NPR News

People who were aboard a Boeing 737 Max 9 jet whose door plug was explosively expelled after departing an airport in Portland, Oregon in January are being contacted by the FBI about a criminal investigation.

“I’m contacting you because we have identified you as a possible victim of a crime,” the letter from a victim specialist with the FBI’s Seattle Division begins.

The message, a copy of which was shared with NPR by Mark Lindquist, an attorney representing passengers, lists an investigative case number and tells the passengers they should contact the FBI through an email address set up specifically for people who were on the flight.

“We are pleased the DOJ is investigating,” Lindquist said. “We want answers, accountability, and safer planes. Pressure from the DOJ should help.”

Lindquist, who represents 27 of the 171 passengers on the Boeing airliner, says his clients will speak to federal investigators if they’re asked.

When asked about the investigation and the letters to potential victims on Friday, a spokesperson for the FBI’s office in Seattle told NPR, “Per DOJ policy, the FBI does not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.” A Boeing representative said the company also declines to comment.

News emerged earlier this month that the Department of Justice was opening a criminal investigation into Alaska Airlines Flight 1282, which took off from Portland shortly after 5 p.m. PST on Jan. 5, bound for Ontario, California.

The plane climbed above 16,000 feet, but a rapid decompression from losing the large panel terrified passengers and sucked phones and other items out of the gaping hole in the fuselage. The flight returned to the airport and made an emergency landing almost exactly 20 minutes after it took off.

At least two groups of passengers have filed lawsuits against Boeing and Alaska Airlines alleging negligence and other failures. Plaintiffs in one lawsuit include Huy Tran, who was seated one row behind the door plug.

“It’s not like when somebody bumps your car on the freeway,” Huy recently told Portland TV station KPTV. “It’s like you almost died and the feelings that come with that.”

The National Transportation Safety Board’s preliminary report found that four important bolts were missing from the Boeing plane — bolts that were meant to prevent the door plug from sliding upward, the agency said.

The debacle is the latest black eye for Boeing, whose reputation was already tarnished by deadly crashes of its 737 Max 8 jets in 2018 and 2019. The Max 8 version of the 737 is around 9 feet shorter than the Max 9.

The door plug failure has put new scrutiny on the deal Boeing reached with the Justice Department to settle a criminal charge related to those crashes, which killed 346 people. The deal angered many families who lost loved ones in the crashes, who said it was too lenient and failed to hold the company and its employees accountable.

Boeing had been accused of engaging in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration, as the regulator evaluated its 737 MAX airplane.

“Federal prosecutors say key Boeing employees ‘deceived the FAA,’ misleading the safety regulators about a new flight control system on the 737 Max called MCAS,” as NPR reported in January of 2021.

The deferred prosecution agreement had been set to expire three years after it was filed on Jan. 7, 2021. But the agreement also allows the DOJ’s Fraud Section to extend its heightened scrutiny for up to an additional year if Boeing is found to have failed to fulfill its obligations — including the airplane company’s promise to strengthen its compliance and reporting programs.

While the deal was set to expire on Jan. 7 of this year, that doesn’t mean the charges would be automatically dismissed on that date.

“Six months after the Agreement’s expiration,” the agreement states, “the Fraud Section shall seek dismissal with prejudice of the Information filed against the Company … and agree not to file charges in the future against the Company based on the conduct” related to the prosecutors’ allegations.

Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

Big changes are coming to the way people buy and sell houses in the United States. The National Association of Realtors settled a lawsuit last week that could up-end the way real estate agents are paid, doing away with the traditional agent’s commission of 5-6%. That’s prompting a reckoning for buyers, sellers and real estate agents. Here are six things to know.

What if you already sold a house?

As part of the settlement, the National Association of Realtors agreed to pay $418 million over the next four years. That’s in addition to $210 million that various brokerage firms had already agreed to pay. Lawyers will get a chunk of that money, but the rest will go to people who sold their homes in recent years and paid what critics argue were inflated real estate commissions. Eligibility depends on where you live, but in some parts of the country, the settlement covers people who sold homes as much as a decade ago.

“We don’t know the exact number, but we estimate it to be in the neighborhood of 40 or 50 million” people, says Benjamin Brown, co-chair of the anti-trust practice at Cohen Milstein, one of the law firms involved in the class-action case.

To find out if they’re entitled to compensation, sellers can check the lawyers’ website: www.realestatecommissionlitigation.com.

How will this change real estate commissions ?

