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.
Despite found guilty of bribery and trying to rig an upcoming union election, Teamster President James P. Hoffa still has time to lie to the public, Congress and his membership about Mexican trucking
Teamsters President James P. Hoffa, himself in hot water after caught using his position to offer union jobs, salaries, and pensions to bribe people for political support, released a “presser” giving his totally irrelevant and patently untrue rant in opposition to the upcoming cross border pilot program with Mexico.
THE PUBLIC OPPOSES ILLEGAL, UNSAFE MEXICAN TRUCK PROGRAM is the title of this crapola presser released today which Hoffa continues to lie to his membership and the American public.
Hoffa says;
DOT’s proposal to open the border “fails to adequately protect our members, their families and the traveling public from the potential danger of unsafe Mexican trucks and drivers, who do not meet or will not adhere to all U.S. safety standards.”
It’s already been established that Mexican trucks and their drivers are not unsafe and strictly adhere to our rules and regulations.
Based on a Travel advisory issued by the US State Department on April 22, advising Americans against unnecessary travel to Mexico, Hoffa uses this as to make the ridiculous assertion that the proposed Pilot Program with Mexico is illegal because in his opinion, it violates Section 6901 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007.
What he is referring to is a section in the above titled act that does not allow funds to be spent on a cross-border trucking program unless “simultaneous and comparable authority to operate within Mexico is made available to motor carriers domiciled in the United States.”
Hoffa is grasping at straws while at the same time blowing smoke up the asses of anyone who still listens to his mindless ramblings.
Hoffa said the Mexican government is incapable of granting comparable authority under the current travel warning issued by the U.S. State Department on April 22.
It is very clear that the safety of the U.S. drivers traveling into Mexico cannot be ensured, and therefore simultaneous and comparable authority is not made available to U.S. motor carriers under the pilot program,” Hoffa said.
That is the statutes interpretation according to Hoffa and not the letter, spirit or intent of the statute as it was written and passed.
Comparable authority means that we allow Mexican carriers to operate in this country and Mexico in turn, allows US carriers to operate in Mexico, under similar rules. There is nothing in the NAFTA rules concerning cross border trucking that says Mexico nor the US has to “ensure” the safety of one another’s drivers.
Who is going to “ensure” the safety of Mexican drivers coming into this country from violence directed at them, through ignorance, prejudice and bigotry, inflamed by the rhetoric of the TEAMSTERS, OOIDA and their mouthpieces on talk radio. Some callers have claimed they will stop the Mexican by any means possible, up to and including sabotaging their trucks or burning them to the ground.
Hoffa and his union have become increasingly irrelevant and to most, a joke.
And remember we said Hoffa was caught up in a bribery scandal? It’s true. I guess corruption runs in the family.
Teamsters for a Democratic Union report that James Hoffa tried to pay off three top Teamster officials who had broken with his administration by offering them lucrative jobs and an additional pension in exchange for their backing in the upcoming International Union election.
In a 30 page report issued by an elections supervisor, revealed thatHoffa running mate Ken Hall offered Carhaul Director Fred Zuckerman a raise and entrance into the “Family Plan”, a lucrative extra pension exclusively for full-time IBT officials. In exchange, Zuckerman would have to back Hoffa and drop his bid to be on the General Executive Board. It was further revealed that Hoffa operatives approached several other International Union trustees with similar offers to buy campaign support with members’ dues. Those Trustees were offered jobs as full-time International Representatives if they would resign from the General Executive Board but continue to back Hoffa and donate to his campaign.
Instead, the officials turned down the bribes and blew the whistle on Hoffa.
Hoffa hatched the bribery scheme to try to hold together his unraveling administration, in which 6 top union officials have jumped ship in the face of Hoffa’s corruption.
The Elections Appeals Master found that Hoffa and three of his closest thugs “tried, but failed, to buy electoral support and stifle opposition in exchange for salaried union jobs.”
Of course, Hoffa, pathological liar he has proven himself to be denied any role in the scheme. The Election Supervisor did not find Hoffa credible, and credited witnesses and evidence that contradicted the cover story put forward by Hoffa and his thugs.
