Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

December 2001 NORTH AMERICAN

FREE TRADE

AGREEMENT

Coordinated

Operational Plan

Needed to Ensure

Mexican Trucks’

Compliance With U.S.

Standards

GAO-02-238
Page i GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Relatively Few Mexican Carriers Initially Expected Beyond Border

Commercial Zones 7

The United States and Most U.S. Border States Are Not Prepared to

Ensure That Mexican Commercial Carriers Meet U.S. Safety

Standards 12

Mexico Has Taken Steps to Improve Commercial Vehicle Safety

and Emissions, But Extent of Compliance With U.S. Standards

Remains Unclear 20

Conclusions 27

Recommendation for Executive Action 28

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 28

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 31

Appendix II Space Available for Truck Inspections at

Southwest Border Ports of Entry 33

Appendix III Comments From the U.S. Customs Service 35

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 36

GAO Contact 36

Acknowledgments 36

Tables

Table 1: Truck Crossings From Mexico into the United States,

Fiscal Year 2001 5

Table 2: Registration Fees for International Registration Plan

Members and Non-members 9

Table 3: Space Designated for Truck Inspection Activities at

Southwest Border Commercial Ports of Entry, as of

November 2001 33

Contents
Page ii GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

Figures

Figure 1: Commercial Ports of Entry Along the U.S.-Mexico Border 4

Figure 2: Truck Inspection Space at the World Trade Bridge,

Laredo, Texas 13

Figure 3: California State Truck Inspection Facility at Otay Mesa

With Covered Inspection Bays 15

Figure 4: Permanent Inspection Facility Staff in Calexico,

California, Select Trucks for Inspection 15

Abbreviations

CVSA Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

DOT Department of Transportation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

GSA General Services Administration

LTSS Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
Page 1 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

December 21, 2001

The Honorable John D. Dingell

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable James L. Oberstar

Ranking Democratic Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Edolphus Towns

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Robert A. Borski

Ranking Democratic Member

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

As part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),

commercial trucks from Mexico were to be allowed to travel throughout

the United States beginning in January 2000. Because of concerns about

the safety of these vehicles, the United States has limited Mexican truck

operations to commercial zones near the border. In February 2001, a

NAFTA arbitration panel ruled that the United States’ blanket refusal to

process applications by Mexican trucking companies to provide crossborder services beyond the commercial zones violated its NAFTA

obligations. The panel noted, however, that the United States could require

Mexican motor carriers to meet U.S. safety requirements. In February

2001, the administration announced that it would give Mexican trucks

access to all U.S. highways by January 2002. The Department of

Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year

2002, enacted in December 2001, provided increased funding for safety

activities related to Mexican motor carriers and set forth a series of

requirements that the Department of Transportation (DOT) must meet

before Mexican trucks can travel beyond the commercial zones.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

In response to your concerns about the safety of Mexican trucks, we

examined (1) the extent to which Mexican-domiciled commercial trucks

are likely to travel beyond the U.S. border commercial zones once the

border is fully opened, (2) U.S. government agencies’ efforts to ensure that

Mexican commercial carriers meet U.S. safety and emissions standards,

and (3) how Mexican government and private sector efforts contribute to

ensuring that Mexican commercial vehicles entering the United States

meet U.S. safety and emissions standards. To address these objectives, we

met with and obtained documents from a wide variety of officials from the

U.S. and Mexican governments and industry representatives. (See app. I

for a detailed discussion of how we conducted our work.)

Relatively few Mexican carriers are expected to initially operate beyond

the commercial zones once the United States fully opens its highways to

Mexican carriers. Specific regulatory and economic factors that may limit

the number of Mexican carriers operating beyond the commercial zones

include: (1) the lack of established business relationships beyond the U.S.

commercial zones that would permit drivers to return to Mexico carrying

cargo, (2) difficulties obtaining competitively priced insurance, (3)

congestion and delays in crossing the U.S.-Mexico border that make longhaul operations less profitable, and (4) high registration fees. Over time,

improvements in trucking and border operations may increase the number

of Mexican commercial vehicles traveling beyond the commercial zones.

For example, innovations such as automated clearance systems could

reduce the need for time-consuming paperwork reviews at the border.

The Department of Transportation does not have a fully developed or

approved operational plan in conjunction with border states to ensure that

Mexican-domiciled carriers comply with U.S. safety standards. The

Department has not secured permanent space at any of the 25 southwest

border ports of entry where commercial trucks enter the United States,

and, at present, only the state of California has established permanent

inspection facilities. The Department also has not completed agreements

with border states on how 58 federal inspectors (projected to increase to

141 in fiscal year 2002) and 89 state inspectors (some of whom work parttime) will share inspection responsibilities along the border. States are

responsible for ensuring that Mexican trucks adhere to U.S. emissions

standards. California is the only southwest border state with a truck

emissions inspection program in place at the border—testing is conducted

at two of its four commercial ports of entry. In addition to these

infrastructure and personnel challenges, the fiscal year 2002 DOT

appropriations act establishes new requirements for DOT. These include

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

deploying advanced technology to weigh trucks, requiring the electronic

verification of Mexican commercial drivers’ licenses, and ensuring that

staff and adequate space are available for truck inspections. These

additional requirements highlight the importance of having an approved

operational plan and timeline.

While the Mexican government has developed truck safety regulations and

taken steps to enforce safety and air emissions standards, these efforts are

relatively recent and it is thus too early to assess their effectiveness. With

DOT’s support, Mexico has developed five databases with important

information on the safety records of its commercial drivers and motor

carriers. However, as of October 2001, the commercial driver’s license

database covered less than one-quarter of Mexico’s commercial drivers.

Mexico has also participated in NAFTA-related efforts to make motor

carrier safety regulations compatible across the three member nations.

Apart from government efforts, Mexican private sector and industry

groups also report conducting activities to improve the safety of Mexican

commercial vehicles.

This report contains a recommendation that DOT develop and implement

a coordinated operational plan for truck safety at the southwest border.

This plan should include reaching agreements with the border states and

other federal agencies on space, staffing, day-to-day operations, and a

timetable for when these actions will occur. DOT officials agreed with our

recommendation. However, they strongly emphasized that they were well

advanced in their efforts to fulfill our recommendation as well as respond

to the requirements contained in DOT’s fiscal year 2002 appropriations act.

We disagree with DOT’s comments that they are well advanced in their

efforts to implement our recommendation as well as the many

requirements contained in the appropriations act. Even prior to the act,

DOT had not reached agreements with the states on how to allocate their

inspectors or with other federal agencies on the space needed to conduct

additional truck inspections.

Since NAFTA’s implementation, trade between the United States and

Mexico has more than doubled, growing from $100 billion in 1994 to $248

billion in 2000.1

 Enhanced trade has increased the number of northbound

 1

NAFTA was agreed to by Canada, Mexico, and the United States in 1992 and implemented

in 1994.

Background
Page 4 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

truck crossings from 2.7 million in fiscal year 1994 to more than 4.3 million

in fiscal year 2001. According to DOT, about 80,000 trucks crossed the

border in fiscal year 2000, 63,000 of which were estimated to be of

Mexican origin. Trucks from Mexico enter the United States at border

crossing points in four U.S. states (see fig. 1), but most of the crossings

occurred at five ports of entry in fiscal year 2001: Laredo, El Paso,

Hidalgo/Pharr in Texas, and Calexico and Otay Mesa in California.

Figure 1: Commercial Ports of Entry Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

Note: Numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of ports of entry for those with more than one.

Source: GSA and DOT.

