Preparing Your Vehicle for Michigan’s Winter Roads- Legal and Safety Tips
Michigan winters bring freezing temperatures, heavy snow, and icy roads that can make even a short drive challenging. Preparing your vehicle before winter weather arrives helps prevent accidents, avoid breakdowns, and stay compliant with Michigan’s traffic laws. A few basic steps can make a major difference once the snow starts to fall.
Why Winter Vehicle Prep Matters
Snow and ice reduce traction, increase stopping distances, and make it harder to control your vehicle. Cold temperatures also affect tire pressure, battery strength, and overall vehicle performance. Many winter car accidents result from slippery roads, black ice, poor visibility, or mechanical issues that become more noticeable in freezing weather. Problems such as worn tires, weak brakes, or uncleared windows or lights can increase these risks. Preparing your vehicle ahead of time helps minimize these hazards and lowers the chance of an emergency during dangerous conditions.
Check Your Tires
Your tires play a crucial role in winter safety. Good tires improve handling, braking, and overall control on slippery roads.
Make sure your tires have proper tread depth. Worn tires reduce traction on snow and ice.
Consider switching to winter tires for better grip in low temperatures.
Check tire pressure often since cold air causes it to drop.
Inspect Lights, Wipers, and Washer Fluid
Michigan law requires headlights when visibility is limited, making proper lighting both a safety and legal priority. Visibility becomes more difficult in winter due to snow, early sunsets, and fog.
Replace dim or broken headlights, taillights, and turn signals.
Install fresh wiper blades if they leave streaks.
Fill the washer fluid reservoir with a winter formula that will not freeze.
Test Your Battery and Brakes
Cold temperatures are tough on vehicle systems. A strong battery and reliable brakes help prevent breakdowns and reduce the risk of collisions on icy roads.
Have your battery tested to ensure it can hold a charge in freezing conditions.
Check your brake pads and listen for grinding or squeaking sounds.
Clear Ice and Snow Before Driving
Michigan drivers are required to maintain a clear field of vision. Failing to remove ice or snow from windows, the windshield, mirrors, roof, or lights can create serious hazards. Snow blowing off a vehicle can impair your visibility and reduce visibility for other drivers. Always take a few minutes to completely clear your vehicle before getting on the road, and this will help you avoid possible citations as well.
Check Heating and Defrosting Systems
Heating and defrosting systems are essential for comfort and visibility. Make sure the interior heats properly and that the front and rear defrosters can melt ice efficiently. Fogged or iced-over windows can severely limit your ability to see the road.
Pack a Winter Emergency Kit
Even well-prepared drivers can face delays or breakdowns. A winter emergency kit can help you stay safe and warm until help arrives. Some useful items include:
Blanket, gloves, and warm clothing
Water and nonperishable snacks
Jumper cables
Flashlight and batteries
Phone charger
Ice scraper and small shovel
These supplies can make a big difference if you become stranded or need assistance.
Keep Up with Routine Maintenance
Regular maintenance prevents small issues from turning into emergencies. Stay up to date with oil changes and fluid checks, address dashboard alerts as soon as possible, and have unusual noises inspected by a professional. Winter puts extra stress on every part of your vehicle, so early attention is key.
Conclusion
Preparing your vehicle for winter is one of the best ways to stay safe and avoid legal issues on Michigan’s roads. A few preventive steps now can prevent accidents, injuries, and costly repairs later.
Securing the Future- Tackling Automotive Material Challenges in a Changing World
Introduction
In today’s rapidly evolving automotive industry, the reliance on battery and other key materials and components, such as microchips and rare earth metals, has become more pronounced than ever. As suppliers navigate a world fraught with supply chain disruptions and geopolitical uncertainties, securing these vital materials is crucial not just for production continuity but also for maintaining a competitive edge. This article explores the risks, strategies, and innovations shaping the future of material resource procurement in the automotive industry.
Understanding the Risks
The first step in addressing any challenge is to understand the nature of the issue. The automotive industry is increasingly vulnerable to external shocks, which can range from trade disputes and political instability to natural disasters and pandemics. These shocks have the potential to disrupt supply chains significantly, making the procurement of critical materials a strategic challenge. Microchips, essential for modern vehicle electronics and autonomous driving technology, have seen shortages that lay bare the fragility of current sourcing strategies. Similarly, battery metals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel are subject to fluctuating prices and limited availability, influenced by mining constraints and environmental regulations.
One notable recent example of the complexities in securing automotive materials is the case of Nexperia, a semiconductor manufacturer with roots in the Netherlands, now owned by Chinese technology company Wingtech. Nexperia’s strategic position in Europe highlights the intricate geopolitical dynamics at play in the semiconductor market, an area critical to the automotive industry. The Dutch government, cognizant of its country’s pivotal role in the global semiconductor supply chain, has been actively working with the European Union to create policies that balance economic interests with national security concerns. Meanwhile, the Chinese government’s ambition to strengthen its foothold in the global tech market adds another layer of complexity. The tensions between these competing interests recently boiled over as the Dutch government moved to take control of Nexperia, prompting the Chinese government to retaliate by restricting Nexperia’s affiliates in China from exporting components made in China. This multifaceted situation underscores the interconnected nature of global supply chains, how countries can use these resources as weapons, and the necessity for automakers to remain vigilant and proactive in navigating such geopolitical landscapes to secure essential materials for future production needs.
Dependency on these materials, many of which are available from only a limited number of sources, creates the risk that a disruption on the other side of the world, several tiers down the supply chain, can cripple production lines, delay vehicle launches, and ultimately affect profitability. The problem is compounded in the context of electric vehicles (EVs), which require critical materials and components that have more limited sources than those for internal combustion vehicles. These issues are creating significant upward pressure on supply systems already stretched thin.
Strategic Approaches to Securing Materials
To mitigate these risks, suppliers and OEMs are adopting various strategic approaches. One key strategy is diversifying suppliers and spreading geographic risk. By nurturing relationships with suppliers in multiple countries, companies can reduce the impact of a localized disruption. Additionally, partnerships and alliances with suppliers can provide more predictable access to necessary materials. However, for such a strategy to be successful, it is critical that buyers have visibility and understanding of the full scope of their supply chains. A tier 1 supplier may think that it is diversifying its supply chain by sourcing multiple tier 2 suppliers for a component. However, if all of those tier 2 suppliers are sourcing critical materials from the same tier 3, the tier 1 still faces the risk of an interruption if there is a disruption at the tier 3.
Other companies are taking a different approach by focusing on efforts to localize, or at least shorten, their supply chains. Rather than expanding their supply chain footprint, these companies seek to mitigate risk by locating their production closer to their supply base (or requiring the supply base to locate production closer to them). Whether simply locating production within the same country, or even having plants within miles of each other, this approach seeks to mitigate risk by shrinking the distance, borders, and overall exposure to risk between buyers and suppliers.
