Mexico Trucker Online Articles

UPS rolls out expedited ground freight service with Mexico

UPS Inc. has launched an integrated ground shipping and brokerage service for heavy freight shipments between the United States and Mexico

by Mark Soloman - DC Velocity

UPS Inc. said today it has launched an integrated ground shipping and brokerage service for heavy freight shipments between the United States and Mexico that offers faster door-to-door transit times than currently provided by less-than-truckload (LTL) operations.

The bi-directional service, called “UPS CrossBorder Connect,” will utilize the trucking network that supports the Atlanta-based company’s North American airfreight service and will link with selected Mexican carriers along eight U.S. cities on the Mexican border, UPS said. Five of the cities are in Texas, two are in California, and one in Arizona.

UPS said shippers using the service would get their goods to market within three to four days of pickup. Karen Cole, a UPS spokeswoman, said LTL transit times would vary but added the new service will provide a more expedited delivery option for companies operating in the cross-border trade.

“Our research clearly revealed the gaps in service options that exist for today’s customers,” said Steve Flowers, president of UPS Global Freight Forwarding, in a statement. “With this product, we’ve improved visibility and predictability, as well as reliability on one of the largest and most important U.S. trade lanes.”

Until now, heavyweight freight shipping options in the U.S.-Mexico market were limited to costly airfreight deliveries or less expensive but slower LTL movements, UPS said. As a result, shippers had no “middle ground” between the two services, the company added.


 

Revised Hours of Services rules released. Lawsuits almost certain to follow

The long anticipated release of the revised hours of service regulations were finally released by FMCSA yesterday, and at first read, they are not as bad as anticipated.

The 11 hour driving time has been retained, despite heavy pressure from the Teamsters and various bogus safety groups to reduce it to 10 hours or less per day.

The 34 hour restart provision is also retained but with added restrictions. Under the new rules, the 34 hour restart provision can be used only once in a 7 day (168 hour) period and must contain two periods of rest between 0100-0500 in the morning. While less restrictive than the proposed period of 00:00 to 0600, drivers will still need to be aware when they begin the restart period so as not to be forced by the new provision into taking more than 34 hours. This provision in theory, reduces the drivers on duty time from 82 hours to a true 70 hours in 8 days.

FMCSA has also mandated that a driver can operate no more than 8 hours without taking a 30 minute rest break, something most would consider a ridiculous requirement since most drivers stop throughout the day for short periods.

The definition of “on duty time”

And finally, companies and drivers that commit egregious violations of the rule could face the maximum penalties for each offense. Trucking companies that allow drivers to exceed the 11-hour driving limit by 3 or more hours could be fined $11,000 per offense, and the drivers themselves could face civil penalties of up to $2,750 for each offense.

“This final rule is the culmination of the most extensive and transparent public outreach effort in our agency’s history,” said FMCSA Administrator Anne S. Ferro. “With robust input from all areas of the trucking community, coupled with the latest scientific research, we carefully crafted a rule acknowledging that when truckers are rested, alert and focused on safety, it makes our roadways safer.”

Ferro’s comment is a total joke in our opinion. Leaving the rules the way they were, and not caving in to the demands of bogus “safety groups” such as Parents Against Tired Truckers (PATT), Public Citizen and Advocates for Highway Safety, especially when the trucking industry has seen some of the safest years in decades, would have accomplished the same goal.

BOTH SIDES QUICK TO YELL FOUL

From the ATA to the aforemention bogus safety groups and the Teamsters, everyone is objecting to the new rules.

Henry Jasny, vice president of Washington- based Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety said in an interview;

“This is a breach of promise of making safety the No. 1 goal of the agency and the Transportation Department,It’s more than disappointing. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety will continue to pursue a 10-hour rule, and may take the issue to court”

Daphne Izer, a co-founder of Parents Against Tired Truckers chimed in;

“I don’t know what it is going to take for the government to get real about protecting us on our roads.”

Izer’s son Jeff and three other teenagers were killed in a 1993 crash with a big rig and since that time, she and others have devoted their lives to exacting revenge against the entire trucking industry for the actions of one driver.

The American Trucking Association issued a statement today in which ATA Chairman Bill Graves stated,

“Today’s announcement of a new rule on the hours-of-service is completely unsurprising. What is surprising and new to us is that for the first time in the agency’s history, FMCSA has chosen to eschew a stream of positive safety data and cave in to a vocal anti-truck minority and issue a rule that will have no positive impact on safety. From the beginning of this process in October 2009, the agency set itself on a course to fix a rule that’s not only not broken, but by all objective accounts is working to improve highway safety. Unfortunately, along the way, FMCSA twisted data and, as part of this final rule, is using unjustified causal estimates to justify unnecessary changes.”