Commercial truck traffic at Texas and California ports of entry, which

handle approximately 91 percent of truck crossings from Mexico, has

grown just over 60 percent since NAFTA went into effect. Table 1 lists the

principal commercial ports of entry and the number of truck crossings that

occurred at each port in fiscal year 2001.
Page 5 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

Table 1: Truck Crossings From Mexico Into the United States, Fiscal Year 2001

Location Truck crossings Percentage of total crossings

Texas

Laredo 1,419,165 33%

El Paso 656,257 15

Hidalgo/Pharr 367,991 9

Brownsville 255,231 6

All others 223,159 5

Total Texas 2,921,803 68

California

Otay Mesa 700,453 16

Calexico 259,174 6

All others 63,970 1

Total California 1,023,597 23

Arizona

Nogales 251,474 6

All others 90,424 2

Total Arizona 341,898 8

New Mexico 34,851 1

Total 4,322,149 100%

Source: U.S. Customs Service.

Under NAFTA, barriers have gradually been reduced for trade in goods

and services among Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Among other

things, NAFTA allows Mexican commercial vehicles greater access to U.S.

highways to facilitate trade between the two countries. Under NAFTA’s

original timeline, Mexico and the United States agreed to permit

commercial trucks to operate within both countries’ border states no later

than December 18, 1995, and beyond the border states by January 1, 2000.2

However, due to U.S. concerns about the safety of Mexican trucks and the

adequacy of Mexico’s truck safety regulatory system, the United States

postponed implementation of NAFTA’s cross-border trucking provisions

and only permitted Mexican trucks to continue to operate in designated

commercial zones within Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.3

 2

Canada and the United States have permitted each other’s trucks complete access to all

highways since 1982.

3

Commercial zones are designated areas where Mexican commercial vehicles are allowed

to (1) transfer their cargo to U.S. carriers or (2) unload their cargo for later pick-up by U.S.

carriers. Commercial zones generally encompass areas extending between 3 and 20 miles

north of U.S. border cities.
Page 6 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

DOT’s Office of Inspector General and GAO have reported that out-ofservice rates for Mexican trucks operating in the commercial zones

exceeded those of U.S. trucks in the nation as a whole. The Inspector

General has also reported that the percentage of Mexican trucks placed

out-of-service in the commercial zones declined from 44 percent in fiscal

year 1997 to 36 percent in fiscal year 2000.

In 1998, Mexico challenged the United States’ delay in implementing

NAFTA’s schedule for cross-border trucking. In February 2001, a NAFTA

arbitration panel ruled that the United States’ blanket refusal to review

and consider Mexican motor carrier applications for operating authority to

provide cross-border trucking services beyond the commercial zones

violated its NAFTA obligations. The panel indicated that under NAFTA,

the United States is permitted to establish its own safety standards and

ensure that Mexican trucking firms and drivers comply with U.S. safety

and operating regulations. However, the panel also noted that due to

differing regulatory regimes in each country, the United States need not

treat Mexican carriers or drivers exactly the same as those from the

United States or Canada, provided that such different treatment is

imposed in good faith with respect to a legitimate safety concern and

conforms with relevant NAFTA provisions.

In February 2001, the administration announced that it would comply with

its NAFTA obligations and allow Mexican commercial carriers to operate

beyond the commercial zones by January 2002. In May 2001, DOT issued

three proposed rules that would revise existing regulations and application

forms and establish a two-tiered application process for Mexican carriers

seeking authority to operate within and beyond the commercial zones.4

Under the proposed rules, a carrier’s authority would be conditioned on

satisfactory completion of a safety audit within 18 months of receiving

conditional operating authority.5

 According to the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Administration (FMCSA), the agency primarily responsible for

enforcing U.S. truck safety regulations, the final regulations would ensure

that FMCSA receives adequate information to assess an applicant’s safety

program and its ability to comply with U.S. safety standards before it is

 4

Among other things, the rules would require carriers to (1) describe their operations, (2)

self-certify that they understand and will comply with U.S. safety standards, and (3)

describe their recordkeeping procedures relating to drivers and accidents.

5

These safety audits are expected to focus on reviewing a carrier’s records and not

individual truck inspections.
Page 7 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

authorized to operate in the United States.6 As of December 2001, DOT had

not finalized these rules. DOT officials said these rules were not finalized

because the Department was waiting for the outcome of the congressional

appropriations process. Additional statutory requirements that must be

met before Mexican commercial trucks can travel beyond the commercial

zones are contained in the fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act. These

include a range of inspection requirements and facility enhancements,

such as adding weigh-in-motion scales at the 10 highest volume crossings.

Additional requirements are discussed later in this report.

U.S. border state and Mexican transportation officials and representatives

of U.S. and Mexican trucking organizations we interviewed said they

believe few Mexican carriers will initially apply for authority to travel

beyond the commercial zones. Further, they suggested that any increase in

truck traffic would be gradual. As of October 2001, fewer than 200

Mexican trucking companies had applied to DOT to operate in the United

States beyond the border commercial zones.7

 Regulatory and economic

factors may affect Mexican trucking companies’ interest and ability to

operate vehicles beyond the commercial zones in the short run, but longterm trends in cross-border trade operations could increase interest in

operating beyond the commercial zones.

A number of regulatory and economic factors may limit the number of

Mexican carriers operating beyond the commercial zones in the near term.

For example, U.S. and Mexican officials identified the lack of established

business relationships in the United States as a factor likely to reduce the

number of Mexican trucking companies willing to operate beyond the

commercial zones. According to U.S. and Mexican officials, many Mexican

trucking companies lack distribution ties outside the commercial zones

and thus do not have immediate access to “backhaul” cargo from the

 6

FMCSA’s responsibilities include: ensuring that eligible foreign motor carriers operating in

the United States comply with U.S. federal motor carrier safety regulations; promoting

information exchange regarding truck safety among the NAFTA countries by providing U.S.

enforcement personnel the capability to verify information on foreign carriers, drivers, and

vehicles; granting authority to Mexican carriers to operate in the United States; and

enforcing compliance.

7

More than three-fourths of these applications were made in 1996 and 1997. Mexican

officials and FMCSA have concluded that Mexican carriers stopped applying for operating

authority once they realized that the United States was not processing applications to

operate beyond the commercial zones.

Relatively Few

Mexican Carriers

Initially Expected

Beyond Border

Commercial Zones

Regulatory and Economic

Factors May Limit Mexican

Carriers’ Willingness to

Seek Access Beyond the

Commercial Zones
Page 8 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

United States to Mexico that would allow them to operate profitably. The

officials noted that it would take time to develop these business

relationships.

The cost and availability of insurance may also affect the number of

Mexican carriers operating beyond the commercial zones. According to

the National Association of Independent Insurers, newly established

trucking companies and Mexican trucking companies wanting to operate

beyond the commercial zones face a competitive disadvantage in obtaining

affordable insurance. According to companies currently providing

insurance to Mexican trucking companies and an insurance industry

representative, premiums for Mexican trucking companies will initially be

set at the highest level and gradually decline as the market matures. These

individuals stated that it would take time for the insurance industry to

become familiar with the financial and safety records of Mexican

companies and drivers and to develop effective means to access

information for underwriting purposes. Further, large U.S.-based and

multinational insurers are likely to gradually enter the Mexican market as

demand for insurance in the Mexican trucking industry increases. The

number of U.S.-based firms currently providing insurance coverage for

Mexican trucks entering the United States is unknown. According to

insurance company officials, fewer than 10 U.S. firms may be providing

insurance for daily trips into the United States by Mexican trucking

companies.

