MY ETT News » Border

US loosens insurance rules for Canadian truckers

Mryan — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:34:19 +0000

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published its final rule that eliminates the need for Canadian insurance companies to maintain U.S.-issued policies. The FMCSA supported the rule in part because Canada does not impose similar standards on the U.S. The rule, which will take effect on Aug. 2, will have no effect on the minimum insurance leveles required of Canadian carriers who cross into U.S. territory.

WASHINGTON — Canadian cross-border carriers will no longer need to be insured by a U.S. company or maintain a policy “reinsured” by the American issuer.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration officially published a final rule that eliminate the need for Canadian insurance companies to link with a U.S. insurer to legally cover Canada-domiciled motor carriers operating in the U.S.

FMCSA stated, however, that there would be no change in the minimum insurance levels required of Canadian carriers hauling down south.

Click here to visit Today’s Trucking and read the complete story.

Alberta, Saskatchewan cut red tape for truckers

Mryan — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:26:51 +0000

Two of Canada’s provinces are making an effort to break down barriers in order to boost transportation efficiency. Officials in Alberta and Saskatchewann signed a Memorandum of Understanding that is intended to help grow both provinces’ economies. The agreement is set to harmonize permit conditions for, among others: oversize and overweight loads; the movement of manufactured homes; and relating to the National Safety Code. The memorandum also calls for the establishment of an interprovincial heavy-haul clearance corridor, and a joint research and pilot project on wide-base single tires.

REGINA, Sask. — The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have agreed to cut red tape for commercial truckers operating in the region.

The two provincial governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding that will allow truckers and shippers to transport goods more efficiently between the two provinces.

“Transportation is fundamental to supporting Alberta’s economy and we are committed to seeing that regulations don’t impede the economic competitiveness of either province,” said Luke Ouellette, Alberta Minister of Transportation. “This MOU supports highway safety and the reduction of barriers to inter-provincial transportation.”

“For Saskatchewan’s export-based economy, this means businesses will be more competitive in reaching inter-provincial, national and worldwide markets,” Saskatchewan Highways and Infrastructure Minister Jim Reiter added. “Our two governments are acting to reduce red tape and enhance our business climate to continue to grow our provincial economies.”

Specifically, the two provinces have agreed to: harmonize permit conditions for turnpike doubles, oversize and overweight loads and GVWs for B-trains; establish an interprovincial heavy-haul clearance corridor; harmonize permit conditions for the movement of manufactured homes; harmonize the regulation and permit conditions based on the National Safety Code; and cooperate on commercial motor vehicle enforcement activities. The provinces will also conduct a joint research and pilot project on wide-base single tires.

The agreement was welcomed by the trucking associations in both provinces.

“The trucking industry is pleased to see this spirit of co-operation to allow us to move more seamlessly between the two provinces and to literally help us keep the economy moving,” president of Saskatchewan Trucking Association, Glen Ertell, said.

And Richard Warnock, president of the Alberta Motor Transport Association added “From a trucking industry perspective this is good news because it highlights all the work that has been done on transportation between Alberta and Saskatchewan over the years to benefit the economy.”

[source - trucknews.com]

Cross-border trucking: War of words heats up

Mryan — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:13:24 +0000

Businesses and unions can’t quite agree on who’s to bear the blame over trade, tariffs and potentially jobs lost since a cross-border trucking program with Mexico was abandoned. A recent study released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce holds the government responsible for failing to implement certain provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Specifically, the study claims it has cost the nation $2.2 billion in higher costs for a variety of imported goods, $2.6 billion in lost U.S. exports, and more than 25,000 lost jobs for American workers. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) is contesting such figures, calling Mexico’s financial impositions on the U.S. excessive. The union group also says there would have been less of a debate, perhaps, if Mexico had adopted higher safety standards comparable to those in the U.S.

Study Concludes U.S. Economy Suffers Without Cross-Border Trucking

The ongoing debate over allowing Mexican trucks to operate on U.S. roads is being ratcheted up a notch as businesses and unions butt heads over the issue’s long-term impact on trade and jobs.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has released a broad study claiming there’s a high economic cost to America – particularly in lost jobs – from the U.S. refusal to implement cross-border trucking with Mexico, along with not approving pending trade agreements and the imposition of “Buy American” rules in the $787 billion stimulus bill passed by Congress in February.

