"Dangerous, unsafe, rolling junkyards" such as these 2011 Kenworth T-660's, at least that is the claim of opponents such as the Teamsters and OOIDA or poised to become a common sight on US highways. Mexican trucks and their drivers have historically returned safety and compliance ratings superior to US carriers
We were told by OOIDA, the Teamsters and the bogus safety groups that make up their allies that 10′s of 1000′s of “dangerous, unsafe, unregulated” Mexican trucks driven by drug using, untrained, unlicensed scofflaws were waiting at out southern border to invade the United States, taking jobs from American truckers and wreaking havoc on our roadways.
17 years later, the border is open to Mexican carriers wishing to participate in the second Cross Border Pilot Program but we’ve yet to see the hordes of dangerous, unsafe trucks and their drivers in our country or on our roads.
Only 33 Mexican trucks have crossed since the U.S. opened its southern border to long-haul trucks in October, said William Quade, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s associate administrator for enforcement and program delivery.
“Participation is not where we want it or need it to be to make it a viable program,” Quade said today at a meeting of the agency’s Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee in Alexandria, Virginia. “The agency is extremely concerned about not having sufficient data.”
And that’s just the way OOIDA and their allies want it, planned for it when their misinformation about Mexican trucks and the Mexican transportation industry was revealed to be bogus and their propaganda found to be outrigt deceitful by Mexico Trucker Online. Then, OOIDA turned to the only tool left in it’s arsenal. Making irrelevant and often misleading statements about the individual applicants to FMCSA during the 10 day comment period.
To date, 3 Mexican carriers have been cleared to participate in the program according to Quade, and backed up by our own research. These 3 carriers have made a total of 33 crossings since the program began in October.
On the other side of the coin, three American carriers who were accepted by Mexico into the program in 2007 continue to operate in and out of Mexico, having made more than 2000 trips south of the border. Mexico never terminated their portion of the program in 2009 when Congress defunded the previous successful Border Demonstration Program.
Anonymous comment submitted to FMCSA……………….these motor carriers will sooon be the mules for bringing illegal immigrants all over america to commit crimes and then get them home again. its a wonderful drug smuggling and illegal immigrant smuggling opportnity for mexico. mexican govt wants all mexicans t be supported by us taxpayers, so this scheme also lets mexico get away with that burden for american taxpayers. the lawlessness for these drivers will be an immense cost to american taxpayers. all the mexicans will have fake mexican documents, which are freely given out by the polluted corrupt mexican govt. this pilot project needs to be shut down. this is another holdover from the crap administration of george bush/dick cheney, the most inept two to ever hold presidential office. all paperwork needs to be english. the american people dont want to read and write mexican. this seems like a corrupt political payoff and bribe situation. this program was put into a bill on the iraq war as political corruption. this pilot program needs to have its budget at zero. a terrorist could pay one of these truck drivers $5 bucks and america will have a smuggled terrorist blowing us up. this whole idea of letting another country run wild to take american jobs is seriously brain dead work by washington corrupt politicians.
Initially, there was nothing in NAFTA requiring PASA’s, lengthy background checks, CVSA stickers and Level I inspections, nor even a “pilot program” to gauge the ability of Mexican trucks to operate in our regulatory environment. These were all roadblocks thrown into place by corrupt politicians at the behest of the Teamsters and OOIDA following along on Hoffa’s coattails. The idea was that the Mexicans would get so discouraged they’d throw up their hands in defeat and forget about pursuing the issue.
The opposition was wrong though and in 2009, Mexico put in place $2.4 billion dollars in legal tariff’s against select US products to get the attention of lawmakers and the public. That got the attention of lawmakers very quickly and as a result, those congress critters who had opposed the opening of the border, quickly changed their tune and left their “patrons” scurrying around looking for other ways to stop the onslaught of 3 Mexican trucks.
The low participation for the new program is due to high insurance costs and the uncertainty as to whether the border will remain open, due to the games being played by OOIDA and others. The larger Mexican carriers are staying at home until they see which direction this leads.
The U.S. must evaluate the pilot program to determine whether it would be safe to open the border to all truck traffic. So few Mexican trucks are participating that it may not be possible to have a statistically valid sample for that analysis, Quade went on to say.
