Commercial Trucking: Safety Concerns About Mexican Trucks Remain Even as
Inspection Activity Increases (Letter Report, 04/09/97, GAO/RCED-97-68).

GAO reviewed the results of federal and state inspections of Mexican
trucks entering the United States in 1996, focusing on: (1) actions by
the federal government and border states to increase truck safety
enforcement at the border; and (2) the federal enforcement strategy to
ensure that trucks from Mexico comply with safety standards when
entering the United States.

GAO noted that: (1) from January through December 1996, federal and
state officials conducted more than 25,000 inspections of trucks from
Mexico; (2) on average each month, about 45 percent of the vehicles were
placed out of service for serious safety violations, such as for having
substandard tires or for being loaded unsafely; (3) this rate compares
unfavorably to the 28 percent out-of-service rate for U.S. trucks
inspected across the United States in fiscal year 1995; (4) however,
because inspectors target for inspection those vehicles and drivers that
appear to have safety deficiencies, their selections are not random; (5)
as a result, the out-of-service rates may not necessarily reflect the
general condition of all vehicles; (6) although border inspection
officials believe that trucks from Mexico are safer than they were in
late 1995, the monthly out-of-service rates for trucks from Mexico in
1996 ranged from 39 percent to 50 percent, with no consistent trend; (7)
the border states of Arizona, California, and Texas have increased their
capability to inspect trucks at major border locations; (8)
collectively, the three states had 93 state truck inspectors assigned to
border crossing locations as of January 1997; (9) in addition, the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) approved 13 new temporary positions
(2-year appointments) to place federal safety inspectors at major border
crossing locations; (10) California, with about 24 percent of the truck
traffic from Mexico, opened two large permanent inspection facilities;
(11) it has the most rigorous inspection program, with the goal of
inspecting, at least once every 90 days, every truck entering the state
from Mexico; (12) while both Texas and Arizona, collectively with more
than three-quarters of the truck traffic from Mexico, have more than
doubled the number of inspectors at border crossing locations, their
efforts are less comprehensive; (13) under a broad strategy to help
create a "compliance mind-set" for Mexican trucks crossing into U.S.
commercial zones, DOT has undertaken a number of activities to promote
truck safety; (14) in February 1997, DOT announced that its program that
provides grants for statewide safety enforcement activities will
incorporate performance-based goals to increase truck and driver safety;
and (15) also, in March 1997, DOT submitted a legislative proposal to
the Congress as part of the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface T*

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-68
     TITLE:  Commercial Trucking: Safety Concerns About Mexican Trucks 
             Remain Even as Inspection Activity Increases
      DATE:  04/09/97
   SUBJECT:  Customs administration
             Safety regulation
             International trade
             Motor vehicle safety
             International cooperation
             State-administered programs
             Federal/state relations
             International agreements
             Trucking operations
             Law enforcement
IDENTIFIER:  North American Free Trade Agreement
             NAFTA
             California
             Mexico
             Arizona
             Texas
             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 Committees

April 1997

COMMERCIAL TRUCKING - SAFETY
CONCERNS ABOUT MEXICAN TRUCKS
REMAIN EVEN AS INSPECTION ACTIVITY
INCREASES

GAO/RCED-97-68

Safety Concerns About Mexican Trucks

(342916)


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

  CVSA -
  DOT -
  GSA -
  MCSAP -
  NAFTA -

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


B-271442

April 9, 1997

Congressional Committees

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provided for, among
other things, the U.S.-Mexican border to be opened on December 18,
1995, for increased commercial truck traffic within the border
states--four in the United States (Arizona, California, New Mexico,
and Texas) and six in Mexico.  Before that date, trucks making the
12,000 daily border crossings were limited to commercial zones
(designated areas several miles deep) along the border.  However, on
December 18, 1995, the U.S.  Secretary of Transportation announced
that Mexican trucks would continue to have access only to commercial
zones until U.S.  safety and security concerns were addressed.  This
delay of access is still in effect.  NAFTA also provides for
commercial trucks from Mexico to travel throughout the United States
as of the year 2000. 

In February 1996, we reported that many trucks from Mexico operating
in U.S.  commercial zones in mid 1995 were not meeting U.S.  safety
standards and that the four U.S.  border states' readiness for
enforcement varied significantly.\1 As the year 2000 approaches, the
United States needs to be assured that trucks entering the country
from Mexico will be safe and operated safely.  This follow-on report
describes (1) the results of federal and state inspections of Mexican
trucks entering the United States in 1996, (2) actions by the federal
government and border states to increase truck safety enforcement at
the border, and (3) the federal enforcement strategy to ensure that
trucks from Mexico comply with safety standards when entering the
United States. 


--------------------
\1 Commercial Trucking:  Safety and Infrastructure Issues Under the
North American Free Trade Agreement (GAO/RCED-96-61, Feb.  29, 1996). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

From January through December 1996 (the most recent date for which
data were available as of March 1997), federal and state officials
conducted more than 25,000 inspections of trucks from Mexico.  On
average each month, about 45 percent of the vehicles were placed out
of service for serious safety violations, such as for having
substandard tires or for being loaded unsafely.  This rate compares
unfavorably to the 28-percent out-of-service rate for U.S.  trucks
inspected across the United States in fiscal year 1995 (the most
recent year for which nationwide data were available).  (However,
because inspectors target for inspection those vehicles and drivers
that appear to have safety deficiencies, their selections are not
random.  As a result, the out-of-service rates may not necessarily
reflect the general condition of all vehicles.) Although border
inspection officials believe that trucks from Mexico are safer than
they were in late 1995, the monthly out-of-service rates for trucks
from Mexico in 1996 ranged from 39 percent to 50 percent, with no
consistent trend. 