The study – entitled “Trade Action or Inaction: The Cost for American Workers and Companies” – found that the U.S. failure to implement cross-border trucking provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico has resulted in $2.2 billion in higher costs for a variety of imported goods, $2.6 billion in lost U.S. exports, and more than 25,000 lost jobs for American workers.

“The U.S. has refused to keep its word to Mexico,” said Thomas Donohue, president & CEO of the U.S. Chamber, during a speech unveiling the study at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce yesterday. “How can we call on other countries to meet their obligations under trade agreements if we refuse to meet our own?”

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), however, is bitterly contesting the study’s conclusion about the impact of forbidding Mexican carriers to operate on U.S. highways.

“The Chamber gets it exactly wrong on several levels,” said IBT general president Jim Hoffa. “First, it’s NAFTA that cost at least a million U.S. jobs. Second, Mexico imposed tariffs that are manifestly excessive, and that’s a violation of trade rules. It’s outrageous to blame the U.S. government for Mexico’s disregard for U.S. highway safety standards as well as trade agreements.”

The trade dispute with Mexico began in March when President Obama signed a Congressional appropriations bill that shut down a pilot program that had opened the border to Mexican trucks. In response, Mexico imposed sanction revenues on $2.4 billion in U.S. trade. U.S. retaliatory tariffs are estimated to be $427 million and the Teamsters said it’s those U.S. tariffs the U.S. Chamber is blaming for costing 25,600 U.S. jobs.

The Teamsters said only 118 trucks participated in the cross-border pilot program, making only 1,443 trips past the restricted border zone. “[So] it’s ridiculous for Mexico to claim that 118 trucks accounted for more than $400 million in trade in 18 months, and it’s just wrong for the Chamber to claim that keeping the border closed cost U.S. jobs,” Hoffa said.

”Mexico is demanding payment far in excess of the damage it sustained, which violates NAFTA rules,” he added. “If the Mexican government wants our border opened to its trucks and drivers, then it can live up to its responsibility to make sure those trucks and drivers meet U.S. highway safety standards.”

[source - fleetowner.com]

New Maine crossing under consideration

Mryan — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:19:53 +0000

State officials in Maine are investigating whether traffic projections will deem a third bridge crossing from New Brunswick necessary. Another border bridge crossing will be out of commission with repairs necessitated by flood damage. But perhaps of greatest concern is the U.S. General Services Administration’s decision to build new inspection facilities up river from a pulp and paper operation. Though the facility will be larger, Fraser Papers, Inc.’s says inspections will take up too much space and create more traffic, possibly forcing them to relocate key operations of the mill. Once that facility is complete, however, officials fear that it will only make a new crossing tougher to pursue.

EDMUNSTON, N.B. — Concerns over whether or not a border bridge in New Brunswick can handle its daily flow of commercial traffic has prompted a neighboring U.S. state to take action.

According to a story in the Telegraph-Journal, the Maine Department of Transportation is leading a study and a U.S. consultancy is gathering information on whether traffic projections warrant a third bridge crossing near the Edmundston-Madawaska border between now and 2030.

Another border crossing in Van Duren, Maine, handles area border traffic but will require improvements due to flood damage.

A recent decision by the U.S. General Services Administration to build new inspection facilities in 2010 just upriver from Fraser Papers Inc.’s cross-border integrated pulp and paper operations, might throw a hitch in the plans for a third border crossing.

The new inspection facilities will provide more space for border officers to perform commercial inspections, but the paper company says they’ll take up too much space and force the company to relocate key operations and increase area traffic.

Once the inspection facilities are completed, local politicians figure it could be tough to get a new crossing in a different location, like possibly downriver closer to the Trans-Canada Highway.

[source - todaystrucking.com]

Maine truck weight boost makes Atlantic trucking more efficient: APCC

Mryan — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:01:21 +0000

The state of Maine has proposed a one-year pilot program, increasing its Interstate highway system’s weight limit from 80,000 pounds to 100,000 pounds. Finally, its truck weight restrictions are in line with Eastern Canada. The Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce (APCC) applauded the move, citing improved efficiency and reduced costs for moving goods across the border. Truck weight limits have been challenged recently, as many cite the need to increase them for environmental and trade purposes. Maine legislators are among the groups that want to raise the six-axle truck weight limit to 100,000 pounds.

KENTVILLE, N.S. — Atlantic Truckers and local businesses are applauding the State of Maine’s decision to standardize truck weight restrictions with Eastern Canada.

