Industry Drug Test Rates to Rise by 50 Percent in 2020

January 27, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The day after Christmas, federal regulators made a huge announcement for the trucking industry: they plan to increase the minimum yearly random drug testing rate to 50% of a carrier’s drivers–up from the previous rate of 25%.

The short-notice mandated increase was made public by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration on December 26th, and was implemented only a few days later on January 1st, 2020.

The FMCSA currently estimates around 3.2 million commercial license holders are working in interstate commerce and another 1 million in intrastate commerce. With a new rate of random drug testing, about 2.1 million random tests will take place throughout 2020.

The FMCSA estimates the additional tests will cost the industry an additional $50 million to $70 million per year.

There is already a fair amount of pushback regarding the data which led to the increase.

“This data was collected in early 2019, and to my knowledge there has been no indication from FMCSA about the increase in positive tests that led to the minimum random testing rate change,” said president of Scopelitis Transportation Consulting, Dave Osiecki. “Not only is it a financial hit that no one was expecting, it’s disappointing to know that more drivers are testing positive for using drugs.”

The agency’s 2001 rule, “Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing,” determined the process used by the FMCSA to decide whether or not the minimum annual percentage rate for any random testing could be increased or decreased. In the final rule, the decision to change the percentage rate was to be mandated by the trucking industry’s overall positive random controlled substance test rate, the data of which is presented to the agency by motor carrier employers themselves.

According to Osiecki, there will be a decrease in industry productivity due to the higher number of drivers being summoned to testing sites when they could be on the road.

J.J. Keller’s Tom Bray said all carriers, large and small, will feel the effects of an increase in testing costs.

“It’s the same thing you’re doing, you just have to do more of it,” he said. “The key thing there is that it went back up to 50%, which is where it was for many, many, many years previous to the calendar year 2016 change.”

Bray believes meeting the 50% rate will bring major difficulties for many carriers, as many fleets experience high turnover rates and random testing can bring even more issues in those cases.

A 2018 survey of nearly 5,000 randomly selected motor carriers estimated that the test rate of random controlled substances was around 1%, making it slightly higher than that of years past.

“When the minimum annual percentage rate for random controlled substances is 25%, and the data received under the reporting requirements for any calendar year indicate that the reported positive rate is equal to or greater than 1%, the FMCSA administrator will increase the minimum annual percentage rate for random controlled substances to 50% for all driver positions,” said the agency.

The reason Bray believes test rates are increasing is that the Department of Transportation has added four synthetic opioids to drug screening–including hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, and oxycodone.

“This is a major issue in the country in general,” Bray said. “Our group of drivers represents the country. If the country’s having trouble with opioids, so are drivers.”

Manager of safety and occupational health policy for American Trucking Associations, Abigail Potter, said although the increase is expected, most companies have already completed their annual budget planning for 2020, and the short notice by the FMCSA will cost the industry millions of dollars.

Additionally, Potter believes federal acceptance of a different method of drug screening would have been a solution.

“We need hair testing,” she said. “One of the disappointments here is that we could’ve prevented this situation.”

The proposed guidelines given by the Department of Health and Human Services, which would allow carriers to utilize hair testing for drug screening, have had little attention by the Office of Management and Budget since summer of 2019.

In regards to random alcohol testing, as of now, the FMCSA has confirmed the minimum annual rate will stay at 10% in 2020.

Lithium Battery Led to Fiery Death in Tesla Crash, NTSB Says

January 26, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

A May 2018 Florida crash involving a speeding teen driver and passenger became deadly after a subsequent fire was caused in part by the Tesla Inc. vehicle’s lithium battery, according to a recent federal investigation.

The 18-year-old driver had been previously cited for speeding, and was traveling at speeds up to 116 mph in a Model S when he lost control on a Fort Lauderdale curve with a speed limit of 25 mph, the National Transportation Safety Board explained in its December 19th report.

The report determined that the fire contributed greatly to both deaths, even though the passenger had already sustained head and torso injuries during the crash.

A passenger in the backseat was not wearing a seatbelt and was ejected from the car upon impact, but survived with various fractures.

This is one of several crashes currently under review by the NTSB involving lithium-based battery-involved fires in vehicles such as Teslas. These highly flammable batteries cause fires that are difficult to extinguish, and can even reignite hours or days after a crash has taken place.