Also, according to Mexican private industry representatives and U.S.

researchers, congestion and delays in crossing the U.S.-Mexico border

result in added operating costs for Mexican carriers. These costs make it

less profitable to use newer, more expensive vehicles to wait in lines at the

border. Mexican government and private sector officials stated that delays

in crossing the border have increased since the terrorist attacks on

September 11, 2001. These delays could limit long-haul operations and

encourage further reliance on the existing cross-border shuttle (drayage)

system.8

Like other carriers, Mexican carriers must pay registration fees to each

state in which they operate in the United States. The International

Registration Plan was created to facilitate the payment and reduce the

 8

Drayage trucks provide shuttle freight service within the commercial zones on both sides

of the border.
Page 9 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

cost of these fees by allowing one member state to collect registration fees

and distribute them to other jurisdictions as necessary. However, Mexico

is not a member of the plan so Mexican companies must instead purchase

individual trip permits for each state in which they travel.9

 According to an

International Registration Plan representative, since these individual trip

permits cost more in the aggregate, Mexican carriers could be at a

competitive disadvantage. For example, a Mexican truck traveling from

Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, to Tulsa, Oklahoma, must purchase trip permits

before traveling through Texas and Oklahoma. Table 2 depicts the costs

for an International Registration Plan member and a non-member traveling

through these states once a week for a year. As seen in table 2, a nonmember truck would pay about $5,600 more annually than a member

truck.

Table 2: Registration Fees for International Registration Plan Members and Nonmembers

Registration fees assessed by each statea

Member truck Non-member truck

Texas $588 $5,200

Oklahoma $303 $1,248

Total $891 per year $6,448 per year

a

Based on an 80,000 pound gross weight truck traveling round-trip once per week for one year

between Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and Tulsa, Oklahoma

Source: GAO analysis based on International Registration Plan data.

According to an American Trucking Associations official, a medium-term

solution for Mexican trucking companies to take advantage of the cost

savings and convenience associated with the International Registration

Plan would be to register in a state that is a plan member. A Mexican

trucking company may participate in the International Registration Plan by

selecting a member state and establishing a business presence such as a

sales or service office in that state. However, establishing such a presence

may entail additional costs such as federal and state taxes. When we

discussed these registration fees and potential taxes with Mexican public

and private officials in October 2001, they were unaware that they needed

to pay them. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOT officials said

 9

Not all states issue individual trip permits. For example, California requires an annual

registration fee for non-members of the International Registration Plan.
Page 10 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

they have discussed these registration fees with Mexican government

officials.

The small scale and size of Mexican trucking operations could also limit

travel beyond the commercial zones. Mexico’s truck fleet is relatively

small compared with that of the United States, and Mexican trucking

association representatives said that their members’ fleets have fewer

trucks than their U.S. counterparts. For example, there are nearly 600,000

trucking companies with approximately 6.3 million tractors and trailers in

the United States, according to DOT. Mexico, in contrast, in 200010 had

approximately 83,000 federally registered commercial cargo carriers with

approximately 277,000 tractors and trailers (trucks may also be registered

by Mexican states if they do not drive on federal highways).11 Further, the

overall age of the Mexican commercial vehicle fleet may also limit the

number of Mexican carriers able to operate beyond the commercial zones.

According to Mexican registration data, in 2000 only 20 percent of the

commercial cargo trucks registered for use on Mexican federal highways

were manufactured after 1994. Mexican industry officials told us that

trucks manufactured in Mexico prior to this date were not built to U.S.

safety and emissions standards. Mexican carriers can apply to have older

vehicles certified to be in compliance with U.S. safety standards. However,

Mexican industry officials told us that these vehicles might have

difficulties meeting U.S. emissions standards.

Uncertainty about DOT’s final rules for obtaining operating authority has

reduced the number of Mexican carriers that will initially apply for

authority to operate beyond the commercial zones, according to Mexican

government and private sector representatives. According to these

officials, this uncertainty makes it difficult to plan for the future since

union contracts allowing travel beyond the commercial zones and

distribution ties must be established in advance.

 10Secretariat of Communication and Transportation, Estadistica Basica del

Autotransporte Federal. (Mexico City, Mexico: 2000).

11An additional 23,000 vehicles of all types are operated by private trucking companies.

Private trucking companies own and operate their own fleet.
Page 11 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

Cross-border trucking beyond the commercial zones may increase as firms

seek to eliminate inefficiencies associated with the current system of

drayage operations. Restrictions on cross-border commercial vehicle

traffic have led to a transport system that typically requires three tractors

and/or trailers to carry goods from the interior of Mexico to the U.S.

interior. For example, a long-haul vehicle is used to bring cargo to the

Mexican border from an interior Mexican state, where it is transferred to a

short-haul drayage truck that moves the goods across the U.S. border into

the commercial zones. To carry a shipment beyond the commercial zones,

it must be transferred to a third vehicle domiciled in the United States.

This system is cumbersome and inefficient, according to the Office of the

U.S. Trade Representative, trucking industry representatives, businesses,

and academic researchers. For example, as we reported previously, nearly

half of the containers crossing the border from Mexico into the United

States in 1998 were empty because they left products or raw materials in

Mexico—yet still had to be processed by U.S. Customs.12 According to U.S.

industry representatives and researchers, the time required to complete

transfers within the border commercial zones hinders the “just-in-time”

nature of many assembly plants (maquiladoras) and agricultural

industries, and can result in additional costs. They note that a single-truck

transport system would be more efficient, practical, and less costly. In

addition, government officials who monitor hazardous materials

shipments contend that minimizing transfers and the handling of these

loads would decrease the risk of dangerous accidents and spills.

According to researchers and Mexican government officials, technological

and other innovations, such as an automated clearance system requiring

carriers to provide documentation electronically, would also encourage

the development of cross-border trucking beyond the commercial zones

by reducing the need for time-consuming paperwork reviews at the

border. According to Mexican customs officials, new programs, such as

the U.S. Customs Service’s Business Anti-Smuggling Coalition, could

encourage the growth of such cross-border trucking by reducing the time

spent waiting in lines at the border.13

 12See U.S.-Mexico Border: Better Planning, Coordination Needed to Handle Growing

Commercial Traffic (GAO/NSIAD-00-25, Mar. 3, 2000).

13The Business Anti-Smuggling Coalition is a business-led, U.S. Customs-supported

initiative created to combat narcotics smuggling via commercial trade.

Increased Efficiency in

Trucking and Border

Operations Is Needed

Before a Rise in Long-haul

Commercial Vehicle

Operations Will Occur
Page 12 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

DOT faces a number of challenges in implementing a coordinated truck

safety system—including acquiring adequate infrastructure and deploying

personnel—at the U.S.-Mexico border.14 Few permanent facilities are in

place for truck safety inspections and DOT only began taking steps to

secure its own space for these inspections in August 2001. It also has not

fully integrated its inspection personnel and their activities with those of

the border states. With regard to emissions inspections, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) relies on state governments to establish and

apply their own enforcement procedures. These operational challenges

must be reconciled with a number of new requirements contained in the

fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act.

Although we reported in 1997 and 2000 that FMCSA needs to be more

proactive in securing inspection facilities at planned or existing border

installations, the agency only began taking steps to secure its own space in

August 2001 and has been occupying temporary space provided by

Customs without the benefit of interagency agreements. 15 Currently, only

2 of 25 commercial ports of entry have permanent inspection facilities—

both are state facilities in California. Other state facilities are being

constructed or planned in the other three border states. However, federal

and state officials have not formally agreed on how federal and state

facilities will complement each other.

Permanent truck inspection facilities allow for more rigorous inspections,

provide scales and measuring devices to screen trucks for weight and size,

protect inspectors from the extreme heat prevalent at the border, and

signal a commitment to enforce truck safety standards. At the three states

without permanent facilities—Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico—Customs

typically allows state and federal truck safety inspections on the agency’s

property on a temporary basis; however, if capacity is reached for storing

trucks placed out-of-service, inspectors are unable to conduct additional

safety inspections (app. II describes the amount of space designated for

 14FMCSA and the border states have worked with the Mexican government, carriers, and

industry associations to develop an enhanced commercial carrier safety regime and help

carriers understand U.S. safety standards. These actions are discussed in the following

section.

15See U.S.-Mexico Border: Better Planning, Coordination Needed to Handle Growing

Commercial Traffic (GAO/NSIAD-00-25, Mar. 3, 2000) and Commercial Trucking: Safety

Concerns about Mexican Trucks Remain Even as Inspection Activity Increases

(GAO/RCED-97-68, Apr. 9, 1997).

