**Background to**

**New Entrant Safety Fitness**

**Assurance Process**

**March 2000**

**Prepared for: Prepared by:**

**Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration John A. Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center**

**Office of Data Analysis & Information Systems Economic Analysis
Division, DTS-42**

**Data Analysis Division Kendall Square**

**400 Seventh Street, S.W. Cambridge, MA 02142**

### Washington, DC 20590

**PREFACE**

This report presents the results of background research leading to the
development of a New Entrant Safety Fitness Assurance Process, a
prequalification and monitoring program for motor carriers entering
interstate service. The study was conducted by the Research and Special
Programs Administration's (RSPA) John A. Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center (the Volpe Center) in Cambridge, MA, under a project plan
agreement with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
The concept of a new entrant program originated from a larger research
project at the Volpe Center, the goal of which was to define an improved
process for motor carrier safety fitness determination and assurance for
the FMCSA. A new entrant program was identified as one of the potential
components of the proposed improved process.[^1] Since that proposal,
the Volpe Center has performed several analyses of the safety
performance and compliance of new entrants.[^2]

The New Entrant Safety Fitness Assurance Process would apply to both
carriers based in the United States and carriers based in Canada and
Mexico that operate within the U.S. While the U.S. and Canada opened
their borders to each other's motor carriers in 1982, Mexican carriers
have been permitted conduct cross-border operations only to border city
commercial zones in the four southern U.S. border states. Under
provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), however,
Mexican carriers will have unrestricted access to the U.S. and Canada.

This report contains a description of previous new entrant safety
research, a study of the applicable provisions of NAFTA, a review of the
motor carrier safety regulations and available data in each of the three
NAFTA countries, and a discussion of the need for a new entrant safety
fitness assurance process. A succeeding report will present proposals
for the prequalification and monitoring components of a new entrant
program.

At the FMCSA, the project was managed by Dale Sienicki of the Office of
Data Analysis and Information Systems, Data Analysis Division. The Volpe
Center technical project manager was Donald Wright of the Economic
Analysis Division in the Office of System and Economic Assessment. The
research was performed and the report was written by Donald Wright and
Jon Ohman of the Economic Analysis Division and Nancy Kennedy, Leon
Parkin, and Dennis Piccolo of EG&G Services.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[Section]{.underline} [Page]{.underline}

1\.
INTRODUCTION.....\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\......\...\......\...\...
1-1

2\. PREVIOUS NEW ENTRANT SAFETY
RESEARCH\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
2-1

2.1. Corsi-Fanara Study
(1988)\...........................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
2-1

2.2. Follow-Up Study
(1995)\.............................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
2-2

2.3. New Entrant Safety Research
(1998)\...................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
2-5

2.4. Analysis of New Entrant Motor Carrier Safety Performance and
Compliance

Using SafeStat
(2000).........................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
2-8

2.5.
Conclusions..............................................................................\...\.....
2-13

3\. NAFTA PROVISIONS AND THE NEED FOR A NEW ENTRANT PROCESS\...\...\...
3-1

3.1. NAFTA
Provisions\.....................................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\........\...
3-1

3.2. The Need for a New Entrant Safety Assurance
Process\.........\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\..... 3-3

4\. COMPARISON OF NAFTA PARTNERS' MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

REGULATIONS, SAFETY STANDARDS, AND ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS\.... 4-1

4.1. Existing Motor Carrier
Regulations\....................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4-1

4.1.1. United
States...........\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4-1

4.1.2.
Canada....................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4-2

4.1.3.
Mexico....................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4-4

4.2. Existing Motor Carrier Safety
Systems\...............................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4-5

4.2.1. United
States...........\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4-5

4.2.2.
Canada....................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4-8

4.2.3.
Mexico....................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4-11

4.3. Progress Towards Harmonization of NAFTA Partners' Motor Carrier

Regulations and Safety
Systems\...................\.....................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
4-12

5\. ASSESSMENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF NEW ENTRANT
DATA\...\...\...\...\...\..... 5-1

5.1. United
States\.................................\..............................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-1

5.1.1. Motor Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS)...........\...\...\.... 5-1

5.1.2. Data on U.S. Intrastate
Carriers...........\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
5-5

5.1.3. Data on Canadian and Mexican
Carriers...........\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
5-5

5.2.
Canada...\.....................................\..............................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-5

5.3.
Mexico......\..................................\..............................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-6

5.4. Future Data
Requirements\................................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-6

**LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS**

**FIGURES**

[Figure]{.underline} [Page]{.underline}

5-1 Overview of
MCMIS\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
5-2

**TABLES**

[Table]{.underline} [Page]{.underline}

2-1 Corsi-Fanara Study
(1988).........\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
2-2

2-2 Weighted Crash Rate by Age of Carrier at Review by Carrier
Classification\...\...\...\..... 2-4

2-3 Number of Violations of Acute Regulations per 1,000 Interstate
Drivers

by Age of Carrier at
Review\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
2-7

2-4 Increase in Carrier Population by Domicile of Carrier

\- September 1997 to September
1999\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
2-9

2-5 Percent of Carriers with Deficient SEA Values by SEA/Indicator

and Experience
Level\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
2-10

2-6 Percent of Carriers with Deficient Driver Inspection Indicators

by Experience Level and Domicile of
Carrier\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
2-11

2-7 Percent of Carriers with Deficient Vehicle Inspection Indicators

by Experience Level and Domicile of
Carrier\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
2-12

2-8 Amount of FMCSA Oversight by Experience Level

\- September 1997 to September
1999\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
2-12

4-1 Compliance Review
Factors.......................................................\...\...\...\...\...
4-7

4-2 Differences in Safety Oversight Programs by
Country....................\...\...\...\...\...\...\.... 4-12

**[1. INTRODUCTION]{.smallcaps}**

This report presents the results of 1) previous analyses of the safety
performance and compliance of new entrant motor carriers, and 2)
preliminary research regarding international motor carrier
transportation operations under the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). Under NAFTA, motor carriers from the United States, Canada, and
Mexico would eventually be able to transport international cargo across
borders to any point within the partner country's territory. While
Canadian and U.S. carriers have been conducting cross-border
international operations since 1982, Mexican trucks have been restricted
to the U.S. border state commercial zones, delaying the full
implementation of the NAFTA motor carrier provisions. On December 18,
1995, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation announced that Mexican trucks
would continue to be able to operate only within the southern U.S.
border states' commercial zones citing ongoing motor carrier safety and
security concerns about Mexican motor carriers. This delay is still in
effect.

In order to move forward to address these safety concerns and to enable
the eventual implementation of the full NAFTA provisions, the U.S.
Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) is examining an approach to assessing the safety
fitness of new entrant carriers under the NAFTA provisions. This
preliminary research focuses on three elements that are critical to
guide and inform an approach to designing a New Entrant Safety Fitness
Assurance Process:

1)  an examination of prior research and thinking on the need for
    oversight of new entrant motor carriers based on U.S. motor carrier
    historical data,

2)  an examination of the legislative rationale under NAFTA for
    establishing a new entrant safety fitness assessment process which
    applies to all new entrant motor carriers, both domestic U.S.
    carriers and foreign-based Mexican and Canadian carriers, and assess
    current efforts at cooperation between the NAFTA partners, and

3)  an examination the current status of motor carrier safety
    regulations, motor carrier safety systems, and available motor
    carrier safety data in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

**[2. PREVIOUS NEW ENTRANT SAFETY RESEARCH]{.smallcaps}**

Deregulation of the motor carrier industry in the U.S. combined with a
period of sustained economic growth has resulted in a sizable increase
in the number of new motor carriers entering into interstate operation
(i.e., new entrants). A number of studies have been conducted regarding
the safety of these new entrants and have raised safety concerns about
the impact of a rapid influx of new carriers. These studies include:

1\. Corsi-Fanara Study (1988)

2\. Follow-Up Study (1995)

3\. New Entrant Safety Research (1998)

4\. Analysis of New Entrant Motor Carrier Safety Performance and
Compliance Using

SafeStat (2000)

Within the context of this review, a new entrant is an operator of large
commercial vehicles initiating interstate operations or intrastate
hazardous material or passenger operations, becoming subject to the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR), and registering with
the USDOT.

A new entrant can be either:

-   a recently formed carrier initiating interstate operations (or
    intrastate hazardous material or passenger operations), or

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   a previously operating carrier initiating interstate operations (or
    intrastate hazardous material or passenger operations) for the first
    time.

**2.1. CORSI-FANARA STUDY (1988)**

The Corsi-Fanara Study[^3] used data from Office of Motor Carriers
(OMC)[^4] compliance and safety reviews of carriers regulated by the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) (which, by definition, were
authorized for-hire carriers) as a basis for examining the safety
performance of new entrants. These reviews were conducted between
September 1986 and April 1988. The carriers were divided into three
groups, based on a carrier's date of initial ICC certification:

-   Carriers certified on or after January 1, 1985 - carriers with
    approximately 3 or fewer years of experience,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Carriers certified between July 1, 1980 and December 31, 1984 -
    carriers with approximately 3 to 6 years of experience,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Carriers certified before July 1, 1980 (the date of passage of the
    Motor Carrier Act of 1980) - carriers with approximately more than 6
    years of experience.

The safety performance and regulatory compliance of each group were
analyzed to determine whether significant differences existed among the
three groups of carriers and if there was any evidence of a new entrant
safety performance and/or compliance problem. As shown in Table 2-1, in
each case, the newest entrants, (those certified on or after January 1,
1985), exhibited significantly poorer safety performance or regulatory
compliance than did the carriers that had been certified earlier (those
who had been operating longer). In other words, the newest entrants were
more likely to be involved in crashes and less likely to comply with (or
to have systems in place to comply with) the FMCSR than were the more
experienced carriers.

**Table 2-1.**

**Corsi-Fanara Study (1988)**

  --------------------------- ----------------- --------------- --------------
                              **Date of Initial                 
                              ICC                               
                              Certification**                   

                              Before July 1980  July 1980 -Dec. Jan. 1985 and
                                                1984            After

  Mean Crash Rate\*           .55               .62             .81

  Does carrier have a system  37.0              35.0            16.8
  to effectively control                                        
  hours of service? (%)                                         

  Is carrier complying with   40.7              46.8            29.3
  vehicle inspection                                            
  procedures? (%)                                               

  Does carrier have a driver  33.7              32.0            17.4
  safety training program?                                      
  (%)                                                           
  --------------------------- ----------------- --------------- --------------

\* - Reportable crashes per million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

Based on these findings, Professors Corsi and Fanara identified the
existence of what they described as a safety learning curve. New
entrants exhibited higher compliance levels and improved safety
performance (lower crash rates) as they accumulated experience with
safety management policies and procedures. The authors recommended that
special attention be given to new entrants so as to expedite the
learning process and minimize the number of crashes in the learning
period, (shorten the safety learning curve). They specifically
recommended that the ICC, at that time responsible for new entrant
certification, require as part of its certification process for new
entrants that a carrier demonstrate the existence of a comprehensive
risk management program prior to its certification.

**2.2. FOLLOW-UP STUDY (1995)**

# Overview

The Corsi-Fanara Study was intended to assess the impact of economic
deregulation on safety and was restricted to an analysis of a selected
group of ICC-regulated motor carriers. The two subsequent studies were
designed to update the Corsi-Fanara Study results using the latest and
most complete data available, and expand the coverage to include all
carriers, not just the ICC-regulated (authorized for-hire) carriers
included in the original study.

The Volpe Center, with assistance from Dr. Corsi under contract to the
Volpe Center, performed the first of these studies in 1995. There were
several differences between this study and the Corsi-Fanara Study.
First, the Corsi-Fanara Study examined the safety performance and
compliance of ICC-regulated carriers, which, by definition, were
authorized for-hire carriers. The Follow-Up Study examined data on all
classifications of carriers including authorized for-hire, exempt
for-hire, and private. Second, the Corsi-Fanara Study was based on data
collected from September 1986 through April 1988. It was felt that a
more recent time period should be examined to determine whether the
patterns observed in the mid-1980s were still present in the 1990s.
Third, the Corsi-Fanara Study used data from both compliance and safety
reviews. The Follow-Up Study used only data from compliance reviews.
Safety review data were not used in the Follow-Up Study because the data
were considered less reliable than data from compliance reviews. In
fact, by 1995, the OMC was no longer performing safety reviews.

