Tell NHTSA to Stick It

When a NAFTA arbitration panel ruled last year that the United States must allow Mexican trucks full access to American highways — an event that is expected to happen by the end of this month after seven years of delays and legal wrangling — opponents said they feared for American jobs. But the Bush Administration pressed on, planning to make good on a promise to open the border to Mexican carriers. So those same adversaries played up safety fears, citing three-year-old Dept. of Transportation statistics: of the 11,000 trucks that cross into restricted commercial zones just north of the border each day, 44% have critical safety defects. The White House again delayed access while the DOT developed beefed up entry requirements for Mexican carriers — tougher, even, than what’s required of new American and Canadian carriers.

So now, with the opening of the U.S.-Mexico border imminent, once again there are moves to stop it, or to at least limit its impact. The first came last month when a coalition of highway safety zealots asked a U.S. Superior Court to halt the border opening on environmental grounds. The average Mexican truck is 15 to 20 years old, they argued, and lacks adequate pollution controls. The court denied the motion.

The second hurdle has come from the U.S. government itself: the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it wants to enforce a 36-year-old statute requiring foreign cars, trucks, trailers, and buses to carry a label certifying that the vehicles met Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) at the time of original manufacture. These standards cover everything from window defrosters to emergency exits on buses, but the ones you’re probably familiar with involve air brakes (FMVSS 121), lighting (FMVSS 108), and rear impact guards (FMVSS 223).

NHTSA wants enforcement of the statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to be retroactive. In other words, any truck or trailer that operates in the United States would have to have a certification tag. No big deal for a new vehicle. But for the existing fleet, the factory would have to verify that each vehicle was up to FMVSS standards when it was made, and then permanently mount a label stating as much.

There’s much more potential damage here for Canadians than Mexicans. Unlike Mexico, Canada has well-established federal motor vehicle safety standards, and they closely reflect — and in some cases exceed — standards outlined by the United States. More to the point, one truck crosses the U.S.-Canada border every three seconds. How many have an FMVSS label? How many would need to be yanked from service in order to comply with the Vehicle Safety Act?

The sensible thing would be for the United States to simply recognize Canada’s standards as being reciprocal with its own. Instead, NHTSA is playing politics, not wanting to separate Canada and Mexico in its treatment of foreign countries. The result, if this scheme goes forward, would be a textbook illustration of the worst kind of policymaking I can imagine: the enforcement of 1) an outdated rule that would 2) create an unnecessary but heavy financial burden on industry while 3) having no impact whatsoever on public safety.

You could argue that NHTSA’s position would be damn near unenforceable, but that wouldn’t stop an inspector from using the rule to levy a fine or turn you back at the border. You could also say that the proposal would violate NAFTA because it would choke free trade. But let’s be frank. This is just a stupid idea. What good does it do anyone to put an FMVSS stamp on a 12-year-old trailer? By then, any resemblance to what was originally built is purely coincidental. Besides, the act of popping a label onto the frame does not certify the vehicle as being safe now, today, when it matters most.

Consider the financial impact enforcement of this rule would place on vehicle owners and manufacturers. A fleet up the road from me runs Stoughton trailers, undoubtedly bought from Breadner Trailer Sales, a dealer network now owned by Wabash National. There are new Stoughton dealers, but would they take responsibility for fulfilling certification requests? Who would pay them for their time? And what would you do with your Roussy trailers and Ford heavy trucks, where no manufacturer exists?

I understand the need for uniformity among Canada, the United States, and Mexico. And I know the United States dictates policy on all kinds of matters to the countries that share its border. But in the case of transportation and vehicle safety, Canada and Mexico are different. Our federal government needs to distinguish Canada by returning a strong message of opposition accompanied by a solution — reciprocity — should NHTSA insist on going ahead with its misguided plan.