After years of advocating for harmonized rules, the Atlantic Provinces Chambers of Commerce (APCC) says it’s delighted Maine has proposed a one-year pilot program exempting Maine’s Interstate highway system from the current federal 80,000 pound load limit to 100,000 pounds.

“For Atlantic Canada and the eastern United States, it would facilitate trade between the two regions and reduce the cost of moving goods across the border,” said Bill Denyar, APCC’s president and CEO, in a press release.

Trucks coming from Canada can carry full weight without offloading on the American side to meet restrictions, or diverting to more rural roads where heavier loads are permitted.

In a recent release, Maine governor John E. Baldacci stated he and the Maine Congressional delegation are strong supporters of changing federal law to raise the six-axle truck weight limit to 100,000 pounds.

[source - todaystrucking.com]

NAFTA Surface Trade Declines In May

Mryan — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:44:45 +0000

Month-to-month trade among North American Free Trade Agreement partners fell 3.7 percent from April to May, but the year-over-year monthly decline was the fifth consecutive plunge of at least 27 percent. From May 2008 to May 2009, surface transportation among the United States Canada and Mexico dropped 35.4 percent, making it the largest drop on record. The Department of Transportation’s report indicated that all imports and exports by truck, rail and pipeline tumbled from April to May. About 90 percent of U.S. trade among NAFTA partners moves by truck.

Surface transportation trade among the United States, Canada and Mexico fell 35.4% in May from a year earlier, the largest year-to-year drop on record, the Department of Transportation said Thursday.

The downturn was the fifth consecutive year-over-year monthly decline of at least 27% between the North American Free Trade Agreement partners.

Month-to-month, trade fell 3.7% in May from April, DOT’s Bureau of Trade Statistics said in its monthly report.

Truck imports to the United States dropped 29.7% to $17.2 billion, while exports fell 29.4% to $17.4 billion.

Rail imports plunged 46.1% to $4.4 billion, while exports fell 38% to $2.8 billion, DOT said. Pipeline imports fell 59.2% to $2.9 billion, while exports declined 52.1%, to $304 million.

U.S.-Canada trade fell 40.3% to $29.2 billion. The value of truck imports fell 35.7% and the value of truck exports fell 33.4%.

U.S.-Mexico trade fell 26% to $18.6 billion. The value of truck imports fell 23.4% and the value of truck exports fell 21.1%.

Surface transportation consists largely of freight movements by truck, rail and pipeline. About 90% of U.S. trade among NAFTA partners moves by land.

[source - ttnews.com]

Pro-free traders call for rally against NAFTA protectionism

Mryan — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:51:41 +0000

Struggling economic times tend to heighten protectionist urges, but the former U.S. Ambassador to Canada is espousing the need for free-trade initiatives. Speaking recently in Quebec City, Gordon Griffin cited the growth that both Canada and the United States have experienced as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). From 1993 to 2006, trade between the two countries more than tripled, and in the U.S., employment, manufacturing output and real hourly wages saw double-digit increases.

Protectionist Buzz Spurs More Vocal NAFTA Support

QUEBEC CITY — As protectionist impulses heighten, former ambassadors have risen up to defend NAFTA and call for more vocal support for continued free trade initiatives.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Gordon Giffin, speaking at the annual conference of the North American Supercorridor Coalition (NASCO) in Quebec City, said economic inefficiencies and dire consequences would be the direct result of increased anti-trade policies and more vocal opposition is needed in order to drown out protectionist cries.

“Even in good times, there is a healthy skepticism about free trade and free-trade deals in the United States,” he said. “That tendency is enhanced and exacerbated by the stresses of our current economic challenges, which results in a perverse policy prescription like ‘Buy American’ which is being advanced by our Congress in the United States and which is, in effect, protectionism on steroids.”

He used a litany of statistics to prove that both Canada and the U.S. have benefited from NAFTA — including that from 1993 to 2006, trade between the two countries grew from $297 billion to $930 billion, U.S. employment rose 25 percent, real hourly wages in the United States rose 24 percent, and U.S. manufacturing output rose 58 percent.

“Without going on and on, by any measure, this has been a success,” he said.

Nevertheless, he added, opponents of free trade have been banging protectionist drums, and he believes it’s time for NAFTA supporters to respond. “If we don’t speak out as advocates, the naysayers will carry the day.”

He said NAFTA has become shorthand for the perceived shortcomings of globalized free trade, and political opponents are working for measures that, in his view, resemble the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which brought U.S. tariffs to their highest protective levels ever and arguably worsened the impending Depression.

