Mexico Trucker Online Articles

Stop the Madness: A Public Thank You For Correcting a Broken Trucking Promise

Sun sets over potato fields owned by Koompin Farms in American Falls Idaho

By Cheryl Koompin – American Falls, Idaho
Amid all the partisan fights in Washington over budgets and debt ceilings, the Obama administration quietly solved a $2-billion problem earlier this month.

On July 6, the United States signed an agreement with Mexico that ends a vexing dispute over trade and trucks. It wipes out Mexican tariffs that have hurt potato farmers like me as well as many other Americans during the toughest economic times many of us have ever experienced.

We already face enough challenges on America’s farms, from worrying about the weather to figuring out how we’re going to pay for skyrocketing fuel and fertilizer costs. The last thing we need is interference from Washington—but that’s precisely what we received when Congress decided to break a treaty promise to Mexico.

The White House deserves congratulations for putting a stop to this nonsense. The controversy never should have erupted in the first place and it dragged on for far too long. Right now, however, I’m just glad it’s over—and I’m pleased to give the Obama administration the credit it deserves for negotiating a good settlement.

The root of the problem has been the refusal of Congress to abide by a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Clinton-era economic compact aimed at easing the flow of goods and services across the borders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

NAFTA has achieved its main goal of boosting trade ties with our closest neighbors. Because of the agreement, U.S. exports are up and our costs as consumers have gone down.

At the behest of special-interest groups and their allies in Congress, however, one provision of NAFTA failed to become a reality. Long-haul Mexican truckers were supposed to receive access to U.S. highways as they delivered products to American consumers who wanted them. This aspect of the treaty made economic sense because it eliminated many of the delays and inefficiencies associated with border crossings, which translate into higher prices for ordinary Americans. It also guaranteed that Mexican truckers would meet U.S. safety standards.

Just as this part of the deal was going into effect, Big Labor launched an ugly campaign against Mexican truckers, suggesting that they drive dangerous jalopies that threaten murder and mayhem on American roads. This was pure propaganda. Mexican trucks that were certified to drive on U.S. highways were as trustworthy as American trucks. Safety data proved it.

Unfortunately, the smear job worked. Congress blocked the trucks from entering the United States, even though this meant backing out of an international treaty obligation.

So the Mexican government retaliated. They legally slapped stiff tariffs on a wide range of American products, including the frozen potato products that are at the heart of my farming operation here in Idaho. They also targeted dozens of other U.S. agricultural goods, such as cherries, pears, and Christmas trees.

My farm’s sales to Mexico plummeted. Processing plants in our region laid off workers. A couple of them shuttered.

Who benefited? The Canadians. Their business went up as much as ours went down.

I was furious—not at the Mexicans, who simply wanted a fair shake, but at our own government for flouting its commitments and essentially inviting this retaliation. Farmers like me became casualties in a trade war that we neither started nor wanted.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that American businesses lost $2 billion. This was Washington’s accomplishment in the service of a special interest.

So I’m glad this madness is finally over. Better late than never.

“We have an agreement that not only will ultimately eliminate punitive tariffs, but it also provides opportunities to increase U.S. exports to Mexico and helps to expand jobs,” said Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

The deal also restores our country’s reputation because it finally puts us in compliance with treaty obligations we had ignored for years. If we refuse to keep promises to one of our closest trading partners, other nations will be reluctant to lower tariffs on anything made in America.

Let’s hope that the Obama administration now builds upon this success and finds new ways to help us export our goods and services.

Cheryl Koompin is a partner in Koompin farms, producing commercial and seed potatoes, feed corn, fresh peas, wheat, medicinal safflower and mustard in Power County, Idaho. Cheryl is a guest author for Truth About Trade & Technology. www.truthabouttrade.org

 
Cross posted from AGWEB

FMCSA refuses demand by OOIDA to delay cross border program with Mexico

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

It’s all procedural, but FMCSA has refused demands by the Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) to halt implementation of the Cross Border Pilot Program pending resolution of the frivolous and baseless lawsuit filed against the agency earlier this month.

OOIDA’s legal counsel, Paul Cullen Sr. with The Cullen Law Firm, sent a letter to FMCSA on July 8 asking the agency to consent to stay the program pending resolution of the petition for review.

