Background Work for Creation of a Port Authority and Federal Zone

BACKGROUND WORK FOR CREATION

OF A PORT AUTHORITY

AND FEDERAL ZONE

Prepared by

Nadia Rubaii-Barrett, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor

and

William A. Taggart, Ph.D.
Professor

Department of Government
Master of Public Administration Program
Box 30001, Dept. 3BN
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
505-646-4935

Final Report
May 31, 1994

Preparation of this report was financed through funds provided
by Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, contract # AH-
8500. The views expressed in this document are those of the
authors and not necessarily those of Sandia National
Laboratories, the State of New Mexico, or New Mexico State
University. The authors would like to thank Christopher Good
and Julie Reiser for their helpful research assistance on this
project. Helpful comments were provided by Nancy Baker and Stan
Barrett.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary i
List of Abbreviations ii

Section 1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Study 1
1.2 Definition of Key Terms 2
1.3 Organization of Report 3

Section 2.0 Research Methodology 5

2.1 Overview 5
2.2 Document and Archival Research 5
2.3 Telephone Interviews 6
2.4 Personal Interviews 7
2.5 Personal Observation 8
2.6 Summary 9

Section 3.0 Case Studies 10

3.1 Overview 10
3.2 Port Authorities 11
3.2.1 Philadelphia Regional Port Authority 11
3.2.2 Delaware River Port Authority 13
3.2.3 Northern Express Transportation
Authority 15
3.2.4 Virginia Port Authority 16
3.2.5 New Mexico Border Authority 21

3.3 International Cooperative Efforts 24
3.3.1 Coutts Inspection Station 24
3.3.2 Greater Detroit Port Area 28
3.3.3 Federal Cooperative Arrangements 30
3.3.4 International Boundary and Water
Commission 37
3.4 Miscellaneous Cases 38
3.4.1 The Alameda Corridor in California 38
3.4.2 San Diego Air Services 39
3.5 Summary 39

Section 4.0 Management of the Proposed Intermodal
Facility: State Structural Options and
Draft Legislation 40

4.1 Overview 40
4.2 Legal Sources 42
4.3 IPA Draft Legislation 42
4.3.1 Governance 43
4.3.2 Powers and Duties 46
4.3.3 Financing Authority 51
4.3.4 Miscellaneous Considerations 56
4.3.5 Status of IPA Legislation 58
4.4 State Options 59
4.5 Binational Governance 61
4.6 Summary 63

Section 5.0 Examination of the Federal Zone Concept:
General and Agency-Specific Concerns 64

5.1 Overview 64
5.2 Characteristics of a Federal Zone 64
5.3 General Federal Agency Concerns 66
5.3.1 Facility Design and Space 67
5.3.2 Staffing 70
5.3.3 Facility Security 71
5.3.4 Diplomatic Protocol 73
5.3.5 Joint Operations 74
5.3.6 Port of Entry Approval Process 76
5.3.7 Economic Issues 77

5.4 Agency-Specific Concerns 78
5.4.1 International Boundary and Water
Commission-United States and Mexico 78
5.4.2 United States Department of the
Treasury-Customs Service 80
5.4.3 United States Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service 82
5.4.4 United States Department of Agriculture-
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 84
5.4.5 United States Department of the
Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service 87
5.4.6 United States Public Health Service Food
and Drug Administration 89
5.4.7 United States Department of
Transportation 92
5.4.8 United States General Services
Administration 92
5.4.9 Task Force on Border Infrastructure
and Facilitation 93
5.5 Summary 95

Section 6.0 National and International Administrative
Processes 97

6.1 Overview 97
6.2.1 Permit for Port of Entry 97
6.2.2 Overview of the Permit Process 98
6.2.2 United States Agencies Involved in
Permit Approval 101
6.2.3 Components of a Permit Application 101
6.2.4 Improving the Chances for Permit
Approval 105
6.3 Foreign-Trade Zone Designation 107
6.3.1 Economic Benefits of FTZs 107
6.3.2 Applying for FTZ Status 109
6.3.3 Application for Expansion of an
Existing FTZ 113
6.4 Memorandums of Understanding 114
6.5 Summary 117

Section 7.0 Recomendations 118

7.1 Overview 118
7.2 State Level Recommendations 119
7.2.1 Select an Authority 119
7.2.2 Determine Legislative Strategy 120
7.2.3 Special Services 120
7.3 Federal Level Recommendations 121
7.3.1 Designate U.S. Sponsor 121
7.3.2 Developed Detailed Plan 121
7.3.3 Cultivate Federal Support 122
7.3.4 Communication with Mexican Officials 122
7.4 Conclusion 123

Appendices 125

Appendix A Phone Interviews 125
Appendix B Personal Interviews 129
Appendix C Section Numbers and Subject Headings
of IPA Draft Legislation 133
Appendix D A Bill to Create an Intermodal
Port Authority 135
Appendix E United States Federal Agencies
Involved in Permit Approval 149
Appendix F Overview of Environmental Assessment
Requirements for Presidential Permits 151
Appendix G Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement
U.S. and Mexico 155
Appendix H Sample Memorandum of Understanding 165
Appendix I Sample Implementing Agreement for
Combined Border Facility 172

Bibliography 178

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report identifies the principal concerns arising at
the state and national levels in establishing and operating a
transborder intermodal transportation facility at or near the
Santa Teresa port of entry. At the state level, a review of
options related to the formation of a managing authority are
explored. Alternative legal, organizational and financing
structures are delineated and evaluated through an examination
of several case studies, including the New Mexico Border
Authority. These findings are used to develop draft legislation
to create an intermodal port authority in New Mexico and to
assess other structural options available to the State. The
possibility of establishing a binational governing authority is
included as part of this discussion.
At the federal level, legal considerations and
administrative processes are outlined and analyzed in terms of
the proposed intermodal project. This includes a review of
laws, procedures and case studies concerning trade across
international borders, international cooperative arrangements
involving the United States, and strategies for locating an
intermodal facility on the border. Care is taken to identify
important federal participants and to address how the proposed
facility would impact upon governmental operations.
Throughout the report specific recommendations are offered
pertaining to these issues. In addition, the report concludes
with several general recommendations organized by level of
government. In particular, the State of New Mexico needs to
select a public organization to assume leadership of the
project, develop a legislative strategy for the upcoming
legislative session, and delineate the range of services to be
provided by the intermodal facility. Nationally, it is
recommended that the State designate a U.S. sponsor to obtain
federal approval to construct the facility, develop a detailed
plan to be evaluated by federal agencies, cultivate support
among actors in the inter-agency approval process, and foster
greater communication with Mexican officials.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BOTA Bridge of the Americas (E1 Paso, Texas)
CBF Combined Border Facility
CEA Council of Economic Advisors
CITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered
Species
CMAA Customs Mutual Assistance Agreement
DeWin Detroit-Windsor Port Corporation
DOE Department of Energy
DOT Department of Transportation
DRPA Delaware River Port Authority
DWCPA Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FIS Federal Inspection Agencies
FNM Ferrocarriles Nationales de Mexico
FTZ Federal-Trade Zone
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
GSA General Services Administration
IBC International Boundary Commission-U.S. and Canada
IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission-U.S. and
Mexico
ICC Interstate Commerce Commission
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NETA Northern Express Transportation Authority
NMBA New Mexico Border Authority
NMDHT New Mexico Department of Highways and Transportation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRPA Philadelphia Regional Port Authority
PWC Department of Public Works Canada
RC-CE Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise
(Canada)
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VIP Virginia Inland Port
VIT Virginia International Terminals
VPA Virginia Port Authority
WHC Windsor Harbour Commission

SECTION 1.O

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Study

This report investigates options, makes recommendations,
and delineates procedures for the formation of a managing
authority and a federal zone for the proposed intermodal
transportation facility to be located at or near the Santa
Teresa border crossing in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. Draft
legislation is included in this report and is intended for the
next New Mexico legislative session to create or empower a legal
entity to pursue the intermodal project on behalf of the State
of New Mexico. Legal issues and administrative procedures
impacting upon the project at the national level are identified
and recommendations concerning how to proceed are provided.

The multiple tasks associated with this study are
collapsed into two broad governmental categories for the
purposes of this report: those tasks focusing on state and local
concerns and those addressing national level concerns. Within
each of these categories, the tasks called for a simultaneous
examination of legal and political considerations relevant to
the project. At the state level this translated into a broad-
based investigation of the port authority concept. This
included an examination of the New Mexico Border Authority
(NMBA) and other State agencies with the potential to play a
lead role in this project. In addition, selected states that
have created port authorities were studied in

order to identify their legal status, organization, and
financial authority. A special emphasis is placed on instances
where multiple government jurisdictions interact in the
provision of intermodal services. Attention is also devoted to
the possibility of creating a multinational port authority and
exploring the potential oversight power of the NMBA under such
an arrangement.

At the national level, the multiple tasks called for an
investigation of the federal zone concept and legal mechanisms
for expediting international trade. The federal zone concept is
Just that: a concept. Study participants involved with the
intermodal project envision the federal zone as a secured, self-
contained area encompassing land in both the United States and
Mexico, wherein authorized persons of either country may move
freely in discharging their official duties. This
conceptualization required a review of laws and procedures
concerning trade across international borders, international
cooperative arrangements involving the United States, and
strategies for how to establish a transborder intermodal
facility. Care is taken to identify the major participants at
the national level and to address how the proposed facility
would impact upon federal agency operations.

1.2 Definitions of Key Terms

Before continuing further, the clarification of several
terms is in order to minimize confusion in interpreting the
findings and conclusion of this study. The following
definitions are employed:

Authority: Legal entity created through state statute
to develop, administer, and/or oversee an
intermodal operation.

Fedral Zone: Envisioned as a secured, self-contained
area encompassing land in both the United
States and Mexico wherein authorized
persons of either country may move freely
across the border in discharging their
official duties.

Foreign-Trade Zone: A secured area legally outside U.S. Customs
territory. Goods or merchandise may move
freely within the Zone but must meet the
formalities of the government that controls
the Zone. Commonly called an FTZ.

Intermodel Facility: A large operation where goods and
containers are transferred from one
transportation mode to another, and where
the items may be stored while awaiting
transportation.

Memodrandum of An agreement signed between two countries
Understanding: specifying the terms of cooperative action.
Commonly referred to as MOU.

Presidential Permit: Permission from the national government to
build international bridges. While
presidential permit is not required to build
a land-based facility, such as the proposed
intermodal facility, the same approval
process is followed.

1.3 Organization of Report

This report is designed to provide an overview of the
legal requirements, administrative issues, and political
challenges involved at the state and national levels of
government in creating an intermodal port authority and
operating a facility on the New Mexico-Chihuahua border. In the
next section (2.0) the research methodology is outlined which
involved the use of multiple data collection strategies.
Section 3.0 examines several relevant case

studies illustrating some but not all of the issues found in the
"real world," emphasizing those which are applicable to the
situation in New Mexico. Section 4.0 addresses the port
authority concept and focuses on the draft legislation first
developed in the fall of 1993 and distributed prior to the start
of the 1994 New Mexico legislative session. In Section 5.0 the
federal zone concept is developed, and federal level issues are
identified and discussed. Section 6.0 contains strategies
proposed for dealing with federal concerns and a detailed
explanation of the procedures for obtaining several important
federal authorizations. The final section (7.0) identifies
general recommendations for actions to be taken to maximize the
success of the proposed intermodal facility in Dona Ana County.
These recommendations are organized by level of government. More
specific recommendations can be found throughout the report.

SECTION 2.0

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.1 Overview

This report is based on information derived through the
application of four data collection strategies: document and
archival research, telephone interviews, personal interviews,
and personal observation at selected sites. The combination of
telephone and personal interviews generated the most useful
information and provided the greatest volume of material for the
case studies to be covered in Section 3.0.

Multiple collection methods were employed due to the
potential bias associated with relying exclusively on one
method. At the same time, utilizing multiple data collection
strategies enhances the validity of the findings through a
process called research triangulation, meaning that these
methods provide a way of cross-checking the accuracy of
information obtained from any one source. Issues associated
with each of these methods are discussed below.

2.2 Document and Archival Research
A thorough search for relevant secondary materials was
conducted using the library facilities at New Mexico State
University and the University of New Mexico. Appropriate
subject searches were undertaken and resulted in the
identification of a very limited number of books, monographs,
articles, government reports, and other publications falling
within the parameters of

the present endeavor. Applicable state and federal laws were
identified in a review of existing statutes. Other written
materials were obtained during the course of conducting the
telephone and personal interviews. All of these sources were
then used to identify additional supporting materials. A
complete bibliography organized by selected categories is
provided at the end of the report.

2.3 Telephone Interviews

Literally hundreds of telephone calls were placed during
the course of this investigation. A broad spectrum of public
officials at the federal, state and local level were contacted
in an effort to solicit pertinent information. In addition, a
number of people in the private sector and representing
professional organizations were approached. A technique known
as "snowball" sampling was employed, where contacted individuals
were asked to supply the names of other persons who might prove
to be knowledgeable about issues related to this research
effort. This process was labor intensive and time consuming but
generated an extensive list of contacts. Unfortunately, a great
many of these contacts failed to produce anything substantively
important except to provide the names of new contacts.
Individuals reached by phone having a relevant expertise
were treated as "live" contacts and a preliminary determination
was made concerning the necessity, practicality, and value of
arranging a personal interview. Given their geographic
dispersion and faced

with budget and time constraints, many of these live contacts
were interviewed over the phone. Most of these interviews were
conducted by graduate research assistants working under the
authors' supervision. The format of these interviews was semi-
structured and designed to solicit certain information while
offering flexibility in pursuing other items arising during the
course of the exchange. These interviews lasted anywhere from
five minutes to close to a full hour, depending on the range of
items covered and the extent of a person's knowledge. A
complete list of individuals interviewed by phone is presented
in Appendix A. The respondents are arrayed by level of
government.

2.4 Personal Interviews

Personal interviews were conducted with a total of 42
individuals. This included an assortment of elected and
appointed public officials functioning at the federal, state and
local levels, as well as a handful of people in the private
sector. These individuals were targeted for personal interviews
either because they possessed an in-depth knowledge of certain
critical issues and/or because they occupied a position
perceived as having a direct bearing on the continued viability
of the intermodal project. A complete listing of officials
interviewed personally is, presented in Appendix B, again
organized by level of government. As was true of the telephone
interviews, the personal interviews employed a semi-structured
question format. Such a protocol provides a sense of direction
or purpose while allowing

the interviewer freedom to probe, follow up, and explore new
themes. With only a couple of exceptions, all of the personal
interviews were conducted by either one or both authors. These
interviews typically lasted one hour, though several were much
longer in duration. Some of these sessions took on the quality
of a conference meeting as different individuals were invited to
�participate� by the person being interviewed. By virtue of
their expertise and the unique positions they occupy in the
political apparatus, it was necessary to interview a few people
more than once. It is estimated that personal interviews
consumed approximately 100 hours. The information gathered by
personal interviews was rich in detail and proved to be the most
useful, relative to the other data collection approaches

2.5. Personal Observation

Personal observation in the form of site visits was the
final method used to collelct information. Five locations were
visited during the conduct of the study in conjunction with
personal interviews. This included the Port of Greater Hampton
Roads (Norfolk, Virginia), the Greater Detroit Port and Foreign-
Trade Zone (Michigan), two separate trips to the Port of entry
located at the Bridge of the Americas (BOTA) and a tour of the
warehousing-shipping area just north of Zoragosa Bridge, both in
E1 Paso, Texas. Engaing in personal observation ws done to gain
a better understanding of port operations generally and with
respect to how the various federal agencies fulfill their
legislative mandates

specifically. Particular attention was devoted to the
functional responsibilities of U.S. Customs. These site visits
lasted anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes and were usually conducted
by a knowledgeable guide, thus permitting questions to be asked
as they arose. The time spent at the port of entry located at
the BOTA rendered a comprehensive overview of the activities of
the major federal agencies pursuing a border-related mission.
Both authors were "walked through" the entire clearance process
for commercial vehicles from initial entry to the facility
through final clearance departure.

2.6 Summary

The information provided in this report was obtained
through personal observation, personal interviews, telephone
interviews, and document and archival research. At least two of
these data collection strategies were used in developing each of
the case studies presented in Section 3.0.

CASE STUDIES

3.1 Overview

Section 3.0 examines nine major case studies of facilities
or operations selected to satisfy multiple research purposes.
Most of the cases analyzed help to illustrate a particular
political, administrative, or legal concern of relevance to
either the creation of an intermodal port authority or
binational relations in developing an intermodal facility on the
United States-Mexico border. Two of the cases failed to be of
much value and are discussed only briefly. In several
instances, the volume of information gathered was limited but it
was still useful.

At the outset it is important to note that cases are
simply unavailable which fully replicate the unique conditions
now confronting the State of New Mexico. The desirability of
situating the intermodal transportation facility on the border
behind the leadership of a state government while simultaneously
encouraging the possible development of a binational governing
structure presents a myriad of new political and legal
considerations. The cases examined here fall into one of three
categories in terms of the information rendered. First, cases
are reviewed where states have created port authorities or
similar entities involving multiple government jurisdictions.
This is followed by a discussion of cases providing examples of
international cooperation in either the conduct of governmental
activities or the provision

of intermodal services. The last group of cases proved to be of
minor importance and are covered briefly only to note the extent
of the investigation.

3.2 Port Authorities

A number of states have created port authorities and
similar entities to spearhead activities associated with the
conduct of international trade and transportation. Port
authorities have long been involved in marine-based
intermodalism, in terms of moving goods from ships to trains.
More recently, port authorities have taken the lead in
intermodal surface transportation-as well. In addition, other
states, including New Mexico, have emulated the port authority
model to establish organizations charged with pursuing similar
but slightly different goals. Collectively, these cases are
instructive in terms of their legal status, organization,
participation of multiple jurisdictions, and financing
authority. Among the many cases, the Virginia Port Authority
(VPA) is discussed (section 3.2.4) at greater length for
multiple reasons, chief among which was that it served as a
model for the creation of the New Mexico Border Authority
(NMBA).

3.2.1 Philadelphia Regional Port Authority
Along the Delaware River a combination of public
organizations and private enterprises have joined together to
operate and market an elaborate intermodal system. This system
is composed of a complex of 20 active terminals, a broad range
of warehousing and

storage capacities, multiple Class 1 railroads, and extensive
truck services that extend from Delaware County, Pennsylvania to
Trenton, New Jersey. It is the only intermodal operation on the
Atlantic Coast which can provide both east-west and north-south
rail service and serves as a major gateway to Canada. Designed
to handle containerized shipments, this complex port system
provides stateof-the-art equipment, a Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ),
and computerized cargo tracking. All of these features are
attainable in terms of the Santa Teresa intermodal facility.
In 1990, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania assumed
ownership and responsibility for the municipally-operated
Philadelphia port, establishing the Philadelphia Regional Port
Authority (PRPA). The PRPA is an independent authority of the
Commonwealth and is charged with oversight of maritime
facilities and assuring the retention and expansion of
international shipping activities. As a state agency the PRPA
receives state funding to help support ongoing operations and
has access to state capital improvement funds.
The PRPA is governed by an eleven-member board, eight of
whom are appointed by the governor or the legislature. The
remaining board members are appointed by local governments in
the area. The PRPA owns the Packard Avenue Marine Terminal,
which is operated by Holt Cargo Systems, a private company.
Railport, a transportation company, is partially owned by Holt
Cargo and operates an intermodal yard in close proximity to the
terminal. The PRPA functions in tandem with the South Jersey
Port Corporation, also a state-funded body, which represents
public and

private operations on the New Jersey side of the river. A
bilateral organization, the Delaware River Port Authority
(DRPA), acts as a marketing and promotional arm for both states.
More information about the DRPA is presented below (in section
3.2.2).
Upgrades taking place at the intermodal transfer station
run by Railport are being financed through a combination of
private and public funds. The involvement of private firms
helps to guarantee business and distribute the expenses
associated with continued growth and development. However, the
involvement of multiple participants requires the negotiation of
agreements and contracts, and may foster unnecessary confusion
and contribute to inflated charges for handling cargo.

3.2.2 Delaware River Port Authority

DRPA is a bi-state public corporation of both the State
of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, created with
the consent of Congress by compact legislation. Created in
1952, the DRPA has no stockholders or equity holders. Its
principal function is the construction and operation of bridges
linking the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. It also owns
and operates a high speed mass transit line running between
Camden, New Jersey, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Operating
revenues for the authority are generated through the collection
of tolls.

The DRPA does not own any port facilities. Its mission
in this area is to promote port activities on both sides of the
Delaware River through an aggressive international marketing.

program. The port facilities of both states are marketed under
the name, "The Ports of Philadelphia." DRPA shipping and
marketing specialists are stationed in trade offices around the
world. While the focus would be somewhat narrower initially,
such an aggressive marketing strategy is certainly an option
available to the State of New Mexico. The successes of the DRPA
suggest that an outreach program reaps considerable economic
benefits.

In 1992 the two states agreed to expand DRPA's compact,
giving the agency a greater role in stimulating regional
economic development. As a result of this expanded power, the
DRPA recently opened the Regional Intermodal Transfer Facility
(Ameriport) to meet the needs of shippers, manufacturers, and
cargo carriers in the area, including all the mayor railroads.
This facility is designed to speed the movement of containerized
cargo throughout the region.

DRPA is administered by a 16-member Board of
Commissioners, eight from each state. Board members are
appointed by their respective governors, except for the auditor-
general and treasurer of Pennsylvania who serve as ex-officio
members. Commissioners serve five year terms and do not receive
compensation except for actual expenses. An executive director
is appointed by the Board to implement policies and manage daily
operations. The DRPA is self-sustaining, operating without
benefit of tax funds. Bonds are payable from and secured by a
pledge of "net revenues."

3.2.3 Northern Express Transportation Authority

The Northern Express Transportation Authority (NETA)
operates a land-based intermodal transportation facility in
Shelby, Montana. Shelby is located 30 miles south of the U.S.-
Canada border. The facility, while owned by NETA, is operated
by Dick Irvin Incorporated under a contractual lease arrangement
and is serviced by the Burlington Northern Railroad. This
structure allows NETA to pursue public funding opportunities
that would not be available to Dick Irvin, including the
issuance of bonds and the receipt of federal grant funds, while
still enjoying the flexibility associated with private
management. Shippers pay user fees to the management company,
who must turn over a percentage of their revenues to NETA. The
authority realizes a limited amount of funds from this
arrangement but avoids much of the risk and is removed from the
day-to-day management of the facility.

In 1987, Toole County and the City of Shelby jointly
established NETA, an inland port, in accordance with Montana
state law. The provisions of this law permit local governments
to create port authorities but they do not involve the State of
Montana directly. NETA is charged with creating transportation
and intermodal infrastructure in the northern Montana area and
marketing products and services through cooperative efforts with
state, national and international organizations.

3.2.4 Virginia Port Authority

VPA owns, promotes, and coordinates the activities of an
elaborate complex of ports and state-owned marine terminals in
the greater Hampton Roads (Norfolk, Newport News, and
Portsmouth) bay area. General cargo terminals are leased to
contractors, including three facilities operated by Virginia
International Terminals (VIT). VIT is a non-stock, non-profit
company created by the state, intended to operate VPA terminals.
VIT also operates the Virginia Inland Port (VIP), a surface-
based intermodal facility 200 miles northwest of Hampton Roads.
Numerous bulk cargo terminals are found in the bay area, all of
which are privately owned and operated. VPA serves as a
mechanism for linking and marketing this mixture of facilities
with offices around the world.

Created in 1981, VPA is a state agency governed by an
independent twelve-member Board of Commissioners. The Board
consists of the State Treasurer as an ex officio member, and
members appointed for five year terms by the Governor, subject
to Senate confirmation. Three of the commissioners must reside
and represent certain communities in the Hampton Roads area,
thereby ensuring that local governments in the bay area have an
effective voice in the planning and conduct of VPA activities.
Commissioners are only compensated for actual expenses. The
Board selects an executive director to oversee policy
implementation and to manage the daily activities of VPA. VPA's
primary mission is promote commerce and economic development.
Expanding the market is as important a task as is the

provision of cheap, efficient, and on-time transport of large
volumes of container cargo. PA is funded through four revenue
sources:

(1) special revenue-reinvestment of VIT profits-at an
increasing rate annually;

(2) general fund appropriations-at a declining rate
annually;

(3) Commonwealth Port Fund-a dedicated trust fund for
capital investment and maintenance; and

(4) tax-exempt revenue bonds-which are repaid using
money from sources number (1) and (3) above.

The VPA has the authority to spend money, incur debt, and build
and expand facilities but, as a state agency, it operates in an
environment of considerable oversight. The VPA cannot spend any
money that has not been appropriated. To incur debt the VPA
must not only justify it to the Board, but must also get
approval from the Treasury Board of Virginia and the state House
Appropriation and Senate Finance committees.

The VPA appoints the board of VIT. VIT was created in
1983, after ten years of study, and is governed by a seven-
member Board of Directors who serve two-year terms. Six members
represent the local jurisdictions in the area and the VPA
Executive Director serves as an ex officio member. The VPA-VIT
relationship is unique and still evolving. The reason for the
creation of a non-stock, non-profit operating company is that
Virginia is a right-to-work state and, therefore, a state agency
cannot deal directly with unionized labor (this is not in
writing, but is based on a verbal ruling from the State Attorney
General). The labor at ports is

largely affiliated with the International Longshoremans
Association, and the State needed a party to serve as the
"middleman" in hiring and negotiating with labor. VIT handles
all operations except security. Security is provided though the
VPA security force, a group of state employees. The intermodal
facility and the ports are on state-owned land and the State
funded the capital investment for construction. VIT pays no
rent for land or structures, but at the end of each fiscal year,
they turn over their net profits to the VPA. This money is
reinvested in the facility with State legislative approval
(special revenue). The inland port, VIP, was created in the
mid-1980s to capture market areas in the Ohio Valley Region. At
that time, cargo from the Ohio Valley was being sent largely
through Baltimore. VPA determined that one way to attract this
business was to build an intermodal facility in close proximity
to these areas that could be linked by rail to the port area.
Planning for the inland port began in 1984, and involved a
series of meetings among representatives of all the
transportation modes and shippers and brokers.

All property at VIP belongs to the VPA, including the
rail spur. There is an operating agreement signed by VPA with
the rail companies to bring their own trains and engines right
into the facility. Within the VIP, "straddle carriers" are used
to move containers and load them onto the train, thereby
preparing the trains for departure.

The inland port is operated by VIT, but not by legislative
design. The VIP involves different tasks from those originally
assigned by VPA to VIT (it is not only in a new area, but also a
land intermodal facility which is considerably different from a
marine terminal). VPA solicited bids from various terminal
operators to manage the inland port. VIT submitted a bid and
was selected on the basis of the quality of their proposal and
their status as a known entity.

It should be noted that the VIP intermodal facility was
not profitable for the first four years. It opened in 1989 and
did not earn a profit until 1992. In fact, when VIP first
opened, it was six weeks before the first shipper utilized at
the facility. Some lag time is to be expected, but New Mexico
could possibly shorten that time through better preparation.
Marketing, public relations, and going out to generate business
are all essential. While developing the facility, the State
should engage in an aggressive marketing campaign to generate
customers before the facility opens. The State can also expect
a difficult financial period before the revenues start to flow
at a reasonable rate.

