explicit exception in the ordinary warranty agreement for NTF codes.
• Fifth, ensure that your team understands and is comfortable with the OEM’s ordinary warranty process, including the ability to identify errors in charges, the timing and mechanism for objecting to such charges, what charges may be included, and the process used to identify the supplier’s share of ordinary warranty costs.
• Sixth, these costs need to be taken into account for all future parts/programs going forward. They should be part of a supplier’s cost walk since the OEMs now have indicated that they are shifting these risks and costs to their supply base.

Takeaways

Suppliers must be ready in the event that OEMs try to impose new ordinary warranty agreements or enforce agreements already in place. This can result in unexpected financial liabilities, including costs for repair, replacement parts, labor (at rates set by the dealer network), shipping, and handling. Now is the time to revisit your OEM contracts and supplier manuals to ensure you know the terms of any ordinary warranty agreement already in place, and be prepared for OEMs to enforce those terms or impose new terms.

Suppliers should negotiate with OEMs to ensure that any ordinary warranty charges imposed on the supplier are directly tied to the supplier’s parts. Suppliers also should negotiate a provision prohibiting OEMs from recovering the same ordinary warranty costs from more than one supplier, effectively preventing the OEM from “double-dipping” and recovering from multiple suppliers for the same warranty charge. Suppliers should demand that OEMs provide underlying warranty details and dealer warranty code information. While it may not be possible to conduct root cause investigations for all ordinary warranty charges, having this information will allow suppliers to recognize patterns and push back on charges if something seems amiss. Finally, suppliers should take these costs into account when preparing their quotations for new parts/programs since these policies shift costs that previously were borne by OEMs to the supply base.

Back to the Table of Contents

Possible Silver Lining: Targeted Acquisitions

Nearly two years after the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, as the automotive supply chain continues to be disrupted not only by the pandemic but also by port and logistics delays, shortages in materials such as semiconductors, steel, resin and foam, and rising costs (including labor especially), there exist opportunities for growth through acquisition. Companies that were perhaps propped up with government support early on during the pandemic (through PPP loans or other government aid) are beginning to feel increased pressure as they face financial and operational challenges. Lenders who previously provided extensions of credit and forbearance of defaults are becoming increasingly active in asserting their rights and remedies in the case of a default.  The cash flow and credit issues these companies face may result in opportunities to purchase them at depressed valuations. While these deals may appear to be hard to come by, shrewd investors will be well served by considering both out-of-court and bankruptcy acquisitions of the distressed companies that are under pressure due to the current environment.

Checklist of Certain Key Considerations for an Out-of-Court Acquisition

• Often structured like a normal asset deal.
• Due diligence is even more critical to understand in order to avoid and creatively address potential liabilities.
• Specify assumed liabilities and excluded liabilities.
• Include indemnification and escrow where possible (but seller might not be able to perform under indemnification).
• Negotiations with creditor constituencies can reduce exposure.

Checklist of Certain Key Considerations for Bankruptcy Sale

• Buyers often seek to avoid possible successor liability and other risks, and require the sale to occur in a Chapter 11 to maximize buyer protections/rights.
• Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code permits a debtor to sell substantially all of its assets if supported by reasonable business judgment, free and clear of all liens, claims, and encumbrances.
• Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code permits a debtor to assume and assign, or reject, certain contracts and unexpired leases notwithstanding restrictions on assignment in such contracts.
• Upon a bankruptcy filing, the “automatic stay” arises and protects the seller’s assets from creditor collection efforts and contract terminations to enable a transaction to occur.

The automotive industry has faced incredible headwinds, many of which persist into 2022. As companies look to grow their revenue and profits, these headwinds may well present opportunities for growth through acquisition.

Back to the Table of Contents

Preparing for Automated Vehicle Regulations and Enforcement in the Face of Stalled Legislation in 2022

Over the past few years, there have been many discussions among federal, state, and automotive industry stakeholders regarding the need to remove regulatory barriers that may constrain development and widespread deployment of automated vehicles (AVs) and automated driving systems (ADSs).¹ The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA or Agency) have issued several policy statements regarding AVs and advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), published multiple rulemaking documents, and  held several public meetings seeking comments on removing regulatory barriers. In addition to these efforts, Congress, the automotive industry, consumer advocates, and other interested stakeholders have worked collaboratively to draft proposed legislation to facilitate advances in automated technologies and to clarify the distinct regulatory roles of state and federal governments.

Despite these efforts, persistent challenges continue to slow progress, even as the underlying technologies begin to see wider deployment. What future legislation and regulations at the federal and state level will look like remains unclear. In the meantime, NHTSA will likely continue to exercise its authority over safety-related defects to learn about current technologies through informal and formal information requests and to push back on technologies that NHTSA believes may pose a safety risk.

NHTSA will use its safety-defect authority to address emerging automation technologies.

NHTSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in October 2018, seeking comments on a pilot program for collaborative research on motor vehicles with high or full driving automation. More than three years later, NHTSA appears poised to withdraw this rulemaking as it considers a new rulemaking titled “Expansion of Temporary Exemption Program to Domestic Manufacturers for Research, Demonstrations, and Other Purposes” (Proposed Exemption Program), as described in the U.S. DOT’s Fall 2021 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions) (Fall 2021 Unified Agenda). Under 49 U.S.C. § 30114(A), NHTSA has authority to exempt a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment from applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) on terms that NHTSA decides are “necessary for research, investigations, demonstrations, training, competitive racing events, show, or display.” Although the language is not limited to importations, the exemption authority originated in joint importation regulations originally promulgated by NHTSA and Customs.² Based on this history, NHTSA has limited use of this exception to imported vehicles. Recognizing the disparity between domestically produced and imported vehicles with respect to the exemption authority in §30114(A), NHTSA explained, in its publication of the Proposed Exemption Program, that it would evaluate whether it could “level the playing field by expanding the coverage of exemption under that section to any vehicle, regardless of whether it is domestic or foreign, that meets the criteria of that section, particularly vehicles with high and full driving automation that do not meet existing standards and whose manufacturers are or seek to become engaged in research and demonstrations involving those vehicles.” 83 Fed. Reg. 50872, 50882 (Oct. 10, 2018). Formally extending these exemptions to domestically produced vehicles would be welcome relief to entities manufacturing and/or testing them. As discussed below, manufacturers could use this rulemaking as an opportunity to obtain guidance related to permissible uses (other than destruction) for decommissioned test vehicles.