For decades, the norm in this country has been for the person selling a home to pay both her own agent and the buyer’s agent. What’s more, the buyer’s share of that commission had to be spelled out in order to advertise the home on the big regional listing sites. Realtors insist they never fixed those commissions, but as a practical matter, the public notice worked to set a standard — often in the neighborhood of 5 or 6%, split between the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent.

For a home priced at $400,000 — which is close to the national average — that works out to $20,000 to $24,000 in commissions — much higher than people in other countries typically pay. In Germany, commissions average 4.5%. In the UK, they’re under 2%.

Starting in July, sellers will no longer have to spell out a commission for the buyer’s agent. Advocates say that should lead to more negotiation, more competition and ultimately lower costs.

What increased negotiations mean for buyers and sellers?

There’s going to be more opportunity to shop around, and likely a wider array of services, from deluxe agents who charge a premium price to discount agents with more limited services — similar to what exists in other markets like stock brokers and travel agents.

Sellers may be able to negotiate a flat fee to market their house, not connected to the selling price. Buyers may be able to purchase a la carte services — paying less if they do their own house-hunting on the Internet and more if they want to be chauffeured around to open houses.

Many sellers may decide not to pay the buyer’s agent, leaving buyers to shoulder that cost on their own, or go without an agent altogether.

Overall expenses are expected to be significantly lower, however. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond estimate the changes could save homebuyers $30 billion a year, with most of those savings coming out of the pockets of real estate agents.

What does this mean for agents?

Agents are still sorting out what this might mean for their business. When fees are more negotiable, agents will have to make the case for what they’re worth. But the best agents feel like they do that already.

“Do I think that realtors have to learn to do business in a different way? Absolutely,” says Kevin Wilson, president of the Greater Nashville Realtors. “But I also think this is a wrinkle in the landscape. Not a landmine.”

A drop in commissions might drive some agents into other lines of work, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. has 2.5 to 3 million real estate agents — which is far more than any other country, relative to the size of its housing market. For example, the U.S. has about six times more home sales each year than the U.K. does, but 26 times more agents.

“Do we see agents that work with buyers start to phase out of the business because they’re just not getting as many clients?” asks Jovani Ortiz, an agent on Long Island. “These are sort of the unknowns that most agents are looking at right now.”

While the commission pie is likely to shrink, it may be cut into fewer slices, so the remaining agents might end up making the same amount of money.

With home prices and mortgage rates already high, how will homebuyers pay for their own agents?

While sellers have traditionally paid buyers’ agents in the U.S. (and built that expense into the sales price of their home), many sellers may opt not to pay buyers’ agents in the future. In that case, buyers will have to pay their own agent out of pocket, on top of a down payment and other closing costs. Finding thousands of dollars to pay an agent could be a challenge, especially for first-time buyers, who typically have limited funds and also the greatest need for an agent’s guidance. First-time buyers accounted for just 26% of existing home sales in February — tying a record low.

“Many first time buyers are already at the absolute max of what they’re able to borrow,” says Vanessa Perry, a professor at George Washington University School of Business and a fellow at the Urban Institute’s Housing Policy Finance Center. “They’re not going to be able to come up with any additional cash to pay their own agent.”

Home sellers could still agree through negotiation to pay the buyer’s agent. But in a hot housing market, sellers may have little incentive to do so. Eventually, buyers may be able to fold the cost of their agent’s commission into their mortgage, stretching the payments out over the life of the loan. But that will require a change in mortgage underwriting rules. Over time, lower real estate commissions should lead to somewhat lower housing prices.

What should people who are thinking of buying or selling in the next six months do?

The settlement’s changes in commission rules take effect in July, just as many people will be shopping for homes ahead of a new school year. But it’s not clear how quickly the landscape will change. Buyers and sellers may want to talk with their agent about the costs and benefits of moving before the deadline or waiting until the new rules are in place. Remember, commissions account for $20,000 to $24,000 on a typical home. Still, that’s just one factor to consider when deciding when to buy or sell — along with interest rates, the supply of homes on the market and life circumstances like a new job or family member.

Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

After nearly a year of frantic lobbying and debate, the EPA has finalized strict new rules on vehicle emissions that will push the auto industry to accelerate its transition to electric vehicles.

The EPA expects that under the new rules, EVs could account for up to 56% of new passenger vehicles sold for model years 2030 through 2032, meeting a goal that President Biden set in 2021.

The regulations are a cornerstone of the Biden administration’s efforts to fight climate change.

Combined with investments the U.S. is making in battery and electric vehicle manufacturing, the auto regulations will help shift the U.S. away from relying on fossil fuels for transportation, a senior administration official said during a call with reporters.