The United States and

Most U.S. Border

States Are Not

Prepared to Ensure

That Mexican

Commercial Carriers

Meet U.S. Safety

Standards

Few Permanent Truck

Safety Inspection Facilities

Exist at U.S. Southwest

Border Ports of Entry
Page 13 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

truck inspection activities at southwest border ports of entry). For

example, the Laredo, Texas, ports of entry handle the greatest number of

northbound trucks, accounting for approximately 33 percent of all

northbound commercial traffic. In Laredo, Customs has designated space

for 33 trucks to be inspected or placed out-of-service, yet according to the

U.S. Customs port director in Laredo, approximately 5,500 to 6,100 trucks

cross at the two Laredo ports on an average day.16 As fig. 2 shows, spaces

used by federal truck safety inspectors at the World Trade Bridge in

Laredo are not covered, nor is there lighting available for inspectors to

conduct safety inspections at night.

Figure 2: Truck Inspection Space at the World Trade Bridge, Laredo, Texas

In light of the limited amount of temporary space for truck inspection

activities, FMCSA has recently begun to take steps to acquire its own

space in anticipation of increasing border enforcement personnel. FMCSA

submitted its space needs for border port of entry facilities to the General

Services Administration (GSA) in August 2001 in an attempt to secure

space at federal ports of entry.17 However, it is not clear when or if

inspection space at these facilities can be acquired. According to a GSA

 16The port of entry facilities in Laredo include the World Trade Border Station and the

Colombia Border Station.

17GSA either owns or leases the commercial port of entry facilities to federal agencies

working at the southwest border.
Page 14 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

official, GSA and Customs must first conduct site surveys to determine the

amount of vacant space available at port of entry facilities for truck

inspections. As a result of heightened security in response to the

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Customs is

reassessing its space needs at these facilities, with important implications

for truck inspection activities. In discussions among FMCSA, GSA, and

Customs held in October 2001, Customs said it will no longer allow trucks

placed out-of-service for safety violations to remain on Customs

compounds due to safety concerns related to allowing mechanics and tow

truck operators on the compound. 18 Instead, federal and state inspectors

must escort these vehicles off the facility. For example, in Texas a tow

truck meets out-of-service vehicles at the Customs gate and tows them off

the compound. A FMCSA official in Texas said these vehicles are rarely

towed to Mexico unless they are empty. It is unclear what effect this

development will have on the number and type of truck inspections that

can be conducted in both the near and long term at federal ports of entry.

As noted, only 2 of the 25 commercial ports of entry have permanent truck

inspection facilities—both state-operated facilities located in California.

As permanent facilities dedicated to truck safety inspections, they have

space to perform inspections and to place vehicles out-of-service (see figs.

3 and 4).

 18The U.S. Customs Service is responsible for ensuring compliance with trade regulations

and contraband/drug interdiction at border ports of entry.
Page 15 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

Figure 3: California State Truck Inspection Facility at Otay Mesa With Covered

Inspection Bays

Figure 4: Permanent Inspection Facility Staff in Calexico, California, Select Trucks

for Inspection

Note: A California Highway Patrol observer visually inspects vehicles to determine if they should be

more thoroughly inspected and obtains weight data from weigh-in-motion scales.
Page 16 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

The three border states without permanent truck inspection facilities at

border ports of entry—Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico—are planning to

build facilities at some crossings. To construct truck safety inspection

facilities, DOT officials said they plan to make the following allocations

based on the fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act: $12 million for

Texas, $54 million to be divided among the four border states, and $2.3

million for federal facility improvements. Texas plans to build eight

permanent truck safety inspection facilities that would be adjacent to the

Customs ports of entry.19 The facilities would be similar in function to

California’s truck inspection facilities. City officials in Laredo and El Paso,

however, object to the facilities being so close to the border, arguing that

these facilities would interfere with the flow of commerce. Local

opposition to placing truck inspection facilities at the border and

constraints on state funding have impeded progress. State officials

estimate that the permanent facilities will not be completed until 2004.

In the interim, Texas has established one temporary truck inspection site

in El Paso directly adjacent to a federal port of entry facility and began

inspecting trucks there in July 2001. Texas also plans to establish four

other temporary truck inspection sites directly adjacent to port of entry

facilities in Laredo, Eagle Pass, Pharr, and Brownsville. The state plans to

lease or purchase 5 acres of land for each of these temporary sites and

provide a trailer for office space. As of November 2001, state officials had

not implemented plans for the four temporary truck inspection sites.

Arizona and New Mexico have each begun work on a permanent truck

inspection facility. In 1998, Arizona acquired a 10-acre lot adjacent to

Customs’ port of entry in Nogales on which to construct a permanent

truck inspection facility. According to Arizona officials, this project is

scheduled for completion in 2002. New Mexico has also started

construction of a truck inspection facility in Santa Teresa. According to

New Mexico officials, funding is currently available only for the

groundwork. Further construction will not be scheduled until funding is

available to complete the facility.

 19Two facilities each are planned for Brownsville, Laredo, and El Paso, and one each in

Pharr/McAllen and Eagle Pass.
Page 17 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

According to DOT officials, the fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act

provides funding to hire and train additional federal and state safety

inspection personnel. However, federal and state officials have not yet

agreed on the level of staffing needed at temporary and permanent truck

inspection facilities to achieve safety goals. For example, in Texas, there

are no formal agreements between the state and FMCSA about

coordinating inspection responsibilities at the ports of entry, or

agreements establishing the number of federal and state inspection

personnel at the proposed temporary and permanent sites. As of October

2001, there were 58 federal officials inspecting trucks on the southwest

border. FMCSA officials said that $9.9 million in fiscal year 2002 funding

would permit them to increase the number of enforcement personnel at

ports of entry to 141. In addition, FMCSA will also use these funds to hire

134 staff who will perform safety audits and conduct compliance reviews

of Mexican motor carriers seeking authority to operate beyond the

commercial zones. The appropriations act requires that 50 percent of these

safety audits and compliance reviews be conducted “on-site.” Mexican

officials stated that they would only allow these reviews within their

country in the presence of a Mexican inspector.

As of October 2001, the 4 border states had assigned 89 inspectors to

border crossings to inspect trucks entering the United States from

Mexico—43 in Texas, 41 in California, 3 in Arizona, and 2 in New Mexico.20

The fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act also provided $18 million for

the border states to hire truck safety inspectors. Prior to passage of the

act, Arizona planned to add a total of 11 inspectors and New Mexico

planned to add a total of 9 inspectors in 2002 and 2003. Texas did not plan

to increase the number of its inspectors until federal and state funds were

committed to build inspection facilities. California was unsure how

budgetary considerations would change its staffing levels.

 20Staffing levels reflect the number of inspectors assigned to facilities and do not represent

full-time equivalents. In California, inspectors have been permanently assigned to the truck

inspection facilities. In contrast, inspectors in the other border states are not permanently

assigned to ports of entry and devote only a portion of their time to truck safety

inspections at the ports of entry. In Laredo, Texas, for example, state troopers inspect

trucks at the two commercial ports of entry approximately 20 hours a week.

DOT Is Increasing the

Number of Safety

Inspection Personnel But

Has Not Integrated Its

Efforts With the Border

States
Page 18 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA is required to establish minimum

national standards for air pollution and individual states are assigned

primary responsibility to ensure compliance with the standards through

state implementation plans. Such plans can include truck emissions

inspections. Since 1994, EPA’s primary role in regulating commercial truck

emissions has been to certify compliance of commercial truck engines at

the factories where they are manufactured. EPA relies on the commercial

truck engine manufacturers to certify that their products meet air

emissions standards and conducts spot checks at engine factories.

