Supreme Court OKs Trucks from Mexico in United States

Court OKs trucks from Mexico in U.S. Justices say president has authority to let the trucks in

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court removed the last legal roadblock to Mexican trucks rolling across U.S. roadways, siding with the Bush administration Monday in a long-running dispute with labor union officials, environmentalists and consumer advocates.

The fight, begun during the Clinton administration, had ground down to a last quarrel over whether a Transportation Department agency had to perform an air quality study. Opponents argued that Mexican trucks tend to be older and dirtier than American models.

Ruling on narrow procedural issues, the court’s unanimous decision said the president has authority to let the trucks in, and a federal agency responsible for truck safety has no say in the matter. Thus, the justices said, the agency was under no obligation to study environmental effects from opening the border, as a lower federal court had ordered.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration “has no ability to countermand the president’s lifting of the moratorium or otherwise categorically to exclude Mexican motor carriers from operating within the United States,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.

Labor and environmental organizations have long fought expansion of Mexican trucking inside the United States despite guarantees this country made when it signed the North American Free Trade Agreement more than a decade ago.

Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta welcomed the ruling and said American companies, consumers and truckers will benefit.

“We are committed to a comprehensive approach to guarantee that trucks and buses operating within the United States are in compliance with all applicable safety and environmental standards,” Mineta said.

Neither Mineta nor other administration officials could say precisely when the first trucks would roll.

Mexican trucks have been banned from all U.S. roads outside a 20-mile commercial border zone since 1982. NAFTA, signed in 1993 by the United States, Mexico and Canada, allowed Mexican trucks and buses full access to U.S. roads beginning in 2000. The Clinton administration, under pressure from labor and consumer groups, refused to lift the moratorium.

Mexico had fumed about the moratorium for years before NAFTA was signed and now estimates that the 22-year moratorium has cost it more than $2 billion. Mexico successfully challenged the moratorium through a free trade tribunal, and President Bush said in 2001 that he would allow trucks access to all U.S. highways.

Under NAFTA, Mexican trucks and drivers can travel between Mexico and the United States, but cannot ship goods between two points within the United States.

Mexican trucks make approximately 4.5 million trips to the border every year, and the value of goods crossing the border tops $160 billion annually.

As a practical matter, Monday’s ruling may mean little. The Bush administration already had begun the $1.8 million study ordered by a federal appeals court and was expected to complete it soon. The study could only delay, not prevent, the border opening, and the White House had already said that it would let the trucks roll when it was free to do so.

Opponents of truck expansion included the consumer group Public Citizen, the Teamsters union and others. A lawyer for the coalition of labor and environmental groups said the court left many questions.

“Today’s ruling did not address the serious air pollution concerns posed by tens of thousands of trucks coming over the border,” lawyer Jonathan Weissglass said. “Nor did the court address how border states will be able to comply with federally mandated air quality standards. It will now be up to Congress to address these issues and protect the public health.” The case is Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 03-358.

Public Citizen Mexican truck safety site: http://www.citizen.org/autosafety/TruckSafety/mextrucks/index.cfm 06/08/04

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Back

A few rules for this thread as posted by DOT back in 2002 which may be revised by now.......

NAFTA Rules

U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of Public Affairs
Washington, D.C.
www.dot.gov/briefing.htm

March 14, 2002
Contact: Dave Longo
Telephone: 202-366-0456

North American Free Trade Agreement - U.S. Department of Transportation Regulations

Regulations issued today explain how Mexican-domiciled carriers may apply for operating authority beyond the U.S.-Mexico border commercial zones. The rules include requirements that meet the terms of the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002.
Mexican-domiciled carriers and U.S. and Canadian carriers are governed by the same safety standards when operating in the U.S.
Mexican-domiciled carriers applying to operate to and from the United States are required to have a distinctive USDOT number, undergo safety monitoring initially and during an 18-month provisional period.
During operations under provisional operating authority, and for 36 months after receiving permanent authority, Mexican vehicles operating beyond the border commercial zones into the U.S. must display a valid Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspection decal.
The regulations require all Mexican-domiciled carriers entering the United States to have a drug and alcohol-testing program, a system of compliance with U.S. federal hours-of-service requirements, adequate data and safety management systems, and valid insurance with a U.S. registered insurance company.
Mexican commercial vehicles with authority to operate beyond the commercial zones will be permitted to enter the United States only at commercial border crossings and only when a certified motor carrier safety inspector is on duty.
Federal and state safety inspectors will be required to inspect and verify the status and validity of the license of each driver of a long-haul Mexican-domiciled motor carrier (1) when carrying a placardable quantity of hazardous material; (2) when undergoing a full vehicle driver Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspection; and (3) 50 percent of other long-haul Mexican drivers engaged in cross-border operations.
Mexican-domiciled carriers planning to operate solely within the commercial zones along the U.S-Mexico border will be required, within 18 months, to apply for provisional Certificates of Registration, which grant temporary authority to operate in the United States. The provisional Certificate of Registration cannot be made permanent for at least 18 months, until the carrier has successfully completed a safety audit.
DOT will provide all Mexican-domiciled carriers educational and technical assistance before the restrictions on Mexican carrier operations are lifted.
DOT and States will also do the following:
- Equip all U.S.-Mexico commercial border crossings with scales suitable for enforcement action.
- Equip five of the ten locations with the highest volume of commercial vehicle crossings with weigh-in-motion (WIM) scales before reviewing or processing carrier applications beyond the border zones. Three are operational (Otay Mesa, Nogales, Bridge of Americas/El Paso) and two more (Columbia-Solidarity Bridge/Laredo and Eagle Pass, Texas) should be in place by April 1.
- Equip the remaining five of the highest volume of commercial vehicle crossings (World Trade Bridge/Laredo; Pharr, Texas; Veterans' Bridge/Brownsville; Calexico, Calif. and Ysleta/El Paso) with weigh-in-motion devices within 12 months. An additional five will be in place by December 2002.

