Here’s what truckers have to say about FMCSA’s proposed broker transparency rule

Hundreds of people have left public comments on a long-awaited Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) rule proposal that seeks to increase transparency in freight broker and motor carrier transactions.

On November 20, 2024, the FMCSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) advancing four key amendments to to current freight broker regulations in order to increase transparency.

The NPRM was issued in response to May 2020 petitions from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC).

See the proposed changes to broker requirements below.

Four Proposed Amendments To Broker Requirements

1. Require property brokers to keep their records in an electronic format. According to FMCSA, this rule change would make it easier to “review broker records on request, and remotely, as compared to the current practice of some brokers who respond to transparency requests by making only physical records available at their principal place of business.”
2. Modernize and tailor the required contents of the records to better achieve broker transparency. The provision would eliminate the distinction between brokerage and non-brokerage services and instead require that the records contain, for each shipment in the transaction, all charges and payments connected to the shipment, including a description, amount, and date. “This amendment would ensure the parties have full visibility into the payments, fees, and charges associated with the transaction so they can resolve issues and disputes among themselves without resorting to costlier remedies,” officials say.
3. Reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers to provide records to the transacting parties. The FMCSA notes that current regulations
   frame the broker transparency requirement as a right, given to the transacting parties, to review the records. The amendment would place the regulatory burden on brokers to provide requested records.
4. Require brokers to provide the records within 48 hours when a party to the transaction requests those records. “This provision is intended to ensure that the requesting party receives the records in a timely manner, to support the resolution of issues around service or payment,” FMCSA said.

What Are Truckers Saying?

The FMCSA began accepting public comments on the rule proposal on November 20. Since then, the agency has received 890 comments, many from members of the trucking community. A large number of the received comments contain the same copy-pasted letter.

See a sampling of the comments on the broker transparency rule below (edited for length/clarity).

“On broker transparency to carrier, if a carrier request the information the Brokers are already saying they’re just going to Blacklist that carrier. To stop this make it a rule that they automatically have to send it to the carrier without the carrier asking for it.” — Tyrone HALE

“Within 48 hrs is a joke. Needs to be at time of booking load like everything else. They don’t check your insurance within 48hrs. They don’t check your MC# within 48hrs. They dont make you connect your ELD TRACKING within 48hrs. At that time you can see if brokerage companies are keeping more than X amount of total payment if so, DON’T RUN THE LOAD.” — D R Transports LLC

“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 [and] the offers are very low. 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.” — Valorie McDonald

“I am a one truck owner and have deal with brokers for ALL of my work. Transparency in most of the information on loads is very important and FAIR. Brokers currently do not use point to point distance in order to pay on less mileage, they use zip code to zip code … why? They do not describe the product on occasions where they have something that drivers do not care to deal with. The load boards are FULL with very underpriced loads, it is disgusting.

Brokers make a living by sitting at their desks and making profit by underpaying the people who are doing the actual work! The working stiffs should be allowed to know what is going on with each load before we bid on it. What is it? What business is it going to? We need transparency!!!!” — Robert C Garcia

“As a carrier, I want to express my concerns about the proposed changes to freight broker transparency regulations (Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0257). While I understand the intention to promote transparency, I believe these measures could have negative consequences, particularly for small carriers.

Specifically, the following issues need to be addressed:
1.Risk of retaliation and blacklisting: Requesting transaction records could expose carriers to being excluded from future business dealings by brokers who feel uncomfortable or threatened by such requests. This could lead to fewer opportunities for carriers and promote unfair practices.
2. Administrative burden: Implementing these changes could increase tension between carriers and brokers, especially in competitive markets, making it harder to collaborate effectively and resolve disputes amicably.
3. Limited impact on actual transparency: While requiring brokers to maintain electronic records may help, it does not directly address the power imbalance between brokers and small carriers. Additional safeguards are needed to protect carriers from retaliation when seeking transparency.

I propose that the FMCSA include provisions to prevent blacklisting and retaliation against carriers exercising their right to request records. Additionally, implementing anonymous reporting mechanisms could allow carriers to report abuses without fear of repercussions.” — El Camino Transportation Inc.

Leave Your Comment

The comment period remains open until January 21, 2025.

If you would like to leave a public comment, you can follow this link.