Pilot Program on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Long-Haul Trucking Provisions, 40420-40439 [2011-16886]
Download as PDF
40420
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Reinstated Approval of
Information Collection: Dealer’s
Aircraft Registration Certificate
Application
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our
intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approval to reinstate a previously
discontinued information collection. AC
Form 8050–5 is an application for a
dealer’s Aircraft Registration Certificate
which, under 49 United States Code
1404, may be issued to a person engaged
in manufacturing, distributing, or
selling aircraft.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by September 6, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carla Scott on (202) 385–4293, or by email at: Carla.Scott@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Control Number: 2120–0024.
Title: Dealer’s Aircraft Registration
Certificate Application.
Form Numbers: AC Form 8050–5.
Type of Review: Reinstatement of an
information collection.
Background: Federal Aviation
Regulation Part 47 prescribes
procedures that implement Public Law
103–272, which provides for the
issuance of dealer’s aircraft registration
certificates and for their use in
connection with aircraft eligible for
registration under this Act by persons
engaged in manufacturing, distributing
or selling aircraft. Dealer’s certificates
enable such persons to fly aircraft for
sale immediately without having to go
through the paperwork and expense of
applying for and securing a permanent
Certificate of Aircraft Registration. It
also provides a system of identification
of aircraft dealers.
Respondents: 2,135 aircraft dealers.
Frequency: Information is collected
on occasion.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: 45 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
1,601.25 hours.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA
at the following address: Ms. Carla
Scott, Room 336, Federal Aviation
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
Administration, AES–300, 950 L’Enfant
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including (a)
whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for FAA’s
performance; (b) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be
minimized without reducing the quality
of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your
comments in the request for OMB’s
clearance of this information collection.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 29,
2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance
Officer, IT Enterprises Business Services
Division, AES–200.
[FR Doc. 2011–17208 Filed 7–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No FMCSA–2011–0097]
Pilot Program on the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) LongHaul Trucking Provisions
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; response to public
comments.
AGENCY:
The Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its intent to proceed with the
initiation of a United States-Mexico
cross-border long-haul trucking pilot
program to test and demonstrate the
ability of Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers to operate safely in the United
States beyond the municipalities in the
United States on the United StatesMexico international border or the
commercial zones of such
municipalities (border commercial
zones).
SUMMARY:
DATES:
This notice is effective July 8,
2011.
You may search background
documents or comments to the docket
for this notice, identified by docket
number FMCSA–2011–0097, by visiting
the:
• eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for reviewing documents
and comments. Regulations.gov is
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
available electronically 24 hours each
day, 365 days a year; or.
• DOT Docket Room: Room W12–140
on the ground floor of the DOT
Headquarters Building at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s Privacy Act System of
Records Notice for the DOT Federal
Docket Management System published
in the Federal Register on January 17,
2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
https://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/
E8-785.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marcelo Perez, FMCSA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590–0001. Telephone (202) 366–9597;
e-mail marcelo.perez@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April
13, 2011, FMCSA published a notice in
the Federal Register announcing its
plans to initiate a pilot program as part
of FMCSA’s implementation of the
NAFTA cross-border long-haul trucking
provisions in compliance with section
6901(b)(2)(B) of the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina
Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007, and
requested public comments on those
plans. FMCSA reviewed, assessed, and
evaluated the required safety measures
as noted in the notice, and considered
all comments received on or before May
13, 2011, in response to the April 13,
2011, notice. Additionally, to the extent
practicable, FMCSA considered
comments received after May 13, 2011.
Once the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) Inspector
General completes his report to
Congress required by section 6901(b)(1)
and the Agency completes any follow
up actions needed to address issues
raised in the report, FMCSA will
proceed with the pilot program. FMCSA
made changes and clarified elements of
the program as a result of comments to
the docket. For example, the Agency
will include International Registration
Plan (IRP) and International Fuel Tax
Association (IFTA) information in its
pre-authority safety audit (PASA)
process; posted the Mexican regulations
in both English and Spanish in the
docket for this notice; elaborated on the
inspection of available vehicles
operating in the United States during
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the compliance review (CR); and
confirmed that the PASA information
will be published in the Federal
Register.
As indicated in the April 13, 2011,
Federal Register notice, this pilot
program will not include operations that
transport placarded amounts of
hazardous materials or passengers. In
addition, on May 31, 2011, Mexico
published its regulations that will
govern a U.S. motor carrier’s application
for authority to operate in Mexico. In its
regulations, Mexico specifies several
types of transportation services,
vehicles, and operations as ineligible for
authority to operate into Mexico. These
include oversized or overweight goods,
industrial cranes, vehicle towing or
rescue, or packaging and courier
services. Mexico is allowing U.S. motor
carriers of international freight to
operate into Mexico. Mexico has
excluded these services, vehicles, and
operations from the program because
they are not classified as, or pertinent
to, freight operations in Mexico; rather
these types of operations are subject to
separate operating authority
requirements than freight motor carriers.
While the United States does not
distinguish between these types of
freight operations, in order to comply
with the reciprocity requirements of
section 6901(a)(3), the United States
will not issue authority to Mexicodomiciled motor carriers to transport
oversized or overweight goods,
industrial cranes, or operate vehicle
towing, rescue or packaging and courier
services in this pilot program.
Legal Basis
Section 6901(a) of the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina
Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007 [Pub. L. 110–
28, 121 Stat. 112, 183, May 25, 2007]
(2007 Appropriations Act) provides that
before DOT may obligate or expend any
funds to grant authority for Mexicodomiciled trucks to engage in crossborder long-haul operations, DOT must
first test granting such authority through
a pilot program that meets the standards
of 49 U.S.C. 31315(c). In accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 31315(c)(2), in proposing
a pilot program, the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) has general
authority to conduct pilot programs
‘‘that are designed to achieve a level of
safety that is equivalent to, or greater
than, the level of safety that would
otherwise be achieved * * *..’’
In a pilot program, DOT typically
collects specific data for evaluating
alternatives to the regulations or
innovative approaches to safety while
ensuring that the goals of the regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
are satisfied. A pilot program may not
last more than 3 years, and the number
of participants in a pilot program must
be large enough to ensure statistically
valid findings. Pilot programs must
include an oversight plan to ensure that
participants comply with the terms and
conditions of participation, and
procedures to protect the health and
safety of study participants and the
general public. A pilot program may be
initiated only after DOT publishes a
detailed description of it in the Federal
Register and provides an opportunity
for public comment. Accordingly, on
April 13, 2011, the Agency published a
notice announcing its intention to
conduct a pilot program and soliciting
comment (76 FR 20807). This document
responds to comments to the April 13,
2011 notice and provides additional
information about the planned pilot
program as requested by commenters.
While a pilot program may provide
temporary regulatory relief from one or
more regulations to a person or class of
persons subject to the regulations, or a
person or class of persons who intends
to engage in an activity that would be
subject to the regulations (49 U.S.C.
31315(c)(1) and (2)), in this pilot
program DOT does not propose to
exempt or relieve Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers from any FMCSA safety
regulation or evaluate any less stringent
alternatives to existing regulation.
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
participating in the program will be
required to comply with the existing
motor carrier safety regulatory regime
plus certain additional requirements
associated with acceptance into and
participation in the program.
Section 6901(a) of the 2007
Appropriations Act, the terms of which
have been incorporated in each
subsequent DOT appropriations act, also
provides that this pilot program must
comply with section 350 of the
Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2002 [Pub. L. 107–87, 115 Stat. 833, 864,
December 18, 2001] (section 350).
Section 350 prohibited FMCSA from
using funds made available in the 2002
DOT Appropriations Act to review or
process applications from Mexicodomiciled motor carriers to operate
beyond the border commercial zones
until certain preconditions and safety
requirements were met. The terms of
section 350 have also been incorporated
in each subsequent DOT appropriations
act. Section 350(a)(1) required FMCSA
to perform a PASA of any Mexicodomiciled motor carrier before that
motor carrier is allowed to engage in
long-haul operations in the United
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40421
States. Vehicles the motor carrier will
operate beyond the border commercial
zones that do not already have a
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA) decal are required to pass an
inspection at the border port of entry
and obtain a decal before being allowed
to proceed. Section 350(a)(4) also
required DOT to give a distinctive
identification number to each Mexicodomiciled motor carrier that would
operate beyond the border commercial
zones to assist inspectors in enforcing
motor carrier safety regulations.
Additionally, every driver who will
operate in the United States must have
a valid commercial driver’s license
issued by Mexico. Section 350(c)(1) also
required DOT’s Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) to conduct a
comprehensive review of the adequacy
of inspection capacity, information
infrastructure, enforcement capability
and other specific factors relevant to
safe operations by Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers; and section 350(c)(2)
required the Secretary to address the
OIG’s findings and certify that the
opening of the border poses no safety
risk. The OIG was also directed to
conduct similar reviews at least
annually thereafter. A number of the
section 350 requirements were
addressed by FMCSA in rulemakings
published on March 19, 2002 (67 FR
12653, 67 FR 12702, 67 FR 12758, 67 FR
12776) and on May 13, 2002 (67 FR
31978).
Section 136 of the Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2009 [Division I of the Omnibus
Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L, 111–
8, 123 Stat. 524, 932, March 11, 2009]
(2009 Appropriations Act) prohibited
DOT from expending funds made
available in the 2009 Appropriations
Act to establish, implement, or continue
a cross-border motor carrier pilot
program to allow Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers to operate beyond the
border commercial zones. The
Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010 [Division A of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2010, Pub. L. 111–117, 123 Stat. 3034,
December 16, 2009] (2010
Appropriations Act) did not bar DOT or
FMCSA from using funds on a crossborder long-haul program; but, pursuant
to section 135 of the 2010
Appropriations Act (123 Stat. at 3053)
did retain the requirements of section
6901 and section 350. Section 1101(a)(6)
of the Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 [Pub. L. 112–
10, division B, 125 Stat. 102, 103, April
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
40422
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
15, 2011] (2011 Appropriations Act),
makes funding available for DOT and
other Federal agencies during Fiscal
Year (FY) 2011 under the authority and
conditions specified in the 2010
Appropriations Act.
Section 6901 of the 2007
Appropriations Act also provided that
simultaneous and comparable authority
to operate within Mexico must be made
available to U.S. motor carriers. Further,
before the required pilot program may
begin, in accordance with section
6901(b)(1), the Department’s OIG must
submit a report to Congress verifying
that DOT has complied with the
requirements of section 350(a). DOT
must take any actions that are necessary
to address issues raised by the OIG and
must detail those actions in a report to
Congress. Section 6901(c) also directed
the OIG to submit an interim report to
Congress 6 months after the initiation of
a cross-border long-haul Mexican
trucking pilot program and a final report
after the pilot program is completed.
The statute further specified that the
report address the program’s adequacy
as a test of safety. Also, as a
precondition to beginning the pilot
program, section 6901 of the 2007
Appropriations Act requires that DOT
provide an opportunity for public
comment by publishing in the Federal
Register information on the PASAs
conducted. DOT must also publish, for
comment, the standards that will be
used to evaluate the pilot program. The
Agency must also provide a list of
Federal motor carrier safety laws and
regulations, including commercial
driver’s license (CDL) requirements, for
which the Secretary will accept
compliance with corresponding
Mexican law or regulation as the
equivalent to compliance with the U.S.
law or regulation including an analysis
of how the corresponding United States
and Mexican laws and regulations
differ. Further discussion of relevant
U.S. and Mexican safety laws and
regulations is provided later in this
notice.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Background
Introduction
Before 1982, Mexico- and Canadadomiciled motor carriers could apply to
the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC), a former independent Federal
agency responsible for regulating, inter
alia, motor carrier operations and safety,
for authority to operate within the
United States. As a result of complaints
that U.S. motor carriers were not
allowed the same access to Mexican and
Canadian markets that motor carriers
from those nations enjoyed in this
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
country, the Bus Regulatory Reform Act
of 1982 [Pub. L. 97–261, 96 Stat. 2201,
September 20, 1982] imposed a
moratorium on the issuance of new
operating authority to motor carriers
domiciled, or owned or controlled by
persons domiciled in Canada or Mexico.
While the disagreement with Canada
was quickly resolved, the issue of
trucking reciprocity with Mexico was
not.
Currently, most Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers are allowed to operate
only within the border commercial
zones typically extending up to 25 to 50
miles into the United States. Every year,
Mexico-domiciled commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) cross into the United
States about 4.5 million times. Mexico
granted reciprocal authority to 10 U.S.domiciled motor carriers to operate
throughout Mexico during the time of
FMCSA’s previous demonstration
project, which was conducted between
September 2007 and March 2009. Four
of these motor carriers continue to
operate in Mexico.
Trucking issues at the United StatesMexico border were not fully addressed
until NAFTA was negotiated in the
early 1990s. NAFTA required the
United States to incrementally lift the
moratorium on licensing Mexicodomiciled motor carriers to operate
beyond the border commercial zones.
On January 1, 1994, President Clinton
modified the moratorium and the ICC
began accepting applications from
Mexico-domiciled passenger motor
carriers to conduct international charter
and tour bus operations in the United
States (Memorandum for the Secretary
of Transportation, ‘‘Determination
Under the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of
1982,’’ 59 FR 653, January 6, 1994). On
December 13, 1995, the ICC published a
rule and a revised application form for
the processing of Mexico-domiciled
property motor carrier applications
(Form OP–1(MX)) (60 FR 63981). The
ICC rule anticipated the implementation
of the second phase of NAFTA,
providing Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers of property access to California,
Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, and
the third phase, providing access
throughout the United States. However,
at the end of 1995, the United States
announced an indefinite delay in
opening the border to long-haul Mexicodomiciled long-haul motor carrier
operations.
In 1998, Mexico filed a claim against
the United States under NAFTA dispute
resolution provisions alleging that the
United States’ refusal to grant authority
to Mexico-domiciled trucking
companies constituted a breach of the
United States’ NAFTA obligations. On
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
February 6, 2001, the arbitration panel,
convened pursuant to NAFTA dispute
resolution provisions, issued its final
report and ruled in Mexico’s favor,
concluding that the United States was in
breach of its obligations and that Mexico
could impose tariffs on U.S. exports to
Mexico up to an amount commensurate
with the loss of business resulting from
the lack of U.S. compliance. The
arbitration panel noted that the United
States could establish a safety oversight
regime to ensure the safety of Mexicodomiciled motor carriers entering the
United States, but that the safety
oversight regime could not be
discriminatory and must be justified by
safety data.
After President Bush announced the
intent to resume the process for opening
the border in 2001, Congress enacted
section 350, as discussed in the ‘‘Legal
Basis’’ section of this notice. FMCSA
took various steps to comply with
section 350, including the issuance of
new regulations applicable to Mexicodomiciled long-haul motor carriers (67
FR 12702, 12758, March 19, 2002).
These regulations were challenged on
environmental grounds in litigation that
was ultimately decided in FMCSA’s
favor by the U.S. Supreme Court
(Department of Transportation v. Public
Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004)).
In November 2002, then Secretary
Norman Mineta certified, as required by
section 350(c)(2), that authorizing
Mexico-domiciled motor carrier
operations beyond the border
commercial zones did not pose an
unacceptable safety risk to the American
public. Later that month, President Bush
modified the moratorium to permit
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to
provide cross-border cargo and
scheduled passenger transportation
beyond the border commercial zones.
(Memorandum of November 27, 2002,
for the Secretary of Transportation,
‘‘Determination Under the Interstate
Commerce Commission Termination
Act of 1995,’’ 67 FR 71795, December 2,
2002). The Secretary’s certification was
made in response to the June 25, 2002,
DOT OIG report on the implementation
of safety requirements at the United
States-Mexico border. In a January 2005
follow-up report, the OIG concluded
that FMCSA had sufficient staff,
facilities, equipment, and procedures in
place to substantially meet the eight
section 350 requirements that the OIG
was required to review. These reports
are available in the docket for this
notice.
Former Secretary Mary Peters and
Mexico’s former Secretary of the
Secretaria de Communicaciones y
´
Transportes (SCT) Luis Tellez Kuenzler
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
announced a demonstration project to
implement certain trucking provisions
of NAFTA on February 23, 2007. The
demonstration project was initiated on
September 6, 2007, after the DOT
complied with the conditions imposed
by section 6901 of the 2007
Appropriations Act, as discussed in the
‘‘Legal Basis’’ section of this notice. The
demonstration project was initially
expected to last 1 year (72 FR 23883,
May 1, 2007). On August 6, 2008,
FMCSA announced that the
demonstration project was being
extended from 1 year to the full 3 years
allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31315(c)(2)(A) (73
FR 45796) after Secretaries Peters and
´
Tellez exchanged letters on the
extension.
On March 11, 2009, President Obama
signed into law the 2009 Appropriations
Act. Section 136 of the 2009
Appropriations Act provides that:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[N]one of the funds appropriated or
otherwise made available under this Act may
be used, directly or indirectly, to establish,
implement, continue, promote, or in any way
permit a cross-border motor carrier pilot
program to allow Mexican-domiciled motor
carriers to operate beyond the commercial
zones along the international border between
the United States and Mexico, including
continuing, in whole or in part, any such
program that was initiated prior to the date
of the enactment of this Act (123 Stat. at 932).
In accordance with section 136,
FMCSA terminated the cross-border
demonstration project that began on
September 6, 2007. The Agency ceased
processing applications by prospective
project participants and took other
necessary steps to comply with the
provision. (74 FR 11628, March 18,
2009). In light of the termination, two
consolidated lawsuits challenging the
project and pending before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
were dismissed as moot.
On March 19, 2009, Mexico
announced that it was exercising its
rights under the 2001 NAFTA
Arbitration Panel decision to impose
retaliatory tariffs for the failure to allow
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to
provide long-haul service into the
United States. The tariffs affect
approximately 90 U.S. export
commodities at an estimated annual
cost of $2.4 billion. The President
directed DOT to work with the Office of
the U.S. Trade Representative and the
Department of State, along with leaders
in Congress and Mexican officials, to
propose legislation creating a new crossborder trucking program, and to address
the legitimate safety concerns of
Congress while fulfilling our obligations
under NAFTA. Secretary Ray LaHood
met with numerous members of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
Congress to solicit their input. FMCSA
tasked its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
Committee (MCSAC) with providing
advice and guidance on essential
elements that the Agency should
consider when drafting proposed
legislation to permit Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers beyond the border
commercial zones. The MCSAC final
report on this tasking is available on the
FMCSA MCSAC Web page at https://
mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov/Reports.htm.
Additionally, DOT formed a team to
draft principles that would guide the
creation of the draft legislation.
President Obama signed the 2010
Appropriations Act on December 16,
2009, which contained no prohibitions
against using FY 2010 funds to conduct
a cross border long-haul program
(unlike the 2009 Appropriations Act)
and retained requirements specified in
section 350 and section 6901 of the 2007
Appropriations Act.
On April 12, 2010, Secretary LaHood
met with Mexico’s former Secretary of
SCT, Juan Molinar Horcasitas, and
announced a plan to establish a working
group to consider the next steps in
implementing a cross-border trucking
program. On May 19, 2010, President
Obama and Mexico’s President Felipe
Calderon Hinojosa issued a joint
statement acknowledging that safe,
efficient, secure, and compatible
transportation is a prerequisite for
mutual economic growth. They
committed to continue their countries’
cooperation in system planning,
operational coordination, and technical
cooperation in key modes of
transportation.
The Initial Concept Document and the
Preliminary Agreement
On January 6, 2011, Secretary LaHood
shared with Congress and the
Government of Mexico an initial
concept document for a cross-border
long-haul Mexican trucking pilot
program that prioritizes safety, while
satisfying the U.S. international
obligations. On the same day, the
Department posted the concept
documents on its Web site for public
viewing (https://www.dot.gov/affairs/
2011/dot0111.html). The initial concept
document was the starting point for
renewed negotiations with Mexico; and
the United States commenced
discussions with the Government of
Mexico on January 18, 2011. The
preliminary agreement between DOT
and SCT is reflected in the program
description and described below.
On March 3, 2011, President Obama
met with Mexico’s President Calderon
and announced that there is a clear path
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40423
forward to resolving the trucking issues
between the United States and Mexico.
On April 13, 2011, FMCSA published
notice of the pilot program on NAFTA
Long-Haul Trucking Provisions in the
Federal Register (76 FR 20807) and the
comment period ended May 13, 2011.
The Agency explained that the pilot
program will allow Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers to operate throughout the
United States for up to 3 years, and that
U.S.-domiciled motor carriers will be
granted reciprocal rights to operate in
Mexico for the same period.
Participating Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers and drivers must comply with
all applicable U.S. motor carrier safety
laws and regulations, as well as other
applicable U.S. laws and regulations,
inter alia, those concerned with
customs, immigration, vehicle
emissions, employment, vehicle
registration, and vehicle/fuel taxation.
