• ITVI.USA
    13,670.690
    -217.880
    -1.6%
  • OTRI.USA
    22.060
    -0.040
    -0.2%
  • OTVI.USA
    13,638.790
    -223.800
    -1.6%
  • TLT.USA
    2.800
    0.000
    0%
  • TSTOPVRPM.ATLPHL
    2.480
    -0.170
    -6.4%
  • TSTOPVRPM.CHIATL
    3.070
    -0.210
    -6.4%
  • TSTOPVRPM.DALLAX
    1.370
    -0.090
    -6.2%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXDAL
    2.280
    -0.210
    -8.4%
  • TSTOPVRPM.PHLCHI
    1.900
    -0.070
    -3.6%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXSEA
    2.720
    -0.270
    -9%
  • WAIT.USA
    127.000
    0.000
    0%
  • ITVI.USA
    13,670.690
    -217.880
    -1.6%
  • OTRI.USA
    22.060
    -0.040
    -0.2%
  • OTVI.USA
    13,638.790
    -223.800
    -1.6%
  • TLT.USA
    2.800
    0.000
    0%
  • TSTOPVRPM.ATLPHL
    2.480
    -0.170
    -6.4%
  • TSTOPVRPM.CHIATL
    3.070
    -0.210
    -6.4%
  • TSTOPVRPM.DALLAX
    1.370
    -0.090
    -6.2%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXDAL
    2.280
    -0.210
    -8.4%
  • TSTOPVRPM.PHLCHI
    1.900
    -0.070
    -3.6%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXSEA
    2.720
    -0.270
    -9%
  • WAIT.USA
    127.000
    0.000
    0%
Driver issuesLogisticsNewsTrucking

TIA: Market conditions that created broker transparency rule no longer exist

One of the dilemmas that opponents of possible changes in the broker transparency rule have had is that they have argued that carriers should have no right to see broker data that would need to be disclosed automatically if the regulation is changed. 

But the reality is if a carrier was willing to go through all the hoops and hurdles inherent in the current regulation, it could see some of that data now, including information that could be used to calculate what a broker’s margin on a deal was and what a shipper paid to move freight. That’s a juicy morsel of data for any of that shipper’s competitors.

But what the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) said in its recently filed comments on possible changes in the rule, the current regulations were drawn for market processes that no longer exist. Given that, proposals that would automatically take that data from the brokers and send them to carriers and shippers should be rejected.

And to emphasize that point, TIA has filed its own petition with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) seeking to outright overturn the regulation at the heart of the dispute, 49 CFR 371.3(c), which gets referred to simply as 371.3. The TIA petition was filed at about the same time FMCSA held a listening session to hear input about possible changes in 371.3

At issue is an ongoing FMCSA information-gathering process in which it is considering two petitions. One is from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and it would require brokers to automatically send carriers financial data on any transactions in which brokers use the services of a carrier. It cites the provisions of 371.3 as the basis for its request. The automatic sending of data would alleviate the burden on carriers to take several steps to get that information, including the possibility of needing to physically go to a broker’s office to view it. 

The second is a request from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC) seeking to have FMCSA halt any alleged blackballing of carriers that request data under 371.3. The possibility of being blackballed if a request is made under 371.3 has been cited by some in the industry as the reason why there are almost never any requests under its provisions. 

What TIA said in its comments is that the current regulation that allows such access was written in 1980 for a different era, one in which the economics of shipper to broker to carrier transactions were utterly unlike what exists now. Given that, to widen the flow of data distribution on the basis of 1980 conditions fails to acknowledge those differences, TIA said.

TIA Vice President of Government Affairs Chris Burroughs, who submitted the comments on behalf of the organization, said the 1980 deregulation of trucking came with it a concern that brokers might get what amounted to a kickback from carriers if they were chosen by the 3PL.  

But it was also put into law because of the way the market worked then, Burroughs wrote. “In 1980, brokers were paid a percentile commission from the motor carrier to find freight to be carried.

“At the time this regulation was put in place it was designed so that the motor carrier could verify that the commission paid was correct per the agreement with the broker, and the broker was not the same entity as the shipper,” Burroughs wrote. 

He also cited commentary from that time issued by the now-defunct Interstate Commerce Commission, which promulgated 371.3, that said its “goal in regulating transactions between brokers, carriers and shippers is to remove all unnecessary restrictions which might impede the free operation of the marketplace.”

Burroughs said that market procedures have completely changed and that the rule, particularly if changed, would impede markets.

Brokers are no longer “commissioned sales agents of motor carriers,” he wrote. “Brokers pay motor carriers regardless of the rate that the shipper pays the broker. The need to verify commissions no longer exists.

“This change occurred because motor carriers wanted the broker to pay them more quickly than the shipper was willing to pay the broker,” he wrote. 

A carrier might want its money quickly but a shipper might not pay for 60 days or more, according to Burroughs. That has led to an evolution in which the broker takes on credit risk of paying the carrier “before the broker collects payment from the shipper.” 

“The notion that brokers have ‘no skin in the game’ is not only offensive to the 22,000 licensed property brokers, many of which are small businesses, but is not founded in facts,” Burroughs wrote. The quotes around “skin in the game” is apparently to mock a criticism sometimes heard of brokers.  

The criticism of the proposed rule — that shippers don’t want their information on what they paid to move freight to be made public and will sign contracts that make that explicit — does appear to run up against the provisions of 371.3, which allows carriers to get that data even if obtaining it  can be onerous.  

But Burroughs said it conflicts with another federal rule on transportation, Title 49 U.S.C. 14101 (b). That rule, quoted by Burroughs in his comments to FMCSA, discusses a transaction directly between carrier and shipper, without mentioning brokers. 