One advantage that Virginia has had is that the funding
fell into place rather easily and did not require any borrowing
to support construction activities at VIP. The original
expenditure was easier than expected due to a series of
fortunate circumstances, including: the election of a new
Governor committed to transportation infrastructure, a special
session of the General Assembly, and a report from the citizen
advisory Commission on

Transportation. Legis1ation was passed in 1986 to create a
Transportation Trust Fund. The state legislature enacted two
minor tax increases to create the Fund: a one-half percent
increase in the sales tax and a one percent increase in the
automobile transfer tax. Revenues in the Trust are earmarked
for various transportation forms and are restricted for use to
support capital or maintenance activities.

The inland port was constructed with money entirely from
the Trust Fund. The original $10.75 million and subsequent
$2.25 million was paid in cash, on a pay-as-you-go basis. Thus,
Virginia has managed to avoid incurring debt in the construction
of the intermodal facility. According to the Executive Director
of the VPA, the VIP would never have been built without that
special dedicated revenue stream. The project costs were simply
too high for appropriation from the general fund and the climate
at that time, and to the present, could not support bonding,
although VPA has bonding authority. The Trust Fund has been the
only source of money for capital expenses to date. The
operating budget comes from general appropriations and special
revenues.

It should also be noted that VPA pursued a modest
construction strategy. They dealt with the land and
environmental concerns for truck and rail transport, but
everything was initially done out of temporary facilities
(trailers). The first real structure was built in 1992, a
building for maintenance and repair of the large equipment,
particularly the straddle carriers which are 40-50 feet tall.
Plans for the next building are for a "stuff and strip"

(packing and repacking) building for combining "less than full"
or small loads.

Customs has been provided an office at the VIP to inspect
and seal cargo. Frequent shippers are not inspected very often;
first time or problem shippers are thoroughly searched. Union
labor "strips and restuffs " whatever Customs opens. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) needs to inspect some cargo, and
the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) inspect other goods. Inspectors need to be
provided office space. Most rent their space, although Customs
is provided space free of charge to insure availability. Shower
facilities must also be provided for inspectors and workers.

The powers granted to VPA are rather broad and explicit,
including the power of eminent domain, the ability to create
special police and fire units, to establish rates and rate
structures, and to receive and dispose of property. VPA has the
power to create an FTZ and to represent the Commonwealth before
national and international governmental bodies. The advantages
of enjoying a broad grant of power are numerous and help to
address a range of issues confronting the VPA. The authority
entrusted to carry forward the Santa Teresa project will need a
similar grant of power if it is to be successful.

3.2.5 New Mexico Border Authority

The NMBA is, out of necessity, somewhat different than
that of the other case studies as it does not presently own,
operate, or

oversee an intermodal or multi-jurisdiction facility. Besides
covering legal, organizational, and financial concerns, this
case will also be evaluated within the context of the Santa
Teresa Intermodal project. This includes its possible role in
overseeing, managing and/or financing the construction and
operation of the facility.

The NMBA was created in 1991 with passage of the Border
Development Act. Thus, it has been in existence less than four
years, making it difficult to evaluate fully. Moreover, the
state legislature did not provide operating funds to the
Authority initially, creating a beginning fraught with problems
and setbacks. The NMBA is modeled after the VPA discussed
above, though the NMBA functions within a different environment
and is charged with a set of goals related to border
development. More specifically, the legislative intent behind
the NMBA is to assist in the developmentof international ports
of entry and border related infrastructure. The NMBA is
primarily designed as a public sector financing mechanism to
support the activities of other public and private sector
entities interested in pursuing border initiatives. As such, it
has the power to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of
defraying costs.

The Authority is composed of thirteen voting members, six
ex officio and seven appointed. The latter members are
appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate for
staggered four year terms. Members must be citizens of the
state and least one must reside in a county located on the
border. The six ex officio

members are specific state officials, ranging from the
lieutenant governor to the secretary of highway and
transportation. Some of these state officials are independently
elected and, therefore, do not serve at the pleasure of the
governor. Consequently, multiple political agendas are evident
at different junctures in the work of the NMBA. The NMBA is
empowered to hire an executive director and other staff to
handle the day-to-day affairs of the agency and to pursue policy
directives.

Overall, in its first few years the NMBA has not enjoyed
the kind of success originally envisioned by state officials.
Funding problems, political in-fighting, and a general failure
to address the many challenges of border development have all
hampered the NMBA. More importantly, however, the Authority has
not been presented with many opportunities to lend its
assistance and leadership. Its potential remains untested. The
proposed Santa Teresa intermodal facility could fit within the
parameters of the NMBA. From a funding point of view, the NMBA
is in position to provide financial support through the issuing
of revenue bonds to another organization charged with the
facility's development and subsequent operation. At present,
these funds would be restricted to supporting activities on the
U.S. side of the border. With legislative modifications, the
NMBA could assume a more active role in the project, functioning
much like the VPA. Other modifications could put the Authority
in a position to oversee a binational effort. In short, the
basic framework is in place to involve the

NMBA at several different levels depending on prevailing
political conditions and desires.

3.3 International Cooperative Efforts

In addition to examining port authorities, several cases
were explored as examples of international cooperation in either
undertaking specific governmental activities or in the provision
of a particular service. The purpose of this analysis is to
better understand concrete examples of binational activity which
might be of use in the creation of a "federal zone" to
facilitate trade and international usage of the proposed
intermodal yard. Concurrently, there is the consideration of
creating a joint U.S.-Mexico port authority to either operate or
oversee the intermodal facility. At present, the federal zone
concept only exists in the abstract and there are no real world
examples of state level cooperative efforts of the magnitude
envisioned. There are, however, instances of binational
cooperation that might serve as building blocks in developing a
more unified and broad-based approach. These cases share some
of the challenges faced by the Santa Teresa intermodal facility.

3.3.1 Coutts Inspection Station

In Canada, the Coutts, Alberta inspection station serves
as a model of cooperation between subnational governments. This
station is 30 miles north of the facilities managed by NETA
discussed previously, though the international issue covered
here exists

independent of the port authority. Yet at the same time, the
unique level of cooperation between the two countries helps to
make the NETA facility fully functional.

The Canadian border crossing is a vehicle inspection and
weighing facility located approximately two miles inside the
Province of Alberta. It is staffed and operated by Canadian and
State of Montana officials. Before the construction of this
joint facility, vehicles entering the U.S. would stop three
times crossing the border: at the Canadian inspection/weigh
station; at the U.S. Customs facility; and, again at the State
of Montana weigh station in Sweetgrass. The current cooperative
agreement and joint inspection station permits vehicles to only
stop two times. Southbound traffic still must go through U.S.
Customs, as they are not a party to this arrangement.

The use of joint inspections was promoted as contributing
to a $400,000 per year cost savings to the industry based on the
anticipated reduction in down time normally required for
inspections at two separate stations. The inspection station is
operational 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Joint
operations and staffing of the facility has contributed to
greater coordination regarding staff scheduling, transportation
policy development and implementation, cross training of staff,
and joint utilization of equipment.

There are several elements to this cooperative venture
which stand out. First, the interstate leading south from the
border to the NETA facility has a weight limit typically
exceeded by Canadian

trucks. State officials signed an agreement with
representatives of Alberta to raise the load limit on that
stretch of the highway in order to permit the entry of heavier
trucks. Trucks that exceed the weight limitations are given a
permit to proceed only as far as the NETA intermodal facility,
but not beyond.

Second, a "Joint-Use Occupancy Agreement" was signed
declaring that both states (Montana and Alberta) would split the
cost of building the new inspection-weigh station. Given the
physical location of the facility, construction was actually
paid for by the Canadians and the State of Montana "leases"
space in a contractual arrangement, the terms of which add up to
half the cost. According to the formal agreement, officers
from both states must be trained in the other country's
documentation requirements and laws. This is accomplished by
conducting a one-week mutual training program, though the
program has only been offered once. The Montana inspection
officers apply for a Canadian work visa and are awarded
Constable status north of the border. As long as a Canadian
official is present to supervise, Montana inspectors have full
authority to perform their assigned duties. Montana inspectors
are not permitted to wear firearms. It is planned to appoint
Canadian inspectors as United States peace officers.

The major actors in the development and operation of the
Coutts facility were the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Motor
Transport Services Division of the Alberta Transportation and
Utilities Department, and the Director of the Montana Department
of Highways. The facility consists of a single building
constructed

on the median between the northbound and southbound lanes, and
includes scales, an inspection area and truck parking. The
officers of both countries are charged with mutual enforcement.
Included in their responsibilities are collection of highway
user fees, registration fees, and taxes required by law, rule or
regulation; enforcement of safety, size, and weight laws, rule
and regulations; and such other activities and duties as are
normally performed at a vehicle inspection station.

As part of the agreement signed between Montana and
Alberta, a Joint Operations Committee was established to
coordinate activities, determine future staffing requirements,
and resolve any concerns or problems that arise in the operation
of the facility. The Joint Operations Committee consists of
three members from each jurisdiction, and is responsible for
establishing and monitoring the Joint Training Committee. There
is an additional provision in the agreement which establishes a
process for arbitration of disputes between the "landlord" and
"tenant" of the facility.

Officials in the State of Montana were contacted in order
to examine the legality of this agreement given that it appears
to violate the U.S. Constitution's clause which prohibits states
from entering into treaties with foreign nations. This issue
apparently arose before the agreement was signed in 1991.
Individuals involved with this effort indicated that the U.S.
State Department was approached and reported it did not see a
problem with a joint venture between the two states in question.
An after-the-fact bill was passed by the U.S. Congress which
authorized Canada's heavier

trucks to proceed to the intermodal facility operated by NETA.
This legislation did not address the more fundamental question
of the legality of this arrangement.

Study participants familiar with issues raised during the
Montana-Alberta negotiations advised New Mexico to deal only
with the State of Chihuahua so as to avoid federal involvement,
but to keep political leaders well informed to avoid or deal
with potential "Washington" fallout. It is not clear if this
agreement is legal under the U.S. Constitution but it has not
faced a legal challenge at this point in time. In addition to
the constitutional question, the dominant role of the national
government in Mexico suggests that a state-to-state approach
that circumvents or limits its involvement is less feasible in
New Mexico.

3.3.2 Greater Detroit Port Area

Activities occurring in the area of Detroit, Michigan
serve to illustrate some slightly different international
cooperative efforts. The first of these involves the
Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority (DWCPA). The DWCPA was
organized and incorporated in 1980 under the provisions of
Michigan Act No. 639 of Public Acts of 1978. The Authority is
governed by a five-member Board of Directors with one member
appointed by the State, two by Wayne County and two by the City
of Detroit. An executive director serves at the pleasure of the
Board. DWCPA has port development powers, state-assisted
financial resources, and is responsible for

transportation and trade activities. Funding for the authority
is provided by the city, county and State of Michigan.

Since the creation of the Authority, two separate
corporations have been developed to carry out specific programs
of the DWCPA. One of these is a non-profit FTZ which is not
particularly noteworthy except it is one of the busiest FTZs in
the country. The second of these is the Detroit Windsor Port
Corporation (DeWin), an international port corporation jointly
owned by DWCPA and the Windsor Harbour Commission (WHC). WHC is
a Canadian port authority. DeWin is a Canadian chartered
corporation which markets and promotes projects of mutual
benefit to both authorities. Integration is fostered through
two mechanisms. First, there is an overlapping of authority
officials. For instance, the executive director of DWCPA serves
as the president of DeWin, as well as the director of the
Greater Detroit FTZ. Second, both authorities contract with
DeWin to provide services related to international trade,
economic development, and intermodal issues. DeWin, for example,
is the lead party in an effort to construct a new rail tunnel
connecting the two port operations.

A second instance of international cooperation, which
exists independently of the activities surrounding DWCPA, is
evident in the operation of trains crossing the border. Trains
entering the U.S. from Canada come into the port by two means:
(1) barges and (2) a tunnel that is owned by Canada. Trains
entering by barge leave their engines in Canada, much as the
Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico (FNM) disconnects engines in
Mexico before cars are

pulled into the U.S. by domestic locomotives. Freight leaving
the U.S. by barge departs in the same fashion. For the other
entry option, as a Canadian train passes into U.S. territory
through the tunnel, it is identified by U.S. Customs using an
on-track imaging system. The train is directed to a private
intermodal facility located approximately two miles beyond the
border. The intermodal facility is owned and operated by the
Canadian Pacific Railway but is legally incorporated as a U.S.
company. The engine is disconnected and returns to Canada, with
or without rail cars bound for Canadian destinations. Canadian
engines may not proceed beyond the intermodal yard.

3.3.3 Federal Cooperative Arrangements

There are several examples of binational agreements
stipulating the intent of the United States and either Mexico or
Canada to cooperate in pursuing a common interest. However,
most agreements do not involve the actual operation of joint
facilities. These binational agreements generally take the form
of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which expresses the
rationale for behind the cooperative endeavor and delineates
terms for achieving particular goals. There are numerous MOUs
in effect. A unique and important set of MOUs were signed
between the U.S. and Canada to permit the operation of joint
customs facilities.

Joint operations on the U.S.-Canadian border are presently
occurring in Washington-British Columbia, Vermont-Ontario, and
Montana-Saskatchewan. All three facilities involve customs

officials, although the talks to establish these joint
facilities were attended by representatives of other agencies.
The core group involved in the negotiations were the United
States General Services Administration (GSA), Customs, and
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and their Canadian
counterparts. Also involved, albeit to a lesser degree, were
the Department of . Transportation (DOT) and the International
Boundary Commission U.S. and Canada (IBC). The facilities that
developed out of these negotiations are referred to as Combined
Border Facilities or CBFs. Customs was the primary initiator of
the CBF concept. The main purpose of these facilities is to
provide greater security at remote border crossings.

When the concept of CBFs was first being analyzed and
debated in 1982, the possibility of locating the facilities on
either side of the border was abandoned in favor of a site
actually straddling the border due to the trickiness of
sovereignty issues. The CBFs are defined as the land,
buildings, utilities, roads, and equipment jointly used by both
Governments at land border crossings. Each CBF was established
through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). MOUs were
developed by the Custom's Chief Counsel with the advice of the
State Department. The legal basis for the MOUs is the "Customs
Mutual Assistance Agreement" (CMAA) between the U.S. and
Canada. INS did not have an agreement with Canada at the time,
so it was incorporated into the CMAA. The cooperative
arrangement specified in the MOU was signed in 1984 and took
effect in 1985. The MOUs state the two countries will enter
into implementing

agreements through the exchange of letters. The implementing
agreement shall address: the location and general description of
the facility; estimated costs of the facility; joint facility
plans; construction plans; financial, administrative, and
operation arrangements; and physical maintenance arrangements.
The agreement spells out the terms for Joint customs activity,
ownership of the facility, and responsibilities of each party.
While the documents only address customs functions, similar
arrangements could be made for other border inspection
organizations to encourage and provide a framework for
cooperation.

Negotiations regarding the Washington and Vermont
crossings were held in conjunction with one another. The
governments of the United States and Canada agreed that the U.S.
Customs Service would be responsible for the operation of a
common border facility at Danville, Washington/Carson, British
Columbia; and the Canadian Department of National Revenue,
Customs and Excise (RC-CE) would be responsible for the
operation of a similar facility at Noyan, Quebec/Alburg,
Vermont.

Both CBFs are constructed to straddle the border. To
meet the respective laws of United States and Canada, the GSA
and the Canadian Department of Public Works Canada (PWC) were
designated as the agencies in charge of planning, design, and
construction of the facilities. The Danville-Carson facility
was paid for by the U.S., the Alburg-Noyan facility by Canada.
Upon completion of construction, the GSA and RC-CE assumed
ownership of their respective portions of the CBFs. The two
countries' immigration

agencies (Employment and Immigration Canada and the INS) agreed
to permit residents of one country to work in the other country
for the construction and maintenance of both facilities.
Contractors from both countries were also permitted access to
the full construction sites.

The financial aspects of the agreement were handled in the
following manner: both governments agreed to pay for their
portions of the total shared costs of both facilities, including
site development, building construction, standard tenant
finishes, and utilities installation. Some costs were kept
separate as they related to special requirements and
administrative costs of either GSA, PWC, or their client
agencies. The two countries, upon appropriation of funds,
signed letters to allow their counterpart agency to commit funds
for the projects. The agreement allows for audits to be
conducted by either government, and for all accounts and records
to be open to reasonable inspection by the other government.
The exchange rate for the transfer of funds is set at the
prevailing rate.

For property management, repairs, and operation, the two
facilities are divided in jurisdiction. The GSA controls the
maintenance, repair, and alteration of the entire
Danville/Carson facility, subject to the concurrence of the RC-
CE. RC-CE controls the Noyan/Alburg facility with delegated
authority from the GSA. The cost of major renovations or
modifications are borne by the Government benefitting from such
work. The cost of routine

maintenance and utilities is shared equally by the two
Governments at each facility.

Operational arrangements permit each service to maintain
its own identity and the confidentiality of restricted
information. Inspection staffs of both governments assigned to
the common border facility may move freely across the
international boundary at the facility while on duty, and there
is a regular exchange of information. One goal of the CBFs is
to provide one-stop processing, meaning that persons and
vehicles normally only stop once after crossing the border.
Only U.S. inspection personnel examine persons and cargo
entering the United States, and only Canadian officers examine
entries to Canada. Inspection personnel of each nation will
collect certain documents required by the other. An inspector,
upon refusing the entry of a person, vehicle, or goods,
instructs the traveller or transporter to report to the office
of the other government and immediately informs the personnel of
the other government about the refusal. Regulation firearms
may be carried and used in the common border facility only in
strict accordance with the laws of the country in which they are
being carried or used, and with the policies and directives of
each government.

The Danville-Carson (also referred to as the Oroville,
Washington) facility was dedicated in 1988. This port handles
mostly passenger traffic, with the occasional truck carrying
lumber. The working relationships between the officers of the
two countries has been fine to date. Information is exchanged
in three

areas: (1) import information, (2) suspicious individuals, and
(3) policy changes. According to the "Implementing
Arrangements," officers of each country must collect export
documents of the other country, but many shippers are no longer
required to submit export documentation so, for all practical
purposes, the officers share import information.

The Alburg-Noyan facility (also referred to as Highgate
Springs) was the second CBF to begin operation. One problem did
arise at this facility; Canadians officials did not want to
allow armed U.S. officials on their side of the building
(literally, their side of the room). This was resolved with an
agreement that U.S. official will not carry weapons on to
Canadian property unless necessary for security reasons. The
actual practice is for officials to carry their guns at all
times and worry about paperwork and international relations
later. Most of the traffic passing through the Vermont port of
entry is passenger traffic. The few trucks that do pass usually
carry local agricultural products (corn, hay, etc.) and do not
require thorough inspections.

The facility at Alburg-Noyan has a common kitchen and
lobby area. There is no demarcation of where the border lies
within the building. The officers only share information about
suspicious individuals. There have been no significant problems
with the working relationships of the officers, although
cultural differences were anticipated. All Canadian inspectors
are expected to be bilingual, and about 20 to 25 percent of the
U.S. inspectors speak French. Study participants also report
that the officers of

both countries were selected with great care to staff these
joint facilities.

Both the Washington and Vermont facilities are small in
size. It might be considerably more difficult to coordinate
binational activities at a large facility, particularly when the
number of agencies is expanded as well. The primary reason for
use of joint facilities is safety. Small one-person ports pose
some danger to the lone officer, particularly at night. The
joint facility ensures that at least two inspectors are present
at all times. The two sites were also selected because they
were in need of immediate replacement. The most recent CBF to
begin operation is situated at Turner, Montana-Climax,
Saskatchewan, and is structured after its two predecessors. The
implementing agreement for this facility is slightly different
because of true joint construction. These positive experiences
make it likely that more CBFs will be developed in the future,
as existing facilities need to be replaced.

MOUs are signed with regularity between the United States
and Mexico although none to date has gone so far as to initiate
the joint facility concept. Instead, the MOUs along the U.S.-
Mexico border tend to be expressions of a commitment to certain
goals and a willingness to share information. The CBFs on the
U.S.-Canadian border provide a model to be used in developing
cooperative ventures on the southern border.

3.3.4 International Boundary and Water Commission

The International Boundary and Water Commission-United
States and Mexico (IBWC) was established as the International
Boundary Commission by a treaty in 1889. Its jurisdiction was
expanded under several subsequent treaties and the name was
changed in 1944 when the Commission's responsibilities were
expanded to include water issues. The U.S. Section is based in
E1 Paso, Texas, and operates as an independent agency with some
policy guidance from the Department of State. The Commission
monitors existing treaties between the United States and Mexico
concerning boundary and water matters affecting both countries.
It provides international flood control projects for most of the
urban and irrigation developments along the border, monitors the
distribution of waters on the Rio Grande and the delivery of
waters from the Colorado River to Mexico, operates and maintains
structures for the diversion of flood waters along the Rio
Grande, and seeks solutions for most major border sanitation
problems.

As part of its scope of responsibilities, the IBWC has
extensive experience with coordinated binational efforts. The
governing documents for these arrangements are referred to as
"Minute Agreements," and they cover a wide array of projects and
geographical areas along the border. The Minute Agreements are
often based upon a recommendation from engineering or
environmental staff within the IBWC. The recommendations serve
as the basis for discussion at a meeting, wherein minutes are
kept to record the

agreed upon course of action. The Minute Agreements are
essentially the records of meetings between officials from both
the U.S. and Mexican sections of the IBWC. They are signed by
the IBWC Commissioners and Section Secretaries for each country.
These four signatures of the top ranking IBWC officers certify
the minutes as an agreement for coordinated effort.

3.4 Miscellaneous Cases

Two cases were examined which failed to be of much help
but are mentioned here to document our efforts and to address
questions which may be lingering about these operations.

3.4.1 The Alameda Corridor in California

Several study participants recommended that the Alameda
Corridor project in California be investigated. This project is
associated with port activities in the Los Angeles bay area,
including the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. The Alameda
Corridor is a transportation corridor designed to move east-west
truck and rail traffic in an expedient manner through the
greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. This project is a
cooperative venture involving approximately two dozen sub-state
governmental structures, mostly cities affected by
transportation problems. The association of local governments
was created by the drafting of a joint powers agreement under
general enabling legislation approved by the California
legislature many years ago. This approach was

dismissed as unapplicable in the context of the New Mexico
project and was not pursued further

3.4.2 San Diego Air Services

A couple of study participants mentioned activities south
of San Diego, Californio, to create a binational airport located
on the U.S.-Mexico border. Currently, a Mexican airport is
situated just south of th border in Tijuana. Preliminary
efforts were undertaken by San Diego officials to expand the
facility on the U.S. side to handle domestic and international
passengers and freight shipments. The proposed project became a
political issue in local elections and the concept has not been
pursued further. Preliminary discussions with Mexican officials
seems to be the extent of this international effort.

3.5 Summary

The case studies examined in this section illustrate that
both multi-jurisdiction port authority governance and
international cooperation along the border are possible. As
mentioned earlier, there is no single case that incorporated all
of the characteristics of the New Mexico project. Even so,
lessons can be learned from the existing operations, as they
relate to governance, financing, operations, and the
coordination of service.

SECTION 4.0

MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPOSED INTERMODAL FACILITY:
STATE STRUCTURAL OPTIONS AND DRAFT LEGISLATION

4.1 Overview

This section discusses and analyzes options available to
the State of New Mexico in developing a legal structure to
assume full or partial responsibility for the Santa Teresa
intermodal transportation facility. The State's options hinge
on two primary considerations: (1) the extent of involvement
sought; and (2) the use of a new or existing administrative
structure to undertake project development. The first of these
considerations, involvement, is really a question of degree as
several options are available, ranging from direct operation and
management to partial financing and general oversight. Related
to this consideration is the second issue of administrative
structure. Again, several alternatives can be identified,
including some combinations of existing and new governmental
entities. Of particular note is the possibility of utilizing
the New Mexico Border Authority (NMBA) as part of the State's
intermodal development strategy. Taken together, these two
factors create a number of viable options for the State to
evaluate.

As things currently stand there is no state agency
sufficiently empowered in a legal, financial, and administrative
sense to assume formal responsibility for the project in its
entirety. In order to be successful, statutory changes to the
enabling legislation of existing organizations are necessary.
The

extent to which changes must be made depends on the amount of
direct involvement desired, with greater state participation
requiring more revisions. Of course, creating a new
governmental structure will also dictate legislative action.
Consequently, a proposed bill to create an Intermodal Port
Authority (IPA), independent of any existing state agency, was
developed in support of this option.

This draft legislation is predicated on a desire to
maximize coverage and technical correctness on a broad range of
relevant issues related to building and operating an intermodal
facility. On the other hand, the political landscape appears to
indicate that a bill of this type has a lower probability of
success than would efforts to amend the statutory provisions of
some other state agency. Many informed political observers
believe a bill to create another authority concerned with the
border is likely to encounter considerable legislative
opposition. Indeed, discussions about the role of the State
generally in developing the border region appears to generate
political controversy. After the primary and general elections
this political landscape may change dramatically, offering the
possibility for creation of a new agency and/or consolidation of
border functions among existing agencies.

In light of the information provided above, this section
of the report is divided into four parts. It begins with a
brief discussion of the legal sources consulted in preparing the
IPA draft legislation. This is followed by a presentation of
the proposed bill, including an explanation of its current
status since

it was submitted at the first of the year. This then affords an
opportunity to develop the options confronting the State of New
Mexico and how different elements of the IPA legislation can be
employed depending on the alternative selected. Key points are
summarized in the final section.

4.2 Legal Sources

The IPA draft legislation represents a compilation of
numerous state statutes from both New Mexico and other states.
For the most part, the materials consulted are associated with
the case studies outlined in the previous section. This means
evaluative criteria could be employed in assessing specific
provisions of a law for possible inclusion. Other statutes,
primarily from New Mexico, were consulted in developing certain
provisions of the IPA bill. In general, the financial aspects
of the bill draw heavily on the language of New Mexico laws,
while the remaining components were derived from statutes on the
books in other states. A list of the state statutes that were
analyzed is presented in the bibliography at the end of this
report.

4.3 IPA Draft Legislation

The separate provisions of the IPA legislation can be
grouped into four general topical categories for purposes of
discussion: governance, powers and duties, financial authority,
and miscellaneous considerations. There are a total 33 sections
in the bill, each carrying a unique section number. A subject
listing by

section number is presented in Appendix C. The sections
associated with each area are identified and reviewed below,
followed by an update on the bill's current status. A
consolidated version of the IPA legislation can be found in
Appendix D.

4.3.1 Governance

Matters related to the general governance of the IPA are
covered in Sections XX-1-4 to XX-1-8 and XX-1-28. These
sections are as follows:

XX-1-4 INTERMODAL PORT AUTHORITY CREATED.

The "New Mexico Intermodal Port Authority" is created. The
authority is a state agency, as defined in 6-3-1 NMSA 1978. It
shall be subject to the same laws, regulations, and
administrative and budgetary controls that apply to a department
in the executive branch of the state government. The authority
is created pursuant to the Executive Reorganization Act,
including but not limited to the Audit Act, Per Diem and Mileage
Act, the Procurement Code, the Public Employees Retirement Act,
the Open Meetings Act, and the Public Records Act.

