Bush's Mexico-Domiciled Trucks Plan Flunks Safety Rules

Public Citizen reports:

The Bush administration is continuing to ignore the law and failing to protect the public as it barrels ahead with a pilot project allowing trucks from Mexico to travel throughout the United States, even though the public disapproves of the plan, according to new data released today by safety advocates.

Organizations representing highway and truck safety groups, labor, and independent truck drivers joined members of Congress today to criticize the Bush administration for ignoring federal safety laws concerning the implementation of a pilot program allowing trucks from Mexico to travel throughout the United States.

The groups – including Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Public Citizen and the Truck Safety Coalition – released an analysis of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) program [.pdf] showing the agency failing to comply with federal law. They also released a recent opinion poll [.pdf] revealing the public’s opposition to the plan. Overall, the groups conclude, the Department of Transportation receives a failing grade [.pdf] on the pilot program.

About the “Pilot Program”
In February, the administration announced plans to conduct a “pilot program” allowing up to 1,000 Mexico-domiciled trucks to travel beyond the current border zones. In 2001, Congress required the administration to put a premium on upgrading inspection facilities, computer databases, and other safety-related requirements before opening the southern border for long-haul trucks. The Bush administration has still not finished implementing the safety requirements in that law, but decided this year to rush ahead with the pilot program in an attempt to open the border.

Hearings in the U.S. House and Senate, featuring testimony from Advocates and Public Citizen, identified serious safety problems with the program. On May 24, Congress approved provisions in a supplemental Iraq War funding bill to ensure that any pilot program to allow Mexico-domiciled trucks full access to the nation’s highways would not circumvent safety standards or congressional oversight. The provisions ordered the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which is responsible for implementing the administration’s cross-border pilot program, to obey a number of requirements that the agency is still ignoring.

These provisions, signed into law by the president, require:

* the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to follow all applicable rules and regulations concerning the formulation of pilot programs and cross-border trucking;
* Mexico-based trucking companies and trucks to comply with all applicable U.S. laws; and
* the administration to ensure that the operation of these trucks within the United States would not have a negative impact on safety.

The groups today accused the administration of brazenly pressing forward without meeting many of the safety provisions directed by Congress. Less than three weeks after the legislation was signed into law, FMCSA published a notice in the Federal Register on June 8 that in effect declared that the agency had met all of the congressionally mandated safety requirements to open the southern border.

New Report: Continuing Failure to Protect the Public
The report [.pdf] released today, however, identified every provision of law that FMCSA has failed to comply with, including:

* failure to provide sufficient opportunity for public notice and comments;
* failure to provide the public with information about the pilot project;
* failure to comply with the requirements of §350 of the FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act on the safety of cross-border trucking;
* failure to comply with requirements of the pilot program law to test innovative approaches and alternative regulations under 49 USC §31315(c);
* failure of FMCSA to keep its promise to check every truck every time for compliance; and
* failure to establish criteria that are subject to monitoring during the pilot program.

The report was released alongside a new poll [.pdf] conducted by the nonpartisan Lake Research Partners, which found:

* A majority of Americans (56 percent) believe the Bush administration’s plan to allow Mexico-domiciled trucks to travel outside the current commercial zone and throughout the United States is dangerous.

* Majority agreement that this is dangerous for U.S. drivers transcends gender, age, political identification and region.

* Notably, self-identified independents (60 percent) are most likely to agree that the Bush proposal is dangerous, though majorities of Democrats (54 percent) and Republicans (58 percent) concur.

Bipartisan legislation included in Section 6901 of the Iraq War supplemental appropriations bill directs the DOT Office of Inspector General to report to Congress on whether or not the federal government is in full compliance with the truck safety law enacted in 2001. Unfortunately, the DOT continues to select parts of that law it wants to obey and those it chooses to ignore.

These include provisions prohibiting cross-border trucking to occur unless the U.S. and Mexico have reached an agreement on hazardous materials, unless there are adequate inspection facilities available for passenger buses and unless there are cures for deficiencies in data systems used to monitor driving violations and convictions of Mexico-domiciled commercial operators.

Bush's Interior Department To Announce Plans To Drill For Oil & Gas In Virginia, Alaska & Gulf of Mexico Waters

U.S. Proposal Would Allow Oil Drilling Off Virginia - Five-Year Plan Would Also Open Alaskan, Gulf Waters:
The Interior Department will announce a proposal Monday to allow oil and gas drilling in federal waters near Virginia that are currently off-limits and permit new exploration in Alaska's Bristol Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, according to people who have seen or been told about drafts of the plan.

The department issued a news release yesterday that was lacking details but said that it had finished a five-year plan that will include a "major proposal for expanded oil and natural gas development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf." Department officials declined to describe the plan.

Congress would still have to agree to open areas currently off-limits before any drilling could take place off Virginia's coast. Every year since 1982, after an oil spill off Santa Barbara, Calif., Congress has reaffirmed a moratorium on drilling off the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Last year, after a vigorous push by drilling advocates, Congress opened new waters in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Interior Department might still go ahead with environmental and geological seismic studies off Virginia, but the plan does not envision drilling there before 2011, according to a congressional source who saw an earlier version of the proposal. The sources who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity because they didn't want to compromise relationships with people who showed them drafts.

Environmental groups said yesterday that they were troubled by the idea of oil exploration and drilling so near the wildlife refuge on Assateague Island and in an area closely linked to the Chesapeake Bay. Some of the bay's best-known species, such as blue crabs and rockfish, migrate to the ocean.

Activists said that simply looking for oil and gas could cause environmental harm if waste products used to lubricate or cool drill bits are cast overboard. Such materials are often toxic, and could threaten marine life in the area, said Richard Charter of Defenders of Wildlife.

Richard Ayers of the environmental group Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper said he was concerned about development along the state's lightly populated Atlantic shoreline. He said he was worried that oil drilling would create boomtowns, a new influx of people and pollution.

The Virginia shore is dotted with barrier islands and lagoons, most of them largely unspoiled. The Virginia coast has been designated a World Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations, and a National Natural Landmark by the Interior Department.

"This is one of the few places on the East Coast that just never got developed," Ayers said. "A disturbance of any magnitude would be something the place hasn't seen since the '30s," when a hurricane hit the area.

Many drilling advocates say that the oil industry has had a good environmental record in the Gulf of Mexico and that the nation needs to develop domestic oil and gas reserves to bring down prices and reduce reliance on foreign oil.

Advocates of increased drilling have campaigned in several states, many of which are attracted to the prospect of negotiating shares of federal royalties. Bills endorsing more drilling have twice passed the Virginia legislature.

Kevin Hall, a spokesman for Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), said Kaine was "supportive of exploration to see what, if anything, is out there." But Hall said Kaine had received "assurances" from federal officials that the proposed exploration would not violate state law. Last year, the General Assembly and Kaine agreed on a bill to prohibit drilling within 50 miles of Virginia's shoreline.

One place that doesn't need approval from Congress is the area north of the Alaska Peninsula near the Aleutian Islands, known as Bristol Bay. Home to one of the world's largest salmon runs, according to the Sierra Club, Bristol Bay was not covered by the same ban on drilling.

President Bush used his executive power to lift the ban in January. Congress has 60 days to reimpose it, or else drilling preparations could start in Bristol Bay as soon as July 1.

Athan Manuel, offshore drilling expert at the Sierra Club, said, "We need to do more to drill in Detroit by finding more oil efficiency in our cars and trucks rather than drilling off of some of our most sensitive coasts that are important environmentally, but also economically in driving billion-dollar fishing and tourist industries."