I think these links are working .........

NAFTA Rules

49 CFR Parts 368 and 387 [Docket No. FMCSA-98-3297]
Revision of Regulations and Application Form for Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers To Operate in United States Municipalities and Commercial Zones on the United States-Mexico Border. PDF Version

49 CFR Part 365 [Docket No. FMCSA-98-3298]
Application by Certain Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers To Operate Beyond United States Municipalities and Commercial Zones on the United States-Mexico Border. PDF Version

49 CFR Part 385 [Docket No. FMCSA?98?3299]
Safety Monitoring System and Compliance Initiative for Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers Operating in the United States. - PDF Version -

49 CFR Parts 350 and 385 [Docket No. FMCSA?2001-11060]
Certification of Safety Auditors, Safety Investigators, and Safety Inspectors. - PDF Version -

49 CFR Part 393 [Docket No. FMCSA-01-10886]
Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Certification of Compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). - PDF Version -

49 CFR Part 567 [Docket No. NHTSA 02-11594; Notice 1]
Retroactive Certification of Commercial Vehicles by Motor Vehicle Manufacturers; Proposed Rule - PDF Version -

49 CFR Part 576 [Docket No. NHTSA 02-11592; Notice 1]
Recordkeeping and Record Retention; Proposed Rule - PDF Version -

49 CFR Part 591 [Docket No. NHTSA 02-11593; Notice 1]
Importation of Commercial Motor Vehicles; Proposed Rule - PDF File PDF Version - HTML Version

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Fact Sheet - PDF Version -

DOT Sets Safety Requirements For Mexican Trucks, Buses in United States - English Version -

Annan in historic meeting with Supreme Court &Congress/is believed to be unprecedented.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b0c30a81760.htm
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm

Supreme Court citing more foreign cases Scalia: Only U.S. views are relevant

By Joan Biskupic
USA TODAYWASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's reference to foreign law in a ruling last month that overturned state anti-sodomy statutes stood out as if it were in bold print and capital letters.Writing for the majority in a landmark decision supporting gay civil rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the ''rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct.''Never before had the Supreme Court's majority cited a foreign legal precedent in such a big case. Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, which was signed by four other justices, has ignited a debate among analysts over whether it was a signal that the justices will adopt foreign courts' views of individual liberties.In theory, that could mean the currently conservative court someday might be influenced by other countries' opposition to the death penalty, their emphasis on foreign prisoners' rights and even their acceptance of same-sex marriages. (Last month, a court in Canada lifted a ban on such unions.)But it is far from clear that the U.S. high court routinely will turn to foreign law, and the practice has its critics -- notably Justice Antonin Scalia. When the court interprets the Constitution, he has written, U.S. attitudes about what is decent and right -- not foreign ones -- are what should matter.In Lawrence vs. Texas, the court relied most fundamentally on the U.S. Constitution's right of privacy to strike down laws prohibiting oral and anal sex between consenting adults of the same sex. But it also emphasized the ''values we share with a wider civilization'' and how privacy for gay men and lesbians ''has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.''''It surprised me to see it in a majority opinion because there has been a debate among the justices over whether foreign law is relevant'' to rulings on U.S. law, says Yale law professor Drew Days, a former U.S. solicitor general.Days is among those who saw the reference as a step forward. ''The justices are gaining the benefit of very sophisticated thinking by other foreign courts about privacy and equality,'' he says. ''Those terms are not unique to our Constitution and our society.''Last year, Justice John Paul Stevens cited foreign law in a footnote when the majority banned executions of mentally retarded convicts. Stevens noted that ''within the world community, the . . . death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved.''That drew a rebuke from Scalia, who said, ''The views of other nations, however enlightened the justices of this court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution.'' Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in his dissent.In the Texas case, Scalia -- joined once again by Rehnquist and Thomas -- wrote that ''the court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.'' (Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted with the Kennedy majority in the case but wrote a separate opinion.)Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have been the most enthusiastic justices in giving consideration to foreign legal trends. In voting last month to uphold an affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan, Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, highlighted an international treaty that endorsed the use of race-conscious programs to help minorities.But it was Kennedy's opinion striking down the anti-sodomy laws that set off debate among close observers of the court. His opinion referred to a ''friend of the court'' brief that described liberty as a global concept and detailed how other countries protect the privacy of gay men and lesbians. It was submitted by Mary Robinson, former United Nations high commissioner for human rights, and others. Kennedy said there was no evidence that the USA has a ''more legitimate or urgent'' reason than other countries to ban homosexual sex.The ruling in the Texas case came June 26, on the last day of the high court's annual term. Several justices were leaving for conferences overseas that also serve as reminders of how the justices increasingly are in touch with foreign legal issues.This week, five of the nine justices -- O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer -- will be in Florence, Italy, for a forum with foreign judges on a proposed new European constitution.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.