FMCSA’s counsel denied the request on July 13.

Under rules of procedure, OOIDA was  required to ask FMCSA for the stay because a party to such an appeal, (OOIDA) cannot ask the court for a stay unless it first asks the agency (FMCSA) and is turned down.

On July 6, OOIDA filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. OOIDA is demanding that the court  review the program and to “enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or determine the validity of the implementation of this program.”

OOIDA claims that “implementation of the pilot program is arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law.”

This is just another of OOIDA’s attempts to mislead the public and prevent the United States from complying with their obligations under NAFTA.

Implementation of the cross border program will finally put us in compliance and cause Mexico to lift the legal retaliatory tariff’s put on more than 90 US export good when the Obama administration defunded the previous pilot program. Those tariffs have cost Americans more than 25,000 jobs and 14% market share in the agriculture and manufacturing sectors.

OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencers admitted in a “Call to Action” that neither the lawsuit, nor a bill before Congress, HR-2407 , has a snowballs chance in hell of stopping the program.

In their desperation, OOIDA resorted to filing this lawsuit which on it’s face is “arbitrary, capricious and frivolous” inasmuch as the issues raised have already been resolved by the US Supreme Court in the case “PUBLIC CITIZEN v FMCSA”  In the unanimous decision, SCOTUS sided with the defendants.

The D.C appeals court is likely to rule against OOIDA in this lawsuit also.

Another lame attempt by OOIDA to delay the Mexican cross border trucking program

One has to ask themselves, “Are the folks at OOIDA as stupid as they seem to be or do they simply think the American trucker and the public are stupid”? It would seem to be a little of both after the seeing the latest attempt to derail the Mexican cross border pilot program.

The issues of “truck safety”, “border security” as it relates to Mexican trucks has all pretty much been debunked. What’s left? Appealing to the tree huggers, the environmentalists to try to stop this perfectly legitimate program.

On Tuesday, FMCSA announced the availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) that evaluates the
potential environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of its United States-Mexico cross-border long- haul trucking pilot program in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

OOIDA immediately jumped into the fray recognizing that Environment Impact Statements, when required, can delay a project for months or years while the assessment is made.

Mark Reddig interviewed Joe Rajkovacz, Director of Regulatory Affairs and Senior Editor Jami Jones, whom as usual was absolutely livid at the thought of Mexicans being allowed onto our highways. And from their indignation and comments, it would appear that OOIDA is preparing to file another frivolous and meritless lawsuit based on environmental issues. Only thing wrong with this is the issue has been argued in the courts before and the plaintiff’s lost the argument.

CASE LAW PREVAILS

It started back in 2002 when Public Citizen sued the FMCSA claiming an environmental impact study was required before any effort could be made to open the southern border to Mexican trucks as required under our NAFTA obligations.

At that time, FMCSA prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), but they did not prepare and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as PUBLIC CITIZEN claimed was required by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

The EA focused mainly on the environmental impact from doing more inspections, not on the impact from more trucks driving the roads.

Public Citizen sued to stop the possibility of cross border trucking until an EIS was prepared.Public Citizen argued that the increased number of trucks on US roads was liable to have a significant environmental impact, and therefore an EIS was required. There claim was that more than 30,000 older polluting trucks burning high sulphur diesel would have an impact on our environment.

The trial court found in favor of the defendent, FMCSA. The Trial Court found that although the FMCSA pilot program would result in more trucks, FMCSA did not have control over those trucks and therefore did not have to account for them in an EIS. Public Citizen went shopping and appealed to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, reversing the trial court. The Appellate Court found that the EA was deficient because it failed to give adequate consideration to the overall environmental impact from the Mexican trucks. Of course, FMCSA appealed, all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 21, 2004 with a unanimous verdict being rendered on June 7, 2004.

The US Supreme Court held that the FMCSA had no control of the trucks once the regulations governing the pilot program were passed, and would therefore be unable to act on the findings of an EIS even if it did conduct one.
FMCSA has no statutory authority to impose or enforce emissions controls or to establish environmental requirements unrelated to motor carrier safety.