And what will Hoffa’s punishment be? After six months of investigation and three months of appeals, court-appointed election overseers have ordered Hoffa to acknowledge that he attempted to buy election support by offering jobs and pensions.
Hoffa must pay for a mailing to all Teamster locals publicizing the attempt, and place a notice on the union’s website and magazine.
So far, Hoffa is giving the judge the finger! Anybody surprised?
Safe, well maintained trucks from Mexico such as this Kenworth T-660 driven by professional safe Mexican drivers would finally be permitted access under the proposed Pilot Program released today by the US DOT
The deadline for comments on FMCSA’s Proposed Cross Border Pilot Program ended Friday night at 23:59 with results being about as we suspected. 1,580 comments were submitted compared with 2,359 submitted in 2007. Very few of them provided salient objections as to why FMCSA should not proceed with the proposal.
According to FMCSA, the purpose for the notice and comment process is to provide all interested parties with the opportunity to review information published by the Agency and comment on the specific details about the demonstration project. The operative word is “SPECIFIC”. This time, as in 2007, the views of the respondents opposed to allowing Mexicans into this country, prevailed over those of us who support the proposal.
You read it right. I said MEXICANS, not Mexican trucks, which is what this proposal is all about. It’s never been about the safety of Mexican carriers or their ability to comply with our rules and regulations. They proved their fitness to do so long ago. It’s simply that there are some that cringe at the thought of allowing Mexicans, whom they see as inferior to themselves, do business in this country. Imagine that. Scared of a 100 or so safe well maintained trucks operated by well managed Mexican carriers.
This morning, General President James P. Hoffa is thanking his membership for filing more than 1000 comments opposing the program.
Great job, everybody, on submitting those comments on Mexican trucks! Teamsters and our allies filed at least a thousand comments telling the Department of Transportation to keep the border closed to dangerous Mexican trucks. - TEAMSTER NATION
Great job indeed. A semi-trained monkey could have followed instruction by going their web pages set up to guide the lemmings through the process. There, they had a choice of 7 pre-written letters. All they had to do was look at their union cards to figure out who they were, fill in the blanks and click SEND. And the views of James P. Hoffa were automatically published on regulations.gov under the members named. As I said, semi-trained monkeys, and no disrespect to the primates equating them to a TEAMSTER.
Hoffa supposedly made a comment on behalf of the “entire union” but it hasn’t appeared in the register yet. Hoffa’s comment, showing how brain addled and clueless he is, read in part;
The law requires Mexico to offer “comparable authority” for U.S. trucks to operate there. But Hoffa points out that Mexico is so dangerous the government isn’t capable of offering comparable authority. Therefore, the proposed program is illegal.
“Comparable authority” simply means, the US complies with it’s legal and lawful obligations under NAFTA to allow Mexican carriers operating authority in the US, and Mexico allows US carriers operating authority in Mexico. Nothing more, nothing less. The violence in Mexico has absolutely nothing to do with our obligations nor Mexico’s.
At the end of the day, the TEAMSTERS opposition has nothing to do with job losses to their membership. Their opposition to this program is wrecking segments of our economy as we recover from the recession. It has everything to do with Mexican law and labor unions not allowing the Teamsters to come in and organize as they did in Canada. Many of the same objections Hoffa makes against Mexico and Mexican trucks would be valid against the Canadians, but we don’t hear that from him.
The states who share a border with Mexico are all “Right to Work” states. Warehouses along the border are all non-union and will remain that way. Allowing Mexican carriers to operate in the US will in no way impact the TEAMSTERS nor their members.
OOIDA’s FALSE AND MISLEADING ATTEMPTS TO STOP MEXICAN TRUCKS
OOIDA, through lies and fear mongering used the Mexican truck issue to increase their membership from about 140,000 to 160,000 between 2007 and 2009 when the original demonstration program was defunded. Now, they’ve slipped back to around 150,000 members as truckers wised up and realized what a waste of time and money belonging to OOIDA was.