Bill Graves hit the nail on the head. ATA Chairman Dan England, chairman of C.R. England, Salt Lake City Utah followed Graves statement by saying;

“Even with an uptick in truck-involved fatalities in 2010, since the current rules went into effect in 2004, fatalities have fallen 29.9%, even as overall miles traveled for trucks has risen by tens of billions of miles. No one can dispute these facts”

OOIDA Executive Vice President stated;

“Collectively, the changes in this rule will have a dramatic effect on the lives and livelihoods of small-business truckers. The changes are unnecessary and unwelcome and will result in no significant safety gains.

OOIDA has long held that to meaningfully improve highway safety, proposed changes would need to include all aspects of a truckers’ workday that affect their ability to drive safely. This includes loading and unloading times, split sleeper berth for team operations, and the ability to interrupt the 14-hour day for needed rest periods.

Compliance with any regulation is already a challenge because everyone else in the supply chain is free to waste the driver’s time loading or unloading with no accountability.

The hours-of-service regulations should instead be more flexible to allow drivers to sleep when tired and to work when rested and not penalize them for doing so. It’s the only way to reach significant gains in highway safety and reduce non-compliance.”

For once, we totally agree with Spencer’s assessment of the situation.

Teamsters President James P. Hoffa alluded to filing legal action against the rule stating;

“We said all along that an hours of service rule has to protect highway safety and our truck drivers’ health. We are reviewing the new rule, and in the coming weeks we will meet and discuss it with our allies and, if necessary, determine our next course of action.”

The new rules, if not enjoined, will go into effect on July 1, 2013.

A major win for OOIDA and Truckers as US 7th Court of Appeals tosses EOBR mandate

An opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in response to a lawsuit filed by the Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) against the mandate for Electronic Onboard Recorders (EOBR’s) has effectively vacated the regulation for now based on the argument of “driver harassment” and sent it back to the FMCSA for reconsideration and a possible rewrite.

This is a major victory for US truckers who have fought against the implementation of this regulation. However, the fight continues as two Senators, Lamar Alexander and David Prior have a bill pending before Congress which would make this requirement law.

“It’s a fantastic decision,” OOIDA President Jim Johnston said. “The decision dealt with the issue of harassment of drivers, but the court left room to come back and challenge other aspects if the agency gets overly enthusiastic about how they want to monitor truckers.”

OOIDA had presented three arguments as to why the regulation should be set aside, but Circuit Judge Diane Wood, stated that the court “need address only the first issue” of driver harassment.

Judge Wood’s opinion stated; “that if an agency “fails to consider a factor mandated by its organic statues, this omission is alone ‘sufficient to establish an arbitrary-and-capricious decision requiring vacatur of the rule.”

You can read more about the ruling at LANDLINEMAG.

This is what OOIDA was established to do and they have our full support in their endeavors such as this. Wasting time and money fighting the Mexican cross border program, a cause the United States is morally and legally obligated to comply with is not only a waste of resources by OOIDA but does severe damage to their credibility as an association supporting truckers because of the methods they have employed in the past and continue to use.

But congratulations to all who was responsible for this win. It gives all of us a little extra breathing room from the nanny regs that FMCSA seems determined to shove down our throats.

Did you survive ROADCHECK 2011?

Main building of SCT Weigh station with offices for SCT, Federal Police, onsite drug, alcohol and medical testing and even a couple of jail cells

Roadcheck 2011 is one for the books for the most part. So, did everyone survive?

From Canada to Mexico, there was supposed to be scores of Federal, State and local truck inspectors working round the clock in the annual CVSA 72 hour blitz known as “Roadcheck”, or to some of us, “Vacation Time”.

I fall into the former category for the 25th year in a row. I learned my lesson early on. Stay the hell off the roads during this revenue enhancement effort. It helps that my birthday always falls in the middle of the “blitz”.

Time to go back to work, sunburned from a week under the palms, by the pool, kicked back and relaxing in Monterrey. Got to get back to work to get some rest, as most of us do.

Mexico, it’s Federal Police, SCT, State and local transit police participated this year once again. They’ve been full partners in the Commercial Vehicle Safety Administration (CVSA) program since 1991. The level of participation? It’s hard to determine at this time. They were out doing roadside checks. The SCT “Sooper Coop” south of Nuevo Laredo on MX-85 was open on Wednesday June 8. It looked to be a combination inspection blitz and driver appreciation effort, as they had the grills fired up and a good number of rigs off to the side and under the inspection sheds. Coming back yesterday evening, everything locked up tight, similar to reports coming in from across America.