What Quaide didn’t acknowledge or perhaps didn’t think about is that FMCSA has a wealth of information available to make that determination without the Cross Border Pilot Program producing significant numbers. “Legacy” carriers from Mexico who have had authority to operate in this country for the past 35 years and other Mexican carriers who have special point specific authority have been providing numbers for years. They have the data from border drayage carriers to assist them and the data from the participants in the 2007 Cross Border Demonstration Program. All of this data has historically pointed to a trucking industry which is as safe, and in most cases more compliant than their US counterparts.
So what will happen if at the end of three years, FMCSA does not have enough “data” to make a “statistically valid” determination of fitness of Mexican carriers and tries to shut the border down again? The first thing that comes to mind will be a resumption of the tariffs and they will be much more than $2.4 billion dollars that Mexico imposed the first time.
The solution is to put an end to this dog and pony show and open the borders to the Mexican carriers who desire to operate here, after they pass a PASA and comply with all rules and regulations US and Canadian carriers are required to comply with. Simple solution to a simple problem.
The doom and gloom, the havoc on our highways has yet to materialize and none of the propaganda we’ve been fed by Teamster, OOIDA and the bogus safety groups has come to pass nor will it.
Coming to the highways and byways of America, this modern fleet of Mexican trucks owned by Servicios Refrigerados Internacionales, one of the latest carriers to pass their Pre-Authorization Safety Audit over the objections of OOIDA
Three more Mexican carriers have passed their Pre-Authorization Safety Audits (PASA) bringing them one step closer to being granted authority to participate in the much maligned Cross Border Pilot Program for Mexican carriers.
Higienicos Y Desechables Del Bajio, Servicios Refrigerados Internacionales and Transportes Del Valle De Guadalupe passed their audits easily and the findings were published in the Federal Register last Friday, giving the public the required 10 days to comment on the fitness of these carriers to participate in the program.
“Fitness” refers to the ability of the carrier to perform safely and comply with the rules, regulations and laws of the United States, something Mexican carriers have historically and statistically excelled at.
And as expected, The Owner Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), long an opponent of allowing Mexican trucks into the United States, came out with a statement from Executive VP Todd Spencer putting the powers that be on notice that the association is “reviewing” the applications to make certain all the “i’s” were crossed and the “t’s” dotted.
According to Spencer, who thanks to Mexico Trucker Online and others, has, in the past, exposed and debunked all the claims of Spencer and his organization that Mexican carriers and drivers are ill qualified, unsafe and pose a hazard to American motorists, is reduced to whining about these carriers having “affiliations” with other carriers.
Believe me folks, I’m not making this crap up! Spencer claims that current research on the three new applicants shows they have affiliations with other motor carriers. Oh, the horror of it all!
“I guess we should be used to the fact that the agency really isn’t checking out applicants,” Spencer whined.
“Applicants are required by law under severe penalties to disclose to disclose affiliations. They simply don’t. Apparently FMCSA thinks that’s good enough,” Spencer said. “Certainly we don’t believe that is good enough. Those affiliations do need to be disclosed. The fact that they are not should be on its face enough to disqualify them.
"Dangerous, unsafe, rolling junkyards" such as these 2011 Kenworth T-660's, at least that is the claim of opponents such as the Teamsters and OOIDA or poised to become a common sight on US highways. Mexican trucks and their drivers have historically returned safety and compliance ratings superior to US carriers
Apparently the months it is taking FMCSA to check out these carriers before performing the PASA’s doesn’t count in Spencer’s mind.
But once again, and as usual, Spencer and company is not telling the public and their members.
William Quaide, an FMCSA assistant director replying to OOIDA’s comments against Baja Express Transportes, making many of the same claims that they are making here, had this to say;
It is not uncommon for motor carriers from the United States, Mexico, and Canada to leave the affiliations question unanswered on operating authority applications. As a result, this alone is not grounds to reject an OP-1 or OP-1 (MX) application. For OP-l(MX) applications, the Agency requires that the affiliations question be answered and requests that applicants amend their applications with a
response to the question. The application will not be further processed until the missing information is supplied. If, an affiliation is identified, and the affiliated carrier has a record of significant non-compliance that may include, but is not limited to, out of service orders, an unsatisfactory compliance review, failed safety audit, Safety Measurement System (SMS) scores above the threshold levels, non-payment of penalties, and/or the appearance of reincarnation to avoid enforcement, these factors may lead to Agency dismissal of the application.
