North American Free Trade Agreement: Coordinated Operational Plan
Needed to Ensure Mexican Trucks' Compliance With U.S. Standards
(21-DEC-01, GAO-02-238).
As part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),
Mexican commercial trucks were to be allowed to travel throughout
the United States beginning in January 2000. Because of concerns
about the safety of these vehicles, the United States has limited
Mexican truck operations to commercial zones near the border.
Relatively few Mexican carriers are expected to initially operate
beyond the commercial zones once the United States fully opens
its highways to Mexican carriers. Specific regulatory and
economic factors that may limit the number of Mexican carriers
operating beyond the commercial zones include: (1) the lack of
established business relationships beyond the U.S. commercial
zones that permit drivers to return to Mexico carrying cargo, (2)
difficulties obtaining competitively priced insurance, (3)
congestion and delays in crossing the U.S.-Mexico border that
make long-haul operations less profitable, and (4) high
registration fees. Over time, improvements in trucking and border
operations may increase the number of Mexican commercial vehicles
traveling beyond the commercial zones. The Department of
Transportation (DOT) does not have a fully developed or approved
operational plan in conjunction with border states to ensure that
Mexican-domiciled carriers comply with U.S. safety standards. DOT
has not secured permanent space at any of the 25 southwest border
ports of entry where commercial trucks enter the United States,
and, at present, only the state of California has established
permanent inspection facilities. DOT also has not completed
agreements with border states on how 58 federal inspectors and 89
state inspectors will share inspection responsibilities along the
border. States are responsible for ensuring that Mexican trucks
adhere to U.S. emissions standards. California is the only
southwest border state with a truck emissions inspection program
in place at the border--testing is conducted at two of its four
commercial ports of entry. While the Mexican government has
developed truck safety regulations and taken steps to enforce
safety and air emissions standards, these efforts are relatively
recent and it is thus too early to assess their effectiveness.
With DOT's support, Mexico has developed five databases on the
safety records of its commercial drivers and motor carriers.
However, as of October 2001, the commercial driver's license
database covered less that one-quarter of Mexico's commercial
drivers. Mexico has also participated in NAFTA-related efforts to
make motor carrier safety regulations compatible across the three
member nations. Apart from government efforts, Mexican private
sector and industry groups also conduct activities to improve the
safety of Mexican commercial vehicles.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-238
ACCNO: A02609
TITLE: North American Free Trade Agreement: Coordinated
Operational Plan Needed to Ensure Mexican Trucks' Compliance With
U.S. Standards
DATE: 12/21/2001
SUBJECT: International agreements
International economic relations
International trade regulation
Motor vehicle safety
Reporting requirements
Trucking operations
Motor carrier operations
Motor vehicle pollution control
Information resources management
CVSA Roadcheck 2000 Program
International Registration Plan
NAFTA
North American Free Trade Agreement
Mexico
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-238
Report to Congressional Requesters
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
December 2001 NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Coordinated Operational Plan Needed to Ensure Mexican Trucks? Compliance
With U. S. Standards
GAO- 02- 238
Page i GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking Letter 1
Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Relatively Few Mexican Carriers Initially
Expected Beyond Border
Commercial Zones 7 The United States and Most U. S. Border States Are Not
Prepared to
Ensure That Mexican Commercial Carriers Meet U. S. Safety Standards 12
Mexico Has Taken Steps to Improve Commercial Vehicle Safety
and Emissions, But Extent of Compliance With U. S. Standards Remains Unclear
20 Conclusions 27 Recommendation for Executive Action 28 Agency Comments and
Our Evaluation 28
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 31
Appendix II Space Available for Truck Inspections at Southwest Border Ports
of Entry 33
Appendix III Comments From the U. S. Customs Service 35
Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 36 GAO Contact 36
Acknowledgments 36
Tables
Table 1: Truck Crossings From Mexico into the United States, Fiscal Year
2001 5 Table 2: Registration Fees for International Registration Plan
Members and Non- members 9 Table 3: Space Designated for Truck Inspection
Activities at
Southwest Border Commercial Ports of Entry, as of November 2001 33 Contents
Page ii GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking Figures
Figure 1: Commercial Ports of Entry Along the U. S.- Mexico Border 4 Figure
2: Truck Inspection Space at the World Trade Bridge,
Laredo, Texas 13 Figure 3: California State Truck Inspection Facility at
Otay Mesa
With Covered Inspection Bays 15 Figure 4: Permanent Inspection Facility
Staff in Calexico,
California, Select Trucks for Inspection 15
Abbreviations
CVSA Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance DOT Department of Transportation EPA
Environmental Protection Agency FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration GSA General Services Administration LTSS Land Transportation
Standards Subcommittee NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
Page 1 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
December 21, 2001 The Honorable John D. Dingell Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives
The Honorable James L. Oberstar Ranking Democratic Member Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure House of Representatives
The Honorable Edolphus Towns Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Robert A. Borski Ranking Democratic Member Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure House of
Representatives
As part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), commercial
trucks from Mexico were to be allowed to travel throughout the United States
beginning in January 2000. Because of concerns about the safety of these
vehicles, the United States has limited Mexican truck operations to
commercial zones near the border. In February 2001, a NAFTA arbitration
panel ruled that the United States? blanket refusal to process applications
by Mexican trucking companies to provide crossborder services beyond the
commercial zones violated its NAFTA obligations. The panel noted, however,
that the United States could require Mexican motor carriers to meet U. S.
safety requirements. In February 2001, the administration announced that it
would give Mexican trucks access to all U. S. highways by January 2002. The
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2002, enacted in December 2001, provided increased funding for
safety activities related to Mexican motor carriers and set forth a series
of requirements that the Department of Transportation (DOT) must meet before
Mexican trucks can travel beyond the commercial zones.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
In response to your concerns about the safety of Mexican trucks, we examined
(1) the extent to which Mexican- domiciled commercial trucks are likely to
travel beyond the U. S. border commercial zones once the border is fully
opened, (2) U. S. government agencies? efforts to ensure that Mexican
commercial carriers meet U. S. safety and emissions standards, and (3) how
Mexican government and private sector efforts contribute to ensuring that
Mexican commercial vehicles entering the United States meet U. S. safety and
emissions standards. To address these objectives, we met with and obtained
documents from a wide variety of officials from the U. S. and Mexican
governments and industry representatives. (See app. I for a detailed
discussion of how we conducted our work.)
Relatively few Mexican carriers are expected to initially operate beyond the
commercial zones once the United States fully opens its highways to Mexican
carriers. Specific regulatory and economic factors that may limit the number
of Mexican carriers operating beyond the commercial zones include: (1) the
lack of established business relationships beyond the U. S. commercial zones
that would permit drivers to return to Mexico carrying cargo, (2)
difficulties obtaining competitively priced insurance, (3) congestion and
delays in crossing the U. S.- Mexico border that make longhaul operations
less profitable, and (4) high registration fees. Over time, improvements in
trucking and border operations may increase the number of Mexican commercial
vehicles traveling beyond the commercial zones. For example, innovations
such as automated clearance systems could reduce the need for time-
consuming paperwork reviews at the border.
The Department of Transportation does not have a fully developed or approved
operational plan in conjunction with border states to ensure that Mexican-
domiciled carriers comply with U. S. safety standards. The Department has
not secured permanent space at any of the 25 southwest border ports of entry
where commercial trucks enter the United States, and, at present, only the
state of California has established permanent inspection facilities. The
Department also has not completed agreements with border states on how 58
federal inspectors (projected to increase to 141 in fiscal year 2002) and 89
state inspectors (some of whom work parttime) will share inspection
responsibilities along the border. States are responsible for ensuring that
Mexican trucks adhere to U. S. emissions standards. California is the only
southwest border state with a truck emissions inspection program in place at
the border- testing is conducted at two of its four commercial ports of
entry. In addition to these infrastructure and personnel challenges, the
fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act establishes new requirements for
DOT. These include Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
deploying advanced technology to weigh trucks, requiring the electronic
verification of Mexican commercial drivers? licenses, and ensuring that
staff and adequate space are available for truck inspections. These
additional requirements highlight the importance of having an approved
operational plan and timeline.