“Three years ago, I set an ambitious target: that half of all new cars and trucks sold in 2030 would be zero-emission,” Biden said in a statement, adding that the country will meet that goal “and race forward in the years ahead.”

Biden added that U.S. workers “will lead the world on autos making clean cars and trucks, each stamped ‘Made in America.‘”

The new rules require auto manufacturers to slash emissions of greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide that are heating the planet, as well as air pollutants that contribute to soot and smog. The administration says the new standards will avoid more than seven billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions and deliver almost $100 billion in annual benefits, including $13 billion in health benefits as a result of less pollution.

“That’s going to have immediate benefits in improving air quality, but also improving people’s health,” Cara Cook, director of programs at the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, told reporters ahead of the EPA’s announcement. “So they’re not breathing in dirty air, especially for those who are living near major roadways and highways, heavy traffic [areas]. Those are the ones that are going to really experience a significant amount of benefits from these rules.”

Entire fleets, not individual cars, must meet strict rules

The rules cover light- and medium-duty vehicles — cars, SUVs, vans and pickup trucks, but not 18-wheelers — from model years 2027 to 2032.

For light-duty vehicles, the EPA expects the rules will result in an industry-wide average emissions target of 85 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, representing an almost 50% reduction compared to existing standards for model year 2026 vehicles. The agency expects the average CO2 emissions target for medium-duty vehicles to fall by 44%.

The EPA rules are not written as an EV mandate or a ban on the sale of gas cars, like some states and other countries have adopted. Instead, the EPA sets standards that apply across an entire fleet — meaning an automaker still can make vehicles with higher emissions, as long as they also make enough very low or zero-emission vehicles that it averages out.

That means over the next decade, automakers can continue to offer a range of vehicle types, but the “menu” that’s available to consumers will shift to be cleaner overall.

The rules will likely drive a shift not just among automakers, but among their suppliers and in infrastructure, says Thomas Boylan, regulatory director at the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which advocates for electric vehicles.

“I think it creates a substantial tailwind in the EV market itself, but I think it’s even more pronounced throughout the supply chain” for things like parts manufacturing and charging infrastructure, Boylan said.

“It’s really that full supply chain that has an additional level of certainty with these types of rules.”

The EPA says consumers will also be able to opt for gas-powered vehicles with particulate filters and gas-electric hybrids.

Electric vehicles have higher price tags, on average, than gas-powered vehicles, although the gap has been narrowing and federal tax credits sometimes exceed the difference. Consumer groups have expressed support for the EPA’s rules, noting that EVs save drivers money over the life of the vehicle because it’s almost always cheaper to charge than to fuel up. Researchers last year found the proposed rule would save all drivers money, with the biggest savings for lower-income Americans.

The EPA says it expects the new rules will deliver fuel savings to consumers of up to $46 billion annually, plus savings on maintenance and repairs that the agency values at $16 billion annually.

“This is one of the biggest pieces of climate regulation in history,” Chris Harto, senior policy analyst for transportation and energy at Consumer Reports, said on a call with reporters.

“It’s going to have opponents,” Harto added, because the money consumers will save is “coming out of the pockets of the oil industry.”

In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the rules also call for a reduction in other types of tailpipe pollution. A senior Biden administration official said those pollution regulations will reduce hospitalizations and prevent 2,500 premature deaths in 2055.

Auto industry asked for a slower start

The auto industry is in the midst of a dramatic transformation, with virtually all major companies pivoting toward making electric vehicles — albeit at different speeds.

In the U.S., EV sales increased by 50% last year, to just under 10% of new car sales. Automakers are also looking to Europe and China, which have embraced the idea of an electric future, and shifting their global plans accordingly.

But U.S. charging infrastructure is not increasing fast enough to keep pace with EV growth. Most EVs for sale right now are luxury vehicles, with relatively fewer options on the cheaper end of the scale. And, significantly, legacy automakers are making far more money on their gas-powered vehicles than their EVs, some of which are not yet profitable at all.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group representing auto manufacturers, asked the EPA to adjust the timeline for the new rules, dialing down the ambition for the next few years and then cranking up the pace toward the end of the time frame. The United Auto Workers union made a similar appeal.

The approach reflected what the Alliance calls a “Goldilocks problem”: automakers see huge risks if they move too slowly or too quickly toward EVs.

Of course, the auto industry is not a monolith. All-electric automakers like Tesla and Rivian encouraged the EPA to set even more stringent rules. Dealers, who have generally been more skeptical of EVs than manufacturers, sharply criticized the EPA’s original proposed rules.