In desperation, OOIDA continues to lie and appeal to the prejudices and ignorance of some of it’s membership in their opposition to the Mexican truck issue.
Despite the fact that it has been proven that Mexico has much more stringent requirements for obtaining a FEDERAL COMMERCIAL LICENSE and their MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS are much more stringent than ours, OOIDA continues to insist Mexico has no drug testing requirements, no medical requirements and that a valid Mexican CDL can be obtained on any street corner in any city. And some actually believe this crap, which is what OOIDA counts on.
They tell you that allowing 100 Mexican trucks, strictly monitored will put hundreds of thousands of American truckers out of work is believed and spreads like wildfire across the internet. Beyond belief!
But OOIDA has completely destroyed their credibility with their latest caper. Imagine, hiring a free lance photographer to go to the border and take pictures of the oldest, dirtiest trucks he could find so that OOIDA could use them in their cover story in the May 2011 issue of LAND LINE. They continue to want people to believe, that OP-2 authority drayage trucks are the actual trucks used throughout Mexico and will be used to haul freight throughout the US.
ULTIMATELY, THEIR EFFORTS WILL FAIL BECAUSE OF THEIR COMMENTS
Let me share with you FMCSA’s response to the comments received in 2007 against that demonstration project and published in the FEDERAL REGISTER. You’ll see why that the proposed pilot program will go ahead and why the comments from OOIDA and TEAMSTERS members will help it become reality.
As of July 31, FMCSA received 2,359 comments, or docket submissions, in response to the May 1 and June 8
notices…….
About 2,330 of the comments were submissions by individuals that were no more than a few sentences and consisted of conclusory statements indicating that Mexico-domiciled carriers are unsafe and that the demonstration project should be abandoned. These comments, most of which were submitted
electronically, did not include information concerning technical (e.g.)specific safety oversight procedures or
processes) or legal aspects of the demonstration project or economic issues, or any other information
supporting the assertions made therein. While FMCSA is not responding to these comments individually, the
Agency is neither ignoring them, but instead believes that its responses to the substantive comments it has received more than adequately addresses the brief comments submitted by these individuals
Now, as it was then, the results will be the same! With exception to the objections to FMCSA paying for EOBR’s to be installed in the Mexican participants, which we object to also, there was absolutely nothing of a technical nature included in any of the “canned” comments submitted by TEAMSTERS.
Comments for the Federal Register
FMCSA–2011–0097
by Daniel Griswold
These comments were submitted on May 4, 2011.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed restoration of long-haul cross-border trucking with Mexico in compliance with our commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
My name is Daniel Griswold. I’m director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. Cato is a non-profit, non-partisan educational institution supported by voluntary donations from individuals and foundations who share our core values of individual liberty, free markets, limited government, and peace.
The suspension of the cross-border pilot trucking program by Congress in 2009 has been a breach of our international commitments, an embarrassment to our nation, and a barrier to two-way U.S. trade with the people of Mexico. The time is long overdue to correct this injustice and economic distortion by fully implementing the trucking provisions of NAFTA.
Under the 1994 agreement, the United States and Mexico were to allow trucks from each country to deliver goods to destinations inside the other country, provided the trucks and their drivers met all safety regulations mandated by the host government. According to Annex I of the agreement, licensed and qualified Mexican trucks were to be allowed to make deliveries in U.S. border states by 1995, a year after the agreement went into effect, and throughout the U.S. by 2000. U.S. trucking firms were to be granted the same access to Mexico. But under pressure from the Teamsters union, President Clinton unilaterally suspended implementation of the provisions in 1995, citing safety concerns.
President George W. Bush, to his credit, tried to fulfill the U.S. obligation under NAFTA. His administration launched a pilot program in 2007, which allowed a limited number of Mexican trucking companies to deliver goods to U.S. destinations beyond the 25-mile commercial zone along the U.S.-Mexican border. Citing unsubstantiated safety concerns, and in the face of ongoing union pressure, a bipartisan majority in Congress voted to cut off funding for the program in 2009.
