SAFER Transport Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN]
- Committees
- Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 26, 2026
Bottom line
The SAFER Transport Act seeks to secure the freight transportation system against fraud and theft through comprehensive regulatory updates, improved enforcement tools, and enhanced inter-agency and state-level oversight.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the SAFER Transport Act, aims to combat freight fraud and theft by modernizing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) registration system, enhancing inter-agency coordination, and strengthening commercial driver's license (CDL) regulations. It phases out MC numbers in favor of USDOT numbers, establishes new criminal penalties for fraudulent certifications, and clarifies enforcement of cabotage laws for foreign carriers and unauthorized alien drivers.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to protect legitimate businesses, consumers, and the integrity of the supply chain from the growing threat of freight fraud and theft. They contend it will streamline regulatory processes, improve data accuracy, ensure fair competition for U.S. carriers, and enhance national security by preventing unauthorized individuals and entities from operating in the commercial transportation sector.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns that the bill's extensive new mandates and compliance requirements could impose significant administrative and financial burdens on legitimate motor carriers, brokers, and training providers, particularly small businesses. They may also argue that stricter CDL requirements for foreign drivers could exacerbate existing driver shortages or create unnecessary barriers to international trade.
The bill is moderately complex due to numerous amendments to existing statutes and technical definitions, requiring careful reading to fully grasp its implications.
Section 3
Establishment of Freight Fraud and Theft Advisory Committee
This section mandates the Secretary of Transportation to establish a Freight Fraud and Theft Advisory Committee within 60 days of the bill's enactment. Composed of diverse stakeholders from the transportation industry and law enforcement, the committee will provide recommendations to the Department of Transportation on how to reduce freight fraud and theft, including improving inter-agency coordination. The committee is required to submit a report within two years and then terminate.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that establishing an advisory committee ensures that policy solutions to freight fraud and theft are informed by the practical expertise and diverse perspectives of those directly affected, leading to more effective and implementable recommendations.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that while well-intentioned, advisory committees can sometimes add bureaucratic layers without guaranteeing concrete outcomes, and that existing channels for industry feedback might be sufficient.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for comprehensive stakeholder input with the need for timely action, as the committee has a two-year lifespan to deliver recommendations.
Section 4
DOT-DOJ Memorandum of Understanding on Freight Fraud and Theft
This provision requires the Secretary of Transportation and the Attorney General to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) within 180 days of enactment. The MOU must outline how the Department of Transportation (DOT) will notify the Department of Justice (DOJ) of freight fraud and theft identified through its regulatory and enforcement work, and how DOJ will process this information. This aims to improve federal coordination in combating freight crime.
Section 5
Transition from MC Numbers to USDOT Numbers and Enhanced Registration
This section mandates a 5-year phase-out of MC numbers, requiring all motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders to transition to using only USDOT numbers for identification. It amends Title 49, United States Code, to make USDOT numbers a prerequisite for registration and the sole unique identifier issued by the Secretary. Furthermore, it grants the Secretary authority to withhold or revoke registration from entities convicted of 'covered felonies' related to motor carrier operations and requires notification of ownership changes.
Section 6
Enhanced Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Requirements and Reporting
This section amends federal law to require states, when issuing commercial learner's permits or CDLs to individuals who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, to confirm their work authorization, share this information with the FMCSA, and align the permit/license expiration date with the work authorization expiration. Additionally, it mandates that each state submit a monthly report to the Secretary of Transportation detailing the number of various CDL-related issuances, endorsements, revocations, suspensions, and downgrades.
Section 7
Improvements to CDL Training Provider Registry
This section directs the FMCSA to establish a process for auditing Commercial Driver's License (CDL) training providers listed on the registry to ensure they meet established criteria. It allows for the removal of providers for reasons such as non-disclosure of relationships with other providers, fraud, or cessation of business, and requires providers to register a principal place of business. It also sets a 180-day deadline for the FMCSA to resolve complaints against providers.
Section 8
Automated Fraud Detection and Enforcement in Registration System
This section requires the FMCSA to develop and implement automated systems within one year to flag suspicious activity within its registration system, such as rapid changes to information, unusual patterns, or duplicate identifiers. It establishes a process for reviewing flagged users, allowing for temporary suspension during review and permanent removal or revocation of operating authority for confirmed fraud. The section also mandates instantaneous record updates and guidance for motor carriers and brokers on protecting against fraudulent activities.
Section 9
Enhanced Enforcement of Cabotage Laws
This section requires the FMCSA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to improve communication regarding violations of cabotage laws. It explicitly amends Title 49, United States Code, to prohibit motor carriers domiciled in Canada or Mexico (or U.S.-domiciled but Mexico-controlled) from transporting domestic cargo point-to-point within the U.S. It also prohibits knowingly using unauthorized alien drivers for such domestic transport. The Administrator is required to revise existing regulations to reflect these prohibitions.
Section 10
Reimbursement for Freight Theft Victims
This section requires the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to reimburse victims of cargo theft, as defined under federal law (18 U.S.C. 659), for any fines they paid to CBP. These fines would specifically be for containers that were not sealed as required by regulations, where the lack of sealing was a direct consequence of the cargo theft.
Section 11
New Criminal Penalties for Fraudulent Certifications
This section defines 'fraudulent certification' as any material, false, fictitious, misleading, or incomplete statement or omission submitted or used in connection with FMCSA registration or compliance requirements. It establishes a new criminal penalty: any person who knowingly and willfully submits or uses such a fraudulent certification to engage or attempt to engage in unlawful transportation of property or passengers in interstate commerce can face fines under Title 18, imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both.
Section 12
Regulation of Foreign Dispatch Services
This section introduces a new definition for 'foreign dispatch service' into Title 49, United States Code. It defines such a service as a person not located in the U.S., Mexico, or Canada, operating primarily abroad, acting as a direct licensed agent for motor carriers, providing only administrative or support services (like coordinating freight movements without assuming cargo responsibility), communicating through a broker, and not soliciting shippers. Any entity meeting this definition is then required to register as a broker.
Section 13
Modernized Records Maintenance Requirements
This section amends Title 49, United States Code, to update requirements for carriers and brokers regarding the form and maintenance of records. It clarifies that records must be maintained or made accessible upon demand at the principal place of business. Crucially, it adds a savings provision explicitly stating that the Secretary or the Board can conduct investigations virtually or at locations other than the principal place of business, accommodating modern digital record-keeping and remote oversight.
Section 14
Clarified Definition of Broker and Prohibited Activities
This section amends Title 49, United States Code, to clarify the definition of a 'broker' as a person who offers, negotiates, or holds itself out as selling, providing, or arranging transportation by motor carrier for compensation, explicitly excluding those providing only financial, analysis, or accounting services. It also amends the section on unlawful brokerage activities to state that a person may provide interstate brokerage services *only if* they meet certain criteria, reinforcing that proper authorization is required.
This section introduces new definitions for 'convicted', 'conviction', and 'covered felony' into the general definitions for commercial motor vehicle safety. A 'covered felony' includes transportation/trafficking of persons/property, theft/fraud/coercion/extortion involving commercial transportation, or transportation in violation of immigration/labor law.
Section 5(e) amending 49 U.S.C. 31132
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for updating statutory definitions that underpin new enforcement powers. While technically phrased, the definitions are crucial for understanding the scope of the Secretary's new authority.
Case for: Supporters argue that these precise definitions provide a clear legal basis for the new enforcement powers related to criminal convictions, ensuring consistency, due process, and targeted application of penalties against serious transportation-related crimes.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against definitional changes themselves, but concerns could arise regarding the broadness of 'covered felony' and its potential impact on individuals with past convictions, even if not directly related to current operational safety.
Estimated impact: These definitions underpin the new authority granted in Section 5(f) to withhold or revoke registrations based on criminal history, potentially affecting all motor carriers, brokers, and freight forwarders with such convictions.
This section grants the Secretary of Transportation new authority to withhold registration from an employer or person if they have been convicted of a 'covered felony' relating to motor carrier operations or commercial motor vehicle use. It also allows the Secretary to revoke existing registrations for such convictions after notice and an opportunity for a proceeding.
Section 5(f) amending 49 U.S.C. 31134(b) and (d)
Why it matters:While part of a broader effort to secure the registration system, the specific power to deny or revoke based on criminal history is a substantial new enforcement tool that could have been highlighted more prominently. Its placement within a technical amendment section might obscure its full impact.
Case for: Supporters argue this is essential for preventing individuals or entities with a history of serious transportation-related crimes (as defined by 'covered felony') from operating in the industry, thereby enhancing public safety, security, and the integrity of the commercial transportation sector.
Case against: Concerns might be raised about the scope of 'covered felony' and the potential for disproportionate impact on individuals with past convictions, even if they have since been rehabilitated or if the conviction is not directly related to current operational safety risks. Questions about due process in revocation proceedings could also arise.
Estimated impact: This provision could significantly impact individuals and companies with criminal records, potentially barring them from operating in the commercial transportation sector, and represents a major strengthening of FMCSA's gatekeeping authority.
This section defines 'foreign dispatch service' with very specific criteria: it must not be located in the U.S., Mexico, or Canada; maintain its principal business abroad; act as a direct licensed agent for motor carriers; receive compensation via written contract; disclose its role; provide only administrative/support services (coordinating freight without assuming cargo responsibility); communicate through a broker; and not seek or solicit shippers for freight.
Section 12(a) amending 49 U.S.C. 13102
Why it matters:While technically a definition, the precise wording is critical because it determines which entities will be subject to the new requirement to register as brokers. The specificity is likely intended to target particular types of operations without over-regulating others, but its placement can obscure its impact.
Case for: Supporters argue that the highly specific definition ensures that only those foreign entities performing functions akin to brokerage, and thus posing a potential fraud risk or operating in a regulatory grey area, are brought under U.S. oversight, without unduly burdening legitimate international logistics support.
Case against: The detailed criteria could be seen as overly prescriptive or complex, potentially leading to confusion or difficulty in enforcement for entities operating across multiple international jurisdictions. Some might argue it could still inadvertently capture legitimate support services.
Estimated impact: This precise definition determines the scope of a new regulatory requirement, affecting foreign dispatch services that meet all criteria, requiring them to register as brokers and comply with associated regulations. This could impact international logistics operations and costs.