“If the shipper and carrier, in writing, expressly waive any or all rights and remedies … for the transportation covered by the contract,” the rule states, then essentially they’re allowed to do that, as long as it doesn’t deal with things like safety.

Burroughs then cited another ICC ruling in which the agency says brokers can be viewed as shippers. Given that, he said, if the 14101 rule allows carriers and shippers to waive some rules in a transaction, then brokers should be viewed as a shipper under the regulation. 

If all this can be confusing or apparently in conflict with each other, why not just dump 371.3? That’s what TIA requests in its own petition.

The petition goes over much of the same ground that the TIA cites in its comments to FMCSA on the OOIDA/SBTC petitions and cites the need for confidentiality. 

“Shippers often require confidentiality provisions in their contracts with brokers and, thus, brokers often are required to include confidentiality provisions and other contract language that motor carriers waive their rights to see the transaction documents under section 371.3(c),” TIA stated in its petition. “Most carriers do not object because they want the business and have no need to verify the broker’s commission, because that scenario is no longer applicable.”

More articles by John Kingston

TIA’s Voltmann, in video, defends brokers against anger over rates

TIA Q2 broker margins up over first quarter, down from 2019

Aggressive growth targets for TriumphPay laid out

John Kingston

John has an almost 40-year career covering commodities, most of the time at S&P Global Platts. He created the Dated Brent benchmark, now the world’s most important crude oil marker. He was Director of Oil, Director of News, the editor in chief of Platts Oilgram News and the “talking head” for Platts on numerous media outlets, including CNBC, Fox Business and Canada’s BNN. He covered metals before joining Platts and then spent a year running Platts’ metals business as well. He was awarded the International Association of Energy Economics Award for Excellence in Written Journalism in 2015. In 2010, he won two Corporate Achievement Awards from McGraw-Hill, an extremely rare accomplishment, one for steering coverage of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and the other for the launch of a public affairs television show, Platts Energy Week.

11 Comments

      1. So what I see from your statement is you think brokers are honest people and only take a honest percentage and never bend the truck driver over that’s trying to get home..
        They have a monopoly on the freight.
        The driver has no way of seeing what the shipper is offering. Everybody knows what we make.
        Every action we take is regulated.
        I don’t think requiring them to show one piece of data is too much to ask for the men and women that live in these rolling prisons.

      2. You sit your’azz on top of 80,000 lbs going 65 plus mph and live out of truck that you have to pay outta pocket to maintain and keep compliant and pay all kinds of heavy weight and fuel taxes and be away from your family and drive in adverse weather conditions and ask us that question again after a year of being an owner operator trucker! Yeah damn that, show me the money!

  1. “Brokers pay motor carriers regardless of the rate that the shipper pays the broker. ”

    Brokers say hey man client didn’t agree to pay waiting time and thus you’re not getting anything. I talked to the shipping manager and he says he’s paying waiting time at 75$ an hour. The broker advising he’s not getting any waiting time whatsoever. Can I fight this? No. Is anyone on our side? No. Does anyone care? No. Difference in overhead between shipper and broker? Ridiculous.

    Transportation intermediaries need transparency to ensure integrity.

      1. Yeah! because bottom feeding brokers from Arkansas have a right to monopolize the freight in NY, and pay carriers 50% of the revenue at Arkansas rates, in a state like NY where it costs $220 in tolls that Arkansas children know nothing about! TIA is full of broker! I’m being ripped off buy brokers every time I haul a load for one. Almost all the freight that used to be available to me is now being handled by mega brokers. Almost all of the mom and pop’s that I hauled to, are out of business. The merchandise is being sold by mega corps, that use mega brokers………. We need transparency!

  2. Maybe the industry should go back to regulated freight like what we had back in the 60’s.
    For example, the rates were the same for hauling a load from point a to point B.
    What you sold was Safety and Time. Who could get the freight there in the fastest time with the freight not damaged.

  3. Broker Transparency…. It about MORE than just the haul rate!
    It’s about the detention time that most carriers don’t get compensated for. It’s about the claims that a carrier is forced to pay without any real proof of claim. It’s about the penalty and fines that a broker claims the carrier incurred for being late or, in some cases, early for an appointment at shippers or receivers.
    How many times has a carrier reported to a broker that they were detained for an extended period of time and the broker says something to the effect of…? “I will see what I can get for you” or “This customer doesn’t pay for detention.” How do you really know?
    The claims issues are a huge factor that can quite literally make or break a small carrier. Yet many broker carrier agreements disallow the claims process detailed in Part 370 of the FMCSR and contractually require that a carrier must take the word of the broker on any alleged overage, short & damaged (OS&D) claims. Without the ability to investigate the claim or mitigate the damages a carrier is at the mercy of the brokerage and the shipper. Many broker carrier contracts clearly state that the carrier is not to contact the broker’s customer for any reason. The contracts also say that the carrier agrees to accept the broker’s word that the shipper or receiver added a penalty, a late fee, or reduced the rate. The carrier has no recourse, absolutely none. Add in the cross-collateralization clause and the carrier can find themselves unable to collect the monies generated from past loads they carried for that broker that hasn’t been paid yet. This brings up major issues between a carrier and its factoring company.
    This is all part of the broker transparency issue, and the rate is just the tip of the iceberg. Carriers need to speak up!
    A contract should be negotiated. These contracts take it or leave it. There are no negotiations. The contracts are heavily slanted in the broker’s favor and place all the liability on the carrier. The carrier’s cargo insurance won’t even cover all the excessive liability the carrier contractually assumes.