Other notable rulemaking activities listed in the Fall 2021 Unified Agenda, related to automated technologies, include:

• The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) intends to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to ensure safe deployment of ADS technologies in commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). The proposal would make changes to requirements related to operation, inspection, repair, and maintenance to recognize the difference between human operators and ADSs.
• NHTSA is analyzing comments to its 2019 ANPRM related to replacing rearview mirrors with camera systems.
• NHTSA intends to propose safety standards that would require automatic emergency braking in passenger cars and heavy trucks.
• NHTSA intends to issue in 2022 a final rule that would address regulatory barriers in crashworthiness safety standards and facilitate certification of vehicles without traditional driver controls. (NHTSA made public a draft of a final rule related to this rulemaking at the end of the Trump Administration, but the draft was never published in the Federal Register and the Biden Administration paused rulemakings that had not already been published.)

Manufacturers should monitor these rulemakings and advocate for standards that are technologically neutral and do not constrain future developments.

NHTSA will use its safety-defect authority to review the safety of emerging automation technologies.

NHTSA’s rulemaking authority requires safety standards to be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, be stated in objective terms, and be “appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.” 49 U.S.C. § 30111(a), (b)(3). These constraints make the process for developing safety standards – particularly related to emerging technologies – long and difficult. In contrast, NHTSA’s authority to investigate potential safety-related defects provides the Agency with broad and flexible powers that the Agency can quickly deploy to ensure that emerging technologies satisfy the Agency’s interpretation of its existing safety requirements.

Over the past year, NHTSA has demonstrated its willingness to use its investigatory and information-gathering tools to police ADAS and ADS technologies. In June 2021, NHTSA issued Standing General Order (SGO) 2021-01, requiring more than 100 vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, and vehicle operators to report certain crashes that involve vehicles using Level 2 (L2) ADAS and L3 and above automation to the Agency. NHTSA stated that it issued the SGO to obtain information on potential safety defects and to evaluate manufacturers’ compliance with legal requirements to timely identify and conduct recalls for safety-related defects. “Given the rapid evolution of these technologies and testing of new technologies and features on publicly accessible roads, it is critical for NHTSA to exercise robust oversight over potential safety defects in vehicles operating with ADS and Level 2 ADAS.” NHTSA SGO 2021-01 at p. 2.

NHTSA did not issue the SGO 2021-01 in conjunction with an investigation. The Agency explained that it issued the SGO to be consistent with NHTSA’s mandate to prevent harm and not wait for injuries or deaths to occur. See id. These statements demonstrate NHTSA’s intention to vigorously investigate automated technologies and related concerns such as distractions that may inhibit drivers from retaking control of the vehicle.

Manufacturers should anticipate liberal use of information requests not only to the manufacturer whose vehicles are the subject of a NHTSA investigation, but also to suppliers (including suppliers of software and other components of the ADAS and ADS systems) and peer manufacturers. Moreover, NHTSA’s Chief Counsel has authority to issue special orders that are not directly connected to a specific defect investigation. As more ADAS technologies and AVs are deployed, we expect the Agency to use these investigative and information-gathering authorities to “exercise robust oversight.” Id.

But what can we do with decommissioned test vehicles?

Certain vehicle manufacturers are permitted by statute to deploy  test and prototype vehicles that do not comply with, and have not been certified to comply with, otherwise applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). See 49 U.S.C. § 30112(b)(10). But vehicles using this exception must be used “solely for purposes of testing or evaluation by a manufacturer that agrees not to sell or offer for sale the motor vehicle at the conclusion of the testing or evaluation.” Id. This provision is intended to facilitate the deployment of test vehicles that may not, or could not, be certified as meeting all applicable FMVSS. But it also prevents these test vehicles from being sold or otherwise becoming available to consumers. The “solely” language indicates that the vehicles, at least in the condition in which they were tested, cannot be sold at the conclusion of the testing or evaluation. Yet, the exception does not address what can be done with decommissioned test vehicles. Can the manufacturer modify the vehicle to remove the ADAS technologies and sell the vehicle as a conventional motor vehicle? Can the manufacturer export the vehicle to another country? Must the vehicle be destroyed? What amount of re-manufacturing would render the test vehicle sufficiently different to deem it a different vehicle? The statute does not address these questions, and NHTSA has not taken a position.

Some state regulations pose similar problems, which affect testing entities more broadly than vehicle manufacturers. For example, the State of California developed extensive regulations related to testing and deploying AVs. As part of that process, California now issues an “autonomous vehicle” title when registering these vehicles. Yet, California does not have a process for retitling a vehicle once it has been decommissioned, such as where an AV operator removes the ADS technology stack from a vehicle. Because California restricts who may operate AVs, a vehicle with an AV title may not be able to be sold, and the operating conditions placed on the vehicle by California’s autonomous vehicle regulations arguably would continue to apply to a decommissioned vehicle.

Manufacturers concerned about the environmental impacts should consider these uncertainties when producing test vehicles. Manufacturers should develop plans for decommissioning vehicles and work with state regulators to determine the restrictions that apply to these former test vehicles. The industry should also consider addressing these questions in a future rulemaking related to testing exemptions.

—————————————————–

¹ A brief note regarding the terminology used in this article: To be consistent with the SAE Taxonomy, this article uses the terms “automation” and “automated in reference” to vehicle technologies that perform dynamic driving functions, rather than autonomous vehicles. The distinction between automation and autonomous is as follows: “Automation” describes vehicle technologies that control discrete driving functions through software, while “autonomous” implies that the vehicle itself determines all driving functions, routes, and destination without outside input. In the hope of maintaining this distinction, we will use the term “automated vehicle” rather than “autonomous vehicle.” Some regulations do not maintain this distinction – for example, the California Code of Regulations uses the term “autonomous vehicle.” See 13 Cal. Code Reg. § 228.02(b) (defining “autonomous vehicle” as having “the capability of performing the dynamic driving task without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person”). In contrast, the U.S. DOT “The Automated Vehicles Comprehensive Plan” and NHTSA rulemaking documents refer to automated vehicles and automated driving systems (ADS). See here: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2021-01/USDOT_AVCP.pdf.

