http://www.pe.com/business/local/storie ... c75df.html

NAFTA'S war of words

Communication provision may be the latest barrier to foreign truckers


09:28 PM PDT on Saturday, October 29, 2005

By JACK KATZANEK / The Press-Enterprise

The North American Free Trade Agreement was supposed to offer trucks from neighboring countries easier access to the United States.

But it's been almost 12 years since the agreement was signed, and a decade has passed since the proviso opening the borders to Mexican and Canadian trucks was to go into effect. The latest detour might be coming from the question of what might be getting lost in translation.

Five months ago, the coalition that represents federal, state and foreign highway-safety officials enacted a provision that can sideline truck drivers if they were unable to "communicate sufficiently," including being able to understand verbal instructions or read a safety-oriented road sign.

The communication provision is just one of the methods opponents of NAFTA have fought for over the past decade to keep foreign trucks off American highways. A mix of organized labor, environmentalists and some conservatives, foes have used everything from environmental concerns, vehicle safety, job-loss issues and security concerns since Sept. 11, 2001, to press their cause.

"We know some trucks don't meet the emissions standards several states have implemented, including California," Fred McLuckie, legislative director of the Teamsters union, said by phone.

Last November, the Teamsters got its way when Congress passed an appropriations bill that included a provision -- passed over the Bush administration's objections -- that blocked the federal government from implementing a two-year exemption from safety standards for Mexican-owned trucks.

The Teamsters also back the new provision that requires truckers to "communicate sufficiently," and continues to seek other ways to slow NAFTA's full implementation, McLuckie said. Future objectives will include emissions controls and identifying drivers who carry hazardous materials.

The communication provision, passed by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, is not a law until a state legislature adopts it. It's unclear if any state legislature, particularly those with high Hispanic populations such as California and Texas, will take up the issue.

Federal regulators already have a law that requires truckers to "read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public." The law also says that a driver must be able to understand traffic signs and make logbook entries.

But federal and state versions of the regulations are both written with some ambiguity. The regulation, written by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, a branch of the Department of Transportation, does not define "sufficiently." That leaves the interpretation to the field officer.

The rule suggested for states says it's the responsibility of the driver and trucking company "to be able to communicate."

Rick Craig, director of regulatory affairs for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, said the rule leaves the door open for a driver who can adequately communicate using another means, through a second person in the truck or by gestures.

"The new provision was watered down," Craig said. "It was left deliberately vague."

Craig said his biggest safety concern is during inspections, when an official has to crawl under a truck to look at its brakes and frame. A trucker who doesn't understand English could put the vehicle in motion and injure the inspector.

Armando Freire, president of Dimex Freight Systems Inc., a trucking company in Otai Mesa near San Diego, said the law might only come into play during some kind of extenuating circumstance, possibly in parts of the country that don't have large Spanish-speaking populations.

"As long as the driver is just trying to make a living without cutting corners, the officials are going to understand the issues," Freire said.

Craig was more blunt.

"I'm sure politics would have to do with which states adopt this," said Craig, whose organization lobbies for independent truckers' interests. "A state like Texas, with a huge Hispanic population and many drivers not speaking English, probably won't be hammering this too hard."

Indeed, California's lawmakers have not debated the issue, said Stephanie Williams, senior vice president of the California Trucking Association. She predicted the communications provision won't be a big issue in the state.

"California will be more sensible than other states, and CHP (California Highway Patrol) tends to be pretty fair," Williams said by phone. "We need to have the criteria looked at for our needs and make sure enforcement is consistent in all parts of the state. We don't want profiling."

Southern California already has hundreds of thousands of drivers who use Spanish as their primary language. Most of them are able to navigate the area and obey the basic law-enforcement commands, trucking experts say.

"A lot will depend on where the driver is going," Freire said. "If a Mexican driver is crossing the border into California, he's not going to have a problem."

Others aren't so sure.

Ray Miller, 48, an independent trucker from New Orleans who passed through Inland Southern California last month on his way to pick up a load of emergency supplies for his hometown, said he has no problem sharing the road with trucks from other countries as long as the truckers follow the same rules.

He did encounter a trucker who had difficulty with the language, though.

"A guy came up to me at a truck stop once and couldn't speak English. He gave me a map to translate for him," Miller said. "It is a problem."

Eventually the issue may hinge on the level of pressure from all sides, pitting those who oppose full implementation of NAFTA against business interests who want the benefits of allowing trucks to transport goods from Mexico to distribution sites in the United States.

The treaty that became NAFTA was first discussed during the administration of the first President Bush. Designed to increase trade by eliminating tariffs, it was ratified by Congress in late 1993, signed by President Clinton and took effect Jan. 1, 1994. Foreign trucks were supposed to be allowed to make border crossings by 1995 and interstate trips by 2000.

But the Clinton administration, in part because of environmental, safety and job-security concerns, restricted the trucks to a "commercial zone" within 20 miles of the borders. Loads going farther into the U.S. must be transferred to American carriers within that commercial zone.

President George W. Bush ruled the trucks should be allowed to pass beyond the 20-mile zone by 2002, but the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals stopped that by ordering a detailed environmental study. The Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circuit's order in 2004. Foreign trucks seemed ready to roll into the U.S., until Congress blocked the safety exemption last fall.

That's fine by Julian Taylor, a big-rig owner-operator from Cleveland who stopped in at the TravelCenter of America truck stop in Ontario last month. Taylor said he's never been a fan of NAFTA.

"When you say you want more commerce with Third World nations, you have to have plans to balance corporate America's investment with the people's interests," said Taylor, 49. "But NAFTA has no protection for the people."

But Freire, the trucking company president whose Otai Mesa firm handles transfer loads from Mexico, said Mexican truckers will eventually be accepted on U.S. roads, especially because American companies can't find enough drivers these days.

"People are going to be surprised what Mexican trucks can do," Freire said. "I think eventually U.S. companies will buy some of them and add them to our pool."