So, in other words, FMCSA is well aware of OOIDA’s attempts to side track or derail individual applicants who desire to participate in the program through asinine revelations that the applications were not properly signed or perhaps the carrier has an affiliation of some sort with another carrier, which in and of itself is not illegal. FMCSA and to his credit, Bill Quade, is having none of it.
We look forward to OOIDA’s comments on these three carriers and FMCSA’s reply dismissing them.
To date, 26 crossing have been made by two of the participants since the program started 7 months ago.
Download and read the FMCSA response to OOIDA here
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!
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.
Federal and Texas DPS inspectors at Brownsville POE
Today’s El Paso Times has a piece out titled “1 Million Truck Violations Cited at Border Crossing”by Diana Washington who has in the past been a reputable reporter on things concerning the US/Mexico border in El Paso. But the story is misleading and just the sort of thing we expect OOIDA to jump on first thing tomorrow morning. So let’s defuse this bomb before they have a chance to use it.
The story reads in full;
Texas state inspectors in El Paso have found thousands of safety violations in trucks coming from Mexico, including bad brakes, flat tires, axle problems and defective lights, statistics show.
Between fiscal years 2007 and the first six months of 2011, the state conducted 1.2 million inspections at state facilities by the Bridge of Americas and the Zaragoza International Bridge. The state fiscal year runs from Sept. 1 to Aug. 31.
During that period, officers found a million violations, and placed 31,519 trucks and 625 drivers out of service. Many trucks had multiple violations.
Why that’s just terrible folks, isn’t it? Based on that, we should ban all Mexican trucks from the US, Canadian too if you want to be fair about it. But how do those number break down?
The fiscal year runs from October until September 30 of the following year so in the case of this report we would be looking at,
- 54 fiscal months
- 216 fiscal weeks
- 1620 fiscal days (give or take a day or two)
So how does that break down given the numbers that the reporter uses?
- Trucks OOS per month 584 Drivers OOS per month 11.5
- Trucks OOS per week 145 Driver OOS per week 2.89
- Trucks OOS daily 19 Driver OOS daily 0.3
Now, the article doesn’t say which POE in El Paso these rather suspect statistics were taken from, but the average traffic per year crossing at all the El Paso area POE’s is 760,000 trucks. So in the period used, that would be a rough average of 3.04 million trucks crossing the US border at El Paso for the 4 year period. Can anyone get their mind around these numbers yet?
Remember also that total truck crossing on the US/Mexico border yearly is 4.8 million and steadily increasing by 12% annually.
Let’s also take a quick peak at the inspection numbers for FY 2007 – 2011. These are total inspections within the state of Texas and includes Federal and State DPS inspections. If you want to break them down yourselves, the numbers can be found
here.
- 2011 – 95,070
- 2010 – 205,488
- 2009 – 180,432
- 2008 – 161,889
- 2007 – 168,695
TOTAL – 811,574
Those of us domiciled in Texas and those who run the state regularly know the methods the Texas DPS uses to stop and inspect big rigs. Flying mudflaps. A small piece missing from a mudflap or a marker light out. Anything to give them cause to make the stop. And if they can’t find a violation, a thumb run over a brake line underneath the trailer is evidence of “chafing air lines” for which they write thousands of warnings a month.
So once again, we have a non-issue being pushed by the opponents of cross border trucking trying to instill fear into the hearts and minds of the uninformed.
Say it ain’t so people! James P. Hoffa and his Teamsters, and Todd Spencer with his minority of American truckers are aligning themselves with the left wing enviro-wackos in a last desperate attempt to stop fewer than 100 late model Mexican trucks from entering the country?
Politics and nativist protectionism make strange bedfellows sometimes as the latest press release from the Teamsters points out.
In comments submitted to the Department of Transportation (DOT), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Sierra Club raised frivolous and baseless concerns with what they claim is the failure of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to adequately assess the environmental impacts associated with the upcoming U.S.-Mexico cross-border trucking pilot program.
Hoffa erroneously claims:
“With this assessment, the FMSCA is recklessly ignoring the true environmental impact Mexican trucks will have if permitted to travel without restrictions throughout our country. We contend that the FMSCA has violated the National Environmental Policy Act by not addressing the full, cumulative effects on our environment prior to starting the cross-border pilot program.”
The “assessment” he is referring to is the announcement last month of 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.
But Hoffa and his Teamsters as well as Spencer and OOIDA are blowing smoke up the asses of the American public and US truckers. They’re bringing up an issue that was resolved years ago by the Supreme Court of the United States.
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.
Now in their desperation to keep a handful of late model, closely monitored Mexican trucks from entering this country, they ally themselves with the tree huggers. They ignore the more than 30,000 Mexican rigs that access the United States daily, some with authority to run anywhere in the country they desire.
Take OOIDA for instance. They’re always preaching against more government regulations and fighting CARB, the California Air Resources Board, which has some of the most stringent environmental rules in the country (and rules that Mexican trucks follow daily). A good example of that is OOIDA’s statement in opposition to new fuel economy rules for big trucks.
OOIDA says;
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) called the administration’s announcement today for greenhouse gas emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks a flawed, one-size-fits-all rule. The new rule ignores input from small-business trucking, overlooks less expensive options to achieve EPA goals of reduced emissions, and will ultimately increase new truck costs.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a first-ever rulemaking for new large tractor-trailer trucks that requires trucks to achieve up to approximately 20 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by model year 2018.
“By totally ignoring the impact on small-business trucking, the EPA has demonstrated yet another example of our wretchedly broken regulatory process,” said Joe Rajkovacz, Director of Regulatory Affairs for OOIDA. “Congress should take action when they return in September to rein in the bureaucracy and push forward regulatory reform legislation that has already been introduced.”
Notice the hypocrisy and desperation? They oppose the new mileage standards and are demanding the Administration to stand down from all the excessive regulations they’re putting on us, a position I totally agree with, yet in the next breath, they demand more regulations against a few Mexican trucks.
In an article published on August 12, 2011 titled FMCSA’s environmental assessment of cross-border program falls short, OOIDA claims,
Currently, Mexican emission standards for diesel-powered truck engines are only aligned with U.S. EPA emissions standards for six criteria pollutants through the 2003 model year. This means that newer engines for Mexican trucks need not comply with the more stringent U.S. emissions standards that came into play in 2004 through 2010.
The comments point out that since Mexico has not aligned its diesel engine emissions standards to U.S. EPA 2004 standards, the differences can be stark – as much as 20 times the nitrogen oxides and 10 times the particulate matter, based on using diesel with a sulfur content of 500 parts per million.
The ability to add additional fuel tanks makes it possible for trucks from Mexico to fill up with the low-sulfur diesel available in Mexico and never have to fuel up while in the states – polluting at a higher level than corresponding U.S. trucks.
OOIDA’s comments propose two options to FMCSA to ensure a minimal environmental impact the cross-border program may have.
The first, would be to only allow trucks that meet U.S. EPA model year emissions standards for the year in which the engine was manufactured. We don’t have a problem with that and indeed, that is stated in the proposal for the new cross border program. Guess that part went over their heads at OOIDA.
The second is ridiculous and nothing in the section of NAFTA regulating cross border trucking, nor int he arbitration panel ruling requires this. OOIDA’s idea would force trucks arriving from Mexico either to have ULSD fuel purchased in Mexico on board or to have possibly to one-fourth tank or less of fuel not meeting the U.S. ULSD standard – so they could purchase compliant fuel once crossing the border.
Even if Mexican trucks were using diesel fuel consisting of 5000 ppm of sulfur, the environmental impact of less than 100 trucks would be absolute zero.
This is simply another method by the opponents to throw up more roadblocks to our compliance with our international obligations. Fortunately, they’ll lose this fight too.
Mexican truckers take pride in their rides such as this Kenworth photographed in Laredo Texas. This is what opponents refer to as "dangerous", "sub standard Mexican junk"
That’s the question being posed on the Landline Now Media blog by Sandi Soendker, and it’s a valid question.
The obvious answer to the question is of course, no. However, in their absence of a credible argument opposing the cross border trucking program with Mexico, OOIDA and other opponents are knowingly and willfully preying on the ignorance and prejudices of their members and the public at large, to turn opinion against Mexican truckers.
So far once we can agree with OOIDA when Soendker writes;
If American truckers are opposed to cross-border trucking with Mexico, are they racists? If they are concerned with issues like safety, jobs, national security, fair treatment – is that racism? Concerns for other issues like immigration, customs, reduced tax revenue for roads, lack of clear enforcement – is that racism? Of course it isn’t.