Finally, some automakers and suppliers are exploring joint ventures or other strategic partnerships to ensure priority access to materials and components. While the exact structure of such relationships varies, they most often involve the buyer making some form of investment into, or with, the supplier – typically through an ownership stake or loans – that allows the supplier to expand capacity. These arrangements are usually packaged with a supply or offtake agreement under which the buyer has priority to the materials being produced with the increased capacity.
Innovative Solutions and New Technologies
Another significant strategy involves investing in technological advancements and innovation to promote the development of new materials and increased resource efficiency. Innovation plays a pivotal role in securing the future of automotive materials. The continued evolution of synthetic materials and composites presents new opportunities for reducing reliance on traditional metals and microchips. Enhanced, durable synthetics and lightweight composites help decrease vehicle weight and improve fuel efficiency, offering indirect mitigation of resource scarcity.
Automakers and suppliers also are focusing on developing technologies that reduce reliance on scarce materials or substitute them with more abundant alternatives. For instance, advancements in battery technology are paving the way for increased use of solid-state batteries, which require fewer critical metals than current lithium-ion models. Automakers and suppliers also are investing in recycling initiatives, turning waste into value. By creating closed-loop systems for materials like lithium and cobalt, companies can mitigate the dependency on new raw material sources. These systems not only reduce environmental impact but also contribute to supply chain resilience.
Digital transformation, including AI and blockchain, is becoming integral to managing automotive supply chains. AI algorithms can quickly identify, or even predict, potential shortages and disruptions through advanced data analytics, enabling preemptive action. Meanwhile, blockchain technology provides transparency and traceability, crucial for ensuring ethical sourcing and compliance with environmental regulations.
The development of alternative energy sources, such as hydrogen fuel cells and biofuels, also represents significant potential for reducing reliance on battery metals. Automakers are actively researching and investing in these alternatives, recognizing the need to diversify energy reliance.
Conclusion
The future of the automotive industry is inextricably tied to the continuous and secure access to vital materials. As the automotive industry grapples with unprecedented challenges and greater volatility than it has seen for decades, strategic planning, innovative solutions, and leveraging technological advancements remain key to resilience. By understanding risks and implementing diverse strategies, automakers can navigate the complex landscape and ensure the sustainability of their resource pipelines. By embracing innovation and collaborative efforts to turn challenges into new opportunities, the automotive industry can thrive amidst uncertainty and change.
Japan’s Tax Authority Recognizes VAT Exemption for Satellite Launch Services
In recent years, Japan’s space industry has been expanding, with new initiatives emerging across a wide range of sectors, including satellite communications, remote sensing, debris removal, space resource exploration, and space travel. A common and indispensable foundation for all of these activities is “access to space,” for which satellite launch services play a critical role. Consequently, the development of satellite launch service businesses might be regarded as a fundamental driver of growth for Japan’s space industry.
While satellite launch services involve important technological and regulatory considerations, they also raise tax-related issues. In particular, the consumption tax (VAT) treatment of launch services has been a key point of attention.
Against this backdrop, the Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau (TRTB) published a written response to an inquiry regarding whether satellite launch service is subject to the VAT. The TRTB confirmed that such services are exempt from the VAT as a qualifying export exemption under Japan’s Consumption Tax Act (the VAT Act).
In this GT Alert, we provide an overview of the TRTB’s response and discuss its practical implications.
Continue reading the full GT Alert.
California Appellate Court Affirms Legality of Auto Technicians’ ‘Flag Bonus Pay’ System
A recently published California Court of Appeal, Second District, decision affirmed that the use of a “flag bonus pay” compensation structure that provides an hourly productivity incentive, which is often used in the automotive service industry, does not necessarily violate California’s “no borrowing” rule. The decision further provided reminders regarding plaintiffs’ requirements for properly prosecuting claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
Quick Hits
The California Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that a car dealership’s “flag bonus pay” system for service technicians complies with California’s “no borrowing” rule.
The court distinguished this compensation structure from the previously unlawful “piece rate basis” system because it paid a guaranteed hourly rate for all clocked hours (independent of productivity) that fully satisfied minimum-wage and rest-break requirements, plus a true productivity bonus on top.
The court found deficiencies with the plaintiffs’ PAGA claim, emphasizing the necessity for proper notice letters detailing “facts and theories” for any pursued claims under California’s Labor Code.
On November 18, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, published its decision in Mora v. C.E. Enterprises, Inc. The court affirmed a ruling in favor of a Simi Valley car dealership that the “flag bonus pay” system did not violate the “no borrowing rule” and did not otherwise violate Labor Code Section 226.2. The ruling came after a bench trial in a wage-and-hour and PAGA case brought by two former service technicians of the dealership.
On appeal, the technicians argued the trial court was wrong in finding that the dealership’s compensation structure for service technicians, which paid technicians double the minimum wage rate plus “flag bonus pay” based on hours they spent working on service tasks, did not violate California’s “no borrowing” rule or Labor Code Section 226.2, as it was interpreted by the California Fourth District Court of Appeal in Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, LP.
The Hourly Pay Plan
The dealership implemented a compensation structure in December 2014 that pays service technicians at least double the minimum wage for all hours recorded on a biometric time clock, allowing technicians to earn a “flag bonus pay.” This system replaced a former “piece rate basis” based on the number of “flag” hours technicians worked, meaning hours they spent performing service tasks, after such a system was found to be unlawful in Gonzalez.
According to the decision, the “flag bonus pay” system allowed technicians to track “flag” hours for hours worked performing specific tasks and provided them the opportunity to be paid “‘flag bonus pay’ if the flag hours they separately record[ed], multiplied by the dollar amount of their assigned flag rate, exceed[ed] their regular and overtime hourly earnings.”
Compliance With the ‘No Borrowing Rule’
Under the “no borrowing rule,” employers must pay employees the minimum wage for all hours worked, regardless of the compensation structure (e.g., piece-rate or commission). The rule means employers cannot average the wages earned from productive tasks to cover nonproductive time or rest periods. Each hour worked must be compensated at or above the minimum wage independently.
In Mora, the Second Appellate District found that, unlike the compensation plan in Gonzalez, which averaged piece-rate payments to meet minimum wage requirements, the dealership’s plan paid employees for every hour recorded on the biometric clock and provided additional flag bonus pay for efficiency. Instead, the court aligned its analysis with the Supreme Court of California’s “no-borrowing” framework, under which an employer must pay at least the minimum wage for each hour while still honoring separate contractual units of pay.
The court further cited a recent 2025 Ninth Circuit decision that found an hourly-plus-bonus structure, where the employer always paid hourly wages and layered a piece-rate bonus on top, was lawful under Gonzalez.
