Opinion ID: 664612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Text: 15 Turning to the merits, we first address the union's contention that the Implementing Rule violates the Safety Act. That Act requires the Secretary to issue regulations to establish minimum Federal standards for testing and ensuring the fitness of persons who operate commercial motor vehicles; it also sets a number of threshold standards that these regulations must meet. 49 U.S.C. app. Sec. 2704(a). With an exception not relevant here, the Safety Act then forbids anyone from operating a commercial motor vehicle unless such person has taken and passed a written and driving test to operate such vehicle which meets the minimum Federal standards established by the Secretary under [Sec. 2704(a) ]. Id. Sec. 2704(b)(1). According to the union, the standards required for issuance of a CDL in Mexico are lower than the standards the FHWA has imposed on American states. 16 The union, significantly, makes no claim that the CDL standards embraced by the Memorandum of Understanding violate the minimum criteria imposed by the Safety Act itself; its complaint is that the Memorandum's criteria are laxer than the regulatory standards that the FHWA has promulgated for American states. As the Implementing Rule was promulgated under the authority of the Safety Act, it (and the standards of the Memorandum of Understanding) appear to be part of the minimum Federal standards referred to in Sec. 2704(b). Those standards in effect call for drivers of commercial motor vehicles either to have taken and passed the CDL tests of an American state that meets the requirements spelled out in 49 CFR part 383, or to have taken and passed the Mexican CDL tests (which the Secretary has determined are similar to the American tests even if not identical). There being no statutory requirement that the minimum federal standards be identical without regard to nationality, there is at most an implicit requirement that standards for foreign nationals be in substance similar to those for U.S. nationals, the standard the Secretary has applied. We must therefore reject this challenge unless his finding of similarity is arbitrary and capricious. 17 In fact, most of the alleged divergences between Mexican and American CDL standards prove to be illusory. For instance, the union protests that the Memorandum of Understanding allows issuance of CDLs to 18-year-olds, does not require applicants to demonstrate any knowledge of English, and fails to specify any limits on Mexican drivers' hours of service. In the United States, by contrast, federal regulations stipulate that people who drive commercial motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce must be at least 21 years old, 49 CFR Sec. 391.11(b)(1); be able to read and speak English, id. Sec. 391.11(b)(2); and (with certain exceptions) adhere to limits on hours of service, id. Sec. 395. But these are operating standards, not licensing standards. The federal age requirement, for example, is one of a long list of necessary qualifications that apply in addition to the requirement that drivers possess a valid CDL. See id. Sec. 391.11(b)(7); id. Sec. 391.11(a) (A person shall not drive a motor vehicle unless he is qualified....); see also id. Sec. 395.1(a) (stating that hours-of-service rules apply to all motor carriers and drivers); cf. id. Sec. 383.23(a) (indicating that the federal licensing standards are confined to 49 CFR part 383, not the sections petitioner cites). Mexican truck drivers who want to drive on American highways are subject to these operating standards, just as they are subject to American speed limits. 18 The American system of license endorsements provides a more fertile ground for the petitioner. Pursuant to the minimum standards that the FHWA imposes on the states, an American truck driver who wants to operate double or triple trailers, passenger vehicles, tank vehicles, hazardous-material carriers, or vehicles equipped with air brakes must get a special endorsement on his CDL by passing a test specific to the vehicle class in question. 49 CFR Secs. 383.93, 383.95. In addition, the regulations establish three groups of commercial motor vehicles and do not permit drivers to operate trucks in the more demanding groups unless they have demonstrated their ability to do so. Id. Sec. 383.91. The Mexican scheme does not use such endorsements. 19 The government responds that the Mexican system is comparable to the American one. Instead of using endorsements, Mexico issues CDLs in three different categories. 2 Category C, for instance, covers 2- and 3-axle trucks, while Category B covers other types of freight trucks (including combination vehicles). Respondents' Appendix (Resp.App.) at 168. To get licensed to drive trucks in a particular category, the government asserts, Mexican applicants must pass the test for all such vehicles regardless of the particular type of freight truck that they will be driving. Brief for Respondents at 35. After some study, the United States concluded that the Mexican license class scheme incorporates what the U.S. has as endorsements into its basic classes. Resp.App. at 199. The government does not present much evidence or analysis to support this conclusion, but the Teamsters present none to undermine it. 20 The remainder of the petitioner's complaints focus not on licensing standards, but on other aspects of the Safety Act. For instance, the union denounces the alleged inadequacy of the system of information exchange between the United States and Mexico. The Memorandum of Understanding declares that [o]n a regular basis, but not less than annually, Mexico and America will exchange information about suspensions or revocations of CDLs, and about convictions for traffic violations; the countries also will exchange general information regarding CDLs. Though the union implies that this exchange somehow is not structured in a way that satisfies the Safety Act, it fails to point to any specific statutory requirement that it thinks has been violated. Indeed, beyond referring to the clearinghouse function contemplated in Sections 2706 and 2707 of the Safety Act (which indeed do require establishment of some duties relating to creation and exchange of information), the union's cursory discussion points to no specific provision that might be violated by implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding. 21 Likewise, the union protests that the Memorandum of Understanding is silent about drug and alcohol testing. Again the union confuses licensing with operating requirements. With certain exceptions, applicants for employment with an American motor carrier must be tested for controlled substances. 49 CFR Sec. 391.103. After being hired, they face some periodic and random testing. Id. Secs. 391.105, 391.111. These requirements apply regardless of the applicant's nationality, and thus cover Mexican nationals who work for American trucking companies. While they will not apply to any foreign-based employee of a foreign-domiciled carrier until January 2, 1995, id. Sec. 391.83(c), the union identifies no statutory requirement that this discrepancy violates; indeed, the Safety Act seems to contemplate that the Secretary's drug- and alcohol-testing regulations may apply special rules to foreign drivers. See 49 U.S.C. app. Sec. 2717(e)(3) (Supp.IV 1992). Further, although U.S. drivers holding a CDL are ipso facto deemed to have consented to testing for alcohol use, 49 CFR Sec. 383.72, while the Memorandum of Understanding makes no mention of such testing, a similar consent is inferred simply from driving a commercial motor vehicle, id., so that we discern no functional difference.