Two of the trucks owned by Transportes Olympics of Apodaca Nuevo Leon, the first Mexican carrier once again, to be granted provisional authority to operate in the US under the Mexico Cross Border Pilot Program
What can only be described as a resounding success in our efforts to see the United States come into compliance with it obligations under the NAFTA accords, the remaining 50 percent of the $2.4 billion regulatory tariffs imposed by Mexico in 2009 will now be lifted.
The tariff’s, imposed after the Obama Administration signed a funding bill in 2009 that shut down the previous demonstration program which in it’s 18 months was highly successful, have cost American workers more than 25,000 jobs and 14% market share in the agricultural sector.
[pullquote]This is a big win for American farmers and consumers, who will no longer have to struggle with onerous tariffs imposed by Mexico,”, noting that U.S. farmers of apples, grapes, pears, potatoes, pork, Christmas trees and other products would now be able to compete on equal footing and increase American exports. – Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood[/pullquote]
The Transportes Olympics is not a small fleet despite only offering 2 trucks for inclusion into the Cross Border Pilot Program
Transportes Olympics, despite frivolous objections by OOIDA, Teamsters and others is once again, the first carrier to receive provisional authority under the new pilot program. In a phone call this morning to the companies headquarters in Apodaca, Nuevo Leon, a suburb of Monterrey, a spokesman for Transportes Olympic told MTO that they would have trucks crossing the border within a week. Senior driver Luis Gonzalez is likely to once again be the standard bearer for the company.
Transportes Olympics owner Fernando Paez, also owns two US domiciled trucking companies. Fernando Paez Transport and Olympic Transport of McAllen Texas.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement this morning,
“This is a big win for American farmers and consumers, who will no longer have to struggle with onerous tariffs imposed by Mexico,”, noting that U.S. farmers of apples, grapes, pears, potatoes, pork, Christmas trees and other products would now be able to compete on equal footing and increase American exports.
Interestingly enough, Secretary LaHood announced yesterday that he would not be serving as Transportation Secretary after 2012.
Congratulation to Sr. Paez and all the others who have successfully overcome the hurdles thrown at them by opponents of cross border trucking and their lackies in Congress to once again successfully obtain the operating authority they have so long been denied.
GCC Transporte with it's excellent safety record and previous participation in the 2007 Pilot Program is on track to participate in the reincarnated program. If the name seems familiar, CEMEX is worldwide, including a heavy presence in the US
We now know who the 8 Mexican carriers are who have made application to the FMCSA for OP-1MX authority to participate in the cross border pilot program expected to begin later this month.
The carriers that are known at this time are:
- Transportes Olympic of Apodaca Nuevo Leon
- Grupo Behr de Baja SA de CV of Tijuana B.C.
- Transportes Unimex of Reynosa, Tamaulipas
- Alfredo Hernandez Rojas of Celaya, Guanajuato
- Alejandro Moctezuma Arroyo of Octolan, Tlaxcala
- Higiencos Y Desechables Del Bajio of Guadalajara, Jalisco
- Moises Alvarez Perez of Tijuana, Baja California
- GCC Transporte of Cd Juarez, Chihuahua
All applicants must pass a PASA before they can participate in the pilot project. Transportes Olympic and Grupo Behr have passed their PASA’s. The others are pending. Several of the applicants for this program participated in the 2007 Pilot Program that was successful although the unions were able to use their puppets to have it defunded, leading to the establishment of legal tariff’s on US exports in retaliation.
We’re going to take a look at the records of these 8 companies as they’re listed with FMCSA. And we’re going to see what some might consider “problems” with these companies which in reality is a major problem with the new CSA matrix. CSA is not only making these companies look bad, it’s doing the same for the majority of US companies that otherwise has an adequate safety rating under the old SAFERSYS.ORG program.
To make my point, we’re going to start with Transportes Unimex of Reynosa, Tamaulipas, a company which
THETRUCKER.COM recently stated that;
FMCSA records show that Transportes Unimex has a CSA Driver Fitness score of 100, a Vehicle Maintenance score of 90.2 and has in the past 24 months been cited for a serious violation in Controlled Substances and Alcohol.