XX-1-5 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; VOTING MEMBERSHIP.

A. The seven voting members of the commission shall be
citizens of the State of New Mexico appointed by the Governor
and confirmed by the Senate, provided that at least three of the
appointees are from and reside in Doha Ana County. In addition,
at least one of the seven shall have knowledge of intermodal
transportation issues, and at least one other appointee shall
have knowledge of border development issues;
B.The seven voting members of the commission shall serve
for staggered terms of four years, except for the initial
appointees who shall serve as follows: one member for one year
or less with a term expiring December 31, two members for two
years with a term expiring December 31, two members for three
years with a term expiring December 31, and two members for four
years with a term

expiring December 31. Thereafter terms shall be for four years,
with all terms expiring on December 31;
C. The voting members of the commission, before entering
upon their duties, shall take an oath of office to administer
the duties of the position faithfully and impartially. A record
of such oaths shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of
State;
D. If a vacancy occurs among the voting members, the
Governor shall appoint, without Senate confirmation, a
replacement to serve out the term of the departed member. If an
appointed member's term expires, the member shall continue to
serve for up to one additional year until the member is
reappointed or another person is appointed as a replacement:
E.No voting member of the commission is eligible to serve
more than two consecutive terms. A person appointed to fill a
vacancy shall be eligible to be appointed to two additional
terms; and
F. Each voting member of the commission shall be removed
by the Governor for misfeasance, malfeasance or willful neglect
of duty, after reasonable notice and a public hearing, unless
the same are expressly waived in writing.

XX-1-6 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; NON-VOTING MEMBERSHIP.

A. In addition to the seven voting members, the following
state officials shall serve as ex officio non-voting advisory
members of the commission:

(1) The Governor or a designated representative of the
Governor's Office;
(2) Attorney General;
(3) State Treasurer;
(4) Secretary of Highway and Transportation;
(5) Executive Director of the Border Authority;
(6) Executive Director of the Border Commission;
(7) State Auditor; and
(8) Secretary of Economic Development;

B. The voting members of the commission and/or the Governor
may, from time to time, designate additional ex officio non-
voting members, including but not limited to members of the
state legislature who represent all or part of Dona Ana County
and/or have expertise in transportation or border issues, as
deemed necessary to provide a full representation of interests
related to the purpose and intent of this act; and
C. An ex officio member of the commission may, from time to
time, designate in writing another person to attend meetings of
the commission and, to the same extent and with same effect, act
in the member's stead.

XX-1-7 MEETINGS AND COMPENSATION.

A. The commission shall keep records of its proceedings,
including written minutes of all meetings;

B. The Governor shall appoint a chairperson from among
the voting members of the commission. This person shall serve
as chair at the pleasure of the Governor;
C. The commission shall elect a vice-chairperson from
among the voting members of the commission;
D. The commission may appoint any other officers it
deems necessary from among the voting or non-voting members;
E. The commission shall prescribe the powers and duties
of the chairperson, vice-chairperson, and other officials;
E. The commission shall convene upon the call of a
majority of members or the chairperson, and shall meet a minimum
of once every three months; and
F. Each of the voting members of the commission shall be
reimbursed in accordance with the Per Diem and Mileage Act [10-
8-1 to 10-8-8 NMSA 1978] during the performance of official
duties. Members shall receive no other compensation,
perquisite, or allowances as a voting member of the commission.

XX-1-8 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION.

A. Voting members of the commission shall appaint the
chief executive officer of the Intermodal Port Authority, who
shall be known as the Executive Director and who shall serve at
the pleasure of the commission;
B. The director shall not be a member of the commission;
and
C. The director's compensation shall be fixed by the
commission in accordance with law. This compensation shall be
established at a level which will enable the commission to
attract and obtain a capable executive director.

XX-1-28 CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No member of the commission who performs any function or duty
under the New Mexico Intermodal Port Authority Act [XX-1-1 to
XX-1-33 NMSA 1978] may have a direct or indirect financial
interest in any activity undertaken by the authority. No part
of the revenues or assets of the authority shall work to the
benefit of or be distributable to commission members or
authority employees, or
members of their immediate families

Collectively, these sections establish the governing
structure of the IPA and, for the most, are provisions derived
from statutes found in other states. A couple of points
regarding governance are in order. First, after reviewing the
practices in other states and looking at the NMBA, it was deemed
best to define ex officio members as non-voting to maximize
input while maintaining a

manageable number of voting members. It is hoped this
arrangement will minimize political conflict but will provide
the needed expertise to shape the policy direction of the IPA.
At the same time, local interests are promoted by requiring that
at least three members of the board be residents of Dona Ana
County. Second, these sections provide for the selection of an
executive director by the board. Finally, it should be noted
these provisions can be dropped completely or in-part if the
intermodal project is to be directed by an existing state
agency, though this would not provide for adequate
representation of interests in the southern part of the State.

4.3.2 Powers and Duties
The powers and duties of the IPA are spelled out in
sections XX-l-9 to XX-1-12, XX-1-24, XX-1-26, XX-1-30, and XX-1-
32. These sections are:
XX-l-9 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE AUTHORITY.

F. The authority may plan, establish, acquire, develop,
construct, purchase, enlarge, improve, maintain, equip, operate,
and regulate an intermodal port facility in Dona Ana County.
For such purposes the authority may, by purchase, gift, devise,
lease, or otherwise, acquire real or personal property, or any
interest therein, including easements;
G. It shall be the duty of the authority to foster and
stimulate the commerce of the facility, to promote the shipment
of goods and cargoes through the facility, and in general to
perform any act or function which may be useful in developing,
improving, or increasing the commerce, both foreign and
domestic, of the facility;
H. The authority may adopt, amend, and repeal such
reasonable resolutions, rules and orders as it considers
necessary for the management, governance, and use of the
intermodal port facility. No rule, order, or standard
prescribed by the authority may be inconsistent with or contrary
to any act of the Congress of the United States or of this
State. The authority shall keep on file at the principal office
of the authority a copy of all its rules for public inspection;
I. The authority is empowered to cooperate with, and act
as agent for, the federal government in the maintenance,
development, and use of the facility, and in any other matter
consistent with the purposes, duties, and powers of the
authority. This includes performing or causing to be performed
environmental, land use, transportation, and other technical
studies necessary or advisable to secure port of entry approval
or to obtain any other permit or approval to operate the
intermodal facility near or on the border;
J. The authority is empowered to develop avenues of
communication and to cooperate with other governmental entities,
including states, municipalities, and countries;
K. The authority may, under such terms and conditions as
prescribed by law, fix, alter, charge, and collect tolls, fees,
rentals, and any other charges for the use of, or for services
rendered by, the facility. The authority may impose, levy, and
collect such other fees and charges as may assist in defraying
the expenses of administration, maintenance, development or
improvement of the facility. Such tolls and fees shall be
deposited in the Intermodal Port Authority Fund;
L. The authority may plan, establish, acquire, develop,
construct, purchase, enlarge, improve, maintain, and equip
railroad lines and public roads leading to the facility,
provided that such lines and roads are located wholly within
Dona Ana County;
M. The authority shall have the power to issue bonds and
enter into other forms of indebtedness for acquisitions of land
and property for the facility, road and rail lines leading
thereto, and for other purposes consistent with this act and
other laws;
N. The authority may promote legislation that will
further the goals of the authority and development of the
facility;
O. The authority shall initiate and further plans for
the development of the facility and, to this end, shall keep
informed

as to the present requirements and likely future needs of the
facility;
P. The authority shall submit an annual report to the
Governor on or before November 1 of each year. Such report
shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
(1) the audited financial statements of the
authority for the year ending the preceding June 30;
(2) the accomplishments of the authority for the
year ending the preceding June 30;
(3) current activities and projects of the
authority; and
(4) the most recent plan as described in
XX-l-9.0; and
Q. The authority may issue periodicals and carry and
charge for advertising therein.

XX-l-10 POWERS AND DUTIES OF DIRECTOR.

A. As may be necessary and subject to commission approval,
the director shall employ persons, including but not limited to
engineers, lawyers, inspectors, financial experts, and other
advisors, consultants, and agents, subordinate to the director;
B. The director shall exercise the powers and duties
relating to the authority and the facility as may be delegated
by the commission, including the exercise of administrative
discretion; and
C. The director shall exercise and perform such other
powers and duties as may be lawfully delegated to the director,
and such powers and duties as may be conferred upon the director
by law.

XX-l-ll GRANTING OF OPERATION AND USE PRIVILEGES.

A. In connection with the operation of the intermodal port
facility, the authority may enter into contracts, leases, and
other arrangements for terms not to exceed thirty years with any
persons or governments regarding:
(1) granting the privilege of managing, operating,
using or improving the facility or any portion thereof or space
therein for commercial purposes;
(2) conferring the privilege of supplying goods,
commodities, services, or infrastructure at the facility; and
(3) making available services to be furnished by
the authority or its agents;
B. In each case the authority may establish the terms
and conditions and fix the charges, rentals, or fees for the
privileges or services, which must be reasonable and uniform for
the same class of privilege or service. These must be
established with due regard to the property and improvements
used and the expenses of operation of the authority. Such
charges, rentals, and fees shall not be subject to supervision
or regulation by any commission, board, bureau, or agency of the
State, of any municipality, county, or other political
subdivision of the State; and
C. The authority cannot convey exclusive use to one
person.

XX-1-12 SECURITY AND FIRE SUPPRESSION POWERS.

A. The authority is empowered to adopt and enforce
reasonable rules and regulation governing:
(1) the maximum and minimum speed limits of motor
vehicles and locomotives using the facility,
(2) the kinds and sizes of vehicles and trains which
may be operated at the facility:
(3) materials which shall not be transported through
the facility; and
(4) other matters affecting the safety and security
of the facility and authority property.
B. Such rules and regulations shall have the force and
effect of law:
(1) after publication one time in full in newspapers
of general circulation in Dona Ana County; and
(2) when posted where the public using the facility
or affected property may conveniently see them.
C. The authority may appoint and employ personnel, or
contract for such services, for the enforcement of security and
safety rules and regulations; and
D. The authority may take such steps as necessary,
consistent with other provisions of law, to prevent and suppress
fires at the facility and in the vicinity of the facility.
Related to this purpose, the authority may, out of such funds as
may become available, purchase, equip, maintain, use, and
provide and train a fire crew or crews, or contract for fire
prevention services.

XX-1-24 DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY.

Except as may be limited by the terms and conditions of any
grant, loan, or agreement authorized under this act, the
authority may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of acquired
property. Such disposal must be in accordance with the laws of
this State.

XX-1-26 POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.

The authority is hereby vested with the power of eminent domain
to acquire property or any interest therein, however held, but
not property of the State or its agencies, as long as the
property is located within Dona Ana County and required for
purposes related to the intermodal port facility. The authority
shall not have the power to condemn any property belonging to
any other political subdivision of the State. Any exercise of
the power of eminent domain shall be consistent with Chapter
42A-l-1 to 42A-1-34 NMSA 1978.

XX-1-30 FOREIGN-TRADE ZONES.

The authority, pursuant to the federal Foreign-Trade Zones Act,
as may be amended from time to time, and regulations adopted
pursuant thereto, may:

A. Apply for and trade zone accept a grant of permission
to establish, operate and maintain a foreign-trade zone;
B. Provide such structures and services as may be
necessary or desirable in establishing a foreign-trade zone; and
C. Exercise such other powers as may be necessary or
desirable to establish, operate and maintain a foreign

XX-1-32 AUTHORITY POWERS NOT RESTRICTED.

A. The authority shall have the power to perform any act
or carry out any function not inconsistent with state law:
whether included in the provisions of this act, which may be
useful in carrying out the provisions of this act;
B. In addition to the general and special powers conferred
by this act, the authority may exercise all powers incidental to
the exercise of such general and specific powers; and
C. The Intermodal Port Authority Act [XX-l-1 to XX-1-33
NMSA 1978] shall be liberally construed to accomplish its
intents and purposes.

Much like those sections dealing with governance issues
discussed above, the sections dealing with powers and duties are
derived from laws found in other states. These powers and
duties are specific to undertaking an intermodal project and
seeking federal designations to promote international trade.
Consequently, if another state agency is to assume leadership
for the project most of these provisions would need to be added,
through statutory amendment, to the powers and duties of the
selected agency. The NMBA currently enjoys some of these
specific grants of power but does not have the full scope and
detailed elements provided for in these sections. Among other
things, these sections give the IPA the power to finance,
construct and operate the facility; to enter into agreements
with other entities to fulfill these obligations; to create an
Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ); and to acquire property though the
power of eminent domain. Section XX-1-32 is intended to ensure
that the PI is not restricted in its powers through narrow

legal interpretations by the judiciary or the State Attorney
General.

4.3.3 Financing Authority
Sections XX-1-13 to XX-1-23 delineate the financial
aspects of the IPA. These sections draw heavily on the language
of New Mexico laws, especially the Border Development Act. The
sections are as follows:

XX-1-13 ISSUANCE OF BONDS; REVENUE BONDS; REFUNDING BONDS.

The commission is authorized to issue, sell and deliver bonds,
in accordance with the terms of the Intermodal Port Authority
Act [XX-1-1 to XX-1-33 NMSA 1978].

(f) may be sold for cash at, above or below par;
(g) may be sold at public or private negotiated
sale; and
(h) may be the subject of interest rate
exchange agreements;

B. The authority may issue refunding revenue bonds for the
purpose of refinancing, paying or discharging all or any part of
the outstanding balance of authority revenue bonds of one or
more or all outstanding issues:
(1) refunding bonds may be for the purpose of
acceleration, deceleration or other modification of payment of
such obligations, for the purpose of reducing interest costs or
effecting other economies, for the purpose of modifying or
eliminating restrictive contractual limitations pertaining to
the issuance of additional bonds or otherwise concerning the
outstanding bonds or to any facilities relating thereto, or for
any combination of the above purposes;
(2) the authority may pledge irrevocably for the
payment of interest and principal on refunding bonds the
appropriate revenues which were pledged to retire the original
bonds;
(3) bonds for refunding may be issued separately or
issued in combination on one series or more;
(4) the proceeds of refunding bonds, including any
accrued interest and premiums pertaining to the sale of
refunding bonds, shall be immediately applied to the retirement
of the bonds being refunded; and
(5) refunding bonds may bear such additional terms
and provisions as may be determined by the authority subject to
the limitations of this act.
C. The principal and interest on all bonds issued by the
authority shall be payable solely from the funds of the
authority provided for such payment. The bonds of each issue
shall be dated, shall bear interest at the prevailing rate of
interest at the time, shall mature at such time or times not
exceeding forty years from their date or dates, as may be
determined by the authority, at such price or prices and under
such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the authority prior
to the issuance of the bonds. The authority shall determine the
form of the bonds and the place or places of payment of
principal and interest, which may be at any bank or trust
company within or outside of the State; and
D. All bonds shall be signed by the director of the
authority or shall bear the director's facsimile signature, and
the official seal of the authority or a facsimile thereof shall
be impressed or imprinted thereon and attested to by the chair
of the commission, and any coupons attached thereto shall bear
the facsimile signature of the director. In case any officer of
the authority, whose signature or facsimile of whose signature
appears on any bonds or coupons, shall cease to be such officer
before the delivery of such bonds, the signature shall
nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes as if the
officer had remained in office until such delivery.

XX-1-4 BONDS; LEGAL INVESTMENTS.

All bonds issued by the authority are legal and authorized
investments for banks, savings and loans, associations, trust
companies and insurance companies.

XX-1-15 BONDS; SECURED BY TRUST INDENTURE.

The bonds may be secured by a trust indenture between the
commission and a corporate trustee which may either be a bank
having the power of a trust company or a trust company. Such
trust indenture may contain reasonable provisions for protecting
and enforcing the rights and remedies of the bondholders,
including covenants setting forth the duties of the authority in
relation to the exercise of its powers and the custody and use
of the money.

XX-1-16 AUTHORITY LOANS.

The authority may borrow money from a financial institution
provided:
A. The interest and principal payments, or any portion
thereof, shall be payable in intervals as may be determined by
the authority;
B. The loan shall mature at any time not exceeding forty
years from the date of origination;
C. The principal amount of the loan shall not exceed fair
market value of the real or personal property to be acquired
with the proceeds of the loan; and
D. The loan shall be subject to approval by the State
Board of Finance.

XX-1-17 CONDITIONS FOR AUTHORITY INDEBTEDNESS.

The authority shall neither expend nor incur any indebtedness
for any improvement, repair, maintenance, or addition to any
real or personal property owned by anyone other than the
authority, the State of New Mexico, or a political subdivision
of the State, unless either:
A. The use of such property is guaranteed to the authority
or the State by a lease extending beyond the useful life of the
improvement, repair, maintenance, addition, or new facility; or
B. Such expenditure or indebtedness is approved in writing
by the Governor.

XX-1-18 INDEBTEDNESS AUTHORIZATION AND AUTHENTICATION.

C. The bonds or loans shall be authenticated by any public
or private transfer agent or registrar, or its successor, named
or otherwise designated by the authority; and
D. Certificates of indebtedness may be executed as
provided under the Uniform Facsimile Signature of Public
Officials Act [6-9-1 to 6-9-6 NMSA 1978], and the coupons, if
any, shall bear the facsimile of the chairperson or vice-
chairperson of the commission.

XX-1-19 SECURITY FOR INDEBTEDNESS.

The principal and interest on any bonds, notes, or other
certificates of indebtedness issued pursuant to this act shall
be secured by a pledge of revenues out of which the indebtedness
shall be made payable. At the discretion of the authority, any
bonds or other certificates of indebtedness issued under the
provisions of this act may be secured by a trust agreement by
and between the authority and a corporate trustee, which may be
any trust company or bank having the powers of a trust company
within or outside of the State. Such trust agreement or the
resolution providing for the issuance of such bonds may pledge
or assign the revenues to be received, but shall not convey or
mortgage the facility or any part thereof.

XX-1-20 INDEBTEDNESS OF AUTHORITY IS NOT GENERAL OBLIGATION.

A. Authority revenue bonds or refunding bonds issued under
the Intermodal Port Authority Act [XX-1-1 to XX-1-33 NMSA 1978]
and other loans to the authority:
(1) are not general obligations of the state or any
other agency of the state;
(2) are not general obligations of the authority; and
(3) are payable only from pledged revenues;
B. Money borrowed and bonds issued by the authority,
including refunding bonds, are payable out of any revenues of
the authority derived from:
(1) the intermodal port facility;
(2) grants or contributions from the federal
government;
(3) storage facilities;
(4) other sources; and/or
(5) any combination of the above.

XX-1-21 AGREEMENT OF THE STATE.

interest thereon, with interest on any unpaid installments of
interest, and all costs and expenses in connection with any
action or proceedings by or on behalf of such holders, are fully
met and discharged. The authority is authorized to include this
pledge and agreement of the State in any agreement with the
holders of such bonds or notes.

XX-1-22 INTERMODAL PORT AUTHORITY FUND.

A. The Intermodal Port Authority Fund is created in the
State Treasury. Separate accounts within the fund may be created
for any project. Money in the fund is appropriated to the
authority for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of the
Intermodal Port Authority Act [XX-1-1 to XX-1-33 NMSA 1978];
B. Any money received by the authority shall be deposited
in the fund including, but not limited to, proceeds of any bonds
issued by the authority or from any loan to the authority,
interest earned upon any money in the fund, any property or
securities acquired through the use of money belonging to the
fund, all earnings of such properties or securities, all lease
or rental payments received from the authority, all the money
received by the authority from any public or private source, and
any tolls, fees, rents or other charges collected by the
authority;
C. Any money collected in excess of those collected for an
approved project may be expended only as appropriated and in
accordance with a budget approved by the budget division of the
department of finance and administration,
D. Disbursements from the fund shall be made only upon
warrant drawn by the secretary of finance and administration
pursuant to vouchers signed by the director of the authority or,
in the event that the position of director is vacant, vouchers
may be signed by the chair or vice-chair of the commission; and
E. The fund shall not revert at the end of a fiscal year.

XX-1-23 FEDERAL AND STATE MONEY.

The authority may apply for, accept, receive, and spend federal
and state money or property and other public or private money
made available by grant or loan to accomplish any of the
purposes of this act. All money accepted and spent must be
consistent with federal and state law.

For the most part, these sections address the ability of
the IPA to issue revenue bonds to support construction of the
facility and to carry out improvements in the future. While
structured and phrased somewhat differently, these sections
overlap considerably

with those of the Border Development Act. As a result, the NMBA
is in a position to finance the intermodal facility without
legislative action assuming the project fits within its larger
border development mandate.

4.3.4 Miscellaneous Considerations
An assortment of items that do not fit neatly into the
previous categories are found in sections XX-1-1 to XX-1-3, XX-
1-25, XX-1-27, XX-1-29, XX-1-31, and XX-1-33. These sections
are as follows:

XX-l-1 SHORT TITLE

This act [XX-l-1 to XX-1-33 NMSA 1978] may be cited as the
"Intermodal Port Authority Act."

XX-1-2 LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PURPOSE.

By enacting the Intermodal Port Authority Act [XX-l-1 to XX-1-33
NMSA 1978], it is the intent and purpose of the legislature to
encourage the planning, acquisition, establishment, development,
construction, improvement, maintenance, operation, regulation,
and protection of an intermodal transportation port facility and
transportation structures incident thereto in Dona Ana County to
facilitate freight transportation and commerce, both domestic
and foreign, by truck, rail, and air.

XX-1-3 DEFINITIONS.

As used in the Intermodal Port Authority Act [XX-l-1 to XX-1-
33]:

capital and any other personal properties deemed necessary in
connection with the facility;
F. "bond" means revenue bonds, including refunding bonds,
for which only the revenues of the authority are pledged to the
payment of the principal and interests on said bonds;
G. "indebtedness" means any bonds, notes, loans, or other
obligations of the authority;
H. "federal government" means the United States of America
or any agency, department, corporation or instrumentality
thereof; and
I. "person" means a natural person, corporation, firm,
association, trust, partnership, cooperative association, club,
company, joint venture, syndicate or other legal entity.

XX-1-25 TAX EXEMPTION.

Any property acquired or income derived by the authority are
exempt from taxation to the same extent as other state
government agencies.

XX-1-27 LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE AUTHORITY.

The State Attorney General shall serve as legal counsel for the
authority. The attorney general shall represent the authority
in all legal matters related to the powers and duties of the
authority arising under this act.

XX-1-29 OFFICE OF THE AUTHORITY.

The authority shall be located in Dona Ana County and in the
Santa Teresa area, until it can have and maintain its principal
office at the facility. All records shall be kept at this
location, from which its business shall be transacted.

XX-1-31 PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING LAWS.

The facility shall be subject to any applicable master plan,
official map, zoning regulation, building code, ordinance, and
other laws and regulations governing land use or planning
construction of any political subdivision of the State in which
the facility is to be located.

XX-1-33 LIMITED CONSEQUENCES OF LEGAL CHALLENGES

If any section or clause of the Intermodal Port Authority Act
[XX-1-1 to XX-1-33] is held to be unconstitutional or invalid
for any reason whatsoever, that action shall not invalidate any
other provisions of the Act. These sections deal with various
miscellaneous concerns, ranging from the Act's title, definition
of key terms, compliance

with existing state and local laws and regulations, and the
limited impact of any component parts of the Act being declared
unconstitutional. The most important of these is section XX-1-2
which details the legislative intent in approving the IPA.

4.3.5 Status of IPA Legislation
A slightly different version of the IPA draft legislation
was submitted at the beginning of the year in time for the 1994
New Mexico legislative session. At that juncture the authors
advised that the IPA legislation could be easily modified to
grant comparable authority to the NMBA or any number of other
State agencies. The Governor's office, prior to the start of
the session, requested a second version placing the project
within the New Mexico Department of Highway and Transportation
(NMDHT) under the authority of the State Highway Commission.
After much discussion, the Governor decided not pursue either
option in the 1994 session.

Copies of the original IPA draft legislation were
distributed to a wide range of participants with a request for
comments and reactions prior to the start of the legislative
session. Except for a couple of minor suggestions, little
feedback was secured despite an effort to individually contact
those persons receiving copies. In April 1994 members of the
Steering Committee were encouraged again to review the document.
At the time of submission of this report no one has responded to
this request. This lack of response suggests the bill is ready
to go forward and will not face

significant problems of a technical nature. Only minor changes
have been made from the original version, further clarifying
powers of the authority and adding a new section (XX-1-33).

4.4 State Options

The State of New Mexico has several options available in
terms of establishing an authority structure to move the Santa
Teresa project forward. Obviously, one option is to pursue the
IPA concept in its entirety and create a Port Authority. This
is a clean and workable approach and guarantees the project will
be a full time priority of the lead agency. Political
feasibility, however, may stand in the way. There are already
several border-related agencies in the State, and there are
political and practical concerns related to overlapping
jurisdictions and the inefficient use of taxpayers' funds. Two
other options are available if the creation of a new authority
is not politically feasible or desirable.

The first of these options is to empower the NMBA to
assume the leadership role. The NMBA already possesses the
financing capability (revenue bonding authority) to support the
project but would need to receive an expansion of powers and
duties to proceed. The executive director of the NMBA is most
supportive of the project and is independently in the process of
revising the NMBA enabling legislation in preparation for the
1995 legislative session to encompass a project of this type.
However, the political environment surrounding the NMBA suggests
that in the

short run it is not in a strong position to assume such
responsibility.

The second option involves the NMDHT. Aligning the
project with the NMDHT would provide for more budgetary options
in terms of financing as the agency has access to severance
funds and other capital funds. It too, however, would need to
amend its statutory provisions in order to undertake the project
and to issue revenue bonds to support development of the
facility.

If the decision is made to go with either the NMBA or the
NMDHT, it is recommended that an administrative position
equivalent to that of the executive director of the IPA be
created. This project needs full time leadership if it is to
move forward at an accelerated rate. It is also possible that
the NMBA and NMDHT could work in tandem in developing the
facility. The selection of any of the approaches, including the
creation of the IPA, will necessitate that new operating funds
be provided to cover start up costs. The experiences of the
NMBA and some of the other cases examined suggest this is
critical element in moving forward in a timely fashion.

Related to the decision about where to assign
responsibility for the project, is the broader issue of a
unified border strategy within the State. The success of the
proposed Santa Teresa intermodal facility depends upon a
cohesive and coordinated border development effort. The project
could otherwise end up a 'victim' of the present competition and
disarray among existing border agencies and various public
officials. Regardless of which

governance option is selected, that agency should work closely
with the newly created Governor's Office on Border Affairs.

Finally, it is recommend that the actual management of the
facility be handled through contractual arrangements, thereby
removing the state from the day-to-day decision making. The
experiences of other states suggest that private sector
involvement at this level ensures a competitive operating system
and a prompt, efficient response to the needs of the facility.
Any of the organizations mentioned above could provide
financing, debt administration, and general oversight to a
private management company.