The final rules the EPA settled on reflect the input from auto makers, labor unions and car dealers, a senior administration official said. Manufacturers will be able to make more gradual cuts to emissions in the early years, the official said, but the rules will ultimately deliver the same reductions as the agency’s initial proposal.

The oil industry is fundamentally opposed

The oil industry, meanwhile, has been an even more vocal critic of these rules and other policies promoting EVs. Rising adoption of electric vehicles is expected to reduce oil demand over time, although it will take decades for the global fleet of vehicles to turn over.

Oil trade groups call the new EPA rule a ban on gas-powered cars, although the regulations allow the continued sale of gas vehicles. The American Petroleum Institute has said the rule “threatens consumer freedom, energy reliability and national security.”

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, which has spent millions on ads against the EPA rules and other policies, also criticized the EPA for not considering the environmental impact of manufacturing a giant battery or charging an EV. A large body of research has found that even with those impacts factored in, EVs are still vastly better for the planet than comparable fossil fuel vehicles. It’s true, however, that larger, less efficient EVs have a bigger environmental footprint than smaller ones.

But the oil industry’s opposition goes even further. The attorney general of Texas has previously filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s authority to set rules designed to promote electric vehicles. Multiple oil trade groups backed Texas in the case. The auto industry sided with the EPA, noting that carmakers are investing billions in going electric and that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a “national priority.”

In fact, cutting greenhouse gas emissions is a global priority. The world has now agreed that transitioning away from fossil fuels is key to reducing the devastating impacts of climate change that, even in the best-case scenario, will disrupt ecosystems and human lives around the world.

And as the EPA sets rules designed to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels, carmakers and oil producers are responding very differently.

The auto industry sees a profitable zero-emissions future for itself — if it can figure out how (and when) to get there. The oil industry is fighting to defend its core product.

On a call with reporters earlier this month, Chet Thompson, the CEO of the AFPM, lambasted media reports that the EPA was considering a “compromise” that would give the auto industry a few more years of more lenient standards, buying companies time to prepare for the EV transition.

Thompson emphasized that the EPA rules would still be, fundamentally, aimed at making most cars sold in the U.S. run on batteries.

“At 2032, it’s the same outcome,” Thompson said, frustrated. “This administration should not be calling that a compromise when in fact, they want to take us to the same place.”

Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that it is banning the most common form of asbestos, a cancer-causing substance that’s linked to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans every year.

The U.S. is prohibiting the use of chrysotile asbestos, joining more than 50 other countries that have already outlawed the substance. The ban comes after decades of pushback from companies that have used it in everything from consumer goods to manufacturing processes.

“The science is clear – asbestos is a known carcinogen that has severe impacts on public health,” EPA administrator Michael Regan said in a statement. “This action is just the beginning as we work to protect all American families, workers, and communities from toxic chemicals.”

People who inhale the tiny fibrous strands that make up asbestos can develop a slew of illnesses, including lung and ovarian cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma. More than 40,000 deaths in the U.S. each year are connected to asbestos exposure.

Most consumer products that once contained the substance in the past no longer do, such as building materials and household appliances.

But the EPA’s ban targets certain products that still carry asbestos, including some gaskets and aftermarket automotive products. It also phases out the use of asbestos diaphragms by the chlor-alkali industry, which produces various chemicals.

Arthur Frank, a professor of environmental and occupational health at Drexel University, said the rule doesn’t outlaw all forms of asbestos, and the substance still lurks in many existing buildings and products across the country.

“This is not a total ban by any means,” Frank said. “It is a modest step that reduces future exposures.”

Why it’s taken so long for the EPA to outlaw asbestos

Federal regulators said Monday that the ban was the first rule to be finalized under the updated Toxic Substances Control Act, the national chemical safety law that was overhauled in 2016.

Previous attempts to prohibit the use of asbestos fell flat.

The EPA tried to ban asbestos outright in the late 1980s, but companies fought back. When the agency announced its 1989 prohibition on the use of asbestos, there was a carve-out for the chlorine industry.

Then, two years later, a panel of federal judges deemed the rule too onerous and overturned it, scuttling for decades any additional attempts by the EPA to ban asbestos and other dangerous chemicals.

“An immediate ban on the import of chrysotile asbestos for the chlor-alkali industry is a long overdue step forward for public health,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said in a statement. “However, it cannot be the end of the road when it comes to phasing out other dangerous asbestos fibers, and Congress has a role to play here when it comes to providing stronger protections for our health.”

What this ban will do

Though the use of asbestos in the U.S. has been on the wane, it hasn’t vanished altogether.