Keep in mind that Tranportes Unimex is a border drayage carrier.
Transportes Unimex of Reynosa, Tamaulipas
According to
SAFERSYS.ORG, this company has 30 power units and 28 drivers. In the 24 month period ending 9/29/2011, this company has been inspected 608 times. The results of those inspections are as follows:
Transportes Unimex Inspections
| Inspection Type |
Vehicle |
Driver |
Haz-Mat |
| Inspections |
596 |
608 |
2 |
| Out of Service |
79 |
2 |
1 |
| Out of Service % |
13.3% |
.3% |
50% |
| Nat’l Avg % (2010-2011) |
20.72% |
5.51% |
4.50% |
This company has no crashes in the past 24 months of any type.
They passed a Compliance Review on 2/25/2011 earning a SATISFACTORY rating.
Yet when you look at them under the new CMS program, things look radically different as they do for many of us.
Under CSA, Transportes Unimex shows a 100% deficit in Driver Fitness Basic. And for what? 391.11(b)(2) Non English Speaking Driver! This was never a problem in the past before the bullshit known as CSA began. This is a commercial zone carrier. Everyone is bi-lingual down here.
The other deficit for this carrier is in the Vehicle Maintenance Basic. They score a 90.2. Things like “reflective tape missing or torn”. A marker light out. Small non consequential things that before were largely ignored for all of us. However, with CSA, things that were ignored previously for all of us, are now listed on inspection reports and warnings, not citations given, which cannot successfully be challenged, but which destroys a carriers safety rating. It makes no difference whether they are US, Canadian or Mexican. This is the inherent problem with CSA.
Alfredo Hernandez Rojas of Celaya, Guanajuato
FMCSA records show Alfredo Hernandez Rojas has a Driver Fitness Score of 99.3 and a Vehicle Maintenance score of 94.5. There were no OOS violations among the 39 Driver Fitness violations. Neither were there any OOS violations in Vehicle Maintenance, which included 28 violations for no/defective lighting devices/reflective devices/projected.
A vast majority of the Alfredo Hernandez Rojas involved straight trucks. More of the same because of the matrix used by CSA.
There is no record for Rojas in SAFERSYS.ORG databases.
Alejandro Moctezuma Arroyo of Octolan, Tlaxcala
In our opinion, this company should not be considered for inclusion into the pilot program under any circumstances. They have only 2 trucks and 2 drivers and currently do not have any authority issued by FMCSA or Tx DOT.
They do hold a DOT# of 1251467. Looking at their SMS record shows a total disregard for our rules and regs. For that matter, for the rules and regulations of Mexico’s SCT.
Their SAFERSYS.ORG scores are in line with their SMS ranking and that is not coincidental nor the fault of the CSA matrix.
Alejandro Moctezuma Arroyo
| Inspection Type |
Vehicle |
Driver |
Haz-Mat |
| Inspections |
7 |
10 |
0 |
| Out of Service |
5 |
1 |
0 |
| Out of Service % |
71.4% |
10% |
50% |
| Nat’l Avg % (2010-2011) |
20.72% |
5.51% |
4.50% |
In all fairness though to this individual, 2 trucks and 2 drivers are going to cause an extremely high negative score as a result of one or two inspections and attendant violations. They have no accidents in the past 24 months.
Higiencos Y Desechables Del Bajio of Guadalajara, Jalisco
Nothing found on this company yet, but it seems I recall they participated in the previous program. More as it becomes available.
Moises Alvarez Perez of Tijuana, Baja California
Nothing found on this company yet, but it seems I recall they participated in the previous program. More as it becomes available.
GCC Transporte of Cd Juarez, Chih. (Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua)
GCC Transporte is indicative of the majority of Mexican carriers and judging by it’s safety ratings with both SAFERSYS.ORG and on SMS, deserve authority to operate in this country.