>² On October 31, 1988, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 by passing the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (the 1988 Act). As the name suggests, the 1988 Act revised the statutes and regulations related to importing vehicles and equipment. The 1988 Act first codified the special exemption authority in what is currently § 30114(A). These exemptions originated in joint regulations promulgated by NHTSA and Customs in the early 1970s. See 19 CFR § 12.80(b)(1)(vii) (permitting temporary importation of a vehicle solely for the purpose of show, test, experiment, competition, repair or alteration).

Back to the Table of Contents

EV Outlook: Market, M&A, Supply Chain, and Regulatory Trends

Overview

Until recently the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) in the United States has been slow to gain the same traction as that in other markets around the globe, particularly in Europe and China. That picture has changed dramatically in 2020 and 2021, however, and 2022 promises to drive an even greater acceleration of EV adoption in the United States.

Range anxiety — the fear of running out of battery power, with no available method of recharging in the vicinity — has been one of the leading factors causing consumers to remain hesitant about adopting this new powertrain technology en masse. The lack of charging infrastructure to support EVs in many U.S. markets, especially compared to well-established distribution channels for internal combustion engines (ICEs), has also fueled this anxiety. Although these consumer concerns persist, rapid changes in recent months appear to signal an environment for the accelerated adoption of EV technology in the U.S. These include rapid advancements in battery technologies, recent funding, and regulatory policy announcements by federal and state governments, as well as aggressive investor and industry-led efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the most transformational events of the past year on this front was the signing into law of the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in November 2021. Many in the federal government and automotive industry hope this new law, and its supporting legislative and regulatory agenda, will accelerate the United States’ adoption of EVs by building the infrastructure necessary to support these powertrains and by encouraging consumer adoption. Although the IIJA did not include an increase in, or a modification of, consumer tax credits for the purchase of EVs, as many proponents hoped would happen (and similar provisions appear in the Build Back Better Act, which is currently stalled), it did include nearly $7.5 billion for the investment in and building out of alternative fuel-charging systems. These funding sources would primarily support EV chargers and infrastructure across the country. This monumental commitment to spending — anticipated to be administered largely through the states — is projected to accelerate investment into EV infrastructure around the nation. Nevertheless, there remain questions of whether the IIJA goes far enough to spur meaningful growth and actually achieves the Biden Administration’s goal of deploying EV chargers along the nation’s highway corridors to facilitate long-distance travel. While the federal government’s commitment has been demonstrated through passage of the IIJA, what still lies ahead is the complex task of effective implementation.

The traditional consumer is used to filling up his or her fuel tank and getting anywhere from 300 to 400-plus miles per tankful (with each filling requiring no more than 10 minutes to complete), so perceived challenges in the EV charging process have been a large roadblock to widespread adoption of EVs in the United States. In an effort to overcome range anxiety, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) have been launching platforms with larger batteries, faster charging capabilities, and more abundant charging networks, but even this will require additional support as the charging network expands, including more robust utility networks, maintenance and support networks, renewable energy resources, standardized charging platforms, and the simple need for more chargers as more EVs enter the market.

As the country looks to its newest chapter in mobility, it is not only consumers who stand to benefit from the rollout of EV charging networks and improved infrastructure. The commercial players in both last-mile/last-kilometer delivery, as well as the logistics and fleet operators, are looking to electrify their platforms. Meanwhile, manufacturers and suppliers will see downstream benefits as their investments in new powertrain systems are realized through further market adoption and investment interest next-generation technologies grow in both private and public market sources.

The prospect of a growing EV market share in the U.S. has not been lost on dealmakers. While the 2020 transaction landscape was briefly interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, deal activity in the automotive and mobility sectors continues to accelerate and is approaching all-time highs. While increasing interest rates and inflation may temper activity in the short term, increased interest in EV technology platforms is expected to continue to drive the automotive M&A market and investment activities in OEMs, suppliers, and technology companies that support this burgeoning industry sector.

M&A Market Outlook 2022: Automotive Investments Roll Ahead Despite Roadblocks

A complicated market landscape has now been the auto industry’s norm for nearly two years. Since the beginning of 2020, manufacturers have been hampered by plant shutdowns, social distancing regulations, skyrocketing commodities prices, supply chain delays, and shortages of everything from microprocessors to employees. Adding to the situation are unpredictable changes in consumer demand, inflation worries, and difficult-to-comprehend valuations such as Tesla’s eye-popping trillion-dollar market capitalization.¹ Exacerbating the confusion, the industry finds itself in the midst of a sea change caused by a rapid transition to increasingly connected, autonomous, and electrified vehicles. In short, there is a lot going on for market participants to track.

In spite of this, deal activity generally, and in the automotive and mobility sectors specifically, has accelerated at a blistering pace. At the end of Q3 2021, deal activity by volume in the mobility space had already exceeded the 2009 full-year record by more than $50 billion. As 2021 drew to a close, global M&A volumes pushed toward an unprecedented record of $4.33 trillion, overtaking an all-time annual peak of $4.1 trillion recorded before the financial crisis hit in 2007.^{2 3}

In the automotive space, global mergers and acquisitions hit historical highs in 2021, with a total deal value of $136.6 billion — up 111% from 2020. While the onset of the pandemic significantly impacted deal value and volume in 2020, M&A activity recovered in the second half of the year and accelerated with deal volume in 2021 up 19%, to 971 deals, with an average disclosed deal size of approximately $435 million. Of the $136.6 billion of deal value, vehicle manufacturers comprised the largest segment, with $61.3 billion (or 45%).