PAGA Claims
The plaintiffs also raised PAGA claims on behalf of other employees based on the alleged violations of the Labor Code, including failures to pay overtime and provide accurate wage statements. The court emphasized that PAGA claims still require: (1) a notice letter that actually discloses the “facts and theories” later pursued, and (2) admissible, explained evidence at trial tying alleged payroll “deficiencies” to actual Labor Code violations. The court criticized the plaintiffs for simply presenting the trial judge with thousands of unanalyzed time and payroll records and expecting the court to scour them for violations.
Additionally, the court found the plaintiffs’ Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) letter insufficient regarding other sales and lube technicians, who were paid differently, and faulted their trial presentation for presenting thousands of records to the court without providing the judge with concrete examples to prove any underpayment.
Key Takeaways
The Mora decision provides helpful support for California employers seeking to implement and maintain legal and effective incentive-based compensation systems designed to reward and incentivize productive employees, such as the “flag bonus pay” system used by the dealership in the case, and highlights some key considerations for employers. Specifically, employers may want to ensure that:
all hours under the employer’s control are captured on a reliable timekeeping system and paid at or above the applicable hourly floor (including overtime premiums, where applicable, and any tool-rate requirements); and
any “flag,” “piece,” or “commission” component is structured as true extra compensation, not as a mechanism that makes the employee whole for non-productive time or rest periods.
Further, employers defending PAGA cases may want to keep in mind that plaintiffs still bear the burden to prove actual violations, and courts will enforce both PAGA’s exhaustion requirements and the ordinary evidentiary and record-sufficiency rules.
Car Shipper’s Federal — But Not State — Trade Secrets Claims Survive in Alleged Cross-Border Undercutting Scheme
Montway LLC is an Illinois-based leading automotive-transport broker that assists customers with transporting their vehicles across the country to alleviate them of the burden of driving those vehicles themselves.
In Montway’s industry, a customer who wants to ship her car reaches out to a broker with her location, destination, and vehicle information. The broker — like Montway — responds with a quote and posts the shipping job to a centralized “load board” viewable by other brokers and carriers, or the entities who would physically transport a vehicle. If a carrier thinks that the offered price is fair, then it may accept the job. The broker then connects the carrier and the customer and takes a cut of the quoted price as a broker’s fee. To maintain the competitiveness of the brokerage system and to prevent undercutting, brokers do not include a customer’s identity or contact information.
Montway operates a Bulgaria-based subsidiary, MDG EOOD, that runs its sales operation. MDG EOOD had two employees: Ivan Karakostov and Radion Tzakov. In 2023, while still employed by MDG EOOD, Karakostov formed a competing broker, Navi Transport Services LLC. Soon after he formed the company and quit MDG EOOD, Karakostov approached Tzakov and encouraged him to leave MDG EOOD and join Navi, which he did.
After Karakostov and Tzakov left, Montway observed a consistent pattern. For multiple customer inquiries that Montway had internally recorded and quoted — but before those customers accepted Montway’s quotes and before any job was posted to the load board — Navi appeared on the load board posting with what Montway describes as the same shipment at a lower price. Montway then lost the opportunity. Montway alleged that the most plausible explanation was that Navi was obtaining the identities and contact details of Montway’s prospective customers from current Montway employees and then using that information to send unsolicited, lower quotes that undercut Montway.
There were other factors that made Montway suspicious. Navi’s website generally resembled Montway’s, including its terms of use page. It also contained a handful of peculiar, similarly worded reviews, including multiple reviews by people with the same name. One customer even stated in a review that Navi “solicited” her business. And Navi’s website claimed that it had shipped more than 20,000 vehicles despite being new and having a minimal online footprint.Montway and MDG EOOD sued Navi, Karakostov, and Tzakov for inter alia, misappropriation under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act (DUTSA).
Case Information
Montway LLC v. Navi Transport Services LLC, No. 25-cv-00381, 2025 WL 3151403 (D. Del. Nov. 11, 2025)
Plaintiffs: Montway LLC and MDG EOODDefendants: Navi Transport Services, LLC, Ivan Karakostov, Radion TzakovJudge: Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation.
Analysis and Outcome
The court denied Navi’s, Karakostov’s, and Tzakov’s motion to dismiss with respect to Montway’s DTSA claim in part.
The court held that Montway plausibly alleged protectable trade secrets in the identities and contact information of its potential customers, but not in its price quotes. This is because Montway reasonably maintained the secrecy of its customer identities and contact information by training employees on confidentiality, maintaining internal confidentiality policies and procedures, and imposing electronic safeguards to limit access. By contrast, Montway’s quotes were not kept secret. Once accepted, the quotes were functionally public via the load board, even if customer identities were withheld. And Montway’s customer information gained value from its secrecy because, otherwise, competitors could use the information to submit cheaper quotes and undercut the broker, destroying the broker’s first‑mover advantage.
As to misappropriation, the complaint adequately alleged that Navi used Montway’s trade secrets without consent and acquired them through improper means, namely by inducing or receiving confidential lead and contact information from current Montway employees who owed a duty of confidentiality. Although the allegations were circumstantial, the court emphasized that pleading misappropriation through circumstantial evidence is permissible where there are sufficient “plus factors” making misappropriation plausible rather than speculative. The complaint alleged several such factors.
Navi’s negligible web presence relative to Montway.
The timing pattern in which Navi posted ostensibly identical jobs at lower prices before Montway’s prospects accepted Montway’s quotes.
AA customer review indicating that Navi “solicited” business, consistent with unsolicited outreach rather than inbound inquiries.
Taken together, these facts plausibly supported the inference that Navi was using Montway’s confidential lead information to target and undercut Montway’s prospects.
Accordingly, the court denied dismissal of the DTSA claim against Navi, but only to the extent the asserted trade secrets are the identities and contact information of Montway’s potential customers. Additionally, the court denied the motion with respect to Montway’s DTSA claim against Karakostov and Tzakov personally because allegations reflect that they were personally responsible for obtaining Montway’s trade secrets and because they knew Navi’s leads were gained through improper means. The court dismissed any DTSA theory premised on Montway’s quotes themselves.
The court, however, dismissed Montway’s DUTSA claim against the defendants without prejudice because the complaint did not plausibly allege that misappropriation occurred “in” Delaware. Based on the pleaded facts, the relevant conduct occurred in Bulgaria or possibly Illinois, but not Delaware. The court permitted Montway to amend its complaint to add more facts to support the DUTSA claim
John M. Hindley and Nicole Curtis Martinez contributed to this article
Texas Class VI Primacy- What EPA’s Delegation to the Railroad Commission Means for CCS Projects
On November 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Texas’s application for Class VI UIC primacy, giving the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) primary enforcement authority over CO₂ sequestration wells statewide and making Texas the sixth state with Class VI primacy. The final rule will be effective December 15, 2025, at which point RRC—not EPA—will be the primary Class VI permitting authority in Texas. This shift has significant implications for permitting timelines, litigation risk, and regulatory strategy for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects in Texas.