During this accident, firefighters arrived on scene four minutes after the first emergency call, and reported the fire’s heat was incredibly strong and that they could see electrical arcing, according to NTSB’s report.

Responders used between 200 and 300 gallons of water and foam to combat the flames, but the battery still reignited two more times. Additionally, a piece of the main battery came into contact with a metal chain and briefly ignited on its own. Firefighters continued to spray the battery once more after it caught fire while being loaded onto a tow truck.

In another case which occurred in 2019, a Model S Tesla driver lost control on a South Florida road and collided with a palm tree; however, his family’s lawyers said the car’s battery and designs were the cause of his death–not the crash itself.

According to the wrongful death lawsuit, the Tesla’s lithium battery immediately caught fire after the crash, causing smoke and flames to fill the car and suffocate the driver. A crowd had gathered at the scene, but was unable to help.

Why? Allegedly, Tesla’s retractable door handles failed to “auto-present” and disallowed first responders to open the doors and save the driver.

“The fire engulfed the car and burned Dr. Awan beyond recognition–all because the Model S has inaccessible door handles, no other way to open the doors, and an unreasonable dangerous fire risk,” said the complaint. “These Model S defects, and others, rendered it a death trap.”

Tesla has claimed that its Model S vehicle once achieved “the best safety rating of any car test,” which is the reason his family’s attorney, Stuart Grossman, cited for Aman’s decision to purchase the luxury vehicle in the first place.

“These things, they just love to burn,” Grossman said. “The car is so over-engineered. It’s so techy, it makes you want to buy a Chevy pickup truck.”

These are only two Tesla-related deaths in a string of incidents that blame the carmaker’s technology.

In April, parking garage surveillance footage from Shanghai depicted a smoking Model S finally bursting into flames–a video which pressured Tesla to begin an internal investigation.

We’ve reported on other accidents–even deadly ones–related to Tesla’s “Autopilot” automated driver-assistance feature.

“There are a number of these cases,” said Grossman. “What the hell is going on?”

Regarding Awan’s case, as well as others, Tesla has maintained that any high-speed crash may end up in flames regardless of how the vehicle is powered. However, Awan had survived his crash–but would have been able to escape the fire had the doors been operating properly and allowed responders to pull him out.

The lawsuit says the innovative features made the car “defective” and dangerous,” and that the door handles added to the major issue of an “inherently unstable” lithium ion battery.

“Tesla failed to warn users about the scope and extent of the defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions of the Model S,” said the complaint.

After firefighters extinguished the flames in Awan’s incident, the Tesla was taken to a tow yard, where it reignited and burned once again.

Major Car Models Recalled as Takata Discovers Deadly Malfunction in Air Bags

January 26, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Now-bankrupt air bag manufacturing company Takata has recently discovered a deadly defect in its product.

The newly-found malfunction had led to air bags exploding and hurling shrapnel, or not inflating properly in a crash at all.

This issue comes in addition to an earlier defect that killed at least 24 people and injured hundreds of others worldwide–which also had air bags unexpectedly releasing shrapnel.

On December 19th, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released documents detailing its investigation into Audi, Honda, Toyota, and Mitsubishi regarding their connections to Takata’s recall of 1.4 million inflators.

The current problem has already killed a driver in Australia in an older 3-series BMW. BMW has recalled at least 116,000 vehicles already, and believes the issue is so serious that it has told drivers of affected models to keep their cars parked until repairs can be made. These models include certain 1999 323i and 328i sedans–these vehicles may have Takata inflators that were manufactured before production improvements.

BMW is also recalling 34,000 of its 323i and 328 sedans from 1999 and 2000, as well a 323Ci and 328Ci coupes from 2000, which were all made between March 1998 and March of 2000. It will also recall over 74,000 of its 323i, 325i, 328i, and 330i sedans from 1999 to 2001, which were produced between May 1999 and July 2000. These vehicles may have inflators that were replaced by defective ones.

As of now, the NHTSA is saying Takata has yet to give details on specific affected makes, models, or even model years of the vehicles that may have the defective inflators, so it has told companies to recall them properly as soon as possible. The agency also says that the vehicles that will likely be recalled were made between 1995 and 2000, which is when these particular inflators were produced.