The Court also found that the passage of the regulations was not sufficiently responsible for the increased pollution caused by the trucks to warrant an EIS.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the Courts most conservative Judge wrote the opinion which you can read here.

It’s ironic that OOIDA is constantly whining how the government need to get there fingers out of trucking in the areas of EOBR’s, HOS, Speed Limiters, and issues with the EPA and CARB, yet when it comes to a handful of Mexican trucks, they’re crying to the government demanding action be taken to keep them out of the country. Using misinformation, fearmongering and outright lies to accomplish there agenda.

They lost in 2004 and again in 2009 when 9th Circuit refused to issue a ruling on a case OOIDA and TEAMSTERS brought before the court, which was thrown out when the previous program was defunded. If they choose to waste their members money this time, they’ll lose again.

Instead of all the lies, posturing and all of the other underhanded deceitful methods they have employed, they should eat a little crow, cut their losses and politely bow out. Even Executive Vice President Todd Spencer has admitted defeat in his latest “CALL TO ACTION” with the statement; NEITHER OF THE INITIATIVES STANDS MUCH CHANCE OF STOPPING THE PROGRAM FLAT. For once, Spencer is correct.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

As usual, Jami Jones threw in claims that are not supported by facts or documentation.

First, she says that 1000′s of trucks will be coming across the border during the program. Experts, including myself have concluded that if the program is able to attract 20 Mexican carriers, they will be lucky. 20 carriers field 3 or 4 trucks per company would put less than 80 more rigs on our highways.

Jones claims they’ll be filling up in Mexico with subsidized high sulfur diesel which is another untruth. Government subsidies on fuel in Mexico ended in 2006 causing protests and shutdowns among Mexico’s trucking community

Another untruth is that ultra low sulfur diesel, 15 ppm is not available in Mexico. Mexico ships via pipelines millions of barrels of crude to the refineries on the Texas gulf coast to be refined into ULSD and returned via pipeline to Mexico where it is available in the border cities and large metropolitan areas such as Monterrey.

The pilot program would prohibit trucks earlier than 1998 and all trucks from Mexico would have to meet EPA standards in effect at time of manufacture.

Another twisting of the facts is that the “lack” of ULSD would prevent new US trucks from having comparable access to Mexican markets. However, the truth being is that most trucks that would take advantage of Mexican access would not go any further than Monterrey or Saltillo, a trip from Laredo of 200 miles. They could easily do this on a full tank of fuel purchased in the US.

We’ll keep an eye on this but from our point of view, it’s another lame attempt to delay, delay the inevitable while because of the legal retaliatory tariffs, the US continues to lose jobs and market share to Canada.

Cross Border Agreement signed. OOIDA already in Court – Higher Tariffs possible as a result

Corrupt little congress critter Peter DeFazio, waving the key to the TEAMSTERS bank vault after once again bowing to their demands and introducing a bill designed to hinder cross border trucking with Mexico. Silly smile on his face reminds us of the Commandant in "Police Academy" when the hooker was under the table. Another Teamsters perk perhaps?

It didn’t take long after today’s announcement of the official signing of the Cross Border Pilot Program agreement in Mexico City for opponents to come out swinging with the lies, fear mongering and preying on the ignorance of those too apathetic to look for the truth for themselves. And as expected, OOIDA is headed to court.

In a “Special Report” senior editor Jami Jones writes:

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association immediately filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Association is asking the court to review the program and to “enjoin, set-aside, suspend (in whole or in part) or determine the validity of the implementation of this program.”

“Implementation of the pilot program is arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law,” the Association’s petition states.

Noted in the petition is a “final agency action” that occurred on June 29, well in advance of the final plan being released to the public or signed.

We imagine this lame attempt to stop this perfectly legal program will be rejected by the DC Court of Appeals as it was in 2009 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

OOIDA is also excited by the actions of three of the Congressmen they and the TEAMSTERS have in their hip pocket.

In an earlier presser, Norita Taylor informed members of the introduction of a silly little bill titled “Protecting America’s Roads Act”.

The presser stated in part that the bipartisan bill seeks to restrict the cross-border trucking program to a pilot program that lasts no more than three years. The bill prohibits the Department of Transportation from granting operating authority that extends beyond the duration of the pilot program – which effectively ends any attempt to grant permanent operating authority to Mexican motor carriers.