Background: EPA Delegates Class VI Primacy to Texas
On November 12, 2025, EPA announced a final rule approving Texas’s application to administer the Class VI UIC program under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Texas is now the sixth state with Class VI primacy, joining Arizona, Louisiana, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The RRC has been developing its Class VI program with EPA Region 6 since 2021 and reports that it has already received 18 applications, supported by a dedicated “Special Injection Permits” unit and a recent $1.93 million EPA grant. In its primacy application, Texas targeted issuance of about 25 Class VI permits within the first two years.
Who Does What Now: RRC, EPA, and TCEQ
Texas Railroad Commission
Recent Texas statutory and regulatory changes—including HB 1284 and amendments to 16 TAC Chapter 5—give the RRC exclusive jurisdiction over onshore and near-offshore injection and geologic storage of CO₂ in Texas, regardless of whether wells are newly drilled or converted from other classes. Under this framework, the RRC issues and enforces Class VI well permits and associated geologic storage facility approvals, manages compliance and enforcement, and retains jurisdiction over Class II EOR injection and related CO₂ storage incidental to EOR.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
TCEQ continues to handle non-UIC permits, including air permits (NSR/PSD and Title V) for capture, compression, dehydration, and other surface equipment, as well as surface water and wastewater issues, including discharges from capture facilities. TCEQ also manages solid and hazardous waste from capture and processing residuals and oversees broader public participation requirements, which NGOs and community groups are already using as advocacy tools.
EPA
Primacy does not mean EPA disappears. The agency continues to oversee Texas’s UIC program through periodic program reviews and retains authority to withdraw primacy if Texas fails to maintain SDWA-equivalent protections. EPA also holds independent enforcement authority under the SDWA, including emergency powers to address imminent and substantial endangerment, and remains central to federal incentives and approvals—notably the 45Q tax credit requirements for secure geologic storage and DOE/IIJA-funded CCS projects.
Permitting and Regulatory Implications
Timing and Sequencing
The RRC’s primacy application projects a 6-month review to issue a permit to drill or convert, and another 6-month period to authorize injection once all required information is submitted, at least under expected staffing levels. Actual experience will depend on how quickly RRC’s new program moves through its first wave of applications and how contentious those dockets become.
From a practical standpoint, eliminating duplicative EPA permitting should streamline Class VI approvals for Texas projects, especially relative to non-primacy states where EPA backlogs remain significant. However, developers will need to carefully align RRC Class VI timelines with TCEQ air permitting and with financing milestones tied to 45Q and DOE grants.
Early mis-sequencing can push projects out of key tax-credit windows or offtake-start deadlines. With 18 applications already in the queue and more expected, early and complete filings may receive more favorable timing than later, contested applications.
Transition of Existing EPA Applications
Because RRC staff have been reviewing Class VI applications alongside EPA Region 6 since 2021, many pending projects are already well known to the Commission. Developers with EPA-filed applications should expect formal transfer of pending applications and records to the RRC once the rule is effective, along with gap analyses to reconcile EPA application materials with specific Texas requirements under Chapter 5, such as financial assurance, monitoring and reporting provisions, and emergency response planning. There is also potential for “re-opening” of issues if RRC interprets Texas statutes more conservatively than EPA staff did during pre-delegation review. Projects that assumed EPA-centric timelines should revisit their schedules and covenants.
Key Procedural Steps
Several stages of the RRC process may generate disputes or delays. Early on, staff will closely review whether the application fully addresses the area around the wells, nearby faults, and any old or abandoned oil and gas wells that could create pathways for movement. The Commission is also likely to ask for substantial data and modeling on two fronts: (1) the potential for injection-related seismic activity, and (2) how the injected CO₂ will move over time and how the site will be monitored and managed after injection stops.
Public notice and comment procedures will present another flashpoint. For each Class VI permit, the RRC will have to identify which nearby landowners, local governments, and other stakeholders qualify as “affected persons” with the right to request a hearing. The Commission will also need to show that it has provided meaningful notice and an opportunity for communities near proposed storage sites, including environmental justice communities and residents with limited English proficiency to engage. Advocacy groups raised concerns about these issues during the primacy rulemaking, and they are likely to continue pressing them in individual permit proceedings.
Permit conditions themselves may become focal points both for applicants concerned about cost and feasibility, and for opponents focused on protectiveness, particularly regarding monitoring requirements, financial assurance, injectivity limits, and corrective action obligations.
Litigation and Enforcement Risk
The shift to RRC primacy creates new litigation and enforcement dynamics that developers need to navigate carefully. Final RRC decisions on Class VI permits will be subject to administrative contested-case hearings, followed by judicial review in state district court.
Texas statutes generally impose relatively short windows—often in the 30-day range—to seek judicial review after a final order, and courts will review permits on a substantial-evidence standard limited to the administrative record. This means technical teams should assume their reports, responses to comments, and testimony will be scrutinized in litigation, making record-building essential from day one.
EPA retains significant oversight and enforcement leverage even with primacy delegation. Periodic program reviews could lead EPA to require Texas to tighten implementation, potentially affecting existing or pending permits. EPA and DOJ can still bring SDWA enforcement actions where state enforcement is absent or inadequate, especially in cases of alleged endangerment of underground sources of drinking water.
Enforcement exposure will now come from multiple directions simultaneously. The RRC will conduct inspections and issue notices of violation, administrative penalties, and permit modifications, suspension, or revocation. TCEQ will enforce violations related to air, water, and waste at capture and compression facilities. The Texas Attorney General may bring civil actions seeking penalties and injunctive relief, while EPA and DOJ retain authority for SDWA, Clean Air Act, or Clean Water Act enforcement in egregious or multi-state cases.
Well-structured compliance programs, incident response plans, and privilege protocols will be critical to managing this multi-agency risk.
Strategic Considerations and Action Items
For developers, operators, and investors evaluating CCS opportunities in Texas, several practical steps are worth considering now:
Map the full regulatory stack early. Identify all RRC and TCEQ approvals, along with federal tax-credit and funding requirements, at the conceptual stage—not after site control and offtake contracts are locked in.
Engage RRC early and often. Use pre-application meetings to align expectations on AoR, modeling, seismic risk, and monitoring plans. Clarify how the Commission will treat projects that began under EPA review, and whether prior EPA feedback will be honored.
Treat the permit file like a litigation record. Build a robust technical record that clearly demonstrates the protectiveness of underground sources of drinking water and addresses likely attack points, including legacy wells, seismicity, environmental justice concerns, and plume migration. Respond comprehensively to comments and expert reports from opponents.