The Agency explained that the safety
performance of the participating motor
carriers will be tracked closely by
FMCSA and its State partners, a Federal
Advisory Committee Act group, and the
OIG. The Agency will monitor and
evaluate the data from the pilot program
as a test of the granting of authority to
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to
conduct long-haul operations in the
United States. FMCSA indicated that it
anticipated participating motor carriers
may be able to convert their provisional
status under the pilot program to
‘‘permanent’’ authority under the pilot
program after operating 18 months and
successfully completing a compliance
review (CR). This ‘‘permanent’’
authority under the pilot program, in
turn, may be converted into standard
permanent authority upon completion
or termination of the pilot program. It
should be noted that the Agency will be
maintaining its oversight strategies and
resources that have been reviewed by
the OIG during the previous
demonstration project and the OIG’s
other reviews of the Agency’s
compliance with section 350. The April
13th notice outlined how the Agency
would maintain those strategies and
augment them with new strategies to
address stakeholder input. This notice
responds to comments on those
previous and augmented strategies.
As indicated in the April 13, 2011,
Federal Register notice, this pilot
program will not include operations that
involve the transport of placarded
amounts of hazardous materials or
passengers. As noted in the ‘‘Summary’’
section of this notice, Mexico’s
regulations identify other types of CMV
operations and services as ineligible for
authority to operate into Mexico. These
include the transportation of oversized
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
40424
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
or overweight goods, industrial cranes,
vehicle towing or rescue, or packaging
and courier services. Mexico is allowing
U.S. motor carriers of international
freight to operate into Mexico. In order
to comply with the reciprocity
requirements of section 6901(a)(3) of the
2007 Appropriations Act, the United
States will not issue authority to
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to
transport oversized or overweight goods,
industrial cranes, or operate vehicle
towing, rescue, or packaging and courier
services in this pilot program.
Discussion of Comments
The notice and comment process for
all pilot programs is required by statute
(49 U.S.C. 31315) with the intent of
providing all interested parties with the
opportunity to review information
published by the Agency and to
comment on the specific details about
any proposed pilot program. As of June
1, 2011, FMCSA received 2,254
comments or docket submissions in
response to the April 13, 2011, notice.
Over 1,000 comments were submitted
by individuals on behalf of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(Teamsters).
There were three recurring
submissions from individuals that made
up the majority of the comments. These
commenters expressed concerns about
the violence in Mexico and indicated
that the pilot program will negatively
impact U.S. jobs at a time when
unemployment is high. Approximately
1,000 of the comments were
submissions by individuals suggesting
that the Agency should abandon the
idea of a pilot program. Generally, these
comments did not include information
concerning the technical details of the
Agency’s proposal (e.g., specific safety
oversight procedures or processes),
economic or legal aspects of the pilot
program, or any other information
supporting the view that the program
should not be pursued. While FMCSA is
not responding to these comments
individually, the Agency believes that
its responses to the substantive
comments received address the brief
comments submitted by these
individuals.
Moreover, the purpose of this pilot
program is to test the granting of
authority to Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers to conduct long-haul operation
in the United States, in order to evaluate
the ability of Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers to operate safely in the United
States beyond the border commercial
zones as part of DOT’s implementation
of the NAFTA land transportation
provisions. While FMCSA
acknowledges these commenters’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
concerns, the issues are beyond the
scope of the pilot project in that they do
not relate to the safe operation of CMVs
by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers or
compliance with U.S. motor carrier
safety regulations. Therefore, these
comments will not be addressed in this
notice.
The remaining comments were from
members of Congress, companies,
organizations, associations, and
individuals expressing their views on
specific details about the pilot program.
The Agency’s announcement of its
intent to proceed with the program is
based on its consideration of all data
and information currently available,
including information submitted by the
commenters.
The Agency received substantive
comments from: Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety (Advocates); Teamsters;
the American Trucking Associations
(ATA); California Trucking Association
(CTA); the Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association (OOIDA);
International Registration Plan (IRP), the
Border Trade Alliance (BTA), the
American Association for Justice (AAJ),
Werner Enterprises, and the Truck
Safety Coalition (Coalition)—a
partnership with Citizens for Reliable
and Safe Highways and Parents Against
Tired Truckers. In addition, comments
were received from several U.S.
Representatives and Senators.
General Support for the Pilot Program
Many commenters supported the pilot
program and recognized its importance
in meeting U.S. obligations under
NAFTA. U.S. companies and their
representative associations that have
been negatively impacted by the tariffs
imposed by the Government of Mexico
as a result of the termination of the
previous demonstration project also
expressed their strong support for the
program. Companies negatively
impacted by the tariffs included
Oceanspray, Kraft Foods, Con Agra,
Campbell Soup Company, American
Frozen Foods Institute, National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National
Potato Council, North American
Equipment Dealers Association, the
Grocery Manufacturers Association,
Association of Food, Beverage and
Consumer Products Companies,
Distilled Spirits Council of the United
States, Fresh Produce Association of the
Americas, Mars, National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture, the
Snack Food Association, and Tysons
Food. These commenters expressed
their support for the pilot program as
the means to remove the tariffs that have
negatively impacted their industries.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Supporters of the pilot program
include U.S. Representatives Mike
Thompson and Reid Ribble.
Representative Thompson stated,
The proposal the Administration crafted
includes important protections to ensure
trucks crossing the border are operating
safely on our roadways and under our
environmental standards, allowing us to
monitor and inspect vehicles before they are
approved for cross-border trucking
operations. I believe implementation of this
revised pilot program provides a clear path
toward the elimination of these harmful
retaliatory tariffs and normalization of trade
between our two countries, while also
ensuring the integrity of our roadways.
Thirteen commenters—including the
U.S. Apple Association, the National
Council of Farmer Cooperatives and the
National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture—referenced
the Congressional Research Service and/
or OIG reports that concluded during
the previous 18-month pilot program,
Mexican trucks were as safe as—if not
safer than—their U.S. counterparts and
were subject to far more inspections.
U.S. Representative Doc Hastings and
29 congressional colleagues provided a
letter in support of the pilot program,
stating,
As you know, Mexico imposed $2.6 billion
in retaliatory tariffs on 99 U.S. agricultural
and manufacturing products more than two
years ago, after the United States halted a
cross-border trucking program that was
designed to bring the United States into
compliance with our international
obligations in a matter consistent with U.S.
law. Since then, Mexico has rotated the
tariffs to cover additional products, and
Mexican officials have made clear they are
prepared to do so yet again.
These tariffs have already cost tens of
thousands of U.S. jobs and over $4 billion to
U.S. job creators, at a time when our
economy is already struggling. It is
imperative for U.S. workers and exporters
that these tariffs be eliminated. Mexico has
agreed to suspend fifty percent of the tariffs
across the board once the new cross-border
trucking pilot program is officially instituted
and remaining tariffs once the first permit is
issued under the program. The success of this
pilot program is, thus, critical for U.S.
workers and exporters—and for U.S.
economic recovery.
This letter concluded with the
statement that,
In short, we have long believed that the
United States can strengthen its economy by
resolving this major issue with one of our
largest trading partners—in a manner that
fully ensures the safety of U.S. highways.
This pilot program and its substantial
safeguards are prudent and responsible. We
strongly encourage you to move forward with
finalizing and implementing this plan as
soon as possible. These tariffs have done
irreparable damage to our local economies,
and U.S. workers, farmers, manufacturers,
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
and other exporters simply cannot afford any
further delays.
The United States-Mexico Chamber of
Commerce stated,
In 2010, Mexico and the United States
enjoyed a nearly $400 billion trade
relationship, and 70 percent of it travels by
truck in an antiquated transportation system
that requires three trucks and three drivers to
do the job of one. This not only bloats
producer and consumer prices by hundreds
of millions of dollars a year. It also fails to
fulfill the benefits (particularly lower
transportation costs) that accrue from U.S.Mexico proximity—a key NAFTA advantage.
Doing so now clearly would boost U.S. and
North American competitiveness against
economic rivals and result in still more jobs.
The Cato Institute advised,
The failure of Congress to allow
implementation of the NAFTA trucking
provisions has proven costly to the United
States in three important ways.
First, U.S. failure to comply has deprived
our economy of the efficiencies of moving
goods across our mutual border at lower cost.
With the ban in place, trucks approaching the
border are required to unload their cargo into
warehouses in so-called commercial zones
within 25 miles of the border, only to have
that cargo reloaded onto short-haul vehicles
and then onto domestic trucks for final
delivery. This inefficient system causes
delays, increased pollution and added costs
at busy border crossings such as Calexico
East; San Ysidro; Nogales, Ariz.; and Laredo,
Texas. Because more than 70 percent of U.S.
trade with Mexico travels by truck, the ban
on cross-border trucking imposes an
additional $200 million to $400 million in
transportation costs each year, according to
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Second, failure to comply has exposed U.S.
exporters to perfectly legal sanctions
imposed by the Mexican government. Under
the provisions of NAFTA, and after waiting
patiently for more than a decade, the
Mexican government imposed sanctions in
2009 on more than $2.4 billion in U.S.
exports affect 100 products, from Washington
apples to Iowa pork. The sanctions would be
lifted in two stages as the U.S. government
implements the proposed program to comply
with Annex I.
Third, failure to comply has compromised
the U.S. government’s reputation as a good
citizen of the global trading system. Simply
put, the U.S. government has failed to keep
its word to our Mexican neighbors. Our
government has been in flagrant violation of
a major trade agreement for more than 15
years. This breach of trust has undermined
the U.S. government’s standing to challenge
other governments, from Mexico to China to
the European Union, who may also be in
violation of various trade agreements. The
Obama administration’s promise to more
vigorously ‘‘enforce’’ our rights in the World
Trade Organization and other agreements
will lack credibility as long as the U.S.
government fails to comply with such clear
commitments as the trucking provisions of
NAFTA.
For all these reasons, the U.S. government
should act as quickly and as thoroughly as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
possible to implement the proposed
regulations to bring our nation into
compliance with our mutually beneficial
agreement with our Mexican neighbors on
cross-border trucking.
General Opposition to the Pilot Program
Most of the individual commenters to
the April 13 notice expressed concerns
about the following:
(1) The U.S. Government’s funding of
the electronic monitoring devices for
participating Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers;
(2) Mexico’s standards for CDLs;
(3) The accuracy and completeness of
Mexico’s driver records;
(4) Compliance with hours-of-service
requirements; and
(5) Comparable access for U.S. motor
carriers.
U.S. Senator John D. Rockefeller and
U.S. Representative Peter A. DeFazio
both noted the economic impacts of
NAFTA. Representative DeFazio
expressed concern that ‘‘the
Administration is not launching a pilot
program, but rather starting the full
liberalization of cross-border trucking
without having fully addressed the
concerns raised by members of Congress
surrounding safety, security, and job
impacts that will necessarily arise.’’
Representative DeFazio further
suggested ‘‘that the U.S. should
renegotiate U.S. NAFTA Annex I (I–U–
21) * * * thus eliminat[ing] the
requirement to open our borders to
Mexican trucks.’’
U.S. Representative Bob Filner and
U.S. Senator Mark Pryor also expressed
concerns about the pilot program.
Representative Filner’s concerns
included traffic congestion at our land
port-of-entry and the impact on border
wait times. He stated that, ‘‘Many of my
constituents already have to wait in
lines several hours each day to cross the
border * * *. We simply do not have
enough Border Patrol and Immigration
and Customs Enforcement agents at the
border to deal with the existing traffic
or the heavy burden of the proposed
program.’’
U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter,
Jr. and 43 additional members of
Congress co-signed a letter to the
Secretary communicating their concerns
about safety, the costs of electronic
monitoring devices, and violence in
Mexico. A copy of each congressional
letter is available in the docket for this
notice.
1. Operating Authority Under the Pilot
Program
The Coalition stated that the pilot
program participants should not be
granted permanent authority before
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40425
completion of the pilot program and
evaluation of the results. The Coalition
stated that, ‘‘Granting permanent
operating authority before the Pilot
Program is completed undermines the
purpose of the experiment and data
collection and puts the public at serious
risk.’’
Representative DeFazio questioned
how the Agency could comply with 49
U.S.C. 31315, which requires DOT to
immediately revoke the participation of
any motor carrier or driver who fails to
comply with the terms and conditions
of the pilot program, if the Agency is
granting permanent authority.
OOIDA challenged the Agency’s
statutory authority for issuing operating
authority. OOIDA averred that 49 U.S.C.
13902 precludes FMCSA from accepting
compliance with certain Mexican laws
and regulations in lieu of compliance
with U.S. laws and regulations. OOIDA
stated, ‘‘FMCSA is simply not
authorized to issue operating authority
to any motor carrier (U.S. or Mexican)
unless that carrier agrees to comply with
applicable U.S. statutes and
regulations.’’ To support its position,
OOIDA quoted a statement in the
November 27, 2002, Memorandum of
the President for the Secretary of
Transportation, ‘‘Determination Under
the Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act of 1995,’’ (65 FR
71795, November 27, 2002), which
terminated a moratorium on issuing
operating authority to Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers:
Motor carriers domiciled in Mexico
operating in the United States will be subject
to the same Federal and State laws,
regulations, and procedures that apply to
carriers domiciled in the United States.
Advocates questioned whether
FMCSA will be granting temporary
operating authority to any participating
Mexico-domiciled long-haul motor
carriers before they are accepted into the
pilot program. Advocates also stated
that it opposes the granting of any
operating authority, including
temporary authority, in advance of
FMCSA’s publication of a notice in the
Federal Register describing its data and
information on completed PASAs and
its analysis of public comments in
response to the notice concerning the
completed PASAs. Advocates also
requested ‘‘that the agency publish all
the PASAs of all the participating motor
carriers in advance of the start of the
Pilot Program and before any motor
carriers are granted temporary operating
authority.’’
FMCSA Response: FMCSA’s
Authority to Issue Operating Authority.
Title 49 U.S.C. 13902(a) directs FMCSA
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
40426
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
to grant operating authority to motor
carriers that comply with all applicable
safety regulations and financial
responsibility requirements. As
discussed in the ‘‘Legal Basis’’ section
above, section 6901(a) of the 2007
Appropriations Act requires that before
FMCSA may obligate or expend any
funds to grant authority for Mexicodomiciled motor carriers to engage in
cross-border long-haul operations, it is
required to first test granting such
authority through a pilot program that
meets the standards of 49 U.S.C.
31315(c). By expressly providing for
pilot programs in 49 U.S.C. 31315(c),
and requiring FMCSA to first test the
granting of long-haul authority to
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
through a pilot program, Congress
clearly contemplated that motor carriers
participating in a test meeting the
conditions of section 31315(c) would
lawfully be granted operating authority
under 49 U.S.C. 13902(a). Furthermore,
the pilot program satisfies the
fundamental statutory standard of
equivalent safety protection and all
other pilot program requirements. The
safety-equivalence standard in section
31315(c) requires that the pilot program
be designed to achieve a safety level
equal to that prevailing under existing
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). The pilot
program does not relax U.S. regulations
for participants. Rather, it simply
implements the presidential order
lifting geographic limitations on crossborder trucking for a limited number of
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers and
imposes additional layers of safety
monitoring upon those motor carriers.
Existing Federal regulations already
recognize and accept the Mexican
Licencia Federal de Conductor (LFC) as
equivalent to the U.S. CDL, (§ 383.23(b)
and footnote) and pursuant to these
regulations, thousands of LFC holders
have driven Mexican trucks into the
United States since their adoption in
1992 and continue to do so today. In all
other significant respects, U.S.
requirements apply with full force to
participants in the pilot program. The
Agency, by showing that the pilot
program satisfies the standard of
equivalent safety protection imposed by
49 U.S.C. 31315(c), satisfies the
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13902(a).
Permanent Operating Authority under
the Pilot Program. Some commenters
seemed to misapprehend the reference
to ‘‘pilot program permanent authority’’
in the April 13, 2011 notice. That
authority is not the same as standard
permanent authority; will not continue
after the expiration of the pilot program
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
(unless converted into standard
permanent authority); and may be
revoked at any time if the operator fails
to comply with the terms and
conditions of the pilot program.
All operating authority granted under
the pilot program will be subject to the
terms and conditions of the pilot
program. Under the pilot program,
participating motor carriers will have
the opportunity to operate under three
successive stages of monitoring. Stage 1
will begin when the motor carrier is
issued a provisional operating authority.
The motor carrier’s vehicles and drivers
approved for long-haul transportation
will be inspected each time they enter
the United States for at least 3 months.
This initial 3-month period may be
extended if the motor carrier does not
receive at least three vehicle
inspections. FMCSA will also conduct
an evaluation of the motor carrier’s
performance during Stage 1.
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers may
be permitted to proceed to Stage 2 of the
pilot program after FMCSA completes
an evaluation of the motor carrier’s
performance in Stage 1. During Stage 2,
the motor carrier’s vehicles and drivers
participating in the pilot program will
be inspected at a rate comparable to
other Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
that cross the United States-Mexico
border. The motor carrier’s safety data
will be monitored to assure the motor
carrier is operating in a safe manner.
Within 18 months after a Mexicodomiciled motor carrier is issued
provisional operating authority, FMCSA
will conduct a CR on the motor carrier.
If the motor carrier obtains a satisfactory
safety rating, has no pending
enforcement or safety improvement
actions, and has operated under
provisional authority for at least 18
months, the provisional operating
authority will become permanent,
moving the motor carrier into Stage 3.
Stage 3 of the pilot program includes
participating Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers that have successfully operated
for an 18-month monitoring period,
have a satisfactory safety rating from a
CR, and have no pending enforcement
or safety improvement actions. Motor
carriers that advance to Stage 3 of the
pilot program will operate under
permanent operating authority under,
and fully subject to the requirements of,
the pilot program. Granting this
permanent operating authority under
the pilot program does not restrict the
Agency’s authority to remove from the
program any motor carrier that fails to
comply with terms and conditions of
the pilot program. Under 49 U.S.C.
31315, FMCSA may revoke
participation in the pilot program of a
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
motor carrier, CMV, or driver for failure
to comply with the terms and
conditions of the pilot program.
The successive stages in the pilot
program are intended to be consistent
with the Agency’s regulations
promulgated in 2002 related to Mexicodomiciled motor carriers operating
beyond the border commercial zones (49
CFR part 365, subpart E). Those
regulations provide for a Mexicodomiciled motor carrier to be initially
granted provisional operating authority
and be subject to increased monitoring.
The authority, by definition, is
provisional because it will be revoked if
the motor carrier is not assigned a
satisfactory safety rating following a CR
conducted during an 18-month safety
monitoring period established in the
regulations. Under these regulations, if,
at the end of 18-months of monitoring
the motor carrier’s most recent safety
rating is satisfactory and the motor
carrier does not have any pending
enforcement or safety improvement
actions, the Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier’s provisional operating authority
becomes permanent. However, this
authority is still subject to revocation as
detailed above. Section 6901 requires
FMCSA to first test the granting of
operating authority for long-haul
operation by Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers through a pilot program. An
important component and improvement
of this pilot program is that by using the
progressive stages of monitoring, the
Agency is able to test the full range of
its regulations while effectively
monitoring Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers to ensure the safety of long-haul
operations and that such operations are
conducted in compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations.
In accordance with section 6901(c),
within 60 days after the conclusion of
the pilot program, the OIG is required to
review the program and submit to
Congress a final report addressing
whether FMCSA has established
sufficient mechanisms to determine
whether the pilot program is having any
adverse effects on motor carrier safety,
and whether Federal and State
monitoring and enforcement activities
are sufficient to ensure that participants
in the pilot program are in compliance
with all applicable laws and regulations.
Only at the conclusion of the pilot
program will Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers that participated in the pilot
program and advanced to the Stage 3
permanent authority in the pilot
program be eligible to convert their pilot
program permanent authority to
standard permanent authority. FMCSA
has not yet developed the procedures
for such conversions, but anticipates the
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
procedures will establish an
administrative process that would occur
once the pilot program ends.
Granting of Provisional Operating
Authority. The Agency may have caused
some confusion in the April 13, 2011,
notice when it stated that ‘‘the Agency
will publish a summary of the
application as a provisional grant of
authority in the FMCSA Register.’’