While the Mexican government has developed truck safety regulations and
taken steps to enforce safety and air emissions standards, these efforts are
relatively recent and it is thus too early to assess their effectiveness.
With DOT?s support, Mexico has developed five databases with important
information on the safety records of its commercial drivers and motor
carriers. However, as of October 2001, the commercial driver?s license
database covered less than one- quarter of Mexico?s commercial drivers.
Mexico has also participated in NAFTA- related efforts to make motor carrier
safety regulations compatible across the three member nations. Apart from
government efforts, Mexican private sector and industry groups also report
conducting activities to improve the safety of Mexican commercial vehicles.
This report contains a recommendation that DOT develop and implement a
coordinated operational plan for truck safety at the southwest border. This
plan should include reaching agreements with the border states and other
federal agencies on space, staffing, day- to- day operations, and a
timetable for when these actions will occur. DOT officials agreed with our
recommendation. However, they strongly emphasized that they were well
advanced in their efforts to fulfill our recommendation as well as respond
to the requirements contained in DOT?s fiscal year 2002 appropriations act.
We disagree with DOT?s comments that they are well advanced in their efforts
to implement our recommendation as well as the many requirements contained
in the appropriations act. Even prior to the act, DOT had not reached
agreements with the states on how to allocate their inspectors or with other
federal agencies on the space needed to conduct additional truck
inspections.
Since NAFTA?s implementation, trade between the United States and Mexico has
more than doubled, growing from $100 billion in 1994 to $248 billion in
2000. 1 Enhanced trade has increased the number of northbound
1 NAFTA was agreed to by Canada, Mexico, and the United States in 1992 and
implemented in 1994. Background
Page 4 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
truck crossings from 2.7 million in fiscal year 1994 to more than 4. 3
million in fiscal year 2001. According to DOT, about 80, 000 trucks crossed
the border in fiscal year 2000, 63,000 of which were estimated to be of
Mexican origin. Trucks from Mexico enter the United States at border
crossing points in four U. S. states (see fig. 1), but most of the crossings
occurred at five ports of entry in fiscal year 2001: Laredo, El Paso,
Hidalgo/ Pharr in Texas, and Calexico and Otay Mesa in California.
Figure 1: Commercial Ports of Entry Along the U. S.- Mexico Border
Note: Numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of ports of entry for those
with more than one. Source: GSA and DOT.
Commercial truck traffic at Texas and California ports of entry, which
handle approximately 91 percent of truck crossings from Mexico, has grown
just over 60 percent since NAFTA went into effect. Table 1 lists the
principal commercial ports of entry and the number of truck crossings that
occurred at each port in fiscal year 2001.
Page 5 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
Table 1: Truck Crossings From Mexico Into the United States, Fiscal Year
2001 Location Truck crossings Percentage of total crossings Texas
Laredo 1, 419,165 33% El Paso 656,257 15 Hidalgo/ Pharr 367,991 9
Brownsville 255,231 6 All others 223,159 5
Total Texas 2,921,803 68 California
Otay Mesa 700,453 16 Calexico 259,174 6 All others 63,970 1
Total California 1, 023,597 23 Arizona
Nogales 251,474 6 All others 90,424 2
Total Arizona 341,898 8 New Mexico 34,851 1 Total 4,322,149 100%
Source: U. S. Customs Service.
Under NAFTA, barriers have gradually been reduced for trade in goods and
services among Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Among other things,
NAFTA allows Mexican commercial vehicles greater access to U. S. highways to
facilitate trade between the two countries. Under NAFTA?s original timeline,
Mexico and the United States agreed to permit commercial trucks to operate
within both countries? border states no later than December 18, 1995, and
beyond the border states by January 1, 2000. 2
However, due to U. S. concerns about the safety of Mexican trucks and the
adequacy of Mexico?s truck safety regulatory system, the United States
postponed implementation of NAFTA?s cross- border trucking provisions and
only permitted Mexican trucks to continue to operate in designated
commercial zones within Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. 3
2 Canada and the United States have permitted each other?s trucks complete
access to all highways since 1982. 3 Commercial zones are designated areas
where Mexican commercial vehicles are allowed to (1) transfer their cargo to
U. S. carriers or (2) unload their cargo for later pick- up by U. S.
carriers. Commercial zones generally encompass areas extending between 3 and
20 miles north of U. S. border cities.
Page 6 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
DOT?s Office of Inspector General and GAO have reported that out- ofservice
rates for Mexican trucks operating in the commercial zones exceeded those of
U. S. trucks in the nation as a whole. The Inspector General has also
reported that the percentage of Mexican trucks placed out- of- service in
the commercial zones declined from 44 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 36
percent in fiscal year 2000.
In 1998, Mexico challenged the United States? delay in implementing NAFTA?s
schedule for cross- border trucking. In February 2001, a NAFTA arbitration
panel ruled that the United States? blanket refusal to review and consider
Mexican motor carrier applications for operating authority to provide cross-
border trucking services beyond the commercial zones violated its NAFTA
obligations. The panel indicated that under NAFTA, the United States is
permitted to establish its own safety standards and ensure that Mexican
trucking firms and drivers comply with U. S. safety and operating
regulations. However, the panel also noted that due to differing regulatory
regimes in each country, the United States need not treat Mexican carriers
or drivers exactly the same as those from the United States or Canada,
provided that such different treatment is imposed in good faith with respect
to a legitimate safety concern and conforms with relevant NAFTA provisions.
In February 2001, the administration announced that it would comply with its
NAFTA obligations and allow Mexican commercial carriers to operate beyond
the commercial zones by January 2002. In May 2001, DOT issued three proposed
rules that would revise existing regulations and application forms and
establish a two- tiered application process for Mexican carriers seeking
authority to operate within and beyond the commercial zones. 4 Under the
proposed rules, a carrier?s authority would be conditioned on satisfactory
completion of a safety audit within 18 months of receiving conditional
operating authority. 5 According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), the agency primarily responsible for enforcing U. S.
truck safety regulations, the final regulations would ensure that FMCSA
receives adequate information to assess an applicant?s safety program and
its ability to comply with U. S. safety standards before it is
4 Among other things, the rules would require carriers to (1) describe their
operations, (2) self- certify that they understand and will comply with U.
S. safety standards, and (3) describe their recordkeeping procedures
relating to drivers and accidents.
5 These safety audits are expected to focus on reviewing a carrier?s records
and not individual truck inspections.
Page 7 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
authorized to operate in the United States. 6 As of December 2001, DOT had
not finalized these rules. DOT officials said these rules were not finalized
because the Department was waiting for the outcome of the congressional
appropriations process. Additional statutory requirements that must be met
before Mexican commercial trucks can travel beyond the commercial zones are
contained in the fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act. These include a
range of inspection requirements and facility enhancements, such as adding
weigh- in- motion scales at the 10 highest volume crossings. Additional
requirements are discussed later in this report.
U. S. border state and Mexican transportation officials and representatives
of U. S. and Mexican trucking organizations we interviewed said they believe
few Mexican carriers will initially apply for authority to travel beyond the
commercial zones. Further, they suggested that any increase in truck traffic
would be gradual. As of October 2001, fewer than 200 Mexican trucking
companies had applied to DOT to operate in the United States beyond the
border commercial zones. 7 Regulatory and economic factors may affect
Mexican trucking companies? interest and ability to operate vehicles beyond
the commercial zones in the short run, but longterm trends in cross- border
trade operations could increase interest in operating beyond the commercial
zones.
A number of regulatory and economic factors may limit the number of Mexican
carriers operating beyond the commercial zones in the near term. For
example, U. S. and Mexican officials identified the lack of established
business relationships in the United States as a factor likely to reduce the
number of Mexican trucking companies willing to operate beyond the
commercial zones. According to U. S. and Mexican officials, many Mexican
trucking companies lack distribution ties outside the commercial zones and
thus do not have immediate access to ?backhaul? cargo from the
6 FMCSA?s responsibilities include: ensuring that eligible foreign motor
carriers operating in the United States comply with U. S. federal motor
carrier safety regulations; promoting information exchange regarding truck
safety among the NAFTA countries by providing U. S. enforcement personnel
the capability to verify information on foreign carriers, drivers, and
vehicles; granting authority to Mexican carriers to operate in the United
States; and enforcing compliance.