It’ll be interesting to see the numbers once they’re released, considering Mexico’s law enforcement apparatus is currently involved in trying to settle down the warring cartel factions and the wannabes. Although the “Big Boys” are doing a fine job of cleaning up their own houses.

Take note the violence is between cartels or gangs and has nothing to do with the Mexican trucking industry despite what others might claim.

PHOTO GALLERY
The following photos were taken in and around and enroute to Monterrey from Nuevo Laredo this week.

Again, photos of a Mexican “Super Coop”, automated, weigh in motion technology, that doesn’t exist according to some critics of Mexican trucks, who have LOST ALL CREDIBILITY on the issue. Because how could a facility exist if regulations don’t exist to enforce the non existent regulations. Something to think about here.

It was also interesting to note that the Texas DPS was out in force at the border crossings in Laredo, checking intercity buses crossing the border. It appeared that all passed their Level I inspections.

Union Propaganda machine goes full tilt, but, statistics don’t lie. The opposition does

Mexican cross border hauler checking through security

We’ve had a weekend since Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood released the “Concept Document” enabling the United States to finally uphold their obligations under the NAFTA agreement.

Reaction has been overwhelmingly positive to the release of the plan with opposition coming from the usual irrelevant sources, as predicted.

Immediately, the opposition chimed in citing job losses, unsafe trucks, and a variety of other baseless assumptions. Baseless because in the 15 years of opposition to allowing Mexican carriers to operate in this country, OOIDA and the TEAMSTERS have offered no concrete evidence to back up their claims. Why? Because none exists.

There does exist data that thoroughly debunks their claims of job losses and Mexican carriers coming in and undercutting US Truckers.

THE MYTH THAT MEXICAN TRUCKS WILL COST AMERICANS JOBS

Numbers don’t lie. According to FMCSA Summary Statistics for U.S. DOT Active Motor Carriers these numbers show how it is statistically and logically impossible for Mexican carriers to have any impact on US truckers jobs.

Active Carriers with U.S. DOT Number

Read more

Senators file bill to require EOBR’s in all interstate trucks

In what can only be described as political pandering in an election year, and with the backing of a coalition of mega trucking companies, Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ar) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tn) filed a bill known as The Commercial Driver Compliance Improvement Act (S. 3884)

The bill, if passed, would require universal installation of electronic on-board recording devices for commercial motor vehicles. It would force the Department of Transportation to issue regulations within 18 months of the bill’s enactment, as well as setting design and performance standards for the devices. The regulations would take effect three years after the bill becomes law.

Five of the largest bottom feeding transportation companies in the industry, JB Hunt Transportation, Knight Transportation, Maverick Transportation, US Express, and Schneider National have formed a coalition they’re calling “The Alliance for Driver Safety & Security” to back the bill.

It is interesting to note, that one member of this “Alliance”, US Express, has a SAFERSYS score of 91, which would put them under the gun of already established rules for EOBR use.

News of the bill came in a “Breaking News” story this afternoon by Evan Lockridge on “The Lockridge Report”, and needless to say, it dominated the rest of the afternoons show.
Read more

If DOT Inspectors find booze in your truck, that’s racial profiling?

OOIDA Member Curtis Blackwell is accusing NMMTD officers of racial profiling after beer and booze was found in his truck during a random DOT check

Not surprising, and the sad thing is, he’ll probably win. OOIDA reportsl

OOIDA member sues New Mexico troopers for racial profiling
Looking around the port of entry office, Curtis Blackwell noticed something common among the drivers waiting to talk to officers at the Port of Entry in Lordsburg, NM.

Like him, most of the other drivers were black.

Blackwell had been placed out of service for 24 hours after police found unopened beer and liquor in his truck’s tool box accessible from outside the truck. The officer accused him of being on drugs, and made him go through a series of sobriety tests on that mid-August day in 2008.

Blackwell – a veteran of the road for more than 40 years – said tension between truckers and officers at the Port of Entry was palpable.

“Coming from L.A., I can tell when a cop is trying to get me,” Blackwell told Land Line. “I thought, ‘They’re only pulling over black drivers!’ ”

Blackwell, OOIDA Member from Altadena, CA, filed a lawsuit against the New Mexico Motor Transportation Division in early May. The suit names three state troopers for allegedly targeting commercial vehicles driven by black drivers for inspections, searches and detentions in Lordsburg.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in New Mexico, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, the removal of an alcohol citation from Blackwell’s record, and a declaration that the citation is unconstitutional.

READ THE REST HERE

Last I heard, carrying booze in your truck without a BOL was not permitted and after 40 years, you’d think this bozo would know it too.

Something we’ll keep and eye on.