Develop an integrated community strategy. Coordinate Class VI permitting with TCEQ’s Public Involvement Plan and other public participation processes. Consider voluntary outreach—community meetings, translated materials, and accessible summaries—to mitigate criticism of “paper-only” engagement and build local support.
Prepare for multi-agency oversight and enforcement. Establish internal governance, document management, and incident-response protocols tailored to Class VI monitoring, reporting, and emergency requirements. Consider privileged compliance audits or mock inspections focusing on RRC and TCEQ expectations.
Evaluate portfolio allocation across states. Texas now joins other primacy states where state-led programs may move faster than EPA-led permitting. Compare Texas’s emerging track record and regulatory climate with options in Louisiana, Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia, Arizona, and non-primacy states when deciding where to place first-mover capital.
Foley Automotive Update – November 21, 2025
Analysis by Julie Dautermann, Competitive Intelligence Analyst Foley is here to help you through all aspects of rethinking your long-term business strategies, investments, partnerships, and technology. Contact the authors, your Foley relationship partner, or our Automotive Team to discuss and learn more.
Key developments
Foley & Lardner’s 2025 Auto Trends Series, Driving the Future: Innovations, Regulations, and Strategies, will deliver actionable insights on critical topics, including regulatory changes, resilient supply chains, global competition, connected vehicle data, and talent strategies. Subscribe here to receive updates when new articles in this series are published.
U.S. new light-vehicle sales in November 2025 are projected to decline 5.2% year-over-year for a SAAR of 15.4 million units, according to a joint forecast from J.D. Power and GlobalData.
New vehicle inventory reached 2.97 million units at the start of November for an 88 days’ supply industrywide, according to analysis from Cox Automotive. This represents a 2.9% increase since the end of September, but a decline of 3.8% compared to November 2024.
A number of automakers are urging major suppliers to find permanent alternatives to Chinese semiconductors in response to the microchip supply disruption involving Chinese-owned, Netherlands-based Nexperia.
The Nexperia supply disruption serves as “a warning shot for global supply chains,” and dependence on China for certain raw materials and technology is likely to increase risk for global automakers, according to commentary from Moody’s and Gartner.
GM directed a number of its suppliers to eliminate the use of China-sourced parts by 2027, according to unnamed sources in Reuters.
Automakers and suppliers are increasingly shifting away from global just-in-time supply chains to prioritize “regional supply chain resiliency.”
On November 18, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) provided an assessment of recent trade developments that included framework agreements with four Latin American countries, a deal with Switzerland, updates on China’s rare earth export controls, and a new White House fact sheet pertaining to the U.S.-Korea deal.
The Wall Street Journal reports China is considering implementing a “validated end-user” system for certain rare earth exports, and this “could make importing certain Chinese materials more difficult” for U.S. companies that have both civilian and defense clients. China dominates the processing of rare earth elements globally.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s plan to impose higher tariffs on certain Chinese imports has been delayed until at least December amid ongoing congressional debate.
The NAM submitted commentary to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative concerning practical steps to strengthen the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). In addition, NAM Vice President of International Policy Andrea Durkin plans to testify during the USTR’s public hearing December 3-5, 2025 regarding the operation of the USMCA.
OEMs/SUPPLIERS
A report published by MEMA Original Equipment Suppliers and consultancy Arthur D. Little includes an assessment of U.S. reshoring constraints and opportunities by auto parts category. The report also notes: “Labor remains the most visible pressure point, as higher wages (including benefits), limited availability, and persistent skills gaps raise costs relative to offshore peers. Automation offers a potential offset, but adoption below Tier 1 is constrained by high up-front investment requirements and limited integrator support.”
Crain’s Detroit reports automotive content at the Consumer Electronics Show in January is likely to emphasize products with near-term market applications over futuristic unproven technologies. The article also noted that certain major suppliers intend to skip CES 2026 amid efforts to reduce costs and maintain profitability.
Toyota CEO Koji Sato provided insights into how the company has achieved record sales and production despite tariffs and market uncertainty.
Honda reported its operating profit fell by 41% YOY for the six months ended September 30, 2025, and the automaker reduced its fiscal 2026 operating profit forecast by 21% due to expenses related to EVs, semiconductor shortages, and U.S. tariffs. Honda recorded 237.3 billion yen ($1.5 billion) in EV-related losses and expenses during the first half of its current fiscal year.
Ford became the second automaker after Hyundai to allow dealers to sell certified pre-owned vehicles through the Amazon Autos site in certain U.S. markets.
MARKET TRENDS AND REGULATORY
The CEOs of the Detroit 3 were invited to participate in a January 14, 2026 hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to discuss topics related to regulation and vehicle affordability.
The benchmark price for aluminum delivered to the U.S. recently hit a record high due to the impact of reduced inventories and import tariffs.
New-vehicle purchasing decisions were impacted by tariffs for 36% of consumers, according to the J.D. Power 2025 U.S. Sales Satisfaction Index (SSI) Study.
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s annual report to Congress warned China could exploit U.S. reliance on its supply chains, and noted that China “now possesses a hyper-charged, state-directed manufacturing base without historic parallel.” The report also urged policymakers to require industry disclosure of vulnerabilities to Chinese supply chains to better assess risk.
Autonomous Technologies and Vehicle Software
Waymo expanded its robotaxi service to highways in parts of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Phoenix.
Tesla received a permit to operate ride-hailing services in parts of Arizona with a human safety monitor in the vehicle. The company also operates a ride-hailing pilot program in parts of Austin, Texas, with human safety drivers on board.
Amazon’s Zoox now offers free autonomous rides in parts of San Francisco as part of its early rider initiative, Zoox Explorer.
At Web Summit 2025 in Lisbon, Uber’s Chief Operating Officer discussed the opportunities and challenges associated with profitably commercializing autonomous vehicles. Developing software that supports safe autonomous driving was described as a problem that is “almost largely solved.” Challenges to commercialization include vehicle hardware costs, variable demand, and the inability of autonomous vehicles to respond to certain driving conditions.
Swedish autonomous truck company Einride plans to go public in a SPAC deal that is expected to raise $219 million. The company is seeking an additional $100 million of private investment in public equity to support growth.
HYBRID AND Electric Vehicles
New EV sales in October 2025 were estimated at 74,835 units in the U.S., representing a decline of 30% year-over-year.
Toyota plans to invest $912 million to increase the output of hybrid vehicles and components across five states, as part of a broader $10 billion investment over the next five years to support U.S. production. Toyota’s newly opened $14 billion battery plant in Liberty, North Carolina supplies batteries for the automaker’s hybrid models.
Tesla intends to accelerate a strategy to reduce the use of China-made components in U.S.-manufactured vehicles, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
Ford is reported to be evaluating whether to permanently end production of the electric F-150 Lightning pickup truck due to profit losses and changing market conditions.