4.5 Binational Governance

Given the preference for locating the intermodal facility
on the U.S.-Mexico border, the possibility of establishing a
binational governing structure was also examined. The evidence
available would suggest that this is not an impossible task,
though the waters are certainly uncharted. NAFTA is of little
assistance except perhaps symbolically. There are, however,
other guide posts in existence. The various cooperative
arrangements between U.S. federal agencies and their national
counterparts in both Canada and Mexico establish a strong
precedent for future endeavors. At the subnational level a
general sense of mutual assistance is displayed in such
as the Border Governors' Conference. More specific state
level cooperative ventures stand out, such as the agreement
between the State of Montana and the Province of

Alberta. While the constitutionality of this arrangement is
unclear it has not been challenged by informed stake holders and
observers. Contractually linking public agencies on both sides
of the border with an international non-stock corporation
created by the State is a clean method for circumventing federal
legal issues. The "corporate" approach is certainly applicable
and workable in the present situation.

One such corporate approach might be for port authorities
on both sides of the border to contract with a public
corporation or a private sector entity incorporated in the
United States, similar to the DeWin case study (3.3.2).
Incorporation in the U.S. would ensure tax advantages not
available in Mexico. At the same time, corporate leadership
could be provided by the appropriate public bodies operating in
both Chihuahua and New Mexico. This could even be done directly
through the integration of public officials in the affairs of
the corporation. The contractual agreements would stipulate the
responsibilities of the involved parties while functioning to
protect their respective interests.

Under this model, several existing state agencies in New
Mexico are viable candidates for involvement, including the
NMBA, NMDHT, and Governor's Office on Border Affairs. Statutory
provisions concerning this approach would need to be developed
and enacted to achieve the degree of integration desired. The
IPA would also be a suitable organizational framework from which
to proceed.

4.6 Summary

The provisions of the enabling legislation and the
discussion of governance options demonstrate there are technical
as well as political factors to be considered in any decision by
the State regarding how to proceed with this project. With
respect to the technical issues, the experiences of other states
in operating intermodal facilities are useful in outlining
concrete recommendations. The political decisions, on the other
hand, are just that-political, and must be made appropriate
elected leaders.

SECTION 5.0

EXAMINATION OF THE FEDERAL ZONE CONCEPT:
GENERAL AND AGENCY-SPECIFIC CONCERNS

5.1 Overview

Section 5.0 of this report explores the federal zone
concept and identifies political and legal issues related to
establishing such a zone. In this section the characteristics
of a federal zone are delineated, general federal level issues
related to a transboundary site and Joint operations are
discussed, and some agency-specific concerns are identified to
assist the State in better understanding the obstacles to be
overcome in developing an intermodal facility straddling the
U.S.-Mexico border.

5.2 Characteristics of a Federal Zone

One of the recommendations of the Breazeale Study on
Economic Feasibility from Phase 1 of this project was to
�create a fenced �federal zone� that would allow workers and
equipment from both countries to move freely within the
facility." As this concept was investigated further to
determine the legal issues and procedures related to creation of
such a zone, it became increasingly apparent that this concept
is just that-a concept.

There does not presently exist a federal designation of
"federal zone," nor is there consensus as to what
characteristics an area with such a designation would have. As
a result, there is no process for submitting an application for
obtaining "federal zone" status. An approximation of this could
be achieved through

the exchange of diplomatic notes or a signed Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the Governments of the United States
and Mexico, and perhaps additionally between the States of New
Mexico and Chihuahua. In addition, for some federal agencies,
there would need to be an expansion of permissible activities.
In some cases, this would require congressional action to alter
an agency's enabling legislation. In other instances, the
agency could simply pursue the normal federal rulemaking process
to alter its own operating guidelines pursuant to existing law.

The term "federal zone," itself, is frequently confused
with the well established Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) designation.
If the State proceeds in its attempt to have a special zone
designation, another label might be more appropriate. Other
terms that have been heard range from "international zone,"
�free zone," "sterile area," or "secure zone," to "no man's
land," or even "bubble on the border." Rather than be overly
concerned with the term itself, this investigation has worked
from a more general premise built around the idea of a
coordinated U.S.-Mexican effort at an intermodal facility
straddling the border. This presents two crucial issues to be
examined: the coordination of services, and the movement within
a facility that spans the international boundary. For some
agencies, the idea of coordinated service provision with another
country is not new and does have some precedent. However, for
other federal agencies this would be a new undertaking.
Likewise, the issue of locating the facility on the border
presents more of a problem for certain agencies than others.

In this section, concerns expressed by officials at the
key federal border agencies are identified and explained. The
issues presented first are those concerns shared by officials at
several, if not all, of the agencies contacted. Following that,
agency specific concerns are discussed as they relate to the
issues of coordinated service and/or straddling the border.

5.3 General Federal Agency Concerns

The extent to which some of the issues identified below
are crucial depends in part on decisions concerning site
selection. Several of the issues raised by officials in the
relevant federal agencies are specifically related to a site
straddling the border and involving Joint operations of United
States and Mexican officials. Other concerns are more general,
although no less significant; they must be addressed regardless
of whether the chosen site straddles the border or if the
facility is constructed and operated wholly within the United
States.
The individuals contacted for input were federal officials
at the national, regional, and district (local) level, from the
key federal inspection agencies with a border function. Some
were in positions related to granting federal approval of state
plans, while others were more familiar with the day-to-day
operations at a border inspection site.

Many of the concerns identified by federal officials in
one agency were reiterated by their counterparts in other
agencies. These common concerns of officials at several federal
agencies are

related to the location, design and operation of the facility,
as well as the process and prerequisites for federal approval of
facility plans. This includes issues related to facility design
and available space, staffing, security, diplomatic protocol,
economic efficiencies, Joint operations, and the procedure for
obtaining port of entry approval. These common areas of concern
are elaborated below.

5.3.1 Facility Design and Space

All agencies have concerns about the design of the
facility and the amount of space to be allotted to their
organization (office space, lanes, designated dock space, labs,
etc.), as those factors affect their ability to perform
effectively their varied tasks. Each individual organization
has specifications ("specs") for its operations at small,
medium, and large border facilities,as determined by the volume
of traffic and the types of commodities flowing through a port.
These specs can be obtained by architectural or design teams
either directly from each individual agency or from the General
Services Administration (GSA) for all agencies.

The document containing the basic information on minimum
specifications is the "U.S. Border Station Design Guide" (NTIS#
PB 92-135318), which was developed by the GSA and the group of
agencies collectively referred to as the Federal Inspection
Agencies (FIS). The FIS include, at a minimum, Customs,
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and Department of

Agriculture (USDA), and sometimes extends to include such
agencies as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). A copy of the Guide may be obtained
from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical
Information Service, 52 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
For land border crossings, the minimum area required is 75
acres; a full-scale intermodal facility would obviously require
considerably more space, particularly to allow for future
expansion. Generally, a preliminary design is prepared based on
the Guide and discussions with agency officials. After a permit
for a port of entry is approved, all agencies provide more
detailed specifications to the project's architect and engineer,
who then must negotiate a design with each of the inspection
agencies. Preferences for specific design considerations for
individual agencies are discussed in a later section (5.4).

There is general consensus that the architectural plans
for the intermodal facility should not be too grandiose at
first. Instead they should allow room in the design for
expansion and growth. If the traffic is there, the money will
be there as well for expansion at a later date. The goal at
this stage should be to develop a facility that can handle the
short-term needs, but which is well equipped to expand to meet
projected increasing demands. Thus, the State should simply
ensure that the land area and the design will permit growth.

Not surprisingly, there is also a shared concern about the
cost of occupying space at the facility. Related to that is the

question of whether certain buildings or portions of buildings
at the facility should be owned and operated by GSA, as are most
facilities housing federal employees. The GSA is required only
if the Government owns space or leases on behalf of all
agencies, not if the space is provided free. Some facilities
have arranged to lease space directly to the individual
inspecting agencies, thereby avoiding the GSA.

Some officials expressed a preference to avoid the time
consuming and costly involvement of GSA, and to have the port
authority provide space at a minimal rent or no cost to each
organization. There is some precedent for this approach at the
Virginia Port Authority, where the space is provided to Customs
at no cost. The proposed intermodal facility could adopt a
similar practice for some or all of the federal inspection
agencies.

When brokers were asked for their input related to design
of the facility, they stressed the importance of "superbooths"
for faster approval. It was also recommended that the design of
the facility include an electronic interface with Customs and
FDA and as many other agencies as possible. The manual FDA
process, in particular, is perceived to take much too much time.
Finally, there is a need for broker representatives to be
present where Customs clears shipments. They will eventually
need warehouse and office space at the intermodal facility, once
the traffic volume reaches its expected levels. Indeed, given
the amount of development that has arisen around other busy
ports and border

crossings, the State would be wise to invest in as much land as
possible.

5.3.2 Staffing

A second common concern of officials at the federal
agencies with a border, transportation, or commerce function is
their current understaffing that will be exacerbated by the
increasing demands of a new facility. Several of the agencies
are already feeling the pressure of understaffing at the E1 Paso
facilities. An additional facility, without corresponding
allocation of new staff lines, would place more pressure on each
of the agencies. At present, several of the agencies operate
with a bare minimum of staff, limited hours of inspection, and
responsibility to provide service to a number of facilities
along the border, all of which contributes to delays for
commercial traffic entering the United States.

District officials at several agencies stressed that the
most impressive infrastructure and facilities will not be
effective if there is insufficient staff. Regardless of design,
without the necessary staff, the facility will experience long
lines and loss of business due to congestion and re-routing.
Staff levels must be closely coordinated with the anticipated
traffic flow.

Initially there is the possibility of taking advantage of
some of the existing cross-training conducted among federal
government agencies to reduce staffing needs at the early stages
of operation when the volume of traffic is still low. Cross-
training produces

Customs and INS staff who are capable of checking for each
other's documentation and determining if a problem exists which
warrants closer inspection. These cross-trained officials can
also do preliminary assessments of what additional agencies may
have jurisdiction based on the cargo. There is a limit to this,
however, as each agency has inspection and enforcement powers
which are unique and not covered by cross-training.

Unless Congress is willing to fund additional staff or
national agency officials are willing to reassign staff from
offices outside the district, the operating authority of the
intermodal facility may want to consider contracting with each
agency to pay the salaries for the services required, while
providing space and computer networking. This is presently done
for Customs officials at the inland port owned by the Virginia
Port Authority and at the Federal Express terminal at the E1
Paso, airport.

5.3.3 Facility Security

The first two concerns identified-space and staffing-must
be addressed irrespective of the site selected or whether there
will be any attempt at coordination of services between the
United States and Mexico. Facility security is also a
ubiquitous concern; however, for a site straddling the border
this issue takes on greater proportions.
Some lessons can be learned from the experience at the
joint U.S.-Canadian Customs offices described earlier. Movement
of and

work by U.S. and Canadian construction and maintenance workers
was permitted on both sides of the border under a parole
authorization coordinated by the United States Commissioner of
the Customs Service and Commissioner of the INS, along with
their counterparts in Canada. These Joint facilities operate on
a much smaller scale than envisioned for Santa Teresa and, as
such, security and the identification of personnel is less of
an issue. Given the multitude of people who would work within
a large intermodal yard and the mixture of both public and
private officials and citizens of the U.S. and Mexico,
considerable planning should go into an identification system
that meets the needs of personal and cargo security.

Personal safety and cargo security are crucial to the
efficient operation of a port of entry and intermodal facility.
There are additional security issues beyond the provision of a
fenced area if the facility is to straddle the border. For a
facility that extends into United States and Mexican territory,
presumably there would be an entrance within each country that
would require a security check. Within the facility, there
would need to be some form of ID/badge system so that every
official can readily identify who the employees are, what
authority they have, and where in the facility they are
permitted to go. The ID system is of particular concern to
Customs; their interest is not so much the nationality of
individuals but rather cargo security and prevention of
tampering.

5.3.4 Diplomatic Protocol

Federal government officials have stressed repeatedly the
importance of early and significant involvement of Mexican
officials in the planning, design, and development process of
the intermodal facility, particularly if a transborder site is
pursued. This cannot be stressed enough. There are informal as
well as formal considerations related to diplomatic protocol.

From the formal, legal perspective, any port of entry
process will require the approval of Mexican officials, as will,
of course, a design that straddles the border. For this, Mexico
must believe the project is in its economic interest as well.
The port of entry approval process, to be discussed in greater
detail in a later section (6.2), requires a high level of
commitment to the project by key Mexican officials. There have
been several recent examples where a substantial amount of work
has gone into a project on the U.S. side and nothing was pursued
in Mexico; ultimately these projects died.

Perhaps more importantly, although not unrelated, are the
informal considerations. The pride and sovereignty issues of
each country must not be overlooked at any stage of this
project. Regardless of the proposal's technical merit and
economic potential, one cannot expect support from Mexican
officials if they are only brought in after the fact, without
the opportunity for meaningful input. There are several avenues
for pursuing the necessary relations, including joint meetings,
regular

correspondence, and the formation a binational steering
committee. The State should treat this as a top priority.

5.3.5 Joint Operations

The facility planned for Santa Teresa will potentially
involve several forms of joint operations. First, it combines
the port of entry border crossing with an intermodal facility,
rather than utilizing the traditional method of shipping through
the border then going on to an intermodal facility or vice
versa, in many cases with the intermodal facility designated as
an FTZ. The shared location of these two previously separate
activities can lead to greater efficiencies for the government
inspectors as well as the shippers and brokers. A second
element of joint operations is the potential coordination of
United States and Mexican inspection processes. Presently there
are no joint border crossing operations which encompass an
intermodal facility anywhere in the United States and there are
no joint facilities of any nature on the southern border. Some
lessons can be learned from the nonintermodal facilities on the
northern border, yet those facilities are significantly
different than that envisioned at Santa Teresa, as they are
restricted to Customs operations with very small staffs and are
for primarily noncommercial, passenger traffic in remote rural
areas.

Many more obstacles must be overcome on the southern
border, particularly for joint operations of the magnitude being
contemplated by New Mexico. For one thing, Canadian officials
do

not carry guns, whereas U.S. and Mexican officials do. In
addition, there are significant differences in the nature of the
U.S. Customs tasks on the two borders. On the northern border,
the job is seen as primarily one of collecting tariffs; on the
southern border the agency views its mission as consisting of
more of a policing role. Some agencies, including officials at
the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of USDA, have
expressed a willingness to conduct joint operations if it is in
a "sterile area" or federal zone but they, at present, are not
interested in simply going into Mexico.

Issues which need to be resolved by the State include the
extent to which the two countries will actually work together,
as opposed to simply locating their respective offices and
activities within a common large area. Truly joint operations
will require considerably more coordination and alteration of
regulations for several agencies. Separate operations at a
common facility and with sharing of information is much more
feasible in the short term. Regardless of the level of joint
operations, every attempt should be made to link the U.S. and
Mexican Customs tracking and computerization systems to aid both
sides in fulfilling their respective duties.
Other important questions to be answered are related to
the payment of state and federal income taxes: will taxes be
paid based on where individuals work, where they live, or what
company they work for? There is also the decision regarding who
will respond to an accident within the facility. And finally,
there are the

overarching questions of territoriality and of which country's
laws will apply within the facility. These issues must be fully
resolved prior to breaking ground on the new facility.

5.3.6 Port of Entry Approval Process

Unless the proposed facility utilizes the existing Santa
Teresa Border Crossing it will require a federal permit for an
additional port of entry. The necessity of a new permit depends
on how near the intermodal facility situated relative to the
existing port of entry at Santa Teresa and whether it straddles
the border. There is general consensus that a facility that is
linked to the existing border crossing and is located fully
within the United States would not require an additional permit,
whereas a separate crossing at a location some distance from the
current crossing and/or a facility that straddles the border
would be considered a new port of entry. A large intermodal
facility straddling the border was clearly not within the
original terms of the agreement for the port. The environmental
impact alone of an intermodal facility versus a simple crossing
is reason enough to require a separate approval.

The actual process of gaining approval for a new port of
entry is time consuming and involves multiple decision points
and actors. The process is explained in detail in a later
section (6.2). The message conveyed by officials at several
federal agencies is that the process must be started in earnest
very quickly to avoid

substantial delays in approval, construction, and initial
operation.

5.3.7 Economic Issues

Clearly one of the driving forces behind the plans to
develop an intermodal facility at Santa Teresa is to stimulate
economic growth and development. As such, the plans for the
facility should consider what features would make the facility
most attractive to potential customers or users of the facility.
It is acceptable, and in many ways desirable, to have intermodal
and inspection facilities at the same site, but the intermodal
facility should be privately operated and not too constrained
by government regulations.

Another important issue related to the economics of the
facility is whether tolls will be charged for the crossing. The
toll is presently $15 per truck at Zaragosa, and many truckers
will go somewhat out of their way for a free or lower cost
crossing, although this is only a selling point for the facility
if there are no delays that counteract the cost saving. An
additional method of attracting business through the facility is
to offer special services, including fumigation, lab testing,
and transport of hazardous materials. As a land-crossing the
Santa Teresa facility will also be capable of handling shipments
of a larger size and/or weight than the existing and proposed
bridge crossings in Texas.

Finally, there are several indicators of the desirability
of establishing a FTZ associated with the intermodal facility.
In

addition to the standard economic benefits of this designation,
which are discussed in greater detail in section 6.3, an FTZ
would solve the problem of regular movement of facility
equipment across the border. For equipment to move back and
forth over the border but within the facility, the best
alternative would be to designate the facility as an FTZ so that
all equipment could travel within the yard in-bond and duty
free. Ownership of the equipment could be divided between the
two countries, and to facilitate movement, the FTZ would allow
an indefinite deferral of the duties and posts that would
otherwise be required each time the equipment crossed the
border.

5.4 Agency-Specific Concerns

In addition to the general concerns shared by officials in
many government and private sector agencies, there are some
concerns specific to a particular agency traceable to its unique
jurisdiction and responsibilities. Identified and discussed
below are some of the special concerns of officials at the IBWC,
the Customs Service, INS, APHIS, FWS, FDA, DOT, and GSA. Also
included are relevant comments of the Task Force on Border
Infrastructure and Facilitation.

5.4.1 International Boundary and Water Commission-
United States and Mexico

The IBWC, with its U.S. and Mexican sections, has the
responsibility to maintain the integrity of the line that
indicates the border between the United States and Mexico. For
land

boundaries there are markers and monuments that demarcate the
boundary. From Anapra to Santa Teresa there are 3 monuments and
some temporary markers. There is also a fence two feet north of
the boundary. As a general rule, nothing is to block the sight
between monuments and markers, thus there is a standard
restriction against buildings or structures within 60 feet of
the border on either side. This rule prevents buildings from
being constructed on the border, but it does not preclude a
facility that straddles the border. Roadways, buried pipes and
other level or underground forms of infrastructure are
acceptable, although they do require approval. To do anything
within the 60 foot limit requires IBWC and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) approval, as well a the approval of all
affected agencies. If power lines are to cross the border, the
Department of Energy (DOE) must grant approval as well.

There is some precedent on the U.S.-Canadian border for
buildings that straddle the border and which literally have
lines painted on the sides and roof of the building to indicate
the border, and plexiglass dividers inside. The International
Boundary Commission (IBC) has permitted buildings that
physically straddle the border in Vermont, Washington and
Montana, simply requiring that removable windows be installed
where the actual border lies in case there is a need for future
surveying. The intermodal facility at Santa Teresa could easily
straddle the border without the two countries sharing any
buildings that actually span the border. This would thereby
allow the unimpeded sight of boundary monuments

and avoid potential problems associated with shared binational
ownership and maintenance of a single structure.

The IBWC is responsible for not only ensuring a clear line
of sight from one monument marking the border to the next, it is
also committed to preventing run-off of noxious substances from
one country to another. Part of their task is to monitor and
control transboundary drainage, and thus they are concerned with
design issues and environmental conditions. There must be storm
detention ponds that do not significantly change the natural
conditions and have no adverse effect on either side of the
border.

The IBWC is not opposed to the idea of a site straddling
the border as long as other agencies are supportive. They would
have to be convinced of the importance of the site straddling
the border and they would resist approval unless Customs and INS
were firmly in support of the project. Given that the IBWC has
both U.S. and Mexican sections, the officials there are well
versed in the protocol and the process for Mexican involvement.
Officials in the United States section suggest New Mexico must
carefully decide when and how to approach the Mexican officials.
It should not be so late as to have effectively excluded them
from the decision making process, nor should it be so early as
to predate a workable plan.

5.4.2 United States Department of Treasury Customs
Service

Customs has a joint responsibility for regulating the flow
of goods entering the United States, collecting duties on those
goods

and preventing entry of certain contraband. There is no
provision in existing Customs law or regulations that allows for
operation in a "federal zone" as envisioned by New Mexico. The
legalities of Customs operations in such an area are unclear and
would require legislative and regulatory clarification. With
respect to the design of the facility, there must be designated
tracks and docks for Customs inspections, and there is a
preference on the part of brokers that Customs be encouraged to
go to permanent crews rather than rotating inspectors. This
would facilitate smooth and quick processing of regular users
who have a good track record.

There is also the possibility of a future use of the
Customs computerized line release program, but this generally
requires the traffic flow to justify its implementation. The
line release program is used when a site experiences a high
volume of commercial crossings with repetitive merchandise from
repeat users (bond holders and importers). The system works
using a bar code that identifies the shipper, the bond
holder/importer, the filer of the entry (usually a broker), and
the commodity description and tariff category. The bar code
information is compared with the paperwork, and it speeds up the
clearance process. At present there is no comparable system on
the Mexican side of the border so there are limits to the extent
to which Customs operations could be coordinated. Presently
U.S. Customs does not foresee a problem with the concept of a
federal zone, but is not likely to engage in joint inspections
with Mexican officials given that each country is concerned
primarily with imports.

5.4.3 United States Department of Justice Immigration
and Naturalization Service

INS involvement and presence at an intermodal facility
would be minimal, particularly if it utilized a new border
crossing that was restricted to commercial traffic only. Given
that the INS is g primarily concerned with people who cross the
border, a commercial crossing and intermodal facility would
present minimal challenges for the agency. The INS will play a
crucial role in establishing an agreement that allows the free
flow of people from both countries within the facility. Once
that system has been put in place, INS anticipates little
involvement with the facility. There are, however, some
concerns related to Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
regulations of the railroads that might dictate an INS presence
at the facility. The ICC has no inspectors to speak of so their
tasks often get passed to INS officials.

As far as specific INS responsibilities at a commercial
crossing, the people entering most frequently are truck drivers.
Mexican truckers have a right to enter assuming their
documentation is in order. As long as the truck driver and no
more than one helper have the proper immigration documentation
allowing them to enter for a period of six months from the date
of issuance, they need only show it to a Customs officials to
enter. The implementation of NAFTA will extend the length of
the permit time. The operators of the intermodal facility would
therefore need to employ individuals who would be responsible
for loading and unloading.

Another immigration issue is related to the port designation. A
"Class A" port allows anyone and everyone to use it, and all
required INS documentation for entry can be issued at the site.
A "Class B" port is only used by documented aliens and citizens.
Others must proceed to a Class A port for needed documents. The
port classification will affect the extent to which INS
participates in the day-to-day operations of the facility.

At a meeting of INS district directors in 1993, there was
a discussion of the possibility of joint facilities along the
Mexican border. This was not a new issue, but it is still not
considered a priority. There is concern that there would need
to be more compatibility in the training of U.S. and Mexican
officials to facilitate such an arrangement. The INS has had
some success training its Mexican counterpart to recognize
fraudulent documents so that individuals may be stopped before
crossing the border. The INS does have pre-inspection
agreements with other countries to inspect passengers prior to
them getting on a plane to come to the United States. INS
officials are assigned to these other countries. At present,
Mexico does not permit pre inspections and INS has not pushed
for its approval. The Mexican Constitution guarantees the free
travel of all Mexican citizens and, as such, Mexican officials
are not eager to enter into an agreement that would potentially
limit this right.

At a land crossing on the U.S.-Mexico border, the
inspection of non-commercial traffic is a shared responsibility
of INS and Customs. Each service cross trains the others and
they are cross

designated as inspectors. This cross designation only allows
them to ask the questions required of both agencies, but full
inspection and enforcement duties fall to the officials of the
respective agencies. In essence, inspectors from either agency
can screen for the concerns of both agencies: if there is a
problem or suspicion related to the other agency's jurisdiction,
the inspector notifies an official from that agency. They do
not issue documents for each other.

5.4.4 United States Department of Agriculture-
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) regulates all agricultural products originating in a
foreign country and entering the United States, and facilitates
exports of American agricultural products through a
certification program. The agency's principal task is to keep
plant pests out of the United States.

APHIS officials contacted during this study report
excellent working relationships with their Mexican counterparts
in the E1 Paso-Juarez area. At the E1 Paso Bridge of the
Americas (BOTA), APHIS has a desk for a Mexican official to
conduct some joint inspections and the Mexican inspector can do
preliminary checks of goods leaving the U.S. to enter Mexico.
For two years they have allowed a Mexican agriculture inspector
to work in the U.S. office at the cargo dock. The U.S. and
Mexican officials conduct simultaneous inspections of goods
leaving the U.S. Following joint

inspection, the U.S. official issues a certificate, which is
then signed by the Mexican official. This pre-inspection by a
Mexican official for goods flowing from the United States to
Mexico has resulted in no rejections of agricultural products on
the Mexican side. The reverse practice is not in place. When a
shipment comes from Mexico, the U.S. inspector does not simply
accept the invoice; there is an actual inspection.

In the past, APHIS has sent inspectors into Mexico to
clear some goods on rail before they crossed the border. This
practice was stopped three years ago due to security concerns.
U.S. agricultural inspectors are stationed all over the world
for foreign site pre-inspection and fumigation, particularly at
foreign airports; however, there is no such arrangement with
Mexico. Within a facility straddling the border, inspections
and, if necessary, fumigations could be performed before the
goods actually crossed into the United States.

APHIS utilizes a Border Cargo Release System for high
volume, low risk agricultural commodities (those with over 100
entries per year and a good track record). This does not
expedite the paperwork, but it does reduce the probability of an
inspection and therefore speed up the process of getting through
the border station. There are approximately 15 commodities on
the list, that comprise 60 to 70 percent of all agricultural
products entering the United States. For items on the list,
APHIS examines less than five percent of those entrants and only
a very small percent of the shipment. If a commodity is not on
the list, every truck goes in

for inspection, and approximately three percent of the each
shipment is inspected (which takes on average 20 minutes). If
the paperwork is in order, most goods move through quickly.
When pests are found, the shipment is sent back or fumigated.
If a pest is found, it is sent overnight to Washington, D.C. for
examination and identification in order to receive a treat or
release order. The maximum hold on cargo is 24 hours whether it
is a perishable good or not.

E1 Paso is not a heavy cargo import port from an
agricultural perspective. APHIS is conservative in its space
estimates for a facility at Santa Teresa. For APHIS, the
preference is for all commercial traffic, regardless of whether
it needs to be transferred to another mode of transportation or
not, to go through the proposed intermodal facility for staffing
reasons. This would eliminate the need to split staff resources
between the existing Santa Teresa crossing and the proposed
intermodal facility. Staffing decisions are based on need,
which is a function of traffic and commodity flows. APHIS
requires designated dock space for its inspections and would
prefer to have designated tracks as well. Plans to include a
fumigation facility within the intermodal yard may be considered
by the State as a way to attract agricultural importers.

