IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 152

Urging the President to continue to delay granting Mexico-domiciled motor

carriers authority to operate in the United States beyond the commercial

zone until the President certifies that such carriers are able and willing

to comply with United States motor carrier safety, driver safety, vehicle

safety, and environmental laws and regulations; that the United States

is able to adequately enforce such laws and regulations at the United

States-Mexico border and in each State; and that granting such operating

authority will not endanger the health, safety, and welfare of United

States citizens.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 24, 2001

Mr. OBERSTAR (for himself, Mr. BORSKI, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. FILNER, Mr.

RODRIGUEZ, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. BACA, Mr. HONDA, Mr.

BALDACCI, Mr. QUINN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. CLEMENT, Mr. RAHALL, Mr.

CRAMER, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. COSTELLO, Ms. EDDIE

BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. NADLER, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. MCGOVERN, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. LARSEN of

Washington, Mr. BERRY, Mrs. DAVIS of California, and Mr. MASCARA)

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees

on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and International Relations,

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

RESOLUTION

Urging the President to continue to delay granting Mexicodomiciled motor carriers authority to operate in the

United States beyond the commercial zone until the
2

•HRES 152 IH

President certifies that such carriers are able and willing

to comply with United States motor carrier safety, driver

safety, vehicle safety, and environmental laws and regulations; that the United States is able to adequately enforce such laws and regulations at the United StatesMexico border and in each State; and that granting

such operating authority will not endanger the health,

safety, and welfare of United States citizens.

Whereas, in 1982, Congress imposed a two-year moratorium

on granting operating authority to Mexico-domiciled

motor carriers outside the border commercial zones because of concerns regarding the safe operation of such

carriers and authorized the President to remove or modify the moratorium if such action were in the national interest;

Whereas the President extended the moratorium in 1984,

1986, 1988, 1990, and 1992, because of safety concerns

and because it was in the United States national interest;

Whereas, in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement provided a schedule for the United States, Mexico,

and Canada to establish a Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee and develop compatible safety standards for the parties’ truck and bus operations; to be permitted to establish enterprises in other parties’ countries;

and to be permitted to obtain operating authority for

cross-border trucking and bus services to and from

United States-Mexico border States and throughout the

United States, Mexico, and Canada;

Whereas the United States, Mexico, and Canada have not

agreed to compatible safety standards for truck and bus

operations and have not implemented the cross-border
3

•HRES 152 IH

services and investment provisions of the North American

Free Trade Agreement;

Whereas, in 1995, Congress extended the President’s authority, pursuant to the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982,

to restrict access of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to

the United States and the President extended the moratorium because of continued safety and security concerns

regarding Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operating in

the United States;

Whereas the President intends to open the United States to

Mexico-domiciled trucks and buses on January 1, 2002;

Whereas, in 1999, 5,380 people died and an additional

142,000 people were injured in accidents in the United

States involving 475,000 large trucks and such large

truck accidents imposed a total cost on society of more

than $34,000,000,000;

Whereas the United States Department of Transportation Inspector General issued reports in December 1998, November 1999, and May 2001 finding that far too few

Mexico-domiciled trucks are being inspected at the

United States-Mexico border, too few inspected trucks

comply with United States safety standards, and the

United States does not have a consistent enforcement

program that provides reasonable assurances of the safety of Mexico-domiciled trucks entering the United States;

Whereas the General Accounting Office issued reports in

April 1997 and March 2000 confirming serious safety deficiencies among Mexico-domiciled trucks entering the

United States and inadequate United States safety inspection resources;
4

•HRES 152 IH

Whereas the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration reports that there were approximately 4,500,000 northbound truck crossings into the United States from Mexico during fiscal year 2000;

Whereas State and Federal safety officials performed inspections on 46,000 Mexico-domiciled trucks in fiscal year

2000, or one percent of such crossings;

Whereas the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration reports that, during fiscal year 2000, more than one-third

(36 percent) of Mexico-domiciled trucks inspected at the

United States-Mexico border had significant safety problems that required the trucks or drivers to be removed

from service and that this safety out-of-service rate is 50

percent greater than the nationwide rate for United

States-domiciled trucks;

Whereas, in a May 2001 audit, the Department of Transportation Inspector General reports that the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration does not have an implementation plan to ensure safe opening of the United

States-Mexico border to commercial vehicles;

Whereas, in a May 2001 audit, the Department of Transportation Inspector General finds that a direct correlation

exists between the condition of Mexico-domiciled trucks

entering the United States and the level of inspection resources at the border;