Volkswagen and Rivian are considering selling EV technology developed by their joint venture to other automakers that could be used across a variety of powertrains. Separately, Volkswagen’s electric vehicle brand Scout Motors plans to establish its U.S. headquarters in Charlotte, NC.
BYD established a goal to sell up to 1.6 million vehicles outside of China in 2026.
Battery recycler Redwood Materials has begun operations at a $3.5 billion factory in South Carolina that will supply critical minerals for domestic supply chains. The company’s Nevada Campus produced more than 60,000 metric tons of materials last year.
Canadian EV battery recycling startup Lithion Technologies filed for creditor protection.
It’s Not All Rocket Science: Aerospace Ambitions and Litigation Risk
Aerospace startups often begin with a dream to provide cheaper, better, or faster solutions for aviation and space flight, and the ambition to make that dream a reality. Although optimism fuels innovation, as aerospace startups transition from venture funding into public markets, shareholders may misconstrue their forward-looking optimism as actionable promises. Diamond v. Firefly Aerospace Inc., et al. is a putative class action that highlights this tension.
Firefly Aerospace is a space and defense technology company that creates lift launch vehicles, lunar landers, and orbital vehicles. On August 7, 2025, Firefly completed its initial public offering—the biggest space IPO in the United States in 2025.
On November 11, 2025, a shareholder filed Diamond v. Firefly Aerospace Inc., et al. The complaint alleges that Firefly and several of its executives and directors misled investors about the company’s readiness, performance, and growth prospects in the run-up to its historic public offering. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that:
(i) Firefly had overstated the demand and growth prospects for its Spacecraft Solutions offerings; (ii) Firefly had overstated the operational readiness and commercial viability of its Alpha Rocket program; (iii) the foregoing, once revealed, would likely have a material negative impact for the Company; and (iv) as a result, the Defendants’ public statements through the Class Period was materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
The Plaintiff claims that the alleged “overstatements” constitute violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Sections 11, 15, 10(b), 20(a), and Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiff’s claims are based, in part, on allegations that “[o]f the Alpha rocket’s six attempted flights, four have ended in failure. . . . After Firefly’s sixth attempted flight of the Alpha rocket failed on April 29, 2025, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) ordered Firefly to investigate the root cause of the failure, identify the corrective actions necessary to avoid repeating it, and submit a report detailing its findings.” Firefly received FAA clearance to resume its Alpha rocket launches months before the complaint was filed.
Engineering uncertainty and strict regulatory oversight are endemic to the aerospace industry, which necessarily results in some uncertainty around timelines and milestones. The newly-filed lawsuit against Firefly may mark the beginning of more securities actions against aerospace companies pushing the boundaries of aviation and space flight, who face these inherent risks and uncertainties.
Driving Into 2026: The State of NHTSA and the Future of Vehicle Safety Regulation
Consistent with trends in recent years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) continues to pursue a vigorous and ambitious regulatory agenda. Since January 2025, NHTSA has made significant personnel changes, published several major rulemaking proposals, and opened or upgraded over 30 investigations. Together, these developments highlight how NHTSA is blending policy modernization with aggressive enforcement, signaling an increasingly data-driven, technology-neutral approach to safety regulation.
Significant Personnel Changes in 2025
The opening months of the Trump Administration have been marked by a flurry of personnel changes across the federal government. These changes have also affected NHTSA with a reported staff reduction of approximately 25%.[1] The reduction has been a combination of employees opting for buyouts, termination of probationary employees, and retirements that have reduced the Agency’s headcount from abought 780 to roughly 575.[2] These changes reflect the new administration’s push for efficiency and cost-cutting measures.
Regarding senior leadership, from January 2017, at the close of the Obama Administration, until September 2025, NHTSA had a Senate-confirmed Administrator for only five months—between May and September 2022—when Steven Cliff served under the Biden Administration. . In September 2025, Jonathan Morrison was sworn in as NHTSA Administrator. Morrison served as NHTSA’s Chief Counsel for the previous Trump Administration, from 2017 to 2021. Mr. Morrison’s prior experience with the Agency, along with his experience leading a technology company’s legal, regulatory, government affairs, and policy demonstrate the current administrations focus on facilitating the development of advanced vehicle technologies.
DOT’s Innovation Agenda Seeks to Spur Development of Automated Vehicles
In April 2025, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Sean Duffy, introduced a new Automated Vehicle (AV) Framework as part of the DOT’s innovation agenda. The AV Framework advanced three principles:
Prioritize the safety of ongoing AV operations on public roads;
Unleash innovation by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers; and
Enable commercial deployment of AVs to enhance safety and mobility for the
As part of this framework, NHTSA issued the third amended Standing General Order 2021-01 to continue requiring crash reporting of certain advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and automated driving systems (ADS). See Third Amended SGO 2021-01 (Apr. 24, 2025). NHTSA also announced through an open letter that it would begin accepting exemption requests for domestically built vehicles pursuant to its authority under 49 U.S.C. § 30114(A).[3] Under § 30114(A), motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment could be exempted from complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for particular purpose, such as research, investigation, demonstrations, or training. Before the April 2024 open letter, NHTSA had limited its use of this exemption authority to the importation of non-FMVSS-compliant vehicles and equipment under 49 CFR Part 591.5(j). By extending use of this exemption authority to domestically produced vehicles and equipment, the open letter marks a significant expansion of NHTSA’s prior practice and begins to level the playing field for domestic developers and manufacturers that do not qualify for the testing exception available to legacy vehicle manufacturers under 49 U.S.C. § 30112(b)(10).
To further remove potential barriers to deploying AVs without manual controls, NHTSA announced proposals to amend four safety standards:
FMVSS No. 102, Transmission shift position sequence, starter interlock and transmission braking effect;
FMVSS No. 103, Windshield defrosting and defogging systems;
FMVSS No. 104, Windshield wiping and washing systems; and
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.
Advancing these rulemakings will be a future emphasis for NHTSA as it seeks to demonstrate the efficacy of the DOT’s Innovation Agenda.
These proposals also complement work NHTSA advanced just before the Trump Administration took office. On January 15, 2025, NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for a voluntary framework to evaluate and oversee ADS-equipped vehicles. See 90 Fed. Reg. 4130 (Jan. 15, 2025). Dubbed the ADS-equipped Vehicle Safety, Transparency, and Evaluation Program (AV STEP), the framework would be available to vehicle manufacturers, ADS developers, fleet operators, system integrators of ADS-equipped vehicles looking to deploy AVs on public roads, entities seeking an exemption from safety standards, and entities deploying ADS-equipped vehicles that can be lawfully operated on public roads. The program establishes steps for participation, eligibility criteria, data reporting, independent assessments, and ongoing safety oversight.