FMCSA will review and act on
applications for authority in the pilot
program in accordance with applicable
regulations. The Agency’s rules
governing applications for authority are
codified in 49 CFR part 365. FMCSA is
required under its regulations to publish
a summary of each application for motor
carrier operating authority, regardless of
the applicant’s country of domicile, as
a preliminary grant of operating
authority for public notice in the
FMCSA Register (49 CFR 365.109(b) and
365.507(d)). For prospective pilot
program participants, such publication
will occur only after the motor carrier
successfully completes the PASA and
FMCSA approves the application. Such
publication of the application as a
preliminary grant of authority in the
FMCSA Register is not an issuance of
temporary authority, but a notice to the
public to permit interested parties
wishing to oppose the authority to
submit a protest to FMCSA. A
preliminary grant of authority cannot
become effective or active operating
authority for a minimum of 10 days after
publication. If a motor carrier
successfully completes the PASA and
FMCSA approves its application, the
Agency will publish a summary of the
application as a preliminary grant of
authority in the FMCSA Register at:
https://li-public.fmcsa.dot.gov/LIVIEW/
pkg_html.prc_limain. To review these
notices, select ‘‘FMCSA Register’’ from
the pull down menu.
The FMCSA emphasizes that the
public has the opportunity to comment
in response to the FMCSA Register on
every operating authority application
that the Agency proposes to grant and
that motor carriers may not operate
during the comment period. Any
member of the public may protest a
motor carrier’s application on the
grounds that the motor carrier is not fit,
willing, or able to provide the
transportation services for which it has
requested approval. FMCSA must
consider all protests before determining
whether to grant provisional operating
authority to the motor carrier. The
Agency’s regulations regarding protests,
codified at 49 CFR part 365 subpart B,
set forth the procedures for protesting
operating authority requests, including
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
requests filed by U.S.- and Canadadomiciled motor carriers.
As required by section 6901(b)(2)(B)(i)
of the 2007 Appropriations Act, 2007,
FMCSA will also publish in the Federal
Register, and solicit comment on
comprehensive data and information
relating to the PASAs of motor carriers
domiciled in Mexico that are granted
authority in the pilot program to operate
beyond the border commercial zones.
Therefore, the public has two
opportunities to comment on Mexicodomiciled motor carriers’ applications:
(1) In response to the application
summary information posted on the
FMCSA Register, and in response to the
Federal Register notice required by
section 6901(b)(2)(B)(i) of the 2007
Appropriations Act. Provisional
authority will not be granted until these
processes and their respective notice
periods are complete.
While FMCSA will publish
information on the results of the PASA
in the Federal Register for public
comment for each motor carrier before
granting the motor carrier provisional
operating authority, FMCSA is not able
to publish the results of the PASAs for
all motor carriers that may ultimately
apply to participate in the pilot program
before the program begins. FMCSA will
have no way of knowing at the
beginning of the pilot program all of the
motor carriers that may decide to apply
to participate in the program during its
three year duration and, therefore, could
not publish the results of all PASAs
before beginning the pilot program.
Additional motor carriers that apply to
participate in the pilot program after it
begins will also be subject to PASAs,
and the results of those PASAs will be
published in the Federal Register before
any such motor carrier is granted
provisional operating authority.
2. Pilot Program Improperly Exempts
Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers From
Safety Laws and Regulations
OOIDA contends that accepting
Mexican standards and regulations in
lieu of U.S. statutes and regulations
results in an exemption, and that
FMCSA has failed to follow its authority
and regulations for exemptions. OOIDA
stated that, ‘‘Excusing compliance with
U.S. regulations for the duration of its
pilot program certainly qualifies as
‘temporary regulatory relief’ for a person
or class of persons subject to those
regulations.’’ OOIDA asserts that this,
therefore, requires the Agency to follow
the procedures for granting exemptions
from U.S. regulations and deprives
interested parties procedural
protections.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40427
FMCSA Response: This pilot program
does not provide Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers with exemptions from
any statutory requirements or any of the
Agency’s regulations or make them
eligible for any existing exemption. To
the contrary, motor carriers
participating in the program will be
subject to existing statutory
requirements and regulations, including
the regulations mandating the PASA (49
CFR 365.507(c)). Additionally, because
no exemptions from or new approaches
to statutory requirements and safety
regulations are being employed in the
pilot program, the level of safety
oversight that will be achieved in the
program is the same or greater than
would otherwise be achieved if Mexicodomiciled motor carriers were granted
authority to operate beyond the border
commercial zones outside of the context
of a pilot program.
As to the issue of driver’s license
equivalency, the Agency has long
recognized Mexico’s LFC as equivalent
to the CDL issued by U.S. State driver
licensing agencies that follow the
Federal standards under 49 CFR Parts
383 and 384. The Mexican LFC is
recognized as a valid substitute for the
CDL and is the basis for a signed
international agreement under which
the United States and Mexico have
recognized each other’s commercial
driver’s licenses, a decision that was
upheld on judicial review (Int’l.
˜
Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Pena, 17
F.3rd 1478 (DC Cir. 1994)). The Agency
has also long recognized Mexico’s
physical qualification standards. These
are not exemptions, but well-established
alternative means of meeting U.S.
standards that pre-date the pilot
program. Indeed, every day, thousands
of Mexican drivers safely operate
Mexico-domiciled trucks in the United
States under these rules.
Neither the Government of Mexico
nor any Mexico-domiciled motor carrier
has requested that FMCSA consider
granting an exemption from U.S. safety
requirements for participating motor
carriers, and the Agency is not seeking
public comment on any forms of
regulatory relief. The continued
honoring of reciprocity agreements
concerning the acceptance of the
Mexican LFC and the medical
certification should not be construed as
granting regulatory relief. Nor is the
allowance of specimen collections on
the Mexican side of the border, in
accordance with U.S. requirements, a
form of regulatory relief.
All tests musts must be performed in
accordance with the Department’s
controlled substances and alcohol
testing regulations (49 CFR part 40),
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
40428
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
which require that specimens be
processed at U.S. laboratories certified
to conduct such tests.
3. Equivalency of United States-Mexico
Laws and Regulations Governing Safety
Advocates, Teamsters, the Coalition
and OOIDA all challenged the
equivalency of U.S. and Mexican safety
laws. Advocates asserted that
‘‘[r]egulatory differences that affect
vehicle operation must be reconciled
before commencement of Pilot
Program.’’ Advocates questioned the
equivalence of CDLs, disqualification
violations, and drug testing.
Several commenters requested
clarification of the Agency’s system to
monitor performance of Mexicolicensed drivers and expressed concerns
about the accuracy and completeness of
the Mexican LFC and Mexican State
license information.
Teamsters also noted that there are no
drug testing laboratories in Mexico that
are certified by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. OOIDA
and Teamsters both requested
additional information regarding the
training regime for Mexican personnel
to follow U.S. procedures for drug and
alcohol testing collection and chain of
custody.
Teamsters noted that the medical
qualification standard for vision is
different in Mexico than in the United
States, as Mexico requires red-vision
only. OOIDA encouraged the Agency to
provide additional information on the
Mexican medical certification
requirements.
Multiple commenters asked how
information about violations in personal
vehicles in Mexico would be obtained
and used by FMCSA.
OOIDA and Advocates both believe
that FMCSA has an obligation to post
more information about the equivalent
laws and regulations and to provide
copies of the Mexican regulations in
English.
FMCSA Response: CDLs. As noted
above, in 1991, the Secretary and his
counterpart in Mexico entered into an
agreement on the matter of driver
license reciprocity. The agreement is in
the form of a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) and was
reproduced as Appendix A to a final
rule issued in 1992 by FMCSA’s
predecessor agency, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA).
(Commercial Driver’s License
Reciprocity with Mexico, 57 FR 31454
(July 16, 1992)). The primary purpose of
the MOU was to establish reciprocal
recognition of the CDL issued by the
States to U.S. operators and the LFC
issued by the government of the United
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
Mexican States (i.e., by the national
government of Mexico, not by the
individual Mexican states). In light of
the agreement, the FHWA determined
that an LFC meets the standards
contained in 49 CFR part 383 for a CDL.
(49 CFR 383.23(b)(1) and footnote)
FHWA also stated in the July 16, 1992
final rule:
It should be noted that Mexican drivers
must be medically examined every 2 years to
receive and retain the Licencia Federal de
Conductor; no separate medical card
[certificate] is required as in the United
States for drivers in interstate commerce. As
the Licencia Federal de Conductor cannot be
issued to or kept by any driver who does not
pass stringent physical exams, the Licencia
Federal de Conductor itself is evidence that
the driver has met medical standards as
required by the United States. Therefore,
Mexican drivers with a Licencia Federal de
Conductor do not need to possess a medical
card while driving a CMV in the United
States.
(57 FR 31455)
The Agency’s determination that a
Mexico-domiciled driver with an LFC
does not need to possess a separate
medical certificate is based on the fact
that the medical examination necessary
to obtain the LFC meets the standards
for an examination by a medical
examiner in accordance with FMCSA
regulations, and would therefore meet
the requirements of 49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(3).
While FMCSA recognizes that U.S.
CDL regulations have been amended
since 1991, those changes relate almost
exclusively to the types of offenses that
would result in disqualification of
licenses and to the administration of the
licensing program (i.e., how information
is reported and shared among the
States). There have been no major
changes to the U.S. knowledge and
skills testing until issuance of a May 9,
2011 final rule implementing the CDL
Learner’s Permit processes titled,
‘‘Commercial Driver’s License Testing
and Commercial Learner’s Permits
Testing,’’ (76 FR 26854). States have 3
years to implement the provisions of
that rule. The United States will address
the changes in U.S. CDL regulations
with Mexico during the updating of the
1991 CDL MOU that is currently
underway.
With respect to the changes relating to
disqualifying offenses (49 CFR part 383,
subpart D), FMCSA is not relying on
Mexico’s disqualifying offenses. During
the PASA, FMCSA will review violation
information from a driver’s U.S. record,
LFC record, and Mexican State license
record to determine if the driver is
qualified to drive in the United States,
based on the current disqualification
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requirements for a U.S. CDL holder.
FMCSA will also review Mexican State
license records for violations in a
personal vehicle that would result in
suspension or revocation in the United
States. After the PASA, these sets of
records will be reviewed annually by
FMCSA to ensure continued
compliance.
FMCSA does, however, recognize the
concern about the on-going acceptance
of the existing CDL MOU. In the
Agency’s efforts to update the MOU, on
February 16, 2011, a delegation of
FMCSA and DOT representatives toured
SCT’s commercial driver’s licensing
office in Mexico City, Districto Federal,
Mexico. The review of the commercial
driver’s licensing office showed that the
LFC is issued in a manner similar to that
employed by U.S. State commercial
drivers licensing offices. Applicants are
required to present documentation to
verify their identity and place of
residence. Additionally, applicants are
required to provide documentation that
they have passed the required psychophysical examination. The drivers
licensing office verifies this information
by accessing the SCT’s medical units’
database. Applicants are also required to
provide a training certificate from an
SCT-certified training school.
On February 17, 2011, a delegation of
FMCSA, CVSA, and the American
Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA)
representatives toured the commercial
driver’s licensing office in Monterrey,
Nuevo Leon, Mexico. The delegation
observed the same processes as were
seen in Mexico City. In addition, the
delegation toured an SCT-certified
training school in Monterrey. The tour
included a description of the classroom,
simulator, maintenance shop, and
behind the wheel training. The training
school operator described the driver
testing procedures.
FMCSA will be undertaking
additional site visits to Mexican driver
training, testing, and licensing locations
prior to beginning the pilot program to
review Mexico’s on-going compliance
with the terms of the current MOU.
Reports of these visits will be posted on
the FMCSA pilot program Web site at
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov.
FMCSA’s statement that Mexicodomiciled drivers and motor carriers
will be subject to the same standards as
U.S. drivers and motor carriers does not
mean that U.S. standards must be
applied to Mexico-domiciled drivers
and motor carriers while operating in
Mexico. The Agency does not have
authority to apply U.S. standards to
driver or motor carrier actions occurring
in Mexico, i.e., it has no extraterritorial
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
jurisdiction to enforce FMCSA rules. If
Mexico chooses to suspend or revoke a
driver’s LFC for violations committed in
Mexico, the Licencia Federal
Information System (LIFIS) will reflect
that fact and FMCSA will refuse to let
the driver operate in this country.
All drivers operating CMVs in the
United States are subject to the same
driver disqualification rules, regardless
of the jurisdiction that issued the
driver’s license. The driver
disqualification rules apply to driving
privileges in the United States. Any
convictions for disqualifying offenses
that occur in the United States will
result in the driver being disqualified
from operating a CMV for the period of
time prescribed in the FMCSRs.
In Mexico, in order to obtain the LFC,
a driver must meet the requirements
established by the Ley de Caminos,
Puentes y Autotransporte Federal
(Roads, Bridges and Federal Motor
Carrier Transportation Act) Article 36,
and Reglamento de Autotransporte
Federal y Servicios Auxiliares (Federal
Motor Carrier Transportation Act)
Article 89, which state that a Mexican
driver must pass the medical
examination performed by Mexico’s
SCT, Directorship General of Protection
and Prevention Medicine in
Transportation (DGPMPT). While there
is currently no government oversight of
the proficiency and knowledge of
medical examiners in the United States,
the medical examinations in Mexico are
conducted by government doctors or
government-approved doctors instead of
the private physicians who perform the
examination on U.S. drivers.
The Agency emphasizes that drivers
for Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
have been operating within the border
commercial zones for years with the
medical certification provided as part of
the LFC, and the Agency is not aware of
any safety problems that have arisen as
a result.
In response to the questions regarding
how violations in personal vehicles will
be handled and the quality of the
Mexican databases, FMCSA notes that it
and its Federal and State partners
performed 254,397 checks of LFC
holders in FY 2010. These LFC checks
resulted in detection of a valid license
250,640 times, expired licenses 3,713
times, and disqualified licenses 44
times. While the Mexican State driving
records systems vary significantly,
FMCSA will be working with the
applicant motor carriers, drivers, and
SCT to secure valid copies of the State
driving records for review.
FMCSA has satisfied the requirement
of section 350(c)(1)(G) concerning an
accessible database containing
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
sufficiently comprehensive data to
allow safety monitoring of motor
carriers operating beyond the border
commercial zones and their drivers.
Looking specifically at driver
monitoring, in 2002 FMCSA established
a system known as the Foreign
Convictions and Withdrawals Database
(FCWD), which serves as the repository
of the U.S. conviction history on
Mexican CMV drivers. The system
allows FMCSA to disqualify such
drivers from operating in the United
States if they are convicted of
disqualifying offenses listed in the
FMCSRs.
The FCWD is integrated into the
Agency’s gateway to the Commercial
Driver’s License Information System
(CDLIS), allowing enforcement
personnel performing a Mexican CDLIScheck to simultaneously query both the
Mexican LIFIS and the FCWD. The
response is a consolidated driver U.S./
Mexican record showing the driver’s
status from the two countries’ systems.
The States also have the capability to
forward U.S. convictions of LFC
holders, and other drivers from Mexico,
to the FCWD via CDLIS. To accomplish
this, the States implemented changes to
their information systems and tested
their ability to make a status/history
inquiry and forward a conviction to the
FCWD. All States except Oregon, (which
does not electronically transmit any
convictions) and the District of
Columbia (which does not electronically
transmit convictions of Mexicodomiciled CDL drivers) have
successfully tested electronically
forwarding convictions on Mexicodomiciled CMV drivers. Both
jurisdictions, however, can manually
transmit the information to FMCSA for
uploading into the system.
As of May 31, 2011, the border States
transmitted 46,065 convictions to the
FCWD between 2002 and 2011. This
averages 5,118 per year. Of that number,
41,118 were transmitted electronically
and 4,947 were manually entered into
the system. It should be noted that only
242 of these convictions were for major
traffic offenses (as listed in 49 CFR
383.51(b)), and 1,709 were for serious
traffic offenses (as listed in 49 CFR
383.51(c)). In comparison, between May
2010 and May 2011, the States
transmitted 186,184 U.S. driver
convictions through CDLIS.
The conviction data shows that the
system is working, and States can both
transmit the conviction data on Mexicodomiciled drivers and query the system
to retrieve conviction data. FMCSA and
its State partners have experience from
providing safety oversight for Mexicodomiciled drivers currently operating
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40429
within the border commercial zones. It
is reasonable to believe that the small
group of drivers who would be involved
in the pilot program will be no more
difficult to monitor than the much larger
population of Mexico-domiciled drivers
currently allowed to operate within the
border commercial zones.
As an additional safety enhancement,
compared to the previous demonstration
project, the Agency will review the
Mexican State license of a driver for
violations that would result in a
revocation or suspension in the United
States. This will include violations in
personal vehicles that would impact a
CDL in the United States.
Drug and Alcohol Testing. Regarding
the protocols for collection of specimens
for drug and alcohol testing, FMCSA
clarifies that Mexico is using procedures
equivalent to those established by DOT
regulations. A copy of the 1998 MOU
between DOT and the Government of
Mexico is included in the docket for this
notice.
Urine specimens for controlled
substances testing must be collected in
a manner consistent with 49 CFR part
40, Procedures for Transportation
Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs. During the 2007–2009
demonstration project, an independent
evaluation panel conducted its own
assessment of the urine collection
procedures at four collection facilities in
Mexico. The panel concluded that
Mexico has a collection program with
protocols that are at least equivalent to
U.S. protocols found in 49 CFR part 40.
Because there are no U.S.-certified
laboratories in Mexico, Mexicodomiciled motor carriers must comply
by ensuring that the specimens are
tested in a U.S.-certified laboratory. The
participants in the 2007–2009
demonstration project all had specimens
tested in U.S.-certified laboratories
located in the United States.
In the new pilot program, urine
collection may continue to take place in
Mexico. The specimens will be
processed in accordance with U.S.
requirements. Drivers who refuse to
report to the collection facility in a
timely manner will be considered to
have refused to undergo the required
random test, and the motor carrier
would be required to address the issue
in accordance with FMCSA’s Controlled
Substances and Alcohol Use and
Testing regulations (49 CFR part 382).
Currently, Mexico-domiciled drivers
operating within the border commercial
zones use this approach to comply with
the random testing requirements of 49
CFR 382.305. The random selection of
drivers must be made by a scientifically
valid method; each driver selected for
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
40430
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
testing must have an equal chance
(compared to the motor carrier’s other
drivers operating in the United States)
of being selected, and drivers must be
selected during a random selection
period. Also, the tests must be
unannounced, and the dates for
administering random tests must be
spread reasonably throughout the
calendar year. Employers must require
that each driver who is notified of
selection for random testing proceed to
the test site immediately.
In addition, through the PASA, the
Agency will determine whether the
motor carrier has a program in place to
achieve full compliance with the
controlled substances and alcohol
testing requirements under 49 CFR parts
40 and 382. The ability of the border
commercial zone motor carriers to
follow these procedures further
demonstrates that Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers are capable of satisfying
the Agency’s drug and alcohol testing
requirements. Based on FMCSA’s
experience enforcing the controlled
substances and alcohol testing
requirements on border commercial
zone motor carriers, the Agency believes
long-haul Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers can and will comply with the
random testing requirements, especially
given that some of the anticipated
participants in the pilot program may
already have authority to conduct
operations within the border
commercial zones.
The Agency’s experience in this area
and the drug collection facility reviews
performed during the previous
demonstration project make us
confident that testing is being
conducted correctly. In addition, the
Agency will be conducting collection
facility reviews during the pilot program
to verify specimens are being collected
correctly.
Medical Qualifications. FMCSA has
compared each of its physical
qualifications standards with the
corresponding requirements in Mexico
and continues to believe acceptance of
Mexico’s medical certificate is
appropriate, especially given that some
Mexican medical standards are more
stringent than their U.S. counterparts.
For example, one of the areas where
Mexico’s standards exceed those of the
U.S. is in Body Mass Index (BMI) and
the association between BMI and certain
medical conditions that could increase
the risk of a driver having difficulty
operating a CMV safely. Mexico’s
regulations include certain limits on
BMI, as it relates to medical conditions
related to obesity, whereas FMCSA’s
regulations do not include such
requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
Another area where Mexico’s physical
examination and qualifications process
is more rigorous is vision testing.
Mexico’s examination process includes
a measurement of intraocular pressure,
a test that may be indicative of
glaucoma, a disease characterized by a
pattern of damage to the optic nerve.
FMCSA’s regulations do not require a
measurement of intraocular pressure.
Finally, the medical certification for
an LFC is part of Mexico’s licensing
process for commercial drivers. This
means the license is not issued or
renewed unless there is proof the driver
has satisfied the physical qualifications
standards. This is not the case in the
United States, where medical
certification is not currently posted on
the CDL record. FMCSA has issued
regulations to move towards this level of
oversight (‘‘Medical Certification
Requirements as Part of the CDL,’’ final
rule, published at 73 FR 73096,
December 1, 2008), but Mexico has more
stringent requirements in effect at this
time.
There are some areas where FMCSA’s
requirements are more stringent.