As opposed to recalls in the past, Takata’s non-azide inflators don’t use ammonium nitrate to fill air bags when deployed–but the propellant still has a tendency to deteriorate over time when exposed to humidity or high temperatures. In this case, it can deploy too quickly, causing it to explode the inflator itself. The faulty inflators also have weak seals.

Recent government documents show that Takata made around 4.5 million of these inflators around the globe, but because the vehicles have grown so old, only a portion are still in use.

Currently, Mitsubishi has told national safety regulators that its only vehicle affected is the Montero model from 1998 to 2000, but is still working to finalize its recall.

Toyota and Honda are both still working to determine which of their models will need to be recalled. Audi also said it is investigating its 1997 to 1999 A4, SA6, A8, and TT models to determine whether they are affected.

The Center for Auto Safety’s executive director, Jason Levin, says the investigation currently “highlights the need for aggressive oversight both by NHTSA and by the companies themselves in terms of when they get these reports to take them seriously and move more quickly.”

Although he believes we can’t yet tell if automakers are procrastinating on these recalls, he knows it is vitally important to get the recalls out immediately, as many drivers use their cars for long periods of time. “We need to recognize that just waiting these problems out is not going to solve the dangerous situations that defective parts can create,” he explained.

This recall comes in addition to a large series of problems regarding Takata and its inflators, which eventually sent the company into bankruptcy.

In the largest string of automative recalls in American history, 19 automakers are recalling around 70 million inflators. Takata is also recalling about 100 million of its inflators across the country.

What is left of Takata has been purchased by Key Safety Systems of China for 175 billion yen ($1.6 billion).

BMW has been working quickly to remedy the issues with its models, and intends to replace all faulty inflators with new ones shortly. The company says it will notify owners when these new parts become available.

Decisions for all affected vehicles are expected to be made soon–NHTSA has told all companies to respond with final recall decisions by January 17th.

Trucking Employees Weigh in on CARB’s Plan for Electric Trucks

January 23, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Right now, truck manufacturers are looking closely into California’s proposed rule regarding the sale of electric trucks.

California environmental regulators are working to determine the best way to move forward with a plan requiring truck manufacturers to start selling zero-emission vehicles within the next four years.

The California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, the first proposal of its kind in the nation, would bring about these sales by 2024, but would not force fleets to purchase vehicles of this kind or require a particular zero-emissions technology to be put in place.

“Zero-emission technology continues to improve rapidly, and costs continue to come down,” said CARB in a proposal summary.

The regulation, which was presented by staff to CARB earlier this month, would require 3% of Classes 7-8 trucks sold by large truck manufacturers to be zero-emission vehicles by their 2024 models, and 15% to be zero-emission by 2030. Other manufacturing companies producing models such as refuse trucks and step vans would need to have a certain percentage of zero-emission trucks by 2024 as well.

For straight trucks, the number jumps from 7% in 2024 to a whopping 50% by 2030.

The proposal would also mean California carriers with gross revenues of over $50 million, or that own more than 100 8,500-pound trucks, must report their vehicle activity by April 1st, 2021, with a detailed description of the vehicles assigned to their facilities.

CARB accepted public comments on the proposal until December 9th, and had a public hearing on the regulation December 12th. The final vote is anticipated for next year.

However, as of now, the industry is divided regarding the proposal. The hearing’s commentators included believers that this plan would try to implement the new technology far too quickly, as well as those saying it hasn’t been put into place fast enough.

“Our goal here is to transform the transportation system,” said Mary Nichols, CARB’s board chairman. “It’s not just to meet a target. We need to move as fast as we can without screwing things up. This is tough stuff. If it were easy, it would have been done by now.”

California has offered rebates in an attempt to offset higher sticker prices for hybrid and zero-emission trucks. CARB, though, recently announced that the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project has a wait list that currently exceeds the fiscal 2019-20 budget’s funding.

In late October, CARB announced its program’s new attempts to better “align eligible technologies with HVIP goals.”

CARB also released a fact sheet regarding the proposal, which detailed more than 70 models of zero-emissions trucks, vans, and buses that are currently commercially available. California also has funding assistance available for technologies such as these through multiple programs.

“As technology advances, zero-emission trucks will become suitable for more applications.” said CARB. “Most major truck manufacturers have announced plans to introduce market ready zero-emission trucks in the near future.

