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.
Based on the results of roadside truck inspections in the United Statesover the last five years, Mexican trucks and drivers have a comparable, if not slightly better, safety record than U.S. trucks and drivers.
The long-haul Mexican trucks participating in theBush pilot program also demonstrated a superior safety record compared to U.S. trucks, althoughthe sample size was too small to be statistically significant.
The safety of trucks may have less to do with whether they are of U.S. or Mexican origin andmore to do with the type of truck. Drayage carriers, trucks that make short-haul movements and spend much time idling while awaiting customs processing, tend to use older equipment. Long-haul trucks tend to carry relatively high-value goods or temperature-controlled cargo, because lower-value goods and less time-sensitive goods can be carried over long distances much more economically by rail or water. If shippers are willing to pay a substantial premium over rail or water transport to truck their product long distances, it seems plausible that they would choose a reliable trucker with modern equipment to avoid risk of delay or spoilage. For instance, since refrigeration technology is continually improving, shippers expect carriers to have the latest equipment for temperature and atmospheric control. The difference in economic incentives for short-haul versus long-haul trucking raises an important policy issue. If safety is more important to long-haul trucking than it is to short-haul trucking, limits on cross-border travel by long-haul trucks may increase the presence of older,less safe trucking equipment in the border zones.
A congressionally mandated study of the causation of accidents in the United States involving large trucks that resulted in at least one fatality or injury found that the driver is a more critical factor than the vehicle.
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.
As is already the case with Canadian trucks, Mexican trucks would be allowed to operate in the United States only if they are carrying cross-border cargo or if they are running empty for the purpose of picking up cross-border cargo. Mexican trucks would be allowed to pick up a load in the United States and deliver it to either Mexico or Canada, but they would not be permitted to carry freight from one U.S.point to another. A corresponding restriction applies to U.S. trucks operating in Canada or Mexico. However, an inconsistency in trucking regulations may cause some confusion with respect to Mexican trucks. In 1999, the U.S. Customs Service (now U.S. Customs and Border Protection) amended its regulations to allow a foreign motor carrier to make a domestic delivery as long as that movement is “incidental” to the international delivery. Under this exception, a Mexican or Canadian truck could carry U.S. domestic freight along the route it would follow to return to its home country. This change was made purposely to increase the efficiency and utilization of trucks.
However, immigration regulations require a foreign national driving a foreign-based truck to obtain a B-1 visitor visa, which prohibits the holder from engaging in such incidental domestic movements.
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.
Mexico continued to allow these U.S.trucking firms to operate in Mexico after the United States terminated its pilot program in 2009. As of April 2011, four of the 10 U.S. carriers were continuing to operate in 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.
Safe, fully inspected Mexican trucks such as this one would be allowed access to US under the proposed Pilot Program with Mexico
It never ends. Citing bogus concerns over safety, security and cost, a bipartisan gang Congressmen, bought and paid for with Teamster funds is demanding that the federal Department of Transportation cancel plans to re-introduce a cross-border trucking program with Mexico.
Taking the lead with a letter on 4/4/2011, Rep. Duncan Hunter (D-CA) along with Rep. Daniel Lipinski, (D-Ill), Rep. Rep. Bob Filner, (D-Ca) and 19 other Democrats along with 12 Tea Party Republicans, has a letter that is to be delivered to La Hood and made public on Wednesday afternoon, DEMANDING LaHood dump the plans for a renewed cross border program with Mexico.
The cross border program would bring the US in compliance with our obligations under the NAFTA agreement and permit Mexico to lift the $2.4 billion in legal retaliatory tariffs instituted after 17 years of the United States refusing to comply with their promises.
Before 198, trucks from Mexico and Canada were permitted into the U.S. with proper licensing, although they did not extend the same courtesy to U.S. truckers. In the wake of a moratorium, Canada quickly resolved its differences. Mexico did not. However, more than 800 Mexican carriers were “grandfathered” in under the 1982 executive order prohibiting foreign carriers in the US.
In a draft copy of the letter sent to Mexico Trucker Online, the usual bogus concerns about safety on U.S. roads, the ability to properly inspect all trucks at the border and the prospect of drug cartels using the cross-border program as a shipping outlet for drugs are raised. The government’s funding of electronic tracking systems for Mexican trucks, which we oppose but which has been modified is also mentioned.