Specifically, FMCSA requires drivers be
capable of distinguishing between red,
green and yellow, while Mexico limits
the color recognition requirement to red.
Additionally, the U.S. medical
examination has standards for both
systolic and diastolic blood pressure
readings while Mexico only has a
standard on the systolic reading. A
finding of equivalency, however, does
not require that both country’s
standards be identical. Here, it was
FMCSA’s considered judgment that
these differences would not diminish
safety and that, therefore, the Mexican
requirements are equivalent to U.S.
requirements.
FMCSA has prepared a table
comparing the United States’ and
Mexico’s physical qualifications
standards. A copy of the table is
provided in the docket for this notice.
To assist in the review of Mexican
regulations, FMCSA has added English
versions of the regulations to the docket
for this notice. This includes the
Mexican regulations for the
Transportation Preventive Medicine
Service Regulations, the Federal Motor
Carrier Transportation and Auxiliary
Services Regulations, and the Federal
Roads, Bridges, and Motor Carrier
Transportation Act.
4. Reciprocity With Mexico
The CTA, ATA, and numerous
individual commenters stated that
NAFTA reciprocity could not be
achieved because of the current state of
violence and corruption in Mexico.
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
OOIDA also provided U.S. State
Department alerts to travelers and
instruction to U.S. government
employees as documentation of the
inability of Mexico to provide
‘‘simultaneous and comparable’’
authority and access.
The Teamsters elaborated that
‘‘[s]ection 6901 limits funds to grant
authority to Mexican-domiciled motor
carriers to operate beyond the
commercial zones to the extent that
‘simultaneous and comparable authority
to operating within Mexico is made
available to motor carriers domiciled in
the United States.’ ’’ Teamsters further
stated that ‘‘[i]t is very clear that the
safety of U.S. drivers traveling into
Mexico cannot be ensured, and
therefore simultaneous and comparable
authority is not made available to U.S.
motor carriers under the pilot program.’’
Ron Cole pointed out that a
Congressional Research Report dated
February 1, 2010, notes ‘‘[a]s of this
writing the Mexican government has not
begun accepting applications from U.S.
trucking companies for operating
authority in Mexico.’’ The Texas
Department of Motor Vehicles suggested
that FMCSA provide detailed
information on Mexico’s regulatory
requirements to the States and U.S.
motor carriers that express an interest in
participating in the program.
The ATA also endorsed allowing
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers with
U.S. investors to join the program as
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.
FMCSA Response: In response to the
comments about reciprocity for U.S.
motor carriers, FMCSA will continue to
work closely with the Mexican
government to ensure that U.S.domiciled motor carriers are granted
reciprocal authority to operate in
Mexico during the pilot program.
Mexico will publish rules for its current
program before initiation of the
program. Both English and Spanish
versions of SCT’s draft rules have been
added to the docket for informational
purposes.
In addition, the Department of
Transportation is entering into a MOU
with Mexico’s SCT that requires that
Mexico provide reciprocal authority.
The Agency will also work with the
U.S. trucking industry to facilitate the
exchange of information between the
Mexican government and U.S. trucking
companies interested in applying for
authority to enter Mexico under this
pilot program.
Both Teamsters and OOIDA
commented on the ongoing violence in
Mexico, and that it negatively impacts
the possibility of U.S. motor carriers
entering Mexico. Both cite to the U.S.
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
State Department travel advisory, and in
turn point to a portion of section 6901
that states that ‘‘simultaneous and
comparable authority to operate within
Mexico is made available to motor
carriers domiciled in the United States.’’
The reference to the section 6901
language speaks to the ability of U.S.
motor carriers to receive comparable
operating authority from Mexico’s SCT.
The MOU between DOT and SCT
provides for reciprocal access to each
country. The SCT has issued proposed
rules outlining procedures for U.S.
motor carriers to operate in Mexico.
They will have the ability to apply for
authority and operate within Mexico
similar to that of Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers in the United States.
Therefore, the statutory requirement has
been met. It is an independent business
decision on the part of motor carriers as
to whether or not they wish to apply for
authority, or use it once obtained.
Hundreds of companies are currently
operating in the border region, and four
U.S. motor carriers from the 2007
demonstration project continue to
operate into Mexico. (Whereas the
United States required Mexicodomiciled motor carriers participating
in the 2007 demonstration project to
relinquish their operating authority
when the project was terminated,
Mexico permitted the U.S.-domiciled
motor carriers holding reciprocal
authority to continue their operations in
Mexico.)
OOIDA makes the claim that the
violence in Mexico is a violation of the
NAFTA as a nullification and
impairment of U.S. motor carrier rights
to engage in cross-border trade in
services under Chapter 12 of the
NAFTA. OOIDA contends that,
‘‘Federal, state and local governments
within Mexico are seen by many to be
complicit’’ in the drug-related violence.
OOIDA quotes Annex 2004 of the
NAFTA ‘‘Nullification and Impairment’’
language, including ‘‘* * * being
nullified or impaired as a result of the
application of any measure that is not
inconsistent with this Agreement
* * *’’ (emphasis added). The violence
of the drug cartels, according to OOIDA,
impairs U.S. motor carriers wishing to
operate in Mexico. The fundamental
error with this reasoning is that no
measure has been put in place by the
Government of Mexico that would
prohibit U.S. motor carriers from doing
business in Mexico, or would put U.S.
motor carriers at such a competitive
disadvantage that they are impaired. In
order for Annex 2004 to apply, a State
actor, such as SCT, must put in place
‘‘measures not inconsistent with’’ cross-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
border trade in services. It could
constitute a violation of the NAFTA if
a Mexican agency put in place
restrictions on U.S. motor carriers that
would on its face not be discriminatory
but have the ultimate effect of denying
the motor carriers the benefits they
reasonably expected under Chapter 12.
That, however, is not the case here. The
application for authority and using it to
operate into Mexico requires several
business decisions on the part of the
motor carrier, and it is ultimately the
motor carrier’s decision to operate into
Mexico, as much as it would be for a
motor carrier to expand its business
from short-haul to long-haul.
FMCSA also notes that while Mexico
has not begun accepting applications
from U.S. trucking companies for
operating authority in Mexico, neither
has FMCSA begun accepting
applications from Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers for participation in the
pilot program. Mexico, like the United
States, is updating its application
procedures for U.S. motor carriers to
operate into Mexico. Following the
publication of this notice, FMCSA will
begin accepting applications from
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to
participate in the pilot program. Mexico
will begin accepting applications from
U.S. motor carriers to operate in Mexico
soon thereafter. When Mexico’s new
processes are finalized, FMCSA will
post information regarding those
requirements on our Web page related to
this pilot program so that States and
industry are aware of the requirements.
In any case, the United States will not
grant authority to operate beyond the
border commercial zones to any Mexicodomiciled motor carriers under this
pilot program unless and until Mexico
is ready to provide authority to U.S.
motor carriers. FMCSA also uses this
notice to clarify that Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers with U.S. investors are
eligible to participate in the pilot
program.
5. Pilot Program Requirements
The Agency received comments from
the OOIDA, Teamsters, Advocates, and
the Coalition regarding the requirements
of FMCSA’s pilot program authority.
OOIDA noted that, under 49 U.S.C.
31315(c)(2), a pilot program must
include safety measures designed to
achieve a level of safety that is
‘‘equivalent to, or greater than’’ the
required level of safety. OOIDA also
faulted the proposal for not elaborating
on the countermeasures to protect the
public health and safety of study
participants and the general public.
FMCSA Response: The FMCSA and
its State partners will ensure
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40431
compliance with the requirements of the
pilot program the same way the Agency
and the States ensure that Mexicodomiciled motor carriers operating in
and beyond the border commercial
zones comply with the applicable safety
regulations. There are currently 6,861
motor carriers with authority to operate
within the border commercial zones and
an additional 1,063 motor carriers with
Certificates of Registration to operate
beyond the commercial zones. FMCSA
and the States have a robust safety
oversight program for Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers that are currently allowed
to operate CMVs in the United States. In
FY 2010, FMCSA and its State partners
conducted over 256,000 commercial
vehicle inspections on vehicles operated
by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers in
the border commercial zones. Further,
in order to assist in ensuring
compliance, FMCSA imposed the
following pre-requisites for Mexicodomiciled motor carriers to participate
in the pilot program: (1) The application
for long-haul operating authority, which
includes requirements for proof of a
continuous valid insurance with an
insurance company licensed in the
United States, in contrast to trip
insurance used by motor carriers that
operate solely within the border
commercial zones; (2) successful
completion of the PASA prior to being
granted provisional authority; (3) the
continuous display of a valid CVSA
decal; and (4) a special designation in
their USDOT Numbers to allow
enforcement officials to readily
distinguish between vehicles permitted
to operate solely within the border
commercial zone and those authorized
to operate beyond the border
commercial zones.
In addition, section 350 and 49 CFR
385.707 require that a CR be conducted
within 18 months of the motor carrier
being granted provisional operating
authority. In the context of the pilot,
FMCSA will prioritize long-haul
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers for
CRs based on a number of factors, such
as the motor carrier’s safety performance
as measured through roadside
inspections and crash involvement and
the Agency’s Safety Measurement
System.
The vehicles and drivers will be
monitored through data collected from
electronic monitoring devices with GPS.
In addition, the drivers’ complete
driving records will be reviewed in
advance of participation and then
annually thereafter. Also, during the
first stage, the vehicles and drivers will
be subjected to more inspections.
The FMCSA and its State partners
have for many years provided safety
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
40432
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
oversight under the same regulations for
a much larger population of Mexicodomiciled motor carriers operating in
U.S. border commercial zones and
motor carriers with Certificates of
Registration than the group that will
participate in the pilot program. As a
result, the Agency has a wellestablished and effective enforcement
program in place to ensure that
participants comply with the terms and
conditions of the program. Moreover,
full compliance with existing U.S. safety
regulations and domestic point-to-point
transportation prohibitions will be
required, as is the case with Mexicodomiciled motor carriers operating in
the border commercial zones and
certificated motor carriers already
operating beyond the border commercial
zones.
As discussed in this section, FMCSA
has taken necessary steps to comply
with the requirement to provide an
equivalent or greater level of safety, and
countermeasures are therefore not
required.
6. PASA Requirements
Commenters, including Teamsters
and Advocates, recommended that
information about the PASAs be posted
in the Federal Register rather than the
FMCSA Register.
Teamsters recommended that the
PASA also include a spot check of
vehicles other than those to be used in
the long-haul program to gather more
information on the carrier’s operations.
OOIDA, Advocates and Teamsters
requested additional information on the
Agency’s standards for evaluating
English language proficiency and one
association submission indicated the
English language screening and should
be a component of the initial screening.
Advocates requested that the violation
histories of applicant motor carriers,
and their driver convictions records in
both Mexico and the U.S. should be
disclosed in the Federal Register
publication as part of the PASA
information disclosure. OOIDA
requested additional information about
participating motor carrier’s past
operations within the United States.
The IRP requested that the Agency
use the PASA as an opportunity to
reiterate the requirements for IRP and
IFTA registrations.
OOIDA also recommended that
PASAs be conducted again on motor
carriers that participated in the previous
demonstration project to ensure they are
still safe motor carriers.
FMCSA Response: There appears to
have been some confusion about where
the PASA information will be
published. The results of the PASAs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
will be posted in the Federal Register.
This was where the PASA information
was posted during the previous
demonstration project, and FMCSA will
follow this protocol again in this pilot
program. The operating authority
application information will also
continue to be posted in the FMCSA
Register as required by applicable
regulations.
If the motor carrier has passed the
PASA, FMCSA will publish the motor
carrier’s request for authority in the
FMCSA Register. The FMCSA Register
can be viewed by going to: https://lipublic.fmcsa.dot.gov/LIVIEW/
pkg_html.prc_limain and then selecting
‘‘FMCSA Register’’ from the drop-down
box in the upper right corner of the
screen. Any member of the public may
protest the motor carrier’s application
on the grounds that the motor carrier is
not fit, willing, or able to provide the
transportation services for which it has
requested approval. FMCSA will
consider all protests before determining
whether to grant provisional operating
authority. Under FMCSA regulations, all
motor carriers receive provisional new
entrant authority for 18 months after
receiving a USDOT Number and are
subject to enhanced safety scrutiny
during the provisional operating period.
Regarding the Teamster’s request that
additional vehicles in the motor
carrier’s fleet be inspected during the
PASA, the Agency points out that all
available vehicles that are used in U.S.
operations will be subject to review
during the CR. Additionally, vehicles
operated in the U.S. by Mexicodomiciled motor carriers also regularly
cross the border, where the vehicle
inspection rate is 13 times higher than
that of vehicles in the interior of the
U.S. As a result, the Agency does not
believe it is necessary to inspect
vehicles other than the participating
vehicles during the PASA.
FMCSA will check participating
Mexico-domiciled drivers during the
PASA through an interview in English.
The interview will include a variety of
operational questions, which may
include inquiries about the origin and
destination of the driver’s most recent
trip; the amount of time spent on duty,
including driving time, and the record
of duty status; the driver’s license; and
vehicle components and systems subject
to the FMCSRs. The driver will also be
asked to recognize and explain U.S.
traffic and highway signs in English.
If the driver successfully completes
the interview, FMCSA has confidence
that the driver can sufficiently
communicate in English to converse
with the general public, understand
traffic signs and signals in English,
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
respond to official inquiries and make
entries on reports and records required
by FMCSA.
Regarding Advocates’ request that
additional information be published
about the history of Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers and drivers, FMCSA is
committed to publishing the results of
the PASAs as required by section
6901(b)(2)(B) of the 2007
Appropriations Act. FMCSA will not
publish violation data on individual
Mexican drivers as protection of their
personal privacy. FMCSA, however,
will make additional information about
all participating motor carriers’ past
U.S. performance available through its
Safety Management System (SMS) as
requested by OOIDA.
FMCSA agrees with the IRP’s
suggestion that information regarding
the requirements for registration and
fuel taxes be provided during the PASA.
The Agency is revising its PASA
procedures to include this information.
In regard to motor carriers that
participated in the previous
demonstration project that choose to
apply to participate in the pilot
program, it has always been in FMCSA’s
plan that PASAs will be completed on
these motor carriers. FMCSA recognizes
that there may have been changes in the
motor carrier’s operations since the
demonstration project ended in 2009
and that a current PASA is needed.
7. Credit to Demonstration Project
Participants
Most commenters did not agree with
the Agency’s plans to give credit to
motor carriers that participated in the
demonstration project for the amount of
time they operated safely. The
Teamsters specifically contended that
providing credit to previous participants
was a violation of section 6901.
FMCSA Response: It appears that
there was some confusion about how
these motor carriers, if they chose to
participate in the new pilot program,
would enter the program, and how their
safety would be evaluated. As noted
above, it has always FMCSA’s plan and
responsibility to conduct PASAs on all
motor carriers applying for authority
under the pilot program including
motor carriers that participated in the
prior demonstration project. As a result,
the motor carrier’s safety management
controls will be assessed again in
advance of participation. The only
distinction that is being made for motor
carriers that previously participated in
the demonstration project is to give
them credit for the amount of time they
operated under the project in
completing the 18 months of provisional
authority before being eligible to
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
advance to Stage 3 in this pilot program.
FMCSA believes this is consistent with
section 6901 because the previous
demonstration project was subject to the
same pilot program statute and
regulations. While it was ultimately
determined that the previous project did
not have sufficient participation to
allow for a statistically valid
demonstration that Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers as a whole could comply
with U.S. safety standards and this
program has added additional
safeguards, reports from both the OIG
and the Independent Panel documented
that motor carriers in the previous
program had safety records that were
comparable or better than the U.S. fleet
averages.
As a result, if a motor carrier from the
demonstration project chooses to apply
to participate in the pilot program, it
will be subject to the security check by
the Department of Homeland Security,
PASA, financial responsibility, CVSA
decal, and CR requirements. If a motor
carrier operated for 5 months under the
demonstration project, it would then
only need to operate safely for an
additional 13 months under the pilot
program before being eligible to advance
to Stage 3 in the program.
8. Use of Electronic Monitoring Devices
and Compliance With Hours-of-Service
Requirements
The majority of commenters did not
support FMCSA funding the installation
of electronic monitoring devices on
Mexican trucks participating in the pilot
program. Representative Peter A.
DeFazio stated that, ‘‘it is outrageous
that U.S. truckers, through the Federal
fuel tax, will subsidize the cost of doing
business for these Mexican carriers.’’
Representative Reid J. Ribble articulated
his understanding of his colleagues’
disapproval of using the Highway Trust
Fund to cover the costs of the electronic
monitoring devices, but ‘‘recognize[d]
that DOT cannot require Mexican motor
carriers to cover these expenses because
there is no similar requirement for U.S.
carriers.’’
The BTA pointed out that the hoursof-service requirements for drivers of
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
participating in the program must
include the driver’s on-duty and driving
time in Mexico before reaching the
Southern border. In addition, Teamsters
asserted that electronic monitoring
devices do not measure ‘‘on-duty/not
driving’’ time and, as a result, Mexican
drivers need to provide logs and
supporting documents.
Several commenters did not
understand if the data from the
electronic monitoring devices would be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
processed in real-time or at the
conclusion of the program. In addition,
there were several questions about who
would be reviewing the data.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA developed
guidelines for this new pilot program
after extensive engagement with
members of Congress and other
stakeholders to better understand the
strengths and weaknesses of the prior
demonstration project that ended in
March 2009. Using that valuable input,
we worked with the Government of
Mexico to craft a more robust program.
As described in the April 13, 2011,
Federal Register notice, all participating
Mexican trucks will be required to be
equipped with electronic monitoring
devices with GPS capabilities so that
FMCSA is able to monitor the vehicle
and use the data to address hours-ofservice and domestic point-to-point
transportation concerns. Stakeholders
felt strongly that FMCSA include this as
an element of the new pilot program.
FMCSA will own the monitoring
equipment and thereby will have access
and control of the data provided by the
electronic monitoring devices and GPS
units and will be able to customize
reports and alerts from the system of the
vendor that will collect the data. This
proposed approach is necessary to
address concerns expressed by members
of Congress and others regarding hoursof-service and domestic point-to-point
compliance. The most the Agency
would spend on electronic monitoring
devices for purchase, installation, and
monitoring over the life of the 3-year
program is $2.5 million—less than 0.1
percent of the costs borne by U.S. firms
subject to the tariffs imposed by Mexico
in a 12-month period. As a result, we
believe this is not only in the public
interest to require and provide the
electronic monitoring devices, but is
also a good investment for the country.
Moreover, as stated above, the in-truck
equipment will be the property of the
United States.
In addition, the electronic monitoring
devices that FMCSA will install will
have functionality to allow on-duty start
and end times to be entered and tracked.
As a result, FMCSA will be monitoring
on-duty time in Mexico to ensure that
drivers comply with FMCSA hours-ofservice regulations while operating in
the United States. FMCSA agrees,
however, that the participating motor
carriers will be expected to maintain the
appropriate supporting documents for
review by FMCSA during the safety and
compliance reviews.
It is FMCSA’s intention to acquire
devices and monitoring software that
will allow the Agency to develop alerts
and reports of the vehicles and drivers’
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40433
information. These reports will be
reviewed by FMCSA at least weekly to
identify compliance issues. If there are
any indicators of problems, FMCSA will
initiate an investigation. FMCSA
expects to use staff to conduct the
analysis, but acknowledges that the
conversion of the electronic data to a
format usable for analysis may require
some processing by a third party.
Finally, once the pilot program is
terminated, the program participants
must return the equipment to FMCSA.
9. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) and Emissions
Issues
Commenters on this issue all
supported the requirement that the
equipment must meet the FMVSS or
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (CMVSS) at the time of
manufacturing. However, Teamsters
believe that the Agency’s proposal that
model years 1996 and newer do not
need a label constitutes a waiver and
that FMCSA does not have the authority
to waive this requirement.
ATA argued that the vehicles should
not have to comply with the FMVSS,
but instead with the FMCSRs.
ATA and CTA stressed that all
equipment operating in the United
States must comply with Federal
emissions standards. Both also
expressed concern about the limited
availability of low-sulfur fuels in
Mexico and the impact on vehicle
emissions.
Werner Enterprises requested
clarification on the requirement that the
vehicles meet the EPA requirements at
the time of manufacturing.
FMCSA Response: Participating
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers, the
drivers they employ, and the vehicles
they operate in the United States must
comply with all applicable Federal and
State laws and regulations, including
those concerning customs, immigration,
vehicle emissions, employment, vehicle
registration and taxation, and fuel
taxation.