The Follow-Up Study consisted of two parts: a compliance study using
compliance review factor and overall safety ratings, and a safety
performance study using crash rate data from compliance reviews. The
results of both parts of the study were broken out according to the age
of the carrier at the time of the review. The age of the carrier was
calculated from the date that the carrier's Form MCS-150 information was
entered into the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)
Census File. (Carriers are required to file Form MCS-150 within 90 days
of beginning interstate operations.) This date was used as the best
available approximation of the date that the carrier began interstate
operations. The only time that a discrepancy would exist would result
from a carrier's delay in filing Form MCS-150.

# Compliance Analysis

The first part of the Follow-Up Study consisted of an attempt to verify
that the relationship between compliance with the FMCSR and carrier age
found in the Corsi-Fanara Study still held. The Volpe Center analysts
and Dr. Corsi examined data from compliance reviews performed from
January 1991 to September 1994. To measure compliance with the FMCSR,
the ratings assigned to compliance review factors 2-Driver,
3-Operational, and 4-Vehicle, as well as the overall compliance review
safety rating, were analyzed. The percentages of individual factor
ratings and overall ratings that were "satisfactory" were calculated.
The percentages were calculated for each classification of carrier and
for the total motor carrier population. The data were broken down by the
age of carrier at the time of the review.

The results showed no relationship between the percentage of ratings
that was satisfactory and the age of the carrier. This finding held true
for all carrier classifications and all review factors. Therefore, the
relationship between compliance with the FMCSR and carrier age found in
the Corsi-Fanara Study could not be replicated.

*Crash Rate Analysis*

The second part of the Follow-Up Study consisted of an attempt to verify
that the crash rate relationship found in the Corsi-Fanara Study still
held. That is, did new entrants still have higher crash rates than more
experienced carriers, and did crash rates still decrease as carriers
became more experienced? This study relied on data from compliance
reviews conducted by the OMC between January 1, 1991 and March 31, 1995.

The data were broken out into 11 groups, based on the age of the carrier
at the time of the review:

X = Age of carrier at time of review

0 \< X \< 1 Less than or equal to 1 year

1 \< X \< 2 Greater than 1 year and less than or equal to 2 years

...

9 \< X \< 10 Greater than 9 years and less than or equal to 10 years

10 \< X Greater than 10 years

Weighted crash rates (recordable/preventable crashes per 1 million VMT
weighted by VMT) were calculated for each age group. This calculation is
equivalent to calculating the aggregate crash rate in each group, i.e.,
dividing the total crashes in the group by the total VMT in the group
and multiplying by 1 million.

After rates were calculated for each of the eleven groups, adjacent
groups with comparable rates were combined. The results are shown in the
first column of Table 2-2. The results substantiate the findings from
the Corsi-Fanara Study that new entrants have higher crash rates on
average than established carriers, and that crash rates decrease as
carrier experience increases. In other words, the results indicate the
presence of a safety learning curve.

**Table 2-2.**

> **Weighted Crash Rate by Age of Carrier at Review by Carrier
> Classification**

  ------------------- ------------ --------------- ------------ -------------
  **Age of Carrier at **All        **Authorized    **Exempt     **Private**
  Review**            Carriers**   For-Hire**      For-Hire**   

  0 \< X              .505         .556            .449         .396
  [\<]{.underline} 1                                            
  Year                                                          

  1 \< X              .469         .467            .497         .468
  [\<]{.underline} 6                                            
  Years                                                         

  6 \< X              .438         .439            .614         .404
  [\<]{.underline} 10                                           
  Years                                                         

  10 Years \< X       .411         .425            .412         .339
  ------------------- ------------ --------------- ------------ -------------

Crash rates were also calculated for each carrier classification, i.e.,
authorized for-hire, exempt for-hire, and private. These results are
also shown in Table 1-2. The learning curve pattern is present in the
authorized for-hire results, but not in the results for exempt for-hire
and private carriers. While the most experienced exempt for-hire and
private carriers (more than 10 years of experience) have the lowest
crash rates, the least experienced carriers (1 year or less of
experience) do not have the highest crash rates.

This discrepancy may be the result of the potential bias stemming from
the use of the date that a carrier's Form MCS-150 information is entered
into the MCMIS as the date that the carrier initiated interstate
operations. If, as theorized, authorized for-hire carriers have a
greater awareness of USDOT regulations than do exempt for-hire or
private carriers, then they will be more likely than the other types of
carriers to file Form MCS-150 on time. If, on average, exempt for-hire
and private carriers are less prompt in filing Form MCS-150, then some
experienced carriers will be classified as new entrants (less than one
year of experience), when, in reality, they have been operating more
than a year.

In planning the 1998 study, New Entrant Safety Research, two errors in
the methodology of the Follow-Up Study crash rate analysis were
discovered. First, the crash rates were calculated using
preventable/recordable crashes instead of using recordable crashes,
which would have been comparable to the Corsi-Fanara Study use of
reportable crashes. Second, in March 1993, in the middle of the time
period of crash data used in the study, the USDOT definition of a crash
changed. Thus, the crash data used in the study are based on two
different definitions of a crash. These errors call into question any
comparison of the results of the Follow-Up Study crash rate analysis
with the results of the Corsi-Fanara Study crash rate analysis.

**2.3. NEW ENTRANT SAFETY RESEARCH (1998)**

*Overview*

The Volpe Center with assistance from Dr. Corsi, under contract to the
Volpe Center, performed a second study[^5] to update and expand the
Corsi-Fanara Study results. This research used the latest and most
complete data available, and expanded the coverage to include all motor
carriers, not just the ICC-regulated (authorized for-hire) carriers
included in the Corsi-Fanara Study. Two analyses were conducted to
confirm the existence of a safety performance (i.e., crash rate)
learning curve, while one study was performed to confirm the existence
of a safety regulation compliance learning curve.

In all three analyses, the age of the carrier was calculated from the
date that the carrier's registration Form MCS-150 information was
entered into the MCMIS Census File. A supplementary study was performed
that examined the validity of that date as the true start date of
operations. Finally, there was also a survey of new entrant education
programs being conducted by the states.

*Crash Rate Analyses*

Two studies were performed to confirm the existence of a safety
performance (i.e., crash rate) learning curve: the Compliance Review
Crash Rate Analysis and the State-Reported NGA Crash Rate Analysis. Each
study used data on recorded crashes, as opposed to the recordable/
preventable crash data used in the Follow-Up Study, so that the results
could be compared to the results of the original Corsi-Fanara Study.

The Compliance Review Crash Rate Analysis used data from compliance
reviews that were conducted between April 1993 (when the USDOT
definition of a crash changed) and June 1997 (the latest data available
at the time the study was conducted). The data were broken out according
to the age of the carrier at the time of the review^.^ Weighted mean, or
overall, crash rates (recordable crashes per million vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) weighted by VMT) were calculated for each age group.

The State-Reported NGA Crash Rate Analysis used calendar year 1996 NGA
crash data from the MCMIS Crash File and power unit data from the MCMIS
Census File to calculate crash rates by age of carrier. The analysis
included only carriers with non-zero power unit values that had received
compliance or safety reviews since April 1, 1993, so that power unit
information that was more current than the original Form MCS-150
information would be available. The data were broken out according to
the age of the carrier at the time of the review^.^ Weighted mean, or
overall, crash rates (NGA crashes per power unit weighted by power
units) were calculated for all age groups.

Each analysis was first performed using data for all carriers. The
analyses were then repeated using data only for authorized for-hire
carriers, as in the Corsi-Fanara Study, to determine if the learning
curve effect holds only for that carrier classification. Although the
most experienced carriers usually had the lowest overall crash rate, the
results of the analyses do not indicate the presence of a safety
learning curve. The declines in crash rates from the least experienced
carriers to the most experienced carriers exhibited patterns of
variability, rather than the steady progressions that are characteristic
of learning curves.

*Compliance Analysis Using Acute/Critical Regulation Violations*

To examine the existence of a safety regulation compliance learning
curve, a study was performed using data on violations of acute and
critical regulations from compliance reviews. The study used data from
compliance reviews that were conducted between October 1994 (when
acute/critical regulations were first used to evaluate the five
regulatory factors in a compliance review) and June 1997 (the latest
data available at the time this study was conducted).

The data were broken out according to the age of the carrier at the time
of the review. The data were also broken out by SafeStat[^6] Safety
Evaluation Area (SEA), either Driver or Safety Management. SafeStat is
an analytical process or tool developed at the Volpe Center for the
FMCSA that evaluates the safety status of motor carriers in four SEAs:
Accident, Driver, Vehicle, and Safety Management. In this analysis, the
acute and critical regulations were classified by SEA.

For each SEA/age group combination, the average number of violations of
acute regulations per thousand interstate drivers and the average number
of patterns of violations of critical regulations per thousand
interstate drivers were calculated. These averages were weighted by the
number of interstate drivers. These calculations are equivalent to
dividing the total number of violations or patterns by the total number
of interstate drivers and multiplying by 1,000.

The results indicate a substantial age-related pattern of compliance,
i.e., the numbers of violations of acute regulations and patterns of
violations of critical regulations in both SEAs were substantially
higher for new entrants than for more experienced carriers. Furthermore,
the rates declined in steady progression across age groups, showing
clear evidence of a safety regulation compliance learning curve. Table
2-3 shows the average number of violations of acute regulations in the
Driver and Safety Management SEAs. The time frames for each SEA are
different, because, in each case, adjacent age groups with comparable
rates have been combined.

**Table 2-3.**

**Number of Violations of Acute Regulations per 1,000 Interstate
Drivers**

**by Age of Carrier at Review**

+-------------------+--------------+-------------------+--------------+
| ## Driver SEA     |              | **Safety          |              |
|                   |              | Management SEA**  |              |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------------+--------------+
| **Age of Carrier  | **Avg. No.   | **Age of Carrier  | **Avg. No.   |
| at Review**       | of           | at Review**       | of           |
|                   | Violations** |                   | Violations** |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------------+--------------+
| 0 \< X            | 9.8          | 0 \< X            | 128.8        |
| [\<]{.underline}  |              | [\<]{.underline}  |              |
| 2 Years           |              | 1 Year            |              |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------------+--------------+
| 2 \< X            | 7.3          | 1 \< X            | 33.4         |
| [\<]{.underline}  |              | [\<]{.underline}  |              |
| 5 Years           |              | 3 Years           |              |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------------+--------------+
| 5 \< X            | 5.0          | 3 \< X            | 25.8         |
| [\<]{.underline}  |              | [\<]{.underline}  |              |
| 7 Years           |              | 6 Years           |              |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------------+--------------+
| 7 \< X            | 3.2          | 6 \< X            | 11.0         |
| [\<]{.underline}  |              | [\<]{.underline}  |              |
| 10 Years          |              | 8 Years           |              |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------------+--------------+
| 10 Years \< X     | 2.1          | 8 Years \< X      | 3.3          |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------------+--------------+

*Start Date Study*

A supplementary study was performed that addressed the issue of the
accuracy of the determination of carrier age used in the above studies
as well as in the Follow-Up Study. An underlying assumption of these
studies, necessarily, was that the date a carrier's information is
entered into the MCMIS Census File as a result of its filing Form
MCS-150 is equivalent to its date of entry into interstate operations.
This necessary assumption resulted from the absence of alternative data
on which to base an age calculation. There was a concern, however, that
there was a difference between the date a carrier entered interstate
service and the date it was added to the MCMIS Census File. As a result,
using the date of entering the MCMIS Census File as the date of entry
into interstate operations may have classified some carriers as new
entrants that, in fact, were not new entrants, but experienced carriers
that had only recently been added to the MCMIS Census File. These
carriers may have been operating intrastate or been unaware of the USDOT
interstate registration requirement.

Furthermore, there was a concern that this alleged discrepancy varied by
industry segment, it was thought that the discrepancy was greater for
private and exempt for-hire operators than it was for authorized
for-hire carriers. Therefore, it was theorized that experienced private
and exempt for-hire carriers were more likely to have been misclassified
as new entrants in the studies than were experienced authorized for-hire
carriers.

