FOLLOW-UP AUDIT ON THE 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH 

AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT’S 

CROSS-BORDER TRUCKING PROVISIONS 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Report Number: MH-2007-062 

Date Issued: August 6, 2007 
 

U.S. Department of 

Memorandum

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General 

Subject: ACTION: Follow-Up Audit on the 

Implementation of the North American Free Trade 

Agreement’s Cross-Border Trucking Provisions 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Report Number MH-2007-062 

 

Date: August 6, 2007 

From: Rebecca Anne Batts 

Acting Assistant Inspector General 

 for Surface and Maritime Programs 

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-40 

To: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator 

This final report presents the results of our annual audit of the North American 

Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) Cross-Border Trucking Provisions. The 

Department of Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 

for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002 (the FY 2002 Act)1

 provided funds to the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to implement NAFTA. However, 

the FY 2002 Act and subsequent appropriation legislation through FY 2006 

prohibited FMCSA from using Federal funds to review or process Mexicodomiciled motor carrier applications to operate beyond the United States 

commercial zones2

 until certain preconditions were met. Further, the FY 2002 Act 

established a precondition for allowing Mexican motor carriers to haul hazardous 

materials beyond the commercial zones. 

Section 350 of the FY 2002 Act also included a requirement for an annual review 

by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of eight specific safety-related criteria, 

which would cover Mexico-domiciled motor carrier operations beyond the 

commercial zones. The OIG issued reports in June 2002, May 2003, and January 

2005 that addressed the eight criteria and other border safety operation issues 

identified. 

 

1

 Pub. L. No. 107-87 (2001). 

2

 Section 350 refers to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operating beyond United States municipalities and 

commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border (the southern border) as Mexican motor carriers. 

Commercial zones at the southern border generally extend from 3 to 25 miles north of U.S. border 

municipalities (or 75 miles within the State of Arizona). Our audit also refers to the operation of 

Mexico-domiciled motor carriers outside of these zones as “long-haul” operations. 

i
Our latest report, issued in January 2005,3

 concluded that FMCSA had sufficient 

staff, facilities, equipment, and procedures in place to substantially meet the eight 

Section 350 criteria. However, the report made nine recommendations to 

FMCSA; four of these addressed actions relevant to the eight criteria that the OIG 

is required to review. The remaining five addressed two preconditions set forth 

elsewhere in Section 350 and three areas not specifically addressed in Section 350. 

Our audit objective was to assess the actions FMCSA took in response to our 

January 2005 report recommendations. Our report highlights FMCSA’s actions in 

response to the prior report and areas where additional improvement is needed. 

Exhibit A details our audit scope and methodology. Exhibit B provides 

information on the status of the eight criteria and details FMCSA’s actions in 

response to our January 2005 report recommendations and other issues not 

discussed in the findings section of this report. Exhibit F defines the abbreviations 

used in this report. 

We conducted this performance audit from March 2006 through July 2007 in 

accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards as 

prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States. We performed such 

tests as we considered necessary to detect fraud, waste, and abuse. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

Data from our current review and our earlier reports dating back to 1998 point to 

continual improvement in the border safety program. For example, based on our 

analysis of FMCSA data, as figures 1 and 2 show, both the number of FMCSA 

inspectors hired and trained at the border, as required by the FY 2002 Act, and the 

percentage of Mexican trucks taken out of service after inspection improved in 

comparison to our earlier reporting. 

Figure 1. Number of FMCSA Border Inspectors Figure 2. Percentage of Mexican Trucks 

 Taken Out of Service

 

3 OIG Report Number MH-2005-032, “Follow-Up Audit of the Implementation of the North American 

Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) Cross-Border Trucking Provisions,” January 3, 2005. OIG reports 

and testimonies can be found on our website: www.oig.dot.gov.

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

20

40

60

80

100

254 

13 44% 

21% 

0

FY 1998 June 2006 FY 1997 FY 2006

ii
Our current work also found that FMCSA took the actions it agreed to in response 

to our nine January 2005 report recommendations. FMCSA continues to work 

with the states and others to resolve prior report issues that its actions did not fully 

resolve. FMCSA’s completed actions include (1) ensuring that five states, which 

had not yet done so, adopted a rule that requires enforcement action against 

Mexican motor carriers or others operating without proper authority from FMCSA 

and (2) prompting states with high-volume motor carrier commercial vehicle 

crossings to address the maintenance of weigh-in-motion scales in commercial 

vehicle safety plans. 

Despite the progress FMCSA has made, additional improvements are needed in 

two of the eight Section 350 (c)(1) criteria. 

• Improving the quality of the data used to monitor Mexican commercial 

driver traffic convictions in the United States: Our work determined that 

the system used to monitor Mexican commercial driver license convictions, the 

52nd State System, still contains data inconsistencies. Enforcement officials 

need the data to identify drivers not permitted to operate on U.S. highways. 

• Ensuring adequate capacity to inspect Mexican buses: Although FMCSA, 

in response to our 2005 audit, implemented the Southern Border Commercial 

Bus Inspection Plan that identified inspection issues and strategies for 

addressing those issues for specific bus border crossings, other important 

issues have surfaced. For example, at one high-volume crossing, physical 

space and capacity limitations prevented inspections during high-volume 

holiday periods. This means that Mexican buses granted long-haul operating 

authority in the United States may not be inspected during busy periods. 

Additionally, FMCSA and the Department should continue to address two areas 

noted in our January 2005 report that are outside the Section 350 criteria. 

• Fully implementing FMCSA’s policy on ensuring Mexican carrier 

compliance with Federal motor vehicle manufacturing safety standards: 

One mechanism Federal inspectors could use to ensure that Mexican vehicles 

have complied with manufacturing safety standards is to check a vehicle’s 

identification number to identify the year of manufacture. However, FMCSA 

has not issued additional guidance that would make it mandatory for inspectors 

to check the vehicle number and record it in inspection records. 

• Continue focusing on Mexican carrier drug and alcohol testing issues: 

Mexico has no certified testing laboratories and any samples collected in 

Mexico must be sent to certified laboratories in the United States. Although 

FMCSA has taken the actions noted in our prior report, it is not clear whether 

iii
the controls in place ensure that valid specimens are being collected in Mexico 

before being sent to a certified laboratory. 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that FMCSA improve the comprehensiveness and consistency of 

Mexican commercial driver traffic conviction data by developing state corrective 

action plans to address state-specific issues and by instituting a quarterly review 

process to routinely identify and notify states of data inconsistencies. FMCSA 

should also address bus inspection issues by working on a site-specific basis with 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection to modify the Southern Border Commercial 

Bus Inspection Plan. Our full recommendations, including those addressing other 

border safety areas, are cited on page 12. 

These improvements are needed more urgently than ever because Mexican motor 

carriers may be granted long haul authority in the near future. On 

February 23, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation announced that a select number 

of Mexican motor carriers, not including Mexican commercial drivers hauling 

hazardous materials or Mexican buses, would be granted long-haul authority as 

part of a 1-year long project.4

 This demonstration project was detailed in 

May 1 and June 8, 2007, Federal Register notices.5

 

We plan to review FMCSA compliance with elements of Section 350 in an 

upcoming audit, in accordance with the United States Troop Readiness, Veterans’ 

Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007.6

 

We will also assess whether the mechanisms established by FMCSA are sufficient 

to apply Federal motor carrier safety laws and regulations to Mexican motor 

carriers operating in the United States. The issues we highlighted above relate to 

some of the same mechanisms we plan to review. FMCSA should address any 

issue specific to the demonstration project before the project begins. 

SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL RESPONSE 

We provided FMCSA with a draft of this report on June 29, 2007. On 

July 18, 2007, FMCSA provided us with its formal comments (see page 39). In its 

comments, FMCSA stated that it considers many of the findings and 

recommendations to be constructive and already has actions underway to address 

 

4

 This authority was not granted in the past because there was no agreement regarding on-site safety 

inspections of Mexican motor carriers. On February 22, 2007, the Secretary announced that Mexico 

would permit on-site safety inspections. 5

 72 FR 23883 and 72 FR 31877. 

6

 Pub. L. No. 110-28 (2007). 

iv
them. FMCSA concurred with all of our recommendations and proposed 

corrective actions, which we have accepted. Specifically, FMCSA concurred with 

our recommendation to improve the 52nd State System’s comprehensiveness and 

consistency by ensuring that all southern border states complete their plans for 

corrective actions, instituting a monthly data report to identify problems, and 

periodically notifying states of any inconsistencies it finds. FMCSA also 

concurred with the recommendation to modify the state commercial bus inspection 

plan to ensure adequate coverage at the Lincoln-Juarez crossing at Laredo, Texas, 

during periods of peak bus traffic. In addition, it plans to contract a review of the 

effectiveness of its commercial bus inspection plan. 

FMCSA agreed to require its inspectors to look at the vehicle identification 

number for all long–haul, Mexico-domiciled carriers to check on vehicle 

compliance with manufacturing standards and to record this information. FMCSA 

also states that it will revise its system software so that it will automatically 

remind its inspectors to enter the vehicle identification number. Furthermore, 

FMCSA agreed to establish an action plan, in coordination with the Department’s 

Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, to conduct audits of various 

Mexican drug collection facilities and laboratory and to work with Mexico to meet 

U.S. requirements. Our complete analysis of FMCSA comments is on pages 13 

through 14 of this report. 

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

FINDINGS .............................................................................................. 1

FMCSA Has Continually Improved the Border Safety Program............. 1

FMCSA Adequately Addressed Two of the Four Section 350 (c) 

Issues Reported in 2005 ........................................................................ 2

FMCSA Still Needs To Improve Two Areas Under Section 350 (c)....... 3

Issues Not Specified in Section 350 of the FY 2002 Act Also 

Need FMCSA’s Continued Attention...................................................... 7

OIG Reviews of the Project Allowing Mexican Carriers To 

Operate in the United States Are Planned ............................................. 9

RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................ 12

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR 

GENERAL RESPONSE....................................................................... 13

EXHIBIT A. OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY.............. 16

EXHIBIT B. STATUS OF SECTION 350 CRITERIA SUBJECT 

TO OIG REVIEW AND PRIOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS...... 20

EXHIBIT C. SECTION 350 REQUIREMENTS ................................... 27

EXHIBIT D. PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE ........................................... 35

EXHIBIT E. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT .............. 37

EXHIBIT F. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................ 38

APPENDIX. MANAGEMENT COMMENTS........................................ 39
1

FINDINGS 

FMCSA Has Continually Improved the Border Safety Program 

Data from our current reviews and earlier reports point to continued improvement 

in FMCSA’s border safety program since we began reporting in 1998. FMCSA 

has hired and trained the inspectors required by the FY 2002 Act, and the number 

of Mexican driver and vehicle inspections in the United States has increased over 

time. Further, the percentage of Mexican trucks taken out of service after 

inspection has improved dramatically. 

In 1998, we reported that FMCSA had only 13 Federal inspectors at the southern 

border and that 44 percent of Mexican trucks inspected in FY 1997 were removed 

from service because of safety violations. Now, FMCSA has 254 enforcement 

personnel at the border; these include 128 Federal inspectors. Also, the percentage 

of Mexican trucks placed out of service dropped to under 21 percent in FY 2005 

and FY 2006, a figure comparable to that of U.S. trucks at 22 percent. 

In FY 2006, a total of 211,106 Mexican driver and vehicle inspections were 

performed in the United States, as compared with 2,554,280 inspections for U.S. 

drivers and vehicles. Table 1 includes the commercial vehicle and driver out-ofservice rates for Mexican motor carriers inspected for FY 2004 through 2006. 

These are the rates at which a vehicle or driver safety violation precludes further 

operation of a commercial vehicle by its driver—until either a specified period 

elapses or a required condition is met. 