Whereas, in a May 2001 audit, the Department of Transportation Inspector General reports that the border States

do not have permanent truck inspection facilities at 25

of the 27 southern border crossings accounting for 79

percent of the truck traffic from Mexico (3,580,000

northbound crossings in fiscal year 2000) and that exist-
5

•HRES 152 IH

ing inspection areas lack sufficient and safe space to perform inspections and park out-of-service vehicles;

Whereas the Department of Transportation has not developed

and implemented border staffing standards for Federal

and State motor carrier safety inspectors even though the

Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 specifically required that such standards be developed and implemented by December 9, 2000;

Whereas, in a May 2001 audit, the Department of Transportation Inspector General reports that there are only 50

Federal safety inspectors at the United States-Mexico

border, less than 36 percent of the minimum number of

Federal safety inspectors that the Inspector General estimated were needed in 1998 (139 inspectors);

Whereas, in a May 2001 audit, the Department of Transportation Inspector General reports that their 1998 estimate

of a need for 139 Federal border safety inspectors was

a conservative number that did not account for expanded

hours of commercial port operations, continued commercial traffic growth, and a fully opened border;

Whereas the Department of Transportation anticipates that

border States will shoulder greater responsibility for

international truck safety inspection and enforcement;

Whereas, in a May 2001 audit, the Department of Transportation Inspector General reports that the border States

do not provide inspectors during all commercial vehicle

operating hours at 25 of the 27 southern border crossings accounting for 79 percent of the truck traffic from

Mexico (3,580,000 northbound crossings in fiscal year

2000);
6

•HRES 152 IH

Whereas Federal and State governments share important enforcement responsibilities under provisions of title 49,

United States Code, and the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 relating to the safety and operation of foreign motor carriers and drivers in the United

States;

Whereas the United States Department of Transportation

has failed to issue a number of critical regulations relating to the safety and operation of foreign motor carriers

and drivers in the United States as required by the

Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999;

Whereas State governments have not complied with provisions of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of

1999 relating to the safety and operation of foreign

motor carriers and drivers in the United States;

Whereas there is no systematic method currently in place for

verifying registration information of Mexico-domiciled

trucks to control access at the United States-Mexico border;

Whereas, in a May 2001 audit, the Department of Transportation Inspector General reports that Federal safety inspectors at 20 of 27 southern border crossings did not

have dedicated telephone lines to access databases, such

as those databases validating a commercial driver’s license;

Whereas, in a May 2001 audit, the Department of Transportation Inspector General reports that inspectors in border

States that account for 77 percent of truck traffic from

Mexico did not routinely review the certificates of registration because State laws are not compatible with Federal motor carrier safety law requirements regarding op-
7

•HRES 152 IH

erating authority and that, according to State officials in

such border States, legislation has not been enacted to

provide for enforcement against motor carriers that operate in such States without a certificate of registration or

operate beyond the authority granted;

Whereas, in a November 1999 audit, the Department of

Transportation Inspector General specifically identified

254 Mexico-domiciled motor carriers that were operating

illegally beyond the commercial zones in 24 States and,

in a May 2001 audit, states that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s fiscal year 2000 inspection

data indicate that Mexico-domiciled motor carriers continue to be inspected at roadside outside the commercial

zones and border States;

Whereas the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999

increased fines for foreign motor carriers intentionally

operating without authority to not more than $10,000

and 6-month disqualification for an initial operating authority violation and not more than $25,000 and permanent disqualification for a pattern of intentional operating authority violations;

Whereas, in a May 2001 audit, the Department of Transportation Inspector General reports that the Federal Motor

Carrier Administration’s assessed fines for such operating authority violations have remained constant, averaging $500 to $1,000;

Whereas the United States and Mexico have not reached an

agreement providing reciprocal rights for intercity bus

service and terminal access;
8

•HRES 152 IH

Whereas the Government of Mexico has no systematic safety

rating process in place to evaluate the safety fitness of

Mexico-domiciled motor carriers;

Whereas the Government of Mexico has no domestic roadside

inspection program;

Whereas the Government of Mexico does not have specific

hours-of-service regulations for Mexico-domiciled truck

drivers operating in Mexico, seriously jeopardizing United

States citizens if such drivers arrive at the United StatesMexico border sleep-deprived and fatigued but are still allowed to drive 10 consecutive hours in the United States

before resting;

Whereas despite a United States-Mexico agreement in 1998

that United States standards for drug and alcohol testing

will apply to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers, Mexico

does not have a laboratory, certified to United States

standards, to perform drug testing, and the Government

of Mexico has not implemented a credible and enforceable

drug and alcohol testing program;