To investigate these issues, the Volpe Center conducted a sample survey
of new entrants (i.e., carriers whose submitted USDOT registration forms
(Form MCS-150) were entered unto the MCMIS Census File between May and
August 1996) in the Census File. Each respondent was asked to verify
information from its submitted Form MCS-150 and indicate when it
began 1) any motor carrier service and 2) interstate service.

The results of the study indicate that private carriers[^7] were
significantly more likely to delay registering with the USDOT after
initiating any or interstate service than were authorized for-hire or
exempt for-hire carriers. In addition, the mean time differences between
the initiation of any and interstate service and the addition to the
MCMIS Census File for private carriers were much greater than the
comparable time differences for authorized for-hire carriers or exempt
for-hire carriers.

Another finding of the Start Date Study is that some respondents did not
understand the meanings of terms used by the OMC[^8] such as, motor
carrier, power unit, interstate/intrastate, and hazmat (i.e., hazardous
materials). Many carriers were confused by the operation
classifications, i.e., authorized for-hire, exempt, for-hire, private,
etc. Many carriers answered the classification questions on their survey
questionnaires differently than on their registration forms.

Many of the carriers that did not understand these terms were private
carriers. In fact, many of the private carriers contacted for the study
said that, while they recognized that they operated large commercial
vehicles, they did not consider themselves to be motor carriers, but
rather they identified themselves by their primary businesses (e.g.,
contractors, manufacturers, retailers, etc.) instead.

*Assessment of State Education Programs*

As part of this investigation, the OMC regional offices[^9] were asked
to provide information about any state new entrant education programs in
their regions. The objectives were to both learn from those experiences
and develop a federal program that is complementary and not duplicative.
Although the information resulting from this effort was limited, some
summary findings were:

1)  Only a few states have specific safety education programs for new
    entrants, ranging from mandatory seminars to educational material
    being mailed to new entrants.

2)  Many other states conduct educational seminars which are open to,
    but not limited to, new entrants. These seminars may include
    non-safety-related information such as licensing regulations and
    requirements of state and federal agencies.

3)  Many states will provide assistance regarding safety regulations and
    requirements to individual carriers (including, but not exclusively
    for, new entrants) upon request.

**2.4. ANALYSIS OF NEW ENTRANT MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PERFORMANCE AND
COMPLIANCE USING SAFESTAT (2000)**

######## Overview

The Volpe Center performed a special study[^10] to 1) update, confirm,
and expand upon the previous studies of new entrant safety compliance
and performance, and 2) help provide a basis for formulating the details
of a new entrant process.

Because of increased trade with Mexico and Canada, occasioned in part by
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), increasing numbers of
motor carriers domiciled in those countries are newly registering with
the FMCSA. Since these motor carriers are usually experienced carriers,
but subject to different safety regulations and different levels of
safety education, enforcement, and oversight in their own countries,
they are broken out for study separately from U.S. new entrants. Thus,
the analysis included the comparative study of four groups: 1) U.S.
experienced carriers, 2) U.S. new entrants, 3) Mexican carriers, and 4)
Canadian carriers. In addition to confirming the need for a new entrant
program, this study helped to identify the possible need for special
emphasis among the component groups of new entrants.

In performing this study, the Volpe Center took advantage of a
relatively new analytical process or tool developed at the Center for
the FMCSA that evaluates the safety status of both individual and groups
of motor carriers. Called SafeStat, it uses data from a variety of state
and federal sources to measure the relative safety performance and
compliance of individual motor carriers in four Safety Evaluation Areas
(SEAs): Accident, Driver, Vehicle, and Safety Management. SafeStat is
currently used by the FMCSA to identify and prioritize motor carriers
for on-site compliance reviews (CRs) and roadside inspections. In
addition to measuring the safety compliance and performance of
individual carriers, SafeStat can also be used to assess the relative
safety status of defined groups of carriers (such as new entrants) and
provide for comparisons with other defined groups (such as experienced
carriers). Furthermore, using SafeStat and FMCSA Census File data, group
analysis and comparisons by domicile (state or country) of the carrier
are also possible.

In this study, a new entrant was defined as any carrier registered for
less than two years, while an experienced carrier was defined as any
carrier registered for two or more years.

######## Sizes and Changes in Carrier Populations

Table 2-4 shows the number of active carriers in the MCMIS Census File
by domicile of carrier in September 1997 and September 1999. During this
two-year period, while 93 percent of new entrants were U.S.- based
carriers, the number of foreign carriers (and, in particular, the number
of Mexican carriers) increased at a much faster rate than the number of
U.S.-based carriers.

**Table 2-4.**

**Increase in Carrier Population by Domicile of Carrier**

**-- September 1997 to September 1999**

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| **Domicile  | **Number    | **Number    | *           | **%         |
| of**        | of**        | of**        | *Increase** | Increase**  |
|             |             |             |             |             |
| **Carrier** | **Active    | **Active    | **from**    | **from**    |
|             | Carriers    | Carriers    |             |             |
|             | -**         | -**         | **1997 to   | **1997 to   |
|             |             |             | 1999**      | 1999**      |
|             | ###### Sep  | **September |             |             |
|             | tember 1997 | 1999**      |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| United      | 401,147     | 485,927     | 84,780      | 21.1        |
| States      |             |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Canada      | 11,786      | 14,969      | 3,183       | 27.2        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Mexico      | 4,999       | 7,742       | 2,743       | 54.9        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Total       | 417,932     | 508,638     | 90,706      | 21.7        |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

######## Analysis of SafeStat Results

An analysis of the September 1999 SafeStat results was made to compare
new entrants and experienced carriers, and, where possible, Canadian and
Mexican carriers. Since complete crash data and exposure measures are
not available for Canadian and Mexican carriers, their Accident SEA
values are not reliable and, therefore, were not broken out separately
in this study. Similarly, the lack of reliable data precluded the
separate analysis of Canadian and Mexican carriers in the Safety
Management SEA. The data on which the Safety Management SEA is based
come from compliance reviews and resulting enforcement actions. Few
Canadian and no Mexican carriers receive these on-site safety
investigations. Comparisons were generally possible for the Driver and
Vehicle SEAs, which are based on roadside inspection and traffic
enforcement data and indicators.

SEA values are expressed in percentile terms, where 100 is the highest
or worst value and 0 is the lowest or best. SafeStat specifically
identifies as deficient any value at or above 75 (i.e., performance is
in the worst 25^th^ percentile). Table 2-5 shows the proportions of new
entrant and experienced carriers scoring at or above the 75^th^
percentile (i.e., deficient) in the Accident, Driver, and Vehicle SEAs,
and in the Safety Management Review Indicator (SMRI).

**Table 2-5.**

**Percent of Carriers with Deficient SEA Values**

**by SEA/Indicator and Experience Level**

+----------------------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| **SEA/Indicator**    | **New Entrants**    | **Experienced           |
|                      |                     | Carriers**              |
+----------------------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| Accident SEA         | 47.7                | 23.7                    |
+----------------------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| Driver SEA           | 55.2                | 26.1                    |
+----------------------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| Vehicle SEA          | 34.1                | 27.1                    |
+----------------------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| Safety Management    | 41.4                | 23.8                    |
|                      |                     |                         |
| Review Indicator     |                     |                         |
+----------------------+---------------------+-------------------------+

The results indicate that new entrant carriers had significantly higher
crash involvement than experienced carriers, according to SafeStat.
These results are particularly significant, since earlier studies failed
to show poorer crash performance by new entrants, due to data
limitations and the lack of an appropriate tool, such as SafeStat.

The results indicate that new entrant carriers had significantly worse
driver safety compliance and performance compared to experienced
carriers, according to SafeStat. The results also indicate that new
entrant carriers had somewhat worse vehicle safety compliance and
performance compared to experienced carriers, according to SafeStat.
These results are consistent with findings from previous studies, which
showed new entrants to have lower levels of compliance than experienced
carriers.

The Safety Management SEA consists of three indicators: the Safety
Management Review Indicator (SMRI), the Hazardous Material Review
Indicator (HMRI), and the Enforcement History Indicator (EHI). Since the
EHI requires a history of enforcement cases that only experienced
carriers would have, and the HMRI is not applicable to most carriers,
the only meaningful way to compare new entrants and experienced carriers
in the Safety Management SEA is to use the remaining indicator, the
SMRI. The SMRI is based on violations of acute and critical regulations
found in the most recent compliance review that are related to safety
management programs and practices.

The results of the SMRI comparison indicate that new entrant carriers
had significantly worse safety management compliance compared to
experienced carriers, according to SafeStat. These results are
consistent with findings from previous studies, which showed new
entrants to have lower levels of compliance with the FMCSR and HMR than
experienced carriers.

In addition to the overall comparison of new entrants to experienced
carriers, it is possible to break out data for U.S., Canadian, and
Mexican carriers for the Driver Inspection Indicator (DII) (in the
Driver SEA) and the Vehicle Inspection Indicator (VII) (in the Vehicle
SEA). This is because, for each of these indicators, both the
out-of-service violation data and the normalizing data (number of
inspections) from roadside inspections are complete and comparable. Data
from the other indicators that contribute to the Driver and Vehicle
SEAs, which come from compliance reviews and moving violations, are only
valid for U.S. carriers whose operations are mainly in the U.S. and that
receive compliance reviews.

Table 2-6 shows the results of the DII comparisons for new entrants and
experienced carriers by domicile of carrier. As in the overall Driver
SEA, new entrants had significantly worse performance in the DII. While
comparisons of the DII among U.S., Canadian, and Mexican new entrants
confirm their poor performance as compared to experienced carriers, they
do not reveal great differences among them.

**Table 2-6.**

**Percent of Carriers with Deficient Driver Inspection Indicators**

**by Experience Level and Domicile of Carrier**

  ---------------------- --------------------- --------------------------
  **Domicile of          **New Entrants**      **Experienced Carriers**
  Carrier**                                    

  United States          52.6                  24.3

  Canada                 50.3                  35.0

  Mexico                 40.8                  29.7

  Total                  51.8                  24.7
  ---------------------- --------------------- --------------------------

Table 2-7 shows the results of the VII comparisons for new entrants and
experienced carriers by domicile of carrier. As in the overall Vehicle
SEA, new entrants had somewhat worse performance in the VII.
Interestingly, comparisons of the VII for U.S., Canadian, and Mexican
new entrants show their relative performance to be comparable to
experienced carriers of the same domicile. There are significant
differences among the three domiciles, however, with the Canadian
carriers having exceptionally low VIIs, the U.S. carriers having VIIs
closer to expected levels, and the Mexican carriers having VIIs much
higher than expected.

**Table 2-7.**

**Percent of Carriers with Deficient Vehicle Inspection Indicators**

**by Experience Level and Domicile of Carrier**

  ---------------------- --------------------- --------------------------
  **Domicile of          **New Entrants**      **Experienced Carriers**
  Carrier**                                    

  United States          32.8                  27.0

  Canada                 8.6                   7.0

  Mexico                 58.7                  58.9

  Total                  34.0                  27.1
  ---------------------- --------------------- --------------------------

######## Analysis of Exposure to FMCSA Oversight

Comparisons were made of the level of safety oversight of experienced
carriers and new entrant carriers by the FMCSA. Where meaningful,
breakouts of the component groups (U.S., Canadian, and Mexican carriers)
were also made. Specifically, comparisons were made for compliance
reviews, driver roadside inspections, and vehicle roadside inspections.
Table 2-8 shows the total amount of FMCSA oversight for new entrants and
experienced carriers during the study period, September 1997 to
September 1999.