Their SMS scores also underscores the problems with the new CSA/SMS system and the sudden overzealous enforcement of ”391.11(b)(2) Non-English speaking driver.” If this is such an issue, then it would be an OOS violation and it is not being treated as such. And in the case of GCC and other companies, the supposed “inability” of the drivers to “speak English” doesn’t correspond with a decreased safety environment nor an increased accident rate. Indeed, these companies being hit with the “NO SPEEKEE EENGLISH” law, have ZERO accidents.
The driver inspections for GCC were all for violations of this regulation which gives the inspectors no guidance, no criteria for what constitutes “English Proficiency”.
Their 13.6% rating in the Vehicle Maintenance Basic is well below the 80% intervention threshold
GCC Transporte
| Inspection Type |
Vehicle |
Driver |
Haz-Mat |
| Inspections |
651 |
1358 |
0 |
| Out of Service |
39 |
0 |
0 |
| Out of Service % |
6% |
0% |
0% |
| Nat’l Avg % (2010-2011) |
20.72% |
5.51% |
4.50% |
Grupo Behr de Baja and Tranportes Olympics
These two carriers, both who successfully participated in the previous cross border program have already passed their Pre-Authorization Safety Audits and by all indications are waiting for the program to get underway.
OOIDA has raised concerns about both of them (is anyone surprised) using publicly available information available for Grupo Behr to erroneously claim that a 1991 Freightliner, a 1989 GMC 8500 two axle and a Ford passenger van have been cleared for participation. None of these vehicles would be eligible.
OOIDA is also crying wolf and claiming FMCSA is hiding evidence of incompetence in the case of Transportes Olympics since there is no data available for them in the SAFERSYS or SMS database. While the truth of the matter is that Transportes Olympics has not been operating under the assigned DOT number in the past 24 months both of these databases cover, thus, there would be no statistics available. However, they have been successfully operating nationwide in the US using dual registered trucks based out of McAllen Texas.
What initial analysis of the carriers applying for authority shows is not unqualified dangerous trucks and their drivers, but an inept system called CSA that is going to destroy many carriers reputations within the industry with erroneous data. It’s already happening as many brokers and shippers consult the SMS scores before tendering freight to carriers.
Rep Peter DeFazio, responding to orders from his union handlers, recently sent a letter to FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro "DEMANDING" and explanation why FMCSA was proceeding with the Cross Border Program with Mexico without his permission. Such a vile, corrupt little man!
Rep. Peter DeFazio, following OOIDA President Jim Johnston’s example sent a letter to FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro demanding she address his bogus concerns about the safety of Mexican trucks on U.S. roads.
But this isn’t about this vile little man’s irrelevant letter to Ms Ferro. It’s to be expected. Despite the fact DeFazio was elected to represent the people of the 4th Congressional District in Oregon, he continues to be in the pocket of the unions, specifically representing the whims and demands of embattled Teamsters President James P. Hoffa.
DeFazio’s claims of being concerned about the “safety, security and jobs loss” surrounding the upcoming Cross Border Pilot Program with Mexico, is as bogus and disingenuous as he is.
The “safety” of Mexican trucks has been well established through historical statistics archived by the FMCSA that covers commercial zone carriers, those Mexican carriers with special operating authority in the US and those carriers who participated in the previous cross border program.
His concerns about security is a smoke screen thrown up by the opposition to further delay implementation of the program. The participants, closely monitored and inspected do not present any security risks to this country nor this industry.
And the arguments about “job losses” is totally bogus and defies logic. Are we to believe a handful of companies from Mexico, presenting maybe 50 trucks for participation in this program, is going to “totally destroy” our industry as Mark Reddig of OOIDA is so fond of saying, or that they are going to cause the loss of thousands of union trucking and warehouse jobs as Teamsters President Hoffa claims? Totally ludicrous.
Reading DeFazio’s sophomoric little missive, it is glaringly obvious that this ignorant little man hasn’t a clue to what’s going on.
He lists these examples as areas of his concern.
- FMCSA does not yet have plans in place to: conduct on-site safety reviews in Mexico for at least half of participating carriers, as required by law.