Some U.S. states have implemented emissions testing requirements for

heavy-duty diesel trucks as part of their efforts to meet EPA air quality

standards for non-attainment areas.21 State testing programs differ

significantly, with some states requiring yearly checks of trucks and others

operating both annual and more frequent roadside inspection programs.

California, which has a large number of areas that do not meet federal air

quality standards, including the state’s two southern border counties,

conducts emissions tests at the border. Since 1999, California has assigned

two inspectors each to the ports of entry at Calexico and Otay Mesa to

monitor the emissions of U.S. and Mexican heavy-duty vehicles. According

to California state officials, in 2000, the failure rate for U.S. trucks was

approximately 8 percent, while the failure rate for Mexican trucks was 12

percent.

Arizona also operates an emissions testing program for commercial trucks,

but testing is conducted on a yearly basis for trucks registered in the

state’s two non-attainment areas, Phoenix and Tucson—neither of which

are located at the border. Neither Texas nor New Mexico performs

emissions inspections at the border.

The fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations act provides increased funding

for activities related to the safety of Mexican carriers and sets forth a

number of new requirements that DOT must meet before Mexican motor

carriers can be granted authority to operate beyond the commercial zones.

Meeting these requirements could entail significant operational and facility

planning by DOT in coordination with the border states and other federal

agencies. DOT officials said in December 2001 they are unsure when they

 21EPA defines a non-attainment area as a geographical region that exceeds scientifically

accepted levels for certain air pollutants.

Emissions Inspections of

Commercial Trucks Vary

by State

Meeting New Statutory

Requirements for

Southwest Border Truck

Safety Inspections Will

Require Additional

Planning and Coordination
Page 19 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

will be able to meet the requirements and fully open the border given the

short time these requirements have been in place. Among other things,

DOT must

• equip all U.S.-Mexico commercial border crossings with scales suitable for

enforcement action. Five of the 10 highest volume crossings must have

weigh-in-motion scales, and the remaining 5 highest volume crossings

must have such scales within 12 months;

• require federal and state inspectors to electronically verify the status and

validity of the license of each Mexican commercial driver transporting

certain quantities of hazardous materials, drivers undergoing specified

inspections, and at least 50 percent of other Mexican commercial drivers;

• require Mexican commercial trucks to cross into the United States only

where there is a safety inspector on duty and adequate capacity exists to

conduct a sufficient number of meaningful safety inspections and

accommodate out-of-service trucks; and

• require Level I inspections and Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

(CVSA) 22 decals for all Mexican commercial vehicles that wish to operate

beyond the commercial zones but do not display such decals.23

According to FMCSA’s Associate Administrator for Enforcement and

Program Delivery, FMCSA plans to measure the progress of Mexican

carriers in complying with U.S. safety standards by using truck out-ofservice rates, traffic fatality rates, and accident rates. FMCSA’s goal will be

for Mexican carriers’ rates to be comparable to those for U.S.-domiciled

carriers. Currently, available data do not permit differentiating between

drayage (cross-border shuttle) and long-haul carriers operating at the

border. Differentiating between these two classes of vehicles in terms of

calculating out-of-service rates will be important in determining the extent

to which the safety goals are being met.

 22CVSA is a non-profit organization of federal, state, and provincial government agencies

and representatives from private industry in the United States, Canada, and Mexico

dedicated to improving commercial vehicle safety. According to FMCSA officials, only law

enforcement personnel can affix CVSA decals. CVSA decals are issued when a vehicle

passes either a Level I or a Level V inspection. A Level I inspection consists of an

examination of both the driver and vehicle. A Level V inspection includes all of the steps

involved in a Level I inspection, except for an inspection of the driver. The decals are valid

for a 3-month period.

23This excludes Mexican motor carriers that have been granted permanent operating

authority for 3 consecutive years from this provision.

DOT’s Plans to Assess

Compliance with U.S.

Safety Standards
Page 20 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

The Mexican government has developed truck safety regulations and

reports taking steps to enforce safety and air emissions standards but

these efforts are relatively recent and it is too early to assess their

effectiveness. With support from DOT, it has also developed key databases

related to commercial vehicle safety and it has participated in trinational

efforts to make U.S., Canadian, and Mexican land transportation standards

more compatible. Some Mexican private sector and industry groups have

also made efforts to improve the safety of Mexican commercial vehicles by

implementing safety programs and purchasing new vehicles.

Mexico has developed new regulations establishing specifications for

vehicle safety equipment, transportation of hazardous goods, vehicle

inspection standards, and maximum limits for emissions of certain

chemicals. According to Mexican officials, prior to 1992, Mexico had few

vehicle manufacturing and operating safety standards, and those that did

exist were very general. Since 1992, Mexico has developed and

implemented specific federal regulations dealing with commercial vehicle

safety. These include regulations establishing specifications for buses,

license plates, vehicle weights, and dimensions. Mexico has also created

operating safety standards, including speed limits for commercial motor

vehicles. According to DOT, Mexico is considering implementing

additional vehicle manufacturing standards, which could be modeled after

U.S. or European standards.

In addition, Mexico has developed and implemented standards related to

the transportation of hazardous goods. These standards address labeling,

classifying, inspecting, documenting, storing, and shipping hazardous

goods. According to DOT and Mexican officials, the standards are based

on the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous

Goods.

In July 2000, Mexico finalized its first regulation establishing the criteria

and authority for roadside commercial vehicle inspections. According to

CVSA and Mexican officials, this regulation is modeled after the CVSA

inspection procedures and out-of-service criteria. The regulation

establishes the procedures used by federal officials for inspecting

commercial vehicles and placing them out-of-service. It also establishes a

time frame for inspecting these vehicles, ranging from 20 minutes for

buses and commercial vehicles carrying hazardous materials to 30 minutes

for commercial vehicles carrying general cargo. According to Mexican

Mexico Has Taken

Steps to Improve

Commercial Vehicle

Safety and Emissions,

But Extent of

Compliance With U.S.

Standards Remains

Unclear

Mexico Has Begun

Implementing New Safety

and Emissions Standards
Page 21 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

officials, prior to July 2001 when the regulation was fully implemented,

there were no rules for placing commercial vehicles out-of-service and

only the most serious violations would have resulted in putting a vehicle

out-of-service.

Mexico has also developed and implemented standards limiting

commercial vehicle emissions. These standards establish limits for air

emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and vehicle

smoke from new diesel engines. They also establish limits for vehicle

smoke for diesel engines in use, as well as a program for inspecting diesel

emissions. According to Mexican officials, commercial vehicles are subject

to emissions inspections every 6 months.

Mexico’s commercial vehicle inspections are performed by 350 inspectors

from the Secretariat for Communication and Transportation—the agency

primarily responsible for inspecting commercial vehicles traveling on

federal highways. In addition, 5,000 inspectors from the Federal Preventive

Police have been trained to conduct inspections.24 Many of these

inspectors were trained by U.S. border state inspectors. During 2000,

Mexican inspectors performed a total of 114,138 roadside vehicle

inspections and found 12,929 vehicles in violation of safety standards. In

1999, they conducted 88,490 roadside vehicle inspections and found 5,367

vehicles in violation of safety standards. Mexican federal inspectors also

performed compliance reviews of motor carriers at their place of business,

conducting 2,441 compliance reviews in 2000 and 1,003 in 1999.25 While it is

encouraging that the Mexican government is making efforts to inspect

more commercial trucks, we have no information on the nature of the

violations found or whether any sanctions or penalties may have been

assessed for them. Further, as noted above, inspections conducted in 1999

and 2000 were not covered under Mexico’s recently implemented (July

2001) commercial vehicle inspection regulations.

 24According to Federal Preventive Police officials, police officers must observe a violation

of traffic laws before stopping a vehicle to conduct a safety inspection. By contrast,

Secretariat of Communication and Transportation inspectors have no such limitations.