The Obama administration has sought to reinstate the program under the “concept document” released in January 2011. The document and the attending regulations would go a significant way toward implementing the original NAFTA obligations and should be adopted as soon as possible.
Suspension of the pilot program in 2009 was based on protectionism and prejudice, not legitimate safety concerns. Although Teamsters union leaders talk about safety, their real agenda is not to promote safer roads but to protect themselves from increased competition. The broader agenda of their congressional allies is to thwart full implementation of a successful trade agreement with Mexico, our third-largest trading partner. The real objection they have to Mexican trucks making deliveries to U.S. cities is not that they are unsafe but that those trucks are driven by Mexicans. In the eyes of too many members of Congress, “driving while Mexican” remains an unacceptable public hazard.
In contrast to those stereotypes, experience from the pilot program has demonstrated that Mexican trucks and their drivers are fully capable of complying with all U.S. safety requirements. An August 2009 report from the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General found that only 1.2 percent of Mexican drivers that were inspected were placed out of service for violations, compared to nearly 7 percent of U.S. drivers who were inspected. The “out of service” rate for Mexican trucks was slightly lower than the rate for U.S. trucks, even though Mexican trucks were inspected six times more often than the U.S. trucks.
The Congressional Research Service confirmed the superior safety record of Mexican trucks and drivers in a February 2010 report to Congress:
The safety of Mexican trucks [in the demonstration program] is now comparable with U.S. trucks. ‘Out-of-service’ violations are those that are serious enough to keep the truck from continuing its journey until the violation is resolved. … However, recent data provided by the FMCSA [Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration] … indicate that other Mexican trucks [those operating just in the 25-mile "commercial zone" across the border] are as safe as U.S. trucks and that the drivers are generally safer than U.S. drivers.
The failure of Congress to allow implementation of the NAFTA trucking provisions has proven costly to the United States in three important ways.
First, U.S. failure to comply has deprived our economy of the efficiencies of moving goods across our mutual border at lower cost. With the ban in place, trucks approaching the border are required to unload their cargo into warehouses in so-called commercial zones within 25 miles of the border, only to have that cargo reloaded onto short-haul vehicles and then onto domestic trucks for final delivery. This inefficient system causes delays, increased pollution and added costs at busy border crossings such as Calexico East; San Ysidro; Nogales, Ariz.; and Laredo, Texas. Because more than 70 percent of U.S. trade with Mexico travels by truck, the ban on cross-border trucking imposes an additional $200 million to $400 million in transportation costs each year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Second, failure to comply has exposed U.S. exporters to perfectly legal sanctions imposed by the Mexican government. Under the provisions of NAFTA, and after waiting patiently for more than a decade, the Mexican government imposed sanctions in 2009 on more than $2.4 billion in U.S. exports affect 100 products, from Washington apples to Iowa pork. The sanctions would be lifted in two stages as the U.S. government implements the proposed program to comply with Annex I.
Third, failure to comply has compromised the U.S. government’s reputation as a good citizen of the global trading system. Simply put, the U.S. government has failed to keep its word to our Mexican neighbors. Our government has been in flagrant violation of a major trade agreement for more than 15 years. This breach of trust has undermined the U.S. government’s standing to challenge other governments, from Mexico to China to the European Union, who may also be in violation of various trade agreements. The Obama administration’s promise to more vigorously “enforce” our rights in the World Trade Organization and other agreements will lack credibility as long as the U.S. government fails to comply with such clear commitments as the trucking provisions of NAFTA.
For all these reasons, the U.S. government should act as quickly and as thoroughly as possible to implement the proposed regulations to bring our nation into compliance with our mutually beneficial agreement with our Mexican neighbors on cross-border trucking.
Griswold, Daniel. “The Pilot Program on NAFTA Long-Haul Trucking Provisions.” May 4, 2011. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13075 (accessed May 5, 2011).