Environmental Issues. First, Mexicodomiciled motor carriers operating in
the United States must ensure
compliance with all applicable Federal
and State laws related to the
environment. FMCSA has no reason to
doubt that its sister Federal and State
agencies will enforce their laws and
regulations as they apply to long-haul
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers, just as
they have done for years with respect to
the border commercial zone motor
carriers as well as U.S.- and Canadadomiciled motor carriers.
Second, FMCSA does not have the
statutory authority to enforce Federal
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
40434
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
environmental laws and regulations,
with the exception of those concerning
vehicle noise emissions (49 CFR part
325). The Agency cannot, for example,
condition the grant of operating
authority to a motor carrier on the motor
carrier’s demonstration that its truck
engines comply with EPA engine
standards. FMCSA does not construe
section 6901 as expanding the scope of
the Agency’s regulatory authority into
environmental regulation or any other
new area of regulation. Section 6901
makes no mention of environmental
regulation, and FMCSA construes the
reference to ‘‘measures * * * to protect
public health and safety’’ in section
6901(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the 2007
Appropriations Act as within the
context of the scope of the Agency’s
existing statutory authority. Moreover,
because FMCSA is a safety rather than
an environmental regulatory agency, the
pilot program is appropriately focused
on evaluating the safety of long-haul
Mexican truck operations in the United
States, consistent with the scope of 49
U.S.C. 31315(c). However, vehicle data
is being collected to assist with
determining the potential
environmental impacts of the pilot
program (and for any further actions
concerning the border) in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Council on
Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA
implementing regulations (40 CFR part
s1500–1508) and FMCSA’s NEPA Order
5610.1 as this program is not exempt
from NEPA review.
Third, the Agency is conducting an
Environmental Assessment (EA) in
accordance with NEPA, CEQ
implementing regulations, and
FMCSA’s NEPA Order 5610.1 to
examine the potential impacts of this
pilot project on the environment. It is
important to note that the EA is limited
to the environmental impacts of this
particular pilot project. FMCSA will
announce availability of the draft
Environmental Assessment in a separate
Federal Register notice and place a
copy in the docket for this rulemaking.
Finally, EPA, in partnership with
Mexico and other governments on both
sides of the border, has conducted
numerous diesel emissions reduction
projects. These include vehicle testing,
monitoring, and tracking, diesel
retrofitting, accelerated use of ultra-low
sulfur diesel fuel, and anti-idling
programs. In addition, the State of
California regulates particulate matter
emissions from trucks through roadside
emissions testing conducted throughout
the State, including in its border
commercial zones. California has also
issued regulations requiring truck
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
engines, including those in Mexican
trucks, to have proof that they were
manufactured in compliance with the
EPA emissions standard in effect on the
date of their manufacture and will be
able to conduct inspections of these
vehicles while they are in California.
Motor carriers are subject to penalties
for the violation of these regulations. In
addition, FMCSA considers these issues
in its NEPA review for the pilot
program.
Regarding the availability of low
sulfur fuels, it is our understanding that
low sulfur fuels are available in the
border areas and large cities, so access
should not limit participation in the
project.
FMVSS Compliance. With regard to
concerns about compliance with the
FMVSSs, the Agency already requires
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to
certify on their applications for
operating authority that CMVs used in
the United States meet the applicable
FMVSSs in effect on the date of
manufacture. While there is no
requirement that the vehicles display an
FMVSS certification label, the Agency
believes the concerns about displaying a
certification label have been adequately
addressed by the Department through a
notice-and-comment rulemaking
proceeding.
On March 19, 2002, FMCSA and
NHTSA published four notices
requesting public comments on
regulations and policies directed at
enforcement of the statutory prohibition
on the importation of CMVs that do not
comply with the applicable FMVSSs.
The notices were issued as follows: (1)
FMCSA’s notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing to require motor
carriers to ensure their vehicles display
an FMVSS certification label (67 FR
12782); (2) NHTSA’s proposed rule to
issue a regulation incorporating a 1975
interpretation of the term ‘‘import’’ (67
FR 12806); (3) NHTSA’s draft policy
statement providing that a vehicle
manufacturer may, if it has sufficient
basis for doing so, retroactively certify a
motor vehicle complied with all
applicable FMVSSs in effect at the time
of manufacture and affix a label
attesting this (67 FR 12790); and 4)
NHTSA’s proposed rule concerning
recordkeeping requirements for
manufacturers that retroactively certify
their vehicles (67 FR 12800).
After reviewing the public comments
in response to those notices, FMCSA
and NHTSA withdrew their respective
proposals on August 26, 2005 (70 FR
50269). NHTSA withdrew a 1975
interpretation in which the agency had
indicated that the Vehicle Safety Act is
applicable to foreign-based motor
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
carriers operating in the United States.
Accordingly, it is the Department’s
position that the FMVSSs do not
obligate foreign-domiciled trucks
engaging in cross-border trade to bear a
certification label. Although FMCSA
withdrew its NPRM, the Agency
indicated that it would continue to
uphold the operational safety of CMVs
on the nation’s highways, including that
of Mexico-domiciled CMVs operating
beyond the United States-Mexico border
commercial zones, through continued
vigorous enforcement of the FMCSRs,
many of which cross-reference specific
FMVSSs.
FMCSA explained in its withdrawal
notice that Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers are required under 49 CFR
365.503(b)(2) and 368.3(b)(2) to certify
on the application form for operating
authority that all CMVs they intend to
operate in the United States were built
in compliance with the FMVSSs in
effect at the time of manufacture. These
vehicles will be subject to inspection by
enforcement personnel at U.S.-Mexico
border ports of entry and at roadside
inspection sites in the United States to
ensure their compliance with all
applicable FMCSRs, including those
that cross-reference the FMVSSs.
For vehicles lacking a certification
label, enforcement officials could, as
necessary, refer to the VIN (vehicle
identification number) in various
locations on the vehicle. The VIN will
assist inspectors in identifying the
vehicle model year and country of
manufacture to determine compliance
with the FMVSSs based on guidance
provided by FMCSA. Based on
information provided by the Truck
Manufacturers Association in a
September 16, 2002, letter to NHTSA
and FMCSA, FMCSA believes model
year 1996 and later CMVs manufactured
in Mexico meet the FMVSSs. The
Agency continues to believe this
information is an appropriate basis for
considering whether a vehicle is likely
to have been manufactured in
compliance with the FMVSSs because
most of the members of TMA have truck
manufacturing facilities in Mexico that
are used to build vehicles for both the
United States and Mexico markets.
Therefore, FMCSA continues to use
its August 26, 2005 guidance,
‘‘Enforcement of Mexico-Domiciled
Motor Carriers’ Self-Certification of
Compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards,’’ which provides technical
assistance to Federal and State
enforcement personnel on this issue.
The guidance indicates that if FMCSA
finds, during the PASA or subsequent
inspections, that a Mexico-domiciled
motor carrier has falsely certified on the
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
application for authority that its
vehicles are FMVSS compliant, that the
Agency may use this information to
deny, suspend, or revoke the motor
carrier’s operating authority or
certificate of registration or take
enforcement action for falsification, if
appropriate. A copy of the Agency’s
guidance is included in the docket
referenced at the beginning of this
notice.
Although Mexico-domiciled vehicles
may be less likely to display FMVSS
certification labels, FMCSA believes
continued strong enforcement of the
FMCSRs in real-world operational
settings, coupled with existing
regulations and enhanced enforcement
measures, will ensure the safe operation
of Mexico-domiciled CMVs in interstate
commerce. As the Agency stated in the
2005 withdrawal notice, FMCSR
enforcement, and by extension the
FMVSSs they cross-reference, is the
bedrock of these compliance assurance
activities. The Agency continues to
believe it is not necessary to require
participating motor carriers to ensure
their CMVs display an FMVSS
certification label. Requiring CMVs to
have FMVSS certification labels would
not ensure their operational safety. The
American public is better protected by
enforcing the FMCSRs than by a label
indicating a CMV was originally built to
certain manufacturing performance
standards. See 70 FR at 50287.
There appeared to be some confusion
about when the vehicles would be
checked for FMVSS or CMVSS
certification. During the PASA, the
Agency will check those vehicles
identified for the long-haul trucking
program to determine whether the
vehicle displays an FMVSS or CMVSS
certification label, or whether the
vehicle is a 1996 model year or newer
truck. Alternatively, if there is no label,
the motor carrier may present a
certificate or other documentation from
the manufacturer confirming that the
vehicle was built to the appropriate
standard.
FMCSA understands ATA’s position
that the safety of the participating
vehicles should be determined based on
compliance with the FMCSRs, rather
than the FMVSSs. FMCSA
acknowledges that vehicle
manufacturers must comply with the
FMVSSs at the vehicle manufacturing
state and that the vehicles may not meet
the FMVSSs after they are placed in
service. However, the Agency’s
inspection of participating vehicles
during the PASA, inspections, and CR
will confirm compliance with the
FMCSRs, as is required by 49 CFR
390.3.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
10. Statistical Validity
Teamsters asserted that the Agency’s
evaluation plan was flawed because the
statute requires evaluation based on
participants, not the number of
inspections.
Advocates challenged the Agency’s
null hypothesis and asserted that the
evaluation plan does not conform to
established scientific research
methodology.
Advocates also requested additional
information on how the rate of
violations per type of inspection
performed will be calculated. Advocates
further requested information on the
specific statistical tests or methods of
analysis to be used, and suggested that
a peer review panel review the study
design. Specifically, Advocates noted
that ‘‘the elements contained in the pilot
program statutory provision under 49
U.S.C. 31315(c) require more specific
and detailed information about the
experimental design of the Pilot
Program than the agency has provided.’’
FMCSA Response: Section
31315(c)(2)(C) of title 49, United States
Code, requires a pilot program to have
a sufficient number of participants to
allow for statistically valid findings.
Given that the majority of statistical
comparisons between the Mexicodomiciled and U.S.-domiciled motor
carriers will focus on roadside
inspection data, the relevant question
becomes whether or not the total
number of inspections performed on the
pilot program participants will be
sufficient to allow for valid statistical
comparisons. The Agency believes that
the sample size targets presented in the
April 13, 2011, Federal Register notice
will ensure that the number of motor
carrier participants will be sufficient for
achieving this objective. As discussed in
that notice, based on the results of the
application and vetting process from
previous border demonstration project,
the Agency estimates an upper limit for
the total number of Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers both capable and
interested in taking advantage of the
NAFTA cross border provisions at 316
motor carriers. Thus, if 46 motor carriers
were to participate in the current effort,
the sample would represent 15 percent
of this population.
The Agency acknowledges, however,
that the statistical validity of the
findings also hinges upon the
representativeness of the study data. For
example, if most of the inspection data
collected in the pilot program were to
come from just a few of the Mexicodomiciled motor carriers, the question
of sample bias becomes a legitimate
concern when producing survey
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40435
estimates. To mitigate the effect of this
potential bias, the Agency plans to
calculate the various violation rates both
for the population of program
participants as a whole, as well as for
individual program participants. Thus,
for each metric in question, the
violation rates for each of the program
participants will be averaged to give an
alternate violation rate for the program
participant population. This alternate
violation rate calculation will help to
minimize the effect of inspection data
being potentially dominated by a small
number of motor carriers. Comparison
of the original population violation rate
to this alternate violation rate
calculation will give the Agency an
indication of the magnitude of this
problem.
With regard to the United States’
obligations under NAFTA, FMCSA does
not have reason to deny Mexicodomiciled motor carriers from operating
in the United States unless it can
demonstrate that the motor carriers pose
a safety threat to the American public.
Thus, the null hypothesis for the study
begins with a presumption that Mexicodomiciled motor carriers are as safe as
U.S. motor carriers. The data from the
study will be used to determine whether
this assumption should be rejected or
not. While the term ‘‘null hypothesis’’
can be used for any hypothesis set up
primarily to see whether it can be
rejected, the more common statistical
practice is to hypothesize that two
methods, populations, or processes are
the same and then determine if there is
sufficient statistical evidence to reject
this null hypothesis. If one can
demonstrate definitively from the pilot
program data that Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers are inherently less safe
than U.S. motor carriers, then the
Agency would be justified in rejecting
this null hypothesis and restricting
Mexico-domiciled motor carrier
operations in the United States. If, on
the other hand, the Agency cannot
establish as a fact, there would be no
justification for denying these motor
carriers full access to our roadways as
guaranteed under NAFTA. Had the null
hypothesis for the study begun with the
assumption that Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers were inherently less safe
than U.S. motor carriers (as
recommended by the commenter), then
all non-statistically significant results
from the study would imply that
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers are
less safe than U.S. motor carriers, since
this initial assumption would not be
rejected. In contrast, the approach taken
by FMCSA is a prudent one, and is
similar to the scientific approach used
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
40436
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
in virtually all medical research
examining safety risk. In such studies,
the null hypothesis assumes that a
particular food, chemical, or activity
poses no safety risk, or no safety benefit.
In other words, the null hypothesis
always assumes that the item or activity
in question has absolutely no effect. The
results of the study are used to
determine whether one can reject this
null hypothesis, to identify a clear risk
or clear benefit attributable to the item
or activity. Additionally, the null
hypothesis is supported by the safety
data on border commercial zone motor
carriers and the Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers that participated in the
previous demonstration project.
With regard to the Advocates’
reference to 49 U.S.C. 31315(c), the
Agency believes the commenter’s
interpretation of this section is
incorrect. The section does not speak to
the findings of a program or the
conclusions to be drawn from them.
Rather, the section simply states that a
pilot program must be designed to
ensure that public safety is not
compromised while the study is being
conducted. All of the safeguards put in
place by the Agency, such as requiring
pilot program participants to achieve a
specified level of safety performance at
various stages of the pilot in order to
continue with their participation (as
stipulated in the original notice
requesting public comment), speak
directly to this issue.
On a routine basis, program
participant vehicles will be inspected at
border crossings and other roadside
inspection stations. Additionally, under
section 350, each participating motor
carrier will, within 18 months of being
granted provisional operating authority,
be subject to a full CR. During the CR,
the Agency plans to inspect both
‘‘program participating’’ and
‘‘nonparticipating’’ vehicles of a
Mexico-domiciled motor carrier that
operate in the United States.
Concerning how the violation rates
obtained from the study will be used,
these rates will be directly compared to
similar rates from U.S. motor carriers.
Although a motor carrier’s crash history
is a good predictor of future crashes,
given the relatively short time frame of
the pilot study, it is anticipated that
participating motor carriers will have
very few, if any, crashes while operating
in the United States. Thus, violation
rates based on inspection data will be
used to assess the safety performance of
each participating motor carrier. This
same approach is used to evaluate U.S.
motor carriers. For example, six of the
seven performance metrics used to
assess a motor carrier’s safety risk under
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
the Agency’s Compliance, Safety,
Accountability (CSA) program are based
on data collected from the roadside.
Inspection data used in the study will
be based on Level 1, 2, and 3
inspections. The Agency anticipates that
inspections performed on program
participants’ trucks will be, on average,
as thorough and rigorous as those
performed on U.S. motor carriers. For
those violations only observable by a
Level 1 inspection, such as brake
violations, only Level 1 inspection data
will be used when making comparisons
between program participants and U.S.
motor carriers.
The Agency plans to evaluate the
safety performance of the Mexicodomiciled motor carriers participating
in the pilot project by looking at a
variety of metrics and comparing their
performance on these metrics with the
performance of U.S. motor carriers. All
of these metrics represent proportions of
some type (proportion of inspections
having a particular violation, or the
proportion of motor carriers having a
particular violation), and, as such,
statistical tests designed for comparing
proportions from two populations can
be used. The metrics to be evaluated are
discussed below.
Vehicle Out of Service (OOS) Rate.
The vehicle OOS rate will be calculated
in two different ways for the Mexicodomiciled motor carriers. First, the rate
will be calculated in the standard
manner, summing up all vehicle OOS
violations found from all vehicles
belonging to Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier participants, divided by the total
number of vehicle inspections
performed in the United States on these
vehicles during the study.
In addition, a vehicle OOS rate will be
calculated for each participating motor
carrier based upon the data collected
during the duration of the pilot
program. Using these carrier-level OOS
rates, the average value for these carrierlevel vehicle OOS rates will then be
computed by summing up the
individual vehicle OOS rates and
dividing by the number of motor
carriers having an OOS rate assigned to
them. This last statistic, which is the
average value of each motor carrier’s
OOS rate, will be used as a check to
determine if the standard vehicle OOS
rate calculated for the Mexican trucks
participating in the pilot program is
dominated by data from a small number
of carriers. If it is, then more emphasis
will be placed on the average OOS rate
in the analysis.
Vehicle Violation Rate. The vehicle
violation rate is similar to the vehicle
OOS rate, except that all violations will
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
be considered, rather than just OOS
violations.
Driver OOS Rate. The driver OOS rate
for the Mexico-domiciled drivers
participating in the pilot program will
be calculated in the same manner as the
vehicle OOS rates. First, the rate will be
calculated in the standard manner,
summing up all driver OOS violations
found from all Mexico-domiciled
drivers participating in the pilot,
divided by the total number of driver
inspections performed on these drivers
during the study. In addition, the driver
OOS rate will be calculated for each
Mexico-domiciled motor carrier in the
pilot, and these carrier-level driver OOS
rates will next be averaged over all
participating motor carriers.
Driver Violation Rate. The driver
violation rate is similar to the driver
OOS rate, except that all violations will
be considered, rather than just OOS
violations.
Safety Audit Pass Rate. The
percentage of motor carriers in the pilot
program that pass the PASA will be
calculated and compared to the
percentage of U.S.-domiciled motor
carriers that pass the new entrant safety
audit. The Agency recognizes that there
are differences in these two types of
reviews. However, they both evaluate
success at meeting the established safety
standards.
Crash Rate. Because crashes are
relatively rare events, FMCSA will
likely have insufficient crash data to
evaluate safety performance of Mexicodomiciled motor carriers in this area.
However, if sufficient data are available
to produce meaningful statistical
results, crash rate comparisons will be
produced. It is anticipated that motor
carriers participating in the pilot
program will be involved in a wide
variety of trucking operations, and
many, if not most, of them will not be
operating their vehicles full-time in the
United States. For this reason, crash
rates for carriers participating in the
pilot program will be calculated in
terms of crashes per million miles, and
not crashes per power unit. All crashes
that have a severity level of towaway or
higher will be included in the crash
count.
Crash rates will be calculated based
on crashes occurring within both the
United States and Mexico, and on
mileage accumulated within both
countries.
Specific Violation Rates. In addition
to overall vehicle and driver violation
and OOS rates, violation rates for study
participants will be calculated for
specific types of violations, including
traffic enforcement, driver fitness, and
hours of service. These violation rates
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
measure safety performance in subject
areas considered key by Agency’s CSA
program. The purpose of this is to see
whether there are specific types of
violations that are more common among
the Mexico-domiciled carriers than their
U.S. counterparts.
Traffic Enforcement. Of particular
interest are traffic enforcement
violations pertaining to local laws,
including, but not limited to, speeding,
reckless driving, or driving too fast for
conditions. Because traffic enforcement
pertaining to driving only occurs when
a violation is suspected, the exposure
measure for these violation rates will
not be total inspections, but, rather, the
total number motor carrier trucks
participating in the program, prorated
by the number of months each motor
carrier is in the pilot program. This
traffic enforcement violation rate will be
compared to a similar rate for US.domiciled motor carriers, based on 36
months of data.
Driver Fitness. A driver fitness
violation rate will be calculated for the
motor carriers participating in the pilot
program by summing-up all of the
driver fitness-related violations detected
during the program for participating
motor carriers, divided by their total
number of inspections. This statistic
will be compared to this same rate for
U.S.-domiciled motor carriers.
Hours-of-Service. An hours-of-service
violation rate will be calculated for the
motor carriers participating in the pilot
program by summing-up all of the
hours-of-service violations detected
during the program for participating
motor carriers, divided by their total
number of inspections. This statistic
will be compared to this same rate for
U.S.-domiciled motor carriers.
The Agency will conduct a peer
review to assess the study design. Upon
its conclusion, we will submit the
results of the peer review to the docket
for this notice. If the peer review results
in recommended changes, the Agency
will publish a notice in the Federal
Register explaining the change.
Regarding the assertion that Mexicodomiciled drivers are not cited for
violations in the United States, FMCSA
does not have any information available
that would corroborate this statement.
11. Minimum Levels of Financial
Responsibility
The Coalition requested that the
minimum insurance requirements for all
CMVs, domestic and foreign, be
increased before conducting the pilot
program.
The American Association for Justice
interpreted the Agency’s regulations as
allowing participating motor carriers to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
self insure and suggested that all
Mexican motor carriers carry insurance
at all times.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA does not
agree with the Coalition’s suggestion
that motor carriers transporting general
freight should be required to have a
greater level of financial responsibility.