25We were not able to determine the extent to which Mexico’s compliance reviews are

comparable to those done in the United States because we did not have the opportunity to

observe these operations in either country.

Mexico’s Commercial

Vehicle Inspection

Personnel and Activities
Page 22 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

According to the Secretariat of Communication and Transportation,

Mexico plans to increase the percentage of commercial vehicles inspected

each year, from 28 percent of the total fleet in 2000 to 50 percent in 2006.

The 2001 program set the following minimum inspection activities and

inspection-level goals:

• increase the total number of roadside inspections by 27 percent and the

total number of carrier compliance reviews by 5 percent over 2000 levels;

• maintain a permanent enforcement presence in each of 10 main

transportation corridors; and

• conduct 90 roadside inspections and 9 compliance reviews per year per

inspector.

In June 2000, Mexico participated in the CVSA-sponsored “Roadcheck

2000” program, a trinational exercise carried out over a 3-day period with

the United States and Canada. During this exercise, Mexican officials

inspected a total of 1,428 Mexican commercial vehicles along federal

highways, putting 246, or about 17 percent, out-of-service. However, as of

October 2001, Mexico was not issuing CVSA decals. Mexican officials told

us they were not issuing CVSA decals because the decals are not required

by Mexican law.

According to Mexican officials, Mexico is in the process of constructing 7

permanent truck inspection facilities similar to stations in California, with

an additional 13 planned. All seven facilities under construction are to be

completed by the end of 2001, with an additional six facilities scheduled

for completion in 2002 and the remaining seven scheduled for completion

in 2003. According to Mexican officials, three of these facilities—Mexicali,

Matamoros, and Nuevo Laredo— are being constructed on highways

leading to the border. The purpose of these stations, in part, is to inspect

and weigh vehicles and thus reduce the number of accidents caused by

overweight and unsafe commercial vehicles. According to Mexican

officials, the stations will include weigh-in-motion scales and areas to

inspect vehicles and remove noncompliant vehicles from circulation.

Mexican officials stated that they conducted a study to determine the

factors causing accidents involving commercial vehicles. The study found

that more than 80 percent of all accidents were caused by driver errors. To

reduce the number of accidents, Mexico is developing and implementing

new training requirements that would require each new commercial driver

to receive a minimum of 420 hours of driver training, 70 percent of which

Permanent Truck

Inspection Facilities

Modeled After California

Facilities Planned

New Commercial Driver

Training Requirements

Planned
Page 23 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

constitutes instruction on the road. Drivers renewing their licenses would

have to undergo 40 hours of instruction. This expanded training

requirement is expected to be fully in place by 2005. Commercial vehicle

drivers responsible for hazardous materials would need to meet additional

requirements. At present, drivers can obtain commercial driver’s licenses

without such training.

Since NAFTA was signed, the Mexican government, with the assistance of

FMCSA and TML, a private contractor, has developed and is adding

information to several databases. These databases include (1) carrier and

vehicle authorizations, (2) commercial driver’s licenses, (3) accidents by

Mexican commercial carriers and drivers, (4) results of inspections and

audits, and (5) infractions. According to TML, it began working with

Mexico to construct these databases in 1995. The databases are an integral

piece of Mexico’s motor carrier safety information system. While

important for Mexico’s internal purposes, they also provide information

needed by U.S. law enforcement to verify driver and carrier information.

Two of the five databases were available to U.S. law enforcement in 2000

and the remaining databases were to be available in 2001.

The first database, the Carrier and Vehicle Authorization Information

System, was completed in 1998 to assist the Mexican government in

issuing carrier operating authority permits, vehicle license plates, and

vehicle highway permits. According to TML, as of June 2001, the database

included all Mexican commercial cargo carriers registered with the federal

government. According to Mexican government statistics from 2000, there

are approximately 83,000 commercial cargo carriers comprising

approximately 8,000 corporations and 75,000 sole-proprietorships. These

carriers maintained about 372,000 vehicles of all types. U.S. federal

inspectors have been able to access this database since October 2000.

According to private sector officials, an estimated 75,000 other

commercial trucks are registered in Mexican states and are not in this

database. Mexican federal officials said that border drayage vehicles also

would not be in the federal database since they do not travel on federal

highways and thus are not subject to inspection by federal inspectors.

The second database, the Licencia Federal Information System, contains

Mexican federal commercial driver’s licenses. 26 It was completed in 1999

 26We were not able to obtain data on the number of commercial driver’s licenses issued by

Mexican states.

Databases Constructed

and Being Updated
Page 24 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

to maintain records on commercial drivers and includes driver

identification, license status, and medical certifications. According to TML,

this database went on-line in January 2000, and as of December 2000, all 46

of Mexico’s field offices issuing commercial driver’s licenses had complete

access to it. As of October 2001, 70,150, or 23 percent, of an estimated

300,000 federal commercial driver’s licenses had been entered into the

database. However, Mexican government officials say the database has

information on 90 percent of the Mexican commercial drivers now

crossing the border. Mexican government officials are entering records

into this database as drivers renew their licenses and expect the database

to contain all records by 2003. U.S. federal and state inspectors have been

able to access this database since 2000. FMCSA policy requires that as of

November 1, 2001, all Mexican commercial drivers entering the United

States had to have a valid Mexican federal commercial driver’s license in

the database. If these drivers do not have a valid Mexican federal

commercial driver’s license in the database, FMCSA officials said they

would be refused entry into the United States.

The third database, the Accident Reporting Information System, was

completed in 2000 and records all accidents on Mexico’s federal

highways.27 It includes an accident overview; vehicle, driver, and passenger

identification; insurance information; information on damages; and other

data. According to TML, phased implementation and interface with the

United States were slated for completion by August 2001 but have been

delayed because of the change of administrations in Mexico.

The fourth database, the Inspections and Audits Information System, was

completed in 2000 to record the results of inspections and audits of motor

carriers and their facilities. It includes inspection reports, as well as

information on violations, infractions, and complaints. Mexican officials

told us that these compliance reviews are conducted over a 15-day period.

As of June 2001, there were 222 carrier audit records and 7,273 vehicle

inspection records. We were unable to obtain information on what these

inspections uncovered.

The fifth database, the Infraction Information System, was completed in

2000 to process and report infractions committed by Mexican vehicles and

drivers on federal highways. Phased implementation of this database

began in 2001. According to TML, as of June 2001, there were about 6,000

 27Accidents on state or municipal roads are not included in this database.
Page 25 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

interstate commerce vehicle infractions and about 7,000 intrastate and

private vehicle infractions. Infractions on state or municipal roads are not

included in this system.

Since NAFTA was signed, Mexico has participated in trinational efforts to

make U.S., Canadian, and Mexican land transportation standards more

compatible. These efforts have included participation in NAFTA’s Land

Transportation Standards Subcommittee (LTSS). 28 In addition, Mexico has

entered into bilateral agreements with the United States on specific

commercial motor vehicle safety issues.

According to an LTSS document, the subcommittee has made major

accomplishments in the following areas:

• commercial driver’s licenses—agreement on a common age (21 years) for

operating a vehicle in international commerce;

• language requirements—agreement on a common language requirement

(the driver must be able to communicate in the language of the jurisdiction

where the commercial vehicle is operating);

• drivers’ logbooks and hours-of-service—agreement on safety performance

information each country will require from motor carriers; and

• driver medical standards—recognition of several binational agreements as

the basis for recognizing driver medical standards.

The LTSS reports that regulatory differences among the countries have

made reaching compatibility in some areas difficult. For example,

according to a DOT official the three NAFTA countries have not been able

to reach agreement on commercial vehicle weight standards, maximum

weight limits for truck axles, and dimensions (Mexico’s regulations focus

on the total length of commercial vehicles while U.S. regulations focus on

the length of the trailer).