**Table 2-8.**

## Amount of FMCSA Oversight by Experience Level

## - September 1997 to September 1999

+-------------------------+-------------+------------------+---------+
| #### Type of Oversight  | **Performed |                  | **      |
|                         | on :**      |                  | Total** |
+-------------------------+-------------+------------------+---------+
|                         | ###### N    | **Experienced    |         |
|                         | ew Entrants | Carriers**       |         |
+-------------------------+-------------+------------------+---------+
| Compliance Reviews      | 1,072       | 13,538           | 14,610  |
+-------------------------+-------------+------------------+---------+
| Driver Roadside         | 364,191     | 2,811,318        | 3,      |
| Inspections             |             |                  | 175,509 |
+-------------------------+-------------+------------------+---------+
| Vehicle Roadside        | 287,352     | 2,166,100        | 2,      |
| Inspections             |             |                  | 453,632 |
+-------------------------+-------------+------------------+---------+

Of the 14,610 compliance reviews performed in the two-year period prior
to the last SafeStat run (September 1997 to September 1999), 13,538, or
92.6%, were on experienced carriers, while 1,072 reviews were performed
on new entrant carriers. Since very few Canadian carriers and no Mexican
carriers receive FMCSA reviews, almost all of the compliance reviews
were on U.S. carriers. Of the 84,780 U.S. carriers that newly registered
in the two-year study time period, 1,072, or 1.3%, received compliance
reviews. The number of experienced U.S. carriers at the end of the
two-year study period was about 401,000, of which 13,538, or 3.4%,
received compliance reviews. Thus, the percentage of experienced
carriers receiving reviews was over two and one-half times the
percentage of new entrants receiving reviews during that period. The
lower percentage of new entrants receiving reviews is not surprising,
since SafeStat is now being used to identify and prioritize carriers for
reviews based on safety performance and compliance data over a time
frame of up to 30 months. Recent registrants are less likely to have
accumulated sufficient data to be scored by SafeStat.

Carriers are prioritized by SafeStat for compliance reviews based on
their SafeStat scores/categories. Although some foreign carriers are
being scored by SafeStat, most do not receive compliance reviews. This
is particularly the case with Mexican carriers. Although 307 Mexican
carriers were scored by SafeStat (i.e., deficient in two or more SEAs),
none received reviews. Another 933 Mexican carriers were deficient in
one SEA. Also, the percentage of Mexican carriers receiving SafeStat
scores (4.0%) was more than three times the percentage of U.S. carriers
receiving SafeStat scores (1.2%).

Over 88 percent of the nearly 3.2 million driver roadside inspections
and the over 2.4 million vehicle roadside inspections performed during
the study period were performed on experienced carriers. Since 90,706
carriers registered in the two-year study time period out of a total
census population of 508,638 at the end of the period, then almost 18%
of the population could be considered "new entrants." Therefore, over
88% of both the driver and vehicle inspections were performed on
experienced carriers, which represented about 82% of the carrier
population. Conversely, the 18% of the carrier population that was new
entrants received less than 12% of both the total driver inspections and
total vehicle inspections.

The lower percentages of driver and vehicle inspections performed on new
entrants are not surprising for two reasons. The first is the smaller
fleet sizes that are typical of new entrants. The second is the
increasing use of the SafeStat-based Inspection Selection System (ISS),
which is being used by the states to identify and prioritize carriers
for roadside inspections. Since SafeStat is based on safety performance
and compliance data over a time frame of up to 30 months, recent
registrants are unlikely to have accumulated sufficient data to be
scored by SafeStat and targeted by the ISS.

**2.5. CONCLUSIONS**

The findings from the new entrant safety research indicate the existence
of safety performance and compliance learning curves. These findings
support increased safety education and oversight for new entrant motor
carriers. Through experience, carriers appear to "learn" about
regulatory compliance as well as lower their crash rates. Therefore,
there is reason to believe that effective education and training
programs at the time of interstate service initiation can shorten the
compliance and performance learning curves, and, thus, increase the
speed at which new carriers come into compliance with the FMCSR and
lower their crash rates. The program could also collect necessary
information on new carriers and monitor their safety performance and
compliance more intensely than under current FMCSA procedures. This
additional surveillance would provide additional insight into the safety
status of new entrants, because of the increased amount of safety data
obtained.

Modifications to FMCSA registration forms might also be considered to
enhance the FMCSA's ability to identify when carriers began operations
and when they initiated interstate operations. A process for updating
information on such items as drivers or power units gathered on
registration forms might also be considered. Currently, the information
is only updated if and when the carrier undergoes a compliance review.
Due to the volatile nature of the industry and the infrequent updating
of basic carrier information, much of the information in the Census File
for many carriers may not be accurate.

**3. NAFTA PROVISIONS AND THE NEED FOR A NEW ENTRANT PROCESS**

For many years prior to NAFTA, Mexican motor carriers have been
permitted to operate limited cross-border motor carrier service to the
border city commercial zones in the four southern U.S. border states.
Commercial zones are areas usually from 3 to 20 miles from the U.S.
border town's northern limits depending on the town's populations. In
contrast, the U.S. and Canada opened their borders to cross-border
trucking by each other's motor carriers in 1982, ten years prior to
NAFTA's approval. Over the years, the two countries have been working
together to develop uniform inspection procedures and safety standards
for trucks and drivers. As a result of these efforts, Canadian trucks
had unrestricted access throughout the U.S. prior to NAFTA.

**3.1. NAFTA PROVISIONS**

NAFTA is a rules-based international trading agreement signed in
December of 1992 between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico that came into
effect in January of 1994. NAFTA set forth a timetable allowing for
cross-border motor carrier operations, investment in trucking, and
passenger bus service. The schedule, referred to as the access
liberalization schedule in NAFTA, set forth a number of different dates
relevant to motor carrier operations as follows:

*[December 18, 1995]{.underline}:*

-   Mexican trucking companies engaged in the transportation of property
    were to be permitted to file applications with the USDOT for
    cross-border operations into the four U.S. border states
    (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas). U.S. and Canadian
    carriers would be permitted to provide cross-border services to or
    from six Mexican border states (Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua,
    Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipus). These provisions would apply
    to private carriers as well as for-hire carriers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Permit Mexican investors/carriers to establish 100% Mexican owned or
    controlled subsidiaries in the U.S. to transport international cargo
    between points in the U.S. The entity can not provide domestic U.S.
    service unless Mexican ownership is less than 50% of both legal and
    actual control.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   U.S. and Canadian investors/carriers were to be allowed to own up to
    49% of Mexican entities that transport only international cargo
    between points in Mexico.

*[January 1, 2000]{.underline}:*

-   Full access scheduled for motor carriers from the U.S., Mexico, or
    Canada to conduct cross-border operations from any point in their
    own country to any point in another of the partner countries.

*[January 1, 2001]{.underline}:*

-   U.S. and Canadian investors/carriers will be allowed to own up to
    51% of Mexican entities that transport only international cargo
    between points in Mexico.

*[January 1, 2004]{.underline}:*

-   U.S. and Canadian investors/carriers will be allowed to own up to
    100% of Mexican entities that transport only international cargo
    between points in Mexico.

Provisions of Chapter 12 of NAFTA regarding Cross-Border Trade in
Services and related appendixes provide the basis for opening the
borders to truck operations of all three NAFTA countries. One of the
most relevant stipulations of Chapter 12 is contained in Article 1202,
which requires each NAFTA partner to "accord to service providers of
another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like
circumstances, to its own service providers." For the U.S., this
requires them to provide equitable treatment of all motor carriers
operating on an interstate basis and subject to FMCSR, regardless of
country of domicile (including U.S.). In other words, under NAFTA, the
USDOT would be required to eventually treat Mexican, Canadian, and U.S.
carriers the same. NAFTA gives each country the right to enforce its own
standards on foreign motor carriers. Therefore, each country's carriers
would be subject to U.S. motor carrier laws and regulations.

In order to move toward that goal, Articles 913 and 914 of the NAFTA
established the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee (LTSS) and
the Transportation Consultative Group (TCG) to work toward compatible
truck safety and operating standards among the NAFTA countries.
Representatives from each of the three NAFTA countries, the USDOT, the
Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (SCT) in Mexico, and
Transport Canada, sit on the five working groups created under both the
LTSS and the TCG, which include:

[LTSS Working Groups]{.underline} [TCG Working Groups]{.underline}

Compliance and Driver and Vehicle Standards Border Operations

Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Border Facilitation

Traffic Control Devices on Highways Automated Data Exchange

Rail Standards Science and Technology

Hazardous Materials Standards Maritime and Ports Policy

These groups have been meeting on a biannual basis to discuss progress
in all areas under discussion since 1994 and have made some significant
progress in reaching agreements on standards regarding vehicle and
driver standards, which are discussed in Section 4.3.

Despite early progress toward standardization of safety and regulatory
regimes through the LTSS, on December 18, 1995, the first major date on
the access liberalization schedule for trucking, the U.S. Secretary of
Transportation announced that Mexican trucks would continue to have
access only to commercial zones until U.S. safety and security concerns
were addressed. When the Secretary of the USDOT unilaterally suspended
that provisions for border state operations that were to have taken
effect, Mexico reciprocated and restricted Canadian and U.S. trucks to
the commercial zones in Mexico. To date, the delays in implementing the
trucking operations and investment provisions of NAFTA are still in
place.

**3.2. THE NEED FOR A NEW ENTRANT SAFETY ASSURANCE PROCESS**

On February 23, 1999, the USDOTs Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs appeared before the House Transportation
subcommittee regarding ongoing negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico
to open the border states to cross-border trucking. In his comments, the
Assistant Secretary indicated that if work proceeds as planned, the
USDOT might be able to move toward processing applications for operating
authority from Mexican carriers (in the four southern U.S. border
states) by the end of 1999. Testimony provided by officials from the
General Accounting Office (GAO) and the AFL-CIO provided an opposite
viewpoint, namely that the U.S. was not prepared, nor did it have a
plan, for opening the border states to Mexican carriers.

However, pressure continues on the USDOT to work towards eventual
implementation of the cross-border trucking provisions of NAFTA on the
border with Mexico. While the American Trucking Associations (ATA) are
lobbying to have the moratorium on full implementation lifted, the
Mexican government has recently sought resolution under Chapter 20 of
NAFTA, which provides for a dispute resolution process. Furthermore,
Section 4028 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA
21), Determination of Safety Fitness of Foreign Carriers, requires the
USDOT to review the qualifications of foreign motor carriers who applied
to operate as a motor carrier in the United States, but whose
application has not been processed due to the moratorium on granting
authority to foreign carriers. TEA 21 also requires USDOT to review a
carrier\'s likely ability to comply with the applicable laws and
regulations of the U.S. However, that review shall not constitute a
finding that the carrier is willing and able to comply with
requirements.

Clearly, the cross-border trucking provisions of NAFTA will eventually
need to be put in place. In addition, while the current moratorium has
not been focused on the safety of Canadian carriers entering the U.S.,
any system which tracks the safety of Mexican carriers will have to
apply equally to Canadian and domestic U.S. carriers, as called for in
Article 1212 of NAFTA. Canadian trucks are already routinely inspected
by the states, as are U.S. commercial trucks as the trucks travel U.S.
roads. In calendar year 1997, 5.8 million commercial trucks entered the
U.S. from Canada.[^11] Even with the moratorium in place, in calendar
year 1997, despite the delay in implementing the U.S. and Mexican
cross-border trucking provisions of NAFTA, 3.5 million commercial trucks
entered the U.S. from Mexico.[^12]

Canada and the U.S. continue to move forward, despite the delay with
Mexico, to streamline trucking operations between the two countries.
After several years of discussion, Canadian and U.S. government and
industry representatives liberalized customs rules governing equipment
cabotage, or point-to-point movements in a foreign country, giving
trucking companies freedom to use equipment more efficiently and to
reduce the number of "empty miles" driven. Under the new rules, as long
as the cargo is international, the equipment will also be considered
international and free from cabotage restrictions. Cabotage restrictions
on equipment moving without payload will also be ended. In addition, the
US is considering liberalizing its rules on \"incidental\" movements,
the pickup and delivery of domestic cargo during an international
movement, to bring them into line with Canada\'s rules. Canada currently
permits domestic pickup and drop-off, provided that the domestic
shipment is secondary to the international shipment, and that the route
taken for the domestic load does not deviate substantially from the
route for the international cargo. The required legislative changes are
being introduced in both U.S. and Canada.

**4. COMPARISON OF NAFTA PARTNERS' MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS,
SAFETY STANDARDS, AND ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS**

The first step in designing any safety fitness assurance process is to
understand the existing laws, regulations, safety standards, and
enforcement programs currently in place in the three NAFTA countries.
This understanding will make it possible to assess the feasibility and
timetable that will be required to implement a new process based on an
understanding of the current regulatory and operating environment for
motor carriers and the availability of safety information in each
country.