Table 1. FY 2004–FY 2006 Out-of-Service Rates of United States, 

Mexico, and Central America Motor Carriers

Out-of-Service Rates Vehicle 

The percentage of vehicles 

inspected and placed 

out of service due to safety or 

regulation violation.

Driver

The percentage of drivers 

inspected and placed out of 

service due to a license 

violation.

2004 2005 2006 2004 2005 2006 

United States 22.6% 22.4% 22.3% 6.8% 6.9% 7.3% 

Mexico 23.1% 20.4% 20.9% 1.9% 1.1% 1.2% 

Central America* 39.5% 28.3% 42.7% 10.6% 4.8% 29.3%

Source: OIG analysis of data from FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System. 

*Our analysis noted 491 U.S. inspections in FY 2006 pertaining to Central American motor carriers. 

According to FMCSA, Central American carriers must comply with FMCSA safety requirements 

in the United States and New Entrant Safety Program rules specific to non-North American 

commercial motor carriers operating in the United States.

Findings 
2

FMCSA Adequately Addressed Two of the Four Section 350 (c) Issues 

Reported in 2005 

Our current work also assessed FMCSA’s actions in response to our last report to 

the Department in January 2005. In that report, we made four recommendations 

for improvement, which addressed actions relevant to the eight criteria that the 

OIG is required to review. Of the four issues, FMCSA has adequately addressed 

two. These issues relate to effectively enforcing actions against Mexican motor 

carriers and ensuring operable weigh-in-motion scales at the 10 highest volume 

crossings. 

FMCSA and the states have made significant progress in resolving problems 

associated with ensuring that all states can take effective enforcement action 

against Mexican motor carriers. One of the FY 2002 Act criteria7

 requires that 

measures be in place for ensuring “effective enforcement” of Mexican motor 

carriers. In our 2005 audit, we reported that five states had yet to adopt FMCSA’s 

August 2002 interim final rule8

 on enforcing operating authority; this would 

require states to place Mexican motor carrier vehicles out of service for operating 

authority violations. Our audit concluded that FMCSA’s actions addressed our 

prior recommendation to ensure that all states and the District of Columbia 

adopted the rule. The five states without operating authority have now adopted the 

rule. 

As we reported in 2005, some states that had adopted the operating enforcement 

rule noted problems implementing it. However, when we followed up with the 

14 states we had contacted during our prior audit, we found improvement. 

According to state officials, one positive factor in implementing the rule was an 

August 2005 change to the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) North 

American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria used by Federal and state officials. 

The changed criteria 

9

instructed officials that operating authority violations are a 

basis for placing a vehicle out of service. Additionally, both FMCSA and CVSA 

provided states with training to implement the rule. 

However, based on contacts with officials in three states outside the southern 

border, we remain concerned about procedures for obtaining information on the 

status of carriers’ operating authority. For example, officials in two states we 

contacted noted difficulties with determining operating authority because the 

police cars did not have Internet access for checking the status of carriers. 

Additionally, these officials noted that they did not know about FMCSA’s toll-free 

telephone number that could be used to check the status of carriers. In another 

 

7 Section 350 (c)(1)(H). 8

 The final rule was issued on August 28, 2006 (71 FR 50862). 9

 CVSA is an association of state, provincial, and Federal Government agencies in the United States, 

Canada, and Mexico responsible for the enforcement and administration of motor carrier safety laws. 

Findings 
3

state, an official we contacted was aware of the toll-free number but said that few 

of the police cars in the state had cellular telephones, so most police could not 

access the number. In our view, these examples illustrate how important it is for 

FMCSA to ensure the data that motor carrier enforcement officials require to 

identify carriers operating without proper authority are current, complete, and 

accessible. We plan to review this issue further during our congressionally 

mandated reviews surrounding the announced demonstration project. 

FMCSA took the action needed to ensure that weighing scales are fully 

operational. As we reported in January 2005, weigh-in-motion scales were in 

place at the 10 highest volume United States-Mexico commercial vehicle traffic 

border crossings in compliance with Section 350 (a) requirements. However, at 

the time of our crossing visits, the scales were not working at four Texas crossing 

facilities. Accordingly, we recommended that FMCSA identify actions and 

milestones needed to make all scales fully operational to conduct meaningful 

motor carrier inspections. In response to our recommendations, FMCSA required 

each of the 3 southern border states with the 10 high-volume crossings (Arizona, 

California, and Texas) to include a state weigh-in-motion scale maintenance 

program in their annual commercial vehicle safety plans. We verified that the 

program was included in the state plans and further observed the scale at the 

World Trade Bridge Border Crossing in Laredo, Texas, one of the required 

crossings, and determined that it was operational. 

FMCSA Still Needs To Improve Two Areas Under Section 350 (c) 

Despite the progress FMCSA has made, additional improvements are needed in 

two of the eight section 350 (c) criteria that the OIG is required to review. The 

first is the need to improve the quality of data used to monitor Mexican 

commercial driver traffic convictions in the United States. The second is to ensure 

adequate capacity to inspect Mexican buses. 

FMCSA has databases in place to monitor motor carriers and drivers, but 

action is needed to address data inconsistencies and reporting problems. One 

FY 2002 Act criteria10 calls for an accessible database containing “sufficiently 

comprehensive data” for monitoring all Mexican motor carriers and their drivers 

that apply for authority to operate beyond the municipal and commercial zones on 

the United States-Mexico border. FMCSA has established three additional data 

systems to meet the criteria. The first system established, the Mexican Monitoring 

sub-system, is part of FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System 

(MCMIS). FMCSA intends to use the MCMIS Mexican Monitoring sub-system 

to identify Mexican carriers granted long-haul authority in the United States that 

require compliance reviews for specific violations, generate letters on corrective 

 

10 Section 350(c)(1)(G). 

Findings 
4

actions, and create a history of violations and corrective dates. The second 

system, the 52nd State System, contains records of traffic violations Mexican 

commercial drivers commit in the United States. The third system, Mexico’s 

Licencia Federal Information System (LIFIS), contains Mexican records showing 

Mexican motor carrier commercial drivers with valid, disqualified, or expired 

licenses. 

Our current work re-examined the data inconsistencies noted in our 2005 report 

with the 52nd State System and the actions FMCSA took in response. FMCSA 

reports that the system is operational and that 49 states and the District of 

Columbia can now electronically record convictions;11 however, we found that 

data inconsistencies and reporting problems previously identified at southern 

border states with the 52nd State System still require continued action and 

monitoring. For instance, the number of Texas and New Mexico reported 

Mexican commercial driver license convictions in the 52nd State System showed a 

dramatic decline in the beginning of 2006 when compared to prior months, and 

there are notable differences between the total number of Arizona, California, and 

New Mexico reported convictions and Texas reported convictions (see table 2).

Table 2. 52nd State System Mexican Commercial Driver 

Convictions Since System Inception and for Beginning of 2006 

Southern 

Border State 

52nd State System Mexican 

Driver Convictions Since 

System Inception 

March 2002 through 

December 2005 

(46 months) 

52nd State System Mexican 

Driver Convictions 

January 2006 to May 2006 

(5 months) 

Arizona 20 27 

California 28 6 

New Mexico 291 0 

Texas 4,677 2 

Source: OIG analysis of data from TML Information Services (52nd State System Contractor) 

When we brought these anomalies to FMCSA’s attention in June 2006, it 

investigated the situation and found that New Mexico had incorrectly coded its 

data and failed to record any convictions in the database after July 2005. Texas 

also had stopped providing conviction information to the database and had 

accumulated a backlog of some 40,000 Mexican commercial driver-related 

convictions to review. We do not know how long it took the backlog in Texas to 

 

11 The remaining state, Oregon, manually submits its data and has committed to completing the necessary 

steps to go to electronic submissions by September 2008. 

Findings 
5

develop. Further, FMCSA disclosed that in order to identify violations for 

inclusion into the 52nd State System, Arizona officials had to manually sort 

Mexican driver convictions to identify specific violations. Additionally, 

California officials were not being provided with the details of the driver violation 

in certain instances. 

To its credit, FMCSA took swift action during our current review to work with all 

four southern border states to develop corrective action plans addressing these 

issues. For example, after developing an action plan with Texas, FMCSA reported 

that almost half of the Texas backlog was entered into the 52nd State System 

database and that most of the remainder was identified as truck safety-related 

violations that are not required to be entered into the system.12 

Strong follow-up action by FMCSA will be necessary to ensure that the states 

implement their corrective action plans. Alternatively, FMCSA should implement 

interim solutions if the plans cannot be completed in a timely fashion. Moreover, 

if FMCSA develops a process that performs a quarterly inspection of the database, 

notifies states of data inconsistencies, and ensures that states take immediate steps 

to correct inconsistencies, future problems could be avoided. The process must 

also ensure that this monitoring extends beyond the southern border states in order 

to identify problems that could develop if Mexican carriers operate more 

extensively outside the border states during the demonstration project. 

FMCSA also reports that Mexico’s LIFIS is now comprehensive and contains all 

Licencia Federal records—269,000 valid licenses, 140,000 expired licenses, and 

9,000 disqualified or restricted licenses. In our opinion, this is an improvement 

from FY 2001, when LIFIS contained only 20 percent of Mexico’s Licencia 

Federal license holders. FMCSA data from April 2006 showed that U.S. Federal 

and state officials have used LIFIS data to check the status of Mexican 

commercial driver licenses, performing over 19,000 LIFIS queries. They found 

that: 

• 82 percent of the queries resulted in the report of a valid Mexican commercial 

driver license. 

• 2 percent of the queries resulted in a report of either an expired license or a 

restriction (by the Mexican Government) limiting drivers to operate in Mexico. 

 

12 The 52nd State System database includes convictions for serious and disqualifying offenses, such as 

driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and serious traffic offenses, such as multiple, excess 

speeding violations or reckless driving. Not included in the database are violations relating to truck 

safety issues or certain motor carrier regulations, such as violations relating to operating a vehicle 

without operating authority or drivers failing to provide shipping documents. 

Findings 
6

• 16 percent of the queries resulted in a “driver not found” report, which, 

according to FMCSA, could have resulted from enforcement official input 

errors at the time the query was made. 

While FMCSA asserted that the data are now comprehensive, our ability to test the 

comprehensiveness of LIFIS information was limited because LIFIS is under the 

control of the Government of Mexico. We conducted audit work for our 

June 2002 report13 that validated the accuracy of information in LIFIS by tracing 

information in the system back to source documents. However, during the current 

audit, we could not determine whether the large percentage of queries to LIFIS 

that resulted in a response of “driver not found” were due to data entry problems 

by U.S. users of the system, attempts by Mexican drivers to operate with invalid 

licenses, incompleteness of the Mexican database, or other unknown reasons. 

FMCSA took positive action to improve bus inspection coverage, but 

additional issues should be addressed. The FY 2002 Act criteria14 called for the 

OIG to verify whether FMCSA has adequate capacity at crossings to conduct a 

sufficient number of meaningful vehicle safety inspections. These criteria apply to 

buses as well as trucks. The FY 2002 Act does not distinguish commercial buses 

from commercial trucks, although buses operate differently from commercial 

trucks at the border. Buses are permitted to enter the United States at separate bus 

crossings and at times when commercial trucks are restricted. While our January 

2005 report did not identify issues specific to truck or bus inspections conducted at 

commercial crossings, we found that the number of staff at some designated bus 

crossings was insufficient to meet the Act’s criteria for verifying the bus driver’s 

commercial license and inspecting vehicles. 

Our January 2005 report recommended that FMCSA revise polices, procedures, 

staffing, and facility plans to make Mexican bus coverage consistent with FMCSA 

policy on vehicle and driver inspections for commercial vehicles that are granted 

long-haul authority. In response to our report, FMCSA worked with the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection to identify mutually acceptable procedures and 

issued the Southern Border Commercial Bus Inspection Plan. The Inspection 

Plans identified the ports of entry in each southern border state along with a 

description of their respective bus inspection issues and the planned strategies for 

addressing those issues. 