Whereas the Government of Mexico allows much higher truck

weights than currently permitted in the United States

and has no functioning system of commercial vehicle size

and weight monitoring and certification;

Whereas the general lack of truck weigh stations at southern

border crossings impedes efforts to ensure that Mexicodomiciled trucks operating in the United States comply

with United States truck size and weight regulations;

Whereas, in an April 2001 report, the Congressional Research Service questioned the adequacy and reliability of

information systems that might help United States enforcement officers review applications of Mexico-domiciled
9

•HRES 152 IH

motor carriers for operating authority or audit Mexicodomiciled drivers operating in the United States;

Whereas there is no reasonable amount of accessible historical information available upon which to evaluate the

safety of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers and drivers

currently operating and seeking authority to operate in

the United States;

Whereas because of a lack of reliable, populated databases

that compile licensing and driving records of Mexico-domiciled truck drivers and the licensing, safety records, and

violations assessed against their trucks and the inability

to obtain financial records and do on-site inspections and

audits, the American trucking insurance industry, which

is expected to insure Mexico-domiciled motor carriers, has

not been able to obtain the information and do the inspections necessary prior to insuring Mexico-domiciled

motor carriers, as required by Federal motor carrier safety laws;

Whereas under the North American Free Trade Agreement,

Mexico-domiciled trucks are required to meet United

States safety and environmental standards for heavy-duty

trucks, including standards governing weight, brakes, and

emissions, which are stricter in the United States than

in Mexico;

Whereas a Mexico-domiciled heavy-duty truck that uses roads

in the United States outside the commercial zones and

that is engaged in interstate commerce or imported into

the United States is subject to regulation by the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration pursuant to chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code;
10

•HRES 152 IH

Whereas motor vehicle safety laws prohibit any person from

introducing into interstate commerce or importing into

the United States any heavy-duty truck or other motor

vehicle unless a label or tag is permanently affixed to

such vehicle certifying compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards;

Whereas there is no procedure for ensuring that a label or

tag certifying safety compliance is permanently affixed to

a heavy-duty truck that is imported into or manufactured

in Mexico and sold to a Mexico-domiciled motor carrier

that then introduces such truck into interstate commerce

or imports such truck into the United States;

Whereas motor vehicle safety laws require a manufacturer of

a heavy-duty truck or other motor vehicle to report any

safety-related defect or noncompliance with applicable

Federal motor vehicle standards to the Secretary of

Transportation;

Whereas there is no procedure for requiring a heavy-duty

truck manufacturer to report safety-related defects or

safety standard noncompliance to the Secretary of Transportation with regard to a heavy-duty truck that is sold

to a Mexico-domiciled motor carrier that then introduces

such vehicle into interstate commerce or imports such

truck into the United States;

Whereas the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) confers

authority to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to prescribe by regulation standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class

of motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine which, in the Administrator’s judgment, causes or contributes to air pollution and may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;
11

•HRES 152 IH

Whereas under such authority the Administrator has prescribed standards applicable to heavy-duty trucks;

Whereas the Clean Air Act confers authority to the Administrator to regulate, control, or prohibit the manufacture,

introduction into commerce, or offering for sale of any

fuel or fuel additive for use in a motor vehicle or motor

vehicle engine if, in the judgment of the Administrator,

the emission product of such fuel or fuel additive causes

or contributes to air pollution which may reasonably be

anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare;

Whereas under such authority the Administrator has prescribed regulations and controls on fuels and fuel additives used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines including heavy-duty trucks; and

Whereas, in March 2001, the North American Commission

for Environmental Cooperation reports that trade resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement

contributes significantly to air pollution, particularly nitrous oxide and particulate matter (PM–10): Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. DELAY ON GRANT OF OPERATING AUTHORITY.

3 The House of Representatives calls on the President

4 to continue to delay granting Mexico-domiciled motor car5 riers authority to operate in the United States beyond the

6 commercial zone until—

7 (1) the President certifies that such carriers are

8 able and willing to comply with United States motor

9 carrier safety, driver safety, vehicle safety, and envi-
12

•HRES 152 IH

1 ronmental laws and regulations; that the United

2 States is able to adequately enforce such laws and

3 regulations at the United States-Mexico border and

4 in each State; and that granting such operating au5 thority will not endanger the health, safety, and wel6 fare of United States citizens;

7 (2) the Secretary of Transportation specifically

8 certifies to Congress that—

9 (A) the safety of United States citizens

10 traveling on United States roads and highways

11 will not be jeopardized by granting such oper12 ating authority;