As cited previously, NAFTA established the LTSS to work toward
compatible truck safety and operating standards among the NAFTA
countries. The USDOT said the United States' overriding objective for
the LTSS was to have a technical evaluation of the different regulations
and to encourage the adoption of regulations that yield the highest
safety standards. The LTSS has made progress in working towards
compatibility on standards relating to driver's age, standard inspection
criteria, traffic control devices and road signs, and certain procedures
for transporting hazardous materials. However, work by the LTSS on many
critical trucking regulations is not yet complete and some regulations
may never be made compatible. In the areas in which the LTSS cannot
achieve compatibility, foreign truckers will have to comply with the
host country's requirements.

The following sections examine existing motor carrier oversight and
regulation, safety systems, and progress towards eliminating outstanding
differences among the three NAFTA partners.

**4.1. EXISTING MOTOR CARRIER REGULATIONS**

This section provides a brief overview of the regulatory agencies and
existing laws and regulations that apply to motor carriers in each NAFTA
country.

**4.1.1. United States**

In 1995, the responsibility for licensing and registering motor carriers
was transferred to the USDOT under the Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act. Within the USDOT, responsibility for this program is
under the direction of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA), which is responsible for promoting safe commercial motor
vehicle operations to reduce crashes. The FMCSA develops, communicates,
and enforces performance-based regulations for motor carriers, drivers,
and vehicles to protect the traveling public on U.S. highways.

The FMCSA is responsible for the issuance, administration, and
enforcement of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR),
which are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Parts 301, 325, 350-399, and the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR),
which are contained in Title 49 of the CFR Parts 100-180 and Part 40 as
it pertains to the drug and alcohol resting requirements. The FMCSA
administers its programs through the headquarters office in Washington,
D.C. and through its field offices in each of the 50 states. FMCSA field
office personnel work closely with local state regulatory and law
enforcement agencies to administer and fund motor carrier safety
programs in the states and to gather data on the motor carriers
operating in and/or located in those states.

Motor carriers are responsible for compliance with these regulations.
The FMCSA has put in place safety programs to oversee these carriers as
described in Section 4.2.1. The FMCSR defines a commercial motor vehicle
to be a vehicle that meets any of the conditions listed below and is
applied to carriers conducting *interstate commerce*:

-   a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination
    weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   a vehicle designed to transport more than 15 passengers, including
    the driver

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   a vehicle transporting hazardous materials in a quantity requiring
    placarding

*Interstate commerce* means across state lines, including international
boundaries, or wholly within one state as part of a through movement
that originates or terminates in another state or country. Hazardous
materials transporters are subject to the FMCSR and HMR, regardless of
whether they operate on an interstate or intrastate basis.

**4.1.2. Canada**

In Canada, oversight and regulation of motor carriers is the
responsibility of Transport Canada, a ministry within the Canadian
federal government. Transport Canada's role, similar to that of the
USDOT, is to develop and administer policies, regulations, and services
to ensure the best and safest transportation system possible for Canada.
Transport Canada consists of groups working at headquarters in Ottawa
and in five regions. With regard to motor carrier safety, the
responsibility of each group is as follows:

-   The *Policy Group* is responsible for setting policies relating to
    trade, motor carrier transportation, departmental strategic policy,
    and assessing the performance of the overall transportation system
    and developing supporting information.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The *Safety and Security Group* is responsible for developing and
    enforcing the regulatory aspects of rail safety, transport of
    dangerous goods, and motor vehicle and motor carrier safety, and
    motor vehicle emissions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The *Programs and Divestiture Group* is responsible for the transfer
    of ports, harbors, and airports to communities and other interests;
    the oversight and lease management of divested facilities; the
    operation of facilities not yet divested; and environmental,
    technical, and real property management.

Transport Canada has five regional offices located in Vancouver,
Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Moncton. Each office applies Transport
Canada's programs, policies, and standards in its geographical area, and
is the central point of contact in its region for the department's
stakeholders. Regional responsibilities include regulatory surveillance,
inspection, licensing and certification, regulatory compliance and
enforcement, and transportation safety promotion.

Statistics Canada is the country\'s national statistical agency and
plays an important role in providing transportation data for planning
and regulatory purposes to Transport Canada. Under the Statistics Act,
Statistics Canada is required to collect, compile, analyze, abstract,
and publish statistical information on virtually every aspect of the
nation\'s society and economy. Statistics are collected from different
sources and in different ways. Statistics Canada data are generally
produced from surveys, but can also be generated as a by-product of
administrative activities (import and export data, for example, can be
obtained from customs forms). Information on motor carrier operations is
produced on an annual basis to assess the level of motor carrier
activity and the impact on Canada's economy.

In Canada, motor carrier safety regulations and highway safety is the
shared responsibility of federal, provincial, and local governments as
well as private industry. Federal responsibilities are effected
primarily through two statutes. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act (MVSA)
controls the safety and emissions of motor vehicle manufacture and
importation. More than 60 standards relate to components such as
lighting, braking, door and roof strength, and occupant protection. The
Motor Vehicle Transport Act (MVTA) obliges commercial bus and truck
carriers to meet basic safety fitness standards. The 1987 MVTA regulates
trucking companies under federal jurisdiction. However, like its
predecessor, the MVTA (1953-54), the MVTA allows the provinces to
regulate these companies under its authority.

The revised MVTA made fundamental changes in the manner in which the
commercial trucking industry is regulated. Before January 1, 1988, the
entry of trucking firms into the Canadian market was governed by an
economic entry test. The revised MVTA dismantled the existing system of
economic regulation and replaced it with a safety-based regulatory
system based on a safety fitness test that assesses the carrier\'s
safety performance. However, its safety provisions are limited in scope,
and its carrier fitness provisions apply exclusively to for-hire truck
carriers, focusing on entry into the industry rather than on continuing
fitness. The MVTA also retains some of the main components of economic
control, including the requirement to obtain both a for-hire license and
a license for each province in which a carrier operates.

In Canada, provincial governments are responsible for road safety
activities within their own jurisdictions, including the licensing of
motor vehicles and drivers, and the establishment and enforcement of
vehicle and traffic operation laws. The actual operation of urban
roadways, for most provinces and territories, has been delegated to the
municipal jurisdictions where local police forces have taken on the
responsibility of developing and implementing their own traffic safety
programs within the context of provincial legislation.

The actual division of responsibility for motor carriers has evolved
through legal interpretations of the Constitution Act as follows:

-   The federal government has jurisdiction over the operations of
    extra-provincial carriers (that is, carriers regularly operating
    between provinces or across international borders); and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The provincial governments have jurisdiction over carriers that
    operate strictly within a province (local trucking). They are also
    responsible for highway safety in general, on-road enforcement, and
    the licensing of commercial vehicles and drivers. (Source: Annual
    Report 1996)

In a sense, this is quite similar to the division of responsibility in
the U.S. However, while the USDOT's FMCSA has a national database of
carriers, each Canadian province maintains its own database of Canadian
carriers and grants operating authority.

Canadian regulatory policy since 1988 has been driven, in part, by
national and international trade initiatives which sought to remove
obstacles to trade in transportation services, including differences
between provincial regulations. Government and industry agree that an
effective regulatory environment applied consistently across
jurisdictions is essential, if Canadian carriers are to compete
effectively in the North American market. They also recognize the need
for motor carrier regulation to have a safety orientation in response to
public concerns, and to demonstrate a commitment to a regulatory system
that identifies and sanctions carriers with poor safety performance.
This recognition has led to support for recognized national standards.

Toward that end, the 1987 MVTA gave the federal government the power to
regulate the safe operation of all federal motor carriers. Since 1988,
the federal and provincial governments and industry have supported the
development and implementation of Canadian standards through the
National Safety Code (NSC) for Motor Carriers. The Canadian Council of
Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) has emerged as the forum for
managing these discussions. The NSC would form the basis of a national
safety regime. Recently, work has started on an initiative to implement
the new NSC Compliance Review - Safety Rating Standard (Standard 14),
which will be the key component of proposed new federal motor carrier
legislation in an amended MVTA.

**4.1.3. Mexico**

In Mexico, oversight and regulation of motor carriers is the
responsibility of the Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT),
a ministry within the Mexican federal government, which is equivalent to
the USDOT. The SCT's role, similar to that of the USDOT, is to develop
and administer policies, regulations, and services to ensure the best
and safest transportation system possible for Mexico. The Instituto
Mexicano del Transporte (IMT), a part of the SCT, is a center for
transportation research and technological development. The IMT is
responsible for much of the applied and basic transportation research
and compilation of data and statistics in Mexico.

In Mexico, the federal government has the authority to set truck size,
weight, and dimension limits that apply to the federal highways. Similar
to the U.S. and Canada, the 31 Mexican state governments can establish
limits on roads under their jurisdiction. No state, however, has yet put
such individual limits in place.

In 1995, Mexico was just beginning to establish a commercial vehicle
enforcement and inspection program.

**4.2. EXISTING MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY SYSTEMS**

This section provides a brief overview of the motor carrier safety
systems that apply to motor carriers in each NAFTA country. These
systems include registration/application, roadside inspections,
compliance and safety reviews, and enforcement processes.

**4.2.1. United States**

# Registration/Application Process

A U.S. motor carrier that meets the description provided in Section
4.1.1 is required to register as a motor carrier with the FMCSA by
submitting Form MCS-150, Motor Carrier Identification Report. This form
must be filed by all motor carriers that operate commercial motor
vehicles in interstate commerce. Form MCS-150 provides the FMCSA with
carrier identification information, as well as data on size of carrier,
type of operation, type of cargo transported, and hazardous material
that is transported or shipped.

Once the carrier's data have been entered into the MCMIS, a unique USDOT
number is assigned to the carrier. If the carrier is an interstate
carrier a notification letter is sent to acknowledge that the
registration has been completed. The acknowledgment also serves as a
means to inform the carrier of their new USDOT number, and provides
instructions on displaying the USDOT number on the carrier's vehicles.
The FMCSR require that each commercial motor vehicle be marked on both
sides with the USDOT number along with the name of the motor carrier,
city or community, and state in which the carrier maintains its
principal place of business or where the vehicle is based. Carriers are
required to register with the FMCSA within 90 days of commencing
operations.

# Roadside Inspections

The FMCSA sponsors the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP),
which provides funds to states to provide inspectors to perform roadside
and terminal inspections on individual interstate and intrastate
commercial motor vehicles. The inspector examines the driver and/or
vehicle for violations. The majority of the inspections are conducted by
state inspectors with a small number being conducted by federal safety
investigators from FMCSA field offices. All three of the NAFTA partners
currently subscribe to the North American Standard Inspection Regime
promoted by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA).

The CVSA is an international organization of federal, state, and
provincial government agencies, as well as representatives from the
private sector in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. All government
representatives are from agencies responsible for enforcing commercial
vehicle laws, rules, and regulations. The private sector is represented
by national motor carrier, bus, and driver associations, state motor
carrier associations, individual motor carriers, insurance carriers,
manufacturers, research firms, and others that support the CVSA in its
safety efforts. All members of the CVSA are dedicated to improving
commercial vehicle safety throughout North America. The CVSA has been
involved with developing a uniform inspection process for Canada,
Mexico, and the United States.

The North American Standard Inspection Regime includes five different
levels of roadside inspections as follows:

**LEVEL I - North American Standard Inspection** - An inspection that
includes examination of driver\'s license, medical examiner\'s
certificate and waiver, if applicable, alcohol and drugs, driver\'s
record of duty status as required, hours of service, seat belt, vehicle
inspection report, brake system, coupling devices, exhaust system,
frame, fuel system, turn signals, brake lamps, tail lamps, head lamps,
lamps on projecting loads, safe loading, steering mechanism, suspension,
tires, van and open-top trailer bodies, wheels and rims, windshield
wipers, emergency exits on buses and hazardous materials (HM)
requirements, as applicable.