15

 

13 OIG Report Number MH-2002-94, Implementation of Commercial Vehicle Safety Requirements at the 

U.S.-Mexico Border, June 25, 2002. 14 Section 350 (c)(1)(F). 

15 Approximately 250,000 buses crossed the southern border in FY 2005. Mexican bus inspections include 

inspections of Mexican motor coaches, buses, and school buses. In FY 2006, FMCSA reported 

19,166 bus inspections performed in the four southern border states. This was a further decrease from 

the 27,262 bus inspections reported in FY 2005 and the 29,124 reported in FY 2004. 

Findings 
7

As part of our present audit, we observed a bus crossing in Laredo, Texas, that 

services an average of 3,000 bus crossings monthly (see figure 3). At this 

crossing, we identified physical space and capacity limitations that prevented 

FMCSA and the state motor carrier inspectors from conducting bus inspections 

during high-volume holiday periods. This concern needs to be addressed to ensure 

that Mexican bus carriers granted long-haul authority are not able to avoid vehicle 

or license inspections during busy periods at this crossing. However, this 

important issue was not identified in FMCSA’s Southern Border Commercial Bus 

Inspection Plan, which covers this crossing. Additionally, when we surveyed 

selected inspectors at border crossings, other bus inspection items were brought to 

our attention, such as lack of a ramp on which to conduct inspections. FMCSA 

should routinely confirm the effectiveness of its inspection plan, either by 

periodically surveying its inspectors or pursuing other means, to identify sitespecific issues to improve bus inspections. 

Figure 3. FMCSA Bus Inspection at Laredo, Texas, 

September 2006 

 Source: OIG 

Issues Not Specified in Section 350 of the FY 2002 Act Also Need 

FMCSA’s Continued Attention 

There are two issues aside from the specific requirements of Section 350 that 

FMCSA should continue to address. FMCSA needs to take actions to fully 

implement a FMCSA policy on compliance with Federal motor vehicle 

manufacturing safety standards. Further, FMCSA’s continued attention is needed 

on drug and alcohol testing issues. 

Findings 
8

FMCSA needs to implement its policy on Mexican carrier compliance with 

motor vehicle manufacturing safety standards. Our January 2005 report urged 

FMCSA to resolve issues related to a March 2002 rule it proposed requiring 

Mexican motor carriers operating commercial vehicles in the United States to 

display a label from the manufacturer asserting that the vehicle met all applicable 

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration vehicle manufacturing 

safety standards when it was built. In August 2005, FMCSA withdrew the 

proposed rulemaking after determining that it could effectively ensure Mexican 

motor carriers’ compliance with these standards while operating in the United 

States by enforcing established motor carrier safety regulations and policies. 

When FMCSA withdrew the rulemaking, it issued an internal policy to its staff 

requiring Mexico-domiciled carriers applying to operate in the United States to 

certify that their vehicles were built or retrofitted in compliance with applicable 

manufacturing safety standards. According to the internal policy, the certification 

confirmation will occur during the pre-authority safety audit and subsequent 

inspections. Additionally, under the policy, if FMSCA or state inspectors 

determine through vehicle inspections or during a pre-authority safety audit that 

Mexican motor carriers are operating vehicles that do not comply with the safety 

standards, they could deny, suspend, or revoke a carrier’s operating authority or 

certificate of registration or issue penalties for falsification of records. 

Our current work did not assess FMCSA’s rationale for withdrawing the 

rulemaking, but we identified a problem hindering the full implementation of the 

August 2005 internal policy. The policy provided instructions to FMCSA 

inspection staff on how to determine whether a vehicle complies with applicable 

manufacturing standards. For example, according to the instructions, for any 

vehicle that does not carry a label certifying compliance with these standards, an 

inspector can check the vehicle identification number (which identifies the model 

year). FMCSA has determined that most vehicles produced in Mexico beginning 

in model year 1996 have met applicable manufacturing standards. However, the 

policy stated that guidance will be forthcoming before the August 2005 policy can 

be implemented. To date, no additional guidance has been provided. 

As a result, the August 2005 policy addresses procedures for recording vehicle 

identification numbers, but does not require inspectors to record this information. 

Our analysis of FMCSA’s FY 2005 Mexican motor carrier inspection records 

database showed that additional guidance may be needed. Data show that 

inspectors are entering Mexican motor carriers’ vehicle identification numbers in 

the inspection database only 37 percent of the time. For the remaining 63 percent, 

the optional vehicle identification number database field included non-related or 

incomplete data or no data at all. 

Findings 
9

In January 2007, FMCSA reported to us that it was making software modifications 

to prompt a vehicle identification number check when inspectors record roadside 

inspection data. FMCSA is also reassessing whether future guidance is necessary. 

Prompt resolution of questions about whether more guidance is needed to ensure 

compliance with motor vehicle manufacturing safety standards through this 

method will help ensure that inspectors can identify vehicles not meeting the 

requirements established for Mexico-domiciled carriers. 

FMCSA’s continued attention is needed to ensure implementation of 

comparable drug and alcohol testing in Mexico. Our 2005 report noted that, 

unlike sites in the United States, drug and alcohol testing collection sites in 

Mexico are not covered by the Department’s reviews, and Mexico has no certified 

testing laboratories. Instead, Mexican carriers send the collected specimens to 

certified U.S. drug-testing laboratories. In a 1998 memorandum of understanding 

between the Department of Transportation and its Mexican counterpart, the 

Mexican authorities agreed to follow collection procedures equivalent to those 

used by the Department of Transportation. Our 2005 report recommended that 

FMCSA establish milestones to ensure that Mexican motor carrier drug and 

alcohol testing issues—such as adequacy of collection sites—are addressed. 

Although FMCSA did not agree to provide milestones for addressing the issues 

presented in our January 2005 report, it committed to meeting regularly with the 

U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy 

Compliance and Mexican government officials to ensure that drug and alcohol 

testing issues are being addressed. We confirmed that such meetings occurred. 

Further, in December 2006, FMCSA issued pre-authority safety audit guidance to 

its staff specifying the information that a Mexican motor carrier must provide to 

demonstrate that it is using a certified laboratory for drug testing. 

However, a significant issue with specimen collection remains. It is not clear as to 

whether the controls in place ensure that valid specimens are being collected 

before being sent to a certified laboratory. We found no evidence that collection 

site concerns have been resolved. FMCSA should establish an action plan, in 

coordination with other appropriate offices, to ensure that drug and alcohol 

collection issues are adequately addressed. 

OIG Reviews of the Project Allowing Mexican Carriers To Operate in 

the United States Are Planned 

On February 22, 2007, the Secretary of Transportation announced that the 

Government of Mexico would allow U.S. officials to perform on-site reviews of 

Mexican carriers applying for long-haul authority in the United States. This 

announcement was shortly followed with the Department’s February 23, 2007, 

announcement of a demonstration project that will grant long-haul authority to a 

Findings 
10

select number of Mexican motor carriers and require FMCSA to review every 

participating truck that crosses the border. FMCSA provided project details in 

May 1 and June 8, 2007, Federal Register notices. 

On June 19, 2007, the OIG announced its review of the demonstration project in 

response to requirements in the United States Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, 

Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007. As 

required, the review will assess FMCSA’s compliance with elements of Section 

350 and determine whether the mechanisms established by FMCSA are sufficient 

to apply Federal motor carrier safety laws and regulations to Mexican motor 

carriers operating in the United States. 

We have not yet reviewed all details of the demonstration project; however, our 

March 2007 congressional testimony16 cited our past and current work in this area 

and noted two project issues that require our additional review—the inspection of 

all project participants that cross the United States and Mexico border and the 

need for clear objectives, milestones, and measures of success. We will follow up 

on these observations during our planned audit work. 

Inspection of all project participants could be problematic. FMCSA will need 

to establish good screening mechanisms at the border crossings, in cooperation 

with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to ensure that long-haul trucks 

participating in the demonstration project are identified for required licensing 

checks and inspections from among the large number of commercial trucks 

entering the United States daily at each commercial crossing. FMCSA’s CrossBorder Truck Safety Project states, “...every truck that crosses the border as part 

of the pilot will be checked—every truck, every time.” 

This could be problematic because, to identify project participants, FMCSA will 

need to simultaneously screen these vehicles among the high-volume commercial 

traffic crossing the border and continue to inspect other vehicles and drivers. This 

may require that FMCSA coordinate closely with U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection agents, who have initial border interaction and overall control of 

Mexican vehicles and drivers that enter the Customs and Border Protection facility 

where FMCSA is located. Otherwise, the commitment to “check every truck, 

every time” could be at risk. 

Our observations at the Laredo crossing, one of the highest volume crossings in 

the United States, confirmed the challenge FMCSA faces in screening project 

participants. Specifically, we observed hundreds of vehicles entering the United 

States at the Laredo crossing each day. FMCSA inspectors selected vehicles for 

 

16 OIG Testimony CC-2007-26 and CC-2007-29, “Status of Safety Requirements for Cross-Border 

Trucking With Mexico Under NAFTA,” March 8, 2007 and March 13, 2007, respectively. 

Findings 
11

inspection from the line of trucks waiting to exit the border crossing. However, 

once an inspector selected a vehicle and diverted it for an inspection, no FMCSA 

personnel remained at the screening point to monitor carrier traffic. Either this 

practice needs to be changed, or other procedures for screening need to be 

developed for the project in coordination with the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection. Changing present practices or developing other screening procedures 

would ensure that all project trucks are identified and diverted for inspection. 

According to FMCSA, it is working with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

to modify the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Automated Commercial 

Environment system. This system receives advance electronic vehicle manifests 

from Mexican motor carriers before vehicles arrive at the border. One possible 

modification could include a check of Mexican motor carrier’s operating authority 

and commercial driver license status. By performing pre-arrival checks of 

vehicles, inspectors could identify demonstration project vehicles that require 

inspection before they reach the border crossing. However, no timeline for 

implementation of this modification has been established. 

The demonstration project needs clear objectives, milestones, and measures 

of success. The demonstration project could provide a good opportunity for 

FMCSA to test preparations made in response to Section 350 of the FY 2002 Act, 

evaluate the Agency’s performance, and assess any risks posed by opening the 

border. However, in order to measure the success of the demonstration project, 

FMCSA should establish meaningful criteria for determining whether to open the 

border to a greater number of Mexican carriers at its conclusion. 

Findings 
12

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the FMCSA Administrator: 

1. Improve the comprehensiveness and consistency of conviction data on 

Mexican commercial drivers in the 52nd State System by: 

a. Ensuring that the corrective action plans on data reporting problems 

provided by Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas are completed 

as scheduled. 

b. Developing a process to periodically (at least quarterly) identify and 

notify states of inconsistencies in 52nd State System data and ensure 

that states take immediate steps to correct the inconsistencies. 

2. Ensure that adequate space is available to conduct bus inspections by 

working on a site-specific basis with the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to modify the Southern Border Commercial Bus Inspection Plan 

with respect to: 

a. Providing adequate inspector coverage at the Lincoln-Juarez crossing in 

Laredo, Texas, during holidays or other periods of peak bus traffic. 

b. Periodically determining the effectiveness of the bus inspection plan by 

surveying field personnel or through other methods. 

3. Address our findings on issues that are not related to Section 350 by: 

a. Implementing a policy on the use of vehicle model year to indicate 

compliance with vehicle safety standards and record vehicle 

identification numbers as part of a safety inspection. 

b. Establishing an action plan, in coordination with other Department of 

Transportation offices, to address concerns regarding drug and alcohol 

testing of all Mexican commercial drivers. 

Recommendations 
13

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

We provided FMCSA with a draft of this report on June 29, 2007. On 

July 18, 2007, FMCSA provided us with formal comments, which are contained in 

their entirety in the appendix. In its comments, FMCSA stated that it considers 

many of the findings and recommendations to be constructive and that it already 

has actions underway to address them. Additionally, FMCSA concurred with all 

the recommendations and identified a completed or planned action for each that 

we consider responsive to our recommendations. FMCSA comments on the 

recommendations and our response are summarized below. We plan to follow up 

on FMCSA’s stated actions in future audit work. 