5.4.5 United States Department of the Interior-
Fish and Wildlife Service

The FWS is responsible for enforcement of the Convention
on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), which
identifies threatened wildlife and plants, and specifies under
what conditions and with what documentation such goods can cross
international borders and be exchanged. Both the United States
and Mexico are signatories to CITES and, as such, are bound by
the same international convention rules. Different permits are
required depending on the level of classification under CITES.
The FWS also has United States regulations to enforce in terms
of transborder trade. Uniformed inspectors examine cargo and
issue the required permits. They are mandated to inspect 50 to
60 percent of the total volume of both imports and exports, and
have an additional law enforcement role which includes
surveillance and stoppage.

The process for imports is that before arrival, the
"import packet" must be submitted by the broker. The packet
must contain the Mexican permit, licenses (a non-designated port
permit and a commercial import-export license), and additional
permits based on endangered or threatened status of the
wildlife, fish, plants, or insects contained in the cargo. If
the permits are in order they are approved by an FWS inspector.
If there is a problem, generally a discrepancy between the
permit and the actual cargo, the cargo is seized. The cargo
cannot be sent back to Mexico because of the CITES agreement.
Seized cargo may be: (1) forfeited and abandoned, which involves
holding it for 60 days and then auctioning it; (2)

forfeited with assessment of a civil penalty, or (3) forfeited
with imposition of a criminal penalty. There is an incentive to
auction the cargo because the port makes some money from the
sale, albeit a small percentage since the revenue initially goes
into the general treasury in Washington, D.C. The original
customer can and often does buy back seized merchandise at the
auction. There was some effort in the past to have FWS officers
train Mexican wildlife customs officials, but there was a
problem with the Mexican employees not getting paid so the
program broke down.

Commercial shipments are the priority of FWS and, like
APHIS, it would prefer to operate at a wholly commercial
facility. At present, land-based shipments of products must
come through either BOTA or Zaragosa. They may not go through
ports lacking FWS staff. However, due to limited staffing in
the district, the import-export lot at BOTA is closed on some
days so FWS inspectors can service the E1 Paso airport. If
cargo comes through BOTA on the wrong day, it sits and waits.
In addition, FWS only has staff to conduct inspections between
the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. so shippers must plan their
crossings to coincide with those hours. To provide full
coverage to the BOTA crossing in E1 Paso, the District Director
estimates the FWS would need ten uniformed officers; at present
they have only two.

When the proposed intermodal facility first opens, it is
likely that the staff would still be based out of E1 Paso, and
only when the volume warrants it, would inspectors and an
investigator be stationed at the facility. At the present time
in the E1 Paso

area, the FWS staff only inspect truck and air cargo, but they
would add rail if it crossed the border at the new facility.
From a FWS perspective, the facility should be designed with a
stop required for exports as well as imports (more like Zaragosa
than BOTA), since they have a responsibility to inspect cargo
flowing in
both directions.

5.4.6 United States Pubic Health Service
Food and Drug Administration

Commodities subject to FDA regulation include all human
and animal food and drugs, medical devices, anything that
emanates radiation (televisions, radios, lasers), biological
items (blood, tissue), and cosmetics. At BOTA, the Customs'
monetary value of the goods determines whether the FDA requires
an informal or formal FDA clearance process. Goods with a small
monetary value are processed informally, with all paperwork
completed at the border. The informal processing involves the
drivers hand walking the paperwork through to each agency.

The formal process requires the involvement of a broker.
The FDA requires an Importer's Entry Notice. The inspector
reviews the form and determines if the cargo should be sampled,
if a wharf exam should be conducted, or if s/he should simply
"sign and let go." Some items, such as dried pepper, are
automatically detained at the expense of the broker/shipper and
sent to an independent lab for analysis.

If cargo is sampled, the FDA officials at BOTA can do a
preliminary test on ceramic for leachable lead; all other tests
are sent to the Dallas lab. The shipment is held at a site
jointly determined by the broker and shipper, until a notice of
either release or detention is received from Dallas. During the
test time, the cargo may be held in any bonded warehouse,
including those owned by either the broker or buyer. There are
no restrictions on where the shipment can go to be stored; in
fact, the cargo can and often does go all the way to its final
destination. Unlike the pests regulated by APHIS or the
contraband sought by Customs, the goods of concern to the FDA do
not pose a risk to the United States simply by virtue of
entering and travelling though the country. The goods are
simply restricted from sale until the tests indicate they are
safe. The catch for shippers is that when a sample is found to
be in violation or FDA officials opt to conduct a random audit
and the cargo is not available, it can be denied entry and must
return through its original port of entry.

Not all ports allow informal processing. The State of New
Mexico should consider whether it desires FDA officials at the
intermodal facility to allow informal processing. The formal
process involves broker's fees, storage fees, and bonding that
cost several hundred dollars and are out of range for the small
vendor. The choice of permitting an informal process impacts
upon the users of the facility and the decision should be made
to deliberately either encourage or discourage small users.

The FDA is generally the last agency to look at cargo
(after Customs has cleared the cargo and assigned it a duty, INS
has cleared the people, and USDA and FWS have determined if they
have an interest). For distant ports where there are no FDA
agents, Customs or USDA officials typically send a fax or call
on the phone for clearance from the FDA. There is no formal
cross training, but they do notify each other of suspicious
items, containers, and people. FDA officials have not been
involved in interagency meetings at the district level.

The FDA considers itself to be the most difficult agency
to get past. In E1 Paso, shippers are even more likely to
encounter delay. In large part, this is a function of limited
staff which makes it hard to conduct inspections of shipments in
a timely manner. There is no known example of a contractor
paying the FDA inspector salary as has been done with Customs,
but there is no reason this could not be arranged if the
facility operators wanted to ensure that FDA inspections would
be completed promptly. If a large quantity of goods falling
under the jurisdiction of the FDA is expected to flow through
the intermodal facility, the State may want to consider a long-
term design that includes a laboratory where FDA tests could be
performed without the time consuming process of shipping samples
to Dallas. Barring that, the FDA does not need much space at
the facility; a single dock is sufficient.

5.4.7. United States Department of Transportation

DOT is of particular importance due to its potential to
provide a mechanism for generating some funds for the project.
In addition to the ISTEA funds directed at intermodal proJects,
where there is intense competition for money at the state level,
New Mexico can emphasize the link between this facility and the
National Highway System to make the project eligible for other
funds. DOT officials report a high level of commitment,
extending to the Secretary of Transportation, for improving the
trade and transportation linkage across the border. In
addition, several component agencies of the DOT, including the
Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad
Administration, have expertise that can be used in the planning
and design phases of the project. Their input should be sought
to develop a plan based on their experiences at other sites.

5.4.8 The United States General Services
Administration

GSA is the Government's landlord for all agencies except
the military. The competition for GSA funds to construct new
and improve existing border facilities is intense. The process
is time consuming and involves multiple steps and actors. At
present, inspection agencies submit their top priorities to the
GSA, with the GSA decision and approval process taking from
three to five years. The normal process for border crossings
involves one year for design and two years for actual
construction.

The existing facility at Santa Teresa must be considered
in developing the new facility as Customs does not close
stations. Where the usage is strictly commercial (as is
possible at airports and seaports) then Customs is often
provided facilities at no cost. When there is non-commercial
traffic only, or a combination of the two, it is more likely to
involve the GSA. Thus while a facility closely linked to the
existing Santa Teresa crossing might make the approval process
easier, an entirely separate facility could be wholly commercial
and thereby eliminate the need to go through the GSA for the
design, construction, and leasing of buildings at the facility.

5.4.9 Task Force on Border Infrastructure and
Facilitation

The interagency Task Force on Border Infrastructure and
Facilitation was formed in January of 1994 and produced a series
of recommendations (in the form of a White paper) in April. The
Task Force includes officials of the National Economic Council,
Department of State, DOT, GSA, Customs, INS, USDA, Department of
Commerce, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Trade Representative's Office, and
Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). The principal objective of
the Task Force was to develop recommendations to achieve
coordination in border planning, management, and financing for
both operations and infrastructure. As part of that mission,
the Task Force sought to identify ways to facilitate the
movement of people and goods in a more efficient and cost-
effective manner while maintaining high

standards of safety and security. Several aspects of the Task
Force report apply to the Santa Teresa facility.

First, the Task Force acknowledges that the effectiveness
of its recommendations will depend in large measure upon the
level of involvement of the other countries. Comparable,
complimentary and coordinated steps must be taken on the Mexican
side for the U.S. actions to be fully effective. The Task Force
advocates reliance on international groups such as the United
States-Mexico Bilateral Committee on Bridges and Border
Crossings, the NAFTA Working Group on Customs Administration,
and the proposed U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Customs Working Group.
Included in this strategy is the improvement of coordination of
border crossing approvals and provision of support
infrastructure. They recommend that border crossing plans be
linked to state and regional plans for access roads and other
infrastructure in both the United States and Mexico. This is
particularly important for a site straddling the border.

Second, the Task Force emphasized the need to improve
"border efficiency" and reduce the queuing time for commercial
border clearance. The combined border crossing/intermodal
facility, within an FTZ (as discussed in section 6.0) would work
toward that end. The Task Force also recommended to expand and
improve the cross-training and cross-designation of inspectors
from the various federal agencies. In addition, there is some
impetus to move toward a unified port management concept as
opposed to the current dual management by Customs and INS. At
the intermodal facility and

the associated commercial border crossing, this concept of
unified management could be pursued in an environment where the
role of Customs is great and that of the INS substantially less.

The Task Force also encourages the use of alternative
funding sources for border facilities and government inspectors.
In particular, the recommendation is offered that permit
sponsors, state and local governments, and private sector firms
pay for staffing and infrastructure at border crossings. The
Task Force recommends the improvement and expansion of
electronic data interchange systems among the inspection
agencies and private users (brokers). The State is in a
position to design the Santa Teresa facility to provide state-
of-the-art computer linkages that serve to enhance efficiency.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Task Force
promotes the use of pilot programs to test innovative concepts
and new technologies that might provide a model for more general
operations along the border. The unique attributes of the
proposed facility, in particular the transboundary site and the
linking of a port of entry and intermodal facility, make it
ideal to serve as a pilot project.

5.5 Summary

In pursuing the federal zone concept, the State of New
Mexico must consider the interests and concerns of the full
spectrum of U.S. government agencies involved with the border,
transportation, and/or commerce. Many of these agencies have a
stake in any border

crossing or intermodal operation, but their concerns take on
unique features in the context of a transboundary site and
possible binational leadership.

SECTION 6.0

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES

6.1 Overview

Section 6.0 outlines three independent sets of federal
procedures related to the approval and operation of the proposed
Santa Teresa facility. These procedures can be simultaneously
or sequentially pursued by the State of New Mexico. The first
process outlined is to obtain a permit to designate a new port
of entry associated with the intermodal facility and for
commercial traffic only. The second process discussed in this
section is the designation of the intermodal facility as a
Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) to provide economic benefits to users
of the facility and ease the regular movement of facility
equipment across the border. The third and final process
explained is the development of Memorandums of Understanding
(MOUs) between the Governments of the United States and Mexico,
and the States of New Mexico and Chihuahua, to stipulate the
terms of the governance, operation, and financing of a joint
facility straddling the border.

6.2 Permit for Port of Entry

Contrary to popular opinion, a presidential permit is not
required for a land border crossing, only for bridge/water
crossings. The International Bridge Act of 1972 (as amended in
1987) and executive orders provide the basis for requiring
presidential approval for bridges connecting the United States
with

either Canada or Mexico. While a presidential permit is not
required per se, there is an almost identical "permit" process
for land crossings that is equally elaborate and time consuming.
The process is not as formalized as the presidential permit
process and, as such, there is no universally accepted or
authoritative checklist of what is required. There does seem to
be some consensus as to who is involved in the review and
approval process.

The permit process is involved and lengthy regardless of
the scope of the project. However, it will take on even more
complexity if the intermodal facility straddles the border. The
interests of the International Boundary and Water Commission
(IBWC) become crucial as it generally restricts use of the area
within 60 feet of either side of the border. While standard
land crossings do not require a presidential permit, pipelines
and electricity transmission over borders do, thus a facility
straddling the border with some joint utilities must go through
the full presidential permit process. What is outlined below is
the process for obtaining a presidential permit. The variations
in that process and the one necessary for a land crossing
without utilities spanning the boundary are matters of degree,
with the review and approval process for some of the agencies
less formal and stringent.

6.2.1 Overview of the Permit Process

For land crossings, the Department of State: (1)
coordinates review by other federal agencies; (2) secures the
environmental

assessment; and (3) is the lead agency in the final exchange of
diplomatic notes with Mexico. The first step in obtaining a
permit is to designate a sponsor. The United States sponsor,
most likely a governmental organization such as the State of New
Mexico or the selected state port authority, presents its
proposal to the State Department.

The formal proposal is sent to the Coordinator of U.S.-
Mexican Affairs, presently Mr. Steve Gibson, at the Department
of State. Copies of the application are then disseminated to
members of the inter-agency task force, which includes
representatives of the State Department, Customs, Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS), Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Department of
Transportation (DOT), General Services Administration (GSA), and
potentially others, such as the Department of Energy (DOE). The
State Department distribution of the application is to
Washington, D.C.-based offices of the relevant agencies. Those
offices generally pass along the application to regional and
district officials who will be more familiar with the area and
the specifics in the proposal. The role of the regional and
district offices is not formal approval, but rather input and
feedback on the merits and feasibility of the application.

Following receipt of the application, the Department of
State will also publish a notice in the Federal Register, and
solicit comments regarding the project. During the comment
period, if any

agency has questions or concerns they will be referred directly to the sponsor/applicant. If there are any problems or issues that need to be resolved, the applicant must work those out with the respective agencies. At all levels, there
is communication between the federal agencies and the sponsor.
Once problems have been resolved with each of the relevant U.S.
agencies, a final copy of the application is submitted. It is
then recirculated for each agency's approval. Once the
application has been approved, "diplomatic notes n are sent to
Mexico.

In addition, a sponsor is needed in Mexico to pursue a
similar process involving the Mexican government. The sponsor
must be secured before applying to the State Department so the
two approval processes can occur simultaneously. The guality of
the Mexican sponsor is crucial; this cannot be a front.
According to several study participants, the ideal candidate
would be the State of Chihunhua. The Mexican process is more
formal and is not officially triggered until the U.S. State
Department writes to the Mexican Secretary saying it is a
project they support. The key contact in Mexico is:

Ambassador Louis Wybo
Director General of Border Affairs
Office of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Mexico City, MEXICO
(52) 5-510-9414

When the interagency commission meets with its
counterparts in Mexico, it is known as the Binational Committee
on Bridge andBorder Crossings. The Binational Committee meets
twice per year. The proposal will only receive the serious
consideration of the

100

Committee if there are sponsors on both sides of the border and
the required approvals have been secured. Upon final approval
from the Committee, the sponsor is granted a permit and may then
proceed in making more detailed arrangements for the
construction and operation of a port of entry.

6.2.2 United States Agencies Involved in Permit
Approval

The interagency committee chaired by the U.S.-Mexico
Border Affairs Coordinator in the Department of State includes
representatives from those agencies having some jurisdiction
related to a border crossing. Additional federal-agencies may
participate in the permit approval process if they have an
interest in the specific site or any element of the proposal.
The United States agencies which are likely to perceive some
interest in the proposed Santa Teresa intermodal facility are
listed in Appendix E.

It is possible that other agencies may be notified as
well. As a courtesy, the Department of State also will provide
copies to the United States Embassy in Mexico City for delivery
to the Mexican Foreign Ministry and the Mexican Ministry of
Transportation and Communication (SCT). State and local
agencies and private sector entities are also important
participants in the process.

6.2.3 Components of a Permit Application

Preparing a port of entry permit application to be
submitted to the State Department is a major undertaking. The
application document must include five categories of
information:

101

information on the person or organization applying for a permit;
(2) a description of the site for the facility; (3) plans for
the design, construction, financing, and operation of the
facility; (4)an explanation of the local, regional and national
impact of the proposed port; and (5) evidence of support for the
project from both United States and Mexican officials.

The application document must precisely identify the
person or entity applying for the permit, otherwise known as the
"sponsor." This sponsor may be the State of New Mexico or a
designated subunit of the State. The application must reference
the statutory authority which allows the sponsor to make the
application.

A description of the site as it currently exists provides
a basis for comparison and evaluation of the project's impact.
The site description should include maps, photos, and drawings
where they will assist in the portrayal of the area, as well as
a description of existing water, sewer, and other facilities at
the site.

The third category of information deals with the
specifications of the proposed facility. The location and
design of the proposed crossing should be carefully presented,
including safety standards, access routes, proposed water and
sewer facilities, maps, engineering drawings, technical
specifications, and other such explanatory material that are
available to provide a clear description of the project. The
application should describe the proposed development schedule,
including plans for obtaining other required permits and
approvals and performing the

102

construction. The sponsor need not have completed all of its
engineering and architectural plans for the crossing and
facility at the time of application, but if this is done
subsequent to the granting of a permit, final approval of the
plans must be obtained from the IBWC. The application should
describe the extent of involvement by the IBWC in the
construction and operation of the crossing. Financing plans are
also required to explain the estimated construction costs of
access roads and rail, construction of facilities for federal
government officials, the financing schedule, and any proposed
toll or fee structure. The application must indicate what funds
are being sought from State or Federal sources, and the steps
that have been taken to secure this funding.

The fourth mayor component of the application is an
explanation of how the proposed crossing will serve national
interests. Reference is to be made to existing crossing
facilities, and how the proposed facility will impact on
commerce, economic development, tourism, and the local area. As
part of this section, the sponsor presents traffic projections,
describes existing and projected international rail traffic in
the area, and explains how the rail system would connect in the
United States and Mexico.

The fifth and final section of the application describes
efforts taken by the sponsor to secure approval of other
interested parties in both Mexico and the United States, and
evidence of their support for the project. The sponsor is to
explain the steps taken to secure Mexican approval for the
project. The Department of

103

State does not require the sponsor to have a firm and final
agreement with the Government of Mexico at the time of
application, but the sponsor must affirm and submit evidence
that it has consulted with Mexican local and federal authorities
and that they will seriously consider the project. The
application should indicate, to the extent known, the views of
Mexican officials toward the project. Also required is a
description of the planned arrangements for construction of the
portion of the facility in Mexico, including probable ownership
of the facilities, and plans for financing the Mexican portion.
If any agreements concerning these matters have been concluded,
copies should be attached.

With respect to support from individuals and organizations
in the United States, the application should indicate what other
permits or approvals from the United States Federal and State
agencies are understood to be required in connection with the
proposed project, and explain what steps have been and will be
taken to secure them. Documentation of approval or permits
from those other entities should be included. The application
should indicate what steps will be taken to donate to the
General Services Administration a site for the United State
border station, or what alternative arrangements have been
stipulated. This section should also provide documentation that
the proposed crossing does not conflict with local and state
land use and development plans or city and county planning and
zoning laws.

Attached to the application are any exhibits, such as
reports, correspondence or other documentation that illustrate
the

104

desirability and feasibility of the proposed crossing. Evidence
of support from state and local agencies should be included in
this section. In addition to the application requirements
discussed above, the sponsor must also provide to the State
Department the results of an environmental assessment, the
elements of which are described in Appendix F. The
environmental assessment process is of particular importance for
New Mexico. The site at Santa Teresa presents the potential for
encountering artifacts that will demand re-routing of the border
crossing and access roads. The potential for problems is even
greater with a project the size of an intermodal facility.

6.2.4 Improving the Chances for Permit Approval

When the application is submitted to the Department of
State requesting a permit, it must contain detailed plans for
the facility and complete studies of the economic and
environmental impact of the project as noted previously. There
are several steps that the State can take to improve the quality
of the application submitted, enhance its chances for approval,
and improve the efficiency and speed of the review process.
Essentially, the State may pursue informal negotiations with the
key agencies to resolve potential problems before submitting a
formal application.

At the regional level, there is a "Border Station Task
Force," with multiple agency representation. Members do not
formally approve projects, but they can provide assistance in
preparing an application, and they do help with the project once
it has been

105

authorized. They review documentation prior to approval to
check for compliance with the National Environmental Protection
Act (NEPA). The current chair of the task force is Mr. Jim King
at GSA in Fort Worth.

The IBWC is also available for assistance to a sponsor
before a formal proposal is submitted; this is of particular
importance for a facility that is to straddle the border. There
are several IBWC officials who can provide assistance with
specific aspects of the design and application process,
including engineering and environmental issues and licensing
within the 60 foot strip.

Private rail companies in the United States and the
Ferrocarriles Nacionales de Mexico (FNM), as well as trucking
outfits, brokers and potential large-scale users of the
intermodal facility, are additional sources who must be
consulted before the proposal is formalized. State level
agencies and local jurisdictions should also be contacted to
determine their requirements and preferences. It is essential
that affected parties be supportive of the border crossing
proposal.

Federal officials at the regional and local level have
expressed a willingness and desire to provide feedback and input
prior to the formal submission of a permit request. It should
be noted that this is a time consuming process and it can take
several years depending on the quality of the proposal and the
level of support from key participants. One way to ensure that
the necessary quality and support are present is to resolve
issues informally before the formal application is submitted.

106

6.3 Foreign-Trade Zone Designation

FTZs in the United States were first permitted under the
Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 1934 and amendments in 1950. An
amendment to the U.S. Customs Service Regulations in 1980 also
affects the operations of an FTZ. Zones are operated as public
utilities by states, political subdivisions, or corporations
chartered for that purpose. FTZs are usually located in or near
a Customs port of entry at industrial parks or terminal
warehouse facilities, where foreign and domestic merchandise is
generally considered to be in international commerce. This
section highlights the economic advantages associated with an
FTZ designation at the proposed intermodal facility, and reviews
the process for preparing an application.

6.3.1 Economic Benefits of FTZs

The purpose of an FTZ is to expedite and encourage
international trade and commerce. Many communities have used
FTZs to retain and attract new business in their area. Zones
are intended to provide a special Customs-related service to the
business community to improve its international competitiveness.
An objective of the zone program is to encourage commercial and
industrial operations in the United States that would otherwise
have been conducted abroad for Customs reasons, including export
and re-export activity. Zones should help to create employment,
not simply divert it from one region of the country to another.

107

The advantages of FTZs for international commerce come in
the form of cost reductions to users of the zone, and the
versatility of operations that can be performed within a zone.
Merchandise may be stored, tested, sampled, relabeled,
repackaged, displayed, repaired, manipulated, mixed, cleaned,
assembled, manufactured, salvaged, destroyed, and processed,
without being subject to Customs duties. FTZ status may be
instrumental in attracting manufacturing, warehouse, and
transportation vendors to the intermodal facility. FTZ benefits
accrue to the users within a single zone and in the coverage
provided to goods transported among a network of zones across
the country.

Costs are reduced due to deferral, reduction, or in some
cases elimination of Customs duties. If and when duties are
paid, they are at the lowest possible tariff rate obtainable.
If the final product is exported from the United States, no U.S.
Customs duty or excise tax is levied. If, however, the final
product is imported into the United States, Customs duty and
excise taxes are due only at the time of transfer from the FTZ
and formal entry into the U.S. Full FTZ benefits extend and
continue for zone-to-zone transfers, thus allowing an additional
postponement of customs duties for goods that are destined for
another FTZ at perhaps a water-based port. There is the
potential for expansion to European and other markets; in
addition to the North-South transportation that is anticipated
through the Santa Teresa facility, trains could depart from the
intermodal facility destined to FTZ ports in Houston, Corpus
Cristi, or one of several locations in California.

108

Complimenting the obvious advantages of FTZ status as it relates
to attracting business to the facility, an FTZ designation would
allow for the movement of equipment and materials across the
border within the facility duty-free.

6.3.2 Applying for FTZ Status

Under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 1934, the body
responsible for granting FTZ status is the Foreign-Trade Zone
Board, which consists of the Secretary of Commerce, who serves
as the chair of the board, the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Secretary of the Army. Those eligible to apply for FTZ status
are limited to private corporations and public entities, with a
preference given to public corporations. The Board may approve
any zone which it deems necessary to serve adequately "the
convenience of commerce." The Board also regulates the
administration of FTZs and the rates charged by zone "grantees."
The U.S. Customs Service must approve activation of the zone
before any merchandise is admitted.

In the case of an FTZ, somewhat in contrast to the permit
for a port of entry, the approval process itself is not too
complex. The actual preparation of an application and all
supporting documentation is very similar to that required for a
permit. The application for an FTZ should be compiled with the
advice of the Department of Commerce. The FTZ Board has
determined that the following factors will be considered in
decisions regarding FTZ designations:

109

(1) the likely impact of zone status on international trade
through the particular port of entry, and on employment in
the area;

(2) the forethought put into the design and plans for
operation and financing of sites and facilities within the
zone;

(3) the level of intergovernmental support for the project,
including local and state authorities;

(4) the level of support from any group likely to be affected
by the zone activity;

(5) if the plan includes manufacturing or processing activity,
the Board has the right to determine whether this activity
is in the public interest. The Board has stated it will
do so by judging the planned activity's compatibility with
public policy, particularly with policy regarding imports
and exports, and the predicted impact on domestic industry.

Applicants may submit drafts of their applications to the
FTZ Board staff, which can provide comments and technical
assistance in interpreting the Board's regulations. Drafts and
final applications are sent to:

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
(202) 482-2862.

The actual application should include a transmittal letter, an
executive summary, and five exhibits. The transmittal letter
should be signed by the appropriate official of the applying
corporation and should bear the corporate seal. The executive
summary is simply an abstract of the five exhibits, described
below:

(1) Exhibit One, entailing the legal authority for making the
application, includes:

110

A. A copy of the state enabling legislation, making the
corporation applicant eligible to apply for Foreign-Trade
Zone status. In the case of a public or a non-profit
corporation, a special act of the state legislature is
required indicating the corporation was chartered for the
purpose of establishing an FTZ.

B. A copy of relevant parts of the applicant's charter,
describing the purpose of the corporation.

C. A certified copy of the decision made by the corporation's
governing body showing its intention to apply for an FTZ,
and the authorization for the official signing the
application.

(2) Exhibit Two, describing the site of the FTZ, includes:

A. A detailed description of the site, including a legal
description of the area and a detailed report of the site's
proportions.

B. A description of the larger project of which the zone will
be a part.

C. A statement of the proximity of the zone to a Customs port
of entry.

D. A description of the facilities and services to be included in
the zone, including a description of existing or planned
structures.

E. A description of site qualifications, either existing or
planned, including land-use zoning, relationship to the,
flood-plain, infrastructure, utilities, security and access
to transportation services.

F. A description of current uses of the land, including areas
contiguous to the proposed site.

G. A summary of transportation services and facilities within
the proposed zone, describing connections to local and
regional transportation services.

H. A statement about any plans for zone expansion.

(3) Exhibit Three, describing the operation and financing of the
FTZ, includes:

A. A statement of site ownership. If the owner is different
from the applicant, evidence must be provided of the
applicant's legal right to use the land.

111

B. A description of the operational plan. If the site will be
operated by someone other than the applicant, a description
of the selection processes for the operator must be
included, along with the type of operation agreement and
the name and qualifications of the proposed operator, if
one has been chosen at the time of application.

C. A summary of the plans to provide facilities, security, and
for meeting the requirements of Customs automated systems.

