Commercial Trucking: Safety and Infrastructure Issues Under the North
American Free Trade Agreement (Letter Report, 02/29/96, GAO/RCED-96-61).

GAO reviewed the implementation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement's provisions on cross-border commercial truck traffic,
focusing on: (1) efforts to make the differing U.S. and Mexican trucking
regulations compatible; (2) the major differences in U.S. and Mexican
regulations and operating and enforcement practices that adversely
affect highway safety and infrastructure; and (3) federal and state
governments' readiness to ensure that Mexican trucks comply with U.S.
trucking regulations.

GAO found that: (1) the United States and Mexico have made some progress
in developing compatible trucking standards, but standardization of some
regulations, such as vehicle size and weight, may never occur; (2) there
are major differences between U.S. and Mexican trucking regulations and
operating and enforcement practices that could adversely impact highway
safety and infrastructure; (3) negotiators have standardized procedures
on drivers' age, inspection criteria, traffic control devices and road
signs, and certain hazardous materials, but further standardization of
trucking regulations is not scheduled for completion until 1997; (4)
where compatibility cannot be reached, foreign trucks must comply with
the host country's regulations, but enforcement efforts will be the key
to compliance; (5) Mexico is establishing a truck safety enforcement
program, but it lacks personnel and other resources to implement it; (6)
most Mexican trucks entering the United States do not meet U.S. safety
standards; (7) the four U.S. border states' enforcement readiness varies
significantly; (8) the Customs Service is permitting Texas to set up
truck inspection capabilities within its facilities because it faces the
greatest enforcement burden and has relatively limited resources; and
(9) in addition to northbound traffic, southbound and east-west traffic
will complicate the states' enforcement burden.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-96-61
     TITLE:  Commercial Trucking: Safety and Infrastructure Issues Under 
             the North American Free Trade Agreement
      DATE:  02/29/96
   SUBJECT:  Customs administration
             Safety regulation
             International trade
             Motor vehicle safety
             International cooperation
             State-administered programs
             Inspection
             International agreements
             Trucking operations
             Law enforcement
IDENTIFIER:  North American Free Trade Agreement
             NAFTA
             Arizona
             California
             New Mexico
             Texas
             Mexico
             FHwA Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Recipients

February 1996

COMMERCIAL TRUCKING - SAFETY AND
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES UNDER THE
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE
AGREEMENT

GAO/RCED-96-61

Commercial Trucking Under NAFTA

(342906)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  CVSA - Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
  DOT - Department of Transportation
  FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
  LTSS - Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee
  MSCAP - Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
  NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-261650

February 29, 1996

Congressional Recipients

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provided, among other
things, for the U.S.-Mexican border to be opened on December 18,
1995, for increased commercial truck traffic within the respective
border states--four in the United States (Arizona, California, New
Mexico, and Texas) and six in Mexico.  Before that date, the 11,000
trucks crossing daily from Mexico into the United States were limited
to commercial zones along the border. 

Because there are major differences between U.S.  and Mexican
trucking regulations and operating practices that could adversely
affect highway safety and infrastructure in the United States, we
evaluated the major implementation efforts associated with opening
the U.S.-Mexican border to commercial trucking.  Specifically, we (1)
reviewed efforts to make compatible the differing trucking
regulations of the United States and Mexico; (2) identified major
differences in U.S.  and Mexican trucking regulations and operating
and enforcement practices that could adversely affect highway safety
and infrastructure; and (3) reviewed federal and state governments'
readiness to ensure that trucks from Mexico comply with U.S. 
trucking regulations.  In early December 1995, we provided detailed
briefings to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and several
congressional offices on the results of our review.  We reported
significant safety concerns relating to trucks from Mexico that were
operating in the commercial zones within the United States. 

On December 18, 1995, the Secretary of Transportation announced that
Mexican trucks would continue to have access to the commercial zones
and that applications would be accepted from Mexican trucking
companies to do business beyond the commercial zones.  However, DOT
will not finalize the applications until consultations are completed
between the United States and Mexico to improve safety and security. 
We will continue to monitor efforts to expand trucking operations
between the United States and Mexico. 

This report updates and summarizes the major points in our briefings. 
The key briefing charts, showing the characteristics of and
differences between U.S.  and Mexican commercial trucking, are
included as
appendix I. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

NAFTA, which was agreed to by Canada, Mexico, and the United States,
contained a timetable for the phased removal of barriers for
transporting international cargo.  Beginning December 18, 1995,
Mexicans could apply for authority to deliver and backhaul cargo
between Mexico and the U.S.  border states.  According to DOT, by
January 1, 2000, all limits on access for international traffic were
to be phased out, and by January 1, 2004, limits on investments in
motor carriers in the NAFTA countries were to be eliminated.  Canada
and the United States have permitted expanded trucking operations
since the early 1980s. 