Regardless, the ability to convert the entire industry from diesel to electric–which is the goal in California by 2045–seems extraordinarily difficult.

“We support zero-emissions vehicles,” said Jed Mandel, president of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, at the hearing. “But designing a program based on a naked sales mandate is fundamentally flawed. Trucks are not cars.”

His suggestion was that CARB starts with the segments of the trucking industry that have the ability to implement the technology now, such as step vans and buses, rather than heavy longhaul trucks.

“There’s a great deal of intrigue when it comes to electric trucks, but not a lot of experience,” said American Trucking Associations’ California-based director of environmental research, Mike Tunnell. “There’s hope and anticipation that these vehicles will be able to stand up to the daily demands of the industry in terms of range, durability, and reliability.”

He also said that trucking companies are only evaluating prototypes right now.

“We are just beginning the stages of understanding the challenges and opportunities that this technology presents,” Tunnell explained.

CARB board member Hector De La Torre agreed.

“I think the key is availability,” he said. “From what I’m hearing, it won’t be until the mid-2020s that commercial trucks will be available. I’m talking longhaul [Class] 7s and 8s. So, we’re not there yet with those, clearly.”

Navistar Cuts 1,300 Jobs and Recalls More Than 12,000 Trucks

January 22, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Navistar is in hot water after it has reported a low 2019 net income and revenue as well as a need to recall 12,539 of its trucks for safety issues.

On December 17th, Navistar International Corp. of Lisle, Illinois announced it will reduce its global employment rate by at least 10% after low revenue numbers in its fiscal year fourth quarter. Corporate factors such as 2018 chargeouts have caused a decrease in demand for heavy-duty trucks in the industry.

According to Navistar, chargeouts are the trucks invoiced out to customers, while units in dealer inventory show the difference between retail deliveries and chargeouts themselves.

In its forecast for 2020 revenue, Navistar cut its estimates so much that they are now among the lowest of all manufacturers surveyed by Bloomberg. Shares proceeded to plummet 10%, the largest decline since October 2018

“We are taking actions to adjust our business to current market conditions, including reducing production rates and selling, general and administrative expenses while restructuring our global and export operations,” said Navistar president and CEO, Troy Clarke, in a release. “Building on the strong gains achieved over the last several years, Navistar has a clear road map in place for sustained growth that will set it apart from the industry.”

As of now, the majority of the 1,300 jobs being cut out completely are due to North American Production cuts. For the period beginning in November, Navistar’s net income dropped to $102 million ($1.02 per diluted share), after having been at $188 million ($1.89 per diluted share) the year before.

Revenue in this fourth quarter fell to $2.78 billion, down 16% from its $3.27 billion revenue in the same quarter of last year. To be sure, that quarter of 2018 was a particularly strong one, and the drop was caused in part by vehicle chargeouts following supplier production constraints in 2018’s third quarter, lower industry demand, and the sale of Navistar Defense’s in December 2018.

An 18% core chargeout decline for Navistar lead to a profit drop of $86 million from $197 million in 2018, as well.

2020 revenue is predicted to drop to between $9.25 billion and $9.75 billion, especially after a net income decline of 53.8%–from $340 million to $221 million.

Additionally, as its holding company’s new fiscal year began in November of this year, Navistar issued a recall for more than 12,500 of its International brand medium-duty work trucks due to a risk of unintended movement while the parking brake is applied.

The safety recall report from November 21st explained that the defect has the potential to cause serious injury and damage to property. While the parking brake is in use, automatic transmission is in the drive or reverse position, and the stationary power takeoff switch is on, the engine’s RPM accelerates rapidly and can override the parking brake’s function.

This defect comes from the trucks’ programming lacking PTO neutral interlock in their powertrain databases.

Currently, the recall applies to the 2019-20 International MV, 2018-20 International WorkStar, 2019-20 International HV, and 2018-19 International DuraStar. These four truck models are medium-duty work trucks used for deliveries, towing, and dumping.

Recalled trucks were built exclusively between February 2017 and September 2019–trucks without power takeoff are exempt from the recall.

The company first learned of the problems in these models over the summer of 2019. A field service representative was able to speed up the engine throttle with the steering wheel switches while the transmission was in gear, even when the parking brake was applied, on HV model trucks. In September, Navistar began its investigation.