Recommendation 1.a: In response to the recommendation to ensure that 

corrective action plans on data reporting problems are completed as scheduled, 

FMCSA stated that Texas and New Mexico have successfully completed their 

corrective action plans. The remaining southern border states, California and 

Arizona, will complete their corrective action plans by August 30, 2007. 

OIG Response: We consider FMCSA’s comments to be responsive. 

Recommendation 1.b: In response to the recommendation to develop a process 

to identify and notify states of inconsistencies in data, FMCSA stated that it is 

working to obtain monthly 52nd State System data monitoring reports and will 

periodically identify and notify states of inconsistencies it finds. These monitoring 

reports will be sent to all FMCSA Division Administrators detailing any 

inconsistencies along with guidance on tracking the correction of inconsistencies. 

This is planned to be completed by August 31, 2007. 

OIG Response: We consider FMCSA’s comments to be responsive. 

Recommendation 2.a: In response to the recommendation to ensure that 

adequate space is available to conduct inspections, FMCSA stated that it will 

modify the Texas Commercial Bus Inspection Plan, working with the Texas 

Department of Public Safety and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to ensure 

adequate coverage at the Lincoln-Juarez crossing at Laredo, Texas, during periods 

of peak bus traffic. This is planned to be completed by December 31, 2007. 

OIG Response: We consider FMCSA’s comments to be responsive. 

Recommendation 2.b: In response to the recommendation to work on sitespecific basis with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to determine the 

effectiveness of the bus inspection plan, FMCSA stated that it will review the 

Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response 
14

effectiveness of the bus inspection plan. It also stated that it has provided funding 

to the Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, to review bus 

activities and operations at the southern border crossings. FMCSA anticipates 

completing this action by April 1, 2008. 

OIG Response: We consider FMCSA’s comments to be responsive. 

Recommendation 3.a: In response to our recommendation to implement a policy 

on the use of vehicle model year to indicate compliance with vehicle safety 

manufacturing standards, FMCSA stated that it is revising system software so that 

an automatic reminder appears during inspection and prompts inspectors to enter 

the vehicle identification number for all long-haul, Mexico-domiciled motor 

carriers. FMCSA is also issuing a policy requiring inspectors to complete the 

vehicle identification number field for all long-haul Mexico-domiciled carriers. 

This is action is scheduled to be completed by October 1, 2007. 

OIG Response: We consider FMCSA’s comments to be responsive. 

Recommendation 3.b: In response to our recommendation to establish an action 

plan to address drug and alcohol testing of all Mexican commercial drivers, 

FMCSA stated it is working closely with the Department’s Office of Drug and 

Alcohol Policy and Compliance to conduct audits of various drug collection 

facilities operated in Mexico. These audits will be completed by 

September 1, 2007. Additionally, the Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and 

Compliance has worked with the Government of Mexico to ensure that the 

policies, procedures, and forms used in the Mexico-controlled substance and 

alcohol testing program are consistent with and meet U.S. requirements. Further, 

FMCSA will be working with the Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and 

Compliance to establish an action plan to periodically audit Mexico collection 

sites and the laboratory to determine whether they meet U.S. requirements. This 

action plan will be completed by December 31, 2007. 

OIG Response: We consider FMCSA’s comments to be responsive. 

Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response 
15

ACTIONS REQUIRED 

The actions taken and planned by FMCSA are reasonable and subject to the 

follow-up requirements of Department of Transportation Order 8000.1C until the 

final actions are completed. 

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of representatives from FMSCA, the 

states, and the organizations visited and contacted during this audit. If you have 

any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 493-0331 or Joe 

Comé, Program Director, at (202) 366-0377. 

# 

Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response 
16

EXHIBIT A. OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

OBJECTIVE 

The objective of this audit was to assess the actions FMCSA took in response to 

the findings and recommendations in our January 3, 2005, report, “Follow-up 

Audit of the Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement’s 

Cross-Border Trucking Provisions.” In addition, we determined whether FMCSA 

has the staff, facilities, equipment, and procedures in place to comply with FY 

2002 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Section 350 (c) (1) 

(A) through (H). Exhibit C details the Section 350 criteria that the OIG is required 

to review. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

This performance audit was conducted from March 2006 through July 2007 in 

accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards as 

prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States. We performed such 

tests as we considered necessary to detect fraud, waste, and abuse. 

To prevent unnecessary duplication of prior reviews, we limited our audit testing 

for the eight Section 350 criteria subject to OIG review. This was due to the indepth audit coverage of earlier reviews (summarized in exhibit D) and the absence 

of any significant change in granting of long-haul authority to Mexican motor 

carriers during the period covered by this audit. We relied on our analysis of 

selected FMCSA data and documentation; interviews with FMCSA officials, 

selected state officials, and other officials; and observations of operations at the 

World Trade Bridge border crossing, in Laredo, Texas, to provide assurances that 

the conditions previously reported remain the same. Additionally, we reviewed 

FMCSA’s promised actions in response to our previous report to determine 

whether those actions had resulted in changes in any conditions we previously 

reported. Further details on our methodology are provided below. 

Staffing Issues 

Our review included analyzing border staff rosters and payroll lists to determine 

the current FMCSA inspection staff stationed along the southern border. We 

verified payroll lists by interviewing 10 randomly selected border inspectors 

regarding their employment and inspection responsibilities and obtaining reports 

of two inspections they conducted in 2006. 

Exhibit A. Objective, Scope, and Methodology 
17

Observations at Laredo, Texas, Border Crossing 

During our visit to the World Trade Bridge border crossing and inspection 

facilities in Laredo, Texas, we relied on the technical assistance of an independent 

contractor with extensive law enforcement and vehicle inspection experience. We 

observed the overall operations at the crossing and motor vehicle and driver 

inspections; observed inspection-related equipment; and interviewed officials from 

FMCSA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the state to determine: (1) the 

current roles and procedures they used to permit the entry of Mexican motor 

carriers into the United States and their subsequent operations beyond the entry 

point, (2) the working relationships between border staff of the different agencies 

at this crossing, (3) actions taken in response to our 2005 report recommendations, 

and (4) inspection procedures and certifications. 

Inspection Data 

We independently obtained data from FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management 

Information System (MCMIS) as of February 8, 2006, to determine the number of 

inspections conducted, broken out into inspection level as described below, and 

computed the vehicle and driver out-of-service (OOS) rates for the United States, 

Mexico, and Central America for FYs 2004 through 2006 and compared those 

rates to rates for FYs 1999 through 2003, which we reported in our 2005 audit. 

• Level I—North American Standard inspection; includes a vehicle and 

driver inspection and a physical inspection of the underside of the vehicle. 

• Level II—Walk-around vehicle and driver inspection; does not include 

underside of the vehicle. 

• Level III—Driver only. 

• Level IV—Special inspection; usually a one-time inspection of a particular 

item. 

• Level V—Vehicle only. 

To calculate vehicle OOS rates, we used Levels I, II, and V. To calculate the 

driver OOS rate, we used Levels I, II, and III. We performed a limited assessment 

of the general and application controls for MCMIS, as the nature of the data we 

used was mainly for informational reporting purposes. We selectively analyzed 

data to test for completeness in certain data fields. We also reconciled motor 

carrier addresses in inspection records to verify that these were addresses for 

active carriers. 

Exhibit A. Objective, Scope, and Methodology 
18

Review of Prior Findings and Recommendations 

To review the specific actions FMCSA has taken in response to recommendations 

in our 2005 audit report, we provided FMCSA with a document containing our 

understanding of the promised actions and outstanding issues associated with the 

2005 report. FMCSA reviewed the document and provided a written response. 

We further met with FMCSA to discuss the current status of its actions and the 

precondition agreements or other understandings and to obtain further 

documentation. To verify whether FMCSA was providing appropriate support 

and coordination related to NAFTA issues, we also interviewed officials from the 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Department’s Office of 

Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance. 

To follow up on our recommendation to provide comprehensive data for 

monitoring Mexican commercial drivers, we reviewed FMCSA and contractor 

reports addressing the architecture, operation, and data quality of the two systems 

used to monitor Mexican commercial drivers’ records—Mexico’s Licencia 

Federal Information System and FMCSA’s 52nd State System. We further 

analyzed data quality reports; interviewed the contractor, TML Information 

Services, which was responsible for operating the 52nd State System; and 

reviewed contract provisions for operation of the 52nd State System. We also 

reviewed established state and FMCSA milestones for improving the reporting 

from individual states into the 52nd State System. 

To follow up on our recommendation to improve bus inspections at border 

crossings, we assessed FMCSA’s February 2006 Southern Border Commercial 

Bus Inspection Plan, which were implemented after issuance of our 2005 audit, to 

determine whether they provided steps that would ensure adequate bus inspection 

coverage at southern border crossings in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and 

Texas. Using MCMIS inspection data, we also determined the number of bus 

inspections in the four southern border states in FY 2004 through 2006. We 

compared the information obtained at the Laredo border crossing to the bus 

inspection plan covering Texas. 

To follow up on our recommendation to ensure that all states are enforcing the 

2002 operating authority rule, we contacted 14 judgmentally selected state law 

enforcement officials and 3 FMCSA state program staff to ascertain whether law 

enforcement personnel in those states: (1) had been able to access to resources 

that provide operating authority status, (2) had enforced the operating authority 

rule by putting violators out of service, and (3) had made any improvements in 

their ability to enforce the operating authority rule since our 2005 audit. We also 

reviewed related Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance training course materials. 

To clarify California’s use of the operating authority rule, we reviewed past and 

Exhibit A. Objective, Scope, and Methodology 
19

present California statutes regarding operating authority violations, interviewed 

California state enforcement officials regarding past and present operating 

authority rule enforcement, and analyzed MCMIS data to determine how many 

operating authority violations California reported from FY 2003 through 2005 

and, of these, how many resulted in an OOS order. 

To follow up on our recommendation regarding weigh-in-motion scale operation 

and maintenance, we reviewed weigh-in-motion scale maintenance plans 

contained in the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plans from Arizona, California, and 

Texas. New Mexico does not have one of the 10 highest volume crossings that 

would require a weigh-in-motion scale under the FY 2002 Act. We also inspected 

the weigh-in-motion scales located at the World Trade Bridge border crossings at 

Laredo, Texas. 

Our prior audit noted that FMCSA had initiated a rulemaking requiring labels on 

all commercial vehicles operating in the United States to show compliance with 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. To follow up on the requirement, we 

reviewed FMCSA’s rulemaking, public comments, draft report to Congress, and 

its subsequent rulemaking withdrawal notice. We analyzed MCMIS data to 

determine whether the vehicle identification number field was being populated in 

MCMIS, although it was not required on completed inspection forms. 

We verified that a replacement inspection facility was operational and hosting 

inspections at the Eagle Pass border crossing in Eagle Pass, Texas, by reviewing 

FMCSA staffing data.

Exhibit A. Objective, Scope, and Methodology 
20

EXHIBIT B. STATUS OF SECTION 350 CRITERIA SUBJECT TO 

OIG REVIEW AND PRIOR REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 

Status of Section 350 Criteria the OIG Is Required to Review 

Our January 2005 report concluded that FMCSA had sufficient staff, facilities, 

equipment, and procedures in place to substantially meet the eight Section 350 

(c)(1) criteria. See Exhibit C for details on the criteria and Section 350 

requirements. As shown in table 3, the report made four recommendations to 

FMCSA, which addressed actions relevant to the eight Section 350 criteria. Our 

analysis of FMCSA’s actions on these recommendations is discussed in the 

findings section of this report. 