The bill also shifts the financial responsibility of electronic monitoring of Mexican motor carriers participating in the program back away from U.S. taxpayers and truckers.

What are the chances of this bill or PARA gaining any traction? Depends on the number of co-sponsors it gets. There is not much energy in Congress to oppose the pilot program fortunately.

But if the bill should pass, higher retaliatory tariffs are almost certain to be imposed costing even more US jobs. Strange that OOIDA and TEAMSTERS don’t address the 25,000+ jobs lost because of the tariffs, job losses brought on by their illogical opposition to the US meeting their promises and obligations.

A Mexican embassy official Karen Antebi, speaking at a June 29 event organized by the Washington International Trade Association (WITA), noted that if the US reneged on its agreement, sought to sabotage it through efforts to stop it in the Highway Appropriations Bill or similar legislation, Mexico would retain its right to retaliate, which could include increasing or changing the retaliatory duties.

Asked what Mexico would do if [the program] gets canceled again, or if it doesn’t get funded, I think most of you know the answer,” Antebi said. “We’ve reserved our right to reimpose, change, increase, [or] deepen the retaliation list.”

And if that happens, once again, OOIDA, The TEAMSTERS and their bought and paid for members of Congress will be responsible for more horrendous job losses and losses of market share to Canada and China. Let’s not allow that to happen.

US & Mexico sign agreement for Safe Secure Cross-Border Trucking Program

Safe, compliant Mexican trucks will soon be allowed access to the US under a Cross Border Trucking proposal signed today in Mexico City

It’s official folks! U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes Dionisio Arturo Pèrez-Jàcome Friscione joined today in Mexico City to sign agreements resolving the dispute over long-haul, cross-border trucking services between the United States and Mexico.

This agreement paves the way for Mexico to begin to lift 50% of the $2.4 billion in retaliatory tariffs that have been in place for more than two years, a result of the Obama Administration caving to pressure from the TEAMSTERS and OOIDA and defunding the previous highly successful Cross Border Demonstration Project.

Pursuant to an agreement signed by the United States Trade Representative and the Secretaría de Economía of the United Mexican States, lifting of the retaliatory tariffs will provide opportunities to increase U.S. exports to Mexico and expand job creation in the U.S.

The agreement provides that Mexico will suspend 50 percent of the retaliatory tariffs within ten days. Mexico will suspend the remainder of the tariffs within five days of the first Mexican trucking company receiving its U.S. operating authority. As a result, Mexican tariffs that now range from five to 25 percent on an array of U.S. agricultural and industrial products such as apples, certain pork products, and personal care products would be immediately cut in half and will disappear entirely within a few months

These perfectly legal tariffs have cost Americans and estimated 25,000 jobs and more than 15% of market share in the agri business community, much of which has gone to Canada.

Secretary LaHood said: “The agreements signed today are a win for roadway safety and they are a win for trade. By opening the door to long-haul trucking between the United States and Mexico, America’s third largest trading partner, we will create jobs and opportunity for our people and support economic development in both nations. I thank President Calderon and Secretary Perez-Jacome for their leadership and for their partnership as we build a safer, more prosperous future for North America and the world.”

As a result of these meetings, and in consultation with Mexico, trucks will be required to comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and must have electronic monitoring systems to track hours-of-service compliance. In addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation will review the complete driving record of each driver and require all drug testing samples to be analyzed in Department of Health and Human Services-certified laboratories located in the U.S. The Department will also require drivers to undergo an assessment of their ability to understand the English language and U.S. traffic signs. The new agreement also ensures that Mexico will provide reciprocal authority for U.S. carriers to engage in cross-border long-haul operations into that country.

The notice in the Federal Register has been published as required by law and can be obtained here

U.S. truckers shocked by agreement with Mexico

Predictably, OOIDA was out of the gate with a purely sophomoric pre-prepared press release.

In it, OOIDA President Jim Johnston declares:

“If the agreement is good for the U.S. why the hell is he (Secretary LaHood) sneaking down there to sign it?” So much for their supposed transparency. Why not let the public see the details before signing the agreement? Seems like the Administration is dead set on caving to Mexico’s shakedown regardless of the costs to the American public and our tax coffers.”