- FMCSA cannot ensure that pilot program drivers and trucks are identified and inspected at each unique border crossing.
- FMCSA cannot verify driver and truck eligibility for the pilot program; acquire electronic monitoring devices for use in the pilot program
- FMCSA has not trained inspection and enforcement personnel at the border and within the United States.
- FMCSA has not acquired electronic monitoring devices for use in the pilot program
Obviously, DeFazio has ignored the
response FMCSA made to the USDOT/OIG audit report where they listed how they have complied or are in the process of complying.
FMCSA reported last week that it had signed a contract with
TELETRAC for the manufacturing, installation and monitoring services of the Electronic On-Board Recorders that DeFazio and his handlers have previously demanded be installed on Mexican trucks participating in the cross border program.
The contract with TELETRAC is for 3 years, at a cost of $1.3 million dollars, $1.9 million dollars below the originally projected cost of $3.2 million.
WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST CLUE DEFAZIO?
One of the intriguing paragraphs in DeFazio’s letter was this one:
This further reinforces my longstanding concern that the Administration is not launching a pilot program, but rather starting the full liberalization of cross-border trucking that will have significant impacts on safety, security, and American jobs.
Proceeding with the processing of Mexican carriers’ applications on a separate track from meeting any requirements the agency believes apply to the pilot program confirms that FMCSA intends for this pilot program to casually terminate and morph into an open border. This flies in the face of the limitation enacted by Congress.
As I said; What was your first clue Pedro?
Nothing in the trucking provisions calls for a “pilot program”, a “demonstration program” nor any other type of “program” with Mexico before their trucks are allowed access into this country. The requirements for access were the same as for Canadian trucks.
And in the beginning, when Reagan signed into law, the 1982 Foreign Carrier Exclusion Act, it had absolutely nothing to do with safety, with Canada nor with Mexico. It was all about “access”. The US and Canada very quickly resolved the “access dispute” and Reagan exempted the Canadians. Mexico however, didn’t want to allow our trucks in their country, so the ban stood. Again, safety had nothing to do with it. And case in point is Reagan exempting and grandfathering in the estimated 1,065 Mexican carriers who had operating authority prior to his 1982 order. Some of those still operate freely in the United States today.
We are required, under NAFTA, to allow Mexican trucks unlimited access to this country, as we do the Canadians. The only requirements are that they are able to fully comply with OUR standards, laws, rules and regulations when operating in this country. Nothing more, nothing less. The same as we require of the Canadians. They are NOT required to mirror our standards in their own country, nor or the Canadians. That is a bogus rumor started by Todd Spencer of OOIDA and others when they are digging around for excuses not to allow the Mexicans in.
And over the years and in the years since the beginning of the previous program, Mexican trucks at all levels of US operating authority have shown themselves to be quite capable of meeting our standards. Statistics show that these guys have equal and in many cases superior safety numbers to ours.
DeFazio pretty much stands alone now in his opposition to Mexican trucks. His bill to further restrict access to the Mexicans to a pilot program, HB-2407 is pretty much going nowhere. He does not have the support of his fellow Congressmen in the House nor in the Senate. And he continues to ignore the needs of his district and the desires of his constituents who are not concerned, according to newspaper and media editorials, about a few Mexican trucks that probably will never travel the highways in Oregon. They are concerned about the legal tariffs that Mexico put on 99 US goods, including Christmas trees from DeFazio’s district which have cost more than 25,000 US jobs.
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) said in an interview in his office in Little Rock during the August recess that the Mexican truck program will happen, it has to happen, because we gave our word on it when we signed the NAFTA accords. Pryor, who is no friend to the American trucker, is absolutely correct.
As for Peter DeFazio, all he seems to care about is shucking and jiving each time James Hoffa or Todd Spencer gives the word.
In the regards to the pilot program morphing into an “open border”, DeFazio gets it there. It’s our obligation, our response to a promise we made years ago that has been delayed by the meddling of a few. Their day has come and gone and as Carlos Sesma, an attorney representing Mexican trucking interests in Washington recently stated; “It’s going to happen – There’s no way to stop it!”
