The bill adds a new eligible project type to 49 U.S.C. §6702 to allow procurement and installation of human‑trafficking awareness signs at Interstate rest stops and welcome centers, and it makes those projects eligible under the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program. It also amends the Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act to add a State department of transportation (DOT) seat on the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Advisory Committee on Human Trafficking and requires that appointment within nine months of enactment.
For transportation officials, anti‑trafficking organizations, and grant managers this creates a direct federal funding path to install standardized awareness signage on the Interstate system and brings State DOT perspectives into the federal advisory process. The bill also carves out a statutory exception for these signage projects from two requirements in §6702(c), which the bill treats as barriers to using those grant dollars for rest area signage.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 49 U.S.C. §6702 to add projects to procure and install human‑trafficking awareness signage at Interstate rest stops and welcome centers as an eligible local/regional project. It adds the same project type to the list of eligible uses under 23 U.S.C. §133(b) (the STBG program). It also expands the DOT Advisory Committee on Human Trafficking to include a State DOT representative and sets a 9‑month appointment deadline.
Who It Affects
State departments of transportation (which can both install signs and serve on the advisory committee), metropolitan planning organizations and local agencies that apply for §6702 grants, STBG fund recipients, rest area operators, and anti‑trafficking organizations that partner on outreach and messaging.
Why It Matters
The bill creates an explicit, federal funding route for awareness signage on the Interstate system and reduces statutory obstacles for those projects, potentially accelerating sign deployment. It also brings State DOT operational perspectives into federal advisory work on trafficking in transportation, which can affect standards, placement, and coordination.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes three concrete changes. First, it inserts a new eligible project category into the local and regional project assistance statute (49 U.S.C. §6702): procuring and installing human‑trafficking awareness signage at Interstate rest stops and welcome centers.
That amendment is procedural: it permits agencies and jurisdictions to propose these signage projects when applying for grants under the existing program.
Second, the bill amends the Surface Transportation Block Grant statute (23 U.S.C. §133(b)) to list projects described in the new §6702(a)(3)(H) as an allowable STBG use. In practice that authorizes STBG dollars to finance the manufacture and installation of signage consistent with §6702 eligibility.Third, the bill changes the membership and process of the DOT Advisory Committee on Human Trafficking (established under the Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act).
It increases the committee’s membership by adding a State DOT representative and requires the Secretary of Transportation to appoint that representative within nine months of the act’s enactment. Finally, the bill instructs that, for projects under the new signage authority, two specific statutory constraints in §6702(c)(2)(A) and (B) will not apply, effectively easing statutory conditions for those particular projects.Taken together, the statutory edits create an express funding pathway from federal surface transportation grant programs to the installation of trafficking‑awareness signs on the Interstate system, and they bring state operational input into the federal advisory body that develops guidance and coordinates anti‑trafficking efforts in transportation.
The bill does not prescribe sign content, maintenance funding sources, or technical standards beyond making the projects eligible for existing grant programs, leaving those implementation details to grant recipients and DOT processes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new eligible project in 49 U.S.C. §6702(a)(3)(H) to procure and install human‑trafficking awareness signage at Interstate rest stops and welcome centers.
For projects described in §6702(a)(3)(H), the bill exempts subparagraphs (A) and (B) of §6702(c)(2) from applying to those projects.
It explicitly makes those signage projects allowable uses of Surface Transportation Block Grant funds by adding them to 23 U.S.C. §133(b) as paragraph (25).
The bill increases the DOT Advisory Committee on Human Trafficking membership from 15 to 16 by adding a State department of transportation representative.
The Secretary of Transportation must appoint the State DOT member to the advisory committee within 9 months after the bill’s enactment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the act’s short title as the ‘‘Combating Trafficking in Transportation Act.’
Add signage projects to 49 U.S.C. §6702
Amends the list of eligible local and regional projects in 49 U.S.C. §6702(a)(3) by inserting a new subparagraph (H) that authorizes procurement and installation of human‑trafficking awareness signage at rest stops and welcome centers along the Interstate System. Practically, this permits applicants to include such signage in grant applications under the local/regional assistance program that is codified in §6702.
Statutory exception for signage projects
Adds language to §6702(c) specifying that, for projects described in the new (a)(3)(H), subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) in subsection (c) do not apply. The text removes two statutory constraints that would otherwise govern §6702 projects; the bill leaves the precise meaning and downstream consequences of that waiver to regulations and grant guidance.
Allow STBG funds to pay for signage
Adds a new paragraph to 23 U.S.C. §133(b) making projects described in 49 U.S.C. §6702(a)(3)(H) an allowable use of Surface Transportation Block Grant funds. That connects the signage authority to a major federal funding stream and gives STBG recipients a specific eligible activity for which they can program funds.
Add State DOT representative to DOT human‑trafficking advisory committee
Amends section 5 of the Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles Act to increase membership by one and to add State departments of transportation as a membership category. It also creates a discrete deadline: the Secretary must appoint the State DOT member no later than nine months after enactment. This is a procedural change that brings operational state voices into a federal advisory forum that shapes guidance and coordination.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State departments of transportation — Gain an explicit funding-eligible project to propose for federal grants and a seat on the DOT Advisory Committee to shape placement and standards.
- Anti‑trafficking and victim‑service organizations — Obtain a federally funded channel (rest‑area signage) to reach travelers and potential victims and to partner on messaging and outreach.
- Local agencies and metropolitan planning organizations — Can include signage projects in grant packages and leverage STBG dollars for low‑barrier awareness interventions.
- Interstate travelers and the public — Will see standardized awareness signs at rest areas and welcome centers that can provide hotline numbers and reporting guidance.
Who Bears the Cost
- State DOTs and local grant recipients — Responsible for deploying, maintaining, and replacing signage; even if installation is federally funded, upkeep and operations may fall to states or local operators.
- STBG program recipients and planners — May face increased competition for STBG funds as authorities expand eligible uses, potentially crowding out other local projects.
- U.S. Department of Transportation — Must administer the amended eligibility, issue guidance on the §6702 exception, and oversee advisory committee changes without added appropriations.
- Contractors and suppliers — Will bear the upfront cost and logistics of manufacturing and installing signage under new procurement streams, subject to grant terms and procurement rules.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill lowers barriers and creates a clear funding path to install awareness signage quickly—a low‑cost, visible prevention tool—while simultaneously shifting decision‑making and recurring maintenance costs to states and STBG recipients and leaving open whether the signage approach will be implemented consistently or evaluated for effectiveness. It balances speed and visibility against long‑term funding trade‑offs and implementation ambiguity.
The statute creates eligibility and an exception but leaves dozens of implementation choices unresolved. The bill does not specify sign content, languages, size, placement standards, or durability requirements; it also does not allocate dedicated maintenance funds.
That means states and grant recipients will need DOT guidance or grant conditions to produce consistent, legally compliant signs, and they will likely absorb maintenance costs from existing budgets unless separate funding is provided. The waiver of §6702(c)(2)(A) and (B) may ease upfront eligibility but could also remove statutory guardrails—without clarifying what those two subparagraphs cover, applicants and auditors will need interpretive guidance to know when the waiver applies and why.
Adding signage as an STBG‑eligible use expands flexibility but creates trade‑offs inside a finite funding program. STBG funds are already allocated across many local priorities; routing dollars to awareness signs means fewer dollars for other surface transportation projects unless Congress increases total appropriations.
The advisory committee addition gives states a voice, but the committee change is procedural only: it does not attach resources for sign standards, monitoring, or evaluation, so the committee’s influence may be limited to recommendations unless DOT implements them with grant terms or rulemaking.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.