Apparently early senility has set in upon Mr. Johnston since details of the program have been made available to the public for months and a mandatory 30 day comment period was established for interested parties to voice their concerns. We doubt Mr. LaHood “snuck” down to Mexico, rather he simply didn’t call and ask OOIDA’s permission before he went, as if he needed it.

OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer went on to repeat his totally baseless and debunked claims about Mexico and it’s truckers:

“This program will jeopardize the livelihoods of tens of thousands of U.S.-based small-business truckers and professional truck drivers and undermine the standard of living for the rest of the driver community.”

Yeah? Right Spencer. 100 trucks and drivers are going to jeopardize the livelihoods of tens of thousands of US truckers (OOIDA members) and for the rest of us, undermine our standard of living?

Spencer has also insinuated that OOIDA and their allies have lawsuit waiting to be filed against the cross border program, a lawsuit that basically has no merit. Attempts are also being made to stop this with provisions slipped into the current highways authorization bill currently being debated in committees on capital hill. Fortunately, there doesn’t seem to be much interest by legislators in pursuing that tactic.

HOFFA CONDEMNS MEXICAN TRUCK PILOT PROGRAM

As expected, James P. Hoffa opened his pie hole regurgitating the same lame bullshit that he’s been passing around as “truth” for almost a decade.

Hoffa said the program is probably illegal because it grants permanent operating authority to Mexican trucks after 18 months in the so-called “pilot program” outlined in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register. Congress has not granted DOT the legal authority to do so, Hoffa said. Further, DOT would use money from the Highway Trust Fund to pay for electronic on-board recorders for Mexican trucks. Hoffa questioned whether DOT can do that legally. Hoffa has apparently not read the FMCSA’s Federal Registry Notice that addressed and totally debunked his ludicrous condemnation.

“Opening the border to dangerous trucks at a time of high unemployment and rampant drug violence is a shameful abandonment of the DOT’s duty to protect American citizens from harm and to spend American tax dollars responsibly,” Hoffa said.

“This so-called pilot program is a concession to multinational corporations that send jobs to Mexico. It erodes our national security. It endangers motorists. It ignores the rampant corruption among Mexican law enforcement. It lowers wages and robs jobs from hard-working American truck drivers and warehouse workers.

“It adds insult to injury to force U.S. taxpayers to pay for monitoring equipment on Mexican trucks so Mexican carriers can take away their jobs,” Hoffa said. “The DOT shows more loyalty to the Mexican people than it does to Americans.”

“This pilot program doesn’t even meet NAFTA’s requirement that the Mexican government grant comparable authority to U.S. trucks. No trucking company or driver in their right mind would travel in Mexico under the State Department’s current travel warning,” Hoffa said.

Since 2007, violence has worsened as drug cartels compete for trade routes to the U.S. More than 40,000 people have been killed, and kidnapping and torture are rampant.

Further, a Homeland Security incident report from Oct. 15, 2010 indicates that drug traffickers have hijacked and cloned legitimate trucks to transport illicit cargo across the border. According to the document, criminals hijacked over 10,000 commercial trucks in 2010 in Mexico. No legitimate confirmation of this can be obtained.

Hoffa said DOT cannot guarantee the safety of Mexican trucks.

“Mexican trucks simply don’t meet the same standards as U.S. trucks,” he said. “Medical and physical standards for Mexican trucking firms are lower than for U.S. companies. And how can Mexico enforce highway safety laws when it can’t even control drug cartels?

Again numbnuts, read the register notice!

DeFazio Fights Cross-Border Trucking “Pilot” Program under orders from Hoffa and other “contributors”
Today, corrupt Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, and longtime being in the pockets of special interests such as the TEAMSTERS, wrote Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood challenging the administration’s cross-border trucking “pilot” program that opens the U.S.-Mexico border to the free flow of truck traffic.

He also submitted legislation to limit the administration’s authority to implement the program. This agreement will have a significant impact on the safety of American drivers, security on the border, and American jobs. (Where have we heard those false accusations before?)