The United States and Mexico have also entered into binational

agreements to ensure the compatibility of commercial vehicle safety

standards. Among these are agreements on standards for drug and alcohol

tests for drivers and acceptance of commercial driver’s licenses issued by

 28The Transportation Consultative Group and the Automotive Standards Council were also

created to assist in efforts to harmonize non-standards related measures and automotive

manufacturing standards.

Mexico Has Participated in

Trinational Efforts to

Harmonize Land

Transportation Standards
Page 26 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

the other country. For example, Mexican officials plan to obtain

certification for a Mexican federal government laboratory to conduct drug

and alcohol tests by 2002. DOT officials said the United States is

continuing to work with Mexico on a variety of commercial vehicle safety

issues including manufacturing standards and vehicle size and weight

limitations.

The Mexican private sector reports conducting activities designed to

improve the safety of Mexican commercial vehicles. These efforts include

conducting inspections to ensure that Mexican vehicles crossing the

border meet U.S. safety standards; purchasing new commercial vehicles;

and implementing safety rules that, according to Mexican private sector

officials, exceed the Mexican government’s requirements. Moreover,

according to representatives of Mexican private trucking associations,

their members have adopted operating standards similar to those of large

U.S. trucking companies. Mexican government officials stated that most

trucks now used in border drayage operations would not meet their safety

standards.

Mexican government officials said that some Mexican trucking companies

are purchasing new vehicles in anticipation of operating beyond the

commercial zones. According to the Mexican government, the average age

of federally registered truck tractors in Mexico is 16 years. In contrast,

Mexico’s private trucking association, made up of companies that own and

operate their own trucking fleets, said that its members’ vehicles are

relatively new, averaging less than 5 years of age. According to association

officials, these newer vehicles are the ones most likely to engage in crossborder trucking beyond the commercial zones.

In Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, a local trucking association established an

inspection station to ensure that vehicles belonging to association

members meet U.S. standards. According to association officials, this

facility is staffed by private maintenance personnel trained by the Texas

Department of Public Safety, and inspections are provided free of charge

to all member trucking companies. According to a FMCSA state director,

this inspection facility, while not able to affix CVSA decals, represents a

positive step toward assuring compliance with U.S. and Mexican safety

standards.

According to Mexican private industry officials, some Mexican trucking

companies have implemented driver education and other operating safety

requirements that go beyond the Mexican federal requirements. For

Mexican Private Sector

Reports Making Efforts to

Improve Commercial

Vehicle Safety
Page 27 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

example, officials of a Mexican private trucking association said that their

members require extensive driver education and use computerized

monitoring devices to track driver performance and compliance with

company hours of service requirements.

In the 7 years since NAFTA was implemented, the United States and

Mexico have taken a number of steps toward achieving closer economic

integration. However, despite a strong trading partnership and other ties,

cross-border truck safety issues continue to be challenging. Mexico has

taken important steps to enhance its regulatory capabilities, including

developing key databases containing driver and carrier information and

hiring and training inspection personnel. However, Mexico’s efforts to

increase regulation of its motor carrier industry are relatively new;

therefore, it is too early to assess their effectiveness. The U.S. border

states and DOT have been increasing the number of safety inspectors

inspecting trucks entering the country from Mexico, but it is unclear

where additional inspectors will work and how they will share inspection

responsibilities. California has built permanent truck safety inspection

facilities at two ports of entry and Arizona has work under way to

construct another one. At other major crossings, however, only makeshift

facilities, at best, are available, and it will be several years until permanent

facilities can be built in Texas.

Although some progress has been made, there is continued uncertainty

about the extent to which Mexican commercial trucks meet U.S. safety

standards. While evidence indicates that limited numbers of Mexican

carriers will initially operate beyond the commercial zones, additional

work is needed if DOT is to reach its goals of having commercial trucks

from Mexico meet U.S. safety standards and achieve similar safety

performance results. Further, there is still no coordinated operational plan

for how truck safety inspection activities will be conducted or agreements

with border states on how best to implement them. There is also no clear

agreement on the type and size of facilities that are needed, where they

will be located, when they will be finished, or whether state and/or federal

inspectors will work there. Such agreements and a coordinated

operational plan will become increasingly important to develop and

implement as DOT works to address statutory requirements and as crossborder trade grows.

Conclusions
Page 28 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

To ensure that Mexican trucks meet U.S. standards, we recommend that

the Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator of the Federal

Motor Carrier Safety Administration to develop and implement a

coordinated operational truck safety plan at the southwest border. In

addition to meeting statutory requirements, this effort should include

• establishing inspection goals;

• taking steps to improve the quality of data to evaluate whether safety goals

are being met for both drayage (cross-border shuttle) and long-haul

carriers;

• reaching agreements with states and other federal agencies on where

inspection facilities will be built, how they will be staffed, and who will

operate them; and

• developing a specific timetable for when these actions will be completed.

We received written comments on a draft of this report from the Customs

Service, which are reprinted in app. III. We obtained oral comments from

DOT, including FMCSA’s Associate Administrator for Enforcement and

Program Delivery and other officials; the Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative, including the Deputy Assistant for Mexico and NAFTA;

GSA, including the head of the Border Stations Center; and the Mexican

embassy in Washington, D.C. We also provided copies to the Department

of State, which did not provide comments, and EPA, which provided two

technical comments.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, GSA, and the Customs

Service generally agreed with our report’s findings and recommendation.

DOT officials agreed with our recommendation that they develop a

coordinated operational plan to inspect Mexican trucks at the border.

However, they strongly emphasized that they were well advanced in their

efforts to fulfill our recommendation as well as respond to the new truck

safety requirements contained in the fiscal year 2002 DOT appropriations

act. DOT officials stated that numerous actions critical to the border’s

opening are underway or completed and that program implementation

timelines and legislative implementation plans are being developed and

will be issued shortly. FMCSA officials noted that they are completing

detailed planning for hiring and allocating staff; securing new high

technology equipment to assist them in accomplishing their mission; and

that they have completed a system to track Mexican drivers’ U.S. traffic

violation history. DOT officials noted that since the passage of DOT’s fiscal

year 2002 appropriations act, high ranking Department officials will begin

meeting immediately with border state officials to coordinate state

Recommendation for

Executive Action

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 29 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

activities and discuss actions needed to open the border. They noted that

detailed work is underway with GSA and Customs to address

infrastructure needs at each border port of entry and with the Mexican

government to reach agreements on requirements included in the act. DOT

officials stated that their past efforts and the efforts they intend to

undertake in response to the act provide a comprehensive approach to

ensure the safety of Mexican trucks crossing the border. DOT officials also

noted that our draft report was completed approximately two weeks

before the Congress passed the appropriations act and therefore the

information contained in our report predates the requirements specified in

the act that the Department must undertake before it can fully open the

border.

We have updated the report to reflect the requirements in the fiscal year

2002 DOT appropriations act—requirements that further highlight the

importance of our recommendation that DOT develop a coordinated

operational plan for truck safety at the Mexican border. We disagree with

DOT’s comments that they are well advanced in their efforts to implement

our recommendation as well as the many requirements contained in the

appropriations act. Even prior to the act, DOT had not reached agreements

with the states on how to allocate their inspectors or with other federal

agencies on the space needed to conduct additional truck inspections.

These are basic operational issues that have become more complex with

new provisions in the appropriations act, such as the requirement for

weigh in motion technologies at the 10 busiest border crossings. In

addition, our concerns about DOT’s readiness were seconded in

comments we received from Customs officials. Customs officials noted

that, as of December 2001, they and GSA were still surveying federal

facilities along the border to determine where additional space for DOT

truck inspections could be found. The additional space becomes more

important as a result of the act’s provisions for more inspectors, more

inspections, and the heightened probability that more space would be

needed for Mexican trucks placed out of service. Customs officials

expressed continued concern that DOT has not fully developed adequate

operational plans to conduct truck safety inspections at federal border

facilities.
Page 30 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

State and agency officials also provided technical comments to the report.