James Hoffa whose "hot air" is suspected of being a prime cause of the mythical global warming
James Hoffa came out of hiding today to respond to the OIG Final Report on FMCSA compliance with Section 350 of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and as usual, his comments were totally irrelevant, and contrary to what the report suggests. This is the type of comments we’ve come to expect and ignore from Hoffa.
As expected, Hoffa’s initial response to the report was to declare that the “inspector general report shows once and for all that the border should remain closed to unsafe Mexican trucks.”
We don’t disagree with that sentiment. All unsafe trucks, Mexican, Canadian and American, should be banished from America’s highways.
Read more
Which would you rather take a trip on? This Irizar coach with state of the art everything like the ones used by all the bus companies in Mexico, or the junk Greyhound has on the road these days? The answer should be obvious
Once again, the latest report from the USDOT Office of Inspector General, verifies, substantiates and conclusively proves all that Mexico Trucker Online has reported about the safety of Mexican trucks and participants in the Cross Border Pilot Program
From THE TRUCKER
WASHINGTON — The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation said in a report released today that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) had either met or “substantially” met the safety criteria set forth in a 2002 appropriations act related to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers potentially operating beyond narrow commercial zones along the border.
The report, required by the 2002 act, was released today.
The OIG cited two areas where it felt FMCSA had not totally met the criteria — having adequate capacity at the southern border to conduct meaningful inspections and having sufficient databases to allow safety monitoring of Mexican carriers and drivers.
With respect to the inspection capacity, the IG wrote: “The capacity to perform truck, bus and driver inspections are in place, but FMCSA needed to include bus inspections during peak hours, such as holiday periods, at Laredo, Texas.”
Read more
When it comes to the Mexican Cross Border truck program, everyone seems to be trying to get on the bandwagon or use the issue to boost their rankings. It doesn’t seem to matter if they get their facts right. To the contrary, most think it is cute to pass along the misinformation that has been generated by the Unions, self styled “drivers association” who back pedal and double step away from the real issues confronting truckers today. The Mexican truck issue is a non issue.
So, it seems we have yet another one popping up out there in the blogosphere, although you can’t take too seriously those who don’t think enough of their issue to actually host their site on a dedicated server, but choose to use the freebies.
Joe 6 Pack, American is one of these and he’s another angry trucker. Angry at all the wrong things it seems. The author calls himself 2Step a trucker for a number of years like the rest of us. The handle sounds familiar? One of Stevie Sommers disciples perhaps? It’s fun to put a face to a name.
UPDATE 4/11/08 “KERRY RESPONDS
2step wrote today at 5:35 AM, edited today at 5:36 AM
Popcorn… How the hell are ya. I know you from the America’s Trucking Network… We all know your full of shit. Your site is nothing but propaganda… Stay away from my site and keep your trashy trucks on your side of the border… In other words UP YOURS WET BACK!
I deleted your post because your not going to advertise your mexican propaganda on my site..
Editor Note. About what is to be expected from this group. Refuse to acknowledge the truth of the facts because it is in conflict with what they are told to believe. And then the name calling starts. Oh well!
Nice look to the site. It is obvious little effort was made for the aesthetics other than a few clicks here and there. Scrolling text over stationary background image is a little annoying and very difficult to read due to the color contrast of the fonts. All in all, not a bad effort for an amateur.
But to help a fellow blogger and trucker, I feel the need to correct the many errors he made in his piece entitled The Mexican Cross Border Program Catchy title isn’t it.
Here’s the article and our helpful corrections of the facts, by the numbers afterwards.
Facts and Fiction.
Fiction: The Mexican truck pilot project meets all the legal requirements.
“We feel like we have met the requirements,” said John H. Hill, who oversees the program as administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (Copley News Service, Aug. 31, 2007.)
Fact: The program breaks at least seven laws. It is illegal.