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers must
establish financial responsibility, as
required by 49 CFR part 387, through an
insurance carrier licensed in a State in
the United States. Based on the terms
provided in the required endorsement,
FMCSA Form MCS–90, if there is a final
judgment against the motor carrier for
loss and damages associated with a
crash in the United States, the insurer
must pay the claim. The financial
responsibility claims would involve
legal proceedings in the United States
and an insurer based here. There is no
reason that a Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier, insured by a U.S.-based
company, should be required to have a
greater level of insurance coverage than
a U.S.-based motor carrier.
Increasing the minimum levels of
financial responsibility for all motor
carriers is beyond the scope of this
notice and would require a rulemaking.
In accordance with section
350(a)(1)(B)(iv), FMCSA must verify
participating motor carriers’ proof of
insurance through a U.S., State-licensed
insurer. As a result, participating motor
carriers may not self-insure.
12. Vehicle Inspection and Fleet Safety
Teamsters expressed concern that
only the segment of the motor carrier’s
fleet participating in long-haul trucking
would be inspected. They also
questioned how inspections at ‘‘a rate
comparable to other Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers’’ will be effective.
Additionally, several commenters
questioned what level of inspections
would be conducted during each phase
of the pilot program.
FMCSA Response: As noted
previously, while only participating
vehicles will be inspected during the
PASA, the maintenance of all of the
motor carrier’s available vehicles that
operate in the United States will be
subject to inspection during the CR.
Additionally, motor carriers currently
operating within the border commercial
zone are subject to inspections on a
routine basis. The inspection rate of
border commercial zone motor carriers
is significantly higher than the average
U.S. motor carrier. As a result, at all
stages of the program, the participating
motor carriers’ drivers and vehicles are
expected to be inspected more
frequently than those of the average U.S.
motor carrier.
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40437
In FY 2010, FMCSA and its State
partners conducted 2,614,052
commercial vehicle inspections on U.S.based motor carriers with 4,125,778
CMVs. FMCSA and its State partners
conducted 256,151 CMV inspections on
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers within
the border commercial zones with
29,566 CMVs. Thus, the inspections
rates for U.S.-based motor carriers and
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers are
0.636336% and 8.6337% respectively.
At an inspection rate that is 13 times
greater for Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers, FMCSA is confident that the
inspections performed on motor carriers
during Stages 2 and 3 should be
sufficient to ensure continued safe
operations. Additionally, Mexicodomiciled motor carriers that are in
Stages 2 and 3 of the pilot program are
required to be inspected at least once
every 90 days in order to maintain a
valid CVSA safety decal.
FMCSA will use all available
inspection levels as well as license/
insurance check inspections on the
vehicles during the program. The level
of inspection chosen will depend on a
number of factors including the
presence of a CVSA decal, previous
history, and other observations by the
inspector. At a minimum, a Level I
inspection will be conducted if a CVSA
decal has expired or will soon expire.
It must also be noted that
participating vehicles will be required
to maintain a current CVSA decal and
must be inspected every 90 days. This
is not a requirement for U.S. motor
carriers or border commercial zone
motor carriers.
13. Transparency
Advocates requested that all of the
Agency’s agreements with Mexico be
subject to notice and comment and that
each step in the pilot program be subject
as well.
Advocates and ATA advised that the
monitoring group should be
independent from the Agency’s Motor
Carrier Safety Advisory Committee
(MCSAC), and Advocates further
indicated that under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the
use of a subcommittee of a Federal
advisory committee to provide
consensus advice and recommendations
to a Federal official is prohibited.
Advocates questioned whether the
MCSAC participants comprised persons
with backgrounds in basic research and
statistical analysis who can offer advice
on how decisions made by the
monitoring group will affect the
research design. Advocates requested
that FMCSA provide all reports to the
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
40438
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
appropriate congressional authorities
and the public in a timely fashion.
The Coalition requested that monthly
or quarterly reports of data collection be
made available to the public.
FMCSA Response: The FMCSA has
added copies of the 1991 MOU
regarding CDL reciprocity and the 1998
MOU regarding drug and alcohol testing
protocols to the docket for this notice.
However, these documents are for
informational purposes only and are not
the subject of comments as they were
negotiated by the Governments of the
United States and Mexico more than a
decade ago. The MOU between DOT
and SCT that has been under
negotiation since January 2011, is not
subject to public comment, and the
terms of that MOU have been explained
in the April 13, 2011, Federal Register
notice. The terms for U.S.-domiciled
motor carriers wishing to travel south
can be found in the draft rules proposed
by SCT, which have been placed in the
docket.
The FMCSA provided the opportunity
for notice and comment on all steps of
this pilot program through the notice
published on April 13, 2011, and will
not be providing another notice.
Regarding the monitoring groups,
FMCSA clarifies that there will be a
government monitoring group to discuss
bi-lateral operational issues. In addition,
there will be an independent monitoring
group.
The FMCSA agrees that the group
must be independent from the Agency.
As a result, FMCSA continues to believe
that the most efficient and effective
process is to establish a subcommittee of
the MCSAC. The MCSAC has proven
itself to be independent of the Agency.
We, however, want to clarify that the
subcommittee would be able to invite
input from individuals outside the
MCSAC itself and would report out
through the Committee. As a result,
consistent with FACA requirements,
only the MCSAC will transmit
recommendations and advice to the
FMCSA Administrator. FMCSA will
make reports of the monitoring group
available to the appropriate
congressional committees and the
public in a timely manner.
The FMCSA will maintain a
comprehensive Web site dedicated to
this pilot program to keep the public
informed about how the program
progresses. In addition to the specific
information mentioned within this
notice, FMCSA will publish the name
and DOT Number of each participating
motor carrier, the Vehicle Identification
Numbers (VIN) of all vehicles approved
for long-haul transportation, details on
the driver/vehicle inspections the motor
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
carrier has received, and details on any
crashes involving the motor carrier.
FMCSA will also publish aggregate data
regarding the number of trips taken by
participating motor carriers and the
destinations of those trips.
14. Resources
Senator John D. Rockefeller expressed
a concern about the adequacy of
FMCSA, State law enforcement, and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) resources to support the program.
Representative Hunter indicated he
believed the Agency had gaps in its
ability to properly manage the previous
program. OOIDA indicated that based
on contacts at the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, more
training on cabotage is needed.
The Texas Department of Motor
Vehicles recommends that FMCSA
provide financial assistance to the
Border States to off-set the Border
States’ administrative and enforcement
expenses related to the pilot program.
FMCSA Response: The FMCSA notes
that the number of Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers and vehicles that will
participate in the pilot program is
extremely small compared to the
population of motor carriers and
vehicles currently operating within the
border commercial zones. Most of the
motor carriers that would participate in
the pilot program already have authority
to operate in the border commercial
zones, so their participation in the
program would not result in a
significant increase in the population of
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
operating in the United States. Further,
as to concerns regarding possible strains
on border inspection facility capacity, it
should be noted that FMCSA has no
reason to believe the number of Mexican
trucks crossing the border during the
pilot program will increase significantly
because the cargo carried by the longhaul trucks would have crossed the
border in any event via short-haul,
border commercial zone trucks.
The FMCSA and its State partners
have sufficient staff, facilities,
equipment, and procedures in place to
meet the requirements of this pilot
program. This conclusion is based on
the Agency’s experience providing
safety oversight for Mexico-domiciled
motor carriers currently authorized to
operate within the border commercial
zones and on its regular liaison with its
State enforcement partners with whom
the Agency has worked for years in
anticipation of the opening of the border
to long-haul Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers. In fact, during the previous
program, FMCSA was able to confirm
that over 99 percent of the participating
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
vehicles received an inspection at the
border. Further, FMCSA can find no
evidence that the remaining less than
one percent of the vehicles were not
inspected as they crossed the border,
and neither the OIG, nor the
Independent Panel, nor any other entity
has identified any vehicles that crossed
without an inspection. FMCSA
currently employs 260 Federal
personnel dedicated to border
enforcement activities.
In response to the OOIDA’s concerns
about the burden on the States for
providing safety oversight for Mexicodomiciled motor carriers and the Texas
Department of Motor Vehicles comment
regarding making funding available to
Border States, FMCSA is authorized
under 49 U.S.C. 31107 to provide border
enforcement grants for carrying out
CMV safety programs and related
enforcement activities and projects and
has $32 million available in FY2011 for
this purpose. The Agency’s State
partners along the border employ 456
State officials for this purpose.
Therefore, the Congress has provided
funding for enforcement resources
dedicated exclusively to ensuring the
safe operation of foreign-domiciled
motor carrier operations.
The FMCSA works with the States to
ensure that motor carrier safety
enforcement personnel receive
extensive training. From 2008 to date,
over 5,800 State motor carrier safety
inspectors have received North
American Standard (NAS) inspection
procedures training. The NAS training
course is designed to provide State
motor carrier safety enforcement
personnel with the basic knowledge,
skills, practices, and procedures
necessary for performing inspections
under the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program (MCSAP).
Additionally, through the Agency’s
partnership with the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP),
four Foreign CMV Awareness Training
sessions have been conducted on a
recurring basis including a session that
covers cabotage laws. Approximately
215 officers were certified to train law
enforcement officers throughout the
United States using this course which
includes cabotage information.
The training these officers will
provide to other law enforcement
officials will ensure patrol officers are
informed about potential safety and
enforcement issues involving foreignbased CMVs and drivers operating
beyond the border commercial zones.
Therefore, not only has FMCSA
provided funding resources to support
the States’ role in providing Safety
oversight for Mexico-domiciled motor
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 131 / Friday, July 8, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
carriers operating in the United States,
the Agency has provided training.
Presently, 1,755 law enforcement
officers have received such training.
Finally, during the program, FMCSA
will monitor for domestic point-to-point
transportation violations using the
information obtained from the GPS
feature of the electronic monitoring
devices installed on the vehicles and
during CRs.
15. Impact on Truck Drivers, Small
Fleets and Businesses
Over 1,000 commenters felt that this
pilot program would have a negative
economic impact on the United States at
a time when unemployment was high.
FMCSA Response: The FMCSA does
not believe the pilot program will have
a significant adverse impact on U.S.
motor carriers or drivers. As an initial
matter, however, it is important to note
that FMCSA lacks the authority to alter
the terms under which Mexicodomiciled motor carriers operate in the
United States based on the possible
economic impact of those motor carriers
on U.S. motor carriers. FMCSA’s
responsibility, pursuant to the
November 2002 presidential order, is to
implement NAFTA’s motor carrier
provisions in a manner consistent with
the motor carrier safety laws.
While the wages for a Mexicodomiciled driver may differ from those
of a U.S.-domiciled driver, wages
represent only one factor in the cost of
a trucking operation. The costs for safety
management controls to achieve full
compliance with U.S. safety
requirements, equipment maintenance,
fuel, taxes and insurance costs must also
be considered. Therefore, driver wages
alone should not be considered the
determining factor for an economic
advantage.
Also, Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers cannot compete against U.S.domiciled motor carriers for point-topoint deliveries of domestic freight
within the United States. Section
365.501(b) of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations, provides that ’’a Mexicodomiciled motor carrier may not
provide point-to-point transportation
services, including express delivery
services, within the United States for
goods other than international cargo.’’
FMCSA notes that engaging in domestic
point-to-point transportation in the U.S.
is operating beyond the scope of a
Mexico-domiciled motor carrier’s
authority, and FMCSA and its State
partners are actively engaged in
enforcing this regulation. Vehicles
caught in this practice will be placed
out-of-service, participating motor
carriers may be subject to civil penalties
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:52 Jul 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
of up to $11,000 and more
comprehensive review of operations by
FMCSA, and they could be removed
from the pilot program.
Issued on: June 29, 2011.
William Bronrott,
Deputy Administrator.
16. Concerns About Furthering Illegal
Activity
Numerous commenters noted the
existence of drug cartels in Mexico and
expressed concern that the long-haul
program would increase drug
trafficking.
FMCSA Response: The FMCSA
disagrees with the commenters on this
issue. FMCSA is not aware of any
information that would suggest the pilot
program will increase the extent to
which illegal activities occur. Mexicodomiciled motor carriers are already
allowed to operate in border commercial
zones. Many of the motor carriers that
may apply for authority to operate
beyond the border commercial zones
and participate in the pilot program are
already conducting CMV operations in
the U.S., albeit limited to the border
commercial zones. Moreover, as noted
above, FMCSA does not anticipate that
the pilot program will result in a
substantial increase in the number of
Mexican trucks crossing the border. It
follows that the pilot program will not
increase instances of cross-border drug
smuggling in any significant way.
Finally, as the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement’s inspections of
long-haul trucks will not change as a
result of this pilot, we do not believe
this program introduces any new risks.
40439
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
FMCSA’s Intent To Proceed With Pilot
Program
In consideration of the above, FMCSA
believes it is appropriate to commence
the pilot program after the Department’s
Inspector General completes his report
to Congress, as required by section
6901(b)(1) of the 2007 Appropriations
Act, and the Agency completes any
follow-up actions needed to address any
issues that may be raised in the report.
FMCSA reiterates that before an
applicant Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier may receive operating authority,
it must submit a complete and accurate
application; complete the DHS security
review process; successfully complete
the PASA; and file with FMCSA
evidence of adequate insurance from a
U.S. company. In addition, as stated
above, FMCSA will complete reviews of
Mexican licensing facilities to ensure
compliance with the 1991 MOU before
granting authority. FMCSA does not
anticipate that any Mexico-domiciled
motor carrier seeking participation in
the pilot program will receive its
provisional operating authority before
the first weeks of August 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2011–16886 Filed 7–7–11; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2011–0145]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption
Applications; Diabetes Mellitus
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA).
ACTION: Notice of applications for
exemption from the diabetes mellitus
standard; request for comments.
AGENCY:
FMCSA announces receipt of
applications from 22 individuals for
exemption from the prohibition against
persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce. If granted, the exemptions
would enable these individuals with
ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before August 8, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
bearing the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–
2011–0145 using any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
Instructions: Each submission must
include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note
that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy Act heading below for
further information.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time or
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM
08JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40420-40439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16886]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No FMCSA-2011-0097]
Pilot Program on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Long-Haul Trucking Provisions
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; response to public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its intent to proceed with the initiation of a United States-
Mexico cross-border long-haul trucking pilot program to test and
demonstrate the ability of Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate
safely in the United States beyond the municipalities in the United
States on the United States-Mexico international border or the
commercial zones of such municipalities (border commercial zones).
DATES: This notice is effective July 8, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may search background documents or comments to the
docket for this notice, identified by docket number FMCSA-2011-0097, by
visiting the:
eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for reviewing documents and comments.
Regulations.gov is available electronically 24 hours each day, 365 days
a year; or.
DOT Docket Room: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT Headquarters Building at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
Privacy Act System of Records Notice for the DOT Federal Docket
Management System published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008
(73 FR 3316), or you may visit https://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcelo Perez, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone (202) 366-9597; e-
mail marcelo.perez@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 13, 2011, FMCSA published a notice
in the Federal Register announcing its plans to initiate a pilot
program as part of FMCSA's implementation of the NAFTA cross-border
long-haul trucking provisions in compliance with section 6901(b)(2)(B)
of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, and requested public comments
on those plans. FMCSA reviewed, assessed, and evaluated the required
safety measures as noted in the notice, and considered all comments
received on or before May 13, 2011, in response to the April 13, 2011,
notice. Additionally, to the extent practicable, FMCSA considered
comments received after May 13, 2011. Once the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Inspector General completes his report to
Congress required by section 6901(b)(1) and the Agency completes any
follow up actions needed to address issues raised in the report, FMCSA
will proceed with the pilot program. FMCSA made changes and clarified
elements of the program as a result of comments to the docket. For
example, the Agency will include International Registration Plan (IRP)
and International Fuel Tax Association (IFTA) information in its pre-
authority safety audit (PASA) process; posted the Mexican regulations
in both English and Spanish in the docket for this notice; elaborated
on the inspection of available vehicles operating in the United States
during
[[Page 40421]]
the compliance review (CR); and confirmed that the PASA information
will be published in the Federal Register.
As indicated in the April 13, 2011, Federal Register notice, this
pilot program will not include operations that transport placarded
amounts of hazardous materials or passengers. In addition, on May 31,
2011, Mexico published its regulations that will govern a U.S. motor
carrier's application for authority to operate in Mexico. In its
regulations, Mexico specifies several types of transportation services,
vehicles, and operations as ineligible for authority to operate into
Mexico. These include oversized or overweight goods, industrial cranes,
vehicle towing or rescue, or packaging and courier services. Mexico is
allowing U.S. motor carriers of international freight to operate into
Mexico. Mexico has excluded these services, vehicles, and operations
from the program because they are not classified as, or pertinent to,
freight operations in Mexico; rather these types of operations are
subject to separate operating authority requirements than freight motor
carriers. While the United States does not distinguish between these
types of freight operations, in order to comply with the reciprocity
requirements of section 6901(a)(3), the United States will not issue
authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to transport oversized or
overweight goods, industrial cranes, or operate vehicle towing, rescue
or packaging and courier services in this pilot program.
Legal Basis
Section 6901(a) of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care,
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007
[Pub. L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112, 183, May 25, 2007] (2007 Appropriations
Act) provides that before DOT may obligate or expend any funds to grant
authority for Mexico-domiciled trucks to engage in cross-border long-
haul operations, DOT must first test granting such authority through a
pilot program that meets the standards of 49 U.S.C. 31315(c). In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(c)(2), in proposing a pilot program,
the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) has general authority to
conduct pilot programs ``that are designed to achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would
otherwise be achieved * * *..''
In a pilot program, DOT typically collects specific data for
evaluating alternatives to the regulations or innovative approaches to
safety while ensuring that the goals of the regulations are satisfied.
A pilot program may not last more than 3 years, and the number of
participants in a pilot program must be large enough to ensure
statistically valid findings. Pilot programs must include an oversight
plan to ensure that participants comply with the terms and conditions
of participation, and procedures to protect the health and safety of
study participants and the general public. A pilot program may be
initiated only after DOT publishes a detailed description of it in the
Federal Register and provides an opportunity for public comment.
Accordingly, on April 13, 2011, the Agency published a notice
announcing its intention to conduct a pilot program and soliciting
comment (76 FR 20807). This document responds to comments to the April
13, 2011 notice and provides additional information about the planned
pilot program as requested by commenters. While a pilot program may
provide temporary regulatory relief from one or more regulations to a
person or class of persons subject to the regulations, or a person or
class of persons who intends to engage in an activity that would be
subject to the regulations (49 U.S.C. 31315(c)(1) and (2)), in this
pilot program DOT does not propose to exempt or relieve Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers from any FMCSA safety regulation or evaluate
any less stringent alternatives to existing regulation. Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers participating in the program will be required
to comply with the existing motor carrier safety regulatory regime plus
certain additional requirements associated with acceptance into and
participation in the program.
Section 6901(a) of the 2007 Appropriations Act, the terms of which
have been incorporated in each subsequent DOT appropriations act, also
provides that this pilot program must comply with section 350 of the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2002 [Pub. L. 107-87, 115 Stat. 833, 864, December 18, 2001] (section
350). Section 350 prohibited FMCSA from using funds made available in
the 2002 DOT Appropriations Act to review or process applications from
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the border commercial
zones until certain preconditions and safety requirements were met. The
terms of section 350 have also been incorporated in each subsequent DOT
appropriations act. Section 350(a)(1) required FMCSA to perform a PASA
of any Mexico-domiciled motor carrier before that motor carrier is
allowed to engage in long-haul operations in the United States.
Vehicles the motor carrier will operate beyond the border commercial
zones that do not already have a Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA) decal are required to pass an inspection at the border port of
entry and obtain a decal before being allowed to proceed. Section
350(a)(4) also required DOT to give a distinctive identification number
to each Mexico-domiciled motor carrier that would operate beyond the
border commercial zones to assist inspectors in enforcing motor carrier
safety regulations. Additionally, every driver who will operate in the
United States must have a valid commercial driver's license issued by
Mexico. Section 350(c)(1) also required DOT's Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) to conduct a comprehensive review of the adequacy of
inspection capacity, information infrastructure, enforcement capability
and other specific factors relevant to safe operations by Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers; and section 350(c)(2) required the Secretary
to address the OIG's findings and certify that the opening of the
border poses no safety risk. The OIG was also directed to conduct
similar reviews at least annually thereafter. A number of the section
350 requirements were addressed by FMCSA in rulemakings published on
March 19, 2002 (67 FR 12653, 67 FR 12702, 67 FR 12758, 67 FR 12776) and
on May 13, 2002 (67 FR 31978).