His concerns over protectionism were echoed by Michael Kergin, former Canadian ambassador to the U.S., who said North Americans can profit from their own natural economies of scale and increase their cooperation to compete even more effectively in the global economy.

“Economic downturns inevitably increase pressures to resort to protectionism. Yet the impulse behind NAFTA was to insulate somewhat all three partners from these protectionist prescriptions for instant economic gratification,” he said. “I know of no serious economist who lays the blame for the current U.S. job losses exclusively, or even in part, at NAFTA’s doorstep.”

He said free-trade movements in other parts of the world — including the expansion of the European Union to include countries of the former Warsaw Pact, the Mercosur regional trade agreement spearheaded by Brazil, and the consolidation of Chinese ties by the Association of South-East Asian nations (ASEAN) — prove the need for continued, and even expanded free trade in North America.

In his address to delegates from Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, Kergin called for dismantling the barriers that prevent NAFTA suppliers from participating in federal and local projects financed though official stimulus funds.

This last point is particularly important, he said, given there have been incidents in all three NAFTA countries where North American companies have been shut out of infrastructure projects.

“Now is an opportune time for our leaders to show the vision, tempered by pragmatism, of their predecessors some 15 years ago,” said Kergin. “All three countries, not just the United States, have some form of exclusionary legislation, principally at state and provincial levels,” he said.

[source - todaystrucking.com]

Lawyer for CANACAR: U.S.-Mexico border should be open to all truckers

Mryan — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:39:38 +0000

The latest move in a decades-long battle to open the U.S.-Mexican borders to Mexican trucks is a $6 billion lawsuit filed by Mexico’s trucking lobby for financial losses the industry has experienced in the last three years. Under the Bush administration in 2007, registered Mexican truckers were allowed to operate inside the U.S. border, but various groups have questioned whether those trucks met higher U.S. safety standards. The 2009 omnibus appropriations bill, signed into law by President Obama, eliminated that cross-border project. CANACAR, Mexico’s trucking lobby, says the creation of a new program, which Obama has expressed interest in doing, could lead to negotiations but that the suit would probably not be dropped entirely.

Mexican Trucking Lobby Files Suit Over Closed U.S. Borders, Citing Financial Losses

Despite the escalation in rhetoric over the cross-border trucking debate, a lawyer for the National Chamber of Autotransporte de Carga (CANACAR), the Mexico’s trucking lobby, told Fleet Owner that a compromise is still possible to avoid further damage to the U.S.-Mexican trade relationship.

Pedro M. Ojeda Cárdenas who filed a $6 billion suit under NAFTA Chapter 11 rules against the U.S. on behalf of CANACAR, said if the U.S. restarts the controversial cross-border trucking program in some form it “could open the door to compromise” of the suit.

“I see the position of the Mexican trucking industry,” Attorney Ojeda said. “We don’t want to harass anyone here. If [the U.S.] government comes with a program that is good and beneficial, the Mexican trucking industry would be open to discussions.”

Ojeda said financial losses to the Mexican trucking industry due to U.S. border policies in the past three years– pegged at $2 billion a year– is how the $6 billion figure was obtained. The suit will be heard at a later date by an international arbitrator under NAFTA rules.

The lawyer said the suit is not a reaction to the U.S. killing the cross-border demonstration project, but rather a response to years of border trade issues. “The Mexican trucking industry never agreed with the program,” Ojeda said. “The fact is we are open to the United States but they are not open to Mexico.”

According to Ojeda, the cancellation of the border program by Congress and President Barack Obama, who has said he would like to see another program in place soon, is just the latest dustup in a dispute that dates back to 1982. Prior to 1982, Ojeda said, Mexican truckers “were able to go into the United States. In 1982, the Teamsters and other groups started to oppose the entrance to the U.S.”

The Law of Moratorium was then agreed to by the countries, permitting only those Mexican carriers with current permits to continue operating inside the U.S. border, and then only within a 25-mi. commercial zone. Eventually, in 1994, NAFTA was ratified and borders were supposed to be open to promote commerce across North America. The U.S. agreed in 1998, according to Ojeda, to open the border to Mexican trucking fleets. “But the United States did not open its border,” whereas Mexico did, he said.

A NAFTA Tribunal agreed with Mexico in the dispute, ordering the U.S. to open the border in 2001, which Ojeda said the Bush administration indicated it would. Mexican companies then bought equipment to meet stricter U.S. safety rules. “They lost that money,” Ojeda stated.