The border states of Arizona, California, and Texas have increased
their capability to inspect trucks at major border locations.\2
Collectively, the three states had 93 state truck inspectors assigned
to border crossing locations as of January 1997.  In addition, the
U.S.  Department of Transportation (DOT) approved 13 new temporary
positions (2-year appointments) to place federal safety inspectors at
major border crossing locations.  California, with about 24 percent
of the truck traffic from Mexico, opened two large permanent
inspection facilities.  It has the most rigorous inspection program,
with the goal of inspecting, at least once every 90 days, every truck
entering the state from Mexico.  While both Texas and Arizona,
collectively with more than three-quarters of the truck traffic from
Mexico, have more than doubled the number of inspectors at border
crossing locations, their efforts are less comprehensive.  For
example, neither has invested in inspection facilities at border
crossing locations, in part, because of a lack of space at some urban
crossings and the view that NAFTA is a national issue that should not
be financed with state funds. 

Under a broad strategy to help create a "compliance mind-set" for
Mexican trucks crossing into U.S.  commercial zones, DOT has
undertaken a number of activities to promote truck safety.  These
include providing funds to the border states to increase border
inspection activities, conducting educational campaigns for Mexican
truck operators on U.S.  safety standards, and attempting to build
the capacity of selected Mexican enforcement agencies to inspect
trucks within that country.  In February 1997 DOT announced that its
program that provides grants for statewide safety enforcement
activities will incorporate performance-based goals to increase truck
and driver safety.  Also, in March 1997, DOT submitted a legislative
proposal to the Congress as part of the reauthorization of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act that would
incorporate this initiative.  In addition, other proposed provisions
would help states to address concerns about the border infrastructure
and safety. 


--------------------
\2 New Mexico receives less than 1 percent of the northbound truck
traffic, and its activities are not included in this report. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

NAFTA, which was agreed to by Canada, Mexico, and the United States
in 1992 and implemented in the United States through legislation in
1993, contained a timetable for the phased removal of trade barriers
for goods and services between the three countries.  Beginning
December 18, 1995, Mexican trucking companies were to have been able
to apply for the authority to deliver and backhaul cargo between
Mexico and the four U.S.  border states.  However, on that date the
Secretary of Transportation announced an indeterminate delay because
of safety and security concerns.  NAFTA's timetable calls for all
limits on cross-border access (i.e., truck travel within the three
countries) to be phased out by January 2000.  Until expanded access
is granted, trucks from Mexico continue to be limited to commercial
zones along the border (generally, areas between 3 and 20 miles from
U.S.  border towns' northern limits, depending on each town's
population). 

For several decades, the United States has been expanding inspection
and enforcement programs nationwide to encourage safer U.S.  trucks
and truck operation.  DOT has, among other things, (1) issued minimum
safety standards for trucks and commercial drivers, (2) provided
grants to states to develop and implement programs that would lead to
the enforcement of these safety standards, and (3) conducted reviews
of about one-third of all domestic interstate trucking companies in
order to determine overall compliance with safety regulations. 
Through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), DOT
works in partnership with states to enforce federal truck
regulations.  As the states adopt federal safety regulations, DOT
provides financial assistance for enforcement.  Although DOT
maintains a presence in all states to promote truck safety and
requires that states comply with minimum federal regulations and
requirements related to truck safety, it relies on the states to
develop their own strategies for enforcement. 

NAFTA also established the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee
to work toward compatible truck safety and operating standards among
the countries.  While U.S.  and Canadian commercial trucking
regulations are largely compatible, major differences existed between
U.S.  and Mexican regulations concerning drivers' qualifications, the
hours of service, drug and alcohol testing, the condition of vehicles
(including their tires, brakes, parts, and accessories), accident
monitoring, and the transport of hazardous materials.  According to
DOT, progress has been made in making truck safety and operating
standards compatible, and discussions are still ongoing. 

NAFTA's three member nations have accepted the truck inspection
standards established by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA).\3 For the most part, there are two types of inspections
conducted according to the trilaterally accepted truck inspection
guidelines--"level-1" and "level-2" inspections.\4 The level-1
inspection is the most rigorous--a full inspection of both the driver
and vehicle.  The driver inspection includes ensuring that the driver
has a valid commercial driver's license, is medically qualified, and
has an updated log showing the hours of service.  The level-1 vehicle
inspection includes a visual inspection of the tires and of the
brakes' air pressure, among other things, and an undercarriage
inspection that covers the brakes, frame, and suspension (see fig. 
1).  The level-2 inspection, also known as a "walk-around
inspection," includes a driver inspection and a visual inspection of
the vehicle.  It does not include the careful undercarriage
inspection.  Trucks that fail inspections for serious safety
violations are placed out of service--that is, they are halted until
the needed repairs are made. 

   Figure 1:  California State
   Inspector Performing a Level-1
   Inspection

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

A level-1 inspection includes an undercarriage inspection of the
brakes, frame, and suspension. 


--------------------
\3 CVSA is an association of state, provincial, and federal officials
responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor carrier
safety laws in the three countries. 

\4 Level-1 and level-2 inspections constitute about 80 percent of the
inspections nationwide.  Level-3 inspections, which account for about
18 percent of all inspections, focus on the driver's records rather
than the vehicle's condition.  Level-4 and level-5 inspections, which
constitute fewer than 2 percent of all inspections, are
special-purpose inspections. 