- The law (49 U.S.C. 31315c) says that FMCSA pilot programs can’t go forward unless “The safety measures in the project are designed to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would otherwise be achieved.”The safety measures for Mexican trucks and drivers are lower than the level of safety that U.S. trucks and drivers must achieve. FMCSA has even acknowledged that there are differences between U.S. and Mexican safety laws, including commercial drivers’ license requirements, medical requirements, hours of service requirements and drug-testing procedures. (72 Federal Register notice 46263, Aug. 17, 2007).Mexican drivers don’t lose their commercial drivers licenses if they’re convicted for crimes in their own vehicles, as are U.S. drivers.Mexican drivers do not have mandatory safety training, as do U.S. drivers.Mexican drivers are not required to comply with U.S. hours-of-service laws while operating in Mexico, so a Mexican driver could drive 10 hours in Mexico and then another 11 hours in the U.S.
There are no certified drug-testing laboratories in Mexico. Mexican drivers do not have to meet U.S. standards for pre-employment drug testing as do U.S. drivers.
- The law requires FMCSA to demonstrate that it will provide statistically valid data about how cross-border trucking will work in practice (U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Public Law 110-28, Section 6901).FMCSA doesn’t even know how many trucks from Mexico will participate in the program (72 Federal Register 31877, June 8, 2007.)FMCSA has never demonstrated how letting a handful of clean, safe Mexican trucks onto U.S. highways will prove scientifically that opening the border to commercial vehicles from Mexico won’t harm highway safety in the long run.
- The law (2007 Troop Readiness Act) requires the inspector general to submit a report to Congress “verifying compliance with each of the requirements” before the program can start. One requirement is that the states must be able to inspect Mexican trucks and enforce highway safety laws during the pilot program. According to the Sept. 6, 2007 inspector general report, five states said they are not ready. According to the same report, seven states are not prepared to enforce point-to-point delivery restrictions.
- The law (2007 Troop Readiness Act) requires any FMCSA pilot program to include a proper oversight plan. The inspector general report dated Sept. 6 states “FMCSA has not developed and implemented complete, coordinated plans for checking trucks and drivers participating in the demonstration project as they cross the border.”
- The law (49 U.S.C. 30112 and 30115) requires motor vehicles entering the United States to display a certificate from a dealer or a manufacturer that the vehicle complies with U.S. safety standards. FMCSA unlawfully says Mexican truck companies can break that law by certifying themselves (72 Federal Register 462755).
- The law (2007 Troop Readiness Act) requires the inspector general to verify that FMCSA has enough inspectors to make sure that all commercial vehicles can be inspected at border crossings. The Aug. 6, 2007 inspector general report states that at one high-volume crossing, “physical space and capacity limitations prevented inspections during high-volume holiday periods. This means that Mexican buses granted long-haul operating authority in the United States may not be inspected during busy periods.”
- The law forbids federal agencies from spending money without Congress’s permission. The Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A), states “Making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law.” An officer or employee who breaks the law “shall be subject to appropriate administrative discipline including, when circumstances warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from office.” 31 U.S.C. §§ 1349(a), 1518.
- In addition, an officer or employee who “knowingly and willfully” violates any of the three provisions cited above “shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.” 31 U.S.C. §§ 1350, 1519.
Fiction: Mexican trucks and truck drivers must meet the same or higher safety standards than U.S. trucks and truck drivers.
- Trucks from Mexico “are the most vetted, the most scrutinized and the most inspected trucks on American roads today.” (Melissa DeLaney, FMCSA spokeswoman, to McClatchy newspapers, Jan. 3, 2008.)
- Checks on Mexican companies, vehicles and drivers are identical to, and in some instances more stringent than, those of their U.S. counterparts. (FMCSA press release, September 24, 2007.)
Fact: U.S. trucks and truck drivers face tougher safety standards than trucks and truck drivers from Mexico.
- U.S. trucks must have antilock brake systems; Mexican trucks do not.
- U.S. truck drivers must have pre-employment safety training and drug testing from a certified lab; Mexican truck drivers do not.
- U.S. truck drivers lose their commercial licenses if they’re convicted of a serious traffic violation in their personal vehicle; Mexican truck drivers do not.
- U.S. truck drivers have to stop driving after 11 hours; Mexican truck drivers can drive for 10 hours in Mexico and then another 11 in the U.S.