Section 136 of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 [Division I of the
Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L, 111-8, 123 Stat. 524, 932,
March 11, 2009] (2009 Appropriations Act) prohibited DOT from expending
funds made available in the 2009 Appropriations Act to establish,
implement, or continue a cross-border motor carrier pilot program to
allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the border
commercial zones. The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 [Division A of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034,
December 16, 2009] (2010 Appropriations Act) did not bar DOT or FMCSA
from using funds on a cross-border long-haul program; but, pursuant to
section 135 of the 2010 Appropriations Act (123 Stat. at 3053) did
retain the requirements of section 6901 and section 350. Section
1101(a)(6) of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 [Pub.
L. 112-10, division B, 125 Stat. 102, 103, April
[[Page 40422]]
15, 2011] (2011 Appropriations Act), makes funding available for DOT
and other Federal agencies during Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 under the
authority and conditions specified in the 2010 Appropriations Act.
Section 6901 of the 2007 Appropriations Act also provided that
simultaneous and comparable authority to operate within Mexico must be
made available to U.S. motor carriers. Further, before the required
pilot program may begin, in accordance with section 6901(b)(1), the
Department's OIG must submit a report to Congress verifying that DOT
has complied with the requirements of section 350(a). DOT must take any
actions that are necessary to address issues raised by the OIG and must
detail those actions in a report to Congress. Section 6901(c) also
directed the OIG to submit an interim report to Congress 6 months after
the initiation of a cross-border long-haul Mexican trucking pilot
program and a final report after the pilot program is completed. The
statute further specified that the report address the program's
adequacy as a test of safety. Also, as a precondition to beginning the
pilot program, section 6901 of the 2007 Appropriations Act requires
that DOT provide an opportunity for public comment by publishing in the
Federal Register information on the PASAs conducted. DOT must also
publish, for comment, the standards that will be used to evaluate the
pilot program. The Agency must also provide a list of Federal motor
carrier safety laws and regulations, including commercial driver's
license (CDL) requirements, for which the Secretary will accept
compliance with corresponding Mexican law or regulation as the
equivalent to compliance with the U.S. law or regulation including an
analysis of how the corresponding United States and Mexican laws and
regulations differ. Further discussion of relevant U.S. and Mexican
safety laws and regulations is provided later in this notice.
Background
Introduction
Before 1982, Mexico- and Canada-domiciled motor carriers could
apply to the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), a former independent
Federal agency responsible for regulating, inter alia, motor carrier
operations and safety, for authority to operate within the United
States. As a result of complaints that U.S. motor carriers were not
allowed the same access to Mexican and Canadian markets that motor
carriers from those nations enjoyed in this country, the Bus Regulatory
Reform Act of 1982 [Pub. L. 97-261, 96 Stat. 2201, September 20, 1982]
imposed a moratorium on the issuance of new operating authority to
motor carriers domiciled, or owned or controlled by persons domiciled
in Canada or Mexico. While the disagreement with Canada was quickly
resolved, the issue of trucking reciprocity with Mexico was not.
Currently, most Mexico-domiciled motor carriers are allowed to
operate only within the border commercial zones typically extending up
to 25 to 50 miles into the United States. Every year, Mexico-domiciled
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) cross into the United States about 4.5
million times. Mexico granted reciprocal authority to 10 U.S.-domiciled
motor carriers to operate throughout Mexico during the time of FMCSA's
previous demonstration project, which was conducted between September
2007 and March 2009. Four of these motor carriers continue to operate
in Mexico.
Trucking issues at the United States-Mexico border were not fully
addressed until NAFTA was negotiated in the early 1990s. NAFTA required
the United States to incrementally lift the moratorium on licensing
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the border commercial
zones. On January 1, 1994, President Clinton modified the moratorium
and the ICC began accepting applications from Mexico-domiciled
passenger motor carriers to conduct international charter and tour bus
operations in the United States (Memorandum for the Secretary of
Transportation, ``Determination Under the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of
1982,'' 59 FR 653, January 6, 1994). On December 13, 1995, the ICC
published a rule and a revised application form for the processing of
Mexico-domiciled property motor carrier applications (Form OP-1(MX))
(60 FR 63981). The ICC rule anticipated the implementation of the
second phase of NAFTA, providing Mexico-domiciled motor carriers of
property access to California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, and the
third phase, providing access throughout the United States. However, at
the end of 1995, the United States announced an indefinite delay in
opening the border to long-haul Mexico-domiciled long-haul motor
carrier operations.
In 1998, Mexico filed a claim against the United States under NAFTA
dispute resolution provisions alleging that the United States' refusal
to grant authority to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies constituted a
breach of the United States' NAFTA obligations. On February 6, 2001,
the arbitration panel, convened pursuant to NAFTA dispute resolution
provisions, issued its final report and ruled in Mexico's favor,
concluding that the United States was in breach of its obligations and
that Mexico could impose tariffs on U.S. exports to Mexico up to an
amount commensurate with the loss of business resulting from the lack
of U.S. compliance. The arbitration panel noted that the United States
could establish a safety oversight regime to ensure the safety of
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers entering the United States, but that
the safety oversight regime could not be discriminatory and must be
justified by safety data.
After President Bush announced the intent to resume the process for
opening the border in 2001, Congress enacted section 350, as discussed
in the ``Legal Basis'' section of this notice. FMCSA took various steps
to comply with section 350, including the issuance of new regulations
applicable to Mexico-domiciled long-haul motor carriers (67 FR 12702,
12758, March 19, 2002). These regulations were challenged on
environmental grounds in litigation that was ultimately decided in
FMCSA's favor by the U.S. Supreme Court (Department of Transportation
v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004)).
In November 2002, then Secretary Norman Mineta certified, as
required by section 350(c)(2), that authorizing Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier operations beyond the border commercial zones did not pose an
unacceptable safety risk to the American public. Later that month,
President Bush modified the moratorium to permit Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers to provide cross-border cargo and scheduled passenger
transportation beyond the border commercial zones. (Memorandum of
November 27, 2002, for the Secretary of Transportation, ``Determination
Under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995,'' 67
FR 71795, December 2, 2002). The Secretary's certification was made in
response to the June 25, 2002, DOT OIG report on the implementation of
safety requirements at the United States-Mexico border. In a January
2005 follow-up report, the OIG concluded that FMCSA had sufficient
staff, facilities, equipment, and procedures in place to substantially
meet the eight section 350 requirements that the OIG was required to
review. These reports are available in the docket for this notice.
Former Secretary Mary Peters and Mexico's former Secretary of the
Secretaria de Communicaciones y Transportes (SCT) Luis T[eacute]llez
Kuenzler
[[Page 40423]]
announced a demonstration project to implement certain trucking
provisions of NAFTA on February 23, 2007. The demonstration project was
initiated on September 6, 2007, after the DOT complied with the
conditions imposed by section 6901 of the 2007 Appropriations Act, as
discussed in the ``Legal Basis'' section of this notice. The
demonstration project was initially expected to last 1 year (72 FR
23883, May 1, 2007). On August 6, 2008, FMCSA announced that the
demonstration project was being extended from 1 year to the full 3
years allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31315(c)(2)(A) (73 FR 45796) after
Secretaries Peters and T[eacute]llez exchanged letters on the
extension.
On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed into law the 2009
Appropriations Act. Section 136 of the 2009 Appropriations Act provides
that:
[N]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
under this Act may be used, directly or indirectly, to establish,
implement, continue, promote, or in any way permit a cross-border
motor carrier pilot program to allow Mexican-domiciled motor
carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the
international border between the United States and Mexico, including
continuing, in whole or in part, any such program that was initiated
prior to the date of the enactment of this Act (123 Stat. at 932).
In accordance with section 136, FMCSA terminated the cross-border
demonstration project that began on September 6, 2007. The Agency
ceased processing applications by prospective project participants and
took other necessary steps to comply with the provision. (74 FR 11628,
March 18, 2009). In light of the termination, two consolidated lawsuits
challenging the project and pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit were dismissed as moot.
On March 19, 2009, Mexico announced that it was exercising its
rights under the 2001 NAFTA Arbitration Panel decision to impose
retaliatory tariffs for the failure to allow Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers to provide long-haul service into the United States. The
tariffs affect approximately 90 U.S. export commodities at an estimated
annual cost of $2.4 billion. The President directed DOT to work with
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of
State, along with leaders in Congress and Mexican officials, to propose
legislation creating a new cross-border trucking program, and to
address the legitimate safety concerns of Congress while fulfilling our
obligations under NAFTA. Secretary Ray LaHood met with numerous members
of Congress to solicit their input. FMCSA tasked its Motor Carrier
Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) with providing advice and guidance on
essential elements that the Agency should consider when drafting
proposed legislation to permit Mexico-domiciled motor carriers beyond
the border commercial zones. The MCSAC final report on this tasking is
available on the FMCSA MCSAC Web page at https://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov/Reports.htm. Additionally, DOT formed a team to draft principles that
would guide the creation of the draft legislation.
President Obama signed the 2010 Appropriations Act on December 16,
2009, which contained no prohibitions against using FY 2010 funds to
conduct a cross border long-haul program (unlike the 2009
Appropriations Act) and retained requirements specified in section 350
and section 6901 of the 2007 Appropriations Act.
On April 12, 2010, Secretary LaHood met with Mexico's former
Secretary of SCT, Juan Molinar Horcasitas, and announced a plan to
establish a working group to consider the next steps in implementing a
cross-border trucking program. On May 19, 2010, President Obama and
Mexico's President Felipe Calderon Hinojosa issued a joint statement
acknowledging that safe, efficient, secure, and compatible
transportation is a prerequisite for mutual economic growth. They
committed to continue their countries' cooperation in system planning,
operational coordination, and technical cooperation in key modes of
transportation.
The Initial Concept Document and the Preliminary Agreement
On January 6, 2011, Secretary LaHood shared with Congress and the
Government of Mexico an initial concept document for a cross-border
long-haul Mexican trucking pilot program that prioritizes safety, while
satisfying the U.S. international obligations. On the same day, the
Department posted the concept documents on its Web site for public
viewing (https://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/dot0111.html). The initial
concept document was the starting point for renewed negotiations with
Mexico; and the United States commenced discussions with the Government
of Mexico on January 18, 2011. The preliminary agreement between DOT
and SCT is reflected in the program description and described below.
On March 3, 2011, President Obama met with Mexico's President
Calderon and announced that there is a clear path forward to resolving
the trucking issues between the United States and Mexico.
On April 13, 2011, FMCSA published notice of the pilot program on
NAFTA Long-Haul Trucking Provisions in the Federal Register (76 FR
20807) and the comment period ended May 13, 2011.
The Agency explained that the pilot program will allow Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers to operate throughout the United States for up
to 3 years, and that U.S.-domiciled motor carriers will be granted
reciprocal rights to operate in Mexico for the same period.
Participating Mexico-domiciled motor carriers and drivers must comply
with all applicable U.S. motor carrier safety laws and regulations, as
well as other applicable U.S. laws and regulations, inter alia, those
concerned with customs, immigration, vehicle emissions, employment,
vehicle registration, and vehicle/fuel taxation.
The Agency explained that the safety performance of the
participating motor carriers will be tracked closely by FMCSA and its
State partners, a Federal Advisory Committee Act group, and the OIG.
The Agency will monitor and evaluate the data from the pilot program as
a test of the granting of authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
to conduct long-haul operations in the United States. FMCSA indicated
that it anticipated participating motor carriers may be able to convert
their provisional status under the pilot program to ``permanent''
authority under the pilot program after operating 18 months and
successfully completing a compliance review (CR). This ``permanent''
authority under the pilot program, in turn, may be converted into
standard permanent authority upon completion or termination of the
pilot program. It should be noted that the Agency will be maintaining
its oversight strategies and resources that have been reviewed by the
OIG during the previous demonstration project and the OIG's other
reviews of the Agency's compliance with section 350. The April 13th
notice outlined how the Agency would maintain those strategies and
augment them with new strategies to address stakeholder input. This
notice responds to comments on those previous and augmented strategies.
As indicated in the April 13, 2011, Federal Register notice, this
pilot program will not include operations that involve the transport of
placarded amounts of hazardous materials or passengers. As noted in the
``Summary'' section of this notice, Mexico's regulations identify other
types of CMV operations and services as ineligible for authority to
operate into Mexico. These include the transportation of oversized
[[Page 40424]]
or overweight goods, industrial cranes, vehicle towing or rescue, or
packaging and courier services. Mexico is allowing U.S. motor carriers
of international freight to operate into Mexico. In order to comply
with the reciprocity requirements of section 6901(a)(3) of the 2007
Appropriations Act, the United States will not issue authority to
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to transport oversized or overweight
goods, industrial cranes, or operate vehicle towing, rescue, or
packaging and courier services in this pilot program.
Discussion of Comments
The notice and comment process for all pilot programs is required
by statute (49 U.S.C. 31315) with the intent of providing all
interested parties with the opportunity to review information published
by the Agency and to comment on the specific details about any proposed
pilot program. As of June 1, 2011, FMCSA received 2,254 comments or
docket submissions in response to the April 13, 2011, notice. Over
1,000 comments were submitted by individuals on behalf of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters).
There were three recurring submissions from individuals that made
up the majority of the comments. These commenters expressed concerns
about the violence in Mexico and indicated that the pilot program will
negatively impact U.S. jobs at a time when unemployment is high.
Approximately 1,000 of the comments were submissions by individuals
suggesting that the Agency should abandon the idea of a pilot program.
Generally, these comments did not include information concerning the
technical details of the Agency's proposal (e.g., specific safety
oversight procedures or processes), economic or legal aspects of the
pilot program, or any other information supporting the view that the
program should not be pursued. While FMCSA is not responding to these
comments individually, the Agency believes that its responses to the
substantive comments received address the brief comments submitted by
these individuals.
Moreover, the purpose of this pilot program is to test the granting
of authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to conduct long-haul
operation in the United States, in order to evaluate the ability of
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate safely in the United States
beyond the border commercial zones as part of DOT's implementation of
the NAFTA land transportation provisions. While FMCSA acknowledges
these commenters' concerns, the issues are beyond the scope of the
pilot project in that they do not relate to the safe operation of CMVs
by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers or compliance with U.S. motor
carrier safety regulations. Therefore, these comments will not be
addressed in this notice.
The remaining comments were from members of Congress, companies,
organizations, associations, and individuals expressing their views on
specific details about the pilot program.
The Agency's announcement of its intent to proceed with the program
is based on its consideration of all data and information currently
available, including information submitted by the commenters.
The Agency received substantive comments from: Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates); Teamsters; the American Trucking
Associations (ATA); California Trucking Association (CTA); the Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA); International
Registration Plan (IRP), the Border Trade Alliance (BTA), the American
Association for Justice (AAJ), Werner Enterprises, and the Truck Safety
Coalition (Coalition)--a partnership with Citizens for Reliable and
Safe Highways and Parents Against Tired Truckers. In addition, comments
were received from several U.S. Representatives and Senators.
General Support for the Pilot Program
Many commenters supported the pilot program and recognized its
importance in meeting U.S. obligations under NAFTA. U.S. companies and
their representative associations that have been negatively impacted by
the tariffs imposed by the Government of Mexico as a result of the
termination of the previous demonstration project also expressed their
strong support for the program. Companies negatively impacted by the
tariffs included Oceanspray, Kraft Foods, Con Agra, Campbell Soup
Company, American Frozen Foods Institute, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, National Potato Council, North American Equipment Dealers
Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Association of
Food, Beverage and Consumer Products Companies, Distilled Spirits
Council of the United States, Fresh Produce Association of the
Americas, Mars, National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture, the Snack Food Association, and Tysons Food. These
commenters expressed their support for the pilot program as the means
to remove the tariffs that have negatively impacted their industries.
Supporters of the pilot program include U.S. Representatives Mike
Thompson and Reid Ribble. Representative Thompson stated,
The proposal the Administration crafted includes important
protections to ensure trucks crossing the border are operating
safely on our roadways and under our environmental standards,
allowing us to monitor and inspect vehicles before they are approved
for cross-border trucking operations. I believe implementation of
this revised pilot program provides a clear path toward the
elimination of these harmful retaliatory tariffs and normalization
of trade between our two countries, while also ensuring the
integrity of our roadways.
Thirteen commenters--including the U.S. Apple Association, the
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and the National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture--referenced the Congressional Research
Service and/or OIG reports that concluded during the previous 18-month
pilot program, Mexican trucks were as safe as--if not safer than--their
U.S. counterparts and were subject to far more inspections.
U.S. Representative Doc Hastings and 29 congressional colleagues
provided a letter in support of the pilot program, stating,
As you know, Mexico imposed $2.6 billion in retaliatory tariffs
on 99 U.S. agricultural and manufacturing products more than two
years ago, after the United States halted a cross-border trucking
program that was designed to bring the United States into compliance
with our international obligations in a matter consistent with U.S.
law. Since then, Mexico has rotated the tariffs to cover additional
products, and Mexican officials have made clear they are prepared to
do so yet again.
These tariffs have already cost tens of thousands of U.S. jobs
and over $4 billion to U.S. job creators, at a time when our economy
is already struggling. It is imperative for U.S. workers and
exporters that these tariffs be eliminated. Mexico has agreed to
suspend fifty percent of the tariffs across the board once the new
cross-border trucking pilot program is officially instituted and
remaining tariffs once the first permit is issued under the program.
The success of this pilot program is, thus, critical for U.S.
workers and exporters--and for U.S. economic recovery.
This letter concluded with the statement that,
In short, we have long believed that the United States can
strengthen its economy by resolving this major issue with one of our
largest trading partners--in a manner that fully ensures the safety
of U.S. highways. This pilot program and its substantial safeguards
are prudent and responsible. We strongly encourage you to move
forward with finalizing and implementing this plan as soon as
possible. These tariffs have done irreparable damage to our local
economies, and U.S. workers, farmers, manufacturers,
[[Page 40425]]
and other exporters simply cannot afford any further delays.
The United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce stated,
In 2010, Mexico and the United States enjoyed a nearly $400
billion trade relationship, and 70 percent of it travels by truck in
an antiquated transportation system that requires three trucks and
three drivers to do the job of one. This not only bloats producer
and consumer prices by hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It
also fails to fulfill the benefits (particularly lower
transportation costs) that accrue from U.S.-Mexico proximity--a key
NAFTA advantage. Doing so now clearly would boost U.S. and North
American competitiveness against economic rivals and result in still
more jobs.
The Cato Institute advised,
The failure of Congress to allow implementation of the NAFTA
trucking provisions has proven costly to the United States in three
important ways.
First, U.S. failure to comply has deprived our economy of the
efficiencies of moving goods across our mutual border at lower cost.
With the ban in place, trucks approaching the border are required to
unload their cargo into warehouses in so-called commercial zones
within 25 miles of the border, only to have that cargo reloaded onto
short-haul vehicles and then onto domestic trucks for final
delivery. This inefficient system causes delays, increased pollution
and added costs at busy border crossings such as Calexico East; San
Ysidro; Nogales, Ariz.; and Laredo, Texas. Because more than 70
percent of U.S. trade with Mexico travels by truck, the ban on
cross-border trucking imposes an additional $200 million to $400
million in transportation costs each year, according to the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
Second, failure to comply has exposed U.S. exporters to
perfectly legal sanctions imposed by the Mexican government. Under
the provisions of NAFTA, and after waiting patiently for more than a
decade, the Mexican government imposed sanctions in 2009 on more
than $2.4 billion in U.S. exports affect 100 products, from
Washington apples to Iowa pork. The sanctions would be lifted in two
stages as the U.S. government implements the proposed program to
comply with Annex I.
Third, failure to comply has compromised the U.S. government's
reputation as a good citizen of the global trading system. Simply
put, the U.S. government has failed to keep its word to our Mexican
neighbors. Our government has been in flagrant violation of a major
trade agreement for more than 15 years. This breach of trust has
undermined the U.S. government's standing to challenge other
governments, from Mexico to China to the European Union, who may
also be in violation of various trade agreements. The Obama
administration's promise to more vigorously ``enforce'' our rights
in the World Trade Organization and other agreements will lack
credibility as long as the U.S. government fails to comply with such
clear commitments as the trucking provisions of NAFTA.
For all these reasons, the U.S. government should act as quickly
and as thoroughly as possible to implement the proposed regulations
to bring our nation into compliance with our mutually beneficial
agreement with our Mexican neighbors on cross-border trucking.
General Opposition to the Pilot Program
Most of the individual commenters to the April 13 notice expressed
concerns about the following:
(1) The U.S. Government's funding of the electronic monitoring
devices for participating Mexico-domiciled motor carriers;
(2) Mexico's standards for CDLs;
(3) The accuracy and completeness of Mexico's driver records;
(4) Compliance with hours-of-service requirements; and
(5) Comparable access for U.S. motor carriers.