This unprecedented deal volume, including in the EV sector, has been driven by the rejuvenation of Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) and de-SPAC transactions, which have allowed privately-held EV companies to reach the public capital market faster than have traditional IPOs. Although public market receptivity to these investments over the past 18 months demonstrates that investors are looking eagerly toward the future of EV technology, with an eye on environmental stewardship, poor performance of some issuers, and increased regulatory scrutiny from the SEC there remain future headwinds for de-SPAC transactions in this space.⁴

These public market capital increases have been accompanied by significant industry and public-private-partnership investments. In the fall of 2021, GM and LG Electronics filed applications in Lansing, Michigan to build a reported $2.5 – $3 billion battery plant. Toyota announced plans to open a massive lithium battery plant in Liberty, North Carolina, and Ford Motor Company similarly announced plans to invest over $11 billion in battery plants and electric truck plants across Kentucky and Tennessee.⁵

Other Trends

With so much activity and disruption, the outlook for 2022 is a bit difficult to pin down. Numerous challenges and opportunities confront the industry, including changes in distribution and franchising, right to repair laws, safety and data protection, charging standards, and even tax incentives, to name a few. Nevertheless, amidst so much change a few trends appear to be emerging:

1. Expect a move toward public markets regulatory equalization.

2021 saw unprecedented utilization of SPACs in the automotive space due to their high-speed fundraising capabilities and ability to react to market trends. This velocity has drawn increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around disclosures of conflicts of interest and dilution, but do not expect SPACs to become a relic of the past. In early December, SEC Chair Gary Gensler pitched new rules around marketing practices, tougher disclosure requirements, and liability obligations, which suggest that SPAC investors of the future will face regulation in parity with traditional IPOs.⁶ Should these rules come to pass, expect SPACs to revise their marketing strategies to focus more on evidence-based target selection, suffer longer lock-up periods, experience requirements for sponsors and/or investors, and define contractual terms that better protect dilution of shareholder ownership after the acquisition.

2. Supply chain competence may determine success.

With strong demand, continued COVID-19 issues, and inflation concerns, those market participants who can best manage their inherently unstable supply chains will be more likely to come out ahead. The EV supply chain is markedly different than the traditional ICE supply chain in a number of ways.

First, EVs involve mechanically simpler components, but those components generally incorporate more technology, which creates additional challenges and needs. Intellectual property protection and use — including the freedom to operate — become paramount as more technology is developed and utilized in vehicles. Warranties, like those concerning fitness and design, also are subject to specific tailoring, including due to the complex integration of components and systems that is required for EV production.

Next, the supply base for many technologies and components has remained limited both in the size and scope of the base and in the availability of certain materials and capacities. There also is increasing competition from other industries, such as consumer electronics and appliances, for these resources. These shortages and limitations are expected to continue through the upcoming year. Strategies should be considered to proactively address these issues, such as establishing or reevaluating long-term agreements. Addressing anticipated shortages and rising costs in connection with purchase and sales requirements and obligations is necessary. These issues may no longer be viewed as unforeseeable, and allocating the risk and adverse material changes through contracting should be addressed, along with events that may no longer be viewed as falling under “force majeure” or commercial impracticality provisions. Multiple and geographically diverse sources, reserved capacity, increased inventories, and material on hand as well as contingency planning must also be addressed. Finally, transparency and data sharing are topics of increasing interest.

Despite gloomy predictions by some industry players, distressed M&A did not play a significant role in deal volume in 2020 or 2021. However, empty car lots (or those filled with chip-shorted vehicles) across the country — driven by supply chain issues and coupled with huge, pent-up demand — suggest that those able to move product and do so consistently are far more likely to be in a healthier position when markets inevitably slow, giving rise to more troubled supplier situations. If the automotive sector starts to see an increase in distressed M&A, expect the stable, well-supplied, and well-capitalized market participants to look for the opportunistic investments needed to survive and thrive in the coming years. While 2022 and the ensuring years may see an uptick in distressed M&A as volatile input costs and interest rates rise, current estimates are not showing a return to the distressed marketplace of 2008-2009 due to relatively stronger balance sheets and smarter approaches to risk allocation, and matching production to demand.

3. Note environmental considerations for zero-emission vehicles.

Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have accelerated their focus on hybrid and zero-emission vehicles (including electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) to achieve emission reductions from cars, trucks, and (in California) off-road equipment.

On December 20, 2021, the EPA finalized its new greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for new passenger cars and light trucks. These new rules are the most ambitious in history, requiring automakers to meet the strictest fuel efficiency standards ever proposed and to do so by model year 2026. While the rule does not specifically require manufacturers to produce zero-emission vehicles, practically speaking these aggressive new standards will likely require automakers to shift production to hybrid and/or zero-emission vehicles within the next four years to achieve compliance with the standards. Such a shift will further increase demand for batteries and other EV powertrain components. To be successful, it will also likely require investments in electric chargers and the transmission upgrades that will be required to maintain grid stability, and/or investments in hydrogen vehicles and fueling stations, as discussed above.⁷

Similarly in 2020, California also issued the Advanced Clean Trucks Rule requiring that, beginning in 2024, a certain percentage of each truck manufacturer’s sales into California must be from zero-emission vehicles, with a target that by 2045 all new trucks sold in California must be zero-emission.⁸ In 2020 Governor Newsom also issued Executive Order N-79-20, which established a goal that, where feasible, all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035. The order set a similar goal requiring that all medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible.⁹ Also in 2021, CARB issued its proposed Advanced Clean Fleets Rule for medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission fleets, with the goal of achieving a zero-emission truck-and-bus California fleet by 2045 where feasible. These goals will be implemented by CARB through various regulations that the agency has issued in some instances and currently is developing in others, and will again increase the demand for zero-emission vehicle components and require investments in electric chargers and transmission upgrades.¹⁰ The following states have also adopted rules modeled after California’s Advanced Clean Trucks Rule: Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts — and other states are also expected to adopt similar rules in the near term.

It is also worth noting for new entrants to the zero-emission vehicle market that both EPA and CARB have certification requirements for zero-emission vehicles that must be met prior to production of the vehicles for sale in the U.S. and/or California. The specific requirements for certification depend on the type of vehicle (light-, medium-, heavy-duty etc.), and California has developed specific certification procedures for zero-emission powertrains. In addition, both agencies have specific labeling requirements and importation requirements for zero-emission vehicles, depending on the type of vehicle and use of the vehicle.

4. Understand NHTSA regulations for commercial EV applications.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which regulates motor vehicle safety, is planning to amend the federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that applies to high-voltage batteries to include heavy- and medium-duty vehicles. FMVSS 305, Electric-powered vehicles: electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection, currently applies to passenger cars and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less (excluding low-speed vehicles). 49 CFR 571.305 S3. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Fall 2021 Unified Regulatory Agenda includes a proposal by NHTSA to amend FMVSS 305 to include medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.