   OUT-OF-SERVICE RATES AVERAGED
   ABOUT 45 PERCENT IN 1996
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

From January 1996 (the first full month of detailed records of
inspections) through December 1996 (the most recent month for which
data were available as of March 1997), federal and state safety
inspectors conducted over 25,000 safety inspections of about 3
million Mexican trucks crossing into the United States.  These
inspections resulted in an out-of-service rate of about 45 percent
for serious safety violations.  The monthly out-of-service rates
ranged from 39 percent to 50 percent, with no consistent trend (see
fig.  2). 

   Figure 2:  Out-of-Service Rates
   for Trucks From Mexico, 1996

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Data from DOT. 

The average monthly out-of-service rate of 45 percent compares
unfavorably with the 28-percent rate for 1.8 million U.S.  trucks
inspected on the nation's roads during fiscal year 1995 (the most
recent year for which nationwide data are available).  However,
because inspectors target for inspection vehicles and drivers that
appear to have safety deficiencies, their selections are not random. 
As a result, the out-of-service rates may not necessarily reflect the
general condition of all vehicles. 

In addition, while about half of the 1.8 million inspections of U.S. 
trucks were level-1 inspections, only slightly more than one-quarter
of the inspections of trucks from Mexico were this type.  Level-1
inspections are more stringent than level-2 inspections and result in
higher out-of-service rates.\5 Consequently, if more of the
inspections of trucks from Mexico had been level-1 inspections, the
resulting overall out-of-service rate likely would have been somewhat
greater than 45 percent. 

The out-of-service rates for trucks entering the United States from
Mexico have also been substantially greater than those for U.S. 
trucks operating within individual border states (see fig.  3). 
California's data show less disparity, which may be because regular
inspections since the late 1980s have made Mexican carriers traveling
into California more knowledgeable about U.S.  truck safety
standards. 

   Figure 3:  State-by-State
   Comparison of Out-of-Service
   Rates

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Data from DOT. 

Federal and state truck inspectors we contacted in Arizona,
California, and Texas told us that trucks from Mexico are upgrading
equipment to improve safety.  In their opinion, trucks from Mexico
are safer now than they were in late 1995.  For example, the
inspectors told us that they often find fewer violations per truck,
and some previous violations (such as instances of drivers sitting on
milk crates rather than secured seats) are now seldom seen.  They
credit the increased inspections at the border (discussed later in
this report) with heightening Mexican carriers' awareness of and
willingness to comply with U.S.  truck safety requirements.  They
commented that the inspections have helped bring about improvements
with tires, brakes, and other equipment.  Also, many Mexican drivers
we spoke to were eager to learn about U.S.  safety regulations so
they could strive to meet them. 

Many U.S.  and Mexican trucking industry and association officials we
contacted said that the relatively high out-of-service rates for
trucks from Mexico do not mean that Mexican truck operators will
drive unsafe trucks into the United States once access to the
remaining portions of the border states and to the United States as a
whole is granted.  They told us that most trucks currently operating
and being inspected at border crossings are used exclusively for
short-haul operations and tend to be older trucks that are more
likely to have equipment problems leading to out-of-service
violations.  They believe that Mexican truck operators choosing to
operate farther into the United States will use higher-quality trucks
because doing so is in their interest.  For instance, Mexican
trucking companies would not want their trucks to break down or to be
taken out of service far from their bases of operations, where
repairs would be more difficult and costly, the officials explained. 
While this reasoning seems plausible, we were unable to obtain
information that would confirm or refute it.\6


--------------------
\5 For the United States as a whole, the fiscal year 1995
out-of-service rate for level-1 inspections was about 33 percent, and
the rate for level-2 inspections was about 19 percent.  Of the U.S. 
border states, only California conducts primarily level-1 inspections
of trucks from Mexico. 

\6 As of February 1997, 170 Mexican carriers had applied to DOT for
the authority to operate with full access to the four border states
once such access is granted under NAFTA.  The application
requirements, which mirror those for U.S.  firms seeking domestic
operating authority, contain no information on the characteristics of
the firms' truck fleets. 


   FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS
   HAVE INCREASED ENFORCEMENT
   ACTIVITY IN THE FOUR BORDER
   STATES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Most trucks from Mexico enter the United States at 7 of the 23
crossing points for commercial trucks.  To provide some assurance
that the 12,000 trucks crossing from Mexico into the United States
each day will be safe and operated safely, the three border states in
our review and DOT have increased enforcement markedly at the major
border locations. 


      MOST TRUCKS FROM MEXICO
      CROSS AT SEVEN BORDER
      LOCATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Although there are 23 locations where northbound trucks from Mexico
may enter the United States, about 90 percent of the trucks enter at
7 major crossings--in California (Otay Mesa and Calexico), Arizona
(Nogales), and Texas (El Paso, Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville) (See
fig.  4.)

   Figure 4:  Locations of Border
   Crossings and Permanent Truck
   Inspection Facilities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Based on information from the U.S.  Customs Service, DOT,
and the four border states. 

Trucks from Mexico enter the United States through the U.S.  Customs
Service's ports of entry.  Trucks passing through Customs then enter
truck inspection facilities where such inspection facilities exist. 
At locations where separate permanent facilities do not exist,
Customs has generally allowed state and federal truck inspectors to
carry out their safety inspections on the agency's property. 

Permanent facilities allow more rigorous truck inspections to take
place, provide scales and measuring devices to screen all trucks for
the violations of being overweight or oversize, provide cover to keep
inspectors out of the extreme heat prevalent at the border, and
signal to the trucking community a permanent commitment to enforcing
truck safety standards. 

In the past year, California opened two permanent truck inspection
facilities at its major border crossings, where it aims to inspect
and certify the trucks entering the state from Mexico once every 3
months.  Texas, with about two-thirds of the truck traffic from
Mexico, and Arizona, with about 10 percent of the traffic, have no
permanent truck inspection facilities at any of their border
locations.  Discussions within Texas and Arizona are under way
regarding constructing at least one permanent facility in each state. 


      THE NUMBER OF STATE AND
      FEDERAL INSPECTORS HAS
      INCREASED, AND MOST ARE
      WORKING AT MAJOR BORDER
      CROSSINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

As of January 1997, the three border states in our review had 93
truck inspectors stationed at border crossing locations (see table
1).  In addition, DOT approved new temporary positions for 13 truck
safety inspectors and, as of January 1997, had 11 of them working at
the border.  (The 13 positions are for a 2-year term only.) These
federal truck inspectors took over for six DOT safety specialists who
had been temporarily reassigned to inspect trucks from Mexico at
border locations from December 1995 through August 1996. 
Customarily, DOT does not routinely conduct roadside inspections at
fixed locations. 



                                     Table 1
                     
                     Northbound Truck Traffic and Inspectors
                       at the Seven Busiest Border Crossing
                           Locations, Fiscal Year 1996

                                                 Number of inspectors assigned\
     Number of truck crossings                        (as of January 1997)
     --------------------------                  -------------------------------
Bor
der
loc
ati                     Weekday   Percentage of                            Total
on\                    average\           total                      (Percentage
a    Fiscal year 1996         b       crossings   State   Federal      of total)
---  ----------------  --------  --------------  ------  --------  -------------
Ota           520,908     1,992              17      28         1       29 (28%)
 y
 Me
 sa
 ,
 Ca
 li
 f.
Cal           169,403       648               5      19         1       20 (19%)
 ex
 ic
 o,
 Ca
 li
 f.
Nog           225,274       862               7       7         2         9 (9%)
 al
 es
 ,
 Ar
 iz
 .
El            577,152     2,208              19       9         2       11 (11%)
 Pa
 so
 ,
 Te
 x.
Lar           899,754     3,441              29       8         2       10 (10%)
 ed
 o,
 Te
 x.
McA           198,260       759               6       5         0         5 (5%)
 ll
 en
 ,
 Te
 x.
Bro           224,537       858               7       7         2         9 (9%)
 wn
 sv
 il
 le
 ,
 Te
 x.
================================================================================
Sub         2,815,288    10,768              90      83        10       93 (89%)
 to
 ta
 l
All           297,803     1,138              10      10         1       11 (11%)
 ot
 he
 rs
================================================================================
Tot         3,113,091    11,906             100      93        11   104 (100%\c)
 al
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Three border locations have more than one crossing point: 
Brownsville has three, and Laredo and El Paso have two each. 

\b Most locations have limited weekend crossings, when many Mexican
carriers choose not to operate and some U.S.  Customs facilities have
limited hours. 

\c The percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. 

Source:  Data from Customs, DOT, and California's, Arizona's, and
Texas' enforcement agencies. 

Most state truck inspectors (83 of 93) have been stationed at the
major border crossing locations.  A year earlier, the three border
states in our review had 39 inspectors assigned to the major border
crossing locations (see table 2). 



                                Table 2
                
                    State Inspectors at Major Border
                 Crossing Locations, December 1995 and
                              January 1997

                                    Number of inspectors assigned
                                --------------------------------------
Border state                         December 1995        January 1997
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
California                                      24                  47
Arizona                                          1                   7
Texas                                           14                  29
Total                                           39                  83
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  State enforcement agencies. 

In addition, DOT has assigned its inspectors to each state and then,
with one exception, assigned them to the busiest locations within
each state.  There are relatively few federal inspectors, and their
appointments are temporary, since, under MCSAP, states have the
primary responsibility for developing enforcement strategies. 


         CALIFORNIA FACILITIES AND
         INSPECTORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.1

California, with about 24 percent of truck traffic from Mexico, has
the most rigorous border state truck inspection program and has been
inspecting trucks from Mexico in its commercial zones for several
years.  In 1996, California opened permanent truck inspection
facilities at its two major border locations--Otay Mesa and Calexico
(see fig.  5).  California constructed these facilities, which cost
about $15 million each, with federal and state highway funds that had
been earmarked by the state for roadway projects because it
considered these facilities to be of a higher priority.  California's
decision was made easier because land was available for purchase
adjacent to Customs' ports of entry. 

   Figure 5:  State Truck
   Inspection Facilities at Otay
   Mesa and Calexico, California

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

These facilities have been allocated a total of 47 full-time
inspectors:  Twenty-three are California Highway Patrol officers, and
24 are civilian truck inspectors.  The use of civilian inspectors,
for whom the pay and training costs are less, has helped boost
California's overall number of inspectors.  The state inspectors are
assisted by two federal inspectors. 

The state officials in charge of operations at these facilities told
us that one of their objectives is to inspect and certify every truck
from Mexico at least once every 90 days.  Additionally, all trucks
from Mexico are weighed and checked for proper size before traveling
on U.S.  roads.  Currently, California has enough inspectors at its
ports of entry that many of them spend their time on roads in border
zones checking the safety of U.S.  trucks operating in the area. 


         TEXAS FACILITIES AND
         INSPECTORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.2

With about 66 percent of all truck traffic from Mexico (more than 2
million truck crossings in fiscal year 1996) and four of the seven
major border crossing locations, Texas continues to face the greatest
enforcement burden.  (Figure 6 shows aspects of the four Texas
locations.) Texas' situation has been more complicated because three
of its major locations have had two or three bridges each, where
trucks cross the Rio Grande into the United States.  However, in mid
1996 Customs consolidated the truck traffic in McAllen, Texas, by
closing one of the two bridges to northbound trucks.  Such
consolidation might be possible for other major locations in Texas. 
As of January 1997, Texas had no permanent truck inspection
facilities at any of its 11 border locations.  In Laredo, for
example, inspectors work in an uncovered parking area in extreme heat
and humidity for much of the year. 

State and federal officials have announced plans to retrofit some
existing buildings to establish a truck inspection facility at Texas'
fourth busiest truck crossing location just outside of McAllen,
although federal and state officials have not set a completion date
for this project.  According to state transportation officials, state
truck enforcement officials, and transportation authorities in
academia, four primary reasons have kept Texas from building truck
inspection facilities at border locations: 

  -- Key state agencies see NAFTA as a national issue and are
     reluctant to use state funds to enforce its provisions;

  -- most of the major border crossings are in urban areas (Laredo,
     El Paso, and Brownsville), where little space is available to
     accommodate truck inspection facilities that would be adjacent
     to border entry points;

  -- the state agency responsible for inspecting trucks, the
     Department of Public Safety, has traditionally worked (and
     prefers to work) in a roving fashion, conducting roadside truck
     inspections rather than working out of one location; and

  -- many Texas border cities have developed close economic and
     social relationships with their Mexican sister cities directly
     across the border and resist increased inspections if they
     perceive that a major crackdown on trucks could undermine such
     relationships. 

   Figure 6:  Truck Inspection at
   Major Border Crossing Locations
   in Texas

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As of December 1995, Texas had 22 officers and troopers (inspectors)
covering its 11 border locations, but about 2 years later, as of
January 1997, Texas had increased this staffing by nearly 70 percent
to 37.  Traditionally, these inspectors spent only about 25 percent
of their time actually inspecting trucks, but, according to state
officials, in 1996 that percentage grew substantially.  Eight of the
13 federal truck inspector positions have been allocated to Texas'
major border locations.  Also, state truck inspectors in Texas have
trained small cadres of local police officers in Brownsville, Laredo,
and El Paso to check trucks and drivers periodically for safety.  For
example, according to an El Paso official, 29 city police officers
were trained to perform truck inspections in November 1995, and, as
of December 1996, those officers were performing inspections on U.S. 
and Mexican trucks 1 day out of every 2 weeks, on average. 


         ARIZONA FACILITIES AND
         INSPECTORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2.3

Arizona receives about 10 percent of the total truck traffic from
Mexico--about 314,000 crossings in fiscal year 1996.  Of the state's
six ports of entry, Nogales received the majority (about 72 percent)
of these trucks.  As of January 1997, Arizona had no permanent truck
inspection facilities, but state officials were discussing whether to
build one near the Nogales port of entry (see fig.  7). 

   Figure 7:  Truck Inspection
   Area Inside U.S.  Customs Lot
   at Nogales, Arizona

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As of September 1996, two state inspectors were permanently stationed
at the border--one in Nogales and one in San Luis.  Recently passed
state legislation, however, increased this number to nine in November
1996--seven near Nogales and two in San Luis.  However, according to
a state enforcement official, in early 1997 Customs withdrew its
permission for state enforcement personnel to conduct their
enforcement activities on the Nogales Customs lot.  He told us that
state inspectors no longer conduct inspections in the Customs lot and
are now performing their enforcement activities away from the border. 

In addition, as of September 1996, there were two federal truck
inspectors assigned to Nogales and one assigned to San Luis.  A DOT
official told us that the federal inspectors are still working out of
the Nogales Customs lot and that DOT is trying to reach a formal
agreement with Customs to allow both federal and state truck safety
inspections at this location. 


   DOT HAS DEVELOPED A STRATEGY TO
   IMPROVE MEXICAN TRUCKS'
   COMPLIANCE WITH U.S.  SAFETY
   REGULATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

DOT has developed a strategy to help implement NAFTA.  This strategy
entails measures to be taken in the border states and within Mexico
to improve compliance with U.S.  truck safety regulations, such as
providing funding for state enforcement activities and educational
campaigns on U.S.  safety regulations directed at Mexican drivers and
trucking companies.  Opportunities exist for increasing the
strategy's effectiveness.  These opportunities would involve (1)
helping the border states establish results-oriented enforcement
strategies for trucks entering the United States from Mexico and (2)
working with other federal and state agencies so that the seven major
border locations have at least minimum truck safety inspection
facilities.  These actions, if undertaken, would also help DOT better
understand the degree to which U.S.  safety regulations are being
complied with as a prelude to opening all of the United States to
commercial trucks from Mexico. 