7 More than three- fourths of these applications were made in 1996 and 1997.
Mexican officials and FMCSA have concluded that Mexican carriers stopped
applying for operating authority once they realized that the United States
was not processing applications to operate beyond the commercial zones.
Relatively Few
Mexican Carriers Initially Expected Beyond Border Commercial Zones
Regulatory and Economic Factors May Limit Mexican Carriers? Willingness to
Seek Access Beyond the Commercial Zones
Page 8 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
United States to Mexico that would allow them to operate profitably. The
officials noted that it would take time to develop these business
relationships.
The cost and availability of insurance may also affect the number of Mexican
carriers operating beyond the commercial zones. According to the National
Association of Independent Insurers, newly established trucking companies
and Mexican trucking companies wanting to operate beyond the commercial
zones face a competitive disadvantage in obtaining affordable insurance.
According to companies currently providing insurance to Mexican trucking
companies and an insurance industry representative, premiums for Mexican
trucking companies will initially be set at the highest level and gradually
decline as the market matures. These individuals stated that it would take
time for the insurance industry to become familiar with the financial and
safety records of Mexican companies and drivers and to develop effective
means to access information for underwriting purposes. Further, large U. S.-
based and multinational insurers are likely to gradually enter the Mexican
market as demand for insurance in the Mexican trucking industry increases.
The number of U. S.- based firms currently providing insurance coverage for
Mexican trucks entering the United States is unknown. According to insurance
company officials, fewer than 10 U. S. firms may be providing insurance for
daily trips into the United States by Mexican trucking companies.
Also, according to Mexican private industry representatives and U. S.
researchers, congestion and delays in crossing the U. S.- Mexico border
result in added operating costs for Mexican carriers. These costs make it
less profitable to use newer, more expensive vehicles to wait in lines at
the border. Mexican government and private sector officials stated that
delays in crossing the border have increased since the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001. These delays could limit long- haul operations and
encourage further reliance on the existing cross- border shuttle (drayage)
system. 8
Like other carriers, Mexican carriers must pay registration fees to each
state in which they operate in the United States. The International
Registration Plan was created to facilitate the payment and reduce the
8 Drayage trucks provide shuttle freight service within the commercial zones
on both sides of the border.
Page 9 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
cost of these fees by allowing one member state to collect registration fees
and distribute them to other jurisdictions as necessary. However, Mexico is
not a member of the plan so Mexican companies must instead purchase
individual trip permits for each state in which they travel. 9 According to
an International Registration Plan representative, since these individual
trip permits cost more in the aggregate, Mexican carriers could be at a
competitive disadvantage. For example, a Mexican truck traveling from Nuevo
Laredo, Mexico, to Tulsa, Oklahoma, must purchase trip permits before
traveling through Texas and Oklahoma. Table 2 depicts the costs for an
International Registration Plan member and a non- member traveling through
these states once a week for a year. As seen in table 2, a nonmember truck
would pay about $5,600 more annually than a member truck.
Table 2: Registration Fees for International Registration Plan Members and
Nonmembers Registration fees assessed by each state a
Member truck Non- member truck
Texas $588 $5,200 Oklahoma $303 $1,248
Total $891 per year $6,448 per year
a Based on an 80,000 pound gross weight truck traveling round- trip once per
week for one year between Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and Tulsa, Oklahoma Source:
GAO analysis based on International Registration Plan data.
According to an American Trucking Associations official, a medium- term
solution for Mexican trucking companies to take advantage of the cost
savings and convenience associated with the International Registration Plan
would be to register in a state that is a plan member. A Mexican trucking
company may participate in the International Registration Plan by selecting
a member state and establishing a business presence such as a sales or
service office in that state. However, establishing such a presence may
entail additional costs such as federal and state taxes. When we discussed
these registration fees and potential taxes with Mexican public and private
officials in October 2001, they were unaware that they needed to pay them.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOT officials said
9 Not all states issue individual trip permits. For example, California
requires an annual registration fee for non- members of the International
Registration Plan.
Page 10 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
they have discussed these registration fees with Mexican government
officials.
The small scale and size of Mexican trucking operations could also limit
travel beyond the commercial zones. Mexico?s truck fleet is relatively small
compared with that of the United States, and Mexican trucking association
representatives said that their members? fleets have fewer trucks than their
U. S. counterparts. For example, there are nearly 600,000 trucking companies
with approximately 6.3 million tractors and trailers in the United States,
according to DOT. Mexico, in contrast, in 2000 10 had approximately 83,000
federally registered commercial cargo carriers with approximately 277,000
tractors and trailers (trucks may also be registered by Mexican states if
they do not drive on federal highways). 11 Further, the overall age of the
Mexican commercial vehicle fleet may also limit the number of Mexican
carriers able to operate beyond the commercial zones. According to Mexican
registration data, in 2000 only 20 percent of the commercial cargo trucks
registered for use on Mexican federal highways were manufactured after 1994.
Mexican industry officials told us that trucks manufactured in Mexico prior
to this date were not built to U. S. safety and emissions standards. Mexican
carriers can apply to have older vehicles certified to be in compliance with
U. S. safety standards. However, Mexican industry officials told us that
these vehicles might have difficulties meeting U. S. emissions standards.
Uncertainty about DOT?s final rules for obtaining operating authority has
reduced the number of Mexican carriers that will initially apply for
authority to operate beyond the commercial zones, according to Mexican
government and private sector representatives. According to these officials,
this uncertainty makes it difficult to plan for the future since union
contracts allowing travel beyond the commercial zones and distribution ties
must be established in advance.
10 Secretariat of Communication and Transportation, Estadistica Basica del
Autotransporte Federal. (Mexico City, Mexico: 2000). 11 An additional 23,
000 vehicles of all types are operated by private trucking companies.
Private trucking companies own and operate their own fleet.
Page 11 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
Cross- border trucking beyond the commercial zones may increase as firms
seek to eliminate inefficiencies associated with the current system of
drayage operations. Restrictions on cross- border commercial vehicle traffic
have led to a transport system that typically requires three tractors and/
or trailers to carry goods from the interior of Mexico to the U. S.
interior. For example, a long- haul vehicle is used to bring cargo to the
Mexican border from an interior Mexican state, where it is transferred to a
short- haul drayage truck that moves the goods across the U. S. border into
the commercial zones. To carry a shipment beyond the commercial zones, it
must be transferred to a third vehicle domiciled in the United States. This
system is cumbersome and inefficient, according to the Office of the U. S.
Trade Representative, trucking industry representatives, businesses, and
academic researchers. For example, as we reported previously, nearly half of
the containers crossing the border from Mexico into the United States in
1998 were empty because they left products or raw materials in Mexico- yet
still had to be processed by U. S. Customs. 12 According to U. S. industry
representatives and researchers, the time required to complete transfers
within the border commercial zones hinders the ?just- in- time? nature of
many assembly plants (maquiladoras) and agricultural industries, and can
result in additional costs. They note that a single- truck transport system
would be more efficient, practical, and less costly. In addition, government
officials who monitor hazardous materials shipments contend that minimizing
transfers and the handling of these loads would decrease the risk of
dangerous accidents and spills.
According to researchers and Mexican government officials, technological and
other innovations, such as an automated clearance system requiring carriers
to provide documentation electronically, would also encourage the
development of cross- border trucking beyond the commercial zones by
reducing the need for time- consuming paperwork reviews at the border.
According to Mexican customs officials, new programs, such as the U. S.
Customs Service?s Business Anti- Smuggling Coalition, could encourage the
growth of such cross- border trucking by reducing the time spent waiting in
lines at the border. 13
12 See U. S.- Mexico Border: Better Planning, Coordination Needed to Handle
Growing Commercial Traffic (GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 25, Mar. 3, 2000). 13 The
Business Anti- Smuggling Coalition is a business- led, U. S. Customs-
supported initiative created to combat narcotics smuggling via commercial
trade. Increased Efficiency in
Trucking and Border Operations Is Needed Before a Rise in Long- haul
Commercial Vehicle Operations Will Occur
Page 12 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
DOT faces a number of challenges in implementing a coordinated truck safety
system- including acquiring adequate infrastructure and deploying personnel-
at the U. S.- Mexico border. 14 Few permanent facilities are in place for
truck safety inspections and DOT only began taking steps to secure its own
space for these inspections in August 2001. It also has not fully integrated
its inspection personnel and their activities with those of the border
states. With regard to emissions inspections, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) relies on state governments to establish and apply their own
enforcement procedures. These operational challenges must be reconciled with
a number of new requirements contained in the fiscal year 2002 DOT
appropriations act.