We incorporated these comments, where appropriate, throughout the

report.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly release its contents earlier,

we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue

date. At that time, we will send copies to congressional committees with

responsibilities for trade and transportation safety issues; the Secretary of

Transportation; the Secretary of State; the U.S. Trade Representative; the

Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service; the Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency; the Administrator, General Services

Administration; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We

will also make copies available to others upon request and on our home

page at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me

at (202) 512-8979. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Joseph A. Christoff

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

To estimate the extent to which Mexican-domiciled commercial trucks are

likely to travel beyond the commercial zones, as well as the factors

inhibiting or encouraging Mexican carriers to operate beyond these zones,

we contacted U.S. federal, state, and local officials, as well as trucking

industry representatives, public interest groups, insurance companies and

associations, and academics familiar with the Mexican trucking industry.

We also reviewed applications filed with the Department of Transportation

(DOT) by Mexican commercial motor carriers wishing to operate beyond

the commercial zones. In addition, we interviewed Mexican government

officials and industry and union representatives, and reviewed statistical

data on the Mexican trucking industry.

To obtain information on U.S. government agencies’ efforts to ensure that

Mexican trucks entering the United States meet safety and emissions

standards, we interviewed officials with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Environmental

Protection Agency, and the U.S. Trade Representative in Washington, D.C.

We also interviewed state and local government officials in the border

states and visited ports of entry in Laredo, Texas, Otay Mesa and Calexico,

California, and Nogales, Arizona. We reviewed documents provided by

DOT, attended congressional hearings on the issue, and reviewed DOT’s

Notices of Proposed Rulemakings and comments regarding the entry of

Mexican trucks into the United States. In addition, we reviewed data

contained in DOT’s motor carrier management information system to

understand its reliability and limitations.

To understand how Mexican government and private sector efforts

contribute to ensuring that Mexican commercial vehicles entering the

United States meet U.S. safety and emissions standards, we met with

officials from the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C., as well as the

Secretariats of Communication and Transportation, Economy, External

Relations, and Environment and Natural Resources in Mexico City. We

also reviewed Mexico’s regulations dealing with commercial vehicle safety

and emissions. However, because of time constraints we were unable to

visit the inspection facilities under construction or observe enforcement

actions taking place. To understand how the U.S. and Mexican commercial

vehicle and driver safety databases function and interconnect, we met

with officials from TML, the private contractor working to develop and

connect these databases, as well as U.S. and Mexican government officials.

We also observed the databases in use in Laredo, Texas; Otay Mesa,

California; and Mexico City. To understand the private sector’s efforts to

improve the safety of their vehicles and their compliance with U.S. safety

and emissions standards, we met with Mexican government and private

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 32 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

sector officials, toured a large Mexican trucking firm interested in

conducting operations beyond the commercial zones, and visited a

privately funded inspection facility in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. To describe

efforts to harmonize safety and emissions standards, we attended a

conference co-sponsored by the United States and Mexico dealing with

vehicle safety and emissions standards, and interviewed DOT and Mexican

officials involved in the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee and

other groups.

We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards from June to November 2001.
Appendix II: Space Available for Truck

Inspections at Southwest Border Ports of

Entry

Page 33 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

The U.S. Customs Service allows state and federal truck inspectors to

inspect trucks on its compounds. However, because interagency

agreements among FMCSA, GSA, and Customs have not been established,

space at such locations is temporary and available only as long as Customs

allows its continued use. The exception is in California, where the state

operates two permanent truck inspection facilities-–Calexico and Otay

Mesa–that are located just outside the federal ports of entry. Truck

inspection activities do not occur at the federal facilities in California.

Table 3 provides an overview of the amount of space currently designated

for truck inspection activities at commercial ports of entry along the

southwest border.

Table 3: Space Designated for Truck Inspection Activities at Southwest Border Commercial Ports of Entry, as of November

2001

Facility

Number of

spaces for

state truck

inspections

Number of

spaces for

federal truck

inspections

Number of outof-service

spaces for

state inspections

Number of outof-service

spaces for

federal

inspections

Office space

for state

inspectors (in

square feet)

Office space

for federal

inspectors (in

square feet)

Texas

Veterans

International Border

Station, Brownsville

2 2 0 10 None 544

Los Indios Border

Station, Los Indios

1 2 0 12 None None

Pharr Border Station,

Pharr

2 2 0 8 None 384

Rio Grande City

Border Station, Rio

Grande City

N/A 3 N/A 3 N/A None

World Trade Border

Station, Laredo

2 12 inspection

and out-ofservice

0 (see number of

spaces)

None 384

Colombia Border

Station, Laredo

1 3 0 15 None 384

Eagle Pass II Border

Station, Eagle Pass

2 2 0 8 outside of the

compound

160 384

Ysleta Border Station,

El Paso

3 2 0 8 None 384

Bridge of the

Americas Border

Station, El Paso

N/A 6 N/A 10 N/A 384

Roma Border Station,

Roma

N/A 1 N/A 0 N/A 160

Del Rio Border

Station, Del Rio

1 3 0 4 None None

Presidio Border

Station, Presidio

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Appendix II: Space Available for Truck

Inspections at Southwest Border Ports of

Entry
Appendix II: Space Available for Truck

Inspections at Southwest Border Ports of

Entry

Page 34 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

Facility

Number of

spaces for

state truck

inspections

Number of

spaces for

federal truck

inspections

Number of outof-service

spaces for

state inspections

Number of outof-service

spaces for

federal

inspections

Office space

for state

inspectors (in

square feet)

Office space

for federal

inspectors (in

square feet)

Progreso Border

Station, Progreso

N/A 1 N/A 0 N/A 160

California

Tecate Border

Station, Tecate

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Andrade Border

Station, Andradea

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Otay Mesa Border

Station, Otay Mesa

4 bays N/A 20 N/A 7,900 N/A

Calexico Border

Station, Calexico

4 bays N/A 20 N/A 7,900 N/A

Arizona

Naco Border Station,

Naco

1 N/A 0 N/A 840 N/A

Sasabe Border

Station, Sasabe

1 N/A 0 N/A 460 N/A

Lukeville Border

Station, Lukeville

1 N/A 0 N/A 460 N/A

Nogales Border

Station, Nogales

1 3 0 0 460 200

Douglas Border

Station, Douglas

1 N/A 0 N/A 460 N/A

San Luis Border

Station, San Luis

N/A 1 N/A 0 N/A 0

New Mexico

Columbus Border

Station, Columbus

N/A 1 N/A 0 N/A 0

Santa Teresa Border

Station, Santa Teresa

N/A 5 N/A 0 N/A 72

N/A – Not applicable. Space has not been designated for truck inspection activities at these ports of

entry.

a

The Andrade Border Station is no longer an official U.S. commercial port of entry.

Source: GSA and California Highway Patrol.
Appendix III: Comments From the U.S.

Customs Service

Page 35 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

Appendix III: Comments From the U.S.

Customs Service
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and

Staff Acknowledgments

Page 36 GAO-02-238 NAFTA Commercial Trucking

Phillip Herr (202) 512-8509

In addition to the person listed above, Jason Bair; Patricia Cazares-Chao;

Janey Cohen; Peter Guerrero; Elizabeth McNally; Jose M. Pena, III; Sarah

Prehoda; James Ratzenberger; Maria Santos; and Hector Wong made key

contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

(320062)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help

improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the

American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values

of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the

Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of

current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The

Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words

and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and

other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to daily

e-mail alert for newly released products" under the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, D.C. 20013

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000

TDD: (202) 512-2537

Fax: (202) 512-6061

GAO Building

Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)

Washington, D.C. 20013

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or

1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 (automated answering system).

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,

Washington, D.C. 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

Visit GAO’s Document

Distribution Center

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs