Motor Carrier Safety Selection Standard Act of 2024
- Sponsor
- Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 12, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to standardize liability protection for entities contracting with motor carriers by establishing clear due diligence requirements for carrier selection, while also updating federal safety fitness rules.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a national standard of care for entities that contract with motor carriers to transport goods, providing a 'safe harbor' from negligent selection claims if they verify the carrier's federal registration, minimum insurance, and Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) safety compliance. It also mandates the Secretary of Transportation to revise the methodology for determining motor carrier safety fitness within one year, incorporating all available data and requiring clear public confirmation statements about a carrier's operating status.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill provides much-needed clarity and predictability for businesses that rely on motor carriers, reducing litigation risk and fostering a more efficient supply chain. It establishes a clear, objective standard for demonstrating reasonable care in carrier selection, which is currently a complex and often litigious area. Furthermore, it mandates an update to FMCSA's safety fitness rules, ensuring that only compliant and safe carriers are selected, thereby enhancing overall road safety.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could preempt stronger state-level negligent selection laws, potentially lowering safety standards in some jurisdictions. They might also contend that the proposed standard is too low, allowing entities to avoid liability even if a carrier has a poor safety record that isn't fully reflected in the FMCSA's 'compliance' status. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for the new standard to create a 'race to the bottom' in terms of safety practices if the bar for compliance is perceived as minimal.
The bill is short and relatively easy to read, allowing ample time for a thorough review.
Section 2(a)
National Motor Carrier Safety Selection Standard
This provision establishes a 'safe harbor' for covered entities (such as shippers and brokers) against claims of negligent selection of a motor carrier. If, within 45 days before and up to the date of shipment, the entity verifies that the motor carrier is registered with the FMCSA, has minimum insurance, and is confirmed by FMCSA to be in compliance with safety standards, they are considered reasonable and prudent in their selection. This standard ceases to be effective once new regulations under subsection (c)(1) are promulgated.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this standard provides legal certainty and reduces the burden of complex, often inconsistent state-level negligent selection laws, fostering a more predictable business environment for logistics. It encourages compliance with federal safety standards.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this standard could weaken consumer protections and make it harder for victims of accidents involving negligent carriers to seek redress from the entities that hired them, especially if the FMCSA compliance check is seen as a low bar.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for legal predictability for businesses against potential limitations on liability for entities that select motor carriers, and the level of due diligence required to ensure public safety.
Section 2(b)
Standardized FMCSA Public Confirmation
This provision mandates that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) provide one of two clear public statements regarding a motor carrier's status: either 'This motor carrier is confirmed to meet all operating requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and is authorized to operate on the nation's roadways,' or 'This motor carrier is not confirmed to operate on the nation's roadways and fails to meet 1 or more requirements of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to operate as a motor carrier.' These statements are intended to simplify the verification process for covered entities.
Section 2(c)
Revision of Motor Carrier Safety Fitness Determinations
This section requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue final regulations within one year to amend the methodology for determining motor carrier safety fitness (specifically, Appendix B to Part 385 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations). The new methodology must consider all available data and establish a procedure for determining when a motor carrier is 'unfit' to operate. The regulations must also incorporate the requirements for public confirmation statements outlined in subsections (a)(1) and (b).
Section 2(d)
Exemption for Individual Shippers
This provision explicitly exempts 'individual shippers' (persons contracting for shipment of goods or household goods, not acting as a business) from the requirements of the new negligent selection standard. If an individual shipper demonstrates they contracted with a covered motor carrier, they are automatically considered reasonable and prudent in their selection without needing to verify registration, insurance, or FMCSA compliance.
Section 2(e)
Preservation of State Drayage Laws
This clause explicitly states that nothing in the Act preempts or supersedes any State law or regulation relating to 'drayage.' Drayage typically refers to the transport of goods over short distances, often as part of a longer intermodal move (e.g., from a port to a warehouse). This ensures that state-specific regulations for this segment of the industry remain in effect.
Mandates the Secretary to promulgate final regulations amending 'appendix B to part 385 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation)' to revise the methodology for motor carrier safety fitness determinations.
Section 2(c)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for directing regulatory agencies to update existing regulations. It's precise and avoids restating lengthy regulatory text in the bill.
Case for: Supporters would argue that specifying the exact regulatory section ensures clarity and directness for the implementing agency (FMCSA), leaving no ambiguity about which part of the safety fitness determination process needs revision.
Case against: Critics might argue that such technical references make the bill less transparent to the public, requiring specialized knowledge to understand the full scope of the mandated changes.
Estimated impact: This reference directs a fundamental overhaul of how FMCSA assesses motor carrier safety, potentially affecting thousands of carriers and the safety of commercial vehicle operations nationwide.