**LEVEL II Walk-Around Driver/Vehicle Inspection** - An examination that
includes each of the items specified under the North American Standard
Inspection. As a minimum, Level II inspections must include examination
of: driver\'s license, medical examinees certificate and waiver, if
applicable, alcohol and drugs, driver\'s record of duty status as
required, hours of service, seat belt, vehicle inspection report, brake
system, coupling devices, exhaust system, frame, fuel system, turn
signals, brake lamps, tail lamps, head lamps, lamps on projecting loads,
safe loading, steering mechanism, suspension, tires, van and open-top
trailer bodies, wheels and rims, windshield wipers, emergency exits on
buses, and HM requirements, as applicable. The walk-around
driver/vehicle inspection includes only those items that can be
inspected without physically getting under the vehicle.

**LEVEL III Driver-Only Inspection** - A roadside examination of the
driver\'s license, medical certification and waiver, if applicable,
driver\'s record of duty status as required, hours of service, seat
belt, vehicle inspection report, and HM requirements, as applicable.

**LEVEL IV Special Inspections** - Inspections under this heading
typically include a one-time examination of a particular item. These
examinations are normally made in support of a study or to verify or
refute a suspected trend.

**LEVEL V - Vehicle-Only Inspection** - - An inspection that includes
each of the vehicle inspection items specified under the North American
Standard Inspection (Level I), without a driver present, conducted at
any location.

The data from a roadside inspection are submitted to the FMCSA in one of
three ways: 1) via paper copy which is directly entered into the MCMIS,
the central database; 2) via ASPEN, a pen-based system which is then
uploaded to the MCMIS, or; 3) a state mainframe is used to upload the
data to the MCMIS. The inspection record contains the following
information:

-   Carrier information, i.e., USDOT number, name, address, ICC number

-   Driver information, i.e., driver name, license number and state

-   Inspection date and time

-   Inspection state and city, inspector code

-   Shipper information, i.e., shipper name and shipper document numbers

-   Inspection level, i.e., full, walk around, driver, special study,
    terminal

-   Hazardous material information, i.e., code, reportable quantity, HM
    waste

-   Violation Information, i.e., unit number, federal violation code,
    OOS

-   Violation summary, i.e., number of driver, vehicle, hazmat, and OOS
    violations

-   Unit information, i.e., vehicle type and make, license number and
    state

######## Compliance Reviews

The purpose of the compliance review is to determine the motor carrier's
compliance with the FMCSR and, if applicable, the HMR. The current
compliance review (CR) process involves an on-site review of a motor
carrier's operations by an FMCSA safety investigator or a state
enforcement officer. The items reviewed are as follows:

Financial responsibility Safety and business records

Drivers' hours of service Commercial driver license requirements

Driver qualifications Vehicle maintenance and inspection

Accidents

The FMCSA uses a safety rating methodology as part of reviews that
consist of the six factors listed in Table 4-1.

**Table 4-1.**

**Compliance Review Factor****s**

+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Fa   | > Name                       | > Addresses                    |
| ctor |                              |                                |
+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| 1    | > General                    | > Parts 387 and 390 of FMCSR   |
+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| 2    | > Driver                     | > Parts 383 and 391 of FMCSR   |
+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| 3    | > Operational                | > Parts 392 and 395 of FMCSR   |
+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| 4    | > Vehicle                    | > Parts 393 and 396 of FMCSR   |
+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| 5    | > Hazardous Materials        | > Part 177 of the HMR and      |
|      |                              | >                              |
|      |                              | > Part 397 of the FMCSR        |
+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| 6    | > Accident                   | > Recordable accident rate     |
+------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+

A motor carrier is selected for an on-site compliance review due to a
complaint, an enforcement follow-up, carrier request, or by
prioritization by SafeStat. Prior to the review, the safety investigator
reviews the motor carrier profile, which is downloaded from the central
database and includes census, inspection, and accident data on the
carrier.

During the on-site review the safety investigator inquires about the
carrier's type of business, nature of operation, and may request a
facility tour. The safety investigator inquires about the carrier's
procedures for recording accidents, driver selection, driver
qualification, and driver training. The safety investigator may also
examine external data sources to supplement the examination of the
carrier's internal documents.

The safety investigator enters the collected data into the CAPRI laptop
system and performs an analysis of the carrier's safety compliance data.
The CAPRI system uses the safety compliance data to compute the
carrier's safety rating. The results of the review are then uploaded
into the central database, the MCMIS. The review record contains the
following information:

Carrier information Crash data

Audit data Acute and critical regulation violation data

Driver data Factor and rating data

Review date and type Mileage data

Safety investigator code

##### Enforcement Cases 

An enforcement case is the result of one or more major violations
discovered by a safety investigator during a compliance review. The
FMCSA brings the enforcement case against the carrier and tracks it from
initiation through settlement. When the enforcement case is closed, the
enforcement case data are entered into the MCMIS. The closed enforcement
record contains the following information:

-   Carrier information, i.e., USDOT number, name, address

-   Investigation number and enforcement description

-   Enforcement tracking dates, i.e., close date, settlement date,
    action date

-   Financial settlement amount

-   Individual enforcement violation counts and amounts

**4.2.2. Canada**

When Canadian trucks are processed through Customs, they are not
typically inspected as they enter the U.S., but instead are subject to
the safety oversight system that Canada has had in place since the early
1980s. The Canadian safety systems are similar to those in place in the
U.S., including registration, inspection, and periodic compliance
reviews. Furthermore, Canadian trucks are subject to routine oversight
inspections performed by states, as the trucks travel throughout the
U.S.

Transport Canada, in coordination with the CCMTA, is currently exploring
the development of a new safety assessment process, as discussed in
Section 4.1.2. There is now an opportunity to use an amended MVTA to
create a renewed national legislative framework to support a safe,
competitive and efficient motor carrier industry. In considering changes
to the Act at this time, Transport Canada proposes to:

-   Create a Canadian regulatory regime for all extra-provincial motor
    carriers, focused on motor carrier safety performance assessment,
    administered by the provinces, and based on the National Safety
    Code;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ensure all motor carriers operating within federal jurisdiction are
    subject to consistent regulatory treatment;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Establish the principle of, and the mechanisms for, reciprocal
    recognition of motor carrier safety performance assessments with
    foreign governments; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Complete the deregulation of extra-provincial motor carrier
    undertakings concurrently with the coming into force of the MVTA
    motor carrier safety performance assessment regime.

Transport Canada proposed January 1, 2000 as a target date for
implementation for a national motor carrier safety performance regime.
This date was consistent with provincial plans to implement National
Safety Code Standard 14 by the end of 1999. The basic principle
underlying these objectives is that any fleet of vehicles operated by an
extra-provincial motor carrier undertaking, and safety-assessed in a
jurisdiction recognized under the provisions of the Act, would be
permitted to operate throughout Canada, and indeed throughout North
America, provided it maintains an acceptable safety performance
assessment.

The elements essential for this national framework, particularly the NSC
standards, have already been agreed upon and largely implemented by the
provinces. The changes to the Act are intended to support a consistent
application of the regulatory regime that has evolved across
jurisdictions. There is broad agreement on the criteria for rating motor
carrier safety performance, and on the value of a rating for safety
regulation purposes.

The amendments would establish the principle that carriers must meet
safety fitness performance criteria under the Act to operate
extra-provincially, and must maintain a safety performance record
compatible with the National Safety Code and the requirements of the Act
to continue to operate. The proposed amendments would stipulate that a
motor carrier fleet have a MVTA safety fitness certificate in order to
operate extra-provincially. Provinces with safety performance assessment
systems compatible with the Act, and which recognize safety performance
assessments conducted in accordance with the Act by other jurisdictions,
will be authorized to issue safety fitness certificates under the
authority of the Act. The amendments will allow jurisdictions to apply
sanctions, including withdrawal of these certificates when carriers no
longer meet the criteria for holding them.

##### Registration/Application Process

In Canada, provincial/territorial highway and road safety authorities
handle registration, driver testing, vehicle inspection, and enforcement
of regulations for commercial carriers. While the MVSA empowers federal
government to regulate the safe operation of extra-provincial carriers,
that responsibility is largely delegated to the provinces. The CCMTA
coordinates all matters dealing with the administration, regulation and
control of motor vehicle transportation. The CCMTA has members from the
federal government and all Canadian provincial and territorial
governments, and associate members from more than 250 organizations.

The federal and provincial governments cooperate in implementing the
National Safety Code (NSC), which addresses truck and bus carrier
safety. NSC standards now cover facility audits, driver and carrier
profile systems, trip inspection reports, hours of service regulations,
commercial vehicle maintenance and inspections, and load security. The
code\'s administrative standards cover self-certification for drivers,
single-driver licensing, a driver license classification system, medical
standards, knowledge and performance testing, and a driver examiner
training program.

##### Roadside Inspections

Canadian provinces manage an inspection program for commercial vehicles
that is based on the NSC with inspections performed in accordance with
CVSA standards. Unsafe vehicles are placed out of service in accordance
with the standards. The program has been operational since the 1980s.
Canada does not have a centralized, national system that provides
national statistics for such things as out-of-service (OOS) rates.
However, results from a three-day, nationwide "Roadcheck 97" survey
revealed that OOS rate for Canadian trucks was about 17%. Data from
roadside inspections are currently maintained at the province level, and
not consolidated on a national basis.

##### Audit Programs

All jurisdictions currently have audit programs. One of the more
important elements of a national motor carrier safety performance regime
currently being considered is the facility audit of motor carriers.
Transport Canada considers that mandatory periodic audits of all
carriers should be an essential and effective component of a
comprehensive carrier safety performance assessment system. This
component would both encourage safe practices and ensure the equitable
monitoring of the safety performance of all carriers. The federal
government, the provinces, and the industry have focused on the NSC as a
suitable basis for the MVTA motor carrier safety performance assessment
regime. Transport Canada recognizes the particular importance of NSC
Standard 14, which includes the following factors relevant to rating
carriers:

-   Reportable crashes

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Convictions and detentions relating to NSC Standards:

> 1\. Single Driver License

4\. Classified Driver License

9\. Hours of Service

10\. Load Security

11\. Commercial Vehicle Maintenance

12\. Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance On-Road Inspections

13\. Trip Inspections

-   Convictions and detentions relating to Transportation of Dangerous
    Goods Regulations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Convictions and detentions relating to commercial vehicle size and
    weight limits

In addition to using other National Safety Code Standards for rating
purposes, Standard 14 requires implementation of Standards 7 (Carrier
Profile) and 15 (Facility Audits), and the timely exchange of safety
performance data among jurisdictions.

**4.2.3. Mexico**

As cited earlier, in 1995, Mexico was just beginning to establish a
commercial vehicle enforcement and inspection program. While some
progress apparently has been made through working with the USDOT through
the LTSS, it is difficult to assess what the precise status of any of
these systems is at this time.

##### Registration/Application Process

The Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) issues commercial
driver's licenses for motor carrier drivers in the form of a Licencia
Federal. The database of registered drivers is apparently shared with
the U.S. Customs officials at the border crossing. The accuracy and
accessibility of data from this system for the purposes of a new entrant
safety fitness assurance process are currently unknown, but attempts are
continuing to gather further information about this data source. The
same is true for the vehicle licensing registration system operated by
the SCT. According to a USDOT Inspector General's report,[^13] these
databases were being developed in close consultation with the FMCSA.

######### Roadside Inspections

Mexico does not currently have a safety management oversight program in
place, but intends to begin inspecting commercial vehicles and issuing
inspection decals. As discussed earlier, Mexico is a member of the CVSA
and has agreed to use the five-level uniform inspection standards used
in Canada and the U.S. Mexican officials have been trained to perform
vehicle roadside inspections using the North American Uniform Driver
Vehicle Inspection Program. According to one report,[^14] since 1993,
285 Mexican personnel have been trained by U.S. officials to inspect
trucks. However, many of the Mexican officials who were to train their
colleagues have left the program. According to Mexican officials, there
has been little truck enforcement activity to date in Mexico. In April
1998, however, Mexico reported that 3,600 members of the Federal police
force had received a 45-day course on inspection procedures although
they did not announce a plan to implement an inspection program.
According to LTSS members, a joint U.S.-Mexico inspection exercise was
planned for late 1998 to highlight border activities being undertaken to
demonstrate the safety of motor carrier vehicles engaged in cross-border
operations.