U.S. Senator John D. Rockefeller and U.S. Representative Peter A.
DeFazio both noted the economic impacts of NAFTA. Representative
DeFazio expressed concern that ``the Administration is not launching a
pilot program, but rather starting the full liberalization of cross-
border trucking without having fully addressed the concerns raised by
members of Congress surrounding safety, security, and job impacts that
will necessarily arise.'' Representative DeFazio further suggested
``that the U.S. should renegotiate U.S. NAFTA Annex I (I-U-21) * * *
thus eliminat[ing] the requirement to open our borders to Mexican
trucks.''
U.S. Representative Bob Filner and U.S. Senator Mark Pryor also
expressed concerns about the pilot program. Representative Filner's
concerns included traffic congestion at our land port-of-entry and the
impact on border wait times. He stated that, ``Many of my constituents
already have to wait in lines several hours each day to cross the
border * * *. We simply do not have enough Border Patrol and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at the border to deal with
the existing traffic or the heavy burden of the proposed program.''
U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter, Jr. and 43 additional members of
Congress co-signed a letter to the Secretary communicating their
concerns about safety, the costs of electronic monitoring devices, and
violence in Mexico. A copy of each congressional letter is available in
the docket for this notice.
1. Operating Authority Under the Pilot Program
The Coalition stated that the pilot program participants should not
be granted permanent authority before completion of the pilot program
and evaluation of the results. The Coalition stated that, ``Granting
permanent operating authority before the Pilot Program is completed
undermines the purpose of the experiment and data collection and puts
the public at serious risk.''
Representative DeFazio questioned how the Agency could comply with
49 U.S.C. 31315, which requires DOT to immediately revoke the
participation of any motor carrier or driver who fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the pilot program, if the Agency is
granting permanent authority.
OOIDA challenged the Agency's statutory authority for issuing
operating authority. OOIDA averred that 49 U.S.C. 13902 precludes FMCSA
from accepting compliance with certain Mexican laws and regulations in
lieu of compliance with U.S. laws and regulations. OOIDA stated,
``FMCSA is simply not authorized to issue operating authority to any
motor carrier (U.S. or Mexican) unless that carrier agrees to comply
with applicable U.S. statutes and regulations.'' To support its
position, OOIDA quoted a statement in the November 27, 2002, Memorandum
of the President for the Secretary of Transportation, ``Determination
Under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995,'' (65
FR 71795, November 27, 2002), which terminated a moratorium on issuing
operating authority to Mexico-domiciled motor carriers:
Motor carriers domiciled in Mexico operating in the United
States will be subject to the same Federal and State laws,
regulations, and procedures that apply to carriers domiciled in the
United States.
Advocates questioned whether FMCSA will be granting temporary
operating authority to any participating Mexico-domiciled long-haul
motor carriers before they are accepted into the pilot program.
Advocates also stated that it opposes the granting of any operating
authority, including temporary authority, in advance of FMCSA's
publication of a notice in the Federal Register describing its data and
information on completed PASAs and its analysis of public comments in
response to the notice concerning the completed PASAs. Advocates also
requested ``that the agency publish all the PASAs of all the
participating motor carriers in advance of the start of the Pilot
Program and before any motor carriers are granted temporary operating
authority.''
FMCSA Response: FMCSA's Authority to Issue Operating Authority.
Title 49 U.S.C. 13902(a) directs FMCSA
[[Page 40426]]
to grant operating authority to motor carriers that comply with all
applicable safety regulations and financial responsibility
requirements. As discussed in the ``Legal Basis'' section above,
section 6901(a) of the 2007 Appropriations Act requires that before
FMCSA may obligate or expend any funds to grant authority for Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers to engage in cross-border long-haul
operations, it is required to first test granting such authority
through a pilot program that meets the standards of 49 U.S.C. 31315(c).
By expressly providing for pilot programs in 49 U.S.C. 31315(c), and
requiring FMCSA to first test the granting of long-haul authority to
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers through a pilot program, Congress
clearly contemplated that motor carriers participating in a test
meeting the conditions of section 31315(c) would lawfully be granted
operating authority under 49 U.S.C. 13902(a). Furthermore, the pilot
program satisfies the fundamental statutory standard of equivalent
safety protection and all other pilot program requirements. The safety-
equivalence standard in section 31315(c) requires that the pilot
program be designed to achieve a safety level equal to that prevailing
under existing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The
pilot program does not relax U.S. regulations for participants. Rather,
it simply implements the presidential order lifting geographic
limitations on cross-border trucking for a limited number of Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers and imposes additional layers of safety
monitoring upon those motor carriers. Existing Federal regulations
already recognize and accept the Mexican Licencia Federal de Conductor
(LFC) as equivalent to the U.S. CDL, (Sec. 383.23(b) and footnote) and
pursuant to these regulations, thousands of LFC holders have driven
Mexican trucks into the United States since their adoption in 1992 and
continue to do so today. In all other significant respects, U.S.
requirements apply with full force to participants in the pilot
program. The Agency, by showing that the pilot program satisfies the
standard of equivalent safety protection imposed by 49 U.S.C. 31315(c),
satisfies the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 13902(a).
Permanent Operating Authority under the Pilot Program. Some
commenters seemed to misapprehend the reference to ``pilot program
permanent authority'' in the April 13, 2011 notice. That authority is
not the same as standard permanent authority; will not continue after
the expiration of the pilot program (unless converted into standard
permanent authority); and may be revoked at any time if the operator
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the pilot program.
All operating authority granted under the pilot program will be
subject to the terms and conditions of the pilot program. Under the
pilot program, participating motor carriers will have the opportunity
to operate under three successive stages of monitoring. Stage 1 will
begin when the motor carrier is issued a provisional operating
authority. The motor carrier's vehicles and drivers approved for long-
haul transportation will be inspected each time they enter the United
States for at least 3 months. This initial 3-month period may be
extended if the motor carrier does not receive at least three vehicle
inspections. FMCSA will also conduct an evaluation of the motor
carrier's performance during Stage 1.
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers may be permitted to proceed to
Stage 2 of the pilot program after FMCSA completes an evaluation of the
motor carrier's performance in Stage 1. During Stage 2, the motor
carrier's vehicles and drivers participating in the pilot program will
be inspected at a rate comparable to other Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers that cross the United States-Mexico border. The motor
carrier's safety data will be monitored to assure the motor carrier is
operating in a safe manner. Within 18 months after a Mexico-domiciled
motor carrier is issued provisional operating authority, FMCSA will
conduct a CR on the motor carrier. If the motor carrier obtains a
satisfactory safety rating, has no pending enforcement or safety
improvement actions, and has operated under provisional authority for
at least 18 months, the provisional operating authority will become
permanent, moving the motor carrier into Stage 3.
Stage 3 of the pilot program includes participating Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers that have successfully operated for an 18-
month monitoring period, have a satisfactory safety rating from a CR,
and have no pending enforcement or safety improvement actions. Motor
carriers that advance to Stage 3 of the pilot program will operate
under permanent operating authority under, and fully subject to the
requirements of, the pilot program. Granting this permanent operating
authority under the pilot program does not restrict the Agency's
authority to remove from the program any motor carrier that fails to
comply with terms and conditions of the pilot program. Under 49 U.S.C.
31315, FMCSA may revoke participation in the pilot program of a motor
carrier, CMV, or driver for failure to comply with the terms and
conditions of the pilot program.
The successive stages in the pilot program are intended to be
consistent with the Agency's regulations promulgated in 2002 related to
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operating beyond the border commercial
zones (49 CFR part 365, subpart E). Those regulations provide for a
Mexico-domiciled motor carrier to be initially granted provisional
operating authority and be subject to increased monitoring. The
authority, by definition, is provisional because it will be revoked if
the motor carrier is not assigned a satisfactory safety rating
following a CR conducted during an 18-month safety monitoring period
established in the regulations. Under these regulations, if, at the end
of 18-months of monitoring the motor carrier's most recent safety
rating is satisfactory and the motor carrier does not have any pending
enforcement or safety improvement actions, the Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier's provisional operating authority becomes permanent. However,
this authority is still subject to revocation as detailed above.
Section 6901 requires FMCSA to first test the granting of operating
authority for long-haul operation by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
through a pilot program. An important component and improvement of this
pilot program is that by using the progressive stages of monitoring,
the Agency is able to test the full range of its regulations while
effectively monitoring Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to ensure the
safety of long-haul operations and that such operations are conducted
in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
In accordance with section 6901(c), within 60 days after the
conclusion of the pilot program, the OIG is required to review the
program and submit to Congress a final report addressing whether FMCSA
has established sufficient mechanisms to determine whether the pilot
program is having any adverse effects on motor carrier safety, and
whether Federal and State monitoring and enforcement activities are
sufficient to ensure that participants in the pilot program are in
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Only at the
conclusion of the pilot program will Mexico-domiciled motor carriers
that participated in the pilot program and advanced to the Stage 3
permanent authority in the pilot program be eligible to convert their
pilot program permanent authority to standard permanent authority.
FMCSA has not yet developed the procedures for such conversions, but
anticipates the
[[Page 40427]]
procedures will establish an administrative process that would occur
once the pilot program ends.
Granting of Provisional Operating Authority. The Agency may have
caused some confusion in the April 13, 2011, notice when it stated that
``the Agency will publish a summary of the application as a provisional
grant of authority in the FMCSA Register.'' FMCSA will review and act
on applications for authority in the pilot program in accordance with
applicable regulations. The Agency's rules governing applications for
authority are codified in 49 CFR part 365. FMCSA is required under its
regulations to publish a summary of each application for motor carrier
operating authority, regardless of the applicant's country of domicile,
as a preliminary grant of operating authority for public notice in the
FMCSA Register (49 CFR 365.109(b) and 365.507(d)). For prospective
pilot program participants, such publication will occur only after the
motor carrier successfully completes the PASA and FMCSA approves the
application. Such publication of the application as a preliminary grant
of authority in the FMCSA Register is not an issuance of temporary
authority, but a notice to the public to permit interested parties
wishing to oppose the authority to submit a protest to FMCSA. A
preliminary grant of authority cannot become effective or active
operating authority for a minimum of 10 days after publication. If a
motor carrier successfully completes the PASA and FMCSA approves its
application, the Agency will publish a summary of the application as a
preliminary grant of authority in the FMCSA Register at: https://li-public.fmcsa.dot.gov/LIVIEW/pkg_html.prc_limain. To review these
notices, select ``FMCSA Register'' from the pull down menu.
The FMCSA emphasizes that the public has the opportunity to comment
in response to the FMCSA Register on every operating authority
application that the Agency proposes to grant and that motor carriers
may not operate during the comment period. Any member of the public may
protest a motor carrier's application on the grounds that the motor
carrier is not fit, willing, or able to provide the transportation
services for which it has requested approval. FMCSA must consider all
protests before determining whether to grant provisional operating
authority to the motor carrier. The Agency's regulations regarding
protests, codified at 49 CFR part 365 subpart B, set forth the
procedures for protesting operating authority requests, including
requests filed by U.S.- and Canada-domiciled motor carriers.
As required by section 6901(b)(2)(B)(i) of the 2007 Appropriations
Act, 2007, FMCSA will also publish in the Federal Register, and solicit
comment on comprehensive data and information relating to the PASAs of
motor carriers domiciled in Mexico that are granted authority in the
pilot program to operate beyond the border commercial zones. Therefore,
the public has two opportunities to comment on Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers' applications: (1) In response to the application summary
information posted on the FMCSA Register, and in response to the
Federal Register notice required by section 6901(b)(2)(B)(i) of the
2007 Appropriations Act. Provisional authority will not be granted
until these processes and their respective notice periods are complete.
While FMCSA will publish information on the results of the PASA in
the Federal Register for public comment for each motor carrier before
granting the motor carrier provisional operating authority, FMCSA is
not able to publish the results of the PASAs for all motor carriers
that may ultimately apply to participate in the pilot program before
the program begins. FMCSA will have no way of knowing at the beginning
of the pilot program all of the motor carriers that may decide to apply
to participate in the program during its three year duration and,
therefore, could not publish the results of all PASAs before beginning
the pilot program. Additional motor carriers that apply to participate
in the pilot program after it begins will also be subject to PASAs, and
the results of those PASAs will be published in the Federal Register
before any such motor carrier is granted provisional operating
authority.
2. Pilot Program Improperly Exempts Mexico-Domiciled Motor Carriers
From Safety Laws and Regulations
OOIDA contends that accepting Mexican standards and regulations in
lieu of U.S. statutes and regulations results in an exemption, and that
FMCSA has failed to follow its authority and regulations for
exemptions. OOIDA stated that, ``Excusing compliance with U.S.
regulations for the duration of its pilot program certainly qualifies
as `temporary regulatory relief' for a person or class of persons
subject to those regulations.'' OOIDA asserts that this, therefore,
requires the Agency to follow the procedures for granting exemptions
from U.S. regulations and deprives interested parties procedural
protections.
FMCSA Response: This pilot program does not provide Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers with exemptions from any statutory
requirements or any of the Agency's regulations or make them eligible
for any existing exemption. To the contrary, motor carriers
participating in the program will be subject to existing statutory
requirements and regulations, including the regulations mandating the
PASA (49 CFR 365.507(c)). Additionally, because no exemptions from or
new approaches to statutory requirements and safety regulations are
being employed in the pilot program, the level of safety oversight that
will be achieved in the program is the same or greater than would
otherwise be achieved if Mexico-domiciled motor carriers were granted
authority to operate beyond the border commercial zones outside of the
context of a pilot program.
As to the issue of driver's license equivalency, the Agency has
long recognized Mexico's LFC as equivalent to the CDL issued by U.S.
State driver licensing agencies that follow the Federal standards under
49 CFR Parts 383 and 384. The Mexican LFC is recognized as a valid
substitute for the CDL and is the basis for a signed international
agreement under which the United States and Mexico have recognized each
other's commercial driver's licenses, a decision that was upheld on
judicial review (Int'l. Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Pe[ntilde]a, 17
F.3rd 1478 (DC Cir. 1994)). The Agency has also long recognized
Mexico's physical qualification standards. These are not exemptions,
but well-established alternative means of meeting U.S. standards that
pre-date the pilot program. Indeed, every day, thousands of Mexican
drivers safely operate Mexico-domiciled trucks in the United States
under these rules.
Neither the Government of Mexico nor any Mexico-domiciled motor
carrier has requested that FMCSA consider granting an exemption from
U.S. safety requirements for participating motor carriers, and the
Agency is not seeking public comment on any forms of regulatory relief.
The continued honoring of reciprocity agreements concerning the
acceptance of the Mexican LFC and the medical certification should not
be construed as granting regulatory relief. Nor is the allowance of
specimen collections on the Mexican side of the border, in accordance
with U.S. requirements, a form of regulatory relief.
All tests musts must be performed in accordance with the
Department's controlled substances and alcohol testing regulations (49
CFR part 40),
[[Page 40428]]
which require that specimens be processed at U.S. laboratories
certified to conduct such tests.
3. Equivalency of United States-Mexico Laws and Regulations Governing
Safety
Advocates, Teamsters, the Coalition and OOIDA all challenged the
equivalency of U.S. and Mexican safety laws. Advocates asserted that
``[r]egulatory differences that affect vehicle operation must be
reconciled before commencement of Pilot Program.'' Advocates questioned
the equivalence of CDLs, disqualification violations, and drug testing.
Several commenters requested clarification of the Agency's system
to monitor performance of Mexico-licensed drivers and expressed
concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the Mexican LFC and
Mexican State license information.
Teamsters also noted that there are no drug testing laboratories in
Mexico that are certified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. OOIDA and Teamsters both requested additional information
regarding the training regime for Mexican personnel to follow U.S.
procedures for drug and alcohol testing collection and chain of
custody.
Teamsters noted that the medical qualification standard for vision
is different in Mexico than in the United States, as Mexico requires
red-vision only. OOIDA encouraged the Agency to provide additional
information on the Mexican medical certification requirements.
Multiple commenters asked how information about violations in
personal vehicles in Mexico would be obtained and used by FMCSA.
OOIDA and Advocates both believe that FMCSA has an obligation to
post more information about the equivalent laws and regulations and to
provide copies of the Mexican regulations in English.
FMCSA Response: CDLs. As noted above, in 1991, the Secretary and
his counterpart in Mexico entered into an agreement on the matter of
driver license reciprocity. The agreement is in the form of a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) and was reproduced as Appendix A to a
final rule issued in 1992 by FMCSA's predecessor agency, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). (Commercial Driver's License Reciprocity
with Mexico, 57 FR 31454 (July 16, 1992)). The primary purpose of the
MOU was to establish reciprocal recognition of the CDL issued by the
States to U.S. operators and the LFC issued by the government of the
United Mexican States (i.e., by the national government of Mexico, not
by the individual Mexican states). In light of the agreement, the FHWA
determined that an LFC meets the standards contained in 49 CFR part 383
for a CDL. (49 CFR 383.23(b)(1) and footnote) FHWA also stated in the
July 16, 1992 final rule:
It should be noted that Mexican drivers must be medically
examined every 2 years to receive and retain the Licencia Federal de
Conductor; no separate medical card [certificate] is required as in
the United States for drivers in interstate commerce. As the
Licencia Federal de Conductor cannot be issued to or kept by any
driver who does not pass stringent physical exams, the Licencia
Federal de Conductor itself is evidence that the driver has met
medical standards as required by the United States. Therefore,
Mexican drivers with a Licencia Federal de Conductor do not need to
possess a medical card while driving a CMV in the United States.
(57 FR 31455)
The Agency's determination that a Mexico-domiciled driver with an
LFC does not need to possess a separate medical certificate is based on
the fact that the medical examination necessary to obtain the LFC meets
the standards for an examination by a medical examiner in accordance
with FMCSA regulations, and would therefore meet the requirements of 49
U.S.C. 31136(a)(3).
While FMCSA recognizes that U.S. CDL regulations have been amended
since 1991, those changes relate almost exclusively to the types of
offenses that would result in disqualification of licenses and to the
administration of the licensing program (i.e., how information is
reported and shared among the States). There have been no major changes
to the U.S. knowledge and skills testing until issuance of a May 9,
2011 final rule implementing the CDL Learner's Permit processes titled,
``Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permits
Testing,'' (76 FR 26854). States have 3 years to implement the
provisions of that rule. The United States will address the changes in
U.S. CDL regulations with Mexico during the updating of the 1991 CDL
MOU that is currently underway.
With respect to the changes relating to disqualifying offenses (49
CFR part 383, subpart D), FMCSA is not relying on Mexico's
disqualifying offenses. During the PASA, FMCSA will review violation
information from a driver's U.S. record, LFC record, and Mexican State
license record to determine if the driver is qualified to drive in the
United States, based on the current disqualification requirements for a
U.S. CDL holder. FMCSA will also review Mexican State license records
for violations in a personal vehicle that would result in suspension or
revocation in the United States. After the PASA, these sets of records
will be reviewed annually by FMCSA to ensure continued compliance.
FMCSA does, however, recognize the concern about the on-going
acceptance of the existing CDL MOU. In the Agency's efforts to update
the MOU, on February 16, 2011, a delegation of FMCSA and DOT
representatives toured SCT's commercial driver's licensing office in
Mexico City, Districto Federal, Mexico. The review of the commercial
driver's licensing office showed that the LFC is issued in a manner
similar to that employed by U.S. State commercial drivers licensing
offices. Applicants are required to present documentation to verify
their identity and place of residence. Additionally, applicants are
required to provide documentation that they have passed the required
psycho-physical examination. The drivers licensing office verifies this
information by accessing the SCT's medical units' database. Applicants
are also required to provide a training certificate from an SCT-
certified training school.
On February 17, 2011, a delegation of FMCSA, CVSA, and the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) representatives
toured the commercial driver's licensing office in Monterrey, Nuevo
Leon, Mexico. The delegation observed the same processes as were seen
in Mexico City. In addition, the delegation toured an SCT-certified
training school in Monterrey. The tour included a description of the
classroom, simulator, maintenance shop, and behind the wheel training.
The training school operator described the driver testing procedures.
FMCSA will be undertaking additional site visits to Mexican driver
training, testing, and licensing locations prior to beginning the pilot
program to review Mexico's on-going compliance with the terms of the
current MOU. Reports of these visits will be posted on the FMCSA pilot
program Web site at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov.
FMCSA's statement that Mexico-domiciled drivers and motor carriers
will be subject to the same standards as U.S. drivers and motor
carriers does not mean that U.S. standards must be applied to Mexico-
domiciled drivers and motor carriers while operating in Mexico. The
Agency does not have authority to apply U.S. standa