- U.S. truck driver must meet stiffer physical qualifications than Mexican drivers.
Fiction: Every truck will be inspected every time it crosses the border.
“They will inspect every Mexican truck every time it goes across the border, which is more than they do for American trucks,” said the spokesman, Clayton Boyce. (New York Times, Sept. 9, 2007.)
Fact: The trucks will not be inspected every time.
They will receive a cursory glance at a safety decal and drivers may have their drivers’ licenses checked. Both can be falsified. The agency stated (Federal Register, June 5, 2007, p. 31882) that “When crossing the border these trucks will, at a minimum, be checked to verify that the driver is properly licensed and that the vehicle displays a current CVSA inspection decal.”
- The safety measure for Mexican trucks is equal to or greater than their American counterparts in a number of ways. In the United States, they are held to a stricter standard and with more oversight than the American and Canadian carriers. This has been proven by government documents available for download on this site.
- While it is true that Mexican drivers do not lose their licenses for offenses committed in their personal vehicles, in many cases, the tractor is their personal vehicle, thus, offenses committed would affected their commercial license.
- Mexican drivers do have mandatory training prior to receiving their Licencia Federal, as mandated by the SCT , the Mexican ministry that oversees the countries transportation systems. 40 hours of training at a government certified facility is required before application for the LFC.
- That is correct. Mexican driver ARE NOT required to comply with US Hours of Service regulations while operating in Mexico, in the same manner as Canadian drivers are not required to comply with US Hours of Service while operating in Canada. Mexican drivers comply with the Hours of Service rules in Mexico and Canadian drivers comply with their countries hours of service rules which are much less stringent and more liberal than those in the US. Most Mexican drivers entering the US do so rested, having began their day from a terminal close to the border. It is a non issue. Logbooks and HOS rules aside, the human body dictates how long a person can drive.
- Mexican drivers are required, as a pre-condition to receiving the Licencia Federal, undergo drug testing at a government certified facility by government technicians, many times, at the same time they take their DOT physical which is much tougher than the US requirements. Mexican LFC holders are required to pass the same physical as given to airline pilots in Mexico, and examination that complies with International standards. Furthermore, Mexican drivers are subject to random on the spot drug testing, on the road or in the terminals at the discretion of Federal Highway officers or company officials. Probable cause, as we have it in the US, does not apply in Mexico. On site doctors have the last word.
- The FMCSA has demonstrated how it will present scientifically reliable evidence. However, if this program had 1,000 trucks participating, with a Federal DOT inspector riding shotgun in every truck, on every trip, and the program ran for 10 years, with ZERO accidents or incidents, the Teamsters and OOIDA would still denounce the finding as unreliable. And statistically valid evidence of safety and compliance can be obtained by as few as one truck, as demonstrated by one of the Judges on the 9th Circuit during recent oral arguments.
- FMCSA doesn’t know how many US trucks will apply for authority tomorrow. This is not a valid argument. When the Mexican carriers apply, the FMCSA will know. It is ridiculous to make a point of this.
- FMCSA has complied with all but a couple of technical clauses which have no bearing on the safety of the program. THERE ARE NOT, 5 states nor 7 states not prepared to enforce the law against Mexican carriers, as reported by Inspector General Scovill before Lesly Dorgan’s committee of two ambush of Mary Peters on 3/11 and included in his testimony available for download on this site.
- The law (49 U.S.C. 30112 and 30115) requires motor vehicles entering the United States to display a certificate from a dealer or a manufacturer that the vehicle complies with U.S. safety standards. FMCSA unlawfully says Mexican truck companies can break that law by certifying themselves (72 Federal Register 462755). PURE HORSESHIT! The same trucks operating in Mexico and which will enter the US have the required stickers. They come off of the same assembly line as trucks destined for United States markets.
- Mexico may not require anti-lock brakes but they have them as they are manufactured on the same assembly lines and to the same specifications as trucks destined for US markets.