Table 3. Section 350 (c)(1)(A) through (H) Criteria Subject 

to OIG Review and 2005 OIG Report Recommendations 

(A) Filling and providing training for inspection positions. 

(B) Training inspectors conducting on-site reviews as safety specialists. 

(C) Not transferring inspectors to fill positions. 

(D) Implementing an hours of service policy. 

(E) Having a sufficiently accurate, accessible, and integrated information infrastructure

and adequate telecommunications links. 

(F) Having adequate capacity at southern border to conduct meaningful inspections. 

9 Bus Inspections: Recommended revising policies, procedures, staffing, and 

facility plans for bus coverage consistent with FMCSA policy for vehicle and 

driver inspections for Mexican commercial vehicles granted long-haul authority. 

9 Weigh-in-Motion Scales Maintenance: Recommended identifying actions and 

milestones needed to make all scales fully operable. 

(G) Having sufficient databases to allow safety monitoring of Mexican carriers and 

drivers. 

9 52nd State System: Recommended ensuring the establishment of a 

comprehensive system for monitoring Mexican motor carrier drivers. 

(H) Measures ensuring effective enforcement and monitoring of Mexican carrier licensing. 

9 Operating Authority Rule: Recommended ensuring that all states adopt and fully 

comply with the August 2002 rule on enforcing operating authority. 

The following provides the results of our review of each Section 350 (c)(1) criteria 

subject to our review and details FMCSA’s actions taken in response to our 2005 

report recommendations that are not discussed in the finding section of this report. 

Staffing, Training, and Transfer Restrictions of Inspectors (Criteria A, B, and 

C): FMCSA reported that 93 percent, or 254 of 274 Federal enforcement 

Exhibit B. Status of Section 350 Criteria Subject to OIG Review and 

Prior Report Recommendations 
21 

personnel positions authorized at the United States-Mexico border were filled as 

of June 2006 and hiring efforts are ongoing.17 This represents a slight decrease 

from the 95 percent of filled positions we reported in our January 2005 report. In 

our opinion, this decrease is still within an acceptable range to meet Section 350 

(c)(1)(A) staffing criteria, given normal attrition and FMCSA’s continuing 

recruitment efforts. In addition to the 254 FMCSA enforcement personnel 

currently working at the southern border, 347 federally subsidized state inspectors 

are at United States-Mexico border crossings. Table 4 shows a breakout of the 

FMCSA personnel and their locations along the southern border. 

Table 4. Location of FMCSA Personnel at the 

United States-Mexico Border 

Staff Position Arizona California New Mexico Texas Total 

Inspector 27 10 6 85 128 

Auditor 6 14 0 29 49 

Investigator 3 12 0 32 47 

Supervisor 6 5 1 7 19 

Support Staff 2 3 0 6 11 

Total 44 44 7 159 254 

Source: OIG analysis of June 2006 FMCSA Border Staff Roster. 

According to FMCSA officials, all enforcement personnel at the United StatesMexico commercial border crossings, both Federal and state, have the proper 

training to meet Section 350 (c)(1)(A) inspection training criteria. Additionally, 

those personnel are trained as safety specialists to conduct on-site reviews of 

Mexican motor carriers to meet Section 350 (c)(1)(B) safety specialist training 

criteria. Because there was a limited number of new hires since our last audit, we 

relied on the results of our past audit work in which we confirmed that inspectors 

were attending training, analyzed training class rosters, tested answer sheets, and 

reviewed personnel data. Further, consistent with the non-transfer criteria of 

Section 350 (c)(1)(C), our audit work found that, with one exception, none of the 

enforcement personnel hired for the United States-Mexico commercial border 

crossings were experienced FMCSA personnel transferred from other parts of the 

United States to fill these positions. The one exception was an in-state transfer 

that we do not consider significant. 

 

17 Section 350 referred to the position as “inspectors,” but FMCSA categorized the positions as inspectors, 

auditors, and investigators responsible for providing a full range of safety enforcement functions. These 

enforcement actions include performing driver and vehicle safety inspections, safety audits, and 

compliance reviews and investigations. FMCSA established 274 positions as the target it needed to meet 

Section 350 criteria. 

Exhibit B. Status of Section 350 Criteria Subject to OIG Review and 

Prior Report Recommendations 
22 

Further, as shown in Table 5, the total number of Mexican motor carrier 

commercial vehicle and driver inspections conducted in the United States in FY 

2006 increased from FY 2005, and the average number of inspections per Mexican 

motor carrier increased. 

Table 5. Number of U.S. Inspections of Motor Carrier 

Commercial Vehicles and Drivers by Carrier Domicile, FY 2004 

Through FY 2006 

Carrier Domicile 

by Fiscal Year

Inspections 

Conducted in 

United States 

Carriers 

Inspected 

Average 

Inspections 

per Carrier 

2006 2,554,280 314,486 8

United States 2005 2,338,692 290,236 8

2004 2,332,137 277,362 8

2006 211,106 4,617 46

Mexico 2005 193,540 4,597 42

2004 164,342 5,007 33

2006 491 54 9

Central America 2005 376 38 10

2004 161 34 5

Source: OIG analysis of FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System data. 

Our prior reports noted that, although the overall staffing at United States-Mexico 

commercial border crossings is satisfactory, FMCSA needs to periodically reevaluate its overall resource requirements for the United States-Mexico border to 

meet actual conditions. This evaluation should include staffing levels, the 

experience levels of inspection staff, and the distribution of the staff at crossings. 

We plan to look at this during our upcoming review of the demonstration project. 

Hours-of-Service Policy (Criteria D): FMCSA meets the hours-of-service 

policy criteria of Section 350 (c)(1)(D). FMCSA has issued policy guidance 

requiring safety auditors to verify hours-of-service compliance for Mexican motor 

carriers seeking authority to operate outside municipal and commercial zones. 

Additionally, our observations of border inspections found that FMCSA 

inspections were conducted in accordance with CVSA inspection criteria, which 

include reviewing drivers’ hours-of-service records. 

Information and Telecommunications (Criteria E): FMCSA provides an 

integrated information infrastructure and telecommunications links to meet the 

criteria. As we found during our 2005 audit and our observations at the two sites 

in Laredo, Texas, FMCSA’s integrated information infrastructure and 

telecommunications links are in place and sufficiently accessible to inspectors to 

satisfy the related criteria of Section 350 (c)(1)(E). For example, we observed that 

the sites have computer internet access, telephone service, and use of linked 

wireless hand-held electronic devices, such as Personal Digital Assistants. 

Exhibit B. Status of Section 350 Criteria Subject to OIG Review and 

Prior Report Recommendations 
23 

Capacity To Conduct Meaningful Inspections at the Southern Border 

(Criteria F): According to FMCSA, there are 28 FMCSA inspection sites and 

15 state inspection sites along the southern border that are either fully staffed or 

contain equipped inspection facilities that can be staffed when needed. FMCSA 

officials stated that some inspection sites might be improved or supported with 

mobile operation vans to provide additional inspection capacity. Our current audit 

found that FMCSA continues to have the capacity to conduct meaningful 

inspections at the southern border, by providing sufficient inspection facilities and 

equipment to meet Section 350(c)(1)(F) criteria, with the exception of Mexican 

bus inspection issues. Further, our prior audit recommendation to ensure that 

operable weigh-in-motion scales were available at the 10 highest-volume 

crossings has been met. The bus inspection issue and actions taken in response to 

our January 2005 report regarding bus inspections and weigh-in-motion scales are 

discussed in the findings section of this report.

18

Sufficiently Comprehensive Data for Monitoring Motor Carriers and Drivers 

(Criteria G): Section 350(c)(1)(G) states that a database containing “sufficiently 

comprehensive data” must be accessible for monitoring all Mexican motor carriers 

and their drivers that apply for authority to operate beyond the municipal and 

commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border. In this audit, we 

concentrated on re-examining the data inconsistencies noted with Mexican motor 

carrier driver records and the actions FMCSA has taken in regards to its 52nd 

State System. This system contains records of traffic violations Mexican 

commercial drivers commit in the United States. We also examined 

inconsistencies with Mexico’s Licencia Federal Information System, which 

contains records showing Mexican motor carrier commercial drivers with valid, 

disqualified, or expired licenses. Our audit found that the same systems 

enforcement officials use to monitor both Mexican carriers and drivers, which we 

identified in our 2005 audit, are still in place to meet the Section 350 criteria. 

However, data from the 52nd State System covering Mexican driver records in the 

United States were incomplete. This issue is discussed further in the findings 

section of this report, as is the status of Mexico’s information system. 

Effective Enforcement (Criteria H): Section 350 (c)(1)(H), requires that 

measures be in place for ensuring “effective enforcement” of Mexican motor 

carriers. Our 2005 audit reported that five states had yet to adopt FMCSA’s 

August 2002 interim final rule on enforcing operating authority, which would 

require states to place Mexican motor carrier vehicles out of service for violations 

of specific Federal motor carrier regulations.19 Our audit found that FMCSA’s 

 

18 Our 2005 report noted 27 FMCSA inspection sites and separately reported that at two crossings 

commercial volume was not sufficient to merit full-time inspection coverage or dedicated inspection 

facilities. However, according to FMCSA, inspectors were available “on-call” to provide coverage. 19 The final rule was issued on August 28, 2006 (71 FR 50862).

Exhibit B. Status of Section 350 Criteria Subject to OIG Review and 

Prior Report Recommendations 
24 

actions addressed our prior recommendation to ensure that all states adopt and 

comply with the rule. We confirmed that the five states without operating 

authority have now adopted the rule or as with California, were using an 

equivalent rule. Instead of putting a violator out of service, California can either 

fine the violator $1,000 or order the violator to return the vehicle to the country of 

origin. In addition to assessing a fine against violators, California may also 

impound the vehicle and its cargo until the fine and impoundment charges are 

paid. FMCSA has stated that it considers California’s requirement that the vehicle 

be impounded to be compatible with its rule, but to ensure that all violators are 

placed out of service, California is moving to adopt and include FMCSA’s criteria. 

As a result, all states can now place vehicles out of service or take equivalent 

action for operating authority violations. See the report findings for remaining 

concerns we have with states obtaining information regarding the status of carrier 

operating authority. 

Status of Other January 2005 Report Issues Relating to Mexican 

Motor Carrier Cross-Border Trucking 

The remaining five areas identified in the January 2005 report are addressed 

below. They include recommendations for two preconditions set forth elsewhere 

in Section 350 of the FY 2002 Act, one recommendation for an area not 

specifically included in Section 350 but related to Mexican motor carrier crossborder safety issues, and two safety-related issues identified in the report but not 

reflected in the report recommendations. 

We followed up on the detailed actions FMCSA outlined in response to other 

border operation safety issues identified in our January 2005 report not already 

covered in our report findings. Those actions included (1) reaching an agreement 

or understanding with the Government of Mexico to allow on-site inspections, 

(2) reaching an agreement on background checks on Mexican commercial drivers 

hauling hazardous materials, (3) improving the quality of available data on 

Mexican motor carriers, (4) recording of insurance information, and (5) replacing 

an inspection facility at Eagle Pass, Texas. 

The Mexican Government will now allow on-site inspection of Mexican 

carriers. Our previous report noted that the FY 2002 Act Section 350 (a) 

prohibited FMCSA from using funds to review or process long-haul applications 

of Mexican motor carriers until after they meet certain preconditions involving onsite reviews. Section 350 requires that 50 percent of Mexican motor carriers 

applying for long-haul authority be inspected on-site.20 On February 22, 2007, 

Secretary of Transportation announced that the Government of Mexico would 

 

20 In February 2007, FMCSA re-issued inspection guidance on pre-authority safety audits that included a 

requirement for its inspectors to notify Mexican government officials named in the guidance at least 

15 days in advance of an on-site inspection. 

Exhibit B. Status of Section 350 Criteria Subject to OIG Review and 

Prior Report Recommendations 
25 

allow on-site inspections of Mexican motor carriers. We plan to assess on-site 

reviews as they pertain to the announced project discussed in the findings section 

of this report. 