      DOT'S GOALS AND STRATEGIES
      TO PROMOTE SAFE TRUCKS FROM
      MEXICO
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

According to DOT officials, the Department's goals are to foster a
"compliance mind set" among Mexican truck operators and to see a
continuous improvement in adhering to U.S.  truck safety standards. 
To meet these goals, DOT has a three-pronged strategy that consists
of (1) cooperative federal and state enforcement of U.S.  safety and
operating standards, (2) the dissemination of information to ensure
that Mexican truck operators have what they need to know to operate
in the United States, and (3) the development of compatible safety
and operating standards in all three NAFTA countries.  Several of the
specific initiatives under this strategy are

  -- developing a "safety assessment process" that the Mexican
     government can use to determine the extent to which Mexican
     operators (1) understand their obligations and the processes the
     United States uses in truck safety enforcement and (2) comply
     with U.S.  requirements;

  -- providing more than $1 million\7 annually since fiscal year 1995
     in grants to the four border states to prepare for enforcement
     activities related to NAFTA, such as increasing the number of
     state inspectors stationed at the border;

  -- conducting educational campaigns on U.S.  safety standards,
     including training seminars and leaflets, for Mexican drivers
     and truck companies;

  -- approving 13 DOT truck inspector positions for 2 years to
     demonstrate a federal commitment to truck safety;

  -- working with CVSA and state truck enforcement agencies to train
     inspectors in Mexico in an attempt to increase truck safety
     overall in that country;

  -- contracting with the International Association of Chiefs of
     Police to conduct a series of truck safety forums in the U.S. 
     border states to allow U.S.  and Mexican enforcement officials
     to discuss strategies and other truck safety issues of mutual
     concern; and

  -- participating with the Land Transportation Standards
     Subcommittee, established under NAFTA, to develop compatible
     safety and operating standards in all three NAFTA countries. 

These initiatives have had mixed results.  For example, MCSAP funding
for activities related to NAFTA has resulted in a greater inspection
presence at the border; however, the inspector training initiative
was less successful.  In this regard, DOT officials believe that one
of the keys to ensuring that trucks from Mexico are safe is to have
Mexico improve its truck inspection program so that more trucks are
inspected there before traveling into the United States.  However,
U.S.  efforts to fortify Mexico's inspection program encountered
problems.  Beginning in 1991, DOT provided about $278,000 to train
Mexican truck inspectors.  From 1993 to 1995, about 285 Mexican
inspectors received the necessary 2-week certification course. 
However, the lead U.S.  trainer characterized these efforts as
unsuccessful, since, as of late 1996, only about 50 of these
inspectors were still employed by the Mexican truck inspection
agency, and no regular truck inspection activity ever took place in
Mexico as a result of this training. 

DOT is now prepared to provide additional funding (about $96,000 left
from the first training effort and more, if needed) for further truck
inspector training in Mexico.  To overcome one of the flaws of the
first effort, which trained civilians who had limited authority to
stop trucks along the roadside and issue citations, future training
will be for Mexico's Federal Highway Patrol officers, who will have
the requisite authority (although truck inspections will not be their
sole duty similar to state truck inspectors in the United States). 
According to DOT officials, Mexico's Federal Highway Patrol is the
most stable enforcement agency in Mexico and therefore should not be
affected by any economic or political changes in Mexico. 

DOT, again working with CVSA, had targeted the fall of 1996 to begin
the new training.  This target was not met and DOT now expects the
new training to begin in early 1997.  DOT officials are negotiating
with Mexican officials to be sure that Mexico provides assurances
that the newly trained inspectors will be used to conduct inspections
along the border.  Because of the delays in the federal effort and in
order to develop working relationships with their Mexican
counterparts, both Arizona and Texas state officials have begun
negotiating with Mexico's Federal Highway Patrol officials in
adjacent Mexican border states to begin their own training efforts in
those states. 

DOT officials told us that the intent of the training is that Mexican
inspectors will inspect northbound trucks, that is, those trucks
entering the United States, and that the first vehicles to be
inspected will be those of carriers that have applied for the
authority to operate in the four U.S.  border states.  They added,
however, that trucks belonging to these carriers will be inspected
regardless of the trucks' destinations--either to the United States
or within Mexico. 

Even if Mexico establishes a truck inspection program, DOT's
expectation of having Mexican officials inspect northbound trucks
before they arrive in the United States may not be fully realized.  A
high-level Mexican government official told us that the country's
emphasis in inspecting trucks will be on ones coming into Mexico
rather than on northbound trucks leaving Mexico. 


--------------------
\7 These funds are in addition to the basic MCSAP grants for
statewide enforcement activities. 


      OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK WITH
      STATES TO DEVELOP
      PERFORMANCE-BASED
      ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

Opportunities exist for DOT to work in partnership with the border
states to develop performance-based, results-oriented enforcement
strategies to, among other things, measure the progress being made by
Mexican trucks in meeting U.S.  safety regulations.  These
strategies, which would identify clearly what the states intend to
accomplish, could be developed in cooperation with each border state
considering the local conditions and resources available. 

Currently, under MCSAP, DOT sets broad national goals but allows
states to define local problems, the approach to take in addressing
them, and the resources to be employed.  Our review of current MCSAP
grant agreements with the border states (for both basic grants to
carry out statewide enforcement plans and enforcement activities
related to NAFTA) showed that while the states planned to use funds,
in part, to increase their enforcement presence at the border, none
of the grants specified the development of performance measures with
goals for the results to be expected from truck safety inspections. 
As a result, as described earlier, DOT and others generally must rely
on anecdotal and qualitative information. 

DOT has recognized the need to move toward performance-based goals
for motor carrier safety.  In February 1997 DOT announced that its
program that provides grants for statewide safety enforcement
activities will incorporate performance-based goals to increase truck
and driver safety.  Although funds for basic MCSAP grants will be
distributed by formula, DOT plans to explore approaches to provide
some form of incentive funding to states that meet national and state
objectives for safety.  DOT plans to implement this change in fiscal
year 1998.  Also, in March 1997, DOT submitted a legislative
proposal, as part of the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act, that would incorporate this
performance-based, results-oriented approach. 