Sesma is correct!
OOIDA denied injunction by DC Circuit Court to stop safe, well maintained rigs such as this one owned by Transportes Potosino out of San Luis Potosi SP from entering the US under the current pilot program.
Yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the injunction sought by the Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) in their attempt to stop the Mexican cross border pilot program.
According to TODAYS TRUCKING, the Court did agree to fast track the frivolous lawsuit meaning written arguments could be accepted as early as December. Oral arguments will be scheduled after the initial round of filings.
It is also being reported that the petition for review, filed by the Teamsters and Public Citizen in the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, will instead be heard by the D.C. Court of Appeals also. So much for Judge shopping by the Teamsters.
The Department of Justice, which represents the Department of Transportation in the lawsuits, filed an unopposed motion to transfer Public Citizen’s case to the DC Circuit. The motion does not address combination of the two lawsuits. However, similar cases filed during the previous cross-border program were combined. Those lawsuits were lost by the plaintiffs as we imagine both of these baseless and frivolous actions will be.
An FMCSA inspector conducts a Level I compliance inspection on a truck belonging to Transportes Olympic in 2007 prior to the initiation of the successful Mexican Pilot Truck Program
FMCSA spokesperson Candice Tolliver Burns announced late yesterday that two of the 7 applicants for the Cross Border Trucking Pilot Program with Mexico have successfully passed their Pre-Authorization Safety Audits (PASA) and are ready to roll.
[pullquote]Legislative Update
An effort by Rep. Steven LaTourette [R-OH14] yesterday to insert an amendment into the transportation bill prohibiting expenditure of funds for EOBR’s for Mexican trucks was soundly defeated by a voice vote, by supporters of the cross border program with Mexico, led by Rep. Jack Carter of Texas who do not want to see more job killing tariff’s levied if Congress keeps trying to kill the program.[/pullquote]
Both carriers were participants in the 2007 cross border demonstration program and under the rules of the new program, should be eligible shortly for permanent operating authority.
The carriers, Transportes Olympic based in Apodaca, Nuevo Leon, a suburb of Monterrey and Grupo Behr, headquartered in Tijuana, BC.
Transported Olympic, owned by Fernando Paez, was the first carrier to cross under the previous program September 8, 2007.
A LOOK AT THE PARTICIPANTS
Grupo Behr, DOT#861744, has a decent enough safety record, showing a 43.6 percentile ranking on the Vehicle Maintenance Basic. They show having 7 vehicles, 7 drivers, with a 24 month inspections totaling 34. Out of Service rate is 25.7% compared to the national average of 20.72%. No OOS orders on the drivers. It should be noted, that the inspections in the database were on straight trucks with one exception.
Tranportes Olympics, DOT#555188 is not in the SMS system yet nor in Safersys, so we need to look at them in a different way.
With the abrupt end of the previous pilot program, Mr. Paez had positioned himself well, opening satellite companies on the US side of the border, using the same trucks and drivers as used in the previous pilot program. They continue to operate legally throughout the US to this day under the names OLYMPIC TRANSPORT, OMC TRANSPORT, FERNANDO PAEZ TRANSPORT.
FERNANDO PAEZ TRANSPORT: DOT#535886, has 36 power units and 36 drivers listed. In the past 24 months, they have undergone 320 inspections. Those inspection resulted in 233 vehicle inspections with 33 or 14.2% being put out of service. The US average is 20.72.
Driver inspections totalled 319 with an OOS rate of 3.4%. The national average is 5.5%. Once again showing this Mexican carrier to be safer than comparable US carriers.
We look at the new SMS DATABASE, where the data there pretty much mirrors SAFERSYS, but to some would present a disturbing view of this safe and compliant carrier and underscores the problems with CSA and the new method of tracking carrier performance.
They show three instances of unsafe driving. One citation was written at a fixed inspection site for “failure to obey traffic control device”. Isn’t that odd?
The second was for speeding, and log book not current, during a roadside, and the third, an “unauthorized passenger”. They call that “unsafe” but what’s unsafe about having a little “trim” riding along with you. We’ve all done it.
