A federal regulation at the center of a long-running dispute over freight broker transparency has been in place since 1980.

49 CFR 371.3 requires property brokers to maintain a record of each transaction and gives each party to the transaction the right to review that record. In principle, an owner-operator hauling a brokered load already has a federal right to see what the broker charged the shipper. That right has existed for decades.

Brokers serve as intermediaries between shippers that need freight moved and carriers that haul it. While the largest trucking fleets often contract directly with shippers, owner-operators and small carriers — which make up the overwhelming majority of registered motor carriers — rely heavily on brokers for access to freight. The dispute over 371.3 therefore bears most directly on the segment of the industry with the least leverage to negotiate contract terms or pursue administrative remedies.

In practice, carriers say the rule has been largely unenforced for more than 40 years. They contend brokers avoid the requirement in two main ways: by including waivers of 371.3 rights in carrier agreements as a condition of doing business, or by declining to provide the records and leaving carriers to decide whether to pursue the issue. The result, carriers argue, is a legal right that often does not function in daily operations.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has been trying to address that gap since 2020. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's 2026 regulatory agenda, the agency is targeting this month for a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on "Transparency in Property Broker Transactions." A previous agenda listed May as the target.

For owner-operators who have waited years for action, the forthcoming proposal could be viewed as a potential shift in leverage. It could also leave the practical landscape largely unchanged, depending on the text of the proposal, the final rulemaking process and how any rule is enforced.

How the dispute reached this point

The current push began in May 2020, when the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association petitioned FMCSA to amend 371.3. Freight rates had fallen sharply during the early stages of the pandemic, and carriers accused brokers of expanding margins while paying carriers less. The market subsequently surged through 2021 before entering a prolonged freight downturn in 2022 that persisted through 2024, keeping rate pressure on small carriers across multiple market cycles and sustaining the transparency debate even as pandemic-era conditions receded.

OOIDA asked FMCSA to require brokers to provide an electronic copy of each transaction record automatically within 48 hours after a load was completed. The Small Business in Transportation Coalition also asked the agency to prohibit brokers from pressuring carriers to waive their review rights as a condition of doing business and to bar contract clauses exempting brokers from compliance.

The Transportation Intermediaries Association, which represents brokers and third-party logistics companies, filed a counter-petition asking FMCSA to eliminate 371.3(c) entirely. TIA argued that the market conditions that justified the rule in 1980 no longer exist.

FMCSA granted the carrier petitions in March 2023 and rejected TIA's petition. In November 2024, the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking that drew close to 7,000 public comments. After the administration changed, DOT chose not to finalize that version and instead moved to draft a new proposal. That supplemental proposal is now expected.

The November 2024 proposal included four main changes: requiring brokers to keep transaction records electronically; updating the information those records must contain; treating transparency as an affirmative regulatory duty for brokers rather than a passive right carriers must invoke; and requiring brokers to provide records within 48 hours of a request. It is not yet known how much of that framework will appear in the new draft.

Why carriers say the rulemaking matters

The carrier position begins with a central argument: they are not asking for a new right, but for an existing federal right to be enforceable in practice.

OOIDA has made that argument consistently. In comments responding to TIA, the association wrote that truckers "want brokers to reasonably comply with existing federal regulations" and are "not asking for anything more than their right to transparency, which is used to help them differentiate good brokers from unscrupulous ones." OOIDA has also rejected the claim that its recommendations amount to an attempt to control rates.

Carriers' practical arguments fall into several categories.

The first is the waiver issue. Carriers argue that a right has limited value if a broker can require a carrier to sign it away before accessing freight. During the 2024 docket, OOIDA Executive Vice President Lewie Pugh urged members to tell FMCSA "how brokers are making you exempt your rights from 371.3, or not showing you or threatening to blacklist you." If a new rule prohibits waivers, it would alter language commonly found in contracts signed by small carriers.

The second issue is claims defense. When a broker deducts money from a carrier settlement over an alleged shortage, damage claim or service failure, the carrier may be disputing an amount without full visibility into the basis for the charge. Access to transaction records, including charges, payments, dates and claims documentation, could affect what a carrier can challenge.