As the commercial vehicle market expands use of EVs and other vehicles’ high-voltage propulsion equipment, industry participants should monitor the Federal Register for this potential rulemaking. Because heavy- and medium-duty EVs are not currently subject to the performance requirements in FMVSS 305, EV development work should track any proposed requirements. Note that any potential amendments would likely take effect more than a year after publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Another important issue that EV manufacturers are beginning to face is that of the certification requirements for vehicles manufactured in more than one stage and for vehicle alterers. NHTSA has specific requirements related to the manufacturing stage, where the vehicle identification number (VIN) must be assigned and for which manufacturers must certify conformance to relevant FMVSS for each stage of manufacturing. Some of the certification responsibilities depend on the entity that installs the powertrain or swaps out an ICE powertrain for an electric powertrain.

Manufacturers developing vehicles that will involve purchasing the chassis, removing existing powertrains, altering complete/fully certified vehicles, and similar projects should understand these regulatory obligations and how they may impact the vehicles’ path to market; these regulations can influence vehicle development strategies. Understanding these requirements early in the development process will help manufacturers avoid potential complications and added costs that could delay projects or make it difficult to sell vehicles in a particular state.

5. Deployment of EV-charging infrastructure is poised to expand significantly.

In spite of the recent uncertainty over whether the Build Back Better Act will become law in any form resembling that passed by the House in Fall 2021, EV-charging infrastructure may still be on the cusp of a dramatic inflection point.

Beginning with the Biden Administration’s August 2021 Executive Order on Strengthening American Leadership in Clean Cars and Trucks, continuing with the IIJA passed in November 2021, and culminating with the EPA’s new emissions rules published at the end of December 2021, the federal government has implemented an assortment of carrots and sticks meant to stimulate adoption of EVs and the charging infrastructure necessary for widespread public adoption. In addition, public and private industry groups have begun to collaborate to expand the needed infrastructure.

The Executive Order kicked off the EPA rulemaking process concerning new emissions standards for cars and light-duty trucks. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, as noted above, includes $7.5 billion allocated to invest in a national network of EV-charging infrastructure. How that will be deployed at the state and local levels is not yet finalized. Also as noted above, the EPA GHG rules’ cumulative effects are expected to lead to significant increases in EV car adoption, in turn requiring an increase in the EV infrastructure to support them.

In addition to federal government action, a national network of energy utilities organized through the Edison Electric Institute’s National Electric Highway Coalition (NEHC) has declared its intention to begin immediately to expand EV-charging infrastructure. According to the NEHC fact sheet, the NEHC has 53 member utilities with service territories spanning the country and covering most major U.S. travel corridors.

The NEHC utilities have agreed to work to establish foundational EV fast-charging networks across their service territories. NEHC also cites the major uptick in EV sales that are anticipated through 2030, estimating that nearly 22 million EVs will be in use by 2030, which will require upwards of 100,000 DC fast-charging stations (representing more than 10 times the number of currently available fast-charging stations).

All of these developments together signal immense investments in EV infrastructure to come, and capital is already organizing in order to take advantage of these opportunities. EV infrastructure will come in the form of vehicle-charging equipment installed in “stations” at homes, businesses, and standalone service stations (including potentially integrating with conventional gas stations). Additional expansion and rehabilitation of the electric grid infrastructure necessary to sustain the increased electricity demand from all of these EVs will also be a critical precondition to facilitating the necessary growth in EV infrastructure. This grid infrastructure includes generation, transmission, and smart-grid technologies as grid operators require greater control over the increased load on the system.

Conclusion: There is No Turning Back

Regardless of whether automotive manufacturers and suppliers find themselves in a healthy or challenged position for 2022, an industry consensus has emerged that we are on an irrevocable path to electrification. Climate-neutral mobility and corporate social responsibility are increasingly important priorities for investors and consumers and, as a result, the companies in which they invest and from which they buy vehicles. Batteries and other high-tech electronic components are now more critical infrastructure than engine assembly for many mobility companies, and their increasing adoption has the potential to drive extreme disruption as manufacturers remake their supplier chains to address these new opportunities. With 145 million units of new EV sales expected in the next eight years, all industry players must properly adapt, innovate, and rapidly address even more changes on the horizon.

————————————————–

² https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/pandemic-recovery-fuels-deal-craze-third-quarter-ma-breaks-all-records-2021-09-30/

³ https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/industrial-products/library/automotive-deals-insights.html

⁴ https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2021/03/what-are-spacs-how-they-are-different-from-ipos

⁵ https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2021/12/us-auto-industry-strategic-investments-future-evs

⁶ https://www.wsj.com/articles/secs-gary-gensler-seeks-to-level-playing-field-between-spacs-traditional-ipos-11639063202.

⁷ https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2021/12/epas-aggressive-new-fuel-efficiency-standards-cars

⁸ https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2020/08/california-drive-zero-emission-fleet-transport

⁹ https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2020/10/california-zero-emission-vehicles

¹⁰ https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-fleets/advanced-clean-fleets-meetings-events?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Back to the Table of Contents

Driving Sustainability: Automakers Look Beyond Electric Vehicles

Electric vehicles typically steal the show in conversations about sustainability in the automotive industry — and for good reason. Emissions from the transportation sector are estimated to account for 29% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.¹ From Tesla’s domination in the news to Ford’s record-breaking F150 Lightning, the electrification of vehicles is an exciting step in the energy transition. However, there are more sustainability concerns and opportunities when it comes to vehicles than how a car is powered. The goal of sustainability is to meet our own needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs, which includes recycling, reusing materials, and moving to processes that emit less carbon. Therefore, the sustainability of the vehicle itself — from what it is made of to how it can be recycled — should not be left out of the conversation.

I. Sustainable Chassis

The bodies of traditionally mass-produced consumer vehicles are made from steel and aluminum. Now, manufacturers are moving toward more sustainable materials as well as vehicles that are lighter overall, thereby improving fuel efficiency. A new initiative, called the Circular Cars Initiative by the World Economic Forum, is looking for opportunities to establish closed-loop recycling of aluminum and steel from vehicles.² In particular, while new aluminum is very costly and resource-intensive to mine, it is virtually infinitely recyclable. Global demand for aluminum is projected to grow by more than 80% by 2050, and recycled aluminum uses just 5% of the energy required for primary production to produce.³ Accordingly, by increasing the use and reuse of aluminum in vehicles, automakers are shifting to a more renewable and fuel-efficient resource.