NAFTA established the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee
(LTSS) to work toward compatible truck safety and operating standards
among the countries.  DOT said the United States' overriding
objective for LTSS was to have a technical evaluation of the
different regulations and to encourage the adoption of regulations
that yield the highest safety standards.  As shown in appendix I,
there are major differences in U.S.  and Mexican commercial trucking
regulations and operating practices that could have an impact on
highway safety and infrastructure.  For example, there are
differences in vehicle size and weight, drivers' hours of service,
and recordkeeping requirements.  In those areas in which the two
countries do not agree to make their regulations compatible, trucks
operating in the United States must comply with U.S.  standards.  In
addition, the United States has, for several decades, had an active
inspection and enforcement program to encourage safer trucks.  Mexico
in 1995 was just beginning to establish a commercial vehicle
enforcement and inspection program.  NAFTA effectively provided that
beginning in the year 2000, cross-border trucking would be provided
full access within the three North American countries. 

Trucks move about 80 percent of the freight transported between the
United States and Mexico.  In 1995, about 11,000 truck crossings from
Mexico to the United States occurred daily (Monday through Friday). 
Truck traffic from Mexico into the United States increased about 27
percent from 1992 through 1995.  About 66 percent of this traffic
entered Texas, while about 24 percent entered California and about 10
percent, Arizona.  The truck traffic from Mexico into New Mexico is
negligible.  While motor carriers from Mexico have operated for many
years in limited commercial zones in the United States, motor
carriers from the United States have not generally been permitted to
operate in Mexico. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

We found that Mexico and the United States have made some progress in
developing compatible trucking regulations.  The achievement of
compatibility is essential because there are major differences in the
two countries' trucking regulations, operating practices, and
enforcement activities that could adversely affect highway safety and
infrastructure.  Compatibility efforts in areas such as
vehicle-related standards and traffic control devices were not slated
for completion until 1997--well after the planned opening of the
border states.  Compatibility for certain trucking regulations, such
as those on vehicle size and weight, may never be reached; therefore,
the host country's regulations must be complied with, and enforcement
is the key for ensuring compliance. 

The four U.S.  border states' readiness for enforcement varies
significantly.  Currently, and in the future, Texas faces the
greatest enforcement burden but has relatively limited
resources--enforcement personnel and facilities--to cope with the
increasing truck traffic from Mexico.  In addition to the northbound
traffic facing the four U.S.  border states, southbound and east-west
bound traffic will add to their enforcement burden. 


   DIFFERENCES BETWEEN U.S.  AND
   MEXICAN COMMERCIAL TRUCKING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The following and appendix I provide details on our findings: 

  LTSS has made progress in obtaining compatibility on standards
     relating to drivers' age, standard inspection criteria, traffic
     control devices and road signs, and certain procedures for
     transporting hazardous materials.  However, work by LTSS on many
     critical trucking regulations is not scheduled to be completed
     until 1997, and some regulations may never be made compatible. 
     In those areas in which LTSS cannot achieve compatibility,
     foreign truckers must comply with the host country's
     requirements.

  Table 1 shows some major differences in truck safety regulations
     between the United States and Mexico, concerning limits on the
     number of consecutive hours a driver can operate (hours of
     service), requirements to keep written records (logbooks) of
     driving hours and other operational details, requirements for
     mandatory front brakes for trucks manufactured after 1980, and
     maximum allowable gross vehicle weight. 



                          Table 1
          
             Some Major Differences in U.S. and
                Mexican Trucking Regulations

Regulation          United States       Mexico
------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Hours of service    10 hours            No limits

Logbooks            Required            Not required

Front brakes        Required            Not required

Maximum gross       80,000 lbs.         97,000 lbs.\a
vehicle weight (5-
axle)
----------------------------------------------------------
\a As of December 1995 was pending final approval in Mexico. 

  The United States has had an active truck inspection and
     enforcement program for several decades.  DOT works in
     partnership with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA),
     an organization of state and provincial officials that works to
     ensure that compliance and enforcement procedures, particularly
     roadside inspection procedures, are consistent.  Mexico is
     establishing an enforcement program but lacks the facilities and
     personnel to initiate the new program.  Mexico is a member of
     CVSA.

  DOT works in partnership with the states to enforce the federal
     motor carrier safety regulations.  Under the Motor Carrier
     Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), states that adopt the federal
     safety regulations as state laws are provided financial
     assistance for enforcement activities.  DOT said the four U.S. 
     border states participated in MCSAP and received in fiscal year
     1995 about $1 million in supplemental MCSAP funds for NAFTA-
     related enforcement activities.  In 1996, the four states
     received about $1.1 million in supplemental MSCAP funds for such
     activities.

  Many trucks from Mexico operating in U.S.  commercial zones are in
     poor condition and do not meet many U.S.  safety standards for
     trucks.  Overweight and unsafe trucks can adversely affect
     highway safety and degrade the infrastructure.  The four U.S. 
     border states and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have
     acquired limited overall inspection data on trucks from Mexico. 
     Arizona, the only state that could specifically identify trucks
     from Mexico, reported that 63 percent of the trucks from Mexico
     that were inspected in 1994 were placed out of service; for all
     trucks inspected statewide, 24 percent were placed out of
     service.

  About 50 percent of the 217 trucks from Mexico that we observed
     being inspected at border locations in the four U.S.  border
     states did not meet U.S.  regulations.  For example, we observed
     trucks with broken suspensions, substandard tires, inoperable
     brakes, and extremely overweight or unsecured loads, including
     hazardous materials. 