At the U.S.-Mexican border, Mexican trucks are generally targeted for
inspections on a selective basis. If a cursory auditory and visual
examination of the truck reveals potential violations, it is inspected.
Trucks are also randomly selected for inspection. In addition, trucks
crossing at California's two major border ports of entry are generally
selected for inspection if they do not have an inspection decal or if
they have an expired inspection decal (indicating that the truck has not
been inspected in 3 months).

######### Review/Audit Program

Mexico does not currently have a compliance review or safety audit
process in place. However, FMCSA consultants are reportedly working in
close consultation with Mexican officials to develop a third database,
which would be a safety module intended to record crashes, violations,
and results of inspections.

**4.3. PROGRESS TOWARDS HARMONIZATION OF NAFTA PARTNERS' MOTOR**

**CARRIER REGULATIONS AND SAFETY SYSTEMS**

In general, it is clear that there is still quite a lot of information
that will need to be developed from a safety perspective before the U.S.
allows Mexican carriers to operate within the border states and,
eventually, throughout the U.S. While Canadian and U.S. safety systems
and regulations appear reciprocal, including the potential availability
of safety data on Canadian carriers which might be provided by provinces
or, eventually, the Canadian federal government, it appears that a
similar arrangement with Mexico is not in the immediate future. As shown
in Table 4-2, there are still a number of important differences
remaining between Mexico and its two northern NAFTA partners with regard
to motor carrier safety programs.

**Table 4-2.**

**Differences in Safety Oversight Programs by Country**

+-------------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------+
| **Safety Oversight      | ##            |           |              |
| Program**               | ##### Country |           |              |
+=========================+===============+===========+==============+
|                         | **Canada**    | *         | **United     |
|                         |               | *Mexico** | States**     |
+-------------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------+
| **Drivers' Hours of     | Yes --        | No        | Yes -        |
| Service Restricted?**   |               |           |              |
|                         | 13 hours a    |           | 10 hours a   |
|                         | day           |           | day          |
+-------------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------+
| **Logbooks Required?**  | Yes           | No        | Yes          |
+-------------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------+
| **Vehicle Maintenance   | Yes           | No        | Yes          |
| Standards?**            |               |           |              |
+-------------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------+
| **Roadside              | Yes           | No        | Yes          |
| Inspections?**          |               |           |              |
+-------------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------+
| **Safety Rating         | Yes           | No        | Yes          |
| System?**               |               |           |              |
+-------------------------+---------------+-----------+--------------+

Mexico and the U.S. also have outstanding differences over requirements
for mandatory front brakes for trucks manufactured after 1980, and over
maximum allowable gross vehicle weights:

> [Regulations]{.underline} [United States]{.underline}
> [Mexico]{.underline}

Maximum gross vehicle weight (5-axle) 80,000 lbs. 97,000 lbs.^a^

Maximum single axle weight 20,000 lbs. 22,000 lbs.^a^

Maximum tandem axle weight 34,000 lbs. 39,600 lbs.^a^

^a^As of December 1995, was pending final approval in Mexico.

Mexico and the United States have made some progress in developing
compatible trucking regulations. The achievement of compatibility is
essential, because there are major differences in the two countries'
trucking regulations, operating practices, and enforcement activities
that could adversely affect highway safety and infrastructure.
Compatibility efforts in areas such as vehicle-related standards and
traffic control devices are currently being addressed by the LTSS.

The LTSS has reported accomplishments made in a number of areas to
address outstanding differences between the NAFTA partners. These
include some of the following items as reported in their June 1998 Joint
Statement of Accomplishments:[^15]

-   **Exchange of Motor Carrier Safety Data -** The three countries
    resolved to begin a program to exchange carrier safety data
    necessary for the effective and timely implementation of the
    compatibility of motor carrier supervision for international
    operations throughout North America. The three countries committed
    to implementing such an exchange on a priority basis with the
    objective of achieving reciprocity of safety fitness regimes. A
    trilateral motor carrier safety data conference was to be hosted by
    Canada in the fall of 1998.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Inspection Standards Training -** Mexico reported that it has
    completed training of its federal law enforcement officials in
    Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) inspection standards and
    intended to begin inspecting vehicles and issuing decals in the fall
    of 1998. A joint U.S.-Mexico inspection exercise was planned for
    late 1998 to highlight border activities being undertaken to
    demonstrate the safety of motor carrier vehicles engaged in
    cross-border operations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Vehicle Weights and Dimensions -** A report issued in the fall of
    1997 outlined issues related to the compatibility of vehicle and
    dimensions and possible approaches to pursue more compatible vehicle
    size and weight limits. The study included a side-by-side comparison
    of the three countries' national, state, and provincial requirements
    with respect to truck sizes and weights, identification of vehicle
    configurations most commonly used in cross-border service. At the
    June 1998 LTSS meeting, consensus was reached on a direction to be
    pursued to address regulatory barriers and discrepancies that
    currently affect international trucking operations. A resolution was
    endorsed that establishes a context and framework for ongoing
    discussions on regulatory compatibility. It was also agreed to
    examine the feasibility of establishing vehicle stability and
    control performance criteria as a basis for pursuing compatibility
    in vehicle weights and dimensions. A technical task force was
    established for this purpose.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations -** The three
    countries agreed to develop a North American model rule and
    standards document relating to the transport of hazardous materials.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Emergency Response Guidebook -** It was also agreed to amend the
    North American emergency response guidebook as a result of changes
    to national and international regulations and publish the revised
    document (entitled ERG 2000) in late 1999. The North American
    Emergency Response Guidebook will continue to be issued in English,
    Spanish, and French to ensure that authorities engaged in responding
    to accidents involving hazardous materials will have consistent
    information.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Tank Truck Inspection Course Planned -** Canada is to provide a
    course in Mexico on the inspection of tank trucks and portable tanks
    in the transport of hazardous materials (December 1998).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Commercial Driver's Licenses -** agreement on a common age for
    operating a vehicle in international commerce (21 years)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Drivers' Logbooks and Hours-of-Service -** agreement to develop a
    common format and contents for a North American logbook for
    recording drivers' hours of service, and agreement on safety
    performance information each country will require from motor
    carriers. Canada and the U.S. have hours of service requirements and
    Mexico has agreed to adopt similar standards. Mexico, however, must
    develop governing regulations first.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Driver Medical Standards -** recognition of several binational
    agreements as the basis for achieving reciprocity of driver medical
    standards. Medical standards for drivers in U.S. and Mexico are
    already compatible. The U.S. and Canada agreed on two final
    requirements regarding hearing impaired individuals and insulin
    dependent diabetics. Procedures for administering drug and alcohol
    tests were harmonized with the signing of a memorandum of
    understanding (MOU) between Mexico and the U.S. Canada has no
    substance use testing legislation/regulations. The industry is
    developing a compliance program acceptable to the US. Industry
    associations are working to help companies put programs in place and
    to encourage the accreditation of Canadian testing facilities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Language Requirements -** agreement on a common language
    requirement such that the driver is responsible for being able to
    communicate in the language of the jurisdiction in which the
    operation is being conducted

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Traffic Control Devices -** A three-country comparison of traffic
    control devices was completed. Canada published this information in
    March 1996. Publication of the United States and Mexican documents
    was expected in the fall of 1998.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Insurance Coverage for Motor Carriers -** brought together
    insurance regulators from the three countries to discuss issues
    related to insurance coverage for motor carriers engaged in
    cross-border operations. Insurance regulators indicated their
    intention to explore the possibility of entering into
    confidentiality agreements for sharing information on individual
    insurance companies, establishing a system of mutual cooperation,
    and exchanging information on licensing and registration
    requirements. Regulators also agreed to inform their insurance trade
    associations of their discussions.

Other trilateral groups have worked in conjunction with the LTSS to make
progress toward standardizing motor carrier provisions to enable NAFTA
implementation. In 1992, Mexico and the U.S., and later Canada, agreed
to create the National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade (NLCIFT)
to research and develop uniform and harmonized legal actions designed to
facilitate free trade between the three NAFTA countries. NLCIFT created
the North American Committee on Surface Transportation Law and Practice
(NACST) to address disparities in each country's laws and to propose
solutions to the problems. The NACST is composed of over 70 experts from
all facets of the transportation industry representing the three
countries. To date, the NACST has made significant progress in four main
work areas:

-   Development of a Uniform Bill of Lading for international motor
    freight transportation

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Development of a Uniform Liability Regime to set and define
    liability requirements for carrier's operating in international
    services

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Development of Uniform Rules of Practice for Surface Transportation
    Documentation which would address how carriers comply with lading
    form and liability requirements, registration, identification
    numbers, etc.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Development of Standard Insurance Policy and Practices to ensure
    that carriers are adequately insured

**[5. ASSESSMENT OF THE AVAILABILITY OF NEW ENTRANT DATA]{.smallcaps}**

When "new entrant carriers" are discussed in this report three
populations are considered: U.S. intrastate carriers or new carriers
entering the interstate carrier business; Canadian carriers, and;
Mexican carriers. Data for each population can be considered in terms of
its availability. In this section, we discuss the availability of
existing data maintained by each country, if applicable, and information
available on the FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS). Since 1997, Canadian and Mexican vehicles that cross the border
into the U.S. have been required to complete a Form MCS-150 and
consequently were given a USDOT number. Some Canadian and Mexican
carriers had done this earlier than 1997 using Form MCS-150 (or former
ICC) registration forms. A limited amount of data is currently available
on both Mexican and Canadian carriers from MCMIS and its safety ratings
components.

**5.1. UNITED STATES**

5.1.1. Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)

Collection of motor carrier safety performance data in the U.S. is for
the most part automated. The MCMIS is a central repository of safety
data for approximately 450,000 active motor carriers and shippers. To
identify each motor carrier, the MCMIS assigns a unique number to each
motor carrier record. This number is referred to as the record census
number. This is also the number supplied to a motor carrier as its USDOT
number. The MCMIS has electronic data exchange capability with federal
field offices and state offices via the network communications system
SAFETYNET.

The MCMIS is an automated computerized system used by the FMCSA to
maintain motor carrier records and safety performance data, such as
crashes, inspections, enforcement cases, and reviews for carriers that
are subject to the FMCSR or HMR. The MCMIS provides the FMCSA with the
following data, as illustrated in Figure 5-1.

-   data from the carrier's Form MCS-150

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   results from roadside and terminal inspections

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   closed enforcement cases

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   compliance reviews

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   state-reported National Governors' Association (NGA) crash data

![](media/image1.wmf)

## Figure 5-1. Overview of MCMIS

The MCMIS also provides file maintenance of all carrier data, query and
reporting capabilities, and selection capabilities used to prioritize
and monitor carrier safety performance. The MCMIS database not only
includes all carriers that are required to register with DOT as
discussed above, but also includes other carriers that are not required
to register. The FMCSA has given the states the ability to register
their intrastate non-hazmat carriers with the USDOT. This is being done
to enable states to use one unique identification number for motor
carriers from their states to avoid confusion of the overlap of federal
and state issued operating identification numbers.

The major data elements contained in the MCMIS are briefly described
below. The MCMIS contains other ancillary files, such as, unmatched
accidents, user security, and audit files that are not discussed. The
main data elements are related through the Census File master index key,
which is the USDOT number.

##### Census Data

The registration form for motor carriers, Form MCS-150, contains
descriptive information about a motor carrier's identification, size,
and operations. The FMCSA initially enters this type of information into
the MCMIS and then updates the data during on-site reviews using Form
MCS‑151. The data is also updated by field offices and by headquarters.
The Census File contains a single record for each motor carrier or
shipper. Each record is identified with a unique number, referred to as
the USDOT number. This number is used in all the carrier's related
records. Each carrier's records contains the following information:

-   USDOT number - unique identifier for each carrier

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Carrier's name (legal and DBA) and address (physical and mailing)

-   ICC number(s), tax number(s)

-   Classification information, i.e., for hire, exempt, private

-   Operation type, i.e., shipper, carrier, intrastate, interstate,
    hazmat,

-   Type of cargo carried information, i.e., general freight, passenger

-   Hazmat cargo carried/shipped information

-   Number of equipment owned, leased, or trip

-   Type of equipment, i.e., trucks, tractors, trailers, bus, hazmat
    tank truck

-   Number of drivers, i.e., interstate within/beyond 100 miles,
    intrastate

-   Compliance review information, i.e., last review date, rating,
    mileage

-   SafeStat information - score and date

*Compliance Review Data*

The on-site compliance reviews of carriers and hazardous materials
shippers are conducted by FMCSA field staff and state staff using laptop
microcomputers and are electronically transmitted via SAFETYNET to the
MCMIS. Reviews update the "census" information and result in a safety
rating for the carrier. The rating is posted in the MCMIS and is made
available electronically to Federal and state offices and via a
toll-free number and the Internet to the industry and public.