Notably, in August 2025, NHTSA announced that its AV Framework resulted in a newly issued exemption that would permit a robotaxi manufacturer to operate its AVs without certain manual controls on public roads. In conjunction with the exemption announcement, NHTSA also closed its investigation into the same manufacturer’s self-certification of its purpose-built AVs. The move marked a significant shift in NHTSA’s public stance with respect to the investigation and its approach to prior exemption requests that had languished until manufacturers withdrew their exemption applications.
NHTSA’s Rulemaking and Enforcement Agenda
Beyond NHTSA’s AV Framework, the Agency’s regulatory and enforcement agenda likely will focus on similar themes of ensuring roadway safety, removing unnecessary regulatory burdens, and promoting U.S. manufacturing.
Regarding safety standards and other regulations, NHTSA has published a series of proposed rulemakings aimed at deleting outdated or transitional text across numerous FMVSS,[4] such as phase-in requirements that have expired, redundant language, and performance requirements that overlap with another standard.
Looking at NHTSA’s regulatory agenda, current and upcoming rulemakings provide additional insight into the fairly comprehensive approach NHTSA is taking with respect to emerging technologies. Examples of the Agency’s ongoing rulemaking activities touching on emerging technologies include:
Non-pneumatic tires;
Advanced impaired driving technology;
Modernizing event data recorder (EDR) requirements;
Modernizing tire standards for passenger vehicles;
Updating lighting Standards to facilitate new designs and emerging technologies;
Automatic emergency braking for heavy vehicles; and
Amending the recent final rule for automatic emergency braking for light vehicles.
These rulemakings provide some insight into how NHTSA will approach safety standards for emerging technologies. The industry should pay close attention to the types of data NHTSA develops to support proposed standards, how the standards remain neutral for technologies that are still developing, and the test protocols (including the extent to which NHTSA uses current or developing industry standards). Lessons from these rulemakings will be useful in shaping the approach NHTSA will use in the near future to address the ever-expanding safety systems and vehicle technologies.
As for enforcement, NHTSA continues to be highly active. In Fiscal Year 2025 (which ended on September 30, 2025), NHTSA opened approximately 33 investigations, with more than 20 of these investigations opened since the beginning of 2025. Backup camera systems have been a particular focus of NHTSA and were the predicate for a recent consent order with a vehicle manufacturer, as well as the subject of two open investigations. This focus has led to a surge of recalls related to issues with backup cameras. Similarly, several open investigations involve potential issues in driver-assistance technologies, such as automatic emergency braking and partial driving automation systems, as well as investigations of Level 3 and Level 5 AVs. These investigations demonstrate NHTSA’s use of data reported under SGO 2021-01, consumer complaints related to newer technologies, and scrutiny of ADS behavior in specific, legally regulated contexts—such as school bus stops and emergency-vehicle interactions. Notably, the majority of open recalls involve software logic, such as brake assist, ADS perception, or airbag controllers, underscoring the need for robust validation processes, effective software update management, and procedures to evaluate the complex interactions among sensor perception, software logic, and driver expectations.
* * *
NHTSA’s 2025 trajectory shows an agency blending deregulation with forward-looking technology oversight, while remaining aggressive in defect enforcement. To reduce enforcement risk, manufacturers must ensure that their internal safety evaluation and reporting procedures are up-to-date and that key personnel maintain proper training on current regulatory requirements and systems/portals used by NHTSA. A robust compliance process should include comprehensive reviews of potential safety issues and, where applicable, conformity to safety standards and other regulatory obligations (such as EWR requirements), as well as ensuring timely and complete responses to NHTSA.
[1] David Shepardson, U.S. Auto Safety Agency Shedding More Than 25 Employees, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/us-auto-safety-agency-shedding-more-than-25-employees-2025-07-17/ (July 17, 2025).
[2] See Workforce Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Transp., https://www.transportation.gov/mission/administrations /assistant-secretary-administration/human-resources/workforce-statistics (last updated Nov. 12, 2025) (comparing Onboard Statistics, 2nd Quarter FY 2025 to 4th Quarter FY 2025).
[3] See Automated Vehicle Exemption Program: Domestic Exemptions, Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2025-04/automated-vehicle-exemption-program-domestic-exemptions-2025.pdf (Apr. 24, 2025).
[4] The proposed rulemakings address the following safety standards: FMVSS 204, Steering control rearward displacement; FMVSS 205, Glazing materials; FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components; FMVSS 207, Seating systems; FMVSS 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; FMVSS 214, Side impact protection; FMVSS 216, Roof crush resistance; FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release; FMVSS 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection; FMVSS 301, Fuel system integrity; FMVSS 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles; and FMVSS 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity.
Hawaii Department of Taxation Attacks Its Own
In a case of homecourt advantage may not be worth much, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled that a vendor’s aircraft-part sales to local company Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (“Airlines”) do not qualify for the exemption for sales of aircraft parts because the gross proceeds received by the vendor were not “received from the servicing and maintenance of aircraft.” In re Tax Appeal of Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Hawaii Dep’t of Taxation, Dkt. No. CAAP-24-0000496 (HI Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2025).
Airlines agreed with its parts vendor that it (Airlines) would be responsible for the payment of General Excise Tax (“GET”) due on its purchases of aircraft parts from vendor. The Hawaii Department of Taxation (“Department”) audited vendor and determined that vendor owed GET on the sales to Airlines. Airlines paid the GET to the Department under protest, sought a refund with a claim that the aircraft parts are exempt maintenance costs, and pursued an action to recover monies paid under protest (“Payment Under Protest Action”). When the Department failed to respond to the refund claim, Airlines sued for a refund in Tax Appeals Court. The trial court ruled for the Department, and Airlines appealed.
Hawaii’s GET is a levy on business and other activities in Hawaii “measured by the application of rates against values of products, gross proceeds of sales, or gross income, whichever is specified,” including specifying as taxable engaging in the “business of selling tangible personal property” and engaging in a “service business[.]” HIRS § 237-13. There is an exemption for “amounts received from the servicing and maintenance of aircraft….” HIRS § 237-24.9(a). The terms “service business” and “aircraft service and maintenance” are defined by statute.
Essentially, the Department argued that the amounts were exempt from the GET if Airlines paid someone else to perform the service but not exempt if Airlines bought the parts and conducted its own servicing. The court noted that the statute provides that “‘[a]ircraft service and maintenance’ means all scheduled and unscheduled tasks performed within an aircraft service and maintenance facility” and “‘[a]ircraft service and maintenance facility’ means a facility for aircraft service and maintenance that is not less than thirty thousand square feet in area . . . .” HIRS § 237-24.9(b). Further, the court noted, service businesses pay the GET unless exempt under one of the exemption provisions, but the statute provides that:
“Service business or calling” includes all activities engaged in for other persons for a consideration which involve the rendering of a service, including professional and transportation services, as distinguished from the sale of tangible property or the production and sale of tangible property.
