The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced on Tuesday a listening session it will hold at a major truck show to get more public input that will help the agency crack down on illegal brokering.
FMCSA, which will host the session March 31 at the Mid America Trucking Show (MATS) in Louisville, Kentucky, wants to hear comments on two matters: interim guidance issued in November on the agency’s interpretation of how brokers and bona fide agents are defined, and a proposal issued on Jan. 5 to regulate five areas of broker financial responsibility.
Because the comment periods for the interim guidance and the proposed rule closed on Jan. 17 and March 6, respectively, FMCSA is reopening the comment period for the interim guidance and has extended the comment period for the proposed rule to accommodate issues raised at the MATS meeting. The new comment deadline for both is April 6.
“FMCSA is taking this action to better define the terms in response to a mandate in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” the agency stated with regard to the interim guidance.
“While the interim guidance was effective immediately upon publication [on Nov. 16], FMCSA sought comments to the interim guidance and will issue final guidance by June 16, 2023.”
In addition to clarifying the definitions of brokers and bona fide agents, Congress directed that FMCSA must, at a minimum:
- Examine the role of a dispatch service in the transportation industry.
- Examine the extent to which dispatch services could be considered brokers or bona fide agents.
- Clarify the level of financial penalties for unauthorized brokerage activities applicable to a dispatch service.
FMCSA’s Jan. 5 proposed rule requested public comment in five areas:
- Assets readily available.
- Immediate suspension of broker/freight forwarder operating authority.
- Surety or trust responsibilities in cases of broker/freight forwarder financial failure or insolvency.
- Enforcement authority.
- Entities eligible to provide trust funds for form BMC-85 trust fund filings.
The agency received relatively few comments on the two policies. It received just 14 comments on the initial guidelines, including from the American Trucking Associations’ Moving & Storage Conference (ATA-MSC), the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, and the Small Business in Trucking Coalition (SBTC).
“The central problematic issue, here, is FMCSA draws misguided and improper conclusions that ‘arrangement of freight’ and ‘allocation of traffic’ can only be construed to mean arranging or allocating between a shipper and carrier and not a broker and carrier by a party purporting to be agents of competing carriers authorized by FMCSA,” SBTC stated.
“We believe if a third party is involved in any portion of the arrangement of transportation, including helping the carrier ‘find’ the load that the broker is trying to place for his shipper client, then that constitutes, well, arranging.”
The proposed rule received 55 comments, including from ATA-MSC. With regard to FMCSA considering assets readily available as it relates to trust funds secured with broker-funded assets, ATA-MSC contends that FMCSA is responsible for ensuring that trust funds “do not become a tool for bad actors to initiate brokerage companies, defraud motor carriers and shippers, and then move on when the call to make good on the guarantee comes in,” the association stated in its comments.
“Unfortunately, by taking a more permissive approach to what assets would be considered readily available, the agency risks opening the door to expanded — instead of restricted — use of broker-funded trust funds. While the agency’s proposal is clear that there are a number of asset types that are unable to meet an ability to liquidate within [the] seven business day standard, the proposal does not fully evaluate the more fundamental question of which asset types specifically meet a standard to serve as a financial guarantee.
“A prescriptive list would provide an answer to this question while also ensuring that the FMCSA is exercising its regulatory authority and responsibility to set financial responsibility policies that reduce unscrupulous brokers.”
Related articles:
- FMCSA commenters debate whether load boards should register as brokers
- FMCSA rejects 2nd shot at $75,000 truck-broker bond exemption
- What is a truck dispatcher?
Click for more FreightWaves articles by John Gallagher.
Roger Turner
I think the brokers need to be regulated. Because they are making more then 30% of the load. Sometimes I will see a load posted for $1000. I will bid on it and they will counter me for $800. That’s a $200 difference from posted rate. So where is the money going? if someone takes it for $800 that didn’t see the posted rate. Also the Fmsca need to regulate mobile mechanics. For price gouging us on the highway.
Guesh Sequar
FMCSA should set a minimum rate per mile. Especially this bad time we drivers know in what stress are we. Because of brokers exploitation we are having hard times. Driver should always be satisfied with payment issues. I believe that’s the main solution for safety and responsibilities on the road. If a driver has a stress on life that dangerous.
This should be solved for truck drivers and owner operators.
Jim Phillips
Allbrokers should be eliminated there should be no middle party all loads should go on load boards everywhere and our dispatchers should be able to pick them out bus brokers harass drivers while they are trying to sleep and while they are driving even though you have the tracking on that is a major safety violation I say eliminate them period
cb
Who is more greedy, the drivers, the brokers, or the government?
Carolyn Watson
I completely agree that the brokers are keeping most of the money that is paid to move loads.
Would like a national shut down but most truckers need to keep moving.
Maybe FMCSA needs to make a formula of rates based on miles, average load and unload wait times, weight of the load and tolls (thats all i can think of right now).
Also, eliminate all brokers and their assistants. Have one place freight is posted and truckers have 24 hour access to book loads – not only when the broker is open
We also think the shippers should have their own load boards.
Stop this nonsense. Truckers have absolute skills which are required and having the truckers foot the bill is un American.
JOE HOWARD
Dear carriers: I have a full list of the corrupt brokers. My email address is joeh@sureshotlogistics.com. I will send it to you, however you must send your MC number, and the email must come from the email that matches the email address on Safer / Carrier 411. I will block all random gmails and fake attempts from the Armenyans that will make up an email address.
If anyone else can make it to this thing on 3/31 in KY, and wants to speak up, I can send you the MCs too.
Michael Boston
I do not know if you know this but my group of 21,000 owner operators began a boycott against TQL and Ken Oaks on Monday March, 6th. https://youtu.be/9jg2bhrQWBY this is the link to an interview I did on YouTube. We have had enough of Ken Oaks and his shady boiler room tactics lowballing us on every load. We want a fair living wage from TQL and all of the other large brokers and we are prepared to not carry any loads from them until we get a formal apology from Ken Oaks and assurances that it does not happen again. Thank You and we hope that we can count on you telling our story. I represent 21,000 owner operators. Please join my group if you want to know the real story about the trucking industry. STAND UP FOR FAIR RATES FOR TRUCKERS! SAY NO TO TQL!!!!!
GARY CRYDER
I just recently found out that a lane that I performed multiple times was triple brokered and the payment I should have received was much lower than it should have been. It was a $900 difference for each trip. In addition when negotiating loads I’ve been able to move offers up by $400-$600. How and why is that possible and how much more are the brokers holding for the easiest job in freight movement?