A non-DOT program performs background checks on Mexican commercial 

drivers hauling hazardous materials. Section 350 (b) restricts any vehicle 

owned or leased by a Mexican motor carrier from hauling hazardous materials 

outside U.S. commercial zones in a placardable quantity. This restriction is in 

place until the United States and Mexico reach an agreement ensuring that 

Mexican drivers meet substantially the same qualifications as U.S. drivers hauling 

hazardous materials. Our 2005 report recommended that FMCSA facilitate the 

establishment of this agreement and not permit vehicles owned or leased by 

Mexican motor carriers to haul hazardous materials outside the commercial zone 

until such an agreement is in place. 

Subsequent to our 2005 report, the August 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users21 (SAFETEA-LU) 

required background checks of Mexican and Canadian commercial drivers hauling 

hazardous materials that are equivalent to checks required to qualify U.S. 

commercial vehicle drivers. The Department of Homeland Security 

Transportation Security Administration implemented this requirement by ruling 

that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Free and Secure Trade (FAST) 

program, which includes background checks of Mexican motor carriers, meets the 

background check requirements of SAFETEA-LU. According to the TSA, 

Mexican and Canadian drivers who do not or cannot obtain a FAST card will be 

prohibited from transporting hazardous materials in the United States. FAST went 

into affect on August 10, 2006. Without information regarding the scope of the 

processes the U.S. Customs and Border Protection used in performing background 

checks, we could not assess whether FAST is an equivalent alternative to the 

requirement of Section 350 (b). Because the TSA has taken the Federal lead in 

carrying out hazardous material background checks, our 2005 recommendation 

that FMCSA facilitate a background check agreement is closed. Further, 

according to FMCSA, it does not have a role in enforcing background checks on 

Mexican or Canadian motor carriers.

FMCSA issued guidance that should improve the quality of data on Mexican 

motor carriers. The effective monitoring of Mexican motor carriers over the 

long term will depend, in part, on the quality of the data obtained on their 

operations. Our 2005 report recommended that FMCSA establish pre-authority 

safety audit procedures to ensure Mexican motor carriers provide accurate 

information on power units and vehicle drivers. FMCSA uses this type of data in 

combination with other information, such as crash and inspection reports, to 

 

21 Pub. L. No. 109-59 (2005). 

Exhibit B. Status of Section 350 Criteria Subject to OIG Review and 

Prior Report Recommendations 
26 

identify for review those motor carriers that are a high risk. In February 2007, 

FMCSA issued pre-authorization safety audit guidance for Mexican motor carriers 

that requires safety auditors to collect information on carrier power units and 

vehicle drivers. 

Because long-haul authority has not yet been granted to Mexican motor carriers, 

we are unable to confirm the implementation of these procedures. However, our 

April 2006 audit of the 1999 Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act22 showed that 

the procedures FMCSA used during reviews of new entrant U.S. carriers, which 

are similar to those instituted by FMCSA for Mexican motor carriers, had reduced 

the instances of inaccurate and incomplete information, such as power unit data, in 

the FMCSA database. Therefore, the pre-authorization safety audit guidance may 

increase the reliability of Mexican motor carrier data once it is in use. 

FMCSA plans to record insurance data of Mexican carriers in the United 

States after it starts processing long-haul authority applications. Our 2005 

report recommended that FMCSA require Mexican motor carriers operating 

outside municipal and commercial zones to provide appropriate insurance 

information for inclusion in FMCSA’s database. Adding insurance data to the 

database provides a means for enforcement officials to verify insurance coverage 

during an inspection. In response, FMCSA stated that it would address this 

recommendation when it begins processing Mexican motor carrier applications for 

long-haul authority. In the meantime, according to FMCSA, Mexican motor 

carriers must carry certificates of insurance in their commercial vehicles. These 

certificates are subject to review if the vehicle is stopped or inspected. We plan to 

review this issue as it pertains to the announced demonstration project. 

The Eagle Pass inspection facility is operational. Our 2005 report noted that 

when the U.S. Customs and Border Protection planned the replacement of the 

Eagle Pass inspection facility in Texas, it did not include space for FMCSA 

inspections. FMCSA reported that the Eagle Pass inspection facilities are now 

operational. To verify that the facility is operational, we reviewed FMCSA 

staffing data. In Eagle Pass, as of August 2006, there were 3 FMCSA inspectors 

on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection compound and 19 state inspectors at a 

state location. 

 

22 OIG Report Number MH-2006-046, “Significant Improvements in Motor Carrier Safety Program Since 

1999 Act but Loopholes for Repeat Violators Need Closing,” April 21, 2006. 

Exhibit B. Status of Section 350 Criteria Subject to OIG Review and 

Prior Report Recommendations 
27 

EXHIBIT C. SECTION 350 REQUIREMENTS 

With the signing of North American Free Trade Agreement in December 1992, the 

United States of America and Mexico consented to cross-border trucking 

throughout both countries by January 1, 2000. However, in December 1995, the 

Secretary of Transportation indefinitely delayed implementation of NAFTA crossborder provisions, citing safety reasons. 

Section 350 of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and subsequent appropriation legislation 

prohibit FMCSA from using Federal funds to review or process Mexico-domiciled 

motor carrier applications to operate beyond the U.S. commercial zones until 

certain preconditions and safety requirements are met. Section 350 provisions, 

including the requirement for an annual review by our office, are summarized 

below and provided in more detail on the following pages. 

• Section 350 Preconditions for Allowing Reviewing or Processing of 

Mexican Long-Haul Applications: FMCSA must meet a number of 

preconditions contained in Section 350 (a) before it can review or process 

Mexican motor carrier applications to operate as a long-haul carrier beyond 

the municipal and commercial zones at the southern border. This includes 

requiring on-site safety examinations of motor carriers in Mexico, in some 

instances. 

• Section 350 Precondition for Allowing Vehicles To Haul Hazardous 

Materials: Section 350 (b) restricts vehicles owned or leased by Mexican 

motor carriers to transport hazardous materials beyond commercial zones 

until an agreement is reached between the United States and Mexico. This 

agreement must hold hazardous material drivers from both countries to 

substantially the same requirements. 

• Section 350 OIG Review and Secretary Certification of Border 

Operations: Section 350 (c) prohibits Mexican motor carriers from 

operating beyond the commercial zone under conditional or permanent 

authority granted by FMCSA until two events occur. First, the OIG must 

conduct a review within the first 180 days of the law’s enactment to verify 

whether or not eight criteria are met. These criteria relate to the hiring and 

training of inspectors, establishment of inspection facilities, and 

development of safety processes and procedures for Mexican long-haul 

motor carriers. Second, the Secretary of Transportation must certify, in a 

manner addressing the OIG’s findings, that opening of the border does not 

pose an unacceptable safety risk to the American public. 

Exhibit C. Section 350 Requirements 
28 

In November 2002, the Secretary of Transportation certified that opening the 

border does not pose an unacceptable risk to the American public. Although 

Section 350 (c) does not require the Secretary of Transportation to re-certify to the 

safety of opening the border after the initial certification, it does direct the OIG to 

perform annual reviews using the eight Section 350 (c) criteria. The OIG issued 

reports in June 2002, May 2003, and January 2005 that addressed the eight criteria 

and other border operations issues covered under the FY 2002 Act. See exhibit D 

for a summary of these reports. The full text of Section 350 follows: 

The Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Section 350, Safety of CrossBorder Trucking Between United States and Mexico 

Section 350 (a). No funds limited or appropriated in this Act may be obligated or 

expended for the review or processing of an application by a Mexican motor 

carrier for authority to operate beyond United States municipalities and 

commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border until the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration— 

(1)(A) requires a safety examination of such motor carrier to be performed 

before the carrier is granted conditional operating authority to operate 

beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on the United 

States-Mexico border; 

(B) requires the safety examination to include— 

(i) verification of available performance data and safety management 

programs; 

(ii) verification of a drug and alcohol testing program consistent with 

part 40 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations; 

(iii) verification of that motor carrier's system of compliance with 

hours-of-service rules, including hours-of-service records; 

(iv) verification of proof of insurance; 

(v) a review of available data concerning that motor carrier's safety 

history, and other information necessary to determine the carrier's 

preparedness to comply with Federal Motor Carrier Safety rules and 

regulations and Hazardous Materials rules and regulations; 

Exhibit C. Section 350 Requirements 
29 

(vi) an inspection of that Mexican motor carrier's commercial 

vehicles to be used under such operating authority, if any such 

commercial vehicles have not received a decal from the inspection 

required in subsection (a)(5); 

(vii) an evaluation of that motor carrier's safety inspection, 

maintenance, and repair facilities or management systems, including 

verification of records of periodic vehicle inspections; 

(viii) verification of drivers' qualifications, including a confirmation 

of the validity of the Licencia de Federal de Conductor of each 

driver of that motor carrier who will be operating under such 

authority; and 

(ix) an interview with officials of that motor carrier to review safety 

management controls and evaluate any written safety oversight 

policies and practices. 

(C) requires that— 

(i) Mexican motor carriers with three or fewer commercial vehicles 

need not undergo on-site safety examination; however 50 percent of 

all safety examinations of all Mexican motor carriers shall be 

conducted on-site; and 

(ii) such on-site inspections shall cover at least 50 percent of 

estimated truck traffic in any year. 

(2) requires a full safety compliance review of the carrier consistent with 

the safety fitness evaluation procedures set forth in part 385 of title 49, 

Code of Federal Regulations, and gives the motor carrier a satisfactory 

rating, before the carrier is granted permanent operating authority to operate 

beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on the United 

States-Mexico border, and requires that any such safety compliance review 

take place within 18 months of that motor carrier being granted conditional 

operating authority, provided that— 

(A) Mexican motor carriers with three or fewer commercial vehicles 

need not undergo on-site compliance review; however 50 percent of 

all compliance reviews of all Mexican motor carriers shall be 

conducted on-site; and 

Exhibit C. Section 350 Requirements 
30 

(B) any Mexican motor carrier with 4 or more commercial vehicles 

that did not undergo an on-site safety exam under (a)(1)(C), shall 

undergo an on-site safety compliance review under this section. 

(3) requires Federal and State inspectors to verify electronically the status 

and validity of the license of each driver of a Mexican motor carrier 

commercial vehicle crossing the border; 

(A) for every such vehicle carrying a placardable quantity of 

hazardous materials; 

(B) whenever the inspection required in subsection (a)(5) is 

performed; and 

(C) randomly for other Mexican motor carrier commercial vehicles, 

but in no case less than 50 percent of all other such commercial 

vehicles. 

(4) gives a distinctive Department of Transportation number to each 

Mexican motor carrier operating beyond the commercial zone to assist 

inspectors in enforcing motor carrier safety regulations including hours-ofservice rules under part 395 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations; 

(5) requires, with the exception of Mexican motor carriers that have been 

granted permanent operating authority for three consecutive years— 

(A) inspections of all commercial vehicles of Mexican motor carriers 

authorized, or seeking authority to operate beyond United States 

municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-Mexico 

border that do not display a valid Commercial Vehicle Safety 

Alliance inspection decal, by certified inspectors in accordance with 

the requirements for a Level I Inspection under the criteria of the 

North American Standard Inspection (as defined in section 350.105 

of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations), including examination of 

the driver, vehicle exterior and vehicle under-carriage; 

(B) a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance decal to be affixed to 

each such commercial vehicle upon completion of the inspection 

required by clause (A) or a re-inspection if the vehicle has met the 

criteria for the Level I inspection; and 

(C) that any such decal, when affixed, expire at the end of a period 

of not more than 90 days, but nothing in this paragraph shall be 

Exhibit C. Section 350 Requirements 
31 

construed to preclude the Administration from requiring reinspection 

of a vehicle bearing a valid inspection decal or from requiring that 

such a decal be removed when a certified Federal or State inspector 

determines that such a vehicle has a safety violation subsequent to 

the inspection for which the decal was granted. 