While the Circular Cars Initiative is voluntary, European Union Directive 2000/53/EC, End Life of Vehicles (the “Directive”), requires member states to implement measures aimed at the prevention of waste from vehicles.⁴ The Directive also aims at the reuse, recycling, and other forms of recovery of end-of life vehicles and their components. The goal of the Directive is to reduce the disposal of waste as well as improve the environmental performance of all of the economic operators involved in the life cycle of vehicles, especially the operators directly involved in the treatment of end-of life vehicles.

In addition, a lighter alternative to steel and aluminum is plastic. Automakers are looking toward ocean plastic — swirling “islands” of plastic waste in the ocean⁵ — as raw material for automotive parts and structures; automaker Ford has announced that the Bronco Sport’s wiring harness clips will be made from discarded plastic fishing nets taken from the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.⁶ In line with the circular economy ideas outlined above, Ford also uses recycled water bottles to produce lightweight, aerodynamic-enhancing, and noise-reducing underbody shields on the 2020 Ford Escape.⁷ Further demonstrating its leadership in sustainability, Ford has announced plans to work with McDonald’s to use dried coffee bean skins and turn them into reinforced headlamp housings, and it is also looking at using U.S. currency taken out of circulation, and agave fiber from the tequila-making process, to make other parts for its cars.⁸

While Ford is a standout leader in sustainability initiatives, other automakers are making notable headway in sustainable practices as well, such as GM committing to using at least 50% sustainable material content in its vehicles, measured by total vehicle weight, by 2030.⁹ And Toyota has established a Global 100 Dismantlers Project in order to establish systems for appropriate treatment of end-of-life vehicles through battery collection and car recycling. Toyota aims to have 15 vehicle recycling facilities by 2025.¹⁰

II. Sustainable Interiors

Inside the car, upholstery presents another opportunity for increased sustainability. The movement toward natural fibers in vehicle interiors is a growing trend.¹¹ Even back in 2005, more than 30,000 tons of natural fibers were used in the automotive industry in Europe, and in 2015 the figure reached 50,000 tons, of which 10% to 20% were European hemp fibers.¹²

Recently, Ford has begun incorporating post-consumer discarded carpet and recycled tires for interior car components.¹³ Econyl nylon — a new material made from recycled industrial plastic, fabric offcuts from clothing manufacturers, and abandoned fishing nets recovered from the ocean — can be used for floor mats and other trim.¹⁴ Mercedes-Benz has been using Dinamica, a sueded fabric made from recycled plastic and fibers, to cover seats and Karuun, a compressed timber product, as floors and dashboard trim.¹⁵ Lenzing, an Austria-based fiber producer, also is working to bring sustainable fibers to the automotive industry.¹⁶ Using sustainably produced wood-based materials, they are able to make textiles that can become compost material after they are removed from a vehicle, rather than ending up in a landfill or in rivers and oceans.¹⁷

III. Sustainable Tires

Nearly 250 million scrap tires are generated annually in the U.S. alone, making this one of the historically least sustainable parts of a vehicle.¹⁸ The U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association is working toward eliminating historical scrap tire stockpiles while growing economically- and environmentally-friendly scrap tire markets.¹⁹ Such scrap tire markets include use as landfill covers, railroad lines, rubberized floors and asphalt, and playgrounds. The number of stockpiled scrap tires decreased from over one billion in 1990 to about 67 million in 2015 — a 93% reduction.²⁰ However, there is still a long way to go in making the tire component of vehicles sustainable. Some tire manufacturers are developing tire products using oils from sunflowers and natural latex rubbers, such as organic waste that comes from plants, to be used to make bio butadiene, a type of synthetic rubber used in tires.²¹

In addition, tire manufacturers are looking at recycling polystyrene foam packaging into tires by creating a sustainable synthetic rubber.²² Importantly, polystyrene is a waste stream that is otherwise not reused, so creating a reuse market for polystyrene is particularly sustainable. Similarly, PET plastic waste from items such as water bottles can be recovered, broken down, and reformed into polymer reinforcements in tires. Tire manufacturer Michelin announced plans for recovering 90% of materials from waste tires for reuse in a variety of rubber-based products, including not only new tires but also conveyor belts and anti-vibration products for automobiles.²³ With this technology, 56 million tires could be recycled each year to make new Michelin tires and other useful products.²⁴

Tire material innovations and recycling technology can be used in support of a circular, sustainable economy for the tire industry that will enable virtually everything in an end-of-life tire to be recovered for reuse, transforming one of the least sustainable parts of a vehicle into one of the most.

IV. Legal Considerations in Sustainability

While the auto industry is evolving to address sustainability, new legal risks and opportunities accompany this change. From regulatory changes to reporting obligations to litigation risk, companies need to be mindful of legal issues surrounding sustainability issues.

First, it is important to remember that not all movements toward sustainability are entirely voluntary. Governments recognize that encouraging circular economies, where materials in products are reclaimed and reused over and over, will be the key to tackling resource shortages and hazardous materials impacts. Look for regulatory bodies to increasingly step into this space through programs like reclamation and reuse standards, and take-back mandates. Because of this, even auto industry members not actively pursuing sustainability goals should keep an eye on emerging sustainability programs around the globe.

For companies that are moving quickly to incorporate sustainable choices into the automotive industry, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting frameworks include opportunities to tout this progress. While ESG reporting is not currently mandated by law in the U.S., many investors and stakeholders are looking to ESG reports to identify companies that are forward looking and sustainable. In many investor’s eyes, the kinds of sustainable choices mentioned in this article can demonstrate a business’s adoption of forward thinking that has an impact on financial sustainability. Further, through ESG reporting, some companies will be able to demonstrate that they are mitigating significant risks like resource shortages through some of their sustainability initiatives.

However, companies should beware of overpromising and under-delivering on sustainability. Sustainability claims — including claims used in marketing and promotions as well as in ESG reporting — must be thoroughly vetted to reduce potential exposure to greenwashing litigation. Companies should avoid broad claims like “sustainable,” “clean,” and “conscious,” and instead clarify and quantify the kinds of sustainability benefits their products achieve. Importantly, companies must develop and maintain robust documentation that supports any sustainability claims they do make.