Ultimately, the Bush administration came up with the cross-border demonstration project in 2007 that allowed registered Mexican carriers to operate inside the border of the U.S. That program was eliminated when Congress passed the 2009 omnibus appropriations bill, which Obama signed into law.

Since then, Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have both said they will work toward putting another program in place. In retaliation for the cancellation of the program, the Mexican government slapped $2.4 billion worth of tariffs on U.S. goods.

While Ojeda said a new program would not necessarily mean the suit would be dropped, it could open the door to negotiations. After all, he pointed out, the Mexican trucking industry just wants what the U.S. trucking industry has – free access.

[source - fleetowner.com]

Mexican truckers sue U.S. over cross-border policy

Mryan — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:25:18 +0000

Though the Obama administration will soon consider re-opening the U.S.-Mexican border to trucking, thousands of Mexican truckers have filed suit against the U.S. government citing its violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA would have given Mexican truckers limited access to cross in to the U.S. in 1995 with fewer restrictions as time passed. However, the borders have been closed, fueled by fears of losing U.S. jobs and concerns that Mexican trucks did not meet safety regulations.

WASHINGTON — Some Mexican truckers can’t wait for the Obama administration to reinstate cross-border trucking.

Thousands of carriers are suing the U.S. government for reneging on Bush’s policy of opening the border to select Mexican trucking companies.

According to Reuters, about 4,500 trucking companies represented by Canacar, the Mexican trucking association, are suing the U.S. for $6 billion over this country’s refusal to allow Mexican trucks to haul across the border as stipulated by the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Mexico put $2.4 billion in punitive tariffs on U.S. exports in March after Congress voted to kill a 2007 cross-border pilot program.

Last month, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the White House is vetting a plan he hopes to take to Congress for clearance in June. His aim is to address the concerns about safety that Congress cited when it cut off funding for the Bush administration’s limited cross-border program.

Under NAFTA, the crossing was supposed to have been opened to border-state traffic in 1995 and to long-distance traffic in 2000. The opening was stalled until 2007, in part by difficult negotiations with Mexico, but mainly by the legislative and legal tactics of U.S. labor, owner-operator and citizen advocacy groups who fear loss of U.S. jobs to Mexican drivers and argue that Mexican trucks will not be safe.

[source - todaystrucking.com]

SPECIAL REPORT: FAST solution to potential border problem

Mryan — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:24:59 +0000

Older FAST cards will be accepted at the U.S.-Canadian border, but only until drivers receive their newer second generation FAST cards featuring radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology. U.S. Customers and Border Protection officials will know whether a driver has received the newer card because it will be noted in their database. As of June 1, anyone crossing the border must prove their citizenship with a passport, enhanced driver’s license or ID card, or a FAST card.

1st and 2nd Generation FAST Cards OK at Border

OTTAWA — A potential cross-border clearance mess has been averted just days before a new massive, U.S. security policy takes effect.

The introduction of a new generation FAST card, coinciding with the June 1 rollout of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) ID rules, had some in the trucking industry predicting trucker backlogs at Canada-U.S. land ports.

But fear not, if there are significant border delays next week, it’ll be because some truckers and travelers will be without mandatory passport or enhanced drivers’ licence credentials; and not due to what appeared to be a possible FAST card mix-up.

Part of the problem is that US Customs was not set up to accept older FAST cards. Only new, Generation 2 FAST cards — most of which have not yet been mailed to drivers — have the RFID technology that is compatible with the ID readers at ports of entry.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials met with members of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, todaystrucking.com has learned, and were assured that original FAST cards, as well as Gen 2 FAST cards, will be acceptable identification documents for crossing the border on June 1.

“CBP issued directives to their field staff on the front line so there would be no confusion,” Ron Lennox, vice-president of the CTA, tells us. “However, you must use the Generation 2 card if you’ve received it because that’s what they have in the system.”

Got that? You’ll still be waved through with a first-generation FAST card, but only if you haven’t received the new one yet.

The new FAST cards are being mailed to all current FAST members, and cardholders are reminded to activate the new cards right away, so service is not interrupted.

Not that most truckers need reminding at this point, but for the not-so-frequent haulers, WHTI requires anybody entering the U.S. by land or sea to have documents proving their citizenship as of June 1. Approved travel documents include a passport, enhanced driver’s licence or ID card where available, and the FAST card.

[source - todaystrucking.com]