Although we reported in 1997 and 2000 that FMCSA needs to be more proactive
in securing inspection facilities at planned or existing border
installations, the agency only began taking steps to secure its own space in
August 2001 and has been occupying temporary space provided by Customs
without the benefit of interagency agreements. 15 Currently, only 2 of 25
commercial ports of entry have permanent inspection facilities- both are
state facilities in California. Other state facilities are being constructed
or planned in the other three border states. However, federal and state
officials have not formally agreed on how federal and state facilities will
complement each other.
Permanent truck inspection facilities allow for more rigorous inspections,
provide scales and measuring devices to screen trucks for weight and size,
protect inspectors from the extreme heat prevalent at the border, and signal
a commitment to enforce truck safety standards. At the three states without
permanent facilities- Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico- Customs typically
allows state and federal truck safety inspections on the agency?s property
on a temporary basis; however, if capacity is reached for storing trucks
placed out- of- service, inspectors are unable to conduct additional safety
inspections (app. II describes the amount of space designated for
14 FMCSA and the border states have worked with the Mexican government,
carriers, and industry associations to develop an enhanced commercial
carrier safety regime and help carriers understand U. S. safety standards.
These actions are discussed in the following section.
15 See U. S.- Mexico Border: Better Planning, Coordination Needed to Handle
Growing Commercial Traffic (GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 25, Mar. 3, 2000) and Commercial
Trucking: Safety Concerns about Mexican Trucks Remain Even as Inspection
Activity Increases
(GAO/ RCED- 97- 68, Apr. 9, 1997). The United States and
Most U. S. Border States Are Not Prepared to Ensure That Mexican Commercial
Carriers Meet U. S. Safety Standards
Few Permanent Truck Safety Inspection Facilities Exist at U. S. Southwest
Border Ports of Entry
Page 13 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
truck inspection activities at southwest border ports of entry). For
example, the Laredo, Texas, ports of entry handle the greatest number of
northbound trucks, accounting for approximately 33 percent of all northbound
commercial traffic. In Laredo, Customs has designated space for 33 trucks to
be inspected or placed out- of- service, yet according to the U. S. Customs
port director in Laredo, approximately 5,500 to 6,100 trucks cross at the
two Laredo ports on an average day. 16 As fig. 2 shows, spaces used by
federal truck safety inspectors at the World Trade Bridge in Laredo are not
covered, nor is there lighting available for inspectors to conduct safety
inspections at night.
Figure 2: Truck Inspection Space at the World Trade Bridge, Laredo, Texas
In light of the limited amount of temporary space for truck inspection
activities, FMCSA has recently begun to take steps to acquire its own space
in anticipation of increasing border enforcement personnel. FMCSA submitted
its space needs for border port of entry facilities to the General Services
Administration (GSA) in August 2001 in an attempt to secure space at federal
ports of entry. 17 However, it is not clear when or if inspection space at
these facilities can be acquired. According to a GSA
16 The port of entry facilities in Laredo include the World Trade Border
Station and the Colombia Border Station. 17 GSA either owns or leases the
commercial port of entry facilities to federal agencies working at the
southwest border.
Page 14 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
official, GSA and Customs must first conduct site surveys to determine the
amount of vacant space available at port of entry facilities for truck
inspections. As a result of heightened security in response to the September
11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Customs is reassessing its
space needs at these facilities, with important implications for truck
inspection activities. In discussions among FMCSA, GSA, and Customs held in
October 2001, Customs said it will no longer allow trucks placed out- of-
service for safety violations to remain on Customs compounds due to safety
concerns related to allowing mechanics and tow truck operators on the
compound. 18 Instead, federal and state inspectors must escort these
vehicles off the facility. For example, in Texas a tow truck meets out- of-
service vehicles at the Customs gate and tows them off the compound. A FMCSA
official in Texas said these vehicles are rarely towed to Mexico unless they
are empty. It is unclear what effect this development will have on the
number and type of truck inspections that can be conducted in both the near
and long term at federal ports of entry.
As noted, only 2 of the 25 commercial ports of entry have permanent truck
inspection facilities- both state- operated facilities located in
California. As permanent facilities dedicated to truck safety inspections,
they have space to perform inspections and to place vehicles out- of-
service (see figs. 3 and 4).
18 The U. S. Customs Service is responsible for ensuring compliance with
trade regulations and contraband/ drug interdiction at border ports of
entry.
Page 15 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
Figure 3: California State Truck Inspection Facility at Otay Mesa With
Covered Inspection Bays
Figure 4: Permanent Inspection Facility Staff in Calexico, California,
Select Trucks for Inspection
Note: A California Highway Patrol observer visually inspects vehicles to
determine if they should be more thoroughly inspected and obtains weight
data from weigh- in- motion scales.
Page 16 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
The three border states without permanent truck inspection facilities at
border ports of entry- Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico- are planning to build
facilities at some crossings. To construct truck safety inspection
facilities, DOT officials said they plan to make the following allocations
based on the fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act: $12 million for Texas,
$54 million to be divided among the four border states, and $2.3 million for
federal facility improvements. Texas plans to build eight permanent truck
safety inspection facilities that would be adjacent to the Customs ports of
entry. 19 The facilities would be similar in function to California?s truck
inspection facilities. City officials in Laredo and El Paso, however, object
to the facilities being so close to the border, arguing that these
facilities would interfere with the flow of commerce. Local opposition to
placing truck inspection facilities at the border and constraints on state
funding have impeded progress. State officials estimate that the permanent
facilities will not be completed until 2004.
In the interim, Texas has established one temporary truck inspection site in
El Paso directly adjacent to a federal port of entry facility and began
inspecting trucks there in July 2001. Texas also plans to establish four
other temporary truck inspection sites directly adjacent to port of entry
facilities in Laredo, Eagle Pass, Pharr, and Brownsville. The state plans to
lease or purchase 5 acres of land for each of these temporary sites and
provide a trailer for office space. As of November 2001, state officials had
not implemented plans for the four temporary truck inspection sites.
Arizona and New Mexico have each begun work on a permanent truck inspection
facility. In 1998, Arizona acquired a 10- acre lot adjacent to Customs? port
of entry in Nogales on which to construct a permanent truck inspection
facility. According to Arizona officials, this project is scheduled for
completion in 2002. New Mexico has also started construction of a truck
inspection facility in Santa Teresa. According to New Mexico officials,
funding is currently available only for the groundwork. Further construction
will not be scheduled until funding is available to complete the facility.
19 Two facilities each are planned for Brownsville, Laredo, and El Paso, and
one each in Pharr/ McAllen and Eagle Pass.
Page 17 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
According to DOT officials, the fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act
provides funding to hire and train additional federal and state safety
inspection personnel. However, federal and state officials have not yet
agreed on the level of staffing needed at temporary and permanent truck
inspection facilities to achieve safety goals. For example, in Texas, there
are no formal agreements between the state and FMCSA about coordinating
inspection responsibilities at the ports of entry, or agreements
establishing the number of federal and state inspection personnel at the
proposed temporary and permanent sites. As of October 2001, there were 58
federal officials inspecting trucks on the southwest border. FMCSA officials
said that $9.9 million in fiscal year 2002 funding would permit them to
increase the number of enforcement personnel at ports of entry to 141. In
addition, FMCSA will also use these funds to hire 134 staff who will perform
safety audits and conduct compliance reviews of Mexican motor carriers
seeking authority to operate beyond the commercial zones. The appropriations
act requires that 50 percent of these safety audits and compliance reviews
be conducted ?on- site.? Mexican officials stated that they would only allow
these reviews within their country in the presence of a Mexican inspector.
