“To the shady freight brokers, you’ve skirted federal regulations to take advantage of the hardworking men and women behind the wheel for too long and it’s far past time this era of screwing over truckers comes to an end,” said Todd Spencer, OOIDA president. “To the American trucker, now is your chance to hold bad brokers accountable. Jump into the arena and demand action from FMCSA. No more sitting on the sidelines complaining. If you speak up, we’ll win this fight.”
The proposal was published in the Federal Register on Nov. 20. FMCSA is proposing amendments to its property broker rules in response to petitions for rulemaking from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC).
Under current regulations, the parties to a brokered freight transaction have a right to review the broker’s record of the transaction, which stakeholders often refer to as “broker transparency.” Contracts between brokers and motor carriers frequently contain waivers of this right. OOIDA requested that FMCSA promulgate a requirement that property brokers provide an electronic copy of each transaction record automatically within 48 hours after the contractual service has been completed, and explicitly prohibit brokers from including any provision in their contracts that requires a motor carrier to waive its rights to access the transaction records. SBTC requested that FMCSA prohibit brokers of property from coercing or requiring parties to brokers’ transactions to waive their right to review the record of the transaction as a condition for doing business and prohibit the use of clause(s) exempting the broker from having to comply with this transparency requirement.
Though the proposed rule is responsive to the petitions in reinforcing the broker transparency requirement, the proposed provisions differ from those requested by OOIDA and SBTC. The proposed rule would revise the regulatory text to make clear that brokers have a regulatory obligation to provide transaction records to the transacting parties on request. The proposal would also make changes to the format and content of the records.
There are currently over 1k comments on the
proposal.“I’m a owner operator,” Jose O. said in the comment section. “Brokers are stealing from us everyday loads are paying less everyday, its time that there is some regulation on the brokers, please keep in mind who does 90% of the work in a load. Thank you.”
Valerie McDonald also spoke to the rule in the comment section.
“How can we be competitive when we don’t know what the rate is in the first place we’re just going off of what is offered in the offers are very low,” McDonald said. “They are low as they were 10 years ago everybody else is raising their prices. So to me that’s profiteering nothing changes over the years. They’re putting us out of business by doing this. They’ve definitely made a business out of it big business everybody wants to be a broker now. I want to know what the rules are going to be so I can decide whether to stay in business or not. I can’t afford the repairs on my vehicle because the price has increased not to mention everything else you know what it is gas diesel cost of living so that’s why we need transparency only need it ASAP.”
Joseph Ma believes that the freight industry is ripe for those wishing to steal.
“Where can bank robbers work nowadays,” Ma said. “Normal jobs? Nope. Background checks. Robbing banks? Nope. Much more difficult nowadays. Answer: the freight industry. Carriers are regulated and monitored to some extent (via highway patrol, scale houses, FMCSA, shippers, brokers). But that’s very minimal. Brokers are even less regulated. These ‘brokers’ are stealing from shippers, carriers and stealing customers from ‘good’ brokers. I do not believe the originators of ‘deregulating the freight industry’ foresaw how big of a problem these bad actors and fraud would become in the industry.”
Russell Caudell is against the proposal and believes fraud prevention efforts should be focused elsewhere.
“I am writing to oppose the recently proposed rulemaking for Transparency in Property Broker Transactions,” Caudell said. “Our efforts should be focused on fraud prevention in transportation instead of needless rules that no longer have application in the marketplace. In addition to being particularly burdensome from an administrative perspective, this rulemaking would also put a broker in the position of being in violation of the terms of many, if not most, shipper / broker transportation agreements. Putting this rule in place would provide fodder for attorneys to bring actions that at the end of the day, would make no difference and would not level the playing field in any shape form or fashion.”
Tiro Freight Solutions LLC is also against the proposal and issued this letter in the comment section:
“Dear FMCSA Rulemaking Team,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed rulemaking titled “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” (Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0257-0001). This proposal represents excessive government overreach and fails to address the actual challenges faced by the transportation industry today.
Key Issues with the Proposed Rule
1. Outdated and Misaligned Framework
The proposed expansion of C.F.R. 371.3 is based on a regulatory framework created when brokers acted as commissioned sales agents for motor carriers. Today’s marketplace is vastly different, with brokers managing two independent transactions—one with the shipper and another with the carrier.
The original intent of these regulations, primarily to prevent freight rebating, is irrelevant in the context of modern industry practices.
2. Burdensome and Unnecessary Requirements
The transportation industry is already highly transparent, with load boards and technology platforms offering real-time pricing visibility to carriers and shippers.
Requiring electronic submissions through methods like EDI or API integration would impose significant financial burdens on brokers and carriers, with costs ranging from $2,500 to $10,000 per integration—expenses that smaller businesses can ill afford.
3. Lack of Supporting Evidence
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period of heightened scrutiny, the FMCSA’s consumer complaint database did not record any complaints relevant to the issues this rule seeks to address. This proposal targets a problem that does not exist.
4. Legal and Confidentiality Concerns
Requiring the disclosure of sensitive pricing and business terms risks violating the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.
Recent legal precedents, such as the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse the Chevron case, also cast doubt on the FMCSA’s authority to enforce such a rule.
5. Misplaced Priorities
The FMCSA should be addressing urgent challenges facing the transportation sector, such as:
Improving highway safety.
Tackling the ongoing freight fraud crisis, which costs the industry over $1 billion annually.
Developing solutions to support supply chain resilience and efficiency.
Conclusion
The FMCSA’s proposal is unnecessary, burdensome, and misaligned with the realities of today’s transportation industry. It creates significant costs for brokers and carriers while ignoring the pressing issues affecting the industry. I strongly urge the FMCSA to withdraw this rule and instead focus on initiatives that enhance safety, reduce fraud, and promote the growth and sustainability of the transportation sector.
Thank you for considering these comments. I trust the FMCSA will prioritize meaningful policies that align with the needs of the industry and the broader economy.
Sincerely,
Tiro Freight LLC”
Comments on the proposal will be accepted through Jan. 21, 2025. To comment click
here.
Dana Guthrie is an award-winning journalist who has been featured in multiple newspapers, books and magazines across the globe. She is currently based in the Atlanta, Georgia, area.