  Beginning on December 18, 1995, federal, state, and local officials
     in the four U.S.  border states began an intensified effort to
     inspect trucks arriving from Mexico at nine U.S.  border
     locations.  About 56 percent of the 1,613 trucks inspected
     during 3 weeks of this new effort were placed out of service. 
     Also, about 14 percent of the drivers were placed out of
     service, most often because of invalid licenses.  By comparison,
     in the United States during fiscal year 1994, about 28 percent
     of the trucks and about 8.5 percent of the drivers were placed
     out of service as a result of inspections.

  Enforcement varies significantly among the four border states and
     is not aligned with need.  As of December 1, 1995, Texas had 14
     truck inspectors assigned to cover the 16 points where more than
     7,000 trucks daily (Monday through Friday) enter Texas from
     Mexico.  Also, Texas had no permanent weigh scales or inspection
     facilities along its 1,250-mile border with Mexico.  However,
     Texas plans to build, at a total cost of $1.4 million, two
     roadside inspection facilities in El Paso.  In contrast,
     California has invested over $30 million to construct two
     facilities for inspecting and weighing trucks from Mexico.

  The U.S.  Customs Service controls the primary facilities
     immediately adjacent to border entry locations.  Before November
     1995, state truck enforcement personnel had limited use of these
     facilities, especially those in urban settings.  In November
     1995, DOT, Customs, and Texas officials agreed to a
     comprehensive cooperative enforcement effort that includes truck
     inspections within Customs' facilities in the commercial zones
     and throughout the state. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Although NAFTA is a comprehensive free trade pact that addresses all
aspects of trade, this review focused only on differences between the
United States and Mexico relating to commercial trucking regulations,
operating practices, and enforcement and to some extent implications
for the infrastructure.  In conducting our work, we collected data
from DOT, the U.S.  Customs Service, the General Services
Administration, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and various
private and university groups.  We visited the seven border crossings
where about 90 percent of the trucks from Mexico enter the United
States.  We observed 217 truck inspections that were selected during
an 8-day period.  We reviewed documents and studies from the United
States and Mexico and interviewed various officials and experts.  We
performed this work from June 1995 through January 1996 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We provided copies of a draft of this report to DOT for its comments. 
We met with officials from the Office of the Secretary and FHWA,
including the Coordinator of the Office of Motor Carriers'
International Program.  These officials agreed that our draft report
generally provided an accurate snapshot of major implementation
efforts to open the U.S.-Mexican border to commercial trucking.  They
added that they would have preferred a greater discussion on the
Department's total efforts to implement NAFTA.  DOT also said that
observations in our draft report supported the Department's view that
compliance and enforcement mechanisms were not in place in Mexico to
ensure that the trucks crossing the border were safe and roadworthy. 
DOT provided comments that clarified certain technical information in
the draft report, and we incorporated these changes in the report
where appropriate.  The Department also provided us with a written
statement that discusses its position on transportation issues under
NAFTA and includes information on efforts it has under way to work
with Mexico to ensure motor carrier safety (see app.  II). 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

This report is being sent to you because of your legislative
responsibilities for commercial trucking.  We are also sending copies
of this report to the Secretaries of Transportation and the Treasury;
the Administrator, FHWA; and the Commissioner, U.S.  Customs Service. 
We will make copies available to others on request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any
questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
III. 

John H.  Anderson, Jr.
Director, Transportation and
 Telecommunications Issues


      LIST OF RECIPIENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

The Honorable John H.  Chafee
Chairman
The Honorable Max Baucus
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate

The Honorable John Warner
Chairman, Subcommittee on
 Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee on Environment
 and Public Works
United States Senate

The Honorable Larry Pressler
Chairman
The Honorable Ernest F.  Hollings
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce, Science,
 and Transportation
United States Senate

The Honorable Trent Lott
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel K.  Inouye
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation
 and Merchant Marine
Committee on Commerce, Science,
 and Transportation
United States Senate

The Honorable Mark O.  Hatfield
Chairman
The Honorable Robert C.  Byrd
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Frank R.  Lautenberg
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Transportation
 and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Livingston
Chairman
The Honorable David Obey
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Frank R.  Wolf
Chairman
The Honorable Ronald D.  Coleman
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Transportation
 and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Bud Schuster
Chairman
The Honorable James L.  Oberstar
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Transportation
 and Infrastructure
House of Representaties

The Honorable Thomas E.  Petri
Chairman
The Honorable Nick Rahall
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation
Committee on Transportation
 and Infrastructure
House of Representatives


DIFFERENCES BETWEEN U.S.  AND
MEXICAN COMMERCIAL TRUCKING
=========================================================== Appendix I



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

Phyllis F.  Scheinberg, Associate Director
Ron E.  Wood, Assistant Director
Daniel E.  Ranta, Evaluator-in-Charge
Michael G.  Burros
Ray B.  Bush
Lynne L.  Goldfarb
Paul D.  Lacey
Linda S.  Standau


*** End of document. ***