As of October 2001, the 4 border states had assigned 89 inspectors to border
crossings to inspect trucks entering the United States from Mexico- 43 in
Texas, 41 in California, 3 in Arizona, and 2 in New Mexico. 20 The fiscal
year 2002 DOT appropriations act also provided $18 million for the border
states to hire truck safety inspectors. Prior to passage of the act, Arizona
planned to add a total of 11 inspectors and New Mexico planned to add a
total of 9 inspectors in 2002 and 2003. Texas did not plan to increase the
number of its inspectors until federal and state funds were committed to
build inspection facilities. California was unsure how budgetary
considerations would change its staffing levels.
20 Staffing levels reflect the number of inspectors assigned to facilities
and do not represent full- time equivalents. In California, inspectors have
been permanently assigned to the truck inspection facilities. In contrast,
inspectors in the other border states are not permanently assigned to ports
of entry and devote only a portion of their time to truck safety inspections
at the ports of entry. In Laredo, Texas, for example, state troopers inspect
trucks at the two commercial ports of entry approximately 20 hours a week.
DOT Is Increasing the
Number of Safety Inspection Personnel But Has Not Integrated Its Efforts
With the Border States
Page 18 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA is required to establish minimum national
standards for air pollution and individual states are assigned primary
responsibility to ensure compliance with the standards through state
implementation plans. Such plans can include truck emissions inspections.
Since 1994, EPA?s primary role in regulating commercial truck emissions has
been to certify compliance of commercial truck engines at the factories
where they are manufactured. EPA relies on the commercial truck engine
manufacturers to certify that their products meet air emissions standards
and conducts spot checks at engine factories.
Some U. S. states have implemented emissions testing requirements for heavy-
duty diesel trucks as part of their efforts to meet EPA air quality
standards for non- attainment areas. 21 State testing programs differ
significantly, with some states requiring yearly checks of trucks and others
operating both annual and more frequent roadside inspection programs.
California, which has a large number of areas that do not meet federal air
quality standards, including the state?s two southern border counties,
conducts emissions tests at the border. Since 1999, California has assigned
two inspectors each to the ports of entry at Calexico and Otay Mesa to
monitor the emissions of U. S. and Mexican heavy- duty vehicles. According
to California state officials, in 2000, the failure rate for U. S. trucks
was approximately 8 percent, while the failure rate for Mexican trucks was
12 percent.
Arizona also operates an emissions testing program for commercial trucks,
but testing is conducted on a yearly basis for trucks registered in the
state?s two non- attainment areas, Phoenix and Tucson- neither of which are
located at the border. Neither Texas nor New Mexico performs emissions
inspections at the border.
The fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act provides increased funding for
activities related to the safety of Mexican carriers and sets forth a number
of new requirements that DOT must meet before Mexican motor carriers can be
granted authority to operate beyond the commercial zones. Meeting these
requirements could entail significant operational and facility planning by
DOT in coordination with the border states and other federal agencies. DOT
officials said in December 2001 they are unsure when they
21 EPA defines a non- attainment area as a geographical region that exceeds
scientifically accepted levels for certain air pollutants. Emissions
Inspections of
Commercial Trucks Vary by State
Meeting New Statutory Requirements for Southwest Border Truck Safety
Inspections Will Require Additional Planning and Coordination
Page 19 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
will be able to meet the requirements and fully open the border given the
short time these requirements have been in place. Among other things, DOT
must
equip all U. S.- Mexico commercial border crossings with scales suitable
for enforcement action. Five of the 10 highest volume crossings must have
weigh- in- motion scales, and the remaining 5 highest volume crossings must
have such scales within 12 months;
require federal and state inspectors to electronically verify the status
and validity of the license of each Mexican commercial driver transporting
certain quantities of hazardous materials, drivers undergoing specified
inspections, and at least 50 percent of other Mexican commercial drivers;
require Mexican commercial trucks to cross into the United States only
where there is a safety inspector on duty and adequate capacity exists to
conduct a sufficient number of meaningful safety inspections and accommodate
out- of- service trucks; and
require Level I inspections and Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)
22 decals for all Mexican commercial vehicles that wish to operate beyond
the commercial zones but do not display such decals. 23
According to FMCSA?s Associate Administrator for Enforcement and Program
Delivery, FMCSA plans to measure the progress of Mexican carriers in
complying with U. S. safety standards by using truck out- ofservice rates,
traffic fatality rates, and accident rates. FMCSA?s goal will be for Mexican
carriers? rates to be comparable to those for U. S.- domiciled carriers.
Currently, available data do not permit differentiating between drayage
(cross- border shuttle) and long- haul carriers operating at the border.
Differentiating between these two classes of vehicles in terms of
calculating out- of- service rates will be important in determining the
extent to which the safety goals are being met.
22 CVSA is a non- profit organization of federal, state, and provincial
government agencies and representatives from private industry in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico dedicated to improving commercial vehicle safety.
According to FMCSA officials, only law enforcement personnel can affix CVSA
decals. CVSA decals are issued when a vehicle passes either a Level I or a
Level V inspection. A Level I inspection consists of an examination of both
the driver and vehicle. A Level V inspection includes all of the steps
involved in a Level I inspection, except for an inspection of the driver.
The decals are valid for a 3- month period.
23 This excludes Mexican motor carriers that have been granted permanent
operating authority for 3 consecutive years from this provision. DOT?s Plans
to Assess
Compliance with U. S. Safety Standards
Page 20 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
The Mexican government has developed truck safety regulations and reports
taking steps to enforce safety and air emissions standards but these efforts
are relatively recent and it is too early to assess their effectiveness.
With support from DOT, it has also developed key databases related to
commercial vehicle safety and it has participated in trinational efforts to
make U. S., Canadian, and Mexican land transportation standards more
compatible. Some Mexican private sector and industry groups have also made
efforts to improve the safety of Mexican commercial vehicles by implementing
safety programs and purchasing new vehicles.
Mexico has developed new regulations establishing specifications for vehicle
safety equipment, transportation of hazardous goods, vehicle inspection
standards, and maximum limits for emissions of certain chemicals. According
to Mexican officials, prior to 1992, Mexico had few vehicle manufacturing
and operating safety standards, and those that did exist were very general.
Since 1992, Mexico has developed and implemented specific federal
regulations dealing with commercial vehicle safety. These include
regulations establishing specifications for buses, license plates, vehicle
weights, and dimensions. Mexico has also created operating safety standards,
including speed limits for commercial motor vehicles. According to DOT,
Mexico is considering implementing additional vehicle manufacturing
standards, which could be modeled after U. S. or European standards.
In addition, Mexico has developed and implemented standards related to the
transportation of hazardous goods. These standards address labeling,
classifying, inspecting, documenting, storing, and shipping hazardous goods.
According to DOT and Mexican officials, the standards are based on the
United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods.
In July 2000, Mexico finalized its first regulation establishing the
criteria and authority for roadside commercial vehicle inspections.
According to CVSA and Mexican officials, this regulation is modeled after
the CVSA inspection procedures and out- of- service criteria. The regulation
establishes the procedures used by federal officials for inspecting
commercial vehicles and placing them out- of- service. It also establishes a
time frame for inspecting these vehicles, ranging from 20 minutes for buses
and commercial vehicles carrying hazardous materials to 30 minutes for
commercial vehicles carrying general cargo. According to Mexican Mexico Has
Taken
Steps to Improve Commercial Vehicle Safety and Emissions, But Extent of
Compliance With U. S. Standards Remains Unclear
Mexico Has Begun Implementing New Safety and Emissions Standards
Page 21 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
officials, prior to July 2001 when the regulation was fully implemented,
there were no rules for placing commercial vehicles out- of- service and
only the most serious violations would have resulted in putting a vehicle
out- of- service.
Mexico has also developed and implemented standards limiting commercial
vehicle emissions. These standards establish limits for air emissions of
hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and vehicle smoke from new
diesel engines. They also establish limits for vehicle smoke for diesel
engines in use, as well as a program for inspecting diesel emissions.
According to Mexican officials, commercial vehicles are subject to emissions
inspections every 6 months.