13 (B) United States standards governing

14 commercial motor carrier safety and environ15 mental protection have not been reduced in

16 order to allow access for Mexico-domiciled

17 trucks and buses to travel throughout the

18 United States;

19 (C) the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Ad20 ministration has developed and is implementing

21 a plan to ensure safe opening of the United

22 States-Mexico border to commercial vehicles;

23 (D) Mexico-domiciled trucks and buses will

24 achieve a level of operational safety that is at

25 least equal to that of United States- and Can-
13

•HRES 152 IH

1 ada-domiciled trucks and buses operating in the

2 United States when such Mexico-domiciled vehi3 cles are operating on United States roads and

4 highways;

5 (E) permanent inspection facilities are

6 operational at all United States-Mexico com7 mercial motor vehicle border crossings;

8 (F) the United States has a consistent and

9 fully funded inspection and enforcement pro10 gram that provides reasonable assurances of the

11 safety of Mexico-domiciled trucks, buses, and

12 drivers entering the United States;

13 (G) the number of full-time Federal safety

14 inspectors at the United States-Mexico border

15 has increased and is maintained at a level not

16 less than the number of positions necessary as

17 recommended by the Department of Transpor18 tation Inspector General in a 2001 audit;

19 (H) all United States-Mexico border com20 mercial motor vehicle crossings are manned by

21 safety inspectors during all hours of commercial

22 vehicle operations;

23 (I) all Mexico-domiciled trucks and buses

24 entering the United States will undergo a level25 1 commercial motor vehicle safety inspection by
14

•HRES 152 IH

1 Federal or State inspectors at least once every

2 90 days;

3 (J) the average out-of-service rate of Mex4 ico-domiciled trucks and buses inspected at the

5 United States-Mexico border is comparable with

6 the average out-of-service rate of United States7 domiciled and Canada-domiciled trucks and

8 buses operating in the United States;

9 (K) the Department of Transportation and

10 the States have taken all necessary actions to

11 implement the following provisions of the Motor

12 Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub13 lic Law 106–159) and other laws relating to the

14 safety and operation of foreign motor carriers

15 and drivers in the United States:

16 (i) section 13902(e) of title 49,

17 United States Code, authorizing the De18 partment to place a vehicle out of service

19 if the carrier is operating without registra20 tion or beyond the scope of its registration

21 and prohibiting foreign motor carriers

22 from operating vehicles in interstate com23 merce within the United States without

24 evidence of registration;
15

•HRES 152 IH

1 (ii) section 31144(c) of such title re2 quiring the Department to require, by reg3 ulation, that motor carriers who are grant4 ed new operating authority undergo a safe5 ty review within 18 months of commencing

6 operations;

7 (iii) section 210(b) of such Act (49

8 U.S.C. 31144 note; 113 Stat. 1765), re9 quiring the Department to initiate a rule10 making to establish minimum requirements

11 for applicant motor carriers, including for12 eign motor carriers, to ensure they are

13 knowledgeable about Federal motor carrier

14 safety standards, including administration

15 of a proficiency exam;

16 (iv) section 31148 of title 49, United

17 States Code, requiring the Department to

18 complete a rulemaking by December 9,

19 2000, to improve training and provide for

20 the certification of motor carrier safety

21 auditors, including private contractors, to

22 conduct safety inspection audits;

23 (v) section 212 of such Act (113 Stat.

24 1766), requiring the Department to com25 plete a rulemaking by December 9, 2000,
16

•HRES 152 IH

1 to determine to what extent Federal motor

2 carrier safety regulations should apply to

3 small commercial passenger carrying vans

4 transporting between 9 and 15 passengers

5 including the driver and, at a minimum, to

6 apply such regulations to ‘‘camionetas’’;

7 (vi) sections 218(a) and 218(b) of

8 such Act (49 U.S.C. 31133 note; 113 Stat.