California's activities already include a results-oriented aspect: 
As described, the state has the goal of inspecting every truck from
Mexico once during each 90-day period, though this is not specified
by the state's MCSAP grant.  The strategy relies on providing CVSA
inspection stickers for trucks passing level-1 inspections or
correcting safety violations.  A current inspection sticker means
that a truck will not be subject to state or federal inspection,
except in the case of an obvious equipment problem, for a 3-month
period.  On our recent trip to California's truck inspection
facilities at Otay Mesa and Calexico, we saw truck after truck
crossing the scales of the inspection station with color-coded CVSA
inspection stickers.  Almost all the truck traffic we observed was
repeat traffic, according to California inspection officials.  It was
easy to identify which trucks had been determined to be safe (those
with current CVSA stickers), which trucks were due to be reinspected
(those with outdated stickers), and which trucks had yet to be
inspected (those without stickers). 

The majority of the truck traffic from Mexico at the five major
border locations in Arizona and Texas is also of a repeat nature,
according to state enforcement officials.  In each of these states,
enforcement officials told us that the state has the goal of
signaling to Mexican carriers that it is serious in enforcing truck
safety standards.  Each state's basic strategy to accomplish this
goal is to increase the presence of state inspectors at major border
locations to convince Mexican carriers to upgrade the safety of their
trucks.  However, Arizona and Texas have not established quantitative
goals to help them measure the extent to which Mexican carriers are
complying with U.S.  safety regulations.  In addition, since they
conduct primarily level-2 truck inspections on the border, which
cannot result in CVSA stickers, they have no way of identifying the
trucks that have complied.  As a result, the officials sometimes end
up reinspecting recently inspected vehicles. 


      OPPORTUNITIES FOR DOT TO
      ENCOURAGE CONSTRUCTION OF
      TRUCK INSPECTION FACILITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

A 1995 study conducted by the International Association of Chiefs of
Police for DOT concluded that the lack of truck inspection facilities
at the U.S.-Mexican border gives no assurance to interior states that
trucks from Mexico will be screened for safety upon entering the
United States.  Furthermore, according to DOT, it does not have any
discretionary funds available to the border states to build weight or
inspection facilities.  However, the states can use federal-aid
highway funds apportioned to them for this purpose if they choose to
do so.\8

Historically, DOT has not taken an active role in planning with
federal and state agencies to build or rehabilitate facilities whose
functions might include truck safety enforcement.  However, DOT has
had opportunities to work with the General Services Administration
(GSA)\9 and the states to ensure that border facilities meet current
and future needs for truck safety inspections.  GSA has a process
allowing all federal agencies that have a need to operate along the
border to provide input during the preparations for new border
stations.  While DOT does not control this process, as an agency with
a stake in safety enforcement at border crossing locations, it can
choose to be an active participant. 

DOT has missed opportunities to ensure that the upgrading of U.S. 
Customs installations included space and facilities adjacent to or on
Customs' property for state and federal inspectors to perform truck
safety inspections.  For example, in 1995, DOT had the opportunity
but did not participate in the coordinated federal effort to design a
new Customs border crossing installation near McAllen, Texas.  By not
participating, DOT lost the opportunity to secure a truck inspection
facility in the new installation.  However, in late 1996, federal DOT
officials in Texas did get involved in the planning phase for a
proposed inspection facility, which envisioned renovating some unused
Customs buildings at McAllen.  Similarly, according to a GSA
official, DOT indicated interest in having a portion of a new border
crossing at Brownsville contain a protective canopy, scales, an area
for vehicles transporting hazardous materials, and parking space for
out-of-service vehicles (at a cost that GSA estimated at about $1
million).  However, as of January 1997, when GSA was finalizing the
design, DOT had not resumed discussions with the agency to provide
input or commit funds for the project. 

As discussed earlier in this report, Arizona and Texas have not
constructed truck inspection facilities.  One reason given is money. 
Many state officials we spoke to believe that such facilities would
cost as much as those in California and that the federal government
should pay for them since NAFTA represents national interests. 
However, to achieve a marked improvement over the current conditions
in Arizona and Texas, truck inspection facilities would not have to
be on a scale with the $15 million facilities in California.  Even
facilities with minimal elements such as a scale, a canopy, an
inspection pit, and a small office, would represent vast improvements
over the current situations in Arizona and Texas, which involve
working outdoors in difficult climatic conditions.  According to GSA
and California Department of Transportation officials, such a truck
inspection facility could be built for between $1 million and $2
million, excluding land costs. 

In addition to securing funds, another significant challenge is the
need for large spaces for truck inspection facilities.  As pointed
out by DOT's September 1995 Best Practices Manual for Truck
Inspection Facilities, a critical element is parking, where vehicles
failing to comply with U.S.  regulations can be detained and
repaired.  Three of Texas' major border locations are in urban areas
that lack space to park more than a few large trucks.  While the
Customs Service has generally allowed state and federal agencies to
inspect trucks within its property, this may not always be the case,
as the recent experience in Nogales shows.  Since the available space
at Customs facilities is limited, it is paramount in the long term
that DOT be more involved in planning new additions to or
replacements of major border installations. 

The March 1997 legislative proposal contains provisions for planning
improvements within the trade corridor and at border crossings and
establishing the Border Gateway Pilot Program.  The proposal would
authorize (1) planning funds for multistate and binational
transportation and (2) funds for improvements to border crossings and
approaches along the Mexican and Canadian borders.  Under the
proposal, funds provided for "border gateway" projects, such as
constructing new inspection facilities, may be used as the nonfederal
matching funds for other federal-aid highway funds, as long as the
amount of the "border gateway" funds does not exceed 50 percent of a
project's total cost.  A DOT official also told us that funds to help
address these needs will be included in DOT's fiscal year 1998 budget
request.  As of mid-March 1997, the full budget request had not been
submitted to the Congress. 