Lastly, in many instances supply chain management will be critical to achieving sustainability goals while minimizing accompanying risk. However, sustainable sourcing contracts and processes will need to address different risks than traditional supply chain agreements. For example, contracts addressing the supply of reclaimed materials need to address sustainability — specific terms and conditions like restricted or prohibited sources and post-consumer content composition. Third-party suppliers of take-back and reclamation services will need to be vetted and audited to avoid claims of improper waste management. Contracts should obligate suppliers of sustainability-related products and services to cooperate with efforts to substantiate sustainability claims or defend against allegations of greenwashing.

Automakers today are driving toward sustainability with innovative approaches to material selection, recycling, and reuse. These exciting changes present significant opportunities for companies that stay ahead of challenges like greenwashing claims, ESG litigation, and supply chain issues.

——————————————————

¹ https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions

² https://www.weforum.org/projects/the-circular-cars-initiative

³ https://europeansting.com/2021/12/10/the-answer-to-the-aluminium-industrys-emissions-issue-aluminiums-infinite-recyclability/

⁴ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32000L0053

⁵ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/ocean_plastics/

⁶ https://hypebeast.com/2021/12/ford-bronco-sport-recycled-ocean-plastic-sustainability

⁷ https://hypebeast.com/2021/12/ford-bronco-sport-recycled-ocean-plastic-sustainability

⁸ https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2020/06/24/Ford-Full-2020-Sustainability-Report.pdf

⁹ https://www.gmsustainability.com/_pdf/resources-and-downloads/GM_2020_SR.pdf 0

¹⁰ https://etfdb.com/esg-channel/esg-case-study-toyota/

¹¹ As opposed to synthetic fibers that consume more material and energy to produce. However, not all “natural” fibers are an appropriate replacement. For example, while cotton is “natural,” large amounts of water, pesticides, chemicals and energy are needed to prepare and dye the fabric during cotton degradation and processing. https://jcsr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40991-020-00057-z

¹² https://jcsr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40991-020-00057-z

¹³ https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2020/06/24/Ford-Full-2020-Sustainability-Report.pdf

¹⁴ https://automotivemanufacturingsolutions.h5mag.com/ams_environment_and_sustainability/recycled_materials_in_vehicle_interiors

¹⁵ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/sustainable-materials-cars.html

¹⁶ https://www.automotiveworld.com/articles/auto-industry-turns-attention-to-sustainable-interiors/

¹⁷ https://www.automotiveworld.com/articles/auto-industry-turns-attention-to-sustainable-interiors/

¹⁸ https://www.ustires.org/sustainability-driving-force-us-tire-manufacturing-industry

¹⁹ https://www.ustires.org/sustainability-driving-force-us-tire-manufacturing-industry

²⁰ https://www.ustires.org/sustainability-driving-force-us-tire-manufacturing-industry

²¹ https://www.aftermarketnews.com/the-future-of-tires-sustainable-airless-connected/

²² https://www.aftermarketnews.com/the-future-of-tires-sustainable-airless-connected/

²³ https://www.michelin.com/en/press-releases/michelin-launches-construction-on-its-first-tire-recycling-plant-in-the-world/

²⁴ https://www.michelin.com/en/innovation/vision-concept/sustainable/

Back to the Table of Contents

Putting Brakes on Cybersecurity Threats: Practical Strategies to Mitigate Cybersecurity Risk 

What would you do if you woke up tomorrow and your company’s IT systems were completely locked down? What if you could not use phones, check emails, or receive orders? What if you could not operate machinery or pay payroll? What if the sensitive, personal, and proprietary information your company stores was suddenly unavailable and potentially for sale on the black market? What loss would your company sustain each hour it was offline? What would you do if your company was the subject of a regulatory investigation? What would you do if the media exposed that your company was shut down due to a cyber attack? What would you tell the board or your shareholders? Unfortunately, this is the reality many companies suddenly face today when they become the victim of a ransomware attack.

In addition to being the victim of an attack by a threat actor, these companies may become the target of lawsuits alleging a variety of harms, including failure to deliver on contractual promises, exposure of sensitive information, and/or violation of various laws due to the company’s allegedly negligent cybersecurity practices. Many of these lawsuits result in large settlements for plaintiffs, as reasonable cybersecurity practices are now the standard of care expected of all businesses and many are not adequately prepared. The practical strategies in this article can help ensure your business is on the path to preparing for and safeguarding against a ransomware attack and other cybersecurity risks.

Ransomware: A Substantial Threat to the Automotive Supply Chain

Ransomware attacks frequently made headlines in 2021 and had a substantial impact on many U.S. companies. In the first six months of last year alone, ransomware attacks on U.S. companies were up 148% from 2020¹. These attacks were responsible for impacting the availability of gasoline up and down the East Coast, disrupting multiple meatpacking plants, and as the year came to a close, causing a cream cheese shortage (which frustrated many holiday bakers). While there are numerous cybersecurity threats affecting companies, such as phishing attacks and software vulnerabilities, these threats are now being utilized as a vector to infiltrate company systems and launch ransomware attacks.

The automotive supply chain is a prime target for ransomware attacks. The cyber criminals that perpetrate these attacks (threat actors) are smart, organized, and creative. They frequently research their victims and target the companies they believe will be most likely and able to pay a ransom. Increasingly, they are targeting industries and companies that they believe will be substantially affected by downtime. The historically just-in-time nature of many parts of the automotive supply chain makes it a prime target for these attacks, as threat actors know such companies cannot afford to be offline for several days or weeks and are more likely to pay a ransom to get back up and running as quickly as possible.

The U.S. Federal Government and many other governments are increasing efforts to combat ransomware, including issuing statements and guidance for the public and private sectors. Unfortunately, due to rapidly evolving technologies, changing global payment systems, and countries that harbor cyber criminals, this pervasive threat is extremely difficult to eradicate. This means it is vitally important for all companies in the automotive supply chain to understand how a ransomware attack could impact their operations, take steps to minimize the chances of an attack occurring, and make changes to minimize the potential damage should an attack occur.

Costs of a Ransomware Attack

Ransomware attacks can be devastating. Many companies in the automotive supply chain cannot operate without computers — they control key machinery, keep track of production and orders, and operate safety systems, such as clean air systems, necessary for production. Yet in a matter of minutes ransomware can lock down computer systems, making them inoperable and rendering important information inaccessible. Further, confidential information may be stolen and, in some cases, published online or sold on digital black markets. Companies are then faced with a tough decision: pay a ransom to unlock their computer systems and prevent confidential information from being leaked or try to erase and restore systems from backups.

