AZTOY
Member
Appeals court blocks opening of U.S. highways to Mexican trucks
New York Times News Service
Jan. 16, 2003 08:30 PM
A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked President Bush's plans to open American highways to Mexican trucks, ruling that the administration could not open the roads until it conducts a study of how the trucks would affect the environment.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, concluded that the government had acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" by deciding to open the borders to tens of thousands of Mexican trucks without conducting an environmental review. The National Environmental Policy Act requires such reviews for all government actions that might significantly affect the environment.
Several environmental lawyers said Thursday's decision by a three-judge panel could indefinitely suspend the administration's plans to open the border.
Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said, "We are reviewing the court's order, and no determination has been made of what our next step will be."
The administration's options include asking the full Ninth Circuit court to rehear the case, appealing to the Supreme Court or conducting an environmental review, which often takes six months.
A 21-year moratorium has prevented Mexican trucks from traveling freely throughout the United States, with several presidents repeatedly citing safety and pollution concerns to keep the trucks out. But last Nov. 27, President Bush announced he would give Mexican trucks free access to U.S. highways as soon as more than 130 pending applications from Mexican truck companies were reviewed for safety and other matters.
Bush moved to admit the trucks after an international panel ruled 23 months ago that the United States was violating the North American Free Trade Agreement by continuing to restrict Mexican trucks to just a 20-mile-wide border zone where Mexican trucks transfer cargo to American trucks.
In Thursday's ruling, the court emphatically stated that NAFTA's provisions do not supersede the nation's environmental laws. Judge Kim McLane Warlaw wrote, "Although we agree with the importance of the United States' compliance with its treaty obligations with its southern neighbor, Mexico, such compliance cannot come at the cost of violating United States law."
The lawsuit was brought by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Public Citizen, the Environmental Law Foundation and the California Trucking Association. These groups said they feared that admitting Mexican trucks would hurt the air and water, endanger the safety of Americans, hurt American trucking companies and take jobs from American truck drivers. Mexican drivers often earn $7 an hour, about one-third of what many Teamsters long-haul drivers earn.
James P. Hoffa, president of the Teamsters union, said, "In a rush to open the border, the administration failed to pay attention to the health concerns of U.S. citizens."
Environmental groups asserted that President Bush's decision proceed without an environmental analysis was yet another example of his short-changing the environment.
"What happened here just adds to the list of actions showing the administration is insensitive to the environment," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. "This is a very significant ruling. It's the first time that any court of appeals has explicitly said that NAFTA does not excuse a federal agency from having to comply with federal regulations."
The decision comes after many lawmakers voiced concern that some international trade panels have ruled that NAFTA's provisions supersede various state laws and regulations.
Administration officials have praised Mexico for tightening its pollution standards for trucks so that they now conform with American standards. But the American regulations will grow stricter in 2004 and 2007.
Leonardo Alcivar, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said: "The administration remains committed to NAFTA. We believe we complied with all applicable environmental requirements in issuing our regulations and that the petitioners' allegations are without merit."
Mexican officials have repeatedly criticized Washington for not opening the border.
Mireya Magana, a spokeswoman at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, said her government was studying the ruling.
The plaintiffs estimated that opening the border would bring in at least 30,000 Mexican trucks a year, many of them from before 1994, when Mexico significantly tightened emissions standards for trucks.
The court ruled that the transportation department had violated the Clean Air Act by failing to determine whether allowing in Mexican trucks would violate California's tough air quality standards.
In addition, the ruling faulted the department for not examining whether the increased emissions would significantly affect air quality in border areas, like Southern California and Texas, which would see a greater concentration of traffic since they are closest to Mexico. The court criticized the department for looking only at how increased emissions would affect air quality nationwide. In a preliminary examination, the department had concluded that the heightened emissions would be "very small relative to national levels of emissions."http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0116trucks-ON.html
New York Times News Service
Jan. 16, 2003 08:30 PM
A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked President Bush's plans to open American highways to Mexican trucks, ruling that the administration could not open the roads until it conducts a study of how the trucks would affect the environment.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, concluded that the government had acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" by deciding to open the borders to tens of thousands of Mexican trucks without conducting an environmental review. The National Environmental Policy Act requires such reviews for all government actions that might significantly affect the environment.
Several environmental lawyers said Thursday's decision by a three-judge panel could indefinitely suspend the administration's plans to open the border.
Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said, "We are reviewing the court's order, and no determination has been made of what our next step will be."
The administration's options include asking the full Ninth Circuit court to rehear the case, appealing to the Supreme Court or conducting an environmental review, which often takes six months.
A 21-year moratorium has prevented Mexican trucks from traveling freely throughout the United States, with several presidents repeatedly citing safety and pollution concerns to keep the trucks out. But last Nov. 27, President Bush announced he would give Mexican trucks free access to U.S. highways as soon as more than 130 pending applications from Mexican truck companies were reviewed for safety and other matters.
Bush moved to admit the trucks after an international panel ruled 23 months ago that the United States was violating the North American Free Trade Agreement by continuing to restrict Mexican trucks to just a 20-mile-wide border zone where Mexican trucks transfer cargo to American trucks.
In Thursday's ruling, the court emphatically stated that NAFTA's provisions do not supersede the nation's environmental laws. Judge Kim McLane Warlaw wrote, "Although we agree with the importance of the United States' compliance with its treaty obligations with its southern neighbor, Mexico, such compliance cannot come at the cost of violating United States law."
The lawsuit was brought by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Public Citizen, the Environmental Law Foundation and the California Trucking Association. These groups said they feared that admitting Mexican trucks would hurt the air and water, endanger the safety of Americans, hurt American trucking companies and take jobs from American truck drivers. Mexican drivers often earn $7 an hour, about one-third of what many Teamsters long-haul drivers earn.
James P. Hoffa, president of the Teamsters union, said, "In a rush to open the border, the administration failed to pay attention to the health concerns of U.S. citizens."
Environmental groups asserted that President Bush's decision proceed without an environmental analysis was yet another example of his short-changing the environment.
"What happened here just adds to the list of actions showing the administration is insensitive to the environment," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. "This is a very significant ruling. It's the first time that any court of appeals has explicitly said that NAFTA does not excuse a federal agency from having to comply with federal regulations."
The decision comes after many lawmakers voiced concern that some international trade panels have ruled that NAFTA's provisions supersede various state laws and regulations.
Administration officials have praised Mexico for tightening its pollution standards for trucks so that they now conform with American standards. But the American regulations will grow stricter in 2004 and 2007.
Leonardo Alcivar, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said: "The administration remains committed to NAFTA. We believe we complied with all applicable environmental requirements in issuing our regulations and that the petitioners' allegations are without merit."
Mexican officials have repeatedly criticized Washington for not opening the border.
Mireya Magana, a spokeswoman at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, said her government was studying the ruling.
The plaintiffs estimated that opening the border would bring in at least 30,000 Mexican trucks a year, many of them from before 1994, when Mexico significantly tightened emissions standards for trucks.
The court ruled that the transportation department had violated the Clean Air Act by failing to determine whether allowing in Mexican trucks would violate California's tough air quality standards.
In addition, the ruling faulted the department for not examining whether the increased emissions would significantly affect air quality in border areas, like Southern California and Texas, which would see a greater concentration of traffic since they are closest to Mexico. The court criticized the department for looking only at how increased emissions would affect air quality nationwide. In a preliminary examination, the department had concluded that the heightened emissions would be "very small relative to national levels of emissions."http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0116trucks-ON.html
Say it ain't so! I think Mr. Hoffa would use anything he could get his hands on to protect or bolster his interests. This must be very convenient for him.
