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.
A motion asking a federal court to force the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to eliminate the 11-hour driving limit and the optional 34-hour restart provision was denied Wednesday, Jan. 23.The motion was filed Dec. 19, 2007, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by Public Citizen, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Parents Against Tired Truckers, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
In the motion, the groups asked the court to vacate the FMCSA’s interim final rule on HOS – or at least the portion of it that reinstates the two invalidated provisions. The groups also asked the court to direct FMCSA to issue another interim final rule or other authoritative guidance that limits truck drivers to a 10-hour consecutive driving limit and to the governing 60-hour and 70-hour weekly on-duty limits with no 34-hour restart.
Now, if the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco will show the same courage and wisdom on February 12, we can all worry about things that actually effect our profession.
SAN FRANCISCO – The Department of Transportation on Monday filed its response to petitions seeking to halt the NAFTA cross-border trucking demonstration program with Mexico.
In its response, DOT basically argues that neither the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) nor the Sierra Club — lead petitioners in the consolidated actions — demonstrates “the injury in fact” or “the particularized harm” necessary for Article III standing and federal court intervention. It was filed here with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Read more
This hot little tidbit just came across the newsfeed on the site and in a press release sent to mexicotrucker.com by our friends at FMCSA.
I’m divided on this latest development. On one hand, it is another step taken to insure, beyond what is required, the oversight of the participating trucks.
This should also shut up the whiny babies at Teamsters, OOIDA and Public Citizen who claim we have no way to verify compliance. Your concerns have been answered, so can it people!
Read more
Loading ...
Readers Reponses