Mexico?s commercial vehicle inspections are performed by 350 inspectors from
the Secretariat for Communication and Transportation- the agency primarily
responsible for inspecting commercial vehicles traveling on federal
highways. In addition, 5,000 inspectors from the Federal Preventive Police
have been trained to conduct inspections. 24 Many of these inspectors were
trained by U. S. border state inspectors. During 2000, Mexican inspectors
performed a total of 114,138 roadside vehicle inspections and found 12,929
vehicles in violation of safety standards. In 1999, they conducted 88,490
roadside vehicle inspections and found 5,367 vehicles in violation of safety
standards. Mexican federal inspectors also performed compliance reviews of
motor carriers at their place of business, conducting 2,441 compliance
reviews in 2000 and 1,003 in 1999. 25 While it is encouraging that the
Mexican government is making efforts to inspect more commercial trucks, we
have no information on the nature of the violations found or whether any
sanctions or penalties may have been assessed for them. Further, as noted
above, inspections conducted in 1999 and 2000 were not covered under
Mexico?s recently implemented (July 2001) commercial vehicle inspection
regulations.
24 According to Federal Preventive Police officials, police officers must
observe a violation of traffic laws before stopping a vehicle to conduct a
safety inspection. By contrast, Secretariat of Communication and
Transportation inspectors have no such limitations.
25 We were not able to determine the extent to which Mexico?s compliance
reviews are comparable to those done in the United States because we did not
have the opportunity to observe these operations in either country. Mexico?s
Commercial
Vehicle Inspection Personnel and Activities
Page 22 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
According to the Secretariat of Communication and Transportation, Mexico
plans to increase the percentage of commercial vehicles inspected each year,
from 28 percent of the total fleet in 2000 to 50 percent in 2006. The 2001
program set the following minimum inspection activities and inspection-
level goals:
increase the total number of roadside inspections by 27 percent and the
total number of carrier compliance reviews by 5 percent over 2000 levels;
maintain a permanent enforcement presence in each of 10 main
transportation corridors; and
conduct 90 roadside inspections and 9 compliance reviews per year per
inspector.
In June 2000, Mexico participated in the CVSA- sponsored ?Roadcheck
2000? program, a trinational exercise carried out over a 3- day period with
the United States and Canada. During this exercise, Mexican officials
inspected a total of 1,428 Mexican commercial vehicles along federal
highways, putting 246, or about 17 percent, out- of- service. However, as of
October 2001, Mexico was not issuing CVSA decals. Mexican officials told us
they were not issuing CVSA decals because the decals are not required by
Mexican law.
According to Mexican officials, Mexico is in the process of constructing 7
permanent truck inspection facilities similar to stations in California,
with an additional 13 planned. All seven facilities under construction are
to be completed by the end of 2001, with an additional six facilities
scheduled for completion in 2002 and the remaining seven scheduled for
completion in 2003. According to Mexican officials, three of these
facilities- Mexicali, Matamoros, and Nuevo Laredo- are being constructed on
highways leading to the border. The purpose of these stations, in part, is
to inspect and weigh vehicles and thus reduce the number of accidents caused
by overweight and unsafe commercial vehicles. According to Mexican
officials, the stations will include weigh- in- motion scales and areas to
inspect vehicles and remove noncompliant vehicles from circulation.
Mexican officials stated that they conducted a study to determine the
factors causing accidents involving commercial vehicles. The study found
that more than 80 percent of all accidents were caused by driver errors. To
reduce the number of accidents, Mexico is developing and implementing new
training requirements that would require each new commercial driver to
receive a minimum of 420 hours of driver training, 70 percent of which
Permanent Truck
Inspection Facilities Modeled After California Facilities Planned
New Commercial Driver Training Requirements Planned
Page 23 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
constitutes instruction on the road. Drivers renewing their licenses would
have to undergo 40 hours of instruction. This expanded training requirement
is expected to be fully in place by 2005. Commercial vehicle drivers
responsible for hazardous materials would need to meet additional
requirements. At present, drivers can obtain commercial driver?s licenses
without such training.
Since NAFTA was signed, the Mexican government, with the assistance of FMCSA
and TML, a private contractor, has developed and is adding information to
several databases. These databases include (1) carrier and vehicle
authorizations, (2) commercial driver?s licenses, (3) accidents by Mexican
commercial carriers and drivers, (4) results of inspections and audits, and
(5) infractions. According to TML, it began working with Mexico to construct
these databases in 1995. The databases are an integral piece of Mexico?s
motor carrier safety information system. While important for Mexico?s
internal purposes, they also provide information needed by U. S. law
enforcement to verify driver and carrier information. Two of the five
databases were available to U. S. law enforcement in 2000 and the remaining
databases were to be available in 2001.
The first database, the Carrier and Vehicle Authorization Information
System, was completed in 1998 to assist the Mexican government in issuing
carrier operating authority permits, vehicle license plates, and vehicle
highway permits. According to TML, as of June 2001, the database included
all Mexican commercial cargo carriers registered with the federal
government. According to Mexican government statistics from 2000, there are
approximately 83,000 commercial cargo carriers comprising approximately 8,
000 corporations and 75,000 sole- proprietorships. These carriers maintained
about 372,000 vehicles of all types. U. S. federal inspectors have been able
to access this database since October 2000. According to private sector
officials, an estimated 75,000 other commercial trucks are registered in
Mexican states and are not in this database. Mexican federal officials said
that border drayage vehicles also would not be in the federal database since
they do not travel on federal highways and thus are not subject to
inspection by federal inspectors.
The second database, the Licencia Federal Information System, contains
Mexican federal commercial driver?s licenses. 26 It was completed in 1999
26 We were not able to obtain data on the number of commercial driver?s
licenses issued by Mexican states. Databases Constructed
and Being Updated
Page 24 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
to maintain records on commercial drivers and includes driver
identification, license status, and medical certifications. According to
TML, this database went on- line in January 2000, and as of December 2000,
all 46 of Mexico?s field offices issuing commercial driver?s licenses had
complete access to it. As of October 2001, 70,150, or 23 percent, of an
estimated 300,000 federal commercial driver?s licenses had been entered into
the database. However, Mexican government officials say the database has
information on 90 percent of the Mexican commercial drivers now crossing the
border. Mexican government officials are entering records into this database
as drivers renew their licenses and expect the database to contain all
records by 2003. U. S. federal and state inspectors have been able to access
this database since 2000. FMCSA policy requires that as of November 1, 2001,
all Mexican commercial drivers entering the United States had to have a
valid Mexican federal commercial driver?s license in the database. If these
drivers do not have a valid Mexican federal commercial driver?s license in
the database, FMCSA officials said they would be refused entry into the
United States.
The third database, the Accident Reporting Information System, was completed
in 2000 and records all accidents on Mexico?s federal highways. 27 It
includes an accident overview; vehicle, driver, and passenger
identification; insurance information; information on damages; and other
data. According to TML, phased implementation and interface with the United
States were slated for completion by August 2001 but have been delayed
because of the change of administrations in Mexico.
The fourth database, the Inspections and Audits Information System, was
completed in 2000 to record the results of inspections and audits of motor
carriers and their facilities. It includes inspection reports, as well as
information on violations, infractions, and complaints. Mexican officials
told us that these compliance reviews are conducted over a 15- day period.
As of June 2001, there were 222 carrier audit records and 7,273 vehicle
inspection records. We were unable to obtain information on what these
inspections uncovered.
The fifth database, the Infraction Information System, was completed in 2000
to process and report infractions committed by Mexican vehicles and drivers
on federal highways. Phased implementation of this database began in 2001.
According to TML, as of June 2001, there were about 6,000
27 Accidents on state or municipal roads are not included in this database.
Page 25 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
interstate commerce vehicle infractions and about 7,000 intrastate and
private vehicle infractions. Infractions on state or municipal roads are not
included in this system.
Since NAFTA was signed, Mexico has participated in trinational efforts to
make U. S., Canadian, and Mexican land transportation standards more
compatible. These efforts have included participation in NAFTA?s Land
Transportation Standards Subcommittee (LTSS). 28 In addition, Mexico has
entered into bilateral agreements with the United States on specific
commercial motor vehicle safety issues.