The obvious impacts of a ransomware attack are the costs and risks associated with production downtime and the cost of a ransom payment. Companies may be wholly or partially unable to operate while systems are locked down by ransomware. Ransom amounts typically range from several hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, and even after payment it can take days to fully restore computer systems. In addition to these costs and risks, there are many less-obvious costs:

• Restoring Computer Systems. Restoring computer systems can be costly. Even if the ransom is paid, trained professionals may need to be hired in order to properly use the specialized software provided by the attackers to restore systems to their pre-attack working state. In addition, companies that suffer a ransomware attack typically hire a computer forensics vendor to determine exactly how their systems were infiltrated and what actions the attackers took while inside, so they can be remediated to prevent additional attacks in the future. (If you leave the back door open, you will likely be attacked again!)
• Legal Compliance. Depending on the systems and information impacted by ransomware, a company may be required to comply with various state data breach notification requirements, department of defense notification requirements, and other applicable laws. In addition, before paying or making a promise to pay a ransom, companies must conduct diligence to ensure payment is not prohibited by U.S. sanctions. The cost of legal compliance is highly fact-specific and can range from a few thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands, depending on the implicated laws and requirements.
• Subsequent Litigation. If certain personal information, such as certain information contained in a typical employee human resources file, is exfiltrated during a ransomware attack, there may be lawsuits filed against the company. Resolving such suits can be costly.
• Contractual Violations. Production delays due to a ransomware attack frequently result in violation of contractual requirements as companies are unable to meet obligations to their customers. Depending on the terms agreed upon, a company may be liable to its customers for the customer’s lost profits due to the delays, a multiple of the cost of the product, or the cost for customers to temporarily find a new supplier if one is available. There may be additional liability if the unavailability of inputs or component parts causes a ripple effect resulting in delays downstream.
• Reputation Impact. Delays in production can make a supplier appear unreliable, potentially resulting in customer distrust and loss of future business. In addition, after infecting a company with ransomware, threat actors may contact the company’s customers or business partners to inform them of the ransomware attack in an effort to increase pressure and extort a larger ransom payment, resulting in additional reputational damage.

Practical Cybersecurity Strategies to Mitigate Ransomware and Other Cyber Risks

Ransomware is one of several common cybersecurity risks companies face today. Risks such as theft of intellectual property, insider threats, and business email compromises — in which a threat actor gains access to company email account(s) and uses that access to perform malicious actions such as misdirecting funds, changing order terms or recipients, or stealing sensitive information — are increasingly common. By employing these practical cybersecurity strategies, companies can mitigate risks associated with ransomware as well as many other types of cybersecurity risks.

1. Keep computers and hardware patched and up to date. Attackers frequently use vulnerabilities in software to infiltrate company computer systems and launch ransomware attacks. Many of these attacks are avoidable by regularly installing updates and patches that fix security flaws. It is important to keep all network and internet-connected devices up to date, including computers, smart phones, tablets, routers, firewalls, and “smart” technology, including sensors, lightbulbs, and hubs. In addition, industry standard antivirus software should be used on all computers and kept up to date.
2. Plan ahead. Your company should have an up-to-date incident response plan covering all types of cybersecurity incidents. Due to the large uptick in ransomware, many companies also find it helpful to have a ransomware-specific policy in place. These documents help to ensure an orderly and efficient response to a cybersecurity incident, which can substantially reduce legal risk and other costs. Legal counsel can assist with drafting or revising these plans and policies to ensure they meet current industry standards and regulatory guidance.
3. Do not allow personal devices to connect to company networks. If your company provides internet access to employees or customers, create an isolated guest WiFi network for them to use. Do not allow them to connect to the same network used by company computer systems.
4. Regularly train employees on cybersecurity risks. Ensure training covers topics such as ransomware, phishing, spear phishing, social engineering, and forged emails. Employees are frequently the “weakest link” in company security, and untrained employees are more likely to fall for targeted attacks.
5. Practice responding to an incident. One of the best ways to improve your company’s response readiness is to regularly practice responding to an incident. Tabletop, or mock, incident response exercises help a company to identify weaknesses in its response plans and prepare incident response team members ahead of a ransomware attack or other cybersecurity incident. This way, if the company is affected by a ransomware attack, critical mistakes can be avoided and incident response team members will be prepared for their duties despite the chaos. Experienced cybersecurity counsel can assist with designing and conducting tabletop incident response exercises.
6. Require all employees to use multifactor authentication. Employees should be required to use multifactor authentication on all accounts provided by the company, including computer, email, and VPN accounts.
7. Limit employee access. Each employee computer account should be configured with the minimum amount of access required. Do not give employees “administrator” access unless they are trained IT professionals who require such access. Do not allow general employee accounts to install unapproved software or make changes to system settings. Do not allow employee accounts general access to file shares or servers unless such access is needed. Restrict file share access to specific folders where possible. Less access means more difficulty for an attacker if they obtain and try to use an employee’s login credentials.
8. Allow remote login only for employees that need it. Ensure only specific employees with a need for remote access can log into VPN or remote desktop services.
9. Regularly backup systems and store backups separately. Backups should be kept on a different system (on a different network or offline), or stored with a secure cloud backup provider, to prevent ransomware or other malicious code from impacting the availability of backups.
10. Segment your network. Consider moving critical systems to a separate network from the general network used for email, order processing, etc. This helps to prevent ransomware and other malicious code from spreading to critical systems and may help avoid a total business shutdown in the event of a ransomware attack.
11. Use email filtering software. Software that filters out malicious links and phishing attacks is an excellent first line of defense and can make it more difficult for attackers to reach employees and infiltrate systems.
12. Ensure IT has an adequate and properly utilized budget. Upgrading software and hardware can be costly, but generally it is substantially cheaper than a ransomware attack. Ensure your company’s IT team has an adequate budget for cybersecurity and that they proactively utilize it to improve your company’s cybersecurity defenses. Ask them if your organization follows the IT guidance in this section and how they have prepared for a ransomware attack or other cybersecurity incident.

——————————————————–

¹ 2021 SonicWall Cyber Threat Report, Mid-Year Update

Back to the Table of Contents