(6) requires State inspectors who detect violations of Federal motor carrier 

safety laws or regulations to enforce them or notify Federal authorities of 

such violations; 

(7)(A) equips all United States-Mexico commercial border crossings with 

scales suitable for enforcement action; equips 5 of the 10 such crossings 

that have the highest volume of commercial vehicle traffic with weigh-inmotion (WIM) systems; ensures that the remaining 5 such border crossings 

are equipped within 12 months; requires inspectors to verify the weight of 

each Mexican motor carrier commercial vehicle entering the United States 

at said WIM equipped high volume border crossings; and (B) initiates a 

study to determine which other crossings should also be equipped with 

weigh-in-motion systems; 

(8) the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has implemented a 

policy to ensure that no Mexican motor carrier will be granted authority to 

operate beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on the 

United States-Mexico border unless that carrier provides proof of valid 

insurance with an insurance company licensed in the United States; 

(9) requires commercial vehicles operated by a Mexican motor carrier to 

enter the United States only at commercial border crossings where and 

when a certified motor carrier safety inspector is on duty and where 

adequate capacity exists to conduct a sufficient number of meaningful 

vehicle safety inspections and to accommodate vehicles placed out of 

service as a result of said inspections. 

(10) publishes— 

(A) interim final regulations under section 210(b) of the Motor 

Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (49 U.S.C. 31144 note) that 

establish minimum requirements for motor carriers, including 

foreign motor carriers, to ensure they are knowledgeable about 

Federal safety standards, that may include the administration of a 

proficiency examination; 

Exhibit C. Section 350 Requirements 
32 

(B) interim final regulations under section 31148 of title 49, United 

States Code, that implement measures to improve training and 

provide for the certification of motor carrier safety auditors; 

(C) a policy under sections 218(a) and (b) of that Act (49 U.S.C. 

31133 note) establishing standards for the determination of the 

appropriate number of Federal and State motor carrier inspectors for 

the United States-Mexico border; 

(D) a policy under section 219(d) of that Act (49 U.S.C. 14901 note) 

that prohibits foreign motor carriers from leasing vehicles to another 

carrier to transport products to the United States while the leaser is 

subject to a suspension, restriction, or limitation on its right to 

operate in the United States; and 

(E) a policy under section 219(a) of that Act (49 U.S.C. 14901 note) 

that prohibits foreign motor carriers from operating in the United 

States that is found to have operated illegally in the United States. 

Section 350 (b). No vehicles owned or leased by a Mexican motor carrier and 

carrying hazardous materials in a placardable quantity may be permitted to operate 

beyond a United States municipality or commercial zone until the United States 

has completed an agreement with the Government of Mexico which ensures that 

drivers of such vehicles carrying such placardable quantities of hazardous 

materials meet substantially the same requirements as United States drivers 

carrying such materials. 

Section 350 (c). No vehicles owned or leased by a Mexican motor carrier may be 

permitted to operate beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones 

under conditional or permanent operating authority granted by the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration until— 

(1) the Department of Transportation Inspector General conducts a 

comprehensive review of border operations within 180 days of enactment 

to verify that— 

(A) all new inspector positions funded under this Act have been 

filled and the inspectors have been fully trained; 

(B) each inspector conducting on-site safety compliance reviews in 

Mexico consistent with the safety fitness evaluation procedures set 

forth in part 385 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, is fully 

trained as a safety specialist; 

Exhibit C. Section 350 Requirements 
33 

(C) the requirement of subparagraph (a)(2) has not been met by 

transferring experienced inspectors from other parts of the United 

States to the United States-Mexico border, undermining the level of 

inspection coverage and safety elsewhere in the United States; 

(D) the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has 

implemented a policy to ensure compliance with hours-of-service 

rules under part 395 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, by 

Mexican motor carriers seeking authority to operate beyond United 

States municipalities and commercial zones on the United StatesMexico border; 

(E) the information infrastructure of the Mexican government is 

sufficiently accurate, accessible, and integrated with that of United 

States enforcement authorities to allow United States authorities to 

verify the status and validity of licenses, vehicle registrations, 

operating authority and insurance of Mexican motor carriers while 

operating in the United States, and that adequate telecommunications 

links exist at all United States-Mexico border crossings used by 

Mexican motor carrier commercial vehicles, and in all mobile 

enforcement units operating adjacent to the border, to ensure that 

licenses, vehicle registrations, operating authority and insurance 

information can be easily and quickly verified at border crossings or 

by mobile enforcement units; 

(F) there is adequate capacity at each United States-Mexico border 

crossing used by Mexican motor carrier commercial vehicles to 

conduct a sufficient number of meaningful vehicle safety inspections 

and to accommodate vehicles placed out of service as a result of said 

inspections; 

(G) there is an accessible database containing sufficiently 

comprehensive data to allow safety monitoring of all Mexican motor 

carriers that apply for authority to operate commercial vehicles 

beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on the 

United States-Mexico border and the drivers of those vehicles; and 

(H) measures are in place to enable United States law enforcement 

authorities to ensure the effective enforcement and monitoring of 

license revocation and licensing procedures of Mexican motor 

carriers. 

Exhibit C. Section 350 Requirements 
34 

(2) The Secretary of Transportation certifies in writing in a manner 

addressing the Inspector General's findings in paragraphs (c)(1)(A) through 

(c)(1)(H) of this section that the opening of the border does not pose an 

unacceptable safety risk to the American public. 

Section 350 (d). The Department of Transportation Inspector General shall 

conduct another review using the criteria in (c)(1)(A) through (c)(1)(H) consistent 

with paragraph (c) of this section, 180 days after the first review is completed, and 

at least annually thereafter. 

Section 350 (e). For purposes of this section, the term `Mexican motor carrier' 

shall be defined as a Mexico-domiciled motor carrier operating beyond United 

States municipalities and commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border. 

Section 350 (f). In addition to amounts otherwise made available in this Act, to be 

derived from the Highway Trust Fund, there is hereby appropriated to the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, $25,866,000 for the salary, expense, and 

capital costs associated with the requirements of this section. 

Exhibit C. Section 350 Requirements 
35 

EXHIBIT D. PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE 

OIG Report Number MH-2005-032, “Follow-up Audit of the 

Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement’s 

Cross-Border Trucking Provisions,” January 3, 2005 

We reported that FMCSA had sufficient staff, facilities, equipment, and 

procedures in place to substantially meet the eight Section 350 safety criteria 

subject to OIG review in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (the FY 2002 Act). However, until an 

agreement or other understanding related to on-site safety reviews was reached 

with Mexico, FMCSA could not, in our view, grant long-haul operating authority 

to any Mexican motor carrier. Additionally, given new background requirements 

for U.S. drivers applying for hazardous materials endorsements, an agreement 

would need to be in place with Mexico to cover similar background requirements 

for vehicles owned or leased by Mexican motor carriers hauling hazardous 

materials. While negotiations were being carried out with Mexico on these two 

issues, which were preconditions to opening the border, FMCSA should close 

remaining gaps in reaching full compliance with Section 350 requirements related 

to bus coverage, enforcement authority, weigh-in-motion scales, and the 

comprehensiveness of the data system used to monitor Mexican driver records in 

the United States. 

OIG Report Number MH-2003-041, “Follow-up Audit on the 

Implementation of Commercial Vehicle Safety Requirements at the 

U.S.-Mexico Border,” May 16, 2003 

We reported that FMCSA had substantially completed the actions necessary to 

meet Section 350 requirements, although the report noted several incomplete items 

in need of action. Specifically, FMCSA needed to fill 3 enforcement personnel 

vacancies to reach the target of 274, complete an agreement at one of 25 border 

crossings to permit detaining of commercial vehicles, and ensure states adopt 

FMCSA’s rule authorizing their enforcement personnel to take action when 

encountering a vehicle operating without authority. 

OIG Report Number MH-2002-094, “Implementation of Commercial 

Vehicle Safety Requirements at the U.S.-Mexico Border,” 

June 25, 2002 

We reported that FMCSA made substantial progress toward meeting the FY 2002 

Act requirements to hire and train inspectors, establish inspection facilities, and 

develop safety processes and procedures for Mexican long-haul carriers. FMCSA 

proposed to complete within 60 days those actions that were in process and 

Exhibit D. Prior Audit Coverage 
36 

planned to meet the Act’s requirements, except the hiring and training of safety 

investigators and training supervisors. 

OIG Report Number MH-2001-096, “Motor Carrier Safety at the U.S.-

Mexico Border,” September 21, 2001 

Our audit recommended that FMCSA strengthen safety controls at the border in 

the areas of staffing, safety reviews and inspections, enforcement, facilities, 

rulemakings, and outreach. 

OIG Report Number MH-2001-059, “Status of Implementing the North 

American Free Trade Agreement’s Cross-Border Trucking 

Provisions,” May 8, 2001 

Our audit found that: (1) the percentage of Mexican trucks removed from service 

because of serious safety violations declined from 44 percent in FY 1997 to 

36 percent in FY 2000; (2) FMCSA increased the authorized number of inspectors 

at the southern border from 13 in FY 1998 to 60 in FY 2001 and requested 

80 additional enforcement personnel in its FY 2002 budget request; and (3) there 

had been few needed improvements to inspection facilities used by Federal and 

state commercial vehicle inspectors at border crossings. 

OIG Report Number TR-2000-013, “Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers,” 

November 4, 1999 

We found that Mexico-domiciled motor carriers were operating improperly in the 

United States and violating U.S. statutes either by not obtaining operating 

authority or by operating beyond the scope of their authority. 

OIG Report Number TR-1999-034, “Motor Carrier Safety Program for 

Commercial Trucks at U.S. Borders,” December 28, 1998 

We reported that the actions in preparation for opening the U.S.-Mexico border to 

Mexican long-haul trucks did not provide reasonable assurance in the near term 

that trucks entering the United States would comply with U.S. safety regulations. 

With the exception of California, neither the Federal Highway Administration nor 

the states’ plans provided for an adequate presence of inspectors at border 

crossings for trucks currently operating in the commercial zones. 

Exhibit D. Prior Audit Coverage 
37 

EXHIBIT E. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT 

THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPORT.

Name Title 

Joe Comé Program Director 

David Pouliott Program Manager 

Gerard Sheeran Senior Auditor 

Maurice Toval Senior Auditor 

Regan Maund Analyst 

Calvin Moore Analyst 

Exhibit E. Major Contributors to This Report 
38 

EXHIBIT F. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

The following is a guide to the abbreviations used in this report. 

• CVSA – Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 

• DOT – Department of Transportation 

• FAST – Free and Secure Trade (U.S. Customs and Border Protection program) 

• FMCSA - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

• FY 2002 Act - The Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 

• LIFIS - Licencia Federal Information System 

• MCMIS - Motor Carrier Management Information System 

• OIG – Office of Inspector General 

• OOS –Out-of-Service 

• NAFTA – North American Free Trade Agreement 

• SAFETEA-LU - Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity 

Act: A Legacy for Users 

• TSA – Transportation Security Administration 

Exhibit F. List of Abbreviations 
39 

APPENDIX. MANAGEMENT COMMENTS 

 Memorandum 

U.S. Department 

Of Transportation 

Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration

Subject: INFORMATION: Response to the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) Date: 

Draft Report “Follow-up Audit of Status of Implementation of the North 

American Free Trade Agreement’s Cross-Border Trucking Provisions” 

Project No. 06M3008M000 

Reply to: MC-E 

From: John H. Hill Attn of: William A. Quade 

Administrator 

To: Rebecca Anne Batts 

Deputy Assistant Inspector General 

 for Surface and Maritime Programs 

This memorandum responds to your June 29, 2007, draft report titled, “Follow-up Audit of 

Status of Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement’s Cross-Border 

Trucking Provisions.” I have reviewed the report and provided responses to the 

recommendations below. I consider many of the findings and recommendations to be 

constructive and already have actions underway to address them. I look forward to working 

with the OIG in strengthening the cross-border trucking provisions. 

RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDATION 1a. Improve the comprehensiveness and consistency of conviction 

data on Mexican commercial drivers in the 52nd State System as required by Section 350 

criteria by ensuring that the corrective action plans on data reporting problems provided by 

Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas are completed as scheduled. 

Response: CONCUR. Texas and New Mexico have successfully completed their 52nd State 

System corrective action plans. California is on schedule to complete their plan by August 

30, 2007. Arizona has developed an electronic process for uploading data to the 52nd State 

system and will have their corrective action plan completed by August 30, 2007. 

RECOMMENDATION 1b. Improve the comprehensiveness and consistency of conviction 

data on Mexican commercial drivers in the 52nd State System as required by Section 350 

criteria by developing a process to periodically, at least quarterly, identify and notify States 

of inconsistencies in 52nd State System data and ensure States take immediate steps to 

correct the inconsistencies. 

Appendix. Management Comments 
40 

Response: CONCUR. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will 

continue to work with the contractor that operates the 52nd State System to develop and 

obtain monthly monitoring reports. The reports will be sent to all FMCSA Division 

Administrators (DAs) detailing any inconsistencies in data and a follow-up mechanism and 

guidance will be issued requiring DAs to track correction of inconsistencies in the 52nd State 

System. This will be completed by August 31, 2007. 

RECOMMENDATION 2a. Ensure that adequate space is available to conduct bus 

inspections as required by Section 350 criteria, by working on a site-specific basis with the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service to modify the Southern Border Commercial Bus 

Inspection Plan to provide adequate inspector coverage at the Lincoln-Juarez crossing in 

Laredo, Texas, during holidays or other periods of peak bus traffic. 

Response: CONCUR. The Texas Division Office will review and modify, as necessary, 

their Bus Inspection plan to ensure adequate coverage at the Laredo-Juarez crossing during 

periods of peak bus traffic. This will be done in conjunction with the Texas Department of 

Public Safety and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service. The FMCSA anticipates 

completing this by December 31, 2007. 

RECOMMENDATION 2b. Ensure that adequate space is available to conduct bus 

inspections as required by Section 350 criteria, by working on a site-specific basis with the 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service to modify the Southern Border Commercial Bus 

Inspection Plan to periodically determine the effectiveness of the bus inspection plan by 

surveying field personnel or through other methods. 

Response: CONCUR. The FMCSA has provided funding to the Texas Transportation 

Institute, Texas A&M University, to conduct a review of bus activities and operations at the 

Southern border. Included in this review will be an analysis of staffing and facilities for bus 

crossings to ensure continued compliance with the Section 350 bus requirements. After 

completion of the review, FMCSA will initiate appropriate action to ensure continued 

compliance with Section 350 requirements relating to bus inspections. The review is 

expected to be completed by April 1, 2008. 

RECOMMENDATION 3a. Address our findings on issues that are not related to Section 

350 by implementing a policy on the use of vehicle model year to indicate compliance with 

vehicle safety standards and recording of vehicle identification numbers as part of a safety 

inspection. 

Response: CONCUR. The FMCSA is revising the ASPEN software so an automatic 

reminder appears during inspections and prompts inspectors to enter the vehicle identification 

number (VIN) for all long-haul Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. The Agency will also 

issue a policy memorandum requiring inspectors to complete the VIN number field for all 

long-haul Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. The software includes a validation process that 

provides a warning to the inspector if the VIN is inaccurate, invalid or if the VIN indicates 

the vehicle was not manufactured in accordance with required safety standards. The revised 

software is currently being used by State and Federal inspectors. The FMCSA will reissue its 

enforcement policy for foreign-based motor carriers to include the noted change to the 

ASPEN software. This will be completed by October 1, 2007. 

Appendix. Management Comments 
41 

RECOMMENDATION 3b. Address our findings on issues that are not related to Section 

350 by establishing an action plan, in coordination with other Department of Transportation 

offices, to address concerns regarding drug and alcohol testing of all Mexican commercial 

drivers. 

Response: CONCUR. The FMCSA is working closely with the Office of Drug and 

Alcohol Policy and Compliance (ODAPC), Office of the Secretary, to conduct audits of 

various drug collection facilities operated by the Government of Mexico. These audits will 

be completed by September 1, 2007. Additionally, ODAPC has worked closely with the 

Government of Mexico to ensure the policies, procedures and forms used in their 

governmental controlled substance and alcohol testing program are consistent with, and meet 

the requirements of, 49 CFR Part 40. All Mexico-domiciled motor carriers are required to 

have alcohol controlled substance testing programs that meet the requirements of 49 CFR 

Part 40. If the Mexican drug and alcohol collection sites and laboratory do not meet United 

States specification, the motor carrier will be required to use facilities in the United States 

that meet the requirements. Use of collection site and laboratory facilities that meet all 

United States requirements is verified during the pre-authorization safety audit and monitored 

during compliance reviews of the Mexico-domiciled motor carriers. Violations discovered 

during compliance reviews may result in enforcement action against the motor carriers. 

The FMCSA will work with ODAPC to establish an action plan to periodically audit the 

Mexican collection sites and laboratory to determine if they meet United States requirements. 

This will be completed by December 31, 2007. 

If you need additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me, or 

William A. Quade, Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement and Program Delivery at 

202-366-2172. 

Appendix. Management Comments 
The following pages contain textual versions of the graphs and charts found in this 

document. These pages were not in the original document but have been added here 

accommodate assistive technology. 

 
Follow-Up Audit on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s 

Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement’s Cross-Border 

Trucking Provisions 

Section 508 Compliant Presentation 

Figure 1. Number of FMCSA Border Inspectors 

• The number of FMCSA border inspectors in FY 1998 was 13. 

• The number of FMCSA border inspectors in June 2006 was 254. 

Source: OIG 

Figure 2. Percentage of Mexican Trucks Taken Out of Service 

• Percent of Mexican trucks taken out of service in FY 1997 was 44 percent. 

• Percent of Mexican trucks taken out of service in FY 2006 was 21 percent. 

Source: OIG 

Table 1. FY 2004-FY 2006 Out-of-Service Rates of United States, Mexico, and 

Central American Motor Carriers 

Table 1, Item 1: Vehicle Out-of-Service Rates. This is the percentage of vehicles 

inspected and placed out of service due to safety or regulation violation. 

• For the United States: In 2004, 22.6 percent were placed out of service. In 

2005, 22.4 percent were placed out of service. In 2006, 22.3 percent were 

placed out of service. 

• For Mexico: In 2004, 23.1 percent were placed out of service. In 2005, 20.4 

percent were placed out of service. In 2006, 20.9 percent were placed out of 

service. 

• For Central America: In 2004, 39.5 percent were placed out of service. In 

2005, 28.3 percent were placed out of service. In 2006, 42.7 percent were 

placed out of service. 

Table 1, Item 2: Driver Out-of-Service Rates. This is the percentage of drivers 

inspected and placed out of service due to a license violation. 

• For the United States: In 2004, 6.8 percent were placed out of service. In 

2005, 6.9 percent were placed out of service. In 2006, 7.3 percent were placed 

out of service. 

 
• For Mexico: In 2004, 1.9 percent were placed out of service. In 2005, 1.1 

percent were placed out of service. In 2006, 1.2 percent were placed out of 

service. 

• For Central America: In 2004, 10.6 percent were placed out of service. In 

2005, 4.8 percent were placed out of service. In 2006, 29.3 percent were 

placed out of service. 

Source: OIG analysis of data from FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management 

Information System. 

Our analysis noted 491 U.S. inspections in FY 2006 pertaining to Central American 

motor carriers. According to FMCSA, Central American carriers must comply with 

FMCSA safety requirements in the United States and New Entrant Safety Program 

rules specific to non-North American commercial motor carriers operating in the 

United States. 

Table 2. 52nd State System Mexican Commercial Driver Convictions Since 

System Inception and for Beginning of 2006 

• 52nd State System Mexican Driver Convictions Since System Inception 

March 2002 Through December 2005 (46 months), Southern Border 

States: In Arizona, 20 convictions. In California, 28 convictions. In New 

Mexico, 291 convictions. In Texas, 4,677 convictions. 

• 52nd State System Mexican Driver Convictions January 2006 to May 

2006, (5 months) Southern Border States: In Arizona, 27 convictions. In 

California, 6 convictions. In New Mexico, 0 convictions. In Texas, 2 

convictions. 

Source: OIG analysis of data from TML Information Services (52nd State System 

Contractor) 

Figure 3. FMCSA Bus Inspection at Laredo, Texas, September 2006 

Photograph shows two FMCSA inspectors inspecting a motor coach bus labeled 

“NORESTE” and “4632” at FMCSA’s Laredo Bus Crossing inspection area. The bus 

has its rear back and right rear side panels open exposing the bus engine 

compartments. One FMCSA inspector is checking the right rear wheel area. The 

other FMCSA inspector is recording inspection data. 

Source: OIG 

 
Table 4. Location of FMCSA Personnel at the United States-Mexico Border in 

June 2006 

• Arizona FMCSA Staff Positions: 27 Inspectors; 6 Auditors; 3 Investigators; 6 

Supervisors; 2 Support Staff. Forty-four in total. 

• California FMCSA Staff Positions: 10 Inspectors; 14 Auditors; 12 

Investigators; 5 Supervisors; 3 Support Staff. Forty-four in total. 

• New Mexico FMCSA Staff Positions: 6 Inspectors; 0 Auditors; 0 

Investigators; 1 Supervisor; 0 Support Staff. Seven in total. 

• Texas FMCSA Staff Positions: 85 Inspectors; 29 Auditors; 32 Investigators; 

7 Supervisors; 6 Support Staff. One hundred fifty-nine in total. 

• Total FMCSA Personnel for all Border States: 128 Inspectors; 49 Auditors; 

47 Investigators; 19 Supervisors; 11 Support Staff. Two hundred fifty-four in 

total. 

Source: OIG analysis of June 2006 FMCSA Border Staff Roster. 

Table 5. Number of U.S. Inspections of Motor Carrier Commercial Vehicles and 

Drivers by Carrier Domicile, FY 2004 through FY 2006 

Table 5, Item 1: Inspections for United States-Domiciled Motor Carriers 

• In FY 2006, 2,554,280 inspections were conducted in the United States, 

314,486 carriers were inspected, and the average number of inspections per 

carrier was 8.

• In FY 2005, 2,338,692 inspections were conducted in the United States, 

290,236 carriers were inspected, and the average number of inspections per 

carrier was 8.

• In FY 2004, 2,332,137 inspections were conducted in the United States, 

277,362 carriers were inspected, and the average number of inspections per 

carrier was 8.

Table 5, Item 2: Inspections for Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers 

• In FY 2006, 211,106 inspections were conducted in the United States, 4,617 

carriers were inspected, and the average number of inspections per carrier was 

46.

 
• In FY 2005, 193,540 inspections were conducted in the United States, 4,597 

carriers were inspected, and the average number of inspections per carrier was 

42.

• In FY 2004, 164,342 inspections were conducted in the United States, 5,007 

carriers were inspected, and the average number of inspections per carrier was 

33.

Table 5, Item 3: Inspections for Central American-Domiciled Motor Carriers 

• In FY 2006, 491 inspections were conducted in the United States, 54 carriers 

were inspected, and the average number of inspections per carrier was 9.

• In FY 2005, 376 inspections were conducted in the United States, 38 carriers 

were inspected, and the average number of inspections per carrier was 10.

• In FY 2004, 161 inspections were conducted in the United States, 34 carriers 

were inspected, and the average number of inspections per carrier was 5.

Source: OIG analysis of FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management Information System 

data.