According to an LTSS document, the subcommittee has made major
accomplishments in the following areas:
commercial driver?s licenses- agreement on a common age (21 years) for
operating a vehicle in international commerce;
language requirements- agreement on a common language requirement (the
driver must be able to communicate in the language of the jurisdiction where
the commercial vehicle is operating);
drivers? logbooks and hours- of- service- agreement on safety performance
information each country will require from motor carriers; and
driver medical standards- recognition of several binational agreements as
the basis for recognizing driver medical standards.
The LTSS reports that regulatory differences among the countries have made
reaching compatibility in some areas difficult. For example, according to a
DOT official the three NAFTA countries have not been able to reach agreement
on commercial vehicle weight standards, maximum weight limits for truck
axles, and dimensions (Mexico?s regulations focus on the total length of
commercial vehicles while U. S. regulations focus on the length of the
trailer).
The United States and Mexico have also entered into binational agreements to
ensure the compatibility of commercial vehicle safety standards. Among these
are agreements on standards for drug and alcohol tests for drivers and
acceptance of commercial driver?s licenses issued by
28 The Transportation Consultative Group and the Automotive Standards
Council were also created to assist in efforts to harmonize non- standards
related measures and automotive manufacturing standards. Mexico Has
Participated in
Trinational Efforts to Harmonize Land Transportation Standards
Page 26 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
the other country. For example, Mexican officials plan to obtain
certification for a Mexican federal government laboratory to conduct drug
and alcohol tests by 2002. DOT officials said the United States is
continuing to work with Mexico on a variety of commercial vehicle safety
issues including manufacturing standards and vehicle size and weight
limitations.
The Mexican private sector reports conducting activities designed to improve
the safety of Mexican commercial vehicles. These efforts include conducting
inspections to ensure that Mexican vehicles crossing the border meet U. S.
safety standards; purchasing new commercial vehicles; and implementing
safety rules that, according to Mexican private sector officials, exceed the
Mexican government?s requirements. Moreover, according to representatives of
Mexican private trucking associations, their members have adopted operating
standards similar to those of large U. S. trucking companies. Mexican
government officials stated that most trucks now used in border drayage
operations would not meet their safety standards.
Mexican government officials said that some Mexican trucking companies are
purchasing new vehicles in anticipation of operating beyond the commercial
zones. According to the Mexican government, the average age of federally
registered truck tractors in Mexico is 16 years. In contrast, Mexico?s
private trucking association, made up of companies that own and operate
their own trucking fleets, said that its members? vehicles are relatively
new, averaging less than 5 years of age. According to association officials,
these newer vehicles are the ones most likely to engage in crossborder
trucking beyond the commercial zones.
In Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, a local trucking association established an
inspection station to ensure that vehicles belonging to association members
meet U. S. standards. According to association officials, this facility is
staffed by private maintenance personnel trained by the Texas Department of
Public Safety, and inspections are provided free of charge to all member
trucking companies. According to a FMCSA state director, this inspection
facility, while not able to affix CVSA decals, represents a positive step
toward assuring compliance with U. S. and Mexican safety standards.
According to Mexican private industry officials, some Mexican trucking
companies have implemented driver education and other operating safety
requirements that go beyond the Mexican federal requirements. For Mexican
Private Sector
Reports Making Efforts to Improve Commercial Vehicle Safety
Page 27 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
example, officials of a Mexican private trucking association said that their
members require extensive driver education and use computerized monitoring
devices to track driver performance and compliance with company hours of
service requirements.
In the 7 years since NAFTA was implemented, the United States and Mexico
have taken a number of steps toward achieving closer economic integration.
However, despite a strong trading partnership and other ties, cross- border
truck safety issues continue to be challenging. Mexico has taken important
steps to enhance its regulatory capabilities, including developing key
databases containing driver and carrier information and hiring and training
inspection personnel. However, Mexico?s efforts to increase regulation of
its motor carrier industry are relatively new; therefore, it is too early to
assess their effectiveness. The U. S. border states and DOT have been
increasing the number of safety inspectors inspecting trucks entering the
country from Mexico, but it is unclear where additional inspectors will work
and how they will share inspection responsibilities. California has built
permanent truck safety inspection facilities at two ports of entry and
Arizona has work under way to construct another one. At other major
crossings, however, only makeshift facilities, at best, are available, and
it will be several years until permanent facilities can be built in Texas.
Although some progress has been made, there is continued uncertainty about
the extent to which Mexican commercial trucks meet U. S. safety standards.
While evidence indicates that limited numbers of Mexican carriers will
initially operate beyond the commercial zones, additional work is needed if
DOT is to reach its goals of having commercial trucks from Mexico meet U. S.
safety standards and achieve similar safety performance results. Further,
there is still no coordinated operational plan for how truck safety
inspection activities will be conducted or agreements with border states on
how best to implement them. There is also no clear agreement on the type and
size of facilities that are needed, where they will be located, when they
will be finished, or whether state and/ or federal inspectors will work
there. Such agreements and a coordinated operational plan will become
increasingly important to develop and implement as DOT works to address
statutory requirements and as crossborder trade grows. Conclusions
Page 28 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
To ensure that Mexican trucks meet U. S. standards, we recommend that the
Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration to develop and implement a coordinated
operational truck safety plan at the southwest border. In addition to
meeting statutory requirements, this effort should include
establishing inspection goals;
taking steps to improve the quality of data to evaluate whether safety
goals are being met for both drayage (cross- border shuttle) and long- haul
carriers;
reaching agreements with states and other federal agencies on where
inspection facilities will be built, how they will be staffed, and who will
operate them; and
developing a specific timetable for when these actions will be completed.
We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Customs
Service, which are reprinted in app. III. We obtained oral comments from
DOT, including FMCSA?s Associate Administrator for Enforcement and Program
Delivery and other officials; the Office of the U. S. Trade Representative,
including the Deputy Assistant for Mexico and NAFTA; GSA, including the head
of the Border Stations Center; and the Mexican embassy in Washington, D. C.
We also provided copies to the Department of State, which did not provide
comments, and EPA, which provided two technical comments.
The Office of the U. S. Trade Representative, GSA, and the Customs Service
generally agreed with our report?s findings and recommendation. DOT
officials agreed with our recommendation that they develop a coordinated
operational plan to inspect Mexican trucks at the border. However, they
strongly emphasized that they were well advanced in their efforts to fulfill
our recommendation as well as respond to the new truck safety requirements
contained in the fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act. DOT officials
stated that numerous actions critical to the border?s opening are underway
or completed and that program implementation timelines and legislative
implementation plans are being developed and will be issued shortly. FMCSA
officials noted that they are completing detailed planning for hiring and
allocating staff; securing new high technology equipment to assist them in
accomplishing their mission; and that they have completed a system to track
Mexican drivers? U. S. traffic violation history. DOT officials noted that
since the passage of DOT?s fiscal year 2002 appropriations act, high ranking
Department officials will begin meeting immediately with border state
officials to coordinate state Recommendation for
Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
Page 29 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
activities and discuss actions needed to open the border. They noted that
detailed work is underway with GSA and Customs to address infrastructure
needs at each border port of entry and with the Mexican government to reach
agreements on requirements included in the act. DOT officials stated that
their past efforts and the efforts they intend to undertake in response to
the act provide a comprehensive approach to ensure the safety of Mexican
trucks crossing the border. DOT officials also noted that our draft report
was completed approximately two weeks before the Congress passed the
appropriations act and therefore the information contained in our report
predates the requirements specified in the act that the Department must
undertake before it can fully open the border.
We have updated the report to reflect the requirements in the fiscal year
2002 DOT appropriations act- requirements that further highlight the
importance of our recommendation that DOT develop a coordinated operational
plan for truck safety at the Mexican border. We disagree with DOT?s comments
that they are well advanced in their efforts to implement our recommendation
as well as the many requirements contained in the appropriations act. Even
prior to the act, DOT had not reached agreements with the states on how to
allocate their inspectors or with other federal agencies on the space needed
to conduct additional truck inspections. These are basic operational issues
that have become more complex with new provisions in the appropriations act,
such as the requirement for weigh in motion technologies at the 10 busiest
border crossings. In addition, our concerns about DOT?s readiness were
seconded in comments we received from Customs officials. Customs officials
noted that, as of December 2001, they and GSA were still surveying federal
facilities along the border to determine where additional space for DOT
truck inspections could be found. The additional space becomes more
important as a result of the act?s provisions for more inspectors, more
inspections, and the heightened probability that more space would be needed
for Mexican trucks placed out of service. Customs officials expressed
continued concern that DOT has not fully developed adequate operational
plans to conduct truck safety inspections at federal border facilities.