--------------------
\8 The federal-aid highway program is designed to aid in the
development of an intermodal transportation system.  The decision to
use federal-aid highway funds to build a truck inspection facility at
the border depends on the priority the project is given, considering
other needs in a state. 

\9 GSA provides planning, engineering, and other expertise when a
federal agency qualifies to build or rehabilitate a federal facility. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

DOT and the three border states in our review have acted to increase
inspection activities at the border and in other ways to foster
increased compliance with U.S.  safety regulations by Mexican trucks. 
While Mexican trucks entering the United States continue to exhibit
high out-of-service rates for serious safety violations, federal and
state officials believe that their efforts have had a positive effect
and that Mexican trucks are now safer than they were in 1995. 
However, there is no hard evidence on which to test this belief; much
of the officials' information is anecdotal.  Compliance cannot be
assessed at the border because results-oriented quantitative measures
are not in place. 

We believe that DOT can improve commercial truck safety enforcement
at the border by encouraging border states to set specific,
measurable results-oriented enforcement strategies for truck
inspections at border crossings and by assisting them in doing so. 
We recognize each state has unique circumstances and that
implementing results-oriented strategies would require that more
level-1 inspections be conducted.  DOT's move to performance-based,
results-oriented MCSAP grants for statewide safety enforcement
activities is a large step in the right direction.  However, unless
discrete performance-based, results-oriented measures are developed
specifically for Mexican trucks entering the United States, DOT will
still possess only anecdotal information on the extent to which
trucks from Mexico meet U.S.  safety regulations.  As widespread
concerns exist over whether trucks from Mexico comply with U.S. 
safety regulations, we believe that border-specific performance
measures are needed. 

We also believe that DOT needs to be more proactive in securing
inspection facilities at planned or existing border installations. 
We recognize there are various reasons why facilities do not exist at
some border locations and that in some instances a lack of funding or
space or other reasons may preclude adding these inspection
facilities.  But DOT's leadership in promoting and securing more
permanent inspection facilities is needed to achieve more effective
truck safety inspections at the border.  DOT has submitted a
legislative proposal, and DOT officials have indicated that a budget
proposal will be submitted that will, in part, allow states to
address concerns about the border infrastructure and safety. 
However, the prospects for enactment are unknown.  In the meantime,
DOT needs to be more active in the planning process for border
installations to ensure that truck safety inspection facilities are
included, where practicable. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

First, to measure progress by Mexican commercial truck carriers in
meeting U.S.  safety regulations, we recommend that the Secretary
encourage the border states to develop and implement measurable
results-oriented goals for the inspection of commercial trucks
entering the United States from Mexico and assist them in doing so. 
We also recommend that the Secretary work actively with GSA, as part
of GSA's existing planning process, to ensure that truck safety
inspection facilities are included, where practicable, when border
installations are planned, constructed, or refurbished. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We provided DOT with a draft of this report for its review and
comment.  To receive comments on the draft report, we met with a
number of officials, including a senior analyst in the Office of the
Secretary and the special assistant to the associate administrator in
DOT's Office of Motor Carriers.  They said that, overall, they were
pleased with the report's contents and that the report accurately
characterized DOT's activities and other activities at the border. 
They offered a number of technical and clarifying comments on the
draft report, which we incorporated where appropriate.  The officials
did not comment on the draft report's recommendations. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

To achieve our three objectives, we reviewed inspection reports and
truck traffic data and visited 13 border crossings, where about 92
percent of the trucks from Mexico enter the United States.  At these
locations, we observed trucking facilities and federal and state
truck inspection activity.  We discussed our work with and received
documents from DOT officials; state truck enforcement officials in
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas; Customs Service
officials; GSA officials; and representatives of private and
university groups.  We also met with or had telephone discussions
with several local development groups, including Mexican trucking
officials.  We also talked with drivers of Mexican trucks.  Finally,
we participated in conferences held by CVSA, the American Trucking
Associations, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
where we discussed truck safety enforcement with high-level Mexican
and Canadian officials. 

In certain instances, we compared truck safety inspection data from
fiscal year 1995 with data from calendar year 1996, relying (for both
data sets) on the most recent information DOT could provide.  While
we recognize that comparing same-year data would present a clearer
picture, the lack of such data precluded us from doing so.  Finally,
this report deals primarily with truck safety enforcement at border
locations and does not assess the progress on other issues
surrounding NAFTA, such as efforts to develop compatible truck safety
rules between signatory countries. 

We performed our work from March 1996 to February 1997 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

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; the Administrator, General Services
Administration; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and
the Commissioner, U.S.  Customs Service.  We will make copies
available to others on request. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3650.  Major contributors to this report were
Marion Chastain, Paul Lacey, Daniel Ranta, James Ratzenberger, and
Deena Richart. 

Phyllis F.  Scheinberg
Associate Director, Transportation Issues

List of Committees

The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman
The Honorable Robert C.  Byrd
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

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

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

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison
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 John Chafee
Chairman
The Honorable Max Baucus
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate

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

The Honorable Robert Livingston
Chairman
The Honorable David R.  Obey
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

The Honorable Frank R.  Wolf
Chairman
The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Transportation
 and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

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

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


*** End of document. ***