D. A description of the financing plan, including the source
and use of funds for both capital and operation costs.

E. The estimated time schedule for construction and activation
of all services within the zone.

(4) Exhibit Four, describing the economic justification for the
FTZ, includes:

A. A description of the community's long-term economic goals,
and the compatibility of these with the goals of the region
and state.

B. A description of a long-term economic plan regarding these
goals, and the relationship between this plan and FTZ
status.

C. A detailed economic profile of the community.

D. A statement about the role and objective of the FTZ, and a
justification for each of the proposed sites.

E. A description of the anticipated economic impact of the FTZ.

F. A description of the need for the FTZ, with information
about businesses in the area and specific expressions of
interest from proposed users of the zone.

G. A detailed description of the proposed manufacturing and
processing activities within the FTZ.

(5) Exhibit Five, composed of maps of the proposed FTZ,
includes:

A. State and county maps showing the relationship between the
zone and the area's transportation network.

B. A U.S. Geological Survey map showing the proposed zone in
red.

112

C. A blueprint of the zone, showing boundaries in red, with
dimensions and metes and bounds, or other legal description,
and showing existing and proposed structures.

Once an application has been submitted to the FTZ Board,
the Board may require additional information as deemed
necessary. Also, they may permit an amendment to the
application after it has been submitted.

6.3.3 Application for Expansion of an Existing FTZ

The process for expansion of a FTZ may be of interest for
two reasons: (1) because use of the intermodal facility may
increase to a level where a larger FTZ area is required, and (2)
because the State may want to consider the possibility of
requesting an expansion of the recently approved Dona Ana County
FTZ, rather than seeking an entirely new zone.

The FTZ Act states that applications to expand a current
FTZ will be made and approved in the same way as the original
application was done. The FTZ Board categorizes proposed
expansions as either major or minor. This determination is made
by the Executive Secretary of the FTZ Board, with the
concurrence of the District Director, and is based on two
considerations: (1) whether the modification would substantially
change the plan originally approved by the Board, and (2) the
extent to which the proposed modification would expand the
physical dimensions of the FTZ.

113

If the Executive Secretary determines the proposed changes
to be minor, the application must only be submitted in letter
form to the Executive Secretary containing the information
requested. Approval of minor changes does not require a Board
order, and can be made solely by the Executive Secretary. If
the Executive Secretary considers the proposed changes to be
major, the application must be completed using the same format
required of an original application for an FTZ described
earlier. In this expansion application, however, the applicant
may refer to information already on file with the FTZ Board, and
the information compiled for Exhibit Four should refer solely to
the proposed modification. Given the two criteria used to
distinguish between major and minor expansions, the site
selected for the Santa Teresa Intermodal Facility is expected to
play a role in the Executive Secretary's decision.

6.4 Memorandum of Understanding

The two processes described above--the port of entry
permit and FTZ designation--are essential to any border crossing
and intermodal facility, respectively. They do not, however,
address the unique issues of a transboundary site or joint
operations. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), signed by the
Governments of the United States and Mexico and perhaps the
States of New Mexico and Chihuahua, could ease operation and
coordination of efforts at the facility and specify the terms of
joint usage of a site which extends into the territory of both
nations.

114

Recently, Combined Border Facilities (CBFs) with joint
customs operations have opened in three places along the US-
Canadian border, at Danville, Washington-Carson, British
Columbia, Alburg, Vermont-Noyan, Ontario, and Turner, Montana-
Climax, Saskatchewan. Each of these facilities operates under
terms delineated in a MOU and corresponding Implementing
Agreements. The legal basis for the Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs) is the "Customs Mutual Assistance
Agreement" (CMAA) between the U.S. and Canada that has been in
existence since 1984. The MOUs specify that the countries will
enter into implementing agreements through the exchange of
letters. The implementing arrangements address: facility
locations, general description and estimated cost of the
facilities, Joint facility plans, construction plans, financial,
administrative, and operation arrangements, and physical
maintenance arrangements.

To meet the respective laws of the United States and
Canada, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the
Canadian Department of Public Works Canada (PWC) were designated
as the agencies in charge of planning, design, and construction
of the facilities. Upon completion of construction, the GSA and
Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise (RC-CE)
assumed the ownership of their respective portions of the CBFs.
The counterpart immigration agencies (Employment and Immigration
Canada and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service)
agreed to permit residents of one country to work in the other
country for the construction and maintenance of those
facilities. Contractors

115

from both countries were also permitted access to the
construction sites.

A variation on the binational MOU approach is the Joint-
Use and Occupancy Agreement entered into by the State of Montana
with Coutts, Alberta, Canada to provide cooperative, one-stop
truck inspections in Coutts. The agreement between Montana and
Canada did not involve the U.S. Federal Government. The joint
activity is only concerned with vehicle inspection, a Montana
state concern, not a federal issue (see section 3.3.1 for more
detail). Similar to the MOU, the Joint Use and Occupancy
Agreement specifies the terms of financial contribution to the
joint facility, the responsibilities and rights of each party,
and the operational arrangements.

Although there presently are no Joint facilities along the
U.S.-Mexico border, the Canadian experience provides a method
for how one might proceed. The U.S. and Mexico signed a CMAA
with nearly identical provisions as that between the United
States and Canada which, in fact, predates the Canadian
agreement by eight years. The CMAA could be used as the legal
basis for establishing MOUs and Implementing Agreements between
the Customs Services of the two countries regarding the
intermodal facility. Similar procedures are possible for the
other agencies as well. More detailed information on the
elements of the MOUs and Implementing Agreements was presented
in section 3.3.3. A copy of the U.S.-Mexico CMAA, and a sample
MOU and Implementing Agreement are located in appendices G, H,
and I respectively.

116

6.5 Summary

There are three processes of importance to the proposed
Santa Teresa intermodal facility. First, a permit (presidential
or otherwise) is required for a port of entry. Second, the
creation of an FTZ provides noteworthy economic benefits. And
finally, MOUs can serve to establish a binational cooperative
effort to approximate the conceptualized federal zone. These
three processes can be pursued by the State simultaneously or
sequentially, but all three are important.

117

SECTION 7.0

STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Overview

This report has identified the principal concerns arising
at the state and federal levels in establishing an intermodal
transportation facility straddling the U.S.-Mexico border at or
near the Santa Teresa port of entry. At the state level, a
review of options related to the formation of a managing
authority were explored. Alternative legal, organizational, and
financial structures were documented and evaluated through an
examination of several case studies. These findings were used
to develop draft legislation to create an intermodal port
authority in New Mexico and to assess other structural options
available to the State, including the possibility of binational
governance.

At the federal level, legal issues and administrative
processes have been outlined and assessed in terms of the
intermodal project. This required a review of laws, procedures,
and case studies concerning trade across international borders,
international cooperative arrangements involving the United
States, and strategies for how to establish an intermodal
facility on the border. Care has been taken to identify the
major participants at the national level and to address how the
proposed facility would impact upon federal agency operations.

Throughout this report specific recommendations have been
offered concerning these issues and will not be repeated here.

118

Based upon the research conducted and summarized in this report,
several general recommendations emerge. These recommendations
are organized by the two primary levels of government involved.

7.2 State Level Recommendations

Three general recommendations address issues within the
State of New Mexico. First, it is necessary to make decisions as
quickly as possible concerning the approach to be taken in terms
of a managing authority for the project. Second, a state
legislative , strategy needs to be adopted and pursued well
before the New Mexico legislature convenes in 1995. Third, an
effort should be made to delineate what special services might
be offered at the proposed facility. Of course, some of this
hinges on the outcomes of the primary and general elections in
the months to come.

7.2.1 Select an Authority

Given that the State is confronted with different options
on how to organize a port authority to fulfill operational and
fiscal responsibilities, a specific approach needs to be
selected and promoted in an aggressive fashion. This should be
done quickly in order to prepare fully for the upcoming
legislative session which is now less than a year away. If a
binational approach is selected, major inroads must be made in
Mexico before the start of the new year.

119

7.2.2 Determine Legislative Strategy

A plan of action should be developed for the 1995 session.
This includes cultivating the support of state legislators
generally and with regularity. Just as important is the need to
identify sponsors to introduce and promote the bill.
Knowledgeable spokespersons will need to actively sell the
project as a benefit to the entire state, not Just Dona Ana
County. The state's U.S. senators and representatives should
play an active and visible role in this process.

7.2.3 Special Services

In anticipation of marketing the proposed facility to
potential users, consideration should be given to the range of
services that will be provided. There are the more obvious
issues, such as computerization, one-stop border crossing
approval, storage and warehousing, and state-of-the-art facility
design. Because it is a land crossing, the State should consider
the possibility of attracting oversized and overweight shipments
that pose problems for bridge crossings. Another possibility is
to examine whether the facility will be in a position to handle
hazardous waste materials or provide fumigation services.
While these issues raise a host of new questions which need to
be thoroughly examined, such features would give the facility a
very distinctive quality which could then be presented in the
marketing of the facility to potential users.

120

7.3 Federal Level Recommendations

General recommendations at the national level are listed
below. This includes designating a sponsor for the federal
permit process, developing a detailed plan, cultivating support
among actors in the inter-agency approval process, and fostering
greater communication with Mexican officials.

7.3.1 Designate U.S. Sponsor

From a federal point of view, the State needs to designate
a "sponsor" to assume leadership for obtaining a federal permit
to develop the Santa Teresa intermodal facility. The State can
proceed with a temporary solution until decisions are made about
a permanent authority structure. Given the complexity and scope
of the project there is a need to have it originate at a high
level in State government. The newly created Governor's Office
on Border Affairs would appear to be a logical choice. The
sponsor needs to initiate, as soon as possible, the process for
obtaining the necessary permits and therefore must oversee the
development of a more detailed plan.

7.3.2 Develop Detailed Plan

U.S. federal officials indicated that a concrete plan for
the intermodal facility needs to be developed and circulated as
soon as feasible. A draft form is acceptable at this juncture.
This plan must cover such issues as physical design and
facilities, market and demand, and environmental impacts. The
plan should make every

121

effort to explicitly address federal agency concerns, from
Customs to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

7.3.3 Cultivate Federal Support

With a detailed plan, even if it is in draft form, the
State needs to continue to both formally and informally promote
the project. Every effort should be made to cultivate support
from federal players in the inter-agency approval process. This
means working with the national, regional, and district level
federal inter-agency work groups. Federal district offices in
El Paso, Texas, meet on a monthly basis and the plan should be
shared with them as it is being prepared. As the plan changes,
updates should be shared with these participants. Regardless of
the level involved, federal officials were reluctant to offer
specific comments on what was perceived as a vision rather than
a plan. At the same time, the State's national political
leaders should be mobilized to support this effort at the
highest levels in Washington, D.C.

7.3.4 Communication with Mexican Officials

U.S. federal officials were nearly unanimous in stressing
the critical importance of developing stronger ties immediately
and continually with Mexican officials at the national and state
levels. This should take the form of regular communication and
personal interaction, and should occur long before seeking a
federal permit to construct the intermodal facility. Indeed, the

122

permit process calls for a formal Mexican sponsor at the time of
submitting the application to the U.S. Department of State.
Moreover, if a binational governing structure is to be
established it will only occur through sustained effort on the
part of the State to involve Mexico. The State, through its
designated sponsor, should pursue avenues to establish MOUs with
the Mexican national government and the State of Chthushua to
facilitate this binational approach. Concurrently, efforts
should be undertaken to encourage federal agencies, particularly
U.S. Customs, to develop implementing agreements with their
Mexican counterparts which would foster coordinated activities
at the proposed facility.

7.4 Conclusion

The proposed intermodal facility at or near the Santa
Teresa border crossing is a feasible concept from a legal,
administrative, and political perspective. Within the next
year it is imperative that the State of New Mexico make every
effort to move the project from the drawing board to the
realities of creating a concrete organizational structure
committed publicly to its successful implementation. One of the
first steps is to assign full-time responsibility for this
project to an individual or organization in a position of
authority to act on several fronts. Steering Committee input
and oversight is still critical, but there are limits to the
ability of such a group to pursue the necessary approvals and
agreements. Hurdles at the state, federal, and

123

international levels are not insurmountable but need to be
addressed in a deliberate and expedient manner.

124

APPENDIX A

PHONE INTERVIEWS

125

A. Federal Government Officials

Tim Arnade, Border Projects Coordinator, General Services
Administration, Washington, D.C., April 1994.

Donna Barnes, Chief Inspector, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C., May 1994.

Curtis Berg, Public Buildings Service, Design and
Construction, General Services Administration, Denver, CO,
May 1994.

John Bauman, Energy/Environmental Officer, Department of
State-Canada Desk, Washington, D.C., May 1994.

Kathy Boyce, Department of Commerce, Foreign-Trade Zone
Board, Washington, D.C., January 1994.

Steven Gibson, Coordinator of U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs,
Department of State, Washington, D.C., February 1994.

Joyce Iamato, Branch Chief, Department of Treasury,
Customs Service-Space Management Branch, Indianapolis, IN,
May 1994.

Vicky Kingslian, Office of Facility Planning, Immigration
and Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C., May 1994.

Dana Laster, Financial Management Analyst, Budget and
Agreements Section, Department of Agriculture, Animal
Plant and Health Inspection Service, Hyattsville, MD, May
1994.

Brad Lund, Program Officer, Division of Inspection
Control, Customs Service, Washington, D.C., May 1994.

Douglas McKenna, Special Agent, Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, E1 Paso, TX, May
1994.

Aaron Miller, Supervisor, Plant Protection and Quarantine
Officer, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, E1 Paso, TX, May 1994.

Clyde Moore, International Boundary Commission-U.S. and
Canada, Washington, D.C., March 1993.

Bylle Patterson, Director of International Analysis and
Planning Division, Department of Treasury, Customs Service
International Affairs Office, Washington, D.C., May 1994.

Robert Sheehan, Inspector in Charge of Rail Operations,
Department of Treasury, Customs Service, Detroit, MI,
April 11, 1994.

126

Milburn Smith, Planner, General Services Administration
Capital Improvements Branch, Fort Worth, TX, May 1994.

Rene Valenzuela, Public Affairs Officer, International
Boundary and Water Commission-U.S. and Mexico (United
States Section), E1 Paso, TX, May 1994.

John Vigil, District Director and Officer in Charge,
Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant and Health
Inspection Service-Plant Protection and Quarantine, E1
Paso, TX, May 1994.

Jerrald Worley, Director of International Affairs, Customs
Service, Washington, D.C., May 1994.

Phyllis Young, Policy Project Manager, Department of
Transportation-Federal Highway Administration (New Mexico
Division), Santa Fe, NM, May 1994.

William Young, International Organizations and Agreements
Branch, Customs Service, Washington, D.C., May 1994.

A.2 State and Local Government Officials

Debbie Clark, Director of Public Relations, Port of
Shelby, Shelby, MT, December 1993.

Myles Culbertson, Executive Director, New Mexico Border
Authority, Las Cruces, NM, August 1993.

Richard Garner, Area Port Director, Oroville, WA, April
1994.

Dave Galt, Motor Carrier Division, Montana Department of
Transportation, Helena, MT, April 1994.

Mr. Moran, Port Director, Port of Highgate Springs,
Alburg, VT, March 1994.

Pat Olin, Former International Affairs Advisor to Former
Governor Stan Stephens, Helena, MT, March 1994.

Wayne Phillips, Former Deputy Chief Legal Counsel and
Senior Policy Aid for Transportation to Governor Stan
Stephens, Helena, MT, May 1994.

Evelyn Strader, Director of Public Information,
Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority, Detroit, MI, December
1993.

Yvonne Villabasso, Planning Department, Doha Ana County,
Las Cruces, NM, November 1993 and March 1994.

127

Cassandra Woods, Senate Aid, U.S. Senator Carl Levin,
Detroit,MI, December 1993.

A.3 Other Officials

David Cree, Chairman, DeWin Board of Directors, Detroit,
MI, January 1994.

Steve Guittard, Attorney, Hill and Lewis Law Firm,
Representing the DeWin Corporation, Detroit, MI, January
1994.

James Kellow, Executive Director, Detroit/Wayne County
Port Authority and FTZ, Detroit, MI, December 1993 and
January 1994.

Steve Olinek, Director, FTZ Program, Detroit, MI, December
1993 and January 1994.

128

APPENDIX B

PERSONAL INTERVIEWS

129

B.1 Federal Government Officials

Art Arias, Acting Assistant, Director for Examination,
Department of Justice, Immigration & Naturalization
Service, El Paso, TX, March 25, 1994.

Tim Arnade, Border Projects Coordinator, General Services
Administration, Washington, D.C., December 14, 1993.

Greg Bucksich, Border Liaison, Senator Pete Domenici's
Office, Washington, D.C., December 15, 1993.

Michael Clardy, Realty Specialist, General Services
Administration-Capital Improvements Branch, Fort Worth,
TX, February 28, 1994.

V.E. Garcia, Investigator, Food and Drug Administration,
Public Health Service, El Paso, TX, April 13, 1994.

Steven Gibson, Coordinator of U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs,
Department of State, Washington, D.C., December 15, 1993.

Art Gonzalez, Port Director, Department of Justice,
Immigration & Naturalization Service, E1 Paso, TX, March
25, 1994.

Susan Gorsky, International Policy Analyst, Department of
Transportation-Office of International Transportation &
Trade, Washington, D.C., December 14, 1993.

Jack Grady, Consumer Safety Inspector, Food and Drug
Administration, Public Health Service, E1 Paso, TX, April
13, 1994.

Narendra Gunaji, United States Commissioner, International
Boundary and Water Commission, Las Cruces, NM, December
13, 1993.

A1 Gunie, District Director, Department of Justice,
Immigration & Naturalization Service, E1 Paso, TX, March
25, 1994.

Robert Holler, District Director, Department of Treasury,
Customs Service, El Paso, TX, March 25, 1994.

Michael Hoyt, Staff Analyst, Senator Jeff Bingaman's
Office, Las Cruces, NM, November 16, 1993.

Robert Kiene, Border Affairs Officer, Office of Mexican
Affairs, Department of State, Washington, D.C., December
15, 1993.

130

James King, Chief, Capital Improvements Branch, Design &
Construction Division, General Services Administration
Public Buildings Service, Fort Worth, TX, February 28,
1994.

James MacDonald, Line Release Coordinator, Department of
Treasury, Customs Service, Washington, D.C., December 16,
1993.

Douglas McKenna, Special Agent, Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, E1 Paso, TX, April
13, 1994.

Kenneth Pasquarelle, Deputy District Director, Department
of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, E1
Paso, TX, March 25, 1994.

David Reeves, Operations Officer, Department of
Agriculture, Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service-
Plant Protection and Quarantine, Washington, D.C.,
December 15, 1993.

Milburn Smith, Planner, General Services Administration
Capital Improvements Branch, Fort Worth, TX, Feb. 28,
1994.

John Tanner, Assistant District Director, Department of
Treasury, Customs Service, E1 Paso, TX, March 25, 1994.

Rene Valenzuela, Public Affairs Officer, International
Boundary and Water Commission-U.S. and Mexico (United
States Section), E1 Paso, TX, March 4, 1994.

John Vigil, District Director and Officer in Charge,
Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service-Plant
Protection and Quarantine, E1 Paso, TX, April 6, 1994.

Raymond Weil, Chief, Policy Analysis Division, Department
of Transportation -Office of the Secretary, Washington,
D.C., December 14, 1993.

Edward Weiner, Senior Policy Analyst, Department of
Transportation-Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C.,
December 14, 1993.

Manuel "Bobby" Ybarra, United States Section Secretary,
International Boundary and Water Commission-U.S. and
Mexico, E1 Paso, TX, March 4, 1994.

B.2 State and Local Government Officials

Everado Chavez, Chair, Dofla Ana County Commission, Las
Cruces, NM. December 9, 1993

Myles Culbertson, Executive Director, New Mexico Border
Authority, Las Cruces, NM, November 16 and 23, 1993.

131

Ron Forte, Planning Director, New Mexico State Highway and
Transportation Department, Santa Fe, NM, November 9 and
December 22, 1993.

John Garcia, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the
Governor, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Las Cruces, NM,
December 14 and 22, 1993, April 22, 1994.

Enrique Gonzales. Jr., Commissioner, Dona Ana County
Commission, Las Cruces, NM, December 21, 1993

Fernando Macias, State Senator (District 38), New Mexico
Legislature, Las Cruces, NM, December 9, 1993.

David Martinez, State Representative (District 34), New
Mexico Legislature, Las Cruces, NM, December 13, 1993.

Cynthia Nava, State Senator (District 31) New Mexico
Legislature, Gadsden, NM, December 9, 1993.

Steve Olinek, Executive Director, DeWin Corporation,
Detroit, MI, December 1993.

Katherine O'Neal, Deputy Executive Director for
Administration, Virginia Port Authority, Norfolk, VA,
December 13, 1993.

Judy Price, Assistant County Manager and Director of
Planning, Dona Ana County, Las Cruces, NM, December 3,
1993.

Yvonne Villabasso, Planning Department, Dona Ana County,
Las Cruces, NM, November 16, 1993 and March 1, 1994.

B.3 Other Officials

Joe Alcantar, Jr., Vice President, Brown, Alcantar, &
Brown E1 Paso, TX, April 26, 1994.

Don Michie, Professor of Business Administration and
Director of Institute for Manufacturing and Materials
Management, University of Texas E1 Paso, E1 Paso, TX,
March 1994.

Noel Nevshehir, Manager, Business Development, Greater
Detroit Chamber of Commerce, December 28, 1993.

Jack Pickle, President, Alameda Land & Development
Corporation, Las Cruces, NM, November 23, 1993.

*A meeting was scheduled with State Representative G.X. McSherry
(District 32) which had to be canceled and could not be
rescheduled due to illneas.

132

APPENDIX C

SECTION NUMBERS AND SUBJECT HEADINGS
OF IPA DRAFT LEGISLATION

133

SECTION SUBJECT HEADING OF
NUMBER IPA LEGISLATION

XX-1-1 Short Title
XX-1-2 Legislative Intent and Purpose
XX-1-3 Definitions
XX-1-4 Intermodal Port Authority Created
XX-1-5 Board of Commissioners; Voting Membership
XX-1-6 Board of Commissioners; Non-Voting Membership
XX-1-7 Meeting and Compensation
XX-1-8 Executive Director; Appointment and
Compensation
XX-l-9 Powers and Duties of the Authority
XX-1-10 Powers and Duties of Director
XX-1-11 Granting of Operation and Use Privileges
XX-1-12 Security and Fire Suppression Powers
XX-1-13 Issuance of Bonds, Revenue Bonds; Refunding
Bonds
XX-1-14 Bonds; Legal Investments
XX-1-15 Bonds; Secured by Trust Indenture
XX-1-16 Authority Loans
XX-1-17 Conditions for Authority Indebtedness
XX-l-18 Indebtedness Authorization and Authentication
XX-l-l9 Security for Indebtedness
XX-1-20 Indebtedness of Authority is not General
Obligation
XX-1-21 Agreement of the State
XX-1-22 Intermodal Port Authority Fund
XX-1-23 Federal and State Money
XX-1-24 Disposal of Property
XX-1-25 Tax Exemption
XX-1-26 Power of Eminent Domain
XX-1-27 Legal Counsel for the Authority
XX-1-28 Conflict of Interest
XX-1-29 Office of the Authority
XX-1-30 Foreign-Trade Zone
XX-1-31 Planning, Zoning and Building Laws
XX-1-32 Authority Powers not Restricted
XX-1-33 Limited Consequences of Legal Challenges

134

APPENDIX D

A BILL TO CREATE AN INTERMODAL PORT AUTHORITY

135

INTERMODAL PORT AUTHORITY ACT

XX-1-1 SHORT TITLE.

This act [XX-1-1 to XX-1-33 NMSA 1978] may be cited as the
"Intermodal Port Authority Act."

XX-1-2 LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PURPOSE.

By enacting the Intermodal Port Authority Act [XX-1-1 to XX-1-33
NMSA 1978], it is the intent and purpose of the legislature to
encourage the planning, acquisition, establishment, development,
construction, improvement, maintenance, operation, regulation,
and protection of an intermodal transportation port facility and
transportation structures incident thereto in Dona Ana County to
facilitate freight transportation and commerce, both domestic
and foreign, by truck, rail, and air.

XX-1-3 DEFINITIONS.

As used in the Intermodal Port Authority Act [XX-1-1 to XX-1-
33]:

A. "authority" means the New Mexico Intermodal Port
Authority;
B. "commission" means the Board of Commissioners of the
authority;
C. "director" means the Executive Director of the
authority;
D. "facility" means the intermodal port facility serving
truck and rail transportation, including the associated track,
roads, terminal, real estate, parking facilities, warehouses,
and any other structures used in connection with the operation
of the facility;
E. "property" means any land, improvements to the land,
buildings and any improvements to the buildings, machinery and
equipment of any kind necessary to operate the facility,
operating capital and any other personal properties deemed
necessary in connection with the facility;
F. "bond" means revenue bonds, including refunding bonds,
for which only the revenues of the authority are pledged to the
payment of the principal and interests on said bonds;
G. "indebtedness" means any bonds, notes, loans, or other
obligations of the authority;
H. "federal government" means the United States of America
or any agency, department, corporation or instrumentality
thereof; and
I. "person" means a natural person, corporation, firm,
association, trust, partnership, cooperative association, club,
company, joint venture, syndicate or other legal entity.

XX-1-4 INTERMODAL PORT AUTHORITY CREATED.

The "New Mexico Intermodal Port Authority" is created. The
authority is a state agency, as defined in 6-3-1 NMSA 1978. It
shall be subject to the same laws, regulations, and
administrative

136

and budgetary controls that apply to a department in the
executive branch of the state government. The authority is
created pursuant to the Executive Reorganization Act, including
but not limited to the Audit Act, Per Diem and Mileage Act, the
Procurement Code, the Public Employees Retirement Act, the Open
Meetings Act, and the Public Records Act.

XX-1-5 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; VOTING MEMBERSHIP.

The business and affairs of the authority shall be managed and
conducted by a Board of Commissioners. All powers, rights and
duties conferred by this act, or other provisions of law, upon
the authority shall be exercised by the Board of Commissioners
of the New Mexico Intermodal Port Authority. The commission
shall consist of seven voting members and eight non-voting ex
officio members.
A. The seven voting members of the commission shall be
citizens of the State of New Mexico appointed by the Governor
and confirmed by the Senate, provided that at least three of the
appointees are from and reside in Doha Ana County. In addition,
at least one of the seven shall have knowledge of intermodal
transportation issues, and at least one other appointee shall
have knowledge of border development issues;
B. The seven voting members of the commission shall serve
for staggered terms of four years, except for the initial
appointees who shall serve as follows: one member for one year
or less with a term expiring December 31, two members for two
years with a term expiring December 31, two members for three
years with a term expiring December 31, and two members for four
years with a term expiring December 31. Thereafter terms shall
be for four years, with all terms expiring on December 31;
C. The voting members of the commission, before entering
upon their duties, shall take an oath of office to administer
the duties of the position faithfully and impartially. A record
of such oaths shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of
State;
D. If a vacancy occurs among the voting members, the
Governor shall appoint, without Senate confirmation, a
replacement to serve out the term of the departed member. If an
appointed member's term expires, the member shall continue to
serve for up to one additional year until the member is
reappointed or another person is appointed as a replacement;
E. No voting member of the commission is eligible to serve
more than two consecutive terms. A person appointed to fill a
vacancy shall be eligible to be appointed to two additional
terms; and
F. Each voting member of the commission shall be removed
by the Governor for misfeasance, malfeasance or willful neglect
of duty, after reasonable notice and a public hearing, unless
the same are expressly waived in writing.