*Roadside Inspection Data*

The MCMIS contains data collected during a roadside inspection of a
vehicle and driver. Violations of safety regulations governing the
driver, the vehicle and those specifically related to hazardous
materials are included. The source of most inspection data is the states
that conduct roadside inspections. The ASPEN pen-based system is used to
input the data. The states maintain inspection data locally and transmit
records electronically for interstate carriers to the central MCMIS
system via SAFETYNET.

*National Governors' Association (NGA) Crash Data*

The majority of states (and eventually all states) provide the FMCSA
with crash data. The source of this data is the accident reports filled
out by state and local police officials. The states are responsible for
uploading the NGA's recommended data elements from these crash reports
through the SAFETYNET system to the MCMIS. The crash record contains the
following information:

-   Carrier information, i.e., USDOT number, carrier name, address,

-   Driver information, i.e., driver name, license number and state,
    date of birth

-   Vehicle information, i.e., license number and state, configuration,
    VIN

-   Crash date, time, and location

-   Crash description

-   Crash injuries, fatalities, towaways, and hazmat spills

-   Crash factors, i.e., road surface, weather condition, light
    condition

*Enforcement Data*

Electronic records of enforcement cases that are being pursued against
carriers are kept by FMCSA field offices and transmitted to the MCMIS as
each case is concluded. The MCMIS permanent record contains critical
information about each case, including the type of violations assessed.

*Census Activity Data*

The Census Activity file contains statistical safety performance
activity by carrier. Each record contains the carrier's activity for a
specific year. The Census Activity record contains the following
information:

Carrier information - USDOT number activity year

inspection statistics accident statistics

review statistics inspection address

crash address

*Census History Data*

The Census History data is used to track the changes in critical data
elements of the carrier's Census File. The Census history record
contains the following information:

Carrier information - USDOT number date of the change

who made the change data element(s) that changed

*Network Connection*

SAFETYNET represents a cooperative effort to share motor carrier
information among states and the FMCSA. The SAFETYNET system consists of
software located in state and federal offices. It is a communications
component that provides for the electronic transmission of data from
these offices to FMCSA Headquarters and to the software that resides on
the FMCSA mainframe computer to process the data and load it into the
MCMIS.

##### Safety Status Calculation

The FMCSA uses a performance-based approach to rank carriers for on-site
review. SafeStat provides an assessment of a motor carrier's operations
in four broad Safety Evaluation Areas (SEAs), Accident, Driver, Vehicle,
and Safety Management, to produce an overall safety score. SafeStat uses
data from five sources to calculate the individual SEA values and
overall SafeStat score. Four sources provide a motor carrier's actual
performance and compliance data: state-reported commercial vehicle
crashes, compliance reviews, closed enforcement cases, and roadside
inspections. The other data source is the registration process, which
provides census data, which are updated during compliance reviews Census
data are used only for identification and normalization of safety-event
data.

**5.1.2. Data on U.S. Intrastate Carriers**

Most of the data on existing intrastate carriers are stored in the
various state databases. It would be very difficult to access intrastate
data from specific state systems. However, many of the states now
register intrastate carriers with the FMCSA. As a result, the carriers
are assigned USDOT numbers. Thus, census data and data on safety
performance events for these carriers are sent via SAFETYNET to the
MCMIS. Therefore, the only data on intrastate carriers available in the
MCMIS are the data for these carriers.

**5.1.3. Data on Canadian and Mexican Carriers**

At this point, there is only limited exchange of motor carrier safety
data between the NAFTA partners, and none of the exchange is automated.
The MCMIS contains safety data on Canadian and Mexican carriers that
have registered with the FMCSA and have USDOT numbers. The data include
events (e.g., crashes, inspections, compliance reviews) that occurred
while those carriers were operating in the United States.

**5.2. CANADA**

In Canada, there are two primary agencies involved in providing and
maintaining data and statistical services for policy purposes, Transport
Canada and Statistics Canada. Transport Canada\'s Economic Analysis
Directorate (ACA) coordinates data requirements for the department,
conducts additional analysis of a number of the databases to provide
statistics and forecasts for operational and policy analysis, and
administers a relationship with the second agency involved in data,
Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada\'s Transportation Division collects
data, processes and analyses them, publishes tabulated results in
official publications, and makes available the databases. Statistics
Canada intends to serve a broad community of users of transport data
through its publications: carriers, researchers, the general public, as
well as policy analysts. Its main concern, however, is the provision of
industry output, prices, costs and revenues for the National Accounts.

Canadian commercial motor vehicle data are collected and managed by the
provinces and maintained in the provinces' own unique databases. While
some provinces already exchange data, there is a plan to share data
among all the provinces within the next two years. Currently, however,
there is no central database containing motor carrier safety performance
and compliance data. All data from registration, roadside inspection,
and carrier on-site audits are maintained at the province level. For
example, the data maintained at the province level for Ontario contain a
number of data elements that are similar to data contained in the MCMIS
and may be able to be used in tracking the fitness of new entrant
carriers from that province.

Transport Canada maintains a national accident database, the Traffic
Accident Information Database (TRAID). TRAID has many of the important
variables required for analysis, such as number of persons involved,
crash configuration, road category, etc. Crashes are reported by fewer
than 75% of the provinces and territories, and the percent of usable
data for the limited number of common roadway descriptors varies from
37% to 66%. There are 44 data elements contained in the TRAID database.
The majority of these elements are very basic in nature, such as
urban/rural, asphalt/gravel, straight/curved etc., yielding only general
safety indicators as to where accidents may be occurring. Detailed
information, which is required to develop more precise safety
relationships with geometric design elements, must be obtained from
other sources.

**5.3. MEXICO**

There have been numerous studies sponsored by the U.S. Government that
address the safety of Mexican carriers at the border crossings.
According to one study,[^16] out-of-service (OOS) rates for Mexican
carriers at the borders are as high as 50% compared to a 28%
out-of-service rate for U.S. interstate truckers in the U.S. Arizona
data for 1994 presented in the study show 63% of Mexican trucks to be
OOS compared to 24% of U.S. interstate trucks inspected in Arizona.
Overall, there is a lack of overall inspection data on trucks from
Mexico.

In Mexico, the Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT)
currently maintains a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) database of all
Mexican drivers who hold a Licencia Federal and a registration database
of all commercial carriers. At present, Mexico does not have a
commercial vehicle safety oversight program in place. The only available
information on the safety of Mexican commercial vehicles is that data
captured in MCMIS. Mexico is now beginning to develop commercial vehicle
databases that will enable them to track and record carrier safety data.

As a result of the collaborative work being pursued through the LTSS and
the TCGs, the U.S. and Mexico plan to exchange commercial vehicle safety
data in the future, although the process is still at an early stage. It
will probably be several years before a Mexican-U.S. exchange can be
attained. As cited earlier, a database is being developed in close
consultation with FMCSA consultants. The database will include three
modules: 1) an authorization module (mostly economic data and vehicle
licensing information), 2) a drivers licensing module and, 3) a safety
module (to record accidents, infractions, and inspections). Mexican
officials reported the first two modules are complete with data to be
captured over the next two years. The safety module is in the conceptual
stage.

**5.4. FUTURE DATA REQUIREMENTS**

At an LTSS meeting in June 1998, the NAFTA partners made progress on the
issue of Exchange of Motor Carrier Safety Data. The three countries
resolved to begin a program to exchange carrier safety data necessary
for the effective and timely implementation of the compatibility of
motor carrier supervision for international operations throughout North
America.

The potential use of such data is critical for the USDOT's ability to
monitor the safety of foreign carriers operating in the U.S. under
NAFTA. At present, U.S. inspectors assigned to borders do not have real
time or on-line access to the MCMIS. Instead they receive a computer
disk with safety inspection data on a quarterly basis. The information
could be more than 6 months old when received. Inspectors are not able
to 1) readily identify carriers with recurring safety violations in a
timely manner, and 2) target those carriers' trucks for inspection
before the trucks enter the U.S.

An assessment of information available in the MCMIS reveals several
outstanding data issues relating to potential new entrants. One of the
most important data requirements for this project is to determine if a
carrier is a new entrant. Therefore, an approach will need to be
developed to determine the date at which a carrier started intrastate
operations, interstate operations, hazmat operations, and international
operations, and for how long they have been operating. This might be
done be requiring new entrants to fill out a new form with the needed
information before commencing or continuing (Canadian carriers)
cross-border operations. Currently, the only information regarding the
extent of a carrier's experience is the date at which a carrier is
entered into the MCMIS. There is no easy way to assess how long a
carrier has been in operation as an intrastate carrier, or as a hazmat
carrier, or as an interstate carrier. As cited earlier, previous
research found that some carriers have operated on an interstate basis
far earlier than can be found in the MCMIS database.

For the purposes of rating new entrants, operational safety, inspection,
accident, and moving violation data will need to be enhanced and, where
possible, obtained from compatible safety data systems residing in
Canada or Mexico. At present, it is difficult to compare Mexican,
Canadian, and U.S. interstate carriers with respect to their crash rates
and moving violation rates, not only because of the lack of complete
crash and violation data, but also because of incomplete census data
contained in the MCMIS. When evaluating an U.S. interstate carrier, a
crash rate is computed by dividing the total number of crashes by the
total number of power units in order to account for exposure. Similarly,
a moving violation rate of an U.S. interstate carrier is computed by
dividing the total number of moving violations by the total number of
drivers. These calculations are impossible to make when the data on
power units and drivers are incomplete, which is frequently the case
with carriers based in Mexico. The Mexican power unit and driver counts
must be collected more completely, since these counts are not available
for 75% of the Mexican carriers.

[^1]: "Motor Carrier Safety Fitness Determination - Proposals for an
    Improved Process," Volpe Center, July 1997.

[^2]: ^?^ "New Entrant Safety Research -- Final Report," Volpe Center,
    April 1998.

[^3]: Thomas M. Corsi and Philip Fanara, Jr., "Deregulation, New
    Entrants, and the Safety Learning Curve," *Journal of the
    Transportation Research Forum*, Vol. XXIX, No. 1, 1988, pp. 3-8.

[^4]: At the time of this study, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
    Administration (FMCSA) was known as the Office of Motor Carriers
    (OMC) and was part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

[^5]: "New Entrant Safety Research - Final Report," Volpe Center, April
    1998.

[^6]: For a detailed description of SafeStat, see "SafeStat, Motor
    Carrier Safety Status Measurement System, Methodology: Version 7,"
    Volpe Center, October 1999.

[^7]: In this study, "private" carriers included the classifications
    private, private passenger (business), and private passenger
    (non-business).

[^8]: At the time of this study, the FMCSA was still known as the OMC
    and was part of the FHWA.

[^9]: At the time of this study, the OMC still had regional offices.

[^10]: "Analysis of New Entrant Motor Carrier Safety Performance and
    Compliance Using SafeStat," Volpe Center, February 2000.

[^11]: "Motor Carrier Safety Program for Commercial Trucks at U.S.
    Borders," OIG/USDOT, December 28, 1998.

[^12]: Ibid.

[^13]: "Motor Carrier Safety Program for Commercial Trucks at U.S.
    Borders," OIG/USDOT, December 28, 1998.

[^14]: "Commercial Trucking - "Safety and Infrastructure Issues Under
    the North American Free Trade Agreement," February 1996, GAO
    (GAO/RCED-96-61).

[^15]: "Plenary and Working Group Reports," LTSS and TCG Fifth Annual
    Plenary, June 1998.

[^16]: "Commercial Trucking - Safety and Infrastructure Issues Under the
    North American Free Trade Agreement," GAO, February 1996,
    GAO/RCED-96-61.