The next month, Navistar determined a potential number of defective vehicle models, and finalized the suspect population on November 7th. The safety recall was put into place a week later on November 14th.

Customers will receive a recall notification by January 20th, and can have a recalibration performed for free.

As the notifications begin their delivery, Navistar must keep the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration up-to-date. According to the NHTSA Office of Defects Investigations’ letter to Navistar on December 10th, the company will need to submit copies of all bulletins, as well as all draft owner and agency notification letters.

Additionally, Navistar will update its parameters in the Cummins’ engine control module for feature codes enabling a neutral interlock for the PTO.

Glider Repeal Rule Skips Legal and Health Analyses

January 21, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Machine-Building Plant, assembly shop, selective focus

A recent Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General report determines that Scott Pruitt, former agency Administrator, did not follow legal and heath safeguards in 2017, when he proposed to repeal a regulation which limited the number of glider trucks able to be made each year.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s actions around the repeal “lacked transparency and deprived the public of required information,” said the report from the Inspector General.

While these findings were reported on December 5th, the investigation took place between December 2018 and July of this year.

According to the EPA,, a glider kit is defined as a heavy-duty truck chassis and cab assembly, typically produced without a new engine, rear axle, or transmission. A third party generally installs these parts for complete assembly of the vehicle, and engines are sometimes remanufactured before being placed into the truck.

A recent EPA study found that gliders tested in highway conditions had nitrogen oxide emissions 43 times higher and particulate matter emissions 55 times higher than newer trucks in compliance with emissions standards.

The proposed repeal of the Obama-era regulation would relieve the industry of compliance with the requirements of the Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas rule, which set both production limits and emissions standards for gliders beginning January 1st, 2018. Including glider kits in this rule caused frustration among many owner-operators, as they often choose the truck for its lower expenses and ability to be customized.

“The absence of analyses resulted in the public not being informed–either during the public comment period or thereafter–of the proposed rule’s benefits costs, potential alternatives, and impacts on children’s health,” the EPA report said.

The report also stated that Pruitt worked to have the proposal be completed “as quickly as possible without conducting the analyses required by [Executive Orders] 12866 and 13045,” which would have included the cost-benefit and health impact analyses of the proposed repeal.

The IG said EPA officials told investigators that the rule-making processes were “fast and loose” at the time the repeal was proposed, and that Pruitt issued the proposal around four months after a petition for reconsideration of the Phase 2 regulation was filed by Fitzgerald Glider Kits, Harrison Truck Centers Inc., and Indiana Phoenix Inc.–three leading glider truck manufacturers.

Also in support of repealing glider regulations is The Owner-operator Independent Drivers Association. OOIDA’s director of federal affairs, Jay Grimes, said that glider kits are a more affordable alternative for new commercial vehicles, especially for smaller trucking companies.

“In an effort to provide expedited regulatory relief for glider kit manufacturers and consumers, EPA unfortunately did not perform various analyses and reviews that are required by the federal rule-making process,” said Grimes. “We hope EPA will address the report’s recommendations in a timely manner and propose an updated rule that will revise current production limits on glider vehicles and engines.”

In the report, the Inspector General also states that EPA officials knew the proposed rule was “economically significant” and that they had the available information necessary to show that, but Pruitt still directed the Office of Air and Radiation to develop the repeal without the analyzation required by executive orders.

The IG also said auditors “encountered an impediment to obtaining all the desired information to complete its audit” due to the Office of Management and Budget and the EPA’s failure to respond to the IG’s requests for further information.

“The OMB [Office of Management and Budget] refused to provide the OIG [Office of the Inspector General] with specific responses or documentation related to OIG questions regarding OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs’ involvement in this rule-making and the decisions made, stating that the information sought was ‘particularly sensitive,” said the report.

The report says the agency must “identify for the public the substantive change to the proposed rule made at the suggestion or recommendation of OMB, conduct the required analyses prior to finalizing the repeal, provide the public a means to comment on the analyses supporting the rule-making, and document the decision made.”

Democratic Senators Tom Carper of Delaware and Tom Udall of New Mexico, who requested the audit, said in a joint statement that the repeal proposal was “one of the most reckless and dangerous efforts of Scott Pruitt’s short EPA career.”

They also found extremely disturbing the fact that the report showed the EPA’s efforts were aided by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which impeded the investigation, covered up the agency’s wrongdoing, and violated the law.