HIRS § 237-7.
The Court of Appeals read the above provisions together and concluded that the exemption: “applies only to taxpayers who service and maintain multi-engine jet aircraft for others (within a thirty-thousand-square-foot-or-more facility), ‘as distinguished from the sale of tangible property or the production and sale of tangible property.’” Slip Op at 13-14. It ruled that vendor’s gross proceeds from its sale of aircraft parts to Airlines was not for servicing, vendor owed the tax and no exemption applied, and the fact that Airlines had to pay the GET on parts for which it did its own servicing was a function of its agreement with vendor and not a function of the GET.
Airlines asserted that if it owed the GET, the statute would violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and was discriminatory because Hawaii has a use tax exemption for parts imported and used for aircraft maintenance and service. HIRS § 238-1(8). It is axiomatic, though some courts still do not seem to accept, that a transaction violates the Commerce Clause when it “‘tax[es] a transaction or incident more heavily when it crosses state lines than when it occurs entirely within the State.’” Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner, 516 U.S. 325, 331 (1995). The Court of Appeals ruled that the existence of the use tax exemption did not mean that the absence of a similar GET exemption was a violation of the Commerce Clause. Slip Op at 17. That ruling ignores Fulton and should be reversed on appeal.
It is interesting to note that prior to addressing the substantive issue, the Court of Appeals ruled for Airlines that it could indeed proceed with its action. The Department asserted that Airlines, having chosen the Payment Under Protest Action route, could not proceed in the Tax Appeals Court with a claim that “an unlawful government realization” had occurred and that Airlines was due a refund. The Court of Appeals ruled that Airlines could indeed proceed with its challenge.
The takeaway is that the Department attempted to knock its local company out of court, essentially asserted that doing the work yourself is a bad idea if you want the tax exemption, and that it is fine to give relief to Airlines’ competitors who use parts by bringing them in from out of State, but not give relief to Hawaii’s own. Shameful treatment.
Don’t feel too comfortable at home!
2025 Auto Trends Series: Driving the Future: Innovations, Regulations, and Strategies
Welcome to the 2025 Auto Trends Series, where we explore the dynamic shifts and innovations reshaping the automotive landscape. The industry stands on the brink of unprecedented transformation. The momentum towards electrification and autonomy is gaining rapid traction, driven by technological breakthroughs and the urgent call for sustainable mobility solutions. Meanwhile, the intersection of connectivity and artificial intelligence is catalyzing a revolution in how vehicles are designed, manufactured, and integrated into our daily lives.
The year 2025 presented industry participants with both exciting opportunities and formidable challenges. The sector continues to navigate a web of complex issues, including supply chain disruptions, evolving regulatory landscapes, and the relentless pace of digital transformation. Additionally, consumer expectations are evolving, emphasizing convenience, customization, and eco-consciousness. In response, entrenched industry giants and innovative startups are compelled to rethink their strategies and adapt to a future that redefines mobility norms.
As these shifts unfold, the volatility of the automotive industry remains a serious factor, intensified by geopolitical events and global economic fluctuations. Acute strategic planning and agile responses are crucial to cope with tight profit margins, competitive pressures, and the complex tapestry of regulations worldwide.
To aid industry leaders, innovators, and stakeholders in navigating this intricate environment, Foley & Lardner is thrilled to present the 2025 Auto Trends Series. This year’s edition, “Driving the Future: Innovations, Regulations, and Strategies,” offers comprehensive insights and analyses that delve into the pivotal developments influencing the industry. Join us as we examine key trends, emerging technologies, and strategic imperatives that will pave the road ahead for the automotive market, including but not limited to:
Changes and developments in the U.S. automotive regulatory environment;
Transitioning from “just-in-time” programs toward the development of resilient supply chain strategies;
Addressing financial distress and bankruptcy risk, particularly from EV adoption, tariffs, and other economic factors;
Strategies for securing critical automotive materials, like microchips, battery metals, and other vital resources;
Methods for addressing and competing against the global expansion of Chinese vehicles;
Opportunities, privacy risks, and regulatory challenges of monetizing connected vehicle data;
Competition for skilled workers, especially in tech and EV sectors, and strategies to attract and retain talent; and
Navigating, preventing, and responding to cancellation disputes.
Thanksgiving Travel Safety: Preventing Car Accidents During the Holidays
Thanksgiving is one of the busiest travel times of the year. Millions of people hit the road to visit family and friends, which means heavier traffic, longer travel times, and a higher risk of car accidents. A safe holiday trip starts with preparation, awareness, and smart driving habits. Below are some key tips to help keep you and your loved ones safe this Thanksgiving.
Plan Before You Leave
Thanksgiving traffic can cause delays, so give yourself extra time to reach your destination. Rushing can lead to speeding or unsafe decisions. Before heading out, check the weather, road conditions, and traffic updates. If storms, snow, or strong winds are expected, adjust your travel plans or slow down.
Also, make sure your vehicle is ready for a long trip. Quickly inspect your tires, brakes, fluids, headlights, and windshield wipers to prevent unexpected breakdowns. If something needs attention, take care of it before getting on the road.
Avoid Distracted Driving
Distracted driving is a leading cause of car accidents during the holidays and colder months. Phones, navigation systems, eating, and conversations can pull a driver’s attention away from the road. To stay focused:
Enable Do Not Disturb mode on your phone.
Set your GPS before starting to drive.
Ask a passenger to help with directions, messages, or music.
Wait until parked to eat or adjust settings.
Even a few seconds of distraction can be enough to cause a serious crash, especially in heavy holiday traffic.
Drive Sober and Be Alert
Holiday gatherings and long travel days can lead to fatigue or impaired driving. If you start to feel drowsy, take a break or switch drivers. Rest areas are available for a reason, and using them can help prevent accidents.
If any plans might involve alcohol, arrange for a sober driver, use a rideshare service, or consider staying overnight. Driving under the influence puts everyone on the road at risk.
Be Extra Cautious in Heavy Traffic
Congested roads can create sudden stops, frequent lane changes, and impatient drivers. Stay calm, keep a safe following distance, use your turn signals early, and avoid weaving between lanes. Since not all drivers will make safe decisions, staying alert and driving defensively can help you react to unexpected situations.
Watch for Bad Weather and Reduced Visibility
Thanksgiving often brings early, dangerous winter conditions. Rain, fog, snow, and shorter days can make the roads more challenging to navigate. Turn on your headlights when visibility drops and reduce your speed when roads are wet or icy. It is better to arrive late than to risk an accident.
Conclusion
Safe travel is an important part of ensuring a stress-free holiday. By preparing ahead of time, avoiding distractions, and staying alert on the road, you can help protect yourself and those you care about.