They’ve got some log book violations, the majority “general form and manner”, in other words, not crossing their “T’s” etc. And keep in mind, this company and the others will not be part of the pilot program. They will continue to operate as they have been.
The DRIVER FITNESS BASIC is the problem and every single violation seems to be violation of 391.11(b)(2, English proficiency. That is not an OOS violation except in Iowa apparently, The regulation itself, is arbitrary and capricious, giving no form nor guidance to the enforcement office, and leaving it up to the office to decide for himself. We’re seeing a lot of these bogus violations across the board.
So it’s began. And there’s no stopping it now!
James Hoffa and his Teamsters have filed yet another frivolous lawsuit in an attempt to stop the US compliance with our NAFTA obligation and promises
At the 11th hour today, Teamsters, along with Public Citizen filed a lawsuit in 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco seeking to stop implementation of the Mexican Cross Border Program.
The suit was filed against the US Department of Transportation and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration alleging that the pilot program sets standards that aren’t stringent enough for Mexican trucks and drivers. For example, the program waives a law requiring trucks to display proof of meeting federal safety standards, said Jonathan Weissglass, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
An official for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration said the Teamsters haven’t directly served the agency with a lawsuit. Once they do, the agency “will review and address the filing,” she said, adding that the pilot program will begin within 30 to 60 days. The official declined to address the substance of the suit.
U.S. officials have said the deal would hold Mexican truckers to high safety standards, and business groups have said it is important to make a deal with Mexico because the retaliatory tariffs are costing the U.S. jobs.
The arguments laid out in the complaint are faulty at best. For instance, The Teamsters allege the trucker program is faulty because it contains certain standards that are impossible for Mexico to meet. Mexico won’t be able to provide comparable access to U.S. trucks, as required, because ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel isn’t widely enough available there.
Ultra Low Sulfur diesel is widely available in the major cities and along the border, however the argument is moot as the routes US truckers are likely to take would put them well within range of their diesel capacity filled on the US side.
They also claim that Mexican truckers have less stringent vision requirements, which while true, is really a non issue. Mexico requires only recognition of the color “Red” while US vision requirements require cognizant recognition of red, yellow and green.
That’s all we know at the moment. Apparently, the comment at the conclusion of the MCSAC subcommittee by attorney Carlos Sesmas enraged the little man sufficiently to cause this frivolous lawsuit to be filed.
Public Citizen and the Teamsters went before the court in 2007 over the Mexican truck issue, joined by the Sierra Club and OOIDA. Even using false and misleading evidence (ie: Trinity Industries), the court dismissed the lawsuit.
We imagine that will be the case this time.
You'll soon being seeing safe, modern Mexican rigs driven by professional drivers on US highways as the US finally complies with it's obligations under NAFTA
During the scheduled meeting of the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee in Alexandria Virginia yesterday, those were the words of Carlos Sesma, an attorney representing Mexican trucking interests before the committee.
And Sesma was correct.
The MCSAC is a subcommittee of the FMCSA charged with overseeing the Mexican Cross Border Pilot Program.
OOIDA Executive Vice-President Todd Spencer who is a member of the committee was making the usual asinine and totally false claims about the program.
“What’s behind this is access to cheaper sources of labor,” Spencer claimed after the meeting, repeating the thoroughly debunked claim that it will put American jobs at risk and raises numerous safety concerns.
Mexican trucks have historically shown to have a lower percentage of Out of Service violations for vehicles and drivers than their US counterparts.
A representative of the Teamsters Union who sits on the committee, Lamont Byrd, director of safety and health for the Teamsters union, said he had concerns also, but refused to elaborate on what they might be. (As if we can’t guess)
But the agreement will not take jobs from U.S. truckers, Sesma said, because Mexican drivers won’t stay in this country for work. As for safety, he said, cross-border truckers from Mexico are from areas near the U.S., so most read and speak English and understand U.S. traffic laws.
