Disagreement Over The New $75,000 Broker Bond

Reports of the impact of the recently enforced $75,000 broker bond on property brokers is mixed. In effect October 1, 2013, brokers were given a 60-day grace period to comply with the increased surety bond requirements. The grace period ended December 1, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA's) database has seen a reduction of over 8,000 brokers out of roughly 21,500.

The increased requirement has seen its share of controversy. Backed by the Transportation Intermediary Association (TIA), American Trucking Associations, and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), it was considered better protection for freight carriers. Supporters argued the $10,000 bond had been in place for 30 years and was no longer adequate to cover losses suffered by carriers jilted by fraudulent brokers. The new and higher bond was touted as proper course to ensure professionalism and legitimacy in the industry.

Others felt it was an unfair hardship inflicted upon small brokers who do not do enough annual business to afford the increased bond. The Association of Independent Property Brokers & Agents (AIPBA) has been the most vocal opponent of the change. In previous negotiations, the AIPBA had agreed to a $25,000 bond that would cover inflation, but argued $75,000 was excessive, overly punitive to small business, and a means for mega-corporations to monopolize the industry.

Estimates of revoked brokerage licenses has varied. Discrepancies in the numbers of affected brokers may be due to whether or not reported statistics include warning notices sent in November, inclusion of those who voluntarily surrendered their licenses, and inactive brokers who were simply cleaned out of the database after December 1. AIPBA maintains that over 8,000 valid and active brokers were shut down. The organization's petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals remains pending.

In the meantime, brokers who have had their licenses revoked may be eligible for reinstatement if they meet the higher bonding requirements.

The FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) Rejects Sand and Water HOS Requests for Exemption & Considers Livestock and Military Requests

The Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers Final Rule went into effect February 27, 2012. Compliance date for all provisions was July 1, 2013. New regulations include mandatory home terminal time, 30-minute rest breaks, waiting time, and new distinctions between off-duty and on-duty hours. Since its publication in the Federal Register, the FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) has fielded petitions and requests for elaboration and exception.

Sand and Water HOS Exemptions Rejected Specialty truckers at oil- and gas-drilling operations are exempt from on-duty waiting time. The hours spent waiting at well sites may be recorded as "off-duty," thereby pausing the 14-hour maximum drive time. However, per an August 12 notice, FMCSA rejected a request to extend the same exemption to truck drivers carrying sand and water.
Critics of this decision feel truck drivers in the oil and gas industry are unnecessarily limited by confusing regulations. Others feel it's a double standard. One suggestion, proposed by the American Trucking Association (ATA), is to base the off-duty exception on whether or not the driver had the opportunity to rest while waiting at the well site and not just based on what the driver was hauling.

Livestock and Military Rest Break Exemptions Being Considered
Federal regulators are still considering exemptions to the 30-minute rest break requirement for drivers carrying live animals or sensitive U.S. military cargo.
Pointing toward the potential for harm to animals, drivers hauling livestock would not be required to take breaks at all. The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) was granted such an exemption in July. However, that exemption expires September 9, 2013.

Advocates of the U.S. military cargo exemption state that continuous surveillance of sensitive military shipments are required. If the petition is granted, drivers would be allowed to watch their loads during breaks if they are a part of a two-driver team.

In both cases, the FMCSA may grant 90-day waivers until carriers can establish levels of safety similar to the original regulations. Longer-term exemptions may last up to two years and are then up for renewal if petitioning groups request a new exemption.

Court Says "US-Mexico Cross Border Trucking Program Will Live On!"

Despite appeals and lawsuits filed in June from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and the Teamsters union, the U.S.-Mexico Cross Border Trucking Pilot Program will live on, says the U.S. Court of Appeals on July 26.

The long-haul trucking pilot program, overseen by the FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration), was announced as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cross-border long-haul trucking provisions. Its stated aim is to test and demonstrate the ability of Mexico-based motor carriers to operate safely in the United States.

This pilot program allows Mexico-based motor carriers to operate throughout the United States for up to 3 years. Likewise, U.S.-based motor carriers receive reciprocal rights to operate in Mexico for the same period.

OOIDA's and the Teamsters' protests against the cross-border trucking program started as early as 2007 under a pilot program initiated by the Bush administration. Arguments continued in 2011 with the Obama administration's successor program. Complaints center primarily around questions of safety provisions: OOIDA and the Teamsters allege inconsistencies in requirements for physical examinations of drivers, licensing requirements, and drug testing. Specifically, protesters claim that U.S. truck drivers are held to increasingly rigorous standards for safety--standards not enforced in Mexican trucking programs. OOIDA purports that the pilot program gives Mexico's truckers an exemption from safety regulations and therefore creates a hazard on U.S. highways. Another claim rejected by the courts stated that the FMCSA program was too small to be scientifically valid.

Advocates of the program may point toward the explosion of trade between U.S. and Mexico as reason to continue. Total cross-border freight by train and truck surged almost 35 percent from 2007 to 2012, according to U.S. government data. Others, however, may cite data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and suggest the surge may have little to do with the pilot program. For instance, the Journal of Commerce (JOC), recently reported that of the more than 5.1 million border crossings in 2012, only 1,046 were completed under the pilot project.