9 1767), requiring that border staffing

10 standards be developed and implemented

11 for Federal and State motor carrier safety

12 inspectors not later than December 9,

13 2000;

14 (vii) section 219(a) of such Act (49

15 U.S.C. 14901 note; 113 Stat. 1768), pro16 viding that foreign motor carriers that op17 erate without authority outside of the com18 mercial zone will be liable for specified civil

19 penalties and may be disqualified from op20 erating in the United States;

21 (viii) section 219(d) of such Act (49

22 U.S.C. 14901 note; 113 Stat. 1768), pro23 hibiting foreign motor carriers from leasing

24 their commercial motor vehicles to any

25 other carrier to transport property in the
17

•HRES 152 IH

1 United States during the period in which a

2 suspension, condition, restriction, or limita3 tion imposed under section 13902(c) of

4 title 49, United States Code, applies to

5 such carrier;

6 (ix) revision of Application Form for

7 Mexican Motor Carriers: To Operate Be8 yond Commercial Zones, as published in

9 the Federal Register of May 3, 2001 (66

10 Fed. Reg. 22371), and as modified there11 after;

12 (x) revision of Application Form for

13 Mexican Motor Carriers: NAFTA, as pub14 lished in the Federal Register of May 3,

15 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 22328), and as modi16 fied thereafter; and

17 (xi) accelerated Safety Monitoring

18 System and Compliance Initiative for

19 Mexican Motor Carriers Operating in the

20 United States, as published in the Federal

21 Register of May 3, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg.

22 22415), and as modified thereafter;

23 (L) the United States and Mexico have

24 signed an agreement providing reciprocal rights
18

•HRES 152 IH

1 for any intercity bus service and terminal ac2 cess;

3 (M) with respect to Mexico-domiciled

4 motor carriers currently operating or seeking

5 authority to operate in the United States, the

6 Government of Mexico has in place and oper7 ational a systematic safety rating process to

8 evaluate the safety fitness of Mexico-domiciled

9 motor carriers;

10 (N) with respect to Mexico-domiciled motor

11 carriers currently operating or seeking author12 ity to operate in the United States, the Govern13 ment of Mexico has in place and operational a

14 domestic roadside inspection program;

15 (O) with respect to Mexico-domiciled motor

16 carriers currently operating or seeking author17 ity to operate in the United States, the Govern18 ment of Mexico has issued and implemented a

19 credible and enforceable drug and alcohol test20 ing program that meets United States stand21 ards;

22 (P) with respect to Mexico-domiciled motor

23 carriers currently operating or seeking author24 ity to operate in the United States, the Govern25 ment of Mexico has issued and implemented
19

•HRES 152 IH

1 hours of service regulations for Mexico-domi2 ciled drivers, including requirements for audited

3 log books;

4 (Q) permanent weigh stations are oper5 ational at all United States-Mexico border

6 crossings to ensure that Mexico-domiciled

7 trucks operating in the United States are in

8 compliance with United States truck size and

9 weight regulations;

10 (R) with respect to Mexico-domiciled motor

11 carriers currently operating or seeking author12 ity to operate in the United States, the Govern13 ment of Mexico has in place and operational an

14 accessible safety database to record accidents,

15 infractions, and inspections of Mexico-domiciled

16 motor carriers and drivers;

17 (S) there is a reasonable amount of acces18 sible historical information available upon which

19 to evaluate the safety of Mexico-domiciled

20 motor carriers and drivers currently operating

21 and seeking authority to operate in the United

22 States; and

23 (T) the manufacturer of heavy-duty trucks

24 that are imported into or manufactured in Mex25 ico, sold to a Mexico-domiciled motor carrier
20

•HRES 152 IH

1 and proposed for introduction or delivery into

2 interstate commerce or importation into the

3 United States, is in compliance with any notice,

4 certification, or disclosure requirement of, or

5 safety standard issued pursuant to, chapter 301

6 of title 49, United States Code, to the same ex7 tent that such requirement or standard applies

8 to any heavy-duty truck manufacturer regulated

9 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin10 istration under that chapter; and

11 (3) the Administrator of the Environmental

12 Protection Agency specifically certifies to Congress

13 that the Administrator has taken all necessary steps

14 to ensure that the manufacturer, owner, and oper15 ator of Mexico-domiciled trucks operating outside a

16 commercial zone comply with any notice, certifi17 cation, disclosure requirement of, or environmental

18 standard issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act (42

19 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) to the same extent that such

20 requirement or standard applies to any heavy-duty

21 truck or heavy-duty truck engine regulated by the

22 Environmental Protection Agency.
21

•HRES 152 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEXICO-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT AND JOINT

2 ACTIONS.

3 The House of Representatives calls on the Govern4 ments of Mexico and the United States—

5 (1) to agree to uniform application to United

6 States- and Mexico-domiciled motor carriers and

7 drivers of the highest standards regarding safety,

8 environmental protection, and driver competency, li9 censing, and hours of service;

10 (2) to improve truck and bus inspection and en11 forcement programs and increase the number of

12 trucks and buses that are inspected; and

13 (3) to consider truck and bus safety to be of

14 paramount importance to the relationship between

15 the United States and Mexico.

Æ