Some of the highlights of the letter include:
The cross-border trucking program clearly puts foreign interests above our own. It’s bad for the American economy. It’s bad for American truckers and the entire commercial trucking industry.” – Duncan Hunter
In our opinion, what is bad for the economy and bad for the image of the United States, is our continued non compliance with our international obligations which have cost the US more than 30,000 jobs and 15% or more of market share in our agri business sector, lost to Canada, that will take decades to recover, if ever.
The letter goes on to say;
“While we understand the need to work to remove the unfair tariffs that Mexico has imposed on U.S. agriculture products as a result, to so should not come at the expense of the safety of our highways”
And again, nothing unfair about the perfectly legal tariff’s Mexico finally instituted and will certainly raise, if we fail to act upon our obligations this time. Historically, Mexican trucks and their drivers have proven to be safer and more compliant with US safety laws and regulations than have our own people.
Rep. Daniel Lipinski, D-Ill, chimes in, proving he knows nothing of what he has been paid to oppose by stating;
“Past inspection failures and gaps in security at the border show that opening our roads to Mexican truck traffic could result in the entry of unsafe vehicles and drivers that pose a threat to the safety of the public.”
It is glaringly apparent none of them have seen the results of the past demonstration program, the FMCSA/CVSA inspection reports of the OP-2 carriers operating in the border zone nor realize just exactly how each and every vehicle legally entering this country is subjected to an inspection of varying degrees. And with a limited number that would operate under the proposed pilot program, EVERY SINGLE ONE would and could be thoroughly inspected as set out in the proposed new pilot program.
Lipinski goes on to opine;
“The fact that the agreement would also require taxpayers to subsidize required equipment for Mexican truckers that American truck operators would have to pay for themselves is yet another reason that it should be rejected”
Which is something we happen to agree with. We reject the notion of requiring EOBR’s in any truck, without regard to nationality or domicile. However, Lipinski and the rest fail to realize that Mexican OP-2 carriers and others, pay their proportionate share of highway taxes through fuel purchases and IFTA payments. However, DOT has revised the proposal to allow GPS systems to be used for tracking purposes to ensure compliance with US cabotage and hours of service regulations. 85% of Mexican carriers are equipped with Qualcomm communications suites which would comply with this requirement.
Interestingly enough, this requirement and all the others in the proposed pilot program documents, were demanded by those now opposing implementation of the program. Go figure. It ain’t about safety people!
And finally, they get to the latest excuse, which is baseless, about the big boogie men of the cartels using the trucks to smuggle drugs.
The letter claims;
“Setting up a program that allows Mexican long haul trucks to cross the border and move freely through the U.S. could increase this method of smuggling by the drug cartels and serve as a resource for their criminal activity”
Adds Lipinski,
“Inviting trucks from Mexico to freely transport goods throughout the U.S. provides drug traffickers with another potential avenue to exploit at a time when crime and violence in Mexico are on the rise.”
They ignore or in their ignorance, don’t realize that dues to the post 9/11 security at the border, commercial trucks and others sometimes wait for hours in line to make their way across the border. Waiting in that line, permits CBP and Customs inspectors to “walk the dogs”, observe drivers reactions or act on gut instinct to single out trucks for a secondary inspection or more.
Sure, drugs are crossed on occasion in semi’s, and generally are caught. Those that aren’t have usually been loaded on the US side, with drivers taking advantage of the idea of making a quick buck.
Mexican trucks or not. Pilot program or not. Drugs will continue to flow into this country as long as the demand is there.
We’ll have the text of this letter, bought and paid for by the TEAMSTERS and other opponents when it is released officially tomorrow, probably in a circle jerk of glad handing on Capitol Hill.
Anybody been following the comments, or lack of comments over at FMCSA concerning the proposed cross border pilot program with Mexico, that would finally allow the United States to come into compliance with our obligations under NAFTA?
For two weeks, comments languished at 50, including supporting documents posted on the site. Today, that jumped to 118. Not surprising in and of itself, except for one thing.
THEY ALL SAY THE EXACT SAME THING
That’s right kiddies. The Einsteins from OOIDA and TEAMSTERS are too damned lazy to post an original thought or comment so they are using the boilerplate provided them by their masters.
Here’s the boilerplate and right off you can see the commenter’s and those directing them have not read one word of the proposal.
I am writing you to express my outrage with the Department of Transportation’s plan to go forward with its plan to open our border to unsafe Mexican trucks. Mexico simply doesn’t have the ability to guarantee that the people behind the wheel of their trucks will be safe drivers. Mexico’s standards for issuing its Commercial Drivers License are suspect. The databases of Mexican drivers’ traffic violations are inaccurate and incomplete. And let’s not forget that Mexico doesn’t have a single lab that can be certified for drug and alcohol testing. To compound the danger, law enforcement agencies in Mexico do not police hours of service for commercial drivers in Mexico. We have all heard about the massive drug war that has claimed the lives of thousands in Mexico including American law enforcement officers and civilians. Mexico’s law enforcement agencies are stretched thin as it tries to combat the drug cartels do they really have the time or incentive to enforce hours of service laws? Why are we even considering this? Until Mexico matches our safety standards for commercial drivers and we can ensure their violence and drug problems don’t follow their trucks over the border, we cannot open our country to Mexican trucks.
The comments show the laziness and the ignorance of the commenter’s as they are stuck on the same mundane and irrelevant theme. The violence in Mexico. That has not a damned thing to do with the proposal as presented and these cut and paste comments, in the end, will be taken as one, and ignored, as they were after the comment period in 2007. FMCSA made mention of that fact in their final posting in the Federal Register before commencement of the 2007 Demonstration Program. At that time, the commenter’s were all following directions of their masters and whining about drugs and illegal being transported into the US on the program trucks, something that never happened.
Keep it up TEAMSTERS and OOIDA members! You’re doing an excellent job.
Speaking of TEAMSTERS, anyone see this from one of their websites?
We understand at least a thousand Teamsters have commented, but there are 1.4 million of us!
That’s good for a chuckle! 118 comments and 1000 of them come from TEAMSTERS?
DeFazio to challenge Cross Border Trucking
We’ve heard rumblings of union puppet Peter DeFazio plans to try and defund the current Cross Border Pilot Program proposed by FMCSA as he did in 2009 and today, it was more or less confirmed by Evan Lockridge on his top of the hour news broadcast on XM-171. Lockridge confirms DeFazio has maybe two dozen (that 24 for you mathematically challenged readers) supporting his effort out of 435 in the House of Representatives. More of DeFazio’s pandering and posturing for his union master’s and grandstanding for his constituents, who wouldn’t know are Mexican truck if they saw one, much less care. We’ll see where it goes, but from our sources, we find most Senators and Congressmen are tired of the loss of jobs caused by the legal tariff’s Mexico imposed and will support the pilot program. Time will tell.
Example of an EOBR to be required on Mexican trucks operating in the US
One of the requirements in the Concept Document for the new Mexican truck program released that is causing a stir and that quite frankly, I vehemently disagree with is the requirement that all Mexican trucks be equipped with Electronic Onboard Recorders or EOBR’s, which in the US is a contentious issue in it’s own right.
Part of the controversy is the idea that FMCSA would pay for these devices to be installed in the Mexican trucks so they would have real time access to the data and would in fact “own” all data collected. Sounds good on the surface as that would prove once and for all that Mexican drivers do not drive 19 hours a day 7 days a week as opponents such as OOIDA and the Teamsters claim.
Under NAFTA, the United States was supposed to treat Canada and Mexico equally,, requiring the same of both countries. Canada, with their more liberal hours of service rules, and their frequent acknowledged violation of our cabotage laws is not being required to have the EOBR’s.
Brian Straight,managing editor of Fleet Owner gets right to the point of this requirement that has so many people up in arms. Not over the requirement that the Mexican carriers, where 85% of the fleets already have Qualcomm communication systems, have EOBR’s, but that money from the Highway Trust fund be used to pay for them.
Brian writes:
I wonder if this provision was put in by the Administration to show Mexico that we were doing everything we could to comply with the requirements of NAFTA, while at the same time creating an out for the public and Congress……..
This revelation seems a lot like a poison pill designed to torpedo the program before it can be resurrected. According to reports, the reason the U.S. wants to pay for the EOBRs is so that the government “owns” the data the devices collect. Until someone can provide a valid reason as to why the government needs to own this data, I question why this is important……….
[pullquote]A spokesperson for the Texas Dept. of Public Safety told the Texas Tribune in January that the resumption of the program would not increase drug trafficking or any other illegal activity coming across the border.[/pullquote]
And if the government feels this data is that vital, might it then want to “own” the data recorded by these devices once they are installed on all U.S.-based trucks? Maybe we’ll be told it’s a national security issue – it will prevent drug trafficking, human smuggling, illegals from entering the country. Doubtful. The proposed trucking program would require EOBRs for Mexican trucks inside the U.S. The government owning the data is not going to prevent any of these things from taking place. Maybe the government just wants to know where these trucks are at all times. Talk about trust issues……….
And it seems to be working. Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) firmly in the pocket of the labor unions released this statement:
“As I have said before, three issues must be addressed in the cross-border trucking program: safety, security and job loss,” DeFazio said. “I appreciate the Administration’s attempt to address the very serious safety and security concerns surrounding Mexican trucks, and I am glad we are beginning to address the extortionate Mexican tariffs unfairly slapped on American goods. However, taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for the Mexican trucking industry to comply with American safety standards. It is outrageous that we would spend tax dollars to pay for equipment on Mexican trucks; equipment which either the Mexican government or the Mexican carriers themselves should be required to pay. I also question the authority to grant Mexican carriers permanent authority to operate on American roads and highways before a pilot program is complete and the results evaluated.”
Well Petey boy! The tariff’s are legal and in no way extortionate, put there because of your kowtowing to Union interests and opposing our legal commitment to NAFTA. Congress does not have to approve the deal since both countries have come to an agreement over how best to resolve the standoff.
But most of us share your concern about taxpayer money being used to fund this requirement, which is nowhere to be found in the original NAFTA agreement nor the arbitration board agreement of the 90′s.
Ironically, Teamsters and OOIDA pushed for this requirement in stakeholder meetings with Secretary Ray LaHood last year, and now that it is close to becoming a reality, they are in opposition to their own proposal.
In the meantime, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk has stated a final agreement should be “weeks, if not days, away”.
And an editorial in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram puts the whole thing in a better perspective:
The United States has been in violation of NAFTA long enough. It is time for Congress to remove any roadblocks and approve the deal agreed on by the two heads of state.
Such a move would add a significant boost to the U.S. economy while eliminating much of the growing frustration and unnecessary hardship caused by this provincial prohibition.
[pullquote]As for the American unions that continue to protest, what are they afraid of? Surely they aren’t saying they can’t compete with their fellow truckers from Mexico.[/pullquote]
Our compliance with NAFTA would in no way impact union LTL drivers nor warehouse workers as the border states are right to work states and the majority of companies are non union, although one imagines Hoffa would pee his panties to change that.
Consider the source before you get all excited, but the right wing moonbattery website WORLD NET DAILY is reporting that Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), a staunch opponent of allowing Mexican trucks access to the United States, has apparently seen the light and knows that further opposition to the inevitable is fruitless.
Read more
The 2010 midterm elections came out about as expected, with the Repubs taking the House of Representatives and the Democrats retaining control of the Senate, guaranteeing two more years of gridlock and squabbling.
How does this election bode for the United States finally complying with their obligations to allow Mexican trucks access to the US under the NAFTA provisions? Better now than before when Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature and had the unions and special interests had their hands up the asses of certain Congressmen and Senators.
Read more
Dave Nemo, one of the more respected voices in Trucking Radio seems ready to abandon principles and feature leaders of bona fide hate groups on his daily program on XM-171
One of the most vile, racist and unconstitutional laws was passed and signed by Arizona governor Jan Brewer in the form of SB-1070, a law that has spawned a firestorm of protest.
It’s a law that usurps federal authority for immigration enforcement and puts it in the hands of local and state authorities. The fear is, it will lead to racial profiling as it is targeted towards Hispanics.
Governor Brewer claims it specifically prohibits racial profiling, and that claim is still to be determined, but one can’t overlook human nature, especially in Arizona where this law legitimizes the actions of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his masked goon squads that have been terrorizing Hispanics for several years now.
Jesus Serrano, and independent owner operator for a Los Angeles based carrier, who hauls fresh produce from the warehouses in Nogales to the distribution centers in Los Angeles is putting together a boycott of more than 100 truckers who make the Arizona to California haul in protest of this bill which he believes will put himself and others of Mexican-American descent at risk of harassment and/or arrest by overzealous enforcement officers. Serrano is a naturalized US citizen born in Mexico.
Serrano was interviewed yesterday on The Lockridge Report and as usual when someone does a neutral well though out interview, the hate mongers and know nothings immediately filled the phone lines with their negative and totally untrue rants against Mexicans. Kudos to Lockridge for putting the over the top morons in their places are simply hanging up on them.
But the hate and bigotry against Mexicans and Mexican truckers being pushed by OOIDA and others has gotten out of hand.
Read more
After all the hoopla and accompanying scorn and rhetoric by those in Congress paid to oppose the Mexican Demonstration Project, members of a group led by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters visited a commercial vehicle-inspection station in El Paso to observe safety inspections required of all Mexican trucks entering the United States under the program, said Brian Turmail, a Transportation Department spokes man.
Read more
Loading ...
Readers Reponses