In October 2024 we wrote a letter on behalf of our members and as part of a coalition with other truck driver organizations to the Federal Trade Commission and cc'd Secretary Pete Buttigieg regarding the lack of enforcement from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) related to the exiting regulation 49 CFR Part § 371.3 (c) that requires all parties involved in a brokered transaction to have access to specific information related to the load, including financial details, essentially "Broker Transparency". You can read the letter HERE.
This issue has been neglected for many years. A number of larger organizations than ours have actively been seeking FMCSA enforcement long before we decided to speak on the matter.
Rather than going the same route, we took advice through a collaborative effort to explain to the FTC and the Secretary of the Department of Transportation that the lack of enforcement by the FMCSA of the existing regulation has bred a broader pattern of anti-competitive behavior which impacts commercial motor vehicle safety. Our members who are affected by the lack of broker transparency are women, people of color who have a small trucking business.
Twenty days after our letter was received by both agencies, a Federal Register was published by the FMCSA requesting comments on broker transparency. It is open until January 21, 2025. Here is the link:
We urge everyone to use the link to login and write a comment. BIG or small, your comment matters.
Many small business trucking operations have been affected by the lack of enforcement of the broker transparency regulation, some have already gone out of business.
The Federal Register asks specific questions the agency about to help them gather additional information. Those questions are buried in the cumbersome register, and this makes it more likely for potential commenters to abandon taking action on issues like these.
We are urging everyone to take 15 minutes of time to follow the directions on the register and post a comment to answer the questions in addition to writing a personal statement on how the broker issues are affecting you and your small business.
Scroll down to the instructions so you understand the process. Your comment must reference this docket number NPRM (FMCSA-2023 - 0257). Cut and paste it for your subject line. Try writing out everything you want to say on a Word doc first and then posting it with the proper subject line. There is a word count limit so if you write too much, the register will reject your comment. If this happens you should make your Word document into a PDF first and then upload the PDF with a short comment to reference it with the correct subject line for the docket number. This is confusing in the beginning, but it is the way things are done in the government, and we want more people to understand how to get involved in the process.
If you would like to read the letter, we wrote on behalf of our members you can find it here: RWIT Letter to FMCSA-2023-0257 Property Broker Transparency Comment
Our letter provides screenshots to explain the broker issue to FMCSA and to answer the questions the agency asks as to whether electronic records are a burden for brokers to deliver within 48 hours of a transaction.
In order to cut to the chase, we are providing the nuts and bolts here that FMCSA is asking about. We encourage everyone to read the entire Federal Register history and background to gain knowledge, but we don't want anyone getting so overwhelmed that they lose sight of what they should comment on. Essentially, there is pushback against broker transparency under the claims that providing electronic detailed records would be cumbersome. We all know that pretty much everything is digital now. We sign rate cons digitally; we submit PODS digitally and so do the shippers. There are two contracts. One that the broker has with the shipper with a rate and terms we don't get to see. The second contract between the broker and the carrier that sometimes has contract language inserted that has you sign to waive your rights to see that other contract. We have no idea if detention or fuel surcharges were paid to the broker by the shipper and not passed along to the carrier and neither does the shipper know. We don't know if the broker kept 50% or more of the rate for themselves. However, we do know that brokers are retaliating against carriers by blacklisting them if they ask to see the records that they are entitled to see under the regulation.
The household goods (HHG) sector has been getting a lot more attention on this broker matter because consumers file complaints with FMCSA and the agency has taken those more seriously in the past few years while ignoring complaints from small carriers about freight brokers. The questions related HHG should also be answered to the best of your ability.
"C. Issues on Which the Agency Seeks Further Comment
1. What impact, if any, would the proposed rule have on freight rates? Please provide support for your position.
2. How common is electronic recordkeeping among household goods brokers? What burden, if any, would be imposed if electronic recordkeeping was required?
3. How much time would a broker spend creating an electronic record from paper documents for the record mandated by § 371.3? What would be the costs for a broker to create an electronic record per transaction?
4. Do you believe that the 48-hour timeframe proposed for § 371.3(c) would create a substantial burden for brokers? Why or why not? If you disagree with the proposed 48-hour timeframe, what timeframe would best balance the objectives of transparency while minimizing the burden on brokers?
5. If this proposal effectively reduced instances of illegal brokering, through carrier policing with transparency information, would the brokers engaged in illegal practices exit the market, resulting in the transfer of illicit profits to legally operating motor carriers and/or brokers?
6. Should freight brokers and household goods brokers be subject to the same recordkeeping requirements under § 371.3? If your answer is “no,” why should they be subject to different requirements?
7. Should parties requesting records under § 371.3(c) be required to submit their request in writing? Should parties requesting records under § 371.3(c) be required to submit their request electronically? Would requiring a specific format for submitted requests impose a cost on the parties or otherwise deter requests for transparency? Please provide support for your position.
8. Would the proposal that records be provided electronically under § 371.3(c) make broker transparency more likely, as compared to not specifying a method of provided the records? Should the Agency be more specific in requiring a particular format for records provided under § 371.3(c), and if so, what method and/or format is preferrable? Please provide support for your position.
We urge everyone to take part in our industry by taking a few minutes to make a comment even if it is just a few words. It does make a difference and your comments are read. We cannot improve this industry until more people step up and start telling their personal stories. Here is the link >
Comments