Bill Quade, a program administrator for the FMCSA, countered, “I suspect the Mexican government will put billions of dollars of tariffs back onto U.S. goods, if the program is delayed again.” Quade is correct.
Mexico reserved the right to reestablish the $2.5 billion dollars in legal tariff’s against US exports they put on US produced goods and agricultural products when the Obama Administration caved to pressure from union interests and reneged and defunded the previous highly successful cross border demonstration project. Those tariff’s cost US workers 25,000 jobs and more than 14% market share in the agriculture sector.
Though all the misinformation and hysteria being promoted by the Teamsters and OOIDA, Quade also revealed that to date, only 5 Mexican trucking companies had submitted applications to participate in the program.
Carlos Sesma said the creation of an open border for commerce is inevitable, which is why the agreement makes practical sense. He said the current method of carrying long-distance freight across the border, in which a truck drops a trailer and another picks it up, is inefficient.
It also makes practical sense as it put the United States in compliance with it’s international obligations and with a promise made and evaded for more than 17 years.
But that wasn’t good enough for Spencer, who continued with his naysaying and fear mongering.
Spencer characterized Sesma’s statement “unbelievably exaggerated.” He questioned the ability of U.S. and Mexican states to police drivers with poor records and he claimed that the scarcity of low-sulfur diesel in Mexico, which is needed for most newer-model U.S. trucks, would be a handicap for American truckers trying to penetrate the Mexican market.
“Any real, meaningful truck travel in Mexico isn’t going to be possible,” Spencer said.
Spencer is the master of “unbelievable exaggeration”. As a member of the committee, Spencer is well aware of the FMCSA and individual states ability to access Mexican driver databases and that ultra low sulfur diesel is readily available in Mexico along the lanes that US truckers would run, not that they would need to buy any.
And Spencer ignored the fact that 4 US trucking companies are still successfully and very profitably operating in Mexico after being allowed access under the 2007 cross border trucking agreement with Mexico. That’s right folks! When the US was hurrying to renege on our obligations with Mexico in 2009 by de-funding the previous program, Mexico allowed continuous operation by US participants in their country, to the consternation of CANACAR, the association which represents the majority of major Mexican trucking firms.
OOIDA’s Mark Reddig said in a recent blog entry;
Let me be clear about one thing, though. We intend to fight the opening of this border tooth and nail, with every ounce of energy we have. And we intend to win.
So far, not only have we won every round, but in fact we’ve had most of Congress and numerous other organizations with us.
If you call “winning” using lies, fear mongering, misinformation and other underhanded tactics, winning, then perhaps they have, but it’s nothing to be proud about, but this time fat boy, you lose!
The rest of the story emerges about the El Paso times story we wrote about earlier this week, concerning the thousands of violations reported by Texas DPS inspectors at two commercial crossings in El Paso Texas.
While we have some concerns about the number of violations reported over 4.5 years, the Times story claims 1.2 million inspections were done at the Zaragosa and Bridge of the Americas in El Paso, we could only find 811,574 inspections reported on the FMCSA NAFTA STATISTICS pages.
Some have suggested that the numbers are flawed considering the man hours that would need to be expended to come up with this number of inspections in the time frame indicated. That’s possible but highly improbable considering the methods used and the manpower on site.
Section 350(c) required, among other things, state inspection/weigh stations be established at all commercial crossing along the southern border, to monitor and inspect incoming Mexican trucks, especially those participating in the 2007 cross border program. The defunding of that program by the Obama administration as political payback to the Teamsters, however, did not defund these inspection facilities. Contrary to what opponents of cross border trucking and Mexican trucks would have you believe, 100% of the trucks crossing our southern border are INSPECTED at these facilities. 350(c) mandates that these stations to be in operation during the hours the commercial crossing are open.
In El Paso, The Zaragosa bridge is open Monday – Friday 0600 to Midnight, or 18 hours. On Saturday, they are open from 0800 to 1600 and closed on Sunday.
The Bridge of the Americas hours of operation is Monday – Friday, 0600-1800 or 12 hours. Saturday hours are 0600-1400, closed on Sundays.
