Issue:
Whether an individual’s role as “Safety Director,” as indicated on FMCSA – filings made on behalf of another motor carrier and participation in compliance review as that other carrier’s point of contact within three (3) years of the Applicant’s application for operating authority registration (motor carrier and property broker authority) required disclosure of the relationship on the application.
Answer:
Agency Decisionmaker concludes such disclosure was required in this case; the failure to do so violated 49 U.S.C. 13902(a)(1)(C) and as such, upheld the decision to withhold registration by the Office of Registration.[1]
In Stealthx Transport LLC, the individual’s title, coupled with submission of Federal forms and participation as “point of contact” in an agency compliance review created a “common management” relationship as between the entities requiring disclosure – according to FMCSA.
Procedural History and Argument
FMCSA’s Office of Registration rejected the application because Applicant failed to disclose its relationship based on common management with a different motor carrier subject to FMCSA jurisdiction. The Office of Registration found Applicant’s managing member (an individual), was identified as the other carrier’s “Safety Director” within three (3) years of the filing date of Applicant’s application for operating authority. The Office found the individual filing the application, was also the primary “point of contact” during a compliance review of the other carrier FMCSA conducted approximately two years prior to filing the application.
On the application in Stealthx, the individual member answered “No” to the question of whether a covered relationship existed with another FMCSA-regulated entity within the last three years.
On appeal, Applicant argued the individual was an independent compliance consultant, not an owner, managing member, officer, or person exercising control over the other carrier. Applicant argued the individual did not: (1) hold an ownership interest; (2) serve as a managing member; (3) exercise operational control; (4) possess authority to bind; (5) serve as a corporate officer; or (6) appear on State corporate filings for the other carrier as a managing member or owner.
Applicant argued there was no relationship between it and the other carrier sufficient to establish common ownership, management, control or familial relationship and therefore answering the question “No” on the FMCSA’s application for authority was accurate.
Applicant argued the individual’s involvement with the other carrier was limited to providing regulatory guidance and compliance assistance as an outside consultant and such services do not constitute common management or control; instead, are services that transportation consultants routinely assist motor carriers in regulatory compliance matters.
It was undisputed that the individual held no ownership in the other carrier; was not listed as a member, manager, or officer in any State filings; and has no corporate governance authority.
Applicant argued the Office of Registration failed to support its “common management” claim because it provided no evidence that he: (1) directed daily operations; (2) controlled dispatch or drivers; (3) managed finances; (4) hired or terminated employees; or (5) exercised binding authority over the company.
Applicant argued third-party consultants often interface with regulators, assist during audits, and serve as designated points of contact for compliance matters, and the safety director’s role as a point of contact during the compliance review is consistent with standard practices and does not establish management authority.
Applicant argued the ability to submit regulatory filings as an ‘authorized official’ does not equate to ownership, management, or operational control. Applicant asserted that motor carriers frequently authorize third-party consultants to submit filings, update registration information, and execute administrative documents. Applicant maintained such activities are administrative in nature and do not amount to corporate authority or control.
Agency Decisionmaker’s Analysis
The Agency Decisionmaker looked to law dictionary definitions of “management” and “manager” because the Office of Registration determined the application required disclosure of the other carrier on the basis of “common management” and “management” is not defined in the applicable statutes. The Agency Decisionmaker then looked to Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “director” (“[s]omeone who manages, guides, or orders; a chief administrator”) to support his conclusion that the mention of “director” in the title “Safety Director” suggests a management role in this case.
The Agency Decisionmaker concluded that the individual had a sufficient management role with both Applicant and the other carrier to require disclosure on the application. The MCS-150s completed on behalf of the other carrier required a “Certification Statement” to be signed by an “authorized individual.” Each of the seven MCS-150 forms filed were signed by the individual “as [the other carrier’s] ‘Safety Director,’ certifying that ‘[u]nder penalties of perjury, I declare that the information entered on this report is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, correct, and complete.’”[2]
Agency Decisionmaker’s Conclusion
The Agency Decisionmaker found that the individual reinforced the conclusion that he was a “company officer” when he identified himself as the “Safety Director” on two of the MCS-150 forms when he listed himself on the line on the form which required the names of the carrier’s ‘Officers or Partners and Titles (e.g.[,] President, Treasurer, General Partner, Limited Partner).’”
According to the Agency Decisionmaker, the other carrier and individual each represented, under penalties of perjury, that he, as the ‘Safety Director’ as an officer for the other carrier on at least two occasions.
The individual “signed a Federal form on behalf of a carrier, indicating some level of authority to bind the carrier. Motor carriers are responsible for complying with all applicable motor carrier requirements; had there been any issues regarding the Forms MCS-150 signed by [individual and other carrier] would have been responsible for those issues.”[3]
While observing that acting as a “point of contact” in communications with the regulator or having title of “Safety Director” may not necessarily mean the individual is a “manager” with decision-making authority sufficient to trigger the statutory definitions compelling disclosure on the basis of “common management,” in this case, the individual and other carrier held him out to be a safety director, representing the carrier before a Federal agency in both investigations and formal documents.
According to the Agency Decisionmaker, the signature affixed to Federal documents “on behalf of the carrier, and on at least some of these documents, he clearly held himself out to be [the other carrier’s] officer” was, for the Agency Decisionmaker “more likely than not a relationship based on common management [that] existed between Applicant and [other carrier]” which Applicant was required to disclose.
Takeaway
FMCSA’s registration, enforcement and other IT systems are increasingly capable of cross referencing data elements which an applicant for operating authority registration should consider when deciding to file for authority. The title, including the mention of “director,” carried sufficient weight when coupled with the other filings and role played in compliance review.
In this case, FMCSA’s Agency Decisionmaker found a “common management” nexus requiring disclosure even where the individual filing the application for authority had no relationship based on common ownership between it and the other motor carrier; was not listed as a manager, member or officer on state filings and the Office of Registration provided no evidence that the individual directed daily operations, controlled dispatch or drivers, managed finances, hired or terminate employees, or exercised binding authority over the other motor carrier.
Dated: Sudbury, MA
May 12, 2026
Andresen & Borovick, LLP
323 Boston Post Road
Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776
www.abmasslaw.com
Tel: (978) 443-6868
The foregoing is designed to provide general information based on a summary of legal principles for clients and friends of the firm. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice, or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Companies and individuals should consult with legal counsel before taking any action based on these principles to ensure their applicability in a given situation. The information presented here and on our website should not be construed to be legal advice or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Copyright © 2026 Andresen & Borovick, LLP. All rights reserved.
[1] In Matter Stealthx Transport LLC, Dock. No. FMCSA-2026-0662-0007 (FO on Appeal of Decision Rejecting Application for Operating Authority Registration) sv’d 5-8-26.
[2] Id. at 11-12.
[3] Id. (citing 49 CFR 390.3T(e)(1)).