“As I have said many times, three issues must be addressed in the cross-border trucking program: safety, security and job loss,” said DeFazio. “I have sent several letters to DOT asking them to address these issues. My calls for caution have gone unanswered. My legislation puts the brakes on a bad deal for American truck drivers and the traveling public.”

DeFazio’s bill will limit the use of scarce Highway Trust Fund dollars to pay for the Electronic On-Board Recorders (EOBR) for Mexican trucks.

“As we debate deep and harsh cuts to programs that help middle class families, it is outrageous that taxpayers are being told to foot the bill for the Mexican trucking industry to comply with American safety standards. My bill would stop the Department of Transportation from raiding the Highway Trust Fund to pay for equipment on Mexican trucks. Let the Mexican government or the Mexican carriers pay for their equipment and let’s use U.S. gas tax revenue for its intended purpose of putting Americans to work rebuilding our roads and bridges,” said DeFazio. (Like Hoffa, DeFazio doesn’t have a clue)

In March, DeFazio sent a letter to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood requesting additional details regarding the proposed pilot program theU.S.negotiated with Mexican officials.

The pilot allows Mexican trucks to operate on U.S.highways beyond the current border commercial zone and it allows Mexican carriers to obtain permanent operating authority from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) after 18 months in the pilot program. That permanent authority could not be rescinded were Congress or the Administration to terminate the Mexican truck pilot program.

DeFazio continues to questions the legal authority of DOT to implement a permanent program.

DeFazio continues to be an idiot and a pawn of James P. Hoffa and other opponents of this program.

FMCSA Plans August Restart for Mexico Trucks Program

Mexican truck pilot program on track for August start.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration hopes to relaunch its controversial Mexican trucks pilot project by mid-August, according to an agency official.

A formal agreement between the United States and Mexico could be signed in the next few weeks, William Quade, FMCSA’s associate administrator for enforcement, told Transport Topics last week.

In a briefing last week to the agency’s Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee, Quade said the agency received nearly 2,000 public comments on its proposal to allow trucks from Mexico to deliver to destinations in the United States as mandated under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

The agreement to let Mexican trucks into the U.S. interior was completed in part to end $2.4 billion in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products imposed by Mexico after Congress shut down a pilot cross-border program in 2009.

The United States and Mexico reached an agreement in principal in March, and in recent months have been negotiating details of a new pilot program.

The agreement would end a more than 16-year dispute over whether the United States was violating NAFTA by not allowing Mexican trucks deliver freight here.

FMCSA plans to include a discussion addressing the comments when it publishes its final rule on the pilot program, expected shortly after the agreement is signed, he said.

Quade declined to comment on whether the final rule will include any significant changes to the proposed rule, first announced in April.

The advisory panel last week appointed a subcommittee to monitor the three-year-long pilot project and report back to the agency on how well it went and assess the safety performance of Mexican carriers who participated.

The MCSAC is a 20-member committee that studies and makes recommendations on far-reaching, thorny and sometimes controversial regulations and issues. Its members range from trucking and bus industry executives to safety advocates and law-enforcement officials.

The committee does not have an operating budget, but borrows staff and expertise from FMCSA for its projects, said its chairman, David Parker, who is also senior legal counsel for Great West Casualty Co. Parker said the committee’s recommendations go straight to FMCSA Administrator Anne Ferro’s desk.

In an interview, Quade said he expects the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General’s office to complete its audit in late July assessing FMCSA’s readiness to grant operating authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers under the pilot.

The IG is required to submit the audit to Congress before the agency begins the pilot project. However,Quade said congressional approval of the pilot is not required.

During the briefing and in a question-and-answer session afterward, Quade told MCSAC members that 29 Mexican carriers registered for a 2007 Mexican trucks pilot project that was shut down in 2009 when Congress yanked its funding. However, only about 8% of the carriers’ trips during that test were beyond the 25-mile border commercial zone.

A total of 10 U.S. carriers participated in the 2007 program, but only four are still operating in Mexico, Quade said.

Quade said that Mexican carriers who participated in the 2007 pilot and who sign up for the new program will be able to receive credit for “time served” toward the 18-month requirement for permanent operating authority in the United States. “One carrier could get permanent operating authority if it passes another safety audit,” he said.