The hours the inspection stations where this data was supposedly gleaned from are required under law, to maintain the same schedule.
The Texas DPS commercial vehicle inspectors perform inspections under the CVSA North American Inspection Standards, although Texas being Texas, has been known to put additional, more stringent, some would say “anal” requirements to their inspections.
There are six levels of CVSA inspections, although Levels I-III are pertinent to this discussion.
The Texas DPS uses the California model of inspections. DPS troopers don’t actually do Level I inspections, either roadside or in the inspection facilities. This is left to state employees who are CVSA certified truck inspectors. Each trooper working a static inspection station has anywhere from 2 to 6 of these inspectors on the ground visually inspecting trucks as they cross the inspection area, pulling them aside at random or for cause for inspections, generally Level II, From personal observations of these operations, you’ll generally have 3 or 4 troopers manning these inspection facilities with 6 or more truck inspectors working the bays. This doesn’t take into consideration the participation of federal FMCSA inspectors, who appear at random to work alongside the state inspectors.
So with that manpower available, the number of inspections stated are entirely possible in the time frame indicated. A Level II takes no more than 15 minutes, unless violations are found.
Capt. Jessie Mendez, who oversees the border truck safety inspection program and inspectors for the Texas Department of Public Safety/Texas Highway Patrol stated;
“Taking trucks out of service means they were not allowed to proceed beyond the state inspection stations. They are not allowed to go onto the streets of El Paso.”
While the violations may seem severe, such as trucks sidelined for brakes that were out of adjustment, flat tires, defective stop lamps, improper axle position, improper torsion bar, damaged or leaking brake hoses, and air suspension pressure loss, others are ridiculous such as drivers being put out of service for driving without their prescription eyeglasses or carrying and extra pair, all arcane rules contained within FMCSA rules, but rarely enforced otherwise.
[pullquote]“The number of violations for the trucks from Mexico is in line with U.S. industry standards.They are either no worse than U.S. trucks and better in some cases.”- Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso[/pullquote]
Texas though has special little quirks they write warnings for, which still show up on a carriers CSA/SMS matrix. For instance, a mudflap with a small tear in it will get you a violation. An air or electrical cord that shows evidence of having bounced off the deck plate is a violation. And the new favorite of the DPS, not having spare electrical fuses or breakers in your glove box.
So while the violations on their face may seem serious, in many times they’re the opposite, but warnings are given to justify requests for additional federal funding.
But the truth doesn’t matter to some of those opposed to Mexican trucks and Mexico in general, one of those being the irrelevant little man who for now, is President of the Teamsters Union, James P. Hoffa.
Hoffa, in his response to this article said;
“This report confirms what we have been saying for years – Mexican trucking companies and their fleets are not held to the same stringent safety standards as American carriers. Until they meet every safety, training and environmental standard that our trucking companies meet, we should not allow these unsafe Mexican trucks to drive freely through our country.”
As we said, Hoffa is a foolish, irrelevant little man whose opinion on this issue holds little weight, as evidence has proven his statement to be a totally false distortion of the facts.
But I did get a good chuckle reading the response from
TEAMSTERNATION, an anonymous blog maintained by who knows who.
The blogger states;
R-i-i-i-ight.
Unfortunately, Pickett is exhibiting the same cluelessness about the dangers of Mexican trucks as the U.S. Department of Transportation, which wants to open the borders to them in a month or two.
The Teamsters will see about that.
They refer of course to State Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, who said the number of violations for the trucks from Mexico is in line with U.S. industry standards. Rep. Pickett is absolutely correct in his assessment.
Pickett went on to state;
“They are either no worse than U.S. trucks or better in some cases,”
And people, remember this. These trucks that were inspected were entirely Mexican drayage rigs with OP-2MX authority to operate within the 25 mile commercial zone. These are the older trucks used by the Mexicans, the same as US owner operators who operate out of our ports and rail heads in the United States. These are not the new or late model trucks that are used to haul freight long haul within Mexico and soon within the United States. There is absolutely no similarities in one or the other.
Loading ...
Readers Reponses