The safety issue has been debunked. Mexican trucks and their drivers have been shown to be as safe, and in most cases safer, than their US and Canadian cousins.
[pullquote]
A Good Example of the drivel from Mark Reddig
The countdown has started to the opening day of cross-border trucking with Mexico.
And even as that date approaches, efforts by OOIDA to stop the program dead in its tracks continue as well.
Truckers and others are also hitting the phone lines, calling members of Congress, federal officials and more, trying to get the message across to a Congress bullied and bruised from the heavy-handed lobbying of the ATA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (an organization that clearly doesn’t deserve the name,) and the huge multinational companies that crave the cheap labor south of the border.
For some folks, it’s all a bit much. They are tired of having to fight this battle over and over, tired of the fact that even when Congress votes 411-3 to stop this idea, that the friends of big business keep bringing it back again and again, like some kind of monster in an old horror film that – no matter how many times you shoot it – just keeps shambling forward.
But this battle is too important. And those people should not be rewarded for their attempts to thwart the will of the American People, and of Congress.
We need to flood Capitol Hill with phone calls, letters, faxes and emails.
You’re likely to receive a response, but it very well may not say what you’d like to hear.
Don’t let it get you down or dissuade you from continuing this fight.
I recently called all three of the folks who represent me in Congress – my representative and both of my senators.
I received, in return, form letters. That’s not a big surprise.
However, what was a big surprise to me is that the members’ letters indicated that at least one of them is accepting this drivel from DOT that they’ve fixed all the problems and we’re good to move ahead with this.
Believe me, I will call and correct that error. I hope all of you will join me.
[/pullquote]
Absent any proof, opponents continue to scare the hell out of Americans into thinking that 100 or so Mexican trucks will put tens of thousands of US truckers out of business and into the welfare line.
Ridiculous when you consider Canada has 37,000 or more trucks with free access to the US, and they have not cost us jobs. Landline Now host Mark Reddig doesn’t miss an opportunity to warn US truckers that 100 Mexican trucks will “destroy” the US trucking industry. And because of ignorance, bigotry and prejudice, people believe such an incredulous lie.
When they refer to “national security”, they want you to believe that terrorists are lining up to hitch a ride on the first Mexican trucks to cross the border while ignoring the fact that their are more than 25,000 Mexican drayage trucks who cross the border daily. They also pointedly ignore the fact that to our north, across one of the longest unsecured borders in the world, is the largest population of people from the middle east, the so called “New Canadians”, who can cross our border at will. And with a Canadian commercial license, they can do so in a big rig.
They talk of “fair treatment” which is nothing more than equal access. Many people don’t know that after we slammed the door in the face of the Mexicans in 2009, they continued to allow American carriers total access to their country. Four US carriers continue that access today.
OODA President Jim Johnston stood at a stakeholders meeting in 2009 before Secretary Ray LaHood and when asked about Canadians breaking our cabotage laws, shrugged his shoulders and said “It happens” and in the next breath insisted Mexican carriers should be barred because they “might” be inclined to break cabotage, notwithstanding the fact that if a Mexican breaks our cabotage laws, he is also violating his H2b visa and can have it cancelled and himself deported.
On the other end of the debate, we welcome pieces of crap such as this old FLD Freightliner from Canada into this country and onto our roads, without the least bit of worry about the safety and mechanical condition of the rig
They’ll have you believe that the Mexican carriers who will enroll in the program will be waiting to carry drugs and illegals into this country. 100 of the most closely monitored, strictly controlled trucks on our roads, while ignoring the report of the one of the largest cocaine busts in Nevada history, on a Canadian truck, a story which only garnered a mention on LandlineNow. Had it been a Mexican truck, all hell would have broken loose over at OOIDA.
OOIDA and other opponents have stooped as low as to turn to acknowledged hate groups such as FAIR, to spread their agenda against Mexico and their trucking industry, while keeping a safe distance from the results of their efforts. Using the hatred and bigotry of these fringe nutcases to get their message out. Disgusting!
Another Mexican Kenworth (KenMex) in Laredo Texas. How different is this from what you're driving?
So is it racist to oppose cross border trucking with Mexico? Not in the least if you have a valid reason and proof to back up your position. But to use the ignorance, prejudice and bigotry of some to promote hatred and violence against the Mexican truckers is decidedly racist.
Loading ...
Readers Reponses