The third issue is fraud and double brokering. With stolen authority and double brokering posing operational risks, carriers argue that an electronic record showing who brokered freight to whom has value beyond rate visibility. This concern has taken on greater weight as freight fraud has drawn increased attention from both industry groups and regulators, with TIA itself estimating that fraud costs the U.S. economy more than $1 billion annually.

The fourth issue is negotiation. Carriers contend that a party negotiating without knowing what a shipper actually paid for the freight is operating at a structural disadvantage. They argue that transparency is part of enabling an arm's-length negotiation.

If the supplemental proposal retains the 48-hour timeline, bans waivers and makes record production an affirmative duty rather than a right carriers must request and contest, it could materially change how brokered freight works for the smallest operators. That is the argument for viewing the rulemaking as one of the most significant regulatory developments for owner-operators in years.

Why brokers say the impact may be overstated

The broker industry's position is broader than a simple objection to disclosure. TIA has advanced several distinct arguments against the proposed changes.

Its core structural argument is that 371.3 reflects an older business model. When the rule was written in 1980, brokers often acted as commissioned sales agents for motor carriers, and the commission structure made the transaction record relevant to the carrier's compensation. TIA argues that this model largely no longer applies because modern brokers act as principals that buy and resell transportation at risk. On that basis, TIA says a rule designed for the earlier arrangement does not fit the current market.

In comments on the 2024 proposal, TIA called the rule "outdated, unnecessary, and burdensome" and described the proposal as "a solution in search of a problem."

The confidentiality argument carries significant operational implications. TIA has said shippers do not want their transportation costs visible to competitors and therefore include confidentiality provisions in contracts with brokers. Brokers, TIA argues, consequently need carriers to waive 371.3 rights in order to serve those accounts. If that is correct, a waiver ban would create a conflict between a federal disclosure duty and private confidentiality obligations.

TIA also argues that disclosure would expose proprietary business data and pricing strategy. The association says gross margin on an individual load is not the same as profit after a broker's operating costs. It has also argued that FMCSA should focus its limited resources on safety and freight fraud. Separately, TIA has questioned whether FMCSA has statutory authority to issue the rule.

Beyond the policy arguments, there is a practical question: what would change after disclosure occurs?

A carrier may book a load at an agreed rate, haul it, deliver it and then, 48 hours after requesting the records, learn that the broker billed the shipper substantially more. At that point, the rate has already been accepted and the load has already moved. The record is retrospective. It may inform a later negotiation with the same broker, if one occurs.

That is where enforcement questions arise. A transparency rule would not require a broker to offer freight to any particular carrier. A carrier that requests records on every load has no guarantee it will continue receiving calls from that broker. Carriers have already told FMCSA they have been threatened with blacklisting for asserting transparency rights. A clearer rule would not necessarily make retaliation more difficult to prove or prevent.

There is also debate over whether transparency would affect rates. One industry analysis noted that 79% of surveyed carriers believed transparency could increase their rates, while some industry participants generally expect any rate impact to be limited because rates are primarily determined by capacity and demand rather than either party's knowledge of the other's margin.

The timeline is another limiting factor. The expected action this month is a supplemental proposal, not a final rule. Publication would open a comment period, after which comments would be reviewed. A final rule and compliance date would follow later. The target date has already shifted from May to July, and the 2024 proposal was abandoned after drawing roughly 7,000 comments. This month's expected publication would be a procedural milestone, not the end of the process.

What carriers are watching now

Regardless of how the rule is ultimately written, carrier agreements already signed by owner-operators and small fleets may contain transparency waiver language. Identifying which broker contracts include a 371.3 waiver would show which relationships could be affected if a waiver ban remains in the final rule.

Written records requests may also matter if a version of the rule includes a 48-hour response clock. Documenting when a request was made would be relevant to determining when any deadline began.

The next proposal will also produce a new public comment process. The 2024 docket drew close to 7,000 comments, and DOT restarted the process anyway. That outcome shows comments do not guarantee a particular result, but they remain part of the administrative record used in rulemaking. Both OOIDA and TIA are expected to file. The docket number will be published with the proposal in the Federal Register.

For carriers, transparency with enforceable requirements would be a tool for assessing broker relationships and defending against claims. It would not create a rate floor, replace knowledge of operating costs or make an unprofitable lane profitable. Carriers most able to use broker transaction data are those that already understand their own costs.