- Mexican drivers have the stupid little safety films, similar to those stupid little JJ Keller vids we’ve all suffered or slept through. Drug testing in US labs for Cross Border Program Drivers who have also been drug tested in Mexican government certified labs.
- Mexican drivers can driver for 8 hours in Mexico and must stop. Mexican trucks have tachographs or electronic recorders to monitor compliance and they are required to carry log books. Sure they could drive 8 hours in Mexico and 11 hours in the US, but they wouldn’t and they don’t. No more than Canadian drivers stay on duty in Canada for 16 hours, cross the border and stay on duty for another 14. If nothing else, the body regulates how long a driver can work. It does for me.
- US Truck drivers must meet stiffer qualifications than Mexican drivers? Give me a fucking break! The physical drivers in Mexico undergo is the same one that airline pilots in Mexico and around the world must pass! This is a documented fact! By government doctors in government facilities, not private physicians or clinics.
- Trucks will be inspected every time as will the drivers. As a matter of course. drivers licenses are checked for validity and warrants, Passports and travel visas are verified and yes, if it has a current CVSA sticker, and no violations or defects are evident, then it is passed through. And in the case of Texas, to proceed less than a quarter mile to a DPS inspection station staffed with troopers and certified inspectors.
Once again, Mexico Trucker has stepped forward to assist those that have a problem with telling the truth or perhaps don’t know the truth. And I keep going back to something a spokesman for FMCSA said in an interview once, and which continues to hold true.
These are tactics that people use when the facts don’t justify their positions.
OOIDA immediately responds with unsupported allegations against the company.
In what has become a common practice with OOIDA, they have once again gone on the attack against a participant in the Cross Border Program, citing statistics not in existence to further their fear mongering about non existent safety issues.
The latest target of their attack is AVOMEX INTERNATIONAL SA de CV, an importer of avocados, and other agricultural products.
This is not the first time OOIDA has selected this company to spotlight with erroneous information. They were after them while the initial PASA’s were being performed.
OOIDA makes this claim.
OOIDA’s Director of Regulatory Affairs Rick Craig pointed out that in the 12-month period ending Sept. 21, 2007, Avomex’s five trucks at that time had amassed 206 total violations in 172 inspections. That averages out to just slightly more than 41 violations per truck.
From Sept. 22, 2007 through Jan. 22, 2008, Avomex received 71 more violations in 41 inspections – well on pace to top the 206 violations in the preceding 12-month period.
What is the actual numbers, the truth?
According to data available on the FMCSA SAFESTAT database, the same one OOIDA claims to have used to make their claims, AVOMEX recieved, in a 30 month period prior to 2/22/2008, 374 vehicle inspections, resulting in 43 Out of Service Orders. That breaks down to 12.43 inspections per month or roughly 2.5 inspections per vehicle. A more realistic number than the ones cited by OOIDA. The OOS rate for the 5 trucks over a two and a half year period was 1.43 per month.
The bulk of the OOS orders occurred in 2005 and 2006 with only 10 occurring in 2007 and to date, only 1. Keeping in mind that these occurred as this company was conducting business under OP-2 authority restricting them to the commercial zone of the border.
This means that of the 374 inspections, this company passed, 331 of them without problems.
And what were these dangerous and unsafe violations that got the trucks shut down 43 times, and in OOIDA’s opinion is why the program should be halted? Let’s take a look.
CHECK THE STATS FOLLOWING THIS LINK
I can’t make a determination based on this data nor can OOIDA. Keep in mind this company pulls agricultural products and from what I am seeing, most of the trailers in the inspection reports are US registered and licensed while the power units are licensed in Mexico.
Also keep in mind, this is one of OOIDA’s little tricks they have been pulling since the program was announced. Each time Todd Spencer makes reference to a Mexican cross border truck, he wants you to believe that the participants in the Cross Border Program will use the same trucks they use in their drayage operations and this is simply not true.
And this is the proof. No conclusions should be made on any of these companies until sufficient program performance data is available from participation in the program.
But as the spokesman for FMCSA said before, “These are the types of tricks you pull when the facts are not on your side”!
Loading ...
Readers Reponses