XX-1-6 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; NON-VOTING MEMBERSHIP.

137

A. In addition to the seven voting members, the following
state officials shall serve as ex officio non-voting advisory
members of the commission:
(1) The Governor or a designated representative of
the Governor's Office;
(2) Attorney General;
(3) State Treasurer;
(4) Secretary of Highway and Transportation;
(5) Executive Director of the Border Authority;
(6) Executive Director of the Border Commission;
(7) State Auditor; and
(8) Secretary of Economic Development;
B. The voting members of the commission and/or the
Governor may, from time to time, designate additional ex officio
non-voting members, including but not limited to members of the
state legislature who represent all or part of Dona Ana County
and/or have expertise in transportation or border issues, as
deemed necessary to provide a full representation of interests
related to the purpose and intent of this act; and
C. An ex officio member of the commission may, from time
to time, designate in writing another person to attend meetings
of the commission and, to the same extent and with same effect,
act in the member's stead.

XX-1-7 MEETINGS AND COMPENSATION.

A. The commission shall keep records of its proceedings,
including written minutes of all meetings;
B. The Governor shall appoint a chairperson from among
the voting members of the commission. This person shall serve
as chair at the pleasure of the Governor;
C. The commission shall elect a vice-chairperson from
among the voting members of the commission;
D. The commission may appoint any other officers it deems
necessary from among the voting or non-voting members;
E. The commission shall prescribe the powers and duties
of the chairperson, vice-chairperson, and other officials;
E. The commission shall convene upon the call of a
majority of members or the chairperson, and shall meet a minimum
of once every three months; and
F. Each of the voting members of the commission shall be
reimbursed in accordance with the Per Diem and Mileage Act [10-
8-1 to 10-8-8 NMSA 1978] during the performance of official
duties. Members shall receive no other compensation, perquisite,
or allowances as a voting member of the commission.

XX-1-8 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION.

A. Voting members of the commission shall appoint the
chief executive officer of the Intermodal Port Authority, who
shall be known as the Executive Director and who shall serve at
the pleasure of the commission;

138

B. The director shall not be a member of the commission;
and
C. The director's compensation shall be fixed by the
commission in accordance with law. This compensation shall be
established at a level which will enable the commission to
attract and obtain a capable executive director.

XX-l-9 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE AUTHORITY.

A. All powers, duties and rights conferred by this act,
or other provisions of law, upon the authority are vested in the
Board of Commissioners thereof;
B. A majority of the voting commissioners constitutes a
quorum for the purpose of conducting business. No vacancy in
the membership of the commission shall impair the right of a
quorum to exercise all rights and perform all duties of the
authority;
C. Action may be taken by the commission upon a vote of
not less than a majority of the commissioners present;
D. The authority shall have the power to adopt, alter and
repeal bylaws, rules, and regulations governing the manner in
which its business shall be transacted and the manner in which
the powers of the authority shall be exercised and its duties
performed. Such bylaws, rules and regulations may provide for
such committees and their functions as the authority may deem
necessary or expedient;
E. The authority may adopt and use a seal, and alter such
seal at its discretion;
F. The authority may plan, establish, acquire, develop,
construct, purchase, enlarge, improve, maintain, equip, operate,
and regulate an intermodal port facility in Dona Ana County.
For such purposes the authority may, by purchase, gift, devise,
lease, or otherwise, acquire real or personal property, or any
interest therein, including easements;
G. It shall be the duty of the authority to foster and
stimulate the commerce of the facility, to promote the shipment
of goods and cargoes through the facility, and in general to
perform any act or function which may be useful in developing,
improving, or increasing the commerce, both foreign and
domestic, of the facility;
H. The authority may adopt, amend, and repeal such
reasonable resolutions, rules and orders as it considers
necessary for the management, governance, and use of the
intermodal port facility. No rule, order, or standard
prescribed by the authority may be inconsistent with or contrary
to any act of the Congress of the United States or of this
State. The authority shall keep on file at the principal office
of the authority a copy of all its rules for public inspection;
I. The authority is empowered to cooperate with, and act
as agent for, the federal government in the maintenance,
development, and use of the facility, and in any other matter
consistent with the purposes, duties, and powers of the
authority. This includes performing or causing to be performed
environmental, land use, transportation, and other technical
studies necessary or advisable

139

to secure port of entry approval or to obtain any other permit
or approval to operate the intermodal facility near or on the
border;
J. The authority is empowered to develop avenues of
communication and to cooperate with other governmental entities,
including states, municipalities, and countries;
K. The authority may, under such terms and conditions as
prescribed by law, fix, alter, charge, and collect tolls, fees,
rentals, and any other charges for the use of, or for services
rendered by, the facility. The authority may impose, levy, and
collect such other fees and charges as may assist in defraying
the expenses of administration, maintenance, development or
improvement of the facility. Such tolls and fees shall be
deposited in the Intermodal Port Authority Fund;
L. The authority may plan, establish, acquire, develop,
construct, purchase, enlarge, improve, maintain, and equip
railroad lines and public roads leading to the facility,
provided that such lines and roads are located wholly within
Dona Ana County;
M. The authority shall have the power to issue bonds and
enter into other forms of indebtedness for acquisitions of land
and property for the facility, road and rail lines leading
thereto, and for other purposes consistent with this act and
other laws;
N. The authority may promote legislation that will further
the goals of the authority and development of the facility;
O. The authority shall initiate and further plans for the
development of the facility and, to this end, shall keep
informed as to the present requirements and likely future needs
of the facility;
P. The authority shall submit an annual report to the
Governor on or before November 1 of each year. Such report
shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
(1) the audited financial statements of the authority
for the year ending the preceding June 30;
(2) the accomplishments of the authority for the year
ending the preceding June 30;
(3) current activities and projects of the authority;
and
(4) the most recent plan as described in XX-1-9.0;
and
Q. The authority may issue periodicals and carry and
charge for advertising therein.

XX-l-10 POWERS AND DUTIES OF DIRECTOR.

140

XX-1-11 GRANTING OF OPERATION AND USE PRIVILEGES.

A. In connection with the operation of the intermodal
port facility, the authority may enter into contracts, leases,
and other arrangements for terms not to exceed thirty years with
any persons or governments regarding:
(1) granting the privilege of managing, operating,
using or improving the facility or any portion thereof or space
therein for commercial purposes;
(2) conferring the privilege of supplying goods,
commodities, services, or infrastructure at the facility; and
(3) making available services to be furnished
by the authority or its agents;
B. In each case the authority may establish the terms
and conditions and fix the charges, rentals, or fees for the
privileges or services, whic must be reasonable and uniform for
the same class of privilege or service. These must be
established with due regard to the property and improvements
used and the expenses of operation of the authority. Such
charges, rentals, and fees shall not be subject to supervision
or regulation by any commission, board, bureau, or agency of the
State, of any municipality, county, or other political
subdivision of the State; and
C. The authority cannot convey exclusive use to one
person.

XX-1-12 SECURITY AND FIRE SUPPRESSION POWERS.

A. The authority is empowered to adopt and enforce
reasonable rules and regulation governing:
(1) the maximum and minimum speed limits of
motor vehicles and locomotives using the facility,
(2) the kinds and sizes of vehicles and trains
which may be operated at the facility;
(3) materials which shall not be transported
through the facility; and
(4) other matters affecting the safety and
security of the facility and authority property.
B. Such rules and regulations shall have the force and
effect of law:
(1) after publication one time in full in
newspapers of general circulation in Doha Ana County; and
(2) when posted where the public using the
facility or affected property may conveniently see them.
C. The authority may appoint and employ personnel, or
contract for such services, for the enforcement of security and
safety rules and regulations; and
D. The authority may take such steps as necessary,
consistent with other provisions of law, to prevent and suppress
fires at the facility and in the vicinity of the facility.
Related to this purpose, the authority may, out of such funds as
may become available, purchase, equip, maintain, use, and
provide and train a fire crew or crews, or contract for fire
prevention services.

141

XX-1-13 ISSUANCE OF BONDS; REVENUE BONDS; REFUNDING BONDS.

The commission is authorized to issue, sell and deliver bonds,
in accordance with the terms of the Intermodal Port Authority
Act [XX -1-1 to XX-1-33 MMSA 1978].

A. The authority shall have the power to issue revenue
bonds for all or any part of the costs of acquisition,
construction, maintenance, and equipment of the facility. The
authority is empowered to act as an issuing agent for the
purposes of the New Mexico Private Activity Bond Act [6-20-1 to
6-20-11 MMSA 1978]:
(1) the authority may issue revenue bonds and
such bonds shall be considered appropriate investments for the
severance tax permanent fund or collateral for the deposit of
public funds as long as the bonds meet the statutory
requirements of the State for investment of public funds;
(2) the authority may use revenue bond proceeds to
pay all expenses, premiums and commissions connected with the
authorization, sale and issuance of the bonds, as deemed
necessary or advantageous by the authority;
(3) the revenue bonds issued by the authority:
(a) may have interest, appreciated
principal value or any part thereof payable at intervals
determined by the authority;
(b) may be subject to prior redemption
at such time and under such conditions as the authority may
determine appropriate,
(c) may mature at any time not
exceeding forty years after the date of issuance;
(d) may be serial in form and maturity
or may consist of one or more bonds payable at one time or in
installments or may be in such form as may be determined by the
authority;
(e) may be in registered or bearer
form, or in book entry form through a securities depository,
for the principal or interest or both;
(f) may be sold for cash at, above or
below par;
(g) may be sold at public or private
negotiated sale; and
(h) may be the subject of interest
rate exchange agreements;
B. The authority may issue refunding revenue bonds for
the purpose of refinancing, paying or discharging all or any
part of the outstanding balance of authority revenue bonds of
one or more or all outstanding issues:
(1) refunding bonds may be for the purpose of
acceleration, deceleration or other modification of payment of
such obligations, for the purpose of reducing interest costs or
effecting other economies, for the purpose of modifying or
eliminating restrictive contractual limitations pertaining to
the issuance of additional bonds or otherwise concerning the
outstanding bonds or to any facilities relating thereto, or for
any combination of the above purposes;

142

(2) the authority may pledge irrevocably for the
payment of interest and principal on refunding bonds the
appropriate revenues which were pledged to retire the original
bonds;
(3) bonds for refunding may be issued separately
or issued in combination on one series or more;
(4) the proceeds of refunding bonds, including
any accrued interest and premiums pertaining to the sale of
refunding bonds, shall be immediately applied to the retirement
of the bonds being refunded; and
(5) refunding bonds may bear such additional
terms and provisions as may be determined by the authority
subject to the limitations of this act.
C. The principal and interest on all bonds issued by the
authority shall be payable solely from the funds of the
authority provided for such payment. The bonds of each issue
shall be dated, shall bear interest at the prevailing rate of
interest at the time, shall mature at such time or times not
exceeding forty years from their date or dates, as may be
determined by the authority, at such price or prices and under
such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the authority prior
to the issuance of the bonds. The authority shall determine the
form of the bonds and the place or places of payment of
principal and interest, which may be at any bank or trust
company within or outside of the State; and
D. All bonds shall be signed by the director of the
authority or shall bear the director's facsimile signature, and
the official seal of the authority or a facsimile thereof shall
be impressed or imprinted thereon and attested to by the chair
of the commission, and any coupons attached thereto shall bear
the facsimile signature of the director. In case any officer of
the authority, whose signature or facsimile of whose signature
appears on any bonds or coupons, shall cease to be such officer
before the delivery of such bonds, the signature shall
nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes as if the
officer had remained in office until such delivery.

XX-1-14 BONDS; LEGAL INVESTMENTS.

All bonds issued by the authority are legal and authorized
investments for banks, savings and loans, associations, trust
companies and insurance companies.

XX-1-15 BONDS; SECURED BY TRUST INDENTURE.

XX-1-16 AUTHORITY LOANS.

143

The authority may borrow money from a financial institution
provided:
A. The interest and principal payments, or any portion
thereof, shall be payable in intervals as may be determined by
the authority;
B. The loan shall mature at any time not exceeding
forty years from the date of origination;
C. The principal amount of the loan shall not exceed
fair market value of the real or personal property to be
acquired with the proceeds of the loan; and
D. The loan shall be subject to approval by the State
Board of Finance.

XX-1-17 CONDITIONS FOR AUTHORITY INDEBTEDNESS.

The authority shall neither expend nor incur any indebtedness
for any improvement, repair, maintenance, or addition to any
real or personal property owned by anyone other than the
authority, the State of New Mexico, or a political subdivision
of the State, unless either:
A. The use of such property is guaranteed to the
authority or the State by a lease extending beyond the useful
life of the improvement, repair, maintenance, addition, or new
facility; or
B. Such expenditure or indebtedness is approved in
writing by the Governor.

XX-1-18 INDEBTEDNESS AUTHORIZATION AND AUTHENTICATION.

A. Indebtedness of the authority shall be authorized by
resolution of the commission, approved by a majority of the
voting members and by the State Board of Finance;
B. The bonds or loans shall be executed by the
chairperson or vice-chairperson and one other member of the
commission;
C. The bonds or loans shall be authenticated by any
public or private transfer agent or registrar, or its successor,
named or otherwise designated by the authority; and
D. Certificates of indebtedness may be executed as
provided under the Uniform Facsimile Signature of Public
Officials Act [6-9-1 to 6-9-6 NMSA 1978], and the coupons, if
any, shall bear the facsimile of the chairperson or vice-
chairperson of the commission.

XX-l-l9 SECURITY FOR INDEBTEDNESS.

144

the State. Such trust agreement or the resolution providing for
the issuance of such bonds may pledge or assign the revenues to
be received, but shall not convey or mortgage the facility or
any part thereof.

XX-1-20 INDEBTEDNESS OF AUTHORITY IS NOT GENERAL OBLIGATION.

A. Authority revenue bonds or refunding bonds issued
under the Intermodal Port Authority Act [XX-l-1 to XX-1-33 NMSA
1978] and other loans to the authority:
(1) are not general obligations of the state or
any other agency of the state;
(2) are not general obligations of the
authority; and
(3) are payable only from pledged revenues;
B. Money borrowed and bonds issued by the authority,
including refunding bonds, are payable out of any revenues of
the authority derived from:
(1) the intermodal port facility;
(2) grants or contributions from the federal
government;
(3) storage facilities;
(4) other sources; and/or
(5) any combination of the above.

XX-1-21 AGREEMENT OF THE STATE.

The State does hereby pledge to and agree with the holders of
any bonds or notes issued under the Intermodal Port Authority
Act [XX-1-1 to XX-1-33 NMSA 1978] that the State will not limit
or alter the rights hereby vested in the authority to fulfill
the terms of any agreements made with the holders thereof. The
State further agrees that it will not in any way impair the
rights and remedies of such holders until such bonds or notes,
together with the interest thereon, with interest on any unpaid
installments of interest, and all costs and expenses in
connection with any action or proceedings by or on behalf of
such holders, are fully met and discharged. The authority is
authorized to include this pledge and agreement of the State in
any agreement with the holders of such bonds or notes.

XX-1-22 INTERMODAL PORT AUTHORITY FUND.

145

payments received from the authority, all the money received by
the authority from any public or private source, and any tolls,
fees, rents or other charges collected by the authority;
C. Any money collected in excess of those collected for
an approved project may be expended only as appropriated and in
accordance with a budget approved by the budget division of the
department of finance and administration;
D. Disbursements from the fund shall be made only upon
warrant drawn by the secretary of finance and administration
pursuant to vouchers signed by the director of the authority or,
in the event that the position of director is vacant, vouchers
may be signed by the chair or vice-chair of the commission; and
E. The fund shall not revert at the end of a fiscal
year.

XX-1-23 FEDERAL AND STATE MONEY.

XX-1-24 DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY.

XX-1-25 TAX EXEMPTION.

Any property acquired or income derived by the authority are
exempt from taxation to the same extent as other state
government agencies.

XX-1-26 POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN.

XX-1-27 LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE AUTHORITY.

The State Attorney General shall serve as legal counsel for the
authority. The attorney general shall represent the authority
in

146

all legal matters related to the powers and duties of the
authority arising under this act.

XX-1-28 CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No member of the commission who performs any function or duty
under the New Mexico Intermodal Port Authority Act [XX-l-1 to
XX-1-33 NMSA 1978] may have a direct or indirect financial
interest in any activity undertaken by the authority. No part
of the revenues or assets of the authority shall work to the
benefit of or be distributable to commission members or
authority employees, or members of their immediate families:

XX-1-29 OFFICE OF THE AUTHORITY.

XX-1-30 FOREIGN-TRADE ZONES.

The authority, pursuant to the federal Foreign-Trade Zones Act,
as may be amended from time to time, and regulations adopted
pursuant thereto, may:
A. Apply for and accept a grant of permission to
establish, operate and maintain a foreign-trade zone;
B. Provide such structures and services as may
be necessary or desirable in establishing a foreign-trade zone; and
C. Exercise such other powers as may be
necessary or desirable to establish, operate and maintain a
foreign-trade zone.

XX-1-31 PLANNING, ZONING AND BUILDING LAWS.

XX-1-32 AUTHORITY POWERS NOT RESTRICTED.

A. The authority shall have the power to
perform any act or, carry out any function not inconsistent
with state law; whether included in the provisions of this act,
which may be useful in carrying out the provisions of this act:
B. In addition to the general and special
powers conferred by this act, the authority may exercise all
powers incidental to the exercise of such general and specific
powers; and
C. The Intermodal Port Authority Act [XX-l-1 to XX-33 NMSA
1978] shall be liberally construed to accomplish its intents
and purposes.

147

XX-1-33 LIMITED CONSEQUENCES OF LEGAL CHALLENGES

If any section or clause of the Intermodal Port Authority Act
XX-1-1 to XX-1-33] is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for
any reason whatsoever, that action shall not invalidate any
other provisions of the Act.

148

APPENDIX E

UNITED STATES FEDERAL AGENCIES INVOLVED IN PERMIT APPROVAL

149

The following agencies are involved in the approval of a federal
permit for a port of entry:
International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S. Section

Department of State

Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration

Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Department of Commerce

Department of the Treasury
Customs Service

Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service

Food and Drug Administration

Environmental Protection Agency

Department of Defense
Office of Interamerican Affairs

Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Land Management
Office of Environmental Policy

Federal Emergency Management Agency

General Services Administration

Interstate Commerce Commission

Federal Highway Commission

Department of Energy

150

APPENDIX F

OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS

151

The Department of State has an additional responsibility
to evaluate the environmental assessment for a proposed crossing
to determine if it is necessary to prepare, circulate for
comment, and file an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). To
facilitate the reaching of the necessary finding, the sponsor
should submit, along with the port of entry permit application,
a detailed statement, prepared by a reputable source, assessing
the environmental impact of the construction of the proposed
crossing and related facilities. The environmental assessment
of the proposed project is reviewed by the Department of State,
which may find no significant impact on the quality of the human
environment within the United States or may require a more
detailed EIS.

The primary legal basis for the requiring of an
environmental assessment is the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (83 Stat.852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.), which is
generally referred to as NEPA, and State Department regulations
for the implementation of NEPA (22 CFR Part 161). In addition
to the environmental review requirements of NEPA, the Department
of State has other statutory environmental review and
consultation requirements. Departmental officials, in
cooperation with the Office of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, and the Office of the Legal Advisor, shall, to the
maximum extent possible, conduct environmental review and
consultation for these additional requirements concurrent with
and integrated with the preparation of assessments and
environmental impact statements. The principal additional
requirements stem from the following sources:

1. Endangered Species Act as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq. )
2. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (80
Stat. 917, 16 U.S.C. 470f et. seq.).
3. Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains Management)
4. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seq.)
5. Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended (42 USC 7609, Section
309)
6. Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 USC 1251 et seq.)

There are eight essential components of the environmental
assessment which is submitted along with the application for a
permit. Included in the assessment of environmental impact are:
effects on land use of adjoining properties, opportunities for
short and long term development and employment, effects on
community cohesion, traffic safety, changes in travel patterns
and travel times, air quality impacts, absorptive capacity of
current public facilities, impacts on storm water drainage and
the floodplain, impacts on ground water supply or quality, loss
of habitat and potential loss of wildlife, potential for spills
of hazardous wastes, and historical and archaeological
preservation. The guidelines and format for the preparation of
an environmental assessment are presented below, with a
description of the material required in each of the eight
sections.

152

First, the assessment must include a detailed description
of the proposed actions, including the location, scope, purpose
of the project, and how the environment will be affected by the
project. Maps and diagrams are to be included where necessary.
As part of the explanation of how the environment of the area
will be affected, the document should describe the environment
as it exists prior to the commencement of the project. The
project should be described as it relates to land use plans,
policies and controls for the affected area, and how the project
conforms to or conflicts with objectives and specific terms of
any federal, state or local land use plans, policies, or
controls. Where a conflict exists, the assessment should
describe the extent to which it has been or can be reconciled.

The second major component of the environmental assessment
documents the probable impact of the proposed action on the
environment. There are numerous aspects of the environment that
are evaluated in this analysis, some of which fit the
traditional notion of environmental concerns, and others which
are more socioeconomic in nature. The environmental concerns
include the impact of the proposed facility on air and water
quality, noise level, the floodplain, historical and
archaeological resources, the aesthetic or visual effect of the
area, and areas of unique interest or scenic beauty. Also
included is a study of the impacts of the project on wildlife,
including the potential to substantially alter the pattern of
behavior for a species, interfere with important breeding,
nesting, or feeding grounds, impact a threatened or endangered
species, or disrupt the ecological balance of an area.

The social and economic factors which are considered as
part of the environmental assessment include the extent to which
the proposed project may divide or disrupt an established
community or neighborhood, displace people, destroy parks and
recreation areas, or alter population and employment patterns.
The project is also evaluated in terms of its anticipated
impacts on local development, rights of way, the local and
regional economy, the public water supply and water table, soils
and farmland, and traffic flow.

A third section of the document contains a discussion of
alternatives to the project, including the option of doing
nothing and maintaining the status quo. An explanation must be
provided as to why the alternatives are less desirable than the
proposed project, from an environmental, economic, or general
quality of human life perspective.

The fourth section of the document is devoted to any
probable adverse environmental effects of the project which
cannot be avoided. The fifth section describes the relationship
between local short-term uses of the environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity in the
area. The sixth and seventh sections document any irreversible
and irretrievable commitments of resources, and any problems and
objections raised by

153

other agencies and entities. For each of the problems
identified in section seven, there should be a discussion of
issues and the disposition of the problem.

The eighth and final section of the environmental
assessment document deals with the effects of the project on
land that falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Transportation under Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act. This includes any "publicly owned land from
a park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge" or
"any land from an historic site." A separate description of the
land areas affected under this jurisdiction is required,
including maps, plans, and drawings showing the impact of the
project, a statement of the "[n]ational, state or local
significance" of the area, alternatives to the project, and, if
there is no feasible and prudent alternative, a description of
all planning undertaken to minimize harm to the protected area
and statement of action taken or to be taken to implement this
planning.

Highly technical and specialized analysis should be
avoided in the body of the environmental assessment, and should
be attached as appendices or footnoted with adequate
bibliographic references.

154

APPENDIX G

CUSTOMS MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT-U.S. AND MEXICO

155

28 UST] Mexico-Customs Services-Sept.30, 1976 5427

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND

THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES

REGARDING MUTUAL ASSISTANCE

BETWEEN THEIR CUSTOMS SERVICES

The Unitet States of America and the United Mexican
States, Considering that offences against customs laws are
prejudicial to the economic, fiscal and commercial
interests of their respective countries,

Considering the importance of assuring the accurate
assessment of duties and other taxes collected on the
importation or exportation of goods, as well as the
importance of controls on foreign commerce which each
respective Customs Service enforces,

Convinced that action against customs offenses can be made
more effective by cooperation between their Customs
Services,

Having regard to the Recommendation of the Customs Co-
operation Council on Mutual Administrative Assistance of
December 5, 1953,

HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Definitions

For the purposes of the present Agreement,

5428 U.S. Treaties and Other International Agreement [28 UST

1) "Cuscoms laws" shall mean such laws and
regulations enforced by the Customs Services concerning
the importation, exportation, transshipment and transit of
goofs, as relate to customs duties and other taxes, or to
prohibitions, restrictions and other similar controls
respecting the movement of goods and other controlled
items across national boundaries.
2) "Customs Services" shall mean in the United States
of America, The United States Customs Service, Deparement
of the Treasury and, in Mexico, La Direccion General de
Aduanas de la Secretaria de Hacienda y Cretito Publico.
3) "Offense" shall mean any violation of the customs
law as well as any such attempted violation.

Article 2

Scope of Assistance

1) The Parties agree to assist each other through
their Customs Services, to prevent, investigate and
repress any offense, in accordance with the provisions of
the present Agreement.
2) Assistance, as provided in this Agreement, shall
also be extended upon request for the purpose of assessing
customs duties and other taxes by the Customs Services and
for thc purpose of enforcing controls within the authority
of the Customs Services.
3) Mutual assistance as provided in paragraphs 1 and
2 shall be provided for use in all proceedings, whether
judicial, administrative or investigative and shall also
include in the United Stsees of America proceedings on
"liquidated damages".
4) All actions under the present Agreement by either
Party will be performed in accordance with its laws.

28 UST] Mexico-Customs Services-Sept. 30, 1976 5429

Article 3

Obligation to Observe Confidentiality

1) Inquiries, information, documents and other
communications received by either Party shall, upon
request of the supplying Party, be treated as
confidential. The reasons for such a request shall be
stated.
2) Information, documents and other communications
received in the course of mutual assistance may only be
used for the purposes specified in the present Agreement,
including use in judicial or administrative proceedings.
Such information, documents and other communicationa may
be used for other purposes only when the supplying Party
has given its express consent.

Article 4

Exemptions from Assistance

1) In cases where the requested Party is of the
opinion that compliance with a request would infringe upon
its sovereignty, security, public policy or other
substantive national interests, assistance can be refused
or compliance may be made subject to the satisfaction of
certain conditions or requirements.
2) In cases where a request is made which the
requesting Party itself would be unable to provide if
requested by the other Party, the requesting Party shall
draw attention to this fact in its request. Compliance
with such a request shall be within the discretion of the
requested Party.

Article

Form and Substance of Requests for Assistance

1) Requests pursuant to the present Agreement shall
be made in-writing. Documents necessary for the execution
of such

5430 U.S. Treaties and Other International Agreements [28 UST

requests shall accompany the request. When required
because of the exigency of the situation, oral requests
may also be accepted but shall be confirmed in writing.
2) Requests pursuant to paragraph shall include the
following information:
(a) the authority making the request;
(b) the nature of the proceedings;
(c) the object of and the reason for the request;
(d) the names and addresses of the parties concerned
in the proceedings, if known;
(e) a brief description of the matter under
consideration and the legal elements involved.

Article 6

Channel

1) Assistance shall be carried out in direct cow
between officials designated by the Heads of the
respective Customs Services.
2) In case the Customs Service of the requested
Party is not the appropriate agency to comply with a
request, it shall transmit the request to the appropriate
agency.