Obama Decides to violate Smoot Hawley and we will pay

I’ve written before about a dangerous provision of the Omnibus appropriations legislation now under consideration in the Senate. The bill violates the U.S. commitment under NAFTA to allow Mexican trucking companies to operate in the U.S., so long as they meet all the standards to which U.S. companies and trucks are held. If Obama signs this measure into law, Mexico will have the right to retaliate against the U.S. – presumably by restricting exports from the U.S. to Mexico.

Barack Obama opposed the Mexico truck pilot program when he was in the Senate, but you might expect him to rethink his view now that he sits in the Oval Office. After all, he campaigned on a promise to restore good relations with our neighbors, and on a promise to restore economic growth. Picking a fight with Mexico now would be a very public renunciation of both those promises.

The Mexican government has not yet shown its cards; the Mexican Ambassador has merely stated that Mexico ‘will keep all its options open.’ One (subscription only) trade journal reports however, that Mexico will exercise its right to retaliate:

Mexico is threatening tough trade retaliation if Congress and the Obama administration move ahead with proposals that would ban Mexican truckers from travelling throughout the United States, as spelled out in the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

The pending confrontation could prove to be contentious, fraught with even more potential peril than the recent “Buy America” flap over steel, according to trade sources in Washington.

Sources confirmed that Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico’s ambassador to the United States, outlined his country’s trade retaliation plans at a closed-door meeting with key Washington policymakers, including congressional staffers and lobbyists, at a Georgetown hotel this month.

Details on the precise nature of the retaliation aren’t known, but sources suggested it could be aimed at sensitive sectors in the United States, including steel, auto parts, financial services and possibly others.

If your job depends on trade in steel, auto parts or financial services, Obama is prepared to put you at risk to satisfy the Teamsters – the lead opponent of this trucking program. The teamsters violently oppose it because when Mexican or U.S. trucks are forced to stop at the border, the cargo has to be transferred to another truck by a Teamster. If you allow Mexican and U.S. trucks to operate across the border, there’s no need of a few unionized workers to move boxes.

If you’re angry at the notion that Obama is willing to sacrifice your job for those of a few teamsters, don’t feel bad: once the U.S. fires the first shot in this trade war, there are likely to be plenty of other victims as well. That’s because it’s impossible to predict where retaliation will stop once it gets started. When the U.S. adopted the Smoot-Hawley tariff at the onset of the Depression, few imagined it would lead to the fall of the Canadian government, and a full-blown trade war between the U.S. and Canada. Yet that’s what happened.

And if there’s any doubt about how Mexico perceives this slap in the face, take a look at this op-ed in Mexico City’s El Universal, written by Luis de la Calle – Mexico’s chief NAFTA negotiator:

Shameful Action in the U.S. Congress

It’s nothing new for Congressmen and Senators of the Democratic Party to seek to prevent the operation of Mexican motor freight companies in the United States. They’ve done it before, under pressure from the Teamsters, since the realization of the opening to cross-border transport in NAFTA in December 1995.

The novelty is that now they do it as a party in government – controlling both the Executive and the Legislature – and should act with a much greater responsibility at no longer being an opposition party. It’s one thing to mindlessly oppose the White House in Republican hands, but it’s another to propose that the U.S. violate its international commitments, deny its own laws and work programs, and take measures tantamount to expropriation, and do all this without due process of law and without debate in Congress…

Two features distinguish this vote: one – to resort to cancellation of the funds is clear evidence that the opponents of the program lack substantive arguments. So they choose to cut the funds… Two, the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House sent the initiative to the full House under a “closed rule” that prevents debate on the merits. The congressmen voted without knowing if the demonstration program has worked correctly or if the operations of Mexican trucks in the United States are safe…

Barack Obama should not allow his own congressional Democrats to corner him and put him in an impossible situation: the adoption of Dorgan’s amendment violated the international commitments of the United States, overturned a program launched by the government and is equivalent to a expropriation of investments made by participating companies… avoiding ruling on the merits of the case and is discriminatory to only apply to drivers and Mexican companies…

There is no doubt today that the Mexican government was wrong in 1995 to choose not to establish a dispute settlement panel when the United States violated NAFTA and made that mistake again in 2001 when – having won the arbitration decision – chose not retaliate. Under current conditions, it seems unlikely that Mexico would allow another unjustified violation of NAFTA and not retaliate.

So Mexico’s former top trade negotiator says Mexico should retaliate when Barack Obama formally puts the United States in violation of treaty commitments, and Mexico’s Ambassador is reportedly telling lawmakers that Mexico will retaliate.

Is Barack Obama willing to say no to labor, change course, and save this country from a major international embarrassment?