Page 30 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
State and agency officials also provided technical comments to the report.
We incorporated these comments, where appropriate, throughout the report.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly release its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to congressional
committees with responsibilities for trade and transportation safety issues;
the Secretary of Transportation; the Secretary of State; the U. S. Trade
Representative; the Commissioner of the U. S. Customs Service; the
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; the Administrator, General
Services Administration; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.
We will also make copies available to others upon request and on our home
page at http:// www. gao. gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512- 8979. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
IV.
Joseph A. Christoff Director, International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 31 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial
Trucking
To estimate the extent to which Mexican- domiciled commercial trucks are
likely to travel beyond the commercial zones, as well as the factors
inhibiting or encouraging Mexican carriers to operate beyond these zones, we
contacted U. S. federal, state, and local officials, as well as trucking
industry representatives, public interest groups, insurance companies and
associations, and academics familiar with the Mexican trucking industry. We
also reviewed applications filed with the Department of Transportation (DOT)
by Mexican commercial motor carriers wishing to operate beyond the
commercial zones. In addition, we interviewed Mexican government officials
and industry and union representatives, and reviewed statistical data on the
Mexican trucking industry.
To obtain information on U. S. government agencies? efforts to ensure that
Mexican trucks entering the United States meet safety and emissions
standards, we interviewed officials with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Protection
Agency, and the U. S. Trade Representative in Washington, D. C. We also
interviewed state and local government officials in the border states and
visited ports of entry in Laredo, Texas, Otay Mesa and Calexico, California,
and Nogales, Arizona. We reviewed documents provided by DOT, attended
congressional hearings on the issue, and reviewed DOT?s Notices of Proposed
Rulemakings and comments regarding the entry of Mexican trucks into the
United States. In addition, we reviewed data contained in DOT?s motor
carrier management information system to understand its reliability and
limitations.
To understand how Mexican government and private sector efforts contribute
to ensuring that Mexican commercial vehicles entering the United States meet
U. S. safety and emissions standards, we met with officials from the Mexican
Embassy in Washington, D. C., as well as the Secretariats of Communication
and Transportation, Economy, External Relations, and Environment and Natural
Resources in Mexico City. We also reviewed Mexico?s regulations dealing with
commercial vehicle safety and emissions. However, because of time
constraints we were unable to visit the inspection facilities under
construction or observe enforcement actions taking place. To understand how
the U. S. and Mexican commercial vehicle and driver safety databases
function and interconnect, we met with officials from TML, the private
contractor working to develop and connect these databases, as well as U. S.
and Mexican government officials. We also observed the databases in use in
Laredo, Texas; Otay Mesa, California; and Mexico City. To understand the
private sector?s efforts to improve the safety of their vehicles and their
compliance with U. S. safety and emissions standards, we met with Mexican
government and private Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Page 32 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial
Trucking
sector officials, toured a large Mexican trucking firm interested in
conducting operations beyond the commercial zones, and visited a privately
funded inspection facility in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. To describe efforts to
harmonize safety and emissions standards, we attended a conference co-
sponsored by the United States and Mexico dealing with vehicle safety and
emissions standards, and interviewed DOT and Mexican officials involved in
the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee and other groups.
We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards from June to November 2001.
Appendix II: Space Available for Truck Inspections at Southwest Border Ports
of Entry
Page 33 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
The U. S. Customs Service allows state and federal truck inspectors to
inspect trucks on its compounds. However, because interagency agreements
among FMCSA, GSA, and Customs have not been established, space at such
locations is temporary and available only as long as Customs allows its
continued use. The exception is in California, where the state operates two
permanent truck inspection facilities-- Calexico and Otay Mesa- that are
located just outside the federal ports of entry. Truck inspection activities
do not occur at the federal facilities in California. Table 3 provides an
overview of the amount of space currently designated for truck inspection
activities at commercial ports of entry along the southwest border.
Table 3: Space Designated for Truck Inspection Activities at Southwest
Border Commercial Ports of Entry, as of November 2001
Facility Number of
spaces for state truck inspections
Number of spaces for federal truck inspections
Number of outof- service spaces for state inspections Number of outof-
service spaces for federal inspections
Office space for state inspectors (in square feet)
Office space for federal inspectors (in square feet) Texas
Veterans International Border Station, Brownsville
2 2 0 10None544 Los Indios Border Station, Los Indios 1 2 0 12NoneNone Pharr
Border Station, Pharr 2 2 0 8 None384 Rio Grande City Border Station, Rio
Grande City
N/ A 3 N/ A 3 N/ A None World Trade Border Station, Laredo 2 12 inspection
and out- of service
0 (see number of spaces) None 384
Colombia Border Station, Laredo 1 3 0 15None384 Eagle Pass II Border
Station, Eagle Pass 2 2 0 8 outside of the
compound 160 384 Ysleta Border Station, El Paso 3 2 0 8 None384 Bridge of
the Americas Border Station, El Paso
N/ A 6 N/ A 10 N/ A 384 Roma Border Station, Roma N/ A 1 N/ A 0 N/ A 160 Del
Rio Border Station, Del Rio 1 3 0 4 NoneNone Presidio Border Station,
Presidio N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A
Appendix II: Space Available for Truck Inspections at Southwest Border Ports
of Entry
Appendix II: Space Available for Truck Inspections at Southwest Border Ports
of Entry
Page 34 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
Facility Number of
spaces for state truck inspections
Number of spaces for federal truck inspections
Number of outof- service spaces for state inspections Number of outof-
service spaces for federal inspections
Office space for state inspectors (in square feet)
Office space for federal inspectors (in square feet)
Progreso Border Station, Progreso N/ A 1 N/ A 0 N/ A 160
California
Tecate Border Station, Tecate N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Andrade Border
Station, Andrade a N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Otay Mesa Border Station,
Otay Mesa 4 bays N/ A 20 N/ A 7,900 N/ A Calexico Border Station, Calexico 4
bays N/ A 20 N/ A 7,900 N/ A
Arizona
Naco Border Station, Naco 1 N/ A0 N/ A840N/ A Sasabe Border Station, Sasabe
1 N/ A0 N/ A460N/ A Lukeville Border Station, Lukeville 1 N/ A0 N/ A460N/ A
Nogales Border Station, Nogales 1 3 0 0 460200 Douglas Border Station,
Douglas 1 N/ A0 N/ A460N/ A San Luis Border Station, San Luis N/ A 1 N/ A 0
N/ A 0
New Mexico
Columbus Border Station, Columbus N/ A 1 N/ A 0 N/ A 0 Santa Teresa Border
Station, Santa Teresa N/ A 5 N/ A 0 N/ A 72
N/ A - Not applicable. Space has not been designated for truck inspection
activities at these ports of entry. a The Andrade Border Station is no
longer an official U. S. commercial port of entry.
Source: GSA and California Highway Patrol.
Appendix III: Comments From the U. S. Customs Service
Page 35 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
Appendix III: Comments From the U. S. Customs Service
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 36 GAO- 02- 238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking
Phillip Herr (202) 512- 8509 In addition to the person listed above, Jason
Bair; Patricia Cazares- Chao; Janey Cohen; Peter Guerrero; Elizabeth
McNally; Jose M. Pena, III; Sarah Prehoda; James Ratzenberger; Maria Santos;
and Hector Wong made key contributions to this report. Appendix IV: GAO
Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contact Acknowledgments
(320062)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and full- text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select "Subscribe to daily e- mail alert for newly released products" under
the GAO Reports heading.
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, D. C. 20013
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061
GAO Building Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)
Washington, D. C. 20013
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm, E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov, or 1- 800- 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 (automated
answering system).
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149, Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone Visit GAO?s Document Distribution Center
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***