Quade said that, if granted permanent operating authority, Mexican carriers that operate safely for 18 months will be allowed to travel to the U.S. interior for the entire three years, or until the agency makes a decision on whether to make the program permanent.

But Quade told the committee he has concerns that the sudden shutdown of the earlier pilot program in 2009 left carriers with a “bad taste in their mouth.”

“We did pull the rug out from under them very quickly,” he added.

“Mexican carrier participation is going to be, in my opinion, the biggest challenge to the program becoming a success,” he said.

Not only is it costly for a Mexican carrier to start up a U.S. long-haul operation, it will also require trucks to wait in line for hours at the U.S. border, Quade said.

For the agency to properly evaluate the success of the pilot there must be a collective total of 4,100 vehicle inspections or “safety snapshots” of Mexican carriers. The proposal estimated that to reach the inspections goal, on average, 46 carriers must make one border crossing a week.

Although there wasn’t enough data to properly evaluate the 2007 pilot, the data that were collected showed that on average, Mexican carriers performed more safely than U.S. truckers, Quade told the committee.

Quade said a Mexican carrier’s inspections done at the border for the first three months during the initial phase of the pilot will not be counted toward the inspections total.

The rule, proposed April 13, calls for Mexican carriers to pass an initial 11-step safety check, including acceptable hours-of-service compliance and drug and alcohol testing plans.

Fleets that pass the initial check will be granted provisional authority and be inspected each time one of their trucks enters the United States.

Source: TRANSPORT TOPICS – JUNE 27 Print edition

Cross Border Proposal could be signed as soon as this week!

Ann Ferro, FMCSA Administrator told a group of SMC3 executives that the Cross Border Pilot Program will be happening "soon" with the first trucks crossing in August.

Speaking to a group of trucking, logistics and technology industry executives at SMC3’s annual summer conference last Thursday in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator Anne S. Ferro said that new cross-border trucking program with Mexico could be in place within two months although she added she doesn’t expect a wave of Mexican trucks heading for the U.S. border.

The FMCSA and it’s Mexican counterpart SCT, expects the U.S. and Mexico to agree on a final program “quite soon” and to grant authority to the first Mexican carrier in the program “sometime in August.” Sources suggest the agreement could be signed sometime this week, with 50% of the legal retaliatory tariff’s being lifted immediately and the remainder when the first Mexican truck is granted authority under the proposed Mexican Cross Border Pilot Proposal.

As you may recall last week we reported that Mexican Economy Minister Bruno Ferrari had suggested the agreement could be signed “soon”. This got OOIDA all stirred up with them sending their allies “Chicken Little” emails suggesting that the agreement would be signed as soon as the next day and exhorting people to “Call their Representatives”, for all the good that will do.

FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION BILL
Speaking of OOIDA and their concentrated interest in getting a Highway Bill passed, we ran across the reason in the form of a letter sent to the chairmen’s of the “Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure” and the “Subcommittee on Highways and Transit”, John Mica and John J. Duncan Jr.

The letter, co-signed by who else, but the corrupt little Congress critter, Peter DeFazio (D-OR) who is also a member of the subcommittee, lays out some of the things they want to see in the 2011 Highway Authorization Bill.

Of specific interest to this debate is the following passage:

We also support inclusion of a provision to block attempts to open the US-Mexico border to cross border truck traffic until the safety, security and job concerns raised by Congress are addressed.

Problem with this is, safety, security and job concerns are a red herring, formed on baseless assumptions not backed by facts. Mexican politicians could take lessons on corruption from Peter DeFazio and his handlers at OOIDA and the TEAMSTERS.

Status of Mexican Trucks in the United States

The Congressional Research service recently prepared for Members and Committees of Congress a report titled
“Status of Mexican Trucks in the United States” which pretty much debunks what Defazio, Teamsters, OOIDA and others have been saying about Mexican trucks. The report can be read or downloaded HERE.

Here’s some excerpts of the report:

Are Mexican Trucks Less Safe Than U.S. Trucks?
Currently, there are about 4,600 Mexican carriers operating within the commercial zones andabout 1,000 Mexico-based but U.S.-owned carriers that have limited operating authority beyondthe commercial zones.

