Trucking Industry

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.

Convoy Trucking Proving the Industry Must Adapt

December 18, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

2019 has been a tough one for the trucking industry. Through continuous storylines covering the driver shortage to serious concerns regarding the overall business prospects for trucking companies, the industry has truly been struggling. Despite all the noise, there have been several companies who have been able to cut through the tension and make a name for themselves. Recently, it was announced that Convoy, an on-demand digital trucking platform, has raised $400 million in funding, which will help it escalate its business model and bring it to market. What exactly is a digital trucking platform? For starters, Convoy’s intention is to cut shipping costs by creating a streamlined alternative to the large amount of wasted space that occurs in most long-haul trucks. The goal is to digitally connect shippers with trucking companies. Think Uber for truck drivers; something we have already seen in the market with Uber Freight.

While the news of Convoy’s new round of funding may not appear monumental, it really is a sign that the industry could seriously pivot within the next decade. For instance, back in August of 2019, The New York Times wrote a piece about Convoy’s emergence within the industry and had the opportunity to speak with Silpa Paul, a commercial vehicle analyst for Frost and Sullivan, a prominent research company specializing in consulting for companies. In that piece, The New York Times stated that “Ms. Paul estimated that services like Convoy’s were expected to grow rapidly, from posting $210 million in broker fees in North America in 2017 to $6.7 billion in 2025.” Further, Paul had determined that the streamlined efficiency would likely not bear on a loss of trucking jobs, because there was already such a severe shortage, as announced by the American Trucking Association. For an industry struggling as much as the trucking industry is, companies finding the potential to garner billions of dollars certainly provides a few bright spots.

Moving forward, Convoy understands that although it has produced the necessary funding to evolve its business model and become a national brand for many shippers, it also faces competition from the likes of Uber Freight. That’s why it is fascinating to see where this brand goes next. According to Tech Crunch, “the company launched in 2019 an automated reloads feature that allows truckers to book multiple loads at a time. It also added Convoy Go, which allows drivers to bring their truck cab and hook up to a trailer pre-filled with cargo.” These advancements are really where we will see how profitable and transformative these digital freight shipping apps will be. While long-haul freight is likely to be where the money is for Convoy, the reality is that there are drivers throughout the industry looking to independently move freight. Allowing for drivers to bring their truck cabs to pre-filled cargo shipments truly changes how the industry functions.

Changing Industry May Bring More Challenges than Previously Believed

There is much to be said about Convoy’s business model and how it; coupled with Uber Freight, will have a tremendous impact on the industry as a whole. Unfortunately, it seems to go unnoticed that some of Convoy’s investors happen to singlehandedly turn the industry on its head already. Currently, Jeff Bezos serves as a primary investor for the company, being that both Amazon and Convoy are located in the same city and largely have the ability to overlap their business models; it’s a genius move by the billionaire. Unfortunately, we have already written about how Amazon is threatening the industry by bringing its shipping and delivery in-house to save on costs. With Class 8 tractors now on the roads for the company, a start-up with the ability to handle the “spot market” with the click of a button seriously threatens small companies. Sure, there is already a driver shortage and Convoy argues that it won’t be taking jobs, but rather rendering shipping more efficient by ensuring that freight is carrying up to its capacity. The issue is that there are many small trucking companies throughout the United States and a majority of their business relies on the “spot market” to turn a profit. In 2019, the spot market has been down. Some may argue that these new apps will help alleviate this issue; however, the long-term ramifications due to who actually has a “say” within companies such as Convoy may present far more issues for the industry and its ability to support small and medium size trucking companies in the next decade.

FMCSA Plans to Delay Implementation of Entry-Level Driver Training Rule

December 17, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The Entry-Level Driver Training rule, which was originally set to be implemented on February 7th, 2020, will now be delayed another two years.

The ELDT will eventually mandate that commercial driver applicants finish a particular section of training (required in 49 CFR part 380) before obtaining a Class A or B commercial driver’s license, an upgrade to a class B or Class A CDL, or adding a hazardous materials (H), passenger (P), or school bus (S) endorsement.

This rule comes in response to the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,” or MAP-21, a federal transportation reauthorization bill which plans to aid the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in reducing crashes and injuries that involve large trucks and buses.

These changes are meant to further standardize driver training, as well as ensure school districts are complying with federal laws to keep students, staff, and other drivers safer on the road.

In a recent announcement of extension at the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services conference, FMCSA Administrator Larry Minor explained that the new intended deadline to comply with MAP-21 regulations is now February 7th, 2022.

The official notice is “in the pipeline,” according to an anonymous DOT official. “The whole thing is going to be delayed. It’s mostly due to the failure of the states aligning their systems with the federal system.”

The formal announcement of the delay is expected by mid-December.

The delay is “disappointing,” says vice president of training program development for Instruction Technologies Inc., Laura McMillan. “Our reaction is that, my goodness, the industry has been waiting for standards and a professional-level curriculum for over 20 years. If this industry wants to raise the professional image of truck driving, it begins with how we educate new drivers and prepare them for the field.”

However, Don Lefeve, Commercial Vehicle Training Association President, remains optimistic.

“We do believe, based on conversations, that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety has a grasp of the problem, and we’re hopeful that they can implement it before the two-year delay period,” he said. “But we’re very disappointed that this is not going to be rolled out on time…There are still a lot of substandard programs that will remain in existence (until then).”

As of now, the ELDT has general training guidelines in place, but doesn’t quite specify how exactly to train drivers or even the number of training hours required. The overall intention is to standardize these topics at a national level in order to increase road safety.