Article 7

Execution of Requests

1) The law of the requested Party shall be
applicable in the execution of requests; the requested
Customs Service shall be required to seek any official or
judicial measure necessary to carry out the request.
2) The Customs Service of either Party shall, upon
the request of the Customs Service of the other Party,
conduct any necessary investigation, including the ~
~oning of persons

28 UST] Mexico-Customs Services-Sept.30, 1976 5431

suspected of having committed an offense, as well as of
experts and witnesses
3) The Customs Service of either Party shall, upon
the request of the Customs Service of the other Party,
undertake verification, inspections and fact-finding
inquiries in connection with the matters referred to in
the present Agreement
4) A request by a Party that a certain procedure be
followed shall be complied with pursuant to the laws
applicable according to paragraph 1.
5) A request by a Party that its representative be
present when the action to be taken is carried out shall
be complied with to the fullest extent possible
6) The requesting Party shall, if it so requests, be
advised of the time and place of the action to be taken in
response to the request.
7) In the event that the request cannot be complied
with, the requesting Party shall be promptly notified of
that fact, with a statement of the reasons and of
circumstances which might be of importance for the further
pursuit of the matter.

Article 8

Files, Documents and other Materials; Experts and
Witnesses

1) Originals of files, documents and other materials
shall be requested only in cases where copies would be
insufficient.
2) Originals of files, documents and other materials
which have been transmitted shall be returned at the
earliest opportunity; rights of the requested Party or of
third parties ralating thereto shall remain unaffected

5432 U.S. Treaties and Other International Agreements [28 UST

3) The Customs Service of one Party shall authorize
its employees upon the request of the Customs Service of
the other Party, to appear as experts or witnesses in
judicial or administrative proceedings in the territory of
the other Party and to produce such files, documents or
other materials or authenticated copies thereof, as may be
considered essential for the proceedings.

Article 9

Costs

The Parties shall waive all claims for reimbursement of
cost incurred in the execution of the present Agreement,
with the exception of expenses for experts and witnesses.

Article 10

Special Instances of Assistance

1) Upon request, the Customs Services shall inform
each other whether goods exported from the territory of
one Party have been lawfully imported into the territory
of the other Party. The information shall, upon request,
contain the customs procedure used for clearing the goods.
2) Ihe Customs Service of one Party, upon tne request
of the Customs Service of the other Party, shall, to the
extent its ability, exercise special surveillance of:
(a) means of transport suspected of being used in
offenses within the territory of the requesting Party,
(b) goods designated by the requesting Party as the
object of an extensive clandestine trade of which it is
the country of destination.

28 UST] Mexico-Customs Services-Sept.30, 1976 5433

(c) Particular persons known or suspected by the
requesting party of being engaged in an offense.
3) The Custons Services of the Parties shall, upon
request, furnish each other all available information
ragarding activities which may result in offenses within
the territory of the other Party. In serious cases which
could involve substantial damage to the economy, public
health, public security, or any other vital interest of
the other party, such information shall be supplied
without being requested.
4) The Customs Services of the Parties, for the
purpose of aiding, within the scope of their authority,
in the repression of offenses involving narcotics, will
communicate to each other as far as possible, without the
necessity of a request, all information regarding such
possible violations of the customs laws of the other
Party.
5) The Customs Services of the Parties shall take
such steps as may be appropriate and wihtin the scope of
their authority in order to ensure that goods exported and
imported over the commom frontier pass through the
competent Customs offices and under such controls as it
may appropriate to impose.
6) The Customs Services of the Parties shall
communicate to each other for that purpose a list of the
Customs offices located along the common frontier ,
details of the powers of those offices and their working
hours and, when appropriate, any changes in these
particulars
7) The Customs Services of the Parties shall endeavor
to correlate the powers an working hours of corresponding
Customs offices, subject to operational and working
limitations and

5434 U.S. Treaties and Other International Agreements [28 UST

in accordence with the requirements imposed by the flow of
their international trade
8) The customs Services shall furnish each other all
information which may be useful for enforcement, in
particular information relating to new methods used in
committing such offenses. They shall, furthermore,
furnish copies of reports or excerpts from reports on the
subject of special means for combating offenses.
9) The Customs Services of the Parties shall, upon
request, furnish all available information, on a
continuing basis, regarding the movement of goods,
vessels, vehicles, and aircraft between the United States
and Mexico.

Article 11

Implementation of the Agreement

The United States Customs Service, Department of the
Treasury of the United States of America and La Direccion
General de Aduanas de la Secretaria de Hacienda y Credito
Publico of Mexico, may communicate directly for the
purpose of dealing with matters arising out of the present
Agreement which are not questions of foreign policy or
international law, and after consultation shall issue any
administrative directives for the implementation of the
present Agreement, and shall endeavor by mutual accord to
resolve problems or doubts arising from the interpretation
or application of the Agreement.

Article 12

Territorial Applicability

This Agreement shall be applicable to the customs
territory of the United States of America and to the
customs territory of Maxico.

It shall also be applicable to the Virgin Islands of the
United States of America

Article 13

Entry into Force an Termination

1) This agreement shall enter into force on the date
on which the Parties notify one another by an exchange of
diplomatic notes that they have accepted its terms. [1]
2) The Parties agree to meet in order to review this
Agreement at the end of five years counted from the date
of its entry into force, unless they notify one another in
writing that no review is necessary.
3) This Agreement may be terminated by denunciation
by either Party and shall cease to be in force six months
after the notification of the denunciation has been made.

DONE at Mexico City, Mexico on September 30, 1976, in
duplicate, in the English and Spanish languages, both
texts being equally authentic.

For the For the
United States of America United Mexican States

Joseph John Jova Ruben Gonzalez Sosa
Ambassador of the United Under Secretary of Foreign
States of America Relations

Vernon D. Acree Oscar Reyes Retana
United States Commissioner Director General of Customs
of Customs

1 Jan.26, 1977
TIAS 8642

APPENDIX H

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM OF UNDRSTANDING

165

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
TO ESTABLISH COMMON FACILITIES
ON THE UNITED STATES-CANADA LAND BORDER

The Government of the United States of America and the
Government of Canada,

In furtherance of the provisions of the Agreements between
the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of Canada Regarding Mutual assistance and
Cooperation between their Customs Administrations, which
was signed June 20, 1984, and entered into force on
January 8, 1985,

Considering the importance of cooperating in and
coordinating their border inspection activities,

Have agreed to establish and operate common border
inspection facilities in accordance with the following
terms and conditions.

APPENDIX H

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

165

-2-

1. Definitions

1.1 For the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU),

a. "Customs Administration" refers to the United States
Customs Service, Department of the Treasury in the United
States, and to thee Department of National Revenue, Customs
and Excise in Canada.

b. "Heads of the Customs Administration" refers to the
Commissioner of Customs in the United States and to the
Deputy Minister of National Revenue, Customs and Excise in
Canada.

c. "Common border facility" refers to land, buildings,
utilities, roads, and equipment jointly used by both
Government at land border crossings .

d. 'Project' refers to a mutually agreed undertaking to plan,
construct and operate specified common border facilities,
including all phases and steps necessary for their
establishment.

-3-

2.Purpose

2.1 The Governments of the United States and of Canada
agree to establish common border facilities to:

a. improve the personal security of inspectional
staffs;
b. increase the enforcement capabilities of
inspectors;
c. enhance the operational coordination and
cooperation of the services;
d. improve service to the travelling and trading
public; and
e. seek potential capital and operating cost savings

3. Responsible Authorities

3.1 The heads of the customs Administration shall be the
principal authorities responsible for implementation of
this MOU.

4. Implementing Arrangements

4.1 Implementing arrangements will be entered into for such
common border facilities as will be specified in exchange
of letters. Such implementing arrangements will, as
appropriate, relate to:

-4-

a. locations, general description and estimated
costs;
b. joint facility plans;
c. construction;
d. Financial, administrative and operational
arrangemens; and
e. Physical maintenance arrangements

4.2 Such exchanges of letters and implementing arrangements
will be subject to the relevent provisions of this MOU

5. Ownership

5.1 The Government of the United States and the Government
of Canada Will individually own the portion of each common
border facility which is situated in its respective
territory.

6. Exchange of Information

6.1 The Customs Administrations will communicate to each
other, on their own initiative and without delay, all
information relating to specific projects and all changes
in each Government's laws, regulations, olicies and
procedures affecting the establishment and operation of
the common border facilities under this MOU.

-5-

7. Facilitation

7.1 All undertaking set forth in this MOU, exchanges of
letters, and implementing arrangements hereunder, will be
carried out to the extent permitted by the laws and
regulations of the United states and Canada and
subject to the availability of duly authorized and
appropriated funds.

7.2 Accordingly, each Government will seek to take
appropriate steps to facilitate within its jurisdiction
the establishment and implementation of each project.

8. Duration

8.1 This MOU will enter into force upon signature by duly
authorized representative of the Governments.

8.2 This MOU will be terminated six months following
written notice by either Government of its intention to do
so.

8.3 Either Customs Administration may, by written notice to
the other, terminate the operation of its portion of a
common border facility, preferably pursuant to agreed upon
terms and at an agreed upon date, or otherwise no sooner
then one year after such written notice is provided.

-6-

8.4 If either Customs Administration notifies the other of
its intention to terminate either this Mou or the operation
of a specific facility, both will develop the necessary
arrangements concerning future use or disposal of the
affected facilities.

9. Interpretation

9.1 This MOU may be amended upon the request of either
Customs Administration and by the consent of both.

9.2 Interpretation of this MOU will be addressed through
consultation and agreement between the Customs
Administrations.

Done in duplicate at on

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA:

Commissioner of Customs, Deputy Minister of National
Department of the Treasury. Revenue, Customs and Excise

Appendix I

SAMPLE IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT FOR COMBINED BORDER FACILITY

172

IMPLEMENTING ARRANGEMENTS
CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHEMENT OF COMMON BORDER FACILITIES
ON THE UNITED STATES-CANADA BORDER
AT TURNER, MONTANA/CLIMAX SASKATCHEWAN

1. RESPONSIBILITIES

1.1 By these Implementing Arrangements pursuant to the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the
establishement of commonborder facilities, the Government
of the United States and of Canada agree that the General
Services Administration (GSA) on behalf of the United
States Customs Services (USCS) and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), and National Revenue,
Customs and Excise (RC-CE) will be responsible for the
operation of common border facilities.

1.2 The commom border facility will be construted to straddle
the U.S.-Canada border.

1.3 According to the respective laws of the United States and
of Canada, GSA and RC-CE, assisted by the Department of
Public Works Canada (PWC), are the designated agencies
for the planning, design, and construction of the facility.

1.4 The tenant agencies (USCS, INS, GSA) and RC-CE are
respondible for reviewing and approving the design of the
common border facilities.

1.5 Neither Government will unduly withhold approvals of
building design, expenditures, completion, and facility
acceptance. Upon acceptance, GSA and RC-CE will assume
ownership of their respective portions of the commom
border facility

1.6 Neither Government will suspend or terminate the project
during the planning, design or construction phase without
the prior written approval of the other.

1.7 Employement and Immigration Canada INS agree to permit the
residents of one country to work in the other country in
the construction and maintenance of the facility.

1.8 Both Governments agree to grant access to the entire
construction site of the common border facility to
contractors, equipment and material originating in either
country.

1.9 These implementing arrangements may amended upon the
approval of the appropriate agencies of both Governments
as named in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.3

2. FINANCIAL

2.1 Subject to the availability of duly authorized and
appropiated funds, both gvernments agree to pay for their
portions of the total shared costs of the common
border facility project.

2.2 The total shared costs will include site surveys and
related site investigations, design, site preparation and
development, building construction, constrction
management and inspection, standard tenant finishes,
environmenttal assessments, utilities installation and
cosultant�s fees.

2.3 Excluded from the shared project commitment are the costs
of site acquisition, disposal of existing buildings,
tenant agency special finishes above standard, special
equipment, historical assessments, highway construction
and other off-site improvements, temporary inspection
facilities and residences, as well as the administrative
costs of GSA, PWC, and their client agencies associated
with such excluded items.

2.4 The total costs set out in 2.2 above will be borne by each
Government proportionately to the expenditures within
their respective territories, except for common space
which will be borne equally and except for furnishings
which will be borne separately. The specific percentage
shares will be based on the last cost estimates accepted
by GSA and RC-CE prior to solicitation for bids or calling
for tenders. The actual cost to be borne by each
Government will be based on the last cost accepted by GSA
RC-CE at the end of construction.

2.5 GSA and RC-CE will disburse funds according to their
respective financial authorities and project control
procedures

2.6 The GSA contracting officer and the RC-CE project manager
may authorize non-programmatic change orders, subject to
mutually agreed funding and subsequent audit. One
Government desiring either changes due to program
initiatives or changes for its sole benefit shall, subject
to the concurrence of the other Government, formally
request such modification through mormal agency procedures
with certification of avaialable funding.

2.7 All Potential project cost overruns shall be subject to
the concurrence of GSA and RC-CE.

2.8 Financial audits may be conducted by each Government
according to its policies, regulations, and standards, and
the results will be communicated to the other

Government. All project records and accounts will be
opened for reasonable inspection by the other government.

2.9 The rate of exchange will be that prevailing at the time
funds are disbursed.

3. TENDERING AND CONTRACTING

3.1 The lead agency on an individual project, either GSA, or
PWC wil1 follow its normal procedures in bidding,
awarding, and administering contracts. Bids from
construction contractors will be solicited in both the
United Staten and Canada and awarded to the lowest bidder,
subject to normal considerations.

3.2 The projects will be designed and constructed in accordance
with contractual and/or other documents concurred in by GSA
and RC-CE.

4. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

4.1 GSA and RC-CE will operate, maintain repair, and alter the
common border facilities subject to the concurrence of the
tenant agencies.

4.2 Major renovations and/or modificeations requested by one
Government, subject to the concurrence of the other, will
be at the cost of the Government benefiting from such work.

4.3 The cost of routine maintenance and operations (e.g.,
utillities, snow removal, janitorial/custodial
services,...), excluding administrative costs of GSA, PWC
and their client agencies, will be shared equally by GSA
and RC-CE.

4.4 Cost will be reconciled annually, as of June 30 each year,
by the appropriate GSA regional offices and RC-CE
regional offices. The rate of exchange will be that
prevailing at the time funds are disbursed.

4.5 A Tenant agency or RC-CE may terminate operation of its
portion of the facility one year after notification to the
parties listed in 1.1. The Government of the vacating
agency will fund its share of th ecost of services
necessary to maintain the integrity of the building.
Upon closure of the facility, the disposal of the fixed
assets and the distribution of the proceeds will take
place according to agreement between the two Government.

5. OPRATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

5.1 Each service will maintain its own identity and the
confidentiality of itsrestricted information.

5.2 Inspection staffs of both Governments assigned to the
comman border facilities may move freely across the
International Boundary at the location while on duty.

5.3 Goods required for the official and/or persona1 use of the
inspection staffs while on duty wi11 be permitted to
enter freely across the boundary within the confines of
the facility according to agreed directives.

5.4 Joint information sessions, to include explanation of the
routine operational procedure of the services represented,
will, be given to all inspection personnel assigned to the
facilities.

5.5 There will be a regular exchange of both information
relating to the operation of the facility and non-
confidential information regarding regulations, processes,
and procedures.

5.6 Enforcement information and intelligence will be
exchanged between inspection personnel subject to the
normal restrictions of the respective services.

5.7 To improve services to the public and to facilitate the
flow of people, goods, and conveyances across the border,
one-stop processing may be implemented at the common
border facilities. One-stop processing means that
persons and vehicles wil1 normally stop for processing
only after crossinq the border. Only U.S. inspection
personnel will examine persons and goods entering the U.S.
and only Canadian officers will examine persons and goods
entering canada.

5.8 Inspection personnel of each Government will collect
certain documents required by the other (including, but
not limited to B-13, Shipper�s Export Declaration,
EIC-1097, I-94). Collected documents will be remitted to
inspection personnel of the country of departure. This
does not preclude enforcement activities at any time by
either Government.

5.9 Inspection staff will move freely within the non-
restricted areas of the facility to accomodate the
travelling public in handling the registration of
personal effects and the provision of information.
The restricted areas are the private officies, s
torage/file rooms, and other spaces as designated.
Officers will have access to all areas in cases
of emergency.

5.10 The inspector, upon refusing the entry of a person,
vehicle, or goods, will instruct the traveller or
transporter to report to the office of the other
Government and will immediately inform the personnel of
that Government of the refusal of entry.

5.11 Additional on-site joint initiatives and cooperative
programs and procedures may be implemented from time to
time only after advance notice to and approval by the
appropriate levels of managenent of both Governments

5.12 Regulation firearms may be carried and used in the common
border facility only in strict accordance both with the
laws of the country in which they are being carried or
used, and with the policies and directives of each
Government.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. ARTICLES

Enis, Charles R. and Edward A. Morash, "Infrastructure
Taxes, Investment Policy, and Intermodal Competition for
the Transportation Industries," Journal of Economics and
Business, Vol. 45, No. 1 (February 1993):69-89.

Harper, Donald V. and Phi1ip T. Evers, "Competitive Issues
in Intermodal Railroad-Truck Service," Transportatlon
Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Spring 1993):31-45.

Lazorko, Catherine, "Border Development Plan Outlined,"
New Mexlco Progress, (May 1993):1-4.

Mashatt, Merriam, "Planning for the North American Free
Trade Agreement,' Business America, (October 1992):25-28.

Min, Hokey, 'International Intermodal Choices Via Change-
Constrained Goal Programming," Transportation Research,
Part A, General, Vol. 25, No. 6 (1991):351-362.

Rappleye, Willard C. 'The Ports of Virginia: Destiny
Controlled,' F1nancial World (July 20, 1993):63-70.

Runager, Mike, 'FTZ Benefits Extend Beyond Duty
Deferment,' Transportation and D1stributfon, Vol. 31, No.
7 (July 1990): 48, 50.

Schoenberger, Erica, "Foreign Manufacturing Investment in
the United States: Competitive Strategies and
International Location," Economic Geography, Vol. 61, No.
3 (July 1985):241-259.

Slack, Brian, "Intermodal Transportation in North America
and the Development of Inland Load Centers,' Professional
Geographer, Vol. 42, No. 1 (February 1990):72-83.

Steele, Lawrence, "With or Without1 NAFTA Trucks and Rails
Go Full Throttle in Mexico," Twin Plant News, Vol. 8, No.
12 (July 1993):34-38, 60.

Tansuhaj, Patriya S. and James W. Gentry, "Firm
Differences in Perceptions of the Facilitating Role of
Foreign Trade Zones in Global Marketing and Logistics,"
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1
(Spring 1987):19-33.

Thuong, Le T. and Fredrick M. Collison, 'In Search of a
Coherent Policy on International Intermodal
Transportation," Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce,
Vol. 16, No. 3 (July 1985):397-421.

178

U.S. Department of State, "Fact Sheet: Summary of
Principal Provisions of NAFTA," U.S. Department of State
Dispatch, Vol. 4, No. 35 (August 1993):601-603.

II. BOOKS AND MONOGRAPHS

Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, Texas Mexico
Multimodal Transportation, Austin, TX: The University of
Texas at Austin, 1993.

Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, Texas-Mexico
Transborder Transportation System: Regulatory and
Infrastructure Obstacles to Free Trade, Austin, TX: The
University of Texas at Austin, 1991.

Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, U.S.-Mexico
Free Trade Agreement: Economic Impact on Texas, Austin,
TX: The University of Texas at Austin, 1992.

Muller, Gerhardt, Intermodal Freight Transportation, 2nd
ed., Westport, CT: Eno Center for Transportation, 1989.

Weiner, Edward, Urban Transportation Planning in the
United States: An Historical Overview, revised edition,
Washington

III. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Agreement between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of Canada Regarding Mutual
Assistance and Cooperation between the Customs
Administrations, June 20, 1984.

Agreement between the Government of the United States of
America and Mexico Regarding Mutual Assistance between
their Customs Services, September 30, 1976.

Implementing Arrangements Concerning the Establishment of
Common Border Facilities on the Canada-United States Land
Border, 1989.

Implementing Arrangements Concerning the Establishment of
Common Border Facilities on the Canada-United States Land
Border at Turner, Montana/Climax, Saskatchewan, October,
1991.

Joint-Use and Occupancy Agreement: Port of Entry Vehicle
Inspection Site, Coutts, Alberta, Canada, 1991.

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of Canada to
Establish Common Border Facilities on the United States-
Canada Land Border, April 30, 1987.

179

IV. MISCELLANEOUS

City of Laredo, Application for Presidential Permit to
Construct a New International Border Crossing, Tamaulipas,
Mexico/Texas, U.S.A, Laredo, TX: February, 1994.

City of Laredo, Environmental Assessment, Laredo Northwest
International Bridge ( Fourth Bridge), Laredo, TX:
February 1994

Dona Ana County, Application for the Privilige of
Establishing, Operating, and Maintaining a General Purpose
Foreign Trade Zone at the Santa Teresa Airport Industrial
Park and the city of Las Cruces West Mesa Industrial Park
Dona Ana County, NM: May 15, 1992.

Department of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Service
Regulations, Foreign Trade Zones. 19 CFR Ch. I (4-6-90
Edition) Part 146.0 to 146.83

Executive Order 12847, Amending Executive Order 11423.
Providing for the Performance of Certain Function
Heretofore Performed by the President with respect to
Certain Facilities Constructed and maintained on the
Borders of the United States. ( August 20, 1968;
amendment May 17, 1993).

Foreign-Trade Zone Board Order No. 530. Effective November
7, 1991. 15 CFR Part 400 Department of Commerce.

"International Trade and Border Development Act" Senate
Bill 963, 41st Legislature, State of New Mexico-Second
Session, 1994.

Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Application for
Presidential Permit to construct New International
Railroad Bridge across Rio Grande, April 10, 1992.

Task Force on Border Infrastructure and Facilitation,
Preliminary Staff Recommendations of the Task force on
Border Infrastructure and Facilitation for Improved United
States Border Operations, April 1994.

V. PRESENTATIONS

"Doing Business in Mexico' Presenter: Thomas S. Moore,
Manager, Foreign Trade Zone, Port of Corpus Cristi.
Seminars on Border Issues, New Mexico State University,
April 14, 1994.

'Legal Issues on the Border" Presenters; Brent Porrier,
E1 Paso Attorney, and Jose Reyes Ferriz, Juarez Abogado.
Seminars on Border Issues, New Mexico State University,
April 14, 1994.

180

NAFTA Custom Rules for Exporters and Importers"
Presenters: Robert Gilbert and Jim Hallmark, Mayfield &
Perrenot Law Firm,International Division. Seminars on
Border Issues, New Mexico State University,

VI. REPORRTS

Breazeale, Don and Associates, Report for Sandia National
Laboratories and the Santa Teresa Intermodal Border
Crossing Steering Committee, Rancho la Costa, CA, 1992.
Available through Sandia National Laboratories
Transportation Systems Center.

Congressional Research Service, North American Free Trade
Agreement: Issues for Congress, Washington, D.C.: Library
of Congress, 1991.

Delaware River Port Authority, Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for the Year Ended December 31, 1992,
Camden, NJ: Delaware River Port Authority, 1993.

Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority, 1993 Annual Report,
Detroit, MI: Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority, 1993.

Federal Highway Administration, Assessment of Border
Crossings and Transportation Corridors for North American
Trade: Report to Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1993.

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 53rd Annual Report of the
Foreign-Trade Zones Board to the Congress of the United
States, Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, 1991.

General Services Administration, U.S. Border Station
Design Code, Washington, D.C.: General Services
Administration, 1992.

Michie, Donald A., Paso del Norte Regional Economy:
Socioeconomic Profile, E1 Paso, TX: University of Texas at
E1 Paso, 1992.

National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones, Foreign-Trade
Zones: A Positive Force in Trade and Economic Development,
Washington, D.C. (undated).

Northern Express Transportation Authority, Shelby
Intermodal Exchange Facility: A Feasibility Study, Shelby,
MT: Northern Express Transportation Authority, 1991.

Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, Philadelphia
Regional Port System, Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia
Regional Port Authority, 1990

181

Special Committee on Intermodal Issues and Domestic
Freight Policy, A Report on State Intermodal Projects,
Washington, D.C.: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, 1991.

Taggart, William A., Nadia Rubaii-Barrett, and Christopher
Good, Funding and Operation of an Intermodal Facility at
the Santa Teresa Border Crossing, Las Cruces, NM:
Department of Government Public Administration Program,
1992. Available through Sandia National Laboratories
Transportation Systems Center.

Transportation Systems Center, The Santa Teresa-Dona Ana
County Intermodal Facility Feasibility Study, Phase I,
Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, 1993.

U.S. Customs Service, Foreign-Trade Zones: U.S. Customs
Procedures and Reguirements, Washington, D.C.:
Department of the Treasury, 1992.

U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Customs Foreign-Trade Zones
Manual, Washington, D.C.: Department of the Treasury,
1992.

U.S. International Trade Commission, The Likely Impact on
the United States of a Free Trade Agreement with Mexico,
Washington, D.C.: USITC, 1991.

Virginia Port Authority, The Port of Greater Hampton Roads
Annual, 1992, Norfolk, VA: Hampton Roads Maritime
Association, 1992.

Wilson and Company, Dona Ana County Multimodal Facility
Feasibility Study, Albuquerque, NM: Wilson and Company,
1993. Available through Sandia National Laboratories
Transportation Systems Center.

Yochum, Gilbert R. and Vinod B. Agarwal, The Economic
Impact and Rate of Return of V1rginia's Ports of the
Commonwealth 1988, Norfolk VA: Old Dominion University,
1989.

VII. STATUTES

Border Development Act, 58-27-1 to 58-27-25, New Mexico
Statutes Annotated. (Revisions are in progress and have
been examined as well.)

Business Development Corporation Act, 53-7-22 to 53-7-46,
New Mexico Statutes Annotated.

Commonwealth Transportation Board and Highways Generally,
33.1-23.03.1 to 33.1-23.03:5, Virginia Statutes Annotated.

182

Foreign Trade Zone Act of 1934, as amended. 19 U.S.C. 81a-
81u.

Highways, Chapter 67, Sections 1 to 11, New Mexico
Statutes Annotated.

Hospital Equipment Loan Act, 58-23-1 to 58-23-32, New
Mexico Statutes Annotated.

Industrial and Agricultural Finance Authority Act, 58-24-1
to 58-24-23, New Mexico Statutes Annotated.

International Bridge Act of 1972, P.L. 92-434.

International Bridge Act Amendment of 1987, P.L. 100-17.

Local Government-Local Port Authorities, Section 7-14-1101
to 7-14-1137, Montana Statutes.

Michigan Act # 639 of Public Acts of 1978.

Municipal Airport Law, 3-39-1 to 3-39-15, New Mexico
Statutes Annotated.

National Environmental Protection Act of 1969, 83 Stat.
852; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.

North Carolina Air Cargo Airport Authority Act, 63A-1 to
63A-25, North Carolina Statutes.

Port Districts-Formation and Annexation, 70-1101 to 70-
1113, Idaho Statutes.

Virginia Port Authority Law, 62.1-128 to 62.1-147.1,
Virginia Statutes Annotated.

183

(port1.html)