The study reported that in 87% of those incidents in which a truck was determined to be primarily responsible for a crash, the driver was the critical factor, while a problem with the truck was the critical factor in only about 10% of the cases. FMCSA has determined that a Mexican commercial driver’s license is equivalent to a U.S.commercial driver’s license, and that the knowledge and skills testing for obtaining a Mexican commercial driver’s license is similar to that in the United States. It also found that, unlike the United States, Mexico requires pre-test training for all new truck drivers, with additional training prior to each license renewal. FMCSA has access to traffic violation data for violations that occur in Mexico.

What About Hauling Domestic Freight in the United States?

NAFTA does not require that Mexican trucks be allowed to carry U.S. domestic cargo, and theObama Administration pilot plan would not allow them to do so.

Thus, it is immigration regulations, rather than trucking regulations, that require Canadian or Mexican truck drivers to carry only cross-border cargo when operating in the United States

Are U.S. Truckers Interested in Operating in Mexico?

Before the Bush pilot program, Mexico did not allow U.S. trucks anywhere in Mexico. Under the Bush pilot program, 10 U.S. carriers participated in Mexico’s reciprocal pilot project. These carriers operated 55 trucks on 2,245 trips into Mexico.

Most U.S.trucking firms offering services in Mexico do so through a partnership with a Mexican trucking firm

Where Would Mexican Trucks Travel and How Many Would There Be?

Relative to rail and coastal shipping, trucking is more costly for long-distance shipments, even with a driver paid according to Mexican wage scales. Therefore, it is likely that most Mexican trucks in the pilot program will not travel beyond the border states. The results of the 2007-2009 Bush pilot program bears this out. Under that program, Mexican participants made 12,516 trips into the United States. Of these, 1,439, or 11.5%, were to destinations beyond the commercial zone. Only 4% of these long-haul trips (a total of 80 trips) were to destinations beyond a border state. Almost all of the trips beyond the border commercial zone were to destinations within Texas andCalifornia. In more than 30 states no Mexican project participant was identified at roadside inspections during the 18 months of the program.

Guess DeFazio missed that memo.

National Call to Action – Mexican Cross Border Trucking Proposal

This is a Mexican truck! No different from a truck owned by a US company

Time for readers and other interested parties to call their assorted Senators and Congress critters and ask them to support the proposed Cross Border Pilot Program with Mexico which would bring the United States into compliance with it’s international obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The legal retaliatory tariff’s Mexico but on 99 US export products has cost more than 25,000 Americans their jobs and agri business loss of more than 14% market share, most going to Canada.

To contact your Congressman and both of your Senators, call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, tell the operator that you want to speak with your Congressman and provide the operator with your home zip code.

Tell them to SUPPORT the cross-border trucking plan and save American jobs!

There are many different reasons why a trucking program with Mexico is a good idea.  The following are just a few things that public officials need to know:

• Mexico’s  regulatory standards of their trucking industry,while not exactly mirroring ours, is sufficient to insure their trucking companies and drivers can and will comply with our rules and regulations as proven in the previous cross border demonstration program. At present, the United States is working to raise regulatory standards in the US to reflect the standards in Mexico concerning medical requirements and CDL/Medical Card integration.
• Every year, US truckers are burdened with new safety, security and environmental regulations. Those regulations come with considerable compliance costs. Mexico-domiciled trucking companies and drivers will also be burdened with these exact same costs when operating in the United States in addition to the regulatory costs of operating in their own country.
• It has been determined that Mexico’s regulations and enforcement programs are  similar to those in the United States. Mexico has been a full member of CVSA since 1991.
• To ensure the safety and security of U.S. citizens, Mexico-domiciled trucking companies and truck drivers must will required to comply with the same level of safety, security and environmental standards that already apply to U.S.-based companies and drivers.
• Without complying with our international obligations made  with Mexico, thousands more  U.S. jobs will be lost if the cross-border trucking program is delayed or not initiated at this time.

CALL NOW AND KEEP CALLING UNTIL LAWMAKERS REALIZE JUST HOW BAD AN IDEA IT REALLY IS TO KEEP IGNORING OUR PROMISES AND FAILING TO INSTITUTE THE PROPOSED CROSS BORDER PILOT PROGRAM