The original implementation outline explained that ELDT would create a baseline for training requirements for new Class A and Class B CDL license holders, but changes would not apply to existing drivers. Any driver who was not changing their license or adding an endorsement, and who had completed training before February 7th, 2020, would be grandfathered into the rule and would not need to meet MAP-21 training baselines. After February 7th, new trainees would have needed to comply with the ELDT requirements.

Instructional Technologies Inc.’s McMillan, who has been working on an ELDT curriculum subcommittee, says the current system problems are not limited to the state’s individual regulations.

“The reality is that the training provider registry is not even available,” she explained. “It’s interesting that federal regulators would characterize that this is a state problem and that the states can’t comply when the federal system is not up and available. There seems to be a lack of ownership for this entire issue.”

McMillan also says schools and carriers were supposed to be able to self-certify by October 1st, but that registry, which was set to be the first aspect of completion for the required curriculum, is still not up and running.

Director of safety policy for American Trucking Associations, Dan Horvath, said he is not particularly surprised by any of this.

“We felt that to not delay the whole thing, to at least go forward with the requirements for training the driver [was something that] needed to go through,” he said. “We felt [that] that’s the whole point of the ELDT rule to begin with. We understand that the verification process on the back end would be a nuisance, but not enough to delay the whole rule. However, having said that, we did see that the majority of the comments on the delay were [saying] to delay the whole thing.”

Out of the 1,200 comments made on the rule over the summer, the majority of those who weighed in–comprised of people from state trucking associations, state police, state departments of motor vehicles, and school officials–wanted a delay of full compliance until 2022.

For example, the Minnesota Trucking Association said the rule should be postponed until all systems “from top to bottom” can fully comply with implementation.

“The MTA believes that partial implementation increases the odds for errors and unintentional non-compliance,” said the association. “Motor carriers are concerned that despite their best efforts to comply, state and federal information technology systems will miss information and place the carrier at risk.”

Growing Carriers Finally Switch to TMS Software

December 16, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Smaller trucking companies that are growing steadily are beginning to notice when they should start taking advantage of new management software.

For example, PVG Trucking out of North Carolina used simple Excel spreadsheets to organize its business for around eight years, and finally switched its management methods to an electronic transportation management system after its fleet grew to 28 trucks.

“It slowly became very cumbersome to keep track of all the different loads and accounting things and dispatches,” CEO Daniel Gusev said. “Consolidating everything into one software that did everything from invoicing to paying settlements and dispatching definitely saved time and manpower.”

The difficulty, however, is choosing the right system for your fleet, evaluating it properly, and putting it into place.

Because of this, a trucking company needs to have a solid strategic plan for its future growth as well as for its potential return on investment. Then, it can decide if and when implementing a new management system should happen.

“For smaller, emerging fleets, I think the two biggest challenges are cost and fear of change,” said director of sales and marketing for Transport Pro, Kelly Frederick. “If the fleet is not doing consistent volume and they don’t know what business looks like from one day to the next, cost can quickly become a barrier to entry.”

According to Gusev, who had his system supplied from Frederick, PVG slowly began utilizing the system, first implementing it into their dispatching methods and then into handling invoices.

The bottom line, though, is that it becomes more and more challenging to successfully operate an expanding trucking company with basic tools.

“It’s just obvious when you’re not meeting your customers’ needs [due to] a technological barrier,” said Ben Wiesen, president of Carrier Logistics. He said shippers will also tell carriers when a lack of technology is hindering business.

The move from simple methods to new technology often occurs once a company reaches from around 30 to 50 trucks in its fleet, according to senior director of product management for Trimble Transportation, Jay Delaney. However, “we’re seeing fleets of smaller size starting to make that jump,” he explained.

Delaney also said that smaller fleets that are seeing expansion are usually accustomed to handling business via phone call, but once contracts, mergers, and acquisitions start coming through, they consider bringing in management software.

“They can’t do it all on sticky notes and Excel spreadsheets,” said Rick Halbrooks, vice president of McLeod Software sales and marketing. “They can’t do it using Big Chief notepads.”

Additionally, as fleets grow and carriers look seriously into TMS implementations, they also need to think about the benefits of cost reductions. These savings that come from an increase in efficiency can be put right back into the company with more trucks, newer facilities, or lower and more competitive rates for customers.

But to make cost reductions possible, those seeking TMS choices for the first time should find some guidance. The capital investment involved with adopting one of these systems can be a struggle, but some vendors say finding a subscription-based service can alleviate some of those challenges.

Fully understanding how a system works can be extremely difficult “until you actually get in there and look at the screen and follow a transaction through its life cycle,” said Carrier Logistics’ Wiesen. “It’s easy to get very confused by the product offerings.”

Because of this, finding a reliable source to which a carrier can direct important questions is vital, according to Wiesen. A company should separate questions regarding what software does specifically, and evaluate every individual answer, he said. He also suggested a carrier hire a consultant to help with this analysis.

Many vendors say carriers should first look into the largest business aspects which they aim to manage with the software, regarding everything from dispatching to increased asset utilization.

The main goal should be to make sure “the higher-value areas are going to improve and automate,” said senior vice president of industry strategy for Descartes, Brian Hodgson. “There are a ton of a capabilities.”

One capability includes the configurability of assigning loads to specific drivers based on commodity or destination.

“Those are standard configurables in many TMS [systems],” said Hodgson. Customization, however, “can take you down a path…that’s expensive to implement from a software provider’s standpoint.”

All in all, once a carrier learns the ways a TMS automates tasks, operations staff will start to think differently about how they work.

“You can be more proactive,” said Trimble Transportation’s Delaney. ”When a driver is running three hours late, you can see that in the system and you can make an adjustment to save that load.”

He says this change in workers’ thinking will change overall behavior and maximize business potential.