The chlor-alkali industry uses large filters containing asbestos called diaphragms to make chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and chlorine, which can be used to disinfect drinking water and wastewater.

The EPA is immediately banning the import of chrysotile asbestos for the industry and requiring the eight chlor-alkali plants in the U.S. still using asbestos diaphragms to phase out their use.

Asbestos isn’t required to produce chlorine, the agency noted, and two-thirds of the chlorine made in the U.S. is done so without the use of asbestos.

Producers will have five years to transition from using asbestos diaphragms to ones that don’t contain the substance. Those that shift from asbestos diaphragms to non-asbestos membrane technology will have five years to convert their first facility, eight years to convert their second and 12 years to convert their third.

The ban also prohibits the use of asbestos in certain products. Oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes and linings, and other vehicle friction products and gaskets will be barred from containing asbestos six months after the rule’s effective date.

Sheet gaskets containing asbestos will also be outlawed two years after the effective date of the rule, though there will be exceptions when it’s used to make titanium dioxide or for the disposal of nuclear material.

Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

Joann — the craft store chain formerly known as Jo-Ann Fabrics — has filed for bankruptcy amid ongoing financial troubles.

But DIYers need not worry just yet: The company’s more than 800 stores nationwide will remain open and its website will stay active as the Hudson, Ohio-based company restructures its finances.

“We remain committed to our suppliers, partners, Team Members and other stakeholders, and are focused on ensuring we continue to operate as usual so we can continue to best serve our millions of customers nationwide,” Joann’s chief financial officer Scott Sekella said in a statement.

Joann and certain affiliates have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

As part of the court-supervised bankruptcy process, Joann expects to receive $132 million in new financing. It said it will also slice its funded debt by about $505 million, but that “customers[,] vendors, landlords, and other trade creditors will not see any disruption in services.”

Additionally, Joann will become a private company again and will be delisted from the Nasdaq stock exchange, just two years after it went public in March 2021.

The company said in an SEC filing earlier that year that the COVID-19 pandemic had spurred growth in the sewing and broader crafting industry, with people across the U.S. fashioning their own masks and using the additional time at home for DIY pursuits.

“[W]e view the significant number of new customers and increased engagement by new and current customers as a very encouraging signal for the future of our business,” the company said.

But in September 2023, during a sales slump, Joann announced that it was restructuring its field and corporate operations and laying off an unknown number of workers, Retail Dive reported.

The company said in a December earnings report that its third-quarter net sales had dipped by 4.1% compared to the same period the year before, and its long-term debt was roughly $1.2 billion.

Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

Police in Charleston, S.C., are investigating the death of John Barnett, a former Boeing quality control manager who became a whistleblower when he went public with his concerns about serious safety issues in the company’s commercial airplanes.

Barnett’s body was found in a vehicle in a Holiday Inn parking lot in Charleston on Saturday, police said. One day earlier, he testified about the string of problems he says he identified at Boeing’s plant where he once helped inspect the 787 aircraft before delivery to customers.

Police say officers were sent to the hotel to conduct a welfare check after people were unable to contact Barnett, who had traveled to Charleston to testify in his lawsuit against Boeing.

“Upon their arrival, officers discovered a male inside a vehicle suffering from a gunshot wound to the head,” police said in a statement sent to NPR. “He was pronounced deceased at the scene.”

The office of Charleston County Coroner Bobbi Jo O’Neal said that Barnett, who had been living in Louisiana after retiring from Boeing, died “from what appears to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound.”

Charleston police say detectives are actively investigating the case and are awaiting a formal cause of death as they try to determine the circumstances surrounding Barnett’s death.

Barnett, who spent decades working for Boeing at its plants in Everett, Wash., and North Charleston, S.C., had repeatedly alleged that Boeing’s manufacturing practices had declined — and that rather than improve them, he added, managers had pressured workers not to document potential defects and problems.

Barnett, 62, made international headlines in April of 2019 when he and other former Boeing employees spoke to The New York Times about what he called shoddy manufacturing problems at Boeing. Barnett accused the company of adopting a culture that prioritized raw numbers and profits over quality — and by extension, passenger safety.

“As a quality manager at Boeing, you’re the last line of defense before a defect makes it out to the flying public,” Barnett told the newspaper. “And I haven’t seen a plane out of Charleston yet that I’d put my name on saying it’s safe and airworthy.”

By the time the article appeared, Barnett had already filed a whistleblower complaint against Boeing, saying that his attempts to raise quality and safety problems had been ignored and that he was punished for continuing to flag them.